Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo

Pinball1970 said:
The drawing of the duck is not the duck. Ducks are not made of paper and oils or pixels, ducks are made of feathers, skin, bones and beaks.
The drawing of the duck is an ABSTRACT representation of it.
Click to expand...
Бедные утки! Кожа, кости, перья и клюв..., и не грамма мяса и жира. Чем вы там в Англии их кормите?
 
Pinball1970 said:
The paper was published in 2007? So no one has taken it up and ran with it including Tegmark in 17 years.
Click to expand...
Teggers has apparently spent the last decade reinventing himself as a machine learning specialist. AI is where the action is these days, and Teggers needs to be a part of it.
 
Pinball1970 said:
Yes, as a duck, my drawings are not the ducks.
Click to expand...
No one claims that the drawing is a duck. The drawing is representative of the duck as it exists in its natural splendor.
Nothing abstract about a duck!
Pinball1970 said:
Sure, Art, philosophy, Religion.
Click to expand...
But nobody claims those symbolic representations to be the real thing. That is why we have invented representitive names like art, philosophy, religion, fiction.
But abstract universal mathematical patterns are real, observable, testable, falsifiable. They are everywhere we look, real and mathematically logical in essence. It is what brings order to CHAOS (Chaos theory).
Chaos theory (or chaology[1]) is an interdisciplinary area of scientific study and branch of mathematics. It focuses on underlying patterns and deterministic laws of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions.
Click to expand...
These were once thought to have completely random states of disorder and irregularities.[2] Chaos theory states that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnection, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals and self-organization.[3]
Click to expand...
The butterfly effect, an underlying principle of chaos, describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state (meaning there is sensitive dependence on initial conditions).[4]
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

Chaos theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Anything wrong with that description of the "real thing"? AnythIng at all?

Of course not. Else these recurring patterns could not be codified and symbolized into rigorous equations that do NOT allow for random guesswork by non-computable human abstract thought patterns. (Penrose)

There are no known objections to a mathematically ordered logical Universe.

Human maths are not "unreasonably effective" in describing "natural phenomena".
Due to our size limitations human maths are "reasonably ineffective" in describing "natural phenomina at all levels.
Even superposition resolves into a mathematically "allowable" state at the moment of "collapse" . It is never non-mathematical.
 
Last edited:
exchemist said:
Teggers has apparently spent the last decade reinventing himself as a machine learning specialist. AI is where the action is these days, and Teggers needs to be a part of it.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised he has not changed his name again. Reading around this subject and criticism of it he had a fringe idea, went with it and then sold some books. The science community said, "Meh."
Sean Carroll did the same thing with his ideas, "Hidden Reality" (solid guy though, not a snake oil salesman) and also Roger Penrose with CCC, no trade book though.
Laurence Krauss with "A Universe from nothing."
Let's face it, non-physicists like to know what the smart guys doing physics think, they are today's Einsteins and Diracs after all.
Some physicists know this and make a sideline, Brian Cox, Brian Greene, Kaku, Turok, NDT...
 
Write4U said:
No one claims that the drawing is a duck.
Click to expand...
Great. The drawing is NOT the duck, the physical stuff that makes up the duck like feathers is the duck. The map/drawing of the duck is not duck. The map is not the territory.


Write4U said:
Nothing abstract about a duck
Click to expand...
But everything about my drawing of the duck is abstract because my drawing represents the duck.
Like Newton's, Copernicus, Brahe's, Kepler's and Galileo's data and equations are not the orbit of the moon.
The moon is the moon and the orbit of the moon is just that. My books of mechanics are ABSTRACT representations of that.
Just as my equations of linear algebra are not photons, the photons are the photons.
 
Write4U said:
For shame!
Click to expand...
This is the key part. Look at how science works. An idea, some data, a theory. That is published and the community respond.
Now, it could be that the idea is out there and the scientific community fail to catch on, this happened with Einstein to an extent.
Tegmark was already known IIRC whereas Einstein was not.
No one has taken this up again not even Tegmark.
i think that speaks volumes.
 
Pinball1970 said:
This is the key part. Look at how science works. An idea, some data, a theory. That is published and the community respond.
Now, it could be that the idea is out there and the scientific community fail to catch on, this happened with Einstein to an extent.
Tegmark was already known IIRC whereas Einstein was not.
No one has taken this up again not even Tegmark.
i think that speaks volumes.
Click to expand...
2 comments:

Firstly, just to bang my usual drum on this :), it is a myth that Einstein's idea were initially ignored. They were taken up with great alacrity. He was appointed associate professor at Zurich in 1909, only 4 years after his Annus Mirabilis papers were published. Sure, his findings were disputed or challenged by a proportion of physicists for a number of years, as was to be expected in view of their revolutionary nature. But they were far from being met with the indifference shown towards Tegmark's ideas. They immediately set the cat among the pigeons.

