BlackSunGod

Maths being misapplied is not a problem of Maths themselves. That's our problem. I can express my point of view in another way with an example: Pythagoras Theorem will hold for any possible Universe that contain a single triangle in any possible sense (a physical triangle made of wood, a triangle of forces, etc). We express that relation with our human symbols but the pattern itself is eternal and necessary. All of reality must be like that. Explaining a Universe half mathematical and half not would suppose a bigger problem (how maths interacts with non-maths?). In my honest opinion, the problems that you talk about are more related to Science (and its relations with Economy and Politics) and not Mathematics. I put it in another way. You wake up tomorrow and you decide it's a good day to build a Universe. What is the better approach, to construct it physically or to program it? Economically it will probably be cheaper to program it, also easier to manipulate, to do trial and error, to correct mistakes, etc. This is just a thought experiment, I know it has no validity as a logical argument lol, but indeed our computer simulations of the Universe and our video games for example are just that: caricature universes programmed using mathematical languages. To think that we little stupid humans have found this solutions in the lifetime of our species and that the Universe itself (of which you and I and all our mathematical devices form part) hasn't found even more mathematically perfect ones... I dunno man, it's up to you what to think but for me the answer is obvious

Temporal frequency is t^-1, spatial frequency is spatialunits^-1 and so on. Therefore frequency in itself has arbitrary units defined regarding to the period of the original signal. Since you can decompose any given signal with an arbitrary number of dimensions into frequency components (just one dimension), I think it's kinda fair to call it a dimensionless variable in this context, but maybe I'm probably just using bad terminology if we get really accurate. It's obvious that frequency is not a dimensionless quantity like the Reynold's number and such.

Just nitpicking a bit here, but there are religious systems in which God doesn't explain reality but the inverse. God is the outcome of reality. Obviously in these systems God isn't a creator but is the outcome of all creation - the optimal, last state of the Universe. There are also systems like Panpsychism (states that basic consciousness is a property of all constituents of the Universe) that view God as a cosmic abstract mind instead of some anthropocentric bullshit (Panpsychism is one of the oldest philosophical theories, and has been ascribed to philosophers like Thales, Plato, Spinoza, Leibniz and William James.). Not trying to convince you of anything just sharing my point of view

I think we're having some understanding problems mainly because English isn't my native language. What I was trying to say is that even if there is some thing that affects our reality while being not physical we could still be able to do mathematical models about it. In my previous post I didn't say that information is dimensionless/frequency or whatever. What I was trying to say is that information can always be represented in 2 equivalent forms, as a space-time signal or as the frequency components of that signal (which are dimensionless). And this is nothing new and is consistent with the standard definition of information I think. You can also say that a spacetime signal and its frequency components contain the same information, if you want to be more accurate...

My 5 cents about it: don't believe. Believing things out of faith makes your mind rot. You have to think, and create your own system of thought based on reason and knowledge. Nowadays no one (not even the best scientists) knows 100% the answer of the big questions of the Universe: What is the mind? Is it mortal? What happens when we die? Is there a cosmic mind in some sense? And you can find reasons to support or reject these things. You don't have to believe. Just think, read, inform yourself about religion, science, philosophy, and create the most coherent system of thought you can, you don't need any revealed truth, any prophet or book, all you need is within yourself and your own judgement! And don't be Christian just because you were raised in a Christian environment. As some other guy said, don't let your mind be guided by emotions. Emotions are just an evolutionary tool that had a relevant use in the past, nowadays they're a bad instrument to use when trying to face the truths of existence. Use your reason.

Even if you are a hardware guy, you could spend 3 years trying to understand how a computer works, but if you don't know the LOGIC behind circuit design, how the parts interact, etc you won't be able to. Actually a good analogy for this is modern biology. Biologists were those hardware guys that dealt with all the experiments and field research, but until the fields of Mathematical Biology, Complex Networks, Bioinformatics took off Biologists couldn't make sense of the data and fully explain the experiments. In my honest opinion this will happen with the rest of sciences but in a more profound level. Even if we keep following the empirical approach, our models will be closer and closer to pure maths until we realise that reality consists of maths (or let's say numbers and their interactions) instead of matter, dark energy, spacetime or whatever. I would say that the reality we perceive is the output of the software, the software and indeed the hardware itself would be maths.

You said it, by definition you can measure it. That doesn't mean you can't study it with math and computational models.

If you are interested in an attempt of reuniting Math, Science, Philosophy and religion you should take a look at Mike Hockney's books. They're rather weird and very controversial and some people will tell you that they're not worth it, but I tell you that if you're interested in those topìcs you should at least read 20mins or at least 10 and then judge by yourself, although to have a complete understanding you have to read a lot more.

If you really want to understand a computer software do you study only the output of the program or also the language in which is written?

This is a really hard question in my opinion. Some religions are being picked on, and they deserve it. They deserve it because its irrational claims have caused deaths, the slowdown of the human intellectual evolution, manipulation, they steal money, rape kids, cause wars, etc. Some religions are so irrational that they share the same God (namely Islam, Christian religion and Judaism) yet you can go to hell or heaven (even if you believe in him) depending on which book you BELIEVE in. What the fuck. These religions deserve to be abolished and forbidden for ever. Also the politics that cause deaths and such should be abolished, and also the sports that cause deaths, steal money etc lol On the other hand, there are some religions such as Gnosticism and eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism), panteism, panpsychsm, etc that make a lot of sense and even some things that these religions said thousand of years ago are being proved nowadays by science. There are even higher attempts to explain the Soul, the afterlife, God, etc from a mathematical point of view, with a solid logic (there are more than 50 books on this subject alone written by the same anonymous group in the last 5 years.) But all of these are paying the price of being called "Religions", because when we think about religion we automatically link it to "faith, belief, irrationality, bullshit" thanks to Christian religion, Judaism and Islam. In the end, if we manage to construct a solid Theory of Everything, and it actually explains everything, it will be a religion by definition. It will be a religion because it will have to explain the mind/soul and if it exists and what happens with it when we die and before we're born, the laws governing the universe, the basic elements of the Universe, the beginning and ending of the Universe, it will have to explain or disproof God and a lot of other things that by definition are related to religion. So what we should do is forbid irrational religions and embrace and be inspired by the rational ones. Period.

In my honest opinion is the other way round. Maths describe reality = eternal truths. Science describes what our senses/devices perceive = contingent truths = empirical truths = mutable truths (and it does it with maths by the way, if we remove maths from science we get Alchemy or divination). As we refine our experiments and experimental devices, our models and results will get closer and closer to pure math (as we are seeing with quantum mechanics, mathematical biology, computational neuroscience, countless fields that seemed detached to maths in the past are almost 100% mathematical today, and the fields that were already mathematical became even more mathematical). We'll probably get to a point where we can unify all of the scientific knowledge under the banner of Maths and then remove the extra layer of Physics and the rest of sciences. I propose we'll just call Physics the Maths of particles, Black Holes and such, Biology the Maths of life, Chemistry we can call it the Maths of bigger particles and its interactions, Psychology Maths of the mind, etc. Sorry for the lack of originality I'm a scientist not a marketing expert ok?

I'm currently thinking about the tests that could be done. The most straightforward one I think it's a computer simulation and I want to do it as a project for my Biomedical Engineering degree if my teachers let me go the underground way instead of putting me to do the dirty job of their studies lol. Other tests could include presenting different stimulus to subjects, some stimulus more related to frequency patterns and the other stimulus could be typical signals like videos or photographies, then you can see if there is a difference in the activation pattern of both hemispheres (I think that under this theory you should get different activation pattern for each hemisphere depending on the type of the simulus, since the theory states that one hemisphere should be more efficient at dealing with frequency signals and the other with spatial ones, but it should be discussed further since frequency patterns would be also images or sounds, the point would be making super obvious that they're frequencies but even though I'm not sure). If this test gives positive results, it could be explored further by looking for differences between left handed and right handed people or people with brain damage in some hemisphere and the other intact. This theory predicts things that we see in real life: differences between left and right handed people, people with severed corpus callosum usually end up "having 2 brains" with different properties, people with heavy brain damage not loosing memory or skills (due to the holographic distributed storage of information). It also has potential for explaining scientifically things that until now fall into the category of pseudoscience (and that would be a victory) but are rather well evidence and even used like OBEs (did you know that the CIA used and studied OBEs?) and NDEs or synchronicity... Of course, I won't be able to convince you of this here and I don't want to either. This is a controversial theory and it is also a bit old, and although it makes a lot of sense it would need a revision ^^ I just want to discuss some radical theories and see if I can get something of value out of them

I think that for science to explain this one, it will have to reject the paradigm of physicality first. Otherwise, it will have to explain how can mind arise from non-minded dead particles, what is the light I SEE made of (and photons isn't a valid answer, since I don't see the photons, photons impact my retina but I don't see them, neural electrical currents aren't valid either since there IS a difference between electric currents and what I see, they can be related but they're not the same), and where that information is saved, how its accessed and retreived and a lot of other questions that are impossible to answer under the paradigm of scientific materialism. I just don't know why science always applies this equation non-physical = spooky = imaginary = abstract = nonreal = whatnot. Maybe if we just assumed that the universe has some non-physical aspect (just like information, which can be represented as dimensional/spatiotemporal or dimensionless/frequency) we could do actual science regarding these topics. That something isn't physical doesn't mean that it's unintelligible, it can be coherent with mathematics and logic still, but oh well, I guess that Science itself is its own Inquisition sometimes, and burns some currents of thought from time to time because it finds them spooky.

Yes, what I explained here is pretty simplistic when compared to David Bohm's and Karl Pribram original theory. By the way I'm not so much concerned by the beauty of it (although I think it's pretty elegant) but by the amount of phenomena that this theory could explain and overall having a consistent and coherent theory of the mind... I find it really logical: Biology is economy and a lot of operations are computationally cheaper using frequency components than whole spatio temporal signals. I would be very surprised if the biggest computational system of biology (supposedly the brain) hasn't taken advantage of that

Yeah sure, And our Universe is a collection of gas and hard balls spinning around each other. That's it. To the OP, if you're interested in split brain and alternative approaches to neuroscience maybe you can take a look at David Bohm and Karl Pribram Holonomic Brain Theory and also to the theory of the Bicameral Man. The Holonomic Brain theory basically states that the brain works with spatio temporal signals as well as in frequency domain. In the paradigm of this theory one hemisphere is probably more efficient at processing spatial signals and the other hemisphere more efficient at processing frequency signals. This could explain some things as the duplicity of consciousness in cases of split brain, differences between right handed and left handed people and even things that usually are closer to pseudoscience like out of body experiences and such. To put it with an example: 1. You watch a video. 2. Your brain translates the spatio temporal information into its component frequencies in order to storage the information efficiently, via Fourier Transform (this is the great question of this theory, how the brain or the matter itself performs it). 3. If you want to remember the video, your brain takes the frequency components and via Inverse Fourier Transform gives you back the original spatial signal. Of course this process would have some added noise. I just don't know how all of David Bohm's amazing theories have been rejected... It makes me sad how science sometimes is more similar to a popularity contest than to a search for truth and coherence.

I agree on everything said here but I find funny the way you separate "real things" and "abstract math", especially taking into account how closely quantum physics and maths are related, and all the historical and modern theories/currents of thought that disagree These are just some of the most notable examples, but there are others... Please show some respect to these "abstract maths", every time you separate "real things" from "abstract maths", a Schrödinger cat dies in Math heaven! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis http://www.amazon.com/Our-Mathematical-Universe-Ultimate-Reality/dp/0307744256 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoreanism

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-humans-evolve-to-see-things-as-they-really-are/ Well accuracy might not be the best word for describing the representation of reality that our brain creates . By the way that's just a random paper from the other day. What I mean is that for biological systems if it makes you survive, it's accurate enough. Neural systems are indeed very plastic and we don't even know how most of the subtle changes affect them, but most likely subtle changes in environment or substrate correspond to little changes in perception. So adding a delay in all the processing (that would correspond to the time needed to do the transform) probably wouldn't affect the system's survivability as long as the delay is below the range of the seconds or so in the worst case.

I think it's a really cool idea, yes. But I also want to know the thoughts of other scientists about it. Do you see it plausible, do you think this theory would agree with experiments, etc. Indeed I am more interested in the scientists that won't agree with this cool idea, so I can have another point of view of why it shouldn't be like this. Also I want more resources/similar theories/additional information on similar topics if possible. I've studied some neuroscience (I study Biomedical Engineering) and some models that try to explain things such as consciousness, memory, etc. But to be honest most of them (I'm lying, all of them) are very limited, even the biggest computational neural networks are very limited and we have a lot of computational power. I think this is not a technological problem but a problem of how we model the brain and maybe we should start looking at radically different solutions. I think this one is a very logical one (since working with frequencies is usually computationally cheaper that working with space time signals) and has the potential to explain a lot of phenomena that current models won't ever be able to.

Hey all! I'm a Biomedical Engineering student but I love Maths, Physics and Philosophy too. My knowledge about higher physics is very limited though, so I wanted to ask a few questions and see if I can get closer to the truth If I am correct, the Big Bang is the name we give to the events that created the world we live in. Before that, all space time and matter was condensed in a unstable singularity that some quantum fluctuation caused to explode. My question begins here: If in the exact instant before the Big Bang, neither space time nor matter existed - just a giant singularity, how can it fluctuate, given that force carrier particles exist within space time? How is the information transmitted if there isn't space, time or matter? How can a singularity tell itself to fluctuate or how can interact with something that causes that fluctuation in a universe in which no space time or matter exist? If this fluctuation really happened isn't it a proof that matter and space time are just one state of the Universe and that the Universe has some other state in which it doesn't need space, time or matter (yet in this state it can still be dynamic, show some properties and indeed give birth to space time and matter)? Also I'm curious to know if Black Hole Singularities are theoretically the same as the Big Bag (being the only difference the amount of mass they accumulate inside)? If you want my personal opinion (and this of course is not science, I hope it's OK to write it down here) I think it's time to leave the paradigm of materialism aside and try another approaches. For example there's a lot of speculation about Black Holes (from time travel to whatnot...), but I've never seen an author seriously discuss that a Black Hole could be just decomposing space time signals into frequency components for example. I think that the idea of a dimensionless frequency domain scares most scientists away but a lot of experiments (quantum entanglement among others) point in the direction of information (AKA frequency patterns) priming over matter/spacetime... Sorry if this is too speculative for this forum, I am aware of my limitations regarding the understanding of higher physics but I just want to engage in some serious but good mood scientific/philosophical discussion because these big questions have always bothered me!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory Hey all. I'm really interested in this theory developed by Karl Pribram and David Bohm. I found it pretty interesting although it received little attention at the time. Essentially this theory describes the brain as a holographic storage network which uses Fourier Transforms to storage/retrieve information. To put it simple with an example: 1. You perceive a spatio temporal signal (let's say you're watching a 1 minute video). 2. Your brain uses a Fourier Transform to decompose this signal into its constituent frequency components. 3. When you remember the video, your brain uses an Inverse Fourier transform to translate the frequencies back into a spatio temporal signal. The theory assumes that the brain or the essential components of reality are able to do Fourier and Inverse Fourier transforms and that the brain/the essential components of reality have access to some sort of frequency domain as well as to the typical empirical spatio temporal world we usually experience. The spatio temporal signals are a result of the interference pattern created out of the interactions of the frequencies (if I understood this theory correctly). I think this theory should be explored further, as it holds an enormous potential to explain things such as consciousness, recovering functionalities after brain damage and even things more related to pseudoscience (basically due to tradition/dogmatism) like out of body experiences, near death experiences, synchronicity... I'm interested in building a computer simulation based on this theory. So I want to hear your thoughts about it and please, if you have more info related to this, or if you want more info about this contact me