WTF is Max Tegmark talking about?
https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark
Max Tegmark, in his book "Our Mathematical Universe", paints a picture of four different parallel worlds. In parallel 1 worlds he picures an infinite universe (where he already goes wrong) in which infinite copies of you and me live. An assumed fact easily proven wrong. Then he paints on (the two in-between parallels are not very enlightening) to arrive of his final image that all of us (we) are part of an infinity of parallel mathematical universes. Our one consists of all possible math formulae and forms you can think of. The other universes consist out of all we can't think of. Now I like the guy (he has an enchanting and charming appearance and is even funny) but what on Earth was he on? What did he mean? Should the title of his book be "My mathematical Universe"? If Max himself is a math structure, then how should we interpret him?
This one is especially for @TheMadFool. So we won't argue...
Max Tegmark, in his book "Our Mathematical Universe", paints a picture of four different parallel worlds. In parallel 1 worlds he picures an infinite universe (where he already goes wrong) in which infinite copies of you and me live. An assumed fact easily proven wrong. Then he paints on (the two in-between parallels are not very enlightening) to arrive of his final image that all of us (we) are part of an infinity of parallel mathematical universes. Our one consists of all possible math formulae and forms you can think of. The other universes consist out of all we can't think of. Now I like the guy (he has an enchanting and charming appearance and is even funny) but what on Earth was he on? What did he mean? Should the title of his book be "My mathematical Universe"? If Max himself is a math structure, then how should we interpret him?
This one is especially for @TheMadFool. So we won't argue...
Comments (114)
But its a great subject for philosophical speculations.
I couldnt agree less! So he should have called his book "My mathematical Universe"?
:lol:
[quote=Bertrand Russell]Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover.[/quote]
[quote=Albert Einstein]Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.[/quote]
[quote=Abraham Maslow]if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.[/quote]
But then...
It appears that there's something about efficiency that's mathematical. Nature tends to be efficient and if that then it, perforce, has to be mathematical. The seed spirals on the effloresence of a sunflower are arranged in the Fibonacci sequence and that happens to be the most efficient way to use the space available; the hexagonal cells in a beehive too is such. Optimization is key if life is to have any chance of success and for that knowing math or following its rules is paramount.
That's life but what about the inanimate world. Does it also have to be mathematical? Rivers, given the terrain, tend to trace the shortest route to the sea/ocean/lake. There's something about the rule, "make the most of what you've got" that nature seems to live by.
Food for thought: We're absolutely certain that nature makes the best use of space (sunflowers & beehives) but does it do the same with time (Fermat's Principle). Frankly, I dunno!
There is a song called like that: "Not everything that counts can be counted" (not everything that can be counted counts). I didnt know he got that from Eistein (I knew Einstein played the violin though). Billy Bragg sings it. Great song!
"Food for thought: We're absolutely certain that nature makes the best use of space (sunflowers & beehives) but does it do the same with time (Fermat's Principle). Frankly, I dunno!"
Is Fermat's principle referring to time also (I havent read the link yet). How should Nature "know" about that space efficiency?
"Frankly, I dunno!"
Maybe we'll find out during this intercourse. Ill contemplate.
I'm curious, for every given phenomenon say the elliptical orbits of the planets or the life of a human or other animal, are these phenomena occuring in the least possible times?
How does it impact, say, immortality which would be, in this metric, a total waste of time. After all, the objective is to live as briefly as possible but in the most spectacular way imaginable.
Beautiful hey? Those patterns. The beauty argument has been used (is used) in physics to guide mathematical or physical models. I think at the base of Nature this is justified. At the higher level (or at different level, to use a less-charged term) it could be that aesthetics or efficiency are involved, maybe even as the rule. But Im reluctant to say that "perforce" beauty or efficiency mean math is present in the world itself. Why should that be?
Im not sure I know what Spinoza has said about this (he probably said it in Dutch, and I would have understood it, being Dutch). What, in short, did he say?
Thats interesting! You mean efficiency in space, so also in time?
Seems to be the obvious conclusion. :chin:
Youve probably heard of the principle of least action?
What has this got to do with an ellips of a planet? Think about it. ?
Quoting Prishon
Heard of it, yes. Understand it, no.
I suppose efficiency is, as I said, key to the universe and by that I mean getting the most out of the effort put in. The ratio output:input must be maximized. Keep an open mind as to how I defined efficiency, it's to be understood in the broadest sense possible. Since efficiency, and because efficiency is, at its heart, mathematical, the universe is mathematical. God was being lazy.
Whats the effort put in if god was being lazy?
Well, I may have eaten too much math, but I weigh only 83kg!
Amazing isn't it that if you see a corpulent person, you can't tell whether fae's a sloth or a glutton? :chin: 2 of the 7 deadly sins.
:lol:
I had to look up those words. First I thought you meant a slith or a woman doing it with all.
Both a sloth and glutton are deadly indeed! Considerer them mathematical anomalies...
God the Father!
:lol: :lol:
The fat her!
The creation is the creator? Dunno. What I do know is that god needs a wakeup call.
Can both be had together? The intuitive understanding seems to be that the shorter (space) the faster (time) but Fermat's principle shows that a shorter time may actually require a longer distance.
:lol:
He must have been a mathematician, for sure! :lol:
Hawking was right all the time. But even God couldnt give him new tires miraculously! Only a beautiful new voice...
I like that comparison.
I'm adamantly anti-Platonist but I think Tegmark is on the mark, because rather than talking about there being some other kind of abstract objects existing apart from the concrete physical world, or else denying that abstract objects exist at all, he completely dissolves that distinction and says that everything is an abstract object, the concrete physical world is just he one we're a part of, and consequently (at least implicitly) any other abstract object would also be concrete to any observers who might happen to be a part of it.
That is very much like how neutral monism a la Spinoza dissolves the Cartesian distinction between physical and mental kinds of stuff, and so rather than saying either that there's this non-physical mental stuff, or else denying that anything is mental at all, it says that that everything is both mental and physical (and on an account like my own -- not to put words in Spinoza's mouth -- that distinction is just a matter of perspective, not so unlike "concreteness" in Tegmark; or for that matter, "actuality" in David Lewis).
The shorter the faster has a relation to the uncertainty principle. The shorter the distance the greater the uncertainty in momentum (and thus velocity. Now velocity in relativity is velocity through spacetime. All particles move with the speed of light through spcetime. A particle standing still (which is impossible in QM) is moving with c through time. Time hasnt got a fixed pace in GR. If space is curved, then time is too (the space expansion metric, the FLMR metric, has constant time, already hinting at it being wrong wrong). In flat space time runs the fastest while in curve space it flows slower. Efficient time. You can use space efficiently but how to use time efficiently?
Of all possible paths between two spacetime points the most probable will probably be realized. If there are two particles starting from two fixed points (alwaya in spacetime or energy-momentum space) then they will arrive at their final points in phasespace by means of all intermediate interactions with the virtual field that takes care of the interactions. And there are infinite many. Each of these paths is comprised in Feynman diagrams, representing the path integrals of the Lagrangians. There is a zeroth order diagram. This one takes all non-interacting part of the parts into conseideratio. The first order diagram that of all paths of the two particles while interacting once. This is the popular view of, say, two electrons interacting by means of exchanging one photon. Etc.
So, what even means efficiency of space, let alone of time?
Its not that difficult to understand! Everyone says"oöhhh... Quantum field theory..." but actually its very easy.
I'll pass...for now. Thanks.
Yes, I think so. :100:
Highly debatable. Unless you understand the math you don't understand the theory. Do you? If so, you are ahead of me. I've puzzled over the legitimacy and evaluation of Feynman's functional integral. :chin:
Thats where you are wrong. The math merely describes... One moment, my wife has brought coffee. Ill drink first. Ill be back. ?
As for physics, it's a very philosophical and mathematical science and so speculations will always run wild
That has an ominous sound. Where have I heard that before? :gasp:
I think Galileo got there first about a century before Hegel. In fact, Einstein was influenced by Galileo's relativity.
Yes but Galileo didn't talk about space and time being united like Hegel did
:rofl:
I saw this only now! Dood one!
:rofl:
Good one! But tomorrow I'll be back for sure. Someone is calling to get my ass from behind my phone... Its twelve in Holland... I'll be back! Wasnt it terminator? Appropiate!
:up:
"Exterminate....Exterminate...!" What's the difference between terminate and exterminate?
Terminate means to stop, exterminate means to destroy
Terminate one person. Exterminate an entire group.
Lee Harvey Oswald is to Adolf Hitler as terminate is to exterminate.
? So extermination can be terminated and termination can be exterminated? Sometimes termination can be exterminated. Like extermination can be terminated. Is the an impossibility between these? A, what's it called? A kind of asymmetry...a kind of venience....A supervenience! (line a convenience) Can one of them not be appiled after the other?
Stopping cannot be destroyed it seems to me
Thats what I meant! But destruction can be stopped. All hail to the terminator!
"Terminator. Our hero! Unexterminabe!"
Then again, the one terminating can be exterminated. Is it really impossible to destroy the stopping?
The action is destroyed indirectly by destroying the actor
:up:
Great quotes. Particularly love the reference to Russell, he's correct.
I'm glad you connected with Russell.
I think you have answered your own question. The "mathematical universe" he's talking about exists only in Minds, not in Matter. So, his "universe" and your "universe" are not the same "verse", but both are references to a Platonic Ideal universe. The physical universe is something we all have in common, because our bodily senses are tuned to information in the form of Matter & Energy.
However, Mathematics is not found in those concrete categories. It is instead an abstract idea, from which all physical stuff has been extracted, leaving only intangible ratios and relationships. We "sense" those invisible connections between things with our sixth sense of Reason, which extracts the essence of things from the non-essential.
Regarding "structure", Structural Engineers don't manipulate actual physical structures in their computers. Instead, they represent real beams & columns as mathematical abstractions, symbolized as lines (structural members) and arrows (forces). Likewise, the Universe Tegmark is talking about is not the real universe that we all have in common, but the symbolic universe that each of us constructs in his own mind. It's a personal worldview. But his abstract "view" can be simulated in a computer, all rational minds to see.
So you should "interpret" Tegmarks ideas in relation to your own ideas. your individual worldview. If your world is Realistic & Materialistic, then Tegmark is talking non-sense, literally about stuff that is not perceived by physical senses. But, if your cosmology is Idealistic & Intellectual, he's speaking about your intellectually shared cosmos. :smile:
Mathematics :
the abstract science of number, quantity, and space. Mathematics may be studied in its own right ( pure mathematics ), or as it is applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering ( applied mathematics ).
Tegmark quite explicitly says that "minds" are (like) recursive mathematical functions and "matter" is a type of interaction by recursive mathematical functions with encompassing mathematical systems which are nested within (higher order / dimensional) mathematical structures aka "the mathematical universe". In other words, the hypothesis is 'mind-matter is in the math' (i.e. abstract agent-systems within abstract world-structures ... like e.g. the Second Life virtual world), not the other way around.
seems like he was trying to "gotcha!" Tegmark in a self-contradiction, like asking the anti-realist wrt truth whether their anti-realism towards truth is itself true. Except... it doesn't really work in this case since there's no contradiction in a mathematical structure (a mind, a physicist) developing a theory about how the universe is all mathematical structures.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my interpretation that the Mathematical Universe is a mental construct? That doesn't mean it's an illusion or un-real, just that the mathematical structure is universal, and can be perceived by animal senses, that are tuned to certain forms of Information (electromagnetic spectrum). But the MUH itself is a conception of rational minds. We perceive Matter (things), but we conceive Structure (relationships). And both concrete Matter & abstract Structure are real-world forms of Generic Information.
I'm hardly an expert on Tegmark's hypothesis, but it sounds roughly compatible with my own understanding, that Information (including mathematical information) is the fundamental element of Reality. Ironically, Tegmark has been called a "radical Platonist". So, I would be surprised if that was compatible with your own (Realist?) worldview. Anyway, I doubt that Tegmark would fully endorse my own updated version of Platonism : Enformationism. And, I'm not sure I can agree with some of his far-out notions : e.g. "Perceptronium", as a "state of mattter". That sounds like something from a Harry Potter story. :grin:
[u]Mathematical universe hypothesis[/u] :
[i]Tegmark's MUH is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure.. . .
The MUH is based on the radical Platonist view that math is an external reality[/i] . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis
Physicists Say Consciousness Might Be a State of Matter :
Tegmark calls his new state of matter “perceptronium.”
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/physicists-say-consciousness-might-be-a-state-of-matter/
I disagree with your interpretation, Gnomon, because Max Tegmark explicitly says – which I point out in my previous post – that he is not proposing the "MU" merely as "a mental construct". Read The Mathematical Universe or stream video of one of Tegmark's lectures on this thesis.
I don't agree with that common misconception either.
Quoting 180 Proof
I answer favorably to being called an "Epicurean-Spinozist".
It's entertaining to see efforts to shoe-horn Tegmark into the mix of classical philosophers and philosophical theory. But I think the gentleman is in a class by himself. My opinion? Sophisticated BS.
OK. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on Tegmark's Platonic inclinations. But maybe we can at least agree on the "Spinozist" half of your "Epicurean-Spinozist" label. If I was to choose such a hyphenated label, I'd probably make it "Stoic-Spinozist". But then, I'm not really comfortable with butterfly pin labels. So, you can just call me a "gnarly-Gnomonist". :grin:
But I don't understand the notion that there is only structure. It seems to me that a structure must be structure of something.
So if the universe is essentially mathematical and we don't really know what the structure math describes is, then I don't see Tegmark's hypothesis making much sense.
Yeah, yeah. The universe has no obligation to make sense to us. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to give it some sense, otherwise, why bother learning about it? It's a strange proposition on the whole, not very convincing.
He's a many worlds proponent. Simply put, many worlds posits that is the explanation of our universe.
[quote=Pythagoras]All is number[/quote]
Lemme see...
Take prime numbers. Yep, they're mathematical but they're patternless and hence, no known formula to generate them. Math is the study of patterns. There's something nonmathematical about mathematics viz. primes. It's kinda like saying all is good but there's something bad about all is good. :chin:
His views are also funny, not only for abusing Occam's razor in such a crackpot fashion, but that a parameter-less "model" of physics is a contradiction in terms; for it is the parameters of a model that correspond to the model's falsifiable propositions, that are revised via fitting the model to data. An infinitely adaptable model that has no parameters makes no predictions and is functionally similar to the largest possible fishing net.
The general thrux of Tegmark's remarks can be interpreted as a Modus-Tollens argument against scientific realism. i.e. that his argument is valid, but that his conclusion is false, implying that his premise of a mind-independent universe is false - which is already an empirically obvious false premise to those who aren't blinded by a dogmatic understanding of scientific jargon.
Both idealists and realists can agree with the Ontic-Structural Realism of Tegmark. For example, British idealism's doctrine of internal relations is in logical agreement with OSR, without jumping the shark to conclude that only unthinkable and unperceivable mathematical structure exists in a way that is divorced from the Lockean secondary qualities of perception.
Whatever. As I mentioned in another thread, a simple isomorphism between physical reality and mathematical structures provides a way of saying they are the "same" without being identical. But if this is truly what Tegmark had in mind he overdid his arguments - as do some posters on this forum. :cool:
Btw 's reading seems correct based on a summary given by Tegmark in his exchange with Scott Aaronson in the comments here:
https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=1753
"Physicalist: I think there’s no “secret life sauce” distinguishing living from non-living things.
Critic: That’s an unscientific theory, since you can’t experimentally prove there’s no secret life sauce!
Integrated information theorist: I think there’s no “secret consciousness sauce” distinguishing conscious information processing systems from unconscious “zombie” ones.
Critic: That’s an unscientific theory, since you can’t experimentally prove there’s no secret consciousness sauce!
MUH advocate: I think there’s no “secret existence sauce” distinguishing physically existing mathematical structures from other mathematical structures.
Critic: That’s an unscientific theory, since you can’t experimentally prove there’s no secret existence sauce!
I think that in all three cases, the first person makes a simple Occam-style claim, and the the onus should be on critic to experimentally detect the sauce!"
I'm with him up to an isomorphism. Beyond that is the absurd IMHO.
Where is there motion (in the philosophical sense of change - such as causation requires) within maths themselves? Without mathematics consisting of the causation by which we live - or, at the very least, accounting for why we hold the illusion of constantly changing, in a temporally unidirectional manner at that, within a mathematical 4D block universe - mathematics cannot be equivalent to the world.
... or, in this case, the universe as we know it.
Quoting sime
This sounds like nuking the fridge.
Quoting javra
The fire that breathes life in the physìcal theory describing the fundamental physical/mathematical structure ?ies in the content of what they describe. The structure of the two basic fields in nature, interacting on an evolving background of spacetime, can be described mathematically exactly only in a very limited area of nature. If we apply that theory to the atom, the theory is non-applicable, as it describes only free fields that interact shortly (asymptotically free is a misnomer, as the fields are free all of the time, except for a short interaction, which can be described by an infinity of ?iagrams, all happening simultaneously, so the story goes. Do all these diagrams to describe the interaction exist there in spacetime? Is spacetime itself a mathematical structure? Who knows. The wavefunction to describe the hydrogen atom is a harmonic function. It seems to exist truly and it can be depicted. It can't be describe by quantum field theory though. Do mathematical structures exist which are not exact and which can be described by an approximation only? And what about the mathematical structure of the human face and its connection to emotion, the face laughing or talking?
The fire left out of the mathematical structures is that what is inside of them, so I think wholeheartedly. It could be the concept of charge, be it electrical or color and the mass describing the evolution of particle fields. Nobody knows exactly what a particle is. Only on the inside of the particle (the field of all its simultaneous paths or the bath of hidden variables it finds itself in, which could form space itself) the fire can be known. It's called charge. Maybe all charges interacting give holistically rise to new charges, leading to structures with forrest fires, or exploding fires, inside of them. I can feel this fire within. It's hot.
