Properties of humans are properties of the universe
This is fine. I don't object to this. But what I object to is the use of words from one context used to describe something in another context and assuming that everything carries over in a one-to-one manner. Specifically, QUOTING A MATHEMATICAL DEFINITION and then pretending like you can adjust the meaning to be whatever it is you mean for it to be.
So for example when I'm figuring out how much interest I'm going to pay on a loan and using a specific function from mathematics, you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that the loan-interest calculation is only defined within math. Stuff from math applies to the real world, including topological definitions.
In the sense that words are carries of meaning, yes this is a semantic objection. For example, if I say "I'm feeling blue" you cannot suddenly assert that the color of my skin is changing. The word means something in the context, and the words must be understood in that context.
Specific to your usage of mathematical terminology, using a word like "topology" to make assertions about the universe (I think the quote was "the universe has a topology") and then asserting that this is mathematical is utterly ridiculous because it's the same type of semantic error as the blue example.
This is where I call you a liar. Because you literally took the definition labeled "MATHEMATICS" and just threw away mathematics contextualization and made it mean something entirely different and non-mathematical. I quoted that definition explicitly, showing you that you were doing this. You lied about the definition. You changed it to suit your desired conclusion.
The "scientific method" is utterly non-mathematical in the sense that it proceeds on inductive reasoning from data, whereas mathematics works by deductive logic. They aren't the same process, and they aren't really that close to the same process. Maybe the process of discovering new ideas can be framed that way, but the actual mathematical process (ie, proving things) doesn't proceed under the same logical structure.
Furthermore, you're struggling with the whole classification thing. You're saying that because some math is useful for describing the universe that all math is useful for describing the universe. It's basically the whole "properties of the part are properties of the whole." What you don't realize is just how tiny the portion of mathematics that is applied in the pursuit of science really is.
In reality, you didn't actually eat a torus. You ate an approximation of a torus (perhaps we can call it torus-shaped). A mathematical torus has properties that whatever you ate didn't have. In topology, we would say that you can turn a torus into a coffee mug through a series of transformations. Could you take your torus and actually turn it into a coffee mug? Nope. So it wasn't actually a torus. (Also, a "coffee mug" in this mathematical sense isn't exactly what we mean when we say a "coffee mug" in reality. One is a type of model for the other, but they aren't the same.)
Again, idiocy is not assumed. It's being demonstrated. You are giving me more and more reasons to think your position it idiotic. And it's because you are showing me that you don't actually understand the things you're making assertions about.
Ya and I wasn't talking about a precise definition of the branch of mathematics called topology, I was using the definition analogously by applying it to the universe. We do stuff like this all the time, even with mathematical models, so again I don't see what your problem with it.
But unfortunately for you, "topology" isn't a mathematical model for the universe at all. As I've pointed out, we do things in topology that make very little sense in the real world.
The problem with this isn't that it happened in isolation, but that this was about the fourth or fifth time in the conversation that you've thrown out a mathematical term and claimed that mathematics supported your logic and position, while completely undermining the entire mathematicalness of the thing you were using.
Like I said before, mathematical definitions of words aren't restricted to mathematics, for two reasons. The first is that mathematics corresponds to our real universe in a very real way. The second is that mathematics is a part of that universe. There is nothing wrong with me taking definitions from math that have a specific meaning and applying is analogously to other things. We do it all the time when we make mathematical models.
You literally have no clue what you're talking about.
So for example when I'm figuring out how much interest I'm going to pay on a loan and using a specific function from mathematics, you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone that the loan-interest calculation is only defined within math. Stuff from math applies to the real world, including topological definitions.
And I gave that context clearly, so you shouldn't have a problem with it.
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...0&postcount=54
The meaning of the word topologically here is: The underlying structure that gives rise to such properties for a given figure or space
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...1&postcount=72
3. Mathematics
a. The study of certain properties that do not change as geometric figures or spaces undergo continuous deformation. These properties include openness, nearness, connectedness, and continuity.
b. The underlying structure that gives rise to such properties for a given figure or space: The topology of a doughnut and a picture frame are equivalent.
a. The study of certain properties that do not change as geometric figures or spaces undergo continuous deformation. These properties include openness, nearness, connectedness, and continuity.
b. The underlying structure that gives rise to such properties for a given figure or space: The topology of a doughnut and a picture frame are equivalent.
The universe does have a topology. In terms of its shape, it's a flat curved, intrinsically expanding manifold. It also has an underlying structure that gives rise to everything in it. It's analogously topological in manifold ways.
Do you actually know what we mean when we say something "has a topology"? For example, if I say, "The set of natural numbers has a topology" do you understand what I'm claiming about the set of natural numbers? I'll be the answer is that you don't. (And it may blow your mind that there are infinitely many different topologies we can put on the real numbers, giving rise to different types of structures.)
So anyway, you are absolutely free to continue to embarrass yourself by asserting that you know things you know nothing about. But it's absolutely clear that you have no idea what any of these mathematical terms mean or how they're used.
You have a very strange point of view on things. Language from mathematics is used analogously all the time, it doesn't mean the person doing it is a liar. It means you have seemingly very little ability to infer the meaning behind creative use of language.
My best analogy to this is the high school student that uses a thesaurus to try to replace some of their words to sound smarter. Yes, the thesaurus will give you words that have a similar meaning to the word you're actually using, and yes it's possible that creative license can be taken and the meanings stretched to be the same thing. But most of the time, it just makes you sound like you used a thesaurus because there's no useful meaning that way actually conveyed.
That's an interesting point of view, considering both relativity and quantum mechanics were derived mathematically before any observations were made.
Also, you're historically wrong:
* The origins of quantum mechanics date back to the very early 1900s when people started observing that things they thought were waves had particle-like properties. It was another couple decades before the Schrodinger equation was proposed.
* The derivation of special relativity (formally by Einstein in 1905) came at least in part as a result of the observations of the failure of aether drift, which came at the end of an approximately 100 year search for the explanation of the propagation of light through space.
* The derivation of general relativity came as an attempt to explain gravity in a new way. He wasn't trying to find an explanation of some new random observation, but rather construct a framework to understand ALL of the observations that have already been made.
So it makes no sense at all to say that they were mathematically derived without any observations. We've certainly made observations AFTER the mathematical model has been constructed which confirm the models, but that's an entirely different thing that what you've claimed.
So we can't stretch, deform, and manipulate a donut, so it's not a topological shape? That's ridiculous.
This has more to do with the properties of the matter within a donut than it does to the donut not corresponding to the torus.
If the torus was made out of playdough, you bet your ass I'd be able to change it into a coffee cup without making cuts in it.
think at this point it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt that you're just here to argue, and being unreasonably contentious in order to do so. I have no problem with this, because if anyone's looking idiotic it's you.
But please feel free to continue telling me mathematics and the history of physics. You *clearly* know so much about it.
Right.... so when you talk about definitions and quote definitions, you're not actually meaning the fancy technical word you used, but rather the idea of the technical word. I would call this highly deceptive and the sort of thing people do when they're trying to sound more competent than they really are.
But unfortunately for you, "topology" isn't a mathematical model for the universe at all. As I've pointed out, we do things in topology that make very little sense in the real world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connected_space
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topological_property
The problem with this isn't that it happened in isolation, but that this was about the fourth or fifth time in the conversation that you've thrown out a mathematical term and claimed that mathematics supported your logic and position, while completely undermining the entire mathematicalness of the thing you were using.
See? You've done it again. "Well, I'm going to make a mathematical analogy that doesn't actually use mathematics, but then use the true mathematical knowledge to justify whatever nonsense I'm about to say."
As soon as you're able to physically manifest the Banach-Tarski paradox, I'll concede that all math applies to the real world.
No. You literally stripped away the context to suit your intellectually disingenuous ends. Here is you:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...0&postcount=54
And here is reality:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...1&postcount=72
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...0&postcount=54
And here is reality:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...1&postcount=72
Notice that saying a doughnut and a picture frame have the same topology does not imply that a doughnut and a picture frame are the same thing.
There you go again, throwing around math terms to make yourself sound smart.
Do you really know what a "manifold" is? Do you think that topology "gives rise to everything" in the space? (PS - Also, LOL at the universe is "flat curved." Those words are contradictory in the colloquial AND technical sense, but you said it anyway because you don't know what you're talking about. What? You meant "locally flat"? I bet you don't even know what that means.)
When the language from mathematics is used in an analogous way, they no longer lay claim to being mathematical authoritative. And that's where you're running into problems. You can use language as creatively as you would like. You can try to form meaning out of words that mean other things all day long. But when you are being creative with language, you cannot also pretend that you're using language in the "normal" way.
My best analogy to this is the high school student that uses a thesaurus to try to replace some of their words to sound smarter.
Yes, the thesaurus will give you words that have a similar meaning to the word you're actually using, and yes it's possible that creative license can be taken and the meanings stretched to be the same thing. But most of the time, it just makes you sound like you used a thesaurus because there's no useful meaning that way actually conveyed.
Semantics is, in fact, the domain where the vast majority of your problems with my posts reside. If I considered this to be resolvable for you, I would suggest focusing on being a little more flexible with language, but the more I interact with you the more it seems to be more a personality or intelligence flaw than anything else.
Also, you're historically wrong:
* The origins of quantum mechanics date back to the very early 1900s when people started observing that things they thought were waves had particle-like properties. It was another couple decades before the Schrodinger equation was proposed.
* The derivation of special relativity (formally by Einstein in 1905) came at least in part as a result of the observations of the failure of aether drift, which came at the end of an approximately 100 year search for the explanation of the propagation of light through space.
* The derivation of general relativity came as an attempt to explain gravity in a new way. He wasn't trying to find an explanation of some new random observation, but rather construct a framework to understand ALL of the observations that have already been made.
So it makes no sense at all to say that they were mathematically derived without any observations. We've certainly made observations AFTER the mathematical model has been constructed which confirm the models, but that's an entirely different thing that what you've claimed.
* The origins of quantum mechanics date back to the very early 1900s when people started observing that things they thought were waves had particle-like properties. It was another couple decades before the Schrodinger equation was proposed.
* The derivation of special relativity (formally by Einstein in 1905) came at least in part as a result of the observations of the failure of aether drift, which came at the end of an approximately 100 year search for the explanation of the propagation of light through space.
* The derivation of general relativity came as an attempt to explain gravity in a new way. He wasn't trying to find an explanation of some new random observation, but rather construct a framework to understand ALL of the observations that have already been made.
So it makes no sense at all to say that they were mathematically derived without any observations. We've certainly made observations AFTER the mathematical model has been constructed which confirm the models, but that's an entirely different thing that what you've claimed.
What is the difference between a "topological shape" and a "shape"?
I'm fine with the idea that a doughnut is an approximation or representation of a torus. But is it *actually* a torus?
No. Believe it or not, there is more than one hole in your doughnut. How do I know? There's space between the molecules of the doughnut. There are gaps between the nucleus and the electrons (wherever they actually are). There are lots of ways to pass through a doughnut besides just the big hole.
In other words, a doughnut it NOT actually a torus. In fact, it's not a mathematical object at all.
No its not. How do we experience consciousness? What does that even mean?
Also, again, circular reasoning.
Also, again, circular reasoning.
Consciousness has a definition:
1. the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
2. the awareness or perception of something by a person.
3. the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.
2. the awareness or perception of something by a person.
3. the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.
1. You are aware of your surroundings, including the computer you typed the post claiming 'we are not conscious' on
2. You both perceived my post and your post that you wrote in reply
3. You are necessarily aware of yourself conceptualizing, writing, and posting the reply
In other words, when you claim that 'we are not conscious,' you are making a self-refuting statement.
"Experiencing consciousness" is simply experiencing the attributes that define it, namely the experience of being aware of your surroundings, perceiving things, and being aware of yourself and 'the world.'
Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning is providing evidence for the validity of an assertion, which assumes the validity of the assertion.
General forms include "A is true because A is true" or "A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true".
General forms include "A is true because A is true" or "A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true".
Tautology
a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.
Originally Posted by you
The property of self awareness is both contained topologically by the universe (in us, the instantiations of self awareness) and descriptively by us (consciousness containing it).
What you're trying to do (and have been trying to do) is assert mathematical authority (and scientific authority) when you use mathematical words and phrases to mean things beyond what they actually mean. You want to argue about making models, but your "analogies" don't actually correspond to those models. You're basically playing a bait-and-switch game with your words, which is why I've been repeatedly focusing on your use of language.
"The universe has a topology" -- This sentence is that the universe has some sort of "shape."
"The universe correspond to topology" -- This shows you don't know how to use the words.
"The property of self awareness is contained topologically by the universe." -- This is just stupid.
All you're doing is switching the meaning of the word around to mean whatever you want it to mean. Your statements, under some consistent understanding of your word usage, are devoid of meaning.
Wrong again. This is the fourth or fifth time you've pointed out what you consider to be semantic difficulties with the words I'm using, but that doesn't mean I can't use them. It simply means you don't like the fact I'm using them. Tough luck.
It does make sense though. The universe has topological properties.
With that said, it's possible that your intuitions about mass, space and volume are simply wrong which is why you think BT is a paradox. If the universe is fundamentally mental like I'm claiming, the BT paradox isn't a paradox at all.
Just as another demonstration of how you're repeatedly flipping around your word usage...
The last two links are exactly the precise definitions of the branch of mathematics called topology.
The use of topology in the first is precisely the mathematical understanding of the term. Similarly with the other link that showed up later. This isn't about some "analogously defined" concept. When those scientific articles are talking about the "topology" of the universe, they are using the term in the sense of differential topology which is a particular area of mathematical study, and not some loosely defined idea that has vaguely to do with something like an analogous "shape" of an object.
Ya and I wasn't talking about a precise definition of the branch of mathematics called topology, I was using the definition analogously by applying it to the universe. We do stuff like this all the time, even with mathematical models, so again I don't see what your problem with it.
The use of topology in the first is precisely the mathematical understanding of the term. Similarly with the other link that showed up later. This isn't about some "analogously defined" concept. When those scientific articles are talking about the "topology" of the universe, they are using the term in the sense of differential topology which is a particular area of mathematical study, and not some loosely defined idea that has vaguely to do with something like an analogous "shape" of an object.
I didnt claim we were not conscious. I disagreed with your claim that we experienced consciousness.
circular reasoning. You dont get to assume your conclusion in your premise.
When you claim we are 'not conscious' you are relying on your consciousness to make the claim in all three aspects of the definition:
I've never interacted with someone whose statements are nonsensical before, and I genuinely mean that. If you want this line of thinking to work, you have to accept the undermining of the validity of logic, which is a fine position to take. The only problem is you won't be able to argue for it.
DING DING DING
And then some spew about how your terminology is right and mine is wrong, because you don't get it. BORING
The sheer depths of delusion. SAD!
"The universe has a topology" -- This sentence is that the universe has some sort of "shape."
"The universe correspond to topology" -- This shows you don't know how to use the words.
"The property of self awareness is contained topologically by the universe." -- This is just stupid.
All you're doing is switching the meaning of the word around to mean whatever you want it to mean. Your statements, under some consistent understanding of your word usage, are devoid of meaning.
"The universe correspond to topology" -- This shows you don't know how to use the words.
"The property of self awareness is contained topologically by the universe." -- This is just stupid.
All you're doing is switching the meaning of the word around to mean whatever you want it to mean. Your statements, under some consistent understanding of your word usage, are devoid of meaning.
I know multiple people who have in this thread, and I genuinely mean that.
If you answer yes to these questions, you admit that I am correct in my description of the universe as 'having correspondence to the definitions within the mathematical branch of topology.' If you answer no, there are a few hundred experts in cosmology who have a bone to pick with you.
It is not my problem that you don't understand the applications of the field of study you're supposedly involved in, and the more you talk, the more I doubt that you are involved in it. Either that or you're some kind of autist who is really bad at communicating.
Now beat it.
Does the universe correspond to the topological definition of a connected space i.e.-is the universe a connected space? Does it have topological properties (including shape), or not?
If you answer yes to these questions, you admit that I am correct in my description of the universe as 'having correspondence to the definitions within the mathematical branch of topology.' If you answer no, there are a few hundred experts in cosmology who have a bone to pick with you.
It is not my problem that you don't understand the applications of the field of study you're supposedly involved in, and the more you talk, the more I doubt that you are involved in it. Either that or you're some kind of autist who is really bad at communicating.
Now beat it.
If you answer yes to these questions, you admit that I am correct in my description of the universe as 'having correspondence to the definitions within the mathematical branch of topology.' If you answer no, there are a few hundred experts in cosmology who have a bone to pick with you.
It is not my problem that you don't understand the applications of the field of study you're supposedly involved in, and the more you talk, the more I doubt that you are involved in it. Either that or you're some kind of autist who is really bad at communicating.
Now beat it.
Assuming the concept that most normal people use (the one that contains an actual sun, for example), at the fundamental level the universe is not a connected space. That's merely an approximation. The reason for this is that according to quantum mechanics, we are unable to measure distances shorter than a Planck length, but connected spaces (and the concept of continuity) require us to be able to measure lengths that are arbitrarily small.
Now, whether or not this has anything at all to do with *your* usage of the words (in particular, claiming that you're not actually using the words in their mathematical meaning but rather making some sort of analogy), I have no idea because you've never really explained your actual usage of those words.
Does it have topological properties (including shape), or not?
Similarly here, whether this corresponds at all to what *you* have been talking about (see the bolded below), I have no idea. Some rough idea of "shape" that really isn't the same concept used in topology? The universe corresponds to topology? Consciousness? Who knows?
If you answer no, there are a few hundred experts in cosmology who have a bone to pick with you.
Your turn: Is consciousness contained topologically in the universe?
Either that or you're some kind of autist who is really bad at communicating.
He can tell me to beat it. And I can also ignore his request. OrP is fairly generous in what he allows people to say, though he has limits.
If you and OrP are cool with it, then I'm cool with it.
I appreciate that you would come along to defend, but I give and take a lot of this sort of thing here, so I'm pretty unbothered by it.
You do a great job here in this forum, IMO. About the only time I think you're not doing a good job is when you disagree with me.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE