Why are things in space the shape that they are?

[Michael 345]

I agree...

So you will give up on

These fundamental functions must be mathematically permitted, or these functions would not, could not exist.....

and use

ALLfundamental ACTIONS must be PHYSICALLY possible or PHYSICS would not WORK

Ya?

 

[Write4U]

So you will give up on
and use
ALL fundamental ACTIONS must be PHYSICALLY possible or PHYSICS would not WORK
Ya?

Naa... I have already stipulated to a fundamental "permittive condition", but that does not address the HOW, the mathematical permissions and restrictions of the actions themselves.
Not all physical action is mathematically permitted.

 

[Michael 345]

Not all physical action is mathematically permitted.

You mean the reason I cannot wave my arms and do a Superman fly around the world or lift up a 2 ton mass with my little pinky is because MATHEMATICS won't let me?

 

[iceaura]

The "principle of least action" - a shorthand for the workings of probability taken as a physical existent whose descriptive mathematical theory is a means of perception, the creation of a virtual sensory organ - explains the consequences of gravity as well as the other shape-establishing "forces" whose resulting shapes we perceive via our less abstract sensory organs.

A sphere is the shape with the highest probability of formation under certain relevant combinations of circumstance, in other words.

The same "forces" under different circumstances, with different probabilities, might yield (for example) a planar hexagonal latticework:

 

[Write4U]

You mean the reason I cannot wave my arms and do a Superman fly around the world or lift up a 2 ton mass with my little pinky is because MATHEMATICS won't let me?

How did you determine a "2 ton mass", a mathematical value?

If you tried to lift it and could not do it, would that prove anything except that you are not strong enough and would need to be able to lift ( .......mathematical equation........) to know whether you or anyone else could ever lift the object in the "experiential" physical world.

Note; Each of the 4 Universal Dimensions is a mathematical object with specific inherent mathematical ordering potentials. The Universe is a mathematical Geometric pattern.

Mathematical self-referential "values" and "algebraic" functions are a common denominator of both "space and time". Think about that.....

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Mathematical self-referential "values" and "algebraic" functions are a common denominator of both "space and time". Think about that.....

No no no

Algebra is nothing more than a clever human trick to guess, rather determine the other values...nature knows the values I suspect...well of course it does..nature does not use algebra..it probably has no idea what algebra is at all. Nature will know all inputs ..it must..it can not act with out all inputs...try to see this.

First you must recognise you have a problem...no one comes out and says it but as I consider you a friend, you above so many people I respect, and although I don't look up to anyone, you make me understand what it could be to look up to someone...I admire you and respect you...and so it is this extreme high respect I take the time to guide you...but I will only suggest simply so you can enjoy what I hope is a better understanding.

Your preoccupation with maths I understand but you must accept your perception is from ..no other way to put it..your perception..

Someone said physics is the territory and maths the map...that hints at your difficulty...you see maths because of its reliable production of outcomes as the reason for those very outcomes and that can not be the case.

With maths we are following the games, as humans we think we understand the games but all we do is make sense to ourselves of the results. The matter is way more complex than the maths...the maths is like a reporter describing a battle of ten thousand humans ending with an observation that one side won.

There is more than the way you see it...I can't take you there but I know if you step back and rethink all you say in an effort to get closer to the truth as oppossed to cementing a position that is well removed on where you could be I feel that you could provide a higher wisdom than your current drift it taking you..and us..for let us not forget you points are compleling but in my view you are not grasping the truth of the matter..maths is important but you in my view are not presenting reality...and lets us go back and consider your proposition re algebra... would you care to think more about your initial impression.
Alex

 

[Write4U]

Algebra is nothing more than a clever human trick to guess, rather determine the other values...nature knows the values I suspect...well of course it does..nature does not use algebra..it probably has no idea what algebra is at all. Nature will know all inputs ..it must..it can not act with out all inputs...try to see this.

I understand the difference between "knowing without doing" and "doing without knowing".
But if we are proposing that the universe does know the meaning of "input --> cause and effect -->, determinism --> mechanics", then why reject the terms that define these universal functions in terms of "relational values" (numbers) and "mathematical functions" (algebraic processes)?

What's the difference between humans knowing the meaning of "inputs", and "process", and "output", and the universe doing this "work" without knowing, and why would you accept one term as being correct and another as being a purely human invention? Consistency seems advisable here.

The Universe works in a consistent predictable manner, no? That is what "enabled' humans to invent a symbolic language which accurately identifies and describes these consistent universal actions to begin with.

IMO, all that means is, humans know how the universe functions, even as the universe itself doesn't need to know anything, it just does things that way.

All of human "symbolized" mathematics are based on observation of actual functional universal mechanics. To me that means the universe actually functions the way we describe it symbolically. It does not need to "know" anything. All that any "change" needs is to obey the mathematical laws of physics, the guiding principles (equations) that make everything work, which we have symbolized as "the mathematical/ physical functions of the universe" .

Algebra is not a clever trick. It is a perfect description of how the universe operates.
It adds, subtracts, multiplies, divides, and a few more exotic mathematical functions. It doesn't know 1 + 1 = 2 is an algebraic function, it is just how the universe works. It doesn't know the human symbolic terms but it is how it all works in reality, for humans and universe alike. Man's greatest "discovery" is the discovery of universal mathematics.

Terminology is "knowing (identifying) without doing", Function is "doing" (working) without knowing"....

p.s. Your civility can be held as an example of productive social intercourse....

 

[Write4U]

The matter is way more complex than the maths...the maths is like a reporter describing a battle of ten thousand humans ending with an observation that one side won.

No, IMO, that is the physics. The maths actually identify and describe the tactical strategies employed, explaining the numerical values of distance, trajectories and what and how one side was able to win. To say' "we won due to overwhelming physical force" is really not very informative of the actual mathematical strategic and tactical maneuvers involved.

Why does a sniper need a "spotter"? Sniper is the shooter, needing to take into account the environmental conditions of distance, elevation, wind speed, humidity.

The Spotter provides the mathematics "logistics" for all of that necessary information. Without the spotter it would be impossible to execute "one shot, one kill".

Guide to the Sniper Team

Though it only takes one person to fire a sniper rifle, it really takes two soldiers to get the most out of the sniper-rifle weapon system. That's why snipers always work in at least pairs. In traditional military doctrine a sniper team will be comprised of two members, a sniper and a spotter. However, in recent years some military doctrines have begun advocating the use of a third team member, the ‘flanker’.

I see physics as the narrative description of how thing work physically and the accompanying maths as the universal rules that make the physical actions possible and consistent to begin with.

I am certainly not proclaiming physics as human woo in describing cause and effect of physical interactions, however I am also not proclaiming that human mathematics is woo in describing the "relational" values and the universal "mathematical" functional processing rules that imply the determinstic effect from all causal values...

After all is said and done, we must ask if was necessary that the universe always existed as a physical thing or began as a collection of abstract values, from which the physical universe emerged via evolutionary processes.

Did the universe begin as a point object or a field pattern?

p.s. when taking pictures of galaxies, what are the required mathematically relative values you need to consider, to make the "recording" possible?
Focal length, aperture, shutter speed, color correction are mathematical values, no?
We can argue that these mathematical instruments are only useful to humans, but that's missing the point that all human mathematics are derivative of universal mathematics.

 

[iceaura]

Algebra is not a clever trick. It is a perfect description of how the universe operates.

It is an approximately aligned and probabilistically predictive partial model of how certain carefully limited and reasonably representative arenas of action within the universe operate.

As a model it of course comprises different and simpler stuff than what models. A model that reproduced the modeled would be useless - the whole point of a model is to omit the unnecessary, clarify and simplify the modeled, maybe get it to stay put so the modeler has time to examine it.

 

[Write4U]

As a model it of course comprises different and simpler stuff than what models. A model that reproduced the modeled would be useless - the whole point of a model is to omit the unnecessary, clarify and simplify the modeled, maybe get it to stay put so the modeler has time to examine it.

I agree, but as a model of any orderly change, what model would be simpler than the algebraic functions we use for every equation in mathematics?

Abstract algebra

The permutations of Rubik's Cube form a group, a fundamental concept within abstract algebra.

In algebra, which is a broad division of mathematics, abstract algebra (occasionally called modern algebra) is the study of algebraic structures.

Algebraic structures include groups, rings, fields, modules, vector spaces, lattices, and algebras. The term abstract algebra was coined in the early 20th century to distinguish this area of study from the other parts of algebra.

Algebraic structures, with their associated homomorphisms, form mathematical categories. Category theory is a formalism that allows a unified way for expressing properties and constructions that are similar for various structures.

Universal algebra is a related subject that studies types of algebraic structures as single objects. For example, the structure of groups is a single object in universal algebra, which is called variety of groups.

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

Pure mathematics studies the properties and structure of abstract objects, such as the E8 group, in group theory. This may be done without focusing on concrete applications of the concepts in the physical world

Pure Mathematics

Pure mathematics is the study of mathematical concepts independently of any application outside

mathematics. These concepts may originate in real-world concerns, and the results obtained may later turn out to be useful for practical applications, but pure mathematicians are not primarily motivated by such applications. Instead, the appeal is attributed to the intellectual challenge and aesthetic beauty of working out the logical consequences of basic principles.

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

Note that a Mathematical Universe consists of "mathematical values arranged in complex but orderly functional patterns.

 

[iceaura]

I agree, but as a model of any orderly change, what model would be simpler than the algebraic functions we use for every equation in mathematics?

Just don't confuse the model with the modeled.
The map is not the territory.

 

[Write4U]

Just don't confuse the model with the modeled.
The map is not the territory.

We're not talking about territory. We're talking about dynamic change. Algebraics are mathematical "functions" (processes). They are not descriptive, they are functional.

Determining Inputs & Outputs of Functions

Functions are like the manufacturing plants of mathematics: One thing goes in, another comes out. In this lesson, we'll discuss how to determine the inputs and outputs of functions that show up as tables, graphs, or algebraic expressions.

What are the Inputs and Outputs of Functions?

Functions exist all around us. You eat food and end up with energy. You put money in a vending machine and your selected item comes out. You ask a question and get an answer.

In mathematics, a function is any expression that produces exactly one answer for any given number that you give it. The input is the number you feed into the expression, and the output is what you get after the look-up work or calculations are finished.

Mathematical permission and restriction.

The type of function determines what inputs are acceptable - the entries that are allowed and make sense for the function. The function also controls the outputs that can result from those inputs. In this lesson, we'll see how to figure out the inputs and outputs from a table, a graph, and an
algebraic expression.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/determining-inputs-outputs-of-functions.html#

 

[DaveC426913]

Just don't confuse the model with the modeled.
The map is not the territory.

I have told him this a dozen times. He doesn't get it.

 

[Write4U]

I have told him this a dozen times. He doesn't get it.

You need a map to navigate the territory. That map is Mathematical in essence. Hence the territory must by necessity be also mathematical in essence.
IMO, the law of "necessity and sufficiency" may be applicable here.

I am not trying to replace Physics with Mathematics. Physics and Mathematics explain the same thing from two fundamentally different valid perspectives. This is not an unusual condition in current Physics, no? In Physics, reality is the collective subjective observation and interpretation of objective formalized Universal Mathematical physical patterns.

Physics = Mathematics is both "necessary and sufficient". It is part of the self-referential mathematical processes. Quasi Intelligent natural ordering functions.

Nevertheless, Reality is the combination of the two logical disciplines . Our observed reality is a Mathematical in construct (enfolded) and expressed (unfolded) as objects (dense patterns) in the Physical world. (Tegmark)

Necessity and sufficiency
This article is about the formal terminology in logic. For causal meanings of the terms, see Causality. For the concepts in statistics, see Sufficient statistic.

In logic and mathematics, necessity and sufficiency are terms used to describe a conditional or implicational relationship between two statements. For example, in the conditional statement: "If P then Q", Q is necessary for P, because the truth of P guarantees the truth of Q (equiv., it is impossible to have P without Q).[1][2] Similarly, P is sufficient for Q, because P being true always implies that Q is true, but P not being true does not always imply that Q is not true.[3]

In general, a necessary condition is one which must be present in order for another condition to occur, while a sufficient condition is one which produces the said condition.[4] The assertion that a statement is a "necessary and sufficient" condition of another means that the former statement is true if and only if the latter is true.[5] That is, the two statements must be either simultaneously true, or simultaneously false.[6][7][8]

In ordinary English, "necessary" and "sufficient" indicate relations between conditions or states of affairs, not statements. For example, being a male is a necessary condition for being a brother, but it is not sufficient—while being a male sibling is a necessary and sufficient condition for being a brother.

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

Mathematics are an abstract property of the universe as much as Physical patterns are.
The Implicate (mathematical) order becoming expressed as the Explicate physical order. (Bohm). Both Necessary and Sufficient in a Dynamic environment...

 

[Write4U]

This may further explain my perspective.

The disciplines: Physics, Biology, Chemistry, and Math (2013)

To become a biologist or health-care professional, you have to study a variety of scientific disciplines -- biology, chemistry, physics, and math. You might have noted that the world doesn't actually divide itself in this way. Rather, the disciplines historically have been a way of choosing a sub-class of the phenomena that occur in the world and looking at a particular aspect of them with a particular purpose in mind. Different disciplines have different sets of tools and ways of knowing. Connecting the different ways of knowing and tools is a key part of the "convergence of the physical and life sciences" we mentioned in the introduction. Looking at something from different disciplinary perspectives adds a richness and depth to our understanding -- like taking two 2-D pictures and merging them into a 3-D image.

Your introductory science and math classes often provide you with some basics -- tools, concepts, and vocabulary -- but may not give you a perspective on what each discipline adds to what you are learning and how they all fit together.

Each discipline has its own orientation and perspective towards the development of a professional scientist. Here's a brief (and oversimplified) overview of the different disciplines that you encounter in studying biology. ........much more

http://umdberg.pbworks.com/w/page/58022275/The disciplines

 

[Michael 345]

Physics and Mathematics explain the same thing from two

NO. Physics IS the THING

 

[Write4U]

NO. Physics IS the THING

Explain the abstract Physical thing to me..., I can explain the abstract Mathematical thing......

The Math of Stuff

The ancients believed that the world was made up of four basic "elements": earth, water, air, and fire. Around 350 BC, the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, in his book Timaeus, theorized that these four elements were all aggregates of tiny solids (in modern parlance, atoms). He went on to argue that, as the basic building blocks of all matter, these four elements must have perfect geometric form, namely the shapes of the five "regular solids" that so enamoured the Greek mathematicians -- the perfectly symmetrical tetrahedron, cube, octahedron, icosahedron, and dodecahedron.

As the lightest and sharpest of the elements, said Plato, fire must be a tetrahedron. Being the most stable of the elements, earth must consist of cubes. Water, because it is the most mobile and fluid, has to be an icosahedron, the regular solid that rolls most easily. As to air, he observed, somewhat mysteriously, that "... air is to water as water is to earth," and concluded, even more mysteriously, that air must therefore be an octahedron. Finally, so as not to leave out the one remaining regular solid, he proposed that the dodecahedron represented the shape of the entire universe.

IMO..." air is to water as water is to earth" ... must be a reference to "fluids" and their relative "density".

To Plato, as to many others, as Creator of the universe, God must surely have been a geometer. Or, as the great Italian scientist Galileo Galilei wrote in the seventeenth century, "In order to understand the universe, you must know the language in which it is written. And that language is mathematics."

https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/devlin_11_01.html#

I have an addendum to; "In order to understand the universe, you must know the language in which it is being written. And that language is mathematics."

IMO that completes the concept ......

 

[iceaura]

You need a map to navigate the territory. That map is Mathematical in essence. Hence the territory must by necessity be also mathematical in essence.

My county is not ink-printed cellulose in essence.
My map of it is.

 

[Write4U]

My county is not ink-printed cellulose in essence.
My map of it is.

Your description of a physical county is actually a non-physical holograph in your mind, as much as it is a set of non-physical mathematical dimensions in the brain. All human descriptions other than being the terrain are descriptive, regardless of the way the story is told. But we are not talking about the human scientific language. We are talking how the universe is able to consistently organize itself into a hierarchical sets of complex patterns, which humans have named physical objects. We are talking how the universe communicates with itself and chronicles its own dimensional and organizational measurements which are mathematical in essence.

Different disciplines have different sets of tools and ways of knowing. Connecting the different ways of knowing and tools is a key part of the "convergence of the physical and life sciences" we mentioned in the introduction. Looking at something from different disciplinary perspectives adds a richness and depth to our understanding -- like taking two 2-D pictures and merging them into a 3-D image.

http://umdberg.pbworks.com/w/page/58022275/The disciplines

 

[Michael 345]

Explain the abstract Physical thing to me..., I can explain the abstract Mathematical thing......

Physical is not abstract

abstract
▸ adjective /ˈabstrakt /
1 existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence:
abstract concepts such as love or beauty.
▪ dealing with ideas rather than events:

Oxford Dictionary

Physical stuff is reality

Galileo Galilei wrote in the seventeenth century, "In order to understand the universe, you must know the language in which it is written. And that language is mathematics."

And mathematics was INVENTED so it came l o n g after the Universe had been operating by the laws of physics