Thread 24871282

why is there forces, particles. exclusion principle, half lifes & radiation?
why do we have bones, nervous systems, neural patterns & why do our eyes do that thing where they're temporarily colorblind if shut for too long?
what sets the rules, and why?

>>24871282 (OP)
haha OP I love froggo XD

>>24871282 (OP)
I'm partial to the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, which basically says that self-consistent sets of axioms have all their consequent truths true even without any physical reality at all, and hence—reality. Whether via extant Turing tape type arguments or whatever state machines you want to use for analogies.

But really, who knows? Intractable and we have thousands of years of people asking this question.

>>24871282 (OP)
Because there is an order of ultramicroscopic and ultramacroscopic entities that are too subtle on the hand and too diffuse on the other to observe. Our knowledge of physics is limited by what we observe, we have to build bigger and bigger particle colliders to ascertain the effects and such small scales, and we can't create a theory of quantum gravity because it's impossible to observe the inside of a black of hole or the early universe where quantum gravity effects would have actually been significant. Even if we built a planet sized particle collider, we still couldn't observe the true causes of the reality we experience. We have to accept the fact that Lovecraft was right. There are beings beyond our comprehension that are manufacturing our reality, patterns of behavior in unobservable entities become "laws" which we reify as some kind of mathematical truth. We cling to these mathematical laws and even claim that they are all that exist as in >>24871321 merely because we can't do any better. The Skeptic philosopher and doctor Sextus Empiricus stated that attempting to know the cause of a disease is impossible because nature is incomprehensible, and therefore we should only try to attempt to treat the symptoms of the disease. For his time, he was right, they had no microscope, and thus couldn't see any pathogenic microorganisms; their theories about the four humors only produced harmful practices such as bloodletting and they would have done better to content themselves with treating only the symptom. Today, in our arrogance, because we discovered the microscope, we think that we can observe everything. But the reality is that the physicists, with their massive particle colliders and electron microscopes, are not observing the cause, they are observing only the symptom.

>>24871342
Why I particularly like the MUH is that it gives a necessary and sufficient basis for reality, which is non-reality with inevitable manifestation. Of course I'm skeptical of any answer that conveniently fills every gap, but I don't think I can for a moment imagine that reality just is and has no reason for being. I'm fine with gods and higher realities, but why are they, then? Even if you accept infinite regress as sound, justification is needed as to why is there anything at all? I say because universal logic (or "math") has to be constructible.

>>24871379
read Kant. The need for a ground for reality is an illusion, an attempt to apply the rules of thought to something which it does not apply.
The only philosopher I saw try to seriously explain why anything exists in a post-kantian world was nicholas rescher in his book on explaining existence where he tries to revive leibnizianism through some kind of weird hierarchical ontology of potentialities and laws where things eventually get actualized into existence when its determined that they are the "best" things that can exist. I think that this is still retarded, but it's infinitely better than "mathematical universe" which based on a reification of completely empty concepts. The entire nature of mathematical concepts is that they are indifferent to what they are applied to, it doesn't matter if you count apples or oranges. So mathematical universe can only explain at best why a universe with the particular mathematical properties it has exists, but it can't explain why that universe has the non-mathematical properties it does. "blue" is not a mathematical object, nor is "pain." Also, it's still just based on a baseless assertion, that "consistency = existence," and this assertion itself cannot be explained or proved within a mathematical framework, because the meaning of the word "existence" itself can't be explained through mathematics.
At best, "mathematical universe" is an absolute nightmare universe, where all the horrors and infinite suffering beyond your comprehension exists just because it is suffering. I don't see why anyone would want to live in this universe, or how accepting that this is what the universe is is worth it to explain existence. I'd rather not explain existence.

>>24871436
>exists just because it is suffering
just because it is consistent*

>>24871436
Sure, I've been meaning to read Kant for some time anyway. And yes, the thing I suggested means that there are simultaneously (technical term) uncountable realities as whatever state machine-like manifestations, for every consistent configuration of data. And again, yes, totally unprovable, just as everything ontological is.

...On qualia and such... I don't see why a complex enough representation couldn't have elements "believe" they see "blue" or "feel pain." One step of the particular reality can contain as much data as necessary, arbitrarily much. I don't believe consciousness is anything magical or unrepresentable by data. Anyway, I'll read Kant and see if I come out with my mind changed in some way. I doubt it can undo my desire to ground reality in something. I can't see how given, say, any model containing the Peano axioms, which is just conceptual, 1+1=2 wouldn't follow even without reality, and therefrom the rest.

>>24871465
But yes, I know: it's like I'm trying to convince myself that every character in a movie is alive, and just the fact of the video-representation is enough for that. It's pretty out there.

>>24871465
>I doubt it can undo my desire to ground reality in something.
according to Kant it won't, he called this the transcendental illusion which remains even after you realize it is an illusion
>I can't see how given, say, any model containing the Peano axioms, which is just conceptual, 1+1=2 wouldn't follow even without reality, and therefrom the rest.
I don't really know what you're saying here, but regardless of the nature of mathematical entities or lack thereof, I think that math and subjective existence are probably independent or totally different kinds of things, and the existence of one doesn't necessarily follow from the other. Not everything has to exist in the same way, and if some things come into existence inexplicably, other things might as well be able to do so independently.

>>24871482
(which is not to say that beings can exist without math i.e. math could be a necessary but not sufficient condition for other things to exist)

>>24871488
math is a construct and has been utterly useless to our attempts of serious interstellar spaceflight or machine intelligence or any other fundamental questions of reality, so there must be something to precede math, the universe is fundamentally an aesthetic choice

>>24871536
Realise that I'm talking about math in the very most basic axiomatic foundations. A hair's width beyond pure logic. The immediate consequences of logic and set theory. Everything we have is based on ZFC, and everything constructible is nothing more than a few axioms on combining sets around. I do believe you can encode *material* reality in data, and all representable data is mathematizable. I'm not talking in the sense of, "can we solve problems using math."

>>24871282 (OP)
The Will

>>24871465
>I don't believe consciousness is anything magical or unrepresentable by data.
Circular reasoning. There is nothing about data that is discoverable via the senses. You set out to prove the existence of data by pointing to paper and ink. I see no data. I only see paper and ink.

>>24871282 (OP)
Life, uh, finds a way.