The Physics of Causation? Information?

This goes with a long running discussion across many threads, but I didn’t want to insert into any of those. Sara Walker is sometimes poetic in her way of imparting complex ideas. I set this at 20 minutes, after a couple of minutes she answers a question about what’s fundamental to the universe.

She states that maths describing reality is a “problem” in physics. They eventually get to free will, asking if it’s true that we can describe an initial condition, then predict any detail that occurs from that. On the way, she points out we’ve been building abstractions, learning and unlearning, reframing, and that physics professors don’t usually point out that all the laws they teach come out of the human mind.

I listened for a while and lost interest, She makes simple things sound complicated and complicated things sound simple
For instance, she advances that no one knows why mathematics work.
We certainly do. Generic mathematical mechanics are based on logic and the universe must be a logical object. If it were illogical it would not, could not exist.

Note that I say “generic” mathematics that deal only with the axiomatic logical processing of relational values, regardless of the symbolisms used to codify these calculations for human consumption. Humans did not invent mathematics, we invented human mathematics.

Then she posits that reality is a product of the mind and that is clearly a limited interpretation of objective physics that exist independent of human observation.
As Anile Seth posits: we create “OUR” reality from the inside out as much as from the outside in. IOW, reality exists, it is our perception that is dependent on our observational abilities.

Just think; certain animals and insects experience a completely different aspect of reality than humans do. Just because we cannot observe or experience their reality does not mean it doesn’t exist. It doesn’t exist for us, but who are we?
Should we ask if we exist???

I didn’t get that. She said that the laws of physics are presented to students as if they simply “are”. An observant student might be aware of the history of how those laws were developed, but it’s not in core curriculums. So, I think she agrees that it’s our perception, our observations.

Yes, I am not arguing that. My quarrel is with the human element in any assessment of universal mechanics. The Universe acts in strict accordance with ITS own rules and obviously, those rules are of a generic mathematical (logical) nature. Else we would not be able to make sense of any of it at all.

I really cannot understand the objection to the concept that all things happen in an orderly fashion based on prevailing relational “values” being processed via one of the four fundamenta mathematical (logical) processing functions.

There is no replacement for any of it. What could you replace maths with that would be more accurate in predicting the future outcome of a current condition?

And as far as averages and statistics, they are purely based on mathematical models resting on past recurring events.

How many organisms display a circadian rhythm? That is caused by the mathematical regularity of environmental conditions which allowed for plants to evolve and use the natural life cycles to the greatest advantage.

Today’s chaos experienced in our weather patterns is a disturbance of the natural mathematical order that has prevailed for centuries.

But if I had to give the most simple answer to the OP question I would pick “an initial dynamic condition”. The chaos theory of regular patterns emerging from chaos rests on an initial dynamic condition with generic universal mathematics as the “guiding principle”.