Write4U's stream of consciousness

[James R]

Write4U:

The current model you cling to predicts at least some mathematical properties.

The current model I cling to is accepted science. Science uses mathematics as a tool. Science quantifies things, measures things and makes predictions about things. The things that scientific theories describe are not the same as the scientific descriptions themselves. The descriptions (models) may be mathematical, but it is a mistake to conclude that, therefore, the physical things that are being described are also mathematical or - worse - nothing but mathematics.

The problem you and Tegmark both face is that mathematics, by itself, can't do anything. It can't make any physical thing. It can't control any physical thing. It can't do anything at all. Moreover, nothing physical can be made of mathematics, because mathematics is an abstraction - a set of ideas. Ideas are not physical things. The idea of an apple is not an apple.

Tegmark's argument is that if the universe has some mathematical properties , what prevent it from having only mathematical properties?

See the previous paragraph.

AFAIK, mathematics are not guided by universal physics. Physics are guided by universal mathematics.

Since mathematics can't do anything by itself, it also can't guide anything by itself.

A non-mathematical model requires an Intelligent Designer.

So does a mathematical model. What's your point? There is no mathematics without a mathematician.

That's what makes you the religious believer according to the common definition of religious belief.

No. I do not just believe things on faith (i.e. without evidence), like you do. I do not worship a prophet or a God, like you do.

Typically, a religion involves belief in a supernatural power that is able to control human destiny. In your case, the relevant supernatural power is "mathematics". Mathematics is all and does all, in your religion. It's essential a pan-theistic belief, religious due to its dogmatism and lack of evidence.

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.

All you have done is renamed your God "mathematics", as far as I can tell.

If you think you have a scientific theory there, tell me: what test could conceivably show that the universe is not made of maths? Is there any? If not, then you have an unfalsifiable faith-based belief.

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.

That's just word salad. A meaningless string of words that you think make you sound scientific.

You have not provided a viable alternate model.

Yes I have. The alternate model is that the universe is not made of mathematics: it is made of physical things that are not made of mathematics.

Everybody, apart from a few fringe figures (including yourself) regards that as a viable model of the universe.

That's why I asked for an alternate model that does not rely on ANY mathematics.

I have no issue with mathematical models. You seem to be confused about that.

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?

See above. It's not difficult, and you've had since around 2018 to think it through. But you're still stuck where you were back then.

Is mainstream science your religion?

No. I don't have a religion.

That is your "preferred" model, no?

Well, all science is provisional, so I don't exactly have a "preferred" model. There are various scientific models that have stood up to rigorous testing, certainly, so I'm inclined to accept those, provisionally. It's the rational thing to do. I try to avoid believing things on faith (i.e. without any evidence).

So to you the universe is partly mathematical and the other part is.......religion ??????

If your claim is correct - that everything is mathematics - then it follows that religion is mathematics. So, to you, all religion is mathematics, necessarily.

But my point is that mathematics is your religion.

Quantum and Relativity are your religion.

No. They are scientific ideas.

You believe in those models don't you?

I accept that certain elements of those models have been well tested, while others are more speculative. I apportion my belief to the evidence.

"Shut up and compute" actually advises you to use mathematics to solve your physics problems.

It does not advise me to believe that the physical world is somehow reducible to mathematics.

I'll just respond to the term"evidence". The rest is your "invention". The evidence is axiomatic.

Axiomatic means you just assume it to be true. That's the opposite of evidence.

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".

We have some useful mathematical models of physical reality, yes.

Where human maths are not effective, they are simply wrong.

I have no idea what you mean by "effective". Effective at what? Effective for whom?

I find it eminently reasonable that mathematics, which is a logical discipline, are the guiding principle in the interaction of relational values.

Word salad. And also a statement of your faith, nothing more.[/quote]

 

[James R]

(continued...)

There does not exist a single Higgs boson that is hidden somewhere in the Higgs field.

The model is that the boson is an excitation of the field.

Quite clearly it cannot [exist independently].

Let's backtrack. What do you mean when you say the Higgs boson cannot exist independently? Independently of what?

I assumed you meant it can't exist as a separate, identifiable particle, but it seems that you meant something else. What?

IOW, it cannot exist independently in our world, because it decays immediately after it has become manifest.

Oh, did you mean to say that anything that only exists for a short time before turning into something else has no independent existence? That doesn't make much sense.

The Higgs boson does not decay "immediately" after it forms. It decays after a very short time.

Apparently only Cern was qualified to perform the experiment.

Actually, no, because there were already hints of the Higgs in Fermilab data, prior to its confirmation at the Large Hadron Collider.

Right, there was no guarantee, unless Higgs maths were perfect and they were, and presto a boson was manifest, and gone again.

The Higgs math is incomplete, and therefore not "perfect". For instance, it could not pin down exactly what the Higgs boson mass should be. That had to be discovered experimentally.

Now you are arguing with yourself.

No. I have not contradicted myself. Your position, on the other hand, has changed a couple of times over the past few years. Most recently, you've found yourself back where you started with Tegmark.

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?

It doesn't prove what you and Tegmark need it to prove: that the universe is made of mathematics.

If anything, those mathematical failures suggest that the maths must be correct for it all to function...

No. For instance, Newton's law of motion function perfectly adequately for many purposes. They worked quite well enough to enable the progress of a lot of science over a period of 4 centuries. However, we know that Newton's maths is not correct. We also know that Einstein's maths is not correct. Nevertheless, both lots of maths are very useful.

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

Yes. There are, of course, varying degrees of garbage. There's "near enough" and then there's "wildly, hopelessly wrong".

 

[James R]

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) .

We have established that whenever you say "values" you mean mathematical values, although you don't seem to be able to explain what a mathematical value is, exactly.

Anyway, here you are saying "Mathematical 'numbers' are a human symbolic language for mathematical values", which appears to be tautological. Besides, in your view, human symbolic language is just one more type of math, because math is all there is.

But is that not the case with all axioms?

axiom (n.): a proposition that is not susceptible to proof or disproof. It's truth is assumed to be self-evident.

In other words, whatever you say your axioms are, you're just assuming they are true. If, for you, it is axiomatic that the universe is made of maths, then you just have a contested assumption, nothing more. In your case, I think it goes beyond that: it is essentially a faith-based belief you have.

Mathematics is by definition a function of "order"

Mathematics is nowhere defined as such.

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.

How can patterns self-organise? How can a pattern do anything, of its own volition? How can a pattern "guide" anything?

A pattern is a kind of regularity that we humans recognise. That is all.

I see the concept of self-ordering as a strictly mathematical function.

Please write down the concept of self-ordering using mathematical functional notation, then.

Thanks.

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...

Because nothing with only mathematical qualities can ever hope to produce anything with physical qualities. It's simple, when you think about it.

...and where the adoption of that model would solve a lot of problems with the dualistic concepts such as "life" and "consciousness".

Explain how those concepts are "dualistic". What do you mean?

And how does pretending that the universe is made of mathematics solve whatever the problem is?

These are the emergent and evolved result of the initial 4 simple mathematical functions..

Four?

This is new. Are you now asserting that the universe originally consisted of just four mathematical functions? Can you write down the functions for us, please? Be sure to use mathematical functional notation.

Chemistry is mathematically knowable, no?

Please explain what you mean. What does it mean for something non-mathematical to be "mathematically knowable"?

Is a banana mathematically knowable? How so?
Is the Eiffel Tower mathematically knowable? (Remember, you couldn't specify its "mathematical value".)
Is true love mathematically knowable?
Is The Lord of the Rings mathematically knowable?
Is my sister's 30th birthday mathematically knowable?
Is the colour purple mathematically knowable?

IOW, we have learned the mathematics of chemistry and transmutation.

Transmutation? What are you talking about?

Where's the mathematics of transmutation? What is transmutation? Is that a real thing?

After all , laboratories are replications or emulatios of natural conditions.

Not usually. A laboratory is usually used to isolate, as much as possible, a subject of scientific study from potentially-confounding variables in the natural environment. The aim is to control for things that aren't being studied, as much as is practical.

Chemicals act in a lab the same as in nature.

I don't know what you mean. I think you're just guessing.

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

Meaningless word salad...

 

[James R]

Write4U:

I searched back over some old threads. Since 2018, you have posted on the topic of the "mathematical universe" over and over, in so many different threads that I'm sure you've forgotten many of those previous conversations.

To pick out just one, see if you can refresh your memory about this one:

Quantum Creationism -- Is It Science Or Is It Religion?

In post #424 of that thread, Sarkus put this to you:

Let me ask you, as I'm not sure I'm quite sure: what is the position you're arguing?
Is it Tegmark's "everything is a mathematical structure" type philosophy, or the rather different"the universe operates by mathematical laws" type claim? Or something else?

After giving a hopelessly muddled response, consisting almost entirely of word salad, in post #426, Sarkus and I both asked you, essentially to actually try answering the question Sarkus asked you.

In my post #429, I asked you a series of numbered questions. In question 1, I quoted you (from earlier in the same thread). You wrote:

I have never claimed that stuff is made from mathematics. I claim they are made guided by universal mathematical principles.

I told you that this contradicts Tegmark's position that everything is made of mathematics.

In post #431, you said to Sarkus:

I never said that maths are causal to physical interaction. I said they are causal to HOW the physical actions interact.

That led to a further exchange of posts between you and Sarkus, in which you were totally unable to say anything that made any sense. You couldn't explain how "causal to HOW" was any different to "causal to". Probably you've forgotten that whole muddled episode you had there.

Sarkus told you, in post #456:

My view of what you're agreeing with is that the universe, whatever it is made up of, obeys laws, and those laws are mathematical. If so then you don't need to be quoting Bohm, Tegmark, or anyone else, as this really is not a disputed issue. Science assumes it at its very core.
As such, quoting Tegmark to support your position is misleading, not because he doesn't support that position, but because of everything else he's saying/claiming that you don't seem to be agreeing with.

In post #457, in reply to something I wrote, you said:

I have told you a dozen times that other than via stochastic processes, mathematics is not causal to physical interactions. It is causal to HOW physical actions interact. Determinism.

But there's no meaningful distinction between "causal to" and "causal to HOW".

In post #459 you said:

Mathematical functions guide the processes.

