4 ms·

I don't know if this will help, but I believe that all of mathematics arises from an underlying fundamental structure to the universe and that this results in i

I don't know if this will help, but I believe that all of mathematics arises from an underlying fundamental structure to the universe and that this results in it both being "discoverable" (rather than invented) and "useful" (as in helpful for describing, expressing and calculating things).

HackerNewt-doms 8mo ago
Why do you believe that the same mathematical properties hold everywhere in the universe?
- billforsternz 8mo ago
  Not the person you're replying too, but ... because it would be weird if they didn't.
  - bolangi 8mo ago
    There are legitimate questions if physical constants are constant everywhere in the universe, and also whether they are constant over time. Just because we conceive something "should" be a certain way doesn't make it true. The zero and negative numbers were also weird yet valid. How is the structure of mathematics different from fundamental constants, which we also cannot prove are invariant.
    - prmph 8mo ago
      The constants don't have to be the same everywhere. It is sufficient that everywhere in the universe follows some structure and rules, that's all. Otherwise we have a random universe, which does not seem to be the case.
      - HackerNewt-doms 8mo ago
        > It is sufficient that everywhere in the universe follows some structure and rules, that's all. What is that sufficient for? >Otherwise we have a random universe, which does not seem to be the case. Why jump to randomness, rather than to the possibility of undiscovered laws?
        prmph 8mo ago
        What the heck, how is "undiscovered laws" different from "structure and rules"?
    - deleted 8mo ago
      [deleted]
- rdtsc 8mo ago
  Not OP but I think they are making a slightly different claim — that the universe sort of dictates or guides the mathematical structure we discover. Not whether they hold everywhere or not.
rdtsc 8mo ago
> but I believe that all of mathematics arises from an underlying fundamental structure to the universe and that this results in it both being "discoverable" (rather than invented) and "useful" (as in helpful for describing, expressing and calculating things). That is an interesting idea. Can you elaborate? As in, us, that is our brains live in this physical universe so we’re sort of guided towards discovering certain mathematical properties and not others. Like we intuitively visualize 1d, 2d, 3d spaces but not higher ones? But we do operate on higher dimensional objects nevertheless? Anyway, my immediate reaction is to disagree, since in theory I can imagine replacing the universe with another with different rules and still maintaining the same mathematical structures from this universe.

HackerNewt-doms 8mo ago

Why do you believe that the same mathematical properties hold everywhere in the universe?

billforsternz 8mo ago
Not the person you're replying too, but ... because it would be weird if they didn't.
- bolangi 8mo ago
  There are legitimate questions if physical constants are constant everywhere in the universe, and also whether they are constant over time. Just because we conceive something "should" be a certain way doesn't make it true. The zero and negative numbers were also weird yet valid. How is the structure of mathematics different from fundamental constants, which we also cannot prove are invariant.
  - prmph 8mo ago
    The constants don't have to be the same everywhere. It is sufficient that everywhere in the universe follows some structure and rules, that's all. Otherwise we have a random universe, which does not seem to be the case.
    - HackerNewt-doms 8mo ago
      > It is sufficient that everywhere in the universe follows some structure and rules, that's all. What is that sufficient for? >Otherwise we have a random universe, which does not seem to be the case. Why jump to randomness, rather than to the possibility of undiscovered laws?
      - prmph 8mo ago
        What the heck, how is "undiscovered laws" different from "structure and rules"?
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
rdtsc 8mo ago
Not OP but I think they are making a slightly different claim — that the universe sort of dictates or guides the mathematical structure we discover. Not whether they hold everywhere or not.

rdtsc 8mo ago

> but I believe that all of mathematics arises from an underlying fundamental structure to the universe and that this results in it both being "discoverable" (rather than invented) and "useful" (as in helpful for describing, expressing and calculating things). That is an interesting idea. Can you elaborate? As in, us, that is our brains live in this physical universe so we’re sort of guided towards discovering certain mathematical properties and not others. Like we intuitively visualize 1d, 2d, 3d spaces but not higher ones? But we do operate on higher dimensional objects nevertheless? Anyway, my immediate reaction is to disagree, since in theory I can imagine replacing the universe with another with different rules and still maintaining the same mathematical structures from this universe.