We need more discussion of Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis

[Halc]

Max Tegmark (from a SciAm article published in the early 2000s): A mathematical structure is an abstract, immutable entity... If history were a movie, the structure would correspond not to a single frame of it but to the entire videotape.

OK, this verifies what I said above: MUH is an eternalist view. It does surprise me to see the word 'abstract', which implies something more fundamental doing the abstracting. If that were the case, the whole hypothesis collapses.

The rest of the quote seems to be him trying to get the reader to visualize spacetime and worldlines and such, as opposed to the 3D presentist view.

Nobody has commented on my critique of MUH, and I have no idea how to search for what Tegmark might has said about it

 

[Write4U]

Nobody has commented on my critique of MUH, and I have no idea how to search for what Tegmark might has said about it

Now do you understand why I always accompany my posts with a link that supports the argument?

 

[C C]

OK, this verifies what I said above: MUH is an eternalist view. It does surprise me to see the word 'abstract', which implies something more fundamental doing the abstracting. If that were the case, the whole hypothesis collapses.

He was probably addressing "mathematical structure" in a conventional context rather than one where he reifies the concept as physical, since he wasn't discussing MUH directly in that old article.

Though, for all I know, in his writings somewhere he might do the same when he is discussing MUH. Or maybe he flips back and forth between the two orientations at times with little concern for the reader's confusion.

The rest of the quote seems to be him trying to get the reader to visualize spacetime and worldlines and such, as opposed to the 3D presentist view.

Nobody has commented on my critique of MUH, and I have no idea how to search for what Tegmark might has said about it

He's only responded to a few common questions on his his website. He's got interviews and videos scattered all over the internet, but similarly I don't know to what extent (if any) he has addressed the specific scrutiny of others in them.

The SEP seems to have no entry devoted to MUH, though bits of details slash commentary about it are scattered around under different topics.
_

 

[Sarkus]

Yes, keep it fractured instead of trying to puzzle it together. I look for common denominators, to paint a landscape.
That is after all the way the brain itself works.

Hint: just because everything may be linked through a Theory of Everything does not mean you should start proselytising about the ToE in every thread. Focus your efforts where it is relevant to the discussion rather than where it simply has some relevance to the subject. After all, a ToE has relevance to the subject, of, well, everything, including films, songs, favourite colour etc. but it is not always relevant to those discussions.
You would do well to learn that difference, as you seem to be struggling with it thus far.

 

[Write4U]

The SEP seems to have no entry devoted to MUH, though bits of details slash commentary about it are scattered around under different topics.

Computable function
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability theory. Computable functions are the formalized analog of the intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return the corresponding output.

That is my perspective on one of the mathematical essence of spacetime geometry.

Computable functions are used to discuss computability without referring to any concrete model of computation such as Turing machines or register machines. Any definition, however, must make reference to some specific model of computation but all valid definitions yield the same class of functions. Particular models of computability that give rise to the set of computable functions are the Turing-computable functions and the general recursive functions.

How about "the human brain" as the alternate complex model of computation?

How can a brainless slime mold navigate a maze by subtraction? How can small-brained Lemurs count?
As Tegmark says; "It is the pattern that determines the ability for more or less computability".
The human brain has as many synapses as stars in the Milky Way.
How is that for a model?

Why Your Brain is Like The Universe
April 20, 2016 - BrainMD Life

Your brain is the most complex, mind-blowing organ in the universe. It is estimated to have over 100 billion neurons (also called nerve cells or brain cells), which is about the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy.

Each neuron is connected to other neurons by up to 40,000 individual connections (called synapses) between cells. Multiplying 100 billion neurons times 40,000 synapses is equivalent to the brain having more connections in it than there are stars in the universe. A piece of brain tissue the size of a grain of sand contains 100,000 neurons and 1 billion synapses, all communicating with one another.

A neuron’s main job is to generate an electrical signal called an “action potential” which it does if sufficiently “excited” by other neurons. The action potential of a single neuron is like a lightning bolt that can stimulate other neurons. The stimulated neurons can then generate their own signals that travel to and stimulate yet other neurons to which they are connected, creating a network of neurons that perform a specific brain function.

Another way neurons communicate with each other is through chemical messengers called neurotransmitters. There are many different neurotransmitters, such as acetylcholine, serotonin, dopamine, GABA, adrenaline, noradrenaline, glutamate, and norepinephrine to name a few.

Your brain uses neurotransmitters to tell your heart to beat, your lungs to breathe, and your stomach to digest. They can also affect mood, sleep, concentration, weight, and other problems when they are out of balance.

https://brainmd.com/blog/how-your-brain-is-like-the-universe/

 

[Yazata]

Perhaps part of the problem in this thread is that that everyone is trying to understand what Tegmark is about through W4U's interpretation of him. That might be a bit like peering through a kaleidoscopic fun-house distorting mirror.

Here's a shorter-than-booklength 31 page account of the "MUH" by Tegmark himself, published in 2007 in Foundations of Physics:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646/

I have to admit that I haven't read it yet and it seems to me to perhaps be too filled with physics and mathematics jargon to be comprehensible as metaphysical philosophy (which is what it ultimately is) by a physics and mathematics layman like me. But I believe that he does address the question of why some mathematics is tangible and physical in his 'MUH' view, while so much of the rest of mathematics is purely conceptual.

Maybe this represents a fundamental difference between Tegmark and me. My scientific background (such as it is) is in biological science. I conceive of the reality posited by science as a biologist might, not through the perhaps excessively mathematical lens of theoretical physics. I've long suspected that many theoretical physicists think that the mathematics they scrawl all over their chalkboards is more real to them than the physical reality that it's supposedly meant to describe. What really exists (in some strong ontological sense) in their minds is seemingly the mathematics on the chalkboard, and all that physical reality does is exemplify and instantiate it somehow.

I'm reminded of Plato's cave imagery in the Republic, where physical reality is just an imperfect shadow of the true reality of the Eternal Forms. It seems to me that what Tegmark might be doing is trying to create a more physically informed and sophisticated version of Plato's 'cave' image.

 

[C C]

Perhaps part of the problem in this thread is that that everyone is trying to understand what Tegmark is about through W4U's interpretation of him. That might be a bit like peering through a kaleidoscopic fun-house distorting mirror.

Here's a shorter-than-booklength 31 page account of the "MUH" by Tegmark himself, published in 2007 in Foundations of Physics:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646/

I have to admit that I haven't read it yet and it seems to me to perhaps be too filled with physics and mathematics jargon to be comprehensible as metaphysical philosophy (which is what it ultimately is) by a physics and mathematics layman like me. But I believe that he does address the question of why some mathematics is tangible and physical in his 'MUH' view, while so much of the rest of mathematics is purely conceptual.

Maybe this represents a fundamental difference between Tegmark and me. My scientific background (such as it is) is in biological science. I conceive of the reality posited by science as a biologist might, not through the perhaps excessively mathematical lens of theoretical physics. I've long suspected that many theoretical physicists think that the mathematics they scrawl all over their chalkboards is more real to them than the physical reality that it's supposedly meant to describe. What really exists (in some strong ontological sense) in their minds is seemingly the mathematics on the chalkboard, and all that physical reality does is exemplify and instantiate it somehow.

I'm reminded of Plato's cave imagery in the Republic, where physical reality is just an imperfect shadow of the true reality of the Eternal Forms. It seems to me that what Tegmark might be doing is trying to create a more physically informed and sophisticated version of Plato's 'cave' image.

From that paper:

EXCERPTS: . . . By insisting on a complete description of reality, the MUH banishes not only the classical notion of initial conditions, but also the classical notion of randomness.

The traditional view of randomness (viewed either classically or as in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics) is only meaningful in the context of an external time, so that one can start with one state and then have something random “happen”, causing two or more possible outcomes. In contrast, the only intrinsic properties of a mathematical structure are its relations, timeless and unchanging.

In a fundamental sense, the MUH thus implies Einstein’s dictum “God does not play dice”. This means that if the MUH is correct, the only way that randomness and probabilities can appear in physics is via the presence of ensembles, as a way for observers to quantify their ignorance about which element(s) of the ensemble they are in...

[...] Parallel universes are now all the rage... They are also a source of confusion, since many forget to distinguish between different types of parallel universes that have been proposed, whereas argued that the various proposals form a natural four-level hierarchy of multiverses allowing progressively greater diversity.

[...] The key question is therefore not whether there is a multiverse (since Level I is the rather uncontroversial cosmological standard model), but rather how many levels it has. ... Level I, II and III parallel universes are all part of the same mathematical structure, but from the frog perspective, they are for all practical purposes causally disconnected. Level II, is currently a very active research area...

[...] In summary, many mathematical structures contain defacto parallel universes at levels I through III, so the possibility of a multiverse is a direct and obvious implication of the MUH. We will therefore not dwell further on these levels, and devote the remainder of this section to Level IV...

[...] Long a staple of science fiction, the idea that our external reality is some form of computer simulation has gained prominence with recent blockbuster movies like "The Matrix".

[...] Lloyd has advanced the intermediate possibility that we live in an analog simulation performed by a quantum computer, albeit not a computer designed by anybody — rather, because the structure of quantum field theory is mathematically equivalent to that of a spatially distributed quantum computer. In a similar spirit, Schmidhuber, Wolfram and others have explored the idea that the laws of physics correspond to a classical computation. Below we will explore these issues in the context of the MUH.

[...] Suppose that our universe is indeed some form of computation. A common misconception in the universe simulation literature is that our physical notion of a one-dimensional time must then necessarily be equated with the step-by-step one-dimensional flow of the computation. I will argue below that if the MUH is correct, then computations do not need to evolve the universe, but merely describe it (defining all its relations).

[...] The temptation to equate time steps with computational steps is understandable, given that both form a one-dimensional sequence where (at least for the non-quantum case) the next step is determined by the current state. However, this temptation stems from an outdated classical description of physics: there is generically no natural and well-defined global time variable in general relativity, and even less so in quantum gravity where time emerges as an approximate semiclassical property of certain “clock” subsystems. Indeed, linking frog perspective time with computer time is unwarranted even within the context of classical physics.

The rate of time flow perceived by an observer in the simulated universe is completely independent of the rate at which a computer runs the simulation. Moreover, as emphasized by Einstein, it is arguably more natural to view our universe not from the frog perspective as a 3-dimensional space where things happen, but from the bird perspective as a 4-dimensional spacetime that merely is.

There should therefore be no need for the computer to compute anything at all — it could simply store all the 4-dimensional data, i.e., encode all properties of the mathematical structure that is our universe. Individual time slices could then be read out sequentially if desired, and the “simulated” world should still feel as real to its inhabitants as in the case where only 3-dimensional data is stored and evolved. In conclusion, the role of the simulating computer is not to compute the history of our universe, but to specify it.

[...] This paper has explored the implications of the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) that our external physical reality is a mathematical structure (a set of abstract entities with relations between them). I have argued that the MUH follows from the external reality hypothesis (ERH) that there exists an external physical reality completely independently of us humans, and that it constitutes the opposite extreme of the Copenhagen interpretation and other “many words interpretations” of physics where human-related notions like observation are fundamental.

In Section III, we discussed the challenge of deriving our perceived everyday view (the “frog’s view”) of our world from the formal description (the “bird’s view”) of the mathematical structure, and argued that although much work remains to be done here, promising first steps include computing the automorphism group and its subgroups, orbits and irreducible actions...
- - - - - - -

The "frog" and "bird" analogies as well as "multiverse levels" also go back to this 2003 SciAm article called "Parallel Universes": https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.pdf

And again, he also discusses the "timeless and unchanging" mathematical structure or "time is not an illusion, but the flow of time is" here: https://nautil.us/why-the-flow-of-time-is-an-illusion-237380/

_

 

[Pinball1970]

Perhaps part of the problem in this thread is that that everyone is trying to understand what Tegmark is about through W4U's interpretation of him. That might be a bit like peering through a kaleidoscopic fun-house distorting mirror.

I am absolutely not doing that.
I summized pretty quickly that Write4U knows next to nothing about Tegmark's thesis. This is because the Tegmark video that he keeps posting says next to nothing about it.

The actual paper is 26 pages including references so I am going to have a crack at it today, see how far I get.

 

[James R]

Well, there's two issues at play here. One is the actual subject of Tegmark's MUH. I would have thought that if James R's aim was for an actual discussion of that he would have split this into one of the other sub-forums than "Site Feedback". "Alternative Theories", or "Physics & Maths", or possibly even "Philosophy". Putting it here is almost as if he's asking the question of whether we should have more discussion on it or not, not necessarily to actually discuss it.

Sarkus is right about this.

This thread was split from another one, along with two other threads on different topics. It was split partly because Write4U proved himself incapable of talking about a single topic at a time, and so tried talking about at least three different (unrelated) things at the same time.

However, the main reason this thread is here in Site Feedback is because Write4U made a series of complaints with the gist that he thinks that Tegmark's hypothesis hasn't been adequately discussed on sciforums. He told us all that what he wanted was an in-depth discussion about Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis (MUP) - the pros and cons of it, what evidence supports it (if any), what its detractors have had to say about the idea, etc.

However, in the brief time that this thread has existed, Write4U has proven himself to be utterly unequipped for having any kind of useful discussion about the MUP. (More on that shortly.)

Therefore, it seems to me that if the rest of us here are to have a useful discussion about it, it will be best to keep it free from unhelpful distractions by Write4U. I am therefore considering splitting off the actual discussion of the MUP (some of which has already happened here, but which has not involved Write4U, for the most part) to its own thread, perhaps in the "Alternative Theories" subforum. If that happens, Write4U will be excluded from posting in that thread. I would appreciate some feedback on this. Do the other interested posters here think this is a good idea, or would you all like to keep beating your head uselessly against the impenetrable wall that is Write4U? Of course, we could have separate places for both of those things, if you like.

 

[Pinball1970]

Write4U will be excluded from posting in that thread. I would appreciate some feedback on this. Do the other interested posters here think this is a good idea,

I think it is a good idea if we really want to stick to the subject, the published paper.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Your latest replies to me are so scatterbrained and incoherent that I just don't think it's worth my time and effort to attempt to respond point by point.

(Edit: Oh God. I've gone and responded anyway. Too late now. What a waste of time, for all the good it will do.)

After all, you didn't actually put any thought into what I asked you. Your responses look like you just posted the first thing that came into your head, like in a game of word association.

Some people who have only been here a short time have tried engaging with you, too. In them, it seems that you have simply found an excuse to start off from scratch again with all the same word salad you used in your previous discussions with myself and others. It is clear from those interactions, however, that you have actually learned nothing from previous discussions. You have ignored people who have tried to help you. I don't know whether it's deliberate obtuseness on your part, though that's a possibility I can't rule out. I suspect there's another, hidden, issue in play.

Either way, it doesn't seem fair to you to expect you to discuss a topic like Tegmark's MUH as if you understand something about it. You're clearly not equipped, for whatever reason, and after a while it just feels sort of icky, like bullying a child.

Anyway, let me briefly extract a few highlights (if we can call them that) from your recent posts. Call it a last ditch attempt to reach you, if you like.

(Edit: So, I got on a roll, and the highlight reel turned into the point-by-point shredding that I said I didn't want to get into, more or less. Oh well...)

It directly answered your question about shoelaces and alphabetical letters.

I didn't ask you questions about shoelaces or the alphabet. You seem quite unable to focus on what you are asked.

Antonsen taught you in the above clip.

Do you imagine there was something in Antonsen's talk that I didn't already know? (Note: I have already said I found it entertaining. I am not dissing his talk. The problem is with your assumptions about the people you're trying to talk with, right here. You're not operating at the same level, but you seem to be totally oblivious to that. Like I said, it feels icky to tell you. Probably, though, you won't believe me anyway. You'll just ignore it.)

I doubt [Tegmark] knows you exist.

Maybe he does. Maybe he doesn't. So what?

You're spending a lot of time unnecessarily telling me that I am wrong about EVERYTHING!

You mean you already knew you were wrong about everything, so I didn't need to tell you?

Right, so Tegmark is wrong and you could set him straight?

Him being wrong and him being willing to change his mind are two separate issues.

You must understand this from your own experience.

Well then...this must be you. View attachment 5733

Oh no. I have had the privilege of knowing some very smart people.

I highly recommend that everyone should develop some appreciation for just how much they don't know. Having some conception about one's own limitations means you're likely to see the world more clearly than you otherwise might. Humbler people are usually nicer people, too, so there are good spin-off effects, too.

Generic mathematics (relational values), and human symbolization of the generic relational values.

"Generic relational values" is word salad. Meaningless.

And in reality a quark has no value at all?

Who knows? You are incapable of defining what you mean by "value". Hence, when you talk about value, you don't say anything.

The enfolded mathematical potential of a thing (Bohm)

Word salad piled on word salad.

Many animals use mathematics without knowing it.

Irrelevant.

The universe uses mathematics and it does not know this either.

The universe is not an agent.

If [a proton] has any value at all it is mathematical in essence. Are you telling me, a proton has zero relational value?

The reason these statements are meaningless is because you can't define "value".

You claimed that the proton has a "mathematical value". I asked you "What is the mathematical value of a proton, Write4U?" And you start your answer with "If it has any value..."?

What do you mean, "if"? Can't you remember your own claims from one post to the next? What's up with you?

And then you ask me if I'm telling you about a proton's "relational value"? I'm telling you nothing about a proton's relational value, Write4U, because I don't believe that "relational value" means anything at all. It's word salad you just made up. Meaningless gobbledegook. Just stream of consciousness rubbish. Literally the first thing that popped into your head when you came to respond (not reply, mind you) to the question I asked you.

This is how every discussion with you goes. It's not just me. Everybody gets the same Write4U combination of world salad, nonsense, irrelevancies piled on irrelevancies and just plain garden-variety errors. But don't worry. You'll forget I said this, two minutes after you respond to it.

A value is an inherent potential to do work, ok?

Not ok.

That's just more word salad, because you (still) don't know what "potential" or "work" is. Applying the modifier "inherent" to "potential" doesn't mean anything, because "potential" doesn't mean anything when you use that word.

You better read up on that then.

You asked me "Have you ever heard of theoretical mathematics?"
I said no, what's that?
And now you confirm that you don't know what it is, either.

Why didn't you "read up on it" before you pretended it was a real thing, Write4U?

English literature doesn't have to be mathematical, it is not science. However algebra is!

No. Algebra is not science.

Algebraic Expressions

Irrelevant.

 

[James R]

(Brace yourselves, readers, because there's more of the same coming. I'll highlight the only important/strictly relevant bit in a different colour, so you can skip the rest.)

You insist that I answer in this thread.

Nowhere did I insist that you describe how DNA works in this thread.

What makes you spill that piece of drivel?

You directly asked me what the DNA molecule does. I took that as a sign from you that you don't know what it does.

If you already knew what it does, why would you need to ask me?

A DNA molecule is a mathematical object that contains the coded blueprint of the organism that is faithfully copied via the Mitotic spindle, a mathematical copy machine.

Irrelevant in a thread about whether Tegmark's MUH needs more discussion. Also wrong. DNA is not a "mathematical object".

Didn't learn the maths of tying shoelaces, did you?

There was nothing about the maths of tying shoelaces in the youtube talk you linked.

You cited shoelacings as not being mathematical.

I don't think you know what it means for something to be mathematical, so I see no point in attempting to discuss that with you.

Antonsen showed you the "image" of the value 4/3

There is no "THE image" of 4/3. I think you missed Antonsen's point. Which is quite incredible, seeing as the entire video had just a single main theme.

I think this is a nice example of an emergent self-organizing mathematical pattern from an abstract value.

That pattern didn't "self organise". Antonsen organised it.

Parabolic Motion of Projectiles

Irrelevant.

Can you tell me any aspect of the universe that does not exhibit mathematical relative values and relations, such as regularly recurring self-forming patterns?

Nobody can tell you that, because "mathematical relative values and relations" is just word salad that you made up. It doesn't mean anything.

No pattern is "self-forming". Now I think you don't know what a pattern is.

I see these things as axiomatic.

Maybe that's the number 1 reason why you keep uselessly spinning your wheels with the same bullshit. Garbage in; garbage out.

When the concept of mathematics is taken from its widest scope to its smallest, you can see it all around you.

You don't seem to understand metaphors. (Perhaps Tegmark doesn't, either. Although, it's probably unfair to lump him in with you.)

I don't see a valid reason to refuse to give mathematics its due. It is absolutely neutral in function, but it appears intelligent in the maintenance of the most elegant patterns in nature and the universe.

Mathematics is not an agent. It is not a god. You are unlikely to find it to be an adequate substitute for a god, if that's what you're looking for.

Every scientific equation we have to explain certain natural phenomena is proof that the universe employs a form of mathematics at its most fundamental level..

No. A thousand times, No.

Is every tall person proof that the universe employs tallness at its most fundamental level? The answer is obvious to most people.

I call mathematics a quasi-intelligent expression of a logical principle that governs knowable and predictable pattern formation in our dimensional reality.

Yes, and that's meaningless word salad.

You don't know what "quasi-intelligent" means.
You don't know what a "quasi-intelligent" expression of anything would look like, let along the quasi-intelligent expression of a logical principle.
You don't know what a "logical principle" is.
It's nonsense to claim that a "logical principle" could govern anything.
You don't know what "our dimensional reality" means.

Word salad, all of it.

No I don't believe anything. And I do understand the principles of mathematics.

... says the man who previously told us that he doesn't actually need to know any maths to understand science or Tegmark - or maths, presumably. He only needs to know about the "connections" and stuff like that.

And it is mnore than adding and subtraction. It is an expression of Logic.

*sigh*

System Modeling: Understanding Logical and Physical Architecture

Irrelevant.

And no, I do not totally agree with Tegmark.

O-ho!

Go on, Write4U. Tell us what you do not totally agree with Tegmark about.

What does Tegmark get wrong, according to you? Tell us one thing.

You can huff and puff, but you have no better answers than anyone else.

How could you possibly know what Pinball1970's answers are worth?

If he can do better than meaningless word salad - and all indications so far are that he can - that would necessarily make his answers better than yours, I think.

Telling someone they are wrong does not make you right. Try harder.

Remember where I told you, in this thread, why I think Tegmark is wrong? Remember how you complained that I just said he was wrong and never explained why?

Do you also remember that you have, so far, utterly failed to engage with the objection to Tegmark's MUH that I put forward?

Telling all of us that Tegmark is right does not make him right. And it certainly doesn't make you right. Try harder.

Answer me this.
Does an observer have to be conscious or does the wave function just collapse when encountering something physical?

Irrelevant. Off topic, like so much of what you post.

Computable function
[snip]
That is my perspective on one of the mathematical essence of spacetime geometry.

The only problem is that what you quoted does not mention the term "spacetime geometry", even once.

Truly bizarre irrelevancy.

How about "the human brain" as the alternate complex model of computation?

Irrelevant.

How can a brainless slime mold navigate a maze by subtraction? How can small-brained Lemurs count?
As Tegmark says; "It is the pattern that determines the ability for more or less computability".

Do you for one moment imagine that Tegmark was talking about slime molds or Lemurs when he said/wrote that?

You seem utterly unable to focus. What's up with you?

Why Your Brain is Like The Universe

Time to stop. Every second paragraph is an irrelevant cut and paste. And the ones in between are just word salad, most of the time.

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus is right about this.

If that happens, Write4U will be excluded from posting in that thread. I would appreciate some feedback on this. Do the other interested posters here think this is a good idea, or would you all like to keep beating your head uselessly against the impenetrable wall that is Write4U? Of course, we could have separate places for both of those things, if you like.

Setting up a thread for the actual discussion would be good, rather than keep it here. However, I'm not sure Write4U should be excluded from posting there. I'm not a fan of limiting one's activity so specifically (didn't even know it was possible), but rather they face the consequences of their actions (cumulative warnings etc). It may require a bit more active moderation to keep it on track, removing off-topic posts etc, but we have the capability of ignoring him, actively or passively, and of reporting off-topic posts. I mean, if people simply choose not to respond to his off-topic posts, would that not be sufficient? Just my two-pence worth.

 

[James R]

This whole topic was opened by James R seemingly to get a real discussion about MUH going, but people (well, James at least) seem to shy from actual discussion and would seemingly prefer just to rag on you about your assertions of understanding things that you clearly don't.

I recall that I previously addressed you with some real discussion points about the MUH.

I am aware that you have responded to what I wrote. Chances are good that I'll get around to replying to you at some point, but that's not going to happen right here and now.

We're not on a timer here.

 

[C C]

[...] Here's a shorter-than-booklength 31 page account of the "MUH" by Tegmark himself, published in 2007 in Foundations of Physics:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646/ [...]

Visiting this again, with respect to what it signifies, rather than offering excerpts...

Apparently, the whole venture into mathematicism is a distraction from a narrower ontological agenda.

What Tegmark is actually advocating is a multiverse version of eternalism. The simplistic block-universe concept cannot accommodate the complexity of that, thus his broadening to a discussion or fixation on mathematical structures in general.
_

 

[Pinball1970]

Setting up a thread for the actual discussion would be good, rather than keep it here. However, I'm not sure Write4U should be excluded from posting there. I'm not a fan of limiting one's activity so specifically (didn't even know it was possible), but rather they face the consequences of their actions (cumulative warnings etc). It may require a bit more active moderation to keep it on track, removing off-topic posts etc, but we have the capability of ignoring him, actively or passively, and of reporting off-topic posts. I mean, if people simply choose not to respond to his off-topic posts, would that not be sufficient? Just my two-pence worth.

Write4u cannot discuss the paper, the one I have at least.
It would dilute this discussion or people would just have to ignore it.
Like his video, Tegmark is breaking down mathematics to its component parts and it's relevance to physics.
TBH I still don't know what I am reading, it is like broad over view of the philosophy of mathematics with the add on that every operation or object IS physical.
He has not mentioned Gödel yet but this is a long paper.

 

[Write4U]

Irrelevant in a thread about whether Tegmark's MUH needs more discussion. Also wrong. DNA is not a "mathematical object".

And on what basis do you make that argument? I have read differently and I'll let the quote speak for itself.

DNA as information: at the crossroads between biology, mathematics, physics and chemistry
Julyan H. E. Cartwright, Simone Giannerini and Diego L. González
Published:13 March 2016https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2015.0071

Abstract

On the one hand, biology, chemistry and also physics tell us how the process of translating the genetic information into life could possibly work, but we are still very far from a complete understanding of this process. On the other hand, mathematics and statistics give us methods to describe such natural systems—or parts of them—within a theoretical framework. Also, they provide us with hints and predictions that can be tested at the experimental level.

Furthermore, there are peculiar aspects of the management of genetic information that are intimately related to information theory and communication theory. This theme issue is aimed at fostering the discussion on the problem of genetic coding and information through the presentation of different innovative points of view.

The aim of the editors is to stimulate discussions and scientific exchange that will lead to new research on why and how life can exist from the point of view of the coding and decoding of genetic information. The present introduction represents the point of view of the editors on the main aspects that could be the subject of future scientific debate.

more.......

We may thus ask ourselves: were those theoretical efforts to understand and classify matter using physico-mathematical concepts useful? The answer is of course affirmative, and indeed theoretical methods used by biology today originated in the revolution—the paradigm shift—produced by the knowledge of the atomic structure of matter, without which molecular biology would not exist. We argue that another paradigm shift is needed to understand biology: its mathematization. It is held by some biologists today that mathematics will never be useful in their discipline in the way it has been in other sciences.

But to argue this is to misunderstand the nature of mathematics. Mathematics at its core is no more than the search for patterns in structures; as all is fundamentally patterns, mathematics is universal. In the same way that other sciences have mathematized themselves, biology must surely follow; as Newton did for physics, Dalton for chemistry and Fisher for statistics, so it is necessary to undertake this project for biology. In other words, biology needs its own particular Newtonian revolution.

For this, it is imperative that the vast accumulation of data coming out of biological research should begin to be organized into a logical structure. But for this end, it is not generally useful to attempt to transfer manu militari the methods of mathematics that have served physics. Within the present secrets of life there probably lies much more mathematics than has yet been discovered. Thus, the paradigm shift is like the end of the rainbow, seemingly remaining out of reach even as we move towards it, and it may be for this reason that some have viewed biology as bound to remain essentially inaccessible to the methods of reasoning of physics and mathematics.

We, however, are convinced that this is not the case: the success of science in explaining the universe over the past few centuries has come by travelling rails composed of the parallel paths of experiment and theory.

Biology is to a great extent lacking this theory, while the experimental rail has pushed far ahead. To carry the analogy further, the presence of sleepers or ties between the two rails, that is to say interrelations between systematic rational thought on one hand and experimental observations on the other, has been fundamental to the success of other disciplines of science. In this sense, we may compare biology to technology, which can and does also move forward without science, as it is possible to develop a technology without understanding its conceptual basis. But experimental biology without a conceptual basis, just like blind technology, is as dangerous as a monkey with a pistol! The experimental aspects need a strong quantitative theoretical background and we should learn from history.

For example, the modern theory of dynamical systems studies how phenomena such as chaos, self-organization, synchronization, complexity and patterns can emerge from nonlinear interactions within a system. This field comprises a growing set of powerful tools with which nonlinear phenomena in any field of natural science may be analysed, and as it looks for universal behaviour of a system it provides a systematic way of approaching a problem that can unite disparate observations. The procedure is both reductionistic and at the same time holistic; first one must strip a problem down to its essence, and then one can see how interactions between the parts lead to the emergence of complex behaviour of the whole that is not present in any one part.

more..... ttps://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2015.0071#

I feel vindicated. In case my posts have fallen on deaf ears, perhaps this might enlighten you as to where my thinking lies.

 

[Write4U]

Like his video, Tegmark is breaking down mathematics to its component parts and it's relevance to physics.

yes, just like this.


Fundamentally it's not all that complicated.

And it's not just the physics but what about emergent properties? Is consciousness a mathematical object?
And if "thinking" is a mathematical process, what does the processing?

--------------

And @ James, now do you get where I come from with my 3 favorite subjects? Collecting common denominators (evidence) eventually leads to answers.
Instead of "hard questions" such as "what is it?", ask "what do we know about it?"
What are the "hard facts"? (Max Tegmark)

 

[Pinball1970]

Reported you for yet more off topic pastes. We are discussing TEGMARK which was YOUR constant reference.

 

[Pinball1970]

Fundamentally it's not all that complicated.

That's because you have not read the book or the paper so you are not aware of the content.
I am humble enough to say right now I do not where he is going with it or how he is going to demonstrate any of it.