At a very grass roots level, his assertion that all mathematical structures exist in some physical way is a real stretch. I have no luck envisioning a physical structure coinciding with something I have developed as pure math. Perhaps I simply lack sufficient imagination. :chin:

But its a great subject for philosophical speculations.

At a very grass roots level, his assertion that all mathematical structures exist in some physical way is a real stretch. — jgill

I couldnt agree less! So he should have called his book "My mathematical Universe"?

This one is especially for TheMadFool. So we won't argue... — Prishon

:lol:

Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover. — Bertrand Russell

Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted. — Albert Einstein

if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. — Abraham Maslow

But then...

It appears that there's something about efficiency that's mathematical. Nature tends to be efficient and if that then it, perforce, has to be mathematical. The seed spirals on the effloresence of a sunflower are arranged in the Fibonacci sequence and that happens to be the most efficient way to use the space available; the hexagonal cells in a beehive too is such. Optimization is key if life is to have any chance of success and for that knowing math or following its rules is paramount.

That's life but what about the inanimate world. Does it also have to be mathematical? Rivers, given the terrain, tend to trace the shortest route to the sea/ocean/lake. There's something about the rule, "make the most of what you've got" that nature seems to live by.

Food for thought: We're absolutely certain that nature makes the best use of space (sunflowers & beehives) but does it do the same with time (Fermat's Principle). Frankly, I dunno!

Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted. — Albert Einstein

There is a song called like that: "Not everything that counts can be counted" (not everything that can be counted counts). I didnt know he got that from Eistein (I knew Einstein played the violin though). Billy Bragg sings it. Great song!

"Food for thought: We're absolutely certain that nature makes the best use of space (sunflowers & beehives) but does it do the same with time (Fermat's Principle). Frankly, I dunno!"

Is Fermat's principle referring to time also (I havent read the link yet). How should Nature "know" about that space efficiency?

"Frankly, I dunno!"
Maybe we'll find out during this intercourse. Ill contemplate.

Is Fermat's principle referring to time also (I havent read the link yet). How should Nature "know" about that space efficiency? — Prishon

I'm curious, for every given phenomenon say the elliptical orbits of the planets or the life of a human or other animal, are these phenomena occuring in the least possible times?

How does it impact, say, immortality which would be, in this metric, a total waste of time. After all, the objective is to live as briefly as possible but in the most spectacular way imaginable.

According to physicist Max Tegmark, there are nothing but mathematical structures and 'the physical world' is just a nested network of mathematical structures to which we (observers) happen to belong, or inhabit. Tegmark speculates that "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" presupposes this "mathematical universe hypothesis". Multiverses, parallel universes, etc are simply speculative extrapolations of the "MUH" he uses to interpretively explore – account for – various approaches to "QG". This looks like hyper-Platonism to many but more like Spinozism to me.

The seed spirals on the effloresence of a sunflower are arranged in the Fibonacci sequence and that happens to be the most efficient way to use the space available; the hexagonal cells in a beehive too is such. Optimization is key if life is to have any chance of success and for that knowing math or following its rules is paramount. — TheMadFool

Beautiful hey? Those patterns. The beauty argument has been used (is used) in physics to guide mathematical or physical models. I think at the base of Nature this is justified. At the higher level (or at different level, to use a less-charged term) it could be that aesthetics or efficiency are involved, maybe even as the rule. But Im reluctant to say that "perforce" beauty or efficiency mean math is present in the world itself. Why should that be?

like Spinozism to me. — 180 Proof

Im not sure I know what Spinoza has said about this (he probably said it in Dutch, and I would have understood it, being Dutch). What, in short, did he say?

I'm curious, for every given phenomenon say the elliptical orbits of the planets or the life of a human or other animal, are these phenomena occuring in the least possible times? — TheMadFool

Thats interesting! You mean efficiency in space, so also in time?

Thats interesting! You mean efficiency in space, so also in time? — Prishon

Seems to be the obvious conclusion. :chin:

Youve probably heard of the principle of least action?

It's a kind of least resistance principle, including both space and time.

So, if a particle travels between two fixed points in spacetime it does so on a track which minimizes the action. In QFT, litterally ALL trajectories through space or conjugate space (momentum space), or the combined phasespace are possible. There is one expression that includes all possible ways to travel. That is, for a free non interacting point-particle. Its represented by one Feynman diagram. But what about the math that goes along with the diagram (a probability amplitude). What about the integral of the Lagrangian over all possible free paths? Is it real?

What has this got to do with an ellips of a planet? Think about it. ☺

— Prishon

It's a kind of least resistance principle, including both space and time — Prishon

Heard of it, yes. Understand it, no.

