
#55
Jan2710, 03:11 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,721





#56
Jan2810, 01:12 AM

P: 2,456

Can you write a Hamiltonian for the Boolean Logic universe? (it is just an example)
Universe (in general) is not necesserily based on real/complex numbers. 



#57
Jan2810, 01:22 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,721





#58
Jan2810, 07:06 PM

PF Gold
P: 1,642

Chalnoth & Dmitry67, your latest talk about 'islands' and Hamiltonian is way above my 'horizon', but I have been thinking some more about the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis.
Dmitry67, when you mentioned "7. Can we somehow transfer our consciousness into such universes?", I started thinking about 'brains' and mathematics. If MUH is correct, our brain is 'just' a mathematical formula, right? Then we must have the 'mother lode' of formulas inside our heads, if we are going to explain 'ourselves', AND the universe, AND 'everything else', right? Then I started thinking about something else, which is so 'simple', that Tegmark just couldn’t have missed it: Gödel's incompleteness theorems I know this must be wrong, but I can’t find the error myself... (I also have to live up to my username hehe ) Que? What am I missing... 



#59
Jan2810, 08:04 PM

PF Gold
P: 2,215

I would like to weigh in and say that the universe has been evolving since long before the BB. The BB is just one symptom of whatever started the whole process. This universe building process probably started in response to an overwhelming imbalance of nothing to something... as in a ratio of 0 to 1... 1 being "nothing" (in an abstract manner of course). 



#61
Jan2810, 09:22 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,721





#62
Jan2810, 11:59 PM

P: 2,456

Chalnoth had already replied...
DavilsAdvocado, do you know the Game of Life? The one you can play on the inlimited chess board? That Universe is degterministic and very simple. What is quite contreintuitive, is that both Goedels theorems are applicable to such universe: there are some statements regarding the configurations of dots which can not be proved or dismissed. Also, not that Goedels theorem is not applicable to ANY mathematical structure, but to some subset of such structures. 



#63
Jan2910, 12:52 AM

PF Gold
P: 2,215

in this instance there are more ones than zeros and an imbalance continues to occur. this might lead to expansion or inflation... but the ratio here between 1s (which now represent "something") and 0s... (which represent "nothing") is much less of an imbalance than 0 to 1. So... the dominance of nothing... or some other equally homologous medium, causes a violent reaction within itself that produces an opposite, balancing medium or condition. The sum of the metaphoric parts is a universe. Just guessing! 



#64
Jan2910, 01:11 AM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 9,178

Mathematics and the origins of the universe have a great deal in common  both rely on fundamental assumptions that, by definition, are unprovable. Logic allows us to delve a bit deeper, but also ultimately fails. There is no reasonable explanation why this, or any other universe exists, imo. For that reason, I favor the God hypothesis. It provides a reasonable, albeit incomplete, explanation.




#65
Jan2910, 07:51 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,721

Because of this vague slipperiness of the very definition of the word "god", it is an impossibility to ever bring up any evidence for or against, and for that reason the hypothesis simply fails as being too poorlydefined. 



#66
Jan2910, 11:01 AM

PF Gold
P: 1,642

So how do we prove your second statement? 



#67
Jan2910, 11:04 AM

PF Gold
P: 1,642

Agree. Many weak systems of arithmetic do not satisfy the hypotheses of the second incompleteness theorem. But now we are talking about the whole enchilada... things that do apply to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and things that don’t... The problem is, as I see it, that we cannot 'pick and chose'; everything (in the universe) has to be fully consistent!? The liar paradox seems hard to get out of  "The next sentence is false. The previous sentence is true." 



#68
Jan2910, 11:08 AM

PF Gold
P: 1,642

All I wanted to say is that number 7 is totally irrelevant, and created by humans (of course!). We can do perfectly well with 1/0, On/Off, black/white, light/dark, etc, to any calculation possible. So the correct question maybe is  What created (caused) number light light light!? 



#69
Jan2910, 11:12 AM

PF Gold
P: 1,642

I don’t agree. The 'designer hypothesis' immediately raises the larger problem  Who designed the designer!? Furthermore, the 'designer' has exactly the same problem as quantum fluctuations – how to choose a moment for BB – in a 'period' where there was no time and no moments to choose... And Occam's razor prefers simpler explanations, as 'nothingness', than an extremely complicated 'designer', to do the same thing. 



#70
Jan2910, 11:53 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,721

Our inability to be absolutely 100% certain whether or not everything we call a mathematical structure actually is one is basically irrelevant to the point. 



#71
Jan2910, 06:33 PM

PF Gold
P: 1,642

We already know that the universe is fully consistent, otherwise we wouldn’t be here, right? Or we would be here, but a lot of people would get killed on the 'inconsistent highway' everyday – by Boltzmann Brains popping out of nowhere and smashing into their windshields... So, if we can find a mathematical structure that describes this fully consistent universe, it is okay. And then we would know that the universe is isomorphic to that mathematical structure. Correct? 



#72
Jan2910, 08:57 PM

P: 104

I don't see why the universe has to have been created at all. The perception of time we have is perhaps something we should not pin to the nature of the universe. Slice time out of the mystery, and it might be easier to grasp.



Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Gravity and universe expansion could be caused by the same thing.  General Physics  1  
What caused the cooling of the universe?  General Astronomy  16  
Are all things in the universe caused by things that cause things like themselves?  General Discussion  10  
Is Dark Matter a 'Pressure' caused by something 'outside' of the Universe?  General Astronomy  5 