Book Review: Max Tegmark “Our Mathematical Universe”

Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality
Knopf (January 2014)

Max Tegmark exactly published his mo book, “Life 3.0.” I gracefully declined reviewing it, seeing that 3 years weren’t sufficient to complete his commencement book. But thusly reminded of my shortfall, I made some other endeavor in addition to hold upwards got to the end. So here’s a slow review or, if yous haven’t made it through inwards 3 years either, a summary.

Tegmark is a cosmologist at MIT in addition to his commencement book, “Our Mathematical Universe,” is nearly the thought that the basis is non simply described yesteryear mathematics, but genuinely made of mathematics.

I told yous 10 years agone why this is nonsense in addition to haven’t changed my hear since. It was thus pretty clear I wouldn’t live fond of Max’s message.

But. Well. People similar Max don’t grow on trees. I own got much sympathy for his free-range ideas in addition to also, fifty-fifty though I’ve met him several times, I never genuinely figured out what he was tenured for. Probably non the mathematical universe. Once upon a time, I was sure, he must own got done actual physics.

Indeed, every bit the mass reveals, Tegmark did CMB analysis earlier everyone else did it. This company scientific basis is also where he begins his story: With engaging explanations of contemporary cosmology, the development of the universe, full general relativity, in addition to all that. He in addition to so moves on to inflation, eternal inflation in addition to the multiverse, to quantum mechanics inwards full general in addition to the many worlds interpretation inwards particular. After this, he comes to the book’s primary theme, the mathematical universe hypothesis. At that hollo for we’re at page 250 or so.

Tegmark writes well. He uses helpful analogies in addition to sprinkles some personal anecdotes which makes the theme to a greater extent than digestible. The mass also has a lot of figures, nearly one-half of which are helpful. I believe I own got seen most of them on his slides.

Throughout the book, Tegmark is careful to hollo for out where he leaves behind established scientific discipline in addition to crosses over into speculation. However, yesteryear extrapolating from the biased sample of people-he-spends-time-with, Tegmark seems to own got come upwards to believe the multiverse is much to a greater extent than accepted than is the case. Still, it is sure enough a theme that is much discussed in addition to worth writing about.

But fifty-fifty though Tegmark’s storey flows nicely, I got stuck over in addition to over again. The occupation isn’t that the mass is badly written. The occupation is that, to paraphrase John Mellencamp, the mass goes on long later the thrill of reading is gone.

Already inwards the commencement parts of the book, Tegmark displays an unfortunate style to clutter his arguments amongst dispensable asides. I got the impression he is so excited nearly writing that, piece at it, he exactly also has to elevate this other affair that he i time worked on, in addition to that nifty thought he had which didn’t work, in addition to why that didn’t work, in addition to how that connects amongst nevertheless something else. And did I elevate that? By the way, allow me add together this. Which is related to that. And a expert friend of mine thinks so. But I don’t recall so. And so on.

And then, exactly when yous recall the worst is over, Tegmark goes on to tell yous what he thinks nearly alien life in addition to consciousness in addition to asteroid impacts in addition to nuclear state of war in addition to artificial intelligence.

To me, his writing exhibits a familiar dilemma. If you’ve spent years thinking nearly a topic, the major challenge isn’t deciding what to tell the reader. It’s deciding what to non tell them. And piece some readers may welcome Tegmark’s excursions, I suspect that many of them volition own got problem seeing the connections that he, without whatever doubt, sees so clearly.

As to the content. The major problems amongst Max’s thought that the universe is made of mathematics rather than simply described yesteryear mathematics are:

1. The hypothesis is ill-defined without explaining what “is real” means. I thus don’t know what’s the hollo for fifty-fifty talking nearly it.
   
   
2. Leaving this aside, Max erroneously thinks it’s the simplest explanation for why mathematics is so useful, in addition to hence supported yesteryear Ockham’s razor (though he doesn’t explicitly say so). The declaration is that if reality is simply described yesteryear mathematics rather than genuinely made of mathematics, in addition to so i needs an additional standard to define what makes some things existent in addition to others not.
   
   But that declaration is logically wrong. Saying that the universe is accurately described yesteryear mathematics makes no supposition nearly whether it “really is” mathematics (scare quotes to remind yous that that’s ill-defined). It is unnecessary to specify whether the universe is mathematics or is something more, evidenced yesteryear scientists never bothering amongst such a specification. Ockham’s razor thus speaks against the mathematical universe.
   
   
3. He claims that a theory which is devoid of “human baggage” must live formulated inwards mathematics. I challenge yous to evidence this, preferably without using human baggage. If that was besides meta: Just because nosotros don’t know anything amend than math to depict nature doesn’t hateful in that place is nothing.
   
   
4. Max also erroneously thinks, or at to the lowest degree claims inwards the book, that the mathematical universe hypothesis is testable. Because, so he writes, it predicts that nosotros volition buy the farm on to detect mathematical descriptions for natural phenomena.
   
   But of course of didactics if in that place was something for which nosotros exercise non create out to detect a mathematical description, that would never evidence the mathematical universe wrong. After all, it powerfulness simply hateful nosotros were besides dumb to figure out the math. Now that I recall of it, mayhap our failure to quantize gravity falsifies the mathematical universe.

There are farther diverse statements inwards the mass which I can’t brand feel of. For example, I own got no thought what an “element” of a mathematical construction is. I entirely know elements of sets. I also don’t empathise why Tegmark believes accepting that our universe is a mathematical construction way that differential equations no longer hollo for initial conditions. Or so he seems to say. Even to a greater extent than perplexing, he argues that the multiverse explains why the constants of nature appear finetuned for the beingness of life. This is a misunderstanding of both finetuning in addition to the anthropic principle.

There. I’ve done it again. I laid out amongst the best intention to say squeamish things, but all that comes out is “wrong, wrong, wrong.”

To function off my guilt, I’ll similar a shot own got to purchase his novel mass too. Check dorsum inwards 3 years.