On 26 December 2013 09:35, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:

> Bruno,
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong about where you are coming from in your basic
> approach.
>

See below.

>
> Bruno seems to believe that mathematicians discover a math that already
> exists in reality (as opposed to math being a human invention which is the
> alternative view). Thus he believes that reality itself is a mathematical
> structure which 'contains' in some sense all of the math that
> mathematicians have come up with, and no doubt much more to be discovered.
> Thus he believes that ANY correct mathematical theory can be validly
> applied to reality to generate true results, which he does with facility.
>

This approach has worked extremely well for the last 400 years. And it
explains the famous "unreasonable effectiveness" of maths in the physical
sciences (some have taken issue with this, but not very "effectively" imho).

>
> However there are a number of problems with this theory. For one thing the
> edifice of human math is static, it just sits there waiting for humans to
> apply it to something, whereas the math that actually computes reality is
> active and continuously runs like software. There is, in my view, no
> evidence at all for any math in reality at all except for what is actually
> running and computing reality's current state.
>

To be exact, if maths does anything (and leaving aside whether it is an
ontolgical basis of reality) - it describes the state of reality. That is
what it was developed for, at least. For example, the inverse square law
describes the attraction between two objects. The inverse sqIt's quite
capable of doing this across time while not actually being in time itself,
e.g. through differential equations. This is equally true of software,
which just sits there (unless it is self-modifying code) and which is
effectively read by the processor's instruction pointer one instruction at
a time. Hence software is like a recipe and the processor is like a chef.
No reason to think that maths requires any internal dynamism, any more than
a recipe or computer progamme does. Time and change emerge naturally from
the static structure.

>
> Therefore most of human math is NOT going to be applicable to the math of
> reality. One can't just apply the results of any human math theory to
> reality and expect it accurately describe reality. Instead of trying to
>  applying Godel, Church, etc. etc. etc. to reality one has to actually look
> at the actual computations reality is executing and see what they tell US,
> as opposed to what mathematicians try to tell them. This is basic
> scientific method and is the correct approach.
>

This is true. Maths is far greater than (our) reality, a fact which makes
Max Tegmark's ideas of a mathematical multiverse seem more plausible.

>
> So my repeated point is that human math and reality math are different. Of
> course they share some fundamental logic. But human math is a structure
> that was first approximated from the math of reality, but then widely
> generalized and extended far beyond what reality math is actually computing
> in the process losing some of the actual essentials of reality math.
>

Begs the question of why "human maths" still works so well. It contains
many results that have been discovered independently, for example, and
plenty of results that can be applied to either abstract or real world
problems *outside* the fundamental description of reality.

This is a false dichotomy imho.

>
> For example all computations in reality math are finite with no infinities
> nor infinitesimals since reality is granular at its elemental level and
> nothing actual can be infinite. The human math number system is a
> generalized extension of reality's number system which is more subtle as
> there are no numbers that just keep going forever (pi) to greater and
> greater accuracies far greater than the scale of the universe. And there
> may well be no zeros in reality math, since we could expect reality math to
> compute only what actually exists.
>

We don't know that reality is granular. Recent results suggest it isn't, in
fact. "What actually exists" is unknown, and if there is a mathematical
multiverse there is a good reason why we don't have access to all of
"reality maths" (which in this case is all of maths). As for infinity, our
universe may in fact be infinite, and if it is then transfinite numbers
could be generated, for example, by drawing lines across the universe and
treating the distribution of matter along them as bits. These lines would
in actual fact be infinite, and reality would in actual fact contain
transcendental numbers. Similarly if space-time is actually a continuum.
Even more so if it's an infinite continuum (OK maybe not even more so, but
I do like a transfinite cardinal, especially at Christmas!)

>
> Basically reality math is a particular program running in reality that
> computes the current state of reality. All the other programs that don't
> actually run and whatever math or logical results they may be based upon
> have no relevance and cannot be blindly applied to reality math.
>

And this programme works how, is constructed how, runs on what? Speculation
has been continuing for decades that reality might be a cellular automaton
or something similar, but what does it run on?

>
> Therefore let me respectfully suggest that Bruno needs to examine the
> actual math of reality that is actually computing reality, and use his
> mathematical skills to elucidate that, rather than automatically trying to
> apply the results of human math without examining whether they actually
> apply.
>

Bruno assumes a very minimal maths (peano arithmetic I believe) which I
think can be found in reality. BECs for example appear capable of doing
elementary arithmetic. Or are you suggesting that addition and
multiplication don't exist in "reality maths" ?

(Let me respectfully suggest you check out what Bruno is saying before
deciding whether he's right or wrong - though god knows you will have
plenty of company in the camp which says "Bruno must be wrong because -
well, because he must be! I don't need to analyse the logic of his
arguments, I can see they're wrong because ... well .... they just are.
Because I say so! No, I'm not listening, la la la!" etc).

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to