Quantum Creationism -- Is It Science Or Is It Religion?

[Write4U]

So the case of "potential" is not at all like that of "permittivity".

Exactly. That was the point.

 

[DaveC426913]

Exactly. That was the point.

False.

What you said was:

... potential. But you see that is not the only definition there is, as with "permittivity"

The use of "...as with..." is to liken the two, not contrast them.

Nice try though.

 

[Write4U]

And here come the victimhood and conspiracy cards......

Have you been taking lessons fromTrump, suddenly?

No, apparently you have.

I withdrew from the thread, yet you persisted in ridiculing me (behind my back). That's Trumpian.

And in real life that's why Trump has been sued twice by the same person , because he didn't learn the lesson the first time and continued to slander that person. This is exactly what's happening here.

I withdrew, expecting a different tack to the thread. But apparently, there is a lack of inspiration or knowledge about quantum creation. Not very productive, is it? Except for CC, this thread has offered nothing but criticism.
Perhaps you may not realize this but so far, there has been no productive critique.....difference!

You have even managed to criticize the Webster and Oxford dictionary and Wikipedia. Way to go.

And as with every thread about science in this forum, this thread has deteriorated to name-calling and ad hominem insults. There is very little actual scientific knowledge being exchanged.

 

[DaveC426913]

I withdrew from the thread,

No you didn't.
It was a whole 16 hours from when you said (9:34PM Mon) you were going to bow out until you were back (2:14 Tue) doing the same Google spamming shenanigans.

And in real life that's why Trump has been sued twice by the same person , because he didn't learn the lesson the first time and continued to slander that person. This is exactly what's happening here.

Yes it is. You're the Trump.

I withdrew,

Again, no you didn't.

expecting a different tack to the thread.

Withdrawing means you don't get to decide how the thread will go. It's like yelling cusswords at someone on the school yard, and then saying "Well, I'm walking away now. This is done."
Nope, it's not. And it's not for you to call what happens.

You have even managed to criticize the Webster and Oxford dictionary and Wikipedia. Way to go.

No. As is always the case, the criticism is of your misuse in dialogue. You are notorious for weasel-wording.

And as with every thread about science in this forum, this thread has deteriorated to name-calling and ad hominem insults. There is very little actual scientific knowledge being exchanged.

Indeed. Every thread you poison with your woo-spam. We have disabused you of your woo time and time again. It is not surprising we've all lost patience. You are the problem.

 

[Write4U]

It was not your point.
You said "...as with permittivity", which meant you were likening them, not contrasting them.
Nice try though.

You don't even try to understand what I say. I was comparing them. And a comparison clearly shows the difference.

 

[DaveC426913]

I was comparing them. And a comparison clearly shows the difference.

Maybe your friends fall for this kind of gaslighting. Not here.

Stay in school. Learn some science. Learn how to communicate.

 

[Write4U]

No you didn't.
It was a whole 16 hours from when you said you were going to bow out until you were back doing the same Google spamming shenanigans.

And I was not responding to a post that was directly addressed to me? I was just unable to resist my deviant impulses to ruin every unproductive science thread in this forum.
And when I don't respond I get criticized for NOT responding. Can't win for losing.

MY BAAAAAAAAD....!!!

 

[billvon]

Stay in school. Learn some science. Learn how to communicate.

That would get him less attention, so probably not on his list.

 

[Write4U]

Withdrawing means you don't get to decide how the thread will go. It's like yelling cusswords at someone on the school yard, and then saying "Well, I'm walking away now. This is done."
Nope, it's not. And it's not for you to call what happens.

When you are addressing me, I do get to decide how the thread will go. It'll be in my way.
It surely won't be in your way. You have no way but: "IT'S NOT THIS, IT'S NOT THAT "

Well then tell me how it is according to you? Please! Give me your "THUS".

Stay in school. Learn some science. Learn how to communicate.

Ohh, I'm trying.
But you're not doing any communicating at all, why is that? After all, one should follow one's own advise, no?

