Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo

[Write4U]

At what stage, if any, after careful correction by multiple independent parties who know what terms like "quantum" mean, will you be willing to adjust your usage to match the usage of every qualified quantum physicist or chemist? Will that ever happen with you, or will you endlessly insist on your own nonsensical attempt to redefine that word, too?

Let's see.
I use this:

Quantum contextuality is a feature of the phenomenology of quantum mechanics whereby measurements of quantum observables cannot simply be thought of as revealing pre-existing values. Any attempt to do so in a realistic hidden-variable theory leads to values that are dependent upon the choice of the other (compatible) observables which are simultaneously measured (the measurement context). More formally, the measurement result (assumed pre-existing) of a quantum observable is dependent upon which other commuting observable are within the same measurement set.

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

Quantum function?

 

[Write4U]

James, if you want to move this portion of the thread, I'm game. Don't want to be accused of hijacking.

 

[Pinball1970]

Then why do you not ask me to explain and/or clarify what it is that relates these seemingly random citations?

Unfortunately, few appreciate the effort to find "common denominators" as part of the search for an answer as to what makes it all tick.

So far I believe that Max Tegmark and several other "knowledgeable" scientists are/were on the right track in following the original scientists (Plato, Pythagoras, Galileo), by proposing
that mathematics is a fundamental logical essence of the spacetime geometry.

IMO, it fills all the requirements for being called "language of the Universe".

A whole new aspect of a mathematical universe has been introduced by Renate Loll et al.
Its named "Causal Dynamical Triangulation" (CDT), that proposes a spacetime unfolding in a fractal (mathematical) manner.

more.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

I hear the poo-poos, but I never hear a better idea that can replace the concept of a Logical function that guides the interaction of "values" which can be symbolized with human maths. What's up with that?

I do not ask you to explain them because you obviously do not know what they are.

You talk about “quantum” but do you know any linear algebra? Calculus? Dirac notation? Operators?

You cannot just pick these words out and make a sentence out of them, words in science mean something specific and with physics in particular, there is always some underlying mathematics.


You have not specified any mathematics anywhere at any point.

Entropy actually means something it relates to known phenomena that has been worked out defined by scientists in the 19thC


Differential equations and partial differential equations are used all the time in physics, used in equations of motion, maxwells equations, quantum mechanics, general relativity but they are specific.

But they mean something, they are specific, they are in context.


So, the vast majority of your posts (so far, that I have seen) do NOT use these terms in context or with any correct meaning.


These subjects already have very solid grounding, that took decades and often centuries for scientists to figure out and document.

Students typically take about ten years to get to the research level, two years high school another two for University qualifications/entry (we call them A level in the UK) then UG work for three years.

THEN work on a maters programme can begin or straight to PhD depending on the course.

That is what is required for meaning full research.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Because that was being described.

Not by me. You just tossed in your own random word salad, as usual.

Because it is appropriate.

You think it is appropriate for you to pretend that you understand what a differential equation is, because you can cut and paste some text from wikipedia or a dictionary?

You think it is appropriate to use the term "differential equation" to mean something other than its accepted meaning in mathematics?

Bizarre and delusional.

Maybe "partial differential equations" would have been more accurate?
I speak in generalities.

You speak far too much about things you clearly do not understand. You don't ask questions. And then, when you make ludicrous errors you double down and insist that, no, you weren't actually wrong, or you didn't mean what you wrote but you meant something else instead, or you try to change the subject by introducing a new irrelevancy.

Generalities my arse. You just make stuff up as you go along and hope that it might sound scientific to somebody. Unfortunately for you, when you're talking to people who have actually put in some proper work and learned some science, you can't get away with pretending to understand things about science that you don't understand.

Moreover, it is almost insulting that you pretend to have expertise when the best you can usually produce on most scientific topics are dictionary definitions accessible within about 30 seconds to anybody who googles the relevant terms.

No, I am inside an expanding mathematical Universe along with some very good company.

You like to think you are.

Yes, I used the terms correctly in context of my posits...

No, you didn't. I know this because, in a number of instances, I carefully explained to you what you got wrong and why it was wrong. So did some other members here.

Yet here you are, a few months later, and you're back recycling the same crap again. Are you trolling? Poor memory retention? Didn't understand the careful explanations given to you previously? Or just too set in your ways to learn anything new or ever change your mind? What?

..., but it seems that there is no attempt at all to use my accompanying supporting sources.

Don't tell lies. I know that I, for one, have commented on various "sources" you have quoted, and you know that too. Usually I have commented in the process of attempting to explain to you why and how you're misinterpreting your sources. Add to that the fact that you often quote sources to try to retcon some bit of word salad you concocted into something that might pass as coherent, and your "sources" are very often completely irrelevant. Moreover, despite my having communicated with you over a period of years on this forum, it seems you haven't at any time considered what my level of expertise might be in the areas you have raised - either that or you're completely unable to judge your own level of expertise relative to mine.

