A mathematical definition of the universe

This is a mathematical theory not a scientific one based on the premise that the universe is a mathematical structure (which follows from other premises--which may or may not be true /ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif ). So it's not predictive.
 
I was thinking about this.
If you will, give me one condition without a supporting condition that proves your statement.
We're talking absolute zero.
 
Vague statement baiting?
 
"Reality exists" is a condition without a supporting condition that proves my argument.

In the document, I wrote about how the "external reality hypothesis" leads to the mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH)... The argument still works if we drop the word "external".
 
Reality is a social convention mainly because the accepted term for general use signifies the popular perception.
The five senses create reality - without them you would have a void, true nothingness.
A conscious thought without the five senses would have nothing to evolve from in a "physical reality".
No input or variable to consider, then it would very likely be like reading one verse.

Yes, then comes into question, the grander scheme of things, possible further senses, the mind's eye, etc, etc.

Forgive me for my speculation, however I found it to be extremely important that the key word in your new retort be as mutually understood as possible.
After all perception can be a very personal thing on some levels as well - just look at the individual joy many get from reading novels, then the let down of another's literal interpretation when made into a screen play, etc.

Were you referring to a more "pop culture" reference?
 
What about that? lol
Everyone knows that anything is possible with the correct supporting conditions, which is why I asked previously for you to prove your statement without any such to back yours up.
Still, waiting
 
What about that? lol
Click to expand...
Indeed: what about that?

Everyone knows that anything is possible with the correct supporting conditions, which is why I asked previously for you to prove your statement without any such to back yours up.
Still, waiting
Click to expand...

Which statement?

If supporting conditions are necessary for anything to be possible, then 'anything' is conditional rather than absolute. A conditional nature of 'anything' actually places a limit on 'anything' so 'anything' really isn't 'anything'.
 
What isn't a verbal circle?
Click to expand...

If one looks up the definition of a word, one finds it defined in terms of other words. And those words are defined by other words. So it's a little like a chimp in an exercise cage--the chimp swings up and down and over and around the bars of his little gym, but he never gets anywhere. He does get proficient at swinging around his gym, though, and also exercise. :D
 
In a sense your circle made of polygons is also made of smaller spheres (atoms). A lot of what we see could be considered an illusion caused by a grouping of smaller items. By the way another example of your circle is a circle made out of wood because of its cells.
 
If one looks up the definition of a word, one finds it defined in terms of other words. And those words are defined by other words. So it's a little like a chimp in an exercise cage--the chimp swings up and down and over and around the bars of his little gym, but he never gets anywhere. He does get proficient at swinging around his gym, though, and also exercise.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The process of iterating the "define all words in this sentence" operation can go on indefinitely but with finitely many words in the language, eventually there are "cycles".

I call the words for which that operation is very short atomic. In other words, if you define a word and then define the words in that definition, and when you do that you get the original word.
 
You must have missed our prior convo' on building blocks and the reality of shapes vs. perception.

So, if that only applies to quantum mechanics, do you understand what everything is made of in that sense? Think macro to micro.
As well the context of this board
 
You must have missed our prior convo' on building blocks and the reality of shapes vs. perception.

So, if that only applies to quantum mechanics, do you understand what everything is made of in that sense? Think macro to micro.
As well the context of this board
Click to expand...

You sure everything is made of quanta? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/devil.gif
 
You tell me what science the theory of everything falls under.
Does the grand unfication theory fall under classical quantum mechanics?

Maybe you could clear these up for me.

Then we have the whole idea everything came from something called "a big bang", sorry, "the big bang".
What science deals with this?
Everything energy in motion? Frequencies?

I hope you're not trolling to pull me into a theological conversation.

I can tell already you are a fan of the arguement skit of Monty Python fame...
Very vague references in general, and dance away from the specifics or definitives
 
Back
Top