BothAndBlog Forum

What did he mean? Should the title of his book be "My mathematical Universe"? If Max himself is a math structure, then how should we interpret him? — Prishon

I think you have answered your own question. The "mathematical universe" he's talking about exists only in Minds, not in Matter. So, his "universe" and your "universe" are not the same "verse", but both are references to a Platonic Ideal universe. The physical universe is something we all have in common, because our bodily senses are tuned to information in the form of Matter & Energy.

However, Mathematics is not found in those concrete categories. It is instead an abstract idea, from which all physical stuff has been extracted, leaving only intangible ratios and relationships. We "sense" those invisible connections between things with our sixth sense of Reason, which extracts the essence of things from the non-essential.

Regarding "structure", Structural Engineers don't manipulate actual physical structures in their computers. Instead, they represent real beams & columns as mathematical abstractions, symbolized as lines (structural members) and arrows (forces). Likewise, the Universe Tegmark is talking about is not the real universe that we all have in common, but the symbolic universe that each of us constructs in his own mind. It's a personal worldview. But his abstract "view" can be simulated in a computer, all rational minds to see.

So you should "interpret" Tegmarks ideas in relation to your own ideas. your individual worldview. If your world is Realistic & Materialistic, then Tegmark is talking non-sense, literally about stuff that is not perceived by physical senses. But, if your cosmology is Idealistic & Intellectual, he's speaking about your intellectually shared cosmos.

Mathematics :
the abstract science of number, quantity, and space. Mathematics may be studied in its own right ( pure mathematics ), or as it is applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering ( applied mathematics ).

Tegmark quite explicitly says that "minds" are (like) recursive mathematical functions and "matter" is a type of interaction by recursive mathematical functions with encompassing mathematical systems which are nested within (higher order / dimensional) mathematical structures aka "the mathematical universe". In other words, the hypothesis is 'mind-matter is in the math' (i.e. abstract agent-systems within abstract world-structures ... like e.g. the Second Life virtual world), not the other way around. — 180 Proof

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my interpretation that the Mathematical Universe is a mental construct? That doesn't mean it's an illusion or un-real, just that the mathematical structure is universal, and can be perceived by animal senses, that are tuned to certain forms of Information (electromagnetic spectrum). But the MUH itself is a conception of rational minds. We perceive Matter (things), but we conceive Structure (relationships). And both concrete Matter & abstract Structure are real-world forms of Generic Information.

I'm hardly an expert on Tegmark's hypothesis, but it sounds roughly compatible with my own understanding, that Information (including mathematical information) is the fundamental element of Reality. Ironically, Tegmark has been called a "radical Platonist". So, I would be surprised if that was compatible with your own (Realist?) worldview. Anyway, I doubt that Tegmark would fully endorse my own updated version of Platonism : Enformationism. And, I'm not sure I can agree with some of his far-out notions : e.g. "Perceptronium", as a "state of mattter". That sounds like something from a Harry Potter story.

Mathematical universe hypothesis :
Tegmark's MUH is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure.. . .
The MUH is based on the radical Platonist view that math is an external reality . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathemati ... hypothesis

Physicists Say Consciousness Might Be a State of Matter :
Tegmark calls his new state of matter “perceptronium.”
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/p ... of-matter/

I disagree with your interpretation, Gnomon, because Max Tegmark explicitly says – which I point out in my previous post – that he is not proposing the "MU" merely as "a mental construct". Read The Mathematical Universe or stream video of one of Tegmark's lectures on this thesis.
Reality. Ironically, Tegmark has been called a "radical Platonist". So, I would be surprised if that was compatible with your own (Realist?) worldview.
I don't agree with that common misconception either.
[Tegmark's MUH] looks like hyper-Platonism to many but more like Spinozism to me. — 180 Proof
I answer favorably to being called an "Epicurean-Spinozist". — 180 Proof


OK. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on Tegmark's Platonic inclinations. But maybe we can at least agree on the "Spinozist" half of your "Epicurean-Spinozist" label. If I was to choose such a hyphenated label, I'd probably make it "Stoic-Spinozist". But then, I'm not really comfortable with butterfly pin labels. So, you can just call me a "gnarly-Gnomonist".