Max Tegmark - Why There is "Something" rather than "Nothing"
2016 ж. 15 Мам.
91 579 Рет қаралды
We know that there is not Nothing. There is Something. It is not the case that there is no world, nothing at all, a blank. It is the case that there is a world. Nothing did not obtain. But why?
Click here to watch more interviews on the reason there is something rather than nothing bit.ly/1TcRCeR
Click here to watch more interviews with Max Tegmark bit.ly/19LefkO
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com
This mans's book 'Our Mathmatical Universe' is superb.
I've lost count of how many of these "nothing" conversations I've watched and it amazes me how many of the most brilliant minds have almost nothing meaningful to say about this question.
so this means god did it?
That’s because there is nothing meaningful to say to answer an unanswerable question.
They are not giving the answer you want?
@@enlilannunaki9064 you cant understand a system in wich you are immersed in
@@rahulmosalpuri9491 thats is my personal belief, and I also see the big bang as a clear act of god
There's no such thing as "nothing". There is always everything.
this is the right answer ultimately.
Nothing is a part in your mind, and exist in your mind. All existing = the Nature N, your mind is a part of N.
He is saying that the universe is an abstract mathematical object and that therefore its existence is guaranteed. To follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion one should argue that each of our individual senses of consciousness is part of the same abstract structure and so is our sense of the reality of the physical world. This if true is the deepest and most profound insight and is beautiful as well.
the only "problem" with Max's proposal is that it's sooo damn counter-intuitive against what we all perceive. If one day someone came and told you that you're just a part of external unchanging (and un-caused like number PI or 2+2) frozen cube of 4D space time, and that anything changes is just a perception or side-effect but in actual fundamental reality nothing ever changes and everything exists at-the-same-time frozen as a platonic solid eternally (including your future and your past and your children's children). You'd sure shudder in disbelief, but trust me, i've been there and shuddered too... but so far found nothing that even close to the elegance and solidity of Max's model of why-something-exists, it's the best we have at the moment IMO, and it's sure scary as hell, but universe doesnt care about our little fears
@@Alejandro388 Yes I agree, it's a perfectly consistent explanation to existence, both why it is there and why it has the form it does, yet hard to swallow because it's counter-intuitive, and because there's another mystery left to resolve about it in my view. To make an analogy, imagine all of existence, the universe, was a simple line y=x*x. Then just like the universe, we can reason why that single line exists rather than not, because it's a mathematical relation that couldn't NOT be anymore than 1+1=2 couldn't not be. Now imagine that your total conscious experience, as a conscious being in that simple universe, was gliding through that line, and experiencing the rising rate of increase of y with regards to x. Let's say you experienced that visually, as a slope you saw rising, and that somehow you could reason like us. Then you might assume that this rising slope is a physical thing that demands explanation, that it is contingent as is often said about physical objects. And then you'd have this same whole philosophical questioning that we have about that physical rising slope's origin of existence. Even if you could make out the mathematics, you'd ask : "But why does it have a physical existence? The mathematics doesn't explain that". Your confusion then, would be to presume that your conscious experience of that slope is a physical thing, whereas in reality it'd just be your subjectively constructed experience of a purely mathematical thing. The real question really is, why DO you have that vivid subjective experience of it, making it seem like it's a physically existing entity. That's what's not readily explained by the math of the slope, out of which you just presume a physically existing thing, whereas really it's just your experience of it that exists and imposes a physicality to it. That's where the mystery resides to me. Of course the point where my analogy doesn't correspond do reality is that the universe is much more complex, and it entails the very complex mathematical objects in things like humans. So already at least a conscious experience doesn't arise completely out of nowhere like in that simple line universe, it clearly arises within those mathematical objects. Still, the question remains, why do those complex mathematical objects, which we are in that view, have a subjective experience of the whole thing. How does it arises? If we can answer that, than I think we could say we truly have resolved the whole mystery of existence: The mathematical existence of our whole universe is an unavoidable fact just like the fact 1+1 = 2. Then, certain mathematical objects/patterns that are encapsulated within it will unavoidably have a subjective experience arising out of the complex patterns in which they are involved. That subjective experience gives them an emergent sense of physical existence to those patterns that they witness, which they may wrongly assume to exist outside of their experience or of the mathematical pattern of it, because it intuitively feels so real to them. But that really is all there is to it, the unimaginably complex totality of all mathematical relations and objects, a subset of which is certain specific objects/patterns having subjective conscious experiences.
Chris Langan's CTMU
I love this dude-period.
Thank you Mr.Tegmark I have wondered for many years how infinity could exist, you provided the best most logical explanation I have ever received.
He gave no reason to think time and infinity are not mutually exclusive so you made that up out of nothing.
This never gets anywhere...
Not sure who this host is but I really, really appreciate his push back in a kind but inquisitive way, and not just letting Max off the hook. I don't feel Max answered many of the interviewers answers as directly as I'd like, he rambled too much about abstract geometric objects, but this was decent.
it takes no small leap of thought to actually understand where his "rambling" comes from. Considering myself among ones who "get it" what Max is trying to say. Here it goes: we humans are so habitually used to devide world into "abstract" and "real" things, material world and world of ideas, and it's ok because this is a very honest preception - we know a difference between a daydream and a piece of hot iron. But Max's proposal goes so radically against our very core unquestioned-intuitions: cause and effect, before and after, real and abstract. Imagine our entire world(s) is actually as is enternal and as unchaging like strip of numbers in a 3.14159 ... and all the living beings that ever "were" and ever "will be" are already int that serquence, not just encoded, but actually "live" there - it quite sounds baloony sure, but the beautiful thing about is: 3.14159 (PI) or entire worlds encoded in a certain mathematical structures already contain worlds detailed down to Plank-scale as "frozen" 4-D sturctures, and the creatures that "live" in them have preception that things are changing while in fundamental reality nothing changes, the future and past "already" exist as written in stone, damn, the were never written, like PI or 2+2=4 - these almost have "no right" to not exist, no right to be "caused" by something. So, to end the rambling: if for a second you could believe 2+2=4 or PI or Platonic solids can have indepmendent and causless existance, then it's not a giant leap to interpolate furtherr that in certain XYZ structure our world with all the biological divercity is also encoded and causlessly exist. Then following Occams Razor, this type of model wins hands-down compared anytthing else that would require "cause" for our "material world" to spring out form something. Disclamer: i had very similar intutions years back, and i was scavenging the web intensly until i finally found Max Tagmark who laid it out so nicely. The difference is im a layman-nobody, and he's a praticing astrophysicist (it's off-topic but just for the context)
@@Alejandro388 You should try Julian Barbour's book The End Of Time. That and either of David Deutsch's books. You'd enjoy them.
Think about it this way: when you tunnel down to the fundamental essence of objects what does it mean to say that something is a 'physical object'? Take a steel crowbar. As solid an object as you can find. It is made up of molecules. Those molecules are made up of atoms. Those atoms are made up of electrons, neutrons, protons. Already the concept of a physical object is beginning to break down. When we get to the level of quarks(long before that in fact) what we end up describing are no longer physical objects in any real sense of the word 'physical' that you or I understand from daily life. They have no real diameter or shape. They have no explicit position at any one time. If you were to wave your hand through them they would pass through. In fact the closer we get to the most fundamental objects, the objects that constitute everything we think of as 'stuff', the less important anything like size, shape, position, etc becomes, until they all become irrelevant. At the most fundamental level there is only one truly real aspect of these objects: the relation they have to other objects. They stop being things with size, shape, solidity, and instead are more understandable as simply points that signify relations between other points. They have no inherent properties in the sense that we humans think of things as having properties. They have no size. They have no colour, taste, smell, You couldn't see one, even in principle. And we are talking about the most basic building blocks here: the constituents of everything around us. Yet they have no real physical reality that's analogous to anything in the human-sized world. They do not make sense as physical objects...they are more like simple rules of geometry. At this tiny level the difference between an abstraction like 'mathematics' and something that we think of as the opposite of an abstraction, like a 'physical object', crumbles into nothing. When you understand that the fundamental building blocks of that steel crowbar turn out to have no size, no shape, no width, height, depth, taste, smell, touch...then it should much easier to understand Max's argument. There ceases to be any meaningful distinction between purely mathematical objects and supposedly 'physical' objects.
@@Alejandro388 I like to go a little farther and suggest that everything is made out of the same base material, anything and everything (empty space, thoughts, all forms of energy). I find appeal in the simulation theory, but at this level of detail it wouldn't really be a simulation anymore and more sort of creationism. Everything that I have been able to perceive to date has been quantifiable by math, even abstract things therefore math seems to be in everything. Existence could be nothing more than bits of data and as infinite as numbers. Imagine for example, a line that goes both ways (like numbers -/+) to one side things go small, to the other things become big and the way they behave is influenced by the density (amount of base material). Volume is not a factor on determining the way things behave but density does (black holes, Suns). The closer things are to each other, the bigger the distortion of space-time and thus reality. I imagine that when black holes die is when everything in them becomes one. I am a painter so dont take me too serious 😂
@@Alejandro388 I don't think you understand what "nothing" is.
This is my favorite segment. They both don't hold back. I guess everything could have always existed. My brain is wired to think everything is generated but I can understand the permanence. A mathematical universe implies nature is essentially intelligent and codified.
I love this guy.
"Allow us one miracle and we'll explain the rest." - Max Tegmark, 2016 (I paraphrase.)
I was obsessed with a thought that why we cannot draw line other straight and curved. And why 2 + 2 is not equal to 5. And I found these concepts are self evident. These are first principle or axiom acting as a foundation of other studies. So mathematics is a key is the code of reality. We cannot break these truths, and so these are not just beliefs but are justified truths.
You say a made up rule like 2+2 = 4 is a justified truth. But it is still made up by humans. Without humans there is no such concept, and no such rule, and no such mathematics. The relationships in nature might still exist similarly; but this is coincidental: for nature is not mathematics. At least this is something that can be argued for. The only one we cannot get out of according to Hume is the law of non-contradiction Anyway, my point is that Platonists suck :) No matter what. Nature is first; mathematics follows nature. Where they are equivalent and supervene, this is thanks to nature, not mathematics. For without nature there would be no mathematical objects to think about!
I think I finally get it. What max is saying. And it is a really beautiful view.
Ultimate question
It's scary that when everyone is asked this question they either change the question or they get angry or upset.
Sage Mantis Absolutely. most should just beg off or except the obvious ramifications. God
Look for the most logical explanation, then it wont be scary at all. We're taught about God so its easier to understand the whole construct, that it was created that way. Without a designer the question becomes scary, I mean there literally no reason for reality to exist unless it was the will of an agency. Now explaning that agency can be a mindfuck, but one step at a time.
@@kasparov937 But if you do admit that God was not designed by anything then why can't you admit that this something is maybe not designed by anything else?
I’m someone-I don’t change the subject or get angry
@@ericday4505 God is a paradox. Saying god is not designed or created only tells us you are not capable of realizing your own hypocrisy, that you are willing to accept god as infinite and uncreated but not the universe. You insert a middle man that explains nothing but complicates a whole lot. Saying God has given you purpose or meaning when God is a concept with no inherent meaning renders you equally meaningless. There is no greater meaning to something designed by another something without meaning.
Conway's Game of life is an important concept to understand this. I'm surprised Tegmark never mentions it.
It feels like time is a continuous eternal present, but maybe that's only us distorting our observation through the lens of awareness.
I like your ideas Mr Tegmark. Mathematic is the best language or most beautiful one to discribe the world we live in. But its still a language, Not a physical reality!
I really like MaxTegmark, but I still don't understand what/who breathes fire into the equations. How do you get from the timeless abstractions of mathematical formalism to the actual world made of matter? There seems to be a fundamental difference between describing sth and causing it to happen.
sam22 "Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?"....Stephen Hawking -Stephen only the mathematical blue prints exist as there is no physical substance and the fire that breaths into the equations is only qualia.
I think Josh Levin is explaining the theory correctly - there is no physical substance and the fire that breaths into the equations is only qualia. Sam 22 - what exactly do you think matter is? Because the more physics looks at matter, the less like anything we would recognise as matter it appears to be. By the time we get to quantum field theory, all we actually see are equations describing probabilities of what is likely to be where. We want to think that these equations are describing some actual “thing” or “substance” or something. But all we actually have are the equations. So, maybe, those equations are actually all there is. We are simply outputs of mathematical equations, and the supposed “reality” of “matter” that we perceive is just how the mathematical reality manifests itself subjectively in our mathematically created minds.
What he's saying makes sense but I agree that it doesn't answer the question. The universe, in this view, is described sufficiently by mathematics. Ontologically the universe is made up of mathematical objects - you are the mathematical object that describes you. This can be done with logical consistency, at least for idealized universes, and it is believed that it can be done with logical consistency for our universe. Yet what is not explained, at least not in the clip, is why some particular mathematical objects exist as opposed to not existing. Saying that it's like 1 + 1 = 2 is a failed analogy simply because, while the equation is a basic fact, the existence of particular physical objects, even if taken to mean their mathematical counterparts, is not at all obvious and therefore demand an explanation. This can be seen by just looking at the mathematics. A mathematical object of the kind used in physical model to describe physical objects, call the contingent objects, must have its existence assumed and then the job of the mathematical arguments is to derive the consequences, hopefully in the form of predictions. For example, in classical physics, if one assumes the existence of a particle and some forces acting on it, and assume a certain initial state, only then can one make predictions, at least in principle. Here, the particle is a contingent object whose existence demands an explanation.
@@willmosse3684 Love the concept. I wish it made any sense, but it doesn't. How can math objects become conscious experience? And honestly I don't see how math objects could exist by themselves. An there's probably a dimension where 2 + 2 is 3 somehow, we just cant conceive it because we are bound the this particular universe.
@@MrJoshlevin Ontology breaths life into physics. Numbers and shapes don't make up reality; that's a non-sequitur.
It is so strange that we are here experiencing reality and we cant fully understand its origins! It is even stranger (maybe not) that a lot of people cant perceive this aspect of life. I think we will never fully understand the nature of reality, but that makes it more interesting even though it is irritating at times.
