Do we live in an abstract world?

My question video from 5madheathens: http://www.youtube.com/user/5madheathens

Highly recommended related material: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1APOxsp1VFw

Game of life program: Click the "Enjoy Life" button in the top-left corner at: http://www.ibiblio.org/lifepatterns/

Particles in container program: http://mozza314.webs.com/circleBox.htm

GenePool evolution simulation: http://www.swimbots.com/

Gravity simulation: http://mozza314.webs.com/gravity.html


Music used in intro: "Unexpected Little Happenings" - UltraCat


Transcript:

The abstract is a vast concept. In it we are able to define anything, and I mean anything, we like. It is possible, indeed often easy, to define abstract systems which change over time. It is not necessary to individually define the state of such a system at every particular moment in time, instead the state of the system can be determined by a defined behaviour, and we can simply compute the state of the system at any given time. For example consider a system based on the binary expansion of the irrational number, pi. Let's say the system is in the 'on' state during the nth second if the nth binary digit of pi is 1, and the system is in the 'off' state during the nth second if the nth binary digit is 0. We know that this system would be in the 'off' state during it's first two seconds, would be 'on' for it's third second, etc. . We also know that this system would be 'off' during it's quadrillionth second, but it is not known what state the system would be in during the previous second. However, we can be sure that it is definitely 'on' or definitely 'off' during this second whether we calculate it or not.

Here's a system which is a model similar to particles bouncing off each other in a container, the motion is not realistic as there is no transfer of energy between the particles, but it was not my intention to be realistic, it's an abstract system in its own right regardless of how realistic it is.

This is Jon Conway's game of life. It is made up of cells where blue means alive and white means dead. In each step, a live cell with less than two, or more than 3 live neighbours dies, and a dead cell with exactly three live neighbours comes alive. For example this cell I've marked with a green dot has three live neighbour cells, so in the next step or as it's sometimes called the next generation, it will become alive. Similarly all the cells marked in green will come alive and all the cells marked in red will be dead in the next step. This deceptively simple definition leads to a complex abstract system, this simulation has been set up so that the system generates prime numbers, marked by the groups of live cells which escape off the left of the screen.

Here's another example of an abstract system, a simple gravity simulation with a planet moving around two fixed bodies.

I conjecture, although expect I am not the first to do so, that there are many abstract systems, abstract worlds, in which the complex interactions at some or many times contain structures that we would identify as creatures as they would behave, interact and even think and be self-aware. I would not expect us to have the computational resources to see it on our own computer screens in the forseeable future, but just like the uncalculated binary digits of pi, they are there whether we calculate them or not.

As to whether or not we would be the God of such a world would depend upon the definition of the term 'God' and the answer to the age-old question of whether mathematics is invented or discovered. As an aside, I think the God title fails for both reasons.

It is an active area of interest in physics to uncover a theory of everything, and if they succeed, we would have an abstract system which behaves identically to the real world. The question I am asking you may now be obvious - do we live in an abstract world? But is there actually any meaning to that question?

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• abstract
• reality
• philosophy
• mathematical
• model
• math
• evolution
• simulation
• virtual
• world
• game
• of
• life

[MiniGeek31337]

Good video :)

[Cypher10110]

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?"

[RoaraWolf]

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.

[sabriath]

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)

[floralauraproactive]

the meaning to that question is, that u don't know the qustion and u tricking god word and work

[paperpro3223]

your dumb.............

[blacksilkblacksilk]

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]

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