Do physical objects truly exist or are they just illusions?

[debra]

Perhaps we havn't touched any surface in the sense of atoms colliding into each other, but isn't this really making the term 'touch' (in nature) useless? Wouldn't a more proper definition of 'touch' be when the we sense/observe the magnitude of the electrostatic force between two surfaces being sufficiently high? (where "sufficiently" can be defined further)

Yes, that is exactly it. But also think of a 3D video game and ask yourself where it is really taking place. If you switch off the monitor it still keeps going in a stream of 0s and 1s passing through the processor register. Which can be thought of as a river of numbers at a very simple level - no forces at all.
That's where the jumping bot is in reality (nowhere). The bot collides with a wall - the 'force' is algorithmically mathematical in nature. You can also program into the game 'physics' and the game now begins to look like our universe. You would also need to program in special relativity if you don't want things happening instantly all over a big scene -it would have to obey cause and effect too - an information rule. You could use a field model for that...

Our universe is running something like that - a Von Neumann-like machine using quantum levels as ideal lightning fast data stores.

 

[daisey]

While "The Matrix" does touch on certain aspects of philosophy, its not a good benchmark...

JoeDawg,

I did not mean to imply that I believe the Matrix to be an actual representation of our reality. I was instead trying to make the point that while some probably consider the concepts in the movie to be ridiculous, from what I've learned of Physics lately, it's probably not too far off.

Thanks!

Daisey

 

[daisey]

But also think of a 3D video game and ask yourself where it is really taking place. If you switch off the monitor it still keeps going in a stream of 0s and 1s passing through the processor register. Which can be thought of as a river of numbers at a very simple level - no forces at all.

Debra,

That is a very interesting analogy. I really enjoy it when someone can take a concept that is difficult to understand, and put it into terms someone like I can relate to.

Thanks, Daisey

 

[ThomasT]

Daisey,
It's true that matter exists due to how we use the words 'matter' and 'exists'.

Your question is, imho, better put as something like 'What is the deep nature of reality?', or the deep reality of Nature, etc., as some other posters have suggested.

debra mentioned, "string theory that employs even smaller lumps of something, but what are they made from?"
Which is a question for the string theory people. I don't know much about string theory except a very little bit about the mathematical connections that led to it's development. I don't know if it has what could be called a conceptual basis. Nevertheless, taking the idea of some sort of 'fundamental' vibrational phenomenon ...

If, for example, deep reality is a complex of vibrational phenomena, a hierarchy of waves (disturbances) in a hierarchy of 'particulate' media emerging from some fundamental (perhaps structureless as far as we can be concerned) medium within which our universe (and maybe countless others) exists, then the more or less 'fundamental' particles are, presumably, rather more simple manifestations of the same fundamental wave dynamic(s) that constrains the behavior of phenomena at all scales of size and complexity.

Composite particles, molecules, proteins, cells, organs, dogs, cats, trees, cars, humans, planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies, and individual universes can be considered as bounded, more or less complex, wave structures. Maybe the puzzles surrounding the behavior of the more 'fundamental' (ie., 'structureless') particles will eventually be resolved via a theory that doesn't treat them as particles per se. And, of course, maybe not.

Anyway, this is just one approach.** But no matter what approach you might take in speculating about the fundamental nature of things, the stuff of our experience is 'real', it exists in some 'material' manifestation, because that's how we use the word(s). Our objective or objectified experience (publicly verifiable records of one sort or another, repeatable experiments, etc.) is the criterion by which competing statements about the world are evaluated -- it's the final arbiter regarding what reality, as far as can be unambiguously communicated, is.

So, matter exists. There's no question about that. The problem is getting at its 'fundamental' nature so as to more closely approach an understanding of the basis for the emergence of, and thereby unify, the apparently scale-specific or scale-dependent organizing principles that are observed.

**Note: the 'waves/vibrations in media' approach would not include 'forces' per se. These would be replaced by a fundamental wave dynamic(s), which via countless iterations produces, a hierarchy of 'particulate' media, and, eventually, universes that are more or less like the one we observe.

Think, '3D cellular automata' (the 'cellular' part referring to the 'persistence' of atomic-scale, and up, bounded wave structures) on a grand scale with all sorts of weird and wonderful emergent phenomena (ranging from the very fleeting to the very persistent) that could not be predicted from the fundamental dynamic(s), but which ultimately trace back to, and which are constrained by this behavioral archetype(s).

 

[debra]

Daisey,
It's true that matter exists due to how we use the words 'matter' and 'exists'.

Your question is, imho, better put as something like 'What is the deep nature of reality?', or the deep reality of Nature, etc., as some other posters have suggested.

You mentioned, "string theory that employs even smaller lumps of something, but what are they made from?"
Which is a question for the string theory people. I don't know much about string theory except a very little bit about the mathematical connections that led to it's development. I don't know if it has what could be called a conceptual basis. Nevertheless, taking the idea of some sort of 'fundamental' vibrational phenomenon ...

If, for example, deep reality is a complex of vibrational phenomena, a hierarchy of waves (disturbances) in a hierarchy of 'particulate' media emerging from some fundamental (perhaps structureless as far as we can be concerned) medium within which our universe (and maybe countless others) exists, then the more or less 'fundamental' particles are, presumably, rather more simple manifestations of the same fundamental wave dynamic(s) that constrains the behavior of phenomena at all scales of size and complexity.

Composite particles, molecules, proteins, cells, organs, dogs, cats, trees, cars, humans, planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies, and individual universes can be considered as bounded, more or less complex, wave structures. Maybe the puzzles surrounding the behavior of the more 'fundamental' (ie., 'structureless') particles will eventually be resolved via a theory that doesn't treat them as particles per se. And, of course, maybe not.

Anyway, this is just one approach. But no matter what approach you might take in speculating about the fundamental nature of things, the stuff of our experience is 'real', it exists in some 'material' manifestation, because that's how we use the word(s). Our objective or objectified experience (publicly verifiable records of one sort or another, repeatable experiments, etc.) is the criterion by which competing statements about the world are evaluated -- it's the final arbiter regarding what reality, as far as can be unambiguously communicated, is.

So, matter exists. There's no question about that. The problem is getting at its 'fundamental' nature so as to more closely approach an understanding of the basis for the emergence of, and thereby unify, the apparently scale-specific or scale-dependent organizing principles that are observed.

Hi Thomas - nice to see you here.
What do you think of the posit that matter is made of numbers? (not a lot I imagine)

 

[ThomasT]

Hi Thomas - nice to see you here.
What do you think of the posit that matter is made of numbers? (not a lot I imagine)

Hi debra, I was just editing my post.

For what it's worth, my two cents is that numbers are made of matter , and matter is made of waves in a hierarchy of media, and there are a few, maybe just one, fundamental dynamic(s) that gave rise to the complexity that we call our Universe.

Resonances, harmonics, standing wave structures, etc.

If I'm not mistaken, I think all of our sensory faculties are understood as fundamentally vibrational.

Anyway, I'm a musician, of sorts, so I like the idea.

 

[daisey]

Daisey,

It's true that matter exists due to how we use the words 'matter' and 'exists'.

It appears my use of the word "matter" was incorrect. What I really wanted to know is when I hold a rock in my hand, what am I holding? In High-School physics, they would say "matter", composed of atoms and molecules. But to go deeper, its really electrons and quarks, and some would say vibrating strings. Whichever of these latter approaches you take, they are all point particles which have no extension in space. And what causes strings (numbers, etc.) is interesting, but I think goes beyond my question. Since these basic particles have no shape, what I am feeling is simply electromagnetic forces pressing against my hand. There is really nothing there in my hand that takes up "space". So using that definition of "matter", it really is not there and does not "exist" in our world of space-time.

That is what I wanted to confirm.

 

[ThomasT]

What I really wanted to know is when I hold a rock in my hand, what am I holding?

YOU would be holding a rock. If you want to think of the rock in some other, more fundamental way, then you have to think of you in that other, more fundamental way also.

The thing is, nobody knows what 'deep' reality is, or what the fundamental dynamic(s) of deep reality is. It's an open question, a matter of some speculation.

In High-School physics, they would say "matter", composed of atoms and molecules. But to go deeper, its really electrons and quarks, and some would say vibrating strings. Whichever of these latter approaches you take, they are all point particles which have no extension in space.

Whatever deep reality is, experiments tell us, unequivicably, that it's real. Point particles are mathematical conveniences. That's all.

Since these basic particles have no shape, what I am feeling is simply electromagnetic forces pressing against my hand. There is really nothing there in my hand that takes up "space". So using that definition of "matter", it really is not there and does not "exist" in our world of space-time.

That is what I wanted to confirm.

Electromagnetic forces, nuclear forces, point particles, vibrating strings with no spatial extension -- these all refer to mathematical modeling constructs. They're calculational conventions and conveniences, not necessarily meant to correspond to what deep reality actually is.

Nobody knows what deep reality actually is. But whatever it is, it is, by definition, real.

Did you read what I wrote in the other post? One speculation is that deep reality is waves in a hierarchy of media. 'You' and 'I' are bounded wave complexes, emerging from and constrained by the same fundamental wave dynamic(s) that produced every other ponderable 'object' (persistent, bounded wave complex) in our Universe from the subatomic to the super galactic scale.

Your hand holding or touching a rock is the reality that our sensory faculties reveal to us. It follows that whatever underlies this is also real. It's just that it's not amenable to our sensory apprehension.

 

[daisey]

Whatever deep reality is, experiments tell us, unequivicably, that it's real. Point particles are mathematical conveniences. That's all.

Hey, Thomas.

Maybe I am not grasping the concept your are trying to convey. Let's try it this way.

1. We know experimentally that atoms exist in our reality.
2. We know experimentally that atoms are mostly empty "space". Very tiny electrons swarming at (sometimes) relatively great distances around a nucleus.
3. We know experimentally the nucleus is also mostly empty space, with protons and neutrons circling each other in a perpetual dance.
4. We know experimentally that protons and neutrons are also mostly empty space, composed of very tiny quarks doing this same dance

Let's stop here. This is what I believe is the limit of what we know experimentally. Now, based on what we know experimentally, most of everything we know of is composed of empty space. So, by extension, a rock is mostly empty space, no?

Did you read what I wrote in the other post? One speculation is that deep reality is waves in a hierarchy of media. 'You' and 'I' are bounded wave complexes, emerging from and constrained by the same fundamental wave dynamic(s) that produced every other ponderable 'object' (persistent, bounded wave complex) in our Universe from the subatomic to the super galactic scale.

Yes, but I didn't understand it.

Thanks for your patience

 

[apeiron]

A rock is mostly empty space. And yet the presence of that rock fills all space - if you consider the way it "reaches out" with its gravity field, its radiation, and other non-constrained aspects of its "existence".

The case is even more extreme with point particles if you view them through the lens of quantum theory (rather than Newtonian physics as you are tending to do).

A particle is spread out as a wave of energy as much as it is located as a dimensionless point.

So you can see why we should not get too attached to concrete mental pictures. They can serve as a guide - a convenient figment that first guided the formulation of the equations, and now helps to keep those equations palatable.

Strings and loops are two more recent guiding images. Vibrations or resonances are still more.

 

[daisey]

A rock is mostly empty space. And yet the presence of that rock fills all space - if you consider the way it "reaches out" with its gravity field, its radiation, and other non-constrained aspects of its "existence".

Thank you! That is exactly what I wanted to confirm.

 

[Pythagorean]

yes, matter and time both exist, just not exactly as you thought they did and much more than you'll ever understand.

We can consistently interact with it and measure it and it doesn't fail our expectations that it exists. That's good enough.

 

[Zdenka]

Answer: Perception IS reality. There may be other forms of REALITY, and life itself may be an immense simulation, but it's still a form of reality because we are able to perceive it.

 

[JoeDawg]

We can consistently interact with it and measure it and it doesn't fail our expectations that it exists. That's good enough.

Matter is essentially just a placeholder, a variable, in an evolving equation. The matter Newton talked about is not the matter Einstein talked about. Fact is, both are just models, they don't exist 'out there'. What does exist 'out there' is something different. And if it were 'good enough', physicists would all be teaching, not researching.

I think this is an important distinction, not because science sucks or scientists have gone horribly wrong, but because science is not definitive, its tentative. Overstating the case for matter can lead people to treat a useful and well grounded assumption as truth. And that's a dangerous game.

 

[Pythagorean]

Matter is essentially just a placeholder, a variable, in an evolving equation. The matter Newton talked about is not the matter Einstein talked about. Fact is, both are just models, they don't exist 'out there'. What does exist 'out there' is something different. And if it were 'good enough', physicists would all be teaching, not researching.

I think this is an important distinction, not because science sucks or scientists have gone horribly wrong, but because science is not definitive, its tentative. Overstating the case for matter can lead people to treat a useful and well grounded assumption as truth. And that's a dangerous game.

It is 'good enough' to state that it actually exists. Those physicists doing the research on it aren't trying to prove that it exists, just discover more about it.

Everything else you're saying I already said in the part of my post that you didn't quote.

 

[debra]

Matter is essentially just a placeholder, a variable, in an evolving equation. The matter Newton talked about is not the matter Einstein talked about. Fact is, both are just models, they don't exist 'out there'. What does exist 'out there' is something different. And if it were 'good enough', physicists would all be teaching, not researching.

I think this is an important distinction, not because science sucks or scientists have gone horribly wrong, but because science is not definitive, its tentative. Overstating the case for matter can lead people to treat a useful and well grounded assumption as truth. And that's a dangerous game.

We know that the Earth is spherical not flat - I suppose that is a 'model' and not the real truth. But I do think your attitude is "I don't understand it all, so that applies to you guys too, so let's just stick with the Earth is flat because we can never know the truth, I think there are vibration thingies doing it all woooo hoooo hooooo"

I believe you underestimate us as sources of 'intelligence' - we have (IMO) the same sort of intelligence as the Universe, because the Universe made us and we could make a Universe ourselves (Newton said the universe is straining towards intelligence) - we can already make a model 1 Universe in a computer, using physics etc. When we work out how all the fields and particles work then we can make a much better one. Until eventually... (you complete the sentence)

OK, so the Universe is made of numbers, and we know roughly how it does it. Who/what made all those numbers work? Well, it could have been something just like us, or something else that we don't yet know - but its not beyond question that we can never know due to some type of 'magic' at work. Often people who simply have no idea how stuff works say that. It is unprovable that we can never know.

 

[JoeDawg]

We know that the Earth is spherical not flat - I suppose that is a 'model' and not the real truth. But I do think your attitude is "I don't understand it all, so that applies to you guys too, so let's just stick with the Earth is flat because we can never know the truth, I think there are vibration thingies doing it all woooo hoooo hooooo"

You are, rather rudely, mischaracterizing my position in a fairly major way.
The Earth example is a good one though. It would simply be dishonest to say the Earth was flat when we have evidence to the contrary. Quite a lot of it.

But we can't honestly say is that the Earth is a sphere either. Science tells us this. Science tells us the 'earth' is a very irregular, vaguely spherical, ball. Calling it a sphere may be more accurate than calling it flat, but its not a sphere either.

Your contention that it is a sphere, despite the evidence that it is not is exactly the type of mistake that people make when they ignore science and think they know it all.

 

[Pythagorean]

To address JoeDawg's overall point, I think you're being somewhat stereotypical of scientists. In laymen books, we even use the word "stuff" instead of matter to signify the ambiguity of the idea. It's definition is based on physical existence, not on the properties that we've discovered since having the urge to study it in the first place.

Different scientists approach their work with different philosophies, but I think a large chunk of us tend to be somewhat Taoist in our philosophy. We use words with common working meanings (especially when speaking casually about science) with the full knowledge that it's not the end-all be-all and that it relies on several (currently safe) assumptions that could be shattered in any number of upcoming experiments.

But we still have to get somewhere in the mean time, so we use working terms like "matter". This attitude:

Overstating the case for matter can lead people to treat a useful and well grounded assumption as truth. And that's a dangerous game.

is just silly. Popular opinion isn't swayed by logic in the first place, but more to the point, we should be more pertinent about teaching people to come to conclusions for themselves rather than being careful about proudly proclaiming the existence of matter!

 

[JoeDawg]

is just silly.

Being precise about definitions may not be important to you, but its rather important in philosophy... and in science.

 

[Count Iblis]

There was a misunderstanding earlier in the thread about my position. Of course, there is the normal physics that explains the hardness of a rock. It's the fact that the electrons in the rock will be repelled by the electrons in your hand. And that, b.t.w., happens primarily because of the Pauli exclusion principle. The electrons in your hand cannot be just pushed into the rock without going to higher energy levels.

The Pauli exclusion principle explains why matter appears to be solid while in reality the particles don't occupy any space. The available space inside matter is all occupied at low energies. I.e., all the lowest quantum states are are already filled.


But if we are ultimately computations performed by the brain, then what you are experiencing is not the actual sqeezing of the rock, but the representaton of that event in the virtual world generated by the brain. Because if you hallucinate about sqeezing a rock, you'll still have the same experience, without the event happening in the real world.

 

[Pythagorean]

Being precise about definitions may not be important to you, but its rather important in philosophy... and in science.

yes... I loathe being precise about definitions. Tell me more, Dr. Phil.

Are you really paying attention to what you type and how it relates to the discussion or are you just looking at little sentences, taking them out of context, and replying for your own personal glee?

 

[JoeDawg]

little sentences

Pot... Kettle... Black

 

[ValenceE]

Hello to all,



There are all kinds of questions about our world, human nature and everything else, which just cannot yet be answered in total truth by our current knowledge, coming out of all fields of research.

All the best known, understood and working theories, along with the legion of promising pretenders, still fall short but certainly have been serving us humans with their findings, helping develop, shape and better our daily lives. Won’t go into how well or not this knowledge is used or distributed though, this is more related to Love than anything else.


Anyway, as far as the existence of matter, it’s my belief of the moment that, since all is about interaction, and that it can all be reduced to a one-on-one interaction, one or both can be called matter. So yes, matter can exist if you decide so.



Regards,

VE

 

[mrcoltrane]

I got onto this thread by typing into google 'what causes matter to exist'.

noticed that people are kind of going down the ontological route or talking about perception etc. I mean, I get that things aren't always what they appear to be on the surface.

I just wanted to get some clues on whether matter is caused, like the effect of gravity, by the curvature of space time. Not sure where I heard this, soem obscure lecture maybe.

I think the guy said something like 'matter was found to be following striaght lines in what was a curved space-time, but the really radical twaist was that matter itself was just space -time'.

anyone know what I am on about?

 

[magpies]

Yes. The cause of matter is probably as easy to find as the cause of your thoughts. Thoughts exist because we allow them to. So I would suspect matter exists because we allow it to. How could a thought exist if we did not allow it? How could a Earth exist if we did not allow it? :)

Isn't the mind of god amazing :)

 

[debra]

Matter, 3D space, and time are all in flat information (1s and 0s!) and we only percieve a 3D world with objects. I have so much supporting evidence I don't know where to begin.
Try this, just for one:
Dimensions: One dimension is a line with no thickness - you know this argument eh? They say the 'thickness' is the next dimension (x and y). And so its go on...
This is easy to explain because space is mapped out in information - a metric. There cannot be zero width because the metric needed to define it (eg 0101001110001010001) would need to be infinite - does not happen. So there is indeed a minimum thickness of a line! There is no mystery and no need to invoke analogue dimensions with infinity problems. Its just a simple digital 3D mapping - easy.

