"So here is the crux of my argument. If you believe in an external reality independent of humans, then you must also believe in what I call the mathematical universe hypothesis: that our physical reality is a mathematical structure. In other words, we all live in a gigantic mathematical object — one that is more elaborate than a dodecahedron, and probably also more complex than objects with intimidating names like Calabi-Yau manifolds, tensor bundles and Hilbert spaces, which appear in today’s most advanced theories. Everything in our world is purely mathematical — including you." -- Max Tegmark, "The Mathematical Universe", https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646.
@dmm If you believe in "perfectly reasonable assumption", then you MUST also believe in "completely unrelated assumption".
This is a textbook case of non sequitur.
It seems that the non sequitur you are talking about is this:
"The I explore physics implications of the External Reality Hypothesis (ERH) that there exists an external physical reality completely independent of us humans. I argue that with a sufficiently broad definition of mathematics, it implies the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) that our physical world is an abstract mathematical structure." [1]
More specifically, is your concern with this implication?
[\text{ERH} \land \text{("sufficiently broad definition of mathematics")}\Rightarrow \text{MUH}]References
Add comment