Write4U's stream of consciousness

[origin]

I don't think you're able to provide anything I might want.

LOL

 

[Write4U]

The bit in red here seems not to be a quote at all, but made up by you - and ballocks. A mixed state is not "chaotically disordered".

The original plasma state of the universe was chaotically disordered. Chaos Theory spells it out clearly.

Chaos Theory

Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary area of scientific study and branch of mathematics focused on underlying patterns and deterministic laws of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions and were once thought to have completely random states of disorder and irregularities.[1] Chaos theory states that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnection, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals and self-organization.[2]

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

What is Chaos Theory?

Chaos is the science of surprises, of the nonlinear and the unpredictable. It teaches us to expect the unexpected. While most traditional science deals with supposedly predictable phenomena like gravity, electricity, or chemical reactions, Chaos Theory deals with nonlinear things that are effectively impossible to predict or control, like turbulence, weather, the stock market, our brain states, and so on.

These phenomena are often described by fractal mathematics, which captures the infinite complexity of nature.

Many natural objects exhibit fractal properties, including landscapes, clouds, trees, organs, rivers etc, and many of the systems in which we live exhibit complex, chaotic behavior. Recognizing the chaotic, fractal nature of our world can give us new insight, power, and wisdom. For example, by understanding the complex, chaotic dynamics of the atmosphere, a balloon pilot can “steer” a balloon to a desired location. By understanding that our ecosystems, our social systems, and our economic systems are interconnected, we can hope to avoid actions which may end up being detrimental to our long-term well-being.

Principles of Chaos

The Butterfly Effect: This effect grants the power to cause a hurricane in China to a butterfly flapping its wings in New Mexico. It may take a very long time, but the connection is real. If the butterfly had not flapped its wings at just the right point in space/time, the hurricane would not have happened. A more rigorous way to express this is that small changes in the initial conditions lead to drastic changes in the results.

It is also the foundation for evolutionary processes

Our lives are an ongoing demonstration of this principle. Who knows what the long-term effects of teaching millions of kids about chaos and fractals will be?

Unpredictability: Because we can never know all the initial conditions of a complex system in sufficient (i.e. perfect) detail, we cannot hope to predict the ultimate fate of a complex system. Even slight errors in measuring the state of a system will be amplified dramatically, rendering any prediction useless. Since it is impossible to measure the effects of all the butterflies (etc) in the World, accurate long-range weather prediction will always remain impossible.

Order / Disorder

Chaos is not simply disorder. Chaos explores the transitions between order and disorder, which often occur in surprising ways.

https://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-is-chaos-theory/

The Origins of the Universe: Inflation

Inflation works as a cosmic microscope to see the quantum fluctuations in the very early Universe

Using classical physics, the evolution of the inflationary Universe is homogeneous - each spatial point evolves exactly the same way. However, quantum physics introduces some uncertainty in the initial conditions for the different spatial points.

These variations act as seeds for structure formation.

After the inflationary period, when fluctuations are amplified, the density of matter will vary slightly from place to place in the Universe. Gravity will cause the more dense regions to start contracting, leading to the formation of galaxies.

And the emergent (evolving) consciousness of the mathematically deterministic processes that got us here. i.e. Science.
more... https://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/outreach/origins/inflation_zero.php

In a mathematical universe, with sufficient resources, any dynamical activity will eventually lead to the evolution and emergence of self-organization of regular measurable patterns.

On Earth we have not yet discovered all the varieties of mathematical patterns in nature. There may be a potential infinity of complexity. But from my limited perspective, it started with an inflating singularity, an exponentially growing abstract "value" (energy?) that subsequently became inhabited by deterministically self-ordering (fractal) patterns inside the spacetime geometry. The earth itself is part of the potential expressions of evolutionary processes throughout the Universe and its (growing?) available "hospitable surface area" for life and emergent consciousness.

Consider that the 3lbs human brain alone contains more synaptic data exchange points, in close proximity, than the number of stars (solar systems) in this galaxy. Quote a nano-scale data transmission network.

I like the expression, "Wholeness and the Implicate Order". It is an "objective" conceptual mathematical model.

 

[Write4U]

Talking about evolving consciousness.

The Human Brain in Numbers: A Linearly Scaled-up Primate Brain

The human brain as a special brain

What makes us human? Is our brain, the only one known to study other brains, special in any way? According to a recent popular account of what makes us unique, “we have brains that are bigger than expected for an ape, we have a neocortex that is three times bigger than predicted for our body size, we have some areas of the neocortex and the cerebellum that are larger than expected, we have more white matter” – and the list goes on (Gazzaniga, 2008). Most specialists seem to agree (for example, Marino, 1998; Rilling, 2006; Sherwood et al., 2006).

Since ours is obviously not the largest brain on Earth, our superior cognitive abilities cannot be accounted for by something as simple as brain size, the most readily measurable parameter regarding the brain. Emphasis is thus placed on an exceptionality that is, curiously, not brain-centered, but rather body-centered: With a smaller body but a larger brain than great apes, the human species deviates from the relationship between body and brain size that applies to other primates, great apes included, boasting a brain that is 5–7× too large for its body size (Jerison, 1973; Marino, 1998).

Recent efforts to support this uniqueness have focused on finding genetic differences between humans and other primates (reviewed in Vallender, 2008), as well as cellular particularities such as the presence and distribution of Von Economo neurons (Nimchinsky et al., 1999; but see Butti et al., 2009; Hakeem et al., 2009).

more .... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2776484/

Interestingly, I found a paper on a genetic mutation that might shed light on this extraordinary evolutionary "leap" in brain complexity.

Human Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes
Alec MacAndrew

Introduction
All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes.
There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong.

Let us re-iterate what we find on human chromosome 2. Its centromere is at the same place as the chimpanzee chromosome 2p as determined by sequence similarity. Even more telling is the fact that on the 2q arm of the human chromosome 2 is the unmistakable remains of the original chromosome centromere of the common ancestor of human and chimp 2q chromosome, at the same position as the chimp 2q centromere (this structure in humans no longer acts as a centromere for chromosome 2.

more ... Conclusion

The evidence that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two of the common ancestor's chromosomes is overwhelming.

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

I have done a cursory trace, and the timeframe for this rare beneficial mutation appears consistent with the split of Humans from our common ancestor.

What if this new single chromosome that was the sum of two merged individual parts contains the instruction for more complex brain growth, resulting in a "clever" ancestor that introduced his gene count into the general gene pool? In a relatively few generations, this split might have resulted in a small troupe leaving the forest for the plains.... etc.

 

[Pinball1970]

And the emergent (evolving) consciousness of the mathematically deterministic processes that got us here. i.e. Science.

Half the stuff you have posted, is with respect to Quantum /quantum fields.

QT is not deterministic.

 

[Pinball1970]

Interestingly, I found a paper on a genetic mutation that might shed light on this extraordinary evolutionary "leap" in brain complexity.

They discovered this in the 1990s and did further work in the 2000s.

You are over 20 years behind,just get a decent book on Evolution/genetics.

 

[Write4U]

Half the stuff you have posted, is with respect to Quantum /quantum fields.
QT is not deterministic

It's probabilistic, but the law of "cause and effect" is already present during the inflationary epoch, no?

They discovered this in the 1990s and did further work in the 2000s.
You are over 20 years behind,just get a decent book on Evolution/genetics.

Thanks for the update.
And what were the results of the hypothesis that chromosome 2 was responsible for the evolutionary leap in brain power? I am eager to know!

After all, we have the normal evolutionary chronology represented in the other hominids, and chromosome 2 is associated only with humans.

Seems that 2 great coincidences suggest a connection with increased neural brain growth, the one excellence that sets us truly apart from our more conventional natural cousins, not counting cosmetic changes.

 

[exchemist]

The original plasma state of the universe was chaotically disordered. Chaos Theory spells it out clearly.

Chaos Theory

What is Chaos Theory?

Principles of Chaos

It is also the foundation for evolutionary processes Order / Disorder https://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-is-chaos-theory/

The Origins of the Universe: Inflation

Inflation works as a cosmic microscope to see the quantum fluctuations in the very early Universe
And the emergent (evolving) consciousness of the mathematically deterministic processes that got us here. i.e. Science.
more... https://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/outreach/origins/inflation_zero.php

In a mathematical universe, with sufficient resources, any dynamical activity will eventually lead to the evolution and emergence of self-organization of regular measurable patterns.

On Earth we have not yet discovered all the varieties of mathematical patterns in nature. There may be a potential infinity of complexity. But from my limited perspective, it started with an inflating singularity, an exponentially growing abstract "value" (energy?) that subsequently became inhabited by deterministically self-ordering (fractal) patterns inside the spacetime geometry. The earth itself is part of the potential expressions of evolutionary processes throughout the Universe and its (growing?) available "hospitable surface area" for life and emergent consciousness.

Consider that the 3lbs human brain alone contains more synaptic data exchange points, in close proximity, than the number of stars (solar systems) in this galaxy. Quote a nano-scale data transmission network.

I like the expression, "Wholeness and the Implicate Order". It is an "objective" conceptual mathematical model.

None of which has the remotest connexion to a mixed state in quantum mechanics.

This is senile rambling.

 

[Pinball1970]

It's probabilistic, but the law of "cause and effect" is already present during the inflationary epoch, no?

Cause and effect?
We are talking about quantum nature of one particular model of the very early universe.
This is nothing to do with "cause and effect."

 

[Write4U]

None of which has the remotest connexion to a mixed state in quantum mechanics.

Cause and effect?
We are talking about quantum nature of one particular model of the very early universe.
This is nothing to do with "cause and effect."

Explain how a "quantum field" is not chaotic and how self-forming patterns within that field are not the result of "cause and effect" .

And I believe that this applies generally to all possible "models" of the very early universe.

Cause and Effect

1. the principle of causation.
   "the post-Cartesian attempt to see everything as governed by simple laws of cause and effect"
   • the operation or relation of a cause and its effect.
     "cause and effect play an important part in the universe"

Causality

How one process influences another
Causality is an influence by which one event, process, state, or object (a cause) contributes to the production of another event, process, state, or object (an effect) where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause. In general, a process has many causes, which are also said to be causal factors... Wikipedia

Self-organization is a result of cause and effect. And recurring self-organization evolves via mathematical principles.

 

[Pinball1970]

Self-organization is a result of cause and effect. And recurring self-organization evolves via mathematical principles.

No.

 

[Write4U]

No.

Are you going to tell me self-organization evolves via physical principles?

principles of physical science

The present opinion, rather generally held by physicists, is that these fundamental particles and forces, treated quantitatively by the methods of quantum mechanics, can reveal in detail the behaviour of all material objects.

This is not to say that everything can be deduced mathematically from a small number of fundamental principles, since the complexity of real things defeats the power of mathematics or of the largest computers.

Nevertheless, whenever it has been found possible to calculate the relationship between an observed property of a body and its deeper structure, no evidence has ever emerged to suggest that the more complex objects, even living organisms, require that special new principles be invoked, at least so long as only matter, and not mind, is in question.

The physical scientist thus has two very different roles to play: on the one hand, he has to reveal the most basic constituents and the laws that govern them; and, on the other, he must discover techniques for elucidating the peculiar features that arise from complexity of structure without having recourse each time to the fundamentals.

This modern view of a unified science, embracing fundamental particles, everyday phenomena, and the vastness of the Cosmos, is a synthesis of originally independent disciplines, many of which grew out of useful arts.

The extraction and refining of metals, the occult manipulations of alchemists, and the astrological interests of priests and politicians all played a part in initiating systematic studies that expanded in scope until their mutual relationships became clear, giving rise to what is customarily recognized as modern physical science.

