The Black Vault

bionic wrote:It's all about where YOUR at???

all i know is humans rely on mistakes to learn anything ,i just dont think we have learnt a hell of a lot yet..
If we also realise how ignorant we are like whats his face said( confucius) we'd realize we were even more unable to answer a question about this knowledge..
i absolutely LOVE the secrets of space,i spend a lot of time thinking and looking at the stars,ect.
Theories come and go ,we can view space with one perception of it , within our ability to interact with it ,which may be a far cry short which is required to see it for what it really is.

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html

I think that there are at least 4 different kinds of parallel universes lurking out there, summarized in the figure down below. In this universe, I've published a series of articles about these 4 multiverse levels

The Four Multiverse Levels
The figure above is explained in my above-mentioned Scientific American review article. There I survey physics theories involving parallel universes, and the bottom line is that they form a natural four-level hierarchy of multiverses allowing progressively greater diversity.

Level I: A generic prediction of cosmological inflation is an infinite ergodic universe, which contains Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions - including an identical copy of you about 101029 meters away.
Level II: In many models, inflation can produce multiple Level I multiverses that have different effective physical constants, dimensionality and particle content.
Level III: In unitary quantum mechanics, other branches of the wavefunction add nothing qualitatively new, which is ironic given that this quantum parallel universes have historically been the most controversial.
Level IV: Other mathematical structures give different fundamental equations of physics.

It is my belief that a mathematical structure with the property that it "contains" all structures would then be a candidate for being the universe with respect to level 4.

Beyond the scientific method, science and philosophy become mutually exclusive, where philosophy seeks to answer the ultimate "why" questions such as why do we exist and what is our purpose - the scientific method can only seek to answer things parameterized by observation and experiment and is continually readjusted in the light of new information. Exact truth may never be determined by the scientific method but philosophy also cannot determine exact truth. If A determines B, where A is a predetermined stipulation, or postulate, we can never be certain of the absolute nature of the premise A, and thus, we can not be absolutely certain of the conclusion B. Mathematics deals with absolute truths but only in the sense of the relationships between abstract objects.

So in order to establish the existence of a multiverse, an experimental test must be devised to test that hypothesis and possibly falsify it. Tegmark's "pi in the sky" mathematical universe hypothesis appears to be unfalsifiable but it is still very interesting from a philosophical point of view.

khanster wrote:So in order to establish the existence of a multiverse, an experimental test must be devised to test that hypothesis and possibly falsify it.

I don't accept this premise/criteria. The mathematical universe hypothesis isn't strictly a scientific claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematic ... hypothesis

at1with0 wrote:

khanster wrote:So in order to establish the existence of a multiverse, an experimental test must be devised to test that hypothesis and possibly falsify it.

I don't accept this premise/criteria. The mathematical universe hypothesis isn't strictly a scientific claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematic ... hypothesis

Observability

Stoeger, Ellis, and Kircher [9] (sec. 7) note that in a true multiverse theory, "the universes are then completely disjoint and nothing that happens in any one of them is causally linked to what happens in any other one. This lack of any causal connection in such multiverses really places them beyond any scientific support". Ellis [10] (p29) specifically criticizes the MUH, stating that an infinite ensemble of completely disconnected universes is "completely untestable, despite hopeful remarks sometimes made, see, e.g., Tegmark (1998)." Tegmark maintains that MUH is testable, stating that it predicts (a) that "physics research will uncover mathematical regularities in nature", and (b) by assuming that we occupy a typical member of the multiverse of mathematical structures, one could "start testing multiverse predictions by assessing how typical our universe is" (,[2] sec. VIII.C).

If everything can be described with mathematics then how could a non-mathematical observation be ...observed?

khanster wrote:If everything can be described with mathematics then how could a non-mathematical observation be ...observed?

Perhaps it's not that everything can be described with math.... Perhaps it's that everything, in a sense, is math.

at1with0 wrote:

khanster wrote:If everything can be described with mathematics then how could a non-mathematical observation be ...observed?

Perhaps it's not that everything can be described with math.... Perhaps it's that everything, in a sense, is math.

Math is a language and language is descriptive...



http://math2033.uark.edu/wiki/index.php ... inguistics

linguistics is the science of language; therefore, it can be argued that math is a language in its own. Language is a universal concept - no matter what the language is - because everybody uses language as a form of communication. This is the same with math. Math, like linguistics, can be broken down into many different subcatogories such as algebra, geometry, trigonometry, etc. Algebra is one of the best examples of this because instead of using words, it uses symbols to convey an idea.

Language communicates and describes with symbolism



Symbolism is metaphor

I would like to argue that the universe is a self aware structure:

I would define math by its objects of study, not the method of study.