Does Chaos Theory prove a Mathematically Ordered Universe

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Write4U, Aug 7, 2020.

  1. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Now we would like everyone up for this



    Lots of energy moving around there

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,379
    I don't do quantum foam, I'm afraid - a bit too close to woo for me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . I understand the concept of vacuum fluctuations, but that's about it.

    The issue, I think, is that "stuff" is itself nowadays modelled in terms of fields. The "particles" (wave-particles) of matter are treated as excitations of an underlying field. So in a sense, in the QFT picture (I stress that, as a chemist, I do not claim to know my way around QFT), fields are more fundamental than "stuff".

    But certainly your question was also the one that went through my head, too, when I started reading this thread (or, rather, the very small amount of it that I can read, as much of it seems to be a dialogue between people that I have on Ignore). We associate EM fields with moving charged particles, after all, whether in the form of electric currents (electromagnets, radio waves) or electrons changing orbitals in an atom (light, X-rays) or molecular dipoles spinning, bending or stretching (Microwaves, IR). But QFT seems to invert the pecking order.

    I can't help thinking it is just a matter of what mathematics one chooses to do the modelling. All our mathematics can do, in the end, is model the underlying physical reality, as it appears to us through our observations. We are not entitled to say any mathematical model IS the physical reality - after all, the history of science shows that models change with new understanding and there is no reason to think we have reached a final definitive view of anything. Rather the reverse, in fact.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    17,307


    Understood

    Indeed

    Indeed

    And Indeed .

    And with more knowledge about the Physical Universe , rather than the Mathematical Universe as the basis of our understanding of the Universe , the better our understanding of our Universe becomes . It becomes more complete .
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,975
    But not more complex.
    A TOE is expected to be a single all encompassing equation. Remember, irreducible complexity is a nono.

    Question; If it is not only stuff we are measuring, what then is it we are measuring?

    IMO, this is where mathematical relational values is the common denominator in all dynamical exchange, the measurement of any relational value regardless if the measurement consists of concrete or abstract relational values.
     
  8. river

    Messages:
    17,307


    What do you mean here Write4U ?
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,975
    I'll give you the established definition, rather than using "my own words".

    Irreducible Complexity
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#

    In fairness, we can ask if:
    Question2; Is Chaos irreducibly complex or does Order result in irreducible complexity?
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2020
  10. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    To your last statement ;

    Why would no less complex system not function ?
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,975
    That is a misquote. The ID argument rests on the notion that a less complex construct could not be functional.

    The specific ID argument cited the "flagella" as an "irreducibly complex construct", which was debunked by the scientific community.

    The Ciliary Cytoskeleton
    https://www.researchgate.net/figure...nd-ciliary-axoneme-A-Schematic_fig4_237005065

    p.s. and as all stuff consists of self-ordered complexity, emerging from less ordered complexity, it is the basis for my OP question....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2020
  12. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    To your last statement Write4U ; It is the Physical Dynamics that is the essence of any mechanics .

    Mathematics is not Alive Write4U . Mathematics is a tool to be used by intelligent beings . Mathematics in and of its self can not manifest anything , Physical ever .
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,975
    Self-ordering mechanics are mathematically based.
    The Universe is not alive!
    Life emerged from self-ordering non-living chemistry (mineralogy).

    As explained by Robert Hazen (Carnegie Institute for Science)
     
  14. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    .

    Disagree

    They are Physically based . When you eliminate the Physical , there is nothing upon which mathematics can measure . Shapes are a Physical ordering , measured or not . Atomic shapes , molecular shapes are geometric shapes based on the Physical ordering .
     
  15. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Within the chemistry is the potential for Life . Given the environment in which it can emerge . Life and the Material Universe exist together in this Universe .
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,975
    I agree, but potential is not physical, it is an inherent mathematical relational value.

    The potential for order is an implicit mathematical probability in Chaos Theory. The Implicate.
     
  17. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Then if the potential is just mathematical then it is meaningless potential. Any relational value is from the physical , essentially .

    So what though .
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,975
    Who says?
    The dynamical self-ordering of simple relational values into complex patterns of greater relational values.

    Ask; When does a wave frequency become a particle? When does a set of wave frequencies become an object?

    The Electromagnetic Spectrum

    A video introduction to the electromagnetic spectrum. (Credit: NASA)
    https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/emspectrum2.html
     
  19. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    Reason and Logic .
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Any Real Physical Object and Objects are going to have mathematical measurement and measurement . Naturally , Because of Existence , its self . All Based , fundamentally founded upon on the Physical Object , Objects Reality . The essence of Order is Fundamentally Physically based . The periodic Table shows this .

    Not this mathematics comes first thinking . Mathematics in and of its self can not create a physical thing without fundamentally basing the theory on the Physical in the First Place .
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2020
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,975
    Reason only to us. The universe is only logical in essence.
    But measurements are only useful to living things. The universe does not measure.
    No one claims that mathematics create physical things.
    Theories are human constructs. The universe does not theorize.

    The universe "functions" logically. The only way Logic can be expressed is via an orderly process. A mathematical process is a Logical process. The universe does not know it uses mathematical relational values and functions, it is mathematical in its very essence.
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    If the Universe is only logical in essence , where does logic get its Knowledge From ?
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,975
    I just ran across this. looks interesting, but I haven't read and digested it all yet. Have a look.

    Chaotic Logic
    https://goertzel.org/books/logic/chapter_one.htm

    (colored highlights, mine)
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2020

Share This Page