
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. 
13th August 2017, 04:53 AM  #1 
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,275

Universe described only with words
This article helped me. I would be interested in other opinions.
It starts, QUANTUM SPACE ELEMENTS (QSE) INTRODUCTION This is a nonmathematical proposal introducing a cosmological model that is cyclic, deterministic and infinityfree. For the purpose of achieving this objective a number of new concepts are introduced. The framework of this proposal is structured over a number of assumptions, leading to various considerations of cosmological concerns. Furthermore, verification methods are suggested of both, observational and mathematical nature. http://www.quantumspaceelements.com/...FRoKKgod588IFw 
13th August 2017, 10:05 AM  #2 
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,629

This:
Quote:
Quote:

__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov 

13th August 2017, 12:15 PM  #3 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 16,852


__________________
Science is selfcorrecting. Woo is selfcontradicting. 

13th August 2017, 12:52 PM  #4 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,704

It seems like they're just making **** up.

13th August 2017, 01:11 PM  #5 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,704

I mean, take this business about "black holes". Have they ever observed a black hole? Do they even know what specific phenomena they're trying to describe? Without the math, how do they even know what they're talking about?

13th August 2017, 02:07 PM  #6 
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,913


13th August 2017, 02:12 PM  #7 
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Just outside Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,370

Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.
The Universe is a very big thing that contains a great number of planets and a great number of beings. It is Everything. What we live in. All around us. The lot. Not nothing. It is quite difficult to actually define what the Universe means, but fortunately the Guide doesn't worry about that and just gives us some useful information to live in it. Area: The area of the Universe is infinite. Imports: None. This is a by product of infinity; it is impossible to import things into something that has infinite volume because by definition there is no outside to import things from. Exports: None, for similar reasons as imports. 
__________________
Eqinsu Ocha! Eqinsu Ocha! 

13th August 2017, 02:16 PM  #8 
Schrödinger's cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,172


__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things"  Terry Pratchett 

13th August 2017, 04:10 PM  #9 
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,179

The "About" section of that site doesn't fill me with much confidence. Imagine a less incoherent version of Timecube set on a universal scale...

__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it.... 

13th August 2017, 07:00 PM  #10 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,044


__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose  that it may violate property instead of protecting it  then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and allabsorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious."  Bastiat, The Law 

13th August 2017, 08:03 PM  #11 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,681


__________________
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality.  JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.  Charles Babbage (17911871) My Apollo Page. 

14th August 2017, 02:04 AM  #12 
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 7,275


14th August 2017, 02:09 AM  #13 
Schrödinger's cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,172


__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things"  Terry Pratchett 

14th August 2017, 02:32 AM  #14 
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 17,797

It was the step to describing the world with mathematics by people like Lavoisier, Galileo and Maxwell that allowed us to develop modern technology. Words dont allow for the same predictions or understanding. It was the edge Lavoisier had over Priestly in recognising the discovery of Oxygen and what turned Faraday's notions into building radios among other tech.
Our language has evolved to function in human practices that take place in our human scale world. Its analogies and terms understandably fall flat in attempts to describe the alien worlds of the very small or very fast. 
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself  and you are the easiest person to fool.'  Richard Feynman 

14th August 2017, 03:41 AM  #15 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,454


__________________
Visit rationalvetmed.net and rationalvetmed.org  because nothing is as good as homeopathy... 

14th August 2017, 09:33 AM  #16 
Hyperthetical
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 12,912

A much more thorough treatment of a digital model of the universe was developed by Stephen Wolfram and presented in Chapter 9 of A New Kind of Science. He's made the entire book available online at wolframscience.com. Wolfram's discrete spacetime mesh is not a grid (even though most of his example models in earlier chapters of the book are based on grids). He acknowledges that a regular grid of cells has properties that aren't observed in space, such as preferred directions. And such a grid would not be able to expand as the universe is observed to; there's no way to insert extra cells uniformly without distorting the grid in ways that would have observable consequences. So his model is based instead on a directed network. In the course of the chapter, he shows how features of the evolution of such a network over (discrete steps of) time would give rise to observed relativistic effects and could possibly explain other phenomena including quantum phenomena and gravitation. His cosmological theory and models are far from complete, of course. And there doesn't appear to have been much advancement or filling in of details since the book was published in 2001. 
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister... 

14th August 2017, 11:14 AM  #17 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 21,704

I bet Wolfram's book has math in it, though.
This signature is intended to irradiate people. 
14th August 2017, 11:16 AM  #18 
World Maker
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 64,732


__________________
"Yes. But we'll hit theirs as well. We have reserves. Attack!" 

14th August 2017, 12:05 PM  #19 
Scourge, of the supernatural
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,907

See that's part of the problem. Math uses words as well. "digital", "analogue", "space" and even "discontinuous" (particularly when applied to a space) are all words that have meaning in mathematical and set theory contexts. Culminating in information theory for the apparent context of the OP article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_signal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_(mathematics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory So a description "only with words" doesn't actually avoid math and mathematical concepts it simply helps remove (or technically just hide) the specific relevant context and meaning. One of the advantages of math is that it is a formal language. By abandoning that formality for more of a just common parlance you remove that advantage and can get hung up it the concepts that are better served with such formality. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/p...orcontinuous/
Quote:

__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ 

14th August 2017, 01:31 PM  #20 
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 7,077

If you don't understand the math, you don't really understand the science. Nonmathematical description might give you some insight into the concepts, but without the math, you can't really say you understand it. I don't really understand General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. The math is beyond my education. I do have a pretty solid understanding of Newtonian physics and Special Relativity. The math isn't all that hard for Special Relativity, but many of the concepts are counterintuitive.

14th August 2017, 01:51 PM  #21 
Hyperthetical
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 12,912

Surprisingly little, if by math you mean typical physics equations (differential calculus and similar). It's about the sometimes complex behavior of simple "programs" (sets of rules, procedures). The sets of rules examined in that light do (in later chapters) include the axiom systems of mathematics (symbolic logic, predicate calculus, geometry, arithmetic, algebra, group theory and others) but that's not the main focus and it's not necessary to know those fields to follow the arguments. Indeed, one of Wolfram's theses in NKS is that while traditional science has focused on computational "shortcuts," where solving equations can be used as a shortcut for predicting the future states and behavior of systems (e.g. plug in "t" for time in a physics equation to find out the position or velocity of a body at that time), such predictably through computational shortcuts is relatively rare, and most systems are "computationally irreducible," which basically means predictable only by replicating the computations the process itself is performing. In practical terms, that means describable better by programs than by mathematical equations. And in Wolfram's view, that's being borne out by current trends in science. From http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2017/...15yearview/:
Quote:

__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister... 

14th August 2017, 03:07 PM  #22 
Scourge, of the supernatural
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 11,907

Sure but those programs, "the models" are based on, and employ those equations. So instead of getting just a position or velocity at "t" you get a possible span of positions or velocities from t to t + X. Now depending on the complexity of the model and the number of interrelated variables (and how they may change or be changed) each time you run t to t + X you may get a somewhat different span but it still defines a range of projections based on the inputs and the equations. See its not moving away from mathematical equations its recognizing that interrelation of the equations, the computations the process itself is performing, becoming even more fundamental to the description of the universe. They aren't just abstract notions but elements of the dynamic computational process we call the universe.* *No I'm not going all Max Tegmark here the mathematical description of an electron still ain't an electron, least ways until it can repel other mathematical descriptions of an electron. I'm speaking more of input results in output, cause becoming effect. 
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ 

14th August 2017, 04:07 PM  #23 
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 17,797


__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself  and you are the easiest person to fool.'  Richard Feynman 

14th August 2017, 11:01 PM  #24 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,306


__________________
________________________ 

15th August 2017, 12:32 AM  #25 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,410

Is it even possible to describe the universe in a scientific way without math?
Like it or not, you need math. 
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare 

15th August 2017, 12:49 AM  #26 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 21,937


15th August 2017, 08:42 PM  #27 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,956

That quote alone reveals a web page without math or physics about a universe that is not ours. The page starts as essentially science fiction and degrades into fantasy and nonsense. Things are not better in the rest of the web site so overall we have the output of yet another Internet physics crank.

__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! 

Yesterday, 12:29 AM  #28 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 21,937

[Barbara Millicent Roberts]Maths is hard [/Barbara Millicent Roberts]

Bookmarks 
Thread Tools  

