What is it about woo that upsets you?

[Seattle]

It makes me wonder if we misconstrue an alternative way of approaching a topic, as woo. If the end result is still objective, if we all arrive at the same answers to these complex mathematical equations, but we simply arrive there differently, that's not woo, to me.

Woo is not in a hypothesis. Many start out as potential woo until the evidence begins to support then in which case it can term into a scientific theory.

lol! I was being facetious with my bubble comment in Tiassa's thread, btw. And, I'm very happy to have healthy discussions, even debates, with people who don't feel the need to put down those in the discussion. Would that be you? Hmm.

I haven't put a pejorative label on anyone.

 

[wegs]

Woo is not in a hypothesis.

No, I meant it as it relates to how Write4U approaches math, and others seem opposed to it.

Many start out as potential woo until the evidence begins to support then in which case it can term into a scientific theory.

Agree.

I haven't put a pejorative label on anyone.

Okay.

 

[Seattle]

No, I meant it as it relates to how Write4U approaches math, and others seem opposed to it.

Agree.



Okay.

I think Write4U is taking Tegmark literally.

 

[Write4U]

Noted (I take it you mean colour )

Color is the preferred spelling in American English, and colour is preferred in all other main varieties of English.

But what is the black thing?

The slope? It's a representation of the terrain.
Lyrics
Jack and Jill went up the hill
To fetch a pail of water
Jack fell down and broke his crown
And Jill came tumbling after…

 

[Write4U]

The grave rubbing has defects and with the way the age of the Universe is currently being debated seems like the mathematics involved has defects

If if if the mathematics for working out the age of the Universe was as exact as 1 + 1 = 2 we should be able to state with confidence the Universe began 13 billion years 3 weeks and 2 days on a Tuesday, back counting from our current calendar

It's kind of hard to tell how old something is when age depends on size and you can't see how big it is, no?
Moreover, the universe seems to travel in a wavelike manner and is thus subject to the Uncertainty Principle.

In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle (also known as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities[1] asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, known as complementary variables or canonically conjugate variables such as position x and momentum p, can be known.

Introduced first in 1927, by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg, it states that the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa.[2] The formal inequality relating the standard deviation of position σx and the standard deviation of momentum σp was derived by Earle Hesse Kennard[3] later that year and by Hermann Weyl

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

 

[Write4U]

W4U,
The forces operate mathematically and are mathematically measurable.

This is evident, regardless of your idea. What does your idea add?

It's not so much that I want to add. You are trying to take it away as a property of the universe.

W4U said, If you reject the concept of a mathematical universe, because mathematics are a human invention, we must also reject every other manmade scientific theory which uses mathematics.

No we don't. Why would you think so?

Because you said so. Mathematics is a human invention and have no impact on the universe. Which is true. But it neglects to say that the universe itself has mathematical properties and that we can symbolize and use some of these properties for practical purposes.

How does your idea go beyond what we already do? We look at the universe and use mathematics to understand and predict it.

Then admit that the universe is knowable through mathematics, because it has knowable mathematical properties

Can you provide a specific, concrete example where thinking of the universe as inherently mathematical provides more information than understanding it through (human-made) mathematics?

I believe that is called proof, which apparently you hesitate to accept.

 

[Write4U]

In his off hours, yes. He does bring one idea to the table that is lost here with all the pages of nonsense and that is that if the Universe is itself mathematical and we just need to discover it then theoretically it's possible to learn things that are otherwise unknowable.

A noble quest.

 

[Write4U]

W4U doesn't explain his underlying intuition very well.

Excellent observation. It is very difficult to break the "popular idea" that mathematics are an exclusive human invention and the exclusive domain of human imagination.

I think that he's claiming that reality displays structure. He's also claiming that there's something "mathematical" about it. It seems to me that physics agrees. Otherwise, what's up with all those RPenner-style chalkboard hieroglyphs that theoretical physicists love so much? What relationship do the mathematical squiggles have to... physics? To physical reality?

Precisely. It is the cosmologists, the people who deal with cosmological attributes that claim a sense of discovery of pre-existing mathematical spacetime structures, when they ask the right mathematical question.

