A personal view ... infinite information and some other childish thoughts.

I'm not a philosopher nor a mathematician, but I do have some quite strong views on reality. Let me explain ...

Back in the mid 1980s, when I was a youthful lad and "Duran Duran" were still a hot band, I wrote down these ideas. It's something which helped me create a mental model of existence around me and upon which I built my view of reality. It was also part of my idea for a book which I never finished, it helped me understand my lucid dreaming and resolve the issue for me of "what is reality". Of course, it was undoubtedly wildly flawed - but I found it useful. This is more of a record for me than something which might be of use to you.

To explain it, you need to understand my confusion when I was younger. There were two types of reality for me - reality when I was awake, and reality when I was asleep. The main distinction for me between these "realities" was whether I was in control. In the "unreal" reality of when I was asleep, I had full control. In the real world, less so. This led to me the concept that reality was simply a mental model which after all it is, a perception of what is there. 

About that time, more sophisticated 3D ray drawing games like "elite" started to appear. It became clear, that computers with enough computing power could create ever more sophisticated virtual environments, even virtual worlds. Everything in these worlds would be nothing more than information, even the characters within it.

So how could I know that I wasn't living in some sort of "super computer" world already? Did it matter? 

Well, my first thoughts on this were, "How would you create an exact copy of this universe as a virtual world?". In order to do so you need to have all the information about this universe in the model. Wow, that would be cool. Such a model would know everything about our universe, it would act in the same ways. I'd know all the laws of science, all the causes and effects would be known ... excellent.

Slight problem.

If information was finite in this universe, then such a model containing all the information in the universe couldn't exist within this universe. Damn it, I can't therefore have a "perfect" model of the universe and therefore work out all the causes and effects and model all of science. I couldn't know the "truth" of this universe, as my model can only contain a lesser subset of information even if a way was found to get past the numerous information barriers that exist (e.g. Heisenberg uncertainty principle etc)

OK, what if information is infinite? Well then, this isn't such a problem because an infinite set can also contain an infinite number of infinite subsets of equivalent size. So I could have my model. Cool.

Problem.

My model of the universe contains all the information in the universe at this single point. But my model is part of that universe. So in my model, there must be another model, and inside that another model and so on. Ah, an infinite number of models of my universe, identical to this one but none of them being "real". Though of course the characters in these "virtual" worlds wouldn't know that.

Big Problem.

Taking information as infinite in the "real" universe, then let's assume that there exists one civilisation of suitably advanced technology that it could create such models. Suppose it only created one such model, then there would be an infinite number of virtual worlds (models within models). Every-time anyone else created such a model, or made variations of such, or another civilisation developed such a technology, you would have an infinite number of infinite virtual worlds and permutations of such. So given that, what's the likelihood of this universe which I exist within being real?

Well I reckon it's ... Zero.

So, either information is finite, in which case we can never create our perfect model and therefore know with absolute certainty the cause and effects of things OR information is infinite in which case this world isn't "real" anyway. We cannot know the absolute truth of things. There must always exist something beyond that perceived truth in either case. Of course, we can't actually get to the truth of whether information is finite or infinite because of the uncertainty principles and even if we could we wouldn't be able to accurately model this because of  'Godel's' incompleteness theorem. We can't even answer the question of whether information is finite or not.

This I called an "infinite information paradox". 

Hence I came to my view of things being more true (+truth) or less true (-truth) because absolutes were out of the question. My awake reality was simply more true (+truth) than my sleeping reality - from a personal perspective. But if I could only show that information was finite, then at least I'd know that one was real? 

Nope.

Really Big Problem.

In my infinite information scenario, it was also possible to have infinite numbers of finite sets. So even if information was finite in this universe, the likelihood of it being real was also zero. Hence, I decided to take a definition of reality as a set which was unbounded by any limits. It was the absolutely infinite set at the top of this information tree. It could contain an infinite number of infinite sets and an infinite number of finite ones.

The empty set is such a set which is not bounded by limits, it just happens to not contain any other set. Hence I started with what I called my "primitive"....

0 = [] = A definition of reality.

... and allowed this initial condition to mutate to other set configurations, by the application of several simple rules.

• Any set can mutate to any "equivalent" with the same or greater cardinality by the addition of an empty set.
• Any value can mutate to any "equivalent" array or move in whole or part to any adjacent position.
• The sum of this mutated primitive remains Zero.

