Mathematics and the Universe

[Purple Rabbit]

Purple Rabbit, I understand what you mean about mathematics being a formal language. However consider another intelligent species.
Their spoken language may be wildy different to any of those on earth.
However, I think their development of mathematics would be extremely similar. OK, the symbols may vary, and perhaps even a few defintions (0 factorial, square root of -1 etc) may be slightly different. But the syntax would be identical, because they are describing the same universe.

You may be right on the aliens, lilphil. There is some speculation here. The reason why you might be right though is that these aliens will be part of this same universe. And if they are a product of an evolution on another planet in this same universe, I'd expect that certain hard wired pattern recognition faculties will have developed in them also. My point is not that spoken language is some prerequisite to mathematics, but rather that the manipulation, recognition, identification, counting etc of objects is needed by any species consisting of intelligent planning agents in this universe. I'd expect that concepts like symmetry, identity, causality etc are in the piggybag of all succesfull species in this universe.

[Darwinian]

Awarded by the Templeton Foundation!!!!

Kind of says it all really doesn't it?

Forget the award. Is there any 'truth' to it?

I can't see how.

It seems to me to be the same old argument that if the universe had a beginning then it must have had a creator, etc. etc. etc.

The prize was awarded to a religious man by religious people working for a religiously biased organisation.

[Purple Rabbit]

Forget the award. Is there any 'truth' to it?

Imo it's the same question you were asking about the Polkinghorne quote. Keeping as close as possible to what evidence tells us does not require the assertion that from order in the universe you necessarily arrive at an intelligent agent with godlike features of the christian kind. That's were faith starts and science ends.

[leo-rcc]

If I read the article correctly, it is saying that e.g Pi equals Pi because a god made the value of Pi Pi and gave us the ability to measure Pi through math. This would not hold up with Ockham's razor. It is shoehorning in a god to explain Pi for no other reason than to have a god in that equation.

It's like saying water boils at 100 degrees Celsius because God made water that way. I adds nothing.

[CoxRox]

I provided the link above, not to discuss a 'prize' that someone got, but because of the mathematical link. We are discussing maths in this thread aren't we?

To quote another small section:
''His theories do not so much offer proof of the existence of God as introduce doubt about the material existence of the world around us. He specialises in complex formulae that make it possible to explain everything, even chance, through mathematical calculation.''

I am no mathematician and don't understand the language of maths very well, but if I came across a book, even if I couldn't undertand it, I would believe that a mind had conveyed some information for others to understand. Maybe mathematics is similar. This is what I am trying to determine.

---

If I read the article correctly, it is saying that e.g Pi equals Pi because a god made the value of Pi Pi and gave us the ability to measure Pi through math. This would not hold up with Ockham's razor. It is shoehorning in a god to explain Pi for no other reason than to have a god in that equation.

It's like saying water boils at 100 degrees Celsius because God made water that way. I adds nothing.

Here is the sentiment of a mathematician:

"For me, it's amazing the way in which the seemingly different areas of mathematics fit together. When you begin studying advanced math, you tend to think of geometry, algebra, analysis and so on as separate entities, each beautiful and elegant on its own.

"But as you go on, you realize that these different areas are connected in the most astonishing yet natural ways. You may discover that what you thought of as purely a part of geometry turns out to be an essential part of algebra. And what we're dealing with is not just something we've made up. It's a reality. It's there.''

http://www.transformingteachers.org/inde...Itemid=173

I quote him as I cannot as eloquently convey this 'idea' about maths.

[leo-rcc]

But as you go on, you realize that these different areas are connected in the most astonishing yet natural ways.

Well pardon my ignorance, but I already figured that one out when I was still in Secondary Agricultural school when I got in contact with Physics, Biology, Chemistry and Economics. What I fail to see is how God is supposed to fit in there.

[Edwardo Piet]

Forget the award. Is there any 'truth' to it?

Imo it's the same question you were asking about the Polkinghorne quote. Keeping as close as possible to what evidence tells us does not require the assertion that from order in the universe you necessarily arrive at an intelligent agent with godlike features of the christian kind. That's were faith starts and science ends.

I strongly agree.
The problem for me is that going straight from 'there is order in the universe' to postulating a superintelligent supernatural entity is a gigantic leap of faith. Its a non-sequitur. When there's no evidence, or incomplete evidence of something - the answer is not to just fill it with a skyhook. That doesn't follow. Its a non-sequitur. And in the case of God, - God is much more improbable than the order in the universe itself because he would have had to design it all - and create the universe, consciously - and he would have had to come out of nowhere - or rather been there all along without any explanation (or he's not God, because whoever or whatever created him would have to be God instead then and so on down the line, etc).
Of course as we know, when we don't understand something its very unscientific to just fill it with "God did it". Whether you're a religious scientist or not. Making a leap of faith from not understanding something to "God did it" without any evidence of God is not how science works. This part is just a "faith thing" here. There needs to be evidence for it to be otherwise.
Postulating a skyhook is not science. When something isn't explained; trying to explain it with something that's an even bigger - a much much bigger - problem of lack of evidence and extreme improbability is surely, not the answer.
Evf

[CoxRox]

Leo, I see what you are saying, however there are many mighty minds like Roger Penrose, Paul Davies who agree with that guy's sentiments and believe that mathematics has an 'existence' of its own. A good 'reason' for this is that some 'mathematics' were discovered BEFORE they were demonstrated to 'explain' the physical world or so I have read. Is this true?

[Purple Rabbit]

"But as you go on, you realize that these different areas are connected in the most astonishing yet natural ways. You may discover that what you thought of as purely a part of geometry turns out to be an essential part of algebra. And what we're dealing with is not just something we've made up. It's a reality. It's there.''

If math is the language in which god has written nature, would that not imply that all math should have a counterpart in nature? Well, the fact is that there is a lot of math with no counterpart in nature. For long it was thought that god had written nature in Euclidean Geometry (EG). How could there be something other than EG? It was derived from rock solid assumptions that everyone could but verify. So it was thought. Till Einstein came along and showed that space is warped to form non-euclidean geometries. Also Gödel showed shortcomings of certain logic.

Math is a tool made and used by humans. To assert a divine agent from the iterative consonance between nature and mathematics is to assert that hammers and nails need a divine agent to explain their aptness to construct houses with them.

[Purple Rabbit]

The universe is a place stable enough to evolve (over a span of billion years) life in it that can contemplate on it's existence. It seems not farfetched to me in this situation to suppose some order and underlying structure that supports this kind of stability, the alternative being total chaos that leaves no room for our kind of life in the first place. It is not surprising therefore imo that these creatures, embedded in, build on and condemned to manipulate their existence within the borders of this order and structure, more or less iteratively find access to the underlying principles. Only the effectiveness thereof is puzzling but not a reason to invoke a celestial lawgiver. For this supposes that the laws of nature themself are in need of an (intelligent) agent who dictates them. This clearly is a false analogy with human law giving (with infinite regress lurking as a side effect) . The laws of nature show no need for such an agent. Once again it is clear that science suggests no celestial agent. To invoke one is entirely a big leap of faith.