The necessary truth of mathematics (?)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The truth about mathematics is that mathematics , in and of its self , can not produce nor create space , nor a physical three dimensional thing . Hence can not create this Universe or Universes .


Hence space and the physical is the essence of mathematics .
 
The truth about mathematics is that mathematics , in and of its self , can not produce nor create space , nor a physical three dimensional thing . Hence can not create this Universe or Universes .
THis is true. I don't tink anyone diagrees with this - except Write4U.

Hence space and the physical is the essence of mathematics .
How does that follow?

There are vast areas of mathematics that have no correlation whatsoever with anything physical.
 
But they do . The thinker is physical .
Thinkers do not include themselves in their mathematics.

There are whole disciplines of mathemtics that explore n-dimensional matrices - 4D, 5D, 10D, 100D, etc. that have no counterpart in the physical world.
 
How could a concept possibly control a physical system?
By changing your "anthropomorphic conceptualization" to "RW function"
In mathematics, a function assigns each element of the domain set to exactly one element of the codomain set1. The domain set is called the domain, and the codomain set is called the codomain1. Functions are used to model relationships between quantities1.


Not relationships between "physical properties", because that would be "causal chemistry".

How the Venus Flytrap Counts​

10/05/2020

1744396620867.png
If a prey touches a sensory hair on the inside of the Dionaea trap, an action potential is triggered. This electrical information is then translated into a chemical calcium wave. However, the critical calcium concentration that initiates the trap closure is only exceeded when two action potentials are triggered in quick succession. (Image: Sönke Scherzer / Universität Würzburg)
The carnivorous Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) can count to five: A team led by biophysicist Rainer Hedrich, professor at Julius-Maximilians-Universität (JMU) Würzburg in Bavaria, Germany, proved this in 2016. This finding received worldwide attention in science and the media.
Apparently you missed this worldwide attention in science and media.
In 2019, the JMU plant scientist was awarded the Koselleck Research Prize of the German Research Foundation (DFG) worth 1.5 million euros – and with it the opportunity to find out how the carnivorous plant counts. This is now shown by a Japanese research team, led by the developmental biologist Professor Mitsuyasu Hasebe from the University of Okazaki, and Rainer Hedrich's team in the journal Nature Plants.
If a prey touches one of the sensory hairs on the inner trap side of Dionaea, the mechanical stimulus is converted into an electrical signal. This so-called action potential spreads over the entire trap. As a reaction to this, nothing happens at first. But when within 30 seconds a second action potential electrically excites the trap, it snaps shut. If, on the other hand, the second stimulus takes longer, the first action potential is erased from the short-term memory of the Venus flytrap.

Short term cellular memory even. Does that translate in being able to count time of duration?
James R said: Also, why are you backpeddling now? Previously, you said maths can't cause things, but here you're back to asserting that maths "controls" a physical system, which implies that it causes the system to behave one way rather than another. That would be causation.
And how would you rebut this argument that the Venus Flytrap can count a number via exceeding a biochemical threshold value, but not "know" it?
That is very similar to how "quorum sensing" is a primitive form of counting without knowing the value of numbers, but reacting to the threshold value of a density ratio.

As long as you keep misinterpreting my arguments (supported by bona fide scientific narratives), how can I backpeddle?
Seems to me that you should be backpeddling your ad hominems that always accompany your disagreements. I am not a liar.
I never hear you say that I am deliberately misrepresenting the quoted materials. That would lying.
Nor do I hear you say that my sources are liars. But you just like to accuse them of commercialism. I can see a direct Implication.
 
Last edited:
Write4U:

You quoted me as asking "How could a concept possibly control a physical system?". Then you went on to post something that does not address the question I asked at all. Why?

I will respond to what you wrote, even though it is irrelevant.
Apparently you missed this worldwide attention in science and media.
Apparently. Do you keep up with every item of news?
Short term cellular memory even. Does that translate in being able to count time of duration?
No. Counting has very little to do with memory.

Also, the Venus flytrap doesn't seem to have a brain, so it isn't "aware" that it "counting". What you are calling "counting" in this context appears to be an evolved behaviour of the flytrap plant in which electrical signals are processes in a certain way.

It seems like quite a stretch to refer to this as "counting".

And how would you rebut this argument that the Venus Flytrap can count a number via exceeding a biochemical threshold value, but not "know" it?
The flytrap doesn't have a brain. How could it possibly "know" anything, in the way that we humans use the word "know" to describe a thinking process?
That is very similar to how "quorum sensing" is a primitive form of counting without knowing the value of numbers, but reacting to the threshold value of a density ratio.
An autonomic response, mediated by chemical and electrical signals. No brain involved.
As long as you keep misinterpreting my arguments (supported by bona fide scientific narratives), how can I backpeddle?
What arguments?
I never hear you say that I am deliberately misrepresenting the quoted materials. That would lying.
Not deliberately misrepresenting them does not imply that you are accurately representing them, or that they show what you think they show.
Nor do I hear you say that my sources are liars.
Your sources are usually irrelevant to whatever it is that I am trying to discuss with you. You quote sources as if they support your views, but they rarely have any relevance to your claims, let along support them.
But you just like to accuse them of commercialism.
Who is "them"?
 
Thinkers do not include themselves in their mathematics.

There are whole disciplines of mathemtics that explore n-dimensional matrices - 4D, 5D, 10D, 100D, etc. that have no counterpart in the physical world.
Yet they should . That would help them understand that not anything is possible .
 
I'm saying that some things are not possible . While it maybe fun . All these dimensions are not possible .
Exactly. As previously stated, some aspects of mathematics have no counterpart in the physical world. You seemed to think all mathematics was necessarily built on the physical world. It's not.
 
Exactly. As previously stated, some aspects of mathematics have no counterpart in the physical world. You seemed to think all mathematics was necessarily built on the physical world. It's not.
I already knew this .
The bending of space . Space can only bend with mathematics . In reality space can not bend , physically .
 
Please post on topic.
Fuck off. Idiot. Reported and blocked.
How does space bend ? What is the process ? What process actually bends space physically ?

So you can't answer my question it seems . Its a reasonable question .

Lots of people think that they can do anything with space . Contort it into any thing they they want . And shape it . That mass can bend space , it can't .

Space can exist on its own without mass . Space does not need mass , the physical , to exist , in order for space to exist , Space is independent from the physical . And detached .

Space is three dimensional all on its own . Space is about room . The room needed for anything to exist .
 
Last edited:
Well, a spirited conversation, wouldn't you know.
Following every branch of a maze is not "solving" it. Or, rather, it "solves" it by brute force trial and error.
No it does not. Natural selection is the most subtle of mathematical function. It is a passive pattern forming that depends on
James R:
This retraction of the slime branches is what you're describing as the slime mold doing subtraction, is it? You think the slime mold is thinking about maths as it retracts its branches?
Now you are anthropomorhizing again. It doesnot need to know. All it needs to react to the "been here" sign that was deposited the frst time the slime mold passed this dead end. It simply avoids this route because the slime molds recognizes its own sign and reacts to its message.
Is it possible to know where you've been when you don't have a brain? Depending on your definition of "know," the answer may be yes. Researchers have shown that the slime mold, an organism without anything that resembles a nervous system (or, for that matter, individual cells), is capable of impressive feats of navigation. It can even link food sources in optimally spaced networks. Now, researchers have shown it's capable of filling its environment with indications of where it has already searched for food, allowing it to "remember" its past efforts and focus its attention on routes it hasn't explored. https://arstechnica.com/science/201...ain-creates-external-memories-for-navigation/
Where's the maths?
It's called subtraction.
James R:
How could a brainless organism understand maths?
It doesn't need to understand it. All it needs is "stimulation and"reaction", also known as "detection and a comparative" form of cognition"
from stored coded information (memory). All it needs is actionable detection of a fixed actionable quantity, such as quorum sensing.
But nobody says that detection needs to be a conscious act. All it needs is a specific reaction based on the physical type and mathematical value of the stimulant.
James R:
Using the wikipedia definition you quoted, yes it is.
In mathematical terms, density is mass divided by volume.
A strange way of putting it, but okay. It is a ratio.
Yes, it is! Here is your map.
But now you claim that it's not really a mathematical object, right? It's just a generality. Do you see your hypocrisy in this denial?
James R:
We humans can certainly assign mathematical properties to physical objects or systems.
Just as we can assign physical properties to mathematical objects or systems. Where exactly does physics begin?
Note that quantum does not begin with a physical property such as muon. It begins with a probabilistic mathematical value and behavior before it can be even be identified physically.
 
Last edited:
W4U:
Bonnie Bassler
James R:
I have no idea who that is. Never heard of her. But I doubt you will post anything useful that she has to say about the necessary truth of mathematics.
Yes, they communicate via a mathematical term "quorum sensing", a system that counts for a treshold quantity, a "quorum".
A quorum is not a physical object. It is a numerical (countable) object.
James R:
So you're saying that bacteria don't communicate using maths; they communicate using chemicals.
Yes, countable numbers that trigger a simultaneous action potential that is physically "causal" to the procuction of action potentials, such as virulence.

What do you call "equity", maths or physics?
Which I see as a mathematical processing of variable mathematical values in accordance with logical principles which are invariable in and of themselves (Fibonacci Sequence)
Write4U said:
It is the mathematics of growth numbers that controls virulence. The threshold trigger is a mathematical function, based on ratio of autoinducers released among a growing bacterial population, triggeringvirulenc.
Exchemist:

Wrong, and wrong.
Write4U said:
It is the ratio, the mathematical differential equation, that determines a threshold action. Just like political voting requires a "quorum" . That is not by density. That is by count and results in simultaneous action.
James R:
No.
Yes,
Also, why are you backpeddling now? Previously, you said maths can't cause things, but here you're back to asserting that maths "controls" a physical system, which implies that it causes the system to behave one way rather than another. That would be causation.
View attachment 6680
Is terminal speed causal to a rock falling? No, it is not causal to falling. It does control how fast the physical rock is allowed to fall, dependent on the environmental conditions.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top