Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo

[Write4U]

An atom is a physical object. It doesn't need to "know" how many protons it has. It is literally made of protons (among other things). It certainly doesn't need to "know" any mathematics.

I never claimed it knows mathematics! Why do you persist in misrepresenting my posts.
It is the number of protons in an atom that determines its kind.

Atomic number, atomic mass, and relative atomic mass​

Atoms of each element contain a characteristic number of protons. In fact, the number of protons determines what atom we are looking at (e.g., all atoms with six protons are carbon atoms); the number of protons in an atom is called the atomic number. In contrast, the number of neutrons for a given element can vary. Forms of the same atom that differ only in their number of neutrons are called isotopes.

Together, the number of protons and the number of neutrons determine an element’s mass number: mass number = protons + neutrons. If you want to calculate how many neutrons an atom has, you can simply subtract the number of protons, or atomic number, from the mass number.

Khan Academy

www.khanacademy.org

and

Atom

The chemical elements are distinguished from each other by the number of protons that are in their atoms. For example, any atom that contains 11 protons is sodium, and any atom that contains 29 protons is copper.

Atom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

IOW, it is the mathematical pattern (number of protons) that identifies the kind of atom. Humans have nothing to do with that. We just codified it.

It is defined via universal constants which are defined according to parameters set by scientists.

Yes, but distances exist without human interpretation. The natural mathematical values of speed and distances are described in Special Relativity.
All that humans do is codify these deterministic interaction of values via mathematical processes. The proof lies in the axiom itself.

Address the core issue, if you can.

I am, you just wont accept it. Again, I am not arguing against physics. Mathematics is not the enemy of physics. It is the explanation of physics.

Ever watched a chameleon measure distance to an insect...

No. Have you? What kind of ruler did it use?

It uses triangulation, just as a basketball player does to gauge distance to the hoop. Neither know they are using triangulation at that time.
They just do.

How do chameleons use their long, sticky tongues to catch small insects?​

The process of catching prey with their tongues is a highly coordinated and precisely timed movement for chameleons. When a chameleon spots a potential meal, it will focus its eyes on the target and calculate the exact distance. Then, it will extend its tongue towards the prey, ensuring that the sticky tip comes into contact with the insect.

The speed at which the chameleon extends its tongue is truly astonishing. They are capable of shooting their tongues out at a rate of 13-16 feet per second. This extraordinary speed, combined with their accurate aim, allows chameleons to quickly and efficiently catch their prey.

Camouflage And Tongue: How Chameleons Hunt And Capture Small Insects | PetShun

Learn how chameleons use their camouflage and specialized tongues to effectively hunt and capture small insects in this insightful guide.

petshun.com

Write4U said:
or watched a spider weave its web, or bees constructing honeycombs?

Where's the maths?

I believe it is called a hexagonal (6 sided) pattern. Bees don't know they use it, but it is obvious that they do use the pattern to construct their honeycombs..

How is that possible?

And here we get to the heart of the matter.

There seems to be a new aspect to the function of time in the evolution of universal functional properties.

Is there a second arrow of time? New research says yes
“We could be wrong. But if we are right, it’s profoundly important.” Leading mineralogist Dr. Robert Hazen on the missing law of nature that could explain why life emerges.

Consider a coffee cup: it works best when holding your coffee, but it could also work as a paperweight, and it would not work well at all as a screwdriver. Hazen explains that it appears the universe uses a similar way of evolving not only biology, but other complex systems throughout the cosmos.

This idea suggests that while as the universe ages and expands, it is becoming more organized and functional, nearly opposite to theories surrounding increasing cosmological disorder. Hazen suggests that these two “arrows” – one of entropy and one of organized information – could very well run parallel to one another. If true, this theory could be groundbreaking in the way we perceive time, evolution, and the very fabric of reality.

Is there a second arrow of time? New research says yes

“We could be wrong. But if we are right, it’s profoundly important.” Leading mineralogist Dr. Robert Hazen on the missing law of nature that could explain why life emerges.

bigthink.com

To me this means that Life itself is an evolved aspect of functional dynamics.

Note: "one of (physical) entropy and one of organized (mathematical) information". I like that duality.

 

[Write4U]

Where's write4U?

Still here. Just took a little break for Xmas and NY.
Did you miss me?

If you did, you better talk to JamesR. He is about to show his autocratic power by banning me, in spite of my exemplary behavior in this subforum.

 

[Pinball1970]

If you did, you better talk to JamesR. He is about to show his autocratic power by banning me, in spite of my exemplary behavior in this subforum.

