2

I have a beginner question on the type of claims this book or similar theories make. That book claims that universe is math structure. I just want to clarify if I correctly understood his goal:

Does this imply that this book or similar theories argue that you can explain or model things like say humans, their relationships, like love, hate, etc mathematically?Is this the claim this book or similar theories make?

Do they claim you can mathematically explain beauty etc? Why breakfast is tasty, etc?

I have been thinking roughly on similar things, and was curious if this book or similar theories are exploring similar ideas.

gdan
  • 21
  • 1
  • 1
    Tegmark doesn't say math can *model* this, that, and the other thing. He says that math literally *is* this, that, and the other thing. That the universe is a mathematical structure. Of course this is a massive category error, since math is a symbolic system that can be used to ... well, model reality! Tegmark is "interesting but wrong." If there are people who take his idea literally, they shouldn't. I doubt Tegmark does. He's being provocative. I'm not the only one with that opinion. – user4894 May 27 '19 at 03:32
  • Short answer: no. Tegmark can not even explain clearly what it means that the universe *is* "mathematical" when it comes to simple physical entities, let alone complex constructs like love and beauty, see [Does Tegmark's Mathematical Universe hypothesis allow existence of alternative mathematics?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/56659/9148)"*When Tegmark said that fundamental particles, like electrons, are, ultimately mathematical in nature, Julia suggested that perhaps what he meant was that their properties are described by mathematical quantities. But Max was adamant...*" – Conifold May 27 '19 at 05:27

0 Answers0