Notices
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: the nature of reality

  1. #1 the nature of reality 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    14
    I think my previous thread got deleted, which is a little harsh considering some of the other threads that survived.

    But this is a summary, including parts of a debate with Strange from the "blurt" thread. Before the mods hit the delete button, I'd like to point out that we both agreed it is a testable hypothesis. And that this is a clearer presentation than the deleted thread (I hope).

    But compared to some other threads, at least this is about an area where there are genuine scientific mysteries.

    So please, a little patience and a sense of play is all I ask. There's a lot to be said for a playful approach to physics, just ask the quantum mechanists. :P

    So, here's the idea:
    The universe is mathematically consistent.

    Mathematics and physics are based at their foundations, on observations about the universe we live in. Distinctions between an abstract maths and a non-abstract physics are arbitrary (literally), contradictory, and false. If maths is an abstract language then so is physics. Both are human theories about the nature of reality. The nature of reality is not abstract, and the nature of reality is mathematical.

    There is a problem in differentiating between: 'math' the non-formalised concepts of number people have innately; 'mathematics' - the formalised symbolic system; and 'mathematicality' - the natural ordering of quantities, ratios and relationships in the physical reality that predates human obeservation. But these distinctions are important, as they allow us to seperate the 'observed reality' from the 'description of reality'.

    The human concepts of number and numerical relationships are based on observation of the physical world, we have proof in a child's ability to acquire math without formal instruction. But even then, the concepts themselves pre-exist humanity. We can prove some animals have an innate concept of number.

    If concepts of number are hard-wired into our brains, then we are not the conscious/self-conscious originators of those concepts. And it's self-deceiving to suggest otherwise. For example - We came up with human names for various bandwidths of visible light, we mix colours for esoteric artistic reasons. But we didn't invent physically real electromagnetic radiation.

    The theories and concepts of mathematics, like the theories and concepts of physics, can be tested by observation. We test mathematics against the observable, mathematical nature of reality (its 'mathematicality'). So even complex theories are ultimately tested by not much more than seeing what result they give for 1+1 = ? If a theory suggest 1+1=3 then we can say it is wrong. But it’s only wrong because it contradicts observable reality.

    Even the mathematical concepts which don't occur naturally, still have to prove they are consistent with the observable truth that 1+1=2 to be accepted. They have to show their BASIS is in reality. No matter how complex a mathematical entity, no matter how ingeniously designed - it MUST be derived from, and consistent with observable truths.

    Mathematics is based on concrete proofs, not abstraction. This has been a fundamental error in the way physicists approach mathematics and mathematicians approach physics. Mathematics and physics are interconnected.

    The physical and mathematical natures of reality are connected.

    Resulting in 2 suggestions:

    1. Observable entities: Physical reality is the result of a mathematical universe.
    2. The descriptions of the observable entities: Physics can be derived from maths.

    Starting (for want of a better word) from the 'big bang', which has an integer value of 1. Then dividing that single integer value into smaller and smaller parts (but all still part of the same single existence) - and the parts become more, and more complexy 'organised' - as their 'number' increases over time - and as the complexity of the 'numbers' increases - and the complexities of the ways they relate within the universe they're part of increases - so complex systems such as quantum mechanics begin operating. Number and so mathematicality, applied to a single existence, as it divides into smaller constituents parts, leads to physics, leads to this physical reality. So that the nature of this physical reality, and the nature of its constituent parts, is investigable through number/math.

    It's not only a testable hypothesis, the tests they've done so far have not yet disproved it.

    Let's call it 'teh big bang theory' - like the big bang theory, but you need some humour to get it.



    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    319
    is your theory anything like this guys?

    The Universes of Max Tegmark

    level IV


    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    You now have the same thing being discussed in three threads:
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-h...eory-here.html
    apparently it's magic
    and here.

    However, I have nothing to add so that's OK by me

    You could ask one of the mods to merge them all into this thread.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by tbbt View Post
    Before the mods hit the delete button
    Nothing got deleted.

    I'd like to point out that we both agreed it is a testable hypothesis.
    If that "we" is supposed to include me, then I would say that your vague waffle about number theory does not provide anything like a testable hypothesis. And also shows that you seem to know little or nothing about either mathematics or physics.

    The theories and concepts of mathematics, like the theories and concepts of physics, can be tested by observation.
    Mathematics does not have to be tested against reality. It is an internally consistent formal system within which theorems can be proved or disproved independently of their relation to reality.

    If a theory suggest 1+1=3 then we can say it is wrong. But it’s only wrong because it contradicts observable reality.
    No, it is wrong because it contradicts the formal definitions of integers and the addition operation. You do not have to get you wooden blocks out and count them to show this is false. (Well, you might. But someone with a basic education in mathematics wouldn't.)

    The physical and mathematical natures of reality are connected.
    Obviously. We have known that for several thousand years.

    Starting (for want of a better word) from the 'big bang', which has an integer value of 1.
    Is that supposed to mean something? Why 1? Why not 0? Why not 127.392?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 14
    Last Post: July 28th, 2021, 07:23 PM
  2. Nature of Reality
    By Deepak Kapur in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: September 14th, 2011, 05:33 AM
  3. Behavioral epigenetics - nature can effect our nature !
    By scishark in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 7th, 2011, 07:46 PM
  4. Nature of reality
    By ox in forum Physics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 23rd, 2009, 10:19 AM
  5. Could reality actually be a virtual reality machine?
    By quantumintel in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 20th, 2009, 06:03 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •