Mathematical universe hypothesis MUH

[Anonymous No.7310485]

Why have you not subscribe to the MUH theory yet ?


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

[Anonymous No.7310492]

>>7310485
>MUH theory
Does it involve strings?

[Anonymous No.7310498]

the greatest circle jerk that contributes nothing to the actual environment

[Anonymous No.7310529]

>>7310485
>Why have you not subscribe to the MUH theory yet ?
considering I'm a platonist, I already do. everything he says makes perfect sense to me and is "obvious" to me.

>>7310492
>Does it involve strings?
nope.

[Anonymous No.7310543]

>The hypothesis is related to the anthropic principle and to Tegmark's categorization of four levels of the multiverse
Stopped reading right there

[Anonymous No.7310603]

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646.pdf

[Anonymous No.7310651]

>>7310485
It is not the case that the Universe is described by, but rather is (precisely) abstract entities

with relations between them. Physical reality is isomorphic to mathematics.

ONTIC UNIVERSAL STRUCTURAL REALISM

[Anonymous No.7310658]

He (Max Tegmark) provides thorough examples of defining fundamental systems (Boolean algebra) via an explicit encoding scheme.

"Labeling them all by finite bitstrings s interpreted as real numbers on the unit interval [0,1)

(with bits given the binary decimals), the most obvious structure for a given structure S would

be the fraction of the unit interval covered by real numbers whose bit strings begin with

strings s defining S. A string of length n bits thus gets weight 2^-n, which means that the

measure rewards simpler structures."

[Anonymous No.7310671]

>>7310485
The fuck? Wikipedia changed their layout? THE FUCK! It has way too much white space, I CAN'T READ SHIT!

[Anonymous No.7310680]

>>7310485

the problem is that the theory is simply wrong.
for one it can't explain time or qualia, both of which are already described by quantum field theory. so literally this is a theory that is incompatible with known observation.

people need to fuck off with the 'math is fundamental' armchair philosophy shit. it ends up making shit way more complicated than it is.

the fundamental things are shit like redness and coldness. what we are really seeing/feeling are the strong/weak/electromagnetic/etc. forces. at best you can use math to describe some interactions but to say it's anything more than a tool for understanding is fucking hilarious

[Anonymous No.7310683]

>>7310680
Turbo retard

[Anonymous No.7310858]

>The culmination that Tegmark seeks to lead us to is the “Level IV multiverse”. This level contends that the Universe is not just well described by mathematics, but, in fact, is mathematics. All possible mathematical structures have a physical existence, and collectively, give a multiverse that subsumes all others. Here, Tegmark is taking us well beyond accepted viewpoints, advocating his personal vision for explaining the Universe.

I am reading his book, and I am at the very beginning. So what he is saying is quantum fluctuations and the four fundamental forces comes from mathematics itself? I personally don't believe in Godel nor Russell's " Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves". Yeah, I too concluded that our Universe is simple, and how it is amazing that we write a Physics book in a 30 MB file. I am incredibly interested on this book. Has anyone here read it?

[Anonymous No.7310888]

>>7310680
>qualia
>hurr durr math isnt real the real world isnt math its like real universe
What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.

[Anonymous No.7310899]

>>7310888
Not him, but I think everybody but me is a zombie. I can't prove that, but it's still a possibility.

[Anonymous No.7310903]

I thought this thread is about Mochizuki's IUT.
Turned out it's fucking popsci circlejerk shit.

[Anonymous No.7310907]

>>7310903
>posting worst yuyu
OK

[Anonymous No.7312708]

>>7310485
The question posited by OP is: Why have you not subscribed to the MUH?

The assumption is that the user doesn't assert that the MUH is true. Thus the question ought to be rephrased as an inquiry into why the user has denied a conjunction of two propositions:

A: If there is an external physical reality, then it is a mathematical structure.
B: There is an external physical reality.
C: A ^ B.

If someone (the interlocutor, in this case) is asserting that the MUH (which is the implication of proposition C above) is not true, then they are stating that it is not the case that proposition C (being a conjunction of A and B) is true.

If it is not the case that C is true then either A is false, B is false, or both.

In the classical sense, according to the Law of the Excluded Middle, either C is true or it is not true. A proponent of the hypothesis is someone who asserts that neither A nor B are false. If that is the case, then the MUH is concluded via modus ponens.

Also, the MUH imples the CUH: "The mathematical structure that is our external physical reality is defined by computable functions."

A computable mathematical structure can by definition be specified by a finite number of bits.

"Since each finite bit string can be interpreted as an integer in binary, there are thus only
countably many computable mathematical structures."

[Anonymous No.7312719]

>>7310485
Math is a tool, anon.
People don't think the universe is a hammer

[Anonymous No.7313032]

>>7310888

all our models are said to be valid once our current senses at the time of the experiments confirm the prediction.
going beyond this is allogical and contrary to the experience.

[Anonymous No.7313059]

>>7310485
It's obviously true. I don't see how anyone can disagree with it.

[Anonymous No.7313063]

>>7312719
>Math is a tool, anon.
Things crying physicists say for 500.

[Anonymous No.7313089]

>>7310899

I have been reflecting on an experiment to disprove solipsism, but I cannot find anything. Since solipsism is the natural stance, I prefer to stick to it when it comes to knowledge, even though, I have no problem in refuting it purely from a belief, as postulate.

[Anonymous No.7313118]

>>7310680
KWALIA REEL

[Anonymous No.7313120]

>>7313089
>I have been reflecting on an experiment to disprove solipsism
Consciousness can be split in two with a corpus callostomy.
Is this the experiment you were looking for?

[Anonymous No.7313121]

>>7310858
I have. It's not too bad.

[Anonymous No.7313123]

>>7310485
I don't know if you could say I subscribe to it. But my favorite part of it is the implication that, in the case the MUH is correct, to "travel" to different "universes" we don't need to do anything but mathematically simulate them.

[Anonymous No.7313145]

I know this sounds like a fad, but this has actually deeper roots in explaining randomness, computability and the nature of physical processes.

For instance, why is that so that we observe so many small exact integer quantities? Why is the symmetry group of elementary particles finitely presented? Why the nature has quantum character. There is a lot of evidence for discretness of the world.

Also, google quantum loop gravity which concerns somewhat similar concepts. Finite Nature has intimate connection with computability and constructive math (hi Wildberger).

This answer little higgledy-piggledy, but I could talk hours on this topic.

[Anonymous No.7313155]

>>7313120

hum no, a solipsist seeks the experiment that he must conduct himself on himself or others

[Anonymous No.7313165]

>muh MUH theory

[Anonymous No.7314354]

>>7313145

Section IV B 3

"By insisting on a complete description of reality, the MUH banishes not only the classical notion of initial conditions, but also the classical notion of randomness.

The traditional view of randomness (viewed either classically or as in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics) is only meaningful in the context of an external time, so that one can start with one state and then have something random “happen”, causing two or more possible outcomes.

In contrast, the only intrinsic properties of a mathematical structure are its relations, timeless and unchanging.

In a fundamental sense, the MUH thus implies Einstein’s dictum “God does not play dice”.


This means that if the MUH is correct, the only way that randomness and probabilities can appear in physics is via the presence of ensembles, as a way for observers to quantify their ignorance about which element(s) of the ensemble they are in.

Specifically, all mathematical statements about probability can be recast as measure theory.

For example, if an observer has used a symmetric quantum random number generator to produce a bit string written out as a real number like ”.011011011101...”, and if quantum mechanics is unitary so that the final state is a superposition of observers obtaining all outcomes, then in the limit of infinitely many bits, almost all observers will find their bit strings to appear perfectly random and conclude that the conventional quantum probability rules hold.

This is because according to Borel’s theorem on normal numbers, almost all (all except for a set of Borel measure zero) real numbers have binary decimals passing the standard tests of randomness.

A convincing demonstration that there is such a thing as true randomness in the laws of physics (as opposed to mere ensembles where epistemological uncertainty grows) would therefore refute the MUH."

[Anonymous No.7314374]

>yfw Langan was right all along

[Anonymous No.7314380]

>>7310485
>b-but muh theory
Yeah, that is exactly what it sounds like.

[Anonymous No.7316053]

ok

[Anonymous No.7316055]

Math isn't a thing, it's just a descriptor of some things.

You might as well say the universe is Japanese because the Japanese language is able to describing physics/biology/food/sex/anime etc...

Math is just a useful set of abstractions, language and symbol tools.

[Anonymous No.7316061]

>>7316055
Was Math invented or discovered?

[Anonymous No.7316088]

Math is the biggest religion in the world

Big bang
Multiverse
Time travel
Dark Matter
Dark Energy

[Anonymous No.7316749]

>>7316055
indeed, math is a language built around a few chosen rules of inference

[Anonymous No.7316771]

>>7316088
>Big Bang

Isn't the Big Bang based on the observation of galaxies moving away and blah blah.

[Anonymous No.7316805]

>>7316088

>Big bang
a) this is physics
b) you're retarded. Big Bang is as scientifically sound as anything in modern physics, and is not controversial. Whatever philosophical accompaniment you think follows from BB and hence causes you emotional distress is irrelevant.

>Multiverse
This is not physics, it is a mathematical model, but it's just one speculative model, that's hyped up by dipshit popularizers so that illiterate laymen like you think it's something the majority of scientists "believe" in.

>Time travel
nope. More pop-sci delusion

>Dark Matter
>Dark Energy
These are words for phenomena that plainly exist, but that are not accounted for in physics. So what?

[Anonymous No.7316811]

>>7316805
>Big Bang is as scientifically sound as anything in modern physics, and is not controversial.
bahah

[Anonymous No.7316843]

>>7316811
You laugh because you think the BB means anything other than the mere deduction that that expansion of galaxies implies that the metaphorical "bang" was caused by some "metaphorical" singularity with some extreme conditions, 0 entropy, etc. It does not mean we know the "cause", have a complete theory of Quantum gravity, or inflationary cosmology, or any such accompanying bullshit. The innocently use of the term "big bang" is an invariant of all of those things, which we admittedly do not know.

[Anonymous No.7317304]

>muh MUH

[Anonymous No.7317313]

>>7316843
Why not just call it hubble's law instead of the big bang then?

[Anonymous No.7317865]

>>7316805
Big bang
everything got compressed to the size of a pea

Implying this even realistic, but but my math say so

also god is real because the "math" say so

[Anonymous No.7317900]

I don't get into that whole part of math and physics.


and lol mathematicians thinking their gut or toe is any good

[Anonymous No.7318523]

read this one

>>7315886

[Anonymous No.7318585]

>>7317865
>everything got compressed to the size of a pea
the other way around buddy

[Anonymous No.7320240]

>>7318585
a pea was compressed to the size of everything ?

[Anonymous No.7320258]

>>7317865
>declarations based on a 16-year-old, uneducated intuition of how the deepest laws of physics should work


How does it feel knowing, from this 3 line post alone, that I can tell that nothing you ever say in your entire life will ever be taken seriously by anyone worth half a shit?

>>7317313
It's not Hubble's law, its an extrapolation based on a large amount of evidence, including but not limited to Hubbles law, cosmic microwave background, following the equations of General Relatively (and no, the fact that the equations of GR cannot be applied in the naive sense to the early universe does not invalidate BB)

[Anonymous No.7320268]

>>7310903
>tfw no inter-universal geometer

[Anonymous No.7320312]

>>7318585
>>7320240

[Anonymous No.7320322]

Maybe I don't really get it, but it looks like a lot of obvious shit.

[Anonymous No.7320334]

>>7320258
Brutal m8, B T F O that 16 year old shitter.

but why isnt the big bang just quantum foam going supernova?!~?!??!!?@!?1/1/1/