# The universe is a mathematical construct

They are aspects of the same thing. Physics describe the type of objects, Values describe the inherent potentials of the objects.

Of which Values need not be described nor necessary for the Physical , Physics to exist .

The Physical , is infinite in its existence . This is a truism .

Last edited:
Of which Values need not be described nor necessary for the Physical , Physics to exist .
The Physical, is infinite in its existence .
Naaaaah....you don't know that....and if it is, its a mathematical object......

river said:
Of which Values need not be described nor necessary for the Physical , Physics to exist .
The Physical, is infinite in its existence .

Naaaaah....you don't know that....and if it is, its a mathematical object......

Yeah I do . Values ;

Of which Values need not be described nor necessary for the Physical , Physics to exist .
The Physical, is infinite in its existence .

Both statements are True .

What you need to know is that all physical interactions are based on just a few mathematical laws.
Those are weasel words. It's not the apparent simplicity of a law that counts; it's the underlying content. Most of the time, the underlying content depends on assumptions and definitions not contained in the law itself.

Take a simple example like Newton's second law of motion F=ma. To understand that law, you already have to have defined concepts of mass, acceleration and force. For acceleration, you need to have notions of distance and time, along with an understanding of rates of change and calculus. For mass, you need a concept of inertia. For force, it it arguable as to what the exact definition even is.

It's also easy to construct all-encompassing "laws" from simpler, more specific laws. For example, suppose I want a single law to express both \$F=ma\$ and Einstein's \$E=mc^2\$. I could write:

\$(F-ma)^2 + (E-mc^2)^2 = 0\$

and call that a new "law" that encompasses both of the original "laws". But it would be a lie to claim that this new "law" is especially useful just because it "unifies" the two other laws.

It is impossible to express physical actions and reactions without identifying the mathematical values involved.
i.e. apple + apple = apple? or 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples!
"This apple is red."

Which mathematical values are identified in that statement?

Physical behaviors are based on mathematical potentials, i.e. that which is mathematically allowed or restricted based on the inherent value of the physical object.
Previously, I have told you that scientists don't use the term "mathematical potential" the way you use it. Obviously, I wasted my time explaining that to you, because you've just stuck with your original misuse of the term.

What you see as a biblical statement of God's identity is really a mathematical statement of Euler's identity.

i am that i am
= Euler's identity........
Pseudoscientific mystical nonsense.

Those are weasel words. It's not the apparent simplicity of a law that counts; it's the underlying content. Most of the time, the underlying content depends on assumptions and definitions not contained in the law itself.

Take a simple example like Newton's second law of motion F=ma. To understand that law, you already have to have defined concepts of mass, acceleration and force. For acceleration, you need to have notions of distance and time, along with an understanding of rates of change and calculus. For mass, you need a concept of inertia. For force, it it arguable as to what the exact definition even is.

It's also easy to construct all-encompassing "laws" from simpler, more specific laws. For example, suppose I want a single law to express both \$F=ma\$ and Einstein's \$E=mc^2\$. I could write:

\$(F-ma)^2 + (E-mc^2)^2 = 0\$

and call that a new "law" that encompasses both of the original "laws". But it would be a lie to claim that this new "law" is especially useful just because it "unifies" the two other laws.

"This apple is red."

Which mathematical values are identified in that statement?

Previously, I have told you that scientists don't use the term "mathematical potential" the way you use it. Obviously, I wasted my time explaining that to you, because you've just stuck with your original misuse of the term.

Pseudoscientific mystical nonsense.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you point out that to write down a mathematical "law" you need first to define the concepts that you relate to one another by means of that law. This is something you have to do in words. A second issue is most "laws" are not obeyed exactly by real systems. A lot of them are approximations, describing how an artificially simplified, ideal system would behave, which we then use to approximate the behaviour of some real system. There is no exact mathematical model for any chemical system more complex than the hydrogen molecule ion H2+ ! (2 protons plus one electron). Something like a sodium atom is beyond it.

It is undeniable that there is underlying order in the world, simplified versions of which which we can often express in mathematics. But it seems to me that's about as far as it goes. There is plenty of order in nature that can't be expressed in maths at all. One example would be the features of a glaciated landscape.

The reason we see mathematical order in the universe is because we can think symbolically.

So a more accurate way to arrange the words might be: the universe appears to be constructed in a mathematical (i.e. symbolic) way, for humans who have this adaptation--symbolic thought--and use it like a tool. Humans are unique in this regard, perhaps for no other reason than other animals have no need; so why do we?

Tool using isn't unique to humans, but we seem to be unique in using "mathematical" tools; other animals can count, but other animals don't trade goods with each other.

Last edited:
I think you hit the nail on the head when you point out that to write down a mathematical "law" you need first to define the concepts that you relate to one another by means of that law. This is something you have to do in words.

Because it is the Physical that Defines Any Law . Not Mathematics . And the Physical is Described in Words . In All It's Forms . Because the Physical is Physical . Not a Number.

The Physical has Three Dimensions that are properties to it fundamentally , Breadth , Depth and Length . That it .

Mathematics gets into 11 Dimensions for the things physical to be accounted for , string theory which Michio Kaku is exploring . To Understand the Universe .

I Prefer Understanding the Physical . To Understand the Universe .

The rest of the post was very good as well .

Last edited:
Because it is the Physical that Defines Any Law . Not Mathematics .
But you can describe Newton's laws of motion in words; then you interpret equations as being equivalent to the descriptions, just a kind of shorthand, a change of notation, say.

Notation without interpretation is just a language, so it might have finite state machines that can accept (not interpret) any string of symbols in the language; the finite state acceptors are a kind of language invariant.

You need to upgrade to a machine that can store information about the strings it accepts; computation 101.
Or, if humans are just symbol processing machines (biological ones), then we must have to store and modify the symbols. Copying information is such a modification, you have two copies of something with the same abstract "content"; like two copies of the same newspaper.

Last edited:
river said:
Because it is the Physical that Defines Any Law . Not Mathematics .

But you can describe Newton's laws of motion in words; then you interpret equations as being equivalent to the descriptions, just a kind of shorthand, a change of notation, say.

Notation without interpretation is just a language, so it might have finite state machines that can accept (not interpret) any string of symbols in the language; the finite state acceptors are a kind of language invariant.

You need to upgrade to a machine that can store information about the strings it accepts; computation 101.
Or, if humans are just symbol processing machines (biological ones), then we must have to store and modify the symbols. Copying information is such a modification, you have two copies of something with the same abstract "content"; like two copies of the same newspaper.

Highlighted

Clearify what you mean here . And Describe Newton's Laws Physically .

Last edited:
Describe Newton's Laws Physically .
I'm afraid you will need to clarify what that means. Do you mean give a "physical" description of Newton's laws?
That's easy, like I said you can describe the laws with words. Now just show that words are physical and we're done.

I'm afraid you will need to clarify what that means. Do you mean give a "physical" description of Newton's laws?
That's easy, like I said you can describe the laws with words. Now just show that words are physical and we're done.

Highlighted

Words describing the physical have the physical behind the word ( Meaning of the word ).

So, clearly, equations as strings of abstract symbols, are not the same thing as the actual physics.

Ok, but what we observe is also physical; observation is a physical process. Physical vectors don't "really" exist either, but you might as well accept that they do. Particularly if you want to build a load-bearing structure.

I would suggest that without the exacting symbolic representations of physical things like strain, pressure, heat etc, engineering wouldn't be very interesting. We wouldn't need computer models either.

Would we understand electricity; would light bulbs have been invented . . . ?

So, clearly, equations as strings of abstract symbols, are not the same thing as the actual physics.

Ok, but what we observe is also physical; observation is a physical process. Physical vectors don't "really" exist either, but you might as well accept that they do. Particularly if you want to build a load-bearing structure.

I would suggest that without the exacting symbolic representations of physical things like strain, pressure, heat etc, engineering wouldn't be very interesting. We wouldn't need computer models either.

Would we understand electricity; would light bulbs have been invented . . . ?

Highlighted

Nowadays , In Architecture is three dimensional .

Agreed

Mathematics is extremely to important to everything except thought . Thought exists without mathematics . In the beginning of thought .

Let me clear , the Universe is not a mathematical construct . Why ?

Because mathematics can only exist in a Physical realm.

Even a Universe devoid of Life , is not based on mathematics , but is based on physical things .

Let me clear , the Universe is not a mathematical construct . Why ?
Indeed. Do you have a coherent answer?

Because mathematics can only exist in a Physical realm.
Well, no. Numbers exist when you think of them, or when you write them down, but that can't mean they have to be physical themselves, just because we represent them physically.

What about all the numbers that we haven't written yet?
Like those observations you would need to make of the moon not changing regularly from quarter to quarter, because it's standing still for three days.
And a few others.

Let me clear , the Universe is not a mathematical construct . Why ?

Indeed. Do you have a coherent answer?

Because mathematics can only exist in a Physical realm.​

Well, no. Numbers exist when you think of them, or when you write them down, but that can't mean they have to be physical themselves, just because we represent them physically.

What about all the numbers that we haven't written yet?
Like those observations you would need to make of the moon not changing regularly from quarter to quarter, because it's standing still for three days.
And a few others.

Highlighted

To what is Physical , Numbers Mean Nothing . To What are Numbers , the Physical Means Everything .

Then What matters is the physical object(s) .

Last edited:
my post#154

Argue that this post is not true .

It depends on your understanding of abstract mathematics.
Everything in the universe is a "pattern". Patterns are by definition mathematical in essence. Therefore, everything in the Universe has a mathematical aspect to it.

As Tegmark observes: "Most scientists recognize some mathematical properties to the universe. I recognize only mathematical properties.

This concept was originally developed by Eugene Wigner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences

In a world where evolution is the self-organization and increasing complexity of patterns among relational values , what is the objection to the concept of mathematics as being an essential aspect to the universal fabric?

The common misconception is that therefore mathematics must be causal, but that is a false dichotomy.

Mathematics are not causal but are "guiding equations" by which reality is or is not allowed to express itself.
I’m wondering though, if math is an invention how can it be anything more than a method for describing the universe? An essential tool but a tool, nonetheless.

I’m wondering though, if math is an invention how can it be anything more than a method for describing the universe? An essential tool but a tool, nonetheless.

Nothing more .

But respectfully nothing more .

The Material Universe ; Galaxies , Quasars , etc . Is Different from Life .

The Material Universe is based on Energy and then matter .

Life is an Energy Form different from the Energy and Matter .

Life uses Energy and Matter to survive .

Energy and Matter are not about survival . They are not alive .

Life Evolves . Life Thinks . Energy and Matter do not Evolve nor Think .

Last edited:
River: a few thoughts -

You might want to consider the concept of magnetic monopoles in this context (how life could relate to energy, at least in the beginning.) Monopoles are difficult to demonstrate with our quantum technologies, but theoretically, they are one-way processes, which would have been needed for life to start in the beginning, when random-type forces would have been present. So energy would have been key in such a world-setting.

This would relate to the question of whether there was an earlier world setting (prior to ours, possibly "pre quantization," in which very powerful energy fluxes existed that were possibly etherically rarified and thus complex enough in nature, to stimulate life to start.