Alexander Vilenkin, theoretical physicist: "The laws of physics that describe the appearance of the universe should have some Platonic existence outside of matter, space, and time. We can ask what is the medium in which they exist? Often people think the medium of mathematics is the mind; mathematics is a human invention. Mathematicians actually often think they are discovering mathematics, that mathematics exists objectively. So, whichever it is, there is some Platonic realm in which the mathematical laws of physics exist even prior the universe."
Where do the mathematical laws of physics come from?
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Alexander Vilenkin, theoretical physicist: "The mathematical laws of physics were a precursor to the universe. It's a baffling question: where do the mathematical laws of physics come from and why do they have this particular form and not some other form? We can imagine many mathematically consistent possible universes described by different laws, and as Stephen Hawking said "what is it that breathes fire into the equations?', why is this particular set of laws chosen?
Last edited:
Yakuda
Verified User
God.
How does saying "laws [are] chosen" make sense? Is this God choosing?
I can predict with 100 percent certainty that holly rollers will misuse scientific uncertainty to claim it proves the god of Abraham, while militant atheists will frantically try to sweep scientific uncertainty under the rug and holler we shouldn't even talk about it.
Yakuda
Verified User
I have never used the word "proves" in conversations on this topic. I think God is a very reasonable explanation even with scientific certainty. Science doesn't offer any illumination all it does is tells us how things work.
He's speaking in colloquial English for a general audience, and he doesn't even personally identify as religious.
Somehow, the mathmatical laws of physics predate the creation of the universe, and we don't know why, and we might not have the words in vernacular English to explain why they seem to exist Platonically and take the forms they do.
Only platonists believe math predates the world.
I agree that it takes a leap of belief to ascribe the rational intelligibility of the universe to the god of Abraham. I don't necessarily think it's crazy or insane to have that belief.
The mathmatical laws of physics and the universal constants must have predated inflation and the big bang in order for it to have physically originated and evolved in a rationally organized state
Yes, platonism. There are several philosophies of math, that is just one.
If only 1+1=2 was considered "math" by you.
In order to discuss the deeeeeep stuff I think you need a better grasp on the SIMPLE stuff first.
Otherwise all you're going to do is quote people, mush some words together in a string that SOUNDS intellectual but has no actual content, and then stamp your feet and scream at anyone who fails to recognize your brilliance.
In order to discuss the deeeeeep stuff I think you need a better grasp on the SIMPLE stuff first.
Otherwise all you're going to do is quote people, mush some words together in a string that SOUNDS intellectual but has no actual content, and then stamp your feet and scream at anyone who fails to recognize your brilliance.
Why?
If we are going to continue to believe in cause-and-effect, then the logical conclusion is that the mathmatical laws of physics predated cosmic inflation and the big bang. Consequently, these laws existed outside of space, matter, and time.
That's hard to fathom or explain with traditional existing theories of human knowledge.
Why?
Can't think too deeply about this one because it is beyond human knowledge.
Well, it stands to reason that it would, correct? Since math is essentially just "relationships" and "equivalences" in most cases it boils down to simple identity. Finding the relationship between two items.
It really sounds like the concept that a thing is what it is and not some other thing. Which is effectively a tautology. Did THAT concept have to come into being as a function of the big bang? That seems a bit on the silly side.
gibberish
I am not a platonist about math.
For sure. That troll is a waste of time