Does Chaos Theory prove a Mathematically Ordered Universe

It also

• knows more languages than CP30

"I am fluent in over six million forms of communication."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

• played the lead role in Swan Lake on Venus

Mathematics can do ANYTHING. Only lacks a blue costume and red underwear to wear outside

I'm out again

Se how long I last with this effort

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's an hysterical outburst...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I am trying to stay with the science, not the fictional "force".

Mathematics is the science that draws necessary conclusions.[10] Benjamin Peirce 1870

All Mathematics is Symbolic Logic.[9] Bertrand Russell 1903

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I sense you may be close to reaching the point I got to when BwS called me out for becoming obnoxious and so I resolved to put Write4U on Ignore. He seems to be becoming more and more obsessional, and making less and less sense. He doesn't understand maths and he worships that which he does not understand. The latter is quite a common state of affairs, anthropologically, but sad to see in an educated person. I don't think there is anything to be gained by debating with him.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course we are not debating anthropology, we are discussing if Chaos Theory tacitly suggests that the Universe is a self-organizing mathematical construct.

Your vision is so clouded you cannot even entertain the "mathematical" premise and can only relate it to anthropology, let alone "debate" it on objective scientific terms.

Natura Artis Magistra.
If all of science is founded on the discovered regularities in natural phenomena, then it stands to reason that mathematics are founded on the discovered mathematical regularities in natural phenomena.
This is confirmed by astronomers and mathematicians alike. Now you seek to discredit all those people and call them liars?

Nothing in what I have posited is new. Nothing argues against mainstream science.
Your quarrel is about "anthropological" semantics and does nothing to answer the OP question, as usual.

Your interference is off-topic. If you have something positive to advance, do so or suffer in silence, please. If you have me on ignore, please continue to do so and refrain from any interaction or derogatory comment. Not that I expect you to keep your own words.
You just cannot resist, can you!

We are having a wonderful and productive discussion, and as usual you come in as a spoil sport, ruining the good faith exchange of ideas based on centuries old questions.

 

I would rather have it that mathematics uses logic to express itself.
Logic itself is best described as a useful/mandatory tool for reaching and making decisions.
I don't nor ever will downgrade the power and necessity of mathematics, [unlike river] Some basic maths [Arithmetic] comes naturally. It's painfully obvious that if I have two apples, I have one more then you, and that 1+1=2.
As mathematics advanced along with our intelligence and desire to know more about the solar system and the universe, that power became obvious. The best example of that was the maths in relation to orbital mechanics and the planets. While the orbits of the planets were simply a result of the properties of the accretion disk from whence they formed, and the Sun at its approximate centre, the orbital mechanics when applied to the then known outer most planet, Uranus, told us [predicted] that there should be at least one more planet beyond Uranus. Bingo! Neptune!!!
But again, all this is doing, is illustrating maths as the language of physics/cosmology, and telling us what we observe, why we observe it, and possibly throwing light on other unknown quantities that may exist.
But that they exist is a property of the BB and whatever quantum effects existed prior to that t+10-43 seconds moment of time.
But this is getting way to philosophical for me, so other then to say that maths is a powerful and indispensible tool and language, it remains an abstract science of numbers, shapes, and quantity, that we employ as a language to explain and sometimes predict the universe around us.

 

I think using the word "chaos" is un fortunate as it implies something that is not in opperation. As humans we are too lazy to identify each and every action and reaction that are all ordered and can only have specific outcomes and stand back to identify an overall pattern concluding that out of all the chaos something casually appeared...I put it to you that at any point nothing is random or chaotic and Chaos Theory is an expression of a non reality.
Alex

 

You got me gov

Fair cop

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Agree

As Mr Wiki quotes Edward Lorenz

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

I would contend though, as you stated, the only reason "the approximate present does not approximately determine the future" is

I would say that in many situations there would be a reason to be ultra precise, but during most of our life the Australian method of "Close enuf mate" serves us good enuf

Soooooo, now I have calmed down my chaotic thoughts

Does Chaos Theory prove a Mathematically Ordered Universe?

NO

Sorry perhaps not as calm as I thought but will excuse myself as not had breakfast or morning coffee yet

Expanding on no

Why would it?

Chaos Theory indicates us Minions are a lazy bunch, to lazy to work out to the nth degree the finesse of cause and effect because mostly it doesn't matter

We KNOW Physics is exquisitely precise, we also can work out with mathematics (note we work out - NOT mathematics dictates)

Our close enough GPS gets me close enough to my driveway, well close enough to familiar surroundings, I can find my front door from many kilometres away. In other words a GPS which would focus on my door lock would be over precise for purpose

Chaos (randomness untethered)

does not PROVE a mathematical Universe

Again why would it?

It shows if we start from different assumptions (positions - conditions) we finish with unexpected (unintended?) answers

I'm rambling must be coffee calling, or perhaps not, who knows?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I dont know there have been times.

I would not worry about maths its not that important what is important is what things are doing which clearly is unrelated to maths...I just now looked outside and nothing has numbers on it so obviously it is humans that run around putting numbers on things.

Now show me the math here...clearly no math just a need for coffee.

 

I used this excerpt from Chaos Theory to ask the OP question.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

If the theory is correct, what causes the: underlying patterns, interconnectedness, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization?

Patterns in Nature

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_in_nature#

Interconnectedness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space#

Constant feedback loops

A Negative Feedback Loop occurs in biology when the product of a reaction leads to a decrease in that reaction. In this way, a negative feedback loop brings a system closer to a target of stability or homeostasis. Negative feedback loops are responsible for the stabilization of a system, and ensure the maintenance of a steady, stable state. The response of the regulating mechanism is opposite to the output of the event.[/quote] https://www.albert.io/blog/positive-negative-feedback-loops-biology/#

Repetition

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/science-behind-natures-patterns-180959033/

Self-similarity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-similarity#

Fractals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

Self-organization

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization#

Mathematical model

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_model

 

It's not complicated

Hint - It is NOT, no, It is ASSUREDLY NOT, no, It is MOST assuredly not, no, it DEFINITELY most assuredly not MATHEMATICS

Unassuming physics is the only contender with the necessary built in qualifications

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Again you are anthropomorphizing. You are not looking at physics. Sensory information consistes of values and patterns, translated and processed as electro-chemical bits by the neural system.
According to Anil Seth, what you are looking at and recognizing are numbers and patterns and making a "best guess" as to what you are seeing. That is how humans observe their environment, just like all other living things do.

Human symbolic mathematics help us understand the values and functions of the universe.

 

I agree on that point, but again, you are anthropomorphizing and talking about human mathematics. Human maths are symbolic representations of Universal mathematical values and functions.
How often need I repeat that qualifier?

I am not talking about human mathematics. I am talking about universal mathematical processes, which exist independent from humans and have done so for + 13.8 billion years.
See post #190.

 

Ok, what is the language of Physics?

 

Are you advocating for "irreducible complexity"? What makes physics?

There is more to the universe than just physical stuff, no?

 

Physics

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Language of physics, language of math: Disciplinary culture and dynamic epistemology
Edward F. Redish, Eric Kuo, submitted on 22 Sep 2014

https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.6272

 

No I was looking at trees.

I don't know him why should I care what he says.
If you told him I said something would he take notice of what I said..I bet he would say what I just said.

I looked again..definitely trees and although not numbered I would say I can see at least one hundred...and if you cut down a hundred you would still see one hundred...but I am not guessing ...they are trees...I know trees there are thousands of them here...or without math..lots of trees.

I think the wallabies don't have to guess they are trees...

What Is the value of a tree? It's monotony value can be expressed via maths in a round about way but outside that math can not set out their value as things of beauty or their value to provide shade for wallabies...I can see the little darlings laying in the shade only about 50 meters away, just the top of their heads and ears ..two heads and three ears...I know the math just creeps in..but I could say I can see the head of the mother and her ears but just half the head of the Joey and leave you guessing as to how many ears I could see...well can't see anything now as they must be laying down..or maybe they moved and I did not notice..math can't tell me what happened.. they don't hop away when I go outside now which is so nice.

At least you seem to be able to see maths is just a human thing...

Alex

 

Mainly English and German, the first when you are in English speaking countries and German when in Germany.
Otherwise it's just math.
Alex

 

OK I will go down the Rabbit Hole of irreducible complexity

Irreducible Complexity has its lowest basement level ENERGY

There is nothing lower than ENERGY. But as been frequently mentioned, ENERGY is a MEASUREMENT of a property of mass and systems composed of mass

I would contend something akin to a rock is a system. Its energy content would depend on its relationship with other stuff around it and how much interaction can occur

See if these examples make sense. A rock positioned on flat ground has no interaction so in relation to the ground has no energy

A rock rolling down hill has kinetic energy in relation to the ground (level) at the bottom

Its kinetic energy property has been added to it from

• the energy used to position it there and
• gravity energy pulling it down and in the process converting gravity energy into speed energy

A Planck moment before impact into the ground at bottom the rock energy comprises

• Energy it had from position +
• Energy it gained from gravity

dissipated into

• futile effort to move the ground which
• deforms the rock which causes
• rock to heat (heat energy) which
• dissipates to environment

Any generated energy eventually cascades down into heat energy

The only energy left at the end of the Universe will be

• radiant energy (giving the Universe a nominal calculated temperature) Cannot be measured because nothing present for the radiant energy to heat, everything being equally radiant
• kinetic energy (speed - motion) of any remaining particles which, again, having nothing to interact with gives the Universe a nominal calculated temperature

Puzzle - which of the two nominated temperature would be the highest?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!