If I’m following your train of thought, I read it like this:
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All physics is math, but not all math is physics.
As it applies to my understanding of your point and to my understanding of the MUH, Tegmark argues that the universe is necessarily pigeonholed by physics, and must be constrained by and embodies physics, which seems logical and consistent to me.
My point was perhaps a bit more pedantic regarding the distinctions between A: actually existing external reality independent of our understanding of it, and B: our representation of the universe that physics seeks to formally define.
I think it’s reasonable to assume that the universe is internally consistent and rational; that is to say that it’s bounded by so-called laws of physics, but we may not be able to reason about it because we currently lack the tools to make sense of it; that is to say we don’t know how to represent it mathematically.
I think we likely agree - the universe computes itself and proves itself by its essential nature and very existence. I don’t mean to speak for you, but only to find points of agreement.
To further cite:
On Math, Matter and Mind
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510188
If I’m following your train of thought, I read it like this:
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All physics is math, but not all math is physics.
As it applies to my understanding of your point and to my understanding of the MUH, Tegmark argues that the universe is necessarily pigeonholed by physics, and must be constrained by and embodies physics, which seems logical and consistent to me.
My point was perhaps a bit more pedantic regarding the distinctions between A: actually existing external reality independent of our understanding of it, and B: our representation of the universe that physics seeks to formally define.
I think it’s reasonable to assume that the universe is internally consistent and rational; that is to say that it’s bounded by so-called laws of physics, but we may not be able to reason about it because we currently lack the tools to make sense of it; that is to say we don’t know how to represent it mathematically.
I think we likely agree - the universe computes itself and proves itself by its essential nature and very existence. I don’t mean to speak for you, but only to find points of agreement.