*January 11, 2013 4:16*

**To understand what will be discussed, let's think: what do we mean by "real." If the "real" — that is what you can touch, see (consumer approach), then the world is, of course, is real. If this is something that can detect / measure instruments (scientific approach), then the answer is again: the world is real. But if it is real, then where did he come?**

After all, to create something real looking for a real creator, creator to create some other creator, and so on up the chain. Or need a perfect creator, but then the question arises as the ideal creates real?

**What are the explanations of the origin of our world?**

Religion says that the world was created by God, but does not explain where it came from God himself.

Scientists believe that the world was formed by the Big Bang, but then they add that their theory does not apply to the singularity that existed at the time of the Big Bang and before him (if at all applicable here the term "up to it").

Transhumanists believe that it is our job (or any other intellectual matter) developed enough to become a god and create this world. As a joke:

A conversation with the atheist transhumanist

Atheist: God does not exist.

Transhumanist: not yet.

But even if it will be someone who will create our world, from the outside it will resemble a coiled snake, which comes out of his mouth by her own tail, again without explanation, where did the snake itself.

Is it possible to construct a picture of the world in which the creator did not need to at all? Can. And below I'll show you how.

The easiest option — to assume that there is no peace. And if not, then do not need, and creator. This option corresponds to the principle of Occam's that in order to explain anything not necessary to needlessly add new entities, but inconsistent with the fact that we are, and we see the world.

Then another option: our world is a mathematical abstraction, ie formula / equation / algorithm / idea or something like that. He does not need no creator, no material carrier.

Consider a simple example of mathematical abstraction.

In 1975, IBM researcher Benoit Mandelbrot by computer painted set, later named after him. This set is remarkable in that is described with a simple iterative algorithm for converting points in the complex plane (the program text fits on one page), but the simplicity of the description of the corresponding object is infinitely complex. Such formulas and algorithms to open a lot, and not all of them are based on the plane. By plane, you can add a couple of coordinates, and get something similar to our space-time (by the way, from a mathematical point of view, the time is described as the imaginary space).

Let's imagine for a moment that the world is only a mathematical abstraction. Rather, formula, or whatever it was, describing our world is more complicated than the description of the Mandelbrot set (get at least the Schrödinger equation, which describes the behavior of a single quantum particle). We have not yet discovered this formula, but research shows that our world lives according to certain laws, and these laws are pretty strictly enforced. This is important. First, it speaks well that the world can indeed be a mathematical abstraction, secondly, it is due to the laws, in it we exist. In the absence of laws, in the chaos, can not appear rational beings as the basic property of rational beings are said to specialists in artificial intelligence — to open the world's patterns and use them in your life. In the absence of laws can not be learning, memory is useless, and, indeed, at least some attempt to form the structures, not to mention highly not succeed, because there are no laws by which they might appear.

Now, suppose that a certain function describes the space-time and certain objects in it, which over time are able to move through this space, to form structures at all levels of the organization, both passive and active (able to gather information about the world and use it to improve their ability to survive.) We assume that this is just a function that is not embodied on any physical medium, but which, nevertheless, describes well the "real" thing. Further, if such a function exists, ask the question, and who created it?

And who created the Mandelbrot set? In 1975, it was built by a computer Benoit Mandelbrot. But before that, in 1905, his formula described Pierre Fatou. What happened to that? Before about it no one knew anything and had no idea. But this does not mean that it was not quite. As an idea, it has always existed, but the idea is immaterial. As immaterial and the mathematics, born from the observation of the world around them. Thus, the question of the creator of the formula is no longer relevant: for these things created is required. There can only be a discoverer, which is itself a part of the world, described by the formula.

Mathematicians have tried to create a mathematical abstraction, describing symptoms that are similar to the manifestations of our world. For example, A.Zaslavsky in his "own worlds of dynamical systems" considering the overall dynamic system as a chain of abstract events, shows that she has in his 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 you can answer a few questions.

Does the above, that our world is a matrix, in the sense that in the same film? That is, whether it is a virtual reality, which is the real media, such as a supercomputer, or a huge mass of computers connected to the network?

Probably. Provided that there is some external reality that is not available to our perception. But then we can ask the question, and the one external reality, how real? If we live in the external reality, then the answer is no, the world — it is not a matrix. Matrix need material support, and mathematical abstraction does not need it at all! And if in the world there is virtual reality, it is only a part of it, which contains either a piece of information about the real world, or information about a fictional world. That virtual reality, which at the moment we have learned to create a computer that has one important feature: the quantitative measurement (eg, memory, speed, number of simulated objects) it is finite. Mathematics same object can be either finite or infinite. For example, the Mandelbrot set as a mathematical object, infinite. No matter what part we take, when we find it increases all the finer details. But it can be recreated in virtual reality, and in a tangible medium. On your computer, it will turn into a finite set, a limited number of pixels on the screen, or the number of memory cells that store its image. Strictly speaking, it will be a model of the Mandelbrot set, instead it itself. You can draw it on paper. Although paper and ink has a finer structure than that of the pixels on the screen, or computer memory, even at low magnification image we can see that the picture is different from the mathematical object, and at still higher magnification, see that it does not have any with him nothing in common. And it is also a model. Moreover, low-quality, pay attention, although it has a material carrier, unlike the ideal mathematical quality of the Mandelbrot set, which has no material carrier!

*Mandelbrot set as a function of the computer program*

**In how many instances there is our world?**

If we live in a nested world, it is possible to have more than one instance. If we live in the outside world, this question is meaningless. Look at the Mandelbrot set. His image on the computer or on paper drawings can be any number, but it's just a model, not a real mathematical object. In this sense, we (or someone else) can create any number of virtual realities that reflect our world, but it will be only its partial model. By analogy, this Mandelbrot set, which the world learned in 1975, as an abstraction has always existed, even when none of it did not guess. Where it existed and how much? Nowhere and at no. Well, maybe about it, how about the formula, we can say that it exists in a single copy (meaning that even if someone had opened / written this formula, it is still the same formula, and the amount of this fact is not double).

**Are there other worlds?**

As mathematical objects, of course there is. Because formulas exist any number. But they have nothing to do with our world, and they make sense to apply the issues where they are.

Can our world to cross to the other? Can I get out of this world to the other?

No. If it were possible, the formula that describes our world, should include and that other world, and if she includes the other world is not different, and part of our (or our — part of another)

So where do we still live in the world? Real or are we just a mathematical abstraction?

Unfortunately, because of Godel's incompleteness theorem answer to this question can not be obtained. But the real world requires an explanation, where it came from, and the mathematical abstraction is self-sufficient, and therefore more believable.

**Do we live in a virtual reality?**

For us men, with a limited number of neurons in the brain, and with limited perception, even artificially created virtual reality, on the condition that enough implementation, it may be indistinguishable from the real world. What can we say about the world, of which we are and who, according to our knowledge of it, quite subtly arranged? Conducting physical experiments, we penetrate further into the depths of the structure of matter, and now scientists have suggested that at small distances and short periods of time, space and time are quantized. This may be an argument in favor of the matrix and the nesting of our world to the world, but it can speak and that mathematical abstraction that describes our world is discrete.

Mathematical abstraction — is the concept of information. What to do with the fact that observed in our world, information interactions occur without the involvement of physical media?

What we are seeing is a "secondary" information that is encoded in the properties of objects and their relative position in space-time. Information interaction of objects is due to the fact that some other object is encoded, while others read the information. For such a process requires the presence of at least two interacting objects that are "agreed" to how the information will be encrypted and how it should be interpreted. Without these two conditions interaction ceases to be informational, and degenerates into a simple interaction. Further, if the objects themselves, their interaction, as well as space-time itself is the result of some function, then we come to the conclusion that there is the "primary" information that exists outside of space-time and, therefore, has no material carrier. In our world, it appears, for example, in the form of the universal constants, but who knows, maybe there are worlds in which there is no information exchange in general, where there is chaos. Similarly, we can speak of a "tertiary" information. For example, for a gamer characters in a computer game will communicate information to each other, but any programmer will tell you that this interaction is apparent, but in reality are very different processes at the level of the signals in the computer.

**Is it not a delusion — to consider our world of mathematical abstraction? Try to sit on the lying on the chair, and it immediately becomes a reality.**

In the everyday sense of exactly what we perceive reality. But let's think, feel a virtual button virtual character in a virtual reality? Provided that this virtual reality will be properly programmed, and the virtual character will have a complex organization like a real man? If you simulate the activity of nerve cells within the individual molecules of neurotransmitters, obviously, he will experience the same sensation as a real person, with feelings for him are just as real in spite of its unreal nature. By Godel's incompleteness theorem, a virtual character can not prove that it is virtual reality. Even if we will show the answer, it has no way to determine the truth or falsity of the information.

As we do. But no matter, our world would be real or not, it will remain as is, with the same laws that they acted in the past and with the same creatures (us) that inhabit it and are its constituent parts. Only possible, we will change the idea of it, or at least we think will become more about how it works.

*By Shishkin*