# What is it about woo that upsets you?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wegs, Apr 23, 2019.

1. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,369
But if we accept the notion that nothing can ever be known with certainty, can we even talk abut determinism?
If we are never sure we get mysticism and I don't believe in mysticism. I do accept the notion of "probabilities" of natural occurrences. But only when there is a probability of 100% can it be called deterministically true, no? How do we know a probability is ever 100%?
If this is always subject to correction can we even talk about determinism?

3. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,369
IMO, the Human perspective is the backwards part. From a Universal perspective our maps are meaningless. The Territory is a natural mathematical construct and functions in a mathematical manner, some of which are known to be constant without exception.
IMO, Mathematics are not an approximate map. It is a consistent logical natural function based on prevailing values. Mathematical Determinism

Last edited: Apr 29, 2019

5. ### YazataValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,287
I'm not a determinist, but I don't see why not. We would just have to recognize that the truth of a metaphysical assumption of determinism isn't 100% certain. The assumption of determinism might be wrong. (Which is what I happen to believe.)

Determinism seems to me to be a one-to-one mapping between prior physical states and subsequent physical states. Prior state A is mapped onto a specific subsequent state B such that 'If A, then B'.

Sure, we can insist that this theory of determinism makes B precisely dependent on A.

We probably don't, since it's a metaphysical hypothesis.

I'm not concerned about defending determinism, since I'm not a determinist.

But it could probably be easily defended by making a distinction between the precision of the hypothetical mapping, and the likelihood that the universe really works that way, such that our belief in the hypothetical mapping is true.

My point is that even if determinism posits a logically necessary connection between prior event A and subsequent event B (it doesn't, but supposing it did), we still couldn't be absolutely certain that we know about this hypothetical necessary connection in such a way that our beliefs about it are immune from the possibility of error (or future improvement).

Last edited: Apr 29, 2019

7. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
16,722
Again, math is our map. We made it up. It doesn't exist in nature. It's just a tool we use to describe nature.
Nope. It's a tool that can be very precise when used to figure stuff out. It is not "natural."

sweetpea likes this.
8. ### Gawdzilla SamaValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,864
I think Nathan Brazil demanded too much of Julie Wu.

9. ### wegsWith brave wings, she flies . . .Valued Senior Member

Messages:
6,036
Oops, I see in post #85, you share your stance.

Okay.

He's ''popular'' because his ''teachings'' involve a mix of spirituality with his own ideas of science. His goal is to make everyone feel that their subjective experiences are paramount to objective reality. I'm not sure why scientists get so worked up over him; dismiss him as a New Age ''guru,'' and be done with it. I've heard him speak about consciousness and how it somehow had an impact on evolution. lol

The only troubling part for me with people who ''believe'' woo, or follow the likes of Chopra, is that it shows a trend towards choosing to feel good (''you do you''), over wanting to become educated. He's not as much the problem, as are the people who follow his ''teachings.'' Without them, he wouldn't be in the snake oil business.

Last edited: Apr 29, 2019
10. ### wegsWith brave wings, she flies . . .Valued Senior Member

Messages:
6,036
Sorry to interrupt, but do you mean cause and effect, here?

11. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,369
This is where I disagree. IMO, the universe functions in a mathematical manner. The territory is a mathematical pattern. When the values of the patterns are known, the interactions between the values can be accurately predicted. This has nothing to with our mathematical representations, it has to do with the mathematical properties of observable naturally occurring patterns.

Human have only symbolized and codified these universal mathematical values and functions which existed long before we invented symbolic representations of the mathematics involved.
IMO, it is. Human mathematics are the symbolized representations, not approximations, of natural mathematics. i.e. physical values and interactive functions based on those values (potentials).

In nature, mathematics are not tools, but logical functional processes which emerge during the deterministic change. The Fibonacci Sequence can be found throughout nature from flowers to spiral galaxies. It is a naturally emergent growth function which promotes balance and efficiency in growth patterns. It is a emergent mathematical function resulting from evolved efficient functional growth patterns distributed over a wide range of universal growth patterns.

Humans have recognized this universal mathematical function and used it in art and architecture. Nature was the teacher, not the student.

I believe that the universe is a collection of objects with specific physical values and mathematical functions based on these physical values of objects and their relationships.
Things in nature do not need know mathematics, they only need to function mathematical.

If true, that will simplify the entire concept of universal properties and functional expressions and hold the promise of discovering a mathematical TOE.

There are no mysteries, there are only as yet mathematical unknowns.....difference.
Mysteries cannot be solved, mathematical unknowns can be measured and represented.

Last edited: Apr 29, 2019
12. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,369
Specific cause and specific effect. That constitutes a deterministic mathematical equation.

Our mathematics are a representative, not approximate, symbolic language, IMO.

Roger Antonsen explains this symbolic representation and how it enables us to represent precise patterns.

Bees use mathematics to build their honeycombs. Efficiency!
https://www.sciencefriday.com/educational-resources/why-do-bees-build-hexagonal-honeycomb-cells/

Bees don't use mathematics as a tool, they just use mathematics to build as they naturally have evolved to build their combs.

Last edited: Apr 29, 2019
13. ### wegsWith brave wings, she flies . . .Valued Senior Member

Messages:
6,036

I understand your point. But, since math largely depends on human observation, it is subject to fallibility. Yes/no?

14. ### SeattleValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,377
I also think they are capable of coexisting. Science is based on data and religion is a philosophy at it's heart as long as you don't get your empirical data from your philosophy they can coexist.

That's misusing the term "faith" IMO. With factual evidence, "faith" isn't required. Science isn't about "proof" so it's always just the best explanation, one which generally gets better and better over time.

If you act as if the best explanation is the explanation until shown othewise, that's not "faith" IMO. Faith is believing something without evidence or even where evidence shows a difference conclusion.

15. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,369
Yes, his' is the common interpretation of human mathematics. My perspective is that mathematics are naturally occurring patterns, which we have codified with mathematical symbols. Take human maths away and the universe does not stop functioning in a mathematical manner.
No, this is what astounded Eugene Wigner to write;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences

It is so effective because it accurately symbolizes the natural inherent universal mathematical values and functions. It's not complicated. Tegmark estimates about 32 numerical values and a handful of equations are sufficient to eplain every observed universal mathematical function. There are still a few missing equations, but according to Tegmark, these will be mathematical in essence.

Last edited: Apr 29, 2019
16. ### SeattleValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,377
Mathematical models are always approximate and therefore always "wrong".

17. ### wegsWith brave wings, she flies . . .Valued Senior Member

Messages:
6,036
Yep, agree.

Is it? We use the term in everyday conversations though, don't we? A friend told me recently that she had ''faith'' in me that I was going to ace a presentation at work. I asked her why, and she rattled off a bunch of ''facts'' (about me and my preparation) that barring something unforeseen happening, all evidence pointed to me being able to ace my presentation. It could be a word we use in a flip way, but we apply it to all kinds of situations.

If someone tells you that they have ''faith'' in you, what does that mean to you? They obviously don't think of you as the Messiah, so what might he/she mean?

I don't disagree, but faith is a term that some people apply only to religion/spirituality. It can also mean to have a complete trust in someone/something. That's probably how scientists use it, thus the difference between a religious concept of it, and a scientific one, albeit they both seem to hinge on complete trust (of something)

For example, do you completely trust the evidence that supports the theory of evolution?

18. ### GoldtopRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
316
That would infer no philosophy could ever be shown to be valid in any way if you ignore evidence. Anyone could then make up a philosophy and claim it's valid no matter what evidence you put forth. The very core of the philosophy could easily be made irrelevant from evidence; creationism vs. evolution , for example.

19. ### wegsWith brave wings, she flies . . .Valued Senior Member

Messages:
6,036
So, true or false? Math is an exact science.

20. ### wegsWith brave wings, she flies . . .Valued Senior Member

Messages:
6,036
It would depend on one's religious/spiritual views. Manyyyy people believe in a god of some type, but not necessarily in ''creationism.''

21. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,369
I disagree. They are not always wrong, they are symbolic representations, not approximations...difference.

The universe uses generic natural mathematical values and functions. The values are associated with the atomic structures, the mathematical functions emerge during the interactions of the mathematical values.

The table of elements can be accurately represented with symbolic mathematical values of the atomic constituent particles. Natural chemistry are mathematical chemical interactions, which can be exquisitely represented by human symbolic mathematics and experimentally confirmed, down to nano-scale.

Last edited: Apr 29, 2019
22. ### GoldtopRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
316
So, isn't that kind of like saying a person believes in Unicorns and Leprechauns, but does not believe Leprechauns race Unicorns in the Kentucky Derby? In other words, neither the philosophy of a god or the philosophy of a god creating a universe have been shown to be valid in any way.

23. ### wegsWith brave wings, she flies . . .Valued Senior Member

Messages:
6,036
We're not talking about whether the philosophy of a god is valid. I'm stating that one can be religious/spiritual, and still respect science, without compromising either.

exchemist likes this.