I love all these episodes....the common thread is always a redefining of the question, never an answer to the problem.....resulting in us not getting any....closer to the truth. Perhaps we need to reconsider objectivity as not fundamental.
4:43 was a cube still a cube milliseconds after the big bang and earlier?
Max has a brilliant postulation (speculation? religion?) explaining that Spacetime might be just an abstract mathematical structure, giving the illusion of time, the illusion of causation, the illusion of things happening. Brilliant. Not that I agree, but it gives pause to think.
Every person he has asked this question to that I have seen seems unwilling to give an answer or speculate an answer They could just simply say that it’s a philosophical question and they don’t know the answer, or just speculate
You are right, non of them want to except the question is valid. Remove all the planets, stars, black holes everything in the universe then remove the universe! That's nothing
@@paulmills5398 Only it’s not. Even the void of empty space isn’t nothing. Instead particles constantly pop into and out of existence. The void is in fact some thing. I think the concept of nothing is a human invention. There can’t be such a thing as no thing.
@@obstsaladin You have put your case over excellently...BUT why is it that way, why is there always something and not nothing! People may say "that's how quantum mechanics is" but entropy wants the most simple state possible and that would be nothing.
Since the limitation to the number of Platonic solids is based on the limitations of angle size/sum (at least the trivial proofs I've seen), wouldn't that be different in space where the curvature is different? e.g. negatively curved space where the sum of the angles of a triangle (or square or pentagon) is less then 180 (resp. 360, 540) degrees so I can cram more of the at the vertex of a polyhedron ?
4:55 - That's problematic because the cube is just a cube if you assume a certain kind of geometrical rules (that are arbitrary) to be true (there's no such thing as a cube on some geometrical systems). The same with 2 + 2 = 4; because 2 + 2 = 4 only if you assume an adequate numeric base
im not very mathematically savvy however i am enjoying max tegmarks book with an open mind. i think that there are natural laws that we indeed are discovering and math is just a measurement of these natural laws so that we as humans can comprehend such laws
this guy is a deep thinker and genius
There is something because of the power that makes it possible.
Modality
I just finished his book our mathematical universe. His theory is really good. Of course it isn't prove and maybe we will never know if he has right. But I choose to believe it. This theory makes sense and is beautiful, I don't ask for more
If there were nothing, there would not be any such question!!!
His view is not easy to explicate in 6 minutes in a popular level discourse. But there is content to his view. He's a brilliant mathematician and physicist and it's absurd to think that he's never thought about how causality works and that the intellectual edifice he's spent a lifetime creating could be destroyed by the casual observation that "abstract things can't cause anything to happen".
But he did not do a particularly good job of expressing himself, did he?
@@wgb8210 he did, we interpret causation by how things happen through time but by a mathematical standpoint nothing happens, what you call causation is a relation between objects in a 3+1 dimensionnal pseudo-riemannian manifold. All of time and space exist already as a block, every places and every events are already there, we are just in relation with different events and constraints by mathematical laws, your future you exists already and your past you didn't disapear, in fact all the information about the universe exists like all the information of a movie exists as a whole in a dvd. Abstract objects can't cause anything to other disconnected abstract objects but we are part of a particular mathematical object and have relationnal property with some part of it that we subjectively name causality.
I understood all that ... yea right!
Causality is an archaic framework for considering issues like this. The deeper we go into physics, the more we realize that causality is only an approximate construct which connects certain patterns (in time and space) generated by our theories. In particular, it makes no sense to apply causality to the universe itself. It's not even really an absolute concept *within* the universe.
I would argue the opposite that causality is more fundamental than Physics. Say in Maths you have your axioms from which you derive your theorems. This would be your framework for causality.
Abstract objects need a consciousness in order to influence matter, this is the right answer to causality.
No, that's just nonsense.
Loginf 314 You may be right but it’s also a begging of the question. Consciousness is what makes something abstract so that statement alone cannot prove what you are trying to say. Perhaps adding something else to the mix will strengthen your point.
This is a very cool answer which I haven't thought of before. Essentially math is the something we find ourselves in. And perhaps this is a dangerous circular path I'm heading down, but why must math/logic exist? I've tried to research this question before and have never seen many others asking, but it seems like it could be possible to at least consider finding a logical answer being that we live in a logical reality.
Because 2 + 2 has to be 4. There is no other possibility.
@@michal261 In the reality we find ourselves in, I would agree. But I'm trying to ask why there is even internal logical consistency to begin with. I don't think there's an answer because you would have to answer it logically, but you can still ask it....
At 5:07 if a cube is 'timeless' mustn't it also be spaceless?
Yes, but what he is arguing is that that Cube or some structure like it is what creates space and time
@@ched2marcus i'd add that it doesnt "create space and time" but space-time is contained/reprsented within it, as mare derived quality. Like say a property of "ax^2+bx+c=0" equation is that it has 2 solutions in real-numbers domain. So time is just a property of mathematical model among zillions of other properties. But it's quit significant to us humans, because so much in our lives depends on time, but to actual reality time is a mare derived property, not fundamental. It all sounds scary to us but nature does not care
A very intriguing concept! I have one problem with this idea though. It doesn't sound completely nonsensible to me that it is possible that abstract mathematical/logical structures actually exist (in some sense of the word).However, our universe seems to be more than just an abstract reality, since there are entities (humans) within it that are conscious and able to observe it. That doesn't seem like something you would expect in this kind of platonic space he is talking about. But on the other hand: why not? :p
take your imagination a step further: if the "entities" (humans) could also be described exactly down to Planck-scale by a mathematical model, just as inanimate rocks flying in space are, then the model that describes platonic solids is fundamentally no different from the one that describes every living millisecond of a protein based being. Then what? Then our intuitive resistance to Max's idea looses it's strength, and we're left in awe
Humans can be mathematical, fundamentally, just like the matter that makes up a rock--there's no difference, fundamentally.
@@Alejandro388 Very well said.
the moment something exists - there’s maths.
Before something exists - there's maths.
the moment something exists - there description
What if other universes don't operate on any math, physics, or objects, but something else in its place which would be unimaginable to us in our universe? could there be universes where they have have something better then math? a completely alien concept that we couldn't imagine?
@@topguntk870 Math just means a countable, consistent system (numerical logic). Other types of logic are always true regardless of the existence of a physical universe, eg the rules of chess. Likely, however, math is fundamental to all such logical truths, simply because there's nothing more fundamental than count-ability (such as digitalism/bits). It begs the question, though, what meaning or reality such notions have without them being physically manifested.... It's one of those things where both positions are true (their logic holds regardless of reality, yet they don't exist until extant). Math works ultimately because reality is perfectly consistent. Is it that math predetermines this consistency? Probably not. But consistency itself is the basis of logic, therefore, reality is fundamentally the ultimate expression of logic. This is why math works so well regarding reality. Something contradictory can't manifest physically due, likely, to causality. We've now ventured into the interpretations of QM.
@@djayjp Interesting. For me I look at it like just because we can't imagine or comprehend something doesn't mean it can't exist. Of course we cannot imagine an existence without math doesn't mean there can't be other ways universes can work. its like imagining new colors.....we know they exist but we can never see or imagine them. same rule could apply for other universes where they may contain things we couldn't even dream of in our universe.
But as Landauer said, information is physical. So perhaps abstract objects cannot be truly abstract and are actually subject to physical laws? Is it true to say that 2+2=4, even in an abstract sense if information is always physical and hence subject to the laws of quantum mechanics?
Wow.
When you investigate "physical" reality and you find only abstract "mathematical structure", could it be you were never studying anything but the contents of your own mind?
Yes, it not only could be but most certainly is! Mathematics is a reflection of how the human mind abstracts out aspects of reality......
I mean, didn't we choose the axioms of mathematics influenced by the universe around us? Doesn't math just reflect what we learned about the universe, and if the universe itself was different our math would be too? Or are we talking about math in the big picture with all the possible non contradicting groups of axioms? And such big math exists outside of the universe?
@MyOtherSoul, So remember there is a great debate about Math "Is it Invented or Discovered", you are in the first camp and I am in the second camp.
Multiple universes is an universe within an universe within an universe, layer after layer. They're like the Faberge egg. Though each universe got its own subtle set of mathematical and physical rules, they all started with a simple set of rule: 2+2=4.
As an interesting corollary to this question, we might imagine this scenario: Assume there is no life whatsoever in the entire universe. So the universe is just 'here' but there is nothing to notice it exists. We are not permitted to ask the question, "Why should such an incredible phenomenon exist with no meaning or purpose?" That question, of course, is meaningless because the term 'meaning' does not refer to anything or any property existing in the universe independent of a life form that asks it. What is the meaning of Alpha Centauri is a question that can be asked, but there is no legitimate answer to such questions. When life stops existing it puts an immediate end to such questions. So imagine the universe as it is now, but then imagine no intelligence or awareness to notice it exists. It's somewhat similar to imagine there was no land bridge across the Bering Sea ... so no humans ever came to N. America: just an unbroken forest from the east coast to the Mississippi River. Animals and plants, but no humans; no human had ever set foot in N. America when the Vikings landed in Newfoundland.
I understood everything you said except the comparison to north america Lol.
More than that, I think the question actually reduces to not just why is there life to notice meaning, but why is there mind, and in particular, why is there MY mind. Because at the end of the day, all these questions only make sense provided that "I" exist. In the event "I" don't exist, to be honest, all this is nonsense.
These questions all lead to God & we must believe he exists and then he will be pleased and GIVE us the good life in heaven. I keep asking - so what does one DO in Heaven? What happened to all this talk of meaning and purpose? I see billions of people just laying about, doing nothing, an idle, lazy, useless and pointless existence for eternity- so where is this meaning and purpose and this Grand plan of God? Honestly the way religion is able to brainwash even the best of minds!
If there was truly nothing there wouldn’t be anything stopping something from being.
I’d say Max Tegmark got completely owned by RLK. Robert called him out on his nonsense about “mathematical structures”, and Tegmark didn’t have an adequate answer.
The universe operates according to certain programs, and there is no room for free movement. The program is described by a symbol called "math". A particle is an immaterial entity like information, and "information" is like a shadow from a mathematical entity.
Mathematics is nice, maybe the most powerful tool we have ever invented because it describes the world so well. That is all true, including the part about math being a tool we invented. All mathematics starts with some assumptions, some axioms, which come come before the math starts. There is no evidence for axioms before humans came around. The universe is orderly and consistent, so is mathematics, that is why it works so well, but that doesn't make them the same.
What you say, certainly sounds true. It may not make them the same, BUT they could be the same. That is the issue.
@@picobarco4407 They are not the same because there are many valid mathematical systems but only some of them are consistent with the universe.
"pay no attention to the man behind the curtain to dodging the question in order to preserve his platonic idealism when confronted by its manifest incoherence"
I do believe there is a timeless spaceless reality on which spacetime supervenes. Whether it is just the pure mathematical system with all its elements on which it rests I don't know why this should be the case, there is no specific reason to believe this. For all we know mathematics as we know it exists within space and time, not sure how we can demonstrate or justify otherwise
On the topic of timelessnes of mathematical truth: atleast in this discussion max does not seem to account for the fact that 1+1=2 is only true because 1 and 2 are mathematical objects that are related by a certain group of axioms. From these relationships the statement seems to be timelessly true. But it kindof is just a random set of axioms, you can pick another set and then get other truths. So two problems arise: 1. is it also true for a set of axioms that they exist beyond time? That every possible set of axioms just "exists" or are they created in the instant they are chosen and put together by a mathematician for example? I mean if axioms are timelessly true, then there shouldn't be just a certain set which is true, but all of them. Which would mean that essentially everything is true, because you can have anything as an axiom. 2.: so are there kinda like different realities for every possible set of axioms, or is it just the case that it happens to be only this one set that is able to spawn the complexity needed for the cosmos? And 3. while i think of it: he says we are part of this one mathematical structure, which obeys certain axioms and certain axioms it dies not obey. Yet we, as part of this structure, can look at and study any concievable set of axioms through our mathematical capabilities. So how can this certain set of axioms, which tells you how the hilbert and minkowski space works (or whatever) incorporate all other possible sets of axioms?
His hypothesis is that only Gödel-complete mathematical structures exist, that's the computable universe hypothesis (CUH). Furthermore we know that there is a relation between complexity and decidability, all mathematical formulas more complex than d(E)=K(E)-lenght(E) are indecidable, where K stands for Kolmogorov complexity and E is a mathematical statement. There is a connexion between formal systems, computation and mathematical structures, Max's guess is that they are 3 manifestations of a same transcendantal structure which forms his mathematical multiverse. In this context, all set of possible axioms exist necesseraly. Math is the study of structures, all possible structures are necessary, hence eternal, they have not pop into existence cause some guy has written some symbols on a piece of paper. Finally, we can think of any combination of bits of string we want in the computationnal limit of our universe, there's no contradiction, there is some theorems and problems we never could prove/solve, they are called intractable problems.
By definition axioms are self evidently true and so would be timelessly true. For example the first axiom of ZFC: "If two sets have the same elements, they are the same set.". This seems to be like a tautology. Could there be a possible universe where this is not true? Also from the principle of explosion if your axioms contain a contradiction you would be able to derive anything.
What if other universes don't operate on any math, physics, or objects, but something else in its place which would be unimaginable to us in our universe? could there be universes where they have have something better then math? or completely alien concepts and ideas that we couldn't imagine?
Mathematics is a language, an invention of the human mind. 2+2=4 is the same as yellow + blue = green....we are describing a relationship that we perceive, those things just "are"
They're exactly opposite things! Yes, 2+2=4 is a human construct, but it's a abstract logical statement that must be true in any setting, by definition. Yellow, blue, and green are our perceptions of the current physical universe around us. Yellow plus blue does not have to equal green by definition, and it doesn't even equal green in this universe, we just perceive it as such.
@@trytwicelikemice7516 I don't see a distinction there. 2+2=4 is correct merely cause we give those symbols the value we want, 2+2=4 could be incorrect if we are in binary system, and yellow + blue = green would be wrong if by any of those words we change it's meaning to a different color of reality. What doesn't change is our perception of reality in a logical way, not the language that we choose to express it (maths). We don't have an example of a human being that is completely devoid of his senses and can produce rational thinking. I'm not sure that if such a person would exist, he would not be crazy instead of coming up with rational mathematical conclusions.
So the question is 'How did something come from nothing?' or 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' Well, here is my take, which is easy to understand because it is not at all scientific or philosophical. It's just a bit of logical progression. If we take 'nothing' to mean 'non-existence', I would argue that Fundamental Reality has never ever been in a state of true non-existence. The reasoning is that non-existence would be a completely inert, unchangeable, irreversible state because by its very definition, there could be no 'mechanism for change' existent. In other words, true non-existence means no quantum foams, no multiple dimensions, and no gods either, as they are all mechanism for change. Now, since we know that reality is currently in a state of existence, we have to surmise that it cannot previously have ever been in a true state of non-existence. This means that the 'default' state of Fundamental Reality is existence, no matter how incomprehensible or unintuitive that may seem to us. We humans seem to gravitate toward this idea that there should be 'nothing instead of something', despite the fact that there's no evidence that non-existence is even possible, let alone some kind of default. Then the next question is, did a consciousness emerge before universes, and did this consciousness decide to make universes (ie. god), OR are universes a natural consequence of reality being in a state of existence, with consciousness (ie. life) eventually emerging in some universes as a natural outcome of matter/energy interacting? Personally, I think the latter is the much more sensible, simpler answer. The former is a huge convolution, and I am a fan of Occam's Razor. Especially given how much humans like to personify nature: volcanoes, earthquakes, storms, stars, mountains, seas, etc. All endlessly personified by our ancient ancestors. In my opinion, universe-creation by a god is just one more personification of a natural process. Besides that, I would highlight the fact that even if Expansion Theory and astrochemistry was shown to be wildly inaccurate, that would not make ancient religious myths any less inadequate, incredulous or ignorant.
not to disagree with what you say, but you miss an important point that Max was trying to make: there is no time. This is actually a big big one. That means there is no cause and effect, no change, everything already exists at the same time and there wont be anything different in the "future". The time is just a derived property of a mathematical model that we happen to "inhabit", just like space, or the quirky limit C speed in vacuum. All the change and chaos we experience daily is already contained in a "frozen" 4D cube of space-time, like some James Bond movie burned onto a DVD - it's all in there, but nothing is actually changing - its frozen forever, the difference is: DVD was created by someone, but number PI or E exists unchangingly forever causelessly, as our world too
@@Alejandro388 I don't disagree with him. Like me, he is saying that Fundamental Reality has always been in a state of existence (4:42). Or put it conversely, that FR has never been in a state of true non-existence (a state from which, as I explained before, there is no escape into the state of 'somethingness'). In this interview he is adding the suggestion that reality does not 'unfold' - that our past, present and future all exist at the same time, like a burnt movie, as you kindly illustrated. I don't know the maths/physics behind this suggestion, but it does not contradict anything that I proposed. I think these very clever people tend to lose the layman when they delve into 'how' things work. The very simple, basic fact that everyone should understand, is that Fundamental Reality has never been in a state of true 'nothingness', and therefore the 'somethingness' that we experience has undoubtedly arisen completely and utterly naturally from that state. The question 'How could something come from nothing?' is an abhorrently ignorant, nonsensical question, that only the most ignorant amongst us would even conceive to ask. I would vehemently disagree with any suggestion that a consciousness 'burnt the DVD', so to speak. That's just such an incredible convolution, and it has no evidence whatsoever. That is a religious belief, and it has absolutely nothing to do with trying to understand the truth of reality.
@@NebulousWeb Point 1: you seam to assign consciousness some very special role in all of this, which i dont see in Max's proposals at all. Point 2: You also seam to resist Max's idea that reality exists as eternal (non-changing, timeless) web of relations of mathematical nature. Why? Do you have evidence to the contrary, i.e. that things do change and time is fundamental component that mediates the change? To elaborate my own example of "James bond DVD" - it precisely follows what Max is proposing, namely that all relationships (including dimension of TIME) exist simultaneously as a mathematical structure, therefore the term "frozen" (or burned DVD) is quite appropriate here, just like digits of infinite non-repeating sequence by which number PI can be represented - is eternal, not changing. Your resistance to this hints at some deeper misunderstanding of this model IMO, which i'd sort of want to get to the bottom of in this discussion.
@@Alejandro388 I am not contrary or resistant anything Max is suggesting here. As I said, I don't know the maths/physics behind his suggestions, so I can't really comment on it. As far as I can tell, Max is not suggesting anything that counters or disagrees with my point of view. He is just adding suggestions about how the universe works (and perhaps how Fundamental Reality works), pushing beyond the principle question 'Why is there something, rather than nothing?'. In fact you can see the interviewer here getting frustrated halfway through, because he thinks Max is not addressing the basic question. Why do I keep talking about consciousness? Well, very, very often, religious people (like, 98% of them) will claim that the reason they readily accept their childhood indoctrination is that: 'something can't come from nothing, so there had to have been a prime mover.' When you ask them where the prime mover came from, and what existed before it, they reply 'He just always existed'. When you ask them whether the prime mover was a natural process or event, they say 'No. He was conscious, and decided to create our universe.' So my main point in answering the question of 'something from nothing' is to address this absurd, ignorant religious fallacy, and try to get these people to understand that they are 'cheating' when they invoke a state of nothingness, a 'void' as the bible calls it, which includes any such vehicle-for-change: A state of nothingness, or non-existence, means ABSOLUTE nothingness - by definition, no mechanism-for-change can exist in this state. True non-existence EXCLUDES a prime mover such as a god or any other entity. This may seem obvious to you and I, but it is so frustrating how religious people are allowed to get away with using this fallacy as a cornerstone of their belief. Now, it might be possible that we are in a simulation, and maybe even the entities who created our simulation are in a simulation themselves. But that is why I/we use the term Fundamental Reality (capitalised), which refers to the very root of reality. Whatever our situation, whether there is one physical universe or infinite universes, or whether we exist within layers of simulations, or whatever other proposals there are, the one thing we can say with certainty is that Fundamental Reality - the first 'layer' of reality - has always been in a state of existence. Thus, there is no requirement for a prime mover, as the religious would claim. Further, until there is more evidence of our situation, Occam's Razor (and common sense) dictates that we aim for the simplest and most plausible explanations. So at the moment, the only things we can say with any certainty are: a) Fundamental Reality is, and always has been, in a state of existence b) universes appear to arise as a natural consequence of that state c) there is no reason why there should only be one universe in existence. Max does not say anything to the contrary. Going back to the interviewer's question, we can't say WHY Fundamental Reality has always been in a state of existence. Maybe there isn't a reason (reality does not owe us any explanation - it just 'is'). The only thing we do know is that reality has never been in a state of 'absolute nothingness' or 'true non-existence'.
@@NebulousWeb i see, appologies for my wrong accusation (on reality as entnally existing). Continuing the subject, i think both you and the interviewer dont quite get what's so ground-breaking in Max` hypotesis, he doesnt just say that something exists and it exists eternally. He proposes much more than that, in his proposal the existence is as ephemeral as the existence of mathematical relations, nothing more. One would say - so what? I'd respond that it's sublet but very important: this type of existence is really really "efficient", in a sense that existance of platonic soild, or PI or E require very little to "sustain" themselves, i.e. they can exist outside our "real world", outside our mind, etc. Our civilization may die off but some alien civ. in completely different universe with different dimensions/laws etc will still discover same 5 platonic solids, same PI and E constants and relations. See? It's way more than stating that someting just exist and it never was any other way (that it was never "created" etc). If you think it's no big deal, try thought expriment: imagine a simple world where these's only one electron travelign through infinite space, eternally at fix speed, now try to come up with Occam-R. friendly explanation on how this type of world can exist at all and why. In my view Max' hypotesis is most Occam-Razor friendly one out there. What's more, it doesn't deal with particular model unoverse (11-dementional M-theory etc - these are mare specifics of the universe we happen to inhabit, but there can be other ones which have completely different properties), rather it deals with Existence per se. What puzzles me is how most people's minds are not blown when they hear Max` level-4 universe theory, it's the most elegant and convincing mode of existance (and reason for existance too) ever postulated/enternained by humans. It already implicitly contains the answer to the topic of this YT clip. Sadly the clip is just 5mins long and it doesnt go to the core of Max` theory, it focuses narrowly on the most imporant implication (somth. rath. thn. noth.), but people just dont get it because they dont know about Max` theory to begin with, and i'd fault the interviewer for the most part. I do think you too miss the gist of Max` proposal, i recommend reading Max` "Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality" - to appreciate a complete picture of what he's talking about, and get you mind blown too, eventually. If you have no time for the book, check out my other comment in this thread: kzhead.info/sun/iK-ypMyXsKGAdZs/bejne.html&lc=UgzdfIXFIDxgB1Umfrx4AaABAg
Sometimes you need to say i dont know.
well said
Pretty good Christopher Walken impression. 8/10.
Из википедии (Гегель): "Бытие становится ничем; но, с другой стороны, и ничто, поскольку оно мыслится, не есть уже чистое ничто: как предмет мышления оно становится бытием (мыслимым). Таким образом, истина остаётся не за тем и не за другим из двух противоположных терминов, а за тем, что обще обоим и что их соединяет, именно за понятием перехода, процесса «становления», или «бывания» (das Werden)."
Recently I wonder "Equals Materialism with Determinism?". If you are interested in the question, please deal with that. the question comes from properties of physical law and Big-Bang theory, which says 'universe has start point' and determines physical constants.
Maybe a better way to describe it would be to say that in any possible universe or reality, math truths remain, regardless of anything else. How one gets "it from bit" however remains a mystery.
What if other universes don't operate on any math, physics, or objects, but something else in its place which would be unimaginable to us in our universe? could there be universes where they have have something better then math? a completely alien concept that we couldn't imagine?
But would mathematics "exist" without minds? I don't think it would, as would any other abstract object (logic). WE understand 2+2=4 because our minds have evolved to a point where we can distinguish arrangements of things. Counting is merely our way of putting things into context. Also, as far as "mathematics being discovered" vs invented, we have clearly invented our math. There are however, many things and relationships we can "discover"within our invented mathematics.
Always something as we are creators. God is an artist/creator and we are also gods when we realize that. Any God would want something. It's like having a paintbrush or guitar and never using it. It's in our nature to use the tools we have to create. Stop overthinking this, it is very simple.
+360 Freedom Indoctrinated sheep. Go back to your herd, you're at the wrong place.
So, from my perspective being from the "Math is Discovered" camp, meaning that it exists as a true Platonic Realm. And Max Tegmark also is in the same camp that I am in. SO from that perspective, I wish to explain again. SO you have to image that there is lets say one Realm, a Realm of MATH only. And there are many Mathematical Objects(also called Geometries) in that Realm. Since Minkowski-SpaceTime is a Mathematics Stucture, it is a Static thing in that Realm, but imagine if you go inside of it, then you will PEER into our Universe.
They always avoid the question where did mathematics come from, what created it who or what created the creator of mathematics, it goes on and on the can be no beginning yet there must be ,there can be no end yet there must be, infinity can not be explained, it is maddening and exasperated me can anyone explain this satisfactorily??
Math creates itself. Because math are laws based on logic and reason. We live in a reality that is based on the concept of zero or nothing. And zero can be everything and nothing at the same time. That’s how we are here. Zero is the ultimate balancing act of values. And no, there doesn’t need to be a beginning because reality is abstract. There are no physical constraints that is preventing reality from existing. So it can just exist by itself without a beginning or end. Just like he said, 2+2=4 would be that regardless , even if there weren’t observers to observe it. And yes there is an end to our universe but our reality loops. It’s born, goes through a list of states and probabilities, it ends and then it does it again. And it does this forever. Each universal cycle isn’t exactly the same. Think of life like a open world video game. You can play and beat the game countless ways but the beginning and end of the game end the same every time. Infinity doesn’t need to be explained because it’s just a concept. Infinity will never be reached.
Because if the was nothing he wouldn't be here to ask the question.
Isn't the simplest possible reality the one where nothing exists? Why is reality more complicated than that?
We are all exactly the same sense as the MandelBrot existing for ever..MandelBrot set was only revealed recently, but existed prior for infinity..Human kind was revealed by genetic evolution only recently, but our design existed prior for infinity. Can you see the pattern?.. We are all just numbers floating withing numbers that always existed
So what a lot of people in this comments, I think have missed from what Max is saying is this. Max is saying that, essentially, all mathematical things exist, and are static and don't affect one another. BUT the universe we are in, is also described my mathematics, the mathematics of Minkowski-SpaceTime, which from a math perspective is also YET another mathematical form in the Eternal Platonic Mathematical Realm. SO think of a dodecahedron as a static Math Object in this Platonic Mathematical Space-Realm, this is just like the Minkowski SpaceTime as a Geometry, BUT, and here it is, We are ALL inside this Mathematical-Object, Geometrical Structure called the Minkowski SpaceTime, and being inside this Mathematical Object, meaning being literally inside of it, internally it is a whole Realm that has causation inside of it.
So hence this is our universe. So he is saying we can imagine there is a Mathematical Realm of Math Objects(also called Geometries), but our Universe is actually living INSIDE this Math Object.
His head exploded when someone asked why space time exists?
Numbers and "cubes" are not "timeless". That is just an assertion. It is an assumption. Before creation there was no need to count; hence, numbers did not exist. Abstract objects are part of and depend on the creation.
I would agree. Shapes require dimensions to describe them. But how can a dimension just be created? From nothing? If "nothing" can actually "exist".
If the eternally cyclic Radiance of Causeless Shapelessness (commonly known as the universe) COULD have had another shape, It WOULD have had another shape. Because there is no way to know why It COULDN'T have had another shape, there is no way to know why It has the shape that It has. Likewise, the actual reason WHY the Causeless Shapelessness is radiant at all (and why 'experiencing' apparently happens at particular 'times' and 'places' within It's Radiance) is absolutely unknowable....
Abstract objects only exist in the mind. So the question is, why is there a mind. In particular, why is there MY mind.
matter is 99.9 (insert about 11 or more nines here) space antimatter so to speak fills the empty space but is phase delayed by one unit of space time but in Planck units Space and anti space is a better way of looking at it 11 more nines means dividing one human hair by 10 ELEVEN times we humans cannot even imagine things that small so where did it come from Random truly tiny see above fluctuations of energy
'something' and 'nothing' are the two ultimate extremes of mathematics itself. I have an unpublished paper of my own that proves this and I have even tried to contact max tegmark but got no reply. Is there anyone who will give importance to my paper?
Me
I have read that we can conceive of a series of infinite negative integers. Such a series serves as an example of abstract mathematics. Tegmark invokes the apparent truth of the equation 2 plus 2 equals 4. He states the existence of mathematical laws, as independant of Humans and the universe we live in. Descartes and Locke disagree. Perhaps John Locke would question where Tegmark received his idea of number, should those who raised him and whose distant anscestors first began to count, not have had objects to correspond to those numbers. Tegmark insists abstract mathematics exists outside of cause and effect, but what can we discuss outside of a theory of knowledge, and how can we claim this knowledge to have no cause, when cause gives clear signs of evidence and its alternative suggests nothingness?
^^ this right here. We live in a perceptual cage. It's a tough nut to crack
If there was nothing you could not ask; Why is there "Nothing" rather than "Something"? A question does not need an answer, it needs a questioner!
In the beginning, there was null, void. Then, null existed for eternity, and in the end, there was something. That something was "infinite null". Looking at it like that, it's the conceptualisation of going from 0 to 0.000000....0000001. An infinite amount of 0.000....00001 = 1, in this example. So, the number line between the 0 and 1 position can be seen as the distance "0 x infinity x infinity" In "real maths", the above calculated to "undefined". I propose, that ought to change.
I wish I could upload a picture of what I am describing. But let me describe it a bit more. Imagine you go to a Museum, and you see on display different Math Objects made of Porcelin, you walk by you see a Sphere, then you walk a bit, and you see a Cube, then you walk again and see a Porcelin TetraHedron and you walk again and you see a Porcelin Minkowski-SpaceTime Geometry. But if you were to look inside this Porcelin Minkowski-SpaceTime object, You will see our whole Universe! It is true that many different mathematical structures may not describe our universe, but that is irrelevant, because that other Mathematical Object, is just another Porcelin piece in this Museum, and it will not contain our Universe anyways.
Although mathematics may be a language, the logic is real and is something that can come from nothing. 1+1 =2 logically whether or not there is a universe. We live inside this logic and are a part of this logic.
Evangelii Gaudium. Look it up. Some interesting conclusions for sure.
My perception of this view is that the universe didn’t have a choice but to evolve as it did because of mathematics. However, i can’t see how math could have any impact on « absolutely nothing ». In a world of absolute nothingness, something had to happen to generate energy. I think Robert’s very interesting question is why it happened. There could be absolutely thing without that first spark. Why or what was it ? We can speculate all we want but i doupt we will ever find out.
What is nothing or nothingness? It's a conceptualization "of existence" assuming the absence of itself. So without existence, the idea, or conceptualization of nothing, or nothingness cannot exist. Existence is just an "is-ness". Its always is. It's not a thing that comes into being; but always being.
Why assume that nothing was the initial state?
I was never very keen on Plato and his abstractions.
did he actually answer the question?
no.
How about 42?
"Can not imagine the reality where 2+4 is not equal to to four", but in the quantunm vacum 0+0= new particles. Only is making circles in a question he knows can't answer.
How knowledge about quantum mechanics are limited We don't know there is nothing our something.
Be definition, there’s no such thing as nothing. Nothingness is non-existent… by definition. And so, somethingness must needs exist. Existence by definition is that which exists. And so it’s not a question of why anything exists at all, it’s just a distinction between that which exists, existence, and that which doesn’t exist, ie. The imaginary. So I think it’s a misunderstanding or misapplication of the word, and it’s a semantics game we’re playing with ourselves.
SO this debate is not settled, and so it is a choice hence that people make to be either in one camp or the other camp.
Well maths in itself isnt aware of its existense untill someone aware of it discovers it.
protoconsciousness at the planck scale?
God?
That doesn't matter. Math still exists.
We are math We are self aware
@@dmitrysamoilov5989 I am 1+1=3 . Deal with it
HOW CAN 2 + 2 = 4 IN A WORLD WITHOUT PHYSICAL STUFF WHO WOULD CHOOSE WHICH OPERATOR OR FORMULA TO USE?
+Davey Grean Mathematics is abstract. It has no physical constraints, it's totally idealistic.
So if I collect 3 stamps its perfectly fine for me to say I have 14?..could you define what you mean by idealistic?.
I am familiar with philosophical idealism as a metaphysical position that asserts reality is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial.
If maths is abstract next time I get my wages I just keep it all isn't it..
I will not deduct anything from them, for who needs plus and minus to make sense of anything, the Fibonacci sequence does not act randomly when it brings a pine cone into physical being..there is a sequence that as followed using precise measurements the golden ratio..
There are a lot of these videos supposedly addressing why there is something rather than nothing, and none of them even try to answer the question. Withing seconds they're off on some tangent.
He took 6 minutes to say " I don't know" .
You understood nothing, nice one
few people understand what you did said...props to you
And still, what a beautiful and rich way to say "I don't know". This is in my view the core beauty (and purpose, if there is one) of philosophical inquiry.
Dom, you always say that.
This mathematical structure must be based on the equation for entropy, we must be living at least somewhat inside this equation. S=kb ln W
Mathematics is, like any other language, a labeling system. And, again, like any other language, mathematics is invented, not discovered. That's why we say that Newton and Leibniz /invented/ calculus in the 17th century. We never say that they /discovered/ it. This is because numbers do not exist necessarily. Numbers are arbitrary labels we assign to certain quantities and values. For example, instead of saying, "A chicken and another chicken and another chicken and another chicken", we simply say "4 chickens". And we use the number 4 to describe a quantity of four because that's just what we all agreed 4 represents: a thing and another thing and another thing and another thing. It's a tool we humans developed to describe, quantify, and analyze aspects of the physical world. The same applies to shapes and, by extension, geometry. There are shapes and geometric phenomenon in nature (just as there are quantities of 4 in nature), but the conception, the idea of shapes and geometry is a purely human invention, an ease-of-access tool we made up to better communicate and relate information. Instead of saying, "Look at that plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles", we simply say "Look at that square." We use shapes and geometry to describe reality and build models of reality that are accurate and have explanatory power.
I agree. "Alfred Korzybski remarked that "the map is not the territory", encapsulating his view that an abstraction derived from something, or a reaction to it, is not the thing itself. Korzybski held that many people do confuse maps with territories, that is, confuse models of reality with reality itself."
However, I do think there is one important point that you may have missed. Max Tegmark wasn't necessarily making a point about the labels themselves - instead he was trying to point out that some mathematical abstractions give rise to certain intrinsic properties about the universe and absolute reality itself For example, we can mathematically prove that there are only 5 shapes which match the criteria of a Platonic Solid. It doesn't matter what labelling system we use - there was, is, and always will be 5 of them (arguably there is in a timeless sense too). Or, as you put it, there can only be "a thing and another thing and another thing and another thing and another thing" that matches these properties. It's the fact that there is absolutely "5" (however it is labelled) that is important. There are many things in abstract geometry (and other mathematical fields) that are suggestive of fundamental properties in the universe. For example, even the shape that a bee creates its bee-hive (hexagonal to house the most honey) is related to abstract geometry! Now back to the original topic of timeless states. I think the point is this: Yes, maths seems to provide accurate models of the universe and reality as we know it. But there are 2 different types of models in this context. Type #1: There are many mathematical models that describe intrinsic properties of the universe that don't need to worry about time (such as geometry and many other structures). These are arguably timeless in that they're true regardless of time and yet they're still "exist" even if you remove their label. Type #2: Likewise there are many abstract mathematical models that can describe the intrinsic properties of the universe in which the models themselves are related to a time-evolution system (relativity, quantum mechanics wave equation, minkowsky space-time etc.) Yes they are only models of reality ("labels") and not reality itself, but I don't see how this is relevant as I think the models imply strongly that there is something intrinsic/ineradicable that exists in reality. Removing the model/label doesn't make it go away.
When dealing with mathematics, Platonic realism is a very poor philosophy to subscribe to. And I'll explain why. Mathematics does not reveal intrinsic properties of the universe or of "absolute reality" (whatever that means). Mathematics simply reveals the consequences of axioms. Axioms (which are defined in mathematics as statements or propositions on which abstractly defined structures are based), are no less arbitrary than the rules of poker or the rules of chess or even the rules of rock-paper-scissors. You establish an axiomatic framework (i.e. a self-consistent system with rigorously defined rules) and you derive theorems from it. If these theorems then happen to serve a purpose or happen to have explanatory power that contributes to a model of reality, great. If not, too bad; the universe doesn't owe anyone a neat, concise mathematical explanation. That is how mathematics work. The mathematics of basic geometry, relativity, quantum mechanics, and Minkowsky space-time are all based on an axiomatic framework. Again, this is why we say that mathematics is invented, not discovered. We don't discover mathematical abstractions such as numbers and shapes and equations. We define them into existence, if you will. If you take away this system, these conceptions cease to exist. Because these conceptions, these mathematical abstractions (or any kind of abstraction, for that matter) are contingent on thought. That is the definition of an abstraction: something that is contingent on thought. We refer to this "something" as an idea. Of course, as I mentioned above, you seem to have subscribed to a Platonic realist view of mathematics. As far as I gather, you believe that mathematical abstractions are objects that literally exist, independent of intelligent agents, independent of any language and thought, independent of space and time. They are fundamentally inherent to the universe, you say (and if I am misrepresenting your position, please correct me). And my only response to this is that, if you truly believe this, then you must also believe that the rules of poker, chess, and rock-paper-scissors are also intrinsic properties of the universe. Hell, by this logic, any abstraction, any fictional object or character I can pull out out of my ass also exists in reality. I can just as easily cherry-pick that unicorns are an intrinsic property of the universe just as you believe hexagonal beehives are an intrinsic property of the universe.
I don't think that's what I'm saying Mathematics (when in relevant context) has been shown many times (via science) to be an accurate and useful way of forming a model of parts of the universe and reality. Physics equations can be formed, tested and accepted or rejected through experiment/observation. And the maths can provide an accurate model of the universe/reality in these relevant cases. In other words, "explanatory power that contributes to a model of reality" as you say. What I'm saying is that certain axiomatic frameworks and their associated concepts/theorems are better representations of reality than others I don't think by saying this it means that I have to believe these abstract objects "literally exist" (certainly not poker rules or unicorns), instead it just simply means that I think that the real-world, physical implications and phenomena that would be a direct corollary/consequence of an accurate mathematical model as such would be the thing that "exists" (not the model and numbers and abstract things themselves) and this is intrinsic to reality.
I was mistaken then. My apologies. However, I do take issue with the way you express this particular view. In your previous comment, you said that "mathematical abstractions give rise to certain intrinsic properties about the universe". Again, you echo this by saying that "the real-world, physical implications and phenomena that would be a direct corollary/consequence of an accurate mathematical model as such would be the thing that 'exists'." This is akin to saying that the universe is continually shaped and molded as we continue to invent new mathematics and devise new mathematical models. From what I am reading, you claim that mathematics causes what we observe in the universe. How can mere ideas, mere language, mere a-priori reasoning change physical reality? I have no problem accepting that the particular THINGS that mathematics describes do, in fact, exist. But they DO NOT exist BECAUSE of mathematics. They exist because they were already there, assembling due to the laws of nature (i.e. physics, chemistry, biology, etc.). We are merely using mathematics to make sense of them.
Otherwise we would not know Zeus and all his glorious children. That's why there's something rather than nothing.
The question: "why is there something rather than nothing?" is wrong. The correct question is: Why we can only imagine something rather than nothing? Because imaginations, words, terms, images, abstraction, conceptualisation and meanings lead only again to imaginations. The opposite - just be meditative and be aware of the emptiness of the background of all thoughts is not an imagination, but an accomplishment of awareness rather than of imagination. The other reason is "idealistic ontologism": "The idea that there are one or more realities about which we can allow ourselves to judge whether they exist or not." If we just judge, that there must be a reason why existence is there in the first place, we judge about the "idea of existence" - which we cannot really judge, because we cannot imagine "nothing" as actual nothing, but always imagine something which we then label or call "nothing", to hide the fact that the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" from an cognitive standpoint, must be meaningless, but the idea that we cannot imagine nothing still holds meaning, because there are two ways of understanding: 1) by imagination and conceptualisation 2) by semantics and "just knowing". We "know", that if we imagine "nothing" - in that very imagination we erased the semantics of "nothing". So to "know" what it means, means to avoid all conceptualisation in the mind and all associations; which otherwise will lead inevitable to thoughts which are determined by the conceptualisation of something labeled or called "nothing"; And whatever "something" is, first and foremost it is something conceptualized by one of our ways of understanding. In meditation the pure awareness erases the idealisation of nothing and something. The emptiness of the background of all thoughts is still there without any judgement - which is the reason you should not judge your thoughts when you pratice awareness meditation. Just let them flow. If you then experience the emptiness of the background of your thoughts, you also become aware that in fact your thoughts are empty, not the background of your thoughts. The background is just your mind. And in it thoughts are played. It is the mind which gives life to all imaginations. But to stuck in the thoughts doesn´t allow you to step back and just watch the source of all your philosophies and concepts. Whatever the mind is, it is very difficult for people without simple meditation experience or reflection about the thoughts as a practice of reasoning (also called introspection), to fully grasp the idea, that the mind is the fire and the wall in "platos allegory of the cave" and the thoughts are just shadows on that wall; the chains are the shadows, which both are the belief in the world of thoughts. The suppression of the own natural wisdom - to know thyself, is the reason people stuck to the shadows on the wall, rather to look into the fire and realise theirself. Without this realisation the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" remains a trap of "idealistic ontologism". First, know thyself. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_thyself en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-reflection en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection
I beg to differ with mr. tegmark on this one
Why is there something rather than nothing? This question is simple but is very difficult to answer. For Philosophers and Theologians, nothing is made up of nothing. But for Physicist , nothing is made up of a lot of stuff.
Tegmark is Plato, Pythagoras, and Parmenides.