Quantum Creationism -- Is It Science Or Is It Religion?

[DaveC426913]

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.

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?

Could you please read and comprehend what is being said before responding?
Hint: Sarkus said nothing of the sort.

FFS.

 

[Write4U]

Sarkus said: "Or anything else that is simply a matter of faith rather than testable science."
(W4U said: "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?

a·men, adverb

1. At the end of religious prayers: so be it.
2. In many Abrahamic religious texts and creeds: truly, verily.

Could you please read and comprehend what is being said before responding?
Hint: Sarkus said nothing of the sort.

I believe that Sarkus will understand what I responded to.

p.s. Sarkus, I truly appreciate your participation and probing questions. Forgive if I sound brusque. It is not so intended.

 

[billvon]

Could you please read and comprehend what is being said before responding?

I can't count the number of times he has demanded information that I just provided to him.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Let's take stock and see how you went in trying to answer the six matters I put to you in post #429.
This was question #1:

1. You wrote "I have never claimed that stuff is made from mathematics. I claim they are made guided by universal mathematical principles." This is in conflict with Tegmark's claim that everything is mathematics. According to Tegmark, there is literally nothing except mathematics.

Please post so that we know that you recognise and accept that your beliefs are different from Tegmark's.

The following is your response:

That's not how I see it. It just means that the Universe is mathematically self-referential at all levels .

Do you deny that Tegmark claims that everything is mathematics?

Do you understand what it is that Tegmark is hypothesising, or not?

Based on your reply, it is not clear that you understand and accept that your views are different from Tegmark's, on fundamental matters. Those differences mean that you can no longer hide behind Tegmark. The ideas you are expressing are your own, not Tegmark's. Your ideas are different.

Going to the content of your ideas: they appear to be incoherent. What does "mathematically self-referential at all levels" mean? I don't think it means anything at all; you're just making stuff up as you go. It's just word salad piled upon word salad.

At the smallest level, physics ceases and only abstract relational values exist and interact in a regular and regulated manner, as expressions of an unconscious, but knowable (by us) mathematical Universe.

You just flip flopped again. If "only abstract relational values exist" and those "values" are mathematical, then you're saying that nothing but mathematics exists (and that would be in line with Tegmark's hypothesis). But that's the opposite of what you said earlier.

Which is it? Have you actually worked out what you believe about this?

Let me put it simply, a striaghtforward question: do you believe that the only thing in the universe is mathematics (i.e. everything is "made of mathematics")? Yes or no?

For now, I don't care why you believe it's "yes" or "no". I just want you to be consistent. Tell me whether it's "yes" or "no". Don't beat about the bush. Don't flip flop back and forth. Just tell me what you believe. Until you've done that, it's pointless to even talk about the "why" with you. Note: I do not want a rambling essay with random made-up terms. I want "yes" or "no" to my question. It's straightforward and should be simple for you to answer. Can you answer it?

Moving on, this was question #2:

2. 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.

Here's your response:

Let's take Chaos theory to start with.

Assumption: The BB began in a state of utter chaos. ok?

This is not an answer to the question I asked you.

Is it your claim that "chaos theory" is a "chaotic condition without any order"? Bear in mind that chaos theory is an area of mathematical study. It would be impossible to say anything coherent about chaos theory if it had no "orderly" aspects.

Tell me why you assume the BB began in a state of utter chaos. What does that mean to you? How are you measuring the "amount of chaos", for instance?

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.

It is your claim that "The universe started as a chaotic condition without any order". That is a quote from you, but it's clear I'm not putting words into your mouth. After all, you just wrote "The BB began in a state of utter chaos", confirming the original quote.

How are you going to wriggle out of this contradiction? You're claiming a mathematically ordered universe, but you can suggest no way that mathematical order could arise from the "utter chaos" at the BB.

I can't really tell from your word salad, but it looks like maybe you're now suggesting that you think the BB wasn't a state of "utter chaos" after all. Instead, you say that, even at the BB, there was a "self-ordering system as eventually expressed as physics".

So which is it, Write4U? Was the BB a state of utter chaos, or was there a "self-ordering" mechanism in place, even way back then?

Will you drop your assertion that the BB was a state of utter chaos? All I ask for is that you stop contradicting yourself. If you can't be consistent in your claims, no discussion is possible.

In a separate post, you wrote this:

C'mon James, that is not what I meant or said.

I quoted you, from one of your posts. I could have picked any number of them. Even this most recent one has this quote: "Assumption: The BB began in a state of utter chaos."

You don't get to tell lies and claim that this is not what you meant or said. You said it, and I have to assume you meant it. Otherwise, why post stuff you don't believe?

Try to be consistent, and don't tell lies. In particular, don't accuse me of misquoting you when I haven't done that. That's very rude and it's a lie.

Several times I have posted that IMO, the BB (Creation) was a chaotic event, and if cosmology is correct, from this chaos of dynamic fields patterns (particles) began to emerge, interacted and 13.8 billion years later evolved into the Universal order we can observe and quantify today.

Are you saying this is incorrect?

This is a repeat, but let's be clear. You have claimed both that "the universe started as a chaotic condition without any order" and that "the BB began in a state of utter chaos" (my emphasis).

Here, you claim that "dynamic field patterns (particles) began to emerge". So tell me: how did such things emerge from "utter chaos" that did not possess any order?

Or do you now want to drop your claim that there was "utter chaos" at the BB?

You need to do one or the other.
----

Moving on, we come to question #5:

5. You have referred to "quasi-intelligent mathematical functions".

Is the function f(x)=x2f(x)=x2f(x)=x^2 a quasi-intelligent function? If not, can you please provide one example of a quasi-intelligent mathematical function?

Are all mathematical functions quasi-intelligent? If not, please explain how you go about telling the quasi-intelligent ones from the non-intelligent ones.

You managed a two-line reply to this question. Here it is in full:

No, it is a mathematical function, it's just not a conscious function. It is a quasi-intelligent function.
I could say "semi-intelligent or pseudo-intelligent', but they just don't seem to fit exactly.

In the first line you contradict yourself. Is the function I gave a quasi-intelligent function? You answer "No ..."
Then, in the very next sentence you flip-flop and say "It is a quasi-intelligent function."

So which is it? Is $f(x)=x^2$ a quasi-intelligent function, or isn't it? I'm only asking you to take a consistent position. If you can't decide, then your term "quasi-intelligent" function probably doesn't mean anything.

I note, also, that you did not answer the rest of the questions I asked in #5. Why didn't you answer them? Can you answer them?
---

And that poor showing is all I've had from you by way of a response to the specific questions I asked you (twice!).

In attempting to answer#1, you failed to recognise the divergence between your views and Tegmark's. Either that, or you flip-flop from one view to the other, more or less at random.

In attempting to answer #2, you made the false accusation that I misquoted you. And you utterly failed to answer the question I asked you.

In attempting to answer #5, you gave a self-contradictory answer and ignored three quarters of the question I asked you.

You either ignored or were unable or unwilling to even attempt answers to questions #3, #4, and #6. Either that, or you just couldn't maintain the coherence of thought and concentration required to work through a task with six parts.

Is there any chance at all that you will be able to do any better than this in future?

 

[James R]

Write4U:

My previous post was focused on your self-contradictions and inability to answer straightforward questions. This one will deal with some of the additional statements and questions in your recent replies.

And these laws are not the abstractions of how things work in real world?

These codified and symbolized laws are abstract mathematical constructs, no?

What exactly is a natural law if not an abstraction?

In opposition to your current position, Tegmark claims that the "laws" are not abstractions at all. He claims that they are the very substance of which the universe is made. In fact, he claims that the only thing that exists is mathematics and these "mathematical laws". He claims that the physical universe consists of literally nothing but maths.

Do you believe that there is a physical universe separate from the "mathematical constructs" and "abstractions" of which you speak, or not? Pick a side.

I never said that maths are causal to physical interaction. I said they are causal to HOW the physical actions interact.

Do you understand what the word "causal" means?

If A is causal to B (A causes B) then, in the absence of any alternative sufficient causes, without A there can be no B.

Do you believe that "maths" causes effects in the physical world? Yes or no?

If your answer is "yes", then I (and several other people here) want to know from you how your "constructs" and "abstractions" bring about the physical effects we see.

Your non-answer to Sarkus's question here merely minces words to make essentially an identical claim to the one Sarkus asked you about, without actually attempting to answer his question. His question was also, essentially, my question #3, which you have so-far ignored as well.

Can you answer our questions on this, or not?

If you can't see how maths can cause something to physically happen, why not just admit you don't know how such a thing could work?

It's dishonest to keep ignoring inconvenient questions, especially when they have been put to you many times by several different people.

