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

I'll pass...for now. Thanks.

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). — Pfhorrest

Yes, I think so. :100:

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

Highly debatable. Unless you understand the math you don't understand the theory. Do you? If so, you are ahead of me. I've puzzled over the legitimacy and evaluation of Feynman's functional integral. :chin:

Unless you understand the math you don't understand the theory. — jgill

Thats where you are wrong. The math merely describes... One moment, my wife has brought coffee. Ill drink first. Ill be back. ☺

Spinoza? Plato? I think the former thought that mind and matter were two sides of a coin while Plato thought matter was decayed mental stuff. Hegel thought matter was real and mind was real and so sided with Spinoza. For him Spirit is life and exists as matter and the Absolute idea was the realization of the full infinite truth by Spirit within matter. So Hegel and Spinoza were more materialist while Plato was more idealist. I find it interesting that Hegel anticipated the theory of relativity by his comments on space and time in his Philosophy of Nature

As for physics, it's a very philosophical and mathematical science and so speculations will always run wild

Ill be back. — Prishon

That has an ominous sound. Where have I heard that before? :gasp:

I find it interesting that Hegel anticipated the theory of relativity by his comments on space and time in his Philosophy of Nature — Gregory

I think Galileo got there first about a century before Hegel. In fact, Einstein was influenced by Galileo's relativity.

Yes but Galileo didn't talk about space and time being united like Hegel did

"In space, in which time is suspended, the body is enduring, and in time, in which the indifferent substance of space is suspended, the body is transitory." Hegel

Of course not all philosophers are physicists but I consider all physicists as philosophers of some sort. People were saying "Krauss is not a philosopher" when his book on nothing came out but I would respond to that by saying that Krauss thinks with philosophical ideas all the time in the field he's in

That didn't seem to make a difference to influencing young Albert Einstein.

Ill be back. — Prishon

:rofl:

I saw this only now! Dood one!

That has an ominous sound. Where have I heard that before? :gasp: — jgill

:rofl:

Good one! But tomorrow I'll be back for sure. Someone is calling to get my ass from behind my phone... Its twelve in Holland... I'll be back! Wasnt it terminator? Appropiate!

Wasnt it terminator? — Prishon

:up:

"Exterminate....Exterminate...!" What's the difference between terminate and exterminate?

Terminate means to stop, exterminate means to destroy

terminate and exterminate — Prishon

Terminate one person. Exterminate an entire group.

Lee Harvey Oswald is to Adolf Hitler as terminate is to exterminate.

Terminate means to stop, exterminate means to destroy — Gregory

☺ So extermination can be terminated and termination can be exterminated? Sometimes termination can be exterminated. Like extermination can be terminated. Is the an impossibility between these? A, what's it called? A kind of asymmetry...a kind of venience....A supervenience! (line a convenience) Can one of them not be appiled after the other?

Stopping cannot be destroyed it seems to me

Stopping cannot be destroyed it seems to me — Gregory

Thats what I meant! But destruction can be stopped. All hail to the terminator!

"Terminator. Our hero! Unexterminabe!"

Then again, the one terminating can be exterminated. Is it really impossible to destroy the stopping?

The action is destroyed indirectly by destroying the actor

:up:

Great quotes. Particularly love the reference to Russell, he's correct.

Great quotes. Particularly love the reference to Russell, he's correct — Manuel

I'm glad you connected with Russell.

What did he mean? Should the title of his book be "My mathematical Universe"? If Max himself is a math structure, then how should we interpret him? — Prishon

I think you have answered your own question. The "mathematical universe" he's talking about exists only in Minds, not in Matter. So, his "universe" and your "universe" are not the same "verse", but both are references to a Platonic Ideal universe. The physical universe is something we all have in common, because our bodily senses are tuned to information in the form of Matter & Energy.

However, Mathematics is not found in those concrete categories. It is instead an abstract idea, from which all physical stuff has been extracted, leaving only intangible ratios and relationships. We "sense" those invisible connections between things with our sixth sense of Reason, which extracts the essence of things from the non-essential.

Regarding "structure", Structural Engineers don't manipulate actual physical structures in their computers. Instead, they represent real beams & columns as mathematical abstractions, symbolized as lines (structural members) and arrows (forces). Likewise, the Universe Tegmark is talking about is not the real universe that we all have in common, but the symbolic universe that each of us constructs in his own mind. It's a personal worldview. But his abstract "view" can be simulated in a computer, all rational minds to see.

So you should "interpret" Tegmarks ideas in relation to your own ideas. your individual worldview. If your world is Realistic & Materialistic, then Tegmark is talking non-sense, literally about stuff that is not perceived by physical senses. But, if your cosmology is Idealistic & Intellectual, he's speaking about your intellectually shared cosmos. :smile:

Mathematics :
the abstract science of number, quantity, and space. Mathematics may be studied in its own right ( pure mathematics ), or as it is applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering ( applied mathematics ).

The "mathematical universe" he's talking about exists only in Minds, not in Matter. — Gnomon

Tegmark quite explicitly says that "minds" are (like) recursive mathematical functions and "matter" is a type of interaction by recursive mathematical functions with encompassing mathematical systems which are nested within (higher order / dimensional) mathematical structures aka "the mathematical universe". In other words, the hypothesis is 'mind-matter is in the math' (i.e. abstract agent-systems within abstract world-structures ... like e.g. the Second Life virtual world), not the other way around.

seems like he was trying to "gotcha!" Tegmark in a self-contradiction, like asking the anti-realist wrt truth whether their anti-realism towards truth is itself true. Except... it doesn't really work in this case since there's no contradiction in a mathematical structure (a mind, a physicist) developing a theory about how the universe is all mathematical structures.

Tegmark quite explicitly says that "minds" are (like) recursive mathematical functions and "matter" is a type of interaction by recursive mathematical functions with encompassing mathematical systems which are nested within (higher order / dimensional) mathematical structures aka "the mathematical universe". In other words, the hypothesis is 'mind-matter is in the math' (i.e. abstract agent-systems within abstract world-structures ... like e.g. the Second Life virtual world), not the other way around. — 180 Proof

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my interpretation that the Mathematical Universe is a mental construct? That doesn't mean it's an illusion or un-real, just that the mathematical structure is universal, and can be perceived by animal senses, that are tuned to certain forms of Information (electromagnetic spectrum). But the MUH itself is a conception of rational minds. We perceive Matter (things), but we conceive Structure (relationships). And both concrete Matter & abstract Structure are real-world forms of Generic Information.

I'm hardly an expert on Tegmark's hypothesis, but it sounds roughly compatible with my own understanding, that Information (including mathematical information) is the fundamental element of Reality. Ironically, Tegmark has been called a "radical Platonist". So, I would be surprised if that was compatible with your own (Realist?) worldview. Anyway, I doubt that Tegmark would fully endorse my own updated version of Platonism : Enformationism. And, I'm not sure I can agree with some of his far-out notions : e.g. "Perceptronium", as a "state of mattter". That sounds like something from a Harry Potter story. :grin:

Mathematical universe hypothesis :
Tegmark's MUH is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure.. . .
The MUH is based on the radical Platonist view that math is an external reality . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

Physicists Say Consciousness Might Be a State of Matter :
Tegmark calls his new state of matter “perceptronium.”
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/physicists-say-consciousness-might-be-a-state-of-matter/

The universe is mathematical and what matter is as an essence is anyone's guess. Descartes, siding with skeptics on this, said that objects from far away are a type of illusion. The object is not seen but constructed. I wonder how close anyone has to be to an object in order to see it's true self. But this is a point that the world is understood as mental on one hand and material on the other. Science adds to the discussion by it's mathematics but everything is so interconnected that we can't understand any particular till we understand absolute truth

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my interpretation that the Mathematical Universe is a mental construct? — Gnomon

I disagree with your interpretation, Gnomon, because Max Tegmark explicitly says – which I point out in my previous post – that he is not proposing the "MU" merely as "a mental construct". Read The Mathematical Universe or stream video of one of Tegmark's lectures on this thesis.

Reality. Ironically, Tegmark has been called a "radical Platonist". So, I would be surprised if that was compatible with your own (Realist?) worldview.

I don't agree with that common misconception either.

[Tegmark's MUH] looks like hyper-Platonism to many but more like Spinozism to me. — 180 Proof

I answer favorably to being called an "Epicurean-Spinozist".

[Tegmark's MUH] looks like hyper-Platonism to many but more like Spinozism to me. — 180 Proof

I answer favorably to being called an "Epicurean-Spinozist". — 180 Proof

It's entertaining to see efforts to shoe-horn Tegmark into the mix of classical philosophers and philosophical theory. But I think the gentleman is in a class by himself. My opinion? Sophisticated BS.