Applicability of Maths to the Universe

[GrandizerII]

Was watching a debate between Graham Oppy and WLC recently on YouTube, and the topic of the debate had to do with whether or not the applicability of mathematics to the universe serves as evidence for God. WLC (and a lot of Christian thinkers) seem to think that mathematics (at least at the advanced levels) is completely a priori and will find it surprising that it nevertheless can be reliably applied to the universe in the form of physical laws and such. But I'm really not sure what the shocker here is. My understanding is that even the most advanced mathematics that is applied to reality is generally still based on aspects of reality that have been discovered/experienced, so of course when you then apply mathematical conclusions and theorems back to reality, it shouldn't be a surprise that often times there will be a successful mapping between mathematics and reality. If there is structural order in the universe, this is to be expected. But order does not necessitate the existence of God and is perfectly compatible with naturalistic views. Order, for example, might simply be the necessary manifestation that the universe exhibits, and pure chaos might perhaps be some form of an illusion. You could argue that this order still needs some grounding in something, but that is still fine with naturalism in general.

Thoughts, disagreements, go ahead.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

*Sits back and awaits all the Mathematical peoples to start discussing edumacational stuffs*

[Belacqua]

Was watching a debate between Graham Oppy and WLC recently on YouTube, and the topic of the debate had to do with whether or not the applicability of mathematics to the universe serves as evidence for God. WLC (and a lot of Christian thinkers) seem to think that mathematics (at least at the advanced levels) is completely a priori and will find it surprising that it nevertheless can be reliably applied to the universe in the form of physical laws and such. But I'm really not sure what the shocker here is. My understanding is that even the most advanced mathematics that is applied to reality is generally still based on aspects of reality that have been discovered/experienced, so of course when you then apply mathematical conclusions and theorems back to reality, it shouldn't be a surprise that often times there will be a successful mapping between mathematics and reality. If there is structural order in the universe, this is to be expected. But order does not necessitate the existence of God and is perfectly compatible with naturalistic views. Order, for example, might simply be the necessary manifestation that the universe exhibits, and pure chaos might perhaps be some form of an illusion. You could argue that this order still needs some grounding in something, but that is still fine with naturalism in general.

Thoughts, disagreements, go ahead.

I haven't read any WLC. It wouldn't come as a surprise, though, to hear that someone had pointed to genuine philosophical puzzles and tried to puff them up as proofs for God. 

The relation of math to the material world does apparently turn out to be trickier than one might first expect. Math isn't only and always a descriptor for what goes on in the material world. Roland Penrose is good on this, among others. 

At most, one could use math as an example of non-material things having an existence that isn't known through empirical means. Getting from there to God, though, needs a whole lot more steps.

[LostLocke]

Some years ago, somewhere on the great wide web, (I don't remember where), people were discussing math as the "proof" for God, or at least a higher intelligence. Someone said, if this discussion was a sentence, math would be an adjective and/or adverb, *not* a noun or verb. Math *describes* a thing, it is not the thing in itself. The observable universe doesn't follow the laws of math, rather we created the "language" of math to describe what the observable universe is doing.

[Belacqua]

Some years ago, somewhere on the great wide web, (I don't remember where), people were discussing math as the "proof" for God, or at least a higher intelligence. Someone said, if this discussion was a sentence, math would be an adjective and/or adverb, *not* a noun or verb. Math *describes* a thing, it is not the thing in itself. The observable universe doesn't follow the laws of math, rather we created the "language" of math to describe what the observable universe is doing.

As I understand it, the pro-God side has wanted to use math in two ways: 

1) The world operates on regular knowable principles which can be described by math. This can be seen as Logos, a concept pulled into religion long ago.

2) Many people (not just religious ones) have said that numbers are ideal objects, with an existence that is without change, extension, or location. The existence of non-material, transcendent objects of this type has been important to theology pretty much since it began. 

I'm not advocating the religious view here, just describing how it relates to math.

