On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:21:00 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

>Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:58:30 +0100, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder):
>>
>> >Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:39:38 +0100, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> >> Lodder):
>> >>
>> >> >Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 2024-03-07 22:31:27 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > On 7 Mar 2024 17:51:40 GMT, the following appeared in
>> >> >> > talk.origins, posted by dgb (David)
>> >> >> > <david@nomail.afraid.org>:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On 7 Mar 2024 at 17:41:02 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>> On 7 Mar 2024 at 09:38:23 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> dgb (David) <david@nomail.afraid.org> Wrote in message:r
>> >> >> >>>>>>> Does this occur by accident?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden
>_ra
>> >tio
>> >> >> >>>>>>> Or by design?
>> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> It will never be known.
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> There is nothing to know there,
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> Jan
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> The thing to know, Jan, is that it hasn't all happened by accident!
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> It hasn't happened at all.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You are, of course, mistaken.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > Wrong. Nothing "happened"; the so-called Golden Ratio, like
>> >> >> > all mathematical relationships which describe observed
>> >> >> > phenomena, is a property of physical
>> >> >>
>> >> >> mathematical
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > reality, no more. And,
>> >> >> > of course, no less.
>> >> >
>> >> >You are wasting your breath. Bob is an incurable materialist,
>> >> >incapable of abstraction and idealisation,
>> >> >
>> >> Ummm, I didn't say that there are no parts of math which are
>> >> abstract, only that all math relationships WHICH DESCRIBE
>> >> PHYSICAL PHENOMENA are properties of those phenomena.
>> >
>> >So the integers are a property of your football scores?
>> >"No more, and no less", like you say,
>> >
>> Overgeneralizations and "football scores" aside...
>>
>> If I understand you, the mathematical relationships which
>> describe observed physical relationships do *not* describe
>> those relationships?
>
>Mathematical relationships are mathematical.
>They have nothing to do with any reality at all.
>
Whatever you say, Jan; math has no relationship, descriptive
or otherwise, to reality. Got it.
>
>> OK. Maybe the word "properties" is
>> what's causing you grief? Or maybe it's the phrase "no more
>> and no less; if that's the case consider it removed,
>> leaving:
>>
>> "...the so-called Golden Ratio, like all mathematical
>> relationships which describe observed phenomena, is a
>> property of physical reality in the sense that it precisely
>> describes such physical relationship."
>>
>> Better? Clumsy, of course, but since hyperbole and/or
>> imprecision in general discussion is apparently verboten...
>
>Still completely irrelevant,
>
>Jan
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:29:51 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:

>On 3/14/24 9:56 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:58:30 +0100, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder):
>>
>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:39:38 +0100, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>>>> Lodder):
>>>>
>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2024-03-07 22:31:27 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 17:51:40 GMT, the following appeared in
>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by dgb (David)
>>>>>>> <david@nomail.afraid.org>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 at 17:41:02 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 at 09:38:23 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) <david@nomail.afraid.org> Wrote in message:r
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this occur by accident?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ra
>>> tio
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or by design?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It will never be known.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing to know there,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The thing to know, Jan, is that it hasn't all happened by accident!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It hasn't happened at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are, of course, mistaken.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong. Nothing "happened"; the so-called Golden Ratio, like
>>>>>>> all mathematical relationships which describe observed
>>>>>>> phenomena, is a property of physical
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mathematical
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> reality, no more. And,
>>>>>>> of course, no less.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are wasting your breath. Bob is an incurable materialist,
>>>>> incapable of abstraction and idealisation,
>>>>>
>>>> Ummm, I didn't say that there are no parts of math which are
>>>> abstract, only that all math relationships WHICH DESCRIBE
>>>> PHYSICAL PHENOMENA are properties of those phenomena.
>>>
>>> So the integers are a property of your football scores?
>>> "No more, and no less", like you say,
>>>
>> Overgeneralizations and "football scores" aside...
>>
>> If I understand you, the mathematical relationships which
>> describe observed physical relationships do *not* describe
>> those relationships? OK. Maybe the word "properties" is
>> what's causing you grief? Or maybe it's the phrase "no more
>> and no less; if that's the case consider it removed,
>> leaving:
>>
>> "...the so-called Golden Ratio, like all mathematical
>> relationships which describe observed phenomena, is a
>> property of physical reality in the sense that it precisely
>> describes such physical relationship."
>>
>> Better? Clumsy, of course, but since hyperbole and/or
>> imprecision in general discussion is apparently verboten...
>
>The golden ratio a/b == (a+b)/a. Observed phenomena may approximate
>that number, but the mathematical interest since antiquity has little to
>do with that. In mathematics it appears in all kinds of surprising
>contexts. Wikipedia presents many of them.
>
I've seen several of the physical representations; the one I
remember best (unless I'm misremembering/conflating
unrelated subjects; it's been many decades) involves the
chambers in the chambered nautilus. I believe snail shells
follow the same pattern.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/14/24 3:18 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Burkhard <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>
> >>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>> dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Does this occur by accident?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Or by design?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mathematics doesn't occur.
> >>>>> It is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If it didn't occur then it is, and always was. But was it so before the
> >>>> beginning of the universe? or maybe the universe didn't begin, because
> >>>> time and space are not fundamental properties of nature.
> >>
> >>> The universe, whatever it is, or was, or may be
> >>> is irrelevant for mathematics,
> >>
> >>> Jan
> >>
> >> a) yes, I'm back-ish - blame Lawyer Dagget, who put temptation in my path,
> >> and directed me to an interface that I can use without going through the
> >> hassle of signing up with yet another server :o) Though I'm likely to keep
> >> a lower profile than in the past due to work
> >
> > Very good. Very good indeed. Just curious:
> > Is your new toy capable of wrapping lines to a reasonable length?
> >
> >> b) While I'd agree personally, there have been some interesting ideas by
> >> reasonably serious people who've argued that there is a closer connection
> >> than one might think. Most high-profile arguably Eugene Wigner and his
> >> famous paper "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural
> >> Sciences" from 1960. Essentially a mathematics version of the "no miracle"
> >> argument for scientific realism.
> >
> > Yes, I know, but this is hardly news.
> > Plato was already inspired by the unreasonable effectiveness of
> > mathematics. (as he knew it)
> >
> > As for Wigner,
> > I guess he would feel like committing intellectual suicide
> > when seeing the present state of Math and Phys.
> > Could he really bring himself to believe
> > that "uggly theories are good!"?
> > Or that Einstein with his ideas of natural beauty had it all wrong?
> >
> > He might agree that the state of math and string theory is demonstation
> > of the incredible uselessness of mathematics on a truly incredible
> > scale. (worse than ever seen before)
> >
> > We now have 10^500 mathematical theories and universes,
> > give or take a few, and not a single prediction.
> > The argumnt from design can only be beaten down
> > with natural selection of universes and anthropic principles.
> >
> > Is it possible to do worse? I guess that not even Dr Pangloss
> > can comfort us with some good words about it,
> >
> > Jan
> >
> With 10^500 universes, what could go wrong? No matter what craziness
> we could propose, there'd be a universe where it worked.

Sure, with 10^500 rationals to choose from,
one of them must equal \sqrt2, surely?

> Or my favorite Pauliism: that's not even wrong!

"Aber das ist Falsch!" "Sogar ganz Falsch!!"

Jan

erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/14/24 2:40 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/14/24 9:56 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:58:30 +0100, the following appeared
> >>> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >>> Lodder):
> >>>
> >>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:39:38 +0100, the following appeared
> >>>>> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >>>>> Lodder):
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 2024-03-07 22:31:27 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 17:51:40 GMT, the following appeared in
> >>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by dgb (David)
> >>>>>>>> <david@nomail.afraid.org>:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 at 17:41:02 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 at 09:38:23 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) <david@nomail.afraid.org> Wrote in message:r
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this occur by accident?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golde
n_
> > ra
> >>>> tio
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or by design?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It will never be known.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing to know there,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jan
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The thing to know, Jan, is that it hasn't all happened by
> >>>>>>>>>>>accident!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It hasn't happened at all.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You are, of course, mistaken.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Wrong. Nothing "happened"; the so-called Golden Ratio, like
> >>>>>>>> all mathematical relationships which describe observed
> >>>>>>>> phenomena, is a property of physical
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> mathematical
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> reality, no more. And,
> >>>>>>>> of course, no less.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You are wasting your breath. Bob is an incurable materialist,
> >>>>>> incapable of abstraction and idealisation,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Ummm, I didn't say that there are no parts of math which are
> >>>>> abstract, only that all math relationships WHICH DESCRIBE
> >>>>> PHYSICAL PHENOMENA are properties of those phenomena.
> >>>>
> >>>> So the integers are a property of your football scores?
> >>>> "No more, and no less", like you say,
> >>>>
> >>> Overgeneralizations and "football scores" aside...
> >>>
> >>> If I understand you, the mathematical relationships which
> >>> describe observed physical relationships do *not* describe
> >>> those relationships? OK. Maybe the word "properties" is
> >>> what's causing you grief? Or maybe it's the phrase "no more
> >>> and no less; if that's the case consider it removed,
> >>> leaving:
> >>>
> >>> "...the so-called Golden Ratio, like all mathematical
> >>> relationships which describe observed phenomena, is a
> >>> property of physical reality in the sense that it precisely
> >>> describes such physical relationship."
> >>>
> >>> Better? Clumsy, of course, but since hyperbole and/or
> >>> imprecision in general discussion is apparently verboten...
> >>
> >> The golden ratio a/b == (a+b)/a. Observed phenomena may approximate
> >> that number, but the mathematical interest since antiquity has little to
> >> do with that. In mathematics it appears in all kinds of surprising
> >> contexts. Wikipedia presents many of them.
> >
> > And it is not really a ratio of anything.
> > It is traditionally called a ratio because to the ancient Greeks
> > all numbers except the integers could only be represented as ratios.
> > It is just a number.
> > Best defined, as a number, purely arithmetically,
> > as the simplest possible continued fraction.
> > (just my preference)
> > No need to invoked more complicated concepts,
> > like square roots, solving quadratic equations, etc.,
> > or even number systems to some base,
> >
> > Jan
> >
> >
> The Pythagoreans did better than that by proving that there exit
> irrational numbers (such as the golden ratio). The continued fraction
> representation is indeed very elegant, but it also implies an irrational
> value.

Not realy, because they did not have the number concept.
What they did prove was that there are irrational ratios.
Or the same in other words, unmeasurable ratios.

In still other words: Pythagoras himself
already blew Bob's naive conception of reality out of the water.
(while throwing his pupil into it)

Jan

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:21:00 +0100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
> >Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:58:30 +0100, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >> Lodder):
> >>
> >> >Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:39:38 +0100, the following appeared
> >> >> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >> >> Lodder):
> >> >>
> >> >> >Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On 2024-03-07 22:31:27 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > On 7 Mar 2024 17:51:40 GMT, the following appeared in
> >> >> >> > talk.origins, posted by dgb (David)
> >> >> >> > <david@nomail.afraid.org>:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> On 7 Mar 2024 at 17:41:02 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote
: > >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>> dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>> On 7 Mar 2024 at 09:38:23 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wro
te:
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> dgb (David) <david@nomail.afraid.org> Wrote in message:r
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> Does this occur by accident?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gol
den
> >_ra
> >> >tio
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> Or by design?
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> It will never be known.
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> There is nothing to know there,
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> Jan
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> The thing to know, Jan, is that it hasn't all happened by accide
nt!
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> It hasn't happened at all.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You are, of course, mistaken.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Wrong. Nothing "happened"; the so-called Golden Ratio, like
> >> >> >> > all mathematical relationships which describe observed
> >> >> >> > phenomena, is a property of physical
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> mathematical
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > reality, no more. And,
> >> >> >> > of course, no less.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You are wasting your breath. Bob is an incurable materialist,
> >> >> >incapable of abstraction and idealisation,
> >> >> >
> >> >> Ummm, I didn't say that there are no parts of math which are
> >> >> abstract, only that all math relationships WHICH DESCRIBE
> >> >> PHYSICAL PHENOMENA are properties of those phenomena.
> >> >
> >> >So the integers are a property of your football scores?
> >> >"No more, and no less", like you say,
> >> >
> >> Overgeneralizations and "football scores" aside...
> >>
> >> If I understand you, the mathematical relationships which
> >> describe observed physical relationships do *not* describe
> >> those relationships?
> >
> >Mathematical relationships are mathematical.
> >They have nothing to do with any reality at all.
> >
> Whatever you say, Jan; math has no relationship, descriptive
> or otherwise, to reality. Got it.

Good to see that you finally got it.
You may move up one level in the cave,
and forget about beating the chalk out of those blackboard erasers,

Jan

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:29:51 -0700, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>
> >On 3/14/24 9:56 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:58:30 +0100, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >> Lodder):
> >>
> >>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:39:38 +0100, the following appeared
> >>>> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >>>> Lodder):
> >>>>
> >>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2024-03-07 22:31:27 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 17:51:40 GMT, the following appeared in
> >>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by dgb (David)
> >>>>>>> <david@nomail.afraid.org>:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 at 17:41:02 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 at 09:38:23 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) <david@nomail.afraid.org> Wrote in message:r
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this occur by accident?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden
_ra
> >>> tio
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Or by design?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It will never be known.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing to know there,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Jan
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The thing to know, Jan, is that it hasn't all happened by accident!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It hasn't happened at all.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You are, of course, mistaken.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Wrong. Nothing "happened"; the so-called Golden Ratio, like
> >>>>>>> all mathematical relationships which describe observed
> >>>>>>> phenomena, is a property of physical
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> mathematical
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> reality, no more. And,
> >>>>>>> of course, no less.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You are wasting your breath. Bob is an incurable materialist,
> >>>>> incapable of abstraction and idealisation,
> >>>>>
> >>>> Ummm, I didn't say that there are no parts of math which are
> >>>> abstract, only that all math relationships WHICH DESCRIBE
> >>>> PHYSICAL PHENOMENA are properties of those phenomena.
> >>>
> >>> So the integers are a property of your football scores?
> >>> "No more, and no less", like you say,
> >>>
> >> Overgeneralizations and "football scores" aside...
> >>
> >> If I understand you, the mathematical relationships which
> >> describe observed physical relationships do *not* describe
> >> those relationships? OK. Maybe the word "properties" is
> >> what's causing you grief? Or maybe it's the phrase "no more
> >> and no less; if that's the case consider it removed,
> >> leaving:
> >>
> >> "...the so-called Golden Ratio, like all mathematical
> >> relationships which describe observed phenomena, is a
> >> property of physical reality in the sense that it precisely
> >> describes such physical relationship."
> >>
> >> Better? Clumsy, of course, but since hyperbole and/or
> >> imprecision in general discussion is apparently verboten...
> >
> >The golden ratio a/b == (a+b)/a. Observed phenomena may approximate
> >that number, but the mathematical interest since antiquity has little to
> >do with that. In mathematics it appears in all kinds of surprising
> >contexts. Wikipedia presents many of them.
> >
> I've seen several of the physical representations; the one I
> remember best (unless I'm misremembering/conflating
> unrelated subjects; it's been many decades) involves the
> chambers in the chambered nautilus. I believe snail shells
> follow the same pattern.

More muddled thinking on your part.
But do look it up. You'll find many pictures of nautilus shells,
and many pictures of logarithmic spirals, but very few
of nautilus shells with logarithmic spirals superposed.
(hint, it is only an approximation)

But tp placate your engineering soul: do look up 'nautilus gears'.
If that doesnt convince you that god is a mathematician
nothing will,

Jan

On 3/16/24 1:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:21:00 +0100, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder):
>>
>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:58:30 +0100, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>>>> Lodder):
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:39:38 +0100, the following appeared
>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>>>>>> Lodder):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-07 22:31:27 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 17:51:40 GMT, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by dgb (David)
>>>>>>>>> <david@nomail.afraid.org>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 at 17:41:02 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote
> :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 at 09:38:23 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wro
> te:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) <david@nomail.afraid.org> Wrote in message:r
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this occur by accident?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gol
> den
>>> _ra
>>>>> tio
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or by design?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will never be known.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing to know there,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing to know, Jan, is that it hasn't all happened by accide
> nt!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It hasn't happened at all.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are, of course, mistaken.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong. Nothing "happened"; the so-called Golden Ratio, like
>>>>>>>>> all mathematical relationships which describe observed
>>>>>>>>> phenomena, is a property of physical
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mathematical
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> reality, no more. And,
>>>>>>>>> of course, no less.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are wasting your breath. Bob is an incurable materialist,
>>>>>>> incapable of abstraction and idealisation,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ummm, I didn't say that there are no parts of math which are
>>>>>> abstract, only that all math relationships WHICH DESCRIBE
>>>>>> PHYSICAL PHENOMENA are properties of those phenomena.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the integers are a property of your football scores?
>>>>> "No more, and no less", like you say,
>>>>>
>>>> Overgeneralizations and "football scores" aside...
>>>>
>>>> If I understand you, the mathematical relationships which
>>>> describe observed physical relationships do *not* describe
>>>> those relationships?
>>>
>>> Mathematical relationships are mathematical.
>>> They have nothing to do with any reality at all.
>>>
>> Whatever you say, Jan; math has no relationship, descriptive
>> or otherwise, to reality. Got it.
>
> Good to see that you finally got it.
> You may move up one level in the cave,
> and forget about beating the chalk out of those blackboard erasers,
>
> Jan
>
I just went back and read wigner's excellent essay on"Unreasonable
Effectiveness of Mathematics", which I'd never read before. I love his
last paragraph

"Let me end on a more cheerful note. The miracle of the appropriateness
of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of
physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We
should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future
research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our
pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches
of learning."

It's a gift that's tricky. The Lamb shift, the positron were
"predicted" by the math, but to make the electric and magnetic fields of
classical electrodynamics symmetrical, we'd need a "magnetron". No such
beast. Even without that chimera, time advanced potentials as solutions
are unphysical, but the proposed reasons are uneasy. Particularly
applying this to quantum electrodynamics has (I think) not yet been
explained.

On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:49:09 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

>Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:29:51 -0700, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >On 3/14/24 9:56 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:58:30 +0100, the following appeared
>> >> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> >> Lodder):
>> >>
>> >>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:39:38 +0100, the following appeared
>> >>>> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> >>>> Lodder):
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On 2024-03-07 22:31:27 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 17:51:40 GMT, the following appeared in
>> >>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by dgb (David)
>> >>>>>>> <david@nomail.afraid.org>:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 at 17:41:02 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 at 09:38:23 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) <david@nomail.afraid.org> Wrote in message:r
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this occur by accident?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden
>_ra
>> >>> tio
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Or by design?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It will never be known.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing to know there,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jan
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> The thing to know, Jan, is that it hasn't all happened by accident!
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> It hasn't happened at all.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> You are, of course, mistaken.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Wrong. Nothing "happened"; the so-called Golden Ratio, like
>> >>>>>>> all mathematical relationships which describe observed
>> >>>>>>> phenomena, is a property of physical
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> mathematical
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> reality, no more. And,
>> >>>>>>> of course, no less.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> You are wasting your breath. Bob is an incurable materialist,
>> >>>>> incapable of abstraction and idealisation,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> Ummm, I didn't say that there are no parts of math which are
>> >>>> abstract, only that all math relationships WHICH DESCRIBE
>> >>>> PHYSICAL PHENOMENA are properties of those phenomena.
>> >>>
>> >>> So the integers are a property of your football scores?
>> >>> "No more, and no less", like you say,
>> >>>
>> >> Overgeneralizations and "football scores" aside...
>> >>
>> >> If I understand you, the mathematical relationships which
>> >> describe observed physical relationships do *not* describe
>> >> those relationships? OK. Maybe the word "properties" is
>> >> what's causing you grief? Or maybe it's the phrase "no more
>> >> and no less; if that's the case consider it removed,
>> >> leaving:
>> >>
>> >> "...the so-called Golden Ratio, like all mathematical
>> >> relationships which describe observed phenomena, is a
>> >> property of physical reality in the sense that it precisely
>> >> describes such physical relationship."
>> >>
>> >> Better? Clumsy, of course, but since hyperbole and/or
>> >> imprecision in general discussion is apparently verboten...
>> >
>> >The golden ratio a/b == (a+b)/a. Observed phenomena may approximate
>> >that number, but the mathematical interest since antiquity has little to
>> >do with that. In mathematics it appears in all kinds of surprising
>> >contexts. Wikipedia presents many of them.
>> >
>> I've seen several of the physical representations; the one I
>> remember best (unless I'm misremembering/conflating
>> unrelated subjects; it's been many decades) involves the
>> chambers in the chambered nautilus. I believe snail shells
>> follow the same pattern.
>
>More muddled thinking on your part.
>But do look it up. You'll find many pictures of nautilus shells,
>and many pictures of logarithmic spirals, but very few
>of nautilus shells with logarithmic spirals superposed.
>(hint, it is only an approximation)
>
>But tp placate your engineering soul: do look up 'nautilus gears'.
>If that doesnt convince you that god is a mathematician
>nothing will,
>
>
No need; you've convinced me that math is irrelevant to
reality, making it the equivalent of navel-gazing.

Have a nice day.
>
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:49:09 +0100, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
>
> >Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:29:51 -0700, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
> >> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> >On 3/14/24 9:56 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:58:30 +0100, the following appeared
> >> >> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >> >> Lodder):
> >> >>
> >> >>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:39:38 +0100, the following appeared
> >> >>>> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >> >>>> Lodder):
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On 2024-03-07 22:31:27 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 17:51:40 GMT, the following appeared in
> >> >>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by dgb (David)
> >> >>>>>>> <david@nomail.afraid.org>:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 at 17:41:02 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder>:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 at 09:38:23 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder>:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) <david@nomail.afraid.org> Wrote in message:r
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this occur by accident?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gol
den
> >_ra
> >> >>> tio
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Or by design?
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> It will never be known.
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing to know there,
> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Jan
> >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>> The thing to know, Jan, is that it hasn't all happened by
> >> >>>>>>>>>>accident!
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> It hasn't happened at all.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> You are, of course, mistaken.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Wrong. Nothing "happened"; the so-called Golden Ratio, like
> >> >>>>>>> all mathematical relationships which describe observed
> >> >>>>>>> phenomena, is a property of physical
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> mathematical
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> reality, no more. And,
> >> >>>>>>> of course, no less.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> You are wasting your breath. Bob is an incurable materialist,
> >> >>>>> incapable of abstraction and idealisation,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>> Ummm, I didn't say that there are no parts of math which are
> >> >>>> abstract, only that all math relationships WHICH DESCRIBE
> >> >>>> PHYSICAL PHENOMENA are properties of those phenomena.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> So the integers are a property of your football scores?
> >> >>> "No more, and no less", like you say,
> >> >>>
> >> >> Overgeneralizations and "football scores" aside...
> >> >>
> >> >> If I understand you, the mathematical relationships which
> >> >> describe observed physical relationships do *not* describe
> >> >> those relationships? OK. Maybe the word "properties" is
> >> >> what's causing you grief? Or maybe it's the phrase "no more
> >> >> and no less; if that's the case consider it removed,
> >> >> leaving:
> >> >>
> >> >> "...the so-called Golden Ratio, like all mathematical
> >> >> relationships which describe observed phenomena, is a
> >> >> property of physical reality in the sense that it precisely
> >> >> describes such physical relationship."
> >> >>
> >> >> Better? Clumsy, of course, but since hyperbole and/or
> >> >> imprecision in general discussion is apparently verboten...
> >> >
> >> >The golden ratio a/b == (a+b)/a. Observed phenomena may approximate
> >> >that number, but the mathematical interest since antiquity has little to
> >> >do with that. In mathematics it appears in all kinds of surprising
> >> >contexts. Wikipedia presents many of them.
> >> >
> >> I've seen several of the physical representations; the one I
> >> remember best (unless I'm misremembering/conflating
> >> unrelated subjects; it's been many decades) involves the
> >> chambers in the chambered nautilus. I believe snail shells
> >> follow the same pattern.
> >
> >More muddled thinking on your part.
> >But do look it up. You'll find many pictures of nautilus shells,
> >and many pictures of logarithmic spirals, but very few
> >of nautilus shells with logarithmic spirals superposed.
> >(hint, it is only an approximation)
> >
> >But tp placate your engineering soul: do look up 'nautilus gears'.
> >If that doesnt convince you that god is a mathematician
> >nothing will,
> >
> >
> No need; you've convinced me that math is irrelevant to
> reality, making it the equivalent of navel-gazing.
>
> Have a nice day.

You'll never get it, I guess.
It is just the other way round:
reality (whatever that may be) is irrelevant to math.

And while I am it it,
it is also quite independent of anyone gazing his navel,

Jan

erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/16/24 1:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:21:00 +0100, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >> Lodder):
> >>
> >>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:58:30 +0100, the following appeared
> >>>> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >>>> Lodder):
> >>>>
> >>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:39:38 +0100, the following appeared
> >>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >>>>>> Lodder):
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 2024-03-07 22:31:27 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 17:51:40 GMT, the following appeared in
> >>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by dgb (David)
> >>>>>>>>> <david@nomail.afraid.org>:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 at 17:41:02 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote
> > :
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 at 09:38:23 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wro
> > te:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) <david@nomail.afraid.org> Wrote in message:r
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this occur by accident?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gol
> > den
> >>> _ra
> >>>>> tio
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or by design?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will never be known.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing to know there,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jan
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The thing to know, Jan, is that it hasn't all happened by accide
> > nt!
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It hasn't happened at all.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You are, of course, mistaken.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Wrong. Nothing "happened"; the so-called Golden Ratio, like
> >>>>>>>>> all mathematical relationships which describe observed
> >>>>>>>>> phenomena, is a property of physical
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> mathematical
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> reality, no more. And,
> >>>>>>>>> of course, no less.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You are wasting your breath. Bob is an incurable materialist,
> >>>>>>> incapable of abstraction and idealisation,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ummm, I didn't say that there are no parts of math which are
> >>>>>> abstract, only that all math relationships WHICH DESCRIBE
> >>>>>> PHYSICAL PHENOMENA are properties of those phenomena.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So the integers are a property of your football scores?
> >>>>> "No more, and no less", like you say,
> >>>>>
> >>>> Overgeneralizations and "football scores" aside...
> >>>>
> >>>> If I understand you, the mathematical relationships which
> >>>> describe observed physical relationships do *not* describe
> >>>> those relationships?
> >>>
> >>> Mathematical relationships are mathematical.
> >>> They have nothing to do with any reality at all.
> >>>
> >> Whatever you say, Jan; math has no relationship, descriptive
> >> or otherwise, to reality. Got it.
> >
> > Good to see that you finally got it.
> > You may move up one level in the cave,
> > and forget about beating the chalk out of those blackboard erasers,
> >
> > Jan
> >
> I just went back and read wigner's excellent essay on"Unreasonable
> Effectiveness of Mathematics", which I'd never read before. I love his
> last paragraph
>
> "Let me end on a more cheerful note. The miracle of the appropriateness
> of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of
> physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We
> should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future
> research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our
> pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches
> of learning."
>
> It's a gift that's tricky. The Lamb shift, the positron were
> "predicted" by the math, but to make the electric and magnetic fields of
> classical electrodynamics symmetrical, we'd need a "magnetron". No such
> beast. Even without that chimera, time advanced potentials as solutions
> are unphysical, but the proposed reasons are uneasy. Particularly
> applying this to quantum electrodynamics has (I think) not yet been
> explained.

Wigner wrote at would I would call a 'Lord Kelvin moment'.
As you know, Kelvin wrote at the end of the 19th century
that all problems in physics had been solved,
except for two 'little black clouds on the horizon'.
And indeed, mathematical physics, to which he had contributed so much,
had been succesful beyond expectations.

The 'small black clouds' on Kelvin's horizon
were tackled almost at once, by Planck and Einstein,
with two major scientific revolutions as a result,
and a whole century of new physics.

Wigner likewise stood at such a high point.
Quantum field theory was being unreasonably succesful,
the extraordinary accuracy to ten decimal places or so
hadn't been foreseen by anyone,
and the remaining problems (weak and strong interactions)
looked like they would be wrapped up soon in the same way.
There were only two small black clouds on the horizon...
(quantum gravity and explaining those dimensionless numbers)

Wigner has been less lucky.
The 'black clouds on his horizon' have expanded to fill the whole sky,
they have only grown blacker, and there is no solution in sight.

So we get plenty of books about 'The Crisis in Physics' instead,

Jan

erik simpson wrote:

> On 3/14/24 3:18 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Burkhard <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>
>>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does this occur by accident?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or by design?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mathematics doesn't occur.
>>>>>> It is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If it didn't occur then it is, and always was. But was it so before the
>>>>> beginning of the universe? or maybe the universe didn't begin, because
>>>>> time and space are not fundamental properties of nature.
>>>
>>>> The universe, whatever it is, or was, or may be
>>>> is irrelevant for mathematics,
>>>
>>>> Jan
>>>
>>> a) yes, I'm back-ish - blame Lawyer Dagget, who put temptation in my path,
>>> and directed me to an interface that I can use without going through the
>>> hassle of signing up with yet another server :o) Though I'm likely to keep
>>> a lower profile than in the past due to work
>>
>> Very good. Very good indeed. Just curious:
>> Is your new toy capable of wrapping lines to a reasonable length?

Tbh, I don't remember how I did it, first post and all. It has some features that look better than Google, but the display needs some getting used to. Let's see how this one works, I just keep on typing and see how it will be displayed after posting.

>>
>>> b) While I'd agree personally, there have been some interesting ideas by
>>> reasonably serious people who've argued that there is a closer connection
>>> than one might think. Most high-profile arguably Eugene Wigner and his
>>> famous paper "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural
>>> Sciences" from 1960. Essentially a mathematics version of the "no miracle"
>>> argument for scientific realism.
>>
>> Yes, I know, but this is hardly news.
>> Plato was already inspired by the unreasonable effectiveness of
>> mathematics. (as he knew it)
>>
>> As for Wigner,
>> I guess he would feel like committing intellectual suicide
>> when seeing the present state of Math and Phys.
>> Could he really bring himself to believe
>> that "uggly theories are good!"?
>> Or that Einstein with his ideas of natural beauty had it all wrong?
>>
>> He might agree that the state of math and string theory is demonstation
>> of the incredible uselessness of mathematics on a truly incredible
>> scale. (worse than ever seen before)
>>
>> We now have 10^500 mathematical theories and universes,
>> give or take a few, and not a single prediction.
>> The argumnt from design can only be beaten down
>> with natural selection of universes and anthropic principles.
>>
>> Is it possible to do worse? I guess that not even Dr Pangloss
>> can comfort us with some good words about it,
>>
>> Jan
>>
> With 10^500 universes, what could go wrong? No matter what craziness
> we could propose, there'd be a universe where it worked. Or my favorite
> Pauliism: that's not even wrong!

On 3/17/24 6:08 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/16/24 1:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:21:00 +0100, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>>>> Lodder):
>>>>
>>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:58:30 +0100, the following appeared
>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>>>>>> Lodder):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:39:38 +0100, the following appeared
>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>>>>>>>> Lodder):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-07 22:31:27 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 17:51:40 GMT, the following appeared in
>>>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by dgb (David)
>>>>>>>>>>> <david@nomail.afraid.org>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 at 17:41:02 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wrote
>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 at 09:38:23 GMT, "J. J. Lodder" <J. J. Lodder> wro
>>> te:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) <david@nomail.afraid.org> Wrote in message:r
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this occur by accident?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gol
>>> den
>>>>> _ra
>>>>>>> tio
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or by design?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will never be known.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing to know there,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing to know, Jan, is that it hasn't all happened by accide
>>> nt!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It hasn't happened at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are, of course, mistaken.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. Nothing "happened"; the so-called Golden Ratio, like
>>>>>>>>>>> all mathematical relationships which describe observed
>>>>>>>>>>> phenomena, is a property of physical
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> mathematical
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> reality, no more. And,
>>>>>>>>>>> of course, no less.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are wasting your breath. Bob is an incurable materialist,
>>>>>>>>> incapable of abstraction and idealisation,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ummm, I didn't say that there are no parts of math which are
>>>>>>>> abstract, only that all math relationships WHICH DESCRIBE
>>>>>>>> PHYSICAL PHENOMENA are properties of those phenomena.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the integers are a property of your football scores?
>>>>>>> "No more, and no less", like you say,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Overgeneralizations and "football scores" aside...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I understand you, the mathematical relationships which
>>>>>> describe observed physical relationships do *not* describe
>>>>>> those relationships?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mathematical relationships are mathematical.
>>>>> They have nothing to do with any reality at all.
>>>>>
>>>> Whatever you say, Jan; math has no relationship, descriptive
>>>> or otherwise, to reality. Got it.
>>>
>>> Good to see that you finally got it.
>>> You may move up one level in the cave,
>>> and forget about beating the chalk out of those blackboard erasers,
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>> I just went back and read wigner's excellent essay on"Unreasonable
>> Effectiveness of Mathematics", which I'd never read before. I love his
>> last paragraph
>>
>> "Let me end on a more cheerful note. The miracle of the appropriateness
>> of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of
>> physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We
>> should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future
>> research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our
>> pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches
>> of learning."
>>
>> It's a gift that's tricky. The Lamb shift, the positron were
>> "predicted" by the math, but to make the electric and magnetic fields of
>> classical electrodynamics symmetrical, we'd need a "magnetron". No such
>> beast. Even without that chimera, time advanced potentials as solutions
>> are unphysical, but the proposed reasons are uneasy. Particularly
>> applying this to quantum electrodynamics has (I think) not yet been
>> explained.
>
> Wigner wrote at would I would call a 'Lord Kelvin moment'.
> As you know, Kelvin wrote at the end of the 19th century
> that all problems in physics had been solved,
> except for two 'little black clouds on the horizon'.
> And indeed, mathematical physics, to which he had contributed so much,
> had been succesful beyond expectations.
>
> The 'small black clouds' on Kelvin's horizon
> were tackled almost at once, by Planck and Einstein,
> with two major scientific revolutions as a result,
> and a whole century of new physics.
>
> Wigner likewise stood at such a high point.
> Quantum field theory was being unreasonably succesful,
> the extraordinary accuracy to ten decimal places or so
> hadn't been foreseen by anyone,
> and the remaining problems (weak and strong interactions)
> looked like they would be wrapped up soon in the same way.
> There were only two small black clouds on the horizon...
> (quantum gravity and explaining those dimensionless numbers)
>
> Wigner has been less lucky.
> The 'black clouds on his horizon' have expanded to fill the whole sky,
> they have only grown blacker, and there is no solution in sight.
>
> So we get plenty of books about 'The Crisis in Physics' instead,
>
> Jan
>
All too true. We've seen the "End of Physics" before, and we've seen
the abyss before. Something always seems to show up that we didn't
expect. It's turtles all the way down.

nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:

> Mathematical relationships are mathematical. They have nothing to do
> with any reality at all.
>

Mathematics is abstract thought. But how can there be abstract thought
if there is no one around to think it?

erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/17/24 6:08 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/16/24 1:49 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:21:00 +0100, the following appeared
> >>>> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >>>> Lodder):
> >>>>
> >>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 13:58:30 +0100, the following appeared
> >>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >>>>>> Lodder):
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 13:39:38 +0100, the following appeared
> >>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >>>>>>>> Lodder):
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-03-07 22:31:27 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 17:51:40 GMT, the following appeared in
> >>>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by dgb (David)
> >>>>>>>>>>> <david@nomail.afraid.org>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 at 17:41:02 GMT, "J. J. Lodder":
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7 Mar 2024 at 09:38:23 GMT, "J. J. Lodder":
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dgb (David) <david@nomail.afraid.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this occur by accident?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go
l > >>> den
> >>>>> _ra
> >>>>>>> tio
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or by design?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It will never be known.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is nothing to know there,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jan
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The thing to know, Jan, is that it hasn't all happened by accid
e > >>> nt!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It hasn't happened at all.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You are, of course, mistaken.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. Nothing "happened"; the so-called Golden Ratio, like
> >>>>>>>>>>> all mathematical relationships which describe observed
> >>>>>>>>>>> phenomena, is a property of physical
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> mathematical
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> reality, no more. And,
> >>>>>>>>>>> of course, no less.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You are wasting your breath. Bob is an incurable materialist,
> >>>>>>>>> incapable of abstraction and idealisation,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ummm, I didn't say that there are no parts of math which are
> >>>>>>>> abstract, only that all math relationships WHICH DESCRIBE
> >>>>>>>> PHYSICAL PHENOMENA are properties of those phenomena.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So the integers are a property of your football scores?
> >>>>>>> "No more, and no less", like you say,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Overgeneralizations and "football scores" aside...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If I understand you, the mathematical relationships which
> >>>>>> describe observed physical relationships do *not* describe
> >>>>>> those relationships?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mathematical relationships are mathematical.
> >>>>> They have nothing to do with any reality at all.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Whatever you say, Jan; math has no relationship, descriptive
> >>>> or otherwise, to reality. Got it.
> >>>
> >>> Good to see that you finally got it.
> >>> You may move up one level in the cave,
> >>> and forget about beating the chalk out of those blackboard erasers,
> >>>
> >>> Jan
> >>>
> >> I just went back and read wigner's excellent essay on"Unreasonable
> >> Effectiveness of Mathematics", which I'd never read before. I love his
> >> last paragraph
> >>
> >> "Let me end on a more cheerful note. The miracle of the appropriateness
> >> of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of
> >> physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We
> >> should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future
> >> research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our
> >> pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches
> >> of learning."
> >>
> >> It's a gift that's tricky. The Lamb shift, the positron were
> >> "predicted" by the math, but to make the electric and magnetic fields of
> >> classical electrodynamics symmetrical, we'd need a "magnetron". No such
> >> beast. Even without that chimera, time advanced potentials as solutions
> >> are unphysical, but the proposed reasons are uneasy. Particularly
> >> applying this to quantum electrodynamics has (I think) not yet been
> >> explained.
> >
> > Wigner wrote at would I would call a 'Lord Kelvin moment'.
> > As you know, Kelvin wrote at the end of the 19th century
> > that all problems in physics had been solved,
> > except for two 'little black clouds on the horizon'.
> > And indeed, mathematical physics, to which he had contributed so much,
> > had been succesful beyond expectations.
> >
> > The 'small black clouds' on Kelvin's horizon
> > were tackled almost at once, by Planck and Einstein,
> > with two major scientific revolutions as a result,
> > and a whole century of new physics.
> >
> > Wigner likewise stood at such a high point.
> > Quantum field theory was being unreasonably succesful,
> > the extraordinary accuracy to ten decimal places or so
> > hadn't been foreseen by anyone,
> > and the remaining problems (weak and strong interactions)
> > looked like they would be wrapped up soon in the same way.
> > There were only two small black clouds on the horizon...
> > (quantum gravity and explaining those dimensionless numbers)
> >
> > Wigner has been less lucky.
> > The 'black clouds on his horizon' have expanded to fill the whole sky,
> > they have only grown blacker, and there is no solution in sight.
> >
> > So we get plenty of books about 'The Crisis in Physics' instead,
> >
> > Jan
> >
> All too true. We've seen the "End of Physics" before, and we've seen
> the abyss before. Something always seems to show up that we didn't
> expect.

Burkhard <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> erik simpson wrote:
>
> > On 3/14/24 3:18 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Burkhard <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Does this occur by accident?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Or by design?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Mathematics doesn't occur.
> >>>>>> It is.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If it didn't occur then it is, and always was. But was it so before the
> >>>>> beginning of the universe? or maybe the universe didn't begin, because
> >>>>> time and space are not fundamental properties of nature.
> >>>
> >>>> The universe, whatever it is, or was, or may be
> >>>> is irrelevant for mathematics,
> >>>
> >>>> Jan
> >>>
> >>> a) yes, I'm back-ish - blame Lawyer Dagget, who put temptation in my path,
> >>> and directed me to an interface that I can use without going through the
> >>> hassle of signing up with yet another server :o) Though I'm likely to keep
> >>> a lower profile than in the past due to work
> >>
> >> Very good. Very good indeed. Just curious:
> >> Is your new toy capable of wrapping lines to a reasonable length?

[rewrapped for clarity]
> Tbh, I don't remember how I did it, first post and all. It has some
> features that look better than Google, but the display needs some getting
> used to. Let's see how this one works, I just keep on typing and see how
> it will be displayed after posting.

It fits on Turing's tape....

Jan

Burkhard wrote:

> erik simpson wrote:

>> On 3/14/24 3:18 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Burkhard <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dgb <david@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does this occur by accident?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or by design?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mathematics doesn't occur.
>>>>>>> It is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it didn't occur then it is, and always was. But was it so before the
>>>>>> beginning of the universe? or maybe the universe didn't begin, because
>>>>>> time and space are not fundamental properties of nature.
>>>>
>>>>> The universe, whatever it is, or was, or may be
>>>>> is irrelevant for mathematics,
>>>>
>>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>> a) yes, I'm back-ish - blame Lawyer Dagget, who put temptation in my path,
>>>> and directed me to an interface that I can use without going through the
>>>> hassle of signing up with yet another server :o) Though I'm likely to keep
>>>> a lower profile than in the past due to work
>>>
>>> Very good. Very good indeed. Just curious:
>>> Is your new toy capable of wrapping lines to a reasonable length?

> Tbh, I don't remember how I did it, first post and all. It has some features that look better than Google, but the display needs some getting used to. Let's see how this one works, I just keep on typing and see how it will be displayed after posting.

OK, so that's not good - looks totally different
before posting, when i forced the first line break
after "some " - so may have to do it manually again,
like this - let's see how this one works

>>>
>>>> b) While I'd agree personally, there have been some interesting ideas by
>>>> reasonably serious people who've argued that there is a closer connection
>>>> than one might think. Most high-profile arguably Eugene Wigner and his
>>>> famous paper "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural
>>>> Sciences" from 1960. Essentially a mathematics version of the "no miracle"
>>>> argument for scientific realism.
>>>
>>> Yes, I know, but this is hardly news.
>>> Plato was already inspired by the unreasonable effectiveness of
>>> mathematics. (as he knew it)
>>>
>>> As for Wigner,
>>> I guess he would feel like committing intellectual suicide
>>> when seeing the present state of Math and Phys.
>>> Could he really bring himself to believe
>>> that "uggly theories are good!"?
>>> Or that Einstein with his ideas of natural beauty had it all wrong?
>>>
>>> He might agree that the state of math and string theory is demonstation
>>> of the incredible uselessness of mathematics on a truly incredible
>>> scale. (worse than ever seen before)
>>>
>>> We now have 10^500 mathematical theories and universes,
>>> give or take a few, and not a single prediction.
>>> The argumnt from design can only be beaten down
>>> with natural selection of universes and anthropic principles.
>>>
>>> Is it possible to do worse? I guess that not even Dr Pangloss
>>> can comfort us with some good words about it,
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>> With 10^500 universes, what could go wrong? No matter what craziness
>> we could propose, there'd be a universe where it worked. Or my favorite
>> Pauliism: that's not even wrong!

Burkhard <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Burkhard wrote:
>
> > erik simpson wrote:
>
> >> On 3/14/24 3:18 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
[-]
> >>> Very good. Very good indeed. Just curious:
> >>> Is your new toy capable of wrapping lines to a reasonable length?
>
> > Tbh, I don't remember how I did it, first post and all. It has some
> > features that look better than Google, but the display needs some
> > getting used to. Let's see how this one works, I just keep on typing and
> > see how it will be displayed after posting.
[hard rewrapped because MacSoup forces that]
>
> OK, so that's not good - looks totally different
> before posting, when i forced the first line break
> after "some " - so may have to do it manually again,
> like this - let's see how this one works

This one is fine.
Do as I do, I have been doing it forever.
My lines are always shorter than 72 chars,
because I always break them manually to about 50.

It makes the whole posting look more structured,

Jan