Therefore God has a brain? (by your own admission)Write4U:
All the religions say they do.
Because by your own admission motivated decision making requires a brain.I think you missed the part about gods being supernatural. If you're supernatural, who says you need a physical brain?
Metaphor for what? Brain or no Brain?Metaphor. Remember?
And in this instance the metaphor is....?The kind in which people speak in metaphors?
You have to be kidding!Nonsense. I'm not using any mathematics to type this post, for instance.
No, it is absolutely contrary to religion and it's mystical metaphors.That's just a faith-based claim you're making. This really is a religion for you, isn't it?
EquationPlease research what an equation is.
In mathematics, an equation is a statement that asserts the equality of two expressions, which are connected by the equals sign "=".[2][3][4] The word equation and its cognates in other languages may have subtly different meanings; for example, in French an équation is defined as containing one or more variables, while in English, any equality is an equation.[5]
Solving an equation containing variables consists of determining which values of the variables make the equality true. Variables are also called unknowns, and the values of the unknowns that satisfy the equality are called solutions of the equation. There are two kinds of equations: identities and conditional equations. An identity is true for all values of the variable. A conditional equation is only true for particular values of the variables.[6][7]
An equation is written as two expressions, connected by an equals sign ("=").[3] The expressions on the two sides of the equals sign are called the "left-hand side" and "right-hand side" of the equation.
The most common type of equation is an algebraic equation in which the two sides are algebraic expressions. The left hand side of an algebraic equation will contain one or more terms. For example, the equation ;
, has left-hand side, which has four terms, and right-hand side, consisting of just one term. The unknowns are x and y, and the parameters are A, B, and C.
I understand this narrative very clearly.An equation is analogous to a scale into which weights are placed. When equal weights of something (e.g., grain) are placed into the two pans, the two weights cause the scale to be in balance and are said to be equal. If a quantity of grain is removed from one pan of the balance, an equal amount of grain must be removed from the other pan to keep the scale in balance. More generally, an equation remains in balance if the same operation is performed on its both sides
God is the only other metaphysical object which describes the existence of the Universe without the help of an intelligent brain or a quasi-intelligent mathematical essence.I still don't understand why you're fixated on God, while at the same time saying that your mathematical universe doesn't have one. Have I misunderstood your position? Do you think mathematics is God, or something? Why all this God talk. Does Tegmark go on about God the way you do?
I can say that your "life" is a metaphor. What does that prove?We've been through this before. They use mathematics as a tool. If you want to call it a "language" then you're using a metaphor.
WOW, you have not seen Tegmark's wall. It's the wall in his office which contains all (but one) of the required numbers and equations necessary to explain the mathematical essence of the entire Universe.His wall? What are you talking about?
i'll let Tegmark speak for himself. Tegmark writes:How would one go about falsifying Tegmark's Level IV universe idea, then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#:He argues that this "implies that any conceivable parallel universe theory can be described at Level IV" and "subsumes all other ensembles, therefore brings closure to the hierarchy of multiverses, and there cannot be, say, a Level V."[20]
Discarding any of the mainstream scientific equations on his Wall, such as E = Mc^2 It would falsify the entire theory and most of mainstream science at the same time. All of Tegmark's mathematics have been tested and have been falsified. They are, after all, mainstream scientific theories.......Tegmark does not introduce anything new, he compiles and assembles mainstream science and proposes a comprehensive whole, which can in principle explain everything about the nature of the Universe.Good-oh! Tell me what could falsify his theory, then.
That is your considered conclusion? Junk all of mainstream science and it's mathematics.Okay then! Back to the drawing board. Toss that theory in the bin!
Just like the English language is a flawed language, but sufficiently sophisticated for Shakespeare.You're right that his idea is not exactly new. For that reason, it suffers from all the same philosophical flaws that ideas like classical Platonism have.
You have touched on the crux .It's a claim that is counter-intuitive and which needs explanation, which Tegmark has not really provided. As I previously suggested to you - and I now see that Massimo Pigliucci (for one) holds essentially the same view I do - maybe Tegmark is just muddled and is making a basic category error.
You did. You said intentional decision making requires a brain.Who told you that a supernatural God needs a physical brain?
He doesn't need to. QM has taken care of that. Tegmark uses mainstream science to make his case!Creating physical stuff out of numbers would, in itself, be a miracle, in my opinion. Tegmark hasn't suggested any mechanism for that, as far as I can tell.
Me? Nooooo....I am not aware of any other possibilities, are you?You've examined and ruled out all other possibilities, have you? Or is this just one more proclamation of the faith?
Well, seems we are making progress.....If all you are saying is that theories in physics are most precisely quantified using mathematics, that's uncontroversial.
Half the worlds'religions are based on that premise.It doesn't appear to me to be driven by a motivated intelligence.
The same motivated intelligent brain you stipulated to earlier. What other sort's of brains are there?What kind of brain is required for motivated intelligence? Will any sort of brain do? Can you be more specific?
To me that is most persuasive argument Tegmark makes.Tegmark doesn't countenance a "partial mathematical universe". I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Is it some kind of sub-sect of Tegmarkism?
What flaws? I see no immediate flaws at all in Tegmark's logic.Of course you do. You're his fanboy. It doesn't occur to you to look for flaws in his ideas or arguments.
of course, that's how hypotheses are honed on the way to becoming theory.Correct. As far as I can tell, though, he has his work cut out for him to convince the physics mainstream.
There seems to be, as far as the mathematical structure of the universe is discovered rather than invented.They are trained in physics, but not necessarily in philosophy, as I pointed out. What they think they are doing is not necessarily what they are doing. Also, don't get the wrong impression: there's no consensus among cosmologists about this stuff.
You might try literature, you do have a flair.....I love stage drama, but my dramatic talents are more musical than literary.
Yes, isn't all of mainstream science falsified? that's all Tegmark uses.Falsified? Is that what you meant to say? (That's at least twice now that you've said that.)
No, that was David Bohm's observation and prompted him to write "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" . Consider the implied message in that title just for a moment.You think that current science is randomly assembled? Interesting.
That is just another dramatic incorrect interpretation of Tegmark's hypothesis. He seeks to combine all of theoretical science and combine it in a single mathematical equation that is able to describe everything when appropriately applied.Then why your fixation on him? If he is just recycling old ideas that have been shown to have flaws, where's the scientific revolution you're so keen to promote?
I'm beginning to think you don't really understand what Tegmark is saying, or what his opponents' objections are.
Yes, that is exactly what he does.Tegmark doesn't say that because mathematics exists therefore the universe is nothing but mathematics.
Then why do they reject the notion of a Mathematical Universe? That is what I am saying. is that so hard to understand. I find it remarkable simple as Tegmark posits with his wall of 32 fundamental numbers and a handful of equations. He stipulates the hypothesis is NOT complete . Yet the consternation persists because of every other scientist's pet little nook to which they are wedded is threatened by a single overarching theory.Similarly, none of his opponents say that mathematics doesn't exist or is absent from the universe. I have no idea what you're saying.
Drama...Big Time Drama......exchemist:
As usual, I agree with you. Clearly Write4U is in the grip of a religious fervour. He believes he has found The Answer.*
---
* And it's 42.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle#In modern physical cosmology, the cosmological principle is the notion that the spatial distribution of matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when viewed on a large enough scale, since the forces are expected to act uniformly throughout the universe, and should, therefore, produce no observable irregularities in the large-scale structuring over the course of evolution of the matter field that was initially laid down by the Big Bang.
In physics, mathematics, and related fields, a wave is a propagating dynamic disturbance (change from equilibrium) of one or more quantities, sometimes as described by a wave equation.
Wave equationIn physical waves, at least two field quantities in the wave medium are involved. Waves can be periodic, in which case those quantities oscillate repeatedly about an equilibrium (resting) value at some frequency. When the entire waveform moves in one direction it is said to be a traveling wave; by contrast, a pair of superimposed periodic waves traveling in opposite directions makes a standing wave. In a standing wave, the amplitude of vibration has nulls at some positions where the wave amplitude appears smaller or even zero.
The wave equation is an important second-order linear partial differential equation for the description of waves—as they occur in classical physics—such as mechanical waves (e.g. water waves, sound waves and seismic waves) or light waves. It arises in fields like acoustics, electromagnetics, and fluid dynamics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_equationHistorically, the problem of a vibrating string such as that of a musical instrument was studied by Jean le Rond d'Alembert, Leonhard Euler, Daniel Bernoulli, and Joseph-Louis Lagrange.[1][2][3][4][5] In 1746, d’Alembert discovered the one-dimensional wave equation, and within ten years Euler discovered the three-dimensional wave equation.[6]
A wave function in quantum physics is a mathematical description of the quantum state of an isolated quantum system. The wave function is a complex-valued probability amplitude, and the probabilities for the possible results of measurements made on the system can be derived from it. The most common symbols for a wave function are the Greek letters ψ and Ψ (lower-case and capital psi, respectively).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#The wave function is a function of the degrees of freedom corresponding to some maximal set of commuting observables. Once such a representation is chosen, the wave function can be derived from the quantum state.
Geometry (from the Ancient Greek: γεωμετρία; geo- "earth", -metron "measurement") is, with arithmetic, one of the oldest branches of mathematics. It is concerned with properties of space that are related with distance, shape, size, and relative position of figures.[1] A mathematician who works in the field of geometry is called a geometer.
During the 19th century several discoveries enlarged dramatically the scope of geometry. One of the oldest such discoveries is Gauss' Theorema Egregium (remarkable theorem) that asserts roughly that the Gaussian curvature of a surface is independent from any specific embedding in an Euclidean space. This implies that surfaces can be studied intrinsically, that is as stand alone spaces, and has been expanded into the theory of manifolds and Riemannian geometry.
Later in the 19th century, it appeared that geometries without the parallel postulate (non-Euclidean geometries) can be developed without introducing any contradiction. The geometry that underlies general relativity is a famous application of non-Euclidean geometry.
Since then, the scope of geometry has been greatly expanded, and the field has been split in many subfields that depend on the underlying methods—differential geometry, algebraic geometry, computational geometry, algebraic topology, discrete geometry (also known as combinatorial geometry), etc.—or on the properties of Euclidean spaces that are disregarded—projective geometry that consider only alignment of points but not distance and parallelism, affine geometry that omits the concept of angle and distance, finite geometry that that omits continuity, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeometryOften developed with the aim to model the physical world, geometry has applications to almost all sciences, and also to art, architecture, and other activities that are related to graphics.[3] Geometry has also applications to areas of mathematics that are apparently unrelated. For example, methods of algebraic geometry are fundamental for Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, a problem that was stated in terms of elementary arithmetic, and remainded unsolved for several centuries.
The Universe is not fine-tuned to life on Earth. Life on Earth is fine-tuned to the Universe.Everyone feels a need to conform to the scientific-consensus cosmic opinion that the universe is all random happenstance, without any creational input, and without any otherworldly technological maintenance involved. What if the various galaxies and cosmic bodies were not randomly placed, but rather, that the patterns of this are beyond our ken, yet were purposely emplaced, in such ways as to balance unseen, ethereal, cosmic forces, so that parts of the cosmos where entities exist are kept stable? Does the word "UFO" ring a bell?
No, it's just 32 numbers. I don't know why 32 . Apparently there are 31 + 1 unknown* And it's 42.
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~wimu/Varying-Constants-Papers/Tegmark-PRD-DimensionlessConstants.pdfThe modern SU3 SU2 U1 standard model of particle physics provides a much more sophisticated reduction. Key properties (spin, electroweak and color charges) of quarks, leptons and gauge bosons appear as labels describing representations of space-time and internal symmetry groups. The remaining complexity is encoded in 26 dimensionless numbers in the Lagrangian (Table I).1 All current cosmological observations can be fit with 5 additional parameters, though it is widely anticipated that up to 6 more may be needed to accommodate more refined observations (Table I).
"Match the frequency of the reality you want and you cannot help but get that reality."
Yes, the question affects me exactly the same and we are not the only ones. The question plagued Plato and Socrates and a host of the old great philosophers since the beginning of observation of natural regularities.For me, the mystery is why theoretical predictions so closely agree with human experience.
And that answers one of those metaphysical questions if mathematics applies to the concept of "life" and "love" and 'pain". When you dig deep enough you always come to some mathematical equation that explains the emergence of metaphysical phenomena, such as consciousness and emotions.There are intangible things like love, charity, compassion, hope, etc, which are not quantifiable.
Nothing came down from a high place on a stone tablet. That metaphor is so much more confusing than the numbers 1 to 10 used to identify the mathematical order of the moral commandments as Moses understood them and inscribed them on the stone tablet. There was no lightning in some language that came down from the heavens and inscribed the commandments. There are no and never have been miracles.but did not come down from a high place on a stone tablet.
It is important to realise that Tegmark's "mathematical universe" hypothesis is not a scientific theory, as such, but rather a metaphysical philosophical position. His assumption is that mathematics will be used to find a "theory of everything" in Physics, but as far as I can tell his ideas propose no particular research programme that is likely to advance us towards that goal any faster than everyday physics research is taking us in any case.Tegmark asks the question, that if we can recognize some mathematical aspects to nature, why can we not propose that everything in nature has a mathematical aspect to it?
The aspects we normally identify as falling outside the scope of mathematics is really an unknown world of "metaphysics" which we are just relatively recently are becoming able to explore, due to our ever improving observational technology and ability to apply mathematics to previously mysterious natural phenomena. There are no known miracles.
What intrigues me about Tegmark's Mathematical Universe is the potential that mathematics may be able to explain everything and we might be able to fashion a mathematical TOE of the universe, whereas we have some seemingly unsurmountable obstacles in the current mainstream science which seems otherwise functional but does present some contradictions which are just as, if not more, problematic than Tegmark's hypothesis of "everything is mathematical in essence".
I believe that self-assembly is a proven fact.Whether or not the universe is a construct is down to whether or not it's a construct that is self-assembling.
Self-assembly is a process in which a disordered system of pre-existing components forms an organized structure or pattern as a consequence of specific, local interactions among the components themselves, without external direction. When the constitutive components are molecules, the process is termed molecular self-assembly.
Although self-assembly typically occurs between weakly-interacting species, this organization may be transferred into strongly-bound covalent systems. An example for this may be observed in the self-assembly of polyoxometalates.
Evidence suggests that such molecules assemble via a dense-phase type mechanism whereby small oxometalate ions first assemble non-covalently in solution, followed by a condensation reaction that covalently binds the assembled units.[4] This process can be aided by the introduction of templating agents to control the formed species.[5] In such a way, highly organized covalent molecules may be formed in a specific manner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-assemblySelf-assembled nano-structure is an object that appears as a result of ordering and aggregation of individual nano-scale objects guided by some physical principle.
Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.[1] The term law has diverse usage in many cases (approximate, accurate, broad, or narrow) across all fields of natural science (physics, chemistry, astronomy, geoscience, biology).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_lawLaws are developed from data and can be further developed through mathematics; in all cases they are directly or indirectly based on empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they implicitly reflect, though they do not explicitly assert, causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented.
Write4U:
It is important to realise that Tegmark's "mathematical universe" hypothesis is not a scientific theory, as such, but rather a metaphysical philosophical position. His assumption is that mathematics will be used to find a "theory of everything" in Physics, but as far as I can tell his ideas propose no particular research programme that is likely to advance us towards that goal any faster than everyday physics research is taking us in any case.
This is why Tegmark's ideas, in the end, are just a moderately-interesting philosophical excursion, as opposed to anything that is likely to help the progress of science in any direct sense.
Implicate order and explicate order are ontological concepts for quantum theory coined by theoretical physicist David Bohm during the early 1980s. They are used to describe two different frameworks for understanding the same phenomenon or aspect of reality. In particular, the concepts were developed in order to explain the bizarre behavior of subatomic particles which quantum physics struggles to explain.
As he wrote:In Bohm's Wholeness and the Implicate Order, he used these notions to describe how the appearance of such phenomena might appear differently, or might be characterized by, varying principal factors, depending on contexts such as scales.[1] The implicate (also referred to as the "enfolded") order is seen as a deeper and more fundamental order of reality. In contrast, the explicate or "unfolded" order includes the abstractions that humans normally perceive.
In everyday language refers to a sense of harmonious and beautiful proportion and balance.[2]
In mathematics, "symmetry" has a more precise definition, and is usually used to refer to an object that is invariant under some transformations; including translation, reflection, rotation or scaling.[4] Although these two meanings of "symmetry" can sometimes be told apart, they are intricately related, and hence are discussed together in this article.
Mathematical symmetry may be observed with respect to the passage of time; as a spatial relationship; through geometric transformations; through other kinds of functional transformations; and as an aspect of abstract objects, including theoretic models, language, and music.[5]
This article describes symmetry from three perspectives: in mathematics, including geometry, the most familiar type of symmetry for many people; in science and nature; and in the arts, covering architecture, art and music.
The opposite of symmetry is asymmetry, which refers to the absence or a violation of symmetry.
I disagree.I believe that David Bohm had an important perspective. In his "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" he observes that current mainstream science has become so fractured that no comprehensive whole can be "visualized" and that in order to understand the universe we must posit a "wholeness" with an "implicate" (enfolded) order and an "explicate" (unfolded) order.
What part do you disagree with?I disagree.