On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 4:57:41 PM UTC, Dustin Wehr wrote: > > I'm a big fan of Tegmark's 2007 article* The Mathematical Universe, *but > I believe he got a couple details wrong, and those details are interfering > with my attempts to interest friends. So, I'm looking for an exposition of > the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, of a similar or shorter length, that > omits those details, so that I have something I can recommend to others > without qualification. I can recommend Tegmark's *Consciousness is a > Mathematical Pattern* TED talk without qualification, but I need > something that goes further, particularly for people with a STEM > background. > > There should be nothing about the Computable Universe Hypothesis. There > should be nothing about Gödel's incompleteness theorems, unless it's to > explain why they do not pose a problem. > > Ideally there is no claim about the MUH being testable. What would be > wonderful, in its place, is an admission that the MUH is probably > unfalsifiable, followed by a persuasive argument for why we should reset > our expectations when it comes to entertaining/evaluating a theory of > everything. >
Hi, I am far from being an expert in the MUH, but if it claims that every mathematical function is reified in physical reality, it is easily falsifiable. Consider the EM spectrum. There's obviously a cut-off at some high frequency. We can find a frequency f where no EM waves exist for any value > f. CMIIAW. AG -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
