Write4U:

The problem you and Tegmark both face is that mathematics, by itself, can't

Typically, a religion involves belief in a supernatural power that is able to control human destiny. In your case, the relevant supernatural power is "mathematics". Mathematics is all and does all, in your religion. It's essential a pan-theistic belief, religious due to its dogmatism and lack of evidence.

If you think you have a scientific theory there, tell me: what test could conceivably show that the universe is

But my point is that mathematics is your religion.

It does

The current model I cling to is accepted science. Science uses mathematics as a tool. Science quantifies things, measures things and makes predictions about things. The things that scientific theories describe are not the same as the scientific descriptions themselves. The descriptions (models) may be mathematical, but it is a mistake to conclude that, therefore, the physical things that are being described are also mathematical or - worse - nothing but mathematics.The current model you cling to predicts at least some mathematical properties.

The problem you and Tegmark both face is that mathematics, by itself, can't

*do*anything. It can't make any physical thing. It can't control any physical thing. It can't do anything at all. Moreover, nothing physical can be*made of mathematics,*because mathematics is an abstraction - a set of ideas. Ideas are not physical things. The idea of an apple is not an apple.See the previous paragraph.Tegmark's argument is that if the universe has some mathematical properties , what prevent it from having only mathematical properties?

Since mathematics can't do anything by itself, it also can't guide anything by itself.AFAIK, mathematics are not guided by universal physics. Physics are guided by universal mathematics.

So does a mathematical model. What's your point? There is no mathematics without a mathematician.A non-mathematical model requires an Intelligent Designer.

No. I do not just believe things on faith (i.e. without evidence), like you do. I do not worship a prophet or a God, like you do.That's what makes you the religious believer according to the common definition of religious belief.

Typically, a religion involves belief in a supernatural power that is able to control human destiny. In your case, the relevant supernatural power is "mathematics". Mathematics is all and does all, in your religion. It's essential a pan-theistic belief, religious due to its dogmatism and lack of evidence.

All you have done is renamed your God "mathematics", as far as I can tell.As for me, a quasi-intelligent mathematical model does not require a God or anything else and that's what makes me an atheist. It solves all dualist concepts.

If you think you have a scientific theory there, tell me: what test could conceivably show that the universe is

**not**made of maths? Is there any? If not, then you have an unfalsifiable faith-based belief.That's just word salad. A meaningless string of words that you think make you sound scientific.I did not present that model, except in the form of CDT (Causal Dynamical Triangulation) which assumes that the universal fabric unfolds (another Bohmian phrase) in a self-similar fractal manner.

Yes I have. The alternate model is that the universe is not made of mathematics: it is made of physical things that are not made of mathematics.You have not provided a viable alternate model.

*Everybody,*apart from a few fringe figures (including yourself) regards that as a viable model of the universe.I have no issue with mathematicalThat's why I asked for an alternate model that does not rely on ANY mathematics.

*models*. You seem to be confused about that.See above. It's not difficult, and you've had since around 2018 to think it through. But you're still stuck where you were back then.If you allow for SOME mathematical functions at all (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) then why NOT ONLY mathematical functions? What is the argument against mathematics?

No. I don't have a religion.Is mainstream science your religion?

Well, all science is provisional, so I don't exactly have a "preferred" model. There are various scientific models that have stood up to rigorous testing, certainly, so I'm inclined to accept those, provisionally. It's the rational thing to do. I try to avoid believing things on faith (i.e. without any evidence).That is your "preferred" model, no?

If your claim is correct - that everything is mathematics - then it follows that religion is mathematics. So,So to you the universe is partly mathematical and the other part is.......religion ??????

*to you*, all religion is mathematics, necessarily.But my point is that mathematics is your religion.

No. They are scientific ideas.Quantum and Relativity are your religion.

I accept that certain elements of those models have been well tested, while others are more speculative. I apportion my belief to the evidence.You believe in those models don't you?

"Shut up and compute"actually advises you to use mathematics to solve your physics problems.

It does

*not*advise me to believe that the physical world is somehow reducible to mathematics.Axiomatic means you just assume it to be true. That's the opposite of evidence.I'll just respond to the term"evidence". The rest is your "invention". The evidence is axiomatic.

We have some useful mathematical models of physical reality, yes.Our symbolization of relational values and our descriptions of how they interact in the real world are very reliable, by all accounts, i.e. "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics".

I have no idea what you mean by "effective". Effective at what? Effective for whom?Where human maths are not effective, they are simply wrong.

Word salad. And also a statement of your faith, nothing more.[/quote]I find it eminently reasonable that mathematics, which is a logical discipline, are the guiding principle in the interaction of relational values.

Last edited: