Proof there is a God

The way I see it is as follows:
Any environment that creates order out of chaos must have rules.
Mathematics is the language of those rules.
Physics is the manifestation of those rules.
They are part and parcel of the same thing - you can not have one without the other, even if the physical is only manifest as a potential. It's like arguing between Heads and Tails, surely?
 
Write4U said:
If the universe were logical, then a case can be made that this logic is the product of a sentience.
OTOH, if the universe is only mathematical, then that renders any argument of a God moot.
Click to expand...
The universe IS logical. It is necessarily logical if it remains stable - and it seems to be stable.
By that I mean that if it is stable then there are necessarily rules to which it must adhere.
Logic is simply the relationship between those rules. As is mathematics. They merely have slightly different perspectives and different languages, but they say the same thing ultimately.
That's how I see it, anyhow.
 
Daecon said:
Fractals seem chaotic at first glace, but each can be described by a relatively simple mathematical operation.

I believe there must be a connection between chaos theory and fractals, and therefore there must be some underlying logic.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "chaos", though. Do you simply mean how a dynamic system is highly sensitive to initial conditions? Or do you perhaps mean random? Or something without a discernible pattern?

The Mandelbrot set, to me, looks far from chaotic, for example, and given that fractals are merely patterns that repeat at every level of scale, that repetition is clear evidence of some underlying rule governing its construction, and rule equates to logic, even if we don't personally understand what that rule is. The key in understanding that logic is often to translate the logic into mathematics, which we can model with computers - and when we hit on a model that creates what we see, we feel we have the logic / rules of what it is we have been trying to model.
 
Something without a discernible (to us) pattern must have some underlying rules indicating how that pattern is to be mapped out.

The physics of any action or reaction can't exist without mathematical rules for it to follow.
 
Daecon said:
Something without a discernible (to us) pattern must have some underlying rules indicating how that pattern is to be mapped out.

The physics of any action or reaction can't exist without mathematical rules for it to follow.
Click to expand...
The reasons for the rules AREN'T OTHER RULES.
 
sideshowbob said:
That is, in fact, what I'm asking. If the laws of physics need the laws of mathematics to tell them how to behave, what is the actual root of that behaviour? If the laws of mathematics don't need a root, why do the laws of physics?
Click to expand...
You are confusing the physical with the abstract. It is the nature of matter and their interactions which are mathematical and can be observed and described (formalized) by scientific language.
Example: 1 + 1 = 2 This is an abstract mathematical law and holds true under all circumstances, regardless of the form and properties of matter.
Examples of abstract mathematics: 1 apple + 1 orange = 2 (fruits), 1 bycicle + 1 car = 2 (vehicles), 1 hydrogen atom + 2 oxygen atoms = 3 atoms. When bonded they MAKE 1 molecule (water).
The "essence of the fabric of the universe" is physical. The mathematics is just a description of the physical.
Click to expand...
This is false. This is not a "logical function", it is a "mathematical function".

The appearance of physical existence is not logical, it is mathematical. The colors of a rainbow are not logical, they are mathematical.
Potential, noun,
"That which may become reality"
Click to expand...
IOW, potential is not even real yet and therefore cannot be considered as matter.
Is Potential physical matter? No, it is a mathematical latent ability but not physical in and of itself.
 
sideshowbob said:
Indeed it is. It's a mirror of the question, "How else would the laws of physics know how to act in any given situation if not for the underlying laws of mathematics."
Click to expand...
The laws of physics are mathematical and as has been explained, they know nothing.
They are the constants of the universe. They act as the must and are both permittive and restrictive.
Why do the laws of physics need to "follow" anything if the laws of mathematics don't?
Click to expand...
False assumption. The laws of physics do not follow the laws of mathematics. They are mathematical
functions.
Yes, it's a belief - the same as the belief that God underlies the very essence of how the Universe functions. I, on the other hand, don't believe in any underlying essence. The (physical) functions themselves are all that is.
Click to expand...
And these functions must follow the laws of mathematics. In that context they are known as the laws of physics.
 
Newton's Laws of Motion describe most observable motions on Earth, but we now know they merely approximate motion, and don't take into account relativistic effects. It would be wrong to trust that physical laws as we now know them are perfectly accurate models of reality. Someday we may even discover why things seem to follow mathematical laws, it may be due to some inherent symmetry.
 
Sarkus said:
The universe IS logical. It is necessarily logical if it remains stable - and it seems to be stable.
By that I mean that if it is stable then there are necessarily rules to which it must adhere.
Logic is simply the relationship between those rules. As is mathematics. They merely have slightly different perspectives and different languages, but they say the same thing ultimately.
That's how I see it, anyhow.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree, but what are the rules of logic? Logic has no function itself.
function of logic, Phrase not found in the Dictionary and Encyclopedia.
Click to expand...
and
Laws of logic
Law of logic may refer to:
a) Basic laws of Propositional Logic or First Order Predicate Logic
b) Laws of thought, which present first principles (arguably) before reasoning begins
c) Rules of inference, which dictate the valid use of inferential reasoning
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_logic

I think we can safely exclude Logic in context of the current discussion.

So we are left with the Laws of Physics and Laws of Mathematics.

a) Physical things cannot exist in the abstract.
b) Mathematics exist in both the physical world and in the abstract.

Therefore, I propose that Mathematics are the essence of cosmological constants. The fundamental nature of the Wholeness.
 
spidergoat said:
Newton's Laws of Motion describe most observable motions on Earth, but we now know they merely approximate motion, and don't take into account relativistic effects. It would be wrong to trust that physical laws as we now know them are perfectly accurate models of reality. Someday we may even discover why things seem to follow mathematical laws, it may be due to some inherent symmetry.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about physical laws that we know, I'm talking about the physical laws that exist, whether we've discovered them yet or not.
 
spidergoat said:
Newton's Laws of Motion describe most observable motions on Earth, but we now know they merely approximate motion, and don't take into account relativistic effects. It would be wrong to trust that physical laws as we now know them are perfectly accurate models of reality. Someday we may even discover why things seem to follow mathematical laws, it may be due to some inherent symmetry.
Click to expand...
Yes, but symmetry and asymmetry are mathematical concepts. It is impossible to get away from the maths, unless you assume an omnipotent sentience, which is able to break the universal mathematical laws "at will".
 
Last edited:
I believe mathematics actually proves the EXISTENCE of Gods via a family tree. However the population in the past was higher than at present.
 
Write4U said:
You are confusing the physical with the abstract.
Click to expand...
Actually, you are. You're saying that the abstract (mathematics) somehow "causes" the physical, aren't you? I'm saying that the physical is what it is and the abstract is a description of it.
 
Write4U said:
The laws of physics are mathematical...
Click to expand...
The laws of physics are expressed mathematically - or verbally.

... and as has been explained, they know nothing.
Click to expand...
I was replying to a post that asked, "How else would the laws of physics know how to act in any given situation if not for the underlying laws of mathematics." I was mocking the idea that the laws of physics wouldn't "know" what to do unless mathematics told them what to do.

The laws of physics do not follow the laws of mathematics. They are mathematical functions.
Click to expand...
Again, I was mocking the statement that, "The laws of physics follow mathematical operations."

The "laws" of physics are expressed mathematically and/or verbally - but the actual stuff that physically happens is not dependent on mathematics or verbiage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top