# The universe caused itself?

by celebrei
Tags: caused, universe
P: 4,836
 Quote by Dmitry67 1 hamiltonian can be used only in the narrow subset of all mathematical systems (=universes).
Why?
 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.
P: 4,836
 Quote by Dmitry67 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.
Since you can represent an arbitrary mathematical function in boolean logic, it would just be a matter of writing one down in computer code. Not that difficult.
PF Gold
P: 1,662
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 )
 Second incompleteness theorem For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, T includes a statement of its own consistency if and only if T is inconsistent.
To me, this must mean we already know that your (Chalnoth) 1-2-3 boiling down of Tegmark’s arguments is inconsistent in the very first sentence:
 Quote by Chalnoth 1. A mathematical structure is just a fully-consistent set of rules. 2. If our universe is fully consistent, then it is isomorphic to some mathematical structure (which we don't yet know). This would indicate that at least some mathematical structures have real existence. 3. It is generally easier for all things of a class to exist than for only some of them to, so it is simpler to propose that all mathematical structures exist.
If our universe is fully consistent and thus isomorphic to a mathematical structure, then TOE must be inconsistent to be able to prove the consistency of the universe!? Therefore the universe (=TOE) also must be inconsistent!? And if the universe is inconsistent, it cannot be a mathematical structure, therefore TOE can never be found (from 'inside')!?

Que? What am I missing...
PF Gold
P: 2,215
 Quote by Dmitry67 What created (caused) number 7?
Numbers 6 and 8...

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).
PF Gold
P: 1,662
 Quote by baywax Numbers 6 and 8...
11 + 100 = 111

P: 4,836
 Quote by DevilsAvocado If our universe is fully consistent and thus isomorphic to a mathematical structure, then TOE must be inconsistent to be able to prove the consistency of the universe!? Therefore the universe (=TOE) also must be inconsistent!? And if the universe is inconsistent, it cannot be a mathematical structure, therefore TOE can never be found (from 'inside')!? Que? What am I missing...
Just because you can't prove from within the mathematical structure that the structure is consistent doesn't mean it isn't consistent. It just means you can't demonstrate it within said structure.
 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.
PF Gold
P: 2,215
 Quote by DevilsAvocado 11 + 100 = 111
actually, in visual terms 11 + 100 is equal to 11100

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!
 Sci Advisor PF Gold P: 9,485 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.
P: 4,836
 Quote by Chronos For that reason, I favor the God hypothesis. It provides a reasonable, albeit incomplete, explanation.
No, it really doesn't. The problem is that there's a tension between different definitions of the word, and neither class of definition comes close to solving the problem. The more specific your definition gets, the more complex your God gets, and thus the less it becomes an explanation. The less specific your definition gets, the more meaningless the term God even becomes, and thus it fails as an explanation in the other direction.

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 poorly-defined.
PF Gold
P: 1,662
 Quote by Chalnoth Just because you can't prove from within the mathematical structure that the structure is consistent doesn't mean it isn't consistent. It just means you can't demonstrate it within said structure.

So how do we prove your second statement?
 "2. If our universe is fully consistent, then it is isomorphic to some mathematical structure ..."
If the universe = mathematical structure, then how can we ever use mathematics to prove it fully consistent?
PF Gold
P: 1,662
 Quote by Dmitry67 ... Also, not that Goedels theorem is not applicable to ANY mathematical structure, but to some subset of such structures.

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."
PF Gold
P: 1,662
 Quote by baywax actually, in visual terms 11 + 100 is equal to 11100
Maybe...?

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!?
PF Gold
P: 1,662
 Quote by Chronos ... I favor the God hypothesis. It provides a reasonable, albeit incomplete, explanation.

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.
P: 4,836
My point is that you simply define a mathematical structure as being a fully-consistent set of axioms. This definition means that there may be things which we call mathematical structures which actually aren't. And there are certainly many things which are mathematical structures which we are unaware of.

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.

 Quote by DevilsAvocado If the universe = mathematical structure, then how can we ever use mathematics to prove it fully consistent?
An inconsistency is an impossibility. We may not be able to prove the mathematical structure which we think is isomorphic to our universe is consistent (and thus an actual mathematical structure). But we know that if it turns out not to be consistent, it can't describe our universe.
PF Gold
P: 1,662
 Quote by Chalnoth ... An inconsistency is an impossibility. ...
Thanks a lot for the explanation. I think I see the light now...

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?
 P: 107 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.

 Related Discussions General Physics 1 Astronomy & Astrophysics 16 General Discussion 10 Astronomy & Astrophysics 5