Boy, this is hard work.How can anything which is abstract affect the physical world? I have asked you this many times, but you have yet to give a single example of such a thing.
I didn't bother watching that. I want you to defend your ideas.Boy, this is hard work.
David Bohm -
Word salad.I believe he is saying that reality has a finer-grained underlying reality that has an abstract quasi-intelligent behavior of mathematical pattern-forming in accordance to fundamental relational logical values and functions of spacetime itself.
Which basically just means that it follows laws, and that those laws can be expressed mathematically. The "quasi-intelligent" is an unwarranted interpretation, methinks. But I may have misunderstood him.If there is a question about the way he finishes his talk, I believe he is saying that reality has a finer-grained underlying reality that has an abstract quasi-intelligent behavior of mathematical pattern-forming in accordance to fundamental relational logical values and functions of spacetime itself.
I admit that I made that analogy. I based it on the idea that because mathematical functions are so predictable, this was interpreted as an Intelligent Designer (God). Bohm put religion firmly in the background as he claims the concept of god tends to limit the mathematical function.Which basically just means that it follows laws, and that those laws can be expressed mathematically. The "quasi-intelligent" is an unwarranted interpretation, methinks. But I may have misunderstood him.
I hope the above does.But it doesn't answer the question you were asked, does it?
Answering the question as asked, it's Tegmark's "everything has an inherent generic relational value", and all universal physical interactions begin with the input of relational values and the mathematically ordered processes that yield predictable results.Let me ask you, as I'm not sure I'm quite sure: what is the position you're arguing?
Is it Tegmark's "everything is a mathematical structure" type philosophy, or the rather different"the universe operates by mathematical laws" type claim? Or something else?
And how does it relate to Quantum Creationism?
(Can you be clear, concise, and use easy-to-understand language, please?)
Thanks.
https://pressbooks-dev.oer.hawaii.e...s-disorder-and-the-unavailability-of-energy/#Entropy is the loss of energy available to do work. Another form of the second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of a system either increases or remains constant; it never decreases. Entropy is zero in a reversible process; it increases in an irreversible process.
Actually, we do.All there is from you is "that is not true", without the explanation of how it actually works.
No, unfortunately it doesn't seem to me that it does. The question that your reply was/is to was "How can anything which is abstract affect the physical world?" and I'm not seeing how explaining your interpretation of there being "Quasi-intelligence" answers that question.I hope the above does.
This position of Tegmark's is not really disputed, as it is, much like Bohm was saying, that everything obeys laws. Is that really disputed by anyone? Science doesn't think so. The alternative would be that there are some things that exist that do not obey any law.Answering the question as asked, it's Tegmark's "everything has an inherent generic relational value", and all universal physical interactions begin with the input of relational values and the mathematically ordered processes that yield predictable results.
There is also nothing that forbids invisible pink unicorns, to use the oft-exampled absurdity. Or pixie dust. Or anything else that is simply a matter of faith rather than testable science.But there is nothing that forbids a "quasi-intelligent" Universe that has the ability and resources to create the most exquisite natural patterns, expressing balance, symmetry, chirality, causal forces, gravity, etc.
I hope this paints a logically sound picture, a map that is the reality, if you will...
Yes, and this is exactly what I am talking about. I am trying to touch on the physics of "Quantum Creation". Now you say I am wrong and cite unicorns as an explanation of why I am wrong in regard to Quantum Creation ?And we can't teach how things actually work if they start off from a faulty premise. Look at James R's "unicorn theory". We can't give him an "explanation" how the unicorn is "actually" powered by unicorns; the only correct thing to do is disabuse him of the entire notion of unicorns, and start from scratch.
And these laws are not the abstractions of how things work in real world?This position of Tegmark's is not really disputed, as it is, much like Bohm was saying, that everything obeys laws.
Tegmark, however, goes much further than that, and to what you were previously seemingly supporting, that the only thing that exists is a mathematical structure. That maths is everything. Not that the motion and interaction matter is governed by mathematical laws, but that the matter itself, even the medium through which it moves, is a, or part thereof, of a mathematical structure and has no other mind-independent property (like "matter").
It unfortunately speaks to your rather brain-dump style of responding to questions that it's hard to fathom just what it is you're supporting / claiming etc.
If mathematics is a matter of faith, what is science doing by citing the laws of mathematics. Should we respond with "amen" when someone recites an equation?There is also nothing that forbids invisible pink unicorns, to use the oft-exampled absurdity. Or pixie dust. Or anything else that is simply a matter of faith rather than testable science.
I see mathematics as a codified system of logical arguments (equations) using the inherent mathematically measurable relational and interactive properties (values) of all matter (Tegmark?) or as Bohm calls it "Potential" (Implicate Order).But it does beg the question of what you consider to be the difference between "quasi-intelligence" and "actual intelligence"? Are you able to answer that?
"In the implicate order, everything is internally related to everything; everything contains everything".
Right.You wrote "I have never claimed that stuff is made from mathematics. I claim they are made guided by universal mathematical principles."
That's not how I see it. It just means that the Universe is mathematically self-referential at all levels .This is in conflict with Tegmark's claim that everything is mathematics. According to Tegmark, there is literally nothing except mathematics.
Let's take Chaos theory to start with.Please explain how a condition without any order could possibly create an ordered, mathematical universe.
So the question is not if there exists a self-ordering system as eventually expressed as physics, but at what level this self-ordering guidance system is present as an original excellence in spacetime.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.[2]
No, it is a mathematical function, it's just not a conscious function. It is a quasi-intelligent function.Is the function f(x)=x2f(x)=x2f(x)=x^2 a quasi-intelligent function?
C'mon James, that is not what I meant or said.You have repeatedly claimed that "The universe started as a chaotic condition without any order."
Please explain how a condition without any order could possibly create an ordered, mathematical universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theoryChaos 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.[2]
Sorry, I'm still working on this....Implicate Order = Inherent mathematical functions.