Comments on: A paradox for this week… https://habitablezone.com/2020/08/26/a-paradox-for-this-week/ Mon, 13 Apr 2026 02:46:53 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: RL https://habitablezone.com/2020/08/26/a-paradox-for-this-week/#comment-45304 RL Thu, 03 Sep 2020 20:18:38 +0000 https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=83603#comment-45304 But what defines the physics? That is the really interesting question. "Our Mathematical Universe" by Tegmark discusses this to some extent... Are there a multitude of universes with the only restriction being that the mathematical structure of their physical laws are mathematically self consistent? But what defines the physics? That is the really interesting question.

“Our Mathematical Universe” by Tegmark discusses this to some extent…

Are there a multitude of universes with the only restriction being that the mathematical structure of their physical laws are mathematically self consistent?

]]> By: hank https://habitablezone.com/2020/08/26/a-paradox-for-this-week/#comment-45246 hank Wed, 26 Aug 2020 23:42:38 +0000 https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=83603#comment-45246 We really don't know exactly what it is that's "out there". All we know are the repeatable and predictable numerical values defined by our measurements. We define concepts that are consistent with these values, but they are clearly arbitrary. For example, you speak of particles and waves, supposedly real physical phenomena described by different mathematics and properties, yet both interpretations are valid (or at least, useful) under certain circumstances. Under others, they are totally contradictory. No, I'm not saying there is no "reality", or that all knowledge is arbitrary. What I'm saying is that the nature of that reality (matter) is meaningless unless interpreted according to some conceptual framework (physics). And we know physics does change periodically. The last time was about a hundred years ago, and we're about due for another one. The universe is much more a consequence of what we THINK it is than of any intrinsic nature or physical property it may or may not possess. We really don’t know exactly what it is that’s “out there”. All we know are the repeatable and predictable numerical values defined by our measurements. We define concepts that are consistent with these values, but they are clearly arbitrary. For example, you speak of particles and waves, supposedly real physical phenomena described by different mathematics and properties, yet both interpretations are valid (or at least, useful) under certain circumstances. Under others, they are totally contradictory.

No, I’m not saying there is no “reality”, or that all knowledge is arbitrary. What I’m saying is that the nature of that reality (matter) is meaningless unless interpreted according to some conceptual framework (physics). And we know physics does change periodically. The last time was about a hundred years ago, and we’re about due for another one.

The universe is much more a consequence of what we THINK it is than of any intrinsic nature or physical property it may or may not possess.

]]>