# Infinite past... with a beginning?

.... thoughts are not mathematical functions.
I thought your position was that everything in the universe is a mathematical function.

What makes thoughts (and theism) special?

That statement is true also if time has no value in and of itself.
Can you tell me this unchanging value of time?
I think you've lost track of what we were talking about again. I don't think I'll bother backtracking to fill you in this time.

As I understand it in theory "movement is a function of time". I propose that "time is a function of movement". Perhaps it is an actual two way equation?
I don't understand what you mean when you say x "is a function of" y. You'll have to explain if you want me to respond to this.

Yes, maps. And exactly what does that mean?
I already explained about maps and territories. I don't see any reason to repeat myself. If you didn't understand, go back and read my previous posts again. I'm happy to answer specific questions but I have no intention of wasting time on "What was that all about, again?"

We do not understand anything about the universe and can only approximately guess?
We do not - and might not ever - understand everything about the universe. And yes, we can only approximately guess. That's what mathematical scientific theories are: best-guess approximations.

The universe has no identifiable mathematical constants?
Tegmark has a list of 32 identifiable constants. Check it out!

We're only guessing what makes things work? Do we need science at all? Do we need mathematics at all?
This is a rhetorical flourish on your part, I take it.

Theists have all the true answers, God explains everything without needing science. Isn't that convenient.
Sure, if you're a theist.

Do they know what they're talking about? Everyone seems to have plenty patience with theists. I don't.
*shrug*

A mathematical universe is a perfectly logical proposition. The question is not how much mathematical values and functions exist in nature. The question is if there are only mathematical values and functions in the universe, based on our available knowledge and understanding of identified universal properties. Natural mathematical relative values and functions are testable and falsifiable.
This is your first mention of "natural mathematical relative values". What are they? Can you give me an example or two?

IMO, that is much more productive discussion than drawing maps...
Did you really miss the whole map/territory thing that I explained to you several times? Do you really have no idea what I was telling you there? If that's the case, I have to ask myself whether it's actually worth trying to engage with you at all.

I consider human maths as symbolic representations of real universal values and functions, or in what I call, inherent general universal mathematical potentials as an essence of spacetime itself.
Ooh. Lots of jargon there.

What is a "real universal value"? (Examples?)
What is a symbolic representation of a "real universal value"? (Examples?)
What is a "general universal mathematical potential"?
What is it "inherent" in?
What is an "essence of spacetime"?

Don't we begin all discussion of spacetime with "space is a geometric pattern", a mathematical expression which can be symbolized with mathematical notation?
If you want to start from scratch, you need a specific definition of "spacetime". The most rigorous definitions tend to be mathematical ones.

The map/territory distinction is still there, though: our mathematical models of spacetime are not the same thing as the spacetime we walk around in.

Yes, I like the simple clarity in that concept which is testable.
What I asked wasn’t a “yes/no” question, but rather I was asking which of the options I presented fits your view, if indeed either of them do.
Theism is not part of this universe, thoughts are not mathematical functions. Thoughts are merely "best guesses" derived from secondary information and interpretation. (Anil Seth)
If the universe is mathematics, then surely everything within it is mathematics as well? That includes thoughts and, dare I say it, theism. You can no simply exclude from your “the universe is mathematics” that which you dislike. Either the universe is, or is not, mathematics. If it is then everything is.
What disturbs me is that all sciences and practising scientists use mathematics to solve universal phenomena, yet resist the notion that the universe could actually be mathematical in essence. Why is that?
Perhaps because the notion doesn’t add anything meaningful to what they’re doing. What do we mean by “mathematical in essence”? Is a person running to be considered as “motion in essence”? Is the motion guiding what their legs do, or are the relative positions of the legs considered “motion”? Ultimately, is considering the universe mathematical as you do actually helpful, meaningful, or going to improve our understanding in any way?

