Does Chaos Theory prove a Mathematically Ordered Universe

[Michael 345]

Mathematics is the language of logic.

It also

• knows more languages than CP30

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

• 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

 

[Write4U]

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

That's an hysterical outburst...
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

 

[exchemist]

It also

• knows more languages than CP30

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

View attachment 3619

• 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

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.

 

[Write4U]

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.

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.

 

[paddoboy]

Mathematics is the language of logic.

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.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

It seems to me that what is explained with Chaos Theory is the fundamentally mathematical essence of all universal evolutionary processes, behaviors, and self-expression.

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

 

[Michael 345]

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.

You got me gov

Fair cop

 

[Michael 345]

Chaos Theory

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

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 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)

at any point nothing is random

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?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

In other words a GPS which would focus on my door lock would be over precise for purpose

I dont know there have been times.

does not PROVE a mathematical Universe

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.

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

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

 

[Write4U]

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

Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary theory stating that, within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnectedness, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization.[3]

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

Patterns in nature are visible regularities of form found in the natural world. These patterns recur in different contexts and can sometimes be modelled mathematically. Natural patterns include symmetries, trees, spirals, meanders, waves, foams, tessellations, cracks and stripes.[1] Early Greek philosophers studied pattern, with Plato, Pythagoras and Empedocles attempting to explain order in nature. The modern understanding of visible patterns developed gradually over time

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

Interconnectedness

In mathematical physics, Minkowski space (or Minkowski spacetime) is a combination of three-dimensionalEuclidean space and time into a four-dimensional manifold where the spacetime interval between any two events is independent of the inertial frame of reference in which they are recorded. Although initially developed by mathematician Hermann Minkowski for Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism, the mathematical structure of Minkowski spacetime was shown to be implied by the postulates of special relativity.[1]

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

Constant feedback loops

A Positive Feedback Loop occurs in nature when the product of a reaction leads to an increase in that reaction. If we look at a system in homeostasis, a positive feedback loop moves a system further away from the target of equilibrium. It does this by amplifying the effects of a product or event and occurs when something needs to happen quickly.

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

Patterns in Nature: What exactly is a pattern? I think we can make a case for saying that anything that isn't purely random has a kind of pattern in it. There must be something in that system that has pulled it away from that pure randomness or at the other extreme, from pure uniformity.
But I think also it was the visuals. The patterns are just so striking, beautiful and remarkable.

Then, underpinning that aspect is the question: How does nature without any kind of blueprint or design put together patterns like this? When we make patterns, it is because we planned it that way, putting the elements into place. In nature, there is no planner, but somehow natural forces conspire to bring about something that looks quite beautiful.

Perhaps one of the most familiar but really one of the most remarkable is the pattern of the snowflake. They all have the same theme—this six-fold, hexagonal symmetry and yet there just seems to be infinite variety within these snowflakes. It is such a simple process that goes into their formation. It is water vapor freezing out of humid air. There's nothing more to it than that but somehow it creates this incredibly intricate, detailed, beautiful pattern.

Another system we find cropping up again and again in different places, both in the living and the nonliving world, is a pattern that we call Turing structures. They are named after Alan Turing, the mathematician who laid the foundation for the theory of computation. He was very interested in how patterns form. In particular, he was interested in how that happens in a fertilized egg, which is basically a spherical cell that somehow gets patterned into something as complicated as a human as it grows and divides.

Turing came up with a theory that was basically an explanation for how a whole bunch of chemicals that are just kind of floating around in space can interact as to create differences from one bit of space to the next. In this way, the seeds of a pattern will emerge. He expressed that process in very abstract mathematical terms.

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

Self-similarity

In mathematics, a self-similar object is exactly or approximately similar to a part of itself (i.e., the whole has the same shape as one or more of the parts). Many objects in the real world, such as coastlines, are statistically self-similar: parts of them show the same statistical properties at many scales.[2] Self-similarity is a typical property of fractals. Scale invariance is an exact form of self-similarity where at any magnification there is a smaller piece of the object that is similar to the whole.....more

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

Fractals

In mathematics, a fractal is a self-similar subset of Euclidean space whose fractal dimension strictly exceeds its topological dimension. Fractals appear the same at different levels, as illustrated in successive magnifications of the Mandelbrot set.[1][2][3][4] Fractals exhibit similar patterns at increasingly small scales called self-similarity, also known as expanding symmetry or unfolding symmetry; if this replication is exactly the same at every scale, as in the Menger sponge,[5] it is called affine self-similar. Fractal geometry lies within the mathematical branch of measure theory.

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

Self-organization

Self-organization, also called (in the social sciences) spontaneous order, is a process where some form of overall order arises from local interactions between parts of an initially disordered system. The process can be spontaneous when sufficient energy is available, not needing control by any external agent. It is often triggered by seemingly random fluctuations, amplified by positive feedback. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized, distributed over all the components of the system. As such, the organization is typically robust and able to survive or self-repair substantial perturbation. Chaos theory discusses self-organization in terms of islands of predictability in a sea of chaotic unpredictability.

Self-organization occurs in many physical, chemical, biological, robotic, and cognitive systems. Examples of self-organization include crystallization, thermal convection of fluids, chemical oscillation, animal swarming, neural circuits.

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

Mathematical model

A mathematical model is a description of a system using mathematical concepts and language. The process of developing a mathematical model is termed mathematical modeling. Mathematical models are used in the natural sciences (such as physics, biology, earth science, chemistry) and engineering disciplines (such as computer science, electrical engineering), as well as in the social sciences (such as economics, psychology, sociology, political science).

A model may help to explain a system and to study the effects of different components, and to make predictions about behaviour

...more

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

 

[Michael 345]

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

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

 

[Write4U]

I just now looked outside and nothing has numbers on it so obviously it is humans that run around putting numbers on things.

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.

 

[Write4U]

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

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.

 

[Write4U]

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

Ok, what is the language of Physics?

 

[Write4U]

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

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

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

 

[Michael 345]

Ok, what is the language of Physics?

Physics

 

[Write4U]

Physics

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

Mathematics is a critical part of much scientific research. Physics in particular weaves math extensively into its instruction beginning in high school. Despite much research on the learning of both physics and math, the problem of how to effectively include math in physics in a way that reaches most students remains unsolved.

In this paper, we suggest that a fundamental issue has received insufficient exploration: the fact that in science, we don't just use math, we make meaning with it in a different way than mathematicians do. In this reflective essay, we explore math as a language and consider the language of math in physics through the lens of cognitive linguistics. We begin by offering a number of examples that show how the use of math in physics differs from the use of math as typically found in math classes.....more

https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.6272

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

You are not looking at physics

No I was looking at trees.

According to Anil Seth,

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.

"best guess" as to what you are seeing.

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.

just like all other living things do.

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

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

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

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Ok, what is the language of Physics?

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

 

[Michael 345]

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

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

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?