Does Chaos Theory prove a Mathematically Ordered Universe

[Write4U]

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

Are you proposing that everything happens chaotically? Where then did we discover mathematical functions?

What in your mind, constitutes ordering guiding equations? The universal algorithms? The axioms on which all science is founded. Free Will?

For a change, instead of constantly calling me wrong, why don't you offer an explanation of how things work.
Just repeating "physical interactions" is wholly inadequate to explain the regularities that stare us in the face on a daily basis. There is an underlying hierarchy of universal orderings.

IMO those natural ordering guides are mathematical in essence. And I am not alone in this.

 

[river]

Are you proposing that everything happens chaotically? Where then did we discover mathematical functions?

What in your mind, constitutes ordering guiding equations? The universal algorithms? Free Will?

For a change, why don't you offer an explanation of how things work.
Just repeating "physical interactions" is wholly inadequate to explain the regularities that stare us in the face on a daily basis. There is an underlying hierarchy of universal orderings.

First Highlight

No .

To the second highlight

True

But with limitations . Without limitations nothing physical could ever exist .

 

[river]

Without limitations , the Periodic Table would not exist .

 

[Write4U]

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

You have this backwards. It is impossible to change the physical dynamics. That is why they behave as they do and are subject to the way he universe (reality) is self-ordering.

 

[Write4U]

But with limitations . Without limitations nothing physical could ever exist

Exactly, and those limitations are mathematical permissions and/or restrictions in an otherwise physically permittive condition.

"c" seems to be one of those mathematically measurable limitations.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
Changing the mathematics of these equations does not change the physical dynamics directly .

You have this backwards. It is impossible to change the physical dynamics. That is why they behave as they do and are subject to the way he universe (reality) is self-ordering.

Highlighted

Nonsense , Again .

 

[Write4U]

Highlighted

Nonsense , Again .

OK, your turn. What causes matter to self-organize in regular patterns?

 

[river]

OK, your turn. What causes matter to self-organize in regular patterns?

The Nature(s) of this matter . Properties ; Physical Properties . From the micro to the macro .

 

[Write4U]

And those properties react to each other how?
Wait, I know your answer:...."physical" action and reaction.

But that does not explain the "how". That's the "hard question" of universal processes.

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Newton's Third Law of Motion , a mathematical equation, expressed in measurable values. That's how!

 

[Write4U]

This may be of interest. This is what I have been so imperfectly trying to say.

 

[river]

↑

OK, your turn. What causes matter to self-organize in regular patterns?

The Nature(s) of this matter . Properties ; Physical Properties . From the micro to the macro .

And those properties react to each other how?
Wait, I know your answer:...."physical" action and reaction.

But that does not explain the "how". That's the "hard question" of universal processes.

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Newton's Third Law of Motion , a mathematical equation, expressed in measurable values. That's how!

First highlight

Based on their atomic properties , and quantum properties . Hence Movement . There is no stillness

The how is through movement .

Newton's Law is based on the physical . ( what were these measurable values based on , the physical ) . And the consequential movement . Because of atomic and quantum properties . In all forms of these properties .

 

[Write4U]

Continuing the subject of universal mathematical properties and functions.

Theory of mathematics

https://www.dr-aart.nl/menu-english.html

 

[Write4U]

Just ran across this lecture on "patterns".

I believe it fits nicely in this thread;

 

[RainbowSingularity]

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.

when i first started reading on chaos theory it was associated with fringe science
it was fascinating to read how mathematicians and physicists were pushing hard into unknown territory to seek out new fields & boundary's.


what struck me was how chaos theory seemed to align with the current perception of the human personality
where mental illness and random chance and occurrence seemed to suggest possibly vastly more complex cause & effect of basic common logic, except on a highly complex level.

and so head first into psychoanalysis i studied leaning on Freud & jung digging in hard to developmental psychology and the construct of the human mind.

given what i uncovered, i firmly believe chaos theory is not only valid in its abstract forum but is a law given the nature of what it defines as reasonable science.

we have only just mapped the human genome
we can see cloning and stem cell research sitting there like a new childs bicycle wrapped up waiting to be opened.

we can see organ growth in brainless clone like laboratory frame works
sitting there waiting

but climate change and end of oil ...

 

[RainbowSingularity]

we can see organ growth in brainless clone like laboratory frame works
sitting there waiting

imagine having your own brainless clone growing you another heart and organs ready for a total organ replacement at age 60

how long would you live for ?
250 years old ?

RNA DNA therapy would be common
stem cell stim packs like immune booster vaccines

its all just sitting there waiting for humans to be more human

but look at all the americium cave man like moral sheople
demanding that a heart is more important than a brain

but do they deny heart transplants ?
i doubt it
cult members ! standing in the way of science & modern society

 

[Write4U]

what struck me was how chaos theory seemed to align with the current perception of the human personality
where mental illness and random chance and occurrence seemed to suggest possibly vastly more complex cause & effect of basic common logic, except on a highly complex level.

given what i uncovered, i firmly believe chaos theory is not only valid in its abstract forum but is a law given the nature of what it defines as reasonable science.

The religious analogy of creation.

Chaos = the Father
Order = the Son
Mathematics = the Spirit

 

[Write4U]

W4U said: And those properties react to each other how?
Wait, I know your answer:...."physical" action and reaction.

But that does not explain the "how". That's the "hard question" of universal processes.

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Newton's Third Law of Motion , a mathematical equation, expressed in measurable values. That's how!

First highlight

Based on their atomic properties , and quantum properties .

Yes, "relational values".

Hence Movement . There is no stillness. The how is through movement .

Better described as "dynamical environment" ?

Newton's Law is based on the physical . ( what were these measurable values based on , the physical ) . And the consequential movement . Because of atomic and quantum properties . In all forms of these properties .

"Measurable values" can be represented with symbolic mathematics, ergo the interactive process is controlled by a generic universal mathematical guiding principle.

Based on their atomic properties , and quantum properties .

Nicely summation of the dynamics of pysical interaction, but it does not address the guiding "logic" behind the interaction of physical properties. Each relational physical property has a measurable value.

Physical property

A physical property is any property that is measurable, whose value describes a state of a physical system. The changes in the physical properties of a system can be used to describe its changes between momentary states. Physical properties are often referred to as observables. They are not modal properties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_property

The "observables" (measurements) reveal an "ordering force" behind all physical interactions based on the values of the physical properties in a dynamic environment.

This functional guiding principle is of a generic mathematical nature and language that science has quantified and codified with human symbolic mathematics, allowing for extraordinary precision in the analysis of relationally interactive processes in a constantly changing dynamic environment.

 

[Write4U]

Rather than starting a new thread, I believe this meshes nicely with the general thrust of the OP title.

From Tegmark's "The Mathematical Universe" (MUH)

II. THE MATHEMATICAL UNIVERSE HYPOTHESIS

A. The External Reality Hypothesis

In this section, we will discuss the following two hypotheses and argue that, with a sufficiently broad definition of mathematical structure, the former implies the latter.

External Reality Hypothesis (ERH): There exists an external physical reality completely independent of us humans.

Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH): Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure.

In this section, we will discuss the following two hypotheses and argue that, with a sufficiently broad definition of mathematical structure, the former implies the latter.

Although many physicists subscribe to the ERH and dedicate their careers to the search for a deeper understand- ∗Partly based on a talk given at the symposium “Multiverse and String Theory: Toward Ultimate Explanations in Cosmology” held on 19-21 March 2005 at Stanford University and on the essay [1]. ing of this assumed external reality, the ERH is not universally accepted, and is rejected by, e.g., metaphysical solipsists.

In this section, we will discuss the following two hypotheses and argue that, with a sufficiently broad definition of mathematical structure, the former implies the latter. External Reality Hypothesis (ERH): There exists an external physical reality completely independent of us humans. Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH): Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure.

Indeed, adherents of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics may reject the ERH on the grounds that there is no reality without observation. In this paper, we will assume that the ERH is correct and explore its implications. We will see that, although it sounds innocuous, the ERH has sweeping implications for physics if taken seriously.

Physics theories aim to describe how this assumed external reality works. Our most successful physics theories to date are generally regarded as descriptions of merely limited aspects of the external reality.

In contrast, the holy grail of theoretical physics is to find a complete description of it, jocularly referred to as a “Theory of Everything”, or “TOE”. The ERH implies that for a description to be complete, it must be well-defined also according to non-human sentient entities (say aliens or future supercomputers) that lack the common understanding of concepts that we humans have evolved, e.g., “particle”, “observation” or indeed any other English words. Put differently, such a description must be expressible in a form that is devoid of human “baggage”.

B. Reducing the baggage allowance

......

C. Implications for a Mathematical Universe

In summary, there are two key points to take away from our discussion above and in Appendix A:
1. The ERH implies that a “theory of everything” has no baggage.
2. Something that has a baggage-free description is precisely a mathematical structure.

Taken together, this implies the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis formulated on the first page of this article, i.e., that the external physical reality described by the TOE is a mathematical structure.1

D. Description versus equivalence

Let us clarify some nomenclature. Whereas the customary terminology in physics textbooks is that the external reality is described by mathematics, the MUH states that it is mathematics (more specifically, a mathematical structure). This corresponds to the “ontic” version of universal structural realism in the philosophical terminology of [14, 22].

If a future physics textbook contains the TOE, then its equations are the complete description of the mathematical structure that is the external physical reality.

We write "is" rather than "corresponds to" here, because if two structures are isomorphic, then there is no meaningful sense in which they are not one and the same [19].

From the definition of a mathematical structure (see Appendix A), it follows that if there is an isomorphism between a mathematical structure and another structure (a one-to-one correspondence between the two that respects the relations), then they are one and the same.

If our external physical reality is isomorphic to a mathematical structure, it therefore fits the definition of being a mathematical structure.

If one rejects the ERH, one could argue that our universe is somehow made of stuff perfectly described by a mathematical structure, but which also has other properties that are not described by it, and cannot be described in an abstract baggage-free way.

This viewpoint, corresponding to the “epistemic” version of universal structural realism in the philosophical terminology of [14, 22], would make Karl Popper turn in his grave, since those additional bells and whistles that make the universe nonmathematical by definition have no observable effects whatsoever.

more..... https://archive.org/details/arxiv-0704.0646/page/n2/mode/1up

I believe this accurately describes what I mean by the term "generic universal mathematics".
Moreover. Tegmark explains the difference between the abstract concept of mathematics and the human codified and symbolized " descriptive language.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Posts on your Tegmark worship are off-topic for this thread. You are engaging in thread necromancy, too.

Please stop.

 

[Write4U]

Posts on your Tegmark worship are off-topic for this thread.

If you don't understand or like Tegmark, does that give you the right to restrict my quoting his hypothesis of a Mathematical Universe (MUH) in my original thread about a possible Mathematically ordered (ordering) Universe?
I was not discussing Chaos per se, in case you missed that point.

I started this thread by citing the established science of Chaos Theory as a supporting basis for the hypothesis that the Universal patterns are of a mathematical essence? Tegmark is just another spoke in the wheel.

You are engaging in thread necromancy, too.

Yes, because you are always killing my threads without having a clue as to where I am going with it or how I am going about it.

I'll decide when a thread of mine is dead.

If you want to facilitate science discussions instead of exercising dictatorial topic censorship, why don't you move it to a more appropriate sub-forum? IMO that would be a much wiser application of your moderator powers.
Right now you are just being a spoil sport. It's tiresome.