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.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

dumbest shit ever

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

are you trying to get stupid people into stem by saying, that's ok, nobody understands it?

thats a race to the bottom and you're gay.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

where is the proof that the universe was fine-tuned?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

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'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.

Those who truly believe in God know that God could have easily implanted everything we should know into our brains. To deny that is to deny God.

So the question becomes, why didn't that happen? The old "why are we here?" question.

 

[Cypress]

Those who truly believe in God know that God could have easily implanted everything we should know into our brains. To deny that is to deny God.

So the question becomes, why didn't that happen? The old "why are we here?" question.

Good point.

Uniquely among animals on Earth, we have a consciousness imprinted on us to transcend ourselves and discover the secrets of the universe.

I think there is a reasonable probability we are the only sentient consciousness in the galaxy, and if true that really begs the question about why consciousness is so unique, fleeting, and precious.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Good point.

Uniquely among animals on Earth, we have a consciousness imprinted on us to transcend ourselves and discover the secrets of the universe.

I think there is a reasonable probability we are the only sentient consciousness in the galaxy, and if true that really begs the question about why consciousness is so unique, fleeting, and precious.

Thanks.

Well, at least those who survived the law of the jungle. LOL The Red Queen hypothesis aside, Darwin's laws still apply.

Due to the vast numbers involved, I believe there are others, but the distances and probabilities involved make it unlikely we'd have any interaction with current mosts of travel. Agreed on the rarity of consciousness.

 

[Cypress]

Thanks.

Well, at least those who survived the law of the jungle. LOL The Red Queen hypothesis aside, Darwin's laws still apply.

Due to the vast numbers involved, I believe there are others, but the distances and probabilities involved make it unlikely we'd have any interaction with current mosts of travel. Agreed on the rarity of consciousness.

Growing up on Star Trek I just assumed the galaxy would be pregnant with sentient life.

Given how many millions of species have existed on Earth for the last 3.4 billion years, homo sapiens are starting to look like a one-off, a fluke, a perfect-storm happenstance to me. Consequently, I'm starting to feel like in the search for evidence of sentient life, the default position is that we are the only sentient consciousness in the galaxy, until evidence shows otherwise.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Growing up on Star Trek I just assumed the galaxy would be pregnant with sentient life.

Given how many millions of species have existed on Earth for the last 3.4 billion years, homo sapiens are starting to look like a one-off, a fluke, a perfect-storm happenstance to me. Consequently, I'm starting to feel like in the search for evidence of sentient life, the default position is that we are the only sentient consciousness in the galaxy, until evidence shows otherwise.

but the effectiveness of mathematics is rational and reasonable.

premise of thread still idiotic fallacy.

 

[Cypress]

premise of thread still idiotic fallacy!!

You would have to have studied or investigated science and math at a higher intellectual and philosophical level to really appreciate or marvel at it's relationship to the structure and scaffolding of the cosmos.

Your last experience with math and science was 10th grade, and that was just taught at the level of rote memorization. So naturally it's just something you take for granted, and it never occurred to you to ask seemingly simple but deceptively complex questions about what it all really means.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

You would have to have studied or investigated science and math at a higher intellectual and philosophical level to really appreciate or marvel at it's relationship to the structure and scaffolding of the cosmos.

Your last experience with math and science was 10th grade, and that was just taught at the level of rote memorization. So naturally it's just something you take for granted, and it never occurred to you to ask seemingly simple but deceptively complex questions about what it all really means.

bullshit.

math is rational.

you're a fool.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Growing up on Star Trek I just assumed the galaxy would be pregnant with sentient life.

Given how many millions of species have existed on Earth for the last 3.4 billion years, homo sapiens are starting to look like a one-off, a fluke, a perfect-storm happenstance to me. Consequently, I'm starting to feel like in the search for evidence of sentient life, the default position is that we are the only sentient consciousness in the galaxy, until evidence shows otherwise.

We don't know how many sentient species have existed on Earth over billions of years. All we know is who has survived. In another billion or so years, some sentient creatures may be wondering if they were the only ones that ever existed.

Note that various tectonic shifts and ice ages may have wiped out previous signs of life. The dinosaurs were wiped out 65M years ago, a relatively short time in the age of the Earth.

Planet Earth Through the Ages - NASA Science

Earth hasn’t always looked the same. Over billions of years, it has gone from orange dot, to a snowball to the blue orb we call home When we talk about "Earth-like" planets, that term can be very different than the world we know today.

science.nasa.gov