Does Chaos Theory prove a Mathematically Ordered Universe

Write4U · Sep 14, 2020

river said: ↑

Why should space exist , mathematically ? Devoid of physicality .
Click to expand...

Spacetime IS the mathematical physicality (geometry) which emerged from Chaos.

Michael said;
It created the perfect organisation of stuff by physics because it could not be in any other arrangement at that moment
Click to expand...

I think you have mixed the terms "organization" with "complexity".

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

river · Sep 14, 2020

↑

1+1=2 , physically no problem , the logic is obvious . Yet mathematics in and of its self can not prove that this is true ; despite the fact that in reality it is true .
Click to expand...

Yes it can; Mathematical equations are the proofs of logical equivalences.
Click to expand...

But can not prove that 1+1=2 is true , mathematically , in and of its self .

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

river · Sep 14, 2020

river said: ↑

Why should space exist , mathematically ? Devoid of physicality .
Click to expand...

Write4U said: ↑

Spacetime IS mathematical physicality (geometry) which emerged from Chaos.
Click to expand...

Define Chaos .

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

paddoboy · Sep 14, 2020

river said: ↑

↑
But can not prove that 1+1=2 is true , mathematically , in and of its self .
Click to expand...

Bullshit again river. Firstly we don't need to "prove" 1+1=2.....Numbers are fixed concepts that derive from maths...Maths, you know, the language of physics, and that which disproves and invalidates near everything you claim...hence your ignorance and down playing of it.

paddoboy · Sep 14, 2020

Write4U said: ↑

Spacetime IS the mathematical physicality (geometry) which emerged from Chaos.
.
Click to expand...

Not bad....spacetime=geometry=gravity.

paddoboy · Sep 14, 2020

river said: ↑

What's the problem pad , in my post #252 .
Click to expand...

Did I say there was anything wrong with it?
I said, you can read?
You made a statement not quite accurate...I simply made it more accurate. Plus you were totally wrong re chaos.

river · Sep 14, 2020

Define Chaos

river · Sep 14, 2020

paddoboy said: ↑

Bullshit again river. Firstly we don't need to "prove" 1+1=2.....Numbers are fixed concepts that derive from maths...Maths, you know, the language of physics, and that which disproves and invalidates near everything you claim...hence your ignorance and down playing of it.
Click to expand...

Numbers in the Physical have Tangible Three Dimensional Physical Substance .

paddoboy · Sep 14, 2020

river said: ↑

Define Chaos
Click to expand...

Already have and you failed to understand...post 249

river said: ↑

Numbers in the Physical have Tangible Three Dimensional Physical Substance .
Click to expand...

More bullshit word salad.

paddoboy · Sep 14, 2020

Write4U said: ↑

This is what prompted me to ask the OP question in the first place. The Universe started as CHAOS, but evidently patterns managed to emerge from the original chaos, which we have observed and decribed in Chaos Theory.

The observable self-ordering patterns in nature allowed humans to gain an understanding of "order" and "regularity" which are necessary for durable existence of all abstract objects and their continual expression as physically ordered patterns.
.
Click to expand...

Nothing to wrong with that, as our laws of physics, and GR fail us at t+10-45 seconds.
But also worth considering, as entropy [disorder] increases with time, that early period was more ordered....ordered chaos?

Michael 345 · Sep 14, 2020

Write4U said: ↑

Spacetime IS the mathematical physicality (geometry) which emerged from Chaos.

I think you have mixed the terms "organization" with "complexity".
Click to expand...

PHYSICS does neither, PHYSICS DOES WHAT PHYSICS DOES AND NOTHING HAS A DEFINITION

Us Minions come along with our anthropomorphic concepts

that arrangement of stuff we will call chaos

that arrangement will call a pattern

etc etc etc

WE shrink wrap OUR definitions so tight around STUFF we are defining we start to think the definitions are the STUFF they are wrapped around

They are NOT

From

OUR concept of chaos to

OUR concept of order

NOTHING in PHYSICS changes

Stuff is moved about and has a different look but PHYSICS - no change

PHYSICS does not organise or make complexity

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Write4U · Sep 14, 2020

paddoboy said: ↑

Nothing to wrong with that, as our laws of physics, and GR fail us at t+10-45 seconds.
But also worth considering, as entropy [disorder] increases with time, that early period was more ordered....ordered chaos?
Click to expand...

I don't think that follows. Entropy and Complexity (patterns) are different beasts.

What Lies Between Order and Chaos?
James P. Crutchfield

What is a pattern? How do we come to recognize patterns that we’ve never seen before? Formalizing and quantifying the notion of pattern and the process of pattern discovery go right to the heart of scientific practice.
Click to expand...

