| > poof magic we have simple mathematical rules on which the universe runs I'm not arguing against the idea that the universe might be described by simple mathematical rules - after all, we have a fair amount of evidence that it can be, for some value of "simple". But it's an enormous unsupported jump from there to the idea that the mere possibility of such rules somehow gives rise to a universe that follows them, ex nihilo, or variations on that idea. Generally, such handwaving is not accompanied by much serious exposition. Even Tegmark's writing on the subject doesn't get into it in enough depth to seriously evaluate. It's an amusing conjecture, but I'm not aware of anyone having developed it beyond that point. It's also strangely reminiscent of other attempts to delegate the creation of the universe to a mysterious unexplained force: is "mathematics did it" really any different than "a god did it" as an explanation? Neither are actually explanations, they just give the superficial appearance of explanation via a sleight of hand in which the entity in question is implicitly assumed to somehow have the necessary wherewithal to do the job it's accused of. To me, "mathematics did it" is about as good an explanation as "the Great Penguin did it". > Now, assuming our universe does run on math, it is quite impossible to test for different kinds of ontological existence. Do we live in a simulation? If the simulation isn't buggy, we don't stand a chance at root escalation, and we can't tell. Does the mathematical rules exist, like "poof magic", or do they need some exterior force or entity to be actualized? Again, we can't tell, because there's just no way out of our universe. I agree with this mostly, although again I'll point out that the entire idea of seeing our models of the universe as being somehow responsible for its creation runs the risk of being a huge category error, so I don't take it for granted that the universe actualizes mathematical rules in that sense. The rules we like to model may simply be an occasionally emergent property of a chaotic physical substrate, and we find ourselves in a predictable corner of some randomly organized multiverse by virtue of the anthropic principle. But to your larger point that it's likely to be impossible to test the ontological status of mathematical rules, that's a major part of why strong claims in this area seem incoherent to me. > Occam's razor doesn't favour surface simplicity, it favours simplicity at the deepest level. Occam's Razor is a simple heuristic that has no such bias. The only simplicity it favors is the removal of redundant aspects of a model, and redundancy can exist anywhere, whether superficial or deep. Further, "redundant" can be relative to one's purposes. Many physical models are deliberate simplifications of the phenomena being modeled, e.g. gases, fluid flow. This often seems to be forgotten when people start to confuse mathematical models of the universe with the universe itself. > By the way, didn't you notice that you're not surprised all the time? That emotion isn't as irrational as a Straw Vulcan would believe. I distinguish between everyday claims, like someone telling me they went to a movie, and claims about new discoveries about the universe. You don't need to revise your theories about the universe to provisionally accept the claim that someone went to a movie, for example. But a claim that entails revision of a theory needs to be treated differently, and in that context, being "unsurprising" is not really particularly relevant - such claims can and should be evaluated on the basis of whether they are supported sufficiently strongly. > Heck, I have emotions, I might as well use them. I disagree with using them to justify a conclusion about the validity of a scientific claim. Certainly many people seem to operate on this basis, but it leads to a great deal of irrational behavior. > You should read Probability Theory: The Logic of Science. It's an excellent book. Thanks, I'll check it out. |
---
> […] the entire idea of seeing our models of the universe as being somehow responsible for its creation runs the risk of being a huge category error […]
Oh yes. When you think of it, actual models are encoded in brains, paper, computers… Which aren't exactly responsible for the existence of the whole universe. So,
> I don't take it for granted that the universe actualizes mathematical rules in that sense.
Neither do I. I just give it enough credence to put it in a shelf, and look at it again once we know more.
---
> I distinguish between everyday claims, like someone telling me they went to a movie, and claims about new discoveries about the universe.
So do I. This is not a new discovery about our universe, however, not yet. This is a new discovery of a mathematical simplification. I wouldn't be surprised if this one yields no easily testable prediction, much like the Many Worlds Interpretation.
Anyway, I suspected for some time now that the fundamental laws of physics were simpler than they looked. I expected someone to eventually find simpler models. So, when some people claim they did, they at least get my attention. If you did not have the same expectation to begin with, then of course you would reach a different conclusion from seeing the claim.
That said, I do agree that
> such claims can and should be evaluated on the basis of whether they are supported sufficiently strongly.
---
> I disagree with using them to justify a conclusion about the validity of a scientific claim.
No no no, that's not what I was trying to convey. Actually, that's about exactly the reverse. First, I try to have correct beliefs about the world. Then I try and tailor my sense of surprise to those beliefs. That way, when I make an observation (such as reading about a claim), I can use my surprise (or lack thereof) as a hint (no more) about the credibility of this new information.
I won't try to use my sense of surprise to justify anything to anyone. It's only a descriptor of my own beliefs. It's a valid argument only to the extent you trust my beliefs. Which would be foolish: I'm just a random guy on the other side of the internet.