To understand what we are talking about, let’s think: what do we mean by the concept of “real”.
If “real” is something that can be touched and seen (everyday approach), then the world, of course, is real.
If it is something that can be detected/measured by instruments (scientific approach), then the answer is again: the world is real.
But if he is real, then where did he come from? After all, to create something real, you need some kind of real creator, to create a creator, some other creator is needed, and so on along the chain. Either an ideal creator is needed, but then the question arises: how does the ideal create the real?
What explanations exist for the origin of our world?
- Religion believes that the world was created by God, but does not explain where God himself came from.
- Scientists believe that the world was formed as a result of the Big Bang, but they immediately add that their theories do not extend to the singularity that existed at the moment of the Big Bang and before it (if the concept “before it” is applicable here at all).
- Transhumanists suggest that it is our task (or some other thinking matter) to develop enough to become a god and create this world. As in the joke:
Conversation between an atheist and a transhumanist
Atheist: There is no God.
Transhumanist: Not yet.
But even if someone appears who will create our world, from the outside it will resemble a snake coiled in a ring, from whose mouth its own tail comes out, again without explanation of where the snake itself came from.
Is it possible to build a picture of the world in which a creator would not be required at all? Can. And below I will show how.
The simplest option is to assume that there is no world. And since he does not exist, then there is no need for a creator. This option corresponds to Occam's principle, according to which to explain something one does not need to add new entities unnecessarily, but it contradicts the fact that we exist and we observe this world.
Then another option: our world is a mathematical abstraction, i.e. formula/equation/algorithm/idea or something like that. It does not require either a creator or a material carrier.
Let's look at a simple example of mathematical abstraction.
In 1975, IBM researcher Benoit Mandelbrot used a computer to draw the set that was later named after him. This set is remarkable in that it is described using a fairly simple iterative algorithm for transforming points on the complex plane (the program text fits on one page), but despite the simplicity of the description, the corresponding object has an infinitely complex structure. There are a lot of similar formulas and algorithms that have been discovered, and they are not all built on a plane. You can add a couple more coordinates to the plane, and get something similar to our space-time (by the way, from a mathematical point of view, time is described as imaginary space).
Let's imagine for a moment that our world is just a mathematical abstraction. Most likely, the formula, or whatever it is, that describes our world will be more complicated than the description of the Mandelbrot set (take at least the Schrödinger equation, which describes the behavior of just one quantum particle). We have not yet discovered this formula, but scientific research proves that our world lives according to certain laws, and these laws are observed quite strictly. This is an important point. Firstly, it speaks in favor of the fact that our world can really be a mathematical abstraction, and secondly, it is thanks to the action of laws that we exist in it. In the absence of laws, in chaos, intelligent beings cannot appear, since the main property of intelligent beings, as artificial intelligence experts say, is to discover patterns in the world and use them in their life. In the absence of laws, learning is impossible, memory is useless, and, in fact, attempts to form at least some structures, not to mention highly organized ones, will not be successful, because there are no laws by which they could appear.
So, let’s assume that a certain function describes space-time and certain objects in it, which over time are able to move around this space, form structures at all levels of organization, both passive and active (capable of collecting information about the world and using it to improve your ability to survive). Let's assume that this is just a function that is not embodied on any material medium, but which, nevertheless, describes completely “real” things. Next, if such a function exists, let us ask the question, who created it?
Who created the Mandelbrot set? In 1975, it was built using a computer by Benoit Mandelbrot. But before that, in 1905, his formula was described by Pierre Fatou. What happened before that? Before this, no one knew anything about him or even guessed. But this does not mean that it was not there at all. As an idea, it has always existed, and an idea is immaterial. Just as all mathematics, born from observations of the world around us, is immaterial. Thus, the question of the creator of the formula disappears by itself: for such things a creator is not required. There can only be a discoverer who is himself part of the world described by this formula.
Mathematicians have already tried to create mathematical abstractions that describe manifestations similar to those of our world. For example, A. Zaslavsky in his work “The Own Worlds of Dynamic Systems,” considering a general dynamic system as a chain of abstract events, shows that in its own world it has all the attributes of matter: matter and field.
If we accept that our world is just a mathematical abstraction, let's see how we can answer a few questions.
Does the above mean that our world is a matrix, in the sense as in the film of the same name? That is, does it represent a virtual reality that has a real medium, for example, a supercomputer, or a huge mass of computers connected to a network?
Quite possible. Provided that there is some external reality that is inaccessible to our perception. But then we can ask the question: how real is that external reality? If we live in the most external reality, then the answer will be: no, our world is not a matrix. The matrix needs a material carrier, but mathematical abstraction does not need it at all! And if virtual reality exists inside the world, then it is just a component of it, which contains either part of the information about the real world or information about the fictional world. The virtual reality that we have now learned to create on a computer has one important feature: in quantitative terms (for example, memory capacity, speed, number of simulated objects) it is finite. A mathematical object can be either finite or infinite. For example, the Mandelbrot set, as a mathematical object, is infinite. Whatever part of it we take, when we enlarge it we will discover increasingly finer details. But it can be recreated both in virtual reality and on a material medium. On a computer, it will turn into a finite set, limited by the number of pixels on the screen, or the number of memory cells in which its image is stored. Strictly speaking, this will already be a model of the Mandelbrot set, and not itself. You can draw it on paper. And although paper and ink have a finer structure than the size of the pixels on the screen, or the computer's memory cells, even with a slight increase in the drawing we will see that the picture is different from a mathematical object, and with an even greater increase we will see that it has nothing to do with it at all nothing in common. And this is also a model. Moreover, it is of low quality, please note, although it has a material carrier, in contrast to the ideally high-quality mathematical set of Mandelbrot, which does not have a material carrier!
