# Help !!! Is Reality Math or Experiments ?

I have a problem: is reality just the math describing it or is it the experiments that measure it ? I am thinking of physics of course, but more in general, I have the impression that after all is said and done, math, its equations, models, all of the best constructions up to Quantum Electrodynamics is just a good APPROXIMATION, a good instrument to use, to manipulate, but it has no relationship at all to the real physical world of Mass - Energy and Matter manipulating and interacting instantaneously (and self manipulating) with itself and chunks of itself.

If math is just a good approximation, just a good model, but nothing more, then why so much importance to unified theories and grand schemes and theories in physics ? It is just nice designs we make, but reality in the end is simply measurement, and measurements have errors, maybe after 30 decimal points, but measurements and raw numbers are all we have. And after a given precision, our math and models simply become useless, are not reality, are nothing at all, but nice ways to compress information in a tidy way, that oddly our mind and language and logic have found appropriate.

A modified mind may find another instrument just as good, or even more precise, but even if I have trillions of decimal points of precision where experiment and formula (or most likely calculations on computers by numerical methods since most differential equations describing physics do not have analytical solutions) coincide what does that tell me ?

Reality (or Matter, or Mass - Energy) is the difference that is left between our math and the experimental measurements, otherwise reality would be a completely metaphysical abstraction, a platonic entity, a pure ghost and cloud of sequence of symbols with no substance.

Which came first, the effects, or the math used in an attempt to describe the effects?
But also,
Which came first, the effects, or the experiments used to verify the math/reasoning?

Reality is the effects (experiment or no, math or no).

Existence == that which has affect.

From:

"The first stunning success of Newtonian (classical) physics
was Newton’s ability to apply his laws of motion and his law of universal
gravitation to predict the motions of the planets and other heavenly
bodies, such as comets. Newton was fortunate in that in our solar system
the sun is much more massive than any of the planets, and therefore the
problem of the motion of the planets nearly breaks down to a bunch of two-
body problems. It turns out that if three bodies are interacting we cannot
solve the equations of motion exactly, except in some special limiting
cases. Newton had a terrible time trying to predict the motion of our moon
accurately since both the earth and the sun interact strongly with the
moon, which makes it one of the dreaded three body problems. Since we
can’t solve a three body problem analytically (which means with just pencil
and paper giving simple mathematical expressions that are easy to
evaluate), consider how much worse it is when there are lots of interacting
bodies. There is a good book written on the subject by Ivars Peterson
entitled “Newton’s Clock.” I recommend it highly. Computers, in a sense,
get us out of some of this problem. Even though we can’t compute solutions
analytically for N body problems, we can compute the solutions to Newton’s
laws of motion for N bodies interacting gravitationally with arbitrary
precision. But there is a catch. It turns out that many systems that you
might study have properties that lead to a very high sensitivity in their
evolution to vanishingly small differences in their initial state.
Consider balancing a pencil on its tip, an unstable situation. It will
fall in one direction or another, eventually, but the direction it winds up
falling in will depend extremely sensitively on its exact position and
velocity when you let go of it, or perhaps it will depend on tiny air
currents surrounding it. In many physical systems tiny differences get
amplified enormously. Such systems are called chaotic. This has the
operational effect that since you cannot know positions and velocities with
perfect precision, after a very short while your ability to predict the
system’s behavior is terrible. To explain the situation qualitatively, you
might say that for every factor of 10 in precision that you improve your
starting measurements you will increase the time over which you can
accurately predict the system’s behavior by one second. [Don’t take the
specific numbers seriously, they are just given to make the case concrete.
Exponential growth of an instability holds for small perturbations in many
sorts of systems.] So if you can measure to 4 decimal places, you can
predict for 4 seconds, 10 decimal places worth of precision would allow you
to predict accurately for 10 seconds, and so on. This is not good news, as
it is not possible to go on adding precision to our measurements with ease.
The most accurate physical measurement that we can make is not much more
than 10 decimal places, which is pretty good but not good enough to stay
ahead of an exponential growth in some instability. Therefore, since these
nasty instabilities grow in lots of systems that we have studied, it means
that while in theory we might be able to predict the future behavior of a
complex system, in practice, we cannot. So the world was already random
before quantum mechanics came along. An early pioneer in chaos theory was
developing a simple model of weather and found this exquisite sensitivity
to initial conditions and subtitled one of his papers “Can a butterfly in
Brazil cause a tornado in Texas?” His conclusion was that it could. By
the way, James Gleick wrote a very good and very readable book about chaos
entitled, aptly, “Chaos.”

When quantum mechanics came along, things only got worse. Now for even
very simple systems we find that no matter how we prepare the system, the
results have an element of randomness. We can predict very accurately, on
a statistical basis, what will happen on average if we repeat an experiment
millions of times, but we usually cannot say with certainty what will
happen in one specific instance. You suggested that there might be an
underlying layer that we don’t understand yet. If we could see to that
layer, things would be deterministic again. That is a good idea, and
Einstein held out hope that such a theory would prevail. Such theories are
called hidden variable theories. However, none of these theories have been
successful. In fact, it is believed that no hidden variable theory can be
correct, and that we are stuck forever with the indeterminacy of quantum
mechanics.

Richard Feynman has said that no one who has thought deeply about quantum
mechanics can feel comfortable with it. It is just too strange a theory,
compared to how we experience the world. Perhaps if we grew up playing
with quantum mechanical toys, the indeterminacy would seem right and
natural to us. But in our, seemingly, cause and effect world, quantum
mechanics is very strange. The test of a theory must be how well it
predicts measurements we make. Einstein’s theory of relativity seemed to
be very counter intuitive when it was first proposed, but it had the virtue
of making very detailed predictions that check with what we see. We
accept quantum mechanics because it, also, is a remarkably successful
theory. In some cases, it is able to make predictions that are accurate to
one part in 10 billion. Not bad. Perhaps in time we will find a deeper
theory that encompasses quantum mechanics and makes more “sense” to us, and
quantum mechanics will fall out of this “super” theory in a natural way.
Then we might be able to see why the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics
that we observe is right and natural, rather than the strange and
unsettling thing that it appears to be."

So Einstein was wrong, you are wrong, our mind is always wrong, the world does not have a metaphysical, platonic design at its base, only pure randomness, no laws, no models, no causes and effects, NO LAWS OF PHYSICS. AMEN. And the reason the perfect theory is sought after is because of our desire to encompass the world in our mind, to make it appear as a controllable, manipulable and predictable entity, just like religion and god. In fact Science is the Last Religion and the last exemplification of GOD that Man will have. After, it will be all fun and games all the way to the end, with manipulated minds, modified neural circuits, Instant Singularities, Virtual Realities, chips in brains, you name it. The invention will be the reality.

And more so, if the world did have a complete “analytical solution”, a complete perfect “Logical Design” at its base, then it would be even stranger, even more of a lie, non existent at the deepest level, even more completely detached from our way of interacting with it. It would be a cloud of symbols without substance.

But it is the randomness, the imprecision, the quantum indeterminacy that produces Matter, the produces Reality, and saves it from being a completely 100 % INFORMATION RELATIONSHIP. But from our viewpoint, and how we operate, Information Relationships, whether virtual or invented, or constructed in modified minds are more than enough for us to have any possible meaningful experience; for us the Information Relationship fills up reality 100 %, but reality is always more than Information Relationships, it is noise, quirks, whims, ghosts, unknowns, it is what renders our MIND ALWAYS WRONG NO MATTER WHAT.

"We will design new minds, as in the Encyclopedia of Modified Minds, having thousands of pages, each page describing a completely different block diagram of possible minds - brains, or computers running programs designing new minds by the billions a second and connecting them. "

or

"Encyclopedia of Modified Minds

For example, at page 2,345 you will find this particular block diagram or description:

Emotion box is set up to produce sense organ stimulus (mix of visual and sonar), but the array of sense information can be memorized and added to other signals so as to create a large array of new sense organ types and information relationships: the difference between each new sense organ type (of which there are now a few thousand) is far greater than the difference between what we normally feel from sound, vision and touch.

10 dimensional touch systems, 20 dimensional sound systems, etc.

But the emotion box also interacts with the pseudo-logic box (it is all false logic, nothing consistent is even needed or necessary, it is one huge make believe system of symbols, equations, and circuit designs) and creates false thought processes, 40 dimensional will power machines interacting through sentimental circuits creating imagined pasts, etc.

We will be designing philosophical machines that will dissect, through infinite recursion machines, every philosophical problem to the vanishing point. We will construct existence from its elementary particles, we will have many completely new physical universes available having completely new laws of physics executing high speed evolution creating trillions of new life forms and new civilizations that will be creating their own new civilizations. We will have many brains in a vat, in a never ending array of other brains in a vat containing other brains in a vat, universes in a vat, gods in a vat, you name it.

