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

[James R]

Write4U:

Now that answer confuses me.

Did you understand Sarkus's explanation of what determinism is?

Do you agree that mathematics is deterministic?

Sarkus told you "Whatever gave rise to mathematics gave rise to the properties of mathematics at the same time, including its deterministic nature. "

If you agree that mathematics is deterministic, then you must agree that whatever "caused" maths must have also caused maths to be deterministic. Because if A causes B, and C is property of B, then A must also cause B to have property C. Right?

What are you confused about?

This universe did not start with a small change, it started with a Big Bang where everything happened all at once and at the same place. Chaos.

What do you mean "everything happened all at once"? Surely you agree that not "everything" happened at the moment of the big bang? For instance, some things are happening now.

Also, why do you think the Big Bang was "chaos"? This is something you keep asserting. Previously, you claimed that the big bang was "completely disordered", or something like that. But, at the same time, you seem to want to assert that mathematics - that ordered, deterministic thing - existed at the big bang and "guided" how it happened. But if ordered mathematics existed at the big bang, then the big bang was not completely disordered - i.e. not completely chaotic, like you claim it was. Your claims don't make sense when you put them side by side. You contradict yourself.

Chaos can explain why climate is predictable while weather isn’t.

Relevance: zero. Perhaps the nice image grabbed your fleeting attention.

Why chaos theory matters

Are you trying to teach us, or yourself?

Don't you think you should have made some effort to understand what "chaos theory" is about before you started making claims about how you think it applies to the big bang, etc.? Your "just make shit up and see how well it goes down with the audience" isn't working out very well for you.

What are the properties of mathematics.

There are four basic properties: commutative, associative, distributive, and identity.May 27, 2022

Whatever it is you're quoting there is not a source of correct information, if it claimed it was telling you about the "properties of mathematics". The author has apparently confused properties of arithmetic with general properties of mathematics. Find a more reliable source if you want to learn more about maths.

What type of math is functions?

Are you collecting stamps, Write4U?

Do you even understand what this diagram is being used to tell you about? And why on earth do you imagine it's relevant to the discussion in this thread? Did you just like the pretty picture?

Algebraic Form: A function is usually denoted by an equation y = f(x) which connects the values on the x-axis and the values on the y-axis. Some examples of functions equations are f(x) = x3, f(x) = sin x, etc.

Are you able to tell me whether the function $f(x)=x^2$ is a quasi-intelligent function yet?
Do you think you'll ever be able to answer that question? If not, why did you talk as if "quasi-intelligent" function actually means something?

 

[James R]

What Are Number Properties in Math?

Again, it sounds like you're just trying to "learn out loud" - to teach yourself as you go along, but only after you have made a bunch of random claims about things like mathematics.

You're doing it the wrong way around. You should try to learn something about a subject before you start making pronouncements about it. Otherwise, you risk ending up looking like a bit of an idiot.

Meanwhile ...

Are you ever going to attempt a response to my post #466? Or are you just going to be rude and pretend I didn't post that?

 

[Sarkus]

Now that answer confuses me.

Which part?
X is a property of Y. Therefore wherever you have Y you necessarily have something that has the property X. Y doesn't cause X, and X doesn't cause Y. X is a property.
For Y to cause X you need to have an X that does not have the property Y.
It's not rocket science. So which part confuses you?

As to what you subsequently wrote, it seems to have no bearing on the answer I gave?

This universe did not start with a small change, it started with a Big Bang where everything happened all at once and at the same place. Chaos.

So what? How does that support what you claimed: "Other than mathematical, what inherent 'guiding process' is causal to the phenomenon of determinism?"
Perhaps you're not aware that if you quote what someone has said and respond to it, that response should at least have some relevance to what you are responding to?

The rest, I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue? Are you denying that determinism is a property? It is a property of a function, of a system, of anything where the same starting conditions always lead to the same output. Determinism is not itself a function. Do you not comprehend the difference between a function and a property of that function?
How is determinism a function and not a property of a function?

Note: I'm not talking about "Mathematical Properties" (capital 'P') but properties (little 'p') of models, of functions, of systems in general.
The mathematical Properties you mention aren't about the flow from one state to another (cf. function) but of the equivalence of states, for example. E.g. a * b is equivalent to b * a (Commutative Property of Multiplication).
But determinism is a property of functions within mathematics. It is not, and never has been, a function itself.

What of this do you not understand?
And which part of all of this is related to Quantum Creationism, exactly? And how?

 

[Write4U]

Write4U:
Please allow me to attempt to translate your words into something understandable.
Your claim is that mathematics doesn't start a physical interaction; rather, the maths guides interactions after they have started.
Is that a fair description of your position?

ok, let me try to wade through this mountain of misunderstanding.

Consider an example: I allow a tennis ball to drop from my hands. It falls and lands on the floor.

Yes, you are causal to the ball dropping from your hand. The ball drops to the floor guided by the mathematics of falling bodies.

The way I interpret your position is that mathematics had nothing to do with my causing the ball to drop from my hands, because "mathematics is not causal to physical interactions". The obvious question that arises, then, is: what you do think is causal to physical interactions? There must be something independent of maths that starts off physical processes. Do you have any definite ideas on what that thing might be?

Yes, you were the independent causality for the ball dropping to the floor. You physically opened your hand to allow the ball to drop. Any mathematical activity in your brain that was causal to your decision to drop the ball is unrelated to the ball actually dropping.

Now, once the tennis ball has started falling, that's where the maths kicks in, according to your position. The maths "tells" the tennis ball to accelerate at a rate of 9.8 metres per second per second as it falls, for example. No, I never said such a thing.

It is the mathematics of the gravitational field that guides the ball to drop instead of float away. Here the mathematical property of a gravitational field is the "guiding principle".

The question that now occurs to me is: is the maths just making a suggestion to the tennis ball? Does the tennis ball have any power to "refuse" the suggestion that it should accelerate at a particular rate? If not, then wouldn't it be fair to say that it is the maths that causes the ball to accelerate at that rate?

OK, drop the ball in water and see if it refuses to sink.
You are deliberately misinterpreting my words. IMO, I am not saying anything that is controversial, to which my quoted links will testify, if you take them in context.

In other words, what do you mean when you say that mathematics "guides" physical interactions?

No, I see mathematics as a property of Universal Logic, you know what religious people call (intentional) God.
Would you ask a religious person if it is God that makes the ball drop?

You seem to be saying that, without the "guidance" of the maths, the tennis ball would not necessarily accelerate at 9.8 metres per second per second.

Yes, without the mathematical structure of gravitational fields the ball may not fall at all.

A Comprehensive Guide to the Physics of Running on the Moon
Humans are going to live on the moon eventually. So how are we going to move around there?