 

[DaveC426913]

But you're not doing any communicating at all, why is that?

We are all communicating. It's just not the message you are able to hear.

To be explicit: there is no path via communication that leads to your ideas being viable.

What remains is "That is not true; this is how it actually works." Which is what we have been communicating you all along. You are not interested. We have been extremely patient in communicating. If you want better communication, look inward.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Exactly what is a rock then?

You don't know what a rock is? That's part of the problem, then. Here's a hint: rocks are made of atoms, not mathematics. Now, maybe try googling "what is a rock?" I'm here to answer questions you might have after you've learned some basics.

If that sentence is supposed to be a persuasive argument, I am unable to make any sense of it. Must be my misunderstanding, tsk,tsk.

No. It's your failure to pay attention to my previous careful explanations of the map-territory distinction and why this is a major problem for your philosophy.

If you paid attention once in a while, you might learn something.

Interesting that you should use mathematics to claim there is no mathematics in nature.

Straw man.

Nono... I talk about "generic universal mathematics", not human mathematics.

There is no such thing as "generic universal mathematics", other than in your fantasies.

And nobody is saying that mathematical functions are causal forces. They are the guiding principles that determine "HOW" things happen in the physical world.

Mathematical principles cannot "guide" anything. They are abstract concepts, unable to influence or affect the physical world in any way (other than through the intermediary of a human mind, which causes a human being to take physical action in response to an idea).

Except that it is only you who is entertaining thoughts of unicorns, as evidenced in the next paragraph.
Now that kind of thinking makes you worthy of scorn. It not only wrong, it is duplicitous.

Your pretence about "generic universal mathematics" is not only wrong; it is duplicitous. You ought to stop pretending that your invented terms mean something to anybody but you.

That does not follow at all. How Trumpian, you accuse me of making things up and then make things up to prove your point. It is clear that you are obsessed with unicorns.

I gave you what is usually known as an analogy. An analogy is often used in conversation and written arguments to try to provoke understanding of a different concept that shares common features with the analogy.

It's a shame that the only thing you took away from my unicorn story was that I'm obsessed with unicorns. But, hey. Unicorns? Wow man! How about them! What's not to be obsessed about?!

What is Max Tegmark known for?

Here? Bad ideas, mostly.

I'm guessing his everyday work might include some useful physics. Otherwise, who would employ him?

 

[James R]

Are you talking about Tegmark? You think you are superior to Tegmark?

At least some of us here can tell the difference between a rock and a thought. I'm not sure Tegmark can.

Tegmark's propositions are not worthy for posting in the hallowed halls of SciFo?

I think they've had a fair airing here. Don't you?

Yes..... let's cleanse the scientific world from the scourge of Tegmark and students of his hypothesis.

It's already a fringe idea in science. Don't worry. The usual scientific processes tend to weed out unproductive ideas sooner or later.

You do not rule my life or set the time and date for me to respond to your drivel. I'll respond to you in my time. You are not the most important thing in my life, is that clear?

Drivel? Not the most important thing in your life? Your words hurt me to my very core, Write4U.

Is Tegmark the most important thing in your life? I ask merely for information.

Ahh, the "technical meaning" such as "electrical potential". But you see that is not the only definition there is, as with "permittivity"

Well, yes. There are right definitions and wrong definitions, useful definition and useless definitions.

I thought that, at one time at least, you wanted to have a discussion about science. That's not really possible if you can't bring yourself to use scientific language in the way it has been defined. It's part of the reason why you're in your own little fantasy world, largely insulated from useful ideas.

Well, I'll post my reply in the thread Infinite Potential, lest this will be turned around and blame me for Off-Topic posting.

Is the frying pan in this thread getting a little too hot for you? Maybe you'll want to let things cool down a little and go back to blogging to yourself about microtubules for a while. Your ideas don't seem very resilient to scrutiny or critical review, so maybe you'd prefer if it that didn't happen so much?

 

[Write4U]

Write4U:
You don't know what a rock is? That's part of the problem, then. Here's a hint: rocks are made of atoms, not mathematics. Now, maybe try googling "what is a rock?" I'm here to answer questions you might have after you've learned some basics.

I see, rocks are made of atoms. And what are atoms made of? And what are quanta made of?

No. It's your failure to pay attention to my previous careful explanations of the map-territory distinction and why this is a major problem for your philosophy.

If you think you have made a persuasive argument, you are utterly wrong

If you paid attention once in a while, you might learn something.

I pay much more attention to your posts than you do to mine.

Straw man.

Spare me your banality.

There is no such thing as "generic universal mathematics", other than in your fantasies.

And are you able to explain why not? Or are you going to slide out of that question?

Mathematical principles cannot "guide" anything. They are abstract concepts, unable to influence or affect the physical world in any way (other than through the intermediary of a human mind, which causes a human being to take physical action in response to an idea).

You are wrong. The universe does not "know" it has mathematical properties, it just behaves in a mathematical manner.

Galileo build an inclined rail and proved the (mathematical) law of falling bodies. Are telling me that the law of falling bodies does not exist before Galileo proved its existence? Before Galileo, falling bodies were falling at random speeds?

Your pretence about "generic universal mathematics" is not only wrong; it is duplicitous. You ought to stop pretending that your invented terms mean something to anybody but you.[/quote ] Wow, "duplicitous", you're quoting me.

It is a proper term for something that is natural but can be measured and symbolized.

Generic property

In mathematics, properties that hold for "typical" examples are called generic properties. For instance, a generic property of a class of functions is one that is true of "almost all" of those functions, as in the statements, "A generic polynomial does not have a root at zero," or "A generic square matrix is invertible." As another example, a generic property of a space is a property that holds at "almost all" points of the space, as in the statement, "If f : M → N is a smooth function between smooth manifolds, then a generic point of N is not a critical value of f." (This is by Sard's theorem.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_property

I gave you what is usually known as an analogy. An analogy is often used in conversation and written arguments to try to provoke understanding of a different concept that shares common features with the analogy.

Your fantasies are analogies, my analogies are fantasies. How interesting that you are unable to draw an analogy between human mathematics and natural mathematics. There should be some kind of analogy.
Wait, aren't human maths analogous to generic maths?

It's a shame that the only thing you took away from my unicorn story was that I'm obsessed with unicorns. But, hey. Unicorns? Wow man! How about them! What's not to be obsessed about?!

Because it is not analogous to anything in the real world, except perhaps a Narwhal.

Here? Bad ideas, mostly.

Well, I doubt that he is worried about your displeasure.

I'm guessing his everyday work might include some useful physics. Otherwise, who would employ him?

MIT?

Tegmark is an author of more than two hundred technical papers, and has featured in dozens of science documentaries. He has received numerous awards for his research, including a Packard Fellowship (2001-06), Cottrell Scholar Award (2002-07), and an NSF Career grant (2002-07), and is a Fellow of the American Physical Society. His work with the SDSS collaboration on galaxy clustering shared the first prize in Science magazine’s
“Breakthrough of the Year: 2003.”

https://physics.mit.edu/faculty/max-tegmark/#

All those accolades by peers for "bad ideas".
Are you his peer? I admit I am not, but I do like his ideas. I think they are based on logical arguments.

 

[Write4U]

At least some of us here can tell the difference between a rock and a thought. I'm not sure Tegmark can.

How observant. You must be a real physicist.

I think they've had a fair airing here. Don't you?

Apparently he had fair hearing by several prestigious institutions (see above).

It's already a fringe idea in science. Don't worry. The usual scientific processes tend to weed out unproductive ideas sooner or later.

Then why is it gaining in acceptance, at several levels?

Drivel? Not the most important thing in your life? Your words hurt me to my very core, Write4U.

It's time someone set you straight.

