I'm of the mind that the universe is going to be forever more complex than we can understand, so any abstract function will never work exactly like our universe does, unless of course the creation of the abstract function involves creating a new universe.
At some point in the distant future perhaps the human race will look back on these times in a similar way to us looking at single cell organisms. "We were only at the beginning, how could we have imagined what we have now discovered?"
I don't think we live in an abstract world, simply my definition for the concept of "abstract" is that it's tool we use to understand the world around us - or, sometimes, to create other, imaginary worlds. If you had a different definition, you might disagree. :)
We already have abstractions for the world: for example, throw a ball in the air and catch it. If you're able to do so, then you obviously have an abstraction of the world accurate enough to determine the future position of that ball.
Very good contemplation there. The answer is yes and no at the same time. Yes we live in an abstract world, but no, there will never be a time where we can absolutely define the abstract nature. As we make abstract worlds come alive on a computer, or calculate them in the case of pi, _WE_ are the ones performing the abstract, and so we see the reasoning behind it. Being _IN_ the abstract, we cannot see the underlying ruleset, but rather only what we observe (3 can see the 1, not the 4)
And if there is such a way, can we communicate these resluts, or even prove them (logically) or give other evidenc, or would we have to cross towards a "science of subjectivity" if one can imagine such a thing.
As an afterthought, I think consciousness is universes way ti avoid infinite regress in some situations.
So one my ask, if the anthopic principle enforces consciousness as a basic primitive of the universe, like mass, electric charge, or energy.
I think the question is - physically - comparable to the question: If we are in a closed box, do we experience gravity, or acceleration ; we can fundamentally not determine that from within the box.
Logically I think the question is a Goedel-question: one which we can pose from within our system, but which we cannot answer from within.
So the question is, is there aviable way to go beyond our logical reasoning, and still obtain reliable results.
Good video :)
MiniGeek31337 9 months ago
I'm of the mind that the universe is going to be forever more complex than we can understand, so any abstract function will never work exactly like our universe does, unless of course the creation of the abstract function involves creating a new universe.
At some point in the distant future perhaps the human race will look back on these times in a similar way to us looking at single cell organisms. "We were only at the beginning, how could we have imagined what we have now discovered?"
Cypher10110 1 year ago
I don't think we live in an abstract world, simply my definition for the concept of "abstract" is that it's tool we use to understand the world around us - or, sometimes, to create other, imaginary worlds. If you had a different definition, you might disagree. :)
We already have abstractions for the world: for example, throw a ball in the air and catch it. If you're able to do so, then you obviously have an abstraction of the world accurate enough to determine the future position of that ball.
RoaraWolf 1 year ago
Very good contemplation there. The answer is yes and no at the same time. Yes we live in an abstract world, but no, there will never be a time where we can absolutely define the abstract nature. As we make abstract worlds come alive on a computer, or calculate them in the case of pi, _WE_ are the ones performing the abstract, and so we see the reasoning behind it. Being _IN_ the abstract, we cannot see the underlying ruleset, but rather only what we observe (3 can see the 1, not the 4)
sabriath 1 year ago
the meaning to that question is, that u don't know the qustion and u tricking god word and work
floralauraproactive 2 years ago
contiunation:
And if there is such a way, can we communicate these resluts, or even prove them (logically) or give other evidenc, or would we have to cross towards a "science of subjectivity" if one can imagine such a thing.
As an afterthought, I think consciousness is universes way ti avoid infinite regress in some situations.
So one my ask, if the anthopic principle enforces consciousness as a basic primitive of the universe, like mass, electric charge, or energy.
greetings
;-))
silk
blacksilkblacksilk 2 years ago
I think the question is - physically - comparable to the question: If we are in a closed box, do we experience gravity, or acceleration ; we can fundamentally not determine that from within the box.
Logically I think the question is a Goedel-question: one which we can pose from within our system, but which we cannot answer from within.
So the question is, is there aviable way to go beyond our logical reasoning, and still obtain reliable results.
to be continued
blacksilkblacksilk 2 years ago
your dumb.............
paperpro3223 2 years ago