3 ms·
[...] Tegmark appears to be assigning an ontological status to the mathematical structures themselves. Which appears to me similar to rejecting the idea of an
by danbruc 11y ago
[...] Tegmark appears to be assigning an ontological status to the mathematical structures themselves.
Which appears to me similar to rejecting the idea of an universe that just somehow came into existence or existed forever and introducing a god as the source of the universe but still leaving you behind with the same questions as before but now attached to the god instead of the universe.
And I personally don't really buy into the idea of mathematical structures existing independent of humans or the universe or whatnot anyway. Humans bring mathematical structures into existence, they postulate the axioms and explore the consequences. That pieces of the universe are isomorphic to this or that mathematical structure and therefore show similar properties and behaviors is either accidentally or because a mathematical structure was explicitly designed to mimic certain aspects of the universe, at least as far as I am concerned.
- poelzi 11y agoThe only way to get out of this mess is self organization. Without a self governing process that causes atom crystallization you will always end up with some problem of beginning and end. Then the hole big bang theory is also counter factual: http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf The BSM-SG model gives a very logical explanation how galaxies come to be and the high order matter we can measure (proton/neutrons/electrons/positrons). It does not give you an answer tho, where the 2 types of fundamental particles come from, but their pure existence in mass quantities is enough for a galaxy to be born, or in our case, many many galaxies.