[GrandizerII]

Was watching a debate between Graham Oppy and WLC recently on YouTube, and the topic of the debate had to do with whether or not the applicability of mathematics to the universe serves as evidence for God. WLC (and a lot of Christian thinkers) seem to think that mathematics (at least at the advanced levels) is completely a priori and will find it surprising that it nevertheless can be reliably applied to the universe in the form of physical laws and such. But I'm really not sure what the shocker here is. My understanding is that even the most advanced mathematics that is applied to reality is generally still based on aspects of reality that have been discovered/experienced, so of course when you then apply mathematical conclusions and theorems back to reality, it shouldn't be a surprise that often times there will be a successful mapping between mathematics and reality. If there is structural order in the universe, this is to be expected. But order does not necessitate the existence of God and is perfectly compatible with naturalistic views. Order, for example, might simply be the necessary manifestation that the universe exhibits, and pure chaos might perhaps be some form of an illusion. You could argue that this order still needs some grounding in something, but that is still fine with naturalism in general.

Thoughts, disagreements, go ahead.

I haven't read any WLC. It wouldn't come as a surprise, though, to hear that someone had pointed to genuine philosophical puzzles and tried to puff them up as proofs for God. 

The relation of math to the material world does apparently turn out to be trickier than one might first expect. Math isn't only and always a descriptor for what goes on in the material world. Roland Penrose is good on this, among others. 

At most, one could use math as an example of non-material things having an existence that isn't known through empirical means. Getting from there to God, though, needs a whole lot more steps.

Bolded mine. Yeah, mathematics has its many uses, and not all of them are applied to the real world in any way. I do think though that, when it is successfully applied, it's because of some initial inbuilt assumptions based on (or derived from) observations made in the real world. In a way, there seems to be some circular thing happening here. Something like: physical observations -> basic maths -> more advanced maths -> predictions about physical world.

Maybe a specific example or two would help to challenge this view. I'm curious now if complex numbers that are applied to the physical world in such fields as electrical engineering are really that surprising. My gut feeling tells me that while this is interesting, complex numbers are still nevertheless based on the square root of a real number, so there's an initial thing here that is easily mappable to the real world.

[Cepheus Ace]

listen here my young apprentice, what WLC is doing is pushing for platonic realism and substance dualism in order to sneak in the idea that his god exists without evidence

:

[Belacqua]

easily mappable to the real world.

It's all really puzzling. Way too hard for me to understand. 

Unfortunately William Lane Craig has made it his thing, but far more respectable people discuss the same issue. Clearly math has some applicability to the material world -- yet also has its own non-material existence that doesn't map. Exactly how the two things can be compatible is tricky.

Recently -- maybe you saw -- a very unpleasant Christian was here and brought up a similar issue. It was too bad that he was so nasty, because it really is a fascinating topic. And it's one that we can work on without reference to Craig.

Here is Penrose on the topic. As I recall in this video he just says that he doesn't know how the math-world and the material world go together, exactly. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9Q6SWcTA9w

And as I told the nasty guy, Penrose is here quoting Popper, whose Three Worlds system seems very useful to me. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popper%27s_three_worlds

https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documen...pper80.pdf

---

listen here my young apprentice, what WLC is doing is pushing for platonic realism and substance dualism in order to sneak in the idea that his god exists without evidence

This is why it's far better to ignore WLC and read the good people who raise the same issue.

[Fake Messiah]

My understanding is that even the most advanced mathematics that is applied to reality is generally still based on aspects of reality that have been discovered/experienced, so of course when you then apply mathematical conclusions and theorems back to reality, it shouldn't be a surprise that often times there will be a successful mapping between mathematics and reality. I

While many important mathematical techniques and concepts were developed in large part precisely in order to serve the purpose of describing laws of nature, there are plenty other cases where mathematical concepts were first developed with no particular intended application, and then later found application in an unexpected physical domain. For example: Group theory and Manifold theory...

As Galileo said: "The great book of nature can be read only by those who know the language in which it was written. And this language is mathematics."

[GrandizerII]

While many important mathematical techniques and concepts were developed in large part precisely in order to serve the purpose of describing laws of nature, there are plenty other cases where mathematical concepts were first developed with no particular intended application, and then later found application in an unexpected physical domain. For example: Group theory and Manifold theory...

Ok, but that's not something that disagrees with what I'm saying/pondering. Regardless of initial intent, if some mathematical concept ends up being mapped to the real world in a way that is unexpected, what's the story behind it? Right assumptions made about the world, therefore with right constraints, these concepts can be applied? Or is there something rather deep about this whole thing (whether it's a God or some other interesting phenomenon happening)?

Belaqua, I'll give that a watch once I'm done with chores. It's Penrose, so I'm going to take him seriously.