Is consciousness to be found in quantum processes in microtubules?

[Write4U]

Every number , every symbol in physical mathematics is representative of an aspect of physical things .

Yep, the mathematical pattern makes the physical thing! Three fundamental subatomic values, organized in specific patterns make up everything in the universe.

 

[Write4U]

Mathematics , in and of its self , can not stand alone without the real physical object

Let me put it this way. Without the mathematics nothing could exist. There would only be pure chaos. Hence Bohm's hierarchy of mathematical orders from the very subtle to gross expression in reality.

But I see the relationship somewhat similar to the particle/wave duality, which can be symbolically translated into a physical/mathematical duality.
Mathematics is a self-referential system !

 

[river]

Human maths are a product of human observation and symbolic interpretation. But, IMO, that is looking at it backwards. Human maths are not invented, the symbolic language we use is invented, but the values and functions on which our mathematics are based on are present at time of observation, else they could not be quantified and symbolized to begin with.

Newton invented his theories from recognizing the "regularities" exhibited by various natural phenomena and that these regularities can be assigned "values", precisely because they were regular and could be quantified and qualified with symbolic language. He did not need to know that the speed of light was a constant.

But even your citation of SOL being a universal constant is a recognition of a mathematical values which applies to the speed of light. The relative value we use to quantify that value is arbitrarily selected for human convenience.

When cosmologists tell me that they are only "discovering" the existing universal mathematics of what they are observing, who am I to argue? If a cosmologist tells me that gravity is a result of an inherent mathematical ordering equation, which is pervasive throughout the universe and demonstrably a quality of space-time fabric itself, who am I to call him/her wrong?

We did not invent Universal mathematics, we translated them from direct observation or by testing.
Our conjuring of the Higgs boson was a result of a mathematical predictions, not of throwing a bunch of stuff in the LHC and hoping for the best.....

And the Higgs Boson is based on physical things Write4U.

The prediction does not mean , nor should it imply , that mathematics created the particle .

 

[Beer w/Straw]

OK, I'm going to ask if you have taken any math courses outside of high school? (crapy question I know)

Mathematics is not a science.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
Mathematics , in and of its self , can not stand alone without the real physical object .

The real physical object can stand alone without any mathematics involved

Let me put it this way. Without the mathematics nothing could exist. There would only be pure chaos. Hence Bohm's hierarchy of mathematical orders from the very subtle to gross expression in reality.

But I see the relationship somewhat similar to the particle/wave duality, which can be symbolically translated into a physical/mathematical duality.
Mathematics is a self-referential system !

Disagree

Mathematics controls nothing in the physical world .

Change any symbol in mathematics , it only matters if you also change the physical aspect of what that symbol represents , physically .

Without the physical , mathematics would never exist .

 

[Write4U]

And the Higgs Boson is based on physical things Write4U.

Not really, it is a probability value. Bosona do not have an independent physical existence. They emerge from a field of relative values.
Boson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


How bosons fit with other classes of sub atomic particles, hadrons and fermions.

In quantum mechanics, a boson (/ˈboʊsɒn/,[1] /ˈboʊzɒn/[2]) is a particle that follows Bose–Einstein statistics. Bosons make up one of two classes of particles, the other being fermions.[3] The name boson was coined by Paul Dirac[4][5] to commemorate the contribution of Satyendra Nath Bose, an Indian physicist and professor of physics at University of Calcutta and at University of Dhaka[6][7] in developing, with Albert Einstein, Bose–Einstein statistics—which theorizes the characteristics of elementary particles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson

Behold, the emergent mathematical patterns of the hydrogen atom.
Wavefunctions of the electron in a hydrogen atom at different energy levels. Quantum mechanics cannot predict the exact location of a particle in space, only the probability of finding it at different locations.[1] The brighter areas represent a higher probability of finding the electron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

The prediction does not mean, nor should it imply, that mathematics created the particle.

Tell that to the Nobel prize people. It is was a mathematical equation that predicted the creation of a boson from the Higgs field, where it promptly decayed back into. A perfect example of unfolding and enfolding (emergent) mathematical patterns.....

But I am curious, are you proposing that God is a physical object? Your claim must include the concept that God is a physical entity, no? If not, then you have no authority to object to the concept of abstract mathematics. Can't have your cake without a mathematical recipe..........

