the australian philosopher colin leslie dean points out that mathematical view of the the world contradicts physics
The mathematical way of looking at the world generates contradictory results from that of science, such as the mathematical notion of the continuum, and quantum mechanical concept of quanta. TAKE calculus which uses the notion of the continuum to do its calculations but physics says there is no continuum only quanta
This is a duplicate of an earlier thread you had started: citing calculuus as the basis for your refutation of math?
The prcesses work together most of the time, and where they don’t new concepts are formulated…
erm no. The wavefunction which totally describes the quantum state of a particle is continous it obeys the schodinger equation which is calculus. This so called “contridiction” between a contiuum and quanta is at the heart of quantum physics and yet quantum physics has past every test.
yet
the continuum of calculus contradicts the quanta of quantum physics
even though shrodringers equation uses calculus ie the continuum quantum physics says there is no continuum
thus
Who says? I’ve never heard any respected physicist deny that space is continuous. Even if that were the case, the “contradiction” is merely an approximation. If spacetime isn’t a continuum, it is really really close to being one.
Also, why don’t you just admit that you are “colin leslie dean”, this little charade of yours is long past its expiration date and no one is fooled.
This is fun I’m no longer seeing ladyjane’s posts.
Can someone mention the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics please? Quantum Mechanics doesn’t model reality so there’s nothing for it to contradict with.
hahaha
formalists say maths is just meaningless symbols connected by rules
so maths does not model reality either
it is physics which gives meaning to the symbols
hahaha
now where do you go HAHAHA
colin leslie dean’s attack on godel’s proof is clearly wrong
he claims that godel uses the axiom of reducibility in his proof, which was declared invalid by ramsay
but in the paper cited by dean himself it is stated that the axiom schema used is not itself the reducibility axiom, but merely a weaker schema that performs a similar function
read p. 5 of paper research.ibm.com/people/h/hi … goedel.pdf
which dean cites
it is clearly stated that the given axiom schema is not the reducibility axiom but merely fulfills a similar function
thus it is not clear whether ramsay’s pronouncement applies to it
dean has therefore not shown that godel’s proof has any problem
you quote
but that same source clearly says axiom 1V is reducibility page 13
also says
this source has
and this source from the university of california
has
math.ucla.edu/~asl/bsl/1302/1302-001.ps.
SO CLEARLY AXIOM 1v IS AXIOM OF REDUCIBLITY
The Mathematical View of the World can be seen as our intentional measurement and manipulation of the world according to how we subdivide it into categories, according to its consequences in terms of pain/pleasure and cause/effect to how we are configured biologically and materially to the world or reality.
What this means is that given a different set of sensory inputs to our mind, given a different configuration of our mind and our biological structure, given different consequences to our activites in terms of pain/pleasure, you get a different subdivision of reality, you get a different language, in essence you get a different universe.
We are a unit of mass-energy configured in a certain way that is interacting with another different unit of mass-energy having another configuration. These interacting configurations determine what we view as reality - the world - the laws of physics. You can see that by modifying the configuration of mass-energy that is acting as the measuring and manipulating device (our mind, sense inputs, our outputs), you modify everything. In truth there really are no laws of physics or mathematics, there is just a given very precise, very narrow range of functions available by the way our mind - sense organs are configured, and how they interact with the outside reality. But given how many possible configurations there could be, we practically know almost nothing and have a very limited view of reality.
Aside from the fact that even if we could experience many different configurations, they would have meaning and sense only in that determined configuration and would be meaningless or have a very different / distorted meaning in any other configuration. This resembles a bit the limits of the observable universe, we can only observe what our configuration can let us observe, what is outside of our given configuration is unknown. Modify our sense organs, our mind structure, our emotional circuits, pain/pleasure circuits, our interacting mechanisms and you get a completely different universe, a parallel universe that cannot in anyway communicate with our “universe”, or can communicate noise or false data, or very distorted information.
Of course this is true only in “our configuration”, our interpretation of reality gives us the illusion of being complete, totally decodable and understandable according to our categories. This complete internal coherence (or apparent coherence) is what makes it so hard to see the universe in a different light. But an ant or any unicellular organism experiences and views and decodes the universe according to its categories, its language, so it too sees the universe in a completely coherent, totally decodable, monolithic way.
That explains all the small inconsistencies of scientific theories; quantum physics shows us that the energy levels are quantized, that you can’t measure speed and position at the same time etc. This is because the overlapping of our decoding and subdivision of reality is always partial, it may be almost complete within our self-referential description and language of the world, but there may always be some small items that just can’t be competely decoded into a coherent total monolithic view.
We are not god, we can manipulate matter only up to a certain point, we can’t solve the three body problem, etc. This shows us that the limits are both in our theories, but also in our physical capability of manipulation, if our bodies (minds and hands) were light years large, we could easily make huge particle accelerators and delve even deeper in physics, if our bodies were as small as atoms, we could maybe overcome the limits of quantum mechanics etc. What we manipulate and our decoding is related to our physical structure and how we can interact with matter - reality (whatever these words mean).
Aside from the fact that what constitutes a totally satisfying decoding of reality may greatly vary according to how we arbitrarily assign the metaphysical value of the decoding. Even if we could manipulate and decode reality to an infinite degree, we may still be totally unsatisfied, and on the contrary an ancient tribe can be totally satisfied with their vodoo interpretation of the world.
This also shows why technological singularity theories end up almost exclusively envisioning minds that simply self manipulate themselves, the entire world is only inside a few million neurons that are totally self manipulating in “pleasure circuits” or analogous. Since the language is ultimately self referential, the evolution of these modified minds can only end up manipulating external reality to a lesser and lesser degree (hence less energy usage ?) but the internal configurations of their self manipulating minds - emotion circuits to a greater and greater degree.
A bit like paleo-future theories expected us to colonize the planets and Mars, but we ended up in front of computers in simulated worlds. A SOLID STATE CIVILZATION.
An interesting corollary of this in Technological Singularity theories of “Designing New Completely modified Minds - Neural Circuits - Emotional Circuits” is who manipulates who ? If I modify another mind, if I manipulate the neural circuits of a new modified mind, then I am the “laws of physics” for that mind. But I would have to be exactly that mind to experience reality according to how I manipulated it, but how I manipulated it may generate experiences that have nothing in common with how I imagine the experiences to be. So in a sense even though I can design and engineer a new brain - mind, and even though I can predict how it moves and various internal/external effects can be measured and observed, the internal experiences of that mind is unknown unless I can merge inside it, but at that point I would be a different mind, or it would be a mix of both minds, the observer effects the observed, the old quantum mechanical paradox.
For us, the laws of physics is what manipulates us, pure chance, the weather, heart attacks or whatever. So even we are immerged in a kind of constant external manipulation, it is the same as being a brain in a vat, with someone externally manipulating the signal the brain receives. Does it make any difference if the guy manipulating the signals is a god, or another conscience being or a totally random pure chance laws of physics ? Would it matter if a consciousness is manipulating another consciousness, man against man, will power against another will power ? In the fight one succumbs and one wins, but it is just the same as if an earthquake demolished you, it is always just pure quirks, chance, just random noise as input.
Isn’t our science and activities a game of constantly trying to calculate and guess what signals will arrive, what signals cause what other signals, the illusion of power on the guy manipulating the brain in a vat, even the illusion of manipulating other people when in a social context other people are the manipulators and we are all kind of like brains in a vat ?
Distinction and symbols, monolithic and divided, particles and composed of particles. Everything is based on how reality is subdivided in its constituent parts, but being that the choice of where and according to what you divide it with is arbitrary, reality is undefined until you force it to have a definition.
Two electrons interact, but are they really two or just one item having two parts ? And just how far down can its individual constituents be divided ? An electron is made up of how many virtual particles ? As we measure are we actually inventing or forcing them to exist ? Are we only chasing ghosts in our mind ? Or are a million electrons just one item, or the whole universe just one item ? Is interaction also a form of constituency in the sense that electron A is made up of electron B since B influences A ? And they are both influenced by who ? And why distinguish ? According to what goals or what intentional manipulations, what language, what system of definitions and references, since everything is defined according to everything else, but ultimately nothing is defined according to anything ?
Would we really know an electron only if we were exactly an electron (or an atom or molecule), since looking at one from the outside is not looking at all or just a pretty painting of something we decide must have a function and definition in an arbitrary language and system of definitions and interactions that is totally invented ?
ladyjane on Sat May 03, 2008 9:34 pm
makes the claim that
the australian philosopher colin leslie dean points out that mathematical view of the the world contradicts physics.
7 months ago, I sent a private note to LadyJane.
I was surprised when I saw that the private note went to colin leslie dean.
So it is really Lady Jane, AKA Colin Leslie Dean who is claiming that the
mathematical view of the world contradicts physics.
And it is really Lady Jane’s view of mathematics that contracts Lady Jane’s view of physics.
This suggests that Lady Jane has a contradictory view of both mathematics and physics.
I suspect that Lady Jane is not being honest with us. I think that perhaps Lady Jane is deliberately posting
a bunch of nonsense just to provoke us into thinking things through to see the true meaning
under our formal mathematics and formulas of physics.
Perhaps Colin Leslie Dean should hire someone else to write Lady Jane so that Lady Jane can speak
with a different vocabulary and style.
Kermit Rose