3 ms·
I don't claim to know anything before it either. All I'm claiming is that before whatever happened, there must have been a mathematical structure that allowed
by ezion 3y ago
I don't claim to know anything before it either.
All I'm claiming is that before whatever happened, there must have been a mathematical structure that allowed it to happen following certain physical laws. That's just a fact. So these mathematical laws exist before anything. This implies a realm that's not physical. Anything that is contingent such as all material things (why is there anything at all?) must have a prior cause - and that's an assumption of science.
All theories presuppose these mathematical structures.
That is, even if the current big bang is just one in a series of several, or however else you try to explain existence, you have to presuppose the mathematical structure that forces it to follow certain physical laws.
I also don't think you fully understand inflation and why it's been proposed but I'll ignore it since it's not useful for the conversation. Also read up on the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem as it basically proves that a beginning is necessary.
In addition, note that right now it seems almost certain that the universe had a beginning and any other explanation is not evidence based.
- Koshkin 3y ago> That's just a fact. No, > That's, like, just your opinion man ;)
- ezion 3y agoIf the mathematics is not a priori, one must explain why it is the case particles follow particular mathematical laws instead of moving about randomly without any particular logic to them. How do these elementary particles know what to do and have always known?
- chongli 3y agoparticles follow particular mathematical laws We don’t know that they do. We assume they do, but our laws are not their laws. You’re like the person who sees a birdwatcher recording their observations and asking “why do birds exist?” You’re asking the wrong question to the wrong person and demanding satisfaction.
- chongli 3y agothese mathematical laws exist before anything You might want to study a bit of philosophy of mathematics, particularly the bit on the realism vs anti-realism debate. A great deal of people fall into the anti-realism camp, and they would disagree rather vociferously with your statement about “mathematical laws.”
- ezion 3y agoCan you explain why it is not the case everything happens at random? Why these particles seem to follow physical laws? Realism/Anti-Realism has no bearing to the matter. I personally think mathematics is a priori and non-causal, and not necessarily correspondent to the real world. This would imply I'm technically an anti-realist. Certain mathematics correlates to the real world, others do not and are simply (interesting) mathematical structures. Neither viewpoints can explain why certain mathematical statements actually correlate to reality. Mathematical entities are not causal - they do not have any causal connection to the real world since they are (obviously) abstract. Maybe a good place to start thinking about this problem would be to read Wigner's work "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences".
- chongli 3y agoCan you explain why it is not the case everything happens at random? Why these particles seem to follow physical laws? What does random mean? Are you asking why the universe appears to be consistent and intelligible at all? Where would we be if it weren’t? The weak anthropic principle covers this nicely. Perhaps it is an unsatisfying answer, but scientists and mathematicians aren’t usually in the business of answering ontological questions. Maybe a good place to start thinking about this problem would be to read Wigner's work "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences". I have studied all of this. Wigner’s account is very important for the debates it inspired but it’s far from the last word on the topic. There have been numerous replies addressing all of Wigner’s claims. Try reading Hamming’s replies to start.
- ezion 3y ago