We need more discussion of Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis

[Halc]

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.

But the MUH is not about concepts, and thus there is no such restriction. This seems to be a straw man objection.

You seem to want to require something more fundamental, more 'physical', from which the mathematical relations can emerge, but that begs a form of physicalism, not the MUH at all.

The objects I've heard that seem to have teeth seem to require a decent backing in probabilities and a good understanding of things like Boltzmann brains. The general argument notices that the vast majority of mathematical objects are junk, random and uninteresting. Any hypothesis that makes it more probable that we are one of those pieces of junk cannot be taken seriously since there can be zero empirical evidence of anything. That's a hard criticism, and one for which I have no easy answer.

As for Tegmark's position, it is one of several proposals of mathematical Platonism, and it is that very Platonism to which I object. My version of MUH is not one of platonism, but more of a relational view, and it is not presented at a level of an assertion, merely something that seems more plausible to me than any alternative I've found.

 

[exchemist]

But the MUH is not about concepts, and thus there is no such restriction. This seems to be a straw man objection.

You seem to want to require something more fundamental, more 'physical', from which the mathematical relations can emerge, but that begs a form of physicalism, not the MUH at all.

The objects I've heard that seem to have teeth seem to require a decent backing in probabilities and a good understanding of things like Boltzmann brains. The general argument notices that the vast majority of mathematical objects are junk, random and uninteresting. Any hypothesis that makes it more probable that we are one of those pieces of junk cannot be taken seriously since there can be zero empirical evidence of anything. That's a hard criticism, and one for which I have no easy answer.

As for Tegmark's position, it is one of several proposals of mathematical Platonism, and it is that very Platonism to which I object. My version of MUH is not one of platonism, but more of a relational view, and it is not presented at a level of an assertion, merely something that seems more plausible to me than any alternative I've found.

Yes, that's fair comment. I do think mathematics is abstract and thus, at its root, not physical. I cannot see how mathematics alone can generate a world of physical experience.
Mathematics, surely, is about relationships between quantities. Those quantities we associate with physical concepts (physical entities and their attributes) need to be defined before we can know what mathematical relations apply to them.

 

[Write4U]

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).

I interpret Tegmark's Mathematical Universe as a mathematical object which is filled with mathematically measurable "values".
It is the values that can be represented symbolically with numbers and equations.

 

[Write4U]

Those quantities we associate with physical concepts (physical entities and their attributes) need to be defined before we can know what mathematical relations apply to them.

Yes, I am glad you acknowledge that the relationships between the "values" of the universe's physical attributes are mathematical in nature.
Does that not fundamentally confirm Tegmark's use of the term "mathematical universe"..?

 

[exchemist]

Yes, I am glad you acknowledge that the relationships between the "values" of the universe's physical attributes are mathematical in nature.
Does that not fundamentally confirm Tegmark's use of the term "mathematical universe"..?

No.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U said: ↑
Yes, I am glad you acknowledge that the relationships between the "values" of the universe's physical attributes are mathematical in nature.
Does that not fundamentally confirm Tegmark's use of the term "mathematical universe"..?

No.

Do you mean that there are no mathematical relationships between universal values?

 

[Sarkus]

Yes, I am glad you acknowledge that the relationships between the "values" of the universe's physical attributes are mathematical in nature.
Does that not fundamentally confirm Tegmark's use of the term "mathematical universe"..?

Do you actually understand what Tegmark is asserting with his MUH, and what he means by a "mathematical universe"? Would you like to summarise your understanding, at least, so that we can at least be sure that when you throw his name around we can be confident that you do so correctly? Because unfortunately we lack that confidence at that moment.

 

[Pinball1970]

Do you mean that there are no mathematical relationships between universal values?

You are clear on the mathematics?

 

[Write4U]

You are clear on the mathematics?

Well, I am a retired bookkeeper of 7 subsidiary non-profits, all contained in a single economic package, so I do have some experience with mathematics and the concepts of balance and symmetry.

 

[exchemist]

Do you actually understand what Tegmark is asserting with his MUH, and what he means by a "mathematical universe"? Would you like to summarise your understanding, at least, so that we can at least be sure that when you throw his name around we can be confident that you do so correctly? Because unfortunately we lack that confidence at that moment.

My problem with the idea is rather along the same lines as Pigliucci's difficulty with it: https://archive.ieet.org/articles/pigliucci20131212.html

QUOTE

One obvious problem is posed by what it would mean for the world to be “made of” mathematical structures. The notion of mathematical structure is well developed, so that’s not the issue. A structure, strictly speaking, is a property or a group of mathematical objects that attach themselves to a given set. For instance, the set of real numbers has a number of structures, including an order (with any given number being either less or more than another number), a metric (measuring the distance between points in the set), an algebraic structure (the operations of addition and multiplication), and so on.

The problem is in what sense, if any, can a mathematical structure, so defined, actually be the fundamental constituent of the physical world, i.e. being the substance of which chairs, electrons, and so on, are made.

Of course, both Julia and I asked Max that very question, and we were both very unconvinced by his answer. When Tegmark said that fundamental particles, like electrons, are, ultimately mathematical in nature, Julia suggested that perhaps what he meant was that their properties are described by mathematical quantities. But Max was adamant, mentioning, for instance, the spin (which in the case of the electron has magnitude 1/2). Now, the spin of a particle, although normally described as its angular momentum, is an exquisitely quantum mechanical property (i.e., with no counterpart in classical mechanics), and it is highly misleading to think of it as anything like the angular momentum of a macroscopic object. Nevertheless, Julia and I insisted, it is a physical property described by a mathematical quantity, the latter is not the same as the former.

Could it be that theories like MUH are actually based on a category mistake? Obviously, I’m not suggesting that people like Tegmark make the elementary mistake of confusing the normal meaning of words like “objects” and “properties,” or of “physical” and “mathematical.” But perhaps they are making precisely that mistake in a metaphysical sense?

UNQUOTE

(I don't know who Julia is, by the way.)

 

[Write4U]

Do you actually understand what Tegmark is asserting with his MUH, and what he means by a "mathematical universe"? Would you like to summarise your understanding, at least, so that we can at least be sure that when you throw his name around we can be confident that you do so correctly? Because unfortunately we lack that confidence at that moment.

Yes and that is only a result of rumor.

Yes, I watched Tegmark's lectures. I got my knowledge directly from the "horse's mouth". Have you?
Let's start with Tegmark's hypothesis:
Starting from 19:00

Now, I don't like Tegmarks use of the human terms "numbers" .
I believe a more objective approach is the use of the term "values" and "patterns".. That makes a clear distinction between the concept of interactions between human symbolic numbers and naturally occurring generic relational "values" and self-organizing "patterns".

Of course, none of this makes any difference in the concept of the universe as a mathematically guided physically functioning object. I believe that most of the science acknowledges some mathematical properties to universal phenomena.
Tegmark just took it a step further.

 

[Sarkus]

Well, I am a retired bookkeeper of 7 subsidiary non-profits, all contained in a single economic package, so I do have some experience with mathematics and the concepts of balance and symmetry.

Oh, please! That means you can probably add, subtract, divide, and multiply. That, coupled with a bit of double-entry bookkeeping, and possibly understanding some of the financial regulations, and that's all that's required for that. Tegmark is more than just "balance and symmetry".

Yes and that is only a result of rumor.

No, unfortunately it's the result of what you yourself post. Your follow up question to exchemist, for example, suggests that you do not understand the rather significant position he ultimately argues for with his MUH.

Yes, I watched Tegmark's lectures. I got my knowledge directly from the "horse's mouth". Have you?

Do you know the difference between "listening to" and "understanding"? Let's just say that I listened to many lectures when I was studying. Took far more than that to finally understand what they were saying.
So let's be clear: you simply posting a video where he gives his arguments doesn't mean you understand it. You can demonstrate your understanding by, as requested, summarising what you think his argument to be. At a high level, of course. If you would be so good? And no, reposting that video, or any where someone else explains it, will not suffice in showing that you understand it. Because, at the moment, I'm not sure many think you actually do.

Tegmark just took it a step further.

So, what do you think Tegmark's arguments are? What ultimate position is he arguing for?

 

[Write4U]

From https://archive.ieet.org/articles/pigliucci20131212.html

The problem is in what sense, if any, can a mathematical structure, so defined, actually be the fundamental constituent of the physical world, i.e. being the substance of which chairs, electrons, and so on, are made.

Because these objects are already values organized in patterns of various shapes and densities.

Can we ask if sub-atomic values should be considered physical or mathematical objects?
What is a quantum, a dynamic "particle", or just a "unit of value" like a wave?
If many abstract phenomena are emergent properties of dynamically forming complex patterns, why can this not be the same for an emergent mathematical relationship between different generic "quantum values",
(differential equations)?

 

[Write4U]

Oh, please! That means you can probably add, subtract, divide, and multiply

Sure, accounting for the federal and state requirements of "everything" is merely adding and stuff like that.

Ever done the quarterly taxes for a non-for-profit consisting of 40 employees in 7 government-funded non-profit economic development programs with 7 separate bank accounts, plus the company's own all-inclusive corporate bank account? A somewhat more complicated system than going shopping, I can assure you.
The object of that was to maintain an accounting record of all activities that involved issues of "financial value".

But of course, science is very much based on the measurement of, and accounting for values, and the equation between plusses and minuses.

Likewise, in a double-entry bookkeeping system, a perfect zero balance must be maintained at all times.
Very reliable, every entry in a credit column triggers a demand for entry in the opposite debit column, lest the equation becomes unbalanced and triggers "corrective action", a dynamic process. And that is one of the emergent results (properties) of mathematical expression.

 

[Sarkus]

Ever done the quarterly taxes for a non-for-profit consisting of 40 employees in 7 government-funded non-profit economic development programs with 7 separate bank accounts, plus the company's own all-inclusive corporate bank account? A somewhat more complicated system than going shopping, I can assure you.

And ultimately irrelevant, I'm afraid, beyond being able to perform the basic mathematical operations. Seriously, trying to boast about how numerical and "complex" your job used to be, in a forum where you don't really know what anyone else does/did for a living, is... odd. Or let me put it another way: what you're talking about... not that impressive. Even from an accounting standpoint. Not that any of it is exactly relevant here.

 

[Write4U]

And ultimately irrelevant, I'm afraid, beyond being able to perform the basic mathematical operations. Seriously, trying to boast about how numerical and "complex" your job used to be, in a forum where you don't really know what anyone else does/did for a living, is... odd. Or let me put it another way: what you're talking about... not that impressive. Even from an accounting standpoint. Not that any of it is exactly relevant here.

It is not the work, but the responsibility for accuracy that counts. Very much what scientist do.

I find it amusing that you poo poo accounting (working with mathematics), when you as a scientist work with mathematics doing exactly the same thing, but with different inputs and outputs of values.

Where in hell have I boasted about anything? You all are so fond of slinging ad hominem, you cannot even have a normal discussion on any subject without denegrading the poster's intellectual competence.

You don't even realize that when you judge me, you are boasting that you have that authority.
The hypocrisy is astounding.

 

[Sarkus]

It is not the work, but the responsibility for accuracy that counts. Very much what scientist do.

Please. Just stop. Seriously. You're trying to promote what you did as a job as something that it isn't. It is no more reliant on accuracy than a bricklayer needing to ensure the wall is straight. You're boasting when really you have no grounds to. Pretty much every job requires accuracy to some degree or other. Be that data inputters, bakers, painters, bricklayers, etc.

I find it amusing that you poo poo accounting (working with mathematics), when you as a scientist work with mathematics doing exactly the same thing, but with different inputs and outputs of values.

What is it with you picking out of thin air what you think people do and are? You've previously claimed that I believe in God, seemingly because I had issue with one (or more) of your may statements. Now you think I must be a scientist because... why, exactly?? Stop appealing to things you don't know about, Write4U.

Where in hell have I boasted about anything?

"Well, I am a retired bookkeeper of 7 subsidiary non-profits, all contained in a single economic package, so I do have some experience with mathematics and the concepts of balance and symmetry." - post #77.
That is boasting. It is misplaced, but it is boasting nonetheless.

You all are so fond of slinging ad hominem, you cannot even have a normal discussion on any subject without denegrading the poster's intellectual competence.

The issue here, Write4U, is that you're wanting to have the discussion in the wrong place. You derail threads as a result. That speaks to you, your personality, which legitimately opens up you as a person as to why you do it, so that we can help you not do it. Note that noone is countering your arguments by arguing against the person. Saying that something is irrelevant is merely opining as to the logical fallacy of your argument. That is not an ad hominem. But there does get to a point when one has to appeal to you directly to stop you derailing threads, to stop you from posting irrelevancies. The dissapointment for everyone else, however, is that you clearly don't seem to learn.

You don't even realize that when you judge me, you are boasting that you have that authority.
The hypocrisy is astounding.

Sure, I have the authority to identify boasting when I see it. We all do. It is nothing special. And you were boasting. Deal with it. Here's a tip: noone gives a shit about what you did for a living, unless you are claiming yourself to be an expert in the field. If we were having a conversation about GAAP, or tax accounting, then your opinions on such matters might have weight if you have experience in that area. But claiming a link to Tegmark's work due to being able to, in essence, add up? Because accounting is about balancing things? Please. Be serious.

 

[Write4U]

Please. Just stop. Seriously. You're trying to promote what you did as a job as something that it isn't.

And your job does not involve numbers and values and functions? Science is a mathematical discipline.

I don't claim any superior intellect, that is your projection. I claim that I can count and use mathematical formula (algebra).
Note that I never accuse someone else of being stupid or a moron. I don't feel I have that superiority. You do.

 

[Write4U]

And you were boasting. Deal with it. Here's a tip: noone gives a shit about what you did for a living, unless you are claiming yourself to be an expert in the field. If we were having a conversation about GAAP, or tax accounting, then your opinions on such matters might have weight if you have experience in that area. But claiming a link to Tegmark's work due to being able to, in essence, add up? Because accounting is about balancing things? Please. Be serious.

No, you baited me and I responded to your derogatory statements about my intellectual capacity.
I won't fall into that trap again.

 

[Pinball1970]

So three threads? This on mathematics to

At a high level, of course. If you would be so good? And no, reposting that video, or any where someone else explains it, will not suffice in showing that you understand it.

I watched the video and wondered what the hell it was!
Probably because he did not really mention mathematics till 25 minutes into a 45 minute video.
We got a brief summary of where we are in current cosmology including sped up video of a radio telescope for the first 25 minutes.
The last ten minutes was a discussion of the future, what we may make of it.
All good stuff BUT what did he actually say about the universe and mathematics? What was his overall thesis? The Universe IS mathematics....Is that it?
Right, how does that work? What does that mean?
We can always buy his book of course (available at most reputable bookstores...)