Hey eternalban, I am familiar with that article. I posted something else here which I think explains why I find it insufficient for the author's uses (Tegmark,

Hey eternalban, I am familiar with that article. I posted something else here which I think explains why I find it insufficient for the author's uses (Tegmark, not Wigner): > imagine some complex 3d object changing in time. Now imagine it's wrapped in a kind of net, like you see in 'wireframes' in computer graphics. If that complex 3D object is our universe, I see math as like that wrapping wireframe: there is a strong correspondence of some kind, and it covers the full extent of what's out there in some sense, but there are still gaps and extents into other directions etc. which are not math (or any form of human description). I agree with you though, that it should be set apart from many more absurd hypotheses because of the additional merit it has—although for the specific question of whether reality is literally comprised of mathematics (rather than aspects of it being accurately describable by mathematics), it's a binary question, true or false, and while in some sense it's closer than the others, as far as I can tell it still lacks justification. Edit: I should also add that my jab about probabilities approaching zero etc. etc. was more kind of a joke/flourish which probably could've been left out :)