# Does Chaos Theory prove a Mathematically Ordered Universe

Yep, w e are in agreement. Physics is operation of PHYSICAL STUFF in accordance to its relational values and mathematical functions.....

PHYSICS DOES NOT HAVE MATHEMATICAL FUNCTIONS

Try real hard to understand

I think this is where a lot of my inability to explain to others and because of my inability, just repeat what I just rejected

Reality is what it is

Reality is NOT our anthropomorphic VIEW of our DESCRIPTIONsS

Grandpa nap moment and coffee after
See you on the other side

PHYSICS DOES NOT HAVE MATHEMATICAL FUNCTIONS
Does physics have any functions?
(Input --> Function --> Output)? (1 H + 2 O = H2O) ?

Real Functions for Physics
Jorge L. deLyra
We argue that the set of combed functions is sufficient for all the needs of physics, as tools for the description of nature. This includes the whole of classical physics and all the observable quantities in quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. The focusing of attention on this smaller set of generalized functions greatly simplifies the mathematical arguments needed to deal with them.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.01538#
Reality is NOT our anthropomorphic VIEW of our DESCRIPTIONsS
It seems it is your view.

You cannot let go of the idea that mathematics are a wholly arbitrary human invention, instead of a discovered and symbolized attribute of spacetime.

Consider: Fractal
In mathematics, a fractal is a self-similar subset of Euclidean space whose fractal dimension strictly exceeds its topological dimension. Fractals appear the same at different levels, as illustrated in successive magnifications of the Mandelbrot set.[1][2][3][4]
Fractals exhibit similar patterns at increasingly small scales called self-similarity, also known as expanding symmetry or unfolding symmetry; if this replication is exactly the same at every scale, as in the Menger sponge,[5] it is called affine self-similar. Fractal geometry lies within the mathematical branch of measure theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

There is a whole Universal Theory based on the fractality of spacetime. It is called Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT).
Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.
This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.........more
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

I think mathematically (logically) based natural processing functions are essential to the existence and evolutionary continuance of spacetime.

Last edited:
PHYSICS DOES NOT HAVE MATHEMATICAL FUNCTIONS
Physics is operation of PHYSICAL STUFF
And how do you keep stuff apart? It's not all the same stuff, is it? There is even stuff within stuff. How does it do that?

Is it magical beyond our cognition and understanding ? Or are we able to analyze the mathematical data by which different stuffs may be relationally connected. There is nothing magical about the concept of a mathematically describable relational interaction of fundamental stuffs (values), by means of a symbolic translation of a dynamical but orderly reality and how these interactive properties can be applied to human survival mechanisms.

We do not describe Global warming as "stuff happening". Knowledge of the mathematics in a probabilistic but deterministic world may come in handy some day!

We may not necessarily know "when", but knowing (calculating) "what" may happen in the future is a survival strategy in an "grander" evolutionary context......

The Universe is not an unknowable mystery! It is a physical object and can be abstractly analyzed as to inherent mathematically calculable potentials and probable behaviors.

Else we might as well believe in God, the anthropomorphized imaginary, unexplainable but benevolent spiritual equivalent (=) of mathematically expressed Potential ("That which may become reality"), a potential future probability based on patterns with measurable relational values and mathematical (algebraic) functions.

Last edited:
Refresher;

OP title; Does Chaos Theory prove a Mathematically Ordered Universe

The OP question does not question about a physical universe, it questions about a mathematically Ordered physical universe.

......

You cannot let go of the idea that mathematics are a wholly arbitrary human invention, instead of a discovered and symbolized attribute of spacetime.

Maths - Invented

instead of a discovered and symbolized attribute of spacetime

which is
DA DAR

PHYSICS

Refresher;

OP title; Does Chaos Theory prove a Mathematically Ordered Universe

The OP question does not question about a physical universe, it questions about a mathematically Ordered physical universe.

......

OP title; Does Chaos Theory prove a Mathematically Ordered Universe

Correct well done. Elephant stamp to everyone who got that ✓

The OP question does not question about a physical universe,

Correct well done. Elephant stamp to everyone who got that ✓

it questions about a mathematically Ordered physical universe. BUZZZZZZ
FAIL

Squirrel stamp if you can find the added word

LOL.....

Physics
Physics can, at base, be defined as the science of matter, motion, and energy. Its laws are typically expressed with economy and precision in the language of mathematics.
The ultimate aim of physics is to find a unified set of laws governing matter, motion, and energy at small (microscopic) subatomic distances, at the human (macroscopic) scale of everyday life, and out to the largest distances (e.g., those on the extragalactic scale). This ambitious goal has been realized to a notable extent.
Although a completely unified theory of physical phenomena has not yet been achieved (and possibly never will be), a remarkably small set of fundamental physical laws appears able to account for all known phenomena.
https://www.britannica.com/science/physics-science

Tegmark estimates that remarkably small set of fundamental physical laws to consist of some 32 relational values (numbers) and a handful of equations. Simple and elegant......

it questions about a mathematically Ordered physical universe. BUZZZZZZ
FAIL
Not fail, because a mathematically ordered universe transcends its expression in physics only.
A mathematical Universe is both Physical and Metaphysical!

FAIL because the word physical is not in title

Metaphysical

And now a additional fail for the above

Tegmark

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.

Here is where the train is a Planck distance from going off the rails

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Mathematical_Universe

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?

Last edited:
it questions about a mathematically Ordered physical universe. BUZZZZZZ
FAIL
No.....the term "physical" is irrelevant in context of mathematical ordering of the universe and everything in it.

A physical aspect to the universe has already been stipulated to.
You just refuse stipulating to a functional "mathematical ordering" aspect of the universal (physical) stuff.

Tegmark

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.

Here is where the train is a Planck distance from going off the rails

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Mathematical_Universe

See Peter Woit's scathing review of this book here: https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6551

It starts with this: "Tegmark’s career is a rather unusual story, mixing reputable science with an increasingly strong taste for grandiose nonsense. In this book he indulges his inner crank, describing in detail an uttery empty vision of the “ultimate nature of reality.” What’s perhaps most remarkable about the book is the respectful reception it seems to be getting...." and continues in much the same vein.

Woit, I find, has his feet firmly on the ground and speaks with clarity and a lot of sense, as he should, being a mathematical physicist at Columbia.

Yes, the old Planck ploy
Not a ploy

Tegmark is a small DISTANCE away from from being crazy

Rest of post blah blah blah to long

he indulges his inner crank,

I got that from the small sample of works of Tegmark I was asked to check out

Hence the assessment Tegmark is a Planck distance from going off the rails

Not a ploy
I got that from the small sample of works of Tegmark I was asked to check out
Hence the assessment Tegmark is a Planck distance from going off the rails
Care to share those revelatory works? From your assessment it looks like I need to read them so that I may mend my ways.....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Mathematical_Universe,
I read the link, but that did not in any way persuade me of Tegmark's folly and prejudice me against his notion of a "Mathematical Universe".

Our Mathematical Universe

Posted on January 17, 2014 by woit
Max Tegmark has a new book out, entitled Our Mathematical Universe, which is getting a lot of attention. I’ve written a review of the book for the Wall Street Journal, which is now available (although now behind a paywall, if not a subscriber, you can try here). There’s also an old blog posting here about the same ideas.
And is "woit" maybe a cousin of "sting"? Somebody is making money on declaring Tegmark a nut.
Tegmark’s career is a rather unusual story, mixing reputable science with an increasingly strong taste for grandiose nonsense. In this book he indulges his inner crank, describing in detail an uttery empty vision of the “ultimate nature of reality.
woit says? What is an uttery empty vision?
What’s perhaps most remarkable about the book is the respectful reception it seems to be getting, see reviews here, here, here and here.
Wow, wow, wow and wow!
The Financial Times review credits Tegmark as the “academic celebrity” behind the turn of physics to the multiverse:
As recently as the 1990s, most scientists regarded the idea of multiple universes as wild speculation too far out on the fringe to be worth serious discussion. Indeed, in 1998, Max Tegmark, then an up-and-coming young cosmologist at Princeton, received an email from a senior colleague warning him off multiverse research: “Your crackpot papers are not helping you,” it said.
Who is this anonymous senior colleague in 1998, that qualified him to indulge in ad hominem.
Needless to say, Tegmark persisted in exploring the multiverse as a window on “the ultimate nature of reality”, while making sure also to work on subjects in mainstream cosmology as camouflage for his real enthusiasm.
Today multiple universes are scientifically respectable, thanks to the work of Tegmark as much as anyone.
More crackpots ? A lot of crackpots around, seems. Looks like there are a lot of crackpots believing in a multiverse.
Now a physics professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he presents his multiverse work to the public in Our Mathematical Universe.
And a "multiverse" is somehow inextricably connected with a "Mathematical Universe"?
The New Scientist is the comparative voice of reason, with the review there noting that “there does seem to be something a little questionable with this vast multiplication of multiverses”.
OK, we have a problem with a multiverse. And how does that falsify a mathematical universe?
There’s only small part of Tegmark’s book that deals with the testability issue, the end of Chapter 12. His summary of Chapter 12 claims that he has shown: The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis is in principle testable and falsifiable.
His claim about falsifiability seems to be based on last page of the chapter, about “The Mathematical Regularity Prediction” which is that: physics research will uncover further mathematical regularities in nature.
This is a prediction not of the Level IV multiverse, but a “prediction” of the idea that our physical laws are based on mathematics.
https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6551

And is that not what we are talking about?
Even if Tegmark's multiverse Levels has flaws, what does that have to do with the mathematics of the universe. Is this Level stuff determinate of a mathematical universe?

That article by woit is the body of falsification that destroys Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe"?
Where does it do that? Where's the ''beef"?

Oh here.
According to Andrew Liddle, reviewing the book for Nature:[4]
The culmination that Tegmark seeks to lead us to is the “Level IV multiverse”. This level contends that the Universe is not just well described by mathematics, but, in fact, is mathematics. 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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Mathematical_Universe

I read that as an extension of Bohm's "Hierachy of Orders", a perfectly logical model of a mathematical universe.

From this can I assume that Prof. Liddle does not have any viewpoints beyond what is accepted and has no personal vision for explaining the universe? How original.

Last edited:
Care to share those revelatory works? From your assessment it looks like I need to read them so that I may mend my ways.....

From reading a partial section of a scathing review of his book

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6551

You can read the sample I read here or if need a fuller samples read the full scathing report behind the pay wall

Extract from scathing report

*****
In other words, while we currently lack direct observational support for the Level IV multiverse, it’s possible that we may get some in the future.

This is pretty much absurd, but in any case, note the standard linguistic trick here: what we’re missing is only “direct” observational support, implying that there’s plenty of “indirect” observational support for the Level IV multiverse.
*****

My translation of the above extract from the scathing report

Tegmark's thinking is along the lines of

"I think THIS (no evidence) - and IF THIS turns out to be true (because we find evidence) then this other THIS I think will be true"

I can do that magical thinking

I think Pink Unicorns exist and if they do I think Pink Unicorns farts exist

My translation of the above extract from the scathing report.
Tegmark's thinking is along the lines of; "I think THIS (no evidence) - and IF THIS turns out to be true (because we find evidence) then this other THIS I think will be true".
I can do that magical thinking.
You can?
I think Pink Unicorns exist and if they do I think Pink Unicorns farts exist
Did you just posit a scathing scientific indictment of Tegmark's hypothesis of a mathematical universe?.....

Scathing

1. witheringly scornful; severely critical.
"she launched a scathing attack on the governor"

Similar: devastating, withering, blistering, extremely critical

From reading a partial section of a scathing review of his book

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6551

You can read the sample I read here or if need a fuller samples read the full scathing report behind the pay wall

Extract from scathing report

*****
In other words, while we currently lack direct observational support for the Level IV multiverse, it’s possible that we may get some in the future.

This is pretty much absurd, but in any case, note the standard linguistic trick here: what we’re missing is only “direct” observational support, implying that there’s plenty of “indirect” observational support for the Level IV multiverse.
*****

My translation of the above extract from the scathing report

Tegmark's thinking is along the lines of

"I think THIS (no evidence) - and IF THIS turns out to be true (because we find evidence) then this other THIS I think will be true"

I can do that magical thinking

I think Pink Unicorns exist and if they do I think Pink Unicorns farts exist

Pretty scathing, huh?

Did you just posit a scathing scientific indictment of Tegmark's hypothesis of a mathematical universe?.....

Noooooo I showed you a example of my magical thinking. The type of magical thinking I assess Tegmark engages in

Please stop with the constant reference to authority

scientific

Believe or not NOT EVERYTHING NEEDS A SCIENTIFIC REFERENCE