Pythagoras versus the Mad Tailor: an essay on the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics by Rick Searle

Hello Rick,

Your essay was able to capture very well the theme of this year's essay. And nice to read.

If I may take you up on some aspects...

"One way that has been proposed that would overcome this problem is simply to do away with the map/territory distinction entirely in favor of the ultimate reality of the map itself. This is the case with Max Tegmark and his Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH). In a way the MUH poses an even bigger big question; namely is mathematics itself the ultimate reality?"

If this proposal is favoured, then it should also be permissible to call it a Physical Universe Hypothesis or would it not? That is, mathematics is physics and physics is mathematics and therefore ultimate reality should EQUIVALENTLY be both physical and mathematical? This leads me to the next aspect,

Pythagorean idea that mathematics was the language of nature. Pythagoras, of course, inspired Plato who gave us the idea that the kinds of mathematical truths the Greeks were uncovering were both discovered and timeless. Plato also gave us the idea that these "forms" were the fundamental aspect of existence, and something more real than the world we experienced through our senses.

Geometry is fundamental to reality. I don't know if you are aware of the dialectical struggle that took place between the Pythagoreans, Proclus, Aristotle and Plato on how to define and describe the fundamental unit of geometry, the point. While the Pythagoreans, Proclus and partly Aristotle admitted that the point must be of some but very small dimension to be real, Plato suggested that the point was a zero-dimensional object, yet was still real. In Plato's words, "the point is not a geometrical fiction". You can check Metaphysics and Physics by Aristotle for reference. You can also check the references in my FQXi 2013 Essay.

Why I mention this is because of your recall of Plato's idea that these "forms", the 'point' included are the fundamental aspect of existence, and something more real... Is the 'point' real? Is the 'point', a fundamental aspect of existence? Which is the more likely to be real and a fundamental aspect of existence, that which is of zero dimension or that which is of some very, very small but non-zero dimension?

Then concerning your frequent, reference to Platonic features of 'timeless' and 'reversibility', can you educate me?

Can what is timeless be reversible, since reversible means something that can change, and what can change appears not to be a timeless feature.

I explore again in continuation of my previous 2013 effort in this year's essay, the spell as I would like to call it, cast upon our mathematica and physica, by another Greek, Parmenides, who happened to be teacher to the more famous Zeno. Parmenides, asked, "How can what IS perish?" That is, existing mathematical objects, be it of the Platonic or other variety cannot perish but must be eternally existing. Now, IF, and a big IF, our cosmology s correct and there was a Big bang and there will be a Big Crunch, whereby the Universe will perish, will a Mathematical Universe survive this outcome? If not, then we can agree that Mathematical Universe is actually the ultimate reality, as you quote Tegmark to have said. If Mathematical Universe survives, then it cannot be the ultimate reality that we behold in physics but something else, since reality has perished and still Mathematical Universe remains alive so to speak. For them to be one and the same, they must live and perish together.

My essay this year may be long and winding and not quite as straight to the point as I would have wished, but the meat of it is that what exists is not timeless but can perish.

Indeed, I made a proposal you can criticize for my benefit, that "the non-zero dimensional point does not have an eternal existence, but can appear and disappear spontaneously, or when induced to do so."

Best regards,

Akinbo

Rick,

Time grows short, so I am revisiting essays I've read (3/23) to assure I've rated them. I find that I have not rated yours, so I will rectify. I hope you get a chance to look at mine: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2345.

Jim

Dear Rick,

I share your argumentation about the objectivity of the Platonic world and your conclusion that the

"actual history of physics itself should put to rest the argument that mathematics is a mere invention of the human mind which we impose upon nature. Mathematics is truth not trick".

In this respect, you may see in our essay the arguments similar to yours. I think though that answering the question

"how, among such a huge number of mathematical structures are we able to find the one that is actually ours?"

you lost an important fact that the laws of nature are expressed by rather simple equations. This fact is used in our refutation of Tegmark's "mathematical democracy".

Regards,

Alexey.

For some reason it made the comment anonymous.

Dear Rick,

Thank you for your kind comment and your interest in my thought. I don't know about an interview for I have never given any before. KQID is based on Xuan Yuan's DAO concept that it is the substance that creates and distributes everything that is. Dao as Giving first Taking later (Love) has been unfolding itself from its first emergent out of Non-existence by its own free will by itself and for itself. As I mentioned in my blog, this Philosoy has its theory, equations and numbers like that can be falsified or verified in scientific experiments or by everyday life experiences. As mentioned here, KQId is the only terry right now that can calculate with numbers precisely the size of our baby universe at birth, its temperature and its speed.how c evolve from the creation to the present light speed in the vacuum within 5 thousand years after the Bit Bang.

I looked at your essay and your Mad Taylor story is so wonderful. I like it very much. KQID is more agreeable with Pythagoras that "all things are numbers". In KQID, these numbers are Ψ(iτLx,y,z, T), 4 vector Einstein complex coordinates.

Wonderful essay and rated it accordingly.

Let us continue our discussion and I believe in strongly the symphony of ideas,

Sincerely yours,

Leo KoGuan

Dear Rick,

I enjoyed the way you used the Mad Taylor metaphor to describe the modus operandi of mathematics regarding the characteristic of the natural world. Your proposition of a weak MUH is well thought out and very balanced especially now, when we seem to have circumstantial and somewhat conflicting evidence about the possibilities of unified descriptions of the universe. As you say "Our confidence in a weak MUH should decrease should there be notable theoretical and practical progress in other scientific fields that have embraced alternative or ad hoc mathematical models[..]". I think this is well written and well argued and I will rate it accordingly. Wish you best of luck in the contest! If you have the necessary time, please read my essay and let me know your thoughts in a comment.

Warm regards,

Alma

Dear Rick,

No need to apologize, I understand completely. It was my pleasure to read your essay. I wish you a very nice day and a great week!

Dear Rick,

I understand what you are saying here. I think your approach might encounter another difficulty, but the approach does avoid the very serious epistemological problems that Tegmark's MUH faces. At least in contest, the discussion of this topic is coming to a close. I do read your IEET blogs on a regular basis. I appreciate your choice of topics, by which I often encounter new items. Your presentations are always worth reading, and I tend to agree with you most of the time. Beginning in the next few months, I intend to participate in some of the discussions which you initiate, and I shall try to bring in new or at least less-familiar ideas as often as I can.

Best wishes,

Larry

I pronounce Pythagoras the winner..

While I didn't know Mad Max was a tailor, I suspected it all along, and you did an excellent job of showing people the difference between an approach that yields a Mad Tailor and a true Platonic model - where Math is an enduring ideal. High marks from me for an excellent paper. I'll say more, when there is time.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Hi James,

I finally got around to reading your essay. Your passion for mathematics shines through. Loved what you wrote regarding the Euler identity- and the graphics were great!

Best of luck!

Rick

Hi Alma,

I wanted to let you know that I thought your essay was wonderful and that I am glad you seem to have done well in the contest.

All the best,

Rick