Thank you, Leonardo Assis, for such a scientific question!
I think you would be quite right to say that a mathematical explanation of the beginning of the universe is plausible. The current common explanation of where our universe comes from – the big bang theory and the theory of the expansion of the universe – was proved by the Friedmann equation, almost a hundred years ago, at the beginning of the 20th century. It is claimed to be the most important mathematical equation of the universe. Since then, however, scientists have not stopped examining it; and even though it is now considered ‘common knowledge’, there is still no scientific agreement on it. There are some other plausible explanations, like multiverse theory or the cyclic model, which are not necessarily compatible with the ‘fact’ that the universe will expand forever.
You would not be wrong to say that the beginning of universe can be explained through mathematics; but though there would be a bunch of scientists applauding what you were saying, there would also be some people booing. This crowd would no doubt include some creationists, for whom the beginning of universe is explained by the powers of god rather than through science (according to some internet stats, around 40% of Americans are creationists). There may also be some atheists, who do not believe in divine forces, but may nonetheless doubt that life and the universe are reducible to equations.
Since there is still speculation on the theory of the beginning of universe among scientists and people in general, it really remains a matter of a personal choice whether the explanation through mathematics is sufficient for you. There is, to some degree, a measure of faith involved. Since the majority of us are not great mathematicians or physicians, we just rely on the information provided with no means of checking it for ourselves. The faith in scientific truth resembles the faith of creationists who believe in the divine creation of the universe without the capacity to check it, or the atheists whose intuition simply does not allow them to believe that life is fully computable.
There is also the problem of the temporality of scientific truths, which adds further uncertainty: scientific truths are true only so long as science does not come up with better explanations that overrule them. For example, people used to be absolutely certain that the earth was flat and that time is not relative, but now science is ‘certain’ that neither of these is true. This is essentially the foundation of progress in science. We could also flip your question and ask when mathematics began? Equations most probably did not exist until the universe began, and the first homo sapiens civilisation appeared on the planet earth.
That said, I believe that we should praise mathematics as a means of exploring the universe and an amazing form of reasoning, because often the truths that it discovers are much later proved by physics!
What do you think? Can the universe be reduced to an equation? Let us know in the comments.
And, as always, if you have a question for the Armchair Philosophers, don’t hesitate to get in touch. You could send us a message or fill in this form.
Image: Timeline of the metric expansion of space, where space, including hypothetical non-observable portions of the universe, is represented at each time by the circular sections. On the left, the dramatic expansion occurs in the inflationary epoch; and at the center, the expansion accelerates (artist’s concept; not to scale). (credit)
I am a PhD candidate in Political and Social Thought at the University of Kent, Canterbury. I am researching modern Western cosmologies and approaches to organicism. My interests lie in the area of continental political thought, process ontologies and the philosophy of technology. My favourite philosophers are A.N. Whitehead and F.W.J. Schelling, whom I admire for their organic systematizations of nature and natural knowledge.