5 ms·

Thank you for your reply. I'll try some more! :) I noticed that in nature (i.e. in the physical universe) there appears to be no logic. There are not even tw

by smokel 3y ago

Thank you for your reply. I'll try some more! :) I noticed that in nature (i.e. in the physical universe) there appears to be no logic. There are not even two things exactly the same, as far as I can tell. So that lead me to believe that "counting" (or abstraction) is not even a property of the universe, but possibly only a human (or animal, or Turing machine) construct. To me, logic only starts to occur when a very complex amalgam of matter comes together [1] to realize a discrete switch. Using these discrete switches, organisms build memory and abstraction mechanisms, start counting, and do mathematics. So my thesis is that things that are considered to be "basic" by most, such as logic or mathematics, are in fact quite specific systems built on top of chaos. From there, it remains to be proven that all physical laws that we observe are no more than projections of the chaos onto such a system. Perhaps a metaphor that helps to take on my perspective, is to look at a screen filled with random noise, and then observe some patterns in there. Now replace the screen with an infinite dimensional set of chaos, and then observe a pattern that is our universe. With the added twist that we are part of this chaos, and observing the pattern, possibly in the form of physical laws. Of course, there are many problems with this theory. What does the chaos reside in? How can there be discernible parts in the chaos? Is time an emergent property inside the chaos? How can it be that the patterns that we observe are so consistent? However, to me this theory seems more fruitful than merely accepting that we cannot say anything about things that science cannot observe, or that some deity created all this. [1] With "comes together" I do not refer to a dynamic process, but to the accidental occurrence of stuff in such a shape or form. Obviously, my ridiculous theory asserts a chaos chock full of dimensions, where time and space are but supporting actors.

narag 3y ago
I've seen statistics proposed as the force that makes reality, that would be fundamentally random, coherent. But statistics laws are themselves very strong when numbers get big.
dr_dshiv 3y ago
> There are not even two things exactly the same, as far as I can tell Aren’t all basic particles defined by the fact that they are exactly the same? And countable things rely on some difference, such as different spatial locations — or else they wouldn’t be countable, they’d just be the same. While two neutron stars are distinguishable they are also classifiable as a real type of star in a manner that seems to go beyond human perceptual idiosyncrasy. But I'm a deep Platonist/Pythagorean — so my bias is that "all is number" and the world is made of math. Math is real :)
- antonvs 3y ago
  If the world is made of math, do new physical objects pop into being whenever a mathematician writes down or thinks of a structure or a proof? Or does only some math get to become physical? In general, your view seems like a definitional issue to me. If you want to call what the world is made of “math”, then what you and I mean by math are two different things, and using the same word to describe them only leads to confusion.
  - dr_dshiv 3y ago
    Well, we try to discover math. That’s straight forward?
    - antonvs 3y ago
      Again, definitional issues are critical here. I can make up all sorts of math that isn't really "discovered", it's more "invented". Most of it won't correspond usefully to the physical universe. See e.g.: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/formalism-mathematics/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/formalism-mathematics/ : > "mathematics is not a body of propositions representing an abstract sector of reality but is much more akin to a game, bringing with it no more commitment to an ontology of objects or properties than ludo or chess." I take the brevity and lack of commitment to a position in your reply as an indication that you're not really willing or able to defend your position. That's fine, it's a complex topic, as the many articles on the SEP linked above attest. But if you want to claim "the world is made of math", then the onus is on you to define what you mean by that. To me, it looks a little incoherent.
      - dr_dshiv 3y ago
        Take the brevity as a lack of hubris. The notion that “the world is made of math” is one of the oldest and most influential ideas of all time. If you find Pythagoras, Plato and Newton a little incoherent, that’s not unusual. But the onus doesn’t lie with them (or me). In any case, I remain interested in your ideas!
ttctciyf 3y ago
> built on top of chaos. I don't think you've taken on the full force of the argument that regularity in human activity (such as building systems) requires a source of order for it not to simply dissolve into chaos itself. > How can it be that the patterns that we observe are so consistent? How can we claim to discern consistency (or inconsistency) without the ability to follow a rule correctly? And how can we follow a rule without a source of order or regularity in the cosmos? Wouldn't it be like trying to build a the Eiffel tower out of live slugs? If you insist on an absence of order in the physical universe, the onus is on you to explain how regularity in human activity (required for mathematics of any kind) can be achieved without it. This is not an argument for Platonic realism, BTW, or against intuitionism, roughly construed as the view that "mathematics is a creation of the mind" as per [1], or in your formulation that 'mathematical abstractions are not part of the physical universe' (if I understand what you're saying). You can perfectly well believe that mathematics is a mental construct and at the same time acknowledge that it's possible to observe regularities and order in the cosmos. If you want to insist that the regularity doesn't come from physical law, then I find it hard to see how you'll escape from some kind of Platonic belief in a non-physical realm that serves as the source of order :) In your TV screen dots analogy, isn't it usually thought that patterns appear only because of the structured, generative activity of law-observing physical components, specifically the neurons comprising your grey matter? 1: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism/
- klik99 3y ago
  This argument completely ignores the observer which is bound by the same limits of our processing - indeed they are paired together. Entering purely theoretical space here: On the timescale of eternity this might be a local pocket of some logical organization but there is no fundamental logic governing everything. Our observation is limited so we can’t perceive chaos, instead evolved to only recognize patterns. Over infinity, pure chaos does not preclude long pockets of what looks like order. What we consider fundamental rules could very well be local phenomenon, which we are a product of. Of course this purely theoretical - all I’m saying is that intuitism could be true while also math being useful to predict things right now. We could also only exist for an instant and all our memories just construct, but that’s not very useful. It’s more useful to believe in scientific method because what’s repeatable is provable, whereas chaos is by its nature unprovable - which doesn’t make it impossible.
pixl97 3y ago
>There are not even two things exactly the same, as far as I can tell. https://medium.com/physics-as-a-foreign-language/how-do-we-know-that-all-electrons-are-identical-part-1-9166ee57a029# https://medium.com/physics-as-a-foreign-language/how-do-we-k... https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/news/a27731/what-if-every-electron-was-the-same-electron/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/news/a27731/what-if...
- smokel 3y ago
  Your url-based reply is quite ironic. The first link is an article that explains that all electrons are exactly identical, suggesting that there are indeed things in the universe that are exactly the same. However, the second link discusses the one-electron idea by Wheeler, which suggests the exact opposite :)
danbruc 3y ago
There are not even two things exactly the same, as far as I can tell. That is a common definition of identity, two things are the same if all their properties are the same. So by definition there can not be two different things with all their properties the same as this would make them indistinguishable and therefore the same thing. But if you relax this a bit, then for example elementary particles like electrons are - as far as we know - all completely identical up to their position, momentum and spin.

by smokel 3y ago

narag 3y ago

I've seen statistics proposed as the force that makes reality, that would be fundamentally random, coherent. But statistics laws are themselves very strong when numbers get big.

dr_dshiv 3y ago

> There are not even two things exactly the same, as far as I can tell Aren’t all basic particles defined by the fact that they are exactly the same? And countable things rely on some difference, such as different spatial locations — or else they wouldn’t be countable, they’d just be the same. While two neutron stars are distinguishable they are also classifiable as a real type of star in a manner that seems to go beyond human perceptual idiosyncrasy. But I'm a deep Platonist/Pythagorean — so my bias is that "all is number" and the world is made of math. Math is real :)

antonvs 3y ago
If the world is made of math, do new physical objects pop into being whenever a mathematician writes down or thinks of a structure or a proof? Or does only some math get to become physical? In general, your view seems like a definitional issue to me. If you want to call what the world is made of “math”, then what you and I mean by math are two different things, and using the same word to describe them only leads to confusion.
- dr_dshiv 3y ago
  Well, we try to discover math. That’s straight forward?
  - antonvs 3y ago
    Again, definitional issues are critical here. I can make up all sorts of math that isn't really "discovered", it's more "invented". Most of it won't correspond usefully to the physical universe. See e.g.: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/formalism-mathematics/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/formalism-mathematics/ : > "mathematics is not a body of propositions representing an abstract sector of reality but is much more akin to a game, bringing with it no more commitment to an ontology of objects or properties than ludo or chess." I take the brevity and lack of commitment to a position in your reply as an indication that you're not really willing or able to defend your position. That's fine, it's a complex topic, as the many articles on the SEP linked above attest. But if you want to claim "the world is made of math", then the onus is on you to define what you mean by that. To me, it looks a little incoherent.
    - dr_dshiv 3y ago
      Take the brevity as a lack of hubris. The notion that “the world is made of math” is one of the oldest and most influential ideas of all time. If you find Pythagoras, Plato and Newton a little incoherent, that’s not unusual. But the onus doesn’t lie with them (or me). In any case, I remain interested in your ideas!

ttctciyf 3y ago

> built on top of chaos. I don't think you've taken on the full force of the argument that regularity in human activity (such as building systems) requires a source of order for it not to simply dissolve into chaos itself. > How can it be that the patterns that we observe are so consistent? How can we claim to discern consistency (or inconsistency) without the ability to follow a rule correctly? And how can we follow a rule without a source of order or regularity in the cosmos? Wouldn't it be like trying to build a the Eiffel tower out of live slugs? If you insist on an absence of order in the physical universe, the onus is on you to explain how regularity in human activity (required for mathematics of any kind) can be achieved without it. This is not an argument for Platonic realism, BTW, or against intuitionism, roughly construed as the view that "mathematics is a creation of the mind" as per [1], or in your formulation that 'mathematical abstractions are not part of the physical universe' (if I understand what you're saying). You can perfectly well believe that mathematics is a mental construct and at the same time acknowledge that it's possible to observe regularities and order in the cosmos. If you want to insist that the regularity doesn't come from physical law, then I find it hard to see how you'll escape from some kind of Platonic belief in a non-physical realm that serves as the source of order :) In your TV screen dots analogy, isn't it usually thought that patterns appear only because of the structured, generative activity of law-observing physical components, specifically the neurons comprising your grey matter? 1: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism/

klik99 3y ago
This argument completely ignores the observer which is bound by the same limits of our processing - indeed they are paired together. Entering purely theoretical space here: On the timescale of eternity this might be a local pocket of some logical organization but there is no fundamental logic governing everything. Our observation is limited so we can’t perceive chaos, instead evolved to only recognize patterns. Over infinity, pure chaos does not preclude long pockets of what looks like order. What we consider fundamental rules could very well be local phenomenon, which we are a product of. Of course this purely theoretical - all I’m saying is that intuitism could be true while also math being useful to predict things right now. We could also only exist for an instant and all our memories just construct, but that’s not very useful. It’s more useful to believe in scientific method because what’s repeatable is provable, whereas chaos is by its nature unprovable - which doesn’t make it impossible.

pixl97 3y ago

>There are not even two things exactly the same, as far as I can tell. https://medium.com/physics-as-a-foreign-language/how-do-we-know-that-all-electrons-are-identical-part-1-9166ee57a029# https://medium.com/physics-as-a-foreign-language/how-do-we-k... https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/news/a27731/what-if-every-electron-was-the-same-electron/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/news/a27731/what-if...

smokel 3y ago
Your url-based reply is quite ironic. The first link is an article that explains that all electrons are exactly identical, suggesting that there are indeed things in the universe that are exactly the same. However, the second link discusses the one-electron idea by Wheeler, which suggests the exact opposite :)

danbruc 3y ago

There are not even two things exactly the same, as far as I can tell. That is a common definition of identity, two things are the same if all their properties are the same. So by definition there can not be two different things with all their properties the same as this would make them indistinguishable and therefore the same thing. But if you relax this a bit, then for example elementary particles like electrons are - as far as we know - all completely identical up to their position, momentum and spin.