Can "Infinity" ever be more than a mathematical abstraction?

I don't understand the question. Pain feels like pain and can be experienced at many levels of intensity, which immediately brings a mathematical aspect to the fore.
IMO, if quantum physics is the origin and cause of pain then mathematics certainly come into play.

If Dr. Hameroff, a learned fellow in anesthesia (control of consciousness in the brain), has developed a considered hypothesis over many years of research and study, and believes that microtubules seem to act like natural micro quantum computers, and Roger Penrose, an eminent quantum physicist, seems to be persuaded enough to form a collaboration, as layman in both fields I take that seriously.

While the thought processes of the brain seem abstract, there is no reason to take that as the final word on the matter. It does not require a brain at all for the paramecium's cilia to experience and respond to physical stimulus as Hameroff demonstrated with the reactive movement of the paramecium.

The process of response seems to lie deeper than just receptors, a neural network, and a central processor. It may well be that the cilia themselves are quantum processors and display pseudo sentient reactions to stimuli. As Hameroff sees these responses to quantum wave collapse and a resulting experience as a rudimentary sensation of a "bing".

One can see such diversity in octopi, decendants of the slug, which has nine brains, eight of which are located in the tentacles and which can act indepently or in tandem with a ninth central brain.

In any case it seems to me that quantum physics are the fundamental causality of "action and reaction" to external stimulus, and therefore has a strong mathematical aspect to it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes but did you see the Antonsen presentation of the creation of an abstract mathematical structure from a single compound (differential ?) value, such as 4/3 ?
Just to confirm that we are talking about the same thing.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How would you define the word "potential" ? Mathematical? Physical or Abstract?

Careful, the list is very long....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

IMO, potential is a "common denominator" of all things in the universe, both physical and in the abstract.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I didn't ask whether you thought pain could be explained by quantum physics and that therefore "mathematics certainly come into play".
I asked you whether it felt to you that pain only have mathematical properties.
You don't understand this question?
So you pretend to understand Tegmark's idea that a very concrete thing such as the physical world could nonetheless be somehow an abstract mathematical structure, which implies it would only have mathematical properties, and yet you pretend not to understand my question?!

Please, cut the crap and just answer my question.
EB

 

No.
I can't have a debate with this dude Antonsen so there's no point watching his pitch.

I don't see how that could possibly be.
You have failed to answer any of the questions I put to you. Either you go into lengthy and irrelevant considerations about QM, or you claim you don't understand the questions, or your response shows you're using a private language.
EB

 

We're discussing the physical world so only the word "potential" as used by physicists matters here. In this context, the word "potential" is definitely not abstract. It is concrete because it represents an actual physical entity. And there isn't even any ambiguity here. You would need to understand that to discuss what you're talking about. And obviously, you don't.

The just pure nonsense.
EB

 

Yes, the only way you can experience pain is in degrees of discomfort. When you go to the doctor with pain the first question is " on a scale from one to ten...". Mathematical, no?
This can also be measured by brain activity. Pain is measurable, therefore mathematical.

 

That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard yet. Where did you get your knowledge from? Have you debated every theoretical scientist or are you the source of all knowledge?

Your refusal to at least "review" a scientific presentation and get an idea of what he is proposing makes it impossible to have a debate with you.
If you don't listen, how can you judge? You don't have to debate him to hear what he has to say. This is just too Bizarre!

 

Then you clearly do not understand the implications contained in the word and all the definitions of Potential as "that (latent property) which may become reality"

IMO, that means while not all potential becomes reality, all reality past, present, and future was, is, and will be preceded by potential. Do you have an issue with that? If so, I'd like to hear your POV.

 

On second though, have you ever checked out any of the links I provided in support of my posits?

 

Only mathematical?
That was the question.
If you don't understand simple questions, how can pretend understand complex issues?.
EB

 

Pure nonsense.
EB

 

No. Why should I have?
EB

 

Yes, purely mathematical and I won't take "nonsense" for an answer. You'll have to do better than that.
Here is my evidence;


Note that the lecture ends with a mathematical EQUATION of the Standard Model.

 

Have a good day.
EB

 

I expected as much. No explanatory answer. Of course no answer. Never a clear and coherent answer which explains why you reject my answer to your question.

Potentials are mathematical, not physical in nature. The physical quantum expressions emerge from the various metaphysical (mathematical) fields which occupy all of spacetime.

 

Assuming infinity does not exist in any way, how do you do basic arithmetic like 1 = 3 x 1/3 = 3 x 0.333... = 0.999...?
Clearly, 1 isn't equal to any finite decimal part, like, say, 0.99999999999. We normally understand "0.999..." to mean an infinity of 9's so that it makes sense to see 0.999... as equal to 1. If you think infinities don't exist, the conventional way of interpreting "0.999..." has to be discarded for good. Same for very many other arithmetic operations, like 1/7, 1/11, 1/17, 1/29 etc. So, what do you propose instead?
And pi? The number pi is understood as having an infinity of decimal digits, without any repeating sequence ever. What do you propose to do instead?
EB

 

Only abstract mathematics can potentially be infinite, spacetime cannot.
It's really not that complicated.

If you had watched the Roger Antonsen clip, you would look at this from a different perspective...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I haven't been following the slugfest lately but this is disingenuous. Poster you quoted clearly said: "... there is no evidence of infinity outside of math ..."

And you "countered" with an example from pure math. Of course in math there is infinity. We assume it via the axiom of infinity. The poster you quoted did not deny mathematical infinity at all. They did say that there's no evidence for physical infinity, which is perfectly true.

 

I understand that and there's nothing disingenuous about my question.

And I didn't accuse him of anything therefore I didn't accuse him of denying mathematical infinity.
I asked a question.
If you think you can reply for Seattle, then go for it and answer my question.
EB