Reality is mathematics / Mathematics is reality ?

Not sure about a parabola but I have seen a photo, taken from a aircraft, which shows a circular rainbow

To lazy to look but I think there are photos to Google

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In the past it was common for philosophers and analysts to assume that the human eye saw by touching the seen - that seeing involved the eye projecting somehow and touching the seen object, rather than passively accepting light.

That might seem strange now, but it made a certain amount of sense then - that's kind of what it feels like, after all, when one is trying to see a distant object, that's how other senses that perceive shape seem to work, and only our modern understanding of light allows us to dismiss the notion out of hand.

The oblique similarities between that comprehension of perception by sight and the notion that mathematics is inherent in the mathematically perceived rather than the mathematical perceiver intrigues.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If reality is mathematics, then most of reality isn't accessible to us.

Feynman said something like, physics is the simple end of everything. Just walking on a carpeted floor involves billions of interactions, probably, and billions of mathematical terms in the equation describing what we see as a simple act.

So ultimately if reality is the same as mathematics (not just mathematical in nature), then a lot of really complex stuff happens all the time is equivalent to a lot of really complex equations; life is one of these equations.

The equations might be infinite polynomials of some kind, where terms are added "continuously", maybe some terms vanish after a time, and so on. Life, chemistry, flowing water, these are all dynamic equations. Or on the other hand, the equations might be said to exist if they can be written down, or are computable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In the ''woo'' thread, I believe it was asked if your ideas (Tegmark's ideas) are such that math exists as an external reality, meaning independent of human involvement. Can you elaborate on that idea?

 

I call that an argument from incredulity.

Robert Hazen (Carnegie Institute for Science) thinks that the probability for alien life somewhere in the universe is is very high, from the statistics I cited.
start clip @ 25.00


2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical interactions on earth alone during some 3.5 billion years of
existence. That 's just earth, a tiny planet in an obscure solar system on the outskirts of an average galaxy, in a corner of the Universe.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Several thousand galaxies, each consisting of billions of stars, are in this small view. XDF (2012) view: Each light speck is a galaxy, some of which are as old as 13.2 billion years – the observable universe is estimated to contain 200 billion to 2 trillion galaxies.

Now consider, not fact there is life on earth, but the incredible variety of life on earth plus the incredible variety of life now extinct. There is nothing magical about earth, it just has the basic ingredients necessary to create life. Water, clay, the elemental atoms, heat, a dynamic environment. The rest is a matter of time.

Compared to the vast spatial surfaces and time frames in the Universe, it would be incredible if there was no other life somewhere in the universe.

no it is not.

Well this is how he drew his parabola,( except the axes were at right angles.)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A parabola may be generated as the envelope of two concurrent line segments by connecting opposite points on the two lines (Wells 1991).

Yes, but your drawing is not anywhere near the same as his drawing which yields an open ended parabola, not anything like your example of a hyperbola. In fact Antonsen makes mention that the pattern is not circular or oval, or hyperbolic, but a parabola.

Seems you've missed the point that it is straight lines which produce the curved pattern.
IMO, an abstract universal mathematical tour de force.

 

IMO, Tegmark sees an independent mathematical aspect (potential) but not as a reality or a dimension, but more like a plenum of relative geometric and physical values and functions which due to their inherent potentials can only interact in specific orderly ways, via a guiding equation.
This inherent ordering is of a mathematical nature, which humans have been able to represent symbolically with numbers for values and forces for functions.

Tegmark proposes that the inherent order is achieved by just some 33 relative values and a handfull of equations (constants), which combined offer the geometric guiding equations that allow for values (potentials) to become expressed as specific mathematical patterns, and the denser these patterns become the more physical they appear (gaseous, fluid, solid).

Here I refer to David Bohm's "Pilot wave" and "guiding equation" which offers a true deterministic model of the universal values and functions, AFAIK.

I sometimes wonder if people are not forgetting that there is no such thing as solids, there is only degrees of pattern density . There is always more space between particles than there is mass, regardless how dense a pattern may become. Perhaps an exception is a Black Hole where there is no longer any space between fundamental particles and there is only a clump of pure mass. Hence the incredible gravity?

How do we know we have this gravity thing down? Perhaps all gravity should be measured against gravity in a black hole, to get a clear perspective of the true relative gravitational functions of solid objects in the greater spacetime pattern.

I'm way out on a limb here, but this is in reference to the woo thread.......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

[QUOTEI sometimes wonder if people are not forgetting that there is no such thing as solids. There is always more space between particles than there is mass, regardless how dense a pattern may become.[/QUOTE]

Disagree here

There is such thing as a solid .

The reason that there is space between particles , is that all particles have a minimum amount of space needed to exist .

 

You're absolutely right.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-rainbow-appears-as-a-parabola

Look up inscribed angle in a circle for further explanation.

Inscribed angle - Wikipedia

 

Disagree here

There is such thing as a solid .

The reason that there is space between particles , is that all particles have a minimum amount of space needed to exist .

 

And what happens in a BH?

So, can we say that a "singularity" is pure mass without any empty space ?

 

You could , mathematically , but in reality it can never happen , physically .

 

note; #371 attributes the top quote to me but should read "wegs said".

What cannot happen in reality? A "black hole", or a "singularity" with infinite density?

 

Neither

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No doubt .

Both a singularity and the black hole are mathematical concepts . Theories .

Not based on the Universe being fundamentally physical.

 

Gravity is the basis of both this singularity and black holes , theory .

Which I disagree with .

 

Why so ?

Because gravity is understood as a frequency of energy .

And that frequency of energy is moving outward from the source , not inward , towards the center of the source .

 

The "inherent ordering" is not visibly or plausibly mathematical in nature - it involves no visible abstraction whatsoever. Furthermore, there is no reason to presume the ordering that emerges is even "inherent".

All of those nouns - force, function, number, and value - label human mathematical abstractions used to perceive or describe patterns generated empirically.

 

Does it need to be visible to exist as a natural phenomenon?

Actually we do, and have it described by the term and many definitions of Potential, or That which may become reality. A probabilistic expression. So, of all the known visible portions of reality which humans can observe, the one which answers to all possible scenarios has to have one single common denominator with all other scenarios. And that common denominator has to be a uniformity of potential values and functions of physical objects and their interactions.

We know there are physical actions which are mathematically impossible to occur in nature. We also know that there are physical actions that compel a reaction in nature accordance to their relative values.

This common denominator is found in the concept of Potential as "that excellence which may become reality".
And Potential is a measurable ability both in reality as well as a latent enfolded excellence.
I am approaching this from a different perspective.
Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT)

This perspective assumes a mathematical aspect to the creation of spacetime itself.
Moreover it models a fractal potential (enfolded) aspect (pattern) to spacetime and how it subsequently unfolds into the familiar patterns we are compeletely surrounded by and which we can describe with our observations and symbolic mathematical descriptions.

Is there anything else apart from mathematics that would potentially offer a TOE and is not inherently mathematical in descriptive symbolisms.

Mainstream refers to spacetime geometry and that tends to support the mathematical aspect of fractality. i.e. CDT? Now we are talking mathematics.

The term "geometry" suggest a mathematical aspect to the universe. Spacetime coordinates are abstract mathematical objects. We are witnessing the enfolded potentials become unfolded and recognized by their mathematical values functions. We recognize the mathematical nature of how and why things happen. We can even predict. That means we understand the subject from the inside out.

I submit the term "potential" as a fundamental mathematical aspect inherent or intrinsic to the spacetime geometry. I refer to David Bohm (Bohmian Mechanics)

Then IMO, Tegmark adds a advanced model to the concept of a mathematical universe, as an extension of a partly mathematical universe, and a logical argument against a non-mathematical universe.

Numbers are human symbols. Values are inherent potentials.
Not everything has a number. But everything has a value and potential.
And their interactions are understood and symbolized (to some relatively advanced level).

Physical values and potentials interact or cannot interact. The function of natural selection is the mathematical ability to form equations or physical patterns from probabilistically spontaneous events.

The ability for enfolded potentials to become unfolded as spontaneously constructed patterns of physical reality from the very subtle to gross physical expression.

 

It has to be detectable

Once detected we can perform arbitrary human attributes to describe

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!