The Mathematical Universe

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

The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on June 15th, 2016, 11:35 pm 

Hello Vivian and anybody else interested.

Vivian wrote:When you call the universe "mathematics", are you talking arithmetic with equations for proof, etc.? Or are you talking geometry? I know the universe is full of geometry - all kinds, everywhere. From what I saw, Tegmark was illustrating the geometry of the universe. That is easy to see - although, admittedly, I did not go all the way. I do not understand what you mean by "the universe is mathematics". Can you explain exactly what you mean by the universe being pure mathematics? Or, is it too deep a subject? Don't fear saying so. I know my limits.

Ok.. where to start.. while keeping it simple.

Discovery vs. Invention:

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

It is the ratio of the circumference of a circle vs. the diameter of a circle and, as far as we have calculated it out, appears to be an infinitely long number.

Did we Invent that Equation or Discover it? Suppose an Alien race invented it before us? Suppose another Alien race invented it before them and so on and so on. Ultimately, one must conclude than none of them actually invented it. It was Discovered. So for any race there can be the first to discover it, but none of them actually invented it. So if each race discovered it, it's logical that it pre-existed the discovery by any intelligent race. So when did it first qualify as existing? The first race to discover it? Logically, it's always existed, awaiting some race to discover it.

This would apply to all Math. All Math Existed at the very beginning of Time, waiting to be discovered. And if every Equation existed since time began, then so did all their respective solutions. The Equations and Solutions are Mathematical Truths.. and are therefore Timeless.

The Absolute Void:

In my search for understanding our Reality, I run into a lot of Obstacles. What is Time? Did Time have a beginning? What was happening before Time began? What is Matter and Energy? How Small is Small? How Big is big? Is the space between stuff empty or full of something?

For example: What is Matter? We already know that the more we look into ever increasing smallness, that everything we find is made of still smaller stuff. Where does it end? How small is smallest? Is there some ultimate basic particle or stuff at the smallest scales? What's it made of? Where did it come from and how long has it existed?

These such questions led me to take a stand that rids us of all these questions: The Absolute Void.

In the absolute Void there is no Time, no Energy, no Matter, no such thing as Distance, Size or Dimensions, no Scale, no Change. Any physical term that describes Existence is absent there. It is the only true place that actually Exists. Don't think of a huge empty space.. because that now implies size and distance. It has neither.

Now that I have an absolute Nothing.. can we get a Universe from it? YES! Because the one thing we can't exclude is Truth, because Truth has no Physical Properties. As stated in my opening.. Mathematical Truths are Timeless and Truths don't occupy any Space. They simply Exist. And that's all we really need.

Time:

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.

Complexity:

Of course Pi is a simple little one dimensional Universe that has no choice to be other than it is. But we are not limited to just one Equation. We are limited by an Infinite number of Equations. I should also mention that Math is not limited to numbers alone. For example, suppose we had grid where the top is numbered by digits of Pi and the left side is numbered by digits of Pi forwarded by 3 places. Now for every box in the Grid put a True or False if the Top number is greater or lesser/equal than the Side number. You will get an initial arbitrary pattern of True and False to fill in the grid.

Now put an empty grid on top of that 2D grid and look at the True/False value under that layer and the neighbors of a specific grid square. Make up your own rules on how the neighbors from around and under a grid square will influence the True of False status of each new blank layer added. Some rules you pick may cause the pattern to fill in or empty out. Some will produce an endless variety of T/F patterns. After enough layers are added, patterns may begin to emerge that have interesting aspects. Patterns may Oscillate or Move or may create Waves of patterns. This is called a Cellular Automaton and is just one of many branches of Mathematics.

