If nothing rational designed the universe, and math is the invention of men, why does physical space behave like a mathematical space?

submitted by [deleted] from (self.Physics)

Why does physical space conform to geometric axioms? Why does trigonometry predict what would really happen instead of the universe behaving in unpredictable ways?

all 18 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Zapped 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Was mathematics invented or discovered?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I suppose materialists would have no choice but to say invented because mathematical concepts are not made of matter, energy or information and yet are universal.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Discovered. Mathematics itself "doesn't know time". Surely the nature of time and how to put it into calculations and proofs. But mathematics itself (an educator of mine always spoke of "inner-mathematical" problems to refute anything off-topic or beside the thought considered) as a "scaffolding" for thoughts and ideas doesn't know time in a dimensional sense.

[–]hfxB0oyA 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Confirmation bias. Our understanding of the math that underlies and explains the way things work can give us the sense that if it took a sentient being to figure it out, another sentient being must have created it. I say this as an agnostic and someone who is open to the idea of a supreme intelligence.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Is 2 + 2 =5 in Pluto? Why not, if math is a human construct or if the cause of the universe is irrational forces? Why should the universe agree with our thoughts if it is all in our heads? And if the laws are not just in our heads, what are they made of?

[–]hfxB0oyA 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If we're made of the stuff of the universe, then it might go to figure that the thoughts on our heads are fundamentally connected to the mechanics of the universe that we are a part of. So in a way, whether there is an intelligence behind it or not, we are influenced by our creator.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So we only see order in the universe because we are part of the universe?

Is this order we see real or is it just us being delusional?

[–]hfxB0oyA 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So we only see order in the universe because we are part of the universe?

I would argue yes. There's no concept of order without someone to observe and define it. Otherwise, things just exist without appreciation. But at the same time, the definition of order comes from the fact that things (atoms, planets, life) evolved to result in us. So I think order is a very real thing, but it's also a chicken and egg situation where there is no concept of order without intelligence and there is no intelligence without the order to give rise to it.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The Big Bang dosent even make sense.

[–]chadwickofwv 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's because it is a religious belief.

[–]zyxzevn 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The physical world is 3D space filled with things. And in the world certain things are constant and in balance.
A lot of maths in physics comes from conservation of mass, conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, etc.
In theory we can also make things more perfect than they really are, and this makes the maths work better.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

We see pinpricks of lights in the sky that we cannot actually travel to. Deduce all sort of things based on what we know on earth. Are the principle of astronomy knowledge or hypothesis? they would have to be the latter if our axioms do not apply.

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Astronomy is different. It should look more at the sun and planets instead of making up theories about dark matter.
A lot of the mainstream astronomy is about making up stuff.

I have a long article on astronomy that has a more practical approach, using ideas from plasmacosmology.
Link here
And I think it would be more in line with your practical way of thinking.

[–]BISH 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Why does physical space conform to geometric axioms?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.

An infinite number of axioms exist that are meaningless, and have no basis in reality.

The scientific method is designed to tease out the axioms that work the best; given the measurable circumstances, and political atmosphere.

Scientific evidence that isn't politically supported is generally ignored, or ridiculed; if it's significant and may lead to a paradigm shift in understanding.

Politics and financial control of the of academic institutions is the obstacle to actual advancement.

Why does trigonometry predict what would really happen instead of the universe behaving in unpredictable ways?

Geometry Trigonometry is a method of dimensionality mapping out physical features.

It's only accurate as a predictive tool to the extent that the assumptions and variables selected match physical reality. Garbage in; garbage out.

We benefit from centuries of scientific guess and test improvements. Most of which failed.

Geometric characteristics that match the behavior of the physical world have been cherry picked from the garbage, and that's what it's taught in schools. Mostly.

There's still plenty of garbage, not so much in geometry.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Why does some Ancient Greek mathematics apply to find true phenomenon today, even before the Novus Organum? They were not empiricists, testing their ideas against the real world.

[–]BISH 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They had empirical knowledge accumulated in the library of Alexandria.

This knowledge was preserved from before the cataclysm, which ended the antediluvian iceage era civilization. This civilization also built the pyramids and the sphinx (which could not have been built by dynastic Egyptians, who had bronze tools, and fought wars on chariots with wooden wheels.

Plato studied at the library, and refers to the cataclysm flood event, which occurred +9000 years before his time. Plato also refers to more advanced civilizations like Atlantis, etc.

[–]TemporarilyDeceased 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Math is explanatory and used to convey meaning. This is the same way we use language. We don't assume that because the universe can be explained using the English language that whomever created the universe is a native English speaker.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How could Einstein work out general relativity before he could confirm it and have the universe agree?