I’m not saying you’re wrong. More like non-sequitors that I can’t figure out why you say them. You say the above, which I’ve been saying for days. Then you bring up rocks.
Yes, a rock has no “desire” or “intent”. It does not experience any emotions.
And I have been telling you that we are not that far apart, other than our POV, i.e. “subjectively” from a human perspective or “objectively” from a purely physical perspective.
And I’ve been telling you that makes no sense. I need to get on with my life and stop chasing this endless word play. We can’t be any further from something that has no emotions, since we have emotions. They are polar opposites by definition.
You are confusing “we come from” with “we are”. AKA the fallacy where you take one ingredient of something and say that the something IS that.
[quote=“lausten, post:144, topic:10251”]
We can’t be any further from something that has no emotions, since we have emotions. They are polar opposites by definition.
Does your car run on emotions? You are addressing the difference between "subjective relativity’ vs. "objective relativity.
You are confusing “we come from” with “we are”. AKA the fallacy where you take one ingredient of something and say that the something IS that.
Mathematics is not an ingredient.
math·e·mat·ics
/mæθəmætɪks/
Noun
Thats what I am talking about.
- A person’s ability to count, calculate, and use different systems of mathematics at differing levels.
“My mathematics is always improving.”
It seems to me that is what you are talking about.
I know. That’s what you’re saying. You say math is a ingredient, not me.
No, when you want to bake a cake, maths is what puts the ingredients together in a wholesome pattern, but maths itself is not an ingredient, it is a property of the cake.
“patterns” (quantities) are not “ingredients” (biochemicals)
And how does that help you make sense of yourself?
Does it benefit you on a personal level, as in coming to terms with yourself, and your parents and up bring and all the injustices, real and imagined, and all the struggles, victories and losses, real and imagined.‘’
Does it help you make sense of your emotional personal dance of life? Does it help you create a sense of your self?
Because in the end, this math worship, for all your arguments, remains sterile doesn’t translate to my ( I believe our) human experience.
And no amount of technical information addresses that fundamental challenge (mystery) of us humans and our relationship with what we are thinking.
I have a new fun mind-experiment, when I’m out on walks and come across animal, to consciously be aware that they are watching me. Each of us with our cones and filters of consciousness, interacting, and such . . . . . . .
The experience of refilling the bird feeder, and paying attention to changes in the background chirps and songs. We have small reservoir a couple miles away, a favorite way station for geese, sometime we a heck of a racket, then they talk to the sky and fly towards us honking up a storm,
There’s some fun viewing. watching a fairly chaotic gaggle of geese coming in overhear as they are getting organized and slipstreaming into two or three geometric line, and watch how each moves with the wind, adjusting constantly,
so low that their breathing nearly blocks out the honking noise.
*It’s not all automata, those creature are dealing with a actual happening day to day reality, it has it’s patterns, but they are never quite the same from one day to the next, like us.
There’s deep layers of reality most never have a clue about, and it’s a shame. It’s a shame, because those layers have things to teach us about ourselves. All it takes is good faith curiosity and doing one’s own homework, because each of us must learn our own lessons.
Math is a great tool, but for us humans grasping what we have here on Earth, and within this particular biosphere. it’s not enough.
Oops, that may have landed in the wrong thread, but I’m done, been a long day. Good night.
1 Like
[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:148, topic:10251, full:true”]
[quote=“write4u, post:179, topic:10237”]
And that is what I am talking about. Geometrics, Spacetime Coordinates, Patterns
And how does that help you make sense of yourself?
Oops, that may have landed in the wrong thread, but I’m done, been a long day.
Good night.
It helps me make sense of the Universe in all its awesome majesty.
That’s great but it obviously doesn’t for many other people. This is an inquiry forum. If you say something, others can ask for evidence, reason, and logic for why you said it.
Yes, property would have been the better word. As in, a property of the universe is that it is consistent throughout, so patterns can be discerned, and a language can be used to express those patterns. An observer can use that language to make predictions about distant galaxies, and past and future events.
That property is not the universe. It’s a property that has allowed us to evolve into something that can read the language, codify it, and use it to increase our chances of survival.
Yeah, … but what about the universe within, how do you get in touch with that?
1 Like
And I have never refused clarifying my position with supporting science.
The concept that fundamentally the universe operates via incompatible mechanics is a human shortcoming.
Obviously, the universe has operates flawlessly forthe past 13.8 billion years. and humans come along and say “Well, that is just impossible. Something is wrong”!
Yes, it is human understanding that falls short, not the way the universe operates.
I’ve been making the case for a month that you don’t. You are obtuse. You make up definitions, worse just use terms with no definition or wrong ones. You switch your reasoning when you can’t answer a question. You say math can do something, but almost never supply an equation. You pointed vaguely to Einstein, claiming he said something that he clearly did not.
How curious to read you write that.
I try to discuss the origins of our human bodies and human consciousness; and about how the imprints of evolution are all over the way I (we) feel and behave as a human; or about our relationship with our own thoughts, and so on - then you’ll jump in with microtubules, and how math is the essence of everything.
And, I’m wondering were does that come from?
1 Like
I’m wondering a lot lately about Write’s posts. Where did he get that there is a concept of the universe operating via incompatible mechanics? Or that the universe operates flawlessly? What humans are saying “Something is wrong”? The last sentence just doesn’t make sense, “falls short” of what?
Relativity and Quantum are incompatible in theory because we are lacking in complete knowledge. One is deterministic, the other is probabilistic.
Bridge between quantum mechanics and general relativity still possible
by University of Science and Technology of China
Quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity form the bedrock of the current understanding of physics—yet the two theories don’t seem to work together.
Physical phenomena rely on relationship of motion between the observed and the observer. Certain rules hold true across types of observed objects and those observing, but those rules tend to break down at the quantum level, where subatomic particles behave in strange ways.
What you said was, humans are saying this:
That’s not what scientists are saying at all, or anyone. Who is saying that? Who says because we can’t come up with a TOE, that it’s the universe that’s wrong? The rest of us here know about the problem of bridging quantum mechanics and general relativity, but you think we need you to explain that to us. We don’t. It’s no wonder we’re having so much trouble understanding you, because you keep making up things about other people that don’t map onto reality.
Something is wrong with the human maths. Obviously the Universe cannot be wrong.
But we are “discovering” new information constantly. Maybe someday we’ll get it right.
I can’t do this justice, not now, maybe never. Episode 30, starting at 30 minutes, for about 10 minutes, he explains how Darwin’s theory was a break from almost everything before, because it did not require an essential list of properties or processes to make it happen. Theologians had been studying nature to find how God designed the world, but there is no design.
Evolution is self-correcting, it is an adaptive feedback between environment and organism that is adapting to survive, it’s constant re-design, so even math, in the ways we normally apply math, can’t be used. There’s no formula. It’s a dynamic system that finds niches, not one that results in a final perfect form.
I tried to find an article on evolutionary mathematics, but they are all behind paywalls.
I’m not doing these often, again, after he moved on from all the philosophy history, he’s been introducing a lot of modern concepts, like opponent processing and bioeconomics. I wish he would have spent less time on the ancient stuff and more on the new stuff. In 31 he starts developing a theory of the machinery of spirituality, and incorporates evolution, but he waves his hands a lot, says, “I can’t do this justice”. Well, great.