Infinite number of new Processors interacting
with new Event Sets and hence Experience Sets and hence discovering
Infinite number of "New Laws of Physics", hence Infinite Number of First
Principles ...

From:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=177834Is Reality Physics - Mathematics ?

The
unreasonable precision with which mathematics describes reality has
always puzzled physicists. The reason is most likely because the reality
described is not really a reality and is much more so a Technology: an
invention, mostly a machine, as most of those equations and interactions
and experiments and laws have been furnished by how machines and
devices interact with some kind of detached reality, a reality that is
in essence pretty far away from nature, if with nature you mean the pure
random blind forces operating under nature like inside stars (plasmas),
the forces modeling the earth (earthquakes, mountain formation), the
weather and most of the random natural events that occur like ocean
waves and their exact form and design (can you predict them with
mathematical precision ?). Of course we know and can apply mathematics
to all of such, we know the general forces and such, but the precision
is no longer "unreasonable".

So what scientists do is confuse
technology with nature, confuse a mathematical model and description and
design of technological machines with nature, as if the technology is
nature: but it is not so, technology is a very specifically configured
slab of matter that closely follows and abides to mental, linguistic and
especially mathematical models: what came first the technological
machine and interaction or the mental mathematical model ? Mostly the
other way around, the mental mathematical models influenced what kinds
of contraptions we would design according to clear cut needs and
functions according to how we interact with reality.

SO in
essence, there is no "unreasonable precision" of mathematics to reality,
but only a mostly reasonable precision of mathematics to machines that
interact with reality and confuses us into thinking that they are
reality. Like a particle accelerator: are they simply studying an
engineered device or really studying the laws of physics ?

Matter
is set up so as to express mathematical relationships, so as to
emphasize mathematical relationships. Our mathematical models are more
than anything mostly machines, mental models of machines that are
providing us a function and as such easily lend themselves to models and
especially mathematical models. Since the functions and operations the
machines must provide have been defined and created within a mental
model of reality through language, they already, from the outset have
properties that imply models and eventually mathematical, precision
models, models where you can apply equations and predictions and perfect
them accordingly, but because the function is clearly defined and
clearly delimited by language and the model and then mathematical models
further delimit and perfect them: and then machines are designed and
constructed and experimented within a very controlled and predictable
environment, no free wills opposing their forces to what the machines
must do, no random forces and quirk details messing up models like what
happens in most of real natural systems and not modelized and forced
systems carving their function out of reality, by force.

At what
point does a technology become a science ? at what point do we confuse a
technology with science ? When did computer become "Computer Science"
so to say, and is it a Natural Science ? If so then why isn't the game
of Chess also simply a Natural Science ? and then why not Soccer or
American Football a science ? a real science ? In this respect, we are
not the "View from Nowhere" that science supposes it has, we are always
the view from somewhere, from someplace, from some cultural or
experience reference system, from some language construct, thought
construct and memory organization of knowledge implied by a culture,
civilization, tribe.

The discrepancies: the three body problem
has no analytical solution (no precise solution in mathematical terms),
the differential equations describing mathematical physics have very
rarely precise, closed form analytical solutions, initial conditions
must be imposed but are always iffy, random, not sure and not precise,
non linearities abound, chaotic systems discovered, the butterfly effect
? and mostly look around you, can you give me the equation and precise
solution that determined a given design of a given mountain ? can you
precisely predict the exact shape of the next waveform of an ocean wave ?
can you tell me exactly where the next raindrop will fall ? (but then
again nature operates by simply yes and no and some intermediate state,
it doesn't need precision, it doesn't care about precision, nature is
very approximate, likes to make rough approximations like it will rain
today or it will not, it doesn't even know or have within itself the
precise capability to know, care or even imagine where the exact next
raindrop will fall, it knows it only after the fact, nay, not even after
the fact, not even history is true, nay, it doesn't and will never
know, nothing will ever know, not even knowing itself knows...). These
are all the walls of the reference system science is boxed up in, its
perfect mathematical viewpoint breaks down as soon as you exit its
reference system: in that case only the interaction and measurement and
observation gives you some information, but information that rarely can
be built upon to create a prediction as in : Thought is the Sickness,
Measurements and Observations are the Cure.