What is different about the moon compared to the Earth? The biggest difference is the gravitational field on the surface. On the Earth, the field has a strength of 9.8 Newtons per kilogram (we use the symbol g for this). This means that a free falling object (no air resistance) would have a downward acceleration of 9.8 m/s2. On the moon, the gravitational field is about 1.6 N/kg, so that the vertical acceleration of an moon-object would be much less than one on Earth.

https://www.wired.com/story/a-comprehensive-guide-to-the-physics-of-running-on-the-moon/

What does gravity have to do with weight?

Earth's gravitational pull is what keeps the Moon in orbit around our planet. Voyager 1 snapped this picture of Earth and the Moon from a distance of 7.25 million miles. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

When you stand on a scale, what it’s actually doing is measuring how hard Earth’s gravity is pulling on you.

If you were to step onto a scale on another planet, it would say something different than it does here. That’s because the planets weigh different amounts, and therefore the force of gravity is different from planet to planet.

For example, if you weigh 100 pounds on Earth, you would weigh only 38 pounds on Mercury. That’s because Mercury weighs less than Earth, and therefore its gravity would pull less on your body. If, on the other hand, you were on heavy Jupiter, you would weigh a whopping 253 pounds!

How do scientists use gravitational pull as a scale?

Your weight is different on other planets due to gravity. However, your mass is the same everywhere!

What is the mass of Earth?

We know that Earth has a mass of approximately 5,970,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms. That’s a really big number!

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/planets-weight/en/

Looks like the mathematics on the moon are a little different, due to the lower mass of the moon

What else, other than this "guidance" from the maths, would be a sufficient reason for the ball to accelerate at that rate? It can't be just the maths alone that does the trick, because then it would be fair to say that the maths is what causes the acceleration at that rate. Yet you have told us that maths is not causal to physical interactions. So, apart from the "guiding" maths, what else determines how the ball falls, in your theory?

I believe it is gravity that is the causal force, it the mathematics involved that guide the rate of fall.

Going back to the start, what actually caused me to drop the ball? Was it my "free will" perhaps? Is free will one of those things that is independent of maths, in your philosophy? Or was my decision to drop the ball at a particular time somehow itself "guided" by maths, but also somehow not "caused by" maths? If the maths didn't cause it, what did?

See above. Ultimately maths is what guides all interactions. That's why we can identify, measure, and codify the manner in which physical interactions become expressed.

As you can probably see, I think that your attempt to distinguish a "causal" role for maths from a "guiding" role is untenable because causing and guiding are not really separable ideas when it comes to breaking down a physical interaction into any sort of time sequence.

If there is no difference then why do wwe have 2 different terms describing the same thing? You insist on correct terminology, no?

There's another problem, as well, and it comes back to the same unanswered question I have asked you many times. Let us accept, for a moment, that maths doesn't cause anything, but it can nevertheless "guide" processes. You still haven't answered the question of how this "guiding" works, exactly. The maths says a tennis ball should accelerate at 9.8 metres per second per second, let's say. But what mechanism translates that mathematical "message" into the physical effect of the ball actually accelerating in the physical world at the specified rate? In other words, what mechanism connects the abstract mathematical idea to the physical reality of the system in question?

It is the spacetime structure itself that mathematically permits or restricts certain actions from taking place. (you cannot place a square peg into a round hole.)

continued .......

 

[Write4U]

........ continued

James R said; I don't think you have any answers to any of this. I think that, mostly, this is because you just make up stuff as you go along and you don't really think it through. I expect that you'll most likely respond to this with an irrelevant one-liner, like you usually do, or else you'll simply try to ignore the issues I have put to you. But we'll see whether you have the capacity to think about your own position and to respond honestly and fully.

Right or wrong, I have never refused to answer any question. The problem lies in the abstract nature of the subject.
I am not alone in this discussion. The greatest minds with deep knowledge of physics have struggled with this subject. Are you going to call all these people stupid and ignorant, or is it just because I don't have peer reviewed papers?

It is not up to me to try to rationalise your position, Write4U. When you make claims, it is up to you to justify those claims.

Wow, I don't think it's from lack of research. If you do not want to read the supporting articles then you are missing at leas half of my arguments.

I don't think your claims are consistent, let alone justifiable, and I can't really help you to pick up the pieces of the mess of your "theory", to salvage them into some sort of workable thesis. If I was you'd, I'd give up the whole thing as a hopelessly flawed concoction.
Here's an alternative: the position I have been putting to you in this thread is that maths is descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, we can use maths to model the ways in which physical systems behaviour, but the maths only affects how the model behaves, not how the physical system behaves. In other words, the maths is part of the map; the physical system is the territory that the map is describing. Mathematical models are successful to the extent that they allow us to accurately predict the behaviours of the physical systems they are modelling.

Yes, and once we have quantum computing we can make measurements down to Planck scale.

This map to physics analogy is becoming moot. We can now actually copy physical processes exactly as they occur in reality. This is not the result of reading a map to gain a "composite" representation, but of following natural processes based on the mathematical values involved.
If you can speak the language, you can understand the process. This is apparent in our conversation. You claim I use the wrong terms and therefore you cannot understand a word I am saying on the subject. IOW, if I used the right language it all would make sense?
What is a language if not an abstract way to communicate? Should the Universe be exempt from having a common way of communication, that is "learnable".

My claim is that mathematics is the abstract language of the universe. I think I am in agreement with Tegmark on that point. I agree with Bohm on his proposition of an abstract underlying logic to the Universe. Logic and Mathematics are more than related.
Mathematics is the language of Logic.

 

[Write4U]

Which part?

The part where you assume there
was anything with mathematical properties before the BB.

X is a property of Y. Therefore wherever you have Y you necessarily have something that has the property X. Y doesn't cause X, and X doesn't cause Y. X is a property.
For Y to cause X you need to have an X that does not have the property Y.
It's not rocket science. So which part confuses you?

Yes, that all came after the BB and the initial state of chaos that slowly ordered itself because of the values that emerged from the various dynamic fields that consequently yielded the creation of various quanta with specific values, that then interchanged in accordance to the logic and mathematical precision of the expanding spacetime environment.

As to what you subsequently wrote, it seems to have no bearing on the answer I gave?
So what? How does that support what you claimed: "Other than mathematical, what inherent 'guiding process' is causal to the phenomenon of determinism?"

I believe that I am allowed to pose challenges to "knowledgeable "persons like you, in order to demonstrate the lack of or existence of alternative hypotheses.

Allow me to repeat the question: Other than Religious dogma, can you cite a scientific alternative to the concept of an abstract logical/mathematical spacetime construct?

Perhaps you're not aware that if you quote what someone has said and respond to it, that response should at least have some relevance to what you are responding to?