Can you see the pattern here? At that time, only half a year ago (July 2023), you were assuming that physical processes are separate from your mathematical functions. You denied that mathematical functions can cause anything. But, simultaneously, you contradicted yourself in a muddled sort of way, claiming that somehow, even though mathematical functions can't cause physical effects, they can somehow magically "guide" physical effects.

In post #469, Sarkus gave you some useful advice:

Perhaps [demonstrate your understanding of what you're attempting to talk about] by not referencing Tegmark where it is unwarranted? If you don't hold to his position, that mathematics is all that exists, then don't quote his ideas that stem from that. Similarly with Bohm: if you don't actually hold to the notion he espouses, then don't quote him/his position as if it explains or supports yours. It's about positioning yourself coherently and without contradiction.
From what I gather you're just positing the idea that the universe operates according to mathematical laws. Ignore Bohm. Ignore what Tegmark adds on.

In post #524, I observed:

Recall that your initial claim was that mathematics is all there is. Then, you dropped that claim for some reason (which you didn't tell us) and you have been arguing that mathematics doesn't cause physical stuff, but it somehow guides physical stuff, although you don't have any arguments in support of that position.

But now, you're doing a full 180 degree turn, because now you're claiming that gravity - a physical force or effect - is "causal to many mathematical laws and universal constants". That is, you're now claiming that a physical effect somehow causes mathematics.

To summarise, during this thread you have flip-flopped through the following positions:

1. Mathematics is all there is. Physical objects are really just maths.
2. Physical objects and maths both exist. Nobody knows what causes anything physical, but mathematics guides physical processes (e.g. determines how objects move, but somehow without actually causing them to move).
3. Physical objects and maths both exist. But it is a physical force - gravity - that somehow causes mathematical laws and universal constants.

Also, the implications of (3) are that physics causes maths, which "guides" the physics that caused it. Which is more or less a circular argument.

You really ought to decide what position you actually want to root for, if that's what you want to do, Write4U. Flip-flopping around like a wet fish doesn't inspire confidence in your readers.

Since then, you've had quite a few months to think things through, but it looks like you haven't taken any time to actually do any thinking.

Here we are in February 2024, and you've now flip-flopped back to saying that you're completely a Tegmark disciple once again, and that you now hold (once again) that there is literally nothing but mathematics in the universe (i.e. the universe is mathematics).

Moreover, you're now insisting that you never believed anything other than that, even though here's a clear record from only a few months ago of you stating the exact opposite: "I have never claimed that stuff is made from mathematics."

Will you now at least admit that your position has shifted back and forth?

Have you managed to be clear in your own mind what you believe about Tegmark's mathematical universe, or do you still have the same doubts and equivocations you had back in July 2023?

Will you at least admit that the record from July 2023 shows that your earlier claim in this current thread, that you have always been 100% behind Tegmark's notion that maths is all that exists, is demonstrably wrong? You didn't believe Tegmark back in July 2023, even if you do now.

To refresh your memory, you could do worse than re-reading the entire linked thread from back then. It could save a lot of time, since you keep reposting previously debunked arguments over and over.

 

[origin]

Will you at least admit that the record from July 2023 shows that your earlier claim in this current thread, that you have always been 100% behind Tegmark's notion that maths is all that exists, is demonstrably wrong?

I'm going to go out on a limb here but I don't think W4U will admit that he was wrong...

 

[Write4U]

Because you don't have any?

No, you do not have the qualifications to pass judgment.

The current model I cling to is accepted science.

Meaningless label
Another current model billions of people cling to is "accepted religion".

The problem you and Tegmark both face is that mathematics, by itself, can't do anything.

Mathematics may not be causal (dynamical), but it clearly guides self-organizing mathematical patterns. Religion does not do anything. Why is that "accepted" origins? Belief is meaningless unless based on demonstrable proofs.

Moreover, nothing physical can be made of mathematics, because mathematics is an abstraction - a set of ideas. Ideas are not physical things. The idea of an apple is not an apple.

It is descriptive of an apple as a mathematical object.

The idea of a cube is a cube, and it is a mathematical object.

Mathematical object

Anything with which mathematical reasoning is possible

A mathematical object is an abstract concept arising in mathematics. In the usual language of mathematics, an object is anything that has been formally defined, and with which one may do deductive reasoning and mathematical proofs. Typically, a mathematical object can be a value that can be assigned to a variable, and therefore can be involved in formulas.

Commonly encountered mathematical objects include numbers, sets, functions, expressions, geometric objects, transformations of other mathematical objects, and spaces. Mathematical objects can be very complex; for example, theorems, proofs, and even theories are considered as mathematical objects in proof theory.

The ontological status of mathematical objects has been the subject of much investigation and debate by philosophers of mathematics.[1]

List of mathematical objects by branch
more.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_object

Four?
This is new. Are you now asserting that the universe originally consisted of just four mathematical functions? Can you write down the functions for us, please? Be sure to use mathematical functional notation.

The four basic operations in mathematics are addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Apr 13, 2023

https://study.com/academy/lesson/basic-operations-math-overview-types.html#

Self-organization

Physics.
The many self-organizing phenomena in physics include phase transitions and spontaneous symmetry breaking such as spontaneous magnetization and crystal growth in classical physics, and the laser, superconductivity and Bose–Einstein condensation in quantum physics.

Self-organization,
also called spontaneous order in the social sciences, is a process where some form of overall order arises from local interactions between parts of an initially disordered system. The process can be spontaneous when sufficient energy is available, not needing control by any external agent. It is often triggered by seemingly random fluctuations, amplified by positive feedback. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized, distributed over all the components of the system.

As such, the organization is typically robust and able to survive or self-repair substantial perturbation. Chaos theory discusses self-organization in terms of islands of predictability in a sea of chaotic unpredictability.

Self-organization in micron-sized Nb3O7(OH) cubes during a hydrothermal treatment at 200 °C. Initially amorphous cubes gradually transform into ordered 3D meshes of crystalline nanowires as summarized in the model below.[1]

Self-organization occurs in many physical, chemical, biological, robotic, and cognitive systems. Examples of self-organization include crystallization, thermal convection of fluids, chemical oscillation, animal swarming, neural circuits, and black markets.

more.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization#

A pattern is a kind of regularity that we humans recognise. That is all.

Regularity suggests that it is mathematically based and all that is required.

Please write down the concept of self-ordering using mathematical functional notation, then.

Answered. and demonstrated.

Thanks

You're welcome.

 

[Write4U]

But there's no meaningful distinction between "causal to" and "causal to HOW".

Of course there is a meaningful distinction between "causal to" and "causal how."
Self-0rganization is a causal function.

Self-organization
Hermann Haken (2008), Scholarpedia, 3(8):1401.doi:10.4249/scholarpedia.1401revision #139276 [link to/cite this article]
Hermann Haken, Institute for Theoretical Physics I, Center of Synergetics, University of Stuttgart, Germany


Figure 1: Snow Crystal. In the beginning of quantum mechanics and statistical physics it was believed that a crystalline structure can be calculated by determining the minimum of the free energy. This may be true, e.g. for ionic crystals, such as sodium chloride, or metals. In this case, the Schrödinger equation for the ground state or possibly low lying states must be solved. In general, this requires the solution of a many particle problem. As the example of snow crystals shows, this picture is too narrow. It is not only necessary to calculate binding forces, but rather the whole kinetics, e.g. of dendritic growth. Besides kinetics, also symmetry, may play a decisive role, e.g. the hexagonal symmetry of the snowflake is caused by the symmetry of H2O which acts as a nucleation center. This example shows that in the formation of crystals, such as the snowflake, kinetic processes and the problem of binding forces are strongly interwoven with each other.

Figure 2: A satellite photograph taken by NASA. On the left hand side cloud streets can be seen, whereas on the right hand side a vortex is formed. Cloud streets are dynamic patterns in that in the individual streets the water vapor molecules are moving upwards or downwards, alternatively. The basic question is: how do the tiny water molecules know how to arrange their concerted movements over many kilometres?

Self-organization is the spontaneous often seemingly purposeful formation of spatial, temporal, spatiotemporal structures or functions in systems composed of few or many components. In physics, chemistry and biology self-organization occurs in open systems driven away from thermal equilibrium. The process of self-organization can be found in many other fields also, such as economy, sociology, medicine, technology.

more.....http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Self-organization#

 

[Write4U]

Write4U: Mathematical functions guide the processes.

Can you see the pattern here? At that time, only half a year ago (July 2023), you were assuming that physical processes are separate from your mathematical functions.

No, I did not. If this is your recall, you are mistaken.

You denied that mathematical functions can cause anything. But, simultaneously, you contradicted yourself in a muddled sort of way, claiming that somehow, even though mathematical functions can't cause physical effects, they can somehow magically "guide" physical effects.

No need to change that sentence. And there is nothing "magical" about it. ID (Intelligent Design) is magical, Maths (self-organizing order) is a universal natural language of the fundamental way relational values interact and form regular patterns, observable everywhere.
The Fibonacci sequence (mathematical tree) is an evolved mathematical function of vertical growth and weight distribution.

Chemistry is mathematically knowable, no?

Please explain what you mean. What does it mean for something non-mathematical to be "mathematically knowable"?

That's easy: H2O is a mathematical object. Guess what it is? Water!
Was that meaningful?

Is a banana mathematically knowable? How so?

Weight, size, composition, chemistry, etc, etc.

Is the Eiffel Tower mathematically knowable? (Remember, you couldn't specify its "mathematical value".)

I am not an engineer.
Can you specify the "list of materials" that were chosen and designed to be assembled in a very specific way for structural integrity and wind-resistance?

Let's see. Here is the mathematical history of the Eiffel Tower
Origins and Construction of the Eiffel Tower

The first digging work started on the 26th January 1887. On the 31st March 1889, the Tower had been finished in record time – 2 years, 2 months and 5 days – and was established as a veritable technical feat.

Key figures
Design18,038 metallic parts
5,300 workshop designs
50 engineers and designers
Construction150 workers in the Levallois-Perret factory
Between 150 and 300 workers on the construction site
2,500,000 rivets
7,300 tonnes of iron
60 tonnes of paint
5 lifts
Duration2 years, 2 months and 5 days of construction

https://www.toureiffel.paris/en/the-monument/history

Is true love mathematically knowable?

Is love a thing other than a response to the production of certain quantities of endorphins, a result of observation and chemical interactions.

Is The Lord of the Rings mathematically knowable?

What? The story or the book? How does an AI write a story?

Is my sister's 30th birthday mathematically knowable?

Of course it is as measured from her birthdate, the time she was born after 9 months of biochemical multiplication (growth) and the formation of regular cellular patterns in accordance to the mathematical copying of mathematically coded DNA chromosomes.

Is the colour purple mathematically knowable?

Does it have a wave-length?

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-range-of-wavelengths-of-visible-light-from-red-to-violet

Looks mathematical to me.

IOW, we have learned the mathematics of chemistry and transmutation.

Transmutation? What are you talking about? Where's the mathematics of transmutation? What is transmutation? Is that a real thing?

You're wasting my time. I already anticipated and answered those questions.

But OK, here it is again:

Nuclear transmutation is the conversion of one chemical element or an isotope into another chemical element. Nuclear transmutation occurs in any process where the number of protons or neutrons in the nucleus of an atom is changed.

Nuclear transmutation

Illustration of a proton–proton chain, from hydrogen forming deuterium, helium-3, and regular helium-4.

A transmutation can be achieved either by nuclear reactions (in which an outside particle reacts with a nucleus) or by radioactive decay, where no outside cause is needed.

Natural transmutation by stellar nucleosynthesis in the past created most of the heavier chemical elements in the known existing universe, and continues to take place to this day, creating the vast majority of the most common elements in the universe, including helium, oxygen and carbon. Most stars carry out transmutation through fusion reactions involving hydrogen and helium, while much larger stars are also capable of fusing heavier elements up to iron late in their evolution.

One type of natural transmutation observable in the present occurs when certain radioactive elements present in nature spontaneously decay by a process that causes transmutation, such as alpha or beta decay. An example is the natural decay of potassium-40 to argon-40, which forms most of the argon in the air. Also on Earth, natural transmutations from the different mechanisms of natural nuclear reactions occur, due to cosmic ray bombardment of elements (for example, to form carbon-14), and also occasionally from natural neutron bombardment (for example, see natural nuclear fission reactor).

Artificial transmutation may occur in machinery that has enough energy to cause changes in the nuclear structure of the elements. Such machines include particle accelerators
and tokamak reactors.

Conventional fission power reactors also cause artificial transmutation, not from the power of the machine, but by exposing elements to neutrons produced by fission from an artificially produced nuclear chain reaction. For instance, when a uranium atom is bombarded with slow neutrons, fission takes place. This releases, on average, three neutrons and a large amount of energy. The released neutrons then cause fission of other uranium atoms, until all of the available uranium is exhausted. This is called a chain reaction.

All very mathematical.

Artificial nuclear transmutation has been considered as a possible mechanism for reducing the volume and hazard of radioactive waste.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation[/quote]

 

[Write4U]

Quantum cognition.

Quantum cognition is an emerging field which applies the mathematical formalism of quantum theory to model cognitive phenomena such as information processing by the human brain, language, decision making, human memory, concepts and conceptual reasoning, human judgment, and perception.[1][2][3][4]

The field clearly distinguishes itself from the quantum mind as it is not reliant on the hypothesis that there is something micro-physical quantum-mechanical about the brain.

Quantum cognition is based on the quantum-like paradigm[5][6] or generalized quantum paradigm[7] or quantum structure paradigm[8] that information processing by complex systems such as the brain, taking into account contextual dependence of information and probabilistic reasoning, can be mathematically described in the framework of quantum information and quantum probability theory.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Most of what you just wrote verges on incoherency. Are you okay?

I'm worried that you're just not equipped to have a rational discussion about these matters.

Ignoring all your attempts to go off topic, let's start by discussing the following.
I wrote:

At that time, only half a year ago (July 2023), you were assuming that physical processes are separate from your mathematical functions.

Your reply was:

No, I did not. If this is your recall, you are mistaken.

So, let's review, once again.

In post #57 of this thread, I quoted you several times, drawing on posts you made in 2023. Do you remember? Back then, you wrote:

I have never claimed that stuff is made from mathematics.

and

mathematics is not causal to physical interactions. It is causal to HOW physical actions interact. .... Mathematical functions guide the [physical] processes.

This is clear evidence that, back in 2023, you believed that physical processes existed separately from mathematics. In 2023, you believed - for a while - that mathematics guides physical processes.

That is a different position that the one you now hold, which is that physical processes are nothing but mathematics.

So, tell me, Write4U. Whose recall is mistaken about your flip-flopping back and forth on this?

Note that I have not had to rely on any "recall". All I had to do was to go back and find the evidence that, indeed, you used to believe something different to what you now believe. I found it. I quoted the evidence using your words.

Now, I don't want to carry on a discussion with somebody who is willing to tell blatant lies, even in the face of direct evidence in his own words.

Do you intend to keep lying about what you believed back in July 2023, or will you concede that I have made no mistake? I quoted your own words.

Or were you telling lies back in July 2023?

Please think carefully before responding. Review the relevant thread, as I suggested you should, if you need to.

Will you now admit that there was nothing "mistaken" about my recall of the position you held back in 2023?

You're not going to attempt to troll this discussion, are you?

 

[James R]

And let's look at the rest of the mess you've made, I guess.

No, you do not have the qualifications to pass judgment.

Do I need some formal qualifications to form an opinion about your scatterbrained postings?

Mathematics may not be causal (dynamical), but it clearly guides self-organizing mathematical patterns.

You have never once suggested any mechanism for how mathematics - an abstract set of ideas - could ever "guide" any sort of "self-organisation".

Religion does not do anything.

Religion, like mathematics, is a set of ideas. Religion does things in people's heads, just as mathematics does. It sounds like you don't understand religion very well, but that's really off topic (if there is a topic for this silly thread).

Belief is meaningless unless based on demonstrable proofs.

NO! Beliefs affect behaviour, whether or not they are based on demonstrable proofs. Most beliefs are not based on demonstrable proofs, of course. Believing something merely means that you have become convinced that the thing is true, for whatever reason.

It is descriptive of an apple as a mathematical object.

The idea of a cube is a cube, and it is a mathematical object.

You've had at least 7 years to think this idea through.

A map is not the territory it represents. A mathematical model of a bean is not a bean. A painting of a pipe is not a pipe (remember that?).

Why are you unable to grasp this simple distinction? Is this why you can't tell the difference between what you claim to believe now and what you claimed to believe back in July 2023?

Answered. and demonstrated.

You've had several years to find out what a mathematical function is. But you still don't know, do you?

Has it occurred to you that, maybe, you'd be better off not posting claims about mathematical functions until you have at least some idea of what a mathematical function is?

Of course there is a meaningful distinction between "causal to" and "causal how."

Interesting that you write this, and then the entirety of the rest of your post completely fails to even start to address the question of what the distinction might be.

What's wrong with you?

 

[James R]

Maths (self-organizing order) is a universal natural language of the fundamental way relational values interact and form regular patterns, observable everywhere.

Maths is not the same thing as "self-organizing order".

I'm sorry, but you can't redefine terms to suit yourself and claim that your views are somehow vindicated by your attempted redefinitions.

If maths is a language, as you claim, then will you agree that languages - in and of themselves - don't cause physical things to happen or change? Therefore, neither can maths.

The Fibonacci sequence (mathematical tree) is an evolved mathematical function of vertical growth and weight distribution.

Your attempt to redefine what the Fibonacci sequence is won't work, either. The Fibonacci sequence is a sequence of numbers. That is all. It is an idea. There's a pattern. It doesn't and can't cause anything physical, on its own - like the rest of maths.

That's easy: H2O is a mathematical object. Guess what it is? Water!
Was that meaningful?

Again, you haven't even addressed the question I asked you. I asked you to explain what you mean when you say something non-mathematical is "mathematically knowable"?

You failed utterly to even explain what you meant, again.

Weight, size, composition, chemistry, etc, etc.

What am I supposed to take from that? That something is "mathematically knowable" if it has weight, a composition, or something to do with chemistry?

Look, forget it. Clearly you're just making this shit up as you go. It's a complete waste of my time following your meandering lead into the weeds.

Can you specify the "list of materials" that were chosen and designed to be assembled in a very specific way for structural integrity and wind-resistance?[

Let's see. Here is the mathematical history of the Eiffel Tower

Are you completely incapable of answering the question I asked you?

BTW, that's not a mathematical history. You don't get to redefine "history" to suit yourself, either.

Is love a thing other than a response to the production of certain quantities of endorphins, a result of observation and chemical interactions. What? The story or the book? How does an AI write a story? Of course it is as measured from her birthdate, the time she was born after 9 months of biochemical multiplication (growth) and the formation of regular cellular patterns in accordance to the mathematical copying of mathematically coded DNA chromosomes.

Again, it would be completely pointless to attempt to discuss any of this with you, since you've already forgotten what the original question was and you don't understand why I asked it in the first place.

Does it have a wave-length?

As a matter of fact, the colour purple does not have a wavelength. So, at least you've learned something you can take away. If you can remember it.

You're wasting my time. I already anticipated and answered those questions.

I see that you're using the term "nuclear transmutation" in a way that really just means "nuclear reaction".

In other words, you attempted to answered a question about chemistry by referring to something that has nothing to do with chemistry.

Taking time to correct all your errors one by one would be a lifetime's work, so I'm not going to follow you down this rabbit hole either. Besides, you wouldn't remember the answers anyway.

You seem quite unable to concentrate on a topic long enough to even answer a single question about it, directly.

 

[Write4U]

Maths is not the same thing as "self-organizing order".

Math is… Patterns!

http://www.datapointed.net/visualizations/math/factorization/animated-diagrams/

Give me a pattern other than chaos that is not mathematical in essence.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Please respond to post #63 before you post anything else in this thread. It seems you missed that important post of mine.

Thanks.

 

[Write4U]

This is clear evidence that, back in 2023, you believed that physical processes existed separately from mathematics. In 2023, you believed - for a while - that mathematics guides physical processes.

Yes, in a mathematical universe all dynamics are of a mathematical, not a religious nature. Belief in mathematics is not like belief in an abstract Intelligent Designer, but in the absence of a God, belief in ID does in fact suggest a "non-personal" mathematically oriented universe.

Mathematical functions are logical processes.

Logic is crucial to intelligence but it is not enough, obviously. Logic is an innate mental faculty, and more fundamentally, a basic process of the brain. May 28, 2022

https://www.quora.com/Does-logic-mean-intelligence#

The Universe does not have a brain but it functions via mathematical logarithms'

What Makes Natural Logarithms “Natural”?
Written By Kavya NambiarLast Updated On: 19 Oct 2023Published On: 1 May 2022

This table can be used to demonstrate a very simple logarithm table.

The first column is a geometric progression with base 2 and the second column is an arithmetic progression with a common difference of 1.

If we want to multiply 4 and 8, we would add the corresponding terms in the second column. That would give us 2 + 3 = 5. When we check the term corresponding to 5, we can see that it is 32, which we know is the value of 8 * 4.

In this way, we simplified multiplication to addition. Similarly, we can do division with subtraction. However, the problem with this demonstration is that it doesn’t have all numbers. One look shows that 3, 5, 6, 7 and others are missing. The gap between numbers increases as we go up. To fix this, different geometric and arithmetic progressions need to be used.

When we use a geometric progression and arithmetic progression and combine them in a similar way to form a table, they surprisingly form the “natural” logarithm table. But at that time, it wasn’t recognized as logarithms with base e.

https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences/what-makes-natural-logarithms-natural.html

and I just ran across this interesting article.

Monoidal category
In mathematics, a monoidal category (or tensor category) is a category �

equipped with a bifunctor

⊗:�×�→�

that is associative up to a natural isomorphism, and an object I that is both a left and right identity for ⊗, again up to a natural isomorphism. The associated natural isomorphisms are subject to certain coherence conditions, which ensure that all the relevant diagrams commute.

The ordinary

tensor product makes vector spaces, abelian groups, R-modules, or R-algebras into monoidal categories. Monoidal categories can be seen as a generalization of these and other examples. Every (small) monoidal category may also be viewed as a "categorification" of an underlying monoid, namely the monoid whose elements are the isomorphism classes of the category's objects and whose binary operation is given by the category's tensor product.

A rather different application, for which monoidal categories can be considered an abstraction, is a system of

data types closed under a type constructor that takes two types and builds an aggregate type. The types serve as the objects, and ⊗ is the aggregate constructor. The associativity up to isomorphism is then a way of expressing that different ways of aggregating the same data—such as ((�,�),�)

and (�,(�,�))

—store the same information even though the aggregate values need not be the same. The aggregate type may be analogous to the operation of addition (type sum) or of multiplication (type product). For type product, the identity object is the unit ()

, so there is only one inhabitant of the type, and that is why a product with it is always isomorphic to the other operand. For type sum, the identity object is the void type, which stores no information, and it is impossible to address an inhabitant.

The concept of monoidal category does not presume that values of such aggregate types can be taken apart; on the contrary, it provides a framework that unifies classical and

quantum information theory.[1]

In

category theory, monoidal categories can be used to define the concept of a monoid object and an associated action on the objects of the category. They are also used in the definition of an enriched category.

Monoidal categories have numerous applications outside of category theory proper. They are used to define models for the multiplicative fragment of

intuitionistic linear logic. They also form the mathematical foundation for the topological order in condensed matter physics. Braided monoidal categories have applications in quantum information, quantum field theory, and string theory.

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

Any comments as to it's importance in a "mathematical universe"?

 

[Write4U]

Do I need some formal qualifications to form an opinion about your scatterbrained postings?

How do I know if you understand what I am saying and disagree with me?
So far, all I hear from you is that you don't understand what I am saying, but that you prejudicially assume it is nonsense.

Do you understand what it is I am saying ? If so can you correct me with some fundamental non-mathematical concepts?

 

[James R]

Write4U:

In post #63, I asked you a number of direct questions. You have not answered them. Here, I'll list them for you:

• Whose recall is mistaken about your flip-flopping back and forth on the matter of your changing your mind on about whether there's something in the universe other than mathematics? Mine, or yours? (Bear in mind that I have laid out the evidence and have quoted your own words. Think carefully about how you will answer.)
• Do you intend to keep lying about what you believed back in July 2023, or will you concede that I have made no mistake when I wrote about that?
• Were you telling lies about your beliefs back in July 2023? Or were you confused about what your exact position was?
• Are you confused about what your exact position is now?
• What is it? Are you with Tegmark, claiming there is nothing but mathematics, or are you merely claiming that the universe has some mathematical properties (along with the physical properties it has)?

Please answer these questions. It shouldn't take you very long. One or two words for each ought to be sufficient.

Try to focus on what you're being asked.

 

[James R]

How do I know if you understand what I am saying and disagree with me?
So far, all I hear from you is that you don't understand what I am saying, but that you prejudicially assume it is nonsense.

Approximately 50% of what you say is meaningless babble that you just make up on the spot. Another 30% is where you misuse scientific terms that you've picked up from random google searches or somewhere. That leaves a possible 20% or so of your own ideas, of which around half are just your beliefs with no evidence and the other half are your beliefs that are proved wrong by science.

I understand exactly how you misuse scientific terms to suit yourself, and I understand the 20% or so of stuff that you post that actually consists of your own ideas. So, I'd say I understanding about 50% of what you write. As for the other 50%, nobody can understand that, because it's pure nonsensical or meaningless rubbish.

There is no prejudice involved. If you're talking nonsense, there nothing to be done but to point out that you're talking nonsense. If you're misusing scientific terms, and I understand how the terms are normally used, then I can correct your errors on those (although you never learn from those helpful corrections; generally, you come back and repeat the exact same error later on, sometimes repeatedly). In the cases where you present your own ideas without any evidence - or where you present ideas that are actually unfalsifiable, I understand well enough to spot that and point it out. And, where I can show that you have made a factual error about some real science - as I often can - I will often point that out, too (although, again, you never learn from your mistakes).

Do you understand what it is I am saying ? If so can you correct me with some fundamental non-mathematical concepts?

I am constantly correcting your many errors, while pointing out the completely nonsensical parts. Haven't you noticed?

Note also that I have only talked about your ideas here. The content of your posts as a whole tends to be made up of about 90% random cut-and-pastes from your google searches and only 10% of your own ideas. Most of the time, it's safe for me to more or less ignore the 90% of cut-and-pastes because they usually have no relevance to the topic of conversation and/or completely fail to have any relevance to any questions I have asked you.

 

[Write4U]

You have never once suggested any mechanism for how mathematics - an abstract set of ideas - could ever "guide" any sort of "self-organisation".

Because mathematics is an "idea" in your head, but in the universe it is a function of interactive relational values.

It is the combination of input values that determine the interactive output results in a deterministic universe.

In mathematics, a function from a set X to a set Y assigns to each element of X exactly one element of Y. The set X is called the domain of the function and the set Y is called the codomain of the function.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)

Except for the universal dynamics, the universe's functional processes are not chaotic. It follows distinct mathematical laws as we have discovered and codified them.

This is why we have to "invent" mathematical models of "pure vacuum" which don't exist. A pure vacuum devoid of all physical values is an abstraction. But we use it as a baseline calculation of absolutes, like absolute zero, whixh does not exist in reality.

Negative Absolute Temperatures
Here we provide some answers to frequently asked questions on the intriguing topic of negative absolute temperatures.

What is absolute temperature?
Absolute temperature refers to temperature on the Kelvin scale, where 0K is the absolute zero point, where all motion in a classical gas would stop.

What is entropy and how is it related to temperature?

Entropy is a measure of disorder in the system.
It is related to the number of energy states that are occupied by the particles: If only one energy state is occupied, as for example the lowest energy state in the case of a temperature of zero Kelvin, the system is very ordered and the entropy is zero.

And the universe would be in total stasis.

If the particles are however distributed over many energy states, low energy and high energy, the system is very disordered and the entropy is large. Temperature is defined via entropy – see above.

https://www.quantum-munich.de/119947/Negative-Absolute-Temperatures#

Absolute zero

Absolute zero is the lowest limit of the thermodynamic temperature scale; a state at which the enthalpy and entropy of a cooled ideal gas reach their minimum value, taken as zero kelvin. The fundamental particles of nature have minimum vibrational motion, retaining only quantum mechanical, zero-point energy-induced particle motion. The theoretical temperature is determined by extrapolating the ideal gas law; by international agreement, absolute zero is taken as −273.15 degrees on the Celsius scale (International System of Units),[1][2] which equals −459.67 degrees on the Fahrenheit scale (United States customary units or imperial units).[3] The corresponding Kelvin and Rankine temperature scales set their zero points at absolute zero by definition.

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

The current temparature of the universe is 2.7 kelvin, which suggest a dynamic universe with stuff in it.

Cosmic water cloud reveals the temperature of the early Universe
February 02, 2022

The standard cosmological model assumes that the Universe has been cooling ever since the Big Bang, and that it continues to do so. However, until now, this cooling has only been directly confirmed for relatively recent periods in cosmic history. Whereas today's Universe is immersed in cosmic background radiation with a temperature of 2.7 Kelvin (-270.45 °C), less than a billion years after the Big Bang its temperature was approximately 20 K (-253.1 °C). All the matter in the Universe would have been exposed to it at that time, implying that processes such as the evolution of galaxies must have been very different from those taking place today.

https://www.cnrs.fr/en/press/cosmic-water-cloud-reveals-temperature-early-universe#

The applied inherent universal maths within the universal geometry was different then than now. The universe was hotter and more dynamic, and that's a mathematical game changer.

I wonder if certain common cosmic patterns could be assigned time frames that explained certain anomalies within the evolutionary processes of the universe itself.

 

[James R]

Yes, in a mathematical universe all dynamics are of a mathematical, not a religious nature.

In a mathematical universe, everything of a religious nature is mathematics.

.... in the absence of a God, belief in ID does in fact suggest a "non-personal" mathematically oriented universe.

There never is an absence of a God in ID, in practice, since ID has been shown to be a thinly-veiled version of biblical creationism.

Mathematical functions are logical processes.

You still haven't looked up what they are, have you?

The Universe does not have a brain but it functions via mathematical logarithms'

I assume that is your own nonsensical idea.

...and I just ran across this interesting article.

Monoidal category

[snip]
Any comments as to it's importance in a "mathematical universe"?

You're the one who is pushing the mathematical universe, not me.

But I don't believe for a moment that you understand anything in that "interesting" article you found. Certainly not any of the mathematics.

I'm right, aren't I?