 

[Write4U]

Without the physical, mathematics would never exist .

Without the universal mathematics the universe would not exist. You are denying the independent existence of universal mathematical constants that are responsible for the self-formation of the universe to begin with.

 

[DaveC426913]

You are denying the independent existence of universal mathematical constants that are responsible for the self-formation of the universe to begin with.

To be clear, nobody needs to "deny" an idea. That's an attempt at gaslighting.

It's just an idea that has insufficient evidence, falsifiability or justification to rise to the level of a hypothesis.

The onus remains on the claimant to make the case.

 

[Write4U]

To be clear, nobody needs to "deny" an idea. That's an attempt at gas lighting.

So you say, but people do deny the idea that the universe is a mathematical pattern with mathematical values and functions. They claim mathematics is a human invention.
OTOH, they propose an idea of an abstract god as a valid hypothesis. Should we consider an abstract creator god as a viable idea, but then claim there is insufficient evidence for abstract mathematics? IMO, that's an attempt at vanity and self-importance.

It's just an idea that has insufficient evidence, falsifiability or justification to rise to the level of a hypothesis.

I just find it really interesting that in order to falsify the concept of any scientific hypothesis we use symbolic mathematics. And when it comes to mathematics, that is not "just" an idea. It is an all important phenomenon that everything in the universe is founded on the reliable orderly and consistent (mathematical) processing of relative values. All of it is mathematical in essence. The mathematical patterns make the physical expressions possible. The evidence is overwhelming. Don't minimize its importance either.

The onus remains on the claimant to make the case.

I agree. ALL of current science depends on the observed and described relative values, mathematical constants, and the specific patterns which inform us of the physical expression.
IMO, our practical (symbolic) use of natural mathematical properties to observe and describe the essence spacetime provides overwhelming evidence of the mathematical nature of the universe and everything within it.

p.s. While our understanding and use of mathematics may be questioned, mathematics as a observed quality of physical expression is not falsifiable.....

p.p.s. To sum it up: (Cause <-> Effect) is a mathematical function at all levels from the very subtle Planck scale to the gross Physical expression in our reality.

That's Tegmark simple claim; "the universe does not have some mathematical properties, it has only mathematical properties".

This concept does not provide a TOE, but if taken as fundamental truth, it might enable us to find a TOE. Nothing else has even come close to explaining anything as with the simple elegance of the Mathematical Function. Every naturally emergent value associated with a pattern can be theoretically quantified and qualified and that leads inevitably to a TOE.

But until then we can be proud to have "discovered" the fundamental mathematical essence of spacetime. Our applied mathematics have enabled us to explore other planets. Not trivial!

And the quasi-intelligent nature of mathematical functions explains the original concept of intelligent gods that rule the universe with fire and brimstone.
What we now know to be Mathematical functions are the early sky-gods that used to rule the universe. The Gods are gone, only the Mathematics is left.

 

[DaveC426913]

And the quasi-intelligent nature of mathematical functions explains the original concept of intelligent gods that rule the universe with fire and brimstone.
What we now know to be Mathematical functions are the early sky-gods that used to rule the universe. The Gods are gone, only the Mathematics is left.

You're just saying the universe is run by God - without using the word God.
That's a theist by any account.

 

[Write4U]

You're just saying the universe is run by God - without using the word God.
That's a theist by any account.

I knew that was coming....

No, Dave, I am offering a viable and defensible alternative to a creator god. An alternative which does not require prayer or worship, because it isn't sentient, but does meet all the requirements of a scientific model for a reliable system of evolutionary processes and emerging complexity.

In effect, what you are saying is that the universe is not being run by anything? That there is no underlying order or structure to the universe and any proposed functional model is tantamout to creating a religion? IOW, science itself is a religion?

But that is not an objective and dispassionate argument, and I am sure you will agree.

This is actually an odd position. The prudent scientists all concede the (remote) possibility of a creator god, but at the same time you utterly reject the only real and viable solution which does not require the acceptance of a mystical creator being which requires worship or tithings. Something is amiss in that line of reasoning.

As an atheist I can assure you that the Mathematical model is not a model of a sentient motivated God. It's a functional model of the inherent self-regulating dynamical structure and information processing of universe. It completely and utterly replaces the concept of an attentive motivated God as popularly defined.

As bookkeeper for a multi-million dollar not-for-profit umbrella company for 7 separate social assistance programs I can attest to the self-regulating benefits of double-entry bookkeeping, which ironically, was invented by a monk.

 

[Write4U]

OK, I'm going to ask if you have taken any math courses outside of high school? (crapy question I know).

I have 7 years practical experience in applied mathematics.

Mathematics is not a science.

Well that is a debatable proposition.....

There would be no science without mathematics.
Religion is not a science. That's when you end up with a Bible. ......

Relationship between mathematics and physics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A cycloidal pendulum is isochronous, a fact discovered and proved by Christiaan Huygens under certain mathematical assumptions.[1]
Mathematics was developed by the Ancient Greeks for intellectual challenge and pleasure. Surprisingly, many of their discoveries later played prominent roles in physical theories, as in the case of the conic sections in celestial mechanics.

No "false cones" here.

The relationship between mathematics and physics has been a subject of study of philosophers,
mathematicians and physicists since Antiquity, and more recently also by historians and educators.[2] Generally considered a relationship of great intimacy,[3] mathematics has been described as "an essential tool for physics"[4] and physics has been described as "a rich source of inspiration and insight in mathematics".

In his work Physics, one of the topics treated by Aristotle is about how the study carried out by mathematicians differs from that carried out by physicists.[6] Considerations about mathematics being the language of nature can be found in the ideas of the Pythagoreans: the convictions that "Numbers rule the world" and "All is number",[7][8] and two millennia later were also expressed by Galileo Galilei: "The book of nature is written in the language of mathematics".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics

 

[Write4U]

An nice talk on emergent mathematical patterns in nature;

and an obvious example;

 

[Beer w/Straw]

OK OK, I'll say math is the only place where proofs exist.

Have fun.

:EDIT:

Did not watch videos.

 

[Write4U]

OK OK, I'll say math is the only place where proofs exist.

Have fun.

Ability to provide proof is proof of ability....

Mathematics don't make things move, they make things move in specific repeatable ways.

:EDIT: Did not watch videos.

As you please.
I try to select entertaining as well as informative videos. Ted Talks are usually both.

 

[DaveC426913]

No, Dave, I am offering a viable and defensible alternative to a creator god. An alternative which does not require prayer or worship, because it isn't sentient,

All you're saying is that your God is quasi-intelligent.

but does meet all the requirements of a scientific model for a reliable system of evolutionary processes and emerging complexity.

No it doesn't. It's not a model. It has no predictive value or falsifiability that would distinguish a universe where it exists from one where it does not.

In effect, what you are saying is that the universe is not being run by anything? That there is no underlying order or structure to the universe and any proposed functional model is tantamout to creating a religion? IOW, science itself is a religion?

No I'm not saying any of that.

But it is an telling admission that you feel the universe needs to be "run" by something. That's how believers think.

This is actually an odd position. The prudent scientists all concede the (remote) possibility of a creator god, but at the same time you utterly reject the only real and viable solution which does not require the acceptance of a mystical creator being which requires worship or tithings. Something is amiss in that line of reasoning.

Indeed. Your idea is just as mystical - you worship it as if it is. You offer your practised mantras exactly as if they are prayers - repeating them over and over.

Oh quasi-intelligent universe, thou art unfolding and enfolding with dynamically interactive values and mathematical functions.

You just repeat this over and over, and it has as much elucidatory use as any prayer.

 

[DaveC426913]

Mathematics don't make things move, nor do they make things move in specific, repeatable ways.

What makes things move in specific, repeatable ways is forces. There are four. When a given mass encounters a given force, it will always result in the same outcome.

Mathematics describes how we see things move due to forces.

 

[Write4U]

All you're saying is that you God is quasi-intelligent

No, all I am saying is that Mathematical functions are quasi-intelligent functions, but do not require conscious sentience as in theism. That is not a trivial distinction.

 

[DaveC426913]

That is not a trivial distinction.

It is.

 

[DaveC426913]

Your idea has no predictive value or falsifiability that would distinguish a universe where it exists from one where it does not.