Reality is mathematics / Mathematics is reality ?

The Higgs boson was not detectable. It was predicted by purely theoretical mathematics.
We applied the mathematics at Cern and "behold" there it was for an sixtrillionth of a second.

This is my point. If we can make an invisible particle visible by applied theoretical mathematics, nature is recognizing our mathematical imperative imposed on it. To me that confirms the mathematical nature of nature.

Its comparable to, if I am able to translate an English concept in Chinese and the Chinese understand what I am saying, my Chinese must be sufficient for communicating with the Chinese. It becomes a self evident fact.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In the the absence of an alternative method of communicating our demands, we must assume this is the correct one.

This is expressed everyday by out applied functional mathematics which are obeyed by the natural way things work. We even can impose our will on natural functions, and use them for our purposes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, it is what he drew.
And it is not a parabola; it is a hyperbola.

A parabola is a cross-section of a cone where the plane of the slice is parallel to the slope of the cone. (see first sketch)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If the cross-section is not parallel, you get either an ellipse or a hyperbola. It's an ellipse if the slope of the cut is less than the slope of the cone (2nd diagram), and it's a hyperbola if the slope is greater (3rd diagram).

The asymptotes in his diagram were at right angles - clearly not parallel.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You could call it a squid, you'd still be wrong. Do you know what an argument from incredulity is? Because my statement doesn't qualify.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And so we're back to anthropomorphizing the universe.
You sure you're not a closet ID proponent?

 

Do you know what I mean? If I say iy incorrectly, I'd appreciate correction.
I do assure you I am not suggesting anything conscious going on. Just mathematicalmvalues and functions interacting in a very specific way which is matheamtical in essence and that 's why our mathematics work.

As long as the relative values and functions are represented correctly, mathematics will work.

i.e. a ratio of 1 : 10 remains the same if presented as centimeters or inches or pounds or ounces
The symbolic numbers are irrelevant as long as the mathematics are correct. One might cite algebra as representative of such relative value representations.

Well, a hyperbola is what you presented and I have no quarrel with that. But that's not how Antonsen and now Wells 1991 are presenting it and calling it a parabola. Here is the quote accompanying the drawing;

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Are you suggesting that everyone is wrong here? Is it possible you are misinterpreting the drawing?

In any case, as I said, that was not the point of the illustration.
The remarkable phenomenon is that by simply drawing straight lines in a specific order, we can create an object with round aspects, which is a natural result emerging from the specific representation.

I'm sure you have noticed the similarity with many illustrations of the spacetime configuration.

 

Yes I know how the argument works. I prefer to keep it simple. You are incredulous because you refuse to accept a mathematical aspect to unversal values and functions, even though all scientist admit there is at least some mathematical aspects to the universal values and functions, which can be described by human symbolic mathematics.

It is a matter of perspective. If you are unable to visualize that perspective, IMO that is tantamount to an argument from incredulity.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You reject the mathematical nature of natural phenomena simple as that.

 

Well, you know that my correction would be to stop pretending the universe operates using functions.

If you were to take a single atom and a single photon, you would see that they have properties that stem from the 4 fundamental forces. The emergent effect of those simple forces between uncountable atoms and photons gives rise to very much the same things happening uncountably many times: many, many atoms stick together, atoms gain velocity ad go around other atoms, whose distance is directly attributed to the gravity force between them. None of this requires math; it is simply four forces, operating on a vast number of atoms and photons.

And how do you have the mathematics without the numbers and symbols?

I can't speak to "everyone". Antonsen called that a parabola. It isn't.

I'll tell you what though: I'll bet you a dollar, if you asked him he'd say "I know it isn't a parabola, and you know it isn't a parabola: but my audience is too dumb to know what a hyperbola is."

In other words: I don't call out Antonsen he's just playing to his audience, I call out you, for using pop-sci bunk references to justify your ideas. If you're getting your ideas from dumbed-down pseudo-math then that speaks to the veracity of your ideas, wouldn't you say?

So what? Math is cool. Geometry is cool, yes. Does it inform this discussion?

 

No. You are making an assertion. I'm simply not granting it because you haven't made your case.

If I said the Milky Way was the tail of a Cosmic Unicorn, and you didn't believe me, could I accuse you of arguing from incredulity? No.

No they don't.

Or a squid.
You don't get to redefine the term.

You have an opinion that natural phenomena are mathematical.

There is nothing to reject except your opinion.

 

Okay, thanks. So, what would happen if most of the science community accepted Tegmark's views, how would that change how math is currently being used? It seems to me anyway, that Tegmark's assertions are philosophical in nature, which is fine, but how does such a philosophy change anything as we know/apply it?

My point being, anyone could come on the scene, and dazzle everyone with his/her ''new'' perceptions of reality, and author a few books, but the way in which we interact with math/science, wouldn't really change. For example, we both walk into a room and there is only a brown chair in the center of it. I'm asked to describe the room, and I say ''there are four blank walls, and a brown leather chair in the middle of it. There is nothing else present in the room.'' You describe it as ''There is a brown leather chair in the center of it, and I felt a slight breeze hit my face, as I stood in the empty space.'' Our descriptions don't change the essence of the room, it's an empty room with a chair in it, for all intents and purposes.

So, if Tegmark feels that math is a reality, and reality is math - how does this change math, as we know it? Know that I'm not knocking his philosophy, it just doesn't seem to change much, is all. Math on its own is dry (imho), he does make the subject more interesting, I'll give him that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If Tegmark is correct then that simplifies everything else. For one, he proposes just 33 (relative) values and a handfull of functions, (constants) will be sufficient to account for everything. He is after a TOE, not some new way of doing maths.

 

So you reject the concept of mathematics as the guiding information sharing language of physics?

A cell dividing into two identical new cells is not a mathematical function?

 

You reject the notion that the Universe is a geometric object?

 

Who is talking about cones?
This is the schematic;

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

1, 2, 3 ,4 , 5 from top down
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 from left to right
Connect 1 to 1 , 2 to 2, 3 to 3, etc
The result is a beautifully (saddle) shaped curved surface emerging from the drawing of straight lines.

You draw straight lines from two intersecting straight lines and you can create a paraboloid curve. Thats it.

Your introduction of cones introduces curved surface to begin with and what is the peculiarity in that? Curved surfaces yield curved surfaces? WOW!

You clearly did not understand the example as it was presented. Two straight intersecting lines provide a foundation for an abstract curve. There is the peculiarity, curves from straight lines, I don't even care what you want to call it.

As usual an example is tampered with and then the entire equation changes to suit the critiquer.

Two straight lines. Draw a series of straight lines connecting specific points on both straight lines and you get a curved surface. OK? Call it what you want.

 

And if we can make an invisible difference in wavelengths visible by imposing "colors", that confirms the colorized nature of nature?
Mistaking means of perception for nature of object is a classical, pre-scientific era error of analysis.
Perception is passive - it does not "impose" anything.
Mathematics involves abstraction, simplification - it "sees" partially.

 

I didn't see any asymptotes in the diagram.

But, is there a way to prove, without drawing a diagram, that adding straight lines together with that 'algorithm' gives a curve which is a parabola (or hyperbola)?
My mathematical sixth sense is telling me it's unlikely there is no such proof . . . moreover, the proof could involve showing that there are parallel asymptotes (or not).

 

Hmm. Perception is (electro-)biochemical in nature. What kind of chemistry is passive chemistry? What kind of particles interact passively?

 

No one needs to impose colors, they are abundantly observable in all their glory. A prism will force the different colors to separate and become visible in their own spectrum. But indeed, a large portion of nature consists of wave values and functions and a wave (function) is a mathematical object with specific values.

Does the universe have any mathematical properties?

Except observation (perception) imposes a "collapse" of the wave function? That is mainstream, AFAIK.

You hit the crux.

If you are willing to admit that there are mathematical aspects to the way reality becomes expressed, then the only question remans if the universe is partially mathematical in essence or if the universe is only mathematical in essence.

This is the distinction Tegmark makes. His claim is "some people think the universe has some mathematical properties. I propose that the universe has only mathematical properties."

If you accept the first statement, then the second statement is wholly justified and presents no logical obstacles to closer examination.

As to making a difference? Seems to me that a single "common denominator" of all things in the universes and the universe itself, would present a new knowledge and a simplified comprehensive perspective on the universe and how reality becomes manifest?

 

I need not reject anything.

Do you "reject" that the Milky Way is the fluffy tail of the Cosmic Unicorn? Are you that "naive"?

That's a silly ploy - beneath you.

Antonsen is.

He's calling it a parabola. So he is talking about a conic section. If he's not talking about a conic section then he is doubly wrong.

 

Well, that's the funny thing. It isn't really even a hyperbola - it only approximates one.
If it were a hyperbola, it would increase without limit. That particular pattern is complete, and only goes to ten or so.

 

Oh, please. Why don't you even admit it is a curved pattern emerging from drawing straight lines?
That is the point, not the name of the curve.

Always these semantic arguments as if they are pertinent to the discussion, They are not.