reality ontology infinite universe quantum math

  On 4/3/2011 at 10:07 AM, GORDO said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 9:40 AM, Zephyr_Nova said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 6:11 AM, GORDO said:

...the borel-cantelli lemma, it is a theorem that basically says that if something can happen and you give it enough chances for it to happen then it will happen eventually. so universe being infinite means you are giving EVERYTHING a lot of chances to happen. so naturally, it will.

 

Couldn't the same series of events just keep happening over and over forever? Why would every possibility have to arise just because there's infinite area/timeframe for it to happen within? I swear there's a logical fallacy in that theorem, but I hear it so often from different people who seem convinced it's air tight. I don't find it very convincing at all.

 

 

well, the math is solid. (click for proof) but the universe isn't math. there's also a hypothesis of independence in there that may not apply to a lot of things in reality.

Mathematical Universe hypothesis

It was brought up in the BBC Horizon documentary "What is Reality?", that it's strange how mathematics is so good at describing reality and sometimes the only way to describe it. Is there some underlying principle there?

somewhere out there is a version of me that decided not to read this thread

fuuuu is there also an alternative reality out there where this guy didnt come up with this theory? This is too much for my beer dulled brain

wouldn't there have to be an infinite number of finite universes inside the infinite universe?

also, vamos, there's another pretty cool series you may enjoy called 'through the wormhole'... it's narrated by morgan freeman

  On 4/3/2011 at 12:17 PM, azatoth said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 10:07 AM, GORDO said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 9:40 AM, Zephyr_Nova said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 6:11 AM, GORDO said:

...the borel-cantelli lemma, it is a theorem that basically says that if something can happen and you give it enough chances for it to happen then it will happen eventually. so universe being infinite means you are giving EVERYTHING a lot of chances to happen. so naturally, it will.

 

Couldn't the same series of events just keep happening over and over forever? Why would every possibility have to arise just because there's infinite area/timeframe for it to happen within? I swear there's a logical fallacy in that theorem, but I hear it so often from different people who seem convinced it's air tight. I don't find it very convincing at all.

 

 

well, the math is solid. (click for proof) but the universe isn't math. there's also a hypothesis of independence in there that may not apply to a lot of things in reality.

 

Mathematical Universe hypothesis

 

It was brought up in the BBC Horizon documentary "What is Reality?", that it's strange how mathematics is so good at describing reality and sometimes the only way to describe it. Is there some underlying principle there?

Well i would say that it is logic, all math is based on logic, and it would be hard to argue that reality doesn't adhere to logic.

  On 4/4/2011 at 3:49 AM, GORDO said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 12:17 PM, azatoth said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 10:07 AM, GORDO said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 9:40 AM, Zephyr_Nova said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 6:11 AM, GORDO said:

...the borel-cantelli lemma, it is a theorem that basically says that if something can happen and you give it enough chances for it to happen then it will happen eventually. so universe being infinite means you are giving EVERYTHING a lot of chances to happen. so naturally, it will.

 

Couldn't the same series of events just keep happening over and over forever? Why would every possibility have to arise just because there's infinite area/timeframe for it to happen within? I swear there's a logical fallacy in that theorem, but I hear it so often from different people who seem convinced it's air tight. I don't find it very convincing at all.

 

 

well, the math is solid. (click for proof) but the universe isn't math. there's also a hypothesis of independence in there that may not apply to a lot of things in reality.

 

Mathematical Universe hypothesis

 

It was brought up in the BBC Horizon documentary "What is Reality?", that it's strange how mathematics is so good at describing reality and sometimes the only way to describe it. Is there some underlying principle there?

 

Well i would say that it is logic, all math is based on logic, and it would be hard to argue that reality doesn't adhere to logic.

Humans sometimes doesn't adhere to logic, and we are part of reality.

  On 4/3/2011 at 4:37 AM, vamos scorcho said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 4:34 AM, Boxus said:

quantum theory tells us that the size of an observable region is determined by its maximal projection onto extra-systemic space. your idea is irrelevant when the variability of projection lengths causes the individual frame of the object to become unknowable.

 

if you read the article i posted in the first post which states that 'my' ideas are not 'mine' and that they are more or less commonly accepted, or at the least not considered 'irrelevant' in the scientific community.

 

why do i have to fight people constantly on here who think they're so damn smart?

haha, i was just joking actually, i made all of that up. glad it sounded legit!

to me, the problem of existence hasn't been properly explained by anyone.... least of all the damn bible.

  On 4/4/2011 at 7:52 AM, azatoth said:

Humans sometimes doesn't adhere to logic, and we are part of reality.

IMO, everything is logic. There is only adequacy or inadequacy between facts/images

Logic in what sense? Understandable by reason?

\http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R6Yyxi10Js&feature=player_embedded

  On 4/4/2011 at 3:49 AM, GORDO said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 12:17 PM, azatoth said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 10:07 AM, GORDO said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 9:40 AM, Zephyr_Nova said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 6:11 AM, GORDO said:

...the borel-cantelli lemma, it is a theorem that basically says that if something can happen and you give it enough chances for it to happen then it will happen eventually. so universe being infinite means you are giving EVERYTHING a lot of chances to happen. so naturally, it will.

 

Couldn't the same series of events just keep happening over and over forever? Why would every possibility have to arise just because there's infinite area/timeframe for it to happen within? I swear there's a logical fallacy in that theorem, but I hear it so often from different people who seem convinced it's air tight. I don't find it very convincing at all.

 

 

well, the math is solid. (click for proof) but the universe isn't math. there's also a hypothesis of independence in there that may not apply to a lot of things in reality.

 

Mathematical Universe hypothesis

 

It was brought up in the BBC Horizon documentary "What is Reality?", that it's strange how mathematics is so good at describing reality and sometimes the only way to describe it. Is there some underlying principle there?

 

Well i would say that it is logic, all math is based on logic, and it would be hard to argue that reality doesn't adhere to logic.

If there's one thing I've learnt from mathematics, it's that logic is (obviously) a human product and that it's not easy to find one unifying logic that is accepted by everybody as reasonable (whatever that may mean) and one that is sound and/or complete.

Mathematics and logic are still formal languages and methods that can be used to describe reality. I don't think you can say that reality adheres "logic" in general if you have found a logic with suitable axioms/inference rules that describes it perfectly, because this logic need not be unique.

  On 4/4/2011 at 4:17 PM, luke viia said:

Logic in what sense? Understandable by reason?

is logic what is thinkable, ie. what can be "transcribed" into an image, what can be represented by the means of symbols (a sign being a symbol in this case).

I reopened my copy of the Tractatus logico-philosophicus, and found this

  Quote

3 A logical picture of facts is a thought.

3.001 'A state of affairs is thinkable': what this means is that we can picture it to ourselves.

3.01 The totality of true thoughts is a picture of the world.

3.02 A thought contains the possibility of the situation of which it is the thought. What is thinkable is possible too.

3.03 Thought can never be of anything illogical, since, if it were, we should have to think illogically.

3.031 It used to be said that God could create anything except what would be contrary to the laws of logic.The truth is that we could not say what an 'illogical' world would look like.

3.032 It is as impossible to represent in language anything that 'contradicts logic' as it is in geometry to represent by its coordinates a figure that contradicts the laws of space, or to give the coordinates of a point that does not exist.

3.0321 Though a state of affairs that would contravene the laws of physics can be

represented by us spatially, one that would contravene the laws of geometry cannot.

3.04 If a thought were correct a priori, it would be a thought whose possibility ensured its truth.

3.05 A priori knowledge that a thought was true would be possible only it its truth were recognizable from the thought itself (without anything a to compare it with).

and to understand what truth is in regards of this theory

  Quote

2.203 A picture agrees with reality or fails to agree; it is correct or incorrect, true or false.

2.22 What a picture represents it represents independently of its truth or falsity, by means of its pictorial form.

2.221 What a picture represents is its sense.

2.222 The agreement or disagreement or its sense with reality constitutes its truth or falsity.

2.223 In order to tell whether a picture is true or false we must compare it with reality.

2.224 It is impossible to tell from the picture alone whether it is true or false.

2.225 There are no pictures that are true a priori.

ps : I believe there is an error in the english version i've just downloaded, the numbers have been shifted. The first one is 2.21.

Hm. I'm only familiar with certain types of formal logic, the rules of which deny many thoughts as logical.

"3.03 Thought can never be of anything illogical, since, if it were, we should have to think illogically."

Perhaps I am not entirely grasping the context of this statement. As I see it, I am quite able to form illogical thoughts. I've had quite a few already this morning. From what I know of Wittgenstein (admittedly not much), I do not agree with some of his ideas - namely, what passes as philosophy, and his rejection of the (logical) laws of inference... but beyond that I don't know much about the guy.

For now I'll have to just politely decline your idea that everything in the universe is logic.

  On 4/4/2011 at 5:13 PM, ericsosh said:

  On 4/4/2011 at 3:49 AM, GORDO said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 12:17 PM, azatoth said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 10:07 AM, GORDO said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 9:40 AM, Zephyr_Nova said:

  On 4/3/2011 at 6:11 AM, GORDO said:

...the borel-cantelli lemma, it is a theorem that basically says that if something can happen and you give it enough chances for it to happen then it will happen eventually. so universe being infinite means you are giving EVERYTHING a lot of chances to happen. so naturally, it will.

 

Couldn't the same series of events just keep happening over and over forever? Why would every possibility have to arise just because there's infinite area/timeframe for it to happen within? I swear there's a logical fallacy in that theorem, but I hear it so often from different people who seem convinced it's air tight. I don't find it very convincing at all.

 

 

well, the math is solid. (click for proof) but the universe isn't math. there's also a hypothesis of independence in there that may not apply to a lot of things in reality.

 

Mathematical Universe hypothesis

 

It was brought up in the BBC Horizon documentary "What is Reality?", that it's strange how mathematics is so good at describing reality and sometimes the only way to describe it. Is there some underlying principle there?

 

Well i would say that it is logic, all math is based on logic, and it would be hard to argue that reality doesn't adhere to logic.

 

If there's one thing I've learnt from mathematics, it's that logic is (obviously) a human product and that it's not easy to find one unifying logic that is accepted by everybody as reasonable (whatever that may mean) and one that is sound and/or complete.

 

Mathematics and logic are still formal languages and methods that can be used to describe reality. I don't think you can say that reality adheres "logic" in general if you have found a logic with suitable axioms/inference rules that describes it perfectly, because this logic need not be unique.

I'd say yes and no. Mathematical logic, its inference rules and such are indeed a human construct, and of course you can construct a different set of rules that 'make no sense' from which you can develop a coherent formal theory. but there are basic principles or axioms that should always make sense in the context of reality. things like A=A, or if A=B and B=C then A=C, or if A -> B and A then B.

So when i say logic I don't mean the study of inference rules, I mean logic in it's most basic form, the things that 'are obvious'.

but now I see that even defining logic is troublesome. But if there were to be something that's universal, it would have to be at least some form of logic. "the really obviously true shit".

okay now i have a headache.

Please take it from someone who flunked on a masters of logic degree that the idea that reality is based on some logical system is a disease. Thank god there was someone like Godel who proved that even from within a logical system you can prove that system to be either incomplete or just plain contradictory. He sure as hell cured me. Logic is an instrument, just like mathematics and a hammer. Use it right and it might be productive. But don't think for a minute the hammer holds some hidden truth about reality. It is just a hammer.

yeah i was just about to mention godel but goDel beat me to it :)

As I should have!

=p

  On 4/4/2011 at 6:18 PM, goDel said:

Please take it from someone who flunked on a masters of logic degree that the idea that reality is based on some logical system is a disease. Thank god there was someone like Godel who proved that even from within a logical system you can prove that system to be either incomplete or just plain contradictory. He sure as hell cured me. Logic is an instrument, just like mathematics and a hammer. Use it right and it might be productive. But don't think for a minute the hammer holds some hidden truth about reality. It is just a hammer.

well i wasn't saying such a thing. When i wrote that 'the universe isn't math' that's what i was thinking. I said reality adheres to logic, but then again what logic means is debatable. I'm thinking if there was some underlying truth it would have to be something really similar to the most basic principles of logic, but then again there isn't anything basic about the basic principles of logic. If something such as an underlying truth existed I would baptise it as logic.

And re: Gödel, his theorem shows that there will be something which cannot be inferred or decided, this seems okay with a universe made from logic from my point of view, simply put, there will be stuff that can't be known (bear in mind this is still just maths tho). right now, i don't see this as a deterrant.

  On 4/4/2011 at 6:37 PM, GORDO said:

  On 4/4/2011 at 6:18 PM, goDel said:

Please take it from someone who flunked on a masters of logic degree that the idea that reality is based on some logical system is a disease. Thank god there was someone like Godel who proved that even from within a logical system you can prove that system to be either incomplete or just plain contradictory. He sure as hell cured me. Logic is an instrument, just like mathematics and a hammer. Use it right and it might be productive. But don't think for a minute the hammer holds some hidden truth about reality. It is just a hammer.

 

well i wasn't saying such a thing. When i wrote that 'the universe isn't math' that's what i was thinking. I said reality adheres to logic, but then again what logic means is debatable. I'm thinking if there was some underlying truth it would have to be something really similar to the most basic principles of logic, but then again there isn't anything basic about the basic principles of logic. If something such as an underlying truth existed I would baptise it as logic.

 

And re: Gödel, his theorem shows that there will be something which cannot be inferred or decided, this seems okay with a universe made from logic from my point of view, simply put, there will be stuff that can't be known (bear in mind this is still just maths tho). right now, i don't see this as a deterrant.

I'm going to be pretty blunt here. Please don't take it personal.

Saying that reality adheres to logic is just as meaningless as saying reality adheres to a hammer. Both statements are as valid as they are meaningless. That idea you have about the underlying truth has been bludgeoned to death by the logical positivists in the previous century. If you're familiar with the history of it, chances are you're either incredibly stubborn or didn't get the entire picture. Godel just proved the entire venture the positivists were on was a useless exercise. There is no underlying truth which is written in some (logical) language or system. If you aren't familiar, enjoy reading wiki's for the rest of the afternoon.

  Quote

Gödel, his theorem shows that there will be something which cannot be inferred or decided, this seems okay with a universe made from logic from my point of view

When you can hear a clock ringing, it doesn't mean you understand how a clock works. Godel's results essentially proved that the universe cannot be made from logic. Whatever your point of view. Welcome to the world of logic. Opinions don't matter. It's either true or false. Godel's proof has sent your intuitions to the dustbin. Just accept it. A universe made from logic is either incomplete (doesn't produce all true statements), or is contradictory (produces contradictory truths, which instantly refutes any statement the logical system produces).

As I was saying, it's a disease.

Think of in the context of the Trap by Adam Curtis. The reason why game theory doesn't work as a system governing the real world, is that the building blocks on which game theory works, is just a fallible abstraction of reality. The logic is flawless, but still, reality just doesn't work that way. No logic system ever will.

basically Taoism is the most accurate description of reality.

  On 4/4/2011 at 6:55 PM, goDel said:

  On 4/4/2011 at 6:37 PM, GORDO said:

  On 4/4/2011 at 6:18 PM, goDel said:

Please take it from someone who flunked on a masters of logic degree that the idea that reality is based on some logical system is a disease. Thank god there was someone like Godel who proved that even from within a logical system you can prove that system to be either incomplete or just plain contradictory. He sure as hell cured me. Logic is an instrument, just like mathematics and a hammer. Use it right and it might be productive. But don't think for a minute the hammer holds some hidden truth about reality. It is just a hammer.

 

well i wasn't saying such a thing. When i wrote that 'the universe isn't math' that's what i was thinking. I said reality adheres to logic, but then again what logic means is debatable. I'm thinking if there was some underlying truth it would have to be something really similar to the most basic principles of logic, but then again there isn't anything basic about the basic principles of logic. If something such as an underlying truth existed I would baptise it as logic.

 

And re: Gödel, his theorem shows that there will be something which cannot be inferred or decided, this seems okay with a universe made from logic from my point of view, simply put, there will be stuff that can't be known (bear in mind this is still just maths tho). right now, i don't see this as a deterrant.

 

I'm going to be pretty blunt here. Please don't take it personal.

 

Saying that reality adheres to logic is just as meaningless as saying reality adheres to a hammer. Both statements are as valid as they are meaningless. That idea you have about the underlying truth has been bludgeoned to death by the logical positivists in the previous century. If you're familiar with the history of it, chances are you're either incredibly stubborn or didn't get the entire picture. Godel just proved the entire venture the positivists were on was a useless exercise. There is no underlying truth which is written in some (logical) language or system. If you aren't familiar, enjoy reading wiki's for the rest of the afternoon.

 

  Quote

Gödel, his theorem shows that there will be something which cannot be inferred or decided, this seems okay with a universe made from logic from my point of view

When you can hear a clock ringing, it doesn't mean you understand how a clock works. Godel's results essentially proved that the universe cannot be made from logic. Whatever your point of view. Welcome to the world of logic. Opinions don't matter. It's either true or false. Godel's proof has sent your intuitions to the dustbin. Just accept it. A universe made from logic is either incomplete (doesn't produce all true statements), or is contradictory (produces contradictory truths, which instantly refutes any statement the logical system produces).

 

As I was saying, it's a disease.

 

Think of in the context of the Trap by Adam Curtis. The reason why game theory doesn't work as a system governing the real world, is that the building blocks on which game theory works, is just a fallible abstraction of reality. The logic is flawless, but still, reality just doesn't work that way. No logic system ever will.

Gödel result is that within a complex enough formal system, there will be propositions that cannot decided from the system itself, and that they could be either true or false within the system. This doesn't mean that a statement such as A or ¬A can't ever be true, it just means "we don't know if A or ¬A, we would have to wait to observe either A or ¬A to decide which one it is, it could be either way.

What Gödel proved is that we can't possibly deduct all from reason, not that reality isn't logic. If you have an example of something in reality that doesn't adhere to logic please cite it for me.

And I see a contradiction in your line of thought, you use the statement that you are denying. (Logic can't describe the universe, as proved by logic)

  On 4/4/2011 at 7:14 PM, GORDO said:

What Gödel proved is that we can't possibly deduct all from reason, not that reality isn't logic. If you have an example of something in reality that doesn't adhere to logic please cite it for me.

quantum physics, evolution, chaos theory,...

  Quote

And I see a contradiction in your line of thought, you use the statement that you are denying. (Logic can't describe the universe, as proved by logic)

That's exactly where you don't understand godel's proof. He defined a primitive logical system strong enough to describe simple integer mathematics. And from within that logical system itself he could prove it's incompleteness/or unsoundness. It looks like a contradiction. But that was just the point isn't it? (please think this through. because this is exactly where the deeper meaning of godel's result is).

  On 4/4/2011 at 7:27 PM, goDel said:

  On 4/4/2011 at 7:14 PM, GORDO said:

What Gödel proved is that we can't possibly deduct all from reason, not that reality isn't logic. If you have an example of something in reality that doesn't adhere to logic please cite it for me.

quantum physics, evolution, chaos theory, consciousness

 

  Quote

And I see a contradiction in your line of thought, you use the statement that you are denying. (Logic can't describe the universe, as proved by logic)

 

That's exactly where you don't understand godel's proof. He defined a primitive logical system strong enough to describe simple integer mathematics. And from within that logical system itself he could prove it's incompleteness/or unsoundness. It looks like a contradiction. But that was just the point isn't it? (please think this through. because this is exactly where the deeper meaning of godel's result is).

oops wrong button

didn't mesan to quote myself

  On 4/4/2011 at 7:27 PM, goDel said:

  On 4/4/2011 at 7:14 PM, GORDO said:

What Gödel proved is that we can't possibly deduct all from reason, not that reality isn't logic. If you have an example of something in reality that doesn't adhere to logic please cite it for me.

quantum physics, evolution, chaos theory,...

 

  Quote

And I see a contradiction in your line of thought, you use the statement that you are denying. (Logic can't describe the universe, as proved by logic)

 

That's exactly where you don't understand godel's proof. He defined a primitive logical system strong enough to describe simple integer mathematics. And from within that logical system itself he could prove it's incompleteness/or unsoundness. It looks like a contradiction. But that was just the point isn't it? (please think this through. because this is exactly where the deeper meaning of godel's result is).

lol wut?

quantum physics: Counterintuitive ideas that were derived from math (logic). confirmed by experiments later.

evolution: the most logical thing ever?

chaos theory: The study of chaotic systems, deterministic dynamical systems. A mathematical (logic) description of things observed in reality.

so.. logic 3 - 0 you

now

IMCOMPLETENESS ISN'T CONTRADICTION.

if it's consistent then it is incomplete. this doesn't mean a consistent system can't exist.

you can't prove if a system is consistent or not, so what? this doesn't mean there can't be an universal logic, it could even be less complex than the formal systems in Gödel's theorems. when i ask you for examples i'm looking for a big headline saying something like: