Is the Universe Made of Math?

The following is excerpted from a Discover Magazine interview, by Adam Frank, with cosmologist Max Tegmark. The full article can be found here.

Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Unconventional cosmologist Max Tegmark says mathematical formulas create reality.

Let’s talk about your effort to understand the measurement problem by positing parallel universes—or, as you call them in aggregate, the multiverse. Can you explain parallel universes?

There are four different levels of multiverse. Three of them have been proposed by other people, and I’ve added a fourth—the mathematical universe.

What is the multiverse’s first level?

The level I multiverse is simply an infinite space. The space is infinite, but it is not infinitely old—it’s only 14 billion years old, dating to our Big Bang. That’s why we can’t see all of space but only part of it—the part from which light has had time to get here so far. Light hasn’t had time to get here from everywhere. But if space goes on forever, then there must be other regions like ours—in fact, an infinite number of them. No matter how unlikely it is to have another planet just like Earth, we know that in an infinite universe it is bound to happen again.

You’re saying that we must all have doppelgängers somewhere out there due to the mathematics of infinity.

That’s pretty crazy, right? But I’m not even asking you to believe in anything weird yet. I’m not even asking you to believe in any kind of crazy new physics. All you need for a level I multiverse is an infinite universe—go far enough out and you will find another Earth with another version of yourself.

So we are just at level I. What’s the next level of the multiverse?

Level II emerges if the fundamental equations of physics, the ones that govern the behavior of the universe after the Big Bang, have more than one solution. It’s like water, which can be a solid, a liquid, or a gas. In string theory, there may be 10500 kinds or even infinitely many kinds of universes possible. Of course string theory might be wrong, but it’s perfectly plausible that whatever you replace it with will also have many solutions.

Go far enough out and you will find another Earth with another version of yourself.

Why should there be more than one kind of universe coming out of the Big Bang?

Inflationary cosmology, which is our best theory for what happened right after the Big Bang, says that a tiny chunk of space underwent a period of rapid expansion to become our universe. That became our level I multiverse. But other chunks could have inflated too, from other Big Bangs. These would be parallel universes with different kinds of physical laws, different solutions to those equations. This kind of parallel universe is very different from what happens in level I.


Well, in level I, students in different parallel universes might learn a different history from our own, but their physics would still be the same. Students in level II parallel universes learn different history and different physics. They might learn that there are 67 stable elements in the periodic table, not the 80 we have. Or they might learn there are four kinds of quarks rather than the six kinds we have in our world.

Do these level II universes inhabit different dimensions?

No, they share the same space, but we could never communicate with them because we are all being swept away from each other as space expands faster than light can travel.

OK, on to level III.

Level III comes from a radical solution to the measurement problem proposed by a physicist named Hugh Everett back in the 1950s. [Everett left physics after completing his Ph.D. at Prince­ton because of a lackluster response to his theories.] Everett said that every time a measurement is made, the universe splits off into parallel versions of itself. In one universe you see result A on the measuring device, but in another universe, a parallel version of you reads off result B. After the measurement, there are going to be two of you.

So there are parallel me’s in level III as well.

Sure. You are made up of quantum particles, so if they can be in two places at once, so can you. It’s a controversial idea, of course, and people love to argue about it, but this “many worlds” interpretation, as it is called, keeps the integrity of the mathematics. In Everett’s view, the wave function doesn’t collapse, and the Schrödinger equation always holds.

The level I and level II multiverses all exist in the same spatial dimensions as our own. Is this true of level III?

No. The parallel universes of level III exist in an abstract mathematical structure called Hilbert space, which can have infinite spatial dimensions. Each universe is real, but each one exists in different dimensions of this Hilbert space. The parallel universes are like different pages in a book, existing independently, simultaneously, and right next to each other. In a way all these infinite level III universes exist right here, right now.

That brings us to the last level: the level IV multiverse intimately tied up with your mathematical universe, the “crackpot idea” you were once warned against. Perhaps we should start there.

I begin with something more basic. You can call it the external reality hypothesis, which is the assumption that there is a reality out there that is independent of us. I think most physicists would agree with this idea.

The question then becomes, what is the nature of this external reality?

If a reality exists independently of us, it must be free from the language that we use to describe it. There should be no human baggage.

I see where you’re heading. Without these descriptors, we’re left with only math.

The physicist Eugene Wigner wrote a famous essay in the 1960s called “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.” In that essay he asked why nature is so accurately described by mathematics. The question did not start with him. As far back as Pythagoras in the ancient Greek era, there was the idea that the universe was built on mathematics. In the 17th century Galileo eloquently wrote that nature is a “grand book” that is “written in the language of mathematics.” Then, of course, there was the great Greek philosopher Plato, who said the objects of mathematics really exist.

How does your mathematical universe hypothesis fit in?

Well, Galileo and Wigner and lots of other scientists would argue that abstract mathematics “describes” reality. Plato would say that mathematics exists somewhere out there as an ideal reality. I am working in between. I have this sort of crazy-sounding idea that the reason why mathematics is so effective at describing reality is that it is reality. That is the mathematical universe hypothesis: Mathematical things actually exist, and they are actually physical reality.

OK, but what do you mean when you say the universe is mathematics? I don’t feel like a bunch of equations. My breakfast seemed pretty solid. Most people will have a hard time accepting that their fundamental existence turns out to be the subject they hated in high school.

For most people, mathematics seems either like a sadistic form of punishment or a bag of tricks for manipulating numbers. But like physics, mathematics has evolved to ask broad questions.These days mathematicians think of their field as the study of “mathematical structures,” sets of abstract entities and the relations between them. What has happened in physics is that over the years more complicated and sophisticated mathematical structures have proved to be invaluable.

Can you give a simple example of a mathematical structure?

The integers 1, 2, 3 are a mathematical structure if you include operations like addition, subtraction, and the like. Of course, the integers are pretty simple. The mathematical structure that must be our universe would be complex enough for creatures like us to exist. Some people think string theory is the ultimate theory of the universe, the so-called theory of everything. If that turns out to be true, then string theory will be a mathematical structure complex enough so that self-awareness can exist within it.

But self-awareness includes the feeling of being alive. That seems pretty hard to capture in mathematics.

To understand the concept, you have to distinguish two ways of viewing reality. The first is from the outside, like the overview of a physicist studying its mathematical structure. The second way is the inside view of an observer living in the structure. You can think of a frog living in the landscape as the inside view and a high-flying bird surveying the landscape as the outside view. These two perspectives are connected to each other through time.

In what way does time provide a bridge between the two perspectives?

Well, all mathematical structures are abstract, immutable entities. The integers and their relations to each other, all these things exist outside of time.

Do you mean that there is no such thing as time for these structures?

Yes, from the outside. But you can have time inside some of them. The integers are not a mathematical structure that includes time, but Einstein’s beautiful theory of relativity certainly does have parts that correspond to time. Einstein’s theory has a four-dimensional mathematical structure called space-time, in which there are three dimensions of space and one dimension of time.

So the mathematical structure that is the theory of relativity has a piece that explicitly describes time or, better yet, is time. But the integers don’t have anything similar.

Yes, and the important thing to remember is that Einstein’s theory taken as a whole represents the bird’s perspective. In relativity all of time already exists. All events, including your entire life, already exist as the mathematical structure called space-time. In space-time, nothing happens or changes because it contains all time at once. From the frog’s perspective it appears that time is flowing, but that is just an illusion. The frog looks out and sees the moon in space, orbiting around Earth. But from the bird’s perspective, the moon’s orbit is a static spiral in space-time.

The frog feels time pass, but from the bird’s perspective it’s all just one eternal, unalterable mathematical structure.

That is it. If the history of our universe were a movie, the mathematical structure would correspond not to a single frame but to the entire DVD. That explains how change can be an illusion.

Of course, quantum mechanics with its notorious uncertainty principle and its Schrödinger equation will have to be part of the theory of everything.

