Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Posted By: Andrew PalfreymanIt seems self-evident that spacetime is not fundamental; that it's an emergent property of a "deeper layer" which has something to do with entanglement. Our problem is that we are mesoscopic creatures with mesoscopic language and concepts, and our solution can only be via mathematics. Our everyday intuitions about "reality" utterly fail.
Posted By: loremanBut everything that goes into the “inventing” process operates according to principles which can be described mathematically-the chemical, electrical and magnetic phenomena that make up living and thinking-just everything-operates in accordance with a basic set of rules out of which the mathematics....develops?
If we were all snuffed out tomorrow, and in 2 million years the cockroaches have developed complex intelligence, they’ll still be describing those same relationships, probably using base 6.
Posted By: pcstruPosted By: loremanBut everything that goes into the “inventing” process operates according to principles which can be described mathematically-the chemical, electrical and magnetic phenomena that make up living and thinking-just everything-operates in accordance with a basic set of rules out of which the mathematics....develops?
Mathematics describes things that don't exist as well as things that do. You can abstract anything to mathematical relationships. Thinking it has some kind of special property because it can describe the real world is like thinking language is cool for the same reason - because it has words for things.
If we were all snuffed out tomorrow, and in 2 million years the cockroaches have developed complex intelligence, they’ll still be describing those same relationships, probably using base 6.
I worry that "complex intelligence" must share properties we associate with us, the only beings we can speak of with "complex intelligence". Necessarily, we must share common views of the real world with other "complex intelligence" and have somewhat consistent experiences of it, or there wouldn't be a real world to speak of. Perhaps they would just bake the relations they are interested in, into their slide rules and 'think' no more of it.
Are unicorns discovered or created? And does it affect the number that can balance on a pinhead?
Posted By: pcstru
Mathematics describes things that don't exist as well as things that do. You can abstract anything to mathematical relationships. Thinking it has some kind of special property because it can describe the real world is like thinking language is cool for the same reason - because it has words for things.
Posted By: AngusPosted By: pcstru
Mathematics describes things that don't exist as well as things that do. You can abstract anything to mathematical relationships. Thinking it has some kind of special property because it can describe the real world is like thinking language is cool for the same reason - because it has words for things.
The thing that amazes is that the real world CAN be described by mathematics.
Posted By: loremanBut things exist because mathematics describes them.
Maths is the symbology of relativity, the shorthand for the difference between the here and the there.
Posted By: pcstruHow would I describe a sheep mathematically without using the word, "sheep"?
Posted By: AngusI think we are having a problem of scale, not to mention definition. The idea I am labouring under is that (we hope) the elements that make up whatever we choose to call a sheep can be described by mathematics.
"Described" means that we can imagine predicting, at least statistically, how they will behave.
We are fairly convinced that if we could determine the quantum states of all the particles that constitute something
you call a sheep today, there is a pretty good chance that you would call it a sheep tomorrow. Samesame with the elementary particles that consitute you doing the calling.
But this is just a tiny part of the mystery. As Wigner said, thanks AP, the strange thing is that mathematics should bear any relation at all to such a prediction.
Posted By: pcstruThat seems a stretch when so far nothing is actually described by mathematics except mathematical ideas, everything else is just quantified and enumerated.
I thought we were fairly well convinced that it would be impossible in principle to do such a thing?
I guess if you believe what you say, then everything is created (and already baked in), unicorns and all. The universe is a giant record and we are all just needles in the groove, on play.
I'm not sure why people find it strange. We invent/discover a way of looking at the world and we are surprised it bears some kind of relationship to the world we look at with it. Why is that strange rather than exactly what you would expect?
Posted By: pcstruPosted By: loremanBut things exist because mathematics describes them.
Err, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you but that reads to me as obviously wrong. Things exist without mathematics and there is no addition particle that we know of, so mathematics as such, does not exist as a real thing. It might represent what we measure/observe but it is not at a fundamental level what we are observing.
Maths is the symbology of relativity, the shorthand for the difference between the here and the there.
I'm afraid that's just word salad to me.
Posted By: loremanimaginary numbers are real
Posted By: AngusPosted By: loremanimaginary numbers are real
Ouch!