Mathematics and the Universe

[Purple Rabbit]

Perhaps the greatest implication of quantum mechanics is that it subverts our intuitive understanding of causality and discreteness.

I can second that. Also this looks very much like what Infidel666 is trying to bring across.

[infidel666]

Perhaps the greatest implication of quantum mechanics is that it subverts our intuitive understanding of causality and discreteness.

I can second that. Also this looks very much like what Infidel666 is trying to bring across.

Since we seem to be approaching consesus of sorts, do the non-deterministic type mathematics of quantum mechanics suggest a chaotically spontaneous existence of the universe? If not, then why should the deterministic type mathematics of classical physics and general and special relativity suggest divine creation? But, if so, then doesn't that put the lie to "divine creation" being reflected the mathematical description of the universe?

[Purple Rabbit]

Perhaps the greatest implication of quantum mechanics is that it subverts our intuitive understanding of causality and discreteness.

I can second that. Also this looks very much like what Infidel666 is trying to bring across.

Since we seem to be approaching consesus of sorts, do the non-deterministic type mathematics of quantum mechanics suggest a chaotically spontaneous existence of the universe?

I find it impossible to argue for total randomness, Infidel666. In QM also every observed event has a precursor which causes it. Is that enough to identify with determinism or non-determinism. Beats me. Also The different interpretations of quantum mechanics imo show that it is (still?) impossible to draw conclusions on discreteness, identity and causality. These are the very concepts that the question is about.

If not, then why should the deterministic type mathematics of classical physics and general and special relativity suggest divine creation? But, if so, then doesn't that put the lie to "divine creation" being reflected the mathematical description of the universe?

All we can say is that we don't know yet what happened before Planck time and that at Planck time, the universe was in a very peculiar state we haven't figured out. All options are still open. The universe might have had a spontaneaous begin at T=0, it might have been a phase of something that existed prior, time might have a non-linear aspect at T=o as Hawkings once suggested, it might be an exchange of energy between the other 7 dimensions that M brane theory describes and our familiar dimensions, maybe our universe is embedded in some superuniverse, well should I go on with speculating, for that's all it is, speculation. Some might add in a god to plug in the hole that's left, or a purple rabbit in the 26th dimension accidentally burping our universe into existence, but tell me, what's wrong with "we don't know"?

[DD_8630]

In QM also every observed event has a precursor which causes it.

That's not entirely true: quantum tunnelling (inc. radioactive decay), vacuum energy, etc, do not have precursor events. They are truly spontaneous.

Also The different interpretations of quantum mechanics imo show that it is (still?) impossible to draw conclusions on discreteness, identity and causality.

But it's these uncertainties which refute discreteness (et al) in the first place :p

---

Since we seem to be approaching consesus of sorts, do the non-deterministic type mathematics of quantum mechanics suggest a chaotically spontaneous existence of the universe?

Short answer: no.
Long answer: let me lecture to you for a few years :p

If not, then why should the deterministic type mathematics of classical physics and general and special relativity suggest divine creation?

Why indeed. Surely it's better to ask the proponents?

But, if so, then doesn't that put the lie to "divine creation" being reflected the mathematical description of the universe?

Exactly.

Though both alternatives are false: deterministic mathematics does not represent the mechanics of reality (insofar as we can tell), and mathematics in general does not point to a 'divine creation'.

I think you need to sort out your dichotomy :p

[Purple Rabbit]

In QM also every observed event has a precursor which causes it.

That's not entirely true: quantum tunnelling (inc. radioactive decay), vacuum energy, etc, do not have precursor events. They are truly spontaneous.

True. That's why I introduced the Casimir effect in the first place. There are certain random type events, like the virtual pair creation that causes the Casimir effect. What I meant is that QM didn't do away with causality for a wide range of event types. For nuclear fission, star formation, chemical processes and many other event types, physical causality is an essential part of the current picture on physics.

[DD_8630]

True. That's why I introduced the Casimir effect in the first place. There are certain random type events, like the virtual pair creation that causes the Casimir effect. What I meant is that QM didn't do away with causality for a wide range of event types. For nuclear fission, star formation, chemical processes and many other event types, physical causality is an essential part of the current picture on physics.

Oh, definitely. Causality still exists, just not for everything (as we hitherto supposed ).

[infidel666]

I think there is a sufficient cause versus necessary cause issue for quantum tunneling, etc. Quantum tunneling can't occur without a particle, virtual or otherwise. There has to be some kind of sufficient cause even for that. But I don't think there is a necessary cause for which the quantum tunneling necessarily follows, unless you say passage of sufficient time to ensure that the tunneling is certain to occur. Am I getting it right? Am I close? This determinism vs indeterminism thing is pure philosophy, isn't it? I don't like it when philosophy gets involved with science.

[DD_8630]

I think there is a sufficient cause versus necessary cause issue for quantum tunneling, etc. Quantum tunneling can't occur without a particle, virtual or otherwise. There has to be some kind of sufficient cause even for that.

The conditions under which quantum tunnelling occurs are not what cause quantum tunnelling, since it doesn't necessarily occur when the conditions are met. Obviously quantum tunnelling can't occur if there are no particles in the system, but it might occur if there are. And that's the point: it might. The event itself is spontaneous and uncaused, insofar as there is no prior event which guarantees its occurrence..

But I don't think there is a necessary cause for which the quantum tunneling necessarily follows, unless you say passage of sufficient time to ensure that the tunneling is certain to occur. Am I getting it right? Am I close?

Indeed you are.

This determinism vs indeterminism thing is pure philosophy, isn't it? I don't like it when philosophy gets involved with science.

Agreed, but I quite like it when science gets involved with philosophy. At least then some headway is made (such as quantum mechanics supporting indeterminism, as opposed to the long-standing philosophical opinion that the universe is deterministic).