We need more discussion of Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by James R, Nov 18, 2023.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Moderator note: This thread was split from another one, in which the material that appears in the first 40 or so posts below was off topic. The original thread is here:

    Relationship of agnosticism to theist/atheism

    I'm not sure who you are thinking of. Which poster here has supported Intelligent Design?

    My own view on ID is that it is just regular old biblical creationism trying to masquerade as science. As it happens, my view was shared by a court of law that was asked to decide that issue in the US in 2005 (see Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District). But quite apart from that, there's no good evidence for ID.

    On the mathematical universe thing, I think you'll probably find that many people on this forum will accept that the universe shows signs of "mathematical order". If it did not, we'd have a lot of trouble explaining why mathematical models of the universe work so darn well.

    I don't know why you add the word "abstract". All mathematics is abstract, isn't it?

    I think you might have be confusing opposition to your Tegmarkian religion with opposition to the idea that maths is useful for describing certain aspects of our universe.
    Hopefully, I've helped to de-confuse you on this matter. Let me know if you have further questions. Sarkus, of course, might also want to respond, since you addressed him.
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2023
    Pinball1970 likes this.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    I can't think of anyone here who thinks ID is an acceptable concept. As for the mathematically ordered universe, I just think you're confusing the map with the territory.

    It also appears to me that your reading comprehension skills could use some work.
    Pinball1970 likes this.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I did not say "supported". I said "acceptable" as in tolerant.
    I am familiar with the Kitzmiller case. I have quoted it several times in context of "irreducible complexity" as well as ID.
    And there you have it. Why id Tegmark called a charlatan
    Too much information for you?
    The special role of mathematics in education is a consequence of its universal applicability. The results of mathematics--theorems and theories--are both significant and useful; the best results are also elegant and deep. Through its theorems, mathematics offers science both a foundation of truth and a standard of certainty. [/quote]
    My Tegmarkian religion??? What are you talking about?
    It is you who is confusing the term religion with science.
    I'd like that. We're having an interesting discussion, no?
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2023
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Clearly you do not have a clue as to what we are talking about.
    LOL, you are a little late to this game, my friend.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2023
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Correction on post # 91
    Source: https://services.math.duke.edu/undergraduate/Handbook96_97/node5.html#
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    And that holds true for everything or for religion only? Please note that religion makes claims that are scientifically testable.
    Example: "irreducible complexity" as advanced by Bahe during the Kitzmiller trial, which is a scientific claim.
    Have you read that book? If so, you will find many reasons why the bible is not only not sacred but is positively demonic. And that distinction makes a difference in "belief", and it is not scientific.
    I am aware that my command of scientific jargon is lacking and if I use "my own words" (such as "quasi-intelligent" or "permittive") then it is not the content that is being discussed but the semantics for being wrong, or obscure.

    I thought that quoting actual science would solve that problem, but no one bothers to read them, even as reading and interpreting my own words in context would add up to the same
    time as reading the quotes. I don't see the logic in the demand that I use my own words.
    The intent is clarity and a quote from Einstein offers clarity to all who are familiar with science. And strangely, when Einstein used the phrase "spooky action at a distance" (not a very scientific description), no one complained about his choice of words.

    Sarkus, allow me to quote from the video of Colbert interviewing Gervais.
    Gervais; "If you were to burn all scripture today and tried to restore them a 1000 years from now, these documents would not be recognizable from the originals. But if you were to burn all the books on science and restore them 1000 years from now, they would be exactly the same as they are now", (with minor refinements). I think that is a profound observation.

    But this very day, I have 4 different versions of the bible sitting on the shelf. Not to mention all the other scriptures that have existed and disappeared in the mist of history. Is that proof of truth?

    OTOH, mathematics is not subject to interpretation, it is a falsifiable property of spacetime itself.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2023
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    You seem to be saying that you would like to see more "tolerance" for the idea of "an abstractly mathematically ordered universe" on sciforums.

    What would that look like, then? I mean, there's been plenty of discussion here about your ideas about that. Nothing has been censored. You haven't been put off talking about that subject. What more do you want, in the way of "tolerance"?

    Are you suggesting that you would prefer it if your skeptics would disappear or all just accept your side of the argument? Is that what "tolerance" means for you?
    I assume that "id" is a typo that should be "is".

    Who has called Tegmark a charlatan?
    Why did you post an off-topic quote that agrees with my point that all mathematics is abstract, and then ask "too much information for you?" Clearly, I was already there long before you started googling to try to find something that agrees with what I wrote.

    Too much information for you, maybe? Try to keep up.
    I disagree that mathematics is "universally applicable". This is what happens when you try to make a religion out of maths.
    You don't remember any of our previous discussions about Tegmark and his mathematical universe claims, now?

    Is this memory issue of yours part of the explanation of why you never learn anything from conversations on this forum? Is this why you endlessly repeat the same two or three talking points? You just don't remember what you've discussed previously?
    How so?
    Not from my end. But I'm trying to help you. I'm glad you're finding it interesting. In an ideal world, I would also like to see some evidence that you have learned something, though.
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2023
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    All claims outside of science must be considered as potentially possible?
    Tegmark is a religious preacher?
    C'mon, Tegmark is an accredited physicist. His Mathematical Universe is NOT a religion, it is a scientific model of the Universe.
    Are you practicing religion when you use mathematics in your scientific efforts?
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Proof involves, at a minimum, a chain of logical reasoning from accepted premises to a conclusion. Attempts to understand are not proof of anything. But that's probably not what you were trying to say, so let's leave that to one side.

    You seem to think that reading a scientific article automatically means that you understand it. But understanding does not automatically follow from the mere reading of a piece of text. Understanding requires a lot more work than that. Understanding means having the capacity to draw appropriate links between ideas. Understanding means having the capacity to generate new ideas from the information one has absorbed. Understanding is often demonstrated by being able to communicate the important aspects of the thing to somebody else, in your own words.

    The same goes for "using excerpts". "Using" is a very broad term. If, by "using" you merely mean cutting an excerpt from one place and pasting it to some other place, then sure, you're "using" the excerpt. But that is also a far cry from understanding the content of the excerpted text.
    One very important thing to keep in mind when you're trying to demonstrate your understanding of something is relevance. If you are "using an excerpt", there should be a clear connection between the excerpt and the idea you're trying to communicate, or the argument you're trying to advance.

    Sadly, most of your cut-and-pasted "excerpts" do nothing at all to support any arguments you want to make. In fact, my observation is that most of your "excerpts" barely get beyond regurgitating simple definitions of scientific terms. And then, after posting such an "excerpt", you often go on to demonstrate that you don't understand even the definition that you have posted - or else that you are unable to draw any relevant connections between the definition and what you were previously trying to discuss or answer.

    The problem here, Write4U, is not that readers of your post can't understand what you are saying. Your readers, for the most part, don't need you to cut and paste definitions of basic scientific terms that they already understand. In fact, the only value in such definitions would be if you came to some understanding of their meaning, such that you could then have a useful discussion with the people who already understand them. But you rarely, if any, do any mental processing on the definitions you post.

    To take one example at random, consider the mathematical terms "function" and "value". People here have repeatedly tried to school you on the accepted meanings of those words. You have googled those words, and you have cut and pasted your "proofs" of how they are usually defined. And yet, you're still utterly unable to use the words "function" of "value" appropriately, when it comes to writing down your own ideas. Worse still, when anybody tries to correct (once again) your errors of usage of those words, you insist that your incorrect usages are, in fact, appropriate, and to try to support those claims you usually then re-post the basic definitions and claim that you understand them. And so, the cycle repeats. What's missing here is any learning on your part. What's missing is that you never actually reach the point where you understand. All you seem to have is a scrapbook full of miscellaneous words that you string together at random whenever you try to talk about technical topics.

    You often claim that all these sources you quote explain your ideas better than you can. It might well be the case that some of your sources explain ideas better than you do, but they aren't your ideas. And almost inevitably, when we drill down even a little into what you write, we almost immediately find that your conceptions of things differ from those of your sources. This is usually because you don't understand what the sources are telling you. And then, annoyingly, you refuse to take action to correct your own specific errors after they are pointed out to you. Instead, you usually try to pretend that you didn't really make a mistake at all, or you try to change the topic to something irrelevant, often by cutting and pasting something unrelated.
    Often, there is no need to read the full text of things you "excerpt", because it is clear from the parts you quote that the full text is most likely going to be irrelevant to anything you are arguing for. Often, the parts you quote don't even relate to any argument you're trying to advance. Or else, the full text only contains further explanation of a definition that is already well understood by everybody but you in the conversation.
    Science is about more than "jargon". Scientific terms are not just words that are used to keep science as a sort of secret language, to shield the understanding of science from the uninitiated. Scientific terms are defined in precise ways so that we can all be on the same page when we talk about scientific concepts. Clearly, there is no point in having any discussion in which the parties are using the same word to refer to different things; that only makes for confusion and misunderstanding.

    As far as using your own words is concerned, that's fine. But if you're going to throw a term like "quasi-intelligent" out there, it stands to reason that you must mean something by it. When you can't explain how "quasi-intelligent" is distinguishable from "intelligent", that begs the question of why you used the term in the first place. As for the word "permittive", which you have used in the context of a "permittive condition", it is not an adjective that exists in regular English. Therefore, if you want to use it, you need to say what you mean by this newly-coined word of yours. If all you mean is "permissive", there's already a word for that; we don't really need a new one. And wouldn't you want to avoid confusion with the word "permittivity", which has a very different meaning in science?

    These particular matters were discussed with you previously, of course. But here you are, months later, apparently complaining that people are quibbling about "semantics" and that you should just be able to use words like "quasi-intelligent" and "permittive" without explaining what you mean by them. You're also trying to imply, I think, that the problem is not yours but your readers', because you hold that using those words is, for unexplained reasons, not wrong or obscure. Again, you're unwilling to learn anything from previous discussions, apparently.
    Your readers can't access your ideas from somebody else's words. Nobody speaks for you but you. You can, of course, quote somebody else and say "I agree with everything Tegmark says here", or similar, but that's of very limited value if you're unable to demonstrate that you understand what Tegmark said there. Worse, if it turns out that things you say contradict what you quote, then there was no point in posting the quote in the first place; it was just a waste of time for anybody who wanted to know what you thought.
    Einstein explained exactly what he meant when he used that term. He could do that because he understood what he meant. He defined his terms clearly for his readers/listeners. When he quoted other people, the quotes were relevant to arguments that he was making. He also used "scientific jargon" in which the meanings of words were the generally-accepted meanings in the communities with which he was communicating. And when he coined new words, he defined them.
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2023
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Yes. I'd like to see a greater discussion on the merits and weaknesses of Tegmark's hypothesis. I'm sure I could learn a lot, and perhaps others might as well.
    The only discussion about Tegmark has been of an ad hominem nature and no science at ALL.
    Here we go with the semantics.
    I don't hear any theist being called a moron. There is this respectful courtesy to theists, lest we insult their fragile belief system. I have never heard of scientists going to war over a scientific hypothesis, but history is rife with religious wars. What about religion is to be respected, when some clergy can place a fatwa (death sentence) on you for apostasy. It seems that the next best thing is destroying people who dare think out-of-the-religious-box.
    Excellent interpretation!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Could life forms such as ours, sentient beings, survive if laws of physics were variable?
    1. I would dare say that all of science would be out of a job......

      Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

      Post by: Write4U, Oct 16, 2021 in forum: General Science & Technology
    2. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

      Could life forms such as ours, sentient beings, survive if laws of physics were variable?
    If you admit that the Universe has at least some mathematical properties, what is your vehement objection to a proposal by an accredited scientist that the universe may well be all mathematics, whereas you tolerate that there is an abstract God who rules everything?
    No, not too much, too much wrong.
    But the concept of an abstract God does get your respect and consideration?
    On what basis do you prefer the religious concept of an abstract God over the scientific concept of abstract Mathematics?

    Oh I do and they were completely devoid of any scientific value. Tegmark is just trying to sell his book. He is a commercially motivated scientific imposter. An untenable scientific position.
    OTOH, the Vatican probably has more treasure than many countries. Ever be asked to tithe, because God needs the money? Yes, we gladly give in support of the "cause".
    Are you a psychologist, qualified to make those judgments about a person's intellectual qualities? If not, then you are engaging in ad hominem.
    You have it completely turned around.
    I would rather hope that if and where I am wrong, you would correct me on the hard facts, in your own words, rather than telling me I am incapable of understanding anything. That is a useless exercise and I truly am unable to follow that kind of discussion.
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    The claim that your mother loves you is potentially possible, but it's not a scientific claim. Can we consider it?
    Not exactly. He does not present his mathematical universe hypothesis explicitly as religion or an article of faith. It's a borderline case, though. The idea itself seems fundamentally flawed in several respects (which we have discussed previously), and yet Tegmark is not shy about spruiking it around. (Not that there's anything wrong with putting ideas out there, per se.)

    His hypothesis lacks supporting evidence and might well be unfalsifiable, two features that it shares in common with religions.
    Completely irrelevant. Lots of highly credentialled people say lots of very stupid things, from time to time. Being an expert in one field does not make one an expert in any other field, either. There are Nobel prize winners who have lost their shit (sometimes in their later years) and have taken to spruiking for different kinds of pseudoscience and pseudo-religious ideas. It is possible that Tegmark is making an early start on that sort of thing.
    Really? Where can I find more information about the basic tenets of the model? Where can I find proposed or actual experimental tests of the model? What particular predictions does the model make that can be compared with the predictions of models that do not invoke a "mathematical universe" hypothesis? How can those be tested? Have they been tested? What were the findings?

    Where can I see the maths of this mathematical, scientific model of the universe?
    No. My mathematics is not a religion.
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2023
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Didn't we already have that discussion? Please find the thread where you first asked about what the people here think about Tegmark's hypothesis. Read the initial responses there.

    If you think these matters haven't been adequately addressed, I would be happy for you to create a new thread restricted to that specific topic. That means no microtubules, no Bohm, etc. Just a discussion about the merits and weaknesses of Tegmark's hypothesis.

    If you do want to start such a thread, make sure that in your first post or two you provide:
    • a brief summary of what your want to discuss. i.e an explanation of what "Tegmark's hypothesis" says, briefly.
    • A brief summary of what you consider to be the merits of Tegmark's hypothesis, and why you think that.
    • A brief summary of what you see as the greatest weaknesses of Tegmark's hypothesis. Or, better, a brief summary of the main objections that have been made of the hypothesis by Tegmark's critics.
    That will provide a reasonable jumping-off point for the discussion. Don't forget to include the weaknesses. You will need to show that you understand the main objections to the hypothesis, even if you believe it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
    It looks like you've forgotten the initial discussions we had with you about this. I remember, for example, that I posted a few objections that had more to do with ontology than science, as such, but then again, I'd say that Tegmark's mathematical universe is less a scientific hypothesis than a philosophical thought experiment. Your opinion is obviously different.
    Where? Here? I'd suggest that (a) you haven't been paying attention, and (b) it might have something to do with our posting guidelines, which frown on personal insults such as namecalling.
    You think? Again, are we talking generally, or here?

    Even here, I've seen a lot of theists apparently upset that their religious ideas haven't been given the respect they think they deserve.
    I don't see how any of that is relevant to the question of what "tolerance" here, on this forum, you think is lacking.
    My question to you was "Who has called Tegmark a charlatan?" Your response doesn't address the question.
    All of this is way off-topic in a thread about the relationship of agnosticism to theism. In fact, I might have to move this whole tangential discussion to a different thread.

    I told you some of my objections to Tegmark's ideas when you first asked. Please go back, find the relevant thread, and refresh your memory about what I said back then.
    So your claim now is that I am in error - I have got something wrong.

    Please tell me what I have got "too much wrong", Write4U. Be specific. Point out where I made the mistake.

    Of course it does. The concept of God is hugely influential in society. It would be idiotic to ignore it.
    I don't know what you're talking about. I have expressed no such preference.
    I see. You judge all the comments about the "untenable scientific position" to be devoid of any scientific value, then, do you? Do you have any reasons for reaching that judgment? If so, probably best to discuss them in some other thread.
    This appears to be an irrelevant throw-away comment. What are you talking about? Try to focus on the discussion at hand.
    I asked you some questions about your memory, not your intellectual qualities.

    I wrote some other stuff about how you never seem to learn anything discussions and how you seem to have trouble even recalling past discussions. Those are my observations, not psychological diagnoses.
    Your claim is that I have confused religion with science. I asked you "how so?" Your answer here is not an explanation of how I am confusing religion with science. Demonstrate where and how I have confused religion with science, or retract your accusation, please.
    Lots of people have tried to correct you on "hard facts" - myself included. You cannot complain that I don't use my own words. It is actually quite rare for me to directly quote other people on this forum, other than people I am directly replying to in a post.

    I have not said that you are incapable of understanding anything. I have said that it is my observation that, often, you do not learn from people here who are kind enough to point out your errors about "hard facts". I could be wrong, I suppose, but it's a long shot. Maybe you do learn, but you want to keep pretending you don't because you can't bring yourself to admit that you were wrong in the first place. I think that's unlikely, however, since if you did learn you would not repeat the same errors - unless you do it out of some kind of twisted spite. But I don't get the impression that you're spiteful. I could be wrong about that too, I suppose...
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    That is a terrible prejudicial statement. Let me explain what I meant.
    When I quote from peer reviewed articles, I can assume that the content has been proven or it would not have passed peer review. If that is true then I need not prove it, the proof was already provided. All I need is to understand the principles involved, even if I am not familiar with scientific jargon.
    I find it strange that when I do run across a unique scientific term, I usually understand what is meant by it and if it is a term I have never heard I look it up in the dictionary
    I usually do and if I don't I consult the dictionary or the narrative of a peer reviewed paper.
    Are you suggesting that I do not have the capacity to draw appropriate links between ideas?
    I have proven my capacity to find "common denominators" in many seemingly disparate subjects.
    I have been chastized for posting tangentially related subjects.
    Apparently, I can have my cake, but I am forbidden to eat it.
    Why in my own words. I have already demonstrated my ability to present a cogent argument, based on what I have learned from my research. Just like every one else here.
    Have you actually ever tried to match the content of the quoted science with the OP subject?

    This is the way I present my propositions and arguments. I have never refused to clarify anything that may seem ambiguous or unrelated.

    As proposal writer for 2 Indian tribes, this is the way I was able to obtain grants to the tune of several million dollars for a Salmon Hatchery and a Hotel/Casino complex as Proposal writer for 2 American Indian tribes.
    I believe that I have proven that I can make cogent and valid arguments.
    How do you know they are not relevant when you don't read them? And if you did and did not see a common denominator, why did you not ask me to clarify?
    But you are not making any kind of scientific argument at all. all you do is critique my style of posting. Give me an example so that I can clarify anything that gives you a problem in understanding my meaning.
    How do you know when you refuse to engage in a constructive exchange on the merits of the quoted materials?
    Then what's the problem?
    Then they should readily understand my meaning in context of what they know.
    You'll never find out unless you ask for clarification instead of slinging a constant barrage of ad hominem.
    Why don't you test my understanding?
    Not the mathematical equations, the common denominators contained in the equation and how that may relate to the subject under discussion.
    No they haven't in the context of your use of the term "schooling" (look it up in the dictionary). This forum is far from being a school.
    I can play that game also, but I always try to understand the meaning of a post, in spite of literary value.
    Consulting a dictionary is not allowed? What are you talking about????
    Where did I use those terms incorrectly in context, without any supporting material.
    And I have told you several times that my ideas are based on mainstream science, namely "common denominators" that suggest shared mathematical properties. I like Tegmark's interpretation of a mathematical universe and his take on emergent consciousness. I also like Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff and their hypothesis of ORCH OR,
    which both have suggested mathematical patterns, potentials, and emergent properties that are greater than the properties of the individual parts.
    Example: the various emergent physical states (solid, liquid, gaseous) of H2O, depending on several internal and environmental conditions, such as quantity, temperature, pattern-density, liquidity (and I mean ability to flow), and the emergent property of "wetness", which the individual molecules do not posses.
    And which subjects under discussion are "my ideas"?

    I use words in context of their definition and historical common usage. In the case of old words with many definitions based on a common principle. When I say "food for thought", do you see me stuffing my face with manuscripts about thought or do you understand that the word "food" in this context means "data that warrants serious consideration".
    Could it be that it is you who does not always understand me and what you are missing is contained in the supporting quoted material?
    And that is where you are totally wrong. You must be missing the common denominators contained in the supporting quotes.
    It is becoming clear that sometimes you do not understand me. Do you play chess? If not, that would explain it.
    You're going off the deep end now. Something HAS to be my idea to be valid? Where have I claimed authorship and exclusive rights to any of my ideas. I look for common denominators, that may eventually lead to a "pattern" that can be mathematically quantified.
    No, no, that "drilling" does not consist of asking honest questions. You are an exception and where you have asked me for clarification, I have always strived to clarify what might have seemed incongruous at first. I recall a few instances where you convinced me to use a different word, but that is hardly a fatal flaw in any missive, even scientific ones. A flaw in the maths would be fatal.
    As retired payroll/bookkeeper of a multimillion not-for-profit I have plenty experience with equations. Double-entry bookkeeping is equation based.


    Attached Files:

  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    yes indeed. It is a compound word that expresses the exact sum of the 2 parts. If you know what "quasi" means, and you know what the word "intelligent" means, then join them to the form;
    "quasi- a combining form meaning “resembling,” “having some, but not all of the features of,” used in the formation of compound words: quasi-definition; quasi-monopoly; quasi-official; quasi-scientific."
    having or showing intelligence, especially of a high level.
    "Annabelle is intelligent and hardworking"
    Similar: clever, smart, intuitive, thinking, acute, insightful, perceptive, discerning, ingenious,
    knowledgeable, apt, able, gifted, talented, brainy, genius, rational, capable of thought, higher-order.
    Similar: robotic. automatic, self-regulating, capable of learning, smart
    (of a device, machine, or building) able to vary its state or action in response to varying situations, varying requirements, and past experience.
    the term "quasi" is designed to augment another term such as "intelligent" and thus exactly describing the sum of the meaning from combining 2 words, to form a logical baseline for understanding the "meaning" of the self-referencing equation.
    I do appreciate your interest in some of my hobby horse subjects. These are truly magnificent obsessions and if I can glimpse a hint of truth, that would complete my considerable lifetime experiences. It's on my bucket list
    IOW, you do not read these supporting papers, ok.
    That's irrelevant. I quote what I believe is immediately relevant and if that seems extensive, then that is the result of me weighing the importance vs brevity.
    Seems to be an obstacle here.
    that is just not true.
    Not if you read my posts in a conversational way. many scientist use common language during this informal monologue like this one.

  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Are you satisfied now.
    I admit it doesn't look like the word "permittive" is often used, but i picked it up from a scientific paper that spoke of space as a permittive condition. It never occurred to me to question the use of the term permittive as a derivative of permit and in an extended form as permittivity.
    Why on earth is there no word "permittive" in the English language? It never occurred to me that the word does not exist...but I did see someone else use the word, so I can't claim authorship.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    If all you mean is "permissive", there's already a word for that; we don't really need a new one. And wouldn't you want to avoid confusion with the word "permittivity", which has a very different meaning in science? [/quote] But between the words permit and permittivity logically lies the word permittive.
    Does that make me stupid?
    That is observation is valid only if I am given the opportunity to explain my perspective. If that is of no interest , then one is free to ignore the thread. OTOH, if the subject is of interest, it is nice to see a healthy participation and spirited debate.
    No, that's not true. You will have to prove that argument. There seldom was a serious inquiry as made by you. And I really appreciate your patience and willingness to probe further.. But I am confident that at a certain point that even seemingly random sets of naturally occurring events will point to a common denominator, much as the human race has a common ancestry with other great apes and so forth down the evolutionary ladder.
    Yes, I agree. Einstein demonstrated his understanding of the world mathematically because he had prior information that led him to that inspiration. Newton should not be forgotten as a pair of shoulders.
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2023
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    That was some time ago and all the initial objections have for the most part been answered by science.
    I have posted plenty of information on that.
  20. Pinball1970 Valued Senior Member

    No it isn't. You cite "spacetime" a lot you should stop doing it.
    Mathematics is not physics, if we never had ever had thought about how the universe works we could have still have mathematics.
    I will state again mathematics is not an empirical science.
    exchemist likes this.
  21. Pinball1970 Valued Senior Member

    If you do not that, people do not know if you understand a concept.
    A link is fine to a recent article or paper but most of the time they are just large cut and pastes.
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    What makes you think I don't understand what I post? I only post what I understand.
    Why would I post what I don't understand?
  23. Pinball1970 Valued Senior Member

    You keep dragging the thread into consciousness, Tegmark, Hameroff, Homeostasis, MT, that is not the topic and irrelevant.

Share This Page