Model of Reality

[Etritonakin]

As binary code represents the most simple possible set of logical states -which could then become more complex by number and arrangement -it seems logical that the basis of overall reality must be in some way similar -such as consisting of arrangements of only two basic interactive components.

It is possible that all things are made of the same thing -differing only by number and arrangement -which we perceive a certain way by the design of our body and mind -which are also made of the same thing as we perceive. That is actually true of each different atom -so why not at the most basic level?

It seems true that....
Any and all complex things must be composed not simply of more basic things, but of the most basic things possible.

I am wondering, therefore, if we could build a model of reality in cyberspace which required no external input once initiated -beginning with 1s and 0s and something to drive/produce differing arrangements of numbers of 1s and 0s -in order to understand the exact steps necessary to produce our present overall reality.

As evolution and creativity are both things which presently exist, I think such could indicate where each was required at what level of complexity. The conscious, creative mind is really just an understanding director of things already in motion/progress, but it also makes things possible which otherwise were not.

 

[Sunstone]

As fundamental models of reality, I'd begin with studying how the Greek or 'Western' notion of polar or dichotomous opposites compares to the Chinese or 'Eastern' notion of constantly interchanging non-dichotomous 'opposite's in the ying-yang model. In terms, of course, of their realism and usefulness.

On/off vs. maybe on/maybe off -- sort of.

The Western absolute 'no' versus the pre-Western, strongest 'no' in the Chinese language: "almost always no." The language at about the time of Confucius, had twenty ranges of words meaning 'no' in it. It still did not get to an absolute 'no'. That was no accident or act of negligence. They didn't need one to invent printed writing, gunpowder, assembly-line production of weapons, and ben wa balls, along with a some other things.

It's been argued that if the Chinese had precise mechanical drafting, they'd have kicked-off the industrial revolution. That, at a time when they were not an especially expansionist and conquest minded people, like they seem a bit too alarmingly more like today -- following their assimilating Western, polar-opposite political ideologies, and religious notions of proselytizing.

What goes around, comes around. Anyone on the right understand what Trump has meant and will mean to their kids and grandkids lives? Anyone on the left like to tell me how the neoliberal policies of the Democratic elite played no role in creating Trump voters? Too bad I don't have time to listen to your intellectual joyrides once again.

I think the two takes on opposites both have advantages and disadvantages, as any true tools do.

In a sense, almost all confusion is rooted in misapplying one or another intellectual tool to the task of figuring out what something means.





Someday, humans might learn to back engineer any popular idea through all its levels of insanity in order to arrive at an accurate and honorable view of reality -- simply by figuring out which tool was used in the wrong way at each step in that step-by-step process.

Humanity's greatest ever Age of Lies will have at last seen the ending of its night, and the light before dawn.

It would suck to be a neoliberal right about then. What joyful hope would be left of crushing and enslaving allegedly inferior people and their children by continuing to stonewall via lies the public's overwhelming demand for a living minimum wage?

Jeebers! That makes even me sad! Reminds me of my happiest days as boss of my own small company employing 13 full time workers. What a tragedy back-engineering ideas would have been for my management style!

 

[Regiomontanus]

As binary code represents the most simple possible set of logical states -which could then become more complex by number and arrangement -it seems logical that the basis of overall reality must be in some way similar -such as consisting of only two basic interactive components.

It is possible that all things are made of the same thing -differing only by number and arrangement -which we perceive a certain way by the design of our body and mind -which are also made of the same thing as we perceive. That is actually true of each different atom -so why not at the most basic level?

It seems true that....
Any and all complex things must be composed not simply of more basic things, but of the most basic things possible.

I am wondering, therefore, if we could build a model of reality in cyberspace which required no external input once initiated -beginning with 1s and 0s and something to drive/produce differing arrangements of numbers of 1s and 0s -in order to understand the exact steps necessary to produce our present overall reality.

As evolution and creativity are both things which presently exist, I think such could indicate where each was required.

Interesting. This immediately brought to mind a book I waded through almost 20 years ago by Stephen Wolfram (mad mathematical genius behind the computer algebra system/computational platform Mathematica) :

Stephen Wolfram: A New Kind of Science | Online—Table of Contents

About it:

A New Kind of Science - Wikipedia


Cellular automata, 'simple programs'. Once you start them off they create some very complicated and interesting things. Wolfram sees very profound implications, in science and really how to view much of the underlying physics of the universe.

 

[Etritonakin]

Interesting. This immediately brought to mind a book I waded through almost 20 years ago by Stephen Wolfram (mad mathematical genius behind the computer algebra system/computational platform Mathematica) :

Stephen Wolfram: A New Kind of Science | Online—Table of Contents

About it:

A New Kind of Science - Wikipedia


Cellular automata, 'simple programs'. Once you start them off they create some very complicated and interesting things. Wolfram sees very profound implications, in science and really how to view much of the underlying physics of the universe.


View attachment 48145


View attachment 48144

Awesome -thanks!

 

[Etritonakin]

As fundamental models of reality, I'd begin with studying how the Greek or 'Western' notion of polar or dichotomous opposites compares to the Chinese or 'Eastern' notion of constantly interchanging non-dichotomous 'opposite's in the ying-yang model. In terms, of course, of their realism and usefulness.

On/off vs. maybe on/maybe off -- sort of.

The Western absolute 'no' versus the pre-Western, strongest 'no' in the Chinese language: "almost always no." The language at about the time of Confucius, had twenty ranges of words meaning 'no' in it. It still did not get to an absolute 'no'. That was no accident or act of negligence. They didn't need one to invent printed writing, gunpowder, assembly-line production of weapons, and ben wa balls, along with a some other things.

I think the two takes on opposites both have advantages and disadvantages, as any true tools do.

In a sense, almost all confusion is rooted in misapplying one or another intellectual tool to the task of figuring out what something means.


Someday, humans might learn to back engineer any popular idea through all its levels of insanity in order to arrive at an accurate and honorable view of reality -- simply by figuring out which tool was used in the wrong way at each step in that step-by-step process.

Humanity's greatest ever Age of Lies will have at last seen the ending of its night, and the light before dawn.

It would suck to be a neoliberal right about then. What joyful hope would be left of crushing and enslaving inferior people and their children by continuing to stonewall via lies the public's overwhelming demand for a living minimum wage?

Jeebers! That makes even me sad! Reminds me of my happiest days as boss of my own small company employing 13 full time workers. What a tragedy back-engineering ideas would have been for my management style!

Interesting!

Really went off on a tangent there toward the end, huh? lol
My brain does that all day.

(The maybe off, maybe on reminded me of a sort of digital audio signal -pulses of only negative and positive, but at varying levels.)

 

[Regiomontanus]

Awesome -thanks!

You are welcome. It is a fascinating read (but good lord is it long, 1200 pages - though many images, as you can see).

I meant to add that, related to what you were saying (binary), he starts off very simple cellular automata, just lines of black and white cells with simple rules:

 

[crossfire]

Interesting!

Really went off on a tangent there toward the end, huh? lol
My brain does that all day.

(The maybe off, maybe on reminded me of a sort of digital audio signal -pulses of only negative and positive, but at varying levels.)

The maybe on, maybe off scenario reminds me of quantum probabilities (maybe?)

 

[ChristineM]

As binary code represents the most simple possible set of logical states -which could then become more complex by number and arrangement -it seems logical that the basis of overall reality must be in some way similar -such as consisting of arrangements of only two basic interactive components.

It is possible that all things are made of the same thing -differing only by number and arrangement -which we perceive a certain way by the design of our body and mind -which are also made of the same thing as we perceive. That is actually true of each different atom -so why not at the most basic level?

It seems true that....
Any and all complex things must be composed not simply of more basic things, but of the most basic things possible.

I am wondering, therefore, if we could build a model of reality in cyberspace which required no external input once initiated -beginning with 1s and 0s and something to drive/produce differing arrangements of numbers of 1s and 0s -in order to understand the exact steps necessary to produce our present overall reality.

As evolution and creativity are both things which presently exist, I think such could indicate where each was required at what level of complexity. The conscious, creative mind is really just an understanding director of things already in motion/progress, but it also makes things possible which otherwise were not.

There used to be a program called "life" i am pretty sure it still exists in some form today. It used binary data to grow/shrink colonies of pixels on the screen depending on specific rules.

Add to that "fuzzy logic", (@Sunstone hinted at it with maybe on/off) and AI rather than simple binary rules then that may perhaps be a start for your idea. Next add a couple of billion years to develop and voila... a digital simulsimulation of rality

 

[exchemist]

As binary code represents the most simple possible set of logical states -which could then become more complex by number and arrangement -it seems logical that the basis of overall reality must be in some way similar -such as consisting of arrangements of only two basic interactive components.

It is possible that all things are made of the same thing -differing only by number and arrangement -which we perceive a certain way by the design of our body and mind -which are also made of the same thing as we perceive. That is actually true of each different atom -so why not at the most basic level?

It seems true that....
Any and all complex things must be composed not simply of more basic things, but of the most basic things possible.

I am wondering, therefore, if we could build a model of reality in cyberspace which required no external input once initiated -beginning with 1s and 0s and something to drive/produce differing arrangements of numbers of 1s and 0s -in order to understand the exact steps necessary to produce our present overall reality.

As evolution and creativity are both things which presently exist, I think such could indicate where each was required at what level of complexity. The conscious, creative mind is really just an understanding director of things already in motion/progress, but it also makes things possible which otherwise were not.

It's an interesting supposition. However there is no reason I can see why a binary system has to be the basis of the physical world. Physics suggests that the fundamental units of matter may come in sets of 3, rather than pairs.

Yet there is an intriguing issue. Although the quarks have electric charge that is 1/3 or 2/3 the charge of the electron, why is it that the electron itself cannot be subdivided into thirds? There seems to be an unsatisfying asymmetry here. I have read that some people suspect this indicates there may be another deeper level to discover.

This way of thinking implies the same basic idea as yours: a conviction that the universe should ultimately be simple and symmetric. I wonder why we all think this.

 

[Kooky]

The maybe on, maybe off scenario reminds me of quantum probabilities (maybe?)

It's different. Yin and yang are opposites that nevertheless conjoined; in a way, they are closer to opposite sides of a coin, or two sides to an argument - polar opposites, but unable to exist separately, with each containing seeds of the other.

Quantum probability is a state of uncertainty between binary states (existence/nonexistence) that collapses once we interact with it, leaving one of the states as certainly true, and the other as certainly false. In truth logic, you could understand it as a state of pre-knowledge, where there is yet insufficient information to confirm either "true" and "false" states.

 

[PureX]

"Reality" IS a model. At least, that which we refer to as "reality", is. Because that reality exists only in our minds. It's a cognitive 'model' created from our interactive experiences with whatever is around us.

Once we recognize this, I think we are forced to wonder if that elemental binary principal that we our brains cognate as a foundation of reality isn't simply a mechanism happening in our own brains, that has little or nothing to do with what's happening around us. The human brain is a "binary" thinking machine. It cognates by comparing and contrasting, very quickly, and repeatedly, and in ever broadening context, whatever information the body's senses bring to it. So isn't it quite likely that this right-wrong/good-evil/yin-yang "reality" that we are perceiving to be all around us is, in fact, just a binary-generated model existing within our own minds?

I think it is. Yet, I cannot escape from or transcend my own binary mind to objectively ascertain the difference. So here I sit, in my binary-model of reality in my own binary-mechanism mind. Because it's the only model of reality I have access to. Or probably ever will.

There is a reason we humans have always viewed reality as duality. And the reason, I think, is us.

 

[crossfire]

It's different. Yin and yang are opposites that nevertheless conjoined; in a way, they are closer to opposite sides of a coin, or two sides to an argument - polar opposites, but unable to exist separately, with each containing seeds of the other.

Quantum probability is a state of uncertainty between binary states (existence/nonexistence) that collapses once we interact with it, leaving one of the states as certainly true, and the other as certainly false. In truth logic, you could understand it as a state of pre-knowledge, where there is yet insufficient information to confirm either "true" and "false" states.

It's not as cut and dried as that. Look at the I Ching.

 

[Etritonakin]

Awesome stuff, people!
This is like that time back when I was in high school and accidentally went into the wrong class with all the smart kids.

 

[Etritonakin]

It's an interesting supposition. However there is no reason I can see why a binary system has to be the basis of the physical world. Physics suggests that the fundamental units of matter may come in sets of 3, rather than pairs.

Yet there is an intriguing issue. Although the quarks have electric charge that is 1/3 or 2/3 the charge of the electron, why is it that the electron itself cannot be subdivided into thirds? There seems to be an unsatisfying asymmetry here. I have read that some people suspect this indicates there may be another deeper level to discover.

This way of thinking implies the same basic idea as yours: a conviction that the universe should ultimately be simple and symmetric. I wonder why we all think this.

I was looking for the most simple states possible -as complexity=reducibility -but a third "whatever" might be the driver for varied arrangement?

I'd imagine "we" aren't even close to the deepest level -but we're already way beyond my understanding here. I don't even know how you can have an electric charge without electrons.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There used to be a program called "life" i am pretty sure it still exists in some form today.

Yeah, program 'Life' still exists and is at work. Just look at the variations of Coronavirus.

 

[Spirit of Light]

As binary code represents the most simple possible set of logical states -which could then become more complex by number and arrangement -it seems logical that the basis of overall reality must be in some way similar -such as consisting of arrangements of only two basic interactive components.

It is possible that all things are made of the same thing -differing only by number and arrangement -which we perceive a certain way by the design of our body and mind -which are also made of the same thing as we perceive. That is actually true of each different atom -so why not at the most basic level?

It seems true that....
Any and all complex things must be composed not simply of more basic things, but of the most basic things possible.

I am wondering, therefore, if we could build a model of reality in cyberspace which required no external input once initiated -beginning with 1s and 0s and something to drive/produce differing arrangements of numbers of 1s and 0s -in order to understand the exact steps necessary to produce our present overall reality.

As evolution and creativity are both things which presently exist, I think such could indicate where each was required at what level of complexity. The conscious, creative mind is really just an understanding director of things already in motion/progress, but it also makes things possible which otherwise were not.

Sound like the matrix movies