Write4U:

We don't just explain physics through mathematics we create physics with mathematics.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

Could we ever have produced a Higgs boson without Peter Higgs' mathematics?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

Are you asking whether the Higgs boson is a particle that would still exist if Higgs himself didn't exist? I say it would, with or without the mathematics.

But maybe are you asking whether Higg's mathematics was necessary to plan an experiment to search for the Higgs bosons using the Large Hadron Collider? In that case, I would say that we'd have no reason to suspect that the Higg boson was a thing, without Higgs (or somebody else) postulating its existence. We wouldn't know what to look for.

Yes, I call it "generic natural relational values".

Human maths uses symbolic numbers to represent generic natural values (ratios). The functions are the same, except humans have named them whereas nature just uses them.

Please give me two specific examples that showcase different "generic natural values (ratios)".

Why is the modifier "generic" important? Are there non-generic natural values (ratios), too? Can you give me any examples of those?

And these generic natural values of yours are all ratios, are they? So, none of them have any units, then? Is that correct?

Why aren't these generic natural values part of human mathematics? Can humans say

*anything* about them, then?

It is inherent (enfolded) in the spacetime geometry and becomes expressed (unfolded) via relational mathematics.

You believe that your generic universal mathematics is "enfolded" into "spacetime geometry", do you?

Can you explain how that works, exactly? Can you give me an example showing how a specific generic mathematical value is enfolded into spacetime geometry?

What causes a generic mathematical value to "unfold"? You say "relational mathematics"?

So, if I understand correctly, you have at least three different types of mathematics: (1) generic universal mathematics, (2) relational mathematics and (3) human mathematics. Do these overlap at all, or are they completely separate types of mathematics?

How can "relational mathematics" cause generic universal mathematics to unfold? What's the process by which the relational mathematics acts on the physical universe?

It seems that natural mathematical guiding principles are readily observable in action and expression.

Can you give me a specific example of a natural mathematical guiding principle that is observable in action and expression?

What's the difference between a thing being observable in action and it being observable in expression? Can you give me an example?

Does that mean you're just assuming all this is correct, without any proof, then?

We are discovering the mathematics of the Universe.

Are we? How do you know?

**Why is mathematics an axiomatic system?**

Did you need to look that up?

Really?, I think that my perspective is very much in line with Sarkus. His only gripe is that my arguments lack sophistication.

I don't think that's his only gripe with you. But he can talk to you about it himself.

Hey, those are your words. You explain why they are irrelevant.

I said that "universal mathematics" is a useless concept unless you can define it. That's the first step. The next step is to show that it exists in reality. The final step is to show that it's useful in reality. So far, you've made some progress towards achieving step 1, on that.

For the purposes of a discussion about Tegmark's ideas, your universal mathematics is irrelevant until you can show, at least, step 2. Step 3 would be a nice extra.

I am posting too much information? Well, ain't that a crock.

Yes and no.

You're posting too much information that is irrelevant and not nearly enough that is relevant.

Failing to answer direct questions that probe what you think you mean when you post your word salad is a case of giving too little information, not too much. We'll see how you go with the questions I have put to you in this post.

There are questions I do not feel qualified to answer.

Do those include questions about what your word salad is supposed to mean?

That does not necessarily mean I don't understand the concept.

Correct. It doesn't necessarily mean that. But it's strongly suggestive. It is reasonable for readers to conclude that you don't understand, because if you did you could probably explain.

Perhaps you are looking at my post from a prejudicial perspective.

The matter of whether Sarkus agrees with you or not does not depend on any prejudices I might have.

He will no doubt either confirm that he agrees with yourself and/or Tegmark, or he will say that he does not agree with one or both of you. If the latter occurs, then my assessment will be proven correct and yours will be proven wrong. We'll see what happens.

Please tell me what is so controversial about Tegmark's mathematics.

What mathematics? You've never discussed any of Tegmark's mathematics. But probably you meant Tegmark's MUH.

You've been told previously why Tegmark's MUH is controversial, not just by me but by several other people here. If you don't trust us on that, you could have conducted a basic google search at any time, to find out for yourself what Tegmark's critics have to say about him.

Why haven't you done that? And why haven't you engaged with what we have told you about Tegmark's MUH? Did you simply forget what we told you? Or what?

What did you not understand about what I posted back in post #180 of this thread?

That everything in the Universe as well as the universal fabric itself has a mathematical aspect, that expresses itself as generic mathematical relational values and self-organizing patterns and regularities.

That is not what Tegmark's MUH says. That is entirely your own hypothesis, which - as far as I can tell - is ill-defined and incoherent.

You proved my point. You were unable to articulate any differences between your position and Tegmark's, despite claiming at one point in this discussion that you don't agree with everything Tegmark says.

Remember when I asked you, directly, which parts of Tegmark's MUH you disagree with? Remember how you completely ignored that question and didn't reply? No? You don't remember that?

What's the matter with you, man?