[followmeon]

If our reality consists of mathematical programs and the multiverse theory holds, then the theory of everything is a simple incrementing binary counter. Every possible binary string is ran on a Turing machine in a different universe.

The halting problem (endless loops) is sidestepped by being contained to a single universe. Also, apparently our universe got lucky as we get to live in an ordered universe, and not dissolve into nothingness due to a bug in our universe's binary code.

Of course, like "normal" mathematics, "reality" mathematics should also be incomplete. Furthermore, there is no way to know everything of the universe one is a part of, as this requires at least 1 bit more than there are available bits in the universe. But this still allows for the possibility of the universe itself being an inference machine.

Edit: Then again, I believe that mathematics is a mental construct, mathematics does not exist without brains, or if it really exists external to human minds, it exists in all possible forms: Humans do not discover maths as a whole, they cast a local net of subjective observation over it, and keep the things that make sense to our brains and are consistent within the current framework. Again, this does not preclude the possibility that our mathematical reality exists inside the mind of a giant supercomputer.

[Houshalter]

I think you've confused the representation with the computation. Sure maybe that binary number could represent a universe state in some encoding. But there's no computation happening to it. It's static.

>I believe that mathematics is a mental construct, mathematics does not exist without brains

Brains evolved through natural selection to survive in the universe we exist in. Ideas similarly "evolved" to be good at modelling the universe. If mathematics didn't exist outside of our head, it would be useless. If there are two apples on the ground, and two more fall of a tree, then there are four apples on the ground. This is true whether or not a human is there to observe it and count them.

[jonnybgood]

> If there are two apples on the ground, and two more fall of a tree, then there are four apples on the ground. This is true whether or not a human is there to observe it and count them.

I don't know about that. How close do the apples have to be to number them? If two apples are within inches and another a mile away, is there two apples or three apples? Define ground. Is it dirt? And dirt of what? If two apples are on Earth and one apple on Mars, is there two or three apples on the ground? What does it even mean to number things? What is a number?

My point is that it takes a human brain for establishing definitions, axioms, and conditions. Only after these have been established can we do math.

[followmeon]

> But there's no computation happening to it. It's static.

There are three possible answers to this: The binary string itself is a form of computation, with 1's being upwards fluctuation and 0's being downwards fluctuations. Something like a Boltzmann Brain. Second, Zuse-style, the universe itself could be a computer: A Turing-complete cellular automata, acting on the input formed by a random process. Third, our universe may be mental and the binary forms mental states.

> This is true whether or not a human is there to observe it and count them.

This may be true, only because human brains made it true. Objects, like apples, or apple trees, are somewhat arbitrary selections of parts of the universe (The human chose to wall off a certain subset of everything).

With a little imagination you could see the apple on the ground and the tree it fell from as one object. Why is a hair on my head part of the object "me", but the moment I pull it out, it becomes its own object? What if the apple on the ground rots away and turns to mush? Is it still its own countable object? What if a cow eats the four apples? Is there now no object, one object, or still four objects?

Your view is much closer to reasonable than mine though, because to prove that maths is a mental construct, I have to invoke scientific unpopular views, like intuitionism (maths is an advanced form of Wittgenstein's language games) or Indian/Asian mysticism (make me one with everything).

But the reason that intuitionism is unpopular, is not because we found it to be objectively untrue, but because of the very human element of Hilbert hating Brouwer's guts. If Brouwer had more clout then we may see the Law of excluded middle as untrue or unprovable, as it stands, we entered Hilbert's timeline where this law is deemed objectively true even outside of minds.

Then again, my view has no problem with "Spooky action at a distance", because I am not required to view two electrons as separate objects, and distance between arbitrary subsets is relative (owes its value) to the chosen metric, location and measurement equipment of observers.

If the sun rises I can capture this with maths and prove to you that the sun is not going down. But I forgot to add "the sun rises to me", I forgot the creative power of observation: Because for someone on the other side of earth the sun is going down. For someone in space the sun may not appear to move at all.

[agumonkey]

can we rollback that tape ?

[shruthijose]

it somewhat more complicated