Philosophy Discussion Forums

Hello this is my first post and I was wondering a few things.

What if the world is a simulation made out of numbers and we humans are discovering bit by bit how we are made ? Because almost everything on earth created by nature has something mathematical in it. Like the rule of Fibonacci in the plant Achillea ptarmica, sunflowers, and even in our own bodies. So if at one point we have solved every single peace in the whole universe, will we know things like how we are created and how everything works? The problem here is that numbers can be so big and to solve every single peace in the universe is a lot of work we may never solve everything.
But what if there are no numbers? Is it something that humans have created to give logic to things? But the weird thing is how come that mathematical sollutions are right? Do we imagine that its right or is it really right? But then I still don't understand why it's seen in nature. I have so many questions about this and ill hope you'll have some ideas too.

Sorry if there are some grammatical mistakes, I'm not a native but i hope you will understand my idea.

Then all would be an order that obeyed the will of man alone. This is the idea of a machine.

Although, it is not so simple to work out the relation between that machines master and the machine. Does the master (the knower) have an ultimate ground, prior to the machine or equa-primordial?

But what are numbers? If you mean something non-physical in general. I've thought about that. If each one of our brain states can be represented as data and our conscious experience can be duplicated with information processing then it should be impossible to distinguish a universe that's built on physical objects from a universe that's built on the illusion of physical objects.

A common misunderstanding is that numbers exist beyond us. They don't. Numbers are logical abstract tools of identity we invented that follow the logic of our observed world. Math works because when it didn't, we eliminated it. Even then, math is at most an approximation of reality, not actual reality itself.

if the world is a simulation made out of numbers then the world is meaningless as mathematics ends in meaninglessness as the poet has shown.

gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-conten ... MATICS.pdf

Rinse and repeat.

You've got his number....

Wirius wrote:A common misunderstanding is that numbers exist beyond us. They don't. Numbers are logical abstract tools of identity we invented that follow the logic of our observed world. Math works because when it didn't, we eliminated it. Even then, math is at most an approximation of reality, not actual reality itself.

Precisely! This is further evidenced by the fact that mathematics is a not an immutable construct.

Preticours wrote:Because almost everything on earth created by nature has something mathematical in it. Like the rule of Fibonacci in the plant Achillea ptarmica, sunflowers, and even in our own bodies.

The phenomena came first, then the mathematics was layered onto it by Humans as a measure of the phenomena. Mathematics is not the framework of the phenomena, but merely the way we make sense of it.

My guess is the imagination created numbers, and the imagination created the universe and the world and all that we have become, and all we have come to know in it. Our maths will never fully explain it, for the imagination keeps changing our maths in order to facilitate it. Forever young, believing we know it all whilst never really knowing everything about anything.
However I must confess to myself, that what we have achieved through trying is nothing short of Gods without a pass to the heavens. Should we obtain one, time itself will change everything. We will be out of time, warped, displaced and somewhere else in time.

The great thinkers and the simplest ones have the same goal in life, to make it up as you go along, its just that.
Numbers just facilitate the dream until its real enough to matter.
I think of the universe like a moment, and in a moment.....there is all that matters. I guess.

Please refer to Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy and the puddle analogy.

I cant see an issue. IF the universes is made of numbers then fine. If its made up of gloopy stuff that's fine too. I have existence and friends and beer, and that's what my life is. What its MADE of isn't very important, unless the material matters (pun intended). Its a bit like quantum theory : its postulates have been called 'stranger than we can imagine'. Good phrase but it means I don't have to care about it: if I CAN'T imagine it there's precious little point thinking about it at all. Only when someone tells me that IF the universe is made of numbers something important follows, that beer will disappear for example, will I begin to care.

I agree with the post above. If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then I will treat it like a duck unless or until it starts to behave differently. Regardless of whether it's thought to be a duck made of numbers.

Note: the word "duck" could be replaced, if required, by the word "beer".

There are several issues that the question raises. In no particular order: What is the ontological status of mathematics? Are the mathematical Platonists correct or is mathematics a human invention? If it is a human invention then how do we explain how well it describes the world? Is it that if the only tool you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail? Bacon famously said that mathematics is the universal language. If this is correct do we have the key to unlocking all of life’s mysteries provided we have the right mathematics and enough computational power?


I think the introduction of the term ‘simulation’ is misleading. If the world is made of numbers then it would not be a simulation. A simulation entail the existence of something that it simulates.


Some claim that the laws of nature are mathematical, that they determine the relationships of non-physical entities that form the structures of what we call physical objects. Max Tegmark is a well known proponent of this way of thinking. The problem is that he still makes use of “building blocks” that, if I understand it correctly, are not themselves mathematical entities. His claim is that it is not about properties of these building building blocks but their relationships. They form structures that we perceive of and conceive of as physical properties.

Bryntyrch2016 wrote:I cant see an issue. IF the universes is made of numbers then fine. If its made up of gloopy stuff that's fine too. I have existence and friends and beer, and that's what my life is. What its MADE of isn't very important, unless the material matters (pun intended).

Beautiful!

Also, if we are in a simulation, then what came first to be simulated? Are our creators also simulations in an endless line of sims following the first hyper advanced life to appear in the universe? If we are sims then the regression problem remains, and we also should be working hard to investigate the Planck scale to see what "cheats" are available since that would be the domain of 1s and 0s, where the code lies.