/lit/ - Literature

>>22919620
The problem with Tegmark's MUH is that you still need to deal with the objective measure problem. It could me that some form of modal realism is true, but you would still need to explain why some realities are more common/have higher objective measure than others. Otherwise, you can't have a coherent model of reality at all.

https://reducing-suffering.org/why-does-physics-exist/

>The view described here implies a radical degree of epistemic relativism. For instance, fundamentalist Christians are not wrong (except insofar as their beliefs are logically contradictory); they just care more than non-Christians about the subset of universes in the multiverse in which copies of us exist on a planet created and overseen by the God described in the Bible. Science-minded people reject Christianity because the universes consistent with it have high Kolmogorov complexity, but this only reflects a prejudice by science-minded people to care more about simpler universes. The presuppositionalists are right: "there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian." The two sides in the debate just hold different preferences about which universes in the modal-realist multiverse are more important. By the same token, Muslims, Raëlians, and Flying Spaghetti Monster adherents are not wrong either—they just care most about their own favored types of universes. All logically consistent religions—or beliefs of any kind—are correct somewhere (and infinitely often) in the modal-realist multiverse.

>>21546744
>this reality is the only possible computation
Prove it

>>19208126
Redpill me on how Tegmark refutes Gnosticism

>>18371044
What does /lit/ think of Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis? It sounds like it's basically Neo-Platonism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis is basically neoplatonism

All mathematical structures exist, our universe just being one.

>>15261408
>and how does it refute determinism?
It doesn't. Many-Worlds is almost certainly the correct QM interpretation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTXTPe3wahc

>inb4 muh quantum randomness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTXTPe3wahc

>>14957952
>Most people don’t get to be born at all, ever.
And what makes you think that?

>>11618385
Philosophy of Mathematics:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism-mathematics/

Max Tegmark in cosmology, particularly his Level Four Realm of Forms:
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlbJoW9Rty0