Gravity keeps it there. Importantly: maths doesn't keep it there.
Yes it does It is the value (strength) of the gravity that either keeps it there or not.
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.
Perhaps you do not fully understand the depth of the claim.
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.
Perhaps it is you who is loath to learn something new.
Does "triangulation" not apply to free throws?
Of course but that is not what I said. You made that up.
Do you think they unconsciously make mental calculations, then? (Because I don't think that's what's going on, either.)
Yep, the brain has prepared tself to execute that mathematical function instantaneously, just as a chameleon is not conscious of it use of triangulation.
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 have but you reject it every time for apparently the same reason, which you never support with an example, unless it is something like your ridiculous example of the number of jellybeans in a jar determinig the type of jar. Jeez.....
I am trying to lead you down a path that shows that the implications of your assertions are absurd.
Please don't use absurd examples to prove your point.
Tell me what I've got wrong about your meaning. Be specific.
It seems that you reject the fact that humans have recognized the underlying mathematical logic in physics.
Naturally occurring mathematics are discovered, the human symbolic representation of the mathematics is invented.
But human maths actually prove the validity of the mathematical concept. They work in their own right, both theoretically and practically.
Stereopsis is not triangulation, according to the definitions you have posted.
Stereopsis is the computation of depth information from views acquired simultaneously from different points in space. For many years, stereopsis was thought to be confined to primates and other mammals with front-facing eyes. However, stereopsis has now been demonstrated in many other animals, including lateral-eyed prey mammals, birds, amphibians and invertebrates.
All sighted animals face the problem of how to derive information about a 3D world from 2D retinal images. 2D images contain a range of depth cues which can, in principle, be used to derive information about 3D structure.
Depth cues can usefully be grouped into three classes (Banks et al., 2016): light transport (e.g. shading), perspective (e.g. looming; see Glossary) and triangulation (e.g. stereopsis; Fig. 1).
Triangulation depth cues are based on comparing views of an object from multiple locations. This is a particularly reliable means of depth perception because it depends only on geometry, rather than on assumptions about the specific scene.
Stereopsis is the computation of depth information from views acquired simultaneously from different points in space. For many years, stereopsis was thought to be confined to primates and other mammals with front-facing eyes. However, stereopsis has ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
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.
Good physical reason (efficiency) resulting from the mathematically efficiency of the "pattern". This is what "natural selection" does!
Are you even aware of the difference between "physical reasons" and "mathematical reasons"?
I believe I do. But the question can be asked from you as well.
Abstract
"Universal Pattern Beyond Reality: Exploring AI, Euler, Cosmos, & Human Behavior" examines the profound connections between mathematics, artificial intelligence (AI), the cosmos, and human behavior. At the heart of this article is the idea that the universe operates through universal patterns of growth, decay, and transformation, which are mathematically governed by constants like Euler’s number (e = 2.718).
These patterns are not only observable in the physical realm, but they also extend to the functioning of the human mind and behavior, offering a holistic view of how everything—from cosmic structures to human thoughts—follows a cycle of evolution. (via natural selection)
bracketed mine.
Key Themes of the Article: Euler’s Number and Universal Patterns: The article explores how Euler's number (e), a mathematical constant representing exponential growth and decay, underpins many processes in the universe.
It serves as a model for understanding the natural cycles in everything from the formation of stars to the development of ideas and human consciousness. The concept of exponential growth and decay is applied to both physical systems (such as galaxies, atoms, and energy) and abstract systems like human thoughts, emotions, and decisions. This shows how the universe is governed by continuous processes of transformation.
more....
https://www.researchgate.net/public...with_AI_Euler_Cosmos_Human_Behaviour_LinkedIn
Do you now agree that you were wrong about that?
Read what I wrote!
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
Then what are we arguing about?
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?
Because "numbers" are human invented symbols for naturally odccurring "values". The numbers do not exist in the universe, but the corresponding values do!
Clearly that's impossible if "values" are numbers and you don't believe that numbers exist except in the minds of humans. "values" represent much more than "quantity", they also represent "quality." Look deeper!
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.
Here we go again with the false equivalence. Rocks have very defined values that can be symbolized with human numbers.
Hint: you can't make a jelly bean from the number 3.
We agree, but it is an irrelevant observation.
