71–80 of 91 posts
So I think this is more a philosophical question but ... As humans, we created mathematics, this is something we created from "nothing"(?) in order to explain, rationalise things we observe. Now, how can we assume that the universe is logical, and that it can be explained by mathematical equations that WE create? This is bugging my mind every time I think about it.
We didn't create mathematics, we discovered it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"God made the integers, all else is the work of man." -- Leopold Kronecker
If mankind could come up with Math and Physics, it's more likely than mankind made up God too. The modern monotheist God isn't that old ,roughly 3000 years. "History" itself is between 10,000 and 20,000 year old. Gods come and go as men do and undo them.
The first equation on page 8 of the arXiv paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.01472 seems strange to me. It looks like saying "function F(t) given by F(t) + Sum(something)." Shouldn't it use ':=' symbol instead of '+', like "F(t) := Sum(something)"? Or maybe this is the case when math notation is so complex that common symbols have completely different meaning?
Both physics and the unreasonable success of math at explaining the world make much more sense if you just assume we are living in a math equation.
What would that even mean though? People throw around these "universe is a computation" ideas without ever making any predictions. Do you think you're living in the matrix? Or do you just think that quantum mechanics can be fully simulated on a classical turing machine? Here is the almighty Scott Aaronson to set us right on the subject: http://www.closertotruth.com/series/the-cosmos-computer#vide... http://www.closer…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If mankind could come up with Math and Physics, it's more likely than mankind made up God too. The modern monotheist God isn't that old ,roughly 3000 years. "History" itself is between 10,000 and 20,000 year old. Gods come and go as men do and undo them.
But the only value in "coming up" with physics is that it corresponds to the external world - that it's not just a game inside our heads. That is, I don't think you can use mankind coming up with physics to support your argument - unless your argument is that mankind's idea of God also corresponds to the reality of what exists outside our heads.
> unless your argument is that mankind's idea of God also corresponds to the reality of what exists outside our heads
But all men do not agree on what God is at first place, or whether he exists or not. It doesn't make the idea of god less powerful(that's my point), however if you define "reality" as what men can experience, no men has ever experienced "God" and created a reproducible experiment of God. Therefore "God" cannot be a reality today. God is a philosophical question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the only value in "coming up" with physics is that it corresponds to the external world - that it's not just a game inside our heads. That is, I don't think you can use mankind coming up with physics to support your argument - unless your argument is that mankind's idea of God also corresponds to the reality of what exists outside our heads.
My point is mankind can come up with powerful ideas. > unless your argument is that mankind's idea of God also corresponds to the reality of what exists outside our heads But all men do not agree on what God is at first place, or whether he exists or not. It doesn't make the idea of god less powerful(that's my point), however if you define "reality" as what men can experience, no men has ever experienced "God" and cr…
No, in that God is not (just) a philosophical question. There is a reality which exists. Either there is a God who actually exists in reality, or there is not. It is a question of what is the truth about what actually exists, not just a philosophical question.
So I think this is more a philosophical question but ... As humans, we created mathematics, this is something we created from "nothing"(?) in order to explain, rationalise things we observe. Now, how can we assume that the universe is logical, and that it can be explained by mathematical equations that WE create? This is bugging my mind every time I think about it.
Therefore the practice of mathematics can only take place in a universe where universal, repeatable, rule-following procedures are possible. It has effective regularity in the cosmos as a dependency.
Looked at this way, the thing to be surprised at is not so much the effectiveness of mathematics at describing the universe, but the universe's admission of regularity - once that is granted, both mathematics and its effectiveness seem to follow unproblematically, imo.
Both physics and the unreasonable success of math at explaining the world make much more sense if you just assume we are living in a math equation.
What would that even mean though? People throw around these "universe is a computation" ideas without ever making any predictions. Do you think you're living in the matrix? Or do you just think that quantum mechanics can be fully simulated on a classical turing machine? Here is the almighty Scott Aaronson to set us right on the subject: http://www.closertotruth.com/series/the-cosmos-computer#vide... http://www.closer…
String theorists should stop referring to themselves as physicists and just accept they're pure mathematicians already. String theory makes for an interesting branch of mathematics, but an awful excuse for a physical theory.
So I think this is more a philosophical question but ... As humans, we created mathematics, this is something we created from "nothing"(?) in order to explain, rationalise things we observe. Now, how can we assume that the universe is logical, and that it can be explained by mathematical equations that WE create? This is bugging my mind every time I think about it.
Perhaps phrased in a more rigorous way, the universe is a spectacularly huge and complex system, and a single human brain is a positively tiny piece of that system, which is very much a part of the system and not external to it. So the question really becomes something like this: to what extent can a tiny little piece of a huge system contain within it a fully functional model of the entire system, which inevitably means it contains a model of itself?