Does Chaos Theory prove a Mathematically Ordered Universe

[Michael 345]

Where does energy come from? Where does energy go?

Now we would like everyone up for this

Lots of energy moving around there

 

[exchemist]

No argument here

Can you have fields without stuff?

??? Quantum Foam ????

I don't do quantum foam, I'm afraid - a bit too close to woo for me . 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.

 

[river]

Michael 345 said: ↑
No argument here

Can you have fields without stuff?

??? Quantum Foam ????

I don't do quantum foam, I'm afraid - a bit too close to woo for me . I understand the concept of vacuum fluctuations, but that's about it.

Understood

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.

Indeed

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.

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 .

 

[Write4U]

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

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.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
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

But not more complex.

What do you mean here Write4U ?

 

[Write4U]

What do you mean here Write4U ?

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

Irreducible Complexity

Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems cannot have evolved by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection, because no less complex system would function. Irreducible complexity has become central to the creationist concept of intelligent design, but the scientific community,[1] which regards intelligent design as pseudoscience, rejects the concept of irreducible complexity.[2] Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent-design proponents, alongside specified complexity.[3]

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?

 

[river]

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

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

Irreducible complexity

(IC) is the argument that certain biological systems cannot have evolved by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection, because no less complex system would function.

To your last statement ;

Why would no less complex system not function ?

 

[Write4U]

To your last statement ;
Why would no less complex system not function ?

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

Cilia and flagella are surface-exposed, finger-like organelles whose core consists of a microtubule (MT)-based axoneme that grows from a modified centriole, the basal body. Cilia are found on the surface of many eukaryotic cells and play important roles in cell motility and in coordinating a variety of signaling pathways during growth, development,...more

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....

 

[river]

Chaos theory (from Wiki) The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

It seems to me that what is explained with Chaos Theory is the fundamentally mathematical essence of all universal evolutionary processes, behaviors, and self-expression.

This is also confirmed by the best approximation of the initial chaotic conditions directly following the BB (the beginning) and their measurable mathematically evolutionary self-ordering mechanisms that resulted in our current universe with its ordered mathematical patterns at all levels of reality and by extension, metaphysically identified as symmetry, balance, harmony, fractality, etc.

From human perspective, the dynamical mathematical universal mechanics may be considered a quasi-intelligent self-ordering system, without the need for "intent".

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 .

 

[Write4U]

To your last statement Write4U ; It is the Physical Dynamics that is the essence of any mechanics .

Self-ordering mechanics are mathematically based.

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 .

The Universe is not alive!
Life emerged from self-ordering non-living chemistry (mineralogy).

As explained by Robert Hazen (Carnegie Institute for Science)

 

[river]

↑

To your last statement Write4U ; It is the Physical Dynamics that is the essence of any mechanics

.

Self-ordering mechanics are mathematically based.

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 .

 

[river]

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)

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 .

 

[Write4U]

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 .

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.

 

[river]

I agree, but potential is not physical, it is an inherent mathematical relational value.

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

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

So what though .

 

[Write4U]

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

Who says?

So what though .

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

As it was explained in the Introductory Article on the Electromagnetic Spectrum, electromagnetic radiation can be described as a stream of photons, each traveling in a wave-like pattern, carrying energy and moving at the speed of light. In that section, it was pointed out that the only difference between radio waves, visible light and gamma rays is the energy of the photons. Radio waves have photons with the lowest energies. Microwaves have a little more energy than radio waves. Infrared has still more, followed by visible, ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma rays.

A video introduction to the electromagnetic spectrum. (Credit: NASA)

The amount of energy a photon has can cause it to behave more like a wave, or more like a particle. This is called the "wave-particle duality" of light. It is important to understand that we are not talking about a difference in what light is, but in how it behaves. Low energy photons (such as radio photons) behave more like waves, while higher energy photons (such as X-rays) behave more like particles.

https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/emspectrum2.html

 

[river]

↑
Then if the potential is just mathematical then it is meaningless potential. Any relational value is from the physical , essentially .

Who says?

Reason and Logic .

 

[river]

So what though .

The dynamical self-ordering of simple relational values into complex patterns of greater relational values.

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 .

 

[Write4U]

Reason and Logic .

Reason only to us. The universe is only logical in essence.

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 .

But measurements are only useful to living things. The universe does not measure.

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 .

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.

 

[river]

↑

Reason and Logic .

Reason only to us. The universe is only logical in essence.

If the Universe is only logical in essence , where does logic get its Knowledge From ?

 

[Write4U]

Reason and Logic .

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

Chaotic Logic

But at bottom, the recourse to dimensionality is an evasive maneuver, not a useful explanation. The ideas of this book proceed from an alternative point of view: that complex, self-organizing systems, while unpredictable on the level of detail, are interestingly predictable on the level of structure. This what differentiates them from simple dynamical systems that are almost entirely unpredictable on the level of structure as well as the level of detail........

In other words, I suggest that the popular hype over chaos theory is actually an enthusiasm over the study of complex, self-organizing systems -- a study which is much less developed than technical chaos theory, but also far more pregnant with real-life applications.

What most chaos theorists are currently doing is playing with simple low-dimensional "toy iterations"; but what most popular expositors of chaos are thinking about is the dynamics of partially predictable structure. Therefore, I suggest, it is time to shift the focus from simple numerical iterations to structure dynamics.

To understand what this means, it suffices to think a little about chaos psychology. Even though the dynamics of the mind/brain may be governed by a strange attractor, the structure of this strange attractor need not be as coarse as that of the Lorentz attractor, or the attractor of the logistic map. The structure of the strange attractor of a complex system contains a vast amount of information regarding the transitions from one patterned system state to another. And this, not the chaos itself, is the interesting part.

Unfortunately, there is no apparent way to get at the structure of the strange attractor of a dynamical system like the brain, which presents hundreds of billions of interlinked variables even in the crudest formal models. Therefore, I propose, it is necessary to shift up from the level of physical parameters, and take a "process perspective" in which the mind and brain are viewed as networks of interacting, inter-creating processes.

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

(colored highlights, mine)