Now by "equivalent", I mean it either enumerates to the same thing or sums to it. This processes allowed for ever more increasing permutations of values, hence I took that view that the capacity for information constantly increases. I used this system, to derive certain models where everything is derived from nothing - I occasionally still play around with it, a sort of Zero Board Hypothesis. But my general postulations are:

• Some realities are more true (+truth) to an individual than others.
• Science will only be ever able to provide useful models, not absolute truth.
• Reality didn't come from anywhere, it still remains the same - nothing.

Though I find views on a personal belief valid to that individual and their perception of reality, I'm personally agnostic to such questions of "is this real?" and the supernatural. I'm also highly sceptical of anything describing itself as an absolute "truth". It's a personal view but one which enables me to quite comfortably understand reality and other questions like, "Where did we come from?". It's all just manifestations of nothing ... but it does sounds like doublethink.

Nothing is Everything.

As I said, I'm no philosopher or mathematician, and this stuff is undoubtedly as flawed now as it was then, just I still don't know better. Ignorance is bliss in my case.

--- 4th September 2014

I was reminded of this post by two recent events. First, my young lad's comments on his dreams. He seems to have very good recall and describes an ability to manipulate them. I was a bit taken aback when he turned to me and said "how do we know this is real?" [referring to the waking state].

The second was a reference to my views on Taoism. I personally find the work of Lao-tzu to be a useful philosophical interpretation of reality through the careful act of not actually trying to describe it. The work is more a continuous exercise in finding your own path, something which I find essential (for me, maybe not you but then your perception of reality is not necessarily mine). It's a bit difficult to describe other than to say - you'll have to find your own path to understanding your own perception.

It's like faith but without hope.

A month ago, I posted a comment on why I believed Atheism was a faith.

I've had a crackingly good conversation with George Felis on this subject since then, and had moved my position initially to that of :-

Atheism (strong) is not a faith because Atheists believe in this viewpoint ONLY from the conclusion of rational (a priori) argument rather than say as a matter of hope or revelation and it is that matter of hope or revelation that distinguishes Atheist beliefs from a matter of faith.

However, upon reflection a refinement is needed as Atheism may contain an element of revelation in the sense that the belief maybe revealed through insight or a particular event. However, I can find no examples of where Atheism contains hope, an end game such as salvation. It is this absence of hope which distinguishes Atheism from other faiths.

Hence, I take the stance that :-

Atheism (strong) is not a faith because Atheists believe in this viewpoint ONLY from the conclusion of rational (a priori) argument rather than as a matter of hope and it is that matter of hope that distinguishes Atheist beliefs from a matter of faith.

My original view was wrong and hopefully this explains my title.

Manchester United are good .. world ends.

As David Hume once said :-

"Rational proofs for the existence of god are as non-sensical as rational proofs for the non-existance of god"

Atheism is the belief in the non-existence of a supernatural being, not based on proof or material evidence but based fundamentally on volition. It is not agnostic to the matter, but is the positive belief that deities do not exist.

Such a system can be described as a faith. You choose to believe in this faith or not.

So when does a faith based system holding certain beliefs in the state of the supernatural by a community identified with that faith become a religion?

• Are there a certain number of beliefs it has to have?
• Do you need to have a number of rituals?
• Does it have to have a certain number of members?

The arguments seem fairly pointless and purely semantic as all such systems can be described as religion to some degree. I use the words "some degree", as I have yet to come across an absolute truth (other than the trivially defined) and so I tend to see things as more true (+true) or more false (+false).

However, this is not a popular view of atheism with some quarters, but then again it's not quite as unpopular as "globally traded carbon permits are a future mechanism of deprivation and exclusion" or "global climate temperature change may not be solely attributable to anthropogenic emissions but also natural causes, whether reinforced or diminished by them" - both are subjects which merit more discussion but neither are a case for inaction or procrastination.

So I'll come to the statement which I read on Tom Coates blog

"If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby"

It is amusing but based upon a co-equivalence designed to reinforce a particular statement by using two unrelated premises which are defined as true regardless of their real state. These "TRUE" statements are:-

"stamp collecting is a hobby" (+true)

and

"atheism is not a religion"(+false).

But then you can get all sorts of fun little statements by defining two statements (one +false, one +true) as both true, considering them equivalent and inverting.

By defining a statement such as "Science is a Religion" as true (when it is agnostic to the supernatural), you can argue

"If science is not a religion then 1+1=42"

and so on.

You can spend lots of time doing this .... complete waste, but fun.

