The Topic on Space and Energy

[dattaswami]

In this universe, every item has another item as its cause.

Contemporary physics no longer holds to that belief. But even granting the premise, that is perfectly consistent with there being no first cause, as the example of the integers shows.

That cause will have still another item as its cause. In this way, the ad-infinitum or infinite regress (Anavasthaa) results by which the chain of causes becomes endless. Somewhere, we have to stop so that the ultimate cause is not having its own cause.

You're just repeating what you've said before, without bothering to engage with my point.

In the endless chain of integers

..., -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ....

every integer has an immediate predecessor, and there is no first integer. Why can't reality be like that? Who says it can't?

In any event you have me beat on word count, so you can have the last word.

Every integer is imaginable. But God is unimaginable. ..., -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, .... all these numbers are defined and imaginable hence not God.

The exercise done by you using the numbers is also mentioning the same basic view of nothing or repetition of infinite chain of some things, which are subtle, more subtle and most subtle. This is only expressing the inability of the solution. The scientists speak of only whatever they have learnt. They must have open minds with a very broad outlook in such a fundamental subject.

[wtf]

You'll never beat wtf, swami. He's one of the five smartest dudes I've ever seen on a forum, so if he says u can't do it, u can't do it bro.

Thank you kindly.

But God is unimaginable.

Earlier you were arguing William Lane Craig's Kalām cosmological argument, a variation of the ancient "uncaused cause" or "first mover" conundrum.

Now you are saying that God is unimaginable. Yet you keep talking about God. What is this God that you refer to, if God is unimaginable. If you can't imagine God, what do you imagine when you use the word God?

[socrat44]

You'll never beat wtf, swami. He's one of the five smartest dudes I've ever seen on a forum, so if he says u can't do it, u can't do it bro.

Thank you kindly.

But God is unimaginable.

Earlier you were arguing William Lane Craig's Kalām cosmological argument, a variation of the ancient "uncaused cause" or "first mover" conundrum.

Now you are saying that God is unimaginable. Yet you keep talking about God. What is this God that you refer to, if God is unimaginable. If you can't imagine God, what do you imagine when you use the word God?

"Persian Letters."
" Everybody creates his God according to his own image and spirit.
If triangles made a God they would give him three sides."
/By Charles de Montesquieu. 1721./

[Age]

In this universe, every item has another item as its cause.

Contemporary physics no longer holds to that belief.

What BELIEF does this so-called 'contemporary physics' hold to 'now'?

Surely 'it' does NOT HOLD the BELIEF that there are items that are caused by NO items at all, or am I wrong here?

But even granting the premise, that is perfectly consistent with there being no first cause, as the example of the integers shows.

But there WAS NO 'first cause', and this is just because of what the Universe IS and how 'It' WORKS, EXACTLY.

That cause will have still another item as its cause. In this way, the ad-infinitum or infinite regress (Anavasthaa) results by which the chain of causes becomes endless. Somewhere, we have to stop so that the ultimate cause is not having its own cause.

You're just repeating what you've said before, without bothering to engage with my point.

In the endless chain of integers

..., -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ....

every integer has an immediate predecessor, and there is no first integer. Why can't reality be like that? Who says it can't?

In any event you have me beat on word count, so you can have the last word.

That one is also MISSING what the Ultimate cause IS, EXACTLY.

[wtf]

What BELIEF does this so-called 'contemporary physics' hold to 'now'?

Yes, thanks, good question. To recap, @dattaswami said that, "In this universe, every item has another item as its cause," to which I responded, "Contemporary physics no longer holds to that belief." So I should explain myself.

I only have a very layman's understanding of physics obtained from Youtube videos and such. My understanding is that virtual particle / anti-particle pairs spontaneously get created out of "empty" space, meaning space with no matter in it but where a quantum field is present. There's a Wiki article on this, which I did not find very enlightening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

In Lawrence Krauss's book, A Universe from Nothing, he notes (I didn't read the book, only read about the book) that this is how the universe came into being. There was "nothing," meaning the primordial quantum field and the laws of physics, but no matter. Then there was a spontaneous creation of stuff, and the universe was off and running. There was no "cause." This Wiki page also leaves a lot to be desired, as it says nothing about Krauss's argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing

I could say more, but really this is pretty much what I know. Particle / anti-particle pairs spontaneously come into existence without any cause at all. And in the beginning of the universe (according to Krauss), before there were time and space, but after there were the primordial quantum fields and the laws of physics (begging the question of where THEY came from), one day there was a spontaneous symmetry-breaking or some such (very hazy on the details here) and the universe was born.

This is my general understanding of how modern physics works.

But even without the cosmological stuff, quantum physics doesn't have causes, and perhaps this is a more down-to-earth example of what I was getting at. A particle might have spin-up or spin-down, and before we observe it, it doesn't meaningfully have a spin. In fact we could wish that it has a spin but we just don't know what it is. But experiment has pretty much ruled that out. Before we look, particles don't have properties. And which properties we observe when we do look, is a matter of probability. There are no causes.

Physics no longer has causes, at least at the quantum level. As I say, this is my understanding, and this was the basis of my remark, but I'm not a physicist and I'm sure I am leaving out a lot of important fine points.

Surely 'it' does NOT HOLD the BELIEF that there are items that are caused by NO items at all, or am I wrong here?

This is my understanding. Before we do an observation, there is no fact of the matter about the state of a particle. The result of the observation is probabilistic. There is nothing that "causes" us to observe one state or the other.

Now whether the physics is right or wrong, or my understanding is right or wrong or somewhere in between (or nowhere at all till you observe it!), this is my explanation of why I wrote what I did. In modern physics, causation is out. Stuff just happens probabilistically for no reason at all; including, and in particular, the creation of the universe.

Of course one could say that God made the primordial quantum fields and the laws of physics. One never gets past one's intuition of looking for causes.

But there WAS NO 'first cause', and this is just because of what the Universe IS and how 'It' WORKS, EXACTLY.

I'm not sure what you mean here, referring to the integers or the universe. My example of the integers is only intended to point out that we have a model in which:

* Each thing (event, number, however you interpret it) has an immediate predecessor; yet

* There is no first integer.

Rather, the entire sequence of integers, endless in both directions, just is. There need not be a first cause. Unless you're asking who caused the integers to exist. Well as Kronecker said, The integers are the work of God. All the rest are the work of man.

https://www.cantorsparadise.com/kroneck ... 269735a638

That one is also MISSING what the Ultimate cause IS, EXACTLY.

Do you mean what is the ultimate cause of the integers? Heck if I know. Philosophers argue about that. Did humans invent them? Or do they have some kind of Platonic existence even in the absence of living things in the universe?

I truly don't know. I suspect humans made them. We have an intuition about the infinite. Where that comes from, I don't know.

If someone says that God made the universe, I have no problem with that. Except to ask who made God. If God just always was, without needing to be caused, why couldn't we just say that the universe always just was, without needing to be caused, and thereby dispense with the need for God? That's my challenge to @dattaswami. If there must be an original uncaused cause, why can't it just be the universe itself, rather than positing "God" who was an uncaused cause that created the universe?

It's an extra level of indirection that's not needed.

[Age]

What BELIEF does this so-called 'contemporary physics' hold to 'now'?

Yes, thanks, good question. To recap, @dattaswami said that, "In this universe, every item has another item as its cause," to which I responded, "Contemporary physics no longer holds to that belief." So I should explain myself.

I only have a very layman's understanding of physics obtained from Youtube videos and such. My understanding is that virtual particle / anti-particle pairs spontaneously get created out of "empty" space, meaning space with no matter in it but where a quantum field is present. There's a Wiki article on this, which I did not find very enlightening.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

And whereabouts in the Universe, exactly, is this place where there is, supposedly, NO matter in it but where ONLY a quantum field is present?

Also, does not anyone else find it contradictory to claim that there is this place with, supposedly, no matter in it but where matter actually is. Obviously, if matter is so-called 'spontaneously' getting created, then there IS 'matter', in that place, or space, correct? Or, am I misreading or just missing some 'thing' here?

In Lawrence Krauss's book, A Universe from Nothing, he notes (I didn't read the book, only read about the book) that this is how the universe came into being.

There are a LOT of people who will LOOK FOR and "FIND" 'things', which they think or BELIEVE will back up and support their CURRENTLY HELD BELIEFS.

