The Hurdles to the Causal Mathematics Hypothesis

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
Many things are seriously wrong here, but one of them is the fact that he has created a loop (universe comes from logic, which comes from the fact of existence (=universe)).

Thank you. Finally at least some people began to understand WHY math is so powerfull in predicting behavior of objects in universe.

Simply because math is indeed a logic of existence I as said many times before. Anything existing (object, phenomenon, concept, etc) can be labeled as "yes", or "1", or "+", or "truth", and the lack of thereof - as "no", or "0", or "-", or "false".

So any object which has the property to "exist" then shall obey logic (math) by definition.

Is not this obvious? I spend a lot of words trying to explain this clear issue to everyone yet only very few people understood. Most as one can see from above and other threads keep parroting: "math can't be correct because it is just a description, a human construct". Well, math is correct (otherwise it would not be so overwhelmingly used almost everywhere), and it is correct simply because anything which has the property "to exist" shall obey it by definition (see above).

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Alexander
Most as one can see from above and other threads keep parroting: "math can't be correct because it is just a description, a human construct".

Not one person has said "math can't be correct". Your straw man arguments are getting old, Alex. Why not try logic for a refreshing change?

Well, math is correct (otherwise it would not be so overwhelmingly used almost everywhere), and it is correct simply because anything which has the property "to exist" shall obey it by definition (see above).

This is total nonsense. You can't form an a priori definition of what it means "to exist" or "to be physical". Any formulation of that concept is contingent on observatonal evidence and is subject to revision. Indeed, the concept has been revised many times as new discoveries have been made.

The truth of the matter is that no one knows why mathematics is so successful in describing physics, despite the fact that some of the best minds have pondered it.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by pelastration


IMHO, ... why does AMMM says that we can calculate everything? .. and here top physicists even think some parameters might be UNCALCULABLE !

Pela, do you understand the difference between mathematics and CALCULABIBITY? I clearly see that you dont. Mathematics prohibits "calculability" in many cases. Let's say that two quantities x and y are defined as inverse of each other: x=1/y. Then no matter what values x and y have, they can NEVER be equal to zero both. Suppose, x is spread of energy and y is spread of time. If they are entangled by mathematical definition then there is no way to have spread of both to be zero. So, energy and time can only have limited mathematical presicion, so to speak. Thus any quantity which requires accurate values of BOTH energy AND time will be undefined (uncalculable in principle).

And AMMM will become a very rich man since he can earn one million dollar from the Clay Institute for EACH solutions on special questions.

Thanks to both russian and especially US government (whom I helped to solve a few good puzzles) I am already very rich man. By the way, those puzzles were solved contrary to your poor advice:

Small suggestion, Alexander don't use below exposed logic to give the answers to those money-making questions

Finally, I share your concern that

Something is seriously wrong here!

I think it is because of lack of understanding of how math works.

Knowledge is power, ignorance is darkness!

 

[Hurkyl]

Thus any quantity which requires accurate values of BOTH energy AND time will be undefined

I hereby define a complex number x + i y to be an Alexandrian of a particle iff x is the energy of the particle and y is the time at which the energy is measured.

That certainly looks defined to me (even if no complex number is ever an Alexandrian of any particle)

 

[Alexander]

Yes, and if we then introduce Herculian function as y=ix then it is easy to show that applying Alexandrian to Herculean function makes the value of Herculean zero: x+iy=x+i(ix)=x-x=0



I love the power of math!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Thank you. Finally at least some people began to understand WHY math is so powerfull in predicting behavior of objects in universe.

Did you miss the part where I said you made a loop? A loop is a dead-end in a logical discussion (much like a paradox). I would have assumed that you knew this.

Simply because math is indeed a logic of existence I as said many times before.

But you have nothing to substantiate this claim, and all kinds of "hurdles" to overcome (not just mine anymore), before your belief is taken seriously.

Anything existing (object, phenomenon, concept, etc) can be labeled as "yes", or "1", or "+", or "truth", and the lack of thereof - as "no", or "0", or "-", or "false".

So any object which has the property to "exist" then shall obey logic (math) by definition.

If it shall all "obey logic" then why is there a theorem that dictates that mathematics itself is Incomplete? It appears that logic would be the only thing that didn't obey logic (if your belief is correct), but that would mean that there is a paradox at the heart of existence. Is that what you really believe?

Is not this obvious? I spend a lot of words trying to explain this clear issue to everyone yet only very few people understood.

You need to learn to distinguish between someone's not understanding you, and someone's disagreeing with you. The problem is how sure you are that you are right. This doesn't allow you to see merit in someone's disagreement, and you just construe it as a misunderstanding.

 

[Mentat]

I'm starting to believe that reasoning has prevailed over belief...

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
Did you miss the part where I said you made a loop? A loop is a dead-end in a logical discussion (much like a paradox). I would have assumed that you knew this.

Loop? Which one of your many logical errors do you call a loop?

 

[Hurkyl]

Loop? Which one of your many logical errors do you call a loop?

Woah, logical fallacy density readings are off the charts!

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat


Alexabder wrote:

Simply because math is indeed a logic of existence I as said many times before.

But you have nothing to substantiate this claim, and all kinds of "hurdles" to overcome (not just mine anymore), before your belief is taken seriously.

Looks like we have a memory problem here. I provided proof (equivalence of logic and existence) but you did not undertand it. Well, let's go over it once again then.

Recall those many posts of mine which explained you the origin of logiv and which you could answer nothing for. Let me remind them once more: Origin of logic (and math). Logic (thus math) starts with labeling of existence of object (of any object/phenomenon - God, universe, rock, ato, etc) by the symbol "1", or "yes", or "+", or "dot", or "true", "uno", etc (various civilizations use various symbolics). The lack (absense of existence) of object/phenomenon is labeled as "0", or "no", or "-", or "dash", or "false", or "nada", etc. We simply define those symbols as "existence" (of something particular) and "absense" (of this something).

So, as long as something exists this something obeys logic - simply because this is how logical symbols areDEFINED.

Comprehendo? If not, feel free to say so, and I'll repost this as many times as needed. I know that learning is sometimes slow process.
No problemo.

If it shall all "obey logic" then why is there a theorem that dictates that mathematics itself is Incomplete? It appears that logic would be the only thing that didn't obey logic (if your belief is correct), but that would mean that there is a paradox at the heart of existence. Is that what you really believe?

What theorem? Can you quote EXACTLY what that theorem says? Especially the part about violation of logic. Feel free to cut dumb lymann enterpretations of it (what we called paradox) and somebody's wrong personal opinion about it.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
You need to learn to distinguish between someone's not understanding you, and someone's disagreeing with you. The problem is how sure you are that you are right. This doesn't allow you to see merit in someone's disagreement, and you just construe it as a misunderstanding.

I am not claiming to be right or wrong. Nor do I try to convince you in something. You misunderstood. I respect your belief system and do NOT want to change it.

I just show you the origin of logic and math.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Loop? Which one of your many logical errors do you call a loop?

Are you completely daft, or are you just feigning ignorance? You were the one that made a loop. If you want to know where it is, re-read the post where I first said you made a loop.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Looks like we have a memory problem here. I provided proof (equivalence of logic and existence) but you did not undertand it. Well, let's go over it once again then.

Recall those many posts of mine which explained you the origin of logiv and which you could answer nothing for. Let me remind them once more: Origin of logic (and math). Logic (thus math) starts with labeling of existence of object

This is exactly my point, the object already exists, while logic and mathematics are just the things we use to "label" them. Are you sure this is your stance?

So, as long as something exists this something obeys logic - simply because this is how logical symbols areDEFINED.

That's not what you said, you said that logic is how you "label" them. That means that the object is not "obeying" logic, it (and it's behavior) is being labelled (or described) by logic and mathematics.

What theorem? Can you quote EXACTLY what that theorem says? Especially the part about violation of logic. Feel free to cut dumb lymann enterpretations of it (what we called paradox) and somebody's wrong personal opinion about it.

Does not Godel's Theorem dictate that no reasoning system (including mathematics) can be used to define/validate itself, without resulting in a loop?

 

[Hurkyl]

Logic (thus math) starts with labeling of existence of object (of any object/phenomenon - God, universe, rock, ato, etc) by the symbol "1", or "yes", or "+", or "dot", or "true", "uno", etc (various civilizations use various symbolics).

I'll presume you just misspoke, and don't mean to imply that this is actually the point at which mathematical logic begins, for among other things you've completely skipped over propositional logic and jumped straight into describing a symbol of some first-order language.


Anyways, right off the bat you introduce a departure from pure logic. You introduce the unary relation "existance". Unary relations are not logical symbols, but are instead supplemental symbols used in first-order languages; the "glue" that connects some concept with first-order logic.

Curiously, though, you have stopped at this point. You've left the interesting questions unanswered. You haven't presented a logical structure built upon your language. You haven't provided any axioms written in your language. And most importantly, you haven't argued that the "physical universe" (whatever that is) is a model of your theory.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
I am not claiming to be right or wrong. Nor do I try to convince you in something. You misunderstood. I respect your belief system and do NOT want to change it.

I just show you the origin of logic and math.

Only according to your opinion of them.

 

[AutisticSavant]

"The universe evolves through principles, through pictures. Einstein looked at the universe through pictures, not through the world of mathematics. Mathematics is book-keeping in some sense. It allows us to keep track of the picture. For example, take a bed sheet. Rumple the bed sheet. An ant walking along that rumpled bed sheet would say, “I am tugged by a force – I’ll call it gravity. There’s a star here tugging me, there’s a planet there tugging me.” Well we look at the ant from hyperspace and we laugh and we say that’s silly. There is no gravity at all. You are being buffeted by the curvature of space itself."

Kaku