What qualifies as science?

Slime molds act "empirically" (as we name that level of pattern and interaction). That's why nothing they do perfectly matches the results of "executing" a deterministic mathematical function - all such functions are human creations based on higher level abstraction, and abstraction simplifies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Except they aren't actually fractals. Please look up the term "fractal" again.

That statement in incoherent, because "necessity and sufficiency" is syntactically not an axiom. You are making no sense. Please look up what an axiom is!

Post #599: You say that your axiom becomes expressed in the physical world.
Post #610: I point out that this presupposes that abstract things can have a physical presence (or influence).
Post #611: You respond with the speculation that "the absence of a thing creates a demand to be filled".
Post #623: I point out that the need to fill up a space doesn't somehow allow abstract things to become physical.
In other word, when I said that you presupposed abstract thing can have a physical presence, you did not only not deny that, you in fact gave a speculation of why you thought it might be true.

Unless you are admitting that your response in post #611 was a complete non-sequitur, in which case I would like a proper response to the point I raised in post #610.

So you are giving abstract things (mathematical imperatives) a physical presence? In other words, you say that maths influence reality.

Perhaps you didn't understand my objection. Your statement is incoherent. As it is written, it is nonsense. You are equating "movement on in the direction of greatest satisfaction" with "necessity and sufficiency". The latter is a logical operator (not the proper term, I know), a logical relation. It's similar to "if and only if". That cannot be a movement, or some natural state. It's like saying that: the movement may be related to "therefore". It means nothing.

So you admit that an axiom is not an action, and that you know it. However, you still equate the two. Please explain to me how a physical action is similar to a logical axiom.

I agree with the latter, but the former is obviously false using the standard definition of awareness.

This is begging the question. You have not proven it has no mental process or that is has awareness (using the standard definition of the term). You simply assume it does, and then prove it using that assumption.

So? Where is the natural law that things must behave as we humans intuitively expect them to behave? Why would this even be relevant? Why are you even bringing this up?

How is this relevant? Why would objects behaving according to their properties be related to a mental process?

Again, why is this relevant? The breaking down of our human intuition doesn't signal intelligence or a mental process, or even mathematics being real.

I didn't claim that. Remember, don't start killing people in the streets!

Slime molds are not inanimate objects, so your extrapolation to inanimate objects is without basis.

(Note that the "right" was meant to only agree with part of your statement, not the full statement.)

Erm, please read your own post #611. We were discussing whether quantum states have intelligence. You responded to that with that whole slime mold bit. Are you now saying that isn't at all relevant to the discussion we were having? Are you admitting you tried to derail the conversation?

Better, but still not 100% there IMO, because the chorine atom was there already. "Produce" is probable closer.

OK, good. I do want to ask you to refrain from using the more poetic usages of word, because you are already using so many word in non-standard ways, it gets confusing quick. (This being an excellent example.)

How is this relevant? We were talking about intelligence, and you bring up evolution. That signals you are talking about intelligent design. Unless you now admit you were (perhaps inadvertently) trying to derail the conversation?

Intelligence requires a mental process. Are you arguing intelligent design then? Or perhaps a universally present consciousness field?

Ah, so according to your own given definition you were wrong to equate it to a mathematical function.

OK

This is called "emergence". Please re-loop up the term.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Let's see...

"Therefore, mathematical objects, albeit imaginary, do have real properties." This is obviously abusing the word "real". The proper term here is something like "set". From the axioms it follows necessarily that mathematical objects have certain properties. This does not mean at all they are "real" (as in reality).

"Second, the explanation of the unreasonable power of mathematics cannot be based entirely on evolution in the restricted sense." I think this is an argument from incredulity...

So just because a model works to a higher accuracy/precision than was available at the time, something about said model must be real/true? You do know Newtonian gravity has been superseded, right? In other words, it wasn't "true" or "real" at all!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Tyndale"? Dutch? Tijndaal, perhaps.

From the picture I assume our new friend is most likely a 220lb truck driver covered in tattoos.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Can you direct me to a definition of that interpretation?
I looked everywhere and could not find a definition that remotely resembles your interpretation. The best I could come up with is ;

OK, I can accept that.
But place a human in a maze without a map and it would also have to act empirically, no?

 

Actually, though it is still empirical, being based on observation and experience, there is a sort of algorithm for that situation, whereby you mark the spot you start from and then follow one wall until you either reach the exit or get back to where you started. If you get back to where you started you try again, following the other wall.

 

I have and do still, they are beautiful.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Snowflakes
Crystallizing water forms repeating patterns in snowflakes and on frosty surfaces. The patterns have inspired claims about the power of consciousness to affect matter, as well as one of the first described fractal curves, the Koch Snowflake

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The mathematical beauty of fractals is that infinite complexity is formed with relatively simple equations. By iterating or repeating fractal-generating equations many times, random outputs create beautiful patterns that are unique, yet recognizable.
https://www.wired.com/2010/09/fractal-patterns-in-nature/

 

But the fact remains that a snowflake does not have a true fractal pattern: https://www.quora.com/Are-snowflakes-an-example-of-fractals
Their complexity is not infinite and the pattern does not repeat endlessly at all scales. And the "Koch Snowflake" looks nothing like a snowflake and there is little evidence it was intended to. It is also called a Koch Island.

 

You do know that Masaru Emoto's claims have been utterly debunked? It's complete woo. His findings are fully due to confirmation bias, and nothing more.

But even it they held water (so to speak), patterns inspiring claims isn't proof that those patterns hold any underlying or deeper meaning.

And as exchemist has already pointed out: you are once again mis-using the word fractal. Can you please look up and try to understand what a fractal is (and what isn't)?

 

Write4U sees maths everywhere, because he does not have an appreciation of what is maths and what is not. This is evident throughout, in his misuse of mathematical terms.

 

I'm starting to suspect the same thing... Then there remains the question whether it's willfully or not.

 

Well he's bought the Shapiro/Tegmark package, so wants to see maths under every bush, but I don't think he is being disingenuous.

 

True, I don't think so either, but at times his/her ignorance seems too persistent to me. Guess that's just me then.

 

That may not be you but the psychology of the committed believer at work. But I speculate.

 

First, taking my posts out of context such as referencing the Koch snowflake with a picture of a snowflake is dishonest.

But whether you like it or not, there is serious research being done about the possibility that spacetime itself unfolds in a fractal manner.
See: Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT).

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

 

Yes you are indeed, and you are wrong. I merely post available data from reliable sites. Tegmark, Livio, Loll, Smolin and a host of other theoretical scientists are no lightweights to be dismissed out of hand.
I am, and I freely admit my limited knowledge, but if a truly knowledgeable scientist tells me that they get the impression of discovering certain universal truths about how the universe works, I take them seriously and do not automatically assume they are trolls or incompetent. Correct me, if you want, but never accuse me of dishonesty.

Your desperate clinging to the word "mainstream science" and it's proper use of terms means nothing to me, or for that matter, to the people who spent years studying the subject. I have never argued a single word against mainstream science, but science keeps advancing and it is you who seem to use the psychology of committed believers of what is, instead of being curious about new developments in knowledge.

My shortcomings is not proof that they are wrong. So instead of picking me apart, why don't you do some serious inquiry into the subject yourself? You might even learn something new.

I have yet to see a formal refutation of existing and ongoing research into the subject.

Is there anyone here who is prepared to posit a formal rejection of CDT or Tegmark's hypothesis. Out with it then!

Now that would be informative. I am getting sick of this semantic cherry picking and dishonest use of my quoted articles and attempts to explain my reasons why I believe there may be something important contained in those areas of research.

 

I'm sorry, but you are the one that wrote about the Koch snowflake in a section that you captioned "snowflakes", where you were talking about real snowflakes. You are the one referencing the Koch snowflake while talking about real snowflakes. You are the one bringing up snowflakes, even though we were talking about fractals. You are the one that's saying snowflakes have fractal patterns (post #632). How am I taking things out of context if you are the one providing that context?

And I see you've completely ignored my comments on Masaru Emoto's work.

Let's click that link in the article down there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_cosmology
"This article may present fringe theories, ..." Ah, so Wikipedia itself acknowledges that CDT is a fringe theory. But the first sentence in the lead there actually explains what's going on: "...is a fractal across a wide range of scales...". So it's fractal for a limited range of scales! And indeed, it turns out CDT is only fractal at the quantum scales.
I however have no idea why you have brought this up? This doesn't demonstrate in any way that snowflakes are fractals, or that the Koch snowflake exists in reality?

 

Erm, what about that link to Masaru Emoto's work then?

No true scotman?
Argument from authority?

Remember that video of Antonsen that you posted? Remember how you misinterpreted several of the things he said? You often don't even know what the terms they are using actually mean! Remember our discussions about "function"? How can you claim to know what they are saying, when you have demonstrated multiple times you don't understand it?

Then demonstrate some (intellectual) honesty and start using word correctly.​

We've noticed, and that is a dishonest thing to do.

They (usually) use the terms correctly, and understand the difference between mainstream and fringe, so there's no need to argue with them about it.

Except when you make maths real, make wavelengths interact, and give quantum states a form of intelligence.

Perhaps you should look up the scientific method, because a statement like this shows ignorance of it.
I will admit that at times, scientists may seem to committed. And that's why we don't trust the scientists, but the science.

But it is proof that you are wrong, which is all I am arguing.

Because I am primarily not here to learn something new, I am primarily here to learn you something old.

(If anybody decides to tackle this, please do that in a new thread, because it would be taking things even more off-topic than we already are.)

True.

Then start using words and terms correctly.

Point out the dishonesty, please.

(I have not attempted to explain your reasons or motivations, so no comment.)

 

Your description of it as "cherry-picking" indicates bad faith on your part. It is not anything of the kind: you even acknowledged at one point we were right to criticise your inconsistent use of "function" - and then, after vowing not to use it any more you just gaily carried on, as if the exchange had never occurred!

None of us likes banging on at you about your continual misuse of mathematical terms. But if you (a) continue with this non-stop promotion of the ideas of Shapiro/Tegmark et al and ( b ) to do so on the basis of misuse of mathematical terms (e.g. function, potential, fractal), thereby rendering your arguments fallacious, you can expect more of this grief. You cannot be allowed to get away with this rubbish. It is in your hands.

As for rejecting Shapiro/Tegmark's hypothesis, both of us have expressed very clearly, more than once, the basis of our disagreement with it. But I have also pointed out that it is not a scientific hypothesis, as it is inherently untestable by observation. It is a metaphysical proposition. As such it is really a matter of belief, when all is said and done. There can be no research into it, in the scientific sense, though there can be academic research, into the ideas of scientists and philosophers, past and present.

I am going to decline your invitation that I spend my time reading it all up, because, although I do not by any means dismiss metaphysics, I find the subject heavy going and my interest in it is limited. I continue to find Peter Woit's criticism of Teggers -
which I know I have posted before - highly persuasive: https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6551

In closing, you have entirely invented the notion that I cling to the word "mainstream science". It is a term I dislike, as it is a favourite of cranks of the: "They laughed at Galileo" school. I don't want to accuse you of lying, but as you accuse me of "clinging" to this ghastly term, I should be grateful if you can find two or more instances of my using it, to substantiate your accusation.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Are these not EXAMPLES of natural fractal patterns? The universe is filled with them and even on earth there are an uncountable number of fractal forms.
https://www.wired.com/2010/09/fractal-patterns-in-nature/

In theory fractals are reducible to Planck size, perhaps even beyond. This is where CDT has generated much interest.

But in reality (physical expression) a fractal does not have to go down to that level to possess fractal properties.

The link, if you have bothered to look, shows several forms of fractals including landscapes, mountains, clouds, etc.

The boundary of a Koch Snowflake (and I agree it's a misnomer) can theoretically be infinitely long, but I can draw a Koch fractal on a piece of paper. You start with a triangle (the simplest geometric form) and cut .......................................etc.

The first four iterations of the Koch snowflake;

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Does that mean if it's not infinitely large or infinitely small it cannot be a fractal ???
Where did that come from?