The Mathematical Universe

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

Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on October 22nd, 2016, 6:33 am 

Hi Scott,

Welcome to the Forums.

I believe I covered this in the OP of this thread. (first posting)

But my basic stance is:

We can create Art, Music, Stories, Dance, Language etc, because those are unnatural aspects of Existence. Math, on the other hand, is rigid and absolute. You can't create (invent) Math. You can only Discover it in small steps. We may invent a system of symbols to represent it that is unique to our species, but it will translate directly to Alien symbols because Math is Universal.

Note: There are a wide variety of Mathematical Fields, so I don't support the Existence of the Universe based on Numbers.. but rather a kind of Boolean Logic and Geometry. A Cellular Automaton fits the bill rather nicely, and there are many, many, variations of such.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3191
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Scott Mayers on October 22nd, 2016, 4:12 pm 

Thank you, I thought that I'd already signed up a while back. I had, but did not realize I had not yet posted at this forum. So, hello.

I'm in agreement to a point. I gave a link to a means to prove THAT math/numbers, as well as logic, PROPER, is 'discovered'. But I also treat reality as a whole to be based on that because "laws" themselves of anything, require a justification to require "consistency" implicit in the meaning of laws.

I differ in that it necessarily requires no "law" provider....no "God" or gods, because even assuming consistency independent of nothing at all, implies something that demands OBEDIENCE to those laws. As such, logic requires beginning by assuming absolute nothing, not even laws.
Scott Mayers
Member
 
Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on October 22nd, 2016, 5:06 pm 

Hi Scott,

Scott wrote:As such, logic requires beginning by assuming absolute nothing, not even laws.

And that is the flaw. Logic and Math are absolute Truths that would always exist in all possible Universes. My position is that you can't eliminate such Truths. They stand alone and are not a product of anything. But their existence provides the foundation for all Realities based on them.

Just like the Decimal Notation for Pi is an absolute number, a Solution to an Equation, we are exactly the same in as far as we are also the Solution of such an Equation. Albeit, far more complex than Pi. Does the Millionth digit of Pi exist? Of course it does and we know exactly what it is. Well.. We Exist for exactly the same reason.

But again, our Equation is not connected to numbers.. but to Boolean Logic and Emergent Geometry of such. There is no arbitrary limit to the number of such Equations and Seeds. Thus, for every absolute Equation that defines a Universe, that Universe Exists, just as readily as the Millionth digit of Pi actually Exists.

To say that an Absolute Timeless Void would potentially exist without Math and Logic is just a stance of Semantics. The Truths of Math and Logic can't be wished away.

Best Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3191
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Scott Mayers on October 23rd, 2016, 10:32 am 

Hi Dave,

This is maybe what you might interpret similar to "laws" themselves. I don't disagree that logic/math come 'next', following absolute nothingness. But let me try to expand on this.

Given anything, even some 'law', implies "consistency". Most logic originates by assuming (1) The "law" of Uniqueness, (2) The "law" of non-Contradiction, and (3) The "law" of exclusive middle.

For (1), this means that to any given concept at minimal, given any X, it is itself. This is our bias of living beings who can reflect upon reality and our origins. We cannot seem to make sense of reality if we at least do not assume ourselves must beg that something "STAYS THE SAME as it is" is some property of reality. This IS "consistency" [con- (with), -sis (same), -tense (time) or -stance (state/position)].

Law (2), just expands on this by treating (1) as 'negated'. If some X is not X at the same time, state, or position, this confuses us because we DEFAULT to "consistency". The first error though is to recognize that reality DOES have factors in it that "differ". In fact, you cannot actually HAVE any meaning to "consistency" without being able to contrast this to that which "differs", "denies", or "contrasts" from some other "X" to be in opposition to itself. For example, our biological imperative is to PERSIST [per- (for each), -sis (sameness), -t (state)]. That is, we default to what is similar to the first law of Newton: that to whatever state OR momentum we are in, it persists unless something 'other' affects that state from without. As to humans, this means that we 'obey' this law based on what we understand is the same as Newton's first law.

The question that should be made even about our life though, is that how do WE 'become' even conscious without some prior such FORCE that alters our momentum to remain non-existent. Of course we later learn that we DO have some prior justification of momentum that cause our consciousness: our parents and the natural chemistry/biology of reality. But these things cannot be "closed" if we keep going back through time. It suggests either we are born from some prior infinite state. But GIVEN even an infinite set of possible states going back, this also has to include nothing itself as one such 'possibility' unless all of Totality demands some bias to the 'freedom' of something about itself.

Some have simply defaulted to placing some "god" as that role. But since you could still place an infinite set of assumptions rational or not to some origin, it stands to reason that we are simply biased BY perspective as a mere part of reality as a whole that we are unable to determine locally.

In general, beginning in anything, even if minimized to "law" absolutely, suggests that what follows enables something somewhere to 'break it' which creates an absolute "contradiction", breaking the second law that is supposed to have followed from the first.

As such, the only most COMPLETE and CLOSED state of origin has to be one that originates WITHOUT "law" because even if "laws" derive following it, there is NO LAW prior to it to prevent laws themselves to exist. That is, even if afterwards the origin of being absolutely nothing becomes absolutely something, which seems "contradictory", "contradiction" as a form of taboo, is NOT a law that requires pre-existent in a reality OF laws that are not yet 'true'.

Totality can then be understood as beginning in Absolute Nothing and then 'split' into worlds that have "law" distinct and mixed with a part of totality that lacks them. This makes sense because given any 'truth', there are an infinite ways we can interpret what is NOT TRUE "somewhere else". So originally, to define reality from OUR perspective of thinking consistency is 'true', taking '0' to represent nothing and '1' or '00'(infinity), to represent as least something and everything,

0 = 0 & 1,

as an origin. Then this 'splits' to an infinite set of worlds (contingently) that have those that are still "0" and others that are "1 = not 0" or "1 ≠ 0".

This is the ORIGIN of "law" and thus logic. The nature of CONTRADICTION is actually the FORCE of all contingent worlds. Oddly, any consistent world, because it cannot maintain itself without containing inconsistencies, is not an actual complete or closed reality. It 'competes' to TRY to BE "consistent" but is resisted by the nature of it to DERIVE from absolute nothing.

That is, to remain perfectly "consistent", as I pointed out above, CANNOT even mean anything without the being forced to change that state...that Newton's Second law addresses.

NO God necessary AND would even just beg its own contradictions unless we simply use such a word to mean nothing itself.
Scott Mayers
Member
 
Posts: 326
Joined: 04 Aug 2015


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby GaryCGibson on October 26th, 2016, 7:46 pm 

About the first virtual particle...virtual particles so far as i know are flexes of the non-locality positions of quanta such as electrons. So there needs to be a primary particle or field for the appearance of a virtual particle.

Ideas taken apart from matter- that is spirit- just wouldn't be matter or energy or even a virtual particle. Math is an idea-even if it were taken as having some kind of Platonic reality.

I gave some thought to dimensions and wonder if even a theoretical first virtual particle without a primary source could have existed without a dimensions. Empty space would need to have dimensions or pwerhaps none at all and not exist either.

A Math Universe could exist in the context of a kernal presentation from an Omniscient Spirit. Yet what could sustain the idea othewise, if it must be something other than what the apparent Universe of energy-mass is?

Maybe the first dimension coincided with a first idea from God. I like the theological dimensions of the line of conjecture, for I think it easy to make categorical errors about what is required for anything to exist or not in the basic Universe before expansion or inflation.

This is a quote from a short story I wrote named Pt. Omni- (its about dimensions and their origin)

She said; “I have started thinking about dimensions from first principles John. One may make a square out of a circle by creating four ninety degree angles in it. So if one imagines a sphere changing its shape so that it has four corners to it achieved perhaps by stretching it at fixed points, compare that with a figure analogous to a volume of space with three dimensions.
What are dimensions really? String theorists speculate about extra dimensions with some of unequal sizes as if they could be bound or compounded with a meta-dimensional power. If one regards dimensions as fulfilled space for example, in a three-dimensional sphere representing space as field lines crossing it in three directions, then changing the perimeter surface shape of the sphere or square may change or warp the field lines, dimensions and relations within. If those were dimensions they also would be changing relationships of composition.
What though are dimensions made of? Are they discrete, composite vectors such as a light beam that is made of photon quanta yet comprise a light wave in quantity? Are dimensions made of fundamental particles that when assembled have a vector or arrow of direction that is time?
Physicists say that the Universe is in principle time reversible (although improbable because of reversing entropy and force field desiderata). The relationships of various forces, fundamental forces of the Universe, may also be time reversible though improbable. Dimensions, whatever they are made of, may have some force about them perhaps as a field, possibly neutral yet binding on to other dimensions with some principle maybe governed or determined by the meta-field wherein they exist.
If God were to change the surface shape of the Universe from a cube to a sphere altering thereby the structures of dimensions, energy and mass within a Universe, it is conceivable that a 13.3 billion year evolution or expansions from time = 0 at a big bang could be completed in 13.3 seconds or fewer in a time forward or time reverse process. If dimensions and mass contents of time are subject to an overall field strength determined by God, the form and content of any given Universe might be instantly determined from hydrogen atoms to stars, galaxies, life, black holes and information phenomena experienced within a Universe with sentient beings."
User avatar
GaryCGibson
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 32
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Location: Alaska


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby someguy1 on March 16th, 2017, 8:53 pm 

Dave_Oblad » June 15th, 2016, 9:35 pm wrote:If we go back to Pi (3.14159...etc) we may notice something.. it has sequence. If you were a smart observant Number located in that string of numbers then you might notice that there are other numbers that preceded you and followed you. In those that follow, the string of numbers may extend to an infinite length (the Future) but if looking towards the beginning, it had a definitive beginning as the Number 3. So for that little simple Universe of Pi, the sequence had a beginning and thus Time (from its perspective) had a beginning, even if it has no end in the other direction (future).

That same would apply to any Equation that produces a growing Sequence. It had a first state or beginning. Time is Sequence.


* Intro

Hi Dave,

Over in that other thread you invited people to comment on the contents of this post.

I don't have any special insight into the ultimate nature of the universe (I think it's turtles all the way down) but this paragraph fairly jumped out at me as requiring a bit of mathematical perspective so I typed this somewhat long post. It could be shorter. I said the same couple of things in several different ways.

You said you're busy so it's not necessary for you to reply and either agree or disagree. I have no dog in this fight. If you're ultimately right about the universe more power to you. I'll be surprised but as I said in the other thread, Tegmark's all wrong. But he's Max Tegmark and I'm not so there's that.

By the way do you know William Lane Craig's kalam cosmological argument? You're as wrong as he is and for exactly the same reason. You think times flows like the natural numbers in their usual order, one discrete chunk after another with a beginning and no end. There's no evidence for that. It's one of many possible mathematical models of time but not necessarily the right one.

Having said that I'll just give you my mathematical thoughts. If anything I say sounds dogmatic or argumentative that's just how I typed it out. My intent is to document my points of disagreement with your claim that just because we can define a thing called the decimal expansion of pi, that sequences are necessarily the right model of time.


* tl;dr version

Math isn't physics.

The fact that mathematicians use the idea of infnite sequences to represent the decimal expression of a real numbers doesn't tell us anything about time, which is a phenomenon of the real world. Nothing in math necessarily applies to the real world; although many things in math do.

Secondly, it is not logically necessary to define a decimal expression as a sequence. We could reorder the natural numbers and it would make no difference in how we represent pi. For example reverse usual order, ...,-2,-1,0. Now you see "time" never had a beginning, and it arrives at the present moment. And of course you could continue it forever too. Use the evens and odds but reverse the evens:

..., -6, -4, -2, 0, 1, 3, 5, 7, ...

Isn't that cool? Mathematicans know a lot about the concept of order and how to reorder the natural numbers in interesting ways. These kinds of examples are perfectly standard in math and the theory of orderings is extremely well studied.

There's no reason to think any of this has anything to do with the nature of time. And it turns out that decimal representations don't depend on order either. So your thesis is wrong philosophically and also mathematically.

And something about your idea is contradictory. If the world is a discrete sequence of events or instants, what are real numbers? Even if I grant you all the real numbers that can be cranked out by algorithms, most real numbers lie outside the realm of computation. You can't be a discretist and also believe in the real numbers, even if you can sort of believe in pi.

Ok here are my comments, and like I say you don't necessarily need to respond if you're busy or agree or disagree. It won't change what I know about math and it won't change the universe.

* Comments on your paragraph

Dave_Oblad » June 15th, 2016, 9:35 pm wrote:If we go back to Pi (3.14159...etc) we may notice something.. it has sequence.


Mathematically what is true is that the decimal expansion of pi is normally defined as a particular sequence, but it doesn't necessarily have to be defined that way. It's incorrect to say that a decimal expression "has sequence" because that implies that being a sequence is necessary to the nature of a decimal expression. But that is not true.

If x is a real number then it is a theorem that x possesses something called a "decimal expansion" that is a sequence of digits. Now a "sequence" is defined as simply a function from the counting numbers 1, 2, 3, ... to the set of digits 0 throgh 9.

For simplicity let's just talk about what's to the right of the decimal point. So let's talk about pi - 3 = .14159...

If the function for pi-3 is called f, then f(1) = 1, f(2) = 4, f(3) = 1, f(4) = 5, and so forth.

Point being that a decimal expression is DEFINED as a particular sequence. So it doesn't "have" sequence, it's just a mathematical object that happens to be defined as a sequence.

But we could define it differently and it would make no difference.

Consider the reverse order ω*, sometimes denoted *ω, where that's the Greek lower case omega. This is the reverse of the usual order of the naturals. It goes "..., -4, -3, -2, -1, 0". It's the exact same set of numbers, though ordered differently. Whenever "n < m" in the usual order, we just write "m <* n" in our reverse order.

Now we could just as well define decimal expressions based on the reverse order. We'd probably have to adjust a few things but no fundamental math would change.

What would happen if someone asks us for, say, the digit corresponding to 1 million? We just look up f(1 million) and that's the millionth digit!

The digits of pi don't depend on being a sequence. If you "mixed up" the digits by putting them in a completely different order, it woudn't matter a bit as long as we have the function f.

Conclusion: A decimal expression does happen to be a sequence, but it doesn't have to be. We could define it differently and nothing in math would change.


Dave_Oblad » June 15th, 2016, 9:35 pm wrote:If you were a smart observant Number located in that string of numbers then you might notice that there are other numbers that preceded you and followed you.


Of course you are anthropomorphising numbers. Which perhaps is a bit of a mystical intuitionistic point of view, even if unintended. You mean to make a joke or a light-hearted metaphor, but I think perhaps you should question your hidden assumptions. Such as, that numbers possess a subjective experience of the numbers nearby in some order. Or do you believe they do? You said somewhere that every gene has a copy of the universal quantum computer program, and if you believe that then I have no way to know what you might think about numbers.

Psychology aside, we already debunked that point. If I tell the schoolkids to line up by height today and by last name tomorrow, it's still the same set of kids. What if we reorder the natural numbers by the rule: "Evens before Odds!" Then we get the order

0, 2, 4, 6, ..., 1, 3, 5, 7, ...

This order type is called ω + ω. It's a copy of the natural numbers followed by another copy of the natural numbers. Now we've split up those adjoining kids who were always one-upping each other with "I'm one more than yoooou" Yet the decimal expression is exactly the same as long as I have the function f. A decimal expression is completely determined by any function from the natural numbers to the digits and is independent of the order we place on the natural numbers.

Dave_Oblad » June 15th, 2016, 9:35 pm wrote:In those that follow, the string of numbers may extend to an infinite length (the Future)


Can you tell me, by the way, why you happen to believe that the way decimal representations are defined, is necessarily a model of time in the real world? Have you evidence? It's true that we have a mathematical function from the natural numbers to the digits. But that's only because we have a set of natural numbers. And THAT is only because we assume something called the axiom of infinity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_infinity

The axiom of infinity is an ARBITRARY ASSUMPTION that gets modern set theory and the entire theory of the real numbers off the ground. And it does happen to be logically consistent to deny it. But as far as what we know of the physical world, it's doubtful. You can wave your arms about infinite multiverses or whatever but no physicist can demonstrate an instance of an actual infinity in the world. In math, sure we use it every day. As a purely abstract game. We assume there are infinite sets and derive the consequences, one of which is the fact that a real number has an infinite decimal expression.

But the fact that we can create a formal, symbolic set of rules and then define decimal expressions, while being very cool math, has nothing at all to do with time. Math isn't physics. The fact that we can do a particular formal derivation in math tells us nothing about the world we live in.

You have too much real-world faith in math and not enough appreciation for the nature of its abstraction.


Dave_Oblad » June 15th, 2016, 9:35 pm wrote:but if looking towards the beginning,


Again we've debunked that line of thinking. In ω* there is no beginning and we could describe the exact same decimal expansions as functions on ω*. It would result in the exact same theory, we'd just write decimals right-to-left.

Dave_Oblad » June 15th, 2016, 9:35 pm wrote:it had a definitive beginning as the Number 3.


In math 3 doesn't exist "before 4" or something. Everything is a set. All the elements of a set exist at once. That's a point of confusion in our modern age of computers. When a programmer writes a For loop, they think of it as iterating in time. And of course it is. It's a description of a computational process that takes place in time and space, on physical hardward that someone made in a factory. When you add 1 + 1 in a computer a chip engineer can tell you how exactly much heat was produced.

But in math, the terms of a summation exist all at once. It's not a process or the steps of an algorithm. All the terms exist at once, and so does their sum.

There is no time in math, although people can certainly use math to model abstract time. What actual time is, nobody knows. Do you think time itself is correctly modeled by the natural numbers in their usual order? As a discrete sequence of instants with a beginning and no end?

What is the evidence for that claim?

You really just have no argument here. In fact a contradictory one since I gather you thnk the world is a quantum computer. Now it's been proven that although quantum computers give you huge speedups in some special cases (integer factoring being the most striking example to date), it is still true that a quantum computer can NOT compute anything that a conventional computer can't. Quantum TMs and conventional TMs compute exactly the same set of functions.

You may well believe in pi, because pi is computable. We can program a computer to crank out as many digits as we want, limited only by computational resources. But most real numbers are not computable, and your real number line is shot full of holes and is in no way a sensible model of the continuum.

In short if you believe the world is a computer, you can't possibly believe that time is modeled by the standard real numbers (*). These are mutually inconsistent beliefs.

(*) I mean standard reals as opposed to the intuitionist reals or the constructivist reals or the hyperreals or one of the many other possible conceptual models of the continuum.

[NOTE -- Are you arguing that time is modeled by the usual sequence of natural numbers 1, 2, 3, ...? Or that there's a real number line with pi on it somewhere? Are the real numbers a model of time too? I'm unclear on your position here. If the world is a discrete sequence of instants, what is pi? And even if pi is an algorithm, what about all the other real numbers that aren't algorithms?]

Dave_Oblad » June 15th, 2016, 9:35 pm wrote:So for that little simple Universe of Pi, the sequence had a beginning and thus Time (from its perspective) had a beginning, even if it has no end in the other direction (future).


Not only aren't the standard real numbers OR the usual sequence of naturals necessarily correct models of time; but as we note, the digits of pi could be reordered any way we like and it wouldn't matter. Thinking of them as a sequence is convenience. And of course "infinite sequences" are just mathematical fictions based on the manifestly absurd claim that there is an infinite set of natural numbers. Of course there is in our minds, but you sure can't point to one in the real world. And till you do, please keep infinitary math separate from any philosophizing about what might or might not be true of the world.




Dave_Oblad » June 15th, 2016, 9:35 pm wrote:That same would apply to any Equation that produces a growing Sequence. It had a first state or beginning.


That right there is a conflation of two different things. There are sequences, and there are equations. Now by equations I'm sure you mean formulas. Algorithms that crank out numbers. All very cool. But there are only countably many Turing machines, and uncountably many sequences of digits. That's Cantor's diagonal argument. Or the Halting problem if you had the misfortone to study CS. (Haha just kidding. Or not ...). So you are confusing the real numbers with the computable real numbers, and that is a philosophical error, because those two models of the reals are very very different.





Of course that does not logically follow at all from the fact that mathematicians can write down the rules of formal set theory and then logically define something called the "decimal representation of the real number pi". It's purely a formal exercise. It depends on the axiom of infinity, without which it can't even be expressed(*), let alone proved.

(*) I'm not sure about that. Finitists (people who don't believe in infinite sets) do attempt to create a theory of the real numbers, but I don't know anything about it. They can't have been too successful else I'd have heard about it.

* Conclusion

The math of the real numbers says nothing at all about the true nature of time or the universe. And the order properties of the natural numbers are not necessary to the definition of a decimal expansion.


Well I hope some of this is helpful to your thinking.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 494
Joined: 08 Nov 2013
Braininvat liked this post


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Braininvat on March 16th, 2017, 10:36 pm 

Well it helped this reader. So much so that I'm bookmarking this. Certainly helps me articulate my sense of the ontological distance between math and reality.

Point being that a decimal expression is DEFINED as a particular sequence. So it doesn't "have" sequence, it's just a mathematical object that happens to be defined as a sequence. 



No one has properly explained this to me before. Wow. Thank you.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 5506
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on March 17th, 2017, 12:52 am 

Hi someguy1,

Good post, but you are committing a Fallacy of Literal Analogy.

For example: The Analogy of pasting Galaxies on a Balloon and inflating said Balloon to watch how the Galaxies all move away from each other to demonstrate the Expansion of the Universe.

Some guy watching this Demo may point out how ridiculous such a Demo is because:
1. The Universe is NOT made of Rubber.
2. The Universe has no hole in the side to blow air into it.
3. Everyone knows that Real Space is a Vacuum not Air.

Thus some guy has completely missed the purpose of the Analogy and has taken such too literally and has failed to understand the purpose of said Analogy.

Now I could have used a simple bit of math like 10/3 = 3.3333333333333. But the Analogy is not as good as using Pi. Why? There is no simple Math expression that can Produce the value Pi.

To produce Pi, we employ an Algorithm that adds a series of fractions. An Algorithm is a procedure that loops and repeats. On the FIRST pass we get a "3" (not a 2 and not a 4 or any other number) just "3".
Then the next loop we get a "1".
Then the next loop we get a "4".
Then the next loop we get a "1".
Then the next loop we get a "5".
etc.

Your next argument would probably be yes.. but... those are Decimal Numbers and Pi is not restricted to represent its solution to said Algorithm in Decimal Format only. It could use base 2 or base 8 or base 16 etc.

And finally some guy might point out that this is just a series of numbers that say's nothing about Time. "Time is Not Numbers!!!" and everyone must agree to this statement!

So my point is that:
1. Pi can only have a First Digit on the First Pass of a looping Algorithm.
2. Said First Digit will be followed by a specific determined sequence of Digits.
3. Each Digit that follows is not Random and yet.. no pattern can be seen.
4. No digit can be skipped (can't start in the middle).
5. The Sequence may extend to any number of digits or be a never ending Sequence.

So by Analogy to Our Universe I'm saying:
1. Time had a Beginning.
2. That beginning was followed by a sequence of determined Events.
3. Randomness doesn't exist, even if no pattern can be discerned.
4. Each event leads to the next event in a causal chain, no skipping.
5. The Universe had a Start but may never end.

So my friend, you have completely missed the Purpose of such an Analogy.

Next, as you have pointed out, Math is not restricted to Numbers.

For example the Pythagorean Theorem is about Geometry and Ratios.

Algorithms are a procedure that sequentially produce a Solution by a Series of Steps.
An Algorithm can not produce a Random Solution.
In fact.. no Math can produce true Randomness in any form.

An algorithm has no arbitrary limit set on Complexity of a Solution.
A Solution can be a multi-dimensional Geometry.

Still further:
The Solution can contain Elements that interact with each other.
As the solution progresses, interaction between elements can produce a chain of interactive results that can be seen as growing levels of complexity with emergent patterns.

Such a growing (never ending) Geometrical solution could have enough emergent interactive patterns to define Particles with interactions between them.

Each Emergent Particle is interactive with other Emergent Particle Geometries.

And on and on.. up the Scale with sill further emergent combined geometries that have the properties of Quarks and such.. up to Atoms and Chemistry and Life and self aware Life.

For each different set of Rules applied, a different solution will be the result.

Some Solutions will contain some guy, who is self aware, that can't believe his Existence has been Mathematically Created and that his Existence is embedded deep inside the Solution of a Specific Algorithm.

The interactions between all the tiny Patterns way down in Scale from his perceptions, means that some guy will state his Universe must be Real.. because he can Touch, See, Feel and Interact with his Reality.

His Universe must be made of something Real and Solid and not just Math.. because Math is just about Numbers.

So if I could know the Exact variables or Rules to said Algorithm and had a really huge super fast computer to run the Algorithm on.. then about 14 billion years into the Solution I might pin-point a Location inside the 4D Geometry.. of a Planet called Earth by its locals.. and on further zooming in.. may pin-point some guy going about his life, writing posts on his personal computer, explaining why his Existence is NOT a Mathematical Creation.

The whole embodiment of these Ideas is far more complex than shown above, but perhaps I have made my point clear enough?

There are an Infinite Number of possible Algorithms and Rule Sets. Each one defines a specific Solution that is totally as deterministic as Pi, but far more complex. Any self aware being that Exists in one of those solutions is lucky, because most Solutions are pure Garbage.

So what would it be like to Exist inside such a Solution? Just take a look around yourself.

So some guy may ask: Where is this super computer that is computing my existence. The answer is the whole Universe is the Computer.. Computing its own Existence, and you are part of that computation.

We exist for the same reason the solution to Pi exists, and you exist for the same exact reason the 5th digit of Pi exists.

The next statement from some guy might be that we invented the Solution for Computing Pi.

Did we invent it or... discover it?

Did we invent the Wheel or discover the Wheel.

Hasn't the Properties of a Wheel always Existed, even before some alien race found such to be useful.. a billion years before us?

Is it fair to say the Properties of a Wheel never Existed.. until the first Being invented the Wheel?

Would the Properties of Pi be True, even in a Universe without Circles?

Hope this has helped my friend..

(Even though this is mostly a repeat of what I've said much earlier in this Thread.)

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3191
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (3)
Athena liked this post


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby someguy1 on March 17th, 2017, 4:44 pm 

Dave_Oblad » March 16th, 2017, 10:52 pm wrote:So by Analogy to Our Universe I'm saying:
1. Time had a Beginning.
2. That beginning was followed by a sequence of determined Events.
3. Randomness doesn't exist, even if no pattern can be discerned.
4. Each event leads to the next event in a causal chain, no skipping.
5. The Universe had a Start but may never end.


Yes but what is your evidence?

It's true that "by analogy" time might be like the sequence of the natural numbers in its usual order.

But "by analogy" why couldn't it be like the natural numbers in reverse order? Or "by analogy" why can't it be the Even-Odd order, or any of the other uncountably many possible well-orders on the natural numbers?

Why couldn't it be like the real numbers, or the hyperreal numbers, or the the p-adic numbers, or the integers mod p (finite and discrete but circular if you go out far enough)?

Why do you take this ONE PARTICULAR mathematical structure and say that by analogy that's how time works? And then insist you are correct yet provide no evidence or argument for your claim?

Where is your evidence, and why do you ignore the many completely DIFFERENT mathematical models you migh have equally well chosen?

Also I wonder if you can tell me if you're aware of Craig's kalam cosmological argument, which makes the exact same error of assuming without proof that causality is accurately modeled by the usual order on the natural numbers.

I always find it striking that the "universe is a computer" argument inevitably ends up being identical with theological arguments for the existence of God. Our CPU which art in heaven.


Dave_Oblad » March 16th, 2017, 10:52 pm wrote:Randomness doesn't exist, even if no pattern can be discerned.

This also needs to be called out. You are of course correct that the digits of pi are determined by an algorithm. But since there are uncountably many reals and only countably many Turing machines, most decimal expressions are in fact completely random and can not possibly be generated by an algorithm. Do you understand this point? The theory of computation itself proves that most real numbers have random decimal expressions. If you'll look up Turing's famous 1936 paper you'll see he was explicitly discussing this very point about the distinction between computable and noncomputable numbers.

"On Computable Numbers." https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Tur ... r_1936.pdf

Dave_Oblad » March 16th, 2017, 10:52 pm wrote:An Algorithm can not produce a Random Solution.

Correct.

Dave_Oblad » March 16th, 2017, 10:52 pm wrote:In fact.. no Math can produce true Randomness in any form.

Incorrect. The standard real numbers contain more random reals than computable ones. Lots more. And as I say, this point was clear to Turing himself in the very paper in which he created the field of computer science.

Now perhaps you are (without realizing it) making some sort of intuitionist or constructivist argument. Nothing wrong with that. The only problem comes when you are unwittingly denying the notion of continuity and the modern conception of the real number line.

You can not have the modern real number line AND the belief that all numbers are computable. Those two things are mutually contradictory.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 494
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on March 17th, 2017, 6:16 pm 

Hi Someguy1,

someguy1 wrote:But "by analogy" why couldn't it be like the natural numbers in reverse order? Or "by analogy" why can't it be the Even-Odd order, or any of the other unaccountably many possible well-orders on the natural numbers?

A looping algorithm loops. Each iteration provides the next step in sequence. That next step can be counting in sequence or adding fractions to produce Pi. Notice Pi is not in numerical order (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) but is in ordered sequence (3,1,4,1,5,9). There is a difference.
The next step could be the next angle in a geometry.. it doesn't have to be numerical.

The algorithm demonstrated below is iterative. It Loops. Each full cycle the particle launches a new Photon towards the lower right. It uses NO numbers but just True-False Logic:

GospersGun.gif
Gospers Gun Cellular Automaton

The Photons shooting out and down have no momentum (per se) they are forced to move by Geometry and Logic.

The Model I choose for this Universe is called a Cellular Automation. But our Universe version has at least 4 Dimensions (not just 2 like the demo above).

In addition, 1 rule says that any exposed surface of the grid is closed with a new cell. But that of course creates new exposed surface that in turn is closed.. etc, etc.

Thus our version is an Expanding Model (unlike the limited version shown above).

The constant addition of new space cells on the surface adds Distance from the original Center and that Distance is "Time". Since Distance is always additive from the Growth, then such that may exist here are forced to accept an "Arrow of Time". The Surface of such a Geometry is defined as "NOW".

We exist on the 3D surface of a 4D expanding Cellular Automaton.

Now if you have a better Model for our Universe, let's hear it.

All current Models are incomplete, in that they Blow up or fall apart at some point. The Grid in the Model above is Space-Time and the smallest cell is something like 10-35 in size or a Planck Length Average.

The Cell size determines Scale of what it represents (Matter/Energy). GR is flawed because it treats all Planck Lengths as the same size.. thus leading to a singularity for a Black Hole. The Math fails. In my Model there would be no Event Horizon. There would be other Horizons that tear Matter apart, but not a single Photon Speed of Light Horizon.

But, if one allows the Planck Length to be of variable size, then normal Physics are applicable around and inside a Black Hole.

Thus such a Grid may look like this:

Lattice.jpg

The above is more of a Stellar View.. where we are seeing the smaller sections are locations having some mass and the larger squares are voids.

Matter Auto Accelerates towards the smaller cells due to Geometry, larger Cells would effectively repel Matter. This is called Curved Space, but is actually a density size Gradient in the underlying Space-Time Grid size.

But I'm getting a bit off topic now.. so where was I?

Oh yea.. You need to get off the Numbers stuff and start thinking in terms of Geometry, Logic and Iteration. Perhaps a better understanding of Cellular Automatons might help.

Best Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3191
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby someguy1 on March 17th, 2017, 11:20 pm 

Dave_Oblad » March 17th, 2017, 4:16 pm wrote:
But I'm getting a bit off topic now.. so where was I?


Yes you must be misunderstanding me terribly. I stated as clearly as I could up front:

* My intent is to point out a couple of serious errors in your argument, with the aim of helping you to sharpen your own thinking and exposition; and

* I have not the slightest interest in discussing cosmology, and I take no position, pro or con, with your account of the world. If you turn out to be right, more power to you.

Then you totally ignore and explicitly dismiss the points I make, restate your cosmological thesis with renewed zeal and still not a shred of evidence, and accuse me of being ignorant of geometry, logic, cellular automata, and iteration.

Tell me, what leads you to that conclusion? Seriously. Ignorant of iteration. Never heard of it. If I had, I'd accept your cosmology without question. This is the story you're going with?

Even if your cosmology is correct, don't you agree that perhaps your exposition could use some work?

If you base your argument on the digits of pi, you'll lose credibility with anyone who recognizes your mathematical errors. The way you talk about pi tells me exactly what you know. It's like a tennis pro watching a duffer ping a few balls over the net. They don't have to see much to know your skill level. Frankly you should drop the pi argument or else take classes in set theory and real analysis. I'm qualified to tell you that.

And when you say, "Sequences exist in math therefore time is a causal sequence," not only is that a completely unjustified leap of logic; but the causal sequence idea is straight out of William Lane Craig's religious sophistry. He uses the causal sequence argument to prove God exists. You use it to prove the world is a quantum computer. It's not a good argument because you don't know how causality works nor if there must necessarily be a first cause. Do you think you're the first to make the Prime Mover argument?

I have offered suggestions on some weak spots in your argument, which you can take or leave.

Your zealotry is causing you to get in your own way. You can't hear a word of constructive criticism. You literally can't read the words on the screen in front of you. You dismiss what you don't understand. You call anyone ignorant who doesn't agree with you -- even if they have explicitly chosen not to agree OR disagree. There's not much dialog to be had with someone who ignores everything you say just to build their own hobby horse higher.

I envy you your certainty. I mean that. I myself am full of doubt. I wish you all the best.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 494
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on March 18th, 2017, 8:29 am 

Hi Someguy1,

Someguy1 wrote:Then you totally ignore and explicitly dismiss the points I make

How can I not.. when you continue to make a series of strawman arguments.

I am not saying you are wrong in the points that you make. They are just fine.

But the simple fact you even make those points indicates zero understanding of what I am trying to communicate.

I used Pi as an example of Iteration, Beginning and Depth. You can't seem to get past the numbers.

someguy1 wrote:Ignorant of iteration. Never heard of it. If I had, I'd accept your cosmology without question.

Ok.. now I can't tell if you are pulling my leg or if you are serious.

In case you are serious.. Iteration is a repetitive process. In my use.. it creates Separation which is actually "Time".

someguy1 wrote:The way you talk about pi tells me exactly what you know. It's like a tennis pro watching a duffer ping a few balls over the net. They don't have to see much to know your skill level.

Thanks.. a perfect example of an Ad hominem attack.

someguy1 wrote:And when you say, "Sequences exist in math therefore time is a causal sequence," not only is that a completely unjustified leap of logic; but the causal sequence idea is straight out of William Lane Craig's religious sophistry. He uses the causal sequence argument to prove God exists. You use it to prove the world is a quantum computer. It's not a good argument because you don't know how causality works nor if there must necessarily be a first cause. Do you think you're the first to make the Prime Mover argument?

Can I assume from this elaborate statement that you believe the Universe had no beginning? That the Matter/Energy/Spatial/Temporal content has always existed?

This question has plagued Mankind since we started to think. Of course the easy answer is "God done it". But now days we have cracked open the real Power of Math, its ability to Create.

My Hypothesis is from such a Realization. Several notables, such as Max Tegmark have beat me to the punch, but isn't it strange that the same idea is being pushed from independent sources. Of course, I get some heat from Religious folks that claim I have replaced God with Math. As a First Mover, they may be correct.

someguy1 wrote:You can't hear a word of constructive criticism. You literally can't read the words on the screen in front of you. You dismiss what you don't understand.

Again..we are talking past each other. I fully agree with your points. But your points have nothing to do with the concepts I'm presenting.

someguy1 wrote:You call anyone ignorant who doesn't agree with you -- even if they have explicitly chosen not to agree OR disagree.

I have absolutely no problem with anyone finding disagreement with my concepts. In fact.. I very much welcome any input that may cause me to reconsider my stance. I am my own greatest critic, and I haven't been able to find a flaw in my hypothesis, and believe me I've looked for such a flaw.

Note: To my knowledge I've never employed the term "Ignorant" as a descriptive term applied to another person. At best.. I have declared they have not understood my points.

For example.. my use of Pi was all about the Methodology being an Iterative Process to Create Pi and you can't seem to divorce yourself from the Number itself.

You are not attacking my ideas, but rather offering you own interpretation (which is wrong) and then arguing against your personal interpretations. You are not wrong about the points you make regarding your personal interpretations. But.. Your personal interpretation has no value until we are speaking about the same concepts. You are not seeing the deeper underlying concepts.

And until you do.. we will continue to talk past each other.

Perhaps we can find common ground here: Do you know what an Iterative Process is?

This might help:

Wiki wrote:Iteration is the act of repeating a process, either to generate an unbounded sequence of outcomes, or with the aim of approaching a desired goal, target or result. Each repetition of the process is also called an "iteration", and the results of one iteration are used as the starting point for the next iteration.

That example of Gospers Gun above is an Iterative Process. Pretty neat how it keeps creating something from nothing (creates a stream of Photons with zero loss to itself). Those Photons can then be used to do formal work.. in higher level Geometries.

So, you may continue making Ad hominem attacks and incorrect interpretations (noise) or we can get to work and you can help me find a flaw in my Hypothesis. That would be worth my while.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3191
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby someguy1 on March 18th, 2017, 2:43 pm 

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 6:29 am wrote:Perhaps we can find common ground here: Do you know what an Iterative Process is?

This might help:



Wow thanks man. I've been having trouble with that at work. I was writing a program to compute the sum of the first million positive integers. I wrote out

1 = 1
1 + 2 = 3
1 + 2 + 3 = 6
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 10
...

and I'd gotten up to 1000 or so, when one of my cow-orkers walked by and said, Hey Someguy, Why don't you use iteration? And I said, Iteration, huh wuzzat?

But then my other cow-orker named Gauss came along and showed me that I could just compute n(n+1)/2 for n = a million, and I didn't need to use iteration at all.

So I still have no idea what it is.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 494
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on March 18th, 2017, 6:40 pm 

Hi someguy1,

Are you sure you used no iteration process in the problem you stated?

Remember when you were a kid and had to do long division.. step by step.. an iteration process? Until you were allowed to use a Calculator.. of course.

Do you believe a Calculator doesn't do Division by Shift and Subtract looped iterations?
Do you believe a Calculator doesn't do Multiplication by Shift and Add looped iterations?

Your friend Gauss could probably calculate how many potential Piece configurations Exist in a Game of Chess. Would such knowledge allow him to beat a Master Chess player?

Your computer screen has limited resolution. Let's say 1200 by 900 pixels at (256x256x256) color combinations per pixel. Or a total of 18,119,393,280,000 possible combinations. That a simple iteration process could show you every possible image your monitor is capable of.

That 99.999+ percent would be trash but the remaining little bit would contain an image of every creature that has ever existed.. in the whole Universe.. for every moment of their lives.. from every possible angle.

Or even an image of every creature riding on the back of every other creature with every possible background from every possible planet for every possible moment from every possible angle.

Then of course, there would be a snapshot of every paragraph of text that has ever been written or ever will be written.

And that's just the coherent images after we have excluded all the huge amount of trash images.

How many lifetimes would it take you to view all the coherent images at say 10 per second?

A computer program (set of rules) with about 10 (or less) lines of code could create said example.

That's the power of a Creative Iteration.. just a simple set of looped rules.

But from that procedure, if applied to Cellular Automatons as Rule Variations and Initial Seedings, we can define virtually every possible beginning for virtually every possible Universe.

As already stated, most will be trash. But a small percentage (number of coherent images) would be special and you Exist inside one of them. You are a tiny part of a Grand Solution as just one of a nearly infinite number of Possible Universes defined using simple logical Math (or branch of Mathematics).

The Iteration aspect of our Universe comes from the addition (generation) of new surface Cells so that the Geometry of Matter/Energy can progress without self interference. This iterative progression (expansion of the Universe) is what we call Time.

Note: Most people don't appreciate the requirement that the Geometry of Matter/Energy must not interfere with itself.

So back to Pi. Can you tell me the decimal value of the 1000th digit of Pi? If so, then it must Exist. And you Exist for the exact same reason.

In my book, that's pretty neat.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3191
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby someguy1 on March 18th, 2017, 8:52 pm 



Hi Dave,

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:Are you sure you used no iteration process in the problem you stated?


Iteration? How could I? I know nothing of iteration. If I did I'd immediately believe your thesis that the universe is a quantum computer. Or William Lane Craig's thesis that God must exist. You both use a virtually identical argument so I can't tell which is the proper conclusion.

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:Remember when you were a kid and had to do long division.. step by step.. an iteration process?


No I went to one of those Common Core schools where they only teach concepts and don't make anyone do that nasty old long division. They're so abstract they taught us that pi is the smallest positive zero of the sine function, and that its decimal expansion is not contingent on the order properties of the natural numbers.

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:Until you were allowed to use a Calculator.. of course.


See? Nobody needs long division.

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:Do you believe a Calculator doesn't do Division by Shift and Subtract looped iterations?
Do you believe a Calculator doesn't do Multiplication by Shift and Add looped iterations?


I assume they store the answers in the batteries, which is why a calculator needs one.

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:Your friend Gauss could probably calculate how many potential Piece configurations Exist in a Game of Chess. Would such knowledge allow him to beat a Master Chess player?


My buddy Gauss could kick Chuck Norris's ass at chess.

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:Your computer screen has limited resolution. Let's say 1200 by 900 pixels at (256x256x256) color combinations per pixel. Or a total of 18,119,393,280,000 possible combinations. That a simple iteration process could show you every possible image your monitor is capable of.


Very unlikely. Where would you get the energy to run a computation such as that?

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:That 99.999+ percent would be trash


I have a feeling I'm experiencing some of that in this thread :-)

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:but the remaining little bit would contain an image of every creature that has ever existed.. in the whole Universe.. for every moment of their lives.. from every possible angle.


Provably false. You can't possibly believe what you just wrote. I'm not sure what you mean by creature, but it's not difficult to show you certainly coudn't generate every possible bitstring. For one thing, the space of possible screen configurations is finite.

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:Or even an image of every creature riding on the back of every other creature with every possible background from every possible planet for every possible moment from every possible angle.


On a finite display? You can't possibly believe that.

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:Then of course, there would be a snapshot of every paragraph of text that has ever been written or ever will be written.


No. Finite display. Your rules.

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:And that's just the coherent images after we have excluded all the huge amount of trash images.


Does this thread count as coherent or trash? I can't tell.

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:How many lifetimes would it take you to view all the coherent images at say 10 per second?


My point exactly. You could run no such experiment in the history of the universe.

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:A computer program (set of rules) with about 10 (or less) lines of code could create said example.


So Wolfram has demonstrated. But that doesn't mean the universe works that way.

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:That's the power of a Creative Iteration.. just a simple set of looped rules.


Very creative, wringing an unbounded set of configurations from a bounded configuration space. So creative that not only can't you do it, I truly doubt you even believe that yourself, if you could stand back and evaluate your own erroneous logic.

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:But from that procedure, if applied to Cellular Automatons as Rule Variations and Initial Seedings, we can define virtually every possible beginning for virtually every possible Universe.


On a standard computer screen? Not nearly enough possible configurations.

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:As already stated, most will be trash.


As as already stated, we're in a trash universe even as we speak.

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:But a small percentage (number of coherent images) would be special


<Blush>. You've been hacking my pornhub account I see.

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:and you Exist inside one of them.


You have no evidence for that. The fact that a cellular automaton can generate pretty pictures does not constitute evidence that the universe actually works that way. You have a tremendous blind spot here and it's quite striking.

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:You are a tiny part of a Grand Solution as just one of a nearly infinite number of Possible Universes defined using simple logical Math (or branch of Mathematics).


Math is the model, not the thing itself. You have no evidence to the contrary.

Do you believe physical theories require evidence? Or not?

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:The Iteration aspect of our Universe comes from the addition (generation) of new surface Cells so that the Geometry of Matter/Energy can progress without self interference.


I certainly agree with you that Wolfram can draw some cool moving pictures. So can Walt Disney. That's not evidence that the universe is a Mickey Mouse cartoon, or a cellular automaton.

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:This iterative progression (expansion of the Universe) is what we call Time.


Evidence? Evidence? Evidence?

Have you considered making an actual argument and not just stating the same arbitrary conclusion over and over?

As I asked you earlier, how do you know time isn't arranged in reverse natural number order? Or like the Even/Odd order? Or like any one of the uncountably many possible distinct well-orders on the naturals? Or perhaps like the first uncountable ordinal? Or perhaps like the order type of the real numbers with its usual order? Or the ordinal epsilon-naught? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epsilon_n ... athematics)

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:Note: Most people don't appreciate the requirement that the Geometry of Matter/Energy must not interfere with itself.


But you do, I gather.

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:So back to Pi. Can you tell me the decimal value of the 1000th digit of Pi? If so, then it must Exist.


You know I'm not much of a Platonist. But I would be much more willing to believe that pi exists in the absence of humans than to believe that its decimal expression does. And that's because decimal expressions are SECONDARY CHARACTERISTICS of real numbers and are in no way part of the definition of a real number. If you would take a class in real analysis you would learn that. Or just read my first post, in which I explained it.

But again, as I pointed out earlier, pi is a very special case. It's computable. Very very few real numbers are computable.

How do you account for the noncomputable numbers? What do you make of the fact that Turing himself wrote knowledgeably about them?

The fact that you claim the universe is computable, and then use a REAL NUMBER as an example, shows the vast hole in your knowledge. And as someone who believes everything is computable, you should really brush up on the noncomputable numbers. They're studied in a branch of math called recursion theory. Turing was all over the subject. You need to come up to speed.

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:And you Exist for the exact same reason.


Statement without evidence. Scientific value: None.

Dave_Oblad » March 18th, 2017, 4:40 pm wrote:In my book, that's pretty neat.


I get that you're enamored of your own theory. If you would only produce an actual argument, people could discuss it.



Likewise of course.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 494
Joined: 08 Nov 2013
Braininvat liked this post


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on March 19th, 2017, 2:07 am 

Hi Someguy1,

Conversation over.

Your Troll behavior is unbecoming of someone I once respected.

Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3191
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on March 19th, 2017, 5:19 am 

Hi folks,

Quick addendum correction to a previous post:

Number of colors per Pixel in a monitor is 256x256x256 (RBG) = 16,777,216 colors.

Call that 16M for short.
2 pixels = 16M x 16M
3 pixels = 16m x 16M x 16M

So the number of combinations is a power function of 1,080,000.

Thus the total number of images for a Monitor of just 1200x900 pixels is:
16,777,2161,080,000 image combinations.
That's 16,777,216 followed by 1,080,000 zeros.

That's considerably (lol) larger than my first calculation when I was half asleep.

(yes, I get a bit stupid when sleepy.. forgive me please)

Anyway.. by comparison:
The estimated number of Atoms in the Universe is: 479.
That's 4 followed by 79 zeros.

Note: Atom estimates vary a bit.. depending on sources.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3191
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby RoccoR on March 19th, 2017, 10:19 am 

Re: The Mathematical Universe
Dave, et al,

Yes, understand what you do not know is difficult in itself. But grasping what you don not know --- that you do not know, is impossible.

I was, as the newest outsider here, going through some old posting, and I came across this one.

[quote=EXCERPT: Dave_Oblad on June 19th, 2016, 6:05 am]Then I came here, gave up my hobby in digital art, and tried to learn what I was missing. I also took advantage of being here to present my original thoughts on a Mathematical Universe (my second post here) about 5 years ago. With help of other members here, I learned the basics of SR and GR. It soon became apparent why I couldn't understand Gravity.. no one knows. Not even Einstein. Yes, with some help, he produced a wonderful body of Mathematics that describe the Character of Gravity with great predictive capability.. all without understanding the underlying Mechanics of Gravity.[/quote]
(COMMENT)

I would like to introduce you to Stephen Wolfram, one of this century's most interesting men in the world of Physics and Mathematics (Introduction) AND take a look at "Wolfram Mathematica" tool. With this technology --- you can start a serious and dynamic experimentation base. Also, checkout "WolframAlpha;" and the extension "WolframAlpha Collection" web applications.

BTW: There is a online Web Application, very simple; a gallery of widgets.

Most Respectfully,
R
User avatar
RoccoR
Member
 
Posts: 73
Joined: 05 Feb 2017


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby mitchellmckain on March 19th, 2017, 3:46 pm 

Dave_Oblad » October 20th, 2016, 7:20 am wrote: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.


To call Flat Earth a scientific theory is absurd. To even call Earth Centrism a theory is also questionable. What we had was the Ptolemaic picture of universe which simply codified observations of movement of objects in the sky. The Copernican simply employed the standard technique in physics of looking things from a different point of view, in this case, with respect to the sun. This has since been updated as we found other useful ways of looking at the universe as the Milky Way galaxy, then a cluster of galaxies, then a galactic super-cluster, and so on. But the truth is that none of these were ever really replaced. If you want to track the movement of objects in the sky of earth then you are still basically looking at the Ptolemaic picture of things.

The claim that GR and Quantum Mechanics are incomplete is nonsense. GR is complete in what it sets out to do and is no more incomplete than SR. The idea that quantum mechanics is incomplete (there are hidden variables) has been disproved. It is long past time for scientist to get over the cognitive dissonance they experience with QM and accept reality to move on. Even calling the standard model incomplete isn't right. It is accuracy is astounding and all efforts to break it have failed. Indeed this is the problem. If only we could find a flaw in the Standard Model then it would provide an enormous clue towards finding a more unified field theory.


So for a little better showing of the developments in physics...

Ptolemaic view
Copernican view
...Modern view of the universe
Newtonian Physics (theory of gravity and motion)
Lagrangian Physics (important reformulation with no new physics)
Electrodynamics (unification of electric and magnetic fields)
Special Relativity (new theory of motion)
General Relativity (new theory of gravity)
Kaluza Klein (largely ignored unification of gravity and electrodynamics in 5d GR)
Quantum Mechanics
Quantum Field Theory (QM with SR and fields)
Electro-Weak Theory (QFT unification of electromagnetic fields and weak nuclear forces)
Standard Model (QFT unification of electroweak and strong nuclear forces)
String theory or M-theory (incomplete, attempt to unify all known forces)

P.S. Despite all the work done on string theory it is not without many detractors.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 490
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby someguy1 on March 19th, 2017, 5:05 pm 

Dave_Oblad » March 19th, 2017, 12:07 am wrote:Your Troll behavior is unbecoming of someone I once respected.

As I stated at the beginning, I don't care if you respond to me and I take no position whatsoever on your cosmological thesis.

For the record I present three questions that you might consider asking yourself and investigating in your own time as you feel appropriate.

1. Your argument comes down to saying:

* Cellular automata can produce nice animated pictures.

* Therefore the universe works that way.

Can you please explain -- to yourself and to your readers -- how you make that leap of logic? Have you any evidence?

2. You mention the real number pi and its decimal expansion a lot. In reading through this thread you bring it up several times.

Pi happens to be very exceptional among the real numbers in that it is computable. Its digits may be generated by an algorithm. As there are uncountably many real numbers and only countably many Turing machines, it follows that most (all but countably many) real numbers are NOT computable. That is, their decimal digits are entirely random and not the output of any algorithm.

Do you believe that the noncomputable real numbers have Platonic existence as well? If so, how can they exist in a computational universe? And if not ... do you reject modern mathematics and physics, which are based on the modern conception of the real numbers?

I note in passing that the distinction between computable and noncomputable numbers is not any kind of obscure mathematical point, but is in fact mentioned explicitly in the title of Turing's 1936 paper in which he defined the Turing machine and founded the discipline of computer science. If Turing thought the computable/noncomputable distinction was important, why do you keep ignoring it?

3. It's known that a quantum computer has the exact same computational power as a classical computer. Quantum computers can offer dramatic speedups on certain specialized problems; but both quantum and conventional computers compute exactly the same set of functions.

So when you say that the universe is a quantum computer, why? Couldn't it just be a plain old conventional computer? Could it be that you've just latched on to a popularization of a currently trendy buzzword and you haven't really thought about the implications of what you are saying?


I'll leave it at that. Like I say, I take no position on cosmology, yours or anyone else's. I'm just trying to get you and your readers to examine your own argument, which in my opinion does not stand up to logical or evidentiary scrutiny.

Well ok I wish you the best, I enjoyed our chat.
Last edited by someguy1 on March 19th, 2017, 5:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 494
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby someguy1 on March 19th, 2017, 5:20 pm 

mitchellmckain » March 19th, 2017, 1:46 pm wrote:Ptolemaic view
Copernican view
...Modern view of the universe


Just a minor historical note. The Copernican theory every bit as wrong as the Ptolemaic system; and in fact Galileo was entirely wrong in his defense of it. The Copernican system is based on perfect circular orbits with epicycles to account for retrograde motion. In this respect it's virtually identical to the Ptolemaic system except for putting the sun at the center.

The system that turned out to be right was Kepler's system based on elliptical orbits. Galileo spent his career studiously ignoring Kepler for various political reasons.

I just finished reading this incredibly awesome historical article called The Great Ptolemaic Smackdown, in which the author gives a detail historical and scientific account, in extremely entertaining and readable form, of the evolution of our ideas of the solar system from Ptolemy through Newton.

One of his main points is that the geocentric theory was perfectly plausible and logically consistent with the observational evidence at the time. And even in Galileo's era, the Copernican system was completely wrong and the Keplerian system basically right, but Galileo backed the wrong horse.

A long read but it's broken up into parts and just reading a little goes a long way. This is absolutely required reading for anyone interested in the history of our ideas about the solar system.

http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/the ... le-of.html
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 494
Joined: 08 Nov 2013
Athena liked this post


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Athena on March 19th, 2017, 6:11 pm 

That is unless mathematics is the "creator" of the universe.


God built the universe on numbers.
Pythagoras

It is all patterns and energy. Without patterns and energy, there is no universe. The talk of pi is saying the same thing isn't? It is both finite and infinite.
Athena
Active Member
 
Posts: 1848
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Location: Eugene, Oregon


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Athena on March 19th, 2017, 6:53 pm 

Excuse me, but I think some post are the kind of personal badgering that get my threads closed. I don't think it should not be happening in a science forum and I hope people pay attention to the video I posted explaining why this personal badgering is harmful not only to the individuals involved, but also harmful to the development of our thoughts that is the purpose of scientific thinking.
Athena
Active Member
 
Posts: 1848
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Location: Eugene, Oregon


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby someguy1 on March 19th, 2017, 7:19 pm 

Athena » March 19th, 2017, 4:11 pm wrote:It is all patterns and energy. Without patterns and energy, there is no universe.


Where do the patterns and energy come from? Were they always there? Are they made out of something even more fundamental?

Athena » March 19th, 2017, 4:11 pm wrote: The talk of pi is saying the same thing isn't? It is both finite and infinite.


No, the talk of pi is making a far stronger ontological claim. Pi happens to be computable, meaning that its digits can be generated by an algorithm. To say that the rest of the universe works that way is to implicitly say that the universe is computable. That everything that exists in the universe can be explained by the workings of an algorithm.

However the average, typical real number does not have that property. Most real numbers are not computable.

In my opinion, the existence of noncomputable numbers is a conceptual problem for any theory that claims the universe is a computation, and that also wants to believe in modern physics. Physics is based on the real numbers, and has been since the time of Newton. But the real numbers in their full glory are incompatible with the claim that everything is a computation. Most real numbers can not possibly be the result of a computation.

If someone claims the universe is a computation, I just want to know what they plan to do with the real numbers. It's a question I'd ask Max Tegmark. Maybe there's an answer, I don't know. The talk of pi has been misleading. It only argues for computationalism by virtue of pi being extremely rare. Most real numbers aren't algorithms and therefore falsify the computational thesis.
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 494
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Positor on March 19th, 2017, 10:24 pm 

someguy1 » March 19th, 2017, 11:19 pm wrote:If someone claims the universe is a computation, I just want to know what they plan to do with the real numbers. It's a question I'd ask Max Tegmark. Maybe there's an answer, I don't know. The talk of pi has been misleading. It only argues for computationalism by virtue of pi being extremely rare. Most real numbers aren't algorithms and therefore falsify the computational thesis.

I note that the Wikipedia article on the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) states:
Tegmark's response...is to offer a new hypothesis "that only Godel-complete (fully decidable) mathematical structures have physical existence".

The article refers to an alternative to the MUH called the Computable Universe Hypothesis (CUH).

Does this help?
Positor
Member
 
Posts: 989
Joined: 05 Feb 2010


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on March 19th, 2017, 10:41 pm 

Hi all,

Thanks everyone for you inputs.

I still reject a part of Quantum Mechanics for as long as it supports true Randomness. That's pure Magic in my book. I'll accept Pseudo Randomness however. Every Event has a Cause. It's a matter of finding the Cause, which may be impossible.

I called GR incomplete because it produces Singularities at high Gravity potentials.
I called the Standard Model incomplete because it failed to predict Dark Matter nor can it describe the Phenomenon.

I agree Flat Earth is not a Theory.. just an Idea that got proven invalid.

I introduced Pi as an example of Methodology that produces a sequence that is both psudo-random but fully determined, has a beginning first Iteration Value (3 in decimal) and probably no end to the sequence.

We know what the numerical value is for the 1000th digit (in decimal) but we didn't invent that number but rather discovered that number. One can not discover something that didn't pre-exist the discovery of it.

Some people reject the idea that Time had a beginning. They ask what was happening before Time began, which to me is like asking what came before the first digit of Pi (decimal 3).

If one accepts the Universe had a beginning then one must also accept that all the Energy and Matter was created from Nothing. My only recourse to such a conundrum was to turn to Math as being the only Viable method to explain such. More specifically, my Model of an Expanding Cellular Automaton, which is a Branch of Mathematics.

When I first saw Gospers Gun, I realized here was a Geometry capable of producing useful output with zero loss to itself. It literally can produce Something from Nothing. I haven't seen such in any other Branch of Science.

That is really why my search has centered on Automatons. Along the way, I discovered just how powerful such Automatons can be. They seem to nicely fit the gaping holes in those areas I called incomplete above.

It was my hope to show, in this thread, all the steps leading from the first concept to the Observable Universe and how consistent such a Model is in filling the gaps that Science sweeps under the proverbial rug. Such as the Idea that one really can get Something from Nothing. As long as everything is Virtual, it's never more than Nothing but has the property of having internal relational interactions and emergent Properties that manifest with increased complexity of the whole.

My specialty is Computer Programming or Computer Science. As funny as this may sound, I seldom use much heavy Math to get things done. It mostly about Methodology and Logic.

I'll be the first to admit my background in the far ranging fields of Math is very limited. What I once had under my belt is long gone due to lack of use. My ability to solve a problem is still pretty sharp but my memory is a resource that is dropping daily due to my late years. It sucks but is a fact of life I have to put up with. I retire soon, thank goodness (I'm 66).

I called Someguy1 a Troll, because he seems more interested in promoting his Ego and putting me down.. than helping to explore these deeper concepts that underlie my Hypothesis.

I seriously want to explore the merits and flaws in my presentation. I can't find any flaws but that does not mean I'm right or it's flawless. I tend to screw up a lot and real help is always appreciated.

Also.. Positor just PM'd me..
Another correction to my stupid correction above:

Number of Combinations in a 1200x900 RGB monitor is:
(16,777,216)1,080,000 image combinations.
It's not 1,080,000 following zeros as I suggested.

And estimated Atoms in the Universe should have been:
4x1079
It's not 479 as I suggested.

See why I try to stick with Logic and avoid Numbers like the plague.. I always screw that stuff up :(

Thanks Positor for your help, greatly appreciated.

Best wishes all,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3191
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby someguy1 on March 19th, 2017, 11:54 pm 

Positor » March 19th, 2017, 8:24 pm wrote:
Tegmark's response...is to offer a new hypothesis "that only Godel-complete (fully decidable) mathematical structures have physical existence".

The article refers to an alternative to the MUH called the Computable Universe Hypothesis (CUH).

Does this help?


Yes by the magic of Wiki we can bring Max right into our thread and put the question to him!

If I'm reading this right, Tegmark totally agrees with my point. From that Wiki link:

Max Tegmark Himself! wrote:... he [Tegmark] gives a more detailed response, proposing as an alternative to MUH the more restricted "Computable Universe Hypothesis" (CUH) which only includes mathematical structures that are simple enough that Gödel's theorem does not require them to contain any undecidable or uncomputable theorems. Tegmark admits that this approach faces "serious challenges", including (a) it excludes much of the mathematical landscape; (b) the measure on the space of allowed theories may itself be uncomputable; and (c) "virtually all historically successful theories of physics violate the CUH".


That last sentence is exactly my point. If you claim everything is computable you throw out three hundred years of physics, from Newton on. Physics is based on the real numbers. And by saying the CUH "excludes much of the mathematical landscape," he means the modern theory of the real numbers and everything else that's built on it. Real and complex analysis, functional analysis (needed for quantum theory), differential geometry, and all the abstractions piled on top of those. Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture, gone. (Perelman's the guy who lives with his mom in Moscow and turned down the million dollar prize and the Fields medal). Without the real numbers it never happened.

The computational hypothesis is not consistent with modern physics OR math. Any computational cosmology must deal with this fact. If everything is computable you lose much of modern math and the last three centuries of physics. You have to account for that.

[Note that I'm not saying the universe isn't a computer, probably a 286 machine with dual floppy drives running Windows 3.1. I'm only saying that anyone's theory of such a universe must account for the real numbers and their huge impact on our technical landscape].

Thanks for the link :-)
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 494
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on March 20th, 2017, 6:00 am 

Hi all,

There is no way I can argue against the successes of centuries of Mathematics used to predict how the Universe works. But all this predictive Math rarely (if ever) explains why it works. What part of our Math really gives the mechanics of how stuff works the way it does, such as Gravity. Quantum Mechanics is doing well in that direction but.. is prediction the same as understanding why such predictions work?

But if the Universe is truly Mathematical, then QM must give up on Randomness. No Math can produce truly Random results.

Some notables as Max Tegmark, Stephen Wolfram and Gerard 't Hooft are searching for the underlying reasons of why Modern Math works as well as it does in describing and predicting the way things behave.

Do we really need such Knowledge of what is going on under the proverbial Hood just to drive the car?

Probably not.. but what if the Key to unlimited free Energy is lurking there? Or Anti-Gravity or manipulation and/or creation of Matter? What possible objection could any intelligent person raise to exploring deeper into how our Reality really works?

Granted.. creation of Anti-Matter in unlimited Quantities could pose quite a hazard in the wrong hands.. but on our present course, we are doomed already to destroy ourselves. We already have so many means at our disposal, it's rather amazing we are still here today.

Perhaps AI or ET can help.. but they better hurry..lol.

Anyway..

My personal interest in Automatons was in seeking a solution to the age old question of Something from Nothing and how Time works.

Towards that goal, I think I've made some progress from a somewhat Metaphysical viewpoint. It's easier to believe that the Big Bang was the Creation of Energy rather than believing all the Energy of the Universe was compressed into a small "something" at the very Beginning.

In a simplistic way, Gospers Gun is showing the unlimited Creation of Somethings without loss to itself. That seems like a good place to start. Is there a reason why the aforementioned intellectuals are showing so much interest in Cellular Automatons? Are CA's the key to understanding how our Reality works at the most basic Planck levels?

I don't know, I'm just a Programmer playing with them in my spare time. I have to leave it to the Experts to provide a Bridge between CA's and the Macro-Universe we inhabit. I'm just not equipped to handle problems at those levels of complexity.

But, all the power of today's Mathematics still fails to explain the Origin of the Universe. I think CA's are the solution. But that's just my Personal Opinion.

Best wishes all,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3191
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Athena on March 20th, 2017, 12:13 pm 

Dave, I love your post but my point of view is so different from everyone else's I don't dare comment, except maybe one tiny comment won't hurt?

2. The Universe has no hole in the side to blow air into it.


I am getting back into quantum physics, how waves of energy become matter, and this matter-energy is supposed to be little balls of energy inside bigger balls of energy. I guess we are supposed to stop thinking about the energy of the waves, and focus on the balls of energy? Only the balls you are talking about are not inside the ball (ballon), but outside of a balloon. This is just what is on my mind when I go swimming and watch the colliding of light reflecting waves with shadow waves and think of how the universe came into being, and then try to understand people's post. Which remind me of magician's act, getting us to focus on the waving scarf so we don't see the action that gives us an illusion of magic.

Wow, I posted before reading your last post and I really, really like this comment...

There is no way I can argue against the successes of centuries of Mathematics used to predict how the Universe works. But all this predictive Math rarely (if ever) explains why it works.


and this line..

But, all the power of today's Mathematics still fails to explain the Origin of the Universe. I think CA's are the solution. But that's just my Personal Opinion.


I could be wrong, but I suspect our understanding of things by using math, is more about how our brains work that how reality works?

PS
Perhaps AI or ET can help.. but they better hurry..lol.


I don't know what all the letters mean, CA's, AI, ET, but I know my annoying comments about good manners, respect, and getting along, are the thread of hope I hold onto. It is not all about math and science. It also about how we reason and behave.
Athena
Active Member
 
Posts: 1848
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Location: Eugene, Oregon


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby mitchellmckain on March 20th, 2017, 12:53 pm 

Athena » March 20th, 2017, 11:13 am wrote:Dave, I love your post but my point of view is so different from everyone else's I don't dare comment, except maybe one tiny comment won't hurt?

2. The Universe has no hole in the side to blow air into it.


I am getting back into quantum physics, how waves of energy become matter, and this matter-energy is supposed to be little balls of energy inside bigger balls of energy. I guess we are supposed to stop thinking about the energy of the waves, and focus on the balls of energy?

You have to distinguish between the science and the devices by which some people visualize it. Your description is not the actual science but a picture full of inaccuracies. Scientific visualization is an important tool in the process by which we come up with science but in the end it is like a pencil used to write the formulas and irrelevant to the actual science. This applies much to the waves of which you ask how can make matter as much as it goes for the "balls of energy" in your description here.

I can try to refine your picture with a better one, but that is all.

The physicist sees a world full of these things call fields which although they spread out over space have a somewhat indivisible existence. These fields are of two kinds: bosons and fermions. While any number of bosonic fields can occupy the same space, fermionic fields resist this -- thus while fermions occupy or take up space bosons do not. Photons are an example of a bosonic field and thus represents a form of energy, light, rather than matter. Electrons are an example of a fermionic fields and thus the number of electrons bound in an atom give the atom its body and structure by which in interacts with other atoms in chemical reactions. The protons and neutrons in the nucleus of the atom are also fermionic fields and their numbers give the nucleus its body and structure embodied by its nuclear properties in nuclear reactions.

One way to illustrate this is to look at an extreme case. A neutron star is composed of neutrons alone and is thus like a giant atomic nucleus. It is in fact the fermionic nature of the neutrons which is all that resists the pull of gravity and when the gravity increases this resistance can be overcome and everything collapses into a point called a black hole.

Anyway the point is not that your picture is wrong and my picture is right but that all pictures like these are just tools to help our minds grapple the completely mathematical science that physics really is.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Member
 
Posts: 490
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


PreviousNext

Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests