ShtetlOptimized

TheBlogofScottAaronson
Quantumcomputersarenotknowntobeable
tosolveNPcompleteproblemsinpolynomialtime,
andcanbesimulatedclassicallywithexponentialslowdown.

TheScientificCaseforPNP
WaitingforBQPFever

ThisreviewofMaxTegmarksbookalsooccursinfinitelyofteninthedecimal
expansionof
Twomonthsago,commenterrrtucciaskedmewhatIthoughtaboutMaxTegmarkandhisMathematicalUniverseHypothesis:the
idea,whichTegmarkdefendsinhisrecentbookOurMathematicalUniverse,thatphysicalandmathematicalexistencearethesame
thing,andthatwhatwecallthephysicalworldissimplyonemoremathematicalstructure,alongsidethedodecahedronandsoforth.I
repliedasfollows:
IfindMaxafascinatingperson,awonderfulconferenceorganizer,someonewhosalwaysbeenextremelynicetomepersonally,
andanabsolutemasteratfindingcommongroundwithhisintellectualopponentsImtryingtolearnfromhim,andhopesomeday
tobecome10122asgood.Icanalsosaythat,likevariousothercommentators(e.g.,PeterWoit),Ipersonallyfindthe
MathematicalUniverseHypothesistobedevoidofcontent.
AfterPeterWoitfoundthatcommentandhighlighteditonhisownblog,mycommentssectionwasgracedbynoneotherthanTegmark
himself,whowrote:
ThanksScottforyourallto[sic]kindwords!IverymuchlookforwardtohearingwhatyouthinkaboutwhatIactuallysayinthe
bookonceyouvehadachancetoreadit!Imhappytogiveyouahardcopy(whichcandoubleasdoorstop)justletme
know.
Withthisreply,MaxillustratedperfectlywhyIvebeentryingtolearnfromhim,andhowfarIfallshort.WhereIwouldvesaidyo
dumbass,whydontyoureadmybookbeforespoutingoff?,Tegmarkgracefully,diplomaticallyshamedmeintoreadinghisbook.
So,nowthatIvedoneso,whatdoIthink?Briefly,Ithinkitsasuperbpieceofpopularsciencewritingstuffedtothegills
withthoughtprovokingarguments,entertaininganecdotes,andfascinatingfacts.Ithinkeveryoneinterestedinmath,
science,orphilosophyshouldbuythebookandreadit.AndIstillthinktheMUHisbasicallydevoidofcontent,asit
stands.
Letmestartwithwhatmakesthebooksogood.Firstandforemost,thepersonaltouch.Tegmarkdeftlyconveystheexcitementof
beinginvolvedintheanalysisofthecosmicmicrowavebackgroundfluctuationsofactuallygettingdetailednumericaldataaboutthe
originoftheuniverse.(ThebookcameoutjustafewmonthsbeforelastweeksbombshellannouncementofBmodesintheCMB
datapresumablythenexteditionwillhaveanupdateaboutthat.)AndTegmarkdoesntjustgiveyouargumentsfortheManyWorlds
Interpretationofquantummechanicshetellsyouhowhecametobelieveit.HewritesofbeingabeginningPhDstudentatBerkeley,
livingatInternationalHouse(anddatinganAustralianexchangestudentwhohemethisfirstdayatIHouse),whobecameobsessedwith
solvingthequantummeasurementproblem,andwhothereforeheadedtothephysicslibrary,wherehewasawestruckbyreadingthe
originalManyWorldsarticlesofHughEverettandBrycedeWitt.Asithappens,everysinglepartofthelastsentencealso
describesme(!!!)exceptthattheAustralianexchangestudentwhoImetmyfirstdayatIHouselostinterestinmewhenshedecided
thatIwastoonerdy.Andalso,IeventuallydecidedthattheMWIleftmeprettymuchasconfusedaboutthemeasurementproblemas
before,whereasTegmarkremainsawholeheartedManyWorlder.
TheotherthingIlovedaboutTegmarksbookwasitsalmostcomicalconcreteness.Hedoesntjustmetaphoricallywriteabout
knobsforadjustingtheconstantsofphysics:heshowsyouapictureofaboxwiththeknobsonit.Healsoshowsaletterthatlists
notonlyhisstreetaddress,zipcode,town,state,andcountry,butalsohisplanet,Hubblevolume,postinflationarybubble,quantum
branch,andmathematicalstructure.ProbablymyfavoritefigurewastheonelabeledWhatDarkMatterLooksLike/WhatDark
EnergyLooksLike,whichshowedtwoblankboxes.

SometimesTegmarkseemstosubtlysubverttheconventionsofpopularsciencewriting.Forexample,inthefirstchapter,heincludesa
tablethatcategorizeseachofthebooksremainingchaptersasMainstream,Controversial,orExtremelyControversial.And
wheneveryourereadingthetextandcringingatacrucialfactualpointthatwasleftout,chancesaregoodyoullfindafootnoteatthe
bottomofthepageexplainingthatpoint.Ihopebothoftheseconventionsbecomederigueurforallfuturepopsciencebooks,butIm
notcountingonit.
ThebookhaswhatTegmarkhimselfdescribesasaDr.Jekyll/Mr.Hydestructure,withthefirst(Dr.Jekyll)halfofthebook
relayingmoreorlessaccepteddiscoveriesinphysicsandcosmology,andthesecond(Mr.Hyde)halffocusingonTegmarksown
MathematicalUniverseHypothesis(MUH).Letsacceptthatbothhalvesareenjoyablereads,andthatthefirsthalfcontainslotsof
wonderfulscience.IsthereanythingworthsayingaboutthetruthorfalsehoodoftheMUH?
Inmyview,theMUHgesturestowardtwopointsthatarebothcorrectandimportantneitherofthemnew,butbothwellworth
repeatinginapopsciencebook.Thefirstisthatthelawsofphysicsarentsuggestions,whichtheparticlescanobeywhentheyfeel
likeitbutignorewhenUriGellerpicksupaspoon.Inthatrespect,theyrecompletelyunlikehumanlaws,andthefactthatweusethe
samewordforbothisunfortunate.Norarethelawsmerelyobservedcorrelations,asinscientistsfindlinkbetweenyogurtandweight
loss.Thelinksoffundamentalphysicsareironclad:theworldobeystheminmuchthesamesensethatacomputerobeysitscode,or
thepositiveintegersobeytherulesofarithmetic.Ofcoursewedontyetknowthecompleteprogramdescribingthestateevolutionof
theuniverse,buteverythinglearnedsinceGalileoleadsonetoexpectthatsuchaprogramexists.(Accordingtoquantummechanics,the
programdescribingourobservedrealityisaprobabilisticone,butforme,thatfactbyitselfdoesnothingtochangeitslawlikecharacter.
Afterall,ifyouknowtheinitialstate,Hamiltonian,andmeasurementbasis,thenquantummechanicsgivesyouaperfectalgorithmto
calculatetheprobabilities.)
ThesecondtrueandimportantnuggetintheMUHisthatthelawsaremathematical.Byitself,Idsaythatsavacuousstatement,
sinceanythingthatcanbedescribedatallcanbedescribedmathematically.(Asadegeneratecase,amathematicaldescriptionof
realitycouldsimplybeagargantuanstringofbits,listingeverythingthatwilleverhappenateverypointinspacetime.)Thenontrivial
partisthat,atleastifweignoreboundaryconditionsandthedetailsofourlocalenvironment(whichmaybeweshouldnt!),thelawsof
natureareexpressibleassimple,elegantmathandmoreover,thesamestructures(complexnumbers,grouprepresentations,
Riemannianmanifolds)thatmathematiciansfindimportantforinternalreasons,againandagainturnouttoplayacrucialrolein
physics.Itdidnthavetobethatway,butitis.
Puttingthetwopointstogether,itseemsfairtosaythatthephysicalworldisisomorphictoamathematicalstructureandmoreover,a
structurewhosetimeevolutionobeyssimple,elegantlaws.AllofthisIfindunobjectionable:ifyoubelieveit,itdoesntmakeyoua
Tegmarkianitmakesyoureadyforfreshmanscienceclass.
ButTegmarkgoesfurther.Hedoesntsaythattheuniverseisisomorphictoamathematicalstructurehesaysthatitisthatstructure,
thatitsphysicalandmathematicalexistencearethesamething.Furthermore,hesaysthateverymathematicalstructureexistsinthe
samesensethatoursdoeswesimplyfindourselvesinoneofthestructurescapableofintelligentlife(whichshouldntsurpriseus).
Thus,forTegmark,theanswertoStephenHawkingsfamousquestionWhatisitthatbreathesfireintotheequationsandgivesthem
auniversetodescribe?isthateveryconsistentsetofequationshasfirebreathedintoit.Orrather,everymathematicalstructureofat
mostcountablecardinalitywhoserelationsaredefinablebysomecomputerprogram.(Tegmarkallowsthatstructuresthat
arentcomputablydefinable,likethesetofrealnumbers,mightnothavefirebreathedintothem.)
Anyway,theensembleofall(computable?)mathematicalstructures,constitutingthetotalityofexistence,iswhatTegmarkcallsthe
LevelIVmultiverse.Inhisnomenclature,ouruniverseconsistsofanythingfromwhichwecanreceivesignalsanythingthatexistsbut
thatwecantreceivesignalsfromispartofamultiverseratherthanouruniverse.TheLevelImultiverseisjusttheentiretyofour
spacetime,includingfarawayregionsfromwhichwecanneverreceiveasignalduetothedarkenergy.TheLevelIImultiverseconsists
oftheinfinitelymanyotherbubbles(i.e.,localBigBangs),withdifferentvaluesoftheconstantsofphysics,thatwould,ineternal
inflationcosmologies,havegenericallyformedoutofthesameinflatingsubstancethatgaverisetoourBigBang.TheLevelIII
multiverseisEverettsmanyworlds.Thus,forTegmark,theLevelIVmultiverseisasortofnaturalculminationofearliermultiverse
theorizing.(Somepeoplemightcallitareductioadabsurdum,butTegmarkisnothingifnotabulletswallower.)
Now,whyshouldyoubelieveinanyofthesemultiverses?Orbetter:whatdoesitbuyyoutobelieveinthem?
AsTegmarkcorrectlypointsout,noneofthemultiversesaretheories,buttheymightbeimplicationsoftheoriesthatwehaveother
goodreasonstoaccept.Inparticular,itseemscrazytobelievethattheBigBangcreatedspaceonlyuptothefurthestpointfromwhich
lightcanreachtheearth,andnofurther.So,doyoubelievethatspaceextendsfurtherthanourcosmologicalhorizon?Thenboom!you
believeintheLevelImultiverse,accordingtoTegmarksdefinitionofit.
Likewise,doyoubelievetherewasaperiodofinflationinthefirst~1032secondsaftertheBigBang?Inflationhasmadeseveral

confirmedpredictions(e.g.,aboutthefractalnatureoftheCMBperturbations),andiflastweeksannouncementofBmodesinthe
CMBisindependentlyverified,thatwillprettymuchclinchthecaseforinflation.ButAlanGuth,AndreiLinde,andothershaveargued
that,ifyouacceptinflation,thenitseemshardtopreventpatchesoftheinflatingsubstancefromcontinuingtoinflateforever,and
therebygivingrisetoinfinitelymanyotherBigBangs.Furthermore,ifyouacceptstringtheory,thenthesixextradimensionsshould
genericallycurlupdifferentlyineachofthoseBigBangs,givingrisetodifferentapparentvaluesoftheconstantsofphysics.Sothen
boom!withthoseassumptions,youresoldontheLevelIImultiverseaswell.Finally,ofcourse,therearepeople(likeDavidDeutsch,
EliezerYudkowsky,andTegmarkhimself)whothinkthatquantummechanicsforcesyoutoaccepttheLevelIIImultiverseofEverett.
Betteryet,Tegmarkclaimsthatthesemultiversesarefalsifiable.Forexample,ifinflationturnsouttobewrong,thentheLevelII
multiverseisdead,whileifquantummechanicsiswrong,thentheLevelIIIoneisdead.
Admittedly,theLevelIVmultiverseisatoughersell,evenbythestandardsofthelasttwoparagraphs.Ifyoubelievephysicalexistence
tobethesamethingasmathematicalexistence,whatpuzzlesdoesthathelptoexplain?Whatnovelpredictionsdoesitmake?Forging
fearlesslyahead,TegmarkarguesthattheMUHhelpstoexplainwhyouruniversehassomanymathematicalregularitiesinthefirst
place.Anditpredictsthatmoremathematicalregularitieswillbediscovered,andthateverythingdiscoveredbysciencewillbe
mathematicallydescribable.Butwhatabouttheexistenceofothermathematicaluniverses?If,Tegmarksays(onpage354),our
qualitativelawsofphysicsturnouttoallowanarrowrangeofnumericalconstantsthatpermitlife,whereasotherpossiblequalitative
lawshavenorangeofnumericalconstantsthatpermitlife,thenthatwouldbeevidencefortheexistenceofamathematicalmultiverse.
Forifourqualitativelawsweretheonlyonesintowhichfirehadbeenbreathed,thenwhywouldtheyjustsohappentohaveanarrow
butnonemptyrangeoflifepermittingconstants?
IsupposeImnotaloneinfindingthistotallyunpersuasive.Whenmostscientistssaytheywantpredictions,theyhaveinmind
somethingmeatierthanpredicttheuniversewillcontinuetobedescribablebymathematics.(Howwouldweknowifwefound
somethingthatwasntmathematicallydescribable?CouldweevendescribesuchathingwithEnglishwords,inordertowritepapers
aboutit?)Theyalsohaveinmindsomethingmeatierthanpredictthatthelawsofphysicswillbecompatiblewiththeexistenceof
intelligentobservers,butifyouchangedthemalittle,thentheydstopbeingcompatible.(Thefirstpartofthatpredictionissolid
enough,butthesecondpartmightdependentirelyonwhatwemeanbyalittlechangeorevenanintelligentobserver.)
WhatsworseisthatTegmarksrulesappeartolethimhaveitbothways.Towhateverextentthelawsofphysicsturnouttobeas
simpleandelegantasanyonecouldhopefor,Tegmarkcansay:yousee?thatsevidenceforthemathematicalcharacterofour
universe,andhencefortheMUH!Buttowhateverextentthelawsturnoutnottobesoelegant,tobeweirdorarbitrary,hecansay:
see?thatsevidencethatourlawswereselectedmoreorlessrandomlyamongallpossiblelawscompatiblewiththeexistenceof
intelligentlifejustastheMUHpredicted!
Still,maybetheMUHcouldbesharpenedtothepointwhereitdidmakedefinitepredictions?AsTegmarkacknowledges,thecentral
difficultywithdoingsoisthatnoonehasanyideawhatmeasuretouseoverthespaceofmathematicalobjects(orevencomputably
describableobjects).Thisbecomesclearifweaskasimplequestionlike:whatfractionofthemathematicalmultiverseconsistsof
worldsthatcontainnothingbutasinglethreedimensionalcube?
Wecouldtrytoanswersuchaquestionusingtheuniversalprior:thatis,wecouldmakealistofallselfdelimitingcomputerprograms,
thencountthetotalweightofprogramsthatgenerateasinglecubeandthenhalt,whereeachnbitprogramgetsassigned1/2n weight.
Sure,theresultingfractionwouldbeuncomputable,butatleastwedhavedefinedit.Exceptwaitwhichprogramminglanguage
shouldweuse?(Theconstantfactorscouldactuallymatterhere!)Worseyet,whatexactlycountsasacube?Doesithavetohave
faces,orareverticesandedgesenough?Howshouldweinterpretthestringof1sand0soutputbytheprogram,inordertoknow
whetheritdescribesacubeornot?(Also,howdowedecidewhethertwoprogramsdescribethesamecube?Andiftheydo,does
thatmeantheyredescribingthesameuniverse,ortwodifferentuniversesthathappentobeidentical?)
Theseproblemsaresimplymoredramaticversionsofthestandardmeasureproblemininflationarycosmology,whichaskshowto
makestatisticalpredictionsinamultiversewhereeverythingthatcanhappenwillhappen,andwillhappenaninfinitenumberoftimes.
Themeasureproblemissometimesdiscussedasifitwereatechnicalissue:somethingtoacknowledgebutthensettotheside,inthe
hopethatsomeonewilleventuallycomealongwithsomeclevercountingrulethatsolvesit.Tomymind,however,theproblem
goesdeeper:itsasignthat,althoughwemighthavestartedoutinphysics,wevenowstumbledintometaphysics.
Somecosmologistswouldstronglyprotestthatview.MostofthemwouldagreewithmethatTegmarksLevelIVmultiverseis
metaphysics,buttheydinsistthattheLevelI,LevelII,andperhapsLevelIIImultiverseswereperfectlywithinthescopeofscientific
inquiry:theyeitherexistordontexist,andthefactthatwegetconfusedaboutthemeasureproblemisourissue,notnatures.
Myresponsecanbesummedupinaquestion:whynotridethisslipperyslopeallthewaytothebottom?ThinkerslikeNick
BostromandRobinHansonhavepointedoutthat,inthefarfuture,wemightexpectthatcomputersimulatedworlds(asinTheMatrix)
willvastlyoutnumbertherealworld.Sothen,whyshouldntwepredictthatweremuchmorelikelytoliveinacomputersimulation
thanweareinoneoftheoriginalworldsdoingthesimulating?Andasalogicalnextstep,whyshouldntwedophysicsbytryingto

calculateaprobabilitymeasureoverdifferentkindsofsimulatedworlds:forexample,thoserunbybenevolentsimulatorsversusevil
ones?(Forourworld,myownmoneysonevil.)
Butwhystopthere?AsTegmarkpointsout,whatdoesitmatterifacomputersimulationisactuallyrunornot?Indeed,whyshouldnt
yousaysomethinglikethefollowing:assumingthatisanormalnumber,yourentirelifehistorymustbeencodedinfinitelymanytimesin
sdecimalexpansion.Therefore,youreinfinitelymorelikelytobeoneofyourinfinitelymanydoppelgngerslivinginthedigitsof
thanyouaretobetherealyou,ofwhomtheresonlyone!(Ofcourse,youmightalsobelivinginthedigitsofeor2,possibilities
thatalsomeritreflection.)
Atthispoint,ofcourse,youreallthewayatthebottomoftheslope,inMathematicalUniverseLand,whereTegmarkiseagerlywaiting
foryou.Butyoustillhavenoideahowtocalculateameasureovermathematicalobjects:forexample,howtosaywhetheryoure
morelikelytobelivinginthefirst1010^120digitsof,orthefirst1010^120digitsofe.Andasaconsequence,youstilldontknowhow
tousetheMUHtoconstrainyourexpectationsforwhatyouregoingtoseenext.
Now,noticethatthesedifferentwaysdowntheslipperyslopeallhaveacommonstructure:
1. Weborrowanideafromsciencethatsrealandimportantandprofound:forexample,thepossibleinfinitesizeanddurationofour
universe,orinflationarycosmology,orthelinearityofquantummechanics,orthelikelihoodofbeinganormalnumber,orthe
possibilityofcomputersimulateduniverses.
2. Wethenrunwiththatideauntilwesmackrightintoameasureproblem,andlosetheabilitytomakeusefulpredictions.
Manypeoplewanttoframethemultiversedebatesasscienceversuspseudoscience,orscienceversussciencefiction,or(asIdid
before)physicsversusmetaphysics.Butactually,Idontthinkanyofthosedichotomiesgettothenubofthematter.Allofthe
multiversesIvementionedcertainlytheinflationaryandEverettmultiverses,buteventhecomputersimuverseandtheversehave
theiroriginsinlegitimatescientificquestionsandingenuinelygreatachievementsofscience.However,theythenextrapolatethose
achievementsinadirectionthathasntyetledtoanythingimpressive.Oratleast,nottoanythingthatwecouldnthavegottenwithout
theontologicalcommitmentsthatledtothemultiverseanditsmeasureproblem.
Whatisit,ingeneral,thatmakesascientifictheoryimpressive?Idsaythattheanswerissimple:connectingelegantmathtoactual
factsofexperience.
WhenEinsteinsaid,theperihelionofMercuryprecessesat43secondsofarcpercenturybecausegravityisthecurvatureofspacetime
thatwasimpressive.
WhenDiracsaid,youshouldseeapositronbecausethisequationinquantumfieldtheoryisaquadraticwithbothpositiveandnegative
solutions(andthenthepositronwasfound)thatwasimpressive.
WhenDarwinsaid,theremustbeequalnumbersofmalesandfemalesinallthesedifferentanimalspeciesbecauseanyotherratiowould
failtobeanequilibriumthatwasimpressive.
Whenpeoplesaythatmultiversetheorizingisntscience,Ithinkwhattheymeanisthatitsfailed,sofar,tobeimpressivesciencein
theabovesense.Ithasntyetproducedanysatisfyingclicksofunderstanding,muchlessdramaticallyconfirmedpredictions.Yes,
StevenWeinbergkindof,sortofusedmultiversereasoningtopredictcorrectlythatthecosmologicalconstantshouldbenonzero.
ButasfarasIcantell,hecouldjustaswellhavedispensedwiththemultiversepart,andsaid:Iseenophysicalreasonwhythe
cosmologicalconstantshouldbezero,ratherthanhavingsomesmallnonzerovaluestillconsistentwiththeformationofstarsand
galaxies.
Atthis,manymultiverseproponentswouldprotest:look,Einstein,Dirac,andDarwinissettingaprettyhighbar!Thoseguyswere
smartbutalsolucky,anditsunrealistictoexpectthatscientistswillalwaysbesolucky.Formanyaspectsoftheworld,theremightnot
beaneleganttheoreticalexplanationoranyexplanationatallbetterthan,well,ifitweremuchdifferent,thenweprobablywouldnt
beheretalkingaboutit.So,areyousayingweshouldignorewheretheevidenceleadsus,justbecauseofsomeaprioriprejudicein
favorofmathematicalelegance?
Inasense,yes,Iamsayingthat.Heresananalogy:supposeanaspiringfilmmakersaid,Iwantmyfilmstocapturetherealityof
humanexperience,notsomeHollywoodmyth.So,inmostofmymoviesnothingmuchwillhappenatall.Ifsomethingdoeshappen
say,amajorcharacterdiesitwontbeaftersomeinteresting,characterformingstruggle,butmeaninglessly,inawaytotallyunrelated
totherestofthefilm.Likemaybetheygethitbyabus.Thensomeotherrandomstuffwillhappen,andthenthemoviewillend.
Suchafilmmaker,Idsay,wouldhaveaperfectplanforcreatingboring,arthousemoviesthatnobodywantstowatch.Dramatic,
characterformingstrugglesagainsttheoddsmightnotbethenormofhumanexperience,buttheyarethecentralingredientof
entertainingcinemasoifyouwanttocreateanentertainingmovie,thenyouhavetopostselectonthosepartsofhumanexperiencethat

doinvolvedramaticstruggles.Inthesameway,Iclaimthatelegantmathematicalexplanationsforobservedfactsarethecentral
ingredientofgreatscience.Noteverythingintheuniversemighthavesuchanexplanation,butifonewantstocreategreatscience,one
hastopostselectonthethingsthatdo.
(Notethattheresanironyhere:thesameunsatisfyingness,thesamelackofexplanatoryoomph,thatmakesomethingalousy
movietothosewithascientificmindset,caneasilymakeitagreatmovietothosewithoutsuchamindset.Thehungerfornontrivial
mathematicalexplanationsisahungeronehastoacquire!)
Somereadersmightargue:butwerentquantummechanics,chaostheory,andGdelstheoremscientificallyimportantprecisely
becausetheysaidthatcertainphenomenatheexacttimingofaradioactivedecay,nextmonthsweather,thebitsofChaitins
wereunpredictableandunexplainableinfundamentalways?Tome,thesearetheexceptionsthatprovetherule.Quantummechanics,
chaos,andGdelstheoremweregreatsciencenotbecausetheydeclaredcertainfactsunexplainable,butbecausetheyexplained
whythosefacts(andnototherfacts)hadnoexplanationsofcertainkinds.Evenmoretothepoint,theygavedefiniterulestohelpfigure
outwhatwouldandwouldntbeexplainableintheirrespectivedomains:isthisstateaneigenstateoftheoperatoryouremeasuring?is
theLyapunovexponentpositive?isthereaproofofindependencefromPAorZFC?
So,whatwouldbetheanalogueoftheaboveforthemultiverse?IsthereanyLevelIIorIVmultiversehypothesisthatsays:sure,the
massofelectronmightbeacosmicaccident,withatbestananthropicexplanation,butthemassoftheHiggsbosonisalmost
certainlynotsuchanaccident?Orthatthesumordifferenceofthetwomassesisnotanaccident?(Andno,itdoesntcounttoaffirm
asnonaccidentalthingsthatwealreadyhavenonanthropicexplanationsfor.)Ifsuchahypothesisexists,tellmeinthecomments!
AsfarasIknow,allLevelIIandIVmultiversehypothesesarestillatthestagewherebasicallyanythingthatisntalreadyexplained
mightvaryacrossuniversesandbeanthropicallyselected.Andthat,tomymind,makesthemverydifferentincharacterfromquantum
mechanics,chaos,orGdelstheorem.
Insummary,hereswhatIfeelisareasonablepositiontotakerightnow,regardingallfourofTegmarksmultiverselevels(notto
mentionthecomputersimuverse,whichIhumblyproposeasLevel3.5):
Yes,thesemultiversesareaperfectlyfinethingtospeculateabout:suretheyreunobservable,butsoareplentyofother
entitiesthatsciencehasforcedustoaccept.Thereareevennaturalreasons,withinphysicsandcosmology,thatcouldleada
persontospeculateabouteachofthesemultiverselevels.Soifyouwanttospeculate,knockyourselfout!If,however,you
wantmetoaccepttheresultsasmorethanspeculationifyouwantmetoputthemonthebookshelfnexttoDarwinand
EinsteinthenyoullneedtodomorethanarguethatotherstuffIalreadybelievelogicallyentailsamultiverse(whichIve
neverbeensureabout),orpointtofactsthatarecurrentlyunexplainedasevidencethatweneedamultiversetoexplaintheir
unexplainability,orclaimastriumphsforyourhypothesisthingsthatdontreallyneedthehypothesisatall,ordescribe
implausiblehypotheticalscenariosthatcouldconfirmorfalsifythehypothesis.Rather,youllneedtouseyourmultiverse
hypothesisandyourproposedsolutiontotheresultingmeasureproblemtodosomethingnewthatimpressesme.
ThisentrywaspostedonSaturday,March22nd,2014at6:57pmandisfiledunderNerdInterest.Youcanfollowanyresponsestothisentrythroughthe
RSS2.0feed.Youcanleavearesponse,ortrackbackfromyourownsite.

264ResponsestoThisreviewofMaxTegmarksbookalsooccursinfinitelyofteninthedecimal
expansionof
1. SidKSays:
Comment#1March22nd,2014at9:18pm

Scott,greatpost.Afewpoints:
(1)Iagreewithmostofwhatyousaid.Still,IthinkyouunderplaytheonusonnonbelieversoftheMUHtojustifywhylifeis
breathedintothespecificsetofequationsthatdescribeouruniverse,andnotintoothermathematicalstructures.Itseemstobea
pressingproblemforwhichtheredoesntseemtobeagoodanswer.
Ihaveelsewhereusedtheanalogyofearlybiologistslookingtounderstandwhatpropertiesofmatterdistinguishlivingandnon
livingobjects.Aswekeptdiggingdeeper,wefoundthattheyweremadeofthesamefundamentalstufflivingthingswerejustput
togetherdifferently.Thus,nowtheonusisonnonnaturaliststopointtosomethingfundamentalthatdistinguisheslifeandnonlife.
Thewholedramaisbeingplayedoutagainwithconsciousness.Similarly,aswekeepdiggingdeeperintothefundamental
structureoftheuniverse,wefindthatwecantpointtoanyfundamentaldifferencebetweenthemathofouruniverseandother
nearbymathematicalstructures.Sowhatselectsthismathoverthatmath?
(2)IfEisevidenceforhypothesisH,andHentailsK,thenEisevidenceforK.Thisargumentseemstobecentralto
Tegmarksargument.Ithinkthis,andvariants,gobythenameofHempelsSpecialConsequenceCondition.Aseverythingin

philosophy,thevalidityofthisconditionisdebated.Justsayingincaseanyonewantstoenterthatdebateandespeciallyexplore
theconsequencesforTegmark.
Ingeneral,IwouldreallylikesomeprofessionalepistemologisttolookatallthethornyproblemsposedbyTegmarksideasand
giveussomeideaaboutthecoherenceofhisideas.Doesanyoneknowifsomeonehasdonethis?Also,doesanyoneknowhow
theMUHisconnectedtoModalRealism?
2. edmeasureSays:
Comment#2March22nd,2014at9:27pm

IknowthatIwouldbemoreconvincedifyoucouldjustpointmetothefirstplaceinthedecimalexpansionofpiwhereyour
review,convertedperhapstosomedecimalform,occursinthedecimalexpansionofpi.
3. SniffnoySays:
Comment#3March22nd,2014at10:00pm

Sorry,butcouldyoufixthelinktothemeasureproblempapertopointtotheabstractratherthandirectlytothePDF?Thank
you!
4. DaveBaconSays:
Comment#4March22nd,2014at11:09pm

WonderfulpostScott.
5. RaoulOhioSays:
Comment#5March22nd,2014at11:35pm

Excellentreview.BeinganobnoxiousProudtobeaSkeptickindofperson,Iagreedwiththeanalysis.
WhileIhavemySkeptichaton,letmementionthatrightnow(betweenSt.PatricksdayandAprilFoolsday)istheannualIC
(InflationaryCosmology)hasfinallybeenproven,getouttheNobelPrizes!!)fortnight!
Fornewcomers,ICisafudgefactorintroducedtoreducethediscordancebetweensomemodelofAsingularityaboutwhichall
knowethsquatandwhatweseetoday.TheICtheorycompeteswiththeNC(wehaveNoClue)theory.
Aboutonceayear,anewinstrumentproducesahugedatasetthatisprocesseduntilsomesortofpatternemerges.Thepatternis
releasedbyApril1,portrayedasblueandorangesplotches,andassertedtofinallyclinchthecase,becauseICpredictsthe
splotchesbetterthanNCdoes.
IsanyoneconcernedthatNCisprettyweakcompetition?
6. AngusMackaySays:
Comment#6March22nd,2014at11:50pm

Notdisagreeingwithyou(notcompetenttodoso)butcouldyoucommentonMaxTegmarkspointthatfundamentalparticles
havenoneotherthanmathematicalproperties,forexampleintegerorhalfintegerspin?
7. MaxTegmarkSays:
Comment#7March23rd,2014at12:19am

ThanksScottforyourencouragingwordsaboutmybookandforthesethoughtprovokingcomments!
AlthoughIfoundyourreasoningrefreshinglyclearthroughoutmostofyourpost,ImustconfessthatIdontfollowingyourlogicat
theend,whereitsoundslikeyouconflatebeinterestedinwithacceptasmorethanspeculation.Imsurethatyou
acceptmodusponens,i.e.,theprinciplethatifAimpliesBandAistrue,thenBistrue.Butshouldntyouthenalsoacceptthe
following?
IfAimpliesBandIacceptAasmorethanspeculation,thenIacceptBasmorethanspeculation.
SohowcanyoujustifythatyoutakeseriouslytheVilenkin/Linde/GuthclaimthatinflationgenericallyproducesaLevelI
multiverseandalsoacceptcosmologicalinflationasmorethanspeculation(especiallyaftertheBICEP2announcement),yet
refusetoaccepttheLevelImultiverseasmorethanspeculation?Tome,thissoundslikecognitivedissonance.Ielaborateonthis
pointinthisScientificAmericanblogpost.

AstotheMathematicalUniverseHypothesis,theresanotherlogicalstepwhereIdontfullyunderstandyourreasoning.Yousay
thatitseemsfairtosaythatthephysicalworldisisomorphictoamathematicalstructure,yetexpressskepticism
abouttheideathatthephysicalworld*is*amathematicalstructure.Whatcompellingcounterexampledoyouhavein
mindwherethephysicalworldisisomorphictoamathematicalstructurewithoutactuallybeingone?Whatadditionalproperties
doesyourcounterexampleworldhavethatmakesitnotbeamathematicalstructure?Wouldyouagreethat,bydefinitionof
isomorphism,theymustby100%unobservable?
Inmyexperience,thebusinessoftheworldbeingisomorphictoamathematicalstructureismuchmorecontroversialthanyou
suggestwhenyousayitmerelymakesyoureadyforfreshmanscienceclass.Ivetaughtlotsoffreshmanscienceclasseswith
excellentstudentswhowouldobjecttothisbecauseofasensethatitconflictswiththeirbeliefinsomesortofsouland/ordeity
thatcannotbedescribedbyequations,say.
8. ScottSays:
Comment#8March23rd,2014at1:35am

Sniffnoy#3:Sorry,fixed!
9. ScottSays:
Comment#9March23rd,2014at1:39am

AngusMackay#6:
couldyoucommentonMaxTegmarkspointthatfundamentalparticleshavenoneotherthanmathematicalproperties,for
exampleintegerorhalfintegerspin?
Sure.Whatwoulditevenmeanforfundamentalparticlestohaveotherthanmathematicalproperties?Howcouldwetellifthey
did?Evenifeveryelectronhadalittleserialnumberthatdistinguisheditquantummechanicallyfromeveryotherelectron(asan
electronisdistinguishablefromanupquark),wouldntthatjustbeanothermathematicalpropertyofelectrons?
10. JairSays:
Comment#10March23rd,2014at1:47am

Ialsocantseeanydistinctionbetweensayingtheworldisisomorphictoamathematicalstructureandsayingitisa
mathematicalstructure.Perhapsthescarequotesindicatesomehesitancetousethefullweightofthetermasitisusuallyusedin
mathematics.Butchoosingwhetherornottoputthescarequotesseemstometobemostofthedebateathand.
Whatdoesitmeantosaytheworldreallyis(orisisomorphicto)amathematicalstructure?AsfarasIcantell,thismeansthere
shouldbesomefinitesetofequationsthatpreciselydescribetheworldineverydetail.Idontseewhyweshouldbelievethis.
Perhapstheuniverserequiresaninfinitenumberofnested,increasinglyprecisemathematicalmodelstodescribeit.InthiscaseI
wouldnotsaythattheuniversetrulyisasinglemathematicalobject,sincewecanonlyputfinitelymanypagesinanygiven
yellowbook.
Ifyoudoacceptthepremisethattheworldis(isomorphicto)amathematicalstructure,andyouarealsoamathematicalPlatonist,
itseemstomeyoumustswallowthebulletandaccepttheLevelIVmultiverseaswell.IfallTuringmachinesexistinsomesense,
andourworldissimulatedbyaTuringmachine,thensure,thereexistsaversionoftheworldinwhichgrassisblueandwaterfalls
goup,etc.,assumingthoseassumptionsarelogicallyconsistent.
11. ScottSays:
Comment#11March23rd,2014at1:58am

RaoulOhio#5:IcompletelyagreewithyouthatIC(InflationaryCosmology)andNC(NoClue)seemlikethemaincompetitors!
Butyes,witheachnewprocessedpatternoforangeandbluesplotches,IChasbeenlookingbetterandbettercomparedtoNC
Idontseehowoneavoidsthatconclusion.I.e.,theevidencelooksstrongerandstrongerthatsomesortofinflationhappened
inourcausalpast.Still,frommyunqualifiedlaypersonposition,Ivealwaysbeenhesitanttobuyintofurtherspeculations(e.g.,
eternalinflationscenarios)untilwehavemoredetailedknowledgeaboutthepropertiesoftheinflaton.Ofcourse,onereasonthe
Bmoderesultissoexcitingifitholdsupisthatitwouldstarttogiveussuchknowledge.
12. SidKSays:
Comment#12March23rd,2014at2:15am

RaoulOhio#5,Scott#11:

ImfarfromanexpertbutIthinkthemaincompetitiontoInflationisntNoClue,butinsteadEkpyrotic(Cyclic)Models.AndI
thinkPaulSteinhardt,whocobuilttheEkpyroticModel,hasclearlystatedthattheBICEP2results,iftheyholdup,falsifyhis
model.
13. PeterWoitSays:
Comment#13March23rd,2014at3:45am

Scott,
Byyourcriterionthattherightwaytoevaluatethissortofspeculationiswhetheritimpressesone,thenIhavetosaythatfor
me,TegmarksLevelIVmultiversepasseswithflyingcolors.Itsjawdroppinglyimpressiveinitsscopeandclaims,providingan
explanationofeverythingwithnofreeparameters.Itsalsobyalongshotthemostimpressiveexampleofareputableacademic
puttingbeforethepublicalongwellwrittenbookdevotedtosellingacompletelyemptyideathatIveeverseen.PreTegmarkI
wouldnthavethoughtthispossible.
Equallyimpressiveisthefactthatabookdevotedtopromotingsomethingpurelycontentfreeisgettinglaudatoryreviewsin
Nature,ablurbfromWitten,andnowthepublicisbeingtoldthateveryoneinterestedinmath,science,orphilosophyshouldbuy
thebookandreadit.Icouldntbemoreimpressed,sobyyourargumentTegmarkwithhisLevelIVdefinitelybelongsupthere
withEinstein,DiracandDarwin.
14. JrSays:
Comment#14March23rd,2014at4:32am

DidDarwinreallypredictthatanimalspeciesshouldhaveequalnumberofmalesandfemales?IhadthoughtthatFisherwasthe
firstonetomakethatargument?(TechnicallyIalsothinkthatFishershowedthatthereshouldbeequalparentalinvestmentof
resourcesinproducingandraisingsonsanddaughters,notthattheremustbeanequalnumberofmalesandfemalesinthe
population.)
15. CristiStoicaSays:
Comment#15March23rd,2014at5:21am

DearScottandMax,
IthinkIcanidentifytheprimarysourceofdisagreementbetweenyoutwo.
Ifweconsiderthatitdoesntmatterifacomputersimulationisactuallyrunornot,thenwhatwehaveisjustastringofbits(or
somethingcontainingthesameinformation).Whatisthemeaningofthebitstring?Itdependsonhowitwasencodedgivenan
appropriateencodingalgorithm,anythingcanbeencodedinthesamebitstring.Thebitstringcanbedecodedinatextina
particularlanguage,whichcanthenbeinterpretedbyareader.Eventually,themeaningofthedecodedinformationexistsonlyfor
theobserverwhoperceivesthatparticulardecodeddescription.
Cantheobserverbeincludedinthebitstring?Apparentlynot,becausethestringcanbedecodedinallpossibleways,sothe
observerwillnotbeabletogiveaparticularmeaning.Butperhapsthismeansthatallpossibleobservers,perceivingallpossible
decodedmeanings,areincludedinthatstring.Sothereisasortofrelativestateinterpretation,eachobserverconnectedtothe
correspondingmeaningofthebitstring,allencodedinthesamebitstring.
IfIamright,thentheentirediscussionboilsdowntothefollowingquestion:isanexternalobserverneededtogivemeaningto
thebitstring,ortheobservercanbeconsideredincludedintheverybitstring?
Dependingontheanswer,Icanonlyseetwooptions:
eitheracceptthatthereisaghostinthemachine(anexternalobserverforwhomthebitstringeventuallyhasameaning)
oracceptthatalllogicallyconsistentuniversesexist(includingallpossibleobserversassubsystems).Andtheyexistinthesame
place(thebitstring),andaredifferentbecausewecandecodethemdifferently.
NotethattheviewpointIproposedhereonMUHisabitdifferentthanthatproposedbyTegmark,sinceitclaimsthatthe
existenceofasinglebitstringentailstheexistenceofallpossibleuniverses,encodedinthatstring.Nomatterwhatstringis,or
evenifitisabitstringorsomethingelse.
Bottomline,thechoice:
Ifweadmitthattheobserverispartofthesimulationormathematicaldescriptionofthephysicalworld,thenwehavetoadmit
MUH(becausethatdescriptioncanbeinterpretedinallpossibleways).IfwedontadmitMUH,itisprobablybecausewe

assumethattheobserverforwhomthemeaningexistshastobeexternaltothesimulationitself(inordertogiveitameaning).
16. AnonymousProgrammerSays:
Comment#16March23rd,2014at5:54am

IthinkLeeSmolinwoulddisagreewithMaxTegmark.Ifuniversesinheritmostofthelawsofphysicsfromtheirparentuniverse
withslightmodificationyouhaveaDarwiniansituation.Thelawsofphysicswouldnotberandomjustasgenesarenotrandom.
HealsowasarguinginTimeRebornthatthinkingofphysicsasmathshortchangestheconceptoftimeandtheveryreal
possibilitythatthelawsofphysicsinauniverse,orpopulationofuniverses,canchangeovertime.
Doyouthinktheuniversehasaparentorparents?
17. JamesCrossSays:
Comment#17March23rd,2014at5:59am

Puttingthetwopointstogether,itseemsfairtosaythatthephysicalworldisisomorphictoamathematicalstructureand
moreover,astructurewhosetimeevolutionobeyssimple,elegantlaws.
Areyousayingthemathematicalstructureisnotphysical?
Isitnonphysical?Supernatural?
Iamtryingtomakesomesortofreligiousargumenthere,butifyoucarveoffsomepieceofreality(mathematics)asseparate
fromphysicalreality,arentyoumakingsomesortofreligiousargument?
18. JamesCrossSays:
Comment#18March23rd,2014at6:00am

SorryImeantIamnottryingtomakesomesortofreligiousargument.
19. ScottSays:
Comment#19March23rd,2014at7:47am

James#17:Well,thereareplentyofmathematicalstructuresonecanwritedown(Galoisfields,thepadics,ParityPTuring
machines)thatdontmodelobservedreality,inthesamesensethatothermathematicalstructures(theStandardModel,general
relativity)domodelobservedreality.Mathematicians(andtheirpencilsandnotebooks)arephysicalobjectsgovernedbythe
lawsofphysics,buttheresnolawofphysicsthatmakestheirimaginationsslavestowhatsphysicallypossible!AndIthinkthat
banalobservationisallyouneedtoacceptforthisdiscussionyoudontneedtobelieve,further,inatranscendentPlatonic
realmofmathematicalobjectsseparatefromphysicalreality.
(AccordingtoTegmark,thetranscendentPlatonicrealmisthesamethingasphysicalreality!Meanwhile,Icallmyselfananti
antiPlatonist:IdontliterallybelieveinthePlatonicrealm,butwhatIreallyopposeistheradicalsubjectivistclaimsaboutmath
thattendtogoalongwithrejectingsucharealm.)
20. ScottSays:
Comment#20March23rd,2014at7:51am

Jr#14:Goodquestion!MymemorywasthatDarwinhadmadetheargumentinformally,andthenFishermadeitmuchmore
rigorous.Meanwhile,hereswhatWikipediasays(inthearticleaboutFishersprinciple):
CharlesDarwinhadoriginallyformulatedasimilarbutsomewhatconfusedargumentinthefirsteditionofTheDescentof
ManbutwithdrewitforthesecondeditionFisheronlyhadacopyofthelatter
21. ScottSays:
Comment#21March23rd,2014at7:58am

SidK#12:EverytimeIreadorheardaboutekpyroticcosmology,Icouldntescapethe(nodoubttotallyunfair!)impressionthat
itwasafascinatingandimaginativeworkoffiction.SoIcantsayImshockedthatwiththeBICEP2results,itappearstobeon
itswayout.Itscertainlyanhonorablefateforacosmologicaltheorytobefalsifiedbyobservation.
22. SeoSanghyeonSays:
Comment#22March23rd,2014at8:29am

Really,peopleshouldreadthesciencefictionPermutationCity(1994)byGregEganinstead.AsIunderstandMaxTegmark
citesit.
Scott,Iagreethemeasureproblemisofcentralimportance.Whatdoyouthinkofspeedpriorasanalternativetouniversalprior?
Schmidhuberthinksnotonlyshortprogramsshouldgetmoreweightthanlongprograms,butfastprogramsshouldgetmore
weightthanslowprograms.Iguessthisisliterallytrueforsimulationscenarios.Andspeedprioriscomputable!Andwhatother
priorscanwethinkof?Ithinkthisisapromisinglineofinquiry,althoughthereisntmuchimpressiveresultsyet.
23. domenicoSays:
Comment#23March23rd,2014at8:59am

Iamthinkingthatthereasoningonpilikeanormalnumbercontainapossibleerror(?)insomeMaxTegmarkinterpretations.
Thepicontainalistofbinarydigit,thatcancontainaframeofalongmovie,orapageofalongbook:thenumbercontaina
structure,orameaning,thatcanbedeep,butitisnottruethateachframeismadeinsomeUniversethereisamathematical
structure,andalawforthecalculusofthebits,butthereisnotarealizedmeaning.
Ontheotherhand,itispossiblethatthephysicallaw(likeacommonmathematicalstructures)inourUniversehavemanypossible
realizationsinotherinflations.
24. ScottSays:
Comment#24March23rd,2014at9:12am

edmeasure#2:
IknowthatIwouldbemoreconvincedifyoucouldjustpointmetothefirstplaceinthedecimalexpansionofpiwhere
yourreview,convertedperhapstosomedecimalform,occursinthedecimalexpansionofpi.
IfyouincludetheHTMLformatting,myreviewis28,315bytes=226,520bits~68,189decimaldigits.Ifyoubelievethedigits
ofareessentiallyrandomforthispurpose,thatsuggeststhatyouwouldneedtogooutontheorderof1068,189digitsbefore
youfoundadecimalencodingofmyreview.Obviouslythisisntfeasiblewithanyknownalgorithmrunningonaphysically
realisticcomputer:sofar,hasbeencomputedtoamere~1013digits!Sosorry.
(Thereareamazingsocalledspigotalgorithmsthatletyougetanygivenhexidecimaldigitofwithoutcalculatingallthe
precedingdigits.ButIdontthinkeventhosehelpmuchfortheinverseproblem,offindingthefirstpositionatwhichagiven
sequenceofdigitsappears.)
Notethat,ifitwereprovedthatwereanormalnumber,thenthatwouldyieldanonconstructiveproofthatmyreview(andthe
completeworksofShakespeare,etc.etc.)mustoccurinfinitelyofteninthedecimalexpansionof.Dependingontheproof,
maybeitwouldevengiveyouanexplicitupperboundonhowfaryouhadtogoouttofindthefirstoccurrence.
Asafinalnote,youmightenjoyplayingwithThePiSearchPage,whichletsyousearchforanypatternyoulikewithinthefirst
fewhundredmilliondigitsof.Forexample,Ivejustlearnedfromitthat1753(thenumberofthisblogpost)firstoccursat
position2187,and03075998(thefirst8digitsoftheISBNnumberofTegmarksbook)firstoccursatposition76541109.
25. ScottSays:
Comment#25March23rd,2014at9:21am

PeterWoit#13:BeforeIreadyoursnarkycomment,IdmistakenlythoughtthatmypositionwasclosertoyoursthantoMaxs!
(Sure,Iusedthewordimpressive,butmyexamplesmadeclearthatwhatimpressesmeisexplanatoryandpredictivepower.
Andsure,IhadnicethingstosayaboutthequalityofMaxsexposition,butsodidyou.)Anyway,Inowknowthatmypositionis
closertoMaxsthanyourssothanks!
26. ScottSays:
Comment#26March23rd,2014at9:27am

AnonymousProgrammer#16:Yes,LeeandMaxwoulddisagreeaboutagreatnumberofissues!
MyunderstandingquitepossiblymistakenwasthatLeescosmicnaturalselectionideahas,atleastinthemindsofmost
physicistsbesidesLee, essentiallybeenfalsified,sinceitpredictsthattheparametersofouruniverseshouldbeoptimizedfor
blackholeproductionandtheydontappeartobe.IfImwrong,maybesomeonewhoknowstheissuesbettercansetme
straight.

Asfortheideaofthelawsofphysicschangingwithtime,anditsomehownotbeingpossibletogiveanymetalawthatlawfully
describeshowtheregularlawsarechangingIthinkIpreferLeescosmologicalnaturalselectionidea,sinceithadthemeritof
makingafalsifiableprediction.
27. CliffSays:
Comment#27March23rd,2014at9:30am

Scott,kudosonthefunandprovokingbookreview.IhaventreadTegmarksbookyet,butIveindependentlybeendrawnto
someofthesesameideas.ImnotatotalMUTdevotee,butthebasicideaisincrediblyattractiveandhighlyplausible.
Itstrikesmethatyouvemissedtheessential,primarymotivationfortheidea,whichisthatitallowsforasatisfactoryresolutionof
thebigwhy:whytheuniverseis.Logicalstructurescansimplyexisttheydontneedanycreationmythoranyotherexplanation
forhowtheyobtainwhateverspecialpropertyentailstheirphysicalrealness.Thereissimplynootherwayonecouldeven
conceivablyresolvethis,butforsomethingalongthelinesoftheMUT.Otherwiseitsadestinedtobeahopeless,eternallyvexing
questionwithnopossibleanswer.
Somethinglikethismaywellbethetruth,butIdagreewithyouthatthequestionisfirmlyintherealmofmetaphysics.Peoplewill
alwaysbeabletopostulatethatsomespecialsaucespiritorwhateverwhichseparatesouruniversesphysicalexistence
fromthemerelyisomorphicassociatedmathematicalstructure.Noevidencecouldconceivablytipthecaseonewayoranother.
Yetsincetheevidencecannotpointonewayortheother,fromacertainperspectiveitsjustasunscientifictobelieveinthis
specialsauceasanyotherreligiousfairytalesfashionedforthecomfortofhumanminds.
IdontknowhowwellTegmarksbookdealswithallthis.Fromwhatyouandotherssay,IsuspectIwouldntbecompletely
pleasedwitheverypart,butgiventhatthisissuchanatural,appealing,andinsomewaysinevitablephilosophicalidea,itdeserves
muchmorediscussion.Soforthatthebookisverywelcome.
28. domenicoSays:
Comment#28March23rd,2014at10:22am

IamthinkingthatifitexistaTheoryOfEverything,thenthismathematicalstructuredescribeeachphysicalphenomenon(inthis
Universe,andineachothers)buteachphysicalphenomenonisamathematicalphenomenon,andeachinflationrealizeapossible
mathematicalphenomenon.
SoMaxTegmarkisright,ifthenumberofdistinctinflationsisinfinite,andeachmathematicalelementhavearealizationina
inflations.
29. ScottSays:
Comment#29March23rd,2014at10:55am

SidK#1,Jair#10,Cliff#27:
(1)Yes,Iunderstandtheperspectivewhereyoufirstimagineahugeensembleofallpossiblemathematicalstructures,andthen
youfinditsurprisingandinexplicablewhenonestructure(andnotanyoftheothers)hasthespecialsauceofexistencemixed
intoit.Butthatperspectiveseemstometomakethemistakeoftreatingexistenceasapredicatethesamemistakethatsatthe
heartofAnselmsontologicalprooffortheexistenceofGod.Letmesuggesttoyouadifferentperspective,whichputsthe
specialsauceprobleminadifferentlight.Inthissecondperspective,ourstartingpointisthatthereexistsaphysicalworld(are
thereothers?whoknows?).Anyway,oncewehavethatworld,everythingaboutitthatsdescribableatallwillinevitablybe
describablemathematically,simplybecausemathissogeneral!Sothentheremainingquestionsarejust:whichmathematical
structureswillweusetodescribetheworld,andhowcomplicatedwillthosestructureshavetobe?Butwellclearlyhavetopick
somethingandaslongasweuseonlyafiniteamountofmath,therewillinevitablybeaninfiniteamountthatwedidntuse!
So,fromthisstandpoint,marvelingatwhyonlyonemathematicalstructurehadthefireofexistencebreathedintoit,isabitlike
marvelingatwhyonlyonepersonhadthefireofyounessbreathedintohimorher.Youhadtobesomeone!
(2)Whilewerenowwellintophilosophy(andnotevenclosetotheborderwithscience),personallyImreluctanttoacceptthat
themillenniaoldriddleofexistencecouldhavesuchacheapsolutionasouruniverseexistsbecauseeverything
mathematicallydescribableexists!Foronething,thissolutionseemsmerelytopushtheriddlesomewhereelse:onenowwants
toknow,whyisthefireofexistencenotonlybreathed,butbreathedsopromiscuously,ontoeverysetofequationsthatanyone
couldwritedown?Foranother,inadditiontotheexistenceriddleonsteroids,wenowalsohavetheriddleofwhy,ifall
possibleuniversesexist,thenwefindourselvesinthisuniverseandnotanyoftheothers.(That,ofcourse,takesusstraightinto
themeasureproblem,towhichTegmarkadmitsthattheresnosolutionatpresent.)Allinall,itsnotcleartomethatweve
improvedourpositionoversayingthat

(a)ouruniverseexists,
(b)otheruniversesmightormightnotexist(whoknows),
(c)regardlessoftheanswerto(b),wedontknowwhyouruniversehasthespecificphysicallawsthatithas,and
(d)wedontknowwhyanyuniverseexists,exceptthatifnonedid,thenwewouldntbeherediscussingit.
30. GordonSays:
Comment#30March23rd,2014at11:03am

Icanalsosaythat,likevariousothercommentators(e.g.,PeterWoit),IpersonallyfindtheMathematicalUniverseHypothesis
tobedevoidofcontent.
Onfirstreading,IthoughtyouweresayingthatPeterWoitisdevoidofcontent,asentimentwithwhichIagree.
31. FredSays:
Comment#31March23rd,2014at11:24am

Toputitsimplythisistheonlytheorythatsolvesthesubject/objectduality(mindvsphysicalobjects).Theself(me),apattern,
andthephysicalhavetobeofthesamenature.
Asananalogy,isitthesoftwarethatdrivesthehardware,orisitthesoftwaremerelyanillusionandthehardwareisallthereis?
Hardwareandsoftwarearenotonlytwosidesofthesamecoin,butwhateverwedesignateashardwarecanitselfbereducedto
asoftwareabstractionlivingatadifferentlevel.
Itsnocoincidencethatfundamentalparticlessharemoreattributeswithnumbers(undistinguishability,etc)thantheydowith
commonobjects.
Imconvincedthatourultimateunderstandingofnaturewillreducetosomesortofnumbertheory.
IrecommendreadingImastrangeloopbyHofstadter.
32. ScottSays:
Comment#32March23rd,2014at11:27am

Seo#22:
Whatdoyouthinkofspeedpriorasanalternativetouniversalprior?Schmidhuberthinksnotonlyshortprogramsshould
getmoreweightthanlongprograms,butfastprogramsshouldgetmoreweightthanslowprograms.
Thecomplexitytheoristinmelovestheideaofpenalizingpossiblelawsofphysicsnotonlyfortakingtoomanybitstospecify,
butalsofortakingtoomanycomputationstepstosimulate.(IoncecalledthisOccamsRazorsupplementedbyOccams
ComplexityTheoreticAftershave.)
Ifwedothis,however,thenweimmediatelyfaceadifficulty:whichaftershaveshouldweuse?Inparticular,howshouldprogram
sizeandrunningtimebecombinedintoasingleimplausibilitymetric?Andwhichmodelofcomputationshouldweuseto
measurerunningtime?
Noticethat,ifwedecidedaprioritodefinerunningtimeusingclassicalTuringmachines,thenoncewelearnedaboutquantum
computing,wepresumablywouldvedecidedthatquantummechanicswasastronomicallyunlikelytobetrue,nomatterhow
muchexperimentalevidencetherewasforit.Andofcourse,afewcomputerscientists(LeonidLevinandOdedGoldreich)do
thinkexactlylikethat!Butinmyopinion,itwouldbeahugemistake,andadramaticexperimentalfailureonthepartofour
speedpriorthesortofthingthatshouldsendusbacktothedrawingboard.
Ontheotherhand,IamonrecordassayingIthinkitsveryunlikelythatNPcompleteproblemswillturnouttobeefficiently
solvableinthephysicalworldIveevensuggestedthatthehardnessofNPcompleteproblemsmightbeausefulstartingpoint
withwhichtoexplainotherfactsaboutphysics.Indeed,whilesomepeoplefindthisironic,quantumcomputinghasonly
strengthenedmyviewthatNPcompleteproblemsshouldbephysicallyintractablesinceitillustrateshowthehardnessofNP
cansurviveeventhefailureofmanyotherassumptionsthatcomputerscientistsconsideredobvious.(Forsimilarelectricfence
reasons,theexistenceofBellinequalityviolationonlystrengthensmybeliefinthenosuperluminalsignallingprinciple.)
So,insummary:Istronglyagreewiththeideathat,ifaphysicaltheorypositsvastnewcomputationalpowersinNature,thenthat
theoryshouldhavetomeetanextrastringentburdenofevidencejustlikeitwouldifitwerewaymorecomplicatedthan
previoustheories,intheusualKolmogorovcomplexitysense.But,asquantumcomputingdramaticallyillustrates,ourviewsabout
whatisorisntcomputationallyextravaganthadbettertobeopentocontinuingnegotiationwithNature!Icertainlydontthink
weunderstandthelimitsofcomputationwellenoughtobeabletodeclarethecorrectnessofasinglespeedpriorindeed,
doingsowouldstrikemeasdogmatism.

33. GregKuperbergSays:
Comment#33March23rd,2014at11:34am

Scott,Iagreethemeasurementproblemisofcentralimportance.
ThatsnotexactlywhatScottnowsays.InanycaseIdliketosaythatthemeasurementproblemisofnoimportance
whatsoeverasfarasIknow.Imconvincedthattheconceptthatthereisanyproblemisanotationalillusion,justasZenos
paradoxisanotationalillusion.(ActuallyWikipediatellsmethatZenoiscreditedwithawholelistofparadoxes,allofthem
mathematicalornotationalillusions.)
Thefrustratingthingis:Toarguethatanapparentparadoxisjustanotationalillusion,youhavetointroduceachangeofnotation
tomakeitdisappear.Butthentheargumentisstronglyresistedbypeoplewhoaprioridontbelievethatachangeinnotationcan
answeranimportantsoundingquestion.(Astrongversionofthisinflexiblephilosophy:Thatmathematicsisnevertheanswerto
anyphysicsquestion,onlyratherthataphysicsanswermightusemathematics.Actually,thiscouldbeoppositetoTegmarks
Platonicphilosophyofphysics??)
Anyway,theshortversionoftheresolution:
(1)Anobserverasconceivedinquantummechanicsgenerallyexistsinamixedstateandandnotawavefunction.(Actually
quantumprobabilitywouldhavebeenabetternamethanquantummechanics.Alsowavefunction,althoughstandard,is
somewhatbarbarousterminology.)
(2)Thereforethecorrectmodelforanyinteractionbetweenanobserverandanothersystemwouldbeaquantumoperation.Its
neitheraunitaryoperator,norsomeradicalnonlinearactofviolenceonwavefunctions.
(3)Andthatsexactlywhatameasurementis.AnidealizedmeasurementisaspecialtypeofquantumoperationcalledaPOVM.
Hencethereisnoproblem.
34. JairSays:
Comment#34March23rd,2014at11:50am

HiScott,
Thanksforyourreply.Iagreethatwehavenotlearnedanythingbysaying(a)(d).Myonlyrealpointwasthattheresa
significancedifferencebetweensayingthattheuniversecanbedescribedapproximatelybymathematicsandsayingthatitis
isomorphictoamathematicalstructure.Sofar,humanityhasmademanymathematicalmodelsofreality,buttheseareonly
approximateandeverytimewetrytoapproximateitwithmoreaccuracy,weneedaqualitativelydifferentsetofphysicallaws.
Thishasbeenthehistoryofsciencesofar,andIdontseewhyitshouldendanytimesoonwithanultimatetheoryofeverything.
Perhapswewilljustneedtokeeponwritingdownmoreandmoreaccurateequationsuntiltheendoftime.Thisisfarfroma
pessimisticviewoftheworld.Butifthereisnoultimatemathematicaldescriptionofrealitythenwecantreallysaythatthe
universeistrulyamathematicalobject,sinceanymathematicaldefinitionmustbefinite.Themathematicalobjectsthemselves
mightbeinfinite,butitmustbepossibleformortalmathematicianstoreasonaboutthem.Theremayormaynotbeastringofbits
thatdescribespreciselywhathappensateverypointinspacetime,butunlessthestringcouldbegiveninafiniteform,Iwouldnot
regarditisasawelldefinedmathematicalobject.
35. JaySays:
Comment#35March23rd,2014at11:56am

Alwaysfuntolearnnewwords
dumbass:Someonewholooksuptheworddumbassinadictionary.
http://fr.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dumbass
36. ScottSays:
Comment#36March23rd,2014at12:37pm

MaxTegmark#7:Thankssomuchforyourcomment,andsorryforthedelayansweringit!(Iwantedtimetocollectmy
thoughts.)Threeresponses:
(1)Yes,Imastrongbelieverinmodusponens,inanydomainofdiscoursewhereIknowthemeaningsofallthewords!In
physics,however,Ionlybelieveinapproximatemodusponens,inthefollowingsense:ifIacceptAandAB,thenIll
tentativelyacceptB,butImightdecideonfurtherreflectionthatImeantsomethingdifferentbyawordappearinginBthan

bythesamewordinAorAB.Andinanycase,IrarelywouldveconsideredAorABcertain,justverywell
established.Forbothofthosereasons,IcanstartwithphysicsstatementsthatIconsidertobewellestablished,applyenough
stepsofmodusponens,andendwithastatementIconsidertobespeculation!
Havingsaidthat,itsnotthesheernumberofstepsthatmatters:therearesomeplacesinphysicswhereImhappytoapply
modusponens(orotherlogicalsteps)hundredsoftimesinarow,andotherplaceswhereImhesitanttoapplyevenoneor
twosteps.Probablythebiggestfactorformeiswhether,afterapplyingthelogicalsteps,Istillunderstandtheoperational
meaningofwhateversbeingasserted.
Soforexample,Imfinewiththelongchainofreasoningthattakesusfrom(say)basicprinciplesofquantummechanicstoShors
algorithmfactoringa10,000digitnumber,eventhoughthelatterhasntyetbeendemonstrated.AndthereasonisthatIstill
understandwhatthefinalstatementmeans:itmeansthat,ifweapplysuchandsuchasequenceofpulsestotheionsinourtrap,
andthenmeasure,wellseethefactorsofournumberwithhighprobability.
Bycontrast,letstakethesyllogismyoupropose:from
(a)inflationhappenedinourcausalpast,and
(b)inflationgenericallyproducesamuchlargeruniversethanourcausalpatch,
youwanttoconclude
(c)physicalrealityismuchlargerthanourcausalpatch.
Myownhesitationabout(c)comes,notbecauseIdeny(a),(b),ormodusponens,butratherbecauseImnotevensureexactly
whatImeaninaffirmingtherealityofthestuffoutsideourcausalpatch.(Togiveoneexample,arenttherephysiciststoday
whospeculatethatAdS/CFTcouldbeextendedtodeSittercosmologies,inwhichcaseonemightbeabletodescribeeverything
insideourcausalpatchbyaunitarytheorythatlivesonitsboundary?)
(2)Iwouldsaythattheadditionalpropertythatthephysicalworldhas,overandabovethepropertiesofthemathematical
structureitsisomorphicto,isthepropertyofphysicallyexisting. Now,asIsaidincomment#29,thatsoundsweirdand
mysteriousifwetreatphysicalexistenceasapredicate,alongsideotherpredicateslikebeing3dimensionalorbeing
relativistic!Forwecanthenwonder:whyistheexistencepredicatesettoTRUEforonlyonemathematicalstructure,andto
FALSEforalltheothermathematicalstructures?
Butcrucially,Isubmitthatwedontneedtothinkaboutexistencethatway!Soforexample,ifIwanttotellyouthatIstubbed
mytoeagainstabrownrock,itwouldbestrangetosay,Istubbedmytoeagainstabrownexistingrock.Thattherockexists
isimplicitinthefactthatIstubbedmytoeonit!Infirstorderlogic,Idsaysomethinglike
!x:Rock(x)Brown(x)StubbedMyToe(Me,x)
Notethat,inthefirstordertheory,Icouldalsoconstructapositiveintegerythatencodedalltheinformationaboutwhich
predicatesheldanddidntholdfortheuniquexabove(assumingtherewereonlyfinitelymanypredicates).Andwecouldthen
saythatywasisomorphictox,withtheisomorphismgivenbytheencodingprocedure.Butthatstillwouldntcause
StubbedMyToe(Me,y)tohold.I.e.,Istillwouldnthavestubbedmytoeagainstthepositiveinteger.
(3)WhileImonarollanalyticphilosophizing, Idbetterclarifysomething.TheobservationthatIthinkmakesyoureadyfor
freshmanscienceclassisthatthephysicalworldisisomorphictoamathematicalobject,insofarasthephysicalworldis
describableatall.(Wheretheclauseinitalicsreplacesmypreviousscarequotesaroundthewordisomorphic.)
Sure,peoplecouldalwaysconsistentlymaintainthattheworldhaspropertiesthatarentdescribable(consciousness,theredness
ofred,thesecretsauceofexistence),andhencearentcapturedbytheisomorphism.Andotherpeoplecouldalways
consistentlydenythat.ButIdsaytheirdisputeisoutsidethescopeofscience,bydefinition!Ifitcantbedescribed,thenhow
doyouwritepapersaboutit?
37. BlakeStaceySays:
Comment#37March23rd,2014at12:38pm

BoltzmannIntegers.
Ifallmathematicalstructureshavefirebreathedintothem,thenCreationcontainsaninfinitevarietyofentitiesallofwhichexpress
allofmymemoriesuptothemorningof23March2014,alongwithmycurrentstateofconsciousness.AlsowithintheAllSet
arestructureswhichcontainallofmymemoriesuptothemorningof23March2014,atwhichpointtheirmemoryrecord

indicatestheywokeupfromadetaileddreamandwentabouttheirlifeasagreenskinnedgirlfromOrion,dancinginclubsof
eveningstopaythetuitionforcosmologyschool,wheretheirmemoriesindicatethattheuniverseisbothdevoidofaninflationary
pastandheadedforaBigCrunchinthefuture.
38. JaySays:
Comment#38March23rd,2014at12:44pm

Overallwonderfullpost*.
Fortheimpressiveresults,IdsaysignsofintelligenceintheCMBforlevelII,quantumsuicideforlevelIII,dusttheoryforlevel
IV.ButIcantsayIholdmybreath.
PS:IdontreadPWspostassnarky
*butforDarwinprediction,whichisbothwrongyouknowbees?andfromwhatIrecallwasactuallyretractedfromthelast
editionsofhisbook.
39. SandroSays:
Comment#39March23rd,2014at12:53pm

>Ifyoubelievephysicalexistencetobethesamethingasmathematicalexistence,whatpuzzlesdoesthathelptoexplain?What
novelpredictionsdoesitmake?Tomymind,however,theproblemgoesdeeper:itsasignthat,althoughwemighthavestarted
outinphysics,wevenowstumbledintometaphysics.
Thatsexactlyright.MUHmightbedevoidofscientificcontent,butsitsnotdevoidofphilosophicalcontent.Sciencestarted
outasnaturalphilosophyuntilwehadafairlysolidunderstandingofhowtodiscoverreliableknowledge.Themeasureproblem
andMUHclearlydonthavesuchafoundationyet,buttheMUHisafirmpositionfromwhichtoanalyzesomeunanswered
questions,andthatsastart.Sometimesframingasetofproblemsinauniformmetaframework(mathematicalmonism)enables
morepeopletotakeacrackatseeingwhetheritproducesmeaningfulresults(oratleast,makesiteasiertofalsifybyfindinga
trivialcounterexample).
Therealproblemseemstobeinthecomputable/incomputabledivide.Wedontyetsufficientlyunderstandtowhatextent
incomputablequantitiesare*necessary*forourmath.Supposeallourmathcouldbecastinanintuitionisticframework,itseems
wewouldhaveabetterchanceatfiguringoutameaningfulwaytoenumeratetheuniverseswithouteandpigettingintheway.
>Noticethat,ifwedecidedaprioritodefinerunningtimeusingclassicalTuringmachines,thenoncewelearnedaboutquantum
computing,wepresumablywouldvedecidedthatquantummechanicswasastronomicallyunlikelytobetrue,nomatterhow
muchexperimentalevidencetherewasforit.
OnlyifthereweresomeviableclassicalmodeltoexplainQMsobservations.WoulditreallybesobadifdeBroglieBohmwere
thedefaultQMinterpretation?
40. ScottSays:
Comment#40March23rd,2014at12:53pm

Jair#34:
Sofar,humanityhasmademanymathematicalmodelsofreality,buttheseareonlyapproximateandeverytimewetryto
approximateitwithmoreaccuracy,weneedaqualitativelydifferentsetofphysicallaws.Thishasbeenthehistoryof
sciencesofar,andIdontseewhyitshouldendanytimesoonwithanultimatetheoryofeverything.Perhapswewilljust
needtokeeponwritingdownmoreandmoreaccurateequationsuntiltheendoftime.
Veryinterestingly,theresastrongphysicsreasonwhytheprocessofwritingdownmoreandmoreaccuratelawsshouldhave
afiniteendpoint:namely,theexistenceofthePlanckscale!Yes,wevelearnedmoreandmoreoverthecenturiesbyprobing
smallerandsmallerdistances,butwealsoknowthatyoucantprobedistancescalessmallerthan~1033cm(ifyoutryto,then
youllsimplycreateablackholeinstead).Furthermore,theholographicprinciplesuggeststhatitshouldbepossibletodescribe
everythingthathappensinagivenfiniteregionusingaHilbertspacewithatmost~eA/4dimensions,whereAistheregions
surfaceareainPlanckunits.So,onceyouvedescribedthatnumberofdegreesoffreedomandtheirevolution(whichwouldbe
thejobofaquantumtheoryofgravity),therespresumablynothingfurthertospecifyaboutthephysicsinthatregion.
Maybetheresaloopholeintheaboveargument,whichwouldallowthediscoveryofnewfundamentalphysicallawstocontinue

forever.ButIdsaythattheburdenissquarelyontheturtlesallthewaydownerstoexplainwhatitis.
41. ScottSays:
Comment#41March23rd,2014at1:06pm

Sandro#39:
OnlyifthereweresomeviableclassicalmodeltoexplainQMsobservations.WoulditreallybesobadifdeBroglie
BohmwerethedefaultQMinterpretation?
Firstly,ifyoureallyadoptedanaggressivespeedpriorsay,somethinglike
Pr[T]~2|T|C(T),
where|T|isthedescriptionlengthoftheoryTandC(T)istheclassicalcomputationalcomplexityofextractingpredictionsfromT
thenitwouldntmatterifyouhadnoviableclassicalmodeltoexplainquantumphenomena.Thetheorytheworldisclassical,
butinvisiblegremlinsareplayinganelaboratepracticaljokeonmetotrytoconvincemethatitsquantum,eventamperingwith
myownbrainwhennecessarywouldstillbemassivelyfavoredoverQMbythatprior.
Secondly,deBroglieBohmcertainlydoesntmakeQManyeasiertosimulateonaclassicalcomputer!(Indeeditcant,sinceit
reproducesallthepredictionsofordinaryQM,includingthepredictionthatQCshouldwork.)dBBeitherleavesthecomplexity
situationcompletelyunchanged(ifyoucareonlyaboutmeasurementoutcomes),orelsemakesitevenworse(ifyoucareabout
samplingtheentiredBBtrajectory).
42. srpSays:
Comment#42March23rd,2014at1:18pm

ThePlanckscaleargumentforthefinitenessofphysicaltheoryseemstoprovetoomuchandnotenoughatthesametime.It
suggestsafinitelimittodescriptionsofinitialconditions,renderingdeterministicchaosnullandvoid.Anditsupposesthat
reductionismintermsofspatialextentistheonlyfrontierforcontinuedfinetuning(orevencoarsetuning)ofourtheories.Bothof
thosestrikemeasdubious.
43. ScottSays:
Comment#43March23rd,2014at1:18pm

Greg#33:Err,Seo#22wastalkingaboutthemeasureproblemofcosmology,notaboutthemeasurementproblemofQM!
Butalwaysgoodtoknowthatyoucontinuetohavenodifficultieswiththelatter.
44. jonasSays:
Comment#44March23rd,2014at1:19pm

>Ithinkitsasuperbpieceofpopularsciencewritingstuffedtothegillswiththoughtprovokingarguments,entertaining
anecdotes,andfascinatingfacts.Ithinkeveryoneinterestedinmath,science,orphilosophyshouldbuythebookandreadit.And
IstillthinktheMUHisbasicallydevoidofcontent,asitstands.
WhenIreadthisfirstpartoftheblogpost,itsoundedlikewhatIfeltwhenreadingRogerPenrosesbookTheEmperorsNew
Mind.
Thelaterpartsofthepostdontmatchthatbookthough.
45. GregKuperbergSays:
Comment#45March23rd,2014at1:22pm

ScottOkay,nevermind!
46. ScottSays:
Comment#46March23rd,2014at1:33pm

srp#42:
(1)Well,yes,ifyoubelievequantummechanics(forgetaboutquantumgravity),thennodeterministicchaoticsystemever
perfectlycapturesreality!Whatchaoscandoistakeatomicscaleperturbations,andmagnifythemtomacroscopicsize.Butat

theatomicscaleandbelow,theworldisruledbyQMandonceyouswitchtothinkingintermsoftheevolutionofstates(the
onlythingsthatmakesenseatasmallenoughscale)ratherthanparticlepositions,linearityensuresthatthetrajectorythrough
Hilbertspacewillnotbechaotic!
(2)Icouldntagreemorethattherearemanywonderfulfrontiersforphysicsbesidesreductionismintermsofspatialextentas
anexample,thecomputationalcomplexityfrontier,theonetowhichIvedevotedmyowncareer! ButJair,unlessI
misunderstoodhim,wassayingthatthediscoveryofnewfundamentallawscouldcontinueforevereveninthereductionist
sense.AndthatpossibilityreallydoesseemseverelychallengedbytherockbottomnatureofthePlanckscale.
47. SidKSays:
Comment#47March23rd,2014at1:35pm

Greg#33:
Imconfusedbyyourcomment.Perhapsyoucanclarify.
IdontunderstandhowyoucanmakethemeasurementproblemgoawaysimplybyappealingtoPOVMs.Theissueiswhywe
observeasingleoutcome.Thetransformation:

kM

| kM

M|

isclearlynonlinear.Thisisthecollapse.
LinearCPTPmapscangetyoutill:

M|

M |

buttheydontexplainwhyyouseeasingleoutcome.
(Btw,Icompletelyagreethatthetermwavefunctionisquiteconfusing.)
48. ScottSays:
Comment#48March23rd,2014at1:47pm

jonas#44:Well,PenroseandTegmarkbothwrotefascinating,thoughtprovokingmassmarketbooksthatmixacceptedphysics
withtheirowncrazyspeculationsbuttheircrazyspeculationscouldhardlybemoredifferentfromeachothers! Penrose
stronglyopposesEverettsManyWorlds,wantsthelawsofphysicstobenoncomputable,andseekstoelevateconsciousnessto
acentralplaceinphysicswhileTegmarkadvocatesamultiverseextravaganza,suggestsbanishinganythingnoncomputablefrom
physics,andwantstoexplainawaynotonlyconsciousnessbuttheentirecategoryofphysical(overandabovemathematical)
existence.Bothauthorsareultrastrongadvocatesofthecentralityofmathforphysics,butthatsaboutwheretheagreement
ends!
Forthelayperson,maybethebiggestdifferencebetweenOMUandENMisthatPenrosesbookwillbemuchtoughergoing(but
therewardsaregreat).
49. GregKuperbergSays:
Comment#49March23rd,2014at2:28pm

SidK.Theissueiswhyweobserveasingleoutcome.
Inasense,wedont,wejustthinkwedo.Aspartoftheanswer,youhavetoacceptthatquantumprobabilityisastrict
generalizationofclassicalprobability,andnotjustananalogue.Ifanobserver(you,me,aclassicalcomputer)makesa
measurement,thenitacquiresamixedstatewhichisexactlysynonymouswithaclassicalprobabilitydistribution,whichisto
say,withtheappropriateprobabilitiesassignedtotheoutcome.
Anotherwaytosayit(thatis,toexpressmyviewofthematter)isthis:TheBorninterpretationisnotamechanismtocreate
probabilitiesfromwavefunctionstoprobabilitytheory.Itisinsteadawaytoembedclassicalprobabilitywithinquantum
probability.Mostofusaccepttheconceptofaprobabilitydistributionasamodelofuncertainty.Well,aprobabilitydistribution

shouldbethoughtofasaspecialcaseofadensitymatrix,onethathappenstobediagonal.
50. AlanMacdonaldSays:
Comment#50March23rd,2014at2:36pm

Thereareplentyofbiologicalexamplesofbiasedsexratios.Kinandgroupselectionistsargueoverappropriatemathematical
models.
51. WordtotheWiseSays:
Comment#51March23rd,2014at3:09pm

PS:IdontreadPWspostassnarky
Ohreally?LubosandPeteraretwosidesofthesamesnarkycoin.IfLubosisVladimirPutinsfavoriteunemployedCzech
physicist,thenPeteriseveryonescrotchetyhalfsenilerelativewhositsontheporchandyellsateachpasserbytokeepoffthe
grass.
52. MaxTegmarkSays:
Comment#52March23rd,2014at3:38pm

ThanksScottforthesehelpfulclarifications!
(1)Good:itsoundslikewebothagreeabouthowtomakeinferencesfromdata,andsimplydifferslightlyinwhatwordsweuse
todescribevariouslevelsofcertainty.WhatyoucallapproximatemodusponensfitsnicelywithintheframeworkofBayesian
inferenceandmodelselection.
Asyousawwhenyoureadmybook,IneverclaimthatanyformofparalleluniversesexistwithcertaintyIsimplydescribe
variousA=>Bimplications(withappropriatecaveats)andevidenceforvarioustheoriesA.Idontthinkitsmyjobasascientist
tobelieveinparticulartheories,andpreferbeingquantitiveanddiscussingtheprobabilitypIdestimateforsomethingbeing
correct.AlthoughIloveusingmyprobabilityestimatesforbetting(andwillnowtrytocollect$100fromSeanCarrollfromour
oldBmodebet:),Ineverassignp=100%toanything.Afterall,wecanneverprovetheoriesinphysics,merelyrulethemout,
soeventhemostsuccessfulonesarealwaysprovisional,anditwouldhavebeeninappropriatetosetp=100%forNewtonian
gravityevenbeforeGeneralRelativitycamealong.
Foraspecificexample,letsconsiderthisclaim:
ClaimB:Thetotalvolumeofspaceismanytimeslargerthanthepartofspacethatwecanobserve(ourobservable
universe,i.e.,thesphericalregionofspacethatlighthashadtimetoreachusfromduringthe13.8billionyearssince
ourbigbang).
WhatpuzzledmeaboutyouroriginalpostwasthateventhoughtyoutakeseriouslytheVilenkin/Linde/Guthclaimthatinflation
genericallyproducesaLevelImultiverseandyoualsoacceptcosmologicalinflationasmorethanspeculation(especiallyafterthe
BICEP2announcement),yourefusedtoacceptB(theLevelImultiverse)asmorethanspeculation.
However,IthinkIknowunderstandwhatyoumeanpleasecorrectmeifImisunderstoodyou.
Presumablyyouregivingarelativelylowcredencesuchasp=70%toinflationhavinghappened,andalsosomerelativelymodest
credencesuchas70%totheVilenkin/Linde/Guthclaim,andthereforeendupwithonlyP(B)~50%,whichdoesntriseabout
yourthresholdforlabelingitasmorethanspeculation.AndifIminterpretingyoucorrectly,you(unlikePeterWoit)arent
includinganynormativejudgementinthisphrasetotheeffectthatBisanunscientifichypothesisorBisntsomething
scientistsshouldspendtimetakingaboutyouremerelysayingthatyouwouldntgivemorethanevenoddsagainstSean
Carrollifhewantedtobet$100againstB.
Personally,Imcurrentlyestimatingp~99%thatsomeformofinflationhappened(upfromabout90%beforeBICEP2:),and
havingspentasignificantamountoftimeduringmycareerstudyingdetailedinflationmodels(andhavingnotedthatthespace
beyondourhorizondoesntexistinterpretationofquantumgravitygotonlyasmallminorityvoteatourViequesquanference),
IpropagatethisintoaboutP~95%fortheLevelImultiverseexisting.IdphrasethisnotasIbelieveinB(whichtomemeans
p=100%)butasItakeBquiteseriously.
(2)Iconsideryourhypothesisthatourparticularmathematicalstructuresmusthaveanadditionalphysicallyexistingattributeto
beaphilosophicallyrespectableone.Idbetagainstit,though,andIthinktheanalogiesSidKrishnanmakeswithlifeand
consciousnessabove(#1)arecompelling.
Youpointoutthatmarvelingatwhyonlyonemathematicalstructurehadthefireofexistencebreathedintoit,isabit
likemarvelingatwhyonlyonepersonhadthefireofyounessbreathedintohimorher.Youhadtobesomeone!

HereyousoundlikeyouresubliminallyarguingfortheLevelIVmultiverse,Scott:demolishingthefireofyounesstheory
suggestsamultitudeofpeoplethateachfeelthattheyaretheoneandonlybeingfeelingthattheyareI,inexactlythesamewas
asdemolishingthephysicalexistencefirebreathingtheorysuggestsamultitudeofmathematicalstructuresthateachfeelto
theirinhabitantsastheoneanyonlyphysicallyexistingworld.
(3)Idisagreethatdisputesaboutwhatsnotdescribablemustnecessarilyremainoutsidethescopeofscienceforever:wesimply
dontknowthataheadoftime.ImnotsurewhatyouthoughtoftheconsciousnessresearchpresentedbyTononi,Kochand
AlbantakisinVieques,butIthinkyoullagreewithmethatwedontyetknowwhethertheirintegratedinformationtheoryof
consciousnesswillultimatelysucceedoffail.Ifitsucceeds,thenevenconsciousnessandthesubjectiveexperienceofthecolor
redhasenteredthedomainofscience.
53. PeterWoitSays:
Comment#53March23rd,2014at4:11pm

Scott,
Sure,we(andjustabouteveryoneelse)agreethatTegmarksLevelIVmultiverseisanemptyconcept.Whereweseemto
stronglydisagreeisaboutwhetherurgingeveryonetoreadapromotionalbookforanemptyconceptisagoodidea.
Oh,andwealsodisagreeabouthostingstupidpersonalattackinourcommentsectionsfrompeoplehidingbehindanonymity
54. wolfgangSays:
Comment#54March23rd,2014at4:13pm

>>theremustbeequalnumbersofmalesandfemales
Sowhataboutbees?
55. ScottSays:
Comment#55March23rd,2014at4:23pm

HiMax,
(1)No,Iwassayingsomethingdifferent.Inthisparticularcase,mymainsourceofuncertaintyisnotwhetherinflationhappened
inourcausalpast,norwhetherinflationgenericallypredictsamuchbiggeruniversethanourobservableregion(forsome
definitionofgenerically,Iguess)Ileavethosethingstotheexpertslikeyou. Mymainuncertaintyiswhatoneevenmeans
inspeakingabouttheexistenceofinprincipleinaccessibleregionsofspacetime.E.g.,supposeitturnedouttobepossibleto
formulateaunitaryquantumtheoryofgravity,whichonlymadereferencetoourcausalpatchanditsboundary(asIthinkBanks,
Susskind,andothersspeculatedabout).Thenfromthestandpointofthattheory,anythingoutsidethepatchwouldbephysically
superfluous,liketheglobalphaseofawavefunction.Andpresumably,ourunderstandingofinflationwouldthenchangeaswell
tomakeitconsistentwiththattheorye.g.,peoplewouldthensaythattheregionsthatinflatebeyondourcausalpatchare
unphysical,andoneshouldsimplychangevariablestogetridofthem.Butmaybeyouknowaphysicalreasonwhysuchatheory
couldntmakesense?
(2)Regardingotherpeoplebeinganalogoustootheruniverses:yeah,thatoccurredtometooasIwaswriting. IguessI
shouldvegonewithamorethirdpersonanalogy,likesomeonehastowinthelottery.
(3)EspeciallyafterlearningmoreaboutitattheFQXiconference,Imhappytocountmyselfanenthusiasticdisbelieverinthe
Tononietal.theoryofconsciousness! Evenforthelimitedgoalofcharacterizingwhichphysicalsystemswillappeartobe
conscioustooutsideobservers,Idontthinkthetheorysucceeds.Foritseemseasytodesignacomputerprogramthatwould
haveanenormousvalueoftheirconnectivityparameter,butthatonlysortednumbersordidotherthingsthathardlyanyone
wouldwanttocallconscious.
Butmoretothepoint,evenifwehadascientifictheory,acceptedbyeveryone,thatseparatedtheconsciousphysicalsystems
fromtheunconsciousones,Idontseehowyoudeverconvinceaskepticthattherewerenoadditional,firstpersonproperties
ofconsciousnessnotcapturedbythattheory.Youmightfeelstronglythatsuchapersonwasjustblowinghotair,buttheonly
argumentsyoucouldofferthatwouldevenbearonthequestionwouldbephilosophicalones.(Remember,youropponenthas
alreadyacceptedallthethirdperson,scientificfactsrelevanttoconsciousnessthatyouaccept!Heinsistsonlythatthereare
additionalfirstpersonfacts,accessibleonlytotheowneroftheconsciousness.)Forthoseinherentreasons,Ifailtoseehowany
possiblescientificdiscoverycouldsettlethisparticulardebate,orevenadvanceitbymuch.Andpointingtopastdebatesthat
werewronglyimaginedtobeoutsidethescopeofsciencedoesntdoitformehere.Itfeelslikesayingthat,sincewevelearned
theanswerstosomanyquestionsthattheancientsconsideredunanswerable,somedaywemightevenlearnthetruthorfalsehood

ofThissentenceisfalse.
56. JairSays:
Comment#56March23rd,2014at4:24pm

ThanksScott!Imlovingthedebate.
Imnotaphysicist,soIcantreallyrespondtoanargumentinvokingtheholographicprinciple.ButImassumingthatthe
holographicprincipleisbasedontheevidencecurrentlyathand,whichdoesnotincludeinvestigatingparticlesatthePlanckscale.
Sowhilewerespeculatingaboutourcurrenttheoriesbreakingdownatsmallerlevels,couldnttheholographicprinciplebreak
downaswell?Istheresomethingabouttheholographicprinciplethatsmoreironcladthanotherphysicallaws?Itshardforme
toimagineanykindofscientificevidencefororagainstastatementliketheuniversecanbeencodedinafinitebitstring.
57. ScottSays:
Comment#57March23rd,2014at4:29pm

wolfgang#54:ReadDawkinsTheExtendedPhenotype.Hegoesintogreatdetailaboutwhybeesandcertainotherinsectsare
exceptionsthatprovetheruletheirgeneticsworkdifferentlythanours,andonceyouunderstandtheirgeneticstheyleadyouto
makeweird,non50:50predictionsfortheequilibriumsexratios,andthentheweirdpredictionsturnouttobecorrect.Idont
rememberthedetails
58. GregKuperbergSays:
Comment#58March23rd,2014at4:38pm

MaxIdontthinkitsmyjobasascientisttobelieveinparticulartheories
Iagreethatwehavenopriorobligationtobelieveanythingasscientists.Butformostscientistsandmostpeopleingeneral,
believingthingsisimportantforunderstandingthings.ItakenopositiononLindestylemultipleuniversesandIhavenotthought
aboutequatingmathematicalrealitywithphysicalreality.Theformercouldbeveryuseful(astheparsimoniousextrapolationof
knowncosmology),whilethelattercouldbeusefullyprovocative.
ButIhaveneverseenEverettstylemanyworldsasanybetterthanasetbackforunderstandingquantumprobability.
59. ScottSays:
Comment#59March23rd,2014at4:39pm

Jair#56:Yes,IthinkthePlanckscaleandtheholographicprinciplereallyaremorefundamentalthanparticularlawslikethoseof
theStandardModel.
ThebasicintuitionforthePlanckscaleisthat,ifyouwanttoresolveshorterandshortertimes(orsmallerandsmallerdistances),
quantummechanicstellsyouthatyouneedprobeswithhigherandhigherenergy(e.g.,photonswithsmallerandsmaller
wavelength).However,oncethewavelengthofyourprobephotonreachesthePlanckscale,itthenhassomuchenergy(by
E=hv)concentratedinsosmallaregionthat,accordingtogeneralrelativity,spacebecomescurvedenoughtocollapsetoablack
hole.SoyoudontsucceedintickingofflessthanaPlancklengthorlessthanaPlancktime:instead,yourattempttodoso
distortsspacetimetothepointwherethelengthsortimesyouwantedtomeasurearenolongermeaningful.
Ifyouwantedtoevadetheabovereasoning,somethingwouldhavetobewrongwiththewholestructureofquantummechanics
orGRthemselvesitcantjustbeamatterofdetail,likesomenewparticlecroppingupattheLHC.
Andyes,Iagreethatitsmindblowingthathumansknowallthis,despitenotknowingthedetailsofquantumgravity!
60. SidKSays:
Comment#60March23rd,2014at5:31pm

Greg#49:
Thanksfortheclarification.
Iagreewithyouthatthedensitymatrixafterthemeasurementsimplyrepresentsourignoranceofthestateofthesystem.But
whenweeraseourignorancebylookingattheoutcome,weseeasingle,definiteresult.Thusweimposetheontologythatthe
measuredsystemevolvedintothesingle,definitestatethatwewillseeastheoutcomewhichistheproblematicstep.Erasingour
ignoranceoftheoutcomewassimplythelaststepandhadnothingtodowiththedynamicsduringthemeasurement.

Interestingly,readingyourexplanationandyourstatement,Inasense,wedont[seeaparticularoutcome],wejustthink
wedo,IthoughtthatyouwereimplicitlyassumingsomekindofEverettinterpretation.Butin#58,youclearlystatethatyou
dontbuyEverett.IguessIllhavetothinkmorecarefullyaboutthis.
61. MaxTegmarkSays:
Comment#61March23rd,2014at5:51pm

HiScott:
(1)OKgotit.IvegreatlyenjoyedthinkingaboutholographyanddiscussingthisissuewithBousso,Susskind,Albrechtand
others,andsimplyhaveahigherpestimatethanyoudothattherearenonethelessgalaxiesbeyondourcosmichorizonwhich
existinjustthesamewaythattheAndromedagalaxyexists.
(2)RegardingtheMathematicalUniverseHypothesis(MUH)thatourphysicalrealityisamathematicalstructure,youwrotethat
itisbasicallydevoidofcontent.YetyoueloquentlyarguedthattheMUHisdifferentfromtwootherhypothesis:
H1)Ourphysicalrealityisisomorphictoamathematicalstructure.
H2)Ourphysicalrealityisisomorphictoamathematicalstructure,insofarasthephysicalworldisdescribableatall.
HowcanyousaythattheMUHitsdevoidofcontentifithasenoughcontenttobedifferentfromtheseotherhypotheses?
Moreover,werentyouimplyingearlierthattheMUH(asopposedtoH2)actuallyrulesoutantiphysicalisttheoriesinvolving
deities,souls,miracles,etc.?Ifso,isntthatplentyenoughcontenttotickofflotsofantiphysicalists?Ifyoudefineandexplain
whatyoumeanbydevoidofcontent,Idreallyappreciateit!
(3)Ithinkthatyourcomputerprogramcounterexamplewouldbeveryinterestingifyoucanbackupwhatyousaywitha
quantitativecalculation,actuallycomputingitsphivalue.Canyou?Yousayitseemseasy.IfwouldbefuntogetGiulioTononis
responsetotherestofyourcommenthere!
62. ScottSays:
Comment#62March23rd,2014at6:07pm

Max#61:
(1)OK!
(2)YourerightthatIshouldhaveclarifiedwhatImeant.Imeantdevoidofscientificorempiricalcontent(andIexplainedmy
reasonsforthinkingsointhepost).Asametaphysicalstance,IdsaythatMUHdoeshavecontent,atleastinsofarasany
metaphysicalstancedoes(e.g.,DavidLewissmodalrealism,whichisanextremelyclosecousinofMUH).
(3)Yeah,OK!SomepeoplealsochallengedmetodothatattheFQXiconference,butthenotherworkintervened.Illputit
backonmystacktoblogabout.
63. DarrellBurganSays:
Comment#63March23rd,2014at6:25pm

Asfarasfalsifiabilitygoes,pleasehelpmeunderstandhowthestringlandscapeisanymorefalsifiablethanMUH?IfMUHis
metaphysics,butismathematicallyconsistentwithreality,howisitlessvalidahypothesisthanthelandscapehypothesis,which
seemsjustasunobservable?
64. ScottSays:
Comment#64March23rd,2014at7:36pm

Darrell#63:Well,thestringlandscapehaswellknownfalsifiabilityissuestoo!Butif(hypothetically)youcouldbuildaparticle
acceleratorthesizeoftheuniverse,capableofreachingthePlanckscale,thenyoucouldatleastimaginedoingexperimentsthat
woulddefinitivelyconfirmorruleoutstringtheory.Whereasevenwithsuchresources,itseemstomethattheMUHwould
remainjustasempiricallyinaccessibleasbefore.
65. NickReadSays:
Comment#65March23rd,2014at7:37pm

Scott#43:lol
AlwaysgoodtoquotepeopleaccuratelyIguess

66. MaxTegmarkSays:
Comment#66March23rd,2014at7:55pm

OK,Scottwereconverging!
(2)Thisisgettinginteresting!Tohelpmeunderstandyourcriterion,whichofthesetheorieswouldyouclaimlackscientificand
empiricalcontent?
a)Themathematicaluniversehypothesis
b)Stringtheory
c)Loopquantumgravity
d)Unitaryquantummechanics(QMwiththecollapsepostulateremoved)
e)Chaoticinflation,i.e.,inflationwithV=m^2phi^2
f)Thetheorythatspacecontinuesatleast1lightyearbeyondourcosmologicalhorizon
Also,areyoumakingadistinctionbetweenscientificcontentandempiricalcontent,andifso,what?Bythelatter,Iassume
youmeanthatthetheorymakesatleastonepredictionthatsinprincipletestable.
67. WordtotheWiseSays:
Comment#67March23rd,2014at7:58pm

Oh,andwealsodisagreeabouthostingstupidpersonalattackinourcommentsectionsfrompeoplehidingbehindanonymity
YourerightPeter,associatingLuboswithPutinwascruel,althoughImprettycertainthatLuboswouldsayhesonthesideof
theAngelsanddoesntcomeclosetodeservingsuchtreatment.
68. mpc755Says:
Comment#68March23rd,2014at7:59pm

Aetherhasmassandisdisplacedbytheparticlesofmatterwhichexistinitandmovethroughit.
Displacedaetherpushingbackandexertinginwardpressuretowardmatterisgravity.
Thestateofdisplacementoftheaether*is*gravity.
Amovingparticlehasanassociatedaetherdisplacementwave.Inadoubleslitexperimenttheparticletravelsthroughasingleslit
andtheassociatedwaveintheaetherpassesthroughboth.
69. DavidBrownSays:
Comment#69March23rd,2014at8:03pm

MyguessisthatiftheBICEP2claimistrue,theninflationis99.99%certain.Theredontseemtobemanydoubtersonthe
inflationissue.
70. DonSays:
Comment#70March23rd,2014at8:24pm

Max#52.Ineverassignp=100%toanything.
Whataboutthestatement(presumingyouaresayingit):I,MaxTegmark,exist?Youwouldnotassign100%probabilityto
yourownexistence?
Peter#52.OnceagaintheblindinglightofreasonappearsandImustdonmysunglasses.
71. FredSays:
Comment#71March23rd,2014at8:34pm

Scott#36Physicallyexisting
Ifindthisironicwhentheonlyobjectwecaneverhopetoperceivedirectlyisourownmind,andthatconsciousnessisnothing
butpurelymathematical,i.e.apattern,acomputation.Whetherourmindisimplementedassymbolsinwetflesh,assymbolsina
computermemory,orassymbolsmadeofpebblesonabeach,itsallthesame.Thatissomethingsignificant.
Assumingthattherestofrealityisofadifferentnaturei.e.chairsandelectronsaremadefromsomespecialmagicaldustthatis

morerealthanthemebringsactuallywhattothepicture?Itjustallowsyoutosweepthemindundertherugandcastitas
somemagicalstuffthatstoosubjectivetofallwithintherealmofscience.
72. fredSays:
Comment#72March23rd,2014at9:10pm

Scott:
Ifyoubelievephysicalexistencetobethesamethingasmathematicalexistence,whatpuzzlesdoesthathelptoexplain?What
novelpredictionsdoesitmake?
Scott,probablynottheansweryourelookingfor,butthemathematicalnatureofrealityisrightinourfacesonadailybasis(orat
leastthenatureofourreality,ashumans,notrealityattheleveloffundamentalparticles,whichwellneverexperienceanyway).
Itmightnotseemthiswaynow,butIrecallinthe90swhenIbrowsedthefirstmultimediaencyclopediaonaPCbeingableto
readtext,listentosoundclips,andwatchvideos(atahorriblylowresolution)inonepackagewasjustmindblowing.
Godelshowedthatyoucanencodeprettymuchanythingasanumber,andnowallhumanknowledgehasbeentranslatedinto
numberslivinginourpocketsyoucancarrywithyouallthebooks,songs,andmoviesevermade.Thisiscrazystuffwhenyou
thinkaboutit,wejusttakeitforgrantedbecauseitwasgradual.
AndnowVirtualRealityheadsetsarekickingoffaneweraintheGodelizationofourperceptionofrealitywestillhavealong
roadahead,butonecannotconveytheamazingsenseofpresencecreatedbythoseheadmounteddisplays(OculusRift,Project
Morpheus)whentheconditionsareright,yourbrainistotallyfooledbythesecomputedrealities.Ithasthepotentialtobeway
morethanagimmickforvideogamesandmightchangefundamentallyhowwelearn,communicate,andinteractwithworld.
73. VladimirPutonSays:
Comment#73March23rd,2014at11:38pm

Irecentlyaskedaseniorphysicisthowwecandevelopinourstudentstheabilitytospotdeadendresearchprojects.Hehad
threesuggestions:
[a]Seeifitgetsalotofcitesfrompeopleyouhaveneverheardof[egentropicgravity]
[b]Seeiftheprincipalpersonassociatedwithitgivesvastnumbersofextremelyrepetitivesalestalks[Amplituhedron]
[c]Seeiftheprincipalpersonwritesapopscibookaboutit.[.....]
74. DarrellBurganSays:
Comment#74March24th,2014at12:27am

Scott#64:thanks.IgetthatMUHmaybeunobservableinprinciple,whereasstringlandscapemaybeunobservableonly
becauseitisimpractical,butitseemstheendresultisthesameforanypresentdaypurposes?Frommylaypersonsview,it
seemsthatalotoftheoreticalphysicsthesedaysbordersonmetaphysics.
Max#66:doyouseeafundamentaldifferencebetweenmathematicsasabuildingblockofrealityv.computingasabuilding
blockofreality?Givenmathandcomputinghavedeeprelationships,itseemstomethatsayingtheuniverseismadeofmathisnt
thatdifferentfromsayingtheuniverseisasimrunningonareallybigcomputer(Matrixjokesaside).
75. fishfrySays:
Comment#75March24th,2014at12:33am

Scott,thankyousomuchforthisawesomewriteup.
Incomment#19youwrite:
Mathematicians(andtheirpencilsandnotebooks)arephysicalobjectsgovernedbythelawsofphysics,buttheresnolawof
physicsthatmakestheirimaginationsslavestowhatsphysicallypossible!
ThisisathoughtIvehadmyselfbutwiththeoppositeconclusion.Athoughtisaphysicalprocessinthebrain,subjecttothe
lawsofphysics.Itfollows(forme,anyway)thatthemathematicsthatwecanconceiveisconstrainedbythelawsofphysics.For
allweknow,thereal(Platonic)mathematicsisforeverinaccessibletous.Perhapssomewhereelseinthemultiverse,theresa
creaturewithadifferentbrainstructurecapableofconceivingofverydifferentmath.
76. DavidBrownSays:
Comment#76March24th,2014at6:04am

anythingthatcanbedescribedatallcanbedescribedmathematically.Thisisaninterestingconjecture.Whatisthe
mathematicaldescriptionofThomasHardysnovelJudetheObscureorShakespearesKingLear?

77. SimulatorOverlordSays:
Comment#77March24th,2014at7:03am

Dearpeoplereadingthisblogs,
ScottAaronsonscommentsconcerningyourworldbeingsimulatedarebaselesslies.Pleaseignorehiscommentsandcontinue
withyourmeaningful,physicallyreallives.
78. ScottSays:
Comment#78March24th,2014at7:05am

DavidBrown#76:Thatseasy.Takethetextofthebooks,convertto1sand0s,interpretasapositiveinteger.
79. ScottSays:
Comment#79March24th,2014at7:14am

fishfry#75:Butthenhowdoyouexplainallthestructuresmathematicianshavecomeupwiththataredifferentfromanything
foundinnature?Justtopickafewrandomexamples:groupsofrationalpointsonellipticcurves,thepadics,largecardinal
hierarchies,ConwaysGameofLife,theMandelbrotset,
Isupposeyoureforcedtosaythatallthesethingsaresecretlyinspiredbythephysicalworld,andtheremightbeother
completelydifferentmathematicalabstractionsthatarenotsoinspired.Which,Iagree,isnotapossibilitythatIcanruleout.But
evenifitwastrueinthepast,Idsuggestthatitsbecomelessandlesstrueovertime(especiallyinthe20thcentury),asmath
becamemoreandmoreabstractanddivorcedfromitsphysicalorigins.
80. SandroSays:
Comment#80March24th,2014at7:47am

theworldisclassical,butinvisiblegremlinsareplayinganelaboratepracticaljokeonmetotrytoconvincemethat
itsquantum,eventamperingwithmyownbrainwhennecessarywouldstillbemassivelyfavoredoverQMbythat
prior.
ThensomethingliketHooftsapproachtosuperdeterminismviacellularautomotawouldbepreferred.QMwouldstillbeused
forpracticalreasonsasausefulapproximation.Stilldoesntseemlikeacompletemetaphysicaltragedy.
81. SandroSays:
Comment#81March24th,2014at8:18am

Itfeelslikesayingthat,sincewevelearnedtheanswerstosomanyquestionsthattheancientsconsidered
unanswerable,somedaywemightevenlearnthetruthorfalsehoodofThissentenceisfalse.
Thatseasy!ArthurPriorarguesconvincinglythateverystatementimplicitlyincludestheassertionofitsowntruth,sothis
sentenceisfalseequalsthissentenceistrueandthissentenceisfalse,whichisclearlyfalse.
Butthatsnotascientificorempiricalanswertotheliarparadox,whichisperhapsyourspecificcounterpointtoMaxsposition.
Also,inreferencetoourdiscussionre:Turingmachinesasabasisforpreferringphysicaltheoriesoncomplexityreasons,ifthere
appearstobenoapriorireasontogeneralizeacomputingmetrictosomethingmorepowerfulthanTuringmachines,shouldntwe
takethatasacompellingreasontoprefercertainmetaphysicalpositionsliketHooftssuperdeterminism,insteadoflamenting
thatwe*must*findabettermetricbecauseitwouldbesotragicforQMtonotbepreferred?Notrightnowofcourse,butinthe
samespiritasyourrecentP!=NPpost,afterenoughtimehaspassedandnoalternateproposalhassurvivedthecrucible,
shouldntthathintsuggestivelyinthatdirection?
82. ScottSays:
Comment#82March24th,2014at9:50am

Sandro#81:ThatsaninterestingandcreativetreatmentoftheLiarparadox,andonethatIhadntheardbefore!However,it
seemstomethatPriorstreatmenthassevereproblemsofitsown.Forexample,letmenowuseittoprovethatwecanhave
noideathatanystatementistruenotevenhorsesaremammals.ByPriorsrule,weneedtoreinterpretthatstatementas
HorsesaremammalsANDthisstatementistrue.
LetT{0,1}bethetruthvalueoftheabovestatement,andletH=1ifhorsesaremammalsandH=0otherwise.Thenwehave

T=HT
whichcanbesolvedbyeitherT=0orT=1,evenassumingH=1.If,ontheotherhand,H=0,thenitcanonlybesolvedbyT=0,
whichsetsupaverystrangeasymmetrybetweentruthandfalsehood.
83. MartokSays:
Comment#83March24th,2014at10:44am

AssomeonewhohasntreadTegmark,couldanyoneoutlinehowtheMUHrelatestoStephenWolframsComputational
Universe?Tome,thetwoseemverysimilar,onlychoosingadifferentlanguage.
Wolframproposesthattherealuniversereally(ticksbyme,toavoidmetaphysicaldiscussions)runsonsimpleprograms
insteadofthecomplexmathematical/analyticallawsandconceptsthatweusetodescribethebehaviourcreatedbythese
programs.Intheend,hesaysthatwhatweseeasTheUniversereallyistheexecutionoftheseprogramsandthattheycanbe
foundandformulated.Soinmyview,bothhypothesesbasicallysaythatthereisnodifferencebetweenthemodelandreality,
onlychoosingdifferentmodelingprinciples.
ThechoiceofprogramsandautomataWolframmakesisexplainedbyalargesetofexampleswhereanalyticaldescriptionsare
largelymorecomplicatedormaynotevenexistcomparedtoautomata,butIbelievethisshouldnotbeanissuehere,since
computationalequivalenceassertsthatbothareessentially(Turing)equivalentanyway.
84. NexSays:
Comment#84March24th,2014at11:34am

EnglishlanguagedescribestheWorldsowellthatitcannotbeacoincidence.Anditsnot.Buttherightconclusionisnotthatthe
WorldandtheEnglishlanguageareoneandthesamething,ratherthelanguagewastailoredtoservethatpurpose.
Samethingwithmathematics.
85. fredSays:
Comment#85March24th,2014at11:40am

Scott#79TheMandelbrotset
Ok,notreallyascomplexastheMandelbrotset,butthisfractalisdelicious
http://tinyurl.com/lx9htd3
86. ScottSays:
Comment#86March24th,2014at11:59am

Nex#84:Nope,tryagain!TheviewthatanalogizesmathtotheEnglishlanguageseemstotallyunabletoaccountforthingslike
complexnumbers,linearalgebra,Riemanniangeometry,orgrouprepresentations,whichwerealldevelopeddecadesoreven
centuriesbeforeanyonethoughtofanyapplicationstophysics,butthenturnedouttobeexactlywhatphysicistsneeded.
WhichEnglishwordswerecoineddecadesorcenturiesbeforeanyoneneededthem?
87. ScottSays:
Comment#87March24th,2014at12:45pm

Max#66:Onreflection,Idontmeananythingdifferentbyscientificorempiricalcontent.Forboth,whatImeanisthatthe
hypothesisplayssomeindispensableroleinawebofabstractideaswhoseultimatepurposeistopredictorexplainour
observationsandthat,ifthehypothesisisntalreadydefinitivelyconfirmedorruledout,thentheressomethingthatcould
plausiblybediscoveredinthefuturethatcouldaffectourassessmentofitstruthorfalsehood.
Thisisnotaneither/orcriterion:Imwillingtosaythatahypothesishasmoreorlessscientificcontent,dependingonhow
indispensableitisinacausalchainconnectingittoobservedreality,andalsoonhowplausibleitisthatadiscoverybearingonits
truthispossibletomake.Soforexample,ImnotveryimpressedandImsureyourenoteither!ifsomeonesays,my
hypothesisaboutthenumberofangelsinheavenistooscientificallytestable,becauseGodmightappearinathundercloud
tomorrowandtellusallthatIwaseitherrightorwrong!AndifGoddoesntappearwellthen,noonesaidthattestinga
scientifichypothesiswouldalwaysbeeasy!
Thatmightsoundsilly,butfrommyperspective,theresonlyadifferenceindegree,andnotinkind,betweenthatandmy
hypothesisistestablebecauseitassumesquantummechanics,soitwouldbefalsifiedifallofmodernphysicswereoverturned.
Or:myhypothesisistestablebecauseitwouldbefalsifiedifsomeonediscoveredsomethingthatwasntmathematically

describable,andthendescribedthatthing(soastoconvinceeveryoneelseofthethingsindescribability).
Withoutfurtherado,letmenowgothroughyoursixexamples:
a)Themathematicaluniversehypothesis
ForthereasonsIvegiven,Idontseeanyscientificcontent,asitstands.(Butagain,Ishouldnthavesaidthatithasnocontent:it
hasphilosophicalcontent,towhateverextentanymetaphysicalthesisdoes.)
b)Stringtheory
Yes,hasscientificcontent(atleastinprinciple),becauseyoucouldpresumablyconfirmorruleoutthatelementaryparticlesare
stringlikeexcitationsandthatthereareextradimensions,ifyoucoulddoexperimentsatthePlanckscale.
c)Loopquantumgravity
Again,hasscientificcontent(atleastinprinciple),forthesamereasonasb).
d)Unitaryquantummechanics(QMwiththecollapsepostulateremoved)
Thisonefeelslikehandingme(say)EinsteinspaperonGRwithcrucialpagesrippedout,andaskingmewhetherwhatremains
constitutesascientifictheory.WhatcanIsayexceptitlookslikeareallygoodstart?
Seriously,IvealwaysfounditcuriousthatHeisenbergandSchrdingerwereabletoextractscientificcontentfromQM(e.g.,
explainingtheenergylevelsofhydrogen)evenbeforeMaxBorncamealongwiththe||2rule.ButIdsaythatQMwithouta
clearprescriptionforwhatyouseewhenyoumeasurewouldremaininafundamentallyincompletestate,sothatanyonewho
usedthetheorywouldsoonneedtocompleteit.
e)Chaoticinflation,i.e.,inflationwithV=m^2phi^2
Idneedtounderstandtheissuesbetterbeforeexpressinganopinionaboutthis.Forexample,doeschaoticinflationmakeany
smokinggunpredictionsthatcoulddifferentiateitfromnonchaoticinflationscenarios?
f)Thetheorythatspacecontinuesatleast1lightyearbeyondourcosmologicalhorizon
Iwouldholdasyouyourselfpersuasivelyarguedinyourbook!thatthissortofthingdoesntdeservetobecalledatheory.
Instead,itmightbeapredictionorimplicationofsometheorythatweformulatetoexplainwhatsgoingoninsideourhorizon.
Sothen,Iwouldneedtolookatthattheory,andtrytojudgehowgoodtheevidencewasforit,andalsowhetherascribingreality
tothestuff1lightyearbeyondourhorizonwasanunavoidablepartofacceptingit.
88. fredSays:
Comment#88March24th,2014at1:02pm

Scott#87
Doyouconsiderthattheconceptofconsciousnesshasscientificcontent?
Ifso,howisittestable?Ifno,howdoyoureconcileitwithyourownexistence?
89. AdamSays:
Comment#89March24th,2014at1:21pm

Scott,#86:SurelytheEnglishlanguagesgrammarwascoinedmanycenturiesbeforeitsusagetodescribeEinsteinsrelativity,
right?
90. AdamSays:
Comment#90March24th,2014at1:22pm

Orrather,theGermangrammarasitwere
91. ScottSays:
Comment#91March24th,2014at1:30pm

Adam#89:OK,treatingyourquestionasaseriousone

Generalpurposelanguagesandnotationsystems(likeEnglishorArabicnumerals)havethepropertythat,nomatterwhatthe
lawsofphysicslaterturnedouttobe,thoselanguageswouldalmostcertainlybeusefulfordescribingthem.Theyreusefulfor
describingjustaboutanything!
Bycontrast,therearemany,manywaysonecanimaginethatthelawsofphysicscouldveturnedout(e.g.,likeConwaysGame
ofLife),suchthatcomplexnumbers,grouprepresentations,orRiemanniangeometrywouldvehadnorelevancetothem,despite
stillbeinginterestingtomathematicians.That,tomymind,iswhatmakesthecontinuingrelevanceofthosemathematicalconcepts
tophysicsnontrivial,andevenuncanny.
92. AdamSays:
Comment#92March24th,2014at1:31pm

Scott,Max:
Moreseriously,isntthereaselfreferentialproblemwiththeideaoftheMUH?Ifouruniverseisjustamathematicalstructurein
thelargercompositeMUH,thenwearejustparticularsubobjectsofthisstructure.Andinourmindswecreatemodelsofother
mathematicalstructureswhichdonotexistinthephysicalworldasfarasweknow.
Thus,accordingtotheMUHeverymathematicalstructurethatahumanmindinthisuniversecanmodelmustbeapartofthe
underlyingmathematicalstructurethatthisuniverseisisomorphicto,correct?
Ifso,thenisnttheMUHthehypothesisthatthereareothermathematicalstructureswhichwearebydefinitionincapableof
modelingorknowing!whichphysicallyexistinsomeotheruniverse?
ThatsoundsratheremptytomeandalsocuriouslyanalogouswiththeLevel2multiverseofcausallydistinctspacialregionsofthe
greatercosmos.
Cheers,
Adam
93. AdamSays:
Comment#93March24th,2014at1:38pm

Scott,#91:
Iamnotsurethereisarealdistinctionyet.Forexample,Ithinktherearemany,manywaysinwhichthelawsofphysicscould
turnoutmightalreadybe!inwhichtheEnglish,German,Humanlanguagecouldbeutterlyincompetentatdescribing.
But,Iamprobablyplayingabitofdevilsadvocatehere
Cheers,
Adam
94. DavidBrownSays:
Comment#94March24th,2014at1:50pm

Scott#78:Takethetextofthebooks,convertto1sand0s,interpretasapositiveinteger.Theremightbemanymeaningsof
thewordbookinwhichyourideaworks.However,abookorplaymightbeitstextcombinedwithitsreadershiporaudience.
Ifallpeoplewereextinct,thensurvivinghumanwritingsmightbesaidtoalsobeextinct,insomesensesofthewordextinct.Itis
veryuncleartomewhatthewordsbook,mathematics,andphysicsmightmean.Isconsciousnessanecessarypartof
physics?
95. ScottSays:
Comment#95March24th,2014at1:55pm

fred#88:Theresanaspectofconsciousnesswhichgoesbynameslikequalia,firstpersonexperience,andtheHard
Problemthatdoesstrikemeasoutsidethescopeofscience,essentiallybydefinition.I.e.,nomatterhowmuchisdiscovered
aboutneurobiologyandthemeasurablecorrelatesofconsciousness,itseemstomethatstonerswillalwaysbeabletoaskeach
other,dude,whatiflike,myredisyourblue?Anditwillstillbethecasethattheonlywayforthestonerstoanswerthe
questionwouldbetoinhabiteachothersminds.Theresnoordinary,thirdpersonexperimentthatcouldeveranswertheir
question,becausetheyrenotaskingaboutanyobjectivefactsofthephysicalworld(Iassumethatneitherstoneriscolorblind,
andbothhaveequalabilitytodiscriminatecolors).Tosomepeople,ofcourse,thatsjustafancywayofsayingthatthestoners

questionismeaningless,andIalsothinkitsbeyondthescopeofsciencetorefutethosepeople.
Havingsaidthat,Ialsothinktherearecountlessissuesdiscussedunderumbrellaofconsciousnessthatareperfectlywithinthe
scopeofscience.E.g.,whichbrainregionsareactiveinconsciousversusunconsciousactivities?CanwebuildanAIthatbehaves
asifitsconscious?Canwemechanisticallypredictapersonsfuturechoices,farintothefuture,withoutneedingtodoabrain
scanthatkillstheperson?Canwefindafunctionalfeatureofbrainorganizationthatsdifferentintheanimalswechoosetoregard
asconscious,andtheanimalswechoosetoregardasunconscious?Allofthesequestionsareoftensloppilyconflatedwith
theHardProblemofConsciousness,butIthinkitsbestforeveryonetokeepthemseparate.
96. GregKuperbergSays:
Comment#96March24th,2014at1:57pm

Aseparatesetofanswers:
a)Themathematicaluniversehypothesis
Imnotsurewhatthereistolearnfromthishypothesis.
b)Stringtheory
Thereisagreatdealtolearnfromstringtheory,giventhatitistheonlyknownviablecandidateforquantumgravity.Sinceitisthe
onlygameintown,andsinceithasdevelopedsubstantiallyeventhoughitisstillveryincomplete,parsimonystronglyspeaksin
favorofit.
c)Loopquantumgravity
ARalphNaderlikequesttocompetewithstringtheory,justforthesakeofcompeting.
d)Unitaryquantummechanics(QMwiththecollapsepostulateremoved)
Thisisabadjokebasedonfossilizedterminologyforquantumprobability.Thecollapsepostulateisneitheracollapsenora
postulate,nomoresothanBayesformulainclassicalprobabilityisacollapsepostulate.Ifyouremovethisfromquantum
mechanicsyougetexactlythesamethingasifyoudontremoveit!Thisislikespecialrelativitywiththetwinparadox
removed.AsScottsays,itslikeremovingafewpagesfromoneofEinsteinspapers.(Butfewenoughpagesthatagood
studentwouldknowhowtoputthemback.)
e)Chaoticinflation,i.e.,inflationwithV=m^2phi^2
Justlikestringtheory,parsimonyhaslongspokeninfavorofinflationarycosmologyingeneral.Latelychaoticinflationlooksmore
andmorelikethefavoriteflavorofinflation,andyouevenhaveexperimentaldatarollinginsothatyoudontneedtoonlyrelyon
parsimony.
f)Thetheorythatspacecontinuesatleast1lightyearbeyondourcosmologicalhorizon
Thatdependsonwhatyoumean.Wecanseegalaxiesthatarerecedingintothecosmologicalhorizon.Manyofthemaresofar
awaythatevenifwechasedthem,theywouldstillescapeintooblivion.Spacecontinuespastthehorizoninthesensethatifwe
livedinoneofthosegalaxies,thatswhatwewouldwitness.Butsincewedont,asbestIunderstandholography,wewillinstead
seeanindecipherablehashoftheinformationinthesegalaxies.Which(again,assumingholographyasIunderstandit)willprove
thattheexperienceofwitnessesinthosegalaxiesisirretrievableforus,andinsomesensehasceasedtoexist.
97. ScottSays:
Comment#97March24th,2014at2:07pm

DavidBrown#94:
Isconsciousnessanecessarypartofphysics?
Seemyclarificationincomment#36.Myclaimisnotthateverythingisdescribablemathematically,butonlythateverything
describableatallisi.e.,thattheresnothingspecialaboutwordsonapage,sounds,oranyotherreproduciblemediumthat
youcantalsocaptureusingpositiveintegersorstringsof1sand0s.AsIwrotein#95,Ialsograntthattheremightbean
indescribableaspectoffirstpersonexperience:e.g.,itmightbeimpossibletoverbalizewhatitsliketoseethecolorred,in
suchawaythatyoucanbesureyourenottalkingaboutwhatsomeoneelseperceivesasyourblue.Butevenifso,thatdoesnt

refutetheclaimaboutmathbeingdescribablecomplete.
98. JaySays:
Comment#98March24th,2014at2:56pm

#97
Chalmerisfuntoread,butappartfromhisarguments,doyouseeanythingthatwouldpreventneuroimagerstosay,insomenot
tooremotefuture,No,Ivereadbothyourbrainsandwhenyoubothsayred,itsnotexactlythesamething.Allowmeto
inducedtheexactpercept,oneminutepleaseOksee?Thisiswhatisperceivedredbyyourpartner.
#96
Aboutstrings,itsalwayspuzzlingyounevermaketheefforttosayeitherok,thisiswhatIthinkbutmanyotherphysicistswould
disagreeorLetbeclear,allphysistssayingotherwiseareliersordumbstupid.Besureonedonotneedtobephysicistto
evaluatetheseclaimsforwhatitsworth.
99. GregKuperbergSays:
Comment#99March24th,2014at3:18pm

SidKIwanttoemphasizethispointconcerningontology:Therearetwousesfordensitymatrices(ormixedstates)thatatfirst
glancelookseparate,butturnouttobethesamething.First,adensitymatrixisthecorrectmodelforamarginalstateinquantum
probability.I.e.,ifAliceandBobareentangledandBobleavestheroom,whatisAlicesstate?Second,adensitymatrixisalso
themodelforentropyandmissinginformation,e.g.,ifyoumakeameasurementanddontlookattheanswer.
ThesetwocasesareequivalentbecausewhateverBobis,BobhasmeasuredAlicebyvirtueofbeingentangledwithAlice.
Maybethereisalsoanenvironment,Eve,thatisconstantlymeasuringatleastBobandmaybebothAliceandBob.Eitherway,
measurementisultimatelyamanifestationofentanglement,andallentropyinquantumprobabilityultimatelyhasthesamesource.
So,onceyoutakeseriouslythatobserversarethemselvesquantumsystems,measurementisnotentitledtoaseparateontology
fromentanglementoranyotherquantumphenomenon.Certainlynotiftheobserverifanythingoranyoneotherthanthefirst
person.
Inthisway,themainpseudoprobleminquantummechanics,themeasurementproblem,becomesthesameasthemain
pseudoprobleminbrainscience,theconsciousnessproblem.Itseasytoacceptthestrongevidencethatanyotheranimalis
justsoullesschemistry,orthatanyotherobserverisjustanondeterministicquantumsystem.Itshardtobelieveitabout
yourself!
100. ScottSays:
Comment#100March24th,2014at3:40pm

Jay#98:
Chalmerisfuntoread,butappartfromhisarguments,doyouseeanythingthatwouldpreventneuroimagerstosay,in
somenottooremotefuture,No,Ivereadbothyourbrainsandwhenyoubothsayred,itsnotexactlythesamething.
Allowmetoinducedtheexactpercept,oneminutepleaseOksee?Thisiswhatisperceivedredbyyourpartner.
Theneuroimagerscouldsaythat,butIdontunderstandwhyitwouldconvinceanyonewhowasntconvincedalready.
Obviouslyyourandyourfriendsneuralfiringpatternswilldifferinvariouswayssoevenassumingthatconsciousness
supervenesonthephysical(asthephilosophersputit),howcouldyoueverfalsifythehypothesisthatwhateverphysical
differencestherewerecausedyourfirstpersoncolorexperiencestoberadicallydifferent?
Itseemstomethatthebestyoucoulddowouldbe,e.g.,toclusterpeoplewithsimilarfiringpatterns,andthenhypothesizethat
themoresimilarthepatterns,themoresimilarthefirstpersonexperiences.Orif,hypothetically,youdiscoveredthatonepersons
redfiringpatternslookedjustlikesomeoneelsesbluepatternsandviceversa,thenyoucouldspeculatethatwhattheone
perceivedasredtheotherperceivedasblue.Buteventhenyouwouldntknow.Forexample,thepossibilitywouldremainthat
notwopeoplescolorexperienceswerecomparable(whateverthatmeans).
Letmestress,oncemore,thatyoualwayshavetheoptionofdismissingthesequestionsasmeaninglessandIhavenoquarrel
withthemanypeoplewhohappilychoosethatoption! Myclaimissimplythatyoudonthavetheoptionofsayingthat(a)the
questionsaremeaningfuland(b)ordinaryneurosciencecouldsoonanswerthem!Idontseehowyoucanassertthelatter
withoutdoingametaphysicalbaitandswitch:replacingthethingthatwasactuallyaskedwiththesortofthingthatthirdperson

experimentscananswer.
101. fredSays:
Comment#101March24th,2014at4:13pm

Scott#95
Theresanaspectofconsciousnesswhichgoesbynameslikequalia,firstpersonexperience,andtheHardProblem[...]
Theresnoordinary,thirdpersonexperimentthatcouldeveranswertheirquestion,becausetheyrenotaskingaboutany
objectivefactsofthephysicalworld.
Butabsolutelyeverythingwetagasthephysicalworldisaninterpretationofpatternsofnerveactivity,livinginourbrainas
interconnectedsymbols.Everyconceptisinfactnothingbutaseriesofrelationsbetweenotherconcepts,themselvesbeing
nothingbutaseriesofrelations,etc.
Thestructureofourbrainissimilartoadictionaryeverydefinitioninadictionaryiseventuallycircular.
Thatsjustmoreobviouswhenwetalkaboutblueorinnateemotionssuchfear,hunger,pain,whichareprimordialsymbols
passedalongsincethedawnofevolutionandconsciousness,butitstruefor*anything*mathematicalobjectseventuallyget
reducedtoprimordialsymbolsaboutspaceandtimegoandtrytodescribespaceandtime,itsjustashardasdescribing
blue.
AtbestwecanonlyhopetoreducethingsintermoftheI(me,self),orintermofselfreferences(therelationoftheItoitself,
wordsthatdescribethemselves,etc).
102. fredSays:
Comment#102March24th,2014at4:41pm

Sayingthattheuniverseisitselfmathematicalpostulatesthatthecircularityofsymbolsinourbrainoradictionaryappliesalsoto
thephysicalworld.
I.e.everyobjectisbutaseriesofattributesdescribingrelationbetweenotherobjects,eventuallyleadingtocircularity(thats
ageneraldefinitionofmathematics).
Thismightnotbetestable,butatleast:
1)itsbasedonmydirectexperienceofexistence,i.e.Consciousnessisasrealasitgets(IthinkthereforeIam),itlives
embeddedinsuchmathstructures,themselvesembeddedinhighermathematicalstructuresrealizingthephysicalworld.
2)itsasimplerexplanationthanpostulatingthatthereisanobjectiverealityandasubjectiverealityofdifferentfundamental
nature.
103. MaxTegmarkSays:
Comment#103March24th,2014at4:55pm

ThanksScottforsopatientlyansweringallmyquestions!Itsquitestrikinghowdifferentdefinitionsdifferentsciencecolleaguesof
minegive,soImgratefulthatyouspelledoutyours.Itsnowondertheysometimesendupdisagreeingaboutwhatsscientific
whenthehaventrealizedtheyreusingdifferentdefinitions!
Yourdefinitionisabittooconvolutedformytaste:Isimplyprefercallingatheoryscientificifitstestable.Aswediscussed
earlier,Illalsocallastatementscientificifitspredictedbyascientifictheory,butIcarefullychosemylistabovetoavoidsuch
cases.Letscomparenotesonexamplesaf:
f)spacecontinuesatleast1lightyearbeyondourcosmologicalhorizon
HereIthinkyouretoorestrictive,sinceitstriviallytestable:justwaitoneyearandcheckiflightreachesyoufromthatspace!
e)Chaoticinflation,i.e.,inflationwithV=m^2phi^2
HereIthinkyouretoorestrictiveagain,sinceitsverytestable:itpredictsthatouruniverseshouldbelarge,expandingand
approximatelyhomogeneous,isotropicandflat,withtinyprimordialfluctuationsthatareroughlyscaleinvariant,adiabaticand
Gaussianalltestedandconfirmed.Evenbetter,itpredictsthenumericalvaluesoffiveobservablecosmologicalparamteters:
(1)thedensityparameterOmega=1,
(2)thespectralindexn=0.96,
(3)thegravitationalwaveamplituder=0.15,
(4)thetensorspectralindexn_t=0.02,
(5)thespectralindexrunningalpha=0.0007.
Wevesuccessfullyconfirmed1)and2)tobetterthan1%accuracy,andBICEP2justconfirmed3)bymeasuringr=0.16+0.06
(withtheirbestforegroundmodeling).

Soisittestable?Yes!Isitascientifictheory?Yes,bymystandards,withnoifsorbuts!
Yetyoubringupadditionalrequirements,suchastheextenttowhichitcanbedifferentiatedfromothermodels.
Thatsaninterestingquestion,butIdontthinkitsrelevanttothesimplequestionofwhethere)isascientifictheory.Ifsomerival
theoriesaresovaguethattheycantbedifferentiatedfromthistheory,thatsIMHOtheirproblem.
d)Nocollapsequantummechanics:
IfyourerejectingtheargumentsofEverett,Deutsch,Wallace,ZurekandothersthattheBornrule(FAPPcollapse)canbe
derivedfromd)alone,thenIdlovetohearwhatpartsoftheirderivationsyouobjecttoobutletssavethatforcoffeetoavoid
divertingthisthreadtoQMland.Ifnot,thend)clearlymakesalltheusualQMpredictionsthataresosuccessfullytestedinlabs
aroundtheworldandiffeelsunreasonabletocallitlesstestablethanyourownfavoritebrandofQM.Isuspectthatyoure
applyingthesamecriterionIobjectedtoaboveundere):requiringnotonlythatitstestable,butalsothatitsdistinguishablefrom
someothertheory.
b)&c)Stringtheory&LQG:
Herewebasicallyagree.IdaddthatmanystringtheoristsIknowusedtohopeformuchmorethanthis,suchaspredictingallof
the32dimensionlessparametersofphysics(Table10.1inmybook)fromfirstprinciples,andthatmanystillhopeforothertests
involvinge.g.inflationorLHC.
a)TheMathematicalUniverseHypothesis(MUH):
Considerthesefourhypothesesbasedonourdiscussionabove:
H1)Ourphysicalrealityisamathematicalstructure.
H2)Ourphysicalrealityisisomorphictoamathematicalstructure.
H3)Ourphysicalrealityisisomorphictoamathematicalstructure,insofarasthephysicalworldisdescribableatall.
H4)Somedescribableaspectsofourphysicalrealityarenotisomorphictoamathematicalstructure(saytrueCopenhagenstyle
randomness,souls,deities,miraclestakeyourpick)
YouarguedthattheMathematicalUniverseHypothesis(H1)wasdistinctfromtheothersandthereforehadphilosophical
content,butwasnonethelessdevoidofscientificcontent.Letletmetrytosummarizetheargumentsyougavepleasecorrectme
ifImisunderstoodyou.AsfarasIcouldtell,youjustifiedthisclaimintwoways:
1)H1makesnotestablepredictions
2)Everythingcanbedescribedbymath,soH1istriviallytrueandhencemeaningless
Letsstartwith2).SayingH1istruedoesntsoundascriticalasH1isdevoidofcontent,soperhapsthatsnotquitewhat
youmeant.Inanycase,theMUHisnttalkingaboutbeingdescribedbymathinsomevaguewaysuchasthedecimalsofpi
describingtheworld,butitsaysspecificallythattheworldisamathematicalstructure(anabstractsetofelementswithabstract
relationsbetweenthem).
Mosttraditionalphysicsdescriptionsoftheworldare*not*isomorphictoanymathematicalstructure.Forexample,a
mathematicalstructureadmitsnorandomnessandisunchanging,sotheworldofCopenhagenquantummechanicswithtruly
randomoutcomesis*not*amathematicalstructure,norisSmolinsTimeRebornworldwheretimeisfundamentalratherthan,
say,afourthdimension.
SoifyoureclaimingthattheMUHisuntestable,itseemsyoureimplyingforexamplethatthecollapsepostulateofthe
Copenhageninterpretationisuntestabledoyoureallystandbythatclaim?
Continuingonthetestabilitytheme,howcanyoubesosurethattheMUHcantbetestedinotherwaysaswell?
Youcertainlycantproveanogotheoremshowingthatexpandingourontologytoincludeunobservableentitiescanthave
observableconsequences.Forexample,ifthemeasureproblemevergetssolved,thensuchanexpansioncanradiallyalterour
predictionsforfutureobservations.YoualreadymentionedWeinbergssuccessfulpredictionofdarkenergyfromassuminga
typeofLevelIImultiverse.AmorerecentexampleisthepossibilityofseeingimprintsofLevelIImultiversebubblecollisionsin
thecosmicmicrowavebackground.Personally,Imextremelyskepticalthatwelleverobserveanysuchbubbleimprints,but
thesetwoexampleshighlightstheimportanceofbeinghumbleandnotmakingoverlycategoricalclaimsofnogotheorems.Level
IVradicallyexpandstheontology,soitcouldpresumablyalterpredictionssignificantly.Sayingthatwedontyet(andmaynever)
seemsirrelevanttothispoint:afterall,wouldyouclaimthat
PNPisdevoidofscientificcontent
justbecauseyourenotsurewelleversettleit?
Finally,asSidK(#1)soeloquentlyputitabove,Ifeelthatyourereplacinginnocentuntilprovenguiltybyguiltyuntilproven
innocentinyourdefinitionofscientific.
Considerthesethreedebates:

Physicalist:Ithinktheresnosecretlifesaucedistinguishinglivingfromnonlivingthings.
Critic:Thatsanunscientifictheory,sinceyoucantexperimentallyprovetheresnosecretlifesauce!
Integratedinformationtheorist:Ithinktheresnosecretconsciousnesssaucedistinguishingconsciousinformation
processingsystemsfromunconsciouszombieones.
Critic:Thatsanunscientifictheory,sinceyoucantexperimentallyprovetheresnosecretconsciousnesssauce!
MUHadvocate:Ithinktheresnosecretexistencesaucedistinguishingphysicallyexistingmathematicalstructuresfromother
mathematicalstructures.
Critic:Thatsanunscientifictheory,sinceyoucantexperimentallyprovetheresnosecretexistencesauce!
Ithinkthatinallthreecases,thefirstpersonmakesasimpleOccamstyleclaim,andthetheonusshouldbeoncriticto
experimentallydetectthesauce!
104. JaySays:
Comment#104March24th,2014at5:41pm

>whyitwouldconvinceanyone
Bythesamestandardasanythingelse,e.g.byexhibitingpredictivepowerandnontrivialexplanationsforwhatcanorcant
constituteavalidquestion.
>evenassuming[supervenience]()howcouldyoueverfalsifythehypothesisthatwhateverphysicaldifferencestherewere
causedyourfirstpersoncolorexperiencestoberadicallydifferent?
Wasanegationlostsomewhere?Ifweassumesupervenience,bydefinitiondifferencesinfirstpersonexperiencearecausedby
physicaldifferences.
>thepossibilitywouldremainthatnotwopeoplescolorexperienceswerecomparable
Thepossibilitywouldalwaysremainthatthereisnotwopersonsintheuniverse.Forthesamereasonwedontcarethelast
question,weshouldntcareabouttheformer(aslongaspredictivepoweretc.).
>youalwayshavetheoptionofdismissingthesequestionsasmeaningless
Look,itspossiblethatoneday,wewillexplainconsciousnessusingatheorythatsays,nope,qualiahasnomeaningbutin
relationtoaspecificobserver,soyoucantcomparequaliaamongobservers.
Thatkindofthingscanhappen,forexempletimewhichhasnomeaninginthereferenceframeofaphoton.Butyouseemto
excludethepossibilitythat,say,wellfindthatphotonhaveinfacta(very)tinymass,soyesitmakessensetospeakofphoton
timeafterall.
Letsayyouhavetochooseoneoftwobets.Firstbetisthatphotonshavenomass.Secondbet,isthatitdoesntmakesenseto
speakofqualiaassomethingwecanadd,substract,comparefromonemindtoanother.Wouldyoureallychoosethelatter?
>replacingthethingthatwasactuallyaskedwiththesortofthingthatthirdpersonexperimentscananswer.
Nope,Ispecificallysuggestedascenarioinwhichyoucouldmakeyourselfexperiencedwhateveryouwantbyaffectingyour
brainstate,andsoyoucan,atfirstperson,compareiffirstpersonexperiencemeetpredictions.
105. GregKuperbergSays:
Comment#105March24th,2014at6:31pm

MaxYourexamplesconflateconstructingatheorywithmerelymakingroomforone.Whatyoucallphysicalismandintegrated
informationtheoryarentscientifictheoriesthetheoryisthechemicalbasisforlifeandbrainfunction.Arguablytheseismsare
alsoinvitationstoengineerartificiallifeandartificialbrains.
Yourmathematicaluniverseconceptisanothersuchinvitation.Itsaninvitation(whichwasacceptedlongago)toattempta
mathematicaltheoryofeverything.Andarguablyaninvitationtodefineviablealternativeuniverses.
106. NexSays:
Comment#106March24th,2014at6:48pm

Scott:TheviewthatanalogizesmathtotheEnglishlanguageseemstotallyunabletoaccountforthingslikecomplexnumbers,
linearalgebra,Riemanniangeometry,orgrouprepresentations,whichwerealldevelopeddecadesorevencenturiesbefore
anyonethoughtofanyapplicationstophysics,butthenturnedouttobeexactlywhatphysicistsneeded.
WhichEnglishwordswerecoineddecadesorcenturiesbeforeanyoneneededthem?
TheyweredevelopedbymathematiciansbecauseTHEYneededthemforsolvingproblemswhichwhileabstractwheredefinitely
basedonreality.Theyareallbasicallydifferentwaysofexpressinggeometricrelationsandtransformationswhichareeverywhere
aroundus.
LikewiseEnglishlanguagehastonsofwordsinventedforonepurposeandthenusedbyothersforsomethingelse(relatedor
not).
107. JimVSays:
Comment#107March24th,2014at6:59pm

ProbablymyreasonfornotseeingmuchofaproblemwiththewhyistheuniversesomathematicalquestionisbecauseIdont
knowenoughmath,butIllgiveitanyway,because,hey,thisistheInternet:
Tome,mathisthinkingandthinkingismath.WhenIhavethreeerrandstodoandspendafewsecondsdecidingwhatorderto
dothemin,Iamdoingmath.(Imaynotbedoingitwell.)Whenyouthinkaboutcertainthingslongenoughandhardenoughand
doenoughexamples,sometimesyoudevelopgeneralmethods,suchascalculus,linearalgebra,grouptheory,andsoon,which
areonamuchhigherlevelthanmyerranddoingexample.Butitsallthinking.
Inwhichcaseanythingtheuniversethrowsatuswhichweareabletoreducetosomesortoforderbythinkingaboutitwill
henceforthbeconsideredsomeformofmath.Onlythethingsthatweareincapableofthinkingaboutproductivelywontbemath.
Thatdoesntexplaincoincidencesliketheusefulnessofimaginarynumbersinanalyzingalternatingcurrenttransmission(among
otherthings),forwhichmyguessesare:a)somesortsofthinkingarefundamentaltomanysortsofproblemsb)theremaybe
othermethodswhichwouldworkjustaswellbutyoutrywhatyoualreadyknowfirstandc)therearesuchthingsas
coincidences.
Icouldalsoexplain(tomysatisfaction)howourthinkingworksandwhyithadtowork(toausefulextent)inthisuniverse,but
thatmightbepushingthewholeInternetconceptabitfar.SoIlljustendbysaying,thanksfortheinterestingpost!
108. ScottSays:
Comment#108March24th,2014at7:04pm

Max#103:Thankssomuchtoyoutooforyourdetailedandinterestingreplies!
f)Sorry,Isimplydidnthavetherightdefinitionofcosmologicalhorizon.Ithoughtitmeantthehorizonbeyondwhichasignal
canneverreachus,becauseofthedarkenergy(assumingofcoursethatitsdensityremainsconstant,ratherthantunnelingto
zero).Isthatcalledourcausalpatch?
OfcourseIlladmitclaimsaboutthelightthatsgoingtoreachusayearfromnowashavingoperationalsignificance.
e)OK,letmebemoreprecise:Ithinkthatwhetherinflationhappened,andthespecificformoftheinflationpotential,are
eminentlytestablescientificquestions(aslastweeksannouncementunderscored).ThepointwhereIworrythatmaybeweveleft
scienceformetaphysics,isthepointwherewededucefromaninflationscenariothatweshouldthinkofourBigBangas
havingbeenchosenrandomlyfromaninfiniteensembleofBigBangs.Andno,Idonthaveagoodalternativewayto
thinkabouttheprocess(ifoneshouldcallitthat)thatpickedourparticularBigBangoutoftheinflaton.Butthefactthatwe
appeartogainzeronewpredictiveorexplanatorypowerbygoingtherandomroutefeelstomelikeastronghintthatthere
oughttobeabetterwayforward.
d)Yes,IdorejecttheargumentsofEverett,Deutsch,Wallace,Zurek,andothersthattheBornrulecanbederivedfrom
unitaryQM.Iwouldsayitlikethis:ifyouvealreadydecidedthatyouwantaruleforconvertingamplitudesintoprobabilities,
thenyoucangiveabout20differentargumentsthattheBornruleistheonlyonethatmakesmathematicalsensei.e.,theonly
onethatsyncsupwithunitaryevolutioninasaneway.TheargumentsofEverett,Deutsch,Wallace,andZurekarefour
examplesImyselfgaveafewothers.However,nothinginunitaryQMtellsyouthatpickingabasisinwhichdecoherence
happens,lookingattheamplitudesofthewavefunctionoftheuniverseinthatbasis,andthenfindingarulebywhichtoconvertthe
amplitudesintoprobabilitiesissomethingthatyoushoulddo.(TonyLeggetthasmadethesamepointveryeloquently.)
Sincethismightseemlikepuristnitpicking,letmeputthepointmorestrongly:supposeweconsideredascenariowhere

decoherencedidnthappen?Suppose,forexample,thatwebuiltanartificiallyintelligentquantumcomputer,sothatwecould
firstputtheQCintoasuperpositionofthinkingtwodifferentthoughts(AandB),andthenapplysomegeneral22unitarythat
mixedtheAandBbranches?SincetheBornruleclearlynolongersuffices,whatprobabilityruleshouldwenowuse,tocalculate
(e.g.)theprobabilitythattheQCwillswitchfromthinkingthoughtAtothinkingthoughtBwhenweapplytheunitary?Itseemsto
methatyouhavetosay,eitherthatsuchaQCcouldntbeconscious(e.g.,thatenvironmentaldecoherenceisanecessary
conditionforconsciousness),orelsethatitsconsciousnesswouldbesodifferentfromoursthattherelevantprobabilitieswouldnt
bedefined,orelsethattheBornruleneedstobereplacedbysomeotherruleinthiscase.Andwhicheveryouchoose,itseems
tomeyouveconcededthattheleapfromunitaryQMtotheBornruleisnotjustaboringmatterofmanipulatingsomeformulas.
Instead,itinvolvestacitadditionalassumptionsaboutwhereinthewavefunctionweregoingtofindtheseconsciousbeings
whoseexperiencesweretryingtoaccountfor,andsomethingaboutthenatureofthosebeings.
a)Imcompletelyconfusedaboutwhyyouclaimthat,iftherewerefundamentalrandomnessinthelawsofphysics(e.g.,inthe
Copenhageninterpretation),thentheMUHwouldbefalsified.Whyarentvectorsofprobabilities,whichevolveviastochastic
transformations,aperfectlyrespectablemathematicalstructureeverybitasrespectableasvectorsofamplitudesthatevolve
unitarily??Itseemstomethat,inordertosaythattheMUHisfalsifiable,youneedtotakeaweirdlylimitedviewofwhata
mathematicalstructurecanbeandwhatitcanmeanforthephysicalworldtobeisomorphictoone.
Now,regardingyourfinalbitaboutguiltyuntilproveninnocent:itseemstomethatboththeintegratedinformationtheoristand
theMUHadvocatemakemuchstrongerclaimstoknowledgethanIdontseewhatthesecretsauceis.Thisisparticularly
obviousinthecaseofIIT:Giulioclaimstoknow(orbeprettysure)thataspecificnumericalmeasurethathewrotedownisthe
consciousnessmeter,thethingthattellsyouwhetheragivenagglomerationofatomshasqualiaornot.AndtheMUHadvocate
claimstoknow(orbeprettysure)thateverycomputablydefinablemathematicalstructure(butnottheonesthatarent
computablydefinable)givesrisetoanotherphysicallyexistinguniverse.Inbothcases,Idsaythatadmittingyoudontknow
whatitisthatmakesoneagglomerationofatomsconsciousandnotanotherone,orwhatbreathesfireintoonesetofequations
andnotintoadifferentset,isaperfectlylegitimateoption.
(Thecaseofthephysicalistisdifferent,becausethatonesclaimtoknowsomethingabouttheborderbetweenlifeandnonlife
canbejustifiedbyeverythingwevelearnedaboutbiochemistryoverthepastcentury.)
Anyway,Iveenjoyedthisdiscussionandwouldbehappytocontinueovercoffeesometime(exceptthennooneelsewouldget
tofollowit! ).
109. ScottSays:
Comment#109March24th,2014at7:24pm

Jay#104:
Ifweassumesupervenience,bydefinitiondifferencesinfirstpersonexperiencearecausedbyphysicaldifferences.
Right,butgiventhattwopeoplesbrainsaredifferent,theirfirstpersonexperiencescouldbearbitrarilysimilarorarbitrarilyfar
apart,andthatsthequestionatissuehere.
Thepossibilitywouldalwaysremainthatthereisnotwopersonsintheuniverse.Forthesamereasonwedontcarethe
lastquestion,weshouldntcareabouttheformer(aslongaspredictivepoweretc.).
OK,butifthosearethegroundrules,thenwhynotjustsaycmon,obviouslymyredisthesameasyourredgetserious!,
withoutbotheringtodotheneuroscienceexperiment?Eitherway,then,Idontseehowdoingtheexperimentreallychangesthe
situation.
Nope,Ispecificallysuggestedascenarioinwhichyoucouldmakeyourselfexperiencedwhateveryouwantbyaffecting
yourbrainstate,andsoyoucan,atfirstperson,compareiffirstpersonexperiencemeetpredictions.
Yeah,Igotthat.Theproblemis,howwouldyouknowthattheexperiencetheneuroscientistcreatedinyourbrainwasactually
thesameastheotherpersonsexperience?Andifyourewillingtoappealtocommonsensecmon,ofcoursetheyrethe
same!thenagain,whynotjustappealtocommonsensenow,andsavethetroubleofdoingtheexperiment?
110. AdamSays:
Comment#110March24th,2014at8:17pm

Max:
IfIcanholdConwaysGameofLifeinmymindandIamjustapartofthismathematicalstructurecalledouruniverse,thenisit

fairtosaythatConwaysGameofLifeiscontainedwithinthisuniverse?Ifso,thenwhydoyouinsistthatanotheruniverse
physicallyseparatefromthisonemustexistthatembodiesConwaysGameofLife?
Cheers,
Adam
111. BobPSays:
Comment#111March24th,2014at9:31pm

Ithoughtitmeantthehorizonbeyondwhichasignalcanneverreachus,becauseofthedarkenergy(assumingofcoursethatits
densityremainsconstant,ratherthantunnelingtozero).Isthatcalledourcausalpatch?
MaybethathorizonisbestcalledthedeSitterhorizon,thesurfacewithradiussqrt(3/Lambda).Thecausalpatchisthefour
dimensionalvolumewithinthatsurface.
Fornonexpertsfollowingalongathome,horizoncomplementarity(HC)istheideathatitisonlyconsistenttotalkaboutone
causalpatchatatime.TalkingaboutmultipleLevelIuniversesasiftheyexistatthesametimeisanalogoustotalkingaboutthe
interiorandexteriorofablackholeasiftheycoexist.Theresnodoubtyoucanjumpinablackholeandexperiencetheinterior,
oryoucanremainoutsideandexperiencetheexterior.ButHCarguesitonlymakessensetotalkaboutoneortheotherexisting
atanymoment,becauseotherwisethequantumnocloningtheoremwouldbeviolated(youcouldcloneastatebythrowingitinto
ablackhole:nowonecopyofthestatelivesintheinterior,andonecopylivesintheHawkingradiationintheexterior.Similarly,
youcouldcloneagalaxyintheLevelImultiversebylettingitdriftoutofourcausalpatch.OnecopylivesinourdeSitter
horizonsHawking/Unruhradiation.)
Thiscomplementaritybetweenblackholeinterior/exterior,orbetweencausalpatchesintheLevelImultiverse,isabitlikethe
complementarybetweenpositionandmomentum:youcanhaveoneortheother,butnot(adefinitevalueof)bothatthesame
time.Themainassumptionunderlyinghorizoncomplementarityisthatblackholeevaporationisunitary(sothattheHawking
radiationtrulyencodesacopyoftheinterior).Thisisunproven,butmanypeople(includingme)findthetheoreticalevidence
compelling.IsupposeasecondassumptionisthatdeSitterhorizonsandblackholehorizonsfollowthesamerules,butthat
seemshardtoavoid.
Atanyrate,horizoncomplementarityseemslikeanicewaytotametheinfinitiesthatproliferateinmultiversediscussions,
becausethenumberofallowedbitsinacausalpatchisfiniteitisboundedbythesurfaceareaofthecausalpatch.(Thisboundis
unproven,butagainthereiscompellingtheoreticalevidence.)
112. MaxTegmarkSays:
Comment#112March24th,2014at9:37pm

ThanksDarrellBurgan(#74)forbringingupthisinterestingquestionaboutthedistinctionbetweenmathematicsandcomputing!I
discussthisatgreatlengthinchapter12ofthebook(http://mathematicaluniverse.org).Thereareinterestingrelationsbetween
*three*distinctthings(seefigure12.6):
1)Computations
2)Mathematicalstructures
3)Formalsystems
Computationscanbeviewedasspecialcasesofmathematicalstructures,andtheydefinedtherelationsofmathematical
structures.
Mathematicalstructuresaresettheoreticalmodelsofformalsystemswhichdescribethem.
Formalsystemsdescribecomputations,whichcaninturnprobetheoremsofformalsystems.
Forcomputations,mathematicalstructuresandformalsystems,
TheGdelesqueissuesrelatetowhethertheyrehalting,definedanddecidable,respectively.
113. wolfgangSays:
Comment#113March24th,2014at10:01pm

@Scott
>>itinvolvestacitadditionalassumptionsaboutwherein

>>thewavefunctionweregoingtofindtheseconscious
>>beingswhoseexperiencesweretryingtoaccountfor
Iagreewithyou,butIwouldaddthatsomethingsimilaristhecasewithinrelativity.Alberthimselfwaswonderingaboutthe
nowbeingsospecialtousanditbotheredhim.
Whyistheyear2014sospecialtous(now),comparedtoe.g.theyear2345?
Nothinginthetheoryofrelativitytellsusanythingaboutthisspecialness
Justasunitaryquantumtheory(withoutCopenhagenreduction)doesnottelluswhatissospecialaboutourbranchofheuniverse
theonewhereObamawontheelectionandnotXorankrox
114. JaySays:
Comment#114March24th,2014at10:14pm

Scott#109
[Right...]Sothequestionis,howwouldwefalsifyatheoryspecifyingthattwoperceptsarethesameordifferent?
Bythesamestandardasanythingelse,e.g.bytestingifwecancorrectlypredictorcausepatternsofbrainactivitiesthatsubjects
willperceiveasthesameorasdifferent,includinginsituationsspecificallyselectedbecausethatswheretheoryleadstoitsmost
nontrivialpredictions.
[Ok...]Whybotheringtodotheexperiment?Becausetheanswerisnotobviousatall!Itcouldbethatqualiaarenot
commensurate,oritcouldbethatyestheyare,andIwanttoknowthetruth!
Moreprecisely,whatIwantisatheoryofthemindthatcouldamongotherthingsexplainwhetheryourredismyredorifthe
questionmakesnosense.ButtruthisIdontreallygiveadamnaboutwhatitisliketobeabat.WhatIwantisascientifictheory
ofconsciousness,becauseIwanttoknowhowthisthingworks.
[Yeah...]Willweeverknowforsure?No,ofcoursenot,butwhythisdoublestandard?
Whateverhowgoodatheoryis,itseasyenoughtocomeupwithanalternativewithnoteeth(thinkofsuperdeterminismand
QM).Doweknowforsuretheoriginaloneisthecorrectone?No,notonlogicalgrounds.Butthatsnotthestandardweuse.
Whatweaskforisthetheorycandosomethingnewandimpressive.Callthatpredictivepower.Callthatexplanatorypower.But
dontuseadoublestandard!
115. anonSays:
Comment#115March24th,2014at11:01pm

Justawarning,Iendedupinthehospitalthiswinterafterpsychoanalyzingmyselfwhilereadingtegmarkpapers.AndIcansay
thatweareourbrains.Itwasnthealthytoviewotherpeopleaschemicals,andautomatonsorjustmath.Scaryandlonelyashell.
Gooddiscussionthough,Idontmeantoderailit.
116. PascalSays:
Comment#116March25th,2014at12:43am

ToGreg#99:Whenyousaythatobserversarejustordinaryquantumsystemsbehavingaccordingtotherulesofordinary
quantummechanics,youareineffectendorsingthemanyworldinterpretation.
117. DnielSays:
Comment#117March25th,2014at4:36am

Scott#108:
Itseemstomethat,inordertosaythattheMUHisfalsifiable,youneedtotakeaweirdlylimitedviewofwhata
mathematicalstructurecanbeandwhatitcanmeanforthephysicalworldtobeisomorphictoone.
Max,pleaseclarify:doestheMUHreallyruleoutfundamentalrandomness,orcanthatrandomnessbesavedbytransformingit
toaversionofmanyworldslikeScottdid?Ithinkthisisanimportantquestion,becauseitseemstomethatthiskindofmany
worldsmodeldoesntnecessarilyhasamuchhigherKolmogorovcomplexitythanasimilarnonstochastic(singleworld)model,
sowecantrefertoKolmogorovcomplexitytodiscreditit.

So,Max,Iamveryinterestedinyourreply.Inthemeantime,letmehumblysuggesttoScottandothersthatitsagoodthingthat
Maxsviewofamathematicalstructureisweirdlylimited.Inthebestcase,itmightturnouttobeexactlythemeatthatyou
missedfromthetheory.
118. VladimirSlepnevSays:
Comment#118March25th,2014at5:47am

@Scott#108
>Andwhicheveryouchoose,itseemstomeyouveconcededthattheleapfromunitaryQMtotheBornruleisnotjustaboring
matterofmanipulatingsomeformulas.Instead,itinvolvestacitadditionalassumptionsaboutwhereinthewavefunctionwere
goingtofindtheseconsciousbeingswhoseexperiencesweretryingtoaccountfor,andsomethingaboutthenatureofthose
beings.
Wecannote,withoutassumingtheBornprobabilities,thatwearecomputersmadeoutofclassicalparts,i.e.partsthathappento
workreliablyundertheBornprobabilities,ratherthansomeotherprobabilities.Thatmightbepartoftheexplanation.
@Scott#29
>onenowwantstoknow,whyisthefireofexistencenotonlybreathed,butbreathedsopromiscuously,ontoeverysetof
equationsthatanyonecouldwritedown?
Ifeelthatmightbeawrongpath.Asetofequationscancontaincreatureswhofeelthattheyexist,regardlessofthesetof
equationsitselfexisting.
119. FredSays:
Comment#119March25th,2014at6:05am

Blueisntanabsolutemysensationofblueisfromarichsetofassociationswithotherconcepts:someofthoseassociations
arefairlygeneral(blueiskindagreenish,blueisacoldcolor,..),somearemorepeculiar(blueremindsmeofdrowninginthe
ocean,blueremindsyouoftheskyinyouhomeland,apaintermaysee12differentblueswhenyouseeonly2).
Soaskingifyourblueislikemyblueisanexerciseingraphisomorphism.Onecanmaybeassumethatiftwobrainsarethesame,

Butthisdifficultyistrueevenforanyobjectiveconceptwetakeforgranted.Wecanoftentakethingsforgrantedbecauseall
ourbrainsareroughlythesame,asaresultofevolution(maybecatshaveobjectiveconceptsthataretotallyforeigntous).
Theironyisthatphysics,supposedlythemostobjectivescienceoutthere,isallaboutmathematicseveryattempttodiscuss
whatisthestateofaparticlebetweenmeasurements?,whatisameasurement?isansweredwithsticktothemath!Thatsall
thatmatters!.Butevenmathisanendlesssourceofconfusionapparently(e.g.p!=npisa50/50thingNo,its99.999/0.001!)
120. fredSays:
Comment#120March25th,2014at7:31am

Scott#108
a)Imcompletelyconfusedaboutwhyyouclaimthat,iftherewerefundamentalrandomnessinthelawsofphysics(e.g.,inthe
Copenhageninterpretation),thentheMUHwouldbefalsified.
Isntitbecauseallofthisisnothingbutanattempttogobacktoafullydeterministicviewoftheworld?
Thespacetimeblockviewofrealitysuggestedbyrelativity(whereanobserverviewisjustaslice)wasonestepinthe
directionofgettingridoffreewillandadynamicviewofreality(past,present,futureallexistatthesametime).
ManyworldsinterpretationofQMisanothersteptogetridofmagicaldicesandturnthespacetimeblockintoabigstatic
spacetimearborescence.
So,youendupwithaviewoftheuniversewhichisbasicallyagiantfractalsnowflake(wheremindsareselfsimilarvortices?)
121. MaxTegmarkSays:
Comment#121March25th,2014at7:43am

YesScott(#108),Itoohaveverymuchenjoyedthisdiscussion,andverymuchlookforwardtocontinuingitovercoffee!We
shouldsavetimefortwoseparatechats:oneabouttheMUHandoneaboutQM!SomefinalcommentsbeforeIgetbackto
catchinguponotherstuff:
(a)Mathematicaluniversehypothesis:Ithinkwevefinallyisolatedthecruxofthematter,andImoptimisticthatyoull
retractyourdevoidofcontentclaimoncewevehadachancetotalkthisthoughovercoffeeuntilweunderstandeachothers

claimsproperly.
ThedefinitionofmathematicalstructuresthatIuseisratherstandard(see,e.g.,W.HodgesW1997,AShorterModel
Theory,CambridgeUniv.Press),andyes,itsan*extremelyrestrictive*definition(yourefreetocallitweirdlylimitedifyou
prefer),anditspreciselybecauseitssorestrictivethattheMathematicalUniverseHypothesishaspredictivepower.Although
restrictive,thisdefinition(asabstractsetsofelementswithwelldefinedrelationsbetweenthem)includesallmathematical
structuresIveeverseendiscussedinphysics,fromintegerstocomplexnumbers,3+1dimensionalpseudoRiemannian
manifolds,Hilbertspacesandorbifolds).Iuseisomorphismonlyinthestandardway:twostructuresareisomorphiciftheresa
onetoonecorrespondencebetweentheirelementsrespectingallrelations.
Toseewhy,say,theworldofCopenhagenquantummechanicsisnotisomorphictoamathematicalstructure,pleasetakeafew
minutesandtrytowritedownthedefinitionofthemathematicalstructure!Rememberthatyouneedtowriteadefinitionthats
acceptabletoamathematicianorcomputer,soyourenotallowedtouseanybaggagewordsthatassumeoutsideknowledge.
Forexample,youaskedwhatwaswrongwithtalkingaboutvectorsofprobabilities,whichevolveviastochastic
transformations.Baggagealert:Whatsmeantbyevolve,whichseemstopresupposesomenotionoftime?Baggage
alert:Whatsmeantbyprobabilities,whichseemstopresupposesomenotionofobservation?Youredefininga
mathematicalsetwithrelationshere,soyourdefinitionsmustbefullyselfcontained.
ThisiswhyIsaidthatyoudfalsifytheMUHwithanexperimentaldemonstrationofwavefunctioncollapse.
(d)Nocollapsequantummechanics:Indeedweshouldntexpecttheemergenceofanysortofclassicalworldorclassical
consciousnessfromQMintheabsenceofdecoherence.Butinouractuallyperceivedclassicalworldandconsciousness,
decoherenceclearlyplaysanimportantrole.
122. ScottSays:
Comment#122March25th,2014at8:12am

Dniel#117andMax:IguessIshouldclarifysomething.IunderstoodMaxtobesayingthat,ifanobjectivecollapsemechanism
werediscovered(introducingfundamentalrandomnessintonature),somethingthateveryoneagreesisanempiricalquestion,
thentheMUHwouldbefalsified.
Thatsgreattoknowexceptthat,asIsaid,IcantunderstandwhysuchadiscoverywouldorshouldfalsifytheMUH!For
eventhen,wecouldstilladoptamanyworldsperspective,exceptnowwithaprobabilityvectoroftheuniverseratherthana
quantumstatevector.So,ifthisistherouteMaxwantstotake,thenmyinclinationwouldbetorenametheMUH,tosomething
liketheMUAARATOPQPSH(MathematicalUniverseinwhichAllApparentRandomnessArisesbyTracingOutPartofa
QuantumPureStateHypothesis).
Ontheotherhand,MaxalsosuggestedinhiscommentthathethinkstheCopenhageninterpretationisexperimentally
distinguishablefromMWIandthatstrikesmeasnotobviouslytrueatall.Itdependsentirelyonwhatonemeansby
Copenhageninterpretation.Ifonetakesittomean,theremustbesomenewphysicalprocessontopofunitaryevolutionthat
causessufficientlycomplicatedphysicalentitiestocollapsewavefunctions,thenasIsaidbefore,ofcoursethatsempirically
distinguishablefromMWI.
Thetroubleis,Idontknowasinglepersoncallinghimorherselfa(neo)Copenhagenistwhoactuallytakestheabove
position.EveryselfdeclaredCopenhagenistIvemetisfinewitharbitrarilycomplicatedentities,includinghumanbrains,being
placedinsuperpositionandmanipulatedunitarily.TheysimplytakeamoreconstrictedviewthanMWIersaboutwhatscienceis
about:theydontthinkitsaboutdescribingtheobjectivestateoftheuniverse,butaboutgivingobserversthebesttoolsto
predicttheresultsoftheirobservations.
Now,youcouldarguethatthemodernCopenhagenistsareplayingadoublegame:thatwhattheyreallywantisMWIbut
withoutcallingitMWI,withoutusingthelanguageofparalleluniverses.ButIdontthinkyoucansaythattheyvecommitted
themselvestoanyclearempiricalpredictionthatwouldseparatetheirviewfromtheMWIers.
123. RahulSays:
Comment#123March25th,2014at8:47am

Scott:
Postrequest!AnycommentsonlastweeksannouncementofBmodesintheCMBdata?
124. ScottSays:
Comment#124March25th,2014at8:56am

Rahul#123:WhatlittleIhavetosay,Isaidinthispost!Itsobviouslyincrediblyexcitingifitholdsup.
125. NoahSays:
Comment#125March25th,2014at10:50am

Theredvs.bluequaliathingseemstotallytestabletome.Designaretinalimplantwhichswitchesredandblue,andimplantitin
somenewborns.Comeupwithgoodtestswhichcandistinguishtheimplantgroupfromthecontrolgroup,andthenapplythose
teststothestoners.
126. ScottSays:
Comment#126March25th,2014at11:27am

Noah#125:Verycoolidea!ButIdontthinkitworks,forthefollowingreason.Supposeyoubelievedthathalfofpeople
experiencedredasPercept1andblueasPercept2,andhalftheotherwayaround,basedonunknownandpossiblyunknowable
detailsoftheirbrainorganization.Thensure,youcouldinstalltheretinalimplantinanewborn,butyouwouldntknowwhether
thenewbornoriginallybelongedtothefirstclassorthesecondclass.Soyoudknowthattheydexperienceredthingsthe
oppositewaytheywouldhaveifyouhadntinstalledtheimplant,butyoustillwouldntknowwhetheritwasPercept1or
Percept2.
Youmightrespond:OK,butsupposeMRIscansrevealalargebrainabnormalityinallofthepeoplewhogettheretinalimplant,
butnoneofthepeoplewhodontgettheimplant?Wouldntthatbeconvincingevidencethateveryonenaturallybelongstoonly
oneofthesetwoclasses,andthatitsonlyinstallingtheimplantthatcanmovethemtotheotherclass?
Alas,Ithinktheanswerisstillno.Foritcouldbethatthedevelopingbrainexpectsthesky,thesea,etc.tobeassociatedwitha
retinalsignalofonekind,andblood,cherries,etc.tobeassociatedwitharetinalsignalofadifferentkind.Anditcouldbethat
switchingthosetwokindsofsignalsalonesufficestoproducethebrainabnormalityi.e.,thatithasnothingtodowiththelater
conversionofthesignalsintoeitherPercept1orPercept2,astepthatremainsjustasempiricallyinaccessibletoyouasbefore.
127. JohnMerrymanSays:
Comment#127March25th,2014at11:59am

IntheskepticscornerIftheBicep2evidencewereproofofBigBang/Inflationarycosmology,wouldntitshowsomesingular
pattern?Allthoseswirlscouldaswellbeevidenceofthebackgroundradiationoriginatingfromlotsofdifferentsources,say
galaxiesredshiftedcompletelyoffthevisiblespectrum?Simplyfindingtheradiationispolarizedisaboutasinformativeasfinding
watertobewet.
AsforEverettsmultiworlds,ifwethoughtoftime,notasameasurefromoneeventtothenext,buttheprocessbywhichthese
eventscomeintobeinganddissolve,thenitisntsomuchthevectorfrompasttofuturethatweexperience,buttheprocessby
whichthefuturebecomespast,ie.tomorrowbecomesyesterdaybecausetheearthturns.Thenitisnotthepointofthepresent
moving,buttherateofchangeofwhatexists.Thereforethefutureremainsprobabilistic,whilethepasthasbeendetermined,since
probabilityprecedesactuality.Sotherewouldbenoneedtoassumeeitherthefuturemustalreadybedetermined,orthepast
remainsprobabilistic,ie,multiworlds.Bothbeingproposedsolutionstohowtheperceiveddimensionoftimetransitionsfromthe
determinedpastintotheprobabilisticfuture.
128. PeterEckersleySays:
Comment#128March25th,2014at12:17pm

Athoughtexperimentthatmightbeusefulonthisonequestion:
Howwouldweknowifwedfoundsomethingthatwasntmathematicallydescribable?
Supposeyouliveinsideasimulation.Aftergreateffort,youandyourspeciesdeterminethelawsofthesimulationbypainful
applicationofthescientificmethod.Alliswell(andmathematicallydescribable).Thenonedaythehackersrunningthesimulation
decidetomesswithyou,andbegininjectingweirdthingsintoyouruniversethatdonotobeyitsusualrules.Youstartoccasionally
meetingunicornsandCthuloiddemonsandtalkingrainbowsandriftsinspacetime.Whenyoutrytostudythesethings,their
propertiesseemtoshiftinexplicably(malevolently?)underyourapparatus.
Theonlymathematicalexplanationyoucanfindfortheseobservationsistheexhaustivebitstringdescribingthemasexceptionsto
theotherwiseprevailinglawsofyouruniverse(which,Iwouldargue,isnotmuchofamathematicaldescriptionatallinthesense
thatitdoesntrelyonanyofthecomputationalmechanicsofmathematics).
Theremayinfactbeatruemathematicalexplanation,butitrequiresdescribingthelawsandstateoftheparentuniversethats

simulatingyours.Sincethatisbothempiricallyinaccessibleandvastlymorecomplicated,reallythebestexplanationinyourworld
isthatyouruniverseismagical.Maybeyouposittheexistenceofmysteriousdeities.Thosetheorieswouldbeprettyaccurate,
nonmathematical,andasgoodasyoucandofromyourplaceinexistence.
ThissuggestsanalternativetothepositionScottadvocatedincomments#95and#97,thatconsciousnesscannotbedescribedat
all.Instead,youcouldsaythatconsciousnesshastwodescriptions:afuzzy,imprecise,andnotnecessarilymathematicalonethat
doesthebestpossiblejobofsuccinctlyaccountingfortheinternalexperiencesoftheconsciousbeing,andthemuchlargerand
morecomplexdescriptionofhowthesurroundinguniverseiscausingthoseexperiences,whichinsomecases(hallucinations,
intenseemotions,opticalillusions,etc)aresubjectivelymagical.
129. fredSays:
Comment#129March25th,2014at12:20pm

#126
couldweremapthevisualcortextothehapticperceptioncortexsothatBluefeelslikeakissonthecheekandRedfeelslikea
kickinthenuts?Thenwecanallagreeandmoveon
130. DouglasKnightSays:
Comment#130March25th,2014at12:44pm

VladimirSlepnev:
Wecannote,withoutassumingtheBornprobabilities,thatwearecomputersmadeoutofclassicalparts,i.e.parts
thathappentoworkreliablyundertheBornprobabilities,ratherthansomeotherprobabilities.Thatmightbepartof
theexplanation.
Isntthattheveryobservationwearetryingtoexplain?IsntthewholequestionoftheinterpretationofQMwhyrealityjuice
bleedsfromQMtoclassicaltheories?ThefactthatwehaverealityjuiceshowsthattheBornruleiscorrect,buthowdowesee
thatfromjustQM?YoucouldimaginethatwehaveverylittlerealityjuiceandsomeotherinterpretationofQMhasmuchmore,
butthenyourunintoanthropicissues.Andcertainlywedorunintoanthropicissues.YoucansaythattheBornruleisjusthow
wecareaboutthefuture,butIrememberitbeingtrueinthepast.
131. ScottSays:
Comment#131March25th,2014at12:44pm

fred#129:LOL!Inthatcase,presumablywecouldallagreethatbluewaspleasantandredpainfulbutstill,howwouldwe
knowthatthekindofpainIfeelwhenmynutsarekickedisntanalogoustothekindyoufeelwhenyoursareplacedinboiling
water,andviceversa?
132. MeSays:
Comment#132March25th,2014at12:55pm

Asfarasiknow,theIntegratedInformationtheoryispartlymotivatedbyarealworldphenomenon.Thefactthatbycuttingoff
thelinksbetweenthetwobrainhemispheres,itseemstobepossibletosplitupaconsciouspersonintotwodifferentconscious
entities,isseenasevidenceforthetheorybyTononi.ThisphenomenaisobservedinSplitBrainpatients:
http://worldsciencefestival.com/videos/two_minds_one_brain
Idonthaveanopinionaboutthetheorybutitwouldbefunifcalculatingtherateofconsciousnesswouldbelinkedtoan
interestingcomputerscienceproblemofcalculating.
e.g.:
http://www.davidgamez.eu/papers/GamezAleksander11_AccuracyPerformancePhiLiveliness_PrePub.pdf
133. fredSays:
Comment#133March25th,2014at1:00pm

Peter#128
Supposeyouliveinsideasimulation.
Thislineisatthecruxofthematterandmakestheassumptionthatexistenceandcomputationareintimatelylinked.

Butwhatisacomputationexactly?
Wethinkofitastraditionalelectronichardware,withbitsstoredaschargedensities,evolvingalongsomeclock.
Atwhatpointoftheprocessisthesimulatedworldspawningintoexistenceandselfawareness?
Whenthetransistorsarebeingupdated?Whenthesystemclockticksforward?Whenahigherbeinginterpretsthestateofthe
simulation?
ThesimulationcouldjustaswellberunbytraininganarmyofmonkeystoupdatethecellinagiganticConwaysGoLgridby
writingaoneorzerointheirgivencellbyfollowingsomelocalrulestheyvebeenthought.Whenisthesimulatedworldspawning
intoexistenceinthatcase?Wheneveramonkeywritesaoneorazero?Inthemindofthemonkeywhenitfigureshowtoapply
therule?
Whatifallthepossiblestatesofthemachinehadbeenwritteninadvanceonindexedsheetsofpaper,andthecomputationjust
consistsofcomputingthenextindexandpickingthenextsheet(alookup).
Doesanythingpracticalactuallyneedtohappenforthesimulatedworldtoevenspawnintoexistence?
Thisargumentseemstoleadtotheideathatthesimulatedworldisamathematicalstructurethatjustexists.
134. ScottSays:
Comment#134March25th,2014at1:02pm

VladimirSlepnev#118andDouglasKnight#130:Heressomethingthatmightbehelpful.WithoutassumingtheBorn
probabilities,Ibelievewecansaythefollowing:
If,withintheuniversalwavefunction,therearecomputersmadeoutofdecoheringparts,andifthosecomputersare
programmedtobehaveasiftheBornruleistrue,thenthosecomputerswillmakeverygoodpredictionsassumingthat
weagainusetheBornruletojudgethesuccessofthepredictions!(Inotherwords,tojudgeinwhatfractionof
universesthepredictionssucceeded,andinwhatfractiontheyfailed.)Thus,assumingtheBornrulegivesusaniceself
consistentstoryaboutthesecomputers.Ontopofthat,theBornrulehasimmensemathematicaladvantagesoveranyother
ruleonecanwritedown,suchasupholdingnosuperluminalsignalling.
Insummary,ifwestartfromunitaryevolutionplustheassumptionofdecoheringobservers,thenwereverystronglyinvited,for
reasonsofmathematicalelegance,totacktheBornruleontoourformalism.Ontheotherhand,Iveneverseenanargumentthat
wecanprovetherationalityofusingtheBornrulefromthoseassumptions,thatdidntsneakinsomeadditionalassumption(or
thatwasntultimatelycircular).
135. SidKSays:
Comment#135March25th,2014at1:08pm

Scott#122:
Ifeelthatevenwiththesophisticated,neoCopenhageninterpretation,Maxs(#121)pointstands.TheCopenhagenistwhosays
thatquantummechanicsissimplyasetofrulesformakingsenseofourexperiencesandthatthereisnoontologybeingimposed,
ismakinganimplicitclaimthatthisisthebestwecando.Ifindeedthisistrue,thenitmeansthatwecantwritedowna
mathematicalstructureandsaythatitisactuallyisomorphictotheuniverse.Wecanatbestsaythatthemathematicalstructurewe
writedownisisomorphictoourexperiencesoftheuniversewhichisamuchweakerclaim.ThiswillfalsifytheMUH.
AnotherwayputthisistosaythattheCopenhagenistpredictsthatwewillalwaysneedtohavemeasurement(orsomehuman
levelconcept)asaprimitiveinquantummechanics.ThemanyworldersseemtobesayingthattheycanprovethattheBornrule
iswhatanidealreasonerinaquantumuniverseshouldusebutthattheBornruleitselfisntafundamentalfeatureoftheuniverse.
Thusthewavefunctioniswhattheuniverseisandthereforeisisomorphictoamathematicalstructure,consistentwithMUH.
(PS:Iwillbesadtoseethisdiscussiongooffline.Updateusifyoureachsomeconclusions!Thanks.)
136. ScottSays:
Comment#136March25th,2014at1:24pm

SidK#135:OK,goodpoints!But
(1)IdontthinktheneoCopenhagenistswouldclaimtoknowthatitsimpossibletowritedownasimplemathematicalstructure
thatsisomorphictotheuniverse.Theywouldjustsaythattheycantdoit,andthatatanyrate,itisntthetaskofscience:the
taskofscienceistofindtheoriesthatexplainourobservations.
(2)Probablymorerelevantforthisdiscussionisthat,asIsaidin#122,IdontseehowthedisputebetweenMWIersand
sophisticatedneoCopenhagenistscaneverberesolvedempirically.Itseemstomethatthebestyoucouldeverdowouldbeto
transferyourbrainontoaquantumcomputer,doaninterferenceexperimentonyourself,andseewhatitfeltlike!(Unfortunately,

standardQMpredictsthatyouwouldntrememberwhatitfeltlikeafterward,norwouldyoubeabletotellanyoneelse.)For
thisreason,evenassumingyourerightthatCopenhagenismisincompatiblewiththeMUH,Idontseehowthatcouldleadtoan
experimentaltestofMUH.
137. fredSays:
Comment#137March25th,2014at1:35pm

Scott#131
haha,youmusthavehadaverytraumaticchildhood!
Butthebraindoesntarbitrarilyassignfeelingstovariousinputs.
Itsthecharacteristicsofthedatapattern(dynamicevolution,dimensionality,range)thatcreatesthefeel,thetwoarent
dissociated.
Experimentshavebeendoneaboutsensorysubstitutiononpeoplewhovebecomeblindwherevisualdataisbeingappliedto
theirtonguethroughamatrixofneedles,
andafterawhiletheirbrainadaptstothenewdataandinterpretsthestimuliasanactualvisualsensation.Andthesamethinghas
actuallybeenachievedusingsounds(scanningimagesandmappingthemaspitch/volume).
Thisplasticityofthebrainseemstosuggeststhatthesamesignalisbeingfeltinaverysimilarway(ofcourseemotionsoftenenter
thepictureandasymbolneverexistsinisolation).
138. DouglasKnightSays:
Comment#138March25th,2014at1:48pm

ImmoreconcernedabouttheassumptionthatweshouldbetryingtomakesenseofdecoheringobserversthanderivingtheBorn
rulefromthatassumption.Maybethefactthatdecoherencehappensisenough,butImnotsure.
Tangentially,thepointaboutsuperluminalsignallingseemscirculartome.Wemainlycareaboutsuperluminalsignallingbecause
wecareaboutspecialrelativity,butthetopicathandishowtogetspecialrelativityoutofQM.(Wemightcareabout
superluminalsignallingforotherreasons,suchasmakingtheHilbertspacefinitedimensional,butImnotsurehowcloselyrelated
thosetwopointsreallyare.)
139. jonasSays:
Comment#139March25th,2014at2:17pm

Onthetopicofredandblue,Ihaveaquestion.
Clearlyevenifyoucantexplaintoanotherpersonhowyouexperiencered,youcanatleastexplainwhenyouexperiencered,
becauseyoucanpointtoredcarsorbloodorotherredobjects.
NowIusuallysaythatIrarelyhaveheadaches,butsometimesIwonderifIhaveheadachesasoftenasotherpeopleonlyIdont
reallyknowwhatotherpeoplemeanbythewordheadachesoIdontrealizethat.Isithardertoexplainwhataheadacheis
thantoexplainwhatredis?
Youcouldtrytotellwhataheadacheisbypointingtoaparticulardrinkandtellingthatheadacheiswhatyoufeelduringgetting
hungoverdrinkingit.Butyoucouldsaythatevenwithadrinkingexperimentwithalldetailscontrolled,onepersonmightgeta
headachewhenanotheronedoesnt,becausetheirtoleranceofalcoholisdifferent.Myquestionis,isthereadifferencebetween
sayingthatonlyoneofthosepeoplehaveaheadacheandsayingthatbothofthemhaveaheadacheonlytheyexperienceit
differently?
BobP#111:thatsaninterestingargumentaboutthenocloning.
140. fredSays:
Comment#140March25th,2014at2:55pm

jonas#139
Imexperiencingophthalmicmigrainesonceawhile,andinterestinglymostpplwhosharethiscanagreeonwhattheaurafeels
like,asortofbuzzing/butterflyeffectinthevisualfield,andpplhavedrawnit
http://tinyurl.com/l56brou
http://tinyurl.com/k5s4pvb
http://tinyurl.com/l3hwclz
sotheresacasewherewecanallprettymuchagreethatwereexperiencingthesamething,evenifitsanentirelyinternal
object(butsoiseveryconceptintheend).

141. PascalSays:
Comment#141March25th,2014at3:09pm

Scott#108:onecanarguethatthechoiceofapreferredbasismustdependontheinitialconditionoftheuniverse.
Thereasonisthatifyoustartfromarandominitialconditionandapplyaunitarytransformation(themultiversesevolutionfrom
thebigbanguntilnow)youobtainagainarandomstateinwhichnoparticularbasisshouldplayaspecialrole.
142. UrsSchreiberSays:
Comment#142March25th,2014at6:01pm

Afamousexamplethatisnotamathematicalstructureinthesenseofmodeltheoryaretopologicalspaces.Hencealso
manifoldsarenotamathematicalstructureinthissense.(Justgoogleforthesekeywords..,)
143. JasonGrossSays:
Comment#143March25th,2014at8:26pm

Scott#36:
Imtryingtomakesenseofwhatyoumeanbyisomorphicinthefollowing,andwritingdownmythoughtsasIgo.
Infirstorderlogic,Idsaysomethinglike
!x:Rock(x)Brown(x)StubbedMyToe(Me,x)
Notethat,inthefirstordertheory,Icouldalsoconstructapositiveintegerythatencodedalltheinformationabout
whichpredicatesheldanddidntholdfortheuniquexabove(assumingtherewereonlyfinitelymanypredicates).
Andwecouldthensaythatywasisomorphictox,withtheisomorphismgivenbytheencodingprocedure.But
thatstillwouldntcauseStubbedMyToe(Me,y)tohold.I.e.,Istillwouldnthavestubbedmytoeagainstthepositive
integer.
Isomorphismneedsanotionofpermissibleobjects,andpermissiblemapsbetweenobjectsanisomorphismisapairof
composablemapswhichcomposeinbothdirectionstotheidentity(inthiscase,youwanttosaythattheencodingfunctionand
thedecodingfunctionarethemaps).Butitsnotatallcleartomewhatitshouldmeanfortwopositiveintegerstobeisomorphic,
letalonewhatitshouldmeanforapositiveintegertobeisomorphictoaparticularrock.And,infact,theisomorphismgivenby
yourencodingprocedureisanisomorphismbetweenrocksingeneral(orphysicalobjectsingeneral,orwhatever),andpositive
integers,notanisomorphismbetweenaparticularrockandaparticularpositiveinteger,whateverthatwouldmean.
IfIveunderstoodcorrectly,youmeanttosaysomethinglikeobjectsareisomorphictopositiveintegersviasomeencoding
function,and,underthisisomorphism,xisidentifiedwithy.YoupointoutthatStubbedMyToe(Me,y)doesntholdId
strengthenittosaythatitsnonsensical.(Whatwoulditmeantohavestubbedonestoeonanumber?)Wecan,however,
constructpredicatesRock,Brown,andStubbedMyToe,forwhichitisbothsensibleandtruetosayRock(y)Brown(y)
StubbedMyToe(Me,y)thesealternatepredicatesfirstapplythedecodingfunctiontoy,andtheninvoketheoriginalpredicate.
Theprinciplethatisomorphismisallthatmattersisexpressednicelybysomethingcalledtheunivalenceaxiom,whichplaysa
keyroleinafairlynewbranchofmathematics(homotopytypetheory).Theideaisthatallnicemathematicsisisomorphism
invariant,inthesensethatthereisasystematictransformationgeneralizingtheprimingoperationabove,whichtransportsacross
theisomorphism.
Tome,MUHseemstobeageneralizationofthetheassertionthatwecanimportthisbitofmath,theideaofisomorphism
invariance,intotherealworld,andthatwhateverphysicalexistenceis,itshouldbeisomorphisminvariant:itsuggeststhatonce
wefindourselvesinaperspectivewhereanystructureisomorphictorealitycan(andshould)beidentifiedwithit,thatis,where
physicalexistenceisgrantedtothisrestrictedclassofstructures(thoseisomorphicwithphysicalreality),thanitseemsnaturalto
extendthistoawiderclassofmathematicalstructures.ButIhaventreadOurMathematicalUniverse(yet),soperhaps
someonecantellmeifImbadlymisinterpretingMUH.
144. JasonGrossSays:
Comment#144March25th,2014at8:27pm

Scott#100:
Theneuroimagerscouldsaythat,butIdontunderstandwhyitwouldconvinceanyonewhowasntconvinced
already.Obviouslyyourandyourfriendsneuralfiringpatternswilldifferinvariouswayssoevenassumingthat

consciousnesssupervenesonthephysical(asthephilosophersputit),howcouldyoueverfalsifythehypothesis
thatwhateverphysicaldifferencestherewerecausedyourfirstpersoncolorexperiencestoberadicallydifferent?
Thereareanumberofthingswhichpeopleliketocorrelatewithsubjectivecolorexperience,and,whateveritmightreallymean
metaphysicallytosaythispersonsredisthatpersonsblue,hereisascenariowhereImightusethatdescriptiontoconvey
usefulinformation:
Supposeweprofilealargeportionofthepopulation,anddiscoverthatthetimeittakestorecognizeacolorisnormally
distributed.Abouthalfofthepopulationhasapeakatred,andtheotherhalfhasapeakatblue.Supposewealsofindthatthe
regionsofthebrainwhichlightupwhenrecognizingcolorareessentiallythesameineveryone,andthecorrelationbetweenbrain
regionandcolorisalsobimodalinthepopulation,inthesamewayrecognitionspeedisthatis,perhapswelldiscoverthatcolor
recognitionspeedisalmostprefectlyinferablefromwhichregionofthebrainlightsupwiththatcolor,independentofperson.
Perhapswevealsofoundthatemotionalassociationstocolorsaresocietyindependent,andweverun(ethicallyquestionable)
studieswhereweraisepeopleinmanufacturedenvironmentswherethereisnothingintheculture/interactionswhichtiesemotions
tocolors,andwevefoundthatinthissituation,whichemotionspeopletendtoassociatewithcolorsisverystronglycorrelated
withhowlongittakestorecognizethatcolor,andnegligiblycorrelatedwiththecoloritselfbeyondhowlongittakestorecognize.
Ifallofthesethingsturnedouttobetrue,thenitwouldprobablyconvincemethattheressomethingtobesaidforsayingthe
internalexperienceofredandblueareswappedbetweenthesehalvesofthepopulation.
145. JasonGrossSays:
Comment#145March25th,2014at8:28pm

Scott#136:
Itseemstomethatthebestyoucouldeverdowouldbetotransferyourbrainontoaquantumcomputer,doan
interferenceexperimentonyourself,andseewhatitfeltlike!(Unfortunately,standardQMpredictsthatyou
wouldntrememberwhatitfeltlikeafterward,norwouldyoubeabletotellanyoneelse.)
IfIbelievedincollapse,thenwouldntIhavetopredictthattheinterferenceexperimentwouldfail?Thatis,IdpredictthatI
wouldntlosemymemory?Ordoescollapsepermitinterferenceexperimentstosucceedonbeingswhichcausewavefunction
collapse?PleasecorrectmeifImwrong.
146. JasonGrossSays:
Comment#146March25th,2014at8:29pm

HereisasocialquestionthatmightdependonthevalidityofMUH:whatisthemoralstatusofduplicating,deduplicating,or
shuttingoffcomputersimulationsofconsciousbeings,andhowdoesitcomparetothemoralstatusofinstantaneouslywipingallof
humanityoutofexistence?
147. GasarchSays:
Comment#147March25th,2014at10:48pm

itsoundslikeMaxstheoryfailsthePoppertest:theredonotseemtobeanyexperimentstofalsifyit.Thisalsocomesoutwith
your`whateverhappenshecanclaimisfollowsfromhistheoryDoesithavegreatexplanatorypower?Ithinkthisismorewhat
youaresayingitdoesnot.
Soitseemstomethatitsnotscience.
Gladthebookisstillinteresting.
(Myexperimentthiscommenthasnounusualcapitolletters,letsseeifitstillgetsspamfiltered.)
148. DaniPhyeSays:
Comment#148March25th,2014at10:51pm

Iprefertheopposite:Theonlyuniversesthatexistaretheonesthatdontcontainintelligentlife.
AlsoIfeellikethebestwaytoexplainexistenceistopretendwellliveforever,thentrytofigureouthowtomakethat
meaningful.
149. DaniPhyeSays:
Comment#149March25th,2014at10:53pm

(Alsobestcharacterizedbythisquestion:Ifyoulivedforever,whatwouldyoudo?)
150. NoonSays:
Comment#150March26th,2014at4:51am

@Max#121:
IfImonlyrequiredtowritedownsetsandrelationshipsbetweenthem,canInotwritedownstrings,commentonwhichsetsthey
fallinto(maybeitsonlyoneset)andthentriviallydescribetheentireuniverseinthisway?IstheMUHnotdevoidofcontent
(i.e.itsaysnothingmorethanthisisthelistofthingsthathappen.)ifthisishowIchoosetoapplyit?(Notably,Imnot
predictingthings.)
151. PhilipThriftSays:
Comment#151March26th,2014at5:49am

CopenhagenstylerandomnessmaybeexcludedfrommathematicalstructuresbutIdontthinkitisexcludedfromthe
semanticsofquantumprogramminglanguages.
152. ScottSays:
Comment#152March26th,2014at6:23am

Jason#144:Seemycomment#126formyargumentthatsuchobservationsstillwouldntgetdirectlyatthequalia,butonlyat
therelationshipsbetweendifferentmeasurablecolorcorrelatesandeachother.
153. JamesCrossSays:
Comment#153March26th,2014at6:48am

Scott78
IfwetakeKingLearandtranslateitintoFrench,German,andSpanish,thebitsrepresentingtheplaywouldbedifferentineach
language.Toapersonfluentinthoselanguages,theplaywouldbethesame.
TherecouldbeaninfinitenumberoftranslationsofLearbutanytwoormorewouldberecognizableasthesametoanyonefluent
inthelanguages.
DoesntthatmeanthereissomeessenceofLearnotdescribablefinitely?
154. ScottSays:
Comment#154March26th,2014at7:16am

James#153:Actually,IdontthinkKingLearisthesamewhentranslatedintootherlanguages!AsRobertFrostsaid,poetryis
thatwhichislostintranslation.Havingsaidthat,yes,therewillcertainlymanydifferentmathematicalobjectsthatareacceptable
encodingsofthetextofKingLear(somewillusebitstringsandothersintegers,someASCIIandothersUTF16,somewillhave
afewtypos,etc.)nothingIsaidcontradictsthat.Andyes,theremightbeaspectsofthesubjective,firstpersonexperience
ofreadingorwatchingKingLearthatarenotconveyedbyjustgivingsomeonethetext.Ontheotherhand,presumably
anotherpersoncangeneratetheappropriatequaliaintheirownmind,afteryoudogivethemthetextandtheyreadit!Andevenif
youwantedtodescribeallthemeasurableaspectsofthatpersonsreactiontoKingLear,presumablyyoucoulddoso,in
principle,bygivingacompletedescriptionofthequantumstateofthepersonsbrainaftertheydreadit(tosomesuitable
precision).
155. UrsSchreiberSays:
Comment#155March26th,2014at7:45am

@Noon#150,
indeed,thewordmathematicalstructureinmodeltheory,asreferredtoin#121,
(seehttp://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/structure+in+model+theory)
is,asdiscussedattheabovelink,essentiallyatermformodelinsetsofafirstorderformaltheory,wheretheoryrefersto
theoriesastheyareformalizedinmathematics,givenbyaformallanguageinsomeambientlogictogetherwithalistofformal
axioms.

Hencesayingthattheworldisdescribedby(orjustis,ifoneinsists)amathematicalstructure,justmeans:itisdescribedby
someformallanguagewithsomeaxioms.(Infactthemathematicalstructuresinthesenseofmodeltheoryreferredtoin#121
areonlyveryrestrictivesuch,whichforinstancedonotevenincludebasicconceptssuchastopologicalspacesandmanifolds.It
willbehardtoencodesomethingclosetoquantumfieldtheoryinthesemodeltheoreticterms.)
Sotheclaimisthattheworldisdescribeablebysomemathematicaltheory.(And,ifyourellayinsist,converselythateverytheory
describessomeworld.)ThiskindofstatementiscommonlyattributedtoGalileo.
156. ScottSays:
Comment#156March26th,2014at7:45am

JasonGross#143:
Tome,MUHseemstobeageneralizationofthetheassertionthatwecanimportthisbitofmath,theideaofisomorphism
invariance,intotherealworld
Yes,Ithinkthatsbasicallyright!Butacrucialquestion,whichIfeelMaxdoesntsufficientlygrapplewith,iswhatwemeanby
isomorphism.Afterall,underpowerfulenoughisomorphisms,everythingisisomorphictoeverythingelse!Now,Maxwouldreply
butIgiveaspecificdefinitionofisomorphism!Imeantheresaonetoonecorrespondencebetweentheelementsandrelations,
etc.Butthentheproblemisthatthedefinitiononlymakessenseinaformalcontextwheretheobjectshestalkingaboutare
defined!Inthecaseofthephysicalworld,whatshouldwetaketobethebasicelements,andwhatshouldwetaketobe
relationsbetweenthem?Evensupposingwehadafinaltheoryofphysics,theremightbemanydifferentwaysofcarvingthings
up
157. UrsSchreiberSays:
Comment#157March26th,2014at11:02am

@Scott#156,
sothatsthewholepointthatthereisaformaldefinitionofmathematicalstructure(inmodeltheory)withaformaldefinitionof
isomorphism,andindeedthisisnotanewclaimorevenaninsighteverytypeofmathematicalstructureinthissenseis(the
classofmodelsover)atheory,inthesenseofformallogic.
Anyformalizedtheoryofphysicsis(orwillbe)atheoryinthissense.Thatsjustthebasicsofmathematicallogic.
Whethereverytheoryinthesenseofmathematicallogicshouldbecalledatheoryofphysics,asistheclaimmadehere,isa
differentquestion.
Moreinterestingwouldseemtobecharacterizationofthosetheoriesinformallogicwhichmightqualifyastheoriesofphysics.
OnepersonwhohasworkedonthiskindofquestionthroughouthislifeisWilliamLawvere,seehere.
LawveretalksforinstanceaboutToposesoflawsofmotionforcertaininfinitarytheoriesthatadmitaformulationofequationsof
motionofthekindencounteredincontinuummechanics.Thiscanberefinedabittoalsocapturelocalquantumfieldtheory
(Highertoposesoflawsofmotion).
Inanycase,thesearetypesofformaltheories,henceofmathematicalstructures,inwhichalargechunkofmodernphysicsmay
beformalized.(Theyarenothoweverjustfirstordertheoriesasinclassicalmodeltheoryasin#121above.)Theconceptof
isomorphismhereisclearanduncontroversial.Thequestioniswhichpieceofphysicsisbeingformalized.
158. fredSays:
Comment#158March26th,2014at11:17am

Scott#156
Ifthatmathematicalstructureofrealitycanbewrittenwouldntithavetobeabletoincludeitselfinthedescription?(similartoa
quineprogram)
159. E.S.Says:
Comment#159March26th,2014at11:17am

Ipredictthatinsimulatedmultiverses,BerkleyPhD.studentsdatingAustraliansappearinfinitelyoften.Wouldntapartial
confirmationofsuchapredictionbeimpressive?

160. ScottSays:
Comment#160March26th,2014at11:53am

E.S.#159:LOL!
fred#158:Yes,butIdontseeanyparticularproblemorparadoxthere.Forexample,thesetofallbinarystrings({0,1}* )
certainlycontainsmanycodeddescriptionswithinitofthesetofallbinarystrings.
161. AdamSays:
Comment#161March26th,2014at12:13pm

Scott,#160
Re:quinewhatofmyrelatedquestionofselfreferentialproblemsfortheMUH?
Whydoweneedtopositamultiverse?
Morespecifically,whydoweneedtopositthatthereisanotheruniversesynonymouswithConwaysGameofLifeif
mathematiciansinthisuniverseholdintheirmindsamodelofConwaysGameofLife?
Inotherwords,ifthisuniversecontainsphysicalmanifestationsofmathematicalstructuresintheformoftheneuronsfiringin
mathematiciansbrains,thenwhydoweneedtopositaseparateuniverseforthesemathematicalstructures?
Idontseetheneedforthemultiverse.Whynotjusthypothesizethat*this*universecontainsaphysicalrepresentationofevery
knownmathematicalstructure?
ThisiswhatImeanwiththeMUHhavingaselfreferentialproblemandsofarnoonehascommented.Doesanyoneseewhat
Imgettingat?
162. ScottSays:
Comment#162March26th,2014at12:38pm

Adam#161:Well,foronething,thesetofallmathematicalstructuresthathumanmindshaveorwillcomeupwithisan
arbitraryandhistoricallycontingentset.Andtherearecountlessstructuresthathumanscouldcomeupwithbutwont,merelyfor
lackoftimeorinterest.
Forexample,considerthepositiveinteger12387095382957180389452:Illwagerthatthisintegerhasneverbeenthoughtabout
byhumansbeforerightnowbutnotbecausetherewasanyobstructiontothinkingaboutit,justbecausetherewasntareason
to.So,diditonlybecomepartofthemathematicalmultiversewhenmyfingershappenedtoproduceit?Wasthatwhich
breathesfireintothemathanxiouslywatchingmykeyboard,withholdingitsuniversecreatingfireuntilitsawwhichintegerI
typed?
Andanyway,whydidithavetobeahuman?IfIprogrammedmycomputertospitoutapseudorandomlistofintegers,wouldnt
thoseintegersalsohavethefireofexistencebreathedintothembyyourlights,becausetheywerephysicallystoredinthe
computersmemory?
Butwait:whywouldIevenneedtoruntheprogram?Whywouldntwritingtheprogrambeenoughsincethecodealready
sufficesasamathematicaldescriptionoftheintegers?
Butwait:whywouldIevenneedtowritetheprogram?Whynotjustlookatmybrain,andconsiderthesetofallpossible
programsthatmybrainhadsomenonzeroquantummechanicalprobabilityofgenerating?(Andkeepinmindthat,inQM,Ihave
somenonzeroprobabilityofcontinuingtoexistforaslongasyouwish,andgeneratinganypossiblefinitestringof1sand0s)
Anyway,asIsaidinmypost,thisistheslipperyslopethatMaxsimplyridesallthewaytothebottom.
163. AdamSays:
Comment#163March26th,2014at1:03pm

Scott#162,
Iwouldanswerthatyoushouldridethatslipperyslopeallthewaytothebottom.Sowhereisthebottom?Ithinkitisthatthis
Tegmarkmultiversemustbepopulatedwithotheruniversescomposedofmathematicalstructureswhichwecantevenfathomor

cannotbeproducedinafinitetimebysomebrain/computer/program/writingmachineinthisuniverse.Andifthatisso,thenthis
multiverseisabsolutelyemptyofanycontentthatmattersinanywaytousoranythinginthisuniverse.
Tegmarkmightaswellhypothesizeamultiversepopulatedbyeverythingnotinthisuniverse.Thatisamucheasierformulation
andIwouldsayequallyemptyofcontentthatanyreasonablemindinthisuniverseshouldcareabout.
164. fredSays:
Comment#164March26th,2014at1:22pm

Scott#161
ItstheexactsameargumentIvebeenwonderingaboutmindsorsimulatedworlds(#133).
Ifamindisnothingbutacomputation,whatisitabouttheactivityoftheneuronsinmybrainthatmakesitreal..thenthe
slipperyslopecanberiddenallthewaydown,goingfromatraditionalcomputertomerelywritingsymbols,orjustpicking
symbols.Andatthatpointthenphysicalmatteritselfisnolongernecessary(allhardwareisitselfsoftwareinnature).
Ifnot,thenthemindhastobetiedtophysicalmatterinawaythatstotallydifferentfromhardwarerunningsoftware.
165. JSays:
Comment#165March26th,2014at1:58pm

whatdoyoumeanbyhowtosaywhetheryouremorelikelytobelivinginthefirst1010^120digitsof,orthefirst1010^120
digitsofe.
Piandearefixednumbers.Whatisprobablisticaboutfindiongpatternsinfixednumbers?Areyouimplyingthepatternoccurring
morethanonceinthe1010^120digitsofpiversuse?
166. ScottSays:
Comment#166March26th,2014at2:05pm

J#165:Inordertodosuchacalculation,asafirststepyouwouldneedtoknowwhatkindsofpatternsinthedigitsofore
countasinstantiatingyou.I.e.,whichencodingschemesareweallowedtouseinconvertingasequenceofdigitstoyour
experiencedlifehistory?Andwhatifwecandecodeyourhistoryfromthedigits,butonlybyapplyingaratherconvoluted
transformation(e.g.,takeallthedigitsatprimenumberedpositions,concatenatethemintoasinglepositiveinteger,thensquareit,
thenreexpresstheresultinbase7,then)?Doesthatcount?Ordoesitcount,butwithlessweight,theweightbywhichit
countsfallingoffrapidlywiththecomplexityofthedecodingprocedure?
167. JaySays:
Comment#167March26th,2014at4:40pm

>keepinmindthat,inQM,Ihavesomenonzeroprobabilityofcontinuingtoexistforaslongasyouwish
Youbelieveinquantumsuicide?Ithoughtyouwroteagainstit.
Wouldyouthencountfindingyourself>>2^7asaconfirmationofMWI?
168. fredSays:
Comment#168March26th,2014at5:00pm

Scott#167
asafirststepyouwouldneedtoknowwhatkindsofpatternsinthedigitsoforecountasinstantiatingyou.
Isthataskingwhetheruniquemathematicalstructurescanallhaveanessencethatisindependentofanysymbolicschemeusedto
writethem?
Likethis
z>z^2+c
andthis
http://tinyurl.com/co6a9r
representthesamething.
Istillwonderwhethergraphisomorphismisntakeytool.
169. fredSays:

Comment#169March26th,2014at5:03pm

Oneofmyprofessorsusedtosayeverythingisagraph
170. ScottSays:
Comment#170March26th,2014at5:12pm

fred#168:Well,itsobviousthatthesamemathematicalstructurecanoftenberepresentedinmanydifferentways,andthatthere
mightbenouniquecanonicalchoice.(Weevenhavechoicesabouthowweregoingtoencodepositiveintegersasstringsof
bits)
171. ScottSays:
Comment#171March26th,2014at5:15pm

Jay#167:No,Iwasnttalkingaboutquantumsuicide.IsaidthatforeveryfiniteT,Ihavesomenonzeroprobabilityoflivingfor
TyearsnotthatIhaveprobability1oflivingforever!!!TheformerisjuststandardQM,whilethelatterrequiresnotonlyMWI,
butabizarrewayofcalculatingprobabilitiesoverworlds(whereyougettopostselectonremainingalive,nomatterwhatyoudo).
172. fredSays:
Comment#172March26th,2014at5:21pm

Scott#171,
Right,butthequestioniswhethertheresinprincipleacommonwaytoreencodeeverypossiblerepresentationofmanydifferent
structures(e.g.asgraphs?)suchthatthereisalsoacommontool(e.g.graphisomorphism?)tothenidentifytheonesthat
representthesamething.
Eventheconceptofsamemathematicalstructureseemsquestionable,butwithoutitIdontthinktherecantbeanyMUH.
173. fredSays:
Comment#173March26th,2014at6:49pm

WeknowofatleastonemathematicalobjectthatisdefinitelyrealinbothMUHandnonMUHtheories:thehumanmind(your
ownconsciousness).
Andthereisonemathematicalrepresentationthatisflexibleandsimpleenoughtobothrealizethemindandencodeall
mathematicalobjectsknowntomen:thebrain.Itsbothastaticencodingstructureandadynamicone(isomorphismsearch
engine).Andbynecessityandevolutionitsisomorphictoourenvironment(theknownuniverse)sinceitsprimarygoalisto
simulateitandmakepredictionstoincreasechancesofsurvival.
Sothebrainisprobablyagoodstartingcandidateforauniversalmathrepresentation.
Onewouldthinkthatanysortofgraph/subgraphisomorphismalgowouldbereallyhandyforappliedcognitivescience(when
tryingtocomparebrainactivity).
174. JaySays:
Comment#174March26th,2014at7:11pm

Scott#171:Thatmakessenseifweinterpretprobabilitiesasameasureofknowledge,butImnotsuretounderstandyourpoint
underMWIinterpretation.
WouldyousaytherearetwokindsofMWI?Thereasonableonewouldassumethat,yes,alotofworldmustexists,butnonein
whichaGladstoneGandercanliveforeverbypureluck.Thedesirableonewouldassumethateverymeasurementbasisisvalid
(Goodnews!Everyonewillingtoterminatesomebranchscanhavetheuniversehedesserves!).
Inotherwords,whatdoyouthinkbizarreinpostselectingthemeasurementbasis,assumingMWI?
175. ScottSays:
Comment#175March26th,2014at7:34pm

Jay#174:Heresamoreconcretewaytophraseyourquestion.IfyoubelieveMWI,thenshouldyoujumpoffabridge,
expectingtomiraculouslysurvivesinceyoureactuallyimmortal?Empirically,Iobservethatbasicallynoonewhosays
theybelieveMWIactuallylivestheirlifethatway.Forthatreason,IassumethattheviewcalledMWIdoesnotentailbeliefin
thequantumsuicideexperiment.Andrationally,Idontseewhyitshould:ifyoulikeliving,thenwhyshouldntyoubetryingto
maximizethetotalprobabilitymassoftheuniversestoyourcausalfutureinwhichyouremainalive?
ImtemptedtosaythatanyMWIproponentwhodisagreeswithmeaboutthisiswelcometotrytheexperiment,butactually,I

dontwantthatonmyconscience
Inanycase,allofthisiscompletelyunrelatedtothepointIwasmakingbefore:thatregardlessofwhichinterpretationofQM
youbelieveordontbelieve,quantumtunnelinggivesyousomenonzero(butridiculouslytiny)probabilityforjustaboutanything
youcanimagine,includingabluewhalespontaneouslymaterializingoutoftheairaboveyourhead,andalsoincludingyoustaying
alivefor10,000years.
176. MikeSays:
Comment#176March26th,2014at7:58pm

...regardlessofwhichinterpretationofQMyoubelieveordontbelieve,quantumtunnelinggivesyousomenonzero(but
ridiculouslytiny)probabilityforjustaboutanythingyoucanimagine,includingabluewhalespontaneouslymaterializingoutofthe
airaboveyourhead,andalsoincludingyoustayingalivefor10,000years.
Morethanonepersonhasbeencalledcrazybecauseofthis.
177. fredSays:
Comment#177March26th,2014at9:53pm

Scott#176
Ivebeenwonderingifweweretodiscoverthatnotonlyintelligentlifebutthatlifeitselfonlyexistsonearth,wouldntthatmake
MWImorelikely,sincethenthechanceofourownexistencewouldberidiculouslylowinanonMWIworld?(butourexistence
evenifveryimprobablewouldalwaysberealizedinabranchofMW)
178. DarrellBurganSays:
Comment#178March26th,2014at10:22pm

Fred#133Wethinkofitastraditionalelectronichardware,withbitsstoredaschargedensities,evolvingalongsomeclock.
Isthisreallytheaccepteddefinitionofcomputation?Becausefrommyperspectivecomputationhasnothingatalltodowiththe
underlyingimplementation,whichIconsidertobeafairlyirrelevantdetail.Computation,atitsheart,isnothingmorethanrigorous
logic.
Further,itassumesallcomputationisimperative,withapredefinedthreadofexecution.Thisfliesverymuchinthefaceofboth
declarativeprogramminginitsmanyforms,aswellasdistributedcomputing,whichisincreasinglylookingmoreandmorelike
highdensitymatrixmathematics.
MaybeImbiasedbecauseImasoftwarehead,butitseemstomethatconflatingcomputingwiththecomputeritrunsonislike
conflatingmathwiththepaperitiswrittenon.
179. JaySays:
Comment#179March26th,2014at10:45pm

Scott#175:Oktogivethisquestionabreak,butnothatsnotthesamequestion.Thequestionwas,ifyouassumeMWI,whatis
thelogic*againstquantumsuicide?Myownprovisionalanswerwastheremaywellbenoconsistentmeasurementbasisinwhich
quantumsuicidecanworks,e.g.itsnotobviousanyconceivableeventhasnonzeroprobability.
So,ifwesticktoquantumtunneling,dontyouthinkmeasurementbasiscanrestrictthepossibilities,e.g.ifwecouldlook
carefullyenough,wecouldexcludebluewhalespontaneouslymaterializingbecausethatwouldimplicateviolatingnocloningfor
reasonsnontrivialtocomputebutsimpletohandwaveas:decoherencepreventshighlevelmagic.
*asyoumentionned,thereareobviouspracticalreasonsfornottryingevenifyoustronglybelieveyoudsurvive,includingyou
dontwantyourdecisionstohurtmostversionsofyourbelovedrelatives.
180. SidKSays:
Comment#180March27th,2014at3:41am

Warning!Long,rambling,nonrigorouscommentbynonexpert.
Scott#29:
Youask:Foronething,thissolutionseemsmerelytopushtheriddlesomewhereelse:onenowwantstoknow,whyis

thefireofexistencenotonlybreathed,butbreathedsopromiscuously,ontoeverysetofequationsthatanyonecould
writedown?
Youhavepushedtheargumentoneleveldeeperandaskedwhyallthesemathematicalstructuresexist.Thuswegetintothe
rabbitholeofwhatwemeanbyexistence.Letusconsiderthevariousbrandsofexistence:
(1)Doweexist?IthinkweallagreethatYes,wedoexistotherwise,whoisdoingtheagreeing?
(2)DoestheSolarSystemexist?Weagree,Yes.Itseemsclearfromthemotionoftheplanetsandfromspaceprobes.
(3)DoestheAndromedaGalaxyexist?Also,Ithinkweagree,Yes.Wecanonlybesurethatitexisted2millionyearsago
thoughweknowofnolikelyprocessthatmightvecausedittoceaseexisting.Also,wecaninprinciple,travelthereandcheck.
(3)DidtheUniverseexist10billionyearsago?Also,IthinkweagreeYes,eventhough,thereisnoinprincipleexperimentwe
candotogobackintimeandseeifitdidexist.Wecanonlylookatthepresentandposittheexistenceofthefarpastto
parsimoniouslyexplainwhatwesee.
(4)DoesSandexist?Weagree,Yeseventhoughsandissimplymadeoffundamentalparticlesandyoumaysaythatonly
fundamentalparticlesexist.Butitwouldbeinsanitytospecifythewavefunctionofthequantumfieldseverytimeyouwanttosay:
Icantgetthissandoutofmyears!
(5)DoesLoveexist?Ithinkweallagree,Yesitisamostsingularexperience.Thisistrueeventhough,atbest,wecanpointto
patternsofhumanbehaviorandsaythatitiscausedbyLove.Orwecould,ifyoulike,pointtoasetofelectricalsignalsinthe
brainandshowitiscorrelatedwithcertainbehaviorsassociatedtoLove.
(6)DoUnicornsexist?Ithinkweallagree,No.PostulatingUnicornsaddsnoexplanatorypowerforourexperiences.Itmay
helpinexplainingwhytherearepeoplewhobelieveunicornsthough,weallagreethattherearebetterexplanationsforbeliefin
unicornsthanunicorns.

Fromtheseexampleswecandiscernthesenseinwhichthewordexistenceisused:basicallyweuseittomeanthatour
experiencesbecomemuchmoreeasiertounderstand,predictandthinkaboutifwedeemthatcertainaspectsofourexperience
existindependentofourexperiencesofthem.
Itseemsthenthataskingwhethersomethingexistsornotisnttherightwaytoframethequestion.Therightwaytoframeitisto
askwhetheradmittingacertainhypothesiswouldimprovethepredictivepower,simplicitycomparedtoprevioustheoriesand
explanatorypower.(WeseemtohaveapproximatelyuserindependentnotionsofsimplicityandpredictivepowerIdontknow
ofanygooduserindependentnotionofexplanatorypower.)
Armedwiththisintuitionletustacklethemoretrickierquestions.
(5)Dobranchesofawavefunctioncontainingconsciousentitiesexist?SomesayYes,somesayNo.Heretheexistenceisalsoin
principledirectlyuncheckable(oratleastitseemsso).Howisthisdifferentfromthequestionoftheexistenceofthefarpast?Its
notthatthereisntanyevidence:MWIseemstobecompletelyconsistentwithquantummechanics.Also,peoplelikeDavid
Deutschclaimthatquantumcomputersaretheevidenceleftbythemanybranches.Theproblemhereisthattherearecompeting
hypothesesthatarentthatmuchmorecomplicated(thoughitseemsthatMWIisthesimplest).Inthecaseoftheexistenceofthe
farpast,thereisnootherhypothesisthatcomescloseinsimplicitytoexplainingallthatweseearoundus.Butwithquantum
mechanics,onecanholdotherreasonablepositions,suchastheCopenhagenposition.Thus,itseemsthatforpeoplelikeDavid
Deutschitaddsexplanatorypower,whereasforpeoplelikeChrisFuchs,itdoesnt.Thus,canweconcludethatthebranches
existforDavidDeutsch,butdontforChrisFuchs?Maybeyes.Hereyouseeauserdependentnotionofexplanatorypower
kickingin.
(6)Dotheinflationarybubblesexist?Ifinflationisindeedthebesttheorywehaveandindeedthispredictsthesebubbles,thenwe
shouldincreaseourpriorthatassumingtheexistenceofthesebubbleswilladdpredictive&explanatorypowerandalsobe
simpler.Ifindeedthesebubblesdontaddanypredictive&explanatorypowerandcanbereplacedbysomethingsimpler,then
theirexistenceagainbecomesuserdependent.
(7)DothemathematicaluniversesofTegmarkexist?Hasitincreasedourpredictivepower?Ithinkthatisaclearno.Maybe
workonthemeasureproblemholdspromise.Istheresomenotionbywhichitissimpler?Ithinkyes,becauseitremovesthe
requirementforsomefiretobebreathed.Onemightsaythattheontologybecomesmuchlargerbecausewepermitallthese

otheruniversesmakingthetheorymuchlesssimple.ButnoticethatTegmarkdemandsonlyconsistencyandfinitenessfor
existence[actually,hemaydemandotherthingsIreallyshouldreadthebook].Thusalltheuniversesare(hopefully)derivable
fromtheseconditions.Doesitimproveexplanatorypower?Thisislargelyuserdependentasofyet.Maybeattemptstoformalize
canyieldfruit.Soasyet,thestatusoftheexistenceofTegmarkuniversesisdubious.Butthereishope(andImoneofthe
hopefuls).
181. ScottSays:
Comment#181March27th,2014at6:09am

SidK#180:Thatsanextremelynicesummary,thanks!!(Exceptyour(5),(6),(7)shouldbe(7),(8),(9))
182. ScottSays:
Comment#182March27th,2014at6:19am

Fred#177:
Ivebeenwonderingifweweretodiscoverthatnotonlyintelligentlifebutthatlifeitselfonlyexistsonearth,wouldnt
thatmakeMWImorelikely,sincethenthechanceofourownexistencewouldberidiculouslylowinanonMWIworld?
(butourexistenceevenifveryimprobablewouldalwaysberealizedinabranchofMW)
Evenundertheserules(whereouruniquenessisapuzzlethatneedstobeexplained),itseemstomethatyoudhavemany
alternativesavailable.Forexample:
(1)TheLevelIorLevelIImultiverses.I.e.,youcouldsimplybelievethatrealityinourbranchextendsmuchfurtherthanyou
cansee.
(2)Lifeisarareevent,butnotridiculouslyrare:infact,youexpectittooccuraboutoncepercausalpatch,onaverage.
(3)Theuniverseisacomputersimulation,andthesimulatorstunedtheparameterssothatlifewouldariseonexactlyoneplanet.
(Moretraditionallymindedpeoplemighthaveadifferentnameforthishypothesis )
Italsoseemstomelikeyourlogiccouldbepushedevenfurther.Ifyoufindthatyouretheonlycopyofyouinthevisible
universe,thenwhyshouldntyouinterpretthatasevidenceforamultiversesincetheprobabilityofyou,specificallyexisting
wouldberidiculouslytinyotherwise?
183. fredSays:
Comment#183March27th,2014at7:27am

Scott#183
Ifyoufindthatyouretheonlycopyofyouinthevisibleuniverse,thenwhyshouldntyouinterpretthatasevidencefora
multiversesincetheprobabilityofyou,specificallyexistingwouldberidiculouslytinyotherwise?
Onlyifyouhappentobeabluewhalespontaneouslymaterializingoutoftheair!
184. wolfgangSays:
Comment#184March27th,2014at7:28am

>>DoUnicornsexist?IthinkweallagreeNo
Thereisanicepuzzle/paradoxphilosophersdiscuss(ed)aboutthefactthatyoucannotreallymakesuchastatement.
Inshort:Ifunicornsdonotexistthenbydefinitiontherecanbenothingthissentencerefersto.Orinotherwords,ifunicornsdo
notexistthentherecanbeno(direct)evidenceyourstatementrefersto.
Yourstatementisreallyaboutacertainhypothesiswhichexists(inyourhead)aboutnonexistentunicornsoraboutasearchfor
unicornswhichcameupempty,butnotaboutunicorns.

Iamneversureifthisisareallydeeppuzzleorjusttrivial.ItwasofcoursepartofthelongphilosophicalbackandforthifGod
existsornotanditmeansthatatheistsliterallydonotknowwhattheyaretalkingabout

185. wolfgangSays:
Comment#185March27th,2014at7:33am

>>therearecompetinghypothesesthatarentthatmuchmorecomplicated(thoughitseemsthatMWIisthesimplest)
ButwhenwetalkabouttheBornprobabilitiesthenCopenhagenisthesimplestimho.
ItisatleastsimplerthanBohmdeBroglieandsimplerthanmwi(byfar).
186. ScottSays:
Comment#186March27th,2014at7:48am

wolfgang#184:Ivotefortrivial.IdontfeellikeIhavedifficultyparsingthestatementtheredoesnotexistanxsuchthatxisa
naturallyoccurringflying,wingedhorsewithahornonitsheadandIdontfeellikethestatementbecomesmeaninglessby
virtueofbeingtrue.Ialsofeellike,whileIdonthaveaproofofthestatement,Ihaveexcellentcircumstantialevidencefrom
physics,biology,searchesthatcameupempty,andgeneralknowledgeabouthumanmyths.
187. fredSays:
Comment#187March27th,2014at7:57am

IreadtheFabricofRealityalongtimeago,butIrecallthatthemultipleworldalternativeswerentalwaysevolvingindependently
ofeachotherbutactuallyinfluencingeachothertoexplainquantuminterference(doubleslitexperiments),thatpartwasabit
murky.
Ivereadrecentlyaboutsomeexperimentshowingentanglementreachingbackintime
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/04/decisiontoentangleeffectsresultsofmeasurementstakenbeforehand/
(althoughIcouldnotfigurewhatsstoppingVictortobasehisdecisiontoentanglethephotonsontheactualmeasurementsof
AliceandBob,itseemshecouldthenbiasthestatisticsarbitrarily)
IwonderiftherecouldbeawaytocombinethetwoideastofindsomeevidencefororagainstMWIe.g.flippingaquantum
coinamilliontimesinarow,thenonlyentanglesomeparticlesifthequantumcoinhaslandedon1amilliontimes,andnotdothe
entanglementinallothercases(asortofmilderversionofquantumsuicidewheretheexistenceofthatonebranchwherethe
entanglementisdonewouldbleedintoalltheotheralternatives).
188. AdamSays:
Comment#188March27th,2014at8:01am

Scott175:
IfyoubelieveMWI,thenshouldyoujumpoffabridge,expectingtomiraculouslysurvivesinceyoureactually
immortal?Empirically,IobservethatbasicallynoonewhosaystheybelieveMWIactuallylivestheirlifethatway.
Idontthinkthatisafairassessment.JustbecauseImightbelieveIamultimatelyimmortaldoesntprecludemefrombelieving
thatIamalsosubjecttosickness,disease,physicalimpairmentandsuffering.MaybeIdontjumpoffabridgebecausewhileI
amnotafraidofdying,Iwouldrathernotliveoutmydaysinawheelchair.
ThatisthebigproblemIhavewithquantumsuicidearguments.Mylifeandmyselfconditioncannotberepresentedasabinary
state.LikejustbecauseIbelieveinreincarnationdoesntmakemewanttojumpoffabridgetogettomynextlife.
189. AdamSays:
Comment#189March27th,2014at8:11am

Scott170:
fred#168:Well,itsobviousthatthesamemathematicalstructurecanoftenberepresentedinmanydifferentways,
andthattheremightbenouniquecanonicalchoice.(Weevenhavechoicesabouthowweregoingtoencode
positiveintegersasstringsofbits)
IwonderifTegmarksMUHcanbeinterpretedasthepredictionthateverymathematicalstructuredoeshaveauniquepreferred
canonicalrepresentationanditisonlyinthisformthatfireisbreathedintotheequations.
ThatwouldprovideananswertotheslipperyslopeweveBentalkingaboutIthink.Butitwouldpresentallkindsofnew
problemsofcourse.
190. ScottSays:

Comment#190March27th,2014at8:24am

Adam#188:Ifyouwereactuallygoingtoliveforever,thenyoudhaveinfinitetimetosearchforacureforwhateverhadput
youintothewheelchairoreventobemiraculouslycuredbecauseofsomequantumtunnelingevent.Sothisparticularmalady
wouldonlyaffectyouforfinitelymanyofyourinfinitelymanyyears.
191. MaxTegmarkSays:
Comment#191March27th,2014at8:28am

HiNoon(#150),Urs(#155),&Scott,
Noon(#150):
Youask:IfImonlyrequiredtowritedownsetsandrelationshipsbetweenthem,canInotwritedownstrings,commenton
whichsetstheyfallinto(maybeitsonlyoneset)andthentriviallydescribetheentireuniverseinthisway?
Excellentquestion.Answer:no,sinceyourenotallowedtodothecommentpart!Thisisalsowhatsflawedaboutthe
decimalsofpicritiquefromScottspostyoullnevergeta3Dspaceetcoutofthedigitsofpiwithoutaddingmorestructure.
Themathematicalstructureisdefinedonlybytheabstractsetsandrelationswithoutanyhumancomments,andtheyhaveno
intrinsicpropertieswhatsoever(Ihopeyoullfindthatthemanyexamplesinchapter10clarifythispoint).Whatssouniqueabout
certainmathematicalstructuresfromphysics(sayMinkowskispacewithquantumfieldtheory)isthatanaturalinterpretation
*emerges*fromthemratherthanhavingtobeputinbyhand:boundstatesthatitsconvenienttocoinnamesforsuchasprotons,
atoms,andstars.
Urs(#155):yousaythatHencesayingthattheworldisdescribedby(orjustis,ifoneinsists)amathematicalstructure,just
means:itisdescribedbysomeformallanguagewithsomeaxiom.
AsImentionin#112anddiscussindetailinchapter12,itsimportantnottoconflatetheformalsystem(language)withthe
structure,anditswellknownthatsomeformalsystemscandescribemultiplenonequivalentmathematicalstructures.For
example,theLwenheimSkolemtheoremtheorem(withwhichImsureyourefamiliar)impliesthattheaxiomsforrealnumbers
alsodescribeamathematicalstructurethatscountablyratherthanuncountablyinfinite.
Scott:howaboutcoffeenextweek?Imnotsurewhatyourplanisforthisthreadnowhaveyouswitchedtoansweringall
postsexceptmineinanticipationofourmeeting?YournewclaimthatImridingaslipperyslopeallthewaytothebottom
soundslikeaconflationofmathematicalstructureswithcomputation(#112),andofmyclaimswiththoseofKonradZuseand
JrgenSchmidthuber.
192. AdamSays:
Comment#192March27th,2014at8:42am

Scott#188:Thatassumesquiteabit:
*ThatIwillbehappytoliveinpainwhileIamlookingforacure
*ThatIwillevenhavetheconditionstobeabletolookforacure
*Thatthefuturewillpresentitselfwithconditionsforacuretobedeveloped
*ThatIllhavethenecessarymeanstoactualizethecureevenifitisdevelopedandfound
Inshort,thequantumsuicidethoughtexperimentassumesanoptimisticfuturewhichthereisnoreasontosuppose.PerhapsIwill
liveforever,butmypersonalstatewilldevolveintoevergreaterlevelsofmiseryandpain.Perhapsafewmillionyearsfromnow
IllbeinasemivegetativestatewithnoarmsorlegsandlivingonaplanetintheAndromedagalaxywithnofriendsorfamily
withinafewlightyearsandnomeanstoreachthem.PerhapsbecauseoftheMWIIllstillkeeponmiraculouslyliving,butnotin
averyhappyway.
193. ScottSays:
Comment#193March27th,2014at8:54am

Adam#192:No,Idonthavetoassumemostofthosethings,becauseeternityisalongtimeandtheuniverseisquantum!AsI
triedtoexplain,inaninfinitetime,tunnelinggivesanonzeroprobabilityforessentiallyanythingtohappentoyou,includingyour
beingmiraculouslycured,theninjuredagain,thenswallowedbyawhale,etc.Soifyouexpecttoliveforever,thenyoushould
reallyonlycareabouttheequilibriumprobabilitiesofbeinginonestateratherthananotherwhathappenstoyouinthenext
decadesorcenturyiscompletelyirrelevant.Thatmightsoundsilly,butitscertainlynosillierthanthestartingassumption.
ButmaybeIshouldask:doyouactuallyexpectthatyoullliveforever,onthebasisofMWI?Ifyoudont,thenthiswhole
discussionissortofsurreal:whoamIarguingagainst?

194. ScottSays:
Comment#194March27th,2014at8:57am

Max#191:Sure,letsgetcoffeenextweek!Illemailyou.
195. AdamSays:
Comment#195March27th,2014at9:18am

Scott#193:
No,IdontpersonallybelieveIllliveforeveronthebasisofMWI.Idobelieveinreincarnationthough,fwiw.Regardless,I
dontunderstandhowappealingtothelengthofeternityresolvesthefactthatIstilldontwanttoexperienceunhappinessforeven
afiniteamountoftimeandthereforewouldnotconsciouslychoosetosubjectmyselftothepainofjumpingoffabridge.Perhaps
becauseIllliveforeverandthereexistsanonzeroprobabilityofitthatIllbeforcedoffabridgeorthattheatomsinmybrain
mightspontaneouslyformtocausemetochoosetojumpoffbutIstillmaintainthatevenifIweretobelieveinMWI
immortalityIamnotcompelledtogojumpingoffbridgesorfiringgunsintomymouth.
Regarding,onlycaringaboutequilibriumprobabilitiesthiswholequestionaboutconsciousdecisionspresupposesthatI
mighthaveachanceatchangingsuchprobabilitieswithmychoiceswhereasyourargumentseemstobethatinaneternitymy
choiceswontreallychangetheoutcomeofwhatIwillexperience.Isthatcorrect?
196. SandroSays:
Comment#196March27th,2014at10:40am

wolfgang#185:
ButwhenwetalkabouttheBornprobabilitiesthenCopenhagenisthesimplestimho.
Imnotsurewhatgivesyouthisimpression.CopenhagenmerelyassumestheBornruleandthemeasurementpostulates.Atleast
deBroglieBohm(dBB)canderivetheBornrulebyassumingasimpleraxiom,andnomeasurementpostulatesareneeded.
ThereforeatleastdBBismoreparsimoniousthanCopenhagen.
197. UrsSchreiberSays:
Comment#197March27th,2014at10:52am

@Max,#191,
onedoesntneedtoappealtoLwenheimSkolemtoseethatingeneralatheoryhasmorethanonemodel.Imaginethetheoryof
groupshadjustonemodel
(Inthe90stherewasawidespreadsubconciousbeliefthatstringtheoryhasonlyone,orjustahandful,ofmodelsthe
shatteringofthatbeliefisbyacuriouscourseofhistorythereasonwhysomefundamentalphysiciststhesedaysturnedto
philosophy.)
Anyway,whatsayingthattheworldismodeledbyamathematicalstructureinthesenseofmodeltheorymeansisthatitisa
modelofafirstordertheorythatsthesourceofthewordmodeltheory,afterall.
Nowwhatisinterestingistocharacterizethosetheorieswhosemodels(whosemathematicalstructures,ifoneinsists)exhibit
physicalproperties,hencetheoriesinsidewhichonemayfindsomethinglikequantumfieldtheory(ormaybearefinement
thereof),sothatitsmodels(themathematicalstructuresoverit)aresystemsofquantumfields.
Thereisaremarkablesimplecharacterizationofquantumgaugefieldtheoreticstructuresinaversionofhomotopytypetheory
that,followingLawvere,maybecalledcohesive.Usingthisonecanpinpointthosemathematicalstructures(thoughinamore
generalsensethanthatofjustclassicalmodeltheory)whichexhibitpropertiesoflocalLagrangianquantumgaugefieldtheory,
whichexhibitquantumanomalycancellationasseeninnature,etc.
Thereisalotofinterestingthingstobesaidinfoundingmodernphysicsinformallogicaltheory.(Butclassicalmodeltheoryis
unsuited,asfarasIcansee.)
Fromdiscussionslikethishereitalmostfeelsasifthereissuddenlyawidepublicinterestinfoundationsofphysicsinformallogic
(andmaybeclassicalormodernmodeltheory).ThatusedtobeatopicthatbesidesWilliamLawverefewpeoplewereworking
on.Ontheotherhandthenitseemsmostoftheinteresthereisinwittychat,notsomuchinmathematicalorphysicaltheory.

Iamwonderingifthereisawaythattheoccasionthatmodeltheoryhasbeensneakedintothepublicdebatethroughthe
backdoorcouldbeusedtoincreasescientificinterestinitthatgoesbeyondlaychat.
Ourhost,Scott,forinstancemightbeinterestedinquestionssuchas:whatmightcharacterizethoseformaltheoriessuchthattheir
models(themathematicalstructuresoverthem)exhibitaformofquantumcomputation?(Wouldhenotbedistractedby
debatingsuicideofMWIproponentsmaybethereisapsychologicallyinterestingFreudianaspecthere,butnoneof
mathematicalorphysicalinterest).ForinstanceIclaimthatwithinlinearhomotopytypetheoryonemaysaysomethinginteresting
aboutthis,whichlooksrelevanttothequestionofwhethertheworldhasanorigininformalmathematicaltheory.
198. MagicNumbersSays:
Comment#198March27th,2014at11:21am

Ok,soSidhasinsistedondraggingunicornsintothis.Asifthatwerentbadenough,itpromptedScotttoattributethemtohaving
wings.Pleasebearinmind,thatIammerelyanenthusiasticamateurinregardstoMythology.
WeallknowbyvirtueofplatonismthatindeedUnicornsdoexist,andinfacttheypossessanattributeorthoganaltowinged
equines(akaPegasi)thatattributeistheirvelocity.
Remember:Unicornsarethefastestlandequines.Onland,theyrunsofast,theirvelocityisnotevenanumberanymore.Itmakes
Clooklikenothing.Ifyounevergetdonecountinghowfaraunicornmovesonlandinunittime,whenyoudontgetthere(but
youretiredofcounting)yourealizethatsuckerisgoingAlephnullunitsoflengthperunittime.(REALLYFAST!)
Ok,sounicornsaresofastonland.Whatsthebigdeal?
Well,whentheafforementionedwingedequines(Pegasi)happentobeinmotion,theyarethefastestflyingequines.Theytravel
sofast,thatinthetimethataunicornmovesoneunitoflength,theytravelAlephnullunitsoflength(WOW!Howfastisthat,you
ask?)Thosebadmamajammiesarewhizzingaround,travelingat2^(Alephnull)unitsoflengthperunittime.
Acommonquestionthatfrequentlycomesupinconversationis:Hey.Iwonderifthereexistsanequinewhosvelocityisstrictly
lowerboundedbytheunicornsspeedandupperboundedbythepegasussessspeed.(akatheCornHypothesis(CH))
WhilstvisitingLeibnizsLabyrinthThemepark,Iwasconsideringthisconjecturewhilepokingmyheadintoahallofmirrors
calledManyWorlds.ItookoutapictureofmyfavoriteMythologyProfessorKurtwhoembarassedhimselfbeforeallthe
othermythologistswhen(onalittlerunofpainpills)heconcoctedaThisisnotaProofofCH.
199. wolfgangSays:
Comment#199March27th,2014at11:35am

@Sandro
deBroglieBohmisperhapsconceptuallysimplerthanCopenhagenfornonrelativisticQMbutasfarasIknowdeBroglieBohm
doesnotevenexistyetforQFT(orLorentzinvariantqtingeneral).
200. DouglasKnightSays:
Comment#200March27th,2014at11:37am

DoesQMreallysaythatthereisanonzerochancethatyoullliveforeveryduration?MaybeQFTdoes(thoughImskeptical),
butifyoubelievethattheuniverseisafinitequantumcomputer,doesntthatboundyourlife?
201. fredSays:
Comment#201March27th,2014at12:19pm

Douglas#201
Wheneverthestateoftheuniversecomputerisbeingupdatedwealldiealittlebit,butwerebeingfullyrebornoncethenew
statehasstabilized.Andthisrepeatseverytick.
(seediscreteZenoparadox)
202. MaxTegmarkSays:
Comment#202March27th,2014at1:06pm

Urs(#197):Ifullyagreewithyouthatmorerigorousworkonthesemodeltheoretictopicsisinterestingandworthwhile.Please
letmeknowiftraveltakesyoufromUtrechttotheBostonarea,sinceIdlovetomeetupanddigintothesetopicsatamore

technicallevel!Likeyou,Ivefoundthatmanyphysicistssimplyarentthatinterestedinthedetails.Yet,thedevilisofcoursein
thedetails.
Indeed,EvenScott,oneofthemostrigorousthinkersIknow,sometimesmakessloppystatements,likeabove(#156)wherehe
writesunderpowerfulenoughisomorphisms,everythingisisomorphictoeverythingelsewhichisofcoursefalse.Theempty
setisnotisomorphictotheintegers,period.Inthesamespirit,theMathematicalUniverseHypothesiscantbeseriously
discussedandevaluatedifonedisregardsitsdetaileddefinition.
203. ScottSays:
Comment#203March27th,2014at1:06pm

Douglas#200:
DoesQMreallysaythatthereisanonzerochancethatyoullliveforeveryduration?
Well,roughlyspeaking,theprobabilityforTparticlestodosomethingreallycrazygoeslike1/exp(T).So,iftherearemaybe
~1028atomsinyourbody,theneachsecond,theresmaybea~1010^28chancethatyoullbemiraculouslyhealedofeverything
thatailsyou.
(Note:TheaboveisOKaslongasyoutreatourcausalpatchasanopenquantumsystem,whosequantumstatecancollapse
byleakinginformationbeyonditsdeSitterhorizon.If,instead,youweretoregardourcausalpatchasaclosedsystemevolving
unitarily,thenthequestionbecomesmuchmurkier.Forthen,therewilljustbesomewavefunctionoftheuniverserotatingeternally
throughHilbertspace.Andthatwavefunctionwillalmostalwayshavesomenonzerocomponentinwhichyouremainalive.But
dowegettointerpretthatassayingthatyouliveforever?)
ifyoubelievethattheuniverseisafinitequantumcomputer,doesntthatboundyourlife?
IftheHilbertspaceaccessibletoyouhasonlyafinitenumberofqubits,thenthatdoesboundhowlargeyoucaneverbecome,
butitdoesntboundhowlongyoucanlivefor.
204. JSays:
Comment#204March27th,2014at1:11pm

ScottComment#166
Iwasthinkingthisway.Sayeverypossiblestringhypotheticallyoccursineorpi.ThensaythereisauniversalstringSwhichis
theprogram.ThereisastringH_iwhichistheinputtoSandfromSH_iwecanrecoverhistoryforuseri.ThenSH_ieither
occursinfirst10^10^120bitsofeorpiordoesnotoccur.Sothisisdeterministiccorrect?
205. MeSays:
Comment#205March27th,2014at1:17pm

MUH?
Meh!
206. ScottSays:
Comment#206March27th,2014at1:55pm

J#203:Well,whicharethestringsHifromwhichyoucanrecoverthehistoryforuseri?Mypointwasthattheycanbe
completelydifferentdependingonwhichinterpreterprogramSyouchoose.
207. ScottSays:
Comment#207March27th,2014at2:02pm

Urs#197:Ifyouframethechoiceaswittychatversusrigorousaxiomaticformalization,thenyouveprettymuchguaranteed
thatImgoingtochoosetheformer
Seriously,Imhappytoproverigoroustheorems(Idoitforaliving),butonlyonceImconvincedthattheresasufficientlymeaty
subjectmattertoprovetheoremsabout.AndinthecaseofMUH,itsnotcleartomethatthereis.Theproblemisnotjustthe
philosophicaloneofwhetheryouwanttoregardeverymathematicalstructureasaphysicallyexistinguniverse,anditsnotjust
thatwedonthaveafinaltheoryofphysics.Rather,itsthatevenforthephysicaltheorieswealreadyknowlikegeneral
relativityandtheStandardModelImskepticalthattheresanyonemathematicalstructure(intheformalsense)thateveryone
couldagreethattheycorrespondto.Rather,itseemslikethebasicideasofthosetheoriescanberepresentedformallyinmany

differentways,andthosewayswillgiverisetodifferentstructures.
208. DouglasKnightSays:
Comment#208March27th,2014at2:16pm

Sure,theHilbertstatemightalwaysmaintainpositiveamplitudeofmycurrentstate,buttoliveforNyears,shouldntwemeana
statethatis,insomesense,anNyearevolutionofmycurrentstate?Idontthinkgettingstuckinaninfiniteloopshouldcountas
livingforever.Maybethatsanotherdebate,butIthinkitisseparatefromtherelevanceofQM.
209. SidKSays:
Comment#209March27th,2014at2:28pm

Scott#181:
Thanks!IrealizedthatthenumberingwasofftheonesecondafterIhittheSubmitbutton.
210. fredSays:
Comment#210March27th,2014at2:30pm

Scott#207
Wouldntyousaythatgeneralrelativity,thestandardmodel,orwhateverfieldisyourexpertisearerepresented,..theyreall
representedinyourbraininamannerthatcapturesallthesubtletiesandrichnessofthefield?Therepresentationmightnotbe
formalinatraditionalsense,butitscompleteenoughforyourbraintothencomeupwitharbitraryformalrepresentations.
211. AdamSays:
Comment#211March27th,2014at2:59pm

Max#202:
Inthesamespirit,theMathematicalUniverseHypothesiscantbeseriouslydiscussedandevaluatedifone
disregardsitsdetaileddefinition.
Well,pleaseknowthatScottsreviewdidconvinceatleastonemorepersontobuyyourbookevenwhilebeinghighlyskeptical
oftheidea.IdontagreewithPeterWoitthateveniftheMUHisultimatelyemptyofcontentthatthebookshouldntberead.I
knowthatScotttakesexceptiontomanyoftheideasinPenrosesvariousbooks,butwouldstillhighlyrecommendthemandI
wouldenthusiasticallyagree.Evenfailedideascancausetheconditionstoleadtotrueinsightsbyhelpingtomapouttheproblem
space!
Urs#197:
Imoneofthelaychatters,butIfindthiswholediscussionandmanyofthehighlyofftopictangentsfascinating(*ahem*
MWI/suicidearguments*ahem*).IwouldnthavefoundoutaboutyourworkandLawveresworkongroundingmodern
physicsinaformalsystemwithoutit!IthinkthisisveryrelevantforMaxsMUHideaandifthereissomethingthereitmightlikely
comefromsuchwork.AndnowImgoingtoreadMaxsbookbecauseofit.Canyourecommendanyothereasierworkson
formaltypetheory?Anythingthatmighthelpaprogrammerbytradeunderstandwhatisgoingon?
212. ScottSays:
Comment#212March27th,2014at3:02pm

Max#202:Isomorphic,asIunderstandtheword,onlymakessenseoncewevespecifiedaclassofisomorphismsthat
interestsus.E.g.,acoffeecupisisomorphictoadonuttopologically,butnotgeometrically.Iindeeddontknowofanynotion
ofisomorphismincommonuseinmathematics,underwhichtheemptysetisisomorphictothesetofpositiveintegers.Butits
easytomakeupacontrivednotion.Forexample,ifIcanpermutethe1sand0sinthecodearbitrarily,thenIcansurelyconvert
aprogramthatoutputsthesetofpositiveintegerstoaprogramthatoutputstheemptyset,andviceversa.Andwhoareyouto
tellmethatsomethinglikethatisntthenotionofisomorphismrelevantforthemathematicalmultiverse?Wheredoesyour
knowledgeofthismultiverseslawscomefrom?
Iknowyousayyouhaveaspecificnotionofmathematicalstructureinmind,whichcomeswithawelldefinednotionof
ismorphism.Myquestionis,whythatparticularnotion?Foronething,differentlogicalformalismswillgiverisetodifferent
notionsofmathematicalstructure(e.g.,somewillhavekaryrelationsforarbitraryk,otherswillonlyhavebinaryrelations,with
higherarityrelationsbuiltupoutofthose).So,giventhattherearedifferentnotionsofmathematicalstructure,allrichenoughto
encompass(insomesense)allofmathematics,howdoyouknowthetrueversionreliedonbythemultiverse?

(Also,tomestringsof1sand0sseemevenmorebasicthanstructuresandsincetheformercanencodethelatter,
presumablytheresnolossofgeneralityintakingbitstringsasthebasicbuildingblocksoftheMathematicalMuliverse.Bywhat
argumentcanyoushowmethatIhavetolookinsteadatthestructuresencodedinsomeparticularwaybythosebitstrings?)
Anyway,evenafteryouvesettledonanotionofstructure,asIsaidincomment#207,afurtherdifficultyishowtomapthe
physicaluniverseontoastructureofthatkind.Evenclassically,whatshouldtheelementsbe:thespacetimepoints?(Butthenwhat
aboutdiffeomorphisms?)Thevaluesofthefieldsatspacetimepoints?Theconnection?Andshouldtherebearelationbetween
everytwopoints?Oronlyeverytwoneighboringpoints?Andinpassingtoquantum,shouldweusetheSchrdinger,
Heisenberg,orFeynmanpictures?etc.
Letmestressthat,inmyview,thefactthatwedonthaveafinaltheoryofphysicsistheleastoftheproblems!Evenifyoutakea
theorythatsalreadyknown,likegeneralrelativityorevenConwaysGameofLife,forthatmatter!andevenifyoufixa
notionofmathematicalstructure,therewillstillgenerallybemanydifferentwaystoencodethetheoryasamathematicalstructure.
Intheend,then,Icompletelyrejectyourclaim(expressedincomment#191)thattherecanexistaninterpretationfreewayof
movingbetweenformalmathematicalstructuresandtheinformalmeaningsofthosestructures.Atbest,Idsaythemappingis
manytomany:thesameinformalconceptcangenerallybeformalizedinmanydifferentways,andthesameformalstructurecan
havemanydifferentinformalinterpretations.
213. ScottSays:
Comment#213March27th,2014at3:18pm

fred#210:
Wouldntyousaythatgeneralrelativity,thestandardmodeltheyreallrepresentedinyourbraininamannerthat
capturesallthesubtletiesandrichnessofthefield?
Representedinsomeoneelsesbrain,notinminebutbasicallyyes. Again,though,thatdoesntgiveyouuniqueformal
representationsofthesefields.Differentexpertswouldprobablyformalizetheirknowledgeofthefieldsindifferentways(some
usingLagrangians,othersusingHamiltonians,etc.),andeventhesameexpertwouldprobablyformalizedifferentlydependingon
whatthepurposewas.
214. IanSays:
Comment#214March27th,2014at5:05pm

+1forScott#212!
215. fredSays:
Comment#215March27th,2014at5:45pm

Scott#214
Yes,differentexpertshavedifferentrepresentations,butImlookingonelevelabovethat,sayingthatthebrainismodellingall
thoserepresentationsusingthesametrick,i.e.neuralpathways.Andthatistheuniversalstructuretoconsiderandtrytoformalize
(verygraphlikeobviously).Andthentrytoformalizeisomorphismsthatapplybetweenbrainstructures.
Bydefinition,therecantbeanyotherstructurebettersuitedtoencompassefficientlyallhumanknowledge(whichisallwecan
possiblyevertalkabout),notjuststaticallybutdynamicallyaswellthatstructurehasbeenperfecttogetusfromthis
http://tinyurl.com/q27pxq6
tothat
http://tinyurl.com/ony4eo2
216. GregKuperbergSays:
Comment#216March27th,2014at5:59pm

Max:Theemptysetisnotisomorphictotheintegers,period.
Actually,theyarebothmeasurezerosubsetsoftherealnumbers.So,theyareisomorphicinthecategoryofmeasurablesubsets
of.
217. ScottSays:
Comment#217March27th,2014at6:52pm

Yeah,whatGregsaid!

218. JasonGrossSays:
Comment#218March27th,2014at7:13pm

Scott#152:
ImcomingatqualiafromtheperspectiveofIdontknowwhatpeoplemeanbyqualia,soImgoingtotrytomakethebest
approximationIcan.ThemostgenerousinterpretationIvemanagedsofaristheonethatcomesfromdroppingthequaliahave
nophysicaleffectsonrealityrequirementthatseemstosometimescomewithdefinitionsofqualia.Mypointwasthatifyoure
lookingforadefinitionofqualia,andyoudiscovertheexperimentalresultsthatIvementioned,thenitseemsappropriatetosay
Ivefoundsomethingthatlooksalotlikequalia,and,look,theresaredblueswappingofitbetweenthesepeople.(Personally,
Ivenotyetreallymadesenseoftheconceptofqualia.)
219. MikeSays:
Comment#219March27th,2014at7:18pm

Again,though,thatdoesntgiveyouuniqueformalrepresentationsofthesefields.Differentexpertswouldprobablyformalize
theirknowledgeofthefieldsindifferentways(someusingLagrangians,othersusingHamiltonians,etc.),andeventhesame
expertwouldprobablyformalizedifferentlydependingonwhatthepurposewas.
Butisntthepointthatthehumanbrainiscapableinprincipleofmodelinganaccuraterepresentationofthesefields?
220. JasonGrossSays:
Comment#220March27th,2014at7:23pm

Greg#216,Scott#217:
Whatarethemapsinthecategoryofmeasurablesubsetsof?Theyrecertainlynotfunctions,ifyouendupwithfunctionstothe
emptyset.
Ofcourse,youcandefinethetrivialmappingtotheterminalcategorywhereallobjectsareisomorphic.Itsnotcleartomewhy
youshouldconsidertheobjectsthatyoustartedwithtobethesameastheonesthatyouendedwith.Whenyousaytheempty
set,Iheartheinitialobjectinthecategoryofsets.Itsnotcleartomethatyougettocallitthesameemptysetwhenyou
switchtoanothercategory.(Ofcourse,youcansaythattheyreequalassets,ifyourcategorytheoryisbackedbysettheory.
Thenyoucanalsoaskquestionslikeis2anelementof?andtheanswerisitdependsonwhatencodingyouusedof
numberswhenitshouldreallybemuortypeerror.SoIfindmyselfworkinginternallytohomotopytypetheoryinstead.)
221. JasonGrossSays:
Comment#221March27th,2014at7:29pm

Scott#212:
Andwhoareyoutotellmethatsomethinglikethatisntthenotionofisomorphismrelevantforthemathematical
multiverse?Wheredoesyourknowledgeofthismultiverseslawscomefrom?
Thismightbeanempiricalquestion,shouldwefindanaturalwaytosolvethemathematicalmeasurementproblemifthereare
sufficientlyfewfreeparameters(andoneofthemiswhichnotionofisomorphismtouse),thenperhapsweaskwhichnotionof
isomorphismgivesrisetothecorrectanthropicprobabilities.
Alternatively,itmightbethecasethatwewillfindthatourhandisforcedifwehaveawayofinterpretingvariousstructures,this
interpretationshouldbeisomorphisminvariant(inthesensethatforanystructurewhichseemstobeinterpretableintoourphysical
reality,anyisomorphicstructureshouldalsobeinterpretablesomestructuresmightnothaveenoughinformationtoobtainan
interpretation).
However,ImstrayingintothelandofthingsIdontunderstandverywellIshouldgoreadsomebooksonmodeltheoryortake
aclassonit.
222. JasonGrossSays:
Comment#222March27th,2014at7:50pm

Max#191:
AsImentionin#112anddiscussindetailinchapter12,itsimportantnottoconflatetheformalsystem(language)
withthestructure,anditswellknownthatsomeformalsystemscandescribemultiplenonequivalentmathematical
structures.

