Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo

[Write4U]

I love sources like this that ask the questions and provide library of informational materials.

What does it mean to be human? Why is symmetry so seductive? Is our universe really a hologram? The answers to these questions and more can be found here, in our library, which is chock full of fascinating videos on nearly every science-related topic you might ponder including physics, biology, the brain, robotics, space, engineering, and the earth. Below you'll find the perfect mix of thought-provoking programs; original shorts; educational explainers; and captivating profiles of scientists.

Video Library

Short and long-form videos on nearly every science-related topic including physics, biology, the brain, robotics, space, engineering, and the earth.

www.worldsciencefestival.com

 

[Pinball1970]

I thought the spacetime surface is 2 dimensional, but cannot possibly be flat. Gravity could not exist unless the surface can be warped.

I do not think there is an indication of the actual shape.

Flatness refers to the value of Omega Ω which appears to very close to one.

 

[Pinball1970]

Notice how I used the word "value" there?

 

[Pinball1970]

Is there any evidence that rules out a toroid universe?

Topology, Black holes, String Theory , Quantum mechanics, The universe needs maths to describe it. Much of it has it roots in General relativity, Classical mechanics, thermodynamics, nuclear physics which again needs maths to describe it.

 

[exchemist]

Topology, Black holes, String Theory , Quantum mechanics, The universe is all maths. Much of it has it roots in General relativity, Classical mechanics, thermodynamics, nuclear physics which is again all maths.

Er, hang on a moment. Our models of it are highly mathematical, but to say it “is” maths is to fall into the same trap as Write4U , surely?

To quote a well-worn phrase, the map is not the territory. The maths we use in our models describes the relationships between physically observed quantities, of physical entities.

Without the observations of physical things, defined in words, not maths, there is no model.

 

[Pinball1970]

Er, hang on a moment. Our models of it are highly mathematical, but to say it “is” maths is to fall into the same trap as Write4U , surely?

To quote a well-worn phrase, the map is not the territory. The maths we use in our models describes the relationships between physically observed quantities, of physical entities.

Without the observations of physical things, defined in words, not maths, there is no model.

In terms of describing them, those disciplines.

 

[Pinball1970]

Without the observations of physical things, defined in words, not maths, there is no model.

Sure you can get so far with words but at some point if you are going to talk about Quantum Mechanics in a productive way you need maths.

 

[Pinball1970]

Just for clarification I absolutely did not mean maths like Tegmark "its all maths." Anyway I have edited it.

 

[exchemist]

Sure you can get so far with words but at some point if you are going to talk about Quantum Mechanics in a productive way you need maths.

Yes of course. But first you need definitions of, say, an electron, mass, charge etc. You need words to do that.

But don’t mind me, it’s just my one man fight against the seeming tyranny of maths in science. Maths is the servant of science, not its master.

 

[Write4U]

I do not think there is an indication of the actual shape.

Flatness refers to the value of Omega Ω which appears to very close to one.

I understand that the sheer size of it all makes the surface seem flat (hence the flat earth), but all descriptions model the universe as an expanding sphere.

The observable universe is thus a sphere with a diameter of about 28.5 gigaparsecs (93 billion light-years or 8.8×1026 m). Assuming that space is roughly flat (in the sense of being a Euclidean space), this size corresponds to a comoving volume of about 1.22×104 Gpc3 (4.22×105 Gly3 or 3.57×1080 m3).

Observable universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But that does not exclude a torus.

And don't want to go spiritual, but when a pattern can be observed everywhere in nature and especially when associated with energy, it must have a significant inherent potential.

The torus is the regenerative flow of life-force energy found in the human heart, as well as the heart of the Earth, the Sun, and the Milky Way Galaxy. This electromagnetic field is found in atoms, cells, seeds, flowers, trees, animals, humans, hurricanes, planets, suns, galaxies and even the cosmos as a whole. Jan 29, 2021

Order from Chaos

The torus is self-organizing. The process of spiraling into flow, where individual parts come into an overall order, is spontaneous and happens without control from an external force. The system inherently knows how to create order from chaos.

Centered and Connected

One of the key characteristics of the torus is that at its very center, there is a space of ultimate balance and stillness. This “zero point” or “singularity” ~ in which there is nothing yet everything, where all is known yet unknown ~ is the space of pure potentiality from which all matter is brought into form.

The Regenerative Flow of Nature

Aligning your business with the energy of life

medium.com

To me, these arguments sound powerfully logical and scientifically supportable.
But this does not mean that I bring burnt offerings to curry favor with the gods.....

 

[Write4U]

Yes of course. But first you need definitions of, say, an electron, mass, charge etc. You need words to do that.

I realize that in respect to human understanding. That is the human verbal description of the map. But words are not recognized by nature.

OTOH. the maths describe the values of the objects contained in the map and values are recognized by nature.
Physics are expressed values.

A topography is a realistic miniature physically expressed model of a natural pattern.

 

[Pinball1970]

I understand that the sheer size of it all makes the surface seem flat (hence the flat earth), but all descriptions model the universe as an expanding sphere.

I do not think there is way to tell.



Using the fish analogy, a fishes universe is the pond, it was born there and will die there never knowing trees and clouds above.



An ant too, lives on a flat surface so thinks his world is only two dimensions, he cannot travel up and down.



So to with us, the Universe is everything by definition so we cannot step out of it and see what shape it is.



I have not looked into it recently but from what I remember cosmologists are more interested in the exact value of Omega, regarding the density and expansion (plus DM dark energy etc but ill keep it simple)



Like I said it is looking flat w.r.t that number.



Cosmologists also say the universe could be spatially infinite but temporally finite. That is a thinker.



One misconception is that the universe began as a small, point in space and then expanded into that space.

First, the expansion began from a region of space time as per above and it did not expand “into” anything, the space itself expanded and is still expanding.



If the universe is finite now it always was.

The “observable” universe is parts we can see and that is restricted by the speed of light, if there is a region of the universe that is accelerating away from us faster than C,

then the light will never reach us.



There are galaxies we can see now but will disappear as a result, over time all galaxies will have vanished with the exception of galaxies like Andromeda.



Whether the universe is 3 sphere or whatever is a lot less interesting, to me at least.

 

[Pinball1970]

OTOH. the maths describe the values of the objects contained in the map and values are recognized by nature.

Meaningless statement

Physics are expressed values.

No, physics is the study of fundamental forces and mass in the universe from the very small the universe itself.
Obviously there are numbers involved but just quit sticking the word value in where ever you can, it's usually wrong.

A topography is a realistic miniature physically expressed model of a natural pattern.

I said topology, which is a branch of mathematics.

 

[Pinball1970]

I do not think there is way to tell.



Using the fish analogy, a fishes universe is the pond, it was born there and will die there never knowing trees and clouds above.



An ant too, lives on a flat surface so thinks his world is only two dimensions, he cannot travel up and down.



So to with us, the Universe is everything by definition so we cannot step out of it and see what shape it is.



I have not looked into it recently but from what I remember cosmologists are more interested in the exact value of Omega, regarding the density and expansion (plus DM dark energy etc but ill keep it simple)



Like I said it is looking flat w.r.t that number.



Cosmologists also say the universe could be spatially infinite but temporally finite. That is a thinker.



One misconception is that the universe began as a small, point in space and then expanded into that space.

First, the expansion began from a region of space time as per above and it did not expand “into” anything, the space itself expanded and is still expanding.



If the universe is finite now it always was.

The “observable” universe is parts we can see and that is restricted by the speed of light, if there is a region of the universe that is accelerating away from us faster than C,

then the light will never reach us.



There are galaxies we can see now but will disappear as a result, over time all galaxies will have vanished with the exception of galaxies like Andromeda.



Whether the universe is 3 sphere or whatever is a lot less interesting, to me at least.

So many stupid mistakes in this post. Apologies.
I typed in an e mail at work and stuck it on.

Fish's universe

Infinite in the past, always infinite.

So too, with us.

 

[Pinball1970]

So many stupid mistakes in this post. Apologies.
I typed in an e mail at work and stuck it on.

Fish's universe

Infinite in the past, always infinite.

So too, with us.

You see Write4U it is important to acknowledge one's silly errors no matter how small and try and learn and move on.

So, have a look at what Chandra, Webb, Gaia, HST and JWST are doing.
Webb especially is re-writing cosmology text books right now.

The dark matter v MOND is probably the hottest topic. Who cares if we live in a 3 sphere?

 

[Write4U]

I do not think there is way to tell.

I'll refer to wiki;

The universe's size is unknown, and it may be infinite in extent.[19] Some parts of the universe are too far away for the light emitted since the Big Bang to have had enough time to reach Earth or space-based instruments, and therefore lie outside the observable universe. In the future, light from distant galaxies will have had more time to travel, so one might expect that additional regions will become observable. Regions distant from observers (such as us) are expanding away faster than the speed of light, at rates estimated by Hubble's law.[note 3] The expansion rate appears to be accelerating, which dark energy was proposed to explain.

But when placed on a torus-shaped universe , can the expansion rate not also naturally accelerate without the need for dark energy and without the light from outside the observable portion of the torus ever reaching us and observable lights actually disappearing beyond that horizon.

