Mind and Cosmos sounds interesting. Erm. That claim baffles me. Math isn't part of nature. Points don't exist. Numbers don't exist. You can have two tables or two chairs, but you can't have "two." That's just nonsense. If he's suggesting "there could be another universe where 2 + 2 = 1" that's equally nonsensical. 2 + 2 = 4 isn't a property of our universe. It's a property of our mathematical axioms. The axioms we use are the most common because they're the most useful. Abstractions don't exist. Also: em dashes surrounded by spaces? Nooo.Max Tegmark suggests that a different ingredient — mathematics — needs to be admitted into science as one of nature’s irreducible parts.
Max Tegmark suggests that a different ingredient — mathematics — needs to be admitted into science as one of nature’s irreducible parts.
Yes, I'm baffled by that claim, as well. I almost want to read the book only because I assume that the idea is fleshed out quite a bit more than the few sentences that are devoted here. I've always assumed that math works in models because forces between bodies are quantifiable. Mathematics are truth, because they're tautological by nature. That is, all we're doing when we do math is looking for necessary, but unobvious, relationships that must follow from our stated axioms and operators.