Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo

Write4U:

Really? That's the most important thing you wanted to reply about?

Here, let me help you. Follow these steps:

1. Read post #616, above.
2. Think about it.
3. Write a reply.

After you've addressed the point you've ignored TWENTY-SIX TIMES, then I will be happy to help you with other matters.

It is time for you to face the music.

Am I right in post #616, or am I wrong? If I'm wrong, you need to tell me why I'm wrong. If, on the other hand, you agree that I'm right, then we can call an end to this lengthy debacle of yours.
 
Tegmark is pretending when he says that "mathematical structures" are identical to "underlying structures in nature". They can't be identical because the "underlying structures" are physical structures while the "mathematical structures" are conceptual.
No, that's where you are wrong. The term "structure" has many synonymous interpretations. Moreover you are completely ignoring the qualifier "underlying" which specifically is not physical but "abstract".

Copilot
In science, the term "underlying" is used to refer to:

struc·ture
[ˈstrək(t)SHər]
noun
structure (noun) · structures (plural noun)

the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of something complex:
"flint is extremely hard, like diamond, which has a similar structure"

Similar:
construction
form
formation
shape
composition
fabric
anatomy
makeup
constitution
organization
system
arrangement
layout
design
frame
framework
configuration
conformation
pattern
plan
mold
setup


a building or other object constructed from several parts.

Similar:
building
edifice
construction
erection
pile

the quality of being organized:
"we shall use three headings to give some structure to the discussion"


verb
structure (verb) · structures (third person present) · structured (past tense) · structured (past participle) · structuring (present participle)
construct or arrange according to a plan; give a pattern or organization to:
"the game is structured so that there are five ways to win"

Similar:
arrange
organize
order
design
shape
assemble
construct
build
put together

give structure to

Origin
late Middle English (denoting the process of building): from Old French, or from Latin structura, from struere ‘to build’. The verb is rarely found before the 20th century.

Methinks you are doing what is called "cherry-picking" but has nothing to do with cherries.
 
Last edited:
Write4U:

You really ought to have worked out by now that I have zero interest in any of your cut and pastes.

I will only reply to what you say - to your thoughts and words.

Haven't you noticed that's what I've been doing for months, already? Yet you keep posting basic definitions and the like.

I suppose you imagine that you're teaching me. Is that what it is? By sharing stuff that you've literally just dug up with your googling, you assume you're also teaching me new stuff.

You really have no idea who you're talking to, do you?

Anyway, let's move on to discussing the limited content in your reply. At least you tried, which is a refreshing change.

Here's what you quoted from my objection to Tegmark:
James R said:
Tegmark is pretending when he says that "mathematical structures" are identical to "underlying structures in nature". They can't be identical because the "underlying structures" are physical structures while the "mathematical structures" are conceptual.
And here is the entirety of the part of your reply that came from your thoughts:

No, that's where you are wrong. The term "structure" has many synonymous interpretations. Moreover you are completely ignoring the qualifier "underlying" which specifically is not physical but "abstract".
*snips out space-filler cut-and-pastes*
Methinks you are doing what is called "cherry-picking" but has nothing to do with cherries.
Let's consider the elements of your reply in order.

1. The term "structure" has many synonymous interpretations.

Do you know what a synonym is, Write4U?

Never mind. Let us agree that the term "structure" can be used in a number of different ways. That is irrelevant to my objection to Tegmark, so let's move on.

2. Moreover, you are completely ignoring the qualifier "underlying", which specifically is not physical but "abstract".

Finally, we get something worth discussing.

So, if I understand you correctly, you're now arguing when Tegmark says that "mathematical structures" are "identical to" "underlying structures in mathematics", the correct reading of Tegmark is:
Mathematical structures are identical to non-physical, abstract structures that 'underlie' nature.
Is that correct?

Suppose that we adopt the most generous reading of this, to try to steel-man Tegmark's/your argument, and assume that these "structures" that "underlie" nature are mathematical structures. In that case, Tegmark is saying that mathematical structures are identical to mathematical structures.

Not a very profound claim, then. Do you agree?

More importantly it does nothing to address the claim that Tegmark has been putting out (the one that you have lapped up uncritically), that the universe is nothing but mathematics.

If your claim (and perhaps Tegmark's too) is now that the physical universe has some "underlying" maths, that does nothing to remove the fact of the physical universe itself. It does nothing to "reduce" the physical universe to mathematics.

Am I right, or am I wrong? If I'm wrong, tell me where I've gone wrong.

---

Here's what I think is actually going on with you, here. I think that you're furiously backpeddling from Tegmark's claim that mathematics is all there is in the universe - that the universe literally is mathematics - and you're landing at the uncontroversial position that says that the physical universe seems to be nicely susceptible to being modelled mathematically.

That's like noting that the country of England, say, is nicely susceptible to having its geographical features represented on a paper map.

I have no problem at all with any of that. My argument is with Tegmark's actual claim: that mathematics is literally all there is. That physical things can somehow be "reduced" to mathematics.
---

Do you still want to argue for the contention that physical things reduce to mathematical things, Write4U?

If so, make an argument for it, and we'll continue this discussion.

If not, then we can probably safely draw a line under your Tegmarkian adventure and move on to discussing more plausible ideas.

What do you want to do?
 
Last edited:
P.S. Write4U: you also accused me of "cherry picking".

Please detail your accusation. What important element or elements have I left out of my consideration of your "mathematical universe" hypothesis?

Have I not given you a fair hearing? Have I misrepresented your views?

Since you have accused me of dishonesty in my analysis, essentially, I trust you will do me the courtesy of supporting your accusation in detail.
 
Last edited:
Is that correct?
No
Am I right, or am I wrong? If I'm wrong, tell me where I've gone wrong.
You and I have a fundamental disagreement about the term "mathematical".
You can only see mathematics as a human invention, rather than as a human observation and codifying of underlying natural universal self-ordering processes.

The terms "order", "structure ", "function", "constants" are mathematical terms, and when science speaks of orderly processes, it is addressing the mathematics inherent in universal physical mechanics. That is how we were able to codify these processes into mathematical equations to begin with.

As I have said before, the term "physics" is meaningless apart from its description of underlying mathematically self-organizational nature.
I see the universe as possessing natural self-ordering properties that are mathematical in essence, but what "guides" the physical interactions as "described " in codified human mathematical language via "constants" and "equations". If the map describes the mathematical patterns inherent in the terrain, these mathematical patterns exist or they could not be described mathematically.
To identify a hill as physically "high", is meaningless unless mathematically described as "how high" in mathematical terms.

The only non-mathematical physical measurements I know of are "foot and "arm's-length"
The men would be jammed together at arm's length in a tiny shack buried in the snow.
Keep everything needed for a diaper change within arm's length.
Synonyms for ARM’S LENGTH: at a distance, distant, remote.
That's physics for you...:eek:
James R:
P.S. Write4U: you also accused me of "cherry picking".
Yes, you used the term "structure" only in a physical context rather than in a mathematically organizational context.
That is no accusation, it's fact.
You demand that I not use dictionary or encylopedic definitions, but where do you get your definitions from, if not from dictionaries and encyclopedias? And if not, why should I believe that you are correct?

You accuse me of presenting unsupportable claims, yet when I support my claims with quotes of what I believe to be pertinent information, you tell me that you do not read the supporting material. What am I to do with that?
 
Last edited:
Functions are essential for formulating physical relationships in the sciences1.

If functions are essential for humans to formulate relationships between physical variables, they must exist independently in nature for physical relationships to produce predictable physical results. If not, the physical relationships would not produce predictable results.

When we apply codified mathematical relational values in our laboratories, we are copying natural processes that rely on the same but unnamed relational values. Universal functions do not require numbers, but they do rest on relational values.

1738528670055.png 1738528930068.png1738529355725.png 1738529541982.png
These mathematical patterns can be found all through the universe as well in biology. It is proof that universal physics is guided by mathematical principles.
 
Last edited:
Being that all my threads on microtubules (consciousness) have been closed for arbitrary censorship, I'll have to continue to post new developments as promised in this thread.

On human consciousness: A mathematical perspective (March 2018)

Abstract

We consider the implications of the mathematical modeling and analysis of large modular neuron-to-neuron dynamical networks. We explain how the dynamical behavior of relatively small-scale strongly connected networks leads naturally to nonbinary information processing and thus to multiple hypothesis decision-making, even at the very lowest level of the brain’s architecture. In turn we build on these ideas to address some aspects of the hard problem of consciousness.
These include how feelings might arise within an architecture with a foundational decision-making and classification layer of unit processors. We discuss how a proposed “dual hierarchy model,” made up from both externally perceived, physical elements of increasing complexity, and internally experienced, mental elements (which we argue are equivalent to feelings), may support aspects of a learning and evolving consciousness.
Microtubules in neurons as information carriers
Microtubules are major architectural elements without which the neuron could not achieve or maintain its exaggerated shape. In addition to serving as structural elements, microtubules are railways along which molecular motor proteins convey cargo.
Microtubule arrays in axons, dendrites, growth cones, and migratory neurons are tightly organized with respect to the intrinsic polarity of the microtubule, which is relevant to both its assembly and transport properties. Vibrant research is being conducted on the mechanisms by which microtubules are organized in different compartments of the neuron, how microtubule dynamics and stability are regulated, and the orchestration of microtubule-based transport of organelles and proteins.
While all of this is surely enough to cause one to marvel, we cannot avoid pondering - what other work might microtubules do for neurons?

1738549574531.png

(A) Cells of the retina by H. Müller (1856): (a) Cross-section of the frog retina: pigment cells with nuclei (a), rods (b), cones (c), the border between the rods and the granular layer (d), an extension of the radial fibers (e), and its conical ending (f), membrana limitans interna (g); (b) isolated frog radial fibers; (c) retinal cells of perch and carp; (d) the human retina: bead-like cell with horizontal process and the other two processes located in the granular substance (a), similar cells with the process (b), a cell with the fiber on the inner side and a granular substance cluster (c), a cell with branched processes (d), a cell in connection with the element of the inner nuclear layer (e). (B) Müller fibers in the sheep retina by Schultze (1859). The processes of Müller fibers passing into the outer nuclear layer (s), inner membrane (x) and the holes in membrana limitans interna (a), the holes in the network of fine membranes for optic nerves (b), so-called molecular network (c), the nuclei in Müller fibers (d), the space with the cell nuclei of the inner nuclear layer (e). (C) Morphology of nerve cells by Gratiolet (Leuret & Gratiolet, 1857): (a) Brain nerve cells: multipolar cell (a), its nucleus (b) and nucleolus (c), cell process (d) that pass into the nerve fiber (d); (b) cells interconnected with gray processes in the cervical region of the cow spinal cord: multipolar cell (s) and another multipolar cell (b) interconnected by a bridge, which is part of the same system (c) of branched processes (d). (D) Nerve cells according to Schroeder van der Kolk (1854). Part of the group of ganglion cells in the ventral horn of the cow lumbar spinal cord and numerous fibers interconnecting cells are present.


Note that ALL eukaryotes (on Earth) have microtubules as a common denominator for cellular and neural sensory information processing.
I suggests that microtubule networks are a primary candidate as substrate for emergent intelligence and evolving consciousness.



1738548086665.png

Neuroba
Jan 1, 2025, 4 min read
Understanding the Role of Microtubules in Quantum Consciousness | Neuroba
The search for the biological basis of consciousness has led to numerous theories, each attempting to unravel the profound question of how subjective experience arises from the activity of neurons. One of the most intriguing and controversial theories is the idea that quantum processes are integral to consciousness itself.
At Neuroba, we are actively investigating this hypothesis, particularly the role of microtubules in facilitating quantum consciousness. In this blog, we explore the science behind microtubules, their potential involvement in quantum processes, and how this ties into our understanding of consciousness.
Quantum Consciousness and the Orch-OR Theory
The Orch-OR theory proposes that consciousness arises from quantum computations occurring within microtubules inside neurons. According to Penrose and Hameroff, quantum states—specifically quantum superposition and entanglement—are able to exist within the microtubules due to their unique structural and functional properties. This is in stark contrast to the classical view that consciousness is solely a product of classical neural processes.
The quantum nature of microtubules is believed to emerge in the brain’s microenvironment, where the extremely small size and the complex architecture of microtubules could allow quantum states to be maintained for longer periods than in typical biological systems. This ability to support quantum coherence is critical for the idea that microtubules could be the locus of quantum consciousness.
 
Last edited:
Write4U:

I'm impressed that you managed to write a post that contains more than two sentences of your own thoughts, for a change. You should keep doing that.

Just so you know: I'm going to keep ignoring your irrelevant cut and pastes.

You and I have a fundamental disagreement about the term "mathematical".
You can only see mathematics as a human invention, rather than as a human observation and codifying of underlying natural universal self-ordering processes.
"Mathematical" means "pertaining to mathematics". And mathematics is generally defined as a field of study dealing with things like numbers, geometry, algebra and similar abstract topics.

I don't think that you and I disagree so much about what mathematics is. (I could be wrong.) I think we disagree about where it can be found.

I don't see any equations written on rocks (except by human beings) or in trees or on the wings of birds. I only ever see them in stuff made by human beings.

When you talk about "codifying", that implies that there is a codifier. Who is the codifier of mathematical ideas? I say it is human beings. Non-human nature does no "codifying" of mathematics, as far as I can tell.

But let's assume that you're right, just for now and just for the sake of argument. Let us imagine a universe in which mathematics is somehow "built into" every atom and process.

Even if that were true, it would not imply that atoms or rocks or birds are made of mathematics. That's because mathematical principles are concepts, and physical things can't be made of concepts.

Do you think that you can make a physical object from a concept, Write4U, with no separate physical "raw material"? Tegmark does, or so he tells us. Do you follow him that far? If so, perhaps you can explain the process of making a physical object from a concept. I don't think Tegmark can.
 
(continued...)

Write4U said:
The terms "order", "structure ", "function", "constants" are mathematical terms
Not exclusively.
... and when science speaks of orderly processes, it is addressing the mathematics inherent in universal physical mechanics.
That's just your assumption. Show me how one can identify mathematics "inherent" in a rock or a bird. Where do we go looking for the mathematics in those things, specifically? In which part of the bird will we find the mathematics, if it is - as you claim - "inherent"?
As I have said before, the term "physics" is meaningless apart from its description of underlying mathematically self-organizational nature.
I disagree. However, I would like to point out that physics, like mathematics is a field of study.
I see the universe as possessing natural self-ordering properties that are mathematical in essence, but what "guides" the physical interactions as "described " in codified human mathematical language via "constants" and "equations".
How can a concept guide a physical process, so as to produce a physical outcome?

What is the mechanism by which the concept starts to have physical effects in the world?
If the map describes the mathematical patterns inherent in the terrain, these mathematical patterns exist or they could not be described mathematically.
Nobody denies that "mathematical patterns" exist. They exist as concepts in our heads.
To identify a hill as physically "high", is meaningless unless mathematically described as "how high" in mathematical terms.
The question of whether a hill is "high" is subjective. It depends on the opinion of a human being.
The only non-mathematical physical measurements I know of are "foot and "arm's-length"
What if I measure the colour of a piece of fruit and determine that it's orange? Does that count as a non-mathematical measurement? If not, why not?
Yes, you used the term "structure" only in a physical context rather than in a mathematically organizational context.
That's not cherry picking if the appropriate context was the physical one. I am very happy to discuss mathematical structures with you, if you like. But those will be conceptual structures, which are different from physical structures.
You demand that I not use dictionary or encylopedic definitions...
I make no such demand. It would be good if you could recognise the limitations of such sources, but that may be too much to hope for.
You accuse me of presenting unsupportable claims, yet when I support my claims with quotes of what I believe to be pertinent information, you tell me that you do not read the supporting material. What am I to do with that?
I have tried to be clear about what I consider to be irrelevant as support for your specific claims. Often, I have explained at some length why I consider particular quotes to be irrelevant.

What I have been recommending for some time is that you stop knee-jerk googling of buzz words and start instead to actually think about the claims you're making. Then post your own thoughts, rather than trying to hide behind somebody you assume can speak for you, while you are taking their words out of context much of the time.
 
Functions are essential for formulating physical relationships in the sciences1.
Are these your words, or are they cut and pasted from a source? (Is "1" a footnote reference?)

Anyhow, note the words: essential for formulating...

Who formulates [literally: creates formulas for] physical relationships? Human beings do.

Rocks, for example, do not formulate physical relationshops using mathematical functions. Nor do birds or trees or clouds.

If functions are essential for humans to formulate relationships between physical variables, they must exist independently in nature for physical relationships to produce predictable physical results.
That is faulty reasoning. Your argument begs the question. Even if we accept that (mathematical) functions are essential for humans to formulate etc. etc., it does not follow from that they must originate from something other than humans (that they must "exist independently").

You are simply assuming the truth of what you ought to be trying to prove.

If not, the physical relationships would not produce predictable results.
This is a slightly different argument. Here, you claim that predictable physical results can only be produced if "functions" exist independently of human beings.

But, again, you have done nothing to start to try to show that this is correct. It's just another assumption on your part.

When we apply codified mathematical relational values in our laboratories, we are copying natural processes that rely on the same but unnamed relational values.
Not "copying". Modelling. The codified mathematics is conceptual, whereas the natural processes are physical.

One makes maps of the territory. One does not copy the territory.
Universal functions do not require numbers, but they do rest on relational values.
Give me an example of a specific "universal function" that does not require numbers, but which "rests on relational values".

I assert that there are no "universal functions" and that your "relational values" are nothing more than empty words.

Give me an example of a "relational value" that does not require numbers.

These mathematical patterns can be found all through the universe as well in biology.
When you say they can be "found", you're saying that human beings can talk about them. You have yet to demonstrate that the mathematics has any existence in the absence of humans.
It is proof that universal physics is guided by mathematical principles.
At best, it would be evidence. "Proof" is a higher standard. But you can't even clear the lower hurdle.
 
Last edited:
Being that all my threads on microtubules (consciousness) have been closed for arbitrary censorship, I'll have to continue to post new developments as promised in this thread.
No. You will not be doing that.

Your previous threads were not closed for "arbitrary censorship". Referring to the closure notice in your 3000 post thread, here's the reason that was given:
Moderator said:
This thread has just ticked over 3000 posts long. It has been going since 2018 and there hasn't been much of substance posted on the ostensible topic since then. Write4U clearly doesn't know what he's talking about half the time and is mostly unable or unwilling to answer criticisms of his position. Instead, he posts a lot of stuff that is actually just irrelevant to the topic.

sciforums is a discussion forum, but this thread has mostly turned into Write4U's personal blog, in which he mostly just cut-and-pastes anything and everything with the word "microtubule" in it. While the study of microtubules is a valid niche pursuit in biology, of course, the vast majority of what has been posted in this thread has very little to do with quantum process in the tubules, and very little, if anything, has been contributed to show a link between consciousness and microtubules.

Given all this, I think that here, post 3005, is a suitable place to end this thread. A more disciplined discussion of microtubules could be possible, but the topic would need to be clear and the discussion would have to stay on topic much more than it has here.

So, closed.
You have given no signs of attempting a "more disciplined discussion" of the topic. So I'm afraid I'm going to have to veto your attempt at the n-th repeat of a 3000-post dead discussion.
 
Last edited:
Please do not attempt to reopen the closed microtubules discussion in this thread. The 3000 posts on that topic more than covered what you know about microtubules.
Well, perhaps you haven't noticed that the newest subjects currently under scientific discussion at large are the very subjects I have presented
in my 3000 posts since 2019.
If you had made an effort to read or view some of my posits in depth, you might recognize some of my posts in current discussions.

CC recently mentioned "quorum sensing", a subject I tried to discuss 6 years ago, but except for derision, the importance of that emergent communication process at single celled bacterial level was completely ignored.

Today, quorum sensing, is the subject of intense research as it may apply to the develelopment of AI among other areas of current research.

Quorum sensing is used in the development of AI in the following ways12345:
  • AI quorum sensing enables IoT devices to assess their environment and adapt autonomously.
  • It improves IoT system longevity by allowing devices to operate more efficiently and reduce wear and tear.
  • Multiple QS systems are used by microorganisms like V. harveyi to assess their immediate environment.
  • Artificial Intelligence-based quorum systems solve energy crises in real-time wireless sensor networks.
  • Native quorum sensing systems, such as AI-2, are used to engineer cell-cell communication systems.
Abstract
  • This Review highlights how we can build upon the relatively new and rapidly developing field of research into bacterial quorum sensing (QS). We now have a depth of knowledge about how bacteria use QS signals to communicate with each other and to coordinate their activities.
In recent years there have been extraordinary advances in our understanding of the genetics, genomics, biochemistry, and signal diversity of QS.
We are beginning to understand the connections between QS and bacterial sociality.
This foundation places us at the beginning of a new era in which researchers will be able to work towards new medicines to treat devastating infectious diseases, and use bacteria to understand the biology of sociality.


question: does intracellular transport of autoinducers use micotubules?

Copilot:
Does this ring a bell?
 
Last edited:
Well, perhaps you haven't noticed that the newest subjects currently under scientific discussion at large are the very subjects I have presented
in my 3000 posts since 2019.
If you had made an effort to read or view some of my posits in depth, you might recognize some of my posts in current discussions.

CC recently mentioned "quorum sensing", a subject I tried to discuss 6 years ago, but except for derision, the importance of that emergent communication process at single celled bacterial level was completely ignored.

Today, quorum sensing, is the subject of intense research as it may apply to the develelopment of AI among other areas of current research.

Quorum sensing is used in the development of AI in the following ways12345:

Abstract


This foundation places us at the beginning of a new era in which researchers will be able to work towards new medicines to treat devastating infectious diseases, and use bacteria to understand the biology of sociality.


question: does intracellular transport of autoinducers use micotubules?

Copilot:

Does this ring a bell?
Reported.
 
Give me an example of a specific "universal function" that does not require numbers, but which "rests on relational values".
Give me an example of a "relational value" that does not require numbers.
Gravity. Spacetime itself is an example of a non-physical mathematical object. It does not use numbers but is guided by " relational values" that canbecodified as numbers for human observable cognition.

When I fall from a building I am not presented with numbers but I know that I am falling faster than I want to.

What is it that makes things fall down? Can you show me the physical stuff along which a less massive object slides toward the more massive object? Gravity is a form of attraction but it is not a physical object. And it is not a magnetic attractive force.
It is usually "described" as a warping of the spacetime fabric itself , but even that is not an accurate "mapping" of the phenomenon. There is no physical fabric that bends. Einstein's "man in the falling box" demonstrates that just motion alone can imitate the "force" of gravity.

A force is not a physical object. It is an external agent (potential) capable of changing the state of rest or motion of a particular body. i.e. it is an independent agency that can only be measured as a mathematical equation.

Gauss indentified gravity as a "flux, a mathematical object that can be described as " "the sum of all sources of the field in a region (with sinks regarded as negative sources) gives the "net flux" out of the region".
 
Last edited:
At best, it would be evidence. "Proof" is a higher standard. But you can't even clear the lower hurdle.
Then how can you use maths to "reasonably" describe natural mathematical patterns?

If I describe a duck and then erase my description, does the duck disappear? Of course not.
If I describe naturally emerging mathematical patterns, erasing the maths does not make the mathematical patterns disappear.
 
As for microtubules, there was a thread that ran for years, in which all you managed to do was to cut and paste from articles written by other people that you couldn't understand.

Whilst your assessment of Write4U's ability to assimilate what he posts is probably accurate, this "reporting" actually fulfilled a useful purpose - if one took it at face value.

The "microtubules as consciousness" topic is intriguing, but not quite captivating enough - for me at least - to justify the effort necessary to stay current.

Write4U saved me the trouble of researching it, basically providing the equivalent of a pop-sci 'zine dedicated to the subject - after all, I could count on no stone being left unturned. One man's junk, another's treasure, and all that...

Within the remainder of Write4U's posts, seemingly comprised of equal parts random buzzwords, copy & paste definitions, pseudoscientific drivel and personal ramblings , I find no such value.

This may be a slight overstatement, I admit to a mild curiosity regards Tegmark's mathematical universe, but only approximately as much as roused by the astrology section of the daily paper. (If there was such a thing as newspapers, these days)

Furthermore, since these posts tend to be served with a giant side of dust-cloud, apparently thrown up in an attempt to confuse and confound his detractors, whatever intrinsic meaning may have once existed is completely obscured.

For this reason, I question the wisdom of the track currently pursued - is it an attempt to "educate" Write4U?

Surely 600+ posts spent going round in circles would have exhausted any entertainment value...

If "education" is the goal, I think that might be the wrong word - perhaps "deconversion," or "indoctrination therapy" would be a more appropriate label. I believe he has been accused of evangelizing and preaching a time or two - but, I'm not sure if that's being applied quite as literally as required - if everyone is truly cognizant of how spot-on it is.

It is quite easy to see what Write4U is "up to," though it leads to a characterization I'm sure he will vehemently oppose. In all fairness, Write4U may not even be aware of how badly he is infected, so let's play a simple word game to illustrate.

Let's play "Exchange," in this case, exchanging "God" for every mention by Write4u of "mathematics," or its equivalent...

-----------------------------------------------------

• Oh but I consider that a contradiction. You just used a mathematical expression to make an argument against maths God.
• All these theories are always discussed in mathematical Godly terms.
• Functions are mathematically God ordered, results are physically expressed.
• "Probability" is a mathematical Godly term, because it describes a mathematically logical Godly process.
• The concept of evolution rests in part on probability God.
• This is a mathematical Godly expression using numbers, equations, and geometry God to describe an event.
• That is proof of the effectiveness of mathematics God. It makes everything orderly and repeatable.
Mathematics are God is the foundation of determinism.
• In this example the "agent" (guiding principle) can be a mathematical Godly function.
• ... I used the term "determinism" "God" as sufficient to bestow purpose ...
• Such as the Venus Flytrap, with the ability to capture prey via a mathematical Godly (threshold) triggering equation.
• When I say "potential" "God", I mean "that which may become expressed in reality" .
• When I say "function" "God" it refers to ability to perform a specific pupose or role, nothing more, nothing less.
• I am ignorant on all topics but 2. The mathematical Godly nature of Universal mechanics and Microtubules.
• My aim is to gain a deeper understanding of universal mechanics God.
• ... are we looking at a non-existent terrain, or is a map really descriptive of a real terrain in codified mathematical Godly terms.
• If these "terrains" did not exists how could we apply these codified mathematics God and get predictable results.[?]
• Humans have invented a codified language that closely approximates universal mechanics God.
Maths God works in the human world. There is no reason why they God should not work in the non-human world.
• And the maps we have drawn work practically in all facets where humans imitate universal mechanics God.
• I have always recognized and separated human codified mathematics from the inherently abstract universal mathematical principles God
• We know the universe is a dynamic structure. But does that negate the concept of mathematically God guided dynamic?
• I don't accept that even in a multiverse there might be universes with [a] different mathematics God.
• I have not heard a conclusive refutation that a mathematically (logically) God functioning Universe is not a potential viable hypothesis
• Observed examples of naturally occurring Fibonacci God sequence.
• Moreover you are completely ignoring the qualifier "underlying" which specifically is not physical but "abstract" "God".
• You and I have a fundamental disagreement about the term "mathematical" "God".
• You can only see mathematics God as a human invention, rather than as a human observation and codifying of underlying natural...
• I see the universe as possessing natural self-ordering properties that are mathematical Godly in essence

That's from just the last three pages, before I tired and after I substantially pared it down.
-----------------------------------------------------

Now I ask, which version is easier to comprehend when read plainly? The edits read pretty clearly to me...

Which version more quickly leads the reader to what Write4u is really trying to express? Even if he is not aware of it?

So... If you intend to drag Write4U from his cozy li'l theistic bubble, kicking and screaming, into the harsh sunlight of secularism, I hope you're up to the task. Because, a Herculean task it will be. Personally, I would prefer relegating him back to the role of "Head Microtubule Reporter," but I also realize this is supposed to be a discussion forum, not a blog.

Nonetheless, in the final analysis, let's also consider how to best serve the interests of all concerned...

What say you? And, what is the end game?
 
I think I will stick to original statement about him, "write4U is a project."
That is a project doomed to go nowhere.

I would use a different metaphor, one closer to DaveC426913 's Wobbly wheel of Woo, namely a roulette wheel. You are playing roulette and normally you lose your money (waste your time) reading his posts. Just once in every hundred or so posts, by accident, he stumbles on a topic that is interesting to read about.
 
Back
Top