Modelling gods mathematically.

[Heywood]

In another thread Pickup_shonuff makes this interesting point.

Many "simple and elegant" mathematical models of our current Universe are highly suggestive of a multiverse.

No mathematical models suggest a giant mother brain that thinks the Universe into being.

The fact that there are no known mathematical models of an intellect that thinks the Universe into being does not bother me. The reason it doesn't bother me is that I know such models exist...but they haven't been discovered yet.

Imagine a stick man. Now imagine that stickman doing jumping jacks. You've just thought an imaginary stickman doing jumping jacks into being. In principle, a mathematical model of your brain can be constructed. That mathematical model of your brain could then be modified so that it describes a more capable brain....say a brain that can imagine the world of Skyrim in all its detail with all it characters going about their business including that guard who constantly complains about his knee. But why stop there? Couldn't that mathematical model be modified further still to be even more capable? I don't see why it couldn't. I don't see why a mathematical model couldn't in principle be constructed that describes a brain which could simulate our universe in every detail. I don't see why a mathematical model couldn't in principle be constructed that describe a brain which could simulate a universe much more complex than ours.

[MindForgedManacle]

...What? Do you believe God is a massive brain? Remember, modelling something has to do with developing a mathematical description that purports to map onto and explain reality.

Minds aren't purely algorithmic as far as we can tell at this point (unless I'm really forgetting something; Rasetsu knows a lot more on te mind than I). Hence talk of minds "simulating" things is just nonsense. Minds may consider things, but actual simulation is different from merely considering them, as it lacks any real rigor or detail. I'm currently considering a situation in my mind with two people throwing a ball. But am I simulating that in my mind? No. I'm not mentally sertting up what the relevant forces being applied are, what the particle interactions are like, etc. This is no kind of simulation I'm aware of.

[Chas]

In another thread Pickup_shonuff makes this interesting point.

Many "simple and elegant" mathematical models of our current Universe are highly suggestive of a multiverse.

No mathematical models suggest a giant mother brain that thinks the Universe into being.

The fact that there are no known mathematical models of an intellect that thinks the Universe into being does not bother me. The reason it doesn't bother me is that I know such models exist...but they haven't been discovered yet.

Imagine a stick man. Now imagine that stickman doing jumping jacks. You've just thought an imaginary stickman doing jumping jacks into being. In principle, a mathematical model of your brain can be constructed. That mathematical model of your brain could then be modified so that it describes a more capable brain....say a brain that can imagine the world of Skyrim in all its detail with all it characters going about their business including that guard who constantly complains about his knee. But why stop there? Couldn't that mathematical model be modified further still to be even more capable? I don't see why it couldn't. I don't see why a mathematical model couldn't in principle be constructed that describes a brain which could simulate our universe in every detail. I don't see why a mathematical model couldn't in principle be constructed that describe a brain which could simulate a universe much more complex than ours.

Models are not discovered, they are created. They don't exist on some Platonic plane awaiting human apprehension.

A model comes about by applying mathematics to facts and evidence.
So, until we have evidence of that "intellect that thinks the Universe into being", there will be no model.

[tor]

Heywood why so much fail?
The models can be created but they can also be wrong. Which is why experiments are performed to see if they match reality.

[Senshi]

In another thread Pickup_shonuff makes this interesting point.

Many "simple and elegant" mathematical models of our current Universe are highly suggestive of a multiverse.

No mathematical models suggest a giant mother brain that thinks the Universe into being.

The fact that there are no known mathematical models of an intellect that thinks the Universe into being does not bother me. The reason it doesn't bother me is that I know such models exist...but they haven't been discovered yet.

Imagine a stick man. Now imagine that stickman doing jumping jacks. You've just thought an imaginary stickman doing jumping jacks into being. In principle, a mathematical model of your brain can be constructed. That mathematical model of your brain could then be modified so that it describes a more capable brain....say a brain that can imagine the world of Skyrim in all its detail with all it characters going about their business including that guard who constantly complains about his knee. But why stop there? Couldn't that mathematical model be modified further still to be even more capable? I don't see why it couldn't. I don't see why a mathematical model couldn't in principle be constructed that describes a brain which could simulate our universe in every detail. I don't see why a mathematical model couldn't in principle be constructed that describe a brain which could simulate a universe much more complex than ours.

Imagine a stick man. Now imagine that stickman doing jumping jacks. You've just thought an imaginary stickman doing jumping jacks into being.

No, no matter how hard I imagine him he is nowhere to be found

I don't see why it couldn't. I don't see why a mathematical model couldn't in principle be constructed that describes a brain which could simulate our universe in every detail.

Because not everything in the universe can be quantified, some properties are qualitative not quantitative. This is why artificial intelligence is limited because you can't get a computer to understand it is being loved in terms of 0 and 1.

[LostLocke]

Models are not discovered, they are created. They don't exist on some Platonic plane awaiting human apprehension.

A model comes about by applying mathematics to facts and evidence.
So, until we have evidence of that "intellect that thinks the Universe into being", there will be no model.

^This

Math is something that describes reality.
Math isn't in itself reality.

[max-greece]

I'm thinking of a fire breathing dragon engulfing a unicorn in flames.

Fuck me - they exist.

Nice try.

[Heywood]

Minds aren't purely algorithmic as far as we can tell at this point (unless I'm really forgetting something; Rasetsu knows a lot more on te mind than I). Hence talk of minds "simulating" things is just nonsense. Minds may consider things, but actual simulation is different from merely considering them, as it lacks any real rigor or detail. I'm currently considering a situation in my mind with two people throwing a ball. But am I simulating that in my mind? No. I'm not mentally sertting up what the relevant forces being applied are, what the particle interactions are like, etc. This is no kind of simulation I'm aware of.

You consider the situation of two people throwing a ball and believe it is not a simulation because it lacks any real rigor or detail but you fail to consider that the reason it lacks rigor or detail is because your brain is incapable of providing it. If a more capable brain provided all those things you claim are lacking, wouldn't it then meet your definition of a simulation?

---

Models are not discovered, they are created. They don't exist on some Platonic plane awaiting human apprehension.

A model comes about by applying mathematics to facts and evidence.
So, until we have evidence of that "intellect that thinks the Universe into being", there will be no model.

I tend to think that the Mandelbrot set or the Fibonacci sequence existed prior Benoit Mandelbrot or Leonardo of Pisa. But the debate on whether math is invented or discovered is really just a distraction that takes us away from the real question.

Can, in principle, a mathematical model of a brain capable of simulating a universe such as ours be created?

I don't see why it can't.

[tor]

Minds aren't purely algorithmic as far as we can tell at this point (unless I'm really forgetting something; Rasetsu knows a lot more on te mind than I). Hence talk of minds "simulating" things is just nonsense. Minds may consider things, but actual simulation is different from merely considering them, as it lacks any real rigor or detail. I'm currently considering a situation in my mind with two people throwing a ball. But am I simulating that in my mind? No. I'm not mentally sertting up what the relevant forces being applied are, what the particle interactions are like, etc. This is no kind of simulation I'm aware of.

You consider the situation of two people throwing a ball and believe it is not a simulation because it lacks any real rigor or detail but you fail to consider that the reason it lacks and rigor or detail is because your brain is incapable of providing it. If a more capable brain provided all those things you claim are lacking, wouldn't it then meet your definition of a simulation?

---

Models are not discovered, they are created. They don't exist on some Platonic plane awaiting human apprehension.

A model comes about by applying mathematics to facts and evidence.
So, until we have evidence of that "intellect that thinks the Universe into being", there will be no model.

I tend to think that the Mandelbrot set or the Fibonacci sequence existed prior Benoit Mandelbrot or Leonardo of Pisa. But the debate on whether math is invented or discovered is really just a distraction that takes us away from the real question.

Can, in principle, a mathematical model of a brain capable of simulating a universe such as ours be created?

I don't see why it can't.

You can make a lot of models of things which don't exist.

[Heywood]

You can make a lot of models of things which don't exist.

Agreed.

A coherent model of a multiverse doesn't say anything about the actual existence of said multiverse until there is some supporting observation.