Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Mind Matters News: Why would a purely physical universe need imaginary numbers?

Categories
Intelligent Design
Mathematics
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Our computers and the entire modern world depend on them, says science writer Michael Brooks in an excerpt from his new book:


In an excerpt from his new book, The Art of More: How Mathematics Created Civilization, science writer Michael Brooks offers the intriguing idea that the modern world arose from imaginary numbers:

But what does his claim that the numbers are “not some deep mystery about the universe” leave us? Recent studies have shown that imaginary numbers — which we can’t really represent by objects, the way we can represent natural numbers by objects — are needed to
describe reality. Quantum mechanics pioneers did not like them and worked out ways around them:

In fact, even the founders of quantum mechanics themselves thought that the implications of having complex numbers in their equations was disquieting. In a letter to his friend Hendrik Lorentz, physicist Erwin Schrödinger — the first person to introduce complex numbers into quantum theory, with his quantum wave function (ψ) — wrote, “What is unpleasant here, and indeed directly to be objected to, is the use of complex numbers. Ψ is surely fundamentally a real function.”

Ben Turner, “Imaginary numbers could be needed to describe reality, new studies find” at LiveScience (December 10, 2021)

But recent studies in science journals Nature and Physical Review Letters have shown, via a simple experiment, that the mathematics of our universe requires imaginary numbers.

News, “Why would a purely physical universe need imaginary numbers?” at Mind Matters News (February 16, 2022)

Takehome: The most reasonable explanation is that the universe, while physical, is also an idea, one that cannot be reduced to its physical features alone.

You may also wish to read:

Why the unknowable number exists but is uncomputable. Sensing that a computer program is “elegant” requires discernment. Proving mathematically that it is elegant is, Chaitin shows, impossible. Gregory Chaitin walks readers through his proof of unknowability, which is based on the Law of Non-contradiction.

Most real numbers are not real, or not in the way you think. Most real numbers contain an encoding of all of the books in the US Library of Congress. The infinite only exists as an idea in our minds. Therefore, curiously, most real numbers are not real. (Robert J. Marks)

and

Can we add new numbers to mathematics? We can work with hyperreal numbers using conventional methods. Surprisingly, yes. It began when the guy who discovered irrational numbers was—we are told—tossed into the sea. (Jonathan Bartlett)

Comments
BA, do you believe science can all questions? Specifically, is the question of the ultimate nature of reality a question science can answer?Viola Lee
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
Well, how nice Dogdoc! :-) Among other things, knowing that there might be lurkers who are appreciating or enjoying my forays into discussion about these issues is satisfying and adds some additional rationale for doing so.Viola Lee
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
VL:
My guess (and it is just a speculative guess, just as are other metaphysics about the root of reality) is that both the type of mind we experience and the type of physical world we experience both come from something that is neither, and utterly beyond our ability to conceive.
It is so nice to see someone who believes exactly what I do!! Colin McGinn argues persuasively for what is now called, often derisively (new) mysterianism - simply the idea that the deepest questions of existence are not only unanswered, but unanswerable. The notion of cognitive closure is particularly compelling: I have a very smart German Shepherd Dog. McGinn points out there is no reason to believe our own cognitive abilities are any more able to comprehend these ultimate mysteries* than my dog's cognitive abilities could enable him to learn calculus. * By "ultimate mysteries" I refer to the metaphysics that VL has been talking about, including the ontological relation between the objects of our perception and our subjective phenomenology.dogdoc
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
No, SA, I’m not saying that the world came from a "rational entity”. You are caught up in a dichotomy where the only two alternatives are meaningless absurd materialism and theism. I have no idea (but I'm doubtful) if it's reasonable to think of the root of reality (which is the term we are using) as an "entity", nor if there is anything like conscious rational thought, all-powerful action, or wisdom (or even caring about) human beings at the root. Those are all you overlaying your specific beliefs on top of the situation as if they are the only alternative to meaningless absurdity. I'm going to quote WJM here (not because he is an authority, but because he states well something I also believe): "“Ground of being” is not analogous to “a being.” “Creating” and “doing” are not concepts that apply to something “outside of space-time.” What does it even mean to say that the “ground of being” exists? We can be certain it exists, but we cannot say it exists in a way that is analogous to how “a being,” like you or I, exist."Viola Lee
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
Thanks, BA. Also, I validated several months ago that VL is a "she".Silver Asiatic
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic at 100, BINGO, To claim that it is unknowable to, for all practical purposes, claim "that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science.” She/he is trying to have her/his cake and eat it to. It is the same type of stupid word game she/he played several months ago when she/he had several people chasing her/his tail in a circle over her/his 'non-definition' of time having no beginning. Her/his definition of time ended up having nothing whatsoever to do with the space-time we associate with reality and was, in the end, a complete waste of everyone's time. Personally, I have much better things to do than play stupid word games.bornagain77
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
VL
I don’t believe that the world we live in, with all its order and the existence of our rational minds could come from a reasonless absurdity.
That is good to hear, VL. You are stating that the world we live in came from a rational entity. The spaceless, timeless, all powerful, wise, rational entity that created the universe is what (Who) we call "God".
Just because human beings have a kind of logical experience creating order around us doesn’t justify concluding that some similar type of mind is behind the whole universe.
If the origin of the universe is "not a reasonless absurdity" as you affirm, then it possesses reason. That which possesses reason is what we call "a mind". Whether God's mind is like a human mind or not is not relevant. It's a rational mind and not a reasonless absurdity. That's concrete, solid knowledge that we can have about the origin of the world.Silver Asiatic
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT
re SA at 98, quotes BA's question to me: "BA offered a direct question: “Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity?” I replied, "VL: “I haven’t said anything resembling those statements.”, but SA says that doesn't answer the question, so I'll say here: absolutely not. I don't believe that the world we live in, with all its order and the existence of our rational minds could come from a reasonless absurdity. However, the rest of your argument falls prey to the anthropomorphizing fallacy that WJM stated so well at 67. Just because human beings have a kind of logical experience creating order around us doesn't justify concluding that some similar type of mind is behind the whole universe. My guess (and it is just a speculative guess, just as are other metaphysics about the root of reality) is that both the type of mind we experience and the type of physical world we experience both come from something that is neither, and utterly beyond our ability to conceive.Viola Lee
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
BA77
reason, whose essence consists in the setting of goals, discovers the absolute, divine, and infinite.
Interesting point. To say that the origin of the universe is "unknowable" is to say that it is irrational. Because reason, as given above, is that which can discover the highest cause of things. In fact, that's the definition of "wisdom" given by Aquinas - the knowledge of the highest causes. If the origin of the universe is similar to what we observe - a rational order, then it is knowable since it is based in reason and is something that can be discovered. If the origin of the universe is chaos and disorder - then it's unknowable.Silver Asiatic
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
Looks like we're done, then, as tu quoque doesn't usually further a discussion. Maybe someone else will respond to my points at 94.Viola Lee
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
VL
I say likewise that accepting that order in the universe and reason in human beings exists is separate from identifying the source of that order and reason. The first in both cases is susceptible to empirical verification and the second is beyond the scope of that verification.
BA offered a direct question: “Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity?” That's a Yes/No question. Either it can be rooted in reasonless absurdity (an irrational origin) or not. You replied with: VL: “I haven’t said anything resembling those statements.” So, you didn't answer. Either you think an ordered, rational outcome with the harmony and precision of mathematics can come from an absurd, irrational source or not. For empirical verification, it's the same as with most Intelligent Design proposals: Demonstrate it. I can show a highly ordered, rational, complex output as the source of a rational mind. What I cannot do is show the same emerging from an unintelligent, reasonless source. One way to verify: Find an on-line randomizer. Take one of the sentences I have written here and put it in the randomizer. Then run it until a complete, grammatically correct English sentence appears. That's one simple way of showing that complex, rational outputs can emerge from an unintelligent, irrational, disordered source. If this experiment fails (and it will), then we have evidence that the origin of our ordered universe is an intelligent, rational mind.Silver Asiatic
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
You are not recognizing your contradiction in logic, No sense pointing it out again.bornagain77
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT
You are not responding to my points, BA. No sense saying them again.Viola Lee
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
"But I’m not saying that the laws “exist reasonlessly” or that “reason deserts us” “My beginning assumption is that the root of reality is unknowable.” unknowable adjective incapable of being known or understood beyond human understanding Understanding and Reason A distinction between understanding and reason as two “capacities of the soul” is already observed in ancient philosophy: understanding—the power of reasoning—grasps all that is relative, earthly, and finite, whereas reason, whose essence consists in the setting of goals, discovers the absolute, divine, and infinite. https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Understanding+and+Reasonbornagain77
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
But I'm not saying that the laws "exist reasonlessly" or that "reason deserts us". I'm saying that the our reason is limited to a certain domain of experience. I'll also say that science is limited to investigating that domain, but I'll add the use and reach of our rationality goes beyond what science investigates to include values and other evaluative beliefs. It is not a "mockery of science" to believe that science can't investigate everything: to think otherwise is the dreaded scientism that KF so commonly invokes. Here is an analogy I mentioned once before that drew no response. It is a fundamental tenet of intelligent design theory to say that inferring design is a separate enterprise from identifying the designer. I say likewise that accepting that order in the universe and reason in human beings exists is separate from identifying the source of that order and reason. The first in both cases is susceptible to empirical verification and the second is beyond the scope of that verification. If these two are not analogous positions, explain to me what the difference is.Viola Lee
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
VL: "I haven’t said anything resembling those statements." VL: "My beginning assumption is that the root of reality is unknowable." VL: "I accept that we live in an orderly world, and that we have the rationality to understand a great deal about how the various parts work together and are causally related." Paul Davies: "The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science." I rest my case.bornagain77
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT
BA, you quote, "The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational" and "Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity?" I haven't said anything resembling those statements. I accept that we live in an orderly world, and that we have the rationality to understand a great deal about how the various parts work together and are causally related. Furthermore, I am not a materialist: I believe that our mind has rational cognitive abilities and that the use of logic to structure our understanding is part of our nature. Could/would you acknowledge that you understand the above paragraph about my beliefs?Viola Lee
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
Whatever VL, you self-refutingly claim that the root of reality is unknowable, (i.e. there is no reason to be found for why reality is the way it is), which is, per Paul Davies, 'deeply anti-rational' and is to make 'a mockery of science'. That is all I need to know about the foundation of your worldview, period, in order to whole-heartedly reject it. I'll be damned if I am going to play ring around the posies with you whilst you constantly try to shift your definitions in order to make what is inherently 'deeply anti-rational' in your worldview superficially, and fallaciously, rational.
Taking Science on Faith – By Paul Davies– Nov. 24, 2007 Excerpt: Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science. Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity? If so, then nature is a fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity somehow masquerading as ingenious order and rationality. – per New York Times https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-mind-matters-news-why-would-a-purely-physical-universe-need-imaginary-numbers/#comment-747267
bornagain77
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
LCD
If truth [about the origin of reality] is unknowable for humans , definitely is knowable by God as “witness” and creator of origins( and purpose )of this world and He wanted to share this truth with people .
Yes. But it's also complicated because since God can share His knowledge with us, then we can actually know the origin. We can still know some things about the origin, even without God revealing it. The design and expansiveness of the universe - the harmony of mathematics and forces - indicates that the origin had to have immense power and rational knowledge. There's actually wisdom in the design as we study it. So, we know those aspects were present in the origin of things - immense power, great designing intelligence, and an ordered direction of everything from a single source.Silver Asiatic
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
Vivid @ 85 Exactly. You have to be able to comprehend the thing to make the judgement about it. Plus, it's speaking for everyone "nobody can know the origin of things". What it should be is "I don't know it" or "it's beyond what I can comprehend". Even that though, you're certainly capable of understanding what the candidates for the origin are. Something came from nothing? I think we can comprehend what that is supposed to mean and whether it is logical or not.Silver Asiatic
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
SA writes, "The phrase “the root cause of reality is beyond human comprehension” requires an absolute knowledge of what humans can know, " How in the world can you ignore what I have actually written???? See 78.Viola Lee
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
BA writes, "The atheists on this thread have still not honestly admitted that their worldview cannot possibly ground rationality in the first place." You continually conflate atheism with materialism. You should be more accurate. I've repeatedly explained this, but you don't seem to pay attention. I am an example of a non-materialist. I also believe that all gods of human religions are invented. Just today I said I could be sympathetic with Einstein's idea of God. You should strive to understand a broader range of views, I think.Viola Lee
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
Viola Lee I believe the root of reality is unknowable
This is a commom sense truth and another excellent argument to justify the necessity of Bible . If truth is unknowable for humans , definitely is knowable by God as "witness" and creator of origins( and purpose )of this world and He wanted to share this truth with people . If you were God would you hide from people or try to communicate with them ? How would you communicate with them without affecting their free will?Lieutenant Commander Data
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
SA, KF “The phrase “the root cause of reality is beyond human comprehension” Would not someone have to have some comprehension of the root cause of reality to claim it is “beyond comprehension” ? Vividvividbleau
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
VL, yes, our construction of symbols and approaches is part of the study of facet. The substance of the logic of structure and quantity is what we are studying. KFkairosfocus
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
SA, ironically, if what was said is that the root of reality is beyond full human comprehension, that would cover all bases nicely. KF PS, one reason why I used root is that root here is a way of saying that from which other things have come. Wellspring is similar. Part of this is that non being having no causal capability, I am highlighting the ultimate, necessary being source of worlds. I suspect some have a visceral reaction but on close pondering the matter will be confirmed. At first glance an infinite in the past temporal causal thermodynamically connected origin seems a serious candidate. then, it can be seen that traversal of the transfinite in finite steps is an infeasible supertask. There was a finitely remote beginning of our world and ultimately it comes from necessary being as reality root. I do not exclude a multiverse in saying such.kairosfocus
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
The phrase "the root cause of reality is beyond human comprehension" requires an absolute knowledge of what humans can know, what our capability is, and how God can reveal Himself to His creation. It's making a knowledge-claim about all of humanity. It's saying that it is impossible for any human to ever know the origin of things. This has to be restated: "I do not think I will ever know the origin of reality because I don't think I'm capable of it." Ok, that's reasonable, at least. It's not the best kind of approach to the topic, but at least someone could engage that. But to say "nobody could possibly know the origin of reality" is making a claim for all of humanity for the present and future (and even the past - that supposedly no human ever knew this).Silver Asiatic
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
The atheists on this thread have still not honestly admitted that their worldview cannot possibly ground rationality in the first place. Yet here they sit, persistently, day in and day out, trying to 'rationally' argue that their atheistic worldview, which cannot possibly ground rationality, is true. The blatantly self-refuting nature of their position would be absolutely hilarious if the 'potential' consequences for their eternal souls in rejecting God, especially rejecting Jesus Christ, were not so painfully sad. Quote: "Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality." - Nancy Pearcey
Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself Nancy Pearcey - March 8, 2015, Excerpt: An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value. But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide. Astonishingly, many prominent thinkers have embraced the theory without detecting the logical contradiction. Philosopher John Gray writes, “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,… the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” What is the contradiction in that statement? Gray has essentially said, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true. Self-referential absurdity is akin to the well-known liar’s paradox: “This statement is a lie.” If the statement is true, then (as it says) it is not true, but a lie. Another example comes from Francis Crick. In The Astonishing Hypothesis, he writes, “Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive.” But that means Crick’s own theory is not a “scientific truth.” Applied to itself, the theory commits suicide. Of course, the sheer pressure to survive is likely to produce some correct ideas. A zebra that thinks lions are friendly will not live long. But false ideas may be useful for survival. Evolutionists admit as much: Eric Baum says, “Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth.” Steven Pinker writes, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.” The upshot is that survival is no guarantee of truth. If survival is the only standard, we can never know which ideas are true and which are adaptive but false. To make the dilemma even more puzzling, evolutionists tell us that natural selection has produced all sorts of false concepts in the human mind. Many evolutionary materialists maintain that free will is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, even our sense of self is an illusion — and that all these false ideas were selected for their survival value. So how can we know whether the theory of evolution itself is one of those false ideas? The theory undercuts itself. A few thinkers, to their credit, recognize the problem. Literary critic Leon Wieseltier writes, “If reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? … Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it.” On a similar note, philosopher Thomas Nagel asks, “Is the [evolutionary] hypothesis really compatible with the continued confidence in reason as a source of knowledge?” His answer is no: “I have to be able to believe … that I follow the rules of logic because they are correct — not merely because I am biologically programmed to do so.” Hence, “insofar as the evolutionary hypothesis itself depends on reason, it would be self-undermining.”,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality. https://evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar/
Verse and quotes:
John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” of note: ‘the Word’ in John1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos also happens to be the root word from which we derive our modern word logic http://etymonline.com/?term=logic What is the Logos? Logos is a Greek word literally translated as “word, speech, or utterance.” However, in Greek philosophy, Logos refers to divine reason or the power that puts sense into the world making order instead of chaos.,,, In the Gospel of John, John writes “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John appealed to his readers by saying in essence, “You’ve been thinking, talking, and writing about the Word (divine reason) for centuries and now I will tell you who He is.” https://www.compellingtruth.org/what-is-the-Logos.html “Atheists can give no reason why they should value reason, and Christians can show how anyone who believes in reason must also believe in God.” Cogito; Ergo Deus Est by Charles Edward White Philosophy Still Lives Because God Isn't Dead - per Salvo Magazine
bornagain77
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
KF @ 73 - excellent response
First the assertion that the root of reality is unknow-ABLE is to assert a knowledge claim about that root.
Exactly. Some precision is required in statements. To say it is "unknow-ABLE' means that it cannot be known. That's an absolute statement. It means knowledge is impossible. To then say, "well, yes God could exist and communicate to us" is to deny that the origin is "unknowable". As you said, to say instead "it is unknown to me" is more correct. Others may, indeed know the truth but you (the commenter) doesn't.
It becomes self referentially incoherent instantly.
Exactly. Making absolute statements and then saying they're just provisional is incoherent.
Your problem, then, is with logic and meaning, not with me or my particular worldview, unless you mean to imply that core logic is caught up in worldviews and is optional.
Right. It's clarity of thought, logic, consistency and willingness to be clear about statements. For one to say "it's not likely that God exists" means that the person is somehow capable of calculating the probability. That person has a comprehensive view of all the variables and calculated that "it's not likely"? That's irrational.Silver Asiatic
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
Let me perfectly clear about what I mean by a "universal" denial. I am NOT saying that I am claiming with absolute certainty. I am claiming (with all my regular disclaimers) that metaphysical knowledge of the root of reality (whatever that means) is beyond human comprehension, for everyone.Viola Lee
February 18, 2022
February
02
Feb
18
18
2022
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
1 6 7 8 9 10 11

Leave a Reply