Right. Things are more complicated than just relativity. If Einstein’s theory described all of physics, then all events would be predetermined. But thanks to quantum mechanics, it’s more interesting.

But why do some equations describe our universe so perfectly and others not so much?

Stephen Hawking once asked it this way: “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” If I am right and the cosmos is just mathematics, then no fire-breathing is required. A mathematical structure doesn’t describe a universe, it is a universe. The existence of the level IV multiverse also answers another question that has bothered people for a long time. John Wheeler put it this way: Even if we found equations that describe our universe perfectly, then why these particular equations and not others? The answer is that the other equations govern other, parallel universes, and that our universe has these particular equations because they are just statistically likely, given the distribution of mathematical structures that can support observers like us.

These are pretty broad and sweeping ideas. Are they just philosophical musings, or is there something that can actually be tested?

Well, the hypothesis predicts a lot more to reality than we thought, since every mathematical structure is another universe. Just as our sun is not the center of the galaxy but just another star, so too our universe is just another mathematical structure in a cosmos full of mathematical structures. From that we can make all kinds of predictions.

So instead of exploring just our universe, you look to all possible mathematical structures in this much bigger cosmos.

If the mathematical universe hypothesis is true, then we aren’t asking which particular mathematical equations describe all of reality anymore. Instead we have to figure out how to separate the frog’s view of the universe—our observations—from the bird’s view. Once we distinguish them we can determine whether we have uncovered the true structure of our universe and figure out which corner of the mathematical cosmos is our home.

Control Through Fear

I’m sure most of you are aware that the Bible reflects the prevailing morals of ancient Israel. Along with the “good” morals there are other not-so-good ones that don’t need enumeration here. Unfortunately, all these morals, good and bad, right and wrong, were permanently incorporated into the Bible.

As humanity progressed, we recognized undesirable moral teachings in the Bible and simply quit practicing them. Even the most devout Christians became “scripturally selective” about teachings they practiced.

Biblical morality is set in stone, like an ancient statue, forever unchanging, because it is God’s word. But the true morality of both adherents and infidels, as actually practiced in the world, is decided by social norms. And there’s really not that much difference between the morality of adherents and infidels. There’s very few points of ethics limited strictly to any group (including Christians and atheists). The operative word in the prior sentence is “strictly”, okay? So don’t waste pixels replying with examples of ethics “favored by”, “typical of”, or “associated with” any particular group.

So WE decide what is moral. WE decide what biblical teachings to follow. We decide what is truly religious.

So why do we need or have religions at all? Whatever the reason, it’s DEFINITELY not for moral guidance. Although Jesus preached love, forgiveness and humility, he accepted slavery as a normal part of society and apparently felt no compunction to speak out against it. Neither did anybody else in the new Testament. In fact, Jesus advocated punishing servants severely for purposely shirking their responsibilities and punishing them less severely if they “are not aware that they are doing wrong” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT). There are many verses in the New Testament advising us how to treat slaves . . . and none of it is very loving, forgiving, or humble. So, in the modern world, even Jesus is morally overruled by adherents and infidels alike.

So if morality isn’t, in reality, the purpose of religion, what is? That pretty much leaves salvation and the eternal reward of heaven. In other words: control through fear — because the alternative is damnation and the eternal torments of hell. In the words of Friedrich Nietzsche, “Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose.” As long as religions can convince people they have a monopoly on morality, they can continue to disguise their true motivation: control through fear.

I posted (as “admin”) a reply to a comment, below, that adds to and clarifies the post, above.

© Copyright 2012

Islam and the Subjugation of Women

I’m really sick of Western apologist propagandists for Islam who’ve never even read the Quran. The notion that “true” Muslims and “true” Islam are peaceful, is completely bogus. If such people would just read the Quran, they’d know that militant extremists conform to the Quran better than so-called “moderate” Muslims.  Their pretense to knowledge is pathetic. In fact, the Quran repeatedly makes it clear – and all Muslims know – that avoiding the battle for Jihad is despicable to Allah. EVERYBODY should read the Quran . . . informed is forewarned.

But many from the opposing point of view are also wrong-headed and attempt to demonize Muslims. They’re just people like everybody else. I know, because I spent 6 months in Kuwait and currently live in thePhilippines, where there are many Muslims in the southern regions. Blame the ideology, not the adherent.

After 9/11, President Bush declared that extremists have hijacked Islam. He got it backwards . . . it’s Islam that has hijacked extremists. The root problem is not the adherents, it’s the religious/legal/political ideology of Islam. The sacred texts (Quran and ahadith) of Islam give license to violent Jihad. ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION OF PEACE. Period. Read the Quran and see for yourself.  You’ll find the Quran pays lip service to peace but it’s true message is one of submission and dominance.

Any self-respecting Muslim must concede that extremists and militants actually answer the call of Jihad and thus honor the perfect and immutable word of Allah. If only people understood the Muslim mindset . . . then we would all be better informed about how to deal with the problem of Muslim expansion, terrorism and subjugation of women. The Quran and hadith set up cultures with different values than the West has. Delaying tactics; reneging on agreements; laying low until the right opportunity arises; intimidation; turning tolerance on its head . . . these are all time-honored tactics practiced by Islams greatest leaders since Muhammad. Remember Ayatollah Khomeini?

The religious/legal/political ideology of Islam needs to be reformed before change (much less, peace) can come. The first thing that needs to change is the subjugation of women. We all know how women are minimized in Islam. It’s an indisputable fact. By Shariah law, their word is literally worth only a half that of men. Rape is almost unpunishable and, in fact, often leads to the victim being punished for promiscuity. If Muslim women could be liberated, then Muslim men would have healthier relationships with women. This central, core, component of Muslim societies is probably the most responsible for poisoning peace. Violence follows Islam wherever it spreads because sexually frustrated and immature Muslim men abound in abundance. Muslim men aren’t expected to control their urges: it’s the women who bear the responsibility for “provoking” men’s passions. There will never be a shortage of Jihadi warriors as long as Muslims keep their women in abject subjugation. There can be no peace until Muslim women claim their human rights.

© Copyright 2011

3 False Conundrums of Free Will


I’ve grown disappointed with philosophers on the subject of free will. The great philosophers of the past knew nothing about the brain. Modern philosophers contradict each other. What I’ve been trying to do is to stick with the knowledge we have and avoid philosophical entanglements and conjecture as much as possible. However, certain philosophical conundrums must be addressed, such as: (1) the false dichotomy of free will versus causality; (2) mind-brain dualism; and (3) deliberation versus illusion of choice. Perhaps the greatest obstacle is unlearning the impossible notions of what, exactly, free will is. I claim that we don’t have free will. We have limited choice, intent and purpose constrained by the influence of causality. I call this, “self-determinism”. There’s a lot of overlap with these issues, which makes it hard to lay out a clear and concise argument. But I’ll try . . .

(1) The False Dichotomy of Free Will Versus Causality:

The assertion that free will MUST violate causality is simply false. The underlying assumption is that cause and effect is inexorably interwoven into all events and thus all events are inevitable: including our thoughts and actions. The conclusion is that, if causality determines all events, free will is an illusion.

If you define free will to mean doing anything, at any time, within the physical and mental constraints of human ability . . . well then, yes, free will is an illusion. Causality burdens us with a genetic “endowment” that defines our individual biological limits. Beyond that, causality also accrues within us the conceptual limits of experience. We can’t act beyond our physical and mental limits, so a completely libertine notion of free will is impossible and must be discarded.

So if causality limits us physically and mentally, what’s to stop it from controlling us completely?

Intelligent interaction with causality. That’s what. We don’t just react to causality; we interact with it. We take advantage of the key properties of causality — unidirectional sequence and repeatable predictability — to innately understand, anticipate and use causality for our own purposes. We can do this because of 2 key properties of our intelligence: memory and imagination. We learn from the past to imagine a future of our own choosing. Then, with clear intent and purpose, we pursue our plans. The successful execution of our plans is empirical proof of our intent and purpose and our ability to interact intelligently with causality.

(2) Mind-Brain Dualism:

The mind can not be separated from the brain. It is a product of the brain. Any assertion that the mind is some sort of abstract, independent, construct is unsupportable. But the mind is also a product of the external world and of our sensory apparatus (biological sense organs). Just as the mind is inseparable from the brain, it is also inseparable from our senses and the world around us. If we never possessed any of these 3 components: brain, senses, or external world (stimuli), the mind could not exist. The mind is NOT just the brain. It’s the brain interacting with the external world (causality) via our sensory apparatus.

The brain does more than merely interact with causality . . . it also remembers those interactions (events) and learns from the experiences of others. Experience is our unique memories of events in our lives. Education is learning through the experiences of others. Knowledge is the combination of experience and education. Humans demonstrate higher levels of brain function, by far, than any other known life form. Is it unreasonable to think that with more advanced functions comes more advanced abilities?

Hard (absolute) determinists refuse to acknowledge the difference between a rock and a brain. They’re both just collections of atoms; or so they would have us believe. Good luck trying to understand complex phenomena, like consciousness, using such reductionist mindsets! Life is the difference between inanimate objects and animate beings. Reductionist denial doesn’t change that fact . . . it can’t even recognize it. Inanimate objects have a purely passive, predictable, mode of response to causality. Animate beings have an interactive, unpredictable, mode of response to causality. Inanimate objects have specific, predictable, reactions (effects) to specific events (causes). Animate beings have variable, unpredictable, reactions to specific events. Mathematically speaking, inanimate objects have a fixed set of 1 specific reaction to any event: animate beings have a variable range or scope of potential reactions to any event. To me, it is intransigent denial to equate brains with rocks.

(3) Deliberation versus Illusion of Choice:

The brain deliberates. That what it does (among other things). I think, therefore I am. We make choices all the time. But hard determinists insist that choice is an illusion: that causal factors are pulling the strings, like a puppeteer, at all times.

If we were inanimate objects, then yes, it would be pretty cut-and-dry: a fixed, predictable reaction to any specific event. But we’re animate beings. More precisely, we’re intelligent human beings. We have a range or scope of potential reactions to any specific event. And therein lies choice. Causality, via biology and experience, delimit the scope of our response and thus influence our decisions. Causality influences our decisions but it doesn’t control them.

How do I know this? Because causality is indiscriminate; it doesn’t remember; it doesn’t think; it has no intent; it has no plan. Therefore, if causality absolutely controlled us (versus influenced us) we would, like causality, act indiscriminately; without benefit of memory or thinking or intent or a plan.

But we don’t. We act with purpose. We are goal-oriented. We make elaborate plans and execute them; adjusting our plans if necessary. Clearly, choice is not an illusion. It takes choice to do what we do. The brain deliberates. That what it does.


As the great historian, Danial J. Boorstin, pointed out: “The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance – it is the illusion of knowledge.” The claim that free will (a.k.a. intent, purpose, self-determinism) contradicts or violates causality is a false dichotomy. It’s not a choice of one or the other: causality or free will. There are other possibilities. Hard determinism is an “illusion of knowledge”.
Self-determinism is a compatibilist worldview which asserts that we interact with causality intelligently and that this is made possible by key properties of causality itself (unidirectional sequence and repeatable predictability) combined with key properties of human intelligence (memory and imagination). We recognize, understand, anticipate and use causality to pursue our goals and plans. This demonstrates choice: intent and purpose. Our intent and purpose is made manifest in our accomplishments and progress — none of which can come from a causality that absolutely controls our every thought and move.  Our accomplishments can only come from our intelligent interaction with causality. The limited scope of our choices might seem meager but it’s enough to fly men to the moon, control rovers on Mars and probes beyond the solar system.

That’s self-determinism. No mind-brain dualism. No violation of causality. No false dichotomies. No infinite regress. No philosophical conundrums. Just the natural properties of human intelligence interacting with the natural properties of causality.

© Copyright 2011