Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo

[exchemist]

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


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?

Well at least we have proof now that Copilot is shit.

 

[Write4U]

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

Ok, if that pleases you. Seems that Copilot does exactly what I do, except much faster. A synopsys with links to the originating sources

I read once that in a complicated case, a lawyer with AI assistance will always win over a lawyer without the assistance of AI. This what AI does!

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.

In the absence of another term for a metaphysical universal "guiding principle", what is wrong with the human term "mathematics" that actually describes the metaphysical underpinnings of physical interactions?

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

As to Tegmark, I am not interested in a multiverse . What intrigues me is the concept that the Universe itself is a mathematical object, which would solve all the hassles with the religious world. Mathematics can replace God as the guiding demiurge.

See Plato's "Timaeus"

In the Timaeus Plato presents an elaborately wrought account of the formation of the universe and an explanation of its impressive order and beauty. The universe, he proposes, is the product of rational, purposive, and beneficent agency. It is the handiwork of a divine Craftsman (“Demiurge,” dêmiourgos, 28a6) who, imitating an unchanging and eternal model, imposes mathematical order on a preexistent chaos to generate the ordered universe (kosmos).

The governing explanatory principle of the account is teleological: the universe as a whole as well as its various parts are so arranged as to produce a vast array of good effects. For Plato this arrangement is not fortuitous, but the outcome of the deliberate intent of Intellect (nous), anthropomorphically represented by the figure of the Craftsman who plans and constructs a world that is as excellent as its nature permits it to be.

Plato’s Timaeus (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Note that I am atheist and discard thenotion of an anthropmorpized "intentional god". I see the concept of a mathematical Universe as sufficient in and of itself. IMO, mathematics exist outside of human interpretation. This is why "mathematics" is called man's greatest discovery.

Math: Human Discovery or Human Invention?​

So just what, in essence, is this thing called math? In developing these numbers and systems of numbers, did we discover the hidden coding of the universe? Is mathematics, in the words of Galileo, the language of God? Or is math just a human-created system that happens to correspond with natural laws and structures? There is no definitive answer to this question, but mathematicians tend to side with one of several compelling theories.

First, there is the Platonic theory. Greek philosopher Plato argued that math is a discoverable system that underlines the structure of the universe. In other words, the universe is made of math and the more we understand this vast interplay of numbers, the more we can understand nature itself. To put it more bluntly, mathematics exists independent of humans -- that it was here before we evolved and will continue on long after we're extinct.

How Math Works

A world without math is unimaginable. Learn how different branches of math help demystify the world around us.

science.howstuffworks.com

So, seems that Tegmark has a few heavyweights in his corner. The bells and whistles he has attached to the concept are not interesting to me.

So, I don't see the vehement opposition to the concept of a mathematically organized universe. It needs not be conscious.
It only needs to be mathematical for it to replace the "religious watchmaker".

 

[Pinball1970]

Well at least we have proof now that Copilot is shit.

He seems to be moving from cut and paste to copilot. I don't think it is the best move for him.

This all stems from Tegmark's thesis which he decided to adopt and make defense of without understanding much of it.
Neither do I, I tried to read of much of it as I could but gave up eventually.
Not much has happened since with it since, he put out a book in 2014 and got some sales out of it probably.

 

[exchemist]

He seems to be moving from cut and paste to copilot. I don't think it is the best move for him.

This all stems from Tegmark's thesis which he decided to adopt and make defense of without understanding much of it.
Neither do I, I tried to read of much of it as I could but gave up eventually.
Not much has happened since with it since, he put out a book in 2014 and got some sales out of it probably.

That’s because bright people like Peter Woit and Massimo Pigliucci, both of whom I think radiate clarity and sense, don’t buy it:

Our Mathematical Universe

Max Tegmark has a new book out, entitled Our Mathematical Universe, which is getting a lot of attention. I’ve written a review of the book for the Wall Street Journal, which is now available …

www.math.columbia.edu

Mathematical Universe? I Ain’t Convinced

So the other day Julia Galef and I had the pleasure of interviewing mathematical cosmologist Max Tegmark for the Rationally Speaking podcast. The episode will come out in late January, close to the release of Max’s book, presenting his Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH).

www.science20.com

It was Woit’s piece, by the way, that alerted me (a bit cattily) to Teggers having changed his name from the humdrum Shapiro in order to boost his profile. Woit evidently takes a dim view of this type of showmanship. And so do I.

 

[Pinball1970]

As to Tegmark, I am not interested in a multiverse

I have not once mentioned the multiverse.
Please stick to my question.

"all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically"

That is what he said and I asked you, what about structures like Graham's number? Tree 3? These are real finite numbers that are much much bigger than our observable universe and they are part of mathematics, upper bounds to combinatoric problems not just large numbers for the sake of it.

You can expand on these numbers with combinations and investigations to fast growing hierarchies of functions.

How can these things exist physically if they cannot fit in our universe?

This is now the fourth time of asking, please address this, no copilot and no more pastes!

 

[Pinball1970]

That’s because bright people like Peter Woit and Massimo Pigliucci, both of whom I think radiate clarity and sense, don’t buy it:

Our Mathematical Universe

Max Tegmark has a new book out, entitled Our Mathematical Universe, which is getting a lot of attention. I’ve written a review of the book for the Wall Street Journal, which is now available …

www.math.columbia.edu

Mathematical Universe? I Ain’t Convinced

So the other day Julia Galef and I had the pleasure of interviewing mathematical cosmologist Max Tegmark for the Rationally Speaking podcast. The episode will come out in late January, close to the release of Max’s book, presenting his Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH).

www.science20.com

It was Woit’s piece, by the way, that alerted me (a bit cattily) to Teggers having changed his name from the humdrum Shapiro in order to boost his profile. Woit evidently takes a dim view of this type of showmanship. And so do I.

Yes I read that. I have respect for Woit and Smolin, they dared challenge string theory and PhD funding at that time.
I am not saying they have been totally vindicated but the landscape certainly seems to have swung towards them in the years since their publications. "Not Even Wrong" and "The Trouble with Physics."

 

[Write4U]

That is what he said and I asked you, what about structures like Graham's number? Tree 3? These are real finite numbers that are much much bigger than our observable universe and they are part of mathematics, upper bounds to combinatoric problems not just large numbers for the sake of it.

You can expand on these numbers with combinations and investigations to fast growing hierarchies of functions.

How can these things exist physically if they cannot fit in our universe?

This is now the fourth time of asking, please address this, no copilot and no more pastes!

Oh, this I can answer without reference.

I see Tegmark's concept of a MU as a viable solution to the question of what runs this Universe.

IMO, mathematical logic is not physical in and of itself, it is metaphysical function that becomes expressed based on the interaction of "available" values. Just because mathematics can theoretically address everything at every scale, that does not mean it must be doing that at any given time. Mathematics are much more powerfull in potential capacity than the physical reality of this universe could ever present. I see this Graham theory as just another expression of the "exponential function" that theoretically extends into infinity. (see Albert Bartlett).

Who knows., chaos may be a mathematical number (value). That does not require the actual fact. Mathematical logic is a metaphysical potential that may become expressed in physical reality, but is not required to do so (is non-causal) unless it is invoked by allowed physical interaction and then its functionality is limited to available of relational physical stuff.

Mathematics without pysical stuff to act on remains metaphysical, until "needed".

The exponential function in physics can only extend to the limits of a closed system. The theoretical mathematics involved have no limits in and of themselves

That is how I see the power of mathematics, it is a metaphysical function that transcends physical reality and can theoretically accommodate any logically allowed mathematical process of individual values or sets of values. This means, functionally (physically) inside the physical universe, theoretically into infinity. How that agrees with Tegmark, I don't know. But I'll take the concept of mathematically functional universe.

I'll cite one source.

Philosophy of Mathematics
First published Tue Sep 25, 2007; substantive revision Tue Jan 25, 2022

If mathematics is regarded as a science, then the philosophy of mathematics can be regarded as a branch of the philosophy of science, next to disciplines such as the philosophy of physics and the philosophy of biology. However, because of its subject matter, the philosophy of mathematics occupies a special place in the philosophy of science. Whereas the natural sciences investigate entities that are located in space and time, it is not at all obvious that this is also the case for the objects that are studied in mathematics.

Philosophy of Mathematics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[TheVat]

Tegs MUH struck me as another take on the structural realism of Ladyman, so I only skimmed him. Like Pigliucci, I ain't convinced. Barns aren't composed of barnosity.

A person who frets over image to the point of worrying about a Jewish surname, in physics and math, needs to step away from the mirror. I hope he did. I'd like to think of Teg as more than a self-promoting go-to guy for sci journalists and Sam Harris types. (Max and I are both half-Swede, though my surname got thoroughly Anglicized at Ellis Island - I speculate my grandpa wanted to make spelling go easier for all concerned, or maybe it was just fitting in with what was then seen as "American")

 

[Write4U]

Tegs MUH struck me as another take on the structural realism of Ladyman, so I only skimmed him. Like Pigliucci, I ain't convinced. Barns aren't composed of barnosity.

As a fascinated atheist layman, it struck me that Tegmark was trying to address the issue of obscurity at Planck levels that exists in current physics and that if we want to avoid the establishment of any type of religious interpretation as the only available model that is able to function but is dependent of the notion of an intentional demiurge, a mathematical model is an eminently suitable functional replacement, IMHO.

That is why, to me as retired bookeeper, the mathematical model is so attractive. The elegance of a mathematical model cannot be surpassed by any other physical model that I am aware of, but I do admit my ignorance and am open to persuasion of an alternative that offers clarity at the most fundamental levels.

Thank you for introducing "Structural Realism"

I picked this out as worthy of note.

How then are we to decide whether to believe in the full theoretical truth of scientific theories, including what they say about unobservable entities such as electrons and black holes, or whether to believe instead only that our best scientific theories are empirically adequate? Van Fraassen argues that since the latter belief is logically weaker and yet as empirically contentful as the former belief it is natural for an empiricist to go only as far as belief in empirical adequacy.

On the other hand, many philosophers are moved by the fact that belief in only the empirical adequacy of our best scientific theories leaves us unable to explain the phenomena that they describe. Inference to the best explanation is widely believed to be an important form of reasoning in science, and the production of explanations of the world is often supposed to be one of the main successes of science. When the target of explanation becomes science itself and its history of empirical success as a whole, we arrive at the no-miracles argument famously presented by Hilary Putnam as follows:
"The positive argument for realism is that it is the only philosophy that doesn’t make the success of science a miracle." (1975: 73)

Structural Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I found a strong argument in favor of a mathematical universe in the hypothesis of Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT), that suggests a fractal aspect to the structure of spacetime .

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.

.........

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.

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

Does this proposal suggest a fundamental mathematical aspect to spacetime?

 

[Write4U]

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.

If it is not mathematical in essence , then what is the alternative function that governs the self-ordering within an initial state of total chaos?

I have asked this umpteen times and am still waiting for a valid response, instead of more dismissal as to my research methods.

"It's the laws of physics" is not a sufficient answer to that fundamental question. It's a deflection, because the only representation of the laws of physics I can see are mathematical in nature and there seem to be no alternative definitions, other than "the blind watch maker" which curiously deals with the mathematics of time and which is composed of irreducible comlexity in itself.

Only mathematics allows the reduction of complexity into simple single values combining to form evolving complex mathematical patterns (set theory).

Can the laws of physics and the constants of nature exist in a fundamental sense without mathematical realism?

Can the laws of physics and fundamental constants of nature exist without fundamental mathematical constants, operators, and equations also existing?
In other words, can there be fundamental physical laws and constants in physics without mathematical realism being true?

Doesn't the ubiquitous presence of mathematical constants such as π (pi), e (Euler's number), and i (the imaginary unit) in physics suggest that some form of mathematics exists in a fundamental sense, and therefore that mathematics is discovered rather than invented?

Can the laws of physics and the constants of nature exist in a fundamental sense without mathematical realism?

Can the laws of physics and fundamental constants of nature exist without fundamental mathematical constants, operators, and equations also existing? In other words, can there be fundamental physical

philosophy.stackexchange.com

OK, explain to me what logical functional processes the laws of physics are based on, if not mathematical in essence.

 

[Pinball1970]

If it is not mathematical in essence , then what is the alternative function that governs the self-ordering within an initial state of total chaos?

Function is a mathematics term.
You mean what is the universe and how does it work?

Why is it the way it is?

If I could answer that question I would be a Nobel winner.

I don't know is the answer. I know how bits work to a point.

That is what physics attempts understand.

 

[Write4U]

You mean what is the universe and how does it work?

Yes, how does it perform the function "f", i.e. the work done between the input values and the resulting output values, if not mathematically based on the input values?

Mathematical object that produces an output

---

In mathematics, a function is a mathematical object that produces an output, when given an input (which could be a number, a vector, or anything that can exist inside a set of things). In essence, a function is like a machine, that takes a value of and returns an output.

A function f from a set X to a set Y is an assignment of one element of Y to each element of X. The set X is called the domain of the function and the set Y is called the codomain of the function.

Schematic depiction of a function described metaphorically as a "machine" or "black box" that for each input yields a corresponding output

If the element y in Y is assigned to x in X by the function f, one says that f maps x to y, and this is commonly written

In this notation, x is the argument or variable of the function. A specific element x of X is a value of the variable, and the corresponding element of Y is the value of the function at x, or the image of x under the function.

Function (mathematics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

func·tion
noun

1. an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing:
"bridges perform the function of providing access across water" · "Vitamin A is required for good eye function"
Similar: purpose, task, use, role, reason, basis.
2. mathematics
a relationship or expression involving one or more variables:
"the function (bx + c)"
3. a thing dependent on another factor or factors:
"class shame is a function of social power"

Summation = result

In mathematics, summation is the addition of a sequence of numbers, called addends or summands; the result is their sum or total. Beside numbers, other types of values can be summed as well: functions, vectors, matrices, polynomials and, in general, elements of any type of mathematical objects on which an operation denoted "+" is defined.

Summation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The +sign is a human symbolic code for a natural additive process and nature does not need to produce this symbolic representation of the function in order to perform the work.

 

[exchemist]

Function is a mathematics term.
You mean what is the universe and how does it work?

Why is it the way it is?

If I could answer that question I would be a Nobel winner.

I don't know is the answer. I know how bits work to a point.

That is what physics attempts understand.

I think he probably means what we call the “laws of physics”, that have seem to have determined how the universe has evolved ever since the Big Bang.

As you say, for the most part science just accepts that those “laws” or that “order in nature’s behaviour” (I think “laws” is a bit misleading as most of the laws are invented by men, in an attempt to describe the orderly behaviour), are what they are.

 

[exchemist]

If it is not mathematical in essence , then what is the alternative function that governs the self-ordering within an initial state of total chaos?

I have asked this umpteen times and am still waiting for a valid response, instead of more dismissal as to my research methods.

"It's the laws of physics" is not a sufficient answer to that fundamental question. It's a deflection, because the only representation of the laws of physics I can see are mathematical in nature and there seem to be no alternative definitions, other than "the blind watch maker" which curiously deals with the mathematics of time and which is composed of irreducible comlexity in itself.

Only mathematics allows the reduction of complexity into simple single values combining to form evolving complex mathematical patterns (set theory).

Can the laws of physics and the constants of nature exist in a fundamental sense without mathematical realism?

Can the laws of physics and the constants of nature exist in a fundamental sense without mathematical realism?

Can the laws of physics and fundamental constants of nature exist without fundamental mathematical constants, operators, and equations also existing? In other words, can there be fundamental physical

philosophy.stackexchange.com

OK, explain to me what logical functional processes the laws of physics are based on, if not mathematical in essence.

The laws of physics are man-made descriptions of the orderly behaviour we find in nature. As such they not “based” on logic, though they are of course logical or they wouldn't work. What they are “based” on are firstly physical observation, and secondly on the definition, in words not mathematics, of a resulting series of physical concepts (mass, momentum, energy, electric charge and so on).

Only when these two steps have been carried out can any mathematics be written to describe these laws.

By the way your notion of “an initial state of total chaos” is wrong. Entropy at the big bang was far lower than it is now.

 

[Pinball1970]

That is how I see the power of mathematics, it is a metaphysical function that transcends physical reality and can theoretically accommodate any logically allowed mathematical process of individual values or sets of values. This means, functionally (physically) inside the physical universe, theoretically into infinity. How that agrees with Tegmark, I don't know. But I'll take the concept of mathematically functional universe.

Mathematics isnt a function, Functions are just a part of the subject which is vast.

 

[Pinball1970]

Yes, how does it perform the function "f", i.e. the work done between the input values and the resulting output values, if not mathematically based on the input values?

I didnt mention functions

 

[Pinball1970]

"It's the laws of physics" is not a sufficient answer to that fundamental question. It's a deflection

The universe is what is out there and here, everything that exists, it operates in certain ways some of which have been observed. Some of it we understand to an extent and some parts we have no clue.
The "laws" of physics are things we have invented to explain what is out there using physical data, empirical data. Real stuff like light and particles, it exists.
Mathematics does not exist, circles and cubes do not exist- they are abstract.
EVEN if the universe seems to be very predictable and ordered and follows rules which we put together and write some pretty equations to describe those patterns, the equations are NOT the patterns, they are not particles, light the moon and galaxies, they are abstract.

 

[Write4U]

EVEN if the universe seems to be very predictable and ordered and follows rules which we put together and write some pretty equations to describe those patterns, the equations are NOT the patterns, they are not particles, light the moon and galaxies, they are abstract.

Indeed, the abstract guiding principles of physical interactions that does produce order is mathematical in essence.
Mathematics itself is not a physical thing, it is a functional interactive system and we can be proud to have discovered it and (partially) codified it for our own use.
Via the maths we are able to copy some of the universal functions.

Abstract​

Natural phenomena can be quantitatively described by means of mathematics, which is actually the only way of doing so.

Physics is a convincing example of the mathematization of nature.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356586590_Mathematization_of_nature_how_it_is_done

 

[Pinball1970]

Mathematics itself is not a physical thing,

Write4U I knew we could get there, even if it's just that one thing we agree on

 

[Pinball1970]

Indeed, the abstract guiding principles of physical interactions that does produce order is mathematical in essence

In essence? Is the Universe mathematical in essence? Our mathematics? The one we have developed that is abstract? No.

Ok Write4U it may seem like I am being pedantic here so I apologise.
The weeds we have run into now are wordy.

Can we describe our universe using mathematics? Yes. The parts we know.
Does the universe operate according to our mathematics? No.
It operates according to how it operates, universal stuff, we just describe parts of it, to an approximations.
This is nothing to do with measurement restrictions this is to do with empiricism versus abstract representation of that.