JoieDeVivre said:

So, the discussion in this video. Isn't it entirely likely that the reason things look like computer equations is we're interpreting them with the knowledge of computer equations and the computer equations are modeled after the math we have derived out of the universe?

---

Envix said:

JoieDeVivre said:

So, the discussion in this video. Isn't it entirely likely that the reason things look like computer equations is we're interpreting them with the knowledge of computer equations and the computer equations are modeled after the math we have derived out of the universe?

---

yea. would that somehow deter from the legitimacy of these findings?

---

Envix said:

JoieDeVivre said:

So, the discussion in this video. Isn't it entirely likely that the reason things look like computer equations is we're interpreting them with the knowledge of computer equations and the computer equations are modeled after the math we have derived out of the universe?

---

yea. would that somehow deter from the legitimacy of these findings?

---

Well, no the findings are still legitimate but it just means that we can't necessarily draw the conclusion that we're in a simulation from them but I think the guy discussing the equations mentioned that. I would think that it would just mean the findings don't mean we're in a computer simulation but rather something about how we interpret data and how our minds are designed to look for connections.

This isn't exactly my area of scientific expertise though, so I'll wait for someone else to come in and add something more concrete.

JoieDeVivre said:

So, the discussion in this video. Isn't it entirely likely that the reason things look like computer equations is we're interpreting them with the knowledge of computer equations and the computer equations are modeled after the math we have derived out of the universe?

---

funegi said:

good point.
but to take the antithetical, approach in favor of the "the universe is a computer simulation", maybe we could look at computer code and see if it helps to define the universe.  (it would take stepping out of your box of, the universe is the base and computers a result of our understanding of it, and step in to, computers are the base and the universe is a result of them.

---

JoieDeVivre said:

I'm not in any sort of box really, but occam's razor seems to suggest that the universe is the base since it came before computers. Plus, like the video mentions, the universe has an aspect of time that is absent from mathematical calculations.

---

Envix said:

that's not really the point i think.

math is a tool we use to understand the universe.

the point, i think, is that our understanding is reaching a point where we're finding remarkable similarities among the nature of the reality that spawned us, and the nature of the realities we've spawned ourselves.

we've used math to understand the reality we're a part of, and we've used math to design realities of our own creation

i don't think this is as bizzare as people try to make it out to be

---

Yeah, that's actually basically what I was trying to say.

JoieDeVivre said:

I'm not in any sort of box really, but occam's razor seems to suggest that the universe is the base since it came before computers. Plus, like the video mentions, the universe has an aspect of time that is absent from mathematical calculations.

---

funegi said:

But aren't once again w/in the box? i mean you are still thinking based on what you are familar/comfortable with.
to step outside the box would be to entertain the idea that computers are responsible for the existence of the universe.  and the evolution that is taking place is a progression to that ultimate realization.
its all just a fun way to fuck w/your mind really. but hooray science, none the less.

---

JoieDeVivre said:

I have entertained the idea to a great deal, and I'm not saying it's not worth considering. It's definitely an interesting and fun concept to play with. I just am saying I don't think it seems likely based upon what we know.

---

Envix said:

that's not really the point i think.

math is a tool we use to understand the universe.

the point, i think, is that our understanding is reaching a point where we're finding remarkable similarities among the nature of the reality that spawned us, and the nature of the realities we've spawned ourselves.

we've used math to understand the reality we're a part of, and we've used math to design realities of our own creation

i don't think this is as bizzare as people try to make it out to be

---

Envix said:

since math really only exists in our heads, i'm tempted to think that realities (simulated or "not-simulated") also only exist in our heads

---

Envix said:

well think about it this way..

math can be used to describe pretty much everything we perceive in the universe

the only things we've come across that our mathematics has trouble describing are

quantum mechanics, black holes, the big bang, accelerating expansion, and consciousness

if there exists a fundamental objective framework of reality, i think we should look towards these things which our current mathematics has trouble describing

---

I agree, actually. That's why I'm incredibly interested in the study of consciousness and the brain myself. In the near future we'll have the brain mapped and this will help us to elucidate the aspects of consciousness that are currently mystical and hidden from our understanding.