Have you ever been fascinated by the fact that everything in nature appears to follow laws and that you can calculate...

Have you ever been fascinated by the fact that everything in nature appears to follow laws and that you can calculate so many things? I think there are even philosophical and religious discussions about this fact.

I just realized this is all bullshit, we are confusing the order in which things happened. First there was existence (or what we perceive as such), then we built mathematical models to describe existence. You might ask “why does it seem to be possible to build accurate models for existence? See, existence itself is really special because we can describe it with math. Because we can describe it with math, everything follows logic, which is really special”. The thing is: There is no way in which existence could be so we couldn’t find accurate deterministic or probabilistic models for it. Really, existence could be as arbitrary as it wants. Everything that’s not deterministic simply gets a probabilistic model.

If you think I’m wrong, explain to me any arbitrary existence or anything within such an existence where it wouldn’t be possible to describe it with mathematical models. Everything that doesn’t follow rules strictly will just get a probabilistic model.

You're an idiot, of course science is descriptive.
If this is new to you, I don't know what to tell you.

No, that's completely correct. Conservation of energy and momentum imply time and space translational symmetry (Noether's theorem), so if you want to create physics laws that you can generalize to different times and places they MUST obey energy and momentum conservation.

This must literally hold for an arbitrary universe. If some laws don't obey this, then by definition they aren't a law because you'd do an experiment on a different day or try to reproduce it at a different place and get a different result. There very well could be aspects of our universe that do this but we have no hope of ever describing them.

structured creativity, well maybe the math exists

Explain how a 5th dimension being could interact with us

lol and how does a probabilistic model exist? How does even space itself exist? What determines how timesteps proceed in a probabilistic system? Essentially you have to be claiming there are arbitrary points in existence that act as RNGs for no reason. Thats fucking stupid try again. Things can be predetermined but complex enough that they cannot be predicted, that doesn't make them a 'probabilistic model', just you have no hope of figuring the real model so you use a probabilistic one as the next best thing.

>tfw people won't take the cellular automata pill
>tfw people don't even know what existence is made of
>tfw you try to explain the existence of atoms/particles while just blindly accepting the space they exist within

>Why does anything exist?

The answer is nobody knows and no-one ever will know. Not worth thinking about any deeper.

w r o n g

Existence is according to logic. Its easier to get once you successfully model nonexistence next to existence. You cannot successfully model nonexistence, because the model of nonexistence is the absence of such a model. Enjoy your think about this post.

with memes

OP here. I don't know why existence is there or why time or space are there. Nobody ever said existence (and therefore the pure existence of space or time) comes out of a mathematical model, everyone assumes it's just there (and you can legitimately be fascinated by existence being there).

My point was that it's not fascinating that everything within existence appears to behave according to mathematically describable models, and therefore, "everything follows logic". Because everything, as arbitrary as you like, can be described by a mathematic model.

then humans are amazing because they are capable of such skill of describing all of the world by maths. Not a worthwhile criteria to prove or disprove imo

Get out of here Parmenides.

Some examples how everything non-deterministic can be described probabilistically:
If one and the same solid object would weight 5kg when taking one measurement but 4,9,2,8 kg when you measure again, you just say the weight of this object is a random variable. Now you have a model for this weird weight of this object.

E.g. you push a solid object in deep space with 10N over 5m rand you measure that the kinetic energy of this object gained of 50 J. Then you do nothing of a long time and measure again. Kinetic energy didn't change. Ok, push again with 10N over 5 m, this time just 38 J gained. Push with 20N over 5m, 56 J gained, ... really weird, you can see no pattern, the only thing you see is that pushes cause kinetic energy gain as the kinetic energy doesn't change when not push. So you model the kinetic energy of this weird object as n*KE, n is the number of times the object is pushed, KE is a random variable.

So if you accept probabilistic models as an explanation (most prominent example where we do it is QM), you can model everything. The only thing fascinating is that there appear to be a lot of deterministic models and comparatively only a few probabilistic models required. If the universe was 100% deterministic, then ok, that would be a little remarkable.

Just to confirm
so you're saying basically that since existence can only come from logic, its no surprise that it can be described with logic? And also no surprise that we see logic on all scales since you can represent the calculation of systems with that same property using only 4 symbols.

>tfw people won't take the cellular automata pill
I think you mean the Turing Machine pill user. Any cellular automata can be simulated on a Turing Machine.

>Really, existence could be as arbitrary as it wants.
But could it and support life?
If atoms arbitrarily bound to make molicules then would planets even form? Would there be enough arbitrarily created water on a planet?

Part of the reason multiverse thinking is popular is because it removes the chance or design from our universe. In a multiverse our universe is one of many universes, each with different physics and states of matter.
In a multiverse it's inevitable that at least one universe would form with the parameters of our universe. It only seems lucky because we are in it and cannot see the other universes.

Basically the way to think is that life is an inevitable product of the Big Bang. Where it pops up and what form it is in is up to chance but on at least one planet, in one galaxy, in one universe it is going to pop up.

It's necessary for survival that human's logic reflects reality, so it works naturally.
Though not sure if probabilistic models work: they are probabilistic too, no matter what happens, it's always "oh, that could happen too".
What doesn't obey logic is anything supernatural since it's not part of the universe we know.

>So if you accept probabilistic models as an explanation (most prominent example where we do it is QM), you can model everything.
If a model describes anything, it's independent of reality - nothing would contradict the model.

>existence can only come from logic
That's what I'm NOT saying
Existence is the point where we have to stop asking why and just accept that it's there, at least within my mental horizon. Even if existence was nested in another framework, let's call it superexistence, then we could describe the existences within the superexistence mathematically, but we would just have to assume that superexistence is just there. Assuming that something is just there has nothing to do with logics, e.g. something just being there is not the logical consequence of something else.

>And also no surprise that we see logic on all scales since you can represent the calculation of systems with that same property using only 4 symbols.
Not sure If I understand that correctly and what you mean by "symbols". Do you mean 4 mathematical operations? I hope I answer that question this way (have said it some times now): I do beliebe that everything within existence, you call that "systems", can be accurately mathematically modeled. By accurate, I mean that these "systems" really do follow the model (everywhere, at any time) to the precision that model defines. If the model doesn't contain random variables, than one would expect that "systems" really strictly follow the model. If you say the number of dots you get on a die throw [let's call that random variable X] is uniform distributed with the interval [1;6] [formally X~U(1,6)], then your model is a little less precise, because you don't know for sure which number you'll throw, but you know for sure that you won't throw an 8 or a -1000.

Of course in reality, we sometimes/often find models that are not exactly accurate in the sense that I'v just described, so you calculate things based on our wrong models and you can see that existence deviates from it. So you know the model you found is wrong. I'm just saying it's always possible to find a right model where never any calculations come out that deviate from existence.

>think about this post.
Nothing to think about. You're manipulating almost arbitrary semantic constructs without bothering to assign meaning to them. Aka you're so deep up your own arse you've gotten lost.

>If a model describes anything, it's independent of reality - nothing would contradict the model.

What I'm saying is you can always find models that are "accurate" about existence, so you can always check what the model says about existence and what really happens in existence and that there are always models where you have zero deviation between what the model says and what happened in existence (under consideration of the claimed precision of that model). See second paragraph here: