Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How Did Mathematics Come to be Woven Into the Fabric of Reality?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

We all learned pi in school in the context of circles.  Pi is the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter.  It is an irrational number approximated by 3.14.

It turns out that pi shows up all over the place, not just in circles.  Here is just one instance.  Take a piece of paper and a stick.  Draw several lines along the paper so that the lines are the length of the stick from each other.  Then randomly drop the stick on the paper.  The probability that the stick will land so that it cuts a line is exactly 2/pi, or about 64%.  If one were to perform millions of trials, one could use the results to perform a very precise calculation of the value of pi without ever considering its relation to circles.

This is just one of many places pi pops up in reality, and pi is just one of several mathematical constants that appear to be woven into the fabric of the universe. One mathematician likened it to looking out over a mountain range, where the bases of the mountains are shrouded in fog, and the symbol for pi is etched into the top of each mountain – one intuitively knows that it is all connected at some basic level even if one has no idea why.

What are we to make of what physicist Eugene Wigner called the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” in describing reality?  The word “unreasonable” makes sense only in the context of expectations.  If one expects the mathematical structure of the universe to be elegant and beautiful, the fact that it turns out to be elegant and beautiful is not unreasonable at all.  It is only unreasonable if one approaches it from the perspective of the metaphysical materialist.  In his universe reality consists of nothing but particles in motion randomly bumping into each other.  In that universe there is no reason to expect any underlying mathematical order, no reason to expect mountain tops etched with pi to pop up all over the place, and no reason to suspect that those mountain tops are connected by a unifying order at the base.

Given materialist premises, none of this makes the slightest bit of sense.  It is just a brute fact.  It cannot be denied or explained.  Yet there it is.

MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark has a theory.  He says consider a character in a computer game (let’s call him Mario) that is so complex and sophisticated that he is able to achieve consciousness.  If Mario were to begin exploring his environment, he would find a lot of mathematical connections.  And if continued to explore, Mario would ultimately find that his entire world is mathematical at its roots.  Tegmark believes we live in a universe that is not just described by mathematics; he believes that mathematics defines all of reality, just as the reality of Mario’s computer game world is defined by mathematics.

Here is the interesting part.  Tegmark makes no design inference.  (He is a multiverse fanatic).  This is astounding.  All he needs to do is take his own analogy one step further.  Why is Mario’s computer game world connected mathematically?  Obviously, it is because that mathematical structure was imposed on the game by the game designer.

Why is the universe we live in connected by an unreasonably beautiful, elegant and effective mathematical structure?  Come on Max.  You are a smart guy.  I know you can figure it out.

Comments
Just a question: Do people who think mathematics is manmade mind if it is reorganized so as to consistently give someone else more money for the same job? People typically base their case for fairness on the theory that the mathematics is not manmade, but is an external standard to which one can appeal.News
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Aleta:
But here’s a slightly different question. Could God make a 2 dimensional circle on a flat surface in which pi was not 3.14….? I say the answer is no? pi is a logical consequence of the definition of a circle. What this says to me is that the formal mathematical theorems are independent of God. He can build a world that is curved one way or another, but he can’t change the geometrical facts about a flat 2-dimensional surface.
I agree that pi is a logical consequence of the definition of a circle, but I'm not sure that this means mathematical theorems are independent of God. I still tend to think the circle is His idea even though its definition has logical consequences. I think math is in God rather than being independent of Him. Math is immutable because God is immutable. Similarly logic. Logic doesn't exist outside God, but inside Him. God cannot be illogical because to do so would be against His immutable nature.Phinehas
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
That is just plain denial on your part. (if there were a 'you' to deny anything in your illusory worldview anyway), You were shown the papers for interaction free zeno effects. Do you deny those experiments? Oh well, denial is part and parcel for atheists. I've seen it a thousand times at least. Of related interest: Dean Radin defends the mathematical and empirical integrity of some his previous work at Princeton here. As well, the less than forthright ad hominem attacks of atheists against him are discussed and exposed for the baseless attacks they were and are:
Dr. Dean Radin And Dr. Roger Nelson Respond to Global Consciousness Project Criticisms http://www.skeptiko.com/74-radin-nelson-global-consciousness/ Roger Nelson and Dean Radin Defend 9/11 Global Consciousness Claims http://mindpowermasters.blogspot.com/2009/06/roger-nelson-and-dean-radin-defend-911.html
Quote of note:
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck - The main originator of Quantum Theory - Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)(Of Note: Max Planck was a devoted Christian from early life, was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God.
of note: That is my last response to you on this thread. I have given up hope of ever convincing any atheist of the plain common sense fact that they are not a machine and that they really do have a conscious mind. It is really something so plain and obvious that you should not have to convince anybody of the fact they are not a machine:
Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way. One philosopher jokes that if people deny free will, then when ordering at a restaurant they should say, "Just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get." An especially clear example is Galen Strawson, a philosopher who states with great bravado, "The impossibility of free will ... can be proved with complete certainty." Yet in an interview, Strawson admits that, in practice, no one accepts his deterministic view. "To be honest, I can't really accept it myself," he says. "I can't really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really?",,, In What Science Offers the Humanities, Edward Slingerland, identifies himself as an unabashed materialist and reductionist. Slingerland argues that Darwinian materialism leads logically to the conclusion that humans are robots -- that our sense of having a will or self or consciousness is an illusion. Yet, he admits, it is an illusion we find impossible to shake. No one "can help acting like and at some level really feeling that he or she is free." We are "constitutionally incapable of experiencing ourselves and other conspecifics [humans] as robots." One section in his book is even titled "We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.",,, When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks's worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn't. Brooks ends by saying, "I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs." He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html [Nancy Pearcey] When Reality Clashes with Your Atheistic Worldview - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0Kpn3HBMiQ The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt: ,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3 Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
bornagain77
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
BA77 @ 68,
So you have reservations about Radin but concede that you were wrong on the quantum zeno effect?
No. I am still saying Zeno effect (or for that matter all Quantum experiments) has nothing to do with consciousness. The 'observers' are instruments. It is the instrument that measures the Quantum state. Unless you concede that machines have consciousness, there is no proof that consciousness affects the Quantum state (except of course in Parapsychologist Radin's non-reproducible experiment)Me_Think
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
So you have reservations about Radin but concede that you were wrong on the quantum zeno effect? Regardless of whatever you think about Radin, here are a few more irreconcilable things with your naturalistic philosophy for you to think about:
Double Slit, Quantum-Electrodynamics, and Christian Theism – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1127450170601248/?type=2&theater New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It - June 3, 2015 Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts. “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,, “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said. Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer. http://themindunleashed.org/2015/06/new-mind-blowing-experiment-confirms-that-reality-doesnt-exist-if-you-are-not-looking-at-it.html Lecture 11: Decoherence and Hidden Variables - Scott Aaronson - MIT associate Professor Excerpt: "Look, we all have fun ridiculing the creationists who think the world sprang into existence on October 23, 4004 BC at 9AM (presumably Babylonian time), with the fossils already in the ground, light from distant stars heading toward us, etc. But if we accept the usual picture of quantum mechanics, then in a certain sense the situation is far worse: the world (as you experience it) might as well not have existed 10^-43 seconds ago!" http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec11.html “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.” Anton Zeilinger - Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism - video (7:17 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437
Of related interest to the philosophical battle going on behind the scene:
How exactly did consciousness become a problem? by Margaret Wertheim – Dec. 1, 2015 Excerpt: Heaven and Earth were two separate yet intertwined domains of human action. Medieval cosmology was thus inherently dualistic: the physical domain of the body had a parallel in the spiritual domain of the soul; and for medieval thinkers, the latter was the primary domain of the Real.,,, But perhaps most surprisingly, just when the ‘stream of consciousness’ was entering our lexicon, physicists began to realise that consciousness might after all be critical to their own descriptions of the world. With the advent of quantum mechanics they found that, in order to make sense of what their theories were saying about the subatomic world, they had to posit that the scientist-observer was actively involved in constructing reality.,,, Such a view appalled many physicists,,, Just this April, Nature Physics reported on a set of experiments showing a similar effect using helium atoms. Andrew Truscott, the Australian scientist who spearheaded the helium work, noted in Physics Today that ‘99.999 per cent of physicists would say that the measurement… brings the observable into reality’. In other words, human subjectivity is drawing forth the world.,,, Not all physicists are willing to go down this path, however, and there is indeed now a growing backlash against subjectivity.,,, when I was a physics student the MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation was widely seen as a fringe concept. Today, it is becoming mainstream, in large part because the pesky problem of consciousness simply hasn’t gone away.,,, https://aeon.co/essays/how-and-why-exactly-did-consciousness-become-a-problem
bornagain77
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT
BA77 I think we have already discussed Dean Radin, the parapsychologist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences. I don't wish to comment on his 'experiments' as no physicist was able to reproduce his research.Me_Think
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
The following video also clearly demonstrates that the oft cited “decoherence” does not solve the measurement problem:
The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics – (Inspiring Philosophy) – 2014 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God? Stephen M. Barr - July 10, 2012 Excerpt: Couldn’t an inanimate physical device (say, a Geiger counter) carry out a “measurement” (minus the 'observer' in quantum mechanics)? That would run into the very problem pointed out by von Neumann: If the “observer” were just a purely physical entity, such as a Geiger counter, one could in principle write down a bigger wavefunction that described not only the thing being measured but also the observer. And, when calculated with the Schrödinger equation, that bigger wave function would not jump! Again: as long as only purely physical entities are involved, they are governed by an equation that says that the probabilities don’t jump. That’s why, when Peierls was asked whether a machine could be an “observer,” he said no, explaining that “the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows.” Not a purely physical thing, but a mind. https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god
Dean Radin, who spent years at Princeton testing different aspects of consciousness, recently performed experiments testing the possible role of consciousness in the double slit. His results were, not so surprisingly, very supportive of the contention that consciousness has an integral role in the experiment:
Consciousness and the double-slit interference pattern: six experiments – Radin – 2012 Abstract: A double-slit optical system was used to test the possible role of consciousness in the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. The ratio of the interference pattern’s double-slit spectral power to its single-slit spectral power was predicted to decrease when attention was focused toward the double slit as compared to away from it. Each test session consisted of 40 counterbalanced attention-toward and attention-away epochs, where each epoch lasted between 15 and 30 s(seconds). Data contributed by 137 people in six experiments, involving a total of 250 test sessions, indicate that on average the spectral ratio decreased as predicted (z = -4:36, p = 6·10^-6). Another 250 control sessions conducted without observers present tested hardware, software, and analytical procedures for potential artifacts; none were identified (z = 0:43, p = 0:67). Variables including temperature, vibration, and signal drift were also tested, and no spurious influences were identified. By contrast, factors associated with consciousness, such as meditation experience, electrocortical markers of focused attention, and psychological factors including openness and absorption, significantly correlated in predicted ways with perturbations in the double-slit interference pattern. The results appear to be consistent with a consciousness-related interpretation of the quantum measurement problem. http://www.deanradin.com/papers/Physics%20Essays%20Radin%20final.pdf Psychophysical (i.e., mind–matter) interactions with a double-slit interference pattern - Dean Radin, Leena Michel, James Johnston, and Arnaud Delorme - December 2013 Abstract: Previously reported experiments suggested that interference patterns generated by a double-slit optical system were perturbed by a psychophysical (i.e., mind–matter) interaction. Three new experiments were conducted to further investigate this phenomenon. The first study consisted of 50 half-hour test sessions where participants concentrated their attention-toward or -away from a double-slit system located 3 m away. The spectral magnitude and phase associated with the double-slit component of the interference pattern were compared between the two attention conditions, and the combined results provided evidence for an interaction,,,. One hundred control sessions using the same equipment, protocol and analysis, but without participants present, showed no effect,,,. The second experiment used a duplicate double-slit system and similar test protocol, but it was conducted over the Internet by streaming data to participants’ web browsers. Some 685 people from six continents contributed 2089 experimental sessions. Results were similar to those observed in the first experiment, but smaller in magnitude,,,. Data from 2303 control sessions, conducted automatically every 2 h using the same equipment but without observers showed no effect. Distance between participants and the optical system, ranging from 1 km to 18,000 km, showed no correlation with experimental effect size. The third experiment used a newly designed double-slit system, a revised test protocol, and a simpler method of statistical analysis. Twenty sessions contributed by 10 participants successfully replicated the interaction effect observed in the first two studies. http://deanradin.com/evidence/RadinPhysicsEssays2013.pdf
Then of course, there is the epistemological failure that is inherent in the atheist's claim that consciousness is not primary but merely illusory
The Confidence of Jerry Coyne - Ross Douthat - January 6, 2014 Excerpt: then halfway through this peroration, we have as an aside the confession that yes, okay, it’s quite possible given materialist premises that “our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.” At which point the entire edifice suddenly looks terribly wobbly — because who, exactly, is doing all of this forging and shaping and purpose-creating if Jerry Coyne, as I understand him (and I assume he understands himself) quite possibly does not actually exist at all? The theme of his argument is the crucial importance of human agency under eliminative materialism, but if under materialist premises the actual agent is quite possibly a fiction, then who exactly is this I who “reads” and “learns” and “teaches,” and why in the universe’s name should my illusory self believe Coyne’s bold proclamation that his illusory self’s purposes are somehow “real” and worthy of devotion and pursuit? (Let alone that they’re morally significant:,,) Read more here: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-confidence-of-jerry-coyne/?_r=0
bornagain77
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
Interaction-free measurements by quantum Zeno stabilization of ultracold atoms – 14 April 2015 Excerpt: In our experiments, we employ an ultracold gas in an unstable spin configuration, which can undergo a rapid decay. The object—realized by a laser beam—prevents this decay because of the indirect quantum Zeno effect and thus, its presence can be detected without interacting with a single atom. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150414/ncomms7811/full/ncomms7811.html?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20150415 'Zeno effect' verified: Atoms won't move while you watch - Oct. 22, 2015 Excerpt: One of the oddest predictions of quantum theory – that a system can’t change while you’re watching it,,, Graduate students Yogesh Patil and Srivatsan Chakram created and cooled a gas of about a billion Rubidium atoms inside a vacuum chamber and suspended the mass between laser beams. In that state the atoms arrange in an orderly lattice just as they would in a crystalline solid. But at such low temperatures the atoms can “tunnel” from place to place in the lattice. ,,, The researchers demonstrated that they were able to suppress quantum tunneling merely by observing the atoms. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/10/zeno-effect-verified-atoms-wont-move-while-you-watch “It has been experimentally confirmed,, that unstable particles will not decay, or will decay less rapidly, if they are observed. Somehow, observation changes the quantum system. We’re talking pure observation, not interacting with the system in any way.” Douglas Ell – Counting to God – pg. 189 – 2014 – Douglas Ell graduated early from MIT, where he double majored in math and physics. He then obtained a masters in theoretical mathematics from the University of Maryland. After graduating from law school, magna cum laude, he became a prominent attorney. The Mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics John Hopkins University Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke “decoherence” – the notion that “the physical environment” is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in “Renninger-type” experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy. http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf The Renninger Negative Result Experiment – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3uzSlh_CV0 Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester Excerpt: In 1994, Anton Zeilinger, Paul Kwiat, Harald Weinfurter, and Thomas Herzog actually performed an equivalent of the above experiment, proving interaction-free measurements are indeed possible.[2] In 1996, Kwiat et al. devised a method, using a sequence of polarising devices, that efficiently increases the yield rate to a level arbitrarily close to one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur%E2%80%93Vaidman_bomb-testing_problem#Experiments Experimental Realization of Interaction-Free Measurement – Paul G. Kwiat; H. Weinfurter, T. Herzog, A. Zeilinger, and M. Kasevich – 1994 http://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/publications3/pdffiles/1994-08.pdf Interaction-Free Measurement – Zeilinger - 1995 We show that one can ascertain the presence of an object in some sense without interacting with it. http://archive.is/AjexE Realization of an interaction-free measurement – 1996 http://bg.bilkent.edu.tr/jc/topics/Interaction%20free%20measurements/papers/realization%20of%20an%20interaction%20free%20measurement.pdf
bornagain77
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
“It has been experimentally confirmed,, that unstable particles will not decay, or will decay less rapidly, if they are observed. Somehow, observation changes the quantum system. We’re talking pure observation, not interacting with the system in any way.” Douglas Ell – Counting to God – pg. 189 – 2014 – Douglas Ell graduated early from MIT, where he double majored in math and physics. He then obtained a masters in theoretical mathematics from the University of Maryland. After graduating from law school, magna cum laude, he became a prominent attorney. Interaction-free measurements by quantum Zeno stabilization of ultracold atoms – 14 April 2015 Excerpt: In our experiments, we employ an ultracold gas in an unstable spin configuration, which can undergo a rapid decay. The object—realized by a laser beam—prevents this decay because of the indirect quantum Zeno effect and thus, its presence can be detected without interacting with a single atom. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150414/ncomms7811/full/ncomms7811.html?WT.ec_id=NCOMMS-20150415 'Zeno effect' verified: Atoms won't move while you watch - Oct. 22, 2015 Excerpt: One of the oddest predictions of quantum theory – that a system can’t change while you’re watching it,,, Graduate students Yogesh Patil and Srivatsan Chakram created and cooled a gas of about a billion Rubidium atoms inside a vacuum chamber and suspended the mass between laser beams. In that state the atoms arrange in an orderly lattice just as they would in a crystalline solid. But at such low temperatures the atoms can “tunnel” from place to place in the lattice. ,,, The researchers demonstrated that they were able to suppress quantum tunneling merely by observing the atoms. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/10/zeno-effect-verified-atoms-wont-move-while-you-watch The Mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics John Hopkins University Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke “decoherence” – the notion that “the physical environment” is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in “Renninger-type” experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy. http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf The Renninger Negative Result Experiment – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3uzSlh_CV0 Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester Excerpt: In 1994, Anton Zeilinger, Paul Kwiat, Harald Weinfurter, and Thomas Herzog actually performed an equivalent of the above experiment, proving interaction-free measurements are indeed possible.[2] In 1996, Kwiat et al. devised a method, using a sequence of polarising devices, that efficiently increases the yield rate to a level arbitrarily close to one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur%E2%80%93Vaidman_bomb-testing_problem#Experiments Experimental Realization of Interaction-Free Measurement – Paul G. Kwiat; H. Weinfurter, T. Herzog, A. Zeilinger, and M. Kasevich – 1994 http://www.univie.ac.at/qfp/publications3/pdffiles/1994-08.pdf Interaction-Free Measurement – Zeilinger - 1995 We show that one can ascertain the presence of an object in some sense without interacting with it. http://archive.is/AjexE Realization of an interaction-free measurement – 1996 http://bg.bilkent.edu.tr/jc/topics/Interaction%20free%20measurements/papers/realization%20of%20an%20interaction%20free%20measurement.pdf The following video also clearly demonstrates that “decoherence” does not solve the measurement problem: The Measurement Problem in quantum mechanics – (Inspiring Philosophy) – 2014 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUE Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God? Stephen M. Barr - July 10, 2012 Excerpt: Couldn’t an inanimate physical device (say, a Geiger counter) carry out a “measurement” (minus the 'observer' in quantum mechanics)? That would run into the very problem pointed out by von Neumann: If the “observer” were just a purely physical entity, such as a Geiger counter, one could in principle write down a bigger wavefunction that described not only the thing being measured but also the observer. And, when calculated with the Schrödinger equation, that bigger wave function would not jump! Again: as long as only purely physical entities are involved, they are governed by an equation that says that the probabilities don’t jump. That’s why, when Peierls was asked whether a machine could be an “observer,” he said no, explaining that “the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows.” Not a purely physical thing, but a mind. https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-godbornagain77
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT
You should talk to your fellow materialist WD400. He’s in denial.
For me to be "in denial" there would have to be some kind o substantive claim being made. You still haven't given an example of the Fibonacci sequence appearing in nature "for no apparent reason". Others have pointed out where you only example for pi fails. So. Do you have some examples or not?wd400
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
Querius @ 61
If my observing something can determine whether and how it exists, my consciousness can’t be the result of what I observe.
That's a common misconception. It is the instrument that measures the state. Alice, Bob or Charlie's consciousness has nothing to do with Zeno effect.Me_Think
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
Aleta, my point is that structures and quantities are antecedent to our putting up frameworks to address and study them, these things -- not all mathematical things -- are discovered not invented, nor are they confined to this particular world. The logic of such necessary being structures and quantities, esp where necessary links exist from one to the other, will mean some things will apply to any possible world. In short there is a hard core quantitative and structural reality that is foundational to any world existing. I used twoness as a case in point which obtains once distinct identity obtains. The Euler relationship is another thing like that and it ties together domains of Mathematics that we were for good reason surprised to see connected in that way, KF PS: For context, sitting over for the moment, the tax and UK grant funded radio station pointedly playing a song on corruption immediately thereafter. Maybe that is about the CLICO scandal which came up, maybe not.kairosfocus
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
Good points all, and actually not very far apart. Mathematics is a structured method of logic that can be judiciously applied to describe physical phenomena. But there's more to it than that. Since quantum theory demonstrates that everything tangible in the universe is determined by probability waves (wavefunctions), consciousness, and logic, materialism is no longer a viable scientific position. If my observing something can determine whether and how it exists, my consciousness can't be the result of what I observe. If you doubt this, go down the rabbit hole and learn about the quantum zeno effect, quantum erasure, and quantum entanglement.
Everything we call real is made up of things that cannot be regarded as real. If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. -Niels Bohr
-QQuerius
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT
kf writes, "Aleta, While we agree on that, my point is that such structures and relationships do not require us to posit axiom systems as models etc. The logic of structure and quantity is antecedent to our study of it. KF" I don't understand this comment. The pure mathematics that leads to Euler's Identity is independent of any model that might apply it to the real world. Is that what you are meaning when you use the world "model" above. If so, we are in agreement. However, the pure mathematics also requires some axioms of logic and quantity. Axioms are necessary someplace to get the math started. So when you say "The logic of structure and quantity is antecedent to our study of it," what is "it" referring to? Do you mean antecedent to the model, and if not, what does "it" refer to?Aleta
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
FWIW, I'm glad Barry started this thread because it is one of my favorite subjects. I'd like to divide the topic into two issues: 1. Why is there a universe which is amenable to mathematical descriptions, and 2. What is the nature of the mathematics we use to formalize those descriptions. Barry's topic question is mainly about the first question above. However, I think there are some misconceptions in his exposition of the topic that I'd like to reply to, as well as add some thoughts of my own. Topic 1: The universe is amenable to mathematical description. Barry writes,
What are we to make of what physicist Eugene Wigner called the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” in describing reality? The word “unreasonable” makes sense only in the context of expectations. If one expects the mathematical structure of the universe to be elegant and beautiful, the fact that it turns out to be elegant and beautiful is not unreasonable at all.
Elegant and beautiful are human value judgments, but are somewhat separate afrom the question of why the universe is amenable to mathematical description. Most of us who like math consider it elegant and beautiful, both in it's pure abstract form and in its ability to model the world. The Mandelbrot set is elegant and beautiful, even though it has no direction application to the physical world, as far as I know. On the other hand, Feynman's procedures for calculating the path of a particle over all possible paths in the universe is messy and beyond the comprehension of all but a few, and yet it is extremely powerful and describes the world in very accurate terms. The relevant issue, therefore, is that we are able to describe the world, at many levels including the most fundamental, in mathematical terms. Whys is this so? That is the question. As a strong agnostic, my fundamental answer is that we don't know. I start with the universe as we find it, preferring not to think I know more than I can actually justify about metaphysical speculations about things beyond the reach of human knoweldege. With that disclaimer, I don't mind metaphysically speculating. One possibility is that there is some omniscient, omnipotent cosmic intelligence through whose creative powers arises physical universes which are saturated throughout with mathematical regularities. Notice that I phrase this carefully. Such a cosmic intelligence need not have particular intentions or purposes in created a universe, and such an intelligence might create many universes - each universe might be a single act which is repeated many times. We don't know. In positing such an intelligence I am in no way making the huge leap to the kind of Christian deity who has conscious, willful engagement with the world and a particular interest in human beings: that is a much larger subject. But I am acknowledging that a cosmic non-material intelligence could be the craetive source of a universe like ours that is not only pervaded by mathematical regularities and is such that particles have the properties to make interesting things possible, such as chemical elements and more complicated substances. My metaphysical preference for the notion of the Tao fits into this possibility. Another possibility is the more Western idea of an engaged deity specifically creating this world and ultimately human beings, with whom he has a special relationship. I don't believe this is very likely at all, but it is possible. Another possibility is that there is a Platonic world of mathematical and logical ideals that impress themselves upon any physical world even though those ideals are not themselves the source of those worlds. That is, it might be that an underlying structure of quantum fluctuations is really the fundamental physical nature of reality, and the cause of universes, but that the world of Platonic ideals necessarily manifest within those worlds: that is, the creation of the world and the mathematical regularities of the world come from different sources, not the same source. I will note that the Western idea assumes that if there is a design, there must be a designer: that math must pervade the world because some being made it that way. I don't think that assumption that there must be a designer is true. In several of the options mentioned above, the mathematics is primary, not the creation of a creator. In both the Platonic and Taoist speculations, no one specifically makes the world mathematical: mathematics is something that must be there. Here is a way to think about this issue. Consider a traditional omniscient, omnipotent Western version of God. Could God create a square circle? The answer is no: that is a logical impossibility and God can't do the logically impossible. I believe kf made this point back in one of the infinity threads. But here's a slightly different question. Could God make a 2 dimensional circle on a flat surface in which pi was not 3.14....? I say the answer is no? pi is a logical consequence of the definition of a circle. What this says to me is that the formal mathematical theorems are independent of God. He can build a world that is curved one way or another, but he can't change the geometrical facts about a flat 2-dimensional surface. Mathematical facts have a validity of their own in respect to the axioms upon which they are based: they aren't created by God even if God creates the world in which people discover and use the math. Here's another metaphysical speculation I'd like to offer. Barry says,
It is only unreasonable if one approaches it from the perspective of the metaphysical materialist. In his universe reality consists of nothing but particles in motion randomly bumping into each other. In that universe there is no reason to expect any underlying mathematical order,...
I don't think that conclusion is at all true. It seems to me that a non-material cosmic intelligence could create a completely material universe which was saturated with mathematical regularities. To a materialist, the world is definitely not " nothing but particles in motion randomly bumping into each other." It's particles interacting with each other in very particular ways based on the nature of those particles and upon forces which exist between particles. If the universe were just particles bumping into each other without any interaction between them, nothing would happen. This is definitely not what the materialist believes. The materialist believes that the world is pervaded by mathematical regularities, even though the materialist doesn't ascribe any non-materialistic cause to the existence of the universe that contains those regularities. I know you don't think such is possible, but please don't confuse beliefs about what caused the material universe with beliefs about the nature of the material universe. The materialist accepts those regularities as a given: you misconstrue that position when you say something like the universe is "nothing but particles in motion randomly bumping into each other." Well, that's a lot of rambling. I had thought to write a more structured essay, but this has taken enough time, so I'll leave it as a first draft of ideas and move on. Food for thought for those interested. I'll note that I didn't even get to point 2 above: "2. What is the nature of the mathematics we use to formalize those descriptions." Maybe later...Aleta
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
Aleta, While we agree on that, my point is that such structures and relationships do not require us to posit axiom systems as models etc. The logic of structure and quantity is antecedent to our study of it. KFkairosfocus
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
Yes, kf, I agree entirely. That's what I was referring to when I wrote "EI is true within a certain mathematical system – one which starts with the natural numbers and then defines certain mathematical objects along the way." I just didn't list some of the necessary precursors ideas that must first be in place.Aleta
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT
Aleta, the Euler result will be valid in any abstract plane structure where a unit circle on the origin is definable and an i (or j, as some use . . .) operator. How it is expressed may vary but the matter of substance will obtain. The quantities 1, 0, e, i and pi as well as addition, equality, multiplication and exponentiation as well as sine and cosine are all definable in an abstract plane and the result follows. KFkairosfocus
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
KF,
DS, yes. Given the logic, structure and quantities involved. That is not about physical spaces in the first instance. Remember numbers and extensions are inherently abstract.
I agree. And thanks for the reminder. :-) Aleta, Interesting points.
Here’s a question: is there a developed theory of waves on a curved surface? How about a theory of complex numbers based on number lines on a curved surface?
Definitely so for the first question; I don't know about the second. I think we are in agreement on this:
In any conceivable world where someone developed a mathematical system with the same axiomatic beginning as our, EI is true. That doesn’t necessarily mean that EI and the larger topic of which it is a part might apply to that world in identical ways.
daveS
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
dave, this question relates to the post I just wrote at 48. Let's call e^(i?) + 1 = 0 EI for Euler's identity, for short. EI is true within a certain mathematical system - one which starts with the natural numbers and then defines certain mathematical objects along the way. The truth of EI is not connected to the existence of any physical world, although it can't be expressed in any physical way (that is, written down) without someone to do so. EI itself doesn't have a direct application to the real world that I know of, but the whole subject of which it is a part, vectors written as complex numbers in exponential form, has tremendously useful applications. Is there a possible world where these theorems wouldn't apply? Here's a question: is there a developed theory of waves on a curved surface? How about a theory of complex numbers based on number lines on a curved surface? When I taught this, I proved EI using infinite series for sine, cosine, and e, which is all independent from any geometrical interpretation. So I think your question perhaps continues a confusion that I am trying to clarify: the difference between the logical proof of a mathematical fact and the application of that fact. So when you ask, "do you believe that Euler’s identity, e^(i?) + 1 = 0, is true in every possible world?," I think my answer is this: In any conceivable world where someone developed a mathematical system with the same axiomatic beginning as our, EI is true. That doesn't necessarily mean that EI and the larger topic of which it is a part might apply to that world in identical ways. The always instructive analog is the geometries: in any world the three geometries are potentially formalizable just as they are for us, but they might be applicable in different ways in different worlds.Aleta
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
DS, yes. Given the logic, structure and quantities involved. That is not about physical spaces in the first instance. Remember numbers and extensions are inherently abstract. Start from {} --> 0. KFkairosfocus
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
Querius: A flat universe is the only one with a maximum value for Pi. In a curved universe, there are circles whose value for Pi is exactly 3.0000. Unfortunately in those universes, Pi is variable, depending on the size of the circle. A corollary is that you can tell whether you’re in a curved part of space if you could detect a deviation from a flat value of Pi. Interesting comment. However, any universe with a non-zero mass Querius in it is curved.Zachriel
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
KF, Regarding your post #46, do you believe that Euler's identity, e^(iπ) + 1 = 0, is true in every possible world? (Anyone else interested in the question is invited to respond).daveS
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
Thank you, Barry. I am very glad you brought this topic up, and am working on a long reply to the OP, so I hope to address some of these issues later toady.Aleta
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
Aleta, I misunderstood you and apologize. You should talk to your fellow materialist WD400. He's in denial.Barry Arrington
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
Wow - you guys didn't understand my statement about the Fibonacci sequence at all. Barry wrote,
Aleta @ 35 “Nothing to see here folks. Move along. Just a sequence that shows up everywhere in the universe for no apparent reason.” Yet another instance where materialism has required one of its adherents to say something screamingly stupid. One would think they would grow tired of it. Yet, instead they seem to relish it.
Ignoring the entirely unnecessary name-calling, all I said is that you can't prove a theorem empirically. I didn't even begin to say that the theorem (or in this case the mathematical object, since the Fibonacci sequence itself is not a theorem) doesn't show up in the world. It does, in all sorts of wonderful places. The same is true about all sorts of math. The fact that math can describe the world so elegantly is wonderful - I spent 35 years teaching that to students, both showing them how math worked and how we can apply it to the real world. So I have no idea why Barry jumped to the hostile conclusions that he did. I'll note that I also said you can demonstrate math empirically, and use math in empirical models of the world, but Barry seemed to ignore that part of my comments. Querius writes,
Mung and Aleta, ". . . . you can’t falsify a mathematical theorem empirically." Depends on your definitions. 1. Ever hear of non-euclidean geometries? 2. Try testing the Pythagorean Theorem on the surface of a sphere. 3. One mole of hydrogen plus two moles of oxygen reacts to form one mode of water, not three. That the Fibonacci sequence is common in nature is indeed surprising. That the ratio of two successive Fibonacci numbers approaches Phi as the pairs get bigger is even more so. Euler’s equation, e^(pi*i) = -1, is also haunting. -Q
I have written whole posts here about non-Euclidean geometries, so yes, I have heard of them. Again, I think my remark was badly misinterpreted. There are three possible 2-d geometries, each using a different version of the parallel postulate. (We touched on this when we discussed circle on curved surfaces last night.) Each of these geometries leads to different theorems about triangles, including both the angle sum and the Pythagorean analogs. Those theorems are all true within their own system. However, if you then go and apply those theorems to a particular surface, only one of them will be true. Therefore, you can theoretically test the nature of the curvature of a surface by seeing which of the theorems most closely applies. Gauss actually tried to do this by measuring the angles of a triangle formed from three mountaintops in Germany. However, in this case you are not testing the theorems themselves -- those are proven true within their respective geometries -- you are testing to see if the math correctly applies to the world. That's why I said that you can't empirically prove that the theorem is true: what you do is logically prove the theorem is true and then empirically show that it applies to the real world. Do you guys see the distinction? And P.S. I used to spend a whole day at the end of calculus using what we had learned about infinite series for sine, cosine, and e, as well as reviewing what we knew about complex numbers, to show that e^(pi*i) = -1.Aleta
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
Excellent OP and good comments along the way. Andre, I couldn't agree more!
What are we to make of what physicist Eugene Wigner called the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics” in describing reality? The word “unreasonable” makes sense only in the context of expectations. If one expects the mathematical structure of the universe to be elegant and beautiful, the fact that it turns out to be elegant and beautiful is not unreasonable at all. It is only unreasonable if one approaches it from the perspective of the metaphysical materialist. In his universe reality consists of nothing but particles in motion randomly bumping into each other. In that universe there is no reason to expect any underlying mathematical order, no reason to expect mountain tops etched with pi to pop up all over the place, and no reason to suspect that those mountain tops are connected by a unifying order at the base. Given materialist premises, none of this makes the slightest bit of sense.
Exactly right! So if you read down through the comments you see the other side trying to downplay the significance of this clue to the nature of reality. For them, it just exists and they pretend not to be moved by it. They try and say that it doesn't need explaining - a wise move since they are unable to explain it. Someone says that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and tries to simply dismiss it all. Well, give 'em an A for trying, but an F for logic. I guess though, seen through their worldview, it must seem logical to them. At least Eugene Wigner realized, and was honest enough to say, that the observations do not fit with his beliefs. Now, he could adjust his beliefs to fit the evidence or he could simply ramp up his faith in spite of the anomalous evidence. Someone else didn't like Wigner's statement so they simply claimed that Wigner was wrong. Only an atheist sees it that way. Try telling him he is wrong! Anyway, this data IS what we would expect in an Intelligently Designed world. It fits best within that paradigm in my opinion. It makes perfect sense to my evolved monkey mind.tjguy
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT
Folks, Mathematics as a discipline is sometimes quite reasonably and in my view aptly defined in terms of being the study of the logic of structure and quantity, including of course spatial structures. The underlying logic of distinct identity and connected structures and quantities would seem to be innate, and something we can discover, model and analyse. For instance, the very name geometry suggests how surveying and similar exercises led to the steps that built up classical Euclidean Geometry. This can be ext6ended through co-ordinates and linked to abstract representations of variables, parameters and constants, i.e. algebra. Complex numbers represent vectors, which are connected to co-ordinates. The complex plane can be used to define a euclidean space in strict terms. Various extensions can be used to define other spatial geometries that may be relevant to other circumstances, but that does not remove the validity of the framework just noted. For example, using Wiki for convenience:
The mathematical concept of a Hilbert space, named after David Hilbert, generalizes the notion of Euclidean space. It extends the methods of vector algebra and calculus from the two-dimensional Euclidean plane and three-dimensional space to spaces with any finite or infinite number of dimensions. A Hilbert space is an abstract vector space possessing the structure of an inner product that allows length and angle to be measured. Furthermore, Hilbert spaces are complete: there are enough limits in the space to allow the techniques of calculus to be used. Hilbert spaces arise naturally and frequently in mathematics and physics, typically as infinite-dimensional function spaces
So once we have distinct identity, structures and quantities, there is a built in logic that would then shape a possible world -- and note the definition in the Collins English Dictionary:
possible world n (Logic) logic (in modal logic) a semantic device formalizing the notion of what the world might have been like. A statement is necessarily true if and only if it is true in every possible world
Mathematics allows us to explore this domain, and actualisation is what happens to hold for this actualised world. I think also it is important to put on the table an astonishing result that draws together whole domains of mathematics into a unified whole, that arises as a seemingly simple consequence of the use of complex numbers and sinusoids in analysis of the plane: 0 = 1 + e^ (i* pi) This Euler expression should give sobering pause to those who would glibly dismiss mathematics as a man-made artifice of no great significance. It also brings to bear the issue that to think logically and creatively based on understanding and insight, we must be responsibly, rationally free. Otherwise, we would be stuck in the grinding out of the equivalent of Leibniz' wheels in a mill that neither understand nor care what they do, they only play out the cause-effect bonds of the forces of chance and necessity at work and the contingency of how they are arranged. Schemes of thought that lead to us being mechanisms shaped by blind chance and mechanical necessity acting blindly on matter and energy, run into serious (but usually unacknowledged) problems in the face of mathematics. KF PS, Q, that Oxygen and hydrogen interact to form water which has a structural composition such that two moles of the former react with one mole of the latter to yield one mole of the third is not a violation of 2 + 1 = 3, which requires that he same sort of thing be on LHS and RHS. The conservation of mass involved in solving the equation shows us that we have composition of a compound entity that depends on interaction of the underlying substances at atomic-molecular level, transforming the type of substance involved. Likewise, in quantum theory, superpositions and the like are not contrary to ordinary logic, indeed to do q-mech one has to base oneself on the foundation of logic, cf the UD correctives no 38 on this.kairosfocus
April 26, 2016
April
04
Apr
26
26
2016
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT
Q Logos..... everything is logos through Him and for Him...... Love John 1:1 can never ever stop marveling at how it explains the entire universe. It is a beautiful description of our reality.Andre
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT
What's looking bad for materialism is quantum theory. Quantum theory is now widely accepted by physicists. For example, Vlatko Vedral is a professor of Physics at the University of Oxford who specializes in quantum theory and whose research papers are widely cited expresses the concept this way:
The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.
Compare Dr. Vedral’s description to the beginning of the Gospel of John in the New Testament, where we encounter the following statement:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. –John 1:1 (NASB)
The word “Word” here is translated from the Greek word logos, which encompasses meanings in English that include a word, a thought, a concept, a plan, reasoning, and logic—all of which represents information. Please note that I'm not claiming that quantum theory "proves" the Bible. I would warn you away from connecting science with the Bible, since science is always in flux. I do find this conjunction, though perhaps temporary, fascinating. -QQuerius
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply