Write4U's stream of consciousness

[James R]

Self-referential is an adjective that can be used for non-mathematical purposes.

What is an example of self-referential?

In the context of language, self-reference is used to denote a statement that refers to itself or its own referent. The most famous example of a self-referential sentence is the liar sentence: “This sentence is not true.” Self-reference is often used in a broader context as well.Jul 15, 2008

https://plato.stanford.edu/Entries/self-reference/#

A differential equation is a mathematical object and can only be used for mathematical purposes.

In all these cases, y is an unknown function of x (or of x1 and x2), and f is a given function.

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

Nothing in what you wrote addresses the objection I put to you in post #27. Meanwhile, you alleged there was some "problem" with my criticism of your nonsense, yet you have so far failed to identify a single error in what I posted.

Do you accept the criticism I put to you in post #27, or do you still want to allege that I have made an error? If you accept the criticism, I would appreciate it if you could acknowledge that publically for the benefit of your readers. If, on the other hand, you still think there's some problem in what I put to you in post #27 (and previously), you need to specify where I went wrong.

I look forward to your concise, on-topic reply.

 

[James R]

I believe Tegmark makes a convincing argument.

Why did you avoid answering the question I asked you?

Here. I'll make it simple for you. Multiple choice:
A. The universe's only property is mathematics. (i.e. the universe is mathematics)
B. The universe has some mathematical properties, but it is not mathematics.
C. The universe has no mathematical properties and it is not mathematics.

Which option do you believe? A, B or C?

Everything has a value.

What's the value of the Eiffel Tower?

All values are mathematical objects.

How is the value of the Eiffel Tower a mathematical object?

Doesn't sound complicated to me.

Sounds like a stupid claim, to me.

I am also not aware of a functional alternative other than magic.

What function are you talking about? The function of what?

Can you offer a non-mathematical model of the Universe?

Sure. The Universe rides on the back of a giant elephant, which in turn rides on the back of a giant tortoise.

When you say "quasi-intelligent", is that merely a synonym for "mathematical"?

Exactly! IMO, mathematics is a non-sentient quasi-intelligent function

So you're saying "IMO, mathematics is a non-sentient mathematical function?"

Okay. Sounds a bit obvious, does it not?

Also a bit wrong, since mathematics as a whole is obviously not a mathematical function.

Does mathematics exist before humans?

Evan Martis convinced you, did he?

 

[James R]

No, the universe has been observed to self-organize, it just doesn't do this consciously.

What do you mean by "self-organize"?

Do you just mean that there are physical laws that cause certain patterns to occur in the universe, or something like that?

What's new or revolutionary about that idea?

OK. let me draw a comparison.
Religion proposes a conscious and motivated Intelligent Designer. "And God saw that it was good". I am atheist so I reject that model.

Instead, a mathematical universe (as proposed by Tegmark) is a self-organizing object, utilizing inherent relational values and mathematical functions to achieve the same results, without motivated purpose or intent. It acts as if it is intelligent, but it is not self-aware.

You're telling me you've replaced one religious belief by a different one. I mean, fine. Whatever floats your boat, I guess. But there's no actual science in your new religion.

The stage where AI is currently?

Huh? Try to focus. Explain what you want to talk about.

Sometimes a natural action is not "good" but "destructive" (chaotic) , such as a super-nova.

You mean morally "not good"? Or what? Are supernovas evil?

It uses a mathematical function (subtraction) to explore and solve a maze. It doesn't know that it does but it factually does do the subtraction and thereby solves the problem.

Who showed a slime mold can do subtraction? What do you mean?

Are you just saying the slime doesn't grow in certain places, and you're going to call that "subtraction"?

It can learn to anticipate timed intervals, and it responds defensively to stress. It has preferred foods (oats) but when it is hungry it will tolerate hardship to reach its goal.

Is it your claim that slime molds are conscious?

No brain, just cytoplasm and cytoskeleton doing all the data processing (thinking). Quasi-intelligent data processing.

You think you've proved that slime molds do maths?

The proposition that all natural processes in the Universe obey mathematical rules. [makes sense]. Mathematically based laws of behavior.

As far as I can tell, you're just saying that there are physical laws of the universe that can be modelled mathematically. That's hardly controversial.

We just have not yet discovered all the pertinent mathematics for all the observed phenomena.

i.e. our physical (mathematical) models are incomplete. Again, hardly controversial to note that we don't understand everything.

Yes, it does mean a loose interpretation of Bohm's "Implicate order".

You're taking what is already a pseudoscience then loosely interpreting it into an even shoddier pseudoscience? What use is that?

 

[Write4U]

Which option do you believe? A, B or C?

"A" of course. Was there any doubt about that?
Reason: Only a mathematical universe allows for discovering the mathematics and codification of Universal values and functions.

List of physical constants
The constants listed here are known values of physical constants expressed in SI units; that is, physical quantities that are generally believed to be universal in nature and thus are independent of the unit system in which they are measured. Many of these are redundant, in the sense that they obey a known relationship with other physical constants and can...

List of physical constants
The constants listed here are known values of physical constants expressed in SI units; that is, physical quantities that are generally believed to be universal in nature and thus are independent of the unit system in which they are measured. Many of these are redundant, in the sense that they obey a known relationship with other physical constants and can be determined from them. [/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_physical_constants

Any other non-mathematical concept cannot be codified and/or understood other than "its magical"

What's the value of the Eiffel Tower?

Aside from the actual value of the parts, both abstractly and measurable to humans? Let's see.

How has the Eiffel Tower impacted the social, economic, and cultural landscape of Paris?
Observation tower, Tower (mathematics),
Best insight from top research papers
[quot]The Eiffel Tower has had a significant impact on the social, economic, and cultural landscape of Paris. It sparked a craze for objects imprinted with its likeness, leading to the emergence of "Eiffelomania" in the fashion world . The tower's construction and development were documented in Gustav Eiffel's book, highlighting its importance for scientific experiments and technological advancements . [/quote]

The tower also became a subject of inspiration for European painters, who depicted it in their portraits and cityscapes, showcasing its status as a symbol of modernity . Initially disliked by the French, the tower eventually became a beloved symbol of France and a main attraction for tourists, contributing to the city's economy . As the world's tallest man-made structure for over 40 years, the Eiffel Tower represented the ideals of industry and progress, solidifying its place in the cultural landscape of Paris . (Answers from top 5 papers)

https://typeset.io/questions/how-has-the-eiffel-tower-impacted-the-social-economic-and-5a7o7vxd3a

 

[James R]

"A" of course. Was there any doubt about that?

Yes, because several months or years ago on this forum, you said you believed A, but then last year you backed off that and said you believed B. And now you're back to A. Well, at least we cleared that up.

Reason: Only a mathematical universe allows for discovering the mathematics and codification of Universal values and functions.

That's a big claim. Do you have any evidence for it at all?

How did you rule out the possibility that a universe not made of mathematics could allow for the discovery of mathematics?

Any other non-mathematical concept cannot be codified and/or understood other than "its magical"

Here's a non-mathematical concept: I like bananas.

What's your understanding of that? Is it possible to understand the concept without mathematics? Is the only explanation for why I like bananas "It's magical"?

Aside from the actual value of the parts, both abstractly and measurable to humans? Let's see.

I expected you would do that. You forgot what you said about "value", didn't you?

Your claim, if you recall, is that everything has a mathematical "value". In fact, let me quote you:

All values are mathematical objects.

Do you now want to back off from that claim to make only the vague statement that "everything has a value of some kind"? The value of different things can be of different kinds, not necessarily mathematical?

Try to recall that you were attempting to make an argument for a mathematical universe. Arguing for "values" that aren't mathematical doesn't help you to do that. So social, economic or cultural "values" don't count. They aren't mathematical values - i.e. not the kind of "value" you need to exhibit.

So, I will ask you again: what's the (mathematical) "value" of the Eiffel Tower?

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Please make sure you don't forget to address post #34. Maybe do that next, while this message is fresh in your mind. Otherwise, you might forget again.

 

[Write4U]

Do you just mean that there are physical laws that cause certain patterns to occur in the universe, or something like that?

Yes, something like that. Like all the observed and measured phenomena that have been codified and are the symbolized measurements of Universal constants.

Sure. The Universe rides on the back of a giant elephant, which in turn rides on the back of a giant tortoise.

And can you prove that?

You're telling me you've replaced one religious belief by a different one. I mean, fine. Whatever floats your boat, I guess. But there's no actual science in your new religion.

Quite the opposite. There is only science in my model. It is your model that speaks of dualism and assigns mystical aspects to spacetime. You are the theist, not I.

What's new or revolutionary about that idea?

You seem to doubt that the measurement and codification of constants of these existing universal values have any meaning apart from humans . IOW, according to you, the universe does not work the way we observe it and in many cases can copy these constants using our codified and symbolized mathematics for human uses.

How did Higgs produce the Higgs boson, a particle that cannot exist independently? The maths predicted the event and Cern proved it the first time, without trial and error.

Here is a quote from an educated (?) mind:

The Higgs boson was found at the LHC (as opposed to the Tevatron or elsewhere) because the LHC provides a higher center-of-mass energy. The mass of the newly-found Higgs boson is completely consistent with it not having been found at previous experiments. So no, the situation is that the number of "failed" experiments is: zero. The two detectors at the LHC have discovered the Higgs boson independently through multiple decay channels (ie a form of independent sub-experiment), in accordance with what we might expect given its apparent mass.

No magic, the experiment acted exactly in accordance with the theorized relational values.

 

[Write4U]

Yes, because several months or years ago on this forum, you said you believed A, but then last year you backed off that and said you believed B. And now you're back to A. Well, at least we cleared that up.

No "B" is your choice, never mine.

That's a big claim. Do you have any evidence for it at all?

That's the point. There is no alternative . Can you cite one?

How did you rule out the possibility that a universe not made of mathematics could allow for the discovery of mathematics?

OK, if you want to end up in Plato's Cave?

Here's a non-mathematical concept: I like bananas.

And what is it that makes you like bananas? Bio-chemistry?
Is the nutritional value of bananas not based on bio-chemical interaction with our symbiont bacteria. Without our symbiont bacterial friends we would die. These critters are of existential value to humans. Do bananas have value? You bet they do. Potassium is a necessary chemical for many living organisms.

The importance of potassium
July 18, 2019

Potassium is necessary for the normal functioning of all cells. It regulates the heartbeat, ensures proper function of the muscles and nerves, and is vital for synthesizing protein and metabolizing carbohydrates.

Thousands of years ago, when humans roamed the earth gathering and hunting, potassium was abundant in the diet, while sodium was scarce. The so-called Paleolithic diet delivered about 16 times more potassium than sodium. Today, most Americans get barely half of the recommended amount of potassium in their diets. The average American diet contains about twice as much sodium as potassium, because of the preponderance of salt hidden in processed or prepared foods, not to mention the dearth of potassium in those foods. This imbalance, which is at odds with how humans evolved, is thought to be a major contributor to high blood pressure, which affects one in three American adults.

The adequate intake recommendation for potassium is 4,700 mg. Bananas are often touted as a good source of potassium, but other fruits (such as apricots, prunes, and orange juice) and vegetables (such as squash and potatoes) also contain this often-neglected nutrient.

The effect of potassium on high blood pressure

Diets that emphasize greater potassium intake can help keep blood pressure in a healthy range, compared with potassium-poor diets. The DASH trial (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) compared three regimens. The standard diet, approximating what many Americans eat, contained an average of 3.5 daily servings of fruits and vegetables, which provided 1,700 mg of potassium per day.

There were two comparison diets: a fruit- and vegetable-rich diet that included an average of 8.5 daily servings of fruits and vegetables, providing 4,100 mg of potassium per day, and a "combination" diet that included the same 8.5 servings of fruits and vegetables plus low-fat dairy products and reduced sugar and red meat. In people with normal blood pressure, the fruit- and vegetable-rich diet lowered blood pressure by 2.8 mm Hg (in the systolic reading) and 1.1 mm Hg (in the diastolic reading) more than the standard diet.

The combination diet lowered blood pressure by 5.5 mm Hg and 3.0 mm Hg more than the standard diet. In people with high blood pressure, the combination diet reduced blood pressure even more, by as much as 11 mm Hg in systolic blood pressure and 5.5 mm Hg in diastolic pressure.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-importance-of-potassium

All very mathematical, wouldn't you say?

What's your understanding of that? Is it possible to understand the concept without mathematics? Is the only explanation for why I like bananas "It's magical"?

Again, dualism is your position, not mine.

I expected you would do that. You forgot what you said about "value", didn't you?

Nooo... I use the term very carefully, because we have been on this road several times before. Have you forgotten?

Your claim, if you recall, is that everything has a mathematical "value". In fact, let me quote you:

Every physical thing does have a value, regardless if humans can perform any measurements.

Do you now want to back off from that claim to make only the vague statement that "everything has a value of some kind"? The value of different things can be of different kinds, not necessarily mathematical?

See post #37 for "kinds" of values.

Try to recall that you were attempting to make an argument for a mathematical universe. Arguing for "values" that aren't mathematical doesn't help you to do that.

Who says that social values have no mathematical impact on the environment?

So social, economic or cultural "values" don't count. They aren't mathematical values - i.e. not the kind of "value" you need to exhibit.

Really? Can you explain the mathematical value and consequence of the social use of recreational vehicles using oil instead of say, solar power?

So, I will ask you again: what's the (mathematical) "value" of the Eiffel Tower?

No, I am not required to give you numbers, but for starters, the construction took

and
Elegant Shape Of Eiffel Tower Solved Mathematically By University Of Colorado Professor
Date: January 7, 2005
Source: University Of Colorado

Summary: An American engineer has produced a mathematical model explaining the elegant shape of the Eiffel Tower that was derived from French engineer Gustave Eiffel's writings regarding his own fears about the effects of wind on such a structure.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050106111209.htm

Write4U: Please make sure you don't forget to address post #34. Maybe do that next, while this message is fresh in your mind. Otherwise, you might forget again.