We have shown a fair bit of patience I think regarding this subject.

Still here. Just took a little break for Xmas and NY.

Hope it was a good one

Mathematics is not the enemy of physics. It is the explanation of physics.

Mathematics does not explain why we have a gravity, "why." We what know g is near the surface of the earth, we have a number but does not tell us why that value is that value or why it has a value at all.

 

[Write4U]

We have shown a fair bit of patience I think regarding this subject.

And I appreciate that greatly. But where would science be if all scientists with divergent perspectives were to be ostracized?
That's what religions do!
Should Hazen be fired for proposing a novel hypothesis that appears to be contrary to "current" science?

In fact I believe it supports my perspective that time is an emergent property and that everything in this universe has an "individual timeline", as well as a "universal timeline", including the simultaneous emerging and evolving "functionality" of things.

Mathematics does not explain why we have a gravity, "why." We what know g is near the surface of the earth, we have a number but does not tell us why that value is that value or why it has a value at all.

I agree wholeheartedly.
Mathematics does not explain the "why" of gravity, but it does explain the "how" of gravity. And humans have figured out a symbolic way of representing "how" gravity and a whole bunch of other universal phenomena function in a "measurable" way, without knowing the "why".

Perhaps this is the duality Hazen is talking about? A paralell evolution of "interactive physics" (entropy), the "why", and "functional maths" (order), the "how"?

Copilot:

In physics, the concept of evolution for function is supported by the idea that systems evolve when different configurations are selected for one or more functions. At least three types of function occur in nature: stability, dynamic systems with ongoing energy supplies, and organisms' primary function to ensure survival and reproduction. The new law of increasing functional information suggests that complex natural systems evolve to states of greater patterning, diversity, and complexity 1 2 3 4 5.

p.s. Does this agree with Daniel Dennett's perspective?

 

[Pinball1970]

And I appreciate that greatly. But where would science be if all scientists with divergent perspectives were to be ostracized?

It is not really a different view it is wrong the way you put it. Yes, science and pretty much everything else in modern society employs mathematics to some degree.
Physics most of all, BUT and this is a big but, those processes are not mathematics.
A really good example, music. Is sheet music, "music?"
You played bass, are those notes, crotchets, quavers, ink on the page the sound?
No, the sound is the sound and notes document it.

The sound is real, say you took that sound on paper, CDEFG#.... Because I like augmented chords and runs the took the square root?
Wtf? What does that even mean? Well in mathematics you can do that and explore those relationships and it has no physical analogue, at all. Let's take the rth root and the ith root? Let's make some sort of binomial expansion of these roots.
This is meaningless in music, C is C, CEG is C major.

In mathematics you can do all kind of crazy shit and there are some deep connections, in the mathematics.
Zero to do with our little ol' Universe though, small fry.

 

[Write4U]

Physics most of all, BUT and this is a big but, those processes are not mathematics

But they are they NOT mathematical in essence? If they are NOT , then our mathematics would NOT work with soundwaves, right?

No, the sound is the sound and notes document it.

True, the "sound" is the physics, the "music" is the "values and functional order" of the sounds. The composition. (see Roger Antonsen).

A physical bunch of sounds result in cacophony, a well constructed composition (harmonically pleasing) of sounds results in music. Difference.

Music and mathematics - Wikipedia​

Music theory analyzes the pitch, timing, and structure of music. It uses mathematics to study elements of music such as tempo, chord progression, form, and meter. The attempt to structure and communicate new ways of composing and hearing music has led to musical applications of set theory, abstract algebra and number theory.

While music theory has no axiomatic foundation in modern mathematics, the basis of musical sound can be described mathematically (using acoustics) and exhibits "a remarkable array of number properties".[1]

Music and mathematics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Harmony is a mathematical object.

The Mathematics of Harmony​

From Euclid to Contemporary Mathematics and Computer Science

This volume is a result of the author's four decades of research in the field of Fibonacci numbers and the Golden Section and their applications. It provides a broad introduction to the fascinating and beautiful subject of the “Mathematics of Harmony,” a new interdisciplinary direction of modern science.

