Reality is anything that can cause an effect or can be affected by cause. Alternatively reality is anything that can cause a change or can be changed by a cause.
Reality by Luis Patiño-Cuadrado
Hello Luis . . .
Your essay is very intuitive and persuasive, as well as easy to read. So are you saying that the natural numbers give rise to the structures of the physical universe, while the infinitely greater uncountable, continuous numbers give rise to non-physical attributes such as desire, intentionality and curiosity?
Michael Z. Tyree
Dear Luis Patiño-Cuadrado,
Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.
I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.
Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.
The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.
Joe Fisher, Realist
James,
Godel was known to be clear as well as brilliant and witty with compassion. He lets us see truth from our own position.
Sherman
Luis,
Math and goals. Math can cover all of reality and more. Every goal visualized and those impossible to dream. Still it is dressing math in an old shirt if we treat math re the ultimate goal much as we often relate physics to chemistry.
Sherman
Nice essay 10M Patino-Cuadrado,
I am also poor person.
Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg...
'1. It turns out that numbers really are understood as a concept and even used by many nonhuman animals, including primates, other mammals and even non mammals like parrots and other birds that lack the symbols and language to describe those numbers
2. Thus the uncountable, continuous , part of mathematics is infinitely more vast than that which can be cranked out mindlessly by machines of any nature. I claim that this is the reality we live in, and because it is so infinitely infinite it encodes feelings, life, and intelligence. Math is therefore not mindless, but the ultimate mind and consciousness etc...'
A Good idea, I fully agree with you............
..................... At this point I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ...............reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc...just have a look at the essay... "Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe" where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement.....
I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems
For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.
Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.
With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.
Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain
Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/
Best wishes to your essay.
For your blessings please................
=snp. gupta
Dear Patino-Cuadrado,
I am sorry for the spelling mistake in your name....
Best
=snp
17 days later
Dear Jim,
I wasn't joking when I wrote "poor person" as my bio: I have been suffering untold hardship from poverty and its disastrous consequences. Indeed, it's a small miracle that I managed to post as much as I did at the last minute and in a hurry just from my knowledge while distracted by the horrors of basic survival. I remember reading somewhere long ago that Gödel did say that.
Regardless, the point is that if mathematics is its own reality, then it can be our reality especially if a mere simulation can be a reality made of finite computable math. This approach has several advantages over simulation and emergence hypotheses. Since math just is, the need of a programmer is gone. Hence we need not worry who programmed the programmer, base reality and other such absurdities because we are in base reality -- the only one there is: mathematics -- infinitely rich to an infinite degree. Its uncountable, non-computable elements are infinitely more than enough to provide objects with the right properties that when combined in the right combinations that are already just there timelessly in non-computable math to emerge from feeling to living to consciousness and to true intelligence with true insight and understanding instead of the crude approximations (finite by design) absurdly called "AI". As for self-reference, since we are made of the uncountable we can handle infinite levels of it in finite time just like we can do calculus that requires the uncountable real numbers or even tell in an instant the length of a line made of uncountable points. Making mistakes shows that true randomness is real and we are accessing it, and evolution as well as our capacity of inspiration and insight happen precisely from exploring all the randomness at once again in finite times just like we can do infinite stuff in moments like seeing the inside of a square in an instant, not to mention doing limits, derivatives and integrals over uncountable sets. We and all of reality are made of this
Dear Joe Fisher,
How is an amoeba "simple"?? On the other hand, what could be simpler than accepting that reality is the one reality that we already know is there no matter what?
An amoeba is a eukaryotic being capable of very sophisticated behavior that the math-is-reality theory endows with the possibility of feeling and perhaps even rudimentary consciousness or at least instinct enough to have survived hundreds of millions of years.
Hi Michael
Not really. I'm saying that all of physical reality is made of all math -- including the uncountable continuous and the transfinite -- all of it. After all, we are made of and are part of that physical reality. Which is part of the beauty of this idea: Tegmark argues that consciousness emerges from arrangements of atoms just like the "wetness" of water emerges from the accumulation of millions of water molecules, yet a single water molecule is not "wet". What he left out is that in order for the water to be wet each individual water molecule has to have certain special properties -- namely its polarity that allows each molecule to stick to the next, causing water to cling to things: i.e. "wet" them. Similarly, if the inanimate components of physical reality were only countable ones, they would not be able to "emerge" into feeling, living, conscious and truly intelligent beings with insight and understanding. Remember, many other animals clearly display these qualities despite their limited language capabilities (and even that is turning out to be far more sophisticated than we thought).
Hope this answers your question!
Thank you and thanks to all who replied!
I'll try to read those suggested essays and comment as my very limited time allows. Being poor is a full-time job. I wish I didn't have to worry about money so I could dedicate time to really develop these ideas more rigorously.
PS -- much has been made of the actual mechanisms and processes involved quantum this and that, etc. The idea that reality is math doesn't preclude them as long as they don't limit things to countable or -- even worse -- to finite math.
Dear Lee,
If I understand your post correctly just because I mentioned Gödel 's deas as one of several lines of compelling arguments for math being its own objective reality, it made it seem to you that self reference is the end all. Indirect self reference is how he proved his theorems, but by no means are self-referent sentences the only well-formed sentences in a formal system that cannot be decided purely within the formal system no matter how much logic you throw at them. Fermat's Last Theorem is an example of that. It took a heck of a lot more than all of number theory to prove it! The point is that math is much more than countable computable mindless crap, and has to be so to produce this reality and everything within it -- including us.
Dear Sirs!
Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use spam.
New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.
New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.
Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.
Sincerely,
Dizhechko Boris
6 days later
Sherman,
Gödel was indeed as you described him, and really did his stupendous work out of love of Humanity. Einstein loved him to the point of expressing late in his life that Kurt Gödel was his main reason to go to the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton.
Love is non-computable! ;-)
Sherman,
Exactly, if the mindless, limited, computable crap that has every body gaga with its power, has so much power that it deludes brilliant people into thinking it capable of bringing about reality, life, sensation and ultimately consciousness, emotions and intelligence, how much more power -- indeed real power -- does the totality of math with its uncountably infinite higher richness has! Indeed, math can easily cover all of reality and more, as you said.
Mi point was to explain what reality is: Reality is math -- all of it, especially uncountable, non computable math. Of course, we need not keep this in mind when calculating the orbit of Moon around Earth, just like we don't meed to keep in mind quantum mechanics when burning hydrogen with oxygen. Still, to explain reality itself we need to reach out to the ultimate, timeless reality of math.
Dear Luis Patiño-Cuadrado,
On my page you asked that I read your essay. And asked if I thought math was the symbols. I replied that I haven't spent much time trying to define math, but that I generally think the symbols formalize the underlying relations. If you read my essay, you know that I understand math as deriving from physical reality, not the other way around. In my end notes I discuss how counters create numbers, and, per Kronecker, all of math follows.
I generally view math as "the language of nature", but languages can describe reality or present fictions. I believe that Mandelbrot is elaborate fiction. Beautiful, stunning, but probably related to nothing in reality except the images we create physically.
As you appear to note, counting is everywhere, from DNA to cells to computers to animals. Counters are easy to construct, and are ubiquitous. Numbers can be mapped into and onto all physical realities, and even non-physical such as Mandelbrot.
I dearly love mathematics, but I am not a Platonist.
There is no harm that I'm aware of in being the Platonist, so you should probably just enjoy it.
My best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
6 days later
Dear Luis,
I read your essay only yesterday, but I really enjoyed it, for the originality and depth of your vision. Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH, since it excludes the uncomputable real numbers (which are almost the totality of the numbers), seems to me after all a particular version of the "It from bit" perspective. Instead your point of view expresses, although in a very concise manner, the depth of Cantor's and Gödel's results, whose implications are perhaps not yet been fully understood.
In 2015 FQXi contest (and before also in a book), I suggested the hypothesis that space and time are sets of (properly ordered) real numbers:
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2330
Your idea goes even further and extends the mathematical origin to whole reality (including emotions, feelings, moods, etc.). It is not an arbitrary hypothesis (I consider it possible that self-consciousness is a mathematical function, self-referential and uncomputabie), but it is very difficult to verify.
PS: I read in a previous post that you have serious problems of material subsistence, and I'm so sorry for that. I have no academic position. If I had one, or I were, hypothetically, in FQXi Board, I would try every way to help you to continue your research, because I think you deserve it.
Sincerely,