What is the universe? | Page 4 | Questions that make you think... | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
What is the universe?
December 31, 2011
5:56 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

How do you filter out the noise?

"it is easy to grow crazy"

December 31, 2011
10:39 pm
Avatar
khanster
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 710
Member Since:
September 19, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/relativ ... tures.html

[Image Can Not Be Found]

January 1, 2012
12:33 am
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

You're missing smoke with those mirrors.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

January 15, 2012
8:36 am
Avatar
khanster
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 710
Member Since:
September 19, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

You could ask yourself questions.

[1.] Is the physical universe completely mathematical?

[2.] Is the physical universe partially mathematical?

[3.] Is the physical universe completely not mathematical?

If [3.] is true then we should not be able to describe the universe with mathematics ...but we DO describe properties of the universe with mathematics, thus, we should be able to eliminate [3.]

So far we have been able to describe properties of the universe with mathematics, so [1.] looks like it could be true but there may be some undiscovered properties of the universe that cannot be described by mathematics. it looks promising that [1.] is provisionally true until it can be rigorously proven beyond any doubts... :boohoo:

January 15, 2012
8:27 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"it is easy to grow crazy"

January 16, 2012
12:02 am
Avatar
khanster
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 710
Member Since:
September 19, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"at1with0" wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.....hypothesis

:think: :think: :think:

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

Consistency with Gödel's theorem

It has also been suggested that the MUH is inconsistent with Gödel's incompleteness theorem. In a three-way debate between Tegmark and fellow physicists Piet Hut and Mark Alford,[8] the "secularist" (Alford) states that "the methods allowed by formalists cannot prove all the theorems in a sufficiently powerful system... The idea that math is "out there" is incompatible with the idea that it consists of formal systems." Tegmark's response in [8] (sec VI.A.1) is to offer a new hypothesis "that only Godel-complete (fully decidable) mathematical structures have physical existence. This drastically shrinks the Level IV multiverse, essentially placing an upper limit on complexity, and may have the attractive side effect of explaining the relative simplicity of our universe." Tegmark goes on to note that although conventional theories in physics are Godel-undecidable, the actual mathematical structure describing our world could still be Godel-complete, and "could in principle contain observers capable of thinking about Godel-incomplete mathematics, just as finite-state digital computers can prove certain theorems about Godel-incomplete formal systems like Peano arithmetic." In [2] (sec. VII) he gives a more detailed response, proposing as an alternative to MUH the more restricted "Computable Universe Hypothesis" (CUH) which only includes mathematical structures that are simple enough that Gödel's theorem does not require them to contain any undecidable/uncomputable theorems. Tegmark admits that this approach faces "serious challeges", including (a) it excludes much of the mathematical landscape; (b) the measure on the space of allowed theories may itself be uncomputable; and (c) "virtually all historically successful theories of physics violate the CUH".

January 16, 2012
8:00 pm
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

A structure that is isomorphic to an amalgam of ALL structures (vis a vis a "direct product" of structures) does not contradict Godel's incompleteness theorems.

"it is easy to grow crazy"

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online:
32 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10273

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: 24601

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 31

Topics: 8926

Posts: 124028

Newest Members:

mark clien, bill dunne, Nick, Scott Gibson, lilhope, Frankie, Puggo, Ken, Rosco Jones, Troy

Administrators: John Greenewald: 629, blackvault: 1776