I answered that question in post # 37.[/quote]
Eiffel Tower
M. Patel

During the World's Fair in 1889, Contractor Gustave Eiffel introduced the Eiffel Tower. An engineer by training, Eiffel founded and developed a company specializing in metal structural work. He devoted the last thirty years of his life to his experimental research. His most popular achievement was the Eiffel Tower.

Towering nearly 320 meters tall, and weighing 10,100 tons, the Eiffel tower stands both as a landmark, recognizable throughout the world as the icon of the city of Paris, and as a monumental example of materials' structure, properties and performance.

The tower is composed of puddling iron, not steel as many of today's buildings. Total 7,000 metric tons of puddling iron, which were the precursor to construction steel, was used. Like most materials, the tower undergoes thermal expansion. Thermal expansion is when a material changes dimensions while it undergoes temperature changes. The tower expands and contracts 15 cm from the hottest to the coldest day."

You can learn more about its structure and see many detailed photos and schematics of the tower by browsing the official website for the Eiffel Tower.

https://engineering.purdue.edu/MSE/aboutus/gotmaterials/Buildings/patel.html#

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Yes, something like that. Like all the observed and measured phenomena that have been codified and are the symbolized measurements of Universal constants.

But that's just view B - that the universe exhibits some mathematical properties. You need an argument for view A - that the universe is nothing but mathematics.

And can you prove that?

No, but it's a non-mathematical model. I gave you what you asked for. Remember, you were insisting that only mathematical models of the universe are possible. I showed you that a non-mathematical model is possible.

There is only science in my model.

Where's the science?

It is your model that speaks of dualism and assigns mystical aspects to spacetime.

You mean the elephant and tortoise model? That's not my preferred model of the universe. I don't think it's an accurate model of the universe. On the contrary.

You are the theist, not I.

That's a strange thing for you to say. I have nowhere asserted that a god exists.

What I said is that you have a religious belief. You believe that the universe is nothing but mathematics. You believe that because, apparently, you're willing to believe anything the Great Prophet Tegmark says. For you, mathematics has taken the place of the traditional God of, say, Christianity. Now, your explanation for everything is "Math did it", which just replaces "God did it". You have a faith-based belief system with all the hallmarks of a religion. You have a Supreme Force or Being. You have the One True Prophet. Your faith explains literally everything that exists, by appealing to one overriding principle. And - most importantly - you have no evidence that supports the tenets of your faith.

You seem to doubt that the measurement and codification of constants of these existing universal values have any meaning apart from humans.

I don't think I have said that, exactly. We can discuss, if you like.

IOW, according to you, the universe does not work the way we observe it and in many cases can copy these constants using our codified and symbolized mathematics for human uses.

Is saying "the universe works the way we observe it" equivalent to saying that our models of the universe are good at explaining how the universe works? If so, then I agree that our models do a decent job. After all, we've had a long time to refine our models, and some smart people working on the problems.

How did Higgs produce the Higgs boson, a particle that cannot exist independently?

I don't understand what you're asking. Higgs didn't produce the Higgs boson. Higgs came up with a theory that predicted the existence of the Higgs boson. That prediction was verified by scientists working at the Large Hadron Collider.

Clearly, the Higgs boson can exist independently. If it couldn't, it wouldn't be a discrete particle. What are you talking about?

The maths predicted the event and Cern proved it the first time, without trial and error.

I have no idea how you think it was proved. What do you mean by "the first time"? And do you think the errors weren't quantified at CERN?

Here is a quote from an educated (?) mind:
No magic, the experiment acted exactly in accordance with the theorized relational values.

There was no guarantee that the experiment would prove the theory. There's never any guarantee. And, in fact, many experiments fail to prove various hypotheses.

Pointing to one successful mathematical theory - or even hundreds - does not prove that the universe is made of mathematics. Not even close.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U:

But that's just view B - that the universe exhibits some mathematical properties. You need an argument for view A - that the universe is nothing but mathematics.

The argument can only be made from extant theory. The current model you cling to predicts at least some mathematical properties. Tegmark's argument is that if the universe has some mathematical properties , what prevent it from having only mathematical properties?
AFAIK, mathematics are not guided by universal physics. Physics are guided by universal mathematics.

No, but it's a non-mathematical model. I gave you what you asked for. Remember, you were insisting that only mathematical models of the universe are possible. I showed you that a non-mathematical model is possible.

No, you didn't. A non-mathematical model requires an Intelligent Designer. That's what makes you the religious believer according to the common definition of religious belief.
As for me, a quasi-intelligent mathematical model does not require a God or anything else and that's what makes me an atheist. It solves all dualist concepts.

You mean the elephant and tortoise model? That's not my preferred model of the universe. I don't think it's an accurate model of the universe. On the contrary.

I agree. I did not present that model, except in the form of CDT (Causal Dynamical Triangulation) which assumes that the universal fabric unfolds (another Bohmian phrase) in a self-similar fractal manner.

That's a strange thing for you to say. I have nowhere asserted that a god exists.

You have not provided a viable alternate model. That's why I asked for an alternate model that does not rely on ANY mathematics. If you allow for SOME mathematical functions at all (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) then why NOT ONLY mathematical functions? What is the argument against mathematics?

What I said is that you have a religious belief. You believe that the universe is nothing but mathematics. You believe that because, apparently, you're willing to believe anything the Great Prophet Tegmark says.

No I don't and I have expressed that on occasion.
Is mainstream science your religion? That is your "preferred" model, no? So to you the universe is partly mathematical and the other part is.......religion ??????

For you, mathematics has taken the place of the traditional God of, say, Christianity.

Oh jeez..., that's just BS.
Quantum and Relativity are your religion. You believe in those models don't you? Oddly the two are not even compatible as modeled.
"Shut up and compute" actually advises you to use mathematics to solve your physics problems.

I don't think I have said that, exactly. We can discuss, if you like.

I have enough on my plate right now.

Now, your explanation for everything is "Math did it", which just replaces "God did it". You have a faith-based belief system with all the hallmarks of a religion. You have a Supreme Force or Being. You have the One True Prophet. Your faith explains literally everything that exists, by appealing to one overriding principle. And - most importantly - you have no evidence that supports the tenets of your faith.

I'll just respond to the term"evidence". The rest is your "invention". The evidence is axiomatic. Our symbolization of relational values and our descriptions of how they interact in the real world are very reliable, by all accounts, i.e. "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics". Where human maths are not effective, they are simply wrong.
I find it eminently reasonable that mathematics, which is a logical discipline, are the guiding principle in the interaction of relational values.

The axioms of set theory may be presumed to hold in virtue of the meanings of the terms set, member of, and so on. Thus, in some loose sense all of pure mathematics falls within the scope of logic in the wider sense.

Logic and other disciplines
Technical disciplines
The relations of logic to mathematics, to computer technology, and to the empirical sciences are here considered.

Mathematics

It is usually said that all of mathematics can, in principle, be formulated in a sufficiently theorem-rich system of axiomatic set theory.

What the axioms of a set theory that could accomplish this might be, however, and whether they are at all natural is not obvious in every case. (The recent development in abstract algebra known as category theory offers the most conspicuous examples of these problems.)

The axioms of set theory may be presumed to hold in virtue of the meanings of the terms set, member of, and so on. Thus, in some loose sense all of pure mathematics falls within the scope of logic in the wider sense. This assertion is not very informative, however, as long as the logician has no ways of analyzing these meanings so as to be able to tell what assumptions (axioms of set theory) should be adopted. The definitions of basic mathematical concepts (such as “number”) in logical terms proposed by Gottlob Frege (in 1884), by Bertrand Russell (in 1903), and by their successors do not help in this enterprise. It is not clear that more recent insights in logic help very much, either, in the search for strong set-theoretical assumptions. The relationship of mathematics to logic on this level therefore remains ambiguous.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-logic/Logic-and-other-disciplines

Note that any problem humans have with maths, does not in any way affect the perfection of the universe's use of mathematics.

Is saying "the universe works the way we observe it" equivalent to saying that our models of the universe are good at explaining how the universe works? If so, then I agree that our models do a decent job. After all, we've had a long time to refine our models, and some smart people working on the problems.

Well, we have agreement, fancy that.

continued.....

 

[Write4U]

......continued

I don't understand what you're asking. Higgs didn't produce the Higgs boson. Higgs came up with a theory that predicted the existence of the Higgs boson. That prediction was verified by scientists working at the Large Hadron Collider.

There does not exist a single Higgs boson that is hidden somewhere in the Higgs field. They are mathematically (probabilistically) produced by field-dynamics. Higgs used the correct dynamics.

Clearly, the Higgs boson can exist independently. If it couldn't, it wouldn't be a discrete particle. What are you talking about?

Quite clearly it cannot.

Why can't the massive bosons (large particles) like the Higgs Boson exist on their own as individual particles today? Massive particles are very unstable and only last for a short while before decaying into smaller, more stable particles.

The Higgs boson is peculiar in many respects. Like most other elementary particles, it is unstable and lives only for an extremely short time, 1.6 x 10-22 seconds, according to the established theory of particle physics (the standard model).

IOW, it cannot exist independently in our world, because it decays immediately after it has become manifest.

I have no idea how you think it was proved. What do you mean by "the first time"? And do you think the errors weren't quantified at CERN?

Apparently only Cern was qualified to perform the experiment.

There was no guarantee that the experiment would prove the theory. There's never any guarantee. And, in fact, many experiments fail to prove various hypotheses.

Right, there was no guarantee, unless Higgs maths were perfect and they were, and presto a boson was manifest, and gone again.

Pointing to one successful mathematical theory - or even hundreds - does not prove that the universe is made of mathematics. Not even close.

Now you are arguing with yourself. You have expressed agreement on "some" mathematical properties (and functions) of spacetime, now you say that even if it works "unreasonably effectively", it doesn't prove anything other than it worked as expected compared to many experiments that failed due to human errors in the maths?

If anything, those mathematical failures suggest that the maths must be correct for it all to function, and if the math is correct, you will be rewarded with success.

I agree, incorrect mathematics yields incorrect results. We get; "Garbage In --> Garbage Out!"

Hawking: God Not Needed for Universe to be Created

Physicist Stephen Hawking has written a new book called “The Grand Design.” While the title might seem like Hawking could be delving more into the “mind of God” that he alluded to in his earlier book, “A Brief History of Time,” Hawking actually says that the universe’s beginnings – or the “Big Bang” was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics and that God wasn’t needed to “light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

Co-authored with US physicist Leonard Mlodinow, in “The Grand Design” Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant. The Times of London newspaper published excerpts from the book today. The book goes on sale on Sept. 9.

The laws of gravity rather than the intervention of a divine being set the Universe in motion, Hawking wrote, and he contests Sir Isaac Newton’s belief that the universe must have been designed by God as it could not have created out of chaos.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” Hawking wrote.

 

[Write4U]

No, but it's a non-mathematical model. I gave you what you asked for. Remember, you were insisting that only mathematical models of the universe are possible. I showed you that a non-mathematical model is possible.

No you didn't. All extant models except for Intelligent Design are mathematical in essence.

Give me a non-religious, non-mathematical model. There aren't any.

 

[Write4U]

W4U said:
Reason: Only a mathematical universe allows for discovering the mathematics and codification of Universal values and functions.

That's a big claim. Do you have any evidence for it at all?

Where do you think human mathematics come from? We just made them up? Or did we symbolize and codify what we observed in nature, such as the Fibonacci sequence?

How did you rule out the possibility that a universe not made of mathematics could allow for the discovery of mathematics?

And how do you propose that mathematics can be discovered or tested in a non-mathematical universe? How would you go about that? Mathematics being a language how would you translate your story to non-mahematicians?

All human maths describing earthly patterns are from observation. Even in modern cosmology where theoretical maths are sometimes necessary, the cosmologist readily admit that when the right maths are tested, the universe will reveal the correctness or errors in the equation.
The Higgs boson is a perfect example of using correct mathematics to demonstrate the reliable (and reasonable) effectiveness of mathematics even if this involves new maths.
Another example is Newton's limited observation and theory of gravitational forces on earth, being refined by Einstein at a grander cosmological scale.

One cosmologist told it this way: "If you ask the Universe something and you ask it "nicely" (correctly), the universe will reward you with an answer". (He was not a religious fellow)

 

[James R]

Write4U:

No "B" is your choice, never mine.

If I spend time finding where you agreed that B was your argument and you weren't sure about A, will you admit that (a) you lied, or perhaps (b) your memory has failed you, to the extent that you don't remember what you wrote less than a year ago?

If you're going to pretend your position never flipped-flopped on this, and I show that you're lying about that, what penalty do you think will be appropriate, bearing in mind that one or our site posting guidelines is that knowingly telling lies is a no no?

That's the point. There is no alternative . Can you cite one?

I did. In the very next sentence after the one you quoted in order to ask this question.

OK, if you want to end up in Plato's Cave?

You didn't answer the question I asked you.

That's because the truth is you did nothing to rule out the alternative. But you don't want to admit that, so you tried to distract and ignore instead. This, too, is dishonest.

And what is it that makes you like bananas? Bio-chemistry?
Is the nutritional value of bananas not based on bio-chemical interaction with our symbiont bacteria. Without our symbiont bacterial friends we would die. These critters are of existential value to humans. Do bananas have value? You bet they do. Potassium is a necessary chemical for many living organisms.

Try to focus.

Once again: your claim is that everything has a mathematical value.

In addition, you wrote "Any other non-mathematical concept cannot be codified and/or understood other than 'its magical'". The word 'other' in there appears to be superfluous to the position you are taking, especially since you didn't mention any 'other' idea before you wrote that sentence. So, your claim appears to be the following: non-mathematical concepts cannot be understood in other than magical terms.

In fact, since your overarching claim is that the universe is nothing but mathematics, a logical consequence is that, in your worldview, there are no non-mathematical concepts.

To be consistent, therefore, you have to say that a banana is mathematics, and it has a "mathematical value", because there can be no other kinds of values in a purely mathematical universe.

And yet, here you are, completely incapable or telling me what the mathematical value of a banana is. You have talked about "nutritional value" - which, in passing, I might also point out might have nothing to do with why I like bananas - but you've made no link to mathematics.

In your position, I assume that at some point you'll argue that nutrition is a mathematical concept because everything is mathematical. But that's just begging the question: assuming what you need to demonstrate.

You have done nothing to rule out the likelihood that my liking bananas - or the topic of nutrition, for that matter - is a non-mathematical concept. You can't just define yourself into having a mathematical universe. You need to provide some argument (and preferably evidence) for your claim that there is no alternative.

All very mathematical, wouldn't you say?

Where's the maths?

Again, dualism is your position, not mine.

You have made no case in support of that proposition, either.

Every physical thing does have a value, regardless if humans can perform any measurements.

In other words, that's just an article we're supposed to take on faith, without evidence.

It is also a completely unfalsifiable assertion. If I point at anything and claim that it doesn't have a mathematical value, you'll just say "Oh, but it does. It's just that us humans can't perform any measurement to detect it!"

That's exactly the same as the invisible God, or the invisible dragon in my garage.

See post #37 for "kinds" of values.

I see no "kinds of values" there. Besides, what you need to do is to show that there are only mathematical values. If you can't do that, you should at least try to back up your subsidiary claim that everything has a mathematical value. But you've haven't even tried. And now you're giving excuses that makes it unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.

Who says that social values have no mathematical impact on the environment?

You're obviously completely at sea here. Keep your eye on the ball. Try to support your claims.

Really? Can you explain the mathematical value and consequence of the social use of recreational vehicles using oil instead of say, solar power?

No, I cannot. Please tell me: what is the mathematical value of the social use of recreational vehicles using oil instead of solar power?

Because, remember, you said everything has a mathematical value. Is this one 17? 106? 3.5? pi/6?

No, I am not required to give you numbers...

If you say so.

So, there other kinds of mathematical value, apart from numbers? What are they?

Elegant Shape Of Eiffel Tower Solved Mathematically By University Of Colorado Professor

You still haven't managed to answer the question I asked you: what is the mathematical value of the Eiffel Tower?

Let me try to help. Are you claiming that the shape of the tower is its mathematical value? Is that all? Does it have just one mathematical value, or more than one?

Is "mathematical value" always defined by shape, then? Everything has a mathematical value, you say. Is the mathematical value always the shape? Or do different things have different kinds of mathematical value?

Perhaps your claim is that all the properties of everything are "mathematical values". So, for instance, the nutritional content of a banana is a "mathematical value". And its value as an art object is a mathematical value? And its yellow colour is a mathematical value.

The problem with this again, though, is that it begs the question. If the claim that you want to prove is that "there are only mathematical values", you can't do that by just assuming from the start that there are only mathematical values. You need to make an argument that isn't circular.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U said: ↑
No "B" is your choice, never mine.

If I spend time finding where you agreed that B was your argument and you weren't sure about A, will you admit that (a) you lied, or perhaps (b) your memory has failed you, to the extent that you don't remember what you wrote less than a year ago?

If you're going to pretend your position never flipped-flopped on this, and I show that you're lying about that, what penalty do you think will be appropriate, bearing in mind that one or our site posting guidelines is that knowingly telling lies is a no no?

No "B" is your choice, never mine.

 

[Write4U]

Damn...lost another 3 page reply to your questions, which I already answered..

I'm getting tired of this grilling. From now on, unless you read my quoted materials, I shall refer you back to my original post.

There is nothing gained by me in your testing my ability for rational thought.

 

[Write4U]

Here,

The mathematical structure of DNA
https://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/en/the-mathematical-structure-of-dna/#

 

[exchemist]

Write4U:

If I spend time finding where you agreed that B was your argument and you weren't sure about A, will you admit that (a) you lied, or perhaps (b) your memory has failed you, to the extent that you don't remember what you wrote less than a year ago?

If you're going to pretend your position never flipped-flopped on this, and I show that you're lying about that, what penalty do you think will be appropriate, bearing in mind that one or our site posting guidelines is that knowingly telling lies is a no no?

I did. In the very next sentence after the one you quoted in order to ask this question.

You didn't answer the question I asked you.

That's because the truth is you did nothing to rule out the alternative. But you don't want to admit that, so you tried to distract and ignore instead. This, too, is dishonest.

Try to focus.

Once again: your claim is that everything has a mathematical value.

In addition, you wrote "Any other non-mathematical concept cannot be codified and/or understood other than 'its magical'". The word 'other' in there appears to be superfluous to the position you are taking, especially since you didn't mention any 'other' idea before you wrote that sentence. So, your claim appears to be the following: non-mathematical concepts cannot be understood in other than magical terms.

In fact, since your overarching claim is that the universe is nothing but mathematics, a logical consequence is that, in your worldview, there are no non-mathematical concepts.

To be consistent, therefore, you have to say that a banana is mathematics, and it has a "mathematical value", because there can be no other kinds of values in a purely mathematical universe.

And yet, here you are, completely incapable or telling me what the mathematical value of a banana is. You have talked about "nutritional value" - which, in passing, I might also point out might have nothing to do with why I like bananas - but you've made no link to mathematics.

In your position, I assume that at some point you'll argue that nutrition is a mathematical concept because everything is mathematical. But that's just begging the question: assuming what you need to demonstrate.

You have done nothing to rule out the likelihood that my liking bananas - or the topic of nutrition, for that matter - is a non-mathematical concept. You can't just define yourself into having a mathematical universe. You need to provide some argument (and preferably evidence) for your claim that there is no alternative.

Where's the maths?

You have made no case in support of that proposition, either.

In other words, that's just an article we're supposed to take on faith, without evidence.

It is also a completely unfalsifiable assertion. If I point at anything and claim that it doesn't have a mathematical value, you'll just say "Oh, but it does. It's just that us humans can't perform any measurement to detect it!"

That's exactly the same as the invisible God, or the invisible dragon in my garage.

I see no "kinds of values" there. Besides, what you need to do is to show that there are only mathematical values. If you can't do that, you should at least try to back up your subsidiary claim that everything has a mathematical value. But you've haven't even tried. And now you're giving excuses that makes it falsifiable and therefore unscientific.

You're obviously completely at sea here. Keep your eye on the ball. Try to support your claims.

No, I cannot. Please tell me: what is the mathematical value of the social use of recreational vehicles using oil instead of solar power?

Because, remember, you said everything has a mathematical value. Is this one 17? 106? 3.5? pi/6?

If you say so.

So, there other kinds of mathematical value, apart from numbers? What are they?

You still haven't managed to answer the question I asked you: what is the mathematical value of the Eiffel Tower?

Let me try to help. Are you claiming that the shape of the tower is its mathematical value? Is that all? Does it have just one mathematical value, or more than one?

Is "mathematical value" always defined by shape, then? Everything has a mathematical value, you say. Is the mathematical value always the shape? Or do different things have different kinds of mathematical value?

Perhaps your claim is that all the properties of everything are "mathematical values". So, for instance, the nutritional content of a banana is a "mathematical value". And its value as an art object is a mathematical value? And its yellow colour is a mathematical value.

The problem with this again, though, is that it begs the question. If the claim that you want to prove is that "there are only mathematical values", you can't do that by just assuming from the start that there are only mathematical values. You need to make an argument that isn't circular.

What always strikes me as so silly about this is that all the mathematics has to refer to physical quantities. These are concepts that have to be defined in words, not maths, before any mathematics can be applied to them. We use c to refer to the speed of light in vacuo, but we have to state that, in words, before we can make sense of any mathematical relationship involving it.

So yes, the universe has mathematical properties, but that does mean the universe is mathematics. It looks like the same category error that arfa brane used to make about energy: confusing an entity with its attributes.

 

[Write4U]

What always strikes me as so silly about this is that all the mathematics has to refer to physical quantities. These are concepts that have to be defined in words, not maths, before any mathematics can be applied to them. We use c to refer to the speed of light in vacuo, but we have to state that, in words, before we can make sense of any mathematical relationship involving it.

True, but all of it is interpretational, no? Mathematical "numbers" are a human symbolic language for relational values, just like "words" are mathematically arranged symbolic letters) .

So yes, the universe has mathematical properties, but that does mean the universe is mathematics. It looks like the same category error that arfa brane used to make about energy: confusing an entity with its attributes.

I'm sure you meant "that does not mean the universe is mathematics"?
But is that not the case with all axioms? "The proof lies in the pudding". Mathematics is by definition a function of "order"

The universe is a dynamically inflating object that started as a singularity, but after establishment of a "spacetime geometry" and "environment" during the cooling period, certain self-organizing "patterns" emerged and evolved in a dynamical, but orderly transmutation processes that have been observed, measured, codified in symbolic language and has at least "guided" the creation of orderly patterns in a dynamic environment that formed earth and the rest of the story. I see the concept of self-ordering as a strictly mathematical function.

Order (mathematics)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_(mathematics)

But I am only echoing Tegmark in the argument that if we unconditionally accept that the universe acts by some underlying logic and has "at least" some mathematical qualities, why must we exclude a model that has "only" mathematical qualities and where the adoption of that model would solve a lot of problems with the dualistic concepts such as "life" and "consciousness". These are the emergent and evolved result of the initial 4 simple mathematical functions..

Chemistry is mathematically knowable, no? IOW, we have learned the mathematics of chemistry and transmutation.
After all , laboratories are replications or emulatios of natural conditions. Chemicals act in a lab the same as in nature.

In a mathematical world:
relational values <=> differential equations <=> patterns <=>meaning <=> understanding <=> consciousness....

 

[James R]

There is nothing gained by me in your testing my ability for rational thought.

Because you don't have any?