Does the sum of all things equal something? Is their an inherent balance to the universe. — Benj96

Several recent science writers have used the analogy of an Algorithm (program, Logos) to describe the inherent logic of Evolution. They don't usually carry the metaphor to its logical conclusion though : our dynamic universe is like a Thermodynamic equation that must be balanced by averaging to Zero, as in:
[ positive energy (+1) + evolution (computation) + negative energy (-1) = 0 ]

In my view, the original Singularity was nothing more than an algorithm, with no matter, only mathematical information. After the Big Bang, it became slightly unbalanced (the Swerve or Clinamen or Inclination). Ever since, the calculation of evolution has been trying to return to Zero in the process of Entropy vs Enformy. But, in the meanwhile, intelligent beings emerged and began to do calculations of their own. And, for obvious reasons, they don't like the notion of perfect balance : Nothingness. :joke:

Evolutionary Algorithm : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm

The Swerve : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Swerve

Ultimate Entropy :the heat death of the universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

Thermodynamics : The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed.
But energy can be dissipated. Before the BB, energy/matter value was Zero (0), after the BB it was One (1, a universe), but in the end it will return to Zero (0, nothing). So, we are in the middle of an equation that will eventually add-up to Zero (extinguishment). Will that be Nirvana ? :pray: Namaste (hello & goodbye)

Balances, equalities, symmetries, are some of the most fundamental parts of modern theories of physics. Symmetries are identical to conserved quantities—Google “Noether’s theorem” for more about that.

That has nothing to do with finitude though. The universe very well could be infinite, so far as we can tell, and math is perfectly capable of handling infinities when it needs to.

There necessarily is some perfect mathematical description of the universe, because otherwise the universe would just be indescribable at all, since we can invent new math as needed to describe it.

That has nothing to do with determinism though, because math is more than capable of handling randomness too.

But just because there is some math full of symmetries and conserved quantities that would perfectly describe the universe even if it is infinite and full of randomness, that doesn’t mean that we can ever be certain that we have figured out which mathematical formula that is. We can’t ever be completely certain. But we can always get arbitrary closer, for as long as we want, approaching that unreachable limit... like in calculus. You know, math.

In essence can a mathematically sound theory of everything really be achieved or is there always "uncertainty" or intangible information thus an impossibility of any true equation being acquired. — Benj96

There is certainly a logically sound approach to metaphysics at this level - the dichotomy. And that can be cashed out mathematically - ie: measurably - in the notion of reciprocal limits on Being.

So if you have always an irreducible uncertainty in nature, then that uncertainty can be scaled in terms of its polar opposite - certainty.

The uncertainty = 1/certainty. That is, uncertainty - as a thing - is defined by the degree to which it actually lacks any certainty. And likewise, certainty is measured the same way as 1/uncertainty, or uncertainty reduced to its ultimate limit.

So the shift is from treating uncertainty (or certainty) as states that simply exist as clashing alternatives. We need to reformulate these concepts in the language of mathematical limits. In that fashion, each become measurably tied to the other. The lack of one, becomes the presence of its dialectical "other".

And neither really exist. They are our modelled descriptions of the opposing limits to Being. They are the complementary boundaries on possibility, and hence the constraints which in fact give emergent rise to Being itself.

This is exactly what physics has found in the Planck-scale that encodes the limits of our actual Cosmos.

In brief, the Planck-scale is defined by the three constants of h (quantum uncertainty), G (strength of gravity or classical certainty), and c (the speed of light, the central scaling constant that bridges the two).

And again broadly, h or uncertainty is defined in terms of 1/G. While certainty is defined in terms of 1/h, or a matching reduction in uncertainty. You have a reciprocal deal actually in the heart of the maths that is at the heart of physics.

This "weird" duality is why the Plank-scale defines the limits of reality both in terms of its spatiotemporal smallness and its energy density largeness. At the Big Bang scale, the most thermal uncertainty is confined to least possible classical extent.

And hence you have the encoding of the cut-off point that defines the Big Bang as being a tad larger than a true classical singularity - nothing starts from zero uncertainty. A quantum measure of uncertainty already had to be present as "the least amount of uncertainty physically possible". Just as - contrariwise - there had to be at least that amount of classical certainty (the expanding spacetime point that could start drain off this maximal heat density) present at this shared starting moment.

So we can measure all this with startling precision and identify the balance of two opposites - certainty and uncertainty - that have to both exist to get things going. Or rather "exist" as the bounding and mutually-determining limits on being.

The way I see it is that ultimately the universe must be finite in the sense of energy and information — Benj96

Energy and information - or better yet, negentropy and entropy - would be another way of describing things as the complementary limits on being. And the finitude comes in that they do limit being in that self-referencing fashion of a dichotomy (mutually exclusive/jointly exhaustive). Each is measurably present to the degree the other is absent. A reciprocal relation.

But if such system operates with inherent spontaneity or uncertainty then I cannot see how an equation could ever be applied at most just a set of statistics and probabilities that would enbale only semi accurate but never true predictions/ algorithms — Benj96

But with quantum theory - as a maths that embodies this reciprocal dynamics - you have a physics that predicts the world with the greatest precision. You can calculate physical properties like the magnetic moment of an electron to a ridiculous number of decimal places.

So it is by being able to quantify fundamental quantum uncertainty, and tossing it in with the classical model of an electron spinning like a top and generating a magnetic field, that you get an answer that lies within the constraints of both empirical bounds on Being - on what could be the lawful case in our Universe.

The randomness or indeterminism is a completely necessary part of the picture because otherwise, its opposite - the classical determinism - would have nothing definite to anchor itself to as the reciprocal contrast state. The other ultimate limit creating finitude in the other direction.

One couldn't exist without the other. And both can only exist as a dichotomous relation.