On 25 March 2014 16:40, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3/24/2014 8:24 PM, LizR wrote: > > "But Tegmark goes further. He doesn't say that the universe is > "isomorphic" to a mathematical structure; he says that it *is* that > structure, that its physical and mathematical existence are the same thing." > > I can see the appeal. If the universe ever *does* prove to be isomorphic > to a mathematical structure (and I'm sure that's a long, long, long way > from being proved at present) - by which I mean, if the universe is *exactly > described* by said structure, with nothing else needed to completely > describe reality - at that point, at least, I would take Max's MUH > seriously, if only because Ockham's razor would indicate there was no point > in hypothesising the existence of two things that are exactly isomosphic. > > > I think you're missing Scott's point. The universe is obviously > isomorphic to a mathematical structure, in fact infinitely many different > mathematical structures, all of which are in Borges Library of Babel. > Almost all of them are just lists of what happens. Scott's point is that > this is not very interesting, important, or impressive. It's only some > small elegant compression of those lists that's interesting - if it > exists. Scott seems to think that it does. I think it does *only* > because we're willing to call a lot of stuff "geography" as Bruno puts it, > aka boundary conditions, symmetry breaking, randomness... >
Yes, if that's his point I am missing it, because although that may be true it isn't addressing what the MUH claims (at least making the rather large assumption that I've understood it correctly). The MUH as I (perhaps mis-) understand it appears to assume there *is* some minimal mathematical representation of the universe (known as the laws of physics or TOE or whatver), and that this exists in a manner that allows us to differentiate it from geography - as it seems to, at least for the physical constants that don't appear to vary with time or space, etc. So one has at least got what may be called local laws of physics and local geography as a starting point. If the laws of physics are (somehow - via fire breathing or whatever) able to generate all possible resulting universes, then we have an explanation for all the "geography" (modulo our particular position in the string landscape etc), but presumably (as per Russell's "Theory of Nothing") it all cancels out, assuming that all possibilities are realised. However we are a long way from that point, and I imagine the nature of knowledge and measurement and so on mean that we can never actually reach it with 100% certainty. We can't reach it because reaching it via infinite lists of what happens > isn't worth the trip. > Sure, but the MUH assumes there is a unique set of laws of physics, and the infinite lists all cancel out. (I think one should attempt to criticise a theory in terms of what it actually says rather than some other characterisation, surely?) > > Brent > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
