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.

[CoxRox]

Purple Rabbit, I do not understand the 'symmetry' points you are making. Can you simplify these at all? I've been reading about 'fine-tuning' of the universe and the 'cosmological constant' seems to cause some scientists to then conclude there is a 'law giver'. Why do you think they do this?

[infidel666]

If gravity reversed at random moments, or if E= mC^2 only part of the time and other random things at random times, would we have developed to analyze it? And if we did, surely we would have found math to desribe the fractal nature of the chaotic step function. And then people would ooo and ahhh over the beauty and symmetry of the fractal and how elegant it is and say it is strong evidence of a creator. You're basically saying that the existence of stuff, and the existence of us to analyze it and quantify it mathematically, is strong evidence of god. That's what it boils down to.

[Giff]

Everything in the worl is based on math in some way. All things happen by chance, but there is allways something that are more likely to be happen that you can calculate. Faith and all that doesnt exist. That is jsut somehting that people make up for themself becuase they want to see patterns and want that everything shall have meaning. Its easier that way. But, thats not truth.

[CoxRox]

Let's try and clarify the term 'laws' of physics. Earlier it was said they are not 'laws' in the sense that we usually use the term. I understand it to mean this. Correct me if I'm wrong:

These 'laws' or 'forces' are 'set' or constrained in some way so that they don't fluctuate- hence why we can understand/explain them via mathematical equations (and hence why we are in existence and pondering them). It's hard to visualise or comprehend even one of these laws, being able to stay 'fixed'. If we think of a constant temperature via our central heating, there are controls that regulate the temperature and we manipulate the heating system to maintain the temperature we require. (The temperature is measured via numbers). In nature, heat fluctuates depending on the weather conditions than vary all the time. Why do these laws NOT fluctuate if all of nature and the universe is random, etc? This is the 'crux' of the matter for me that I am trying to understand with my limited knowledge of physics and maths.

[infidel666]

Plus, the existence of this reality does not mean that other realities do not co-exist or have not existed. I think it likely that every possible set of circumstances does come into existence. Given infinite realities, it is inevitable that many would be orderly enough to allow the development of intelligent life, that some of those would be like us, and that some of those like us look at the order of the universe and jump to the conclusion of a creator. It's coincidence.

And in the extremely unlikely event that it's not coincidence, and there is a creator "God," then odds are good that God is not omniscient or omnipotent, or that God is a giant turtle that pooped us out and doesn't care about us. It is only an inconceivably small chance that there is a creator God that knows we are here and gives a crap whether we worship It. And in that case, God is still a dick and I won't worship It.

[Darwinian]

Why do these laws NOT fluctuate if all of nature and the universe is random, etc? This is the 'crux' of the matter for me that I am trying to understand with my limited knowledge of physics and maths.

Let us consider what would happen if these laws did fluctuate for a moment. I would imagine that the Universe would become unstable and never reach the situation where life could evolve to ask such questions.

So, the very fact that you can ask these questions means that we must live in a Universe where these laws are stable. Q.E.D. { wink }

[CoxRox]

Why do these laws NOT fluctuate if all of nature and the universe is random, etc? This is the 'crux' of the matter for me that I am trying to understand with my limited knowledge of physics and maths.

Let us consider what would happen if these laws did fluctuate for a moment. I would imagine that the Universe would become unstable and never reach the situation where life could evolve to ask such questions.

So, the very fact that you can ask these questions means that we must live in a Universe where these laws are stable. Q.E.D. { wink }

Yes, Darwinian, but I'm very interested to know 'why'. I think this is a valid question. What is keeping these laws stable? Why do we call them laws?

[Darwinian]

Why do we call them laws? { confused }

I suppose it seemed like a good idea at the time. Perhaps conditions would be a better term.

[CoxRox]

Why do we call them laws? { confused }

I suppose it seemed like a good idea at the time. Perhaps conditions would be a better term.

Hmmmm...'conditions' implies a set of rules???