We are adding new blank layers on top of each previous layer to allow change, otherwise known as Time. This Automaton can be expressed as an Equation embedded with changes and growing towards its future. As it grows, even more Macro patterns may emerge, some being very persistent. These persistent moving patterns could be called the Geometry of Matter. The rules you made up could be called Energy. Some of these can become very spectacular, with patterns that behave as Particles exchanging waves of information with other Particles with patterns emerging with the behavior of Quarks and almost anything, eventually Atoms may even emerge. In this case as all below, everything is nothing more than interactive information following a set of basic Rules you made up creating a Pattern Geometry.

At this time we must realize that this is a Solution for an Automaton based on a set of rules. Thus we must also realize that such a solution Exists for every possible set of Rules. It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway, that the vast majority of such Mathematical Universes will never amount to anything. Just plain old Junk. But some will be awesome and highly complex, even with simple rules for the relationships of the Basic Cells.

Wrap Up:

How much space does one of these Automatons take up? None! They are composed of Information only and take up no more space than Pi. Each has a beginning and that's where its concept of Time having a beginning is derived from. Its size is determined by it own definitions and can grow to Infinity, while still never taking up any Real Space.. because in the Absolute Void.. Real Space, Size and Distance doesn't exist. So since they take up no Real Space, there is room for an Infinite number of Universes, each with its own set of rules.

There is no arbitrary limit on their complexity. Any intelligent life that forms in such a Universe would notice that everything is stepped, because it is made of Cells in all directions. It is growing constantly because it needs new blank layers for the patterned Geometries to propagate onto. Depending on the Equation, it can have any number of Dimensions, such as we have at least 4 dimensions in this Automaton we Exist inside of. From inside our Automaton, we have a beginning of Time and a minimum Cell Size called the Planck Length. This Minimum Cell size establishes a Scale for all things in the Larger Scales. That way all Atoms are of compatible and controlled size.

Ok, I'm running out of time now.. I may add more later.. I hope this gives Vivian a grasp of what a Mathematical Universe entails.

Questions Welcomed.

Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)
Scott MayersPerfectZeroFaradave and one more user liked this post


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby ronjanec on June 16th, 2016, 9:12 am 

Dave,

"appears to be an infinitely long number"? Any spatially existing numerical representation for "PI" that actually exists in objective reality is always finite Dave.

Yes, a theoretical extension for "PI" can exist as an "infinitely long number" at least conceptually in the mind of an intelligent observer, but even then, this "infinitely long number" is still obviously spatially finite in the all important "objective reality" of the brain.

All kinds of concepts can exist in the mind of an intelligent observer Dave, but any concept that cannot also exist independent of the mind in the (again) all important "objective reality" is basically just a component of our imagination existing. And any scientific concept that cannot also exist in "objective reality" is bad science.

(You already have one big mistake in your personal theory right from the very beginning Dave)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs
RoccoR liked this post


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Braininvat on June 16th, 2016, 9:26 am 

I am hoping Dave will clarify, in saying automatons don't take up "Real Space"-- what is this real space that they are not occupying?
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 4935
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby vivian maxine on June 16th, 2016, 11:30 am 

Thank you, ronjanec for adding to the stew. I felt "wrongness" but I could not see why. This may answer the question I was having as I read:

I keep asking a simpler question. Pi is an infinite number. I wonder if an unending number can be "absolute". Where is this infinite number going? I'll leave it to you. BTW, isn't this the number that ends up repeating itself over and over and over - stuttering, we used to call it. Not that that matters. I suppose we can say mathematics doesn't always have a final ending. But then, if "the universe is mathematics" the universe may not end

Dave, first - and something I still want to see "on paper". Can you draw a grid illustrating what you are describing above? It might help and might not but it's worth a try.

For everything that you wrote above the grid explanation, I ended up with just one comment:

If any term that describes existence is absent from Absolute Void, then mathematics is not there. Mathematics describes stuff. It cannot precede the stuff. Mathematics describes geometric figures, ratios, sizes, and on and on. Show me where I am wrong but I think mathematics describes things that you have eliminated from that Absolute Void. Mathematics even describes time and you've eliminated time from that Absolute Void. Mathematics cannot precede the things it is describing. It comes with them. That is unless mathematics is the "creator" of the universe.

For now, that is my thinking. I am sure there will be better from those who know more. Thanks.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2717
Joined: 01 Aug 2014
DragonFlyBraininvat liked this post


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby ronjanec on June 16th, 2016, 3:40 pm 

vm,

"absolute"? As in the "absolute value" as it's distance from zero? I am not very good at Math Vivian, and not sure what you are asking me here: Maybe someone else can answer your question?

What I was again primarily concerned with here was Dave's belief that "Pi" actually exists in a naturally occurring infinite state independent of man, and that is again not true(Or again, any extended calculation that could ever be arrived at would always be finite in objective reality)

(I believe "Pi" is an irrational number Vivian: So I don't think this would be an example of what you are calling "stuttering", because there are of course different numbers in the extended calculation versus say 1 divided by 3 = 0.3333333333)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs
RoccoR liked this post


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby vivian maxine on June 16th, 2016, 3:59 pm 

ronjanec » June 16th, 2016, 2:40 pm wrote:vm,

"absolute"? As in the "absolute value" as it's distance from zero? I am not very good at Math Vivian, and not sure what you are asking me here: Maybe someone else can answer your question?

What I was again primarily concerned with here was Dave's belief that "Pi" actually exists in a naturally occurring infinite state independent of man, and that is again not true(Or again, any extended calculation that could ever be arrived at would always be finite in objective reality)

(I believe "Pi" is an irrational number Vivian: So I don't think this would be an example of what you are calling "stuttering", because there are of course different numbers in the extended calculation versus say 1 divided by 3 = 0.3333333333)


Ah, my fault. I was asking that of Dave about his Absolute Void and Absolute Truth.

When the Pi number gets very long - if I am thinking of the right fraction - it starts repeating the same four numbers over and over. However, a friend just told me that they did some refining of the measurements and it doesn't happen as much now. I don't know why not. The fraction is still the same. I'll have to check into that.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2717
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby vivian maxine on June 16th, 2016, 4:16 pm 

You are right, ronjanec. I am evidently thinking of another fraction. I found this at Wiki.

Being an irrational number, π cannot be expressed exactly as a fraction (equivalently, its decimal representation never ends and never settles into a permanent repeating pattern).

I also found this if anyone wants to see it. One million digits of pi.

http://www.piday.org/million/
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2717
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby ronjanec on June 16th, 2016, 6:45 pm 

"Discovery versus Invention"?

Previously undefined, and unobserved values, quantities, patterns, relations, durations, and rates of motion existed before man did in objective physical reality: And after man discovered this, he invented specific numbers, equations, formulas etc. to identify and quantify the same("the beginning of what man calls "Mathematics");

All the physical properties and conditions I mentioned in my first sentence naturally exist completely independent and distinct of what man again calls "Mathematics" Dave: Or in other words: What man calls "Mathematics" did not begin to exist in the universe until man did.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on June 16th, 2016, 7:51 pm 

Hi all,

Vivian wrote:Dave, first - and something I still want to see "on paper". Can you draw a grid illustrating what you are describing above? It might help and might not but it's worth a try.

To address this Question about an Automaton, here is a sample of one of the most famous associated with John Conway and his "Life" program:

Gospers_glider.gif
Gospers Glider Gun from Life program

There is a Grid here in the Graphic above and each Cell of the Grid has to follow some specific Rules:

1. Any live cell with fewer than two live neighbors dies, as if caused by under-population.
2. Any live cell with two or three live neighbors lives on to the next generation.
3. Any live cell with more than three live neighbors dies, as if by over-population.
4. Any dead cell with exactly three live neighbors becomes a live cell, as if by reproduction.

This type of Math can be done using Boolean Algebra (on a computer) or a few Logic Gates per cell for physical representation.

It has 2 layers of Time: Last and Current.. after Current (Now) is updated from Last.. then Last is erased and becomes a Blank for the next Geometry to be written to, making it the next Current.. then the process repeats.

Here is a link to read more about the power of a Cellular Automation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life

Note: This Automaton has shown a lot of Flexibility. It can be set up to compute answers. I read a short while ago they discovered a self replicating Geometry thus justifying the name of the program: "Life".

Now Viv mentioned Fractions: Some stop abruptly while others extend forever. Example: 3/10 stops after one calculation while 10/3 goes on forever. This became interesting to Math folks leading to the discovery of Fractals. It's a fairly simple procedure equation that has gotten a lot of attention, because we find Fractal Math all around us in our world. Just for fun.. here is a Mathematical 3D Fractal mini Universe explored from a camera's perspective (Lighting and colors are false but required if one wants to see inside a Fractal)


(YouTube has hundreds of these and some are really awesome.)

If you want to learn more about Fractals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

The interesting thing about the above Fractal from YouTube is that this place shown is Timeless. It never changes, has no light or color.. just Geometry. So the programmer had to create artificial light and color so you can see the wonderful Geometry embedded in this specific Mini Mathematical Universe.

Again, to have Time one needs Sequence and Geometry that is interactive, such as a Cellular Automaton, which I believe we Exist inside such a one. Any programmer can make Universes. They are a dime a dozen. Just change the Initial Pattern and a whole new Universe is described. Change a Rule, and again something different is the result.

Most such Mathematical Universes are Timeless or just Trash. In those, while fun to explore, they will never evolve into anything amazing. But a few, like the one we exist inside of, are complex enough that the Geometry can lead to Atomic's, Chemistry, Life and self-aware Intelligence's.

I'll also repeat, that Math is not all about Numbers. There are many Branches of Math, including Logic and, very likely, still many more forms of Math we haven't discovered yet. I use Pi often just to demonstrate the concept of Sequence and Beginning. The current record for Pi is calculated by computer out to 13.3 Trillion Places. In talking about Determinism, I use it to model the idea that what appears to have Random Sequence when examined closely is still an unchanging value when seen as a whole.

Anyway, if an Equation only produces a specific Solution then both must share the equal distinction of Existing. If the Solution has enough Complexity to support Self Aware Intelligence, then the occupants must have a personal subjective View regarding their own Reality. So why would we assume our personal subjective view on our Reality, our Universe, is more Real or better than theirs?

So really, I suppose this train of thought must examine what it means to Exist. We can't claim a Universe doesn't Exist just because there are no witnesses. We must keep the Human element out of any discussion regarding Existence. Does anyone still question the concept that Time can have a beginning? Do we need to examine what Time really is?

Awaiting Comments..

Best wishes all,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby vivian maxine on June 17th, 2016, 6:48 am 

Thank you, Dave. This will take some time.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2717
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby ronjanec on June 17th, 2016, 9:38 am 

"Mathematics" in the very simplest terms is just man observing and studying different facets of the natural world, and man then invents a science that represents his observations about this in a number of different ways;

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

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

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

I can think of a couple of options here: God designed all of this for us originally which is what I believe...or...we just got really really lucky with the way things all worked out for us here in the universe.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby vivian maxine on June 17th, 2016, 10:26 am 

ronjanec wrote:I can think of a couple of options here: God designed all of this for us originally which is what I believe...or...we just got really really lucky with the way things all worked out for us here in the universe.


It gave us something to play with and keep out of trouble - or hope we keep out of trouble.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2717
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on June 17th, 2016, 5:07 pm 

Hi Ron,

God only serves to muddy up the water. If you believe your God is all Knowing, then your God has no Freewill. If you believe Your God has existed for an Eternity, the what's he been doing all this time before getting around to us? Are we last on his Bucket List? What's God made of? Where did God come from? Who taught God? Is there a school for Gods?

See???? Your answer creates more problems than it solves.

Now don't get me wrong.. there is actually room in my Hypothesis that allows for a Cosmic Mind that evolved at the Beginning of this Universe. That in effect, the entire Universe is the Cosmic Mind.. that these Cells I've been describing are wired together like a Neural Network. There is as much Computational ability in the Space the size of a Sugar Cube as all the Human Brains that have ever existed added together. Now imagine how many Sugar Cubes it would take to fill this Universe.. and you get some Idea how capable the Cosmic Mind may be.

The main difference is your God is based on Faith and stories from primitive ancestors while mine is based on defensible Mathematical Logic.

Vivian and everybody:

Meanwhile, to get some idea about Scale..

(Notice all the Terrain between the Top Quark and the Bottom of Scale. Is it empty? Or is there still more structures way down there? Now go to the bottom of Scale, the smallest you can go. See the Grid called Quantum Foam in upper left. That is the Scale of the Cellular Automaton I've been describing above. Also, if you click on an object, it will open a window with a description of that object.)

So check out this neat tool to explore Scale by the link below.
(allow time to load and start, it may take a minute)
Click this Link: http://htwins.net/scale2/

It really is worth the look.. I Promise.

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby ronjanec on June 18th, 2016, 10:00 am 

ronjanec » Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:45 pm wrote:"Discovery versus Invention"?

Previously undefined, and unobserved values, quantities, patterns, relations, durations, and rates of motion existed before man did in objective physical reality: And after man discovered this, he invented specific numbers, equations, formulas etc. to identify and quantify the same("the beginning of what man calls "Mathematics");

All the physical properties and conditions I mentioned in my first sentence naturally exist completely independent and distinct of what man again calls "Mathematics" Dave: Or in other words: What man calls "Mathematics" did not begin to exist in the universe until man did.


Dave, c'mon: :) Your trying to change the subject to a discussion about my personal religious beliefs, does not address any of the important issues that I brought up here in my earlier post challenging and then proving wrong, your theory about "The Mathematical Universe"?
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on June 18th, 2016, 12:16 pm 

Hi Ron,

I didn't bring up the subject of God first and I'd rather not go there, as this wasn't meant to explore that angle.

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

My point was that we can invent lots of things, such as Music, Art, Language, Writing and the list is almost endless. But we can't invent Mathematical Truths. They are timeless and thus can only be Discovered. If you have ever taken a course on Geometry, one will find it's not about shapes but rather Axioms and Proofs. Science is an act of exploration.. to discover something not known before. Sometimes these Truths are stumbled upon and sometimes they are searched for.

I search for the Truth and it has led me to some very unexpected places. I wanted to know why Light has a Speed Limit and especially: "Why the Speed of Light is not additive". This has taken me to a new understanding of what "Time" actually is. Science, unlike Faith, should always be a search for Truth and when a better explanation for something is found, it should replace the previous understanding. But Science has human elements in it, and it's not always easy to change a scientific viewpoint until one can prove the new one is better and the old one is flawed. I'm pursuing that course right now in regards to "Time".. the mechanics behind such.

Anyway, back on track: A computer allows us to explore alternate Universes, at least the simple ones. The reason we can do such is all Realities are purely Mathematical. Not just described by Math but rather composed of Math itself. This approach removes all the obstacles that other approaches slam into.

Ok, have to run at the moment.. catch everyone later..

Best Regards,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby ronjanec on June 18th, 2016, 2:27 pm 

Dave, I decided to dig into this a little deeper, and see if any others had discussed what we are talking about here on the forum and I found this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato ... thematics/

I thought this was your own personal theory(possibly inspired in part by Max what's his name), and I was trying to debate you here on the forum just using some of my own personal ideas here to do this(also using some of the things that I have learned on the forum from neuro in the past). Now I find out that this exact same discussion that we are having here has been a big debate in science in philosophy for possibly thousands of years!

Were you aware of this? And if you were, I really think that you should have mentioned the fact that this theory that you have presented here on the forum about "The Mathematical universe" was not your original idea.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Braininvat on June 18th, 2016, 6:34 pm 

I was going to mention that Dave is a neo-Platonist, but got distracted by other threads. I continue to learn, but haven't reached a point where I could definitely agree or disagree with "U=math." Eugene Wigner had it right, though: math is "unreasonably effective" in description of the U.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 4935
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Braininvat on June 18th, 2016, 6:37 pm 

User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 4935
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby ronjanec on June 18th, 2016, 10:59 pm 

Braininvat » Sat Jun 18, 2016 4:34 pm wrote:I was going to mention that Dave is a neo-Platonist, but got distracted by other threads. I continue to learn, but haven't reached a point where I could definitely agree or disagree with "U=math." Eugene Wigner had it right, though: math is "unreasonably effective" in description of the U.


I have absolutely no problem with math being "unreasonably effective" in our description of the universe Biv, but my main point is again: What math is again describing in an "unreasonably effective" way or method does not actually represent math naturally existing in the universe like Dave is saying here.

Or for further example: "Angles" existing in the universe are not math existing naturally in the universe: When man observes an angle existing somewhere, and then measures this angle in accordance with an already established mathematical system and then says "that is a 90 degree angle", that is math now existing in the universe];

"This particular angle existing is exactly half of a 90 degree angle existing, and that must represent a 45 degree angle" Half of any exactly 90 degree angle will always work out to being exactly a 45 degree angle(an example of a mathematical truth)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on June 19th, 2016, 6:05 am 

Hi all,

Thanks for the link Ron. To be completely honest, I've not read hardly any philosophy or opinions of historical Authors on such subjects. I've taught myself most of what I've been promoting, based on logical deductions. I don't find a lot in common with Neo-Platonism as described by Bivs' Wiki Link. But do find much in common with Rons' link. My second post on this site laid down the foundation of said principles. From there I began to extrapolate various extensions and clarifications. After several years, on of this forums members (Positor) pointed out that my hypothesis was in parallel with Max Tegmark.

This all began when a friend (co-worker) and myself bought our first PC (MSdos.. 100Mhz 486) for the purpose of playing Doom over the phone lines in mutual combat Doom games. On the side, I became interested in Fractals and began to explore some. I found a Fractal Object that had a remarkable resemblance to Micky Mouse in one such investigation. I immediately called my friend and gave him the values to the equation and the location of this object. Of course, he fed the values into the program and went to the specified coordinates and, of course, found the same object I had found.

This was the first time it had ever occurred to me that Mathematical Objects can exist on a solely mathematical basis, outside/independent of our Universe. Any Alien in this Universe or any other Universe would find the same object using the same Equation. I thought how cool.. I can explore other Universes without leaving home, through a computer. I eventually got bored of fractals, as they are Timeless.

So next I started searching for something that had time embedded and that brought me to Conways' "Life" program.. which I explored as best as I could, such being rather primitive back in those days. Then it occurred to me that if I could understand the Mechanics of Gravity, I might be the first to build a practical Anti-Gravity Engine and explore our Solar System. (Hey, I am a dreamer.. what can I say..lol) So I read everything I could on Einstein's Theory of Gravity.. and didn't understand a word of it. Made no sense.

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.

The next step was understanding "Time". The Mechanics of "Time" to be specific. For this I needed a Model that has Time built into it and had the Geometry Ingredients that could be robust enough to handle all the observables. I turned to the Cellular Automaton to achieve this step. I've completed that phase and now find myself on the opposite side of the fence from Science in how Science treats Time. So I am currently posting my new Hypothesis on this site regarding Time.. in the hopes someone out there will see the merits and have the Academic Clout to promote and sway the Academic Community to my way of thinking. There are several other aspects of this that combine together to form a complete view of the Mechanics of our Reality.

There are still several obstacles in my path on several fronts. I tackle each.. one step at a time. One such obstacle is the need to dismiss any notion that anything truly physical exists. That is the primary purpose of this thread. Does all this make me a Neo-Platonist? I don't know. I don't like all the rubbish attached to that term by Wiki. It doesn't describe me at all. I'm just a Computer Programmer type with good deductive skills. I post what I have deduced to test such ideas and hoping for feedback that may indicate weakness or flaws in my reasoning. Sometimes I get unexpected reinforcement. That's always nice.

OK.. got to hit the sack soon. Will return after some sleep.

Best wishes all,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)
ronjanec liked this post


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby vivian maxine on June 19th, 2016, 9:07 am 

Dave wrote:I read everything I could on Einstein's Theory of Gravity.. and didn't understand a word of it. Made no sense.


I am remembering a a quote alleged to be one of Einstein's. After delivering a lecture to a class (gravity? light? I forget what topic), he said to them: "Now if you understand all of that, you are better than I because I do not."
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2717
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby ronjanec on June 19th, 2016, 9:14 am 

That was a very interesting story Dave: I have always wondered how you came to your personal beliefs about a number of different things, and your post this morning gave me a much greater understanding of the same.

I am really busy today...and will return when I have more time(NBA last game of the finals tonight!)
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Braininvat on June 19th, 2016, 10:08 am 

I'm guessing no one scrolled down, in the Wigner article, to the Max Tegmark section. Tegmark's ontology is a response to Wigner.

Dave, if you look at the neoplatonic concept of mental concepts preceding matter (SEP covers this), then I think you may see a kinship. Plato's "forms" were similar to your ontically primary mathematical truths. Just trying to show Max and you share deep roots in the history of philosophy.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 4935
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Braininvat on June 19th, 2016, 8:09 pm 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.00001

The abstract is not very clear, but the article itself is a real eye-opener on some problems with the MU. Worth reading if you are studying the MU theory, and have a basic understanding of geometry, linear algebra, and matrices.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 4935
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
dandelion liked this post


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby ronjanec on June 20th, 2016, 1:01 pm 

Man discovers mathematics existing naturally in the universe? Again and still again...no we do not. For another example using a different analogy;

"Water" has existed in the universe before man himself began to exist: Man eventually discovered that this physical condition actually represents 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom in molecular form. Man then came up with a chemical formula/mathematical equation to represent this scientific fact and mathematical truth;

This means that chemistry and mathematical truth has existed naturally in the universe before man himself existed? "The Chemical Universe"? Again no. Only a particular physical condition has existed in the universe before man himself existed and not "chemistry", "a chemical formula/mathematical equation" and "mathematical truth".

Ok? We are not talking about "chemistry", "mathematics", or "mathematical truth" again naturally occurring or existing here in the universe in this example and man eventually discovering this: We are again, only talking about a particular physical condition naturally occurring here. This then begins to exist in the universe in "chemistry", "mathematics", and becomes a "mathematical truth", only when and after man gets involved here and not before.

The same type of analogy and logic can again be used to show that any form of "mathematics" or "mathematical truth" did not exist naturally in the universe before man himself existed. It was again, some kind of particular physical condition that man was actually looking at here and then interpreting in a mathematical fashion or method(And the same type of analogy and logic also shows that man did not discover "mathematics" or "mathematical truth" existing in the universe before him).

"The Mathematical Universe" and "Mathematical Platonism"? Anyone reading this has to make up their own mind about this of course, but I am personally saying that they are both wrong.
Last edited by ronjanec on June 20th, 2016, 1:35 pm, edited 4 times in total.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby ronjanec on June 20th, 2016, 1:23 pm 

Braininvat » Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:09 pm wrote:https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.00001

The abstract is not very clear, but the article itself is a real eye-opener on some problems with the MU. Worth reading if you are studying the MU theory, and have a basic understanding of geometry, linear algebra, and matrices.


I tried reading it a couple of times Biv but it still went over my head. What I have read, and actually been able to understand from him, did make a lot of sense to me(his thoughts on "time" in particular) So I am also a fan of some of his work.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby vivian maxine on June 20th, 2016, 1:49 pm 

Perhaps what they are really saying is that the universe came into being with designs that formed patterns which enabled us to explain the designs mathematically. Perhaps, for that reason, they are saying mathematics is the universe. Maybe they simply mean all the patterns were there that enabled the term. Almost everything in the universe seems to have some form of balanced pattern. And perhaps we are saying we can't use the word "mathematics" for that because we already use it after the fact. But, can we use it? If not, then what term can we use?

What confused me at the start was the statement "Mathematics is the Universe". I am probably far off base here but does "The Universe is mathematics (mathematical) fit? Is mathematics always dealing with patterns? If it is, then mathematics came into being at the time the universe came into being. Not before but with - mathematics being the pattern the universe formed as it came into being.

I am not a mathematician. Can someone who is answer one question. Does everything that mathematics deals with fall into patterns? If not, all I've said above is gibberish. It probably is anyway.

Carry on, Ronjanec. Keep us thinking.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2717
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby ronjanec on June 20th, 2016, 2:02 pm 

vivian maxine » Mon Jun 20, 2016 11:49 am wrote:Perhaps what they are really saying is that the universe came into being with designs that formed patterns which enabled us to explain the designs mathematically. Perhaps, for that reason, they are saying mathematics is the universe. Maybe they simply mean all the patterns were there that enabled the term. Almost everything in the universe seems to have some form of balanced pattern. And perhaps we are saying we can't use the word "mathematics" for that because we already use it after the fact. But, can we use it? If not, then what term can we use?

What confused me at the start was the statement "Mathematics is the Universe". I am probably far off base here but does "The Universe is mathematics (mathematical) fit? Is mathematics always dealing with patterns? If it is, then mathematics came into being at the time the universe came into being. Not before but with - mathematics being the pattern the universe formed as it came into being.

I am not a mathematician. Can someone who is answer one question. Does everything that mathematics deals with fall into patterns? If not, all I've said above is gibberish. It probably is anyway.

Carry on, Ronjanec. Keep us thinking.


I will try to respond to your post as soon as I have a little more time Vivian.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby Dave_Oblad on June 20th, 2016, 7:21 pm 

Hi all,

I read the Post by Carlo Rovelli offered by BiV. It was simple to understand and a complete waste of time. It was filled with Semantic sleight of hand, strawman arguments and a lot of pointless space filler. All the Geometry and Axioms discovered so far would not Define a Universe. They only serve as tools to describe stuff and are only useful on a subjective level. (he got that part right..lol)

You wouldn't use an Equation like GR to play a game of Chess. I call such Equations Analog Math. They deal with Frequency and Force and Vectors etc. You would not be able to write an Analog Equation that Plays Chess. But you can write a Boolean Equation to define a Computer and you could write a Boolean Equation that defines a Chess playing program for that Computer. Such an Equation I'd call a Digital Equation. It could play Chess or define a Virtual Reality for that matter.

So bottom line: One needs to use the Right Kind of Math for the Right Kind of Job. Therefore, Rovellis' whole paper is basically and collectively: A Strawman Argument.

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

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

Best wishes,
Dave :^)
User avatar
Dave_Oblad
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3040
Joined: 08 Sep 2010
Location: Southern California
Blog: View Blog (4)
Athena liked this post


Re: The Mathematical Universe

Postby ronjanec on June 20th, 2016, 9:04 pm 

vm,

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

I am not sure who "they" are that you are referring to in your post Vivian, but I doubt "they" meant what you are thinking here: Again, because of the religious connotation of the word "design" in this particular context.
ronjanec
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4299
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Location: Chicago suburbs


Next

Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests