Let's say that there are an infinite number of realities. As such, there must be a computational method that can calculate the entire set of realities. Let's call this the 'total set'. In the total set exists all subsets of realities that can be calculated using any, none, and all given datum. In order to calculate the total set, the computational method must recursively calculate all sub-sets, including the sub-set in which the total set does not exist, the 'empty' set where no data or information exists.
The reason as to why the nature of reality is recursively exponential is because the computational method to calculate all sub-sets of the total set is required to calculate both the sub-set where the calculation is successful and the sub-set where the calculation is unsuccessful. From here on, the computational method is infinitely recursive in its quest to ascertain both the successful and unsuccessful calculations of all of its attempted calculations. The total set of all computable realities cannot exist. What does this say about reality?
That's just how set theory works. It says nothing about observable reality.
I really, really dislike "reality is a simulation" people.
It takes a lot of effort to get above third wave feminists on any sort of list, my friend.
>>17750939
Not much.
It says a lot about math tough.
If math it's an universal value wouldn't reality be an universal value too?, if math isn't an universal value you can't aproach your question with a calculation.
Learn some spirituality, better answers there.
>>17750939
It says that reality isn't computable and never was.
>>17750960
I'm not necessarily leaning towards the "simulation" thought.
I'm trying to get a sense of whether or not there is a finite amount of realities. Whether or not reality is driven by simple cause and effect or whether it is logically driven by a structure or system that is meant to ascertain the total amount of realities is something I'm not focused on.
I just want to understand the ways that we can currently understand the nature of reality in terms of whether it is finite or not.
Most importantly, what theories exist that disprove the thought that there is an infinite number of realities?
>>17750960
It doesn't necessarily imply simulation, just seems like an idea on how infinite universe theory could be expressed in a mathematical way.
>>17750968
>Spirituality
>better answers than math
topkek
>>17750971
This, considering the calculations would never cease and the total amount of data would continue to grow exponentially, you would first need a method of infinite data storage. It's a neat thought exercise though.
>>17750971
Now that I look at it, set theory isn't capable of explaining the methods by which all computable or 'observable' realities can be ascertained.
Is there something else?
>>17751029
>disprove the thought that there is an infinite number of realities?
The through it real, the idea behind it isn't. You can't prove an existential negative in an infinite space. You can only prove negatives in finite spaces. You can only prove that there isn't a celestial teapot by scanning the entire solar system in one simultaneous sweep.
>>17751030
>It's a neat thought exercise though.
Absolutely. A lot of "true believers" don't realize that the entire hypothesis is based on the idea that we can simulate one reality from another, but there still has to be a base reality. It's not a given that any given universe is computable, and that's the assumption on which the theory is founded to begin with.
>>17751036
>Is there something else?
In terms of what? We're talking about the single most abstract concept of all possible concepts here. Something else to replace the simulation hypothesis? Replace it how? What role does the simulation hypothesis even serve? It's just an idea in the end.
>>17751042
>The thought it real
Blegh.
>>17751042
>It's not a given that any given universe is computable
You got a point. We still have a long way to go before we even know if simulating a single reality is possible. Not only would we have to get a consensus on a unified theory that covers the differences between micro and macro scale physics, but understand them well enough to express each and every individual function in formulae. It will probably be a long while and countless broken particles before we get all of that down.
>>17751071
>a long while and countless broken particles
These are the kinds of idioms I can only find on /x/.
Thanks anon.
>>17750939
You should read up on the gauge group in particle physics.
>>17751046
>what role does the simulation hypothesis even serve
Haven't read much about it but I'm going to eyeball the meaning. I'm assuming that the theory is driven by the need to calculate all possible realities which is what I was attempting to do by throwing each reality into sub-sets whose set contains them all.
What I got stuck on with my venture into the containment of infinite realities via set theory is that there will always be recursion in the calculation as two calculable realities will always stem from one calculable reality: the sub-set where the reality exists and the sub-set where the reality doesn't exist. In the end, there really cannot be any purpose to calculating the total set of realities because this recursion is prevalent.
Take this reality for example. Lets assume that it is a part of the total set. If this is so, there also exists a reality where this reality doesn't exist; the empty sub-set. When we look at the empty sub-set, we acquire two new sub-sets: the sub-set where the empty sub-set exists and the sub-set where the empty sub-set doesn't exist. Is this really redundant or are we saying so because there is no way to calculate all realities at this point?
>>17750939
Somewhere out there in the infinite universes, OP is not a faggot and Emma Watson is doing porn.
>>17751117
Ultimately it's starting to sound like Russel's paradox at this point:
>does the set of all realities that do not simulate themselves contain a simulation of itself?
>>17751126
Emma Watson isn't even all that. Your current sexual attraction to her is just being driven by dendritic connections that you created as a child as you watched her in the Harry Potter movies. If you only recently started masturbating to her, then you need to spend some time searching for real women.
>>17751135
Yeah that's my roadblock. Sets that contain themselves and their own opposites is not the direction that I want to take to understand how to calculate all possible realities.
I guess all I can rely on is the newfound physical fluidity of particles. Theory is not enough anymore.
>>17751149
I don't think you need to consider opposites or alternatives when regarding a given reality. A total opposite in the quantum sense - every single particle in the universe becoming it's antiparticle - would be an extremely rare if not impossible occurrence. Maybe only in the first few moments of the Big Bang. The fact is, a given reality at a given moment in time "won out" over the others... It becomes part of the set of all possible realities, and all others in the set exist independently from that moment in time going forward.
>>17751149
Maybe instead of having the potential of multiple copies of the same reality in different locations between sets, you could have all similar instances just refer back to the information of the first occurrence?
>Reality C contains a simulation exactly like reality B. call this C/B
>Reality B contains a simulation exactly like reality C. call this B/C
>C/B = B
>B/C = C
At least as far as computing and storage of data would be concerned, it should solve that problem, at least.
>>17751142
>you're only like that because you could form memories and preferences growing up
>you're only like that because you could absorb cultural stimuli
>you're only like that because your brain allows individuality to form
