4 ms·
I think the way out of the cycle here is that your equations are not specifying the universe, they are merely describing patterns in the universe. So we model t
by ookdatnog 5y ago
I think the way out of the cycle here is that your equations are not specifying the universe, they are merely describing patterns in the universe. So we model the universe with numbers, which are based on set theory, which like numbers is a product of our mind, which is a structure that exists in space and time.
It is helpful, I think, to think of numbers, sets, and the like, not as anything fundamental but as tools that help us make sense of the world.
- dotsam 5y agoThank you, yes, this is where I arrive at. Describing patterns observed from within space-time and ending up modelling a timeless universe seems incoherent to me!
- ookdatnog 5y agoHm, that's not really what I was trying to say. It does not seem incoherent to me. I feel like I don't understand what you are saying though.
- dotsam 5y agoI'm very likely being the one who is incoherent! My concern is something like this: observing and modelling patterns in the universe can only take place within time. If your models derived from the observed patterns then allow you to model a universe that does not have time, then there is something fishy with the model -- you've bootstrapped a timeless universe that is only intelligible from within time.
- wolfhumble 5y agoI found it interesting, even though I don't (yet?) understand it, that Sir Roger Penrose in this talk/debate with William Lane Craig talks about that "you can have a temporal order without having a time associated with that": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wLtCqm72-Y&t=58m5s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wLtCqm72-Y&t=58m5s