Does Chaos Theory prove a Mathematically Ordered Universe

[Write4U]

Why should space exist , mathematically ? Devoid of physicality .

Spacetime IS the mathematical physicality (geometry) which emerged from Chaos.

Michael said;
It created the perfect organisation of stuff by physics because it could not be in any other arrangement at that moment

I think you have mixed the terms "organization" with "complexity".

 

[river]

↑

1+1=2 , physically no problem , the logic is obvious . Yet mathematics in and of its self can not prove that this is true ; despite the fact that in reality it is true .

Yes it can; Mathematical equations are the proofs of logical equivalences.

But can not prove that 1+1=2 is true , mathematically , in and of its self .

 

[river]

river said: ↑

Why should space exist , mathematically ? Devoid of physicality .

Spacetime IS mathematical physicality (geometry) which emerged from Chaos.

Define Chaos .

 

[paddoboy]

↑
But can not prove that 1+1=2 is true , mathematically , in and of its self .

Bullshit again river. Firstly we don't need to "prove" 1+1=2.....Numbers are fixed concepts that derive from maths...Maths, you know, the language of physics, and that which disproves and invalidates near everything you claim...hence your ignorance and down playing of it.

 

[paddoboy]

Spacetime IS the mathematical physicality (geometry) which emerged from Chaos.
.

Not bad....spacetime=geometry=gravity.

 

[paddoboy]

What's the problem pad , in my post #252 .

Did I say there was anything wrong with it?
I said, you can read?
You made a statement not quite accurate...I simply made it more accurate. Plus you were totally wrong re chaos.

 

[river]

Define Chaos

 

[river]

Bullshit again river. Firstly we don't need to "prove" 1+1=2.....Numbers are fixed concepts that derive from maths...Maths, you know, the language of physics, and that which disproves and invalidates near everything you claim...hence your ignorance and down playing of it.

Numbers in the Physical have Tangible Three Dimensional Physical Substance .

 

[paddoboy]

Define Chaos

Already have and you failed to understand...post 249

Numbers in the Physical have Tangible Three Dimensional Physical Substance .

More bullshit word salad.

 

[paddoboy]

This is what prompted me to ask the OP question in the first place. The Universe started as CHAOS, but evidently patterns managed to emerge from the original chaos, which we have observed and decribed in Chaos Theory.

The observable self-ordering patterns in nature allowed humans to gain an understanding of "order" and "regularity" which are necessary for durable existence of all abstract objects and their continual expression as physically ordered patterns.
.

Nothing to wrong with that, as our laws of physics, and GR fail us at t+10-45 seconds.
But also worth considering, as entropy [disorder] increases with time, that early period was more ordered....ordered chaos?

 

[Michael 345]

Spacetime IS the mathematical physicality (geometry) which emerged from Chaos.

I think you have mixed the terms "organization" with "complexity".

PHYSICS does neither, PHYSICS DOES WHAT PHYSICS DOES AND NOTHING HAS A DEFINITION

Us Minions come along with our anthropomorphic concepts

• that arrangement of stuff we will call chaos
• that arrangement will call a pattern
• etc etc etc

WE shrink wrap OUR definitions so tight around STUFF we are defining we start to think the definitions are the STUFF they are wrapped around

They are NOT

From

• OUR concept of chaos to
• OUR concept of order
• NOTHING in PHYSICS changes

Stuff is moved about and has a different look but PHYSICS - no change

PHYSICS does not organise or make complexity

 

[Write4U]

Nothing to wrong with that, as our laws of physics, and GR fail us at t+10-45 seconds.
But also worth considering, as entropy [disorder] increases with time, that early period was more ordered....ordered chaos?

I don't think that follows. Entropy and Complexity (patterns) are different beasts.

What Lies Between Order and Chaos?
James P. Crutchfield

What is a pattern? How do we come to recognize patterns that we’ve never seen before? Formalizing and quantifying the notion of pattern and the process of pattern discovery go right to the heart of scientific practice.

Over the last several decades science’s view of nature’s lack of structure— its unpredictability—underwent a major renovation with the discovery of deterministic chaos.

Behind the veil of apparent randomness, many processes are highly ordered, following simple rules.

As the new millennium begins, tools adapted from the theory of computation will bring empirical science to the brink of automatically discovering patterns and quantifying their structural complexity. For example, rather than interpreting a data stream according to a given model, we look at a model stream. The regularities found in the way models improve with learning is the basis for inferring universal laws on how complexity arises from the interaction of order and chaos.

http://csc.ucdavis.edu/~cmg/compmech/tutorials/wlboac.pdf

Entropy as Time's Arrow

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Therm/entrop.html

The diagrams above have generated a lively discussion, partly because of the use of order vs disorder in the conceptual introduction of entropy. It is typical for physicists to use this kind of introduction because it quickly introduces the concept of multiplicity in a visual, physical way with analogies in our common experience.

Chemists, on the other hand, often protest this approach because in chemical applications order vs disorder doesn't communicate the needed ideas on the molecular level and can indeed be misleading. The very fact of differences of opinion on the use of order and disorder can itself be instructive.....more

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Therm/entrop.html

 

[Write4U]

PHYSICS does neither, PHYSICS DOES WHAT PHYSICS DOES AND NOTHING HAS A DEFINITION

Right, when you start applying Human symbolisms as fact.

Just as MATHEMATICS DO WHAT MATHEMATICS DO AND NOTHING HAS A DEFINITION.

The term "Physics" doesn't do anything either. It's an abstract human symbolic construct of imagination just like the term "Mathematics".

If you cite one as a real property of nature, then you must also recognize the other. The terms we use are merely symbolic descriptions of how things work.

The Universe does not need any human descriptive language. Humans do!

 

[Michael 345]

Right, when you start applying Human symbolisms as fact.

Just as MATHEMATICS DO WHAT MATHEMATICS DO AND NOTHING HAS A DEFINITION.

The term "Physics" doesn't do anything either. It's an abstract human symbolic construct of imagination just like the term "Mathematics".

If you cite one as a real property of nature, then you must also recognize the other. The terms we use are merely symbolic descriptions of how things work.

The Universe does not need any human descriptive language. Humans do!

No

Physics is operation of PHYSICAL STUFF

MATHEMATICS has no physicality

 

[Write4U]

PHYSICS does not organise or make complexity

Laws of physics still universal, studies find
Two independent approaches to testing a fundamental prediction of relativity confirm Einstein was
on the money. Andrew P Street reports.

Sure, the mainstream media might like to trumpet results that appear to challenge Einstein and threaten to turn everything we know about physics on its head, but those results almost always turn out to be wrong. So, it’s genuinely reassuring when another experiment that appears to confirm our most basic assumptions about the way the cosmos operates.

One of the most fundamental ideas about our universe is that the laws of physics apply across the board – gravity in a distant galaxy behaves like it does in this one, for example. A more elegant piece of theory is what’s called Lorentz invariance – named for Hendrick Lorentz, the scientist who first derived it from his equations teasing out Einstein’s work on special relativity.

Lorentz Invariance states that the laws of physics remain constant for all observers within the same inertial frame. It’s not an idea which is uncritically accepted, since there are mathematical models that predict this symmetry will break down when attempting to reconcile relativity and particle physics. However, two new papers in the journal Physical Review Letters suggest that – for now at least – Lorentz invariance still holds.

Both pieces of research look at the effects of gravitational interactions, but take very different routes.

The first, from a team led by Adrien Bourgoin of the Universite de Caen Normandie in France, used almost half a century of data from lasers bounced off mirrors placed on the moon’s surface by the Apollo missions to record the orbital and rotational motion.

The data constituted the first direct experimental simultaneous measurement of Lorentz symmetry in two linked fields of physics: the pure gravitational sector and the classical point-mass limit of the matter sector. The team found no deviation from the predictions of general relativity

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/laws-of-physics-still-universal-studies-find/#

continued.....

 

[Write4U]

continued......

Scientific law

Scientific theories explain why something happens, whereas scientific law describes what happens.

The term law has diverse usage in many cases (approximate, accurate, broad, or narrow) across all fields of natural science (physics, chemistry, astronomy, geoscience, biology).

Laws are developed from data and can be further developed through mathematics; in all cases they are directly or indirectly based on empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they implicitly reflect, though they do not explicitly assert, causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented.[2]

Scientific laws summarize the results of experiments or observations, usually within a certain range of application. In general, the accuracy of a law does not change when a new theory of the relevant phenomenon is worked out, but rather the scope of the law's application, since the mathematics or statement representing the law does not change.

As with other kinds of scientific knowledge, laws do not have absolute certainty (as mathematical theorems or identities do), and it is always possible for a law to be contradicted, restricted, or extended by future observations. A law can usually be formulated as one or several statements or equations, so that it can be used to predict the outcome of an experiment, given the circumstances of the processes taking place.

Several general properties of scientific laws, particularly when referring to laws in physics, have been identified. Scientific laws are: True, at least within their regime of validity. By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.

• Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe.[8]:82
• Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation.
• Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them.[8]:82
• Stable. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws),
• Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations).[8]:83
• Generally conservative of quantity.[9]:59
• Often expressions of existing homogeneities (symmetries) of space and time.[9]
• Typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible.[9]

The term "scientific law" is traditionally associated with the natural sciences, though the social sciences also contain laws.[10] For example, Zipf's law is a law in the social sciences which is based on mathematical statistics. In these cases, laws may describe general trends or expected behaviors rather than being absolutes.

Laws as consequences of mathematical symmetries

Some laws reflect mathematical symmetries found in Nature (e.g. the Pauli exclusion principle reflects identity of electrons, conservation laws reflect homogeneity of space, time, and Lorentz transformations reflect rotational symmetry of spacetime).

Many fundamental physical laws are mathematical consequences of various symmetries of space, time, or other aspects of nature. Specifically, Noether's theorem connects some conservation laws to certain symmetries.

For example, conservation of energy is a consequence of the shift symmetry of time (no moment of time is different from any other), while conservation of momentum is a consequence of the symmetry (homogeneity) of space (no place in space is special, or different than any other). The indistinguishability of all particles of each fundamental type (say, electrons, or photons) results in the Dirac and Bose quantum statistics which in turn result in the Pauli exclusion principle for fermions
and in Bose–Einstein condensation for bosons.

The rotational symmetry between time and space coordinate axes (when one is taken as imaginary, another as real) results in Lorentz transformations which in turn result in special relativity theory. Symmetry between inertial and gravitational mass results in general relativity.

The inverse square law of interactions mediated by massless bosons is the mathematical consequence of the 3-dimensionality of space.
One strategy in the search for the most fundamental laws of nature is to search for the most general mathematical symmetry group that can be applied to the fundamental interactions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law#Properties

 

[Michael 345]

Posts 275 and 276 unread

Try real real really really hard to shorten post

 

[Write4U]

Posts 275 and 276 unread

Try real real really really hard to shorten post

Sorry for making it unnecessarily complicated.
Just read the highlighted portions. I believe those are in context of the immediate conversation.

The rest is for those like myself, learning as I go....

 

[Write4U]

No

Physics is operation of PHYSICAL STUFF

Yep, we are in agreement. Physics is operation of PHYSICAL STUFF in accordance to its relational values and mathematical functions.

MATHEMATICS has no physicality.

True, but PHYSICALITY does have mathematical properties.....

 

[Michael 345]

Sorry for making it unnecessarily complicated.
Just read the highlighted portions. I believe those are in context of the immediate conversation.

The rest is for those like myself, learning as I go....

Like this diagram
Now
Shorten text 275 AND 276 (both in one) into 278 size and add above diagram

Will read and perhaps add to my references list

Thanks