No, the Universe is Not Made of Math

I made another boring video responding to something stupid.

I decided to split this into two parts so I could have one that doesn't mention Inspiring Philosophy.

Pretty much everything I say in this video is completely obvious, but I still expect brain-dead idealists like Immaneul Mar to "object" by leaving some insane word salad for me to read. I also wouldn't mind seeing some hilarious bullshit from Andrew Wells.

I know my overview of how mathematics is used to describe the world is redundant and lacking, but it gets the point across. Also, nothing in the world can contradict math, so a world that couldn't be described by math would have to be a bizarre place where there is nothing to measure (meaning there is not even space), so it would actually be nothing unless you believe in nonphysical entities, but those would have to be countable so they couldn't exist either.

And the notion of trying to turn an abstract object into a physical object is just complete nonsense. There is a whole category of abstract objects called fictional entities. The people who believe Sherlock Holmes exists as an abstract object do not think he is an actual living person.

[markallenbialik]

My universe is made of Ander Smith selfies.

[CosmicFaust]

Hey Ander Smith what do you think of InspiringPhilosophy's video of Digital Physics argument for Gods existence?

[munstrumridcully]

I've always found this notion silly. What's worse though, is not only was the notion championed by a cosmologist, programs on cosmology on the Science Channel have more than once made it seem like the idea has physicists neatly split between physicists who take the position that math *is* the universe, and those taking the (much more reasonable, imo, ) view that math is a tool to *describe* the universe, and can even describe configurations of reality that we have no evidence exists in reality. IMO, math is very similar to deductive logic, in that one's results depend on what one plugs in to he initial premises. The old Greek Epicycles model of planetary movement  was mathematically correct, and it worked to explain the observations, but turned out to represent reality, when better models and observations became available.

[guillermo]

When we say universe is mathematics we dont quite literally mean youll find a 5 floating around and bumping into things, or that reality is made of numbers, as long as i know the universe has been believed to be math from ancient times, you see, what mathematical structures really are is really a abstract idea of certain things with mathematical properties, so if you take for example a square and you pick up the length of one of its sides you can calculate its area, all of those things you can measure are mathematical properties, which can interestingly be applied to real life as if the mathematical structure is just a representation of the real thing or vice versa, its simple, you want to know the area of a droplet floating in space with no forces acting upon it? Just letting you know that its always its ratio times 2π, and maybe there is more to it than just mathematics to the universe, im not completely sure, you could argue that pure mathematics cannot describe the universe we live in well i would ask how do you know that cause that just seems like an aguement by ignorance.

[simonruszczak]

Reality is made of the geometry of an aether lattice, of probably tetrahedron and octahedron shapes. This universe is movement (energy) of that aether.
Modern maths is crap because it has concepts of absolute zero, infinity, and imaginary numbers. Maths needs to describe its movement.

[WorthlessWinner]

That math describes the world so well seems to imply that there's something 'real' that's captured by the description. I don't think the description IS the object, the way Tegmark does, but i don't think we can dismiss that math works so well at describing the world.

[snowmystique]

I thought no one took that idea seriously. I'm going to say something something that's possibly silly, but can math be used to measure the mind? I'm serious, if math is supposedly a construct of the universe then shouldn't it follow that emotions and thoughts have mathematical value? I haven't seen anyone attempt to prove this and I seriously doubt anyone can.

[aureile]

Your arguments would have more value if you didn't resort to insulting the people you are debating.

[tannere]

I don't think this guy likes numbers...

[youtubeforcinghandlessucks]

@Wasp and other naysayers
Have you heard of Simulation Theory? Math Universe Theory is just taking it to the next logical step. Computer programs are essentially just math. But the kick is that the math -- the rules that dive the universe, the description -- exists even without anyone ever actually running the simulation.

You argue that a description of a thing is not the same as the thing itself. I see why you may claim that... except it is not true to the description of a person interacting with the description of the thing. My description of you in my description of a universe I'm thinking of right now is just staring at my description of a computer monitor as he suddenly understands what Math Universe Theory actually means. ;)

Truthfully, we do not know for sure if it is even theoretically possible to simulate, or even just mathematically describe a "model universe" complex enough to develop intelligent, sentient beings. But we can not completely discount that possibility. If it turns out to be at least theoretically possible, then such "model universe" actually "exists" - at least in an abstract, non-physical sort of way, like the concepts of numbers exist and have always existed even without humans to think of them. But to the person inside that "model universe", it is very much completely physical.

Now what it you are just such a person?

[PaladinswordSaurfang]

Why do so many people say "all are not" when they mean "not all are"? (3:46)

[holz_name]

Finally somebody made a video about the non sense that the universe is math. Math is just a description of the physical objects, and we can use different methods to describe the same object. I can use words, paintings, a song, and maybe some other methods are there to describe it. We can even use different mathematics to describe the same object. It's a classical confusion of the method we use for description of an object with the object itself.

[dfpolis]

A clear video stating what should have been obvious to any thinking person, but sadly is not.

Plato and Pythagoras also thought the world was made of numbers. Aristotle pointed out that quantity in the world is not an actual number at all, but only countability or measurability -- not other words, potencies, not actualities. To have actual numbers you need someone to count or measure.

Aristotle defines time as the measure of notion according to before and after. Newton ignored Aristotle and believed in absolute space and time. Einstein corrected this error. Aquinas pointed out that math is the result of abstraction from our experience with the physical world. Now we have otherwise sane people like Penrose and Tegmark who have failed once more to think through how we get numbers and math.  Some errors never go away.

Peace, DP

[Paradoxarn.]

I wonder if the truth of Gödel's incompleteness theorems is compatible with the claim that the universe is made out of math, it seems to me that it isn't.

[Wasp_Y]

Reply to bjshnog who accused me of "Dunning-Kruger-like reasoning", and gave some fake argument about the dire consequences of rejecting all forms of mathematical realism.

As with most people who bring up the Dunning-Kruger effect, you are an exemplar of it.
This abysmal argument you made up is nowhere to be found in the philosophical literature. Nor is it even relevant to this video, as my case against Tegmark does not depend on a total rejection of mathematical realism. You sound like someone who has not read a single thing on this issue. I dare you to cite something to back you up. Experts would find Tegmark's ideas far more controversial than mine.

[DavidZimbeck]

lol thank you, great video this is what ive been saying for years. Its just a language and an imperfect one at that.

[heatherjlewis]

Fractals exist all around us. Snowflakes, shells, plants. Go spend some time in nature and tell me the universe isn't made up of math.

[guillatra]

I like this video more, than the first one.

[christophergiblin]

Using philosophy to undermine mathematics = insta-fail
And then going on to completely misunderstand the proposition is just the icing on the cake.

Also you may be right, but if you are then you are entirely by accident as your reasoning is flawed and infantile. Real philosophers are laughing at you.

[nullinf]

You're interpreting the whole hypothesis that the universe is made up of mathematics so literally it's making me nauseous. Please send me a link to when a single person that mathematics have any physical properties at all. Prove me wrong! I watched your video in hopes of an intelligent refute to this popular hypothesis and you decided to dissect a two and a half minute video. It sounds like you just wanted to disagree with something for the sake of disagreeing. Try again, and do some research.