Atheism and the Afterlife

looksee

Logically I should abandon this futile and irrational mind game and go and do something useful.

smacl

starshine1234 wrote: »

In logic, not all premises need be true. A premise which doesn't claim to be true doesn't need to be true.

But as per my previous point to Peregrinus, if you have a number of conflicting premises that could possibly be either true or false, only one may true. Where that number is large, the probability of any one being true is tiny. As this number tends towards infinity so too all your conflicting possibilities become infinitely improbable. Thus is is entirely irrational to hold that any given one of them is true.

There are an infinite number of possible scenarios for the existence of our universe that directly conflict with the simulation possibility, e.g. God did it, Farnsworth did it, etc..., thus until such time as further evidence is forthcoming, belief in any one of them is entirely irrational.

starshine1234

I can't follow your point.

starshine1234

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/06/03/we-are-almost-definitely-living-in-a-matrix-style-simulation-cla/


Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur and founder of Space X, Tesla and Paypal, has told an interviewer there is only a “one in billions” chance that we’re not living in a computer simulation.

He also claimed that, if we’re not living in a simulation, we could be approaching the end of the world.


I suspect that Boards.ie may explode at this news!

robindch

starshine1234 wrote: »

Why have you failed to address or refute a single point I've made, in respect of the argument itself, rather than in respect of the manner in which I present it?

Because I'm one of the forum moderators whose job it is to ensure that forum posters stick to the forum charter. So far, you're posting a range of discussion points - some with merit, some without - but instead of discussing them fully, you've a tendency to insult other posters which is agin' the forum charter.

Stick to discussion instead of fist-waving and things will go much easier - I'd certainly like to avoid having to card people with points to make - unless there's no alternative, that is.

starshine1234

I have discussed the issue completely and fully. To say otherwise is not true.

Stealthfins

Of course there's an afterlife,sure isn't there a life after recovery from addiction.

There's life after a bad relationship.

Death is life changing for some people,sometimes positive or negative....

unfortunately

smacl wrote:

. The fact is there are an infinite number of such fantasy propositions that must be true because they could possibly be true, that all directly contradict one another, means we now have infinity as a factor on both numerator and denominator sides of or equation.

The key element of the argument is that IF the technology to run complex simulations is possible then it's likely we'd run a lot of them GIVEN that, then we are likely in a simulation.

If you want to attack the argument, then attack the plausibility that we can indeed construct such simulations. It differs from other fantasy scenarios (e.g. there is a reality of infinite sleeping giants and we are likely in a dream of one of them, because there are so many "dream realities" and only one "reality)

A reality of infinite sleeping giants is hard to prove. I think mathematically it's the same argument, which is what I think your saying but the key difference is that advanced computer simulations, on the face of it seen more plausable.

Maybe it is is impossible to run such accurate simulations but that's where you attack the argument. That's why some people are suggestion that the argument isn't being fully grasped. It all lies on whether the advanced simulations are possible in the near future, which they may or may not be.

smacl

unfortunately wrote: »

The key element of the argument is that IF the technology to run complex simulations is possible then it's likely we'd run a lot of them GIVEN that, then we are likely in a simulation.

Not so. You're blinkering yourself by considering a single possibility and proceeding on that basis while dismissing other possibilities that may have equal merit. Say for example we hop from the Matrix to Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy, where again mankind is just a scientific experiment but in this case a single one constructed by very advanced aliens. Given an infinite universe, it seems as likely there will be other intelligent life out there, some of which will be very advanced, so it could be reasonably argued that this is as realistic a possibility as mankind being able to simulate entire universes. Or say we're running in your supposed simulation created by post-humans, is it then reasonable to assume they are running in a more sophisticated simulation created by post-post humans who are in turn running in an even more sophisticated simulation run by post-post-post humans? And what about extra terrestrial life doing the same thing elsewhere? The possibilities are as endless as our imagination, picking one imaginary scenario over all others and stating it is probably true to me seems entirely irrational.

If you want to attack the argument, then attack the plausibility that we can indeed construct such simulations. It differs from other fantasy scenarios (e.g. there is a reality of infinite sleeping giants and we are likely in a dream of one of them, because there are so many "dream realities" and only one "reality)

A reality of infinite sleeping giants is hard to prove. I think mathematically it's the same argument, which is what I think your saying but the key difference is that advanced computer simulations, on the face of it seen more plausable.

Maybe it is is impossible to run such accurate simulations but that's where you attack the argument. That's why some people are suggestion that the argument isn't being fully grasped. It all lies on whether the advanced simulations are possible in the near future, which they may or may not be.

The argument can be attacked on lots of fronts because it lacks foundations. As per my previous post, a simulation that could accurately represent the entirety of the observable universe at every level of detail seems implausible. One the could fool the subjective senses of a single AI seems more achievable by simply using a second AI to give reasonable responses to questions raised, so your entire matrix simulation could be no more than two artificial minds operating at a solely subjective level, in which case humankind never existed. This is of course yet another imaginary possibility which is as plausible as various other matrix type scenarios. Possible, yes. Probable, No.

smacl

starshine1234 wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/06/03/we-are-almost-definitely-living-in-a-matrix-style-simulation-cla/


Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur and founder of Space X, Tesla and Paypal, has told an interviewer there is only a “one in billions” chance that we’re not living in a computer simulation.

He also claimed that, if we’re not living in a simulation, we could be approaching the end of the world.


I suspect that Boards.ie may explode at this news!

Just because a Billionaire American Entrepreneur states he believes something doesn't make it true. Everyone knows that*

(*except Trump supporters of course)

starshine1234

I think Elon has a tendency to over-egg science and what's possible.

But many scientists do take the argument seriously. I know Boards doesn't but then I don't mind. I'm happy to be singlehandedly batting off lots of queries.

I feel like the kid who was the only one who could see that the emperor had no clothes.


Nobody is laughing now, as Nigel might say.

unfortunately

I'm not actually arguing that we are in fact in a simulation, I was just explaining the argument.

Yes it could be possible, probably more likely, that we are in a simulated universe created by an advanced civilisation rather than by advanced human civilisation.

The argument could be more general like: if simulations of universes are possible and many are likely to be constructed then we are probably in one of them.

Whether it's an alien simulation or post-human it doesn't matter.

I don't believe it or it doesnt matter because it's unfalsifiable so there's no point to it practically. But I'm not convinced yet of an argument that knocks it down.

I think you are right we may not specifically be in a human created simulation but are we in a simulation in general?

smacl

starshine1234 wrote: »

I think Elon has a tendency to over-egg science and what's possible.

But many scientists do take the argument seriously. I know Boards doesn't but then I don't mind. I'm happy to be singlehandedly batting off lots of queries.

I feel like the kid who was the only one who could see that the emperor had no clothes.


Nobody is laughing now, as Nigel might say.

Boards is not the Borg. We are all individuals!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QereR0CViMY

starshine1234

It may be possible to prove that we live in a simulation.

It is something to do with counting cosmic rays and seeing if they're truly random. Computers cannot produce true random numbers.

It was mentioned in one of the two newspaper articles I linked to.

smacl

unfortunately wrote: »

Yes it could be possible, probably more likely, that we are in a simulated universe created by an advanced civilisation rather than by advanced human civilisation.

Ok, so what if the simulation is a construct rather than a piece of software? After all the simplest way to accurately represent a planet full of people such as earth and mankind might be to simply build it. What makes one of these possibilities more or less valid than the other?

My point is with the tiniest bit of exploration into your initially stated possibility you start to uncover a multitude of initially similar but rapidly diverging and contradictory alternate possibilities that are every bit as valid as the initial possibility. The number of such possibilities is large enough to render the probability of any given one being true to be insignificant.

Where you end up at the bottom of this rabbit hole is with religious belief, and Elon like L.Ron before him laughing all the way to the bank.

smacl

starshine1234 wrote: »

It may be possible to prove that we live in a simulation.

It is something to do with counting cosmic rays and seeing if they're truly random. Computers cannot produce true random numbers.

It was mentioned in one of the two newspaper articles I linked to.

Silly argument. If we were in a simulation that that dictates our subjective understanding of our universe, they wouldn't have to.

unfortunately

smacl wrote:

Ok, so what if the simulation is a construct rather than a piece of software? After all the simplest way to accurately represent a planet full of people such as earth and mankind might be to simply build it. What makes one of these possibilities more or less valid than the other?

The confusion seems to be over what's possible and what's probable.

The argument is that advanced simulations are potentially a 100 years away with our technology and its easy to run millions of them. Debatable, but reasonably plausable.

It's not as plausible that there are millions of constructed Earths in the universe. That would require a civilisation with vastly more power and knowledge - it could be hypothetically possible but is it plausible based on what we know now.

Bringing up religion and L. Ron Hubbard isn't relevant its just an academic/philosophical argument. I'm an atheist, the argument isn't going to "convince" me that we live in a simulation because it's unfalsifiable.

starshine1234

smacl wrote: »

Silly argument. If we were in a simulation that that dictates our subjective understanding of our universe, they wouldn't have to.

While I take your viewpoint on board, with respect, on this issue I will take more heed of what professional scientists and mathematicans say.

smacl

unfortunately wrote: »

The argument is that advanced simulations are potentially a 100 years away with our technology and its easy to run millions of them. Debatable, but reasonably plausable.

We run advanced simulations today. We may have artificial intelligence in 100 years capable of subjective thought. Running a single simulation containing 7.4 billion of them, in an interactive virtual environment containing many trillions of other independent animals and an observable universe that is many light years in diameter and can be examined at a detail level that is subatomic does not seem plausible. Running a huge number of such simulations is a fantasy that meets and exceeds that of an advanced civilisation that can build planets.

The nearest plausible thing to the simulation theory is one where we have an AI in a very limited simulation where we simply dupe its subjective thinking into believing it is part of a much larger universe. Artificial realisation of solipsism could well be achievable, but why bother?

smacl

starshine1234 wrote: »

While I take your viewpoint on board, with respect, on this issue I will take more heed of what professional scientists and mathematicans say.

Good for you. Nine out of ten people can't believe its not butter.

starshine1234

smacl wrote: »

We run advanced simulations today. We may have artificial intelligence in 100 years capable of subjective thought. Running a single simulation containing 7.4 billion of them, in an interactive virtual environment containing many trillions of other independent animals and an observable universe that is many light years in diameter and can be examined at a detail level that is subatomic does not seem plausible. Running a huge number of such simulations is a fantasy that meets and exceeds that of an advanced civilisation that can build planets.

The nearest plausible thing to the simulation theory is one where we have an AI in a very limited simulation where we simply dupe its subjective thinking into believing it is part of a much larger universe. Artificial realisation of solipsism could well be achievable, but why bother?

It may not seem plausible to you but have you read scientific papers on the topic?

Because the scientific papers I have read do appear to concede that it is possible, and plausible.

It is certainly not fantasy. Harry Potter is fantasy.

looksee

How do you know Harry Potter is fantasy?

starshine1234

because the author said so.

She could be lying of course.

How do I know anthing is real?

I don't

smacl

starshine1234 wrote: »

It may not seem plausible to you but have you read scientific papers on the topic?

Because the scientific papers I have read do appear to concede that it is possible, and plausible.

It is certainly not fantasy. Harry Potter is fantasy.

References please, which papers specifically? FWIW, my own educational background and work over the last 30 years does include mathematics (discrete methods specifically), complexity theory and algorithmics. If you think that because we have made such huge advances in computation in recent years we will be able solve any mathematical problem through computation you could do worse than read up on NP-completeness and problems that require superpolynomial time to solve. I currently have a stack of journal articles on my desk relating to processing large data, and the reason I get to spend so much time on boards is because I'm regularly waiting for my computers to solve problems that an average human mind would find trivial.

starshine1234

Is it possible that Harry Potter is real, and that the Harry Potter universe is actually the real universe?

Our universe may have been created by a magican in the Harry Potter universe, perhaps Harry himself, and our universe may actually exist inside a small broach that the magican wears on his cloak.

The idea is unfalsifiable and so it isn't a scientific theory.

unfortunately

smacl wrote:

We run advanced simulations today. We may have artificial intelligence in 100 years capable of subjective thought. Running a single simulation containing 7.4 billion of them, in an interactive virtual environment containing many trillions of other independent animals and an observable universe that is many light years in diameter and can be examined at a detail level that is subatomic does not seem plausible. Running a huge number of such simulations is a fantasy that meets and exceeds that of an advanced civilisation that can build planets.

I agree, you probably need a computer made of more than all the atoms of the universe to create an extremely accurately model of the universe

magicbastarder

smacl wrote: »

I'm regularly waiting for my computers to solve problems that an average human mind would find trivial.

i used to wonder when doing basic geometry in school whether infinity equals minus infinity. because a vertical line has a slope of both infinity and minus infinity.
can you ask the computer about that?

DeiseMan4

starshine1234 wrote: »

I think Elon has a tendency to over-egg science and what's possible.

But many scientists do take the argument seriously. I know Boards doesn't but then I don't mind. I'm happy to be singlehandedly batting off lots of queries.

I feel like the kid who was the only one who could see that the emperor had no clothes.


Nobody is laughing now, as Nigel might say.

completely!!!! Over-rated arrogant twat where many of his businesses lose money??? Lucky he has that nest egg.

Dis-proving beyond belief an elon 'idea'
youtube .com/watch?v=DDwe2M-LDZQ

smacl

magicbastarder wrote: »

i used to wonder when doing basic geometry in school whether infinity equals minus infinity. because a vertical line has a slope of both infinity and minus infinity.
can you ask the computer about that?

For fun with math questions, Wolfram Alpha is your only man (says he supping a pint of plain)

smacl

unfortunately wrote: »

I agree, you probably need a computer made of more than all the atoms of the universe to create an extremely accurately model of the universe

So from that do we conclude that the simulations that we live in are inaccurate, that the simulation idea is maybe not so plausible, that other seemingly far fetched ideas are equally plausible or all three?

I one sense I agree with Starshine that it as an argument the simulation idea is interesting to investigate, but I don't think it survives scrutiny any more than the myriad or other interesting yet bizarre possibilities out there. (Brane theory anyone?)

unfortunately

smacl wrote:

So from that do we conclude that the simulations that we live in are inaccurate, that the simulation idea is maybe not so plausible, that other seemingly far fetched ideas are equally plausible or all three?

As I said in my first post, if you think it is possible for these simulation to exist in the future then argument makes sense.

I was just discussing the concept rather than putting forward a position. It's likely that it's not possible to run so many sophisticated simulations, hence we don't live in one. That was my suggestion for attacking the argument.

Kidchameleon

starshine1234 wrote: »

While I take your viewpoint on board, with respect, on this issue I will take more heed of what professional scientists and mathematicans say.

There are usb dongles that generate truly random numbers. Im a scientist by the way.

magicbastarder

what method do they use to ensure they're truly random?

swampgas

magicbastarder wrote: »

what method do they use to ensure they're truly random?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator

For real examples...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_hardware_random_number_generators

starshine1234

Kidchameleon wrote: »

There are usb dongles that generate truly random numbers. Im a scientist by the way.

How do they work?

As far as I know the only way a computer can produce a genuine random number is by using some feature of the real world, as the real world is supposed to contain true randomness.

For example, a Geiger counter, which counts cosmic rays, can be used to produce true random numbers. The cosmic rays are supposedly random and therefore they cannot be predicted.

A computer algorithm cannot be used to produce random numbers. If a hacker had access to the computer state, and to the algorithm then the supposedly random numbers could be predicted.


If we live in a simulation it may be that our universe is incapable of producing true randomness, because the universe would be based on a computer algorithm. Therefore, counting cosmic rays may reveal that we live in a simulation, rather than in a real world.
Physics predicts that cosmic rays are random, not pseudo random.



The USB dongle could use something like the natural fluctuations in the electricity supply to produce randomness. If, of course, the fluctations in the electricity supply are genuinely random.

Online gambling sites are aware of this and they explain on their sites how they use hardware (i.e. real world) random number generators.

starshine1234

Can humans produce a random number through thought?

The answer would appear to be no.

Our minds would seem to be caused by the physical activity of our brains, and our universe is deterministic, so therefore, the same problem which prevents computer algorithms from producing random numbers also prevent us from doing it.

If our brains work using classical physics of course.

Perhaps quantum dynamics has a role to play in human thought. If so, perhaps that could provide genuine randomness.

Perhaps modern physics is wrong and perhaps no true randomness exists, even in quantum systems.


It seems clear that it's not possible to start with a number, then perform a sequence of maths operations, to end up with a random number.
Where would the randomness have come from?

That issue affects all physical systems, except perhaps those based on quantum dynamics.


Radioactivity of course is supposed to be random.

swampgas

starshine1234 wrote: »

Can humans produce a random number through thought?

The answer would appear to be no.

Our minds would seem to be caused by the physical activity of our brains, and our universe is deterministic, so therefore, the same problem which prevents computer algorithms from producing random numbers also prevent us from doing it.

If our brains work using classical physics of course.

Perhaps quantum dynamics has a role to play in human thought. If so, perhaps that could provide genuine randomness.

Perhaps modern physics is wrong and perhaps no true randomness exists, even in quantum systems.


It seems clear that it's not possible to start with a number, then perform a sequence of maths operations, to end up with a random number.
Where would the randomness have come from?

That issue affects all physical systems, except perhaps those based on quantum dynamics.

There are two kinds of "random" - what we might call pseudo-random and true random. Irrational numbers often have random sequences of digits - Pi is a good example. Without calculating Pi there is no way to predict what the next digit will be, however the digits of Pi are always the same no matter how many times you do the calculation. Pseudo-random is good enough for lots of applications (Monte-Carlo simulation for example).

Cryptography needs true randomness - otherwise the attacker could just generate the same "random" key as the victim. As software is inherently deterministic the only way to get true randomness is with external input. One easy way is to sample the user's mouse movements, or to sample input on a microphone, but for truly reliable results you just need to go for things that the laws of physics tell us are truly random: things like thermal noise and radioactivity.

The brain isn't as deterministic as a computer. But I can't see an easy way to generate high quality random data just by thinking about it.

Radioactivity of course is supposed to be random.

There's no "supposed" about it. It is accepted to be absolutely, fundamentally, random.

smacl

starshine1234 wrote: »

Can humans produce a random number through thought?

The answer would appear to be no.

Our minds would seem to be caused by the physical activity of our brains, and our universe is deterministic, so therefore, the same problem which prevents computer algorithms from producing random numbers also prevent us from doing it.

From my rather limited understanding, the universe is only deterministic at a quantum level once you allow for observer effect in all your equations. So while the universe may be considered deterministic from a materialist philosophical point of view, it will always appear non-deterministic to us as we are a part of the universe and cannot observe it objectively. So from our objective position, the universe is actually stochastic and will always includes randomness.

As for a computer program or mathematical expression, it is no more than a model, the complexity of which determine how random the number it can generate will be. As for the simulated universe idea, consider how complex the computer program that generated a random number of similar strength to the USB dongle previously linked would have to be. Now consider how many orders of magnitude more complex a single human mind would be. Then multiply by 4.7 billion. Then add in a working detailed model of every other item in our known universe. That gives you one simulation of our existence. Now multiply that by the number of simulations you think would be needed for us to be probably part of a simulation and tell me if you still think we're part of a simulated universe?

smacl

starshine1234 wrote: »

Radioactivity of course is supposed to be random.

If you consider this to be true, then you clearly don't consider the universe to be deterministic.

starshine1234

Radioactivity is random.

swampgas wrote: »

There's no "supposed" about it. It is accepted to be absolutely, fundamentally, random.

Yes, but if the universe is simulated would you still say it's random?

If we simulate a universe we'd be unable to generate true randomness in our model, because of the restrictions we're talking about.

Of course, we could 'pass through' the randomness that exists in our universe but only if it is truly random.

If there's a nested stack of simulated universes, would it be the case that the only true source of randomness would be the topmost 'real' universe?

What if there is no 'topmost' 'real' universe?
I have seen it suggested.

After all, we have no explanation for the universe.

It's turtles all the way down.

starshine1234

I know the digits of pi are random, and each digit should appear an equal number of times, and they do.

That can be tested, and has been tested.
Does it prove our universe is real?
I don't think it does.


Pi is usually expressed in base 10.
If we express it in base 6 for example will it still have true randomness.

Of course it's supposed to.


Roger Penrose talks about uncalculatable numbers. Numbers which can be defined but which cannot be calculated. I don't fully understand it.

swampgas

starshine1234 wrote: »

Yes, but if the universe is simulated would you still say it's random?

If we simulate a universe we'd be unable to generate true randomness in our model, because of the restrictions we're talking about.

Of course, we could 'pass through' the randomness that exists in our universe but only if it is truly random.

If there's a nested stack of simulated universes, would it be the case that the only true source of randomness would be the topmost 'real' universe?

What if there is no 'topmost' 'real' universe?
I have seen it suggested.

After all, we have no explanation for the universe.

It's turtles all the way down.

I think the simplest answer is that there is no reason to suggest that the Universe as we know it is simulated. It doesn't appear to be testable, as in a simulation anything can be manipulated - randomness can be injected, for example. And there is no reason why the simulator(s) would have to obey the same laws of physics as the ones we observe, so what would we be looking for?

I'm with Occam on this one - the simplest explanation that matches what we observe doesn't require a simulator.

starshine1234

The whole point I'm making is that randomness can't be created using computations in a simulation. It can only be 'passed through' from a random source in the host universe.

Like gambling sites in our universe. They must use hardware, i.e real world, sources to generate randomness. They cannot do it through algorithms.

If the host universe is itself simulated then where is the random source?

Therefore, if all universes are simulated, (in an infinite nested stack perhaps), then true randomness may not exist.

That is perhaps somewhat testable.

swampgas

starshine1234 wrote: »

The whole point I'm making is that randomness can't be created using computations in a simulation. It can only be 'passed through' from a random source in the host universe.

You don't know that - you don't know how computation might work in the outer universe. Unless you're assuming that the laws of physics must be the same?

Like gambling sites in our universe. They must use hardware, i.e real world, sources to generate randomness. They cannot do it through algorithms.

If the host universe is itself simulated then where is the random source?

Therefore, if all universes are simulated, (in an infinite nested stack perhaps), then true randomness may not exist.

That is perhaps somewhat testable.

Even if there were some physical experiment that showed a strange lack of randomness, it wouldn't automatically mean we're in a simulation. It might just be the way our current universe behaves.

starshine1234

But computation is above the physical universe. Therefore I think what we know about it is correct. It has its own existence, and computation is computation, and the rules will be the same in all universes.

This is like Platos argument.

Does maths have an independent existence to the universe?

Even if the universe didn't exist mathematical truths would still be true. They don't require the real world.

For example, there is Euclidian geometry. People thought our universe was Eucludian. But Einstein showed that it isn't.

So, is any universe Eucludian?

If not, does Eucludion geometry have an independent existence to all 'real' worlds?

It appears to.
It exists in it's own mathematical universe, called sometimes, Platos maths universe.

The above is a bit hit and miss but there are proper arguments along those lines; I'm just not really the man to make them.
I can't quite recall the correct name for Platos maths universe.

swampgas

starshine1234 wrote: »

But computation is above the physical universe. Therefore I think what we know about it is correct. It has its own existence, and computation is computation, and the rules will be the same in all universes.

This is like Platos argument.

Does maths have an independent existence to the universe?

Even if the universe didn't exist mathematical truths would still be true. They don't require the real world.

For example, there is Euclidian geometry. People thought our universe was Eucludian. But Einstein showed that it isn't.

So, is any universe Eucludian?

If not, does Eucludion geometry have an independent existence to all 'real' worlds?

It appears to.
It exists in it's own mathematical universe, called sometimes, Platos maths universe.

The above is a bit hit and miss but there are proper arguments along those lines; I'm just not really the man to make them.
I can't quite recall the correct name for Platos maths universe.

Okay, you're on your own now

starshine1234

Yep, very incoherent alright.

One final attempt, and I know this is a bit off topic but I'll just finish the point.

Take Pythagoras's theorem. It's well known, about the triangles.

The maths proof is abstract.

It doesn't need a universe to exist in, AND, this is important, the proof is valid in all universes, even universes I can't concieve of.

I know that because the proof doesn't require any physical facts.
Therefore, it doesn't matter how physical facts change, or how physics itself changes. The maths proof is always above all physical things and so it's always valid in all universes.

That is what plato meant.
That maths proof seems to transcend everything, including the physical world, and all physical laws. They have their own existence.

I agree that physical laws can change from universe to universe, but maths laws cannot. They are immutable.

Computer science, or computation law, is built upon maths. It therefore also transcends physical laws and universes, and it must be the same in all universes.

Scientists are starting to think that maybe maths is all that there is, and that there is no real physical universe.
Very tricky to understand and to think about but this is closely related to information theory, and simulations, and things like that.

swampgas

starshine1234 wrote: »

Yep, very incoherent alright.

One final attempt, and I know this is a bit off topic but I'll just finish the point.

Take Pythagoras's theorem. It's well known, about the triangles.

The maths proof is abstract.

It doesn't need a universe to exist in, AND, this is important, the proof is valid in all universes, even universes I can't concieve of.

I know that because the proof doesn't require any physical facts.
Therefore, it doesn't matter how physical facts change, or how physics itself changes. The maths proof is always above all physical things and so it's always valid in all universes.

That is what plato meant.
That maths proof seems to transcend everything, including the physical world, and all physical laws. They have their own existence.

I agree that physical laws can change from universe to universe, but maths laws cannot. They are immutable.

Computer science, or computation law, is built upon maths. It therefore also transcends physical laws and universes, and it must be the same in all universes.

Scientists are starting to think that maybe maths is all that there is, and that there is no real physical universe.
Very tricky to understand and to think about but this is closely related to information theory, and simulations, and things like that.

Just because we can't conceive of mathematics being different in an alternate universe doesn't mean they couldn't be. Maybe it's just a failure of our imagination. Although it's an interesting concept.

smacl

swampgas wrote: »

Just because we can't conceive of mathematics being different in an alternate universe doesn't mean they couldn't be. Maybe it's just a failure of our imagination. Although it's an interesting concept.

Mathematics is simply a language we use to describe something. It can be used to describe the physical universe or to describe something entirely abstract but it is no more than description.

starshine1234

smacl wrote: »

Mathematics is simply a language we use to describe something. It can be used to describe the physical universe or to describe something entirely abstract but it is no more than description.

I had written a longer reply but it was all over the place and so I've saved it, but won't post it here.

After a lot of thought I've decided that maths is more than a description.


Maths is endlessly complex.
If maths was merely describing something external to itself then something endlessly complex would have to have an independent existence in order that maths could be describing it.

There is no such endlessly complex thing, external to maths.

Something endlessly complex does exist but that thing is maths itself. An abstract thing, not a physical thing.

So, it appears that the most fundamental thing in the universe is mathematical truth.

I can't quite get my point across, but maths is fundamental, and perhaps maths is the only thing that really exists. Everything we know could be a consequence of maths.

My own head is melted now, but I have read a few papers discussing things along these lines.


The Simulation argument is definitely well formed though. :cool: