I believe in a Creator

[write4u]

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:158, topic:9361”]
Is totally missing the point.
God is manifested from human thoughts!

That is not what I said. I am not proposing that God is a Tulpa, but apparently it is how God is subjectively experienced (but not observed) by many. The product of belief.

I said that gravity and the 4 fundamental forces are manifest and can be observed and used . They are the product of a basic principle that the interaction of “inherent” spacetime values, the Implicate Order, becomes expressed in reality as the Explicate Order (David Bohm). And the creative “function” is of a mathematical nature.

It is this what humans have recognized, symbolized, and codified with human mathematics.
The difference between a creator God and creative mathematics is “intent”.

“God saw it was good” (illogical) = “mathematical patterns are functional” (logical).

@write4u

Consciousness is a result of the quantum function in microtubules which are nanoscale processors.

CC said;
Microtubules might be a mechanism required for consciousness to unfold (though at this point that notion is still built on speculation, more than on evidence) -

But to ignore that consciousness is the result of interactions - as opposed to a thing that can exist independently in a fractal state somewhere out there in the universe, seems absurd in the extreme. But that’s basically what’s being claimed.

I am sure that when Penrose speaks of a quantum event causing a potentially conscious spacetime experience (such as experienced by a human brain neural network pattern), he is not talking about God. He is a mathematician and he is speaking from that perspective.
I tend to agree with that hypothesis.

This is what Tegmark calls the emergent experiential product of and by a mathematical pattern. I believe that fundamentally agrees with Einstein’s concept of “Relativity”.

Ask yourself, is the doppler effect created by the observer or does that phenomenon exist regardless of an observer?
Leta, the AI calls a “wavefunction” a “thought”, the depth of which caught me totally by surprise.

@write4u

To propose some unknowable causal agency outside the universe is by definition not scientific and is part of the ego-god problem.

CC said:
Where the heck have I proposed some unknowable causal agency!?!

You did not propose it you named it and I agree with that equation about the god/ego problem.

Oh incidentally, where out there in the universe can you expect (hope) to find life?

Robert Hazen expresses a greater than 50% probability of finding life everywhere in the universe. Regardless of what scripture declares, the earth is not a divine creation, it is an average planet in an average solar system with common chemistry. If the earth could spawn life, there is no reason to doubt that other similar systems might evolve life as well. Biochemistry is already present in deep space cosmic clouds .

Abiogenesis is not necessarily exclusive to earth.

@write4u

WE FOUND MATHEMATICS FROM OUR STUDY OF THE UNIVERSE!

CC said:
That’s nice and poetic sounding, but seriously, think about it.
If you review human history, I think you’ll find, we found mathematics through commerce. Only, by and by, did we start using it to help better formulate intellectual notions.

Do you mean that relational mathematical values and functions such as gravity and the four fundamental forces did not exist in the universe until discovered by man?
Why are they named “universal constants”?

These inherent universal potentials are demonstrably true. Of course, this presents a possible answer to everything. A Mathematical Universe is the only logically acceptable hypothesis I have heard so far. It allows for the self-organization of regular patterns from an a priori chaotic condition.

[citizenschallengev4]

@write4u

CC said;
Microtubules might be a mechanism required for consciousness to unfold (though at this point that notion is still built on speculation, more than on evidence) -

But to ignore that consciousness is the result of interactions - as opposed to a thing that can exist independently in a fractal state somewhere out there in the universe, seems absurd in the extreme. But that’s basically what’s being claimed.

I am sure that when Penrose speaks of a quantum event causing a potentially conscious spacetime experience (such as experienced by a human brain neural network pattern), he is not talking about God. He is a mathematician and he is speaking from that perspective.
I tend to agree with that hypothesis.

Here you did it again. What’s god have to do with,

consciousness is the result of interactions - as opposed to a thing that can exist independently in a fractal state somewhere out there in the universe, (which is) basically what’s being claimed.

???

@write4u

This is what Tegmark calls the emergent experiential product of and by a mathematical pattern. I believe that fundamentally agrees with Einstein’s concept of “Relativity”.

What’s this? Consciousness?

@write4u

You did not propose it you named it and I agree with that equation about the god/ego problem.

Sure wish I knew what you’re talking about. I named what, … where?

@write4u

Robert Hazen expresses a greater than 50% probability of finding life everywhere in the universe.

Ouch. back to being confined within one’s mindscape.
I think you’re doing Hazen’s words a great injustice - and would love to read the entire quote, because I’m convinced you’ve left out something very important, about given a collection of appropriate conditions. Or something to that effect.

Where in the vastness of empty space will you find life? Where within the vast collections of matter called stars will you find life?

Doesn’t biology and life require certain preconditions?

Beyond that, there’s life and there’s life.

Life happen on Earth within the first billion years of its existence.
Primitive life probably is very common on many planets,
but evolution into eukaryotic cells,
then into creatures that move and interact,
then onto conscious,
Thinking Life?

@write4u

the earth is not a divine creation, it is an average planet in an average solar system with common chemistry.

Another gut punch, it’s precisely that sort of thoughtless disregard for the utter uniqueness of Earth and what happened here, that has us in this late stage of our own self destruction, with its calamitous extinction level impacts upon this biosphere and all that used to exist along side of us humans.

Over 4,000 exoplanets have been charted and none is anywhere near what we have here around and on Earth.

Perhaps by average some mean that our solar system for various reasons is rather stable - and free of radical interference from nearby astronomical entities that most other star systems are. Ain’t nothing average about that.

Or that within this safety zone, we have some well placed safety cages, Jupiter and Saturn, then as a final cosmic guardian our huge, but not too huge, and splendidly stabilizing moon.

Nothing average about any of it, it’s gobsmacking awesome.

Excuse me, if I seem to be taking your words personal, but I am, since as you know I am an Earth Centrist and we humans are, well so dang short-sighted and thoughtless, and it gets oh so frustrating.

@write4u

These inherent universal potentials are demonstrably true. Of course, this presents a possible answer to everything.

So I keep hearing. And I’m thinking would we even have a clue what to do with the ‘answer to everything’, like Tegmark’s math as god grasping, even if he could prove it, what would it teach us?

[citizenschallengev4]

@citizenschallengev4

@write4u

These inherent universal potentials are demonstrably true. Of course, this presents a possible answer to everything.

So I keep hearing. And I’m thinking would we even have a clue what to do with the ‘answer to everything’, like Tegmark’s math as god grasping, even if he could prove it, what would it teach us?

I think perhaps that’s the profoundest lesson that an honest deep appreciation for the Human Mindscape ~ Physical Reality divide, has to offer.

It is the answer to everything. Simply the fact of our existence proves that there was one particular path that matter and energy and time, evolution took, OR WE WOULDN’T BE HERE! Period.

A cascading consequence of this realization is a sharp Klieg light being shown on our limitations to know. But, at the same time, it opens eyes and offers insights into dealing with your own self and those eternal struggles between your flesh & spirit (struggles that go well beyond the sexual). The me, myself and I, and all that unfolds within the thoughts just beyond the sparks and chemical cascades unfolding within our physical bodies and brains as they navigate our environments.

Physical Reality is the physical world of atoms, molecules, universal laws of physics and Earth’s laws of nature. It is Earth’s dance between geology and biology and time and Earth’s evolving creatures, ( and one in particular that learned to contemplate the universe and its short life ), along with everything else around us.

Human Mindscape is all that goes on inside of our minds. The landscape of your thoughts and desires and impulses and those various voices and personalities who inhabit our thoughts. The ineffable ideas that our hands can turn into physical creations, that changed our planet.

---

Science seeks to objectively learn about our physical world, but we should still recognize all our understanding is embedded within and constrained by our mindscape.

Religion is all about the human mindscape itself, with its wonderful struggles, fears, spiritual undercurrents, needs and stories we create to give our live’s meaning and make it worth living, or at least bearable.

What’s the point?

Religions, Science, political beliefs, heaven, hell, art, even God they are all products of the human mindscape, generations of imaginings built upon previous generations of imaginings, all the way down.

That’s not to say they are the same thing, they are not! Though I think they’re both equally valid human endeavors, but fundamentally qualitatively different.

Religion deals with the inside of our minds, hearts and souls, Science does its best to objectively understand the physical world beyond all that, doing its best to factor ego out of the deliberations.

Seems to me absorbing some of that has a way of rearranging priorities and bringing the pursuit of understanding back into the here and now of our living day to days.

[write4u]

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:163, topic:9361”]
So I keep hearing. And I’m thinking would we even have a clue what to do with the ‘answer to everything’, like Tegmark’s math as god grasping, even if he could prove it, what would it teach us?

I don’t know what you mean by “god grasping.” A mathematical universe does not require anything except strict adherence to mathematical mechanics. Even then there is allowance for "variable values and conditions.

A mathematical universe is not an unproven belief system. All of science rests on logic as expressed and expressable with mathematical relational values and functions.
The universe taught us how to use the mathematics by which all-natural expressions are patterned. Many animals “use” mathematics without knowing it. How many predators instinctually use triangulation to gauge distance and angles to catch prey?

Input → Function → Output, no bells and whistles just sober calculus of interactive and relational values. You presented an excellent video of mathematically simulated evolutionary processes. We can imitate the universe mathematically. What is so unbelievable about that? What more do you expect than scientifically repeatable proofs.

Remember George and his gravitational curvature proofs of god? If anything, in his science he proved that the concept of a god is superfluous.

We know about “gravitational curvature” and we have the mathematical equations that describe and allow us to measure gravitational curvature. We don’t need another mystical interpretation.

It’s just mathematical in essence. End of grasping for a god. Let’s face it. We are stuck with mathematics. Prayer isn’t going to get anyone anywhere and least of all to heaven. But mathematics warn us of impending disaster!!!

Religions are myths. Reality and our mind-scapes of reality are based on mathematical patterns! If that does not make sense, tell me how I am wrong.

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:164, topic:9361”]
I think perhaps that’s the profoundest lesson that an honest deep appreciation for the Human Mindscape ~ Physical Reality divide, has to offer.

It is the answer to everything. Simply the fact of our existence proves that there was one particular path that matter and energy and time, evolution took, OR WE WOULDN’T BE HERE! Period.

I agree! But you fail to explain that path. Science demonstrates that everything that happens in the universe follows mathematically based paths. Even random dynamical expressions are fundamentally probabilistic. Chaos Theory demonstrates that regular mathematical patterns emerge from very small causalities.
Even probabilistic laws are mathematically based.

And according to Hazen, there may be several evolutionary paths that yield life. Just look at the variety of earth life alone.

The concept that the universe is fine-tuned for life is false. Life is fine-tuned to all environments you can imagine as long as it has a few fundamental properties that are essential for life but are also abundant in the universe. There is nothing about the earth that sets it uniquely apart from all other planets in the universe.

[cuthbertj]

@write4u

Science demonstrates that everything that happens in the universe follows mathematically based paths

Not to denigrate math or its use in physics, but there’s nothing inherently mathematical about the universe as far as we know. We know a bunch of really technical mathematical tricks to help approximately describe things that happen IN the universe, but that doesn’t mean the universe itself is mathematical. For all we know, there’s some civilization out there that uses a totally different way to describe the universe, maybe even something we wouldn’t recognize as “math” per se. Even numbers, there’s no such thing as numbers, just a process we perform that we assign these thingy’s to which we call numbers. And even that is pretty biased by our limited viewpoint - what’s the difference, at the atomic level, between my thumb and the air around it? Not much, but at the macroscopic level of our limited vision, we think there is a different and call it 1 finger, 2 fingers, etc. I think the saying Don’t mistake the map for the terrority applies here.

[citizenschallengev4]

@write4u

I agree! But you fail to explain that path.

Which path would that be? The path to the ultimate answer?

To me what you are doing is on the other side of the metaphysical line.
In a realm where we can’t get solid observations or measurements, it’s all the realm of human conjecture.

I like to keep it totally within the material realm, biology and chemistry, physics and the evolution that unfolded here on Earth, and Solms and Hazen and Lane and the like.

@write4u

Science demonstrates that everything that happens in the universe follows mathematically based paths.

We could just as easily say everything that unfolds can be explained mathematically.

It’s cool but I don’t understand this transcendent pedestal you insist on placing math on. What’s wrong with being satisfied with Math as an amazing tool for the human intellect?

@write4u

And according to Hazen, there may be several evolutionary paths that yield life. Just look at the variety of earth life alone.

Hmmm, this is in the same class as ‘humans 90% germs’
Looked at from a closer inspection, that is into the genetic tools our cells use to create energy to all other housekeeping genes.

Superficially we may seem an unimaginable variety of life forms on this Earth and in its oceans, yet microscopically, fundamentally it’s all the same blueprints the same basic widgets and gadgets being utilized to do all the heavy lifting.

But, don’t take my word for it, read an experts telling. “Nick Lane’s The Vital Question” is a good place to start.

Nick Lane: Why Life is the Way it is

Aeon Video

Nick Lane: Why is life the way it is?

Lecture by Dr Nick Lane, winner of the 2016 Michael Faraday Prize and author of several best-selling books about Evolution, at the Molecular Frontiers Symposium “Planet Earth: A Scientific Journey”, at Stockholm University May 9-10, 2019.

[write4u]

[quote=“cuthbertj, post:166, topic:9361”]

For all we know, there’s some civilization out there that uses a totally different way to describe the universe, maybe even something we wouldn’t recognize as “math” per se. Even numbers, there’s no such thing as numbers, just a process we perform that we assign these thingy’s to which we call numbers. And even that is pretty biased by our limited viewpoint - what’s the difference, at the atomic level, between my thumb and the air around it? Not much, but at the macroscopic level of our limited vision, we think there is a different and call it 1 finger, 2 fingers, etc. I think the saying Don’t mistake the map for the terrority applies here.

You just confirmed the mathematical nature of the universe regardless of how the math are expressed symbolically by any intelligence. The fact that the universe can be explained by mathematics of any kind or language or symbolism proves the generic mathematical nature of the universe.

All you are doing is anthropomorphizing the pertinent values and functions. The principles remain the same
Input → function → output does not vary in the mechanics of universal unfolding.

In fact, David Bohm identified that all things have an implicit value before that value becomes expressed in reality from the very subtle to gross physical expression as a physical pattern. He called it the “Implicate Order”.

The mechanics don’t change, only the language that symbolizes the mechanics.

Allow me to demonstrate the creation of different languages to identify the same value with more or less accuracy or physical pattern from a numerical value. as demonstrated by Roger Antonsen in this short but sweet Ted lecture

The demonstration is so beautifully expressed @ 6:50 where he shows the "image’ inherent in the number 4/3.

Math is the hidden secret to understanding the world | Roger Antonsen

When we identify certain mathematical “constants” they would also be observable as constants by another intelligence, even if they used 6 fingers and 3 toes to count.

The mathematical nature of the universe is inescapable. There is no logical replacement that will yield the same exquisite accuracy as mathematics, as well as a deeper understanding of our “empathic” mathematical relationship with nature.

This personal experience of empathic response to the mathematical logic of the universe is often misinterpreted as divine inspiration from a metaphysical creative causality, but it is a cognition of natural mathematical harmonics.

The difference is that the concept of a God assumes a subjective emotional intent and Mathematics assumes objective unemotional logic.

[citizenschallengev4]

@write4u

The difference is that the concept of a God with subjective emotional intent and Mathematics with objective unemotional logic.

And both are imaginings of our mindscape.

God was created for a reason, and math was created for a reason - both inventions of the human mindscape, that serve different purposes.

As for God?

Who is “God,” but a creation of our unique complex human minds dealing with our day to days?

Where did God come from?

From human curiosity and wonder. From puzzling over observations, contemplating questions, seeking answers. From love and hunger and fears in the night along with glorying in the warming sunrise.

From contemplating the suddenly dead carcass of a loved one. From buried memories of being coddled within mom’s loving protective bosom and mourning those who are gone.

From our need for someone truly personal, who’s always there, never dying, ready to listen to our constant chatter, ideas, complaints, fears, longings, wishes, all of it in complete confidence.

Think about it, our relationship with our God is the most intimate relationship of our lives and reflects our ego in every way. All of it, happening within our mind, or more descriptively, within our Mindscape.

Point being, we are the product of our Earth - God is the product of our mind. That’s why our conceptions of God always wind up being driven by our Ego, not by any outside force.

Nothing wrong with that, if only we could bring ourselves to explicitly recognize as much.

For some people these realities are jarring and resented, but that doesn’t make it any less the reality humans exist within. For others, if these ideas resonate, take comfort, stay true to your gut instinct, do your homework, you’ll get there. (7.04)

[write4u]

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:169, topic:9361”]
For some people these realities are jarring and resented, but that doesn’t make it any less the reality humans exist within. For others, if these ideas resonate, take comfort, stay true to your gut instinct, do your homework, you’ll get there. (7.04)

Point being, we are the product of our Earth - God is the product of our mind. That’s why our conceptions of God always wind up being driven by our Ego, not by any outside force.

I agree with the statement, but I completely disagree with your equating God to Mathematics. They are not related or comparable in any way at all.

I did not ask about God. I have no interest in an imagined creator God.
God did not exist until some primitive hominid invented HIM (???) in his mindscape.

**God is a male and humans are made in HIS image? **
Yessss, God is an imaginary object and does not exist in reality.

OTOH mathematics have no gender or were invented in the human mindscape. The human mindscape is an expression of applied and evolved from generic universal mathematics.

You must let go of this anthropomorphized notion that universal generic mathematical values and functions are invented by man and not our symbolic representation of recognized natural logical guiding potential inherent in spacetime geometry that can be used to land a rover on Mars.

I am asking about your objection to Mathematics as the relational interactions of fundamental values that become expressed as observable physical patterns that can be described and copied.

From the very beginning, nothing in the universe is founded on God. It is founded on mathematical equations.
This cannot be argued away and then afterwards you turn on your computer and prove the existence of mathematical functions.

Gravity is not a divine expression of spacetime or proof of God as George wanted us to believe. Gravity is a mathematical expression of spacetime.

The practice of theoretical and applied mathematics gets you everything that is mathematically permitted , God has no say in the matter at all.

The Higgs boson is not a divinely expressed “God particle”, it is a mathematically expressed “physical particle”.

The Earth is a product of mathematical equations applied to fundamental relational spacetime values.

[citizenschallengev4]

@write4u

From the very beginning, nothing in the universe is founded on God. It is founded on mathematical equations.
This cannot be argued away . . .

Because from a distance it sure sound like you’re morphing Math into a superpower,
rather than simply recognizing math as a tool for our understanding.

So, Okay I stand corrected.
Rather than seeing Math as God, perhaps it would be more accurate to say, it seems to me you’ve elevated math to Religion, rather than an intellectual tool humans were able to access.

Higgs boson is a “physical particle” calling physical object simply as expressions of Math is what turns it into religion.

[write4u]

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:171, topic:9361”]
Because from a distance it sure sound like you’re morphing Math into a superpower, rather than simply recognizing math as a tool for our understanding.

No, the universe’s mathematical nature is only a guiding force, based on logical principles. somewhat like the concept of natural selection which is a mathematical (logical) function.

Everything functions by the rules of mathematical permissions or restrictions. If some relational interaction is mathematically unsound it “cannot” happen. If it is mathematically (logically) sound it “may” happen.

In religion the universe as we know it was created almost instantaneously (6 days?) by a motivated intelligent agent (god). In reality, it has taken 13.7 billion years for the maths to bring today’s order from an initial state of chaos by mathematical principles.

So, Okay I stand corrected.
Rather than seeing Math as God, perhaps it would be more accurate to say, it seems to me you’ve elevated math to Religion, rather than an intellectual tool humans were able to access.

You are anthropomorphizing again. Mathematical relational values and interactive functions are the essences of spacetime. Nothing to worship or ritualize. The reason why we use maths is that they are “universally” functional. If walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, why should it not be a duck?
Man does not control mathematics, mathematics control everything.
Man’s contribution to science (the understanding of reality) is it the cognition, symbolization, and codifying of universal mathematics.

Higgs boson is a “physical particle” calling physical object simply as expressions of Math is what turns it into religion.

First, physical objects are not simple, they are self-organized mathematical patterns of various densities and obey the mathematical laws of nature and can be teased from energy fields by the creation of specific conditions. The Higgs boson is mathematically unable sustain and even as we can tease the boson from the Higgs field it is manifest only for an instant and decays into simpler component values.

You are a firm believer in evolution. So, where do you start? Do you start with energetic chaos or with preformed atoms (a complex value) ? If so how did these complex patterns form, relate, and interact? What are the rules? What is causal to “regular order” and the formation of regular patterns?

Do you deny that there is an underlying self-ordering essence to spacetime? Religion denies the concept of self-ordering and invents a human-like creator. It is religion that is the anthropomorphized belief system. The concept of a quasi-intelligent mathematical ordering system is the only practical answer to the question. There is no magic!

Mathematical relation values and functions give the Universe its universal laws and constants. They are the very essence of the nature of the universe. Human mathematics are but one language that describes the orderly functions.

This is why Tegmark proposes that ultimately the universe is explainable with some 32 numbers (relational values) and a handful of equations.
Anyone who believes in evolution should agree with that concept.
The only other option is the concept of a “created” irreducibly complex beginning and that is a religious belief system.

[cuthbertj]

You continue to anthropomorphize math, or maybe it’s putting the horse before the cart. “A tool to describe the universe”, is just a tool. Yes other civilizations will find other ways to describe the universe, and we can call that math, but maybe not. It may even be unrecognizable as anything resembling what we call math. But that doesn’t mean the tools are baked into the actual universe itself - THAT’s anthropomorphizing IMHO, mistaking your map (math) with the territory.

Take a look at the movie Arrival. Great sci-fi, based on language. The analogy would be that humans use what we call language to communicate. Any other civilization will use something similar, that we’d call “language”. But in the movie we see another civilization, far far more advanced than humans, communicating in a way that isn’t language at all, or only barely, and they don’t so much communicate as express thoughts that are non-linear, non-time based, etc. Check it out.

[write4u]

@cuthbertj

You continue to anthropomorphize math, or maybe it’s putting the horse before the cart. “A tool to describe the universe”, is just a tool. Yes other civilizations will find other ways to describe the universe, and we can call that math, but maybe not. It may even be unrecognizable as anything resembling what we call math. But that doesn’t mean the tools are baked into the actual universe itself - THAT’s anthropomorphizing IMHO, mistaking your map (math) with the territory.

Au contraire, you continue to consider the term Mathematical from a human perspective, the definition of anthropomorphize.

Try to consider that what we recognize as the guiding principles by which the universe and everything in it evolves is of a generic mathematical nature. The universe does not have human numbers, it has relational values. The universe does not have human equations, is has orderly processes. Where do you think does the term “symmetry” come form? Humans made it up or does symmetry exist in nature?

Where do you think the Fibonacci sequence comes from? Did we just make that up or does it exist in nature?

INPUT → FUNCTION → OUTPUT is a mathematical process that follows specific rules which we have dubbed “mathematical”, which is a symbolic “word” for a universal ordering system.

Try to use the term “generic mathematics” as a “logical universal function” without reference to human use or symbolic representation.

The term Implied Order suggests an orderly system that suggests an orderly guiding equation and that suggests an objective generic mathematical ordering function. Nothing to do with humans except for the “language” by which we communicate our thoughts here.

Mathematics: The Beautiful Language of the Universe

Let us discuss the very nature of the cosmos. What you may find in this discussion is not what you expect. Going into a conversation about the universe as a whole, you would imagine a story full of wondrous events such as stellar collapse, galactic collisions, strange occurrences with particles, and even cataclysmic eruptions of energy.

You may be expecting a story stretching the breadth of time as we understand it, starting from the Big Bang and landing you here, your eyes soaking in the photons being emitted from your screen. Of course, the story is grand.

But there is an additional side to this amazing assortment of events that oftentimes is overlooked; that is until you truly attempt to understand what is going on.

Behind all of those fantastic realizations, there is a mechanism at work that allows for us to discover all that you enjoy learning about. That mechanism is mathematics, and without it the universe would still be shrouded in darkness.

In this article, I will attempt to persuade you that math isn’t some arbitrary and sometimes pointless mental task that society makes it out to be, and instead show you that it is a language we use to communicate with the stars.

more…

Mathematics: The Beautiful Language of the Universe

Try to describe the nature of nature without mathematics. You cannot do it. We live in a mathematical universe! No mystery, no magic, just logical order.

