Mathematics and the Universe

[Edwardo Piet]

What I've wondered is how can we absolutely 100% know that there are NOT any universes (or big bangs, dimensions, whatever, etc, etc) out there - that have different kinds of mathetmatics, or some equivalent instead? How can we know absolutely?

Just because we cannot concieve of whatever the hell another kind of mathematics SOMEWHERE else would be like?

These 2 guys said to me when I asked this: We know absolutely because mathetmatics has been proven. But I said: Yes, but that doesn't mean another kind or equivalents has been DISPROVEN does it?

We cannot disprove the FSM, the IPU, Zeus. Yahweh, Russells Teapot etc. So how could we disprove this? And how HAVE we already? Where's the contradiciton? We don't know what another kind of mathmatics etc would be like. The fact we cannot conceive it doesn't mean we 100% absolutely know for certain that there isn't another. Or any more. Does it?

If we proved that one God DOES exist would that disprove all the others? Couldn't there easily be more than one? Even IF we were, hypothetically speaking, incapable of conceiving of any other Gods than that particular one?

There are many supernatural beings that have never been conceived of. The fact that they have never been conceived of yet - does that mean they are disproved unlike the FSM, Zeus, Yahweh, etc?

If I think up the Tangerine Crocodile That Carries a Lantern called Gorwokerz Mupperett and Wears a Cape Identical to Batman's...was he any more disproved before I thought him up? I don't think so.

Hope that wasn't a digression lol. I'm trying to be relevant here if something has not been conceivable or is inconceivable does that mean its 100% absolutely disproved for certain? I don't think so.
evf

[LukeMC]

What I've wondered is how can we absolutely 100% know that there are NOT any universes (or big bangs, dimensions, whatever, etc, etc) out there - that have different kinds of mathetmatics, or some equivalent instead? How can we know absolutely?

Just because we cannot concieve of whatever the hell another kind of mathematics SOMEWHERE else would be like?

These 2 guys said to me when I asked this: We know absolutely because mathetmatics has been proven. But I said: Yes, but that doesn't mean another kind or equivalents has been DISPROVEN does it?

We cannot disprove the FSM, the IPU, Zeus. Yahweh, Russells Teapot etc. So how could we disprove this? And how HAVE we already? Where's the contradiciton? We don't know what another kind of mathmatics etc would be like. The fact we cannot conceive it doesn't mean we 100% absolutely know for certain that there isn't another. Or any more. Does it?

If we proved that one God DOES exist would that disprove all the others? Couldn't there easily be more than one? Even IF we were, hypothetically speaking, incapable of conceiving of any other Gods than that particular one?

There are many supernatural beings that have never been conceived of. The fact that they have never been conceived of yet - does that mean they are disproved unlike the FSM, Zeus, Yahweh, etc?

If I think up the Tangerine Crocodile That Carries a Lantern called Gorwokerz Mupperett and Wears a Cape Identical to Batman's...was he any more disproved before I thought him up? I don't think so.

Hope that wasn't a digression lol. I'm trying to be relevant here if something has not been conceivable or is inconceivable does that mean its 100% absolutely disproved for certain? I don't think so.
evf

Nope, but it's probably just as unlikely as the existance of a god. If there is a universe where you hold up one hand, then other hand, and can only conclude that you are holding up 6 hands... that's just odd. I would say the likelihood of mathematics being different in alternate universes is about the same as the likelihood of the FSM. What's more, we have no proof of the existance of this different mathematics and couldn't understand it if we did. I think it's safe to say mathematics are as close to universal as this debate needs assume.

[Purple Rabbit]

Purple Rabbit, my dad has replied to you:

'Peace', 'slavery', 'war', 'socialism', 'torture', etc, are abstract concepts, relating specifically to human conditions. (They are in a word, relative.) Mathematical truths are Absolute, and therefore, universal - ie non relative. (Gödel's theorum demonstrates that mathematics cannot be reduced to a positivistic, formal system, because truth is absolute, proof merely relative).


Regards Michael

Mathematical and logical truths (even so called absolute ones) are absolute only in a limited sense. I'll give an example:

Suppose that from premisses A and B with logical deduction it follows that conclusion C is true, then the inference of C from A and B is logically absolute. Still C is true only under the assumption that A and B are both true. To establish the logical truth of A and B we need other syllogisms. The regress is stopped in mathematics at the level of axioms, statements that are assumed to be true because they are considered impossible to refute. Axioms are said to be evident statements, they have no proof, they are the bedrock of logic and mathematics. This means that mathematics is build on some human choice after all. Furthermore the applicability of A and B to our reality requires some way to establish correspondence between the logical realm and the physical realm. This again requires some assumptions to be made. Apart from deductive logic you need inductive methods, and inductive logic is not absolute (problem of induction).

The dethroning of Euclidean Geometry (EG) as absolute truth about our universe again suffices as a good example. Given Euclid's axioms, EG's logical conclusions follow and are said to be absolute. But EG turned out to be not applicable to our universe. This shows that logical absolutes not necessarily are absolutes in the physical realm. In other words the logical does not necessarily prescribe the physical reality. Because mathematics is always based an axiom's, asserted by man guided by the rules that seem to rule our physical universe (doesn't that make these axioms relative too?), mathematical absoluteness has no prescriptive meaning in our physical world.

So this means that, contrary to the assertion made in your reply, the proof (i.e. the deductional part) may be absolute, absolute truths about reality cannot be obtained by mathematics. Gödel's incompleteness theorems have little relevance for the above. They only cripple mathematical deduction further in the sense that undecibibility creeps in, in case you use first-order predicate calculus.

PS: Thank your father for his reply.

[Edwardo Piet]

What I've wondered is how can we absolutely 100% know that there are NOT any universes (or big bangs, dimensions, whatever, etc, etc) out there - that have different kinds of mathetmatics, or some equivalent instead? How can we know absolutely?

Just because we cannot concieve of whatever the hell another kind of mathematics SOMEWHERE else would be like?

These 2 guys said to me when I asked this: We know absolutely because mathetmatics has been proven. But I said: Yes, but that doesn't mean another kind or equivalents has been DISPROVEN does it?

We cannot disprove the FSM, the IPU, Zeus. Yahweh, Russells Teapot etc. So how could we disprove this? And how HAVE we already? Where's the contradiciton? We don't know what another kind of mathmatics etc would be like. The fact we cannot conceive it doesn't mean we 100% absolutely know for certain that there isn't another. Or any more. Does it?

If we proved that one God DOES exist would that disprove all the others? Couldn't there easily be more than one? Even IF we were, hypothetically speaking, incapable of conceiving of any other Gods than that particular one?

There are many supernatural beings that have never been conceived of. The fact that they have never been conceived of yet - does that mean they are disproved unlike the FSM, Zeus, Yahweh, etc?

If I think up the Tangerine Crocodile That Carries a Lantern called Gorwokerz Mupperett and Wears a Cape Identical to Batman's...was he any more disproved before I thought him up? I don't think so.

Hope that wasn't a digression lol. I'm trying to be relevant here if something has not been conceivable or is inconceivable does that mean its 100% absolutely disproved for certain? I don't think so.
evf

Nope, but it's probably just as unlikely as the existance of a god. If there is a universe where you hold up one hand, then other hand, and can only conclude that you are holding up 6 hands... that's just odd. I would say the likelihood of mathematics being different in alternate universes is about the same as the likelihood of the FSM. What's more, we have no proof of the existance of this different mathematics and couldn't understand it if we did. I think it's safe to say mathematics are as close to universal as this debate needs assume.

I agree. Its probably about as unlikely as the FSM. Notice - about. It could be less unlikely. Or more. But I don't think there is really much of a difference in the probability! lol.

[CoxRox]

Mathematical and logical truths (even so called absolute ones) are absolute only in a limited sense. I'll give an example:

Suppose that from premisses A and B with logical deduction it follows that conclusion C is true, then the inference of C from A and B is logically absolute. Still C is true only under the assumption that A and B are both true. To establish the logical truth of A and B we need other syllogisms. The regress is stopped in mathematics at the level of axioms, statements that are assumed to be true because they are considered impossible to refute. Axioms are said to be evident statements, they have no proof, they are the bedrock of logic and mathematics. This means that mathematics is build on some human choice after all. Furthermore the applicability of A and B to our reality requires some way to establish correspondence between the logical realm and the physical realm. This again requires some assumptions to be made. Apart from deductive logic you need inductive methods, and inductive logic is not absolute (problem of induction).

The dethroning of Euclidean Geometry (EG) as absolute truth about our universe again suffices as a good example. Given Euclid's axioms, EG's logical conclusions follow and are said to be absolute. But EG turned out to be not applicable to our universe. This shows that logical absolutes not necessarily are absolutes in the physical realm. In other words the logical does not necessarily prescribe the physical reality. Because mathematics is always based an axiom's, asserted by man guided by the rules that seem to rule our physical universe (doesn't that make these axioms relative too?), mathematical absoluteness has no prescriptive meaning in our physical world.

So this means that, contrary to the assertion made in your reply, the proof (i.e. the deductional part) may be absolute, absolute truths about reality cannot be obtained by mathematics. Gödel's incompleteness theorems have little relevance for the above. They only cripple mathematical deduction further in the sense that undecibibility creeps in, in case you use first-order predicate calculus.

PS: Thank your father for his reply.

Purple Rabbit, this goes over my head somewhat hence why I enlisted the help of my father. I'm seeing him tomorrow so will give him your reply and will come back to you. Incidentally, when I pondered your response regarding the quote of Penrose's you provided, I could see the point you were making, but I felt (maybe wrongly) that maybe we can't always compare 'abstract' things in the same way. I don't know.

[Giff]

I find the string theory to be really facinating. Also the quantum mechanics is very intresting.

[Edwardo Piet]

I totally agree. Fascinating.

[CoxRox]

Mathematical and logical truths (even so called absolute ones) are absolute only in a limited sense. I'll give an example:

Suppose that from premisses A and B with logical deduction it follows that conclusion C is true, then the inference of C from A and B is logically absolute. Still C is true only under the assumption that A and B are both true. To establish the logical truth of A and B we need other syllogisms. The regress is stopped in mathematics at the level of axioms, statements that are assumed to be true because they are considered impossible to refute. Axioms are said to be evident statements, they have no proof, they are the bedrock of logic and mathematics. This means that mathematics is build on some human choice after all. Furthermore the applicability of A and B to our reality requires some way to establish correspondence between the logical realm and the physical realm. This again requires some assumptions to be made. Apart from deductive logic you need inductive methods, and inductive logic is not absolute (problem of induction).

The dethroning of Euclidean Geometry (EG) as absolute truth about our universe again suffices as a good example. Given Euclid's axioms, EG's logical conclusions follow and are said to be absolute. But EG turned out to be not applicable to our universe. This shows that logical absolutes not necessarily are absolutes in the physical realm. In other words the logical does not necessarily prescribe the physical reality. Because mathematics is always based an axiom's, asserted by man guided by the rules that seem to rule our physical universe (doesn't that make these axioms relative too?), mathematical absoluteness has no prescriptive meaning in our physical world.

So this means that, contrary to the assertion made in your reply, the proof (i.e. the deductional part) may be absolute, absolute truths about reality cannot be obtained by mathematics. Gödel's incompleteness theorems have little relevance for the above. They only cripple mathematical deduction further in the sense that undecibibility creeps in, in case you use first-order predicate calculus.

PS: Thank your father for his reply.

Michael thanks you for your response which he found to be most intriguing. He has one or two points to clarify before coming back to you in due course.

[infidel666]

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.

[CoxRox]

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.