Unraveling the Universe: The Relationship Between Matter and Mathematics

mateuszica
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Are we made of pure mathematics? Is everything in universe mathematics?
I mean, everything in physics is "written" in math.
Looks like that the definitive theory of everything will be pure mathematical.
Matter & Energy = Pure Math?
 
Space news on Phys.org
I would admit that much of superstring theory relies on pure mathematics and that mathematics is the underpinning of all physical actions.
 
I have thought that before as well, but mathematics are defined by us. The universe doesn't do maths itself or calculate its status every microsecond. Other civilisations would be likely to come up with similar results to us, but with far different mathematics systems. Maths is likely just a product of intelligent beings trying to understand the world around them. Maths can be applied to everything in our world to help explain things. Even psychology and studies on behaviour use maths to predict outcomes. But do we run on maths then, the calculation our brain has to make to simply catch a ball is tremendous, yet we can do it without thinking about it. Does this mean our brains did a ton of maths to predict where the ball would be? If so maths with what numbers, what formulas?

Doesnt your question imply that originally there was nothing but an equation, x=? with ? being the entire universe/multiverse and that by this it suddenly sprung into existence? How do you define an equation as part of matter or energy?
 
Eyelegal said:
I have thought that before as well, but mathematics are defined by us. The universe doesn't do maths itself or calculate its status every microsecond. Other civilisations would be likely to come up with similar results to us, but with far different mathematics systems. Maths is likely just a product of intelligent beings trying to understand the world around them.?

I don't think the creator of this thread is referring to the "way" in which we describe mathematics.

I think creator of the thread is discussing the possiblility that the universe exists in the way it does because it is the only logical(or mathematical) option it has. I am not sure whether this thread should rather belong to the philosophical section.More experienced members are better suited to articulate an answer to such a question.


P.S :- what is creator of thread called on a forum?? Sorry for asking for I don't know the mot juste :biggrin:
 
ask_LXXXVI said:
I don't think the creator of this thread is referring to the "way" in which we describe mathematics.

I think creator of the thread is discussing the possiblility that the universe exists in the way it does because it is the only logical(or mathematical) option it has. I am not sure whether this thread should rather belong to the philosophical section.More experienced members are better suited to articulate an answer to such a question.


P.S :- what is creator of thread called on a forum?? Sorry for asking for I don't know the mot juste :biggrin:

Creator of a thread is called an OP, for original poster.

Anyways, I don't think that the universe is "mathematical" at all. It just "is," mathematics is simply intelligent life's way of defining and understanding the universe.
 
Always remember, maths and the universe are not commutative. i.e Everything in the Universe can be explained by maths, but not everything explained by maths occurs in the Universe.
 
ask_LXXXVI said:
I think creator of the thread is discussing the possiblility that the universe exists in the way it does because it is the only logical(or mathematical) option it has.

Yes, the best description of mathematics is "the science of patterns" - a pattern being something that logically has to be due to emergent self-consistency constraints.

So the claim that the universe is mathematical is really only the claim that it exists because it is a deeply self-consistent pattern. And what would be exciting would be to have an argument that shows it is the only possible emergent pattern - it is somehow a sum across all possible patterns and thus the only one that can become an actual pattern.

This would be the line of thought taken by a symmetry and symmetry-breaking approach to modelling the big bang universe. There may be a theoretical infinity of symmetries (dimensions, degrees of freedom) but only one sum across all the possible ways to then break that infinite symmetry.

There are obvious things left out by this approach of course. The fundamental constants of our universe look arbitrary - why do they take their particular values. This might not be part of the maths of symmetry-breaking, just localised accidents (and so the maths might spawn multiple universes rather than just a single solution). But we can still hope that even the constants are just geometrically-determined ratios, like pi and e, and so reduce to "just mathematical pattern".

Philosophically, this is a modern version of Platonism. Reality is composed of substance and form. The usual way of thinking is materialistic - you start with some initial stuff (like an inflaton field) and then form emerges. But the idea that the universe reduces to maths is kind of saying that it is the form that conjures the local substances into being.

However there is a deeper philosophical position yet which doesn't require substance or form to pre-exist. And you find many echoes of this view in speculations from Wheeler's pre-geometry to Bilson's braids. The argument would go that a state of infinite symmetry is really neither a form nor a substance, just a raw potential. But when it breaks in some definite (and logically self-consistent) fashion, then form comes into being. And also the substance from which that form is constructed.

So reality is an emergent pattern, but a pattern made of emergent stuff. And mathematics as the science of pattern will make us think the answer - if this proves to be the answer - is more about the rigid self-consistency of global organisation than the random or accidental happenstance of material events (like quantum fluctuations out of "nothingness" which spark big bangs).
 
Great post apeiron. Thanks.
I believe that math is not a product of human cognition, i think math is in nature.
I believe that the universe is pure math, even the GEOMETRY of space-time is pure math.
I cannot say if its really a fact. I'm trying to find the answers.
 
Some Snippets of the book "IS GOD A MATHEMATICIAN" :

Pythagoreans​

On the question of whether mathematics was discovered or invented, Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans had no doubt—mathematics was real, immutable, omnipresent, and more sublime than anything that could conceivably emerge from the feeble human mind. The Pythagoreans literally embedded the universe into mathematics. In fact, to the Pythagoreans, God was not a mathematician—mathematics was God!

Plato​


To Plato, the only things that truly and wholly exist are those abstract forms and ideas of mathematics, since only in mathematics, he maintained, could we gain absolutely certain and objective knowledge. Consequently, in Plato’s mind, mathematics becomes closely associated with the divine. In the dialogue Timaeus, the creator god uses mathematics to fashion the world,

and in The Republic, knowledge of mathematics is taken to be a crucial step on the pathway to knowing the divine forms. Plato does not use mathematics for the formulation of some laws of nature that are testable by experiments. Rather, for him, the mathematical character of the world is simply a consequence of the fact that “God always geometrizes.”

Plato wrote in Timaeus: “As there still remained one compound figure, the fifth, God used it for the whole, broidering it with designs.” So the dodecahedron represented the universe as a whole. Note, however, that the dodecahedron, with its twelve pentagonal surfaces, has the golden ratio written all over it. Both its volume and its surface area can be expressed as simple functions of the golden ratio (the same is true for the icosahedron).

The note may have been written by the fourth century orator Sopatros, and it reads (in a translation by Andrew Barker): “There had been inscribed at the front of the School of Plato, ‘Let no one who is not a geometer enter.’ [That is] in place of ‘unfair’ or ‘unjust’: for geometry pursues fairness and justice.” The note seems to imply that Plato’s inscription replaced “unfair or unjust person” in a sign that was common in sacred places (“Let no unfair or unjust person enter”) with the phrase “one who is not a geometer.”

Archimedes​

Archimedes changed the world of mathematics and its perceived relation to the cosmos in a profound way. By displaying an astounding combination of theoretical and practical interests, he provided the first empirical, rather than mythical, evidence for an apparent mathematical design of nature. The perception of mathematics being the language of the universe, and therefore the concept of God as a mathematician,was born in Archimedes’ work.

Galileo​

Centuries before the question of why mathematics was so effective in explaining nature was even asked, Galileo thought he already knew the answer! To him, mathematics was simply the language of the universe. To understand the universe, he argued, one must speak this language. God is indeed a mathematician. First, we must realize that to Galileo, mathematics ultimately meant geometry

Galileo was not satisfied with mathematics as the mere go-between or conduit. He took the extra bold step of equating mathematics with God’s native tongue. This identification, however, raised another serious problem—one that was about to have a dramatic impact on Galileo’s life. According to Galileo, God spoke in the language of mathematics in designing nature. Moreover, Galileo argued that by pursuing science using the language of mechanical equilibrium and mathematics, humans could understand the divine mind. Put differently, when a person finds a solution to a problem using proportional geometry, the insights and understanding gained are godlike.

Descartes​

Functions are truly the bread and butter of modern scientists, statisticians, and economists. Once many repeated scientific experiments or observations produce the same functional interrelationships, those may acquire the elevated status of laws of nature—mathematical descriptions of a behavior all natural phenomena are found to obey. Descartes’ ideas therefore opened the door for a systematic mathematization of nearly everything—the very essence of the notion that God is a mathematician.


For our present purposes the most interesting point is Descartes’ view that God created all the “eternal truths.” In particular, he declared that “the mathematical truths which you call eternal have been laid down by God and depend on Him entirely no less than the rest of his creatures.” So the Cartesian God was more than a mathematician, in the sense of being the creator of both mathematics and a physical world that is entirely based on mathematics. According to this worldview, which was becoming prevalent at the end of the seventeenth century, humans clearly only discover mathematics and do not invent it.

Newton

For Newton, the world’s very existence and the mathematical regularity of the observed cosmos were evidence for God’s presence.

Newton added yet another twist, based on the universality of his laws. He regarded the fact that the entire cosmos is governed by the same laws and appears to be stable as further evidence for God’s guiding hand.

In his book Opticks, Newton made it clear that he did not believe that the laws of nature by themselves were sufficient to explain the universe’s existence—God was the creator and sustainer of all the atoms that make up the cosmic matter: “For it became him [God] who created them [the atoms] to set them in order. And if he did so, it’s unphilosophical to seek for any other Origin of the World, or to pretend that it might arise out of a Chaos by the mere Laws of Nature.” In other words, to Newton, God was a mathematician (among other things), not just as a figure of speech, but almost literally—the Creator God brought into existence a physical world that was governed by mathematical laws.
 
  • #10
The views of Roger Penrose are also appealing.In his book http://books.google.co.in/books?id=...ok_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA" , he lists three types of worlds :- Platonic, mental, Physical.

According to the mathematicians who hold Platonic views of mathematics,maths is something which is neither the product of our minds nor is it a product of the physical universe. Maths has an independent existence, i.e it is purely objective.
It is not mental , in the sense that even if no intellegent life existed to ponder over mathematical proofs , that wouldn't invalidate the truth of mathematical proofs.
Similarly it doesn't depend on the existence of a physical universe .
I feel there isn't much doubt about this.

But what is more interesting is how much the physical universe relates to the mathematical world.
Or how the mental world relates to the mathematical.
Penrose has some interesting views on this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
If you break down a atom to the smallest part you will find pure math?
 
  • #12
mateuszica said:
If you break down a atom to the smallest part you will find pure math?

This is turning out to be highly philosophical.:biggrin:
 
  • #13
Even though I agree with most of what apeiron wrote, it should be made clear that saying the universe is "pure math" is an evident case of mistaking the map for the territory.
Math are just symbols, an human idealization (really helpful OTH) of certain aspects of reality. Most posters in this thread seem to understand this but judging by mateuzsica posts #8 and #11 I thought this should be stressed.
 
  • #14
TrickyDicky said:
saying the universe is "pure math" is an evident case of mistaking the map for the territory.

I certainly agree that with that.
 
  • #15
TrickyDicky View Post said:
Math are just symbols
OK you, maybe you are right.
But defining what math really is, is very complex.
For centuries the Philosophy of mathematics deal with this question.

  • Mathematical realism, like realism in general, holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind.
  • Empiricism is a form of realism that says that we discover mathematical facts by empirical research, just like facts in any of the other sciences.
  • Logicism is the thesis that mathematics is reducible to logic, and hence nothing but a part of logic. Logicists hold that mathematics can be known independent of experience.
  • Social constructivism theories see mathematics primarily as a social construct, as a product of culture, subject to correction and change
  • Intuitionism, is an approach to mathematics as the constructive mental activity of humans. That is, mathematics does not consist of analytic activities wherein deep properties of existence are revealed and applied.
  • Platonism is the form of realism that suggests that mathematical entities are abstract, have no spatiotemporal or causal properties, and are eternal and unchanging.

Instead of saying that the universe could be "pure math" (which can be controversial)
What about saying its that the universe is all geometry which are not just symbols ? (Or geometry is also just symbols?)
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Max Tegmark, that's the man for the OP
 
  • #17
mateuszica said:
But defining what math really is, is very complex.
For centuries the Philosophy of mathematics deal with this question.

  • Mathematical realism, like realism in general, holds that mathematical entities exist independently of the human mind.
  • Empiricism is a form of realism that says that we discover mathematical facts by empirical research, just like facts in any of the other sciences.
  • Logicism is the thesis that mathematics is reducible to logic, and hence nothing but a part of logic. Logicists hold that mathematics can be known independent of experience.
  • Social constructivism theories see mathematics primarily as a social construct, as a product of culture, subject to correction and change
  • Intuitionism, is an approach to mathematics as the constructive mental activity of humans. That is, mathematics does not consist of analytic activities wherein deep properties of existence are revealed and applied.
  • Platonism is the form of realism that suggests that mathematical entities are abstract, have no spatiotemporal or causal properties, and are eternal and unchanging.

there is also another school of thought for what mathematics is. it is Mathematical Formalism.It was advocated by David Hilbert.

mateuszica said:
Instead of saying that the universe could be "pure math" (which can be controversial)
What about saying its that the universe is all geometry which are not just symbols ? (Or geometry is also just symbols?)

There shouldn't be much difference in saying that universe is pure math or pure geometry.

Also I think whether or not universe is pure math or not can be settled only if we can find out for sure what the basic building block(whether it is a particle or a field or a string) of our universe is. Provided we find this block , we can then say that the universe is an arrangement of this block. We can then have a mathematical representation of the universe.But still we can't say it is pure math as this representation is just an "association" with mathematical ideas and is not mathematics in itself.

I guess this is what was meant by
TrickyDicky said:
saying the universe is "pure math" is an evident case of mistaking the map for the territory.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
I have closed this thread. The Cosmology forum is for the discussion of the professional science of cosmology, not for the discussion of philosophy, personal theory, and non-mainstream ideas.
 
Back
Top