Seeing that I'm a Chelski fan, I personally like

"If Manchester United are a good football team then the world ended five minutes ago"

A sliver of nothingness ...

Every now and then I mention my pet project - which is nothing or Zero. I've been occupied with this for almost two decades in my occasional spare time, and for the last decade upon higher level impacts of this.

It's a hobby horse which has some relevance to my real world activities.

For those of you who are interested, I started with two basic concepts:-

The rule - Every thing is not nothing whilst nothing is the sum of everything.

The status quo - Nothing containing subsets of dynamic equilibrium undergoing constant random change to return them to nothing.

I mention it now, because I was looking at the "entropic" effect of ideas on certain social & industrial processes.

It's not God ... honest

Having spent an evening talking with a proponent of intelligent design, I am impressed by the careful wording that is used.

The fundamental concept of ID implies the existance of an Intelligent Designer. However, ID is careful to avoid attempting to identify who or what that designer might be.

They state they do not care who the designer is, just that there is one. Any possible reference to the supernatural is avoided at all costs.

So, ID is science is it? Apparently, they claim, yes.

So, being science it is limited to the realm of reality? In order to be science it must be.

So the intelligent designer exists within the realm of reality and is therefore not supernatural!

At this point, certain questions spring to mind

Who made the intelligent designer? Who's his mother? Where did she come from?

Even if you invoke an infinite lineage of intelligent designers, you still end up outside of the realm of reality.

You can't escape it - ID eventually needs a supernatural being, which means it's faith and not science.

Now there is nothing wrong with ID being a matter of faith; and that's exactly what it is.

Render unto Caesar ... Part II

I watched a rather disturbing program this evening which attempted to show through metaphor why science was a religious subject by focusing on atheist beliefs and then associating those with science.

Hmmm.

This was tabloid TV at its worst, with a lack of any form of neutrality and a blatant agenda.

God is not a provable concept - it is outside the realm of physical reality. It is a matter of faith whether you believe in God or not, and if you do believe which version of religion you accept.

The one common fact is that all these faith systems are absolute in the belief of that faith. Atheism is also a faith based system, it is the absolute belief that God does not exist.

So what has this got to do with science? Nothing at all.

Science is a reason based system using principles of falsification, testability, the realm of reality (that which is physically observable), empirical observations, non-absolutes, usefulness and predictions.

There is no conflict between Science and Religion - they do not touch on the same things. There is of course conflict between Pro God and Non God (atheist) beliefs.

Now to Darwinism. Evolutionary theory is currently the best scientific model for explaining the origin of species.

ID (intelligent design) however is a faith based system which is not testable, falsifiable or limited to the realm of reality (it invokes an intelligent creator). It is simply put not science.

This doesn't mean that ID is wrong, or that God does not exist - it simply means that those are questions for religion not science.

So,

Does god exist? Well that's outside the scope of science.

Is science a religion? No.

Is atheism a religion? Yes.

Is science atheist? No, it's agnostic to the matter.

Render unto Caesar the things ...

According to the Register, Intelligent Design (ID) is on the way to the UK.

The scientific method of study is a body of techniques for acquiring and correcting knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to the principles of reasoning and is falsifiable, provisional and testable at the very least.

ID has no method of testing and is not falsifiable, it's therefore a principle of faith - it "holds that life on earth is too complex to have evolved on its own, without an intelligent entity guiding its path".

In short, a theory in science can be useful and the best we have until a test proves it to be wrong or a better theorem is developed - this is scientific progress. Beliefs of faith are by their very nature untestable - if they weren't they wouldn't require faith.

Now there is nothing wrong with belief in ID, though I studied Natural Sciences I certainly wouldn't argue that there are any absolute truths in science - in fact the study of science predicates against this.

It's just that ID is a matter of faith and it belongs in a RE lesson - it's not a matter of science, never was.

The insane zero stuff.

It's a personal view on how to build everything with nothing. Start with Zero. This is then mutated to "equivalent" values.

The idea behind this comes from when I was about 15. I had this nagging idea that space, energy and matter are simply different interpretations of the same thing and time is merely linked to the variations in that interpretation - I warned you about the madness bit didn't I?

I developed a system for this, which occassionaly I refine. In this system nothing is not quite how it seems, zero is not the same as nothing and empty space is teaming with activity.

This isn't a theory of how things really are - it's more a quirky exploration of something I find interesting and it keeps me amused when I'm not working on real problems.

Makes sense? Confused? I warned you it was madness. Still, you'd be surprised what you can make out of nothing and random statistical probability.