Funny thing that your quote definitely excludes mathematics as a branch of philosophy — god must be atheist

It's too rigorous to be considered philosophy. :cool:

Is there a cause having the effect of T Clark leaving the room?

Perhaps not, like the instantaneous decay of a uranium atom. :chin:

Sartre'sThe Look:

The mere possible presence of another person causes one to look at oneself as an object and see one's world as it appears to the other. This is not done from a specific location outside oneself, but is non-positional. This is a recognition of the subjectivity in others.

(Wiki)

I have found this to be a profound truth. Especially in certain dangerous activities.

I see massless geometrical, nonpointlike interacting triplets of preons — EugeneW

As well as reaching out and bending space to your will. Your grasp of nothing is exceptional :cool:

I feel like a teacher correcting a school essay here, and I could just ignore all that, but I also feel that I have something to say, because I believe that clear and correct descriptions are very important in here. — Alkis Piskas

Good luck with that. A Nobel undertaking. Let's start with a clear and correct definition of "being". :cool:

It [empty space] doesn't bend unless there is a mass to bend it — Constance

No. What "bends" is spacetime, which does not have the Euclidean metric in R^4. The Euclidean metric is how we normally measure spacial dimensions. We need Kenosha Kid (PhD physics) to return and explain this stuff. :chin:

I don't personally see the nature of consciousness being emergent — Shwah

I don't give it much thought. On the other hand weak emergence runs throughout my explorations in dynamical systems in the complex plane. Interesting link though. Thanks.

Also do philosophers need credentials to be called philosophers? — TiredThinker

Well, I could call myself a philosopher and others would let that pass without comment. But if I called myself a mathematician, some sort of proof - like credentials - might be expected. Philosophy is poorly defined, a collection of notions tied together with loose verbal strings.

Some think that the only example of strong emergence is consciousness.

Strong emergence describes the direct causal action of a high-level system upon its components; qualities produced this way are irreducible to the system's constituent parts.[11] The whole is other than the sum of its parts. It is argued then that no simulation of the system can exist, for such a simulation would itself constitute a reduction of the system to its constituent parts.[10] Physics lacks well-established examples of strong emergence, unless it is interpreted as the impossibility in practice to explain the whole in terms of the parts. Practical impossibility may be a more useful distinction than one in principle, since it is easier to determine and quantify, and does not imply the use of mysterious forces, but simply reflects the limits of our capability.

(Wiki)

It creates multiple shapes etc and people have tried to map what shapes are created (when birds appear and . . . — Shwah

Weak emergence describes new properties arising in systems as a result of the interactions at an elemental level.

(Wiki)

Observe my avatar as an example.

What if you put mass in it? — EugeneW

Be my guest. It distorts spacetime in the appropriate metric. Space by itself doesn't bend.

There is at least one existence that has no prior causality for its existence, it simply is — Philosophim

Guess that "depends on the definition of is." :smirk:

The Turing test, originally called the imitation game by Alan Turing in 1950,[2] is a test of a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human.

(Wiki)

What if we lower the bar a bit and check if AI can mimic a person of low IQ & EQ, almost no GK, and perhaps even a bit cuckoo? — Agent Smith

I see no contradiction.

But this is just what I say space cannot have. Try to conceive of something bending without a medium in which something can bend. — Constance

There is curved space - a type of geometry, and there is spacetime curvature, a way to interpret general relativity.

Empty space doesn't bend, IMO. :chin:

I keep coming back to the idea that to be successful in philosophy (as I see it) one needs a solid awareness of the tradition and how ideas have been explored thus far. — Tom Storm

How, then, is "success" measured?

Probably not by getting hundreds of posts on a thread one starts on TPF.

Space is real, and I don't think space bending is a metaphor. — Constance

Usually this expression is used in reference to spacetime and depends on a certain metric. Objects, however, become distorted by gravity and speed. Length contraction, etc.

What is a philosopher? One who contributes something new and of publishable quality to the realm of philosophy. Thus professional philosophers control the intellectual environment.

Then there is philosophical banter, enjoyed by millions.

We're desperately trying to find something that doesn't exist, because we simply cannot comprehend the confrontation with the fact, that the universe doesn't care whether or not we exist. Whatever you might say is the meaning of life, let it be happiness, power or serving some god, it will never satisfy the human desire for a meaningful meaning. — Carlikoff

I suppose some are prone to this level of existential anguish. Others find that one creates one's own meaningful life. One that will satisfy human desire.

So you don't have to look it up, from Wikipedia:

In a modern sense, a philosopher is an intellectual who contributes to one or more branches of philosophy, such as aesthetics, ethics, epistemology, philosophy of science, logic, metaphysics, social theory, philosophy of religion, and political philosophy. A philosopher may also be someone who has worked in the humanities or other sciences which over the centuries have split from philosophy, such as the arts, history, economics, sociology, psychology, linguistics, anthropology, theology, and politics.

As a retired mathematician, my profession is defined a bit more specifically, citing "using extensive knowledge of mathematics" to solve problems, etc.

Random vs logical? or random vs determined? Randomness is a logical concept. And logical is a human concept.

Is infinity necessary? Hell yes for mathematics!!! — ssu

You bet. :cool: As an abbreviation for certain statements. For example $\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty }{{{s}_{k}}}\lt\infty$

And you even get paid for it! — EugeneW

Not since I retired 22 years ago. :cry:

t strikes me that many (most? all?) so-called paradoxes are really just playing with language — T Clark

:up:

Does F(t) have a physical interpretation? It's a remarkable formula! — EugeneW

Go back and click on that second math note about extending the diagonal paradox. It occurs there. As far as something physical I don't know.

Depends on the context. You are driving with a passenger in a safe manner and a car runs a stop sign and hits you, killing your passenger. You have done nothing wrong. You confide in a close friend an embarrassing fact about a third person, expecting your friend to not reveal your comments, which they do to the third person and that third person commits suicide. You have done something wrong.

Kind of arrogant, no? I'm just saying that your claims are unbacked and waaay over the top. — noAxioms

One physicist to another, eh? The peanut gallery awaits eagerly. :chin:

Wave on the unit interval compresses to a line infinitely long.

Yes

I was asked to relate a bit of QP to (elementary) math, and the Schrodinger equation in a simple version resembles a fundamental relationship in elementary calculus. In this way the SE is related to continuous compounding. Weird, huh?

You've given more info on the physics part, which is admirable. I don't attempt to add physics I'm not familiar with.

I could be wrong, but doesn't . . . — EugeneW

Wave from circle

or, another interpretation

$F(t)=t+iCos\left( \left( \frac{{\hat{H}}}{h} \right)t \right)$

Just some rough analogies between elementary math and QP.

Absolute True Reality — Gnomon

Assuming there is such a thing.

The first proposed infinite measuring system, the natural numbers for example, would require a larger infinite measuring system, to measure it. — Metaphysician Undercover

(Power set)

Embedded in the rationals embedded in the reals. Not so much going bigger above than counting more points between natural numbers.

But your analysis is interesting.

When a recursive process gets you closer and closer to an answer the more you apply it, and this process goes on step by step with no ending stipulated, then this is all about "infinity" that is needed for most mathematics. $\infty$ is a convenient way of saying this.

Foundations and set theory, however, go a significant step beyond into transfinite pastures. Occasionally a result in other areas of math require a cow chip or two from these leas.

Are you referring to traveling analogue waves — universeness

The things that appear on oscilloscopes, old fashioned stuff.

As a maths expert, do you have anything to add that would aid my understanding of the difference between the terms wave /function/form/equation as they are used in maths compared to quantum physics? — universeness

In math a simple wave is a time-dependent vector field defined, say, on the complex plane as
$F\left( z,t \right)$. One can elaborate on this, but I don't think that will help. Fourier series, of course, are associated with waves. But the closest I've come in recent years to producing a wave-like result might be these notes: Wave tunnels to centroids, Compressed wave of infinite length.

Perhaps the most illuminating way to connect the easiest of math waves with QP is to take a look at the foundational equation of the subject, the Schrodinger equation. Recall from basic calculus the mathematical relationship describing the rate of change of something compared with the quantity of that something. This is fundamental to so so much. It says the instantaneous rate of change of a quantity is proportional to the existing quantity at that moment.

$\frac{d}{dt}Q(t)=KQ(t)$. Easily solved to $Q(t)=Q(0)\cdot {{e}^{Kt}}$

Compare this with the Schrodinger equation in simplest form:


$\frac{d}{dt}|\Psi (t)\rangle =-i\left( \frac{{\hat{H}}}{h} \right)|\Psi (t)\rangle$


Notice that the capital K if replaced by $-i\left( \frac{{\hat{H}}}{h} \right)$
gives
${{e}^{Kt}}={{e}^{-i\left( \frac{{\hat{H}}}{h} \right)t}}=Cos(\left( \frac{{\hat{H}}}{h} \right)t)-iSin(\left( \frac{{\hat{H}}}{h} \right)t)$


And this, as t=time progresses, can produce a wave in the complex plane.

My comments are heuristic and descriptive, avoiding complexities beyond my grasp.

Waveforms certainly exist in electronics, but in Quantum theory they may be in abstract spaces where collapse of wavefunctions occur. What is actually physically happening vs probability measures, etc. At least that's how I see it - and I'm probably off track.

Agent Smith is a lot brighter than he seems at times. Humor him. :roll:

Yes, there are thoughts. I think therefore I thought. :cool:

Name an actual infinity, prove it exists! It's a simple procedure — Agent Smith

You are the one who says there is no physical infinity. Prove your statement. :roll:

There are no actual infinities; there are no physical infinities — Agent Smith

Speculation presented as fact. A no no for philosophers.

mathematicians should abandon the use of infinity in making calculations in favor of a
more logically consistent alternative. . . . Fortunately, such a concept is available to us—a concept called indefiniteness — Gnomon

This is kind of a non-issue with most mathematicians. If you are a set theorist you probably like fiddling with various infinities, otherwise if you encounter an endless process you'll probably call it "unbounded".

A tired subject. :yawn:

Superposition is collapsed by a virtual photon. — EugeneW

Which sounds more abstract, even mystical, than most of mathematics. Are things really that bizarre in the quantum realm, or is a dramatic paradigm shift over the horizon, awaiting an Einstein? How much of the weirdness is due to limitations of experimental investigations?

Long, long ago I thought of majoring in physics, but found the concepts of mathematics were clearer to me.