I think Hawking referred to the fire of charge. Near the big bang, massless charges were waiting for the moment to get real and form massive structures, to interact with each other, form bodies and run through the forrest of trees and plants (silently charged structures, just wanting to wave their leaves in the wind). Are they mathematical structures? Dunno. I Tegmark thinks so, it's a reality for him. I wonder if he could find a mathematical structure of people. If there isn't a mathematical structure to be found of an isolated iron atom (there exist approximations only), I doubt it. There is no exact mathematical structure if we can't find it. If there exists an approximation only, then what's the real, exact structure?
Could of course be. My thought is that he was referring to fire in the Heraclitan sense: flux, change, becoming, the philosophical notion of motion.
Which would be in line with the as of yet unanswered question I posed in regard to this subject.
Quoting Raymond
You're talking to one who is a mysterianist in relation to any self's understanding of awareness's core essence while also upholding this same core essence of awareness to be ontically primary. :wink: It's not a mainstream view, and other views of course abound. From any such point of view, however, I'd think your question here is quite complex.
For instance, if Platonic realism in relation to at least the most basic of mathematical ideas/forms, then basic mathematical ideas/forms such as that of a circle and of Pi are the real, exact structure in an of themselves ... with empirically perceived circles being the approximation of these ideas/forms. But even here, what is it that gives these real ideas/forms the motion/becoming/change/flux of the world we know?
Then there's the view that all maths are only human concoctions ... and, hence, approximations of what in fact is real. This view however has nothing to do with the topic this thread addresses.
At any rate, I don't find it an easy question to answer. But I do what to emphasize: E pur si muove.
Edit: Just in case I need to clarify this: the ideas/forms of a circle and of Pi - as with all other mathematics that I know of, be it math's rules, its eqasions, its relations, and so forth - are perfectly static of themselves. So, for example, when granting their Platonic realism, the reality of these static forms does not in and of itself explain the dynamic nature of the world which we know and live in.
I think Plato's idea of the metaphysical domain of mathematical objects was a domain of unchanging objects, indeed as you described. The 5 Platonic bodies, like the cube or the isocahedron. There was an over 100 year physical model discovered in a university basement. A paper mache partial model of a special function, I can't remember which one. Beautiful, a true piece of art, made without computers. Would fit in Plato's realm. But what are these structures made off? Plato said we can't know them an Sich. Every math formula or physical realization, say a cube, is an approximation, even an exact formula. They are the shadows on the walls of a cave. They are lit by light, and the shadows can be investigated, with a model or a formula. Aristotle said the cube is just the construction of clay, and the formula an abstraction without real existence. Now who is right? Plato says the real cube exists, and can never be known, only approximated, while Aristotle says the dirty cube is the real cube and the mathematical cube a unreachable abstraction. Somehow, Tegmark is sandwiched between the both. The cube, or any other form, is real, and all forms are mathematical. So, the formula of the cube refers to a shape present in the world. At least, potentially, because nobody has seen a perfect cube. Like in general, no perfect mathematical forms can be found. Particular cases can be found though. The archetypal example being the hydrogen atom. The wavefunction has an exact 3D shape and the electron conforms to this. It depends on your view of particles what the shape actually is. A shape without substance is, well, an empty shape. There has to be something that is in shape. Tegmark conjectures tha the shape is devoid of substance. People too are complicated mathematical shapes, and contrary to Platonic objects they can shape-shift. He misses an essential part of reality. My reality, that is.
:up: :cool:
I don’t in any way consider myself intelligent in mathematics. I’ve got a weird kind of dyslexia, mistaking p’s with b’s or b’s with d’s in what I handwrite so that – unless I reread what I’ve written say weeks later – I don’t register these mistakes even after repeated re-readings of what I’ve written. Well, its sometimes better and sometimes worse. Spellchecks help. But re: mathematics. In my high school AP calculus class I’d place +’s instead of -‘s and vice versa in proofs and have no idea of how I got the proof wrong even after repeated reappraisals of it. Didn’t flunk but I got a measly C-. Terrible. I’m only OK with maths when it comes to certain abstractions regarding them, but by no means all.
Long story short, I’m not mathematically savvy. I say this because I notice that your savviness in at least this respect far exceeds mine.
That said, from my simpleton view, all maths are static, non-motional. I’m familiar with there being maths such as causal calculus. But as far as I can tell, these maths are fully static as well. If you or any other mathematically savvy person know of any exception to maths being non-motional, I’d be very wanting to be familiarized with them.
To shift the subject slightly to something that has traditionally irked me, music. Its rhythms and, when applicable, its rhymes. I know it can be represented by maths, such as octaves. But I’ve always been bothered when people say that music is mathematical - i.e., that its equivalent to the maths it is constituted of. Its of course a metaphysical issue, and my reaction has always been that it’s not. There’s a lot that could be argued either way in this. But here going back to what I’ve previously expressed, the maths lack the motion that is requisite for the music to be. Ergo, I’m thinking, the maths that can describe music cannot be equated to the music itself. Music has that “extra [?] stuff” that the maths lack.
Also, want to point out that the Platonic notion of forms does not translate into shapes. Physical forms, for example, do have shapes. Yet, for example, the forms that cultures can take are shape-devoid. More Platonically addressed, the form of “the good”, for example, is shapeless. But maybe this isn’t central to the issue.
Consider me on your side mate! Many physicists, mathematicians, and computer scientists, are fan of Bach. Because of the beauty of the mathematical structure. Well, I dunno. If that's the reason you like it, you seem to miss the point of music somehow. However much structure it may contain, however difficult is to play, somehow I feel they like it to pat their ability of abstract mathematical thought on the back.
I have a friend who can't distinguish between p and q. He got mad after I told him the q and p were mixed up on a shopping list. I tried to imagine what's it like. Of course I can't. Maybe it's me who perceives wrongly! Do p and q , or b, look the same to you? Are the three the same? Is ppp the same as pqq or qpq? Just curious. I'm raised in a society that stimulates curiosity...
Hey, no worries! No, they certainly look different to me. But its as if I cognitively - sometimes and only to some extent - separate the meaning I intend from the phenomena that serves as a vehicle for the meaning’s expression. Like in a slip of the tongue where one knows what one is actively meaning to say, says something that doesn’t convey the meaning one intends, and recognizes this only after the fact. It’s weird and interesting to me at the same time, though I’ve had my entire lifetime to get used to it: has a lot to do with notions of metacognition such as the knowing of knowing (like knowing a word that’s on the tip of one’s tongue whose phenomenal form one momentarily doesn’t known … but knowing that one knows the word all the same). So when I immediately reread a “d” when I in fact wrote a “b” (say rereading dog when the written word is bog) I’m grasping the meaning I intended to impart into the writing (dog) without becoming consciously aware that the phenomena which conveys this meaning is different from what it ought to have been. It’s by no means constant or else debilitating in general, but, yea, happens every now and then.
Quoting Saphsin
I prefer instead the much more informed, contemporary God and the Atom by the late, eminent, particle physicist and philosopher Victor J. Stenger, which thoroughly refutes all of the immaterialist, dualist woo-of-the-gaps, antirealist, supernaturalist perennial dogmas inconsistently based on misappropriating 'fundamental physics' to sophistically propagandize against philosophical atomism (which they confuse, or fail to distinguish from, methodological materialism).
A reconstruction of Newton's thoughts:
[quote=Isaac Newton]An apple falls, the moon revolves around the earth. :chin: Maybe it's the same force (gravity) that does both. [Note, there's still as yet no math at all in Newton's theory].
Time to be precise. Enter math (arithmetic, geometry, algebra, calculus, to name a few).[/quote]
That's to say, mathematics only brings high levels of exactitude to what's actually a nonmathematical idea/theory/hypothesis. Would you call a stick "micrometrical" (mathematical) just because you measured it with greater precision using a micrometer (mathematics)? :chin:
But if meaning is use - which is essentially a structuralist standpoint - then it isn't clear to me that maths and physics aren't identical, at least partially, in a tautological sense. From the perspective of use, the meaning of Newtons Laws of motion, for instance, includes the mathematical activities which are used in their application. Conversely, the meaning of "2 + 2 = 4" can be understood to include the physical experiments that verify it.
What i was mostly objecting to earlier was Tegmark's aperpsectival take on the conceptual overlap that is a consequence of his scientific and metaphysical realism.
I knew if! Peoqle who bon'f see fhe qitterrence detmeen q, t, f, p, q, and p, are zecrefely fruing fo tree thewselwez trow fhe consfraints ot vriffen synpolz! What a great quality! :smile:
An exactitude that that can only be reached in a very limited practice though. An approximation is not exact, for there is no real thing corresponding to an approximation. What is the real form of that approximated? There is no exact form. Is the mathematical approximation of the electron orbitals in an iron atom the real thing? Or an approximation of them when together a zillion-fold?
I see it from a missile guidance angle. Some have poor guidance systems (precision hundreds of meters), others are super-precise (lands within meters of the target).
The filled balloon that's let loose with open mouth, the virus falling in static air, or leaves in the wind, where do they touch the Earth?
Thank you for that link, it was a fun read, and nice to know that I understand Tegmark's position correctly. :-)
What does M mean?
We can do the most/squeeze every last drop with/out of reality if we apply math to the universe (reality). Please include, inter alia, comprehensibility to that - the universe can be understood (only if) viewed through a mathematical lens.
To cut to the chase, we can extract the maximum bits of information from the universe if we use math.
Oddly many people claim, with great pride I might add, that they're bad at math! :chin:
I've only read one of Tegmark's books, but I have a general idea of "what he's talking about". I'm not sure I agree with all his speculations, but his basic notion that Reality is fundamentally mathematical makes sense to me, especially in light of Quantum Physics, where the structure of reality is a mathematical Field.
Personally, I prefer the more inclusive term "Information" (Matter + Energy + Mind) to the austere abstract ideality of a pure mathematical structure underlying the messy concrete material world. My view combines a bit of Plato's Idealism (LOGOS) with a smidgen of Spinoza's universal substance Monism (G*D). Consequently, my world model consists of both Material objects (known by senses) and Mathematical (Mental) structures (known by reason). :nerd:
Substance or Structure :
Baruch Spinoza denied Descartes' "real distinction" between mind and matter. Substance, according to Spinoza, is one and indivisible, but has multiple "attributes". . . . . The single essence of one substance can be conceived of as material and also, consistently, as mental.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
Our Mathematical Universe :
My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality
___Max Tegmark, theoretical physicist
Note to self -- The basic element of my Information Universe is the "Re-El" (reality element) which is a ratio between existence and non-existence (1 or 0). The universe as a whole, is continuous, but its constituent parts are discrete.
That idea seems to predict well, but it models phenomena that are poorly understood.
But what a mathematical "Field" (why do you write it with a capital F?). If we are a collection of mathematical formulas, is there an isomorphism between the world of formulas as encountered around us and the mathematical formulas constituting us? Is this isomorphism a mathematical structure?
Quoting Gnomon
I think that here you conflate reality with fantasy, as Tegmark seems to do.
Hypothetical Quantum Fields consist of abstract relationships (ratios ; vectors) that are not real things but ideal mathematical "points" & "links". When those points have measurable values, the field can be assumed to be real. I capitalize the word "field" to emphasize that it is not a real object, but an abstract model of some feature of Reality. I capitalize "Reality" to emphasize that it's a mental model of what's outside your skull, not necessarily the ding an sich. :nerd:
A field is a mathematical abstraction. ... Vector fields are not real, for the same reasons vectors are not real; the electric field is real ..
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/322983/how-real-are-fields
Ding An Sich : (in Kant's philosophy) a thing as it is in itself, not mediated through perception by the senses or conceptualization, and therefore unknowable.
Quoting Cornwell1
No. I don't conflate "Reality" with "Ideality", I merely compare them as hypothetical mental models, not the actual " totality of real things and events". Our models of reality are not necessarily "fantasies", but they are inherently "imaginary". So, I'd be careful about labeling Tegmark's speculations as "fantasy". It's possible that he knows something you don't. As I said in the post, I don't agree with all of his conjectures, but they seem to be based on a deep insight into Reality (objects : things) and Ideality (models ; ideas). :smile:
Reality Is Not What It Seems :
book by physicist Carlo Rovelli
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_Is_Not_What_It_Seems
A model of reality explains how the universe was created and how it operates. You might think that this is a definition of reality itself, but it isn't, which can be illustrated by looking at the most popular model, known as naïve realism. In a nutshell, naïve realism says that what you see is what you get.
https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/chopra/article/The-Most-Popular-Model-of-Reality-Is-Wrong-14842693.php
Yes. Tegmark's mathematical model of the world is an attempt to describe the "poorly understood" phenomena on the Quantum level of reality. We know pretty well what Quarks do, but have no idea what they are. We can't compare them to anything in our sensory experience of the world. The definition of a Quark, or of Superposition, sounds about as counter-intuitive as the Catholic Trinity. :joke:
Don't think so. Quarks can be viewed as triplets. An up-quark is TTV. A down quark tvv. An electron is ttt and a neutrino VVV. Small letters anti particles. The three families are excitations. A particle is just an object moving through space. That's not so difficult to imagine. Point-like is different to imagine. The particles jumping madly between paths is quite weird as is their interaction. Somehow they are consciousness and long for other particles. Or wanna stay away from each other. Already at fundamental level love and hate rule! :razz:
I'd like to "view" that unitary triplet. Can you post a picture? :wink:
Quarks appear to be true elementary particles; that is, they have no apparent structure and cannot be resolved into something smaller.
