tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post4954576358549389467..comments2021-04-14T01:13:18.676-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: The Mathematical UniverseSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-2179332761891826722013-11-25T06:43:54.893-05:002013-11-25T06:43:54.893-05:00Note that Tegmark has now written a popular book o...Note that Tegmark has now written a <a href="http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/mathematical.html" rel="nofollow"><b>popular book</b></a> on this topic.Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-78934919086531002332011-11-28T03:04:18.705-05:002011-11-28T03:04:18.705-05:00Lovely discussion, I'd just like to point out ...Lovely discussion, I'd just like to point out that Tegmark is essentially a rigorous expression of Ontic structural realism and mathematical monism. What a lot of people don't seem to realise is that if you dont like MUH then you are essentially a dualist; you must believe that existing things have certain mathematically describable properties and also certain properties that are Jonathan Colvinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09974322979251224447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-76097521683334948412011-05-30T06:25:16.398-04:002011-05-30T06:25:16.398-04:00I think Tegmark is going in the right direction bu...I think Tegmark is going in the right direction but I don't think he goes far enough, I suspect 'our reality' to be a 'calculating space' to quote Zeuse that gives rise to space & time, energy & matter and thus us. <br /><br />To reconcile relativity & quantum theory we have to give up the notion of objective reality. <br /><br />We are part of a simulation, a Jashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18094814810729244046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-79950718519861971082010-12-24T13:16:53.529-05:002010-12-24T13:16:53.529-05:00Bee,
....it's Plato
Gourds of water, water l...Bee,<br /><br />....it's Plato<br /><br />Gourds of water, water levels....., strings attach to neck, length of strings, weight and sound.<br /><br />Ancient versions of thinking advanced toward today's correlation in energy windings by analogy? Just speculating.:) <br /><br />Best,PlatoHagelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-26857577101886953682010-09-26T06:59:53.015-04:002010-09-26T06:59:53.015-04:00I'm fairly sure that pmer's comment about ...I'm fairly sure that pmer's comment about carpentry and science was a joke, and pretty funny to me personally because I spent all day yesterday with a belt sander covered in dust, and yes I got quite a bit done.<br /><br />Thanks for making us appreciate that the concept of a mathematical universe goes all the way back to the Pythagoreans. I didn't know that and mistakenly thought MaxSteven Colyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10435759210177642257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-84302608284865737182010-09-26T02:12:13.112-04:002010-09-26T02:12:13.112-04:00Pmer,
A hypothesis that isn't good for anythi...Pmer,<br /><br />A hypothesis that isn't good for anything except making a statement is one that for what I am concerned scientists don't have to bother with. You don't learn anything from it, you can't do anything with it, you can't test it, so what's the point? And, as a matter of fact, scientists don't bother with Tegmark's hypothesis. Yes, it's an ancient Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-49486753997378033512010-09-25T22:35:38.693-04:002010-09-25T22:35:38.693-04:00"My central objection to Tegmark's idea j..."My central objection to Tegmark's idea just is that it's not insightful and plain useless." <br /><br />If you want to be useful, go into carpentry. <br /><br />The hypothesis that the universe just is mathematical structure goes back to at least the Pythagoreans. It is consistent with Materialism but inconsistent with Dualism.<br /><br />It might be possible to get around the Pmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16074347726717618603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-2099657232730462372009-11-05T09:34:38.034-05:002009-11-05T09:34:38.034-05:00I realize this post is from years ago, but I wante...I realize this post is from years ago, but I wanted to share something I wrote a while back that might shed some light on where Tegmark is coming from.<br /><br />It's basically an argument that consciousness is nothing but math, and I devised it before ever hearing about Tegmark, but after reading Tegmark, it fits in pretty neatly with his ideas.<br /><br />http://noadvicehere.blogspot.com/Someonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10781783627021728601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-432800847480039672009-08-05T16:12:02.558-04:002009-08-05T16:12:02.558-04:00Existence is a logical quantifier, not a metaphysi...Existence is a logical quantifier, not a metaphysical property. This quantifier asserts whether some description of an entity matches zero, or more than zero entities. That's all. Existence is therefore quite unlike any properties that entities might have, or not have.<br /><br />This is the simple nature of existence. I detect two distinct but very common types of delusion among people who Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-57156050051841946032008-07-06T19:29:00.000-04:002008-07-06T19:29:00.000-04:00It is remarkable that Tegmark leaves out a complet...It is remarkable that Tegmark leaves out a complete and obvious existence category of 'multiverses'. Which can be described as those universes that are not in any way connected to our spacetime. They can be called 'hypothetical' universes. They are quite usefull, since anytime you do a thought experiment ("what-if" scenario's) in fact you are referring to one of such universe, and there is a robheushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12880785275108315402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-30217493055647522732008-06-19T03:20:00.000-04:002008-06-19T03:20:00.000-04:00In a number of his papers (may be from 1998) MT p...In a number of his papers (may be from 1998) MT puts forward the conjecture that our Universe is a “Mathematical Universe” when the “Theory of Everything” may be an “ensemble theory”.<BR/>That’s correct, but the questions arisen – what is this “ensemble”? What are it’s properties?<BR/><BR/>- On these questions somebody can find some answers in<BR/>http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0703043<BR/>V5…Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-86438788944371115392008-04-09T14:03:00.000-04:002008-04-09T14:03:00.000-04:00"Then define "contradiction" without using maths."..."Then define "contradiction" without using maths."<BR/><BR/>There is no objective defintion that is not mathematical, and strictly speaking no method of communicating a definition is without subjectivity. I lean towards buddhism in the sense that truth is only accomplished on your own and an understanding of everything is impossible. Anyway, communication is irrelevant to the validity of ERH => Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-34718435228896545832008-03-20T15:25:00.000-04:002008-03-20T15:25:00.000-04:00Hi Bee,I see your point, but I hope you will not c...Hi Bee,<BR/><BR/>I see your point, but I hope you will not conclude that the work of Bergson can be summarized by (and somewhat strictly interpreted from) that quote alone. <BR/><BR/>His work is quite rich and deep, specially his notion of "duration", and I believe it is a metaphysical concept which quite independent on one's epoch. I believe much of what he wrote is yet to be explored, and the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-3281091437278457012008-03-20T13:29:00.000-04:002008-03-20T13:29:00.000-04:00Dear Christine,I agree with your sense that it see...Dear Christine,<BR/><BR/>I agree with your sense that it seems rather naive to conclude all of reality *is* mathematics because we presently have no other, better description available. I find it very possible that in 100,000 years or so, people will laugh about us. Much as we would laugh about a cave-man proclaiming his just developing language is of course the best and ultimate description of Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-63209258692726338012008-03-20T12:42:00.000-04:002008-03-20T12:42:00.000-04:00We probe nature in many ways, and eventually we di...We probe nature in many ways, and eventually we discovered that mathematics is quite an efficient way to formulate laws and predict nature's behavior. <BR/><BR/>However, I see nature as a surface. Philosophically speaking, I firmly believe there is an ultimate reality "deep below" this surface. The way we most efficiently probe nature (ie, mathematically) seems to indicate only that it would be Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-71494412048459876332008-03-20T09:17:00.000-04:002008-03-20T09:17:00.000-04:00thought I defined maths as "without contradiction"...<I> thought I defined maths as "without contradiction", </I><BR/><BR/>Then define "contradiction" without using maths.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-25067499929672992902008-03-20T04:37:00.000-04:002008-03-20T04:37:00.000-04:00I thought I defined maths as "without contradictio...I thought I defined maths as "without contradiction", so did Max Tegmark, more rigorously sets and relations, that was the point of my first posts. It is physicists who model reality by applying maths. Maths is not a model, applied maths may be. Notation is the language we use to communicate maths, but maths is not a language.<BR/><BR/>I must admit my written communication is poor. I hope nowAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-38350218822104701992008-03-19T10:55:00.000-04:002008-03-19T10:55:00.000-04:00Hi Phil,I believe Tegmark's paper says something a...Hi Phil,<BR/><BR/>I believe Tegmark's paper says something about Goedel's theorem. I can't quite reproduce what, but if you're interested have a look.<BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>B.Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-715921634194469932008-03-19T10:50:00.000-04:002008-03-19T10:50:00.000-04:00Hi Sam,Well, for one I'd like to mention that the ...Hi Sam,<BR/><BR/>Well, for one I'd like to mention that the question whether or not mathematical structures 'exist' in the same way you, I, or the next electron that flies by exist is probably more than 2000 years old and it would be of some surprise to me would it be answered in a comment section on my blog. But besides this, you say<BR/><BR/><I>Sorry I dont think I get what you are saying. Sabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-67666928009487225212008-03-17T21:21:00.000-04:002008-03-17T21:21:00.000-04:00My understanding of the argument is that someone p...My understanding of the argument is that someone proposes that all of reality is mathematics or rather the realization of it. It has also been suggested that this all relates finally to set theory, as to what extent this can be considered. If this be true, then we should give up the quest for total understanding, since Godel has long ago demonstrated that there will always be statements about Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-45459631052751165322008-03-17T17:34:00.000-04:002008-03-17T17:34:00.000-04:00Well this was an interesting post from the pre-Lis...Well this was an interesting post from the pre-Lisi era. I personally think at the smallest bit of information you have a really small amount of physicalness and consiousness already there so the idea of invoking set theory sounds good. Getting recognizable physicalness out of set theory might be in more detailed terms like getting Lie Algebra out of Clifford Algebra. Really satisfyingly sayingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-90969743724099362312008-03-17T12:56:00.000-04:002008-03-17T12:56:00.000-04:00Sorry I dont think I get what you are saying. Fir...Sorry I dont think I get what you are saying. Firstly any linguistic or notational definition is always circular, there is nothing I can do about that! I think you are trying to seperate physical existence and mathematical existence, when if one is isomorphic to the other they are one and the same. when I said "Anything that contains a contradiction, cannot be true, and physically speaking Joannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17270169388147011543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-65537311597469504612008-03-17T10:11:00.000-04:002008-03-17T10:11:00.000-04:00Hi Samany statement that does not contain a contra...Hi Sam<BR/><BR/><I>any statement that does not contain a contradiction in terms of set theory can be allocated a definition. [...] anything that does not contain a contradiction, or is well-defined IS a mathematical definition. Anything that contains a contradiction, cannot be true, and physically speaking cannot exist. Thus anything that exists is obviously defineable and not contradictory, thusSabine Hossenfelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-1789327223252745742008-03-17T08:58:00.000-04:002008-03-17T08:58:00.000-04:00I will try to breifly clarify the misunderstanding...I will try to breifly clarify the misunderstandings some readers are having obviously due to a lack of comprehension of what mathematics really is. <BR/><BR/>A reduction of any mathematical statement leads to set theory, any statement that does not contain a contradiction in terms of set theory can be allocated a definition. From here any mathematical statement is essentially true by REF, i.e. Joannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17270169388147011543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-57655998920221899762007-10-31T07:23:00.000-04:002007-10-31T07:23:00.000-04:00This discussion reminds me of the debate the consc...This discussion reminds me of the debate the consciousness folks have regarding whether there is more to minds than just brains. Some people believe there is something about redness that makes it really red only if a human perceives it. <BR/><BR/>Any decade now, IBM will simulate a human brain on a super computer, and if it's Bee's brain then *she'll* still wonder what reality is. At least then Jamie Listerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14780733789444282714noreply@blogger.com