Write4U:

Do Gods make intentional decisisons?

All the religions say they do.

If so , where does their brain resides?

I think you missed the part about gods being supernatural. If you're supernatural, who says you need a physical brain?

Right, they claimed that mathematics is the language of the Universe.

Metaphor. Remember?

In what kind of Universe would the language be mathematical?

The kind in which people speak in metaphors?

No, mathematics are used for everything!

Nonsense. I'm not using any mathematics to type this post, for instance.

There is nothing that is not mathematical in essence.

That's just a faith-based claim you're making. This really is a religion for you, isn't it?

Cause and Effect is a mathematical equation.

Please research what an equation is.

And it uses mathematics as it's language? Where and how does God generate the mathematical language and where is the required brain for that exercise located?

I still don't understand why you're fixated on God, while at the same time saying that your mathematical universe doesn't have one. Have I misunderstood your position? Do you think mathematics is God, or something? Why all this God talk. Does Tegmark go on about God the way you do?

God is the only available replacement for a Mathematical Universe, no?

That question doesn't parse.

And all physicists use mathematics as the language to ply their trade, no?

We've been through this before. They use mathematics as a tool. If you want to call it a "language" then you're using a metaphor.

How odd, please note that Tegmark uses only scientifically accepted numbers and equations. His wall contains only mainstream mathematics.

His wall? What are you talking about?

All of which are falsifiable by mainstream scientific procedure.

How would one go about falsifying Tegmark's Level IV universe idea, then?

None of Tegmark's mathematics are unfalsifiable.

Good-oh! Tell me what could falsify his theory, then.

Usually, yes.

All of Tegmark's mathematics have been tested and have been falsified.

Okay then! Back to the drawing board. Toss that theory in the bin!

He does not introduce anything new, he attemps to place all of science under the umbrella of a purely mathematical essence to the Universe.

You're right that his idea is not exactly new. For that reason, it suffers from all the same philosophical flaws that ideas like classical Platonism have.

Tegmark's claim is that while almost all physicists say that mathematics *describes* our physical reality, he proposes that our physical reality *is *mathematical and that the Universe doesn't have *some *mathematical properties, but that it has *only* mathematical properties. I find this an absolutely logical abstraction.

It's a claim that is counter-intuitive and which needs explanation, which Tegmark has not really provided. As I previously suggested to you - and I now see that Massimo Pigliucci (for one) holds essentially the same view I do - maybe Tegmark is just muddled and is making a basic category error.

Of course they do not know where God's brain is, so how could God be an Intentional Designer/Creator.

Who told you that a supernatural God needs a physical brain?

Right, and in a mathematical Universe that is not permitted.

Creating physical stuff out of numbers would, in itself, be a miracle, in my opinion. Tegmark hasn't suggested any mechanism for that, as far as I can tell.

The only creative causal alternative to a mathematical Universe is a motivated God.

You've examined and ruled out all other possibilities, have you? Or is this just one more proclamation of the faith?

I have not heard of any other model which does not invoke mathematics as an essential ingredient.

If all you are saying is that theories in physics are most precisely quantified using mathematics, that's uncontroversial.

IMO, this due to the fact that a mathematical universe appears to be driven by a motivated intelligence, which is a false observation because a motivated intelligence requires a brain.

It doesn't appear to me to be driven by a motivated intelligence.

What kind of brain is required for motivated intelligence? Will any sort of brain do? Can you be more specific?

**None of them declares that the Universe does not have any mathematical properties.**

And we return to the question of a partial mathematical Universe or a wholly mathematical Universe.

Tegmark doesn't countenance a "partial mathematical universe". I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Is it some kind of sub-sect of Tegmarkism?

I think Tegmark has made a perfectly persuasive argument in his hypothesis of a purely mathematical Universe.

Of course you do. You're his fanboy. It doesn't occur to you to look for flaws in his ideas or arguments.

He freely admit that his theory is not yet complete. There is nothing wrong with that and certainly not a reason for instant rejection.

Correct. As far as I can tell, though, he has his work cut out for him to convince the physics mainstream.

Except it is the trained cosmologists who maintain they are discovering the mathematics of the Universe and not inventing them.

They are trained in physics, but not necessarily in philosophy, as I pointed out. What they think they are doing is not necessarily what they are doing. Also, don't get the wrong impression: there's no consensus among cosmologists about this stuff.

Have you written stage drama? You are certainly prone to it!

I love stage drama, but my dramatic talents are more musical than literary.

All the ingredients of Tegmark's hypothesis have been tested, proven, and falsified.

Falsified? Is that what you meant to say? (That's at least twice now that you've said that.)

He only uses mainstream scientific language (numbers and equations) to build a comprehensive hypothesis, instead of a randomly assembled library of individual theories and equations as is the current state of science.

You think that current science is randomly assembled? Interesting.

Tegmark advances nothing NEW...

Then why your fixation on him? If he is just recycling old ideas that have been shown to have flaws, where's the scientific revolution you're so keen to promote?

Mathematics need not be proved, the *absence *of mathematics needs to be proved to invalidate Tegmark's hypothesis.

I'm beginning to think you don't really understand what Tegmark is saying, or what his opponents' objections are. Tegmark doesn't say that because mathematics exists therefore the universe is nothing but mathematics. Similarly, none of his opponents say that mathematics doesn't exist or is absent from the universe. I have no idea what

*you're* saying.