https://www.britannica.com/science/quark
Note -- For over two thousand years the Atom was defined as the true elementary indivisible particle. If Quarks have no structure, why are they hypothetically portrayed with internal parts? The Holy Trinity is also described as One deity with three forms : up, down, and yummy. :joke:
ONE QUARK IN THREE FLAVORS blueberry, strawberry and lemon-lime
Tasty flavors! I think there are two flavors of tasty stuff. They are pure kinetic energy. Let's call them L(iquorice), and S(ugar). And let's call their anti's l and s. The L has electric charge 1/3 and S has charge 0, and two kinds of color charges (a strong one to form colorless triplets and a normal one to form colored ones).
Electron (muon tau)
lll
Up quark (charm quark, top quark)
LLS
Down quark (strange quark, bottom quark)
lss
Electron neutrino (muon neutrino, and tau neutrino)
SSS
In an electron, proton (uud), neutron (anti-(udd)), and electron neutrino reside equal amounts of matter and antimatter! No asymmetry between matter and antimatter. Excitations of the triplets are the three particle families. Excited liquorices and sugars. And they are massless, explaining the relation between mass and energy. How bout that?
What does it mean, mathematize the universe?
Translate the universe into numbers (arithmetic) and shapes (geometry) and we're gonna make (a whole lot of) progress towards apprehending what the universe is all about.
Mathematics, of course, has a much broader definition - study of patterns - but, from what I know of mathematicians (not much), numericizing/geometrizing patterns makes them more mind-friendly (eaiser to grasp).
You are the "father of modern bouldering"? And a mathematician too? That's quite something! I saw quite an impressive picture of you. You hang on one arm with stretched horizontal body! Is the device you hang on a mathematical structure?
Most things in the universe have no corresponding mathematical structure. Only approximations will do. What's the mathematical structure of a piece of music?
There usually is a pattern. Patterns are best studied/understood mathematically. At least that's what I've been told.
Perhaps they do and we are incapable of understanding them.
Quoting Cornwell1
All of life are approximations. A right triangle is a Platonic ideal, but its approximations in the physical world have been overwhelmingly of benefit to humankind.
Some structures though don't even have an approximation. What's the functional form of the motion of gas particles that carry the information òf a piece of music? The particle oscillates at the rythm of the music. It can't be reduced to sine terms. Is a particle a mathematical structure?
There is a pattern on my face toò. A math structure with a laugh? What's the structure made up?
In theory, everything in the universe can be analyzed down to its mathematical structure (conceptual inter-relationships). Math is not a physical object. It is instead the logical order (organization) of things and ideas. Since Logic is not made of matter, it is only knowable to a rational mind. Even "un-cuttable" atoms & in-divisible quarks have an internal or fundamental mathematical structure. The emotional sonic structure of music is intuitive for most minds, but only rational minds can infer the logical mathematical organization of music. :nerd:
What is Mathematical Music Theory? Mathematical music theory uses modern mathematical structures to 1. analyze works of music (describe and explain them), 2. study, characterize, and reconstruct musical objects such as the consonant triad, the diatonic scale, the Ionian mode, the consonance/dissonance dichotomy...
http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~tmfiore/1/FioreWhatIsMathMusTheoryBasicSlides.pdf
What Is A Mathematical Structure? :
[i]A mathematical structure is nothing but a (more or less) complicated organization of smaller, more fundamental mathematical substructures. Numbers are one kind of structure, and they can be used to build bigger structures like vectors and matrices
https://truebeautyofmath.com/what-is-a-mathematical-structure/
Logic and mathematics are two sister-disciplines, because logic is this very general theory of inference and reasoning, and inference and reasoning play a very big role in mathematics,
http://serious-science.org/logic-and-mathematics-7243
Prishon, I started a discussion entitled Ethics as a method, not an artifact that has been utterly over run by this guy's idea that reality is mathematical. It's a discussion about how ethics is a method for formulating moral conclusions, just as math is a method by which we track value and change patterns in reality. You aught to stop by and help me with these people. It's completely absurd. They've derailed the entire discussion for the insistence on making Tegmarks ridiculous and completely disregarded argument. I suspect it's because they don't actually want to discuss ethics. But, yeah, come on through if you feel up to it.
-G