Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

In physics many of the models are just equations, but in organic chemistry many times the models are lines and letters and symbols for charge.

I can make organic chemistry predictions using models like this. Models that don't employ mathematics.

But I know that real molecules are not lines and letters. None-the-less I can make some predictions using just lines and letters written on paper.

So does nature work by mathematics, or does it work by lines and letters?

Can you give a simple example of these lines and letters?

A leaf even computes information about its surroundings.

Not by employing mathematics.

No, but its underlying nature may be mathematical. For example, imagine a car travelling at 10 m/s for 20 seconds. The equation for its distance in 20 seconds is t*V = 20*10 = 200m. The symbol for the car and its speed is V. So we can replace the actual car and its speed with V. Then we can replace the length of time that the actual event happens in with t. Finally, we can replace the distance driven on the road with 200m.

Why does it matter that the symbols are not the actual objects? Languages have different symbols for words that mean the same thing; why can't we do the same with nature and arbitrary symbols? The meaning is what's important; the symbol or what it actually represents is not important.

 

[untermensche]

Can you give a simple example of these lines and letters?

Here is a synthesis of a drug.



No mathematics, but a model of reality and the ability to make predictions.

So which is it?

Is the universe a system of mathematics or a system of lines and letters?

 

[George S]

Can you give a simple example of these lines and letters?

Here is a synthesis of a drug.



No mathematics, but a model of reality and the ability to make predictions.

So which is it?

Is the universe a system of mathematics or a system of lines and letters?

The universe acts. Sometimes math describes it. Sometimes diagrams and pictures.

Sometimes the universe acts in non-intuitive ways. In these cases the picture shows things (like quantum entanglement and quantum tunneling) where common sense fails. Here math rules the day.

 

[fromderinside]

The universe acts. Sometimes math describes it. Sometimes diagrams and pictures.Sometimes the universe acts in non-intuitive ways. In these cases the picture shows things (like quantum entanglement and quantum tunneling) where common sense fails. Here math rules the day.

Quibble: The universe is a coherent entity?
Quibble²:  Mathematical diagram. Mathematically pictures, cartoons, diagrams are the same thing.

So it looks as if ryan hasn't read enough to form an operable question.

 

[ryan]

Can you give a simple example of these lines and letters?

Here is a synthesis of a drug.

... ...

No mathematics, but a model of reality and the ability to make predictions.

So which is it?

Is the universe a system of mathematics or a system of lines and letters?

There are equations that can explain all of this. The information required probably couldn't fit into a typical computer, but they do exist. I think it was Seth Lloyd who wrote in his book Programming the Universe that said that the information to completely describe the air molecules in a balloon would need a computer the size of the Solar System. The universe can be reduced to a certain number of bits of information, and all of it done with equations like the Schrodinger equation and other simpler ones.

 

[untermensche]

No mathematics, but a model of reality and the ability to make predictions.

So which is it?

Is the universe a system of mathematics or a system of lines and letters?

The universe acts. Sometimes math describes it. Sometimes diagrams and pictures.

Sometimes the universe acts in non-intuitive ways. In these cases the picture shows things (like quantum entanglement and quantum tunneling) where common sense fails. Here math rules the day.

There is nothing intuitive about the universe.

For example, there is nothing intuitive about gravity. We expect things to fall when dropped only because this is what we have observed since birth.

But if we were born in space we would expect things to float and be surprised if they fell.

 

[untermensche]

There are equations that can explain all of this.

You miss the point.

Reality can be modeled in different ways.

The only thing that tells us if a model is right or wrong is if the model can make predictions.

So a model of lines and letters can make predictions.

Does that mean the universe is made up of lines and letters or based on lines and letters?

Just because models using mathematics can make predictions does not mean the universe uses mathematics or is based on mathematics.

 

[ryan]

There are equations that can explain all of this.

You miss the point.

Reality can be modeled in different ways.

The only thing that tells us if a model is right or wrong is if the model can make predictions.

So a model of lines and letters can make predictions.

Does that mean the universe is made up of lines and letters or based on lines and letters?

My argument is that the universe might be based on the models that work. We may have found some "blueprint" for the universe.

Just because models using mathematics can make predictions does not mean the universe uses mathematics or is based on mathematics.

My point is not that it must; my point is that it seems to be based on mathematics. You have been trying to say that it isn't based on mathematics.

 

[untermensche]

My point is not that it must; my point is that it seems to be based on mathematics. You have been trying to say that it isn't based on mathematics.

It can be modeled many ways.

One way to model the universe is with numbers and mathematical functions.

Another way to model the universe is with lines and letters.

Both kinds of models can make accurate predictions.

But there is no reason to think that because the universe can be modeled it has any connection to the human invented model.

If you can't see that with models of lines and letters you will never see it with numbers and functions.

The universe has no connection to numbers and mathematical functions beyond the human minds that invented them.

Just as chemical reactions have no connection to lines and letters.

 

[ryan]

My point is not that it must; my point is that it seems to be based on mathematics. You have been trying to say that it isn't based on mathematics.

It can be modeled many ways.

One way to model the universe is with numbers and mathematical functions.

Another way to model the universe is with lines and letters.

Both kinds of models can make accurate predictions.

Okay, I see your point. But we equate both descriptions.

But there is no reason to think that because the universe can be modeled it has any connection to the human invented model.

It certainly does have a connection. Our symbols are outputs or reactions to inputs like photons and sound waves. We receive this radiant information, and then we symbolize the actual objects. There is a causal connection even though there also seems to be some kind of "causal choice" and "causal creativity" when making these connections.

If you can't see that with models of lines and letters you will never see it with numbers and functions.

The universe has no connection to numbers and mathematical functions beyond the human minds that invented them.

Just as chemical reactions have no connection to lines and letters.

 

[untermensche]

It certainly does have a connection. Our symbols are outputs or reactions to inputs like photons and sound waves.

There is no "3" in nature for us to react to.

There may be 3 coconuts but there is no "3".

Humans abstract something like 3 coconuts into a symbol, "3", but "3" does not mean 3 coconuts, or 3 anything.

It can just be a free floating "3" with no reference.

Obviously if it has no reference it can't have been caused by things that can be referenced.

There is a mental step between 3 coconuts, and just plain "3". An abstraction has occurred.

Abstractions take place in minds. They are not out there in the world. They are an abstraction of it.

 

[ryan]

It certainly does have a connection. Our symbols are outputs or reactions to inputs like photons and sound waves.

There is no "3" in nature for us to react to.

There may be 3 coconuts but there is no "3".

Humans abstract something like 3 coconuts into a symbol, "3", but "3" does not mean 3 coconuts, or 3 anything.

It can just be a free floating "3" with no reference.

Is it physical? Does the brain interact with it?

Obviously if it has no reference it can't have been caused by things that can be referenced.

Through pattern recognition and teaching, we learn at a young age that the more similar objects are the more likely they can be quantified.

There is a mental step between 3 coconuts, and just plain "3". An abstraction has occurred.

It seems more reasonable that there is something in common or constant with 3 coconuts, 3 trucks, and just 3. That constant is in the information given to us by the universe and how we process it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Been away for a while

Physical time.

Can it be physically justified?

Its existence would be entirely logical but would be nothing more than time as science think of it and use it so I'm not sure what "physically justified" would imply beyond that.

Failing that Maybe you should defend emergence logically and analytically.

I guess it's typically a physicist's problem. I'm not a physicist. Call on your acquaintances there.
EB

What goes in produces what comes out so you're not saying anything by saying time is emergent.

I'm just saying time may be emergent, which is obviously different from saying that time is not emergent.

If time is emergent, then all there is would be our impression of time. This impression would be a property of our mind and there would be nothing like time at all outside our mind, as we think of time ordinarily, that is something absolute, i.e. that exist independently of anything else, of us and of any events we think are taking place in the world.

This is not even an original idea so I don't know what you are trying to say. Are you saying that all scientists who try to think of time as epiphenomenal are not saying anything either?
EB

 

[Perspicuo]

Any declaration that the universe is or not eternal is a decree.

The success story of science is a lesson in itself that in matters of the universe, sitting at the feet of Mother Nature to listen is the only reasonable thing to do. You ask her, not tell her what she is.

Metaphysics be damned. What exists is only persuasively determined by sophisticated observation.

I'm listening to myself.

Are you saying I'm not part of nature!?
EB

Those are internal processes of entities that have observable, objective experience.

Are you saying cogito ergo sum is an excuse to pull shit out of my ass?

Traditional, horsesh!t loving philosophy has been taken down by fMRI and similar technologies. People speaking about what they think is the external behavior of observable, testable, ponderable entities -similar to the observable behavior of PCs and stars. Now we can actually see the thought processes going on, which shouldn't be seen as revolutionary but as another one of the many nails on the coffin of spook BS.

Spook BS-loving philosophers are enamoured of their conscious thought processes as if they were special. They are just a fraction of what really goes on in the brain. All ponderable, observable, testable, objective phenomena.

 

[untermensche]

Is it physical? Does the brain interact with it?

Does the brain interact with the tooth fairy?

Obviously if it has no reference it can't have been caused by things that can be referenced.

Through pattern recognition and teaching, we learn at a young age that the more similar objects are the more likely they can be quantified.

Many animals can recognize quantities. A lion knows it can only chase one thing. If it tries to chase two things it ends up hungry.

What most animals can't do is abstract real world quantities into numbers. The number "3" does not refer to any real world quantity just on it's own.

In that it is a step removed from real world quantities. That step is a mental step.

There is a mental step between 3 coconuts, and just plain "3". An abstraction has occurred.

It seems more reasonable that there is something in common or constant with 3 coconuts, 3 trucks, and just 3. That constant is in the information given to us by the universe and how we process it.

There is a difference between saying real world quantities are what caused humans to invent numbers and saying the universe in any way uses numbers.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm listening to myself.

Are you saying I'm not part of nature!?
EB

Those are internal processes of entities that have observable, objective experience.

Are you saying cogito ergo sum is an excuse to pull shit out of my ass?

Traditional, horsesh!t loving philosophy has been taken down by fMRI and similar technologies. People speaking about what they think is the external behavior of observable, testable, ponderable entities -similar to the observable behavior of PCs and stars. Now we can actually see the thought processes going on, which shouldn't be seen as revolutionary but as another one of the many nails on the coffin of spook BS.

Spook BS-loving philosophers are enamoured of their conscious thought processes as if they were special. They are just a fraction of what really goes on in the brain. All ponderable, observable, testable, objective phenomena.

Sorry I don't understand shit.

Let's try again:

What exists is only persuasively determined by sophisticated observation.

I'm observing myself so I'm very much persuaded that I exist. Nothing sophisticated here, which seems to contradict your claim. Unless you could explain why not. Of course it would be absurd of me to pretend to persuade you or anyone else that I exist as I can observe myself. The idea, Descartes' idea, was that we can expect most people to be able to do it, for themselves so to speak. And then the result is the same. Each one of us is persuaded of their own existence just because each can all observe him or herself. Isn't that a convincing argument?
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Been away for a while

Physical time.

Can it be physically justified?

Its existence would be entirely logical but would be nothing more than time as science think of it and use it so I'm not sure what "physically justified" would imply beyond that.

Failing that Maybe you should defend emergence logically and analytically.

I guess it's typically a physicist's problem. I'm not a physicist. Call on your acquaintances there.
EB

What goes in produces what comes out so you're not saying anything by saying time is emergent.

I'm just saying time may be emergent, which is obviously different from saying that time is not emergent.

Are you saying that all scientists who try to think of time as epiphenomenal are not saying anything either?
EB

Our issue is between the first and second highlighted texts in your post.

Even is there were quantum entanglement time isn't emergent. So scientists who try to think of time, given the evidence, will try to think of time as determined and not emergent. Those speculators who think of time as other than determined are just speculators.

There is no science which shows emergence. Those who claim there is are twisting evidence. Such claims have always been disproved. Always.

I am not willing to discuss speculations for which there is no evidence. Such thinking is not scientific.

 

[ryan]

Does the brain interact with the tooth fairy?

Do you think you're thought of the tooth fairy is actually the tooth fairy? Of course it isn't because the tooth fairy, as legend has it, puts money under real pillows of real kids; those things don't exist in your brain.

Through pattern recognition and teaching, we learn at a young age that the more similar objects are the more likely they can be quantified.

Many animals can recognize quantities. A lion knows it can only chase one thing. If it tries to chase two things it ends up hungry.

What most animals can't do is abstract real world quantities into numbers. The number "3" does not refer to any real world quantity just on it's own.

In that it is a step removed from real world quantities. That step is a mental step.

Is this 3 made out of elementary particles?

There is a difference between saying real world quantities are what caused humans to invent numbers and saying the universe in any way uses numbers.

I am saying that there is something constant that comes with the information on the outside that interacts with our brains to give us the concept of 3. 3 is just a different symbol for the 3 that is out there; the 3 in our minds is a "hybrid" of our brain functions and this unknown constant.

 

[Perspicuo]

Those are internal processes of entities that have observable, objective experience.

Are you saying cogito ergo sum is an excuse to pull shit out of my ass?

Traditional, horsesh!t loving philosophy has been taken down by fMRI and similar technologies. People speaking about what they think is the external behavior of observable, testable, ponderable entities -similar to the observable behavior of PCs and stars. Now we can actually see the thought processes going on, which shouldn't be seen as revolutionary but as another one of the many nails on the coffin of spook BS.

Spook BS-loving philosophers are enamoured of their conscious thought processes as if they were special. They are just a fraction of what really goes on in the brain. All ponderable, observable, testable, objective phenomena.

Sorry I don't understand shit.

Let's try again:

What exists is only persuasively determined by sophisticated observation.

I'm observing myself so I'm very much persuaded that I exist. Nothing sophisticated here, which seems to contradict your claim. Unless you could explain why not. Of course it would be absurd of me to pretend to persuade you or anyone else that I exist as I can observe myself. The idea, Descartes' idea, was that we can expect most people to be able to do it, for themselves so to speak. And then the result is the same. Each one of us is persuaded of their own existence just because each can all observe him or herself. Isn't that a convincing argument?
EB

I really really would like to respond, but this is a digression from the OP. My unique previous reply was the only one I ventured to take, and I would not like to derail this thread. If you would like to pursue your question further, you can open a new thread. If so, feel free to PM me to the new one if you feel like it.

 

[Kharakov]

I really really would like to respond, but this is a digression from the OP.

I think you better read the 1337th post.


ohh shit. I just read that post. Slightly embarrassing. Haha... thought 1337 was a good number.