**"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".

[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:

]]>[Image Can Not Be Found]

]]>**"at1with0" wrote:** Maybe it already is but it's not aware of it.

Gravity waves whisper sweet nothings into our psyche and we must filter out the noise factor... :think:

]]>**"khanster" wrote:** I would like to argue that the universe is a self aware structure:

[Image Can Not Be Found]

If the universe is a giant brain, how can we establish communication with that brain?

How can a tiny component of a brain communicate with the brain?

Perhaps gravity waves... :think:

]]>(How it can be so broken down isn't supposed to be obvious.)

The meanings of such statements exist, in my opinion, independently of humans.

Ergo, the objects of study of human mathology exist independently of humans.

]]>**"at1with0" wrote:** [quote="khanster"][quote="at1with0"]What are the utterances of the alleged language called math?

You could assign an utterance to every math symbol. The combination of various symbols convey meaning in the language that is math.

I would say that the objects referenced by what you're calling the language is what math is. I make the distinction between human-invented math and the objects of study of math.

Humans invent the symbols, yes.

...But the true math itself, is it discovered or invented? I suspect that math is actually discovered, not invented.

]]>**"khanster" wrote:** [quote="at1with0"]What are the utterances of the alleged language called math?

You could assign an utterance to every math symbol. The combination of various symbols convey meaning in the language that is math.

I would say that the objects referenced by what you're calling the language is what math is. I make the distinction between human-invented math and the objects of study of math.

]]>**"at1with0" wrote:** What are the utterances of the alleged language called math?

You could assign an utterance to every math symbol. The combination of various symbols convey meaning in the language that is math.

]]>