The Mathematical Universe · HackerPapers discussions

The Mathematical Universe — mentioned by qsera

Wed, 02 Sep 2026 23:30:43 GMT

I am a total layman. But I believe that MUH (Max Tegmark) is the real thing. I was once looking at fractal animations on youtube. At one point, I thought I saw things move in it in a way that resembles physical movement. That caused me to ask if there could be a fractal where things moved or behaved in accordance with the physical laws of our universe (As I pursued this idea, I came across MUH from Tegmark [1]). And if such a fractal (or a mathematical structure) exhaustively implements all our physical laws, it follows that we will observe eventual emergence of consciousness life. Of course…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Mathematical Universe — mentioned by qsera

Mon, 18 May 2026 18:49:42 GMT

> its not an answer to any question It is. It is the theory of everything. > what is this "consiousness" in the end, which has in its nature, the production of all material reality to serve as a fixed causal basis for perception? If you haven't already came acrosss M.U.H, I would just direct you to https://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646 >What madness to is it to say that mercury in a thermometer not only acts as-if it is in coffe, but in its nature, acts as if there is an entire world that it is moving through -- and its motion up and down is always according to laws and principles as if such a…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Mathematical Universe — HN submission

Mon, 24 Jul 2023 13:48:37 GMT

The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (2007)

77 points; 117 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

The Mathematical Universe — mentioned by sras-me

Thu, 11 Aug 2022 13:34:31 GMT

>The Universe is "just" mathematics.. I have come to this conclusion as well. It came to be when I was looking at a fractal animation, and it appeared that things moved in it as if obeying some laws of physics. I have expanded on this idea here, and have described a sort of thought expiriment where I try to "prove" this. You probably not want to read it. It is not very well written. https://sras.me/the-root-of-all-existence.html Later I came across Max Tegmark's paper, which describes the same thing.. https://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Mathematical Universe — mentioned by jayturley

Sat, 25 Jun 2022 21:58:01 GMT

Max Tegmark's "The Mathematical Universe". https://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Mathematical Universe — mentioned by mikhailfranco

Wed, 15 Apr 2020 05:10:15 GMT

Max Tegmark has a larger diagram for math in his paper: Is "the theory of everything'' merely the ultimate ensemble theory? https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9704009 and a sketchy one for physics in his paper: The Mathematical Universe https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Mathematical Universe — mentioned by peopleeater

Fri, 01 Mar 2019 01:12:50 GMT

> We are made out of math. There's plenty of sober people who think this idea is entirely possible, maybe even probable. The idea goes by the name the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, and the foremost proponent is Max Tegmark. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothes... https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646 https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Mathematical Universe — HN submission

Thu, 25 Jan 2018 23:35:39 GMT

The Mathematical Universe (2007)

1 point; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

The Mathematical Universe — mentioned by ravenouswolves6

Sun, 02 Jul 2017 04:26:15 GMT

Skip the book (and the article), read the original paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646.pdf IMO, Tegmark has a solid argument that the MUH is more plausible than any of the other suggested possibilities (https://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-World-Exist-Existential/dp/0... is good for the PEQ and much more worth reading than Tegmark's book).

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Mathematical Universe — mentioned by zeroer

Sun, 27 Nov 2016 13:21:37 GMT

Yea, mathematics is more fundamental than physics, in the sense that it would be possible for different universes to exist with different physics, but it's not clear at all that universes could exist with different mathematics. What would that even mean? You may like Max Tegmark's idea that the universe is math: https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646 But it's nonsense that the natural numbers require two dimensions. Time appears nowhere in the Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo–Fraenkel_set_theory

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Mathematical Universe — mentioned by spacehome

Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:27:30 GMT

Couple that with Max Tegmark's ideas about multiverses. The idea is that all possible combinations of dimensions exist as a universe. We see 3+1 dimensions because this is the one combination that's most likely to develop life. http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Mathematical Universe — mentioned by brotchie

Sat, 18 Oct 2014 00:19:41 GMT

Max Tegmark has some really good writing on this. I quite like the idea that the "universe Hamiltonian" acts deterministic in phase space such that the universe's wave function evolves deterministic. From the "inside" of the system, the atoms in our brain are just carried along on a stochastic path such that the conscious awareness we currently inhabit is one of many the many possible paths through the large phase space. From the "outside" the universe is a infinitely dimensional, phase space that evolves deterministically through time. That way I reason about it is that the big bang was a…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Mathematical Universe — mentioned by tiatia

Sat, 26 Jul 2014 18:30:27 GMT

He should dig deeper... http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646v2 http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.2593v1

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Mathematical Universe — mentioned by wfn

Sun, 04 May 2014 21:53:38 GMT

Two somewhat-related-pointers for people who decide that they're curious about these things: * a light and nice read: https://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/general.arti... (an oft-cited article) * the madness of Max Tegmark: http://arxiv.org/abs/grqc/9704009 , http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646 (cliff's notes: "The [...] postulate in this theory is that all structures that exist mathematically exist also physically, by which we mean that in those complex enough to contain self-aware substructures (SASs), these SASs will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Mathematical Universe — mentioned by wfn

Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:45:13 GMT

> Strictly speaking, math has to yield to the laws of nature as it does not exist outside the laws of nature (as mathematics is in our minds) There are (within academia) alternative views to this one, e.g. Max Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe hypothesis": - http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9704009 - http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646 - wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesi... The basic idea being, all internally consistent (viz., mathematical) structures exist (whatever the notion pertains to), and those containing 'self-aware substructures' are perceived as physical…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Mathematical Universe — mentioned by JabavuAdams

Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:36:18 GMT

Ok, this isn't an answer to your points, but have you read Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis?http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646 "I explore physics implications of the External Reality Hypothesis (ERH) that there exists an external physical reality completely independent of us humans. I argue that with a sufficiently broad definition of mathematics, it implies the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) that our physical world is an abstract mathematical structure. I discuss various implications of the ERH and MUH, ranging from standard physics topics like symmetries, irreducible…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

The Mathematical Universe — HN submission

Sun, 19 Apr 2009 02:34:13 GMT

MUH: The Universe is a Mathematical Structure

1 point; 1 discussion reply on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.