W4U;
[Gravity forms stars and configurations of stars and other objects. If the effect on an object is measured, the scientist interprets the force as an inverse square law. That does not make gravity mathematical. It is more of a redirecting effect of object motion by more dominant masses. I see no basis for the scientist to attribute (better than impose) his math onto inanimate matter.]
[When particles lose their maximum energy, they are considered in a 'ground state'. Isn't strange that when people die, they too reach a 'ground state'.
When a system of particles has all its available energy removed, it is in a dormant inactive state. Maybe science has it backwards. Complexity is fundamental and simplicity is degenerate. I think there are universal laws, but not universal mathematics.]
[Until the new family of particles were discovered, and physics at that level became more complex. Does that sound familiar!
[You have the correct order, experience it, and record it. The simplest instance of timekeeping is a diary.]
Hence the coined phrase "most scientist believe the universe has some mathematical properties, I believe the universe has only mathematical properties", which IMO, does not really place a limit on the complexity of the mathematics.
[Gravity forms stars and configurations of stars and other objects. If the effect on an object is measured, the scientist interprets the force as an inverse square law. That does not make gravity mathematical. It is more of a redirecting effect of object motion by more dominant masses. I see no basis for the scientist to attribute (better than impose) his math onto inanimate matter.]
Question: Based on the apparent fact that all complex patterns seem to have started as extremely simple patterns (1 + 1 = 2), and my personal view that there is no such thing as "irreducible complexity", why do we need to assume that universal mathematics are intrinsically very complex, instead of just incredibly large sets of simple values (Numbers) and relatively few fundamental equations (Constants).
[When particles lose their maximum energy, they are considered in a 'ground state'. Isn't strange that when people die, they too reach a 'ground state'.
When a system of particles has all its available energy removed, it is in a dormant inactive state. Maybe science has it backwards. Complexity is fundamental and simplicity is degenerate. I think there are universal laws, but not universal mathematics.]
If we look at the "Table of Elements" everything seems to be made from just a few (3) fundamental quantum values.
[Until the new family of particles were discovered, and physics at that level became more complex. Does that sound familiar!
This is why I strongly believe that something as fleeting as time is a "result" rather than "causal" to change...
I completely agree. IMO, time is a result, it is measurable only after the chronological event has occurred. IOW time does not exist in the future.
[You have the correct order, experience it, and record it. The simplest instance of timekeeping is a diary.]