Proof there is a God

[Write4U]

I didn't say mathematics doesn't exist. I said it doesn't cause anything physical to exist.[/quote) Well Renate Loll and a few other knowledgeable minds do think that mathematicalpotentials can cause something physical to exist. Read CDT.

Yes, we represent. Mathematics is a representation of reality. Fred Flintstone is a representation of a caveman, though not necessarily an accurate one.

False equivalence .Mathematics is the formalized representation of functions in reality and are accurate (by our standards), but by your own admission Fred Flintstone is not anywhere near an accurate representation of a caveman. It is a caricature, a fictional cartoon figure.

Of course the Young Earth Museum also depicts humans riding dinosaurs. Are you sure you want to use this example to show both species existed at the same time?
From reading your other posts I think you can do much better.

 

[sideshowbob]

I wasn't using the word "know" to refer to conscious awareness. That's

It doesn't matter how you were using the word. I asked why physics needs to "know" (in ANY sense of the word) but mathematics doesn't. What's the difference? Where does the "knowledge" buck stop and why? You haven't answered that question.

Physics can only follow the rules of mathematics because they can't do anything else.

But physics doesn't "follow the rules of mathematics". Mathematics is just one of many languages that can describe physics. If you think it has some kind of special status, you need to explain why and how.

 

[sideshowbob]

Wrong, even a Lemur (and many more non-human organisms) "know" how to count (recognizing the difference between "more" and "less") without using human maths.

So, can you teach a lemur math without using words? He knows what he knows but how does he learn? That's what I was driving at.

1 + 1 = 2 is the same in English or in Italian., but can you say "one plus one equals two" in Italian or German or Chinese? I can't.

Sure, mathematics crosses the lines of natural languages. So what? How does that make it "special"? How does that imply that it "controls" physics?

For the third time, here is the link:

I'm on a public library computer. I can't watch videos. If you have an argument, bring it here, in your own words.

The point is that they all use the Fibonacci Sequence and use the same maths in creating these structures, regardless of the number of petals .

Whether that is true or not - and I doubt that it is - the number of petals in a flower is determined by its DNA, which is determined by chemistry, which is determined by physics. The Fibonacci sequence is a description of the physical reality, not the determiner of it.

 

[sideshowbob]

Metaphysics (the essence of a thing) is not supernatural, nor intentional, nor motivated. It is the mathematical Potential of that thing.

Potential, noun, "That which may become Reality". Anything religious about that statement?

What's religious is the belief that mathematics "causes" anything.

 

[sideshowbob]

False equivalence .Mathematics is the formalized representation of functions in reality and are accurate (by our standards), but by your own admission Fred Flintstone is not anywhere near an accurate representation of a caveman. It is a caricature, a fictional cartoon figure.

It doesn't matter how accurate the representation is. The point is that it is a representation. A photograph is more accurate than a painting, which is more accurate than a pencil sketch, but they're all still representations.

 

[Baldeee]

That is a strawman argument. We are speaking of today's standardized scientific language.

It's not a strawman as it speaks to the issue of you comparing a highly standardised language (mathematics) - that you are trying to elevate as being significant - to languages that are clearly not standardised.

I agree, IMO, it is based on the physical law that things tend to move in the direction of greatest satisfacton (compatibility, stability).

Sure - but in a very specific way (T_2 = T_1 + T_0 rather than T_3 = T_2 + T_1 + T_0) etc.

But you have moved the goal posts to Phi and Pi, which are related but do not follow the FS itself .
and
But the point of discussing the FS was in relation to its common recurrence in nature

How have I moved the goalpoasts?
Where have I introducted Pi?
You raised the notion of the Golden ratio - and I am merely expanding on that being the result of the general rule, not necessarily just the FS.
So I'm not sure what your issue is with what I have said - other than to demonstrate that we do not know in many cases whether it is the FS that is observed in nature, or merely the general physical rule (e.g. where the golden ratio is observed).

Yes, and if you had read my posts you would have seen I have already said that, so what is your point?

You are arguing for the preeminence of mathematics - that the universe is mathematics - in opposition to those claiming that maths merely describe a physical universe etc.
What I said is firmly down the middle.
Is that your view also, then, down the middle?
Have I misunderstood your argument?
If so, apologies.

 

[Baldeee]

I have no argument with that in general but you just proved the inexactness of using alphabethical language to describe mathematical functions. However, the mathematical language would leave no doubt.

Apologies - I misunderstood your argument then as somehow trying to elevate the standardised language of mathematics as somehow giving it significance in the argument that the universe is mathematical in nature.

 

[Write4U]

So, can you teach a lemur math without using words? He knows what he knows but how does he learn? That's what I was driving at.

He learns from experience. Apparently his brain does recognize the concepts of "more" of "less" and this ability exists in many other animals,. even some plants (as I understand it). Which would support the notion that the (rudimentary) mathematical function is an inherent ability in the processing of information.

Sure, mathematics crosses the lines of natural languages. So what? How does that make it "special"? How does that imply that it "controls" physics?

Certain functions are mathematically not "allowed" and must "follow" the only mathematical path that is allowed. Determinism.

I'm on a public library computer. I can't watch videos. If you have an argument, bring it here, in your own words.

Ahh, thus you have not seen the presentation, as I suspected.
Try this link. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/great-math-mystery.html
If that doesn't get you there, try the library "The Great Math Mystery" by Max Tegmark
In relation to this , from wiki:

The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the Universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Whether that is true or not - and I doubt that it is - the number of petals in a flower is determined by its DNA, which is determined by chemistry, which is determined by physics. The Fibonacci sequence is a description of the physical reality, not the determiner of it.

I did not say that.
But you are correct that the FS function seems to be an instruction contained in the DNA of daisies. They follow the FS because they cannot do otherwise.

Do try to find that NOVA presentation. I think you will find it informative.
It is an hour long program with several guests such as Livio and others, and it is impossible to summarize it here. You must have a friend somwhere, who can dowhload it to DVD.
I seriously recommend making the effort.

 

[Write4U]

Apologies - I misunderstood your argument then as somehow trying to elevate the standardised language of mathematics as somehow giving it significance in the argument that the universe is mathematical in nature.

The only significance is that the mathematical nature of the functions in the universe can be described by human symbolics. There is even an expression of the "Unreasonable exactness of our maths."

 

[sideshowbob]

In relation to this , from wiki:
The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the Universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

I'm not interested in hypotheses about multiverses. Just the facts, ma'am.

But you are correct that the FS function seems to be an instruction contained in the DNA of daisies. They follow the FS because they cannot do otherwise.

They follow the DNA because they cannot do otherwise. The DNA can be described mathematically.

 

[Write4U]

I'm not interested in hypotheses about multiverses. Just the facts, ma'am.

Go argue that with wiki. I was merely quoting.

They follow the DNA because they cannot do otherwise. The DNA can be described mathematically.

Exactly.
The foundation of every object, function, and action is based on mathematics. Hence the Mathematical Universe.

 

[Dinosaur]

Were the equations mentioned in an early Post ever Posted to this thread?

 

[Write4U]

Were the equations mentioned in an early Post ever Posted to this thread?

Who are you addressing?

 

[Write4U]

Apologies - I misunderstood your argument then as somehow trying to elevate the standardised language of mathematics as somehow giving it significance in the argument that the universe is mathematical in nature.

Well. if you cannot accurately describe athematics in alphabetical languages (dialects), but you can precisely describe the mathematical function through mathematical language, I would say that not only can provide proof that the mathematical language is the preferred scientific method of describing the maths of the universe but also that the maths are real and proof of a Mathematicaly finctioningl Universe.

 

[Write4U]

I'm not interested in hypotheses about multiverses. Just the facts, ma'am.

Again I do the research and post the links to provide substantiation of my propositions, but you don't seem to read any of them. If you had read the wiki link in its entirety, you would have seen the section devoted to Max Tegmark's theory. Instead you give it a knee jerk dismissal.

W4U,
But you are correct that the FS function seems to be an instruction contained in the DNA of daisies. They follow the FS because they cannot do otherwise.

They follow the DNA because they cannot do otherwise. The DNA can be described mathematically.

C'mon man. The DNA coding can be described mathematically with THE FIBONACCI SEQUENCE.
Conclusion: A daisy's petal formation follows the FS, inherent in the daisy's DNA coding, as it is in many other organisms and natural structures (like spiral galaxies).
Are we saying something different here or just playing word games?

 

[Baldeee]

Well. if you cannot accurately describe athematics in alphabetical languages (dialects),

You can accurate describe mathematics without the use of mathematic notation.
Every symbol in mathematics as an alphabetic equivalent.
It is just less efficient, hence the adoption quote early on of the Arabic number system.
But as said, the desire for efficiency simply does not act as proof for anything other than the desire for efficiency.

but you can precisely describe the mathematical function through mathematical language,

So "one plus one equals two" is not precise enough for you?
Sure, some may not understand it, but then some also don't understand 1+1=2
So your argument, as said, is weak (actually fallacious) with regard what you are trying to use it for.
Standardisation of the mathematical language around the world is not evidence of the universe functioning mathematically.

I would say that not only can provide proof that the mathematical language is the preferred scientific method of describing the maths of the universe...

This I agree with.
The standardisation and widespread use of the mathematical language devised is certainly evidence that it is the preferred notation.
This is trivially true.

but also that the maths are real and proof of a Mathematicaly finctioningl Universe.

You can certainly think that standardisation is evidence for this, and even believe it if you wish.
But you'd be wrong.
The standardisation is simply evidence of the desire for efficiency, not that the universe functions mathematically.

I'm not saying that you are wrong in your claim that the universe does indeed function mathematically, just that what you are claiming here as evidence for it is simply not the evidence you want it to be,

 

[Write4U]

You can accurate describe mathematics without the use of mathematic notation.
Every symbol in mathematics as an alphabetic equivalent.
It is just less efficient, hence the adoption quote early on of the Arabic number system.
But as said, the desire for efficiency simply does not act as proof for anything other than the desire for efficiency.
So "one plus one equals two" is not precise enough for you?
Sure, some may not understand it, but then some also don't understand 1+1=2
So your argument, as said, is weak (actually fallacious) with regard what you are trying to use it for.
Standardisation of the mathematical language around the world is not evidence of the universe functioning mathematically.
This I agree with.
The standardisation and widespread use of the mathematical language devised is certainly evidence that it is the preferred notation.
This is trivially true.
You can certainly think that standardisation is evidence for this, and even believe it if you wish.
But you'd be wrong.
The standardisation is simply evidence of the desire for efficiency, not that the universe functions mathematically.

I'm not saying that you are wrong in your claim that the universe does indeed function mathematically, just that what you are claiming here as evidence for it is simply not the evidence you want it to be,

 

[Write4U]

You can accurate describe mathematics without the use of mathematic notation.
Every symbol in mathematics as an alphabetic equivalent.
It is just less efficient, hence the adoption quote early on of the Arabic number system.
But as said, the desire for efficiency simply does not act as proof for anything other than the desire for efficiency.
So "one plus one equals two" is not precise enough for you?
Sure, some may not understand it, but then some also don't understand 1+1=2
So your argument, as said, is weak (actually fallacious) with regard what you are trying to use it for.
Standardisation of the mathematical language around the world is not evidence of the universe functioning mathematically.
This I agree with.
The standardisation and widespread use of the mathematical language devised is certainly evidence that it is the preferred notation.
This is trivially true.

I would not call this trivial at all. The lack of standardization leads to Deism and Theism. I can safely say that the differences in Scriptures (linguistic explanations of the Universe) are certainly not trivial.

You can certainly think that standardisation is evidence for this, and even believe it if you wish. But you'd be wrong.

I would argue that our ability recognize the recurring patterns of mathematical functions in nature into a comprehensive standardized language is evidence for the mathematical nature and functions of the Universe. We are "discovering" those mathematical properties (and their Implication) all the time at all levels of existence..

The standardisation is simply evidence of the desire for efficiency, not that the universe functions mathematically

I would argue
Explain to me how one can logically standardize a random, non-mathematical function?
Explain to me how one can logically standardize Chaos. There simply has to be a hierarchy of predictable order, and mathematics are a function of otder. To my knowledge, there is no objection to the concept of the pure Mathematics existing in the abstract as the essence of the universe. What's the objection?

Chaos theory is the field of study in mathematics that studies the behavior of dynamical xplain to mesystems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions—a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

I'm not saying that you are wrong in your claim that the universe does indeed function mathematically, just that what you are claiming here as evidence for it is simply not the evidence you want it to be,

OK, I can accept that as layman my arguments may have lacked sophistication. This is why I attend science fora like this one. It forces me to do continuous research and it also the reason why I almost always provide links to scientific sites, which cover the subject in more formal symbolic mathematical language and narratives, in order to clarify the intent of my posts. I know that because English is not my first language, my arguments may sometimes seem akward, but IMHO, certainly not trivial.

Did you see the link to the NOVA presentation: "Decoding the Universe, The Great Math Mystery?

If not,.will you watch it before you come to your conclusion that as layman I did a poor job of explaining what Pythagoras, Plato, Galilei, Einstein, Mario Livio (Astrophysicist) and Max Tegmark (physicist) are proposing, that the Universe is a mathematical construct and functions in accordance with the laws of mathematics and did so (in the abstract) long before we discovered these mathematical properties and functions and standardized them into the language of mathematics?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuGI6pQFZC0

 

[Write4U]

Please consider post # 397 Deleted

 

[Baldeee]

I would not call this trivial at all. The lack of standardization leads to Deism and Theism. I can safely say that the differences in Scriptures (linguistic explanations of the Universe) are certainly not trivial.

No, they are not, to those that care about such things.
People are still disagreeing, hence the lack of standardisation.
Maths is less open to disagreement, because it deals in pure logical forms.
Thus it is simpler to reach standardisation.
But this does not in any way evidence that the universe is mathematical.

I disagree, the ability to standardize mathematical language is evidence for the mathematical nature of the Universe.

So if the world standardised its language to English, that would be evidence of the English nature of the universe?

Explain to me how one can standardize non- mathematical functions?

It's called language.
In the UK we have a standard term for all cats... it's the word "cat" (unsurprisingly).
It enables us to more efficiently describe what we are referring to.

OK, I can accept that as layman my arguments may have lacked sophistication. This is why I attend science fora like this one. It forces me to do continuous research and it also the reason why I almost always provide links to scientific sites, which cover the subject in more formal symbolic mathematical language and narratives, in order to clarify the intent of my posts. I know that because English is not my first language, my arguments may sometimes seem akward, but IMHO, certainly not trivial.

It's not that this particular argument lacks sophistication, and if English is not your first language you're doing far better than many could hope for, it is simply that I find this argument wrong.
Again, it's not that I think the conclusion is necessarily wrong, just that your argument with regard to the standardisation of mathematical language being evidence of the mathematical nature of the universe is fallacious.
It is a non sequitur (or at least appears as such).
Mathematics has a language.
It is standardised.
The same way that we in the UK all understand the label "cat".
Standardisation is all about efficiency of communicating, not the preeminence of what is being communicated.

Did you see the link to the NOVA presentation: "Decoding the Universe, The Great Math Mystery?
If not,.will you watch it before you come to your conclusion that as layman I did a poor job of explaining what Pythagoras, Plato, Galilei, Einstein, Mario Livio (Astrophysicist) and Max Tegmark (physicist) are proposing, that the Universe is a mathematical construct and functions in accordance with the laws of mathematics and did so (in the abstract) long before we discovered these mathematical properties and functions and standardized them into the language of mathematics?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuGI6pQFZC0

I have seen parts of it before, and will endeavour to watch it again, but at 1hr 24 it is lengthy.
Again, I don't necessarily disagree with your/their other arguments, just the one (at the moment) that suggests that the standardisation of the mathematical language / symbols somehow is an argument for the mathematical nature of the universe.
I do not think that the conclusion you draw from it follows, any more than the universe's nature would be English if we all spoke that language.

And I didn't intend to draw this out, either, as I thought the point I'm making is fairly obvious.
Language barrier, perhaps?