There was "nothing," meaning the primordial quantum field and the laws of physics, but no matter. Then there was a spontaneous creation of stuff, and the universe was off and running. There was no "cause."

But the so-called 'spontaneous creation of stuff' would be the 'cause'. Oh, AND the supposed and alleged so-called 'primordial quantum field' AND 'the laws of physics' AS WELL, of course.

Which, by the way, MUST OF been existing forever or eternally
[/quote]
This Wiki page also leaves a lot to be desired, as it says nothing about Krauss's argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing

I could say more, but really this is pretty much what I know. Particle / anti-particle pairs spontaneously come into existence without any cause at all. [/quote]

Do you KNOW this FOR SURE? Or, is this some 'thing' that you have been told, or heard?

Oh, and by the way, what you talk about here is HOW the supposed 'inconsistency' between physics at the 'quantum level' and 'classical level' can be and WAS resolved.

And in the beginning of the universe (according to Krauss), before there were time and space, but after there were the primordial quantum fields and the laws of physics (begging the question of where THEY came from), one day there was a spontaneous symmetry-breaking or some such (very hazy on the details here) and the universe was born.

Okay. But it is great to SEE signs of True INTELLIGENCE here within 'you' "wtf".

This is my general understanding of how modern physics works.

'Modern' is a very relative term, hey?

But even without the cosmological stuff, quantum physics doesn't have causes, and perhaps this is a more down-to-earth example of what I was getting at. A particle might have spin-up or spin-down, and before we observe it, it doesn't meaningfully have a spin. In fact we could wish that it has a spin but we just don't know what it is.

'We' WOULD KNOW IF and WHEN some one tells us what the 'it' word means or is referring to here, EXACTLY.

But experiment has pretty much ruled that out. Before we look, particles don't have properties. And which properties we observe when we do look, is a matter of probability. There are no causes.

Does this mean that if NO one is looking at the sun, then the particles of the sun do NOT have properties, and thus then the sun would NOT shine?

If yes, then okay?

But if no, then what do you mean here?

Physics no longer has causes, at least at the quantum level. As I say, this is my understanding, and this was the basis of my remark, but I'm not a physicist and I'm sure I am leaving out a lot of important fine points.

Are you basing 'contemporary physics' on what one author said about "a Universe from nothing" and some alleged pairs of particles/non particles 'popping' into creation

Surely 'it' does NOT HOLD the BELIEF that there are items that are caused by NO items at all, or am I wrong here?

This is my understanding. Before we do an observation, there is no fact of the matter about the state of a particle.[/quote]

But this would be like saying, " Before we look at or observe some 'thing' we do not know about that 'thing' ", for example its EXACT state or position, or in other words, 'about the state of that 'thing', which is just PLAIN OBVIOUS is it not?

The result of the observation is probabilistic. There is nothing that "causes" us to observe one state or the other.

I may have completely misunderstood you here, but is it not just our curiosity, and our ability to observe, what causes us to observe one state or the other?

Now whether the physics is right or wrong, or my understanding is right or wrong or somewhere in between (or nowhere at all till you observe it!), this is my explanation of why I wrote what I did. In modern physics, causation is out. Stuff just happens probabilistically for no reason at all; including, and in particular, the creation of the universe.

Wow, you have JUMPED from one CONCLUSION to ANOTHER CONCLUSION, to ANOTHER CONCLUSION, VERY QUICKLY here.

Of course one could say that God made the primordial quantum fields and the laws of physics.

And one could say a multitude of OTHER things as well.

One never gets past one's intuition of looking for causes.

Okay, if you say so.

But WHY do you think or believe that you can NEVER get past your intuition of looking for causes?

But there WAS NO 'first cause', and this is just because of what the Universe IS and how 'It' WORKS, EXACTLY.

I'm not sure what you mean here, referring to the integers or the universe. My example of the integers is only intended to point out that we have a model in which:

* Each thing (event, number, however you interpret it) has an immediate predecessor; yet

* There is no first integer.

Rather, the entire sequence of integers, endless in both directions, just is. There need not be a first cause. Unless you're asking who caused the integers to exist. Well as Kronecker said, The integers are the work of God. All the rest are the work of man.

I was NOT asking ANY such thing.

In fact I was NOT asking ANY thing, AT ALL. As PROVED by the Fact I NEVER asked ANY question.

I was just STATING A Fact.

And, if you really wanted to KNOW whether I was meaning 'integers' or 'the Universe', then I would have TOLD you, that is; if you HAD ASKED.

Also, you seem to have an 'it' was EITHER 'no causes' OR 'God', and do not seem to be ready for ANY other POSSIBILITY.

https://www.cantorsparadise.com/kroneck ... 269735a638

That one is also MISSING what the Ultimate cause IS, EXACTLY.

Do you mean what is the ultimate cause of the integers?

NO

Heck if I know.

WHY did you reply here as though you ALREADY KNEW what my answer would be?

Philosophers argue about that.

But 'that' is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING I have even 'thought', let alone EVER 'talked about' or 'mentioned' ANYWHERE.

You are JUMPING AHEAD here.

Did humans invent them?

What is 'them'? Are you STILL talking about 'integers'?

If yes, then I would say, 'Yes'.

But if no, then what is 'them', EXACTLY?

Or do they have some kind of Platonic existence even in the absence of living things in the universe?

But 'numbers' were invented by human beings.

What numbers refer to, have existed, ALWAYS.

I truly don't know. I suspect humans made them. We have an intuition about the infinite. Where that comes from, I don't know.

Where that 'intuition' comes from is from WITHIN, where thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth LAYS, like, for example, that the Universe is infinite AND eternal.

If someone says that God made the universe, I have no problem with that. Except to ask who made God.

If someone says that the Universe came from 'the primordial quantum field', AND, 'the laws of physics', to you, do you also have no problem with that, except to ask who made 'the primordial quantum' and/or 'the laws of physics' also, or do you NOT ask about them? '

If God just always was, without needing to be caused, why couldn't we just say that the universe always just was, without needing to be caused, and thereby dispense with the need for God?

But the Universe ALWAYS JUST IS, and It NEVER needed to be caused.

But there is NO need for God, just like there is NO need for ANY other word.

That's my challenge to @dattaswami. If there must be an original uncaused cause, why can't it just be the universe itself, rather than positing "God" who was an uncaused cause that created the universe?

WHY can the word 'God' not just be a synonym for 'Universe'?

It's an extra level of indirection that's not needed.

What thee ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, is ALL rather VERY SIMPLE and EASY, REALLY.

[socrat44]

God made the universe using math and physical laws.

[wtf]

And whereabouts in the Universe, exactly, is this place where there is, supposedly, NO matter in it but where ONLY a quantum field is present?

This is pretty standard stuff in contemporary cosmology. I'm not qualified to delve into the details but there are lots of Wiki pages and Youtube videos around on the subject. I'm only reporting my understanding of physics, I'm neither defending or explaining it.

Also, does not anyone else find it contradictory to claim that there is this place with, supposedly, no matter in it but where matter actually is. Obviously, if matter is so-called 'spontaneously' getting created, then there IS 'matter', in that place, or space, correct? Or, am I misreading or just missing some 'thing' here?

I'm only reporting, and not qualified to go deeper. You can Google around for more info. But my understanding is that there is no matter; and then, after a particle/anti-particle pair is spontaneously produced, there is then matter and antimatter. They came literally from "nothing," in the sense that they weren't there before, and now they are. Again, I'm only reporting my own understanding, and I am not defending nor qualified to go any deeper.

There are a LOT of people who will LOOK FOR and "FIND" 'things', which they think or BELIEVE will back up and support their CURRENTLY HELD BELIEFS.

Again, I'm only reporting my own understanding of the popularized explanations of contemporary cosmology and quantum field theory. I'm not defending the theories nor going any deeper into explanations. I can't respond to your objections.

But the so-called 'spontaneous creation of stuff' would be the 'cause'. Oh, AND the supposed and alleged so-called 'primordial quantum field' AND 'the laws of physics' AS WELL, of course.

I suppose it depends on the meaning of "cause." If it happens spontaneously for no particular reason, I don't think you can call it a cause. But if you prefer to call it a cause, I won't argue the point. I haven't got a dog in this fight.

Do you KNOW this FOR SURE? Or, is this some 'thing' that you have been told, or heard?

I'm not qualified to do the math or physics. I've done a lot of reading and Youtube watching. Pair production is pretty standard, as is Krauss's account of the cosmology.

Oh, and by the way, what you talk about here is HOW the supposed 'inconsistency' between physics at the 'quantum level' and 'classical level' can be and WAS resolved.

I don't think I mentioned that. I'm not an expert. I'm honestly not understanding the intent or context of your questions. I'm not attempting to explain physics nor justify or defend it. I'm only giving my own impression of what the physicists believe, and I only did that to explain the context of my claim that there are uncaused events in physics these days. It's not something that's arguable. I'm only giving the basis for my belief. Even if I'm wrong, I'm answering honestly about the basis of my belief. I don't understand where you're coming from.

Okay. But it is great to SEE signs of True INTELLIGENCE here within 'you' "wtf".

Thank you kindly.

'Modern' is a very relative term, hey?

Twentieth century quantum physics and postwar quantum field theory, I suppose.

But even without the cosmological stuff, quantum physics doesn't have causes, and perhaps this is a more down-to-earth example of what I was getting at. A particle might have spin-up or spin-down, and before we observe it, it doesn't meaningfully have a spin. In fact we could wish that it has a spin but we just don't know what it is.

'We' WOULD KNOW IF and WHEN some one tells us what the 'it' word means or is referring to here, EXACTLY.

"It" meaning the particle in question.

Does this mean that if NO one is looking at the sun, then the particles of the sun do NOT have properties, and thus then the sun would NOT shine?

I don't know the answer to that. Of course observing doesn't mean just "looking." We feel the heat and absorb the energy of the sun, and I suppose that counts for an observation.

If yes, then okay?

But if no, then what do you mean here?

I don't mean anything at all. I'm not trying to explain physics. I'm telling you why I wrote what I did. If I'm wrong, so be it.

Are you basing 'contemporary physics' on what one author said about "a Universe from nothing" and some alleged pairs of particles/non particles 'popping' into creation

Pair production was first observed in the laboratory in 1948 according to Wiki. That long predates Krauss's book. I don't think he's advancing any new ideas, only collating the existing ones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

Surely 'it' does NOT HOLD the BELIEF that there are items that are caused by NO items at all, or am I wrong here?

We may be lost in the quoting here, but "it" referred to some particle under discussion. Particles don't hold beliefs, unless we are panpsychics. Are we?

But this would be like saying, " Before we look at or observe some 'thing' we do not know about that 'thing' ", for example its EXACT state or position, or in other words, 'about the state of that 'thing', which is just PLAIN OBVIOUS is it not?

I'm repeating very standard "pop" quantum physics. It's beyond my abilities and the scope of this discussion to explain it from scratch if this is new to you. Maybe you've heard of Schrödinger's ca, a thought experiment that shows that quantum indeterminacy can affect macroscopic entities. Or as physicist and Youtber Sean Carroll once said, "Schrödinger's daughter said, 'My father just didn't like cats.'"

I may have completely misunderstood you here, but is it not just our curiosity, and our ability to observe, what causes us to observe one state or the other?

As I understand it, it turns out that to the best of our theory and experiment, quantum indeterminacy is an actual truth about reality, and not just a limitation of our knowledge.

Now whether the physics is right or wrong, or my understanding is right or wrong or somewhere in between (or nowhere at all till you observe it!), this is my explanation of why I wrote what I did. In modern physics, causation is out. Stuff just happens probabilistically for no reason at all; including, and in particular, the creation of the universe.

Wow, you have JUMPED from one CONCLUSION to ANOTHER CONCLUSION, to ANOTHER CONCLUSION, VERY QUICKLY here.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I said that whether the physics is right or wrong; and whether my understanding of the physics is right or wrong; are irrelevant. The original question was, why did I say that physics no longer has causes. I gave my explanation. Even if I'm all wrong, it's still my understanding and still the reason I said what I said. So I'm not defending the physics, or even my understanding of the physics. I'm only explaining why I wrote what I did, which was the question you asked me.

Of course one could say that God made the primordial quantum fields and the laws of physics.

And one could say a multitude of OTHER things as well.

I'm pointing out my own criticism of Krauss's argument. His book is called, "A Universe from Nothing." Many people have countered that the laws of physics and the primordial quantum fields are not nothing. I agree with that criticism.

One never gets past one's intuition of looking for causes.

Okay, if you say so.

Isn't causality what we're discussing? If you don't have an intuition that causality is required, why push back on the physics that says causality is not required?

But WHY do you think or believe that you can NEVER get past your intuition of looking for causes?

If you think things happen randomly, there's nothing more to discuss. You've dispensed with the need for causality.

I was NOT asking ANY such thing.

At this point in your early post, I was uncertain as to what you were saying. If I misunderstood, perhaps you can clarify your point.

In fact I was NOT asking ANY thing, AT ALL. As PROVED by the Fact I NEVER asked ANY question.

My mistake.

And, if you really wanted to KNOW whether I was meaning 'integers' or 'the Universe', then I would have TOLD you, that is; if you HAD ASKED.

I believe I started my response with, "I'm not sure what you mean here ..." I should have left it at that. I took a guess as to what you meant, and apparently I guessed wrong.

Also, you seem to have an 'it' was EITHER 'no causes' OR 'God', and do not seem to be ready for ANY other POSSIBILITY.

I'm not making any claims at all.

Do you mean what is the ultimate cause of the integers?

NO

Ok I see that I misunderstood you.

Heck if I know.

WHY did you reply here as though you ALREADY KNEW what my answer would be?

By this point in your post I was thoroughly confused as to what you were saying, and made my best guess. In retrospect I should have just asked you to clarify.

But 'that' is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING I have even 'thought', let alone EVER 'talked about' or 'mentioned' ANYWHERE.

I see that I have caused grievous offense. That was not my intention. I was trying my best to respond to what I thought you were asking.

Did humans invent them?

What is 'them'? Are you STILL talking about 'integers'?

If yes, then I would say, 'Yes'.

But if no, then what is 'them', EXACTLY?

I was talking about the integers, but if you weren't talking about them, then nevermind.

But 'numbers' were invented by human beings.

What numbers refer to, have existed, ALWAYS.

I've heard it put that humans invented numerals, and numbers are the abstract things that the numerals point to. Either way, the claim that there is anything at all in the abstract Platonic world of existence is far from settled.

Where that 'intuition' comes from is from WITHIN, where thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth LAYS, like, for example, that the Universe is infinite AND eternal.

Within what? If these truths come from within human beings, then these truths were not true before there were humans. Making them contingent on the existence of humans. You are refuting your own point. If you think that truth comes from within humans, then these truths were not operative before there were humans.

If someone says that the Universe came from 'the primordial quantum field', AND, 'the laws of physics', to you, do you also have no problem with that, except to ask who made 'the primordial quantum' and/or 'the laws of physics' also, or do you NOT ask about them? '

I was only reporting my understanding of physics, for the purpose of explaining why I wrote that physicists no longer believe in causes. I am not defending physics and I am not explaining physics. I have no dog in this fight.

If God just always was, without needing to be caused, why couldn't we just say that the universe always just was, without needing to be caused, and thereby dispense with the need for God?

But the Universe ALWAYS JUST IS, and It NEVER needed to be caused.

But there is NO need for God, just like there is NO need for ANY other word.

Yes, this is exactly my challenge to @dattaswami. Perhaps you should direct your remarks to him. If the universe always was, or if it just randomly popped into existence, then there is no need for God. That is my point, which you appear to agree with.

WHY can the word 'God' not just be a synonym for 'Universe'?

Exactly. That's my question for @dattaswami.

What thee ACTUAL Truth IS, EXACTLY, is ALL rather VERY SIMPLE and EASY, REALLY.

I myself never understand people who believe they know the ultimate truth about anything. What would you say is the ultimate truth?

To wrap this up: You asked me why I said physicists don't believe in causality any more. I answered to the best of my ability. I am not defending the physics. I am not even defending my own superficial and pop-derived understanding of physics. I'm only answering your question, explaining why I said what I did. If I'm wrong, so be it.

[wtf]

God made the universe using math and physical laws.

I myself take exception to this claim. In my opinion, it's possible that the universe is what it is, and math is just the way humans describe and explain the world to ourselves. Just as Bat-Galileo would patiently explain to you that the world is written in the language of echoes. For all we know, the universe is a moment of coherence in an otherwise formless and random world, and math is just our pathetic attempt at imposing order. No different in principle than the ancients making up stories about the constellations in the sky.

The Boltzmann brain thought experiment suggests that it might be more likely for a single brain to spontaneously form in a void (complete with a memory of having existed in our universe) rather than for the entire universe to come about in the manner cosmologists think it actually did.

Not saying it's necessarily false that math underlies the world; only that it's conceivable that math is what humans impose on the world, and not inherent in the world itself.

[socrat44]

God made the universe using math and physical laws.

I myself take exception to this claim. In my opinion, it's possible that the universe is what it is, and math is just the way humans describe and explain the world to ourselves. Just as Bat-Galileo would patiently explain to you that the world is written in the language of echoes. For all we know, the universe is a moment of coherence in an otherwise formless and random world, and math is just our pathetic attempt at imposing order. No different in principle than the ancients making up stories about the constellations in the sky.

The Boltzmann brain thought experiment suggests that it might be more likely for a single brain to spontaneously form in a void (complete with a memory of having existed in our universe) rather than for the entire universe to come about in the manner cosmologists think it actually did.

Not saying it's necessarily false that math underlies the world; only that it's conceivable that math is what humans impose on the world, and not inherent in the world itself.

--------
Math and physical laws existed before anything was created
---------

[wtf]

--------
Math and physical laws existed before anything was created
---------

That's a claim, not a fact. It's the claim at issue.

Let me ask you. If math existed, where did it exist? Was Wiles's proof of Fermat's last theorem in existence before Wiles's parents met? Before there were humans? Before there was life in the universe?

Supposing you say that FLT was true but Wiles's proof is a human artifact; in other words, the theorem was true, but the proof was the historically contingent work of a human.

I would ask, what does that even mean? Does the Continuum hypothesis have a definite truth value in the world, despite there being no hope of a proof OR a disproof within the standard framework of math?

Let me note for the record that Gödel himself believed that there IS an ultimate truth of the matter. Gödel was a Platonist. But must we all be?

Likewise with physical law. Before Newton, did F = ma? But Einstein showed that F = ma is just an approximation to a deeper law. And someday we'll know that Einstein's field equations are just approximations to still deeper laws.

Aren't the laws of physics just what physicists publish in physics journals? What are these so-called laws of physics that you refer to? Clearly we don't as yet know what they are. We only have clever approximations, Newton to Einstein to some genius whose parents haven't yet met. Those Gen-Z kids better get to swipin' on their smartphones so we can produce some more physicists!

Note that I am distinguishing between (a) The "laws of nature," on the one hand; and (b) the laws of physics that they publish in physics journals. The latter are not the ultimate laws of nature; and the former may or may not exist.

What say you?

[bobmax]

Math and physical laws existed before anything was created

The world proves to be consistent with math.
But could it ever be different?
Isn't rationality a product of the same world?
And isn't mathematics the purest expression of rationality?

But at this point, the question that I think we should ask ourselves is:
"Is reality rational and what is not rational is not real? Or is there something else?"

That is, is mathematics the fabric that pervades everything or not?

We would be tempted to answer yes...

Only that life inevitably leads us to the presence of the limit. Just where rationality stops.

And if we manage to resist in front of the limit of the conceivable, without immediately ignoring it, a new awareness can be born in us.

[socrat44]

--------
Math and physical laws existed before anything was created
---------

. . . but the proof was the historically contingent work of a human.

Infinite monkey theorem
In fact, , , , the probability that monkeys filling the entire observable universe would type
a single complete work, such as Shakespeare's Hamlet, is so tiny that the chance
of it occurring during a period of time hundreds of thousands of orders of magnitude longer
than the age of the universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

[socrat44]

Math and physical laws existed before anything was created

But at this point, the question that I think we should ask ourselves is:
"Is reality rational and what is not rational is not real? Or is there something else?"

----
If I am a rational person, then why is the universe so paradoxical?
------

[Sculptor]

Some say that space is absence of any existent thing, which is called as ‘emptiness’ or ‘void’ or ‘vacuum’. These people say that space is nothing or non-existent and is relatively existent only with reference to the existence of matter and energy. For these people, space is just conventional with respect to the rest world. This means that when matter and energy disappear, space also disappears spontaneously. With reference to the absolute existence of unimaginable God,

Oh dear. Here is where yo umake your first mistake..

You can say nothing about "god" if he is unimaginable.
Please start again!