Member 420
242 entries
1851942 views

 RSS
Project moderator:
Polytopia

Contributor to projects:
The great enhancement debate
The Total Library
Every act of rebellion expresses a nostalgia for innocence and an appeal to the essence of being. (Albert Camus)
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • Wildcat’s favorites
    From Xarene
    Human Document...
    From Xaos
    It is not Gods that we...
    From TheLuxuryofProtest
    Deep Learning in the City...
    From Rourke
    The 3D Additivist Manifesto
    From syncopath
    Simplicity
    Recently commented on
    From Benjamin Ross Hayden
    AGOPHOBIA (2013) - Film
    From Wildcat
    Tilting at windmills or...
    From Wildcat
    The jest of Onann pt. 1(...
    From syncopath
    Simplicity
    From Wildcat
    Some nothings are like...
    Wildcat’s projects
    Polytopia
    The human species is rapidly and indisputably moving towards the technological singularity. The cadence of the flow of information and innovation in...

    The Total Library
    Text that redefines...

    The great enhancement debate
    What will happen when for the first time in ages different human species will inhabit the earth at the same time? The day may be upon us when people...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    From Wildcat's personal cargo

    Mathematics itself is on fire
    The ultimate Platonist these days is Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In talks and papers recently he has speculated that mathematics does not describe the universe — it is the universe.

    Dr. Tegmark maintains that we are part of a mathematical structure, albeit one gorgeously more complicated than a hexagon, a multiplication table or even the multidimensional symmetries that describe modern particle physics. Other mathematical structures, he predicts, exist as their own universes in a sort of cosmic Pythagorean democracy, although not all of them would necessarily prove to be as rich as our own.

    “Everything in our world is purely mathematical — including you,” he wrote in New Scientist.

    This would explain why math works so well in describing the cosmos. It also suggests an answer to the question that Stephen Hawking, the English cosmologist, asked in his book, “A Brief History of Time”: “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” Mathematics itself is on fire.


    the rest of the article can be found here

    and the question of the day is this: is everything purely mathematical? everything? mind? emotions? feelings? ideas? or is it the other way around?

    Fri, Dec 21, 2007  Permanent link
    Categories: Mind, mathematics, TOE
      RSS for this post
    22 comments
      Promote (10)
      
      Add to favorites (3)
    Synapses (2)
     
    Comments:


    trubers     Fri, Dec 21, 2007  Permanent link
    I kinda like this idea... but some part of me is freaking out.

    Bah... maybe about everything...


    Anyway, loved the concept of Pythagorean Democracy =D!!!

    And I am surely going to read this article now!
    rua     Sat, Dec 22, 2007  Permanent link
    is everything purely mathematical? everything? mind? emotions? feelings? ideas? or is it the other way around?


    Maybe not one way, maybe not the other, but both.
    Masisoar     Sat, Dec 22, 2007  Permanent link
    I don't believe mathematics is the universe but rather a human means of explaining how things work mechanically within our known universe.


    Can mathematics completely explain the meta-physical? Explain memory of the past?
    lapisdecor     Sat, Dec 22, 2007  Permanent link
    I have to agree with Masisoar, since it seems to me that (yet to prove) we did not invent the universe, we (human) invented mathematics as we probably invented some other gods to explain the universe when mathematics was not yet a word. Obviously mathematics is better organized set of ideas.

    Einstein once said the universe is like a clock from which we see only the pointers moving, and we try to explain the mechanism we cant see inside the clock, looking at that movement.

    I think mathematics is a magnificent tool to help us, but it could never be the universe since mathematics is the expression of ideas, and ideas are understandable thoughts, happening on our brains. This may mean mathematics is some form of organized energy inside our brains. Or in other words, just a small part of the universe.

    You could argue nevertheless something like the universe is energy, and since matter and energy are the same thing in two different states and we know the universe is organized has a whole in some kind of manner, mathematics could be the universe. But for the universe to be mathematics probably we would need it first to be as understandable to our brains as mathematics. This may be eventually a possibility in the far far future, but highly improbable, in the near future.
    BenRayfield     Sat, Jul 31, 2010  Permanent link
    I completely agree with Max Tegmark's mathematical universe theory, which was added to Wikipedia's Multiverse page maybe around 2 years ago:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_IV:_Ultimate_Ensemble

    On that page, Tegmark's theory is criticized as being vague:
    Jürgen Schmidhuber, however, says the "set of mathematical structures" is not even well-defined

    I agree that its a vague way to write it, but I know exactly what it means, and I rewrote his entire mathematical universe theory, in complete technical detail with no vague words, as 1 sentence. That sentence is:
    The Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is 0.

    Of course, "universe" means "everything that exists". For religious reasons, some people like to say that some things can be outside the universe or before the universe, but that is a contradiction and therefore not true, because if "God exists" and the universe is "everything that exists" then "God" is a subset of the universe. Every set is a subset of itself. I can also rewrite Tegmark's theory this way: The Kolmogorov Complexity of the set of everything that exists is 0. I have to beat logic against complex ideas for years to get things this simple, so I'm not giving up "universe" to be replaced by "the set of everything that exists" when most people agree that "universe" means "everything that exists". For a long time, people have wanted a universal equation that fits on their shirt. Here it is: kolmogorovComplexity(universe)=0 There is only 1 thing that means, and it is exact. Statistics is part of math, so constant numbers representing chances can be branched on all paths to experience "free will" in each place individually. Einstein said "God does not play dice". I don't know what he meant by "God" (theres about a million definitions for that word), but this equation does not play dice. Any randomness in the dice is always balanced by all possibilities happening at once. Gamble in this casino and you'll leave with the same amount of money you came in with.

    I explained how the universe equalling math relates to other theories of physics, and speculated about some experiments based on that, in the following thread, using fluorescent light bulbs as multiverse inductors and capacitors, controlled by a network of electric-guitar distortion equipment, to create a multiverse resonator that generates an unbalanced gravity field (also called bending space), using cheap parts from electronics stores:
    http://spacecollective.org/nagash/6123/The-Illusion-of-Gravity

    If Max Tegmark is right, and I'm sure he is (but have not yet proved it), then we should be doing science a very different way. Math books and physics books would be interchangible, because the universe equals all of math, and theres no difference between a completely accurate simulation and the "real" thing. The universe is as infinite as math, which is more than most people can imagine, but if its true and if we know math well enough, we can program parts of reality the same way we program computers, through quantum physics devices like http://noosphere.princeton.edu  has been doing on a global scale for years.

    Masisoar said: I don't believe mathematics is the universe but rather a human means of explaining how things work mechanically within our known universe.

    Can mathematics completely explain the meta-physical? Explain memory of the past?


    If you read a few parts of the physics paper that the thread is about...
    http://spacecollective.org/nagash/6123/The-Illusion-of-Gravity
    ...then you will see their answer to that question. The theory is that time (and space and gravity and other things) can emerge from simpler patterns, and those things (including time) are only approximations or ways to statistically view what is real, therefore we should expect to see the future affect the past sometimes, and we should expect to see connections between things that we do not yet understand (which we call "meta-physical" or "paranormal" or "magic"), but instead of calling it that, we should call it "something I do not yet understand".

    Also, based on my experience with meta-physical things and the unusually technical way I think about them, I explained a software design (which I have not yet built) that should be able to access such things through the people who use that software, here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=180216 
    AsylumSeaker     Sun, Aug 1, 2010  Permanent link
    Ugh. This sort of thing just seems wrong to me on the face of it.
    The universe is the universe. Mathematics is mathematics. The universe is not mathematics. People tend to confuse their descriptions of phenomenon with the phenomenon they're describing.. Even if mathematics can omnisciently describe the universe, it is the description - not the phenomenon. Even if mathematics can omnipotently modify the universe, it is the modifier - not the modified.
    BenRayfield     Mon, Aug 2, 2010  Permanent link
    AsylumSeaker, we agree that math at least approximately describes the universe. That is not why I think the universe equals all of math/abstractions/etc. I have enough other reasons without that.

    My thoughts started years ago as philosphy, and later I found people who thought similar things, including Max Tegmark.
    I often start by calling it Tegmark's theory because, as a professional physics researcher, the fact that he thinks its a reasonable theory means more than if I alone had said it, because it means there are no obvious contradictions between the philosophy and what we know about physics.

    Heres some philosophy questions, with common answers and how I answer them based on the theory that the universe equals math:

    Why does something exist instead of nothing existing?

    COMMON ANSWER: The universe has always existed, and I can not explain why such a complex thing as the universe exists, but this is the simplest answer I have so far.

    COMMON ANSWER: God created the universe, and God has always existed. (This answer is to a different question. The way I asked it, "something" would include "God" and the "universe" so this is really the same answer as above: Something always existed and the complexity is not explained.)

    MY ANSWER: On average nothing exists because the universe is infinitely balanced, and overall its complexity (Kolmogorov Complexity to be exact) is 0 the same way "all people except AsylumSeaker and BenRayfield" is equally complex as "only the people AsylumSeaker and BenRayfield". It all cancels out, so the question contains a contradiction. Nothing exists on average, so it does not make sense to ask why something exists. I have added no complexity and reduced the number of philosophy questions by 1 here. The other answers add complexity and leave it as a problem to solve later.


    Why do I experience consciousness?

    COMMON ANSWER: The great and powerful Oz (or substitute your god's name here) grants exactly 1 soul or spirit to every Human, and that is what experiences things. Only Oz can do that. (This adds complexity. How can there be something that only Oz can do? It may be very difficult for us to do what Oz does, but improbable does not equal impossible. If its impossible, that doubles the complexity of the universe because now you need 2 groups of things: What Oz can do, and what everyone else can do.)

    MY ANSWER: A very skilled brain doctor from the future could cut me in half from the top of my head downward and replace each missing half with a similar half from some other person. Whatever consciousness I had before that would be in 2 places, and the same for the other person. Based on the fact that some people have important parts of their brains replaced by computers, and those people continue to experience consciousness (as they describe it), trading brain parts with another person would result both original consciousnesses (in both original unmodified brains) being in 2 places at once (the same way the left and right halfs of a brain are different places, a few inches apart, but in 2 different people instead of the same person). THEREFORE consciousness does not come in separate units and instead is continuously separatable and combinable. This is compatible with the theory that there is only 1 kind of thing in the universe, and that is math. The common answer written above requires at least 2 kinds of things, and that complexity adds 1 more philosophy question to answer.

    Adding assumptions is bad. Figuring out things without assuming is good. Faith and assumption are 2 words that mean the same thing. I'm looking for answers, not a way to avoid questions. It is not avoiding a question to think in a way that contradicts the assumptions of a question. Why does the universe exist? That assumes the universe exists, and if the universe does not exist, the question does not need to be answered. People who assume less things are smarter than people who assume more things, on average. It works both directions: You can assume Oz exists, or you can assume Oz does not exist. I try not to assume anything. If you ask me "Does God exist?" then I would answer "God exists exactly if your definition of God is a subset of math."

    Its true that overall nothing exists, but I have not defined "exist" yet. For all x, if the Kolmogorov Complexity of x is 0, then then x equals the PowerSet of x. Continue taking the PowerSet of the PowerSet of the PowerSet... of x, an infinite number of levels, until you get to Aleph Infinity, and it wraps around to Aleph Zero. Its like Modulo Arithmetic for measures of complexity. Infinite complexity wraps around to none. The Kolmogorov Complexity of everything equals the Kolmogorov Complexity of nothing. In Taoist philosophy they often say everything equals nothing, but they do not know how to say it in technical words. That does not mean the other parts of Taoism are true. I'm just explaining what "exist" means and how it connects to common ideas.

    When I wrote "The Kolmogorov Complexity of the universe is 0", I may have been the first person in history to define a Closure of the universe in a completely technical way (if the universe equals math). This means we get to use the universe in equations. Instead of being an empirical science, quantum physics can be thought of as calling the universe as a Lambda Function where the parameter and return value are different views of the universe, like some representation of a number for the chance that outcome will happen. I intend to test the theory that the universe can be called as a Lambda Function when I build these 2 softwares: Lisputer and Schrodingers Network Router. If I'm right, then I will be able to use small changes in the electricity in the wires of the internet to cause small changes in the electricity in some quantum physics devices (that generate "random" numbers) which have been running for years and sending data to http://noosphere.princeton.edu I plan to test the theory that the universe equals math, and Princeton University will measure the results. Can your theory (The universe does not equal math) be tested? How?

    In philosophy, a good strategy is to avoid answers that add more complexity than they explain. In general, simpler answers are more likely to be true than complex answers. The theory that the universe equals math is as simple as anything can possibly be, and it explains everything in perfect detail. Its complexity (specificly Kolmogorov Complexity) is literally 0.

    Other than your theory or assumption (Its a theory if you have reasons, and an assumption if you do not) that the universe does not equal math, can you explain why anyone else (who wants to figure out what is true) should think that?
    AsylumSeaker     Mon, Aug 2, 2010  Permanent link
    In philosophy, a good strategy is to avoid answers that add more complexity than they explain. In general, simpler answers are more likely to be true than complex answers. The theory that the universe equals math is as simple as anything can possibly be, and it explains everything in perfect detail. Its complexity (specificly Kolmogorov Complexity) is literally 0.

    I don't really see it this way. I don't see a focused truth as inherently more special than an unfocused one. Perhaps more useful in certain contexts, but less in others. Thus I don't see your idea as more 'true' than any other idea simply because it is more simple. A pure mathematical perception of reality is no more 'true' than what anyone else sees when they stare out at the world.

    I'm not trying to say that you're wrong. Actually in a sense I think you're right - the universe is mathematics. It is also poetry, art and simple visual data. Yes these things can also be described as being mathematical, but the reverse is true too.

    Other than your theory or assumption (Its a theory if you have reasons, and an assumption if you do not) that the universe does not equal math, can you explain why anyone else (who wants to figure out what is true) should think that?

    Let me ask you, what are you going to do with your truth? Do you hold that others can't do the same thing with a different truth, or that they can't do other interesting things unique to their approach? I think other people with different approaches could get results innaccessible from your position.
    Isn't it an assumption of yours that people should seek this kind of super-truth in the first place? I really think it is, it's a huge assumption of our times.. there are other things worth seeking, and the exclusion of certain knowledge can add its own flavor to a persons approach to reality and thus to their output. There really is no right way to think, no correct set of knowledge that leads a person to the state of being 'correct'. Instead there are a diversity of positions from which to view reality and breathe creative output into it.
    BenRayfield     Mon, Aug 2, 2010  Permanent link
    There are many ways to describe the universe. I prefer the shortest one because the others can be derived from it.

    I think other people with different approaches could get results innaccessible from your position.

    Like what?

    Isn't it an assumption of yours that people should seek this kind of super-truth in the first place? I really think it is, it's a huge assumption of our times.. there are other things worth seeking, and the exclusion of certain knowledge can add its own flavor to a persons approach to reality and thus to their output.



    Of course you can get more interesting or creative results if you leave out certain knowledge. This has been shown in artificial intelligence, and more relevant to people, it makes haunted-houses more fun if you don't know where the zombies and madmen with chainsaws are hiding.

    I did not say "people should seek this kind of super-truth". Some want to know. Some do not. I offer my theories to those who want to know.
    AsylumSeaker     Mon, Aug 2, 2010  Permanent link
    There are many ways to describe the universe. I prefer the shortest one because the others can be derived from it.

    Well so long as you know that it's just preference.
    I think this this is double edged. While complexity can be derived from simplicity, that complexity still contains the original simplicity. It's kind of like comparing a tree to a seed.

    Like what?

    I don't know like what specifically. I can't really tell from here what you're getting out of your idea so I've no way to compare it to anything else, I just think someone would get different results based on "universe = maths" vs "universe != maths".

    I did not say "people should seek this kind of super-truth". Some want to know. Some do not. I offer my theories to those who want to know.

    It seemed implied in you asking me "can you explain why anyone else (who wants to figure out what is true) should think that?" There seems to be an assumption in your thinking that if someone seeks truth then they should seek a specific truth which from your subjective position you've deemed the best one. I would say that if someone seeks truth then they should (for want of a less sappy phrase) "follow their heart".
    That's probably exactly what you're doing and I don't have an issue with that - I guess what bothered me here is talk of truth in a sense that seems absolutist, which I just can't parse.
    BenRayfield     Mon, Aug 2, 2010  Permanent link
    This is not about judging people or if its better to experience mystery or better to know more things. I have a practical reason for wanting to know how the universe works. This will take years and many people helping, but I think we can learn enough about how the universe works to build space ships that go faster than light, and to mass-produce them so everyone who wants to can do it at the same time. I want to go look for aliens. That's why I push for such knowledge so strongly. If you don't want to fly, stay here on the ground.

    While complexity can be derived from simplicity, that complexity still contains the original simplicity. It's kind of like comparing a tree to a seed.

    Yes. I didn't explain enough about that part, but with the Aleph Infinity (all variations of everything in all possible combinations) wrapping around to Aleph Zero (positive integers) like Modulo Arithmetic on Kolmogorov Complexity (as I wrote above), that means the universe is a fractal, like seed to tree to seeds to trees... is a fractal. The universe is many things because math is many things.

    I guess what bothered me here is talk of truth in a sense that seems absolutist

    Faster than light space ships can be built when you know specific truth about physics. Subjective truth can be fun but it does not power warp drives or find aliens.



    Maybe people don't like the idea that the universe equals math because they don't understand math or think that math is boring or painful. The way they teach math in school, thats true. Here's a more fun and intuitive way: Whitney Music Box (try the variations by clicking the menu on the right) and the SpaceCollective thread about it. If Max Tegmark's mathematical universe theory is true, then the rotating dots (at integer speeds relative to eachother), each playing their note each time they pass their starting position, are whats at the core of reality, almost the simplest way to view the universe, when all of its fractal parts align on the integers. Except for the software to display sounds and video, including only the musical patterns (which are more complex and sound better than you would expect), the Kolmogorov Complexity of the Whitney Music Box is very small: the amount of information in the number 48 (number of rotating dots) and the duration 3 minutes and the frequency of the first and last dots as they play their note, and the recorded sound thats repeated and stretched for each dot.
    AsylumSeaker     Mon, Aug 2, 2010  Permanent link
    The importance of subjectivity is a subject for it's own thread some time.

    Anyway, I look forward to seeing how your experiment goes. If you build me a space ship I don't care whether you think your truth is more special than mine or not :P
    BenRayfield     Mon, Aug 2, 2010  Permanent link
    If this physics theory is true, then space, time, and gravity, and lots of other things about physics (long thought to be absolute truth) are subjective... emergently formed shapes of reality caused by simpler patterns. Newton and Einstein learned a lot from those subjective views of physics, but such approximations resulted in people thinking space and time are the absolute truth. I don't think space and time are real (in this part of the universe), but they are good approximations of this part of the universe. I think "future" affects "past" equally often as "past" affects "future", but future-to-past gets mixed up and confusing (like trying to decrypt reality as an encrypted arrow of time), while past-to-future is "common sense". Is that subjective enough? Approximations have inaccuracies/flaws that can be used to communicate outside or escape or control them to some extent. This is an example of subjective things (space, time, gravity... if that physics theory is true), and how subjective things can be useful, and how subjective things can be built on top of objective things (what the universe really is, like the simpler patterns described by that physics theory, if its true). There is no contradiction between us.
    AsylumSeaker     Mon, Aug 2, 2010  Permanent link
    Faster than light space ships can be built when you know specific truth about physics. Subjective truth can be fun but it does not power warp drives or find aliens.

    I suspect there are other ways to travel faster than light and find aliens, and I think there are other ways to work out how to do so. I think, given time and perhaps some technological or chemical augmentation, when a consciousness of sufficient intuitive lucidity lets its self wander creatively, extraordinary powers and knowledge will simply emerge like life on the surface of the primordial planet, probably without the thinker even aware of what they're doing until they find themselves leaving the atmosphere.

    Maybe I'm crazy, or maybe I'll see you up there.
    Infinitas     Tue, Aug 3, 2010  Permanent link
    I like to view the Universe as an (infinite) set of infinite extremes- ultimately there is no distinctive difference between any two or more things so they may as well be viewed as one. We tend to get lost in the conundrums of dualities. I don't think math/logic has all the answers and I don't think intuition has them all either. But together, I think, they could bring about a quasi-quantifiable answer to the Universe, such as we have now with math and philosophy.

    What is the difference between Taoists qualitatively describing the Universe and physicists quantifying it? Is there a difference? Does it actually matter?
    BenRayfield     Tue, Aug 3, 2010  Permanent link
    What is the difference between Taoists qualitatively describing the Universe and physicists quantifying it? Is there a difference? Does it actually matter?


    Its useful to figure out hard problems from as many different angles as you can simultaneously, to reduce the chance of overlooking something. In this case they agree. That would not happen with any philosophy or religion that is concerned with the past, like who to worship in the past or what you should and should not do. Taoism is a vague theory about how things work. Everyone is looking at the same universe (which is a multiverse), so there should not be much difference in what different kinds of people with different kinds of training or knowledge will see.
    gamma     Tue, Aug 3, 2010  Permanent link
    Beauty is a mathematical object, so we direct the evolution into an intellectual direction by liking smart people, like me and relating them with awards and such. Mathematics is more interesting the more you see the processes that produce mathematical objects. The dynamical objects are better connected with us and mutually I suppose.
    Infinitas     Tue, Aug 3, 2010  Permanent link
    Taoism is a vague theory about how things work.

    I definitely agree with this, but (kind of going off-topic) I have reason to believe that during the prominence of this philosophy the concepts found in the Tao Te Ching were better understood and much more pertinent to the people of the past than to those of today. I reckon that this is obvious, but how and why? How could such ideas that we are still contemplating today (but this time using advanced math) even be conceived of thousands of years ago? We are only recently finding that there may be a "theory of everything" proving that everything is essentially the same, while this is what has been said for thousands of years. (I often wonder what type of species we would be if we followed this "right brain" thinking more so than its opposite for thousands of years...) This time period was devoid of the math needed to claim that "everything is one." So I think that they came to this conclusion through "the other extreme"- intuition and 'feelings'.

    I particularly find the presence of the natural (presently found in our bodies and many other organisms) psychotropic chemical, DMT, which can (perhaps spontaneously) induce "spiritual" experiences akin to "being shot out of an atomic cannon," to be very interesting. I, and thousands of others, can assure you that this drug and/or similar compounds generate feelings of oneness and eternal connectedness, possibly the same feelings that inspired the creation of the Tao Te Ching. And there are certainly theories as to why people today do not have such natural experiences. The one I am familiar with takes a look at the calcification of our pineal gland, which is theorized to be the organ that produces DMT in our bodies.

    So I, like you Ben, propose that extensive testing be done on the brain with regards to the effects of these chemicals. Perhaps by using math to understand intuition we could find the answers we are looking for...

    Gamma, I agree that beauty is a mathematical object. The symmetry and geometry of the molecular and sub-molecular world is utterly fascinating. What do you think of
    "Beauty is truth, truth beauty," – that is all
    Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

    ?
    AsylumSeaker     Wed, Aug 4, 2010  Permanent link
    There's as much beauty in fantasy.
    gamma     Thu, Aug 5, 2010  Permanent link
    Fantasy is a pattern that follows something universal, but it may be less supported. Everything supported with energy is great. In the context of human beings, the reality is given by the default mode network: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Default_network,  which uses most of the brain's energy for nothing immediate.

    Infinitas     Thu, Aug 5, 2010  Permanent link
    Gamma- reminds me of a short conversation with my brother in which he posed this:
    While we will naturally continue to integrate computing technologies
    with our lifestyles, there is also the argument that increased
    information flow (syntax) has a negative effect on meaning or semantics,
    and that we actually become less aware of our larger context without
    compensating for the extra syntax by extra reflection or integration of
    this information. That is to say we can currently saturate our mental
    RAM by seemingly random bits of information. Unless we take the time to
    integrate the facts into our coherent mental model, we risk simply not
    developing a mental model. This is why young people who are highly
    capable with technology nevertheless lack a sense of direction.

    In so many words, I think that he would the define "The Matrix" as such: once society becomes so immersed into technology, people will have have brains saturated with tons of information, but with no meaning, and therefore all underlying truths of reality are compromised and forgotten, leaving the general population under the thumb of not just gov't and these other hierarchies and ideologies, but under the thumb of our own blind ignorance.
    BenRayfield     Tue, Aug 31, 2010  Permanent link
    Beauty is a mathematical object


    Yes. I created a small software that derived an approximation of that math object from the least biased source of data on Earth, Wikipedia. Details at these 2 threads:
    Getting the data:http://spacecollective.org/benrayfield/6201/Oversimplify-to-complicate
    Using the data:http://spacecollective.org/benrayfield/6240/Wikipedia-Brain

    Beauty FROM_Art FROM_Aphrodite FROM_Artist FROM_Aesthetics FROM_Celebrity FROM_Entertainment FROM_Mathematics FROM_Postmodernism FROM_Photography FROM_Perception FROM_Recreation FROM_Romanticism FROM_Harmony FROM_Sewing FROM_Lakshmi FROM_Waist FROM_Ars_Poetica TO_Aesthetics TO_Ancient_Greece TO_Animal TO_Art TO_Charisma TO_Charles_Darwin TO_Entertainment TO_Fashion TO_Gastronomy TO_Harmony TO_Health TO_Intelligence TO_Japan TO_Koine_Greek TO_Mathematics TO_Paul_Klee TO_Perception TO_Person TO_Poetry TO_Postmodernism TO_Recreation TO_Renaissance TO_Romanticism TO_Sculpture TO_Wikiquote TO_Wiktionary TO_Work_of_art


    You can see the Beauty math object interacting with the other math objects in this picture. You can also see the Soldier math object attracting the Bone math object. As Beauty gets stronger, Soldier gets weaker. That level of accuracy is only possible because Wikipedia is so unbiased.


    If Max Tegmark's mathematical universe theory is true (which this thread is about), then these math objects are not just approximations of reality; They are a map of part of the universe. They are reality. For example, there is a path from this physical location to the idea of triangle or the idea of beauty or anything else you can define with math. The universe equals all of math/abstractions/etc. This is not a new idea, but Max Tegmark formalized it into scientific papers. For example, its very similar to Taoism and Nihilism.
     
          Cancel