Objects? Well, QFT explains particles in terms of field peturbations. There are no 'solid objects' at the lowest level. Reason? Its all defined by information.

Information does not need a place to exist (how many numbers can you put in a tiny box?)
Information does not have mass (what is the mass of 1 million numbers?)
Information does step along, that's why the universe is in the present moment and does not know exactly where its going. Nor can it go in reverse - even a computer cannot go backwards.
Numbers are exactly what we need to make 3D space - they can exist in no place and at no time. Exactly what we need to make a universe. Its all so simple. Don't know what is the matter with most of you. I give up - delete me pls.

 

[WaveJumper]

There was a misunderstanding earlier in the thread about my position. Of course, there is the normal physics that explains the hardness of a rock. It's the fact that the electrons in the rock will be repelled by the electrons in your hand. And that, b.t.w., happens primarily because of the Pauli exclusion principle. The electrons in your hand cannot be just pushed into the rock without going to higher energy levels.

The Pauli exclusion principle explains why matter appears to be solid while in reality the particles don't occupy any space. The available space inside matter is all occupied at low energies. I.e., all the lowest quantum states are are already filled.

There is more. There couldn't be 3 dimensional matter without virtual particles. I'd say they are the main, fundamental ingredient of what we perceive as 3D reality. It's the exchange of virtual photons, that come and go at 10^-43sec., that makes up the Coulomb force. Which gives us the impression of solid 3D matter that exists 'out there'(whatever that really means). A smaller contribution should be assigned to virtual gluons, manifested as the strong nuclear force.

But if we are ultimately computations performed by the brain, then what you are experiencing is not the actual sqeezing of the rock, but the representaton of that event in the virtual world generated by the brain. Because if you hallucinate about sqeezing a rock, you'll still have the same experience, without the event happening in the real world.

It's the triumph of nature over our puny minds that teaches us how to circumvent the infinite regress of A is the property of B, which is a property of C, which is a property of D, which is a property of E, etc. ad infinitum. At some point you reach the zero-dimensional point-particles(electrons, quarks) which are 'bare' properties, and as it appears, you aren't allowed to inquire further as to why fields/point particles behave exactly the way they do(only probabilities can be exctracted). Many a leading physicist have 'seen' a profound mystery in this fact and it baffles me as well. I don't subscribe to the view that our macro reality can be recovered from the causal interactions of point particles. Our macro scale is too 'strange' for that.
But when you think about it, in this universe there is only a multitude of 'bare' properties of zero-dimensional point 'particles' manifested as matter by virtual particles. It's either that the human mind is not capable of describing and comprehending reality as it really is, or there is no reality beyond what we experience and we are related in a fairly major way with this cardboard universe.

 

[debra]

It's the triumph of nature over our puny minds that teaches us how to circumvent the infinite regress of A is the property of B, which is a property of C, which is a property of D, which is a property of E, etc. ad infinitum. At some point you reach the zero-dimensional point-particles(electrons, quarks) which are 'bare' properties, and as it appears, you aren't allowed to inquire further as to why fields/point particles behave exactly the way they do(only probabilities can be exctracted). Many a leading physicist have 'seen' a profound mystery in this fact and it baffles me as well.

Its not baffling at all - its the Pythagorean Monad - he understood what was going on, he just did not know how it was doing it.

It terms of your elementary particles (they are another abstraction of course) we could model each of those using mathematics and define their behaviors and properties within the mathematics. They then simply run in a program. The particles are not really there, its only the mathematics that defines them make them appear to us to be real physical objects. But they are not - they are 'made of' mathematics.

Pythagoras, Plato, Leibniz, Newton (and many many more) all guessed that.
It can be guessed using fairly simple logic.

These deep mysteries you mention are not deep or mysteries. We will probably
know 99.9% of everything fairly soon. Its certainly not a law of the universe
that we can never know. The opposite if anything is a law. i.e. we will know.

 

[WaveJumper]

Its not baffling at all - its the Pythagorean Monad - he understood what was going on, he just did not know how it was doing it.

It terms of your elementary particles (they are another abstraction of course) we could model each of those using mathematics and define their behaviors and properties within the mathematics. They then simply run in a program. The particles are not really there, its only the mathematics that defines them make them appear to us to be real physical objects. But they are not - they are 'made of' mathematics.

Pythagoras, Plato, Leibniz, Newton (and many many more) all guessed that.
It can be guessed using fairly simple logic.

These deep mysteries you mention are not deep or mysteries. We will probably
know 99.9% of everything fairly soon. Its certainly not a law of the universe
that we can never know. The opposite if anything is a law. i.e. we will know.

How would mathematics account for our personal experience?

The particles are not really there, its only the mathematics that defines them make them appear to us to be real physical objects.

What is "us"? Mathematics? Mathematics cannot model a human thought(at least not yet so certainty is unwarranted). I agree that reality is not what it seems(which is what most physicists agree upon), but that theory needs to make at least a few additional assumptions and i didn't see them stated.

 

[trogan]

As a software developer it seems very likely to me that we exist as a computer simulation (think Matrix). The fact that most things are describable by mathematics is a dead giveaway. We may in fact be a hologram and a lot of research is pointing in this direction. So what would the purpose of the simulation be ? Basically, I am guessing, to evolve into an entity that is more powerful than its creator. Why ? to eventually escape from eternity !

 

[debra]

How would mathematics account for our personal experience?



What is "us"? Mathematics? Mathematics cannot model a human thought(at least not yet so certainty is unwarranted). I agree that reality is not what it seems(which is what most physicists agree upon), but that theory needs to make at least a few additional assumptions and i didn't see them stated.

Personal experience: The brain is a type of von-neumann machine which has data and instructions and a processing area. It uses chemicals rather than transitor gates as a computer would.
There is NO THOUGHT that is not physically constructed by processing in the brain.
They can even be measured and moitored. Thoughts and experience are as real as a computers 'thoughts'. There is NOTHING etherial or mystical about thoughts in the brain.


Additional assumptions? Do not know which assumptions you want.
I, personally, would say the main assumption is of an 'information space' that exists 'behind the Heisenberg uncertainty window'. Its a guess that 'must be true'. Most advances are guessed to be true. eg Dirac admitted guessing his.

That information space has been proposed before, but wrongly dropped by the physics
community because they are not good information specialists and swim around in
integral maths trying doing things the hard way. They always hit infinity problems
and worm their way out of those using highly presumptious and debatable arguments.
e.g. cut off (the fact that 1/r forces cannot go to infinity - so they just use a cut off. Duh.

Information theory description of the universe must has a cut off anyway, so its included and must be there.

 

[debra]

As a software developer it seems very likely to me that we exist as a computer simulation (think Matrix). The fact that most things are describable by mathematics is a dead giveaway. We may in fact be a hologram and a lot of research is pointing in this direction. So what would the purpose of the simulation be ? Basically, I am guessing, to evolve into an entity that is more powerful than its creator. Why ? to eventually escape from eternity !

I agree with a lot of what you say except the computer is probably some natural type of von neumann machine. Maybe it self boots. Maybe it uses patterns and shapes instead of algorithms. But these are only interesting details.

Why? I am guessing that intelligence exists (e.g. we have it) and its a form of intelligence that that made everything 'work'. Maybe some clever person could even say why it did it.

Why should everything be a deep mystery?? I think not.

