We need more discussion of Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis

[Write4U]

You keep dragging the thread into consciousness, Tegmark, Hameroff, Homeostasis, MT, that is not the topic and irrelevant.

I did not introduce that tangent. I responded to it and it continued.

However, the OP is very ambiguous. It begs the question how we can even discuss the merits of an abstract idea?
It assumes the a priori existence of a real scriptural god, not some other logical universal guiding principle, that may very well exist, and that is an scientific agnostic perspective.

I am arguing for an alternate model of an impersonal guiding force.
I am agnostic but curious about that!

Is this optional perspective allowed in context of the OP ?

 

[Pinball1970]

Because under anesthesia you become an object, total oblivion. It's called "vegetable state".
Do plants go to heaven?

I did not introduce that tangent. I responded to it and it continued.

However, the OP is very ambiguous. It begs the question how we can even discuss the merits of an abstract idea?
It assumes the a priori existence of a real scriptural god, not some other logical universal guiding principle, that may very well exist, and that is an scientific agnostic perspective.

I am arguing for an alternate model of an impersonal guiding force.
I am agnostic but curious about that!

Is this optional perspective allowed in context of the OP ?

My biggest criticism of the forum so far is that threads go adrift and are not pegged back.

 

[Write4U]

My biggest criticism of the forum so far is that threads go adrift and are not pegged back.

Yes, I can relate. My problem is that my areas of interest lie in subjects that apply to everything.
As I said before, I look for "common denominators", and that drives me to respond to issues in a wide range of subjects.

 

[Sarkus]

Yes, I can relate. My problem is that my areas of interest lie in subjects that apply to everything.
As I said before, I look for "common denominators", and that drives me to respond to issues in a wide range of subjects.

Unfortunately what you do is respond off-topic. You have your favourite ideas (e.g. Tegmark, microtubules) and you look for any excuse to wheel them out and put them on display, even when not relevant. This is not good etiquette on your part. You are the reason those threads get derailed. This thread is a case in point: explaining briefly why you are an atheist is fine, but then pushing it, going on and on as to why you think religion is evil, why religious beliefs are not scientific etc, is not relevant. This is, more than anything, a philosophical discussion, about the relationship between ontology and epistemology. And it is a thread where others can bring to the table their ideas of what a/theism and agnosticism mean. Not why they are one or the other, but simply what they mean. And thereby the relationship between them. You have read the thread title, I assume?
So, please, get a grip. Stop trying to inject every thread you possibly can with your "Tegmarkian or microtubular religion" and, if you're going to post in a thread, post on topic.
Thanks.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Thanks for your reply. It's hard for me to know how best to respond, because it appears that you have largely failed to appreciate the main themes in I wrote to you. Your reply contains many excuses and self-justifications, which I guess is not unexpected, or even necessarily unreasonable. It seems to me that you're not very interested in reflecting on how other people perceive you here. I wonder whether you've ever taken a moment to think about why so many people here are critical of your views on so many things. After all, if you're posting all this excellent, well-documented and proven science, what's to criticise, right? You're just the messenger, delivering the Good News about the microtubules and the mathematical universe we're all equations in. Perhaps you think that your critics are scared of your ideas? Or maybe it's just that the people here get too hung up on irrelevant technicalities and are kind of small minded and unwilling to see the big picture like you do?

Regardless of these sorts of speculations, I get the distinct impression that you're not planning on making any changes to what or how you post here. As far as you're concerned, you're doing well, and other people here are just being mean to you, I guess.

I think it's probably time for me to step away from you once again, because nothing I say to you - about just about anything - seems to go in. Therefore, I'm just wasting your time and mine in engaging with you.

You have complained that I have been making ad hominem attacks on you, rather than addressing the specifics of your posts - the science, the big ideas and so on. What I find, on the other hand, is that you tend to just skip over the specific criticisms and questions I raise about your claims. You literally just ignore a lot of them and don't reply. I think it's because if it looks to you like it will take more than a google search and a quick cut-and-paste to answer a question - if it will require you to think - it all seems like too much effort. So, you (sometimes) respond to the easy stuff. You respond selectively. And then, later, you claim that I didn't address your science or the specifics.

Do you think I didn't notice how you skipped over all of the points in my last series of posts at which I asked you to support your claims that I had made errors, by demonstrating how and why I was wrong? I confused science and religion, you said. I asked you how. You didn't respond. You made a general claim that I got "too much wrong". I asked you to point out any specific mistake I had made. You didn't respond.

As for your claims, how about where you claimed that Tegmark's mathematical universe idea is a "scientific model of the universe"? I asked you what scientific tests had been done using his model. I asked you how the predictions of his model differ from the predictions of models that do not claim that the universe is mathematics. You didn't answer.

I have speculated about your level of understanding of the various topics you continually post about on this forum. On some specifics, I have demonstrated that you don't understand things, based on your own writings here. You don't seem to see that as a problem for you. Rather, you see it is a problem with me. The problem is that I'm making an ad hominem attack on you whenever I point out that you're wrong about something. I'm too critical. You only quote proven science, so how could you ever be wrong about something?

You also complain that, whenever I point out an error of yours, I just say you're wrong and don't explain why. The fact is, I do explain why. It just doesn't get through to you. You just ignore it, or try to find excuses for why you were actually right all the time, despite my objections (or anybody else's).

So, like I said, I don't really know how best to respond, at this stage. It would be wrong for me to completely ignore you, and just to let you run riot across this forum with your various obsessions. That wouldn't be fair to our other members. So, chances are good that I will keep telling you when you are wrong, and why. However, here's what I'll try to do: I will stop offering you advice on how you might go about improving, or gaining an understanding of things. You don't want my advice and you have never taken it before, so I'll stop offering it. It's clearly a waste of your time and mine. I'll aim for "just the facts" with you, from now on. That is what you're telling me you want, so we'll see how that goes. I don't for a moment expect to see any change from you, because you seem to be rather firmly fixed (not to mention fixated).

(to be continued...)

 

[James R]

Write4U:
(continuing from above...)
Let's see, then. Is there anything in your recent reply that I want to respond to specifically? ...

When I quote from peer reviewed articles, I can assume that the content has been proven or it would not have passed peer review.

This is factually incorrect. Proving the content of scientific articles is not what the peer review process does, or what it is for. Peer review helps editors of academic publications to determine whether work is suitable for publication in the particular journal it is submitted to. Editors cannot be experts in everything - especially in highly technical scientific fields (or in other non-scientific academic specialities), so they consult other experts in the field for advice when a paper is submitted to them. Those other experts assess whether the submitted work is novel, whether it demonstrates a suitable level of expertise in the relevant subject matter, and whether it could be useful to and/or of interest to other researchers in the field.

There is no guarantee that any work published in a peer-reviewed journal is correct - especially the latest material published. That can often only be assessed by other suitably qualified experts. Sometimes - but certainly not always - errors are picked up by peer reviewers.

I find it strange that when I do run across a unique scientific term, I usually understand what is meant by it...

That could well be a delusion. What you're doing is guessing at what it means, and then assuming your guess is probably correct. A better approach would be ... but no, I'm not giving you advice any more.

Are you suggesting that I do not have the capacity to draw appropriate links between ideas?

I don't know your capacities. All I see is what you post here, which includes a lot of irrelevancies. The key word in "appropriate links" is "appropriate".

I have proven my capacity to find "common denominators" in many seemingly disparate subjects.

Inappropriate links. Irrelevant links. Tenuous links. Of course, you think it's your special ability to see the Big Picture, like nobody else can.

I have been chastized for posting tangentially related subjects.

I will not be commenting on that.

Have you actually ever tried to match the content of the quoted science with the OP subject?

Yes. Hence my criticisms of your ideas.

As proposal writer for 2 Indian tribes, this is the way I was able to obtain grants to the tune of several million dollars for a Salmon Hatchery and a Hotel/Casino complex as Proposal writer for 2 American Indian tribes.
I believe that I have proven that I can make cogent and valid arguments.

Good for you. May I ask: what part of obtaining those million dollar grants made you an expert in molecular biology?

How do you know they are not relevant when you don't read them?

I usually read the quotes you post. I tend to skim the obviously irrelevant stuff. I also skip the obvious definitional stuff that I'm already very familiar with - you know, the stuff where you try to educate me on what is an equation - that kind of thing. I seldom click through to the peer-reviewed articles on microtubules that you post, because I know you don't understand those, and I don't have the expertise to understand a lot of that content either (my specific expertise is not in molecular biology). The difference between you and me, in that regard, is that I am well aware of my limitations, whereas you imagine that cutting and pasting a random paragraph from the abstract means you understand the entire content of the article.

How do you know when you refuse to engage in a constructive exchange on the merits of the quoted materials?

I have not refused to engage in a constructive exchange on the merits of quoted materials. Depending on the materials in question, I might not be equipped to engage in a useful exchange about them. But, then again, I'd wager than in most cases when it comes to scientific materials, I'd be better placed than you to assess their merits (and that's not saying much).
[quoteYou'll never find out unless you ask for clarification instead of slinging a constant barrage of ad hominem.[/quote]
Asking you for clarification usually results in no reply from you, or else a barrage of irrelevant definitions or off-topic cut-and-pastes about something unrelated. Which isn't to say you don't get asked.

Why don't you test my understanding?

Don't you see that your readers are constantly testing your understanding, Write4U? The reason it is clear to so many people that you don't understand things is because of what you write in response to questions - or more generally about the topics you like to discuss. To be clear: I'm not saying you don't understand anything. Don't get me wrong.

Not the mathematical equations, the common denominators contained in the equation and how that may relate to the subject under discussion.

See, this makes no sense, Write4U. How could you possibly know what "common denominators" are contained in an equation if you don't understand the equation - or don't even look at it? For you, it seems like the equations of physics, say, are sort of amorphous things in the melting pot that's your brain, free to be linked however and whenever you like to just about anything else that takes your fancy. And this is equations you're talking about. It's even worse when you start talking about a concept, such as "consciousness" or "religion". You can find endless "common denominators" in those, I'm sure. It's all about the vibe, man!

No they haven't in the context of your use of the term "schooling" (look it up in the dictionary).

Are you going to tell me that I don't know what a school is next, Write4U? That I need to look it up in a dictionary? And the verb "to school" is unrelated to that, so I don't know what it means, either? Really, Write4U?

This forum is far from being a school.

That's really a question of attitude. I mean, you can fill some buildings with teachers, but if a kid doesn't want to learn, the learning won't happen.

Consulting a dictionary is not allowed? What are you talking about????

See? That's the problem, Write4U. Fundamentally, you didn't understand what that whole post of mine was about. Your line-by-line reply focuses on the individual words and sentences, but doesn't consider the meaning of the whole. Suddenly, the man whose superpower is finding common denominators is at a loss to understand what James R might be trying to tell him. He can't see the big picture. Funny, that.

Where did I use those terms incorrectly in context, without any supporting material.

It's utterly pointless to rehash that, Write4U. You took nothing away from the initial conversation. Why would this time be any different? Your "supporting material" does not, in fact, support your usage of those words. Hence, it is not actually supporting material for you. We already discussed this, in detail. But nothing went in.

I like Tegmark's interpretation of a mathematical universe and his take on emergent consciousness. I also like Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff and their hypothesis of ORCH OR, which both have suggested mathematical patterns, potentials, and emergent properties that are greater than the properties of the individual parts.

Your liking it is neither here nor there. What I'm interested in is whether any of it is correct.

Oh, and there's another example: you still don't know what "potential" means, in a mathematical physics context, do you (i.e. as in "mathematical potentials")? Please don't bother quoting your dictionary at me. I know what it means. But your not knowing doesn't stop you banging on about it.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

Could it be that it is you who does not always understand me and what you are missing is contained in the supporting quoted material?

No, I don't think so. I understand you just fine.

Like I said, I don't always understand the entire content of your "supporting quoted material", especially when it consists of peer-reviewed academic articles in specialist areas of science in which I lack expertise. But then again, neither do you.

So, I don't think I'm missing anything much, in terms of sciency stuff that you could speak knowledgeably about.

You might perhaps like to consider, also, that your obsessions are not my obsessions. You are fascinated by microtubules, apparently. I am not. In fact, I could say the same about much of microbiology. It's not that the subject isn't important or anything like that. It's just not my special thing.

If, in fact, I felt motivated to do some in-depth learning about microtubules, I would not approach you to ask you to introduce me to the details of that subject. I think I'd be much better off reading some biology textbooks, for starters, because I'd have a lot of work to do to get myself up to speed in preparation for delving into the minutiae of subcellular biochemistry. I am almost certain that you haven't done the necessary hard yards on Biology 101, let alone graduate study in microbiology or biochemistry. So, you would make a lousy teacher, for that.

I get the distinct impression that you think you're appropriately qualified when it comes to the science of microtubules. Qualified to understand what those peer reviewed papers you quote are actually about - and I don't mean the abstracts, I mean the content.

It is becoming clear that sometimes you do not understand me. Do you play chess? If not, that would explain it.

This must be one of those times that I don't understand you. Chess? Is that one of your common denominators?

You're going off the deep end now. Something HAS to be my idea to be valid?

Is that what you think I meant, there? Really? Look for the common denominators in what I've told you, Write4U.

Where have I claimed authorship and exclusive rights to any of my ideas.

??

I look for common denominators, that may eventually lead to a "pattern" that can be mathematically quantified.

You think? Okay. How's your maths, Write4U? How far have you got in your efforts to mathematically quantify the patterns you have identified so far? Can I see some of the maths you've done so far on that? Or is that a project you're planning on starting at some unspecified future date?

No, no, that "drilling" does not consist of asking honest questions.

Now you're accusing me of not asking you honest questions? Examples? Or it is other people here who haven't been honest with you? May I ask who?

As retired payroll/bookkeeper of a multimillion not-for-profit I have plenty experience with equations. Double-entry bookkeeping is equation based.

It's not quite the same as quantum physics, though, is it?

Do you think you're in a good position to evaluate Tegmark's mathematics (if he has any)?

yes indeed. It is a compound word that expresses the exact sum of the 2 parts. If you know what "quasi" means, and you know what the word "intelligent" means, then join them to the form;
"quasi- a combining form meaning “resembling,” “having some, but not all of the features of,” used in the formation of compound words: quasi-definition; quasi-monopoly; quasi-official; quasi-scientific."
and
in·tel·li·gent
adjective
having or showing intelligence, especially of a high level.
"Annabelle is intelligent and hardworking"
Similar: clever, smart, intuitive, thinking, acute, insightful, perceptive, discerning, ingenious,
knowledgeable, apt, able, gifted, talented, brainy, genius, rational, capable of thought, higher-order.
Similar: robotic. automatic, self-regulating, capable of learning, smart
(of a device, machine, or building) able to vary its state or action in response to varying situations, varying requirements, and past experience.
inventive,
the term "quasi" is designed to augment another term such as "intelligent" and thus exactly describing the sum of the meaning from combining 2 words, to form a logical baseline for understanding the "meaning" of the self-referencing equation.

Let me check my understanding here. You're telling me that when you use the term "quasi-intelligent", you're actually referring to a logical baseline for understanding the meaning of a self-referencing equation. Is that correct?

that is just not true.

Tell me why you think scientific terms are defined in precise ways, then. Tell me why I'm wrong.
---

I think that's enough for now. Probably too much, actually.

 

[Write4U]

Or maybe it's just that the people here get too hung up on irrelevant technicalities and are kind of small minded and unwilling to see the big picture like you do?

Now that you mention it, yes. You placed this thread in pseudo-science, which I accepted in view of my limited formal training.

And that gave everyone license to pile on about my moronic incompetence. Yet when engaged, as you do, I have not ever heard you say I am actually wrong in my perspectives, but I am wrong in presenting it.

I am not going to spend the rest of my life in investigating the definitions of some 1500 specially invented scientific expressions designed to address a very narrow scientific meaning.

The terms I use when using "my own words" are easily understandable and applicable to the conversational style I use to present a proposal made by other scientists that struck me as worthy of investigation. The formal jargon is contained in the quoted passages, IMO, a perfectly normal way of presenting an idea or argument along with peer-reviewed scientific evidence.

To insist on scientific accuracy is prejudicial against the interested layman and does not present a friendly environment for encouragement. If you want only scientists to visit this forum, set accreditation as a minimum standard.

I quit the Physics Forum, because they insist on "accreditation", just as I quit trying to join a religious site because they set "belief in God" as a minimum standard of being allowed to join and post. Prejudicial?

The impression I get is that atheists can never be allowed to post in a thread about religion. Those threads are exclusive to "believers". Is that the case here?

 

[Write4U]

You seem to be saying that you would like to see more "tolerance" for the idea of "an abstractly mathematically ordered universe" on sciforums.

Yes, more "acceptance" of the proposition.
Why do we have extensive debates on the merits of abstract religions, but a discussion on the concept and merits of an abstract mathematical universe is "out of the question"?
Tegmark is just a commercial scientist, not worthy of notice, but some TV evangelist flying a million dollar jet-plane is representative of religious veracity and proof of the existence of God?

 

[Write4U]

Don't you see that your readers are constantly testing your understanding, Write4U?

No, they do not. They are testing my scientific vocabulary....difference.

 

[James R]

Now that you mention it, yes. You placed this thread in pseudo-science, which I accepted in view of my limited formal training.

You've lost track of which thread you're posting in. This one, right now, is in the Comparative Religion subforum.

I put your microtubule stuff about consciousness into the pseudoscience forum because your views on that don't seem to have much to do with any science. There are only your mystical "common denominators" to tenuously link your firmly-held beliefs about microtubules to actual science. Your core assertions are not supported by suitable evidence. Some are not supported by any evidence at all.

Yet when engaged, as you do, I have not ever heard you say I am actually wrong in my perspectives, but I am wrong in presenting it.

On the contrary, I have given you essentially free reign to present to your little heart's content about your microtubules and Tegmarkian faith.

To insist on scientific accuracy is prejudicial against the interested layman and does not present a friendly environment for encouragement.

When you make claims about scientific things, people are inevitably going to assess your level of scientific accuracy. They are going to care about whether you can or can't support your claims with suitable evidence. There's no point in getting all huffy when people ask you basic questions about how you established the truth of what you believe.

If you want only scientists to visit this forum, set accreditation as a minimum standard.

Seriously? We have not just one forum, but a whole section of subforums titled "On the Fringe". Haven't you noticed?

And believe me, I'm all for interested people - whatever their qualifications - coming here and talking about science. I'm always happy to try to help with questions, if I can. I'm also happy to learn new things myself from other people.

I quit the Physics Forum, because they insist on "accreditation"...

Which physics forum? Is there an online physics forum that only admits accredited physicists? Why would you want to post on such a forum? I mean, they are free to set their rules, aren't they? You could start also your own forum and run it however you wanted to.

Do you generally complain when organisations won't admit you because you don't meet their membership requirements? Upset that they won't let you join the Society of Jesuit Ministers, because they say you don't qualify? What about the expectant mothers' club? Do you feel unjustly excluded from that, too?

