# Write4U's stream of consciousness

Status
Not open for further replies.
I know and I am not arguing against the physics of the process. I am addressing the interaction of relational values of the physics that are the deterministic control and represent reality.

In physics, H and O are elements.
In mathematcs, H2O = the mathematical pattern and structure of water and its potential for different states, depending on the mathematics of temperature.

In order to understand physics, mathematics is essential for fashioning "ordered" models of real world dynamics.

The internal mathematical values (potentials) of the droplet determine its physical behavior. Human numbers are just symbolic representations of interactive values and functions that are naturally assigned during the interactive event.
Physics is useless without mathematics, mathematics is an abstract concept without physics.
As has been explained to you many times, mathematics is not the physical world. It is not a microtubule, it is not a protein or an amino acid or a codon, it is not RNA or the endoplasmic reticulum.
Mathematics is abstract and it is useful in physics, chemistry and molecular biology but it is not those things.

I know and I am not arguing against the physics of the process. I am addressing the interaction of relational values of the physics that are the deterministic control and represent reality.

In physics, H and O are elements.
In mathematcs, H2O = the mathematical pattern and structure of water and its potential for different states, depending on the mathematics of temperature.

In order to understand physics, mathematics is essential for fashioning "ordered" models of real world dynamics.

The internal mathematical values (potentials) of the droplet determine its physical behavior. Human numbers are just symbolic representations of interactive values and functions that are naturally assigned during the interactive event.
Physics is useless without mathematics, mathematics is an abstract concept without physics.
This is sheer nonsense. A great deal of science can be done without mathematics at all.

Dear Write4U,

Do not feed the trolls. They rally against truth as they are blind and ignorant.

I wrote this on another forum:

Wigner says that the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics reflects a deeper truth:

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Wikipedia

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences, published by physicist Eugene Wigner in 1960, argues that the capacity of mathematics to successfully predict events in physics cannot be a coincidence, but must reflect some larger or deeper or simpler truth in both.

As has been explained to you many times, mathematics is not the physical world. It is not a microtubule, it is not a protein or an amino acid or a codon, it is not RNA or the endoplasmic reticulum.
Mathematics is abstract and it is useful in physics, chemistry and molecular biology but it is not those things.
Why do you think I am merging these subjects?
Do you think I am not capable of having discussion on 2 separate subjects in the same thread?

This is sheer nonsense. A great deal of science can be done without mathematics at all.
The universe does not care what humans do. It always employs mathematics for every action. That's how we get deterministic "results".

And bobcats are surprisingly good swimmers.https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-we-work/united-states/indiana/stories-in-indiana/indiana-bobcats/
But that is not so much a function of microtubules as it is "intermediate filaments" that form the muscles.

The universe does not care what humans do. It always employs mathematics for every action. That's how we get deterministic "results".
Wrong.
As has been explained to you many times, QT is NOT deterministic it is probabilistic.

As has been explained to you many times, QT is NOT deterministic it is probabilistic.
Yes, at Planck scale where the values are so small they are not deterministic of repeating results. But, as soon as matter forms, the interactions become deterministic, pattern forming.
If the narrative of Chaos Theory is correct, patterns do form stochastically, but once a pattern exists, it acquires interactive value, and interactive mechanics become deterministic. Isn't the Lorenz Attractor a stochastic but predictable pattern made by chaotic behavior over time?

### Stochastic Pattern Formation and Spontaneous Polarisation: The Linear Noise Approximation and Beyond​

Abstract
We review the mathematical formalism underlying the modelling of stochasticity in biological systems. Beginning with a description of the system in terms of its basic constituents, we derive the mesoscopic equations governing the dynamics which generalise the more familiar macroscopic equations. We apply this formalism to the analysis of two specific noise-induced phenomena observed in biologically inspired models. In the first example, we show how the stochastic amplification of a Turing instability gives rise to spatial and temporal patterns which may be understood within the linear noise approximation.

The second example concerns the spontaneous emergence of cell polarity, where we make analytic progress by exploiting a separation of time-scales.

and

Bioelectric networks: the cognitive glue enabling evolutionary scalingfrom physiology to mind
Causality Principle, Deterministic Laws and Chaos
Simple deterministic systems with only a few elements can generate random behavior, and that randomness is fundamental; gathering more information does not make it disappear. This fundamental randomness has come to be called chaos.

How long was that before you were banned?

Please take your nonsense, for which you have previously been banned here, elsewhere.

Yes, at Planck scale where the values are so small they are not deterministic of repeating results. But, as soon as matter forms, the interactions become deterministic, pattern forming.
No. This has also been explained to you. Quantum effects operate on scales many orders of magnitude larger than the planck scale.

No. This has also been explained to you. Quantum effects operate on scales many orders of magnitude larger than the planck scale.
Yes, that's what's being discussed in ORCH OR. Apparently here is no restriction on the values of quanta, just our ability to measure.

