Originally posted by Royce
As a philosophic person, the "Why is such an abstract system so universal and so accurate at modeling the physical universe?" is one of the primary questions a philosopher can ask. To me, it implies a universal oneness of which we are all part.
I don't see how you reach this conclusion, but I agree that the question is a very deep one.
The reason it is so deep is that if mathematics really does describe the physical universe than we know from Goedel that there is something that exists which lies outside all mathematical systems of description of that universe.
I would suggest that this is consciousness. It cannot be a coincidence that every introspective philosopher since records began has claimed the same thing as Goedel, that some questions do not have answers, whatever system of logic we choose.
In a roundabout way this is what led Einstein to the conclusion that
"So far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain. And so far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality”. The same provise applies to all non-trivial systems of proofs.
This is the reason why in Buddhist (Advaita etc) writings there is so much self-contradiction, and why Lao Tsu writes
“Words that are strictly true seem to be paradoxical.” (Tao the Ching)
The key to the whole muddle (in my not nearly humble enough opinion) is provided by Martin Heidegger.
"Metaphysics, however, speaks continually and in the most various ways of Being. Metaphysics gives, and seems to confirm, the appearance that it asks and answers the question concerning Being. In fact, metaphysics never answers the question concerning the truth of Being, for it never asks this question. Metaphysics does not ask this question because it thinks of Being only by representing beings as beings. It means all beings as a whole, although it speaks of Being. It refers to Being and means beings as beings. From its beginning to its completion, the propositions of metaphysics have been strangely involved in a persistent confusion of beings and Being. This confusion, to be sure, must be considered an event and not a mere mistake. It cannot by any means be charged to a mere negligence of thought or a carelessness of expression. Owing to this persistent confusion, the claim that metaphysics poses the question of Being lands us in utter error."
What Heidegger is asserting is that metaphysics cannot answer the big questions about existence. In this he agrees with the conclusion of most 'Eastern' phislophical doctrines, and for the same logical reasons, namely that ultimate Being lies beyond notions of truth and falsity because it has no true or false attributes, and is thus not a theorem in any possible formal system.
