posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 09:36 PM
a reply to: machineintelligence
Why would you think nature can be represented accurately and completely with mathematics. It seems to me the opposite is the case. No matter how
much we think our mathematical representations for nature are correct, nature always turns out to be so much stranger than anything we could have ever
I think the analog nature of reality does not map well. There's always more details in reality than can ever be captured in the map. Your torroidal
mapping of our Universe could hardly be proven to be accurate or complete.
I think the Universe to be anything BUT machine like. Whatever the IT is that decides something is being observed in a double slit type experiment in
quantum mechanics does NOT seem like something that is represented well with mathematics. Based on experimental evidence, and contrary to our mind's
intuition, we simply do NOT live in a clockwork Universe with hard determinism.
It seems to me the Universe is more like a living creature where our feelings of joy and frustration are like orange juice being squeezed out of
oranges for the Universal mind to drink for breakfast. The Universe seems more spiritual than billiard ball physics.
“Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.” Niels Bohr, Essays 1932-1957 on Atomic
Physics and Human Knowledge
“A physicist is just an atom's way of looking at itself.” Niels Bohr
There's something strangely spiritual in the way consciousness exists in reality.
edit on 1-1-2020 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)