1:54 am

April 9, 2009

Where do I start?

OK, check out these articles, at least the abstracts.

Shut up and calculate

http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.4024

The Multiverse Hierarchy (This has most of the core ideas I'm drawing attention to, especially the level IV universe)

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1283v1

Is `the theory of everything' merely the ultimate ensemble theory? (A speculative piece which also surveys some math--a self aware structure is posited but left as an open problem)

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9704009

The Mathematical Universe (The continuation of the previous article with proofs)

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646v2

In the spirit of physiomathematical pantheism, reality is God. Thus having a mathematical definition of reality would be a definition of God. **Then, hopefully, new insights can be discerned about reality once a definition is realized.**

The main problem left open by Tegmark's theories is that of finding the ultimate mathematical structure which would be reality. That this ultimate mathematical structure would be reality, or at least isomorphic to reality, is what is argued in his articles. I summarize his argument in an article I'm writing whose goal is to provide the ultimate mathematical structure in the following way:

In [1], Tegmark discusses two hypotheses: the external reality hypothesis (ERH) and the mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH). To quote Tegmark, the ERH is that “there exists an external physical reality completely independent of us humans” and the MUH is that “our external physical reality is a mathematical structure.” He argues that the ERH implies the MUH:

• A *complete *description of the external reality is called a TOE (theory of everything).

• The ERH implies that for a description to be complete, it must be well-defined also according to non-human sentient entities (say aliens or future supercomputers) that lack the common understanding of concepts that we humans have evolved, e.g., “particle”, “observation” or indeed any other English words. Put differently,** such a description must be expressible in a form that is devoid of human “baggage”.**

• The ERH implies that a “theory of everything” has no baggage.

• Something that has a baggage-free description is precisely a mathematical structure. There are many equivalent ways of describing the same structure, and a particular mathematical structure can be defined as an "equivalence class" of descriptions. Thus although any one description involves some degree of arbitrariness (in notation, etc.), there is nothing arbitrary about the mathematical structure itself.

• **Therefore, the external physical reality described by the TOE is a mathematical structure. **

*Notice we can dispense with the word “external” and a similar argument shows that the first statement below implies the second:*

(premise) “there exists a reality completely independent of us humans” [note that the words "external" and "physical" have been discarded]

(conclusion) “our reality is a mathematical structure.”

**proof:**

• A complete description of reality is called a TOE.

• The premise implies that for a description to be complete, it must be expressible in a form that is devoid of human “baggage”.

• The premise implies that a TOE has no baggage.

• Something that has a baggage-free description is precisely a mathematical structure.

• Therefore, reality described by the TOE is a mathematical structure.

What I mean to elicit is feedback regarding the conclusion that reality is a mathematical structure.

For the definition of mathematical structure, follow this link.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

4:52 am

December 4, 2009

"at1with0" wrote:

• Something that has a baggage-free description is precisely a mathematical structure. There are many equivalent ways of describing the same structure, and a particular mathematical structure can be defined as an "equivalence class" of descriptions. Thus although any one description involves some degree of arbitrariness (in notation, etc.), there is nothing arbitrary about the mathematical structure itself.•

Therefore, the external physical reality described by the TOE is a mathematical structure.

Notice we can dispense with the word “external” and a similar argument shows that the first statement below implies the second:(premise) “there exists a reality completely independent of us humans” [note that the words "external" and "physical" have been discarded]

(conclusion) “our reality is a mathematical structure.”

proof:

• A complete description of reality is called a TOE.• The premise implies that for a description to be complete, it must be expressible in a form that is devoid of human “baggage”.

• The premise implies that a TOE has no baggage.

• Something that has a baggage-free description is precisely a mathematical structure.

• Therefore, reality described by the TOE is a mathematical structure.

What I mean to elicit is feedback regarding the conclusion that reality is a mathematical structure.

For the definition of mathematical structure, follow this link.

*The first is reasonably non-controversial: The External Reality Hypothesis states there is a physical reality that exists independent of human experience.*

I do not necessarily believe that, no.

How do we not know, alone, that by consciousness, each person independently experiences

reality which makes up variations of any given possibility, the whole, of all life forms visually etc.

Meaning if everything that exists has energy and vibration as do we, where is the seperation of human experience? Conscious human experience? And then for a more quantum view of what is independent of human experience by matters of the mind alone, you have to take into consideration every experience that ever existed and does now which would flawlessly lead into following time and all possible variables.

*The second assumption appears radical to the uninitiated, but is also relatively benign as it naturally falls out of the current understanding of quantum information theory: The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis states that our 'external reality' (presumably independent of out 'internal' perceptive state of mind) is a mathematical structure.*

Which would make any such mathematical stucture impossible.

A mathematical structure cannot be a TEO clear of internalizations.

Mathematics is still a language with philosophy and what not behind it.

What is external that we have no thought of, a perception that isn't

influenced and processed by previous thoughts and experience?

I've read a little bit on Tegmark and I Like some of the philosphy

behind his ideas, some seem less baggage like, but in my mind

there are still short cuts. Can you come up with a TOE

if you do not perfectly relfect the TOE. Alot of people want to

find any way to do this.

“Living backwards!” Alice repeated in great

astonishment. “I never heard of such a thing!”

“—but there’s one great advantage in it, that one’s

memory works both ways.”

— Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

6:49 am

April 9, 2009

"sandra" wrote:The first is reasonably non-controversial: The External Reality Hypothesis states there is a physical reality that exists independent of human experience.I do not necessarily believe that, no.

How do we not know, alone, that by consciousness, each person independently experiences

reality which makes up variations of any given possibility, the whole, of all life forms visually etc.

Meaning if everything that exists has energy and vibration as do we, where is the seperation of human experience? Conscious human experience? And then for a more quantum view of what is independent of human experience by matters of the mind alone, you have to take into consideration every experience that ever existed and does now which would flawlessly lead into following time and all possible variables.

I would agree with you. I think he meant that it is non-controversial among physicists. The fact that I agree with you is why I concocted a different premise which was as they say "weakened" the premise to the form I gave which is just that reality exists independent of humans.

The second assumption appears radical to the uninitiated, but is also relatively benign as it naturally falls out of the current understanding of quantum information theory: The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis states that our 'external reality' (presumably independent of out 'internal' perceptive state of mind) is a mathematical structure.Which would make any such mathematical stucture impossible.

A mathematical structure cannot be a TEO clear of internalizations.

Mathematics is still a language with philosophy and what not behind it.

What is external that we have no thought of, a perception that isn't

influenced and processed by previous thoughts and experience?

I don't follow your reasoning but I think that removing the word external really helps Tegmark's case to the philosopher.

I've read a little bit on Tegmark and I Like some of the philosphy

behind his ideas, some seem less baggage like, but in my mind

there are still short cuts. Can you come up with a TOE

if you do not perfectly relfect the TOE. Alot of people want to

find any way to do this.

What's really neat is that something can be said about the TOE without specifying what the TOE is. The crux of the argument is that a complete description of reality (i.e., the TOE) must be free of human baggage as reality is independent of humans and that which has structure, as reality does, that is without human baggage is a mathematical structure. Technically, the argument isn't that reality is literally a mathematical structure, it is that reality is isomorphic to a mathematical structure. That means that it is in essence a mathematical structure.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

7:15 am

December 4, 2009

Yes I did get the gist of it.

A Mathematical structure existing as

the unknown.

"The unconscious is the true psychical reality: in its innermost nature it is as much unknown to us as the reality of the external world, and it is as incompletely presented by the data of consciousness as is the external world by the communications of our sense organs"

We need to sense it out perhaps.

I'm teasing, do you want to slug me now or later for it?

No actually thank you for enlightening me in this new area.

Because in my mind, why wouldn't a mathematical TOE exist

if everything is interconnected. Truly if everything is interconnected

there could be a TOE in everything, yet at times unknown.

“Living backwards!” Alice repeated in great

astonishment. “I never heard of such a thing!”

“—but there’s one great advantage in it, that one’s

memory works both ways.”

— Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

7:37 am

December 4, 2009

"at1with0" wrote:• The ERH implies that for a description to be complete, it must be well-defined also according to non-human sentient entities (say aliens or future supercomputers) that lack the common understanding of concepts that we humans have evolved, e.g., “particle”, “observation” or indeed any other English words. Put differently,

such a description must be expressible in a form that is devoid of human “baggage”.

I don't forsee this in the ability of a supercomputer, how is that void of human

baggage. And Aliens, oh thats out there and pushin it now. :geek:

“Living backwards!” Alice repeated in great

astonishment. “I never heard of such a thing!”

“—but there’s one great advantage in it, that one’s

memory works both ways.”

— Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

2:26 pm

April 9, 2009

"sandra" wrote:Yes I did get the gist of it.

A Mathematical structure existing as

the unknown."The unconscious is the true psychical reality: in its innermost nature it is as much unknown to us as the reality of the external world, and it is as incompletely presented by the data of consciousness as is the external world by the communications of our sense organs"

We need to sense it out perhaps.

I'm teasing, do you want to slug me now or later for it?

No actually thank you for enlightening me in this new area.

Because in my mind, why wouldn't a mathematical TOE exist

if everything is interconnected. Truly if everything is interconnected

there could be a TOE in everything, yet at times unknown.

Quoting from the multiverse hierarchy article,

Level II: In chaotic inflation, other thermalized regions may have different physical constants, dimensionality and particle content.

Which is interesting as that ties into the thread you started about physical constants being different in this universe.

Now what I'm aiming for involves the level 4. One can read the arguments for the statement "reality is isomorphic to a mathematical structure" and think level 4 throughout.

Thank for your time to examine this since I am investing a lot of time in the article. It's *beginning* to be interesting just based on its math content alone while I hope it is relevant to the sort of physics that involves the level 4 multiverse.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

2:27 pm

April 9, 2009

"sandra" wrote:[quote="at1with0"]• The ERH implies that for a description to be complete, it must be well-defined also according to non-human sentient entities (say aliens or future supercomputers) that lack the common understanding of concepts that we humans have evolved, e.g., “particle”, “observation” or indeed any other English words. Put differently,

such a description must be expressible in a form that is devoid of human “baggage”.

I don't forsee this in the ability of a supercomputer, how is that void of human

baggage. And Aliens, oh thats out there and pushin it now. :geek:

Oh like a supercomputer produced by an alien race.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

10:42 pm

December 4, 2009

"at1with0" wrote:Quoting from the multiverse hierarchy article,

Level II: In chaotic inflation, other thermalized regions may have different physical constants, dimensionality and particle content.Which is interesting as that ties into the thread you started about physical constants being different in this universe.

Yeah I think the first actual scientific proofs just came out like last week. 😎

Now what I'm aiming for involves the level 4. One can read the arguments for the statement "reality is isomorphic to a mathematical structure" and think level 4 throughout.

Thank for your time to examine this since I am investing a lot of time in the article. It's

beginningto be interesting just based on its math content alone while I hope it is relevant to the sort of physics that involves the level 4 multiverse.

You will have to update the thread as you continue, I have no idea how you are going

to put some of it together, having relevant information to the physics in level 4multiverse.

Since you're kind of on the edge with all that.

astonishment. “I never heard of such a thing!”

“—but there’s one great advantage in it, that one’s

memory works both ways.”

— Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

1:10 am

April 9, 2009

"sandra" wrote:You will have to update the thread as you continue, I have no idea how you are going to put some of it together, having relevant information to the physics in level 4multiverse.

Since you're kind of on the edge with all that.

I will.

I have had some correspondence with the author of all those papers and when I said to him that I can find a structure in which all structures are elementarily embedded within it, he wrote back and said that that would be the definition of the level IV universe.

So my job is to find or build that ultimate superstructure. I've heard through one of my sources that someone attempted but failed and I bet that person had more experience with researching than I. I might have more tools in my box than s/he did, mainly being a set theory that is consistent and has a universal set (a set containing all sets).

I'm pretty much done with my goal. I'm half tempted to put up the current version in case the reader can at least glean some of the spirit of the paper. The paper is designed for people who are not experts in mathematical logic (such as myself )

Thanks again.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

3:37 am

December 4, 2009

Yes its all very interesting.

You should throw up a current Version.

As far as Mathematics, you already know thats

a weakness of mine. Whenever I see anything passed

a simple equation I think ooooo thats a pretty picture.

The paper is not much Math oriented? CMON...let us peek!

❓

astonishment. “I never heard of such a thing!”

“—but there’s one great advantage in it, that one’s

memory works both ways.”

— Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online:

61 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:

1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10241

bionic: 9870

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Tairaa: 2842

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 24145

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 31

Topics: 8732

Posts: 123507

Newest Members:

ieltlucky, elie50021, Daveburton, Trent, neil zhang, Lynn, Joe1821, Jenny CAdministrators: John Greenewald: 586, blackvault: 1776