The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences

[Dutch Uncle]

Anything is possible. The question always becomes what is most reasonable. There could be a billion quadrillion number of universes, and we just happen to be in the one that is perfectly organized and finely tuned for the existence and persistence of complex atomic matter.

At the end of the day, a mathematically rational, lawfully organized, and finely tuned cosmos does need an explanation.

If there is a creator behind the Universe, then why would it be limited to only one Universe?

Agreed. Unfortunately, while we're in a position to see it and understand it, what's outside of it, if anything, remains a mystery.

An analogy would be walking on the beach of a deserted isle and spotting a strange footprint in the sand. We know it exists and that it's not our doing. We can study its size, shape and guess at weight by the depth of the print, maybe even the sex of the maker, but based on those facts alone, we don't know how it got there.

 

[Cypress]

If there is a creator behind the Universe, then why would it be limited to only one Universe?

Unless the mathematical laws and physical constants of the cosmos take on fairly specific values, it's widely thought a universe would either collapse back on itself microseconds after originating, or it would expand so rapidly that complex atomic matter wouldn't get a chance to form.

I don't know why a rational creator or force would create such universes.

Agreed. Unfortunately, while we're in a position to see it and understand it, what's outside of it, if anything, remains a mystery.

An analogy would be walking on the beach of a deserted isle and spotting a strange footprint in the sand. We know it exists and that it's not our doing. We can study its size, shape and guess at weight by the depth of the print, maybe even the sex of the maker, but based on those facts alone, we don't know how it got there.

View attachment 69108

You're right.
I don't think there will ever conceivably be an adequate scientific explanation for the origin of the universe, the origin of life, or for the fine tuning of the cosmos.

We should never have the hubris to believe the universe is required to reveal all it's secrets to the human mind.

All we can do is exercise reason and logic to discard the most unlikely explanations and winnow the possibilities down to what is more reasonable.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Unless the mathematical laws and physical constants of the cosmos take on fairly specific values, it's widely thought a universe would either collapse back on itself microseconds after originating, or it would expand so rapidly that complex atomic matter wouldn't get a chance to form.

I don't know why a rational creator or force would create such universes.

you don't have to know why.

god knows why and it's his business.

You're right.
I don't think there will ever conceivably be an adequate scientific explanation for the origin of the universe, the origin of life, or for the fine tuning of the cosmos.

do you have evidence someone fine-tuned the cosmos?

We should never have the hubris to believe the universe is required to reveal all it's secrets to the human mind.

All we can do is exercise reason and logic to discard the most unlikely explanations and winnow the possibilities down to what is more reasonable.

but it's still reasonable that math is effective.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

cypress believes it's unreasonable that math is effective. <- dumbest shit ever. pointer to dumb.

 

[Cypress]

you don't have to know why!

I don't believe in remaining willfully ignorant

god knows why and it's his business!

I don't believe in blind faith. I believe in asking the right questions.

do you have evidence someone fine-tuned the cosmos?

There's no proof of it. The question that has to be asked is why is the universe finely tuned at the mathmatical level of universal physical parameters, and how likely is it to be simply because of chance.

but it's still reasonable that math is effective.

Given it's track record, it's reasonable to expect math to continue to be effective But we have no rational reason to explain why human invented math so perfectly reflects the structure of the universe, and why it appears unexpectedly or points to physical phenomena we heretofore had never been aware of

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

I don't believe in remaining willfully ignorant

you should still give god his privacy and respect his decisions.

I don't believe in blind faith. I believe in asking the right questions.

I don't either.

the golden rule is a morally superior doctrine. and morality is rational.

There's no proof of it. The question that has to be asked is why is the universe finely tuned at the mathmatical level of universal physical parameters, and how likely is it to be simply because of chance.

Given it's track record, it's reasonable to expect math to continue to be effective But we have no rational reason to explain why human invented math so perfectly reflects the structure of the universe, and why it appears unexpectedly or points to physical phenomena we heretofore had never been aware of

it's rational that math is rational, not a mystery.

you're a fucking idiot.