[lisa_henderson]

This is fundamentally a religious question. There is nothing wrong with religion, but you should be aware when you step into the realm of religion. Whether you think the universe is made of math, or God's will, or it's turtles all the way down, the presumption contains an element of Faith.

[pron]

Philosphical, certainly, but why religious? Not all faith is religious. There are many definitions of religion[1], but, AFAIK, none equate unprovable philosophical beliefs with religion. Normally, a religion requires at least some moral or normative elements (i.e., it should relate in some way to how humans behave or should behave), which this philosophy lacks.

I've read that the author may have some opinions regarding AI that may be considered religious, but this particular subject so far seems purely philosophical to me.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_religion

[akvadrako]

Well, it's even stronger than most religions in specifying how humans will behave, which of course includes should. That's because a mathematical universe is deterministic and more so, that anything mathematically possible (self-consistent and so forth) will happen infinite times.

I consider it perfectly justifiable to call it physics, but at this level of abstraction, it's hard to differentiate it from religion too.

[pron]

A non-mathematical universe[1] may also be deterministic, but determinism is still not normative. A person may be predetermined to murder someone, but that does not necessarily imply (although it may relate to) the religious norms regarding murder. Some religions believe in predestination and determinism (fatalism) regardless of physics, and yet still make normative requirements.

As long as he doesn't say how people should behave, this isn't religion (even if it relates to how people will behave).

[1]: I.e., assuming a distinction between physical and mathematical

[JadeNB]

> Well, it's even stronger than most religions in specifying how humans will behave, which of course includes should.

I think that the 'of course' here is not at all obvious. Economics, for example, seeks to describe how people will behave, but neither makes nor, I think, is perceived to offer any description of how they should behave (at least not in any moral sense).

[akvadrako]

I disagree. should is only relevant when there is a choice. Under the MUH, it's like saying 1+1 should = 3, which is fairly meaningless. Basically, the MUH answers the should question which is why it qualifies as religion. It's answer is "it's irrelevant".

[pron]

Well, people have literally spent millennia arguing over this. I doubt this could be resolved in a HN comment :)

Anyway, even a deterministic universe (mathematical, i.e. monistic Platonistic, or otherwise) is still undecidable/intractable, and so normative prescriptions may well serve an important role as you don't know their place in the causal chain.

Of course, you could argue that "importance" is also a subjective measure in a deterministic universe, and an irrelevant one, but then so is "relevance" itself.

[tpeo]

Sort of. If it steps anywhere near religion, it would be closer to theology - the idea that a complete mathematical description of reality is not merely possible but the foundation of reality echoes Plato's theory of forms, as well as Descartes idea of an ens realissimum, Spinoza's monism and Kant's concept of an omnitudo realitatis. But all of these are very stripped down in comparison to actual religion. I don't think any of these guys thought God had a beard, let alone physical form or personality. So anything like turtles is off the table too.

Plus, the faithful themselves were very skeptical of them, and lots of people were charged with impiety for expounding this kind of stuff. Specially so in the case of Spinoza and Kant.