Over the last several decades science’s view of nature’s lack of structure— its unpredictability—underwent a major renovation with the discovery of deterministic chaos.
Click to expand...

Behind the veil of apparent randomness, many processes are highly ordered, following simple rules.
Click to expand...

As the new millennium begins, tools adapted from the theory of computation will bring empirical science to the brink of automatically discovering patterns and quantifying their structural complexity. For example, rather than interpreting a data stream according to a given model, we look at a model stream. The regularities found in the way models improve with learning is the basis for inferring universal laws on how complexity arises from the interaction of order and chaos.
Click to expand...

http://csc.ucdavis.edu/~cmg/compmech/tutorials/wlboac.pdf

Entropy as Time's Arrow

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Therm/entrop.html

The diagrams above have generated a lively discussion, partly because of the use of order vs disorder in the conceptual introduction of entropy. It is typical for physicists to use this kind of introduction because it quickly introduces the concept of multiplicity in a visual, physical way with analogies in our common experience.
Click to expand...

Chemists, on the other hand, often protest this approach because in chemical applications order vs disorder doesn't communicate the needed ideas on the molecular level and can indeed be misleading. The very fact of differences of opinion on the use of order and disorder can itself be instructive.....more
Click to expand...

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Therm/entrop.html

Write4U · Sep 14, 2020

Michael 345 said: ↑

PHYSICS does neither, PHYSICS DOES WHAT PHYSICS DOES AND NOTHING HAS A DEFINITION
Click to expand...

Right, when you start applying Human symbolisms as fact.

Just as MATHEMATICS DO WHAT MATHEMATICS DO AND NOTHING HAS A DEFINITION.

The term "Physics" doesn't do anything either. It's an abstract human symbolic construct of imagination just like the term "Mathematics".

If you cite one as a real property of nature, then you must also recognize the other. The terms we use are merely symbolic descriptions of how things work.

The Universe does not need any human descriptive language. Humans do!

Michael 345 · Sep 14, 2020

Write4U said: ↑

Right, when you start applying Human symbolisms as fact.

Just as MATHEMATICS DO WHAT MATHEMATICS DO AND NOTHING HAS A DEFINITION.

The term "Physics" doesn't do anything either. It's an abstract human symbolic construct of imagination just like the term "Mathematics".

If you cite one as a real property of nature, then you must also recognize the other. The terms we use are merely symbolic descriptions of how things work.

The Universe does not need any human descriptive language. Humans do!
Click to expand...

No

Physics is operation of PHYSICAL STUFF

MATHEMATICS has no physicality

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Write4U · Sep 14, 2020

Michael 345 said: ↑

PHYSICS does not organise or make complexity
Click to expand...

Laws of physics still universal, studies find
Two independent approaches to testing a fundamental prediction of relativity confirm Einstein was
on the money. Andrew P Street reports.

Sure, the mainstream media might like to trumpet results that appear to challenge Einstein and threaten to turn everything we know about physics on its head, but those results almost always turn out to be wrong. So, it’s genuinely reassuring when another experiment that appears to confirm our most basic assumptions about the way the cosmos operates.
Click to expand...

One of the most fundamental ideas about our universe is that the laws of physics apply across the board – gravity in a distant galaxy behaves like it does in this one, for example. A more elegant piece of theory is what’s called Lorentz invariance – named for Hendrick Lorentz, the scientist who first derived it from his equations teasing out Einstein’s work on special relativity.
Click to expand...

Lorentz Invariance states that the laws of physics remain constant for all observers within the same inertial frame. It’s not an idea which is uncritically accepted, since there are mathematical models that predict this symmetry will break down when attempting to reconcile relativity and particle physics. However, two new papers in the journal Physical Review Letters suggest that – for now at least – Lorentz invariance still holds.
Click to expand...

Both pieces of research look at the effects of gravitational interactions, but take very different routes.
Click to expand...

The first, from a team led by Adrien Bourgoin of the Universite de Caen Normandie in France, used almost half a century of data from lasers bounced off mirrors placed on the moon’s surface by the Apollo missions to record the orbital and rotational motion.
Click to expand...

The data constituted the first direct experimental simultaneous measurement of Lorentz symmetry in two linked fields of physics: the pure gravitational sector and the classical point-mass limit of the matter sector. The team found no deviation from the predictions of general relativity
Click to expand...

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/laws-of-physics-still-universal-studies-find/#

continued.....

Write4U · Sep 14, 2020

continued......

Scientific law

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Scientific theories explain why something happens, whereas scientific law describes what happens.
Click to expand...

The term law has diverse usage in many cases (approximate, accurate, broad, or narrow) across all fields of natural science (physics, chemistry, astronomy, geoscience, biology).
Click to expand...

