Word salad. (See what I mean about that 50%?)Because mathematics is an "idea" in your head, but in the universe it is a function of interactive relational values.

Good. You have managed to locate a correct definition of "mathematical function". That's a start. The next sentence consists of your own thoughts, though, and we immediately run into the usual problems that we see every time you express your own beliefs.In mathematics, a function from a set X to a set Y assigns to each element of X exactly one element of Y. The set X is called the domain of the function and the set Y is called the codomain of the function.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)

Tell me: what "mathematical functional process" are you thinking of? Can you give me a single example, and explain how your chosen mathematical process maps a set X onto a set Y, mathematically?Except for the universal dynamics, the universe's functional processes are not chaotic.

Then, after you've done that, tell me what "the universal dynamics" means, and what chain of reasoning led you to conclude that those are chaotic, while all other "functional processes" in the universe are not.

You're just making this shit up, aren't you? It's just waffle. Meaningless blathering.

It follows distinct mathematical laws as we have discovered and codified them.

*Nobody*here has disputed that there are "mathematical laws" that can be used to "codify" (or model) various aspects of the universe. Not me. Not anybody.

You've had at least 7 years to work out the whether there's any difference between your beliefs and Tegmark's, but you still haven't worked it out, have you? You don't understand what the conceivable difference might be. You just imagine there's no difference, and believe you've somehow answered your critics.

What are you talking about? You've gone off on another tangent, into a separate flight of fancy.This is why we have to "invent" mathematical models of "pure vacuum" which don't exist.

Who is "we"?A pure vacuum devoid of all physical values is an abstraction. But we use it as a baseline calculation of absolutes, like absolute zero, whixh does not exist in reality.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about, do you? You just make shit up as you go along. Anything to keep the discussion going, right?

A topic that has not been mentionedHere we provide some answers to frequently asked questions on the intriguing topic of negative absolute temperatures.

*once*in this thread, so far.

A complete

*non sequitur*irrelevancy.

Huh?What is entropy and how is it related to temperature?

And the universe would be in total stasis.

Your googling led you down some random paths and you found a web page on entropy and temperature that you didn't learn anything from. And then you made up some bullshit about "total stasis".

What's wrong with you?

Tell meThe current temparature of the universe is 2.7 kelvin, which suggest a dynamic universe with stuff in it.

*why*it suggests that. Go on, I dare you.

Didn't youCosmic water cloud reveals the temperature of the early Universe

*literally*just say it's 2.7 Kelvin? Why are you cutting and pasting yet another irrelevant article?

Word salad. Whenever you write down your original ideas, they are always either nonsensical or wrong for one reason or another. Why is that?The applied inherent universal maths within the universal geometry was different then than now.

Tell meThe universe was hotter, and that's a mathematical game changer.

*why*.

You're just making shit up as you go along. What a complete waste of everybody's time.

Do you actually think you're contributing something to science with this made-up bullshit of yours?

You're barely able to express anything coherently. Your mind wanders from one topic to the next, as your googling mouse finger leads you.

What's the matter?