Welcome to Issue 34 of the SHAPE Journal.

This edition is primarily a response to Max Tegmark’s
work as revealed in New Scientist (2952), but to deliver a
meaningful critique, we must first clear up a few important
questions.

Now, as is becoming clear, there are already many different
responses to Max Tegmark’s various recent articles and
publications (including his recent book Our Mathematical
Universe), but though he represents an extreme position
in modern science, his basic conceptions are not only
adhered to by the majority of his colleagues, in his, and
in related areas of study, but also that such a standpoint is
fundamental to their own positions too.

So their entirely-within-house criticisms are way short of
what is required here. For, as they either partially, or even
wholly, subscribe to his fundamental bases, they simply
cannot demolish his ground, as they too are standing
squarely upon it!

Two sets of papers are therefore proffered by this more
thoroughgoing critic.

The first set addresses Tegmark’s contributions, while the
second set is a direct critique of the basic assumptions that
he makes. These are made from a position, which is both
materialist and holistic, whereas the tendency containing
both Tegmark and the vast majority of his colleagues in
Sub Atomic Physics are both idealist and pluralistic.

P.S. Subsequent to the writing of these papers, Tegmark
has produced yet another rocket, in which he insisted that
Consciousness is merely yet another Phase of Matter, along
with Solid, Liquid and Gas.

So clearly, more will follow to debunk such nonsense in
the near future.

Jim Schofield
JUN 2014