Oh, but you are using logic to describe the modified minds, er no, the modified minds will use other entities to describe other entities, logic will have been overcome and dissected to the vanishing point. And lies and contradictions are accepted, actually they completely thrive on lies, contradictions because being as wrong and as false as possible is a virtue. They will not only be wrong, a lie and false, they will be as wrong, a lie and as false as possible, to the very extreme, just for the fun of it, just to show their power, their infinite power.

Now, go on, tell me that logic is not dead."

Wrong.

Hey buddy, BE YOUR OWN BOSS.

I can’t handle the labor-management disputes.

…besides, the pay scale really sucks.

Reality is fundamental. Experiments are one way for us to observe reality. Math (specifically physics) is a way to describe reality, and the results of our observations. There will always be errors and uncertainty in our observations, and we can never be certain that the mathematical model we have is correct, but if our errors are less than the uncertainty we can say our observation or math is accurate. Therefore we have gained an understanding of reality we would not have had before. That doesn’t mean its a perfect understanding but its better than nothing, and pretty darn accurate in the grand scheme of things to boot.

So why do people want a grand unified theory? Because we don’t have a theory that accurately describes reality and scientists want to know whats going on, and usually also hope they can use that information to do something useful later on. So math allows us to abstract reality and predict what will happen in the future which allows us to change reality.

“Richard Feynman has said that no one who has thought deeply about quantum
mechanics can feel comfortable with it. It is just too strange a theory,
compared to how we experience the world.”

We shouldn’t feel comfortable with our minds, with our logic, with the way we think the world is and works. Our logic, math, science, technology and models are just good instruments and tools, that work in most of the endeavors that we need them to work in, but that is all. There is no chance of ever having a grand unified theory, because we are not grand enough to contain that which is essentially infinite, undefined, non logical and outside of our neural networks.

Reality is not boxed up, it is not subdivided in tidy categories, it is not composed of clear delimitations, or aggregates of items our mind likes to think of it as, likes to manipulate it and define it as. Reality does not correspond, one to one, to our simple neural networks, to our logic and symbols, to our mind.

It is vague, undefined, not really delimited in any way, not composed of aggregates in any way: these are all models of reality that our mind superimposes upon reality, forces reality to follow, to be, we force reality to abide to our mind, our mental structures, our logic, our comfortable, predictable, cause and effect models, logical models, so we can encompass it in our minds, feel comfortable with it, manipulate it, feel as if we can deal with it, and we can deal with it often, but we shouldn’t get too carried away.

Our models are just good approximations, good software programs we have constructed in our minds that allows us to deal with many aspects of reality, that lets us manipulate it: but it is limited, it can only do so much, past a certain point, all and any model will break down, because there are no models of reality: our models are us always lying to ourselves.

Quantum mechanics and chaos and other random, vague and quirk aspects of reality just represent the fact that reality is more (or less ?) than our models, is outside of our models, is and can no way be associated with our models, no matter how hard we try. It is like trying to delimit a cloud in the sky, you can see it from far away, but the closer you get the harder it is to distinguish where it starts and ends, just like the atmosphere of Jupiter or Saturn, when do you actually touch the ground ? That environment is no longer coherent with any clear division, as we see it on earth between ground and sky.

When do you touch the ground on the Sun ?

You write some really good things.

You should keep them separate from your rubbish.

As in:

“It is like trying to delimit a cloud in the sky, you can see it from far away, but the closer you get the harder it is to distinguish where it starts and ends,”

What I write (or what my mind makes up, I feel that it goes on cruise control by itself sometimes, and I don’t even have control sometimes…) is just like a cloud, when does the good start and rubbish end ? Which is which ? Who or what defines which is which ? I can’t distinguish.

That is exactly, exactly what I thought you were feeling.

Math is philosophy and like philosophy, it is a very useful tool for understanding the world.

I’d say math describes our relationship with the real world, in a sense. I’m not one for absolutes, so I think you’re right inasmuch as math is a very practical tool for us. But math isn’t something we exist by – rather, existence and perception are the very foundation for mathematics. In other words, we don’t obey math. However, math does describe what is useful to obey or recognize. As for reality, I’d think experimentation better means of measurement as that implicates some interaction with what is ‘real’.

Nobody really knows if the universe is merely a subset of logical algorithms or if the logical algorithms are a mere crude mimic of the universe.

Either way, it is those algorithms that machine our tractors that plow our fields. We don’t have to assume that either one solves the universe itself for it to be of use.

Reality doesn’t exist.