I don't respond to my quoted passages. I accept them as relevant to my position.

The rest, I'm not sure what you're even trying to argue? Are you denying that determinism is a property? It is a property of a function, of a system, of anything where the same starting conditions always lead to the same output. Determinism is not itself a function. Do you not comprehend the difference between a function and a property of that function? What of this do you not understand?
And which part of all of this is related to Quantum Creationism, exactly? And how?

Give me some time to formulate a cogent answer to these multifaceted questions.

I'd like an answer to my question. IMO, it is pertinent to the OP.

 

[Sarkus]

The part where you assume there was anything with mathematical properties before the BB.

First, I'm not assuming anything. I'm not making any claims. What I am doing is examining your claims.
Second, you said: "Other than mathematical, what inherent 'guiding process' is causal to the phenomenon of determinism?" My point here is that determinism is not caused by mathematics. It is an inherent property of it.
Determinism, as I have explained, is a property of a system. What "causes" it is therefore whatever causes the system, not the system itself. If the system didn't have a cause, then neither did its determinism.
So maybe this issue is as simple as you not accurately wording what you mean, or at least not accurately explaining it. Or maybe there is some disagreement over this matter. But please be assured, I am not making any assumptions as you suggest I am.

Yes, that all came after the BB and the initial state of chaos that slowly ordered itself because of the values that emerged from the various dynamic fields that consequently yielded the creation of various quanta with specific values, that then interchanged in accordance to the logic and mathematical precision of the expanding spacetime environment.

This still doesn't make sense. Remember, this comment is in response to you claiming that maths is the "guiding process" causal to determinism. The determinism inherent within mathematics doesn't only arise with specific values. It is inherent in anything where the same input leads to the same output.
Let me be clearer: wherever you have mathematics, you have determinism (except in the maths of such things as stochastic calculus, as mentioned before). If you want to claim that maths is the guiding order, even of the early chaotic universe, then you have determinism, since maths is deterministic. You can't have maths ordering the very early universe, and only after a while does it become deterministic. Either you have maths or you do not. If you want to claim that maths is the "guiding process" then determinism is part and parcel of that.

I believe that I am allowed to pose challenges to "knowledgeable "persons like you, in order to demonstrate the lack of or existence of alternative hypotheses.

First, posing a challenge is not the issue, but a discussion has a flow to it that you're not really abiding by. You're jumping from one thing to another without discussing what has already been raised and the criticisms thereof. To be clear, it is poor form to post a comment, then respond to other's posts about it by posting non sequiturs that don't address what they have written.
Note how my responses to you have followed from what you have written. I haven't quoted what you have said and then gone off and posted some completely different claim, without first addressing what it is I have quoted.

Second, the lack or existence of alternative hypotheses is, frankly, irrelevant. What you are posting is a matter of faith. It is untestable, and it is, in many regards, unscientific. But as with any claim, there does not need to be any alternative hypothesis for one to be able to examine and question and raise issue with what you are claiming. It's not a choice between one hypothesis and another, but a choice of whether the hypothesis put before us is one we accept or not. And as presented by you, it's not a difficult choice.

Allow me to repeat the question: Other than Religious dogma, can you cite a scientific alternative to the concept of an abstract logical/mathematical spacetime construct?

An abstract logical/mathematical spacetime construct is not scientific. How do you propose it is tested, for example?
Nor, for that matter, is religious dogma. Yet the syntax of your question implies that you think it is.

Also note that being the only person in the room doesn't make you right. There is no need to cite an example, scientific or otherwise, for one to be able to examine and question the claims made about a hypothesis.

I don't respond to my quoted passages. I accept them as relevant to my position.

??? You quote something but then don't respond to it??? I'm talking about what you've done just now... you quoted what I said and then did actually respond relevantly to it, albeit with this rather absurdist response.
I'm not talking about you quoting Bohm or Tegmark, but the quoting you're doing here, quoting me, responding to me. Too often you quote but then respond with something that is seemingly irrelevant.

Give me some time to formulate a cogent answer to these multifaceted questions.

Sure. Noone's forcing you to post anything.

I'd like an answer to my question. IMO, it is pertinent to the OP.

An answer has been given: alternative hypotheses are irrelevant to the analysis of the one you have posted. As said, being the only person in the room does not make you right. Would you rather examine whether you're right (not that this hypothesis can ever be tested, let alone proven) or whether you're the only person in the room? If all you want is the latter just let us know and we'll happily vacate the thread.

 

[Write4U]

So maybe this issue is as simple as you not accurately wording what you mean, or at least not accurately explaining it.

I admit to my limitations and that is also why I appreciate your questions and responses, allowing me to clarify any misunderstanding arising from my posts.

The issue is as simple as my agreement with conventional science, but my interest lies in the sciences that are currently being debated, and no consensus is reached as yet. I believe that at this point intuition and inductive reasoning can play a role.

The determinism inherent within mathematics doesn't only arise with specific values.

I agree, it arises with all values. But in the beginning, there were no expressed values other than dynamic fields from which these fundamental values self-0rganized. And it is at this point mathematics begins to regulate the creative physical processes.

It is inherent in anything where the same input leads to the same output.

I agree and is the reason why I entertain the concept of a mathematically guided universe. We know human maths is the symbolization of Universal deterministic processes.

Let me be clearer: wherever you have mathematics, you have determinism (except in the maths of such things as stochastic calculus, as mentioned before). If you want to claim that maths is the guiding order, even of the early chaotic universe, then you have determinism, since maths is deterministic. You can't have maths ordering the very early universe, and only after a while does it become deterministic. Either you have maths or you do not. If you want to claim that maths is the "guiding process" then determinism is part and parcel of that.

I agree. But not in the early chaotic universe. Although in a dynamic environment mathematics may not always express perfection.

I use that equivalence to make the case for mathematics as an inherent property of Universal geometrics. Question is if the BB was a Deterministic event.
If the BB was a chaotic event and it was the deterministic result of pre-BB conditions, then that proto-universe condition should logically also be chaotic. And that debunks ID.

And without chaotically interacting values in an extremely dynamic environment such as in the original plasma fields after the BB, mathematics is moot. Mathematical regularity had not yet begun. That came with the stochastic creation of specific quanta which then begin to interact deterministically (mathematically).

My claim is that Universal mathematics emerged along with the creation of regular patterns such as atoms from their constituent parts. For mathematics to become physically expressed it needs the chemistry of available elements, the purer the better.

At larger scale, the dynamic nature of the environment and external pressures usually prevents perfect formation of regular patterns, but interactions are still guided by the underlying mathematics where possible. It creates the incredible variety of physical expressions at all levels of chemistry.

One of the most beautiful crystal formations I've ever seen. A crystal flower universe.
Sandy Penny WritingMuse

Victoria Regia

slime molds

Other than Fauna, Slime molds are one of the most successful organisms on Earth. They are everywhere and thrive.
They can do maths.

What I find interesting is that it seems you are agreeing to a mathematical aspect inherent in the deterministic universal physical processes.

If determinism is a result of mathematical guidance, then a deterministic universe must in fact have a mathematical aspect, and if it has a mathematical aspect, why not a mathematical (logical) foundation from which the deterministic processes emerge?

My point here is that determinism is not caused by mathematics

I agree. It is the result of mathematical processes.

 

[Write4U]

I ran across an excellent site (pdf).
Causality and causation: What we learn from mathematical dynamic systems theory Niko Sauer Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0002 South Africa

7. A CAUSALITY OF INTERACTIONS Situations do turn up where a single state space is inadequate for a good description of causality. The interaction of a fluid or gas with a rigid mechanical object provides such an example. Other examples may be likened to the thermal interaction between a potato and its skin. For cases such as these it was proposed that two state spaces X and Y be considered. Ever so often the space Y will represent the whole system and X a significant part of it.

For example the potato and its skin and what is inside the skin. Then there would, of course, be two phase spaces (T;X) and (T;Y) The interactive causality is described by two families of causal mappings. The one, E(t) acts totally within the spaceY while the other, S(t), maps from YtoX to describe change in the ‘world’ X in ‘empathy’ with changes in Y.

The causal relation that is postulated is S(t + s) = S(t)E(s) = S(s)E(t) , (7.1) which is (only) formally similar to the semi-flow (4.6) described in Section 4.

The relation (7.1) is called the empathy relation. It describes a way in which curves in the state spaces X and Y evolve in interaction with each other. Analysis of the empathy relation differs from that of semi-flows or semi-groups because it involves mappings between different spaces which is somewhat outside the zone of current mathematical comfort.

Nonetheless, under some additional assumptions, it turns out that causation in this case is reflected by implicit evolution equations of the form [Bu(t)]’ = Au(t) . (7.2) with A and B mappings from a subset of X to the space Y.

Here the unknown function u(t) is in(T;X). The initial condition for (7.2) (analogous to (6.2) is also strange: lim [ t Bu t → = 0 ( )] yY (7.3) The solution of u(t) (7.2), (7.3) is given by u(t) = S(t)y. From the expressions (7.2) and (7.3) it is seen that empathy theory captures some very complexly interwoven interactions that actually occur in many processes observed in nature. The operator A once again reflects internal causation (properties of the entities involved) while the operator B describes the contact between the two entities.

more.... https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00359191003680091#

This all sounds right to me in the most general terms. It gets down to the fundamental algebraic equations and relational values that eventually are mathematically expressed as distinctive patterns.

 

[Sarkus]

The issue is as simple as my agreement with conventional science, but my interest lies in the sciences that are currently being debated, and no consensus is reached as yet.

Your interest in sciences that are currently debated is all well and good, but you seem to turn every thread into a "discussion" of those areas, where it is probably not warranted. In this thread, for example, you have raised ideas from Tegmark and Bohm that don't seem to have any real bearing on the issue. I keep asking you how their claims specifically relate to this thread and you constantly deflect from answering with anything other than you think they are relevant.
And now, having agreed with conventional science, I'm not sure what you're actually arguing for, what you're claiming, that's relevant to this thread. Perhaps you can once again explain your position, clearly, and the relevance to this thread?

I agree, it arises with all values. But in the beginning, there were no expressed values other than dynamic fields from which these fundamental values self-0rganized. And it is at this point mathematics begins to regulate the creative physical processes.

I find this confusing. You think mathematics emerged? You think there was a time when there was no maths? How did this maths emerge? What was before it? How did maths emerge from the randomness? Because that's what you're now putting forward.
Do you not think it more reasonable to assume that maths is an inherent part of the universe, and always has been? If not, when was this switch from a universe without mathematics to one in which it is, seemingly, inherent? Are you not confusing chaos with randomness?
And further, how can you possibly agree with Tegmark's view that everything is, and always has been, a mathematical structure, if you think that mathematics somehow emerged, rather than always was?

I agree and is the reason why I entertain the concept of a mathematically guided universe.

But the universe is indeterministic. Or so science seems to accept. While most physics theories are deterministic, at the quantum level they are not.

I agree. But not in the early chaotic universe. Although in a dynamic environment mathematics may not always express perfection.

This is an example of where you are not being precise with your wording. You have previously referenced chaos theory, and thus what we should understand when you refer to something as chaotic... and this refers to a deterministic system. And now you're saying that in the "early chaotic universe" you don't have maths, and don't have determinism? Which is it? Is the universe chaotic (cf. chaos theory), or is it random? If the latter, how does maths emerge from this? If it emerges, how can it be inherent in the universe?

I use that equivalence to make the case for mathematics as an inherent property of Universal geometrics. Question is if the BB was a Deterministic event.
If the BB was a chaotic event and it was the deterministic result of pre-BB conditions, then that proto-universe condition should logically also be chaotic. And that debunks ID.

You're seeming to misunderstand what chaos is. You have referenced chaos theory previously, so you should know. Further, an early chaotic universe does not debunk ID. A chaotic system is deterministic. By selecting precisely the starting conditions, the entire chain of events within the universe would be as the "Designer" of the universe wants. So, no, it doesn't rule out ID.

And without chaotically interacting values in an extremely dynamic environment such as in the original plasma fields after the BB, mathematics is moot.
Mathematical regularity had not yet begun. That came with the stochastic creation of specific quanta which then begin to interact deterministically (mathematically).

So the early universe was not mathematical, and as such maths is not an inherent part of the universe? That rather goes against this: "I use that equivalence to make the case for mathematics as an inherent property of...". Or am I misunderstanding?

My claim is that Universal mathematics emerged along with the creation of regular patterns such as atoms from their constituent parts.

How did those regular patterns form without mathematics? What guided them? Are you saying that randomness led to order without any guiding hand? Why would randomness not then just continue?

For mathematics to become physically expressed it needs the chemistry of available elements, the purer the better.

??? Not sure I understand this. Perhaps you can elaborate?

Your subsequent examples are unnecessary. They don't help.

What I find interesting is that it seems you are agreeing to a mathematical aspect inherent in the deterministic universal physical processes.

What is there to disagree about. Science agrees with it. Science relies on it. Physical theories rely on it. Only at the quantum level does the deterministic assumption break down, and even that is debated about. What I find interesting is that you seem to not understand that you're just arguing for something that science has embraced from the get-go, yet seem to find it remarkable.

What you seem to be more interested in, and what you seem to be not so much arguing for as just wanting to (constantly) highlight is the observation of seemingly disparate processes in nature that we can model mathematically in the same way - such as processes seeming to follow the Fibonacci sequence. That's interesting in and of itself, but doesn't need the rest of this confused mess of an argument to discuss it. And it doesn't need to be pushed as a point of discussion in every thread.

If determinism is a result of mathematical guidance, then a deterministic universe must in fact have a mathematical aspect, and if it has a mathematical aspect, why not a mathematical (logical) foundation from which the deterministic processes emerge?
I agree. It is the result of mathematical processes.

No! It is not the result. Determinism is not a result but the property of how the same result always comes from the same inputs. Maths IS deterministic, not the result of it. A property of a process is NOT the result of the process. I can't really explain this to you any clearer than I have done.

 

[Write4U]

Your interest in sciences that are currently debated is all well and good, but you seem to turn every thread into a "discussion" of those areas, where it is probably not warranted.

Yes, underlying all my posts is the question if focusing on "common denominators" in seemingly unrelated topics might yield some observations and suggestions. It is all connected somehow.

In this thread, for example, you have raised ideas from Tegmark and Bohm that don't seem to have any real bearing on the issue. I keep asking you how their claims specifically relate to this thread and you constantly deflect from answering with anything other than you think they are relevant.

Seems to me that theoretical scientists do only what has real bearing on the issue. Both Tegmark and Bohm are theoretical scientists. The term physics doesn't really apply at this level at all. Quantum creation happens at quantum, no?

"Quantum" is a mathematical term and I believe that underlying truths are of a mathematical nature. Just like Tegmark and Bohm.
I am not a Bohmian or a tegmarkian or Xian. I see common denominators in their hypotheses. That means they are connected, somehow.

To me, the message contained in the term "Quantum Creation" is not a narrowly defined subject. Seems to me it opens up every nook and cranny of Universal properties and how they interact and if that is guided by an Intelligent Designer or by a quasi-Intelligent mathematical (logical) property of spacetime itself.

And now, having agreed with conventional science, I'm not sure what you're actually arguing for, what you're claiming, that's relevant to this thread. Perhaps you can once again explain your position, clearly, and the relevance to this thread?

The evidence of nature to express itself in "orderly" (mathematical measurable) . Therefore the question begs if this orderly manner is the result of intentional manipulation by a motivated Intelligence, or by a stoic process guided by inherent guiding principles that result in self-ordering patterns.

I find this confusing. You think mathematics emerged? You think there was a time when there was no maths? How did this maths emerge? What was before it? How did maths emerge from the randomness? Because that's what you're now putting forward.

Yes and No. [/quote] Generic mathematically measurable processes, that can be imitated and replicated by humans in laboratories, need 'raw" materials. Without matter, mathematics are absent altogether but are the Implicate, the abstraction of mathematical functions or self-referential ordering logic, until invoked by dynamic action.
But even in a self-referential system in a state of chaos expanding at FTL during the "inflationary epoch", there would be no time for and patterned expression of anything until the plasma began to cool and things "slowed down" to the value of "c" and time emerged as a separate but related dimension of an evolving geometry.
In functional principle, Time is not a physical object but a universal mathematical object without any physical properties. Time does not exist until it is necessary for a chronology and is "invoked" by the creation of that chronology of the durable existence of a patterned physical object.

Do you not think it more reasonable to assume that maths is an inherent part of the universe, and always has been?

Oh absolutely. But in any discussion of this subject, the initial responses are "maths is a human construct" and "the map is not the territory", observations that dismiss mathematics as irrelevant to the existence of the universal spacetime geometry itself.

If not, when was this switch from a universe without mathematics to one in which it is, seemingly, inherent? Are you not confusing chaos with randomness?

IMO, it is an evolutionary issue, starting with the absolute simplest possible causality, which nevertheless was causal to the BB an event with immeasurable dynamic force.. Mathematics is not a thing. It is an abstract logical object/function, that either allows or restricts dynamical behaviors.

For mathematics to work it requires interactive behaviors of physical values (things). But equations work both ways. And then we arrive at;
For physical interactive behaviors to work, they require the guiding behavior of some form of generic (logical) mathematical principles.

And further, how can you possibly agree with Tegmark's view that everything is, and always has been, a mathematical structure, if you think that mathematics somehow emerged, rather than always was?

Mathematics are not causal to dynamic forces, they are the naturally regulating potentials in accordance with logical principles (and that's another story).

But the universe is indeterministic. Or so science seems to accept.

The creative particle fields underlying our reality are still in a state of dynamical chaos. (Bohm's Pilot Wave model?)

While most physics theories are deterministic, at the quantum level they are not.

Exactly! Quantum fields exhibit chaotically complex dynamics, but "over time" the mathematics relevant to the interacting values create regular patterns, i.e universally occurring patterns formed by and self-referentially ordered by the applicable mathematical regulations. Indeterminism mathematically self-ordering into deterministic forms and patterns

This is an example of where you are not being precise with your wording. You have previously referenced chaos theory, and thus what we should understand when you refer to something as chaotic... and this refers to a deterministic system. And now you're saying that in the "early chaotic universe" you don't have maths, and don't have determinism? Which is it? Is the universe chaotic (cf. chaos theory), or is it random? If the latter, how does maths emerge from this? If it emerges, how can it be inherent in the universe?

No, several times I have cited the stochastic nature of chaotic, uncontrolled conditions :

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] (Wiki)

Further, an early chaotic universe does not debunk ID. A chaotic system is deterministic. By selecting precisely the starting conditions, the entire chain of events within the universe would be as the "Designer" of the universe wants. So, no, it doesn't rule out ID.

The "motivated Designer" emotionally causing an expanding chaotic singularity is a contradiction, IMO. The "D" in ID does not refer to Determinism, but to free will of a Designer.

Moreover, we have an alternative theory that creates a self-referential ordered system without the need for an already existing ordered system, based on mathematical logic.

It is based on the inherent mathematical properties of this universe.

continued .....

 

[Write4U]

... continued,

Sarkus said: So the early universe was not mathematical, and as such maths is not an inherent part of the universe? That rather goes against this: "I use that equivalence to make the case for mathematics as an inherent property of...". Or am I misunderstanding?

How did those regular patterns form without mathematics? What guided them? Are you saying that randomness led to order without any guiding hand? Why would randomness not then just continue?

??? Not sure I understand this. Perhaps you can elaborate?

Sorry if I did not make this clearer.
I am simply saying that the Inflationary Epoch was a non-mathematical indeterministic event. It occurred at FTL for a moment and then took another several billions of years to cool down enough for "particles" to start forming and mathematics becoming part of the evolutionary equation in the formation of patterns, matter, and physical systems.

Your subsequent examples are unnecessary. They don't help.
What is there to disagree about? Science agrees with it. Science relies on it. Physical theories rely on it. Only at the quantum level does the deterministic assumption break down, and even that is debated about. What I find interesting is that you seem to not understand that you're just arguing for something that science has embraced from the get-go, yet seem to find it remarkable.

So I am addressing and discussing the proper perspective raised by the OP ; "Quantum Creationism- is it Science or Religion?"

What I don't understand is that the above observation is the result of not verifying that I am using conventional science to make an argument based on using "hard facts" instead of asking "hard questions", as Tegmark puts it. And combining this with the theoretical physics of Bohmian mechanics makes for a perhaps underused area of inquiry.
What you seem to be more interested in, and what you seem to be not so much arguing for as just wanting to (constantly) highlight is the observation of seemingly disparate processes in nature that we can model mathematically in the same way - such as processes seeming to follow the Fibonacci sequence. That's interesting in and of itself, but doesn't need the rest of this confused mess of an argument to discuss it. And it doesn't need to be pushed as a point of discussion in every thread.

I consider it one of the demonstrable "hard facts".

No! It is not the result. Determinism is not a result but the property of how the same result always comes from the same inputs.

OK, always the same result.

Maths IS deterministic, not the result of it. A property of a process is NOT the result of the process. I can't really explain this to you any clearer than I have done.

Rather than confusing the matter further, allow me to quote an excerpt from a publication I have read several times, understood and agreed with the entirety.
Chapter 2: THE NATURE OF MATHEMATICS
PATTERNS AND RELATIONSHIPS
MATHEMATICS, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY
MATHEMATICAL INQUIRY
PATTERNS AND RELATIONSHIPS

Mathematics is the science of patterns and relationships. As a theoretical discipline, mathematics explores the possible relationships among abstractions without concern for whether those abstractions have counterparts in the real world. The abstractions can be anything from strings of numbers to geometric figures to sets of equations.

......

A central line of investigation in theoretical mathematics is identifying in each field of study a small set of basic ideas and rules from which all other interesting ideas and rules in that field can be logically deduced. Mathematicians, like other scientists, are particularly pleased when previously unrelated parts of mathematics are found to be derivable from one another, or from some more general theory.

Part of the sense of beauty that many people have perceived in mathematics lies not in finding the greatest elaborateness or complexity but on the contrary, in finding the greatest economy and simplicity of representation and proof.

As mathematics has progressed, more and more relationships have been found between parts of it that have been developed separately—for example, between the symbolic representations of algebra and the spatial representations of geometry.

These cross-connections enable insights to be developed into the various parts; together, they strengthen belief in the correctness and underlying unity of the whole structure.

more ....... http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap2.htm

 

[DaveC426913]

The term physics doesn't really apply at this level at all.

Oh

Quantum creation happens at quantum, no?

my

"Quantum" is a mathematical term...

God.

I come back every few days to see if any semblance of sanity has prevailed. I see it is instead just spiraling ever downward.

 

[Write4U]

Oh my God.

No, God (ID) has nothing to do with it.

I come back every few days to see if any semblance of sanity has prevailed. I see it is instead just spiraling ever downward.

quan·tum , noun.

1. PHYSICS
   a discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents.

i.e. a mathematical object. If it isn't I should really like to know what is a quantum.
Instead of hysterical outbursts why don't you contribute to the conversation?

Quantumphysics is the study of matter and energy at the most fundamental level. It aims to uncover the properties and behaviors of the very building blocks of nature. While many quantum experiments examine very small objects, such as electrons and photons, quantum phenomena are all around us, acting on every scale. Read more

The Origins of Quantum Physics
The field of quantum physics arose in the late 1800s and early 1900s from a series of experimental observations of atoms that didn't make intuitive sense in the context of classical physics. Among the basic discoveries was the realization that matter and energy can be thought of as discrete packets, or quanta, that have a minimum value associated with them. For example, light of a fixed frequency will deliver energy in quanta called "photons." Each photon at this frequency will have the same amount of energy, and this energy can't be broken down into smaller units. In fact, the word "quantum" has Latin roots and means "how much."

Other central concepts helped to establish the foundations of quantum physics:

• Wave-particle duality: This principle dates back to the earliest days of quantum science. It describes the outcomes of experiments that showed that light and matter had the properties of particles or waves, depending on how they were measured. Today, we understand that these different forms of energy are actually neither particle nor wave. They are distinct quantum objects that we cannot easily conceptualize.

• Superposition: This is a term used to describe an object as a combination of multiple possible states at the same time. A superposed object is analogous to a ripple on the surface of a pond that is a combination of two waves overlapping. In a mathematical sense, an object in superposition can be represented by an equation that has more than one solution or outcome.

• Uncertainty principle: This is a mathematical concept that represents a trade-off between complementary points of view. In physics, this means that two properties of an object, such as its position and velocity, cannot both be precisely known at the same time. If we precisely measure the position of an electron, for example, we will be limited in how precisely we can know its speed.
• Entanglement: This is a phenomenon that occurs when two or more objects are connected in such a way that they can be thought of as a single system, even if they are very far apart. The state of one object in that system can't be fully described without information on the state of the other object. Likewise, learning information about one object automatically tells you something about the other and vice versa.

Mathematics and the Probabilistic Nature of Quantum Objects
Because many of the concepts of quantum physics are difficult if not impossible for us to visualize, mathematics is essential to the field. Equations are used to describe or help predict quantum objects and phenomena in ways that are more exact than what our imaginations can conjure.

Mathematics is also necessary to represent the probabilistic nature of quantum phenomena. For example, the position of an electron may not be known exactly. Instead, it may be described as being in a range of possible locations (such as within an orbital), with each location associated with a probability of finding the electron there.

more ....
https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/quantum-science-explained/quantum-physics

 

[exchemist]

Oh

my

God.

I come back every few days to see if any semblance of sanity has prevailed. I see it is instead just spiraling ever downward.

“Quantum creation happens at quantum” is proof, if it were ever needed, that Write4U has lost all grasp of the meaning of words. It has to be a symptom of some kind of dementia. He used not to be like this.

Sarkus is making a valiant effort, but it’s futile, I’m afraid.

 

[Sarkus]

Yes, underlying all my posts is the question if focusing on "common denominators" in seemingly unrelated topics might yield some observations and suggestions. It is all connected somehow.

So say many people wearing aluminium hats. Sometimes the discussion is about what the painting is of, not what brush-strokes were used.

Seems to me that theoretical scientists do only what has real bearing on the issue. Both Tegmark and Bohm are theoretical scientists.

Yet not everything they do is theoretical science. Both the "implicate order" and Tegmark's MUH are more philosophy than science. Sure, they base themselves on scientific ideas, but they are wholly untestable and matters of faith.

The term physics doesn't really apply at this level at all. Quantum creation happens at quantum, no?

"Quantum" is a mathematical term and I believe that underlying truths are of a mathematical nature. Just like Tegmark and Bohm.

"Quantum" is a term in physics, not maths.
While Tegmark and Bohm believe the underlying truths are of a mathematical nature... so does the whole of science! Yet you single out those two, it seems, to try and support your position on this, while not actually ascribing to their actual positions. Let me be clearer: science supports the notion that the underlying truths are of a mathematical nature. It's as simple as that. It is the whole focus of science. But if you want to go beyond the remit of science, beyond what can be actually tested, then you're into the realms of philosophy and faith. And even then, you don't need to confuse your position with the likes of Tegmark and Bohm. You seem to do so solely because they are interesting ideas, but your referencing them and those ideas just confuses what you're trying to actually say.

I am not a Bohmian or a tegmarkian or Xian. I see common denominators in their hypotheses. That means they are connected, somehow.

The common denominator is that of science, and science assumes that the physical universe obeys laws that are mathematical. It's as simple as that.

To me, the message contained in the term "Quantum Creation" is not a narrowly defined subject. Seems to me it opens up every nook and cranny of Universal properties and how they interact and if that is guided by an Intelligent Designer or by a quasi-Intelligent mathematical (logical) property of spacetime itself.

So you don't actually know what "Quantum Creationism" is? Have you even defined it, or accepted a definition of it, before wandering off into discussions of what you see as underlying everything?

The evidence of nature to express itself in "orderly" (mathematical measurable) . Therefore the question begs if this orderly manner is the result of intentional manipulation by a motivated Intelligence, or by a stoic process guided by inherent guiding principles that result in self-ordering patterns.

"Stoic process"? Do you mean stochastic process? If not, I'm not sure what you mean by the term you use.
But basically you're saying that the question is whether "God did it", or was it just a part of an underlying "dumb" process? Gee. Sure, let's bring in Tegmark and Bohm for that.
Is this what you think Quantum Creationism is about? Because that really just sounds like Creationism.

It's quite simple, really: from the point of the Big Bang onward, the evidence is of a physical universe that follows laws, those laws being mathematical in nature. As to what happened "before" the BB (if the term "before" even has meaning when referencing the BB), or why the BB occurred... guess what: we don't know, and we can't know.

Yes and No. Generic mathematically measurable processes, that can be imitated and replicated by humans in laboratories, need 'raw" materials. Without matter, mathematics are absent altogether but are the Implicate, the abstraction of mathematical functions or self-referential ordering logic, until invoked by dynamic action.

This all depends on how you define mathematics, and the philosophy you assume / adhere to with regard it. Mathematical realism, formalism, fictionalism, for example. Take your pick.

But even in a self-referential system in a state of chaos expanding at FTL during the "inflationary epoch", there would be no time for and patterned expression of anything until the plasma began to cool and things "slowed down" to the value of "c" and time emerged as a separate but related dimension of an evolving geometry.

So time itself emerged?
You talk about things travelling, or expanding, while there is no "time"? Interesting. Is this notion supported by anything? I mean, cosmology certainly doesn't agree with it, as they are quite comfortable using time during the inflationary epoch. Further, it is precisely because of maths also existing during that time, or so they assume, that they can model that early universe, such that we arrive at ideas like the inflationary epoch at all. So, no, I think you need to revise your thoughts here, or at least support them with something meaningful. Science does not support you.

n functional principle, Time is not a physical object but a universal mathematical object without any physical properties. Time does not exist until it is necessary for a chronology and is "invoked" by the creation of that chronology of the durable existence of a patterned physical object.

Sure. Now just support that, please.

Oh absolutely. But in any discussion of this subject, the initial responses are "maths is a human construct" and "the map is not the territory", observations that dismiss mathematics as irrelevant to the existence of the universal spacetime geometry itself.

There are certainly different philosophies of maths, the most common being mathematical realism, where maths isn't a human construct but something we discover. Our symbols and thinking about it are human constructs, but the underlying nature is not.
As for the "the map is not the territory", this has very much been in response to Tegmark's claim that everything is maths. Not just that everything follows mathematical laws, but everything is maths, and only maths. So please don't take that criticism as a dismissal of mathematics as irrelevant.

IMO, it is an evolutionary issue, starting with the absolute simplest possible causality, which nevertheless was causal to the BB an event with immeasurable dynamic force.. Mathematics is not a thing. It is an abstract logical object/function, that either allows or restricts dynamical behaviors.

That doesn't answer my question: when was this switch from a universe without mathematics to one in which it is, seemingly, inherent?

For mathematics to work it requires interactive behaviors of physical values (things). But equations work both ways. And then we arrive at;
For physical interactive behaviors to work, they require the guiding behavior of some form of generic (logical) mathematical principles.

Sure - for things to work physically there needs to be the physical. But maths requires nothing to work. It is abstract. All it requires is itself, its axioms etc. There is a distinction to be drawn between the Law and the application of that law. As far as science is aware, and assumes, the laws existed from the getgo, in as much as they are inherent properties. The earliest universe abided by these laws. But being abstract (properties are abstract objects) they only require physical matter for the behaviour they describe to manifest.

No, several times I have cited the stochastic nature of chaotic, uncontrolled conditions :

You are equivocating on the term chaos/chaotic. While chaos can also mean disordered, or random, you previously specifically referenced chaos theory. Chaos theory is all about deterministic processes, not stochastic ones.

It is based on the inherent mathematical properties of this universe.

A point which noone has disputed, and yet you've taken over... how many pages?... to say not very much at all that is seemingly relevant to the thread.

So let me be kind: what do you think Quantum Creationism refers to?

 

[exchemist]

So say many people wearing aluminium hats. Sometimes the discussion is about what the painting is of, not what brush-strokes were used.
Yet not everything they do is theoretical science. Both the "implicate order" and Tegmark's MUH are more philosophy than science. Sure, they base themselves on scientific ideas, but they are wholly untestable and matters of faith.
"Quantum" is a term in physics, not maths.
While Tegmark and Bohm believe the underlying truths are of a mathematical nature... so does the whole of science! Yet you single out those two, it seems, to try and support your position on this, while not actually ascribing to their actual positions. Let me be clearer: science supports the notion that the underlying truths are of a mathematical nature. It's as simple as that. It is the whole focus of science. But if you want to go beyond the remit of science, beyond what can be actually tested, then you're into the realms of philosophy and faith. And even then, you don't need to confuse your position with the likes of Tegmark and Bohm. You seem to do so solely because they are interesting ideas, but your referencing them and those ideas just confuses what you're trying to actually say.
The common denominator is that of science, and science assumes that the physical universe obeys laws that are mathematical. It's as simple as that.
So you don't actually know what "Quantum Creationism" is? Have you even defined it, or accepted a definition of it, before wandering off into discussions of what you see as underlying everything?

"Stoic process"? Do you mean stochastic process? If not, I'm not sure what you mean by the term you use.
But basically you're saying that the question is whether "God did it", or was it just a part of an underlying "dumb" process? Gee. Sure, let's bring in Tegmark and Bohm for that.
Is this what you think Quantum Creationism is about? Because that really just sounds like Creationism.

It's quite simple, really: from the point of the Big Bang onward, the evidence is of a physical universe that follows laws, those laws being mathematical in nature. As to what happened "before" the BB (if the term "before" even has meaning when referencing the BB), or why the BB occurred... guess what: we don't know, and we can't know.
This all depends on how you define mathematics, and the philosophy you assume / adhere to with regard it. Mathematical realism, formalism, fictionalism, for example. Take your pick.
So time itself emerged?
You talk about things travelling, or expanding, while there is no "time"? Interesting. Is this notion supported by anything? I mean, cosmology certainly doesn't agree with it, as they are quite comfortable using time during the inflationary epoch. Further, it is precisely because of maths also existing during that time, or so they assume, that they can model that early universe, such that we arrive at ideas like the inflationary epoch at all. So, no, I think you need to revise your thoughts here, or at least support them with something meaningful. Science does not support you.
Sure. Now just support that, please.
There are certainly different philosophies of maths, the most common being mathematical realism, where maths isn't a human construct but something we discover. Our symbols and thinking about it are human constructs, but the underlying nature is not.
As for the "the map is not the territory", this has very much been in response to Tegmark's claim that everything is maths. Not just that everything follows mathematical laws, but everything is maths, and only maths. So please don't take that criticism as a dismissal of mathematics as irrelevant.
That doesn't answer my question: when was this switch from a universe without mathematics to one in which it is, seemingly, inherent?
Sure - for things to work physically there needs to be the physical. But maths requires nothing to work. It is abstract. All it requires is itself, its axioms etc. There is a distinction to be drawn between the Law and the application of that law. As far as science is aware, and assumes, the laws existed from the getgo, in as much as they are inherent properties. The earliest universe abided by these laws. But being abstract (properties are abstract objects) they only require physical matter for the behaviour they describe to manifest.
You are equivocating on the term chaos/chaotic. While chaos can also mean disordered, or random, you previously specifically referenced chaos theory. Chaos theory is all about deterministic processes, not stochastic ones.
A point which noone has disputed, and yet you've taken over... how many pages?... to say not very much at all that is seemingly relevant to the thread.

So let me be kind: what do you think Quantum Creationism refers to?

This will go on ad infinitum.

There's a nice, very elderly lady called Margaret that comes to the local convenience store each morning, about the time I buy my FT. I always rather dread seeing her, as she spends so long talking to the cashier when she gets to the checkout, thereby holding everyone else up. She prolongs the process as much as possible by fumbling for change, doing various bits of business with her bags, and so on. I think she just wants someone to talk to, it doesn't matter what about, and this is a part of her day she looks forward to. The staff are kind to her and always chat to her for a bit before trying gently to move her on.

I am getting the sense this is what Write4U is doing on the forum. I suspect the posting of semi-random shit "from off of ve internet" is what he resorts to as a substitute for his own words, now that his mind is going, as a way to provoke further discussion. I think this may be why he doesn't seem to mind too much when people point out he is talking rubbish: the important thing for him seems to be to get a response - any response - to which he can further respond, with more internet shit, etc. You, and in fact all of us when we get involved, are his patsy, feeding the habit and providing company.

 

[Sarkus]

This will go on ad infinitum.

See, even that's a mathematical concept! You cannae escape it!!

There's a nice, very elderly lady called Margaret....

Aw, that sounds sad. Someone should put her in touch with an outreach program or some such, that caters for those missing social interaction? Slip a pamphlet into her bag when she's not looking!

You, and in fact all of us when we get involved, are his patsy, feeding the habit and providing company.

I don't mind too much. I've got the time. And (at the moment, at least) the patience. It's not as though we're obligated to even read what is written, let alone respond to it.

 

[exchemist]

See, even that's a mathematical concept! You cannae escape it!!
Aw, that sounds sad. Someone should put her in touch with an outreach program or some such, that caters for those missing social interaction? Slip a pamphlet into her bag when she's not looking!
I don't mind too much. I've got the time. And (at the moment, at least) the patience. It's not as though we're obligated to even read what is written, let alone respond to it.

Yes, loneliness among the elderly is an increasing issue.

Re Write4U, that's a good attitude, certainly. My difficulty is frustration when people misrepresent science on a public forum. And his thread hijacking, of course.

 

[Write4U]

“Quantum creation happens at quantum” is proof, if it were ever needed, that Write4U has lost all grasp of the meaning of words. It has to be a symptom of some kind of dementia. He used not to be like this.

Sarkus is making a valiant effort, but it’s futile, I’m afraid.

At least Sarkus is posting informative posts instead of meaningless ad hominem. I am learning from him. I can do without you.

What is quantum creation?

The creation of the universe as a quantum phenomenon
Abstract

Quantum creation of massy particles can occur in the cosmological context without cost of energy. This fact is seized upon to construct a causal open homogeneous isotropic cosmology. The universe is conceived as the response of matter and the gravitational field to a spontaneous pointlike disturbance. Its history unfolds in two stages, creation and free expansion.

The first stage gives rise to a “fireball.” The free expansion is extrapolated back to the “fireball.” The latter thus replaces the “big-bang,” thereby avoiding an initial singularity. Though not intrinsic to the theory it does suggest the interpretation of the cosmological part of the gravitational field as the scalar dilaton that is encountered in the dynamical generation of mass in conformally invariant theory.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0003491678901768

Re Write4U, that's a good attitude, certainly. My difficulty is frustration when people misrepresent science on a public forum. And his thread hijacking, of course.

If I don't post, I don't see you posting anything worthy of note. If you have the answers, but you do not share that precious knowledge, what are you even doing here? Just to deride the stupid fools who show an interest in the subject?

It is you who is delinquent and acting like a troll. Every time you post it stops all further communication about the subject. You seem to missing that minor point.
I have learned to discount you as an accessible source of knowledge.

You, and in fact all of us when we get involved, are his patsy, feeding the habit and providing company

So exchemist is now actively advocating for closing this thread (forum) lest people learn something from other posters interacting civilly and knowledgeably with W4U. Way to go.!