Secondly, the indifference towards Tegmark is most likely in large part because his ideas about a "mathematical universe" are not science. They are just a metaphysical speculation, with no observable consequences and as such untestable. Like Bohm's pilot waves they are, as Pauli puts it, an "uncashable cheque".
 
exchemist said:
2 comments:

Firstly, just to bang my usual drum on this :), it is a myth that Einstein's idea were initially ignored. They were taken up with great alacrity. He was appointed associate professor at Zurich in 1909, only 4 years after his Annus Mirabilis papers were published. Sure, his findings were disputed or challenged by a proportion of physicists for a number of years, as was to be expected in view of their revolutionary nature. But they were far from being met with the indifference shown towards Tegmark's ideas. They immediately set the cat among the pigeons.

Secondly, the indifference towards Tegmark is most likely in large part because his ideas about a "mathematical universe" are not science. They are just a metaphysical speculation, with no observable consequences and as such untestable. Like Bohm's pilot waves they are, as Pauli puts it, an "uncashable cheque".
Click to expand...
I did say "to an extent"

Reading the biography that featured his letters "Einstein: His Life and Universe," Isaacson, that is the impression I got.

The below gives that impression too.

https://physicsworld.com/a/einsteins-revolutionary-paper/?form=MG0AV3&form=MG0AV3
 
Pinball1970 said:
Like Newton's, Copernicus, Brahe's, Kepler's and Galileo's data and equations are not the orbit of the moon.
Click to expand...
Is the "function of Time" a physical phenomenon?

Time is an abstract concept​

Time is an abstract concept1234. It is not something we can physically perceive or touch, but rather a construct created by humans to organize and make sense of the world around us1. Philosophers have struggled to define time for centuries2. Some neuroscientists believe that our perception of time is a mental construct4.
Click to expand...

Does anyone doubt that time is an emergent property of duration?
 
exchemist said:
Nice article. I did not know Bohr held out for so long. But Einstein’s paper on the photo-electric effect wasn't met with indifference. And he did get the 1921 Nobel Prize for it.
Click to expand...
There were political reasons why he did not get the recognition he deserved earlier also.
Like you said he still did ok!
 
exchemist said:
Is length an emergent property of extension?
Click to expand...
Yes. But that's the wrong question. We know the physically expressed (explicate) pattern from observation.

The question should be;
"Is an emergent specific (calculable, deterministic) length a mathematical function?"

A deterministic function is a function that always gives the same output for the same input1235. It is not probabilistic and produces a unique value as output12.
Click to expand...

p.s. note the introduction of MT into this subject of cellular growth (and mitosis). It's inescapable!
 
Write4U said:
Yes. But that's the wrong question. We know the physically expressed (explicate) pattern from observation.

The question should be;
"Is an emergent specific (calculable, deterministic) length a mathematical function?"

………..[snip]………….
Click to expand...
No.
 
Write4U said:
p.s. note the introduction of MT into this subject of cellular growth (and mitosis). It's inescapable!
Click to expand...
No. It is absolutely not because it is absolutely zero to do with what we are taking about.

Are you now happy the map is the not territory? The drawing is not the duck?
This is taking longer than it should do but I think it's worth it.
 
Pinball1970 said:
No. It is absolutely not because it is absolutely zero to do with what we are taking about.
Click to expand...
It does if they operate at quantum level.
Pinball1970 said:
Are you now happy the map is the not territory? The drawing is not the duck?
Click to expand...
I never disputed that. Note that I was a bookkeeper and responsible for the representative accounting of inventory values.
Pinball1970 said:
This is taking longer than it should do but I think it's worth it.
Click to expand...
Why do you deny the actual literal definition of the term quantum mechanics?
Quantum = abstract value unit
Mechanics = behavior

Quantum mechanics = the causal interactive behavior of abstract (but defined) value units. I ike that... it sounds mathematical...:cool:
 
Write4U said:
It does if they operate at quantum level.

I never disputed that. Note that I was a bookkeeper and responsible for the representative accounting of inventory values.

Why do you deny the actual literal definition of the term quantum mechanics?
Quantum = abstract value unit
Mechanics = behavior

Quantum mechanics = the causal interactive behavior of abstract (but defined) value units. I ike that... it sounds mathematical...:cool:
Click to expand...
That is not the definition of quantum mechanics.
 
Write4U said:
I never disputed that. Note that I was a bookkeeper and responsible for the representative accounting of inventory values.
Click to expand...
Yes you did because that is exactly what Tegmark's thesis claims and you support it.
It would be like me making a drawing of a 50 guilder note,, handing it to you then expecting two crates of Grolsch in return.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top