How many copies does our world exist in?
If we live in a nested world, it is entirely possible for there to be more than one instance. If we live in the outside world, this question is meaningless. Look at the Mandelbrot set. There can be as many images of it on a computer or drawings on paper as you like, but these are just models and not a real mathematical object. In this sense, we (or someone else) can create as many virtual realities as we want, reflecting our world, but these will only be incomplete models of it. To draw an analogy, the real Mandelbrot set, which the world learned about in 1975, has always existed as an abstraction, even when no one knew about it. Where did it exist and in what quantity? Nowhere and in no way. Well, maybe we can say about it, as a formula, that it exists in one copy (implying that if someone else discovered/wrote the same formula, it is still the same formula, and the quantity does not depend on this fact will double).
Are there other worlds?
Like mathematical objects, of course there are. Because there are as many formulas as you like. But they are in no way connected with our world, and it makes no sense to apply questions to them where they are located.
Can our world intersect with another? Is it possible to get from our world to another?
No. If this were possible, then the formula describing our world should include that other world, and if it includes it, then the other world is no longer another, but a part of ours (or ours is a part of another)
So what kind of world do we live in? Real or are we just a mathematical abstraction?
Unfortunately, due to Gödel's incompleteness theorem, this question cannot be answered. But the real world requires an explanation of where it came from, and the mathematical abstraction is self-sufficient, and therefore more plausible.
Are we living in virtual reality?
For us, people, with a limited number of neurons in the brain, and with a limited ability to perceive, even an artificially created virtual reality, provided it is implemented well enough, may turn out to be indistinguishable from the real world. What can we say about the world of which we are a part and which, according to our knowledge of it, is quite delicately structured? Conducting physical experiments, we penetrate further into the depths of the structure of matter, and even now scientists assume that at small distances and short periods of time, space and time are quantized. This may be an argument in favor of a matrix and the nesting of our world in the external world, but it may also indicate that the mathematical abstraction that describes our world is discrete.
Mathematical abstraction is an information concept. What to do with the fact that the information interactions observed in our world do not occur without the participation of material carriers?
What we observe is “secondary” information, which is encoded in the properties of objects and in their relative position in space-time. Information interaction between objects occurs due to the fact that some objects encode others, and others read this information. Such a process requires the presence of at least two interacting objects that have “agreed” on how information will be encoded and how it should be interpreted. Without these two conditions, interaction ceases to be informational and degenerates into simple interaction. Further, if the objects themselves, their interaction with each other, as well as space-time itself are the result of a certain function, then we will come to the conclusion that there is also “primary” information that exists outside of space-time, and therefore has no material carrier. In our world it manifests itself, for example, in the form of world constants, but who knows, maybe there are worlds in which there is no information interaction at all, where chaos reigns. Similarly, we can talk about “tertiary” information. For example, for a gamer, characters in a computer game will interact with each other informationally, although any programmer will say that this interaction is apparent, but in reality completely different processes occur at the level of signals in the computer.
In the everyday sense, this is exactly how we perceive reality. But let's think about whether a virtual character in virtual reality will feel a virtual button? Provided that this virtual reality is properly programmed and the virtual character has the same complex organization as a real person? If the activity of nerve cells is simulated down to individual neurotransmitter molecules, he will obviously experience the same sensations as a real person, and the sensations will be just as real for him despite its unreal nature. Due to Gödel's incompleteness theorem, a virtual character will not be able to prove that his reality is virtual. Even if we suggest the answer, it has no way of determining whether that information is true or false.
Just like ours. But regardless of whether our world turns out to be real or not, it will still remain as it is, with the same laws that were in effect before and with the same creatures (us) that inhabit it and are its constituent parts. Perhaps only our idea of it will change, or at least we will begin to think more about how it works.
Theory of the origin of the universe. Which does not contradict either the divine or scientific theory of the appearance of the world.
To understand what we are talking about, let’s think: what do we mean by the concept of “real”.
If “real” is something that can be touched and seen (everyday approach), then the world, of course, is real.
If it is something that can be detected/measured by instruments (scientific approach), then the answer is again: the world is real.
But if he is real, then where did he come from? After all, to create something real, you need some kind of real creator, to create a creator, some other creator is needed, and so on along the chain. Either an ideal creator is needed, but then the question arises: how does the ideal create the real?
What explanations exist for the origin of our world?
Religion believes that the world was created by God, but does not explain where God himself came from.
Scientists believe that the world was formed as a result of the Big Bang, but they immediately add that their theories do not extend to the singularity that existed at the moment of the Big Bang and before it (if the concept “before it” is applicable here at all).
Transhumanists suggest that it is our task (or some other thinking matter) to develop enough to become a god and create this world. As in the joke:
Conversation between an atheist and a transhumanist
Atheist: There is no God.
Transhumanist: Not yet.
But even if someone appears who will create our world, from the outside it will resemble a snake coiled in a ring, from whose mouth its own tail comes out, again without explanation of where the snake itself came from.
Is it possible to build a picture of the world in which a creator would not be required at all? Can. And below I will show how.
The simplest option is to assume that there is no world. And since he does not exist, then there is no need for a creator. This option corresponds to Occam's principle, according to which to explain something one does not need to add new entities unnecessarily, but it contradicts the fact that we exist and we observe this world.
Then another option: our world is a mathematical abstraction, i.e. formula/equation/algorithm/idea or something like that. It does not require either a creator or a material carrier.
Let's look at a simple example of mathematical abstraction.
In 1975, IBM researcher Benoit Mandelbrot used a computer to draw the set that was later named after him. This set is remarkable in that it is described using a fairly simple iterative algorithm for transforming points on the complex plane (the program text fits on one page), but despite the simplicity of the description, the corresponding object has an infinitely complex structure. There are a lot of similar formulas and algorithms that have been discovered, and they are not all built on a plane. You can add a couple more coordinates to the plane, and get something similar to our space-time (by the way, from a mathematical point of view, time is described as imaginary space).
Let's imagine for a moment that our world is just a mathematical abstraction. Most likely, the formula, or whatever it is, that describes our world will be more complicated than the description of the Mandelbrot set (take, for example, the Schrödinger equation, which describes the behavior of just one quantum particle). We have not yet discovered this formula, but scientific research proves that our world lives according to certain laws, and these laws are observed quite strictly. This is an important point. Firstly, it speaks in favor of the fact that our world can really be a mathematical abstraction, and secondly, it is thanks to the action of laws that we exist in it. In the absence of laws, in chaos, intelligent beings cannot appear, since the main property of intelligent beings, as artificial intelligence experts say, is to discover patterns in the world and use them in their life. In the absence of laws, learning is impossible, memory is useless, and, in fact, attempts to form at least some structures, not to mention highly organized ones, will not be successful, because there are no laws by which they could appear.
So, let’s assume that a certain function describes space-time and certain objects in it, which over time are able to move around this space, form structures at all levels of organization, both passive and active (capable of collecting information about the world and using it to improve your ability to survive). Let's assume that this is just a function that is not embodied on any material medium, but which, nevertheless, describes completely “real” things. Next, if such a function exists, let us ask the question, who created it?
Who created the Mandelbrot set? In 1975, it was built using a computer by Benoit Mandelbrot. But before that, in 1905, his formula was described by Pierre Fatou. What happened before that? Before this, no one knew anything about him or even guessed. But this does not mean that it was not there at all. As an idea, it has always existed, and an idea is immaterial. Just as all mathematics, born from observations of the world around us, is immaterial. Thus, the question of the creator of the formula disappears by itself: for such things a creator is not required. There can only be a discoverer who is himself part of the world described by this formula.
Mathematicians have already tried to create mathematical abstractions that describe manifestations similar to those of our world. For example, A. Zaslavsky in his work “The Own Worlds of Dynamic Systems,” considering a general dynamic system as a chain of abstract events, shows that it has in its own world all the attributes of matter: matter and field.
If we accept that our world is just a mathematical abstraction, let's see how we can answer a few questions.
Does the above mean that our world is a matrix, in the sense as in the film of the same name? That is, does it represent a virtual reality that has a real medium, for example, a supercomputer, or a huge mass of computers connected to a network?
Quite possible. Provided that there is some external reality that is inaccessible to our perception. But then we can ask the question: how real is that external reality? If we live in the most external reality, then the answer will be: no, our world is not a matrix. The matrix needs a material carrier, but mathematical abstraction does not need it at all! And if virtual reality exists inside the world, then it is just a component of it, which contains either part of the information about the real world or information about the fictional world. The virtual reality that we have now learned to create on a computer has one important feature: in quantitative terms (for example, memory capacity, speed, number of simulated objects) it is finite. A mathematical object can be either finite or infinite. For example, the Mandelbrot set, as a mathematical object, is infinite. Whatever part of it we take, when we enlarge it we will discover increasingly finer details. But it can be recreated both in virtual reality and on a material medium. On a computer, it will turn into a finite set, limited by the number of pixels on the screen, or the number of memory cells in which its image is stored. Strictly speaking, this will already be a model of the Mandelbrot set, and not itself. You can draw it on paper. And although paper and ink have a finer structure than the size of the pixels on the screen, or the computer's memory cells, even with a slight increase in the drawing we will see that the picture is different from a mathematical object, and with an even greater increase we will see that it has nothing to do with it at all nothing in common. And this is also a model. Moreover, it is of low quality, please note, although it has a material carrier, in contrast to the ideally high-quality mathematical set of Mandelbrot, which does not have a material carrier!
How many copies does our world exist in?
If we live in a nested world, it is entirely possible for there to be more than one instance. If we live in the outside world, this question is meaningless. Look at the Mandelbrot set. There can be as many images of it on a computer or drawings on paper as you like, but these are just models and not a real mathematical object. In this sense, we (or someone else) can create as many virtual realities as we want, reflecting our world, but these will only be incomplete models of it. To draw an analogy, the real Mandelbrot set, which the world learned about in 1975, has always existed as an abstraction, even when no one knew about it. Where did it exist and in what quantity? Nowhere and in no way. Well, maybe we can say about it, as a formula, that it exists in one copy (implying that if someone else discovered/wrote the same formula, it is still the same formula, and the quantity does not depend on this fact will double).
Are there other worlds?
Like mathematical objects, of course there are. Because there are as many formulas as you like. But they are in no way connected with our world, and it makes no sense to apply questions to them where they are located.
Can our world intersect with another? Is it possible to get from our world to another?
No. If this were possible, then the formula describing our world should include that other world, and if it includes it, then the other world is no longer another, but a part of ours (or ours is a part of another)
So what kind of world do we live in? Real or are we just a mathematical abstraction?
Unfortunately, due to Gödel's incompleteness theorem, this question cannot be answered. But the real world requires an explanation of where it came from, and the mathematical abstraction is self-sufficient, and therefore more plausible.
Are we living in virtual reality?
For us, people, with a limited number of neurons in the brain, and with a limited ability to perceive, even an artificially created virtual reality, provided it is implemented well enough, may turn out to be indistinguishable from the real world. What can we say about the world of which we are a part and which, according to our knowledge of it, is quite delicately structured? Conducting physical experiments, we penetrate further into the depths of the structure of matter, and even now scientists assume that at small distances and short periods of time, space and time are quantized. This may be an argument in favor of a matrix and the nesting of our world in the external world, but it may also indicate that the mathematical abstraction that describes our world is discrete.
Mathematical abstraction is an information concept. What to do with the fact that the information interactions observed in our world do not occur without the participation of material carriers?
What we observe is “secondary” information, which is encoded in the properties of objects and in their relative position in space-time. Information interaction between objects occurs due to the fact that some objects encode others, and others read this information. Such a process requires the presence of at least two interacting objects that have “agreed” on how information will be encoded and how it should be interpreted. Without these two conditions, interaction ceases to be informational and degenerates into simple interaction. Further, if the objects themselves, their interaction with each other, as well as space-time itself are the result of a certain function, then we will come to the conclusion that there is also “primary” information that exists outside of space-time, and therefore has no material carrier. In our world it manifests itself, for example, in the form of world constants, but who knows, maybe there are worlds in which there is no information interaction at all, where chaos reigns. Similarly, we can talk about “tertiary” information. For example, for a gamer, characters in a computer game will interact with each other informationally, although any programmer will say that this interaction is apparent, but in reality completely different processes occur at the level of signals in the computer.
Isn’t it nonsense to consider our world a mathematical abstraction? Try sitting on a button lying on a chair and immediately feel the reality.
In the everyday sense, this is exactly how we perceive reality. But let's think about whether a virtual character in virtual reality will feel a virtual button? Provided that this virtual reality is properly programmed and the virtual character has the same complex organization as a real person? If the activity of nerve cells is simulated down to individual neurotransmitter molecules, he will obviously experience the same sensations as a real person, and the sensations will be just as real for him despite its unreal nature. Due to Gödel's incompleteness theorem, a virtual character will not be able to prove that his reality is virtual. Even if we suggest the answer, it has no way of determining whether that information is true or false.
Just like ours. But regardless of whether our world turns out to be real or not, it will still remain as it is, with the same laws that were in effect before and with the same creatures (us) that inhabit it and are its constituent parts. Perhaps our understanding of it will change, or at least we will begin to think more about how it works.
The year 1982 was marked by an event that turned the world of physics upside down. Alan Aspect and the research team presented to the public an experiment that can be considered one of the most significant experiments conducted in the 20th century.
Aspect and his group were able to discover that, under certain conditions, elementary particles - electrons - are able to interact with each other instantly. It makes no difference what the distance is between them. The discovery is stunning, but it casts doubt on Einstein's theory that the ultimate speed of interaction is the speed of light. As we know that the speed of light is the fastest speed on our planet and in space.
David Bohm, a physicist at the University of London, believes that the discovery of Aspect has shaken the idea of perceiving the world as a whole. Real reality simply does not exist, and what we are accustomed to perceive as objective reality is nothing more than a huge three-dimensional hologram that has obvious density.
What is a hologram and its amazing properties
Hologram is a three-dimensional photograph made using a laser. To make a hologram, you need to illuminate an object with one laser, and the second laser, emitting a beam, will combine with the light reflected from the object and record the interference pattern on the film. The holographic image looks like alternating white stripes with black ones. But when the image is illuminated with a laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the object that was photographed appears.
Three-dimensionality is not the only amazing property of a hologram. You know, if a hologram is cut in half and illuminated, then each half will reproduce the original image. You can cut the hologram into small pieces and each one will reproduce the whole image. The hologram has become a stumbling block in the issue of orderliness of the world. By constantly cutting the hologram, we will always get the original image of a smaller size.
Holographic world
David Bohm suggests that elementary particles interact with each other at any distance not because of unusual properties, but because distance is only an illusion. He says that at some level, elementary particles cease to be individual objects, but become part of something huge and fundamental.
Bohm proposed a model that would make it easier to understand his thoughts. Imagine that you are watching an aquarium with fish. However, you cannot see the entire aquarium; you only have access to two screens, which are located on the side and in front of the aquarium. If you look at the screens separately, you can conclude that two objects are being observed. But if you continue to watch, you will notice that there is a relationship between the fish on the two screens. As soon as the first fish changes position, the second one also changes position, in accordance with the first. It turns out that one fish is observed from the front, the second from the profile. If at the same time you remain unaware that this is an aquarium as a whole, then the thought will come to your mind that the fish communicate with each other in an amazing way.
This perception can be transferred to the Aspect experiment; there is superluminal interaction between particles, there is a level of reality that is not yet accessible to humans, because we perceive the world as an aquarium with fish. Only a part of reality is accessible to us, parts are not parts, they are components of a holographic deep unity. Everything that is contained in physical reality is in a huge holographic image, projection.
If we continue to reason further, we can conclude that in the universe all objects are interconnected. It turns out that the electrons of our brain are connected with the electrons of every beating heart, every shining star. Everything is interpenetrated, and man’s desire to divide and dismember everything is artificial; nature is in constant interconnection, like a huge and immense web. Position, as a characteristic, has no meaning in a world where nothing is divided. Three-dimensional space and time are only projections. Present reality is a hologram in which there is no past or future, everything exists in the present moment. If a special tool becomes available to a person, then he can, while in the present, see the events of the past.
Bohm was not the only one who came to the conclusion that reality is a hologram, neurophysiologist Karl Pribram, who works at Stanford University and studies the human brain, is inclined to the theory of a holographic world. Pribram was led to such thoughts by thinking about human memories; there is no separate part in the brain that would be responsible for memories, they are dispersed throughout the brain.
Carl Lashley in the 20s of the last century, he experimentally proved that in a rat, when various parts of the brain are removed, all the conditioned reflexes that were developed before the operation are preserved. And no one could explain how memory is located in each part of the brain. Then, in the 60s of the last century, Pribram had to face the principle of holography, he explained what other neurophysiologists had been trying to explain for so long. Pribram is confident that memory is not in neurons, but in nerve impulses that circulate throughout the brain, just as a piece of a hologram contains all the information about the image.
Much scientific evidence suggests that the brain is adapted to holographic functioning. Hugo Zucciarelli An Argentine-Italian researcher recently discovered a holographic model in acoustics. He was worried about the fact that a person can determine where a sound is coming from, even with one ear. Only the principle of holography can explain this. He developed a technology that recorded sound holophonically, and when listened to, the recording was distinguished by amazing realism.
Pribram's theory that our brains create "solid" objects based on input frequencies has been confirmed. Scientists have determined that the human brain is capable of perceiving frequencies of a larger range. For example, it turned out that a person can “hear” with his eyes; all cells of our body perceive higher frequencies. Human consciousness transforms the chaotic perception of frequencies into a continuous one.
An amazing moment, if Pribram’s holographic theory of the brain is combined with Bohm’s theory, it turns out that a person perceives only a reflection of holographic frequencies that come from something inaccessible to understanding. The human brain is part of a hologram; it selects the frequencies it needs and converts them. It turns out that objective reality does not exist.
Since ancient times, Eastern religions have said that matter is an illusion - Maya. Movement in the physical world is an illusion. A person, as a “receiver”, existing in a kaleidoscope of frequencies, selects one source from a huge variety and turns it into physical reality. The ability to read another person's mind may be nothing more than the ability to perceive the holographic level.
This model of the world can explain some amazing phenomena, for example, in the 50s of the last century, LSD was used in psychotherapy. One day, at Professor Grof There was a woman at the reception, she was given a drug, after a while she began to claim that she was a female dinosaur. When the patient was having hallucinations, she described in detail the perception of the world by another creature and mentioned golden scales on the head of the male. Professor Grof asked zoologists and found out that the golden scales on the heads of reptiles are needed for mating games. The patient knew nothing about this. Grof constantly encountered the fact that his patients returned to the past through the stages of evolution. Later, based on his observations, the film “Altered States” was made. In addition, all the details that the patients told exactly coincided with the biological descriptions of the species.
However, people at Grof’s receptions not only turned into animals, but also demonstrated knowledge that they did not have before. Patients with little or no education began to talk about Zoroastrian funerals or retell scenes from Hindu mythology. It turns out that somehow people could come into contact with the collective unconscious.
At other receptions, people had out-of-body experiences, predicted the future, and talked about their past incarnations. Later, Professor Grof discovered that unusual conditions occur in patients even without the use of drugs. What all patients had in common was the expansion of consciousness and its transcendence of time and space. Grof called the experiences of patients “transpersonal”, then a separate branch appeared - transpersonal psychology. Grof has many followers today, but no one can explain the strange phenomena that occur during psychotherapy sessions.
From the point of view of holographic theory, everything becomes clear. If consciousness is part of a continuum and connected to other consciousnesses that exist or existed, then transpersonal experience no longer seems strange. The idea of a hologram world can also be found in biology. Keith Floyd, a psychologist at Intermon College in Virginia, says consciousness should not be thought of as a product of the brain. Rather, on the contrary, consciousness creates the brain, body and the entire surrounding reality. Such a revolution in views can affect both medicine and the healing process of the body. What is now called treatment may be nothing more than correctly made adjustments to a person’s hologram. Healing occurs through a change in consciousness. Everyone knows that mental images can cure a person; the experience of the otherworldly and revelations can also be explained by a holographic model of the world.
In his book “Gifts of the Unknown,” the biologist Lyal Watson describes an encounter with a female shaman from Indonesia. She performed a ritual dance, and the grove of trees disappeared before the eyes of observers. Trees disappeared and reappeared. Modern science cannot explain such phenomena.
In the hologram world there are no frames, no restrictions for changing reality. It becomes possible to bend the spoon and the scenes that I described Carlos Castaneda in their books. The world is nothing more than a description of reality.
Whether the idea of a holographic world will develop or not is still unknown, but it has already become quite popular among scientists. If it is established that the holographic model of the world does not explain the instantaneous interaction of elementary particles well enough, then, as said Basil Healy, a physicist at Birbeck College, one must be prepared for the fact that reality may have to be understood differently.
To understand what we are talking about, let’s think: what do we mean by the concept of “real”.
If “real” is something that can be touched and seen (everyday approach), then the world, of course, is real.
If it is something that can be detected/measured by instruments (scientific approach), then the answer is again: the world is real.
But if he is real, then where did he come from? After all, to create something real, you need some kind of real creator, to create a creator, some other creator is needed, and so on along the chain. Either an ideal creator is needed, but then the question arises: how does the ideal create the real?
What explanations exist for the origin of our world?
- Religion believes that the world was created by God, but does not explain where God himself came from.
- Scientists believe that the world was formed as a result of the Big Bang, but they immediately add that their theories do not extend to the singularity that existed at the moment of the Big Bang and before it (if the concept “before it” is applicable here at all).
- Transhumanists suggest that it is our task (or some other thinking matter) to develop enough to become a god and create this world. As in the joke:
Conversation between an atheist and a transhumanist
Atheist: There is no God.
Transhumanist: Not yet.
But even if someone appears who will create our world, from the outside it will resemble a snake coiled in a ring, from whose mouth its own tail comes out, again without explanation of where the snake itself came from.
Is it possible to build a picture of the world in which a creator would not be required at all? Can. And below I will show how.
The simplest option is to assume that there is no world. And since he does not exist, then there is no need for a creator. This option corresponds to Occam's principle, according to which to explain something one does not need to add new entities unnecessarily, but it contradicts the fact that we exist and we observe this world.
Then another option: our world is a mathematical abstraction, i.e. formula/equation/algorithm/idea or something like that. It does not require either a creator or a material carrier.
Let's look at a simple example of mathematical abstraction.
In 1975, IBM researcher Benoit Mandelbrot used a computer to draw the set that was later named after him. This set is remarkable in that it is described using a fairly simple iterative algorithm for transforming points on the complex plane (the program text fits on one page), but despite the simplicity of the description, the corresponding object has an infinitely complex structure. There are a lot of similar formulas and algorithms that have been discovered, and they are not all built on a plane. You can add a couple more coordinates to the plane, and get something similar to our space-time (by the way, from a mathematical point of view, time is described as imaginary space).
Let's imagine for a moment that our world is just a mathematical abstraction. Most likely, the formula, or whatever it is, that describes our world will be more complicated than the description of the Mandelbrot set (take at least the Schrödinger equation, which describes the behavior of just one quantum particle). We have not yet discovered this formula, but scientific research proves that our world lives according to certain laws, and these laws are observed quite strictly. This is an important point. Firstly, it speaks in favor of the fact that our world can really be a mathematical abstraction, and secondly, it is thanks to the action of laws that we exist in it. In the absence of laws, in chaos, intelligent beings cannot appear, since the main property of intelligent beings, as artificial intelligence experts say, is to discover patterns in the world and use them in their life. In the absence of laws, learning is impossible, memory is useless, and, in fact, attempts to form at least some structures, not to mention highly organized ones, will not be successful, because there are no laws by which they could appear.
So, let’s assume that a certain function describes space-time and certain objects in it, which over time are able to move around this space, form structures at all levels of organization, both passive and active (capable of collecting information about the world and using it to improve your ability to survive). Let's assume that this is just a function that is not embodied on any material medium, but which, nevertheless, describes completely “real” things. Next, if such a function exists, let us ask the question, who created it?
Who created the Mandelbrot set? In 1975, it was built using a computer by Benoit Mandelbrot. But before that, in 1905, his formula was described by Pierre Fatou. What happened before that? Before this, no one knew anything about him or even guessed. But this does not mean that it was not there at all. As an idea, it has always existed, and an idea is immaterial. Just as all mathematics, born from observations of the world around us, is immaterial. Thus, the question of the creator of the formula disappears by itself: for such things a creator is not required. There can only be a discoverer who is himself part of the world described by this formula.
Mathematicians have already tried to create mathematical abstractions that describe manifestations similar to those of our world. For example, A. Zaslavsky in his work “The Own Worlds of Dynamic Systems,” considering a general dynamic system as a chain of abstract events, shows that in its own world it has all the attributes of matter: matter and field.
If we accept that our world is just a mathematical abstraction, let's see how we can answer a few questions.
Does the above mean that our world is a matrix, in the sense as in the film of the same name? That is, does it represent a virtual reality that has a real medium, for example, a supercomputer, or a huge mass of computers connected to a network?
Quite possible. Provided that there is some external reality that is inaccessible to our perception. But then we can ask the question: how real is that external reality? If we live in the most external reality, then the answer will be: no, our world is not a matrix. The matrix needs a material carrier, but mathematical abstraction does not need it at all! And if virtual reality exists inside the world, then it is just a component of it, which contains either part of the information about the real world or information about the fictional world. The virtual reality that we have now learned to create on a computer has one important feature: in quantitative terms (for example, memory capacity, speed, number of simulated objects) it is finite. A mathematical object can be either finite or infinite. For example, the Mandelbrot set, as a mathematical object, is infinite. Whatever part of it we take, when we enlarge it we will discover increasingly finer details. But it can be recreated both in virtual reality and on a material medium. On a computer, it will turn into a finite set, limited by the number of pixels on the screen, or the number of memory cells in which its image is stored. Strictly speaking, this will already be a model of the Mandelbrot set, and not itself. You can draw it on paper. And although paper and ink have a finer structure than the size of the pixels on the screen, or the computer's memory cells, even with a slight increase in the drawing we will see that the picture is different from a mathematical object, and with an even greater increase we will see that it has nothing to do with it at all nothing in common. And this is also a model. Moreover, it is of low quality, please note, although it has a material carrier, in contrast to the ideally high-quality mathematical set of Mandelbrot, which does not have a material carrier!
How many copies does our world exist in?
If we live in a nested world, it is entirely possible for there to be more than one instance. If we live in the outside world, this question is meaningless. Look at the Mandelbrot set. There can be as many images of it on a computer or drawings on paper as you like, but these are just models and not a real mathematical object. In this sense, we (or someone else) can create as many virtual realities as we want, reflecting our world, but these will only be incomplete models of it. To draw an analogy, the real Mandelbrot set, which the world learned about in 1975, has always existed as an abstraction, even when no one knew about it. Where did it exist and in what quantity? Nowhere and in no way. Well, maybe we can say about it, as a formula, that it exists in one copy (implying that if someone else discovered/wrote the same formula, it is still the same formula, and the quantity does not depend on this fact will double).
Are there other worlds?
Like mathematical objects, of course there are. Because there are as many formulas as you like. But they are in no way connected with our world, and it makes no sense to apply questions to them where they are located.
Can our world intersect with another? Is it possible to get from our world to another?
No. If this were possible, then the formula describing our world should include that other world, and if it includes it, then the other world is no longer another, but a part of ours (or ours is a part of another)
So what kind of world do we live in? Real or are we just a mathematical abstraction?
Unfortunately, due to Gödel's incompleteness theorem, this question cannot be answered. But the real world requires an explanation of where it came from, and the mathematical abstraction is self-sufficient, and therefore more plausible.
Are we living in virtual reality?
For us, people, with a limited number of neurons in the brain, and with a limited ability to perceive, even an artificially created virtual reality, provided it is implemented well enough, may turn out to be indistinguishable from the real world. What can we say about the world of which we are a part and which, according to our knowledge of it, is quite delicately structured? Conducting physical experiments, we penetrate further into the depths of the structure of matter, and even now scientists assume that at small distances and short periods of time, space and time are quantized. This may be an argument in favor of a matrix and the nesting of our world in the external world, but it may also indicate that the mathematical abstraction that describes our world is discrete.
