tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post6622607810082076449..comments2019-06-24T14:01:28.104-04:00Comments on Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Discover Interview with TegmarkSabine Hossenfelderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-83147867889690410182013-11-20T07:25:46.845-05:002013-11-20T07:25:46.845-05:00Someone follow up this comment (even if it's j...Someone follow up this comment (even if it's just Bee) so that I know someone read it. This is a very old post, but <a href="http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/mathematical.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Max Tegmark's popular book on his mathematical-universe theory</b></a> will be available soon.<br />Phillip Helbighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12067585245603436809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-6279565760662479672008-06-24T15:17:00.000-04:002008-06-24T15:17:00.000-04:00I have written a longer comment on the mathematica...I have written a longer comment on the mathematical universe <A HREF="http://dao.complexitystudies.org/2008/06/24/comments-on-tegmarkbackreaction-2/" REL="nofollow">here</A> (my blog).<BR/><BR/>Maybe you want to check it out :-) (it was too long to include it here)guehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09353516276202316236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-20619329210073092532008-06-24T15:14:00.000-04:002008-06-24T15:14:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.guehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09353516276202316236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-25030138098250852572008-06-20T20:52:00.000-04:002008-06-20T20:52:00.000-04:00Yes qarl that's a good question. But everyone shou...Yes qarl that's a good question. But everyone should be aware of the implications of modal realism. If every "mathematical description" exists (you can't just have "lawful" ones, i.e. describable by smooth functions, for then matrices etc. would be rule out) then all the cartoon worlds, simulacra or whatever of the Road Runner cartoons, the Wizard of Oz, Sherlock Holmes, Dilber, whatever, "exist"Neil'https://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-26085182815722415702008-06-20T20:23:00.000-04:002008-06-20T20:23:00.000-04:00once you realize that mathematical structures may ...once you realize that mathematical structures may contain life - and from the perspective of that life their universe is as “real” as ours - it begs the question: why is ours “real” and theirs “fake”?<BR/><BR/>answer: narcissism.qarlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05944412744200799211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-66641433636437409292008-06-20T07:36:00.000-04:002008-06-20T07:36:00.000-04:00Hi Anonymous,No, I didn't give an example. What I ...Hi Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>No, I didn't give an example. What I was trying to say is merely that my, your, our all inability to give an example doesn't prove anything. You can just define mathematics as whatever describes nature, then nature is always described by mathematics, but there's nothing to learn from that. With every other definition, or even in the absence of a definition, there is no Beehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-69933238020830269552008-06-19T21:27:00.000-04:002008-06-19T21:27:00.000-04:00Clarification and then a rest: We know, we can't s...Clarification and then a rest: We know, we can't specify in classical form positions as function of time. If you then say, "oh, the wave functions are what's real" then you have the problem that we can't actually map out the WFs according to most QM (projection postulate, and what no-cloning theorems and quantum information limitations are supposed to "protect", like knowing the full polarizationNeil'https://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-51673868319281687772008-06-19T21:12:00.000-04:002008-06-19T21:12:00.000-04:00I think rebutters of my criticism of Tegmark re ra...I think rebutters of my criticism of Tegmark re randomness don't appreciate the fullness of the problem. It isn't just about generating a bunch of "hits" from a wave, yes we can just have every possible combination represented somewhere (kind of like the set of all possible dice tosses within a range of tries and conditions, etc.) But the bigger deal is, the nature of the "compressions" to a Neil'https://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-55911328697092061512008-06-19T20:36:00.000-04:002008-06-19T20:36:00.000-04:00I hesitate to get into this, for the aforementione...I hesitate to get into this, for the aforementioned reasons. I expect we don't disagree except maybe on unfalsifiable statements, which will probably reduce to semantic differences regardless.<BR/><BR/>But when Tegmark asks for an example, I don't really think you answered the question.<BR/><BR/>Suppose for instance an alien civilization lives in some inflating bubble different than ours, with Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-18070483762352965822008-06-19T14:02:00.000-04:002008-06-19T14:02:00.000-04:00Hi Haelfix,If I read Tegmark the way I think he me...Hi Haelfix,<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>If I read Tegmark the way I think he means, i'd say what he says is trivially true and borderline tautological. Physics is described in the language of mathematics, almost by definition, and presumably being interested in fundamental physics means writing down all the laws that generate all observable and experimental results to be found in the universe. </I><BR/><BR/Beehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-35163000006408318542008-06-19T13:55:00.000-04:002008-06-19T13:55:00.000-04:00Hi Andreas,I simply remark that I do not understan...Hi Andreas,<BR/><BR/><I>I simply remark that I do not understand in any sense what you mean by saying humans had a finite brain,</I><BR/><BR/>Well, I just came across Lubos truly lovely piece where he explains he can't make sense out of my criticism on Tegmark's paper, and doesn't understand either what I mean with finite imagination. First, if you read what I wrote, and not what Lubos thinks I Beehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06151209308084588985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-45550607338864272102008-06-19T12:38:00.000-04:002008-06-19T12:38:00.000-04:00Hi Haelfix,“Physics is described in the language o...Hi Haelfix,<BR/><BR/>“Physics is described in the language of mathematics, almost by definition”<BR/><BR/>Y.Neeman liked to say:<BR/><BR/>“God choose to be mathematician.”<BR/><BR/>How about that?<BR/><BR/>Regards, Dany.Xnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-54152344841444943112008-06-19T03:00:00.000-04:002008-06-19T03:00:00.000-04:00Re: Neil's randomness argument, Tegmark is a propo...Re: Neil's randomness argument, Tegmark is a proponent of the multiverse, in which there is no randomness, just the appearance of randomness in any particular world-line. Taken as an undivided whole, the multiverse is perfectly deterministic.<BR/><BR/>I think the more interesting question is to look at the implications of incompleteness with respect to any statement about the universe being Ednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-33246206632871412302008-06-19T02:59:00.000-04:002008-06-19T02:59:00.000-04:00I can't help but think this piece is going to simp...I can't help but think this piece is going to simply degenerate into pointless semantic quibbling. <BR/><BR/>If I read Tegmark the way I think he means, i'd say what he says is trivially true and borderline tautological. Physics is described in the language of mathematics, almost by definition, and presumably being interested in fundamental physics means writing down all the laws that generate Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-55122150679621630802008-06-18T21:59:00.000-04:002008-06-18T21:59:00.000-04:00I simply remark that I do not understand in any se...I simply remark that I do not understand in any sense what you mean by saying humans had a <I>finite brain</I>, this obviously pre-supposes some sort of natural bijection between thoughts and 'the number of neurons' or.. the number of interconnections between neurons etc., possibly one should be little bit clearer at this point? I always am delighted by the fact, how stereotyped the 'intuition andreashttp://www.mathematik.hu-berlin.de/~kleinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-24024650674630867642008-06-18T18:32:00.000-04:002008-06-18T18:32:00.000-04:00Within Tegmark's mathematical universe, time stand...Within Tegmark's mathematical universe, time stands still at its top level, while time flows throughout its lower levels. But to me, a universe where time doesn't flow is a universe without physics. And a universe (mathematical or otherwise) without physics isn't reality; it's fantasy. So the top level of Tegmark's mathematical universe, IMO, is nothing more than fantasy.Cynthianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-81283385840607286602008-06-18T17:26:00.000-04:002008-06-18T17:26:00.000-04:00Well if anyone is still around ... Just what would...Well if anyone is still around ... Just what would a "mathematical description" of our universe specify, anyway? How could it be "particle locations and velocities" since that is not allowed as a precise spec. OK, then "the wave function" - but that doesn't specify the collapses, the localizations themselves. Even if you say, there are multiple universes each having different patterns of Neil'https://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-18211575777956899612008-06-18T11:57:00.000-04:002008-06-18T11:57:00.000-04:00Sorry if this has already been pointed out, but ma...Sorry if this has already been pointed out, but maybe people want to hear Max Tegmark sing his <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ" REL="nofollow">relativity song</A> on Youtube.Thomas larssonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-79678020441038623142008-06-18T07:48:00.000-04:002008-06-18T07:48:00.000-04:00What a f***king waste of time!No one should be off...What a f***king waste of time!<BR/><BR/>No one should be offended, the above is a mathematical statement that describes some universe (ask Tegmark!)Arunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03451666670728177970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-9708129364826846872008-06-18T04:49:00.000-04:002008-06-18T04:49:00.000-04:00Neil said; "I suppose you see the irony that if Te...Neil said; <I>"I suppose you see the irony that if Tegmark's supposition can't be verified/falsified, that it is 'meaningless' so what is his point in believing it?"</I> I can see where you're coming from, but it's not really right to call it 'meaningless'. The argument is that if a theory cannot be falsified then it should not really be considered a part of science. It's the old "multiverse" Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852211910001840777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-24720298717702595112008-06-17T23:52:00.000-04:002008-06-17T23:52:00.000-04:00Hi Giotis,“I use 100% of my brain.”We call that in...Hi Giotis,<BR/><BR/>“I use 100% of my brain.”<BR/><BR/>We call that in physics – saturation. Be careful, you should leave space for new knowledge and ideas (not necessary crazy).<BR/><BR/>Regards, Dany.Xnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-52803345745357724802008-06-17T23:11:00.000-04:002008-06-17T23:11:00.000-04:00I wonder if John Baez might jump in here and expla...I wonder if John Baez might jump in here and explain about the topology of the universe?<BR/><BR/>What does the Poincare conjecture have to do with the shape of space?<BR/><BR/>Any relevance to our universe? Anyone for that matter?Platohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00849253658526056393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-70467106664550231262008-06-17T21:04:00.000-04:002008-06-17T21:04:00.000-04:00Hi Bee,I see the discussion has drifted from what ...Hi Bee,<BR/><BR/>I see the discussion has drifted from what your point was onto whether Tegmarks’s theory is the be all and end all. To tell you the truth from the hard ball science perspective as to ask what does it help us predict I don’t believe he has such an intention for it. I think as I do he sees it more as a metaphysical or philosophical anchor to aid pursuing notions that turn into Phil Warnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15671311338712852659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-56535840227003117972008-06-17T18:18:00.000-04:002008-06-17T18:18:00.000-04:00Andrew, I suppose you see the irony that if Tegmar...Andrew, I suppose you see the irony that if Tegmark's supposition can't be verified/falsified, that it is "meaningless" so what is his point in believing it? Or does he just mean, we don't know how to express the difference? It's a matter of ultimate metaphysics. One reason I don't think the universe is math, is the subjective nature of experience. I (like e.g. Roger Penrose) don't think it can Neil'https://www.blogger.com/profile/04564859009749481136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22973357.post-48385864099145214692008-06-17T18:12:00.000-04:002008-06-17T18:12:00.000-04:00I think the first step we have to take before we c...I think the first step we have to take before we can say "The universe is/is not mathematical" is to provide a clearcut and unequivocal answer to the two questions "What is physical reality?" and "What is mathematics?"<BR/><BR/>And as we haven't yet answered those two questions adequately, any argument over "The universe is/is not mathematical" seems rather pointless!Andrew Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03852211910001840777noreply@blogger.com