Write4U's stream of consciousness

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

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

    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.
    See the previous paragraph.
    Since mathematics can't do anything by itself, it also can't guide anything by itself.
    So does a mathematical model. What's your point? There is no mathematics without a mathematician.
    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.
    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.
    That's just word salad. A meaningless string of words that you think make you sound scientific.
    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.
    I have no issue with mathematical models. You seem to be confused about that.
    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.
    No. I don't have a religion.
    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).
    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.
    No. They are scientific ideas.
    I accept that certain elements of those models have been well tested, while others are more speculative. I apportion my belief to the evidence.

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

    Axiomatic means you just assume it to be true. That's the opposite of evidence.
    We have some useful mathematical models of physical reality, yes.
    I have no idea what you mean by "effective". Effective at what? Effective for whom?
    Word salad. And also a statement of your faith, nothing more.[/quote]
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2024
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    The model is that the boson is an excitation of the field.
    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?
    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.
    Actually, no, because there were already hints of the Higgs in Fermilab data, prior to its confirmation at the Large Hadron Collider.
    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.
    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.
    It doesn't prove what you and Tegmark need it to prove: that the universe is made of mathematics.
    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.
    Yes. There are, of course, varying degrees of garbage. There's "near enough" and then there's "wildly, hopelessly wrong".
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

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

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

    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.
    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?
    Transmutation? What are you talking about?

    Where's the mathematics of transmutation? What is transmutation? Is that a real thing?
    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.
    I don't know what you mean. I think you're just guessing.
    Meaningless word salad...
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2024
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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


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

    In post #431, you said to Sarkus:
    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:
    In post #457, in reply to something I wrote, you said:
    But there's no meaningful distinction between "causal to" and "causal to HOW".

    In post #459 you said:
    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:
    In post #524, I observed:
    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.
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2024
  8. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    I'm going to go out on a limb here but I don't think W4U will admit that he was wrong...
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    No, you do not have the qualifications to pass judgment.
    Meaningless label
    Another current model billions of people cling to is "accepted religion".
    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.
    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Anything with which mathematical reasoning is possible
    List of mathematical objects by branch
    more.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_object



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

    Regularity suggests that it is mathematically based and all that is required.
    Answered. and demonstrated.
    You're welcome.
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2024
  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

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

    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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?
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    No, I did not. If this is your recall, you are mistaken.
    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.
    That's easy: H2O is a mathematical object. Guess what it is? Water!
    Was that meaningful?
    Weight, size, composition, chemistry, etc, etc.
    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
    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.
    Does it have a wave-length?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Looks mathematical to me.
    You're wasting my time. I already anticipated and answered those questions.

    But OK, here it is again:
    Nuclear transmutation

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Feb 12, 2024
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Quantum cognition.
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    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:
    Your reply was:
    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:
    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?
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2024
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    And let's look at the rest of the mess you've made, I guess.
    Do I need some formal qualifications to form an opinion about your scatterbrained postings?
    You have never once suggested any mechanism for how mathematics - an abstract set of ideas - could ever "guide" any sort of "self-organisation".
    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).
    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.
    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?
    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?
    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?
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2024
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.

    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.
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member


    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Feb 13, 2024
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


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

  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    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.

    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

    and I just ran across this interesting article.

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    equipped with a bifunctor

    Any comments as to it's importance in a "mathematical universe"?
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2024
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

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


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

    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).
    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.
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2024
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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.


    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    What is entropy and how is it related to temperature?
    And the universe would be in total stasis.

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

    In a mathematical universe, everything of a religious nature is mathematics.
    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.
    You still haven't looked up what they are, have you?
    I assume that is your own nonsensical idea.

    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?

Share This Page