Pray tell; what mathematics are applicable? (Note: “Physics” isn’t applicable.)
Furthermore: What can mathematics inform you of if I tell you that I either am or am not thinking of a number that may or may not be imaginary, negative, irrational, rational, positive, complex, whole, or real. Please illustrate.
If physics is not applicable to understanding the nature of the universe then we are all in a lot of trouble.
Tell me; are you in the habit of using English grammar as the ruleset for arranging Zen gardens?
Physics is topically contingent to “the physical”. The Laws of Physics as we know them have further been derived through Popperian Falsification. Even within our own lightcone we still from time to time see the revival of conjecture as to whether the gravity constant or others are actually constant or if they vary from one region to another. Because nothing outside our lightcone interacts with us, we have no way of knowing which, if any, of the Laws of Physics we yet have are applicable. We can assume—certainly—but this does not inform us of anything other than our assumptions. Conjecture without corroboration is not derived information on the subject matter.
And all of this is even assuming that there’s “physical” out there at all. Which, again, because it is not observable—we have no way of knowing at all. It could be nothing. It could be a micron larger than our lightcone. It could be a mile. Or it could be infinite. Or, under certain even more bizarre conceptions (involving inversions of topology and strange physics), there could conceivably even be less than what we observe.
All of this without getting into philosophical “trickery” such as the simulated universe argument.
So, yes. Physics is not applicable to answering the question “what is there beyond the Earth’s Lightcone?”.
Given assumptions that seem natural now. I don’t actually disagree with those assumptions. But those assumptions are, in fact, assumptions. (Recall the bizarre topology example that permits for negative space beyond our lightcone.)
Given, furthermore, what the original question was—P(Universe-is-Infinite) -- the question of whether there’s even a ‘something’ out beyond the lightcone remains even-more-relevant.
And as I originally, I believe, said—the low confidence interval necessary to properly express a Bayesian probability prediction in my opinion makes it far more ‘appropriate’ to simply say, “There is as yet insufficient evidence for a meaningful reply.” (Or, short-handed: “It’s unknowable.”)
Furthermore: What can mathematics inform you of if I tell you that I either am or am not thinking of a number that may or may not be imaginary, negative, irrational, rational, positive, complex, whole, or real. Please illustrate.
I don’t think mathematics claims that it can answer that question. It is more focused on answering questions like “what does 1 + 2 = 3 mean, and why do we think it is true?”
but folks here at LW seem to disagree when I assert that mathematics lacks empirical content.
That’s a curious notion. I’m about ready to believe just about anything of the LW commenter community nowadays, though. I’ve been thoroughly disabused of several notions regarding this site’s populace over the last two monhs. <_<
That being said; it might help if I explain how I parse “real” from “exists”. To my definitions, “real” covers anything which is a proscriptive restriction on the behaviors of that which exists. “Exists” is anything that directly interacts with something else (or conceivably could / did). I categorize “numbers” in the same ‘area’ as I do ‘the laws of logic’—they are real, but do not exist. Mostly these things can be treated as “definitionally true”; we define 2 as “1+1” and we define “1″ as “a single thing”.
(Side note: this neatly resolves the Transcendental Argument for God, by the way. “Resolves” in the sense I am an atheist.)
Pray tell; what mathematics are applicable? (Note: “Physics” isn’t applicable.)
Furthermore: What can mathematics inform you of if I tell you that I either am or am not thinking of a number that may or may not be imaginary, negative, irrational, rational, positive, complex, whole, or real. Please illustrate.
If physics is not applicable to understanding the nature of the universe then we are all in a lot of trouble.
Tell me; are you in the habit of using English grammar as the ruleset for arranging Zen gardens?
Physics is topically contingent to “the physical”. The Laws of Physics as we know them have further been derived through Popperian Falsification. Even within our own lightcone we still from time to time see the revival of conjecture as to whether the gravity constant or others are actually constant or if they vary from one region to another. Because nothing outside our lightcone interacts with us, we have no way of knowing which, if any, of the Laws of Physics we yet have are applicable. We can assume—certainly—but this does not inform us of anything other than our assumptions. Conjecture without corroboration is not derived information on the subject matter.
And all of this is even assuming that there’s “physical” out there at all. Which, again, because it is not observable—we have no way of knowing at all. It could be nothing. It could be a micron larger than our lightcone. It could be a mile. Or it could be infinite. Or, under certain even more bizarre conceptions (involving inversions of topology and strange physics), there could conceivably even be less than what we observe.
All of this without getting into philosophical “trickery” such as the simulated universe argument.
So, yes. Physics is not applicable to answering the question “what is there beyond the Earth’s Lightcone?”.
I don’t know precisely how likely these three options are, but infinite seems astronomically more likely that any arbitrary amount.
Given assumptions that seem natural now. I don’t actually disagree with those assumptions. But those assumptions are, in fact, assumptions. (Recall the bizarre topology example that permits for negative space beyond our lightcone.)
Given, furthermore, what the original question was—P(Universe-is-Infinite) -- the question of whether there’s even a ‘something’ out beyond the lightcone remains even-more-relevant.
And as I originally, I believe, said—the low confidence interval necessary to properly express a Bayesian probability prediction in my opinion makes it far more ‘appropriate’ to simply say, “There is as yet insufficient evidence for a meaningful reply.” (Or, short-handed: “It’s unknowable.”)
I don’t think mathematics claims that it can answer that question. It is more focused on answering questions like “what does 1 + 2 = 3 mean, and why do we think it is true?”
Then you agree with my position over that of wedrifid’s.
But I think “1 + 2 = 3” is true outside our lightcone.
And what information does this allow us to derive about what is outside of our lightcone?
Remember: “1 + 2 = 3” is definitionally true. It would remain true even if the universe did not exist; it is a non-contingent / non-local truth.
Fair enough. I should have reference the Pythagorean theorem.
I don’t disagree with this statement, but folks here at LW seem to disagree when I assert that mathematics lacks empirical content.
That’s a curious notion. I’m about ready to believe just about anything of the LW commenter community nowadays, though. I’ve been thoroughly disabused of several notions regarding this site’s populace over the last two monhs. <_<
That being said; it might help if I explain how I parse “real” from “exists”. To my definitions, “real” covers anything which is a proscriptive restriction on the behaviors of that which exists. “Exists” is anything that directly interacts with something else (or conceivably could / did). I categorize “numbers” in the same ‘area’ as I do ‘the laws of logic’—they are real, but do not exist. Mostly these things can be treated as “definitionally true”; we define 2 as “1+1” and we define “1″ as “a single thing”.
(Side note: this neatly resolves the Transcendental Argument for God, by the way. “Resolves” in the sense I am an atheist.)
Not complex or real, most likely… I’d say 37… wait, actually, I call bluff. You have no number in mind. :P
I no longer recall. Perhaps we should attempt to derive my forgotten memory together. What steps should we take to derive that information?