[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 65 KB, 328x480, 1295666271672.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2940468 No.2940468 [Reply] [Original]

I have a "theory" or hypothesis about why there is something rather than nothing.

Firstly, the universe is basically a computer program as far as we know. In the sense that the laws of physics (whatever they really are) are the rules of the program (a computer program is a mathematical construct and actually doesn't have anything to do with real computers).
Now, in a sense a song exists before someone writes it. It exists abstractly until someone 'discovers' it. Same with writing a book or a computer program, it already exists abstractly as a sequence of characters, it just takes a person to write it down. In this sense all possible songs, books, and computer programs already exist abstractly, we just discover them as we write them.

So my theory is that the only things that really exist are abstract mathematically precise things (sequences of characters or notes, mathematical truths, computer programs, etc). So every possible computer program that can exist, does exist abstractly. But any of those programs that happen to contain sentient beings such as ourselves are observable to those beings. The abstract program feels completely real to them (us). So in my model, the universe is one of an infinite number of possible computer programs, which only exists in an abstract sense but because it contains sentient beings, those beings classify it as real.

If this is correct, this is why there is something rather than nothing, and it makes sense in this model that the universe appears very undesigned but also somewhat fine-tuned for life.

Sorry if it is hard understand

>> No.2940472

I would argue art, such as music, isnt defined as a sequence of details.

>> No.2940476

Congratulations, your theory has all the feasibility of string theory without the masturbatory mathematicians.

In addition, my captcha was Program pagecode. Interesting, maybe you're on to something.

>> No.2940481

OP here, yeah obviously it's not falsifiable or verifiable.

>> No.2940489

>>2940468

So OP things must have a soul, a concrete, timeless identity separate from the material world, in order to exist abstractly.

So the shit I took this morning has an abstract essence that exists in some platonic realm?

>> No.2940494

>>2940489
No that's not what I mean. I mean our universe has an abstract mathematical description.

>> No.2940513

go back to the cave, plato

>> No.2940539 [DELETED] 
File: 24 KB, 534x443, 1300947364595.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2940539

>> No.2940579
File: 3 KB, 183x297, 1252223840964.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2940579

>> No.2940586

>>2940481
You can't call it a hypothesis if it isn't falsifiable. It's called "mental masturbation" at that point.

>> No.2940591

I suppose it makes sense. But it is also completely useless except as food for thought, so, there you go.

>> No.2940605

Eh, interesting read, cool shit.

>> No.2940653

>>2940468

seems redundant

might as well say the abstract existence exists only because of some super-abstract existence

and that only exists because of some really omega-super-abstract existence

seems like a pointless description, plus it's not verifiable

and it has no interesting implications.

>> No.2940659 [DELETED] 

>>2940653
yes but I am using that as an explanation for our universe, or "why there is something rather than nothing"

>> No.2940669

>>2940659
No you didn't explain anything.

>So in my model, the universe is one of an infinite number of possible computer programs, which only exists in an abstract sense but because it contains sentient beings, those beings classify it as real.

you haven't explained why those sentient beings actually exist rather than not exist at all, simply as abstract entities

being part of an infinite series of abstract potentials doesn't explain shit

plus you have to then explain why there are abstract existent entities rather than Nothing.

>> No.2940690

>>2940669
deleted my post so I can respond better

I didn't go into it, but existence of the abstract entities doesn't depend on a higher level of abstraction but instead are necessary. The idea is that mathematical and logical truths exist no matter what; that you can't have "nothing" because 2+2 will still equal 4 and (not A) is never equal to A. In the same way, every possible mathematical construct exists necessarily and abstractly.

The sentient beings don't "actually" exist any more than the abstract program they are a part of, but from their point of view it is real.

>> No.2940730

>>2940690
A=A might have a necessary truth value when a human thinks about it, but that doesn't mean it "exists abstractly" somewhere...

>> No.2940743

>>2940690
Mathematical and logical entities exist no matter what... as long as you're in a position to consider them. This is is the root of their necessity, they are mandatory in any existence that you find yourself consciously able to contemplate them in. So it's circular.

Basically, the universe exists because you can't conceive of it not existing. It necessarily exists.

>> No.2940766

>>2940468
So basically God exists because the abstract concept of God exists in the code of this computer program which was discovered long ago.

>> No.2940769

>>2940743
>the universe exists because you can't conceive of it not existing. It necessarily exists.

Well, I'd say that if we could peer into a universe that had nothing in it (which already violates the definition of universe) we would ask why there is nothing instead of something.

Asking why things exist is like asking why the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s

>> No.2940782

>>2940743

they exist insofar as your brain produces them and you are aware of them. They exist symbolically as mental representations.

but they don't exist, independently, outside the mind floating in some math-space; even if they did there would be no way to demonstrate this.

Your mind has no access to "independently existing objects" sorry.

>> No.2940793

Well OP, I would challenge your philosophical model by saying that there are necessarily nested universes, since our universe "program" contains many sub-"programs" that all have associated data; they are universes on their own. The questions, then:

Is there such a thing as an indivisible universe which cannot contain any smaller universes? If so, what is this atomic unit?

If there is no atomic universe, then universes are necessarily nested infinitely. If there is, then they could still be nested infinitely through recursion, which I believe to be quite likely, in fact. So, if there is such an arrangement, where Universe A contains Universe B which contains Universe A, then the original question remains. Why does this arrangement exist, rather than not existing? Universes A and B depend on each others existence. It's as if the information appeared from nothingness.

>> No.2940802

>>2940793
Shit's getting complicated

>> No.2940821

>>2940468
>exist before being created
Stopped reading there.

My reply is "That's nice". Your claims are not falsifiable, and thus I do not care.

>> No.2940835

>>2940782
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue here. I was merely indicating that trying to ground the necessity of existence on anything (even the proposed logical and mathematical entities) was circular. The act of even generating the question "Why is there nothing instead of something?" presupposes that there is something. That's all.

>> No.2940843

>>2940835
I argued that your idea of things "existing abstractly" is incoherent and can't form the foundation for "why there is something other than nothing"

I'm arguing against your main idea.

>The act of even generating the question "Why is there nothing instead of something?" presupposes that there is something.

This is irrelevant to the discussion. Stop talking.

>> No.2940945

>>2940843
No, it's actually quite clearly essential to understanding why the question is ill-posed in the first place.

Oh, and no one is interested in discussing ontological nihilism in this thread, so you should probably stop talking. The fact that there actually IS something is entirely presupposed by us having this exchange, and thus the question of "Why is there not nothing?" is ill-posed.

>> No.2940973

You may find this quite interesting:
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html

It's the ideas a professional physicist has considered thoughtfully, but also considers 'crazy'. It's a fun read, there's a bunch of good stuff on the site.

>> No.2941112

>>2940476
maybe OP should write "his theory" in mathematical equations.

>> No.2941121

Cellular automaton, OP.

>> No.2941124

>>2940468
I remember being 12 too OP. Nice try, at least you are thinking.

>> No.2941154

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_realism

Cool universals bro. Plato and Pythagoras have already been there, not that you're claiming to be the first.

>> No.2941195

>>2940591
engineer detected

>> No.2941198

>>2941121
What does that have to do with anything?

>> No.2941206

>>2941198
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton

>In 1969, however, German computer pioneer Konrad Zuse published his book Calculating Space, proposing that the physical laws of the universe are discrete by nature, and that the entire universe is the output of a deterministic computation on a giant cellular automaton. This was the first book on what today is called digital physics.

>> No.2941227

These ideas are centuries old. It's also a very primitive understanding of the content. Cute.

>> No.2941269

>>2941206
So... free will doesn't exist 100%?

>> No.2941271

>>2941227
Prove it.

Show us more 'advanced' content.

>> No.2941273

>>2941206
Where can I get this book? Or is there an online version?

couldn't find anything at amazon

>> No.2941275

>>2941269
Depends on how you define "free will". If you define it appropriately, then it does exist. See one of my favorite Dan Dennett videos:

(Argument that free will and determinalism are compatible) Daniel Dennett lecture on "Free Will" (Edinburgh University)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKLAbWFCh1E

>> No.2941278

>>2941273
Never mind, I found it http://cag.dat.demokritos.gr/Backpages/zuserechnenderraum.pdf

>> No.2943787
File: 118 KB, 294x371, Kant_Portrait..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2943787

>>2940468

Kant would like to have a word with you about the noumenon.

>> No.2943806

The first paragraph merely outlines examples of essence precedes existence -- which are bad examples to use with regard to the universe since they both involve a thinking of their usage prior to their invention, ex: Sartre's paper knife example.