 

[WaveJumper]

Personal experience: The brain is a type of von-neumann machine which has data and instructions and a processing area. It uses chemicals rather than transitor gates as a computer would.
There is NO THOUGHT that is not physically constructed by processing in the brain.
They can even be measured and moitored. Thoughts and experience are as real as a computers 'thoughts'. There is NOTHING etherial or mystical about thoughts in the brain.

How does mathematics become a von neumann machine? The only way seems to be if we are living in a simulated reality. Or at least a projected reality off a real, objectively existing 2-D world. Ideas about mathematical universes speak to me more about God than of physics.

Additional assumptions? Do not know which assumptions you want.

There is all sorts of assumptions behind every single statement that a scientist makes. You already made one, a fundamental one i'd say - that the human mind is capable of comprehending reality. While claiming that space wasn't a real physical structure, you made a second assumption - that you had free-will and your conclusions were not pre-determined and hence their veracity questionable. There are others that are not as relevant to the discussion. The relevant assumptions are about how a mathematical structure(mathematical correlations) become 1 to 1 with our observsations.

I, personally, would say the main assumption is of an 'information space' that exists 'behind the Heisenberg uncertainty window'. Its a guess that 'must be true'. Most advances are guessed to be true. eg Dirac admitted guessing his.

That information space has been proposed before, but wrongly dropped by the physics
community because they are not good information specialists and swim around in
integral maths trying doing things the hard way. They always hit infinity problems
and worm their way out of those using highly presumptious and debatable arguments.
e.g. cut off (the fact that 1/r forces cannot go to infinity - so they just use a cut off. Duh.

Information theory description of the universe must has a cut off anyway, so its included and must be there.

I guess the physics community shies away from god, that's why similar ideas will likely never be readily embraced by the predominantly secular scientists. Though you might counter that a simulated universe is consistent with all the evidence - from the physical laws and constants through the initial conditions of the BB and maths applicability at all levels, to the seeming abscence of a creator. Then, we could be all brothers and sisters to our common mother - her name Pentium-ina Trillion Core.

 

[debra]

How does mathematics become a von neumann machine? The only way seems to be if we are living in a simulated reality. Or at least a projected reality off a real, objectively existing 2-D world. Ideas about mathematical universes speak to me more about God than of physics.

There is all sorts of assumptions behind every single statement that a scientist makes. You already made one, a fundamental one i'd say - that the human mind is capable of comprehending reality. While claiming that space wasn't a real physical structure, you made a second assumption - that you had free-will and your conclusions were not pre-determined and hence their veracity questionable. There are others that are not as relevant to the discussion. The relevant assumptions are about how a mathematical structure(mathematical correlations) become 1 to 1 with our observsations.

I guess the physics community shies away from god, that's why similar ideas will likely never be readily embraced by the predominantly secular scientists. Though you might counter that a simulated universe is consistent with all the evidence - from the physical laws and constants through the initial conditions of the BB and maths applicability at all levels, to the seeming abscence of a creator. Then, we could be all brothers and sisters to our common mother - her name Pentium-ina Trillion Core.

It makes it more interesting because a simulated reality is running on a type of intelligence if you believe that is what a program is. Even an alien life would be using the same sort of logical reasoning that we use - because its logical. A bouncing ball is following a simple program and we are thinking with a sophisticated intelligence that is able to produce its own tiny universe - our thoughts.

I cannot understand what the physicists are doing using integral mathematics to try to work it all out. Its like a Sims character trying to work out his world by analysing pixel motions.

But, if we were Sims characters ourselves, we should be able to work out that we were in a simulation. Its all about intelligence isn't it?

 

[rewebster]

The majority of this thread, to me, is the reason why hard core physicists hate, abhor, consistently avoid, immediately take notice of and 'point out', try to change the subject, and scowl at the word 'if' ; and, if 'if' is used, the whole conversation is almost immediately dumped into the world of 'philosophy' and their work isn't considered 'science'.




To avoid the word 'if' in most, if not all papers, monographs, etc. and articles created by those hard core physicists and work around being called a 'philosopher', they now use the word...


'consider'.