Alternative Models of Reality

Lorraine Ford

The foundations of the physical world can only be known in terms of categories of measurement, numbers from this measurement, and mathematical relationships that have been found to exist between the categories.

These three aspects of the physical world are represented using special manmade symbols.

But these types of symbols (representing categories, numbers and relationships) can’t represent how the world (or small parts of the world) knows itself, or how the world (or small parts of the world) moves itself.

These additional two (non-physical) aspects of the world can only be represented using algorithmic/ logical connective symbols, as well as the symbols that represent the physical aspects of the world.

People find it difficult to conceptualise what the thing is that underlies the symbolic representations, so they often just call it “God”.

Unfortunately, people don’t just stop there; they start concocting a lot of absurd and far-fetched stories about this “God”, about the special status of human beings, and about eternal life being doled out as a reward to those human beings who are “good”.

But other people start concocting another absurd story: this particular absurd story is the idea that what underlies the (manmade) symbols can be discovered or revealed.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford Hi Lorraine,

Interesting analyse but let me explain my points of vue. You assert generally without having general proofs, they make the same the religious. We must doubt simply. You make several interesting points but you make some errors for me.
1 you make a kind of false restriction of physics in telling that the foundations of the physical world can only be known in terms of measurement categories, numbers, and mathematical relationships. It is partially true because indeed mathematics uses mathematical structures but you turn the method into a metaphysical assertion. Yes the physics need physics to describe reality but that does not imply that reality is only mathematical. It is a kind of unjustified leap if I can tell.
2 we cannot claim about the representation in asserting that symbols cannot represent how the world knows itself and moves. The modern physics try to model . But nothing logically prevents maths from modeling self reference , look at the infornation theory or computations or algorythms, they make this, so the fact to claim that symbols cannot represent seem not valid generally even if we have deep unknowns still ontologically speaking.
3 about the 2 additional non physical aspects , that must be desmonstrated that these aspects exist and that they are non physical. A little bit if I told that they cannot be reducible or formalised, you cannot assert the disctinction without a pure ontological and physical formalism proving what you tell.
4 you mock the idea that what underlies the manmade symbols can be discovered , it is confusing because we must differenciate the symbols we invent and the reality these symbols desribe it seems to me, we cannot claim with physics that the symbols are the reality but that they model it , it is different. So we cannot that we cannot discover what underlies the ymbols because science is about the process of create models to approach this reality.It is important ontologically.
5 you tell people find it difficult to conceptualize what underlies symbolic representation. It is not because we imagine that it is unknowable and non physical and that it cannot be discovered. The limits of our imagination and the limits of the reality are not the same Lorraine. You seem certain but your positions are more philosophical like a pure empirism you know. The limits of knowledge, yes I can understand if we take Kant for example , but is it a reason to assert the philosophy wich is just a personal imagination. We cannot state conclusions like if they were established facts you know.
That is why you make the same than these religious, you assert a pure metaphysical framework without a pure concrete proof. It is like if I said that the scientific description and the ontological limit must be deterministic in the 2 ways.and so the doubt is fundametal in these cases.
So you cannot assume that representation is separate from the reality and that maths cannot model self referential and self moving systems. Or we cannot assume that non physical aspects exist or that this reality in its ultimate truth is unknowable.
In fact it is a little bit laughing and ironoical even your assertions because you tell that reality cannot be discovered but you assert about this underlaying reality yourself. It is a little bit inconsistent Lorraine you know. Ontology, consciousness, qualia,maths, physics, representations........ need philosophical debates, yes but we cannot assert about the deep unknowns. So you cannot assert your side like definitive and the others like absurd simply because we have not proved them. Is this reality is about strucutres, relations, or something more , it is unsolved.So we cannot claim and assert simply. We cannot have a tone of finality about all this and you make this tone like definitive, I can understand you are persuaded like all thinkers, but this doubt is the real torch of general thinkers when it is not proved Lorraine . We cannot dismiss alternatives if all this is not proved .

Regards

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
Steve,

As you know, I always say the same things, and this is no exception.

We can never get beyond the manmade symbols, whether it is word and sentence symbols, mathematical symbols, or logical symbols.

If you think you can get beyond the symbols, then try to explain how to do it, BUT do it without using any words or sentences, or mathematical or logical symbols, or any other symbols.

Q.E.D.

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
Steve,

As you know, I always say the same things, and this is no exception.

Mathematical system:
We are talking about a mathematical system, i.e. a real-world system where the measurable aspects can only be symbolically represented using mathematical symbols for categories, numbers and relationships. If you think that some other types of symbols are necessary, then please explain what you think these other types of symbols are.

Consciousness:
Consciousness/ knowledge/ awareness is the fundamentally necessary aspect of small parts of the real-world mathematical system that says what is true, according to that small part. This “what is true” aspect is NOT covered by the mathematical symbols for categories, numbers and relationships.

This fundamental-level consciousness of what is true can only be symbolically represented using algorithmic/ logical symbols, as well as the symbols for categories, numbers and relationships.

Agency:
Libertarian free will/ agency is the fundamentally necessary aspect of small parts of the real-world mathematical system that initiates number movement in that small part. This “initiation of number movement” aspect is NOT covered by the mathematical symbols for categories, numbers and relationships.

This fundamental-level movement/ agency can only be symbolically represented using algorithmic/ logical symbols, as well as the symbols for categories, numbers and relationships.

How a mathematical system works:
I’m saying that consciousness and agency are the necessary working parts that explain how a mathematical system works. If you disagree, then please explain how you think mathematics or a mathematical system works.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford
Hi Lorraine, It is not that I disagree totally, I have explianed my points of vue, the fact to repeat these things don t really help to evolve in physics , It is this I told,we need models and interpretations and mathematical formalisms.
The consciousness is not solved actually and so we cannot conlude ontologically.
All explanation uses symbols , yes I agree , you add therefore we can never get beyond symbols. It seems that you make an error of catefory confusing the description and the access if I can tell. We cannot conflate these 2 things at my humble opinion because what we describe if not what we experience in resume. Let s take the pain for example, we feel it but we dont really access a symbol of pain. If I fall , it is not a symbol it is a gravitation newtonian effect , the experience is not a description even if we can utilise symbols to describes the experiences but the experience in itself is not about symbols. We cannot confuse the language with ontological limitation also. The same about the truth taken like relative. In telling that without using symbols , it is the same than to tell me, steve prove that vision exists but do it without seeing.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford She claims:

you tell “Consciousness and agency are necessary to explain how a mathematical system works.”
Let s take the axioms and the rules and the physical parameters like the brain, the computer ....and we add the understanding so the cconsciousness and intelligence to interpret , so we have a structure and we need this consistency if I can tell, so yes the consciousness is essential to invent, interpret ,....but is it required for the formal relations, so I am understanding you about the fact that a computer can derive valid proofs mechanically without awareness.
So there we enter in a pure metaphysical extrapolation about the minds, the consciousness and can we make this philosophical position like you make like a pure logical necessity, it is this I told mainly.

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
Steve,
It is very, very clear that non-technical people don't really understand the nitty gritty of how computers are made to work. Leave computers out of it.

We need to use symbols to represent the world, and we need to represent the world as a mathematical system.

So how does a real-world mathematical system work? How does a mathematical system work? How does mathematics work?

This is NOT a matter of philosophy. How does mathematics work? Put your thinking cap on.

I'm saying that mathematics can't exist without an aspect that knows/ is aware of the system (the categories, relationships and numbers), and an aspect that moves and changes the system (i.e. provides new numbers, new categories and new relationships).

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford Lorraine you think what, you are bad fallen, you think really you are special ,I am probably in all humility more skilling be sure than you about all this and the computing , the NP , P,.......for your information the physics and maths are a passion since I was at university I am 51 years old , you don t imagine what I have studied and ranked ,I had even the first computers and I know what is a program and how to compute , 8k , 16,k, 32k,64 k....spectrum commodor, you want I develop the arythmetic since euclid and the sorting and the symbolic representations or the cryptography or the RSA or the deep learning and matrix and correlate all this with my quantum spherical volumes and their motions oscillations for the superpositions and sortings and in adding the logical operations with or , if, then and this and that with the tool I have invented and that I work the spherical topological geometric algebras, , you don t impress me, in fact you impress nobody, you repeat yes always the same, we have understood. You have no answer ontologically about why the universe exists, from what, why we have this consciousness, why the physics exist, in fact like all you don t know why we exist and from what and why all this is in motions and what are the primary informations, and what are the fundqamental objects.You ask questions that yourself you don t know , so why to repeat a thing that all concrete thinkers know, if you had an answer it d be interesting but no ........so now , tell me I retrun the question, impress us, why a mathematical system exists and from what and how exactly woithout symbols , you can utilise the consciousness for this and my 0D infinite eternal consciousness if you want or others but develop and explaon, because it becomes ironical, to you my dear friend Lorraine.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford Lorraine, really impress me , go farer than turing,shor, Bob coecke, explain me whay these mathematics correlated with the phyics and the GR and consciousness exist and from what . Tell me more about the complexity and the negentropic stabilities and this evolution . Utilise the P andf NP mechanisms, the algorythms , the symbols, the logical relationships, but give an ontological cause and why the polynoms and their complexity, reductions , this and that exist , why they correct and adpat the systems in this universal complexity, impress me

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
You are not a technical person, because it is clear that you don't know the nitty gritty of how computers work. Professional people, people who know how computers work, never make the mistake of saying that "a computer can derive valid proofs mechanically without awareness", because they know that people wrote the programs, and they know that the computer is just mechanically enacting the manmade program, and they know that there are no such actual things as binary digits, etc etc.

Typically, you always criticise me personally, but you can't actually explain how a mathematical system works. You want to use mathematical symbols to represent the world, but you can't actually explain how a mathematical system works.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford Lorraine, it is clear you are not a general thinker ,you are not even probably specialist in details, we see it quickly in turing in round in your own philosophical prison. You cannot explain what I have asked , how a mathematical work universally and from what, don t fear to answer , is it a mathematical hasard from chaos, or from others, but develop. Sorry but you are nor technically relevant and still less generally, sorry, so stop to repeat alsways the same, or answer to what you ask, but you fear Lorraine. A computer is very simple generally to understand, the universe it is an other story Lorraine.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford It is late here in Finland, tomorrow we continue about the low and high volatge and the works of Shor and qubits and transitions states and complexity of modern computers if you want Lorraine, so if you can give an answer to what I asked about the fundamental objects, the ontologicy of the universe , so you can give to physics a logic with rules and these formal rules so can be correlated to mathemarics and so for this you need an ontology GENERAL AND CORRLEATE TO DETAILS TECHNICAL , there I will be impressed, if you also link to consciousness, DE, DM, GR , quantum gravitation, I will be still more impressed with concrete geometrical algebras. In resaume develop why physics implement logic and that this logic implement rules and that these rules implement mathemarics, you can do it. Thanks.

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
Steve,
I am a technical person. You are not.

You want to use mathematical symbols to represent your grand schema, but you can't offer any explanations for how a mathematical system might work.

I.e. you have nothing relevant to say.

All you can do is criticise me for having the temerity to proffer an explanation for how a mathematical system works.

I guess the main problem is that you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what I am talking about, when I ask: "How does a mathematical system work?".

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford Lorraine, technical person , wowww it is impressing , technical in what Lorraine, in computing, you create algorythms to solve problems , it is not exceptional you know ,what is exceptional is to invent new tools in maths, you have not made this, or show me here now one to impress me.I ask me what you try to tell in fact on this platform, because we see no developement of your technical skillings in maths in fact. You have never explained how the mathematical system works in fact , so you tell to the others that they have absolutelly no idea about what you ask yourself and that you have yourself no idea. If you d explain how these mathematical systems work to light us ontologically, universally, philosophically, physically , it d be wonderful , but no, you cannot simply. It is because you cannot Lorraine simply , so it is you who has nothing really relevant to say ,you can only repeat the same things all the times without a real concrete evolution of your thoughts. Regards

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford Lorraine, me I see it like this , and I don t assert , I don t consider that this GR is the primary essence and that the informations are in 1D at this planck scale connected with a 1D cosmic field of the GR to create the reality. I consider the DE and DM added to these photons and a mass energy infornation equivalence and the DE is informational and antigravitational and encode the DM quantas of mass completing the Higgs mechanism and the photons quantas of heat and energy. So we have this 0D infinite eternal consciousness omnipotent also and the 3d spherical quantum volumes for the 3 main systems merging, so the universe is like an universal conputer with spheres.
So we have an universal ontological base with this 0D ,there is no space and time outside , and this thing above our understanding creates and computes this universe , the universal sphere for me. So the DE is pure informational and relational potential but guided by this 0D . The quantum spherical volumes like primitives are relevant if they merge for the relational unites. The universe does not compute so with digits, it computes with relational states and constraints resolving configurations for the negentropic stabilities and their evolution and in respecting the complexity and diversity. So the mathematics work like this for me , they are from this 0D and this DE . It is important for the transitions from states to others , that is why the volumes of these spheres and their motions oscillations are important in the spherical topological geometric algebras. We don t speak here about voltage, electrons, ,or others, it is about the structured possibilities due to informations and computing of the 0D. The physics emerge from this for me but I don t assert , it is about relational rules with consistencies, constraints, invariants, conservations, negentropic stabilities.......so the GR, the QM, the fields,the chemistry, the biology, the consciousness, the evolution....all emerges from this logic like the space and time, the space and time are important for the relational network and updates if I can tell . It is mathematical phycially in its primitive essence because we have these spherical volumes and relations, transformations rules due to this 0D omnipotent. The real question is about the informations and this 0D for the mathematical universe or a logical one because it is about the informations of this DE or about this 0D which can do anything at any moment, I don t know , but it is interesting to analyse possibilities with the 3 , maths, logic, physics . The fact to consider an universal formal system becomes relevant if it is constrained by internal logical structure if the conscious is fundamental from thos 0D and that we express a finite part with finite physicsl strucutures. So, is mathematics fundamental like if the consciousness follows strucutre, or is it the opposite ,structure follows consciousness and maths is derivative, we must choose and nobody can assert to know because it is ontologicall beyond our understanding still. It is how we consider these constraints and so the maths, Regards

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
You want to use mathematical symbols to represent your grandiose ideas, yet you can't explain how this mathematical system works.

How a mathematical system works has absolutely nothing to do with the particular set of categories, relationships/ equations and numbers that describe the system.

Nothing to do with Higgs, nothing to do with GR, or 1D, 2D or 3D, photons, nothing to do with complexity, voltages, electrons, nothing to do with "transformations rules", etc etc.

You have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what I am talking about, when I ask: "How does a mathematical system work?".

This is not surprising, because your one and only guiding principle is that everything is "ontologicall beyond our understanding".

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford I beleive I loose my time Lorraine, sorry, you cannot develop it seems to me, sorry, you are not able it seems to discuss about physics in fact, you maybe know a little bittle technically the computers, that is all, you have not it seems to me studied deeper the physics and philosophy ,sorry , I like you but I loose my time, I am not here to compete in reading always the same words without any concrete developments, general and universal, take care that said

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford if you could light us in explaining the things that we don t understand because apparently all we don t know but you yes, it d be interesting but you cannot,
HOW THE MATHEMATICAL SYSTEM WORKS..............ANSWER AND LIGHT US , teach us, but you cannot or prove I am false

Steve Dufourny

This model ,I work about it and I don t assert it because it is a metaphysical universal general idea , an ontological philosophical attempt to unify maths, logic,physics, consciousness in an universa framework. It is completely understandable that spheres feel fundamental. It is that said interesting considering these quantum and comsological spheres and this universal sphere in optimisation with their motions osicllations. Gravitation and antigravitation seem essential universally and the informations to permit the evolution and the negentropic stabilities also. Cosmological gravitation, expanding wavefronts,isotropic fields and radial geometries.....all show spherical logics. The rotational symmetry also seem important. Their structures, shapes are special and unique and can be deformed and create all shapes.They are stable under symmetry conditions also. Are they fundamental or emergent, I think they are fundamental but I don t assert because it must be proved that they are primitive in the universal ontology. Are the particles spheres or excitations of quantum fields, It must be analysed deeper. I don t assert because it must be proved and why the equations enforce the spherical topology and geometry. I trey with the spherical topological geometric algebras and link with gauge symmetries and spherical relations,the lorentz invariance emerging also must be considered but not easy. I don t assert because actually this model is aqn intuition , not a pure universal proved derivation. The space can be considered like a network of these series of spheres and interactions, relations,.........The model needs consistency and so conctraints and equations. So the spherisation needs to be derived and correlated with the EFE and the curvature of these spheres networks. The phase relations can be relevant in considering the 3 systems , maths, logic, physics.
The Higgs mechanism also seems interesting to analyse deeper and try derivations.

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
You want to use mathematical symbols to represent your grandiose ideas, yet you can't explain how this mathematical system works.

How a mathematical system works has absolutely nothing to do with the particular set of categories, relationships/ equations and numbers that describe the system.

Nothing to do with Higgs, nothing to do with GR, or 1D, 2D or 3D, photons, nothing to do with complexity, voltages, electrons, nothing to do with "transformations rules", etc etc.

You have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA what I am talking about, when I ask: "How does a mathematical system work?".

This is not surprising, because your one and only guiding principle is that everything is "ontologicall beyond our understanding".

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
I think that almost every comment I have made in the past 7 (?) or so years has been about this very issue: how a mathematical system works, and related issues.

I'm guessing that you might have read one or two of these comments, but you obviously never had any idea what I was talking about.

Basically, I was merely repeating the common knowledge (but unknown to you) that you can't represent a system with equations and numbers alone: you need to use algorithmic/ logical connective symbols which represent the system's knowledge of itself, and represent the system moving itself.

« Previous Page Next Page »