We need more discussion of Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis

[James R]

Sarkus:

As are all metaphysical issues. But we're talking about science...

I replied to you saying that you believe that the "absolute laws" of the universe "can be expressed exactly with mathematics".

If what you meant is that whenever human beings try to write down the "absolute" laws of the universe, they will probably use mathematics, then I have no argument with you.

Is there anything that can be repeated that can not ultimately be expressed in mathematical terms?

I don't know. It seems to me, however, that there are many things that we experience in our daily lives that do not lend themselves to mathematical descriptions, and that's before we start thinking about any "ultimate laws" and such.

It might seem like a reasonable assumption that all complex things can be reduced to simple things by reducing them to the operation of a few fundamental mathematical rules. Maybe that is actually true, but I don't see any way to prove it.

Again, just to be clear, at no point am I saying that maths is real. I think we agree that it is descriptive of what is going on.

I understand. I'm just not as confident as you are that mathematics is capable of describing everything.

I am referring to science, to physics (i.e. physical laws) and not to things that might be outside of science.

If science's description of the universe can be reduced ultimately to a description provided by a set of a mathematical rules, then nothing could ever be outside of science, could it?

Probability is mathematical, though. We can accurately describe the result probability of a perfect dice, can we not?

Perfect dice is an abstract idea. There are no real-world perfect dice. So, yes, we can accurately describe what happens in an idealised situation or thought experiment. That's the sort of thing science does all the time, and it is incredibly useful. But, as I said, the fact that this sort of abstract is useful does not necessarily mean it is actually getting to the heart of the nature of the universe.

When we roll a real-world six-sided die, if it has been manufactured reasonably well, then the chances of roll a six will be very close to one in six, but the reality is that it will probably never be exactly one in six when we use a real-world die because no real-world die is perfect.

And the inability to predict single occurrences does not mean that the whole is not still perfectly described by the mathematics.

It means exactly that. A perfect mathematical description of a dice roll would be able to predict what result would come up, every time.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

We'll see.
I'm sorry, but are completely misunderstanding my POV.
Human maths are descriptive. Tegmark's non-human Universal maths are real. The way I see Tegmark's "nothing but maths" stems from the fact that everything has a quantitative or qualitative relational "value". Values interact via mathematical functions.

I have never claimed that human maths are used by the universe. Humans use their symbolic representation of Universal maths.
And human maths do a good job of approximating the real universal maths they are trying to describe.
Universal maths exists everywhere and is effective without the necessity of human explanations Humans need human maths to describe (symbolize) Universal maths.

Are you going to answer the questions I put to you in post #205 (like you claimed you always do, just a few posts up this thread) or are you planning on ignoring them (like you so often do, in practice)?

 

[Write4U]

A child that walks onto a stage in the middle of a performance is disruptive. .

You compare this discussion on Tegmark"s MUH to a play by Shakespeare?

Remember when I asked you, directly, which parts of Tegmark's MUH you disagree with? Remember how you completely ignored that question and didn't reply? No? You don't remember that?

I like Tegmark's argument that if the Universe is known to have some mathematical properties, why can we not argue that the universe has only mathematical properties.

I already told you that I am dubious about the multiverse and his analogy to a computer game. I understand the argument, but IMO, if we begin with the assumption of an original inflationary singularity, then the concept of a multiverse becomes awkward unless the multiverse evolved within the inflating singularity and that is not the current model.

From wiki:

Although there is no direct evidence for a singularity of infinite density, the cosmic microwave background is evidence that the universe expanded from a very hot, dense state.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity#

I reject the concept of an eternal complex pattern. There must have been a "beginning" to this Universe.

I have asked before but never received an answer to the question if the "inflationary epoch" actually occurred at FTL, replacing a prior condition of nothingness, a void without any physical or mathematical restrictions, such as SOL and allowing for FTL expansion.

Until the plasma cooled and the mathematical laws of physics became functional inside the universal geometry and began the process of self-organization from the original chaotic conditions in accordance with the laws of physics which are mathematical in essence.

I start from the philosophical perspective that the concept of "irreducible complexity " is a theological argument and founded on an illogical premise.

I don't know. It seems to me, however, that there are many things that we experience in our daily lives that do not lend themselves to mathematical descriptions, and that's before we start thinking about any "ultimate laws" and such.

Can you cite an example of a thing in our daily lives that does not lend itself to human mathematical description?

I am looking at Godel's incompleteness theorems, but that seems to address human mathematical limitations, not a natural unmeasurable value.

There are several properties that a formal system may have, including completeness, consistency, and the existence of an effective axiomatization. The incompleteness theorems show that systems which contain a sufficient amount of arithmetic cannot possess all three of these properties.

IOW, in a dynamic environment mathematical guiding equations are executed, but perfection can only be approximated. For Universal expressions that is sufficient, it always strives for perfection, but does not demand it.
Result, infinite variations expressed in a few self-organizing recurring mathematical patterns.

Anyway, I feel that I have received a "qualified" agreement with my basic understanding of Universal mechanics and at this stage of my quest, it seems that I am looking in the right direction.

I'm out. I enjoyed this substantial discussion.

 

[James R]

Moderator note:

For those who want to discuss Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis, I have created the following thread, which contains a copy of earlier posts from this thread that are on that topic.

Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis

My intention is to leave the current thread as a place for discussion with Write4U about his zany ideas and obsessions with Tegmark. The new thread is a Write4U-free zone. Write4U is not able to post in it.

 

[Sarkus]

I'm sorry, but are completely misunderstanding my POV.

Apologies. I am trying my best to go by what you have written.

Human maths are descriptive.

"Human maths"? Or do you mean that humans use maths to describe their understanding of the universe/things? Is "human maths" merely that maths that humans have discovered, or are you of the opinion humans created maths?

Tegmark's non-human Universal maths are real. The way I see Tegmark's "nothing but maths" stems from the fact that everything has a quantitative or qualitative relational "value". Values interact via mathematical functions.

You still don't understand Tegmark's view, then. Ah, well.

I have never claimed that human maths are used by the universe. Humans use their symbolic representation of Universal maths.
And human maths do a good job of approximating the real universal maths they are trying to describe.
Universal maths exists everywhere and is effective without the necessity of human explanations Humans need human maths to describe (symbolize) Universal maths.

I have never distinguished between "human maths" and "non-human maths". There is certainly the maths that humans have thus far discovered (for I do consider it discovered rather than created) but I am talking about maths, not human or non-human specifically.

You compare this discussion on Tegmark"s MUH to a play by Shakespeare?

No. I compare your disruption of the discussion with the disruption of someone else also not being relevant to the context they're in. I could have used a discussion on WW2, or while a teacher is try to teach pottery, or a coach trying to train his team etc. Not sure why you chose to focus on that aspect of the analogy rather than the disruption. Ah, well.

 

[Write4U]

"Human maths"? Or do you mean that humans use maths to describe their understanding of the universe/things? Is "human maths" merely that maths that humans have discovered, or are you of the opinion humans created maths?

No, humans did not create Universal maths. We codified it with symbols that do not exist in nature but describe the naturally occurring maths that are patterned logical expressions of symmetry, balance, efficiency, strength, and structural excellence.

Fundamentally, human maths is the symbolization of observed natural mathematical properties.. I don't know how to say this differently.

We cannot find numbers drifting in nature but we can observe the expressed value of one or multiple objects and their properties in nature.

The Fibonacci sequence can be found where efficient mathematical growth organization is used by nature.

https://www.grownyc.org/files/upload/fractals_in_nature.pdf

Does the sunflower know maths? It's a fractal. Is genetic coding knowledge?
Is it conscious? Is the aggregate conscious?

Reaction to sun
How do sunflowers react to the sun?
In the morning, all the sunflowers will face east, the direction of the rising sun. As the sun moves, so will the sunflower heads to follow it. But as summer turns to autumn and the sunflowers get big and ripe and heavy with seeds, they will stop moving. Until they are harvested, they will face only east.Oct 12, 2021

With unfailing regularity. Remarkable.
This remarkable pattern represents a natural distribution of what humans call the Fibonacci sequence (after the discoverer). (I know everybody knows that)
It is an evolved recurring pattern in nature for maximizing energy harvesting and seed distribution.
An expression of generic natural mathematics.

I have never distinguished between "human maths" and "non-human maths". There is certainly the maths that humans have thus far discovered (for I do consider it discovered rather than created) but I am talking about maths, not human or non-human specifically.

I do make that distinction, because human maths are symbolic representations of natural interactive mechanics based on relational values (differential equations) that in nature need no names, just the processing of the actual values.

Input --> Function (maths) --> Output

IMO, mathematics is not something that you can choose. Mathematical mechanics are part of this reality and organization, else there would still be chaos.
All self-ordered patterns in the universe are expressions of certain mathematical processes based on the generic values being processed.

With "relational value" I mean a significant property that is the sum and pattern of the object's inherent potentials relative to other objects.

For instance, I consider "carbon" as possessing extremely valuable properties based on its pattern-forming utility, making it a natural building block for almost all physical objects. It is nature's physical "+" sign.

Abstract
Carbon is a major player in the evolutionary scheme of the universe because of its abundance and its ability to form complex species. It is also a key element in the evolution of prebiotic molecules. The different forms of cosmic carbon are reviewed ranging from carbon atoms and carbon-bearing molecules to complex, solid-state, carbonaceous structures. The current state of knowledge is assessed on the observational and laboratory fronts. Fundamental astrophysical implications are examined as well as the impact of these studies on the hitherto poorly understood physical and chemical properties of carbon materials in space.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.282.5397.2204

And please, don't see this as another distraction. I used this as an example of the abstract potential of carbon as a functional additive (+) in physical expressions.
CO2 is a product, a mathematical sum, a pattern. All of nature is a product, a mathematical sum, and most probably, a simple equation.
That is how I digest Tegmark. His TOE lies in the direction of an abstract and perfectly neutral functional Universe (a machine), and there is only Maths (relational values) becoming expressed in physical patterns of variable shapes and densities, and life (dynamics).

Tegmark projects no more than 32 numbers (relational values), and a couple of handfuls of equations as the absolute fundamental properties (values) sufficient to produce the present from a singularity that created this universe in a single mega-quantum event.

And I see Causality as any dynamic that affects its environment. The rest is mathematical, often exponential (inflationary).

Is Time an emergent product of mathematical chronology? Is Energy an emergent product of mathematical potential? I think so. I cannot think of a better model. To me it just makes sense.
But I admit, it's an ambitious idea.

 

[Sarkus]

CO2 is a product, a mathematical sum, a pattern. All of nature is a product, a mathematical sum, and most probably, a simple equation.

A sum of what? You say CO2 is a product, but of what do you think it is a sum, ultimately?

That is how I digest Tegmark. His TOE lies in the direction of an abstract and perfectly neutral functional Universe (a machine), and there is only Maths (relational values) becoming expressed in physical patterns of variable shapes and densities, and life (dynamics).

You say "becoming expressed in physical patterns". What is the "physical" in this? Do you think, for example (or do you think that he thinks) there is some fundamental physical substrate, and that patterns that form within it are the expressions of mathematics, with all of nature being such a pattern (hence the pervasiveness of maths in the universe)?

 

[Write4U]

A sum of what? You say CO2 is a product, but of what do you think it is a sum, ultimately?

CO2 is the sum of 1 Carbon and 2 Oxygen atoms (which are themselves the sum of their constituent parts).

You say "becoming expressed in physical patterns". What is the "physical" in this? Do you think, for example (or do you think that he thinks) there is some fundamental physical substrate, and that patterns that form within it are the expressions of mathematics, with all of nature being such a pattern (hence the pervasiveness of maths in the universe)?

Physical patterns are formed as the sum of a set or sets of constituent parts.
H2O is a sum, but its existence can be observed in 3 different physical patterns as Gaseous, Liquid, Solid, emergent properties of patterns and pattern densities.

As to Tegmark's perspective on "substrate"? I don't think Tegmark is talking about "substrate" as much as "structure" (patterns).

Mathematical universe hypothesis

Description

Tegmark's MUH is the hypothesis that our external physical reality is a mathematical structure.[3] That is, the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics — specifically, a mathematical structure. Mathematical existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well. Observers, including humans, are "self-aware substructures (SASs)". In any mathematical structure complex enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world".[4]

The theory can be considered a form of Pythagoreanism or Platonism in that it proposes the existence of mathematical entities; a form of mathematicism in that it denies that anything exists except mathematical objects; and a formal expression of ontic structural realism.

more.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis#

Structuralism (philosophy of science)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to be confused with Structuralism (philosophy of mathematics).

In the philosophy of science, structuralism[α] (also known as scientific structuralism[1] or as the structuralistic theory-concept)[2] asserts that all aspects of reality are best understood in terms of empirical scientific constructs of entities and their relations, rather than in terms of concrete entities in themselves.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism_(philosophy_of_science)#Ontic_structural_realism

Ontic structural realism

While ESR claims that only the structure of reality is knowable, ontic structural realism (OSR) goes further to claim that structure is all there is. In this view, reality has no "nature" underlying its observed structure. Rather, reality is fundamentally structural, though variants of OSR disagree on precisely which aspects of structure are primitive.

OSR is strongly motivated by modern physics, particularly quantum field theory, which undermines intuitive notions of identifiable objects with intrinsic properties.[3]

Some early quantum physicists held this view, including Hermann Weyl (1931),[33] Ernst Cassirer (1936),[34] and Arthur Eddington (1939).[35] Recently, OSR has been called "the most fashionable ontological framework for modern physics".[36]

Max Tegmark
takes this concept even further with the mathematical universe hypothesis, which proposes that, if our universe is only a particular structure, then it is no more real than any other structure.[37][38]

This is why I use terms like "generic relational values" and "patterns" in my perspective of fundamental mathematical universal properties.

 

[C C]

I may still have limited understanding of what this thread is doing in "Site Feedback". But with the introduction of the other thread (link below), the stage of evaluating MUH as a potential topic is surely over. And discussion about MUH (specifically what it is about rather than "Does it deserve...?") should end here and be carried over to that thread.

And I mean that voluntarily, not necessarily another transfer of posts there (albeit that might be convenient for the spillover conversation that seems to be continuing here).

https://www.sciforums.com/threads/t...niverse-hypothesis.166226/page-4#post-3723094
_

 

[Pinball1970]

This is why I use terms like "generic relational values" and "patterns" in my perspective of fundamental mathematical universal properties.

Yep which is why you have been banned on the ACTUAL discussion on Tegmark.

 

[Pinball1970]

H2O is a sum, but its existence can be observed in 3 different physical patterns as Gaseous, Liquid, Solid, emergent properties of patterns and pattern densities.

No. These are phases.

 

[Pinball1970]

the stage of evaluating MUH as a potential topic is surely over

I'm trying on the other thread. The paper is for me too far reaching.

 

[Write4U]

No. These are phases.

ok

One example of emergent behavior in physics involves one of the simplest to observe: phase changes in matter. Ice, water and steam are chemically identical but have distinct physical properties.Feb 15, 2023
What Is Emergence? - John Templeton Foundation

 

[Pinball1970]

ok

I know basic chemistry, why do you still insist with pastes?

 

[Sarkus]

CO2 is the sum of 1 Carbon and 2 Oxygen atoms (which are themselves the sum of their constituent parts).

And of what do those sub-atomic constituent parts consist? And those below that?

Physical patterns are formed as the sum of a set or sets of constituent parts.

And of what do those constituent parts consist? You would seem to be describing reductionism, but what are the fundamentals? What happens when you reach that layer that has no consituent parts? What does that level consist of? Maths? Or something else?

As to Tegmark's perspective on "substrate"? I don't think Tegmark is talking about "substrate" as much as "structure" (patterns).

Which doesn't actually answer anything, but thanks.

 

[C C]

Oh, my bad. I completely missed James R's explanation that "The new thread is a Write4U-free zone. Write4U is not able to post in it."

Emily Litella: "Never mind!"

(Not that I'm agreeing or disagreeing with anything, I just finally get what's going on. Duh.)

I may still have limited understanding of what this thread is doing in "Site Feedback". But with the introduction of the other thread (link below), the stage of evaluating MUH as a potential topic is surely over. And discussion about MUH (specifically what it is about rather than "Does it deserve...?") should end here and be carried over to that thread.

And I mean that voluntarily, not necessarily another transfer of posts there (albeit that might be convenient for the spillover conversation that seems to be continuing here).

https://www.sciforums.com/threads/t...niverse-hypothesis.166226/page-4#post-3723094
_

 

[Write4U]

I know basic chemistry, why do you still insist with pastes?

I am not attempting to instruct you. I would not presume.
I am presenting these quotes to inform you what science I am using for my argument. Not being familiar with formal scientific language, I use these "peer reviewed" papers to put my "own words" in context of that science.

 

[Write4U]

And of what do those sub-atomic constituent parts consist? And those below that?

Yes, I did mention that patterns (mathematical objects) go way down to the level when there are no longer patterns, but "values".

And of what do those constituent parts consist? You would seem to be describing reductionism, but what are the fundamentals? What happens when you reach that layer that has no consituent parts? What does that level consist of? Maths? Or something else?

non-physical "values", "waves"?

Which doesn't actually answer anything, but thanks.

It seems to answer the mathematical self-organization of patterns we call reality. If there is turtles all the way up (or down), then there is only turtles, no?

Is there math in gravity?

The gravitational equation says that the force of gravity is proportional to the product of the two masses (m1 and m2), and inversely proportional to the square of the distance (r) between their centers of mass.
Mathematically speaking, F=Gm1m2 / r2, where G is called the Gravitational Constant.
What is gravity? - Starchild (NASA)

Which mathematical concept is used to describe electromagnetic fields?
Maxwell's equations

The equations provide a mathematical model for electric, optical, and radio technologies, such as power generation, electric motors, wireless communication, lenses, radar, etc. They describe how electric and magnetic fields are generated by charges, currents, and changes of the fields...more... Maxwell's equations - Wikipedia

Relational values in a dynamic environment will result in self-formation of patterns.
Chaos Theory.

 

[Pinball1970]

Relational values in a dynamic environment will result in self-formation of patterns.
Chaos Theory.

Lord help me.

 

[Pinball1970]

Yes, I did mention that patterns (mathematical objects) go way down to the level when there are no longer patterns, but "values

Yes you did and do at every turn. Luckily I can discuss the actual paper separately from this. I will bow out of this thread now and leave you to it.