The Universe Is Made of Mathematics

Started by stromboli, January 31, 2014, 09:36:20 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

stromboli

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/3 ... ref=topbar

QuoteBROOKLYN, N.Y. — Scientists have long used mathematics to describe the physical properties of the universe. But what if the universe itself is math? That's what cosmologist Max Tegmark believes.

In Tegmark's view, everything in the universe — humans included — is part of a mathematical structure. All matter is made up of particles, which have properties such as charge and spin, but these properties are purely mathematical, he says. And space itself has properties such as dimensions, but is still ultimately a mathematical structure.

"If you accept the idea that both space itself, and all the stuff in space, have no properties at all except mathematical properties," then the idea that everything is mathematical "starts to sound a little bit less insane," Tegmark said in a talk given Jan. 15 here at The Bell House. The talk was based on his book "Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality" (Knopf, 2014).

"If my idea is wrong, physics is ultimately doomed," Tegmark said. But if the universe really is mathematics, he added, "There's nothing we can't, in principle, understand." [7 Surprising Things About the Universe]

Nature is full of math

The idea follows the observation that nature is full of patterns, such as the Fibonacci sequence, a series of numbers in which each number is the sum of the previous two numbers. The flowering of an artichoke follows this sequence, for example, with the distance between each petal and the next matching the ratio of the numbers in the sequence.

The nonliving worldalso behaves in a mathematical way. If you throw a baseball in the air, it follows a roughly parabolic trajectory. Planets and other astrophysical bodies follow elliptical orbits.

"There's an elegant simplicity and beauty in nature revealed by mathematical patterns and shapes, which our minds have been able to figure out," said Tegmark, who loves math so much he has framed pictures of famous equations in his living room.

One consequence of the mathematical nature of the universe is that scientists could in theory predict every observation or measurement in physics. Tegmark pointed out that mathematics predicted the existence of the planet Neptune, radio waves and the Higgs boson particle thought to explain how other particles get their mass.

Some people argue that math is just a tool invented by scientists to explain the natural world. But Tegmark contends the mathematical structure found in the natural world shows that math exists in reality, not just in the human mind.

And speaking of the human mind, could we use math to explain the brain?

Mathematics of consciousness

Some have described the human brain as the most complex structure in the universe. Indeed, the human mind has made possible all of the great leaps in understanding our world.

Someday, Tegmark said, scientists will probably be able to describe even consciousness using math. (Carl Sagan is quoted as having said, "the brain is a very big place, in a very small space.")

"Consciousness is probably the way information feels when it's being processed in certain, very complicated ways," Tegmark said. He pointed out that many great breakthroughs in physics have involved unifying two things once thought to be separate: energy and matter, space and time, electricity and magnetism. He said he suspects the mind, which is the feeling of a conscious self, will ultimately be unified with the body, which is a collection of moving particles.

But if the brain is just math, does that mean free will doesn't exist, because the movements of particles could be calculated using equations? Not necessarily, he said.

One way to think of it is, if a computer tried to simulate what a person will do, the computation would take at least the same amount of time as performing the action. So some people have suggested defining free will as an inability to predict what one is going to do before the event occurs.

But that doesn't mean humans are powerless. Tegmark concluded his talk with a call to action: "Humans have the power not only to understand our world, but to shape and improve it."

"The inability to predict what one is going to do before the event occurs." Assuming free will doesn't really exist, I think this is a good definition. I've always considered that every question is ultimately solvable. To do it mathematically is kind of neat. I hope that is true.

Solitary

There are two opinions by mathematicians and philosophers. One is that math is a discovery, and the other is that it is an invention. I personally believe it is an invention to describe events in the world we live in, and nothing more than a tool to do that. To think it is a discovery is putting the cart before the horse in my opinion. 1+1= 2  Is that a discovery, or an invention to describe what is true? Could it be both?  :-k   #-o  Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: "stromboli"http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/31/universe-math-cosmologist-max-tegmark_n_4701754.html?ref=topbar

QuoteOne consequence of the mathematical nature of the universe is that scientists could in theory predict every observation or measurement in physics. Tegmark pointed out that mathematics predicted the existence of the planet Neptune, radio waves and the Higgs boson particle thought to explain how other particles get their mass.

Tegmark is a well-known and respected cosmologist. But when it comes to interpretation, it seems that he puts the cart in front of the horse. An example can be found in my latest blog The Essential General Relativity (plug, plug, plug  :-D ). But you will find that the three thought experiments illustrated in that blog were brilliant physical insights on the part of Einstein, giving the first three equations. The rest from equations (4) to (21) is just basically math. But without the physical insights, the math would have never come forward.

Indiscriminalist

Solitary, I love how you sign your name at the end of your posts, even though we all know it's you. My mom does that when she comments on Facebook. It's hilarious.  :-D
What if you're wrong about the great juju at the bottom of the sea?

Solitary

Quote from: "Indiscriminalist"Solitary, I love how you sign your name at the end of your posts, even though we all know it's you. My mom does that when she comments on Facebook. It's hilarious.  :-D

Thanks! I think.  #-o  It's just a habit I got into, and a reminder to those that don't know who I am because I sometimes go by other names like Kiang, a wild ass. :shock:  :lol:  Solitary AKA Kiang.  :roll:
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Manodo

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Tegmark is a well-known and respected cosmologist. But when it comes to interpretation, it seems that he puts the cart in front of the horse. An example can be found in my latest blog The Essential General Relativity (plug, plug, plug  :-D ). But you will find that the three thought experiments illustrated in that blog were brilliant physical insights on the part of Einstein, giving the first three equations. The rest from equations (4) to (21) is just basically math. But without the physical insights, the math would have never come forward.

I like the blog! I pursued the study of general relativity a few months ago, but the only books I had at my disposal were hopelessly complicated. Your blog reinvigorates my interest, so I tip my hat to you good sir. : )

As for the topic itself... how could the claim "The Universe Is Made of Mathematics" be falsifiable? Either empirically or logically?

My first thought is that you would have to find an object that could not be described in any mathematical language. It would have an entirely unpredictable behaviour, far beyond the scope of QM which, while inherently random, at least deals with the randomness of well-defined properties like position, spin and momentum (all of which can at least be mapped with probability functions). And even then, one could never resolve the difference between "This object cannot be described" and "This object can be described, but our knowledge is insufficient".

I wonder if there even exists a thing that mathematics cannot map at all, outside of logical contradictions.

But if we treat "exist" as being a member of a set of objects in the universe, where each object's properties are codependent on at least one other member of the set, then... does that go without saying? Or should I just lay off the coffee?  :-$

Shol'va

Quote from: "Solitary"There are two opinions by mathematicians and philosophers. One is that math is a discovery, and the other is that it is an invention.
Math is the discovery of an invention that is math  :rollin:

josephpalazzo

Quote from: "Manodo"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Tegmark is a well-known and respected cosmologist. But when it comes to interpretation, it seems that he puts the cart in front of the horse. An example can be found in my latest blog The Essential General Relativity (plug, plug, plug  :-D ). But you will find that the three thought experiments illustrated in that blog were brilliant physical insights on the part of Einstein, giving the first three equations. The rest from equations (4) to (21) is just basically math. But without the physical insights, the math would have never come forward.

I like the blog! I pursued the study of general relativity a few months ago, but the only books I had at my disposal were hopelessly complicated. Your blog reinvigorates my interest, so I tip my hat to you good sir. : )


thx :)

SGOS

Quote from: "Solitary"There are two opinions by mathematicians and philosophers. One is that math is a discovery, and the other is that it is an invention. I personally believe it is an invention to describe events in the world we live in, and nothing more than a tool to do that. To think it is a discovery is putting the cart before the horse in my opinion. 1+1= 2  Is that a discovery, or an invention to describe what is true? Could it be both?  :-k   #-o  Solitary
Is logic an invention or a discovery?  I'd call it a discovery like math, but I can see how this could become a debate.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: "SGOS"
Quote from: "Solitary"There are two opinions by mathematicians and philosophers. One is that math is a discovery, and the other is that it is an invention. I personally believe it is an invention to describe events in the world we live in, and nothing more than a tool to do that. To think it is a discovery is putting the cart before the horse in my opinion. 1+1= 2  Is that a discovery, or an invention to describe what is true? Could it be both?  :-k   #-o  Solitary
Is logic an invention or a discovery?  I'd call it a discovery like math, but I can see how this could become a debate.


Logic is based on the identity A = A, disregarding that A can change in time. This is definitely a human construct, hence an invention, just  like math.

Moriarty

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "SGOS"
Quote from: "Solitary"There are two opinions by mathematicians and philosophers. One is that math is a discovery, and the other is that it is an invention. I personally believe it is an invention to describe events in the world we live in, and nothing more than a tool to do that. To think it is a discovery is putting the cart before the horse in my opinion. 1+1= 2  Is that a discovery, or an invention to describe what is true? Could it be both?  :-k   #-o  Solitary
Is logic an invention or a discovery?  I'd call it a discovery like math, but I can see how this could become a debate.


Logic is based on the identity A = A, disregarding that A can change in time. This is definitely a human construct, hence an invention, just  like math.

Regardless of whether or not it's an invention or discovery, it doesn't change the original premise that its representation (as we understand it currently) is everywhere. I mean to say that even if we accept the proposition of our created Mathematics, it does not mean that the same mathematics did not and does not exist in it's other form in the universe, we simply translate into our understandable language (Mathematics) to attempt to understand.
<Insert witty remark>

"Say what you will about George W. Bush, but he wouldn\'t have stood for Russian aggression in the Ukraine. He\'d have invaded New Zealand by now."--Donald O\'Keeffe.

stromboli

Actually, I think the universe is probably made up of some ethereal shit that is really icky. We might also be the invention of some super mind's subconscious. If it wakes up, we are toast.