Random musings about mathematics

[James R]

Write4U:

The only on-topic content in your most recent post was this:

How could 1 +1 = 2 ?

It is not the maths that are causal. Causality is a mathematical process in essence.

As you will recall, you claimed "... by definition tensors are mathematical objects that are causal to the bending (warping) of space."

And I asked you "How could a mathematical abstraction possibly cause the warping of physical space?"

Now, here are the issues with your answer.

• It is not part of the definition of a tensor that it is "causal" to anything, let alone the bending (warping) of space.
• The question "How could 1+1=2?" does nothing to answer the question "How could a mathematical abstraction possibly cause the warping of physical space?"
• "It is not the maths that are causal" contradicts your earlier statement that tensors, which you noted are mathematical objects, "are causal to the bending (warping) of space".
• You're begging the question by making the new claim that "Causality is a mathematical process in essence"

Are you now going to retract your false claim about the definition of tensors?
Are you going to retract the claim you couldn't prove, about tensors causing the warping of space?
Are you going to retract your new claim that "causality is a mathematical process in essence"?
Are you going to stop getting AI chatbots to write most of your posts and instead start thinking for yourself?

Or is all this too much to ask of you?

 

[Write4U]

As you will recall, you claimed "... by definition tensors are mathematical objects that are causal to the bending (warping) of space."

Define space!

 

[Write4U]

• You're begging the question by making the new claim that "Causality is a mathematical process in essence"

No, I am making the claim that deterministic causality follows specific mathematical rules., else it is not deterministic, but random.

The term "deterministic" refers to the belief that all events are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws. In philosophy, it suggests that every action and decision is inevitable based on prior conditions. In mathematics and computer science, a deterministic system is one where no randomness is involved, meaning the same initial conditions will always produce the same outcomes. Additionally, in genetics, deterministic relationships can describe how certain genes interact with one another.
Merriam Webster+3

Are you now quibbling with the list of mathematical constants I quoted? Are they constant or not?

 

[Write4U]

Are you going to stop getting AI chatbots to write most of your posts and instead start thinking for yourself?

What does that even mean? Original thoughts?
Do you have any original thoughts or are you just verbatim repeating what you have learned from a text book. It is you who has some very original thoughts about me and they are mostly wrong. But then at least you can claim that you are thinking for yourself.
OK, fine by me.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Most of my objections to your claims remain unaddressed by you.

Are you going to retract your false claim about the definition of tensors?
Are you going to retract the claim you couldn't prove, about tensors causing the warping of space?

You didn't answer these questions. Answer them now, please.

And what about the part where you contradicted yourself? Are you going to correct your error, or just pretend it never happened?

Define space!

Space is the thing that stops everything from happening in the same place. How's that?

No, I am making the claim that deterministic causality follows specific mathematical rules., else it is not deterministic, but random.

What specific mathematical rules does deterministic causality follow, Write4U?

Please cite two of three of the specific rules that you claim it follows.

Are you now quibbling with the list of mathematical constants I quoted? Are they constant or not?

Did I write anything about your wikipedia cut-and-paste of some mathematical constants? I did not.

What on earth made you imagine I was "quibbling with the list of mathematical constants", then? I've said nothing about any mathematical constants. (You, by the way, have also said nothing about them.)

I didn't even bother looking at the list, because it's completely irrelevant to the thread topic. You need to start posting on topic. Answer the objections I put to you, if you can.

What does that even mean?

It means you're not doing anything useful by getting a chatbot to do all your thinking and writing.

Your user name is "Write4U", but you don't really write anything much, by yourself, do you? These days, you just ask questions of Copilot or ChatGPT and then mindlessly cut and paste whatever they spew back at you. Or you google the wikipedia page on whatever buzz word has most recently occurred to you and then mindlessly cut and paste the first paragraph from whatever the first search result is.

Do you have any original thoughts...

Explain what you mean by "original". Certainly, I have many thoughts that originate in my head and not on a website or in somebody else's head.

Am I single-handedly advancing human knowledge in all its aspects, such that every word that springs from my keyboard describes things that no human has ever thought of before? No, I'm not. But nobody does that.

What I am not doing is endlessly and mindlessly cutting and pasting simple definitions from random websites, without even understanding them. Unlike some.

... or are you just verbatim repeating what you have learned from a text book.

Unless I explicitly acknowledge a source in my post, you can assume that everything I write on this forum is my own invention. The words are never copied from a text book or a web site.

You know why I can produce original writing that is interesting and/or informative, Write4U? It is because I understand lots of stuff. I've made an effort to learn things, you see. I don't need a chatbot to think for me.

It is you who has some very original thoughts about me and they are mostly wrong.

Like what? What have I got wrong about you?

But then at least you can claim that you are thinking for yourself.

Yes. At least I can claim that.
----

Now, are you going to own up to the error you made about the definition of tensors, or are you planning on just ignoring your error on that? Can we expect you to repeat the same error in future posts and to pretend that you are unaware that it's an error? That's how you usually roll, isn't it?

 

[Write4U]

Now, are you going to own up to the error you made about the definition of tensors, or are you planning on just ignoring your error on that? Can we expect you to repeat the same error in future posts and to pretend that you are unaware that it's an error? That's how you usually roll, isn't it?

I am glad you returned to the thread topic of distortion, curvature, etc.

There was no error in my general understanding of what a tensor is or does.

Tensor

Tensors have become important in physics because they provide a concise mathematical framework for formulating and solving physics problems in areas such as mechanics (stress, elasticity, quantum mechanics, fluid mechanics, moment of inertia, ...), electrodynamics (electromagnetic tensor, Maxwell tensor, permittivity, magnetic susceptibility, ..., and general relativity (stress–energy tensor, curvature tensor, ...).

Thus tensors are indeed related to the formation of curvature.

In applications, it is common to study situations in which a different tensor can occur at each point of an object; for example the stress within an object may vary from one location to another. This leads to the concept of a tensor field. In some areas, tensor fields are so ubiquitous that they are often simply called "tensors".

more... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor

And if you persist in telling me that I don't know what I am quoting, I challenge you to do a better job than Wiki. Deal, or are you going to slip-slide away as if guided by a semantic tensor?

You know why I can produce original writing that is interesting and/or informative, Write4U? It is because I understand lots of stuff. I've made an effort to learn things, you see. I don't need a chatbot to think for me.

I think you are stuck in a mental ditch. As far as I am concerned you have not shown me anything that I could not get from the internet more concisely and authoritatively, and without the insufferable ad hominems that you always manage to insert for some mysterious psychological need.

I hope you realize that every word you speak is a quote from the published English dictionary? Nothing original there.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

There was no error in my general understanding of what a tensor is or does.

You are now dishonestly trying to avoid addressing the matter that I raised.

You wrote:
"... by definition tensors are mathematical objects that are causal to the bending (warping) of space."

I pointed out that it is not part of the definition of tensors that they are "causal to the bending (warping) of space".

Your latest stream of wikipedia cut and pastes proves, as usual, that I am correct and you were wrong.

So, why don't you just own your error and try not to make the same mistake in future?

Wouldn't that be easier than having to go on lying about what you said, and trying to dodge questions in every post, and having to post a whole heap of useless shit in an attempt to try to draw attention away from your error?

Wouldn't it also be the more honest approach to the discussion?

You'll feel better about yourself if you come clean and own your error, I assure you. You'll be able to walk away knowing that you made a mistake but you learned something, which means you can avoid continuing to make the same mistake over and over again.

The alternative is that you continue to lie for a few more posts, then you slink away for a while or get yourself banned again or something, and then you end up angry and bitter.

Which is it to be, this time round, Write4U?

 

[James R]

Write4U:

I think you are stuck in a mental ditch.

This, coming from the man who apparently can't talk about any subject other than Bohm, Tegmark, microtubules, or fractals. It's kinda ironic, don't you think? It's like ray-ay-ain, on your wedding day. Like good advice that you just didn't take. etc. etc.

As far as I am concerned you have not shown me anything that I could not get from the internet more concisely and authoritatively, and without the insufferable ad hominems that you always manage to insert for some mysterious psychological need.

You think that because you don't ever really pay attention to what I show you. Also, I think you struggle to remember things.

I hope you realize that every word you speak is a quote from the published English dictionary? Nothing original there.

Touche, Write4U. One point to you! Well done, you.

 

[exchemist]

Please note that by definition tensors are mathematical objects that are causal to the bending (warping) of space.

Not causal: descriptive.

Tensors are used, in one particular application of them, to describe the bending of space in GR. Tensors were invented in the mid c.19th, apparently by Hamilton, and have found a lot of applications, of which GR is only one.

 

[James R]

exchemist:

It's the usual problem, with Write4U. He has come to believe that mathematical objects - like equations or tensors or numbers - can somehow produce effects in the physical world.

He has consistently failed to provide any justification for this belief, which is expected because, of course, it can't be justified. But he hasn't even tried. And having not ever tried to find justification, he has never had to confront the conflict between his belief system and the reality. Hence, he has learned nothing, and he continues to repeat the same error over and over.

To tell the truth, I'm not even sure that he actually believes all the nonsense he posts about differential equations (or, lately, fractals) causing this or that physical effect. For all I know, it could be that he realised some time ago that all this "universe is made of maths" nonsense is a non-starter, but he's too angry at me to admit that he was wrong and I was right. So now we just see him going through the motions, rage-posting stuff he doesn't believe any more.

Actually, I think the most likely thing is that he doesn't really understand the arguments for or against the "mathematical universe", so he has just chosen a side and he intends to stick to it no matter what.

He also flip-flops between the reasonable observation that mathematics is surprisingly useful for describing the universe - something we all agree on - and the unreasonable and unjustified hypothesis that, therefore, maths magically controls and causes the universe and everything in it. (Magic is literally the only way it could do it, but Write4U will never admit that.)

He also seems to think that there's a half-way house between maths causing physics and maths describing physics, which is the idea that physical objects exist for some non-mathematical reason but are somehow influenced or "guided" by maths to behave as they do. Again, he does realise that the only available mechanism for maths "guiding" physics would be magic.

 

[exchemist]

exchemist:

It's the usual problem, with Write4U. He has come to believe that mathematical objects - like equations or tensors or numbers - can somehow produce effects in the physical world.

He has consistently failed to provide any justification for this belief, which is expected because, of course, it can't be justified. But he hasn't even tried. And having not ever tried to find justification, he has never had to confront the conflict between his belief system and the reality. Hence, he has learned nothing, and he continues to repeat the same error over and over.

To tell the truth, I'm not even sure that he actually believes all the nonsense he posts about differential equations (or, lately, fractals) causing this or that physical effect. For all I know, it could be that he realised some time ago that all this "universe is made of maths" nonsense is a non-starter, but he's too angry at me to admit that he was wrong and I was right. So now we just see him going through the motions, rage-posting stuff he doesn't believe any more.

Actually, I think the most likely thing is that he doesn't really understand the arguments for or against the "mathematical universe", so he has just chosen a side and he intends to stick to it no matter what.

He also flip-flops between the reasonable observation that mathematics is surprisingly useful for describing the universe - something we all agree on - and the unreasonable and unjustified hypothesis that, therefore, maths magically controls and causes the universe and everything in it. (Magic is literally the only way it could do it, but Write4U will never admit that.)

He also seems to think that there's a half-way house between maths causing physics and maths describing physics, which is the idea that physical objects exist for some non-mathematical reason but are somehow influenced or "guided" by maths to behave as they do. Again, he does realise that the only available mechanism for maths "guiding" physics would be magic.

I think the discussion with DaveC426913 in which Write4U says he has been tested for autism (though he says with -ve result) may be quite interesting, suggesting as it does there may be some form of mental disability, severe enough to have been investigated in the past. That would make a lot of sense.

But he does not really understand the meaning of words, notoriously flip-flopping between alternative usages of the same term in an inconsistent manner. He also has severe trouble with the concept of relevance. Hence the phenomenon that DaveC426913 rather perceptively identifies as the "infodump".

We have discussed in the past his cargo cult approach to mathematics: worshipping that which he does not understand.

None of this is going to change.

 

[Write4U]

I think the discussion with @DaveC426913 in which @Write4U says he has been tested for autism (though he says with -ve result) may be quite interesting, suggesting as it does there may be some form of mental disability, severe enough to have been investigated in the past. That would make a lot of sense.

No autism, just an IQ of 148. I admit that was a long time ago and time has taken its toll on memory. But the logic is still there.

 

[Write4U]

Tensors are used, in one particular application of them, to describe the bending of space in GR. Tensors were invented in the mid c.19th, apparently by Hamilton, and have found a lot of applications, of which GR is only one.

You mean the term "tensor" was invented by humans. The rules that created this condition existed since the beginning, long before humans walked this earth, and may well have been instrumental in the beginning.
They can be described because that is what is happening and can be measured, not because humans algebraically symbolized the process and symbolized the measurement quantitatively. The rules are abstract, the results are physical and independent of human observation.

Think of chess and the abstract rules (constants) by which the chess pieces are mathematically allowed to do "work".
The mathematical concept is not so much about causality as it is about permission or restriction. And that removes the problem of quantization of relative values. A physical action is either mathematically permitted or restricted. Try to mix oil and water. It is mathematically and therefore physically not permitted.

Is "work" a mathematical concept?

Yes, work is a mathematical concept in physics. It is defined as the transfer of energy that occurs when a force moves an object through a distance. The mathematical expression for work is given by the formula: W = F × d × cos(θ), where W is work, F is the force applied, d is the displacement, and θ is the angle between the force and the displacement. This formula allows physicists to quantify the energy transfer during physical interactions.246

Is "doing work" a physical concept?

Yes, doing work is a physical concept. In physics, work is defined as the transfer of energy that occurs when an object is moved over a distance by an external force. This concept is fundamental to understanding energy transfer and is used to calculate the change in kinetic energy of an object. Work is not only a concept in physics but also in everyday life, where actions like pushing a cart or lifting a weight can be considered forms of work.246

Is "pattern" a mathematical object?

Yes, a pattern is considered a mathematical object. Patterns can be defined as sequences of repeating objects, shapes, or numbers, and they can be finite or infinite. They are characterized by a rule that defines which objects belong to the pattern and which do not. Patterns exist in various forms, such as numbers, shapes, colors, and actions, and they play a crucial role in mathematics by helping us make predictions and solve problems more efficiently.246

Aside from the physics, where is mathematics not a necessary component of expressed patterns in reality?

 

[exchemist]

You mean the term "tensor" was invented by humans. The rules that created this condition existed since the beginning, long before humans walked this earth, and may well have been instrumental in the beginning.
They can be described because that is what is happening and can be measured, not because humans algebraically symbolized the process and symbolized the measurement quantitatively. The rules are abstract, the results are physical and independent of human observation.

Think of chess and the abstract rules (constants) by which the chess pieces are mathematically allowed to do "work".
The mathematical concept is not so much about causality as it is about permission or restriction. And that removes the problem of quantization of relative values. A physical action is either mathematically permitted or restricted. Try to mix oil and water. It is mathematically and therefore physically not permitted.

Is "work" a mathematical concept?

Is "doing work" a physical concept?

Is "pattern" a mathematical object?


Aside from the physics, where is mathematics not a necessary component of expressed patterns in reality?

Fuck off.

 

[DaveC426913]

Is "work" a mathematical concept?

This the same category error you make every time: mistaking the map for the territory.

'Work' is a mathematical concept. Since work exists in the natural world, it follows that the natural world is powered, in part, by the mathematical concept of work.

What you are arguing is analogous to this:

'Rock' is a literary word. Since rocks exist in the natural world, it follows that the natural world is powered, in part, by the literary word 'rock'.

No! Words, like mathematical values and functions, are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are the handles we attach to the thing; not the thing itself. They are the map, not the territory.

Work is a concept in math because math was invented to describe physics, which is a thing we see in nature.

 

[Write4U]

This the same category error you make every time: mistaking the map for the territory.

'Work' is a mathematical concept. Since work exists in the natural world, it follows that the natural world is powered, in part, by the mathematical concept of work.

What you are arguing is analogous to this:

'Rock' is a literary word. Since rocks exist in the natural world, it follows that the natural world is powered, in part, by the literary word 'rock'.

No, the term "rock" is a symbolic description of a physical pattern. Stuff inside the rock is doing a lot of work to keep the physical pattern whole as a rock, or else it would fly apart. A rock is a crystal

Is a crystal a mathematical object?

Yes, a crystal is considered a mathematical object. In mathematics, crystals are defined as Cartesian sections of certain fibered categories, introduced by Alexander Grothendieck. They represent mathematical structures that help understand representations in algebra, particularly in the context of Lie algebras3. Additionally, crystals are also recognized in the field of crystallography, which is a branch of mathematics that studies the arrangement of atoms in solids5.

Even so the rock experiences entropy, a mathematical process.

Is entropy a mathematical process?

Entropy is indeed a mathematical process​

Entropy is indeed a mathematical process. It is a state function, meaning it describes the state of a system and does not depend on the path taken to reach that state. The change in entropy (ΔS) is calculated using the formula ΔS = ∫ dQ / T, where dQ is the infinitesimal amount of heat added to the system, and T is the absolute temperature at which the heat is added. This formula indicates that entropy increases when heat is added to a system at a certain temperature, corresponding to a greater degree of disorder or energy dispersal within the system6.

Entropy is a fundamental concept in thermodynamics, explaining why certain processes occur spontaneously while others do not. It is also a key concept in statistical physics, where it describes the number of possible microscopic arrangements or states of individual atoms and molecules that comply with the macroscopic condition of the system2. In summary, entropy is a mathematical process that quantifies the disorder or randomness within a system, playing a crucial role in understanding the behavior of systems and the laws of thermodynamics.

DaveC426913:
No! Words, like mathematical values and functions, are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are the handles we attach to the thing; not the thing itself. They are the map, not the territory.

Work is a concept in math because math was invented to describe physics, which is a thing we see in nature.
Yes, man invented mathematics to symbolize naturally occurring values and functions. But when you can observe, measure, and describe a thing in nature it exists because it is there, not because you created it by giving it a name.

When you can mathematically describe natural processes, the mathematics exists by any other name or by no name at all. We use mathematics to describe how natural patterns appear. If it is a tool of humans, it is a tool of nature. There is no unknown magical replacement!!
Humans are able to use mathematical constants because they are natural in essence, not because we force them on the universe.

All we do with our descriptions is codify and symbolize natural relative values of stuff and interactive functions of how stuff behaves.
We call it Universal physics, but the language of Universal physics is mathematical, regardless of human symbolic description.

If you take the map away, does the terrain disappear? No, the terrain was there long before man came along, looking for greener pastures.

 

[DaveC426913]

, the term "rock" is a symbolic description of a physical pattern.

Correct! You're half way there!

Symbolic descriptions of things - whether those descriptions use words or numbers - are not the things themselves.

Symbolic descriptions of things - whether those descriptions use words or numbers - do not make things in the universe do stuff.

Say it out loud.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: Posts in this thread were moved from the following thread, where they were off-topic.

Fallacy , Space can be bent , warped or contorted .

It can't . To do so would mean that space can grasped a hold of . Space can not be grasped a hold of , by anything .

www.sciforums.com

The discussion here has turned into the n-th repeat of vague talk about Write4U's misunderstandings of mathematics. Since this discussion has been had many times before, there is little point in repeating it again.

So, this thread is closed.