←back to thread

116 points baruchel | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.743s | source
Show context
danwills ◴[] No.44364403[source]
> the mathematical universe, like our physical one, may be made up mostly of dark matter. “It seems now that most of the universe somehow consists of things that we can’t see,”

Not heaps fond of relating invisible things in the mathematical universe to dark matter! Although maybe both might turn out to be imaginary/purely-abstract? Imaginary things can absolutely influence real things in the universe, it's just that they are not usually external to the thing they are influencing. If I imagine making a cake say, and then I go ahead and make the one I imagined, the 'virtual' cake was already inside me to begin with, and wasn't 'plucked' from a virtual universe of possible cakes somewhere outside my knowledge of cake-making.

Something nags at the back of my mind around this about maths though, as if to suggest that as soon as there was one-of-anything that was kinda an 'instantiation' of the most abstract "one" object from the mathematical universe.. (irrespective of what axioms are used as long as they support something like one) But I doubt there's never been exactly-PI-of-anything in the real universe, just a whole bunch of systems that behave as if they know (or are perhaps in the process of computing) a more exact value! (spherical planets, natural sine waves etc!)

Very interesting article, I wish my math was stronger! I can just skirt the edges of what they're actually talking about and it's tantalizing! Would love to know more about these new types of cardinal numbers they've developed/discovered.

replies(1): >>44364743 #
cyborgx7 ◴[] No.44364743[source]
An interesting thing about the quote you highlighted is that it's already true about the set of real numbers itself. The set of real numbers that can be precisely, individually identified is a countable subset of all real numbers. That means the vast majority of real numbers, an uncountable amount of them, can not be individually defined and thought about.
replies(4): >>44365034 #>>44366342 #>>44367855 #>>44378592 #
1. gbacon ◴[] No.44367855[source]
My intuition about the question is related: the set of all Turing machines (algorithms) is countable, but the set of all languages (problems to solve) is uncountable. If you take mathematics to be the bigger, uncountable picture, it’s mostly chaos, but if you limit consideration to algorithms, then it’s mostly order.
replies(1): >>44370254 #
2. Viliam1234 ◴[] No.44370254[source]
> the set of all languages (problems to solve) is uncountable

The set of all problems that can be described by a finite description is countable. Why would we care about the rest of them?

replies(1): >>44371175 #
3. jibal ◴[] No.44371175[source]
Because we're theorists.