I see mathematics as a *metaphysical* construct. A fortunate organizational ability (potential) of the spacetime.

I don't know what that even means. Tossing words like "organizational potential of the spacetime" around doesn't actually generate meaning.

**What is a physical substance other than a dense but orderly arranged pattern of sub-atomic "values" ?**

Values are not substances. But I already said that.

I would rephrase the question to ask whether there exist non-mathematical patterns at all, separate from mathematical patterns.

That's setting yourself up for a win. Mathematics is, more than anything else, the study of patterns. You're begging the question again.

Even within chaos self-organizing mathematical patterns form and emerge as expressed physical reality.

You're failing to distinguish chaotic mathematical systems from chaotic physical systems. One is a description; the other you can touch.

IMO, non-mathematical properties cannot contain mathematical *potentials*...

What is a "mathematical potential"? (Did I ask you that before? Apologies, if so.)

The universe doesn't need any symbolic language, it doesn't need to describe anything, we do!

Does that mean you're agreeing with me that mathematics is descriptive rather than constructive, now?

The Universe is capable of performing mathematically driven actions which are impossible to duplicate in a lab.

How do you know that mathematics is driving anything? How could it do that?

**Inaugural Laboratory Astrophysics Prize Goes to Louis Allamandola**

It's great that somebody won a prize, but I'm not sure why that is relevant to our discussion.

I accept that, but *spin *is a relational mathematical pattern, no?

Spin is a physical property. It can be described mathematically.

I don't have the knowledge to make such a statement, but Tegmark himself admits to incompleteness of our knowledge of universal mathematical properties and functions. But so do the physical sciences, no?

I don't know of anybody who has claimed that our knowledge of mathematics is complete.

But then, is it scientific to accept "messy" physics, when it has been proven that all things can be explained by their relational values and algebraic mathematical interactions.

Who has proven that all things can be explained by their relational values and algebraic mathematical interactions? Can you please link me to the relevant proof, or tell me where to find it? What's a "relational value"?

This is precisely why Tegmark points to mathematics as ultimately being able to *explain *the universe in terms of relational values interacting via mathematical (algebraic ) functions.

I understand that you're a Tegmark fan. I disagree with his position that the universe is nothing but maths, and I disagree with your agreement with him.

Maybe I should talk to him about this rather than you. I don't think you're presenting his argument in its best possible light.

Mathematics IS what physics also uses, no?

As a tool, yes.

Thus if we ever devise a TOE in physics, it would need ALL the mathematics to explain those physics also, no?

"Explaining the physics" can be done in a lot of different ways. We usually turn to mathematics when we want quantitative predictions from a physical theory. Mathematics does numbers pretty efficiently.

The word *physics *is just as descriptive as the word *mathematics *in identifying Natural phenomena, but physics is descriptive of physical behavior, whereas mathematics is descriptive of the Logic in the physical behaviors.

It almost sounds like you're agreeing with me again.

AFAIK, several kinds of bosons have been observed (i.e. different mathematical arrangements and potentials).

Only one

*Higgs* boson has been observed. There are lots of bosons. A lot of atoms are bosons, for instance. Photons are bosons.

**CERN experiments announce first indications of a rare Higgs boson process, **3 AUGUST, 2020

*The ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN have announced new results which show that the Higgs boson decays into two muons. *

Again, interesting news, but what is the relevance?

Yet, we use mathematics to prove any deviation from *normal* physically consistent relational interactions. Without the maths how would we know there is something unusual going on?

What you really mean by "normal relational interactions" is just those interactions that conform to some existing mathematical model. Of course we need to know what that model is before we can know if something deviates from it. The point is, though, you're assuming a mathematical model from the start. Begging the question again.

Moreover, if something *appears not to fit the maths, it is always due to the incompleteness of the human symbolic mathematics, *not to any unsolvable chaotic behavior of the physics.

How do you know that? Is there another proof I haven't heard of?

*("God doesn't play dice", A.E .) *is a statement of a mathematical nature.

No. It's just A.E.'s personal opinion, based on his personal preference for a certain kind of order in physical theory. He spent many years trying to prove (using maths!) that his opinion was correct, and utterly failed. In fact, physical experiments proved that his intuition was completely off on this.

IMO, all the Platonic solids are examples of fundamental self-organizing mathematical patterns.

Self-organising? How does the maths self-organise? How does it do

*anything*, by itself?

The wonderful world of fractals is based iterations of a single triangle. It is truly amazing. Mathematical Art.

I'm aware of fractals. I was around when the initial fractal craze first hit and every 8-bit computer hobbyist was coding up BASIC programs to generate the Mandelbrot set (which typically took those machines

*hours*).

But is that not the argument for mathematically self-ordering patterns?

No. I can't see any self-ordering there. If I write $z=z^2 + c$ into a computer, that's

*me* doing the mathematical ordering, not mathematics itself. The resulting pattern has many interesting mathematical features, but as I said previously, in writing that equation and calculating we're building an extension onto a pre-existing house.

This mathematical equations are also a fundamental requirement for living systems and organizational patterns, such as "mitosis".

Last time I checked, cells didn't need a mathematics text book in order to manage mitosis.

I agree of course. But that's comparing *"apples with mathematics".*

As I understand it, you and Tegmark are both saying that apples

*are* mathematics. I disagree.