What is it about woo that upsets you?

[Write4U]

Forces are mathematical fictions - creations of human pattern analysis intended to introduce mathematical tractability into an empirically functioning universe.

Forces are dynamical imperatives, but express themselves in mathematical patterns. i.e. forces have mathematical properties and potentials which may become expressed as dynamical patterns.

 

[Yazata]

Keeping OT, do you think Tegmark is woo-ish?

Not really. Or maybe just sort-of.

I think that like many physicists Tegmark speculates excessively when he's writing for a lay audience. That's my biggest objection to him, I guess. (It can be fun to read though, interesting and very thought provoking.) He isn't alone. If you look at the science bookshelves at pretty much any mass-market bookstore (and university bookstores as well, the Stanford bookstore is just as bad) they are filled with books written by scientists that purport to answer all of history's oldest and deepest questions.

"Scientists" have somehow become our culture's new metaphysicians (and perhaps increasingly, prophets). And metaphysics is precisely what Max Tegmark is doing.

That doesn't necessarily make it "woo". But presenting it to laypeople as if it has all of the authority of "science" might make it something worse than "woo".

In his defense, I'm not sure that Tegmark actually does that.

Something that W4U never seems to mention is that Tegmark appears to have labeled his Mathematical Universe chapters according to whether they are mainstream, controversial or very-controversial. His most exotic mathematical universe speculations have been marked 'very-controversial'.

W4U seems to want to quote Tegmark's most extreme and controversial opinions with a "Tegmark says...", which in this context just means "Tegmark speculates".

So all in all, I suspect that W4U is being more "wooish" than Tegmark, assuming that Tegmark does make it clear when he's speculating and not speaking with all of the assumed authority of "Physics". In my opinion, Tegmark may or may not be borderline-woo, and W4U seemingly threatens to push it right over the edge.

The distinction between scientific speculation and well-established science is important. It's a distinction that in my opinion "Scientists", our culture's new authority figures, should be more aware of and more scrupulous about observing.

I don't like scientists occupying that priest-like all-knowing authority role, and don't think that they are always qualified to occupy it. I do think that professionals knowingly bullshitting the public is much more dangerous than "woo" (whatever that is, it's never been clearly defined). When the public senses that it's being bullshitted, it just feeds their skepticism about science generally.

 

[DaveC426913]

I just showed you the definition. Is the definition wrong?

I didn't ask for a definition; I asked for an example of what your idea offers that takes us beyond what we already have.

The key to repeated behaviors and patterns lies in the "limited freedom" which is imposed by ...

physical properties.

 

[DaveC426913]

W4U, I've had my doubts about whether your idea had merit, and I've asked for examples again and again, giving you plenty of opportunity. You bring it up in virtually any thread that vaguely smacks of physics, and expound upon it at great length.

But you haven't been able to give a single example of how it makes the slightest bit of difference.

Atoms behave a certain way. We say they have properties that we can model with math. You say the math is inherent in the atoms.
So what?

How would our examination of the world look any different if we adopted your view? Would our research methods be different? Our techniques? Our math? Our observations? Our conclusions? Name one tangible way we would be doing things different.

Show how this is not simply a semantic issue.

Look, I don't mind in principle that you've got this idea, but Jesus, must you spam the forum with it?

 

[Write4U]

Something that W4U never seems to mention is that Tegmark appears to have labeled his Mathematical Universe chapters according to whether they are mainstream, controversial or very-controversial. His most exotic mathematical universe speculations have been marked 'very-controversial'.

A few years ago I posted the link to his book where he rates his own chapters. I found that quite honest and objective.

Here is link to the pdf.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646.pdf

And reviews by other scientists
https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/mathematical.html

 

[wegs]

Not really. Or maybe just sort-of.

I think that like many physicists Tegmark speculates excessively when he's writing for a lay audience. That's my biggest objection to him, I guess. (It can be fun to read though, interesting and very thought provoking.) He isn't alone. If you look at the science bookshelves at pretty much any mass-market bookstore (and university bookstores as well, the Stanford bookstore is just as bad) they are filled with books written by scientists that purport to answer all of history's oldest and deepest questions.

"Scientists" have somehow become our culture's new metaphysicians (and perhaps increasingly, prophets). And metaphysics is precisely what Max Tegmark is doing.

That doesn't necessarily make it "woo". But presenting it to laypeople as if it has all of the authority of "science" might make it something worse than "woo".

In his defense, I'm not sure that Tegmark actually does that.

Something that W4U never seems to mention is that Tegmark appears to have labeled his Mathematical Universe chapters according to whether they are mainstream, controversial or very-controversial. His most exotic mathematical universe speculations have been marked 'very-controversial'.

W4U seems to want to quote Tegmark's most extreme and controversial opinions with a "Tegmark says...", which in this context just means "Tegmark speculates".

So all in all, I suspect that W4U is being more "wooish" than Tegmark, assuming that Tegmark does make it clear when he's speculating and not speaking with all of the assumed authority of "Physics". In my opinion, Tegmark may or may not be borderline-woo, and W4U seemingly threatens to push it right over the edge.

The distinction between scientific speculation and well-established science is important. It's a distinction that in my opinion "Scientists", our culture's new authority figures, should be more aware of and more scrupulous about observing.

I don't like scientists occupying that priest-like all-knowing authority role, and don't think that they are always qualified to occupy it. I do think that professionals knowingly bullshitting the public is much more dangerous than "woo" (whatever that is, it's never been clearly defined). When the public senses that it's being bullshitted, it just feeds their skepticism about science generally.

I'm not sure that Write4U is being ''woo-ish'' in his approach, rather he has a somewhat philosophical view about math. Same with Tegmark. Must we be so linear in our thinking when it comes to science and math? Is there room for philosophy in science? (without it being labeled pseudo-science/woo) Philosophy proposes that the laws of math already exist, and we are merely discovering them. But Write4U isn't suggesting that this be a mandatory way to view math, it's just how he sees it. I don't know if he's accusing anyone of being ''wrong,'' who doesn't see things as he does.

I agree with you about scientists having a superiority complex. In some circles, scientists can display arrogance towards non-scientists, because science is the only method of properly understanding the universe, in their view.

And then there's Lord Kelvin, interrupting this discussion, with his insight.

 

[Write4U]

physical properties.

The mathematics of physical properties determine their patterns (values) and behavior (functions).

Why do you expect me to offer something new and exciting to science? Do you?

I like the simple logic of Tegmark's concept a Mathematical Universe. The logic of it "feels" right to me as a fundamental metaphysical essence of spacetime as philosophy and practical theory.
It avoids mystery and mysticism. Just offers plain ole mathematics, you know the stuff all our science is based on.
So I share it for others to look at and consider its implications.

I also like David Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate Order", but only the mathematical logic without the mysticism.

If you want to compare all this to the mysticism contained in Schrodinger's Cat,

It was Einstein who originated the suggestion that the superposition of Schrödinger’s wave functions implied that two different physical states could exist at the same time. This was a serious interpretational error that plagues the foundation of quantum physics to this day.

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/books/problems/Schrodinger.pdf

Is that woo?

 

[DaveC426913]

So I share it for others to look at and consider its implications.

And what are its implications?

Is that woo?

I'm not calling it woo.

I'm noting that this is just one more thread where this particular horse has been dragged out to be beaten. It would be nice to read thread that didn't devolve into a plug for this pet idea for a change.

 

[wegs]

Especially music and art!
Have you watched the entire Roger Antonsen presentation yet? He demonstrates the mathematical foundations of (musical) sound waves, rhythms, and even the beautifully emergent art patterns contained in the mathematical value of 4/3

I haven't yet. I'm a bad student. But, I will and I'll share my thoughts soon enough.

 

[Write4U]

W4U, I've had my doubts about whether your idea had merit, and I've asked for examples again and again, giving you plenty of opportunity. You bring it up in virtually any thread that vaguely smacks of physics, and expound upon it at great length.

But you haven't been able to give a single example of how it makes the slightest bit of difference.

Atoms behave a certain way. We say they have properties that we can model with math. You say the math is inherent in the atoms.
So what?

How would our examination of the world look any different if we adopted your view? Would our research methods be different? Our techniques? Our math? Our observations? Our conclusions? Name one tangible way we would be doing things different.

Show how this is not simply a semantic issue.

Look, I don't mind in principle that you've got this idea, but Jesus, must you spam the forum with it?

I assume you do expect the Universe to have some underlying functional properties, right?
The Copenhagen Interpretation is one. Does that theory add a functional aspect? Is it mathematical in essence?

The Copenhagen interpretation is an expression of the meaning of quantum mechanics that was largely devised from 1925 to 1927 by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. It remains one of the most commonly taught interpretations of quantum mechanics.

.
According to the Copenhagen interpretation, physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured, and quantum mechanics can only predict the probability distribution of a given measurement's possible results. The act of measurement affects the system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement. This feature is known as wave function collapse.

There have been many objections to the Copenhagen interpretation over the years. These include: discontinuous jumps when there is an observation, the probabilistic element introduced upon observation, the subjectiveness of requiring an observer, the difficulty of defining a measuring device, and the necessity of invoking classical physics to describe the "laboratory" in which the results are measured.

Alternatives to the Copenhagen interpretation include the many-worlds interpretation, the De Broglie–Bohm (pilot-wave) theory, quantum Bayesianism, and quantum decoherence theories.

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

They all deal with mathematical properties, values and functions, no? So, what is the real objection here.
A universe where a cat can be both dead and alive is mainstream science, Tegmark's mathematical universe is woo?

 

[Write4U]

And what are its implications?

I don't know, except maybe simplify some fundamental concepts about the universe.

I'm not calling it woo.

Excellent! It means that I am still in the territory of science and not pure imagination.

I'm noting that this is just one more thread where this particular horse has been dragged out to be beaten. It would be nice to read thread that didn't devolve into a plug for this pet idea for a change.

Oh, that's unfair. Wegs and several others seem to be interested, if only for its novelty.

Yazata added a pertinent qualifier to Tegmarks hypotheses and complained I had neglected to post Tegmark's own qualifier, which I had referenced several years ago. Hardly beating a dead horse on my part.

To me that is sufficient to share what I know about the subject, little as it is. I make no personal claims.

Can anybody else come up with a fresh look at science, new or old, right or wrong? Please do and let's discuss it.

I never hear anyone calling religious discussions as beating a dead horse. These ideas are alive and well and deserve discussion.

 

[sweetpea]

This may help...Tegmark's paper
https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646

 

[sweetpea]

I don't know, except maybe simplify some fundamental concepts about the universe.

In what way would Tegmark's idea alter the way scientists are studying reality today using mathematics?

 

[Write4U]

In what way would Tegmark's idea alter the way scientists are studying reality today using mathematics?

What does Tegmark have to say about that? It's his hypothesis........

 

[parmalee]

He demonstrates the mathematical foundations of (musical) sound waves, rhythms, and even the beautifully emergent art patterns contained in the mathematical value of 4/3

This is where it starts to get really close to harmonic dualism or neo-Riemannian theory, or perhaps more apt, something akin to Scriabin's Prometheus (or Mystic) Chord <<<, which was the harmonic basis for much of his later work and was informed by his interest in Theosophy. And sure, it's a great chord, a great progression, but there ain't nothing "divine" about it.

Jaki Liebezeit could masterfully make a 7 or 11 or 19 groove like a 3 or 4, as can most competent non-Western musicians, for that matter.

Edit: And, yes, I know that you (nor Tegmark, et al) are not even remotely suggesting anything divine; nevertheless, it's sounding awfully teleological.

 

[Write4U]

Edit: And, yes, I know that you (nor Tegmark, et al) are not even remotely suggesting anything divine; nevertheless, it's sounding awfully teleological.

But at the opposite end of the spectrum. Rather than divine, mathematics are mundane, the way things must work, not how they are designed to work. That implies "motive".

 

[wegs]

But at the opposite end of the spectrum. Rather than divine, mathematics are mundane, the way things must work, not how they are designed to work. That implies "motive".

I think the perception of some here is that your philosophical viewpoints about math have the capacity to sound quasi-theological.

 

[DaveC426913]

What does Tegmark have to say about that? It's his hypothesis........

Perfect. So from now on, whenever you want to plug the 'Mathematical Universe' you can just put a one-liner to Tegmark.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think the perception of some here is that your philosophical viewpoints about math have the capacity to sound quasi-theological.

Well, possibly. But even that might be OK. What I haven't bee able to determine is how this is more than a semantics issue. It doesn't seem to have any application. I don't have an objection in principle to W4U flogging it, I just don't see how it warrants so much screen real estate across virtually every thread. I'd say W4U has some obsessive qualities that are emerging.

 

[billvon]

No one claims a linguistic universe.

I just did. And my proof is that you described the universe in English.

However, a mathematical universe does mean that English words can be translated mathematically.

OK. So once again, the universe can be expressed in English. Therefore it is based in English, on English principles. Correct?

Morse code is mathematical tool for communicating English and all other languages. (...---... = SOS)
You can translate Shakespeare with the mathematics of morse code.

Nope. Morse codes are merely different characters used to convey English. It would be like replacing every English lowercase letter with uppercase letters - it's the same language, just with different letters. That's not translation.

However, if you are claiming that the universe is therefore based on Morse code, then that's just as true as claiming it is based on English (or math.)