... just as I quit trying to join a religious site because they set "belief in God" as a minimum standard of being allowed to join and post. Prejudicial?

The word you're looking for is "selective". No organisation is obliged to have a "welcome all comers" rule.

The impression I get is that atheists can never be allowed to post in a thread about religion. Those threads are exclusive to "believers". Is that the case here?

Have you read any of our threads in the Religion forum? What do you think the answer might be?

 

[James R]

Yes, more "acceptance" of the proposition.

Acceptance is not the same as tolerance.

The way to get acceptance for your religion, Write4U, is to persuade people that it is true. There are many possible ways you could go about doing that. Simply demanding that people accept it is unlikely to produce the result you desire.

Why do we have extensive debates on the merits of abstract religions...

I don't think we do. Not very often, anyway. Mostly, when we're talking religion here, we tend to be talking about one or more of the mainstream ones - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism - those kinds of things. More abstractly, we often talk about theism in general, and atheism. And in this thread, right here, we were talking about agnosticism, until you stuck your nose in and tried to hijack it to talk about Tegmarkism and microtubules again, not to mention your own personal religious views.

, but a discussion on the concept and merits of an abstract mathematical universe is "out of the question"?

We had that discussion. Don't you remember?

Tegmark is just a commercial scientist, not worthy of notice...

I don't think anybody actually said that. But tell me: why do you think Tegmark is especially worthy of attention? There are a lot of physicists around, you know.

..., but some TV evangelist flying a million dollar jet-plane is representative of religious veracity and proof of the existence of God?

I'm sure nobody here said anything like that.

 

[Pinball1970]

No, they do not. They are testing my scientific vocabulary....difference.

That is wrong. I realized very quickly you had “profound misconceptions” about mathematics and physics and I pointed them out, it is NOT just the words or equations you do not understand.

I tried to explain why physics is not mathematics.

I am still doing that in places,

I tried to explain the difference between QT and the interpretation of QM.

Currently I am trying to explain what homeostasis is and why your repeated use of the term is irrelevant to your posts.

You have told me you have never covered any units in biochemistry, cell biology, nerve and endocrine physiology, you said you leave that to researchers. Researchers do not study UG level courses in those areas, students do.

You need those basic units to be able to understand how the brain works, cells, tissues, organs and organisms.

Consciousness is difficult concept, not something I had given an awful of thought to until I read “Life Ascending.”

Jury is out for me but I do know there is a lot woo out there too.

This is thread is not about religion it is about how our belief and knowledge wrt religion sit, and what labels we use and why.

It certainly is not about mathematical universe Tegmark or MT which I also pointed out to you.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

In one of your many threads about Tegmark and his MUP (mathematical universe hypothesis), I linked the following articles:

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6551&cpage=2

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

There are substantive objections to Tegmark's hypothesis here. Bear in mind, by the way, that the fact that I previously mentioned these makes a lie of your claim that I only ever make ad hominem attacks on you and never provide specific scientific objections to what you post.

How do you respond to the objections raised? You ignored these, last time.

For the historical context of our previous discussion about this, see the following thread. The link is to where I first pointed you to these review articles, back in December 2020:

https://www.sciforums.com/threads/t...ematical-construct.163837/page-2#post-3657387

 

[Halc]

I am pretty much reacting to the topic title and not so much with the debate with Write4U

On the mathematical universe thing, I think you'll probably find that many people on this forum will accept that the universe shows signs of "mathematical order". If it did not, we'd have a lot of trouble explaining why mathematical models of the universe work so darn well.

The MUH goes further than that since it posits that mathematics is more proscriptive, not just descriptive, the territory and not just the map. I am sort of a proponent of the idea, but not particularly of how Tegmark spins it.

I don't know why you add the word "abstract". All mathematics is abstract, isn't it?

Not with the MUH, no. There is no requirement of anything abstracting the mathematics necessary for the universe to be, which would indeed make it a religion since the abstractor would serve the role of the god.

 

[James R]

Halc:

The MUH goes further than that since it posits that mathematics is more proscriptive, not just descriptive, the territory and not just the map. I am sort of a proponent of the idea, but not particularly of how Tegmark spins it.

There's been a lot of previous discussion about Tegmark's MUH on this forum, although Write4U appears to have forgotten most of it.

I am well aware that Tegmark's main claim in his MUH is not that the universe is mathematical, but that the universe is mathematics. That is, he claims that, somehow, "mathematical structures" are what the physical universe is made of.

Personally, I think this is a basic category error - confusing the map with the territory. Your post indicates that you recognise this, and yet you also call yourself a "sort of proponent of the idea"? What do you mean by that? Do you believe that universe is made of maths?

As for Write4U, he started off in lockstep with Tegmark on that, but appears to have backed off from that position over the last two years. Of course, by now he might have forgotten why he backed away from it; it wouldn't surprise me at all if he now wants to reassert that the universe really is just mathematics, again.

Not with the MUH, no.

That's the major problem with the MUH, right there. The question Tegmark needs to answer is how an abstract set of principles or theorems possibly create any sort of physical object. Or, more accurately, how could the substance of any physical object possibly be made of something that is fundamentally a set of ideas or concepts?

There is no requirement of anything abstracting the mathematics necessary for the universe to be, which would indeed make it a religion since the abstractor would serve the role of the god.

I think that a lot of people who wouldn't describe themselves as religious still like to think that there must be some "ultimate foundation" for the universe. Some of those people want to shoe in some sort of Creator being. When they do that, they almost invariably import ideas from mainstream religions, one way or another. The fact that they are doing that, subconsciously or otherwise, becomes more explicit if they go on to things like "God is the ultimate foundation of the universe".

If there is, in fact, an ultimate foundation for the universe, "God" would be a terrible name for it, especially if it's something like a multiversal law of physics, or - as Tegmark would have it - "mathematical structures". Using the term "God" immediately confuses the issue by applying a label with endless historical connotations to something that the believers say has no such connotations (although, it's often difficult to be really sure if they are being honest about what they actually believe).

I would describe Tegmark's view as more of a pseudoscientific one than a religious one. It is notable that the beliefs of Tegmarkian followers like Write4U are more like a religion, because those followers have themselves a Prophet of the faith, whose proclamations they accept essentially without question, as if they are the Word of God.

 

[Halc]

Personally, I think this is a basic category error - confusing the map with the territory

Your suggestion of it confusing the map with the territory presumes a different model. Take the hypothesis on its own assumptions without adding your own.

Your post indicates that you recognise this

I say that the MUH suggests that the map is the territory. It does not commit the confusion you indicate.

What do you mean by that? Do you believe that universe is made of maths?

Belief is a strong word. If there's anything I believe, it is that I am far too ill informed to stand much of a chance of actually guessing about the actual nature of things, and that is assuming that there is an answer, however unknowable.

Yes, the hypothesis makes sense to me, but also has problems. I've not seen most of the other threads so I don't know if they're brought up. The hypothesis says that the universe is a single mathematical structure, which is different than saying the universe is made of maths, which make it sound like it is composed of a bunch of things, each of which is maths. Tegmark goes further and asserts the reality of such structures (all of them, not just ours). He is a strong proponent of MWI which makes a similar realist claim. I have issues with realism and find it the source of far more problems than it seems to solve.
Tegmark is also a dualist of sorts, even if he might not admit it, but his quantum suicide proposal relies on an identity independent of any physical state. I think his book would have been taken more seriously had he left that part out.

As for Write4U, he started off in lockstep with Tegmark on that, but appears to have backed off from that position over the last two years.

Well I've also been all over the map, abandoning positions that I felt have failed to hold up to scrutiny. It's fine to change opinions if the change is for the right reasons. But no, I cannot seem to glean what Write4U actually believes.

The question Tegmark needs to answer is how an abstract set of principles or theorems possibly create any sort of physical object.

I don't think Tegmark posits that the universe is an abstraction. An abstraction (to me) is a product of something doing the abstracting, like a simulation or mind or something. A simulation is not a mathematical object, it is simply a machine. Such a proposal breaks down into idealism of sorts. I don't think mind is fundamental. Quite the opposite, not that it is absurd, but that if true, nothing can be learned, rendering it empty. Epiphenomenalism is similarly empty, rendering itself false merely by suggesting the truth of it.

Or, more accurately, how could the substance of any physical object possibly be made of something that is fundamentally a set of ideas or concepts?

I think you confuse MUH with idealism, which suggests pretty much that. There is no fundamental thing with ideas or concepts in the MUH.

 

[exchemist]

Write4U:

In one of your many threads about Tegmark and his MUP (mathematical universe hypothesis), I linked the following articles:

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6551&cpage=2

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

There are substantive objections to Tegmark's hypothesis here. Bear in mind, by the way, that the fact that I previously mentioned these makes a lie of your claim that I only ever make ad hominem attacks on you and never provide specific scientific objections to what you post.

How do you respond to the objections raised? You ignored these, last time.

For the historical context of our previous discussion about this, see the following thread. The link is to where I first pointed you to these review articles, back in December 2020:

https://www.sciforums.com/threads/t...ematical-construct.163837/page-2#post-3657387

I too have quoted Peter Woit's criticism of Shapiro/Tegmark in past discussion about the MUH (as in meh?).

I find Woit and Massimo Pigliucci provide useful critiques of some classes of metaphysical extrapolation.

 

[exchemist]

Your suggestion of it confusing the map with the territory presumes a different model. Take the hypothesis on its own assumptions without adding your own.

I say that the MUH suggests that the map is the territory. It does not commit the confusion you indicate.

Belief is a strong word. If there's anything I believe, it is that I am far too ill informed to stand much of a chance of actually guessing about the actual nature of things, and that is assuming that there is an answer, however unknowable.

Yes, the hypothesis makes sense to me, but also has problems. I've not seen most of the other threads so I don't know if they're brought up. The hypothesis says that the universe is a single mathematical structure, which is different than saying the universe is made of maths, which make it sound like it is composed of a bunch of things, each of which is maths. Tegmark goes further and asserts the reality of such structures (all of them, not just ours). He is a strong proponent of MWI which makes a similar realist claim. I have issues with realism and find it the source of far more problems than it seems to solve.
Tegmark is also a dualist of sorts, even if he might not admit it, but his quantum suicide proposal relies on an identity independent of any physical state. I think his book would have been taken more seriously had he left that part out.

Well I've also been all over the map, abandoning positions that I felt have failed to hold up to scrutiny. It's fine to change opinions if the change is for the right reasons. But no, I cannot seem to glean what Write4U actually believes.

I don't think Tegmark posits that the universe is an abstraction. An abstraction (to me) is a product of something doing the abstracting, like a simulation or mind or something. A simulation is not a mathematical object, it is simply a machine. Such a proposal breaks down into idealism of sorts. I don't think mind is fundamental. Quite the opposite, not that it is absurd, but that if true, nothing can be learned, rendering it empty. Epiphenomenalism is similarly empty, rendering itself false merely by suggesting the truth of it.

I think you confuse MUH with idealism, which suggests pretty much that. There is no fundamental thing with ideas or concepts in the MUH.

One problem I have with the idea of the MUH is that one can only apply mathematics to physical concepts that one has first defined in words. There must, it seems to me, be physical entities, with physical properties, which stand outside the mathematics and to which a mathematical framework can be applied.

 

[Pinball1970]

What makes you think I don't understand what I post? I only post what I understand.
Why would I post what I don't understand?

Space time is a mathematical model, you told me you don’t understand the maths.