Our Mathematical Universe with Max Tegmark

Our universe isn't just described by mathematics, but it is mathematics. Specifically, it's a mathematical structure.
Our world doesn't just have some mathematical properties: it fundamentally has only mathematical properties.

Why is mathematics so spectacularly successful at describing the cosmos? In this Ri talk, MIT physics professor Max Tegmark proposes a radical idea: that our physical world is not only described by mathematics, but that it is mathematics. He shows how this theory may provide answers to the nature of reality itself.

This event was filmed at the Royal Institution on January 30 2014.

Product links on this page may be affiliate links which means it won't cost you any extra but we may earn a small commission if you decide to purchase through the link.

[bhangrafan]

The universe is NOT mathematical. It is consistent. Because it is consistent it has logical structure. Because it has logical structure we can use our maths (a language based on logic) to model bits of it. The model is not the same as the thing itself, it is an approximation and it only represents or emphasises those aspects of the universe which are of interest to people in that context.

[josephpeter]

I highly recommend his book: Our Mathematical Universe _ my quest for the ultimate nature of reality 4 all maths and physics lovers. I have read it twice. Thanks professor Max for this great effort

[RAFA-kbte]

Wild imagination and accurate intuition, that afterwards is proven scientifically. Humans will do in time whatever think they'll do.

[alcyone]

We need to appreciate people such as Max more often. Great lecture and many thanks to Ri.

[dk]

I'm nearly done with his book of the same title and it is totally mind blowing.

[erickwilberding]

Great teacher.  Wonderful analogies, colloquial expression, enthusiasm, he's enjoying teaching.

[jnekrep]

This guy does the best Christopher Walken ever...without even trying. 

[joeldoxtator]

I still don't understand why science assumes that the galaxies are speeding away from each other. Is it not more reasonable to assume that between that great distance and time there is enough matter in the vacuum of space to cause the same effect that our sun has when it is low in our atmosphere? The sun is not any closer to us or further away from us just because it turns from blue white to deep red, just as it does not mean that the sun is suddenly accelerating away from us at a faster speed when it is seen as red in the sky. Variance in the speed of light can also be seen on earth by sending light through water. It seems to me that we are trying to make space itself some kind of sterile environment where all physics are constant when that is clearly not the case. The Oort cloud of our own solar system should be enough to tell us that there must be similarities to how light behaves in our atmosphere and how it behaves in space. While the density may be different, if you multiply that density by position of the Oort cloud comets by the billions of year that light took to reach us it makes more sense and it is not the only debris field between us and other galaxies.


25:23 - Of course there is a rational explanation for the usefulness of math. Math is a language created to describe specifically the quantities of nature. Nature itself does not describe math. The fact human intelligence reflects nature is only more proof that nature is the parent structure of our intelligence. When we use math to describe nature we are describing ourselves. Math itself is a deeper understanding of self. Mathematics is born of intelligence which mean the universe itself is an intelligent structure.

[stephencaudill]

Tegmark is as silly as they get, what's up with Mr. Hoggles in a math lecture?

[asusedz]

Is it me or does Max, at times, sound like Christopher Walken🤣

[jonlopezt]

My friend needs to visit a nose and throat doctor or hydrate himself

[Jack__________]

He keeps saying “we humans” like he’s trying to convince us that he is one of us. 🤣🤣🤣

[DanielKarbach]

PS: 40, 000km is the circumference, not the diameter

[tedl]

Love you Max, you're a real treasure to humanity.

[ajeethkumar]

Its very interesting to hear the way max is explaining!...😍👍

[jdgoodwin]

0:37 Professor Tegmark is channeling Christopher Walken

[JackQuark]

The idea that this universe is fundamentally a math structure, is fascinating.

[Jackieception]

There is a point where the description becomes what is described. Symbol becomes the meaning behind it.

[daithiocinnsealach]

I doubt they were melancholy actually. One thing I've learned about humans is how arrogantly sure they are of themselves. Myself included.

[ALMEYTRIX]

Can someone explain to me how this theory can account for the self-evident fact of change? By that I mean, this thing losing and gaining another, succession.

Also, how does this theory not result in idealism? There is no physical world in this view, only these immaterial mathematical forms, and the universe is one of them. So everything we know about the universe is mental representation. But if we only know mental representations, then we never know the universe as it is, and that includes any mathematical properties of the universe. And if we want to say matter exists, then we have something other than number and have no explanation for it.

Another problem is that it doesn’t seem as if their theory can salvage induction at all. How can we guarantee the mathematical universe we live in is going to continue behaving nicely, as opposed to the many many other mathematical universes that don’t behave with any regularity at all? Since things in this theory aren’t substances with real natures that ground how they act, and instead are just random assortments of numbers that can make a mathematical object, we have no sound basis for induction.

Let alone trying to explain how colours, sounds, smells and all other forms of qualia can be explained by mathematics. It would seem to rule out qualitative plurality entirely, because it’s all the same stuff, it’s all just numbers. I’m not sure what saying an electron just is -1 and all it’s other properties that can be described mathematically even means. What brings all these numbers together to make a single electron? Is an electron just a collection of numbers? What makes this electron different from that electron, if they’re all just the exact same collection of numbers? You might say spacial location, but then they’re a different collection of numbers and therefore don’t share a common nature. So we can’t speak of electrons anymore?

These are just some thoughts I have about this theory of his. I don’t buy it.