Cosmology

[YesNo]

This is a bit like the latest astronomy post on "multiverses". We can't confirm that our universe is the only universe, but we build theories on the assumption that it is the only one. You might like to look at that post from space.com.

I couldn't find a specific article in the link. The idea of multiverses is confusing. I can think of three different versions of this.

1) Given that the big bang occurred, and the microwave background implies some beginning occurred, then this event should not be unique. That means other universes, like our own, exist.

2) Given that it is conceivable for cosmological "constants" to be such that life could not exist, the anthropic principle implies that other universes exist so that ours supporting life could have a random chance of being.

3) To avoid the indeterminacy at the quantum level, any possibility that appears indeterminate in our universe is realized in another universe that pops into existence as soon as the indeterminate event takes place.

Of these the first seems plausible. The other two are based on metaphysical need to avoid choices occurring.

[YesNo]

It harkens back to "cosmic consciousness."

That goes back to George Berkeley, I suspect. Although I don't have any problem with cosmic consciousness, I wonder if some form of consciousness is also at the quantum level to justify a panpsychism perspective.

Entangled particles seem determined. The state of one can always be known by checking the other.

The first one measured chooses the state for both. Indeterminacy does not mean there is complete freedom of choice. I also find the non-individualistic implications interesting.

Sure, that is all very impressive and mysterious. It means there is an awful lot we cannot explain. But nothing in it comples me to believe quantum particles are conscious.

I don't know that anyone else claims that this quantum reality is conscious. However, I don't usually have original ideas, so I suspect others have thought about it.

What compels me to consider that there is agency at that level is the absence of determinism and the absence of complete randomness. This makes me think that within some limited range a choice is made. That choice implies some form of consciousness.

We have an outside light. On top of it is a sensor which detects light or darkness to determine when to turn the light on. Under your beliefs I would have to call the sensor conscious. When the sensor gets too covered in bird sh*t the light mistakenly stays on all the time. You would still call it conscioiusness, I guess. Is sensitivity to change consciousness?

If one gets a lot of this quantum reality together one gets objects, some we've made, such as rocks and trees and sensors and computers. These objects are more predictable. I would not say that a computer is conscious because when it works is does so deterministically as a computer, not as the quantum reality that makes up that computer.

Wavicles.

One of the problems with giving something like this a name is that name makes it seem as if we know something about that reality when all we know is a metaphor which may be leading us astray. The waviness of the reality is only known from results on a detection screen. Hence we assume that some interference caused the pattern prior to getting to the detection screen.

[desiresjab]

I wonder if some form of consciousness is also at the quantum level to justify a panpsychism perspective.

You wonder? You certainly do. I would say you do more than that. This seems to be your primary philosophical obsession, to convince yourself or others that quantum particles make choices and the universe is conscious at many levels and therefore we have free will because of quantum indeterminancy, based on really no evidence except what you for some reason want desperately to believe. I think that is a religious doctrine, not physics or even philosophy, and you treat it like a religious doctrine. It is not a beginning point for investigation. There is no ineluctable truth contained that can be seen for certain, like there is with the simple statement two is the successor of one.

The first one measured chooses the state for both. Indeterminacy does not mean there is complete freedom of choice. I also find the non-individualistic implications interesting.

Mere words, my boy, mere words. You are demonstrating what happens when an individual (yourself) takes a philosophical model too seriously. You are against taking scientific and mathematical models too seriously, but apparently it is okay to do so with a philosophical one. Philosophical models (interpretations) are produced several levels of abstraction above the trench math and physics. They are quite simply loose interpretations and possibilities for the non technically inclined to consider of what may be occurring. These "explanations" are then simplified further and finally transferred upward to books for the general public. It isn't over though. They make it to this forum about eight levels of abstraction up from the real thing. Here, what gets said over and over with the thinnest of support is that electrons make choices. I do not see where this is the basis for a philosophy that one would keep going at it endlessly. Precisely, it is a wild theory, not an ineluctable interpretation.

I don't know that anyone else claims that this quantum reality is conscious.

All you do is claim it. I gave you a chance to convince me. Why could quantum reality not merely contain some consciousness rather be conscious, as you keep stating?

I live and sense in a mammal-sized reality. That does not mean to me that mammal-sized reality is conscious, it means I am conscious within it. Some boulders are mammal-sized.

What compels me to consider that there is agency at that level is the absence of determinism and the absence of complete randomness. This makes me think that within some limited range a choice is made. That choice implies some form of consciousness.

De-hynotize yourself, friend. Do not jump to the forking word choice at every opportunity. You have at best a vague suspicion, sir, a sneaking suspicion, as my mother used to say. ...the absence of determinism and the absence of complete randomness. With such statemnts you have hypnotized yourself by playing loosely with their meanings.There is random and there is non random. Random means you cannot make accurate predicitons of an outcome. The short and sweet of it...randomness is predictable only through luck, non randomness could be tracked down by a species with fine enough tools, i.e. there is a formula.

Randomness is a concept. The concept says there is no formula for this thing. If there does exist a formula for it, than it is not this thing.

You are operating under false assumptions, according to your own criteria. Randomness is a pure abstaction, it may not exist. It is one of those concepts like continuity of the number line and infinite divisibility. No one even knows if these concepts apply all the way down in nature, or if nature operates discretely at a wee level. Heat does, from Planck.

Here you are applying these abstract mathematical models (as you like to call them) to reality nonchalantly and saying you can form beliefs out of them. Can the universe at any level express complete randomness? Maybe not. It is only a concept, so far. Perhaps the universe can only asymptotically approach pure randomness. Even in that case, there should be a formula for the universe.

I am not surprised if pure randomness does not exist. Asymptotric randomness might come as close as any limit we set, however, or it might have its own limit in this particular (or any) universe, like the speed of light does.

The newly coined concept of asymptotic randomness still allows you that thin edge of non randomness you seek. Just remember, any non randomness is determinate. This non randomness you will define as choice

If we imagine a bell curve, high in the middle and approaching the axis asymptotically in each direction, I know that to the left the universe can at least approach pure randomness extremely closely.

Conversely, there is no obstruction abstractly at least to considering the other side of the graph where pure order is approached asymptotically. This might be the realm of heaven. It is an interesting notion but I am not forming any religious beliefs out of it myself.

Does more order, then, bring joy? There is plenty of order in a rest home and little joy. There has to be order and freedom.

[desiresjab]

No one should get in a tizzy over the statement that any degree of non randomness in our universal beginnings means theoretically our universe is reproducible with the right formula. For three centuries many great minds including Newton, Laplace and Poincare struggled with the mere three-body problem. The complexities of its families of solutions still dazzles is.

Imagine, then, trying to find a formula to derive the universe and its particles. Perhaps not impossible, but unimaginably close to impossible.

[YesNo]

There is no ineluctable truth contained that can be seen for certain, like there is with the simple statement two is the successor of one.

One of our differences is that I don't view mathematics as more than a game. You seem to think there is more to it.

De-hynotize yourself, friend. Do not jump to the forking word choice at every opportunity.

You'll have to do better than that to de-hypnotize me.

Randomness is a concept. The concept says there is no formula for this thing. If there does exist a formula for it, than it is not this thing.

The thing about determinism and randomness is that they are ways to avoid subjectivity and choice.

Since I don't see how we could even come up with the concepts of determinism or randomness without subjectivity and a choice to focus our attention on these concepts, our subjectivity and our ability to choose can't be reduced to these derivative concepts.

That would be another place where we disagree.

[desiresjab]

One of our differences is that I don't view mathematics as more than a game. You seem to think there is more to it.

You will call it a game, come tsunamis or asteroid hits, I know that. In that case I would at least like to hear form you that it is the game we found here, whose laws we did not invent but only formulated in more detail from what is abstractly necessary.

Which is it, my dear Yes/No? Did we wholly invent this game of mathematics, like we did chess, or did we find ineluctable rather than arbitrary rules were necessary even to do something as basic as counting properly in the universe we found ourselves in? You should be able to answer that without too much sophism about rules of a game.

1 The laws of Math are purely our inventions, just another game?

2 The laws of math are such that they must be as they are. We can discover and develop new byways in them but not invent the mechanics those laws rely upon.

Take a crack at it.

[YesNo]

Let's consider the claim that "two follows one". I agree with you that that statement is true in every universe since none of those universes care one way or the other about it. Similarly, the game Tic-Tac-Toe is true in any universe. A limerick I write is a limerick in any universe.

To get more specific, What does it mean to say that two follows one? If we are in the integers it means that there is a binary relationship, in this case a strict total ordering, containing the pair (2,1) requiring that 2 > 1.

We could easily switch that relationship around and say that "one follows two" by changing the binary order relationship to include (1,2) and not (2,1). In general if a > b then we make b > a. That is also true in every universe, because the existence of any of those universes is not dependent upon how we define that binary order relationship.

We can go further. Consider the finite field of two equivalence classes labelled 0 and 1. 0 contains all the integers that are even and 1 contains all the integers that are odd. In that field the statement "two, as an equivalence class, does not exist" is true in all universes.

None of those universes care how we define the rules of the game we are playing at the moment.

The answer to 1 is that mathematics is a lot like a story or poem. It objectifies what we subjectively understand. That objectification I can call a "game" although it could be a "story" or a "limerick".

The answer to 2 is similar. When I write a limerick it conforms to a certain pattern or it is not a limerick. When I construct a mathematical structure, what I derive from it follows logical patterns or it is not a mathematical structure.

The missing question is does the universe behave like any of these mathematical structures (or stories or poems or physical theories) that we might happen to create? We hope it does, but we are led into errors when we take these objective artifacts of our subjectivity too literally. In spite of what some people like to believe, we cannot completely dump our subjectivity into something objective.

There is another problem. When we do not have physical evidence for something we sometimes rely on these objectified, mathematical structures to guide us. This creates a blind spot. For example, is time in reality a mathematical continuum of infinitesimal points? We cannot physically verify infinitesimals given quantum limitations to the discrete. Furthermore, the assumption that time is a mathematical continuum leads to paradoxes in physical reality, notably Zeno's, even though the paradoxes might have been resolved mathematically.

[desiresjab]

Let's consider the claim that "two follows one". I agree with you that that statement is true in every universe since none of those universes care one way or the other about it. Similarly, the game Tic-Tac-Toe is true in any universe. A limerick I write is a limerick in any universe.

Tic-Tac-Toe is true in any universe, but it is not much of a tool for exploring universes. Its laws, too, were always possible in any universe, but it is not fundamental to any of them

To get more specific, What does it mean to say that two follows one? If we are in the integers it means that there is a binary relationship, in this case a strict total ordering, containing the pair (2,1) requiring that 2 > 1.

This argument does not describe a universe, friend, nor does it have anything to do with the cardianl successor of 1. You ask what it means. It means two is the cardinal successor of 1. Your argument is totally irrelevant, a true red herring.

We could easily switch that relationship around and say that "one follows two" by changing the binary order relationship to include (1,2) and not (2,1).

And you think this has anything to do with cardinal successors? This is as relevant as looking at 18 and claiming 8 must be the successor of 1.

In general if a > b then we make b > a. That is also true in every universe, because the existence of any of those universes is not dependent upon how we define that binary order relationship.

Again, sir, we are not talking about binary relationships. Notice you are not counting.

We can go further. Consider the finite field of two equivalence classes labelled 0 and 1. 0 contains all the integers that are even and 1 contains all the integers that are odd. In that field the statement "two, as an equivalence class, does not exist" is true in all universes.

Successors, sir, fundamental counting--that's where we are. You are not counting in this example, you are blinking two values as in QR.

None of those universes care how we define the rules of the game we are playing at the moment.

What makes you think so? They care a lot, if you want to put it that way. They care enough that they will not let you change any laws, you have to use the ones that preceded your arrival. The universe does not care about Tic-Tac-Toe because Tic-Tac-Toe is not integral to it.

A man made up Tic-Tac-Toe. Did a man make up the mechanics that causes 4n+1 numbers to behave differently than 4n+3 numbers in QR? A man saw that they behaved that way, a man did not make up that they behaved that way. They were behaving that way always, before Euler conjectured it and before Gauss proved it. A man did not make up the fact that numbers will behave this way. there is no other way possible for them to behave. Ineluctable: can be no other way.[/QUOTE]

The answer to 1 is that mathematics is a lot like a story or poem. It objectifies what we subjectively understand. That objectification I can call a "game" although it could be a "story" or a "limerick".

Before, you said mathematics was a stroy, now you say it is a lot like a story or a poem. Make up your mind.

You are really astray and I do not know if I can help you. You are cruising at a very high level of abstraction making judgements on the lowest level in the universe. Because a mailbox and a car are both red, at a particular level of abstraction they are alike. Because a peach and a baby are both soft, at a certain level of abstraction they are the same. As you descend to lower levels the differences betwen babies and peaches becomes clear. They are only superficially alike. You see there are a lot more differences than there are similarities between the two.

You are making high level abstractions to point out superficial commonalities.

The answer to 2 is similar. When I write a limerick it conforms to a certain pattern or it is not a limerick. When I construct a mathematical structure, what I derive from it follows logical patterns or it is not a mathematical structure.

High level of abstraction to point out superficial similarity.

The missing question is does the universe behave like any of these mathematical structures (or stories or poems or physical theories) that we might happen to create? We hope it does...

Which part of the universe are you talking about? Again, youapparently only mean cosmological or quantum scales. Here at mammal-scale, math works just fine to capture order and help us make better decision by the millions everyday.

There is another problem. When we do not have physical evidence for something we sometimes rely on these objectified, mathematical structures to guide us. This creates a blind spot. For example, is time in reality a mathematical continuum of infinitesimal points? We cannot physically verify infinitesimals given quantum limitations to the discrete. Furthermore, the assumption that time is a mathematical continuum leads to paradoxes in physical reality, notably Zeno's, even though the paradoxes might have been resolved mathematically.

You are like a madman that only knows certain things to repeat. There is no blind spot created by math. Infinitesimals cannot be verified. What are you going to do, find a smallest one?

Most of the mechanics of the universe were a blind spot to early man. Math reduces and illuminates them, it does not create them.Your problem is you are disappointed the lighting is not perfect. You are mad because when the light of mathematics is shined on the universe it does not show everything with 100% resolution. We have to know more laws than we do now. When those laws of numbers are found, some of them may apply to your obsession. Until then, hope for a great mathematician to arise, because the solution if it comes will be in mathematics, it will not come from people with prayer books. The people with prayer books are not even searching for the same kind of answer. I would consider it a miracle if people praying were ever of instrumental use in science.

[YesNo]

This argument does not describe a universe, friend, nor does it have anything to do with the cardianl successor of 1. You ask what it means. It means two is the cardinal successor of 1.

Where is the number 1 in the universe?

[desiresjab]

It is not anyplace.

[YesNo]

I see. It is a game we created. My cat doesn't play the game (to my knowledge). I don't even think my computer really knows what the number 1 is.

[desiresjab]

I see. It is a game we created. My cat doesn't play the game (to my knowledge). I don't even think my computer really knows what the number 1 is.

Am I still banned?

[desiresjab]

I don't know if you got the question out just right. But since it is the big question in all of this, I have to address it.

If we start with 1, it would not hurt to say what 1 is, right? I think that is what you meant.

Words like "unity" or "singularity" only stall the answer. They are not what a person who asks the question means to get at. Those two words already contain the notion of oneness, so we cannot use them to define oneness, can we now? I mean really.

Everything else is defined neatly in terms of 1. But what is 1? That is it, isn't it? Here is where it gets thorny philosohically.

Everything after 1 is mathematically defined, but is 1 mathematically defined?

Even though there is a mathematical operation 0+1=1, that would be getting ahead of ourselves.

The idea of 1 seems to be philosophical. Translated to counting, it can only be existence itself, as opposed to no existence. 1 and 0 are existence and non existence, mathematically. Ah! but that is one level of abstraction up from the abstract concept of existence itself, isn't it? I just learned something.

Further, the reason mathematicians did not start at 0 to define numbers is that they would then would have to explain existence itself when 1 appeared from nowhere.

1 is the assumption of existence, which is the foundational assumption of mathematics, maybe of philosophy too. Once we do that, everything follows nicely, in math at least, and we can even go back at that point and say, yes, 0+1=1.

Unless you must call the assumption of existence a game, where is the game? We conceive of nothingness, observe we exist, and further observe there is a proliferation of things that exist. If you want to enumerate things that exist accurately you must use numbers to count them. Each number is the successor of the number in front of it, exceeding it by exactly one, the unit already defined and brought out of nothingness to represent existence. One is one of anything—a car, a house, a dumpling, an idea.

We know we exist. I myself believe we are not what we think we are by a long shot, but in one way or another we and other things do exist. We have every right to assume that we exist and that other things exist as well.

We invented symbols for existence and non existence, 1 and 0. Man was well along in the civilization process before the idea of 0 came and stuck.

The truth is, historically mankind started with one, when it came to counting, since it was a reasonable assumption that things existed. It was a long time later when they got around to explaining how zero worked in every situation. Very little in math ever came easy after counting. Counting was pretty natural, in the sense that enumeration could easily be verified with the senses, but counting still took a long while to develop anyway.

I do not see counting as a game, nor the assumption of existence as making a rule. I do not see keeping track of enmueration a game.

Math can be used like a game, one can think creatively and inventively with it, but the fundamental propositions of mathematics are no game, they came right out of counting what was already there using number successors before anyone ever bothered with the concept of number successors.

[desiresjab]

It is OK to view nature as your opponent to be mastered, but you would not want to mistake any model for the actual, even the game model for mathemathics, right?

Math can be fun like a game. I want it to be. It is to many.

Even non commutivity in multiplication came about to satisfy multiplication of matrices and groups, not as an arbitrary experiment with operations. Matrices are shadowed by much in nature and our daily lives. Matrices are a brand of mathematics that does not count things, but the magnitudes of the numbers in the columns and rows of the matrix are interpreted exactly as in counting. 26 is still 26.

It is all right to approach mathematics like a game when you do math research. It should be fun. Satisfying your curiosity is a fun thing.

In order for matrices to reflect the way certain things happen, one operation (multiplication) had to be tweaked. Galois was following nature, maybe looking for it.

Since the whole dispute in my mind now comes down to the number 1 and how it got there, I can more easily make my points.

[YesNo]

I keep getting those "you are banned" messages when trying to post as it looks like you do as well.

If our subjectivity is not a game, then neither is mathematics. I would also elevate poetry to being something more than a game.

However, what comes out of our subjectivity is partial. We cannot take it too literally.