Confusion starts to seep in when the word "mathematics" appears, because it's seemingly being used to refer to very different things.

Precisely. Humans claim exclusive ownership of the term mathematics. I submit he universe also works with values and functions, but they are algebraic abstractions, universal functional imperatives.
I use word mathematics in it's most generic sense, apart from the human symbolic representations for generic mathematical values and functions.

Thus we can claim that the universe's inherent properties are mathematical in essence, albeit not the human symbolic kind. This is why I never use the term "number" as it refers to an arbitrary human symbol. I prefer to use the terms "values" and"functions", which are generic terms for possessing a quantifiable excellence or potential.

In mathematics, value may refer to several, strongly related notions. In general, a mathematical value may be any definite mathematical object.

In elementary mathematics, this is most often a number – for example, a real number such as π or an integer such as 42. Wikipedia

That is in human mathematics. The universe does not use numbers (in spite of Tegmark). IMO. it use relative values (potential to do work) and functions (ability to do specific work).

Through the notion of multiple mathematics The value in mathematics asks questions surrounding the relationship between universal and particular; curricular versus cultural responsibility in education; and globalism and pluralism through the lens of logic, scientific research and abstraction–all of which are also pertinent issues in contemporary art

In mathematics, a function[1] was originally the idealization of how a varying quantity depends on another quantity. For example, the position of a planet is a function of time. Historically, the concept was elaborated with the infinitesimal calculus at the end of the 17th century, and, until the 19th century, the functions that were considered were differentiable (that is, they had a high degree of regularity). The concept of function was formalized at the end of the 19th century in terms of set theory, and this greatly enlarged the domains of application of the concept.

Function f: = x ↦ f (x)

Through the notion of multiple mathematics The value in mathematics asks questions surrounding the relationship between universal and particular; curricular versus cultural responsibility in education; and globalism and pluralism through the lens of logic, scientific research and abstraction–all of which are also pertinent issues in contemporary art
Schematic depiction of a function described metaphorically as a "machine" or "black box" that for each input yields a corresponding output

 

[Write4U]

I think Write4U is taking Tegmark literally.

Not literally. I don't believe "numbers" exist in nature. I do believe quantifiable and qualifiable "values" and "functions" exist in natural forms (potentials).

But I do agree with Tegmark that all physical things in the universe are mathematical patterns and Renate Loll goes more fundamental and proposes that spacetime itself unfolds in a fractal mathematical manner (causal dynamical triangulation).

 

[DaveC426913]

It's not so much that I want to add. You are trying to take it away as a property of the universe.

You have not answered the question.

Because you said so. Mathematics is a human invention and have no impact on the universe.

That kind puts the finger on this: it doesn't throw anything away to dismiss your idea. We still observe and model the universe exactly the same way. But feel free to correct me.

Which is true. But it neglects to say that the universe itself has mathematical properties and that we can symbolize and use some of these properties for practical purposes.

This is nothing more than a restatement of your idea. You can't use your idea as a justification for your idea.

Then admit that the universe is knowable through mathematics, because it has knowable mathematical properties

An ellipse has a knowable mathematical property that the sum of the distance to its two foci is a constant.
How does your idea affect what we can do with that? Be specific.

I believe that is called proof, which apparently you hesitate to accept.

No it is not a proof. I asked for an example.
I can give you an example of the effects of SR. That is not a proof of SR.


I'm giving you a chance here, W4U. You've been flogging this idea for months now. I'm granting for the sake of discussion that it's true. Now show us what it gets us. Show us why it so important to science that you're willing to write gobs and gobs of posts about it.

Provide an example. What can your idea provide that we can't do now?

 

[Write4U]

That kind puts the finger on this: it doesn't throw anything away to dismiss your idea. We still observe and model the universe exactly the same way. But feel free to correct me.

You are dismissing the idea that the universe itself has mathematical properties, no? Mathematics are the exclusive domain of humans, which somehow work "unreasonably effective" or "reasonably ineffective"?

I submit that if we assign mathematical properties to the universe, it makes science a lot easier. No mysticism..

