Eugene Wigner (1902–1995) won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1963 but he was more famous for something else, an essay published in 1960 called The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences where he said things like:
It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to
divine them…The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning…
“The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics to the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.
Whoa! What happened to the pre-human of evolutionary psychology, who spread his selfish genes by knowing arithmetic the way a hog knows truffles?
Wigner’s essay was viewed as a sort of “treason” against science, meaning that his thinking did not lead in a naturalist (nature is all there is) direction. Naturalism is often called “materialism.”
We are reminded of the story in a review of astrophysicist Mario Livio’s 2009 book, Is God a Mathematician?, which attempted to counter Eugene Wigner’s insight:
In his 1960 article, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences” Wigner stated the truth which every atheist scientist and philosopher knew and was afraid to tackle: Mathematics and physics, originating from two completely different quarters, the former from the pure speculations of the mind, the latter from the empirical data the physical reality feeds our experience with, have no reason to be connected in any comprehensible or predictable way. And yet, mathematics has been wonderfully effective in describing physical laws and predicting outcomes of experiments in the real world. Why, asked Wigner, and couldn’t find an answer. No one can. Scientists keep using math and relying on math, as if they know for sure that math must be relevant to our physical experience. But they can’t explain why. The arrogant claim that science will explain the world more and more came to an end; science can’t even explain itself anymore.
Wigner added insult to injury when he ended his article using almost religious language of humbleness, gratitude and faith …
In short, Wigner committed a treason against science. He didn’t, in an Einsteinian fashion, just declare a personal faith in a God that had only marginal relevance to his scientific studies. He went farther than that: he implied that science was impossible and inexplicable without accepting a higher reality, transcending the mind of man and its capabilities for reasoning and experimentation. The short and ostensibly innocent article faced some really violent reactions; some objected to the conclusions in it, others to the premises, and still others refused to even deal with it, pretending it had never been written. But Wigner remained right about one thing: Despite the many attempts, no one could give a rational explanation for what Wigner described as the “uncanny ability of mathematics to describe and predict accurately the physical world.” Bojidar Marinov, “Mario Livio, or the Poverty of Atheist Philosophy: A Review of “Is God a Mathematician?”” at American Vision
(2011)
Of course, people who know that there is no such thing as truth in our multiverse are somehow wiser now than Wigner…
See also: Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Cosmos and “the artistic license to lie” One thing readers may not know is that, in a series that leaned heavily on the supposed conflict between religion and science, obvious and widely noted misrepresentations were excused in the service of a “greater truth”
Hat tip: Philip Cunningham
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Wikipedia has a nice quote from Wigner’s memoirs:
I like that, and can agree with it.
Wikipedia also says, “On religious views, Wigner was an atheist.”
1- Wikipedia is not a valid academic resource. It even admits it.
2- These
Are the words of a quitter- a sour grapes argument
ET, that was a direct quote of Wigner’s: are you calling him a quitter?
I like these remarks from Wigner’s article on the Unreasonable Effectiveness of Math, which I think are somewhat compatible with some of the things I have been trying to say.
to ET:
Been reading a little bit online, and I think News’ headline is misleading. I can’t find anything about Wigner attributing the unreasonable effectiveness of math to God. Perhaps someone can point me to more to read: he seems like an interesting guy.
Yes, I am calling him a quitter if what you posted wasn’t a quote-mine.
Folks, it looks like one of the key themes we need to highlight is the MATH-PHYSICS GAP. Where, again only world-root level can bridge. The key bridge is the logic of being, working through distinct identity and its quantitative-structural implications. Where, a possible world is a sufficiently complete description of a coherent state of affairs that are possible of existence, for such a PW, W to be distinct it must have distinguishing characteristics. Accordingly, we may freely write W = {A|~A} — A distinct in W, with its complement, which then allows us to identify duality, unity, nullity, thence per von Neumann the succession of naturals per order type. From this Z, Q, R, C follow, giving us an infinite panoply of abstracta manifesting structure and quantity. These are antecedent to our coming along, they are discoveries not inventiions though how we study and represent them will reflect cultural influences and creativity. That is, core mathematical abstract entities, relationships, quantities, structure are inherent in the fabric for a world to exist. The Wigner gap is bridged at world root. KF
ET, re 7: it was a direct quote from Wigner’s memoirs. Now maybe seeing the quote in full context would change its meaning, or maybe not. I don’t have access to the book, so I am tentatively taking it as an accurate statement of Wigner’s views. Assuming that is true, your position is that someone who is at peace with the idea that the full meaning of life is a mystery is a quitter. I am clear now.
hazel, Now you are misrepresenting my position. Clearly you have issues. That much is clear to me now.
I am happy for his peace. But that does not give him the right to declare:
It is beyond HIS grasp. Quitters try to tell others they have to give up cuz you won’t succeed cuz he couldn’t and he is better than you. Heh
“Argue for your own limitations and you are right, they are yours.”- Don Shimoda
as to:
Read the following slowly,,, pause on the word “miracle”,,, chew very slowly and thoroughly,,, repeat hundreds of times if necessary
definition:
Of related interest:
Got it, ET: I understand the distinction you made in 10.
Of related interest to this quote by Wigner, “certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.
,,, it is interesting to note that Darwinian evolution is based on a materialistic view of reality which denies that anything beyond nature exists. On the other hand, Mathematics, which provides the backbone for all of science, engineering and technology in the first place, exists in a transcendent, beyond space and time, realm which is not reducible any possible material explanation. This transcendent mathematical realm has been referred to as a Platonic mathematical world.
Simply put, Mathematics itself, contrary to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinists, does not need the physical world in order to exist. And yet Darwinists, although they deny that anything beyond nature exists, need this transcendent world of mathematics in order for their theory to even be considered scientific in the first place. The predicament that Darwinists find themselves in regards to denying the reality of this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics, and yet needing validation from this transcendent, immaterial, world of mathematics in order to be considered scientific, should be the very definition of a scientifically self-refuting theory.
And to try to establish that the “miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics” is in fact a “miracle”, and not just a fantastic coincidence, we need to look at the places where this correspondence between the immaterial Platonic realm of mathematics and physics takes place in the universe. In other word, we need to look for ‘Platonic perfection” in the universe.
To hash this line of thought out it is first necessary to note where ‘platonic perfection’ is not reached in our three-dimensional world. As Michael Egnor states, “After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds.”
Michael Egnor could have also mentioned that there are no perfect squares, rectangles, spheres etc,,. in this world.
And although ‘platonic perfection’ is not reached on this earth, it is interesting to note that this immaterial mathematical, (and logical), information still underlies virtually all of our technology today.
Given that Wigner wrote his article in 1960, and given the tremendous advance in applying mathematical, and logical information, to technology since 1960, indeed given the fact that we now know that information is ubiquitous within biological life, Wigner, if he were around today, could very well write an article today entitled, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics and Logical Information in the Natural Sciences, Technology, and Biology”
And indeed, beside immaterial mathematical and logical information underlying virtually all of our technology today, (as well as being ubiquitous within biology), immaterial information has now also been shown, (directly contrary to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinian thought), to be a physically real entity that, although it is capable interacting with matter and energy, is completely separate from matter and energy.
But back to our search for ‘platonic perfection’ within this universe.
Although platonic perfection is not reached on this earth, it is interesting to note where in this universe ‘platonic perfection’ for spheres is approached rather closely,,,
The delicate balance at which carbon is synthesized in stars is truly a work of art.,,, Years after Sir Fred discovered the stunning precision with which carbon is synthesized in stars he stated this:
And ‘platonic perfection’ for a sphere is also approached rather closely in the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). ,,, Of the supposed “imperfections” in the sphere of the CBR, the following author comments, “the discovery of small deviations from smoothness (anisotopies) in the cosmic microwave background is welcome, for it provides at least the possibility for the seeds around which structure formed in the later Universe”
And indeed, these imperfections in the the sphere of the CMBR, (which ‘provides at least the possibility for the seeds around which structure formed in the later Universe’), ‘surprising’ line up with the earth, and thus overturns the Copernican principle by showing the earth has a ‘privileged position’ in this universe. This fact is touched upon in further detail in the following post:
The one exception to this rule of ‘no platonic perfection’ for Euclidean objects within this universe is the axiomatic ‘primitive object’ in Euclidean geometry of the line.
That is to say, the place where “platonic perfection” is, not only approached, but, (as far as our best scientific measurements will allow us to see), ‘perfectly reached’ in the universe, is for the ‘flatness’ of the universe.
Moreover, this ‘insane coincidence’ of ‘plantonic perfection’ being reached for the axiomatic ‘primitive object’ of the line just so happens to be necessary for us to even be able to practice math and science, (and apply technology in our world), in the first place:
Simply put, if the universe were not ‘ever-so-boringly’ flat (and if the universal constants were not also ‘ever-so-boringly’ constant), but the universe were instead governed by randomness, as atheists presuppose, or governed by some other of the infinitude of ‘platonic topologies’ that were possible, modern science and technology would have never gotten off the ground here on earth.
Nor, if platonic perfection were not present for the flatness of the universe would we have eventually been able to deduce the ‘platonic perfection’ that is revealed in the ‘higher dimensional’ mathematics that lay behind Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
Simply put, no experimental test to date has ever been able to detect any ‘imperfection’ for what the “platonically perfect’ theories of Special relativity, General relativity, and Quantum Mechanics predict.
As Berlinski noted,
Moreover, these ‘higher dimensional’ areas in the universe where ‘platonic perfection’ are reached are very comforting to Christian presuppositions:
Thus, Wigner’s multiple uses of the word ‘miracle’ in his 1960 paper is entirely appropriate.
Verse and video:
I assume that it is too late to ask for a “read more” button.
I am ashamed to say that I have never heard of Wigner. He sounds like an interesting guy. It sounds like I have some reading ahead of me.
Wigner was a famous physicist and won a Nobel prize – did work in quantum physics. I’ve read about him in some books on particle and quantum physics, and I though the article on the unreasonable effectiveness of math was interesting.
And, my unasked-for advice is to just oil up your scroll wheel and zip past long posts that you don’t want to even look at. Obviously, they’re all done making enhancements to the site.
It seems a bit inconsistent that people who are advocating for “there is no God” are bothered about truth at all.
BTW, IMHO there is a genuine conflict between science — as it is understood today — and theism in that science only deals with natural causes. Consequently, in questions concerning the beginning of nature, which necessarily could not have been natural, science is simply wrong.
Of couse, this conflict can easily be removed if science is kept in its proper quarters and is not arm-twisted to provide natural ‘explanations’ of everything.
Hi EugeneS. You may have just been making a general remark, but I don’t think it is accurate to say that Wigner is “advocating there is no God”.
I think he is saying that even though he rejected Christianity as a youth, and doesn’t believe one can prove God’s existence, he recognizes that there is some kind of miracle in both the existence of our world and our ability to understand it, but that understanding why that is is a mystery beyond our grasp.
Wigner was not a materialist, and was in fact one of the main proponents of the idea that consciousness is a necessary component of the collapse of a waveform in quantum mechanics.
A few notes on Eugene Wigner. As Hazel noted Wigner won a Nobel prize.
In 1963, the Nobel prize was awarded to Wigner for his work laying the foundation for “Quantum Symmetries”.
Here is a short video of Wigner receiving his Nobel prize in 1963 for his work laying the foundation for “Quantum Symmetries”.
Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries is one line of empirical evidence, out of five converging lines of empirical evidence, that I have used to provide empirical proof for the “Argument for God from Consciousness.”
,,, To summarize, putting all the lines of evidence together from the Double Slit experiment, Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, and the Quantum Zeno effect, the argument for God from consciousness can now be formulated like this:
And here is Wigner commenting on the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries,,,
And indeed, according to leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger, Wigner’s work in Quantum Symmetries is indeed fostering a ‘second quantum revolution’ in the 21st century,,
In regards to his work in Quantum Symmetries, Wigner stated this in 1961
And again in 1970 Wigner further stated that,,
There is even an “consciousness causes collapse [of the wave function]” interpretation in Quantum Mechanics that is named after Eugene Wigner (and John Von Neumann)
John von Neumann stated this in regards to the ‘measurement problem’ within quantum mechanics,,,
Stephen Barr elaborates a little more fully here:
Later in his life in 1982 Wigner backed off of his “consciousness causes collapse [of the wave function]” interpretation in Quantum Mechanics,,,
In regards to Wigner’s suggestion for an amendment. I know of no ‘amendment’ that has ever been adopted since Wigner suggested “an amendment of the Schrödinger equation” that has ever solved the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. Perhaps it was tried and rejected since it did not work. I have no idea why the ‘amendment’ suggested by Wigner is never discussed in the literature since the measurement problem is still very much alive and well and shows no signs of ever ‘going quietly away into the good night’ for materialists.:
As Weinberg himself, an atheist, stated in 2017 “Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,”
Thus the ‘measurement problem’ is certainly still very much alive and well as has certainly not been solved by any ‘suggested amendment’ by Wigner to the Schrödinger equation.
Moreover, the claim from Wigner, in his rejection of his own ‘consciousness causes collapse’ interpretation of quantum mechanics, that “quantum mechanics is not valid for macroscopic systems” is now known to be just plain wrong. Quantum Entanglement has now been demonstrated for hundreds of miles.
As Vlatko Vedral states, “the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales.”
Thus Wigner’s belief that quantum mechanics only applies at the microscopic scale, which he cited as one of the primary reasons for him rejecting his own ‘consciousness causes collapse’ interpretation, is now shown to be just plain wrong.
As to Wigner’s rejection of his own interpretation because of “solipsism”, it is bizarre that Wigner would reject his own interpretation of quantum mechanics because he was ’embarrassed’ by solipsism, (i.e. the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist), since Wigner was the one who came up with the ‘Wigner’s Friend ‘ thought experiment in the first place. At the 8:30 minute mark of the following video, Schrodinger’s cat and Wigner’s Friend are highlighted:
In fact, the Wigner’s friend thought experiment made its first appearance in 1961 in the very paper in which Wigner stated that, “It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality”
As well, Wigner’s solipsism objection was touched upon by Richard Conn Henry when the 2007 Leggett’s results came out when Henry stated “a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism”,,,
As well it is just plain bizarre to me that anyone could possibly imagine that their own mind, all by its lonesome, has the causal sufficiency within itself to collapse the wave function. (Which would be required if solipsism were actually true). The quantum wave, prior to measure, is mathematically defined as being in a ‘infinite dimensional-infinite information’ state,
Simply put, in order to adequately explain quantum wave collapse we must postulate something with the causal sufficiency within itself in order to explain the ‘effect’ of the ‘infinite dimensional-infinite information’ quantum wave state collapsing to a single bit of information. In other words, we must postulate the omnipresent and omniscient Mind of God in order to explain why the ‘infinite dimensional-infinite information’ quantum wave state collapses to a single bit of information.
Thus in conclusion, the three reasons that Wigner gave for giving up his own ‘consciousness causes collapse’ interpretation of quantum mechanics, (i.e. solipsism, quantum mechanics only applies to the microscopic scale, and his ‘suggested amendment’ to the Schrödinger equation), are all found to be wanting and/or overturned.
Thus, much to the consternation of Atheistic Materialists, multiple lines of evidence from quantum mechanics have provided a constant and unceasing barrage that has blown their materialistic view of reality completely to smithereens, as well as having continually supported the Christian’s contention that the infinite Mind of God must precede all of physical reality:
Quotes and Verses:
“A few notes on Eugene Wigner…”, followed by three posts and 4000 words. 🙂
hazel needs some cheese to go with that whine…
Wasn’t a whine, ET. It was, dare I say, a chuckle. 🙂
No, it is whining. Pure and simple.
Hazel
No, I did not mean Wigner. I rather meant some commenters who suggested that he, as it were, betrayed science by making the known statements about mathematics. That was actually the main point of this OP.
Thanks, EugeneS. As I said at 6, I think the headline is misleading, and I’m not sure seeing it as a “treason” against science was the general reaction. If you are interested, I encourage you to read the whole article, as I don’t see it as being against science. Also, the Wikipedia article on the essay is interesting. The essay has been a popular stimulant for discussion since it was published.
Thanks, Hazel.
Bornagain77 @13:
Plainly mathematics is, like consciousness, an illusion.
Nothing to see here: move along now, citizen.
I have some more thoughts about the essay, and especially the part I quoted in 4 above, but they really belong on the Logic and First Principles 7 thread.
@News, another scholar that made the same discovery is Soviet mathematician Leonid Levin. He was unable to publish his findings while in the USSR, but was able to make his proofs known once here in the USA. His work anticipates much of what Dembski published in information theory, such as complex specified information and the conservation of information.
Levin is a foundational figure in computer science. He is famous for being a co-discoverer of the NP-Complete complexity class, which is a class of problems for which we have no known fast algorithm to solve. Incidentally, many of our everyday tasks that we’d like to have computers do for us unfortunately fall into this problem class, which is why AI has so much trouble scaling to work on anything other than toy problems.