4 ms·

> then what are the odds that we would be in both a universe with simple rules such that the elegant mathematical models referred to the in the paper have such

> then what are the odds that we would be in both a universe with simple rules such that the elegant mathematical models referred to the in the paper have such predictive power and the rule are not changing over time. Could conscious life capable of asking such a question evolve in a world with volatile rules? Also, math spots patterns. It makes sense that we would spot patterns with it. But these patterns could either be just a tiny slice or an extremely high abstraction of reality. Supposs Earth is visited by a bunch of friendly aliens. They're eager to explore our oceans, and for some reason a magnetic crane is their favorite tool for scientific inquiry. They drop the magnes into the ocean and pull out heaps of metal junk. They conclude that the ocean floor is made up exclusively of metal junk, and then they use the distribution patterns of that junk to come up with coherent explanations for all sorts of observable phenomena. I guess what I'm saying is: you can only see what you can see. There could be loads that we won't discover any time soon because it's undiscoverable with a math mind.

glimshe 2mo ago
The article makes a more subtle point. You can still have deterministic physics but not necessarily explained by simple math equations. For instance, physics could have worked through small algorithms with results that can't be captured in elegant math equations like E=mc2.
wisemanwillhear 2mo ago
A sibling comment to my reply made the point already about deterministic not being simple, so let me address your first point that there could be a filter causing it. First, a disclaimer. I'm a theist. I like arguments like the so-called "modal ontological argument" and find them convincing. That said, I love explore philosophy especially non-theistic positions because I'm already convinced of theism. Second, your arguing that there is a filter, and, yes, I agree that one of the possible explanations is a filter. But just asserting that filter with a simple claim as the original commenter did dismisses what is a fascinating exploration of why? How do we know that's a sufficient filter. How do we know that volatility prevents life from existing and asking the question? Is it not possible that there is a volatility that preserves our existence. When your dealing with infinite possible "worlds" this paper becomes more interesting. Third, if I could put on my non-theist hat (and do it without my biases affecting me), it seems that discoveries such as those made in the paper require non-theist explanations to depend on the existence of a multiverse. Fourth, there is something else that always get's missed. In a non-theist philosophical framework that forces us to consider all logical possible worlds and universes there is no restriction that a universe begin in a simple state such as a singularity that causes a big bang. A universe can logically begin to exists in an infinite set of states. And again, if every possible universe is equally probable. Why should we be in a universe where what we see can be logically extrapolated backwards to imply that there was a history that follows the mathematical models that we construct. Even a life filter like what you suggested is not capable of answering why we should end up in such a universe. That's a deep and fascinating mystery to be explored.
wisemanwillhear 2mo ago
> Also, math spots patterns. > ... you can only see what you can see. ... undiscoverable with a math mind. It's not that we believe that we have a math mind. It's that we believe that we have logical minds. Math is just one part of the abstract domain of logic. I agree that there are limitations to our ability to observe and limitations with the capacity (storage depth and processing depth) of our brains. If our brains can be trusted then they are logical, and nothing illogical can exists. It seems to me like this is a very hard argument for you to make.

glimshe 2mo ago

The article makes a more subtle point. You can still have deterministic physics but not necessarily explained by simple math equations. For instance, physics could have worked through small algorithms with results that can't be captured in elegant math equations like E=mc2.

wisemanwillhear 2mo ago

A sibling comment to my reply made the point already about deterministic not being simple, so let me address your first point that there could be a filter causing it. First, a disclaimer. I'm a theist. I like arguments like the so-called "modal ontological argument" and find them convincing. That said, I love explore philosophy especially non-theistic positions because I'm already convinced of theism. Second, your arguing that there is a filter, and, yes, I agree that one of the possible explanations is a filter. But just asserting that filter with a simple claim as the original commenter did dismisses what is a fascinating exploration of why? How do we know that's a sufficient filter. How do we know that volatility prevents life from existing and asking the question? Is it not possible that there is a volatility that preserves our existence. When your dealing with infinite possible "worlds" this paper becomes more interesting. Third, if I could put on my non-theist hat (and do it without my biases affecting me), it seems that discoveries such as those made in the paper require non-theist explanations to depend on the existence of a multiverse. Fourth, there is something else that always get's missed. In a non-theist philosophical framework that forces us to consider all logical possible worlds and universes there is no restriction that a universe begin in a simple state such as a singularity that causes a big bang. A universe can logically begin to exists in an infinite set of states. And again, if every possible universe is equally probable. Why should we be in a universe where what we see can be logically extrapolated backwards to imply that there was a history that follows the mathematical models that we construct. Even a life filter like what you suggested is not capable of answering why we should end up in such a universe. That's a deep and fascinating mystery to be explored.

wisemanwillhear 2mo ago

> Also, math spots patterns. > ... you can only see what you can see. ... undiscoverable with a math mind. It's not that we believe that we have a math mind. It's that we believe that we have logical minds. Math is just one part of the abstract domain of logic. I agree that there are limitations to our ability to observe and limitations with the capacity (storage depth and processing depth) of our brains. If our brains can be trusted then they are logical, and nothing illogical can exists. It seems to me like this is a very hard argument for you to make.