I find the MUH philosophically dubious. I also disagree with Wikipedia’s characterization of the CUH as adding an additional hypothesis on top of MUH (I’m not sure if that’s how Tegmark sees it, or if that was just an interpolation by the editor). Instead, the CUH is throwing out the dubious axiom that allows things like uncomputable sets to exist, which means by Occam’s razor, I think the CUH is the simpler hypothesis. I don’t exactly buy the CUH either, but I don’t have a better idea.
How is that relevant? It is perfectly possible for a mathematical universe to be a form of Platonic realism.
I disagree with your interpretation of “perfectly possible”, but even if I hypothetically grant you that a halting oracle exists, how can an agent ever be rationally justified in believing that it does? It’s something that takes an infinite amount of evidence to prove. The method clearly can’t be induction.
I think you are missing some things that are quite basic: essentially no one believes in things like the Mathematical Universe on the basis of empiricism or induction. Instead, Occams razor is the major factor.
Note that by things like MUH include MWI. It is straightforwardly impossible to prove MWI or any other interpretation on the basis of evidence, because they make the same predictions. So the argument given for MWI is in terms of simplicity and consilience.
Not many people here reject all reasoning of that type. Many reject it selectively.
The simplicity criterion means MUH is preferable to CUH, since CUH has an additional constraint.
How is that relevant? It is perfectly possible for a mathematical universe to be a form of Platonic realism.
Which implies that the MUH might.
I find the MUH philosophically dubious. I also disagree with Wikipedia’s characterization of the CUH as adding an additional hypothesis on top of MUH (I’m not sure if that’s how Tegmark sees it, or if that was just an interpolation by the editor). Instead, the CUH is throwing out the dubious axiom that allows things like uncomputable sets to exist, which means by Occam’s razor, I think the CUH is the simpler hypothesis. I don’t exactly buy the CUH either, but I don’t have a better idea.
I disagree with your interpretation of “perfectly possible”, but even if I hypothetically grant you that a halting oracle exists, how can an agent ever be rationally justified in believing that it does? It’s something that takes an infinite amount of evidence to prove. The method clearly can’t be induction.
I think you are missing some things that are quite basic: essentially no one believes in things like the Mathematical Universe on the basis of empiricism or induction. Instead, Occams razor is the major factor.
Note that by things like MUH include MWI. It is straightforwardly impossible to prove MWI or any other interpretation on the basis of evidence, because they make the same predictions. So the argument given for MWI is in terms of simplicity and consilience.
Not many people here reject all reasoning of that type. Many reject it selectively.
The simplicity criterion means MUH is preferable to CUH, since CUH has an additional constraint.