Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo

[James R]

Write4U:

I'm going to write a series of detailed replies to your most recent posts, not because anything you have said has addressed the core complaint I have with your assertions (which you have failed to address more than TWENTY separate times), but because some of the peripheral matters interest me enough that I am willing to venture an opinion about them.

Let's start with this lie from you:

OK, you just keep using mathematics to probe the mysteries of the universe, because they are just a fanciful invention from the human mind but have no connection with reality.

You ought to recognise that nowhere have I said that mathematics has no connection with reality. On the contrary, I have pointed out to you, over and over again, that mathematics is used to model various aspects of the physical world.

Your error - which you have failed to address more than TWENTY times - is that you assert, in addition, that reality is nothing but mathematics. You borrowed Tegmark's mistake and, although you seemingly don't even understand what he's on about with this, you're willing to defend him to your dying breath. I don't know why. I think it's essentially a religion substitute for you. You have constructed a religion, with Tegmark, Bohm and Hammeroff as its Prophets.

Apparently Archimedes, Pythagoras, Plato, Gallileo, Leibniz, Wittgenstein, Kepler, Newton, Bacon, the brilliant minds that studied and explained the mathematical behaviors of the universe.

They used mathematics to model certain aspects of the universe, certainly. (Not sure about Wittgenstein, Bacon, Plato or Leibniz, actually, but at least some of the people you mentioned did that.)

The very inventors of human mathematics had no paddle in the water at all?

Mathematics was invented long before any of the people you mentioned lived.

And you know better?

Better than you, and that's all that really matters for our purposes here.

 

[James R]

Notice the word "model" that keeps appearing there. A model is a description, in this case employing the language of math, which proves to be empirically adequate as a description. The physical universe is not its description, the map is not the territory.

I understand that.

No, Write4U, you don't.

Because in every post, you mistake the map for the territory. You explicitly assert, in almost every post, that your imaginary mathematical "values" actually exist as physical things in the universe. If we could nail down a workable definition of what you mean when you say "value" (because, let's face it, you have no workable definition) then, at best, a "value" would merely be a number that is supposed to model some aspect of a physical system.

Nothing is made of "values". How could it be? [TWENTY-THREE]

Physical objects aren't made of concepts. A mountain isn't made of the paper on which a map of the mountain is drawn.

A rock rolling down the "slope" of the hill does not need to know the mathematics of gravity or friction.

Not only does it not need to know. It doesn't know. It can't know. Rocks have no brains. Rocks don't do maths.

Human symbolized mathematics are not part of the universe.

Wrong again.

Humans are part of the universe. Humans have brains. Brains have ideas and concepts. Therefore, ideas and concepts are part of the universe.

Your main error is to assume that because ideas exist, physical things must be literally made of ideas. But they aren't. How could they be? [TWENTY-FOUR]

They are just symbolic representations, but what they represent is a real part of the universe.

Nobody has any problem with the idea that we can model parts of the physical universe using all kinds of ideas.

Do you understand what our dispute is about yet? There have been over 500 posts in this thread, and you're apparently still stuck at square one, trying to argue a point you don't even seem to grasp.

The map represents the terrain in human "language". But if correctly done it quantifies and qualifies the terrain as it is in nature.

It does not. A map of a mountain does not determine the shape of the mountain. The mountain determines the shape of the map (if it's a half-decent map).

You keep getting this stuff exactly backwards.

Do you understand where you're going wrong?

Why don't you make any effort to correct your error?

Why do you keep repeating it? Don't you understand why you're wrong yet? Do you even understand why other people are taking issue with your untenable claim?

Without the map the explorer is blind. Without the mathematical description of anything it just remains a "thing" instead of a "known" quantity.

That's not true, but it's probably a pointless tangent to try to follow this thread into the weeds.

As was observed before , wihout mathematics we'd still be in scientific "dark ages".

Quite possibly. (Aside: do you know why the "dark ages" have that name. It has nothing to do with their being a time of no progress or no knowledge. It's simply that we, here in 2025, don't possess a huge number of useful records of that period in history. It's we who are in the "dark", not the people who lived back then.)

The reason is that mathematics adequately, if not exactly describe the relational values and functions that are employed by the universe itself.

That's an assertion that requires evidence or at least some shreds of an argument in support.

You've provided nothing, so far, to show that any "relational values" are "employed by the universe itself" (whatever that is supposed to mean).

The truth is: nobody knows why mathematics is so useful for modelling the physical world.

Pretending that you have found The Answer (or that Tegmark has, or Bohm) is hubris.

IMO, there is nothing wrong with the concept of a mathematically functioning universe.

A lie. I have told you what is wrong with your concept of that, in detail, many times, and you have no adequate response. In fact, for the most part, you simply try to ignore the issue and just assume you are right.

I am not talking about the number 2 floating about in space, but that number adequately maps the location of 2 interactive objects at any given mathematical point in space.

Are you talking about modelling now, using mathematics?

Has anybody here expressed any objection to the idea of mathematical models?

Do you understand what the actual objections to your claims are? Or not?

The very fact that the unmapped parts of nature are the "unknown" parts, proves the efficacy of the parts that can be mapped and are amenable to accurate descriptive quantification.

This statement is very muddled. You don't seem to understand what a proof entails. You state something as a "fact", when it is something you can't know.

I think you just open your mouth, metaphorically speaking, and let the word salad flow. It doesn't have to mean anything, as long as it attracts responses. Right?

Human maths map and represent natural (generic) maths in a symbolic fashion.

You have failed to provide any evidence of the existence of any "natural (generic) maths", so far.

Got any?

Do you even have a definition?

I don't see any problem with that concept.

Which excuse, of the ones I listed in an earlier post, are you going with? Stupid? Alzheimers? Liar? Too proud? A combination of several of those?

The physical world functions in accordance with natural mathematical principles.

You keep asserting. You keep failing to show. Why?

I think it's because all you can do is assert. You have a religion. You can preach the religion, but - sadly - you can't start to prove the truth of the religion. So, it's preach preach preach. It's all you've got.

That's why the representative physical sciences rely on symbolic representative mathematics. Is that not a logical conclusion?

To have logic, one must have an argument. You have failed to produce one, so far.

 

[James R]

Poetry does not solve a differential equation. Mathematics does.

No. Mathematics doesn't solve equations. People solve equations.

Mathematics doesn't have a brain. It can't make stuff. It can't do stuff. It's a tool.

What you are doing is similar to saying "Poetry doesn't hammer nails into walls. Hammers do." But, of course, they don't. A hammer is a tool. It doesn't work on its own.

 

[James R]

When you have you ever solved one of those?

Everyone uses them all day long. It is part of every day life. It is an evolved survival mechanism.

A slippery attempt to dodge the question if ever I saw one.

Write4U's actual answer is: No, he hasn't ever solved a differential equation himself.

That's the truth, isn't it, Write4U?

Why didn't you tell the truth?

 

[James R]

In response to Joshua Carroll:

Carroll writes "At its core, mathematics allows a species bound to its solar system to probe the depths of the cosmos from behind a desk".

In other words, he is saying it is a tool that humans use.

He also says "Mathematics almost certainly came about from very early human tribes (predating Babylonian culture which is attributed to some of the first organized mathematics in recorded history..."

In other words, no "natural universal values" or any of that crap. He's saying that mathematics was invented by humans.

He goes on to say "Mathematics is both a natural occurrence and a human designed system. It would appear that nature grants us this ability to recognize patterns in the form of arithmetic, and then we systematically construct more complex mathematical systems that aren’t obvious in nature but let us further communicate with nature."

That's where he starts to get a bit muddled. It's not clear how mathematics could be both a "natural occurrence" and a "human designed system", other than in the trite sense that humans are natural occurrences who design systems. In other words, he fails to make a meaningful distinction between these two ideas and ends up vaguely waffling about them as if they are the same thing. But it's mostly a throw-away line.

In response to Paul Davies:

Davies asserts some things about what "scientists" believe about maths. And probably he's right about some of those scientists, although he runs the risk of overgeneralising. He does say that scientists use maths because it is a convenient tool. He also says that scientists believe that mathematical relationships "reflect [my emphasis] real aspects of the physical world". Davies seem to understand, at some level, that mathematical relationships are models. They reflect the real world; the real world does not consist of them.

In response to some unknown internet cut-and-paste source:

This one talks about Aristotle classifying things as sciences, but "science" wasn't exactly a well-defined thing back in Aristotle's day. The same article notes, for instance, that Aristotle classified politics as a science, and ethics.

How this is supposed to help Write4U's case for stuff being made of maths is a mystery to me.

There are lots of references in the quotes to mathematics as a language, which suggests - again - that it is primarily a human invention - a tool that humans use.

In response to Write4U's one-line inanity "If the universe was not dynamical, it would be mathematically perfect.", I say:

1. Word salad. It's just troll bait looking for a response. Meaningless in terms of content.
2. Trying to give it meaning, even if we are at our most charitable, this is at best another entirely unevidenced assertion.

In response to the article titled "Differential Equation Systems and Nature":

This doesn't help Write4U's assertion at all. It asks what people mean when they say "Mathematics is the native language of nature". Its answer? "... It primarily means that we describe nature by differential equations..." [my emphasis].

In other words, talking about mathematics as the "language of nature" is a metaphor. In reality, we are talking about ourselves - about what we use to describe nature.

 

[James R]

OK, thank you for making me work. It seems that I have been using the term "differential equation" not quite in accurately, but not necessarily completetely wrong either.

You have been using it completely wrong.

From now on I shall use the term "difference equation" as that more accurately defines my meaning in context.

Please don't. You have no more idea what a "difference equation" is than you do a "differential equation".

In fact, in some ways, you'd need to know what a differential equation was before you could start to understand the point of difference equations. (Or, at least, that's the order that maths students usually learn about the two things.)

Since Write4U doesn't have a clue what a differential equation is, years after it was first explained to him, muddying the waters with a new term he doesn't understand is guaranteed to make things worse, not better.

 

[Pinball1970]

Probably best start him with functions, variables, domains and maps. Not sure if I would remain sane on that journey though

 

[James R]

Several people have tried explaining to him what a function is. Some, multiple times.

In response, he is still only able to cut and paste wikidictionary definition of the word "function" and similar. He hasn't actually tried to learn what a function is.

 

[Pinball1970]

Several people have tried explaining to him what a function is. Some, multiple times.

In response, he is still only able to cut and paste wikidictionary definition of the word "function" and similar. He hasn't actually tried to learn what a function is.

Ok, I am having a rest for a bit.

I think this thread should stay open in case Homeostasis crops up with MT or MUH.
A reservoir for any effluent that threatens to contaminate productive threads.

Just my take.

 

[James R]

I'm in two minds.

I originally created this thread because Write4U was spamming his three or four obsessions and his buzzwords into a whole bunch of threads where they weren't relevant. The idea was that this thread would be a dumping ground for all his nonsense. We could at least try and quarantine the random cut and pastes and such to a single thread.

The problem is that this thread has gone exactly nowhere in 500 posts. With Write4U, there's just an endless recycling of the same three or four topics, filled with claims that are unevidenced. The whole thread is also full of Write4U's idiosyncratic word coinages and attempts at redefinition.

For whatever reason, Write4U apparently can't take in new information. It seems like he doesn't remember recent posts, let alone older ones. He keeps repeating the same errors, despite careful attempts at correction.

He has also become more evasive and dishonest as the thread progresses. He just ignores stuff he'd rather not deal with along with stuff he just finds too difficult to understand or answer. He'll quote one sentence at random out of a post with several thousand words and ignore all the rest.

With all this in mind, the question becomes: is there any value to be had in keeping this thread open?

I feel like the conversation with Write4U about his pet topics has gone about as far as it is likely to go. If we keep at it, we will just be repeating the same objections while he continues to fail to engage with them. There's a good argument for closing it down.

On the other hand, if I close this thread, there's little doubt that Write4U will want to continue posting about his obsessions in other threads where they are off-topic. If he does that, we'll be back to the original problem that this thread was supposed to help to solve. So there's an argument for keeping it open. Also, if this one is closed, there's nothing to prevent him from starting a new thread with the same kind of content.

A hard-line approach would be to say we're done with this now, close this thread, and to issue warnings for any posting more of the same nonsense in other threads. Since I doubt that Write4U wants to discuss anything else, this might be equivalent to banning him (or it might lead to his banning). It's an option, but it strikes me as a harsh one.

Maybe we should take a vote...

 

[Write4U]

LOL. I didn't think I was that important. I'm not running for president!..

 

[Pinball1970]

I'm in two minds.

I originally created this thread because Write4U was spamming his three or four obsessions and his buzzwords into a whole bunch of threads where they weren't relevant. The idea was that this thread would be a dumping ground for all his nonsense. We could at least try and quarantine the random cut and pastes and such to a single thread.

The problem is that this thread has gone exactly nowhere in 500 posts. With Write4U, there's just an endless recycling of the same three or four topics, filled with claims that are unevidenced. The whole thread is also full of Write4U's idiosyncratic word coinages and attempts at redefinition.

For whatever reason, Write4U apparently can't take in new information. It seems like he doesn't remember recent posts, let alone older ones. He keeps repeating the same errors, despite careful attempts at correction.

He has also become more evasive and dishonest as the thread progresses. He just ignores stuff he'd rather not deal with along with stuff he just finds too difficult to understand or answer. He'll quote one sentence at random out of a post with several thousand words and ignore all the rest.

With all this in mind, the question becomes: is there any value to be had in keeping this thread open?

I feel like the conversation with Write4U about his pet topics has gone about as far as it is likely to go. If we keep at it, we will just be repeating the same objections while he continues to fail to engage with them. There's a good argument for closing it down.

On the other hand, if I close this thread, there's little doubt that Write4U will want to continue posting about his obsessions in other threads where they are off-topic. If he does that, we'll be back to the original problem that this thread was supposed to help to solve. So there's an argument for keeping it open. Also, if this one is closed, there's nothing to prevent him from starting a new thread with the same kind of content.

A hard-line approach would be to say we're done with this now, close this thread, and to issue warnings for any posting more of the same nonsense in other threads. Since I doubt that Write4U wants to discuss anything else, this might be equivalent to banning him (or it might lead to his banning). It's an option, but it strikes me as a harsh one.

Maybe we should take a vote...

suppose I have only been round the block with him a couple times on this with him so I am not quite at the end of my tether unlike you and Exchemist.

Closing the thread is probably best right now as we are going round in circles.

If he raises functions or anything else like that with me going forward, I will ask him not to do it and threaten to report him. Regretfully.

He has posted relevant replies regarding Evolution to Trek, ok low bar but it was correct from memory.

Personally, I do not want to put him on ignore as everyone I do that to ends getting banned not long after (one exception)

 

[exchemist]

I'm in two minds.

I originally created this thread because Write4U was spamming his three or four obsessions and his buzzwords into a whole bunch of threads where they weren't relevant. The idea was that this thread would be a dumping ground for all his nonsense. We could at least try and quarantine the random cut and pastes and such to a single thread.

The problem is that this thread has gone exactly nowhere in 500 posts. With Write4U, there's just an endless recycling of the same three or four topics, filled with claims that are unevidenced. The whole thread is also full of Write4U's idiosyncratic word coinages and attempts at redefinition.

For whatever reason, Write4U apparently can't take in new information. It seems like he doesn't remember recent posts, let alone older ones. He keeps repeating the same errors, despite careful attempts at correction.

He has also become more evasive and dishonest as the thread progresses. He just ignores stuff he'd rather not deal with along with stuff he just finds too difficult to understand or answer. He'll quote one sentence at random out of a post with several thousand words and ignore all the rest.

With all this in mind, the question becomes: is there any value to be had in keeping this thread open?

I feel like the conversation with Write4U about his pet topics has gone about as far as it is likely to go. If we keep at it, we will just be repeating the same objections while he continues to fail to engage with them. There's a good argument for closing it down.

On the other hand, if I close this thread, there's little doubt that Write4U will want to continue posting about his obsessions in other threads where they are off-topic. If he does that, we'll be back to the original problem that this thread was supposed to help to solve. So there's an argument for keeping it open. Also, if this one is closed, there's nothing to prevent him from starting a new thread with the same kind of content.

A hard-line approach would be to say we're done with this now, close this thread, and to issue warnings for any posting more of the same nonsense in other threads. Since I doubt that Write4U wants to discuss anything else, this might be equivalent to banning him (or it might lead to his banning). It's an option, but it strikes me as a harsh one.

Maybe we should take a vote...

Surely it is not a surprise the thread has “gone nowhere”? It was created as a dumping ground for Write4U ’s obsessions - and that is what it has been. As such, it is fulfilling its intended function. It was never expected it would “go” anywhere - and indeed it hasn’t.

The mistake, perhaps, has been for people to try to engage Write4U in the forlorn hope of teaching him anything. We know that is impossible. I interject occasionally to tell him he is wrong about something, but I am under no illusions he will learn from this. It merely satisfies my urge not to let egregious falsehoods pass without challenge, and to give him an equally satisfying kick in the arse, periodically, for being such a stupid, obsessional bore.

And, once in a hundred posts or so, quite by chance, he posts a morsel of interesting science, as cranks will do from time to time, which is worth a small detour to explore.

So I don’t see a compelling reason to close it, particularly in view of the risk that doing so would create a risk of corrosion of serious threads. I think I would keep it, as a sort of sacrificial anode that protects the rest of the forum from Write4U .

 

[James R]

exchemist:

I think you're right.

What's wrong with this thread is not so much Write4U's endlessly repetitive content, which is mostly devoid of any thought on his part. What's wrong is that other participants expect or hope that progress can be made with Write4U.

If we all just adjust our expectations, we can adapt to the fact that Write4U won't ever learn anything from posting here. He doesn't want to learn. All he really wants is to keep a conversation going about the topics he is fixated on. Facts don't matter. Arguments don't matter. The only thing that matters is that he posts and he gets responses, no matter whether the responses are in agreement with his beliefs or in opposition to them.

I guess that, if I have some time to kill, I'll keep correcting Write4U's errors - not for his benefit, but for the possible benefit of anybody else who can bring themselves to read through the dross.

The main value in the thread, if we're keeping Write4U around, is that the thread does tend to confine his particular madness to one controllable corner of the forum.

 

[Write4U]

The main value in the thread, if we're keeping Write4U around, is that the thread does tend to confine his particular madness to one controllable corner of the forum.

That is all I ever asked for. I'll continue to offer interesting tidbits to adventurous minds.

 

[exchemist]

exchemist:

I think you're right.

What's wrong with this thread is not so much Write4U's endlessly repetitive content, which is mostly devoid of any thought on his part. What's wrong is that other participants expect or hope that progress can be made with Write4U.

If we all just adjust our expectations, we can adapt to the fact that Write4U won't ever learn anything from posting here. He doesn't want to learn. All he really wants is to keep a conversation going about the topics he is fixated on. Facts don't matter. Arguments don't matter. The only thing that matters is that he posts and he gets responses, no matter whether the responses are in agreement with his beliefs or in opposition to them.

I guess that, if I have some time to kill, I'll keep correcting Write4U's errors - not for his benefit, but for the possible benefit of anybody else who can bring themselves to read through the dross.

The main value in the thread, if we're keeping Write4U around, is that the thread does tend to confine his particular madness to one controllable corner of the forum.

I might suggest one refinement, if you are willing to take the trouble to police it. This would be to send straight to the Cesspool any posts talking manifest rubbish about differential equations, functions, values or potentials. These are the mathematical terms that Write4U continues to abuse so grotesquely (and so painfully, for those of us who actually understand some mathematics). Doing this would save us constantly rehashing the reasons why he talks garbage on these topics and keep the collective blood pressure down a bit.

What do you think? I'm assuming you are able to excise and move individual posts from the thread without undue difficulty.

(Perhaps seeing them accumulating in the Cesspool might even get the message across to Write4U , eventually. )