Where do the mathematical laws of physics come from?

Obtenebrator said:
I understand that you consider it "trolling" when someone discusses the TOPIC and doesn't just bitch and whine about other posters. But this is an interesting topic even if you don't actually understand your own position.

I'm able to talk about it. I wish you were as well. But I understand.

You're scared. Don't be.
Click to expand...
Troll. You have wasted valuable time with gibberish about giraffes, and babble about first grade arithmetic.


Your magical thinking is just as bad as the magical thinking of a bible thumper.

You want to throw cause and effect out the window, and insinuate that the universe and the mathematical laws of nature just magically popped into existence out of nothing, and for no reason.

What a miraculous magical miracle.

I tend to agree with preeminent theoretical physicist Alex Vilenken that from the perspective of cause and effect, it is logical to assume that the laws of physics predate and precede inflation and the hot big bang.
 
Obtenebrator said:
Except I'm capable of discussing this topic.

In order to discuss the nature of mathematical laws one should probably start from a baseline in which one actually KNOWS something about mathematics.

If the question is: from whence does the mathematical rigor of the universe derive, then it must first be established as to what math actually "is".

That's something you and @Cypress never address or even seem to think is important. But I honestly don't understand how someone with even a modicum of education wouldn't be able to understand that in order to discuss the nature of something it is best to at least have a common understanding of what it is you are discussing.

Math is essentially a description of relationships. It relates quantities to each other (hence the "=" you often see in mathematical expressions). So, perhaps, the mystery doesn't lie in the mere EXISTENCE of mathematical concepts but rather in why certain quantities wind up being related.

If we go back to "Pi" for an example. It is a necessary feature that if you arrange a series of dots around a central point all equidistant from said central point that the ratio of the circumference to the diameter is Pi. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to arrive at any other value since it effectively DEFINES a circle.

So it is a matter of definition. A circle is a circle. Is it necessary for this concept to have to have some sort of metaphysical aspect? Or is it simply the only way reality can possibly be?
Click to expand...
get lost troll
 
Cypress said:
Troll. You have wasted valuable time with gibberish about giraffes, and babble about first grade arithmetic.
Click to expand...

All arithmetic is related. The reason I'm focusing on a SIMPLE example is so that the discussion can be better grounded. Without some grounding all you have is mush-mouth new-agey blather about "platonic" forms of mathematics existing in some ineffible other-space.

I want to bring the conversation to a point where something MEANINGFUL can be learned from it.

Cypress said:
Your magical thinking is just as bad as the magical thinking of a bible thumper.
Click to expand...

How so? Do you disagree that 1+1=2 is mathematics?

Cypress said:
You want to throw cause and effect out the window
Click to expand...

Not at all! I want to better understand what you are trying to get at with this gobbledy-gook of bullshit verbiage you and Hume vomit out. It doesn't seem grounded in anything meaningful.

Cypress said:
, and insinuate that the universe and the mathematical laws of nature just magically popped into existence out of nothing.
Click to expand...

NO! 100X NO! I think they are inherent in any conception of reality.

If I feel that mathematics is, at it's heart, the expression of relationships and verging on tautological that it could be no other way in any given reality that pops into existence.

The VALUES of constants may differ, but the RELATIONSHIPS are simply expressions of the different forms of those values.

This is why it is important to ground the discussion. Are you mystified by the VALUES the various constants take? Or are you simply amazed that life sprang up in a system in which the values were such that life COULD pop into existence? Or are you trying to make some bigger statement on the nature of MATHEMATICS?


Cypress said:
I tend to agree with preeminent theoretical physicist Alex Vilenken
Click to expand...

Oh come on. You don't understand what he's saying. He's pre-eminent and that's all YOU need. I've seen you do this a thousand times and it always fascinates me. You CONSTANTLY, when backed into a corner, REFUSE to explain your position but ALWAYS scream that this or that FAMOUS PHYSICIST thinks this or that.

THINK FOR YOURSELF FOR A CHANGE. You may or may not be wrong, but that's the whole point of these discussions!


Seriously dude, if you actually DID take a philosophy class, did you NEVER debate silly points or try to come up with new concepts of your own????

Then you didn't go to college.
 
Hume said:
Obtenebrator sounds like the asshole IBDaman, Into the Night, blah blah blah
Click to expand...

Hume said:
get lost troll
Click to expand...

I get it, math wasn't your thing. That's why you went into the arts! That's a tale as old as time. Don't feel bad, you can still have a say on mathematics. Just think about them for a bit.

Toss out an hypothesis, don't just insult people. Try engaging with the topic.

(I know you really just get more of a charge being a troll, but honestly we CAN talk about these topics even if you aren't all that smart in this particular area!)
 
Obtenebrator said:
I get it, math wasn't your thing. That's why you went into the arts! That's a tale as old as time. Don't feel bad, you can still have a say on mathematics. Just think about them for a bit.

Toss out an hypothesis, don't just insult people. Try engaging with the topic.

(I know you really just get more of a charge being a troll, but honestly we CAN talk about these topics even if you aren't all that smart in this particular area!)
Click to expand...
I thought you knew I never went to art school, asshole?
 
Hume said:
Hey asshole, platonism in math is quite common. You're a fucking moron.
Click to expand...

And I think you are talking about things in a manner which has NO MEANING. I honestly don't think you could espouse what that meaning actually IS.

I would challenge you to explain what you think the nature of math is but you won't. Because you are incapable of it. You just know a few fancy words which you toss out like Cypress to make yourself feel smarter.

Prove me wrong: explain your position.
 
Obtenebrator said:
And I think you are talking about things in a manner which has NO MEANING. I honestly don't think you could espouse what that meaning actually IS.

I would challenge you to explain what you think the nature of math is but you won't. Because you are incapable of it. You just know a few fancy words which you toss out like Cypress to make yourself feel smarter.

Prove me wrong: explain your position.
Click to expand...
U iz boring
 
Hume said:
Hey asshole, platonism in math is quite common. You're a fucking moron.
Click to expand...
The troll doesn't know that many, if not most, mathematicians think math is objectively true in a Platonic sense. He doesn't have the education or depth of imagination and perception required to grasp this.
 
Hume said:
troll
Click to expand...

So you can't or you won't explain your position in regards to the nature of mathematics and mathematical expressions?

May I ask why? Are you uncertain what you think or are you incapable of expressing it?
 
Obtenebrator said:
So you can't or you won't explain your position in regards to the nature of mathematics and mathematical expressions?

May I ask why? Are you uncertain what you think or are you incapable of expressing it?
Click to expand...
Already told you troll. Math is empirical. Or constructivist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top