Write4U's stream of consciousness

[Write4U]

Do you understand the difference between a mathematical model of a cube and a physical cube?

Yes I certainly do. The mathematical model is the idealized perfection which is impossible to maintain in a dynamic environment, but I can give you a mathematical (fractal) model as an example of the natural selection of a mathematical genetic expression in a vegetable. That is not a randomly shaped physical pattern . But it is proof of a natural tendency to evolve efficient patterns that allow for natural selection of maximum utility of energy conservation and environmental problem solving in a dynamical environment. Allow for variations on a single common general theme. A mathematical model is the only model that satisfies the notion of an underlying order, the deterministic Implicate before it becomes Explicated (expressed) in reality at various levels of physical forms and patterns.

 

[James R]

From the very beginning, my friend: Chaos Theory.

Chaos theory is completely irrelevant to my previous criticisms of your recent posts.

What's wrong? Can't you maintain concentration long enough to go through those criticisms point by point?

Can you only cut and paste further irrelevancies?

 

[James R]

Do you understand the difference between a mathematical model of a cube and a physical cube?

No, but ...

Well, there's the source of your problem, right there.

 

[Write4U]

Well, there's the source of your problem, right there.

LOL. I anticipated that after I reviewed and edited the post. See above.....

 

[James R]

LOL. I anticipated that after I reviewed and edited the post. See above.....

I see. You edited you response to start with:

Yes I certainly do.

But the rest of your post does nothing to demonstrate that you understand what the difference might be, or that it might be important.

Instead, you posted some irrelevant nonsense about fractals and vegetables, followed by a repeat of your unsupported claim that mathematical models are the only models than can do something or other blah blah Bohm.

Clearly I didn't allow for sufficent time for you to read properly through my recent posts, to think about the content and to try to maintain concentration long enough to attempt to write a coherent reply to the substantive points I raised. I will allow at least 12 hours for you to attempt to reply as best you are able, then I will check back to see how you got on.

Good luck.

 

[Write4U]

I see. You edited you response to start with:

I edited before I SAW your post....do the maths!

 

[Write4U]

Good luck.

No, no pot luck. Ask me a specific question that you think I cannot answer correctly.

 

[James R]

I edited before I SAW your post....do the maths!

You missed the point, again. The time that you edited your initial reply is irrelevant. Like I said: ".... the rest of your post does nothing to demonstrate that you understand what the difference might be, or that it might be important."

By the way, is this all you've got in the way of a response?

What about the questions I asked you in post #212?
What about the conflict between you views and Tegmark's, that I pointed out in the same post and in post #214?

What do you have to say about all the things that you just got flat-out wrong? Do you agree I am am correct, or do you have arguments to show that you are actually correct and I am wrong?

Have you found a single example of a "mathematical value" that is not a number, yet?

Did you find a place that is north of the North Pole?

Did you find out what a block universe is?

Did you find any examples of measurements that "emerge"?

Did you find any examples of patterns "self-organising" (in which a pattern itself somehow does something to physical matter)?

How do you respond to the fatal flaw in Tegmark's hypothesis: that mathematics is conceptual, while the universe is physical?

You claim that you want to be asked questions and you say you will answer them, but you mostly just ignore them in practice. Why is that?

 

[Write4U]

What about the conflict between you views and Tegmark's, that I pointed out in the same post and in post #214?

And the saga that I worship Tegmark continues, but rather than pointing out differences I like to point out the parts I agree with.
I know it's a novel way of approaching a subject....

 

[Write4U]

You missed the point, again. The time that you edited your initial reply is irrelevant. Like I said: ".... the rest of your post does nothing to demonstrate that you understand what the difference might be, or that it might be important."

Well, I like to keep you in suspense.

What do you have to say about all the things that you just got flat-out wrong? Do you agree I am am correct, or do you have arguments to show that you are actually correct and I am wrong?

No, I don't agree that you are correct. You haven't given me a correct answer at all.

Have you found a single example of a "mathematical value" that is not a number, yet?

non-numerical data, also called categorical, qualitative or Yes/No data, is data that can be observed, not measured. Non-numerical data represents characteristics such as a person’s gender, marital status, hometown, ethnicity or the types of movies people like. An example is non-numerical data representing the colors of flowers in a yard: yellow, blue, white, red, etc. Bar graphs and pie charts are used to display results containing non-numerical data.

Did you find a place that is north of the North Pole?

And you expect me to give you an answer to that? You are just rude.

Did you find out what a block universe is?

Yes and a universe cannot have a true future beyond "now". The Past no longer exists and the Future has not yet arrived.

Did you find any examples of measurements that "emerge"?

Take a walk and count your steps.

Did you find any examples of patterns "self-organising" (in which a pattern itself somehow does something to physical matter)?

H2O

How do you respond to the fatal flaw in Tegmark's hypothesis: that mathematics is conceptual, while the universe is physical?

How old is the universe?

You claim that you want to be asked questions and you say you will answer them, but you mostly just ignore them in practice. Why is that?

Because you do not ask good questions. Moreover I don't really like you .

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Well, I like to keep you in suspense.

You're not fooling anybody, Write4U. Least of all, me.

You have a pattern of avoiding things you find too difficult, Rather than simply admitting you don't know something, you pretend and try to bluff your way through - or you just ignore and hope it goes away. I see you.

No, I don't agree that you are correct. You haven't given me a correct answer at all.

Well, that's a rather big claim you've made there, Write4U, isn't it?

You've just said, essentially, that I'm wrong about everything.

And yet, you can't give a single example of where I made a mistake or got some relevant fact wrong. And meanwhile, you make mistake after mistake, just getting one thing wrong after another. When I point out your errors, you do nothing to correct them. You pretend you were right all along, or you just ignore the correction. You learn nothing.

non-numerical data...[snip]

You didn't answer the question I asked you. You posted another irrelevancy, as you so often do. Do you think I can't spot your attempts at distraction? I'm very used to them, because they are standard operating procedure for you.

And you expect me to give you an answer to that? You are just rude.

Do you understand the relevant connection to the problem with time before the big bang, or not?

That's what I hoped you might respond to. But instead, apparently I'm rude for pointing out your errors.

Yes and a universe cannot have a true future beyond "now". The Past no longer exists and the Future has not yet arrived.

You just repeated the same error about the block universe. Find out what it is, please. If you ask me, I'll tell you.

H2O

That's molecules of water arranging themselves. No pattern is causing anything when water changes phase. There is no mathematics causing anything.

How old is the universe?

Pay attention.

I asked you "How do you respond to the fatal flaw in Tegmark's hypothesis: that mathematics is conceptual, while the universe is physical?"

Why did you respond with a non sequitur question?

Maybe it's my fault. Maybe you interpret "How do you respond...?" to mean "Now it's your turn to talk about whatever pops into your mind. Please feel free to change the topic." Just to let you know: to me, "how do you respond...?" means "I have made an argument in favour of position X. Do you have a counter-argument against position X and, if so, what is it?"

Do you understand? I'm not looking for more stream-of-consciousness random blatherings in way of a response. I'm looking for a logical argument, with some premises, reasoning and a conclusion.

Because you do not ask good questions.

I ask questions that you don't want to answer. They are too hard for you, or they tend to show errors in your thinking. You don't like that.

Moreover I don't really like you .

I'm not surprised, Write4U. You probably don't often come across people who will hold your feet to the fire, regarding your nonsense and your pretence and your inventions. So, I'm annoying. You just want to blog here, and I get in your face. That makes me a horrible annoying person.

The problem couldn't possibly be on your end at all, could it?

 

[Write4U]

You've just said, essentially, that I'm wrong about everything.

No, I did not. That's what you incorrectly infer.

That's molecules of water arranging themselves. No pattern is causing anything when water changes phase. There is no mathematics causing anything.

IOW, watermolecules self-organizing into different patterns is causal to the phase change. Very mathematical.

Do you understand the relevant connection to the problem with time before the big bang, or not?

There was no time before the BB!
And there is no future time inside or outside the universe. And after NOW there is only the past.

 

[James R]

IOW, watermolecules self-organizing into different patterns is causal to the phase change.

Wrong again. Self-organisation is not the cause of water turning to ice, or steam to water.

But why didn't you address the actual objection I raised?

There was no time before the BB!

Then talking about anything that happened before the BB is meaningless.

And there is no future time inside or outside the universe.

What does "outside the universe" mean? Did you learn nothing from our discussion of "before the big bang"?

It's nonsensical to claim there's no future time. You have a calendar that predicts that there will be a tomorrow, for instance. You will be able to confirm for me, tomorrow, that this prediction your calendar is making now is, in fact, correct.

If all you are saying is that the future isn't now, then my response is: that's obvious. We wouldn't need two separate words for "now" and "future" if they were the same thing.

Do you remember how this came up? You mentioned the block universe. In the block universe, all of time just is. There is no special distinction between past, present and future in the block universe. Those terms only relate to the perspective of a specified event in spacetime.

If you try to throw out the "future" part of a block universe, the first question that arises is "whose future?", and the next problem that arises is that the whole "block" will collapse because you've inconsistently removed countless numbers of spacetime events, in the process destroying consistent notions of causality and more.

 

[Write4U]

Self-organisation is not the cause of water turning to ice, or steam to water.

Right, but the physics of the mathematical pattern "allows" for phase change.
I never said maths is causal. I said it "guides" the physics and either forbid or allow the physics. You are beginning to forget what I have posted several times. I'm getting tired having to repeat myself .
That is why I am starting to ignore some of your questions. They are becoming repetitive and boring.

Then talking about anything that happened before the BB is meaningless.

You asked a question and I answered it a long time ago. Was the statement wrong? If not then your critique is unwarranted and prejudicial in essence.

What does "outside the universe" mean? Did you learn nothing from our discussion of "before the big bang"?

How many time do I have to repeat myself. Are you getting forgetful? Age?
I have several times defined "outside of the universe" as " a timeless, dimensionless condition of nothingness". IOW, the universe is not expanding into anything. it is just expanding. Anything wrong with that?

It's nonsensical to claim there's no future time. You have a calendar that predicts that there will be a tomorrow, for instance. You will be able to confirm for me, tomorrow, that this prediction your calendar is making now is, in fact, correct.

And a prediction makes it real? Where did you learn science?

If all you are saying is that the future isn't now, then my response is: that's obvious. We wouldn't need two separate words for "now" and "future" if they were the same thing.

And did I say something different?

Do you remember how this came up? You mentioned the block universe. In the block universe, all of time just is. There is no special distinction between past, present and future in the block universe. Those terms only relate to the perspective of a specified event in spacetime.

That's only in context of relativity. The "expanding block itself has a "now" that started with the BB. Inside the universe all kinds of things happen, but not in the not-yet-existent future.

Saying that the future is already expressed in the now is an abstract mathematical equation of potential that has yet to become manifest.

If the future already exist, then why do we have the definition "potential" as "that which may become reality"? If potential is already real in the future, the definition is wrong then?? Naaahhh...you're just "gambling", playing the future odds.

I love poker, it would be great if I could see the future and know what every players holding!!
Or does relativity not work at short distances. You know of course that ALL observation is of events in the "past".

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Right, but the physics of the mathematical pattern "allows" for phase change.

That's muddled. The physics is the phase change. The maths is just a description of the phase change.

You shouldn't be surprised that a mathematical model describes something correctly when that model was built explicitly in an effort to describe the thing correctly.

I never said maths is causal. I said it "guides" the physics and either forbid or allow the physics. You are beginning to forget what I have posted several times. I'm getting tired having to repeat myself .

You're inconsistent.

You said you believe, with Tegmark, that maths is all there is, that everything is maths. If that is true, then maths must be causal, because there's nothing else available to cause things.

Meanwhile, outside of the Tegmarkian madness, maths describes physics, but it does not guide how any physical thing behaves. How could it? It's entirely conceptual.

I haven't forgotten what you posted in the past. I haven't forgotten how you flipped away from your initial claim. I haven't forgotten how you flipped back to it. And now, here you are flipping away from it again. You're inconsistent. Or, more likely, you can't see what your own beliefs imply about the world.

That is why I am starting to ignore some of your questions.

Starting? You've been ignoring my questions for years now.

They are becoming repetitive and boring.

Well, when you keep making the same repetitive boring errors and never learn anything when you are a corrected, what do you expect? Your posts are repetitive and boring, so that's very likely to rub off onto the questions that people ask you about them.

If you could learn something, we could move on and talk about some new things. But you've been stuck for years, learning nothing.

You asked a question and I answered it a long time ago. Was the statement wrong? If not then your critique is unwarranted and prejudicial in essence.

What was the question? What was your answer? What are you talking about?

How many time do I have to repeat myself.

I wish you'd stop repeating yourself and make an effort to learn something.

Are you getting forgetful? Age?

I'm possibly getting a bit more forgetful as a get older. How about you?

I have several times defined "outside of the universe" as " a timeless, dimensionless condition of nothingness".

"Nothingness" doesn't have any properties, so the adjectives "timeless" and "dimensionless" are entirely superfluous when applied to "nothingness".

On the same note, "nothingness" is not a "permissive condition". It does not have the property of permitting things.

IOW, the universe is not expanding into anything. it is just expanding. Anything wrong with that?

No. I only had an issue with your using the phrase "outside the universe". If the universe is not expanding into an outside, there's no point talking as if it is. Right?

And a prediction makes it real? Where did you learn science?

A verified prediction makes it accurate. Did you learn science?

That's only in context of relativity.

That's what the idea of a block universe applies to.

The "expanding block itself has a "now" that started with the BB.

I don't know where to start unpacking the errors in that sentence.

Inside the universe all kinds of things happen, but not in the not-yet-existent future.

You reject the block universe picture, then.

Saying that the future is already expressed in the now is an abstract mathematical equation of potential that has yet to become manifest.

Who said the future is already expressed in the now?

If the future already exist, then why do we have the definition "potential" as "that which may become reality"?

Because standard dictionaries give the common usages of words, not technical descriptions that assume a block universe model.

If potential is already real in the future, the definition is wrong then??

Not from the present perspective of an observer who exists now and who has incomplete knowledge about the physical universe - the de facto position we all find ourselves in.

I love poker, it would be great if I could see the future and know what every players holding!!

The fact that you can't do that in no way disproves the block universe model. Do you agree?

Or does relativity not work at short distances.

Relevance?

You know of course that ALL observation is of events in the "past".

And so... ??

 

[Randwolf]

And there is no future time inside or outside the universe. And after NOW there is only the past.

I was working with fractals and stumbled across a paper from a couple of months ago that simply screamed Write4U, so I thought I'd chum the waters a bit:

"This white paper embarks on an interdisciplinary journey to explore the hypothesis that Time is not merely a passive dimension but a conscious entity, intricately intertwined with the volume of the universe and the essence of consciousness. Drawing upon principles from quantum mechanics, neurobiology, and philosophical inquiry, this paper proposes a notion of Time as a dynamic, high-frequency waveform influenced by gravity and observable through its interactions with consciousness. The paper further investigates the role of biological processes, specifically within brain neurons’ microtubules, in mirroring Time’s complex nature."

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...b40d681bed776ae307a253/FOR-THE-TIME-BEING.pdf

I only read the abstract plus a couple more pages - not what I was looking for, but it seems to be in Write4U's wheelhouse - might even induce Nirvana. In any event, the reaction should be interesting.

Happy eigenstates, Write4U...

 

[Write4U]

I was working with fractals and stumbled across a paper from a couple of months ago that simply screamed Write4U, so I thought I'd chum the waters a bit:

Drawing upon principles from quantum mechanics, neurobiology, and philosophical inquiry, this paper proposes a notion of Time as a dynamic, high-frequency waveform influenced by gravity and observable through its interactions with consciousness. The paper further investigates the role of biological processes, specifically within brain neurons’ microtubules, in mirroring Time’s complex nature."

https://www.researchgate.net/profil...b40d681bed776ae307a253/FOR-THE-TIME-BEING.pdf

I only read the abstract plus a couple more pages - not what I was looking for, but it seems to be in Write4U's wheelhouse - might even induce Nirvana. In any event, the reaction should be interesting.

Happy eigenstates, Write4U...

LOL, you could not be more wrong about my understanding of the abstraction we have symbolized as "time".
It is clear you have not read any of my missives, or you would know that this NOT what I have posited. The very opposite is true. If this is the level of understanding my perspective of time, then I am wasting my "valuable time" that emerges as I write this.
I'll spell it out clearly.
IMO, the future does not yet exist at all, even for a block universe. Relativity happens inside this universe and has no bearing on the chronology of a block universe as an expanding singular object. Therefore time does not exist until it becomes expressed as a result of a chronology, when time may be recorded as the duration of that chronology, i.e. the universe is 13.7 billion years of age.

Astronomers determine properties of the universe by fitting the WMAP data with models. Values for when the first stars appear, the amount of dark matter, the age of the universe etc. are adjusted in the model until the resulting background matches the WMAP observations. The model that best fits the data gives an age for the universe of 13.7 ± 0.2 billion years.

https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/featured_science/tenyear/age.html

Note the different time blocks associated with the appearance of various chronologies within the universal "spacetime". Each durable object has its own emerging chronology within the greater universal time block
Outside the universe is nothing, a timeless, dimensionless, matterless condition of absolute nothingness.

I am not interested in the concept of a multiverse, because I see no conceptual difference between this Universe and other Universes.

 

[Write4U]

The fact that you can't do that in no way disproves the block universe model. Do you agree?

Stay on topic!
That is a whole new subject you just introduced. Block Universe? Multiverse? I don't speak about those things. Tegmark does.

 

[Write4U]

I was working with fractals and stumbled across a paper from a couple of months ago that simply screamed Write4U,

Too bad you didn't see my scream about Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT) by Renate Loll et al.

Causal dynamical triangulation

Causal dynamical triangulation (CDT), theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, is an approach to quantum gravity that, like loop quantum gravity, is background independent.

This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space) but, rather, attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

There is evidence [1] that, at large scales, CDT approximates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime but shows spacetime to be 2-dimensional near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work.

Derivation

CDT is a modification of quantum Regge calculus where spacetime is discretized by approximating it with a piecewise linear manifold in a process called triangulation. In this process, a d-dimensional spacetime is considered as formed by space slices that are labeled by a discrete time variable t.

Each space slice is approximated by a simplicial manifold composed by regular (d − 1)-dimensional simplices and the connection between these slices is made by a piecewise linear manifold of d-simplices. In place of a smooth manifold there is a network of triangulation nodes, where space is locally flat (within each simplex) but globally curved, as with the individual faces and the overall surface of a geodesic dome.

The line segments which make up each triangle can represent either a space-like or time-like extent, depending on whether they lie on a given time slice, or connect a vertex at time t with one at time t + 1. The crucial development is that the network of simplices is constrained to evolve in a way that preserves causality. This allows a path integral to be calculated non-perturbatively, by summation of all possible (allowed) configurations of the simplices, and correspondingly, of all possible spatial geometries.

Simply put, each individual simplex is like a building block of spacetime, but the edges that have a time arrow must agree in direction, wherever the edges are joined. This rule preserves causality, a feature missing from previous "triangulation" theories. When simplexes are joined in this way, the complex evolves in an orderly[how?] fashion, and eventually creates the observed framework of dimensions.

CDT builds upon the earlier work of Barrett, Crane, and Baez, but by introducing the causality constraint as a fundamental rule (influencing the process from the very start), Loll, Ambjørn, and Jurkiewicz created something different.

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

IMO, "orderly" refers to Mathematical, which is a logical model of self-ordering mathematical patterns.

 

[Randwolf]

LOL, you could not be more wrong...

And back’atcha... I thought you were brighter than that.

I was hoping to slip you a paper, one that wasn't already in your voluminous collection - without giving the impression that I was trying to slum on the bad side of town, so to speak.

I'm fully aware of your position on time. Only the present exists, along with a memory of the past. Yeah, yeah - not exactly a very sophisticated way of looking at things, nor one that would hold up to any sort of rigorous scrutiny. Then again, maybe you can support your position mathematically… After all, math is all that exists – quite literally, right? But, then again, I probably shouldn’t be looking for any profound "deep thoughts" from you, after you so badly misread my intent here.

Now, me being me, as I type this whilst simultaneously "cooling off", I'm starting to find excuses for you. Since everyone always gangs up on you, this is probably the only way you know to respond. If I were you, I would be extremely paranoid and defensive, too. So, yeah, we'll go with that.

As I said, I didn't read the paper beyond a cursory skimming of the abstract and first couple of pages, so I really can’t comment on what it says. I could, however, give a decent recital of your views - on consciousness, Penrose, Tegmark, quantum decoherence, and... dear God, let us not forget... microtubules. Or timeless, permissive, states of nothingness and self-organizing anything. I could go on…

Anyway, what had happened, was... This paper came up in my twenty-teenth or so search on fractals - for a project far, far away from Sci. In this paper, I noticed: MICROTUBULES, time, block universe and a couple of other terms that just went ding, ding, ding: "Write4U".

I know you’re not much for entertaining information that contradicts your worldview, but since the paper was speaking favorably of microtubules, in conjunction with consciousness, was only sixty days old - and - since I hadn't seen you mention this particular candidate for the "pseudoscience" bin, I thought I would take a chance on you not having seen it. So, I dropped it here for your perusal. My comments were just political cover, but I figured you would see through that, since I had supported you in the past (some time ago, admittedly). I guess the paper doesn't fit your narrative, so I'm sorry about that. And, since it is self-evident that you did not "see through", I'm sorry for that as well.

See, the microtubule thing intrigues me - always has. I'm nowhere near the hardcore fanatic you are, but the concept would fit well with my own preferences - finding a way to preserve free will in a deterministic world. For that, without getting into too much detail, I think there needs to be an element of randomness mixed in somewhere, or at least available. One of the only true sources of randomness that I am aware of is the quantum world, and I like the idea of collapse causing consciousness, instead of the other way around. Also, I find the empirical data surrounding the anesthesiology tie-in impressive. Just not conclusive… (IMHO)

On that note, the critics have some good points too, the high temperature of an active brain being a big one. That problem alone is borderline annihilation. Another is whether gravity even has a hand in collapse, in any case. However, at least the theory is falsifiable (rather easily, in the grand scheme of things), and has not yet been totally ruled out, so there is hope.

I'm not married to Orch-OR, though. If someone else comes up with a physical theory of consciousness, one that doesn't rely on some nebulous "other" (read soul, universal mind, thetons, an alien teenager using me as an avatar, paranormal trans dimensional beings, whatever) to pull the strings of free will, I will happily jump ship - in a heartbeat. I'm just not presently aware of any other concept that satisfies these requirements (along with a few others necessitated by my own, personal, philosophical metaphysics). But that's ok too - I don't lose a lot of sleep over it – after all, there are far more important concerns than the fundamental nature of reality, I’m sure… lol

Having said all of that, and since I'm lazy, why don't you tell us about the paper? I'm sure you've read it, and grokked it, in its entirety. Right? So, what are the author's premises? What does s/he conclude? How does that fit with other existing theories? (Orch-OR, Block Universe, Relativity, QM, etc.) Is the material presented well? Is it logically self-consistent? Did it make sense to you? Is it science (falsifiable)? What is the author’s field of expertise? What are his/her qualifications? Are the references properly cited? Has anyone else cited this paper? You know, all those things one does when encountering something new, in an area of central interest. You make a habit of doing those things as well, right, Write4U?

Now, you could tell me to stuff it, and do my own work, but I would naturally take that as a conclusive indication that you did not, in fact, read that which you criticize so vehemently. So, tell me – is the paper worth reading, in your esteemed opinion? What does it say? Did you read it?