The_Duck comments on Mathematics as a lossy compression algorithm gone wild - Less Wrong

35 Post author: shminux 06 June 2014 11:53PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (80)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: The_Duck 07 June 2014 04:51:17PM *  8 points [-]

What would it mean then for a Universe to not "run on math"? In this approach it means that in such a universe no subsystem can contain a model, no matter how coarse, of a larger system. In other words, such a universe is completely unpredictable from the inside. Such a universe cannot contain agents, intelligence or even the simplest life forms.

I think when we say that the universe "runs on math," part of what we mean is that we can use simple mathematical laws to predict (in principle) all aspects of the universe. We suspect that there is a lossless compression algorithm, i.e., a theory of everything. This is a much stronger statement than just claiming that the universe contains some predictable regularities, and is part of what makes the Platonic ideas you are arguing against seem appealing.

We could imagine a universe in which physics found lots of approximate patterns that held most of the time and then got stuck, with no hint of any underlying order and simplicity. In such a universe we would probably not be so impressed with the idea of the universe "running on math" and these Platonic ideas might be less appealing.

Comment author: shminux 07 June 2014 06:56:08PM 4 points [-]

We suspect that there is a lossless compression algorithm, i.e., a theory of everything.

Yeah, I don't see this as likely at all. As I repeatedly said here, it's models all the way down.

Comment author: The_Duck 07 June 2014 08:46:39PM 1 point [-]

Fair enough. I can see the appeal of your view if you don't think there's a theory of everything. But given the success of fundamental physics so far, I find it hard to believe that there isn't such a theory!

Comment author: shminux 07 June 2014 09:23:31PM -1 points [-]

Given that every time we discover something new we find that there are more questions than answers, I find it hard to believe that the process should converge some day.

Comment author: The_Duck 07 June 2014 10:23:05PM *  8 points [-]

every time we discover something new we find that there are more questions than answers

I don't think that's really true though. The advances in physics that have been worth celebrating--Newtonian mechanics, Maxwellian electromagnetism, Einsteinian relativity, the electroweak theory, QCD, etc.--have been those that answer lots and lots of questions at once and raise only a few new questions like "why this theory?" and "what about higher energies?". Now we're at the point where the Standard Model and GR together answer almost any question you can ask about how the world works, and there are relatively few questions remaining, like the problem of quantum gravity. Think how much more narrow and neatly-posed this problem is compared to the pre-Newtonian problem of explaining all of Nature!