Reality is mathematics / Mathematics is reality ?

As I noted; a bit too subtle for you to follow. No problem, if this is fun for you continue on...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps you are a bit too old fashioned to experience a change of mind.

You talk this way to all scientists who disagree with you? It is all a bit too subtle for them also?

Instead of resorting to ad hominem, why don't you explain the subtleties to me? Is that too difficult for you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Possible, perhaps you are goofball.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You'll never find out this way.

 

Mathematics is not the symbols on the page but what those symbols mean.

If the universe has mathematical properties, then mathematics are a property of the universe.
That is the definition of an equation, no? I don't find that subtle at all. I find it logical.

Does anyone believe that mathematics do not describe universal physical values and functions? If so why are we using mathematics to explain the universe?

Tegmark proposes that Physical properties fundamentally are mathematical patterns of quarks and electrons. Quanta? The inherent mathematics determine the physical properties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_quantum_mechanics

 

True

Mathematics is the consequence of the physical . And therefore a property .

Describe yes , but the essence of the description is based on current theories .

Because that is what we use .

Mathematics , logic , is based on reason . Logic is focused reason .

Hence the " Laws " of physics .

Like I mentioned before , anything physical will have mathematics as a consequence , no surprise here .

Physical properties are fundamentally more than just patterns , they are also creative . In the subatomic

 

I agree!!!

Which brings us to the next question if all of the physical universe has mathematical properties or only if some of it has mathematical properties?

Quote from Tegmark; "Some people say the universe has some mathematical properties. I say the universe has only mathematical properties."

This gets us closer to a form of consensus , no? If the universe is only physical, we can say that it has only mathematical properties, no? If not, then perhaps only the physical part has mathematical properties?

 

Universe also has Life .

 

What is the physical difference between a live beetle and a dead beetle? There is absolutely no difference except for the molecular pattern arrangements which make one beetle alive and the other dead.

 

Being Alive .

 

And what makes the difference? One has dynamic patterns, the other has static patterns, no?

There is no difference in molecular constituents, only in the patterns the molecules are arranged. Think about it.

IMO, this is a profound observation by Tegmark.

 

Fundamentally , yes

But evolution can change those patterns .

Us , we Humans can change any pattern we want , individually and as a community .

 

I disagree, can we change the pattern of a galaxy?
Moreover the question is not if we can change patterns in some limited way, but if patterns can make up our reality.


It's all about asking the right questions.

 

No

Patterns are fundamental to stable things , both sub-atomic and the macro , galaxies , suns , planets etc.

Fine

But patterns can and are broken

 

Patterns can be dynamic.
Tegmark cites a wave which travels from one side of a lake to the other side, while the watermolecules remain relatively stationary. A dynamic pattern, no?

That does not in any way affect the question or the answer.

If you have not already done so, I really recommend watching the clip. It's really profound and Tegmark explains it much better than I can. He is a professor at Cambridge and has the qualifications to propose answers to fundamental questions.

The interesting thing is that he claims we need not look at some mysterious extra ingredient in our search for the answer what sets life or sentience apart from ordinary computational patterns (mathematics). We just never "could see the forest for the trees".

He proposes that sentience is an emergent property of certain computational patterns, most likely in biological systems, but might possibly also emerge in some non-biological systems as a quasi-sentience (entanglement?).

You see the implications in that perspective?

 

Yes

The wave is based on particles . Which collectively produces water , therefore a wave

 

So he is about a holographic Universe

 

Yes

Entanglement , entangling , which entangles , again and again .

But entanglement assumes that particle does not change position .

 

This is a misunderstanding of the words 'consequence' or 'property' or both.

Snow is the consequence of dropping air temperature, but that does not make snow a property of air temp.

 

True