And how do you know that my usage is in error?

Think about it. How could I possibly know when your random usage of scientific terms is in error? Come on, this isn't hard.

Can you demonstrate it, so that I have an opportunity to respond to your narrow interpretation?

Already done, several times over. Have you forgotten our past conversations?

Also, it's not just me. Just a few posts above this one, several other posters have tried to correct you on your incorrect usage of the word "quantum". They all explained why your usage is incoherent and incorrect, just as I have explained why to you in the past.

This is not about our "narrow interpretations". This is a simple matter of: we know what the word means and how it is used, while you clearly just make it up as you go along, and then pretend you can somehow justify your continuing to use it incorrectly, in spite of all attempts to educate you on the matter.

Perhaps a bit of humility might suit you better, rather than this posturing and pretending all the time.

Partial differential equation
Does that look familiar? Common Denominators! Common function!

Why yes, Write4U. As it happens, I am familiar with partial differential equations, and I am also familiar with the heat equation. I don't think you are. I don't think you can explain to me exactly what a differential equation is, in your own words, or how an ordinary differential equation is different from a partial differential equation. You might try googling these things, of course. But your ability to cut and paste a response won't demonstrate that you understand what you're talking about. Any fool can parrot off a definition.

What's your formal education in mathematics like, Write4U? Did you do lots of maths in your final school year? Did you study any maths beyond high school? Did you take any courses in calculus or differential equations? If you had to guess, would you imagine that I might have taken some? Suppose I did, and you didn't. Would that make me qualified, in your opinion, to identify somebody who doesn't really understand what a differential equation is, do you think? Do you think that, perhaps, if I had taken a formal calculus course or three, that I might be able to spot a differential-equation pretender from the real deal - you know, somebody who knows what a DE is and even how to solve some of them?

Let's see.
I use this:

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

No you don't. Come now. Who do you think you're fooling?

Quantum function?

Wrong again. Purely classical, in that case. See what I mean, yet?

James, if you want to move this portion of the thread, I'm game. Don't want to be accused of hijacking.

This is the "post whatever" thread. I guess this is as good a place for your rubbish as anywhere.

 

[Write4U]

Why yes, Write4U. As it happens, I am familiar with partial differential equations, and I am also familiar with the heat equation.

Of course you are. I am beginning to.

Then tell me if I was wrong in "finding" and "recognizing" a common denominator between the two in my quoted passages?

You keep insulting me for trivial semantic issues, but never demonstrate that I am wrong in general. Why is that?

 

[Pinball1970]

You keep insulting me for trivial semantic issues, but never demonstrate that I am wrong in general. Why is that?

They are not "semantics" they are profound misconceptions.

 

[Pinball1970]

Of course you are. I am beginning to.

Then tell me if I was wrong in "finding" and "recognizing" a common denominator between the two in my quoted passages?

What do you mean by "find?"
Have you been reading the scientific literature?
What do you mean by "common denominator?"
A common denominator to 81 and 15 is 3, what do you mean?

 

[Pinball1970]

Of course you are. I am beginning to.

Then tell me if I was wrong in "finding" and "recognizing" a common denominator between the two in my quoted passages?

You keep insulting me for trivial semantic issues, but never demonstrate that I am wrong in general. Why is that?

You have a choice here. You can try and find out about the universe, not from YouTube or Wikipedia but from a text book.
Get a book to what ever level you reached at school and see if you can work through the problems.
I suggest physics first, some atomic theory, equations of motion.
Also mathematics, algebra, calculus (some DE and integration) and trig.
Then vectors and matrices.
THEN come and ask when you get stuck.

 

[Pinball1970]

Of course you are. I am beginning to.

Then tell me if I was wrong in "finding" and "recognizing" a common denominator between the two in my quoted passages?

You keep insulting me for trivial semantic issues, but never demonstrate that I am wrong in general. Why is that?

For the record I like teaching, passing on important information that will help someone in their job or in life is an important thing to do for someone. I enjoy it, guys like Dave, James and Exchemist know their shit, it takes one or two posts to get that so I will learn from them.
The other part to teaching is examining ones own understanding of a concept. How well do I remember something?
For the record I am a technologist not a researcher or scientist. (UG Applied Biology)
I have a heuristic understanding of some physics and a lesser mathematical understanding, it is difficult and there is an awful lot of it.
My advice as a newbie to the site is be humble, listen to the other posters and put some work in. Never too late to start.

 

[Write4U]

Think about it. How could I possibly know when your random usage of scientific terms is in error? Come on, this isn't hard.

Then why do you not provide the correct terminology when correcting my errors.

Already done, several times over. Have you forgotten our past conversations?

No I do not forget ad hominem. And your "corrections" consist of meaningless exclamations of "you're wrong and stupid", without a single hint of what the correct terminology is. If you can spot my errors, you should be able to offer the correction in proper terms and/or a link to a specific site that will enlighten my understanding.

They are not "semantics" they are profound misconceptions.

How do you know that? Tell me exactly where I have posited an error and its correction. If you cannot offer an actual correction your "advice" is moot.

What do you mean by "find?"

What do scientists mean when they use the term "find"?
You do know that Universal properties and functions are "discovered" (found), don't you?
They are codified and then I find them on the internet.

p.s I know the limitations of wiki and only use it to gain a general sense of concepts and perspectives.

You may want to check out the following to begin to get an understanding of my learning methods.

 

[DaveC426913]

Then why do you not provide the correct terminology when correcting my errors.

Because, as Pauli put it eloquently: "You are not even wrong."

It is not the place of the student to declare their ignorance and demand his tutors how him where he's wrong.
If you're going to be open to learning, you must stop making declarations from your own ignorance.

 

[Write4U]

What do you mean by "find?"

Really?
Finding is usually a result of searching or researching.

Have you been reading the scientific literature?

Apparently you have not read any of my quoted scientific literature.

What do you mean by "common denominator?"
A common denominator to 81 and 15 is 3, what do you mean?

How about Universal Constants?

A physical constant, sometimes fundamental physical constant or universal constant, is a physical quantity that is generally believed to be both universal in nature and have constant value in time. It is distinct from a mathematical constant, which has a fixed numerical value, but does not directly involve any physical measurement. Wikipedia

It is distinct from mathematical constant but is present in the "quantum world" and the fabric of spacetime itself.
Did you check out CDT (Causal Dynamical Triangulation)?

They are not "semantics" they are profound
misconceptions.

As is this post ?

My advice as a newbie to the site is be humble, listen to the other posters and put some work in. Never too late to start

Your impression of me is as a newbie?
If that is how thorough you do your research of facts, it does not impress me.

 

[Pinball1970]

Really?
Finding is usually a result of searching or researching.
Apparently you have not read any of my quoted scientific literature.
How about Universal Constants?

It is distinct from mathematical constant but is present in the "quantum world" and the fabric of spacetime itself.
Did you check out CDT (Causal Dynamical Triangulation)?
As is this post ?

Your impression of me is as a newbie?
If that is how thorough you do your research of facts, it does not impress me.

Me as a newbie not you.

 

[Pinball1970]

It is distinct from mathematical constant but is present in the "quantum world" and the fabric of spacetime itself.
Did you check out CDT (Causal Dynamical Triangulation)?
As is this post ?QUOTE]
Eh?

 

[Write4U]

It is not the place of the student to declare their ignorance and demand his tutors how him where he's wrong.

Naaah...it is the obligation of the tutor to point to the error and why it is an error.
To say "you're wrong and stupid, go read a book" is not tutoring. I know, I have tutored.

 

[Pinball1970]

How about Universal Constants?

It is distinct from mathematical constant but is present in the "quantum world" and the fabric of spacetime itself.
Did you check out CDT (Causal Dynamical Triangulation)?
/QUOTE]

I have asked you about "quantum world." There is a formalism that takes a long time to get to grips with.
You don't start with QM you start with classical mechanics.
You also need calculus and linear algebra.
I have mentioned this twice now.
Are you versed in these subjects or not.
I am being sincere Sir.

 

[Pinball1970]

It is the obligation of the tutor to point to the error and why it is an error. To say "you're wrong and stupid, go read a book" is not tutoring. I know, I have tutored.

I am asking if you really want to know about the universe or not.
I am close to bailing so let me know.

 

[Write4U]

I am asking if you really want to know about the universe or not.
I am close to bailing so let me know.

I believe I have shown my enthusiasm in partaking of discussing the various questions posed in this forum with a measurable amount of approval.

So far you have not shown me anything about the universe other than available science.
See, I never propose anything new. I quote established science to support my missives. I just offer my personal perspective of known science.

A Universe guided by mathematical principles and functions is the most Logical and observed concept and understanding of the universe. What is wrong with that perspective? Anyone has a better idea?

 

[Pinball1970]

I believe I have shown my enthusiasm in partaking of discussing the various questions posed in this forum with a measurable amount of approval.

So far you have not shown me anything about the universe than the rest of available science.
See, I never propose anything new (I quote established science to support my missives), I just offer my personal perspective of known science.

A Universe guided by mathematical functions is the most Logical and proven Concept and observed understanding of the universe. What is wrong with that perspective? Anyone has a better idea?

Enthusiasm is great. However, have to start with basics to proceed to deeper concepts.

The Quantum world makes nice headlines in New Scientist and BBC features but there is a whole world of learning FIRST before a layman can think about that intelligently.

 

[Pinball1970]

[QUOTE="Write4U, post: 3719845, member: 261885"

So far you have not shown me anything about the universe other than available science.
/QUOTE]
What else is there?