Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Universe Is Made of Mathematics

disagreeableme.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 61 posts

Re: The Universe Is Made of Mathematics

#31

Post by goldenkey »

westoncb wrote: post #23
zbyte64 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think mathematics and physics sets the bar higher then subjective relevance when formulating descriptions. If you did manage to create a description that would accurately predict every response of a person then you would have a hard time (if not impossible) discerning the difference between the two agents.

But one of them wouldn't be something anyone would call an 'agent.' One would be a description of an agent, or a recipe for producing one—but at the end of the day, one is meat and the other is a set of symbols.

But aye..that's the rub. Is there any difference between meat that appears to operate _EXACTLY_ the same as different meat (constructed using the symbols)? Computationally, no. But if two things in an information-theoretic world, are informationally equivalent, then for all intensive purposes, they are equivelent. Quantum physics says this with regard to quantum states, there's no meat to differentiate electrons, only informational states.

You guys basically complemented each-other, and came back to the beauty of the question.

I'd say what's more pressing is, does the information match the implementation. That is, is there any glimpse of external forces (that implement our universe) inside of it.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

If our whole reality is more of a rouge, rather than an accident, then it's possible our reality has almost nothing to do with the parent-verse. And well, everything we seem to value as good models for the true implementation, are well, garbage.

Re: The Universe Is Made of Mathematics

#33

Post by zbyte64 »

westoncb wrote: post #23
zbyte64 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think mathematics and physics sets the bar higher then subjective relevance when formulating descriptions. If you did manage to create a description that would accurately predict every response of a person then you would have a hard time (if not impossible) discerning the difference between the two agents.

But one of them wouldn't be something anyone would call an 'agent.' One would be a description of an agent, or a recipe for producing one—but at the end of the day, one is meat and the other is a set of symbols.

Put both in separate rooms you cannot observe and equip them with a two way mic/speaker. Would you be able to determine which was a meat bag and the other was a simulation? If you can then we know the description is inaccurate. If you can't then not only is the description accurate but the substrate that the computation occurs in is not equivalent to what defines the person as a particular agent.

Re: The Universe Is Made of Mathematics

#34

Post by DCKing »

zbyte64 wrote: post #29
DCKing wrote: post #21

The reasons presented in favor of a mathematical universe read somewhat like rehashed arguments used by deists/theists. > For something to be physical it must be present at some time and place within the universe, and for something to be abstract it must exist outside of space and time. No. He is redefining words here. 'Physical' is not usually defined as "exists in space and time". Abstract thoughts or concepts do n…

I agree with your points on Kalam but have to nitpick on everything else. On the "describing reality" to "creating reality". Very few people argue for ex-nihilo creation but far more people tend to project that on the opposing side (ie where did god come from? what was before the big bang?). I don't think the author is arguing that mathematics allows for creating reality from nothing but that anything that resembles…

> I don't think the author is arguing that mathematics allows for creating reality from nothing but that anything that resembles reality behaves mathematically and thus can transform into new situations with new mechanics (or realities).

I'm not sure I follow. What does "transform into new situations" really mean?

> We can construct an infinite number of consistent mathematical realities but only by comparing their predictions to our reality can we resolve which reality is our own.

If this is really what he meant, I appreciate the correction. If it would have been clear from the text, I would have proceeded with pointing out with pointing out the dodgy assumptions that underly the finetuning problem, but that would be even more like arguing against a deist/theist.

Re: The Universe Is Made of Mathematics

#35

Post by nemo1618 »

outofcuriosity wrote: post #25

If the universe was "made of mathematics," then there would necessarily exist a Grand Unified Theory. But, Hawking asserts that Gödel's Theorems imply that not only does a Grand Unified Theory not exist, but that the formulation of one is impossible ( http://www.hawking.org.uk/godel-and-the-end-of-physics.html ). The author stresses that all of reality is mathematical in structure, but this is at odds with the fact t…

Hmm. That's an interesting counterpoint.

Suppose we discover our universe is a simulation. This would imply that the universe is Turing-computable. Would there not therefore exist a "Grand Unified Theory" that simply described, with absolute precision, the operation of the simulator? Or would it be impossible to produce such a specification?

Re: The Universe Is Made of Mathematics

#36

Post by goldenkey »

DCKing wrote: post #26
yongelee wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concepts can indeed exist outside physical brain matter. Such as the concept of math. The idea that 1+1=2 does not need a physical human brain to exist. If humans never existed the concept of math would still exist "beyond space and time". Abstract thoughts cannot exist outside space and time for human comprehension but those same concepts do not need humans to exist.

I'd love to have some evidence that such things as 'concepts' and 'ideas' can exist independent of brains. You can't just assert it and make it so. All concepts and ideas I've ever heard of were the results of brains attempting to model or describe. By the way, I'm not talking about physical human brains. I'm talking about any brain, which includes human brains, dolphin brains, computers, and whatever other modeling…

The thing is, the definition of a concept, is the axiom that it exists outside of human understanding. Concepts are informational objects. Anyhow, the question you really ask, is does information exist outside of conscious humanity. And it might not. It might just be an interpretation.

Re: The Universe Is Made of Mathematics

#37

Post by westoncb »

goldenkey wrote: post #31
westoncb wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But one of them wouldn't be something anyone would call an 'agent.' One would be a description of an agent, or a recipe for producing one—but at the end of the day, one is meat and the other is a set of symbols.

But aye..that's the rub. Is there any difference between meat that appears to operate _EXACTLY_ the same as different meat (constructed using the symbols)? Computationally, no. But if two things in an information-theoretic world, are informationally equivalent, then for all intensive purposes, they are equivelent. Quantum physics says this with regard to quantum states, there's no meat to differentiate electrons, onl…

I think you have a mistake here:

> ...the same as different meat (constructed using the symbols)?

Your answer is talking about a comparison between, e.g., a human and an essentially identical human /constructed/ using a set of symbols that encodes our understanding of the human's constitution.

The original question is comparing, e.g. a human and a set of symbols which describes the human.

I consider each of the following to be meaningfully separate questions:

Reality is mathematics.

Reality can be created with mathematics.

Something equivalent to reality can be created using mathematics, if 'informational equivalence' is the equivalence relation in question.

Re: The Universe Is Made of Mathematics

#38

Post by westoncb »

zbyte64 wrote: post #33
westoncb wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But one of them wouldn't be something anyone would call an 'agent.' One would be a description of an agent, or a recipe for producing one—but at the end of the day, one is meat and the other is a set of symbols.

Put both in separate rooms you cannot observe and equip them with a two way mic/speaker. Would you be able to determine which was a meat bag and the other was a simulation? If you can then we know the description is inaccurate. If you can't then not only is the description accurate but the substrate that the computation occurs in is not equivalent to what defines the person as a particular agent.

Two things:

1) The A.I is not just a set of symbols, it's a physical machine, which means you're answering a different question.

2) The structure of the test means that you have stripped down the objects to be compared to the sounds they produce, and yet a person is more than sounds, as is the computer. Whenever we use the relation 'X is a Y' there is an implicit definition of the identities of X and Y; the more abstract it that definition is, the more things your relation will accept; at some level of abstraction the human and the A.I. may be called equivalent—but you'd have to state which one you're talking about.

Re: The Universe Is Made of Mathematics

#39

Post by eellpp »

ching_wow_ka wrote: post #14

I'm not much of a mathematician, but I found "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty" by Morris Kline ( http://www.amazon.com/Mathematics-Loss-Certainty-Oxford-Pape... ) very insightful in regards to the development and current state of mathematics. A brief synopsis: From Amazon: "This work stresses the illogical manner in which mathematics has developed, the question of applied mathematics as against 'pure' mathematics,…

> Most intelligent people today still believe that mathematics is a body of unshakable truths about the physical world and that mathematical reasoning is exact and infallible.

I had always thought of mathematics as the language of science. (Instead of saying i want more apples, i can say as i want 5 apples). Physics and other sciences use mathematics to explain the physical world or make predictions about them. Is there something more to it ?

Re: The Universe Is Made of Mathematics

#40

Post by zbyte64 »

DCKing wrote: post #34
zbyte64 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your points on Kalam but have to nitpick on everything else. On the "describing reality" to "creating reality". Very few people argue for ex-nihilo creation but far more people tend to project that on the opposing side (ie where did god come from? what was before the big bang?). I don't think the author is arguing that mathematics allows for creating reality from nothing but that anything that resembles…

> I don't think the author is arguing that mathematics allows for creating reality from nothing but that anything that resembles reality behaves mathematically and thus can transform into new situations with new mechanics (or realities). I'm not sure I follow. What does "transform into new situations" really mean? > We can construct an infinite number of consistent mathematical realities but only by comparing their p…

>I'm not sure I follow. What does "transform into new situations" really mean?

Emergence as a side-effect.

>If this is really what he meant, I appreciate the correction. If it would have been clear from the text, I would have proceeded with pointing out with pointing out the dodgy assumptions that underly the finetuning problem, but that would be even more like arguing against a deist/theist.

Yes, I am probably putting words in the author's mouth. He goes on a bit about computer simulations and how the Mandelbrot always "existed" because it is a mathematical consequence. In his view it seems different simulations are different universes and our universe is particularly amazing because it has evolved minds (computational constructs) that can distinguish different realities. Pair that with the idea that mathematics is a choice based on preconditions and you arrive at my statement.

Post reply on HN