The "unreasonable" effectiveness of mathematics is a strong indication that within the "laws of nature" there is an inherent regularity. — RussellA

Which renders math reasonably effective.

What point are you making? — universeness

That the total energy is not zero.

Energy is motion. Half mass times velocity squared. Or mass times SoL squared.

as science does not know what energy is — universeness

Science doesn't know?

What if the total energy in the universe is not zero? This is the case for gravity. The amount of matter energy indeed equals the amount of gravitational potential energy. But there is expansion.

Well, in a sense graviton field oscillations do the trick. Gravitons can travel in higher dimension. Which could be the reason it's so weak. But for a philosophy forum this is too much, I guess. You could ask on a physics forum.

Maybe physics is philosophy. Or at least a part of it. Like metaphysics is a part too.

DE isn't worn by particles. Its a property of space that pushes matter away from each other. There are no force exchange particles involved. There is a question on quora: "Is it possible to use DE to do work?" A similar one (the same, I guess) on PSE.

Look here

If universal concepts were not created by thought, then the universal concepts of love and hate could be discovered in a mind-independent world. — RussellA

Which can be discovered indeed

My point is that dead matter seems to obey many mathematical structure. If this wasn't the case, chaos would rule supreme. In experiments, reality is arranged to fit the formula.

An isolated piece of vacuum contains huge power. If you put two particles in it they get pushed away with huge force.

The universe might expand in an infinite higher dimensional space.

Yes. A lamda is added to the energy-mass-momentum tensor. The DE is an energy that doesn't dilute if space grows. If you put giant springs between all galaxies you could stop expansion.

Conceptually distinguishable (rationalism) but perceptually not (empiricism). — Agent Smith

No. Concept and percept are not separable or even two really existing categories. The distiction is purely theoretical.

What if we are AI? — Agent Smith

Then we're fucked! Do you really think consciousness can be programmed?

Measurement doesn't affect anything in the past. — Andrew M

It does! It collapses wavef function in space and time. The past was in superposition untill we measured it. Remember Copenhagen...

Do we get fooled by AI?

What magma energy mining does is puncturing the crust. Can you imagine what happens, apart from taking energy? Dante's peak?

Returning to nature seems the only option left. Letting go of all unnecessary materialities. To say bye-bye to technology and material wealth is hard though, as it seems that's all what western man has to cling to.

Perception smoothes the grainy world structure. The water feels like a continuous stuff.

The prediction of the motion of a drop of water in a rotating spherical mass:

There is nothing wrong with that idea. It's even what a strict standard interpretation tells you. A conscious measurement collapses the wave function spatiotemporally.

I read this:

"A couple of years later, I read a theoretical paper that predicted the effect that I had seen in my data. It wasn’t a monumental thing at all - just an unexpected result buried in the mathematical description. I scoured my old research notebooks, saw the effect in those preliminary data sets - but only in those incomplete experiments that were essentially feasibility studies for my real project. There was nothing complete enough to publish"

An unexpected result buried in the mathematical description.

An interesting approach to the superman was advocated by FM-2030. As one of the prominent figures in the transhuman movement, a term coined by Julian Huxley (brother of Aldous, "Brave New World") he advocated for a science-based superman.

Of course one could ask if a transrans evolves. Where will it stop? What will the ultimate singularity look like? A superdooper trans?

Confirmed predictions are not a guarantee that the model you uses is right. Epicycle theory (or Fourier analysis, for that matter), was based on imaginaries, though predictions were fairly good.

I have never encountered a sign that announces me the end of space.

To name a few:

-The man with the golden gun
-Silly guns
-Guns go West
-Top gun
-Gun crazy
The naked gun 2.5
-Guns, God, and government
-Guns of a stranger
-Inspired guns
-6 guns
-Hobo with a shotgun
-Nude nuns with big guns
'Machine gun preacher
-Outlawed guns
-Great guns
-Guns on the run
-Guns of Navarrone
-Sex, drugs, guns
-Guns on a mission
-The savage guns
-Loaded guns
-Stick to your guns
-Four guns go to the boarder
-27 Guns

Etcetera etcetera...

Wouldn't be "End of a Gun" appropriate?

the extraordinary, trans-neurotic, self-aware, lucid, or transcendent, or Self.


Thoughts? — ZzzoneiroCosm

I wonder, is not the ordinary, neurotic, oblivious, lackluster, or mediocre, or Other, to prefer...?

If you lived a hundred years ago you couldn't even imagine such a discovery — Wayfarer

No, of course not. That's stating the obvious. But a 100 years ago I could have used general relativity to predict unobserved phenomena. That's how it works. You make predictions with math. Like the Higgs boson was inferred 60 years ago. Like many other phenomena are calculated before discovery. How else could it function? If this wasn't the case, physics would have abandoned .math long ago. The eight-fold way.

There is ONLY matter and spacetime. Spacetime and matter in it emerged once from an eternal basic structure. So no something from nothing. It's more like real from virtual.This basic structure doesn't need a first cause as it is the first cause, which doesn't need a first cause. There is no reason why it's there it's just there. What more can we say?

It's not "so what". That's how you interpret it. It's "that's how it is". If matter behaves regularly it comes as no surprise that math describes it well. Math is about quantitative regularities and interdependences. The Dirac equation is an example. If you work with the equation you work with a naturally occurring regularity. So you bump into the positron.

If you don't see the point of Wigner's essay, there's not a lot of purpose me trying to explain it again. — Wayfarer

It's not I don't understand his irony. I think it's unreasonable. Why should it be unreasonable that math predicts anti particles? It's a logical, so reasonable, consequence of the Dirac equation.

The universe is finite but without a wall or "the end" sign. There are no dead ends, though when you bump into a black hole your end is secure. You will be radiated into Hawking radiation almost instantly. Information about you, that is. Your last picture.
Only the space the universe expands within is infinite.

Position and momenta can be in superposition like spin. If position of one electron is measured then the global becomes local but the spin is still globally, non-locally, attached to the other.

The lion is under attack. Ten hyenas bite the poor thing from all sides. He won't make it...

Then... Another lion arrives and scares the hyenas off. The poor lion jumps his brother to thank him and both run away happily.

Nature is not dead. — Jackson

It is.

As soon as there are ANY differences in the world, you have a structure describable by mathematics — litewave

Astute observation. But how would you describe my face changing from neutral to laughing in math? The principle of least action applies to falling stones but does it apply to a bacteria?

Why Wigner says it is 'unreasonable' is because of the sense in which mathematical conjectures sometimes produce completely unforseeen predictions which turn out to be true — Wayfarer

I still don't see why that's unreasonable. It seems only reasonable if What's so unreasonable about getting things out you didn't put in, as the anti-particle?

Why can't reality be non-local? Two features of a spatial extended system could be non-causally connected can't they? Why isn't this compatible with realism?

Never heard of it before you. — Jackson

It was Eugene Wigner who spoke of the "unreasonable effectiveness of math". Nature has dead and alive elements. Many deed phenomena (which doesn't mean they don't contain at least the seeds of life) behave in fixed patterns, contrary to living phenomena. For example, the principle of least action applies to dead matter but not to life.