What is it about woo that upsets you?

[Goldtop]

I'm stating that one can be religious/spiritual, and still respect science, without compromising either.

I think ones honesty to themselves is compromised if they dedicate their lives to something that's never been shown to exist.

 

[Write4U]

So, true or false? Math is an exact science.

Ahh, therein lies the rub. Natural mathematics are always exact, human symbolic representations of these mathematics are subject to error. Hence the expression, "human maths are the map, not the territory".

I submit that when the human maths are done correctly they are an accurate representation of the territory, natural mathematical values and functions and can even be used to make deterministic predictions, such as in the "applied sciences", everywhere......

 

[Write4U]

It would depend on one's religious/spiritual views. Manyyyy people believe in a god of some type, but not necessarily in ''creationism.''

If we accept the concept of a universe with mathematical properties, all gods and miracles disappear and are replaced by natural values and the mathematical functions which determine the physical results.

 

[exchemist]

So, isn't that kind of like saying a person believes in Unicorns and Leprechauns, but does not believe Leprechauns race Unicorns in the Kentucky Derby? In other words, neither the philosophy of a god or the philosophy of a god creating a universe have been shown to be valid in any way.

No I wouldn't say so. The vast majority of educated Christians are not creationists and have no difficulty with any aspect of science. But it is trivially and obviously true that a belief in God is an aesthetic and subjective thing and not something that can be tested by objective observation, unlike the tests of the theories of science.

Religions are, in the end, guides for living one's life, based on a fairly complex and untidy mixture of personal inspiration, meditative practice, ritual, tradition, aesthetics and sense of community. I think describing them as philosophy is not really fair to them - or to philosophy, which is far more intellectually rigorous.

 

[billvon]

This is where I disagree. IMO, the universe functions in a mathematical manner.

That's exactly right. It functions in a mathematical manner; in a way that is easy to describe with math. Math is the tool that describes how the universe functions. It is not HOW the universe functions.

The territory is a mathematical pattern.

Nope. The territory is electromagnetism; the map is Maxwell's Equations. The territory is the orbital system that is the solar system; the map is the universal gravitation formula. The territory is the sunflower; the map is the Fibonacci sequence. The territory is the actual - the map is the tool used to describe the actual.

When the values of the patterns are known, the interactions between the values can be accurately predicted.

Yes. Math is a great tool to predict those patterns. But if you get the math wrong, or it doesn't exist yet, the universe doesn't care; it will not change how it works one bit based on any math.

In nature, mathematics are not tools, but logical functional processes which emerge during the deterministic change.

No. The universe does not need math of any type to work just fine.

The Fibonacci Sequence can be found throughout nature from flowers to spiral galaxies. It is a naturally emergent growth function which promotes balance and efficiency in growth patterns. It is a emergent mathematical function resulting from evolved efficient functional growth patterns distributed over a wide range of universal growth patterns.

Yes. And before Fibonacci flowers grew exactly the same way. If we used a completely different mathematical system that described that growth pattern in an entirely different way, it would be just as valid - and would not affect how flowers grow one bit.

 

[exchemist]

So, true or false? Math is an exact science.

I do not regard mathematics as a science. It is abstract, whereas the sciences are concerned with understanding the physical world. I think mathematics is sui generis.

 

[billvon]

So, thought I'd ask - what is it about woo that makes you angry?

Some woo(t) that won't make anyone angry:

 

[exchemist]

That's exactly right. It functions in a mathematical manner; in a way that is easy to describe with math. Math is the tool that describes how the universe functions. It is not HOW the universe functions.

Nope. The territory is electromagnetism; the map is Maxwell's Equations. The territory is the orbital system that is the solar system; the map is the universal gravitation formula. The territory is the sunflower; the map is the Fibonacci sequence. The territory is the actual - the map is the tool used to describe the actual.

Yes. Math is a great tool to predict those patterns. But if you get the math wrong, or it doesn't exist yet, the universe doesn't care; it will not change how it works one bit based on any math.

No. The universe does not need math of any type to work just fine.

Yes. And before Fibonacci flowers grew exactly the same way. If we used a completely different mathematical system that described that growth pattern in an entirely different way, it would be just as valid - and would not affect how flowers grow one bit.

Exactly. You can do quantum mechanics either by wave mechanics or by matrix mechanics. The universe does whatever it does and we can model it in various mathematical ways.

 

[exchemist]

Oops, I see in post #85, you share your stance.

Okay.

He's ''popular'' because his ''teachings'' involve a mix of spirituality with his own ideas of science. His goal is to make everyone feel that their subjective experiences are paramount to objective reality. I'm not sure why scientists get so worked up over him; dismiss him as a New Age ''guru,'' and be done with it. I've heard him speak about consciousness and how it somehow had an impact on evolution. lol

The only troubling part for me with people who ''believe'' woo, or follow the likes of Chopra, is that it shows a trend towards choosing to feel good (''you do you''), over wanting to become educated. He's not as much the problem, as are the people who follow his ''teachings.'' Without them, he wouldn't be in the snake oil business.

What is annoying is that he hijacks science. Anyone who cares about something enough to spend years studying it is not gong to take kindly to seeing it abused by a charlatan. I get just as annoyed when some idiot tries to fit a beat to Gregorian chant.

 

[wegs]

What is annoying is that he hijacks science. Anyone who cares about something enough to spend years studying it is not gong to take kindly to seeing it abused by a charlatan.

Don't quite get the appeal of Chopra, personally.

I get just as annoyed when some idiot tries to fit a beat to Gregorian chant.

Like this?

Damn, that sounds bad.

 

[Seattle]

Yep, agree.

Is it? We use the term in everyday conversations though, don't we? A friend told me recently that she had ''faith'' in me that I was going to ace a presentation at work. I asked her why, and she rattled off a bunch of ''facts'' (about me and my preparation) that barring something unforeseen happening, all evidence pointed to me being able to ace my presentation. It could be a word we use in a flip way, but we apply it to all kinds of situations.

If someone tells you that they have ''faith'' in you, what does that mean to you? They obviously don't think of you as the Messiah, so what might he/she mean?
I don't disagree, but faith is a term that some people apply only to religion/spirituality. It can also mean to have a complete trust in someone/something. That's probably how scientists use it, thus the difference between a religious concept of it, and a scientific one, albeit they both seem to hinge on complete trust (of something)

For example, do you completely trust the evidence that supports the theory of evolution?

As I said, it's a (common) misuse of the word. I don't have a problem with that alternative meaning but I'm just saying it doesn't make sense to compare the two different uses of the word as meaning the same thing.

You alluded to it in your last question. If someone says they have faith in me, they don't mean that I'm the Messiah. It is being used to mean "I'm supportive of you, I have confidence that you will do the right thing, etc.".

A word that is not being used in the same sense as another word isn't, by definition, comparable.

If you tell me a joke and I say "You're killing me" is that the same as the killing that a serial murderer is doing? Does it make any sense to say humor and murder are related in some way since I'm using the same word?

Regarding evolution, I don't need to "trust" evidence. That's the point. Facts are facts. As long as all the evidence (which has been mounting only one way for 100 years) points to evolution that will be my view as well. It's not going to just be overturned. If it's fine tuned with even better technology that would be my view as well until shown otherwise.

Of course, I use "believe" in that alternative meaning just like anyone else. I believe evolution to be an accurate description of how things work. Do I mean, I take in on faith that evolution is correct? No, of course not.

If I say I have faith in God am I saying all the evidence points to there being a God? No, of course not.

 

[Write4U]

That's exactly right. It functions in a mathematical manner; in a way that is easy to describe with math. Math is the tool that describes how the universe functions. It is not HOW the universe functions.

Wait, you just stipulated that the universe functions in a mathematical manner, that can be easily symbolized with human maths. i.e. Human math is the symbolic representation of how the universe functions . The universe does not use symbolic representations, it uses actual mathematical physical patterns. We can observe these patterns and codify the mathematics which form that specific pattern.

It is all mathematical. Humans have symbolized the mathematics and when we apply the mathematics correctly it will produce the exact same pattern as occurs naturally, given the same values and functions.

The only time we use "close enough" approximation is for practical time saving purposes in the applied mathematics. This approximate approach was used to land the Rover . Turned out that taking some shortcuts from cumbersome mathematical problems and tuning for close enough, was indeed "close enough" for a succesful landing.

Nope. The territory is electromagnetism; the map is Maxwell's Equations. The territory is the orbital system that is the solar system; the map is the universal gravitation formula. The territory is the sunflower; the map is the Fibonacci sequence. The territory is the actual - the map is the tool used to describe the actual.

The territory is the actual, the territorial potentials are the mathematical features of the territory. The dynamic fields in the territory are probabilistically mathematical, the physical expressions are the natural mathematical potentials become manifest as predictictable recurring patterns.

Yes. Math is a great tool to predict those patterns. But if you get the math wrong, or it doesn't exist yet, the universe doesn't care; it will not change how it works one bit based on any math.

I agree, but from the universe's perspective, it will not change the mathematical way it works based on anything humans do.
But it cannot change its own inherent mathematical potentials, its natural physical values and related mathematical functions............... It's deterministic.

No. The universe does not need math of any type to work just fine.

That is contrary to your opening paragraph and I disagree. The Universe is a mathematical construct, a geometric pattern with inherent mathematical potentials, which become expressed as physical patterns in a mathematical chronology of expression.

Yes. And before Fibonacci flowers grew exactly the same way. If we used a completely different mathematical system that described that growth pattern in an entirely different way, it would be just as valid - and would not affect how flowers grow one bit.

Again I agree with the way you posited it, but I am approaching this from a universal perspective. The pattern which was identified and codified by Fibonacci was there long before humans knew anything about mathematics. This is naturally occurring beauty of natural phenomena.

A Rainbow is a beautiful mathematical pattern, occurring only when specific environmental conditions are present and their combined potentials are expressed as can be simulated in a prism, the spontaneous emergence of color refraction into the awesome bands of visible light. Sometimes there are double rainbows, spectacular. The mathematical implication present in that phenomenon are vast and in many directions. Mathematics are an essential ingredient in all physical spacetime phenomena.

Spacetime itself is essentially mathematical in every aspect. It's the common denominator of everything and connects spacetime by a single imperical function, a self-referential, self-organizing pattern making function.

Flowers don't know from Fibonacci, but they grow in accordance to what Fibonacci recognized and symbolized as a specific chronological growth sequence. Fibonacci recognized the growth pattern that flowers and a host of other natural phenomena use naturally as an evolved efficient growth pattern.

The Fibonacci sequence is an evolved self organizing pattern for maximum natural efficiency. It is an inspirational symbol of creative energy in emergent mathematical functions and their universal application. It's a simple equation!

And is based on what we have symbolized as Phi

Phi ( Φ = 1.618033988749895… ), ” is simply an irrational number like pi ( p = 3.14159265358979… ), but one with many unusual mathematical properties. Unlike pi, which is a transcendental number, phi is the solution to a quadratic equation.

3D + T = 4D = quadratic equation

Now we have a formula that can be solved using the Quadratic formula. This formula allows you to solve a quadratic equation for an unknown x, with a, b, and c as constants. A quadratic equation has this form: ax² + bx + c = 0

https://www.goldennumber.net/what-is-phi/

A natural candidate for an essential common denominator, a property of spacetime itself, a mathematically dynamic 4D geometrical patterned object. And one which we can learn to understand!! We know how to codify and symbolize it, and often use its patterns for our purposes. Free Will in a Deterministic Universe?...

 

[iceaura]

The vast majority of educated Christians are not creationists and have no difficulty with any aspect of science.

Then the educated faction is a small minority of Christians.

The territory is electromagnetism; the map is Maxwell's Equations. The territory is the orbital system that is the solar system; the map is the universal gravitation formula. The territory is the sunflower; the map is the Fibonacci sequence. The territory is the actual - the map is the tool used to describe the actual.

There is also, and to my interest more useful, the option of viewing math as a virtual sensory organ - to bring into human thought "models" or "images" of aspects of the universe we have no sensory organs to perceive. So we can think about the unseen, the unfelt, the too big or too small or too fast or too slow.

 

[Write4U]

There is also, and to my interest more useful, the option of viewing math as a virtual sensory organ - to bring into human thought "models" or "images" of aspects of the universe we have no sensory organs to perceive. So we can think about the unseen, the unfelt, the too big or too small or too fast or too slow

The human ablity of viewing, recognizing, codifying and imagining possible future natural mathematical phenomena, to an exact level of precision, from the very subtle to gross expression in our reality.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Don't quite get the appeal of Chopra, personally.


Like this?

Damn, that sounds bad.

that is much like the kardashins in drag
KarDragQueeEens ?

desperate hoe wifes ?

Games of thrown-ups ?

contemporary critique in an analog mathematical sub narrative as a form of cultural critique

taking something that has a sense of solid moral liking as a form of potential cultural identification, then attaching something confronting to make a point about something that is not defined leaving enough room to sense a detraction from the aspect rather than a statement of cultural critique.
it feeds a sense of radicalism toward anarchistic moral doctrine.
in a highly regulated liberal society it is ok, but in a divided society it becomes fuel for the fires of extremism.

 

[wegs]

As I said, it's a (common) misuse of the word. I don't have a problem with that alternative meaning but I'm just saying it doesn't make sense to compare the two different uses of the word as meaning the same thing.

You alluded to it in your last question. If someone says they have faith in me, they don't mean that I'm the Messiah. It is being used to mean "I'm supportive of you, I have confidence that you will do the right thing, etc.".

A word that is not being used in the same sense as another word isn't, by definition, comparable.

If you tell me a joke and I say "You're killing me" is that the same as the killing that a serial murderer is doing? Does it make any sense to say humor and murder are related in some way since I'm using the same word?

Regarding evolution, I don't need to "trust" evidence. That's the point. Facts are facts. As long as all the evidence (which has been mounting only one way for 100 years) points to evolution that will be my view as well. It's not going to just be overturned. If it's fine tuned with even better technology that would be my view as well until shown otherwise.

Of course, I use "believe" in that alternative meaning just like anyone else. I believe evolution to be an accurate description of how things work. Do I mean, I take in on faith that evolution is correct? No, of course not.

If I say I have faith in God am I saying all the evidence points to there being a God? No, of course not.

Is this a language lesson? lol

I find your replies to always be in the form of a lecture, of some type. I get it. You need to be right. You’re right, Seattle! Youuuu’re right!

There you go.

that is much like the kardashins in drag
KarDragQueeEens ?

desperate hoe wifes ?

Games of thrown-ups ?

contemporary critique in an analog mathematical sub narrative as a form of cultural critique

taking something that has a sense of solid moral liking as a form of potential cultural identification, then attaching something confronting to make a point about something that is not defined leaving enough room to sense a detraction from the aspect rather than a statement of cultural critique.
it feeds a sense of radicalism toward anarchistic moral doctrine.
in a highly regulated liberal society it is ok, but in a divided society it becomes fuel for the fires of extremism.

Don’t kill the messenger, Rainbow

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Is this a language lesson? lol

I find your replies to always be in the form of a lecture, of some type. I get it. You need to be right. You’re right, Seattle! Youuuu’re right!

There you go.


Don’t kill the messenger, Rainbow

lol
your interpretation is not necessarily my need.
what you interpret as my inherent need is your sense of interpretation as a form of needs based observational perception.
i am aware of that.
unlike many others, i dont pander to others perceptions.
a "need to be right" would not care for narcissistic selflessness

i quite like my new TV reality series name i made up
KarDragQueeEens

the internal conflict of gender identity inside self acclaimed ego centered stereo typed escapism i find to be quite humerus.

or
"game-of-grown-ass-ups"

 

[wegs]

lol

 

[wegs]

Ahh, therein lies the rub. Natural mathematics are always exact, human symbolic representations of these mathematics are subject to error. Hence the expression, "human maths are the map, not the territory".

I submit that when the human maths are done correctly they are an accurate representation of the territory, natural mathematical values and functions and can even be used to make deterministic predictions, such as in the "applied sciences", everywhere......

I think there's room for creativity in math, but to me, it's the most ''rational'' (for lack of a better word at the moment) of the sciences. Math isn't perfect, and it's not without contradictions, but it seems to be the most objective.

 

[billvon]

Wait, you just stipulated that the universe functions in a mathematical manner, that can be easily symbolized with human maths. i.e. Human math is the symbolic representation of how the universe functions .

Exactly. We use symbolic representations because they are easier to understand, even if they are nothing like the actual phenomena.

The universe does not use symbolic representations, it uses actual mathematical physical patterns.

No. It does its own thing. We can REPRESENT that with mathematics.

A ruler measures length. We use units of length to measure distance. Great! Makes space easier to understand. And we figured that was a constant; once you measured something once it remained that length. Mathematical perfection! Why, space MUST be governed by such simple dimensional math!

Then we found out that length wasn't always the same in different inertial frames. The universe did its own thing, even though it meant the math was now wrong. That's because the phenomenon of length is not math; it is simply represented by math. And as we know, it is represented imperfectly.

It is all mathematical. Humans have symbolized the mathematics and when we apply the mathematics correctly it will produce the exact same pattern as occurs naturally, given the same values and functions.

Not quite. It comes close enough to be useful. It does not produce the patterh, it merely gives a result that lets you visualize the pattern.

Take HFSS. It's a widely used EM field simulator that is quite useful in modeling EM fields. It does not predict the fields perfectly. It does not even "produce the exact same pattern" or any pattern close to it - it merely gives you colorful plots that help you design antennas. HFSS (and the math it does) gives you the map - you then have to build the territory (the antenna.) And sometimes the map is wrong even when the math is right.

The only time we use "close enough" approximation is for practical time saving purposes in the applied mathematics.

All good math is "close enough."

The territory is the actual, the territorial potentials are the mathematical features of the territory.

Nope. The territory is the actual potentials. The math is a representation of them. This is trivial to prove (see HFSS example above.)

A Rainbow is a beautiful mathematical pattern, occurring only when specific environmental conditions are present and their combined potentials are expressed as can be simulated in a prism, the spontaneous emergence of color refraction into the awesome bands of visible light. Sometimes there are double rainbows, spectacular. The mathematical implication present in that phenomenon are vast and in many directions. Mathematics are an essential ingredient in all physical spacetime phenomena.

Again, no. That rainbow does not need one bit of math to produce its color. It is merely how you choose to understand it. A hypothetical species that understands rainbows using music can do just as good a job (perhaps better) than you can do using math. And again, that does not mean that rainbows are made of music; it is just that they use music as a tool to understand them.