You wrote "changes in the environment are a result of mathematical functions in the ecosystem, and always tend toward balance and symmetry."
So I asked you what "balance" and "symmetry" means for an ecosystem - i.e. what those terms mean to you in this context.
OK, let me try.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetry
In reply, you make an irrelevant reference to a wikipedia page on symmetry breaking in physics.
Yes, I wanted to cite an example of a dynamic function, such as symmetry breaking, which creates a dynamic imbalance?
Am I to take it that you don't really have anything particular in mind when you refer to the "balance" of an ecosystem, or to it's "symmetry", then? Are those just fancy words you're throwing in because they sound impressive in your statement about "mathematical functions"? Have you actually thought about what you're saying?
Yes, see above. btw. The spiral Fibonacci sequence was selected by natural selection because it offers the most mathematically efficient and balanced linear growth function, especially in the vertical growth function of plants and trees, which require sun-light for energy.
How could it not be, if you adopt Tegmark's view? His view says everything is mathematics, and that necessarily includes all beliefs held by human beings (who are all also nothing but mathematics in his opinion).
I disagree, Tegmark also proposes that certain mathematical patterns yield transcendent phenomona.
I am actually researching if that transcendence is indicated by the suffix "
xxxxxx-ness".
-ness
a native English suffix attached to adjectives and participles, forming abstract nouns denoting quality and state (and often, by extension, something exemplifying a quality or state):darkness; goodness; kindness; obligingness; preparedness.
Wetness?
You're getting distracted onto your other obsession - microtubules. Can we stick with discussing the problems with Tegmark, for now?
Sure, I have a seperate thread on "microtubules" in "alternative theories" .
So for every incremental increase in movement, time increases by certain increments? Is that what you're saying? Or, put more succinctly, movement is the cause of time?
Indirectly, I see time as an emergent measurement of duration of existence or change.
I believe this is an important philosophical observation
Can we perceive a relation between two events without also perceiving the events themselves? If not, then it seems we perceive both events as present, in which case we must perceive them as simultaneous, and so not as successive after all. There is then a paradox in the notion of perceiving an event as occurring after another, though one that perhaps admits of a straightforward solution.
When we perceive B as coming after A, we have, surely, ceased to perceive A. In which case, A is merely an item in our memory. Now if we wanted to construe ‘perceive’ narrowly, excluding any element of memory, then we would have to say that we do not, after all, perceive B as following A. But in this article, we shall construe ‘perceive’ more broadly, to include a wide range of experiences of time that essentially involve the senses. In this wide sense, we perceive a variety of temporal aspects of the world. We shall begin by enumerating these, and then consider accounts of how such perception is possible....more
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-experience/#WhatPercTime
How could movement create time? Isn't movement something we observe to happen as time progresses? Isn't time a part of the "background" against which movements occur?
Only if you consider time as a pre-existent by-product of the existence of space. But spacetime cannot be used as a measurement of say "lunch-time" is 30 minutes, which is not a spatial measurement and the temporal measurement of space.
Space does not exist or move in time, the "unfolding" of space creates an associated time-frame as a mathematical measurement of duration. Same as metrics are measurements of spatial properties, time is a measurement of existence or change.
Time cannot exist independent of anything else, it is always connected to the "start", "chronology", and "finish" of an event or series of events.
Time itself has no measurable properties. IMO, it is one of Tegmark's emergent transcendent measurements, strictly relative to the duration of what is being measured. The Universe does not care about time, it does not need to remember when it started or how old it is. Humans do and that's why we invented time as a simultaneous by-product of duration in the evolution of spatial dimensions.
I agree with you. On the other hand, I see no compelling reason to assume that we will eventually know everything about how the universe works.
Tegmark does. Is that really so controversial?
Is Einstein's E = Mc^2 not a conversion from pure energy into matter? What exactly does that mean? Energy is not matter? We know "c" is not matter, it's a measurement, no?
I think that our mathematical models of the universe involve some universal constants, with a few caveats (there's no way to tell if the "constants" are really universal, or even if they are "constant" everywhere for all time).
How could they not be? That is like saying the Universe is not the Universe in its entirety as a Universe. It was created and expanded from a single source with specific relative values and patterns which interact mathematically. Any non-trivial differences are already explained by relativity.
Why should a certain wavelength produce a different result in different parts of a contiguous universe? That would create chaos, no?
For a 3D printer to make anything, you need to provide it with more than just mathematics. You need to give it some physical material to build with.
Yes you have to feed it with dense atomic patterns of specific values.
A
simulation is an approximate
imitation of the operation of a process or system;
[1] that represents its operation over time.
Simulation is used in many contexts, such as simulation of
technology for
performance tuning or optimizing,
safety engineering,
testing,
training,
education, and
video games. Often,
computer experiments are used to study simulation models. Simulation is also used with
scientific modelling of natural systems or human systems to gain insight into their functioning,
[2] as in
economics.
Simulation can be used to show the eventual real effects of alternative conditions and courses of action. Simulation is also used when the real system cannot be engaged, because it may not be accessible, or it may be dangerous or unacceptable to engage, or it is being designed but not yet built, or it may simply not exist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation
Louis Allamendola at NASA simulates conditions in cosmic clouds to observe the effects of radiation in astrochemistry. I assume this requires an exact copy of the conditions, but at a very small scale. Is it necessary to copy an entire cosmic dust cloud the size of a galaxy?
Yes. That's very convenient for us. The question is: why does it do that? I don't like Tegmark's answer very much, that's all.
I don't like all of Tegmark's answers either. I certainly do not worship him.
I do like the simplicity of his concept, which appears to be testable by posing mathematical questions about unknown values and functions to the universe and receiving an answer (result) if the mathematics are correctly used.
I do believe all those cosmologist who declare they get a feeling that they are discovering existing universal mathematical properties rather than imposing mathematical properties. Why would they lie? Most science lies in discovery of pre-existing natural conditions and constants, no?