5 ms·

> What matters for existence is the relationships between mathematical structures. Well, that's what Structuralism is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural

> What matters for existence is the relationships between mathematical structures. Well, that's what Structuralism is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism_(philosophy_of_science) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism_(philosophy_of_s... —but it would be running in circles to say that Structuralism is the correct approach here since it would only be the correct approach if the universe is in fact made of mathematics (in other words, it would be assuming your conclusion in your argument).

naasking 9y ago
> (in other words, it would be assuming your conclusion in your argument). To be convincing, it's not necessary to claim that any particular position is definitely true, I should only need to demonstrate that said position solves open problems that have not or cannot be solved by other positions while being of comparable complexity, conceptually. This is indeed the case for something like the mathematical universe over naturalism. There may yet be a comprehensive, unproblematic account for mathematics in naturalism, but we certainly don't have it yet. That's a huge, gaping wound in our fundamental knowledge. The mathematical universe, by contrast, easily grounds mathematics and matter by encompassing both in the former.
- westoncb 9y ago
  There is a solution without requiring the universe be made of math: math just describes it instead. You can point out that this doesn't explain why math works so well, but I'll point out it's better not to pretend we have an answer if we really don't--then we keep looking. The idea that reality is made of math as an answer is totally lacking in justification, so sure it is technically an answer but saying the moon is made of cheese is an answer too. Not all answers are created equally.
  - naasking 9y ago
    > You can point out that this doesn't explain why math works so well, The philosophical implications are far broader than that. The mathematical universe provides working foundations for a lot of philosophy and physics. For instance, the multiverse entailed by the mathematical universe explains why fine tuning for life isn't necessary. > but I'll point out it's better not to pretend we have an answer if we really don't--then we keep looking. You can keep looking despite accepting that the mathematical universe is currently our best explanation. Your implication that we wouldn't do this is simply bizarre. Would you shout equally loudly that we shouldn't build on our best scientific theory simply because it may not explain everything? > The idea that reality is made of math as an answer is totally lacking in justification Except I just covered the justification: the fact that it explains plenty of philosophical and scientific problems without introducing unnecessary complexity. What more justification could you possibly need? Frankly, it sounds to me like you're either special pleading or moving the goalposts simply because you don't like the idea of the mathematical universe.

naasking 9y ago

> (in other words, it would be assuming your conclusion in your argument). To be convincing, it's not necessary to claim that any particular position is definitely true, I should only need to demonstrate that said position solves open problems that have not or cannot be solved by other positions while being of comparable complexity, conceptually. This is indeed the case for something like the mathematical universe over naturalism. There may yet be a comprehensive, unproblematic account for mathematics in naturalism, but we certainly don't have it yet. That's a huge, gaping wound in our fundamental knowledge. The mathematical universe, by contrast, easily grounds mathematics and matter by encompassing both in the former.

westoncb 9y ago
There is a solution without requiring the universe be made of math: math just describes it instead. You can point out that this doesn't explain why math works so well, but I'll point out it's better not to pretend we have an answer if we really don't--then we keep looking. The idea that reality is made of math as an answer is totally lacking in justification, so sure it is technically an answer but saying the moon is made of cheese is an answer too. Not all answers are created equally.
- naasking 9y ago
  > You can point out that this doesn't explain why math works so well, The philosophical implications are far broader than that. The mathematical universe provides working foundations for a lot of philosophy and physics. For instance, the multiverse entailed by the mathematical universe explains why fine tuning for life isn't necessary. > but I'll point out it's better not to pretend we have an answer if we really don't--then we keep looking. You can keep looking despite accepting that the mathematical universe is currently our best explanation. Your implication that we wouldn't do this is simply bizarre. Would you shout equally loudly that we shouldn't build on our best scientific theory simply because it may not explain everything? > The idea that reality is made of math as an answer is totally lacking in justification Except I just covered the justification: the fact that it explains plenty of philosophical and scientific problems without introducing unnecessary complexity. What more justification could you possibly need? Frankly, it sounds to me like you're either special pleading or moving the goalposts simply because you don't like the idea of the mathematical universe.