Interesting that you say this. It reminded me of a website I used to browse around by a guy who was certainly a thinker (although I’m not so sure how right he was about everything).
Check this out when you have time: The universe is the geometric embodiment of a simple integer count.
It gets pretty deep; I’ve never managed to grasp it all.
Actually, Euclid defined point in Elements in Definition 1: “A point is that which has no part.” Line is defined in Definition 2: “A line is breadthless length.” And plane is defined in Definition 7: “A plane surface is a surface which lies evenly with the straight lines on itself.” But I do understand what you’re getting at. Zero, successor, and number are all undefined terms in Peano arithmetic. But then, Peano does not go on to make inferences about zero, or about successors, or about numbers in se. It is perfectly fine — and in fact necessary — to have undefined terms in any deductive system because of the infinite regress of circulus in demonstrando that would result otherwise. But these terms must be stated explicity, and no inferences about their properties may be directly drawn.
I like your general take, but I would say this about the man: “The man is indescribable, unknowable, and ontologically uncommitted.”
I think it’s more succint to say that the universe is a probability distribution.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean there, Lib, but it sounds like a Copenhagen-type interpretation. If so, a majority of physicists would now disagree.
Actually, the universe as a probability distribution is a Many-Worlds interpretation. (Cite.)
Fair play to “Eddy” at chaos.org.uk (who appears to be some software designer with a beef against the European Patent Office) but his summary of Quantum Cosmology missed out some pretty important elements; quantum gravity is perhaps a better place to start, with a view to applying it to the entire universe later on.
Just to clarify, are you suggesting that the universe is a “probability distribution” with regards to possible universes we inhabit in the same way that the Earth is a probability distribution with regards to the countries we could inhabit?
Yeah, the guy is a little flaky, but he is correct about the assertion in question. Here is a bit better introduction to the concept. (50 page PDF)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0011/0011122.pdf
To save yourself a bit of time, see section 7.5.2, “Many World Splits”, first. Then, read from the beginning if you have a further interest. Note that the universe is a probability distribution with respect to its history and future, that is to say, temporally. I brought it up originally because we were discussing the alleged timelessness of the singularity.
Whoa! That will take some reading. Going from an algorithm to a Theory of Everything seems a little dubious at first glance and Technical Reports are notoriously impenetrable, but I’ll give it a go if you’re sure it’s worth my while. (Is this guy a friend of yours or something?)
It seems we might generally agree on a many worlds interpretation and even on some aspects of quantum cosmology re. “instantons” or whatever. The clarification I sought was whether you considered this to somehow impugn the status of the universe as the basis of what we perceived - that you think it’s somehow “just a probability distribution”? One could argue that anything is just so.
Slight nitpick: one could argue that anything describable is just so. And no, I don’t know the guy. I don’t presume to take credit for it either. In fact, the person who informed me of it was a professor of physics at my old haunt, the philosophy forums. I had asked whether the universe might be described as a “field of probabilities”. He responded that a better turn of phrase would be a “probability distribution”, upon which I began to research. Sure enough, it was out there.
OK - to rephrase my question: do you think it succinct and accurate to say that the Earth is a probability distribution?
Yes. The universe and everything in it that exists, ever has existed, or ever will exist — even only possibly.
Fair enough, but I’d take issue with this:
Does this include my Jenga-playing centaur world?
Actually, that’s the big question of the article I referenced: is virtual reality describable? If so, then its probabilities are distributed over its temporal existence. If not, then it does not exist in the universe.
Yes, that’s right: a coming-into-being from as the effect of a cause (the cause being the unalterable laws of pattern and number) but not requiring time whatsoever. The laws of pattern and number are eternal, and not all of the Universes that they cause have time as we know it.
Sounds good.
Yes, but why only those parameters? My belief is that the number of worlds is a number so large as to be almost beyond our comprehension, yet I also think it is finite. In essence, there is only one Universe with partitions that can, in some way, be overcome. The question, then, is the number of partitions.
Yes, I’ve seen arguments to this effect. One was that the pattern of background radiation in our universe is such that it implies the existence of other bubble universes. In that case, I would say that the theory is compatible with our understanding but not very compelling. (“No information could ever be exchanged between our bubble and any other, but statistically speaking we know they’re out there.”)
I think it’s also innaccurate, as it implies a different kind of consciousness could exist. Which is fine with me. But also fine to a materialist?
Yes, but we call “encoding how it is” Truth. Anytime someone tries to argue that the Truth is just a human construct with no “real” basis in “how things are,” s/he must invoke the concept of Truth in order to make the argument. After all, I could just counter that the arguer’s argument is just a construct too, and therefore has no power to burst the bubble of the concept of capital-T Truth.
Also, materialists are free to argue is that all we have are perceptions, qualia, etc., and we do not perceive Nature how it is. I would counterargue that perceptions and qualia are themselves part of Nature, and, therefore, we perceive Nature exactly how it is (insofar as we perceive it at all). This does not mean that we automatically understand Nature: we see an apple fall and do not necessarily understand what gravity is. But I do deny that our perceptions are somehow fundamentally “wrong.”
Right, but what anchors those “rules” in any particular region?
I think the physical is a subset of pattern, and an arbitrary one at that. As I said in another post, physical things are the things we bump into, and nonphysical things are things that we don’t. It is a humanocentric, not really scientific concept. But here’s what I mean: What is an electron made of? According to current science, it’s not made of anything. It’s just a particle. And a lepton like that has no subparticles, is not made of “stuff.” I don’t see how such an “object” is any different than a line of code. It is an eensy-weensy rule for interaction. It is an arbitrary pattern.
I thought that what we bumped into were fields — electromagnetic fields to be exact. One way to illustrate the weakness of gravity as a force, compared to electromagnetism, is to jump off the top of a skyscraper. When the electromagnetic field of your body meets the electromagnetic field of the street, the weakness of gravity is quite spectacularly shown.
In case you were refering to me, I don’t claim that Nature is perceived wrong, but that it can’t be perceived at all since the participating perceptive apparatus needs to be understood as well. But if you try to understand your own apparatus, what do you understand it with? What does ‘pattern’ and ‘number’ mean? They are just essences within experience. Is there any sense in claiming that instead of experience just consisting of these essences that these essences constitute experience? After all, the concept of transcendence is itself a component of experience. Everything is.
This is tough to parse, but I don’t agree with at least parts of it.
The conclusions we draw from our senses are often quite mundane. I see a rock. A rock is “really” there. Our perceptions correspond with Reality. I don’t think we need to understand how sight works, the brain works, or how subatomic physic works to make this claim.
Further, what meaning does “Nature” have in the first place if it is something that “we can’t perceive at all”? Throughout history philosophers have been talking about that thing we do perceive, so if suddenly we agree we don’t perceive it, then the subject has changed completely.
As “pattern and number” (they are one, actually–just “pattern” should suffice) are the foundation of all things and therefore are beyond definitiion. But they can be understood by demonstration and other means. We really can’t define “2” beyond a superficial level, but we can easily demonstrate it.
‘Nature’ is a bad choice of a word. Essence is more appropriate.
I wasn’t dealing with this aspect at all. You say that all of experience can be understood of as structured. Fine. What I’m saying is that we can’t say anything about the underlying essence or the engine that drives experience, on the basis that our experience is structural. We are a product of that engine and all we deal with are other products of that engine. It is meaningless to ask how the engine works. All we can do is examine the other products and interact with them in terms of ourselves. What, if anything, “lies beneath” is a fundamentally meaningless question.
But there are several arrows of time built into the fabric of reality. The Entropy arrow. The consciousness arrow. The universe expansion arrow. The particle decay arrow…I forget which particle…I’ll hazard a WAG and say the K Boson. There’s 3 more, but I can’t remember them offhand. Many of these are measurable. They point in the direction from the past to the future. Don’t these arrows of time lend legitimacy to the concept of a past, present, and future that are truly separated by objective time, as opposed to (merely) our perception of such?