NOVA does well-produced documentaries. I didn't watch the whole thing, but in it Tegmark presents the same view as in the other video. That is, he believes that the universe is nothing but mathematics. In the NOVA video he acknowledges what he says is the view of many of his physics colleagues, which is also my view, that mathematics simply describes the universe.
Where is the distinction? If something describes the universe, it describes the values and functions of the universe.
You are saying that descriptions can only ever approximate. I disagree. Mathematics is (can be) an exact science.
The real sticking point for me is how mathematics - an abstract subject - could ever create anything tangible. As far as I can tell, there's no way to make "stuff" (matter, for instance) out of mathematics. So that's where I part company with Tegmark.
I understand what you are saying but as I understand Tegmark, he is saying that a value is the mathematical information (potential) contained in the physical pattern and as such must obey mathematical rules. I believe Tegmark does not just advocate number values, but argues for mathematical patterns which make up physical objects.
A "quantum" is, literally, an amount of something. Photons of light, for example, are sometimes referred to as "light quanta", which only means they are little chunks of light. The energy of a photon is a number, and we can talk about energy quanta as easily as we can talk about light quanta. But those two things are not the same thing. Photons are physical particles. Energy is just a number. (Which also implies, in case it is not clear, that photons are not energy.)
Yes, photons have a mathematical value and must obey mathematical rules (equations). Physical properties have to behave in accordance with their mathematical values.
Photons are not made of numbers. Various properties of photons can be described using numbers, but you can't create a photon out of numbers. Tegmark apparently thinks you can, but he doesn't say how.
Photons are mathematical paterns. You cannot create a valueless photon. A quanta is a physical object wich can only behave in accordance with its inherent mathematical value (potential). That how we do science, no?
Note: language of the universe, not the universe itself.
Not exactly, it is the human symbolic language used to translate mathematical values and functions. I believe a more correct term is mathematical information which determines universal functional interactions. Human have learned a language that is able to translate these mathematical function with our symbolic language.
You can believe whatever you want to believe. I have a published hypothesis that goes against Tegmark's. It's published in this thread. So as far as I can tell he and I are on an even footing when it comes to this particular philosophical argument.
I promise to reread it and give it serious consideration. Thank you for posting it.
See my comments about photons as "quanta of light", above. The same applies to electrons and quarks.
I understand, physical objects with specific (relative) properties and values, which determine their behaviors. But if these objects are physical, how can they we wave functions without losing their physical properties. It is Bohm who proposed that all these sub-atomic particles remain physical objects at all times and rather than travelling as a wave function, they are carried by the Universal Pilot Wave and the "Guiding equation".
Tegmark is content to talk about numbers. He even reduces the universe to 32 numbers, plus a few equations of physics.
If that is true, would that not be beautiful? Occam would be happy. How many letters of the alphabet did Shakespeare use to write his sonnnets?
The problem is that values are not always mathematical. The word "value" has lots of different meanings. Also, why use the word "relative"? Relative to what?
To each other. Numbers to describe values are human symbols and an atom does not know it has a value. But it possess a value relative to all other values, regardless of the symbolic notation used by the observer to describe the value.
Tegmark, by the way, doesn't use your term "mathematical potentials" either. I agree with him on that.
How do you know that he would object to the use of that term?
No.
Imagine you're Lara Croft in the computer game Tomb Raider, only with far more artificial intelligence. From your point of view, your world consists of ancient temples and bad guys with guns etc. What measurement could you possibly make inside your Tomb Raider world that would even hint at the existence of an Intel processor in our "real" world running the simulation that is the Tomb Raider world? I say there's no way you could ever deduce for yourself the existence of our world from within that Tomb Raider world.
What exactly is a processor? It's a network no. The universe is a network. How is information processed by the universe?
Similarly, if our "real" world - including you and me - is a simulation in an alien mega-computer somewhere, there's no way we'll ever be able to prove that from within this world.
Right, but we would still be able to use our maths to explain universal values and functions, no?
So you're arguing for a mathematical universe on the basis of adverse outcomes if it turns out that your hypothesis is false? You might not like the idea, but it might turn out that we can't unlock all the unknown mysteries of the universe.
I agree. It's Tegmark who claims that if the universe is purely mathematical , science should be able to unlock all the mysteries. I believe that where he agrees with Bohm on the concept of a universal "wholeness".
I suspect that it is a fringe viewpoint, even among cosmologists. But we'd really need to take a poll to know for sure.
Thank you for being open to further examination of the idea. I like that objectivity.
I watched parts of it. It's well produced and interesting. That doesn't mean I agree with all the views expressed therein, of course.
I understand, but I am happy that you found it interesting and well presented.

Last edited:
If for some reason mathematical order (whatever that is) gives an organism a survival and/or reproductive advantage, then natural selection will tend to select for it.
Order of what?
The order of the organisms pattern, which gives it a survival advantage.
A gray mouse on a gray surface has a greater survival advantage over a white mouse on a grey surface. It is a minor value distinction but if it is effective, natural selection will select for the gray mouse.
What is a "physical function"? Is that different from a mathematical function, or is it the same thing?
Who do you think has proven this?
OK example; walking (running) is a controlled forward falling motion. The mathematics of the gravitational forces are subconsciously controlled by the afferent neural functions which control the muscles which produce the physical runnig action and also maintain balance.
The earth's ecosystems have lots of feedback loops built in. Different parts are interconnected in complex ways to one another and to the natural environment.
Yep, I believe it is defined as self-referencing mathematical systems?
I'm not entirely clear on what kind of order you're talking about here, either. In what way do you think the earth's ecosystem is ordered? What would the alternative, disordered state look like?
The sun? Come to think of it even a star is a self-ordering object, until they go nova. That results in a disordered system, AKA chaos.
How are you measuring balance and symmetry in an ecosystem? What do you mean by those things?
I believe one of the terms used to describe fundamental universal actions is symmetry breaking ?
In physics, symmetry breaking is a phenomenon in which (infinitesimally) small fluctuations acting on a system crossing a critical point decide the system's fate, by determining which branch of a bifurcation is taken. To an outside observer unaware of the fluctuations (or "noise"), the choice will appear arbitrary. This process is called symmetry "breaking", because such transitions usually bring the system from a symmetric but
disorderly state into one or more definite states
. Symmetry breaking is thought to play a major role in pattern formation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_breaking
Theism is part of the universe. Therefore, according to your theory (or Tegmark's), theism must be mathematical. Right?
Theism is not a mathematical part of the universe
That sounds like a big claim, and not a very well defined one.
Not as big a claim as Theism.

I thought your position was that everything in the universe is a mathematical function. What makes thoughts (and theism) special?
Because there is no God. The universe is not a self-aware consciousness which has the ability for imagining impossible events, it is a self-referential mathematical quasi-consciousness, which forms metaphysical deterministic implicates of possible future probabilities (Bohm)

This is a very interesting question and I am not sure if I can begin to answer this, without invoking Stuart Hameroff
Stuart Hameroff (born July 16, 1947) is an anesthesiologist and professor at the University of Arizona known for his studies of consciousness and his controversial contention that consciousness originates from quantum states in neural microtubules. He is the lead organizer of the Science of Consciousness conference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hameroff
who, along with Roger Penrose have hypothesized ORCH OR in the function of brain microtubules, the trillions of information nano-processors in our neural networks,
and Anil Seth who defines consciousness from his perspective as
Anil K Seth is a British professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience at the University of Sussex.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anil_Seth

Tegmark claims that consciousness is a transcendent result of neural activity. Something like "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" where thinking is information processing , but thoughts are metaphysical patterns.
This is actually a very interesting lecture by Tegmark. Well worth spending a few minutes on.
I think you've lost track of what we were talking about again. I don't think I'll bother backtracking to fill you in this time.
No, we just haven't touched on that subject yet.
I don't understand what you mean when you say x "is a function of" y. You'll have to explain if you want me to respond to this.
This may be related to logical relationship between necessity and sufficiency.
In logic, necessity and sufficiency are implicational relationships between statements. The assertion that one statement is a necessary and sufficient condition of another means that the former statement is true if and only if the latter is true. That is, the two statements must be either simultaneously true or simultaneously false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency

OK,
What does "x is function of y" mean?
If y(x) = 2x, that means that for every incremental increase in x, y increases by 2 increments. Y is twice the value of x, for every value x takes on.

If x = 5, then
y = 2 x 5 = 10.
http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/frontiers/web/chapter_3/9121.html

Last edited:
I already explained about maps and territories. I don't see any reason to repeat myself. If you didn't understand, go back and read my previous posts again. I'm happy to answer specific questions but I have no intention of wasting time on "What was that all about, again?"
OK
We do not - and might not ever - understand everything about the universe. And yes, we can only approximately guess. That's what mathematical scientific theories are: best-guess approximations.
Thought processes are best guesses, labaratory experiment s can imitate some natural processes with very high accuracy.
I see no compelling reason to assume we can never know how the universe works. Tegmark thinks we can if the universe is indeed a mathematical construct.
Tegmark has a list of 32 identifiable constants. Check it out!
I told you that awhile ago. I asked you if thought that the universe had no universal constants. Note the question mark.[/quote] This is a rhetorical flourish on your part, I take it.[/quote] Yes, more or less tongue-in-cheek questions.....
Sure, if you're a theist.
I agree.
I agree. [/quote]This is your first mention of "natural mathematical relative values". What are they? Can you give me an example or two?[/quote] It is just what I have been talking about . All I did was change the word universal with natural.
As to my use of "relative values", I believe that it is a more accurate identification than the use of the terms "numbers" which is misleading in that the term numbers can be interpreted as the human numerical symbols which identify universal relative values. The universe does not deal in symbolisms, humans do.
Did you really miss the whole map/territory thing that I explained to you several times? Do you really have no idea what I was telling you there? If that's the case, I have to ask myself whether it's actually worth trying to engage with you at all.
Ever seen the new 3D printers? They make 3D (maps of) functional stuff. Forget the pencil and paper, that's old, just like the cave paintings.
Ooh. Lots of jargon there.
What is a "real universal value"? (Examples?)
What is a symbolic representation of a "real universal value"? (Examples?)
What is a "general universal mathematical potential"?
What is it "inherent" in?
What is an "essence of spacetime"?
Oh good, I did explain all of that before, with examples. No sense in repeating.
If you want to start from scratch, you need a specific definition of "spacetime". The most rigorous definitions tend to be mathematical ones.
Halleluja!
The map/territory distinction is still there, though: our mathematical models of spacetime are not the same thing as the spacetime we walk around in.
IMO, your use of models is outdated. Our new 3D printers can actually print out functional stuff, albeit to human specifications. We can simulate cosmic conditions with great accuracy.

In the Great Math Mystery" one scientist says; "if we ask the universe a question and we ask it nicely (with the correct mathematics) the universe will give us a correct answer". The universe responds to mathematical questions if they are posed in proper context.

In his lecture "Chance, Necessity, and the Origins of Life" at Carnegie institute for science, Robert Hazen cites Luis Allamendola at NASA for reproducing conditions found in cosmic clouds
At Ames, L.A. cultivated the experimental methods required to reproduce space in the laboratory. By developing new techniques that addressed a wider range of astrophysical problems, Allamandola established a worldwide reputation in the study of the composition, chemistry and spectroscopic properties of interstellar and solar system dust and ices.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2006/allamandola.html
Robert Miller Hazen (born November 1, 1948) is an American mineralogist and astrobiologist. He is a research scientist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington's Geophysical Laboratory and Clarence Robinson Professor of Earth Science at George Mason University, in the United States. Hazen is the Executive Director of the Deep Carbon Observatory.
This is an excellent lecture on mineral evolution and the possible origind for life.( START @ 25:00 to avoid lengthy introduction.)

Last edited:
Sarkus said: What is “mathematical order” as opposed to normal order?
W4U said: I believe it can be proven that "order" itself is an expression of causal physical functions which are mathematical in essence, IOW "order" emerges from chaos as a result of mathematical ordering functions.
What I asked wasn’t a “yes/no” question, but rather I was asking which of the options I presented fits your view, if indeed either of them do.
OK, "order" is a mathematical pattern. Mathematical order is basically a redundancy.
If the universe is mathematics, then surely everything within it is mathematics as well? That includes thoughts and, dare I say it, theism.
You can no simply exclude from your “the universe is mathematics” that which you dislike. Either the universe is, or is not, mathematics. If it is then everything is.
Human thoughts are metaphysical objects and not necessarily mathematical at all.
I can think that 2 = 3. The universe cannot, nor can a computer. It's not an orderly process.
See the Tegmark video on "Consciousness" is a Mathematical Pattern", but thoughts may be random. A thought is a transcendent object according to Tegmark
Perhaps because the notion doesn’t add anything meaningful to what they’re doing. What do we mean by “mathematical in essence”?
I believe Tegmark means that spacetime itself is a mathematical object and therefore is mathematical in it's very essence.
Is a person running to be considered as “motion in essence”?
No, motion is mathematical in essence.
Is the motion guiding what their legs do, or are the relative positions of the legs considered “motion”?
I would say it is a self-referential sensory feedback of mathematical information (an afferent/efferent neural function). I've heard it said that walking is a "controlled forward falling process".
Ultimately, is considering the universe mathematical as you do actually helpful, meaningful, or going to improve our understanding in any way?
Tegmark seems to think so and applying Occam's razor, that would seem to be the "solution with the fewest assumptions". Does current cosmological science employ more assumptions than a universe based on pure mathematical values and functions? Are we using anything other than mathematics in our current theoretical science before we conduct physical testing of those mathematics?
If not, then why resist the notion that the universe is mathematical in essence? That seems to me a contradiction in terms.

Phewwww......you guys are making me think!.........

Last edited:
Write4U:

Where is the distinction? If something describes the universe, it describes the values and functions of the universe.
The distinction, as I keep saying, is that a description is not the thing it describes. Here's a famous painting by Rene Magritte that makes the same point:

The caption translates as "This is not a pipe." And that's right. You're not looking at a pipe.

See?

You are saying that descriptions can only ever approximate.
I'm saying that descriptions are not the thing described. Specifically, mathematical descriptions of electrons or universes are not electrons or universes.

I understand what you are saying but as I understand Tegmark, he is saying that a value is the mathematical information (potential) contained in the physical pattern and as such must obey mathematical rules.
We've already been through this. He is saying that the physical things have only mathematical properties. In other words, he's saying that, somehow, mathematical properties can make "stuff" that we can touch. But how could they? He doesn't say.

Photons are mathematical paterns.
No!

The description of a photon might be a mathematical pattern, but we can actually see the photon itself. It can be a light in the dark, or a spot on a screen.

I understand, physical objects with specific (relative) properties and values, which determine their behaviors. But if these objects are physical, how can they we wave functions without losing their physical properties.
They can't be wave functions. A wave function is a mathematical construct that we use to describe physical objects. I say it's a mistake to think that the wavefunction is the object it is describing. It's better to think about the wavefunction as telling us what we know about the object.

If Tegmark can explain how a number or a mathematical function can create something (anything!) physical, then I'll start taking him more seriously.

I think that we shouldn't mistake this for a debate about science, though. This is, at its heart, a philosophical debate.

If that is true, would that not be beautiful? Occam would be happy.
I think that we'd have a very useful description of the universe if it turns out we can derive everything that goes on in the universe from 32 numbers and a few fundamental equations. That wouldn't change my mind about those numbers and equations creating the universe, however.

How do you know that he would object to the use of that term? [mathematical potentials]
I don't know, but he is an MIT physicist. My assumption would be that he would use the word "potential" in the sense that other professional physicists use that word. But to be sure, we'd need to ask him - or look for examples of publications (including videos or whatever) in which he uses that word.

Thank you for being open to further examination of the idea. I like that objectivity.
I'm generally open to examining ideas.

James R said:
How are you measuring balance and symmetry in an ecosystem? What do you mean by those things?
I believe one of the terms used to describe fundamental universal actions is symmetry breaking ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_breaking
You wrote "changes in the environment are a result of mathematical functions in the ecosystem, and always tend toward balance and symmetry."

So I asked you what "balance" and "symmetry" means for an ecosystem - i.e. what those terms mean to you in this context.

Am I to take it that you don't really have anything particular in mind when you refer to the "balance" of an ecosystem, or to it's "symmetry", then? Are those just fancy words you're throwing in because they sound impressive in your statement about "mathematical functions"? Have you actually thought about what you're saying?

Write4U said:
Theism is not a mathematical part of the universe
How could it not be, if you adopt Tegmark's view? His view says everything is mathematics, and that necessarily includes all beliefs held by human beings (who are all also nothing but mathematics in his opinion).

Because there is no God. The universe is not a self-aware consciousness which has the ability for imagining impossible events, it is a self-referential mathematical quasi-consciousness, which forms metaphysical deterministic implicates of possible future probabilities (Bohm)

[blah blah blah Hameroff blah blah blah ORCH OR blah blah blah consciousness blah blah metaphysical patterns]
You're getting distracted onto your other obsession - microtubules. Can we stick with discussing the problems with Tegmark, for now?

Write4U said:
I propose that "time is a function of movement".
James R said:
I don't understand what you mean when you say x "is a function of" y.
Write4U said:
This may be related to logical relationship between necessity and sufficiency.
....

If y(x) = 2x, that means that for every incremental increase in x, y increases by 2 increments. Y is twice the value of x, for every value x takes on.
....
So for every incremental increase in movement, time increases by certain increments? Is that what you're saying? Or, put more succinctly, movement is the cause of time?

How could movement create time? Isn't movement something we observe to happen as time progresses? Isn't time a part of the "background" against which movements occur?

I see no compelling reason to assume we can never know how the universe works.
I agree with you. On the other hand, I see no compelling reason to assume that we will eventually know everything about how the universe works.

I asked you if thought that the universe had no universal constants. Note the question mark.
I think that our mathematical models of the universe involve some universal constants, with a few caveats (there's no way to tell if the "constants" are really universal, or even if they are "constant" everywhere for all time).

Ever seen the new 3D printers? They make 3D (maps of) functional stuff. Forget the pencil and paper, that's old, just like the cave paintings.
For a 3D printer to make anything, you need to provide it with more than just mathematics. You need to give it some physical material to build with.

IMO, your use of models is outdated. Our new 3D printers can actually print out functional stuff, albeit to human specifications. We can simulate cosmic conditions with great accuracy.
A simulation is a model.

In the Great Math Mystery" one scientist says; "if we ask the universe a question and we ask it nicely (with the correct mathematics) the universe will give us a correct answer". The universe responds to mathematical questions if they are posed in proper context.
Yes. That's very convenient for us. The question is: why does it do that? I don't like Tegmark's answer very much, that's all.

The caption translates as "This is not a pipe." And that's right. You're not looking at a pipe.
I agree, what you are showing is a 2D printed picture of a real pipe. But today we can print out a real 3D functional pipes. We can now create some maps that are exact copies of the real thing (still very limited, but progressing very fast). The word print or map is no longer a picture drawn by a pencil or even a photograph. We are able to produce real copies of some real objects.
I'm saying that descriptions are not the thing described. Specifically, mathematical descriptions of electrons or universes are not electrons or universes.
Speaking of electrons in relation to "light"(photons).
Are photons electrons?

sprawls.org
• No, electrons do not consist photons. However, when they interact with photons, they either absorb or emit photons which is completely probabilistic. They interact at the microscopic level. That is what we call the interaction of light with matter.
Is this saying that light is not matter but has a mathematical value?

I've posted this elsewhere, but it may be pertinent to this subject also as it deals with the behavior of photons.

How about a real time composite picture of photons in flight, which do not present a wave function at all.

I'd like to see the double slit experiment photographed with this technology and determine if the photon is a wave function or an object at all times. If anyone has access to MIT, this might be an experiment of general interest to the scientific community. Tegmark????
He is saying that the physical things have only mathematical properties. In other words, he's saying that, somehow, mathematical properties can make "stuff" that we can touch. But how could they? He doesn't say.
To be exact Tegmark says that stuff is made up from mathematical patterns. What exactly is a quantum? Is it a physical object or a "value"?
Are quantum fields not a collection of physical objects, such as the Higgs boson? If not, then how do we describe a quantum other than as a mathematical value? He poses a very interesting observation about the phenomenon called "wetness". He reminds us that an H2O molecule is not wet, and trhat wetness is a specific pattern of H2O molecules, whereas a different pattern of H2O molecules is not wet or fluid but a solid, and another pattern of H2O molecules is also not wet and gaseous. The same molecules assuming a transcendent state based on their pattern distribution, a mathematical function.
That wouldn't change my mind about those numbers and equations creating the universe, however.
I don't think Tegmark is proposing that mathematics create the universe. I believe he proposes that the universe is a collection of mathematical values and functions, which we have succesfully symbolized. i.e. the universe, regardless of how it was created is mathematical in essence due to its inherent geometrical and elementary mathematical properties. Inherent universal potentials?
My assumption would be that he would use the word "potential" in the sense that other professional physicists use that word.
I believe that I am using the term correctly as defined in every dictionary. Are those definitions incorrect?
I'm generally open to examining ideas.
I am sure that's all Tegmark can expect until we can examine nature at extremely small (Planck?) scales and actually observe how it works.
The Planck constant, or Planck's constant, denoted
, is a physical constant that is the quantum of electromagnetic action, which relates the energy carried by a photon to its frequency. A photon's energy is equal to its frequency multiplied by the Planck constant. The Planck constant is of fundamental importance in quantum mechanics, and in metrology it is the basis for the definition of the kilogram.

The Planck constant is defined to have the exact value
6.62607015×10−34 J⋅s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

You wrote "changes in the environment are a result of mathematical functions in the ecosystem, and always tend toward balance and symmetry."
So I asked you what "balance" and "symmetry" means for an ecosystem - i.e. what those terms mean to you in this context.
OK, let me try.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetry
Yes, I wanted to cite an example of a dynamic function, such as symmetry breaking, which creates a dynamic imbalance?
Am I to take it that you don't really have anything particular in mind when you refer to the "balance" of an ecosystem, or to it's "symmetry", then? Are those just fancy words you're throwing in because they sound impressive in your statement about "mathematical functions"? Have you actually thought about what you're saying?
Yes, see above. btw. The spiral Fibonacci sequence was selected by natural selection because it offers the most mathematically efficient and balanced linear growth function, especially in the vertical growth function of plants and trees, which require sun-light for energy.
How could it not be, if you adopt Tegmark's view? His view says everything is mathematics, and that necessarily includes all beliefs held by human beings (who are all also nothing but mathematics in his opinion).
I disagree, Tegmark also proposes that certain mathematical patterns yield transcendent phenomona.
I am actually researching if that transcendence is indicated by the suffix "xxxxxx-ness".
-ness
a native English suffix attached to adjectives and participles, forming abstract nouns denoting quality and state (and often, by extension, something exemplifying a quality or state):darkness; goodness; kindness; obligingness; preparedness.
Wetness?
You're getting distracted onto your other obsession - microtubules. Can we stick with discussing the problems with Tegmark, for now?
Sure, I have a seperate thread on "microtubules" in "alternative theories" .
So for every incremental increase in movement, time increases by certain increments? Is that what you're saying? Or, put more succinctly, movement is the cause of time?
Indirectly, I see time as an emergent measurement of duration of existence or change.
I believe this is an important philosophical observation
Can we perceive a relation between two events without also perceiving the events themselves? If not, then it seems we perceive both events as present, in which case we must perceive them as simultaneous, and so not as successive after all. There is then a paradox in the notion of perceiving an event as occurring after another, though one that perhaps admits of a straightforward solution.
When we perceive B as coming after A, we have, surely, ceased to perceive A. In which case, A is merely an item in our memory. Now if we wanted to construe ‘perceive’ narrowly, excluding any element of memory, then we would have to say that we do not, after all, perceive B as following A. But in this article, we shall construe ‘perceive’ more broadly, to include a wide range of experiences of time that essentially involve the senses. In this wide sense, we perceive a variety of temporal aspects of the world. We shall begin by enumerating these, and then consider accounts of how such perception is possible....more
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time-experience/#WhatPercTime
How could movement create time? Isn't movement something we observe to happen as time progresses? Isn't time a part of the "background" against which movements occur?
Only if you consider time as a pre-existent by-product of the existence of space. But spacetime cannot be used as a measurement of say "lunch-time" is 30 minutes, which is not a spatial measurement and the temporal measurement of space.
Space does not exist or move in time, the "unfolding" of space creates an associated time-frame as a mathematical measurement of duration. Same as metrics are measurements of spatial properties, time is a measurement of existence or change.
Time cannot exist independent of anything else, it is always connected to the "start", "chronology", and "finish" of an event or series of events.
Time itself has no measurable properties. IMO, it is one of Tegmark's emergent transcendent measurements, strictly relative to the duration of what is being measured. The Universe does not care about time, it does not need to remember when it started or how old it is. Humans do and that's why we invented time as a simultaneous by-product of duration in the evolution of spatial dimensions.
I agree with you. On the other hand, I see no compelling reason to assume that we will eventually know everything about how the universe works.
Tegmark does. Is that really so controversial?
Is Einstein's E = Mc^2 not a conversion from pure energy into matter? What exactly does that mean? Energy is not matter? We know "c" is not matter, it's a measurement, no?
I think that our mathematical models of the universe involve some universal constants, with a few caveats (there's no way to tell if the "constants" are really universal, or even if they are "constant" everywhere for all time).
How could they not be? That is like saying the Universe is not the Universe in its entirety as a Universe. It was created and expanded from a single source with specific relative values and patterns which interact mathematically. Any non-trivial differences are already explained by relativity.
Why should a certain wavelength produce a different result in different parts of a contiguous universe? That would create chaos, no?
For a 3D printer to make anything, you need to provide it with more than just mathematics. You need to give it some physical material to build with.
Yes you have to feed it with dense atomic patterns of specific values.
A simulation is a model.
A simulation is an approximate imitation of the operation of a process or system;[1] that represents its operation over time.

Simulation is used in many contexts, such as simulation of technology for performance tuning or optimizing, safety engineering, testing, training, education, and video games. Often, computer experiments are used to study simulation models. Simulation is also used with scientific modelling of natural systems or human systems to gain insight into their functioning,[2] as in economics.
Simulation can be used to show the eventual real effects of alternative conditions and courses of action. Simulation is also used when the real system cannot be engaged, because it may not be accessible, or it may be dangerous or unacceptable to engage, or it is being designed but not yet built, or it may simply not exist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation

Louis Allamendola at NASA simulates conditions in cosmic clouds to observe the effects of radiation in astrochemistry. I assume this requires an exact copy of the conditions, but at a very small scale. Is it necessary to copy an entire cosmic dust cloud the size of a galaxy?
Yes. That's very convenient for us. The question is: why does it do that? I don't like Tegmark's answer very much, that's all.
I don't like all of Tegmark's answers either. I certainly do not worship him.
I do like the simplicity of his concept, which appears to be testable by posing mathematical questions about unknown values and functions to the universe and receiving an answer (result) if the mathematics are correctly used.
I do believe all those cosmologist who declare they get a feeling that they are discovering existing universal mathematical properties rather than imposing mathematical properties. Why would they lie? Most science lies in discovery of pre-existing natural conditions and constants, no?

Last edited:
Some people seem to view the notion of an infinite past with a beginning as impossible. Anyone can argue this impossibility properly?
EB

This question is far, far, far, far beyond my own little IQ or Security Clearance Level so I will leave you with a quotation:

(Mellen Benedict, near-death .com)

At this point of my near-death experience, I found myself in a profound stillness, beyond all silence. I could see or perceive FOREVER, beyond Infinity. I was in the Void.

I was in pre creation, before the Big Bang. I had crossed over the beginning of time / the First Word / the First vibration. I was in the Eye of Creation. I felt as if I was touching the Face of God. It was not a religious feeling. Simply, I was at one with Absolute Life and Consciousness. When I say that I could see or perceive forever, I mean that I could experience all of creation generating itself. It was without beginning and without end. That’s a mind-expanding thought, isn’t it? Scientists perceive the Big Bang as a single event that created the Universe. I saw during my life after death experience that the Big Bang is only one of an infinite number of Big Bangs creating Universes endlessly and simultaneously. The only images that even come close in human terms would be those created by super computers using fractal geometry equations.

The ancients knew of this. They said God had periodically created new Universes by breathing out, and recreated other Universes by breathing in. These epochs were called Yugas. Modern science called this the Big Bang. I was in absolute, pure consciousness. I could see or perceive all the Big Bangs or Yugas creating and recreating themselves. Instantly I entered into them all simultaneously. I saw that each and every little piece of creation has the power to create. It is very difficult to try to explain this. I am still speechless about this.

Write4U:

Just a couple of scientific points here...
Is Einstein's E = Mc^2 not a conversion from pure energy into matter? What exactly does that mean? Energy is not matter? We know "c" is not matter, it's a measurement, no?
My own view is that \$E=mc^2\$ just associates a certain energy value (i.e. a number) with a certain amount of physical substance. Energy is just a number, essentially. You can't convert stuff into a number, or vice versa. Energy is not a substance.

How could they not be? That is like saying the Universe is not the Universe in its entirety as a Universe.
It is convenient to assume that the physical constants of nature are the same in different parts of the universe, but that is not proven. Nor is it proven that the constants have the same values now that they had in the past. A number of groups are making observations to see whether, in distant (and therefore older) parts of the universe, any of the constants were different than what we measure here and now. it could be, for example, that the "constants" actually vary slowly, or that the universe has "pockets" where the values of the constants are different than the ones we see nearby. There's no good evidence for any variation, so far, but it's an open question.