Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 15:01:42 UTC No. 16192657

>>16192655
The mind of the demiurge.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 15:02:49 UTC No. 16192658

>>16192655
God

Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 15:13:36 UTC No. 16192672

>>16192655
my ass

Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 15:32:25 UTC No. 16192681

>>16192655
The equations we think of as laws of physics are for the most part descriptive. We observe things happening around us and come up with mathematical frameworks to describe those things we observe. (The neat part of the scientific method is the insight that once you've sufficiently described a phenomenon, you can use that description to make predictions about other phenomena which ends up coming in very handy.) But the stuff that underlies these mathematical descriptions is increasingly turning out to be fundamental stuff, like the geometry of the universe or its fundamental symmetries. Conservation of angular momentum is a law of physics, right? Well that emerges from the underlying fundamental symmetry of rotation the universe exhibits. If the universe were directional in some sense, then angular momentum simply wouldn't be conserved. So to answer your question, it appears to be the low-level fundamental nature of the universe that gives rise to laws of physics as we generally talk about them.

Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 15:48:25 UTC No. 16192703

>>16192655
Laws of physics all stem from underlying empirical observations:

Ex. Newton's Laws of Motion for example are just the quantification of three observations - things don't start or stop moving without effort, every effort is counteracted with equal effort, and change in motion is proportional to effort. Everything that follows - the definitions and conservation laws for energy, momentum, angular momentum, and so on are all just useful mathematical constructs for describing the consequences of those underlying observations.

Everything

Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 16:05:14 UTC No. 16192726

>>16192672
cool, do you mean your asshole is like a black hole or something?

That doomsday clock at Sat, 25 May 2024 16:07:21 UTC No. 16192730

>>16192681
Events just do what we tell you?

Anonymous at Sat, 25 May 2024 16:08:03 UTC No. 16192731

nobody knows

Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 04:27:42 UTC No. 16193581

idk

Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 05:26:13 UTC No. 16193625

>>16192681
How do you explain completely unrelated mathematical concepts created purely synthetically that can be used to model reality with little amount of adjustments if any?
It's not the case of finding a convenient tool to describe something down the line, the vast majority of concepts and tools of natural philosophy before the advent of physics were completely off the mark. Purely synthetic concepts rarely pass the experimental test but with maths it's the opposite, it's more reliable than any experiment.
The context of this quote is how uncanny it is how accurate maths is in this regard.

Anonymous at Sun, 26 May 2024 09:57:14 UTC No. 16193855

>>16192655
Equilibrium between interactions