Using the fish analogy, a fishes universe is the pond, it was born there and will die there never knowing trees and clouds above.

That's a poor analogy . There are many fish that rise above the water surface and even fly through the air, and crawl on land.

An ant too, lives on a flat surface so thinks his world is only two dimensions, he cannot travel up and down.

Don't tell that to the herder ant. They herd aphids and strictly control where the aphids are to graze.

So to with us, the Universe is everything by definition so we cannot step out of it and see what shape it is.

OK, I agree, but can we examine the universe from the inside out and determine it's shape by observable geometrics?

I have not looked into it recently but from what I remember cosmologists are more interested in the exact value of Omega, regarding the density and expansion (plus DM dark energy etc but ill keep it simple)

Like I said it is looking flat w.r.t that number.

But Omega is not a measurements of flatness but of curvature, no? And is it not used to estimate the size of the universe?

Cosmologists also say the universe could be spatially infinite but temporally finite. That is a thinker.

Oh boy, you're not going to like this. IMO, outside the universe there is only a timeless, dimensionless condition and inside the universe time is an emergent property along with duration. The dimension of time emerges along with the duration of universal existence.

If the Universe were to have extant future that would argue for a torus shaped universe.

One misconception is that the universe began as a small, point in space and then expanded into that space.

Well, that is a relative statement, isn't it?

First, the expansion began from a region of space time as per above and it did not expand “into” anything, the space itself expanded and is still expanding.

I agree, there is no outside the universe but a timeless dimensionless condition. The universe is creating spacetime as it expands.

If the universe is finite now it always was.

I agree with that. It seems illogical to have an infinitely expanding universe with finite energy

The “observable” universe is parts we can see and that is restricted by the speed of light, if there is a region of the universe that is accelerating away from us faster than C,

And that does not rule out a toroid universe, alternately expanding and contracting from and to a central singularity

then the light will never reach us.

In a toroid universe any light that has passed the equator horizon would be invisible until our spacetime slice also passed the equator.

There are galaxies we can see now but will disappear as a result, over time all galaxies will have vanished with the exception of galaxies like Andromeda.

Is it possible that Andromeda is at the equator and has stopped receding while we are catching up towards the equator?
Could we measure if Andromeda and Milky Way are accelerating towards each other?

Whether the universe is 3 sphere or whatever is a lot less interesting, to me at least.

Of course, you have a different relationship to science than I.

No, physics is the study of fundamental forces and mass in the universe from the very small the universe itself.
Obviously there are numbers involved but just quit sticking the word value in where ever you can, it's usually wrong.

I disagree. The universe cannot do anything with a force or a mass unless that force or mass has a deterministic value that determines the interactive result. 1 lb of mass + 1lb of mass = 2lb of mass regardless how you want to symbolize it in human terms.
Deterministic Inputs must exist of discrete amounts (deterministic values), in order to produce determined outputs with discrete result.
I don't see how that can be problematic.

The deterministic nature of natural processes demand discrete relational processing values, else you get garbage in, garbage out.

 

[James R]

Is the idea of "energy" useful? Is the idea of "mass" useful? Is the idea of "length" useful? Is the idea of .......... ?

The list of values is long and varied, and we have symbolized and codified a lot of these values where they "related" to us humans

You didn't take in anything I said to you, did you? You have utterly failed to engage with the point of my post, which I thought I made quite clear. I even referenced examples from your posts. In response, you managed too irrelevant lines of text, neither of which address my objection to your non-attempt to define "value".

It's pointless engaging with you.

 

[James R]

I like this paper, but instead of answering Chalmer's "hard problem", I believe this may support the ORCH OR hypothesis as well.
Perhaps it does both?

It's pure, unadulterated pseudoscientific nonsense.

 

[James R]

But just as "life" is an extension of "dynamism", so is "consciousness" an extension of "reactive response".

What is that supposed to mean?

We know it all starts as pure energy with unlimited potential (the implicate) followed by the mathematical ordering and stochastic evolution of potentials (the explicate) in response to relational interactions.

There's no such thing as "pure energy". Energy isn't a substance. It can't be "pure" or "adulterated".

The rest is just word salad. Meaningless.

I call this a quasi-intelligent process that evolves deterministically toward the naturally selected forms best adapted to their environment.

That, also, means nothing, as we have established in previous discussions.

While this appears to be targeted to biological systems, I submit that the same logic applies to non-biological interactive patterns, such as the effect of CFC's on the Earth's ozone layer that can be likened to a persistent illness experienced by the earth's stratosphere.

Likening the earth's atmosphere to an organism that can become "ill" is a rather overstretched, tortured analogy.

I see these evolving patterns as having an underlying commonality.

You see everything as having an underlying commonality. That doesn't mean it actually has that. You just write stuff for the sake of writing, don't you? It's just empty claim after empty claim.

And so it is with the emergence and evolution of "sentience" from "reactive sensitivity", and "consciousness" from "observable homeostatic processes"

Word salad.

Is there any evidence that rules out a toroid universe?

Define "toroid universe".

How would you go about distinguishing a "toroidal universe" from some other kind of universe, Write4U. Explain. What observed features would be a dead giveaway that the universe is toroidal?

But at that fundamental level, certain emergent properties are already implied.

What fundamental level?

Things are in a constant state of vibration, how do they do that?

What "things" are you talking about?

What allows this (tuned?) vibration to exist?

What do you mean "tuned"?

.... and speaking of an "objective wave reduction" brings an implication of strings...

No it doesn't.

... the vibrating values ...

Again the useless word "value", which is meaningless every time you use it.

... that at larger scales are the objects that generate physical sound waves and allow us to compose symphonies.

It's just typing for the sake of typing, isn't it?

I thought the spacetime surface is 2 dimensional, but cannot possibly be flat. Gravity could not exist unless the surface can be warped.

What is the "spacetime surface"? Explain.

A toroid universe can have a 2D surface yet be gravitationally curved, being that the center of a toroid may contain a super massive BH

Can it? Where can I find the 2D surface of a toroid universe, exactly? Will a telescope let me see it?

I do not look at a black hole in context of what it is and how it behaves.

Correct. You do not.

I want to relate it to its effects on the fabric of space itself.

Didn't Einstein and Schwarzschild and Kerr already do that?

If the Universe is fractal then a lot of questions about symmetry and curvature can be resolved without complicated equations.

How? Explain the specifics.

And I am a fervent supporter of the concept of a universe with a "reducible complexity" down to the most simple essential properties, but with infinite potential .

Word salad. You're not actually saying anything.

Fractality is one such infinitely reducible system, no?

No.

 

[James R]

But when placed on a torus-shaped universe , can the expansion rate not also naturally accelerate without the need for dark energy and without the light from outside the observable portion of the torus ever reaching us and observable lights actually disappearing beyond that horizon.

Who says it can? You? Where's your maths? You're the "everything is maths" guy, so why don't we ever see any maths from you?

OK, I agree, but can we examine the universe from the inside out and determine it's shape by observable geometrics?

If we can't, why are you claiming the universe is toroidal? Just a guess? A fantasy?

But Omega is not a measurements of flatness but of curvature, no?

No.

And is it not used to estimate the size of the universe?

It is not.

Oh boy, you're not going to like this. IMO, outside the universe there is only a timeless, dimensionless condition and inside the universe time is an emergent property along with duration. The dimension of time emerges along with the duration of universal existence.

Word salad.

As we have established in previous conversations, "timeless, dimensionless condition" is a meanless description you just made up. It doesn't actually refer to anything.

If the Universe were to have extant future that would argue for a torus shaped universe.

Why? Explain your chain of reasoning which leads from your premise to your conclusion.

There isn't one, is there? It's just typing for the sake of typing.

I agree, there is no outside the universe but a timeless dimensionless condition.

Pinball did not mention a "timeless dimensionless condition". Why would he? It's meaningless rubbish that you invented.

The universe is creating spacetime as it expands.

It is? What makes you think that?

Do you think that "spacetime" is a substance that needs to be created?

It seems illogical to have an infinitely expanding universe with finite energy

Why? What theory says it's illogical? Or is this just another random fantasy you have?

In a toroid universe any light that has passed the equator horizon would be invisible until our spacetime slice also passed the equator.

Show me your maths on that.

Is it possible that Andromeda is at the equator and has stopped receding while we are catching up towards the equator?

What are you talking about? Which equator? The equator of what?

Could we measure if Andromeda and Milky Way are accelerating towards each other?

Yes. I'd have to check, but I actually think they might be doing just that. Don't quote me on that, though.

Of course, you have a different relationship to science than I.

As in, he knows some, while you just imagine you know some.

The universe cannot do anything with a force or a mass unless that force or mass has a deterministic value that determines the interactive result.

Why not? What about quantum mechanics? Is that deterministic?

The deterministic nature of natural processes demand discrete relational processing values, else you get garbage in, garbage out.

Your posts are typically garbage out. "Discrete relational processing values" is, of course, meaningless. We can tell because you use the magic word "values", which, as we have already established, is meaningless whenever you write it. And that's before we even start to consider the issues with the preceding three words.