Let me ask youBut they all could be correctly differently labeled, no?
If I was to take a book titled "The BIG Book of MATHEMATICS" and retitled it "The BIG Book of ENERGY"
Each formula inside, becomes a formula about energy
No problem, no?
Let me ask youBut they all could be correctly differently labeled, no?
That "immaterial" objects can have existence. God is one such objects, no?
I answered that in # 157Highlighted
What " immaterial objects , can have existence " exactly ? What objects are you referring to ?
I answered that in # 157
I am talking about YOUR GOD, that Immaterial creative motivated Intelligent Designer. An abstract Image.
Write4U said: ↑
That "immaterial" objects can have existence. God is one such objects, no?
That was not a statement of fact, Michael. It was in response to "river".
Exactly, everything in existence has a relational "value" in many forms, from the subtle abstract Implication (enfolded order) to the gross Explication (unfolded order) in physical observable form.For existence a something (any something) must have PROPERTIES. Most importantly said PROPERTIES must be DETECTABLE
I agree.Need not necessarily be directly detectectible by only human senses. We have the ability to build equipment to detect stuff not accessible to our puny Minions senses, but none the less exist
I agree.Lack of detectability is the biggest obstacle to Russell's teapot, not its improbability, although that does not help it's chances of existence
ENERGY is a sub-section in the Big Book of Mathematical relational values.Let me ask you
If I was to take a book titled "The BIG Book of MATHEMATICS" and retitled it "The BIG Book of ENERGY"
Each formula inside, becomes a formula about energy
No problem, no?
OK, then we are in agreement on this point.My god , I have no god . Is there Life in this Universe ? No Question .
Mathematics is the abstract logically quasi-intelligent language that is the guiding equation in all ways. It is the mathematics that allow for the orderly transmutation of Energy into Matter.Energy nor matter have intelligence .
Mathematics is the abstract logically quasi-intelligent language that is the guiding equation in all ways. It is the mathematics that allow for the orderly transmuation of Energy into Matter.OK, then we are in agreement on this point.
Energy nor matter have intelligence .
W4U said;
Mathematics is the abstract logically quasi-intelligent language that is the guiding equation in all ways. It is the mathematics that allow for the orderly transmuation of Energy into Matter.
That's the point....One size fits all!
No, mathematics are the natural laws that govern the interactive physical behaviors based on inherent and extant values.River said;
Disagree to your last statement , highlighted ;
Mathematics does not , can not allow and/or disallow anything . Mathematics has no efficacy on any Physical .
No, mathematics are the natural laws that govern the interactive physical behaviors based on inherent and extant values. [/QUOTE]Disagree to your last statement , highlighted ;
Mathematics does not , can not allow and/or disallow anything . Mathematics has no efficacy on any Physical .
ENERGY is a sub-section in the Big Book of Mathematical relational values.
OK Iggy river - got itThat was not a statement of fact, Michael. It was in response to "river".
quasi-intelligent language
Utter bullshit.Energy nor matter have intelligence .
Yes, arbitrarily assigned relational (relative) values. The human mathematical symbolisms are merely tools to manipulate the relative values.Not having seen or read such book I suspect it would be talking about ENERGY in a fashion which we arbitrarily assign a value
Every moment you put quasi-intelligent language
I will reply
dumb numerical squiggles
Quasi-intelligent
This thread appears to be about two extremities taken by river and Write4U......river is just being river, silly, trollish and child like behavour in dismissing apparent facts that are the basis of 20th/21st century cosmology.Mathematics has nothing to do with intelliegence quasi or dumb or yellow or Universe or rhinoceros or ........
It is just MATHEMATICS and gets along just fine being called MATHEMATICS.
This thread appears to be about two extremities taken by river and Write4U...
The existence of the Universe may not seem Logical at this time, but it is here and it acts logically!The universe itself is not logical, but everything in the universe is acting logically. The universe itself is beyond logic, and humans currently cannot understand the universe, so yes and no. The universe is very logical, very well organized and very well managed. ... It is beyond logical.
Properties are mathematical relational values.The universe isn't logical, it is physical. The elementary building blocks of the universe - particles, photons, spacetime itself - have beautiful, simple mathematical properties that make them behave in a consistent manner. A proton has identical properties on earth, inside the sun, or on the other side of the universe 14 billion years ago.
Limiting mathematical functions?We don't know all about these properties but we assume this consistency and the assumption seems to work. Obviously these micro level building blocks can produce very complex and different shapes and processes when combined in huge numbers, but the fact that the blocks are identical places overriding constraints on what can happen at the macro level we see.
A mathematical equivalence?Why might this be? My take on this is that spacetime is made of one kind of stuff, everywhere, at all times. This limits the type of objects that can exist in spacetime. To put it slightly differently, we can think of the fundamental "objects" in spacetime - photos, protons, etc - as perturbations of spacetime itself. This is analogous to a wave on water surface being a perturbation of the water and constrained by the properties of the water. We get certain wave shapes and not others because of the properties of the water. Ever seen an ocean wave in the shape of a rolling sphere? No, the physics of water won't allow it. Likewise, the shape (topology) of spacetime defines the types of variations that can occur in it, so, for example, an electron always has the same charge and rest mass.
At present, the topology of spacetime is an open question. However, the consistency observed in physics - and the fact that assuming consistency works as a research strategy - really strongly suggest that there is one and only one topology. Despite knowing quite a lot about it, we haven't actually nailed it.
This, to me, is why the universe appears "logical" to us: the consistency of the basic mathematical properties of spacetime. And, supposing that this consistency didn't exist, what would we have? I fuzzy mess, I think. Life could not exist, and we couldn't be sitting here in awe, observing it.
Everything is acting logically but nothing is logical.
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-we-live-in-a-logical-universeEven if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? -Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time
How then does mathematics allow us to solve almost all universal values and functions? Because we are intelligent but nothing is mathematical? No we are able to understand the mathematics of the universe because they present as quasi-intelligent and we are intelligent, so we can understand it.Any intelliegence Write4U spreads over them is a active process occuring in the brain and said process is incapable of being transferred to arbitrary squiggles
No, you need to look at this again. Throw a bunch of hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms together and see what happens spontaneously, as we can actually observe it happening without any help from humans. Do humans make it rain? Indians used to think so, but we know precipitation is a naturally occurring spontaneous reaction, a result of prevailing environmental conditions. It rains all by itself without the help from human intelligence.We can look at 1+1 = ? For eternity and the ? will not turn into 2 even if we have calculated 2 in our brain
In meteorology, precipitation is any product of the condensation of atmospheric water vapor that falls under gravity from clouds.[2] The main forms of precipitation include drizzle, rain, sleet, snow, ice pellets, graupel and hail. Precipitation occurs when a portion of the atmosphere becomes saturated with water vapor (reaching 100% relative humidity), so that the water condenses and "precipitates" or falls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PrecipitationThus, fog and mist are not precipitation but colloids, because the water vapor does not condense sufficiently to precipitate. Two processes, possibly acting together, can lead to air becoming saturated: cooling the air or adding water vapor to the air. Precipitation forms as smaller droplets coalesce via collision with other rain drops or ice crystals within a cloud
We are all mathematicians to a degree. Everything in the universe has mathematical values (properties). How does a frog catch a bug? Triangulation! Does it know this? No. Does it need to know? No.If arbitrary squiggles had what Write4U asserts we would all be mathematitions
In Aristotle's classification of the sciences, discrete quantities were studied by arithmetic, continuous quantities by geometry.[4]
The science of indirect measurement.[3] Auguste Comte 1851 . The "indirectness" in Comte's definition refers to determining quantities that cannot be measured directly, such as the distance to planets or the size of atoms, by means of their relations to quantities that can be measured directly.[6][/quote]Auguste Comte's
definition tried to explain the role of mathematics in coordinating phenomena in all other fields:[5]
The preceding kind of definition, which had prevailed since Aristotle's time,[4] were abandoned in the 19th century as new branches of mathematics — such as group theory[7], analysis[8], projective geometry[3] and non-Euclidean geometry.[9] — were developed and which bore no obvious relation to measurement or the physical world.
As mathematicians pursued greater rigor and more-abstract foundations, some proposed new definitions of mathematics which are purely based on logic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_mathematicsMathematics is the science that draws necessary conclusions.[10] Benjamin Peirce 1870
All Mathematics is Symbolic Logic.[9] Bertrand Russell 1903