Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
I am new to this kind of thoughts, so my questions could be naive. Still, I would appreciate if you could help me to understand such a statement.

In my understanding, people make models basically to become more competitive, in other words, to earn more money. From this viewpoint, the statement "the model IS reality" is a bit puzzling, as in this case the model brings actually nothing new. Say it is highly unlikely that it will help me to solve my personal problems (well, provided that I have free will whatever it means).
The model is reality is something I'm following from the ultimate ensemble theory of everything in which physical existence is mathematical existence (see the M. Tegmark article I linked to in the previous post, it blew my mind).  IF (big if) physical existence is mathematical existence then the model of reality is reality.  It seems that people are not getting the thread in that I am trying to simplify this toe.

Some time ago, I have read

David Chalmers, The Matrix as Metaphysics
http://consc.net/papers/matrix.pdf

Let me make one citation

"Importantly, nothing about this Metaphysical Hypothesis is skeptical. The Metaphysical Hypothesis here tells us about the processes underlying our ordinary reality, but it does not entail that this reality does not exist. We still have bodies, and there are still chairs and tables: it’s just that their fundamental nature is a bit different from what we may have thought. In this manner, the Metaphysical Hypothesis is analogous to a physical hypothesis, such as one involving quantum mechanics. Both the physical hypothesis and the Metaphysical Hypothesis tell us about the processes underlying chairs. They do not entail that there are no chairs. Rather, they tell us what chairs are really like."

Along this lines, I would paraphrase that TOE is just Metaphysics. Do you agree with this, or you mean something else?
I'm not exactly sure how I would define "metaphysics".  In the hypothesis that mathematical existence is physical existence (which Tegmark puts into a -testable- theory in the paper I cited), chairs are mathematical structures which agrees with your quote.
But Bruno is really the expert here.

Evgenii

http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2010/08/computable-universes.html



on 02.01.2011 10:31 Brian Tenneson said the following:
In the case of a TOE, the model IS reality.

Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
on 02.01.2011 08:47 silky said the following:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Brian
Tenneson<tenn...@gmail.com> wrote:
We're talking about a mathematical theory about E.

What relevance does this comment have?


I would say that a model and reality are different things. Do you
mean that they could be the same?

Evgenii


-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group,
send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more
options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to