display | more...

The universe is mathematically consistent.

Mathematics and physics are based at their foundations, on observations about the universe we live in. Distinctions between an abstract maths and a non-abstract physics are arbitrary (literally), contradictory, and false. If maths is an abstract language then so is physics. Both are human theories about the nature of reality. The nature of reality is not abstract, and the nature of reality is mathematical.

There is a problem in differentiating between: 'math' - the non-formalised concepts of number people have innately; 'mathematics' - the formalised symbolic system; and 'mathematicality' - the natural ordering of quantities, ratios and relationships in the physical reality that predates human obeservation. But these distinctions are important, as they allow us to seperate the 'observed reality' from the 'description of reality'.

The human concepts of number and numerical relationships are developed from experiental interaction with the physical world - we have proof in a child's ability to acquire math without formal instruction. But even then, the concepts themselves pre-exist humanity. We can prove some animals have an innate concept of number.

Experiental interaction - the effect of the natural world in which life exists, on the development of how life processes interactions with the natural world. Sight evolved from interaction of electromagnetic radiation with early life. Human concepts of colour are highly abstracted but they come from an evolved mechanism which can distinguish between different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation - as a useful way of distinguishing between the different physcial materials from which the light was radiated/reflected.

Yet how strange would it be to suggest that, because great works of art are produced from human, abstract concepts of colour - the nature of visible light cannot be investigated.

Human concepts of maths are based on analogous experiental interaction - how does an abstract concept evolve unless it corresponds to an aspect of the natural world which is useful to our survival? Early humans didn't sit down and 'do maths' for teh lulz. They had a concept of number and spacial relationships because the world they lived in was structured that way.

The theories and concepts of maths, like the theories and concepts of physics, can be tested by observation. We test maths against the observable, mathematical nature of reality. So even complex theories are ultimately tested by seeing what result they give for 1+1 = ? If a theory suggest 1+1=3 then we can say it is wrong. But it’s only wrong because it contradicts observable reality.

Even the mathematical concepts which don't occur naturally, still have to prove they are consistent with the observable truth that 1+1=2 to be accepted. They have to show their BASIS is in reality. No matter how complex a mathematical entity, no matter how ingeniously designed - it MUST be derived from observable truths.

Maths is based on concrete proofs, not abstraction. This has been a fundamental error in the way physicists approach maths and mathematicians approach physics. Maths and physics are interconnected.

The physical and mathematical natures of reality are connected.

So, here's the theory:

1. Observable entities: Physical reality is the result of a mathematical universe.

2. The descriptions of the observable entities: Physics can be derived from maths.

Starting (for want of a better word) from the 'big bang', which has an integer value of 1. Then dividing that single integer value into smaller and smaller parts (but all still part of the same single existence) - and the parts become more, and more complexly 'organised' - as their 'number' increases over time - and as the complexity of the 'numbers' increases - and the complexities of the ways they relate within the universe they're part of increases - so complex systems such as quantum mechanics begin operating. Number and so math, applied to a single existence, as it divides into smaller constituents parts, leads to physics, leads to this physical reality. So that the nature of this physical reality, and the nature of its constituent parts, is investigable through number/math.

It's not only a testable hypothesis, the tests they've done so far have not yet disproved it.

It's called 'teh big bang theory' because it's a theory of everything, with added play. :P

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.