5 ms·
But within any civilization that develops within the more than hundred billion plus galaxies (or even within the uncountable number of simulated universes), the
by dr_dshiv 1y ago
But within any civilization that develops within the more than hundred billion plus galaxies (or even within the uncountable number of simulated universes), they’d discover circles, spheres, triangles, the Platonic solids, normal distributions, etc.
The notation and ascribed meaning will vary — but civilizations will likely discover natural numbers and specifically binary numbers and even use them (at least for some time in their development) for computation. Basic operations would also likely be discovered - just as they were on different sides of our own planet.
There would also be cybernetic feedback loops, where goals are measured and optimized for—- that’s a sort of platonic form.
These intelligible forms seem more basic to life and intelligence than even carbon or water.
Super happy to hear arguments otherwise!
- resource_waste 1y agoWhat makes circles more special than a bunch of crumbs? Humans decided circles are interesting. I am not denying analytical philosophy doesnt make true statements, but rather that there isnt anything mystical about these true statements. They are constructs of human language. There was no God that typed pi=3.14, but rather humans made 2pir = c true by developing a linguistical logic system where we have radius = 1 and c= 6.28.
- tanderson92 1y agoThis isn't true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoperimetric_inequality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoperimetric_inequality
- resource_waste 1y agoI'm not sure what point you are making. This is language too.
- dr_dshiv 1y agoMy argument is that ALL civilizations will discover circles. They aren’t human arbitrary. They are discoverable mathematical forms.
- resource_waste 1y agoDiscover? You mean name circles and claim that 2pir = c? Do you think there is something special about 2*111 = 222? Humans had to define every step from length of a line to the significance of roundness. Its all language.
- cwmoore 1y agoAs for your last sentence, compare semantics and semiotics. They are not the same thing. As for the others, consider "mathematics invention vs. discovery". There certainly is something special about doubling and halving quantities. See "meiosis".
- resource_waste 1y agoYou are referring to 'Kinds'. Humans classified all of these, and you are merely repeating the classification.
- cwmoore 1y agoNo? Lol? Accurate username?
- 1718627440 1y agoWe don't care about circles, because they are called "circles". The universe is a 4D-system (at least). Objects have boundaries (i.e. not everything is endless). Some dimensions can be degenerated. Combining this results in 2D-shapes. When you have an attracting force tangential to the boundary and another force repelling in an arbitrary direction, voila you have a circle. When you have an event. And the propagation speed doesn't change. Degrading to 2D, you get a circle. Say you have mass, which is relatively unaffected by anything else, you also have gravity and a random little force in some arbitrary direction, this will result in an effect, which we call rotation. Given enough time, this will evolve into a circle. Given you have already rotation, then you're looking for the form with which rotation becomes the identity function, voila you have again a circle. None of those involves humans existing and caring about roundness. They are all properties of the universe.
- dr_dshiv 1y agoCircles are easier to mathematically encode than crumbs, which are super complex. Ease of encoding will be relevant to any living information processors. You are speaking like you are afraid that there are real fundamental structures in the cosmos. And, that this has religious implications.