What is a "real universe?"

[Philosophy Explorer]

This thread was inspired by discussion at another thread.

It's been claimed that whatever has happened in the past can no longer be real. Since all information that reaches our brain has already happened, then the information can't be real so the shallow reasoning goes.

The theory is flawed. First it doesn't say whether the information is real or not at the time of its creation. It just says it's unreal as soon as it becomes part of the past. Then it doesn't explain how, if the information started off real, changed to unreal. Also if our universe is unreal, that contradicts "I think, therefore I exist" because we are part of the universe as it contains everything, including us.

I can keep on going, but this is good for starters. I'm sure this person will persist in pursuing his cuckoo theory and probably doubt his own existence to which I ask "Who is doing the doubting?"

I would also like to ask if you would regard a holographic universe as being unreal?

PhilX

[Arising_uk]

It's the metaphysical substrate postulated to support this one. According to Kant it's unknowable and has the name the noumenoun.

What you appear to miss from OL's idea is that we are in the real time of the substrate it's that our perceptions and experience of it are behind the times and are not actually the thing in itself. Put it this way, Feynman pointed out that if we actually saw photons rather than requiring three or more to excite our nerves then light would be seen as a 'rain', albeit a 'rain' moving in all directions.

[Philosophy Explorer]

It's the metaphysical substrate postulated to support this one. According to Kant it's unknowable and has the name the noumenoun.

If it's unknowable, then how could it support this one?

PhilX

[Arising_uk]

If it's unknowable, then how could it support this one?

PhilX

Support was probably the wrong word, see my edit above.

Why do you think it conscious?

Why do you think it's aim is to support this one? Have you ever see Conway's Game if Life? The rules have no intent to produce the self-sustaining patterns it produces.

[Obvious Leo]

Phil. You seem to be trying to mount an argument against presentism and in favour of eternalism. Your attempt to ridicule me notwithstanding the burden of presenting the case lies with you. I'm merely saying that physical reality exists only in the moment NOW and I simply insist that we must grant a proper meaning to the tenses of the verbs we use when speaking of what's real and what isn't. This is a philosophy forum, after all, and philosophy is all about precision of language. It is meaningful to say that the past is that which used to exist and it is also meaningful to say that the future is that which is yet to exist but it is not meaningful to say that either the past or the future is currently existing. This is the proposition you will need to refute, and I wish you luck with it. Others will then be free to determine for themselves which of us is the nutjob.

[Obvious Leo]

Have you ever see Conway's Game if Life? The rules have no intent to produce the self-sustaining patterns it produces.

I've suggested to Phil countless times that he needs to understand Conway to understand a self-causal reality but he shows no sign of relinquishing his fantasy of a reality predicated on a causal mechanism which lies external to itself. He must be a closet creationist.

[Arising_uk]

... He must be a closet creationist.

I think so too and would explain why he's always sniping at the Darwinian biologists.

[Obvious Leo]

... He must be a closet creationist.

I think so too and would explain why he's always sniping at the Darwinian biologists.

I originally trained as a biologist and I must confess I routinely snipe at the Darwinists and neo-Darwinists myself. However I don't do so because I reckon they're wrong but rather because their approach is not holistic enough. They tend to focus on biological evolution as it occurs within the biosphere instead of looking at the bigger picture and focusing on the evolution of the biosphere as a whole. This broader view defines evolution more precisely as an information theory and brings it into line with its related information theories, such as complexity theory, control theory, cybernetics, neural networking, etc.

[Jaded Sage]

A fiction, because anti-realism is the best!

[Obvious Leo]

Arising. Since you find the Conway modelling persuasive you should be able to stretch your thinking to see the biosphere as a Mandelbrot set and if you can manage that then it's only a small conceptual leap to see the entire universe in the same way. In my opinion this the only cosmological model which can account for my own existence and being able to account for my own existence is the only reason I ever took up philosophy in the first place. The transcendent creator always struck me as a cop-out because it defines the universe as unknowable, in which case any philosopher worthy of the name should reach for his hemlock without delay.

[Dubious]

...to see the biosphere as a Mandelbrot set and if you can manage that then it's only a small conceptual leap to see the entire universe in the same way.

What it seems you're saying is that the biosphere and by extension the cosmos is 'fractal-like' without actually being fractals in themselves. Is this correct?

In my opinion this the only cosmological model which can account for my own existence and being able to account for my own existence is the only reason I ever took up philosophy in the first place.

I like this view myself but it only amounts to personal conjectures as contained in one's philosophy.

[Obvious Leo]

What it seems you're saying is that the biosphere and by extension the cosmos is 'fractal-like' without actually being fractals in themselves. Is this correct?

No. I prefer to be taken literally on this point. I utterly refute the notion that time is a Cartesian dimension as it is represented in spacetime physics, a metaphysical error which I define as mistaking the map for the territory. Cartesian dimensions are bi-directional and yet the arrow of time is resolutely unidirectional It is for this reason that the models devised in spacetime physics contradict each other and are riddled with paradoxes and metaphysical absurdities. In my philosophy I quite specifically define time as a fractal dimension because fractal dimensions are unidirectional and the arrow of entropy in a fractal dimension tends from the simple to the complex, which accords precisely with the evidence.

I like this view myself but it only amounts to personal conjectures as contained in one's philosophy.

Most of the leading theorists in modern cosmology are firmly of the view that a true cosmological model must include an explanation for the existence of life and mind. In fact there was a very high-powered conference only a few years ago which was attended by many of the most illustrious illuminati in theoretical physics and quite a few of them subsequently made public statements expressing precisely this view. I can't recall who all of then were but they definitely included Lisa Randall, Jakob Bekenstein, Brian Greene and Frank Wilcek. Paul Davies has been saying this for decades and I think even David Deutsch has said something similar in recent times, although in the latter case I may be misremembering exactly what he said.

[Dubious]

What it seems you're saying is that the biosphere and by extension the cosmos is 'fractal-like' without actually being fractals in themselves. Is this correct?

No. I prefer to be taken literally on this point. I utterly refute the notion that time is a Cartesian dimension as it is represented in spacetime physics, a metaphysical error which I define as mistaking the map for the territory. Cartesian dimensions are bi-directional and yet the arrow of time is resolutely unidirectional It is for this reason that the models devised in spacetime physics contradict each other and are riddled with paradoxes and metaphysical absurdities. In my philosophy I quite specifically define time as a fractal dimension because fractal dimensions are unidirectional and the arrow of entropy in a fractal dimension tends from the simple to the complex, which accords precisely with the evidence.

...and yet it seems that the non-fractal nature of the Universe accords extremely well with the the space-time paradigm. This comes from your neck of the woods:

http://www.space.com/17234-universe-fra ... heory.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... -smoothie/

What in your theory is Cartesian Space? How do you define it? Is it the space we walk through, drive through, fly through? In short, the space between objects and destinations whether on a subatomic or cosmic scale. This is all very vague but you 'seem' to define, or more accurately replace, space-time with the morphology of fractals. Any new theory which supplants the prior one must include all the reasons why the old one worked to the extent it did. Relativity with all its 'spacetime' paraphernalia must be confirmed within the context of any new theory. As it stands, the success of Relativity makes this extremely difficult.

I like this view myself but it only amounts to personal conjectures as contained in one's philosophy.

Most of the leading theorists in modern cosmology are firmly of the view that a true cosmological model must include an explanation for the existence of life and mind. In fact there was a very high-powered conference only a few years ago which was attended by many of the most illustrious illuminati in theoretical physics and quite a few of them subsequently made public statements expressing precisely this view. I can't recall who all of then were but they definitely included Lisa Randall, Jakob Bekenstein, Brian Greene and Frank Wilcek. Paul Davies has been saying this for decades and I think even David Deutsch has said something similar in recent times, although in the latter case I may be misremembering exactly what he said.

We already have the explanation for the existence of life and consequently mind on this planet. As a biologist you would know the chemistry of that better than anyone. Why must a true cosmological model include an explanation for the existence of life and mind aside from the necessity of the latter's existence to model the former? This is tantamount to stating that there must be some metaphysical imperative in the existence of life and mind for a complete explanation on the existence of the cosmos. This seems more a subject within the precincts of philosophy not science, physics as contained within metaphysics. An upgraded form of medievalism.

With all the abstract theories online, holograms, computer simulations, projection of data or the universe existing as a Black Hole, it's very hard to know what a true cosmological model must include. I can't imagine any physicist or cosmologist striving for a theory which emphasizes life and mind as a prerequisite except as one of many processes inherently allowed by the model. As for the illuminati you mention, I haven't once encountered this view as an essential condition except possibly as a vague speculation along with all the other speculations. Lisa Randall for one is decidedly hard-nosed about any such metaphysical additions to physics and gave a good short summary in one of her books as to why philosophers are generally unloved by physicists. Same for Brian Greene.

I probably missed something but in what way is this linked to fractals?

[roykfahey]

Nothing is real in the Universe since the universe is a grand illusion created by God, for what purpose, we shall never know. Only the creator can answer this enigmatic question. But I am sure that nothing is real in the Universe, but for your satisfaction, I believe that only TRUTH is real in the Universe.

[Walker]

Nothing is real in the Universe since the universe is a grand illusion created by God, for what purpose, we shall never know. Only the creator can answer this enigmatic question. But I am sure that nothing is real in the Universe, but for your satisfaction, I believe that only TRUTH is real in the Universe.

Is it true that you are not real?