Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo

[Write4U]

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.

But you are misinterpreting what I posted. It is the mathematical fact that the number of protons determines the type of element, regardless if it knows anything or not.

But it seems to touch on the new hypothesis that everything in the universe evolves for function as well as durability.

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

Seems that the moon mysteriously remains at the same distance as it orbits earth, regardless whether I look at it or not.
Does it know how to keep that distance or is it another imperative that keeps it there. Does my gaze keep it there?

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

In case you have forgotten, let me remind you, it is not my silly claim at all. It is the claim of a MIT tenured physicist Max Tegmark.
Don't tell me I'm silly, tell that to Tegmark.

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

No, I read that somewhere else. I don't invent anything. I am merely exploring and discussing propositions made by scientists.

"Special relativity addresses relative values in the universe" is not my claim.

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

I lost count, but I never made that claim the way you posit it.

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

I believe I said that physical objects are mathematical patterns of various physical densities.

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?

I did not say that anything about lining up at the free throw line.

I said they do not consciously make mental calculations. You keep misquoting me. Stop that!

This is why I loathe giving you credence. Every answer I give you misinterpret with some little twist.
I don't know if you do this purposely but it annoys the hell out me.
Read what I write. not what you think I mean to write.

But basketball players and many animals in nature use "stereopsis" (triangulation) to gauge distance to the hoop even when in motion.

ster·e·op·sis, noun
the perception of depth produced by the reception in the brain of visual stimuli from both eyes in combination; binocular vision.

I believe that in mathematics this is called triangulation.

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.

Yes, I do understand what you are saying, but you are missing the point. And you are right ; "there are good physical reasons for why honeycombs are hexagonal grids."
That reason is that it is mathematically the most efficient way of storing. It is a mathematical function of the universe and it is a constant.

And that's where it touches on the new proposal of a universal evolution for function. as well as durability.

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

Not in my book. In my book it is relevant to the concept of evolutionary processes.

 

[Write4U]

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.

I read and edited my post before I posted it and I can assure you that is not what I meant by saying that.

I said as a general comment, that to a skeptical science community, this new proposal might appear to contradict the current mainstream concept of entropy. It had nothing to do with the concept of entropy itself. New proposals usually are met with skepticism, no?

You have been dealing too long with dishonest posters. I make no claims of singular expertise.

I just write what appears to me as interesting and potentially informative aspects of the world, worthy of discussion.
The fact that I quote existing hypotheses should be an indication that I do research to gain a rudimentary understanding of the universal functional principles and properties, not the actual science which curiously almost totally depends on mathematics for its existence..

 

[Pinball1970]

Don't tell me I'm silly, tell that to Tegmark

Ok I think that is the first time you named him unless I missed it. We had a thread on that, just that which you did not really contribute much too IIRC.

If this is such a great concept did he follow up on it? What has he done in the last 11 years since the publication?

What have the scientific community done? Have they picked it up and ran with it?

 

[Pinball1970]

I believe I said that physical objects are mathematical patterns of various physical densities.

That is is not what Tegmark said, he said this, "all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically"

So in Ramsey theory, Proof theory combinatorics, we get numbers like Grahams number, Tree 3, these numbers exist, mathematically.


How can these exist physically according to Tegmark? They are too large to fit into the universe, it would take longer than the life of the universe to write them out and there are numbers much larger than this.

I have asked this several times now so I would appreciate an answer.

 

[Write4U]

How can these exist physically according to Tegmark? They are too large to fit into the universe, it would take longer than the life of the universe to write them out and there are numbers much larger than this.

But I do not believe that numbers exist, except in the mind of humans. I do believe that all physical objects inthe uiverse and the universe itself have an inherent value or combination of values. These values self-organize into patterns of various physical densities.

That is why I believe I said that all physical objects are ultimately mathematical patterns of various physical densities.

 

[Pinball1970]

But I do not believe that numbers exist, except in the mind of humans. I do believe that all physical objects inthe uiverse and the universe itself have an inherent value or combination of values. These values self-organize into patterns of various physical densities.

That is why I believe I said that all physical objects are ultimately mathematical patterns of various physical densities.

I don't think you mean densities

Is there a structure to the Universe? Yes everyone agrees, our universe is not chaotic.

Is everything related to everything else and affected by everything else? Yes.
To the point where if we examine a small part that can be described in detail? This can be described mathematically? As an approximation? Yes.

Is the mathematics a 100% analogue of what is going on? No. Not only is it not, it could never be for reasons I have discussed.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

But you are misinterpreting what I posted.

I literally just explained to you how I did not misrepesent what you posted.

Moreover, in the posts of yours I'm replying to here, you confirm that you still have the same opinion that you're accusing me of misrepresenting.

What's wrong with you?

It is the mathematical fact that the number of protons determines the type of element, regardless if it knows anything or not.

I have already explained three times, in previous posts, why the number of protons does not determine the type of element. I explained in detail to you why you've got it precisely backwards.

You have not identified any error in what I said to you, three times. In fact, it looks more like you've simply ignored what I wrote, all three times.

Are you going to continue to be this dishonest?

In case you're confused, here's what you need to do: identify what's wrong with what I wrote. Specifically, I said that different elements have different numbers of protons in their nuclei. We count the number of protons and label the elements according to the number we find. We call the number of protons "the atomic number".

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose we have a set of ten opaque, closed jars, each of which contains different numbers of jelly beans. For instance, one jar contains 3 jelly beans, while another jar contains 1 jelly bean.

If we know the number of jelly beans in a jar, we can refer to it as a "3-jelly-bean jar" or a "1-jelly-bean jar". If we wanted to go further, we could give those jars arbitrary names. For instance, we could call a jar containing 1 jelly bean a "hydrogen jar" and a jar with 3 jelly beans a "lithium jar".

Now, here's the issue. Is it correct to say "It is the mathematical fact that the number of jelly beans determines the type of jar, regardless if the jar knows anything"?

Does the fact that there are 3 belly beans in a particular jar determine that it is a lithium jar? Clearly, the jar itself doesn't have any knowledge that it is a lithium jar.

Suppose I hand a jar to a random person on the street and say "This is a lithium jar", do you imagine they will have the foggiest clue about what it might contain?

Suppose they open the jar and discover that is contains 3 jelly beans. Would they say "Ah! I see this contains 3 jelly beans. Therefore, because of the number 3, I know it must be a lithium jar. Because, the number of jelly beans determines the type of jar it is!" Of course not. They would have no idea that we arbitrarily decided to refer to jars containing 3 jelly beans as lithium jars.

What actually determines that the jar is a lithium jar, if not the number of jelly beans in it? The answer is: we do. We chose to associate the label "lithium jar" with 3 jelly beans. There is nothing inherent in the jar or in the number of jelly beans that makes it a lithium jar. The jar doesn't know what we chose to call it.

More importantly, the number 3 doesn't know anything about jelly bean jars and jelly bean jars don't know anything about the number 3. So how could the number possibly determine what kind of jar it is?

We can correlate the term "lithium jar" with "contains 3 jelly beans", but only because we have concepts in our head that relate the physical fact of "3 jelly beans in the jar" to the name "lithium jar".

Suppose somebody hands us another jar. We open it and find that it contains 1 jelly bean. "Ah!", we say, "This one is a hydrogen jar!"

Did the number 1 determine that it was a hydrogen jar? No.
Did the number of jelly beans in the jar determine that it was a hydrogen jar? No.
What determined that it was a hydrogen jar? Answer: us. The humans who named the damn thing.

Taking this a little further, we could define a thing called the "jar number", which is the number of jelly beans found in a jar. Then we could say things like "A lithium jar is any jar with a jar number of 3".

Would it now be true to say that the number 3 determines that a jar is a lithium jar? Of course not! We've already been through this. It's not the number 3 that causes jelly beans to be in jar. No number causes jelly beans to be in a jar. Only humans (employing physical processes) cause jelly beans to be in jars.

Let's return to the question of atoms now. We say, for example, "a lithium atom has atomic number 3". That's because we have chosen the name "lithium" to refer to a substance made up of atoms that each have 3 protons in their nucleus.

Does the number 3 determine that an atom is a lithium atom? No! No more than the number 3 determines that a jar is a lithium jar.

What determines that something is a lithium atom is that it contains 3 protons. The number 3 didn't cause that. Physical processes caused that.
----

Do you agree, or do you disagree, Write4U?

Is there any error in what I have said here?

In light of this, will you retract your claim that "It is a mathematical fact that the number of protons determines the type of element"?

If not, why not?

