Does the Existence of Mathematics Depend on the Existence of the Universe?

[PruePhillip]

Does the existence of mathematics depend on the existence of the universe, or does mathematics represent something that could at least conceivably exist independent of any physical reality?
Why or why not?

We simply don't know.
Is maths a description of the universe, or does it exist independent?

Science believes in cause and effects, that there exists "reasons" for
what happens. The ultimate beginning of the universe (everything, that
is) has, by definition, no cause and no reason.
So I suggest that maths came with the universe. It's a descriptor of
that universe.
So, before everything began, before the Big Bang, before whatever
created the Big Bang - there was no maths.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does the existence of mathematics depend on the existence of the universe, or does mathematics represent something that could at least conceivably exist independent of any physical reality?

I have a feeling that this is one of those questions that comes down mainly to semantics: that it's impossible to answer meaningfully until terms like "mathematics," "universe," and "existence" are precisely defined, but once that's done, the question becomes trivial.

 

[PruePhillip]

I have a feeling that this is one of those questions that comes down mainly to semantics: that it's impossible to answer meaningfully until terms like "mathematics," "universe," and "existence" are precisely defined, but once that's done, the question becomes trivial.

It's a good answer, but... before the existence of "anything" there could be no maths,
by definition. Either maths describes all of existence, or it is a part of it - either way
it couldn't have existed before the "universe." I put it to you that when the "universe"
was created, mathematics came with it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's a good answer, but... before the existence of "anything" there could be no maths,
by definition.

By which definition?

 

[Etritonakin]

Does the existence of mathematics depend on the existence of the universe, or does mathematics represent something that could at least conceivably exist independent of any physical reality?

Why or why not?




BONUS QUESTION: Correctly guess Rival's favorite sex toy and her preferred color for it.

(Hint: It can be argued the human brain is the sexiest sex toy of all, and a healthy one is typically pink-grey.)

If "1" -or "everything" is in any way subdivided, arranged, etc. -math ensues. When we add, subtract, etc., we are actually dealing with fractions of the overall "1".

Math, logic, etc., are what happens to that which exists -each new state -and a language to describe states, interactions, etc. -so one in the same, interdependent, I suppose.

 

[PruePhillip]

By which definition?

The definition of "everything"
ie, no:
time
space
matter
energy
physical laws
quantum fields
reason for being
and mathematics.

and for a universe to spring out of this definition is a
grander miracle that saying God created it.

 

[ratiocinator]

The definition of "everything"
ie, no:
time
space
matter
energy
physical laws
quantum fields
reason for being
and mathematics.

and for a universe to spring out of this definition is a
grander miracle that saying God created it.

This is just muddled thinking.

1. What makes you think this state of nothingness is even possible?
   
   
2. If there is no time, then there couldn't have been any time at which this state existed for the universe to "spring out of".
   
   
3. As with all such theist "arguments" like this - once you imagine you've argued for your god, it is magically excluded (in your own mind) from any question as to why it just happened to exist in order to poof the universe into being...

 

[PruePhillip]

This is just muddled thinking.

1. What makes you think this state of nothingness is even possible?
   
   
2. If there is no time, then there couldn't have been any time at which this state existed for the universe to "spring out of".
   
   
3. As with all such theist "arguments" like this - once you imagine you've argued for your god, it is magically excluded (in your own mind) from any question as to why it just happened to exist in order to poof the universe into being...

Exactly. I believe:
1 - without any "theist" ideas that nothing means nothing. Science holds that everything has cause
and effects, and is driven by natural laws. This doesn't explain how everything which exists came
into existence because there was no reason for it doing so, nor any way of achieving existence.
2 - as a believer in God I hold that He exists "outside" the natural scheme of thing - even time.

Which is it? A creation which sprang into being without reason or physical laws, or God created
the universe? Both ideas are miracles, both require faith.

 

[Polymath257]

Exactly. I believe:
1 - without any "theist" ideas that nothing means nothing. Science holds that everything has cause
and effects, and is driven by natural laws. This doesn't explain how everything which exists came
into existence because there was no reason for it doing so, nor any way of achieving existence.
2 - as a believer in God I hold that He exists "outside" the natural scheme of thing - even time.

Which is it? A creation which sprang into being without reason or physical laws, or God created
the universe? Both ideas are miracles, both require faith.

Why do you think there was 'time' before the universe? And without a prior time it makes no sense that the universe 'came about' in any sense.

But, there is also the question why you believe that time (and the universe) cannot go infinitely far into the past. In other words, that there is no beginning.

Third, it is *false* that 'everything has cause and effects'. In fact, you can go through an entire physics curriculum without there every being a mention of 'cause and effect'. The reason? Except among philosophers (and would-be philosophers), there is no such law. But, even more so, we *know* of events that are uncaused by any standard definition of the concept 'cause'.

Fourth, what does it even mean to say something exists 'outside of the universe' or outside the 'natural scheme of things'? As far as I can see, such phrases mean absolutely nothing.

 

[ratiocinator]

Exactly. I believe:
1 - without any "theist" ideas that nothing means nothing.

By the definition you gave of "nothing", it can't actually exist, so it's irrelevant to anything.

Science holds that everything has cause
and effects, and is driven by natural laws.

Not exactly - causality is a property of space-time, and may well not be universal (not every event has a cause) even within it. To try to apply it to the existence of space-time itself seems rather nonsensical.

This doesn't explain how everything which exists came
into existence because there was no reason for it doing so, nor any way of achieving existence.

If you are talking about "everything" including time, it can't have come into existence because there can't have been a time at which it didn't exist.

as a believer in God I hold that He exists "outside" the natural scheme of thing - even time.

Which doesn't magically exclude us from asking (just as you do with the universe) why it exists, why this god and not another, or no god?

A creation which sprang into being without reason or physical laws, or God created
the universe?

Not really if you're asking about everything, that by your definition includes time, the choice is just between a totally unexplained space-time that exists for no known reason or a totally unexplained god that exists for no known reason and decides to create a space-time.

Both ideas are miracles, both require faith.

Nope - saying that we know space-time exists and don't know why, requires no faith. Your god doesn't explain anything (except in a simplistic just-so story way), it just adds to the things that we don't know the reasons why they exist.

 

[PruePhillip]

Why do you think there was 'time' before the universe? And without a prior time it makes no sense that the universe 'came about' in any sense.

But, there is also the question why you believe that time (and the universe) cannot go infinitely far into the past. In other words, that there is no beginning.

Third, it is *false* that 'everything has cause and effects'. In fact, you can go through an entire physics curriculum without there every being a mention of 'cause and effect'. The reason? Except among philosophers (and would-be philosophers), there is no such law. But, even more so, we *know* of events that are uncaused by any standard definition of the concept 'cause'.

Fourth, what does it even mean to say something exists 'outside of the universe' or outside the 'natural scheme of things'? As far as I can see, such phrases mean absolutely nothing.

I agree, before the "universe" there was no time.
In the bible it speaks of end times as "no more time." We have no conception of a universe
without time - nothing can happen, it's frozen - as if you are traveling at the speed of light.
Cause and effect - don't recall hearing it in science, either. But things happen either because
they are caused by something else, or they are a miracle.
"Outside the universe" is meaningless, at least to our current view of things (and remember,
the "universe" of today wasn't the "universe" of the 1970's.).

 

[PruePhillip]

By the definition you gave of "nothing", it can't actually exist, so it's irrelevant to anything.

Conceptually impossible to grasp. Just like what is "outside" of our universe (or multiverse.)
Conceptually impossible doesn't mean physically impossible.

 

[Bethsheba Ashe]

As I recall the big bang theory, the universe got its start from a quantum fluctuation. If that is true there was a quantum particle that was winking in and out of existence, and as long as you have something able to take two states, then you have mathematics. So no, mathematics is independent of there being an actual physical universe. Then again, I'm not a physicist so don't take my word for it.

These guys think they have mathematical proof...

A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

 

[PruePhillip]

Not exactly - causality is a property of space-time, and may well not be universal (not every event has a cause) even within it. To try to apply it to the existence of space-time itself seems rather nonsensical.

Re cause and effect.
Some things that I know of which don't have cause and effect revolve around
quantum probability. It's possible to vanish off the earth, walk on the sun and
then return to the earth - but the chances of it happening, according to quantum
physicists is ten to the power one hundred (a Googol) to the power hundred
again. But even here the "cause" is the quantum field.
We use this very principle in electronics, where electrons can "tunnel" through
material, or more appropriately, just "appear" on the other side. So it's real.

But I don't know of other physical phenomena in the macro world which can
do things without cause. Do you?

 

[PruePhillip]

saying that we know space-time exists and don't know why, requires no faith. Your god doesn't explain anything (except in a simplistic just-so story way), it just adds to the things that we don't know the reasons why they exist.

Physicists study physics. By definition, I put it to you, that went "before" the "something" we have
today is outside of physics. It's a philosophical thing. On one hand people say it can't be studied
because it doesn't/never exists, and on the other they say that one day we will get a handled on it.

 

[PruePhillip]

As I recall the big bang theory, the universe got its start from a quantum fluctuation. If that is true there was a quantum particle that was winking in and out of existence, and as long as you have something able to take two states, then you have mathematics. So no, mathematics is independent of there being an actual physical universe. Then again, I'm not a physicist so don't take my word for it.

These guys think they have mathematical proof...

A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

In the deep vacuum of space this can happen. Space pops, fizzes and buzzes with these tiny particles
that can, in theory, balloon out into another universe. These are called "virtual particles."
But........ they exist in this quantum field, in the fabric of space-time. Before the universe began there
was no quantum.
I qualify "universe" to mean "before something came from nothing."

 

[Polymath257]

I agree, before the "universe" there was no time.
In the bible it speaks of end times as "no more time." We have no conception of a universe
without time - nothing can happen, it's frozen - as if you are traveling at the speed of light.
Cause and effect - don't recall hearing it in science, either. But things happen either because
they are caused by something else, or they are a miracle.
"Outside the universe" is meaningless, at least to our current view of things (and remember,
the "universe" of today wasn't the "universe" of the 1970's.).

Most quantum level events don't happen because they are 'caused' to happen when they do. Neither are they miracles.

It's just that the universe isn't a causal system.

 

[Polymath257]

In the deep vacuum of space this can happen. Space pops, fizzes and buzzes with these tiny particles
that can, in theory, balloon out into another universe. These are called "virtual particles."
But........ they exist in this quantum field, in the fabric of space-time. Before the universe began there
was no quantum.
I qualify "universe" to mean "before something came from nothing."

But if you allow this sort of budding off, then it is much more likely that the 'multiverse' has simply 'always existed'. In other words, it has no beginning and no 'before'.

 

[Bethsheba Ashe]

In the deep vacuum of space this can happen. Space pops, fizzes and buzzes with these tiny particles
that can, in theory, balloon out into another universe. These are called "virtual particles."
But........ they exist in this quantum field, in the fabric of space-time. Before the universe began there
was no quantum.
I qualify "universe" to mean "before something came from nothing."

From the article at The Physics arXiv Blog.

"...thanks to the work of Dongshan He and buddies at the Wuhan Institute of Physics and Mathematics in China. These guys have come up with the first rigorous proof that the Big Bang could indeed have occurred spontaneously because of quantum fluctuations."

"At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum."

Whatever that is...

 

[PruePhillip]

Most quantum level events don't happen because they are 'caused' to happen when they do. Neither are they miracles.

It's just that the universe isn't a causal system.

For sure. Quantum things just happen. On the basis of probability a duck can
appear in the deep vacuum of outer space. It wouldn't survive long but it can
happen - and scientists can calculate the probability of this "miracle."
But it isn't a miracle, it's just quantum uncertainly.
But quantum is a "thing", it's part of the universe, like planets, and ducks.
They didn't create "everything that is" because they are just an element of
"everything that is."

As an aside. We can "see" these virtual particles appearing and vanishing
due to their effect on the electron orbiting a nucleus. The electron kind of
wobbles as it hits these ghostly particles. So they do exist!
I used to be a teacher in science.