The universe has a natural mathematicality.
The universe is mathematically consistent.
The natural phenomena physics seeks to describe and explain, are the results of the natural mathematicality.
The natural mathematicality of existence leads to the observed physical reality of existence.
This would explain the breath-taking mathematical consistency of physical reality.
The basic truths from which human mathematics is derived, are entirely based on human observation of the natural mathematicality. Human mathematics is derived from natural mathematicality.
We already accept this connection at an unspoken level: maths is used to check physics.
teh theory tries to explain that the universe as we see it is the inevitable result of existence – which by the very fact of existing, results in a natural mathematicality, results in this physical reality.
to put it in more words, with less clarity:
There is a problem in differentiating between: ‘math’ – the non-formalised concepts of number people have innately; ‘mathematics’ – the formalised symbolic system; and ‘mathematicality’ – the natural ordering of quantities, ratios and relationships in the physical reality that predates human observation. But these distinctions are important, as they allow us to seperate the ‘observed reality’ from the ‘description of reality’.
Mathematics and physics are based at their foundations, on observations about the universe we live in. Physics is a description of the observable physical reality. But maths, at the fundamental levels, is also a description – it describes the observable mathematicality of the universe. And human maths, at its foundations, is based on human experience of how the world around us is ordered. When ahs any of us observed 1+1 NOT = 2 in the natural world?
Distinctions between an abstract maths and a non-abstract physics are arbitrary (literally), contradictory, and false. If maths is an abstract language then so is physics. Both are human theories about the nature of reality. The nature of reality is not abstract, and the nature of reality is mathematical.
The human concepts of number and numerical relationships are developed from experiental interaction with the physical world – we have proof in a child’s ability to acquire math without formal instruction. But even then, the concepts themselves pre-exist humanity. We can prove some animals have an innate concept of number.
Experiental interaction – the effect of the natural world in which life exists, on the development of how life processes interactions with the natural world. Sight evolved from interaction of electromagnetic radiation with early life. Human concepts of colour are highly abstracted but they come from an evolved mechanism which can distinguish between different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation – as a useful way of distinguishing between the different physcial materials from which the light was radiated/reflected.
Yet how strange would it be to suggest that – because great works of art are produced from human, abstract concepts of colour – the nature of visible light cannot be investigated.
Human concepts of maths are based on analogous experiental interaction – how does an abstract concept evolve unless it corresponds to an aspect of the natural world which is useful to our survival? Early humans didn’t sit down and ‘do maths’ for teh lulz. They had a concept of number and spatial relationships because the world they lived in was structured that way.
The theories and concepts of maths, like the theories and concepts of physics, can be tested by observation. We test maths against the observable, mathematical nature of reality. So even complex theories are ultimately tested by not much more than seeing what result they give for 1+1 = ? If a theory suggest 1+1=3 then we can say it is wrong. But it’s only wrong because it contradicts observable reality.
Even the mathematical concepts which don’t occur naturally, still have to prove they are consistent with the observable truth that 1+1=2 to be accepted. They have to show their BASIS is in reality. No matter how complex a mathematical entity, no matter how ingeniously designed – it MUST be derived from observable truths.
Maths is based on concrete proofs, not abstraction. This has been a fundamental error in the way physicists approach maths and mathematicians approach physics. Maths and physics are interconnected.
The physical and mathematical natures of reality are connected.
So, here’s the theory:
The universe’s physical reality is the result of the universe’s natural mathematicality.
Starting (for want of a better word) from the ‘big bang’, the sum total of everything – which has an integer value of 1. There is 1 existence.
As that single entity divides into smaller and smaller parts the number of discrete parts increases.
As the number of parts of existence increases, the complexity of existence increases – the complexity of the relationships between those parts, and groups of parts, increases – this leads to an increasingly complex mathematicality.
The number of parts increases – and the complexities of their relationships increases – leads to complex mathematicality -
As the mathematicality becomes increasingly complex – it leads to complex systems such as quantum mechanics.
A single existence – as it divides into smaller constituents parts – leads to an increasingly complex mathematicality – leads to this physical reality.
It’s called ‘teh big bang theory’ – a theory of everything with added play.