What is it about woo that upsets you?

[Write4U]

What you have to explain is why you are calling stuff that does not resemble human mathematics "mathematics".

Can you give me an example of universal "stuff" that does not have a relative value or does not function in a manner peculiar to that "stuff"?

You keep calling them both "mathematics" - it's not me doing the comparing.

Yes, I am positing an EQUATION. The same thing presented from two different perspectives.

 

[Write4U]

Since the math involved generates approximations, it's obvious that much greater than mathematical precision is attained by the real world.

But that is due to the relative scales of expression. Human maths have not yet penetrated the universal maths at Planck scale. But that does not mean the universe presents uncertainty at that scale, it is the human inability to observe and codify how the universe works at that scale. Universal maths are perfect at all scales, it's the human maths that lack precision at certain scales.

You are using the term "mathematics" for two different things, that do not appear to resemble each other very closely. Why?

Closely is a relative term, no? Human maths can only describe a small portion of the near infinite mathematical processes that occur in nature, every instant of time. It's the human maths that are limited, not the universal maths. Of course the universe doesn't know any of that, we do.

Interesting juxtaposition isn't it?
The universal math is perfect but it doesn't know that, it isn't conscious....x + x = 2x
Human maths are imperfect and we do know that, we are conscious..........1 + 1 = 2.....

 

[wegs]

I don't think there's anything wrong with entertaining speculative ideas, like Tegmark's. If there's no merit whatsoever to what Tegmark is suggesting, math does have a pretty uncanny ability to describe and explain the physical world.

 

[iceaura]

Yes, I am positing an EQUATION. The same thing presented from two different perspectives.

So you are doing the comparing, not me.

But that is due to the relative scales of expression.

There are no scales of expression of human mathematics. If there are "scales of expression" of something, that thing would be significantly different from human mathematics.

Human maths can only describe a small portion of the near infinite mathematical processes that occur in nature, every instant of time.

Human beings do not in general describe mathematical processes via the math they use for physical analysis. That is because they are describing physical phenomena, which we find are not mathematical processes but rather empirical ones.

Human maths have not yet penetrated the universal maths at Planck scale.

In fact, human maths have not "penetrated universal maths", in the physical universe, at any scale.

 

[Write4U]

Human beings do not in general describe mathematical processes via the math they use for physical analysis. That is because they are describing physical phenomena, which we find are not mathematical processes but rather empirical ones.

Empirical according to universal mathematical laws?

In fact, human maths have not "penetrated universal maths", in the physical universe, at any scale.

Hmmmm......universal laws of behaviors in accordance to specific potentials do not exist?
Gravity does not exist? Human maths have not penetrated the mathematics of Gravity at all, at any scale ?

How is it we can land a Rover on Mars, in a mathematical manner that avoids it from being smashed into bits like any ordinary meteoroid? Isn't it the application of (braking) force, the thing the universe does not recognize?

In a real world sense, forces do not exist

 

[Write4U]

I don't think there's anything wrong with entertaining speculative ideas, like Tegmark's. If there's no merit whatsoever to what Tegmark is suggesting, math does have a pretty uncanny ability to describe and explain the physical world.

That is the inherent merit to what Tegmark is suggesting......

 

[Michael 345]

Right, the universe does not use Human mathematics, it uses Universal mathematics. How often do I have to say it?

In my Universe you would be considered strange

I'm back in the colour Universe as the olfactory Universe was to hard to conduct research when I had the flu. The equations just did not work

Translated to Earth primitive expressive mathematics Red + Red = Green looks like 1+1=2 (well close enough, the context and subtleties are missing)

So again the Universe works

NO MATHEMATICS (of any style) OR ANY COLOUR CODE (of any hue) SMELL (?)

Beam me back please

 

[Write4U]

Translated to Earth primitive expressive mathematics Red + Red = Green looks like 1 + 1 = 2 (well close enough, the context and subtleties are missing)

"The ultimate goal of mathematics is to eliminate any need for intelligent thought."
Alfred N. Whitehead

Natural Mathematics,
The process of discovery is always messy, and it is tempting to reveal as little of it as possible. An honest description of the convoluted twists of mind that culminate in a discovery is both long and embarrassing. The discoverer is thus tempted to impress the reader with the shortest argument possible. Since it is rarely possible, monstrosities, dense with equations, are born.

Natural mathematical explanations that are also well-written are thus extremely rare. Yet they are indispensable for appreciating, and learning mathematics. Below I have listed links to natural mathematical explanations that I know of. The topics they treat are wildly different, but the authors of all of them have managed to convey the joyful process of discovering mathematics. Please, suggest more...

http://www.borisbukh.org/natural.html

Yes, it shows the limitations of human mathematics. The universe does not recognize numbers, it recognizes "values" and "functions", much closer related to algebraic than to human number maths.

Elementary algebra differs from arithmetic in the use of abstractions, such as using letters to stand for numbers that are either unknown or allowed to take on many values. For example, in x + 2 = 5 the letter x is unknown, but the law of inverses can be used to discover its value: x = 3.

In E = mc2, the letters E and m are variables, and the letter c is a constant, the speed of light in a vacuum. Algebra gives methods for writing formulas and solving equations that are much clearer and easier than the older method of writing everything out in words.

The word algebra is also used in certain specialized ways. A special kind of mathematical object in abstract algebra is called an "algebra", and the word is used, for example, in the phrases linear algebra and algebraic topology.
A mathematician who does research in algebra is called an algebraist.

Term (logic),
In analogy to natural language, where a noun phrase refers to an object and a whole sentence refers to a fact, in mathematical logic, a term denotes a mathematical object and a formula denotes a mathematical fact. In particular, terms appear as components of a formula.

A first-order term is recursively constructed from constant symbols, variables and function symbols. An expression formed by applying a predicate symbol to an appropriate number of terms is called an atomic formula, which evaluates to true or false in bivalent logics, given an interpretation.

For example, (x + 1) * (x + 1) is a term built from the constant 1, the variable x, and the binary function symbols + and * ; it is part of the atomic formula (x + 1) * (x + 1) = > 0, which evaluates to true for each real-numbered value of x.

Besides in logic, terms play important roles in universal algebra, and rewriting systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_(logic)

 

[Write4U]

NO MATHEMATICS (of any style) OR ANY COLOUR CODE (of any hue) SMELL (?)

[/quote] In the same order; a) Causal dynamic triangulation. b) Colors are electromagnetic energy. c) An Odor, or odour, is caused by one or more volatilized chemical compounds.
Natural Functions (causal processes) of Relative Values (variables) and Results (effect).

Example of a natural algebraic function used by a brainless Slime mold; in x + 2 = 5 the letter x is unknown, but the law of inverses can be used to discover its value: x = 3.

This is the subtractive algebraic method employed by the Slime mold to find the shortest route to food in a maze with 2 possible routes.

For being a single-cell organism without a brain, slime mold can act pretty smart. As it grows, slime mold can keep track of where it’s been, it can solve mazes in search of food, and it can even be trained to take risks in the name of a big payoff. How exactly? We visited the Swarm Lab at the New Jersey Institute of Technology to find out.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/1/17304486/slime-mold-swarm-intelligence-simon-garnier-video

Researchers have harnessed this behavior to amusing effect in the past. In 2000, for example, a team led by mathematical biologist Toshiyuki Nakagaki of Hokkaido University in Japan, showed that P. polycephalumcould find the shortest path through a maze to connect two food resources. (The work won an Ig Nobel prize.)

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/01/ride-slime-mold-express

Note: this is a brainless organism, yet displays a quasi-intelligent behavior which can only be classified as a natural mathematic process (function).

 

[Michael 345]

The universe does not recognize numbers, it recognizes "values" and "functions", much closer related to algebraic than to human number maths.

The Universe recognises NOTHING

We, my colour coded friends and I, colourpomorphised the Universe (ssshhh don't tell) but it only helps us, with the common language of colourematics, understand the Universe

Does nothing for the Universe

Does not matter if we colour a reaction Red Blue Green it stubbornly reacts same same every moment

 

[Write4U]

The Universe recognises NOTHING

Well, the universe does not. Things within it must behave in accordance with natural laws, wether they recognise it or not.

We, my colour coded friends and I, colourpomorphised the Universe (ssshhh don't tell) but it only helps us, with the common language of colourematics, understand the Universe

I don't doubt it, after all insects have no brains, they can recognize colors, (heat signatures, infrared, ultraviolet)?

Does nothing for the Universe

It doesn't need to. It all happens inside the Universe and the universe has no "needs" or "desires".

Does not matter if we colour a reaction Red Blue Green it stubbornly reacts same same every moment

Right, natural laws function independent of human thought. However, everything within the universe is subject to specific and recurring experiential empirical causal phenomena.

Humans can only bear witness, and try to imitate some of the universally valid behaviors for our own practical purposes. The universal potentials generate these behaviors for no practical purpose. They are a result of dynamic spacetime geometry and stuff within it.

 

[Michael 345]

They are a result of dynamic spacetime geometry and stuff within it.

Physics

 

[sweetpea]

What does Tegmark have to say about that? It's his hypothesis........

Thanks alot W4u, you mean I have to read Tegmark's paper and book to find out? Having done that yourself, can't you at least give a clue as to why you say:

I don't know, except maybe simplify some fundamental concepts about the universe.

In answer to:
''In what way would Tegmark's idea alter the way scientists are studying reality today using mathematics?''
Your horrible you are

 

[wegs]

lol ^^

I'm not Write4U, but...I don't think viewing math as an ''external reality,'' would affect how scientists use math, today. It's just a philosophical perspective; it doesn't change anything.

 

[DaveC426913]

OK, so far, W4U has not produced anything that suggests applying his 'Mathematical Universe' idea would yield any different results than not applying it.

That makes it a semantic issue - a label.

I'd suggest we leave it there until and unless W4U can think of some way it could have an impact on how we understand the world.

 

[sweetpea]

it doesn't change anything.

If scientists start taking the easy way out of things, '' ho, that's because reality is mathematical, no need to go further there in understanding the results''.
If there is no way to test for reality itself being mathematical, then wouldn't you be pondering till the cows come home.
How would scientists recognize the difference between their math models and reality's math, that's what I'm asking W4u, hoping that he has read the book.

 

[billvon]

All with mathematical precision.

For macro events, yes, you can be very precise. Turns out, though, that at micro scales, things aren't as precise. In fact, we now have a whole field of study that describes cases where math doesn't work - where "mathematical precision" turns into probabilities and spooky actions.

 

[iceaura]

Empirical according to universal mathematical laws?

Empirical. Not mathematical. Whether the nonhuman universe has - somewhere, somehow - chosen to describe its operations mathematically is unknown.

Example of a natural algebraic function used by a brainless Slime mold

No slime mold employs algebraic functions. Those are part of human mathematics.

In fact, we now have a whole field of study that describes cases where math doesn't work - where "mathematical precision" turns into probabilities and spooky actions.

That hardly means math "doesn't work". Probability theory and chaos theory and so forth are perfectly sound mathematics, and the precision available from quantum theory is the highest we have.

 

[billvon]

That hardly means math "doesn't work".

Of course it does. Newtonian equations for motion don't work for high speeds, very large masses or atomic scale processes.

So we create some new math to better describe those things. And that math works - until we find another level where that new math doesn't work. And then we create more.

I have full faith that we will always be able to create math that serves as a useful tool for us to understand and manipulate the universe. We will likely never fully understand the underlying physics - which means that our math will never be 100% correct. But it's usually close enough.

Probability theory and chaos theory and so forth are perfectly sound mathematics, and the precision available from quantum theory is the highest we have.

So is Schrodinger's cat alive or dead?

 

[Write4U]

For macro events, yes, you can be very precise. Turns out, though, that at micro scales, things aren't as precise. In fact, we now have a whole field of study that describes cases where math doesn't work - where "mathematical precision" turns into probabilities and spooky actions.

There you have it. These phenomena may seem spooky and probabilistic to us, but would it make a difference if we knew they do have a strict mathematical order to them and it is us who are still lacking knowledge of the mathematics involved. Is that why we have a whole new field of study into those mysterious phenomena?

Do you think that these phenomena happen randomly or that their is still an underlying order to these values and functions, as yet unknown to us? It doesn't seem to affect the rest of the orderly manner in which physical patterns become expressed. Or maybe it is a required natural function for regular physical pattern forming?

But if Tegmark's Mathematical Universe offers nothing new, then why the resistance to the concept?
It is not so much a question of adding a new functional aspect to the Universe, as gaining a better insight of its true nature.

p.s. As it relates to woo, this might interest Magical Realist.
For instance, if spooky action at a distance is a regular phenomenon, perhaps ghosts might be real. A sea change, wouldn't you say? Apparently spontaneous patterns forming in spacetime, but at large distances from their origin, spooky stuff!....

If individual pairs of particles can be entangled, can entire patterns be entangled?