Is Tegmark the most important thing in your life? I ask merely for information.

No more than your unicorns you like to quote.

Well, yes. There are right definitions and wrong definitions, useful definition and useless definitions.

A definition is not a word or a term.

Definition

A definition is a statement of the meaning of a term (a word, phrase, or other set of symbols).[1][2] Definitions can be classified into two large categories: intensional definitions (which try to give the sense of a term), and extensional definitions (which try to list the objects that a term describes).[3] Another important category of definitions is the class of ostensive definitions, which convey the meaning of a term by pointing out examples. A term may have many different senses and multiple meanings, and thus require multiple definitions.[4][a]

In mathematics, a definition is used to give a precise meaning to a new term, by describing a condition which unambiguously qualifies what a mathematical term is and is not. Definitions and axioms form the basis on which all of modern mathematics is to be constructed.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition

I thought that, at one time at least, you wanted to have a discussion about science. That's not really possible if you can't bring yourself to use scientific language in the way it has been defined. It's part of the reason why you're in your own little fantasy world, largely insulated from useful ideas.

Yes, all those quotes I use from "respectable" sources don't mean a thing. They are isolated from the world of science that just thrives on this forum.

Is the frying pan in this thread getting a little too hot for you? Maybe you'll want to let things cool down a little and go back to blogging to yourself about microtubules for a while.

Ah, you like my thread on microtubules now? We are making progress!

Your ideas don't seem very resilient to scrutiny or critical review, so maybe you'd prefer if it that didn't happen so much?

I am still standing and aside from a few semantic corrections, no one has actually debunked my propositions, other than shrill cries of "foul" and "fool".

So far, very few have actually said anything constructive, that officially and definitively replaces any of the "budding new sciences that are now taking front and center due to advancement in electron and tunneling photography

 

[exchemist]

When you are addressing me, I do get to decide how the thread will go. It'll be in my way.
It surely won't be in your way. You have no way but: "IT'S NOT THIS, IT'S NOT THAT "

Well then tell me how it is according to you? Please! Give me your "THUS".
Ohh, I'm trying.
But you're not doing any communicating at all, why is that? After all, one should follow one's own advise, no?

Advice.

 

[Write4U]

Advice.

Thank you.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

I see, rocks are made of atoms. And what are atoms made of? And what are quanta made of?

I don't think that explaining these sorts of things to you in depth is going to help solve your problem.

If I tell you that atoms are made of electrons and protons and neutrons, your next question is just going to be "What are they made of, then?"

The only thing that matters, for the purposes of our discussion, is that none of these constituents of atoms is made of "mathematics". Atoms are stuff. Mathematics is concepts. You can't make stuff out of concepts.

If you think you have made a persuasive argument, you are utterly wrong

Really?

Have I failed to convince you that a map of England is not England?

Do you think a list of the properties of an atom is the same as an atom?

Do you think your mental picture of a brick is the same as a brick?
Do you think your verbal or written description of a brick is a brick?

Do you think a mathematical description of how an apple accelerates as it falls off a tree is the same as an apple falling off a tree?

Spare me your banality.

Spare me your straw men!

And are you able to explain why not? Or are you going to slide out of that question?

I'm happy to break it down for you.

You claim there is a "generic universal mathematics". Using the definition of "generic properties" that you posted - which, by the way, I don't for a moment believe you looked up until just before you posted post #393 - you are saying that there are universal mathematical properties that apply to "typical" examples but which might have exceptions.

The qualifier "universal" implies that mathematics is "out there" everywhere in the universe, even though you can't show a single place where mathematics is to be found, other than mathematics written down or talked about by human beings.

You also make a number of claims about this supposed "generic universal mathematics". For instance, you claim that - somehow! - this mathematics can "guide" the behaviours of physical objects (like atoms). You claim this despite the fact that a map of London can't "guide" London to do anything and a mental picture of a brick can't make a brick do anything.

Moreover, nobody except you appears to use the term "generic universal mathematics". Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that no such thing exists, other than in your head.

You are wrong. The universe does not "know" it has mathematical properties, it just behaves in a mathematical manner.

That's a slippery statement. I have already said that we can model the universe (or parts of it, at least) using mathematics. Those models, being mathematical models, necessarily have mathematical properties.

The physical universe also "behaves like" some mathematical models we create, though often only in some appropriate approximation. So, it is not unreasonable to say that the universe "behaves in a mathematical manner". However, that is a conclusion that can only be reached by analogy - by comparing the observed real-world behaviours of the physical universe with the conceptual mathematical models we have developed.

Is it surprising that the real-world universe reflects certain mathematical models that we invented? I don't think so. After all, our aim in making those conceptual models in the first place was to try our best to accurately describe and to try to predict how the real-world universe behaves. What you're forgetting is that there are also a lot of unsuccessful mathematical models of (different aspects of) our physical universe. You're remembering the hits and forgetting all the misses.

Galileo build an inclined rail and proved the (mathematical) law of falling bodies. Are telling me that the law of falling bodies does not exist before Galileo proved its existence?

The word "law", there, should suggest something to you. Where do we find laws? In law books written by human beings. Where do we find the "laws of physics"? In physics books written by human beings.

In this example, you refer explicitly to a "law of falling bodies" and you even admit there was a human being called Galileo who wrote it down. Before that it was not a recognised "law". So, you're right: the "law of falling bodies" did not exist until Galileo wrote it down and called it that (assuming he called it that).

All other "laws of physics" work the same way. Newton's laws of motion didn't exist until Newton wrote them down. Einstein's theory of relativity didn't exist until Einstein came up with it. etc.

Before Galileo, falling bodies were falling at random speeds?

Of course not. We have already talked about this. Writing down a "law" can't change the way physical objects behave. The "laws" are conceptual. They are models that help us to describe and predict how the physical universe behaves.

There were certainly suggested "laws of motion" before Newton came along. Aristotle had different "laws of motion", for instance. And you know what? Aristotle's laws didn't accurately describe how real-world objects behave. So what happened? Out with Aristotle's laws; in with Newton's laws!

Do you think that, before Newton, objects followed Aristotle's laws of motion, and then suddenly when Newton came along the universe changed to bring itself into alignment with the new laws?

Now, before you start complaining, let me anticipate an argument you'll want to make. Why not turn this around? Why not say that the universe has its "generic universal mathematics", and it's us humans that need constantly to "catch up" with what the universe already "knows"? In one sense, this is unproblematic. The universe behaves as it behaves, and it is up to us humans to describe it as best as we can. That's standard science. And yes, the best physical models use mathematics.

The mistake lies in imagining that the models - the mathematics - is already "out there" somewhere in the physical universe, just waiting to be discovered. There are no "natural" maths books to be found. Atoms don't do math. We won't find ancient stone tablets anywhere, on which some deistic universal "god" has written down its mathematical laws.

Your fantasies are analogies, my analogies are fantasies.

It sound to me like you don't understand what an analogy is. Grab that dictionary again.

How interesting that you are unable to draw an analogy between human mathematics and natural mathematics. There should be some kind of analogy.

There is an analogy, but it's just that - an analogy. We can use flowery language to talk about the "mathematics of the universe", but what we're really talking about is either the observed behaviour of the universe or our mathematical models of that behaviour.

The failure to recognise that this is an analogy is the same map-territory problem you've had all along.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

Wait, aren't human maths analogous to generic maths?

As defined by your latest cut-and-paste, yes. And the word "universal" doesn't appear.

Well, I doubt that he is worried about your displeasure.

So far, he's blissfully unaware, I imagine.

MIT?
https://physics.mit.edu/faculty/max-tegmark/#

All those accolades by peers for "bad ideas".

No. The accolades were for his good ideas.

But you never talk about any of those. You're only interested in his speculative philosophy, which is full of bad ideas.

Are you his peer?

What are you asking? What do you mean by "peer", specifically?

I admit I am not, but I do like his ideas. I think they are based on logical arguments.

I'm well aware of how you like his ideas and think they are logical.

How observant. You must be a real physicist.

Thank you. Of course, I'm not sure how competent you are at spotting real physicists, or distinguishing them from pseudophysicists.

Apparently he had fair hearing by several prestigious institutions (see above).

I wonder whether that means he's always right about everything. I've certainly never heard of somebody who is highly decorated in one field of expertise ever having wacky and/or incorrect ideas about a different field of expertise (or even a different aspect of the same field of expertise). Have you?

Then why is it gaining in acceptance, at several levels?

Is it? Maybe general population increase? Are we talking raw numbers or percentages? Can I see your data?

It's time someone set you straight.

I'm so glad you're hear to correct my many errors. When do you plan to start doing that, exactly?

A definition is not a word or a term.

Definition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition

Gee, thanks, Write4U.

I'm sure that everybody here has benefitted from your helpful definition of the word "definition". If you hadn't posted that, how could we have known what a definition is? You're really adding value with your helpful cut-and-pastes.

Ah, you like my thread on microtubules now?

What gave you that impression? Did I say I like it?

I am still standing and aside from a few semantic corrections, no one has actually debunked my propositions, other than shrill cries of "foul" and "fool".

Nonsense.

Your erratic and idiosyncratic use of language has been pointed out to you time and again, as have numerous scientific errors. Your lack of science knowledge has been exposed for all to see. The weaknesses of your philosophical stance has been laid bare.

But readers will make up their own minds, of course. I don't need to say this. Actions speak louder than words.

So far, very few have actually said anything constructive, that officially and definitively replaces any of the "budding new sciences that are now taking front and center due to advancement in electron and tunneling photography

Another complete non sequitur. Did you accidentally cut and paste the wrong thing?

 

[Sarkus]

Just to weigh in here: let's not disparage Tegmark's ideas and arguments simply because an enthusiastic advocate can't convey them either convincingly or accurately. Tegmark's ideas aren't widely held, but they are intriguing. But it is a philosophy rather than anything else, and as useful or not as any other philosophy. It is certainly not science in my view, as it is unfalsifiable, and barely, if at all, testable. But intriguing nonetheless.

Further, while human understanding and conception of the laws of physics are what they currently are, it should not be too controversial to suggest that there are underlying mechanisms that the universe adheres to. We might have some of them exactly right, or off by the inaccuracy of the constant used, or might have gotten entirely a false understanding, albeit one that is useful in every way that currently matters to us. Let's call these, our understanding, the Human Laws of Physics. But surely we agree that there are some underlying Universal laws, right? And that everything related to this universe follows those laws?
So let's not get hung about the difference between the laws that humans understand and the laws the universe adheres to. The principle is that there are universal laws.

However, Einstein had a good quote about this: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”



Moving on, whether everything adheres to mathematical formula or not isn't really the issue here. It's whether mathematical structures have existence. It really breaks down, simplistically, to the following, as I understand it:
1. There exists a mind-independent reality
2. Maths is the only thing that can accurately describe this mind-independent reality, as it, too, is mind-independent. All other descriptions are mind-dependent
3. And if something perfectly describes and is identical/equivalent to the physical structure that it models, then it is the same thing

The first should not be too controversial to most of us, and is assumed in science.
The second is something Tegmark argues. Feel free to delve deeper into those arguments, but I'm not getting into it here. It's obviously key to Tegmark's position, but I'm really just trying to lay out what his position is, as it is somewhat lost in the enthusiasm currently being preached.
The last speaks to the map not being the same as the place it describes... let's say we have a paper map of England. It's obviously not England. The dimensions are smaller, it's 2-dimensional etc. So it doesn't accurately describe England. So let's say the map is 1:1 scale, and is also a 3-D map. Is this sufficiently accurate a map to be considered the same as which it describes? No. Not yet. The substance underfoot, in the ground, the age of the trees, buildings etc. The map gets more and more like what it is actually describing. And Tegmark's argument is that at some point you perfectly describe it, and at that point it is no longer just a map but idential to that which you are describing. It is identical / the same as it. It is it.
So, if maths is the only thing that can accurately describe the universe, then that mathematical description, at the point it becomes an accurate description, is the universe, and as such the universe is a mathematical structure (i.e. the description).

