North Carolina State University Mail Stuart Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu>

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.4545v1.pdf
2 messages

Dan Petersen <sparkdoctor@gmail.com> Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:45 AM
To: sbheinri@ncsu.edu
Hi Stuart

Sorry to bug you like this, but I am an armchair philosopher and your paper was called to my attention.  I want to point out that there is an important point to consider when attempting to explain your existence.  The issue concerns the notion "awareness".  Your paper appears to simply assume that awareness can emerge without explaining what exactly awareness is and thus how a system might cause it to occur.  Should such a profound fact like awareness not require more attention?  I find that modern conceptions of logical creationism ignores this problem in a way similar to how traditional religious conceptions of divine creationism avoid the problem of explaining God.  

Stuart Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu> Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:12 AM
To: Dan Petersen <sparkdoctor@gmail.com>
Hi Dan,
Thanks for your interest and taking the time to read my paper.  At
present it is not possible to precisely define awareness because, if
we could define it precisely, then we would be able to create it.  I
have done my best to describe awareness in the limited terms available
to our language.

I think that everyone intuitively knows what we are talking about...it
has nothing to do with how smart we are, it is merely the quality of
having a perspective.  Although some species may be more or less aware
of their self with respect to their environment, there is still a
binary quality of being aware vs. not being aware.  A rock is not
aware.  A person is.

Indeed it is a mystery how it can possibly be that we are self aware,
and it is quite clear to me that our current view of physics will need
to be drastically re-envisioned in order to account for
self-awareness, because at present our laws of physics deal only with
the configurational state of "energy" in its various forms, yet we do
not have any laws that pertain to "awareness" nor why some particular
configuration of energy should be aware, and another configuration not
be aware.

Regardless, the point of my paper is that even without knowing how
this is possible, we can make certain logical deductions.  Namely, we
can deduce from consistency of our universe and the fact that we exist
in our universe that there is some logically consistent description of
awareness, even though we don't know what it is.

Anything that is logically consistent can be formulated in terms of
some logical symbolism, and hence, we obtain the MUH.

Cheers,
Stu

PS - mind if I ask who it was that called your attention to my paper?
[Quoted text hidden]
North Carolina State University Mail Stuart Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu>

arXiv:1202.4545v1
2 messages

Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:32 PM
To: Stuart B Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu>
Dear Dr. Heinrich,

I like your paper very much. Thank you!

All the best,

Dimi Chakalov
http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-Prague

Stuart Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu> Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 9:48 PM
To: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it!
[Quoted text hidden]
North Carolina State University Mail Stuart Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu>

Your recent preprint
3 messages

Aleksandar Mikovic <p1644@ulusofona.pt> Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:58 AM
To: sbheinri@ncsu.edu
Dear Dr Heinrich,

I have read with great interest your recent preprint entitled "The
Relativity of Existence", and I would like to inform you that I have
written a preprint "Temporal Platonic Metaphysics", arxiv:0903.1800,
which discusses many of the questions you have analysed in your
preprint.

The way I propose to solve the problem of existence is to start from
the Platonic realm of ideas, whose subset are the mathematical ideas
or the mathematical structures in Tegmark's terminology. The key
difference between me and Tegmark is that I regard the passage of time
as a fundamental, irreducible and  a non-mathematical idea. Hence the
diference between an abstract mathematical universe and a real one is
that the latter is temporal, i.e. there is a flow of time in it.

If I correctly understood your proposal, you seem to be saying that a
difference between a real and an abstract universe is the presence of
the self-aware structures (which I call the observers) in a real
universe. It seems to me that you also assume the existence of time
flow (change) which you link with causality. This is very similar to
my proposal, but my definition of reality is the existence of time
flow, while the observers may or may not be present. In our universe
they are clearly present, and I also emphasize the fact that an
observer cannot be a mathematical structure, since I believe that a
consciousness is not a mathematical idea.

Sincerely,
Dr Aleksandar Mikovic

Stuart Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu> Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:46 PM
To: Aleksandar Mikovic <p1644@ulusofona.pt>
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Aleksandar Mikovic <p1644@ulusofona.pt> wrote:
> Dear Dr Heinrich,
>
> I have read with great interest your recent preprint entitled "The
> Relativity of Existence", and I would like to inform you that I have
> written a preprint "Temporal Platonic Metaphysics", arxiv:0903.1800,
> which discusses many of the questions you have analysed in your
> preprint.

Dr. Mikovic,
Thank you for writing me.  I am pleased that you found it interesting,
and I will look forward to reading your manuscript when I have some
time.

>
> The way I propose to solve the problem of existence is to start from
> the Platonic realm of ideas, whose subset are the mathematical ideas
> or the mathematical structures in Tegmark's terminology. The key
> difference between me and Tegmark is that I regard the passage of time
> as a fundamental, irreducible and  a non-mathematical idea. Hence the
> diference between an abstract mathematical universe and a real one is
> that the latter is temporal, i.e. there is a flow of time in it.
>
> If I correctly understood your proposal, you seem to be saying that a
> difference between a real and an abstract universe is the presence of
> the self-aware structures (which I call the observers) in a real
> universe.

Yes and no.  I am saying that fundamentally, there is no difference
between a real and an abstract universe...all universes are abstract,
none of them objectively real.  However, I am also saying that
self-awareness can be represented axiomatically inside an abstract
universe, and that it has a perspective, and from the perspective of a
self-aware being within any abstract universe, that universe seems
special...the word "real" refers only to that particular universe and
not the others.  From the perspective of a different self aware being
in a different universe, our universe is just abstract and not real.

It seems to me that you also assume the existence of time
> flow (change) which you link with causality.

I am not sure what you mean by "I assume the existence of time."
Certainly I do not assume that all axiomatic systems contain time.
Nor do I assume that only axiomatic systems having time can contain
self-awareness...that may be the case, but I would not simply assume
it because I cannot prove it, and I cannot prove it without a full
understanding of the mechanism for self-awareness.


This is very similar to
> my proposal, but my definition of reality is the existence of time
> flow, while the observers may or may not be present. In our universe
> they are clearly present, and

While the perception of time does indeed seem enigmatic, there does
not seem to be any trouble in representing configurational state as a
function of time axiomatically, as has been done in mathematical
formulations of physics for many years.  Thus, axiomatic systems can
be formulated that have timelike and spacelike dimensions.  The
difference between a timelike and a spacelike dimension is merely the
type of constraints that are put on configurational changes when
viewed with respect to a particular dimenion.  Spacelike dimensions
have (at least approximate) locality constraints, and timelike
dimensions have (at least approximately) causality constraints.

While these constraints can be formulated axiomatically, they do not
describe the perception of time flow.  That is an element of
self-awareness or observers because observers are, by definition,
those things that can have perceptions.

 I also emphasize the fact that an
> observer cannot be a mathematical structure, since I believe that a
> consciousness is not a mathematical idea.
>

It is certainly true that consciousness cannot be represented under
any system of physics or mathematics that we know about.  It is
however just your assumption, not fact, that consciousness cannot ever
be represented by any future system of mathematics yet to be
discovered.  This is a natural assumption that most everyone including
myself intuitively believes.  However, the principle point of my
manuscript is a formal proof that shows, contrary to our intuition, it
MUST be a fact that consciousness can be represented by mathematics --
see "axiomatization of self-awareness."  Despite that this conclusion
violates my intuition, I must accept it, due to the logical soundness
of the proof.  If you disagree with the proof, please identify what
element of the logic you find unconvincing.

Cheers,
Stu

> Sincerely,
> Dr Aleksandar Mikovic

Aleksandar Mikovic <p1644@ulusofona.pt> Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 1:12 AM
To: Stuart Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu>
Dear Stu,

I read the section you have indicated, and the first objection I have
is the assumption is that our reality has a finite information
content. I am not sure what do you mean by the terms "information
content" and "reality", but in any case I disagree with that
assumption. Another point of disagreement is that you assume that the
observers can be derived from an axiomatic system. Also you seem to
equate the "truth" with "reality". For me there is a reality
independent from the observer, and the observers make statements about
reality which can be true or false. The things get even more
complicated with quantum mechanics, where the underlying logic does
not obey the law of the excluded middle (i.e. an electron can be here
and there simultaneously).

Generally I disagree with approaches to the problem of existence where
you postulate a couple of statements and than play logic games in this
extremely reduced space. I think that
one should first describe the context, i.e the maximal space of
reality, and then try to see how an universe with observers can be
described in such an context. This was the intent of my paper. Also,
the argument why I think the observers are not mathematical
structures, is that they are aware of the time flow, and that is a
non-mathematical idea.

Best regards,
Aleksandar

2012/3/1, Stuart Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu>:
[Quoted text hidden]
North Carolina State University Mail Stuart Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu>

article
2 messages

Israel Pérez <cooguion@yahoo.com> Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:44 PM
To: sbheinri@ncsu.edu
Dear Stuart

I read your recent interesting article posted in the Arxiv. I just want call your attention to my paper which may be of interest to you.

Some of the questions that you highlight in your article are part of the mystery of the universe and, I believe, they cannot be answered. I think that if one were able to answer the question: why there is time or universe?, then one would become an omniscient being and, I think, that what keeps human beings doing research is precisely that lack of understanding of nature, just imagine what would happen if we were able to understand how the universe works, we might become gods. But for me that would be boring, for there would be no mystery to solve and no questions to answer.

Best Regards

Dr. Israel  Pérez



2010IPerez_1012.2423v1_PhysicsViewUniverse.pdf
176K

Stuart Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu> Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:03 PM
To: Israel Pérez <cooguion@yahoo.com>
Dear Israel,
Thank you for your interest in my paper.  In fact the ROE does propose a logical explanation for why the universe exists and why it has a temporal dimension.  You are of course free to disagree, but I would welcome you to voice what specific objection you have to the proof outlined in my paper.

I have tried to read your paper, but I disagree on many points that seem to be based on your opinion without factual justification.  For example, "If I am something I must be made up of something that exists in itself, absolute and independent of my mind.  Similarly, if the universe is something, it must be made up of something, of some substance." 
The is a tautology: if you are something, then you are something.  Indeed that is a true statement, but meaningless.

You have not fully defined what it means for "something to be something."  What we can take for certain is that "a person thinks he is something."  In other words, a person is aware of himself in the context of this universe.  This I call self-awareness.  We cannot deduce from self-awareness that the things we perceive actually exist in an "absolute" sense.  To be absolute means that it is true from all possible perspectives.  That is, all beings that perceive reality perceive the same reality.  In my paper, I show that this statement is a logical contradiction: I prove that there must be some self-aware beings that perceive a reality different from me, and thereby disprove the notion of "absolute" existence.
[Quoted text hidden]
North Carolina State University Mail Stuart Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu>

arXiv:1202.4545v2 [physics.hist-ph]
3 messages

Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:20 PM
To: Stuart B Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu>
Cc: fabris@pq.cnpq.br
Dear Dr. Heinrich,

I read your paper with great interest. My efforts to include 'creatio
ex nihilo' in quantum gravity are posted at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Cheng

Kind regards,

Dimi Chakalov

Stuart Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu> Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:52 PM
To: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com>
Dimi,
Thank you for showing your interest.  It is nice to hear from a fellow
thinker on these matters.
Cheers,
Stu
[Quoted text hidden]

Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@gmail.com> Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 4:02 AM
To: Stuart Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu>
Hi Stu,

Thanks for the feedback. Since you're computer guy, see how your brain works at

http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/#Seung

In case you consider yourself American, check out

http://tinyurl.com/steel-evaporation

Take care,

Dimi
[Quoted text hidden]
North Carolina State University Mail Stuart Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu>

The Relativity of Existence
2 messages

Kaveh Maleki <kaveh87@rocketmail.com> Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 9:55 AM
Reply-To: Kaveh Maleki <kaveh87@rocketmail.com>
To: "sbheinri@ncsu.edu" <sbheinri@ncsu.edu>
Dear Professor Heinrich  :
 
Greetings. i have read recently your so impressive and fascinating paper , namely The Relativity of Existence. i have some fundamental agreement with you about mathematical nature of reality but though i have some important questions from you , i ask them in turn ;
 
Your world-view reminds me on Max Tegmarks version of Platonism and
mathematical democracy. You know this certainly. Do you agree with him?
Or is your opinion different, and in which respects?

Do you also think that any axiomatic system corresponds to some sort of
universe, such that anything which is logically existent is equally real
and realized as (physical?) universes?

Let's accept logical necessity. Do you think metaphysical and/or
nomological (laws of nature...) necessity is implied by logical
necessity? Or is it the other way round? and in fact what is the difference between logical and mathematical existence ,or logic depends on mathematics[ logic is part of mathematics] or mathematics depends on logic , indeed which one more fundamental ,or they are same thing ?

Is everything necessary, e.g. also the number of hairs on my head? And
any duplicate of mine (Doppelgänger) "somewhere else" with an additional
hair, 2 hairs more, 3, 4, ...?

(If not, why not?)

Why do you think that logical necessity implies Platonism or
Pythagoreism? Would it not be more "economical" to take mathematical
truths as mind-dependent or fictions as Harty Field believes? Mark Balagure thinks that two most promising option in philosophy of mathematics is full-blooded platonism and Fictionalism , but he says both of them predict same thing and we cann't discriminate between them and maybe we never can at all , what is your opinion about this , do you think Platonism or Pythagoreiasm in one hand and Fictionalism in the other hand are in the same footing ?
And how, if you are right, can mathamatical truths or facts embody
themselves or, to paraphrase Hawking, what is it that breathes fire into
the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?
 
ALL THE BESTS,
KAVEH
 

Stuart Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu> Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 10:27 PM
To: Kaveh Maleki <kaveh87@rocketmail.com>
Thank you Kaveh for your interest.  I will answer your questions
below.  However I suggest that you re-read the paper in detail because
your questions betray a fundamental misunderstanding.

On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Kaveh Maleki <kaveh87@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Professor Heinrich  :
>
> Greetings. i have read recently your so impressive and fascinating paper ,
> namely The Relativity of Existence. i have some fundamental agreement with
> you about mathematical nature of reality but though i have some important
> questions from you , i ask them in turn ;
>
> Your world-view reminds me on Max Tegmarks version of Platonism and
> mathematical democracy. You know this certainly. Do you agree with him?
> Or is your opinion different, and in which respects?

Tegmark assumes the premise that "mathematical existence implies
physical existence," and shows that from this assumption it is
possible to answer the fine tuning problem, but he offers no logical
evidence for why this premise should be true.

In contrast, I make no assumptions, and show that it would be
logically inconsistent to deny that "physical existence is nothing
other than mathematical existence that is observed by a self aware
entity".  Thus, my conclusion is that Tegmarks premise is effectively
true (as opposed to simply assuming it is true)...although his
understanding of it is somewhat flawed.  My argument gives a logical
explanation for what "physical reality" actually is, whereas this
question is not answered by Tegmark's MUH alone.

In addition, Tegmark's misunderstanding of this point, and or Godel's
theorems, has caused him to abandon certainty in his original MUH and
fall back to the much weaker CUH, which I believe is a mistake.


>
> Do you also think that any axiomatic system corresponds to some sort of
> universe, such that anything which is logically existent is equally real
> and realized as (physical?) universes?
>

What I have shown is that "physical reality" is a relative concept.
In that sense, all univeses are equally real, and equally "not" real.
We are limited to observing the reality associated with one axiomatic
system and hence that is all that is real from our perspective.  From
an external perspective of some other axiomatic system, our universe
is not real.


> Let's accept logical necessity. Do you think metaphysical and/or
> nomological (laws of nature...) necessity is implied by logical
> necessity? Or is it the other way round? and in fact what is the difference
> between logical and mathematical existence ,or logic depends on mathematics[
> logic is part of mathematics] or mathematics depends on logic , indeed which
> one more fundamental ,or they are same thing ?
>

Mathematical existence is anything that can be derived from a set of
non-contradictory axioms.  The difference between mathematical
existence and physical existence is purely semantic.  There is only
truly mathematical existence, but we humans have invented the word
"physical existence" to refer to mathematical truths within the
context of our specific axiomatic system, simply because people do not
understand that there is nothing objectively real about our universe.


> Is everything necessary, e.g. also the number of hairs on my head? And
> any duplicate of mine (Doppelgänger) "somewhere else" with an additional
> hair, 2 hairs more, 3, 4, ...?
>

You miss the point that our universe is not real in an objective
sense.  It is meaningless to talk about other universes as being real.
 Of course other axiomatic systems with minor variations, such as the
one containing yourself wiht a different number of hairs, are all
equally valid -- but this does not make them "real."  They are not
objectively real just as this universe is not objectively real.

> (If not, why not?)
>
> Why do you think that logical necessity implies Platonism or
> Pythagoreism?

I believe the ROE is true because I showed that rejecting the ROE
leads to logical contradiction.  The ROE implies "idealism" not
Platonism.

Would it not be more "economical" to take mathematical
> truths as mind-dependent or fictions as Harty Field believes?

No.  As already discussed in section 3.3, parsimony cannot be applied
to a theory regarding the origin of existence.

Mark Balagure
> thinks that two most promising option in philosophy of mathematics is
> full-blooded platonism and Fictionalism , but he says both of them predict
> same thing and we cann't discriminate between them and maybe we never can at
> all , what is your opinion about this , do you think Platonism or
> Pythagoreiasm in one hand and Fictionalism in the other hand are in the same
> footing ?
> And how, if you are right, can mathamatical truths or facts embody
> themselves or, to paraphrase Hawking, what is it that breathes fire into
> the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?
>

That you ask this question shows, unfortunately, that you missed the
main point of the paper.
What "breaths life" into the equations is the fact that there is a
self-aware observer that has been derived by those equations, and
perceive them as being real.  This is true because self-awareness is
mathematically derivable.  How that is possible is beyond me, I have
only proven that it is true, and I do not know why.


Cheers,
Stuart

> ALL THE BESTS,
> KAVEH
>
North Carolina State University Mail Stuart Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu>

mathematic necessity = logical necessity ? or which one depend on other?
3 messages

Kaveh Maleki <kaveh87@rocketmail.com> Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 5:22 AM
Reply-To: Kaveh Maleki <kaveh87@rocketmail.com>
To: "sbheinri@ncsu.edu" <sbheinri@ncsu.edu>
Dear Professor Heinri :
 
Greetings again professor. i don't want take your time so much, i have  very short but so important questions : what is the most absolute and fundamental form of necessity , being Physical, Metaphsical or Logical ? and sometimes , some philosophers say mathematical objects or structures are logical necessity, but this seem to me vague , does this mean than mathematical objects [ abstract objects] are depend on human being, becase logic is something that rooted in human brain (mind) so mathematical objects are mind-dependent [ depend on logic and logic depend on human ] or logic is something inherently depend on mathematics and itself is a branch of mathematics[ indeed does logic create mathematic or mathematics transcendent logic itself ] ? and what is the differences between metaphysical and logical necessity ?
 
CHEERS,
KAVEH













Stuart Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu> Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 2:37 PM
To: Kaveh Maleki <kaveh87@rocketmail.com>
A "logical necessity" is any statement that would result in a
contradiction if it was false.  Thus, it is a statement that must be
true regardless of anything else, and is not dependent on the mind.
It must be true even if humans or the universe never existed.
Mathematics is a language for discussing logical necessities.  Thus,
all mathematical statements are logical necessities.

"Nomological necessity" is any statement about our universe that, if
it were false, would contradict our undestanding of the laws of
physics of the universe.  It is the second strongest form of
necessity.

"Practical necessity" is any statement that is assumed by the speaker
to be true under all commonly encountered conditions, based on the
speaker's experience.  It is the third strongest form of necessity,
but it is not very strong.

"Metaphysical necessity" means any statement that the speaker assumes
to be true based on faith without any evidence whatsoever.  It is by
far the weakest.   The only reason to even refer to this as a kind of
necessity is to humor religious and spiritual people.

For what its worth, the ROE is argued to be true under logical necessity.
[Quoted text hidden]

Kaveh Maleki <kaveh87@rocketmail.com> Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 3:32 AM
Reply-To: Kaveh Maleki <kaveh87@rocketmail.com>
To: Stuart Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu>
I have some commenst regarding issue of god in ROE. first all you say that ROE imply that there is no any real distinction between physical and mathematical existence , this obviously is not Idealism but pure Pythagoreanism as also Dean Rickles defends the same view [ On Explaining Existence ]. second issue that i would like speak is crux of god . i think ROE [ fundamental mathematical universe ] is definitely in conflict with God [ at least traditional Abrahamic relegions]. if someone wants to take god as viable option only way is redefinition of god . some theists philosophers [  medievals like Augustine,Aquinas,Anselm,Libniz and modern philosophers like,Plantinga,Morris,Menzel ] believe mathematical abstract objects are god's thoughts or ideas or concepts and when god thinks them , indeed cretaes them[ mathematical objects exist in mind of god ] . of course this kind of discussion also have many fundamental problems that if you like ,i will comment later.
CHEERS,
KAVEH

From: Stuart Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu>
To: Kaveh Maleki <kaveh87@rocketmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 2, 2012 2:07 AM
Subject: Re: mathematic necessity = logical necessity ? or which one depend on other?
[Quoted text hidden]
North Carolina State University Mail Stuart Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu>

Existence and Mathematical universe ?
3 messages

Kaveh Maleki <kaveh87@rocketmail.com> Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:19 PM
Reply-To: Kaveh Maleki <kaveh87@rocketmail.com>
To: "sbheinri@ncsu.edu" <sbheinri@ncsu.edu>
Dear Professor Heinrich  :

Greetings . Recently I am really fascinated by your work namely " Physical Relativism as an Interpretation of Existence " . I agree with most parts of your work but also have some disagreements . You write : " According to Stephen Hawking, “When one combines the theory of general relativity with quantum theory , the question of what happened before the beginning of the universe is rendered meaningless”, because, “when we add the effects of quantum theory to the theory of relativity, in extreme cases warpage can occur to such an extent that time behaves like another dimension of space. In the early universe–when the universe was small enough to be governed by both general relativity and quantum theory–there were effectively four dimensions of space and none of time”. The notion that our timelike dimension emerged out of a spatial dimension is certainly controversial, and it is evenmore controversial when Hawking argues that, “The realization that
time behaves like space presents a new alternative. It not only removes the age-old objection to the universe having a beginning, but also means that the beginning of the universe was governed by the laws of science and doesn’t need to be set in motion by some God” [33, p.135], adding, “Because there is a law like gravity [and quantum physics], the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe
exists, why we exist” . In other words, Hawking believes that Leibniz’s question has been answered " .

I believe strongly in spite of your view not only Hawking NO-BOUNDARY PROPOSAL answer to this age-old question but it is in the same way as your theory and Tegmark's Mathematical universe are . You should notice that in Hawking model universe is not at all a physical object ,also universe not only had no any beginning but also is not beginningless . this is a very importan point as you said in Hawking proposed model universe at the most fundamental  ontological level is described by a pure 4D Euclidean space ( this mathematical structure has following signature (++++) with no any temporal notion ) . Indeed in 4D Euclidean space there is no time ,causality or any notion of change and evolution . Also Hawking model strongly implies that universe is inherently a huge abstract mathematical structure and not a concrete physical ( temporal,causal ,changeful and evolving object ) object . In fact if I want to be more exact I should say distinction between concrete physical existence and abstract mathematical existence is no longer hold in Hawking no-boundary proposal . So I personally think quantum gravity and quantum cosmology models such as Hawking's model force us to accept a Pythagoran universe and this is exactly a ponit of view of Tegmark Mathematical universe and your Physical Relativism theory . 

CHEERS,
KAVEH

Stuart Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu> Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 6:30 PM
To: Kaveh Maleki <kaveh87@rocketmail.com>
Thank you for your interest.

The question is not "what happened before the 'big bang' singularity?"  If Hawking's explanation is correct, then this question is rendered meaningless.  It does not, however, address Leibniz's question of WHY is there a universe...which has absolute nothing to do with time.

Hawking's no-boundary proposal is based on the mathematics of quantum physics, general relativity, and M-theory.  It may be the case that this theory works out to describe out universe.  So, if that's the case, then WHY?  Why is the universe explained by this theory, and not a completely different theory?

Tegmark's MUH comes close to answering this question because Tegmark proposes that ALL axiomatic systems describe different equal and independent universes.  Thus if this is true, then the answer to the question of "why" is simply that "because all universes are real."

The problem with Tegmark's MUH is that his proposition was simply assumed without any proof.

To summarize:

Axioms of M-theory --> Hawking's no boundary
MUH -->  Axioms of M-theory
{}  -->  Physical relativism  --> MUH

Physical relativism does not rely on any axioms.  It is a logical fact that must be true to avoid contradictions.  From physical relativism we may _derive_ that Tegmark's MUH was correct.  If the MUH is correct, then M-theory is valid.  If M-theory is valid, then Hawking's no boundary condition is a viable explanation.

"Indeed in 4D Euclidean space there is no time ,causality or any notion of change and evolution ."

And this statement here is contradictory to the notion that one of the dimensions changes from spacelike to timelike.  No change means no change.

[Quoted text hidden]

Kaveh Maleki <kaveh87@rocketmail.com> Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:01 AM
Reply-To: Kaveh Maleki <kaveh87@rocketmail.com>
To: Stuart Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu>
Dear Professor Heinrich :

Thanks for your comments . Let me start from down to up . First a question : do you agree if universe fundamentally is a 4D Euclidean space so there is no any notion of causality,change and time ? .

"And this statement here is contradictory to the notion that one of the dimensions changes from spacelike to timelike.  No change means no change."

Indeed I don't think there is contradiction here . In many quantum gravity theories spacetime ( both space and time or one of them ) are just emergent concept and at the most fundamental ontological level we encounter with a non-spatial, non-temporal structure so we can say spacetime emerges from something more primitive ( indeed notion of spacetime is scale-dependent ). And in the case of emergence of temporal dimension from purely 4D Euclidean space the situation is similar . in fact notion of time emerges as consequence of initial symmetry breaking ( technically speaking ,by a wick rotation from Euclidean path integral to Lorentzian one ). Also many recent results in Loop quantum cosmology and some other theories strongly support such as view that at the planck scale maybe we have just a 4D Euclidean space .

"The question is not "what hapened before the 'big bang' singularity?  If Hawking's explanation is correct, then this question is rendered meaningless.  It does not, however, address Leibniz's question of WHY is there a universe...which has absolute nothing to do with time.

Hawking's no-boundary proposal is based on the mathematics of quantum physics, general relativity, and M-theory.  It may be the case that this theory works out to describe out universe.  So, if that's the case, then WHY?  Why is the universe explained by this theory, and not a completely different theory?

Tegmark's MUH comes close to answering this question because Tegmark proposes that ALL axiomatic systems describe different equal and independent universes.  Thus if this is true, then the answer to the question of "why" is simply that "because all universes are real."

The problem with Tegmark's MUH is that his proposition was simply assumed without any proof.

To summarize:

Axioms of M-theory --> Hawking's no boundary
MUH -->  Axioms of M-theory
{}  -->  Physical relativism  --> MUH

Physical relativism does not rely on any axioms.  It is a logical fact that must be true to avoid contradictions.  From physical relativism we may _derive_ that Tegmark's MUH was correct.  If the MUH is correct, then M-theory is valid.  If M-theory is valid, then Hawking's no boundary condition is a viable explanation."

First of all aim of no-boundary condition is not just settle whether or not universe had a beginning. Indeed according to this proposal universe had neither a beginning nor is beginningless , instead it is inherently timeless ( both time with an absolute beginning and with no beginning are incompatible with this view ) . 
Second : if we prepare to accept the actual implications of no-boundary question , so all the ways down to a inherently a " Mathematical Universe ", furthermore Hawking's model doesn't rely on equations of GR and QM , rather than his model aims to give a complete combination of both of them ( Euclidean Quantum Gravity, briefly EQG ) . Indeed as I mentioned earlier this theory ( EQG) has properties that none of GR and QM theories have them ( absence of any notion of time ,causality and change and evolution ) .

I myself so interested in Tegmark's thesis , but I think his concern is more about different possible ways that universe might have been not that is there any universe at all . Also anthropic principle ( or better I say anthropic selection mechanism ) if any , just can help to explain why this universe not other ones and not the question of what there is something rather than nothing at all ? ( Actually I don't even see any real difference between anthropic principle and pure randomness ). this is a very subtle point . Indeed the real point is ( I believe ) theories such as no-boundary proposal strongly indicate a mathematical universe .

ALL THE BEST ,
KAVEH




From: Stuart Heinrich <sbheinri@ncsu.edu>
To: Kaveh Maleki <kaveh87@rocketmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2013 6:00 AM
Subject: Re: Existence and Mathematical universe ?
[Quoted text hidden]