We need more discussion of Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You compare this discussion on Tegmark"s MUH to a play by Shakespeare?

I like Tegmark's argument that if the Universe is known to have some mathematical properties, why can we not argue that the universe has only mathematical properties.

I already told you that I am dubious about the multiverse and his analogy to a computer game. I understand the argument, but IMO, if we begin with the assumption of an original inflationary singularity, then the concept of a multiverse becomes awkward unless the multiverse evolved within the inflating singularity and that is not the current model.

From wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity#

I reject the concept of an eternal complex pattern. There must have been a "beginning" to this Universe.

I have asked before but never received an answer to the question if the "inflationary epoch" actually occurred at FTL, replacing a prior condition of nothingness, a void without any physical or mathematical restrictions, such as SOL and allowing for FTL expansion.

Until the plasma cooled and the mathematical laws of physics became functional inside the universal geometry and began the process of self-organization from the original chaotic conditions in accordance with the laws of physics which are mathematical in essence.

I start from the philosophical perspective that the concept of "irreducible complexity " is a theological argument and founded on an illogical premise.

Can you cite an example of a thing in our daily lives that does not lend itself to human mathematical description?

I am looking at Godel's incompleteness theorems, but that seems to address human mathematical limitations, not a natural unmeasurable value.

IOW, in a dynamic environment mathematical guiding equations are executed, but perfection can only be approximated. For Universal expressions that is sufficient, it always strives for perfection, but does not demand it.
Result, infinite variations expressed in a few self-organizing recurring mathematical patterns.

Anyway, I feel that I have received a "qualified" agreement with my basic understanding of Universal mechanics and at this stage of my quest, it seems that I am looking in the right direction.

I'm out. I enjoyed this substantial discussion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Apologies. I am trying my best to go by what you have written.

"Human maths"? Or do you mean that humans use maths to describe their understanding of the universe/things? Is "human maths" merely that maths that humans have discovered, or are you of the opinion humans created maths?

You still don't understand Tegmark's view, then. Ah, well.

I have never distinguished between "human maths" and "non-human maths". There is certainly the maths that humans have thus far discovered (for I do consider it discovered rather than created) but I am talking about maths, not human or non-human specifically.

No. I compare your disruption of the discussion with the disruption of someone else also not being relevant to the context they're in. I could have used a discussion on WW2, or while a teacher is try to teach pottery, or a coach trying to train his team etc. Not sure why you chose to focus on that aspect of the analogy rather than the disruption. Ah, well.

 

No, humans did not create Universal maths. We codified it with symbols that do not exist in nature but describe the naturally occurring maths that are patterned logical expressions of symmetry, balance, efficiency, strength, and structural excellence.

Fundamentally, human maths is the symbolization of observed natural mathematical properties.. I don't know how to say this differently.

We cannot find numbers drifting in nature but we can observe the expressed value of one or multiple objects and their properties in nature.

The Fibonacci sequence can be found where efficient mathematical growth organization is used by nature.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

https://www.grownyc.org/files/upload/fractals_in_nature.pdf

Does the sunflower know maths? It's a fractal. Is genetic coding knowledge?
Is it conscious? Is the aggregate conscious?

With unfailing regularity. Remarkable.
This remarkable pattern represents a natural distribution of what humans call the Fibonacci sequence (after the discoverer). (I know everybody knows that)
It is an evolved recurring pattern in nature for maximizing energy harvesting and seed distribution.
An expression of generic natural mathematics.

I do make that distinction, because human maths are symbolic representations of natural interactive mechanics based on relational values (differential equations) that in nature need no names, just the processing of the actual values.

Input --> Function (maths) --> Output

IMO, mathematics is not something that you can choose. Mathematical mechanics are part of this reality and organization, else there would still be chaos.
All self-ordered patterns in the universe are expressions of certain mathematical processes based on the generic values being processed.

With "relational value" I mean a significant property that is the sum and pattern of the object's inherent potentials relative to other objects.