I don't claim to be a scientist trying to solve scientific problems. I am expressing my general ageement with both Tegmark and Bohm as they speak of an underlying reality which Tegmark calls mathematical, and Bohm calls the Implicate Order.

Flip flop you go again. You need to pick a side. Is the universe mathematics, according to you, or no? Choose. Or tell us you don't know. But, whatever you do, be consistent.

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?

Who told you that mathematics is a matter of faith? Can you quote anyone here who suggested such a thing?

Why are you making stuff up, Write4U?

When humans make maths to describe natural active and interactive behaviors of physical objects in nature, it is a product of conscious intelligent thought and observation or imagination (theory). The behaviors of physical objects IS the model behavior that science observes and symbolized as "human mathematics" as opposed to the generic Universal mathematics which emerge in OUR reality as the result of interactive mathematically determined functions of physical interactions.

Have you grasped the difference between a "model behaviour" and the behaviour itself, yet? Nothing in this quoted paragraph suggests that you have.

Do you think that looking at a map is the same as looking at the territory the map represents? Is looking at a map of London the same as looking at London?

Why have you utterly failed to acknowledge even the existence of a meaningful map-territory distinction, so far? You have not commented on it at all in any of your posts. Why not? Are you wilfully blind to it?

The Universe is not conscious, but it acts as if it were conscious.

How so?

Please give some examples of this apparent consciousness of the universe.

That's why we can codify what we actually see unfolding in front of our eyes in regular chronological order.

Your claim is now that because the universe "acts as if it were conscious", we can "codify" what we see?

If the universe did not act as if it were conscious, where would we be, according to you?

Thus to a religious person, there is an "unseen but conscious God"...

You shouldn't generalise. Religious people are not a homogeneous group. They have all kinds of different beliefs. Some of them don't even involve gods.

..., whereas to a scientist there is an "unseen and unconscious spacetime condition" that functions and expresses itself in a logical manner that is codifiable as a quasi-intelligent, self-referential, mathematically functioning construct and system that behaves like, but is not really consciously intelligent.

No.

It is incorrect to say that "spacetime" is "unseen", except in the most literal sense of that word. And all that nonsense about codification as quasi-intelligent and self-referential etc. is not something that "scientists" do. That is only something you do.

Don't fool yourself that you're doing science, Write4U. You are not doing science.

All 3...

3? I think maybe you lost count. All three of what?

... go even further and propose that if consciousness is an emergent property of certain "interactive (self-referential) patterns", it is a valid proposition that the Universe does have some form of self-referential systems or harbors them. Our Universe is an example.

Our universe is an example of the universe having some form of self-referential systems or harbors them? Word salad.

I see discussing Universal mathematics as discussing Time.

You have real difficult separating logically separate concepts. Why is that? Why do you randomly mush everything together, mixing and matching at random as you go? Inability to maintain concentration on one thing for too long?

They are both abstract concepts but whereas Time is assumed to be a Universal function (an abstract dimension)...

Time is not a function.

... in spite of all the symbolic mathematics associated with time, the concept of abstract Mathematics is purely man-invented and man-made and any quality or quantity derived from observation and copied from the Universe can only be described as a mathematical language.

... and we end with more word salad.

Do you ever think about what you post, or does your consciousness just stream out onto the screen and you hit "post" before your brain has a chance to engage with the content?

I believe that is not a valid argument. I find it very interesting that the scientific community denies the concept of a mathematically logical Universe more vigorously than the religious community defends the concept of a sentient God.

What are you talking about? Who in the "scientific community" has denied the "concept" of a "mathematically logical universe"?

Can you name one scientist who has issued such a denial? That would be a good start, but it still leaves a very long way to go before you can validly generalise to "the scientific community".

So, got any examples of such statements from scientists? Or will you just try to ignore this, too?

Several times I have posted that IMO, the BB (Creation) was a chaotic event, and if cosmology is correct, from this chaos of dynamic fields patterns (particles) began to emerge, interacted and 13.8 billion years later evolved into the Universal order we can observe and quantify today.

Are you saying this is incorrect?

I have already told you that I believe it is incorrect to claim that the BB (which is very different from "Creation", by the way) was an "utterly chaotic" event. On the contrary, I believe that conditions at the big bang had very low entropy.

I don't think you actually understand the mathematical meaning of "chaos" or "chaos theory", so statements like "the BB was a chaotic event" are largely word salad, coming from you.

I'm not sure whether a particle is a "dynamic fields pattern". That sounds a lot like Write4U-speak, rather than anything a scientist would say.

I agree that matter was produced in the BB and it later evolved into our present universe. This is scientifically uncontroversial, for the most part. The translation of this into Write4U-speak adds nothing new or useful.

 

[Write4U]

The ideas you are expressing are your own, not Tegmark's. Your ideas are different.

Thank you

 

[Write4U]

What does "mathematically self-referential at all levels" mean? I don't think it means anything at all; you're just making stuff up as you go

The universe is a mathematical construct, made from fundamental relational values. That makes it self-referential.

 

[Write4U]

If A is causal to B (A causes B) then, in the absence of any alternative sufficient causes, without A there can be no B.

Do you believe that "maths" causes effects in the physical world? Yes or no?

They cause the formation of patterns so, yes.

 

[Write4U]

You have real difficult separating logically separate concepts. Why is that? Why do you randomly mush everything together, mixing and matching at random as you go? Inability to maintain concentration on one thing for too long?

If you cannot see the "common denominators" of these scientific articles in my posts, then I cannot help you.

 

[Write4U]

Who told you that mathematics is a matter of faith? Can you quote anyone here who suggested such a thing?

Well, God is a made up character, and Mathematics is a made-up scientific language, kinda representing what happens in nature that we can observe. How it really happens no one knows, it's an impenetrable mystery

Can anyone here say anything about this at all? Seems I have greased the pan sufficiently.

 

[James R]

The universe is a mathematical construct, made from fundamental relational values. That makes it self-referential.

This is not an answer to the question I asked you. You've merely repeated your word salad, rather than making any attempt to explain. Can't you answer the question?

They cause the formation of patterns so, yes.

Are you ever going to engage with my question on how they do that?

Why these piecemeal, chopped-up one-liner responses? Can't you focus?

If you cannot see the "common denominators" of these scientific articles in my posts, then I cannot help you.

This is not an answer to the specific question I asked you. Why didn't you answer the questions I asked you?

Well, God is a made up character, and Mathematics is a made-up scientific language, kinda representing what happens in nature that we can observe. How it really happens no one knows, it's an impenetrable mystery

Can anyone here say anything about this at all? Seems I have greased the pan sufficiently.

This is not an answer to either of the specific questions I asked you.

You have an annoying habit of responding to specific objections to your claims by inventing new rationalisations that address none of the problems that have been pointed out to you. You do this over and over again. It's like your responses are really meant only to convince yourself that you've been right all along, rather than to even attempt to understand and respond to the objections that have been put to you.

If you can't bring yourself to reply honestly and in full to direct and specific questions, I think the best thing to do will be to close these pointless threads of yours until you can gather your wits.

You're completely wasting everybody's time, not least your own.

 

[Write4U]

Time is not a function.

Can you tell me what it really is, or would that take reams of science, that Dave used as a refusal to commit himself.

OK Time has a function and therefore it is a function of "spacetime"

Functions of Time

1) Is position a function of time only or also velocity? Likewise, is velocity a function of time only or also the position?

2) The following are functions of time:
s(t) = distance a particle travels from time 0 to t
v(t) = velocity of a particle at time t
a(t) = acceleration of a particle at time t

more ...... https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/62099/functions-of-time

So exactly what is time in relation to the other 3 mathematical dimensions? Is it causal to events?

Is "indefinite causal order" a self-referential network?

Causal games of work extraction with indefinite causal order
Gianluca Francica

An indefinite causal order, where the causes of events are not necessarily in past events, is predicted by the process matrix framework. A fundamental question is how these non-separable causal structures can be related to the thermodynamic phenomena.

Here, we approach this problem by considering the existence of two cooperating local Maxwell's demons which try to exploit the presence of global correlations and indefinite causal order to optimize the extraction of work. Thus, we prove that it is possible to have a larger probability to lower the local energy to zero if causal inequalities are violated, and that can be extracted more average work with respect to a definite causal order. However, for non-interacting parties, for the system considered the work extractable cannot be larger than the definite causal order bound.

phenomena. Aug 4, 2022 [/quote]
https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.02550#

 

[Write4U]

This is not an answer to the question I asked you. You've merely repeated your word salad, rather than making any attempt to explain. Can't you answer the question?

Are you ever going to engage with my question on how they do that?

In accordance to the mathematical potential contained in the participating objects (patterns)

Think of it as a puzzle that is made of cardboard. The cardboard matter has no influence on how the puzzle fits, which is by relational shapes and chirality

Note the mathematical symmetry and reverse equivalence.

Equilibrium definition

An equilibrium of a dynamical system is a value of the state variables where the state variables do not change. In other words, an equilibrium is a solution that does not change with time. This means if the systems starts at an equilibrium, the state will remain at the equilibrium forever.

https://mathinsight.org/definition/equilibrium_dynamical_systems#

 

[Write4U]

Bye bye

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Can you tell me what [time] really is, or would that take reams of science, that Dave used as a refusal to commit himself.

I'm sure that, at some point during our past discussions, you have pulled up a dictionary definition of the word "function" and its meaning in the context of mathematics.

Now you want to throw that out the window, apparently. Why? Or is it more that even with all that cutting and pasting from dictionaries, you never actually take in what the accepted definitions of words are? Why bother consulting dictionaries all the time if you never learn anything from them?

I told you that time is not a function. In context, clearly I was - like you - referring to a mathematical function. Look up what a mathematical function is., again. Refresh your memory. Then you can tell me that you agree that time is not a function.

Meanwhile, you have asked me a question: can I tell you what time really is? I don't think I can, but I can tell you that, whatever it is, it is not a mathematical function.

I see what you're trying to do by asking that question, though: you're trying to distract attention away from your error. We could discuss what time is, in a separate thread. But it's completely off topic for the current thread. It only came up in passing, where you made another obvious error.

OK Time has a function and therefore it is a function of "spacetime"

Word salad.

Why do you constantly try to rationalise your errors away? It's like you accept that you're wrong at some level, but then you just invent a new way to be wrong and a new way to pretend that you weren't really wrong the first time. It's a self-defeating self-defence mechanism that will ensure that you never learn anything if you continue to make a habit of it. It's also rather annoying that you never acknowledge that somebody has tried to teach you something.

Functions of Time

more ...... https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/62099/functions-of-time

Relevance: zero.

So exactly what is time in relation to the other 3 mathematical dimensions? Is it causal to events?

This is a time-wasting off-topic distraction. Take it to a different thread if you really want to discuss the nature of time.

Is "indefinite causal order" a self-referential network?

Irrelevant word salad. Surely you must be aware at some level that this made-up nonsense doesn't actually mean anything?

Causal games of work extraction with indefinite causal order
Gianluca Francica

Relevance: zero.

In accordance to the mathematical potential contained in the participating objects (patterns)

This is not an answer to the question of how an abstract concept can cause a physical effect.

Think of it as a puzzle that is made of cardboard. The cardboard matter has no influence on how the puzzle fits, which is by relational shapes and chirality

You are wrong. The cardboard in a puzzle very much does influence whether the puzzle fits or not.

Your pseudoscientific use of words like "chirality" is pointless.

Equilibrium definition

Relevance: zero.

Bye bye

Is that a permanent bye bye to the thread, or you suddenly thinking that it is important that we all have a time-stamp for when you stop viewing the forum?

 

[Sarkus]

And these laws are not the abstractions of how things work in real world?

These codified and symbolized laws are abstract mathematical constructs, no?

In as far as we make them mind-dependent, yes, they are abstract. And this is as far as most of us would go. Tegmark goes further, as I understand it, to the point where he says they are not abstract, but the very fabric of reality itself. His view is that mathematical structures are mind-independent, that they exist outside of imagination and mere abstraction.

What exactly is a natural law if not an abstraction?
Can you explain how natural laws are causal to very specific interactions?

This is where you seem to be arguing contradictorily. You're arguing as if you agree with Tegmark, and then here you're questioning how it could be that Tegmark is correct?

I never said that maths are causal to physical interaction. I said they are causal to HOW the physical actions interact.

You're mixing notions here. I think what you mean is that they are descriptive of HOW (and prehaps WHY?) they interact? Is this what you mean? If not, what is the distinction you're making between being "causal to..." and "causal to HOW..."?

I don't claim to be a scientist trying to solve scientific problems. I am expressing my general ageement with both Tegmark and Bohm as they speak of an underlying reality which Tegmark calls mathematical, and Bohm calls the Implicate Order. (IMO; "Order" suggests an abstract generic mathematical ordering process).

Implicate Order = Inherent mathematical functions.

They're very different in what they're claiming / arguing for, though, and I think you're pinning your colours to their names without necessarily understanding what it is they're saying. My view of what you're agreeing with is that the universe, whatever it is made up of, obeys laws, and those laws are mathematical. If so then you don't need to be quoting Bohm, Tegmark, or anyone else, as this really is not a disputed issue. Science assumes it at its very core.
As such, quoting Tegmark to support your position is misleading, not because he doesn't support that position, but because of everything else he's saying/claiming that you don't seem to be agreeing with. It might be similar with Bohm, but I'm not entirely sure what your actual position is to know whether you also agree with everything else Bohm argues for.

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?

I didn't say that mathematics is a matter of faith. I said that believing something that can not be either proven or disproven is a matter of faith.

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).

See, once again you're referencing their names and ideas as if you understand them, which I really don't think you do, at least not in any way that matters. Let me be clear: every scientist will have a similar view of what mathematics is, and your phrasing is, sure, okay. (I mean, we could get into the matter of what maths is, but I don't think that's necessary.) You have no need to quote Bohm or Tegmark if that is all you think mathematics is. But by quoting those two as you do you are also implying that your view of mathematics is much more than that, yet you don't seem to be claiming their ideas beyond this description of mathematics? What is it that you think they have in common that you are arguing for, or that you agree with, that other scientists don't share, for example?

Bohm, Tegmark, Penrose suggest that the universe is a geometrical object, a mathematical object that was created in chaos and followed a chronological path of self-ordered actions via very specific "natural laws" (mathematical functions between interactive values).

Tegmark certainly does believe that the universe is mathematical object. Bohm, not so much. He believes there is a deeper reality that is monistic and, in essence, holographic, from which our perceived reality manifests. But they all believe, as does science, that the universe operates according to laws, which can be seen as mathematical. As said, that is not disputed by science. They seem to disagree, however, beyond that.

As to your comments on consciousness, I'm not sure of the relevance to quantum creationism?

 

[Write4U]

This is not an answer to the question of how an abstract concept can cause a physical effect.

I have told you a dozen times that other than via stochastic processes, mathematics is not causal to physical interactions. It is causal to HOW physical actions interact. Determinism.

 

[Write4U]

Relevance: zero.

Can you tell me what Time is? Is it a real thing or is it an abstract dimension of durable space?
Did humans invent Time? Well yes, we invented the "word" and symbolized the temporal measurements.

Can you tell me what Mathematics is? Is it a real thing or is it an abstract dimension of spacetime?
Did humans invent Mathematics? Well yes, we invented the "word" and symbolized spatial measurements.

 

[Write4U]

This is not an answer to the question of how an abstract concept can cause a physical effect.

I NEVER said that! I said that mathematics is causal to HOW physical interactions occur.
Mathematical functions guide the processes.
How many times will you ignore my answer and ask the same question?

If you know these answers, then instead of just calling me wrong, why not tell me what is right? Can you do that or will you slip-slide away like Dave did, by declaring it is too complicated and lengthy for him to bother with, but is expected of me to prove my position.

 

[Write4U]

In as far as we make them mind-dependent, yes, they are abstract. And this is as far as most of us would go. Tegmark goes further, as I understand it, to the point where he says they are not abstract, but the very fabric of reality itself. His view is that mathematical structures are mind-independent, that they exist outside of imagination and mere abstraction.

And there's the rub. How can I demonstrate my understanding of that perspective.
The "Law of falling bodies" is an axiom that is "present" where "gravity" exists.

AFAIK, "falling" is the result of following the geometry of curved spacetime.

If we can say that spacetime has geometry, then we cannot in the same breath say that mathematics is a man-made abstraction unrelated to this Reality. So, the question becomes at which point can the mathematical nature of the "unfolding spacetime" be understood in terms that are much deeper and finer than mere observation and reporting of what is going on at the gross level of reality.

I am fascinated with Tegmark's concept of "emergent" properties in certain complex patterns, such as emergent consciousness in the human brain during gestation..
I am fascinated with Bohm's concept of deeper levels (holography) of interaction than humans can observe in our gross expression in reality.
Both are self-referential systems.
In a sense, those different "deeper" perspectives do retain some fundamental common denominators.
That's what I am after.

When I think about these things I look for "common denominators" rather than "differences". All these states exist not just in the human mind which itself is a collection of complex atomic patterns with an emergent property of self-referential abilities, but there is no reason to reject the concept of a "self-referential consciousness" for having certain common mathematical properties and relational interactions with their environments.

In a purely atheist reality, what is it that would fill the same creative functions as God fulfills in theism, other than some form of mathematical logic.