Where do the mathematical laws of physics come from?

Now, where were we? Oh yeah, the "nature" of mathematics.

If something is defined by it being a description of relationships between various quantities does it need to have been established or is it simply an outcome of reality?

If the discussion is around the VALUES of the physical laws, that's a rather different discussion altogether. The values took on the values they took on at the Big Bang, one assumes, since prior to that there was no "m" for F=ma and there was no time so you can't measure "a" or "v" or anything that changes over time.

Is the marvel that the values wound up being such that life could form? That's looking at it backwards. There's no reason to assume that "life" has any sort of "necessary" existence. It is a state of matter. It ONLY EXISTS because the conditions were right, NOT that the conditions were somehow "tuned" to be amenable to life.

The example I give is the puddle. The water in the puddle assumes the SHAPE of the puddle. The water does not have that shape and just happens to find a puddle.

So what is the contention in this debate? Is it that mathematics per se is somehow something that needed to be "established" at some point in time? Or is it that the values of physical constants is such that life can exist?
 
Empiricism is a moral construct; if the claim is mathematics predates anything then a rigorous moral framework has to exist first and predate mathematics, and has to be a real physical thing framing the universe.

And Stuff. See Aquina's First Cause argument.

What is curious about the First Cause argument is those that claim to refute it always have to re-define terms, essentially avoiding his argument and segueing into a different argument. This is also the case in the vast majority of 'I Touched You Last !!!" games going on on this board, in fact.
 
Last edited:
EdwinA said:
Empiricism is a moral construct; if the claim is mathematics predates anything then a rigorous moral framework has to exist first and predate mathematics, and has to be a real physical thing framing the universe.

And Stuff. See Aquina's First Cause argument.

What is curious about the First Cause argument is those that claim to refute it always have to re-define terms, essentially avoiding his argument and segueing into a different argument. This is also the case in the vast majority of 'I Touched You Last !!!" games going on on this board, in fact.
Click to expand...
U sound smart.....This is something to notice.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
U sound smart.....This is something to notice.
Click to expand...


Actually the idea started with the Greeks, Aristotle, I think.


Aquinas adopts Aristotle’s doctrine of the Four Causes and couches much of his theology and philosophy in its terms. The Four Causes are (1) material cause, (2) formal cause, (3) efficient cause, and (4) final cause. The material cause, as its name implies, pertains to matter or the “stuff” of the world. Matter is potentiality, that is, that which something can become. The formal cause is the form or pattern that governs a particular thing, or the genus to which it belongs. The formal cause can also be called a thing’s essence. For example, the formal cause of a particular human being is his or her humanity, the essence of what it means to be human. God is the only creature embodying pure actuality and pure being, and God is thus the only pure formal cause. The efficient cause is what we normally understand by the word cause and indicates something that has an effect. The final cause is the goal or purpose toward which a thing is oriented.

See also ....


Theology as Superior to Philosophy​

​

The 'smart people' are Aristotle, Aquinas, etc., not us, we're just the beneficiaries.​

 
Last edited:
EdwinA said:
Actually the idea started with the Greeks, Aristotle, I think.


Aquinas adopts Aristotle’s doctrine of the Four Causes and couches much of his theology and philosophy in its terms. The Four Causes are (1) material cause, (2) formal cause, (3) efficient cause, and (4) final cause. The material cause, as its name implies, pertains to matter or the “stuff” of the world. Matter is potentiality, that is, that which something can become. The formal cause is the form or pattern that governs a particular thing, or the genus to which it belongs. The formal cause can also be called a thing’s essence. For example, the formal cause of a particular human being is his or her humanity, the essence of what it means to be human. God is the only creature embodying pure actuality and pure being, and God is thus the only pure formal cause. The efficient cause is what we normally understand by the word cause and indicates something that has an effect. The final cause is the goal or purpose toward which a thing is oriented.
Click to expand...
I pay very close attention when VDH talks about the Greeks.


Me being no dummy.
 
EdwinA said:
Empiricism is a moral construct
Click to expand...

How so?

EdwinA said:
What is curious about the First Cause argument is those that claim to refute it always have to re-define terms, essentially avoiding his argument and segueing into a different argument. This is also the case in the vast majority of 'I Touched You Last !!!" games going on on this board, in fact.
Click to expand...

The normal refutation of the First Uncaused Cause argument of Aquinas is to simply ask "Where did God come from?" If the answer is "God is eternal" then one has to explain why the universe couldn't be "eternal" and in an eternal cycle of birth and destruction over and over again.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
yes......prior to the inception of our universe......when there was no circumference or diameter......that should be obvious.....
Click to expand...

But if the concept of a circle exists then there is no way that the ratio of C/D will ever be anything except Pi, regardless of which universe, regardless of anything.

It is a facile point to note that before the was anything there was nothing. But the reason I raised this is because @Cypress couldn't provide any examples of what his point entailed (as usual) so I threw one out for discussion. I note that it is impossible for any conception of reality to exist in which the ratio of C/D for a circle is pi. And it will always have the same value. There is "nothing to establish" or set.

The reason I kept simplifying the debate down to 1+1=2 is because it provides a mathematical model to explain what math actually IS vs how it is discovered vs how it came to be.

I claim that math merely describes relationships and is, effectively, in the business of defining when two things are equal. 1+1=2 really doesn't add any new information, it is effectively a tautology, IMHO.

I make the same claim about Pi

But, of course, @Cypress was not up for the debate because he didn't really know what his point was (he would never express it) and all he wanted to do was marvel at something he didn't know. That's fine. Everyone is free to enjoy what they enjoy. But it's weird that he comes on a DISCUSSION forum just to show everyone he has no clue how to "discuss" anything.
 
Obtenebrator said:
The reason I kept simplifying the debate down to 1+1=2 is because it provides a mathematical model to explain what math actually IS
Click to expand...
sorry, it does not......prior to the inception of the universe there was no "thing" so there was no need to imagine a way to identify or consider a single example of something, let alone imagine multiple somethings......
 
Obtenebrator said:
How so?
Click to expand...

It requires that the numbers, data, whatever be recorded truthfully by the observer, or it doesn't have any value as a law, or rule, or evidence. This makes morality the imperative before all else.

RE Aquina's, he defines the first cause as 'God'. Asking 'but then where does God come from' isn't a refutation, it's a non-sequitur.

Does 1 divided by 0 refute anything?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top