[write4u]

@cuthbertj

Take a look at the movie Arrival. Great sci-fi, based on language. The analogy would be that humans use what we call language to communicate. Any other civilization will use something similar, that we’d call “language”. But in the movie we see another civilization, far far more advanced than humans, communicating in a way that isn’t language at all, or only barely, and they don’t so much communicate as express thoughts that are non-linear, non-time based, etc. Check it out.

Yes, I’ve seen the movie. So you don’t believe we understand anything about this universe? But fictitious alien species have it figured out?

Why do you feel this need to discount man’s greatest discovery about the universe that allows us to understand its nature and properties?

These aliens and their science describe the exact same reality as we do but experience it from their own unique pesrspective, just like insects on earth live in the same reality as us but experience it from their unique perspective. But all species experience Gravity and E = Mc^2.

They have to live by the same universal rules as us regardless of their language or subjective experience.

Mathematical Natural Laws apply equally to everything within this Universe, regardless of the symbolic descriptive language.

All these symbols describe the same “mathematical value”

Watch the Roger Antonsen video.

p.s. Uni verse = Single Song = Singularity

[citizenschallengev4]

@write4u

Why do you feel this need to discount man’s greatest discovery about the universe that allows us to understand its nature and properties?

@write4u

Try to describe the nature of nature without mathematics. You cannot do it. We live in a mathematical universe! No mystery, no magic, just logical order.

I think you’re being unfair to Cuthbert, seems to me he was merely calling Math a tool, while you are trying to argue that Math IS the Essence of Nature.

Or?

[citizenschallengev4]

Which brings us back to the fundamental crawling stage of truly appreciating the most fundamental of fundamentals, that few seem to truly appreciate:

Human Mindscape ~ Physical Reality divide

(write4u) math is a product of the human mind, (write4u) will scream that’s not true because math is inherent in all of nature, I respond, so what, who can do math? Only a humans (okay also our extension, computers, which are our tools) still math doesn’t exist for any thing other than human minds.

Physical Reality, just IS. The quark is a bundle of energy, behaving within its confines, and so on and so forth.

It’s a philosophical perspective. (write4u) is still in search of the Answer to Everything, I’m not, I’m okay with close enough and things that are relevant to my life here in the middle realm of matter and time. I don’t discount the value of things he talks about, it’s our priorities that very different. I recognize the divide and understand where I reside, and I’m good with that.

EDIT - Holy Moly, I am sorry Lausten, major mind fart there, er I mean transposition error thingie. Too many distractions, I need a vacation.

[write4u]

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:176, topic:9361”]
I think you’re being unfair to Cuthbert, seems to me he was merely calling Math a tool, while you are trying to argue that Math IS the Essence of Nature.

No, Cuthbert is repeating the “common mantra” tat maths are an invention of humans and is merely a tool in dealing with Universal mechanics.

But all scientist concur that the universe has some mathematical aspects. Would you agree with that?
Tegmark’s claim is that the universe does not have some mathematical al aspects but that it is wholly mathematical in essence.
I agree with that and there is abundant evidence to support that hypothesis.

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:177, topic:9361”]
Lausten math is a product of the human mind, Lausten will scream that’s not true because math is inherent in all of nature, I respond, so what, who can do math? Only a humans (okay also our extension, computers, which are our tools). still math doesn’t exist for anything other than human minds.

Symmetry doesn’t exist apart from human observation?

Physical Reality, just IS. The quark is a bundle of energy, behaving within its confines, and so on and so forth.

Noone claims reality just IS. What then is a “constant” if not something that IS part of universal mechanics?

A physical constant, sometimes fundamental physical constant or universal constant, is a physical quantity that is generally believed to be both universal in nature and has a constant value in time.

Physical constant

When you read this extensive definition in the wiki article, yuo will see that universal physical constants are mathematical in essence.

FORGET HUMAN SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATIONS OF NATURAL VALUES AND THEIR ORDERLY (MATHEMATICAL) INTERACTIONS.

The universal mathematical constants existed long before man symbolized them with mathematical symbols. Man had 5 fingers before he could count them!!!

[lausten]

@citizenschallengev4

Lausten is still in search of the Answer to Everything

I thought I was still looking for answers to life’s persistent questions

[write4u]

@lausten

I thought I was still looking for answers to life’s persistent questions

Could it be that we already have the method to unravel the universe’s mathematical mysteries?

[lausten]

Could be. But how can we know?