5:56 pm

April 9, 2009

10:39 pm

September 19, 2009

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/relativ ... tures.html

[Image Can Not Be Found]

12:33 am

April 9, 2009

8:36 am

September 19, 2009

You could ask yourself questions.

[1.] Is the physical universe completely mathematical?

[2.] Is the physical universe partially mathematical?

[3.] Is the physical universe completely not mathematical?

If [3.] is true then we should not be able to describe the universe with mathematics ...but we DO describe properties of the universe with mathematics, thus, we should be able to eliminate [3.]

So far we have been able to describe properties of the universe with mathematics, so [1.] looks like it could be true but there may be some undiscovered properties of the universe that cannot be described by mathematics. it looks promising that [1.] is provisionally true until it can be rigorously proven beyond any doubts... :boohoo:

8:27 pm

April 9, 2009

12:02 am

September 19, 2009

"at1with0" wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.....hypothesis

:think: :think: :think:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematic ... _responses

Consistency with Gödel's theorem

It has also been suggested that the MUH is inconsistent with Gödel's incompleteness theorem. In a three-way debate between Tegmark and fellow physicists Piet Hut and Mark Alford,[8] the "secularist" (Alford) states that "the methods allowed by formalists cannot prove all the theorems in a sufficiently powerful system... The idea that math is "out there" is incompatible with the idea that it consists of formal systems." Tegmark's response in [8] (sec VI.A.1) is to offer a new hypothesis "that only Godel-complete (fully decidable) mathematical structures have physical existence. This drastically shrinks the Level IV multiverse, essentially placing an upper limit on complexity, and may have the attractive side effect of explaining the relative simplicity of our universe." Tegmark goes on to note that although conventional theories in physics are Godel-undecidable, the actual mathematical structure describing our world could still be Godel-complete, and "could in principle contain observers capable of thinking about Godel-incomplete mathematics, just as finite-state digital computers can prove certain theorems about Godel-incomplete formal systems like Peano arithmetic." In [2] (sec. VII) he gives a more detailed response, proposing as an alternative to MUH the more restricted "Computable Universe Hypothesis" (CUH) which only includes mathematical structures that are simple enough that Gödel's theorem does not require them to contain any undecidable/uncomputable theorems. Tegmark admits that this approach faces "serious challeges", including (a) it excludes much of the mathematical landscape; (b) the measure on the space of allowed theories may itself be uncomputable; and (c) "virtually all historically successful theories of physics violate the CUH".

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online:

34 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:

1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10262

bionic: 9870

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Tairaa: 2842

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 24449

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 31

Topics: 8817

Posts: 123798

Newest Members:

ielts abono, Viviane Trevithick, will son, Bill Rita, Snow, freeielts090, drsuh, Warren, Oka Ruto, Tomkat BooksAdministrators: John Greenewald: 614, blackvault: 1776