For instance, I consider "carbon" as possessing extremely valuable properties based on its pattern-forming utility, making it a natural building block for almost all physical objects. It is nature's physical "+" sign.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.282.5397.2204

And please, don't see this as another distraction. I used this as an example of the abstract potential of carbon as a functional additive (+) in physical expressions.
CO2 is a product, a mathematical sum, a pattern. All of nature is a product, a mathematical sum, and most probably, a simple equation.
That is how I digest Tegmark. His TOE lies in the direction of an abstract and perfectly neutral functional Universe (a machine), and there is only Maths (relational values) becoming expressed in physical patterns of variable shapes and densities, and life (dynamics).

Tegmark projects no more than 32 numbers (relational values), and a couple of handfuls of equations as the absolute fundamental properties (values) sufficient to produce the present from a singularity that created this universe in a single mega-quantum event.

And I see Causality as any dynamic that affects its environment. The rest is mathematical, often exponential (inflationary).

Is Time an emergent product of mathematical chronology? Is Energy an emergent product of mathematical potential? I think so. I cannot think of a better model. To me it just makes sense.
But I admit, it's an ambitious idea.

 

A sum of what? You say CO2 is a product, but of what do you think it is a sum, ultimately?

You say "becoming expressed in physical patterns". What is the "physical" in this? Do you think, for example (or do you think that he thinks) there is some fundamental physical substrate, and that patterns that form within it are the expressions of mathematics, with all of nature being such a pattern (hence the pervasiveness of maths in the universe)?

 

CO2 is the sum of 1 Carbon and 2 Oxygen atoms (which are themselves the sum of their constituent parts).

Physical patterns are formed as the sum of a set or sets of constituent parts.
H2O is a sum, but its existence can be observed in 3 different physical patterns as Gaseous, Liquid, Solid, emergent properties of patterns and pattern densities.

As to Tegmark's perspective on "substrate"? I don't think Tegmark is talking about "substrate" as much as "structure" (patterns).

Mathematical universe hypothesis

Description

more.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis#

Structuralism (philosophy of science)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to be confused with Structuralism (philosophy of mathematics).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism_(philosophy_of_science)#Ontic_structural_realism

Ontic structural realism

This is why I use terms like "generic relational values" and "patterns" in my perspective of fundamental mathematical universal properties.

 

I may still have limited understanding of what this thread is doing in "Site Feedback". But with the introduction of the other thread (link below), the stage of evaluating MUH as a potential topic is surely over. And discussion about MUH (specifically what it is about rather than "Does it deserve...?") should end here and be carried over to that thread.

And I mean that voluntarily, not necessarily another transfer of posts there (albeit that might be convenient for the spillover conversation that seems to be continuing here).

https://www.sciforums.com/threads/t...niverse-hypothesis.166226/page-4#post-3723094
_

 

Yep which is why you have been banned on the ACTUAL discussion on Tegmark.

 

No. These are phases.

 

I'm trying on the other thread. The paper is for me too far reaching.

 

ok

 

I know basic chemistry, why do you still insist with pastes?

 

And of what do those sub-atomic constituent parts consist? And those below that?

And of what do those constituent parts consist? You would seem to be describing reductionism, but what are the fundamentals? What happens when you reach that layer that has no consituent parts? What does that level consist of? Maths? Or something else?

Which doesn't actually answer anything, but thanks.

 

Oh, my bad. I completely missed James R's explanation that "The new thread is a Write4U-free zone. Write4U is not able to post in it."

Emily Litella: "Never mind!"

(Not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing with anything, I just finally get what's going on. Duh.)

 

I am not attempting to instruct you. I would not presume.
I am presenting these quotes to inform you what science I am using for my argument. Not being familiar with formal scientific language, I use these "peer reviewed" papers to put my "own words" in context of that science.

 

Yes, I did mention that patterns (mathematical objects) go way down to the level when there are no longer patterns, but "values".

non-physical "values", "waves"?

It seems to answer the mathematical self-organization of patterns we call reality. If there is turtles all the way up (or down), then there is only turtles, no?

Is there math in gravity?

Which mathematical concept is used to describe electromagnetic fields?
Maxwell's equations

Relational values in a dynamic environment will result in self-formation of patterns.
Chaos Theory.

 

Lord help me.

 

Yes you did and do at every turn. Luckily I can discuss the actual paper separately from this. I will bow out of this thread now and leave you to it.