Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo

[Write4U]

Because that is what some mathematicians think, the people who actually know what they are talking about.

It seems that there are many mathematicians and cosmologists who think there is a mathematical aspect to the universe.

It is mostly physicists who seem to differ in opinion, but they couldn't practice physics without human symbolized maths.

Moreover, physicists accept the notion of Natural laws.

Universality of Physical Laws

All parts of the universe are subject to the same simple laws of nature that we find here on Earth.
Planets, stars, and galaxies move according to the same law of gravity that governs the flight of a baseball.
Light from distant galaxies reveals the same atomic and nuclear physics that we observe in our laboratories.

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent/the-universe/the-universe/universality-of-physical-laws#

So why are these laws only describable with mathematics? To my knowledge there is no other possible way to clearly describe natural laws except via mathematics, human symbolized maths. But if natural mathematics do not exist, how can they describe Natural laws?
No maths, no laws, no physics.

But then, explain how there can be Natural laws that are mathematical when mathematics is just a human invention and not representative of the extant real Natural laws? No universal maths, no universal laws, no universal science?

There is a glaring logical inconsistency in the argument that human mathematical relation values and functions have no actual relationship to anything observable in physical reality.

Can you give me an example of how motion of an object affects the motion of another object to any degree of practical certainty?

How can an object influence the motion of another object?

Objects pull or push each other when they collide or are connected. Pushes and pulls can have different strengths and directions. Pushing or pulling on an object can change the speed or direction of its motion and can start or stop it.

OK, we have established physical causality. Anything more deterministic requires the application of certain mathematical equations, regardless if they are codified or not.

The term"physics" describes the why, the term mathematics explains the how (in what way).

 

[James R]

Why should there not be a natural mathematical aspect to the universe?

Who said there shouldn't be such a thing?

Someone has yet to explain why mathematics is strictly a human "invention" instead of "discovery", in the face of abundant evidence of mathematical functions and patterns all around us and throughout the universe.

I'm not aware of a single mathematical function that was not written down by a human being (or by a technological product of a human being).

Are you?

As for patterns, those are something that we humans discern in certain aspects of the physical world. A pattern is a concept. It is something that we humans notice. Yes, there are "patterns all around us", because we humans like to try to make sense of our world. We notice regularities and we recognise certain types of regularities as "patterns".

That is like saying "The universe itself does not exist without human description", which is ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is claiming that a mathematical concept can produce a physical object or cause a physical change.

My belief that mathematics is not just a human invention for human application is the fact that often human mathematics used to describe a specific function or pattern later proves to apply to a totally unrelated set of physics.

You mean, humans sometimes later apply what they have created to solve problems that they didn't think of at the time of creation of the earlier ideas?

IOW this relationship existed prior to human "discovery" or codification.

Human application of ideas did not exist prior to human invention or codification of those ideas.

This is why the simple Fibonacci Sequence is so powerful.

Non sequitur.

It applies to a host of unrelated natural phenomena, mainly because it is the "most efficient" for conservation of energy.

You're just making stuff up now, aren't you?

 

[James R]

It seems that there are many mathematicians and cosmologists who think there is a mathematical aspect to the universe.

There's no problem with that.

It is mostly physicists who seem to differ in opinion, but they couldn't practice physics without human symbolized maths.

What data are you using to draw conclusions about what physicists think about this, vs. mathematicians and cosmologists (who are also physicists, just so you know)?

Also, physics can be practiced without maths. The ideas often come first in physics, followed by mathematical descriptions.

Moreover, physicists accept the notion of Natural laws.

Physical laws. Yes.

So why are these laws only describable with mathematics?

They aren't. For example, I often describe physical laws using words on this forum. A lot of people don't know much maths, which means that a mathematical explanation of some physical principle or other will often fly over their heads. A lot can be communicated using words, you know.

To my knowledge there is no other possible way to clearly describe natural laws except via mathematics, human symbolized maths.

Here's a natural law:

"An object that has no net force on it will remain stationary or continue to move with constant velocity."

No maths. See?

But if natural mathematics do not exist, how can they describe Natural laws?

They can't, I assume. How could something that doesn't exist do anything at all?

No maths, no laws, no physics.

As usual, you have it backwards. No physics -> no laws -> no maths.

But then, explain how there can be Natural laws that are mathematical when mathematics is just a human invention and not representative of the extant real Natural laws?

What we call a "natural law" is an idea in a human being's head. Some of those "natural laws" even have human names attached to them, like "Newton's laws of motion" or "Hookes' law for springs".

Calling something a "natural law" is just a shorthand way of describing some feature or other of the physical universe.

No universal maths, no universal laws, no universal science?

Where else is maths done, or science, other than here on Earth, by human beings? Do you know of anywhere else?

There is a glaring logical inconsistency in the argument that human mathematical relation values and functions have no actual relationship to anything observable in physical reality.

Physical theories aim to model the workings of observable things in physical reality.

A physical theory that is inconsistent with what it is modelling is not a very useful physical theory.

Can you give me an example of how motion of an object affects the motion of another object to any degree of practical certainty?

Yes. The laws of mechanics have been verified to a very high degree of accuracy.

How can an object influence the motion of another object?

One way is by exerting a force on the other object.

OK, we have established physical causality.

I'm so glad we have done that. (Where did we do that?)

Anything more deterministic requires the application of certain mathematical equations, regardless if they are codified or not.

What are you talking about?

What does "more deterministic" mean? Are there degrees of determinism, now?

The term"physics" describes the why, the term mathematics explains the how (in what way).

Not really. But you're just making stuff up as usual.

 

[Write4U]

"An object that has no net force on it will remain stationary or continue to move with constant velocity."

Well, you use that kind of "language" in the control computers to land a rover on Mars and see what happens.

Do you think that kind of "language" would have gotten us the Higgs boson?

One way is by exerting a force on the other object.

Yes, "causality", but also ask: Exactly how much force is required to exert on the other object, that would copy the exerting forces in nature?

As we cannot currently analyze ALL the forces present in any given location, applied human maths is only a "best guess", but "quantities" are a required ingredient of all physical action. And quantities are mathematical objects.

A quantity in math is a property of some object or collection of objects that is measurable. A quantity defines an amount and can be compared: one quantity can be greater than, less than, or equal to another quantity. The concept of quantity is used in mathematics and the sciences.

What does "more deterministic" mean? Are there degrees of determinism, now?

In an artificially created dynamical environment, determinism becomes not exactly deterministic unless ALL the physical forces can be "accounted" for with human maths, as they are in nature.

 

[Pinball1970]

Do you think that kind of "language" would have gotten us the Higgs boson?

That is not mathematics. Mathematics uses a different approach, physics uses empiricism.
Faraday used no maths, Maxwell did but this was based on Faraday's empiricism not the logic and rigor essential in mathematics.

Mathematics is geometry, number theory, set theory, algebra and calculus.
This is NOT the universe. It is not the moon or sun not bacteria or the elements.

 

[Write4U]

That is not mathematics. Mathematics uses a different approach, physics uses empiricism.
Faraday used no maths, Maxwell did but this was based on Faraday's empiricism not the logic and rigor essential in mathematics.

But, I am not arguing "against" theoretical or observed physics. I am arguing for the recognition of the necessity of mathematical values and functions in expressed physics, i.e. reality.

Mathematics is geometry, number theory, set theory, algebra and calculus.

I agree, these are the abstract phenomena that make up the Implicate order and are the properties that allow for the Explicate order as we humans can observe, measure, and copy it, using the same fundamental mathematical control mechanisms, such as the universe does.

This is NOT the universe. It is not the moon or sun not bacteria or the elements.

I agree, human maths is anthropocentric. But what are all these fractal objects that permeate living organisms?

Fractal geometry: a design principle for living organisms

Fractal geometry allows structures to be quantitatively characterized in geometric terms even if their form is not even or regular, because fractal geometry deals with the geometry of hierarchies and random processes. The hypothesis is explored that fractal geometry serves as a design principle in biological organisms.

The internal membrane surface of cells, or the inner lung surface, are difficult to describe in terms of classical geometry, but they are found to show properties describable by fractal geometry, at least sectionwise and within certain bounds set by deterministic design properties.

Concepts of fractal geometry are most useful in characterizing the structure of branching trees, such as those found in pulmonary airways and in blood vessels. This explains how the large internal gas exchange surface of the lung can be homogeneously and efficiently ventilated and perfused at low energetic cost. It is concluded that to consider fractal geometry as a biological design principle is heuristically most productive and provides insights into possibilities of efficient genetic programming of biological form.

Fractal geometry: a design principle for living organisms - PubMed

Fractal geometry allows structures to be quantitatively characterized in geometric terms even if their form is not even or regular, because fractal geometry deals with the geometry of hierarchies and random processes. The hypothesis is explored that fractal geometry serves as a design principle...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[James R]

Well, you use that kind of "language" in the control computers to land a rover on Mars and see what happens.

The computers that land rovers on Mars use software that, in turn, builds in the necessary aspects of the physical laws needed to determine how to land the rover without damaging it, etc. The software relies on mathematical modelling.

Do you think that kind of "language" would have gotten us the Higgs boson?

Clearly, it got us that and much more.

Yes, "causality", but also ask: Exactly how much force is required to exert on the other object, that would copy the exerting forces in nature?

If you want to know how much force - i.e. to put a number on the force - then you'll need to resort to some kind of mathematical model. You'll need to clearly specify the units of certain quantities (e.g. mass, force, acceleration) and specify how those quantities are to be measured. All that done, you can put some numbers into a model and use it for computation etc.

As we cannot currently analyze ALL the forces present in any given location, applied human maths is only a "best guess", but "quantities" are a required ingredient of all physical action.

No. Physical actions work just fine without any mathematical modelling.

And quantities are mathematical objects.

If you say so. So what?

In an artificially created dynamical environment, determinism becomes not exactly deterministic unless ALL the physical forces can be "accounted" for with human maths, as they are in nature.

That's not true. A deterministic environment is deterministic. There aren't degrees of determinism. You either have it, or you don't.

 

[James R]

But, I am not arguing "against" theoretical or observed physics. I am arguing for the recognition of the necessity of mathematical values and functions in expressed physics, i.e. reality.

They aren't necessary. Helpful, yes, but not necessary.

I agree, these are the abstract phenomena that make up the Implicate order and are the properties that allow for the Explicate order as we humans can observe, measure, and copy it, using the same fundamental mathematical control mechanisms, such as the universe does.

You really should stop talking about Bohm. You don't understand his ideas or any details of his theories. You're just mouthing empty words.

I agree, human maths is anthropocentric.

The word "human" is a bit of a giveaway, there.

But what are all these fractal objects that permeate living organisms?

There aren't any fractal objects. The "fracticality" breaks down inevitably for physical objects. Self-similarity at all scales does not - cannot - happen in the physical world.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Why do you keep ignoring direct questions that I ask you?

Too hard for you?

Or is it a matter of fingers in your ears? You just don't want to think about those questions?

It's quite rude, you know, to just pretend that I didn't ask you about specific things. This is a regular thing with you.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U:

Why do you keep ignoring direct questions that I ask you?

Too hard for you?

Or is it a matter of fingers in your ears? You just don't want to think about those questions?

It's quite rude, you know, to just pretend that I didn't ask you about specific things. This is a regular thing with you.

But you reserve that right for yourself, don't you? You're a hypocrite.

 

[James R]

But you reserve that right for yourself, don't you? You're a hypocrite.

What are you referring to?

Which questions of yours, to me, have I ignored?

I generally reply to what you write - especially to your direct questions - point by point, quoting you.

I notice that, once again, you didn't answer the question I asked you, which is kind of ironic given the context, isn't it?

I'll ask again: why do you keep ignoring direct questions that I put to you?

 

[Pinball1970]

Fractal geometry

This is not the fractals that you cite in nature. Fractals in mathematics are not the same, they are clearly defined in mathematics. I cited circles and cubes, this is exactly the same problem.

A fractal repeats structures similar in geometry to itself but smaller, infinitely, nature does not do this and cannot do this.

A circle is clearly defined, much simpler than a fractal but you do not find them in nature either, or spheres cubes or lines, why?

Because the universe is not mathematical objects, physics is not mathematical objects, nothing is, only the abstract mathematical objects are mathematics that make up the structure, the axioms, the theories that make up mathematics.

 

[Write4U]

First, thank you for addressing specific issues and allowing me to clarify my position.

A little teaser:
Are Dimensions physical objects and if so, what are their physical properties (geometrics)?
Is Time a physical object and if so, what is its physical property (chronology)?

Pinball1970:

This is not the fractals that you cite in nature. Fractals in mathematics are not the same, they are clearly defined in mathematics. I cited circles and cubes, this is exactly the same problem.
A fractal repeats structures similar in geometry to itself but smaller, infinitely, nature does not do this and cannot do this.

We cannot do this, but apparently nature can and does. I showed pictures of Ferns and other biological objects that clearly show fractal patterns at different magnitudes.
As to the question if fractals go down infinitely, below is very interesting modern hypothesis that fractals do indeed go down to fundamental spacetime levels.
Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT), that advances the hypothesis of the notion that spacetime itself unfolds in a fractal manner.
This is a recent result of research and analysis by a very competent team of "physicists" (not just mathematicians)
Below is the basic description of the hypothesis.

Causal dynamical triangulation (CDT)

Theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, is an approach to quantum gravity that, like loop quantum gravity, is background independent.

This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space) but, rather, attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

There is evidence [1] that, at large scales, CDT approximates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime but shows spacetime to be 2-dimensional near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work.

Introduction​

Near the Planck scale, the structure of spacetime itself is supposed to be constantly changing due to quantum fluctuations and topological fluctuations. CDT theory uses a triangulation process which varies dynamically and follows deterministic rules, to map out how this can evolve into dimensional spaces similar to that of our universe.

The results of researchers suggest that this is a good way to model the early universe[citation needed], and describe its evolution. Using a structure called a simplex, it divides spacetime into tiny triangular sections. A simplex is the multidimensional analogue of a triangle [2-simplex]; a 3-simplex is usually called a tetrahedron, while the 4-simplex, which is the basic building block in this theory, is also known as the pentachoron. Each simplex is geometrically flat, but simplices can be "glued" together in a variety of ways to create curved spacetimes. Whereas previous attempts at triangulation of quantum spaces have produced jumbled universes with far too many dimensions, or minimal universes with too few, CDT avoids this problem by allowing only those configurations in which the timelines of all joined edges of simplices agree.

Causal dynamical triangulation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A circle is clearly defined, much simpler than a fractal but you do not find them in nature either, or spheres cubes or lines, why?

Nature is full of self-organizing mathematical shapes, including spheres, cubes, lines, polygons, especially in minerals.

I believe it is called "mineral habits"

Mineral habit

Mineral habit refers to the external shape of a crystal or a group of crystals 1 2. It is closely related to crystal shape and includes the size and arrangement of crystal faces, how different forms combine, and how well-developed different forms are 1. Habit is the characteristic appearance a mineral can have 1.

Crystal habit of euhedral minerals

The habit of euhedral minerals is controlled uniquely by the symmetry of their crystal system. In this case, the same mineral can show different crystal habits that obey to its crystal system. For example, pyrite, a cubic mineral, can form cubes (cubic habit) or dodecahedrons with irregular pentagonal faces (a habit known as ‘pyritohedron’). Similarly, fluorite can crystallize with cubic habit or octahedral habit. The recognition of the habit of euhedral minerals allows to recognize the crystal system and can help the identification of the mineral.

In general, cubic minerals tend to develop equant habits (cube, dodecahedron, octahedron).

Uniaxial minerals (hexagonal, tetragonal, trigonal crystal systems) tend to develop a more or less elongated habit consisting of prisms (prismatic habit), regular pyramids (pyramidal habit) or double pyramids (dipyramidal habit) with a base that depends on the crystal system. For example, vanadinite, a hexagonal mineral, commonly forms short prism with hexagonal base. Tetrahedrite, a tetragonal mineral, commonly forms regular pyramids with four regular triangular faces (tetrahedrons).

Orthorhombic minerals also form prismatic or pyramidal crystals but the three axes of the crystal system differ and, therefore, these minerals can develop cuboids, pinacoids (a prism with only two parallel faces), and rhombohedrons.

Finally, minerals of the monoclinic and triclinic crystal system can develop a wide range of habits that deviate from the ones described above as one (monoclinic) or all (triclinic) of their axes are not orthogonal.

Mineral habit

Mineral habit The habit of a mineral is the external shape of a crystal or a group of crystal. This shape depends in first order on the crystal system of the mineral but also on the conditions of crystallization, the availability of space, the interaction with fluids or magma, and the competitio

geologyistheway.com

continued.....

 

[Write4U]

Continued......

Pinball1970: Because the universe is not mathematical objects, physics is not mathematical objects, nothing is, only the abstract mathematical objects are mathematics that make up the structure, the axioms, the theories that make up mathematics.

But we can also say that theories describe the mathematics inherent in the structures, no?

Quantum mechanics is a mathematical formalism that models the dynamics of physical objects 1 2 3 5. It deals with the elementary constituents of matter (atoms, subatomic and elementary particles) and of radiation 1. Quantum mechanics allows the calculation of properties and behavior of physical systems, typically applied to microscopic systems such as molecules, atoms, and sub-atomic particles 2. It provides a mathematical framework to understand the fundamental particles that make up the universe and their interactions.

Quantum systems have bound states that are quantized to discrete values of energy, momentum, angular momentum, and other quantities, in contrast to classical systems where these quantities can be measured continuously. Measurements of quantum systems show characteristics of both particles and waves (wave–particle duality), and there are limits to how accurately the value of a physical quantity can be predicted prior to its measurement, given a complete set of initial conditions (the uncertainty principle).

Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Universe (mathematics)​

In mathematics, a universe is a collection that contains all the entities one wishes to consider in a given situation1. It is used in set theory, category theory, type theory, and the foundations of mathematics1. A universe is the aggregate of all the objects, attributes, and relations assumed or implied in a given discussion2. It is also called a universal set in mathematics2.

In mathematics, and particularly in set theory, category theory, type theory, and the foundations of mathematics, a universe is a collection that contains all the entities one wishes to consider in a given situation.

Universe (mathematics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A "collection" is a mathematical term, symbolically described wih "set theory".

--------------------
There was an issue with my use of the term "determinism" not always yielding the exact same result, depending on "hidden variables" beyond our ability to measure.

Example: In a non-gravitational vacuum, every waterdrop will self-organize into a mathematically perfect sphere, due to surface tension
The same physics apply to the mathematical formation of all waterdrops, everywhere, but in a gravitational environment these spheres will be imperfect do to gravitational influence, yet they are deterministic in that particular environment.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Are Dimensions physical objects and if so, what are their physical properties (geometrics)?

By "dimensions", I suppose you're probably referring to the three dimensions of space. Space is not a "physical object". It is the place where physical objects exist. You can't bottle "space". It isn't a substance.

Is Time a physical object and if so, what is its physical property (chronology)?

Time is not a physical object. Like space, you can't bottle it. You can't say "Here I have a bottle full of time".

It's a simple test, actually, if you want to think about what is and isn't an object. Can you put it in a bottle? If the answer is "yes", then it might be an object. If the answer is "no", then it probably isn't an object.

Think about mathematics, for instance. Can you say "Here I have a bottle full of mathematics"? Is that a meaningful statement to make? It is not. This suggests that mathematics is not an object.

I showed pictures of Ferns and other biological objects that clearly show fractal patterns at different magnitudes.

Mathematically, a fractal is self-similar at all levels of magnification. Clearly that it not true of ferns. I pointed this out to you just yesterday. Why did you ignore it?

As to the question if fractals go down infinitely, below is very interesting modern hypothesis that fractals do indeed go down to fundamental spacetime levels.

??

Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT), that advances the hypothesis of the notion that spacetime itself unfolds in a fractal manner.

What does "unfolds" mean, in this context?

Nature is full of self-organizing mathematical shapes, including spheres, cubes, lines, polygons, especially in minerals.

No. Mathematical shapes do not "self-organise".

How could they?

A concept can't organise itself. Nor can a set of concepts.

But we can also say that theories describe the mathematics inherent in the structures, no?

You can say that, but you'll be wrong, because mathematics isn't inherent in physical structures. Or, at least, that's something you have yet to show.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Are you going to respond to the direct questions I asked you yesterday?

 

[Pinball1970]

Mathematically, a fractal is self-similar at all levels of magnification. Clearly that it not true of ferns.

I pointed this out also but I wanted him to start with a circle or sphere first, something conceptually easier to picture.

 

[Pinball1970]

Nature is full of self-organizing mathematical shapes, including spheres, cubes, lines, polygons, especially in minerals.

No it isn't, this is what I am trying to tell you. A water droplet is not a "perfect" sphere, neither is anything else in the universe. The same applies to any geometric shape including very simple things like a line.
I asked you before, why can't you find a line or circle (or sphere) in nature?
Please address this WITHOUT huge pastes, your answer does not need it.

 

[Write4U]

In mathematics—namely geometry—and in real life, geometric shapes are two or three-dimensional figures that can be recognized and categorized based on a specific outline/boundary and other attributes including curves, lines, and angles. Both types of geometric shapes (2D and 3D) will be covered in this guide, which includes a complete list of all geometric shapes names along with images and a short description and key features of each.

Geometric Shapes—Complete List with Free Printable Chart — Mashup Math

This complete guide to geometric shapes includes every 2D geometric shape and all 3D geometrical shapes. Each geometric shape includes an image and a description. This guide also includes examples of geometric shapes art and a free printable geometric shapes chart pdf for students.

www.mashupmath.com

Geometric Shapes





Do these natural crystals posses geometric shapes that just appeared out of nothing, or did these shapes spontaneously emerge and self-organized during the physical growth of these crystals?

 

[Write4U]

Or keeping it simple, but very informative.

and this