What “is” a radio signal-?

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
In this case the mathematics was a "discovery" which also explained why the formula works.
It is cases like this which is the motivation behind Wigner's article and probably an influence on Tegmark.
Yes; Tegmark's idea is that if reality actually is a mathematical structure, rather than just being described by mathematics, a lot of the 'what is it?' conundrums go away. It also means that every mathematical structure is a reality of some sort (though most will be uninteresting). More complex and interesting mathematical structures will contain many simpler structures, so interesting realities will be a multiplicity of mathematical constructions...

But it does imply the 4D 'Parminidean block' universe, where past and future are equally real, and the apparent flow of time is just an artefact of sequential 'observer moments'.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
The case was made that a mind is necessary for mathematics. Since it was around before humans, where or from Whom do you suppose it originated from?
Or are you a) disagreeing that it is a construct of the mind or b) was created by humans?

If the answer to b is yes then you must assume nothing operated according to mathematics before there were humans.
There's a difference between the concept of mathematics, e.g. mathematical descriptions which are human constructs, and mathematics in its own right, e.g. the mathematics of nature, the way things behave and interact. A parabola exists independently of being named or described by an equation.
 
Upvote 0

Dig4truth

Newbie
Aug 23, 2014
563
132
✟38,877.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
I disagree. When you have three stones lying next to each other and another stone rolls from a mountain, you have four stones lying on the ground, even if nobody counts them. If one of those rocks hits another one, the rocks move according to the laws of mechanics, even if nobody calculates them.


You're mistaking cause and effect. The universe doesn't change and produce laws of nature at the same time, the universe changes according to the laws of nature, which are themselves constant. Only some factors of those rules might change over time, and even those changes are because of other, underlying and more permanent principles.


You are equating the laws of mechanics now with mathematics. Mathematics is the abstract conceptual way to describe the laws of mechanics.
 
Upvote 0

Dig4truth

Newbie
Aug 23, 2014
563
132
✟38,877.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
I disagree. When you have three stones lying next to each other and another stone rolls from a mountain, you have four stones lying on the ground, even if nobody counts them. If one of those rocks hits another one, the rocks move according to the laws of mechanics, even if nobody calculates them.


You're mistaking cause and effect. The universe doesn't change and produce laws of nature at the same time, the universe changes according to the laws of nature, which are themselves constant. Only some factors of those rules might change over time, and even those changes are because of other, underlying and more permanent principles.


We know that stones can roll and gather together. However, that is simply the action that the law of mathematics would describe.

Once again you are equating a different concept; the law of nature, with mathematics. Mathematics is the abstract conceptual way in which we describe the laws of nature.

But there could even be another problem with your viewpoint. If the universe changes according to the laws of nature, where or from Whom did those laws come from?
 
Upvote 0

Nithavela

our world is happy and mundane
Apr 14, 2007
27,998
19,441
Comb. Pizza Hut and Taco Bell/Jamaica Avenue.
✟488,914.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
But there could even be another problem with your viewpoint. If the universe changes according to the laws of nature, where or from Whom did those laws come from?
I think I'm getting bored by being presented with the same fallacy time after time.
 
Upvote 0

usexpat97

kewlness
Aug 1, 2012
3,308
1,618
Ecuador
✟76,839.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Sounds like, in order to understand what RF waves are, some people need back up even further and understand what it means to "be".

In scientific terms, if they can be transmitted and received, then they are observable. And therefore that means they "are".
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckpeterson
Upvote 0

chuckpeterson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 19, 2018
546
204
58
texas
✟134,252.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I close this by saying that radio waves, microwaves and the like exist in the fourth dimension, a dimension that exists all around us and yet we can only detect their presence by their movement from one realm to another while we know nothing “of” them.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Take evolution for example. There is a consensus in the academic world that it is true. Should we believe that we evolved from primates because most of academia believes it to be true? Or should we take the Word of God as truth and believe that mankind was created by God fully human? I really would be interested in your answer.

Evolution is established as fact by the evidence and does not "believe" it to be true. One accepts it based on that evidence.
 
Upvote 0

chuckpeterson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 19, 2018
546
204
58
texas
✟134,252.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I close this by saying that radio waves, microwaves and the like exist in the fifth dimension, a dimension that exists all around us and yet we can only detect their presence by their movement from one realm to another while we know nothing “of” them.

post correction: from fourth to fifth dimension
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,509
9,486
✟236,253.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Wow, what a thoughtful and brotherly response. I guess if anyone else has made a typo then they're not worth listening to either? By the way the only credentials I have is the Word of God.
My previous post in this thread was intended to be my last one, but I see you asked me some questions and it would be impolite not to answer them.

You may wish to read what I wrote more carefully. This would help you avoid flawed conclusions. My words were "I tend to doubt the credentials and beliefs of those who note the value of empirical evidence, when they cannot spell empirical."
Please note: "tend to doubt" is not equivalent to "not worth listening to".

I make frequent typos. AV picked me up on one the other day. It was a conventional "there" for "their", or "your" for "you're", or some such. Your error was not of that kind. Unless you speak Castilian Spanish, or have an unusual keyboard configuration, I'm not clear how you could spell 'empirical' as 'emphirical'. However, the possibility that it was an error was why I used the word "tend".

By the way the only credentials I have is the Word of God.
Genuinely excellent credentials for missionary work in Zaire, or pastoral work in Luton, but irrelevant on a science sub-forum.

Actually, consensus IS what a bunch of people believe whether they are informed or not.
Only partly true. The context should have made it clear - and I apologise for not being explicit - that we are talking about a scientific consensus. In a scientific consensus we are not dealing with "a bunch of people", but a group or relevant experts. Further, it has nothing to do with what they believe and everything to do with what they accept, based upon evidence and reasoned argument.

Take evolution for example. There is a consensus in the academic world that it is true. Should we believe that we evolved from primates because most of academia believes it to be true?
That would be a silly thing to do, though doubtless there are many silly people who so believe. What any reasonable person should do is to accept that evolutionary theory currently provides the best evidence supported explanation for the diversity of life on this planet and that no other evidence supported explanation is even visible on the horizon. Not only does practically all of academia take this position, but so too do a majority of Christian denominations. If, as a Christian, you have an issue with that you should take it up with fellow Christians.

Or should we take the Word of God as truth and believe that mankind was created by God fully human?
It is argued by the majority of your fellow Christians that the Word of God does not say that, so as noted above, speak to them about it. If your God exists, then he wrote rather explicitly in the rocks and in our genes that evolution is true. Do you think he was lying?

Ineffective defense from what? I began by asking what evidence you have and from what I gather it is that a bunch of people believe it. Again, consensus does not science make.
On your misunderstanding of a scientific consensus please see above.

But perhaps I have misspelled some other words and that would void my valid points.
Nah! You used spellcheck. It would have been funnier if you had slipped in a couple deliberately. (Can you spot mine?)
 
Upvote 0