Dear Lloyd,

Thanks for your comment. My statement about math is not as opposed as it seems, to the usual sense there is a parallel or isomorphism between math and the world. Math does only directly tell us about itself. Yet of course if a math structure (per Tegmark) corresponds to an ostensible "real world", the math models that world and tells us what will happen etc. What I mean is, two things. First, math can't tell us why there is (if there is) a concrete "real world" instead of MUH (there IS nothing but math structures), and second: why it would be the way it is. It cannot do the former because it has no resources to represent or explain special existential status beyond itself. It cannot do the second thing, because there are all kinds of math structures, and no way to privilege them in an existentially special way (that follows from the first. Hence, as Tegmark notes, we can't e.g. say there is a reason why octahedrons should be also correspond to "real things", but icosahedrons would not (an analogy to comparing model worlds.)

Furthermore, I don't think a math model can even fully model a world anyway, in the sense of being a complete parallel. In other writings, I bring up issues like quantum randomness (not actually resolved by decoherence/MWI or Bohmian mechanics) and conscious experience. However, math is useful as a very close match, but like "symmetry" in our universe (our universe is not quite fully symmetrical in its laws), it is a near-miss. That may be frustrating or annoying to those who think it should be a complete fit, but what I think the world of experience has already showed us: such is life.

I'll look at your essay in turn, now that I have more time opening up.

Dear Neil,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

    OK Joe, I will go to your essay after awhile and give a comment.

    Hello Neal,

    Quite a number of good ideas to think about and take home from your essay.

    I got mixed up a bit on the inertia of charges. Are you suggesting the inertia of an electron for example is other than its mass?

    Then talking of mathematical models and "stuff" that actually "exists", in which category would you put Space. Is it a mathematical model or stuff that actually exists?

    In my essay., I look at the consequences where "stuff" are not eternally existing but can be created and can perish. You may want to read and comment. You may also want to volunteer your opinion on 'how to cut a line', either from a mathematical model or real world perspective.

    Regards,

    Akinbo

      Neil,

      "Mathematics cannot tell us about anything more than itself."

      Tegmark would say that conscious experience takes the form of mathematical "self-aware substructures" so itself is your perception.

      I guess I am just an old-fashioned guy who likes to think it's all real and not a mathematical structure.I agree, "mere 'math brains' could not have real feelings: love, nausea, itches and pains, delight, experiences of pretty color sensations, and above all: the basic "sense" of being alive and real."

      My "Connections" operate in a real world which connects math, mind, and physics into spectacular accomplishments in quantum biology, DNA mapping, and LHC discoveries.

      Not having a stellar math background, I certainly could be wrong, having a math-stunted perspective.

      Jim

        James,

        Yes we agree the world is more than math, although Tegmark's MUH shouldn't be waved off a priori because of anything immediately obvious about either logic, assumptions about ontology, or the way things work in the world. It is only by appreciating subtleties of randomness, mind, and time that one can really face up to "all this" being something beyond what any abstraction can fully describe (which, IMHO would be equivalent to it just being that abstraction.) BTW MUH neo-determinism just can't extract proper Born statistics out of its structure. I'll take a look at your essay in turn.

        Greetings to the Community

        I've gotten fed up with the roller-coaster ride of my point ratings, as have many others. At this point the percent change may not be much, but of course it's easy to calculate what the last rating was. Please: if you think this or any essay deserves a rating of say, three or less, you really should say why in a comment. Sure, you are justified to worry about consequences (not necessarily from the person rated!), so feel free to post as Anonymous - what matters is getting an explanation out. I'll do the same for anyone else. I don't like getting dinged with no idea what turned you off.

        Even better, how about discussing things first before even giving a bad rating? And note for overall perspective: for the highest-rated essay on a 10-point scale to be in the six range, is rather sad, as is two distinguished physicists rating what would be an "F" (even if barely) on a standard public school grading system!

        Thanks, I think I can say that for everyone.

          Correction, I meant MWI neo-determinism (because of its branch structure and the isomorphism of compared systems differing only in the various relative amplitudes.) The many-worlds multiverse just cannot fairly generate observed statistics according to the Born rule, despite elaborate gymnastics attempting to square things, so to speak.

          It is interesting to prove that the three dimensional space is the only possible for an electromagnetic, field; but this is true, if I understand well, only for a space with interacting particles, so that a single particle has not a constraint on the space dimension (ever if I understand well), so that the interaction create the space dimension.

          I think that the electromagnetism and gravitation have equal fields (I think that there are duality between charges-Coulomb constant and masses-Gravitational constant), so that it can be that the constraint on a multi-particle mass is true for each field.

          I must read with more attention, but it is important for me.

          Cheers

          Domenico

            Domenico,

            The inconsistency isn't about being able to have an electromagnetic field at all, it's about subtle relationships pertaining to electromagnetic inertia (which are problematic even in three dimensions per the "4/3 problem.") The relationships just won't give the right answer for other dimensionalities. Gravity: it is not entirely analogous to EM so I can't assume the problem would be the same. Furthermore, self-energy works differently because it gravitates in turn, so the addition is not linear, and there are localization issues (good discussion in Penrose's "The Road to Reality." There have been extrapolations of gravitation to other dimensions. I appreciate your interest, will look at your essay.

            I think that there is a complete analogy between gravitational field and electromagnetic field, because of the gravitoelectromagnetism formulation, that it is deeper for me because of:

            [math]

            R_{\mu \nu}-\frac{1}{2} g_{\mu \nu} R = -\frac{8 \pi k}{c^4} T_{\mu \nu}

            [/math]

            so that, when I read your essay some weeks ago, I saw a possible gravity inertia application; that I had forgotten to consider, because of I had not taken notes because I read dozens of essay at a time (each essay is worth reading)..

            I prefer not to comment on the essays, because they affect the votes, but in any case I would have informed you after the vote; I break the rule just because I consider polite to reply to my posts.

            I am thinking that if it is true that the dimension of the space is constrained by an interaction, then there is a problem with elementary particles like quark, or electron, that don't give the right dimension (following your demonstration); so that the solution is that the elementary particles must have a real probability distribution, a quantum diffusion in the space, that constrains the space dimension: an interaction between the parts of the single elementary particle

            Greetings Tyranno,

            I certainly agree with the 3 dimensions of reality and arrive there from a different direction. A totally worthwhile essay, thank you.

            Sherman Jenkins

              Dear Neil,

              I appreciate the depth of your essay and its level; to my mind, it is among the top ones here. Although I disagree with some of your points, I give your essay very high rating. Your conclusions that

              "math cannot either describe what "concreteness" is, nor which if any model worlds should be manifested as "actual worlds." It cannot explain why any such transcendently "more real" world should be mathematically elegant or "simple," instead of messy and not effectively accessible through math"

              are extremely important and correct. However, physics is more than math, and its success with elegant mathematics tells something very important about the universe. I am inviting you to read our essay where we refute Tegmark's MUH on the ground of fundamental physics.

                Dear Alexey/Lev,

                Thank you. I read your essay at your request and was very impressed at the writing as well as the acute grasp of conceptual foundations and issues (like, the problem of existential asymmetry for specially-selected possible worlds.) Well put. First, I agree with you that physics is more than math, and that our world is not a math structure. Math "by itself" cannot tell us more than about its own contents (like, why there "are" five Platonic solids in that sense). However, as you well argue, the math we find in the universe can tell us much more. You correctly note the flaw in the argument that the fine-tuning we observe can be adequately explained (in Bayesian terms) as no more than a self-selection effect. True, if that were so, then the precision and elegance of the world would probably be less. (However, let's all admit that with continua we do have a measure problem. Still, even without enumerable sets to compare, the relative "areas" of numerical ranges give us a rough idea of what we should expect.)

                Actually I think the problem is even worse. If we really consider the full range of math structures, then we have to include inconsistent ones like e.g. the splicing together of y = x2 with y = x4. In that case, rules would not even be consistent over time etc. There are many more possible messy worlds than orderly ones, a problem noted about David Lewis' modal realism.

                These foundational arguments are fascinating and important, but I am particularly proud of my novel (in its broad execution at least) argument for why space had to be three-dimensional. It constrains possible worlds more than previously realized, although as I noted: only to the extent that we expect lawful consistency in "worlds" in the first place. And what really makes "worlds" different from mere structures of math? I basically agree with the sentiments pleaded by Roger Penrose (whose diagram is borrowed for your essay). Quote:

                "One can argue that a universe governed by laws that do not allow consciousness is no universe at all. I would even say that all the mathematical descriptions of a universe that have been given so far must fail this criterion. It is only the phenomenon of consciousness that can conjure a putative 'theoretical' universe into actual existence! ... Yet beneath all this technicality is the feeling that it is indeed 'obvious' that the conscious mind cannot work like a computer, even though much of what is actually involved in mental activity might do so. This is the kind of obviousness that a child can see--though that child may, in later life, become browbeaten into believing that the obvious problems are 'non-problems', to be argued into non-existence ... ."

                - Roger Penrose, in The Emperor's New Mind (1988), pp. 447-448.

                Dear Akinbo,

                First of all, I'm sorry for the delay in answering your question or in looking at your essay or commenting there (indeed, in general to everyone - I have been too busy.) The electron: no, I'm not suggesting a difference between its inertia and other effective definitions of "mass" such as energy equivalent, basis for deBroglie matter wavelength, etc. However, it has long been controversial as to how MUCH of the electron's mass-inertia is electromagnetic in origin (see for example Feynman's wonderful discussion in V. II of his Lectures). Much of this is due to issues of QED, but there has still long been a problem in general: the direct interactions, even for extended charge distributions, give the wrong answer ("4/3 problem") unless there is some correction due to stress.

                That correction has been somewhat controversial because of arguments over von Laue's "energy current" (as per attempted solutions of the paradox of the right-angle lever, etc.) In any case, we make the problem simpler by consider only the CHANGE in EM inertia due to changes in charge configuration. Then we don't have to wonder, how much of the total is from EMI to start with.

                In my essay, I explain how to derive that correction properly, and in a space of any number of dimensions. This only gives the correct answer (correct EM inertia) for three macro dimensions.

                Dear Neil,

                I found your essay quite interesting, so I added it to the list of quality essays in my review. Unfortunately I did not have the time to analyze in details your arguments about dimensions. But I found that we completely agree on the metaphysics which you expressed in your last 2 pages. I expressed the same idea in very short on the bottom of page 2 of my own essay. I also explained there how quantum physics is naturally interpreted in this way.

                  Dear Neil,

                  Thanks for your good words and interesting remarks to our essay. I am glad to see that we agree on most important points, and there is a good potential for a productive discussion in many others. In particular, I wish to discuss your 3D arguments, but this requires different format. You can easily find my address; if you like, you may send me an email and we'll find a better way to discuss that. Meanwhile, please do not miss out on rating our essay :)

                  Cheers,

                  Alexey.

                  Dear Neil,

                  Thanks for your good words and interesting remarks to our essay. I am glad to see that we agree on most important points, and there is a good potential for a productive discussion in many others. In particular, I wish to discuss your 3D arguments, but this requires different format. You can easily find my address; if you like, you may send me an email and we'll find a better way to discuss that. Meanwhile, please do not miss out on rating our essay :)

                  Cheers,

                  Alexey.