Can the Universe Be Broken Down Into Pure Mathematics?

Can the universe be broken down into pure mathematics?

Arguably, yes, but that doesn’t disprove the existence of a conscious equivalent of light that is sufficient to itself. [1]

So, for example, Emily Dickinson achieved Nirvana. [2] The chemical reactions within her nervous system helped mediate that.  You can represent those chemical reactions with mathematical formulas. However, a mathematical equation representing Nirvana is still not the same as experiencing Nirvana.  (A mathematical equation representing the chemical reactions involved in the experience of an orgasm is obviously not equivalent to having achieved orgasm.)


Additionally, the mathematics involved would be unimaginably complex.

Levels of conscio-attainment from highest to lowest:

  1. The realm of spirituality beyond conception
  2. The realm of spirituality that still involves conception
  3. The realm of art
  4. The realm of philosophy
  5. The realm of science
  6. The realm of mathematics [3]

The higher levels of conscio-attainment involve higher levels of neuro-computation.  Irreducible complexity exists within computer and neuronal computation. [4] We can discuss irreducibly-complex computation where even a few parts of the machine or system out-of-place destroys functioning.

Advanced irreducibly-complex neuronal computation creates experience, awareness, and consciousness.  (If I put a pole through my brain, most of my brain is still intact, but I’ve destroyed enough of the machine that the irreducibly-complex programming required for consciousness is destroyed.)

It takes extremely high levels of irreducibly-complex computation to create experience, intuition, logic, awareness, etc.  It takes extremely high levels of irreducibly-complex computation to even allow me to read the words on this page.

The best computers can now beat humans at chess.  Computer programs for chess are more advanced than our neuronal programs.

However, the highest levels of elegance in computation go beyond how many simple computations can be done over and over again.  The highest levels of elegance in computing involve increasingly advanced levels of irreducibly-complex computations.

A high number of repetitive lower-level computations is not equivalent to a higher-level, irreducibly-complex computation.

(A million Playstation 1’s running at the same time cannot provide the experience of playing a Playstation 4 game.  Only an actual Playstation 4 can provide that.) Continue reading

Advertisements
Status

Scientists Will Have More Jobs and Personal Breakthroughs at the Bottom of the Totem Pole

In my levels of attainment I pretty much break things down into:

Spiritualists
Artists
Philosophers
Scientists
Mathematicians
Statisticians

As in any group, there are a proportion of wicked people in each field that ruin things for everyone. However, when people define themselves as human beings rather than classifying themselves by their job, they can break out of their respective fields and mingle more easily with people in various fields. This type of interdisciplinary work sparks creativity and restores human sanity.

These rankings are not mutually exclusive either; however, having great artistic intuition can make it difficult to do math and science. (In reality, everybody can do everything; they just don’t know that they can or their brain subconsciously hasn’t released the potential because it doesn’t see the benefit for the organism. This is just a hypothesis.)

In many ways, society upholding science as the highest realm of thought actually hurts science. It causes science to stall. Scientists would have more to do if they saw great intuition as something they are trying to catch up to rather than something they have already transcended.

People in power often make scientists feel like they are not people and not good at anything unless they are incredible at complex math and equations. The “bosses” will praise scientists as being above all others when scientists are properly in line and give out “gold stars” to force scientists to over-concentrate on one thing and nothing more when in reality scientists could do the same amount of work and more while having greater all around perspective if not under the constant stress being put on them. Society makes people working in the sciences feel insecure about who they are – making it more difficult for many science-types to have meaningful relationships. Again, it helps grind people down and force them to be nothing more than pure math and equations. Invariably, when scientists run out of things to do, people in power discard them and look for something else more useful.

Status

Philosophy and Science

I was just reading an article on “Freshly Pressed” discussing how some philosophers argue that philosophy is a branch of science.  On the contrary, I would argue that science is merely a branch or extension of philosophy.

Einstein said Science, Art, and Religion are all part of the same tree.

I would like to think of spirituality as the trunk, art as one big branch, philosophy as another and then math and science making up all the smaller stems and twigs.
Also, I prefer the word spirituality over religion now because religion sounds too dogmatic from so much past aggression. Too much dogmatism destroys true art and science and turns spirituality into something that divides rather than unites.

I understand my life is absurd

This is why it’s so important to make a distinction between the enlightenment philosophers of Europe and the enlightenment of people like Gautama Buddha.

(I should double check the exact details, but to the best of my recollection:) Noam Chomsky talked about philosophers during the enlightenment era in France bringing in a layperson off the street and beating a dog in front of her and laughing at the woman’s apprehension because of her poor understanding of ‘nature.’ European enlightenment can allow for despicable hypocrisy on the part of the philosopher who can say it’s okay to do this to others since the universe is all mechanics anyway, but would never allow such things to occur to himself.

Within Indian sects such as the Jains, you get something very different. Someone within these sects might make the statement that the material world is not important, but they internalize this notion and become one with this level of consciousness. The perspective includes themselves and they are not separated from such things like the European philosophers were. That’s why some Jains are even willing to let themselves die of starvation. Many of the European philosophers would have used arguments about how it’s fine to let others die of starvation since all things are mechanical anyway, but would also say and do anything to avoid the same fate for themselves.

(Note: I clarified an ambiguity: I implied before that Jains see the world as “nothing.” Jains believe there was always “something” inherently, but that the material world is not of great importance.)

thesoleescapist's Blog

Interestingly enough, god must have read my blog post from yesterday. I didn’t make a magical overnight transformation of character, but I did finally come to accept the issues in my life. They didn’t go away but I definitely felt more at peace with them today than before.
Today, I also was introduced to the philosophical idea of absurdism. It was then that I realized that I live an absurd life. For those who read this post that have also read kirkegaard’s fear and trembling, I am a knight of infinite resignation who longs to be a knight of faith. My plea to god yesterday to live a life through love was more like a wish to be transcendent and have a better understanding of life, the universe, and meaning.
Philosophy is great but it’s just ideas and thoughts. I want to feel the higher power of the universe move…

View original post 12 more words