Does cosmology answer why the universe exist?

so 1+1=2 exists eternally regardless of human beings.

Well, as long as there's intelligence of some kind maintaining the formal system and its rules and maxims for manipulating symbols.

In the world itself, whether two whirlpools in a lake are really distinct entities (one and one) or already a set of two (one with the lake) and so on as the scene enlarges (or shrinks), depends upon perspective and the motive behind or function of a cognitive discrimination. Which, for that, includes a dedicated preference for consideration of that circumstance from a macroscopic level that doesn't stray beyond the immediate, local surface of the Earth.

Oh, I forgot... The universe in general lacks biologically evolved intelligence and isn't an observer or doesn't produce phenomenal visual, auditory, tactile, olfactory, gustatory manifestations and sensations to represent information received from other arrangements(?) of excitations transpiring in quantum fields. Nor understands anything as technical description. It just sort of "is" rather than being of an epistemological or mimetic ilk.

Silly me.
 
Well, as long as there's intelligence of some kind maintaining the formal system and its rules and maxims for manipulating symbols.
I like the concept of a quasi-intelligent mathematical (logical) essence to spacetime.

To me, that apparently functional concept seems to solve so many of the existential questions that have been the cause for so much disagreement over the millenia.
 
Write4U said: I like the concept of a quasi-intelligent mathematical (logical) essence to spacetime.
I like it when you don't post anything.
Do you mean posts like this;

The intelligent states. I. Group‐theoretic study and the computation of matrix elements

Abstract
In this first of a series of papers, a group‐theoretic study is presented of the quasi‐intelligent states which are a generalization of the intelligent states satisfying equality in the Heisenberg uncertainty relation ΔJ12ΔJ22? (1/4) ‖〈J3〉
A method based on the knowledge of a certain generating function is given for the calculation of matrix elements of polynomials in the infinitesimal generators of the rotation group between quasi‐intelligent states.
Examples of such computations are also included to exhibit the improvement and efficiency of the present methods.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.523840

Unlike you, at least I post something and engage in productive discussion on high quality subjects.

If my posts annoy you, I'm a happy guy. At least you take notice. Perhaps even read what I post. If not, then your opinion of my posts means squat and belong more to trolls.

You are a post-void altogether. If you go away, no one would notice.
 
Last edited:
That is incorrect , the rock is a dense molecular pattern organized by physical process that mathematical laws can be applied . The rock pre-exceeds any mathematical expressions created to explain the physics of the rock .
No, the mathematical properties are implied in the inherent potentials of the rock, before they are applied.

To rephrase your statement; the rock is a dense molecular pattern organized by physical process in accordance with applicable mathematical laws.

The Deeper Roles of Mathematics in Physical Laws
Kevin H. Knuth Departments of Physics and Informatics University at Albany (SUNY), Albany NY, USA

“Familiarity breeds the illusion of understanding” - Anonymous

Abstract
Many have wondered how mathematics, which appears to be the result of both human creativity and human discovery, can possibly exhibit the degree of success and seemingly-universal applicability to quantifying the physical world as exemplified by the laws of physics. In this essay, I claim that much of the utility of mathematics arises from our choice of description of the physical world coupled with our desire to quantify it.
This will be demonstrated in a practical sense by considering one of the most fundamental concepts of mathematics: additivity. This example will be used to show how many physical laws can be derived as constraint equations enforcing relevant symmetries in a sense that is far more fundamental than commonly appreciated.
Introduction
Many have wondered how mathematics, which appears to be the result of both human creativity and human discovery, can possibly exhibit the degree of success and seemingly-universal applicability to quantifying the physical world as exemplified by the laws of physics (Wigner, 1960; Hamming, 1980). That is, if the laws of physics are taken as fundamental, then how can it be that mathematics, which is often developed as a creative act, can possibly be relevant to the physical world? Or is mathematics somehow more fundamental than physics, and are we instead discovering the laws of mathematics and identifying which ones apply to or perhaps underlie particular physical situations?
These questions reside alongside longstanding questions regarding the nature of physical law. For example, Isaac Newton introduced the idea that some physical laws can be derived from other more fundamental physical laws—often given the more distinct title of principles. Today, many of these principles take the form of conservation laws or symmetries, which helps to account for their universality. However, this raises many questions, such as whether there exists a unique minimal set of fundamental principles from which everything derives, or whether some physical laws are derivable and others are determined by chance or decree.
Despite this, we can already see that mathematics plays at least two roles. The first role is related to symmetries, which necessarily represent foundational concepts since they are not readily derivable from more fundamental concepts. The second role is related to calculation where equations are used to quantify physical phenomena. While some of the equations are known to be derivable from more fundamental principles, some have been adopted as foundational concepts in their own right, such as specific Lagrangians.
This provides an important clue, especially since we know from experience that many equations have been arrived at through educated guesses or in some cases even trial-and-error.
more ........
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1504/1504.06686.pdf
 