Mathematical abstraction is an information concept. What to do with the fact that the information interactions observed in our world do not occur without the participation of material carriers?
What we observe is “secondary” information, which is encoded in the properties of objects and in their relative position in space-time. Information interaction between objects occurs due to the fact that some objects encode others, and others read this information. Such a process requires the presence of at least two interacting objects that have “agreed” on how information will be encoded and how it should be interpreted. Without these two conditions, interaction ceases to be informational and degenerates into simple interaction. Further, if the objects themselves, their interaction with each other, as well as space-time itself are the result of a certain function, then we will come to the conclusion that there is also “primary” information that exists outside of space-time, and therefore has no material carrier. In our world it manifests itself, for example, in the form of world constants, but who knows, maybe there are worlds in which there is no information interaction at all, where chaos reigns. Similarly, we can talk about “tertiary” information. For example, for a gamer, characters in a computer game will interact with each other informationally, although any programmer will say that this interaction is apparent, but in reality completely different processes occur at the level of signals in the computer.
In the everyday sense, this is exactly how we perceive reality. But let's think about whether a virtual character in virtual reality will feel a virtual button? Provided that this virtual reality is properly programmed and the virtual character has the same complex organization as a real person? If the activity of nerve cells is simulated down to individual neurotransmitter molecules, he will obviously experience the same sensations as a real person, and the sensations will be just as real for him despite its unreal nature. Due to Gödel's incompleteness theorem, a virtual character will not be able to prove that his reality is virtual. Even if we suggest the answer, it has no way of determining whether that information is true or false.
Just like ours. But regardless of whether our world turns out to be real or not, it will still remain as it is, with the same laws that were in effect before and with the same creatures (us) that inhabit it and are its constituent parts. Perhaps only our idea of it will change, or at least we will begin to think more about how it works.
To understand what we are talking about, let’s think: what do we mean by the concept of “real”.
If “real” is something that can be touched and seen (everyday approach), then the world, of course, is real.
If it is something that can be detected/measured by instruments (scientific approach), then the answer is again: the world is real.
But if he is real, then where did he come from? After all, to create something real, you need some kind of real creator, to create a creator, some other creator is needed, and so on along the chain. Either an ideal creator is needed, but then the question arises: how does the ideal create the real?
What explanations exist for the origin of our world?
- Religion believes that the world was created by God, but does not explain where God himself came from.
- Scientists believe that the world was formed as a result of the Big Bang, but they immediately add that their theories do not extend to the singularity that existed at the moment of the Big Bang and before it (if the concept “before it” is applicable here at all).
- Transhumanists suggest that it is our task (or some other thinking matter) to develop enough to become a god and create this world. As in the joke:
Conversation between an atheist and a transhumanist
Atheist: There is no God.
Transhumanist: Not yet.
But even if someone appears who will create our world, from the outside it will resemble a snake coiled in a ring, from whose mouth its own tail comes out, again without explanation of where the snake itself came from.
Is it possible to build a picture of the world in which a creator would not be required at all? Can. And below I will show how.
The simplest option is to assume that there is no world. And since he does not exist, then there is no need for a creator. This option corresponds to Occam's principle, according to which to explain something one does not need to add new entities unnecessarily, but it contradicts the fact that we exist and we observe this world.
Then another option: our world is a mathematical abstraction, i.e. formula/equation/algorithm/idea or something like that. It does not require either a creator or a material carrier.
Let's look at a simple example of mathematical abstraction.
In 1975, IBM researcher Benoit Mandelbrot used a computer to draw the set that was later named after him. This set is remarkable in that it is described using a fairly simple iterative algorithm for transforming points on the complex plane (the program text fits on one page), but despite the simplicity of the description, the corresponding object has an infinitely complex structure. There are a lot of similar formulas and algorithms that have been discovered, and they are not all built on a plane. You can add a couple more coordinates to the plane, and get something similar to our space-time (by the way, from a mathematical point of view, time is described as imaginary space).
Let's imagine for a moment that our world is just a mathematical abstraction. Most likely, the formula, or whatever it is, that describes our world will be more complicated than the description of the Mandelbrot set (take at least the Schrödinger equation, which describes the behavior of just one quantum particle). We have not yet discovered this formula, but scientific research proves that our world lives according to certain laws, and these laws are observed quite strictly. This is an important point. Firstly, it speaks in favor of the fact that our world can really be a mathematical abstraction, and secondly, it is thanks to the action of laws that we exist in it. In the absence of laws, in chaos, intelligent beings cannot appear, since the main property of intelligent beings, as artificial intelligence experts say, is to discover patterns in the world and use them in their life. In the absence of laws, learning is impossible, memory is useless, and, in fact, attempts to form at least some structures, not to mention highly organized ones, will not be successful, because there are no laws by which they could appear.
So, let’s assume that a certain function describes space-time and certain objects in it, which over time are able to move around this space, form structures at all levels of organization, both passive and active (capable of collecting information about the world and using it to improve your ability to survive). Let's assume that this is just a function that is not embodied on any material medium, but which, nevertheless, describes completely “real” things. Next, if such a function exists, let us ask the question, who created it?
Who created the Mandelbrot set? In 1975, it was built using a computer by Benoit Mandelbrot. But before that, in 1905, his formula was described by Pierre Fatou. What happened before that? Before this, no one knew anything about him or even guessed. But this does not mean that it was not there at all. As an idea, it has always existed, and an idea is immaterial. Just as all mathematics, born from observations of the world around us, is immaterial. Thus, the question of the creator of the formula disappears by itself: for such things a creator is not required. There can only be a discoverer who is himself part of the world described by this formula.
Mathematicians have already tried to create mathematical abstractions that describe manifestations similar to those of our world. For example, A. Zaslavsky in his work “The Own Worlds of Dynamic Systems,” considering a general dynamic system as a chain of abstract events, shows that in its own world it has all the attributes of matter: matter and field.
If we accept that our world is just a mathematical abstraction, let's see how we can answer a few questions.
Does the above mean that our world is a matrix, in the sense as in the film of the same name? That is, does it represent a virtual reality that has a real medium, for example, a supercomputer, or a huge mass of computers connected to a network?
Quite possible. Provided that there is some external reality that is inaccessible to our perception. But then we can ask the question: how real is that external reality? If we live in the most external reality, then the answer will be: no, our world is not a matrix. The matrix needs a material carrier, but mathematical abstraction does not need it at all! And if virtual reality exists inside the world, then it is just a component of it, which contains either part of the information about the real world or information about the fictional world. The virtual reality that we have now learned to create on a computer has one important feature: in quantitative terms (for example, memory capacity, speed, number of simulated objects) it is finite. A mathematical object can be either finite or infinite. For example, the Mandelbrot set, as a mathematical object, is infinite. Whatever part of it we take, when we enlarge it we will discover increasingly finer details. But it can be recreated both in virtual reality and on a material medium. On a computer, it will turn into a finite set, limited by the number of pixels on the screen, or the number of memory cells in which its image is stored. Strictly speaking, this will already be a model of the Mandelbrot set, and not itself. You can draw it on paper. And although paper and ink have a finer structure than the size of the pixels on the screen, or the computer's memory cells, even with a slight increase in the drawing we will see that the picture is different from a mathematical object, and with an even greater increase we will see that it has nothing to do with it at all nothing in common. And this is also a model. Moreover, it is of low quality, please note, although it has a material carrier, in contrast to the ideally high-quality mathematical set of Mandelbrot, which does not have a material carrier!
How many copies does our world exist in?
If we live in a nested world, it is entirely possible for there to be more than one instance. If we live in the outside world, this question is meaningless. Look at the Mandelbrot set. There can be as many images of it on a computer or drawings on paper as you like, but these are just models and not a real mathematical object. In this sense, we (or someone else) can create as many virtual realities as we want, reflecting our world, but these will only be incomplete models of it. To draw an analogy, the real Mandelbrot set, which the world learned about in 1975, has always existed as an abstraction, even when no one knew about it. Where did it exist and in what quantity? Nowhere and in no way. Well, maybe we can say about it, as a formula, that it exists in one copy (implying that if someone else discovered/wrote the same formula, it is still the same formula, and the quantity does not depend on this fact will double).
Are there other worlds?
Like mathematical objects, of course there are. Because there are as many formulas as you like. But they are in no way connected with our world, and it makes no sense to apply questions to them where they are located.
Can our world intersect with another? Is it possible to get from our world to another?
No. If this were possible, then the formula describing our world should include that other world, and if it includes it, then the other world is no longer another, but a part of ours (or ours is a part of another)
So what kind of world do we live in? Real or are we just a mathematical abstraction?
Unfortunately, due to Gödel's incompleteness theorem, this question cannot be answered. But the real world requires an explanation of where it came from, and the mathematical abstraction is self-sufficient, and therefore more plausible.
Are we living in virtual reality?
For us, people, with a limited number of neurons in the brain, and with a limited ability to perceive, even an artificially created virtual reality, provided it is implemented well enough, may turn out to be indistinguishable from the real world. What can we say about the world of which we are a part and which, according to our knowledge of it, is quite delicately structured? Conducting physical experiments, we penetrate further into the depths of the structure of matter, and even now scientists assume that at small distances and short periods of time, space and time are quantized. This may be an argument in favor of a matrix and the nesting of our world in the external world, but it may also indicate that the mathematical abstraction that describes our world is discrete.
Mathematical abstraction is an information concept. What to do with the fact that the information interactions observed in our world do not occur without the participation of material carriers?
What we observe is “secondary” information, which is encoded in the properties of objects and in their relative position in space-time. Information interaction between objects occurs due to the fact that some objects encode others, and others read this information. Such a process requires the presence of at least two interacting objects that have “agreed” on how information will be encoded and how it should be interpreted. Without these two conditions, interaction ceases to be informational and degenerates into simple interaction. Further, if the objects themselves, their interaction with each other, as well as space-time itself are the result of a certain function, then we will come to the conclusion that there is also “primary” information that exists outside of space-time, and therefore has no material carrier. In our world it manifests itself, for example, in the form of world constants, but who knows, maybe there are worlds in which there is no information interaction at all, where chaos reigns. Similarly, we can talk about “tertiary” information. For example, for a gamer, characters in a computer game will interact with each other informationally, although any programmer will say that this interaction is apparent, but in reality completely different processes occur at the level of signals in the computer.
In the everyday sense, this is exactly how we perceive reality. But let's think about whether a virtual character in virtual reality will feel a virtual button? Provided that this virtual reality is properly programmed and the virtual character has the same complex organization as a real person? If the activity of nerve cells is simulated down to individual neurotransmitter molecules, he will obviously experience the same sensations as a real person, and the sensations will be just as real for him despite its unreal nature. Due to Gödel's incompleteness theorem, a virtual character will not be able to prove that his reality is virtual. Even if we suggest the answer, it has no way of determining whether that information is true or false.
Just like ours. But regardless of whether our world turns out to be real or not, it will still remain as it is, with the same laws that were in effect before and with the same creatures (us) that inhabit it and are its constituent parts. Perhaps only our idea of it will change, or at least we will begin to think more about how it works.
