The universe is a mathematical construct

[river]

What's the difference between a physical pattern and a physical pattern?

p.s. "physical make-up" = "inherent relational value"
This has been explained several times now.

The word physical is meaningless unless it is assigned a relational value

Highlighted

Physical isn't just word . It has substance . Before any relational value you need real substance . You are substance . We are all substance . The Universe is about substance .

 

[Write4U]

Urban dictionary
TOP DEFINITION
quasi-intellectual
A person who merely appears to be smart.

Replace the word person with information processing system and you get close.......

I use the prefix in context where "quasi-
identifies a noun to say that something is almost, but nor completely, a particular type of thing.

IMO, mathematical (algebraic) operations are a perfect example of quasi-intelligent (logical) information processing.

Quasi-intelligent, something that appears to be, but is not quite intelligent.

often incorrectly attributed to an Intelligent Designer

An Artificial Intelligence is a quasi-intelligent system. It has many of the attributes of intelligence, but is just not quite fully intelligent as compared to humans.

Does that clear any further confusion? In context, my use of "quasi-intelligent" as it relates to Universal mathematics is perfectly proper.
You may debate any previous application of the prefix "quasi- " in that context, but linguistically there is nothing wrong with that particular compound term.

OTOH, if I used the term pseudo-intelligent, that would be wholly inappropriate in context of a mathematical Universe..
adjective pseudo -

DEROGATORY
1. something that is not genuine; spurious or sham.

Obviously, Universal information processing is not spurious or sham

 

[Write4U]

Highlighted

Physical isn't just word . It has substance . Before any relational value you need real substance . You are substance . We are all substance . The Universe is about substance .

No, noooo...! It is the value that gives a physical item its substance.
Substance = Substance. There, happy now?

 

[Michael 345]

Replace the word person with information processing system and you get close.......

I use the prefix in context where "quasi-
identifies a noun to say that something is almost, but nor completely, a particular type of thing.

IMO, mathematical (algebraic) operations are a perfect example of quasi-intelligent (logical) information processing.

Quasi-intelligent, something that appears to be, but is not quite intelligent.

often incorrectly attributed to an Intelligent Designer

An Artificial Intelligence is a quasi-intelligent system. It has many of the attributes of intelligence, but is just not quite fully intelligent as compared to humans.

Does that clear any further confusion? In context, my use of "quasi-intelligent" as it relates to Universal mathematics is perfectly proper.
You may debate any previous application of the prefix "quasi- " in that context, but linguistically there is nothing wrong with that particular compound term.

OTOH, if I used the term pseudo-intelligent, that would be wholly inappropriate in context of a mathematical Universe..
adjective pseudo -

DEROGATORY
1. something that is not genuine; spurious or sham.

Obviously, Universal information processing is not spurious or sham

Mathematics is an INVENTION and has no physicality outside of the brain. In the brain its dubious link to physicality is restricted to the electrical / chemical reactions taking place between neurones

It is a CODE for comparison of PHYSICAL stuff to other stuff, also non physical but detectable stuff

Human mathematics is THOUGHT
Computer mathematics is switchable electronic gates

In and of itself it is NOTHING
The PROCESS mathematics is used for not quasi anything

 

[Write4U]

How big is God and where is his brain located? If God operates without a brain, then what possible mechanism would allow God to experience any emotions and ability to affect any motivated creative actions.

There is a single logical answer to this questions. God is a Mathematical construct which does not experience any emotional considerations, but operates in a quasi-intelligent manner as "evidenced" by all the identifiable mathematical hierarchical orders of mathematical differential equations, operands, and processing functions in the Universe.

Moreover, there is no scientific or any other theory that comes close to the known and functional mathematical processes in and of the Universe.

All known evolutionary processes are based on some 32 relational values, and a handful of equations, such as the Universal constants and the differential equations.

Equation order

Differential equations are described by their order, determined by the term with the highest derivatives. An equation containing only first derivatives is a first-order differential equation, an equation containing the second derivative is a second-order differential equation, and so on.[12][13]

Differential equations that describe natural phenomena almost always have only first and second order derivatives in them, but there are some exceptions, such as the thin film equation, which is a fourth order partial differential equation.

What other "known" organization can logically substitute for the known mathematics that so accurately allows science to describe the Universe and the way it functions?

God? No one can even offer a cogent description of God, let alone base a functional Theory on the concept.

Sorry, just had to vent my frustration with all the "hard questions" about the creative processes, instead of the identification of all the known "hard mathematical facts" .

I for one am impressed with Tegmark's simple and incontrovertible proposition of a mathematically based Universe, a fact that has been recognized by all great thinkers in history. Were all the brilliant minds wrong in their recognition that mathematics is the language of the Universe?

I just cannot understand the resistance to such a perfectly logical approach.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: I have created this thread as a catch-all thread for Write4U's many off-topic interjections of his pet theory that the universe is made of mathematics.

Since he seems to want to inject this pet theory into just about every thread, I think it might be useful to create a separate thread into which we can dump it all when it's off topic (which seems to be more often than not).

 

[James R]

How big is God and where is his brain located?

A better question to ask first up might be "does God has a brain?"

If God operates without a brain, then what possible mechanism would allow God to experience any emotions and ability to affect any motivated creative actions.

Valid question, but note the "if".

There is a single logical answer to this questions.

No. There are many possible logical answers to that question. For example, suitable magic would do the trick.

God is a Mathematical construct which does not experience any emotional considerations, but operates in a quasi-intelligent manner as "evidenced" by all the identifiable mathematical hierarchical orders of mathematical differential equations, operands, and processing functions in the Universe.

Who constructed God, according to this view?

Moreover, there is no scientific or any other theory that comes close to the known and functional mathematical processes in and of the Universe.

You mean you think no other theory - other than your own pet theory - comes close, I assume.

All known evolutionary processes are based on some 32 relational values, and a handful of equations, such as the Universal constants and the differential equations.

Where can I see the list of the values, equations and constants?

Equation order

What other "known" organization can logically substitute for the known mathematics that so accurately allows science to describe the Universe and the way it functions?

Nobody has suggested that mathematics should be replaced by something else, for the job for which it is used, as far as I'm aware.

God? No one can even offer a cogent description of God, let alone base a functional Theory on the concept.

Isn't that what you just attempted to do?

I for one am impressed with Tegmark's simple and incontrovertible proposition of a mathematically based Universe, a fact that has been recognized by all great thinkers in history. Were all the brilliant minds wrong in their recognition that mathematics is the language of the Universe?

Your idolisation of Tegmark is well known around here by now.

The idea that "mathematics is the language of the universe" is usually considered to be a metaphor. Tegmark goes beyond that to assert that, actually, the universe is nothing but mathematics. His rationale for that view is debatable.

I just cannot understand the resistance to such a perfectly logical approach.

That's because you're blinded by idol worship and stuck on one or two tracks of thought. You seem to find it hard to think or read more widely. There's a huge amount of confirmation bias evident. You only seem to read things that reinforce your claims, and not much that would refute them.

 

[Write4U]

A better question to ask first up might be "does God has a brain?"

Does it require a brain to make intentional decisions?

Valid question, but note the "if".

but that leaves only the question if God actually motivated by emotional considerations as so clearly stipulated to in scripture.
"God saw that it was good". We now may add the question if God can see at all and how he would be able to tell the difference between Good and Bad.

No. There are many possible logical answers to that question. For example, suitable magic would do the trick.

If you believe in magic. And how does one conjure magic?

Who constructed God, according to this view?

Every philosopher since the advance of abstract thought. Plato, Socrates, Gallileo, Hypatia, thousands of mathematically educated thinkers have advanced the concept that "Mathematics is the language of the Universe", and is the symbolic representation for the conceptual foundation for a Theory Mathematical Universe.

You mean you think no other theory - other than your own pet theory - comes close, I assume.

Can you name another , non-magical theory?

Where can I see the list of the values, equations and constants?

See :
Mathematical universe hypothesis

In physics and cosmology, the mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH), also known as the ultimate ensemble theory and struogony
(from mathematical structure, Latin: struō), is a speculative "theory of everything" (TOE) proposed by cosmologist Max Tegmark.[1][2]

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

Nobody has suggested that mathematics should be replaced by something else, for the job for which it is used, as far as I'm aware.

And for what job are mathematics used to begin with?

Isn't that what you just attempted to do?

Right, if you want to identify God as a mathematical object.

Your idolisation of Tegmark is well known around here by now.

And what exactly does that mean? Does that diminish his importance in any way?
Seems to me that Einstein is a very idolized name in scientific circles. Does that diminish his importance in any way? Don't be prejudicial Tegmark is in very good company.

The idea that "mathematics is the language of the universe" is usually considered to be a metaphor.

"usually considered to be a metaphor" ? OK, if you want to intentionally diminish the importance of the hypothesis, have at it. I believe it can withstand all attempts at falsifying.

Seems to me that "God' is usually considered to be a metaphor for a completely unknown quantity. What, if not mathematics is God's Universal language? Miracles that break the mathematical laws of Nature?

Tegmark goes beyond that to assert that, actually, the universe is nothing but mathematics. His rationale for that view is debatable.

No, it isn't. That is just an attempt to use it's incompleteness as a flaw,which is of course, wholly unfair. There is no logical functional replacement available, anywhere, ever.

That's because you're blinded by idol worship and stuck on one or two tracks of thought. You seem to find it hard to think or read more widely. There's a huge amount of confirmation bias evident. You only seem to read things that reinforce your claims, and not much that would refute them.

It's up to you to refute or disprove them, if you can.....can you?
My sources are real theoretical cosmologists, who all express the sense that they are "discovering" the mathematical nature of the universe.

That the mathematics existed long before they are discovered in the course of examining the properties of the universe.

Eugene Paul "E. P." Wigner (Hungarian: Wigner Jenő Pál, pronounced [ˈviɡnɛr ˈjɛnøː ˈpaːl]; November 17, 1902 – January 1, 1995) was a Hungarian-American theoretical physicist and also contributed to mathematical physics.

He received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963 "for his contributions to the theory of the atomic nucleus and the
elementary particles, particularly through the discovery and application of fundamental symmetry principles".[1]

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

 

[Write4U]

Moderator note: I have created this thread as a catch-all thread for Write4U's many off-topic interjections of his pet theory that the universe is made of mathematics.

Since he seems to want to inject this pet theory into just about every thread, I think it might be useful to create a separate thread into which we can dump it all when it's off topic (which seems to be more often than not).

Please tell me where mathematics are off-topic in any science?

I interject it it in almost all threads that discuss the properties of the Universe or the creative forces that are responsible for its existence, because it is appropriate and scientifically defensible in all of the sciences and indeed any discussion of Reality

There is no logical known replacement for this perfectly functional hypothesis. ALL of the sciences use mathematics, yet when there is the slightest hint that mathematics may well be fundamental, I see a lot of huffing and puffing and all kinds of non-valid excuses and outright rejection.

To censor and restrict my perfectly defensible "contribution" to any discussion of physics and the fundamental properties of universal truths is prejudicial, IMO.

If anyone other than a theist has a better non-mathematical solution, bring it on.

Frankly I don't give a damn where you put it, as long as it is not accompanied by derisive comments and aspersions on the veracity and honorable intent of trying to engage in serious and constructive discussion.

 

[Write4U]

Moderator note: I have created this thread as a catch-all thread for Write4U's many off-topic interjections of his pet theory that the universe is made of mathematics.

Since he seems to want to inject this pet theory into just about every thread, I think it might be useful to create a separate thread into which we can dump it all when it's off topic (which seems to be more often than not).

For a little humorous aside. If we reversed the transfer criteria to;
Every thread that contains a mathematical equation will be transferred to this one, all threads would end up here.
I find that has a certain irony..........

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Does it require a brain to make intentional decisions?

All the available evidence suggests it does.

And how does one conjure magic?

You were talking about a god. Gods are magical, by definition. Supernatural. Able to supercede nature.

Plato, Socrates, Gallileo, Hypatia, thousands of mathematically educated thinkers have advanced the concept that "Mathematics is the language of the Universe", and is the symbolic representation for the conceptual foundation for a Theory Mathematical Universe.

None of those people claimed that the physical universe is pure mathematics.

And for what job are mathematics used to begin with?

Lots of jobs. Accountancy. Counting sheep. Theoretical modelling of physical processes. Pattern recognition. Lots of things.

Right, if you want to identify God as a mathematical object.

I usually identify God as a supernatural being, like the ones typically described by religions.

I'm not sure why you even started talking about God. How does God fit into your mathematical Tegmarkian universe?

And what exactly does that mean? Does that diminish his importance in any way?

Importance? Why do you think Tegmark is so important? There are a lot of physicists in the world. He's just one. He has a fringe idea that appeals to you. So what?

Seems to me that Einstein is a very idolized name in scientific circles. Does that diminish his importance in any way?

Einstein managed to get a few scores on the board. His theories were verified. Tegmark's, on the other hand, appear to be unfalsifiable.

"usually considered to be a metaphor" ? OK, if you want to intentionally diminish the importance of the hypothesis, have at it. I believe it can withstand all attempts at falsifying.

It's unfalsifiable, then? That would make it unscientific.

If not unfalsifiable, then how can it be tested?

Seems to me that "God' is usually considered to be a metaphor for a completely unknown quantity.

No. Mainstream religions, for example, claim to know lots of specifics about their God or gods. They claim to know what God did in the past, what God wants from human beings, what God's commandments to his Creation are, and much much more.

What, if not mathematics is God's Universal language? Miracles that break the mathematical laws of Nature?

The religions all talk about miracles that break the laws of nature.

I still don't understand what God's place is in your theory of the mathematical universe. Why do you need a God? Is it the god of any of the major religions? Is God equivalent to mathematics? What?

No, it isn't. That is just an attempt to use it's incompleteness as a flaw,which is of course, wholly unfair. There is no logical functional replacement available, anywhere, ever.

Did you read that wikipedia page you linked to? Did you notice all the criticisms of Tegmark's theory there?

It's up to you to refute or disprove them, if you can.....can you?

You have the onus of proof the wrong way around. If you think Tegmark is right, you (or he) need to show it. It's not up to me to disprove your pet theory.

My sources are real theoretical cosmologists, who all express the sense that they are "discovering" the mathematical nature of the universe.

I think you'd need to drill down to find out whether they actually believe that's what they are doing, or whether it's just a convenient way of talking about what scientists do. There's no guarantee that what they say accurately describes their philosophical views on the matter, especially if they are untrained in philosophy.

That the mathematics existed long before they are discovered in the course of examining the properties of the universe.

It is highly contested as to whether mathematics is found or made. It's an ongoing philosophical debate. You shouldn't pretend that it has been settled one way or the other.

 

[James R]

Please tell me where mathematics are off-topic in any science?

If somebody on this forum asks "Why is the sky blue?", they don't need the umpteenth copy of "Max Tegmark has a theory that the sky is just mathematics, so it is the mathematics of the sky that makes it blue. Look, here are some of my favorite quotes from Tegmark. And here are three irrelvant links to other people who talk about mathematics. And here's a link to a wikipedia article on Tegmark. Oh, and while I'm at it, I haven't mentioned microtubules lately, so here's some irrelevant information about those, too."

Nobody who is wondering why the sky is blue cares about Max Tegmark or microtubules. Trust me.

There is no logical known replacement for this perfectly functional hypothesis.

Try this one: Mathematics is a useful description of the physical universe, but physics is not mathematics.

What's illogical about that?

ALL of the sciences use mathematics, yet when there is the slightest hint that mathematics may well be fundamental, I see a lot of huffing and puffing and all kinds of non-valid excuses and outright rejection.

I haven't rejected the idea. I just don't see how it could possibly be true, so far. Nor am I aware of any possible way such an idea could be disproved, which makes me highly suspicious about it. It sounds like, for you at least, it is more of a religion than a science.

To censor and restrict my perfectly defensible "contribution" to any discussion of physics and the fundamental properties of universal truths is prejudicial, IMO.

Nobody is censoring you. I said I reserve the right to move off-topic discussions of Tegmark's theory to this thread.

Your obsession with microtubules got out of hand, to the extent where it demanded a separate thread. Now your Tegmark obsession is equally out of hand, so I need to place some limits on your ability to spam it all over the forum.

