Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo

Write4U:

A lot of the time these days, I think you just post something for the sake of posting something. The actual content of what you post isn't something you think about. It just sort of spams out in stream-of-consciousness form as you type.

Is that how it goes with you?
No it isn't meaningless at all. It is fundamental.
Explain why it is fundamental. Fundamental to what?
This is where I believe you are missing the point altogether.
Why haven't you explained the point? You've been at this for years.
Perhaps it has escaped your notice that any symbolic representation of anything is assigning a value to that something.
So "values" are words, numbers, emojis, images, graffiti - basically any form of writing, drawing or artwork?

Why try to reinvent the meaning of the word "value" when we already have much more specific, and hence more useful, words for all the things that you want the word "value" to cover?

Also, if these "values" of yours are so general and broadly defined, why are you so fixated on what you call "mathematical values"? Those would presumably just be written numbers, sketched diagrams, drawn patterns, written equations, etc. What about all the other kinds of "value" (using your definition)?
If something has no value be it abstract or concrete (physical), it does not, cannot exist.
You're saying if there is no symbolic representation of a thing, then it doesn't exist? Not only doesn't exist but cannot exist? (What does "cannot" mean? Not now or ever in the future?)

So trees don't exist unless somebody writes down the word "tree", or draws a quick sketch of a tree?
Even "nothing" has a value of ~"zero"
How does writing down "zero" make "nothing" something that exists. Zero and nothing aren't the same thing.
And here you make a blanket statement that the word "value" is a meaningless term?
I made no such statement. I said that your usage of terms like "mathematical value" is meaningless.

Your flip flop through one vague attempt at a definition of "value" after another, changing it every time I ask you about it. Since your poor attempts to define the word are often incompatible with one another, your usage of the term actually carries no useful meaning. You actually fail to communicate anything when you talk about "values". It's just a word you throw around. It doesn't mean anything when you use it.
Seems to me you are missing something here.
No. You've had years to get this straight in your own mind, but it remains an unworkable, incoherent mess.

No. You've had years to get this straight in your own mind, but it remains an unworkable, incoherent mess.

Who else's would it be? I wrote it.
Yes, you wrote it. But did you realize that you agreed to use the word "evaluate" to try and disprove my use and meaning of the word value?
So "values" are words, numbers, emojis, images, graffiti - basically any form of writing, drawing or artwork?

Why try to reinvent the meaning of the word "value" when we already have much more specific, and hence more useful, words for all the things that you want the word "value" to cover?

Also, if these "values" of yours are so general and broadly defined, why are you so fixated on what you call "mathematical values"? Those would presumably just be written numbers, sketched diagrams, drawn patterns, written equations, etc. What about all the other kinds of "value" (using your definition)?

I use the word "value" in context of everything. It identifies a fundamental property or potential of a thing, which you seem to dispute when used in the abstract. And values are mathematical objects.

Hence my question: "Is that your evaluation". Are you following my train of thought?

Last edited:
Yes, you wrote it. But did you realize that you agreed to use the word "evaluate" to try and disprove my use and meaning of the word value?
I use the word "value" in context of everything. It identifies a fundamental property or potential of a thing, which you seem to dispute when used in the abstract.
The word "value" doesn't identify anything specific, when you use it.

What is the "value" of an orange? What is the "value" of the moon? What is the "value" of a triangle? What is the "value" of \$10.50? What is the "value" of a microtubule?

Claiming that "values" are "fundamental", while completely failing to say what they might be, is pointless and empty.
And values are mathematical objects.
So the "fundamental property or potential of a thing" is a "mathematical object"?

What's the mathematical object fundamental part of an orange, then? What's the fundamental mathematical object part of a microtubule? What's the fundamental mathematical object part of the feeling of love?
Hence my question: "Is that your evaluation". Are you following my train of thought?
Who could? You're all over the place and you're not making sense.

The word "value" doesn't identify anything specific, when you use it.

Just because you cannot give it a value, doesn't mean it does not have a value

What is the "value" of an orange? What is the "value" of the moon?

Let's use an apple instead of an orange. Newton saw an apple fall and abstracted a entire scientific theory from the implied values that caused the apple to fall. Today we call it gravity.

Gravity has a value . The equative value for gravity is F = GMm r2

Basically, the same values (equations) apply to the moon in orbit around earth albeit more complicated.
What is the "value" of a triangle?
The sum of all the angles of a triangle (of all types) is equal to 180°.

What is the "value" of \$10.50?
10050 cents

What is the "value" of a microtubule?
Microtubules are made up of repeating units of α/β- tubulin heterodimers, which are assembled on a γ-tubulin ring complex (a complex of γ-tubulin and other protein components), during the nucleation phase. Tubulin is a small globular protein found in all eukaryotic cells.

Their functional value rests in their ability to transport a whole range of other values.

Claiming that "values" are "fundamental", while completely failing to say what they might be, is pointless and empty.
Yes, maybe to you. But you don't decide what has a value and what does not.

Everything has a value, the inherent potential that may become expressed under certain circumstances.
Bohm called it the "implicate order" of everything, and there is where I see connection with Tegmark
So the "fundamental property or potential of a thing" is a "mathematical object"?
Yes, I believe science it is called a "pattern" and a pattern is a mathematical object, regardless of how it is described.
What's the mathematical object fundamental part of an orange, then?
A circle, sphere

What's the fundamental mathematical object part of a microtubule?
It is a dipolar coil.
What's the fundamental mathematical object part of the feeling of love?
Attraction.

Love can be measured using a psychometric instrument called the Love Scale, which assesses feelings and attitudes associated with being in love. Love is a multidimensional construct that is challenging to define and measure. There are various instruments available to measure aspects of love.Oct 30, 2023

Who could? You're all over the place and you're not making sense.
Because you are not viewing things objectively. You want to restrict the term "value" to mean specific "named " objects.

But everything in the universe has a value. Whether we can describe it is irrelevant.
At Planck scale values become immeasurable. But that doesn't mean these values do not exist.

Even a vacuum has a value.

The vacuum is empty, yet it seems to have 2 properties: it's absolute permeability and absolute permittivity, which have specific, finite, non-zero values.Nov 9, 2018
Yet vacuum has a relative value as demonstrated in the Magdeburg Hemispheres.

What is the absolute value of a vacuum?

A full vacuum has an absolute pressure reading of 0 PSIA and the average barometric pressure at sea level is ~14.7 PSIA. When measuring gauge pressure, current atmospheric pressure is the baseline and is therefore read as 0 PSIG.May 1, 2017

Last edited:
Have you ever perused the entire list of "named values"

So let's summarise...
Gravity has a value . The equative value for gravity is F = GMm r2
From this, we learn that the "value" of gravity is a specific equation.
The sum of all the angles of a triangle (of all types) is equal to 180°.
From this, we learn that the "value" of a triangle is the sum of its angles.
10050 cents
From this we learn either (a) Write4U is not good at maths, or (b) Write4U sometimes makes typos.
Also, we learn that the "value" of a dollar amount is the total number of cents.
Microtubules are made up of repeating units of α/β- tubulin heterodimers, which are assembled on a γ-tubulin ring complex (a complex of γ-tubulin and other protein components), during the nucleation phase. Tubulin is a small globular protein found in all eukaryotic cells.

Their functional value rests in their ability to transport a whole range of other values.
From this, we learn that the "value" of a microtubule is "functional" and somehow "rests in" it's function as a transport mechanism. To boil this down, the "value" is that it does something.
Everything has a value, the inherent potential that may become expressed under certain circumstances.
From this, we learn that the "value" need not be "expressed", but can be hidden or latent in a thing.
A circle, sphere
From this, we learn that the "value" of an orange is the mathematical approximation of its shape.
It is a dipolar coil.
From this, we learn that the "value" of a microtubule is its shape.

But wait! Earlier, you told us that the "value" was its function as transport mechanism.

Does this mean that things don't just have one "value" but many? Does this apply to everything, too?
Attraction.
From this, we learn that the "value" of love lies in one particular aspect of it.
Because you are not viewing things objectively. You want to restrict the term "value" to mean specific "named " objects.
From this, we learn that the "value" of a thing cannot be restricted to specific named objects.

But wait! The "value" of an orange is a circle, which sounds a bit like a specific named object. But maybe it's more of a kind of specific object? And the "value" of gravity is Newton's gravitational law in equation form. That sure looks like a specific, named object! So does a "dipolar coil".
But everything in the universe has a value. Whether we can describe it is irrelevant.
From this, we learn that the "value" of a thing can be something that is impossible to describe.
Even a vacuum has a value.

The vacuum is empty, yet it seems to have 2 properties: it's absolute permeability and absolute permittivity, which have specific, finite, non-zero values.Nov 9, 2018
From this we learn that the "value" of a vacuum consists of two non-zero numbers.
Yet vacuum has a relative value as demonstrated in the Magdeburg Hemispheres.
From this, we learn that there are "relative values". I have no idea what that means, since this is the first time it has been mentioned.

How can a "fundamental property or potential" of a thing be "relative"?
What is the absolute value of a vacuum?

A full vacuum has an absolute pressure reading of 0 PSIA and the average barometric pressure at sea level is ~14.7 PSIA. When measuring gauge pressure, current atmospheric pressure is the baseline and is therefore read as 0 PSIG.May 1, 2017
From this, we learn that the vacuum has both a "relative value" (unspecified) and an "absolute value". The "absolute value" is the pressure of the vacuum, expressed in units of PSIA.

----

From all of this, it sounds like "value" can be anything and everything. It is whatever you need or want it to be. It is different for different things, in a very arbitrary way. Sometimes the "value" of a thing is a pressure. Sometimes it's an equation. Sometimes it's an abstract idea or notion about "function" or "potential". Sometimes it's the shape of the thing. Sometimes it's a randomly chosen feature or property of the thing.

Things can possibly have more than one "value". The "value" can be hidden or apparent. The "value" can be existing or merely have some kind of unspecified "potential" to exist in the future. The "value" can even be something that nobody can describe.

My question: how is this idea of "value" useful?

If the "value" of something can be anything and everything, and the "value" of every object is different from the next - not just in the sense that, for instance, one number is larger than another, but in the sense that in one case the "value" is a feeling and in the next case the "value" is a measure of pressure - surely this "value" idea is pointless and useless?

Let's not get distracted by the word "value" itself, which actually has a meaning for other people. Consider this:

Suppose I were to tell you that every thing in the entire universe, including the universe itself, has a ploxygoop. "What's a ploxygoop?", you ask.

"Well, it's an attraction. It's an equation. It's a pressure reading. It's relative, but also absolute. It's two numbers; no, it's one number. It's a sum of angles. It's a circle or sphere. It's impossible to describe. It's something that might not exist now, but might exist in the future; no, it's something that exists now. It's the functional role that something plays in some system."

Can you start to see why I say the word "value" is meaningless when you use it, Write4U?

First , I do not enter those types of hard science discussions.
You are trying to talk about black holes and singularities. Is that soft science?

What do you know about them?

How can a "fundamental property or potential" of a thing be "relative"?
It is relative to the fundamental properties and potentials of other things, that's how we can tell them all apart.

My question: how is this idea of "value" useful?
Is the idea of "energy" useful? Is the idea of "mass" useful? Is the idea of "length" useful? Is the idea of .......... ?

The list of values is long and varied, and we have symbolized and codified a lot of these values where they "related" to us humans

You are trying to talk about black holes and singularities. Is that soft science?

What do you know about them?
It's not what we do know about them. I'll leave that to scientists
I understand the concept of a black hole.
But I am curious to know what we don't know about them that is hiding the true mysteries.
We know that some of the energy contained in black hole is returned to this universe. But is all of it returned to this universe?

This excerpt really intrigues me;
Shockwave cosmology, proposed by Joel Smoller and Blake Temple in 2003, has the “big bang” as an explosion inside a black hole, producing the expanding volume of space and matter that includes the observable universe.[18] This black hole eventually becomes a white hole as the matter density reduces with the expansion. A related theory gives an alternative to dark energy.[19]
A 2012 paper argues that the Big Bang itself is a white hole.[20] It further suggests that the emergence of a white hole, which was named a "Small Bang", is spontaneous—all the matter is ejected at a single pulse. Thus, unlike black holes, white holes cannot be continuously observed; rather, their effects can be detected only around the event itself. The paper even proposed identifying a new group of gamma-ray bursts with white holes.

Is it possible that beyond the BH singularity lies another universe?

What do we know about String Theory?
In physics, string theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings. String theory describes how these strings propagate through space and interact with each other.
On distance scales larger than the string scale, a string looks just like an ordinary particle, with its mass, charge, and other properties determined by the vibrational state of the string. In string theory, one of the many vibrational states of the string corresponds to the graviton, a quantum mechanical particle that carries the gravitational force. Thus, string theory is a theory of quantum gravity.

I like this paper, but instead of answering Chalmer's "hard problem", I believe this may support the ORCH OR hypothesis as well.
Perhaps it does both?

ABSTRACT
The Pribram-Bohm holoflux theory, a model describing the topology ofconsciousness in the universe, is presented here to address the issue posed byDavid Chalmers in his “hard problem of consciousness.” The theory emergesfrom an integral evaluation of evidence drawn from two sources:
(1) theholonomic mind/brain theories of Karl Pribram, (2) the ontological interpretationof quantum theory by David Bohm. From their work emerges the holoflux theory,after a term proposed by Karl Pribram to express the flow characterized by DavidBohm as the “holomovement,” a two-way flow of consciousness between theexplicate order and the implicate order.
Sheldrake’s morphic resonance biological forms are described as products of aFourier transform-like process between these same two domains.CThis hypothesis supports both local andnon-local phenomena in the observable cosmos.
Sheldrake’s theory of morphic resonance and Ervin László’s holofieldtheory are examined and shown to be congruent with the holoflux theory.László’s postulated existence of two domains or dimensions of cosmologicalarchitecture, an “A-dimension” equivalent to Bohm’s implicate order and an “Mdimension,” equivalent to Bohm’s explicate, space–time material domain.oncluding remarks support the congruence of the Pribram–Bohmtopological model with other major paradigms of consciousness, including thoseelaborated by Chalmers, Lilly, Block, and Teilhard de Chardin

I like this paper, but instead of answering Chalmer's "hard problem", I believe this may support the ORCH OR hypothesis as well.
Perhaps it does both?

ABSTRACT

Fabulous! Now we get Sheldrake and his "morphic resonance". This is really diving deep into the woo, now.

Fabulous! Now we get Sheldrake and his "morphic resonance". This is really diving deep into the woo, now
It is so easy to dismiss the more abstract interpretation of what the term "consciousness" describes.

But just as "life" is an extension of "dynamism", so is "consciousness" an extension of "reactive response".
We know it all starts as pure energy with unlimited potential (the implicate) followed by the mathematical ordering and stochastic evolution of potentials (the explicate) in response to relational interactions.

I call this a quasi-intelligent process that evolves deterministically toward the naturally selected forms best adapted to their environment.

Stochastic processes driving directional evolution
Sean H. Rice, Anthony Papadopoulos, and John Harting
Stochastic processes driving directional evolution Sean H. Rice, Anthony Papadopoulos, and John Harting Abstract Evolution is a stochastic process, resulting from a combination of deterministic and random factors. We present results from a general theory of directional evolution that reveals how random variation in fitness, hertitability, and migration influence directional evolution. First, we show how random variation in fitness produces a directional trend towards phenotypes with minimal variation in fitness.
Furthermore, we demonstrate that stochastic variation in population growth rate amplifies the expected change due to directional selection in small populations. Second, we show that the evolutionary impacts of migration depend on the entire distribution of migration rates such that increasing the variance in migration rates reduces the impact of migration relative to selection. This means that changing the variance in migration rates, holding the mean constant, can substantially change the potential for local adaptation. Finally, we show that covariation between stochastic selection and stochastic heritability can drive directional evolutionary change, and that this can substantially alter the outcome of evolution in variable environments.
www.depts.ttu.edu/biology/people/Faculty/Rice/home/rice_al11.pdf

While this appears to be targeted to biological systems, I submit that the same logic applies to non-biological interactive patterns, such as the effect of CFC's on the Earth's ozone layer that can be likened to a persistent illness experienced by the earth's stratosphere.

Basic Ozone Layer Science​

The Earth's ozone layer protects all life from the sun's harmful radiation, but human activities have damaged this shield. Less ozone-layer protection from ultraviolet (UV) light will, over time, damage crops and lead to higher skin cancer and cataract rates.
Ozone Depletion. When chlorine and bromine atoms come into contact with ozone in the stratosphere, they destroy ozone molecules.
One chlorine atom can destroy over 100,000 ozone molecules before it is removed from the stratosphere. Oct 7, 2021

As a chlorine atom destroys an ozone molecule, a new chlorine atom is released which then attacks another ozone molecule, etc, etc. until the chlorine atom finally escapes to earth or into space.

Can we see a similarity with a biological infection on the skin of a living organism where bacteria keep reproducing and continue destroying biological cells?

I see these evolving patterns as having an underlying commonality.

And so it is with the emergence and evolution of "sentience" from "reactive sensitivity", and "consciousness" from "observable homeostatic processes"

p.s. I had a lengthy response to the above list of questions but lost it. Ah well, such is life, missed opportunities.

Last edited:
Is it possible that beyond the BH singularity lies another universe?
No idea. Black holes may not have a singularity, a singularity may not exist in the physical sense.

It is so easy to dismiss the more abstract interpretation of what the term "consciousness" describes
We were discussing black holes.

You brought string theory into the conversation which has nothing to do with anything and now we are back to consciousness.

This is why your threads get locked. You cannot stay on topic for more than two posts.
Pretty pointless.

No idea. Black holes may not have a singularity, a singularity may not exist in the physical sense.
Is there any evidence that rules out a toroid universe?

We were discussing black holes.
You brought string theory into the conversation which has nothing to do with anything and now we are back to consciousness

But at that fundamental level, certain emergent properties are already implied.
Things are in a constant state of vibration, how do they do that? What allows this (tuned?) vibration to exist?

Orch OR combines the Penrose–Lucas argument with Hameroff's hypothesis on quantum processing in microtubules. It proposes that when condensates in the brain undergo an objective wave function reduction, their collapse connects noncomputational decision-making to experiences embedded in spacetime's fundamental geometry.

and speaking of an "objective wave reduction" brings an implication of strings, the vibrating values that at larger scales are the objects that generate physical sound waves and allow us to compose symphonies.

I find this video fascinating and entirely logical. I do realize I can only see this from a layman's perspective, so I am always open to evidence to the contrary.

Last edited:
Is there any evidence that rules out a toroid universe?
Why is that important? All current evidence suggests the universe is "flat."

Why is that important? All current evidence suggests the universe is "flat."
I thought the spacetime surface is 2 dimensional, but cannot possibly be flat. Gravity could not exist unless the surface can be warped.

Einstein eventually identified the property of spacetime which is responsible for gravity as its curvature. Space and time in Einstein's universe are no longer flat (as implicitly assumed by Newton) but can pushed and pulled, stretched and warped by matter.
https://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime2.html#

A toroid universe can have a 2D surface yet be gravitationally curved, being that the center of a toroid may contain a super massive BH

I do not look at a black hole in context of what it is and how it behaves. I want to relate it to its effects on the fabric of space itself.

Last edited:
If the Universe is fractal then a lot of questions about symmetry and curvature can be resolved without complicated equations.

And I am a fervent supporter of the concept of a universe with a "reducible complexity" down to the most simple essential properties, but with infinite potential .

Fractality is one such infinitely reducible system, no?

The idea that, if you zoom in far enough, you’ll eventually encounter a structure that repeats the initial pattern you saw on larger scales, is mathematically realized in the concept of a fractal. When similar patterns repeatedly emerge at smaller and smaller scales, we can analyze them mathematically and see if they have the same statistical characteristics as the larger structures; if they do, it’s fractal-like in nature.
So, is the Universe itself a fractal?
The answer appears to be almost, but not quite. Here’s the science behind why.

Last edited: