Shut up and calculate: an extreme mathematical universe
It baffles me that people ignore the fact that they have subjectivity when making these claims. It makes a certain amount of sense since science itself aims to remove any taint of subjectivity in its practice, so folks who want to be thoroughly &#x27;scientific&#x27; in other aspects of their lives (e.g. their personal philosophies of reality) carry over over this ideal.<p>But it&#x27;s also a contradiction since science scientific methodology demands we check our results empirically: the fact that you have subjectivity (i.e. that qualia exist) and what it&#x27;s like, is the most direct empirical fact we have access to and which needs reconciling in any discussion of the universe&#x27;s constitution.<p>I think people sort of push this point aside either by saying that qualia&#x2F;subjectivity could be <i>generated</i> by math (or a computational process), and that&#x27;s what <i>really</i> matters. But we have no examples of abstract math generating anything; physical processes generate things and we use math to influence their behavior—but that&#x27;s it! And furthermore, even if math generated subjectivity—it&#x27;s still <i>there</i> in all of its un-mathematical obviousness at the end of the day.<p>I&#x27;ve yet to see an argument in favor of math having higher ontological status than this which wasn&#x27;t every bit as unrestrainedly imaginative and unfounded as Plato&#x27;s &#x27;ideal forms&#x27;. I would expect a thoroughgoing adherent to scientific methodology to instead say something on the lines of, &quot;this is outside the domain of science to judge one way or the other; the most we can say is the idea that reality is made of math is one untestable hypothesis among many whose probabilities of correctness each approach zero by dint of their many peers.&quot;