3 ms·
Regardless of what you call the universe, we already know 1. Everything we know about it comes from sensory input, and 2. That sensory input's production can be
by tmerr 11y ago
Regardless of what you call the universe, we already know 1. Everything we know about it comes from sensory input, and 2. That sensory input's production can be modeled mathematically. But it's hard for me to make sense of what author really means by the claim "the universe is math". He claims after pulling away notation math is "A set of abstract entities with relations between them". Great! But then again... any idea I can conceive of can be said to be abstract entities with relations between them. That's an awfully vague definition. Then it's as if he fills in the void with baggage from his subjective understanding of mathematical structures (object movement is like 4 dimensional spaghetti). It's an interesting read but it seems like he just wants his idea of the universe to be more literal than it is.
- animefan 11y agoI disagree with 1 and 2, in the sense that i believe that sensory input has no fundamental ontological role, and is merely how we biological humans bootstrap our knowledge of macroscopic objects. The real dilemma of quantum theory is how to reconcile this macroscopic world with the world described by quantum theory. Personally I don't think many worlds approaches make sense because they don't have an adequate description of probability.