Laws are developed from data and can be further developed through mathematics; in all cases they are directly or indirectly based on empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they implicitly reflect, though they do not explicitly assert, causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented.[2]
Click to expand...

Scientific laws summarize the results of experiments or observations, usually within a certain range of application. In general, the accuracy of a law does not change when a new theory of the relevant phenomenon is worked out, but rather the scope of the law's application, since the mathematics or statement representing the law does not change.
Click to expand...

As with other kinds of scientific knowledge, laws do not have absolute certainty (as mathematical theorems or identities do), and it is always possible for a law to be contradicted, restricted, or extended by future observations. A law can usually be formulated as one or several statements or equations, so that it can be used to predict the outcome of an experiment, given the circumstances of the processes taking place.
Click to expand...

Several general properties of scientific laws, particularly when referring to laws in physics, have been identified. Scientific laws are: True, at least within their regime of validity. By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.
Click to expand...

Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe.[8]:82

Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation.

Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them.[8]:82

Stable. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws),

Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations).[8]:83

Generally conservative of quantity.[9]:59

Often expressions of existing homogeneities (symmetries) of space and time.[9]

Typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible.[9]

Click to expand...

The term "scientific law" is traditionally associated with the natural sciences, though the social sciences also contain laws.[10] For example, Zipf's law is a law in the social sciences which is based on mathematical statistics. In these cases, laws may describe general trends or expected behaviors rather than being absolutes.
Click to expand...

Laws as consequences of mathematical symmetries

Some laws reflect mathematical symmetries found in Nature (e.g. the Pauli exclusion principle reflects identity of electrons, conservation laws reflect homogeneity of space, time, and Lorentz transformations reflect rotational symmetry of spacetime).
Click to expand...

Many fundamental physical laws are mathematical consequences of various symmetries of space, time, or other aspects of nature. Specifically, Noether's theorem connects some conservation laws to certain symmetries.
Click to expand...

For example, conservation of energy is a consequence of the shift symmetry of time (no moment of time is different from any other), while conservation of momentum is a consequence of the symmetry (homogeneity) of space (no place in space is special, or different than any other). The indistinguishability of all particles of each fundamental type (say, electrons, or photons) results in the Dirac and Bose quantum statistics which in turn result in the Pauli exclusion principle for fermions
and in Bose–Einstein condensation for bosons.
Click to expand...

The rotational symmetry between time and space coordinate axes (when one is taken as imaginary, another as real) results in Lorentz transformations which in turn result in special relativity theory. Symmetry between inertial and gravitational mass results in general relativity.
Click to expand...

The inverse square law of interactions mediated by massless bosons is the mathematical consequence of the 3-dimensionality of space.
One strategy in the search for the most fundamental laws of nature is to search for the most general mathematical symmetry group that can be applied to the fundamental interactions.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law#Properties

Michael 345 · Sep 14, 2020

Posts 275 and 276 unread

Try real real really really hard to shorten post

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Write4U · Sep 14, 2020

Michael 345 said: ↑

Posts 275 and 276 unread

Try real real really really hard to shorten post

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Click to expand...

Sorry for making it unnecessarily complicated.
Just read the highlighted portions. I believe those are in context of the immediate conversation.

The rest is for those like myself, learning as I go....
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Write4U · Sep 14, 2020

Michael 345 said: ↑

No

Physics is operation of PHYSICAL STUFF
Click to expand...

Yep, we are in agreement. Physics is operation of PHYSICAL STUFF in accordance to its relational values and mathematical functions.

MATHEMATICS has no physicality.
Click to expand...

True, but PHYSICALITY does have mathematical properties.....
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Michael 345 · Sep 14, 2020

Write4U said: ↑

Sorry for making it unnecessarily complicated.
Just read the highlighted portions. I believe those are in context of the immediate conversation.

The rest is for those like myself, learning as I go....
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Click to expand...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Like this diagram
Now
Shorten text 275 AND 276 (both in one) into 278 size and add above diagram

Will read and perhaps add to my references list

Thanks

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Log in or Sign up

Does Chaos Theory prove a Mathematically Ordered Universe

Write4U Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

river

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

river

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

river

river

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

Write4U Valued Senior Member

Write4U Valued Senior Member

Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

Write4U Valued Senior Member

Write4U Valued Senior Member

Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

Write4U Valued Senior Member

Write4U Valued Senior Member

Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Does Chaos Theory prove a Mathematically Ordered Universe

Write4U Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

river

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

river

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

river

river

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

paddoboy Valued Senior Member

Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

Write4U Valued Senior Member

Write4U Valued Senior Member

Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

Write4U Valued Senior Member

Write4U Valued Senior Member

Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

Write4U Valued Senior Member

Write4U Valued Senior Member

Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches