tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post7459697926926972651..comments2020-04-01T08:49:12.322-07:00Comments on Dark Buzz: Striving for a Faithful Image of NatureRogerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-24200340119186409362015-10-10T07:42:21.729-07:002015-10-10T07:42:21.729-07:00The attraction to symmetry, I would argue, is even...The attraction to symmetry, I would argue, is even sexual in origin. It's a eunuch's sublimation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-31970821668093709782015-10-10T07:37:45.095-07:002015-10-10T07:37:45.095-07:00"Third Metaphysical Postulate: All infinities..."Third Metaphysical Postulate: All infinities are to be treated as potential infinities; the corresponding limitlessness is to be represented by mathematical limiting procedures; all numerous infinities are to be restricted to countable."<br /><br />Being the critical mathematician, this is also wrong. The potential notion of infinity has led to just as many self-contradictions and paradoxes as the completed variety. "Countable" is more ill-defined than originally thought. We are waiting for the rest of you guys to catch up to the present understanding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-73441379406525734992015-10-10T07:34:50.644-07:002015-10-10T07:34:50.644-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-41783511316492865362015-10-10T01:11:41.096-07:002015-10-10T01:11:41.096-07:00Jonathan,
'useful shorthand description of ev...Jonathan, <br />'useful shorthand description of events' is what all languages are used for, not just mathematics. I would point out that when that 'useful shorthand' or 'description' does not align with blatant observation i.e. The universe contains slightly more than one single mass to put it mildly, and space time does not even allow for more than one mass.<br /><br /> In reality, objects can begin to move, such as a rocket, a bullet, a runner, an excited particle, etc., In space time there is absolutely no impulse to motion possible. In reality things don't occur at the same time, (pray tell what the hell is precious calculus if everything happens at once? I'd love to see Tegmark explain that thought bomb) in space time la la land everything is at once, there is no change over a period. Because of these glaring differences, space time is useless except as a pedagogical device to semantically avoid acknowledging ignorance...we actually know next to nothing about how gravity works.<br /><br /> There is no mathematical universe except as a fiction created by fat headed mathematicians reveling in their own self importance. There is the universe...and there are humans in said universe who use mathematics to model and describe said universe. Since the reality of the universe informs all human existence and endeavor, why is it any surprise that mathematics (which is the product of humans using the abstraction of numbers to represent actual things) also is informed by it? <br /><br />Last drive by thought, please realize that if time is an illusion, then there actually is no cause and effect, or before and after, and thus no mathematical operations which are dependent upon logic and calculation can be evaluated or even considered. If a person is hell bent to say there is not time, they must also abandon all consequence based thought and abstraction, ...which might actually explain why they considered such stupidity to begin with. hmm.<br /> CFTnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-2946145090731325352015-10-08T08:59:46.039-07:002015-10-08T08:59:46.039-07:00Mathematical science doesn't represent reality...Mathematical science doesn't represent reality as much as it offers a useful shorthand description of certain events. Maps aren't territories. Ergo, physics though a "theoretical concern" will always be adjudged on a basis of utility.Jon Burdickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02548776058585897717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-25348946002181399582015-10-08T08:59:14.272-07:002015-10-08T08:59:14.272-07:00Mathematical science doesn't represent reality...Mathematical science doesn't represent reality as much as it offers a useful shorthand description of certain events. Maps aren't territories. Ergo, physics though a "theoretical concern" will always be adjudged on a basis of utility.Jon Burdickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02548776058585897717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-71188565386318780172015-10-06T06:35:10.317-07:002015-10-06T06:35:10.317-07:00Max Tegmark reminds me of a Frenchman claiming the...Max Tegmark reminds me of a Frenchman claiming the universe is written in French, and that God has a French accent at the very least when he isn't speaking French. Good grief. I think what Tegmark should be remarking on...and it is philosophical in nature... is the question of whether or not the universe is intelligible. I am coming down on the side of intelligible with some caveats ( i.e. we have had some success with prediction by logical means). <br /><br /> As for space time, what does it teach us about reality? Not much. Our universe contains more than one mass, and is not uniform in that distribution of mass, the mass interacts, and get this... things actually move and can have an impulse to motion, which is not possible in space time. <br /><br />Why do pinheads in mathematics and physics departments even entertain the idea that if they can 'represent' an event in a graph, that somehow the event 'is' the graph? Time space is a mathematical fiction that can not model more than one mass and can not accommodate interaction with other masses( it is non linear, you can't just poke in stuff a la carte like Hawking pretends to do) in a purely mathematical space. <br /><br />By analogy, I can video record an event on a DVD. I can playback the recording, rewind, speed up, or slow down the speed of the recording. What does this play back feature tell me about the nature of time or space? If I can reverse the viewing of an event on the disk and player (which operates according to logical mathematical and physical rules) does this in any way inform how time operates at one second per second? No. Does the fact that I can view an event forward or backward on the viewing screen mean the universe is or is like a DVR and player and can be sped up, slowed down, or paused? No. Does anyone miss the fact that the bloody DVR and stupid time space diagrams require a person to look at them in actual time in actual space at one second per second to even consider the graph's implications or manipulate the playback, and thusly neither the useless time space doodle plot or the DVR/player universe analogy ever exist outside of time except as an imagined fiction? <br /><br />A movie can be watched in reverse, by a viewer in time at one second per second. A graph can be looked at and considered, by a viewer in time at one second per second. Would Tegmark be so kind as to provide his profound paradox solution method by which any event could even be said to 'move' or propagate backwards chronologically except as viewed by someone who was still moving forward through some kind of meta time in order to observe it? <br /><br />If you ignore cause and effect, you literally have nothing you can prove, and by corollary you will not be capable of learning from it. <br />CFTnoreply@blogger.com