[justifier]

i'd tend to agree with this proposition, but i was asking because i wanted to have my views challenged

i rarely get an opportunity to debate the philosophy of mathematics and i was trying to use this article about this common found mathematical object whose form expresses that computation explicitly to open a dialogue in that capacity

with that in mind, what are you trying to say philosophically with your question?

from your question i am inferring.. perhaps incorrectly, feel free to correct me.. that you think all phenomena are computed

what are the philosophical consequence of such a view?

Realism is the correct philosophical view? Formalism? Some other?

[colordrops]

I wasn't really looking at it from a philosophical perspective, and I'm a layman at philosophy, and don't know the difference between Realism and Formalism. And actually I don't believe EVERYTHING is following exact rules, which is why I posed my comment as a question. I do believe there is at least a subset of reality that follows rules, which is why math and science works, and most daily phenomena that surround us are subject to those rules. In fact if you believe you found something that is not, you'll be called a nut job by most scientifically minded people. That being said, I'll reveal my own belief, and that is that the layer underneath our clockwork world could be governed by a different set of rules or perhaps no rules at all. I don't have much evidence for that other than psychedelic experience and wishful thinking, but it seems odd to me that there are any rules at all in the first place, rather than an infinitely malleable canvas, so my intuition tells me that our experience is a purposeful limitation on that rule-free layer for some unknown or unknowable purpose.