The universe is a mathematical construct

[river]

↑

From my post#173
If I take away the Physical of Things , there is Nowhere where Mathematics Could Exist .
Even a Universe devoid of life , is based on physical things .

In this universe any dynamical system, living or not, contains a mathematical essence to the dynamical activity.

Even a state of Chaos contains a mathematical potential.

Yes .

 

[river]

From post#168

↑

Because Life has always existed within it .

No it hasn't.
Quantum fields are not alive. They have the mathematical/physical potential for Abiogenesis and Life.

Highlighted

My point made . Abiogenesis , Life .

 

[Write4U]

From post#168

↑
Highlighted

My point made . Abiogenesis , Life .

No. The universe is not a living object.

It is a mathematically guided (deterministic) dynamical pattern of varying densities, not a teleologically guided (goal oriented) function. You are still reaching for the metaphysical motivated designer.

I like the concept of CDT, (causal dynamical triangulation).

CDT

Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.

This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

There is evidence [1] that at large scales CDT approximates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime, but shows spacetime to be 2-dimensional near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work...... more

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

 

[Write4U]

From post#168
↑
Highlighted
My point made . Abiogenesis , Life .

Noooo ...... Potential for life is not life.

• potential [ puh-ten-shuhl ]

adjective
1. possible, as opposed to actual: the potential uses of nuclear energy.
2. capable of being or becoming: a potential danger to safety.

noun
1. possibility; potentiality: an investment that has little growth potential.
2. a latent excellence or ability that may or may not be developed.

Mathematics, Physics.
a type of function from which the intensity of a field may be derived, usually by differentiation.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/potential

 

[river]

↑

My point made . Abiogenesis , Life .

No. The universe is not a living object.

Our Universe has Life .

Galaxies , Quasars , is the Periodic Table . It has no life , no intellect , just energy and matter and mass . And their interactions with each other , in All Forms . However A Universe can exist without Life . But it will still be of a Physical Nature , a Periodic Table of its own .

 

[river]

↑




Our Universe has Life .

Galaxies , Quasars , is the Periodic Table . It has no life , no intellect , just energy and matter and mass . And their interactions with each other , in All Forms . However A Universe can exist without Life . But it will still be of a Physical Nature , a Periodic Table of its own .

Highlighted

An idea not from me but from Isaac Asimov .

 

[Write4U]

Another obvious option.... is the first Intelligence being composed of fundamental energy... which is not exactly a life form that we are familiar with?

Actually we are familiar with fundamental energy, but it isn't a life form and it is not intelligent in the biological sense.
If we visualize the universe as a geometric organization which stared as a condition of utter Chaos, then we can posit that all dimensions and patterns which emerged from chaos are mathematical in nature, i.e. not living or biological in and of itself, but with the potential to evolve probabilistically into biological and sentiently intelligent patterns like humans.

IMO, by virtue of logic, consistent relational values are being processed by mathematical functions and may be defined as quasi- or proto--intelligent actions which through natural selection evolve into sentient intelligence at many different levels.

The more I learn the more I discover that everything seems to communicate in some way.

As mentioned before, inanimate object transmit data : "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". IMO that is a fundamental exchange of data and form of communication.

Bacteria (very old organisms) already communicate chemically, as do many insects and animals via scent. Scenting territory is a form of communication.
Single celled organisms and many plants communicate by touch (cilia)
Many marine animals communicate via sonar. It is believed that whales pass on environmental conditions of their present locations and food sources.
And human have Shakespeare.

Really, everything that is affected by and responds to environmental pressures has a form of self-awareness and relationship with its environment. This relationship needs not be conscious as long as it produces a result. The concept of determinism is founded on this principle.

Evolution over enormous spaces and time spans seems to produce mathematically ordered results (natural selection).
Everything communicates by mathematical/physical means.

 

[Dennis Tate]

It depends on your understanding of abstract mathematics.
Everything in the universe is a "pattern". Patterns are by definition mathematical in essence. Therefore, everything in the Universe has a mathematical aspect to it.

As Tegmark observes: "Most scientists recognize some mathematical properties to the universe. I recognize only mathematical properties.

This concept was originally developed by Eugene Wigner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences

In a world where evolution is the self-organization and increasing complexity of patterns among relational values , what is the objection to the concept of mathematics as being an essential aspect to the universal fabric?

The common misconception is that therefore mathematics must be causal, but that is a false dichotomy.

Mathematics are not causal but are "guiding equations" by which reality is or is not allowed to express itself.

Am I at all hijacking your discussion by leaving you with this quotation that I personally think is very relevant to this idea of the emergence of the universe seeming to be explained by complex mathematical ideas, theories and principles?


https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ew-theory-of-everything-is-the-same-old-crap/

M-theory suffers from the same flaws that string theories did. First is the problem of empirical accessibility. Membranes, like strings, are supposedly very, very tiny—as small compared with a proton as a proton is compared with the solar system. This is the so-called Planck scale, 10^–33 centimeters. Gaining the kind of experimental confirmation of membranes or strings that we have for, say, quarks would require a particle accelerator 1,000 light-years around, scaling up from our current technology. Our entire solar system is only one light-day around, and the Large Hadron Collider, the world's most powerful accelerator, is 27 kilometers in circumference.

Hawking recognized long ago that a final theory—because it would probably involve particles at the Planck scale—might never be experimentally confirmable. "It is not likely that we shall have accelerators powerful enough" to test a unified theory "within the foreseeable future—or indeed, ever," he said in his 1980 speech at Cambridge. He nonetheless hoped that in lieu of empirical evidence physicists would discover a theory so logically inevitable that it excluded all alternatives.

Quite the opposite has happened. M-theory, theorists now realize, comes in an almost infinite number of versions, which "predict" an almost infinite number of possible universes. Critics call this the "Alice's restaurant problem," a reference to the refrain of the old Arlo Guthrie folk song: "You can get anything you want at Alice's restaurant." Of course, a theory that predicts everything really doesn't predict anything, and hence isn't a theory at all. Proponents, including Hawking, have tried to turn this bug into a feature, proclaiming that all the universes "predicted" by M-theory actually exist. "Our universe seems to be one of many," Hawking and Mlodinow assert

 

[Write4U]

Am I at all hijacking your discussion by leaving you with this quotation that I personally think is very relevant to this idea of the emergence of the universe seeming to be explained by complex mathematical ideas, theories and principles?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ew-theory-of-everything-is-the-same-old-crap/

Have at it. Different perspectives always add to knowledge of a subject. (Roger Antonsen)

 

[Write4U]

Stop with the quasi-intelligence

Urban dictionary

TOP DEFINITION

quasi-intellectual

A person who merely appears to be smart.

Randy always wants to talk about Plato. It seems like he doesn't know much about anything else (or Plato for that matter).

He's such a quasi-intellectual.

by tree pipit September 08, 2010

At least Randy has some intelligence to try and upgrade

The Universe has NO intelligence including no quasi .........

Only the term quasi- is the same in both expressions.
Intelligence and Intellectual do not mean the same thing and cannot be used for an intelligent intellectual argument.

Ever heard of a quasi-intellectual AI? No?
Ever heard of a quasi-intelligent AI?

Quasi-intelligent software is being created which combines expert systems, neural networks and case-based reasoning with other types of software such as genetic algorithms( a powerful search tool for the best alternative), virtual reality, and multimedia.

http://www.laits.utexas.edu/~anorman/info.notes/cona/subsubsection3_3_2_2.html

Maybe you may want to start using the term quasi-intelligence when speaking about AI...

 

[Write4U]

Highlighted

An idea not from me but from Isaac Asimov .

Yep, life is not necessary for a universe to possess mathematical properties and laws. Many planets in this universe are devoid of life. Still they faithfully follow their orbits around within the gravitational field of their sun. Universal mathematics exist regardless of the presence of Life.

Question then becomes if God exists in an otherwise lifeless universe?

 

[Write4U]

And if not recorded ?

The universe does not need recording of duration or frequency or the dynamical mathematics that cause change, humans do!

The universe does not use some mathematics, it is completely mathematical, based on relational values, processed via mathematical functions.

 

[river]

The universe does not use some mathematics, it is completely mathematical, based on relational values, processed via mathematical functions.

Not the Physical ? .......it is the physical that guides the mathematics .

 

[Write4U]

Not the Physical ? .......it is the physical that guides the mathematics .

That guides Human mathematics. Universal dynamical interactions are guided by values (numbers) and mathematical processes (functions).

 

[river]

river said: ↑
Not the Physical ? .......it is the physical that guides the mathematics .

That guides Human mathematics. Universal dynamical interactions are guided by values (numbers) and mathematical processes (functions).

Highlighted

No they are not .

Dynamic interactions are because of the properties , environment of the objects envolved in any dynamical movement of objects .

 

[Write4U]

Highlighted
No they are not .

Yes they are.

Dynamic interactions are because of the properties , environment of the objects envolved in any dynamical movement of objects .

What are the properties of physical stuff? Just stuff, or does the stuff have measurable values (numbers) and predictable (mathematical) behaviors when they interact?

Just remember one a priori law of physics. Self-forming patterns emerge from chaos. Patterns are by definition mathematical in essence.

The Markov process
Summary

A Markov process is a random process in which the future is independent of the past, given the present. Thus, Markov processes are the natural stochastic analogs of the deterministic processes described by differential and difference equations. They form one of the most important classes of random processes.

https://www.randomservices.org/random/markov/index.html#

Spatial and semantic regularities produce interactive effects in early stages of visual orientation
Abstract

Learning environmental regularities allows predicting multiple dimensions of future events such as their location and semantic features. However, few studies have examined how multi-dimensional predictions are implemented, and mechanistic accounts are absent.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/639385v1.full

Except for mathematics.

Identifying Patterns
Relevant For...

• Basic Mathematics>
  Basic Mathematics Warmups

Arron Kau contributed

A mathematical pattern is an object or group of objects that possesses regularity or repetition (which could be visual, arithmetic, etc.). For example, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, …1,2,4,8,16,32,… is a pattern made of numbers (called a sequence), and this pattern is characterized by doubling (i.e., each term is twice as large as the term before).

Part of the group of naturally occurring "exponential functions"

Finding and describing patterns is at the heart of mathematics. While sometimes patterns can lead us astray (for example, the Greeks believed false things about perfect numbers because of patterns that didn't continue), the ability to recognize and extend patterns is extremely important. .

https://brilliant.org/wiki/identifying-patterns/#

If we can describe regular patterns of relational values being processed with algebraic functions, it means they exist in the abstract as potentials and occur as physically expressed phenomena in our reality as an essential property of universal spacetime geometry.

 

[river]

Dynamic interactions are because of the properties , environment of the objects envolved in any dynamical movement of objects .

Write4U ; response

What are the properties of physical stuff? Just stuff, or does the stuff have measurable values (numbers) and predictable (mathematical) behaviors when they interact?

Just remember one a priori law of physics. Self-forming patterns emerge from chaos. Patterns are by definition mathematical in essence.

Highlighted

Physical core . The properties of atoms , the periodic table . Is more than just stuff .

 

[Write4U]

Write4U ; response
Highlighted

Physical core .

In itself a meaningless term.

The properties of atoms , the periodic table.

Atoms have mathematical patterns with specific relational values and atomic weights (mass) and consist of three fundamental quanta having positive, negative or neutral charges.

Is more than just stuff .

It's the mathematical properties that gives stuff it's physical values and dynamic interactive abilities.

Lets stop running around circles, shall we. Physics is meaningless without mathematics as much as space is meaningless without time or time without space.

Physics is the basic physical science.

Physics can, at base, be defined as the science of matter, motion, and energy. Its laws are typically expressed with economy and precision in the language of mathematics.

The ultimate aim of physics is to find a unified set of laws governing matter, motion, and energy at small (microscopic) subatomic distances, at the human (macroscopic) scale of everyday life, and out to the largest distances (e.g., those on the extragalactic scale).

This ambitious goal has been realized to a notable extent. Although a completely unified theory of physical phenomena has not yet been achieved (and possibly never will be), a remarkably small set of fundamental physical laws appears able to account for all known phenomena. The body of physics developed up to about the turn of the 20th century, known as classical physics, can largely account for the motions of macroscopic objects that move slowly with respect to the

speed of light and for such phenomena as heat, sound, electricity, magnetism, and light.

The modern developments of

relativity and quantum mechanics modify these laws insofar as they apply to higher speeds, very massive objects, and to the tiny elementary constituents of matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrons.

https://www.britannica.com/science/physics-science

Check out the Glossary of Physics and see if it deals with patterns of relational values and mathematically functional processes.
Those are the observed recorded properties of spacetime and events within it.

This glossary of physics is a list of definitions of terms and concepts relevant to physics, its sub-disciplines, and related fields, including mechanics, materials science, nuclear physics, particle physics, and thermodynamics. For more inclusive glossaries concerning related fields of science and technology, see Glossary of chemistry terms, Glossary of astronomy, Glossary of areas of mathematics, and Glossary of engineering.

Contents: A, B, C, D, E,,F, G, H, I, J, , K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X,,Y, Z

one example: mathematics
The abstract study of topics encompassing quantity, structure, space, change, and other properties.

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

 

[river]

In itself a meaningless term. Atoms have mathematical patterns with specific relational values and atomic weights (mass) and consist of three fundamental quanta having positive, negative or neutral charges. It's the mathematical properties that gives stuff it's physical values and dynamic interactive abilities.

Lets stop running around circles, shall we. Physics is meaningless without mathematics as much as space is meaningless without time or time without space.

Physics is the basic physical science. https://www.britannica.com/science/physics-science

Check out the Glossary of Physics and see if it deals with patterns of relational values and mathematically functional processes.
Those are the observed recorded properties of spacetime and events within it.

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

All based on the physical .

 

[Write4U]

All based on the physical .

Ok, if that's where you want to stay, is ok by me. But you are not an atheist, are you?