Is the world and universe more or less ‘structured’ than it might typically appear or seem, and of the structure we see, is this being generated by the mind comprehending/apprehending the world and universe, possibly more than really exists ‘out there’.

Is the structure more apparent than real, and some sort of projection.

In a moment I am going to go brush my teeth, and there’s a good chance my toothbrush will be where I expect it to be, because last time I left it where I left it to find it next time I do what I’m about to do, again, but afterward when I go out to view the moon, and it’s not there it’s elsewhere, and I imagine it elsewhere, is it really really there, or is that moon an artifact of my brain activity, and that the concept of moon I have more explains something of mental activity than the moon itself, whatever it really is.

And further, if oneday I go to the moon, for a holiday, am I really going to the moon, or am I going to a moon concept or perception in my head.

There was one philosopher who thought that eyes generated light to see everything, turned out that he was wrong.

I get depressed a lot, and start thinking that the universe is algorithmic and predetermined etc

An algorithmic universe is structured in the sense that it follows universal laws.

Yes

or

No

It depends.

It depends on the individual. For example some people filter the real world through a myth-derived cosmology, presumably because they find it comforting, and try to convince themselves that a world distorted in this way is actually “the real world”. Others prefer their intellectual models of the world to be as accurate as their understanding of science enables, but nonetheless enjoy transforming their subjective experience of that world by imaginative and aesthetic interaction with it.

Bubblecar said:

It depends on the individual. For example some people filter the real world through a myth-derived cosmology, presumably because they find it comforting, and try to convince themselves that a world distorted in this way is actually “the real world”. Others prefer their intellectual models of the world to be as accurate as their understanding of science enables, but nonetheless enjoy transforming their subjective experience of that world by imaginative and aesthetic interaction with it.

And that my friends is a good summation of the Holiday Forum.

transition said:

Is the world and universe more or less ‘structured’ than it might typically appear or seem, and of the structure we see, is this being generated by the mind comprehending/apprehending the world and universe, possibly more than really exists ‘out there’.

In philosophy, a good place to look into the concept of what exists ‘out there’ is Plato’s Allegory of the Cave

transition said:

Is the structure more apparent than real, and some sort of projection?

Moving on from philosophy to cosmogony. The concept that the universe is some sort of projection can be seen in at least three branches.
1) In the TOE Causal Dynamical Triangulation in which four-dimensional spacetime is an illusion caused by balling up of a two-dimensional substructure.
2) In string theory in which four-dimensional spacetime is an illusion created by the rolling up of 10 dimensions, or 11 for M-theory.
3) In the holographic principle in which all that we think exists is just a projection on an event horizon.

transition said:

In a moment I am going to go brush my teeth, and there’s a good chance my toothbrush will be where I expect it to be, because last time I left it where I left it to find it next time I do what I’m about to do, again, but afterward when I go out to view the moon, and it’s not there it’s elsewhere, and I imagine it elsewhere, is it really really there

Now you’re touching on the topic of thge many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

transition said:

or is that moon an artifact of my brain activity, and that the concept of moon I have more explains something of mental activity than the moon itself, whatever it really is.

Now you’re getting into areas such as the ORIGINAL forum debate on “what colour is an orange in the dark?”, and a similar topic discussed on QI. To whit, does light really exist if it isn’t observed? Both discussions came to a the same general conclusion that the answer can be chosen both ways. ie. that it can be said that unobserved light doesn’t exist, in the most general cvase of the quantum observer AND it can be said that it does exist.

transition said:

And further, if oneday I go to the moon, for a holiday, am I really going to the moon, or am I going to a moon concept or perception in my head.

And now you’ve gone full circle back to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave.

anyway the moon did peep up over the range just as was going to bed, which was reassuring.

>..full circle back to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave…

dunno, mate, ‘bout that plato thing, or quantum whatevers, I never left home, my place of naive wonderings.