Mathematics and the Universe

[Purple Rabbit]

I really don't see why the apparent order amidst chaos of the universe is indicative of the hand of god. Why is it more likely that we would fall up one minute and down the next without god's intervention? If we take as granted that something can spontaneously exist (as must be the case even if there is a god, since god or his creator or his creator's creator ad infinitim must have spontaneously existed), why is it especially significant that that thing (assuming the universe spontaneously existes) not be governed by a non-harmonius mess of conflicting rules? If anything, it would make more sense that those things that do not co-exist well would cancel one another out. In the alternative, why should we chalk it up to anything more than coincidence? Attribution to god is nothing more than wishful thinking in search of justification.

You mention 'the apparent order' and chalking it up to 'coincidence'. When we consider order such as E = Mc2 , or other mathematical equations that show the law or order in the universe, I find it hard to think of these 'laws' as 'coincidence.' A law implies purpose, intention. It is a constraint. If it is just a coincidence and the universe is comprised by chance in such a way that these 'laws' just happen to be 'out there' then I think that defies logic. If these laws can be 'out there' seeming to hold the universe together, then I see no problem with an ultimate 'law giver'. I don't get bogged down with the 'complexity' problem and infinite regress problem. I do not see it as an obstacle in considering a law giver. It is only a problem when we anthropomorphise the law giver and assume it is like the universe or like us. These laws are what I consider strong 'evidence' of a law giver.

It's not a choice between god and coincidence imo.

The order that is emerging from underneath all laws of nature are more than anything related to symmetry. The law of energy conservation for example in essence constitutes a symmetry between different forms of energy. E=mc^2 establishes a symmetry between matter and energy. The Pauli Exclusion Principle is based on symmetry between quantum states. Special relativity rests on symmetry between frames of reference. The Standard Model for elementary particles is all about symmetry between particles and forces. These symmetries provide some form of stability to our universe. Without this stability we wouldn't be here to testity about any laws of nature, there would be nothing or only chaos. It is the basis for our being in this universe, not to confuse with purpose and meaning.

Compare it to a vibrating guitar string. The string is fixed on both sides and therefore can only resonate certain wavelengths and hence produce only certain pitch. The number of wavelengths fitting on the string is constrained by it's length. It is a symmetry aspect (i.e. longitudinal symmetry) of the one-dimensional string that makes that a particular string will have particular sound properties.

It takes a giant leap of faith from symmetry to a law giver, (human) purpose, intention and (human) meaning. I see no one single reason for it. It seems to me that this picture is completely based on a false analogy from human experience (social structures known to man, the innate actor-object model of our habitat) projected onto the structure of the universe. If that analogy should apply to the universe then it also should apply to a vibrating guitar string. Then the string is not producing that certain pitch because of it's inherent properties combined with symmetry arguments but because a heavenly law giver has decided so and has specific intentions for humans with it. To me that is a totally absurd, unsubstantiated and unnecessary mythical conjecture born out of antropomorphic thinking. In a sense it shows a haughty human wish to become god himself, to be the center of existence, meaning and intention of the universe.