Write4U,
How many bloody times do I have to repeat that maths are NOT causal to physics, they are the guiding principle of HOW physics work.
I already walked you through why that is an illusory distinction that you're trying to make.
There are two options:
A. Mathematics can cause changes in the physical world; or
B. Mathematics cannot cause changes in the physical world.
Example: a ball follows a flight path that, in the absence of air resistance, can be described mathematically as a parabola. Here are three proposed "explanations" for this:
1. The intrinsic mathematics of parabolas is built into the fabric of the universe and this is what causes the ball to follow a parabolic curve.
2. The intrinsic mathematics of parabolas is built into the fabric of the universe. While this doesn't
directly cause balls to follow parabolas, whenever they "try" to follow some other path through space, the intrinsic mathematics "guides" them to follow a parabola instead.
3. The force of gravity and principles of physical inertia determine the path taken by a ball in flight. The force and its effects can be
modelled or
described using the mathematics of parabolas. However, in real-world situations, this model makes a number of simplifying assumptions, with the aim of obtaining a mathematical model to suit the purposes of human beings.
Explanations 1 and 2 here assume option A (above): that mathematics itself can cause changes in the physical world. Explanation 3, on the other hand, is consistent with option B.
If you think that trying to "explain" a ball's motion using explanation 2 instead of explanation 1 somehow corrects your false assumption about option A, then you're making a mistake. This is clearly what you are doing.
I understand that you are doing this to try to worm you way out of the problem you created for yourself by initially asserting that explanation 1 is the correct one. But explanation 2 is no better. Both explanations imply that a
concept or idea (i.e. mathematics) can somehow (by magic?) affect the behaviours of objects in the physical world. That is an error. You are confusing the map for the territory. Still. After
years of people patiently trying to educate you as to why you are wrong.
Physical interactions are guided by mathematical principles ...
You have done
nothing to show that they are, so far.
An "orbit" is not a physical object, it is a mathematical pattern.
In a physical sense, an orbit is simply the path an object follows through space as it revolves around some other object.
In a mathematical sense, an orbit is an idealised description of the physical path.
But you keep using human participation in natural mathematical functions like drawing lines on a curved surface. I am talking about abstract mathematics.
Then you're not talking about anything relevant to your claim. Your claim is that mathematics has real, physical effects. In fact, you started with the extreme claim that all physical things are
nothing but mathematics.
Nobody has a problem with "abstract mathematics". The problem is that you claim there is "physical mathematics", in effect: mathematics that can somehow produce physical effects on physical objects.
But how could it possibly do that? (SIXTEEN.)
I have let go of human symbolisms and am just considering the abstract logical truths ...
Abstract logical truths do not exist without a mind or minds to contain the abstract ideas.
... containened in mathematical patterns which become imperfectly expressed in a dynamical or gravitational environment.
Pure word salad.
How could mathematics possibly "express itself" in a "dynamical or gravitational environment". (And why single out gravity, anyway?)
When a fern is missing a leaf, it does not negate its inherent fractality.
A fern is not a fractal. See the reply I posted to you only yesterday, trying to correct you on this error.'
Did you forget? Or just ignore?
Note, that I always qualify the difference between the mathematical guiding principle and real world conditions that prevent the perfect mathematical patterns from forming.
You do not. Rather, you conflate the two, constantly.
But let's see if you can actually do what you say you do.
Tell me, Write4U: what
is the most important difference between the "mathematical guiding principle" and the "real world conditions" to which you refer?
Sighs. Just because in reality physical objects cannot achieve mathematical perfection, does not mean the mathematical guiding principle does not exist!
You have done
nothing to show that any "mathematical guiding principles" can actually produce changes in any physical system.
How could they? (SEVENTEEN.)
As demonstrated with mineral crystals, the "attempt" to form into a perfect shape is clearly present.
From a man who has been known to complain about "anthropomorphisation", this sure sounds "anthropomorphic" to me. (That word doesn't quite mean what you think it means, either.)
Unfortunately, dynamic reality does not allow perfection, it is too chaotic at small scales.
Does mathematics allow for perfection?
If perfect mathematics "guides" "dynamic reality", why isn't dynamic reality perfect, too? What
else is there gets in the way of the mathematical perfection?
Also, doesn't what you just completely break your own prior claim that there is literally nothing
but mathematics in the universe?
The closest analogue I an find is Bohm's abstract Implicate Order; the inherent mathematically perfect potential, that can only become imperfectly expressed in the emergent dynamic physical Explicate Order.
You shouldn't talk about Bohm. You don't understand him.
Besides, this sort of thing is a sort of Bohmian word salad all on its own.
