My theory of nihilistpanpsychism (a variation of the theory: universe = all math)

[BenRayfield]

Max Tegmark is a professor of physics at MIT. He is best known for his theory: "All structures that exist mathematically exist also physically." There are various formal scientific papers about that theory.

I think I have a more consistent version of that theory based on small changes in the definitions of some words that were not completely defined. Its a few paragraphs down...

People do not pay enough attention to definitions of words. For example, in USA, a law was changed simply by saying "consent" instead of "choose". Science words work the same way.

Some people say "universe" includes the past and future. Some say "exists" only describes the present. Some say things can be "outside the universe", which makes no sense at all after saying "universe" means "everything". Some say "universes" to describe the many multiverses which are each a part of the 1 UNIverse. Uni means 1. If multiverses are found, then the definition of "universe" should expand to include them. "Universe" could mean "all x where x exist". If its possible to travel back in time, then the "past" you travel to must "exist", because its impossible to travel to a place that not exist unless you create it by the act of going there, and theres a huge problem with creating the same past you remember if it did not already exist. I don't think you would remember it well enough to rebuild it. I'm trying to avoid time-based words like "exists", "existed", and "will exist". The word "exist" was created by very confused people and has no place in a scientific debate until you define it consistently. There are many examples of vague words destroying technical theories.



I'm starting with no knowledge and no assumptions.

START THEORY:

I'll define some words (different than how Max Tegmark defines them). I am experiencing something. I'll call it "consciousness", but I do not know what it is. Now I have a definition but not an assumption. "Universe" means "all time, space, laws-of-physics, multiverses, consciousness, and whatever else there is". "Universe" means "everything that exists". I was only giving some examples of what must be included in that definition. "Determinism" is everything thats completely predictable. "Nondeterminism" means all "random" and all "chaos" and all "free will". Abstract things do not exist. Math is abstract and infinite. Math is determinism plus nondeterminism. Things that exist can be part of things that do not exist, like "dog" is an abstract definition of an animal, but your specific dog does not have to be abstract. Math is symmetric. In logic talk, "implied" is the timeless word for "caused" or "required". I've not said what exists and what does not exist yet. End of definitions.

If universe not equal math, then that lack of symmetry is 1 nondeterministic thing that is not implied by anything, therefore the universe equals math.

Math includes nondeterministic things. Nondeterminism is a strange-loop.

Time is a strange-loop. However you travel through it, "time" always appears to be "now".

Space is a strange-loop. However you travel through it, "space" always appears to be "here".

Consciousness is a strange-loop. However your consciousness changes, wherever and whenever it is, "consciousness" always appears to be "me". Its no different than space and time.

END THEORY.


Theres a technical way to say that: nihilistpanpsychism.

Nihilism means "nothing exists" or the idea of "exist" contradicts itself. Its symmetric so it expands panpsychism to equal math, including all time, space, laws-of-physics, multiverses, and whatever else there is.

Panpsychism means "everything is consciousness".

Universe (including all time, space, laws-of-physics, multiverses, consciousness, and whatever else there is) = Math = Nihilistpanpsychism

Because nihilistpanpsychism is the overlapping parts of nihilism and panpsychism, it is a type of nihilism, and all nihilism is atheism because it means "nothing exists". Therefore nihilistpanpsychism is a type of atheism.



I don't "believe in" nihilistpanpsychism. I say it is true. Its a theory about physics and consciousness and what the universe equals.

I'm an artificial-intelligence programmer and understand some about many areas of science, so I know how to think logically.

This is an important subject to me, and I would not want to waste my life thinking it is true if it is not.

I request that people look over my definitions and sequence of statements, and point out any contradictions or assumptions or logical flaws I wrote. If you assume more than 0 things, you have proven nothing.

[PixyMisa]

No.

[BenRayfield]

Please explain your words so I can tell the difference between your brain and a monkey's brain. Monkeys can say "no" too.

What is the first thing I said that is logically incorrect or assumed or contradictory? I'm willing to go at this like a scientist. Are you?

[PixyMisa]

Okay, some examples.

This:
Things that exist can be part of things that do not exist, like "dog" is an abstract definition of an animal, but your specific dog does not have to be abstract.is a contradiction by your own definitions.

This:
Math is symmetric.is meaningless.

This:
Nondeterminism is a strange-loop.
And this:
Time is a strange-loop.
And this:
Space is a strange-loop.
Are all completely untrue.

Need more? The whole thing is just an incoherent mess.

[BenRayfield]

Thank you. I think this is the right way to do philosphy.

I said:
Things that exist can be part of things that do not exist, like "dog" is an abstract definition of an animal, but your specific dog does not have to be abstract.

PixyMisa said:
is a contradiction by your own definitions.

I should have written that in terms of set-theory. We can use operations like AND, OR, XOR, NOT, and MINUS to define new sets.

I've not defined the word "exist" consistently except at the end where I say nihilism which means "nothing exist". If I can fix this proof from the start until that point, then I get to ignore the word "exist" and view it as a made-up word or random sounds which nobody knows the definition of.

I did not mean to say things in any of those sets do or do not "exist". I'll quote myself:

I've not said what exists and what does not exist yet.

I should have resolved the contradiction between the previous quote and other references to "exist".

If viewed as set-theory, its not a contradiction for things that "exist" to be a subset of things that do not "exist", because its just categories to divide things so I can talk about them and prove things about them later by logic.

I said:
"Determinism" is everything thats completely predictable. "Nondeterminism" means all "random" and all "chaos" and all "free will". Abstract things do not exist. Math is abstract and infinite. Math is determinism plus nondeterminism.

I said:
Math is symmetric.

PixyMisa said:
is meaningless.

It appears that you argued against a defintion instead of the definitions leading to it. Arguing against something without knowing its definition is a logical fallacy.

Please argue starting from the beginning of my post, and only argue about later things when you accept everything before it as certainly true. A logical proof is a sequence of statements.

To keep things in order, I will leave the incomplete definition of "strange-loop" for later, if we can agree up to that point after debating.

[PixyMisa]

I should have written that in terms of set-theory. We can use operations like AND, OR, XOR, NOT, and MINUS to define new sets.
Yes, certainly, once you have a consistent set of definitions.

I've not defined the word "exist" consistently except at the end where I say nihilism which means "nothing exist". If I can fix this proof from the start until that point, then I get to ignore the word "exist" and view it as a made-up word or random sounds which nobody knows the definition of.
No you can't. That's what the whole theorem is based on. You might have an unconcentional definition of existence, but you must have a definition.

If viewed as set-theory, its not a contradiction for things that "exist" to be a subset of things that do not "exist", because its just categories to divide things so I can talk about them and prove things about them later by logic.
No, this is completely wrong. The two are disjoint sets. You are violating the most fundamental laws of logic (identity and contradiction).

It appears that you argued against a defintion instead of the definitions leading to it. Arguing against something without knowing its definition is a logical fallacy.
Still meaningless.

Please argue starting from the beginning of my post, and only argue about later things when you accept everything before it as certainly true. A logical proof is a sequence of statements.
Sorry, it's all drivel, from beginning to end. There is rigour neither in your definitions nor in your logic. There is no part of your idea that can be salvaged.

[tsig]

I'm starting with no knowledge and no assumptions.

.

Probably not the best starting position.

[Third Eye Open]

I think you misunderstand what the word 'theory' means.

How would you possibly test this?

[BenRayfield]

PixyMisa said:
Sorry, it's all drivel, from beginning to end. There is rigour neither in
your definitions nor in your logic. There is no part of your idea that can be
salvaged.

Its consistent in my mind, but I keep using vague words. The english language
(and all other natural-languages) are vague.

I'll start over. Lets do this a little at a time. I'll define some sets:


I'll use some ideas from computer programming. They make logical ideas much easier to communicate
consistently. The main difference is what we write here can describe infinite sets or infinite
calculations. You don't have to count it. You just have to describe it.


type = the kind of thing something is.

Lambda = stateless function, which means it always gives the same output when given the
same inputs. Its often found in lambda-calculus or Lisp.

typed_lambda is written this way:
output_type functionName(input_type input_name, ...more inputs...)

set = any group of things. It has a size that does not have to be an integer. It can contain itself
or anything else. Its the standard meaning of "set" as in set-theory. 2 sets are equal if they
contain exactly the same things. Example: There can only be 1 empty set.

boolean = A specific 1 of: true or false.


set setAnd(set x, set y) = The overlap between x and y.

set setOr(set x, set y) = Everything in x or y.

set setNot(set x) = Everything thats not in x.

set setXor(set x, set y) = Everything thats in exactly 1 of x or y but not both.

set setMinus(x,y) = Everything thats in x and is not in y.


===Space and Time===

I do not believe-in space or time, but I will consider them if you can define
them. Until then, they're just random sounds without a definition.

Therefore I don't have to say "said", "saying", or "will say". I don't conjugate words with past,
present, and future, because I don't believe-in time, at least not until you define time
consistently. I have to write some conjugation, but all 3 mean the same until somebody defines the
difference between those 3.

===Specific sets===

set_BenRayfield_experience = The experience BenRayfield has reading this thread.

set_PixyMisa_experience = The experience PixyMisa has reading this thread.

set_empty = the only set which contains nothing.

set_all = setOr(set_empty, setNot(set_empty)) The set of all possible and impossible things and ideas and descriptions of contradictions. Everything. If you say "but x is not in set_all", then you are wrong by definition, whatever x is, as long as you completely communicated what x is.

subset = any part of a set. Could be the whole set.

set_nondeterminism = The subset of set_all that is impossible to predict because its different every occurence. Some people call it "chaos" or "random" or "free will".

set_determinism = setMinus(set_all, set_nondeterminism)

boolean setIsSymmetricInAllWays(set x) = x is set_empty or x is set_all.


Intuitively, I'd guess that I should be able to prove: set_empty = set_all, but I dont know if set-theory is designed for whole-universe wrapping-around like that. I'm thinking about the amount of information required to describe both of those. Its 0 information either way, plus the information of saying which one it is, but if they are equal, "the information of saying which one it is" would also be 0. Lets leave this part for later.


???
set_exist = This is what we are trying to define. Remember I don't know what time is, so the past, present, and future and parallel multiverses and all that... those are included if they are ever experienced. Everything that "exist" is part of set_universe. Because I don't believe-in space or time, I don't have to explain "change" or things being different in the "past" and "future". Its all made-up random sounds to me, until you define those things consistently.
???

set_universe = set_exist






PixyMisa, is this logic system ok for proceeding with our debate?

We can add new things to it as needed, as long as they stay consistent.

This level of detail is necessary to get complete certainty in a way that can be proven to other people.

[BenRayfield]

I said:
I'm starting with no knowledge and no assumptions.

Tsig said:
Probably not the best starting position.

Assuming and guessing and having faith do not lead to correct knowledge. Statistics is more likely to leads to correct knowledge, but only what I said can give complete certainty.

I prefer to know less things and be more certain.

Religious people usually prefer to know more things and be less certain, because its important for them to know certain things. I try to avoid self-deception.


Third Eye Open said:
I think you misunderstand what the word 'theory' means.

How would you possibly test this?

A science theory must be testable, both positive and negative results.

My theory of nihilistpanpsychism includes the following:
* nothing exists
* everything is consciousness
* universe = all math

If "everythign is consciousness", then James Randi's tests are a good start in testing it. But I have my own consciousness tests in mind. Its an AI software that I'll have to build more code into before it can do such advanced testing.

I can test it in the form I first wrote, but lets make sure its a consistent theory first. I know I didn't write it in clear words, but if you try to get the overall idea, I think its not ambiguous.

[PixyMisa]

PixyMisa said:


Its consistent in my mind, but I keep using vague words. The english language
(and all other natural-languages) are vague.

I'll start over. Lets do this a little at a time. I'll define some sets:


I'll use some ideas from computer programming. They make logical ideas much easier to communicate
consistently. The main difference is what we write here can describe infinite sets or infinite
calculations. You don't have to count it. You just have to describe it.


type = the kind of thing something is.
Mmm.

Lambda = stateless function, which means it always gives the same output when given the
same inputs. Its often found in lambda-calculus or Lisp.Yup.

typed_lambda is written this way:
output_type functionName(input_type input_name, ...more inputs...)
Okay.

set = any group of things. It has a size that does not have to be an integer.It what?

It can contain itself or anything else.Is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves a member of itself?

It sounds like you are using naive set theory[/quote], which can lead to contradictions if you try to apply it to a formal proof.

Its the standard meaning of "set" as in set-theory. 2 sets are equal if they
contain exactly the same things. Example: There can only be 1 empty set.Again, there is more than one form of set theory, but let's proceed.

boolean = A specific 1 of: true or false.
Yup.

set setAnd(set x, set y) = The overlap between x and y.Intersection.

set setOr(set x, set y) = Everything in x or y.Union.

set setNot(set x) = Everything thats not in x.Complement.

set setXor(set x, set y) = Everything thats in exactly 1 of x or y but not both.Symmetric difference.

set setMinus(x,y) = Everything thats in x and is not in y.Difference. (Also known as the relative complement of y and x - note that the terms are reversed.)

I do not believe-in space or time, but I will consider them if you can define
them. Until then, they're just random sounds without a definition.Fail.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime"]Go explore the subject a little (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_set_theory), then come back and try again. What you believe doesn't matter. Nor do I need to define the terms, since they are already precisely defined.

[BenRayfield]

To PixyMisa:

I think I wasted my time writing that "logic system" for us to continue our debate. My goal is to prove or disprove my theory of nihilistpanpsychism, which includes "universe = math". Math includes fractals, mobius-strips, and other strange things. I know of no way that set-theory can prove things about fractals.

Set-theory is not advanced enough to describe my theory.

Considering the proven "incompleteness" of self-referencing math, it may be impossible to write a proof in any logical language. Maybe the vague english words I wrote at the top of this thread are near the best way to describe it. I don't know.

Can you think of a logical system that can simultaneously represent and prove things about all these?
* fractal (a parallel multiverse which has 2 glass jars that simultaneously each contain the whole universe)
* mobius strip
* nondeterminism
* set-theory
* lambda (stateless functions)
* a definition of symmetry
* experience (you might call it consciousness)
* turing-machine

[BenRayfield]

I do not believe-in space or time, but I will consider them if you can define them. Until then, they're just random sounds without a definition.

Fail.

Go explore the subject a little, then come back and try
again. What you believe doesn't matter. Nor do I need to
define the terms, since they are already precisely
defined.

I was not saying "believe-in" that way. I was putting the burden-of-proof on you for all vague words you add.

Space and time have never been defined consistently. If they had, time-dilation and quantum-physics would use the same equations. Using different equations for small space (or time) and for big space (or time), is a contradiction. Space and time have not been consistently defined. I can't accept "space" or "time" as a proof of anything until that contradiction is resolved.

Is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves a member of itself?

It sounds like you are using naive set theory, which can lead to contradictions if you try to apply it to a formal proof.[/QUOTE]

Both possibilities should be calculated separately.

My theory, nihilistpanpsychism, includes all abstract ideas, because all abstract ideas are part of math. Contradictions are abstract ideas. The "incompleteness" proof is all I need to choose the version with contradictions.

Example: "This sentence is false."

Example: "Is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves a member of itself?"


Can you think of a better way to break apart my first post above, into more logical statements?


I don't think it can be understood without strange-loops. I'll quote from the book "I am a strange loop":

And yet when I say "strange loop", I have something else in mind - a less concrete, more elusive notion. What I mean by "strange loop" is - here goes a first stab, anyway - not a physical circuit but an abstract loop in which, in the series of stages that constitute the cycling-around, there is a shift from one level of abstraction (or structure) to another, which feels like an upwards movement in a hierarchy, and yet somehow the successive "upward" shifts turn out to give rise to a closed cycle. That is, despite one's sense of departing ever further from one's origin, one winds up, to one's shock, exactly where one had started out. In short, a strange loop is a paradoxical level-crossing feedback loop.

The halting-problem is a strange-loop. They don't have to be vaguely defined.

[Third Eye Open]

...
Set-theory is not advanced enough to describe my theory....

(a parallel multiverse which has 2 glass jars that simultaneously each contain the whole universe)
....


:popcorn1

[BenRayfield]

Theres nothing special about "a parallel multiverse which has 2 glass jars that simultaneously each contain the whole universe". Its only an example of an infinite number of strange things included in math. My theory includes "universe = math". That includes fractals like that.

[PixyMisa]

To PixyMisa:

I think I wasted my time writing that "logic system" for us to continue our debate.
No, you didn't waste your time, it just needs more week before you can proceed. It's not rigorously defined.

My goal is to prove or disprove my theory of nihilistpanpsychism, which includes "universe = math".That's not a coherent statement.

Math includes fractals, mobius-strips, and other strange things. I know of no way that set-theory can prove things about fractals.Well, then, you need to learn more about it. Start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory).

Set-theory is not advanced enough to describe my theory.That's as may be. You haven't coherently described your theory either.

Considering the proven "incompleteness" of self-referencing mathWhich can be proven through set theory, by the way.

it may be impossible to write a proof in any logical language.Well, that's a problem, isn't it?

Maybe the vague english words I wrote at the top of this thread are near the best way to describe it. I don't know.See above..

Can you think of a logical system that can simultaneously represent and prove things about all these?
* fractal (a parallel multiverse which has 2 glass jars that simultaneously each contain the whole universe)What?

* mobius strip
* nondeterminism
* set-theory
* lambda (stateless functions)
* a definition of symmetry
* experience (you might call it consciousness)
* turing-machineWhat you're looking for is number theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_theory). It's fascinating stuff. I highly recommend that you pick up Douglas Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach.

[PixyMisa]

I was not saying "believe-in" that way. I was putting the burden-of-proof on you for all vague words you add.
You're putting the burden of proof on me for all the vage words I add?

Space and time have never been defined consistently.
Sure they have.

If they had, time-dilation and quantum-physics would use the same equations.
You're talking about the behaviour of matter within spacetime.

Using different equations for small space (or time) and for big space (or time), is a contradiction.
No, it's not. It means that one theory or both is incomplete.

Space and time have not been consistently defined.
Not true.

I can't accept "space" or "time" as a proof of anything until that contradiction is resolved.
Space and time aren't "proof" of anything in any case. Spacetime is a mathematical model.

Both possibilities should be calculated separately.
That is not an answer.

My theory, nihilistpanpsychism, includes all abstract ideas, because all abstract ideas are part of math.
No.

Contradictions are abstract ideas.
Yes.

The "incompleteness" proof is all I need to choose the version with contradictions.
Good grief, no. That just means that you've failed to understand Godel's incompleteness theorem, set theory, and basic logic.

Example: "This sentence is false."
What is this supposed to be an example of?

Example: "Is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves a member of itself?"
I asked you that.

Can you think of a better way to break apart my first post above, into more logical statements?
Sure.

But if I break it into logical statements, I do not end up with anything resembling your... "theory".

I don't think it can be understood without strange-loops.
I don't think you understand strange loops.

I'll quote from the book "I am a strange loop":
Shoot. I mean, fire away.

And yet when I say "strange loop", I have something else in mind - a less concrete, more elusive notion. What I mean by "strange loop" is - here goes a first stab, anyway - not a physical circuit but an abstract loop in which, in the series of stages that constitute the cycling-around, there is a shift from one level of abstraction (or structure) to another, which feels like an upwards movement in a hierarchy, and yet somehow the successive "upward" shifts turn out to give rise to a closed cycle. That is, despite one's sense of departing ever further from one's origin, one winds up, to one's shock, exactly where one had started out. In short, a strange loop is a paradoxical level-crossing feedback loop.
Yes.

Consciousness is a strange loop.

Space is not.
Time is not.
Nondeterminism is definitely not.

The halting-problem is a strange-loop.
That's reasonable, yes.

They don't have to be vaguely defined.
No, they don't. But your other three examples - space, time, nondeterminism - are nonsensical.

[PixyMisa]

Theres nothing special about "a parallel multiverse which has 2 glass jars that simultaneously each contain the whole universe".
There is something special about it: It's complete nonsense.

Its only an example of an infinite number of strange things included in math.
Some of which lead to contradictions. Do you see the problem there?

My theory includes "universe = math". That includes fractals like that.
That's not a fractal. It's nothing to do with fractals. It's never even been in the same room as a fractal.

[BenRayfield]

You're right. I'm havnig problems writing it in a technical way.

Its a communication problem more than its a problem with what I'm thinking. My theory includes things that can not be represented in a formal-system. Of course a direct representation will fail.

Lets try something simpler. I'll quote the summary of what I want to prove or disprove, which I wrote above:

My theory of nihilistpanpsychism includes the following:
* nothing exists
* everything is consciousness
* universe = all math

This is the most interesting result of that:

The best way to learn physics thats more advanced than scientists understand is to read a math book, because theres only 1 kind of thing. You can call it math, physics, consciousness, space, time, or whatever you want. Regardless of what you call it, its shaped like math and theres only 1 kind of thing.

I don't know how to proceed to learn any more about this, or to work toward proving or disproving it.

Failing a completely logical description, I'll go for the next lower reason to think its true or false:

Occam's razor.

It can be written as very short text. Can you think of a shorter or simpler way to describe the whole universe (if thats what the universe is)?

Multiverses are usually more complex than 1, but if you have all the possible multiverses, theres no information in that at all. Its simplest. I think I still have a strong occam's razor case, unless you can show theres something inconsistent with the theory itself (not the reasons I say it is that way, written above).

[!Kaggen]

You're right. I'm havnig problems writing it in a technical way.

Its a communication problem more than its a problem with what I'm thinking. My theory includes things that can not be represented in a formal-system. Of course a direct representation will fail.

Lets try something simpler. I'll quote the summary of what I want to prove or disprove, which I wrote above:



This is the most interesting result of that:

The best way to learn physics thats more advanced than scientists understand is to read a math book, because theres only 1 kind of thing. You can call it math, physics, consciousness, space, time, or whatever you want. Regardless of what you call it, its shaped like math and theres only 1 kind of thing.

I don't know how to proceed to learn any more about this, or to work toward proving or disproving it.

Failing a completely logical description, I'll go for the next lower reason to think its true or false:

Occam's razor.

It can be written as very short text. Can you think of a shorter or simpler way to describe the whole universe (if thats what the universe is)?

Multiverses are usually more complex than 1, but if you have all the possible multiverses, theres no information in that at all. Its simplest. I think I still have a strong occam's razor case, unless you can show theres something inconsistent with the theory itself (not the reasons I say it is that way, written above).

Personally I think Wittgenstein did a better job than you of showing why a formal system can say nothing about consciousness.

[BenRayfield]

Then forget the consciousness part.

I'll ask only about Max Tegmark's part of the theory...

Universe = all math

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Can we agree this is at least one of the more likely theories of what the unvierse is, based on occam's-razor only?

[!Kaggen]

Universe = all math


I am the wrong person to ask as I am biased towards mathematics being a human invention in which case

universe = all human

see the discussions in this thread
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=151854
regarding the origin of mathematics

[PixyMisa]

You're right. I'm havnig problems writing it in a technical way.

Its a communication problem more than its a problem with what I'm thinking. My theory includes things that can not be represented in a formal-system.
Then it's not a theory. It's just waffle.

Of course a direct representation will fail.Well, yes.

Lets try something simpler. I'll quote the summary of what I want to prove or disprove, which I wrote above:My theory of nihilistpanpsychism includes the following:
* nothing existsThis is trivially false.

* everything is consciousnessTrivially false.
* universe = all math Meaningless.

This is the most interesting result of that:

The best way to learn physics thats more advanced than scientists understand is to read a math book, because theres only 1 kind of thing. You can call it math, physics, consciousness, space, time, or whatever you want. Regardless of what you call it, its shaped like math and theres only 1 kind of thing.This doesn't actually work, so your "theory" is not only a logical hash, it also makes false predictions.

I don't know how to proceed to learn any more about this, or to work toward proving or disproving it.Again, that's rather a problem, isn't it?

Failing a completely logical description, I'll go for the next lower reason to think its true or false:

Occam's razor.Occam's razor applies when you have multiple hypotheses of equal predictive power but varying numbers of assumptions.

You don't even have a logically coherent statement. You cannot apply Occam's razor. You can, however, apply Jefferson's Chainsaw:

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them...

It can be written as very short text. Can you think of a shorter or simpler way to describe the whole universe (if thats what the universe is)?You haven't described the whole Universe. Your "theory" is not logically coherent.

Multiverses are usually more complex than 1, but if you have all the possible multiverses, theres no information in that at all. Its simplest. I think I still have a strong occam's razor case, unless you can show theres something inconsistent with the theory itself (not the reasons I say it is that way, written above).Your "theory" is not sufficiently well-formed to even be self-contradictory. You have no case for anything whatsoever.

[PixyMisa]

Then forget the consciousness part.

I'll ask only about Max Tegmark's part of the theory...

Universe = all math

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Can we agree this is at least one of the more likely theories of what the unvierse is, based on occam's-razor only?
Simplicity is not the deciding factor for applying Occam's razor.

[Mashuna]

Then forget the consciousness part.

I'll ask only about Max Tegmark's part of the theory...

Universe = all math

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Can we agree this is at least one of the more likely theories of what the unvierse is, based on occam's-razor only?

Universe = custard

Yay! I've come up with an equally likely theory of the universe. And custard is much simpler than maths.

[PixyMisa]

Universe = custard

Yay! I've come up with an equally likely theory of the universe. And custard is much simpler than maths.
And goes better with plum pudding.

[BenRayfield]

If math is a Human invention, then that means Humans created math.

If Humans created math, means math exists.

If 2 things exist and are together, there should be a way to separate them.

I think you'll agree that 3 apples and 2 oranges exist somewhere.

Because math exists, 3 also exists. 3 apples is the combination of 3 and apple.

Please demonstrate math's existance by separating the 3 and the 2 and putting them back together in a diffent combination, so you have 2 apples and 3 oranges. If math exists, that should be possible to do.


Also, if math is a Human invention, then you should be able to invent a different ratio to a area of a circle divided by its width... one that does not equal the scalar value pi.


Universe = custard

Yay! I've come up with an equally likely theory of the universe. And custard is much simpler than maths.


The theory "universe = all math" is not one of many theories of equal probability. I'll write it using set-theory:

universe = union(emptySet, complement(emptySet))

Or informally, I say it this way: universe = the set of all permutation and combination of all abstract information.



Occam's razor agrees with:
universe = union(emptySet, complement(emptySet))

[PixyMisa]

If math is a Human invention, then that means Humans created math.

If Humans created math, means math exists.
Define "exists" as you use it here.

If 2 things exist and are together, there should be a way to separate them.

I think you'll agree that 3 apples and 2 oranges exist somewhere.

Because math exists, 3 also exists. 3 apples is the combination of 3 and apple.

Please demonstrate math's existance by separating the 3 and the 2 and putting them back together in a diffent combination, so you have 2 apples and 3 oranges. If math exists, that should be possible to do.
Sorry, but you are talking complete nonsense.

Also, if math is a Human invention, then you should be able to invent a different ratio to a area of a circle divided by its width... one that does not equal the scalar value pi.
You can. It depends on the geometry of the surface on which the circle is drawn.

The theory "universe = all math" is not one of many theories of equal probability. I'll write it using set-theory:

universe = union(emptySet, complement(emptySet))
Which is supposed to mean what, exactly?

Or informally, I say it this way: universe = the set of all permutation and combination of all abstract information.
Then why can I take a chunk of it and hit you on the head?

Occam's razor agrees with:
universe = union(emptySet, complement(emptySet))
No. Occam's razor prefers custard.

[BenRayfield]

PixyMisa said:
Define "exists" as you use it here.

"exist" means is possible to be measured by science equipment, if that equipment is advanced enough and the person using it was smart enough and had enough
ability to find the thing to be measured.

Sorry, but you are talking complete nonsense.

Yes. Its a proof-by-contradictoin. The nonsense is the contradiction, proving that math does not "exist". Math is abstract. Abstract things do not exist but
can be used to calculate.

You can. It depends on the geometry of the surface on which the circle is drawn.

Thats an approximate circle. I know about curved spacetime. By definition, a circle has exactly 360 degrees and is equally curved at all parts. By
definition, a circle is in a flat space. From that, only pi can be derived as that ratio. If you disagree on the definition of "circle", then I can call it
something else and ask the same question.

No. Occam's razor prefers custard.

Please define "custard", using the same logical strictness we have used for the scientific words. Occam's razor would never prefer something that is less defined.

[Hokulele]

Please define "custard", using the same logical strictness we have used for the scientific words. Occam's razor would never prefer something that is less defined.


What? No.

[jhunter1163]

I got an F in philosophy because I proved my professor didn't exist.

[/old philosophy joke]

[BenRayfield]

I said:
The theory "universe = all math" is not one of many theories of equal probability. I'll write it using set-theory:

universe = union(emptySet, complement(emptySet))

PixyMisa said:
Which is supposed to mean what, exactly?

complement is a set-theory operator.

complement(x) means the set of all things that are not in x.

complement(emptySet) means the set of all things that are not in the empty set.

Maybe I did not need to union it with emptySet, but I wanted to make it easier to understand. Maybe I should have written it this way:

universe = complement(emptySet)

In vague english words, that means the universe contains everything you can imagine and more, the set of all possible things. That equals math. Math does not exist. The universe does not exist. That's part of my theory.

[BenRayfield]

I said to PixyMisa:
Please define "custard", using the same logical strictness we have used for the scientific words. Occam's razor would never prefer something that is less defined.

Hokulele said:
What? No.

Double-standards lead to self-deception and stupidity.

If PixyMisa is going to make fun of my theories using vague words, then those vague words should be held to the same standards that James Randi holds paranormal tests to.

We are not talking about a normal subject here. We're talking about deep philosophy of what the universe really is. We will get nowhere if we do not try to be exact.

[Jeff Corey]

In vague english words, that means the universe contains everything you can imagine and more, the set of all possible things. That equals math. Math does not exist. The universe does not exist. That's part of my theory.
But what about the brontosaurus? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs

[Hokulele]

Double-standards lead to self-deception and stupidity.

If PixyMisa is going to make fun of my theories using vague words, then those vague words should be held to the same standards that James Randi holds paranormal tests to.

We are not talking about a normal subject here. We're talking about deep philosophy of what the universe really is. We will get nowhere if we do not try to be exact.


My objection was to your claim that Occam's Razor would never prefer something that is less defined. That is not what Occam's Razor is about. Definitions are indeed important when discussing any topic, philosophical or otherwise. Including Occam's Razor in the discussion of definitions is a bit of a non sequitur.

[BenRayfield]

Dinosaurs do exist.

I don't know the difference between "past", "present", and "future", until somebody defines those consistently.

I try not to put inconsistent ideas in my head.

[Jeff Corey]

Dinosaurs do exist.

I don't know the difference between "past", "present", and "future", until somebody defines those consistently.

I try not to put inconsistent ideas in my head.

So where to they come from?

[BenRayfield]

Hokulele said:
My objection was to your claim that Occam's Razor would never prefer something that is less defined. That is not what Occam's Razor is about. Definitions are indeed important when discussing any topic, philosophical or otherwise. Including Occam's Razor in the discussion of definitions is a bit of a non sequitur.

Yes we are getting too much into semantics (definitions etc).

I'll repeat the relevant thing I said before we got on the unimportant subject of PixyMisa's theory that "universe = custard". I said:

Occam's razor agrees with:
universe = union(emptySet, complement(emptySet))

I'll shorten that to:
universe = complement(emptySet)

complement is the set-theory operator which means everything thats not in the set.

Its a simple idea and, in the strange way I think of other definitions of lots of things, it is a completely consistent definition of the universe and everything I've ever experienced or seen in science. That's why I say occam's razor supports it.

[Fontwell]

I skipped a few bits of these posts and also I may be barking up the wrong gum tree altogether but anyway... I seems to me that the key bits of the theory (hypothesis really) were the strange loops of space, time and consciousness.

I put to you that in fact there is only the strange loop of consciousness. Here and now are actually artifacts of consciousness.

That's all I have to say on the matter.

[BenRayfield]

So where to they come from?

I don't believe-in "time", so that question makes no sense to me. This idea of "coming" means to not exist in the past and start existing after that.

[Tricky]

Universe = all math

It doesn't get any simpler than that.
Though I am not a physicist, it seems to me that this is incorrect at a very basic level. Math is one tool, devised by humans, to understand the universe. It models the universe. It is not the universe itself. Don't confuse the model with reality.

Or, more succinctly, "Don't eat the menu".

[Hokulele]

Its a simple idea and, in the strange way I think of other definitions of lots of things, it is a completely consistent definition of the universe and everything I've ever experienced or seen in science. That's why I say occam's razor supports it.


The problem is, that is not the way Occam's Razor works. It is a pragmatic tool, not a scientific or philosophical one.

If you are looking for a pragmatic worldview, anything that involves nihilism is probably not it.

[BenRayfield]

Fontwell said:
I skipped a few bits of these posts and also I may be barking up the wrong gum tree altogether but anyway... I seems to me that the key bits of the theory (hypothesis really) were the strange loops of space, time and consciousness.

I put to you that in fact there is only the strange loop of consciousness. Here and now are actually artifacts of consciousness.

That's all I have to say on the matter.

That is what I meant when I wrote it. Theres only 1 kind of thing. You can call it space, time, consciousness, mass, energy, laws-of-physics, or whatever you want, but theres only 1 kind of thing, and its shaped exactly like the total of all math is shaped.

Thats an important part of my theory (or hypothesis you could call it too) of nihilistpanpsychism.

The common practice of upgrading "hypothesis" to "theories" then to "laws", based on popular opinion, is not much effective. For example, we really need to downgrade the "law of gravity" to the "hypothesis of gravity" now that we know quantum physics can move faster than gravity.

[Tricky]

I don't believe-in "time" ...
I tried that excuse on my boss. My former boss.

[Hokulele]

I don't believe-in "time", so that question makes no sense to me. This idea of "coming" means to not exist in the past and start existing after that.


Take a good cooking class. Time is definitely of the essence in the kitchen. ;)

[PixyMisa]

PixyMisa said:


"exist" means is possible to be measured by science equipment, if that equipment is advanced enough and the person using it was smart enough and had enough
ability to find the thing to be measured.
Okay, then that's a non-sequitur.

Yes. Its a proof-by-contradictoin. The nonsense is the contradiction, proving that math does not "exist". Math is abstract. Abstract things do not exist but can be used to calculate.
The Universe, however, is not abstract. Therefore your theory is false.

Thats an approximate circle.
No. It's a circle.

I know about curved spacetime.
Apparently not.

By definition, a circle has exactly 360 degrees and is equally curved at all parts.
Yes.

By definition, a circle is in a flat space.
No. That is not part of the definition, nor can it be derived from the definition.

From that, only pi can be derived as that ratio. If you disagree on the definition of "circle", then I can call it something else and ask the same question.
Changing the definition of things arbitrarily to make your point defeats your purpose.

Please define "custard", using the same logical strictness we have used for the scientific words. Occam's razor would never prefer something that is less defined.
Custard is the complement of not custard.

[BenRayfield]

I said:
Universe = all math

It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Tricky said:
Though I am not a physicist, it seems to me that this is incorrect at a very basic level. Math is one tool, devised by humans, to understand the universe. It models the universe. It is not the universe itself. Don't confuse the model with reality.

Or, more succinctly, "Don't eat the menu".

I know it goes against Human intuition. I thought about it that way too for a long time, but through years of beating math and science against my head, I have made a little progress in getting my intuition to be more self-consistent. Bayesian statistics are the best thing to help your mind become more consistent.

I agree it goes against "common sense", but the other parts of what you said are assumptions. Your "common sense" does not prove anything.

[PixyMisa]

Fontwell said:


That is what I meant when I wrote it. Theres only 1 kind of thing. You can call it space, time, consciousness, mass, energy, laws-of-physics, or whatever you want, but theres only 1 kind of thing, and its shaped exactly like the total of all math is shaped.
Okay, then.

No.

This is not true.

Thats an important part of my theory (or hypothesis you could call it too) of nihilistpanpsychism.It's not a theory or a hypothesis. It's waffle.

The common practice of upgrading "hypothesis" to "theories" then to "laws", based on popular opinion, is not much effective.That's not true either.

For example, we really need to downgrade the "law of gravity" to the "hypothesis of gravity" now that we know quantum physics can move faster than gravity.It can't, nor would that follow in any case.

Next!

[Tricky]

I know it goes against Human intuition. I thought about it that way too for a long time, but through years of beating math and science against my head, I have made a little progress in getting my intuition to be more self-consistent. Bayesian statistics are the best thing to help your mind become more consistent.
Meaning no insult, but just thinking about something for a long time is no guarantee of its correctness. Training and education is the key. Again, I have only a knowledge of "kitchen physics" but your definitions and your denial of well-described phenomenon such as "time" do not demonstrate to me that you have this training and education. You keep getting caught in conflicting definitions and mutual contradictions.

If I were you, (and I'm not since I don't care enough about this sort of thing), I'd grab some of the resources that PixyMisa has indicated and get yourself some of that education and training. You might find that a lot of your issues with classical physics are dealt with quite elegantly.

[BenRayfield]

I said:
If math is a Human invention, then that means Humans created math.

If Humans created math, means math exists.

PixyMisa said:
Define "exists" as you use it here.

I said:
"exist" means is possible to be measured by science equipment, if that equipment is advanced enough and the person using it was smart enough and had enough
ability to find the thing to be measured.

Okay, then that's a non-sequitur.

"nonsequiter" does not apply to definitions.

You asked for a definition of "exist" and I said what I meant when I wrote "exist".

I gave a definition, and you made a statement about it. Your statement of "nonsequiter" is the only nonsequiter here.

The Universe, however, is not abstract. Therefore your theory is false

You are proposing a theory: "universe is not abstract".

Please describe a way to test it, how we will know it is or is not abstract, or leave the truth of your theory as "I don't know" as a scientist would.

You're acting very religious, making assumptions and taking things on faith. May I ask what is your religion?

I said:
Thats an approximate circle.

PixyMisa said:
No. It's a circle.

I don't want to get too far into semantics/definitions. I gave you my definition of "circle" then you rejected it. I'll ask a similar thing about a simpler part of math:

In "roman" numbers:
II + I = III.

In our numbers, that same thing is written as:
2 + 1 = 3.

It does not matter how you write it. Writing and digits and other math symbols are not what I mean when I say "math". I only mean the abstract meanings behind them that is calculated.

You said math is invented by people. That implies the parts of math we have never thought of are significantly different than the parts we have thought of.

I gave you a proof-by-contradiction (which you agreed led to "nonsense", a contradiction), which proves that "math" does not "exist".

In the same way I wrote about circles and pi in that proof-by-contradiction, I'll now ask you a simpler question:

Can math be invented in any other way than it is now, where 2 + 1 = 3 and II + I = III? This is not a question about how it is written or what order its done in or what words or language. Its a question about the calculations done in math.

I'm trying to prove that math is not invented by people. All math is in the same set as all other math, and theres nothing special about us discovering parts of math.

PixyMisa, the rest of your writing is getting too religious and assuming and faithful. If you can't learn to think like a scientist, we have no effective way to communicate.

[tsig]

Take a good cooking class. Time is definitely of the essence in the kitchen. ;)

You need a good microwave.

[tsig]

In the same way I wrote about circles and pi in that proof-by-contradiction, I'll now ask you a simpler question:

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemannian_geometry

You will find that the ratio of a circle's radius to it's circumference is not the same in Riemannian geometry as it is in Euclidean geometry.

[BenRayfield]

Tricky said:
Meaning no insult, but just thinking about something for a long time is no guarantee of its correctness.

Agreed.

I was responding to the implied idea that I hadn't put much thought into my ideas. Maybe I misinterpreted. It doesn't matter because I want to proceed through logic and statistics instead of previous thoughts.

Training and education is the key.

I have a masters degree in computer-science and have released 5 open-source softwares.

I know set-theory. I appeared not to because I wanted to define all the operations again so nobody would argue with them.

Most of this is my strategy of starting all philosophy with no knowledge, no assumptions, and no faith, and no guessing, and only the most certain of my experience. Its easy to misinterpret that as my ignorance.

Again, I have only a knowledge of "kitchen physics" but your definitions and your denial of well-described phenomenon such as "time" do not demonstrate to me that you have this training and education.

I experience what most people call "time" and "space", but I experience a similar thing while dreaming or while enjoying a video-game so much that I forget its a game for a few seconds. I have no proof that we are not in "The Matrix" or any number of other things that could be true instead of "time" and "space".

More relevant to science: The ideas of "time" and "space" have been proven inconsistent by the "Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox". One of the most relevant parts is that some theories say you can't go faster than light, and quantum physics says you can, and people have been using different theories for different sizes and distances, which is a proof of inconsistent ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

That may change as we learn more physics, but until then, I can't take them seriously in a debate about the deep philosophy about what the universe really is.

You keep getting caught in conflicting definitions and mutual contradictions.

I think this is related to the "incompleteness" of self-referencing math, like in the halting-problem. I accepted that the proofs I offered were not technically correct, but I say it is more consistent than that in my head but I haven't thought of a way to explain it better than my first post in this thread.

If I were you, (and I'm not since I don't care enough about this sort of thing), I'd grab some of the resources that PixyMisa has indicated and get yourself some of that education and training. You might find that a lot of your issues with classical physics are dealt with quite elegantly.

I will continue to read about quantum physics, multiverses, philosophy, and other subjects, and I do expect to find more consistency than I now understand, but I expect I will not find enough consistency to change my objections to "time" and "space" in a way that I could use them in philosophy.

[Malerin]

Lambda = stateless function,

Wasn't that the fraternity in Revenge of the Nerds?

[BenRayfield]

Fraternities in college usually use greek symbols that we now use for certain ideas in math, because a college has a goal of intelligence and those symbols fit that idea.

In my opinion, "Lambda" is the most advanced of all parts of math and could be the simplest. Every lambda takes 1 lambda as input and outputs a lambda. The "stateless" part means the same input always gives the same output, and no variable names are needed, use everything by content instead of name.

[PixyMisa]

I said:

PixyMisa said:

I said:

"nonsequiter" does not apply to definitions.

You asked for a definition of "exist" and I said what I meant when I wrote "exist".

I gave a definition, and you made a statement about it.
No.

Your earlier statement is the non-sequitur.

Your statement of "nonsequiter" is the only nonsequiter here.No.

You are proposing a theory: "universe is not abstract".By definition.

Please describe a way to test it, how we will know it is or is not abstract, or leave the truth of your theory as "I don't know" as a scientist would.Can I hit you on the head with it, or part of it? If I can, it is not abstract.

I can.

Therefore it's not abstract.

You're acting very religious, making assumptions and taking things on faith.
What assumptions, what faith?

May I ask what is your religion?I'm ignostic.

I said:Thats an approximate circle. PixyMisa said:No. It's a circle. Yes. I'm right, you're wrong.

I don't want to get too far into semantics/definitions. I gave you my definition of "circle" then you rejected it.No I didn't.

You gave a nonstandard definition of circle. The reason you gave this nonstandard definition is that by the standard definition your claim was wrong. Changing your definitions to match your claims reduces your claims to tautologies, which makes them worthless in establishing an argument.

I'll ask a similar thing about a simpler part of math:No you won't.

In "roman" numbers:
II + I = III.

In our numbers, that same thing is written as:
2 + 1 = 3.

It does not matter how you write it.No, but it matters a lot how you define it.

Writing and digits and other math symbols are not what I mean when I say "math". I only mean the abstract meanings behind them that is calculated.Okay then.

This means your "theory" is false.

You said math is invented by people.No I didn't.

That implies the parts of math we have never thought of are significantly different than the parts we have thought of.No it doesn't.

I gave you a proof-by-contradictionNo you didn't.

A proof by contradiction requires more rigour in its construction even than a normal proof. You provided nothing more than handwaving.

(which you agreed led to "nonsense", a contradiction), which proves that "math" does not "exist".No. Saying that your "proof" is nonsense is not the same at all as saying that it is well-formed but leads to a contradiction.

In the same way I wrote about circles and pi in that proof-by-contradiction, I'll now ask you a simpler question:Whatever.

Can math be invented in any other way than it is now, where 2 + 1 = 3 and II + I = III? This is not a question about how it is written or what order its done in or what words or language. Its a question about the calculations done in math.Study number theory. 3 is defined as 2 + 1.

I'm trying to prove that math is not invented by people.Very badly, but it's completely irrelevant to your argument in any case.

All math is in the same set as all other math, and theres nothing special about us discovering parts of math.Even if we grant this, so what?

PixyMisa, the rest of your writing is getting too religious and assuming and faithful.No. No it's not. You're simply factually wrong.

If you can't learn to think like a scientist, we have no effective way to communicate.If I can't learn to think like a scientist? My dear chap, you are the one changing definitions ad-hoc when you bother to define anything at all.

[PixyMisa]

Tricky said:


Agreed.

I was responding to the implied idea that I hadn't put much thought into my ideas. Maybe I misinterpreted. It doesn't matter because I want to proceed through logic and statistics instead of previous thoughts.
Then why don't you?

I have a masters degree in computer-science and have released 5 open-source softwares.
Did you keep the receipt?

I know set-theory. I appeared not to because I wanted to define all the operations again so nobody would argue with them.
No you don't. You don't even understand basic logic. You don't understand what the use of naive set theory as a foundation implies for your "theory". (Specifically, that even were it well-formed, which it emphatically is not, it would contain contradictions.)

Most of this is my strategy of starting all philosophy with no knowledge
Yeah.

no assumptions, and no faith, and no guessing, and only the most certain of my experience. Its easy to misinterpret that as my ignorance.
That's not what we're interpreting as ignorance. What we're interpreting as ignorance is your statements that are factually false or logically incoherent.

I experience what most people call "time" and "space", but I experience a similar thing while dreaming or while enjoying a video-game so much that I forget its a game for a few seconds.
So?

I have no proof that we are not in "The Matrix" or any number of other things that could be true instead of "time" and "space".
That doesn't change anything whatsoever.

Time and space are metrics. Their fundamental nature is irrelevant, and almost certainly unknowable. Their existence is indisputable.

If there is no space, you cannot distinguish between locations; if there is no time, you cannot distinguish between events. Since you can, they exist.

More relevant to science: The ideas of "time" and "space" have been proven inconsistent by the "Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox".
Wrong.

One of the most relevant parts is that some theories say you can't go faster than light, and quantum physics says you can
Wrong.

and people have been using different theories for different sizes and distances, which is a proof of inconsistent ideas.
Wrong.

That may change as we learn more physics, but until then, I can't take them seriously in a debate about the deep philosophy about what the universe really is.
If you don't accept the existence of space and time, no-one will take you seriously. Nor should they. It betrays a comprehensive lack of understanding of the concepts involved.

I think this is related to the "incompleteness" of self-referencing math, like in the halting-problem.
No. You're just wrong. And you don't understand the incompleteness theorem either.

The incompleteness theorem proves that any sufficiently powerful, self-consistent formal system contains theorems whose truth value is undecidable.

An example of a sufficiently powerful self-consistent formal system is arithmetic.

Contradictions are another thing entirely. They mean you've screwed up.

I accepted that the proofs I offered were not technically correct
That means you've screwed up.

but I say it is more consistent than that in my head but I haven't thought of a way to explain it better than my first post in this thread.
Don't you think that's a problem? How can it be "more" consistent in your head when it is incoherent when put down on paper? How can you even know this?

I will continue to read about quantum physics, multiverses, philosophy, and other subjects, and I do expect to find more consistency than I now understand, but I expect I will not find enough consistency to change my objections to "time" and "space" in a way that I could use them in philosophy.
Skip the philosophy - except for Hume, Popper, Dennett and a few others, it will cause more harm than good until you have a better grasp of science.

[BenRayfield]

PixyMisa said:
No you don't. You don't even understand basic logic. You don't understand
what the use of naive set theory as a foundation implies for your "theory".
(Specifically, that even were it well-formed, which it emphatically is not, it
would contain contradictions.)

This could be our major disagreement. My theory is a variation of Max Tegmark's theory, and Max Tegmark disagrees with me too.

You see a contradiction and say "fail" and forget about it. I branched my thoughts far past that, in many directions, and I say the universe contains an infinite number of contradictions that are as real as you and me. My theory does not contradict itself because it says the universe does not exist. Nihilism means "nothing exists" or the idea of "exist" contradicts itself (and would be irrelevant). Because the universe does not exist, its not a contradiction for the universe to contain contradictions. No contradictions exist. Its consistent.


Time and space are metrics. Their fundamental nature is irrelevant, and almost certainly unknowable. Their existence is indisputable.

If there is no space, you cannot distinguish between locations; if there is no time, you cannot distinguish between events. Since you can, they exist.

I agree that I can measure time and space and distinguish between them, in a vague way, or at least it appears that way to my monkey-like brain.

If we assume that time and space are equally real as me and you, that does not help us know if they exist or not. You want me to accept an infinite sequence of X exists because Y experienced X, and Y exists because Z experienced Y...".

Your only way out of that is to define 1 thing that exists without using any other things in the definition, which can be said as "I think therefore I am".

As we have recently learned, artificial-intelligence (AI) softwares can also think. Your whole reason for thinking anything exists has been downgraded to abstract information calculated in a computer, an AI software. Math.

I think therefore I am x. What is x? I say all consistent answers are: x = a subset of nihilistpanpsychism.


If you don't accept the existence of space and time, no-one will take you seriously. Nor should they. It betrays a comprehensive lack of understanding of the concepts involved.

I'll substitute 1 thing to show a similarity to a different idea:

"If you don't accept the existence of GOD, no-one will take you seriously. Nor should they. It betrays a comprehensive lack of understanding of the concepts involved."

Blasphemy! Its why Max Tegmark (whose theory is similar to my theory) is taken less seriously than many other physics researchers. He's not a conformist.

I care more about learning than what confused people think about me. I've already learned enough science to build things that most people think are impossible, so I'm not about to change my strategy toward more conformism.

I said:
I think this is related to the "incompleteness" of self-referencing math, like in the halting-problem.

PixyMisa said:
The incompleteness theorem proves that any sufficiently powerful, self-consistent formal system contains theorems whose truth value is undecidable.

An example of a sufficiently powerful self-consistent formal system is arithmetic.

Agreed.

Contradictions are another thing entirely. They mean you've screwed up.

Thats only true if you don't cancel-out all the contradictions.

Example: Most people rejected the square-root of negative numbers when they first heard about them in quantum-physics equations, and some of those people now understand something can be 20% less probable to happen than a 10% chance. Quantum-physics allows the square-root of negative numbers because they cancel-out and become real-numbers when we experience them. People thought it was a contradiction, but it cancelled-out so it was OK.

Similarly, my theory of nihilistpanpsychism cancels-out all contradictions contained in the universe, because nihilism means "nothing exists", therefore my theory says those contradictions do not exist.

I know of no contradictions in my theory, except my lack of explaining it well enough. The best explanation of my theory is in the first post of this thread. I'll try to think of a better and more technical way to explain it, something involving the combination of paradoxes and strange-loops and set-theory maybe.

I said:
but I say it is more consistent than that in my head but I haven't thought of a way to explain it better than my first post in this thread.

PixyMisa said:
Don't you think that's a problem? How can it be "more" consistent in your head when it is incoherent when put down on paper? How can you even know this?

Yes its a problem.

My thoughts can not be more consistent than an artificial-intelligence simulation of my thoughts, and that can not be more consistent than logic and statisitcs, and that can not be more consistent than the "incompleteness" of math allows.

But as I wrote above in this post, my theory predicts that contradictions are a subset of the universe, and thats OK because the universe does not exist (nihilism), so my "problem" may be one of those and not be relevant at all.

I'll have to think about it.

PixyMisa, to most people, it would appear that we are angry at eachother, but this is exactly the kind of thing I came to James Randi's messageboard for. James Randi could be the most skeptical person on Earth. I wanted people to attack my theory of nihilistpanpsychism as strongly as they could. Thank you for pointing out some of the flaws in my writing.

[PixyMisa]

PixyMisa said:


This could be our major disagreement. My theory is a variation of Max Tegmark's theory, and Max Tegmark disagrees with me too.

You see a contradiction and say "fail" and forget about it.
Yep.

I branched my thoughts far past that, in many directions, and I say the universe contains an infinite number of contradictions that are as real as you and me.
Such as?

My theory does not contradict itself because it says the universe does not exist.
It's wrong then.

Nihilism means "nothing exists" or the idea of "exist" contradicts itself (and would be irrelevant).
Define "exists" in this context.

Because the universe does not exist, its not a contradiction for the universe to contain contradictions.
So you are arguing for a nonexistent and logically inconsistent Universe?

Waffle is too kind a word.

No contradictions exist. Its consistent.
Well, your argument is not even coherent, much less consistent, but the claim that the Universe itself is inconsistent is not in itself inconsistent. It is, however, not borne out by observation.

I agree that I can measure time and space and distinguish between them, in a vague way, or at least it appears that way to my monkey-like brain.
Well, that's still wrong, but more right than before.

If we assume that time and space are equally real as me and you
What does that even mean?

that does not help us know if they exist or not.
Yes it does.

If you accept that (whatever it means) and then still argue that space and time do not exist, that means that your argument does not exist.

Problem.

You want me to accept an infinite sequence of X exists because Y experienced X, and Y exists because Z experienced Y...".
Did I ever mention infinite sequences, or X or Y or Z, or experiences?

No, I mentioned none of those. You're confusing yourself.

Your only way out of that is to define 1 thing that exists without using any other things in the definition, which can be said as "I think therefore I am".
That is not a way out of anything. That only gives you solipsism, and solipsism is intrinsically useless.

As we have recently learned, artificial-intelligence (AI) softwares can also think.
Recently? I guess, 1960 is recently.

Your whole reason for thinking anything exists has been downgraded to abstract information calculated in a computer, an AI software. Math.
Downgraded? You mean, understood.

Yes.

So?

I think therefore I am x. What is x?
You can't say.

I say all consistent answers are: x = a subset of nihilistpanpsychism.
That's a contradiction. I think therefore I am proves that something exists. Nihilism, as you would have it, denies existence.

I'll substitute 1 thing to show a similarity to a different idea:
No you won't.

"If you don't accept the existence of GOD, no-one will take you seriously. Nor should they. It betrays a comprehensive lack of understanding of the concepts involved."
In what way is that similar?

The concept of spacetime is precisely defined in mathematics, and maps directly onto our theories of physics in a consistent and practically useful way.

The concept of God is not consistently defined at all; instead, there are a billion vague, hand-wavey and incoherent attempts at definition..

Blasphemy! Its why Max Tegmark (whose theory is similar to my theory)
It's not a theory.

is taken less seriously than many other physics researchers. He's not a conformist.
His serious work is taken seriously. His speculative work is taken as speculation.

What you have presented, though, is gibberish.

I care more about learning than what confused people think about me. I've already learned enough science to build things that most people think are impossible, so I'm not about to change my strategy toward more conformism.
Whatever. You are still wrong.

I said:
I think this is related to the "incompleteness" of self-referencing math, like in the halting-problem.

PixyMisa said:
No. You're just wrong. And you don't understand the incompleteness theorem either.

The incompleteness theorem proves that any sufficiently powerful, self-consistent formal system contains theorems whose truth value is undecidable.

An example of a sufficiently powerful self-consistent formal system is arithmetic.
Contradictions are another thing entirely. They mean you've screwed up.



Thats only true if you don't cancel-out all the contradictions.
What is that supposed to mean? You can't cancel out one contradiction with another.

Example: Most people rejected the square-root of negative numbers when they first heard about them in quantum-physics equations, and some of those people now understand something can be 20% less probable to happen than a 10% chance.
What are you talking about?

Quantum-physics allows the square-root of negative numbers because they cancel-out and become real-numbers when we experience them.
No. Wrong, completely wrong.

Complex numbers are commonly used in practical fields like electrical engineering and signal processing as well as in quantum mechanics. (Actually, quantum mechanics is a practical field these days.)

No-one thinks that complex numbers are contradictions, and they don't "become real-numbers when we experience them". They become real numbers in the mathematical models.

People thought it was a contradiction, but it cancelled-out so it was OK.
No.

Similarly, my theory of nihilistpanpsychism cancels-out all contradictions contained in the universe, because nihilism means "nothing exists", therefore my theory says those contradictions do not exist.
I have never seen a more abject case of special pleading in my life.

The contradictions are not in the Universe. The contradictions are in your argument.

If you want to assert that your argument doesn't exist, well, fine.

I know of no contradictions in my theory, except my lack of explaining it well enough.
The contradictions have been pointed out, and you have only introduced more contradictions in your failed attempts to extricate yourself.

The best explanation of my theory is in the first post of this thread.
That first post was a complete mess. Now, granted, you've only gone downhill since then, so this statement is perhaps true. But it is certainly not helpful to your position.

I'll try to think of a better and more technical way to explain it, something involving the combination of paradoxes and strange-loops and set-theory maybe.
I'd suggest you learn what paradoxes and strange loops and set theory are first. I'd suggest you study number theory and why your questions regarding mathematics are not meaningful, and learn of the problems implicit within naive set theory and why it is a poor basis for any sort of proof.

I said:
but I say it is more consistent than that in my head but I haven't thought of a way to explain it better than my first post in this thread.

PixyMisa said:
Don't you think that's a problem? How can it be "more" consistent in your head when it is incoherent when put down on paper? How can you even know this?

Yes its a problem.

My thoughts can not be more consistent than an artificial-intelligence simulation of my thoughts, and that can not be more consistent than logic and statisitcs, and that can not be more consistent than the "incompleteness" of math allows.
Again, you don't understand anything you are talking about.

Artificial intelligence, logic, statistics, and the incompleteness theorem do not place any bounds whatsoever on the consistency of your thoughts.

That's entirely up to you.

But as I wrote above in this post, my theory predicts that contradictions are a subset of the universe, and thats OK because the universe does not exist (nihilism), so my "problem" may be one of those and not be relevant at all.
No. The contradictions are in your argument.

I'll have to think about it.
Do that.

PixyMisa, to most people, it would appear that we are angry at eachother, but this is exactly the kind of thing I came to James Randi's messageboard for. James Randi could be the most skeptical person on Earth. I wanted people to attack my theory of nihilistpanpsychism as strongly as they could. Thank you for pointing out some of the flaws in my writing.
That's what I'm here for: To take fuzzy thinking, tear it to pieces, and piddle on the remains. It's my mission statement.

[BenRayfield]

PixyMisa, I'll respond to the rest of your post later, but now I'll respond to the most important part.

I said:
Example: Most people rejected the square-root of negative numbers when they first heard about them in quantum-physics equations, and some of those people now understand something can be 20% less probable to happen than a 10% chance.

PixyMisa said:
What are you talking about?

Every time the "quantum double slit" experiment is done, the following is true:

There exists at least 1 location on the back wall (where the particles/waves are detected statistically) that is hit less often as a result of opening 2 slits instead of 1. The chance (how often particles/waves are detected there) decreases as a result of something that most people's intution could not possibly decrease the chance. Its like shining a flashlight at something, measuring the brightness, then shining a second flashlight at it and seeing some things get darker (not how your eyes dilate to make it darker, but scientifically less photons are measured, its darker).

In the same way as that chance decreased, chances of things can decrease and become negative. 0 (impossible) is not the minimum chance. -1 (less than impossible) is the minimum chance.

[PixyMisa]

PixyMisa, I'll respond to the rest of your post later, but now I'll respond to the most important part.

Every time the "quantum double slit" experiment is done, the following is true:

There exists at least 1 location on the back wall (where the particles/waves are detected statistically) that is hit less often as a result of opening 2 slits instead of 1.
Yes. You get an interference pattern rather than a simple random distribution. This also means that there is at least one location that is hit more often as well.

The chance (how often particles/waves are detected there) decreases as a result of something that most people's intution could not possibly decrease the chance.
Even were I to grant this, it would be, as so many of your statements are, completely irrelevant. What people's intuitions may or may not tell them doesn't matter. It's what we measure that matters.

Its like shining a flashlight at something, measuring the brightness, then shining a second flashlight at it and seeing some things get darker (not how your eyes dilate to make it darker, but scientifically less photons are measured, its darker).
Indeed, this will happen - not quite as described, but if you set up the experiment appropriately. The theory of waves is well understood, and has been for centuries.

Two equally loud noises in opposite phase can cancel each other out, leaving silence.

Two ocean waves - clear physical shapes in water - can cancel each other out the same way.

That's not what's surprising. What's surprising is that individual photons (and other particles) do this.

In the same way as that chance decreased, chances of things can decrease and become negative.
NO THEY CAN'T.

This is complete and utter nonsense. Probabilities are, by definition, between 0 and 1. If you have calculated a probility outside that range, you've done it wrong.

0 (impossible) is not the minimum chance. -1 (less than impossible) is the minimum chance.
Wrong, wrong, completely and irretrievably wrong.

Go back and add freshman statistics to the list of things you need to study. This is the very first thing they'll teach you.

[PixyMisa]

You can use negative probabilities within a calculation in some situations, just as you can use complex numbers when calculating the properties of a circuit in electrical engineering.

But if you get an answer that the probability of an event is outside the range of [0,1], you've done something wrong, just as much as if you calculated that the current flowing through your circuit was 3 + 4j amps.

[Fontwell]

Edit: I missed some posts while writing this, the last bit I saw was all about 'coming'.

Exactly. 'Coming' (Oooerr) is based on various locations in time and space. These are all artifacts of consciousness i.e. they only have meaning to a being capable of understanding 'here' and 'now' - the continual experience of consciousness. These give rise to ideas of 'what I have already experienced' and 'other places I have been' via memory.

Memory itself is subject to the normal laws of physics and as I understand things, is as reversible as any other physical system, that is to say, it makes as much sense forwards as backwards. The important thing to understand though is that memory only passes information in one direction. This means that at any point along the time-space progression there is information which is available via memory (the past) and information not available (the future). This creates the experiences/illusions of past, present and future and is often referred to as 'times arrow'.

I like the video tape of a movie analogy; The whole tape exists all the time and all the narrative information exists on that tape continuously. However, if you play any part of the tape, the world it portrays is based entirely on knowledge of the tape that is to one side of the playing head. To play a part of the tape creates a past, a now and a future. This playing is like the process of consciousness. In principle, a tape could be played at multiple points at once using many heads. Each head would create its own now, even though they are all playing at once. Bear in mind this is an analogy!

I seem to have lied when I said that was all I had to say on the matter. Although actually, I'm just saying the same thing again in a longer way, so maybe I wasn't lying.

[Beerina]

I request that people look over my definitions and sequence of statements, and point out any contradictions or assumptions or logical flaws I wrote. If you assume more than 0 things, you have proven nothing.

Very well.

I'm starting with no knowledge and no assumptions.

START THEORY:

I'll define some words (different than how Max Tegmark defines them). I am experiencing something. I'll call it "consciousness", but I do not know what it is. Now I have a definition but not an assumption.

I will take it, from my point of view, as being my consciousness.

"Universe" means "all time, space, laws-of-physics, multiverses, consciousness, and whatever else there is". "Universe" means "everything that exists". I was only giving some examples of what must be included in that definition.

"Includes but is not limited to" as a lawyer might say.

"Determinism" is everything thats completely predictable. "Nondeterminism" means all "random" and all "chaos" and all "free will".

Ok, though I wonder how anything of the latter class could exist since it seems, to me, to be self-contradictory as a definition. But fair enough, it is a definition.

Abstract things do not exist. Math is abstract and infinite. Math is determinism plus nondeterminism.

If nondeterminism actually exists. I note it does exist in math, BTW.

Things that exist can be part of things that do not exist, like "dog" is an abstract definition of an animal, but your specific dog does not have to be abstract.

If you rephrase this as "things that exist can be represented by abstract definitions or representations", then Ok.

Math is symmetric.

You need to define symmetric for math as a whole, as you use it here. Symmetry is, of course, already defined, variously, in math.

In logic talk, "implied" is the timeless word for "caused" or "required".

A bit clunky, but I get the drift.

I've not said what exists and what does not exist yet. End of definitions.

If universe not equal math

This has only one meaning to me: That everything in the universe, and the universe as a whole, can be 100% accurately modeled by things in math.

This I agree with. However, by your symmetry, are you suggesting that everything in math has a corresponding thing in the universe?

I think that goes way too far.


then that lack of symmetry is 1 nondeterministic thing that is not implied by anything, therefore the universe equals math.

Non-determinism, which can be modeled by math, might very well not exist in reality, AKA in the universe, that is true. Neither does the square root of i. Nor, arguably, the Cartesian coordinate system.

But I'm confused. If math does not equal the universe, then that's a lack of symmetry? I interpret that as a lack of a 1-1 correspondence both ways. Is this correct?

But if so, how is this lack of symmetry nondeterministic? How is it not implied by anything? And further, is this a reduction ad absurdum, where, since the lack of symmetry is (according to you) nondeterministic that, therefore, since the nondeterministic (thusly) actually exists, that nondeterminism must therefore actually exist (because that is an example of it) and therefore the universe, containing nondeterminism as well as determinism, is therefore back to being identical to math?




Math includes nondeterministic things. Nondeterminism is a strange-loop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop).

I submit nondeterminism is the opposite of a strange-loop. In tracing back causality, you either keep finding a prior cause ("it's turtles all the way down") or you run up against a mysterious cause-but-not-caused thing (which is what seems to be illogical.) But in neither case do you find nondeterminism causing itself.

Time is a strange-loop. However you travel through it, "time" always appears to be "now".

"Now" always appears to be "now". (Actually, "now" appears to be a fraction of a second ago, due to the finite AKA non-zero amount of time required to process sensations and generate the conscious experience, but that's another story.) "Time" appears to be "now" or "5 seconds ago" or "30 years in the future".


Space is a strange-loop. However you travel through it, "space" always appears to be "here".

Travel is always relative to other things, even if it be just the energy you cast off that's going in the opposite direction, or the two halves of your body rotating around each other as you spin. So it's not a strange-loop.

Consciousness is a strange-loop. However your consciousness changes, wherever and whenever it is, "consciousness" always appears to be "me". Its no different than space and time.

END THEORY.

So you are saying time, space, and consciousness are all these self-referential loops? And therefore...what?

How does math = universe fit in? YOur "nihilistpanpsychism" is "nothing exists in reality, everything is consciousness"?

So the unverse <--> math, and therefore there's no difference between existence and the abstract world of math; they are one and the same thing, and therefore since consciousness, by subjective experience ("I think, therefore I am") actually exists, that everything out there must be therefore only consciousness?

While that may be an interesting way to view it, I wouldn't put so much faith in it that I walked off a non-existent cliff.

[Beerina]

By the way, I'm a professional AI programmer, too. And not just for government-paid-for 1-off studies, but for real, for-profit corporations. The fundamental problem of AI might be described as "It seems consciousness must be a purely data-driven process, yet, since it actually exists, it cannot be a purely data-driven process."

In other words, consciousness must be simultaneously purely abstract, yet cannot be since, ahem, nothing purely abstract actually exists.

[BenRayfield]

NihilistPanpsychism is a theory that means exactly these 3 things:

(1) Nothing exists, or the idea of "exist" contradicts itself. Because nothing exists, if I was looking straight at a "god", I would still have to be an Atheist because neither one of us exists.

(2) Everything is consciousness. "Consciousness" is vaguely defined because "panpsychism" is vaguely defined. That is not a reason to think science can not measure consciousness. I am designing some experiments. Read below for details.

(3) Universe = all math. If any kind of math book describes it, its a subset of the universe. There are an infinite number of things in math and an infinite number of ways to combine them. All abstract ideas are a subset of math, but we must be careful not to confuse a description with the thing it describes, or recursions of that. For example, "the set of all sets that do not include themself" or "a number that is less than 3 and equals 3".

NihilistPanpsychism is only a religion because it is a theory about what the universe equals and about what consciousness equals. Its not like most other religions because it does not tell anyone what to do and it does not tell anyone what not to do. Its neutral on all subjects that can not be derived from the definition of nihilistpanpsychism, and there is nothing to "interpret" about it, as religious people love to do with vague words. What is consciousness? Let the science experiments figure it out.




WE COULD DEBATE THE PHILOSOPHY AND CORRECTNESS OF NIHILISTPANPSYCHISM ENDLESSLY, BUT LETS SKIP THAT AND LET SCIENCE DO THE TALKING. I'M GOING TO TEST IT. READ BELOW FOR DETAILS.


Everything below this sentence is quoted from my new website: http://xoBsarodnaP.com




I have a theory that the following ideas are related: Newcomb's Paradox, Quantum Pseudo Telepathy, Bell's Inequality, Quantum Entanglement, Reverse Causation, I-Ching, Solomonoff-Induction, and Princeton college's Global Consciousness Project. I will design experiments to test that theory. 1 of those experiments is described below. Its 2 softwares I will create that work together: Lisputer and Schrodingers Network Router.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_pseudo-telepathy

An example is the "Mermin-Peres magic square game" described at that wikipedia page. Its a 2-player game played on 2 3x3 boards. Both players can only see their own board and do not get to communicate except through a quantum-entangled particle. The wikipedia page has links to experiments done to confirm it works, but I have not confirmed it. Choose any 2 symbols X and Y. Player X must do the first action, and player Y must do the second action, then the game is done. Statistically you can play the game many times to verify it averages to an unexpected Bell's-Inequality. must use columns (instead of rows) and the 3 sizes [2, 2, 2]. Player Y must use rows (instead of columns) and the 3 sizes [3, 1, 1]. I may have confused rows/columns/order/etc (TODO verify that), but read the details at the wikipedia page. This is not a complete explanation. Read the wikipedia page for the rest. The purpose of using the game with "quantum pseudo telepathy" is a quantum physics experiment to prove that statistical information (but probably not certain accurate information) can be communicated through quantum-entangled particles, which goes against the older quantum theories that say thats impossible.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Ching

I-Ching is an ancient Chinese 1-player "game" that uses 2 flips of each of 3 coins and a 8x8 grid in a book to inerpret the results. Choose any 3 coins, boil them in salt-water to remove fingerprints (because the oil from many peoples' fingers might be quantum-entangled a small amount and distort the results of the coin flips), and use those same 3 coins for all future games. If you lose them, you can do the same for 3 more coins, but in my opinion, its best to use the same 3 coins for a long time.

My theory is that I-Ching works because of "quantum pseudo telepathy" if you think of the first 3 flips as the first player and the second round of 3 flips (the same 3 coins) as the second player. I also have a theory that physics-parity is the reason you are supposed to face East when flipping the coins, because of the electricity in your brain is more aligned to the electricity in other peoples brains who are also doing I-Ching and facing East. The few times I have done I-Ching, it does appear to work more than I would expect from random coin flips, but I'm not sure. I used the 8x8 grid (and few pages of descriptions of each of 64 squares) in the book "The Living IChing - Using Ancient Chinese Wisdom to Shape Your Life", but theres lots of books about I-Ching.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcombs_paradox

There are many variations of Newcomb's Paradox. The simplest is solomonoff-induction, described below, if you think of the accuratePredictor/Omega as player X and think of yourself as player Y and think of if the money is in Box B the same as a boolean choice (or random if Omega does not want to choose), and think of your choice to take Box B only (instead of both boxes) as a boolean choice (or random if you do not want to choose). I think of it as 4 quantum particles that all start in superposition.

I would us an unusual strategy to choose which box(es) to take:

I would think of it as 4 quantum particles or coin flips or obseving how coins landed or intentionally laying a coin as heads or tails without telling anyone else. There are only 2 players in this game: Omega and me, but I choose to add 2 extra coins to use in my strategy. Think of them as 4 of the same thing, and each may interact with any of the other 3, except the rules of Newcomb's Paradox say I am not allowed to interact with Omega, so no links between us except the links that Omega defined in the rules of the game. There are 4 things and 5 lines between them, and each line may point in 1 direction, both directions, or some other quantum interaction like observing then stopping the observing or whatever you can think of. The important thing is there are 4 players in this game, and 1 of the interactions between 2 of those players is against the rules.

My strategy is to flip a coin now, not look at it, and put a box over it so nobody sees if it landed heads or tails. Then I wait for Omega to start the 2-box game, and I flip a second coin after that. I may also choose to flip the second coin before Omega comes. Its my choice, and I don't think it matters because my strategy works outside of "space" and "time", which means it is a type of "Timeless Decision Theory".

The 4 players can each have 3 possible values: -1, 0, or 1 (similar to a quantum-eigenvector). the 4 players are:

Player: Omega: 0 before doing anything. -1 if chooses only to put money in Box A. 1 if chooses to put money in both boxes (A and B).

TODO rewrite these numbers. They are not consistent, but the idea was consistent in my head last night when I thought of this.

Player: Me: 0 before doing anything. -1 if I choose to take Box B only. 1 if I chooses to take both boxes.

Player: CoinFirst: 0 if in quantum-superposition of simultaneous heads and tails, still under the box as I left it, and nobody and nothing has been affected by the coin. -1 if it has been observed to be tails. 1 if it has been observed to be heads.

Player: CoinSecond: 0 if in quantum-superposition of simultaneous heads and tails, still under the box as I left it, and nobody and nothing has been affected by the coin. -1 if it has been observed to be tails. 1 if it has been observed to be heads.

I am not considering the time that things happen (which things happened before/after others) because quantum physics is not restricted by space and time except when you try to approximate it. I need to be exact to understand Newcomb's Paradox.

Omega wins when I choose the wrong box(es). I win when I choose the right box(es). Exactly 1 of us will win each time the game is played. The game starts with all 4 players in superposition: 0 instead of -1 or 1.

The game ends when I change from 0 (superposition) to -1 or 1 (choosing which box(es) to take).

* is the multiply operator. Example: -1 * -1 * -1 = -1. Example: 1 * -1 * -1 = 1.

I win if I correctly predict that Omega is -1 or 1. Omega wins if I predict wrong. Newcomb's Paradox is written differently but means the same thing. It says Omega predicts my action of predicting the boxes, but its about choices instead of boxes. Its best described as things like Solomonoff-Induction and Quantum-Physics.

When any player observes any of the other 3 players (or himself), that player changes from 0 to -1 or 1, or if such a change was already done, then the same result is observed again. I may have a quantum contradiction here because quantum physics says observing something changes the particle it is entangled with, but when viewed as "timeless decision theory", I am not getting that result. I am thinking about something you might call "second layer time", where "space" and "time" as we know them are simply 4 dimensions, but "second layer time" would be more like a second "time" dimension that can see the past, present, and future, and lots of other things and maybe the multiverse superpositions of those things too. I'll have to think about it.

If I commit to choose based on CoinFirst and CoinSecond, then:

Omega wins if: Omega * Me = -1, and
I win if Omega * Me = 1, and
I win if I observe (or have better statistical knowledge of) CoinFirst and/or CoinSecond than Omega has, viewed in "second layer time", and
because Omega has been winning every game for a long time, I should think Omega probably knows my strategy and/or what I committed to and/or quantum physics and/or "quantum pseudo telepathy". The simple example game of Quantum Pseudo Telepathy is similar to this in the following ways:

Rows/Columns = Omega/Me.
3 rows = CoinFirst, CoinSecond, and Omega.
3 columns = CoinFirst, CoinSecond, and Me.
I probably mixed up some of the row/column/ordering/alignment, but theres an important idea here if you can ignore the small mistakes. I'll rewrite it and fix those mistakes soon.

This could be a major advancement in: Newcomb's Paradox, Quantum Pseudo Telepathy, I-Ching, Solomonoff-Induction, the Global Consciousness Experiment, and understanding of "space" and "time" and quantum physics in general, if the right experiments are done. Lets design some experiments.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff_induction

I'll quote my writing from above: "The exact definition of intelligence is a game between 2 players/symbols X and Y:
Its like rock-paper-scissors but with 2 choices instead of 3. Each player chooses X or Y then sees what the other player chose. If both choices equal, player X gets 1 point, else player Y gets the point. After many rounds, the player with the most points is more intelligent because this is the simplest form of pattern-matching and prediction."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Consciousness_Project is a large-scale quantum experiment that has been running for years at Princeton college. They have around 65 random-number-generators located across the Earth, and they use artificial intelligence (AI) to find patterns in the random numbers and match them to major world events. They say they are getting good results.

(I am planning with the project leader, Roger Nelson, about an audio software I will build for them for free to use with their existing data streams and stored data from years ago.)

I have a theory that their streaming random data can be used in combination with the other ideas in this section, to create some unusual experiments. They are only interpreting their data, but I have some theories on how to cause their "random" numbers to be less random at any time I choose. One of those theories is some specific ways to use the "Schrodingers Network Router" software described above, a software which I have not yet built.

[BenRayfield]

BenRayfield: My theory does not contradict itself because it says the universe does not exist.
PixyMisa: It's wrong then.
BenRayfield: Nihilism means "nothing exists" or the idea of "exist" contradicts itself (and would be irrelevant).
PixyMisa: Define "exists" in this context.

set_of_all_math = set_of_all_abstract_things

set_of_all_things_that_exist = complement(set_of_all_math)

When I say the universe can contain contradictions, I mean things like this example: The laws of physics are 1 way here but are different somewhere else, and something unusual would happen if an object from there moved from there to here, and it might happen gradually or instantly, depending on how compatible those physics are and if the boundary between those physics is discrete or continuous.

The theory of nihilistpanpsychism says there is only 1 kind of thing, therefore these things are all made of the same kind of thing: mass, energy, laws-of-physics, consciousness, space, time.

So you are arguing for a nonexistent and logically inconsistent Universe?

Waffle is too kind a word.

It means if you ever figure out a completely consistent laws-of-physics, then you could be right locally, but somewhere in the universe the laws-of-physics are different. Its not a contradiction. It the incompleteness of math.

Some people think the future changing the past is a contradiction, but that has never been proven to be a contradiction, therefore the word "contradiction" is not well-defined. I try to avoid ambiguous words because they lead to false ideas.

Recently? I guess, 1960 is recently.

On the scale of time it takes average people to learn things about science, that is recent.

Again, you don't understand anything you are talking about.

Artificial intelligence, logic, statistics, and the incompleteness theorem do not place any bounds whatsoever on the consistency of your thoughts.

It does if universe = all math.

Yes. You get an interference pattern rather than a simple random distribution. This also means that there is at least one location that is hit more often as well.

Yes

The chance (how often particles/waves are detected there) decreases as a result of something that most people's intution could not possibly decrease the chance.

Even were I to grant this, it would be, as so many of your statements are, completely irrelevant. What people's intuitions may or may not tell them doesn't matter. It's what we measure that matters.

I know its irrelevant, but most other people do not know its irrelevant, so I satisfied an irrelevant condition to allow me to continue to the relevant ideas so more people would understand.

I'd love to say "irrelevant" every time somebody says "hello how are you", but it just makes them repeat another standard statement. This is a bug in their minds, and we will figure out how to fix it eventually so they start conversations with their second sentence.

That's not what's surprising. What's surprising is that individual photons (and other particles) do this.

Yes. I forgot to write that part.

This is complete and utter nonsense. Probabilities are, by definition, between 0 and 1. If you have calculated a probility outside that range, you've done it wrong.

If you define "probability" that way, I'll just call it something else. I'll call it "the chance the particle/wave will hit the back wall if I add X chance to it, then subtract X".

Wrong, wrong, completely and irretrievably wrong.

Go back and add freshman statistics to the list of things you need to study. This is the very first thing they'll teach you.

The information in "freshman statistics" did not change when quantum physics was discovered. Irrelevant.





You can use negative probabilities within a calculation in some situations, just as you can use complex numbers when calculating the properties of a circuit in electrical engineering.

If the theory "universe = all math" is true, then all such calculations are part of the universe and, by definition, have a negative probability.

But if you get an answer that the probability of an event is outside the range of [0,1], you've done something wrong, just as much as if you calculated that the current flowing through your circuit was 3 + 4j amps.

Thats different than complex numbers. The square root of a negative number can be squared to become a real number. "j" can not. They are 2 different dimensions. You are talking about doing matrix math, multiple calculations at a time, compared to math on single numbers. Any calculation you do that only includes single numbers will result in single numbers. You created a problem by adding a "j" dimension therefore you had to fix it. You have not explained why its a problem for negative probabilities to happen in single numbers.


So where to they come from?

I don't believe-in "time", so that question makes no sense to me. This idea of "coming" means to not exist in the past and start existing after that.

Exactly. 'Coming' (Oooerr) is based on various locations in time and space. These are all artifacts of consciousness i.e. they only have meaning to a being capable of understanding 'here' and 'now' - the continual experience of consciousness.

Are you saying you think the theory of Nihilistpanpsychism is true? Thats only part of what can be derived from it: space, time, and consciousness are made of the same type of thing.

These give rise to ideas of 'what I have already experienced' and 'other places I have been' via memory.

Memory itself is subject to the normal laws of physics and as I understand things, is as reversible as any other physical system, that is to say, it makes as much sense forwards as backwards. The important thing to understand though is that memory only passes information in one direction. This means that at any point along the time-space progression there is information which is available via memory (the past) and information not available (the future). This creates the experiences/illusions of past, present and future and is often referred to as 'times arrow'.

If your brain can only experience and understand things from the past and present (not future), then maybe you should get a better brain. For example, some life forms can not experience and understand the past but can do that for the present. Should they be sure there is no past?

I like the video tape of a movie analogy; The whole tape exists all the time and all the narrative information exists on that tape continuously. However, if you play any part of the tape, the world it portrays is based entirely on knowledge of the tape that is to one side of the playing head. To play a part of the tape creates a past, a now and a future. This playing is like the process of consciousness. In principle, a tape could be played at multiple points at once using many heads. Each head would create its own now, even though they are all playing at once. Bear in mind this is an analogy!

If you replace "tape" with "all math", then thats close to what can be derived from the theory of Nihilistpanpsychism.

"Determinism" is everything thats completely predictable. "Nondeterminism" means all "random" and all "chaos" and all "free will".

Ok, though I wonder how anything of the latter class could exist since it seems, to me, to be self-contradictory as a definition. But fair enough, it is a definition.

If nondeterministic things did not exist, then you could not be only at 1 place at a time, and you would have to be at all places at once.

Its not a contradiction if size(determinism) = size(nondeterminism) and there is a 1 to 1 matching between the things in each set, but which pairs with which other can change nondeterministicly. There may be other ways for nondeterminism to be real without contradicting anything. That is the easiest one to explain because its symmetric. I haven't thought of any more.

Either way, we do need the definitions so we can debate if those sets are empty or not.

If nondeterminism actually exists. I note it does exist in math, BTW.Yes

If you rephrase this as "things that exist can be represented by abstract definitions or representations", then Ok.

I can say it that way if we keep the subset part. I'm just using set-theory. A set that does not "exist" (if "exist" means "can be experienced") can contain things that "exist". For example, the set of these 2 things: "a solution to the halting problem" and "yourself". That set does not "exist", but "yourself" does.

Math is symmetric.

You need to define symmetric for math as a whole, as you use it here. Symmetry is, of course, already defined, variously, in math.

math = complement(emptySet)

I've not said what exists and what does not exist yet. End of definitions.

If universe not equal mathThis has only one meaning to me: That everything in the universe, and the universe as a whole, can be 100% accurately modeled by things in math.

This I agree with. However, by your symmetry, are you suggesting that everything in math has a corresponding thing in the universe?

I think that goes way too far.

Yes. Now you understand the "universe = all math" part.

Max Tegmark is a professor of physics at MIT college. His theory is summarized as: "all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically".

The phrase "too far" can be viewed both directions. You started from ASSUMING that at least 1 thing exists, so you see a cost involved in more things existing. I (at least tried to) start with no assumptions and did not assume anything exists or did not exist, so I do not automatically have to add a cost for an infinite number of things existing. If universe = complement(emptySet), then that is a very low cost because its the simplest possible explanation.

I think you went too far by saying less than that specific infinite set is reality. Your view of the universe is extremely more complex than mine and explains less things about the universe.

Non-determinism, which can be modeled by math, might very well not exist in reality, AKA in the universe, that is true. Neither does the square root of i. Nor, arguably, the Cartesian coordinate system.

Some of those things are not in this part of the universe, but how do you know they are not somewhere else? My theory says they are. Why do you say its wrong?

But I'm confused. If math does not equal the universe, then that's a lack of symmetry? I interpret that as a lack of a 1-1 correspondence both ways. Is this correct?

No. I meant "symmetry" about the universe, not between "universe" and "math".

If my theory is true, universe = math, but thats not what I meant when I wrote that.

But if so, how is this lack of symmetry nondeterministic? How is it not implied by anything?If you knew something that implied it, you probably would have written the thing that implied it.

If there was something that implied it, then [the sum of that thing and the universe that implies] is still a subset of math and not equal to math, therefore you have the same problem on the bigger set you just created. Nothing implies that your implier exists.

That is a common point of logic that leads many religious people to beleive "god" is outside the "universe" and simultaneously that "universe is everything". Those people do not understand set-theory and should not be expressing ideas about set-theory like "inside" and "outside". If "universe is everything" and "god" exists, then "god" must be part of the universe.

And further, is this a reduction ad absurdum, where, since the lack of symmetry is (according to you) nondeterministic that, therefore, since the nondeterministic (thusly) actually exists, that nondeterminism must therefore actually exist (because that is an example of it) and therefore the universe, containing nondeterminism as well as determinism, is therefore back to being identical to math?

I'll quote from the first post in this thread. It explains the type of chicken-and-egg problem that nondeterminism is, if my theory is true. But because nothing exists, there is no "chicken" and there is no "egg". Its only an explanation of consciousness, if my theory is true.

If universe not equal math, then that lack of symmetry is 1 nondeterministic thing that is not implied by anything, therefore the universe equals math.

Math includes nondeterministic things. Nondeterminism is a strange-loop.


I submit nondeterminism is the opposite of a strange-loop. In tracing back causality, you either keep finding a prior cause ("it's turtles all the way down") or you run up against a mysterious cause-but-not-caused thing (which is what seems to be illogical.) But in neither case do you find nondeterminism causing itself.

If you can't prove that space and time exist, then the question is not relevant. The theory of Nihilistpanpsychism is about things that emergently form "space" and "time" without being restricted by them. Your question does not make sense to me. The idea of "cause" is nonsequiter.

"Now" always appears to be "now". (Actually, "now" appears to be a fraction of a second ago, due to the finite AKA non-zero amount of time required to process sensations and generate the conscious experience, but that's another story.) "Time" appears to be "now" or "5 seconds ago" or "30 years in the future".

If you smoke some crack, it will appear to be faster. Does that solve the problem? But seriously... I was talking about particles/waves, not the slow processes that information travels between many particles.

Travel is always relative to other things, even if it be just the energy you cast off that's going in the opposite direction, or the two halves of your body rotating around each other as you spin. So it's not a strange-loop.

Define "relative" without using any of the ideas that are unique to "strange-loop".

So you are saying time, space, and consciousness are all these self-referential loops? And therefore...what?

How does math = universe fit in? YOur "nihilistpanpsychism" is "nothing exists in reality, everything is consciousness"?

So the unverse <--> math, and therefore there's no difference between existence and the abstract world of math; they are one and the same thing, and therefore since consciousness, by subjective experience ("I think, therefore I am") actually exists, that everything out there must be therefore only consciousness?

Yes thats what can be derived from the theory of NihilistPanpsychism.

While that may be an interesting way to view it, I wouldn't put so much faith in it that I walked off a non-existent cliff.

I agree. Thats why I'm going to test it. I describe some of my physics theories in my post above this one. I will build some softwares, connect to other science experiments, and put up a global network of experiments (at no cost to myself since its open-source) to test some of the things speculated about in this thread.

By the way, I'm a professional AI programmer, too. And not just for government-paid-for 1-off studies, but for real, for-profit corporations. The fundamental problem of AI might be described as "It seems consciousness must be a purely data-driven process, yet, since it actually exists, it cannot be a purely data-driven process."

In other words, consciousness must be simultaneously purely abstract, yet cannot be since, ahem, nothing purely abstract actually exists.

You assumed something "exists" then proved something else based on it. Thats an assumption. Then you found a contradiction. The logical thing to do would be to remove the assumption and try again.


:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
To everyone, we can continue debating the theory of NihilistPanspychism a little more, but I think we should try to change direction after that and focus on the science theories and experiments I wrote in my last post. They can test some of the things that can be derived from my theory.

[dafydd]

You have an idea,not a theory.

[Manopolus]

My theory of nihilistpanpsychism includes the following:
* nothing exists
* everything is consciousness
* universe = all math

Sounds like some kind of mathematical version of Solipsism.

[dafydd]

You think that the I Ching works,and you call yourself a scientist?

[Fnord]

Doncha just hate it when people express their fantasies and claim to have uttered the latest and greatest in scientific "theories"?

Must be some kinda new breed of troll.

[Twiler]

Doncha just hate it when people express their fantasies and claim to have uttered the latest and greatest in scientific "theories"?

Must be some kinda new breed of troll.

I would like to point out that BenRayfield is at least making an attempt to engage in debate, which is preferable to the behaviour of some of the theorists who visit here.

[Fnord]

I would like to point out that BenRayfield is at least making an attempt to engage in debate, which is preferable to the behaviour of some of the theorists who visit here.
Well, that does place him a step or two above the likes of those who repeatedly post the same claims and attack anyone else who dares ask for evidence.

In BenRayfield's case, however, I'm not just asking for evidence; I'm asking for a demonstration.

[quixotecoyote]

Can I hit you on the head with it, or part of it? If I can, it is not abstract.

I can.

Therefore it's not abstract.



I see you've countered his Occam's Razor with Pixy's Mallet.

[dafydd]

Doncha just hate it when people express their fantasies and claim to have uttered the latest and greatest in scientific "theories"?

Must be some kinda new breed of troll.

megatroll,supertroll,fantatroll, any suggestions for a name?

[Fnord]

megatroll,supertroll,fantatroll, any suggestions for a name?

Furitroll -- One whose posts are made solely to make other people angry, such as a Neonazi posting slanderous racial epithets on websites dedicated to African, Jewish and Slavic cultures. From the Latin "Furi-", meaning "Rage".

Imponetroll -- One who poses as an expert on any given subject, when it is obvious from the context of his posts that he knows little or nothing about the subject that he professes expertise in. From the Latin "Imponere", meaning "Imposter".

Deludetroll -- One who sincerely believes most or all of what he or she posts, regardless of any and all evidence presented to the contrary. This type of troll is mostly harmless, as their motivation is one of being helpful in pointing out where others lack faith or understanding. From the Latin "Deludre", meaning "Delusion" or the "State of Being Deluded."

Technotroll -- A type of Übertroll. One who simply must demonstrate his or her knowledge of current, or cutting-edge technology, usually within the context of putting down all opposition. From the Greek; meaning both "Art" and "Skill".

Übertroll -- Anyone who disagrees with what another person has posted, just for the sake of disagreeing, and whether or not the Übertroll has previously posted the same thing elsewhere. The Übertroll may also be able to cite valid resources to support his or her position, or apply reason to demonstrate the other person's lack of validity in claim, or both. From the German "Über-" or "Üeber-" or "Übar-", meaning "Over" or "Above-".

[tsig]

I see you've countered his Occam's Razor with Pixy's Mallet.

The only thing worse than Pixy's Mallet is Darat's Banhammer.

[paximperium]

This thread is making me dizzy

[paximperium]

Furitroll -- One whose posts are made solely to make other people angry, such as a Neonazi posting slanderous racial epithets on websites dedicated to African, Jewish and Slavic cultures. From the Latin "Furi-", meaning "Rage".

Imponetroll -- One who poses as an expert on any given subject, when it is obvious from the context of his posts that he knows little or nothing about the subject that he professes expertise in. From the Latin "Imponere", meaning "Imposter".

Deludetroll -- One who sincerely believes most or all of what he or she posts, regardless of any and all evidence presented to the contrary. This type of troll is mostly harmless, as their motivation is one of being helpful in pointing out where others lack faith or understanding. From the Latin "Deludre", meaning "Delusion" or the "State of Being Deluded."

Technotroll -- A type of Übertroll. One who simply must demonstrate his or her knowledge of current, or cutting-edge technology, usually within the context of putting down all opposition. From the Greek; meaning both "Art" and "Skill".

Übertroll -- Anyone who disagrees with what another person has posted, just for the sake of disagreeing, and whether or not the Übertroll has previously posted the same thing elsewhere. The Übertroll may also be able to cite valid resources to support his or her position, or apply reason to demonstrate the other person's lack of validity in claim, or both. From the German "Über-" or "Üeber-" or "Übar-", meaning "Over" or "Above-".
Trollbaitertroll-a troll who enjoys baiting various other trolls just for lulz.

[dafydd]

Furitroll -- One whose posts are made solely to make other people angry, such as a Neonazi posting slanderous racial epithets on websites dedicated to African, Jewish and Slavic cultures. From the Latin "Furi-", meaning "Rage".

Imponetroll -- One who poses as an expert on any given subject, when it is obvious from the context of his posts that he knows little or nothing about the subject that he professes expertise in. From the Latin "Imponere", meaning "Imposter".

Deludetroll -- One who sincerely believes most or all of what he or she posts, regardless of any and all evidence presented to the contrary. This type of troll is mostly harmless, as their motivation is one of being helpful in pointing out where others lack faith or understanding. From the Latin "Deludre", meaning "Delusion" or the "State of Being Deluded."

Technotroll -- A type of Übertroll. One who simply must demonstrate his or her knowledge of current, or cutting-edge technology, usually within the context of putting down all opposition. From the Greek; meaning both "Art" and "Skill".

Übertroll -- Anyone who disagrees with what another person has posted, just for the sake of disagreeing, and whether or not the Übertroll has previously posted the same thing elsewhere. The Übertroll may also be able to cite valid resources to support his or her position, or apply reason to demonstrate the other person's lack of validity in claim, or both. From the German "Über-" or "Üeber-" or "Übar-", meaning "Over" or "Above-".

Which category does Ben come under?

[dafydd]

Hey,can I bend your ears with my new theory of contra-nihilist-pan-and-dish-wiperism?

[dafydd]

Ignotroll-One who argues from a position of total ignorance of the subject under discussion.
(I'm thinking of our cow professor Bjarne)