All possible mathematical structures have a physical existence, and collectively, give a multiverse that subsumes all others. Here, Tegmark is taking us well beyond accepted viewpoints, advocating his personal vision for explaining the Universe.
Tegmark does not dispute physics, he proposes physics is based on the extant mathematical relationships between inherent physical values and their orderly (predictable) interactions.
The veracity of that statement is self-evident.
Here is where the train is a Planck distance from going off the rails...
Yes, the old Planck ploy. No one knows how it works, but we do know for sure that somehow it doesn't work mathematically, while EVERYTHING else in the universe functions in accordance with mathematical guiding equations.
Therefore Mathematics are no more than an interesting human artifact? A convenient curiosity? C'mon....
Sorry, but "rails" is an unfortunate analogy. Nothing is going off the rails in nature. Everything seem to reach its destination with uncanny regularity. It is not the universe's weakness that humans don't know where the train is going.
Are you prepared to argue that Planck distance is not a mathematical "measurement", regardless of any mathematical "uncertainty" in our ability to make simultaneous "measurements" ?????
Is it possible that at Planck scale ordinary physics do not work anymore, but Planck scale mathematical rules still apply?
In
physics, the
Planck length, denoted ℓP,
is a unit of length that is the distance light in a perfect vacuum travels in one unit of Planck time. It is also the reduced Compton wavelength of a particle with Planck mass. It is equal to 1.616255(18)×10−35 m.
[1] It is a
base unit in the system of
Planck units, developed by physicist
Max Planck.
The Planck length can be defined from three fundamental physical constants: the speed of light in a vacuum, the Planck constant, and the gravitational constant. It is the smallest distance about which current experimentally corroborated models of physics can make meaningful statements.
[2] At such small distances, the conventional laws of macro-physics no longer apply, and even relativistic physics requires special treatment.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
But no one claims that what's there is not mathematical in essence, no?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Mathematical_Universe
Can you show me the physical existence of mathematics? It exists, no? Are you proposing that the universe has no mathematical properties?
Is Tegmark the only scientist that USES mathematics?
If he is the only advocate why is EVERYBODY using maths? Are there any alternatives?
The Language of Physics
The Calculus and the Development of Theoretical Physics in Europe, 1750–1914
Authors: Garber, Elizabeth
This work is the first explicit examination of the key role that mathematics has played in the development of theoretical physics and will undoubtedly challenge the more conventional accounts of its historical development.
Although mathematics has long been regarded as the "language" of physics, the connections between these independent disciplines have been far more complex and intimate than previous narratives have shown.
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780817640392#
I know you are not proposing that only Tegmark uses maths for unlocking the mysteries of the universe.
All scientists use mathematical equationss, not physics! Maths are the most accurate way to explain physical stuff. It is also very convenient that maths are universally applicable. A lucky coincidence?
A simple example; In Physics stuff bumps into each other, in Mathematics things bump into each other in a quantifiable manner.
Either Physics has it's own language or it must be inextricably connected with Mathematics.
Physics does have its own language but aside from describing function it does not measure anything.
Any and all measurements are by definition of a mathematical nature.
The language of physics
06/11/19 , By Lauren Biron
10 more words that mean something different to scientists.
Word fans, rejoice!
Symmetry is back with another list of 10 common words that take on a new meaning when spoken by scientists. Check out the
first and
second lists, then take these physics words for a spin, too:
Quintessence? If there is only physics, why are we talking about abstract "essences"?
Tegmark does not argue against "physics", he argues FOR "mathematics" as a fundamental aspect of a physical universe.
It seems you are arguing the exact opposite? Why?