I suppose efficiency is, as I said, key to the universe and by that I mean getting the most out of the effort put in. The ratio output:input must be maximized. Keep an open mind as to how I defined efficiency, it's to be understood in the broadest sense possible. Since efficiency, and because efficiency is, at its heart, mathematical, the universe is mathematical. God was being lazy.

suppose efficiency is, as I said, key to the universe and by that I mean getting the most out of the effort put in. — TheMadFool

Whats the effort put in if god was being lazy?

I believe there's a direct positive correlation between math and obesity! Causation? Why not?

believe there's a direct positive correlation between math and obesity! Causation? Why not? — TheMadFool

Well, I may have eaten too much math, but I weigh only 83kg!

believe there's a direct positive correlation between math and obesity! Causation? Why not?
— TheMadFool

Well, I may have eaten too much math, but I weigh only 83kg!
now — Prishon

Amazing isn't it that if you see a corpulent person, you can't tell whether fae's a sloth or a glutton? :chin: 2 of the 7 deadly sins.

Amazing isn't it that if you see a corpulent person, you can't tell whether he's a sloth or a glutton? :chin: Two of the 7 deadly sins. — TheMadFool

:lol:

I had to look up those words. First I thought you meant a slith or a woman doing it with all.

Both a sloth and glutton are deadly indeed! Considerer them mathematical anomalies...

:lol:

I had to look up those words. First I thought you meant a slith or a woman doing it with all.

Both a sloth and glutton are deadly indeed! Considerer them mathematical anomalies... — Prishon

God the Father!

God the Father! — TheMadFool

:lol: :lol:

The fat her!

Deus, sive natura (aka natura naturans sub specie aeternitatus). :fire:

The creation is the creator? Dunno. What I do know is that god needs a wakeup call.

least resistance principle, including both space and time — Prishon

Can both be had together? The intuitive understanding seems to be that the shorter (space) the faster (time) but Fermat's principle shows that a shorter time may actually require a longer distance.

God: Omnibenevolent, Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omniindolent

God: Omnibenevolent, Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omniindolent — TheMadFool

:lol:

He must have been a mathematician, for sure! :lol:
Hawking was right all the time. But even God couldnt give him new tires miraculously! Only a beautiful new voice...

This looks like hyper-Platonism to many but more like Spinozism to me. — 180 Proof

I like that comparison.

I'm adamantly anti-Platonist but I think Tegmark is on the mark, because rather than talking about there being some other kind of abstract objects existing apart from the concrete physical world, or else denying that abstract objects exist at all, he completely dissolves that distinction and says that everything is an abstract object, the concrete physical world is just he one we're a part of, and consequently (at least implicitly) any other abstract object would also be concrete to any observers who might happen to be a part of it.

That is very much like how neutral monism a la Spinoza dissolves the Cartesian distinction between physical and mental kinds of stuff, and so rather than saying either that there's this non-physical mental stuff, or else denying that anything is mental at all, it says that that everything is both mental and physical (and on an account like my own -- not to put words in Spinoza's mouth -- that distinction is just a matter of perspective, not so unlike "concreteness" in Tegmark; or for that matter, "actuality" in David Lewis).

Can both be had together? The intuitive understanding seems to be that the shorter (space) the faster (time) but Fermat's principle shows that a shorter time may actually require a longer distance.
3h — TheMadFool

The shorter the faster has a relation to the uncertainty principle. The shorter the distance the greater the uncertainty in momentum (and thus velocity. Now velocity in relativity is velocity through spacetime. All particles move with the speed of light through spcetime. A particle standing still (which is impossible in QM) is moving with c through time. Time hasnt got a fixed pace in GR. If space is curved, then time is too (the space expansion metric, the FLMR metric, has constant time, already hinting at it being wrong wrong). In flat space time runs the fastest while in curve space it flows slower. Efficient time. You can use space efficiently but how to use time efficiently?

Of all possible paths between two spacetime points the most probable will probably be realized. If there are two particles starting from two fixed points (alwaya in spacetime or energy-momentum space) then they will arrive at their final points in phasespace by means of all intermediate interactions with the virtual field that takes care of the interactions. And there are infinite many. Each of these paths is comprised in Feynman diagrams, representing the path integrals of the Lagrangians. There is a zeroth order diagram. This one takes all non-interacting part of the parts into conseideratio. The first order diagram that of all paths of the two particles while interacting once. This is the popular view of, say, two electrons interacting by means of exchanging one photon. Etc.

So, what even means efficiency of space, let alone of time?

Beyond my ken I'm afraid. Good day.

Beyond my ken I'm afraid. Good day.
11mReplyOptions — TheMadFool

Its not that difficult to understand! Everyone says"oöhhh... Quantum field theory..." but actually its very easy.