Gonna stop you right there. The "inception of the universe" isn't really applicable to the point. Remember we are talking about why something went from not existing TO existing and if each of those components had to be "decreed" or if the laws of mathematics naturally fall out of the inherent relationship between things?
Where do the mathematical laws of physics come from?
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Gonna stop you right there. The "inception of the universe" isn't really applicable to the point. Remember we are talking about why something went from not existing TO existing and if each of those components had to be "decreed" or if the laws of mathematics naturally fall out of the inherent relationship between things?
As a matter of quantity, that was true ten billion years before humans existed.
The universe 'knew' it takes a trio of quarks to make a proton, a pair of quarks to make a pion, and four baryons to make helium-4, billions of years before humans invented the linguistic numerical conventions of 'two', 'three', or '1+1+1+1=4'.
Totally disagree. I see no reason to assume the concept of quantities requires an observer.
Not a non-sequitur since it most definitely follows from the point. It highlights the fact that "God" in this case gets "special pleading" and doesn't have to conform to the concept it is being used to explain.
For once PMP is correct that pi is objectively true independent of human opinion, and was true billions of years ago because spatial dimension was created 13.7 billion years ago. Pi is an important constant in many laws of physics because of spatial dimensionality, and these laws will still be true billions of years after humans are gone.
The solar system always 'knew' that one planetoid added to one planetoid made up the binary system of Pluto-Charon, millions of years before humans started using the linguistic convention '1 + 1 = 2'.
There can only be first cause, no 'pre-first cause' in the Aquinas argument. The 'morality' I point to is the framework all physics and science must have to operate at all. It's the only way a priori knowledge of any kind will work in any context.
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
to me it seems your point falls short of common sense.....you for some reason think that there can be some form of relationship to our existing universe before it exists......if that thing which has a circumference and a diameter has not yet become a thing, the mathematical concept of pi is meaningless gibberish.......
And that doesn't change anything about my point. Not one whit.
Oh, yeah, BTW, did you get me banned from the other thread? Just curious.
I will try YET AGAIN to explain my point to you and this conversation in general:
We are not talking about BEFORE things existed. We are talking about WHEN THINGS START TO EXIST WAS IT NECESSARY FOR THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN C/D and Pi TO BE DECREED OR DEFINED? Do try to keep up.
Yes, it's called "special pleading". When one creates an argument where the premise simply must be accepted because you said it did. That is not a solution to the critique.
You still have not explained why an observer is required for a mathematical relationship to be true.
I think you are overextending the point. The question is did the universe 'know' if one of anything and one of anything were two of anything.
That's been my point all along: ARE YOU more interested in the value that physical constants take on OR are you interested in where the MATHEMATICAL FORM comes from?
Obviously you know you're just lost and covering it up poorly. We can move on now to other topics until somebody offers something new and genuine.
So you can't actually explain your position? That's too bad. Fair enough.
So you can't understand what I said? Okay. Fair enough.
I asked you a simple question about your position which you have so far been unable to answer. I will ask one more time but I know that you don't have an answer:
Why does a mathematical relationship like 1+1=2 require an OBSERVER?
No, what happened is you roared with laughter at my suggestion that mathematics is in some sense Platonic, aka it exists independently of human opinion, human experience, human memory.
You're free to believe ratio, quantity, topology, quantification did not exist until modern humans started working with the concepts.
That sounds really stupid to me.
I think ratio, quantity, topology existed billions of years before humans. It always took three quarks to make a neutron, and the quantifiable nature of gravity always existed.
The fact that the math we discover and derive so surprisingly describes reality to an extremely high level of precision is overwhelming evidence that math is part of the fabric of physical reality, not something our minds just invented.
Bullshit. What I said was that I don't believed YOU had a clue what that concept even meant. You never explained it and you refuse to so I know I'm right.
Topology. There you go spouting off words to sound impressive. Try answering the question once for a change
Because you don't understand what I'm saying. You just want to insult me.
And I love how you are dodging the other question. You get me banned from your other thread yesterday? LOL.
I am CONSTANTLY astounded how poorly you understand any point I raise. Seriously. It's like you don't actually READ what I post. You find a word you don't like and you misinterpret my point so you can insult me.
What kind of fucked up rage machine are you?
Thanks for finally admitting defeat and confessing that mathematics is objectively real in a kind of Platonic sense. Something you spent a month howling in objection to
All knowledge is platonic for you.
Dishonest as usual. So I will ask you once more: what do you mean it is Platonic? Just asking you to explain your position. No insults necessary. Just try to explain your position in plain language.
If you can't I will take it as a tacit confession that you don't really know what you mean.