tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post4863463734028838539..comments2023-09-27T07:44:19.769-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Book Review: Max Tegmark “Our Mathematical Universe”Sabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger171125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-89048753914219791002018-11-20T13:09:58.509-05:002018-11-20T13:09:58.509-05:00A "perfect" description is one that omit...A "perfect" description is one that omits nothing, by definition; there is a 1:1 correspondence between the described and the described. Therefore a perfect description (as opposed to an abstraction) is an identity. So if the universe is perfectly described by mathematics, it is identical to that mathematics.Jonathan Colvinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09974322979251224447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-4219402726702091682017-12-10T03:53:23.337-05:002017-12-10T03:53:23.337-05:00I haven given it some thought again. I think if in...I haven given it some thought again. I think if in a different multiverse a particle has a different mass, then it is distinguishable from this multiverse. The two multiverses won't clash. Two particles with different masses are two entirely different particles after all, you can't swap them like bosons.<br /><br />And I think I have found a solution to the problem of the initial states. Patat Jehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01677169592055512438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-27132628157281684972017-12-09T03:42:24.417-05:002017-12-09T03:42:24.417-05:00Max Tegmark, I have question. I have read about yo...Max Tegmark, I have question. I have read about your mathematical universe hypothesis. I have become a believer so to speak. But I ran into a problem. It seems that the different multiverses clash together. In one quantum mechanical multiverse everything is described with probability distributions. But out there in the mathematical universe there is another such multiverse with different Patat Jehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01677169592055512438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-85844682636352497072017-11-11T22:13:46.993-05:002017-11-11T22:13:46.993-05:00qsa,
If from the 1st paragraph, common notions ar...qsa,<br /><br />If from the 1st paragraph, common notions are the undefined terms (e.g. point and line) then I understand.<br /><br />QM itself is a mathematical structure with several postulates/definitions, e.g. state (a unit vector in Hilbert space), time evolution of state (Schrodinger), measurement of state (observables and their eigenvalues as random variables). Then there are a lot of Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01705175878443427037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-5002074886804361072017-11-11T10:58:14.182-05:002017-11-11T10:58:14.182-05:00Zafa Pi
I sure can.
from wiki
...Zafa Pi<br /><br /> I sure can.<br />from wiki<br /> "A first principle is one that cannot be deduced from any other. The classic example is that of Euclid's (see Euclid's Elements) geometry; its hundreds of propositions can be deduced from a set of definitions, postulates, and common notions: all three types constitute first principles."<br /><br />Also, qsahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08193989424656595346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-75307464040313135822017-11-11T02:40:58.630-05:002017-11-11T02:40:58.630-05:00qsa,
Could you elaborate on what you mean by first...qsa,<br />Could you elaborate on what you mean by first principle(s).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01705175878443427037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-57330370484918692912017-11-10T16:43:00.033-05:002017-11-10T16:43:00.033-05:00To all,
It would be helpful if you g...To all,<br /><br /> It would be helpful if you give your opinion about this question.<br /><br />Suppose There is a mathematical structure that can be constructed from first principle and without and regards to experiment that mimics QM gives the mass of the electron and the proton and all other predictions, would you then accept that reality is a mathematical structure. Or would you qsahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08193989424656595346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-81483747103436382082017-11-10T09:57:06.271-05:002017-11-10T09:57:06.271-05:00Dr. Helbig, thanks for the enlightening correction...Dr. Helbig, thanks for the enlightening corrections: I should have used static instead of steady-state, and the Einstein example was probably not a good one because it may have been motivated by contemporaneous evidence rather than personal preference.JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-9033239225325987332017-11-10T06:20:47.126-05:002017-11-10T06:20:47.126-05:00There is reason to believe that "all that the...There is reason to believe that "all that there is" or "what everything is made of" or "reality" is nothing but fields. And ... what are fields "made of"? Are fields any more than mathematics? The community has long since abandoned discussion of what fields are fields of. Would it help exploration of MUH ideas to first of all (or also) feel comfortable Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13389925988962648650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-44466997173922225782017-11-09T14:37:47.508-05:002017-11-09T14:37:47.508-05:00"Einstein, I am told, at first thought the un...<i>"Einstein, I am told, at first thought the universe would be in a steady-state"</i><br /><br />He thought that it was static. Indeed, this is what most astronomers thought at the time, essentially thinking that the Milky Way was the entire universe. Though there had been speculation, going back at least to Herschel, that at least some "nebulae" were distant "island Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-41696814420335002402017-11-09T11:12:45.791-05:002017-11-09T11:12:45.791-05:00Another (and last) thought on why some of us cling...Another (and last) thought on why some of us cling to the multiverse (type IV, per Dr. Helbig) concept despite that the arbitrariness it gives in initial conditions is something we had already (although, it is nice for intuition's sake to have a mechanism for arbitrariness along with the arbitrariness):<br /><br />Einstein, I am told, at first thought the universe would be in a steady-state JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1837881846056229022017-11-09T10:24:58.664-05:002017-11-09T10:24:58.664-05:00But this is bullshit because we don't have acc...<i>But this is bullshit because we don't have access to these so-called inherently existing entities, rather, all we have access to are the representations. So even if the Universe is a mathematical structure, without matter to represent that structure, we would have no perceptual access to that structure. Hence, the Occam's razor argument is bunk. QED</i><br /><br />Well that's just Sandro Magihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05446177882449578817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-77950810988090906562017-11-08T23:36:28.567-05:002017-11-08T23:36:28.567-05:00Why Are We Here?
God: The Supreme Kvetch put us h...Why Are We Here?<br /><br />God: The Supreme Kvetch put us here so he would have beings to berate.<br /><br />Super Determinism: We are a solution of the Great PDE with initial conditions from the Big Bang.<br /><br />Anthropic Principle (generalized): Things are the way they are, because if they were different, they wouldn't be the way they are.<br /><br />The Multiverse (in iambic parameterAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01705175878443427037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-73337364990848172562017-11-08T17:57:27.737-05:002017-11-08T17:57:27.737-05:00The clearest avenue to a "naturalist" ph...The clearest avenue to a "naturalist" philosophy of mathematics, by which I mean a philosophy which doesn't include some sort of "supernatural Platonic realm," is suggested by Paul Ernest with his book, "Social Constructivism as a Philosophy of Mathematics." This philosophy is, of course, grounded in radical constructivism: <br /><br />Here's the problem withPonderSeekDiscoverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00913503952284529871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-31993962218327976082017-11-08T16:20:05.830-05:002017-11-08T16:20:05.830-05:00"(Let me emphasize, because people tend to mi..."(Let me emphasize, because people tend to misunderstand it, that I didn't say the universe is not finetuned. I simply said no statement can be made about it.)"<br /><br />Sabine, Thank you for this clarification, btw.<br /><br />ConnerConnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121260888304236904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-3354456886963370822017-11-08T11:47:40.317-05:002017-11-08T11:47:40.317-05:00Phillip,
Well, now you only have to come to reali...Phillip,<br /><br />Well, now you only have to come to realize that a probability without probability distribution is ill-defined and we will agree. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-80449513019949345422017-11-08T11:35:42.894-05:002017-11-08T11:35:42.894-05:00Phillip: "I would argue that one can speak of...Phillip: "I would argue that one can speak of "unlikely" values of parameters without knowing the probability distribution. I think that is the main point of dispute."<br /><br />This sounds self-contradictory to me. Speaking of "likely" or "unlikely" is the same as specifying aspects of a probability distribution, unless you and I have different Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09618233916110810309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-29501786047892834302017-11-08T11:16:53.798-05:002017-11-08T11:16:53.798-05:00I would argue that one can speak of "unlikely...<b><i>I would argue that one can speak of "unlikely" values of parameters without knowing the probability distribution. I think that is the main point of dispute.</i><br /><br />Exactly.</b><br /><br />So finally we agree! ;-)<br />Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-3795708473150164622017-11-08T11:09:05.041-05:002017-11-08T11:09:05.041-05:00"People agree with my argument against natura..."People agree with my argument against naturalness and finetuning because, well, the argument is obviously right. But then they keep on doing what they've been doing as if nothing has ever happened."<br /><br />Maybe this is because their argument is with people (not you) who feel strongly that everything happens for a reason, so that (to them) if this universe has physical JimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10198704789965278981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-52656561663742947512017-11-08T10:37:21.325-05:002017-11-08T10:37:21.325-05:00"I would argue that one can speak of "un...<i>"I would argue that one can speak of "unlikely" values of parameters without knowing the probability distribution. I think that is the main point of dispute."</i><br /><br />Exactly. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-37678798593403426842017-11-08T10:23:10.175-05:002017-11-08T10:23:10.175-05:00The first question, to me, seems like an actual my...<i>The first question, to me, seems like an actual mystery. The second is kind of obvious: It is "this place" because that is where I am. The question is obvious and moot at the same time, similar to "Why was I born in this country, this state, this little town, and at exactly that time?</i><br /><br />Suppose you were one of several children born on the same day in the same place.Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-64527010420554699092017-11-08T09:30:33.999-05:002017-11-08T09:30:33.999-05:00Sabine: "And in this case you go full circle ...Sabine: "And in this case you go full circle by rewriting the question "why these laws" to "why this place in the mathematical universe.""<br /><br />I think this is the crux of the matter. The first question, to me, seems like an actual mystery. The second is kind of obvious: It is "this place" because that is where I am. The question is obvious and moot Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09618233916110810309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-81846787980219429422017-11-08T09:20:55.833-05:002017-11-08T09:20:55.833-05:00That I don't think the question has any releva...<i>That I don't think the question has any relevance in practice (yet) is, for all I can see, not in contradiction with you saying it's an important topic for philosophers. </i><br /><br />I agree it's not relevant to typical scientific practice. This line is a little fuzzy since Max attempts to make the argument that it's somewhat falsifiable, at least in principle, which would Sandro Magihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05446177882449578817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-65496743867066950132017-11-08T08:25:14.118-05:002017-11-08T08:25:14.118-05:00No, that's a status report. People agree with ...No, that's a status report. People agree with my argument against naturalness and finetuning because, well, the argument is obviously right. But then they keep on doing what they've been doing as if nothing has ever happened. It's not even confirmation bias. It's just... bizarre.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-82961367243511333972017-11-08T07:39:09.506-05:002017-11-08T07:39:09.506-05:00"If the person I'm arguing with has any b...<i>"If the person I'm arguing with has any brain, they come to agree with me pretty quickly"</i><br /><br />I hope that this is cynicism. :-|<br />Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.com