The Mathematical Universe

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

Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby DragonFly on June 26th, 2016, 4:39 pm 

If there is no difference, Dave, between the behavior of your virtual matter versus real matter then I'm inclined to say there is no difference, and so no need to have everything going on to be virtual.

Wheeler's "Law of no laws" appeals to what's eternal not being able to have any set direction, making for anything goes, and so it ever went and will.

No beginning, no end, always changing (no stillness), finite (no infinite), no random, no Nothing, actions ever taking time (never instant), energy quality decays but not its quantity, and no First Person. What other 'goes' or no-no's are there?
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2076
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on June 26th, 2016, 5:12 pm 

Hi Hyksos,

Hyksos wrote:Are Physical Laws physical?

No.

(funny, I wanted to stop there.. but I suppose I should explain my answer..lol)

Ok, good question.. but it is a semantic question, like: is water wet?
So again.. I return to Gospers gun to find an answer.

So what do we know?
1. Gospers Gun Exists in a Virtual Boolean Reality.
2. That Reality is based on 4 simple Rules using Voting Logic.
3. The Gun itself Exists in that Reality.
4. By the Rules it can only do what it does and produce an endless stream of Gliders/Photons.
5. By the Geometry of the Gliders, they must Move while morphing through stages. (spin)
6. The Gun is doing work (for free) which is Energy.
7. The Gliders are message carriers by their Timing and Spacing.
8. Physical Laws are an Emergent Property from the 4 Base Rules in that Reality.

So the Physical Law in that Reality mandates the Gun must produce Gliders based on its Geometry and the Gliders must Move/Propagate based on their Geometry.

Thus Physical Laws (Rules) mandates Behavior of Physical Objects (Gliders).

This would seem to define Physical Law as a Function and Physical Objects as Variables.
A Function performs a job on the Variables.
A Function is not the Data itself.

Thus the Gliders are Physical Objects because they can Interact with other Physical Objects.
Thus the Gliders are the Data Variables.
The Physical Laws are Rules and are therefore defined as Functions.

So are Rules equal to what they Rule?

Are Physical Laws Physical?

The first word Physical defines Functions.
The second word Physical defines Objects.

Therefore the question has an English Semantic error of non-equal Classifications.

Physical Laws are not Physical Objects by distinction of their Classification.

So my answer has to be "No".

I have to make a distinction between the Rules and what the Rules can create.

Tough Question Hyksos. (thanks)

Dragonfly.. what is your position exactly? Is our Reality Virtual and devoid of Real Substance or not?

Remember, I started with a Timeless Absolute Void (Nothing) and support Reality is Created by Boolean Algebra and is thus Virtual. What ingredients do you need to make your Model work? I'm betting you can't if you leave out Time like I have!

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3010
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Braininvat on June 26th, 2016, 5:42 pm 

In a timeless pure void, what flips on the logic process that generates spacetime? I have ontological problems with the origination of the math U. It's like the Hindu ancients, with their world sitting on the back of a turtle, and then there's " well, what is that turtle resting on?" One answer is that a quantum fluctuation starts a U, but then you didn't really have an absolute void but rather a virtual particle "soup." What, then, is the soup....potential logic?
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 4837
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby DragonFly on June 26th, 2016, 7:54 pm 

Dave_Oblad » June 26th, 2016, 4:12 pm wrote:Remember, I started with a Timeless Absolute Void (Nothing)…


Then you didn't start with anything at all, since Nothing has no existence, no properties—not anything, so it can't be meant in any way, and so in an odd sort of way in a manner of speaking you have nothing, but not Nothing.
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2076
Joined: 04 Aug 2012
Dave_Oblad liked this post


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on June 26th, 2016, 9:32 pm 

Hi Biv,

Remember that You-Tube Fractal exploration I posted earlier in this thread?
A specific Equation created it. Could it have any other solution than what it has?
Yes.. but only if I change the Equation.
So let's suppose I changed the Equation. Would it change the Solution? Of course it would!
For every change I make.. I get a different solution unique to that specific changed Equation.

So how many different equations can exist? 10? 100? 100,000? Infinite?

Wouldn't each have its own unique solution?
If the Equation was procedural and had a Rule set.. would the same apply?
Meaning if I changed the Rules, wouldn't I get a different Solution?
Would you care to put some limit on the Number of Rules than can be applied?
For any perfect Procedural Equation.. wouldn't it have a perfect Solution?

For all such Procedural Equations with singular perfect Solutions that unfold with the manifestation of Emergent Properties eventually leading to enough complexity for the emergence of self aware Beings..

Do those self aware Beings Exist?

Wouldn't they argue that their Reality is actually Real and ours isn't.. because they Exist there and we Exist here?

The Math reads something like: For a given Initial State and a given set of Rules.. what is the solution?

If such a Solution has an evolving interactive sequence.. then it has Time.. otherwise it is Timeless.

Does Existence rely on an Observer? What does it mean to Exist?

All the Clues point towards us Existing inside a Cellular Automaton. There are no loose ends to explain.
Any other Model that relies on a God or having Real Substance has loose ends.

As Ricky would say: You gots some splaining to do.. Lucy. :)

I state that all possible Mathematically Procedural Universes that can Exist... Do Exist!

Perhaps it's my background in Programming and Computers that allows me to see this that is confusing to non-programmers.

The kickstart that Biv refers to is called Initialization. It is one or more aspects that predefined the initial state of the Data before Functions can play a role.

Ok, I'm getting back to my relaxing weekend.. catch everyone later.

Sorry if this seemed to ramble a bit, I rushed it.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3010
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby DragonFly on June 26th, 2016, 9:53 pm 

The Impossible Recipe

Explaining the Cosmos is as easy as pie:
It’s an endless extravagance beyond the sky,
Which shows that matter’s very readily made—
Underlying energy raising the shades.

This All sounds rather like an ultimate free lunch,
For the basis is already made, with no punch,
It ever being around, as is, never a ‘was’—
Everywhere, in great abundance quite unheard of.


There’s even more of it than can be imagined—
Of lavish big spenders, there in amounts unbounded:
Bubbles of universes within pockets more,
Across all the times and spaces beyond our shore!

What is the birthing source of this tremendous weight?
There is nothing from which to make the causeless cake!
Its nature is undirected, uncooked, unbaked?

There can’t be a choice to that ne’er born nor awaked!

There can’t be turtles on turtles all the way down;
The buck has to stop somewhere in this town.

‘Nothing’ is unproductive—can’t even be meant;
All ever needed is, with nothing on it spent!

Yes, none from nothing, yet something is here, true;
But, really, you can’t have your cake and Edith, too!

And yet I’ve still all of my wedding cake, I do—
It’s just changed form; what ever IS can never go.

Since there’s no point at which to impart direction
The essence would have no limited, specific,
Certain, designed, created, crafted, thought out meaning!

Thus the Great IS is anything and everything!

This All is as useless as Babel’s Library
Of all possible books in all variety!

Yes, and even in our own small aisle we see
Any and every manner of diversity.

The information content of Everything
Would be the same as that of Nothing!

Zero. The bake’s ingredients vary widely,
And so express themselves accordingly.

What’s Everything, detailed? Length, width, depth, 4D—
Your world-line; 5th, all your probable futures;
6th, jump to any; 7th, all Big Bang starts to ends;
8th, all universes’ lines; 9th, jump to any;
10th, the IS of all possible realities.

Your elucidation is quite a piece of cake!
Yo, it exceeds, as well, and so it takes the cake.
Everything ever must be, because ‘nothing’ can’t?
Yes, it’s that existence has no opposite, Kant!

So, we’re here at the mouth of the horn of plenty,
For a free breakfast, lunch, and a dinner party;
Yet many starving are fed up with being unfed.

Alas, for now I have to say, Let Them Eat Cake!
User avatar
DragonFly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2076
Joined: 04 Aug 2012


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby hyksos on June 26th, 2016, 10:47 pm 

Braininvat » June 27th, 2016, 1:42 am wrote:In a timeless pure void, what flips on the logic process that generates spacetime?

I'd like to know myself...

Dave_Oblad » June 27th, 2016, 1:12 am wrote:
8. Physical Laws are an Emergent Property from the 4 Base Rules in that Reality.

But what is the metaphysical nature of the 4 Base Rules? Where do they come from? Do they exist? Are they physical?
User avatar
hyksos
Member
 
Posts: 763
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on June 27th, 2016, 7:51 am 

Hi everyone,

Special thanks to Hyksos for:
http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=30852&view=unread#unread
It's gratifying and interesting that so many others are drawing the same conclusions as myself.

I am a bit frustrated that my answers to some questions aren't clear enough. You can tell if someone understands a concept by the questions that are asked.

I don't want to be redundant in providing the same answer to the same question again and again. So either my answer is not clear enough or folks are trying to fit my answer into their perception of the Universe and become confused when there doesn't seem to be a connection between my answer and the answer they expect.

I was pleased when someone recognized the concept that Pi would be true in all Universes, even ones without circles. So what kick-started the value Pi as being: 3.14159....
The Equation and the Solution have always been True. I don't see a need for a Trigger to make it True.

Boolean Algebra:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra
There must be a name for the branch of mathematics that deals with procedural solutions and iterations. That a type of Equation requires a potentially infinite number of steps in which the stepped results interact with previous results to produce an evolving solution. What is that called anyone? A Cellular Automaton would fall into that classification.

The question of where do the Rules come from is covered by the statement that for all possible Rules a solution will Exist for that set of Rules. I've already stated that for most rules available, the vast majority of solutions will be simple trash. But some Rules can result in a Grand Complex Solution capable of supporting Self Aware Life.

This whole endeavor is a search for the Underlying Mechanics of how a Universe operates. Sure, you can slap a name on a Particle based on its behavior, like the term Quark.. But what makes a Quark do what it does or "Why" it does what it does. That requires a deeper understanding of the underlying Mechanics involved.

A Cellular Automaton may give us the answers we seek. The first person that finds the correct set of Rules that produces all Our Particles and Behaviors in a CA (Cellular Automaton) will get a Nobel Prize for sure.

By now I hope everyone knows that a CA is a Matrix of Cells at the Bottom of Scale. This is a Planck Length description for the Cell Size. It is indivisible (can't be cut in half). But no one seems to acknowledge the possibility that these Cells may not all be the same size. My belief is that the Cells near a Black Hole are smaller than those found out in deep space far from any Matter. The Cell sizes between such form a Gradient. Science may be calling this aspect Curved Space. It's a Scale Gradient in my view.

Not recognizing this aspect and assuming all Cells are the same size creates a problem in understanding how a billion stars can be fit into the remotely observed spatial volume the size of small Moon. In my first post on this Forum I told Don Lincoln that the closer you get to a Black Hole, the smaller you become. He thought I was crazy.. we'll see who was right someday. It's this Cell Size Gradient that is responsible for Gravity.

Another annoyance is when Science says we move through Time at different rates. My hypothesis says that Time Rate is a Constant.

It's bedtime for me now.. I hope to explain the true nature of Time soon. It fits perfectly with the CA but will result in a lot of Cognitive Dissonance from Readers. But I have to try anyway.

Bye for now...

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3010
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Braininvat on June 27th, 2016, 9:20 am 

Hi, Dave. Fascinating stuff, as always. Maybe your idea of time will help explain the initialization process several have asked about. Truth value by itself cannot supply a dynamic process that starts the first iteration, can it? What drives the process of emergence of physical laws from the 4 base rules and what sets the base logic from which any U can emerge? Or maybe that last part of the question is not answerable, beyond that "it is what it is...." :-)
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 4837
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby ronjanec on June 27th, 2016, 11:29 am 

Dave(and everyone),

So at the very beginning of the universe "mathematics", and also what is called by man to be "the mathematical laws of the universe", just began existing with no previous reason or why from theoretically absolutely nothing existing with no possible pre-existing cause of any kind?

This is what you are trying to say Dave? This of course also represents a theory that you have come up with here that ultimately no one can ever actually disprove right? Well ok: But on the other hand, and for the basically the same reason, also a theory about the beginning of the universe that you yourself can ever actually prove with absolute certainty.

And for basically the same reason again Dave: All the other scientific proof that you offer here to support the rest of your theory, may all be originally based on just a bunch of nonsense to begin with.

Sorry Dave, but I'm still not buying your theory. There is way too much uncertainty here at the most important part of your theory for me to change my particular beliefs about this.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on June 27th, 2016, 5:10 pm 

Hi all,

A bit of related humor (a bunch of rocks):
https://xkcd.com/505/
The last frame is most interesting as I'm betting many folks don't get that the Classroom (and the Universe the Classroom is in) owes its Reality/Existence to some guy moving rocks about.

Anyway, the Rules to Create a Universe look a bit like this:
1) If no Cells exist then define a single 4D off Cell to Exist.
2) If a Cell has an exposed side (no neighbor) then define an off Cell to close that side.
3) If any group of Cells centered on (X,Y,Z,T) are all off then activate Cell (X1,Y1,Z1,T1), (X3,Y4,Z2,T1)

Rule (1) kick starts the Procedure and is only true once.
Rule (2) guarantees Growth of the whole.
Rule (3) creates patterns in the Matrix of active (on) Cells.
Also (3) prevents the whole system from becoming blank.
Also (3) is where whole new Universes become possible depending on the rules.
Also (3) follows the idea of: "For all Possible Rules" meaning that all possible Universes Exist.

The last coordinates of Two neighbors (Rule 3) is where there is play in the Neighborhood Rules. Meaning you are not limited by definition to just Two Neighbors for Activation nor the specific coordinates relative to the Center of the Group. If you choose rules that activate based on balanced symmetry then the results will just be a filled in Symmetrical shape. It's the rules that are not symmetrical that creates an off balance and thus a Pattern of Pseudo Chaos. This aspect is necessary if you want Emergent Geometry Patterns to become Possible and yield an almost never ending variety of larger Scale Geometries.

It is completely ok if the Older Geometry becomes stable and static as we are only concerned with the ever growing surface. Also the ever growing outside surface circumvents the Halting Problem. New blank Cells on the exposed surface take on values based on Neighbors as well as Previous Neighbors in 4D. Thus a Cell's status is also dependent on its History and its neighbors History, etc.

This is "Time" and we exist on the 3D Surface that is continuously growing at the rate of New Cells being added to the exposed 3D surface of the whole. It doesn't matter that the Geometry of History becomes a locked pattern, that History Freezes in place. I am describing an Expanding Block Universe. An interesting side effect is that Geometry has a limitation for Lateral Propagation in 3D based on the limited Growth rate of the 4D Surface. This says nothing can move faster than the Growth Rate. This is why the Speed of Light has a limit. If the Universe stopped expanding then Time for us would also stop. Particles and Matter are a 3D propagated Surface Geometry. But that doesn't stop information from moving around in the History aspect of the Matrix. Its propagation Speed is not limited by Growth and is thus nearly (if not) instantaneous. This presents itself as Quantum weirdness and Entanglement.

From this Model we hopefully see that History is archived and Time has real Thickness. That Time itself is actually a true "Distance" promoted by the Growth of the 3D surface we live/exist on. This is why I see Time as a Constant and the idea that we move through Time at different rates is nonsense. The realization that History may still have an active element to it lead me to suggest my thread: "Lost in the Wash". Which can be found in my Blog here as one of many listed. It suggests that your Sister could instantly cease to Exist and you wouldn't know it, as your history gets rewritten too. (I hope not.. but it is an interesting concept)

Ok, I need to get back to work, catch you all later...

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3010
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Syamsu on June 28th, 2016, 11:19 pm 

Maybe you are interested in the most extreme effort of scientists to make mathematics into the theory of everything.

Most theories on mathematics use counting as the basis of math. But counting is already a complex process, and some scientists have simplified this to make a theory of mathematics based on rewriting.

Rewriting is for example when in a computer the electrons in RAM memory are rewritten as pixels on the screen, or rewritten as pits on a dvd.

Applied to mathematics it means the 0 is rewritten as a 1. Thereby we obtain not just the 1 but also the boolean operator. (because the 1 was basically copied from the 0 they have boolean interchangeability) So along these lines the scientists derive all the other numbers, and all the other mathematical operators.

To make this theory of mathematics into the theory of everything (everything in the universe) then requires a few additional rules, the main rule is that of zero totality. The total of the universe can only be zero. As clearly seen in the principle that an action has an equal and opposite reaction. (if the reaction was not equal, or not opposite, the totality would not equal zero)

So if a universe consisting of 00 is chosen, then the response from the universe is 0. And also if a universe consisting of 10 or 01 is chosen to be, then the universe responds with 0 again, because of the boolean nature between the 0 and the 1. But if 11 is chosen, then the universe responds by adding 00, to make the totality 0 again.

In latin, Creatio ex nihilo, and, ex nihilo nihil fit. Creation from nothing and from nothing comes nothing.

This is better explained in Peter Rowlands book How Schroedinger's cat escaped the box. A short book but with well crafted incredibly information dense sentences and paragraphs.
Syamsu
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 28 Jun 2016


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on June 29th, 2016, 7:16 pm 

Hi Syamsu,

Welcome to the Forums.

Syamsu wrote:So if a universe consisting of 00 is chosen, then the response from the universe is 0. And also if a universe consisting of 10 or 01 is chosen to be, then the universe responds with 0 again, because of the boolean nature between the 0 and the 1. But if 11 is chosen, then the universe responds by adding 00, to make the totality 0 again.

When zero is added to anything, it remains unchanged. The operator is "And" to do as you suggest.

The interesting part is that if the Universe is just information, then it is always made of nothing, because information has no tangible existence. Even stranger is that Time doesn't Exist. Time is literally sequence over a Distance. Duration is a by-product of this Distance. In dealing with pure Boolean Logic, Time is meaningless.. just logic sequences count. I tried to express this in a thread called "Instantaneous Time Intervals" which can be found in my Blog List. It's why a quantum measurement has a probabilistic factor.

Think of it this way: Suppose you could figure out a way to make a hole in Space-Time. Even if successful, the hole would seem to disappear instantly. Not just because the hole would get filled back in by the rules of the Universe (Rule(2)) but the hole would become history super fast from our vantage point. Like driving along real fast on a road and shooting a hole into the pavement. By the time you can look to see the hole.. it is already far behind you and all you see is current (new) pavement sans hole. Make sense?

When I try to visualize Matter.. I don't see a 3D model of it. I see the 4D version in which Matter looks more like woven Braided World-Line Geometries with the Braid effect along the expansion axis.

I also mentioned above that History may not be Static, the rules still apply to old Cells and thus can still propagate information. This information may sometimes disrupt the continuity of a World-Line Geometry for Matter. I suspect this disruption (damage) is rapidly repaired by the Rules and History pattern for that damaged World-Line. In other words: Matter has the ability to heal itself, if the damage isn't too great.

If we can create a logic module that travels on the Surface of Reality with us and another that is linked but free to move anywhere we wish, we could instantly explore any part of the Current Surface Universe in a VR Simulation Interface from our Home/Office... Safely. And better yet, we could explore the past by tracing World-Lines and watch any part of History.. anywhere in the Universe.

I strongly suspect that advanced Aliens are using this Technology right now to spy on us.. watch us. Why? They are probably Immortal and bored to death..lol. They are waiting for us to catch up so they can open a two-way Dialog perhaps. It's a pretty neat Universe that Keeps us apart and yet provides a means to instantly communicate over any distance with each other. I call this Quantum TV. Imagine what we could do with it? We might even be able to resurrect long dead relatives into a VR and visit with them. We could watch the life of Jesus and separate Reality from legendary Fiction. Did he really walk on water? We may be able to find out in a few decades from now. Fun stuff...

Ok.. Got to get back to work.. Later...

Best Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3010
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby GaryCGibson on July 20th, 2016, 5:41 pm 

Some scientific fans of atheism are epistemological nihilists and unfamiliar with Bishop Berkeley's Three Dialogues. The points about idea-ism aren't new. Berkeley wrote them in 1713. Plato also described the phenomena in a different way in The Cave section of The Republic.

http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/ ... ey1713.pdf

One can find a quantum basis for ideasim. Even so reality is a reference again to all of human experience perceptually. A mountain may have a foundation in the crust of a planet without negating the validity of its summit appearance. Relativity exists not only in plain matter and motion, it exists in all frames including the psychological. The Universe has time and motion as implicit attributes of matter. Perspectives of change occur within a changing paradigm. An ultimate, epistemological ground of being might occur only within spirit that transcends the relativistic virtual reality that's being and becoming.

I enjoyed reading Tegmark's 'The Mathematical Universe' and recommend it. The search for a quantum unit that is fundamental is abstracted to relationships. One may call those numbers I suppose, with ordered relations. It is no less philosophically interesting to consider pure spirit entailing quanta and ordering all space-time existence within spirit. Tegmark doesn't take that sort of approach. Bootstrapping some sort of way for monism to generate pluralism is easier in the mind-spirit of God context than as one-dimensional monads that appeared or existed forever and generate ordinal expanding series even as numbers that do seem odd.
User avatar
GaryCGibson
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Location: Alaska


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Collin237 on October 19th, 2016, 3:51 pm 

Hi Dave,
Two big problems with your theme:

1. What you show at the beginning of your post is not Pi. Pi is just an idea. What you show is what you get when you put that idea through the Decimal System.

The Decimal System is not an eternal truth. It is entirely a human invention. An alien race might discover the idea of Pi, but not any of its digits. Because digits are not math; they're human language.

2. The physical universe cannot have started from only Truth. In your Absolute Void, Truth is unchallenged. But in the physical universe, Truth has an antagonist, Error.

Error is an entirely non-mathematical concept. Arguably even the ultimate non-math. And without Error, there can be no thought, no mind, no observation. Reality cannot be a cellular automaton.
Collin237
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 18 Oct 2016


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby vivian maxine on October 19th, 2016, 3:55 pm 

Sorry, Dave. That should have gone to another thread. Someone can maybe move it? Thanks
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2617
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Collin237 on October 19th, 2016, 4:06 pm 

Dave gave me a list of his threads and invited me to read them.
Collin237
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 18 Oct 2016


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby vivian maxine on October 19th, 2016, 4:15 pm 

Collin237 » October 19th, 2016, 3:06 pm wrote:Dave gave me a list of his threads and invited me to read them.



You're fine, Collin. It was my mistake. I spotted that phrase and thought "aha", someone who knows a little math. My friend and I've been on this all afternoon and we're getting tired. But we do need to move it to its own thread. Not to worry about it. I'm following your reasoning at the same time.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2617
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Positor on October 19th, 2016, 7:24 pm 

Dave_Oblad » June 30th, 2016, 12:16 am wrote:I also mentioned above that History may not be Static, the rules still apply to old Cells and thus can still propagate information. This information may sometimes disrupt the continuity of a World-Line Geometry for Matter. I suspect this disruption (damage) is rapidly repaired by the Rules and History pattern for that damaged World-Line. In other words: Matter has the ability to heal itself, if the damage isn't too great.

Such 'disruption' and 'repair' sounds like a temporal process. But it would need a second time dimension, orthogonal to 'normal' time – hence 5 dimensions in all. There would be the 'history' of the universe, which would be subject to change, and there would also be a 'meta-history' of the universe, containing a static record of such changes. Or maybe even that would be subject to change, if there were even 'higher' temporal levels (dimensions); but I think there would have to be a 'top', static one – the ultimate record of 'everything'.
Positor
Member
 
Posts: 934
Joined: 05 Feb 2010


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on October 19th, 2016, 7:35 pm 

Hi Collin237,

Dave wrote:Let's take the value PI. It is created by an Equation and in decimal reads 3.141592653589...etc.

I did specify the Ratio as being in decimal notation. But, as pointed out here (or one of the parallel threads) that Pi is Universal, it would be always be true.. even in a Universe that has no circles.

The Universe makes no errors.

Our Math can have errors, due to the Model being employed. That is why Relativity breaks down into a singularity at a Black Hole. The error in that Model is the assumption that the Planck Length is the same everywhere. It isn't. That is what Curved Space is all about. Space doesn't actually curve but rather has a Scale Gradient. Without this Scale Gradient, Gravity wouldn't work.

You can't pack a million Star Masses into a volume the size of our Moon. Atomic interaction can't operate and the math fails. But if the Planck Length is Variable (but not divisible) and Scale is a local Gradient, then one can easily fit a million Star Masses inside a volume that may "Appear" to be Moon sized from far away, but locally, with reduced Scale, the inside is actually larger than the outside (so to speak)..lol.

How can a particle be in many places at the same time? Easy, it has to do with reflections within the Quantum Continuum. A bit like a Fun House Mirror Maze. All reflections are equally real and on the Macro Level, we see the running average. When one of the reflections interacts with something, the clones are collapsed and it takes on the aspect of being the only original. All the clones are connected together via branching pathways through the continuum. Call these World Lines. This is how the Universe knows what needs to be collapsed, by erasing world-line branches that are no longer relevant. Without this mechanism, we would be up to our butts in excess particles super fast.

Collin237 wrote:The physical universe cannot have started from only Truth.

If you actually believe that.. then explain where everything came from?

Don't suggest it is a bouncing Universe. That's just a cheap dodge to avoid answering the Ultimate question of where the material originated from.. for the very first Universe.

Eventually, you will be forced to admit that nothing Material-Wise actually exists. Then we can get started on the true nature of Time..lol.

A Universe composed solely of Information is the only route that makes sense.

And again.. the Universe doesn't make errors.. we do.

Best wishes (I have to get back to work).
Dave :^)

Hi Positor.. I have to get back with you later.. cross posting.
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3010
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Collin237 on October 19th, 2016, 8:09 pm 

If you actually believe that.. then explain where everything came from?


There isn't an explanation. There doesn't have to be.

You're vastly overreaching. There's a level beyond which a theory stops being mere speculation and becomes blind faith, and I think you've crossed it.

A Universe composed solely of Information is the only route that makes sense.


Sorry to break this to you, but Quantum Informatics is just a fad, not real physics.
Collin237
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 18 Oct 2016


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on October 19th, 2016, 10:18 pm 

Hi Collin237,

Collin237 wrote:There isn't an explanation. There doesn't have to be.

Ok, so you have given up understanding the Universe. I get that. Just don't expect everyone else to give up.

Collin237 wrote:Sorry to break this to you, but Quantum Informatics is just a fad, not real physics.

All Theories are Speculation. As long as it explains the Observable Universe, has predictive power etc, the Theory stands in place, at least until it's replaced.. so not over-reaching yet.

Are you trying to say that Quantum Mechanics is a fad? Because that is the processing under-structure for your Quantum Informatics.

I've made a number of predictions over the years, each has eventually proven true.
My next one will be:
The Webb Telescope will have the same initial Fault as the Hubble Telescope. This time it won't be so easy to fix. Maybe the folks designing it have realized their error and corrected the Webb design. Let's hope so.

The flaw is underestimating the curvature of space around our Solar System. It will affect the optics.. a bit like looking outwards from inside a Fish Bowl filled with water. I wrote and warned them about this, but they ignored me. Then they had to go fix the problem and find an excuse to blame their error on. But have they learned anything? We'll see I hope (literally).

But I hope it succeeds because I want some additional confirmations regarding Black Holes.. they aren't Black.. just Deep Deep Red.. Some young smaller Black Holes should still be in the visible range for the Webb.

Kiss the Event Horizon goodbye, when that happens.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3010
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Collin237 on October 20th, 2016, 7:07 am 

You can't depose a theory just by finding a replacement for it. If the current theory explains the universe reasonably well to those who actually study it, and the replacement explains it only to you and your disciples, then the replacement is worthless.

The purpose of speculation is to try to build new extensions of our understanding of reality, not to tear down the hard-earned and well-established results of serious research that that understanding is based on.

People in the crew manufacturing the Hubble mirror knew there were serious problems with the workmanship that went into it, before it was even installed, but they were silenced by greedy and incompetent bureaucrats of the US Government. Yet you find an entirely new and made-up theory of the universe more plausible than just another Government-led manufacturing disaster?

Are you trying to say that Quantum Mechanics is a fad? Because that is the processing under-structure for your Quantum Informatics.


I'm saying that Quantum Mechanics is the genuine research endeavor, and Quantum Informatics is a cheap dishonest rip-off.
Collin237
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 18 Oct 2016


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on October 20th, 2016, 8:20 am 

Hi again,

Collins wrote:You can't depose a theory just by finding a replacement for it.

Let's see:
Flat Earth
Earth Centrist
Newtonian Physics
SR
GR (incomplete)
Quantum Mechanics (incomplete)
Standard Model (incomplete)
The incomplete ones are still standing, waiting to be replaced (or improved).
Science is full of theories that were discarded when something better came along.

As far as the Hubble goes.. do you really think a multi-million dollar telescope failed due to shoddy workmanship?

Ask yourself why it worked perfectly Inside the Solar System but was distorted when viewing Outside the Solar System. Focus is based on parallel light. Jupiter (in focus) should be far away enough that anything beyond should also be in focus. So why wasn't this already discovered with the big telescopes before the Hubble? Errors in the Big Mirror are expected and easily corrected in the final smaller lenses. Not so easy to correct in an orbiting Telescope.

I predicted Void Lensing long ago (inverse of Gravitational lensing). A few years ago, some female grad student proved it. Sorry, I don't remember all the details, but from some relatively current talks, the effect seems to be well known now. On the other hand, I can't find much written about it from a brief Internet Search.

I'll just have to wait and see if the Webb Scope works out of the box, so to speak. It would be amusing if it had the same exact flaw as the Hubble. But I hope it doesn't fail.. for my other reasons regarding Black Holes.

I admit I could be totally wrong.. I just predicted fringe distortion and that became true.. perhaps just a coincidence.

So how do you feel about the concept that if you went into space and picked any random direction and if you could go really super fast (FTL) in a straight line.. that you would always end up back where you started (for every direction)?

Just curious..

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3010
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Braininvat on October 20th, 2016, 10:10 am 

As far as the Hubble goes.. do you really think a multi-million dollar telescope failed due to shoddy workmanship?


Hmm. This rhetorical question seems to make Colin's point rather than yours. History is full of large expensive engineering projects that fail for that reason.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 4837
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
vivian maxineCollin237 liked this post


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby vivian maxine on October 20th, 2016, 10:31 am 

Challenger? Or, no, another name. The one that exploded over the Atlantic.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2617
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Braininvat on October 20th, 2016, 12:49 pm 

Putting solid side panels (instead of open struts and rails) on the Tacoma Narrows bridge when aeroelastic flutter was already well known.

Sealing the Hindenbergh's skin with a flammable resin that incorporated a gunpowder-like substance.

O-rings on a rocket booster that no one bothered to check for low temperature performance, because it's never cold in Florida, right?

Unsheathed trusses that would melt easily in a fire, causing the World Trade Center floors to pancake and initiate a chain reaction.

Open-at-top bulkheads on the Titanic, making containment of a leak impossible.

Massive bad design flaws and workmanship at...Chernobyl.

Hoover Dam and several others facing premature decommissioning or massive patches due to improper selection of reinforcing materials.

....just a few, off the top of my head, without Googling anything.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 4837
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby vivian maxine on October 20th, 2016, 1:05 pm 

And saying "Don't worry, a parked car cannot roll down that hill when it has its emergency brakes on. I know a mother who has a story for you. "It can't happen" is bad science. Right?
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2617
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on October 20th, 2016, 2:57 pm 

Thanks all,

I agree, we can make some pretty big mistakes. I read the failure report on the Hubble. It was inconclusive and blames a probable error on a measuring rod that got (conveniently) misplaced. My interest was more about the reason why the distortion only appears on views outside the Solar System. That was never made clear or addressed.

I made a post called: The Gravity Sphere. That we sit between the Massive Sun and a Massive surrounding debris Cloud beyond Pluto. Gravitational lensing should be affected by both Masses and would seem like natural issues for a super Scope like the Hubble. Naturally, I believe we are very careful about pointing the Hubble near the Sun. But the Cloud around us would seem likely to have Gravitational distortion on remote images too. I was concerned and voiced such but never got a response back.

I still wonder today.. if this is a non-issue or.. did they get caught with their pants down and covered it up by misplacing the blame? Make sense?

If it is a real issue and a conspiracy covered it up.. could this have an impact on the Webb?

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3010
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Scott Mayers on October 21st, 2016, 9:57 pm 

I looked into this thread and it appears to have trailed too far to catch up. So I'll leave a link to one of many discussions I've had on this if anyone's interested:

[u=http://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=18130&start=75]Was Math Invented[/u]

I began late on that thread too but this last page link provides some good clarification on this. You may want to page back to see where I started.

As to Max Tegmark, I agree fundamentally with his work and have even expanded upon some parts of his ideas that I've discovered in depth independently. * In general though, while he covers the historical grounds well, my own means of explaining this are different.

Read the linked or let me know if you're still interested here to understand clearly HOW the universe is "mathematical".



[*Some of it was so precise to my own that I was and still am a bit concerned about certain emails I made discussing this personally with family prior to his publishing. It also was as much as I'd discussed in email beyond my offline details. I sent him my details after reading it and haven't heard back from him. But this is not related directly to the main subject.]
Scott Mayers
Member
 
Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015


PreviousNext

Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests