## The Mathematical Universe

Discussions on the nature of being, existence, reality and knowledge. What is? How do we know?

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

Hi Viv and everyone interested,

I adopted the Cellular Automaton as my Model of the underlying mechanics of the Universe. In this post, when I refer to "Life" I am talking specifically about Conways' "Life" Cellular Automaton Program.

Please study the Gospers Gun Geometry for a moment that I've posted previously. Granted, the Cell Structure is invisible but there are many examples of this Geometry that show the cell structure on YouTube etc.

Now look at the particles being sent out to the bottom Right. Watch them. What makes them migrate to the bottom Right? What controls their speed? Do they have Momentum or Weight?

They move because the 4 rules of their Geometry dictates such.
Their Speed is dictated by Time, of which these use 2 layers of Time. If each layer was computed faster, their speed would increase. Or perhaps it's better to say that the speed of adding the next layer of Time mandates how fast they can move.
No, they do not have Weight or Momentum. They are only made of Binary Information.

What else can we say about them?

First, they must have a new Blank layer of Time to Propagate onto. If they only had 1 layer of Time, they would basically step on their own toes (so to speak). They would scramble their own Geometry. Also, they have very limited freedom, because they are the direct results of a single layer of Previous Time. If the rules allowed for them to be defined by more layers of Time, then the History of each cell would yield more forms of Geometry and thus greater Freedoms.

These Life Gliders are sometimes referred to as Life Photons. You might have heard some Physics folks say that a given Particle must spin twice to present the same face. Does that make more sense when looking at these Life Photon particles?

Another point is made by Don Lincoln (Physicist) that when we isolate particles down into smaller Geometries, that they Lose the properties of Mass. They lose Inertia and Weight. So how does a particle know which way to go and how fast, if they have no real Mass? The answer means they must rely on their History to propagate in the right direction and speed. In order to do this, we must accept that Time has Thickness. How much thickness? No one knows yet, but it must be pretty thick to grant all the freedoms we witness in Speed and Directions of such particles.

We also have to accept that new Blank layers of Time are being continuously added so such particles can have motion without stepping on their own Geometries.

Below, we see the Gospers Gun Model in 3D with Time as layers being added from Top Down:

Static Model of Gospers Gun with Time as Height.

Notice the spokes point out and down? Those are the Glider (photons) being sent out from the Gun Geometry. This is called a Block Model and is the results of what one gets if Time is not Erased. I'll come back to that concept in the next post.

Based on a variation of this Model, we can make a few predictions about our Universe.
1. There exists Scale.
2. Reality would have a stepped quality to all aspects.
3. Motion in any axis would require a change in Geometry.

1. We have an issue that without Scale, the distance between any two points could be infinitely divided. Thus, any two points could have an infinite distance between them, no matter how close they are. And Time is the same.. that two events could have an eternity exist between any two events, no matter how close they are in time. This is the basic Flaw in SR and why Einstein had to revise his thinking and added a Continuum that he called the Space-Time Aether. An Under Structure to avoid the issues just mentioned is required to force Scale and specific relationships between stuff.

2. Tests of Energy and such have indicated a stepped quality to everything. From this stepped quality, the minimum size in distance was defined as the Planck Length and for Time as the Planck Interval. This minimum size is the Grid size I've been promoting.

3. It should be obvious that a stationary piece of Mass would have the most simple Geometry. If one was to push the Geometry, it must accommodate the change in Velocity with a change in Geometry. Since the Geometry is spread over a wide area, the different parts would have a problem keeping up with other parts to maintain a working Geometry. This would have to be accomplished by some parts doing a type of double step to slow down for slower parts to keep up. In other words, there would have to be an increase in the Complexity of the interconnected parts as Velocity Increased. Thus the total cycle of said part (Atom) would have to decrease time wise in frequency relative to velocity traveled at. This is a Dilated Clock. It has nothing to do with Time but rather an increase in complexity. Once a velocity is established and the force applied is removed, the current Geometry keeps it walking at that speed. This is Momentum/Inertia.

I tried to explain this on a post: http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=27559
Note: all of the above can be found in pieces as a list of my posts I have kept in my Blog. Just click View Blog (4) below my Avatar (Picture) in the upper right corner of this post.

Anyway, the Cellular Automaton requires new Space-Time layers be constantly added to the 3D surface of our Reality, thus creating an Expanding Universe. It is Expanding at the Speed of Light or in other words, a new set of layers 186,000 miles thick, every second. This is why nothing can move faster than Light Speed.. because nothing can move faster than the New Space-Time paths being added.

We still have a ways to go.. but I'll stop here and let what I've said have a bit of time to be digested.

Questions are welcome of course. (or debate..lol)

Regards all,
Dave :^)

Resident Member

Posts: 3211
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)
 hyksos liked this post

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

Mathematics does not exist inside space and time. Rather, space and time exist inside of mathematics.

There are several people in this thread who have used verbiage along the lines of "Mathematics could not have preceded existence." (and other variations on this) These people are confused, or they cannot imagine what it means to say that time is not as fundamental as mathematics. Because this topic is philosophy and metaphysics, I cannot claim that these people are wrong. Rather my point is that they don't even appear to understand the argument they are repudiating.

Max Tegmark wrote:
What we have to remember about mathematical structures is that they cannot be created, because they don't exist in some kind of space and time. Rather, space and time exists within some of them.

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1018
Joined: 28 Nov 2014

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

hyksos » Mon Jun 20, 2016 8:43 pm wrote:Mathematics does not exist inside space and time. Rather, space and time exist inside of mathematics.

There are several people in this thread who have used verbiage along the lines of "Mathematics could not have preceded existence." (and other variations on this) These people are confused, or they cannot imagine what it means to say that time is not as fundamental as mathematics. Because this topic is philosophy and metaphysics, I cannot claim that these people are wrong. Rather my point is that they don't even appear to understand the argument they are repudiating.

Max Tegmark wrote:
What we have to remember about mathematical structures is that they cannot be created, because they don't exist in some kind of space and time. Rather, space and time exists within some of them.

I am not confused. I understand the argument. And I personally offer very detailed proof to support my side of the argument. Anything else you feel like just saying here hyksos?
ronjanec
Resident Member

Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

"Mathematics does not exist inside space and time". "Rather, space and time exist inside of mathematics"

1 + 1 = 2 "Mathematics" existing here right? I feel very confident that most physicists would say that "Mathematics" does in fact exist inside space and time at least in this particular example, and not the other way around as is mentioned in the second sentence here.
ronjanec
Resident Member

Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

ronjanec » June 20th, 2016, 8:04 pm wrote:vm,

Any "design" in the beginning...and any subsequent further "design" anywhere else in the the rest of the universe before man himself existed and any intelligent extraterrestrials, would have to represent a supreme being actually being involved here in the "design" Vivian, because all "design" requires an intelligence behind it. This particular theory is actually based on a religious belief, and is also known as "Intelligent Design"

I am not sure who "they" are that you are referring to in your post Vivian, but I doubt "they" meant what you are thinking here: Again, because of the religious connotation of the word "design" in this particular context.

Ronjanec, by "design/pattern", I meant how things form. Look at any flower. Find a definite pattern that repeats over and over in the leaves, stems and petals. The same with minerals. Crystals each have their own patterns. Even the stars seem to arrange themselves in patterns that caused name to be applied to them.

Maybe I should have used "pattern" instead of "design" as you are right in your interpretation. "Design" has another meaning - the one you indicate. There is also a rhythm to things in the universe - rhythm - music - mathematics but I've said too much already.

As for the rest, I surrender. I muddled it. I know what I mean but I don't know how to explain it. Which is why I am glad you are putting it to "paper".
vivian maxine
Resident Member

Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

vm,

Don't feel bad Vivian: This is one of the most difficult subjects that I have ever been involved with here on the forum, and I personally live and breathe discussions about any kind of really difficult ontological subject.

I have tried my best to show, and also believe prove, why I think this particular theory is wrong with at least 3 different comments here in what I believe is very strong opposition to the same, and I honestly cannot think of anything else that I can say in regards to the same theory.

While I have a great deal of respect for Dave Oblad as a person(a good and loyal son who always stuck by his mother through some really terrible times right unto the very end), I unfortunately cannot agree with this theory that Dave is constantly promoting here on the forum.
ronjanec
Resident Member

Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

Dave_Oblad » June 20th, 2016, 4:21 pm wrote:Hi all,

I read the Post by Carlo Rovelli offered by BiV. It was simple to understand and a complete waste of time. It was filled with Semantic sleight of hand, strawman arguments and a lot of pointless space filler....

He basically tries to Prove the Universe is not composed of pure Math by proving the Wrong kind of Math can't create a Universe. Duhhhh.... What a waste of Time.

But if anyone wants to take his side.. I'll be more than happy to demonstrate my point made here.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)

Just curious, not taking that position myself. Really, I wonder if a stronger case is made by switching term from "made of math" to "made of binary logic." Existence flows from logic gates and, in that initial limit, is "mathematic." Hope this makes sense, I fumble with nomenclature here. :-)

Braininvat
Resident Member

Posts: 5667
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

And I am trying to say that maybe they (those who believe the universe is mathematics) have an entirely different meaning than what their writings sound like. No doubt I am oversimplifying.
vivian maxine
Resident Member

Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

From Smolin and Unger:

The willingness to see mathematics, with its core focus on number and on space, as a vehicle of privileged access to fundamental and hidden truths about nature only reinforced the anti-temporal bias.
What we find in mathematics is a peerless body of conceptions of the most general relations among features of the world, robbed, however, of all phenomenal particularity and temporal depth: a lifeless and faceless terracotta army. Mathematics is powerless to suggest how nature can escape any one established order without falling into anarchy, how the rules of nature can change together with the ruled phenomena, and how there could ever be something new in the universe that is not just a ghostlike possible – a pre-reality – waiting to be made actual.

Time, however, we argue, is best regarded as non-emergent, in the sense that it derives from nothing else and thus, as the susceptibility of what is to change, represents the most fundamental aspect of natural reality.

…causal connections, rather than being instances of immutable laws of nature, constitute primitive features of nature.

…that regularities do not antedate the structures manifesting them.

The single, unique universe must contain all of its causes, and there is nothing outside of it. This assertion, together with the reality of time, has a further implication, which is that there are no immutable laws, timeless and external to the universe, which somehow act as if from the outside to cause things to happen inside the universe. Instead, laws of nature must be fully part of the phenomena of nature.

On cosmological scales the universe is unique and laws evolve; so the Newtonian paradigm breaks down. On fundamental scales events are also unique; so the Newtonian paradigm breaks down here also. Events are distinguished by their relational properties and thus must be fundamentally unique: there can be no simple and general laws on the fundamental scale.

Repeatable laws only arise on intermediate scales by coarse graining, which forgets information that makes events unique and allows them to be modeled as simple classes which come in vast numbers of instances. Hence the Newtonian paradigm works only on intermediate scales.

We can also see from this that intermediate-scale physics must be statistical, because similarity arises from neglect of information. It is interesting to wonder whether this might be the origin of quantum uncertainty. That is, the hidden variables needed to complete quantum theory, if we are to explain why individual events take place, must be relational. They must arise in adding the information needed to distinguish each event uniquely from all the others. Note that because the question of distinguishing individual events from others requires a comparison with others, such relational hidden variables must be non-local.

DragonFly
Resident Member

Posts: 2168
Joined: 04 Aug 2012

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

ronjanec » June 17th, 2016, 5:38 pm wrote:"Mathematics" in the very simplest terms is just man observing and studying different facets of the natural world, and man then invents a science that represents his observations about this in a number of different ways;

He observes different quantities of things existing in natural world, and then invents different numbers to give values to the same quantities. He observes patterns that exist in the natural world and then invents logic. He observes and studies shapes, sizes, and angles and invents Geometry etc. etc.

The many different things that man observes and studies in the natural world are not "Mathematics" naturally existing in the physical universe like Dave is implying here: This is again just man observing, discovering, and then studying the natural order of different things, and then inventing a "language" he uses to represent his findings and discoveries about this(the science of Mathematics)

Mathematics is not an empirical science. The way in which homo sapiens came to develop the discipline, and the order in which math is taught to gradeschool children does not reveal the nature of mathematics. Worse, it obscures it. So you can point to how "kids learn math" , and you can point to how "homo sapiens developed the language of math" and you can point at these examples until you are blue in the face. You can repeat them until your face turns purple, and those examples will have absolutely no bearing on the nature of mathematical truth and the way in which mathematics is structured.

Now let me tell you why.

Evidence no. 1. Mathematics is not an empirical discipline. Mathematicians do not prove theorems by looking through microscopes or through collecting data with telescopes. Nor do they prove a theorem by counting things or measuring liters of water. That mathematical truths are independent of empirical data was understood by the Athenian Greeks of antiquity, who only really had geometry, (algebra and calculus developed historically centuries later).

Evidence no. 2. Children are taught mathematics starting from arithmetic. And then they later learn algebra. Does this mean that arithmetic and algebra are the 'basis' foundation of math? No. As was discovered very late in history, (1890s?) the base foundation of math is Set Theory --- not arithmetic, not algebra. Not even geometry.

So mathematics is structured in terms of Set Theory, and it is not an empirical science. Really I'm being completely serious when I tell that it does not matter what mankind did. Any further references to how such-and-such men at some historical time did such-and-such means nothing to this bigger discussion of metaphysics.

The ratio of the radius of a circle to its circumference will be a particular number. Tegmark will remind you : that particular number will be identical in every universe, even ones that don't have humans in them. Worse, PI will be PI even in universes that contain no circles.

Mathematicians regularly and fluidly discuss "structures" that do not exist in our universe, and could not exist in our universe. Here is an example of one of them T = P(Z). This is the power set operator applied to the set of integers. This yields another set T, which is known to be uncountable. This set is considered to "exist" by mathematicians, yet could not possibly correspond to anything in our universe. You might now ask why mathematicians even talk about things like this! The answer is that they all already understand that mathematics is not an empirical science. This is well-understood by all participants.

(parenthetical caveat : The word "exist" as used in math textbooks should not be taken at face value. When mathematicians say "X exists" they either mean "X is a member of the set" or "X is well-defined and coherent". The phrase "well defined" will itself be very rigorous in some contexts, and more subjective in other contexts. In a rigorous context, "well defined" neatly segregates Sets from Classes. )

( read more : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_%28set_theory%29 )

The only really big mystery here? Why does the more we learn and discover about the natural order of things through Mathematics and the other sciences many times astound us with the way everything seems to work so well in the physical universe?

This metaphysical debate has come up before in history, and already has names. Dave_Oblad appears to be adopting a position roughly referred to as Mathematical Platonism. You can find big name mathematicians throughout history who fall into this category and some who don't. The opposing position to Platonism is usually stated in some variation of ,

"Mathematics is a language invented by humans to communicate ideas".

I don't know if this sentiment already has a name in professional philosophy. My first guess is that it might be called Nominalism.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-mathematics/

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1018
Joined: 28 Nov 2014

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

hyksos,

"The ratio of the radius of a circle to its circumference will be a particular number": I actually did plan to talk about this(Pi) in one of my earlier posts, but I guess I started to talk about something else and never got around to it. Despite this, I can still use this as still another example of what I am trying to say here, and again then show you and others where you are going wrong here;

The word "ratio" here basically represents a comparison between two things: You, Tegmark, Dave, and anyone else who believes this theory, need to realize that all comparisons of any kind made in the universe are exclusive to an intelligent observer existing in the universe, and can only exist in the universe where and when man himself exists(or are observer dependent);

"This ratio existing must represent mathematics naturally existing in the universe!" No it doesn't: This "ratio", or again comparison, was never a naturally occurring existence in the , and then "evidence" of mathematics actually existing independent of man in the universe, and neither is what is then called and calculated to be "Pi" from this ratio.

The problem some of you are having here is your inability to think "outside the box": Or in essence, actually seperate that which exists naturally in the universe from that which is exclusively observer dependent.

"Mathematical truth" exists naturally in the universe"? Here you go again. All "truth" existing in the universe, or an absolutely correct observation about objective reality, can only exist where/because an intelligent observer himself exists, and is of course not then naturally occurring.

In a universe without man existing to \$crew things up with his foolishness, why would there be any need for naturally occurring "truth" in the universe? There would only be cold hard reality.
Last edited by ronjanec on June 21st, 2016, 6:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ronjanec
Resident Member

Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

A reality that doesn't have to express a priori truths about sets, logic, numbers, ratios? Your thesis would seem to allow realms of metaphysical anarchy, so I think you have some burden to demonstrate your cold hard reality could be such, Ron.

I appreciate Hyksos illuminating the distance between nominalism and platonism, which I alluded to earlier. One must confront the a priori nature of pi in any universe, regardless of whether it has circles or not.

Braininvat
Resident Member

Posts: 5667
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

Hi Ron,

Very passionate post, but still invalid for the most part. The Universe existed long before Humans came on the scene. The fact that Clocks run slower the faster they move, has always been True in this Universe since Matter appeared. It took us a million years to evolve to the point where we discovered this natural law. We didn't make it up. It didn't become True just because we figured it out.

I'll accept the label of Mathematical Platonist but one must recognize that Math has a wide variety of Fields. I can't create a Universe using Axioms or Geometry or Numbers. But I can create a Universe using Boolean Algebra. Computers use Boolean Logic for their operation. Computer languages use Boolean Math to do almost any chore. 3D Video games use this power to give us Virtual Realities to play inside of and explore.

By definition, a Mathematical Reality is a Virtual Reality. There is no substance in such a Reality, just Relationships and Time (and even Time can be stopped by hitting the pause button..lol).

As pointed out, (Bivs' link) a Block of Marble has the potential to be any statue an artist may want to create from it. All possible statues pre-exist in that block. The same can be said for Boolean Algebra. It is like a block of marble and all potential Universes are contained within. Now a given Artist or Programmer may manipulate such to produce a specific design, but you can't get something from it that didn't pre-exist in the potential form.

The Math allows us to discover a statement that automatically finds all possible forms in that potential. Each solution is a unique and specific Statue or Virtual Reality. There are an infinite number of specific solutions that would represent all possible Virtual Realities. Some of which would have enough complexity to form Intelligent Life, just like (or actually is) our own home Universe.

To defeat this argument, you must prove that Boolean Math can not create a Virtual Reality.

But the preponderance of 3D Video games would suffice as proof that it can. So next one might argue that all Video games are man-made. This ignores the simple fact that a Boolean expression can combine and define all possible potentials. It can realize all possible statues from a single block of Marble. And in some solutions, every statue ever created by man would be a subset.. of which an intelligent person would claim it had to be designed by an intelligent person. Well.. the person is not represented, just an automated process is there, and it's not necessarily Intelligent.

Again, it doesn't have to be complex at the bottom. Look at the Life program.. seriously! Within its 4 simple rules, we find the ability to compute, to be a Turing Complete. To manifest self replicating Geometries. Imagine what a thousand rules in 10 dimensions could accomplish? There is no arbitrary limits that can be placed. For every clearly defined set of rules.. a solution must Exist. And that is where we truly find the definition of what it means to Exist.

Embedded witnesses are a bonus but unnecessary to Existence.

Regards,
Dave :^)

Resident Member

Posts: 3211
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

I can say at this juncture is this following item: Mathematical platonism is a position that claims that cold hard reality is itself a mathematical structure.

None of us are denying the existence of observers. None of us are denying the existence of thoughts in the mind of observers. Such things can exist right alongside mathematical structures that also exist physically as particular universes. There is no contradiction in saying that our universe is a particular mathematical structure, and that humans have thoughts in their minds. Apparently ronjanec falsely thinks we are adopting a position like

"The number 2 exists as a physical object outside of human heads but inside this universe."

We are explicitly not claiming this. Remember that Tegmark emphasized that a mathematical structure does not exist in "some space and time". So clearly that is not what we any of us are claiming. Rather Platonism is claiming that the universe is some particular type of structure, and not another one. The other point that kind of got lost in the thread. The structure which is our universe does not 'tick through time'. Rather the universe is all layed out from beginning to end as a static and timeless 'shape'. The ticking of time from past to future is only perceived by entities inside the structure.

I'm probably using the wrong verbiage now. This may not be "traditional" Platonism of the Greek man named Plato, but may be called something different today. Is it modal realism ? Not sure. Maybe it is Ontic Structural Realism (??)

[O]ur science comes closest to comprehending ‘the real’, not in its account of ‘substances’ and their kinds, but in its account of the ‘Forms’ which phenomena ‘imitate’ (for ‘Forms’ read ‘theoretical structures’, for ‘imitate’, ‘are represented by’). (1989, 57).

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/struc ... tStrReaOSR

Roughly 5 years ago, I very fiercely rejected Tegmark's ideas. But I did so on instrumentalist grounds. There are also a bunch of other more interesting attacks on Tegmark, which we might get into in more detail depending on people's interest in this thread.

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1018
Joined: 28 Nov 2014

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

Hi all,

Hyksos has a good handle on all this. But I'd like to add another observation:

Hyksos wrote:The structure which is our universe does not 'tick through time'. Rather the universe is all layed out from beginning to end as a static and timeless 'shape'. The ticking of time from past to future is only perceived by entities inside the structure.

What is being described here is the Block Model of the Universe. It is like Pi in the sense that the whole value exists simultaneously from an external point of view. Our Universe would also appear this way.. to an external point of view. In my 2nd post here I stated: "All Universes are simultaneous and instantaneous to each other." But I believe in an expanding Block Model. This is an internal viewpoint. It comes from the intuition that the Universe happens/evolves in a specific sequence. You can't jump to the end. To reach the end, one must pass through all the in-between steps. Therefore, for an Entity within, that Conscious moment in Time is the current leading edge of Temporal Creation. Meaning that from right NOW.. Tomorrow doesn't Exist yet.

Granted, due to absolute Causality, the whole future is predestined and can't be changed, but that subject has already be heavily explored on other threads. I list one such in my Blog.

Anyway, the statement that "All potential Universes that can Exist.. Do Exist." leads some folks to question the possibility that somewhere a Universe exists that started in the middle. Meaning everyone suddenly became aware of their existence with no knowledge of having any past. I would have to say these can't exist.. because such a complex Universe is composed of emergent properties, which manifest themselves in the stages of the evolution of such a place. Without Sequence, you can't have Emergent Properties and without that, you can't have a complex Universe.

Probably Hyksos can explain this better than myself.

But later I will bring up the true nature of Time.. and I think it's important to understand the distinction between a Static Block Universe and an Expanding Block Universe. Both are true, but are from different observation points (inside and outside). Since there is no such thing as an outside point of view, such a view is a hypothetical vantage point just for the purpose of understanding the whole. Max Tegmark calls this the Frog and Bird point of view.

Regards,
Dave :^)

Resident Member

Posts: 3211
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

Biv,

"A reality that doesn't have to express a priori truths about sets, logic, numbers, ratios?"

Again, physical conditions and properties exist in many different ways in the universe: After discovering any particular physical condition or property existing somewhere in the universe, man will usually come up with a mathematical representation for the same, sometimes using sets, logic, numbers, ratios, and other forms of mathematical expression. Many times, man's mathematical representation accurately represents and describes physical reality here, and sometimes it doesn't.

"Reality" is not the actual problem here Biv: The problem here is again sometimes with man's mathematics: Which again, do not always correspond with, or accurately describe reality: Or in this particular context, does not always accurately describe the exact physical conditions and properties here.

"sets, "logic", "numbers", "ratios", do not actually attempt to conform with "truth"(or "mathematical truth" in this particular context) naturally existing "a priori" in the universe Biv: They, and all other mathematical representation, actually attempt to conform, and accurately describe reality. Or again, and in this particular context, the exact physical conditions and properties naturally occurring here.

"Truth"(or what is called "mathematical truth" in this particular context), has no naturally occurring objective existence anywhere in the universe, and only begins to exist in the universe when man uses the same word to describe the accuracy of any of his observations.
ronjanec
Resident Member

Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

The only really big mystery here? Why does the more we learn and discover about the natural order of things through Mathematics and the other sciences many times astound us with the way everything seems to work so well in the physical universe?

I can think of a couple of options here: God designed all of this for us originally

So tell me ronjanec -- if mathematics is not real, then how or why do real objects conform to laws which are mathematical?

Do the laws (which don't exist) sneak into reality on a temporary basis to inform the "cold hard reality" objects on how to behave?

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1018
Joined: 28 Nov 2014

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

I wonder if we have a semantic gridlock here. To me, "math universe" does not mean the universe is literally composed of the mathematical operations I learned in school, but rather that the basic structure of the universe has a mathematical nature or quality of regularity, that is inherent in the structure regardless of the attention of a sentient creature.

Ron, you say,

"Many times, man's mathematical representation accurately represents and describes physical reality here, and sometimes it doesn't.?"

Well, when the math is badly done, it's discarded. The fact is, math is extremely effective in describing the universe and its many processes. It's not just one among multiple possible languages, it is the ONLY one that does what it does. Sometimes plain English can represent some processes quite well, but only when English is able to convey an understanding of mathematical structures and regularities. We can say that the moon and Earth attract each other, but there's nothing like Gm1m2/r2 to really pin down how much they attract. Gravitation is, in some sense, a geometric structure of our reality.

Braininvat
Resident Member

Posts: 5667
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
 vivian maxine liked this post

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

braininvat wrote:I wonder if we have a semantic gridlock here. To me, "math universe" does not mean the universe is literally composed of the mathematical operations I learned in school, but rather that the basic structure of the universe has a mathematical nature or quality of regularity, that is inherent in the structure regardless of the attention of a sentient creature.

Thank you, Biv. That is what I've been trying to say. - that 'quality of regularity'. We see it everywhere. You hit the nail on the head.
vivian maxine
Resident Member

Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

hyksos » Wed Jun 22, 2016 10:55 am wrote:
The only really big mystery here? Why does the more we learn and discover about the natural order of things through Mathematics and the other sciences many times astound us with the way everything seems to work so well in the physical universe?

I can think of a couple of options here: God designed all of this for us originally

So tell me ronjanec -- if mathematics is not real, then how or why do real objects conform to laws which are mathematical?

Do the laws (which don't exist) sneak into reality on a temporary basis to inform the "cold hard reality" objects on how to behave?

Hyksos and everyone,

This is not my personal theory, and I have spent a lot of time and effort trying to provide a personal "just off the cuff" possible counter to it, and in the same process, have also tried to answer people's extremely difficult questions challenging my again "just off the cuff" personal argument against this. I just wanted to mention that this not something that I have been actually working on for years, and have a ready answer for any conceivable question that anyone can come up here.

Now Hyksos just asked me an excellent question here that actually involves something that philosophers and scientists have been trying to figure out for thousand of years: "What exactly exists in the universe as the physical and mathematical laws of the universe?" And even more important: "Why do they even exist in the first place?"

How about if you take a turn answering some questions Hyksos, starting with the two questions that I just mentioned here(that are of course directly related to your original question to me), and we will continue on from there?
ronjanec
Resident Member

Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

Braininvat » Wed Jun 22, 2016 11:20 am wrote:I wonder if we have a semantic gridlock here. To me, "math universe" does not mean the universe is literally composed of the mathematical operations I learned in school, but rather that the basic structure of the universe has a mathematical nature or quality of regularity, that is inherent in the structure regardless of the attention of a sentient creature.

Ron, you say,

"Many times, man's mathematical representation accurately represents and describes physical reality here, and sometimes it doesn't.?"

Well, when the math is badly done, it's discarded. The fact is, math is extremely effective in describing the universe and its many processes. It's not just one among multiple possible languages, it is the ONLY one that does what it does. Sometimes plain English can represent some processes quite well, but only when English is able to convey an understanding of mathematical structures and regularities. We can say that the moon and Earth attract each other, but there's nothing like Gm1m2/r2 to really pin down how much they attract. Gravitation is, in some sense, a geometric structure of our reality.

If it is in fact true "that the basic structure of the universe has a mathematical nature or quality of regularity, that is inherent in the structure regardless of the attention of a sentient creature", one again has to wonder how this all came to be?

Order/regularity, patterns existing, Formal logic, and very intricate structure all apparently showing many aspects of intricate design, and even a number of mathematical laws all existing before any intelligence theoretically could have existed in a "dumb as a box of rocks" universe?

This theory about "mathematics", is starting to sound a lot like just another argument for "Intelligent Design"?
ronjanec
Resident Member

Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

Hi Ron,

Ron wrote:This theory about "mathematics", is starting to sound a lot like just another argument for "Intelligent Design"?

I'm not going to dismiss the possibility of Intelligent Design.. I can debate equally as well on that side of a debate. But I will point out the obvious.. The vast vast vast vast majority of Alternate Virtual Universes will be junk.. no chance of life.. no self aware observers.

But if all possible Universes that can Mathematically Exist.. do in fact.. Exist.. then any that have self aware Beings will naturally be in awe of the complexity required for their Existence and thus many will assume an Intelligent Designer is required.

As already stated, a computer following a simple expression could try every combination of atoms being present or absent in a block of Virtual Marble. Thus, while virtually all patterns are junk, some will be there that are identical to every statue man has ever sculpted or will ever sculpt. Would one such perfect solution be proof of Intelligent Design or a simple Algorithm?

If I already haven't made this clear.. The Universe is basically simple at the Quantum Levels. It behaves like a computer that is computing its own Existence based on a few simple rules. Each Cell in the Conway Cellular Automaton acts like a single piece of logic, a gate (or Neuron in my opinion).. by itself a single Cell is wholly unimpressive.. but collectively.. pretty darn impressive computing power indeed!

Best Regards,
Dave :^)

Resident Member

Posts: 3211
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

Dave_Oblad » Thu Jun 23, 2016 1:56 pm wrote:Hi Ron,

Ron wrote:This theory about "mathematics", is starting to sound a lot like just another argument for "Intelligent Design"?

I'm not going to dismiss the possibility of Intelligent Design.. I can debate equally as well on that side of a debate. But I will point out the obvious.. The vast vast vast vast majority of Alternate Virtual Universes will be junk.. no chance of life.. no self aware observers.

But if all possible Universes that can Mathematically Exist.. do in fact.. Exist.. then any that have self aware Beings will naturally be in awe of the complexity required for their Existence and thus many will assume an Intelligent Designer is required.

As already stated, a computer following a simple expression could try every combination of atoms being present or absent in a block of Virtual Marble. Thus, while virtually all patterns are junk, some will be there that are identical to every statue man has ever sculpted or will ever sculpt. Would one such perfect solution be proof of Intelligent Design or a simple Algorithm?

If I already haven't made this clear.. The Universe is basically simple at the Quantum Levels. It behaves like a computer that is computing its own Existence based on a few simple rules. Each Cell in the Conway Cellular Automaton acts like a single piece of logic, a gate (or Neuron in my opinion).. by itself a single Cell is wholly unimpressive.. but collectively.. pretty darn impressive computing power indeed!

Best Regards,
Dave :^)

"I'm not going to dismiss the possibility of Intelligent Design" What!!! I thought you were an athiest Dave? You're saying you actually believe in the possibility that the reason for all this mathematics existing in the universe was that God designed it this way? Have you changed your mind about this recently?

If so Hallelujah! And I want you to know that all of us believers really welcome you to the faith just like in this video that comes to mind here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f68TdgErXkE
ronjanec
Resident Member

Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

Hi Ron,

Not an Atheist nor a follower of any specific Religion.

I simply recognize the potential that the computing power of the Universe may have an Emergent Property of Self Awareness. I called it a Cosmic Mind. It would be a by-product of the Universe and not the Creator. To what extent it has in interacting with all the Beings that exist in this Reality is subject to pure guesswork. I doubt it would grant prayers or take sides. Every prayer/wish granted could result in someone else's misery. Perhaps someday we may be able to open a line of communication and find all the answers we all want.. but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the answers are not those we want to hear.

Anyway, we should leave any form of God on the table in this thread. It was intended to explore the aspect of what it means to Exist and how such Existence could come about from Nothing.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)

Resident Member

Posts: 3211
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

Dave, aren't your cells, neurons, and grid actualities that follow some math and rules?

Isn't math about something, rather than it being the something?

DragonFly
Resident Member

Posts: 2168
Joined: 04 Aug 2012
 vivian maxine, ronjanec liked this post

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

DragonFly » Thu Jun 23, 2016 9:32 pm wrote:Dave, aren't your cells, neurons, and grid actualities that follow some math and rules?

Isn't math about something, rather than it being the something?

Very well put DragonFly!
ronjanec
Resident Member

Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

Hi all,

Dragonfly wrote:Isn't math about something, rather than it being the something?

Who says both options can't be true simultaneously? Why are they exclusive?

Remember the Glider Photons in Conways' Automaton? Do they Exist or don't they? Anybody playing with that Math will find them as they are very primitive Geometries. Did they only come into Existence because we played with the Math and found them? Or.. have they always been a part of that kind of Math? Are they a natural feature of that Math? If so, what are they made of? If one declares they are made of relational Binary Information, then isn't that a branch of Math? Wouldn't that make them Mathematical Objects with an easily recognized Geometry?

We didn't invent/create them or declare their Existence by choice. We discovered them.. as being an Emergent Property of those specific 4 rules as applied to a 2D grid.

Regards,
Dave :^)

Resident Member

Posts: 3211
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

ronjanec » June 23rd, 2016, 4:23 pm wrote:
Dave_Oblad » Thu Jun 23, 2016 1:56 pm wrote:Hi Ron,

Ron wrote:This theory about "mathematics", is starting to sound a lot like just another argument for "Intelligent Design"?

"I'm not going to dismiss the possibility of Intelligent Design" What!!! I thought you were an athiest Dave? You're saying you actually believe in the possibility that the reason for all this mathematics existing in the universe was that God designed it this way? Have you changed your mind about this recently?

If so Hallelujah! And I want you to know that all of us believers really welcome you to the faith just like in this video that comes to mind here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f68TdgErXkE

Ron, can you not name something in science (or anywhere else) that you simply do not believe but, at the same time, you cannot furnish a replacement that you firmly believe instead? You simply keep an open mind that says "I do not believe that but I'll leave it open until proven one way or another"? I have never yet met up with a religious theory that can be either proven or dis-proven, although zen may come close. My disbelief does not require that I believe something else instead. It only requires that I keep an open mind about what I do not believe. I do not believe some of the things Einstein said but I keep an open mind about those things untii someone proves or disproves.

On the other hand --- Dave, I think it was you who mentioned Falth in regard to religion. I am sure you will agree that there is about as much faith - blind faith in my opinion - in science as their is in religion. A great idea is postulated - one that we want to believe - and we immediately grasp it and hold tight. A great scientific thinker comes along. We put him on a pedestal and, from then on out, he can do no wrong. Blind faith.

Two sides of the same coin. But then we have to have faith in something, don't we? Scientists have not yet explained how the Big Bang burst forth. Divine creator or ?????

Have a good day.
vivian maxine
Resident Member

Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

Hi Vivian and everyone,

Mathematics is a pure science and one would not believe the amount of rigorous effort that goes into forming "Proofs" etc.

But that does not negate the aspect that it can be biased by Human Preference. Even Einstein was guilty as he wanted a static constant Universe and ignored (sort of) a bit of Math that fell out of his research. Later, when faced with proof the Universe isn't constant (Hubble) he was forced back to his original formulations. He admitted it was one of his greatest mistakes to force his bias into the Math:
http://www.space.com/9593-einstein-biggest-blunder-turns.html

Science, like Religion, invests a lot in being right about something. Credibility plays a huge role in both. But dogmatism eventually has to give way to newly revealed truths. If a single person were to take a stand against Canon Beliefs, be it Science or Religion, they can be kicked out.. blackballed.. declared a heretic. Disallowed to have a voice basically. This is only human.

I put more faith in Science than Religion because it can and does change based on enough proof and Logic. I am such a Heretic, because I see where Science has maintained a bias and I try to expose certain aspects that logically can't be true. Once such (fact?) is that Energy can not be Created, only changed. This is a cornerstone to much of Science. This belief leads us to the conclusion that all the Energy(potential Matter) that currently exists in the Universe has always been here from the first moment of Time. The Big Bang is a consequence of reverse engineering of the Expanding Universe.. that everything existed in a super condensed form from the very start. I call this Rubbish.

The Big Bang "WAS" the Creation of Energy from Nothing (in my opinion). This is getting Something from Nothing. How does one defend that position? You are reading such right now. In a Mathematical Universe, the only ingredient is Information. And Information can be Created. It can Create itself. Again, notice those Glider Photons in Conways' Automaton? The Geometry in the upper left is performing the act of constantly Creating particles without suffering any loss.

For a long time Space (vacuum) was considered a featureless Void and totally empty. Then the idea of an Aether came into play.. a Fabric instead of emptiness. Then the Aether became suspect when we discovered we couldn't measure our speed through it via the Michelson/Morley experiment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

This (along with the concept that Light is made of Particles and not just a wave in the Aether) doomed the Aether for a long time. This lead Einstein to his Special Relativity formulations. An attempt to eliminate the Aether and support the M&M experiment. But.. SR failed to provide certain requirements as Einstein delved deeper into the Physics of Matter. Einstein was forced to put the Aether back into place but called it Space-Time instead, the term Aether then being a taboo word. This was General Relativity and it contained an explanation for why M&M failed. The mechanics of the Universe hides our velocity through it from measurement.

But even to this day, one can be labeled a Heretic if one suggests that Space-Time (GR) is actually an Aether Theory. Which is obviously is...

Which now brings me to my point that the Space-Time Aether is the underlying Fabric on which Energy, Matter and Fields are supported. That such have no Material Existence but are relationships and Informational Geometry. That at no level of reductionism will we ever find a real substance.

So what is the Fabric of Space-Time made of itself? In my opinion, it is also just made of Formatted Information. That format being a Cellular Automaton. Why this particular format? Because we need Scale and forced Scale is needed for compatibility in the relationships of the Informational Geometry. Without this forced Scale, there would be no Limit on the Speed of Light and real issues in the relationships between Virtual Particles (all particles are Virtual because they Exist only in a Mathematical sense). This Fabric Format provides real coordinates that allow Virtual Matter to (know?) react to its Velocity and adjust its Geometry accordingly, else there could be no Universe here that supports Atomic's and Chemistry.

Next post I'll try to get back to what Time truly is (again my deduced opinion) and why Science has some aspects of this interpreted backwards.

Later..

Best wishes,
Dave :^)

Resident Member

Posts: 3211
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Blog: View Blog (2)

### Re: The Mathematical Universe

Are Physical Laws physical?

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1018
Joined: 28 Nov 2014

PreviousNext