Philosophy Now Forum

Ginkgo wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:Socratus,

Since you've been here I've asked you this a few times so maybe you'll do something this time. Could you please post a key explaining what all the constants and variables refer to in your posts. Some of us are not physicists.

Having read all of his posts I am guessing three possibilities.

(a) The mathematics is the reality.

(b) The mathematics is a representation of the reality.

(c) Reductionism in science will eventually give you a first cause.

Other than that we would have to wait for a reply.

The mathematics is 'the queen of science'.
But 'she is a queen' only then 'she married' with physics, with reality.
Without phisics, without reality 'she is mad woman'.
=.
Questions.
1
Is conception 'infinity' an abstraction or has phisical and mathematical ground ?
2.
Is the ( pi=3,14 . . .) only mathematical number or can belong to some reality,
to be a mathematical parameter of some particle?
==.
socratus

socratus wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:Socratus,

Since you've been here I've asked you this a few times so maybe you'll do something this time. Could you please post a key explaining what all the constants and variables refer to in your posts. Some of us are not physicists.

Having read all of his posts I am guessing three possibilities.

(a) The mathematics is the reality.

(b) The mathematics is a representation of the reality.

(c) Reductionism in science will eventually give you a first cause.

Other than that we would have to wait for a reply.

The mathematics is 'the queen of science'.
But 'she is a queen' only then 'she married' with physics, with reality.
Without phisics, without reality 'she is mad woman'.
=.
Questions.
1
Is conception 'infinity' an abstraction or has phisical and mathematical ground ?
2.
Is the ( pi=3,14 . . .) only mathematical number or can belong to some reality,
to be a mathematical parameter of some particle?
==.
socratus

I guess you are saying that mathematics is a representation of reality. That is assuming science is reality. This would be somewhat of a circular argument.

As far as infinity is concerned i don't really know. I think there are infinities found in a number of different fields of mathematics today. This is why I tend to think that mathematics is analytic apriori. Pi can be looked at as an infinite set of irrational numbers, but I am not sure what pi=3,14 means. Perhaps 3.14 ?

I am guessing you are saying that if irrational numbers don't belong to some type of reality(that reality being science) then sometimes theories in physics we end up with infinities as an explanation. From this you might also be drawing the conclusion that infinities are not part of the real world. The real world in this case being science.

Math is a physics of idea and Physics is a Math of matter...
Maybe the matter (reality) can have only present structure, as the Math has...

Cerveny wrote:Math is a physics of idea and Physics is a Math of matter...
Maybe the matter (reality) can have only present structure, as the Math has...

Could you expand on, "Maybe the matter (reality) can have only present structure, as the Math has.."

Thanks

Ginkgo wrote:

Cerveny wrote:Math is a physics of idea and Physics is a Math of matter...
Maybe the matter (reality) can have only present structure, as the Math has...

Could you expand on, "Maybe the matter (reality) can have only present structure, as the Math has.."

Thanks

Mathematics, whether we see it as an objective essence of the Universe or cultured tool of mind, including all representations, transformations, and interpretations as such, is only one. It is offered the suggestion that configuration of space, matter, is actually only just one too. At first glance, it may seem strange but for example the basic parameter of presence - the three dimensions of space - can be caused by the fact that higher dimensions would generate faster decline of potentials so that they did not hold the universe together. Four most visible fundamental forces in physics, let us say, can express a combination of attraction / repulsion, short / long range ...

Socratus,
Once more,

Could you please give names to these symbols;


T is temperature I guess.
E is energy I guess.
p is ?
t is ? Or same as T?
C is Speed of Light?
D is Density?
R is ?
N is ?
E is (see above)
M is Mass I guess.
c is ? Or same as C?
h is ?
b is ?
k is ?
h* is ?
f is ?
a is ?

Cerveny wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

Cerveny wrote:Math is a physics of idea and Physics is a Math of matter...
Maybe the matter (reality) can have only present structure, as the Math has...

Could you expand on, "Maybe the matter (reality) can have only present structure, as the Math has.."

Thanks

Mathematics, whether we see it as an objective essence of the Universe or cultured tool of mind, including all representations, transformations, and interpretations as such, is only one. It is offered the suggestion that configuration of space, matter, is actually only just one too. At first glance, it may seem strange but for example the basic parameter of presence - the three dimensions of space - can be caused by the fact that higher dimensions would generate faster decline of potentials so that they did not hold the universe together. Four most visible fundamental forces in physics, let us say, can express a combination of attraction / repulsion, short / long range ...

Personally, I cannot help but be impressed by the mathematics. It is impossible for any human to imagine four, five or six extra dimensions. Apparently, mathematics has no problem in providing an explanation. So I guess that the mathematics is as close as we are going to get when it comes to 'experiencing' this reality.

Yet, when it comes to renormalization in quantum field theory, 'reality' becomes somewhat vague. Apparently the mathematics requires a fair bit of fiddling with. But I will leave that up to the mathematicians to explain that type of reality.

The Universe ( as a whole) is a Double World: next to Matter World
( a few % of whole mass of Universe) exist Vacuum World
( with more than 90% of whole mass of Universe).
Question:
How can the more than 90% of Vacuum Mass in the Universe
(dark mass, dark energy, quantum virtual particles, particles of ideal gas)
create a few % of Matter Mass, which give possibility to many scientists
and philosophers to say that God doesn’t exist ?

==.

You can inspect the thing by the opposite way: 10 percent of the Universe may be the defects of the ideal structure of the space: Prism of TR distorts our understanding of gravitational relationships. Just the motion of stars in galaxies shows massive tearing of "empty" space by the stars toward the “future”, or by other hand, the influx of the anti-space from future ...
And, if you're looking for God, you can find here just only his nice garden / figment – the life. He, personaly, I think, lives in the future, behind the boundary of “now” :)

About that philosophy of science we are talking
if we don't know : what the vacuum is,
what the quantum particle is ( they say it is math point),
what an electron is (electron has six formulas and many theories)
what is the reason of 'dualism of particle' ? . . . . etc

=.

socratus wrote:About that philosophy of science we are talking
if we don't know : what the vacuum is,
what the quantum particle is ( they say it is math point),
what an electron is (electron has six formulas and many theories)
what is the reason of 'dualism of particle' ? . . . . etc

=.

Yes that is a very good question. But I think we need to avoid falling into a,'God of the gaps' explanation.

Ginkgo wrote:

socratus wrote:About that philosophy of science we are talking
if we don't know : what the vacuum is,
what the quantum particle is ( they say it is math point),
what an electron is (electron has six formulas and many theories)
what is the reason of 'dualism of particle' ? . . . . etc

=.

Yes that is a very good question.
But I think we need to avoid falling into
a,'God of the gaps' explanation.

Have you find name 'God' in my points ?

=

The Newtonian world cannot exist without Quantum world
and vice versa.
We cannot separate the Quantum theory from Classical theory,
the Quantum world from Newtonian material world.
The quantum world as real as the physical matter world and
we need understand and celebrate their unity.
Where is problem ?
The problem is, that we don’t know how to unite them together.
Why ?
Because we don’t know what Quantum world is and it is almost
impossible for us to believe that It can be Aristotle’s metaphysical world.
Where is the key to solving this problem ?
The key has name. Its name is ‘ Quantum of Light’.
==.
P.S.
‘ All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken. ‘
/ Einstein /
===..

Does DNA know geometry ?
Did DNA create child from zygote by the chance ?
=.
The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys
at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time
will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works
of William Shakespeare.
The probability of a monkey exactly typing a complete work such
as Shakespeare's Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring
during a period of time of the order of the age of the universe
is extremely low, but not zero.
. . . . .
If there are as many monkeys as there are particles in the
observable universe . . . . the probability of the monkeys replicating
even a short book is nearly zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

It means that according to Probability theory it is impossible
to create by chance Intellect Existence during 14 billions years
after ‘big bang’.

Another example.

Proteins With Only Left-Handed Components
http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_c04.htm

The probability that an average-size protein molecule of the smallest
theoretically possible living thing would happen to contain only
left-handed amino acids is, therefore, 1 in 10123, on the average.
That is a rather discouraging chance.
To get the feel of that number, let’s look at it with all the 123 zeros:
There is, on the average, 1 chance in –
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
that all of the amino acids of a particular protein molecule
would be left-handed!

Conclusion: No Conceivable Probability

We find that there is no lessening of confusion until one accepts
the logic that “intelligent” systems could not arise without
an intelligent Designer.
http://creationsafaris.com/epoi_c04.htm
#
According to the probability theory to create the origin of life
from ' the soup ' of proteins by the chance is 1 from 10^(-255).
This quantity is so small that it seems this way of creation
is impossible : not by chance the existence began.
==.
Question.
Does DNA have consciousness to create an intellectual child from zygote?
===…

How does chance exist? It's a serious question. Is it dependant on intelligence for its existence?