It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# What is the Universe made of? Math says scientist

page: 1
3
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:46 PM
"If you accept the idea that both space itself, and all the stuff in space, have no properties at all except mathematical properties," then the idea that everything is mathematical "starts to sound a little bit less insane," Tegmark said in a talk given Jan. 15 here at The Bell House. The talk was based on his book "Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality" (Knopf, 2014).

Basically, this scientist contends that since all particles in the universe have mathematical properties like charge and spin then the universe must obey such Mathematical properties as well; thus, the universe is made of math.

I think that there's more to it than that. I think the Universe is all about motion. Everything needs motion in order to exist, even energy.

I also think that the Universe is a kind of a conversation; the word. It's where "U" and "I" verse

+1 more
posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:55 PM
reply to post by lostbook

Sounds like circular reasoning to me: If you accept that the only properties are mathematical properties then that means everything is mathematical.

Well, yeah. If you accept that God made everything then that means God made everything.

What if you don't accept that opening premise? What if you accept the idea that math represents those properties rather than actually being those properties? Math works very well in describing and modelling things, that doesn't mean those things are math.
edit on 2/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:03 PM
reply to post by lostbook

Math describes properties of matter. Matter was there first, though.

Otherwise, how would you describe it?

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:15 PM

Phage
reply to post by lostbook

Sounds like circular reasoning to me: If you accept that the only properties are mathematical properties then that means everything is mathematical.

Well, yeah. If you accept that God made everything then that means God made everything.

What if you don't accept that opening premise? What if you accept the idea that math represents those properties rather than actually being those properties? Math works very well in describing and modelling things, that doesn't mean those things are math.
edit on 2/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Yes Phage, I agree.

However, this scientist implies that the Universe itself IS math. It's possible that God made everything but what if God is math? And no, I don't think that everything is "math" however, I do think that everything physical is "motion." Without motion you have nothing, emptiness, space. Light had to be separated from the darkness in order to create the motion we observe.

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:18 PM
reply to post by lostbook

Light had to be separated from the darkness in order to create the motion we observe.

Darkness is not something. There is no speed of dark.

My reference to God was to indicate an equivalent case of circular logic, not an alternative.

edit on 2/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:28 PM

intrptr
reply to post by lostbook

Math describes properties of matter. Matter was there first, though.

Otherwise, how would you describe it?

Let me be clear that the concept of the Universe being MATH is the scientists reasoning; not mine. I'm saying in my posts that there is much more to it than the Universe being math.

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:31 PM
This is the first time I ever heard a scientists say that the Universe is made up of a human created concept. This has got to be the most ignorant statement ever made by the scientific community. Math is a concept of understanding, NOT a physical reality. Numbers don't actually exist, nor do the formulas that contain them. Come on, we created the numbers and the math, we should know this already!

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:38 PM

intrptr
reply to post by lostbook

Math describes properties of matter. Matter was there first, though.

Otherwise, how would you describe it?

Matter is a theory not a reality.

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:42 PM

Phage
reply to post by lostbook

Light had to be separated from the darkness in order to create the motion we observe.

Darkness is not something. There is no speed of dark.

Exactly Phage!

That's the beauty of it. There is nothing and there's something all at the same time. To "be" or not to be...?" Yes! Matter and Anti-Matter? You got it! Everything exists all at once and it's cloaked in darkness. It's like the magic man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz and the darkness is his empty canvas.

Darkness just "IS" and you need processes to "extrude/ create from it. Light reveals what we are meant to see.

I told you that this would sound crazy, but this is how I see it.

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:43 PM
Logically, the universe must have arisen from a non material, purely conceptual realm.
So I conceded this type of theory could be true, not in the scribbling of equations, but in the truths they represent.
edit on 2-2-2014 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:51 PM
Everything we (as Humans) observe can seemingly be measured empirically using one (or a combination of):

Charge
Mass
Length
Time
Temperature

This physical Geometry of the Universe (from Planck scale to Macro scale) manifests itself via scale invariance so we recognise the patterns and attach values and relationships.

If Maths was ACTUALLY the Universe we would statistically have more examples of real Zero values...Which are in fact very rare in Nature (I would hesitatingly say there are no examples without doing further research).

edit on 2-2-2014 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:54 PM

lostbook

intrptr
reply to post by lostbook

Math describes properties of matter. Matter was there first, though.

Otherwise, how would you describe it?

Let me be clear that the concept of the Universe being MATH is the scientists reasoning; not mine. I'm saying in my posts that there is much more to it than the Universe being math.

If the universe is defined as math, and math is defined by fundamental set of axioms, then the universe is defined by a fundamental set of axioms. I guess that is what all the mathematicians, cosmologists and nuclear physicists are looking for.

Sometimes things form from constructive interference, like standing waves patterns (that double slit experiment). Sometimes they'll only remain stable if there are no interference patterns ie. they cancel each other out if there is interference (like electron motion). Or the system will only remain stable if everything is in harmony or ratio - like the orbital periods and distances of planets arounds stars.

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 01:59 PM
reply to post by lostbook

I told you that this would sound crazy, but this is how I see it.

It doesn't sound crazy. It sounds like complete nonsense.
It is but it isn't. It's something but it's nothing.

I'll take Tegmark 's view rather than try to make sense out of your version.

edit on 2/2/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 02:00 PM
Atoms, I think it all goes back to the brain.

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 03:11 PM

lostbook
"If you accept the idea that both space itself, and all the stuff in space, have no properties at all except mathematical properties," then the idea that everything is mathematical "starts to sound a little bit less insane," Tegmark said in a talk given Jan. 15 here at The Bell House. The talk was based on his book "Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality" (Knopf, 2014).

Basically, this scientist contends that since all particles in the universe have mathematical properties like charge and spin then the universe must obey such Mathematical properties as well; thus, the universe is made of math.

I think that there's more to it than that. I think the Universe is all about motion. Everything needs motion in order to exist, even energy.

I also think that the Universe is a kind of a conversation; the word. It's where "U" and "I" verse

I dispute the idea that 'charge' and 'spin' are mathematical properties. My limited understanding is that they are physical properties. They can be represented mathematically (as can anything physical) - but strickly mathmatical - no.

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 03:13 PM

rom12345
Logically, the universe must have arisen from a non material, purely conceptual realm.
So I conceded this type of theory could be true, not in the scribbling of equations, but in the truths they represent.
edit on 2-2-2014 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)

What about infinity?

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 03:24 PM
reply to post by lostbook

Let me be clear that the concept of the Universe being MATH is the scientists reasoning; not mine. I'm saying in my posts that there is much more to it than the Universe being math.

Thats cool. I addressed the idea (from the article) not you.

Sorry if you took it that way.

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 03:29 PM
reply to post by lostbook

Darkness just "IS" and you need processes to "extrude/ create from it. Light reveals what we are meant to see.

Sorry, but darkness is simply the absence of light.

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 03:33 PM
reply to post by Visitor2012

Matter is a theory not a reality.

Thats your theory…

If it were true then your statement can't be real either.

Like saying there is no absolute truth.

Oh? Is that the absolute truth?

posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 04:29 PM

intrptr
reply to post by Visitor2012

Matter is a theory not a reality.

Thats your theory…

If it were true then your statement can't be real either.

Like saying there is no absolute truth.

Oh? Is that the absolute truth?

Huh? Are you still stuck in 6th grade science class? In case you haven't noticed, science has already said that matter (an old and now irrelevent concept) does not actually exist. It is nothing but a concept, a label of perceived form. Then there is the quantum discovery, but you obviously have not read much about it, since you seem to believe that physics is a reality. You forget that physics, and the form we call "matter" which consists of other forms we call "atoms" (neither which has EVER been seen due to the nature of concepts and quantum phenomenon and exists as only mathmatical formulas on paper), these are all concepts and theories. So, YES, matter is a concept, a theory, an idea NOT a reality. If you, know any scientific papers which points to the existence of matter while at the same time manages to ignore quantum phenomena (where so-called matter disappears into nothingness) please link it. Until then, I stand by my statement.
edit on 2-2-2014 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)

top topics

3