On Nothing in a void.

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Xelasnave.1947, Dec 22, 2016.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    I'll take an intuitive stab at this.
    Conventional TV screens are "passive pixels" and need excitation to produce an image. In the process some energy is lost and results in loss of "definition".

    OTOH a "quantum dot" screen actively produces energy (Hameroff's "bings") and there is no energy loss, but rather energy intensification over a greater range of hues and shades, resulting in greater "definition".......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    OK, first things first. I still had this response queued up.

    You said in post #210: ""colors" are human invented symbolic terms". So that was misleadingly worded. Got it.

    Well, is a spectrum being projected onto a piece of paper mathematically? If not, then "no". If yes, then your term mathematically is so far away from the standard usage of it, you really need to give a definition of it.
    Right, so photons don't have color, according to you. Got it.

    Again, is a spectrum being projected onto a piece of paper mathematically? If not, then "no". If yes, then your term mathematically is so far away from the standard usage of it, you really need to give a definition of it.

    Sure, but representing something with mathematical values isn't the same as something being made out of mathematical values.

    Not sure that's fully true?

    Yes, we know that's what you believe: because the mathematical model of the world works so well, you take it to be true. However, science is a bit more careful, and doesn't make that leap of faith because there's no concrete evidence for it.

    It isn't objectively mathematics, because that's your subjective opinion/belief. You can't turn your subjective belief into an objective truth without proving it correct. This statement is thus false.

    (OK)

    If white light is "three fundamental wavelengths", please give the value of these wavelengths (in nm, please), and explain why these values are the right ones, and not some other value.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    I meant the names of the colors are human inventions, but regardles of name the frequencies of "red" do not change regardles of the name we give it. But to the average person a frequency number is meaningless.
    Of course it is. When we look at "red" on a piece of white paper we still see the frequencies which are translatable into a mathematical numbers.
    No, photons still have a frequency which determines is expressed color.
    One color or a spectrum of colors does not change the fact that each color (hue) has a mathematical frequency, whch allows us to recognize the difference and give those frequencies "names". The light itself travels @ "c" until it hits the paper. It's all mathematical.
    If the measurements are correct then the mathematical representation does identify the mathematical values of any structure correctly. A triangle is made from three specific measurable straight lines, connected at three points. Each line is measurable and determines the shape of the triangle. A right triangle can be mathematically represented as; a^2 + b^2 = c^2
    Can you give an example of a natural phenomenon which does not represent a value or a set of values? I realize that sometimes there are too many variables, which makes the phenomenon unmeasurable, but the values are still contained within the pattern, IMO. A cloud is an assembly of its constituent values, but its irregular shape makes it difficult to measure its volume except perhaps by means of fractals.
    But we can measure humidity, windspeed, temperature, and the values of the constituent molecules.
    Is there an example where mathematics do not work when all of its constituent values are known?
    I disagree. Objective science itself uses mathematics and by your own admission they work so well. Thus mathematics it is not my subjective view, but the basis of objective scientific measurement itself.
    ..........

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    White light is dispersed by a prism into the colors of the visible spectrum. For measurements of frequencies outside the visible spectrum, we use instruments with a wider range of frequency perception.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Color.......Wavelength.......Frequency..........Photon energy
    Violet...380–450 nm.....668–789 THz.....2.75–3.26 eV
    Blue.....450–495 nm......606–668 THz.....2.50–2.75 eV
    Green...495–570 nm......526–606 THz.....2.17–2.50 eV
    Yellow..570–590 nm......508–526 THz.....2.10–2.17 eV
    Orange.590–620 nm......484–508 THz.....2.00–2.10 eV
    Red......620–750 nm......400–484 THz......1.65–2.00 eV
    Colors that can be produced by visible light of a narrow band (in mathematical terms)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The (mathematical) relationship between period, frequency, and amplitudefor a sine wave is illustrated in this image.

    From Wiki,
    I have no idea what theses equations mean, but clearly they are mathematical in essence.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    I'm not going to respond in detail, because that's useless: you've proven unable to understand my refutations. I am however going to point out a few things so that everybody can see you are obviously not understanding the science involved:
    - The table of colors you give has 6 entries. I asked for 3. Ergo, you dodged my question.
    - You don't understand the relatively simple formula you posted from Wiki, but you do claim to have a deep understanding of what mathematics is. An understanding that is in direct conflict with the vast majority of scientists.
    - You keep contradicting yourself. For example, here you claim that color is a property of light (wavelength), yet earlier you gave a list of the properties that determine color that didn't include wavelength. In fact, it didn't include anything isolated photons can do, so you in fact claimed light in and of itself doesn't have a color.
    - You keep straw-manning, probably due to your inability to understand the words that other people are using. For example, your statement about "objective science" responds to something I didn't write.

    ---

    I have studied your MO for quite some time now, and it appears you are completely incapable of using many terms and words in the correct way. Even when it is pointed out to you and explained, you fail to correct or adjust your usage. Due to this inability you have come to believe in various unusual, pseudo-scientific, and plainly wrong things. If that's what you want, that's your choice. However, what isn't your choice is polluting other people's minds with your word-salady nonsense. You can express yourself all you want, but when you even come close to trying to spread your broken ideas, I will be pointing out to other people why they need to defend their minds from yours.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    Please do. But if you do don't tell people that you asked for three examples and I gave you six is bad science.
    That's just silly.

    And realizing my own lack of scientific "terminology", I always try to provide a link to a definition of what I believe represents the thrust of my posits. I may not understand all the scientific symbolic mathematics, but then I don't need to. I need only understand the verbal narrative.

    My POV is that all of science rests on the observation and interpretations of values and the "mathematical functions" occurring when these values interact, is IMO "confirmed" proof that the predictive power of human mathematics is at least one of correct "accounting" of universal potentials and their expressions in "our" reality.

    I think it is entirely reasonable to argue that an intrinsic part of the physical universe lies in a natural mathematical function, by which pure energy is converted to physical matter.
    Is that unreasonable?
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2018
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,152
    Hear hear! That is one of the problems with Write4U in a nutshell. He's like Humpty Dumpty:" When I use a word......it means just what I want it to mean, neither more nor less". This makes it hopeless trying to argue a point with him.

    But there is another issue too: a religious belief in mathematics, something that I would hazard is only possible in someone without much facility in mathematics.

    Anyway, keep fighting the good fight!
     
  10. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,152
    Yes.
     
  11. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    No, I didn't ask for three examples. You said there were only three, and now you are giving six. In other words, you have contradicted yourself.

    Except that you don't (or can't).

    Except that's not how science works, even according to you.
     
  12. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Not just that, but Write4U is unable to actually give definitions. At best, you get some vague description or an example usage, which often later turns out to be partially inconsistent with how Write4U actually uses the term/word.

    I've encountered this in Write4U before too. One thing I'm not sure about if it's a fundamental position/assumption, or the result of Write4U's confused understanding of the words/terms involved?

    Not quitting is actually one of my primary goals here.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    I was an accountant for 7 years ......big organization.....many parts......lots of details.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Forgive my focus on the orderly (sometimes variable) processes of all things and the amazing ability of the human brain (starting hundreds of thousands of years ago), to observe, measure, and interpret very subtle but recurring patterns and try to represent what he saw by creating a mathematical object to represent what he had observed.
    And later .... well here we are....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    I have provided proof that the essence of the universe is of a mathical nature of universal constants. Where does it fail?
     
  15. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    I could explain it to you, but you wouldn't understand, so why should I even try? I'll just drop this hint:
     
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,152
    I have come to the conclusion it is fundamental. The confused or inconsistent use of terms is, I think, a means of shape-shifting, enough to keep the religion intact whenever someone gets close to nailing an idea down. The most familiar examples are the continually inconsistent (and occasionally quite meaningless) use of the terms "function" and "potential", which bedevil almost everything Write4U says.

    It's a new kind of woo, really. Not quantum woo but maths woo.
     

    Attached Files:

  17. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Ah, that makes sense, yes. It also fits the constant irrelevant appeals to a specific small set of authorities. I guess those would be the popes, in this analogue.

    It's as meaningful as the phrase "speaking things into existence". This analogue does fit quite well! Do you suppose that Write4U's believes are so ingrained by now, (s)he's essentially the analogue-counterpart of a fundamentalist?

    If only all the effort that went into woo could be directed into science, how wonderful the world would be today...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

    Messages:
    12,118
    With a Woo Woooo from lover of steam trains Sydney Sheldon - The Big Bang Theory

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,152
    Well Shapiro/Tegmark seems to be the prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him). But there is something more mystical at work than even the pronouncements of Teggers.

    What I can't get over is the notion that complex numbers, for instance, existed long before someone (Bombelli? Descartes?) had the idea of defining the square root of -1 and someone else (Argand?) had the idea of plotting it at right angles to the real number line.
     
  20. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    (I'm not sure what you are referring to with that last bit?)

    I'm not familiar enough with the history of complex numbers, so I really couldn't say. However, the idea of making numbers "two-dimensional" to me doesn't feel like a weird concept to come up with. It's just a special way of expressing a point on a plane: you take the (x, y) tuple, and simple refer to it as a number as well. Many operations that can be performed on (real) numbers can be extended/generalized to also work on multi-dimensional numbers. In the case of complex numbers, it just turns out there are various useful relations between the two coordinates and particular operations one can perform. For example, take: https://www2.clarku.edu/~djoyce/complex/mult.html (Especially the last section.) It turns out that multiplication in the complex plane is the same as performing some particular geometric operations. In a sense, both are the same: they are just two (very) different ways of expressing the same underlying relations. Once such a correspondence is established, it's hard to conceptually separate the two again.

    I think the drive for complex numbers through the square root of 1 may be the same reason why many people have trouble with dividing by zero (or even diving zero by zero): "there must be an answer, right? It's maths; there has to be some answer!" And maths being maths, it's possible to derive all kinds of properties the answer needs to have, without knowing what the answer itself really is.
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    I find it odd that after being chastized for proposing that the mathematical essence of universal values and functions can be translated into human mathematical symbols and equations, the conversation returns to the utility (and sometimes the problems in theoretical mathematics) of mathematics describing aspects of the universe.

    And what mathematics have to do with spiritualism is a mystery to me. Is Einstein a scientist's God? That would make science itself a religion, no?

    I do NOT believe in a god, which makes me an Atheist. I do believe in the mathematical aspects of universal values and functions. And that makes me a Theist?

    You've got to be kidding!
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2018
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    Is there?
    Nor do I.

    I assume this observation was in relation to my posts, but they are certainly not my words. I don't deal in mysticism and never have, yet there is that "suspicion" that my proposition (right or wrong), which is based on the works of serious scientists, implies a form of mysticism?

    Is Tegmark a theist? Penrose? Livio? Loll? Bohr? de Broglie? Dawkins? Feynman? Higgs? Hilbert? Hawking?.............. Jeeeez....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



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

    So all these proclaimed atheists are all lying because they believe in the power of mathematics and that human maths are able to represent how the universe functions?

    Methinks you are engaging in flights of fancy without offering any proofs to the contrary.
    Mysticism maybe?
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2018
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,526
    What refutations? Your personal "beliefs"?
     

Share This Page