Well, perhaps a more accurate statement is ; Our existence is based on temperature.The Existence of the Universe is not based on living forms . The Existence of the Universe is based on Temperature . The Periodic table .
Well, perhaps a more accurate statement is ; Our existence is based on temperature.
But stuff and life was here long before man said : "You say Hello, I say Goodbye".
The continued existence of the Universe depends on its inherent potentials, of which the Periodic Table is one potential become manifest. Remarkable in itself, being that the entire Periodic Table on which everything in the universe is based, consists of only a few elementary self-organizing particles.
The organizing principle? The big "M" .........
Mathematics don't create anything. It is the function how everything is created. Input <--> Function <--> Output.No the big M , Mathematics has nothing to do with the existence of any organizing principle . Mathematics discovers the organizing principle . Mathematics can't create anything without reference to anything physical . That's a fact .
river said: ↑
No the big M , Mathematics has nothing to do with the existence of any organizing principle . Mathematics discovers the organizing principle . Mathematics can't create anything without reference to anything physical . That's a fact .
Mathematics don't create anything. It is the function how everything is created. Input <--> Function <--> Output.
Logicism is the thesis that mathematics is reducible to logic, and hence nothing but a part of logic. ... The concepts of mathematics can be derived from logical concepts through explicit definitions. The theorems of mathematics can be derived from logical axioms through purely logical deduction.
"When philosophy discovers something wrong with science, sometimes science has to be changed—Russell's paradox comes to mind, as does Berkeley's attack on the actual infinitesimal—but more often it is philosophy that has to be changed. I do not think that the difficulties that philosophy finds with classical mathematics today are genuine difficulties; and I think that the philosophical interpretations of mathematics that we are being offered on every hand are wrong, and that "philosophical interpretation" is just what mathematics doesn't need".At the middle of the century, a new mathematical theory was created by Samuel Eilenberg and Saunders Mac Lane, known as category theory, and it became a new contender for the natural language of mathematical thinking.[4] As the 20th century progressed, however, philosophical opinions diverged as to just how well-founded were the questions about foundations that were raised at the century's beginning. Hilary Putnam summed up one common view of the situation in the last third of the century by saying:
.......morePhilosophy of mathematics today proceeds along several different lines of inquiry, by philosophers of mathematics, logicians, and mathematicians, and there are many schools of thought on the subject. The schools are addressed separately in the next section, and their assumptions explained.
....much more...Realist and constructivist theories are normally taken to be contraries. However, Karl Popper[32] argued that a number statement such as "2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples" can be taken in two senses. In one sense it is irrefutable and logically true. In the second sense it is factually true and falsifiable. Another way of putting this is to say that a single number statement can express two propositions: one of which can be explained on constructivist lines; the other on realist lines.
IMO, Mathematics don't need to exist per se. It is part of the abstract essence of how things work and cannot do otherwise. All physical objects are essentially mathematical patterns. Products of Natural Logic.
Philosophy of mathematics - Wikipedia
Logicism. "When philosophy discovers something wrong with science, sometimes science has to be changed—Russell's paradox comes to mind, as does Berkeley's attack on the actual infinitesimal—but more often it is philosophy that has to be changed. I do not think that the difficulties that philosophy finds with classical mathematics today are genuine difficulties; and I think that the philosophical interpretations of mathematics that we are being offered on every hand are wrong, and that "philosophical interpretation" is just what mathematics doesn't need". .......more
Popper's two senses of number statements[edit]
....much more...
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Philosophy_of_mathema...
No, human mathematics measure things. I think we've been through this before.These Patterns of Natural Logic is Governed by how Physical objects interact with themselves and other Physical object(s) . Mathematics , in and of its self cannot produce a physical object ; without referring to a physical object of some kind in the first place . It can't be done . Mathematics measures thing(s) .
No, human mathematics measure things. I think we've been through this before.
Mathematics do not need to produce a physical object. The formation of objects are governed (guided) by universal mathematics (potentials), which in turn are based on inherent logic of the dynamical spacetime fabric
You always cite a great example of Table of Elements, and I agree because it is clearly a catalog of self-forming mathematical patterns, created from a few fundamental values and forces (constants).
IMO, anomalies are caused by the dynamics of spacetime. As Bohm posits spacetime is like a giant river (field) in constant motion (waves) with eddies and currents. And just as a meandering river everything is always in a state of flux until the wave motion is collapsed and the underlying mathematics are revealed.....Highlighted
Potentials of what exactly ? And what of Anomalies .
IMO, anomalies are caused by the dynamics of spacetime. As Bohm posits spacetime is like a giant river (field) in constant motion (waves) with eddies and currents. And just as a meandering river everything is always in a state of flux until the wave motion is collapsed and the underlying mathematics are revealed.....
Not really.Spacetime dynamics ? Really ?
Non-sense .
All applications of ordinal analysis hitherto had to do with time series analysis or abstract dynamical systems. A remaining challenge is to expand the applications to physical systems.
In order to tackle the viability of this program, we are going to study the permutation complexity of two simple models of spatially extended physical systems: cellular automata (CA) and coupled map lattices (CMLs). CA were presented in Sect. 1.5. CMLs can be considered as a generalization of the CA; they retain the space coarse graining of the CA, but the state variable take on real values.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-04084-9_10Despite their apparent simplicity, these are the preferred models when studying the emergence of collective phenomena (such as turbulence, space–time chaos, symmetry breaking, ordering) in systems of many particles interacting nonlinearly. Indeed, their ability to reproduce complex phenomena in, say, fluid dynamics and solid state physics, is impressive. For this reason, they are the ideal choice for our purpose.
Not really.
Space–Time Dynamics
Abstract https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-04084-9_10
You know my position. Without space there is no time.Define Space and Time , separate from each other .
You know my position. Without space there is no time.
Time is the emergent temporal result of durations of spatial (physical) dynamics.
Spatial dynamics are movement. There are several types of duration ,Correction
Time is the result of temporal measurement of movement of objects . Duration is irrelevant . All objects will have their own movements .
Spatial dynamics are movement. There are several types of duration ,
Measurement of existence, movement, and absence of movement between change. i.e. spatial dynamics give rise to temporal durations of every single object, pattern of objects , and duration of space itself , i.e. spacetime. (13.8 BY)
Everything in the universe is moving. There is not a single quantum field, atom, planet, star, or galaxy that is stationary. Everything is in motion and has dynamical properties, such as a wave function or gravitational and EM forces associated with dynamical potentials of spacetime.
One manifestation of general relativity is gravitational waves, depicted here as created by two colliding black holes. the fabric of space-time.(Image credit: R. Hurt/Caltech-JPL)
https://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html
Are you surprised? Why?What a bunch of BS .
Dynamical Potential of spacetime ?
One of the present authors has proposed a novel treatment of stochastic processes leading to the construction of potential functions for dynamics described by stochastic differential equations (SDEs). The approach transforms the deterministic part of the original system into three components: a potential function, a frictional force and a Lorentz force.
The potential function drives the dynamics and determines the final steady state distribution that has both local and global meaning. We note that such a potential is closely related to the classical Lyapunov function.
In this paper, we first provide a brief review on the decomposition framework and then give a constructive proof on the equivalence of two fundamental concepts: the global Lyapunov function in engineering and the potential function in physics, establishing a bridge between the two distinct fields.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6003378[/quote]This result reveals the physical meaning of Lyapunov functions, thus suggests new approaches on the largely unsolved problem: constructing Lyapunov functions for general nonlinear systems, through the analogy with existing methods on potential functions. In addition, we show another connection that the Lyapunov equation is a reduced form of the generalized Einstein relation for linear systems. By inheriting from a physical treatment of stochastic processes, this work demonstrates a stochastic view of deterministic systems together with the deterministic rules that govern stochastic behaviors.