Write4U's stream of consciousness

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Write4U, Dec 28, 2023.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Nothing in what you wrote addresses the objection I put to you in post #27. Meanwhile, you alleged there was some "problem" with my criticism of your nonsense, yet you have so far failed to identify a single error in what I posted.

    Do you accept the criticism I put to you in post #27, or do you still want to allege that I have made an error? If you accept the criticism, I would appreciate it if you could acknowledge that publically for the benefit of your readers. If, on the other hand, you still think there's some problem in what I put to you in post #27 (and previously), you need to specify where I went wrong.

    I look forward to your concise, on-topic reply.
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2024
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Why did you avoid answering the question I asked you?

    Here. I'll make it simple for you. Multiple choice:
    A. The universe's only property is mathematics. (i.e. the universe is mathematics)
    B. The universe has some mathematical properties, but it is not mathematics.
    C. The universe has no mathematical properties and it is not mathematics.

    Which option do you believe? A, B or C?
    What's the value of the Eiffel Tower?
    How is the value of the Eiffel Tower a mathematical object?
    Sounds like a stupid claim, to me.
    What function are you talking about? The function of what?
    Sure. The Universe rides on the back of a giant elephant, which in turn rides on the back of a giant tortoise.
    So you're saying "IMO, mathematics is a non-sentient mathematical function?"

    Okay. Sounds a bit obvious, does it not?

    Also a bit wrong, since mathematics as a whole is obviously not a mathematical function.
    Evan Martis convinced you, did he?
    Pinball1970 likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    What do you mean by "self-organize"?

    Do you just mean that there are physical laws that cause certain patterns to occur in the universe, or something like that?

    What's new or revolutionary about that idea?
    You're telling me you've replaced one religious belief by a different one. I mean, fine. Whatever floats your boat, I guess. But there's no actual science in your new religion.
    Huh? Try to focus. Explain what you want to talk about.
    You mean morally "not good"? Or what? Are supernovas evil?
    Who showed a slime mold can do subtraction? What do you mean?

    Are you just saying the slime doesn't grow in certain places, and you're going to call that "subtraction"?
    Is it your claim that slime molds are conscious?
    You think you've proved that slime molds do maths?
    As far as I can tell, you're just saying that there are physical laws of the universe that can be modelled mathematically. That's hardly controversial.
    i.e. our physical (mathematical) models are incomplete. Again, hardly controversial to note that we don't understand everything.
    You're taking what is already a pseudoscience then loosely interpreting it into an even shoddier pseudoscience? What use is that?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    "A" of course. Was there any doubt about that?
    Reason: Only a mathematical universe allows for discovering the mathematics and codification of Universal values and functions.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    List of physical constants
    The constants listed here are known values of physical constants expressed in SI units; that is, physical quantities that are generally believed to be universal in nature and thus are independent of the unit system in which they are measured. Many of these are redundant, in the sense that they obey a known relationship with other physical constants and can be determined from them. [/quote]

    Any other non-mathematical concept cannot be codified and/or understood other than "its magical"
    Aside from the actual value of the parts, both abstractly and measurable to humans? Let's see.

    How has the Eiffel Tower impacted the social, economic, and cultural landscape of Paris?
    Observation tower, Tower (mathematics),
    Best insight from top research papers
    [quot]The Eiffel Tower has had a significant impact on the social, economic, and cultural landscape of Paris. It sparked a craze for objects imprinted with its likeness, leading to the emergence of "Eiffelomania" in the fashion world . The tower's construction and development were documented in Gustav Eiffel's book, highlighting its importance for scientific experiments and technological advancements . [/quote]

  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Yes, because several months or years ago on this forum, you said you believed A, but then last year you backed off that and said you believed B. And now you're back to A. Well, at least we cleared that up.
    That's a big claim. Do you have any evidence for it at all?

    How did you rule out the possibility that a universe not made of mathematics could allow for the discovery of mathematics?
    Here's a non-mathematical concept: I like bananas.

    What's your understanding of that? Is it possible to understand the concept without mathematics? Is the only explanation for why I like bananas "It's magical"?
    I expected you would do that. You forgot what you said about "value", didn't you?

    Your claim, if you recall, is that everything has a mathematical "value". In fact, let me quote you:
    Do you now want to back off from that claim to make only the vague statement that "everything has a value of some kind"? The value of different things can be of different kinds, not necessarily mathematical?

    Try to recall that you were attempting to make an argument for a mathematical universe. Arguing for "values" that aren't mathematical doesn't help you to do that. So social, economic or cultural "values" don't count. They aren't mathematical values - i.e. not the kind of "value" you need to exhibit.

    So, I will ask you again: what's the (mathematical) "value" of the Eiffel Tower?
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Please make sure you don't forget to address post #34. Maybe do that next, while this message is fresh in your mind. Otherwise, you might forget again.
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Yes, something like that. Like all the observed and measured phenomena that have been codified and are the symbolized measurements of Universal constants.
    And can you prove that?
    Quite the opposite. There is only science in my model. It is your model that speaks of dualism and assigns mystical aspects to spacetime. You are the theist, not I.
    You seem to doubt that the measurement and codification of constants of these existing universal values have any meaning apart from humans . IOW, according to you, the universe does not work the way we observe it and in many cases can copy these constants using our codified and symbolized mathematics for human uses.

    How did Higgs produce the Higgs boson, a particle that cannot exist independently? The maths predicted the event and Cern proved it the first time, without trial and error.

    Here is a quote from an educated (?) mind:
    No magic, the experiment acted exactly in accordance with the theorized relational values.
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    No "B" is your choice, never mine.
    That's the point. There is no alternative . Can you cite one?
    OK, if you want to end up in Plato's Cave?
    And what is it that makes you like bananas? Bio-chemistry?
    Is the nutritional value of bananas not based on bio-chemical interaction with our symbiont bacteria. Without our symbiont bacterial friends we would die. These critters are of existential value to humans. Do bananas have value? You bet they do. Potassium is a necessary chemical for many living organisms.

    The importance of potassium
    July 18, 2019

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Potassium is necessary for the normal functioning of all cells. It regulates the heartbeat, ensures proper function of the muscles and nerves, and is vital for synthesizing protein and metabolizing carbohydrates.
    The effect of potassium on high blood pressure

    All very mathematical, wouldn't you say?
    Again, dualism is your position, not mine.
    Nooo... I use the term very carefully, because we have been on this road several times before. Have you forgotten?
    Every physical thing does have a value, regardless if humans can perform any measurements.
    See post #37 for "kinds" of values.
    Who says that social values have no mathematical impact on the environment?
    Really? Can you explain the mathematical value and consequence of the social use of recreational vehicles using oil instead of say, solar power?
    No, I am not required to give you numbers, but for starters, the construction took

    Elegant Shape Of Eiffel Tower Solved Mathematically By University Of Colorado Professor
    Date: January 7, 2005
    Source: University Of Colorado
    I answered that question in post # 37.[/quote]
    Eiffel Tower
    M. Patel

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Feb 8, 2024
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    But that's just view B - that the universe exhibits some mathematical properties. You need an argument for view A - that the universe is nothing but mathematics.
    No, but it's a non-mathematical model. I gave you what you asked for. Remember, you were insisting that only mathematical models of the universe are possible. I showed you that a non-mathematical model is possible.
    Where's the science?
    You mean the elephant and tortoise model? That's not my preferred model of the universe. I don't think it's an accurate model of the universe. On the contrary.
    That's a strange thing for you to say. I have nowhere asserted that a god exists.

    What I said is that you have a religious belief. You believe that the universe is nothing but mathematics. You believe that because, apparently, you're willing to believe anything the Great Prophet Tegmark says. For you, mathematics has taken the place of the traditional God of, say, Christianity. Now, your explanation for everything is "Math did it", which just replaces "God did it". You have a faith-based belief system with all the hallmarks of a religion. You have a Supreme Force or Being. You have the One True Prophet. Your faith explains literally everything that exists, by appealing to one overriding principle. And - most importantly - you have no evidence that supports the tenets of your faith.
    I don't think I have said that, exactly. We can discuss, if you like.
    Is saying "the universe works the way we observe it" equivalent to saying that our models of the universe are good at explaining how the universe works? If so, then I agree that our models do a decent job. After all, we've had a long time to refine our models, and some smart people working on the problems.
    I don't understand what you're asking. Higgs didn't produce the Higgs boson. Higgs came up with a theory that predicted the existence of the Higgs boson. That prediction was verified by scientists working at the Large Hadron Collider.

    Clearly, the Higgs boson can exist independently. If it couldn't, it wouldn't be a discrete particle. What are you talking about?
    I have no idea how you think it was proved. What do you mean by "the first time"? And do you think the errors weren't quantified at CERN?
    There was no guarantee that the experiment would prove the theory. There's never any guarantee. And, in fact, many experiments fail to prove various hypotheses.

    Pointing to one successful mathematical theory - or even hundreds - does not prove that the universe is made of mathematics. Not even close.
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    The argument can only be made from extant theory. The current model you cling to predicts at least some mathematical properties. Tegmark's argument is that if the universe has some mathematical properties , what prevent it from having only mathematical properties?
    AFAIK, mathematics are not guided by universal physics. Physics are guided by universal mathematics.
    No, you didn't. A non-mathematical model requires an Intelligent Designer. That's what makes you the religious believer according to the common definition of religious belief.
    As for me, a quasi-intelligent mathematical model does not require a God or anything else and that's what makes me an atheist. It solves all dualist concepts.
    I agree. I did not present that model, except in the form of CDT (Causal Dynamical Triangulation) which assumes that the universal fabric unfolds (another Bohmian phrase) in a self-similar fractal manner.
    You have not provided a viable alternate model. That's why I asked for an alternate model that does not rely on ANY mathematics. If you allow for SOME mathematical functions at all (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) then why NOT ONLY mathematical functions? What is the argument against mathematics?
    No I don't and I have expressed that on occasion.
    Is mainstream science your religion? That is your "preferred" model, no? So to you the universe is partly mathematical and the other part is.......religion ??????
    Oh jeez..., that's just BS.
    Quantum and Relativity are your religion. You believe in those models don't you? Oddly the two are not even compatible as modeled.
    "Shut up and compute" actually advises you to use mathematics to solve your physics problems.
    I have enough on my plate right now.

    I'll just respond to the term"evidence". The rest is your "invention". The evidence is axiomatic. Our symbolization of relational values and our descriptions of how they interact in the real world are very reliable, by all accounts, i.e. "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics". Where human maths are not effective, they are simply wrong.
    I find it eminently reasonable that mathematics, which is a logical discipline, are the guiding principle in the interaction of relational values.
    Logic and other disciplines
    Technical disciplines
    The relations of logic to mathematics, to computer technology, and to the empirical sciences are here considered.



    Note that any problem humans have with maths, does not in any way affect the perfection of the universe's use of mathematics.
    Well, we have agreement, fancy that.

    Last edited: Feb 8, 2024
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    There does not exist a single Higgs boson that is hidden somewhere in the Higgs field. They are mathematically (probabilistically) produced by field-dynamics. Higgs used the correct dynamics.
    Quite clearly it cannot.
    IOW, it cannot exist independently in our world, because it decays immediately after it has become manifest.
    Apparently only Cern was qualified to perform the experiment.
    Right, there was no guarantee, unless Higgs maths were perfect and they were, and presto a boson was manifest, and gone again.
    Now you are arguing with yourself. You have expressed agreement on "some" mathematical properties (and functions) of spacetime, now you say that even if it works "unreasonably effectively", it doesn't prove anything other than it worked as expected compared to many experiments that failed due to human errors in the maths?

    If anything, those mathematical failures suggest that the maths must be correct for it all to function, and if the math is correct, you will be rewarded with success.

    I agree, incorrect mathematics yields incorrect results. We get; "Garbage In --> Garbage Out!"

    Hawking: God Not Needed for Universe to be Created

  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    No you didn't. All extant models except for Intelligent Design are mathematical in essence.

    Give me a non-religious, non-mathematical model. There aren't any.
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Where do you think human mathematics come from? We just made them up? Or did we symbolize and codify what we observed in nature, such as the Fibonacci sequence?
    And how do you propose that mathematics can be discovered or tested in a non-mathematical universe? How would you go about that? Mathematics being a language how would you translate your story to non-mahematicians?

    All human maths describing earthly patterns are from observation. Even in modern cosmology where theoretical maths are sometimes necessary, the cosmologist readily admit that when the right maths are tested, the universe will reveal the correctness or errors in the equation.
    The Higgs boson is a perfect example of using correct mathematics to demonstrate the reliable (and reasonable) effectiveness of mathematics even if this involves new maths.
    Another example is Newton's limited observation and theory of gravitational forces on earth, being refined by Einstein at a grander cosmological scale.

    One cosmologist told it this way: "If you ask the Universe something and you ask it "nicely" (correctly), the universe will reward you with an answer". (He was not a religious fellow)
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    If I spend time finding where you agreed that B was your argument and you weren't sure about A, will you admit that (a) you lied, or perhaps (b) your memory has failed you, to the extent that you don't remember what you wrote less than a year ago?

    If you're going to pretend your position never flipped-flopped on this, and I show that you're lying about that, what penalty do you think will be appropriate, bearing in mind that one or our site posting guidelines is that knowingly telling lies is a no no?
    I did. In the very next sentence after the one you quoted in order to ask this question.
    You didn't answer the question I asked you.

    That's because the truth is you did nothing to rule out the alternative. But you don't want to admit that, so you tried to distract and ignore instead. This, too, is dishonest.
    Try to focus.

    Once again: your claim is that everything has a mathematical value.

    In addition, you wrote "Any other non-mathematical concept cannot be codified and/or understood other than 'its magical'". The word 'other' in there appears to be superfluous to the position you are taking, especially since you didn't mention any 'other' idea before you wrote that sentence. So, your claim appears to be the following: non-mathematical concepts cannot be understood in other than magical terms.

    In fact, since your overarching claim is that the universe is nothing but mathematics, a logical consequence is that, in your worldview, there are no non-mathematical concepts.

    To be consistent, therefore, you have to say that a banana is mathematics, and it has a "mathematical value", because there can be no other kinds of values in a purely mathematical universe.

    And yet, here you are, completely incapable or telling me what the mathematical value of a banana is. You have talked about "nutritional value" - which, in passing, I might also point out might have nothing to do with why I like bananas - but you've made no link to mathematics.

    In your position, I assume that at some point you'll argue that nutrition is a mathematical concept because everything is mathematical. But that's just begging the question: assuming what you need to demonstrate.

    You have done nothing to rule out the likelihood that my liking bananas - or the topic of nutrition, for that matter - is a non-mathematical concept. You can't just define yourself into having a mathematical universe. You need to provide some argument (and preferably evidence) for your claim that there is no alternative.
    Where's the maths?
    You have made no case in support of that proposition, either.
    In other words, that's just an article we're supposed to take on faith, without evidence.

    It is also a completely unfalsifiable assertion. If I point at anything and claim that it doesn't have a mathematical value, you'll just say "Oh, but it does. It's just that us humans can't perform any measurement to detect it!"

    That's exactly the same as the invisible God, or the invisible dragon in my garage.
    I see no "kinds of values" there. Besides, what you need to do is to show that there are only mathematical values. If you can't do that, you should at least try to back up your subsidiary claim that everything has a mathematical value. But you've haven't even tried. And now you're giving excuses that makes it unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.
    You're obviously completely at sea here. Keep your eye on the ball. Try to support your claims.
    No, I cannot. Please tell me: what is the mathematical value of the social use of recreational vehicles using oil instead of solar power?

    Because, remember, you said everything has a mathematical value. Is this one 17? 106? 3.5? pi/6?
    If you say so.

    So, there other kinds of mathematical value, apart from numbers? What are they?
    You still haven't managed to answer the question I asked you: what is the mathematical value of the Eiffel Tower?

    Let me try to help. Are you claiming that the shape of the tower is its mathematical value? Is that all? Does it have just one mathematical value, or more than one?

    Is "mathematical value" always defined by shape, then? Everything has a mathematical value, you say. Is the mathematical value always the shape? Or do different things have different kinds of mathematical value?

    Perhaps your claim is that all the properties of everything are "mathematical values". So, for instance, the nutritional content of a banana is a "mathematical value". And its value as an art object is a mathematical value? And its yellow colour is a mathematical value.

    The problem with this again, though, is that it begs the question. If the claim that you want to prove is that "there are only mathematical values", you can't do that by just assuming from the start that there are only mathematical values. You need to make an argument that isn't circular.
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2024
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    No "B" is your choice, never mine.
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Damn...lost another 3 page reply to your questions, which I already answered..

    I'm getting tired of this grilling. From now on, unless you read my quoted materials, I shall refer you back to my original post.

    There is nothing gained by me in your testing my ability for rational thought.
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    What always strikes me as so silly about this is that all the mathematics has to refer to physical quantities. These are concepts that have to be defined in words, not maths, before any mathematics can be applied to them. We use c to refer to the speed of light in vacuo, but we have to state that, in words, before we can make sense of any mathematical relationship involving it.

    So yes, the universe has mathematical properties, but that does mean the universe is mathematics. It looks like the same category error that arfa brane used to make about energy: confusing an entity with its attributes.
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    True, but all of it is interpretational, no? Mathematical "numbers" are a human symbolic language for relational values, just like "words" are mathematically arranged symbolic letters) .
    I'm sure you meant "that does not mean the universe is mathematics"?
    But is that not the case with all axioms? "The proof lies in the pudding". Mathematics is by definition a function of "order"

    The universe is a dynamically inflating object that started as a singularity, but after establishment of a "spacetime geometry" and "environment" during the cooling period, certain self-organizing "patterns" emerged and evolved in a dynamical, but orderly transmutation processes that have been observed, measured, codified in symbolic language and has at least "guided" the creation of orderly patterns in a dynamic environment that formed earth and the rest of the story. I see the concept of self-ordering as a strictly mathematical function.

    Order (mathematics)

    But I am only echoing Tegmark in the argument that if we unconditionally accept that the universe acts by some underlying logic and has "at least" some mathematical qualities, why must we exclude a model that has "only" mathematical qualities and where the adoption of that model would solve a lot of problems with the dualistic concepts such as "life" and "consciousness". These are the emergent and evolved result of the initial 4 simple mathematical functions..

    Chemistry is mathematically knowable, no? IOW, we have learned the mathematics of chemistry and transmutation.
    After all , laboratories are replications or emulatios of natural conditions. Chemicals act in a lab the same as in nature.

    In a mathematical world:
    relational values <=> differential equations <=> patterns <=>meaning <=> understanding <=> consciousness....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Because you don't have any?

Share This Page