This direction has its origins in “The Elements” of Euclid and has many unexpected applications in contemporary mathematics (a new approach to a history of mathematics, the generalized Fibonacci numbers and the generalized golden proportions, the “golden” algebraic equations, the generalized Binet formulas, Fibonacci and “golden” matrices), theoretical physics (new hyperbolic models of Nature) and computer science (algorithmic measurement theory, number systems with irrational radices, Fibonacci computers, ternary mirror-symmetrical arithmetic, a new theory of coding and cryptography based on the Fibonacci and “golden” matrices).

https://worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/6635#t=aboutBook

 

[Pinball1970]

But they are they NOT mathematical in essence? If they are NOT , then our mathematics would NOT work with soundwaves, right?

True, the "sound" is the physics, the "music" is the "values and functional order" of the sounds. (see Roger Antonsen).

A physical bunch of sounds result in cacophony, a well constructed composition (harmonically pleasing) of sounds results in music. Difference.

Music and mathematics - Wikipedia​

Music and mathematics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Harmony is a mathematical object.

The Mathematics of Harmony​

From Euclid to Contemporary Mathematics and Computer Science

https://worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/6635#t=aboutBook

You are a musician, so am I. No pastes please.

 

[exchemist]

And I appreciate that greatly. But where would science be if all scientists with divergent perspectives were to be ostracized?
That's what religions do!
Should Hazen be fired for proposing a novel hypothesis that appears to be contrary to "current" science?

In fact I believe it supports my perspective that time is an emergent property and that everything in this universe has an "individual timeline", as well as a "universal timeline", including the simultaneous emerging and evolving "functionality" of things.


I agree wholeheartedly.
Mathematics does not explain the "why" of gravity, but it does explain the "how" of gravity. And humans have figured out a symbolic way of representing "how" gravity and a whole bunch of other universal phenomena function in a "measurable" way, without knowing the "why".

Perhaps this is the duality Hazen is talking about? A paralell evolution of "interactive physics" (entropy), the "why", and "functional maths" (order), the "how"?

Copilot:


p.s. Does this agree with Daniel Dennett's perspective?

What hypothesis is this of Hazen’s that is contrary to current science?

 

[Write4U]

You are a musician, so am I. No pastes please.

OK, I'll try but it has been said so much better than I can.

What is Harmony in music? The combining of several mathematically complimentary sound waves, such as a chord.
Note the mathematical relationships of the individual frequencies.

What is Melody in music? The ordering of several mathematically complimentary soundwaves into a pleasing chronology.
Note the mathematically related chronologies of individual complimentary frequencies.

I refer to Newton's; “Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica” (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), published in 1687, is considered one of the most important works in the history of science.

 

[Pinball1970]

What is Harmony in music? The combining of several mathematically complimentary sound waves, such as a chord.

Yes and this can be represented mathematically. Also it is physics is it not? Air, resonance, waves, harmonics?
Those words are not the "thing" that beautiful thing though are they?
The equations and words our attempt to codify and document them.
EVEN if the the equations were perfect, you could not go out and find x and fx in nature, they are not there.

 

[Write4U]

What hypothesis is this of Hazen’s that is contrary to current science?

Apparently this is an emergent hypothesis that the universe in toto, evolves for function and has a separate timeline for that process.

WASHINGTON, Oct 16 (Reuters) - When British naturalist Charles Darwin sketched out his theory of evolution in the 1859 book "On the Origin of Species" - proposing that biological species change over time through the acquisition of traits that favor survival and reproduction - it provoked a revolution in scientific thought.

Now 164 years later, nine scientists and philosophers on Monday proposed a new law of nature that includes the biological evolution described by Darwin as a vibrant example of a much broader phenomenon, one that appears at the level of atoms, minerals, planetary atmospheres, planets, stars and more.

https://www.reuters.com/science/scientists-propose-sweeping-new-law-nature-expanding-evolution-2023-10-16/

At first this would seem contrary to the concept of entropy.

 

[exchemist]

Apparently this is an emergent hypothesis that the universe in toto, evolves for function and has a separate timeline for that process.

https://www.reuters.com/science/scientists-propose-sweeping-new-law-nature-expanding-evolution-2023-10-16/

At first this would seem contrary to the concept of entropy.

Only if you don’t understand entropy. We’ve been over this countless times with creationists.

 

[Write4U]

EVEN if the the equations were perfect, you could not go out and find x and fx in nature, they are not there.

Not as x and fx, but as actual (but unnamed) relational and relative values and functions.

To me, any relative natural value that can be measured and codified into human mathematics is proof that these values actually do exist but have no need to be named in their natural state. The universe has no need to codify anything, humans do.
But codified or not, the same mathematical functional processes apply.

 

[Write4U]

Only if you don’t understand entropy. We’ve been over this countless times with creationists.

In understand entropy to mean the inability of a system to use all available energy that results in a state (degree) of disorder (chaos).
I understand order to mean the mathematical guiding principles that result in a state (degree) of order from chaos. (Chaos Theory)

Chaos theory states that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnection, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals and self-organization.

To me that describes mathematical guiding principles. If not what is the alternative? A Demiurge (God)?

 

[James R]

Write4U:

I never claimed it knows mathematics! Why do you persist in misrepresenting my posts.

Here's what you posted, verbatim:

"If the argument is that the Universe does't know it is mathematical in essence, therefore maths don't exist, then is the argument also that an atom doesn't know how many protons it has and therefore protons don't exist? The sun doesn't know it's made of hydrogen atoms, therefore hydrogen don't exist."

This implies that you believe that an atom does know how many protons it has.

I did not misrepresent your post. I directly quoted it and explained exactly why you are wrong.

It is the number of protons in an atom that determines its kind.

I literally just told you why this is wrong.

Didn't you read post #399? Why did you completely ignore my objection to your claim, only for you to repeat it yet again, here?

If you're not going to engage with objections to your thesis, I will close this thread, because your continual dodging of issues you find inconvenient - which go to the core of your contentious claims - is dishonest.

Maybe you can't help it. Maybe your short term memory is shot. Maybe you have some other excuse. But if any of these things is true and you are unwilling or unable to have an honest discussion about your claims, then there is no point continuing with this thread. I will simply close it.

Do you understand?

IOW, it is the mathematical pattern (number of protons) that identifies the kind of atom.

You mean, we humans identify atoms by referring to their atomic number, among other things.

So what? This has nothing to do with your silly claim that the physical universe reduces to mathematics.

Yes, but distances exist without human interpretation.

Do they? I've never seen a foot or a meter in a context that lacks human interpretation. Have you?

If you're saying that space exists without human interpretation, then I take no issue with that. But distances are a kind of measurement and measurements don't exist without measurers.

The natural mathematical values of speed and distances are described in Special Relativity.

No. Special Relativity makes no mention of "natural mathematical values". Those are just something that Write4U invented out of whole cloth.

All that humans do is codify these deterministic interaction of values via mathematical processes. The proof lies in the axiom itself.

Word salad. No proof ever lies in an axiom. Learn what an axiom is. (And don't cut and paste what you learn from Copilot about axioms here, if you actually learn anything. I already know what an axiom is. I don't need to be told, but clearly you do.)

And mathematical process cannot cause humans to codify things! How could they? [NINETEEN]

Again, I am not arguing against physics. Mathematics is not the enemy of physics. It is the explanation of physics.

You started with "Physical things are nothing but mathematics."

Are you still there, or has your position shifted? Let me know.

It uses triangulation, just as a basketball player does to gauge distance to the hoop. Neither know they are using triangulation at that time.

How do you know they are using triangulation, then?

Do you really think that a basketball player is doing mental calculations when he lines up at the free throw line?

How do chameleons use their long, sticky tongues to catch small insects?

That cut-and-paste fragment is wrong when it claims that chameleon "calculate the distance", for the same reason you're wrong when you claim that basketballers calculate the distance to the hoop.

I believe it is called a hexagonal (6 sided) pattern. Bees don't know they use it, but it is obvious that they do use the pattern to construct their honeycombs..

There's are good physical reasons for why honeycombs are hexagonal grids. Mathematics can certainly help us to understand and model the relevant physical processes, but mathematics does not cause honeycombs to be hexagonal. Bees do.

Do you understand what I'm telling you? Please reply. Don't ignore.

And here we get to the heart of the matter.

There seems to be a new aspect to the function of time in the evolution of universal functional properties.

This is completely off topic and irrelevant, not the "heart of the matter".

 

[James R]

Write4U:

And I appreciate that greatly. But where would science be if all scientists with divergent perspectives were to be ostracized?

Do you think you're a scientist, Write4U? Are you feeling persecuted and ostracised for your "divergent" perspective?

Maybe if you engaged with the main objection to your core assertion this conversation would be more productive. If all you can do is whine about how persecuted you are, that is unlikely to help. It's the typical cry of the crank when he is backed into a corner.

Should Hazen be fired for proposing a novel hypothesis that appears to be contrary to "current" science?

Has he been fired for that? If not, then maybe science can cope with his "divergent" idea. What do you think?

In fact I believe it supports my perspective that time is an emergent property and that everything in this universe has an "individual timeline", as well as a "universal timeline", including the simultaneous emerging and evolving "functionality" of things.

Word salad.

Mathematics does not explain the "why" of gravity, but it does explain the "how" of gravity.

Okay.

Do you now agree that gravity is separate from mathematics? That mathematics can be used to describe gravity, but that gravity is not mathematics?

Yes or no?

And humans have figured out a symbolic way of representing "how" gravity and a whole bunch of other universal phenomena function in a "measurable" way, without knowing the "why".

Good for humans!

Copilot: [snip]

p.s. Does this agree with Daniel Dennett's perspective?

This is the first time you have mentioned Daniel Dennett's perspective. His perspective on what? This looks like another complete non sequitur. As for the Copilot response to whatever the query was that you fed it, it looks to me like it's probably a case of Garbage in, Garbage out.

But they are they NOT mathematical in essence? If they are NOT, then our mathematics would NOT work with soundwaves, right?

I think mathematics can be used to describe all kinds of things that are not "mathematical in essence".

But to clarify, what exactly do you mean when you claim something is "mathematical in essence"?

For instance, I'd say that an equation is "mathematical in essence", whereas a jelly bean, say, is not "mathematical in essence". Do you agree? If you think an equation is "essentially" the same as a jelly bean, please explain why you think that.

True, the "sound" is the physics, the "music" is the "values and functional order" of the sounds.

Pinball literally just explained to you why music is not mathematics.

Why don't you engage with his post where he explained the difference to you?

A physical bunch of sounds result in cacophony, a well constructed composition (harmonically pleasing) of sounds results in music. Difference.

In other words, what is harmonically pleasing relates to the physics of the sound waves. Right?

Harmony is a mathematical object.

Wrong. An equation is a mathematical object. A number is a mathematical object. An ideal triangle is a mathematical object.

What is Harmony in music? The combining of several mathematically complimentary sound waves, such as a chord.
Note the mathematical relationships of the individual frequencies.

What is Melody in music? The ordering of several mathematically complimentary soundwaves into a pleasing chronology.
Note the mathematically related chronologies of individual complimentary frequencies.

Pinball literally just explained to you why harmony and melody are not what you say they are here.

Will you respond to what he posted about music, or not? If not, why not? Why do you just fly off on irrelevant tangents, rather than engaging with the objections to your core claim?

I refer to Newton's; “Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica” (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), published in 1687, is considered one of the most important works in the history of science.

What? Just to name-drop it? What's the relevance? Is there any?

To me, any relative natural value that can be measured and codified into human mathematics is proof that these values actually do exist but have no need to be named in their natural state.

You're assuming what you ought to be trying to prove. Your argument here is completely circular.

Premise 1: If Relative Natural Values exist then they can be measured and codified into human mathematics.
Premise 2: Relative natural values exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, Relative Natural Values exist.

This is not a sound proof, because Premise 2 assumes the conclusion without proof.

 

[exchemist]

In understand entropy to mean the inability of a system to use all available energy that results in a state (degree) of disorder (chaos).
I understand order to mean the mathematical guiding principles that result in a state (degree) of order from chaos. (Chaos Theory)

To me that describes mathematical guiding principles. If not what is the alternative? A Demiurge (God)?

More random crap, unrelated to the subject at hand.

To be clear, Hazen has not proposed anything contrary to thermodynamics.

 

[Write4U]

W4U said:
Apparently this is an emergent hypothesis that the universe in toto, evolves for function and has a separate timeline for that process.

More random crap, unrelated to the subject at hand.

You accused me of ignorance regarding entropy.

I merely responded to that remark. Was I wrong?

To be clear, Hazen has not proposed anything contrary to thermodynamics.

I never said anything of the sort. I cited a news item regards Time and a function of the universe that may appear to be controversial at first glance.

 

[exchemist]

You accused me of ignorance regarding entropy.

I merely responded to that remark. Was I wrong?

I never said anything of the sort. I cited a news item regards Time and a function of the universe that may appear to be controversial at first glance.

Suggest you re-read your post 411 then, which was your answer to my question as to what Hazen had said that was contrary to current science. Your reply clearly indicated you thought it violated the principle of entropy.

But I’m used to this ducking and weaving shit from you when you are caught out, so I won’t labour the point.

 

[James R]

There must be something in the water today. It seems we are besieged on all sides by dishonest liars (yes, that's a tautology, kids).

One down, two to go, perhaps. It's a new year. Time to clean house?