Last edited:

upload_2021-9-29_20-23-13.png

Dimensionless constants, cosmology, and other dark matters
Max Tegmark,1,2 Anthony Aguirre,3 Martin J. Rees,4 and Frank Wilczek2,1 1 MIT Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA 2 Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA 3 Department of Physics, UC Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA 4 Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 OHA, United Kingdom (Received 1 December 2005; published 9 January 2006)
We identify 31 dimensionless physical constants required by particle physics and cosmology, and emphasize that both microphysical constraints and selection effects might help elucidate their origin. Axion cosmology provides an instructive example, in which these two kinds of arguments must both be taken into account, and work well together. If a Peccei-Quinn phase transition occurred before or during inflation, then the axion dark matter density will vary from place to place with a probability distribution.
By calculating the net dark matter halo formation rate as a function of all four relevant cosmological parameters and assessing other constraints, we find that this probability distribution, computed at stable solar systems, is arguably peaked near the observed dark matter density. If cosmologically relevant weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) dark matter is discovered, then one naturally expects comparable densities of WIMPs and axions, making it important to follow up with precision measurements to determine whether WIMPs account for all of the dark matter or merely part of it.
http://www.nat.vu.nl/~wimu/Varying-Constants-Papers/Tegmark-PRD-DimensionlessConstants.pdf
 
To rephrase your statement; the rock is a dense molecular pattern organized by physical process in accordance with applicable mathematical laws.
This is incorrect. Rocks are not patterns.

A pattern is conceptual. A rock is a physical object.
 
This is incorrect. Rocks are not patterns.
A pattern is conceptual. A rock is a physical object.
Generically speaking, yes a rock is a physical object . A human is also a physical object, but it isn't a rock. And what sets these two physical objects apart? The pattern in which the molecules are arranged. Each physical object is arranged in a specific molecular pattern that defines the physical object as rock or human.

Structure vs Pattern - What's the difference?

As nouns the difference between structure and pattern is that structure is a cohesive whole built up of distinct parts while pattern is model, example.
As verbs the difference between structure and pattern is that structure is to give structure to; to arrange, while pattern is to apply a pattern.
https://wikidiff.com/structure/pattern#

A rock is a physical object, i.e. a number of molecules arranged in a specific pattern. A crystal is a perfect example. Most rocks are crystalline. All matter is composed of molecules arranged in specific patterns of specific densities. Atoms are expressions of sub-atomic particles arranged in specific patterns.

Crystal structure



Crystal structure of table salt (sodium in purple, chloride in green)

In crystallography, crystal structure is a description of the ordered arrangement of atoms, ions or
molecules in a crystalline material.[1] Ordered structures occur from the intrinsic nature of the constituent particles to form symmetric patterns that repeat along the principal directions of three-dimensional space in matter.
The smallest group of particles in the material that constitutes this repeating pattern is the unit cell of the structure. The unit cell completely reflects the symmetry and structure of the entire crystal, which is built up by repetitive translation of the unit cell along its principal axes. The translation vectors define the nodes of the Bravais lattice.
The lengths of the principal axes, or edges, of the unit cell and the angles between them are the lattice constants, also called lattice parameters or cell parameters.
The symmetry properties of the crystal are described by the concept of space groups.[1] All possible symmetric arrangements of particles in three-dimensional space may be described by the 230 space groups.
The crystal structure and symmetry play a critical role in determining many physical properties, such as cleavage, electronic band structure, and optical transparency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_structure

Crystal structure
The arrangement of atoms, ions, or molecules in a crystal. Crystals are solids having, in all three dimensions of space, a regular repeating internal unit of structure.
Crystals have been studied using x-rays, which excite signals from the atoms. The signals are of different strengths and depend on the electron density distribution about atomic cores. Light atoms give weaker signals and hydrogen is invisible to x-rays.
However, the mutual atomic arrangements that are called crystal structures can be derived once the
chemical formulas and physical densities of solids are known, based on the knowledge that atomic positions are not arbitrary but are dictated by crystal symmetry, and that the diffraction signals received are the result of systematic constructive interference between the scatterers within the regularly repeating internal unit of pattern. See Crystallography, Polymorphism (crystallography), X-ray crystallography, X-ray diffraction
Crystals are defined in terms of space, population, and mutual arrangement. Crystal space is represented as an indefinitely extended lattice of periodically repeating points. The periodicity of the lattice is defined by the lengths and mutual orientations of three lattice vectors that enclose the pattern. Population is defined as the total number and kind of fundamental units of structure that form the pattern.
https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Crystal pattern


Dense-surfaces-of-silica-polymorphs-a-b-Dense-cristobalite-side-and-top-views.png

"Dense" surfaces of silica polymorphs: (a,b) "Dense cristobalite", side and top views; (c,d) "Dense surface" of quartz (001), side and top view; (e,f) "Shifted surface" of quartz (001), side and top views; (g,h) "Dense stishovite", side and top views. Blue and red balls are silicon and oxygen atoms. Purple atoms are subsurface oxygens in stishovite. Each surface has four-coordinate Si and two-coordinate O-atoms on the top, and the surface layer can be described as a honeycomb made of corner-sharing SiO 4-tetrahedra.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...ristobalite-side-and-top-views_fig2_326921274

I don't know why these semantics are important in context of the narrative of a mathematical universe.
You insist on calling a rock a physical object and I have no objection to that.
I call a rock mathematical object, a dense molecular pattern and you reject that. Why?
 
Last edited:
Generically speaking, yes a rock is a physical object . A human is also a physical object, but it isn't a rock.
Your posts are so informative.:rolleyes:
Taking you off of ignore is such a mistake.
 
Your posts are so informative.:rolleyes:
Taking you off of ignore is such a mistake.
I think you are missing the analogy.

I certainly did not miss you. You don't seem to have any information at all.
Perhaps you consider what you wrote above is information. After all, you took me off ignore to write it, wow!
 
You insist on calling a rock a physical object and I have no objection to that.
I call a rock mathematical object, a dense molecular pattern and you reject that. Why?
I just told you. A pattern cannot be an object, or vice versa. To think that they are the same is to make a basic category error: to confuse an abstract concept with a physical object.

I don't know why these semantics are important in context of the narrative of a mathematical universe.
I don't buy into that "narrative". You assume as true something that actually requires a demonstration. Your assumption doesn't do anything to convince me that what you believe is true. Understand?
 
I just told you. A pattern cannot be an object, or vice versa. To think that they are the same is to make a basic category error: to confuse an abstract concept with a physical object.
But that is the very point. The abstract concept of cause and effect does not lie in myth and mystery, it lies in mathematics.
I don't buy into that "narrative". You assume as true something that actually requires a demonstration. Your assumption doesn't do anything to convince me that what you believe is true. Understand?
I believe that there is ample proof of the mathematical nature of the universe. Look around you. There are mathematical patterns all around. They are inescapable.

And what do you believe is true? And are you able to demonstrate that what you believe is true, is true?
 
But that is the very point.
Indeed. And you keep missing it, every time.
The abstract concept of cause and effect does not lie in myth and mystery, it lies in mathematics.
You have yet to establish anything of the kind.

Cause and effect aren't mathematical concepts. They have to do with time, for starters, which is a physical concept.
I believe that there is ample proof of the mathematical nature of the universe.
Didn't I just tell you that your assumptions are not enough to convince me? Stop telling me what you believe, over and over, and start telling me why you believe it.
Look around you. There are mathematical patterns all around. They are inescapable.
You have yet to show that those patterns are independent of human perception of them, which is vital for your thesis.

More importantly, you have yet to show that any pattern can produce something physical (out of nothing), under any circumstance.

And what do you believe is true? And are you able to demonstrate that what you believe is true, is true?
I believe a lot of things are true. I hope that I could demonstrate the truth of a lot of them if required to, or at least produce some evidence that points in the direction of their being true.

Put it this way: I try not to believe that things are true, if I have no evidence at all that they are true. How about you?
 
I just told you. A pattern cannot be an object, or vice versa. To think that they are the same is to make a basic category error: to confuse an abstract concept with a physical object.
Yes I refuse to accept your narrow interpretation of the term "pattern"
I don't buy into that "narrative". You assume as true something that actually requires a demonstration. Your assumption doesn't do anything to convince me that what you believe is true. Understand?

I have presented indisputable evidence that rocks, and specifically crystals are formed by the patterns which are the mathematical organizing function of different species of rocks (crystals).
 
Back
Top