Max Tegmark - What is Ultimate Reality?

What is the deepest nature of things? Our world is complex, filled with so much stuff. But down below, what's most fundamental, what is ultimate reality? Is there anything nonphysical? Anything spiritual? Or only the physical world? Many feel certain of their belief, on each side of controversial question.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on reality and ontology: bit.ly/3G61elE
Max Tegmark is Professor of Physics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He holds a BS in Physics and a BA in Economics from the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. He also earned a MA and PhD in physics from University of California, Berkeley.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@ender2999]

Robert is so great at understanding the guests and challenging them. Such a great interviewer

[@mr.dankman]

Well, if Max is right, then no wonder I've always felt like I don't understand life. I'm terrible at math.

[@danohanlon8316]

Most people (like myself) think they’re bad at math-but we’re all wrong. There’s a difference between being bad at mathematical notation (how we communicate math) and math itself. (The Beatles were brilliant musicians-but not one of them could read music.) Some fifteen years ago or so ago, the BBC announced that a team of British pure mathematicians had finally released the conclusion of their eight-year long study-of what the human brain has to do just to catch a ball. Written out on a blackboard, the outwardly indecipherable equation was about six feet long-and the human brain not only solves it but, in its continual calculation and recalculation of the balls trajectory, also *thousands* of times a second. We know a lot more than we think we do.

[@susied.b4094]

😂😂😂😂😂

[@tonyscalise4462]

This Max is amazing. I think he’s on to something. I need to watch this video a few more times.

[@suneasmussen2650]

I just fucking love watching you formulating your thoughts with such precision Mr. Robert Lawrance Kuhn. And done so in that wonderfull rustily deep voice.

[@mickyjohnson273]

Music, math and harmony are the tools used in the creation of the Universe. The Universe itself, or the physical, is just the result. There's still a creative force behind it.

[@kenmapp4891]

Lawrence, you did a good job of Pushing max and finding the holes in his theory: why do the equations get up and move, are all maths theroies real or just the one we live in, And i loved it when you said (words to the effect of) "wait a minute, what thinks? what experiences?" Still, in honor of max, im going to spend the day thinking of how his theory could be true, even it doesn't seem so to me. Peace out hippies.

[@meesalikeu]

be sure to take a few bong hits along the way.

[@tedl7538]

I don't think Lawrence is "finding the holes in his theory," or even trying to do so. He's simply listening carefully, and asking for clarification when one of Max's statements seems too vague or incomplete.

[@markconrad9619]

I agree with Max 100%. Prime numbers, a triangle, the wave function all exist in the same reality as we do...they're just "less complex" than human conciousness. This is the same reason why I believe that eventually AI will be concious in the distant future. This also why I believe that there is higher plane of existance than our own.

[@joesamhughes1]

Can that higher plane of existence be described by math?

[@gamesandthoughts2388]

The plane of existence, is it in this world or the afterlife?

[@tedl7538]

I think it's kind of meaningless to posit a "higher plane of existence" (or most likely an infinite number of higher planes) because by definition there would probably be an infinite number of lower planes as well. In other words, we would be nowhere, and everywhere, on that spectrum.

[@MihaiLatYoutube]

We can imagine forever what reality looks like, but true reality must be something of unity, total unity. In such a way that no descriptions are even necessary, you know it without confirmation even to yourself. And no descriptions are even possible because it is purely of perception, where all other organs and instruments collide and merge.

[@user-yo8wh4gx1s]

Sounds like a description of God

[@sethrenville798]

@@cosminvisan520 you may enjoy Donald Hoffman

[@afeather123]

When I started watching these, I was seriously trying to understand what is going on. Now I just find almost every talk hilarious, watching us monkeys try to explain in our primitive language the fundamental nature of reality. Not that I look down on anyone, I'm the same way. I philosophize for fun, and I still get excited about it. At this point I think its like Lao Tzu said: "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao." (Except applied to any idea of ultimate reality.) I hope there is an eternal afterlife, just because I think it would be hilarious if one of us puny humans finally figured it out. I certainly think math, abstraction, could be a fundamental part of reality. Idealists / consciousness-monist people say that all our models don't describe reality, they only describe what we experience, and that we don't have access to the true nature of reality. It's not really possible to get around that argument. It's at least a possibility. But perhaps you can get around it by saying: ok, but even if we don't have access to ultimate reality, is any experience possible that does not include patterns or structures? Maybe it is and we just can't imagine it. But maybe it isn't! Maybe any experience, even one very different from ours, would include structures which can be described mathematically. Inevitably every metaphysical philosophy hits this wall where it doesn't seem to intuitively explain some aspect of our experience and just says, "I don't know, but maybe it just works itself out!" Why do mathematical structures "give rise" to consciousness? What is the relationship between these mathematical structures and the phenomena I experience? The answer would have to be, "I don't know, I just know that there is a relationship." We just can't help but keep touching every side of the elephant and triumphantly proclaiming we've found a snake, and a whip, and a wall, and a tree trunk, etc, etc.

[@CarlosElio82]

Alec, your concern with understanding fundamentals of nature is valid. In the Demon haunted world, Carl Sagan spoke of scientific knowledge as the candle in the dark. It is immensely powerful (think of nuclear weapons); most people have no idea what is going on in science, its implications and risks, and policies in democratic governments are subject to majority consensus. How can we get idiots to chisel out consensus out of a convoluted world? We all are bundles of hydrogen transformed by natural laws. We have a opportunity to watch reality unfolds, exactly like the dinosaurs saw it unfold millions of years ago. Some of us will watch the unfolding exactly like the dinosaurs did: puzzled all the time in the ocean of their ignorance. Others will catch a glimpse of the important stuff, if they decide to make the effort.

[@dougsmith6793]

@@cosminvisan520 Not so sure about that, Cos. There's no evidence that quarks or rocks or stars or planets need to be conscious to do what they do. So consciousness is not necessarily the nature of those realities. Consciousness may be the nature of OUR [individual] realities -- but only because consciousness is the only thing that makes it possible to ponder the nature of reality to begin with.

[@dougsmith6793]

@@cosminvisan520 EVERYTHING is an idea in consciousness, Cos -- including the idea that everything is an idea in consciousness. If a rock is nothing more than an idea in consciousness, then the notion that that rock can cause a bruise on your head is also an idea in consciousness. If it's only an idea, then there's no reason you can't change that idea so that it does not cause a bruise. After all, if you aren't in control of your ideas, then who is? Want to put that proposition to the test? Or are your ideas so hardened that you cannot change the predictable outcome of that test?

[@deanodebo]

Do you think you’re a monkey or an ape?

[@xenphoton5833]

@@cosminvisan520 people convince other people to give them money all the time. But of course money doesn't exist is it of course, here it comes.........just an idea in consciousness.

[@meesalikeu]

our dr max caught out on the fly, but still droppin 4D spock chess moves.

[@cozyslor]

"Difference between a dead Beatle and a live Beatle". It always comes down to Lennon and McCartney.

[@tcl5853]

Outstanding sense of humor! Your comment lands as the - platonic form after which all subsequent comments are derived from. In fact, your comment should be the only comment allowed for this video segment.

[@tedl7538]

I know...sometimes that really bugs me.

[@davidcasagrande267]

The ultimate reality is , we are so limited in our ability to perceive the universe around us that we truly don't know ANYTHING . A dog can outsmell us a million to one , so how can we say we know what anything smells like . And so on and on . We can only know as much as our limited bodies can know !!!!!!!!!!

[@tedl7538]

I like your dog analogy!

[@ABC-yt1nq]

Fascinating conversation. I tend to see math as an ever-increasingly complex language created by humans to more and more precisely describe the currently discernible physical world. Just as human languages proceeded from grunts and gestures to extremely complex ways of describing not just the exterior world but also describing the interior world.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

I'm with you. Is there any mathematics that cannot be translated into the English language? I very strongly doubt it. Both taking a picture and formulating an equation save us the trouble of writing a "thousand words". We all know that old adage. There is something profound about the fact that we are able to transform thoughts into sentences and vice versa. I am of the opinion that our linguistic abilities are the critical foundation of our being conscious. How can the thought of tomorrow manifest and be maintained without the word to represent the concept in our thoughts? How can the thought of a 'self' manifest and be maintained without the word 'self' to represent the concept in our thoughts? "Consciousness" is not a something my self possesses. There is no such thing as consciousness. Rather, it is my self that *is* conscious. And when my self is conscious it is always of something. And when my self is not conscious of anything my self is no longer conscious and curiously, when that happens, my self has ceased existing or so it seems except of course there is no seeming whatsoever when my self has ceased being. Evolution gifted language with a few odd difficulties. I find them when I try to think of nothing or the meaning of infinity. And when I try to imagine my own non existence. I think all paradoxes arise from linguistic quirkiness and intuit that there are no paradoxes in the substrate whatever be its actual nature.

[@stoneysdead689]

@@REDPUMPERNICKEL What both of you are forgetting is that mathematics would then be the only perfectly self-consistent language ever created- in the history of the universe. You can't just go anyway you like with mathematics- it has to remain consistent to the axioms. This is why ppl feel they discover mathematical truths- as if they already existed and were just waiting there to be found by someone. And the fact that this language we've discovered and continue to unfold and understand seems to also very consistently describe the world around us- is astonishing and should make you wonder- does it describe everything completely? Because if so- it would suggest very strongly that it was indeed discovered and not invented. We're referring the concepts of course- not the words that describe them- of course that's invented, it's just human language. Aliens may call 2 by some other name but- whatever they call it- when multiplied by itself it will still equal whatever they call 4- you can bet on it. Which pretty much throws the whole idea of math being tied to human language right out the window.

[@profcharlesflmbakaya8167]

The interviewee just jazzed me with his perception of reality. That it is out there, however deceptive it might be!

[@vettejoevette]

This was truly confusing. Max is very passionate about mathematics. However, mathematics alone cannot explain either existence or reality.

[@RubelliteFae]

I agree. Even if he's right logic must exist for maths to exist. And even then, existence must exist for logic to exist.

[@RubelliteFae]

@@cosminvisan520 I believe something akin to that, but it is merely a belief. It can be a premise, not (yet) a conclusion.

[@rjd53]

@@RubelliteFae No, you're getting into infinite regress. You'd need a meta-logic etc etc. Existence is not something extra, it's the structure of the structures itself.

[@vettejoevette]

@@rjd53 Existence is "everything". Reality is the construct that living things create to understand and survive existence. Those that succeed continue to evolve, those that don't go extinct.

[@vettejoevette]

@@cosminvisan520 For Existence to be consciousness you would have to demonstrate that the Universe had consciousness prior to any existence of life. Does a star (a flaming ball of gas) have consciousness?

[@ii-pw6dy]

great episode!

[@ApurvaSukant]

Wow! Watching this video has been the high point of my life.

[@mahneh7121]

mine too

[@btaranto]

Beautiful

[@givishavgulidze7006]

Great!

[@brandongodin2684]

we used to share physics and mathematics but there is no way google os going to share new info with anyone, good luck. thanks max

[@dpie4859]

I totally believe in Max theory. It makes sense on so many levels. Its just very hard for us humans to imagine an infinite number of mathematical universes.

[@jamenta2]

Pfffft - it's materialism taken to an absurd far-fetched degree that has turned into dogmatic nonsense.

[@mikefoster5277]

'An infinite number' can otherwise be simplified as meaning just _one._ One single infinitude. One reality. One being. So why complicate things unnecessarily? If one feels the need to describe it in purely mathematical terms, then how about simply using the infinity symbol? Job done. Then on to the more important part - what does it actually mean? What are the implications of it for us here and now?

[@xenphoton5833]

@@cosminvisan520 oh okay. So what?

[@Pyriold]

@@jamenta2 It's OK to reject the theory, but where you came up with "dogmatic" escapes me. It's just a hypothesis, nobody, not even max would say that it's established truth.

[@jamenta2]

@@Pyriold "Einstein struggled until the end of his life to get the observer's knowledge back out of physics. He did not succeed." ~Henry Stapp #MU #p14 #Science

[@eimkei1339]

These videos often leave me thinking that if there is a God he is the ultimate scientist. Thus, whatever spiritual elements there may be they will still conform to mathematical principles.

[@plasticfantast1k]

Max,you are my hero!

[@WilliamMevon]

Time is magical!

[@MihaiLatYoutube]

Time is also the birth of the ego. They're one and the same thing basically.

[@ugurongel3066]

Amazing,unbelievable...

[@rishabhthakur8773]

What is ' Before ' time , 'Outside' space, ' Cause ' of Causation , ' Cannot' be thought ?

[@mattsigl1426]

Any scientific/philosophic theory that ends up saying that everything that possibly exists does exist and the limits of possibility are every possible mathematical structure is…problematic.

[@sujetsupposesavoir8217]

Matter can be described by mathematics - perhaps even exhaustively - but not completely understood. To fully understand matter, and the reality that it mirrors, it will be necessary to include the Will, i.e. desire, which alone drives the mind actively to reach out and select the relevant information by which the knower can describe and understand the known.

[@cwescrab]

After spending thousands of hours watching, reading and listening to people talk about science, the universe, life, consciousness. I still come away thinking no one really has a clue just guesses. I’m still 100% agnostic and 50/50 on whether there is some sort of higher power or it’s all materialistic.

[@smugmode]

I don't see how when intelligent creation theory just adds an extra step and still doesn't answer the question

[@chmd22]

I think that Max Tegmark is onto something, but one major issue I have with his idea is to wonder why our universe is so beautiful. I get that living is not a walk in the park for many of us, but let's admit that it is still freaking awesome on many levels. If any possible universe with sentient beings is experienced, then it seems logical to assume that most would be dull at best, and downright awful at worst. Why is ours so nice, albeit in a challenging way? Another similar question is to wonder why we are experiencing it at this particular time, which is very early given the universe's probable lifespan (in trillions of years). These questions lead me to think that there is more to it, even though his core concepts of being in a mathematical structure and of no actualization needed do feel right to me.

[@tantzer6113]

“Beautiful” presupposes an aesthetic faculty, which we humans do possess. The question is not why the universe exists in such a way as to conform to our sense of awe and beauty. The question is why our aesthetic sense evolved and why it finds some things beautiful and other things ugly. It turns out that we find some things beautiful because they enhance survival. For example, we consider clean things as beautiful and dirty things as ugly because they have something to do with disease. Now, there is more to the human sense of beauty than this example, but the example illustrates the shift in perspective I’m recommending. Your perspective seems to put humans at the center, whereas I see humans as just an incidental, unpredictable product of the laws governing the universe.

[@jamenta2]

@@tantzer6113 Reductio ad absurdum. Reminds me of Freud's argument with Carl Jung insisting sexuality was the basis of all pysychological meaning and motivation. Jung was right to walk away from the reductive foolishness.

[@xenphoton5833]

@@tantzer6113 look there at what them thar particles do.

[@xenphoton5833]

You got some insight but don't be fooled into believing it's all just mathematical structure

[@chmd22]

@@tantzer6113 My point was that we don't seem to be living in a random universe. I grant you that the structure of the universe may seem "exceptional" to us because we are a product of it and have adapted to feel comfortable (with the caveats I expressed earlier). It's also possible that life is only possible in this phase of the universe's expansion, and so that would not be exceptional either. But I don't feel we can dismiss these important philosophical questions too quickly. Maybe they point to something more deeper, as in spiritual.

[@ultmadtv]

Computer programming also uses math but is not math precisely. We live inside of one program of the computer (for some reason, we call it consciousness), so I think "code and data" better describe fundamental reality than just math (math is part of code and data).

[@auxmobile]

So we're taking a physical structure, the universe or multiverse i.e. our reality, and its mathematical description, which is getting better and better, and equating the two? Are we equating what is described with its description? Then our reality could be Language, or Thought or Imagination.

[@dmitrysamoilov5989]

Yes, I think it's fascinating that everything physical can come from something like "thought". This is no doubt where people got the idea that God exists. Some ancient tradition of philosophers figured out this exact truth and tried to tell everyone. Like the kid's game of telephone, the message was corrupted by less intelligent folk into "a smart man in the sky created everything". I'm sorry but no, mathematical truth is not a conscious entity. It does not create anything. It simply exists because it has no contradictions.. and therefore it is true. Existence becomes something very simple = mathematical truth.

[@jjharvathh]

No one knows ultimate reality. We don't even know if we are capable of understanding ultimate reality. Different species see ultimate reality differently.

[@toti_key]

When I see Max i hit like without watching video

[@theeternalworldpicture]

I think that the ultimate reality can be described as "something there is". This "something" has no details and is above the psychical and spiritual world. We know it as our "I". Anyway, it is always great to hear smart people think about life, so thanks for a great video!

[@Yzjoshuwave]

Much as I like Max Tegmark, it’s good to see him squirm. Let me add that his hypothetical algorithm capable of generating all math has a definite limit: very big infinities are categorically inaccessible, meaning you can’t build logic that will ever arrive at them. And then we can start mapping those very big infinities into every other domain of math and essentially have an impossible surplus in every field of math that exists outside what’s rationally accessible. That said, even the rationally accessible hyperspace of infinities makes the notion of a mathematical metaverse pretty hard to rationalize. What’s interesting about this universe is the complexity of its order, but if all possible universes are actual, the probability of being in one that has complex order is zero, because there are more ways of making a disordered universe than an ordered one - a large infinity more. And I think it’s not even that it’s a very very low probability, but a probability that = 0. On the other hand, we exist in a universe with order, so let’s just suppose this idea is compatible with our universe existing. We would need to track down “consciousness” as a scientifically observable phenomenon and compile a data set that could be described mathematically. I’m not saying it’s impossible that the substance of consciousness could be observed, but we don’t have a gateway into that now and are essentially only aware of it in a subjective sense. I even like to think about the possibility that awareness is a vector bundle of some sort, but without a data set, the notion that it has an objective form is pure speculation. And are we going to say that love, or the Good, can be derived from math? I’d like to hear his thoughts about it, but I don’t see a meaningful way of explaining either as a result of mathematical underpinnings without reducing them to biological functions. I think it’s worth asking whether it’s possible to conceive of a physics that doesn’t hinge on reduction.

[@jamenta2]

Impressive response. I share your sentiments regarding emotions. How you get from mathematics to a single emotion is not even conceivable to me. Similar to the qualia problem of consciousness - from neurons to perceiving the color red.

[@JohnnyTwoFingers]

He'd squirm a lot more if: a) he was able to perceive the existence of metaphysical reality, and b) realize that physics *doesn't even try* to grapple with that riddle.

[@janwaska4081]

what's the mathematical equation that describes the hard problem of consciousness?

[@mpmichaelpayne]

So does natural selection operate at the atomic level/mathematical structure level or is it randomness that creates the complex structure that becomes actualized?

[@Christopher_Bachm]

I would say that the most fundamental thing about reality is that it cannot be unraveled through dissecting it's parts.

[@chardo24]

Life is ultimate reality.

[@vettejoevette]

There are some people who would even construct the whole universe out of numbers, as do some of the Pythagoreans. Yet manifestly, physical objects are all heavier or lighter, whereas unit-numbers (being weightless) cannot go to make up a body or have weight, however you put them together!

[@slic_papa2671]

The mental constructs that you create when thinking about those abstract numbers and formulas do exist physically in this so called reality as actual energy. Once you think the thought it doesn't go away, it actually leaves your brain and body and travels throughout the ether to coalesce with other thought created energy, or perhaps travels along into infinity alone forever.

[@robertrmckerrow1111]

Seems he is describing design because his description can’t be by chance, his mathematics precludes that chance happening. I would add, multiverses are a hypothetical not proven science.

[@jamenta2]

Hugh Everett - not even a professor but just a student at the time, really opened up pandora's box. And the Materialists have been fanatically clinging to it ever since. And you're right, it isn't even proven science.

[@iamZubairShaikh]

All these hypotheses about mathematical reality, consciousness, actuality, space, time, intelligence, energy etc etc are mere EFFECT... what still remain out of the bounds and understanding of Man is the CAUSE.... Man has not been able to create anything out of thin air (by not using anything that is already in existence) except for what we call design. Man can design out of his own by using the material available... True the material is not man made but the design of an engine, a machinery, a bicycle, a rocket, a pen, a painting etc etc are all man's indigenous creations. Though those desigs too have emerged from a chemical and conscious process of mind that exists without man's will. The only logical support or explanation we can derive to claim a particular mind's creative abilities is that not all the minds can create all the things and one has to coax and cajole a particular mind to work towards a particular design or objective. Isn't this a message and an example to all mankind as to how initially it was all designed by an Entity who is not restricted or restrained by any force or lack of recipes.

[@tedl7538]

No, wrong conclusion. One could just as easily say that the probability of there being "nothing" is even slimmer than the probability of there being "something."

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Causation has mathematical description, change in space squared less change in time squared? If causation has mathematical description, what would mean for reality?

[@ScorpioMoon8]

Using worldview to peer into tainted possibilities lying just ahead of your presumed conceptualizations while time ticks ahead, displacing matter and energy to maintain cosmological structures confined through the perception of each new momentary event combines to show you not the way, but any way you decide.

[@reddchan]

My guess is fundamental reality is infinite and nonphysical, any limits or boundaries are evidence of a construct.

[@jamenta2]

My guess as well. Although we might be wrong. Mathematics is just a property of consciousness, does not produce it. Far more likely consciousness precedes form.

[@RubelliteFae]

Yes! The binding of the unbounded would result in structure. At the very least whatever is fundamental must necessarily exist (and since this precedes time, it would only make sense for it to exist timelessly) and must have the ability to do. So, my conception of Absolute Reality is self-existing existence-potency. Be-ing must be for anything further to be, and do-ing must be for anything further to do. Since we experience both being and doing, existence and power, then these must precede the reality we experience. From this we get spacetime (space, the locus of existence, and time the locus of occurrence) as well as matter-energy. I cannot conceive of anything more fundamental, but that doesn't mean much, I suppose.

[@xenphoton5833]

@@RubelliteFae all that is witnessed is not of objects but that of events.

[@RubelliteFae]

@@xenphoton5833 Sorry, I didn't quite follow. Are you saying all "things" are at their core "events?"

[@tcl5853]

Your take on the nature of ultimate reality sounds suspiciously theistic in nature. Your idea seems to be describing an infinite, non-physical, unbounded state that is - creative to the point that all physical matter is derived from it. As well as all non- physical attributes like consciousness, intelligence, self awareness, purpose, meaning, love, hate, values, ethics etc. why not just call it God?

[@haimbenavraham1502]

That's a Well Max theory; and Plato would be delighted.

[@ericpalmer3588]

The world we are in is experience based. We are all having an experience, one part of it we categorize as physical.

[@dag410]

That is the best way I have ever heard anyone talk about the matrix

[@rajendrarajasingam6310]

Quantum wave function is a mathematical construct. What it means it can exist but beyond our perception. This is also applicable to ultimate reality. It is beyond our perception but it can be explained mathematically

[@joegroup1]

I think if there is a true, ultimate reality of the universe, it's so complex and on a very grand scale, that the human mind couldn't comprehend the ultimate reality in it's entirety.

[@serena3042]

Dose the time really exist?

[@pikiwiki]

the term "actualized" has an interesting connotation here

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

The 'Only Real Steady Point', in Existence, is the Eternal Here and Now, Us Self, It is 'The Ultimate Reality', well, our Eternal Consciousness is also part of the 'Ultimate Reality'.

[@mintakan003]

Mathematics has been incredibly effective in the field of physics. I could see why many people would be enamored by it. It's certainly one "lens" through which to see everything. But there's something that strikes me as "to a hammer, everything seems like a nail", for the avid promoters. But let's grant the primacy of mathematics, in its deterministic mode. What does this mean? Is it a closed system? In the end does everything wind up being tautological, a closed system, and eventually a self referential? This question leads to yesterday's interview with Seth Lloyd, "free will", Godel's incompleteness theorem. Mathematics may buy some things. But it may not be complete, in describing complexity, in what emerges from it. This is esp. the case, if the system is more open ended, "generative", as we witnessed in biology and evolution, even granting the what seems to be a foundational determinism.

[@jacksonvaldez5911]

I am not sure that reality is derived from mathematical truths, but i think the fundamental idea remains, which is that reality is emergent from necessary truths, which may not be mathematical. For example, conciousness. The existence of subjective experience may not be able to be explained mathematically

[@terkfranks1538]

Math is nothing more than a means to measure and count. You can use math to count and measure apples, it doesn't mean "math created apples".

[@havenbastion]

Ultimate reality is the universe as or is beyond the comprehension of a mind. It is known as chaos, Aether, Actuality, or change itself. It is undifferentiated stuff, as opposed to the patterns that appear in a mind.

[@juanitoviejo2121]

Describing one symbolic system in terms of another--the actuality of mathematical structure in the metaphor of English language. A useful exercise made more entertaining after a few glasses of wine. To his credit, Tegmark is explicit about his metaphysical beliefs at 0:30 seconds. See Kastrup, Hoffman, et. al for alternative propositions about "reality."

[@GradyPhilpott]

I'm dumb as hell, but it seems to me that math is an abstract construct that is used extremely successfully to describe our concrete reality. I know that a lot of that concreteness seems to breakdown at quantum levels and that math still seems to do a very good job of describing our observations and predicting future discoveries and observations. I think Max is saying is that the more complex the math is that describes a thing, the more likely that that thing can be conscious and perceive itself as a small part of a greater whole, but regardless of that thing's perception, it is and everything that perceivable is at the most fundamental level an abstract mathematical equation. I still see whatever is fundamental as being something that is describable by the math and not the math itself. If only I have the mental acuity and skills of a Max Tegmark to come to a conclusion that I could express mathematically.

[@dmitrysamoilov5989]

Here's Max's train of thought. There are conscious humans that exist in the physical universe. Conscious humans invent mathematics to help them achieve their goals. Conscious humans create new mathematics which has no application to the physical universe. New mathematics turns out to be applicable to the universe afterall. Conscious humans begin to wonder what other uninvented mathematics also can be applied to the physical universe. Conscious humans begin to wonder if they are inventing mathematics at all. Some conscious humans start to think that they're actually just discovering mathematics... The way Columbus discovered the new world. Those conscious humans that think math is actually being discovered rather than created realize... Mathematics exists independently from conscious observers. Conscious humans try to answer the questions: "what is the origin of time... what is the origin of the universe?" Conscious observers realize... in order to explain anything, you need to explain it in terms of simpler and simpler things. But what about math? How do you answer the question: what is the origin of mathematics? If the physical universe didn't exist, would math exist? I say... This is where we have to make a leap of faith: math exists... But it exists in a very different way from the physical universe... Math is the sum of all "knowledge/structure" that has the POTENTIAL to be true, even inside an empty universe... Then the conscious observer realizes... All existence can be derived from that same "potential to be true", and even though the physical universe around us feels solid and real, it's really... Just a really robust mathematical equation.

[@sanjivgupta1418]

When we do not really understand reality, we use gestures. Problem is that we try to answer questions which are unanswerable.

[@debyton]

An individualized mathematical structure (self-aware or not) is called a position-of-view (POV). {The LINE Hypothesis} Each POV on earth, you, for example, is a living individual instantiated by a viable host form whether that host is a single cell or multicellular. The instantiation of each POV, such as your POV, is a natural non-local universally mobile phenomenon that can occur within any viable habitat in this universe. One's POV is instantiated to viable host forms, evolved or engineered, regardless of the distance between viable habitats, hence is non-local. The POV is an entangled state implemented by the entanglement molecules (EM) within living hosts.

[@fotoviano]

All we have is the input from our senses (however well they may or may not reflect any "physical" reality) and our consciousness (Descartes). - so this input is mapped to our consciousness - what we view to be mathematics is likely the rules/mechanism of the mapping - so mathematics is more a study of psychology than anything -- including, for instance, that we interpret space as three dimensional, when "dimension" is probably not a well defined representation of physical reality or whatever I think this accounts for some of Wigner's "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences". Physics (science generally?) is the study of what is observable and how our brain structures (maps into spaces, e.g. Hilbert space) the realm of possible observables. So I consider that mathematics is just a study of those structures and mappings thereon, as opposed to "universal" or Platonic truths. So, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Or it's like looking at a bunch of film's dubbed into English and saying "isn't it amazing that everyone speaks English", like an episode of Star Trek.

[@hondro7430]

The physical world is by its very nature mathematically structured, so yes, obviously we’re increasingly discovering that mathematical equations can describe physical processes. In other words, what would it mean for a physical process to behave in a way that cannot be described mathematically? It wouldn’t make any sense. The fact that physical processess are a type of thing that can be quantified and therefore described by mathematical calculation does not mean mathematics is the ultimate reality. The physicality of the physical reality is equally as fundamental to it as the quantifiability of its structure and behavior, meaning qualities such as extension, directionality, movement etc. are not identical to the mathematical principles which “measure” their existence, yet these physical qualities are no less fundamental than the fact of their mathematical calculability.

[@shinymike4301]

Perhaps Reality can be described by math, but that doesn't mean it IS math.

[@jodiehighroller9820]

I hate math so life can’t be math

[@Raj0520]

Here math doesn't mean the numbers and equations. U have 2 hands and 2 legs is a undeniable mathematical reality even if the academic maths didn't exist at all as known by humans.

[@dpie4859]

Well, Max is extremely intelligent and knows both mathematics and physics so his theory is not unfounded. What are your credentials and what is your counter theory?

[@browngreen933]

True statement.

[@2CSST2]

It doesn't MEAN it, but it's still possible and actually plausible, the points Max bring do make a good amount of sense. You could have said studying the biological structure of living beings only describes their body, but doesn't explain life. Except, it really does, and it's possible likewise there is no extra secret sauce to add to a mathematical structure to make it a "real" world.

[@bittertruth5770]

What is Ultimate Reality? Depends on one's definition of ``Reality""!!!

[@jayjames7055]

tremendously interesting.

[@SukhenM]

Thank you. What I understand is that Mathematics is definitely the tool to understand reality. But, not the reality itself. It helps to study the effect but, not the cause behind existence. Appreciate your efforts to help us understand reality !!

[@izsakitt3711]

Exactly. One apple + one more apple equal two apples but the apples are...

[@firstaidsack]

@@izsakitt3711 ...quantum fields in curved spacetime

[@TheZooman22]

In his closing statement he is implying that the difference is qualitative, as opposed to quantitative.

[@uninspired3583]

It isn't profound that the language we made to describe reality, does the job of describing reality.

[@tdiddle8950]

Mathematics is a significant factor in etiology. If there is no mathematics, then how could there ever be possibility, and possibility is the foundational principle of causality with respect to quantum mechanics. Because...if there is no causality without there first being a platform of statistical probability, then what is the base premise of reality?

[@SanatanSurya12]

We cannot go outside of consciousness so consciousness has to be only reality i think ?

[@whitefiddle]

Another meeting of the Dead End Club. Bravo!

[@ArjunLSen]

Its simply absurd to say that physical existence is integral with mathematics or emergent from mathematics. That's like saying that the measurement of the properties of my hand and its materials and components and processes IS mathematics instead of described by mathematics. This is a cardinal error. Penrose got it right when he said that there were three domains : the physical world, mathematics and Consciousness. Suddenly things start getting into focus whereas Tegmark just sounds confused with his identification approach. The next question after Penrose's postulate is what is the linkage between the three domains. In other words, WHY is the universe so well explained by mathematics since incoherence is just as much an outcome for the state of the universe as coherence: and indeed it is said to he heading towards just that. The answer WHY us best answered by an Idealist position which provides the most parsimonious and elegant roadmap for finding the explanation for ultimate reality: Consciousness produces the physical world,it produces coherence explicable by mathematics and directs the breakdown of coherence as well. Is Consciousness 'God'? Who knows. Physicist Paul Davies is not relugious but now believes that the universe is not only purposeful but has been expecting us. This promising approach which increasingly brings together disparate scientific findings from different fields supports an Idealist viewpoint increasingly well. But since Consciousness by definition is NOT reducible to mathematics but produces mathematics, many mathematicians and physicists shy away from the ultimate conclusion (Consciousness is the ground reality producing both mathematics and the physical world the maths describes so well). I am reminded of Sir James Jeans' dictum that the universe looks more and more like a great thought than a great thing. A thought is not reducible to mathematics; on the contrary, mathematics IS a form of thought. Max Planck.asserted that mathematics was fundamental. Von Neumann showed that putting in the Consciousness factor into the equations resolved key conundrums. All the confusions among many top scientists today arise from struggling to fit reality into a physical or mathematically emergent theory including consciousness which has NOT been satisfactorily shown to be emergent from brain activity though brain activity correlates extremely closely with it which - working back.to Consciousness from the physical world produced by Mind which is the Idealist position, is exactly what one would expect. Kastrup has ably demonstrated that putting Consciousness as primary and working from there towards mathematics and the physical world clarifies and enriches our understanding of how the universe really works. Reality is FUNDAMENTALLY subjective ( read 'Idealist') and objectivity is emergent of that. Since this view, however elegant, reverses the assumptions of 500 years of observation and experiment,it is understandably unpalatable to many but really,this is where we are headed and it is really a more exciting view of reality than the standard model so many scientists including Tegmark are reluctant to abandon physically emergent interpretations of reality. Since mathematics clearly describes a much greater assembly of positions than appears in the physical universe, his struggle to identify mathematics with the physical universe is an error of inflation and contradicts why so much mathematics is NOT found in the physical universe.

[@simka321]

Max is right. Everything is mathematical. But that is not the whole story. To say that 'everything is math' implies only a knower (the awareness of the mathematician, let's say) and what is known known (all of the formulae and equations that describe the universe, of which the knower is aware). Thus, in terms of Vedic wisdom, the, we have *Sat* (being, or awareness), and *Chit* (consciousness of something). So, what is missing? Precisely: the experience of knowing. The something it is like to be aware of the cosmos. The affect (experience; consciousness) of knowing, which arises from out of the presence of the knower/known non-duality. This third step, which entails qualia, and which intrinsically accompany the experience of all quanta, is what the ancients called *Ananda* - the affect or feeling of something it is like to experience knowing. Knower, known, and knowing. The person, the object, and the experience of something it is like to be a person who knows (and is identified with) an object. Tout court: Sat-Chit-Ananda. THAT is what constitutes Ultimate Reality ... and Sat-Chit-Ananda really is EVERYTHING.

[@BrandOnVision]

When I was younger I could never eat 3 I did not like the taste. However when I added 3 to 4 it tasted like heaven. My sister loved 3 and ate it all the time however it gave her a rash around her mouth. In my later years now I can eat mango however was unsure why I could not eat 3 when I was younger. Just did not compute I suppose.

[@BrandOnVision]

Must have something to do with imaginary number. Time plus space equal same answer yet a different sub equation equal variation due to rounding off infinite numbers creating an anomaly. = taste/smell

[@xenphoton5833]

👆

[@vonBottorff]

This all suffers from random bursts of stray beliefs.

[@BrandOnVision]

@@vonBottorff I like your evaluation. It is prudent to acknowledge that as some have colour blindness others may have insightfullness that others do not possess. Random to one may well be distinctly separated for another. As you may see a a selection of similar birds as one, just birds. Birds the birds know each other individually as different species. Numbers are the same... Seen as one however all different species. My mind sees patterns that seem to be disjointed to others however distinctly organised within my mind. Yes! Misunderstood however not strayed from reality. Just a different reality. Ability to live in both worlds. Thanks for taking the time to be seeded with a new thought. Hope it grows into an oak.

[@tunahelpa5433]

He's right, sort of... Everything is organized by physical laws that use math to describe them. However, at root, every "thing" in reality is a field, and substance is perturbations in that field ir those fields that we describe as "energy". It's that simple.

[@tunahelpa5433]

Kuhn raises a valid point - is everything math, or does math simply describe everything? Tegmark's answer is astoundingly keen.

[@sneakcr3144]

@@tunahelpa5433 Everything contains math, but not only math. Mathematical concepts dont change over time, they are devoid of time. Material things disappear or are changing. For example, Riemannian geometry is not changing, or doesnt disappear or become less complex, it just is. If humans were only complex mathematical concepts experiencing themselves, then we wouldnt die, because we wouldnt change, because complexity is one of the prerequisites for consciousness, and us dying would imply that those mathematical concepts become less complex over, time, which is impossible, or , we can just be eternal and live even after we die heh, but still, even so, our material form is still changing and disappears over time. So math is one of the underlying principles of reality, but not the only one.The rest we dont actually know because we are boomers(arogant boomers).

[@CarlosElio82]

Max should look at a Galton board to see how the little balls organize themselves in a bell curve. De Moivre-Laplace theorem explains why the balls always make that shape. Here is a clear case where a mathematical structure creates a shape. In reality you do ot need a Galton board. Look at the wear on steps of any old church and you will se the bell curve because the binomial theorem is a property of nature.

[@amin-sadeghi]

Max finally says that biologists used to think that life is this "extra" force that is added to living beings, but now we've discovered that a dead being is just the same atoms ordered differently. I have to disagree, and I don't think this claim has been verified by any scientist. Life is still not fully understood. I might be mistaken though, does anybody know what science finding does he refer to when he says "now we know that dead beings are just live beings but with different structure of atoms..."? Thanks!

[@BC-fy1nx]

Akin to English, German, Italian, Math is a language that describes - sometimes robustly and at other times rather impotently. Despite any limitations, all languages are useful tools for expression, period.

[@CarlosElio82]

I beg to differ. By studying Italian, or German, or whatever you do not discover new Italian. But in math it is different. By studying math you discover new mathematics. Natural languages describe the world as something outside the language, otherwise translation would not be possible. That's not the case in mathematics. It has no translation, think about it.

[@RubelliteFae]

Existence & potency. Existence itself must exist for any other thing to exist.　Existence is necessary for being. Potency must exist for anything to occur. Potency is necessary for doing. Various cultures have said as much: _puruṣa_ & _prakr̥ti;_ Śiva & Śakti; YHVH & Elohim; yin & yang. More interestingly, each of these have also said that the seeming duality is actually unitary. Respectively: Ekam (the One); Parabrahma; YHVH Elohim; & wújí. Physics should also have picked up on this. Space is the locus of being & time is the locus of doing. But they are really one, spacetime. Thus the necessary precursor is "be-doing." As an aside, Tegmark's argument is circular. "We haven't found anything that can't be described by math," because science doesn't deal with those things to which the scientific method cannot be applied. For example, qualia are, by definition, subjective and thus in the purview of philosophy, not science. A major part of science (i.e., the scientific method) is peer review. That which is called objective is collective agreement on the subjective. There cannot be collective agreement on qualia as they are only understood through direct experience (and thus ineffable). So, there can be no science with regards to qualia. Subjective experience is a wall you've already hit, you just haven't noticed because it's outside your discipline. There's a name for this kind of information bias, but I forget what it is called. Edit: As a further aside, Tegmark shows that there is yet another layer more fundamental than the maths at 11:24-logic. The maths that make up the game are based in logical truth tables (1s & 0s, being & non-being). The maths which we use to describe our Universe are the same. The problem is that a logical set, or logical reality, can be a subset of an alogical set/reality (not illogical, but haphazard, true randomness). But, an alogical set/reality, cannot be a subset of a logical one. So, just because all of our experiences tell us that reality is logical, this does not inform us about the possibility of a greater set to which we do not have access. For example, causality seems to be true, but that doesn't indicate the lack of a more base level of reality in which causality is not true. Causality requires time, and spacetime began with the Big Bang. So, it is possible that Kuhn's "moment of actualization" is the interface between the logical and alogical sets-between spacetime with causality and non-spacetime without causality.

[@geraldoguimaraesneto143]

In Quantum Physics power doesn’t need to exist for stuff to occur. Some stuff are just there.

[@RubelliteFae]

@@geraldoguimaraesneto143 Fair point. I've revised the post to say potency. Because there must at least be the potential for occurrence. Though, it could be argued that things like an unreached ground state & vacuum energy are either power or potency.

[@SandipChitale]

Seem to be confusion between math IS A DESCRIPTION of reality vs. math IS reality. And no matter how the reality was there will be some mathematics (maybe non-linear) that will describe it. There used to be math for the laminar flow of fluids but now we have math for the turbulent flow of fluids. So the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics describing reality" is a red herring and a trivial statement. It is true that the math that we have discovered historically is the one that describes our universe - arithmetic (numbers for counting), and geometry (shapes) in the early days of humanity. Then came algebra and then calculus. And now we have gone past that point and math that may not map to any reality in our universe is routinely researched in math departments. And the very fact that it can be said tells us that there is math that exists without the corresponding concrete reality.

[@jayk5549]

I once read a very detailed story about California. It was not California. More precision or descriptors would still be just a better map. Describe it in equations or complex fractals and It still won’t be California. And I still can’t surf that.

[@chrisdiver6224]

Einstein pointed out that there is a trend toward ever conceptually simpler mathematics describing an ever larger range of phenomena, including previous, more limited, understandings. Is this Tegmark-like view of a discoverable, determining mathematical ORDER contradicted by the current view that dark energy expansion will eventuate in a universe which is the ultimate expression of entropy; i.e., of maximum DISORDER? Or will the dark energy view eventually come to be seen as incomplete and be superceded by an awareness of a universe in which an ever simpler determining mathematical order is maintained?

[@znariznotsj6533]

I like the theory. But the computer character Max mentions needs something more: energy. And the game needs a substrate, since algorithms don't run upon themself. I miss these elements in the equation.

[@theliamofella]

He wasn’t using the Computer character as a literal comparison, just to highlight how a computer generated “being” could be fooled into believing it had real substance to its existence but it actually hasn’t

[@dmitrysamoilov5989]

Energy in this case is an illusion created by the feelings of the observer inside the mathematical structure. Since our entire universe would be a single coherent mathematical structure, you have to step outside time and think of the entire physical universe as "created at the same time". That means stretching into the infinite past and stretching to the infinite future... All of that had to be created at the same time because the future is fundamentally coherent with the past. Of course, according to Max's theory, the universe wasn't actually created. It always did exist and will continue to exist. As a completely true mathematical structure. There was no moment of creation. Although it can seem to us humans that things are created since we perceive time.

[@theliamofella]

@@dmitrysamoilov5989 interesting comment and I like it but you are stating that like it’s undisputed fact

[@dmitrysamoilov5989]

@@theliamofella the hardest thing to believe about this kind of worldview is: real physically existence can be derived from purely theoretical mathematical existence. I think this is the best possible answer we can come up with as humans. Humans are naturally limited and flawed, but if you think about it, what other possible alternative could there be? We are trying to explain the origin of "everything"... We can't do that by simply invoking previous events because we also have to explain time itself. Infact the answer to this question must be something that has no origin but itself. If you start with a universe that's empty. The only thing that exists there is something like: the potential for true mathematical statements to exist. So, math has this kind of pseudo-existence, this could be what Plato was referring to when he made an appeal to "the world of ideal forms". As long as we have this "pseudo-existence", everything else can be scientifically derived from that. It's no longer difficult to imagine how you can get something like consciousness from a pure mathematical equation. The difficult part to believe is the pseudo-existence of mathematics... The potential for true statements to exist.

[@theliamofella]

@@dmitrysamoilov5989 what I liked about this video is that finally max tried to actually explain how a mathematical structure could form in a certain way to give at least an illusion of having real existence, I’ve heard about the mathematical reality theory before but had absolutely no idea of how it could be

[@PaulHoward108]

The ultimate reality is personhood.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

In space-time, is time turning into space going into the past, and space moving into time going into the future?

[@RubelliteFae]

Time cannot "go into the past." The past is part of time. Though it may interest you to know that it is theorized that in black holes space becomes time-like and time becomes space-like.

[@jamenta2]

@@RubelliteFae In Wheeler's "Delayed Choice Experiment" the past can be determined by the contextuality of the Observer. And has been scientifically established in laboratories since his death.

[@RubelliteFae]

@@jamenta2 Yes? That doesn't mean the dimension "time" can "go into the past." It's like saying "width" can "go into the left." Both are dimensions on which things go. They themselves do not do the going. Neither does time & space turn into each other any more than warp turns into weft or longitude turns into latitude. All of these things are defined as orthogonal to each other and are both required to make up the thing they define (spacetime, woven cloth, & coordinate system of a spheroid, respectively).

[@mediawolf1]

Excuse me but mathematics is a function of consciousness. Mathematics is just consciousness's toolkit to understand or describe the universe, or possible universes. If the universe were described by consciousness, that description would be called mathematics. So if the universe arises from mathematics, then it arises from consciousness.

[@gregoryhead382]

When G constant traverses t: G = {{(m/s)^2 {0.6674 Å/kg}}}, so we have a ratio in it, rulial spacetime, for Gt; in-betweenness.

[@marcelinogalicia7612]

Where everything is being generated from, there has to be a point of origin. Where is the center of the universe? doesn't light turn into a solid?

[@der_kleine_Toni]

The most magic is Time

[@kos-mos1127]

The question of ultimate reality cannot be answered because we would need to be bigger than ultimate reality in order to answer that question. Or we need to create a measuring device bigger than ultimate reality in order to devise an answer. Both of those are impossible so it is the question of ultimate reality is impossible to answer.

[@Raj0520]

We need to be bigger than reality? We are damn sure of the existence of a universe which is atleast 93 billion light years in diameter. I hope u can successfully conclude which is bigger in size a human or the universe.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Basically that's why the wise men say God is incomprehensible, inconceivable, unintelligible; there cannot be another that's next to God, so to contrast and discriminate so to define -- this implies duality, whereas God is ONE, without another. Even though a rain drop is nowheres close to the abode of an ocean, the entirety of the ocean is still in the droplet of water. Check out the great Upanishads if you seek this Ultimate consciousness. Very good scripture.

[@browngreen933]

Meaning humans are mere microbes in the greater scale of things.

[@kos-mos1127]

@@Raj0520 That is why I said it impossible to answer questions on ultimate reality.

[@jamenta2]

@@Raj0520 Scientists don't even know what a "Measurement" actually involves, and are still trying to figure out what an Observer is. Bleh.

[@missh1774]

E8 Lie Group look like different levels to place markers when thinking about real and imaginary symbols, however the Super gravity Lagrangian examples look representative of the student/ teacher learner dynamics or an anticipating and actualizing state or function. Although in the e8 group, with that pulley example holding 3 or more clusters, maybe 10¹⁰⁰ microseconds or most likey smaller could be the bare standard to allow the bits from each cluster to do the bluetooth pairing action thing lol ... Sorry I don't have the right words or knowledge to say it like I would imagine it to be. Thank you!

[@leeofallon9258]

Math and empirical evidence seem to set up fences: Kant tells us "Das Ding an sich" and the "noumenon" are factors that limit what we can know ... Planck says that measurement limitations are imposed by the absolute speed of light, so ... seems to me the answer is, "No, we cannot know absolute reality!"

[@jge123]

The results from the recent nobel prize laureates, the fact local realism is false, contradicts his view that there’s an independent reality out there.

[@mindseyeview7411]

Ultimate reality is the realm of the forms or being able to emulate the realm of the forms, the perfect state of something, maybe? love you, thank you for always asking cool questions 💖♒🌍💦🌌💖

[@homayonreah1955]

Do imaginary no.'s represent Dimensions?

[@tleevz1]

It is all about the structure people. That's it, just how atoms are arranged. Structure. Atoms. So structure was a thing before the first atom right? I mean, this atom, it coalesced into something right? Something possible. Some possible form that was just another lonely old possibility in the crowd, then bam, this atom thing, and it has something, structure. Hey, did that atom choose that possibility because it knew it was that attractive? I'm confused, so let's talk about structure.

[@SantamanitaClauscaria]

Math is the map, not the territory. The numerated readouts of machines that measure the world are not the things that are being measured.

[@quantika72]

The bottom line is that we don’t have a clue❗️

[@jamenta2]

There is though the pipe in the library ...