1. ## Re: The Mathematical Universe

Thank you for your response Peter.

Here is something to discuss with your team.

So let us continue to examine the word 'random'.

A random sequence is a sequence that cannot be expressed more compactly than a complete list by any algorithm.

(after Chaitin and Solmonoff. What Wikipedia call the Kolmogorov definition if you care to look it up)

Let my sequence, drawn from a binary system i.e. 1 or 0 for simplicity, be {A} where A is either 0 or 1.

Now the question arises:- Is this sequence random?

Well, mathematically it conforms to the above definition so it is random.

But a physicist might well wish to distinguish between circumstances as to how I arrive at this sequence.

For instance if I always calculate A = 4/4 I will always arrive at the sequence {1} and if I always calculate A = (4-4) I will always arrive at the sequence {0}..

So my result is predeterminate

But if I flip a coin and choose A = 1 for heads and A=0 for tails then which sequence I arrive at is indeterminate or at the behest of chance.

Further to the issue of randomness, chance is determinism.

Is chance that which is not deterministic or deterministic that which is not chance?
Are they actually opposites or is there room for further concepts?
Is chance the same as random?

2. ## Re: The Mathematical Universe

Originally Posted by petercookintaiwan
Sorry but gap not bridged, if chemistry was just atomic particles sticking together it works, but chemistry has the property of self organization, self improvement and self repair these cannot be dealt with by atomic physics so the 'jewel of physics' quantum electrodynamics describes the motion of a single electron in a magnetic field, so there is a long way to go before you can explain the emergence of DNA or it would be the jewel of physics.
Beg to differ. Electromagnetic force. It's all there. Self organisation, self "improvement" (I fundamentally disagree with your philosophical direction there, but I'll let that go) and self repair are what are known as emergent properties and can be explained (if not directly modelled yet) by what we know about the behaviour of the mathematical model.

Seems to me you may be of the mindset that says "I don't know how everything works, therefore nobody does, so Woo! it must be magic!" where you have replaced "magic" by "mathematics", as though that makes your argument more acceptable to us hard-headed rationalists who are actually working away at the sharp end.

3. ## Re: The Mathematical Universe

Longest posts: 16,17 and 20.
These will be the least read.

Clearest post: this one.
(applies to 99.9% of the population)

I'm hopping on my 1million mph spacecraft for
a 1 light year trip; it'll take me some 670 years.
Would take me about 170 times as long to travel the Milky Way Highway...

Fortunately, I'm not suffering from an overdose of brain cells.

4. ## Re: The Mathematical Universe

Electromagnetic force does not and cannot explain how all the millions of particles that make up a strand of DNA, end up in the right place. This is one of the greatest unsolved mysteries mankind faces. It is dealt with in detail by Schrodinger in his book 'What Is Life'. It is also dealt with by Roger Penrose in the forward of Quantum Aspects of Life. Penrose calls it the'unknown part of physics', Ian Stewart just says,"we don't know what it is yet, and Brian Greene puts it best when he says," The properties that emerge from atomic structures cannot be explained by the fundamental forces that govern this layer of the universe. As scientists we would like to be able to describe things using known forces". Self improvement is not provided by the force of electromagnetism, if it is please quote from the physics book that states it is. This is a problem that has defeated Einstein, Schrodinger, Feynman, Hawking, and Penrose who all declare it is 'not all there", so if you have solved one of the greatest mysteries of all time, please share the answer. I have to give a lecture to people from the top ten universities in Asia next month on this subject, and if I just say "It is all there", and leave that as an answer, I will be pulled to pieces.

6. ## Re: The Mathematical Universe

Originally Posted by petercookintaiwan
Electromagnetic force does not and cannot explain how all the millions of particles that make up a strand of DNA, end up in the right place. This is one of the greatest unsolved mysteries mankind faces. It is dealt with in detail by Schrodinger in his book 'What Is Life'. It is also dealt with by Roger Penrose in the forward of Quantum Aspects of Life. Penrose calls it the'unknown part of physics', Ian Stewart just says,"we don't know what it is yet, and Brian Greene puts it best when he says," The properties that emerge from atomic structures cannot be explained by the fundamental forces that govern this layer of the universe. As scientists we would like to be able to describe things using known forces". Self improvement is not provided by the force of electromagnetism, if it is please quote from the physics book that states it is. This is a problem that has defeated Einstein, Schrodinger, Feynman, Hawking, and Penrose who all declare it is 'not all there", so if you have solved one of the greatest mysteries of all time, please share the answer. I have to give a lecture to people from the top ten universities in Asia next month on this subject, and if I just say "It is all there", and leave that as an answer, I will be pulled to pieces.
The key word in the above is "yet". Just because we haven't worked out the complete chain of linkages does not mean there's something spooky going on like you're trying to make out.

The really sad, ridiculous and offensive thing is that there are people out there prepared to pay money to hear you spout your twaddle.

7. ## Re: The Mathematical Universe

Originally Posted by petercookintaiwan
Sorry but gap not bridged, if chemistry was just atomic particles sticking together it works, but chemistry has the property of self organization, self improvement and self repair these cannot be dealt with by atomic physics so the 'jewel of physics' quantum electrodynamics describes the motion of a single electron in a magnetic field, so there is a long way to go before you can explain the emergence of DNA or it would be the jewel of physics.
some years ago a dove built a nest on my widow sill, the dove was one year old and had never seen a nest before, I watched the building of the nest and when the young fledged I removed it and my son and I carefully dismantled it and attempted to then put it back together the way it was, even with four pairs of hands and at least 3 kilograms of brain mass between us we failed to achieve anything near to what the parent got, I know that information is stored in the cell, but have no idea where the nest building instructions come from, I simply have to presume that it is also in the DNA, I can't imagine the explanation coming from physics or mathematics, surely chemistry and biology will answer this question, the fact that information this complex is held at the atomic level is to me the most astounding thing I ever learnt, it is the jewel of biology, I for one would much rather spend my days observing the wonders of nature than worrying about how to represent it with boring old maths,

9. ## Re: The Mathematical Universe

Has it not occurred to you, metalworker, that the young dove spent every minute of the first period of its life in a similar nest, and probably watched its parents making many running repairs to the nest? Of course, some of it may be genetic, but it is far from clear that it all would be so. Would it even build a nest at all had it hatched in an incubator and been fed by human hands?

10. ## Re: The Mathematical Universe

Archie, good point...BUT what about the very FIRST nest, built by
the very FIRST dove, when Adam and Eve screwed around ?

11. ## Re: The Mathematical Universe

It was probably a pretty poor effort, a bit like the first bicycle.

12. ## Re: The Mathematical Universe

Originally Posted by DenisB
Archie, good point...BUT what about the very FIRST nest, built by
the very FIRST dove, when Adam and Eve screwed around ?
Don't be stupid, it was a stork!

13. ## Re: The Mathematical Universe

My point is, when did this start...after how many "nests":

... the young dove spent every minute of the first period of its life in a similar nest, and probably watched its parents making many running repairs to the nest? Of course, some of it may be genetic...

14. ## Re: The Mathematical Universe

Originally Posted by Matt Westwood
Don't be stupid...
Can't help it, I was born that way...
But then, if no one was stupid, then the word wouldn't exist...
So I've contributed to the existence of a word, I am proud to say...

Now, it's for you of the "intelligent camp" to figure out if one's
stupidity level is to be determined by math or physics...

15. ## Re: The Mathematical Universe

Presumably, laying ones eggs next to a stick or in a dip in the ground confers some survival advantage: the egg can't roll away so easily and may be harder for predators to spot. The more sticks there are, the better. So there is a tendency in early generations for birds to be brought up in rudimentary nests.

Page 3 of 6 First 123456 Last

,
,

,