Frankly I don't give a damn where you put it, as long as it is not accompanied by derisive comments and aspersions on the veracity and honorable intent of trying to engage in serious and constructive discussion.

Good.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U said: ↑
Does it require a brain to make intentional decisions?

Write4U:
All the available evidence suggests it does.

I agree.

You were talking about a god. Gods are magical, by definition. Supernatural. Able to supercede nature.

Do Gods make intentional decisisons? If so , where does their brain resides?

None of those people claimed that the physical universe is pure mathematics.

Right, they claimed that mathematics is the language of the Universe. In what kind of Universe would the language be mathematical?

Lots of jobs. Accountancy. Counting sheep. Theoretical modelling of physical processes. Pattern recognition. Lots of things.

No, mathematics are used for everything! There is nothing that is not mathematical in essence. Cause and Effect is a mathematical equation.

I usually identify God as a supernatural being, like the ones typically described by religions.

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'm not sure why you even started talking about God. How does God fit into your mathematical Tegmarkian universe?

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

Importance? Why do you think Tegmark is so important? There are a lot of physicists in the world. He's just one. He has a fringe idea that appeals to you. So what?

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

Einstein managed to get a few scores on the board. His theories were verified. Tegmark's, on the other hand, appear to be unfalsifiable.

How odd, please note that Tegmark uses only scientifically accepted numbers and equations. His wall contains only mainstream mathematics. All of which are falsifiable by mainstream scientific procedure.

It's unfalsifiable, then? That would make it unscientific.

None of Tegmark's mathematics are unfalsifiable. God is unfalsifiable.

If not unfalsifiable, then how can it be tested?

All of Tegmark's mathematics have been tested and have been falsified. He does not introduce anything new, he attemps to place all of science under the umbrella of a purely mathematical essence to the Universe.

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.

No. Mainstream religions, for example, claim to know lots of specifics about their God or gods. They claim to know what God did in the past, what God wants from human beings, what God's commandments to his Creation are, and much much more.

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

The religions all talk about miracles that break the laws of nature.

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

I still don't understand what God's place is in your theory of the mathematical universe. Why do you need a God? Is it the god of any of the major religions? Is God equivalent to mathematics? What?

Therein lies the crux. The only creative causal alternative to a mathematical Universe is a motivated God. I have not heard of any other model which does not invoke mathematics as an essential ingredient. And if the only other option is another mathematical model, there is no reason to reject Tegmark's comprehensive approach.

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. A Mathematical Universe does not.

Did you read that wikipedia page you linked to? Did you notice all the criticisms of Tegmark's theory there?

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.

You have the onus of proof the wrong way around. If you think Tegmark is right, you (or he) need to show it. It's not up to me to disprove your pet theory.

I think Tegmark has made a perfectly persuasive argument in his hypothesis of a purely mathematical Universe. He freely admit that his theory is not yet complete. There is nothing wrong with that and certainly not a reason for instant rejection.

I think you'd need to drill down to find out whether they actually believe that's what they are doing, or whether it's just a convenient way of talking about what scientists do. There's no guarantee that what they say accurately describes their philosophical views on the matter, especially if they are untrained in philosophy.

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

It is highly contested as to whether mathematics is found or made. It's an ongoing philosophical debate. You shouldn't pretend that it has been settled one way or the other.

I do not pretend (nor does Tegmark) that it has been settled at all. I have declared my support for the logical argument in favor of a wholly mathematical universe as opposed to a partially mathematical Universe, which sounds hopelessly inadequate as a scientific observation to me.

 

[Write4U]

If somebody on this forum asks "Why is the sky blue?", they don't need the umpteenth copy of "Max Tegmark has a theory that the sky is just mathematics, so it is the mathematics of the sky that makes it blue. Look, here are some of my favorite quotes from Tegmark. And here are three irrelvant links to other people who talk about mathematics. And here's a link to a wikipedia article on Tegmark. Oh, and while I'm at it, I haven't mentioned microtubules lately, so here's some irrelevant information about those, too."

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

 

[exchemist]

Write4U:




Did you read that wikipedia page you linked to? Did you notice all the criticisms of Tegmark's theory there?


You have the onus of proof the wrong way around. If you think Tegmark is right, you (or he) need to show it. It's not up to me to disprove your pet theory.





It is highly contested as to whether mathematics is found or made. It's an ongoing philosophical debate. You shouldn't pretend that it has been settled one way or the other.

Yeah, "Prove me wrong!", the cry of the crank throughout the ages.

(Your sentence seems to be spot-on.)

 

[Write4U]

Yeah, "Prove me wrong!", the cry of the crank throughout the ages.

You don't get it, do you
All the ingredients of Tegmark's hypothesis have been tested, proven, and falsified. 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. All of them valid and mainstream. No controversy there.

Tegmark advances nothing NEW, other than drawing attention to a common denominator in all things, including the Universe itself, i.e. mathematical relational values and functions, which humans have been able symbolize into a coherent functional language.

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

Any takers?

 

[James R]

Interesting review of Tegmark's ideas, with links to a number of other reviews from reputable sources:

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6551&cpage=2

Another good article that raises various objections to Tegmark's hypothesis is this one:

https://www.science20.com/rationally_speaking/mathematical_universe_i_ain’t_convinced-127841

It looks like somebody has more or less extracted the relevant bits from that and copied them onto the wikipedia entry for Tegmark's mathematical universe. Better to read the original version.

 

[James R]

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.

God is unfalsifiable.

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.

 

[exchemist]

Interesting review of Tegmark's ideas, with links to a number of other reviews from reputable sources:

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6551&cpage=2

Another good article that raises various objections to Tegmark's hypothesis is this one:

https://www.science20.com/rationally_speaking/mathematical_universe_i_ain’t_convinced-127841

It looks like somebody has more or less extracted the relevant bits from that and copied them onto the wikipedia entry for Tegmark's mathematical universe. Better to read the original version.

I've previously referred to that link from Peter Woit in discussions I had with Write4U before I put him on Ignore. Woit in my opinion has his feet firmly on the ground.

It seems clear we are dealing with Write4U's chosen religion here. He worships that which he cannot understand, in this case mathematics. It's a kind of cargo cult, really.

 

[Write4U]

Interesting review of Tegmark's ideas, with links to a number of other reviews from reputable sources:

https://www.science20.com/rationally_speaking/mathematical_universe_i_ain’t_convinced-127841

It looks like somebody has more or less extracted the relevant bits from that and copied them onto the wikipedia entry for Tegmark's mathematical universe. Better to read the original version.

OK, excerpt:

There are other problems with MUH. For one, several critics of Tegmark’s ideas have pointed out that they run afoul of the seemingly omnipresent (and much misunderstood) Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. Mark Alford, specifically, during a debate with Tegmark and Piet Hut has suggested that the idea that mathematics is “out there” is incompatible with the idea that it consists of formal systems.

And that has been proven? And what pray tell is a "formal system"?

To which Tegmark replied that perhaps only Gödel-complete mathematical structures have physical existence (something referred to as the Computable Universe Hypothesis, CUH).

This, apparently, results in serious problems for Max’s theory, since it excludes much of the landscape of mathematical structures, not to mention that pretty much every successful physical theory so far would violate CUH. Oops.

And who certifies that Mark Alford does understand the often misunderstood Godel's Incompleteness theorems, to make definitive statement like "Oops".

In Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes, critic Alex Vilenkin says that “the number of mathematical structures [in the multiverse] increases with increasing complexity, suggesting that ‘typical’ structures should be horrendously large and cumbersome. This seems to be in conflict with the beauty and simplicity of the theories describing our world.” In order to get around that problem, Tegmark assigns lower weights to more complex structures, but since this is done without a priori justification, it is an ad hoc move, which of course violates Occam’s razor.

Yes, let's trash David Bohm in the process, shall we? There cannot possibly exist am a priori hierarchy of mathematical orders, culminating in a "complete wholeness". It would violate Occam's razor ?

So, as much as I enjoyed our conversation with Max, for the time being I remain skeptical of the MUH and related hypotheses. Maybe we just need to wait for the appearance of an infinitely intelligent mathematician.

Yes, something like God . Isn't that precious.....

And that is the closing statement of a physicist? "Crumple, crumple, crumple, in the trashcan!