Welcome to The Duncan Trussell Family Hour Center for Self-Optimization

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

pattmayne

Tits-Freudenthal Magic Square

Posted (edited)

I just listened to mathematician Eric Weinstein on the Rubin Report. He briefly discussed the purely mathematical object, the Tits-Freudenthal Magic Square, some algebra-symmetey construction that he said "feels like it should be at the center of math" (paraphrasing).

He said these types of objects make him feel like there is a design built into maths. He also said we're the artificial intelligences whose job it is to figure out what were made of.

I feel like mathematicians are engaged in a sort of prayer.

Is anybody familiar with these high-dimensional objects? @CosmEffect I'm looking at you!

Anyway, for folks interested in simulation theory, there's great food for it in that podcast episode. Rubin Report episode 62. The math stuff is somewhere after the halfway point, I think. They talk politics first.

http://rubinreport.libsyn.com/eric-weinstein

Edited by pattmayne
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@pattmayneI am not familiar, but will definitely check this mathematical object out. It sounds interesting so I'll definitely share my thoughts once I do. 

After a quick glance, it looks quite complicated but all based on logic if I'm understanding it right. Could you try and give a bit more understanding, or whatever suffices? Not that it's necessary.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CosmEffect said:

@pattmayne Could you try and give a bit more understanding, or whatever suffices? 

I'm going to bed but I'll post more in the morning. I don't understand the math. I just heard him vaguely describe it, but it's something I want to learn about at least conceptually.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a clip of the video where he explains it better. Basically it's a 248-dimensional object with lots of symmetries, a "math object" which "appears" mysteriously and makes him think of there being a designer who made math.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I tried giving an understanding of this a go with no luck at all and it doesn't help that his paper hasn't been published as of yet or that I don't have any knowledge of any of the math involved, but it certainly sounds interesting. 

Apparently it's expressed as a 248 dimension geometric shape as you mentioned, that only has a symmetry eith the shape itself. So, again not fully understanding this, it sounds like there should be no reason for something with so many dimensions to even be there, let alone having a self-symmetry. Whether our universe has four dimensions, fourteen, or how ever many his Geometric Unity theory should suggest, there would be no need for the expression of a 248 dimension shape or object to be present in our universe. I think the reason for the "God" induction into the Tits-Freudenthal magic square, and I think in particular it is the so-called E8 portion of the magic square, comes from a lack of being a place within our universe for such a shape/object. 

It also apparently has to do with symmetry breaking, something which gives us things like the standard model and laws of physics, and it seems like maybe, as I don't understand it (at all), that these higher dimensions found within the symmetry found within(?) the magic square, are united and all can be seen as something like a single or few sides of this potential higher dimensional thing and it is that we are viewing it from multiple perspectives that provide the bifurcation between general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the rest of our lack of knowledge in seeing these as something akin to a theory of everything. 

But… I can't grasp this thing he's talking about. You can find some other opinions by searching for "geometric unity", but as of yet the paper is still unpublished so everything is just that, an opinion. I think.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just like the idea of higher levels of order that we can't process. I wonder if AI overtakes us, it might eventually deal with those larger objects rather than our silly little 3D world.

Could there be life-forms and intelligences living in higher dimensions? That we can't see?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, pattmayne said:

Could there be life-forms and intelligences living in higher dimensions? That we can't see?

I would like to think so. It would possibly put a few things into perspective if that was the case. I think that viewing it that way, even if it's not an intelligence or life-form per se, would be eye-opening in that there could a higher order, some kind of principle of organization that allows things to persist infinitely and propagate indefinitely. It would inform the possibility that strong, meaningful coincidences are not mere coincidences in the least, but may have some extremely long term and drastic outcome as the rest of things unfold.

Or that things like an attractor toward a seemingly predestined future was there within these dimensions and we are just going along with wherever or whateber part of this thing happens to be presented as it rotates and we get to see new sides, angles, or viewpoints along the thing.

If it were to be considered an intelligence, mind, or consciousness that we are embedded and fractional portions of, could the same way we are only visibly minor compared to these higher dimensions, could would also be major players within these dimensions, where there could be entire universes ourselves that we may be? That there are such thing as gods, angels demons, planes, realms, existences, and whole aspects of our own lives that we don't realize we have some affect on?

This is the stuff that will take your mind into deep paths of reasoning that it can't escape and one wonders if there is a purpose, reason, meaning to that from within the higher dimensional perspective. Or you could try to dismiss it as there is no proof or evidence and go on living, but if you do that do you severe whatever connection it is that may be there or is that too all just par for the course.

My answers to all of that is yes. But how suredly and to what extent? For that I am at a loss.

A bit of a ramble while barely covering the surface. The 248 dimensional surface.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2017 at 7:24 AM, pattmayne said:

This is a clip of the video where he explains it better. Basically it's a 248-dimensional object with lots of symmetries, a "math object" which "appears" mysteriously and makes him think of there being a designer who made math.

 

Someone has watched a little too much West World.  All he is doing is using LANGUAGE here.  There is no physical substance to his words.  They are all mental constructs.  These are fun though :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, plaidklaus said:

Someone has watched a little too much West World

I don't understand. Where's the WW reference?

21 minutes ago, plaidklaus said:

All he is doing is using LANGUAGE here.

Well... yeah. You can say that any time anybody says anything.

He's talking about math, which is a window into the underlying logic of the universe. I know he doesn't mean there's some math-monster who's going to eat us. I'm saying there's a weird order to things, and we only see part of it, but math lets us see more. Nobody called it a physical object. But possibly a hint about how the universe works.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, pattmayne said:

I don't understand. Where's the WW reference?

Well... yeah. You can say that any time anybody says anything.

He's talking about math, which is a window into the underlying logic of the universe. I know he doesn't mean there's some math-monster who's going to eat us. I'm saying there's a weird order to things, and we only see part of it, but math lets us see more. Nobody called it a physical object. But possibly a hint about how the universe works.

My reference was to his lack of exploring the intellectual concepts and giving context to his positions.  It's not my desire to attack math, I love math.  I just didn't hear enough about his actual thought process and the constructs he was referencing.

 

Oh and the West World reference was when he was talking about us being inside a simulation and desiring to figure out "what this is". ;)

 

Have you seen that show? It's great!

Edited by plaidklaus
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now