Is "the theory of everything'' merely the ultimate ensemble theory? · HackerPapers discussions

Is "the theory of everything'' merely the ultimate ensemble theory? — 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.

Is "the theory of everything'' merely the ultimate ensemble theory? — mentioned by ryugarden

Fri, 14 Feb 2020 21:05:18 GMT

This reminded me about Tegmark's map of relationships between various basic mathematical structures: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9704009.pdf (on page 2)

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

Is "the theory of everything'' merely the ultimate ensemble theory? — mentioned by hyporthogon

Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:53:33 GMT

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9704009 p2 (fig1) is pretty nice

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

Is "the theory of everything'' merely the ultimate ensemble theory? — HN submission

Fri, 16 Dec 2016 22:44:34 GMT

Is “the theory of everything” merely the ultimate ensemble theory? (1997)

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

Is "the theory of everything'' merely the ultimate ensemble theory? — mentioned by halo

Sat, 20 Dec 2014 08:10:28 GMT

The original source of this diagram: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9704009

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

Is "the theory of everything'' merely the ultimate ensemble theory? — mentioned by friendcomputer

Sat, 03 Aug 2013 03:16:15 GMT

That's from http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9704009.pdf There's some more from the author here: http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html

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

Is "the theory of everything'' merely the ultimate ensemble theory? — 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.