I Believe The Universe Is Purely Mathematical

Here's a crude proof that math existed before the universe began. I love proofs :D They're pretty smexy :P

Lemma 1: Particles are purely mathematical.

Proposition A: Everything can be broken down into a single or a class of elementary particles.

In this situation, the tiniest particle cannot have any physical property, else it could be broken down further. Its properties can only be mathematically described in terms of its resonant frequency and spin. There are no physical properties at this level; everything is just a modeled interaction between said particles with given formulaic patterns.

Proposition B: Everything is made up of infinitely tiny particles or particles that can be broken down an infinite number of times.

In this situation, there is no tiniest particle. Due to the nature of infinity, the supposed "tiniest" particle doesn't exist and the resulting structure has no physical property; again, only a purely mathematical one that defines the interactions between particle structures within itself and between others, its spin, and resonant frequency.

Because these are the only two possible outcomes, being Boolean in nature, and because both have been proven to be purely mathematical, I have now proven that the fundamental particles are purely mathematical.

Corollary: Using the proof of Lemma 1, I introduce a syllogism.

Because the fundamental particles are purely mathematical, and the universe is made up of and only of these fundamental particles, the universe is also purely mathematical in nature.

Lemma 2: Fundamental particles and forces came after math.

Fundamental particles and forces have their basis in math. Fundamental particles and forces couldn't have been created without the prior existence of math, because there wouldn't be any way to define their properties, as proposed in Lemma 1. Thus math had to exist prior to the existence of fundamental particles and forces for them to exist, else they couldn't possibly defined.

Conclusion:

Because everything is made up of fundamental particles and forces, which are in turn purely mathematical, everything is purely mathematical. Because mathematics define these forces and not the other way around, mathematics had to exist first. Because these particles and forces had to be created somehow during the Big Bang, math had to be there to create them initially to define the singularity.

THUS math existed before the creation of the universe :D

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

RipperKing

That's not proof, because math is subjective.

TetrisGuy · 26-30, M

Nope. Math is actually the only thing that's objective.

RipperKing

It's impossible for humans to tell if anything is objective, so math is subjective.

TetrisGuy · 26-30, M

Actually, no. Not quite. Whatever we decide on calling that ripe, red, juicy fruit--be it apple, apfel, or akerhjioerh even--the fact remains the same that it is just that--a ripe, red, juicy fruit. A rose by any other name is just as sweet. Our language of mathematics defines something objective. If it were subjective, math would not work practically. There's an inherent "oneness" or "twoness" that defines objects in terms of plurality or singularity. We can give a term that calls a certain amount as an amount. But we can compare piles of two things of different amounts objectively. Its plurality is inherent. It is not subjective. It's purely objective and is programmed into our universe to dictate how everything is supposed to behave and work. That's why it's our greatest discovery. Without the discovery of math or the concept of counting, we would not have been able to really evolve past land animals in terms of intelligence, let alone humans develop that later form civilization.

RipperKing

It's not purely objective. Humans can't judge reality for themselves, and whether we think those laws are real or not makes it subjective.

TetrisGuy · 26-30, M

Not true. The thing is about math is that since it's based on something conceptual, it wouldn't matter whether or not we can judge reality or not, since most of what we know of math cannot physically exist. There's only a tiny portion of math that can be practically applied or envisioned. But do find a way to *not* be able to draw a line between two points, and you'll be the most famous mathematician in history. Math is purely objective, and is the ONLY thing that's purely objective. If I wasn't so damn sleepy, I'd explain more, but I'm just about to collapse from exhaustion.

RipperKing

The definition is "the abstract science of number, quantity, and space. Mathematics may be studied in its own right ( pure mathematics ), or as it is applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering ( applied mathematics )."
It's a human concept, and it's definitely subjective. 1+1=7, and you can't prove me wrong.

atenra11

That's pretty similar to the criticisms of Descartes, where one gets into how a lot of our mental states are subjective things. We ponder, we appeal to intuition and commonsense and in things like mathematical analysis and topology there are lots of counterexamples that are counterintuitive. Happens in economics as well.
........
A lot of truth boils down to what is consensus.
.......
Which can be subjective humans. Who can agree the sky is blue, but analytical deductions usually work out, ethical ones less so, even harder is stuff on metaphysics/reality/spiritual/religion where we arent too sure of what the statements mean and can have lots of trouble with verification.
........
And well how objective or subjective or obvious is Godel's Proof?
.......
And what of the paradoxes and contradictions in mathematics or logic?
Russell used to have nightmares about the paradoxes.....

atenra11

"Math is purely objective, and is the ONLY thing that's purely objective"
.........
.........
You think so?
I think someone could argue that any Analytical Statement could be purely objective.
..........
Now how about a comment on this one:

- Kant claims that 7+5=12 is a synthetic statement.

- No matter how much we analyze the idea of 7+5 we will not find there the idea of 12.

- We must arrive at the idea of 12 by application to objects in the intuition.

- Kant points out that this becomes all the more clear with bigger numbers.

- Frege, on this point precisely, argues towards the opposite direction.

- Kant wrongly assumes that in a proposition containing "big" numbers we must count points or some such thing to assert their truth value.

- Frege argues that without ever having any intuition toward any of the numbers in the following equation: 654,768+436,382=1,091,150 we nevertheless can assert it is true.

- This is provided as evidence that such a proposition is analytic.

- While Frege agrees that geometry is indeed synthetic a priori, arithmetic must be analytic.

Was Kant purely objective?
Was Frege purely objective?

- Although Bertrand Russell later found a major flaw in Frege's work (this flaw is known as Russell's paradox, which is resolved by axiomatic set theory), the book was influential in subsequent developments, such as Principia Mathematica.

- The book can also be considered the starting point in analytic philosophy, since it revolves mainly around the analysis of language, with the goal of clarifying the concept of number.

..............

so how can the concept of number be purely objective, if you have to look deeply into language?

and was Frege purely objective?
And if so, why did Russell find flaws in his work?
and did Godel find flaws in Russell?

Maybe Morris Kline was onto something about Mathematics and the Loss of Certainity.

atenra11

Cauchy liked his rigor, and his total dislike of intuition and diagrams and anything geometric.

Yet he was later to have a few careless mistakes, oh and much much later
not rigorous enough.
I guess he wasnt analytical and objective enough.