Hi, I am new to this list. I am glad to see that there are others interested in Tegmark's ideas. I have been aware of his ideas since October but have largely agreed with them since prior to that. by that I mean that I had reasoned to similar conclusions prior to leaning that they had been so well developed and articulated by Tegmark. There are a few problems that I see with the MUH paper, although it could be that I just do not entirely understand all of it. Before I mention those I will just say that I believe his main thesis is correct. That is, his theory explains correctly the relationship between mathematics and physics, the reason why it is that mathematics has been so "unreasonably effective" at describing natural phenomena. I with the idea that the physical world is what Tegmark calls a mathematical structure -- a timeless entity that exists by virtue of its own logical possibility -- the only type of thing that truly exists. In his paper he defines a mathematical structures perhaps overly generally as "abstract entities with relations between them. This would seem to include a great many things besides the type of thing we would to call a mathematical structure. Personally I think we would want a definition that include things like fractals, logical calculi, and the outputs of algorithms to name a few examples, while excluding other types of things, such as Platonic forms (which would have to be included in the definitions provided). However, this ontology them classifies everything that we naturally think of as real as just substructures of something that is truly real: this universe. We ourselves are merely substrutures, albeit the self-aware kind, of this larger, real universe, and we therefore derive our being vicariously from it.

## Advertising

I would like to see that the relationship of the computable universe hypothesis to the MUH be clarified. Is our universe's physics classically computable at the quantum scale? If not, how does it follow that the macroscopic universe, or the universe as a whole is classically computable if its operation at the quantum level is not? I apologize if this question displays my naivete on the subject, but it is something I am currently endeavoring to more clearly understand. I am particularly interested in information-theoretic descriptions of the this universe, or more precisely, information theory measures of the complexity of of this universe's presumed most basic laws (or Grand Unified Theory, Max Tegmark's level I TOE). What exactly does it mean to assign a value to the complexity of our still-undiscovered GUT? Would competing notions of algorithmic complexity yield discordant results in this case? Which measure of complexity is to be preferred? If we defined the complexity to be the length of the shortest possible computer program that could generate the results, doesn't this definition imply a particular computational architecture that would itself be necessary to account for in measuring algorithmic complexity? Also, does having the property of universality imply a definite lower-bound to the complexity of a hypothetical physics? once again, probably very naive questions on my part, but I would like to better understand these matters. Probably what I find most appealing about the MUH is how it simplifies things. To me it answeres the age-old question, why is there something rather than nothing by boldly asserting that the universe is a member of the category of being for which there is no difference between possibility and necessity. However, this formulation leads to speculation on the ontic status of paraconsistent systems. I look forward to any replies on this extremely interesting topic. On Mar 4, 9:15 pm, Brian Tenneson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm trying to strike up a discussion of the MUH but my discussion > started at sci.logic and apparently, not many logicians are interested > in Physics, or something... :P > > Here is a link (two, actually) to the discussion. I don't know how to > proceed, to discuss here or there. It does not matter to me. > > http://groups.google.sh/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/b0ed9baa... > > <a href=""http://groups.google.sh/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/ > b0ed9baa707749ad/ef7752e4bcfc2631#ef7752e4bcfc2631>MUH Discussion at > Google Groups</a> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---