 

[James R]

Write4U:

I'll reply to other things you've posted, but make sure you address what I wrote in the previous post before going on with any of this other stuff. Because that goes to the core of the disagreement that you are I have, right now. If we can't agree about something simple like that, then I don't think we can have a useful discussion about the idea of a "mathematical universe".

But it seems to touch on the new hypothesis that everything in the universe evolves for function as well as durability.

I'm going to leave this new thing you're bringing up - whatever it is - alone for now. You haven't raised this before and it seems entirely irrelevant, once again.

Seems that the moon mysteriously remains at the same distance as it orbits earth, regardless whether I look at it or not.
Does it know how to keep that distance or is it another imperative that keeps it there. Does my gaze keep it there?

Gravity keeps it there. Importantly: maths doesn't keep it there.

In case you have forgotten, let me remind you, it is not my silly claim at all. It is the claim of a MIT tenured physicist Max Tegmark.

I think this particular claim of Tegmark's (which I think he wisely refers to as a hypothesis) is silly, too - for all the same reasons.

It's not the first time a tenured professor has said something a bit dumb, you know. Those people are human, too.

Don't tell me I'm silly, tell that to Tegmark.

I'll be happy to, if I ever meet him.

What puzzles me is why you want to hitch your wagon so tightly to his, especially given as you're not across the details of his proposal. Is it just to be contrary?

No, I read that somewhere else.

Ah. Somewhere else. A reliable reference if ever I saw one.

I don't invent anything. I am merely exploring and discussing propositions made by scientists.

You've been glued on to certain propositions for a few years now, at least. I don't see much exploring going on. In fact, you seem to be highly antipathic to learning anything new.

"Special relativity addresses relative values in the universe" is not my claim.

Whose claim is it? Somewhere else's?

I believe I said that physical objects are mathematical patterns of various physical densities.

Jelly beans in a jar are mathematical patterns of various physical densities, then?

I did not say that anything about lining up at the free throw line.

Do you think that matters? Or are you just trying to find something distracting to complain about, rather than addressing the issues that matter?

Does "triangulation" not apply to free throws?

I said they do not consciously make mental calculations.

Do you think they unconsciously make mental calculations, then? (Because I don't think that's what's going on, either.)

You keep misquoting me. Stop that!

At no time have I misquoted you.

This is why I loathe giving you credence. Every answer I give you misinterpret with some little twist.

I don't think I have misinterpreted at all. After all, I have addressed your contention about the number of protons four times now, with the same unanswered objection. But you still persist in the same error.

Do you think I'm in error, and not you? If you do, then why haven't you shown where I'm wrong, on any of the three previous times where I explained where you are wrong?

I don't know if you do this purposely but it annoys the hell out me.

I am trying to lead you down a path that shows that the implications of your assertions are absurd.

You shouldn't get annoyed. You should think it through and either accept that you've been wrong or else try to come up with some good reasons that show why I'm wrong. Ignoring my arguments isn't working for you.

Read what I write. not what you think I mean to write.

Tell me what I've got wrong about your meaning. Be specific.

But basketball players and many animals in nature use "stereopsis" (triangulation) to gauge distance to the hoop even when in motion.

Stereopsis is not triangulation, according to the definitions you have posted.

I believe that in mathematics this is called triangulation.

Not the same thing. One is a physical process involving physical things. The other is a mathematic process or idea. A concept, in other words.

Concepts don't cause things to happen.

Yes, I do understand what you are saying, but you are missing the point. And you are right ; "there are good physical reasons for why honeycombs are hexagonal grids."
That reason is that it is mathematically the most efficient way of storing.

No!

You just did it again. You jumped straight from "good physical reasons" to mathematical reasons. But mathematical reasons are all conceptual, and concepts can't cause physical results.

Are you even aware of the difference between "physical reasons" and "mathematical reasons"?

It is a mathematical function of the universe and it is a constant.

What is a mathematical function of the universe?

You still don't know what a mathematical function is, do you? Mathematical functions can't operate on physical objects. How could they? [TWENTY] (Hint: The number 3 can't put jelly beans into a jar.)

And that's where it touches on the new proposal of a universal evolution for function. as well as durability.

[Skip]

I said as a general comment, that to a skeptical science community, this new proposal might appear to contradict the current mainstream concept of entropy.

Do you now agree that you were wrong about that?

After all, exchemist - whom I don't think would be insulted to be referred to as a member of the skeptical science community - told you that the "new proposal" doesn't contradict any mainstream concept of entropy.

New proposals usually are met with skepticism, no?

In science, that is standard practice. It's part of the Method.

But I do not believe that numbers exist, except in the mind of humans.

Knock me down with a feather!

Did you really write that? After all that?

If numbers don't exist except in the minds of humans, how could they possibly determine what kind of element an atom is?

It looks like you're flip-flopping. Was it a mistake that you wrote this? Are you going to retract it? Or does that mean that, finally, you agree with what I've been putting to you?

I do believe that all physical objects inthe uiverse and the universe itself have an inherent value or combination of values.

Clearly that's impossible if "values" are numbers and you don't believe that numbers exist except in the minds of humans. A rock can't have an inherent value as you assert it does, because the rock exists independently of the mind of a human.

You're contradicting yourself. That means your entire edifice falls in a self-contradictory heap.

These values self-organize into patterns of various physical densities.

Patterns do not self-organise. How could they? [TWENTY-ONE] (Hint: The number 3 cannot cause jelly beans in a jar to self-organise.)

That is why I believe I said that all physical objects are ultimately mathematical patterns of various physical densities.

And we're back to square one.

Did you just forget everything you wrote before this last sentence?

Hint: you can't make a jelly bean from the number 3.

 

[Write4U]

I don't think you mean densities

Yes I do. The density of the atoms or molecules determines whether something is expressed as gaseous, liquid, or solid.
H2O is a perfect example. It can exist as a gas, as a liquid, as a solid , depending of the density (physical) and mathematical (orderly) arrangement of the H2O molecules.
Density is a clear aspect of the state and is a result of temperature.

Copilot:

The molecular structures of water in various states are as follows12345:

1. Solid (ice): Water molecules form a crystalline structure maintained by hydrogen bonding.
2. Liquid (water): Water molecules form aggregates with short-range order.
3. Gas (steam): Kinetic energy causes hydrogen bonds to break completely, allowing water molecules to escape into the air as gas.

Is there a structure to the Universe? Yes everyone agrees, our universe is not chaotic.

And IMO that structure is mathematical in essence. That's why we can codify and symbolize it . Unless anyone can give me a suitable alternative, I have to stick with that eminently functional interpretation. Physics are founded on mathematical principles.
Except for chaos, everything can be mathematically quantified and qualified.

Structuralism (philosophy of science) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Is the mathematics a 100% analogue of what is going on? No. Not only is it not, it could never be for reasons I have discussed.

I agree that there is no 100% understanding of what's going on. There are several areas that escape codification and symbolization, due to their complex nature, but IMO, the term "physics" explains why things physically exist, the term mathematics explains how they arrange and come to attain physical existence.

What may be unknowable and obscured to humans is of no consequence to the Universe. Humans themselves are a product of the Universe.
Hence, mathematics are a product (property) of the Universe.

One of the rare arguments in favor of OSR that deal specifically with QFT is due to Kantorovich (2003), who opts for a Platonic version of OSR; a position that is otherwise not very popular among OSRists. Kantorovich argues that directly after the big bang “the world was baryon-free, whereas the symmetry of grand unification existed as an abstract structure” (p. 673).

Quantum Field Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Summer 2015 Edition)

What is the value of this term and why?

In summary, the term "value" in scientific research refers to the degree of importance or significance of a variable, concept, or finding in relation to a research question. It is important to determine the value of a term in scientific research as it allows for accurate interpretation and establishes relevance. Scientists determine the value of a term through experiments, data analysis, and considering previous research. The value of a term can change over time and can greatly impact the credibility of a scientific study. Higher value strengthens the validity and reliability of results, while lower value may call into question accuracy and significance.

Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-is-the-value-of-this-term-and-why.572994/

 

[exchemist]

Yes I do. The density of the atoms or molecules determies whether someting id gaseos, liquid, or solid.
H2O is a perfect example. It can exist as a gas, as a liquid, as a solid , depending of the density and mathematical arrangement of the H2O molecules
View attachment 6432

No it doesn’t. We’ve been through this before. (Post 81 and subsequent) The density is a property that results from a number of factors, the state of the substance being just one of them.

It is bullshit to claim density determines the state. It’s the other way round.

 

[Write4U]

No it doesn’t. We’ve been through this before. (Post 81 and subsequent) The density is a property that results from a number of factors, the state of the substance being just one of them.

It is bullshit to claim density determines the state. It’s the other way round.

Interesting that you should use the term, "The density results from a number of factors" to disprove the mathematical nature of the molecular arrangement. What am I to make of that?

 

[exchemist]

Interesting that you should use the term, "The density results from a number of factors" to disprove the mathematical nature of the molecular arrangement. What am I to make of that?

Just get your cause and effect the right way round.

 

[Pinball1970]

Physics are founded on mathematical principles.

No it's not, this is what you repeatedly keep getting wrong. Stuff is what is our there, it is not founded on anything.
We, humans developed axioms, logic, rigor and that comes from that, mathematics, we have employed that to define the physics.
What is out there has been measured using our definitions terms equations and symbols.
However, this is not the point. We have developed mathematics most of which bears NO resemblance to anything physical, AT ALL.

Third time of asking, address that.

Also please address the fact the mathematics we have developed to understand gravity is not gravity.
Say we develop a quantum gravity theory that is perfect, is that the mathematics?

No!!!!

Because the universe is not mathematics, chemistry, biology or psychology (humans exist)

Those things are analogues and always will be. Always.

If you are ditching Tegmark finally for Christ sake please tell me.

 

[Write4U]

Stuff is what is our there, it is not founded on anything.

I agree that stuff is out there. But stuff behaves and interacts in an orderly way that we have codified and named "mathematical" in essence.

To me, when you say stuff behaves like stuff, it becomes meaningless. Stuff behaves in a mathematically predictive manner.
Thats why we can predict its interactive behavior mathematically.

IMO, the reason interaction of stuff becomes unpredictable at Planck scale is that the mathematics change. It can't be the stuff because at that scale stuff is not yet physical?

Q: If something has no mass can it be physical or is it just a value?

A: Copilot:

Not a physical entity
If a thing has no mass, it is not a physical entity12345. Massless objects have no rest mass and do not occupy physical space15. However, they may still have energy or kinetic energy.

p.s. I am using Copilot just for convenience, but it shows 5 sources for reference.

Also please address the fact the mathematics we have developed to understand gravity is not gravity.
Say we develop a quantum gravity theory that is perfect, is that the mathematics?

No!!!!

IMO, the mathematics would show if we have it right.

Because the universe is not mathematics, chemistry, biology or psychology (humans exist)

Apparently, at Planck scale stuff within the universe is no longer physical, which sounds about right in a universal evolutionary context.

If you are ditching Tegmark finally for Christ sake please tell me.

I don't know enough to comment on a multiverse, but I do like the the concept of an underlying logic that expresses itself in a mathematical way.

As atheist I find that a perfect substitute for "the hand of God" without insulting the believer's intelligence.

 

[exchemist]

I agree that stuff is out there. But stuff behaves and interacts in an orderly way that we have codified and named "mathematical" in essence.

To me, when you say stuff behaves like stuff, it becomes meaningless. Stuff behaves in a mathematically predictive manner.
Thats why we can predict its interactive behavior mathematically.

IMO, the reason interaction of stuff becomes unpredictable at Planck scale is that the mathematics change. It can't be the stuff because at that scale stuff is not yet physical?

Q: If something has no mass can it be physical or is it just a value?

A: Copilot:

p.s. I am using Copilot just for convenience, but it shows 5 sources for reference.

Copilot goofs again, then. Surely it is ridiculous to say a photon, or even a field, are not physical entities? I wonder what sources it cited to suggest otherwise.

 

[Write4U]

Copilot goofs again, then. Surely it is ridiculous to say a photon, or even a field, are not physical entities? I wonder what sources it cited to suggest otherwise.

All you need to do is click on the reference numbers to get to the source.

I am interested to get your impression of the sources Copilot selected. It would probably be instructive of how to phrase the inquiry.

 

[Write4U]

Just get your cause and effect the right way round.

You are right.
Vapor is the least densest, and most disorderly state of H2O. Water is the densest but partially disorderly state of H2O, whereas Ice is the most orderly (crystalline), and only in a medium dense state of H2O.

I know that density is a physical state, but clearly the mathematics invoked in the molecular bonding arrangement of solid ice is responsible for the orderly organization into a crystal form, regardless of density.

https://www.its.caltech.edu/~

Ice atomic/snowcrystals/ice/ice.htm

One of some 14 possible orderly crystalline structures.

An interesting property of ice is that it has a lower density than water which explains why it's so slippery, as you step on the ice the force compresses the crystal structure which breaks it and causes a thin film of water which has a very low coefficient of friction. So yes ice can be compressed but it won't be long until it's no longer ice.
Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/compressibility-of-ice-vs-water-answers-explanations.557396/

 

[Write4U]

I ran across this excellent summation of my perspective on the mathematical nature of nature.

Top 4 expressions of mathematics in the natural world​

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2021

In a superficial sense, mathematics is a human construction. 1+1=2 only insofar as we give meaning to numbers and symbols, in a similar way that we give meanings to nouns and verbs in language.

But on a deeper level, mathematics exists in the world around us as part of the fundamental building blocks of existence itself. We can see mathematics expressed in the natural world and in the many ways it is incorporated in living and nonliving things.

Join us as we explore the top four expressions of mathematics in the natural world.

1. Fractals. For many students in junior high and high school, fractal geometry is among the first introductions to the way that math exists in nature. We look with awe at the branching of a tree or the leaves on a fern and see intricately repeating patterns. Fractals are a huge area of mathematical research, and if you are interested in learning about fractals at a university level, check out professor emeritus in applied mathematics William Gilbert.
2. Fluid dynamics. The way that liquid functions is governed by a specific set of mathematical laws. Think about the formation, crest and fall of waves on the ocean, or the way a river or stream meanders through a landscape. There’s a formula for that. Learn more about fluid dynamics with our applied math professor Marek Stastna, and if you’re on campus check out his fluids lab.
3. Epidemiology. Since early-2020, everyone has had a crash course in epidemiology and learned all about the spread and reproduction of viruses. Mathematicians have been at the forefront of data science and modeling throughout the pandemic. Some of our researchers have even used mathematical modeling to investigate how COVID-19 works on a cellular level. Check out research from applied mathematician Anita Layton to learn more. As Layton puts it, “mathematics is our microscope.”
4. Cosmology. When we talk about cosmology, we are talking about the existence and the ordering of, well, everything. It’s the theory of how the universe works. Researchers in pure mathematics have taken up these big questions and given some startling answers. Take, for example, mathematical research on string theory, showing there are six or seven extra dimensions that we can barely comprehend bundles up in everything perceptible in the natural world. Professor of pure mathematics Spiro Karigiannis is one of our resident string theory experts that you should check out if you’d like to learn more.

My first exposure to maths a long time ago, was via Professor Emeritus Albert Bartlett, who offered a famous lecture on the mathematics of the "Exponential Function", a natural mathematical growth function that is a universal constant.
Here is a short version.

 

[exchemist]

All you need to do is click on the reference numbers to get to the source.

I am interested to get your impression of the sources Copilot selected. It would probably be instructive of how to phrase the inquiry.

OK I’ve looked at all five. The first is nothing to do with science per se but talks of intangibles such as love, justice etc, while the others, which are from science sources have been misinterpreted by Copilot. There’s a lot about photons but nowhere does any of the sources claim photons are not physical entities. Copilot has apparently just made that up. And it’s wrong, obviously.

What this shows me is how useless Copilot is unless you, the user, take the trouble yourself to review the relevance and the actual meaning of the references it finds. You cannot afford to just take on trust what it says without checking those sources and applying your own critical faculties.

I see a real danger here for society at large, from people like you outsourcing what should be their own thinking to a chatbot or a similar AI tool, - and coming to believe crap in consequence. On both this and the .net forum, I see example after example of where such tools have got basic things utterly wrong. You have just provided another.

You are a person who outsources your thinking all the time, as evidenced by the reams of irrelevant material we get from you, simply cut and pasted from the internet with little attention as to its actual relevance to the subject at hand. Copilot is not good enough, apparently, to compensate for your own lack of thinking about the material you, or it, finds. (In your particular case there is another problem too, which is inability to stay focused on the topic of discussion, but that’s another issue.)

 

[Pinball1970]

A: Copilot

Please stop using copilot in your replies to me. I am not interested.

But stuff behaves and interacts in an orderly way that we have codified and named "mathematical" in essence.

No. This is the crux of the matter, the universe may behave in a certain way but that is not mathematics. This is what you do not get.

I will ask you again, what about Tegmark's claim that everything mathematical is also physical. Are you ditching this now or not?