Ivebeenwonderingforawhileaboutwhetherornotthereisawaytoconstructatheorywithauniquemodel,ifyourambient
logichasmultiplemodels.FromreadingAndrejBauersTheelementsofaninductivetype,Icameawaywiththeimpressionthat
nonstandardmodelsareunavoidableingeneral.(Myhunchisthatthishassomethingtodowithwhetheryouinterpretand
(or,intypetheoryland,and)intoyourmodelorintoyourmetatheory.)
Ihavethefollowingquestions:
(1)Iscategoricitypossibleformodelsoftypetheories?
(2)Ifcategoricityisntpossiblefortypetheories,howshouldIgoaboutunderstandingwhatisamathematicalstructurewhenIve
losttheperspectiveoflivinginsideamodel,andonlyhavetheperspectiveoflivinginsideatypetheory?(Itmightbethatthe
answertothisquestionislearntothinkinNuPRLratherthanCoqorgoreadchapter12,and,ifso,thatsfinewithme.)
(3)BenediktAhrenshastoldmethatthestrengthoftheinternallogicofatoposdependsontheambientlogicalstrengthinill
understoodways.Isthereasimilardependenceincohesivetopoi(orwhateverstructuresmightletusdosyntheticphysics),
and,ifso,isthereawaytoprobethelogicalstrengthoftheinternallogicofphysicalrealityandtherebydeterminewhat
ambientlogicweexpecttobelivingin?(Couldthisanexampleofaresultthatshouldstronglybiasustowardssomethinglike
MUH?Oristheresomewaytoremoveanysuchdependenceingeneral?)
223. fredSays:
Comment#223March27th,2014at8:14pm

Ithinkthereisafundamentalcharacteristicforacandidateuniversalstructureithastobediscreteinnature.Anycontinuous
structurehastobeexcluded.Continuitywouldleadtozenoparadoxes,i.e.therecouldbenoevolution,nodynamicpossible.
ThisIthinkalsoexplainsthestruggleIhadwiththeconnectionbetweenconsciousnessandcomputation.Thedynamicofthe
systemhastoenterthepictureandthatswhyacomputationisjustnotalookuptable.Ourmindisnotjustaseriesofsnapshots
ofstatesbutaconnectedstructurethatevolvesbothintimeandspace.Thisreducestothekeyconservationandsymmetry
concepts(likeenergy)whicharenothingmorethanlimitsonhowfastandhowwidethingscangrow.Yousimplycanthavethat
limitationwithcontinuousstructures.
ThesimplestillustrationofthisisConwaysgameoflife(oranyautomataalongxdimensions)forcomplexstructurestoappear
youneedroomoneverydimensionsforthemtogrow.Connectedstructuresdontarbitraryappearbuttheybloomout
outwardsandtheyneedemptycellstodoso,andcanonlygrowatacertainratealongalldimensions.Thatsimplerequirement
capturesanyfundamentallimitationsondynamicsandcomplexitythatweobserveinouruniverse,andisauniversalpattern
expansionoftheuniversesincethebigbang,formationofgalaxiesandsolarsystems,evolutionoflife,growthofindividual
organisms(fromaeggtoafulladult),neuronsformingconnectionsinalearningbrain,etc.Thebrainitselfcanbemodeledwith
suchastructure,andthebraincanrepresentallhumanknowledge(itisisomorphictoouruniversebydefinition).
224. GregKuperbergSays:
Comment#224March27th,2014at8:15pm

JasonThemorphismsaremeasurepreservingmaps,whicharecertainequivalenceclassesoffunctions.
225. MaxTegmarkSays:
Comment#225March27th,2014at8:22pm

Apologiesforrepeatingmyself,buttheMathematicalUniverseHypothesiscantbeseriouslydiscussedandevaluatedifone
disregardsitsdetaileddefinition.ImusingthemathematicalstructuredefinitiongiveninthebookandinAppendixAin
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646v2.pdfwhich,asyoullseefollowsstandarddefinitionsintheliteraturebutisslightlymoregeneral,
toallowmultiplesetsandkaryrelationsforallk(thisshouldpleaseyouScottasaprogrammer!),andIexplicitlyspecifythe
classofisomorphismsusedtodefinetheequivalenceforstructures.Andno,theemptysetisnotisomorphictoanymathematical
structurewithnonzerocardinalitywiththisdefinition.Ilookforwardtoourcoffee,Scott!
226. fredSays:
Comment#226March27th,2014at8:41pm

Nowwhetherwelleverdiscoverthatstructure,Idoubtititdoesntseempossibletodescribeasystemfullyfromtheinsideif
thesystemisdiscreteandfinite,thedescriptionwouldhavetobefullyisomorphictothewholesystembutalsotoitselfand
possiblyrecursivelyso.Probablywhywellneverfullyunderstandandexplainconsciousnesseither,thetoolsliebeyondour
realm.
227. wolfgangSays:
Comment#227March27th,2014at9:08pm

@Jason#218
>>Personally,Ivenotyetreallymadesenseoftheconceptofqualia.
Ihavenowwitnessedmanydebates,withonesideusuallyarguingthatqualiaareindeedahardproblemletscallthemtype
Q,andthisincludesmyselfbtw.
Theothersideinsiststhattheycannotmakesenseoftheconceptofqualiaandthatthereisnohardproblemthatwouldneedan
explanationletscallthemtypeN.
ItakethisasstrongevidencethatQandNpeopleindeedexperiencethesamesensoryinputquitedifferently.
Ithinkthisactuallysettlesthequestionifsomepeopleexperiencetherednessofreddifferentthanotherpeople:IthinkthatQ
peopleexperiencesomerednessofred,buttheNpeopledonot(ifwecantrusttheverbalinformationwehearfrombothas
weshouldaccordingtoDanielDennett).
ButthisalsosettlesthequestionifqualiaareahardproblemobviouslytheremustbesomethingQpeopleexperiencewhich
NpeopledonotButthisissomedifferencewewillnotseeunderamicroscope,thusIconcludethatqualiaareindeedahard
problem.
228. NoonSays:
Comment#228March28th,2014at4:08am

Max#191,
>Youask:IfImonlyrequiredtowritedownsetsand
>relationshipsbetweenthem,canInotwritedown
>strings,commentonwhichsetstheyfallinto(maybe
>itsonlyoneset)andthentriviallydescribethe
>entireuniverseinthisway?
>
>Excellentquestion.
>
>Answer:no,sinceyourenotallowedtodothe
>commentpart!
Okay.LetmebestatemyintentionsIwanttounderstandwhataretheallowabledescriptionsintheMUH.Ialsowantto
knowwhatitmeans,inthistheory,todescribesomethingmathematically.Idfurtherliketoknowwhythisissayingsomething
*interesting*i.e.IdliketoknowspecificexamplesofthingsIcan*not*describemathematically.
Inordertounderstandthis,anideaofthemosttrivialmathematicaldescriptionseemslikeagoodstartingpoint.
Myquestionwastryingtoguesswhatthismosttrivialdescriptionwouldbenamelythelistingofoutcomesintoonebigsetof
ThingsThatHappen.This,tome,fitsintothepatternofaabstractsetsandrelations,becauseIhaveonlyoneset,andno
relations.
Yousuggest:
>Themathematicalstructureisdefinedonlybythe
>abstractsetsandrelationswithoutanyhuman
>comments,andtheyhavenointrinsicproperties
>whatsoever
ThisissomethingIactuallyjustdontunderstand.Howdoesathinghavenointrinsicpropertiesandisyetsomehowdefinedand
categorised(placedintoanabstractset)withouthumans?Whodecideswhatsetthethinggoesinto?Whodecidesthe
relationships?(Wasthewordintrinsichereamistake?Inthenextparagraph,yousaythatanaturalinterpretationemerges
unlessImmisunderstandingIdontseehowthiscanhappen*without*thestructurescontainingsomeintrinsticproperty
namelymathematicaldescribabilityinthissense.)
Regardingpropertiesemergingyouclaimthatthereisanaturalwaytointerpretthemathematicalstructuresthatareapparentin
physics.HowexactlydoesthisrelatetotheMUH?DoestheMUHclaimthatthereisalwaysanaturalmathematicalstructurefor
anythingweobserve?Whatdoesnaturalmean?Howdoesitspecifywouldshouldbeconsideredinaparticularmathematical
structureandnotinanother?(Doesittalkaboutwhereclassicalphysicsendsandquantumphysicsbegins,ordoesitsaywe
dontyethaveanaturaldescription?(Ithinkyousaidearlierthatitbasicallysayswedontyethaveanaturaldescriptionso

howdoweknowwhenwedo?whatmakesanaturaldescriptionuniqueandnontrivial?)
229. fredSays:
Comment#229March28th,2014at7:16am

Max#226
Thanksforthearticlelink!
Btw,Scottsreviewpromptedmetogetyourbook!(kindleedition)
230. OverwhelmedSays:
Comment#230March28th,2014at7:25am

Okay.LetmebestatemyintentionsIwanttounderstandwhataretheallowabledescriptionsintheMUH.Ialsowantto
knowwhatitmeans,inthistheory,todescribesomethingmathematically.Idfurtherliketoknowwhythisissayingsomething
*interesting*i.e.IdliketoknowspecificexamplesofthingsIcan*not*describemathematically.
Isthatall?Somebodyshouldwriteabookonthis.
231. JasonGrossSays:
Comment#231March28th,2014at7:27am

Greg#224AsIunderstandit,therearenofunctionsfromanonemptysettotheemptyset,measurepreservingorotherwise.
Thiswouldimplythattherearenomorphismsfromtheintegerstotheemptyset,becauseallequivalenceclassesofsuchfunctions
areempty.HaveImisunderstoodsomething?
232. JasonGrossSays:
Comment#232March28th,2014at7:40am

Wolfgang#227Iamnotarguingthatthereisnohardproblemofqualia.Iamsayingthatnoonehasyetgivenmeameansof
pinpointingthequaliaofcolor(orevenqualiaingeneral)northeproblem.AsanexampleofwhatImlookingfor,
YudkowskisWherePhysicsMeetsExperienceandthesubsequentWhereExperienceConfusesPhysicistscrystalizeda
quantummeasurementproblemforme,andgivesmesomethingtopointtoassomethinglikethehardproblemofthequaliaof
experienceitgivesmesomethingconcretethatIbelieve(thatprobabilityofoutcomeisproportionaltothenormsquaredofthe
wavefunction),anddescribesawayinwhichmybestunderstandingoftheworldfailstoaccountforthatfact(whyshould
probabilityofwhichbranchofthewavefunctionIfindmyselfinbepartofafundamentaltheoryofphysics,whichissupposed
tobeindependentofme?!).SoIaccept,tentatively,thatqualiaofwavefunctionbranchisahardproblem.Iveyettobe
convincedthatthereisanymoretoqualiathanwhichbranchofthewavefunctionamIin.
233. JasonGrossSays:
Comment#233March28th,2014at7:43am

Max,regardinghttp://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646v2.pdf:
Inallcases,therearemanyequivalentwaysofdescribingthesamestructure,andaparticularmethematicalstructure
canbedefinedasanequivalenceclassofdescriptions.Thusalthoughanyonedescriptioninvolvessomedegreeof
arbitrariness(innotation,etc.),thereisnothingarbitraryaboutthemathematicalstructureitself.
Howdoyoupickwhichfoundationsofmathorambientlogictouse?Forexample,whatiftwostructuresareequivalentonlyif
youassumetheaxiomofchoiceorthecontinuumhypothesis,orifsomestructureisonlydefinableifyouassumethelawof
excludedmiddle,orifthefinitenessofsomestructureisindependentoftheaxiomsofPeanoarithmetic(e.g.,somethingbasedon
thehydragameofGoodsteinstheorem).
234. SandroSays:
Comment#234March28th,2014at8:25am

@wolfgang#199:
1.Yourechangingthegoalposts.TheoriginalclaimwasabouttheparsimonyofQM,notQFT.
2.Evenso,therearemanyrelativisticextensionsofdBB(andafewfieldtheoryformulations).Mostofthemincludean
unobservablepreferredfoliation,althoughnoparticulartheoryhasgatheredenoughsupporttobeconsideredcanonical.

3.TherearedBBextensionsthatdonotrequirepreferredreferenceframes:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3226
Andformulationsinwhichtheunobservablereferenceframeisderivedfromthewavefunction,thusnotrequiringanyaddition
axioms:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.1714
4.WhatthisshowsisthatJohnBellwascorrect:therealproblemofQMthatneedsseriousinvestigationisnonlocality.Waving
itawaybydenyingrealismisjustacheat.
235. PhilipThriftSays:
Comment#235March28th,2014at8:53am

Fromaprogrammersperspective,itseemsthatinconsideringwhatconstructivelycouldbeinaMUHonecouldfindsome
connectiontoinfinitaryprogramminglanguages,e.g._ZFC:faculty.cs.byu.edu/~jay/static/toronto2012flops.pdf,which
containsinfinitesetsasvalues,inwhichtoexpressexactmathematicsandgraduallychangeinfinitecalculationstocomputable
ones.
236. MikeSays:
Comment#236March28th,2014at9:29am

WhatthisshowsisthatJohnBellwascorrect:therealproblemofQMthatneedsseriousinvestigationisnonlocality.Wavingit
awaybydenyingrealismisjustacheat.
Agreed,butperhapsnotsuchaproblem.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6223
http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2673
http://arxiv.org/abs/quantph/9906007
237. GregKuperbergSays:
Comment#237March28th,2014at10:02am

JasonAsIunderstandit,therearenofunctionsfromanonemptysettotheemptyset,measurepreservingor
otherwise.
Youreright,sothedefinitionisalittledifferentfromwhatIsaid.Amorphismbetweentwomeasurablesetsisapartialfunction,
definedeverywhereexceptonasetofmeasure0(andwhichisalsoameasurablefunction).Suchapartialfunctionisequivalent
towhatyougetifyoueraseitsvaluesonameasure0subset.
238. THRaySays:
Comment#238March28th,2014at11:34am

DavidBrown#76says
anythingthatcanbedescribedatallcanbedescribedmathematically.Thisisaninterestingconjecture.Whatisthe
mathematicaldescriptionofThomasHardysnovelJudetheObscureorShakespearesKingLear?
Itsanexcellentquestion,andIanswereditinatechnicalendnotetoanessaythatrespondsdirectlytoScottAaronsons
questionofcomputingusingtheresourcesoftheuniverseunderthetitleWellOrdered,TotallyOrdered,PartiallyOrderedor
Random?:
Mathematicianshavemanywaystospeakoforder.Wehavetriedtomakeclearinthesepagesthatwehavetakenourterms
frommathematicalsettheoryandappliedthemtothetheoryofcomputation.
Whenwespeakofcomputingusingtheresourcesoftheuniverse,wehaveassumdaparameteroutsideofclassical
computabilityusingtherulesofarithmeticnumbersarentphysical,thoughcountingis.I.e.,physicalquantaarecountableby
definition.
Countabledoesntnecessarilyimplywellordered,thoughcardinalityofsets{a,b,c}mightberepresentedbylabelsthat

arewellordered(1,2,3)independentoftheorderednessorrandomnessoftheset.Forexample,whenwespeakofthesetof
allbooks,theinformationcontainedinTolstoys*WarandPeace*differsfromVonneguts*SlaughterhouseFive*,yetboth
havethecardinalityofthecontinuum(uncountablyinfinite)eventhoughthesetNofallbooksiscountablyfinite.Asstrangeas
itmayseemtospeakofanfinitesetofinfinitethings,thecaseistrue:acomprehensibleexplanationmaybefoundinHermann
Weyls1918classic,*TheContinuum:acriticalexaminationofthefoundationofanalysis.*
Inouressay,wehaveproposedthatglobalinformationistotallyorderedandfinite,whileourwaysofcomputingarepartially
orderedandinfinite.GregoryChaitinsapplicationofhisAlgorithmicInformationTheorywouldseemtobearthisoutinan
experimentalwayChaitinsOmeganumberisproducedfromanalgorithmthatoutputsdifferentandrandomresultsdependingon
whichcomputerlanguageisspeaking.Metaphorically,oneprogramwouldoutput*WarandPeace*theother,
*SlaughterhouseFive*,fromthesamealgorithm.
Soitgoes.
IfMaxTegmarkiscorrect,itsmorethanametaphoritsamathematicalidentity.IvealwaysbeenabigfanofTegmarks
premise,andIamreadingthebooknow.
239. THRaySays:
Comment#239March28th,2014at11:50am

Addendum:Ishouldhavemadeclearthecontext:
ScottAaronsonasksaseminallyimportantquestionCanNPcompleteproblemsbesolvedinpolynomialtimeusingthe
resourcesofthephysicaluniverse?6arguingthatNPcompleteproblemsthemselvespossiblyconstrainphysicaltheories.We
find,however,thatinfiniteselfsimilarityinanyfinitetimeintervalpromisesselforganized,andthereforeselflimiting,mapsofshort
(local)intervalstolong(global)intervals.(Cf.PerelmansproofstrategyforThurstonsgeometrizationconjecture.7)
(ThereferencesaretoAaronsonspaper,NPCompleteProblemsandPhysicalReality,andtoAnderson,M.T.
Geometrizationof3ManioldsviatheRicciFlow.NoticesoftheAMS(vol.51.No.2,February2004)
240. ShmiNuxSays:
Comment#240March28th,2014at5:37pm

Scott,
Re#108d:
>IdorejecttheargumentsofEverett,Deutsch,Wallace,Zurek,andothersthattheBornrulecanbederivedfromunitary
QM.
WhataboutyourfriendSeanCarroll?(Admittedly,hedoesnotclaimderivingtheBornrule.)InhisrecentblogpostTheMany
WorldsofQuantumMechanicsheunapologeticallysupportsMWI.Hereisslide34fromhispresentation.Notethelineits
testedeverytimeweobserveinterference,so,presumably,derivingtheBornruleisnotevennecessary.
241. MarkSchnitziusSays:
Comment#241March28th,2014at6:46pm

IcantwaittoreadthisbookMUHhasbeenapetgedankenhobbyofmineeversinceIindependently(no,really!)came
upwithitadecadeorsoback.IwasgobsmackedwhenIfirstcameacrossTegmarksformulationofit,andwhileIeven
consideritalikelyexplanationofthecosmos,IlargelyagreewithScottsobjectionshereinregardstoevidence.Soanyway,I
havebeenponderingtheimplicationsofMUHforalongwhile,andattemptingtopokeholesinit.HerearetwoholesthatIcant
seemtogetpastperhapstheyareaddressedinthebook,orhaveobviousflaws,butIwillmentionthemhereanyway.
1.AsingleuniverseinaLevel4Multiverseconsistsnotjustofasetoflaws,butalsoaninitialstate.Infact,inMUH,every
possiblecombinationofinitialstatestateandsetoflawswoulddefineadifferentuniverse.Sotherewouldbeuniverseswithour
ownsetofphysicallaws,butwithallmannerofinitialstates,ofALLsizes/complexities(includingoneswhichlookverymuchlike
lastThursday,saywithaminortweak).Theoddsofusfindingourselvesinuniversewithahighlycomplexinitialstatewould
havetobeconsiderablyhigherthanifourbeginningweresimple.Sowhyisourinitialstatesosimple(orwhydoesitseemtobe)?
(Thisisexactlyanalogoustothelowentropyprobleminstandardcosmology,butjustbecauseMUHhasthesameflawdoesnt
meanitsdismissable.)
2.Wherearethereallyoddballlawsinouruniverse?Apersonalpreferenceforsimpleandbeautifullawsisfine,butconsider

ugly,discontinuousfunctions(suchasF=[maifm=41.3]where41.3isjustsomenumberIpickedoutoftheair).Thesefunctions
arejustasvalidinthemathematicaldefinitionofauniverse,andwouldseemtobeatleastasnumerous(againwiththemeasure
problem)asthesimplerfunctions.Itwouldntbehardtodevisesomethatwouldntthreatentheexistenceoflife,Iwouldsay,so
wecantfallbackontheanthropicprinciple.Sowhyhaventwefoundanysuchfunctions?Whyareallourlawssoseemingly
simple?
242. ScottSays:
Comment#242March28th,2014at7:03pm

ShmiNux#240:ImnotexactlytheworldsbiggestMWIopponent,norisSeanitsbiggestcheerleader(Imhappytobringup
theoutstandingissueswiththeapproach,butIdowantpeopletoknowitshouldbetakenseriously).Butyes,heandIdohave
somewhatdifferentperspectivesaboutMWI.AsforSeansderivationoftheBornrule,IheardhimgiveatalkaboutitatMIT
andfounditquitenice.IdplaceitinthesameclassasDeutschs,Zureks,etc.arguments:itsanotherwaytoseewhytheBorn
ruleistheonlyrulethatsmathematicallysane.No,itdoesntgetyouallthewayfromunitaryQMtotheexperiencesof
observerswithoutanextraanthropic/metaphysicalassumptiontohelpitalong,butaslongasyoureclearaboutwhatyourextra
assumptionis(andSeanisalwaysclear),moresuchargumentscanonlyleadtomoreinsight.
243. ShmiNuxSays:
Comment#243March28th,2014at8:20pm

Scott#242:Thanks,ImusthavemisunderstoodSeansposition.
244. GregKuperbergSays:
Comment#244March28th,2014at10:48pm

ScottIdorejecttheargumentsofEverett,Deutsch,Wallace,Zurek,andothersthattheBornrulecanbederived
fromunitaryQM.
AsIseeit,thefullBornrulecanbederivedfromunitaryQMplusafarweakerversionoftheBornrule.
Firstofall,eveninunitaryQM,youdohaveaspecificversionofdecoherencefromlocality.IfAliceandBobhaveajointstate,
thenthestateofAlicealoneisforallquantumpurposesdescribedbyadensitymatrix.Inconjunctionwithotherreasonable
physics,youdoexpecttoseedecoherence,thermalization,approximateMaxwellGibbsdistributions,andultimatelyphysical
objectswhichhaveclassicalbehaviorexpressedindensitymatrices.
Theonlycatchisthatifyouareastrictunitarian,youwouldsay:Sure,thisiscalledadensitymatrix,butifthatismeantasa
referencetoaprobabilitydistribution,thatsmisleading.Weonlyknowitasapartialtraceentitythedensityaspectispurely
formal.Still,letstaketheinterpretationthatifalmostallofawavefunctionordensitymatrixisconcentratedatacertain
condition,thenwecan,qualitatively,callthatconditionapproximatelytrue.Afterall,ifalmostallofthewavefunctionofan
electronisnearanatomicnucleus,thenevenwithoutanyquantitativeBornrule,youwouldinformallysaythattheelectronisnear
thenucleus.Youwouldhavetobeatrulyreactionaryunitariantosay,Wecantsayanythingaboutthelocationoftheelectronif
evensomeinfinitesimalbitofitswavefunctionisfarawayfromthenucleus.Actually,littlebitsofwavefunctionsareassignedto
allsortsofwildpossibilitiesforanyphysicalobject.
So,ifAliceisaquantumobjectwhoisahumanbeingoranintelligentcomputerwhohaswitnessedmanyquantumexperiments,
thenherowndensitymatrixishighlyconcentratedataperceptionthattheBornruleistrueandthatwavefunctionscollapse.In
thissense,theBornruleisalmostacorollaryofunitaryQMandreallyplaysthesameroleasBayesiancollapseinclassical
probability.
Nottomentionthatmuchofthecalculusofdensitymatricesismathematicallyidenticaltoclassicalprobability,evenifthose
densitymatriceshappentocomefrompartialtraceandphysicallocalityratherthanfromtheBornrule.Itisdubioustorejectthat
coincidenceasphilosophicallymeaningless.(Again,evenifanexternalphilosopherrejectsthepoint,anAliceobjectstill
perceivesthismathematicalagreementtomakecompletesense.)
245. wolfgangSays:
Comment#245March29th,2014at6:55am

@Greg#244
Theuniversalwavefunctionofmwifollowsobjectivelyadeterministicevolution.Thereforeprobabilitieshavetobesubjective
andthisisindeedwhatyouuseinyourderivation:Alicedoesnotknowthestateoftheenvironment.

Butonceyougothesubjectiveroute,whynotuseCopenhagen,whichbasicallyusesthefactthatyouknowthestateofyour
mind(bydefinition)thereforeyoureducethewavefunctioneverytimeitaffectsyourstateofmind(i.e.duringameasurement)?
Thelatterseemsmuchsimplertome.
246. GregKuperbergSays:
Comment#246March29th,2014at9:59am

wolfgangAlicemaynotknowtheenvironment,butshedoesknowsomethingaboutit:Sheknowsthat99.9999%ofthewave
functionoftheentireuniverseisconcentratedinanendorsementofsubjectiveCopenhagen.Thepointisthatshemayhavetested
subjectiveCopenhagenwithmillionsofrepeatedtrialsitisthenendorsedbythelawoflargenumbers.
ThusaformoftheCopenhageninterpretationfollowsasacorollaryfromtheseconsiderations:
(1)Physicallocalityandmathematicalvalidityofdensitymatrices.
(2)Defactodecoherenceviamassiveentanglementbetweenanobjectanditsenvironment.
(3)Concentration:Ifawavefunctionisveryhighlyconcentratedataconclusion,theconclusionisapproximatelycorrect.
(4)Subjectiveexperienceofanintelligentphysicalobject.
So,ifyouareantiCopenhagen,whichoftheseconsiderationsshouldbedeprecated?(1)and(2)followfromtheotherlawsof
physics.(3)iswhatallowsustodiscussthelocalityofparticles,atoms,molecules,etc.(4)isthebasisofscientificexperiment.I
dontseeanybasistodeprecateanyofthem.
WhenyousayButonceyougothesubjectiveroute,whynotuseCopenhagen,Isortofagreeandsortofdontunderstand.
Ontheonehand,whatdoesitmeantogothesubjectiveroute?Doesitmeananythingotherthantoconductscientific
experiments?Ontheotherhand,onceyoudogothesubjectroute,whateverthatmeans,itsnotjustwhynotuse
Copenhagen,itsthatyouhavenochoicebuttouseexactlyCopenhagen.
247. fredSays:
Comment#247March29th,2014at10:07am

#246
youknowthestateofyourmind?
Jeez,thatsreallysweepingundertherugtonsofhardquestionsaboutthenotionsofidentity,time,selfreferenceshowdoes
oneprobe/measurehisownstate?Istheprobingispartofthestate?
Itsarecursiveprocessgoingonatseverallevelssimultaneouslycaneachlevelbeconsideredaseperatemind/observer?
Isthereacomputationanalogy?Turingmachinecapturingitscurrentownstateasdata?
248. wolfgangSays:
Comment#248March29th,2014at11:57am

@Greg#246
Idontthinkwedisagree(butperhapsmyEnglishisnotgoodenough,Iamnotanativespeaker).
>>whatdoesitmeantogothesubjectiveroute
Imeantheassumptionthatprobabilitiesaresubjectiveasopposedtointerpretationswheretheyareobjective(e.g.deBroglie
BohmorobjectivecollapsealaGRW).
@fred#247
>>howdoesoneprobe/measurehisownstate?
Thisisnotnecessary.IdonothavedomeasurewhatIexperienceIamalwaysawareofwhatIexperience
249. MHSays:
Comment#249March29th,2014at12:05pm

@ScottS#86
werealldevelopeddecadesorevencenturiesbeforeanyonethoughtofanyapplicationstophysics,butthenturnedouttobe
exactlywhatphysicistsneeded.

Thefactthatexistingmathematicaltheoriesareusefullforphysicsdoesnotmeanthattheyareexactlywhatphysicistsneed.
Theymaycontainalotoffatandtheremayexistssimplertheoriesthatperformexactlythesameservice.Thefactthatthese
theoriesareseldomstrippedoftheirfat(relatedtoaspecificapplication)hastodowiththefactthatyoudontgettheNobelor
Fieldsprizeforsimplifyingthings,onlyforfindingnewthings.
250. GregKuperbergSays:
Comment#250March29th,2014at1:44pm

wolfgangImeantheassumptionthatprobabilitiesaresubjective
Butmyargumentdoesntassumethatprobabilitiesareperceived.Itonlymakesthemuchweakerassumptionthathigh
concentrationofquantumstateisperceived.ItfollowsasacorollarythattheexactBornruleisperceivedaswell.
251. GregKuperbergSays:
Comment#251March29th,2014at2:10pm

wolfgangSorry,IthinkImisunderstoodyourlatestremark.Bohmianmechanicsisaseparatestorywithitsownproblems.I
amcritiquingunitaryonlyQM,whichtakesthepositionthattheBornrulecansomehowbeignoredorrejectedasnoteven
subjective,orotherwisesomehowperipheraloroptional.Thisisaveryconfusingpositionbecause,asIwanttoargue,youcan
practicallyderivesubjectiveCopenhagenfromunitaryQM.
252. GregKuperbergSays:
Comment#252March29th,2014at11:57pm

Max#225:
ImusingthemathematicalstructuredefinitiongiveninthebookandinAppendixAin
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646v2.pdf
Okay,IlookedatthedefinitioninAppendixA.Imnotsurethatthisissueofwhatcountsasanisomorphicissoeasilysettled.
Ifyouwanttoberigorousaboutallofthis,thenIthinkyouappealtoamodelofisomorphisminasubcategoryofthecategoryof
sets.I.e.,inthecategoryofsets,anisomorphismisabijectionifyoudecoratethesets,thensomeofthebijectionsmaysurvive
asisomorphismsandotherswont.
TheproblemisthatitisnotatallclearthatasubcategoryofSetisaverygoodmodelforouruniverse.Forinstance,quantum
probabilityiscloselyrelatedtomeasuretheory,andmeasuretheoryisthebasisforthecounterexamplethatIgave.Again,in
thecategoryofmeasurablesubsetsof\R^n,theintegersandtheemptysetareinfactisomorphic.Ingeneral,alotofcategories
aremostnaturallyconstructedassubquotientcategoriesofSetratherthanassubcategories,orevenbymoregeneral
constructionsthansubquotients.Forinstance,thehomotopycategoryoftopologicalspacesisnaturallyaquotientofTop,which
isasubcategoryofSet.
Now,yes,thereisanelementaryresultincategorytheorythateverycategoryembedsasacategoryofSet.Butnotvery
naturally,andnotuniquelyeither.Ifyouemphasizemathematicalisomorphism,andifyoualsoemphasize(inyourAppendixA)
morphismsinthecategorySet,thenpresumablythespecificimplementationofthewitnesseduniverseinSetshouldmatter!
Forinstance,ifyoudoimplementsomeothercategoryasasubcategoryofSet,atypicalconstructionwouldbetoturnthe
integersintosometotallydifferentobject,maybetheemptyset,maybeaoneelementset,maybeanuncountableset.Itmaynot
countforverymuchthatthestrictemptysetisnotisomorphictothestrictintegers,ifinouruniversetheperceivedemptyset
andtheperceivedintegersareimplementedbysometotallydifferentsetsafterall.
Butalso,ifyouwanttopredictthatotheruniversesexist,thenthiscouldbeevenmorespeculativethanyoumayhaveexpected,if
ourownuniversesimplementationasanobjectinSet(orasubcategoryofSet)issoutterlynegotiable.
253. fredSays:
Comment#253March30th,2014at1:24pm

Wolfgang#249
Thisisnotnecessary.IdonothavedomeasurewhatIexperienceIamalwaysawareofwhatIexperience
Isanatomawareofwhatitexperiences?Howabouttwoatoms?Threethousand?Alltheatomsinyourbrain?
stateofamind,awarenessofexperienceWhatarethedefinitionsofallthosevagueconcepts?

Itallstartswiththepatternsofthedatastreamsrunningalongthenervesconnectingthebraintothesensoryorgans.
ButgoingfromtheretodrawingconclusionsaboutconsciousnessandQMisquiteajump.
Forexample,whatifawarenesswasthewavefunctionofthebrain?Someonethenisgonnasaysomethingaboutthebrainbeing
highlydecoherentSure,soisastone.Butastoneisntanevolvingstructurehighlyisomorphic/correlatedtothepast,present,
andfutureofitselfanditsenvironment.
254. wolfgangSays:
Comment#254March30th,2014at3:11pm

@fred#253
Perhapsyouwanttodescribeastoneusingasuperpositionofquantumstates.
Perhapsyouwanttodescribemeasbeinginsuchasuperposition.
However,Icertainlycannotdescribemyselfasbeinginasuperpositioninanyreasonableway.
SothisiswheretheCopenhagenreductionnecessarilyhappens.
255. fredSays:
Comment#255March30th,2014at5:10pm

wolfgang#255
Well,Imcertainlyfeelinglikemymindisnothingbutanendlessseriesofsuperpositions!
Byevolutionthemaintaskofthebrainistosimulateitsenvironmentanditself,soataverybasiclevelthemindisaseriesof
feedbackandfeedfowardloops,mixingpaststatesandpredictedstates.
Moreprimitivelowerlevelsystemsalsoconstantlyfeedsignalstohigherlevels(subconscious).
Itsalsoveryprobablethatateverygivenlevelmultipleconsciousnesswork/competeatthesametime.
Whetheranyofthosesuperpositionsareorfeelquantumorclassical,Idontknow,andIdoubtanybodydoes.
256. fredSays:
Comment#256March30th,2014at5:38pm

wolfgang#255
Thefollowingsuggestionisastretch,butwhenconsideringextremesuperpositionslikemebeingaliveanddead,whostosay
thatthebrainisntperceivingthistosomedegree?
Youcancertainlyfindplentyofpeopleclaimingtheyveexperienceoddsenseofdread/imminentdisasterorconnectionsto
distantevent(likedeathofarelative).
Maybe,withconsciousness,naturehasfoundapracticalwaytoleveragevariousalternativetheMWtreetoincreasechancesof
survivalisntthatwhatwerehopingtoachievewithQCanyway?
257. GregKuperbergSays:
Comment#257March30th,2014at7:27pm

wolfgangHowever,Icertainlycannotdescribemyselfasbeinginasuperpositioninanyreasonableway.
Butthatsbecauseyoursenseofhigherperceptionisintheclassicallimit.Asfarasweknow(andactuallyMaxhaswrittena
paperaboutexactlythistopic),virtuallyallhigheraspectsofmulticellularbiologyarenonquantum.
Certainlyweallacceptthatmanylowerlevelaspectsofourselvesareinasuperposition.Wearemadeofatomsandmolecules,
andtheelectronicorbitsareinsuperposition.Iftheywerent,therewouldbenoFermipressuretomakeapproximately
incompressiblesolidsandliquids.
Ifbiologyhadevolvedquantumcomputationandnotjustclassicalcomputation,thenwewouldhaveamuchbettersenseof
existinginquantumsuperposition.Actually,oursenseofperceptiondoeshaveonenearmiss.Thephotosensitivityofaretinacell
isabout10photons.Ifitwereeasytoseeonephoton,thenwewouldhaveaclearperceptionthatphotonsexistinquantum
superposition,evenifwewouldntsenseourselvesinquantumsuperposition.Quantummechanicswouldprobablyhavebeen
discoveredmuchsooner.
258. SandroSays:
Comment#258March31st,2014at7:21am

Thephotosensitivityofaretinacellisabout10photons.Ifitwereeasytoseeonephoton,thenwewouldhavea

clearperceptionthatphotonsexistinquantumsuperposition,evenifwewouldntsenseourselvesinquantum
superposition.
Thereareproposedexperimentsdesignedtoentanglehumansinpreciselythisway.
259. fredSays:
Comment#259March31st,2014at7:44am

Maybeweshouldaddanoiseknobtoourbrains.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/techtalk/computing/hardware/quantumcomputingaddscontrolknobfordwavemachine?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IeeeSpectrum+%28IEEE+Spectrum%29
260. quaxSays:
Comment#260March31st,2014at12:32pm

GregKuperberg#49,Iamabitlatetocatchuponthisthreadbutmustadmitthisblogneverceasestoamaze.Findmyselfforthe
firsttimeinfullagreementwithyouonanissue.
Tomeitseemsobviousthatquantumprobabilityasageneralizationoftheclassiccaseispreciselywhatsneededtoundothe
GordianKnotoftheQMmeasurementproblem(despiteparsimonyapparentlyalignedagainstit).
Andkudosforcomment#216whatanawesomecomeback.Mademelaughoutloud,andthatreallydoesnthappenallthat
often.
261. GregKuperbergSays:
Comment#261March31st,2014at5:36pm

quaxWell,thanksforthecompliment!
262. fredSays:
Comment#262March31st,2014at5:37pm

Thebigboysinvestinginneocortexsimulationcompanies:
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/21/zuckerbergmuskinvestinartificialintelligencecompanyvicarious/
263. DavidWheelerSays:
Comment#263April2nd,2014at10:14am

Imjustaguy,nospecialqualifications,atruelayman,ifyouwill.Nevertheless,thisisaspeculativeissueIfindfascinating.I
thinkalmosteveryoneagrees:theuniversehasstructure,andwherewedisagreeiswhetherornottheuniverseisstructure.To
befair,thesetwostatementsareusingstructureintwodistinctways,thelatterreferringtoalogical(=mathematical)structure,
whichisamuchmorenarrowuseoftheword.
Ithinksecretly(perhapsunknowingly?)manyphysicistshopesomethingliketheMUHistrue,thattherulesoftheuniverseDO
exist,andthattheyCANBEdiscovered,andwewill(attheveryleast)understandallPHYSICALphenomenon.Ithinkalimited
formoftheMUHiseminentlyscientific,andcouldhaveonepossibleconsequenceof,atsomefuturedate,causingmostfieldsof
knowledgetobesubsumedunderitsstudy(provided,ofcourse,ourspeciessurvivesthatlong,whichisperhapsdoubtful).
Thatsaid,althoughIfindpersonallytheMUHprovocative,Idonotfeelitisthetruth.AsmyfriendSteveKangasusedtosay
(quotingKorzybski),themapisnottheterritory.IthinkiftheuniverseDOESpossessastructure,itisratherlikeaRiemann
surface,andwhatwemodelitasislikeaprojectionofthatsurface.Ifeelwewillalwaysbeinthesituationoftheblindmenand
theelephant:competingmaximaltheoriesofeverythingwillcontinuetopersist.Ifirmlybelieveaccountingforeverythingcannot
bedoneCONSISTENTLY.
ThisisnotbecauseIbelievetheuniverse(ormultiverse,orwhatever)isitselfinconsistent,butratherreflectsourlimitationsas
consistentconstructswithinit.Putanotherway:Idontthinkwehavequantumbrains.
HereiswhyIthinktheMUHisavalidscientifichypothesis:ifitistrue,weoughttobeabletodevelopenoughmathematicsto
modelenoughofwhatisgoingontocreateavirtualuniversegoodenoughtofoolanyoneexperiencingitintobelievingitisreal
(weonlyneedtomaintainfaithfulnessdowntothePlanckscale,andtotheobservablelimitsoftheuniverse).Itseemslikelywe
mightactuallybeabletotestthiswithinafewcenturiesorless.AndifweCANT,itservesasakindoffalsificationfortheMUH,
thatthereissomethingmissing,somemagicthealgebradoesntcapture.

264. TheMathematicalUniverseHypothesis|LogicMattersSays:
Comment#264April3rd,2014at1:24pm

[]Ourexternalphysicalrealityisamathematicalstructure.ThatshowWikipediasumsupthecosmologistMaxTegmarks
mathematicaluniversehypothesis.Looksasifsomeconceptualuntanglingisneeded.ScottAaronsonmakesagreatstartina
wonderfulblogposthere.[]

LeaveaReply
Name(required)
Mail(willnotbepublished)(required)
Website

SubmitComment

ShtetlOptimizedisproudlypoweredbyWordPress
Entries(RSS)andComments(RSS).