Reddit reviews Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality

There are similarities with Stephen Wolfram's "new kind of science", even though it's not exactly the same thing. What Wolfram did is more akin to philosophy of science (and it's quite controversial with scientists), whereas this article refers to actual cutting-edge research in fundamental physics.

There are many thinkers nowadays converging on vaguely similar ideas. E.g. Max Tegmark is asking whether the Universe, at the very bottom, is perhaps just pure math - read his book "Our mathematical Universe", it's engaging, well written, and he's careful to separate scientific fact versus scientific hypothesis versus scientific imagination (you do get all 3 kinds in the book, he just makes a note at the beginning, explaining where each category begins and ends, which is nice).

Many physicists subscribe to the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics in which this randomness isn't random at all. Instead it states the each outcome of the wave function exists and is realized but they overlap for a while and produce some interesting effects but it's intimately unstable and we find ourselves with only one of the outcomes via a phenomenon called decoherence (as opposed to wave function collapse).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

Max Tegmark does a great job explaining about all the different types of parallel universes: http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html

The type we're talking about now is a level 3 universe. There's a few good links on his MIT page, I do highly recommend his book which is written for the average person to understand: Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307744256/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_awd_9rrBwbFHTHFAS

You've already read some classics, so I'd wager you're beyond lay-person "introductory" level.

My absolute favorite is Max Tegmark's Our Mathematical Universe. Starts out with a well-written, step-by-step intro to cosmology and our current understanding, but then ends up in some heady, and fascinating territory toward the end.

As for your location, I've visited Missoula (great and super friendly city!), and although it will have light pollution, you're surrounded by a lot of wilderness outside the city, so you should still have some great nights for home observation, or you could travel just a short distance outside the city for great views.

I religiously identify as Buddhist. I agree that "God" is the universe, but I tend to take a very large view of what could be meant by "universe". I accept the "supernatural" as being natural because I think that the part of the universe we inhabit, Sagan's "Cosmos", is simply a low-dimensional subset of a greater multiverse, with a specific set of rules, and that the rules may not apply "elsewhere". For me, this helps explain weird shit that credible people report having happened to them. Max Tegmark offers a Saganesque explanation for the multiverse concept which somewhat justifies this for me. But, anyway, I'm not trying to convert anyone to believing one way or another. And I'm fine with Christians as long as they're not douchebags about civil rights.

Relevant: http://nautil.us/issue/9/time/life-is-a-braid-in-spacetime

And his book: https://www.amazon.com/Our-Mathematical-Universe-Ultimate-Reality/dp/0307744256

Indeed!

https://smile.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Princeton-Science-Library/dp/0691164096/ref=sr_1_1

https://smile.amazon.com/Quantum-Universe-Anything-That-Happen/dp/0306821443/ref=sr_1_1

https://smile.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306818760/ref=sr_1_1

https://smile.amazon.com/Our-Mathematical-Universe-Ultimate-Reality/dp/0307744256/ref=sr_1_1

If learning actual physics isn't your thing,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztc6QPNUqls

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LyFap2aUN0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Basically, if things only probably don't exist, then they come out of nothing with some probability. If you want to consider it impossible for them to not come out of nothing, then there's no such thing as "nothing," so arguing that "something can't come from nothing" is like trying to draw conclusions from the observation that there's no such thing as a white unicorn.

The normal expression of "you can't get something from nothing" isn't really about quantum physics or the start of the universe. Taking that expression as obviously true when talking about such things so far outside of normal common sense experience is not obviously true in the same way it would be if you said "You can't take a cookie from an empty cookie jar."

Also, I didn't say the statement is neither true nor false. I said making an argument of the form "If X then Y" when X is never true is not a useful argument to make. It conveys no information. Regardless of what you substitute for X or Y, you cannot from that conclude panpsychism is supported.

Max Tegmark - Our Mathematical Universe

You're right. Read Max Tegmark's "Our Mathematical Universe" for more details.

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Mathematical-Universe-Ultimate-Reality/dp/0307744256/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=1-1&qid=1407273658