Ultimate Ensemble

[bascule]

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9704009

 

The only postulate in this theory is that all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically, by which we mean that in those complex enough to contain self-aware substructures (SASs), these SASs will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically "real'' world.

 

Any thoughts on this idea? Just more Max Tegmark being crazy or what?

 

I really like it

[Martin]

I really like it

 

I expect it's fun and stimulating reading. He's more imaginative than most.

I'm going to play safe and not read it---I already had fits

over another Tegmark article earlier this week.

[fredrik]

> all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically

 

This sounds interesting, I'll try to read it later.

 

Without reading the paper my instant association is to information storage. I believe in the idea that all abstractions made does have a real counterpart in the sense of something encoding it, informationwise. This is how I imagine relative structures and the emergence of mass and energy. The interactions between two systems are constrained by the way they can encode and update information about each other. If you associate information capacity to mass/energy it explains why ALL information is subject to intertial phenomena (no real object escapes gravity). I think this is a nice guiding principle, as it constrains, at least to order of complexity, which of of the possible mathematical constructs that a human brain can easily come up with that could possible make physical sense. At least the information capacity limits the complexity. As I think complexity = mass/energy. I think the complexity of an interaction a system can participate in, is limited by the systems own encoding capacity, which I think in turn is relative to the environment.

 

If think this has implications on discussions of for example the measurement problem. For A to make an observation, the obvious constraint is that A can encode the amount of information needed in the first place. This rules out ridicilous observables implying collecting informations from spread out all over the universe for example, requiring too much informtion capacity, not to mention processing power (infinite time).

 

/Fredrik

[someguy]

I haven't read the article yet either, but do you count random events? random events are infinite in mathematical complexity are they not? or is this only about shapes of mass? personally i would say that nature has an infinite complexity of events all of which are describable mathematically, and math has infinite potential of complexity it can explain. the only way i see that all mathematical possibilities exist in the natural world is if these things were both finite. certianly at this moment all the possibilities of the universe is finite, since the universe is finite, and in that case the mathematical potential exceeds that. but the universe isn't done yet.

 

suppose we could plot and account for mathematically every single event from the beginning of the universe today. the mathematical explaining of tomorrow does not yet exist yet, but it will.

 

so i guess my answer would have to be that it depends on how infinite the universe really is. will it crunch again and loop around infinitely? was there just one big bang and then it whithers into nothingness? if the latter then the mathematical description of a different universe will never exist i think, if the prior, then there's always tomorrow.

[fredrik]

I started reading it last night but fell asleep in the early parts So far I think it wasn't quite what I expected but I think I need to read it when I'm awake

 

/Fredrik

[pioneer]

The only assumption is that all things that exist mathematically also exist physically, seems a little far fetched. For example, one can model gravity as being due to the repulsion of matter by space. This is not real, but one can mathematically model it, by doing sort of an inverse of existing math. According to him, if I can do this math, this becomes the reality? I didn't realize that humans can play god, and make reality with only math.

 

If God had been a mathematicism, then literal Creationism would be real? That should be the new religious angle. God is omnipotent and invented math. He came up with simple equations that allow a universe in six days. Science preempted this with mathematics, indirectly. God is not real, since we do not have an equation for him. Now only we can play god. Call me old fashion but I still prefer observation and experimentation.

[bascule]

The only assumption is that all things that exist mathematically also exist physically, seems a little far fetched. For example..............................................

 

You're entirely missing the point. Tegmark is suggesting that physical law is emergent from underlying mathematical systems. The closest analogy might be Wolfram suggesting that the universe emerged from cellular automata.