The problem of Self-Referential systems

[Sherlock Holmes]

If we accept the fact that we are all making unsupported speculations, what's wrong with identifying a potential unbalanced condition that might be causal to some sort of dynamical correction.

Causality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

Hmm, yes this is all rather undisputed, but tell me what could possibly have caused causality to exist?

As an atheist, I rule out any consideration of a pre-universal intellectually motivated causal agency.

One shouldn't rule things out because one is an atheist, one should be an atheist because they've ruled things out.

What remains is a quasi-intelligent mathematical process that achieves the same result as an intentional agency, but requires a stochastic causality, a disturbance and a symmetry breaking, i.e. BB, at which point "differential equations" determine the resulting dynamical attempts to regain balance and symmetry and the evolutionary processes are set in motion.

Equations are laws relating material quantities, equations always refer to things that already exist, you cannot have an equation in physics that does not refer to something that already exists.

If you can provide an example that show me to be wrong then do so and we can discuss it.

 

[Write4U]

Equations are laws relating material quantities, equations always refer to things that already exist, you cannot have an equation in physics that does not refer to something that already exists.

Of course there are mathematical (logic) equations that do not refer to something that already exists. Pi refers to something that does not physically exist in nature.

Use pi to make sense of life without doing any math

You probably first met pi—the number used to calculate the circumference of a circle—when you were in school. If you aren’t mathematically inclined, you probably haven’t thought about it since then. But pi has practical applications for everyone as a real tool to better understand the universe and life itself. Without doing a lick of math.

In Visions of Infinity, mathematician Ian Stewart explains that it took about 2,000 years of great minds working at the problem of pi—moving from Euclidian geometry to algebraic calculations—to understand it as an irrational and transcendental number. In math terms, this means that pi cannot be represented by a fraction or an algebraic expression.

https://qz.com/931891/pi-3-14159-is...-the-nature-of-the-universe-no-math-required/

IOW, it is simply true regardless of any physical expression in reality. There are certain timeless logical truths, which are usually expressed in nature, but they existed before they became expressed and measurable in physical form.

If you can provide an example that show me to be wrong then do so and we can discuss it

I already did.

Causality

[1] which are also said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past. An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future. Some writers have held that causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space.[2][3][4] An abstraction that indicates how the world progresses,[5]

so basic a concept that it is more apt as an explanation of other concepts of progression than as something to be explained by others more basic. The concept is like those of agency and efficacy. For this reason, a leap of intuition may be needed to grasp it.[6][7] Accordingly, causality is implicit in the logic and structure of ordinary language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

 

[exchemist]

elements have been around before the invention of time. They aren’t exactly news

Nor is peanut butter.

 

[Beaconator]

Nor is peanut butter.

Now that’s racist.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Of course there are mathematical (logic) equations that do not refer to something that already exists. Pi refers to something that does not physically exist in nature.

Use pi to make sense of life without doing any math
https://qz.com/931891/pi-3-14159-is...-the-nature-of-the-universe-no-math-required/

IOW, it is simply true regardless of any physical expression in reality. There are certain timeless logical truths, which are usually expressed in nature, but they existed before they became expressed and measurable in physical form.
I already did.

Causality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

I think your conflating pure and applied mathematics here, my comments are in the context of physics and equations that represent physics.

 

[exchemist]

Now that’s racist.

And you're being olfactory.

 

[Write4U]

I think you're conflating pure and applied mathematics here, my comments are in the context of physics and equations that represent physics.

My comments are in the context of timeless logical abstractions, independent of physics and applied mathematics.

I have heard speculation that in a multiverse natural laws may vary and may result in the failure of that reality.
IMO, that is a flawed argument. The timeless logical abstractions are indeed timeless and would apply to every possible universe. It would be a lack of sufficient resources that would be causal to the failure of persistence, as is stated in the law of "necessity and sufficiency". If our universe did not contain a Higgs field, nothing would have mass.

And apparently, that law will be the eventual failure of this Universe, via "entropy" and "heat death".

https://www.energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Energy_loss

An example of a very inefficient energy conversion method, because once upon a time gas was cheap and plentiful.

 

[Beaconator]

And you're being olfactory.

If it smells like a joke it probably is

 

[Beaconator]

Hmm, yes this is all rather undisputed, but tell me what could possibly have caused causality to exist?



One shouldn't rule things out because one is an atheist, one should be an atheist because they've ruled things out.



Equations are laws relating material quantities, equations always refer to things that already exist, you cannot have an equation in physics that does not refer to something that already exists.

If you can provide an example that show me to be wrong then do so and we can discuss it.

Consciousness is the most likely origin of causality.

if we consider every action an act of consciousness…. Two stems are apparent. (The universe is conscious or becoming more self aware )and( it is not conscious which would not inhibit it’s ability to become conscious since consciousness exists in reality.)

 

[Write4U]

Consciousness is the most likely origin of causality.

No, that's circular reasoning and creates a paradox. Plus there is no evidence of consciousness, except on earth and that is a result of evolutionary processes of gradual refinement and complexity of sensory awareness. This can be traced back to purely chemical processes starting 4.5 billion years ago (some 9 billion years after the BB).

if we consider every action an act of consciousness…. Two stems are apparent. (The universe is conscious or becoming more self-aware )and(it is not conscious which would not inhibit the ability to become conscious since consciousness exists in reality.)

Consciousness is not required for causality or action. Dynamical conditions are sufficient for causality and action.

However, self-ordering from relational electrochemical "interaction" leads to the evolutionary formation of complex self-referential systems acquiring sensory awareness and eventual emergent self-aware consciousness.

Again, this can be traced back to very early non-conscious electrochemical interactions starting with the self-organizing patterns forming from the chaotic universal plasma.

Consciousness is not a necessary causal agency for stochastic electrochemical relational interactions.

 

[Beaconator]

No, that's circular reasoning and creates a paradox. Plus there is no evidence of consciousness, except on earth and that is a result of evolutionary processes of gradual refinement and complexity of sensory awareness. This can be traced back to purely chemical processes starting 4.5 billion years ago (some 9 billion years after the BB).
Consciousness is not required for causality or action. Dynamical conditions are sufficient for causality and action.

However, self-ordering from relational electrochemical "interaction" leads to the evolutionary formation of complex self-referential systems acquiring sensory awareness and eventual emergent self-aware consciousness.

Ah you have seen the error in my logic. Congratulations I failed to fully explain this dynamic.

it probably all started with god or consciousness trying to understand itself after causality. This is the way we live. But my statements still reign true to any atheist.

I knew it would be you to recognize this.

 

[Write4U]

Ah you have seen the error in my logic. Congratulations I failed to fully explain this dynamic.

it probably all started with god or consciousness trying to understand itself after causality. This is the way we live. But my statements still reign true to any atheist.

I knew it would be you to recognize this.

Therefore, according to Occam's Razor, the least complex valid explanation should be the preferred perspective.

Moreover, the entire concept of "irreducible complexity" has been scientifically debunked.
In the "beginning" we have 4+ elementary values and 4 elementary forces, from which all matter was and is formed.

 

[phyti]

Write4U;

DE are an inherent property of all dynamical systems.

DE are descriptions of physical relations expressed in the human language of math.

The speculation of the formation of the universe via 'big bang' (the current mindset in vogue) will only generate an endless series of answers with new questions, an effort in futility.

I never said time is causal to anything. If you have read any of my prior posts you'll see that my conception of time is that it is an emergent accounting of"duration", not the cause but the result of change.

However, given enough time and natural resources, it may evolve

You associate 'time" and 'evolution' in the traditional Darwin style.
The appeal to long periods of 'time' was never verified or supported by fact.

In a timeless condition of nothing, the beginning of something would be instantaneous (a necessity) and the beginning of everything that follows, including emergent time.

What evidence would support 'a timeless condition of nothing'?
Why something rather than nothing, which requires no energy?
If there is no intelligent life form, why would there be time?

My comments are in the context of timeless logical abstractions, independent of physics and applied mathematics.

What is the origin of these abstractions?

 

[phyti]

Write4U;

DE are an inherent property of all dynamical systems.

DE are descriptions of physical relations expressed in the human language of math.

The speculation of the formation of the universe via 'big bang' (the current mindset in vogue) will only generate an endless series of answers with new questions, an effort in futility.

I never said time is causal to anything. If you have read any of my prior posts you'll see that my conception of time is that it is an emergent accounting of"duration", not the cause but the result of change.

However, given enough time and natural resources, it may evolve

You associate 'time" and 'evolution' in the traditional Darwin style.
The appeal to long periods of 'time' was never verified or supported by fact.

In a timeless condition of nothing, the beginning of something would be instantaneous (a necessity) and the beginning of everything that follows, including emergent time.

What evidence would support 'a timeless condition of nothing'?
Why something rather than nothing, which requires no energy?
If there is no intelligent life form, why would there be time?

My comments are in the context of timeless logical abstractions, independent of physics and applied mathematics.

What is the origin of these abstractions?

 

[Write4U]

Write4U; DE are descriptions of physical relations expressed in the human language of math.

Yes, humans describe pre-existing natural functions and processes.
Humans do not invent them.

The speculation of the formation of the universe via 'big bang' (the current mindset in vogue) will only generate an endless series of answers with new questions, an effort in futility.

And you can offer a more logical axiomatic "beginning"?
Seems to me that the origin of the universe is well researched and "described" in human mathematical language.

You associate 'time" and 'evolution' in the traditional Darwin style.
The appeal to long periods of 'time' was never verified or supported by fact.

Then you have misunderstood me.
My claim is that time does not exist as an independent dimension at all. IMO, time is a by-product, a measurable result of duration of change or existence. When I speak of long periods of time, I mean long periods of measurable duration of some function or process.

What evidence would support 'a timeless condition of nothing'?
Why something rather than nothing, which requires no energy?
If there is no intelligent life form, why would there be time?

Clearly you have not understood my posts. Perhaps the fault of clarity is mine.

A "timeless condition of nothing" does not describe a thing or object. With "condition" I mean a (non-physical) circumstance, requiring no energy and therefore produces no measurable time duration.

What is the origin of these abstractions?

Logic

Abstract model theory

In mathematical logic, abstract model theory is a generalization of model theory that studies the general properties of extensions of first-order logic and their models.[1]

Abstract model theory provides an approach that allows us to step back and study a wide range of logics and their relationships.[2] The starting point for the study of abstract models, which resulted in good examples was Lindström's theorem.[3]

In 1974 Jon Barwise provided an axiomatization of abstract model theory.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_model_theory

Axiomatic system

In mathematics and logic, an axiomatic system is any set of axioms from which some or all axioms can be used in conjunction to logically derive theorems. A theory is a consistent, relatively-self-contained body of knowledge which usually contains an axiomatic system and all its derived theorems.[1] An axiomatic system that is completely described is a special kind of formal system. A formal theory is an axiomatic system (usually formulated within model theory) that describes a set of sentences that is closed under logical implication.[2] A formal proof is a complete rendition of a mathematical proof within a formal system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_system

Axiomatic method

Stating definitions and propositions in a way such that each new term can be formally eliminated by the priorly introduced terms requires primitive notions (axioms) to avoid infinite regress. This way of doing mathematics is called the axiomatic method.[5]

A common attitude towards the axiomatic method is logicism. In their book Principia Mathematica, Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell attempted to show that all mathematical theory could be reduced to some collection of axioms. More generally, the reduction of a body of propositions to a particular collection of axioms underlies the mathematician's research program. This was very prominent in the mathematics of the twentieth century, in particular in subjects based around homological
algebra.

Axiomatization

In mathematics, axiomatization is the process of taking a body of knowledge and working backwards towards its axioms.[8] It is the formulation of a system of statements (i.e. axioms) that relate a number of primitive terms — in order that a consistent body of propositions may be derived deductively from these statements. Thereafter, the proof of any proposition should be, in principle, traceable back to these axioms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_system#Axiomatization

 

[Beaconator]

Therefore, according to Occam's Razor, the least complex valid explanation should be the preferred perspective.

Moreover, the entire concept of "irreducible complexity" has been scientifically debunked.
In the "beginning" we have 4+ elementary values and 4 elementary forces, from which all matter was and is formed.

No the most complex values put into the simplest terms have always been the preferred perspective.

complexity is the reigning champion to all of science since hypothesis does not always perfectly match the experiment.

 

[Write4U]

No the most complex values put into the simplest terms have always been the preferred perspective.

I disagree with that in context of fundamental values. Complex values are limited in application, whereas simple values have much greater generic versatility in the self-formation of complex patterns. You cannot start with irreducible complexity. That hypothesis has been debunked, at least in context of Abiogenesis (evolutionary biological processes) which probably produced the most complex patterns in existence.

complexity is the reigning champion to all of science since hypothesis does not always perfectly match the experiment.

Of course, the greater the complexity, the greater the scientific task of dissembling the parts and identification of what came first in the evolutionary chain. We now know that the simple egg (single-celled organism) came before the complex chicken.

When all is said and done, all physical objects in nature have in common 2 (x 6) fundamental values (quarks and leptons), interacting via 4 fundamental forces. That is where everything starts and all complexity is a result of the self-organizing evolutionary processes by way of stochastic natural selection.

 

[Beaconator]

I disagree with that in context of fundamental values. Complex values are limited in application, whereas simple values have much greater generic versatility in the self-formation of complex patterns. You cannot start with irreducible complexity. That hypothesis has been debunked, at least in context of Abiogenesis (evolutionary biological processes) which probably produced the most complex patterns in existence. Of course, the greater the complexity, the greater the scientific task of dissembling the parts and identification of what came first in the evolutionary chain. We now know that the simple egg came before the complex chicken.

When all is said and done, all physical objects in nature have in common 2 (x 6) fundamental values (quarks and leptons), interacting via 4 fundamental forces. That is where everything starts and all complexity is a result of the self-organizing evolutionary processes by way of stochastic natural selection.

Yet those simple values came from complex experimentation and now are accepted flatly.

 

[Write4U]

Yet those simple values came from complex experimentation and now are accepted flatly.

Yes, I totally agree with that. I am not saying that simple is better than complex. I am saying that simple is more fundamental than complex.

 

[Beaconator]

Yes, I totally agree with that. I am not saying that simple is better than complex. I am saying that simple is more fundamental than complex.

Thanks