You may be running two arguments together , there. Freedom from human independent concepts is supposed to support the idea of a mathematical universe, not a relational one. Then there is the claim that the idea that some , but only some, maths exists materially, is unnecessary baggage. Neither argument is totally convincing. It isn’t obvious that maths isn’t a human invention. It isn’t obvious that an external world has to be independent of human concepts, as well as human imagination. It isn’t obvious that maths can exist immaterially
Freedom from human independent concepts is supposed to support the idea of a mathematical universe, not a relational one
Tegmark says (p. 10 here) “the only intrinsic properties of a mathematical structure are its relations”. So I think I am representing his actual argument for MUH in the OP. I think “the claim that the idea that some , but only some, maths exists materially, is unnecessary baggage” is meant to derive the Level IV multiverse from MUH.
It isn’t obvious that maths isn’t a human invention. It isn’t obvious that an external world has to be independent of human concepts, as well as human imagination. It isn’t obvious that maths can exist immaterially
FWIW I think I agree with all the non-obvious propositions here. I don’t think they’re the load-bearing premises of Tegmark’s argument.
You may be running two arguments together , there. Freedom from human independent concepts is supposed to support the idea of a mathematical universe, not a relational one. Then there is the claim that the idea that some , but only some, maths exists materially, is unnecessary baggage. Neither argument is totally convincing. It isn’t obvious that maths isn’t a human invention. It isn’t obvious that an external world has to be independent of human concepts, as well as human imagination. It isn’t obvious that maths can exist immaterially
Tegmark says (p. 10 here) “the only intrinsic properties of a mathematical structure are its relations”. So I think I am representing his actual argument for MUH in the OP. I think “the claim that the idea that some , but only some, maths exists materially, is unnecessary baggage” is meant to derive the Level IV multiverse from MUH.
FWIW I think I agree with all the non-obvious propositions here. I don’t think they’re the load-bearing premises of Tegmark’s argument.