These perspectives are mutually exclusive, therefore I don’t think, the Universe is strictly causal. The only reason, why we are seeing’ it deterministic is the fact, the chaotic environment doesn’t spread the energy at the distance. By AWT the Universe appears like dense Perlin (scale invariant) noise, from which we can see only causal gradients, which are enabling the energy spreading at the distance.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/perlin1.jpg

]]>In mathematics one has input operation output, that is to say that the nature of mathematics is fundamentally causal.

That mathematics works so well (though not proof) may be taken to indicate that the universe is causal, but if the universe is causal then indeed “the universe has a reality independent of ourselves”.

But a causal universe does not sit well with many involved in QM (”The first is a nearly a given to most scientifically minded people”???)

The is also a reason to wonder if QM is complete, as QM leads to a philosophical collision between the nature of mathematics and why it would work so well to describe a non causal universe.

]]>No, it doesn’t run head on into Godel’s incompleteness theorem or Turing’s halting problem at all. Godel and Turing basically say that “there are some scientific facts that we will never know for sure to be true (, even in an algorithmic world)”. With a slightly off analogy: Concluding from Turing that the universe can’t be broken down algorithmically is like concluding from our inability to predict next year’s weather that weather can’t be broken down mathematically.

The limitations of an internal observer of the universe are not to be confused with the properties of the universe itself.

]]>You’re on to something. I’m no mathematician, but to assume that everything can be broken down algorithmically/mathematically seems to run head on into Godel’s incompleteness theorem or Turing’s halting problem.

]]>Indeed. I’ve always thought to be a major over-assumption. Math seems little more than a human means to abstract and explain the universe (math is bound by the universe, not vice versa), much the same way that language is used to abstract human expression.

]]>*Still arguable, of course, but his arguments are nonetheless interesting.
*

Yes, I have been following up on this with more reading. The “director’s cut” paper itself makes more sense than the above summary would indicate. I find it unconvincing in the end, but it it at least is attempting to address the core issue.

Taco, nice to know who is the referee for allowed postings. I sure hope I have not offended your infinite wisdom…

]]>there are rules building everything, even if we know the formulas currently or not.

you shouldnt reply on physics websites ever again

]]>This amazing pattern recognition capability allows us to classify the world by certain rules.

But that don’t mean the universe is built from those rules. ]]>

The Tegmark papers build exactly the bridge between those two apparently independent assumptions.

Still arguable, of course, but his arguments are nonetheless interesting.

]]>The idea that “universe has a reality independent of ourselves” and the idea that it must be fully describable via any symbolic system are two separate propositions. The first is a nearly a given to most scientifically minded people despite the fact that it is a statement of metaphysics. The second is, as far as I know, supported by no actual evidence or rigorous logical theory whatsoever and is simply an assumption.

]]>