Write4U's stream of consciousness

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

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

    Word salad. (See what I mean about that 50%?)
    Good. You have managed to locate a correct definition of "mathematical function". That's a start. The next sentence consists of your own thoughts, though, and we immediately run into the usual problems that we see every time you express your own beliefs.
    Tell me: what "mathematical functional process" are you thinking of? Can you give me a single example, and explain how your chosen mathematical process maps a set X onto a set Y, mathematically?

    Then, after you've done that, tell me what "the universal dynamics" means, and what chain of reasoning led you to conclude that those are chaotic, while all other "functional processes" in the universe are not.

    You're just making this shit up, aren't you? It's just waffle. Meaningless blathering.
    Nobody here has disputed that there are "mathematical laws" that can be used to "codify" (or model) various aspects of the universe. Not me. Not anybody.

    You've had at least 7 years to work out the whether there's any difference between your beliefs and Tegmark's, but you still haven't worked it out, have you? You don't understand what the conceivable difference might be. You just imagine there's no difference, and believe you've somehow answered your critics.
    What are you talking about? You've gone off on another tangent, into a separate flight of fancy.
    Who is "we"?

    You don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you? You just make shit up as you go along. Anything to keep the discussion going, right?
    A topic that has not been mentioned once in this thread, so far.

    A complete non sequitur irrelevancy.

    Your googling led you down some random paths and you found a web page on entropy and temperature that you didn't learn anything from. And then you made up some bullshit about "total stasis".

    What's wrong with you?
    Tell me why it suggests that. Go on, I dare you.
    Didn't you literally just say it's 2.7 Kelvin? Why are you cutting and pasting yet another irrelevant article?
    Word salad. Whenever you write down your original ideas, they are always either nonsensical or wrong for one reason or another. Why is that?
    Tell me why.

    You're just making shit up as you go along. What a complete waste of everybody's time.

    Do you actually think you're contributing something to science with this made-up bullshit of yours?

    You're barely able to express anything coherently. Your mind wanders from one topic to the next, as your googling mouse finger leads you.

    What's the matter?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    Don't forget to reply to post #70 now, Write4U!
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    No, in a mathematical universe god's creations are "limited" by the extant universal guiding mathematics.

    IOW, when it was too hot, God could not create the particles necessary for life. He had to wait a long time before he could create anything other than chaos, and even then within the chaos, recurring similar patterns begin to form spontaneously from similar extant elements,
    objectively proving a mathematical function (essence), but then, who's counting? Who is the observer. But that is the wrong question.
    Any "observer" can only come from within the expanding universe. There is no "outside" observer.
    Yet there is that natural insistence on creating certain patterns that can carry great potential energy, "gravity" being just one of them, and apparently "quantum" another (any problems between the two nothwithstanding), both of these concepts are natural dynamics and regularities emerging in mathematically measurable "input values" and "output values" by using a concept of "ratios".
    Differential equations. Whatever happens in this universe happens because it must by the applicable mathematical function.

    All Universal Constants are mathematical functions, that's why we can measure the constants, from our "common" 24 hr day perspective.

    What else is there is perhaps interesting from a theoretical aspect, but dynamism and life mechanics are not chaotic.
    They tend to be probabilistic, if not deterministic. That is why religion is a category error and not science.
    Mathematical expressions, patterns, are observable and definable with extraordinary precision.
    Compared to an undefinable God....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    A constant, by definition, is not a function.
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    • Please do not troll. Take some responsibility for your errors; don't tell lies.
    The questions that made any sense have all been answered. Make of it what you will.

    The concept of an impersonal mathematical universe feels entirely comfortable to me. It makes me one of the lucky ones in a probabilistic universe to have looked up and wondered : How could it be, while listening to Ives; "The Unanswered Question"
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Some constants are.
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Now, now. You shouldn't tell lies, Write4U!

    All my questions made sense. Do you have comprehension problem I should know about? If so, I can make allowances.

    Meanwhile, let me help 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?
    Answer: your recall was mistaken. Mine was right on the money, as evidenced by your own words, which I quoted.
    • 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?
    Answer: you intend to keep lying by omission - refusing to concede that I was right all along and you were wrong. (I might mention that this does not reflect well on your personal integrity.)
    • Were you telling lies about your beliefs back in July 2023? Or were you confused about what your exact position was?
    Answer: you were confused, because you never really understood the distinctions being explained to you by Sarkus and myself. But instead of admitting you were confused, you decided to try to bluster your way through things in the muddled sort of way you always do.
    • Are you confused about what your exact position is now?
    Answer: no. You've decided to take a stand for Tegmarkians everywhere. You'll be a martyr to the Great Cause. (However, it is worth mentioning that there's no evidence that you've resolved your lack of understanding since last July. You don't know what mast it is, exactly, that you're nailing your colours to, but you'll sure show us all how persistently you can nail!)
    • 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)?
    Answer: you're unable to answer this question, because to you these still look like one and the same thing, rather than two opposed options. And so, rather than admitting you don't understand, you're choosing to avoid the question, which is a kind of lie by omission.

    There. That really wasn't so hard. Was it?
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2024
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    In a mathematical universe, any gods must be made of mathematics, just like everything else.
    You said you don't believe in God, before.
    You're hopelessly muddled, as usual. You started by assuming a God, and now you assert that patterns formed spontaneously, despite an all-powerful God being right there creating everything. You didn't think it through, did you?
    You're just being silly with your "objective proof" nonsense. You haven't proved anything. All you have is a bunch of assumptions and misunderstandings.
    You lost track of what you started talking about again, didn't you? Your mind just wandered off.
    So, contrary to what you said just a few sentences earlier, you now claim there is no God - or that God isn't "outside" (whatever that means).
    You forgot all those posts where people patiently tried to teach you how to use the word "quantum" correctly, didn't you?
    Word salad. The whole lot is just meaningless word salad. Random thoughts strung together in no particular order.
    You still don't have a clue what those are, do you? Let's be honest.
    An empty assertion, unsupported by any argument or evidence.
    exchemist only just now tried to school you, informing you that a constant is not a function.

    But you didn't learn anything. You didn't want to learn anything.
    Seriously. You're off with the fairies. Have you been drinking?
    Three non sequiturs in a row. Are you trying to beat your personal best?
    Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Congratulations.

    What a complete mess of a post that was.
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  13. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    But, if like the other recently closed thread of his... W4U is good for another 3000 posts in this thread.
    W4U has alot of ink on that quill of his, hence his avatar, he's always there 4U James.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

    No, the biblical God is not of this universe. The biblical God created this Universe.

    It was chaotic and it took 380,000 human years before the first physical elements emerged from the dynamic quantum fields and began the physical self-ordering process

    Quantum field theory

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    How did the first element form after the Big Bang?
    By Staff | Published: December 12, 2018

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The early universe (left) was too hot for electrons to remain bound to atoms. The first elements — hydrogen and helium — couldn’t form until the universe had cooled enough to allow their nuclei to capture electrons (right), about 380,000 years after the Big Bang.
    Astronomy: Roen Kelly
    Note that all these elements self-formed mathematically, in accordance with their inherent potentials (values).
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    It Takes 26 Fundamental Constants To Give Us Our Universe, But They Still Don't Give Everything
    Ethan Siegel, Senior Contributor
    Aug 22, 2015,10:13am EDT

    The Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Image credit: Particle Data Group / LBL / DOE / NSF, of the Fundamental Constants as of 1986.

    More....... https://www.forbes.com/sites/ethans...hey-still-dont-give-everything/?sh=74a73ad54b
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2024
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    I think we're done here.

    Keeping this thread open only sends the message to Write4U that his nonsensical stream-of-consciousness blogging has a place here.

    Since he isn't willing to discuss the matters that have been raised with him, there's no point continuing to platform his nonsense.

    origin and Pinball1970 like this.
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Moderator note: Write4U has been warned for trolling (and for knowingly telling lies).

    Due to accumulated warning points, Write4U will be taking some more time out from the forum.
    origin and Pinball1970 like this.
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    This excellent discussion is wonderful example of the types of information being processed by the brain and neural networks, as well as an insight of "constructive" discussion when there is a difference in the use of analogous language.

    Below is a picture of a "corrective" interpretation of Mark Solms original narrative.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The 2 part verbal exchange is a model of constructive cooperation.
    Part #1 :

    Part #2 :
  19. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    This is pretty funny/sad.
    You were told you weren't clear enough.
    Your response:
    How weird.

    "Tell me if I'm not clear enough."
    "You're not clear enough."
    "So what."
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Yes, it is.
    Yes, not clear enough about what? After the usual ad hominem that's never the follow-up question.

    Considering the supporting scientific abstracts that I always include as an example of my understanding, exactly where have I been unclear?

    I have imported a considerable library on the subject of consciousness and the underlying data processing network, especially the microtubule and related filaments as the transport and organizational substrate, that ultimately allows the brain to "compose" a sensory composite representation of the data.

    I like to believe that my posts address a lot of the new information that is now beginning to emerge from the renewed efforts to understand neural processes at nano-scale levels.

    And I admit that I lack knowledge of scientific terminology. But that is exactly why I include the supporting quotations. They provide more formal explanations in detail of the emerging sorting of the data that I try to present as being of possible interest to other interested readers.

    All that aside.
    What do you think of that interesting dialogue between Feldman and Solms.

    "Valence", "Homeostasis", "Cognition", "Affect".
    I see an evolutionary procession that leads from cytoplasmic sensory response abilities of plants, to the kinetic response system of cilia in single-celled organisms such as Paramecium, to pseudo-podia in slime-mold, to echo-location in whales and ultimately to humans as the most versatile of all mammals.

    I thought that presenting this dialogue might give insight into a verbal discussion between 2 esteemed scientists. Note that even at this level there is debate about "terms" and "analogies". Aside from the actual content, I enjoyed the discussion on "meaning" of terms.
    Very enlightning.
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2024
  21. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Hell, you apparently can't even follow what you're saying!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    No. I can follow what I am saying, but apparently you cannot follow what I am saying. And I say this without prejudice.

    But it does not explain what it is you cannot follow! Here we go again. What specifically do you need clarification on?
  23. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Still not following I see. If you had been following you would know there is absolutely nothing I need clarification on. This statement might confuse you since you seem to not be able to follow the conversation.

Share This Page