Prior to existence, or non-existence, was 0. Existence, or the Big Bang, is 1.

It not only predates the universe but is the bridge between the two

Perhaps it is better said that it doesn't predate it, since it requires the 1 to complete the step. So however that would be said... It is still the bridge

Edited August 13Aug 13 by deema_d

7 hours ago, deema_d said:

Prior to existence, or non-existence, was 0. Existence, or the Big Bang, is 1.

It not only predates the universe but is the bridge between the two

Perhaps it is better said that it doesn't predate it, since it requires the 1 to complete the step. So however that would be said... It is still the bridge

Your post is incoherent.

In terms of the thread title, humans invented logic and mathematics.

Is there some sort of order that exists beyond humanity?

Possibly, I do not think the jury has returned on that.

7 hours ago, deema_d said:

Prior to existence, or non-existence, was 0. Existence, or the Big Bang, is 1.

It not only predates the universe but is the bridge between the two

Perhaps it is better said that it doesn't predate it, since it requires the 1 to complete the step. So however that would be said... It is still the bridge

21 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Your post is incoherent.

I see your point, pinball.
But does this really deserve a demerit ?

deema please try to organise your posts a bit better.
However I do see what you are driving at.

The thing is that 'logic' is abstract so it has no physical existence.

But yes we can discuss your proposal philosophically (it does not deserve the status of a theory), bearing in mind that abstract nature of logic I referred to.

What you are asking is akin to the age old question

"What is the sound of one hand clapping ?"

or

"If a tree falls in the forest where there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound ?"

12 hours ago, deema_d said:

Prior to existence, or non-existence, was 0. Existence, or the Big Bang, is 1.

It not only predates the universe but is the bridge between the two

Perhaps it is better said that it doesn't predate it, since it requires the 1 to complete the step. So however that would be said... It is still the bridge

Life isn't binary, it's analog sometimes it's more than 1.

Well yeah the foundations of mathematics are either one of three things or something below all three of them. Logicism, Formalism, Intuitionism.

34 minutes ago, HawkII said:

Well yeah the foundations of mathematics are either one of three things or something below all three of them. Logicism, Formalism, Intuitionism.

Where does infinity fit in?

6 hours ago, studiot said:

But does this really deserve a demerit ?

I did not down vote, just checked and still on zero.

20 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

I did not down vote, just checked and still on zero.

In which case I apologise to you.

There was definitely a red demerit when I posted just after you.

So I cancelled it out.

Shows how easy it is to mistakenly assume things.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

In which case I apologise to you.

No problem.

On 8/13/2025 at 1:07 AM, deema_d said:

Prior to existence, or non-existence, was 0. Existence, or the Big Bang, is 1.

It not only predates the universe but is the bridge between the two

Perhaps it is better said that it doesn't predate it, since it requires the 1 to complete the step. So however that would be said... It is still the bridge

My guess is that if there is another universe external to ours, and it harbours intelligent life of a similar level, then some of them at least will be sat scratching their heads over the Riemann hypothesis.

Or whatever pass for heads out there.

12 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

be sat scratching their heads over the Riemann hypothesis

If they have as as far as Riemann then they may as fit as far as Gödel and be ok with it.

Made a mess of that one sorry "If they have got as far as Riemann, then they may have got as far as Godel and be ok with it."

On 8/13/2025 at 12:07 AM, deema_d said:

Prior to existence, or non-existence, was 0. Existence, or the Big Bang, is 1.

It not only predates the universe but is the bridge between the two

Perhaps it is better said that it doesn't predate it, since it requires the 1 to complete the step. So however that would be said... It is still the bridge

I think you are on exactly the right path with this intuition. However it is not clear enough - you still need to define what logic is.

Also the universe is thought of in modernity as having properties such as time and space.
To say "logic predates the universe" is already a temporal statement, but time itself presupposes logical distinction between "before" and "after."
Therefore, logic cannot begin in time; it must precede time, not temporally but in principle.

This is the exact problem with the "big bang" which is considered to be the event at which time began - a "time=0".
Yet, an event is by definition a position within time.
To call an event “the beginning of time” is to say: "There was a time before time began," which is self-contradictory.

I'm going to give you a hint as to what logic really is and how it precedes time:
A temporal process, whether it be motion, growth or becoming, always seems to imply succession, one state replacing another.
Yet the infinitesimal calculus of Leibniz and Newton shows that this succession can approach a limit that is never reached, yet always defines the process itself.
The limit is not part of the becoming, but the principle, the Being, by which the becoming is made intelligible.
The seed of a tree once planted will get closer and closer to treeness without ever reaching it,
sometimes the approach is quicker, sometimes the approach is slower and impeded, yet only the stage of the tree's growth will change, the tree will never become other than what it is.

2 hours ago, nyquistfreq said:

Therefore, logic cannot begin in time; it must precede time, not temporally but in principle.

Humans invented logic.

2 hours ago, nyquistfreq said:

This is the exact problem with the "big bang" which is considered to be the event at which time began - a "time=0".

No, BB Cosmology is silent on T=0.

2 hours ago, nyquistfreq said:

To call an event “the beginning of time” is to say: "There was a time before time began," which is self-contradictory.

Pop science says things like this but it is not part of mainstream BB Cosmology. That starts at around 10 ^-32 seconds after the BB.

4 hours ago, nyquistfreq said:

I think you are on exactly the right path with this intuition. However it is not clear enough - you still need to define what logic is.

Also the universe is thought of in modernity as having properties such as time and space.
To say "logic predates the universe" is already a temporal statement, but time itself presupposes logical distinction between "before" and "after."
Therefore, logic cannot begin in time; it must precede time, not temporally but in principle.

This is the exact problem with the "big bang" which is considered to be the event at which time began - a "time=0".
Yet, an event is by definition a position within time.
To call an event “the beginning of time” is to say: "There was a time before time began," which is self-contradictory.

I'm going to give you a hint as to what logic really is and how it precedes time:
A temporal process, whether it be motion, growth or becoming, always seems to imply succession, one state replacing another.
Yet the infinitesimal calculus of Leibniz and Newton shows that this succession can approach a limit that is never reached, yet always defines the process itself.
The limit is not part of the becoming, but the principle, the Being, by which the becoming is made intelligible.
The seed of a tree once planted will get closer and closer to treeness without ever reaching it,
sometimes the approach is quicker, sometimes the approach is slower and impeded, yet only the stage of the tree's growth will change, the tree will never become other than what it is.

I'll admit to being totally mystified by this 'hint'.