We need more discussion of Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis

Seriously, I tried. I really did. But all you can do, Write4U, seems to be to explain and example how patterns of matter are observed throughout the universe, and how maths describes these patterns, which is not disputed, and never has been. You are constantly failing in your efforts to go beyond this, at least meaningfully. Maybe someone who can better decipher your comments will turn up, but until then I'm out as well.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What does that mean?

And before you leave, why don't you tell me exactly what is wrong with that "description" of mathematical values at Planck Scale?

Ever heard of "nodes"?

Physics

• Node (physics), a point along a standing wave where the wave has minimal amplitude

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


The Planck era: Imagining our infant universe
During the Planck era, the universe was so small that our laws of physics break down. To dive deeper back in time, we’ll need new scientific language.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Today, four fundamental forces exist: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force. According to unified theories, early in the universe’s existence these forces began as a single force, with each separating out at a specific temperature as the cosmos cooled.
Roen Kelly

more..... The Planck era: Imagining our infant universe

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I thank you for your kind indulgence. Trust me, I have learned from this exchange.

OK, then I shall post just 1 more and present an actual model of a mathematical Universe. And just see what the future brings.

The Planck era: Imagining our infant universe

Causal Dynamical Triangulation. (CDT)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This does not do what you seem to think it does. Breaking down space into Planck lengths, or nodes, or anything else, allows us to model at that scale, and to perhaps then understand what is going on at that level. It does not even address, let alone support, the notion of the mathematical universe that Tegmark is arguing for in his MUH.
Every time you post such an example just seems to reinforce the perception that you don't comprehend at a basic level what Tegmark is arguing for.

Now I'm definitely out (although moths and lights etc :/).

 

C'mon, be gracious.

If I told you that I understand Tegmark better than you do, how would you prove me wrong?

 

All we have to do is read your posts, that is proof enough.

 

Anyone who has done 6th Form physics will be familiar with nodes.

 

I'm not that interested in Max Tegmark or this thread but since this seems to be the most popular thread at the moment, I'll post.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I read his book about this years ago. As I recall the first 3/4 of the book was just standard physics and then he gradually went off the deep end at the end of the book.

I know I'm not summarizing it 100% correctly but isn't he essentially arguing that mathematically, anything that can happen, did happen. So in essence isn't this similar to arguing for string theory, for multiverses, or infinite outcomes?

I know specifically he argues for "levels" and for mathematical structures that could take place even with a different set of physics laws (in theory). In other words, it isn't scientific, isn't falsifiable and is largely just a way to get more public attention (and possibly funding).

I hesitated to post, since I'm not a bookkeeper and therefore probably not qualified to post.

 

So, why should I not be familiar with the term or what it describes? It's the geometry of the Universe and it is mathematical in essence, no?.

Everybody always complains that individual theories are always incomplete. Duuh..
My approach is to compile "hard facts" (known universal properties) and find "common denominators" that may eventually point to an underlying universal logic That is entirely mathematical in structure and function.

 

I am glad you did, looks to me that we are very much on the same wavelength.

LOL, that's funny.

Even as I was never in advanced mathematics, the beauty of maths is that they are logical. As are wave functions. A symphony is a mathematical structure and as ex-musician (7 years on the road) I appreciate Pythagoras' perspective on the fundamental properties of the universe.

Pythagorean theorem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem

and the
Pythagoras tree (fractal)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Pythagoras tree with an angle of 25 degrees and smooth coloring

consisting of

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This is the simplest symmetric triangle. Alternatively, the sides of the triangle are recursively equal proportions, leading to the sides being proportional to the square root of the inverse golden ratio, and the areas of the squares being in golden ratio proportion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Animated_self-resembling_Pythagoras_tree_(fractal).webm

Which all translates into regular patterns forming in all areas of cosmology.
The Golden Ratio and Fibonacci Sequence

https://math.libretexts.org/Courses/College_of_the_Canyons/

We "discovered" natural mathematics, codified them, and symbolized them to explain the axiomatic observations of an infinite variety of pattern expressions based on simple themes.

What humanity learned from the Universe, enabled the Universe to produce Mozart, Einstein, F.L. Wright, Oppenheimer in humanity .

I like the concept of a dynamic, self-referential, self-ordering, mathematically functioning, fractal spacetime object.

It seems to me the natural logic of emergent existence (becoming).
After all, on Earth, Life in all its abundant variety is another expression of mathematical dynamics.