In summary, while there’s no upper limit on the size to which quantum mechanics applies, the standard quantum limit defines the precision achievable in certain quantum measurements.

To me that means, it is our inability to make measurements and predictions that creates the illusion of randomness.
But AFAIK, actual chaotic randomness occurs only at Planck scale. Above that may not be probabilistic but unmeasurable. for a variety of reasons.

## Introduction​

Since the inception of Quantum Mechanics (QM), there has been an on-going discussion on the ontology of the theory and its interpretations. In particular, there has been recently an intense debate on the validity of the so-called statistical interpretation of QM, see1,2. The ontological problem of QM is manifested especially clearly in the measurement problem. Therefore, understanding the physical meaning of the wave function is paramount. To understand the wave function, one needs to understand the equations of quantum physics.
Quantum Mechanics can be understood through stochastic optimization on spacetimes

In line with1, the results presented in this paper do not therefore support the interpretative thesis given by the PBR theorem, which claims to rule out the statistical interpretation of the quantum state2. Thus, we advocate for a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. The model presented in this paper suggests that the test particle is moving under the influence of an external random spacetime force. This random movement of the particle induces the transition probability distribution.
Bohm's Pilot wave?
This means that quantum mechanics can be understood as a statistical theory. In literature there are some conjectures what could be the reason for this random force. See for example the profound paper25 as well as26. Therefore, one could make the conjecture that quantum mechanics or quantum field theory is only a phenomenological theory and the reason for the statistical nature lies within the stochastic nature of the spacetime itself27.

## Conclusion and Discussion​

This study shows that the imaginary nature of various variables in quantum mechanics is due to the structure of the Minkowski metric. This paper derives the Stueckelberg relativistic wave equation and analytically continued Telegrapher’s equation directly from a stochastic optimal control scheme, where the four-position evolves in a random way.

The equations are obtained as a transformed solution of the HJB equation, when one demands coordinate invariance and couples the amplitude of the noise to the mass of the particle in such a way that the logarithmic transformation gives a linear HJB equation. In terms of future research, perhaps one should try to establish the wave equation in a general curved spacetime and thus generalise the metric into a more general form. The method of choice could be stochastic geometric control. This could be a way to combine general relativity and quantum mechanics, perhaps.

In line with1, the results presented in this paper do not therefore support the interpretative thesis given by the PBR theorem, which claims to rule out the statistical interpretation of the quantum state2. Thus, we advocate for a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. The model presented in this paper suggests that the test particle is moving under the influence of an external random spacetime force. This random movement of the particle induces the transition probability distribution. This means that quantum mechanics can be understood as a statistical theory. In literature there are some conjectures what could be the reason for this random force. See for example the profound paper25 as well as26. Therefore, one could make the conjecture that quantum mechanics or quantum field theory is only a phenomenological theory and the reason for the statistical nature lies within the stochastic nature of the spacetime itself27.

If the spacetime and its metric is stochastic at Planck scales, it could produce the illusion of random movement, which could be phenomenologically modelled with stochastic differential equations in the spacetime. In line with General Relativity, this could mean in essence that the energy sources in the space-time have a random character ie. the stress-energy tensor has a random character, see28, which could come from various disturbances, such as vacuum or zero field radiation. Future research avenues in this regard should include at least random metrics, i.e. metric tensors represented by random matrices.

As elaborated in27, the origin of the Born rule has been somewhat ambiguous till today. According to the stochastic control paradigm presented in this paper, the Born rule for the test particle is related naturally to real part of the minimal expected action. This connection between probability, the optimal action and thus the wave function can be understood by noting that the optimal diffusion drift velocity depends on the negative gradient of the value function. The spacetime diffusion process takes the route which minimizes the expected action; this is the essence of how (transition) probability is tied to energy minimization. We firmly base our beliefs on the realistic philosophy of quantum mechanics, where reality exists independently of the observer. This inclination is put forward especially lucidly by Sir Karl Popper29.

Is this what Penrose calls "noncomputable"? :

"Why do I believe that consciousness involves noncomputable ingredients? The reason is Gödel's theorem. I sat in on a course when I was a research student at Cambridge, given by a logician who made the point about Gödel's theorem that the very way in which you show the formal unprovability of a certain proposition also exhibits the fact that it's true. I'd vaguely heard about Gödel's theorem — that you can produce statements that you can't prove using any system of rules you've laid down ahead of time. But what was now being made clear to me was that as long as you believe in the rules you're using in the first place, then you must also believe in the truth of this proposition whose truth lies beyond those rules. This makes it clear that mathematical understanding is something you can't formulate in terms of rules. That's the view which, much later, I strongly put forward in my book The Emperor's New Mind." (Penrose)

Last edited: