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
I am amazed at how much the materialist is willing to deny to defend his position. The irony of course is his banking on reason that there is no reason. Stupefying!!!Andre
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT
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. -QQuerius
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT
Are you suggesting that that the Fibonacci sequence does not show up everywhere in the universe we’ve looked from spiral galaxies to heads of cabbage?
Pinecones fit pretty close to Fibonacci sequences, and there a few other examples of so-called golden spirals. The rest, spiral galaxies included, is mostly mysticism. This whole thread seems to be based on your what you think is true, absent any evidence. Unless you have some examples?wd400
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT
wd400 @ 39: Are you suggesting that that the Fibonacci sequence does not show up everywhere in the universe we've looked from spiral galaxies to heads of cabbage? If the answer is yes, we have yet another screamingly stupid comment from a materialist. If the answer is no, we have a materialist throwing up dust to distract from the truth. Not looking good for you either way WD.Barry Arrington
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT
“Nothing to see here folks. Move along. Just a sequence that shows up everywhere in the universe for no apparent reason.”
Do you have an example of this? So far we've had a lot of hand waving and zero actual examples.wd400
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT
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.Barry Arrington
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT
We live in 3 dimensions, which is why Tau (not the less elegant Pi) describes our world elegantly. In a higher dimension, we would require a completely different set of reference constants. Pi or Tau would no longer work elegantly.Me_Think
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT
In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins’s stated criterion for accepting “the God hypothesis” is to show that “there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.” 190 One such possibility would be to show that there exists a Platonic world of mathematical truths outside any physical existence that govern the full workings of the material universe, as Plato long ago said was true. As this chapter has examined, and as many— probably most— mathematicians and physicists themselves believe today, the world of mathematics is “supernatural” in that it already exists outside nature, prior to and outside of any material realities in the natural world (indeed, “matter” itself has become a problematic concept for twentieth-century physics). Moreover, this supernatural mathematical order somehow— and of this we still have no clue as to how it works— serves to govern the full detailed workings of the entire “physical world” as we perceive it in our consciousness (another domain outside physical reality). Mathematics also meets the criterion of “superhuman” in that, for example, mathematicians in their discoveries up to now have only touched the tip of the iceberg of all mathematical truths and even future mathematicians may never fully comprehend all of them— and in any case the laws of nature arose in their mathematical forms billions of years before the recent period of human mathematical discovery, and thus mathematical truths must have long preceded the arrival of human beings on earth in that they were then governing the workings of the universe. A governing mathematical intelligence is thus a supernatural, superhuman entity that meets Dawkins’s criterion for the existence of a god. If we then choose to define a god as such a supernatural entity having a fully developed mathematical intelligence, we can then say that at least one god very probably exists, a god of mathematical truth that rules the physical world. - Nelson, Robert H. God? Very Probably: Five Rational Ways to Think about the Question of a God
Mung
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT
P.S. The Fibonacci sequence isn't even a theorem, so there is nothing to falsify. It's just a definition based on a rule for creating a sequence of numbers.Aleta
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT
To AnimatedDust at 31: ? Please explain. I agree with Mung (imagine that) that you can't falsify a mathematical theorem theorem empirically. You can demonstrate a theorem, and you can model and theorem and then test the model, but the truthfulness of math resides within the system of math itself, not in reference to anything outside the math.Aleta
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
Nevermind, misread the post.daveS
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
bornagain77 @ 25, Interesting that you should mention the flatness of the universe. 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. ;-) -QQuerius
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
The Fibonacci sequence. Game. Set. Match.AnimatedDust
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
Mathematics is entirely man made. Do you know of any mathematical theorem that is falsifiable by empirical data?Mung
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
Did “blind evolution” bequeth such riches to the human brain? Obviously needed for survival. Or just pure dumb luck.Mung
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from Death as the “Theory of Everything” – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1143437869002478/?type=2&theater Special Relativity and General Relativity compared to Heavenly and Hellish Near Death Experiences - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1113745045305094/?type=2&theater (Entropic Concerns) The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead is the correct solution for the "Theory of Everything" - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/1121720701174195/?pnref=story
bornagain77
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
as to the fallacy of 'mathematical necessity':
Cantor, Gödel, & Turing: Incompleteness of Mathematics - video (excerpted from BBC's 'Dangerous Knowledge' documentary) https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1119397401406525/?type=2&theater THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010 Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel's critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/08/the-god-of-the-mathematicians "Clearly then no scientific cosmology, which of necessity must be highly mathematical, can have its proof of consistency within itself as far as mathematics go. In absence of such consistency, all mathematical models, all theories of elementary particles, including the theory of quarks and gluons...fall inherently short of being that theory which shows in virtue of its a priori truth that the world can only be what it is and nothing else. This is true even if the theory happened to account for perfect accuracy for all phenomena of the physical world known at a particular time." Stanley Jaki - Cosmos and Creator - 1980, pg. 49
Even Stephen Hawking himself admitted that Godel's incompleteness theorem proves there cannot ever be a 'complete' mathematical theory of everything,
"Gödel's incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel (ref. on cite), halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”. Thus, based on the position that an equation cannot prove itself, the constructs are based on assumptions some of which will be unprovable." Cf., Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010) @ 15-6
Steven Weinberg, an atheist, is exceptionally honest about the 'fix' atheists are in
"I don't think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don't describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question 'why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?'. And I don't see any way out of that. The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe,,," (Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists) "No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don't even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. But it is a possibility." Steven Weinberg – as stated to Richard Dawkins at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video Leonard Susskind – Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg – 1 in 10^120 Cosmological Constant points to intelligent design – video https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495 The Limits Of Reason – Gregory Chaitin – 2006 Excerpt: Unlike Gödel’s approach, mine is based on measuring information and showing that some mathematical facts cannot be compressed into a theory because they are too complicated. This new approach suggests that what Gödel discovered was just the tip of the iceberg: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms. http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/sciamer3.pdf BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,, Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/ Christ's Unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics: Excerpt: The belief that there should be a unification between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics does not follow from the math, but is a belief that is born out of Theistic presuppositions. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Gb75eVQyt3wU0Pwcl5nes4N2axenxQKZa4pYxSSeGzk/edit
bornagain77
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
Neil Rickert: I think Kronecker gave God too much credit. Mathematics is entirely man made. Why does it describe the universe so well? Are we inventing mathematics or discovering it? Did "blind evolution" bequeth such riches to the human brain? Are you a denier? Ignore that last question.mike1962
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
The same with the 'flatness' of the universe
"The Universe today is actually very close to the most unlikely state of all, absolute flatness. And that means it must have been born in an even flatter state, as Dicke and Peebles, two of the Princeton astronomers involved in the discovery of the 3 K background radiation, pointed out in 1979. Finding the Universe in a state of even approximate flatness today is even less likely than finding a perfectly sharpened pencil balancing on its point for millions of years, for, as Dicke and Peebles pointed out, any deviation of the Universe from flatness in the Big Bang would have grown, and grown markedly, as the Universe expanded and aged. Like the pencil balanced on its point and given the tiniest nudges, the Universe soon shifts away from perfect flatness." ~ John Gribbin, In Search of the Big Bang Job 38:4-5 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?
Besides the Cosmic Background Radiation, there are two other places in the universe where 'unexplained roundness' is found:
Sun's Almost Perfectly Round Shape Baffles Scientists - (Aug. 16, 2012) — Excerpt: The sun is nearly the roundest object ever measured. If scaled to the size of a beach ball, it would be so round that the difference between the widest and narrow diameters would be much less than the width of a human hair.,,, They also found that the solar flattening is remarkably constant over time and too small to agree with that predicted from its surface rotation. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120816150801.htm
and also this 'exceptional roundness':
Bucky Balls - Andy Gion Excerpt: Buckyballs (C60; Carbon 60) are the roundest and most symmetrical large molecule known to man. Buckministerfullerine continues to astonish with one amazing property after another. C60 is the third major form of pure carbon; graphite and diamond are the other two. Buckyballs were discovered in 1985,,, http://www.3rd1000.com/bucky/bucky.htm
The delicate balance at which carbon is synthesized in stars is truly a work of art. Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), a famed astrophysicist, is the scientist who established the nucleo-synthesis of heavier elements within stars as mathematically valid in 1946. Hoyle is said to have converted from staunch atheism into being a Theist/Deist after discovering the precise balance at which carbon is synthesized in stars. Years after Sir Fred discovered the stunning precision with which carbon is synthesized in stars he stated this:
"I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars." Sir Fred Hoyle - "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12
bornagain77
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
DaveS states:
These are interesting questions, but I can’t conceive of a universe in which pi, for example, does not turn up in a variety of contexts. How could it be otherwise?
Perhaps DaveS would like to add his expertise on the necessity of pi for the universe to the busted theory of inflation in which they unsuccessfully tried to explain the roundness and flatness of the universe? It is interesting to note just how precise, and mysterious, the 'roundness' of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is:
The Cosmic Background Radiation Excerpt: These fluctuations are extremely small, representing deviations from the average of only about 1/100,000 of the average temperature of the observed background radiation. The highly isotropic nature of the cosmic background radiation indicates that the early stages of the Universe were almost completely uniform. This raises two problems for (a naturalistic understanding of) the big bang theory. First, when we look at the microwave background coming from widely separated parts of the sky it can be shown that these regions are too separated to have been able to communicate with each other even with signals traveling at light velocity. Thus, how did they know to have almost exactly the same temperature? This general problem is called the horizon problem. Second, the present Universe is homogenous and isotropic, but only on very large scales. For scales the size of superclusters and smaller the luminous matter in the universe is quite lumpy, as illustrated in the following figure. ,,, Thus, 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. However, as we shall see, we are still far from a quantitative understanding of how this came to be. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html Inflation theory was proposed to solve two fine-tuning problems of the initial conditions of the early universe known as the "flatness problem"[1] and the "horizon problem"[2]. References: http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/F/Flatness+Problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem Cosmic inflation is dead, long live cosmic inflation - 25 September 2014 Excerpt: (Inflation) theory, the most widely held of cosmological ideas about the growth of our universe after the big bang, explains a number of mysteries, including why the universe is surprisingly flat and so smoothly distributed, or homogeneous.,,, Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it, says this is potentially a blow for the theory, but that it pales in significance with inflation's other problems. Meet the multiverse Steinhardt says the idea that inflationary theory produces any observable predictions at all – even those potentially tested by BICEP2 – is based on a simplification of the theory that simply does not hold true. "The deeper problem is that once inflation starts, it doesn't end the way these simplistic calculations suggest," he says. "Instead, due to quantum physics it leads to a multiverse where the universe breaks up into an infinite number of patches. The patches explore all conceivable properties as you go from patch to patch. So that means it doesn't make any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything. If it's physically possible, then it happens in the multiverse someplace Steinhardt says the point of inflation was to explain a remarkably simple universe. "So the last thing in the world you should be doing is introducing a multiverse of possibilities to explain such a simple thing," he says. "I think it's telling us in the clearest possible terms that we should be able to understand this and when we understand it it's going to come in a model that is extremely simple and compelling. And we thought inflation was it – but it isn't." http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26272-cosmic-inflation-is-dead-long-live-cosmic-inflation.html?page=1#.VCajrGl0y00 The Known Universe by AMNH – video - (please note the 'centrality' of the Earth in the universe at the 3:36 minute mark in the video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U
Here is a still shot of the image at the 3:36 minute mark of the preceding video
Picture of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) http://new-universe.org/zenphoto/albums/Chapter4/Illustrations/Abrams47.jpg Planck satellite unveils the Universe -- now and then (w/ Video showing the mapping of the 'sphere' of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation with the satellite) - 2010 http://phys.org/news197534140.html#nRlv
Moreover, the Bible 'predicted' this roundness for the universe thousands of years before it was discovered by modern science:
Proverbs 8:26-27 While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep, Job 26:10 He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.
bornagain77
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
If you deal with rotations, then you deal with pi. Neither electromagnetism, nor the weak force, nor the strong force will function without rotations. So, to postulate a world without pi, is to postulate a world that is completely outside of our experiences. Sort of like postulating a world where they have 'round' squares.PaV
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
If pi is “man made” then no pi there. Nor cake.Mung
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
Barry,
daveS @ 9: “I can’t conceive of a universe in which pi, for example, does not turn up” Are you then suggesting that a universe infused with pi is logically necessary? If so, make your case.
I can't make a positive case for that, but I'm struggling to see how the number pi could be avoided by a sufficiently advanced being in any universe. For example, Leibniz' formula states: pi/4 = 1/1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 - ... and there are countless other such simple representations of pi. In what kind of universe would this not be the case? I don't know. Edit: As in the needle experiment, there is a geometric connection to Leibniz' formula, but you can also look at it purely as a statement about the real numbers.daveS
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
Are you then suggesting that a universe infused with pi is logically necessary? If so, make your case.
I guess there could be a universe where nothing was spherical, circular or periodic. But, as Dave says, it's hard to imagine it would be anything other than chaos. BTW, have you now seen the circles in your original example of an unexpected appearance of pi?wd400
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
Of related interest. This video was just released today:
50 Years of Scientific Challenges to Evolution: Remembering The Wistar Symposium – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQy12X_Sm2k In 1966, MIT engineers and eminent biologists met at the Wistar Institute to discuss problems with evolutionary theory. Paul Nelson describes what happened at the symposium, "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution."
bornagain77
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
Aleta, a universe with a very very slightly larger or smaller cosmological constant would either collapse or fling apart. No conscious beings let alone mathematicians. If pi is "man made" then no pi there.ppolish
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
It is not surprising that the atheists would claim that mathematics is a man-made construct and that the universe is a 'disorderly mess' since Darwinism itself has no rigid mathematical basis, i.e. falsification criteria, and as well, Darwinian argumentation also relies heavily on the 'argument from ugly', i.e. the 'God would not have done it that way' argument. Thus it is only natural for atheists who cut their teeth on Darwinian argumentation to try extend their pseudo-scientific level of argumentation that they use to the universe at large.
“On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?” - Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003 The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning – Paul A. Nelson – Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517 Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution. http://www.springerlink.com/content/n3n5415037038134/?MUD=MP
bornagain77
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
Barry: You're thinking of Buffon's Needle Problem . 2/pi is part of the probability: that of the angle it would make relative to the drawn lines. The total probability of the stick (needle) falling between the lines is 4/L*pi, where L equals the length of the stick (needle).PaV
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
daveS @ 9: "I can’t conceive of a universe in which pi, for example, does not turn up" Are you then suggesting that a universe infused with pi is logically necessary? If so, make your case.Barry Arrington
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
I don't think Neil really understood the question. Mathematics is abstract. "...all sensible aspects are left behind except the quantitative, and hence the beings studied are resolved not in the senses but in the imagination...Mathematics is therefore the study of things that can be imagined and conceived without matter..."Mung
April 25, 2016
April
04
Apr
25
25
2016
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply