Proof there is a God

[Write4U]

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.

Should the reality be "illogical"?

Thus it is simpler to reach standardisation. But this does not in any way evidence that the universe is mathematical.

Except that standardization is a formal presentation of an observable mathematical function such as watching a rainbow.

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

Thta's a strawman.

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.

are you aware of how many meanings the word "cat" has in spoken and narrative languages?

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.

First thank you for the compliment.
IMO, because the causes for regularly recurring phenomena are becoming known in greater detail almost daily. The one empty frame on wall with the questionmark will be filled with a mathematical equation, not a "Word".
We are "discovering" the natural functions of the universe (the constants) which are the essence of nature.

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.

How many definitinitions of "cat" are there? You might be surprised.

I have seen parts of it before, and will endeavour to watch it again, but at 1hr 24 it is lengthy.

True, but I found an intuitive comfort in the elegance of that kind of simplicity.

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.

It proves itself to be accurate and complicated predictions can be tested.

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.

Strawman, the universe doesn't speak, it functions and in very specific ways. From the beginning. The only language which can accurately describe these functions is by specific symbolic representations of a number, or a function, or a ratio, is in the language of maths.

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

IMO, it is fundamentally arguing for or against the importance of the philosophical implications or the mathematical implications (potential) of the essence of the Wholeness. IO, if we want to know, we have to know what it is, how and why it does what it does it, not what it feels like.[/quote]

 

[Baldeee]

Should the reality be "illogical"?

We're talking about languages, not reality.

Except that standardization is a formal presentation of an observable mathematical function such as watching a rainbow.

Eh?
Standardisation is just a desire for efficiency (and accuracy etc).

Thta's a strawman.

No, it's not.
You are arguing that standardisation of the mathematical language is an argument in favour of the mathematical nature of the universe.
How is me creating an absurd argument that mirrors your argument a strawman.
It highlights exactly my point.

are you aware of how many meanings the word "cat" has in spoken and narrative languages?

Oh, undoubtedly it has many.
But then my point is that our language, even the language of a single country, is not massively standardised.

IMO, because the causes for regularly recurring phenomena are becoming known in greater detail almost daily. The one empty frame on wall with the questionmark will be filled with a mathematical equation, not a "Word".

Theists might disagree with you!
But the ability of a language to more accurately describe a phenomena than another language does not mean that the thing being described is of that language, or that the language is anything more than a means of describing what is already there.

We are "discovering" the natural functions of the universe (the constants) which are the essence of nature.

Indeed we are.
And maths is the most efficient language for describing such things.
I think the issue here is that you are getting hung up on the symbolic language as defining what it is that it is a language for.
We can use words to describe the most fundamental equations such as "Energy is equivalent to the product of mass and the square of the speed of light" etc.
We don't need to use "E = MC^2", but we do so for efficiency.

So I am merely trying to explain that the language used is not the important thing here.
The language used is merely a means of communicating.
And the desire to be as efficient as possible in important matters led to the adoption of the Arabic system.
But the language is not that which it describes.
And I just feel that you have crossed over into arguing that it somehow is.
That is where I think the disagreement lies.

How many definitinitions of "cat" are there? You might be surprised.

If the nature of our universe is indeed cats, I'm sure there are many more as yet undiscovered definitions!

It proves itself to be accurate and complicated predictions can be tested.

And it would be irrespective of the language used.

Strawman, the universe doesn't speak, it functions and in very specific ways.

It's not a strawman as you have been arguing with regard the language of mathematics.
But here you seem to be moving onto the functions of the universe, and I agree the the universe does function in specific ways, and does so irrespective of what language we use to describe those functions.

From the beginning. The only language which can accurately describe these functions is by specific symbolic representations of a number, or a function, or a ratio, is in the language of maths.

English can do just as well, just less efficiently.

IMO, it is fundamentally arguing for or against the importance of the philosophical implications or the mathematical implications (potential) of the essence of the Wholeness. IO, if we want to know, we have to know what it is, how and why it does what it does it, not what it feels like.

Not sure I follow this, sorry.
My point has been from the outset that the language is not important.
It is what the language is describing that is important.
The universe functions the same way whatever language we use to describe it.
And you have been arguing (it seems) for the importance of the language rather than what I see as being important which is that which the language is describing.

Anyhoo, I'll stop here as I'm not sure I can make my point any clearer, and happy to just agree to disagree.

 

[sideshowbob]

Go argue that with wiki. I was merely quoting.

I'm not disagreeing with wiki. I'm saying that a hypothesis about mathematics ruling the universe doesn't back you up.

The foundation of every object, function, and action is based on mathematics.

No. Every object, function and action can be described by mathematics. The foundation of a house is the foundation. A picture of a house is just a picture.

If you want to claim that mathematics is the basis, you need to test that hypothesis.

 

[sideshowbob]

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?

I'm saying that mathematics describes what "is". Do you disagree with that?

You seem to be saying that mathematics somehow transcends language. You seem to be saying, "In the beginning was mathematics and mathematics was God." If that is not what you mean, what the hell are you disagreeing with?

 

[Write4U]

We're talking about languages, not reality.
Eh?
Standardisation is just a desire for efficiency (and accuracy etc).
No, it's not.
You are arguing that standardisation of the mathematical language is an argument in favour of the mathematical nature of the universe.
How is me creating an absurd argument that mirrors your argument a strawman.
It highlights exactly my point.
Oh, undoubtedly it has many.
But then my point is that our language, even the language of a single country, is not massively standardised.
Theists might disagree with you!
But the ability of a language to more accurately describe a phenomena than another language does not mean that the thing being described is of that language, or that the language is anything more than a means of describing what is already there.
Indeed we are.
And maths is the most efficient language for describing such things.
I think the issue here is that you are getting hung up on the symbolic language as defining what it is that it is a language for.
We can use words to describe the most fundamental equations such as "Energy is equivalent to the product of mass and the square of the speed of light" etc.
We don't need to use "E = MC^2", but we do so for efficiency.

So I am merely trying to explain that the language used is not the important thing here.
The language used is merely a means of communicating.
And the desire to be as efficient as possible in important matters led to the adoption of the Arabic system.
But the language is not that which it describes.
And I just feel that you have crossed over into arguing that it somehow is.
That is where I think the disagreement lies.
If the nature of our universe is indeed cats, I'm sure there are many more as yet undiscovered definitions!
And it would be irrespective of the language used.
It's not a strawman as you have been arguing with regard the language of mathematics.
But here you seem to be moving onto the functions of the universe, and I agree the the universe does function in specific ways, and does so irrespective of what language we use to describe those functions.
English can do just as well, just less efficiently.
Not sure I follow this, sorry.
My point has been from the outset that the language is not important.
It is what the language is describing that is important.
The universe functions the same way whatever language we use to describe it.
And you have been arguing (it seems) for the importance of the language rather than what I see as being important which is that which the language is describing.

Anyhoo, I'll stop here as I'm not sure I can make my point any clearer, and happy to just agree to disagree.

I agree we are runnung around in circles, each placing emphasis on a different aspect.

I say the Universe functions mathematically, you say that we can describe these functions in many different languages, but maths is the most efficient and universally understood by people studying these natural functions.
All true, but in the mean time we lost the premise that the universe functions mathematically (in the abstract), regardless of what language we use.
The universe works the same for all things, regardless if they can speak at all.

 

[Write4U]

I'm saying that mathematics describes what "is". Do you disagree with that?

Of course not, that is the point I have been trying to make all along, before we started on the linquistics and semantics.

You seem to be saying that mathematics somehow transcends language. You seem to be saying, "In the beginning was mathematics and mathematics was God." If that is not what you mean, what the hell are you disagreeing with?

Correct: what theists call the "hand of God" is in reality only a "mathematical function".

And that is a perfect example of the difference in the language used in describing "how the universe functions".

 

[Write4U]

I'm not disagreeing with wiki. I'm saying that a hypothesis about mathematics ruling the universe doesn't back you up.


No. Every object, function and action can be described by mathematics. The foundation of a house is the foundation. A picture of a house is just a picture.

If you want to claim that mathematics is the basis, you need to test that hypothesis.

It has been tested thousands of times and it always turns out to be a mathematical function.
The universe functions only mathematically.

 

[sideshowbob]

Correct: what theists call the "hand of God" is in reality only a "mathematical function".

So mathematics is your God.

 

[sideshowbob]

It has been tested thousands of times and it always turns out to be a mathematical function.

I'm asking what the tests are. How, specifically, do you establish a link between mathematics and reality? Your own link talks about a hypothesis, not a theory - i.e. it has not been thoroughly tested. So what tests do you know about that Wikipedia doesn't?

 

[Write4U]

I'm asking what the tests are. How, specifically, do you establish a link between mathematics and reality? Your own link talks about a hypothesis, not a theory - i.e. it has not been thoroughly tested. So what tests do you know about that Wikipedia doesn't?

Everything we see in reality is the result of the Mathematical Function. But alas, the universe is too big to test everything in it, however we do see repeating mathematical functions everywhere we look in the universe, including the mathematical causalities of a star nova.

I agree it has not yet achieved status as a formal theory. That is why the question mark on Tegmark's wall.
The last a final equation. However,

from sideshowbob,
No. Every object, function and action can be described by mathematics. The foundation of a house is the foundation. A picture of a house is just a picture.

Srawman, the foundation of a house is a mathematical construct, and the house and everything in it are mathematical constructs. The picture of a house is a 2D representation of a house and is itself a mathematical construct.
EVERYTHING we see is a mathematical construct or function (true, there are still a few gaps), but in the end you can't get away from it.

IMO, there is nothing in this universe which does not function mathematically. It's all mathematical and that is why we can translate everything in mathematical terms.

There are mathematical events which have so many mathematical function at the same time, that we cannot get to all the numbers, there are just too many functions at work, such as "wave interference patterns", that make it impossible to make any long range predictions. But if you watch the Weather Channel's specials about weather phenomena, you can clearly see the mathematical functions in the formation of clouds (for instance)

A standing wave pattern is a vibrational pattern created within a medium when the vibrational frequency of the source causes reflected waves from one end of the medium to interfere with incident waves from the source. This interference occurs in such a manner that specific points along the medium appear to be standing still. Because the observed wave pattern is characterized by points that appear to be standing still, the pattern is often called a standing wave pattern. Such patterns are only created within the medium at specific frequencies of vibration. These frequencies are known as harmonic frequencies, or merely harmonics. At any frequency other than a harmonic frequency, the interference of reflected and incident waves leads to a resulting disturbance of the medium that is irregular and non-repeating. http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/Lesson-4/Formation-of-Standing-Waves

But still mathematical!

A few examples: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...vt=how are clouds patterns formed&FORM=IQFRML

Why else would we be so concerned about "global warming"?

 

[Write4U]

So mathematics is your God.

There is no God, only mathematical functions. We don't need robes, miters , prayers, rituals, bells and whistles to do the maths. Paper and pencil will do just fine.

We don't need to know the Why, the maths will tell us the How. Once we know the How, we'll know the Why.
IMO, the Why will turm out to be "Mathematical Inevitability".

 

[Kristoffer]

A mathematical function can be laid out to describe the action.

The action is not, in my opinion, determined by a mathematical function though.

 

[Write4U]

A mathematical function can be laid out to describe the action.
The action is not, in my opinion, determined by a mathematical function though.

This sounds like a contradictionary statement to me.

So what is the action determined by? Cause and Effect are logical mathematical functions. That is why we can describe them using logical mathematical explanations.

It seems you are saying a "life force' is not determined by a mathematical function. But what is the fundamental property of a force (any force). Energy, and we know energy can be created in almost infinite ways. All you need is a dynamical function, the results are always mathematical.

I have challenged anyone to come up with a concept of reality which does not *employ* a mathematical function. I am still waiting for an example which can be actually discussed in non-mathematical terms.

 

[Write4U]

A mathematical function can be laid out to describe the action.
The action is not, in my opinion, determined by a mathematical function though.

Another conflicting statement. How I hate semantic spinning. Let me rephrase it correctly:

" The universe work through mathematicl functions (inherent universal constants) and we are able to translate these functions through symbolic mathematics. We did not invent these mathematical functions of the universe, we discovered them, and invented a logical symbolical language which describes these functions, based on the decimal system.

To my knowledge, there is no other language which has this ability or exactness to describe the universal mathematical functions, which have existed (in the abstract) before the beginning of time. The universe functioned in a mathematical way, long before man came on the scene. Anything wrong with that proposition?"

If you can, give me a single example, which would falsify this .

 

[sideshowbob]

EVERYTHING we see is a mathematical construct or function (true, there are still a few gaps), but in the end you can't get away from it.

Exactly. It's a CONSTRUCT. We constructed mathematics to describe the universe. Without humans, there is no mathematics.

... the mathematical causalities of a star nova.

So you are, in fact, saying that mathematics causes reality. How is that different from a god creating reality.

 

[sideshowbob]

I have challenged anyone to come up with a concept of reality which does not *employ* a mathematical function.

Maybe concepts of reality need to employ mathematical functions but why does reality need concepts at all? Before intelligent life evolved, before there were concepts of any kind, there was reality.

 

[Write4U]

Exactly. It's a CONSTRUCT. We constructed mathematics to describe the universe. Without humans, there is no mathematics.

Without humans there may not be written mathematics, but universal functions will always be mathematical, in accordance with mathematical laws and constants inherent in the *construct of the universe*.

A *construct* always has *properties* which are measurable and translatable into mathematical language.

God has no measurable properties and therefore is not a construct. It is a product of the imagination, just like the story of Humpty Dumpty..

So you are, in fact, saying that mathematics causes reality. How is that different from a god creating reality.

No, in fact that is not what I am saying . I am saying that regardless of causality the *function* will be mathematical.
Humans can be a local causility but we cannot be causal to a non-mathematical function. IF there was a causal God, there are two possibilities. IT must function mathematically or it is undefinably chaotic and reality is obviously not undefinably chaotic.
Take your pick and call it what you want, it won't change the *mathematical function*.

 

[Write4U]

Maybe concepts of reality need to employ mathematical functions but why does reality need concepts at all? Before intelligent life evolved, before there were concepts of any kind, there was reality.

In this context, I am using the term "concept" in the abstract, not as a product of thought.
But the concept of God IS a product of thought and not related to the "concept of the mathematical function".

But I do agree that regardless of any concept (as product of thought), the universe has alway acted in a mathematical way.

The mathematical functions of the universe were (are) discovered and then conceptualized by some humans as the work of a god. Humans can conceptualize almost anything, but that does not mean it exists in reality.
Does the God <FSM> exist in reality?

 

[Daecon]

Exactly. It's a CONSTRUCT. We constructed mathematics to describe the universe. Without humans, there is no mathematics.

So are you saying that one apple and one apple doesn't make two apples unless there is a human to decide it does?

Or that spirals don't follow the Fibonacci sequence unless there's a human around?

 

[Yazata]

If somebody wants to argue that as far as is known by human beings, the physical world seems to behave in accordance with mathematics and logic, I'll agree.

If somebody wants to argue that the physical world must necessarily behave in accordance with mathematics and logic, everywhere and everywhen, I'll say that's typically assumed by physics and cosmology, but we don't really know that it's universally true.

And if somebody wants to insist that physical reality IS mathematics, solidified in some mysterious way into something more tangible, I'll say that's highly speculative Pythagorean metaphysics that gets out far ahead of what any of us actually know.

In real life, none of us knows what reality ultimately is. All science can do is describe how the portion of it that we can observe seems to behave. Mathematics has proven extraordinarily useful in enabling us to do that. Of course, none of us really knows what mathematics and logic are either, or what kind of being they have.

All of these questions are active subjects of discussion by metaphysicians and by philosophers of mathematics, logic and science. There are countless hypotheses but the final answers aren't in yet. My personal suspicion is that these are things that human beings may never know.