# Does Chaos Theory prove a Mathematically Ordered Universe

Agreed Write4U , but at the same time Micheal345 is right .
I don't disagree with Michael on that point. I disagree that there is only stuff. I can visualize an abstract guiding equation that causes self-assembly of stuff.
Mathematics in and of its self can not prove that ; 1+1=2 , the Physical can prove it easily ; .....think about this . For a bit . Write4U .
, I do, all the time....
Check out Peano Axioms
The Peano axioms contain three types of statements. The first axiom asserts the existence of at least one member of the set of natural numbers. The next four are general statements about equality; in modern treatments these are often not taken as part of the Peano axioms, but rather as axioms of the "underlying logic".[3]
The next three axioms are first-order statements about natural numbers expressing the fundamental properties of the successor operation. The ninth, final axiom is a second order statement of the principle of mathematical induction over the natural numbers. A weaker first-order system called Peano arithmetic is obtained by explicitly adding the addition and multiplication operation symbols and replacing the second-order induction axiom with a first-order axiom schema.....more
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms

Last edited:

Agreed Write4U , but at the same time Micheal345 is right .

I don't disagree with Michael on that point. I disagree that there is only stuff. I can visualize an abstract guiding equation that self-assembles all stuff.

Highlighted

Based on " Stuff " . Not mathematics in and of its self .

The Peano axioms define the arithmetical properties of natural numbers, usually represented as a set N or {\displaystyle \mathbb {N} .}
The non-logical symbols for the axioms consist of a constant symbol 0 and a unary function symbol S.

The first axiom states that the constant 0 is a natural number:

1. 0 is a natural number.

0 is not a natural number . What exists in 0 ? What physically exists in 0 ?

Last edited:

PHYSICS DOES NOT HAVE MATHEMATICAL FUNCTIONS

True

Physics is operation of PHYSICAL STUFF

True​

And how do you keep stuff apart? It's not all the same stuff, is it? There is even stuff within stuff. How does it do that?

Physical Dynamics of Physical Stuff

Chemistry

0 is not a natural number . What exists in 0 ? What physically exists in 0 ?
Bullshit.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/0_(number)
0 (zero) is both a number and a numerical digit used to represent that number in numerals. As a number, zero means nothing—an absence of other values. It plays a central role in mathematics as the identity element of the integers, real numbers, and many other algebraic structures. As a digit, zero is used as a placeholder in place value systems. Historically, it was the last digit to come into use. In the English language, zero may also be called nil when a number, o/oh when a numeral, and nought/naught in either context.

0 as a number
0 is the integer that precedes the positive 1, and follows −1. In most (if not all) numerical systems, 0 was identified before the idea of 'negative integers' was accepted.

Zero is an integer which quantifies a count or an amount of null size; that is, if the number of your brothers is zero, that means the same thing as having no brothers, and if something has a weight of zero, it has no weight. If the difference between the number of pieces in two piles is zero, it means the two piles have an equal number of pieces. Before counting starts, the result can be assumed to be zero; that is the number of items counted before you count the first item and counting the first item brings the result to one. And if there are no items to be counted, zero remains the final result.

While mathematicians all accept zero as a number, some non-mathematicians would say that zero is not a number, arguing one cannot have zero of something. Others hold that if you have a bank balance of zero, you have a specific quantity of money in your account, namely none. It is that latter view which is accepted by mathematicians and most others.

Almost all historians omit the year zero from the proleptic Gregorian and Julian calendars, but astronomers include it in these same calendars. However, the phrase Year Zero may be used to describe any event considered so significant that it virtually starts a new time reckoning.

0 as a numeral
The modern numeral 0 is normally written as a circle or (rounded) rectangle. In old-style fonts with text figures, 0 is usually the same height as a lowercase On the seven-segment displays of calculators, watches, etc., 0 is usually written with six line segments, though on some historical calculator models it was written with four line segments. This variant glyph has not caught on.

It is important to distinguish the number zero (as in the "zero brothers" example above) from the numeral or digit zero, used in numeral systems using positional notation. Successive positions of digits have higher values, so the digit zero is used to skip a position and give appropriate value to the preceding and following digits. A zero digit is not always necessary in a positional number system: bijective numeration provides a possible counterexample.

Zero is an integer which quantifies a count or an amount of null size; that is, if the number of your brothers is zero, that means the same thing as having no brothers, and if something has a weight of zero, it has no weight. If the difference between the number of pieces in two piles is zero, it means the two piles have an equal number of pieces. Before counting starts, the result can be assumed to be zero; that is the number of items counted before you count the first item and counting the first item brings the result to one. And if there are no items to be counted, zero remains the final result.

Yet it does not mean that what is being measured is non-existent .

Physically , 1+1=2 . Obviously . No convoluted equation necessary .

As I have said many times before, mathematics is the language of physics. Without mathematics, we would be clueless as to how the universe operates, and the understanding of how sub atomic particles go about forming and interacting as we observe. It's essential benefits cannot be over-stated. I'm certainly not into all Write4U says and claims, nor the stuff from Max Tegmark he quotes, but irrespective, it is a essential requirement for cosmology and knowledge in general. After all the arguably greatest scientific paper written, by arguably the greatest scientist ever, was entitled "Principia Mathematica"

, I do, all the time....
Check out Peano Axioms
Yep, those axioms are mentioned in one of the links I gave re the proof that 1+1=2

As I have said many times before, mathematics is the language of physics. Without mathematics, we would be clueless as to how the universe operates, and the understanding of how sub atomic particles go about forming and interacting as we observe. It's essential benefits cannot be over-stated. I'm certainly not into all Write4U says and claims, nor the stuff from Max Tegmark he quotes, but irrespective, it is a essential requirement for cosmology and knowledge in general. After all the arguably greatest scientific paper written, by arguably the greatest scientist ever, was entitled "Principia Mathematica"

We wouldn't be clueless pad , without mathematics , observations , experiments ; we see the dynamics and the consequences thereof . Mathematics is important , but mathematics has nothing to do with the Nature of the Universe its self .

Yep, those axioms are mentioned in one of the links I gave re the proof that 1+1=2

Lets that what these axioms say are true .

In the Physical Universe 1+1=2 , needs no axioms . 1+1=2 is a Fundamental Truth .

We wouldn't be clueless pad , without mathematics , observations , experiments ; we see the dynamics and the consequences thereof . Mathematics is important , but mathematics has nothing to do with the Nature of the Universe its self .
Don't be so clueless river. Without the maths, we wouldn't be able to predict the rising and setting of the Sun...the period of Earth's evolution about the Sun...the period of the Moon's revolution about its axis and orbit around Earth...we wouldn't even have calendars to check dates etc.
Just because you are absolutely clueless re maths, along with most other practical applications of science, does not follow that it is not essential. It is, and always will be. You denying that, is why you stay so ignorant.

Lets that what these axioms say are true .

In the Physical Universe 1+1=2 , needs no axioms . 1+1=2 is a Fundamental Truth .
And a mathematical truth that can be proven. Stop stating the obvious...

Don't be so clueless river. Without the maths, we wouldn't be able to predict the rising and setting of the Sun...the period of Earth's evolution about the Sun...the period of the Moon's revolution about its axis and orbit around Earth...we wouldn't even have calendars to check dates etc.
Just because you are absolutely clueless re maths, along with most other practical applications of science, does not follow that it is not essential. It is, and always will be. You denying that, is why you stay so ignorant.

I was hopping that you actually understood what I was saying ; it went over your head .

I was hopping that you actually understood what I was saying ; it went over your head .
It's hoping river, not hopping, and essentially as this forum knows, and which is evident in you being banned from the sciences, not much of what you ever claim, can ever be construed as anything other then unsupported mythical nonsense.

It's hoping river, not hopping, and essentially as this forum knows, and which is evident in you being banned from the sciences, not much of what you ever claim, can ever be construed as anything other then unsupported mythical nonsense.

The ban didn't stop me from continuing my thinking .

What you say is wrong, as is most of what you say and stupidly claim.
The ban didn't stop me from continuing my thinking .
The many ridiculous unsupported, unscientific claims you make [without any reference or link when needed or asked] is actually evidence towards you failing to think at all. As is evident in your banning.

The ban didn't stop me from continuing my thinking .
Now go buzz off river, I'm not getting into one of your trolling exercises.