Well now, we have come a long way from Tegmark is a charlatan.

I have never said that Tegmark is a charlatan. You do know that posters here are not sockpuppets of a single person, right? If James R has referred to Tegmark as a charlatan, that is for you to raise with James R.

Furthermore, while

*every* scientist will agree that the universe is mathematical in nature, very few would consider the universe, reality itself, to not just be mathematical in nature (i.e. maths describes the relationship between particles etc) but for reality itself to be a mathematical structure. Do you even comprehend the difference?

And my proposition (in agreement with Tegmark) is true then, no?

Your proposition is in agreement with pretty much

*all scientists*. I do not know of any that would dispute such a trivial and almost axiomatic (heck, if people want to tell me its axiomatic then, sure, why not!) proposition. You pulling Tegmark's name out as if you agree with him is ****ing nonsense. You agree with me, with James R, with your high school teacher, with

*every* scientist working in science

**just as much as you agree with Tegmark in this regard***. *
Do you not understand this?

All scientists agree X.

Scientist A agrees X but also argues for Y.

You go out of your way, for whatever reason, to say that you agree with A that X.

We then discuss what A says about Y, and you continue to bleat on about X, saying that you're somehow vindicated because [insert example of X], and thus your agreement with scientist A, your constant referencing of scientist A, is somehow acceptable... ignoring the fact that you seem to know naff-all about what he is saying about Y, for which this specific thread is purposed.

Why do you see the need for ad hominem when I was never wrong in PRINCIPLE?

The fact that you asked this question answers it as well. The principle you are claiming to be correct about is a triviality. You're bleating on about that which (I'm reasonably sure)

*every scientist* accepts without question. And yet you make such a song and dance about it. If this is the "common denominator" you're constantly looking for then you're late to the party. This is now a

*given*. Move on. We're discussing other issues.

And DNA is a pattern and therefore a mathematical structure.

NO! A pattern does not equate to a "mathematical structure". You really do need to understand that Tegmarks "mathematical structure" isn't just about the relationship between constituent physical elements, but

*is* the physical elements as well. You haven't progressed your thinking beyond the maths simply being descriptive of the relationships. Yet you reference / follow / worship someone who, in context, only has importance for equating the maths to the reality itself. Maths is not just relational but the actual. According to the MUH there is no separate matter - just maths.

This is why the

*ad hominem* is relevant to this discussion - because you throw Tegmark's name around as if he is arguing your case, or as if he supports your arguments in some intellectual way.

Let me put it another way:

Let's assume that

*all *humans think we are more intelligent than dogs.

And let's say that Darwin came up with the idea of natural selection - hotly disputed at the time.

This whole thing between you and Tegmark is like saying that you agree with Darwin, and like you throwing Darwin's name around as if what you are proposing is only accepted by such rarefied intelligences as Darwin. Yet all you're arguing for is that humans are more intelligent than dogs. It's a given. You throwing Darwin's name around is... well, I'm not sure of the pyschological explanation. It's like you're trying to link yourself to their intelligence because you agree with something that

*everyone* agrees with.

You say I cannot speak knowledgeably about the actual physics, but then you agree with me that in principle the universe is mathematical in essence.

I say that you are not speaking knowledgeably about what Tegmark is arguing for. Hint: he is not arguing for the universe being mathematical in nature (i.e. that all physical matter behaves according to mathematical laws). He is arguing for something

*beyond *that. And that is the difference.

I told you a long time ago, that I don't need to know the actual physics in order to understand that its all mathematical.

There is a difference between "all is mathematical" in as much as all physical matter interacts according to laws that are mathematical (which every scientist - someone correct me if I'm wrong - treats as axiomatic / a given, and "all is mathematical" in the sense that Tegmark uses it that even "physical matter" is

*nothing but a mathematical structure*. I.e. there is no distinction between mathematical struture and the physical. They are one and the same (or at least that's the gist in simplistic terms). You really do seem to fail to grasp this distinction.

I could rag on you for not being a knowledgeable psychologist, yet you see fit to label me mentally incompetent without scientific knowledge of the mind.

You could rag on me for that, yet you don't know my profession, qualifications, education etc. Just so you know: I couldn't care less what education/profession/qualifications other people have. That is utterly irrelevant to what they have written in this forum, and the arguments they have made on a subject.

Furthermore, I have

*not* labelled you "incompetent". Ignorant, perhaps, but then that is just a function of what we

*know*. We are

*all* ignorant to some significant degree or other.

Are you a psychologist qualified to judge my mental capacity? What do you know about me ?

Whether I am a qualified psychologist or not, I am merely responding to what I read before me, and trying to help you understand your obvious shortcomings comprehending that what you post is not relevant to this, or many other, threads. As to why you post such irrelevant material, no, I am not going there. I am not responding to you as a qualified psychologist, only as someone who would rather you stop posting such irrelevancies. But your inability to seem to comprehend that what you post is too often irrelevant is somewhat telling with regard your mental capacity, sure.