>>11245104Math does describe those early conditions but not earlier, and we accept that we don't understand. That's science. There are empirically-derived formulas for things in engineering and when you go "wow, what kind of pure reality-describing physics made that equation?", they'll say "i didn't, we just played with the numbers in it untilvthe curve matched what our experiments said. Who cares, it works."
Physics is, scarily enough, pretty much a glorified version of that. We knew F=G*m1*m2*r^-2, but that wasn't any meaningful description of *why* the world was that way. Einstein came along and showed us how gages and fields produce that law, but we're again faced with that same problem. What is this strange field thing? What even is time?
More and more refined experiments allow us to throw out what we discover to be wrong or too generalized (see luminiferous aether), but the more we see the more complex it gets and to dive even deeper than just physics you get to the classic "why does anything exist?"
