Math and reality
Math and reality
When it comes to the true nature of reality, we mostly seek the answer in religion or philosophy. But what does math have to say about it?
Here's a lecture by Dr. Ron Garret about that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc (1:03:42)
His conclusion made people walk out.
It makes me wonder: Are people ready for the truth, if the truth is different from what they expected?
Does the truth matter at all, if people reject it?
Disclaimer: Please do NOT pay attention to the uploaders description! That description is made solely for the purpose of building hype and getting attention, and does not reflect the content!
Here's a lecture by Dr. Ron Garret about that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc (1:03:42)
His conclusion made people walk out.
It makes me wonder: Are people ready for the truth, if the truth is different from what they expected?
Does the truth matter at all, if people reject it?
Disclaimer: Please do NOT pay attention to the uploaders description! That description is made solely for the purpose of building hype and getting attention, and does not reflect the content!
Last edited by QuantumT on Sat Apr 28, 2018 10:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Math and reality
I clicked the link, saw that the video was an hour long, and closed the window. You need to be more helpful to readers and respect their time if you hope to have an audience.
I checked the video comments and found that the speaker's conclusion is that we live in a simulation. One hopes that they are not positing reality to consist purely of simulations all the way down - with no initial actual state on which to base the simulations.
I checked the video comments and found that the speaker's conclusion is that we live in a simulation. One hopes that they are not positing reality to consist purely of simulations all the way down - with no initial actual state on which to base the simulations.
Re: Math and reality
Thank you for bringing the duration to my attention.Greta wrote: ↑Sat Apr 28, 2018 10:41 pm I clicked the link, saw that the video was an hour long, and closed the window. You need to be more helpful to readers and respect their time if you hope to have an audience.
I checked the video comments and found that the speaker's conclusion is that we live in a simulation. One hopes that they are not positing reality to consist purely of simulations all the way down - with no initial actual state on which to base the simulations.
The conclusion is that we either live in a multiverse or a zeroverse, and that the math points more towards a zeroverse.
Re: Math and reality
I might need help with "zeroverse" as all I am finding on Google are links for Dragonball Z, software, quips and book lists.QuantumT wrote: ↑Sat Apr 28, 2018 10:46 pmThank you for bringing the duration to my attention.Greta wrote: ↑Sat Apr 28, 2018 10:41 pm I clicked the link, saw that the video was an hour long, and closed the window. You need to be more helpful to readers and respect their time if you hope to have an audience.
I checked the video comments and found that the speaker's conclusion is that we live in a simulation. One hopes that they are not positing reality to consist purely of simulations all the way down - with no initial actual state on which to base the simulations.
The conclusion is that we either live in a multiverse or a zeroverse, and that the math points more towards a zeroverse.
Re: Math and reality
Zeroverse is just a clinical term to destinguish between 3 possible options (listed by popularity):
1: Universe. One single place. No other options.
2: Multiverse. Endless universes, either in the same place, or side by side.
3: Zeroverse. A virtual place. Still real, but not physical.
Re: Math and reality
I thought that was a fairly standard line of thought, given that most of reality is "empty space" and the sum total of all energy in the universe balances out to zero. It does seem that what our nervous systems experience is entirely relative, although there is still much to learn.
What is "solid"? From a rogue neutron star's perspective, any planet that it destroyed would seem like almost nothing, like moving through a region of thin fog at best.
Re: Math and reality
I like the way you think!Greta wrote: ↑Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:55 pm I thought that was a fairly standard line of thought, given that most of reality is "empty space" and the sum total of all energy in the universe balances out to zero. It does seem that what our nervous systems experience is entirely relative, although there is still much to learn.
What is "solid"? From a rogue neutron star's perspective, any planet that it destroyed would seem like almost nothing, like moving through a region of thin fog at best.
What we consider solid is just energy resisting. Electrons refusing to make contact.
Re: Math and reality
Thanks! Logically, as research progresses and the results increasingly disseminated, you would expect rational people in possession of roughly the same information to come to fairly similar conclusions. That appears to be the case with us.QuantumT wrote: ↑Sun Apr 29, 2018 12:06 amI like the way you think!Greta wrote: ↑Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:55 pmI thought that was a fairly standard line of thought, given that most of reality is "empty space" and the sum total of all energy in the universe balances out to zero. It does seem that what our nervous systems experience is entirely relative, although there is still much to learn.
What is "solid"? From a rogue neutron star's perspective, any planet that it destroyed would seem like almost nothing, like moving through a region of thin fog at best.
Unless coerced by extreme pressure. It is the resistance of the space within atoms that makes existence possible - otherwise we'd all just crash together.QuantumT wrote:What we consider solid is just energy resisting. Electrons refusing to make contact.
Still, it appears that energy itself is an absolute, although this doesn't change the relative status of all things since there is nothing aside from energy with which to use as a reference. Space is still just energy like everything else, spread very thinly. "What is energy?" beyond the prosaic definition of "work", though, is an especially fundamental and difficult question. "The stuff in which everything can be relative" is not satisfying :)
Re: Math and reality
There seems to be evolving a new branch in the science community, that percieves the universe as energy/information/holographic, opposed to the old school guys, who will fight to the death to keep reality materialistic.
There is even some degree of bullying going on, both within the community, and outside (among us amateurs). Labels like "pseudo-science" and "hypothesis" are frequently used as tools to discredit us.
I choose to treat it as the death-struggle of materialism
Well not quite. The protons contains a dragging force, while the electrons contains a resisting force. Those two forces make up our reality, but with the electron as the most important one (relating to our senses) - IMOIt is the resistance of the space within atoms that makes existence possible - otherwise we'd all just crash together.
If the forces had been a fraction smaller, we'd be midgets, and everything would be very heavy to lift. A fraction larger, we'd be giants, and everything would be light as feathers. Imagine that!
Re: Math and reality
I don't think materialism false as there's a helluva lot of material around. I see it as a useful perspective, applicable in most areas, but there are other angles with which to view reality - in terms of maths and geometry or data and computing, or in terms of life, of consciousness, and so forth, although as far as we know all of these things need some kind of material substrate.
Re: Math and reality
I consider materialism as the subjective experience of each individual. Nothing more, nothing less.Greta wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 4:52 am I don't think materialism false as there's a helluva lot of material around. I see it as a useful perspective, applicable in most areas, but there are other angles with which to view reality - in terms of maths and geometry or data and computing, or in terms of life, of consciousness, and so forth, although as far as we know all of these things need some kind of material substrate.
It's the interface we use to navigate through life. It feels real, but it's not. But, it's all we have.
Re: Math and reality
There were seemingly material machinations before conscious experience, though, that made it all possible.QuantumT wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 9:53 pmI consider materialism as the subjective experience of each individual. Nothing more, nothing less.Greta wrote: ↑Tue May 01, 2018 4:52 am I don't think materialism false as there's a helluva lot of material around. I see it as a useful perspective, applicable in most areas, but there are other angles with which to view reality - in terms of maths and geometry or data and computing, or in terms of life, of consciousness, and so forth, although as far as we know all of these things need some kind of material substrate.
It's the interface we use to navigate through life. It feels real, but it's not. But, it's all we have.
Re: Math and reality
Well, if we assume that we live in a zeroverse, we could compare the time before humanities arrival, to installing, loading and setting up the game of Sims.
I watched my kid do it, and it takes a shitload of time/work, to make it all as she likes it.
Re: Math and reality
The same could be said before other emergences - of life, of multicellular life, of trilobites and dinosaurs. Each stage might have been thought of as the point of the game, with considerable loading too.
Re: Math and reality
It appears similar to some of the topics I have argued:QuantumT wrote: ↑Sat Apr 28, 2018 11:42 pmZeroverse is just a clinical term to destinguish between 3 possible options (listed by popularity):
1: Universe. One single place. No other options.
2: Multiverse. Endless universes, either in the same place, or side by side.
3: Zeroverse. A virtual place. Still real, but not physical.
Do Points (0d) Act as Fields?
http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtop ... 39&t=34300
Lines and Numbers are Inseperable as Relativistic Unit-Particulate (Because of 0d Point)?
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtop ... 26&t=23610
Relativity, Negation, and Atomism
https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtop ... 16&t=23043