New take on Tegmarks MUH --Geometric Transformation Internalization

[dtorge26]

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?

 

[sbrothy]

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.

 

[AndreiB]

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?

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?

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?

 

[dtorge26]

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.

 

[dtorge26]

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.

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.

 

[AndreiB]

Geometrical objects don't change...

True

...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.

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.

 

[dtorge26]

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.