The Multiverse and Existential Scale | Robert Lawrence Kuhn

Steve Dufourny
Hi Steve,

Have you given your opinion on "Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?", which is one of the issues that this whole thread is supposed to be about?

I notice (e.g. online videos) that many people seem to assume that, at the foundations or beginnings of the world, there was ALREADY mathematical structure. I notice that many people seem to consider that a mathematical or a quantum structure is the "nothing" out of which the "something", that we have today, has arisen. I'm saying that a mathematical or quantum structure can't be thought of as "nothing".

So, in the context of "Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?", my answer is that everything about the initial mathematical structure of the world, and the subsequent functioning and movement of the real-world mathematical system, CAN potentially be explained in terms of creativity and consciousness.

But creativity and consciousness (as I have articulated them) are first principles aspects of a standalone, self-sufficient world, aspects that can't be reverse-explained in terms of the subsequent real-world mathematical structure, or the functioning and movement of the real-world mathematical system.

I'm saying that:

• The mathematical structure of the world had to be created and initialised; and
• The mathematical system needs to know itself, because the nitty-gritty time-place numbers and categories are NOT Platonically true, because there is no such thing as a Platonic realm (and, in any case, a Platonic realm would require a separate explanation for its not-nothing existence).

Steve Dufourny
I'm saying that:

• The mathematical structure of the world had to be created and initialised; and
• The mathematical system needs to know itself, because the nitty-gritty time-place numbers and categories are NOT Platonically true, because there is no such thing as a Platonic realm (and, in any case, a Platonic realm would require a separate explanation for its not-nothing existence).

Do you agree?

Lorraine Ford
I should add that, it is irrelevant whether relationships/ equations, categories and numbers etc. actually exist, in the same way that we high-level human beings might imagine them to exist. What is important is that we need to represent what exists using special man-made symbols. And so, we have to think of what exists in terms of these relationships/ equations, categories and numbers.

Steve,

I’m saying that what created the real-world system hasn’t retired and gone on a holiday.

I’m saying that what the particular equations and numbers are in the real-world system (i.e. what we represent with equations and numbers) is almost irrelevant. Because equations and numbers CAN’T describe a moving system. Can’t. How many times does it have to be explained that none of these special mathematical devices can describe a moving system?

I’m saying that what IS relevant is that the real-world system needs to know itself, and the real-world system needs to move itself. These are necessary aspects of any viable system.

So, if you are claiming that the real-world system is a zombie automaton, like everybody else is claiming, can you tell me how you think the real-world system knows about its own very specific on-the-spot time-place relationships, categories and numbers?

And, if you are claiming that the real-world system is a zombie automaton, like everybody else is claiming, can you tell me how you think the real-world system moves its own numbers that apply to the categories?

How does it know? How does it move? Because the particular equations and numbers, and other mathematical devices, are almost irrelevant.

EQUATIONS.

Steve,

People seem to think that fundamental physics should be the search for the ultimate laws of nature, i.e. the search for a special set of equations, that perhaps could be experimentally validated. Unfortunately, these people have seemingly never noticed that a set of equations does not make a viable moving system. A mathematical system is NOT all about the equations.

In one sense, the equations are almost irrelevant. The important aspects of a mathematical system are: How does the system know itself? and: How does the system move itself?

How come a mathematical system knows itself? Because, in a mathematical system, only some equations (relationships between categories), but not others, are true; and only some numbers (that apply to the categories), but not others, are currently true. This knowledge aspect of a system can’t be represented in terms of relationships, categories and numbers because the knowledge is OF the relationships, categories and numbers. The issue is WHAT knows, and the answer is clearly that small parts of the system know.

How come a mathematical system can move itself? How, exactly, does number movement work? Clearly, purely due to mathematical relationship, relationships between categories do change the numbers, but only if other numbers have changed. So, mathematical equations/ relationships are not the actual aspects of the mathematical system that is moving the system. It is clearly number jumps that are moving the system. The issue is WHAT is jumping the numbers, and the answer is clearly that small parts of the system are jumping their own numbers in response to knowledge of situations encountered.

The world IS inherently mathematical, let’s face it. It is no freak accident that people are able to send and track spacecraft, and at the other end of the scale, investigate the smallest particles and atoms: it is because the world IS in fact mathematical, with categories, numbers and relationships.

But, more importantly, the world is a moving SYSTEM, and in a moving SYSTEM, the equations are pretty well arbitrary. The only necessary aspects of a viable, moving SYSTEM are that the system must know itself, and the system must move itself.

These necessary aspects of a SYSTEM are the same aspects of the world that can’t be explained, when the question is asked: "Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?"

Georgina Woodward
Mathematics, correctly written, can describe all sorts of hypothetical existence and relationship bewtween parts which do necessarily exist. Physics is about the real World/Universe, Maths can be about anything or their relationships. Being mathematically self consistent is not the same as being realistic.

Georgina Woodward
Maybe we don't exist within a Minkowski space. Relic information being confused with matter existing wholly -Now. History is given the same status as what is happening currently in such a model. Paradox results from allowing real living history to exist and be available to get interfered with. The paradox indicating something is not right with the model.
How does 2D hilbert space relate to the space occupied by existing material things? Does it have any relevance or is it a fiction on paper pretending it can be a fact in the real World?
Before we marvel at the fit betwen theory and exprerimental results, and take it as support for the theoretical structure of the UNIVERSE proposed, we should get the metapyhysical background behind the results that happen 'straight' in our minds. By accepting the supremacy of mathematics for representing and communicating we've give up some of our ability to disciminate and reject ideas that are not science
We forget that mathematics is an art, not science, and belongs to the imaginred platonic ideal realm.

Georgina Woodward
Georgina,

Get over it.

You seem to have deep feelings of distrust in everyone and everything including climate science. But, hundreds of years of work by honest physicists and their predecessors has shown that the world is inherently mathematical. It is no freak accident that people are able to send and track spacecraft, and at the other end of the scale, investigate the smallest particles and atoms: it is because the world IS in fact mathematical, with categories, numbers and relationships. The only thing that one can question is the particular mathematics used to represent the world.

In any case, the issue is (or one of the issues is) "Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?"

Georgina Woodward
That an observation product is not formed when there is a lack of sensory information available , is used by illusionists ,who will deliberately conseal, obscure or disatract ,to prevent the audience being fully informed. In this way things can appear to vanish and appear, from non existence. Physisits beware of situations where information is limited.
From experience a baby soon learns that an object out of sight continues to exist materially.

Georgina Woodward
Get over it Georgina. lol.

How do you know that you exist? lol.
How do you know that you have a hand on the end of your arm? lol.
How do you know that you are a mother? lol.

Georgina Woodward
Georgina,

If the world is as full of illusion and delusion as you seem to think it is, I wonder that you would even dare to walk down the street.

I wonder how any animal or person ever survives for even a day, if the world is as full of illusion and delusion as you seem to think it is.

lol.

Georgina,

You seem to be denying that science can even exist because you seem to think that people are full of illusion and delusion about the world.

As I said, it is a wonder that any animal or person could survive for even a day, if the world were as full of illusion and delusion as you seem to think it is.

In fact, it is only on the high-level details, of human analysis of the world, that people disagree.

All (except, seemingly, you) agree on the fundamentals, i.e. that the sky is blue, and the grass is green, and they can all agree when a tiger is chasing them. But people might disagree on the high-level details of human analysis of the world, i.e. what political party to vote for; or what is the best physics’ theory of the world.

Lorraine Ford "Lorraine Ford"#p168923
Your own maniacal laughter and vain attempts at ridicule are not an appropriate response to presentation of serious ideas worthy of sensible consideration. Perhaps you are incapable of addressing the ideas themselves and think you are clever by denigrating other people and making statements repeatedly calling their character into question. I'm neither detered or impressed by the level of debate you demonstrate. How does your ignorant, dismissive, attitude help?

Lorraine Ford
Get over it Georgina. lol.
How do you know that you exist? lol.
How do you know that you have a hand on the end of your arm? lol.
How do you know that you are a mother? lol.

Feedback from senses giving the brain information about the body internally and on the surface.
Feedback from my body allowing homeostasis, e.g. I am cold, I am thirsty, I am tired.
Proprioception is your body's ability to sense its own position and movements. It's an automatic or subconscious process. Proprioception allows your brain to know the position of your body in space without having to rely on visual input alone. It's also crucial to maintaining balance (By google)
Senses and feelings, including pain, allowing appropriate behaviour and learning.

Georgina,

You clearly don’t care that your writing is always full of spelling mistakes, which is a very strange and slack attitude for a person who claims that they were once a schoolteacher.

As I said, no animal or person could survive for even a day, if the world were as full of fundamental-level illusion and delusion, as you seem to think it is.

You’ve tried to say that people are deceived and tricked by the world in a very fundamental way, and that this somehow explains the physics of the world, or something or other. You’ve talked about: blind men and an elephant; a pair of socks; black cats; aeroplane wings; and termite mounds. And your latest gem, seemingly once again about how the world tricks people, is about moons that might not be there at all if people don’t look.

As I said, apart from you, no one seems to be suffering from illusion or delusion; no one is getting tricked by the world. Everyone can agree about the fundamental stuff, e.g. that the sky is blue, and the grass is green; and they can all agree when a tiger is chasing them. No animal or person could survive for even a day, if the world were as full of fundamental-level illusion and delusion, as you seem to think it is.

Where people disagree, naturally enough, is on the high-level stuff, the high-level analysis of the world, the sort of analysis that leads people to decide on what political party to vote for, or what physics’ theory of the world makes the most sense to them.