What is it about woo that upsets you?

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

  1. Goldtop Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    316
    I think ones honesty to themselves is compromised if they dedicate their lives to something that's never been shown to exist.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Ahh, therein lies the rub. Natural mathematics are always exact, human symbolic representations of these mathematics are subject to error. Hence the expression, "human maths are the map, not the territory".

    I submit that when the human maths are done correctly they are an accurate representation of the territory, natural mathematical values and functions and can even be used to make deterministic predictions, such as in the "applied sciences", everywhere......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    If we accept the concept of a universe with mathematical properties, all gods and miracles disappear and are replaced by natural values and the mathematical functions which determine the physical results.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    No I wouldn't say so. The vast majority of educated Christians are not creationists and have no difficulty with any aspect of science. But it is trivially and obviously true that a belief in God is an aesthetic and subjective thing and not something that can be tested by objective observation, unlike the tests of the theories of science.

    Religions are, in the end, guides for living one's life, based on a fairly complex and untidy mixture of personal inspiration, meditative practice, ritual, tradition, aesthetics and sense of community. I think describing them as philosophy is not really fair to them - or to philosophy, which is far more intellectually rigorous.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    That's exactly right. It functions in a mathematical manner; in a way that is easy to describe with math. Math is the tool that describes how the universe functions. It is not HOW the universe functions.
    Nope. The territory is electromagnetism; the map is Maxwell's Equations. The territory is the orbital system that is the solar system; the map is the universal gravitation formula. The territory is the sunflower; the map is the Fibonacci sequence. The territory is the actual - the map is the tool used to describe the actual.
    Yes. Math is a great tool to predict those patterns. But if you get the math wrong, or it doesn't exist yet, the universe doesn't care; it will not change how it works one bit based on any math.
    No. The universe does not need math of any type to work just fine.
    Yes. And before Fibonacci flowers grew exactly the same way. If we used a completely different mathematical system that described that growth pattern in an entirely different way, it would be just as valid - and would not affect how flowers grow one bit.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    I do not regard mathematics as a science. It is abstract, whereas the sciences are concerned with understanding the physical world. I think mathematics is sui generis.
     
    Yazata likes this.
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Some woo(t) that won't make anyone angry:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Gawdzilla Sama and wegs like this.
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Exactly. You can do quantum mechanics either by wave mechanics or by matrix mechanics. The universe does whatever it does and we can model it in various mathematical ways.
     
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    What is annoying is that he hijacks science. Anyone who cares about something enough to spend years studying it is not gong to take kindly to seeing it abused by a charlatan. I get just as annoyed when some idiot tries to fit a beat to Gregorian chant.
     
    wegs likes this.
  13. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Don't quite get the appeal of Chopra, personally.

    Like this?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!







    Damn, that sounds bad.
     
  14. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    As I said, it's a (common) misuse of the word. I don't have a problem with that alternative meaning but I'm just saying it doesn't make sense to compare the two different uses of the word as meaning the same thing.

    You alluded to it in your last question. If someone says they have faith in me, they don't mean that I'm the Messiah. It is being used to mean "I'm supportive of you, I have confidence that you will do the right thing, etc.".

    A word that is not being used in the same sense as another word isn't, by definition, comparable.

    If you tell me a joke and I say "You're killing me" is that the same as the killing that a serial murderer is doing? Does it make any sense to say humor and murder are related in some way since I'm using the same word?

    Regarding evolution, I don't need to "trust" evidence. That's the point. Facts are facts. As long as all the evidence (which has been mounting only one way for 100 years) points to evolution that will be my view as well. It's not going to just be overturned. If it's fine tuned with even better technology that would be my view as well until shown otherwise.

    Of course, I use "believe" in that alternative meaning just like anyone else. I believe evolution to be an accurate description of how things work. Do I mean, I take in on faith that evolution is correct? No, of course not.

    If I say I have faith in God am I saying all the evidence points to there being a God? No, of course not.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2019
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Wait, you just stipulated that the universe functions in a mathematical manner, that can be easily symbolized with human maths. i.e. Human math is the symbolic representation of how the universe functions . The universe does not use symbolic representations, it uses actual mathematical physical patterns. We can observe these patterns and codify the mathematics which form that specific pattern.

    It is all mathematical. Humans have symbolized the mathematics and when we apply the mathematics correctly it will produce the exact same pattern as occurs naturally, given the same values and functions.

    The only time we use "close enough" approximation is for practical time saving purposes in the applied mathematics. This approximate approach was used to land the Rover . Turned out that taking some shortcuts from cumbersome mathematical problems and tuning for close enough, was indeed "close enough" for a succesful landing.
    The territory is the actual, the territorial potentials are the mathematical features of the territory. The dynamic fields in the territory are probabilistically mathematical, the physical expressions are the natural mathematical potentials become manifest as predictictable recurring patterns.
    I agree, but from the universe's perspective, it will not change the mathematical way it works based on anything humans do.
    But it cannot change its own inherent mathematical potentials, its natural physical values and related mathematical functions......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ......... It's deterministic.
    That is contrary to your opening paragraph and I disagree. The Universe is a mathematical construct, a geometric pattern with inherent mathematical potentials, which become expressed as physical patterns in a mathematical chronology of expression.
    Again I agree with the way you posited it, but I am approaching this from a universal perspective. The pattern which was identified and codified by Fibonacci was there long before humans knew anything about mathematics. This is naturally occurring beauty of natural phenomena.

    A Rainbow is a beautiful mathematical pattern, occurring only when specific environmental conditions are present and their combined potentials are expressed as can be simulated in a prism, the spontaneous emergence of color refraction into the awesome bands of visible light. Sometimes there are double rainbows, spectacular. The mathematical implication present in that phenomenon are vast and in many directions. Mathematics are an essential ingredient in all physical spacetime phenomena.

    Spacetime itself is essentially mathematical in every aspect. It's the common denominator of everything and connects spacetime by a single imperical function, a self-referential, self-organizing pattern making function.

    Flowers don't know from Fibonacci, but they grow in accordance to what Fibonacci recognized and symbolized as a specific chronological growth sequence. Fibonacci recognized the growth pattern that flowers and a host of other natural phenomena use naturally as an evolved efficient growth pattern.

    The Fibonacci sequence is an evolved self organizing pattern for maximum natural efficiency. It is an inspirational symbol of creative energy in emergent mathematical functions and their universal application. It's a simple equation!

    And is based on what we have symbolized as Phi
    3D + T = 4D = quadratic equation
    https://www.goldennumber.net/what-is-phi/

    A natural candidate for an essential common denominator, a property of spacetime itself, a mathematically dynamic 4D geometrical patterned object. And one which we can learn to understand!! We know how to codify and symbolize it, and often use its patterns for our purposes. Free Will in a Deterministic Universe?...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2019
  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Then the educated faction is a small minority of Christians.
    There is also, and to my interest more useful, the option of viewing math as a virtual sensory organ - to bring into human thought "models" or "images" of aspects of the universe we have no sensory organs to perceive. So we can think about the unseen, the unfelt, the too big or too small or too fast or too slow.
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    The human ablity of viewing, recognizing, codifying and imagining possible future natural mathematical phenomena, to an exact level of precision, from the very subtle to gross expression in our reality.
     
  18. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    that is much like the kardashins in drag
    KarDragQueeEens ?

    desperate hoe wifes ?

    Games of thrown-ups ?

    contemporary critique in an analog mathematical sub narrative as a form of cultural critique

    taking something that has a sense of solid moral liking as a form of potential cultural identification, then attaching something confronting to make a point about something that is not defined leaving enough room to sense a detraction from the aspect rather than a statement of cultural critique.
    it feeds a sense of radicalism toward anarchistic moral doctrine.
    in a highly regulated liberal society it is ok, but in a divided society it becomes fuel for the fires of extremism.
     
  19. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Is this a language lesson? lol

    I find your replies to always be in the form of a lecture, of some type. I get it. You need to be right. You’re right, Seattle! Youuuu’re right!

    There you go.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Don’t kill the messenger, Rainbow

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2019
  20. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,447
    lol
    your interpretation is not necessarily my need.
    what you interpret as my inherent need is your sense of interpretation as a form of needs based observational perception.
    i am aware of that.
    unlike many others, i dont pander to others perceptions.
    a "need to be right" would not care for narcissistic selflessness

    i quite like my new TV reality series name i made up
    KarDragQueeEens

    the internal conflict of gender identity inside self acclaimed ego centered stereo typed escapism i find to be quite humerus.

    or
    "game-of-grown-ass-ups"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
  22. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    I think there's room for creativity in math, but to me, it's the most ''rational'' (for lack of a better word at the moment) of the sciences. Math isn't perfect, and it's not without contradictions, but it seems to be the most objective.
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Exactly. We use symbolic representations because they are easier to understand, even if they are nothing like the actual phenomena.
    No. It does its own thing. We can REPRESENT that with mathematics.

    A ruler measures length. We use units of length to measure distance. Great! Makes space easier to understand. And we figured that was a constant; once you measured something once it remained that length. Mathematical perfection! Why, space MUST be governed by such simple dimensional math!

    Then we found out that length wasn't always the same in different inertial frames. The universe did its own thing, even though it meant the math was now wrong. That's because the phenomenon of length is not math; it is simply represented by math. And as we know, it is represented imperfectly.

    Not quite. It comes close enough to be useful. It does not produce the patterh, it merely gives a result that lets you visualize the pattern.

    Take HFSS. It's a widely used EM field simulator that is quite useful in modeling EM fields. It does not predict the fields perfectly. It does not even "produce the exact same pattern" or any pattern close to it - it merely gives you colorful plots that help you design antennas. HFSS (and the math it does) gives you the map - you then have to build the territory (the antenna.) And sometimes the map is wrong even when the math is right.

    All good math is "close enough."
    Nope. The territory is the actual potentials. The math is a representation of them. This is trivial to prove (see HFSS example above.)
    Again, no. That rainbow does not need one bit of math to produce its color. It is merely how you choose to understand it. A hypothetical species that understands rainbows using music can do just as good a job (perhaps better) than you can do using math. And again, that does not mean that rainbows are made of music; it is just that they use music as a tool to understand them.
     
    exchemist likes this.

Share This Page