At least Tegmark offers a unifying common denominator, which does not exist in mainstream science.

 

[DaveC426913]

You are dismissing the idea that the universe itself has mathematical properties, no? Mathematics are the exclusive domain of humans, which somehow work "unreasonably effective" or "reasonably ineffective"?

I said, if we were to dismiss it, what would we lose? Tell us.

I submit that if we assign mathematical properties to the universe, it makes science a lot easier. No mysticism..

And how is that different than what we are already doing?

 

[Write4U]

An ellipse has a knowable mathematical property that the sum of the distance to its two foci is a constant.
How does your idea affect what we can do with that? Be specific.

The question is not what we can do with that. The question is what the universe does with that.

W4U said,
You are dismissing the idea that the universe itself has mathematical properties, no? Mathematics are the exclusive domain of humans, which somehow work "unreasonably effective" or "reasonably ineffective"?

I said, if we were to dismiss it, what would we lose? Tell us.

Credibility, this what forces us to use the term "provisional". If you want to cite proofs, then by inference you admit the existence of universal mathematics.

W4U said, I submit that if we assign mathematical properties to the universe, it makes science a lot easier. No mysticism..

And how is that different than what we are already doing?

You end up with self-declared "approximation", never a solid foundation for explaning the "values and functions" of how things become manifest.

Tegmark proposes the ability for a universal mathematical ability for physical self-organization, based on inherent universal mathematical potentials.

 

[DaveC426913]

The question is not what we can do with that. The question is what the universe does with that.

So you have no examples of how accepting your idea would improve our models of the universe?

 

[Write4U]

So you have no examples of how accepting your idea would improve our models of the universe?

What models of the universe? Human models? How many models do you need?

I gave you one all encompassing mathematical model of how universal mathematical potentials become expressed in reality, but you say, "nope", doesn't fit with our current models.

So, what current models do we have that do not rely on observable quantifiable mathematical proofs?

 

[DaveC426913]

What models of the universe? Human models? How many models do you need?

One will do.

but you say, "nope", doesn't fit with our current models.

I did not say that.


You still have not answered the core question: what difference does it make to our understanding if we accept your idea or reject it? How does it change how we go about understanding the universe?

 

[wegs]

Not literally. I don't believe "numbers" exist in nature. I do believe quantifiable and qualifiable "values" and "functions" exist in natural forms (potentials).

But I do agree with Tegmark that all physical things in the universe are mathematical patterns and Renate Loll goes more fundamental and proposes that spacetime itself unfolds in a fractal mathematical manner (causal dynamical triangulation).

Explained like this, it sounds totally reasonable. Maybe some of the various posts got lost in translation.

 

[wegs]

We seem to have drifted away from the original question of what "woo" is and why it upsets so many people (the self-styled "skeptics"), to discussion of whether W4U's peculiar personal kind of metaphysics is in fact "woo". I suppose that it's often helpful to examine particular cases.

Despite the detour, I think it's been insightful.

Science assumes that, doesn't it? Astrophysics presumes to describe what astrophysicists think happened in the early universe, long before human beings ever arrived on the scene. But despite that, the astrophysicists always seem to assume that their physical principles still hold good. And those physical principles are still expressed in mathematical form. The ratio of a circle's circumference to its radius was presumably still (pi r squared), even when the Earth was condensing from the Sun's early accretion disk. Science depends on those kind of assumptions.



If that's so, then why would a valid mathematical proof concocted here in California still be valid in Exchemist's London? There's a objectivity to mathematical relationships that I find profoundly mysterious. I don't know how to explain it. I don't think that anyone does.

There's always the ''God of the gaps'' theory. What I find strange when it comes to how some religious people view science, is that they seem offended by science's ''I don't know.'' My belief in a higher power doesn't have anything to do with getting to the cliff of a scientific mystery, and being stuck. It sort of degrades spirituality and science, all at the same time, if you think about it. But, that's another topic.

W4U doesn't explain his underlying intuition very well.

I think that he's claiming that reality displays structure. He's also claiming that there's something "mathematical" about it. It seems to me that physics agrees. Otherwise, what's up with all those RPenner-style chalkboard hieroglyphs that theoretical physicists love so much? What relationship do the mathematical squiggles have to... physics? To physical reality?

Confusion starts to seep in when the word "mathematics" appears, because it's seemingly being used to refer to very different things.

On one hand, 'mathematics' refers to a system of symbols invented by human beings (number marks like Roman numerals etc.) that correspond to something (what?) that's more abstract: numbers themselves, geometrical shapes, abstract algebraic structures or whatever), and to the logical relationships that human beings intuit as holding true between these symbols compounded in various ways. I'm not sure that I agree that it's all a human construct.

There's that peculiar objectivity to it that I mentioned above. We assume that valid mathematics isn't just true for the person that invented it, it's true for everyone. I think that we can say that number systems (decimal, Roman...) are constructed, but numbers themselves seem (to me, anyway) to be something more objective. Logical systems are much the same. We invent a bunch of arbitrary symbols for variables and constants and logical connectives. We define our logical connectives various different ways. We construct different logical systems employing different sets of these things. Yet the technical properties that logicians try to prove regarding these various logical systems seem to me to be objective. If you construct a logical/mathematical system like this (your choice) then it's going to have those specific properties (not your choice).

And then there's W4U's structure of reality (that he insists on calling "mathematics" as well, confusing all the rest of us, and probably himself as well).

Probably the single thing that most contributed to the "Scientific Revolution" in the 17th century was the application of human-created mathematics in the formal-system sense, to simple physical processes like simple falling objects, pendulums, motion on inclined planes, and interestingly, the motion of the planets in the sky. These just happened to be physical phenomena whose underlying structure, the physical principles that govern them and that they exemplify, was simple enough that they could be effectively modeled using the mathematics (in the logical system sense) that the early moderns were familiar with. So Galileo, Newton and company produced successes that caught the imagination of their contemporaries. And physics was off and running.

So the underlying truth of physics as a science seems to me to be that human-created mathematics (or the abstract structure that it exemplifies) is isomorphic somehow (shares the same form) with the structure of how physical reality behaves. I don't know how to explain it, though I suspect that it has something to do with whatever makes abstract mathematical proofs objective rather than subjective. This allows us to use our human-created/discovered mathematics to model whatever is happening in physical reality.

Those models may be more or less accurate. They will almost always involve simplifications. There will likely be more than one model for a particular physical event, with different models having different advantages.

I get the feeling (sometimes) that this is all that W4U is really saying. There's something, some objective structure that our mathematical constructs imperfectly capture, that's also exemplified in physical reality. That's why physics works.

I don't want to let that rather uncontroversial idea push me off on weird metaphysical tangents. I certainly don't want to say that reality is nothing but "mathematics" while smearing the different senses of that word mentioned above together. But I'm happy saying that there's something about physical reality that our human mathematical ideas capture, and that's what makes our physics successful.

Regarding grand metaphysical conclusions, the best position to take is probably agnostic. We need to admit that reality is mysterious and we don't really begin to understand it. We find ourselves in a thick fog of the unknown with our tiny little intellectual flashlights like science, that don't penetrate nearly as far as we'd like. It's just foolishness to assume that we are seeing everything.

Well explained. It could be that Write4U simply believes that the universe is screaming out to us, that it's patterned, ordered, and not random. ''I'm made of math!!"

[/quote]

 

[sweetpea]

I can't put my finger on it, but is there's a whiff of anthropomorphizing going on with Tegmark's idea.
Something like... Some people see ''intelligent design,'' Tegmark leaves out the god and replaces it with ''anthropomorphic intelligent design''. Am I making sense??

 

[gmilam]

Well explained. It could be that Write4U simply believes that the universe is screaming out to us, that it's patterned, ordered, and not random. ''I'm made of math!!"

Personally, I find that no more useful than saying "God did it". We already know the universe has order that can be described in mathematical terms. We also have to keep refining our math in order to better describe our observations of how the world works. Newton did a fine job describing gravity. Einstein did him one better. And one day, someone else will probably do even better. But saying the universe is "made of math" adds nothing to our understanding.

Don't know that it falls into the woo category... Just into the "not helpful" column.