I like the Stephen Hawking quote: “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”
Max Tegmark’s answer, I guess, is “nothing”—every possible mathematical object exists / manifests / has fire breathed into it / whatever, in exactly the same way as the fundamental laws of physics governing our own universe.
I think Tegmark’s idea is intriguing, but I don’t wholeheartedly endorse it. My general feeling on this topic is “confused and unsatisfied”. I haven’t thought about it very much.
Today I learned that the idea I’ve held for years I’m not alone in. I’ve believed in the sort of ‘every possible mathematical object’ approach—or alternatively, every possible input being run through every possible turing machine—for a long time. I don’t know if it has a name.
I like the Stephen Hawking quote: “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”
Max Tegmark’s answer, I guess, is “nothing”—every possible mathematical object exists / manifests / has fire breathed into it / whatever, in exactly the same way as the fundamental laws of physics governing our own universe.
I think Tegmark’s idea is intriguing, but I don’t wholeheartedly endorse it. My general feeling on this topic is “confused and unsatisfied”. I haven’t thought about it very much.
Today I learned that the idea I’ve held for years I’m not alone in. I’ve believed in the sort of ‘every possible mathematical object’ approach—or alternatively, every possible input being run through every possible turing machine—for a long time. I don’t know if it has a name.