Is the Universe a quantum fluctuation?

[Saint Guinefort]

I don't see 2+2=4 representing a real natural relationship in the universe. It is a convention based on Hindu-Arabic base 10 numerals we have agreed to use. In and of itself it doesn't represent any spatial or temporal relationships.

But it is true that 2+2=4 (regardless of base you use or notation). It is a mathematical statement that is, effectively, tautological. Two items with two more additional items makes four items.

That's my point. The Uncertainty Principle is related to a mathematical truth about matter waves. The MATH dictates that you cannot know both position and momentum perfectly at the same time.

It's the math dictating it. It's not like Heisenberg decided to manually measure position and velocity of atoms. It's a mathematical relationship that dictates the uncertainty principle.

So at the end of the day it is like saying 2+2=4.

 

[Cypress]

But it is true that 2+2=4 (regardless of base you use or notation). It is a mathematical statement that is, effectively, tautological. Two items with two more additional items makes four items.

That's my point. The Uncertainty Principle is related to a mathematical truth about matter waves. The MATH dictates that you cannot know both position and momentum perfectly at the same time.

It's the math dictating it. It's not like Heisenberg decided to manually measure position and velocity of atoms. It's a mathematical relationship that dictates the uncertainty principle.

So at the end of the day it is like saying 2+2=4.

I don't think 2+2 is a physical law that describes any real spatial or temporal relationships in the world.
Pi and Planck's constant do

It's an open philosophical question as to whether numbers are real, I started a thread about it last year.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...s-created-or-discovered&p=4823084#post4823084

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I don't think 2+2 is a physical law that describes any real spatial or temporal relationships in the world.
Pi and Planck's constant do

Interesting. So you think that pi is somehow different from the number 2? Pi is nothing more than the mathematical REQUIREMENT imposed by the relationship between the dimensions of a circle.

So when I say I have 2 oranges and I get 2 more oranges I now have 4 oranges it's the exact same as if I say I have a set of points that are equidistant from a central point and the ratio of the distance around that circle to the distance across that circle is pi. It can be no other way. Just as if I were to have 2 oranges and add 2 more oranges there is no way I could wind up with 5 oranges.

I don't see anything particularly deep about Pi. Sure some of the surprising ways Pi shows up in OTHER things is interesting, but Pi qua pi isn't particularly different from 2.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I don't think 2+2 is a physical law that describes any real spatial or temporal relationships in the world.
Pi and Planck's constant do

It's an open philosophical question as to whether numbers are real, I started a thread about it last year.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...s-created-or-discovered&p=4823084#post4823084

The reason this relates is there is no possible way you could construct a circle in which the ratio of circumfrence to diameter is anything but 3.14..... It is a mathematical requirement of the circle.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is, likewise, a mathematical REQUIREMENT of a matter wave. There is no way to localize a matter wave and still preserve the knowledge of the momentum.

What else is there about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle that makes it different from 2+2=4?

 

[Cypress]

Interesting. So you think that pi is somehow different from the number 2? Pi is nothing more than the mathematical REQUIREMENT imposed by the relationship between the dimensions of a circle.

So when I say I have 2 oranges and I get 2 more oranges I now have 4 oranges it's the exact same as if I say I have a set of points that are equidistant from a central point and the ratio of the distance around that circle to the distance across that circle is pi. It can be no other way. Just as if I were to have 2 oranges and add 2 more oranges there is no way I could wind up with 5 oranges.

I don't see anything particularly deep about Pi. Sure some of the surprising ways Pi shows up in OTHER things is interesting, but Pi qua pi isn't particularly different from 2.

If you want to believe 2+2 represents a real physical or spatial relationship on a par with the physical laws on Newton, Einstein, and Schrodinger, that's fine with me.

I think counting is a convention of the human mind

The world would get along just fine without our counting convention

But the gravitational constant and Planck's constant exist as real inherent properties of nature, whether we discover them or not

 

[Saint Guinefort]

If you want to believe 2+2 represents a real physical or spatial relationship on a par with the physical laws on Newton, Einstein, and Schrodinger, that's fine.

So you think that if I have 2 oranges and you give me 2 more oranges that there is nothing "real" about that? That's an interesting philosophy.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

If you want to believe 2+2 represents a real physical or spatial relationship on a par with the physical laws on Newton, Einstein, and Schrodinger, that's fine with me.

I think counting is a convention of the human mind

The world would get along just fine without our counting convention

But the gravitational constant and Planck's constant exist as real inherent properties of nature, whether we discover them or not

How do you think Heisenberg arrived at the uncertainty principle?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Interesting. So you think that pi is somehow different from the number 2? Pi is nothing more than the mathematical REQUIREMENT imposed by the relationship between the dimensions of a circle.....

^^^
Perry just proved he's cracked.

Sane people know that, no matter where they are in the Universe or what numerical system is used, the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference is that same.

 

[Cypress]

So you think that if I have 2 oranges and you give me 2 more oranges that there is nothing "real" about that? That's an interesting philosophy.

I think counting is a convention of the human mind

The world would get along just fine without our counting convention

But the gravitational constant and Planck's constant exist as real inherent properties of nature, whether we discover them or not

 

[Cypress]

How do you think Heisenberg arrived at the uncertainty principle?

The same way all physicists do. By inferring a relationship that is physically inherent in nature, and is typically based on a relationship either spatial or temporal.

Counting is a convention of the human mind. Nature doesn't care about our counting conventions and would get along just fine without them

 

[Cypress]

^^^
Perry just proved he's cracked.

Sane people know that, no matter where they are in the Universe or what numerical system is used, the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference is that same.

For sure

I've repeatedly said that inherent properties of nature include spatial and temporal relationships. Those exist as inherent properties of nature whether we discover them or not.

Nature doesn't care about our counting conventions, which end up being based on how many digits our hands have, and nature would get along perfectly fine without the counting conventions our minds invented

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I've repeatedly said that inherent properties of nature include spatial and temporal relationships. Those exist whether we discover them or not.

Nature doesn't care about our counting conventions, which end up being based on how many digits our hands have, and nature would get along perfectly fine without the counting conventions our minds invented

Agreed 100% on both points.

We use our minds to perceive the Universe. We use logic to understand the Universe. Perry, and others with mental issues, believe their minds control the Universe. They perceive the Universe to be the way they want it to be, not the way it is.

How do we know if we're being logical or if we're like Perry? By verifying our perceptions with others. By using the scientific method to both verify and replicate the results of our perceptions.

Example: no matter what language or numbering system we use, the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference is the same.

https://bellard.org/pi/pi_hexa.html
Binary digits of PI

 

[Cypress]

Agreed 100% on both points.

We use our minds to perceive the Universe. We use logic to understand the Universe. Perry, and others with mental issues, believe their minds control the Universe. They perceive the Universe to be the way they want it to be, not the way it is.

How do we know if we're being logical or if we're like Perry? By verifying our perceptions with others. By using the scientific method to both verify and replicate the results of our perceptions.

Example: no matter what language or numbering system we use, the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference is the same.

https://bellard.org/pi/pi_hexa.html
Binary digits of PI

Yes, it is a spatial relationships independent of the conventions of the human mind, which seemingly sets it apart from counting conventions that we invented.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes, it is a spatial relationships independent of the conventions of the human mind, which seemingly sets it apart from counting conventions that we invented.

A point people like Perry PhD and Sybil can't seem to comprehend.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

The same way all physicists do. By inferring a relationship that is physically inherent in nature, and is typically based on a relationship either spatial or temporal.

Counting is a convention of the human mind. Nature doesn't care about our counting conventions and would get along just fine without them

As I understand it is mathematical in origin.

Since neither you nor I actually have the requisite math to understand the relationship between a matter wave's momentum and it's location and the necessities of the fourier transform necessary to understand it, let's look at something simple which both you and I will be able to understand:

Pi.

As I described earlier Pi is nothing more than a mathematical relationship between circumference and diameter of a circle. It isn't some extraneous property. It is, in your parlance, just "counting". You cannot even imagine a circle that does not yield pi.

Same with Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle. The math ("counting") CANNOT work out such that both momentum and position of the matter wave are simultaneously calculable. It's just how the math works out. It is not like Heisenberg was sitting trying to actually measure atoms' speed and position and found that he simply couldn't. No, it arises out of the mathematical necessity of that type of fourier transform.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Yes, it is a spatial relationships independent of the conventions of the human mind, which seemingly sets it apart from counting conventions that we invented.

No. It is exactly the same as counting conventions. You cannot even imagine a circle in which the measure of the circumference of the circle divided by the measure of the diameter is anything but pi.

Just like you cannot imagine taking 2 oranges and getting 2 more oranges and ending up with anything more or less than 4 oranges.

 

[Cypress]

A point people like Perry PhD and Sybil can't seem to comprehend.

The vast majority of people don't even think about the philosophical implications of math and the physical laws. That included me, I didn't really mull it over until about ten years ago when I began listening to mathematicians and physicists discussing it. It's a relatively alien concept that doesn't enter people's imagination because we have been conditioned to accept math as a recieved knowledge from prestigious authorities. What high school math teacher ever asked us to think about the metaphysical implications of the maths?

 

[Cypress]

No. It is exactly the same as counting conventions. You cannot even imagine a circle in which the measure of the circumference of the circle divided by the measure of the diameter is anything but pi.

Just like you cannot imagine taking 2 oranges and getting 2 more oranges and ending up with anything more or less than 4 oranges.

I used to be a prisoner of human language and convention to, believing that human language and conventions represented something real and inherent about reality. I've been trying to free myself from those constraints

There are numerous YouTube videos discussing whether numbers are real or invented. And I already dedicated an entire thread to the topic, so I'm not inclined to keep parsing this.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...s-created-or-discovered&p=4823084#post4823084

 

[Cypress]

I'm curious, how so Jarod?

I don't know much about Kabbalah

So I don't know anything substantive about Kabbalah, but a universe springing forth into myriad properties from a void which was bursting with potentialities sounds metaphorically like the concept of the Tao, at least the way Lao Tzu described it.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I used to be a prisoner of human language and convention to, believing that human language and conventions represented something real and inherent about reality. I've been trying to free myself from those constraints

There are numerous YouTube videos discussing whether numbers are real or invented. And I already dedicated an entire thread to the topic, so I'm not inclined to keep parsing this.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...s-created-or-discovered&p=4823084#post4823084

Language and numbers are tools for conveying truth and realities of the Universe.

The Sun burns through fusion regardless if scientists can do the math. E = mc² is a tool of understanding.

The age old question "If a tree falls in a forest, and there’s no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?" is part of the answer to your questions. The falling tree pushes air out of the way and causes a reverberation upon contacting the ground regardless if there are microphones or ears to hear it.

Mankind needs tools to perceive the Universe such as eyes and ears. To convey those perceptions to others, mankind needs to invent tools such as numbers and langauge.