And that we are able to craft this "mathematics" thing that allows us to model the system that produced us? — staticphoton
Now that you have spoken of thepossible origins of the universe, how does the idea of God come into play? — sydell
But, I wrestle with not knowng who or what that creator is,or if I am to learn something that would lead me to believe there is none. — sydell
to me, everything in the world is an idea that has been created. Even an apple tree, seems tome, to be an idea that has been created from a thought. — sydell
It is the very fact that our universe is not computable, i.e. that it is a model of the ToE which contains true facts but that are unprovable from the ToE, that determines the very nature of our universe. It is rather a multi-world system that very much looks like the religious take on heaven and hell. — alcontali
Max Tegmark has made an interesting attempt at modeling the "Ultimate Ensemble theory of everything" (ToE):
... whose only postulate is that "all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically". This simple theory, with no free parameters at all, suggests that in those structures complex enough to contain self-aware substructures (SASs), these SASs will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically "real" world. This idea is formalized as the mathematical universe hypothesis,[16] described in his book "Our Mathematical Universe". — alcontali
Hard--and maybe impossible--for me to relate to thinking that everything is an idea or that it would seem to someone like it has been created from a thought. — Terrapin Station
the concept that first there was an idea and then there was a universe is not without merit. — staticphoton
What would be the merit of that? It just seems like an arbitrary fantasy notion. — Terrapin Station
Well its not completely arbitrary, again I'm not a religious person although I can quote what John wrote in the opening of his gospel "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" so there is merit in the sense that it offers an explanation for believers of the gospel, that the idea of the world came before the world. — staticphoton
I have no idea why that would seem to be an explanation to them. — Terrapin Station
I don't see how that's not basically just making up arbitrary SciFi-like crap. — Terrapin Station
Tegmark's approach may have its problems, but the Theory of Everything is actually a very legitimate mathematical and scientific subject: — alcontali
Just as an instrumental way to try to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity without having to retool physics and/or mathematics, sure. — Terrapin Station
I don't think that the goal of ToE research is to retool physics and/or mathematics. — alcontali
Yes. And all humans of all times have been intrigued by the enigma of existence with no definite cause. Yet, the only solution that makes sense requires Eternity, which is not found in Nature. The Greek First Cause was necessarily eternal. The Hindu Brahman was inherently timeless. The creator in Genesis was assumed to exist forever outside the creation. Tegmark's Mathematical Universe theory assumes that the immaterial laws of Logic & Math pre-existed the origin of it's material manifestation. And even the Materialist Multiverse is defined as existing prior to the beginning of space-time in the Big Bang, and of course un-caused or self-existent.All that said... do you find it rather odd and marvelling, regadrless of your existential values, that we are standing here, incessantly peering and probing not just into our origins but into the origins of the very system that phoduced us? — staticphoton
So, Kierkegaard advocated being an individual, but so did Thoreau. Both of them had a distaste for "sheepdom"...(people following in lockstep with one another). I think that's why both were critical of organized religion. — sydell
First of all, Tegmarks premise there is not what is usually referred to as the theory of everything. The latter is what you're talking about here:Max Tegmark has made an interesting attempt at modeling the "Ultimate Ensemble theory of everything" (ToE):
... whose only postulate is that "all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically". This simple theory, with no free parameters at all, suggests that in those structures complex enough to contain self-aware substructures (SASs), these SASs will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically "real" world."... — alcontali
That 'holy grail' is a unified theory, and Tegmarks comment paves no way towards unifying gravity with quantum field theory. It's just a philosophical postulate about the question of why existence exists.Prominent contributors were Gunnar Nordström, Hermann Weyl, Arthur Eddington, David Hilbert,[19] Theodor Kaluza, Oskar Klein (see Kaluza–Klein theory), and most notably, Albert Einstein and his collaborators. Einstein intensely searched for, but ultimately failed to find, a unifying theory.[20]:ch 17 (But see:Einstein–Maxwell–Dirac equations.) More than a half a century later, Einstein's dream of discovering a unified theory has become the Holy Grail of modern physics. — alcontali
How wonderfully well (and typically) argued... You're free to disagree, but if you cannot point out an inconsistency in it without dragging in some strawman assumption of your own, then it is not crap at all.I don't see how that's not basically just making up arbitrary SciFi-like crap. — Terrapin Station
How wonderfully well (and typically) argued... You're free to disagree, but if you cannot point out an inconsistency in it without dragging in some strawman assumption of your own, then it is not crap at all. — noAxioms
First of all, Tegmarks premise there is not what is usually referred to as the theory of everything. — noAxioms
That 'holy grail' is a unified theory, and Tegmarks comment paves no way towards unifying gravity with quantum field theory. — noAxioms
But it points out that there is no distinction between mathematics that exists and mathematics that does not. — noAxioms
2+2=4 is true whether or not something physical performs the sum or not. — noAxioms
This has led me to a a different approach where being 'real' is not a property of something (like a rock say) but rather a relation. The rock is real to the water it diverts. But such a view is very different now than what Tegmark is proposing. — noAxioms
Well surprise, because Tegmark is a physicist by profession where empirical results count. His dabbling on the side into metaphysics produces no falsification tests and thus is metaphysics, which in turn is philosophy. Not to discredit what he says, since it is mostly those metaphysical positions which interest me.I am personally not particularly interested in the grand unification attempt in physics. I do not believe that Tegmark is either. — alcontali
Going to have to give me some examples so I can figure out what you mean by this.If a sentence is provable in the ToE, it is guaranteed to appear as a true fact in the physical universe. This is not the case for any other mathematical theory.
Tegmarks statement, as quoted by whoever authored that quote you posted, says quite the opposite: "all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically". Platonic abstractions are mathematical structures, and thus are posited to exist physically by Tegmark. I will not go so far, for the reasons I posted before. I personally don't give meaning to something 'existing physically' or 'being real'. That means I'm not a realist I guess. Tegmark definitely is one. But I like the rest of what he says.It will not work for number theory, set theory, or another partial theory in mathematics, which are merely Platonic abstractions, divorced from the real, physical world.
It's true in many more worlds that just that one; e.g. it's true in the world of real numbers, and it's true in our world. But that was not my point. My point was about the truth of it not being contingent on instantiation. The world of natural numbers can be real or just abstract, and it is still true for that world in both cases.The sentence "2+2=4" is true in the abstract, Platonic world of the natural numbers
Was proposing no such thing since I am suggesting nothing scientific here. It is a straight philosophical proposition, still entirely distinct from science.We cannot seek to abolish the distinction between mathematics and science.
Going to have to give me some examples so I can figure out what you mean by this. — noAxioms
it's true in our world. — noAxioms
The world of natural numbers can be real or just abstract, and it is still true for that world in both cases. — noAxioms
Tegmark is not suggesting the universe is a structure of language expressions. You're confusing mathematics with the methods used to convey mathematical concepts. Tegmark's mathematical universe is an ontological proposition, not an epistemological one.Number theory are rules about numbers, which are language expressions.
...
The physical universe cannot be a model of number theory, because it is not a structure that consists exclusively of language expressions. — alcontali
Is it now? You have some evidence of this?At some point, you will run out of physical miles, because the universe is deemed finite.
Nobody said the universe was the set of natural numbers. I can think of plenty of finite sized mathematical structures.From there on, you will run into facts that are true in the natural numbers but not true in the physical universe.
Tegmark is not suggesting the universe is a structure of language expressions. — noAxioms
You're confusing mathematics with the methods used to convey mathematical concepts. — noAxioms
Tegmark's mathematical universe is an ontological proposition, not an epistemological one. — noAxioms
Is it now? You have some evidence of this? — noAxioms
Nobody said the universe was the set of natural numbers. I can think of plenty of finite sized mathematical structures. — noAxioms
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.