When I saw the first
pictures of the neural circuits in brains, I was amazed by how random,
chaotic and non sensical it seemed, since I was used to digital
electronics and Microprocessor Schematics. Now, I know that reality has
no sense or logic, only that which we impose upon it by our thought,
logic and our own schematics.

So, at what point does a technology
become a science ? it is actually Science that is a Technology, in a
very subtle way, and we don't notice it, but Science is a Technology:
and this is what will be important when we start to directly modify our
Mind Brain Design and change the way it works, thinks, its
organizations, its sensations, its experiences and such. We will invent a
new and real Science, a Science much closer to reality and much more
real than anything our Civilization could have even imagined up to
now...

and

"how is the study of the bio considered technology??"

1)
Biology is not even a science, it is based on studying a completely
arbitrary, make believe fluke of a contraption Matter decided to produce
through a completely fake, artificial, make believe process of Natural
Evolution (a fancy way to simply say the Ball of Matter that is the
Earth decided to play with itself and created (nay invented, just
because, because Matter was "bored") Man Brains) with no necessity or
goal in mind, no need for Matter to wake up and make believe that it is
alive, it should have stayed in bed and sleep instead, where its
"Natural" place in the universe is: in other words, Matter and Mass
Energy should just stop fooling around with itself creating contraptions
that become alive and make believe that they are real when they are
total lies and fake and inventions with no value whatsoever (see what
happens when you don't believe in GOD anymore ?). Matter should be
still, dead, should not be conscious or alive, should be blind, a void,
empty, please give us back nothing, good old nothing forever, void,
empty, please kill all possible life in the universe, stop this lie of
Matter pretending to be alive, kill Nature...Thank You. You're Welcome.

2)
The "science" of biology is 100 % based on Intentionalities of Use, of
decisions and models and goals already assigned from the outset and only
according to how it relates to pain/pleasure circuits, to how we can
interact and manipulate matter accordingly, how we can devise new
Information Relationships to achieve our satisfaction and such.

3)
Since Physics and Mathematics (and the corollary logic, language,
thought processes) are all based on reductionism, on precise patterns
revealed, on precise mathematical or logical relationships discovered
(but really invented, in a subtle way), but especially mathematical and
therefore perceived as being so precise, and correct and incredible, and
since from there on all of the other sciences build on top of Physics
and Math and such, scientists conclude that there is something magical
and mysterious in the way mathematics "describes" our state of affairs:
nothing further from the truth, Matter is simply just talking to itself
and making things up and lying to itself and inventing and creating
virtualities (mental models and Intentionalities of Use) and such, all
based on implied mental models and thought models and processes and
therefore language, logic and mathematics, and looking at itself in the
mirror and saying to itself, look how "precise" I am and such. Obviously
this is the case of the Observer also being the Observed, the Processor
also being the Information Item upon which the Processor is operating
upon and such.

But to finally reveal how unprecise science really
is, try to predict the exact next earthquake (and intensity and shape
and such), try to predict the exact shape of the next cloud
(mathematically, in millimeter terms, just like quantum electrodynamics
predicts mass and charge and such of elementary particles, when it is
really just predicting the huge precision of precision instruments set
up to express mathematical relationships from the outset, the precision
is already given since the machines are designed precisely and such),
try to predict the exact shape and form of an ocean wave or the mountain
shape, etc.

But the reason why you don't want to or "need to"
predict the precision of those elements (try to predict the precise
configuration of pebbles on a street and such) is because we don't need
to do anything with it, it is outside of our usage (our function space),
as a function for us to use, we can't do anything with that precision,
hence it becomes irrelevant and not important but especially because we
can't build any machine around that precision, we can't construct any
technology or function around the precision of the exact shape of a
cloud and such. So, as you see the Intentionality of Use creates the
need for a Function and hence for a Machine, a Task, an Operation and
hence the origin of the "Unreasonable Precision of Mathematics in
Describing the World".