11 ms·

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.

wz1000 12y ago
> the unreasonable success of math at explaining the world I don't think that it is unreasonable. Math is the study of formal systems. A formal system can describe pretty much anything. Much study has been concentrated on formal systems that describe some aspect of our universe, as these are the ones that tend to be "useful". However, there are an infinite number of formal systems out there which don't describe any aspect of our physical universe. The math "exists" irregardless of any physical interpretation. It is we as conscious beings that attribute "meaning" to mathematical systems that happen to describe some aspects of our daily life.
FeepingCreature 12y ago
Some other people (most notably Max Tegmark) also agree with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesi...
JonnieCache 12y ago
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#video-1677 http://www.closertotruth.com/series/the-cosmos-computer#vide... http://www.closertotruth.com/series/what-does-quantum-theory-mean#video-1680 http://www.closertotruth.com/series/what-does-quantum-theory... EDIT: lets throw in this full length lecture at IBM for good measure, even though its not 100% related https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7lv4-Bah5c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7lv4-Bah5c
- selimthegrim 12y ago
  More in the vein of Scott Aaronson about complex numbers "emerging" http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.1267 http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.1267 http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.4084 http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.4084
- reinhardt 12y ago
  Tangential to the topic but thank you for the closertotruth site reference, looks like an amazing resource.
- laex 12y ago
  I was watching last night. Is the Universe the Ultimate Computer?, with Seth Lloyd and others. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMuFCpxnUQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMuFCpxnUQ
- wyager 12y ago
  >What would that even mean though? That all physical systems are governed by equations rather than, say, gnomes pulling levers. >Or do you just think that quantum mechanics can be fully simulated on a classical turing machine? This seems quite reasonable. There's no good reason this couldn't be the case, and quantization of fundamental units like Energy-time/Momentum-distance is certainly something that a programmer might reasonably do for a simulation.
  - thret 12y ago
    http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html If your glass is half full, then of course we are living in a simulation. What is the halting problem for this simulation? That's the real question. IMO that should be true AI.
  - kordless 12y ago
    Don't forget worrying about hackers.
    - VLM 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
calibraxis 12y ago
Humans should have enough humility to accept that our limited cognitive abilities probably don't define the universe. If you had a certain mutation, you might in principle discover things out of reach of my mere math perceptions. Just like my number sense apparently lets me notice things out of the cognitive reach of cats. (Or so they let me think.) Humorously, for all we know we're surrounded by entities which can perceive a lot. But we're as aware of them as slugs are of us when confronted by our shoes... One thing about our math sense is that it seems fairly underdeveloped in comparison to some other abilities; maybe physics is currently dominated by math because we have to work harder at it. Otherwise, the fruits would've come to us earlier.
- fizx 12y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis
johnchristopher 12y ago
It may make much more sens but it doesn't answer two fundamental questions of mine: why is there something instead of nothing and what do I do now ? I doubt we'll ever get the answer to the first one in this life/physical realm. Philosophy can help ponder over the second one though.
- BasDirks 12y ago
  To read up on the first question, try Heidegger. For the second: Nietzsche.
- dghf 12y ago
  > why is there something instead of nothing From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: 'why not?' http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/#WhyTheSomRatThaNot http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/#WhyTheSomRatT...
- oafitupa 12y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=something+from+nothing+lawrence+krauss https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=something+from+... If I remember correctly, one of his answers was something like "Because it's the only Universe where we could ask such a question". I think what he means is that all the other possible universes (or most of them) might or might not exist somewhere else, but they certainly don't include intelligent life with the ability to ask "Why is there something instead of nothing?". When you ask that question you are assuming this is the only universe and it was "meant to be". But our sole existence is not evidence at all for a "destination". "What do I do now" is a complete different question, and I guess people might find their own personal answers in the most varied places. You obviously don't need a physicist for that, although lots of them also think about these things.
- saraid216 12y ago
  > what do I do now ? The basic response to this question is "What should you do?" Western civilization is founded on a particular justification for answering this question.
  - 12y ago
tormeh 12y ago
Math, fundamentally, is just a standardized formal language in which certain facts can be encoded. This is in contrast to someone's random rigorous thoughts, which are not standardized. Math being standardized allows anyone doing math to apply a large set of ready made transforms to their math-encoded facts to derive new math-encoded facts. If the effectiveness of math is unreasonable, then the universe is either not logical, unreasonably simple in its logic or math is an unreasonably bad language to investigate facts in.
- pjonesdotca 12y ago
  I wish I could upvote this response more than once.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
darkmighty 12y ago
I disagree. It's not a scientific discussion to begin with, but given that life and consciousness exists at all it's to be expected that things are not too random, they must have some order. Mathematics just lets us sift through the simplest explanations of our physical world until we find one that fits. But of course, the question of why the universe has this particular complexity (it's possible to conceive of life with either simpler or more complex universes) may not be a questions that's "answerable" at all -- there must be some ultimate system in which things to happen (almost by definition), and it must be ultimately arbitrary.

wz1000 12y ago

> the unreasonable success of math at explaining the world I don't think that it is unreasonable. Math is the study of formal systems. A formal system can describe pretty much anything. Much study has been concentrated on formal systems that describe some aspect of our universe, as these are the ones that tend to be "useful". However, there are an infinite number of formal systems out there which don't describe any aspect of our physical universe. The math "exists" irregardless of any physical interpretation. It is we as conscious beings that attribute "meaning" to mathematical systems that happen to describe some aspects of our daily life.

FeepingCreature 12y ago

Some other people (most notably Max Tegmark) also agree with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesi...

JonnieCache 12y ago

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#video-1677 http://www.closertotruth.com/series/the-cosmos-computer#vide... http://www.closertotruth.com/series/what-does-quantum-theory-mean#video-1680 http://www.closertotruth.com/series/what-does-quantum-theory... EDIT: lets throw in this full length lecture at IBM for good measure, even though its not 100% related https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7lv4-Bah5c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7lv4-Bah5c

selimthegrim 12y ago
More in the vein of Scott Aaronson about complex numbers "emerging" http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.1267 http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.1267 http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.4084 http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.4084
reinhardt 12y ago
Tangential to the topic but thank you for the closertotruth site reference, looks like an amazing resource.
laex 12y ago
I was watching last night. Is the Universe the Ultimate Computer?, with Seth Lloyd and others. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMuFCpxnUQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atMuFCpxnUQ
wyager 12y ago
>What would that even mean though? That all physical systems are governed by equations rather than, say, gnomes pulling levers. >Or do you just think that quantum mechanics can be fully simulated on a classical turing machine? This seems quite reasonable. There's no good reason this couldn't be the case, and quantization of fundamental units like Energy-time/Momentum-distance is certainly something that a programmer might reasonably do for a simulation.
- thret 12y ago
  http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html If your glass is half full, then of course we are living in a simulation. What is the halting problem for this simulation? That's the real question. IMO that should be true AI.
- kordless 12y ago
  Don't forget worrying about hackers.
  - VLM 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

calibraxis 12y ago

Humans should have enough humility to accept that our limited cognitive abilities probably don't define the universe. If you had a certain mutation, you might in principle discover things out of reach of my mere math perceptions. Just like my number sense apparently lets me notice things out of the cognitive reach of cats. (Or so they let me think.) Humorously, for all we know we're surrounded by entities which can perceive a lot. But we're as aware of them as slugs are of us when confronted by our shoes... One thing about our math sense is that it seems fairly underdeveloped in comparison to some other abilities; maybe physics is currently dominated by math because we have to work harder at it. Otherwise, the fruits would've come to us earlier.

fizx 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church%E2%80%93Turing_thesis

johnchristopher 12y ago

It may make much more sens but it doesn't answer two fundamental questions of mine: why is there something instead of nothing and what do I do now ? I doubt we'll ever get the answer to the first one in this life/physical realm. Philosophy can help ponder over the second one though.

BasDirks 12y ago
To read up on the first question, try Heidegger. For the second: Nietzsche.
dghf 12y ago
> why is there something instead of nothing From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: 'why not?' http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/#WhyTheSomRatThaNot http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/#WhyTheSomRatT...
oafitupa 12y ago
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=something+from+nothing+lawrence+krauss https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=something+from+... If I remember correctly, one of his answers was something like "Because it's the only Universe where we could ask such a question". I think what he means is that all the other possible universes (or most of them) might or might not exist somewhere else, but they certainly don't include intelligent life with the ability to ask "Why is there something instead of nothing?". When you ask that question you are assuming this is the only universe and it was "meant to be". But our sole existence is not evidence at all for a "destination". "What do I do now" is a complete different question, and I guess people might find their own personal answers in the most varied places. You obviously don't need a physicist for that, although lots of them also think about these things.
saraid216 12y ago
> what do I do now ? The basic response to this question is "What should you do?" Western civilization is founded on a particular justification for answering this question.
- 12y ago

tormeh 12y ago

Math, fundamentally, is just a standardized formal language in which certain facts can be encoded. This is in contrast to someone's random rigorous thoughts, which are not standardized. Math being standardized allows anyone doing math to apply a large set of ready made transforms to their math-encoded facts to derive new math-encoded facts. If the effectiveness of math is unreasonable, then the universe is either not logical, unreasonably simple in its logic or math is an unreasonably bad language to investigate facts in.

pjonesdotca 12y ago
I wish I could upvote this response more than once.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

darkmighty 12y ago

I disagree. It's not a scientific discussion to begin with, but given that life and consciousness exists at all it's to be expected that things are not too random, they must have some order. Mathematics just lets us sift through the simplest explanations of our physical world until we find one that fits. But of course, the question of why the universe has this particular complexity (it's possible to conceive of life with either simpler or more complex universes) may not be a questions that's "answerable" at all -- there must be some ultimate system in which things to happen (almost by definition), and it must be ultimately arbitrary.