Proof there is a God

[Write4U]

The universe doesn't operate on mathematical laws. It operates on physical laws. Mathematical laws only describe the physical laws. You can formulate a mathematical law to describe any old nonsense.

Actually no , you cannot formulate or use mathematical laws to describe any old nonsense. 2 + 2 does not equal 5.

First, mathematical laws exist in the abstract. They are the timeless properties (potentials) of the universe and exist with or witout the presence of physical objects. In fact they are the "causality" of specific physical actions, such as the formation and shape of physical objects.

Physical laws can only work if they are mathematically "permitted". The potential of E = Mc^2 exists in all physical things, but only under very speific conditions, which allow this potential to become manifest.
We don't see all physical things fly apart do we. Other mathematical physical properties do not permit the spontaneous explosion of all matter into pure energy.

Our invention of symbolic representations of mathematics describe the language of ordered causality, not the language of physical things. It may well be the greatest accomplishment of the human mind, understanding how things work.

If you have not yet seen the video presentation of Max Tegmark's "Decoding the Universe: The Great Math Mystery - NEW 2015 Documentary", I'll repost the link for your convenience,

In addition, below is an additional link to Max Tegmark's work, in which he has describes the "a priori" necessity of mathematics before any physical action can take place.
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/mathematical.html

Check out the endorsements by other "knowledgeable minds".

 

[sideshowbob]

Actually no , you cannot formulate or use mathematical laws to describe any old nonsense.

But mathematics candescribe things that have no relationship to reality. You could devise a mathematical formula to calculate the weight of a leprechaun - but it would necessarily be based on assumptions that can not be confirmed. The fact that mathematics can describe something is not "proof" that that something exists.

First, mathematical laws exist in the abstract. They are the timeless properties (potentials) of the universe and exist with or witout the presence of physical objects.

That's exactly the problem: the mathematical descriptions don't require the physical reality to exist.

 

[Yazata]

Actually no , you cannot formulate or use mathematical laws to describe any old nonsense. 2 + 2 does not equal 5.

You can certainly produce hypothetical mathematical formulations of "laws of physics" that don't actually pertain.

First, mathematical laws exist in the abstract.

What's a 'mathematical law'?

They are the timeless properties (potentials) of the universe and exist with or witout the presence of physical objects. In fact they are the "causality" of specific physical actions, such as the formation and shape of physical objects.

That sounds like a Platonic sort of metaphysical theory. In real life nobody is exactly sure what mathematics is or what its relationship is to the rest of reality. There are any number of theories about the foundations of mathematics.

In addition, below is an additional link to Max Tegmark's work, in which he has describes the "a priori" necessity of mathematics before any physical action can take place.

I get skeptical whenever physicists play at being metaphysicians.

 

[Write4U]

But mathematics candescribe things that have no relationship to reality. You could devise a mathematical formula to calculate the weight of a leprechaun - but it would necessarily be based on assumptions that can not be confirmed. The fact that mathematics can describe something is not "proof" that that something exists.

Well, if you cannot provide the numbers associated with the properties of a leprechaun, you can't do the maths.

W4U,
In addition, below is an additional link to Max Tegmark's work, in which he has describes the "a priori" necessity of mathematics before any physical action can take place.

That's exactly the problem,: the mathematical descriptions don't require the physical reality to exist.

That is the very excellence. Everything can be described by mathematics, because it is all mathematical. It allows for theoretical mathematics, but they are always based on "known" values or observations of recurring and consistent behavior of observable phenomena.

 

[Write4U]

You can certainly produce hypothetical mathematical formulations of "laws of physics" that don't actually pertain.

No, you cannot. Try it and then try to make a prediction and test it. If the maths (of the experimenter) are flawed it won't work (garbage in, garbage out).

What's a 'mathematical law'?

That is the appropriate question.

IMO (and Tegmark), Mathematical laws are the essential fundamental logical functions of space-time.
They must be so, because there is a mathematical aspect to everything in the universe. Without the maths, nothing could be explained and tested and we end up with "miracles".

OTOH, through the maths we have been able to predict and create particles which may not even exist in natural reality because they are not stable enough to maintain cohension.

But all we need is look at the history of the Table of Elements to see the mathematical function in creating matter. Through the maths we could even predict the existence of "missing" elements in the table, which were later confirmed to exist and "named".

That sounds like a Platonic sort of metaphysical theory. In real life nobody is exactly sure what mathematics is or what its relationship is to the rest of reality. There are any number of theories about the foundations of mathematics.

Regardless of the objections, no one can dispute that the correct application of the appropriate mathematical function always works with exquisite precision. If our applied maths do not yield a coherent answer, the error lies with us, not in the mathematics.

I get skeptical whenever physicists play at being metaphysicians.

As do I. But then I get even more skeptical when theists play at being meta-physicians, which dismiss the mathematical function altogether and describe fundamental mathematical nature and functions of the universe by the invention of imaginary all powerful beings.

My question, why invent unprovable causalities when we have a perfectly working model in the mathematical function.
Recheck the above link @ 11:35

I do not doubt the existence or the accuray of the Mathematical Function, but only on the depth and clarity of insight by the meta-physicist. You must admit that Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle were working with limited knowledge available in those times. It is remarkable that those scientific giants already understood the mathematical nature of the universe.

I am particularly impressed with Plato (@17.27), who understood that mathematics predict the formation of semi-autonomous structures such as the dodecahedron, which in current science is the foundation for CDT (which is based on current cutting edge knowledge of the universal functions).

 

[sideshowbob]

Well, if you cannot provide the numbers associated with the properties of a leprechaun, you can't do the maths.

And if you cannot provide the numbers associated with the properties of God, you can't do the maths. To provide the numbers - i.e. to know the properties - you must presuppose that God exists. Ergo, any mathematical proof of God is necessarily based on presuppositions, which makes it useless.

Everything can be described by mathematics, because it is all mathematical.

Exactly. Mathematics can "prove" any old nonsense if you assume the appropriate values.

 

[Write4U]

And if you cannot provide the numbers associated with the properties of God, you can't do the maths. To provide the numbers - i.e. to know the properties - you must presuppose that God exists. Ergo, any mathematical proof of God is necessarily based on presuppositions, which makes it useless.

Correct, in the absence of any proof, you expect to come to the comclusion that God Must exist? It is you who is engaging in presuppositions (God exists), but cannot offer any mathematical information about the nature and properties of God and therefore your presupposition that God exists is useless.

W4U,
Everything can be described by mathematics, because it is all mathematical

Exactly. Mathematics can "prove" any old nonsense if you assume the appropriate values.

Of course nonsense has no appropriate values, that is why we call it nonsense. However mathematics can prove that nonsense is in fact nonsense and has no appropriate values, as it has done time and time again thoughout history. It is part of the scientific method of falsification.

Can you make a authoritative case that a horse is a mouse, because both have four legs and a tail? Would you count that as appropriate and sufficient mathematical values to come to the conclusion that a horse is in fact a mouse. Can you write an accurate equation and submit it as proof that nonsense can be mathematically justified?

Again, I am forced to say that your proposition is in fact "not even wrong". If you are not familiar with that phrase, look it up. Ok, I'll save you the time.

The phrase "not even wrong" describes any argument that purports to be scientific but fails at some fundamental level, usually in that it contains a terminal logical fallacy or it cannot be falsified by experiment (i.e. tested with the possibility of being rejected), or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world. The phrase is generally attributed to theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

I challenge you to come up with a mathematical equation that proves nonsense. I'll let you pick your subject. You made the definitive statement that it can be done, now prove it mathematically.[/quote]

 

[Spellbound]

God is not merely in the head.

 

[spidergoat]

God is not merely in the head.

Then it shouldn't be that difficult to show there is one.

 

[Spellbound]

Then it shouldn't be that difficult to show there is one.

Even if God were to show Himself not everyone has the capacity to understand what they see nor intuition to reason it out.

These days I have far more important things to tend to than opening the eyes of the blind.

 

[Write4U]

Even if God were to show Himself not everyone has the capacity to understand what they see nor intuition to reason it out.
These days I have far more important things to tend to than opening the eyes of the blind.

The poor blind fools, destined to live an empty life without any chance to enter heaven and receive their just reward of everlasting life.

But you belong to that exclusive club who are guaranteed entry. The blind can rot in hell, unless they join the club of believers and "see" God.

Do tell how you would recognize God if he were to show himself?

 

[spidergoat]

These days I have far more important things to tend to than opening the eyes of the blind.

I think Jesus said that too.

 

[Write4U]

Even if God were to show Himself not everyone has the capacity to understand what they see nor intuition to reason it out.

These days I have far more important things to tend to than opening the eyes of the blind.

After reading more carefully, I am compelled to add this to my more serious previous response. Also made by one of those "blind" people. George Carlin. (warnng crude language) said it best

 

[sideshowbob]

It is you who is engaging in presuppositions (God exists), but cannot offer any mathematical information about the nature and properties of God and therefore your presupposition that God exists is useless.

Huh? Where have I ever suggested that God exists? I'm saying that mathematical proofs of God are worthless because they have no connection to reality. The people who are trying to prove God are the ones who must presuppose His existence.

Can you make a authoritative case that a horse is a mouse, because both have four legs and a tail?

I don't know what your requirements would be for an "authoritative" case but I can prove mathematically that a horse is a mouse - as long as a mouse and a horse are both defined only as having four legs and a tail. Once again, that's my point: a mathematical proof is only as good as its premises.

 

[Write4U]

Huh? Where have I ever suggested that God exists? I'm saying that mathematical proofs of God are worthless because they have no connection to reality. The people who are trying to prove God are the ones who must presuppose His existence.

Sorry, in post #287 I meant the "you" and "your" in a general sense, as you did in the your original statement.
We are in agreement.

I don't know what your requirements would be for an "authoritative" case but I can prove mathematically that a horse is a mouse - as long as a mouse and a horse are both defined only as having four legs and a tail. Once again, that's my point: a mathematical proof is only as good as its premises.

Ok, but horses and mice are not defined by their legs and tail. That defines a "tailed quadruped" and that is true and can be proven (made authoritative) on that premise. But the actual properties of a horse and a mouse also include size, weight, habitation and a host of other "known" defining properties, and lacking those will result in a nonsensical answer that a mouse is a horse.

But that does not make it possible to prove that a mouse is a horse. It can easily be falsified.

This is the problem with designing AI. There needs to be sufficient (and accurate) information to arrive at a definitive mathematical result and make certain predictive statements from the maths.

But again I agree, the mathematical function does not distinguish between "garbage in garbage out". It just processes the information. If the information is false or incomplete, the calculation will be logically true but the answer wil be false. That was my point.

Which confirms the proposition that the mathematical function is pseudo-intelligent (logical) function, but not intelligently aware. It is an implaccable process, an inherent universal function and the foundation of Determinism..

 

[river]

But in the end what does it matter that god is non-sense or not.

The proof that this god cares is in its actions ; not in the past , but now. As in the present.

 

[Write4U]

But in the end what does it matter that god is non-sense or not.

The proof that this god cares is in its actions ; not in the past , but now. As in the present.

I go further and say that it makes no difference if God cares or not, it just functions as it must.

 

[sideshowbob]

But the actual properties of a horse and a mouse also include size, weight, habitation and a host of other "known" defining properties, and lacking those will result in a nonsensical answer that a mouse is a horse.

So you would need the actual properties of a God to make a mathematical proof that there is an actual God. Circular.

 

[Write4U]

So you would need the actual properties of a God to make a mathematical proof that there is an actual God. Circular.

Yes and that is not circular thinking, that is the scientific method.

It is you who engages in circular thinking, also known as "faith".

strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

 

[sideshowbob]

Yes and that is not circular thinking, that is the scientific method.

It is circular because it is necessary to assume the conclusion to arrive at the conclusion. You can't prove mathematically that God exists in the real world without real-world premises about the nature of God - and you can't have real-world premises about God unless you've already assumed that God exists.

It is you who engages in circular thinking, also known as "faith".

I've asked you before why you think I have any faith. I'm still waiting for an answer.