Max Tegmark

Prof. Tegmark from MIT recently wrote an article for the New Scientist Magazine. This is based on the article he wrote and you can read here.
There you can read his:

"The idea that our universe is in some sense mathe-
matical goes back to the Pythagoreans, and has been
extensively discussed in the literature."

At the end of his article Prof. Tegmark writes:

"I know of no other compelling explanation for this trend
other than that the physical world really is mathematical."

The trend he is talking about is the continuos successes of mathematics to describe physical reality. I must confess that I still do not feel in my guts that Tegmark is right.

He goes on to write:

"The most compelling argument against the MUH hinges on such emotional issues: it arguably feels counterintuitive and disturbing. On the other hand, placing humility over vanity has proven a more fruitful approach to physics, as emphasized by Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin. Moreover, if the MUH is true, then it constitutes great news for science, allowing the possibility that an elegant unification of physics, mathematics and computer science will one day allow us humans to understand our reality even more deeply than many dreamed would be possible."

MUH is his Mathematical Universe Hypothesis.

His point is that if we do take away all human "baggage" to our scientific description of reality, maybe the math that remains, that even a computer can understand, is the real thing.

I hope so.