The development of quantitative science

Modern physical science is characteristically concerned with numbers—the measurement of quantities and the discovery of the exact relationship between different measurements. Yet this activity would be no more than the compiling of a catalog of facts unless an underlying recognition of uniformities and correlations enabled the investigator to choose what to measure out of an infinite range of choices available.

Proverbs purporting to predict weather are relics of science prehistory and constitute evidence of a general belief that the weather is, to a certain degree, subject to rules of behaviour. Modern scientific weather forecasting attempts to refine these rules and relate them to more fundamental physical laws so that measurements of temperature, pressure, and wind velocity at a large number of stations can be assembled into a detailed model of the atmosphere whose subsequent evolution can be predicted—not by any means perfectly but almost always more reliably than was previously possible.

https://www.britannica.com/science/principles-of-physical-science.

Scientific law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or
observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.[1] The term law has diverse usage in many cases (approximate, accurate, broad, or narrow) across all fields of natural science (physics, chemistry, astronomy, geoscience, biology).

Laws are developed from data and can be further developed through mathematics; in all cases they are directly or indirectly based on empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they implicitly reflect, though they do not explicitly assert, causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law#

 

[Pinball1970]

Explain how a "quantum field" is not chaotic and how self-forming patterns within that field are not the result of "cause and effect

You want me to explain why your conclusions are nonsense?
I have already explained why your posts are nonsense.

 

[Pinball1970]

And I believe that this applies generally to all possible "models" of the very early universe.

"What you believe" about pretty much everything you post, is either well documented science and you are restating it with pastes or misrepresenting it.

Usually a mixture.

 

[Write4U]

You want me to explain why your conclusions are nonsense?
I have already explained why your posts are nonsense.

No, you haven't explained why you believe my post are nonsense. You state only that they are nonsense.
I want you to explain why you are right and I spout nonsense.

I could tell you, that you are spouting nonsense without telling you why, and where would that get us?

Does the quoted science in support of my posts not indicate that my conclusions have some foundation in science? If my interpretation is wrong, you have failed to indicate exactly where and how it is wrong. You leave very little room for explanations, except for insisting on a "teary-eyed" apology for being stupid.

"What you believe" about pretty much everything you post, is either well documented science and you are restating it with pastes or misrepresenting it. Usually a mixture.

Why am I still waiting for an explanation (preferably with an example) where I am misrepresenting science.

You can be a teacher or a critic. I admire teachers, I loathe critics.

That is precisely why I accompany my (condensed) posts with quotes from Science, to avoid any possible misunderstandings.

Alas, even my quoted sciences are considered "tainted" by my pen. "Fruit from a poisoned tree"?

 

[Pinball1970]

Alas, even my quoted sciences are considered "tainted" by my pen. "Fruit from a poisoned tree"?

I gave you a chance my friend and you did not take it.
No more engagements.
You post something wrong I will correct it where I can for the benefit of you and observers, advice from Exchemist.
It's best this way.

 

[Write4U]

I gave you a chance my friend and you did not take it.
No more engagements.
You post something wrong I will correct it where I can for the benefit of you and observers, advice from Exchemist.
It's best this way.

And I will challenge you on the specific issue you are claiming to be "debating".

 

[Pinball1970]

And I will challenge you on the specific issue you are claiming to be "debating".

I'm not debating anything just correcting when I know.

 

[Pinball1970]

You can be a teacher or a critic. I admire teachers, I loathe critics

I suggest you go back over previous conversations about where I offered information on STEM.

 

[exchemist]

And I will challenge you on the specific issue you are claiming to be "debating".

This post of yours illustrates the point perfectly. We have made clear we are not going to "debate" anything with you, because you do not listen to anything people say.

And yet here you are, referring to us "debating", thereby showing that.......you do not listen. QED.

 

[Pinball1970]

Just to clarify Write4u, in case you Google QED and start pasting Feynman diagrams.

This QED is not a quantum acronym reference.
This is the Latin saying meaning "it has been demonstrated."

Quod erat demonstradum.