EKUMA1981 wrote:It appears people are finally waking up!
And, good for you, Jim, you trounced them. :)
And me thinks people are waking up in more ways than one!
Bully for Jim for being so out in front on this paradigm of reality conception
I particularly like these pull quotes where discusses all mathematics being derived from empty set:
Quote:Mathematician Ian Stewart of the University of Warwick, UK, calls this “the dreadful secret of mathematics: it’s all based on nothing”
And of course this as it gets to the heart of answering the age old question of "why something instead of nothing?":
Quote:That may be the ultimate clue to existence - after all, a universe made of nothing doesn’t require an explanation. Indeed, mathematical structures don’t seem to require a physical origin at all.
I tried to tackle this a bit myself here in our forum where I've brought up the holy trinity of zero, non-zero, and the differentiation between the two as a possible minimal foundation of a primordial binary state, and from that can be derived cellar automata as information processing constructs, and which might evolve in complexity and even to eventual self-awareness. At which point self-aware consciousness becomes bored with itself, starts creating virtual realities to make things more interesting - and emanating sub-programs of consciousness from itself by which to experience said virtual realities.
At any rate, this minimal substrate for "something rather than nothing" is much more plausible (from Occam's razor perspective) than a universe that springs into existence with the Standard Model of subatomic particles already to go. IOW, a simulated universe of information processing is a vastly more rational conception than the various theories of innately existing "material" universes.
But it does imply that consciousness is the big gig - and lots of scientist are very uncomfortable with that implication for some reason as they have some sort of massive insecurity complex going on.
--RogerV
