The Universe Is Made of Mathematics

Every result in physics hitherto has been some sort of mathematics: an equation or a constant (measured or otherwise established to some digits of precision). What is a particle? A collection of mathematical properties. So is a wave. If we extrapolate from the past to the future, we can expect more of the same: no "non-mathematical bottom" will be found. Nobody is even looking; the researchers expect all new results to take the shape of math. So the notion that "maybe it's just math all the way down" is actually quite rational. One day we may hit bottom, the way a (terminating) recursive function does, and realize; this is it: there is nothing more going forward, and if we look back, it's just a collection of math.

1) All mathematical objects exist abstractly and independently of minds (mathematical Platonism)

Without a mind to understand, interpret, and define mathematics, does it exist? This is a core philosophical problem at the intersection of science and feeling. Without observation, no mathematics exists (for the observer). By proving it exists, you must also have an implicit observer.

2) The mind is a computational process (The Computational Theory of Mind or CTM)

Pretty big assumption, considering we still have no idea how the mind works (e.g. quantum fluctuations that lead to patterns and thoughts, the origin of which are not known to us or predictable by us.)

3) The universe behaves according to laws of physics which are expressible mathematically (metaphysical naturalism)

What about where those laws break down, such as inside a black hole or at the beginning of the Big Bang? Do those places and times extend beyond our Universe? If so, where exactly do you draw the line between where our Universe ends and something else exists?

These arguments feel quite tenuous to me, another attempt by an intelligent person to say, "Ah, I've figured it all out, THIS is how everything is."

In very broad terms, this is part of an age-old debate in the philosophy of science about how mathematics should be interpreted - instrumentalists (manipulating symbols) versus realists (mathematics underpins objective reality).

Realism is obviously popular because any viewpoint which attaches grandiose "meaning" and "purpose" to things is bound to be more popular over what is seen as "colder" and analytic.

There's actually several sides, but those two are the main ones.

EDIT:

In addition,

For a creator God, we are left to ask who created the creator - but if the universe is a mathematical object, it needs no creator (on Platonism at least), so this is a very satisfying answer to that eternal question. It has always existed and will always exist outside of space-time as a mathematical construct.

No. In fact, a lot of people who subscribe to creationism make the exact same argument - that God has always existed outside of space-time and requires no creator. Your handwaving this in the same fashion is not a satisfying answer in the slightest.

I think rather than saying "The universe behaves according to laws of physics...", it would be more appropriate/correct to say that our "laws" of physics somewhat consistently describe our observations of the universe.

> Without a mind to understand, interpret, and define mathematics, does it exist?

Unquestioningly so. For instance, there is a number 2 and a number pi which are not caused by thinking. Beings which evolve on separate planets (or whatever) in separate universes have to to come to the conclusion that the ratio between the diameter and circumference of a circle is a certain number. Those numbers will be found to agree, though there is no causal link between the two. You can define what constitutes a circle, and define the question of the ratio of its parts, but you don't get to define pi.

Or, if you define "composite" and "prime", you don't get to decide which integers are one or the other, or facts like that two is the smallest prime and the only even one.

The question is: what is the difference between your existence and the existence of pi? Maybe there isn't any.