New take on Tegmarks MUH --Geometric Transformation Internalization

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) and its compatibility with M-theory and multiverses. It suggests that reality arises from abstract geometric objects whose transformations are internalized by the math structure itself. The conversation also delves into the role of observers and the dynamic boundary between the observer and the observed in this hypothesis. The speed of light is proposed as the rate of geometric processing and the source of all energy in the universe, except for gravity. The conversation also touches upon the concept of a Theory of Everything (TOE) and how MUH may provide a foundation for it. However, there are also criticisms of MUH, such as its flexibility and untestability, as well as
  • #1
dtorge26
4
0
Anyone else out there convinced that MUH is on the right track? I asked the question "What would reality look like if it were all math structures", here's what I came up with:

1) Reality arises from abstract geometric objects of varying shapes and dimensionality whose transformations are being internalized by the math structure itself.

2) If reality includes the observer and the observed, then there is a dynamic boundary which separates internalized math structures from external ones. The boundary is dynamic because the observed always becomes part of the observer.

3)Boundary movement involves transformations on abstract geometry which is synonymous with "perspective shifting". The math structure is converted from abstract and static to active and full of motion, forces, and energy through this boundary movement.

4)The rate of geometric processing is the speed of light, and all energy (except gravity) can be attributed to the perspective shifting during the internalization process.

5)Fermions emerge from transformed geometric objects, and they represent space with distinct properties.

6)Bosons represent a reconciliation of perspective shifts as multiple fermions are internalized together.

7)Planck length and time are the units separating shapes as the external math structure is presented to the 360 degree surface of the emerged spacetime (internalized math structure).

8)Distinct sets of shapes and transformations would create separate spacetimes and particle interactions, with our laws of physics corresponding to a specific subset. (level 4 multiverse)

What think ye?
 
  • Skeptical
Likes Dale
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
dtorge26 said:
1) Reality arises from abstract geometric objects of varying shapes and dimensionality whose transformations are being internalized by the math structure itself.

What do you mean by "internalized"? How could a geometrical object change?

dtorge26 said:
2) If reality includes the observer and the observed, then there is a dynamic boundary which separates internalized math structures from external ones. The boundary is dynamic because the observed always becomes part of the observer.

What do you mean by "internalized math structures"? How can a math structure change by itself?

dtorge26 said:
4)The rate of geometric processing is the speed of light, and all energy (except gravity) can be attributed to the perspective shifting during the internalization process.

What do you mean by "geometric processing"? Who is doing the processing?
 
  • #4
sbrothy said:
Woit didn't seem impressed. There are links to Tegmark's paper on his blog.

https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6551

But really, what do I know.
Yeah looks like he has a problem with the multiverse, especially level 4 where the laws of physics take on all possible variations. MUH fits nicely with M theory, multiverses, and the belief that math is discovered, not invented. So if you are not on board with these ideas, then I can see why it would be a problem--lots of physicists are in this boat because it rings too flexible and untestable. But Woit would be stuck trying to explain the values of the underived constants of nature which have to be the specific values they are in order for us to exist. Proclaiming our universe is all that exists is the modern day version of claiming the Earth and man to be the center of the universe IMHO.

I like MUH because it provides a foundation for a TOE which is self-existing--math/logic. I haven't seen any other candidates for a TOE which can do that. Even string theory cannot explain where strings come from, or the source of their vibrational energy. Math is the language of relationships, and everything we've discovered about reality appears to be explained by how one thing relates to another.
 
  • #5
AndreiB said:
What do you mean by "internalized"? How could a geometrical object change?
I used the terms "internalizing" and "processing" interchangeably. Geometrical objects don't change, but a perspective shift on an object can make it appear to change. E.g. Start with a 0-dimenstional point and move your perspective back and forth on it at the speed of light, and it becomes a 1-dimensional line. Start with a 1-dimensional line and move your perspective on it, and it becomes a 2-dimensional plane. The abstract comes alive all from a particular point of view.
AndreiB said:
What do you mean by "internalized math structures"? How can a math structure change by itself?What do you mean by "geometric processing"? Who is doing the processing?
If the math structure contains observers and the yet to be-observed, then part of the math structure is internal and part is external. Processing a geometric object would be performed by an observer, although presumably not consciously.

For me its fascinating to consider that the answers to the most profound questions in nature may actually lie precisely at this dynamic boundary between the observer and the observed.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy
  • #6
dtorge26 said:
Geometrical objects don't change...

True

dtorge26 said:
...but a perspective shift on an object can make it appear to change.

Since mathematical structures do not change, as you said, that "perspective shift" must be done by something that is not a mathematical structure in itself. It's a similar situation with a movie on the DVD. In order to have a movie you need a DVD player. A DVD is not a movie.

dtorge26 said:
If the math structure contains observers...

An observer must be able to change in order to memorize and process information. So, a math structure cannot contain observers.
 
  • #7
The math structure of our physical reality presumably includes a variable of time (t), such that the geometric transformations evolve over t. So for any point in time t, reality could be derived or described as a composite of transformed geometric objects in specific states relative to each other. The conjecture is that if you applied speed of light as the rate at which t changes inside this math structure, our physical reality is the result.

Non-zero energy of the vacuum is an interesting application of this idea. New spacetime is being generated as abstract geometric objects whose transformations are being internalized by the observer. Different transformations yield different spacetime results and we are only exposed to a small subset of those results.

Big bang would be a very specific sequence of transformations yielding exponential generations of fermions within an extremely unlikely subset of new spacetimes.

I suspect many physicists are suspicious of theories in which the observer plays such a central role due to science culture influences. But at the end of the day you can not deny that consciousness requires shifts in perspective, and these shifts must necessarily interact with the outside universe. So its all linked together in time and space, observer and observed--with a very distinct possibility that the energy for all of it is sourced from within us.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy

Related to New take on Tegmarks MUH --Geometric Transformation Internalization

1. What is Tegmark's MUH?

Tegmark's MUH (Mathematical Universe Hypothesis) proposes that the physical world is fundamentally mathematical in nature and can be described by mathematical structures. This means that all possible mathematical structures exist as physical realities in a multiverse.

2. What is the "New take" on Tegmark's MUH?

The "New take" on Tegmark's MUH, also known as Geometric Transformation Internalization, suggests that the universe is not just a collection of mathematical structures, but rather a single structure that can be transformed into different forms through geometric transformations.

3. How does Geometric Transformation Internalization differ from the original MUH?

Geometric Transformation Internalization expands on the original MUH by proposing that the mathematical structure of the universe is not fixed, but can be transformed into different forms. This allows for a more dynamic and flexible understanding of the universe.

4. What evidence supports Geometric Transformation Internalization?

Currently, there is no direct evidence for Geometric Transformation Internalization. However, it is a theoretical framework that attempts to address some of the limitations and unanswered questions of the original MUH. It also aligns with some principles of modern physics, such as the idea of symmetry and transformation invariance.

5. What are the implications of Geometric Transformation Internalization?

If Geometric Transformation Internalization is proven to be true, it would have significant implications for our understanding of the universe. It would suggest that the universe is not just a static collection of mathematical structures, but a dynamic and ever-changing entity. It could also potentially provide a deeper understanding of the fundamental laws of physics and the nature of reality.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
72
Views
6K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
6
Views
816
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
3
Views
682
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
14
Views
3K
Back
Top