Does Chaos Theory prove a Mathematically Ordered Universe

[Michael 345]

But they all could be correctly differently labeled, no?

Let me ask you
If I was to take a book titled "The BIG Book of MATHEMATICS" and retitled it "The BIG Book of ENERGY"

Each formula inside, becomes a formula about energy

No problem, no?

 

[Michael 345]

Old McDonald had a Universe
Ee I Ee I oh
An in his Universe he had some math
Ee I Ee I oh
With a Math Math here
And a Math Math there
Here a Math, there a Math
Everywhere a Math Math
Old McDonald had a Universe
Ee I Ee I oh

Old McDonald had a Universe
Ee I Ee I oh
And in his Universe he had some
Micro tubes
Ee I Ee I oh
With a micro here
Few tubes there
Here a micro, there a tube
Everywhere a Microtubule
Old McDonald had a Universe
Ee I Ee I oh

Old McMichael had a Universe
Ee I Ee I oh
And in his Universe he had some
Physics
Ee I Ee I oh
With a Physics here
A Physics there
Here a Physics, there a Physics
Everywhere a Physics
Old McDonald had a Universe
Ee I Ee I oh

All together

 

[Michael 345]

That "immaterial" objects can have existence. God is one such objects, no?

No

For existence a something (any something) must have PROPERTIES. Most importantly said PROPERTIES must be DETECTABLE

Need not necessarily be directly detectectible by only human senses. We have the ability to build equipment to detect stuff not accessible to our puny Minions senses, but none the less exist

Lack of detectability is the biggest obstacle to Russell's teapot, not its improbability, although that does not help it's chances of existence

 

[Write4U]

Highlighted

What " immaterial objects , can have existence " exactly ? What objects are you referring to ?

I answered that in # 157

I am talking about YOUR GOD, that Immaterial creative motivated Intelligent Designer. An abstract Image.

 

[river]

I answered that in # 157

I am talking about YOUR GOD, that Immaterial creative motivated Intelligent Designer. An abstract Image.

My god , I have no god . Is there Life in this Universe ? No Question .

Energy nor matter have intelligence .

 

[Write4U]

Write4U said: ↑
That "immaterial" objects can have existence. God is one such objects, no?

No

That was not a statement of fact, Michael. It was in response to "river".

For existence a something (any something) must have PROPERTIES. Most importantly said PROPERTIES must be DETECTABLE

Exactly, everything in existence has a relational "value" in many forms, from the subtle abstract Implication (enfolded order) to the gross Explication (unfolded order) in physical observable form.

Need not necessarily be directly detectectible by only human senses. We have the ability to build equipment to detect stuff not accessible to our puny Minions senses, but none the less exist

I agree.

Lack of detectability is the biggest obstacle to Russell's teapot, not its improbability, although that does not help it's chances of existence

I agree.

But here is where Tegmark suggests that a "mathematical universe" has the logical power to solve all problems involving the interaction of different values in the self-formation of universal mathematical patterns...

 

[Write4U]

Let me ask you
If I was to take a book titled "The BIG Book of MATHEMATICS" and retitled it "The BIG Book of ENERGY"
Each formula inside, becomes a formula about energy
No problem, no?

ENERGY is a sub-section in the Big Book of Mathematical relational values.

 

[Write4U]

My god , I have no god . Is there Life in this Universe ? No Question .

OK, then we are in agreement on this point.

Energy nor matter have intelligence .

Mathematics is the abstract logically quasi-intelligent language that is the guiding equation in all ways. It is the mathematics that allow for the orderly transmutation of Energy into Matter.

That's the point. One size fits all, from dynamic Chaos to eventual static Order.......

 

[river]

OK, then we are in agreement on this point.
Energy nor matter have intelligence .

Mathematics is the abstract logically quasi-intelligent language that is the guiding equation in all ways. It is the mathematics that allow for the orderly transmuation of Energy into Matter.

That's the point....One size fits all! [/QUOTE]

Disagree to your last statement , highlighted ;

Mathematics does not , can not allow and/or disallow anything . Mathematics has no efficacy on any Physical .

 

[Write4U]

W4U said;
Mathematics is the abstract logically quasi-intelligent language that is the guiding equation in all ways. It is the mathematics that allow for the orderly transmuation of Energy into Matter.

That's the point....One size fits all!

River said;
Disagree to your last statement , highlighted ;

Mathematics does not , can not allow and/or disallow anything . Mathematics has no efficacy on any Physical .

No, mathematics are the natural laws that govern the interactive physical behaviors based on inherent and extant values.

 

[river]

Disagree to your last statement , highlighted ;

Mathematics does not , can not allow and/or disallow anything . Mathematics has no efficacy on any Physical .

No, mathematics are the natural laws that govern the interactive physical behaviors based on inherent and extant values. [/QUOTE]

Mathematics does not " govern " anything Physical . It is the Physical that tells you these laws .

 

[Michael 345]

ENERGY is a sub-section in the Big Book of Mathematical relational values.

Not having seen or read such book I suspect it would be talking about ENERGY in a fashion which we arbitrarily assign a value

ie This (whatever situation) has x1 + X2 +?...... however many individual independent units, each unit has its own Energy property amount

x1 has ? horsepower
X2 has amps
etc etc

That was not a statement of fact, Michael. It was in response to "river".

OK Iggy river - got it

 

[Michael 345]

quasi-intelligent language

Every moment you put quasi-intelligent language

I will reply

dumb numerical squiggles

 

[paddoboy]

Energy nor matter have intelligence .

Utter bullshit.
Energy, matter, space, time are all aspects of what evolved at the BB, and the mathematics gave us a method to understand the cosmos from t+10-43 seconds up to 13.83 billion years later, and even reliably predictions as to the future. Intelligence came with evolution and abiogenesis of life.
Again mathematics is a tool, it is the language of physics anda method for us to solve the problems that we face in the universe that Earth is a part of.
I will later start a thread in the sciences on the undisputed power of mathematics, its relationship with the BB, the cosmos and GR...at least to the best of my ability with a couple of interesting links. Continuing here with that is out of the question with river doing his hardest to squeeze in his own fairy tale, baseless and ridiculous scenarios, of intelligent energy, poisonous water, anal probing aliens, and the non existence of gravity and spacetime.

 

[Write4U]

Not having seen or read such book I suspect it would be talking about ENERGY in a fashion which we arbitrarily assign a value

Yes, arbitrarily assigned relational (relative) values. The human mathematical symbolisms are merely tools to manipulate the relative values.
That's why algebraics work so well. They allow for the processing of relational values of all sorts and properties, in an orderly and consistent manner.

Every moment you put quasi-intelligent language
I will reply
dumb numerical squiggles

Quasi, adverb

1. effectively, as it were

Intelligent, adjective

1. having or showing intelligence

Thus Quasi-intelligent; Effectively showing self-ordering repeating patterns as if it were intelligent itself.
No dumb numerical squiggles. Just interactive relational values being processed in a logically consistent manner.

Human mathematics are symbolic "numerical squiggles", translating the interaction of natural logical interactive values and algebraic functions.

 

[Michael 345]

Quasi, adverb

1. effectively, as it were

Intelligent, adjective

1. having or showing intelligence

By putting QUASI in front of Intelligent you have admitted it can be any of the below

In other words YOU DON'T NEED TO BRING IT INTO THE DISCUSSION AT ALL

quasi-
/ˈkwāˌzī,ˈkwäzē/
combining form

1. seemingly; apparently but not really.
   "quasi-American"
   
   Similar:
   supposedly
   
   seemingly
   
   apparently
   
   allegedly
   
   reportedly
   
   professedly
   
   ostensibly
   
   on the face of it
   
   to all appearances
   
   on the surface
   to all intents and purposes
   
   outwardly
   
   superficially
   
   purportedly
   
   nominally
   
   by one's/its own account
   on paper
   
   pseudo-
   
   pretendedly
   ostensively
   supposed
   
   seeming
   
   apparent
   
   alleged
   
   reported
   
   ostensible
   
   purported
   
   nominal
   
   so-called
   
   would-be
   
   bogus
   
   sham
   
   phoney
   
   imitation
   
   artificial
   
   mock
   
   ersatz
   
   fake
   
   forged
   
   feigned
   
   pretended
   
   simulated
   
   false
   
   spurious
   
   counterfeit
   
   fraudulent
   
   deceptive
   
   pretend
   
   put-on
   
   fakey
   cod
   
   ostensive

Mathematics has nothing to do with intelliegence quasi or dumb or yellow or Universe or rhinoceros or ........

It is just MATHEMATICS and gets along just fine being called MATHEMATICS. The closest it comes to intelliegence is the physical distance between the page it is being squigged on and the brain of the person where the PROCESS of intelliegence is occurring

Quasi-intelligent

Numericals squiggles

Numericals squiggles do nothing

 

[paddoboy]

Mathematics has nothing to do with intelliegence quasi or dumb or yellow or Universe or rhinoceros or ........
It is just MATHEMATICS and gets along just fine being called MATHEMATICS.

This thread appears to be about two extremities taken by river and Write4U......river is just being river, silly, trollish and child like behavour in dismissing apparent facts that are the basis of 20th/21st century cosmology.
Write4U sees maths as some all encompassing fundamental aspect of the universe, and much of what he says is way over the top.
I don't dismiss the importance of maths, and as I have said many times, it is what enables us to describe and decipher the observational universe and is essentially the language of physics. That's it. pure and simple...a powerful and indispensable tool we use, as a result of our intelligence. [not mine specifically as sadly my maths ability is pretty low.

river on the other hand dismisses maths out of hand, simply because it shows the viability of current theories, and will always invalidate his own so called "thinking" or arse wipe hypotheticals.

 

[Michael 345]

This thread appears to be about two extremities taken by river and Write4U...

Agree with your assessment even though I can't comment on Iggyed river

Write4U seems to want mathematics to be more than arbitrary squiggles on a page. However arbitrary squiggles are incapable of being more than arbitrary squiggles

Any intelliegence Write4U spreads over them is a active process occuring in the brain and said process is incapable of being transferred to arbitrary squiggles

We can look at 1+1 = ? For eternity and the ? will not turn into 2 even if we have calculated 2 in our brain

If arbitrary squiggles had what Write4U asserts we would all be mathematitions

 

[Write4U]

Mathematics is the language of logic. Logic is the fundamental function of Nature.
It appears intelligent, but it isn't sentient intelligent, it is Logical in essence.

The universe itself is not logical, but everything in the universe is acting logically. The universe itself is beyond logic, and humans currently cannot understand the universe, so yes and no. The universe is very logical, very well organized and very well managed. ... It is beyond logical.

The existence of the Universe may not seem Logical at this time, but it is here and it acts logically!

The universe isn't logical, it is physical. The elementary building blocks of the universe - particles, photons, spacetime itself - have beautiful, simple mathematical properties that make them behave in a consistent manner. A proton has identical properties on earth, inside the sun, or on the other side of the universe 14 billion years ago.

Properties are mathematical relational values.

We don't know all about these properties but we assume this consistency and the assumption seems to work. Obviously these micro level building blocks can produce very complex and different shapes and processes when combined in huge numbers, but the fact that the blocks are identical places overriding constraints on what can happen at the macro level we see.

Limiting mathematical functions?

Why might this be? My take on this is that spacetime is made of one kind of stuff, everywhere, at all times. This limits the type of objects that can exist in spacetime. To put it slightly differently, we can think of the fundamental "objects" in spacetime - photos, protons, etc - as perturbations of spacetime itself. This is analogous to a wave on water surface being a perturbation of the water and constrained by the properties of the water. We get certain wave shapes and not others because of the properties of the water. Ever seen an ocean wave in the shape of a rolling sphere? No, the physics of water won't allow it. Likewise, the shape (topology) of spacetime defines the types of variations that can occur in it, so, for example, an electron always has the same charge and rest mass.

A mathematical equivalence?

At present, the topology of spacetime is an open question. However, the consistency observed in physics - and the fact that assuming consistency works as a research strategy - really strongly suggest that there is one and only one topology. Despite knowing quite a lot about it, we haven't actually nailed it.

This, to me, is why the universe appears "logical" to us: the consistency of the basic mathematical properties of spacetime. And, supposing that this consistency didn't exist, what would we have? I fuzzy mess, I think. Life could not exist, and we couldn't be sitting here in awe, observing it.

Everything is acting logically but nothing is logical.

Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? -Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-we-live-in-a-logical-universe

It has no choice, a dynamic condition will eventually order itself by the laws of Chaos.


​

 

[Write4U]

Any intelliegence Write4U spreads over them is a active process occuring in the brain and said process is incapable of being transferred to arbitrary squiggles

How then does mathematics allow us to solve almost all universal values and functions? Because we are intelligent but nothing is mathematical? No we are able to understand the mathematics of the universe because they present as quasi-intelligent and we are intelligent, so we can understand it.

Is proof not contained in the functionality of the model and the methods used to model the physical reality You're playing musical chairs here.

We can look at 1+1 = ? For eternity and the ? will not turn into 2 even if we have calculated 2 in our brain

No, you need to look at this again. Throw a bunch of hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms together and see what happens spontaneously, as we can actually observe it happening without any help from humans. Do humans make it rain? Indians used to think so, but we know precipitation is a naturally occurring spontaneous reaction, a result of prevailing environmental conditions. It rains all by itself without the help from human intelligence.

Robert Hazen estimates that the earth has performed some 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion spontaneous chemical reactions based on the inherent relational values and mathematical (algebraic) interactions of the earth minerals.
I would definitely call that a quasi-intelligent function of the earth dynamic potential.

p.s. there are some 1500 missing minerals, minerals that should exist but we haven't found yet. Kinda like the Higgs boson, no?

Precipitation

In meteorology, precipitation is any product of the condensation of atmospheric water vapor that falls under gravity from clouds.[2] The main forms of precipitation include drizzle, rain, sleet, snow, ice pellets, graupel and hail. Precipitation occurs when a portion of the atmosphere becomes saturated with water vapor (reaching 100% relative humidity), so that the water condenses and "precipitates" or falls.

Thus, fog and mist are not precipitation but colloids, because the water vapor does not condense sufficiently to precipitate. Two processes, possibly acting together, can lead to air becoming saturated: cooling the air or adding water vapor to the air. Precipitation forms as smaller droplets coalesce via collision with other rain drops or ice crystals within a cloud

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

The Universe is a self-ordering system and it does so using relational values and algebraic functions.

If arbitrary squiggles had what Write4U asserts we would all be mathematitions

We are all mathematicians to a degree. Everything in the universe has mathematical values (properties). How does a frog catch a bug? Triangulation! Does it know this? No. Does it need to know? No.

Definitions of mathematics [quote]Mathematics has no generally accepted definition. Different schools of thought, particularly in philosophy, have put forth radically different definitions. All proposed definitions are controversial in their own ways.[1][2]
[/quote] Early definitions

Aristotle defined mathematics as:[3] The science of quantity.

In Aristotle's classification of the sciences, discrete quantities were studied by arithmetic, continuous quantities by geometry.[4]

Auguste Comte's
definition tried to explain the role of mathematics in coordinating phenomena in all other fields:[5]

The science of indirect measurement.[3] Auguste Comte 1851 . The "indirectness" in Comte's definition refers to determining quantities that cannot be measured directly, such as the distance to planets or the size of atoms, by means of their relations to quantities that can be measured directly.[6][/quote]
Greater abstraction and competing philosophical schools

The preceding kind of definition, which had prevailed since Aristotle's time,[4] were abandoned in the 19th century as new branches of mathematics — such as group theory[7], analysis[8], projective geometry[3] and non-Euclidean geometry.[9] — were developed and which bore no obvious relation to measurement or the physical world.

As mathematicians pursued greater rigor and more-abstract foundations, some proposed new definitions of mathematics which are purely based on logic:

Mathematics is the science that draws necessary conclusions.[10] Benjamin Peirce 1870
All Mathematics is Symbolic Logic.[9] Bertrand Russell 1903

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