Why are things in space the shape that they are?

paddoboy said:
Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.
Click to expand...
Yes, virtual particles are NOT physical matter. They are mathematical "values" possessing different quantum potentials.
 
Write4U said:
Au contraire, assumption of a prior eternal complex pattern with "intent" to create (causality) is a religious perspective.
Click to expand...
With no creator?
Write4U said:
That "initial" causal something may well be the simplest thing imaginable. A geometric tensor? A minor imbalance, subject to the "butterfly effect" (chaos theory) ?
Click to expand...
I looked everywhere in the eternal universe and could not find the "initial" and am pretty sure we did not have one.
I do not see how a small imbalance or the alleged butterfly effect could work.
Conservation of energy must rule it out.
However leave it in if you like I think the concept of something from nothing is a human need to find creation and a creator.
In any event it is speculation but then so is the theory of inflation..in my view..
Thanks for an informative post...my I point out something...you like your maths and that is nice and you treat it as infallible and on that point I could agree but it is a tool and like all tools it is used by a human to construct a description of reality, actually even to describe the abstract and unfortunately although math is somewhat infalible the human invariably is not...for example GR is geometry and can be employed to build a big bang universe or a eternal universe the final model is somewhat predetermined by the human and what he choses to include.
If we set out to find creation GR can take us there...as it did.
Anyways what I am on about is not science so I will not continue.
Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
With no creator?
Click to expand...
If creation was an intentional act as described in the bible then yes, creation would by definition require a sentient motivated creator.

That's how I know creation was NOT a motivated intentional act but a self-ordering result of mathematical probabilities, based on prevailing inherent mathematical potentials

As mathematics are quasi intelligent (logical) self-ordering functions with an appearance of intentional order, it is no wonder that primitive man would assign (imagine) an actual motivated creative intelligence, a god.

But scientific observation has shown that creation of physical shapes (mathematical patterns) can also occur as emergent mathematically ordered patterns from disorder, and evolutionary processes by natural selection (all mathematical functions). And by Occam's razor the simplest functional solution is always the preferred one.
I looked everywhere in the eternal universe and could not find the "initial" and am pretty sure we did not have one.
Click to expand...
The initial causal singularity? After 13.5 billion years how do you expect to see the initial causality which must have happened the quantum instant before creation and be beyond the observable event horizon.
I do not see how a small imbalance or the alleged butterfly effect could work.
Click to expand...
By magic of mathematics. Is this not precisely what chaos theory explains?
Conservation of energy must rule it out.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's a tricky question. But if our proposed singularity contains all the universal energy, then any inflationary process might well be within the limits of the laws of thermodynamics.
However leave it in if you like. I think the concept of something from nothing is a human need to find creation and a creator.
Click to expand...
I agree, that's how we invented gods.
But the "hard fact" is that we are here and we all agree that what we can observe today is a result of evolutionary mechanics (a mathematical function).
In any event it is speculation but then so is the theory of inflation..in my view..
Click to expand...
I agree, but the theory does address the observed universal self-ordering behaviors.
Thanks for an informative post...
Click to expand...
Sincere thanks.
...may I point out something...you like your maths and that is nice and you treat it as infallible and on that point I could agree but it is a tool and like all tools it is used by a human to construct a description of reality, actually even to describe the abstract and unfortunately although math is somewhat infallible the human invariably is not...for example GR is geometry and can be employed to build a big bang universe or a eternal universe the final model is somewhat predetermined by the human and what he choses to include.
Click to expand...
I absolutely agree that human mathematics as an analytical tool of universal values and functions is incomplete.

The inventor of the "mathematical universe" (Tegmark) clearly stipulates to the current shortcoming of "human mathematics", but he believes we are on the right track if we follow the mathematics of natural phenomena. He proposes that, if and when we get the maths right, we can explain and form a TOE, just by using 32 mathematical relational values and maybe a dozen or so fundamental equations.

But human maths are only symbolic descriptions of observed behaviors between natural
relational values and mathematical functions and as such are limited to what we have been able to observe or mathematically extrapolate from secondary effects.
If we set out to find creation GR can take us there...as it did.
Click to expand...
General Relativity
General relativity (GR), also known as the general theory of relativity (GTR), is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein
in 1915 and the current description of gravitation in modern physics.
Click to expand...
General relativity generalizes special relativity and refines Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime.
Click to expand...
In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter
and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
Anyways what I am on about is not science so I will not continue.
Alex
Click to expand...
Thanks for your contribution. You are actually an observer of the Universe at various stages of evolution and I, for one, value your input.......:)
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
But scientific observation has shown that creation of physical shapes (mathematical patterns) can also occur as emergent mathematically ordered patterns from disorder, and evolutionary processes by natural selection (all mathematical functions).
Click to expand...

I don't care that a human can enlist maths to support a particular notion but would like you to recognise that is the way of it...look when I say eternal universe I mean absolutely no start ..ever...none of your permissive conditions are required in my universe..sorry..and I understand what you say.


Certainly my thin is Entirely speculative but from here we have our axe to grind...it is now we bring in our math to support and prove we are right. And build a model into which we can fit observations as they come in...and a frame work that we can adjust as we go along but remember the basic premise is right so all observations and adjustments need to take that into account.

Write4U said:
And by Occam's razor the simplest functional solution is always the preferred one.
Click to expand...

Well I can't agree here at all..well I agree that the preference for the simplest exists but these words are merely words, from a man, and do not deserve to be followed as if there is no alternative...these words are as convenient as many other sayings..like stuff you find on a date pad..a saying for today stuff.

I hate those things..sounds smart everyone says how clever and now have a saying to avoid the need to think...oh we have a situation...what's the simplest answer..great let's go for coffee.

Why roll it out as if it provides authority to fit a situation you have determined to be the simple explanation.

Can I overturn your claim to simplicity and there by refute your arguement..I think the use of Occams razor is mostly inappropriate and may not stand tests offered by reality.

The simplest explanation is " God did it" so being the simplest explanation would you accept it?

Big Bang is cosmology and cosmology is what it is..I don't think it is seen as science except in one particular case..the big bang..all other cosmology is most clearly religion..creation myths..we see our cosmology as above all those primitive cultures of course because we employ science..employing science however does not make our cosmology science..does it?
That is a curley one for you.. what are your thoughts?
Alex
 
It looks like this thread might be drifting off topic into yet another discussion of Write4U's pet idea that the universe is nothing but mathematics. I suggest a separate, dedicated thread for that discussion, if you want to have it.
 
Write4U said:
Single Choice
Click to expand...

So you are of the opinion

Stuff + Mathematics came together [] ie appeared at the same moment?

Even though Stuff (physical reality), quarks and photons, appeared to begin to lump together

*****

Extract

Rapid cooling allowed for matter as we know it to form in the universe, although physicists are still trying to figure out exactly how this happened. About one ten-thousandth of a second after the Big Bang, protons and neutrons formed, and within a few minutes these particles stuck together to form atomic nuclei, mostly hydrogen and helium. Hundreds of thousands of years later, electrons stuck to the nuclei to make complete atoms.

https://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html

*****

No mention of any mathematicians being formed. ALL done with inbuilt PHYSICS

AGAIN maths is a INVENTED LANGUAGE used to described PHYSICS. Maths is NOT a DISCOVERED feature of the Universe

Hence we have a PHYSICAL Universe, NOT a MATHEMATICAL Universe

And physics rule why stuff in space form the shape they do, as well as the way they move (interact) between themselves forming such patterns as they do

:)
 
Write4U said:
And what are the qualities of the "patterns" that are being formed?

When I look at this I see ONLY mathematics!

https://physics.info/equations/
Click to expand...

Qualities of the patterns, ummm look nice, but that's only my subjective opinion

Neat equations, but mathematics foreign language to me but I'm sure the equations describe how all the tiny bits of reality fit together to make big bits of reality

If you are seeing ONLY mathematics you really are missing out the beauty of the patterns of reality, the REAL stuff

:)
 
James R said:
It looks like this thread might be drifting off topic into yet another discussion of Write4U's pet idea that the universe is nothing but mathematics. I suggest a separate, dedicated thread for that discussion, if you want to have it.
Click to expand...
I must protest.
The OP question reads "Why are things in space the shape that they are"?

The keyword here is "shape". no? What is a physical shape? Are there physical shapes? Or is a shape a mathematical pattern.

OK, the definition of "shape"
A shape is the form of an object or its external boundary, outline, or external surface, as opposed to other properties such as color, texture or material type.
Click to expand...

IOW. a shape is a mathematical pattern. How else are we going to discuss "shapes" or "patterns" in physics except via mathematics?

But in the spirit of goodwill, I'll shall start a new thread. And with your permission, I'll start it in Physics & Math.

The "Language Of Physics".
 
Michael 345 said:
If you are seeing ONLY mathematics you really are missing out the beauty of the patterns of reality, the REAL stuff
Click to expand...
I'm sorry Michael, but you have this backwards. Mathematical shapes and patterns make the art and beauty of Nature explicit.

Mathematical beauty


An example of "beauty in method"—a simple and elegant proof of the Pythagorean theorem.
Mathematical beauty is the aesthetic pleasure typically derived from the abstractness, purity, simplicity, depth or orderliness of mathematics.[1] Mathematicians often express this pleasure by describing mathematics (or, at least, some aspect of mathematics) as beautiful. They might also describe mathematics as an art form (e.g., a position taken by G. H. Hardy[2]) or, at a minimum, as a creative activity. Comparisons are often made with music and poetry.
Click to expand...
Bertrand Russell expressed his sense of mathematical beauty in these words: "Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty—a beauty cold and austere, like that of sculpture, without appeal to any part of our weaker nature, without the gorgeous trappings of painting or music, yet sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show. The true spirit of delight, the exaltation, the sense of being more than Man, which is the touchstone of the highest excellence, is to be found in mathematics as surely as poetry".[3]
Click to expand...
Paul Erdős expressed his views on the ineffability of mathematics when he said, "Why are numbers beautiful? It's like asking why is Beethoven's Ninth Symphony beautiful. If you don't see why, someone can't tell you. I know numbers are beautiful. If they aren't beautiful, nothing is".[4]
Click to expand...

Contents
1 Beauty in method
2 Beauty in results
3 Beauty in experience
4 Beauty and philosophy
5 Beauty and mathematical information theory
6 Mathematics and the arts
6.1Music'
6.2Visual arts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_beauty
 
Write4U said:
An example of "beauty in method"—a simple and elegant proof of the Pythagorean theorem.
Click to expand...
Only it's not really a proof. It's a plausible demonstration at best. The problem is, there's no justification given as to why we ought to accept that, say, the "B" piece at the bottom of the diagram has the same area as the "B" at the top of the diagram. It might be true, but the demonstration of its truth is not contained in the diagram itself.
 
Compare this one, for instance:

220px-Missing_square_puzzle-AB.png

All the same sizes "pieces" are used in both diagrams, but the total area of triangle A seems to be different from the total area of triangle B, despite the fact that they have the same base length and height.
 
James R said:
Only it's not really a proof. It's a plausible demonstration at best. The problem is, there's no justification given as to why we ought to accept that, say, the "B" piece at the bottom of the diagram has the same area as the "B" at the top of the diagram. It might be true, but the demonstration of its truth is not contained in the diagram itself.
Click to expand...
I saw a fractal in that illustration. (post #72)

In your illustration I saw a incorrect mathematical arrangement of the triangles, which created the mismatch.
That's the difference between a random physical arrangement and a mathematically correct arrangement. Must have the maths to get it right.
 
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947 said:
That can only mean that if someone is ignorant of maths then they can not appreciate art ... is that what you mean?
Alex
Click to expand...
No, what that means is that we recognize symmetry whether we know it or not. We are ourselves mathematical patterns and as such respond to mathematical objects.

But it is absolutely true that if you study the mathematics of composition, arrangement, balance, perspective, focal point, etc. your appreciation of art forms will increase tremendously.
Same as in music. Can't play music without studying the mathematics of music.

It is the same things as a Lemur being able to cognize the difference between "more" from "less" just as fast as humans. The Lemur doesn't count 1, 2, 3, 4., it just "cognizes" the difference in quantity distribution pattern of the objects being counted.
Note that Lemurs precede monkeys and apes and have the intelligence of tree dwellers living some 75,000,000 years ago.

 
Last edited:
James R said:
Compare this one, for instance:

220px-Missing_square_puzzle-AB.png

All the same sizes "pieces" are used in both diagrams, but the total area of triangle A seems to be different from the total area of triangle B, despite the fact that they have the same base length and height.
Click to expand...
Er, would that be because the composite figure is in fact not a triangle? There is a kink in the "pseudo-hypotenuse", where the blue and red triangles touch, isn't there?
 
exchemist said:
Er, would that be because the composite figure is in fact not a triangle? There is a kink in the "pseudo-hypotenuse", where the blue and red triangles touch, isn't there?
Click to expand...
Yes.

I think James R's point is simply refuting post 72, wherein W4U infers a proof from a diagram.

A figure looking like it all adds up doesn't mean it does all add up - a diagram is not a proof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top