Write4U's stream of consciousness

[James R]

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

Word salad. (See what I mean about that 50%?)

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)

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.

Except for the universal dynamics, the universe's functional processes are not chaotic.

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.

It follows distinct mathematical laws as we have discovered and codified them.

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.

This is why we have to "invent" mathematical models of "pure vacuum" which don't exist.

What are you talking about? You've gone off on another tangent, into a separate flight of fancy.

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.

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?

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

A topic that has not been mentioned once in this thread, so far.

A complete non sequitur irrelevancy.

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

Huh?

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?

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

Tell me why it suggests that. Go on, I dare you.

Cosmic water cloud reveals the temperature of the early Universe

Didn't you literally just say it's 2.7 Kelvin? Why are you cutting and pasting yet another irrelevant article?

The applied inherent universal maths within the universal geometry was different then than now.

Word salad. Whenever you write down your original ideas, they are always either nonsensical or wrong for one reason or another. Why is that?

The universe was hotter, and that's a mathematical game changer.

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?

 

[James R]

Don't forget to reply to post #70 now, Write4U!

 

[Write4U]

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

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....

 

[exchemist]

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....

A constant, by definition, is not a function.

 

[Write4U]

Try to focus on what you're being asked.

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"

 

[Write4U]

A constant, by definition, is not a function.

Some constants are.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

The questions that made any sense have all been answered.

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?

 

[James R]

Write4U:

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

In a mathematical universe, any gods must be made of mathematics, just like everything else.

IOW, when it was too hot, God could not create the particles necessary for life.

You said you don't believe in God, before.

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...

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?

...objectively proving a mathematical function (essence), but then, who's counting?

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.

Who is the observer. But that is the wrong question.

You lost track of what you started talking about again, didn't you? Your mind just wandered off.

Any "observer" can only come from within the expanding universe. There is no "outside" observer.

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).

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)...

You forgot all those posts where people patiently tried to teach you how to use the word "quantum" correctly, didn't you?

, both of these concepts are natural dynamics and regularities emerging in mathematically measurable "input values" and "output values" by using a concept of "ratios".

Word salad. The whole lot is just meaningless word salad. Random thoughts strung together in no particular order.

Differential equations.

You still don't have a clue what those are, do you? Let's be honest.

Whatever happens in this universe happens because it must by the applicable mathematical function.

An empty assertion, unsupported by any argument or evidence.

All Universal Constants are mathematical functions...

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.

, that's why we can measure the constants, from our "common" 24 hr day perspective.

Seriously. You're off with the fairies. Have you been drinking?

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.

Three non sequiturs in a row. Are you trying to beat your personal best?

Mathematical expressions, patterns, are observable and definable with extraordinary precision.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Congratulations.

What a complete mess of a post that was.

 

[exchemist]

Some constants are.

 

[foghorn]

What a complete mess of a post that was.

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.

 

[Write4U]

In a mathematical universe, any gods must be made of mathematics, just like everything else.

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

In theoretical physics, quantum field theory (QFT) is a theoretical framework that combines classical field theory, special relativity, and quantum mechanics.[1]: xi  QFT is used in particle physics to construct physical models of subatomic particles and in condensed matter physics to construct models of quasiparticles.

QFT treats particles as excited states (also called quantum levels) of their underlying quantum fields, which are more fundamental than the particles. The equation of motion of the particle is determined by minimization of the action computed for the Lagrangian, a functional of fields associated with the particle. Interactions between particles are described by interaction terms in the Lagrangian involving their corresponding quantum fields. Each interaction can be visually represented by Feynman diagrams according to perturbation theory in quantum mechanics.

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

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

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

Q: How did the first chemical element appear in the universe?

A: Immediately (much less than a second) after the Big Bang, the universe was both too hot and too dense for elements to form. Hydrogen didn’t appear until the universe had spread out — and subsequently cooled — enough for the first protons and neutrons, and later simple atoms, to form.

Between about 10-12 and 10-6 second after the Big Bang, neutrinos, quarks, and electrons formed. Protons and neutrons began forming shortly after, from about 10-6 to 1 second after the Big Bang. Within about 3 minutes after the Big Bang, conditions cooled enough for these protons and neutrons to form hydrogen nuclei. This is called the era of nucleosynthesis. Some of these nuclei combined to form helium as well, though in much smaller quantities (just a few percent). But after about 20 minutes, nucleosynthesis ended and no further nuclei could form

Note that all these elements self-formed mathematically, in accordance with their inherent potentials (values).

 

[Write4U]

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.

When we think about our Universe at a fundamental level, we think about all the particles in it and all the forces and interactions that occur between them. If you can describe those forces, interactions and particle properties, you have everything you need to reproduce our Universe, or at least a Universe virtually indistinguishable from our own, in its entirety.

Because if you know the laws of physics -- gravitation, quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, the nuclear forces, etc. -- all you need are the relationships that tell you "by how much," and so long as you start with the same initial conditions, you'll wind up with a Universe with the same structures from atoms to galaxy clusters, the same processes from electron transitions to stellar explosions, the same periodic table of elements, and the same chemical combinations from hydrogen gas to proteins and hydrocarbon chains, among a great number of other similarities.

When you encounter the question of "how much," you probably think of the force of gravity being determined by a universal gravitational constant, G, and of the "energy of a particle" being determined by its rest mass, such as the mass of an electron, me. You think of the speed of light, c, and for quantum mechanics, Planck's constant, ħ. But physicists don't like to use these constants when we describe the Universe, because these constants have arbitrary dimensions and units to them.

But there's no inherent importance to a unit like a meter, a kilogram or a second; in fact there's no reason at all to force ourselves to define things like "mass" or "time" or "distance" when it comes to the Universe. If we give the right dimensionless constants (without meters, kilograms, seconds or any other "dimensions" in them) that describe the Universe, we should naturally get out our Universe itself. This includes things like the masses of the particles, the strengths of their interactions, the speed limit of the Universe and even the fundamental properties of spacetime itself!

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

 

[James R]

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.

Closed.

 

[James R]

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.

 

[Write4U]

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.


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

Part #2 :

 

[origin]

This is pretty funny/sad.

I have told you many times to ask if I am not clear enough.

You were told you weren't clear enough.
Your response:

Frankly, I see no problem to begin with. A little thought will
clarify many of my posits.

How weird.

"Tell me if I'm not clear enough."
"You're not clear enough."
"So what."

 

[Write4U]

This is pretty funny/sad.

Yes, it is.

You were told you weren't clear enough.
Your response:

W4U said: Frankly, I see no problem to begin with. A little thought will clarify many of my posits.

How weird.
"Tell me if I'm not clear enough."
"You're not clear enough."
"So what."

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.

 

[origin]

Yes, not clear enough about what?

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

 

[Write4U]

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

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?

 

[origin]

But it does not explain what it is you cannot follow! Here we go again. What specifically do you need clarification on?

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.