Mathematical objects and numbers require a substrate. We write them on paper or make calculations in our head. Unlike the Pythagoreans, Tegmark does not view numbers as 'things', but as abstractions. As such, they need a substrate. So there cannot be only abstract mathematical objects; there must also be a substance onto which they are written. There cannot be only information, for information requires a substrate, similar to the silicon processor in a computer.sammygolddigger wrote: ↑August 15th, 2021, 4:31 pm I have been thinking about this age old question recently. Why is there anything at all? I found Max Tegmark’s aproach of mathematical platonism to be interesting. He thinks that mathematics is not invented but discovered and mathematical objects exist independently of us which is also very interesting. So why is there something rather than nothing? I would like to hear your opions on this question.
Comparatively, Plato and Pythagoras saw the Forms and the Numbers as concrete particulars. Modern Platonists, like Tegmark, see them as abstract objects. But then it doesn't work anymore. Indeed, Plotinus and Augustine also saw Forms and Numbers as abstract objects: they were thoughts in the mind of God. So, in their view, the mind of God was the substrate, and then it works. But neither Tegmarks form of abstract Platonism, nor the "information paradigm", make logical sense.