What is it about woo that upsets you?

[Write4U]

I can't put my finger on it, but is there's a whiff of anthropomorphizing going on with Tegmark's idea.
Something like... Some people see ''intelligent design,'' Tegmark leaves out the god and replaces it with ''anthropomorphic intelligent design''. Am I making sense??

No.
That is one of the problems with proposing a fundamental universal potential. It immediately triggers the notion of antropomorphisation. Replacing one god with another. Except mathematics is not a god. It is a natural process and it is not intelligent. That is the power of mathematics. They can appear as an intelligence, but at best it is only a quasi-intelligent process. An unconscious self-ordering pattern forming potential.

Intelligence assumes motivation. Mathematics are not motivated. Order is not intelligent, its mathematical.
I am willing to bet Tegmark is an atheist. However, MUH does posit a TOE.

 

[DaveC426913]

So, do you have an answer? Can you show an example where thinking of some aspect of the universe as being inherently mathematical in nature grants us something new about it that is not granted to us by treating our math as a model of it?

 

[wegs]

Personally, I find that no more useful than saying "God did it". We already know the universe has order that can be described in mathematical terms. We also have to keep refining our math in order to better describe our observations of how the world works. Newton did a fine job describing gravity. Einstein did him one better. And one day, someone else will probably do even better. But saying the universe is "made of math" adds nothing to our understanding.

Don't know that it falls into the woo category... Just into the "not helpful" column.

If nothing else, it potentially shows that math is not just something that exists in our minds, but that it just is. That it naturally exists, and it's not a mere invention of humankind to describe nature. Tegmark is pretty deep, and here I always thought math was dry.

 

[billvon]

But I do agree with Tegmark that all physical things in the universe are mathematical patterns and Renate Loll goes more fundamental and proposes that spacetime itself unfolds in a fractal mathematical manner (causal dynamical triangulation).

OK. You just described that without any actual math at all, but with English words. Great. Does that mean the Universe is based on English?

 

[Write4U]

Personally, I find that no more useful than saying "God did it". We already know the universe has order that can be described in mathematical terms. We also have to keep refining our math in order to better describe our observations of how the world works. Newton did a fine job describing gravity. Einstein did him one better. And one day, someone else will probably do even better. But saying the universe is "made of math" adds nothing to our understanding.

Don't know that it falls into the woo category... Just into the "not helpful" column.

Why does everyone ignore what the comologists say? They are the actual scientists dealing with the mathematics of the universe.

And almost all describe the feeling of "discovering" the natural mathematics which were already present before they were discovered.

 

[Write4U]

OK. You just described that without any actual math at all, but with English words. Great. Does that mean the Universe is based on English?

No one claims a linguistic universe.
However, a mathematical universe does mean that English words can be translated mathematically. Everything can be described mathematically. That is the beauty of a mathematical universe.
One language (mathematics) covers all possible modes of expression in physical reality.

Morse code is mathematical tool for communicating English and all other languages. (...---... = SOS)
You can translate Shakespeare with the mathematics of morse code.

"Causal Dynamical Triangulation". That brings conversational attention to a mathematical fractal pattern and suggests that is how spacetime itself emerges and unfolds in a mathematical manner.

In physics and cosmology, the mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH), also known as the ultimate ensemble theory, is a speculative "theory of everything" (TOE) proposed by cosmologist Max Tegmark.

The MUH is based on the Radical Platonist view that math is an external reality ([3] sec V.C). However, Jannes[13] argues that "mathematics is at least in part a human construction", on the basis that if it is an external reality, then it should be found in some other animals as well: "Tegmark argues that, if we want to give a complete description of reality, then we will need a language independent of us humans, understandable for non-human sentient entities, such as aliens and future supercomputers".

Brian Greene ([14] p. 299) argues similarly: "The deepest description of the universe should not require concepts whose meaning relies on human experience or interpretation. Reality transcends our existence and so shouldn't, in any fundamental way, depend on ideas of our making."

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

And that is always the argument about the perceived human origin of mathematics. It isn't human invented, it is human cognition and symbolization (codification) of natural mathematical values and functions.

This is one of the arguments that can be set aside. There are many biological organisms which recognize mathematical values and functions and act responsively to changes in the mathematics. Many organism use mathematical (subconscious) calculus for survival purposes. I already mentioned Lemurs which can count as fast as humans, or Slimemolds which can solve mazes and have a sense of time (periodic intervals). Many organisms follow the earth's circadian rhythm.

Circadian rhythm,
A circadian rhythm is a roughly 24 hour cycle in the physiological processes of living beings, including plants, animals, fungi and cyanobacteria.

In a strict sense, circadian rhythms are endogenously generated, although they can be modulated by external cues such as sunlight and temperature.

Circadian rhythms are important in determining the sleeping and feeding patterns of all animals, including human beings.
There are clear patterns of brain wave activity, hormone production, cell regeneration and other biological activities linked to this daily cycle.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/circadian_rhythm.htm

Moreover, any physical body in a regular orbit with another body is following a mathematical imperative, yet they do not think at all. Gravity imposes a mathematical imperative.

 

[wegs]

However, a mathematical universe does mean that English words can be described mathematically.
Everything can be described mathematically. That is the beauty of a mathematical universe.

Even music and art?

 

[Write4U]

Even music and art?

Especially music and art!
Have you watched the entire Roger Antonsen presentation yet? He demonstrates the mathematical foundations of (musical) sound waves, rhythms, and even the beautifully emergent art patterns contained in the mathematical value of 4/3

He comments; "I love 4/3, it is an undervalued number"

 

[parmalee]

Even music and art?

Funnily, the ideas of Tegmark, et al, kinda remind me of various trends in musicology and music theory over the course of documented history--particularly, proponents of "harmonic dualism" and suchlike. Overtones kinda/sorta account for the phenomenon of the major (triad), but--supposedly-- to the total neglect of the minor. But we likes the minor every bit as much, so what gives? Enter the undertones: the fourth, fifth, and sixth subharmonics to the fundamental form a perfect minor triad. Of course, instruments don't naturally produce subharmonics of their own; you can kinda achieve them on certain instruments with bizarre techniques or through resonance of the environment (room) or objects within such. Buuutt... so what? You can also get a minor triad through the higher harmonics, such as the 10th, 12th, and 15th, it's just that theorists tend to ignore partials beyond the 6th for entirely arbitrary reasons.

These theories tend to emerge in tandem with philosophical trends--Riemannian harmony was inspired by Hegelian dialectics, for instance--and they're always aiming for a metaphysical accounting for "why music?" or "why our music 'works'." Yet they also tend to overlook discrepancies--like the overtones get pretty damn dissonant, pretty damn quicklike--and they tend to cherrypick their findings.

Still, they're fun and they're emotionally gratifying, even if they don't hold to scientific rigor or critical examination. But without them, we wouldn't have Henry Cowell and Harry Partch or LaMonte Young and Charlemagne Palestine, so...

 

[Write4U]

Paul Dirac elaborated on mathematical beauty in physics in these terms: "The success of mathematical reasoning in physics must be ascribed to some mathematical quality in Nature, a quality which the casual observer of Nature would not suspect, but which nevertheless plays an important role in Nature’s scheme...

What makes the theory of relativity so acceptable to physicists in spite of its going against the principle of simplicity is its great mathematical beauty. This is a quality which cannot be defined, any more than beauty in art can be defined, but which people who study mathematics usually have no difficulty in appreciating.

The theory of relativity introduced mathematical beauty to an unprecedented extent into the description of Nature."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-mathematics-matters_b_4794617

 

[DaveC426913]

If nothing else, it potentially shows that math is not just something that exists in our minds, but that it just is. That it naturally exists, and it's not a mere invention of humankind to describe nature. Tegmark is pretty deep, and here I always thought math was dry.

It's not mathematics that exists; it's properties.

If a billion identical atoms all have a field that extends the identical X distance, you're going to get regular patterns developing.
If the strength of gravity falls off geometrically with distance, you're going to get objects moving in elliptical paths.

They did this long before we applied numbers to it. The numbers are the math.

The universe merely has consistent, widespread properties with limited freedom. This directly results in repeating behaviors and patterns. It does this through forces alone.

This is the simplest explanation for how the universe works. To 'mathematics' as some sort of process is - as Occam puts it - needlessly multiplying entities.

I keep asking W4U why this additional layer is not needless. He has not provided an answer.

To borrow W4U's own reference: he thinks the map is the territory.

 

[Write4U]

It's not mathematics that exists; it's properties.

Right, and mathematics is an essential property of spacetime. A potential of geometric space.

Geometry is the territory.

geometry, noun

1. the branch of mathematics concerned with the properties and relations of points, lines, surfaces, solids, and higher dimensional analogs.
   • a particular system of geometry.
     plural noun: geometries
     "non-Euclidean geometries"
   • the shape and relative arrangement of the parts of something.
     "the geometry of spiders' webs"

 

[DaveC426913]

Right, and mathematics is an essential property of spacetime. A potential of geometric space.

You keep claiming this, but you have yet to back it up.

 

[wegs]

It's not mathematics that exists; it's properties.

If a billion identical atoms all have a field that extends the identical X distance, you're going to get regular patterns developing.
If the strength of gravity falls off geometrically with distance, you're going to get objects moving in elliptical paths.

They did this long before we applied numbers to it. The numbers are the math.

The universe merely has consistent, widespread properties with limited freedom. This directly results in repeating behaviors and patterns. It does this through forces alone.

This is the simplest explanation for how the universe works. To 'mathematics' as some sort of process is - as Occam puts it - needlessly multiplying entities.

I keep asking W4U why this additional layer is not needless. He has not provided an answer.

To borrow W4U's own reference: he thinks the map is the territory.

I don't disagree with you, but it seems like there's a gap/link that is missing between what you/billvon have been saying and Write4U. It seems like there's just a lot of talking past each other, but you're kind of all saying the same thing? I dunno.

parmalee, what a great post! Thank you! I have some questions, but will ask when I have a bit more time.

 

[Write4U]

You keep claiming this, but you have yet to back it up.

I just showed you the definition. Is the definition wrong?

 

[Write4U]

The universe merely has consistent, widespread properties with limited freedom. This directly results in repeating behaviors and patterns. It does this through forces alone.

Yes, and those widespread properties are all mathematical in nature. The key to repeated behaviors and patterns lies in the "limited freedom" which is imposed by mathematical permissions and restrictions.
It is not through forces alone, that would render chaos if allowed to express themselves randomly.

 

[Michael 345]

Right, and mathematics is an essential property of spacetime. A potential of geometric space.

NO

I've moved away from sound and colour and I am my way to a world where the Universe is explained by olfactory input

 

[Seattle]

Write4U, you say that no one makes claims for a linguistic universe. OK, I claim a linguistic universe.

Even if human's didn't exist objects would still exist and they they could be described by any language as well as by any math.

Math and language are no different. If you make a claim for one you are making a claim for the other.

Math doesn't exist in the universe. Patterns exist.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U, you say that no one makes claims for a linguistic universe. OK, I claim a linguistic universe.

Ah, the universe speaks to you, draws words in the clouds. Writes the Ten Commandments for Moses, when he was all alone on the mountain?

Even if human's didn't exist objects would still exist and they they could be described by any language as well as by any math.

c'mon , what language do you want use and do all languages use the same words? Alphabetical languages are useful for short narratives accompanying mathematical equations and proofs.

Are you going to make a scale with tiny little letters telling you the (arbitrary) weight of an object?
Let's do some mathematical equations with words instead of mathematical symbols, let alone write complicated proofs. How far would you get and how would you make corrections?

No, alphabetical language was not invented for mathematical purposes, nor was mathematics invented to write a novel.

Math and language are no different. If you make a claim for one you are making a claim for the other.

True, each is a symbolic mathematical construct, but each has a specific purpose and they are not easily interchangeable. Language is not applicable to the universe. It was a peculiar method of human communication and started as a series of grunts and clicks.

The universe does not think, nor does it have verbal skills. It does have values and functions and those are expressed in an infinite number of patterns which can be copied, codified and used to imitate the workings of the universe for our own purposes.

Human language is for verbal communication, human mathematics is a symbolized and codified language specifically used for measurement and recording mathematical values and functions.

Math doesn't exist in the universe. Patterns exist.

True, patterns exist, but patterns are mathematical constructs, patterns have mathematical properties. We know patterns exist in nature because we have observed them, and from those observations man invented a symbolic language and called it mathematics.

This is where the problem lies. When we speak of mathematics, we automatically assume that it was man who invented mathematics, but that is a false belief. Universal mathematical patterns have been an observable emergent universal phenomenon since the beginning of time in every sense of the word.

We don't claim to have invented flight, do we? No, we observed birds and copied their patterns.
We don't claim to have invented submarine dive bells, do we? No, we watched diving bell spiders and copied their pattern.
We don't claim to have invented triangulation, do we?

Stereopsis is the computation of depth information from views acquired simultaneously from different points in space. For many years, stereopsis was thought to be confined to primates and other mammals with front-facing eyes.

However, stereopsis has now been demonstrated in many other animals, including lateral-eyed prey mammals, birds, amphibians and invertebrates.

The diversity of animals known to have stereo vision allows us to begin to investigate ideas about its evolution and the underlying selective pressures in different animals.

It also further prompts the question of whether all animals have evolved essentially the same algorithms to implement stereopsis.

If so, this must be the best way to do stereo vision, and should be implemented by engineers in machine stereopsis

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5536890/

Why do we claim to have invented mathematics when observable mathematical patterns have been part of biological evolution on earth for some 3.5 billion years.

The first organic molecules formed about 4 billion years ago. This may have happened when lightning sparked chemical reactions in Earth's early atmosphere.

RNA may have been the first organic molecule to form as well as the basis of early life.Aug 1, 2018

Many bacteria use "quorum sensing", a mathematical ability based on chemical cognition (sensitivity).

Single celled organisms such as the slimemold can tell time and perform logical tasks such as navigating a maze for the shortest route to food. Emphasis on "shortest", a mathematical calculation.

Cuttlefish, Squid, and Octopi have excellent mathematical skills, they have eight arms, each with a separate brain in addition to a central brain and are capable of learning and applying learned skills.


There is a single timeless expression which sums it up; Natura Artis Magistra (nature is the teacher of the arts and sciences).

Mycetozoa from Ernst Haeckel's 1904 Kunstformen der Natur (Artforms of Nature)

I would even suggest that all organisms with microtubules (Eukaryotes) have rudimentary computational abilities.

cytoskeleton,
a microscopic network of protein filaments and tubules in the cytoplasm of many living cells, giving them shape and coherence.

 

[iceaura]

It is not through forces alone, that would render chaos if allowed to express themselves randomly

Forces are mathematical fictions - creations of human pattern analysis intended to introduce mathematical tractability into an empirically functioning universe.

The inhuman universe does not do calculus, for example, to get from acceleration over time to velocity - it "integrates" empirically. No "change of variable", no trig substitution, no renormalization of anything, is involved - unless humans are involved.

And yes, this universe does "express itself randomly" and produce "chaos" in its normal operations. We have only recently learned to perceive this mathematically - before, such perception appears to have required unusual mental ability and long effort.

We are easily confused by the limitation of our senses - the vast arena of universal or real world operations that we cannot see or touch or otherwise perceive via our sensory organs and associated neurological processing. That limitation we overcome in various ways, among which mathematics is uniquely powerful - it allows us to perceive, via a kind of virtual sensory organ and processing, aspects of the world otherwise beyond our ken. The risk is overlooking some of the unavoidable aspects of sensory organs otherwise familiar from real world experience - the fact that we alter and simplify and abstract to perceive. We see rainbows, but we know by familiarity with the sensory organs involved that we are creating them in a sense - the colors and so forth are contributed by us. They are not "wrong", but they are ours. We lack this familiarity with the difficult and arcane virtual sensory apparatus we have built from mathematics.

So: We necessarily think in metaphor (imho: some say "analogy", but I object). The inhuman world does not necessarily function metaphorically. It apparently can, in a sense - Darwinian evolution, coral reef ecology, a couple of other such, seem to operate linguistically at that level - but much of what we perceive mathematically does not. We make that contribution.