Reddit reviews Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality

I want to start out by saying I'm not supporting multiverse theory... I want no part of the crazy downvotes on either side of this argument.

But from my understanding (I could be wrong here), multiverse theory (of a few different kinds of "multiverse") are predicted and wholly supported by math and physics as we understand them today. However, no methods are available to test the existence scientifically since the other universes are either moving away from us too fast for light to ever reach us or are located in a different dimension of spacetime. This is all my recollection from listening to an audiobook of Our Mathematical Universe so it may not be quite right, but the point is math and physics support multiverse theory but the existence cannot be proven. I think I'll stop here before anyone on either side yells at me too much.

Max Tegmark believes a view along these lines:

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Mathematical-Universe-Ultimate-Reality/dp/0307599809

Personally, I don't think the view makes much sense. In fact, I don't really know what it means. For example, suppose one takes the view that mathematical objects are abstract, non-spatiotemporal objects. On this view, if the world is made of nothing but mathematical objects, does that entail that space and time don't exist? (Because mathematical objects are neither spatial nor temporal, and everything is made of math.) Or does it mean that space and time do exist, but not in the way we think they do? What way might that be? I just don't have a grip on what the view entails.

>First, in my feeble understanding, math is simply a language.

It sounds like you might be sympathetic to a kind of formalist philosophy of math.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/formalism-mathematics/

However, these views are very problematic.

An even bigger stretch is Our Mathematical Universe by Max Tegmark.

I recently gave it a read, and it was very interesting. Max basically lays out how everything is math, using several layers of "multiverses" starting with the simplest one that is a side-effect of inflation.

That's a simplistic way of putting it, but he goes in painstaking detail, and eventually ends up at everything is math.

Please note thet even in this radical text, Max is never able to draw a connection between his thesis and anything theistic whatsoever...

I like Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. In a nutshell, that the universe is inevitable because it's the result of mathematics, and mathematics just exists - doesn't need a cause. He wrote a popular book Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality about it.

So mathematics would be "God" in your argument. That argument doesn't imply that "God" is anything like a person.

If you like that book, read this one (non-fiction).

Max Tegmark thinks the universe is actually mathematical. Its an interesting idea but im not sure how i feel about it. He's definitely going beyond the mainstream with his ideas. He has a book and some youtube talks.

> A bit yeah, just moved in to my own apartment!

congratulations

> I understand the logic, but I still don't think these things have been demonstrated outside of philosophy essays.

Remember, demonstrability is only a qualifier for empirical evidence, evidence in general can be taken to be more vast and up for debate.

> I would disagree, but I don't even know what this means, unfortunately ;)

If you're interested http://www.amazon.com/Immortality-Defended-John-Leslie/dp/140516204X/

I don't think I can do his ideas any justice on a Reddit forum.

> I have heard of this, but I've never talked to anyone who actually held that view. I would like to talk with them about it for sure. I disagree, but on what part I disagree depends on what they say.

Well, if interested, I would suggest Max Tegmark's book Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. He holds that our entire universe is literally made of mathematical numbers. He's also a physicist at MIT.

> Eh. So far as I am aware again, these are akin to borrowing theology's word-games in philosophy to demonstrate different things. I mean, sure, people can think of that if they want, but I don't think it shows anything particularly relevant about reality.

I would think that topics as our eternal destination, the fundamental metaphysical makeup of the world and the nature of reality help to bolster and reinforce scientific theory. I would doubt that many physicists would have stumbled onto space time without previous discussion of philosophy of time for example. Not to mention the ability of certain cosmological arguments to predict notions of a universes beginning. They might not be correct in the long run, but do provide certain hypothetical frames for future discoveries.

> True that, there are also plenty of atheists who are not rationalists at all, and believe all kinds of weird/unprovable things. I would be one of those strict materialists however ;)

Sorry to be pick the knits, but you mean empiricists, not rationalists in this case. Rationalist tends to focus on concepts through the work of a priori knowledge and then place it in an overall framework. The Mathematical and Platonic notions I mentioned are achieved through a rationalist frame work.

Empiricists are more about the posteriori verification of these ideas through induction and falsifiability. This does not preclude empiricists of being Platonists (Arif Ahmed is an example of such a case).

According to the philpapers, skeptical materialists make up only 5% of philosophers. So I would say tread lightly to claim these other 95% are being irrational.

Maybe you'd like the ideas of Max "Mad Max" Tegmark. https://www.amazon.com/Our-Mathematical-Universe-Ultimate-Reality/dp/0307599809

wow. so well said! now I can get back to reading this book and it will make more sense to me https://www.amazon.com/Our-Mathematical-Universe-Ultimate-Reality/dp/0307599809 (the best book I ever read in explaining Guth's inflation theory and cosmology in general to lay folks like myself...oh wait, is that what you are talking about? is there a distinction between "expansion" and "inflation theory"? my understanding of the latter is what OP is discussing)

Our mathematical universe by Max Tegmark is I think right up your alley.

http://www.amazon.com/Our-Mathematical-Universe-Ultimate-Reality/dp/0307599809

His position, which amounts to a highly stylized "from a certain point of view" style argument, is quite interesting and goes very in depth. He does a lot to establish some rules of sanity and then goes on to explain the role things take.

I don't want to spoiler alert the whole book, but the core tenant of his proposal is that you ARE mathematics. It's kind a of mind-bending concept when you first hear it, but by the end of the book it leaves you sort of "Okay then so what? What does that matter?"

That, as per usual, is an exercise left up to the reader. Though I would very highly recommend reading it, as it does give you a very different and honestly refreshing perspective on the role mathematics takes in our lives.

I don't know he was able to convince me I'm a mathematical quantity; but I don't not believe his interpretation either.

Sorry sourcing a book as a link (https://www.amazon.com/Our-Mathematical-Universe-Ultimate-Reality/dp/0307599809?tag=space041-20) There are some papers on google scholar but too high level for my comprehension.

>Well it is just that in my opinion is that string theory is the first thing that comes to mind for me. And it's not that I wonder where something comes from, but that it HAS to be made out of something.

Well I'd still argue that you haven't provided a coherent definition of what you mean by "something." I think you should try to think about this. Perhaps in a bath tub. With some marijuana. The fact that it is so difficult to define what you mean should be taken as a pretty big hint that the concept itself is more subtle or elusive than you realize.

> So that means the 'inside' of the smallest possible something could possibly be a 'field'? Then what would a 'field' be?

To the best of our knowledge, all there is in the universe are a set of mathematical relationships. A field is a mathematical object that has a value at every point in space. Our current best model of the universe posits that there are various fields that fill all of space. These fields have larger or smaller amplitudes at various places, and they interact with each other. What are the fields? They are mathematical objects.

Here is another book recommendation along the lines of "everything being math." The previous book recommendation is a bit more technical and emphasizes the "everything is information" side of things.