Does Chaos Theory prove a Mathematically Ordered Universe

[river]

Energy is also about the speed of a physical object and size . Such as the Asteroid or Comet that hit the Earth about 65 too 66 millions yrs ago . 5 miles in diameter at tens of thousands of miles per hour . And wiped out Life forms on a huge scale . It wiped out the Dinosausrs .

The KPg mass extinction .

 

[Write4U]

Your point Write4U .

There is no difference how something is made. It is all an extension of natural processes, regardless of the method used.
All creation is based on fundamental mathematical processes. Order from Chaos, Humans from Order, Robots from Humans.

Perhaps end of Humans from Robots. In the end it is "Natural Selection" that determines continued existence of all things................

 

[river]

There is no difference how something is made. It is all an extension of natural processes, regardless of the method used.
All creation is based on fundamental mathematical processes. Order from Chaos, Humans from Order, Robots from Humans.

Perhaps end of Humans from Robots. In the end it is "Natural Selection" that determines continued existence of all things................

Highlighted

Wrong .

Nature does what it does because of the Nature of energy and matter .

AI is built from the existence of a being able to do so . AI can not begin on its own .

 

[Write4U]

Highlighted.
Nature does what it does because of the Nature of energy and matter .

Yes, via natural selection, not motivated action.

AI is built from the existence of a being able to do so . AI can not begin on its own .

In the history of the universe, when did we begin and was it on our own, or from motivated action by a third party, or by natural selection?

 

[river]

↑

Highlighted.
Nature does what it does because of the Nature of energy and matter .

Yes, via natural selection, not motivated action.

Define the two .

 

[Write4U]

↑ Define the two .

Are you implying that natural selection is a motivated action? AFAIK, natural selection is a stochastic action.

We do build robots, Nature built us and ants.

Do ants have feelings?
By Susan Blackmore

Ants brains are smaller and simpler than our own, but the collective hive mind of the colony could have feelings.

Ants don’t have complex emotions such as love, anger, or empathy, but they do approach things they find pleasant and avoid the unpleasant. They can smell with their antennae, and so follow trails, find food and recognise their own colony.

Their exoskeleton has sensory hairs on the outside but they probably cannot feel damage on the inside, which is why parasites can destroy them if they can get in without touching the sensors.

Each ant’s brain is simple, containing about 250,000 neurones, compared with a human’s billions. Yet a colony of ants has a collective brain as large as many mammals’. Some have speculated that a whole colony could have feelings.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/do-ants-have-feelings/

Ants are nature's Borg and one of the earliest natural organisms capable of many human activities.

 

[river]

Yes, via natural selection, not motivated action.

↑
↑ Define the two .

Are you implying that natural selection is a motivated action? AFAIK, natural selection is a stochastic action.

We do build robots, Nature built us and ants.

Highlighted

No

Nature builds us , not a being .

 

[Write4U]

↑
↑ Define the two .

Highlighted

Nature builds us , not a being .

Right, but we are machines just like ants and eventually as robots, once we are done tinkering and nature keeps eliminating bad models.

 

[Beaconator]

"Pure energy" is for Star Trekkies.

It is not science.

Bullshyt. Our calculation of the Higgs boson confirms “this”

 

[Beaconator]

Chaos theory

It seems to me that “ “universal evolutionary processes, behaviors, and self-expression.
"intent".

 

[Write4U]

said

Write4U said: ↑ Chaos theory
It seems to me that “ “universal evolutionary processes, behaviors, and self-expression. "intent".

That is an incorrectly edited quote . This is what I said:

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

Just copy and paste to get it right. Else it may lose content in translation......

 

[Beaconator]

That is an incorrectly edited quote . This is what I said: Just copy and paste to get it right. Else it may lose content in translation......

Oops sorry but intent may be the largest question

 

[Write4U]

Oops sorry but intent may be the largest question

Well that presents a teleological problem.
To me intent means "motive" , a conscious desire, which suggests a form of consciousness.

But I prefer to think of it as a result of the law of "necessity" and "sufficiency"

Necessity and sufficiency

In logic and mathematics, necessity and sufficiency are terms used to describe a conditional or implicational relationship between two statements. For example, in the conditional statement: "If P then Q", Q is necessary for P, because the truth of P guarantees the truth of Q (equivalently, it is impossible to have P without Q).[1][2] Similarly, P is sufficient for Q, because P being true always implies that Q is true, but P not being true does not always imply that Q is not true

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency#

When sufficient resources are available, it may become necessary that a causal event manifests. This does not require intentional motivation.

Example: when sufficient amounts of H and O are present in sufficient density at sufficient temperature it becomes necessary that ice or water or vapor emerges from the appropriate combinations. And in the case of water, an additional necessary liquid quality of "wetness" emerges with the self-formation of water.

Self-formation does not require intent, it is a spontaneous mathematical function. IMO

 

[Beaconator]

Well that presents a teleological problem.
To me intent means "motive" , a conscious desire, which suggests a form of consciousness.

But I prefer to think of it as a result of the law of "necessity" and "sufficiency"

Necessity and sufficiency

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency#

When sufficient resources are available, it may become necessary that a causal event manifests. This does not require intentional motivation.

Example: when sufficient amounts of H and O are present in sufficient density at sufficient temperature it becomes necessary that ice or water or vapor emerges from the appropriate combinations. And in the case of water, an additional necessary liquid quality of "wetness" emerges with the self-formation of water.

Self-formation does not require intent, it is a spontaneous mathematical function. IMO

Does that mean I make you wet?

 

[Write4U]

Does that mean I make you wet?

No, intent means one likes camping......

p.s. do you like bacon?

 

[Beaconator]

No, intent means one likes camping......

p.s. do you like bacon?

Not particularly. I do like capicola

did you know pigs when let out into nature will grow tusks and more hair than in captivity?

 

[river]

Well that presents a teleological problem.
To me intent means "motive" , a conscious desire, which suggests a form of consciousness.

But I prefer to think of it as a result of the law of "necessity" and "sufficiency"

Necessity and sufficiency

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency#

When sufficient resources are available, it may become necessary that a causal event manifests. This does not require intentional motivation.

Example: when sufficient amounts of H and O are present in sufficient density at sufficient temperature it becomes necessary that ice or water or vapor emerges from the appropriate combinations. And in the case of water, an additional necessary liquid quality of "wetness" emerges with the self-formation of water.

Self-formation does not require intent, it is a spontaneous mathematical function. IMO

To your last statement .

What is this mathematical function based ? To have a function implies movement of something into a certain position . Correct me If I'm wrong .

 

[Write4U]

What is this mathematical function based ? To have a function implies movement of something into a certain position

First, everything in the universe has movement in accordance with mathematically ordering guiding equations.

Schematic depiction of a function described metaphorically as a "machine" or "black box" that for each input yields a corresponding output

AFAIK a "function" is a specific way processing of data in a specific way. When specific data is processed in a reliable specific way, we may say it is a mathematical function.

Function (mathematics)

domain and codomain

• X → B, B → X, Bn → B
• X → Z, Z → X
• X → R, R → X, Rn → X
• X → C, C → X, Cn → X

 Classes/properties 

• Constant
• Identity
• Linear
• Polynomial
• Rational
• Algebraic
• Analytic
• Smooth
• Continuous
• Measurable
• Injective
• Surjective
• Bijective

In mathematics, a function[note 1] is a binary relation between two sets that associates to each element of the first set exactly one element of the second set. Typical examples are functions from integers to integers, or from the real numbers to real numbers.

Functions were originally the idealization of how a varying quantity depends on another quantity. For example, the position of a planet is a function of time. Historically, the concept was elaborated with the infinitesimal calculus at the end of the 17th century, and, until the 19th century, the functions that were considered were differentiable (that is, they had a high degree of regularity). The concept of a function was formalized at the end of the 19th century in terms of set theory, and this greatly enlarged the domains of application of the concept.

A function is a process or a relation that associates each element x of a set X, the domain of the function, to a single element y of another set Y (possibly the same set), the codomain of the function. It is customarily denoted by letters such as f, g and h.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)

 

[river]

From Write4U , post # 458 ; right from the top .

First, everything in the universe has movement in accordance with mathematically ordering guiding equations.

Nonsense .

 

[river]

First, everything in the universe has movement in accordance with mathematically ordering guiding equations.

Disagree

Changing the mathematics of these equations does not change the physical dynamics directly .