Now, this is all just my cursory understanding of it, and I'm not arguing for or against it here, only that there's more to it than that pushed by Write4U. By all means counter what Write4U says, but don't assume you're actually countering Tegmark's ideas.

Anyhoo.
As you were.

 

[exchemist]

Just to weigh in here: let's not disparage Tegmark's ideas and arguments simply because an enthusiastic advocate can't convey them either convincingly or accurately. Tegmark's ideas aren't widely held, but they are intriguing. But it is a philosophy rather than anything else, and as useful or not as any other philosophy. It is certainly not science in my view, as it is unfalsifiable, and barely, if at all, testable. But intriguing nonetheless.

Further, while human understanding and conception of the laws of physics are what they currently are, it should not be too controversial to suggest that there are underlying mechanisms that the universe adheres to. We might have some of them exactly right, or off by the inaccuracy of the constant used, or might have gotten entirely a false understanding, albeit one that is useful in every way that currently matters to us. Let's call these, our understanding, the Human Laws of Physics. But surely we agree that there are some underlying Universal laws, right? And that everything related to this universe follows those laws?
So let's not get hung about the difference between the laws that humans understand and the laws the universe adheres to. The principle is that there are universal laws.

However, Einstein had a good quote about this: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”



Moving on, whether everything adheres to mathematical formula or not isn't really the issue here. It's whether mathematical structures have existence. It really breaks down, simplistically, to the following, as I understand it:
1. There exists a mind-independent reality
2. Maths is the only thing that can accurately describe this mind-independent reality, as it, too, is mind-independent. All other descriptions are mind-dependent
3. And if something perfectly describes and is identical/equivalent to the physical structure that it models, then it is the same thing

The first should not be too controversial to most of us, and is assumed in science.
The second is something Tegmark argues. Feel free to delve deeper into those arguments, but I'm not getting into it here. It's obviously key to Tegmark's position, but I'm really just trying to lay out what his position is, as it is somewhat lost in the enthusiasm currently being preached.
The last speaks to the map not being the same as the place it describes... let's say we have a paper map of England. It's obviously not England. The dimensions are smaller, it's 2-dimensional etc. So it doesn't accurately describe England. So let's say the map is 1:1 scale, and is also a 3-D map. Is this sufficiently accurate a map to be considered the same as which it describes? No. Not yet. The substance underfoot, in the ground, the age of the trees, buildings etc. The map gets more and more like what it is actually describing. And Tegmark's argument is that at some point you perfectly describe it, and at that point it is no longer just a map but idential to that which you are describing. It is identical / the same as it. It is it.
So, if maths is the only thing that can accurately describe the universe, then that mathematical description, at the point it becomes an accurate description, is the universe, and as such the universe is a mathematical structure (i.e. the description).

Now, this is all just my cursory understanding of it, and I'm not arguing for or against it here, only that there's more to it than that pushed by Write4U. By all means counter what Write4U says, but don't assume you're actually countering Tegmark's ideas.

Anyhoo.
As you were.

That's obviously true. Write4U is a pretty hopeless advocate for anything, these days, which is a pity, as it was not always so.

Peter Woit and Massimo Pigliucci have more cogent criticisms of Shapiro/Tegmark:

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6551

https://www.science20.com/rationally_speaking/mathematical_universe_i_ain’t_convinced-127841

Woit is pretty dismissive of both Teggers's work and his methods. Pigliucci is more nuanced, but doesn't buy it.

(I find Woit fairly persuasive.)