If imaginary numbers are needed to describe reality, then isn’t materialism dead already?

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 22, 2021

Intelligent Design, Mathematics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The researchers stressed, however, that their experiment only rules out theories that forgo imaginary numbers if the reigning conventions of quantum mechanics are correct. Most scientists are very confident that this is the case, but this is an important caveat nonetheless.
The result suggests that the possible ways we can describe the universe with math are actually much more constrained than we might have thought, Renou said.
Ben Turner, “Imaginary numbers could be needed to describe reality, new studies find” at Live Science (December 21, 2021)

Comments

For crying out loud JVL, you aren't too smart are you ole boy? Try reading for context, Faulkner wasn't remotely claiming for "all of physics and mathematics", he was claiming for quantum mechanics in particular. Moreover, the article in the OP makes the same exact point that "I" is reducible to real numbers in some situations in quantum mechanics, and is not reducible in other instances in quantum mechanics. (That was the MAIN point of the experiment for crying out loud) Oh well, due to your obstinacy, I can see this is going absolutely no where. So I am quite satisfied to let what I have stated in this thread thus far stand as it is. I'll let 'big, and wrong, headed' you have the last word,bornagain77_{December 24, 2021
December
12
Dec
24
24
2021
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

"Math and science are not spectator sports." Yet, according to the 'science and math' of quantum mechanics, and via the falsification of 'realism' (Leggett's Inequality), reality itself is found to be very much a 'spectator' sport, i.e. " Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it."
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - 20 Apr 2007 Excerpt: They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.” https://physicsworld.com/a/quantum-physics-says-goodbye-to-reality/
bornagain77_{December 24, 2021
December
12
Dec
24
24
2021
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Well, actually the mathematics of quantum mechanics destroys a purely ‘deterministic’ and/or materialistic view of reality, (funny, you, being the self professed mathematical savant that you are, should have known that) And then you quote: The trouble is that in quantum mechanics the way that wave functions change with time is governed by an equation, the Schrödinger equation, that does not involve probabilities. It is just as deterministic as Newton’s equations of motion and gravitation. That is, given the wave function at any moment, the Schrödinger equation will tell you precisely what the wave function will be at any future time. There is not even the possibility of chaos, the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions that is possible in Newtonian mechanics. Well funny that you tried to sneak your atheistic materialism in with all those other various ‘non-materialistic’ worldviews. So again, and to repeat, “mathematics is profoundly immaterial and cannot possibly be reduced to materialistic explanation.” You completely ignore the fact that no one, of any faith or non-faith disagrees with any one else of faith or non-faith about mathematical results. Mathematics is independent of faith or non-faith. Tell me JVL, is the number “2” closer to Texas or to Nebraska? How much does Godel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? Is the Pythagorean theorem faster or slower than the speed of light? Non-sensical questions do not require serious consideration. LOL, says the atheists troll who refuses to concede the exceedingly simple point that Darwinian materialism cannot possibly account for our ability to ‘do mathematics’ in the first place. You think no one will notice or care that I already separated mathematical truths from the ability to do mathematics. But since you think you have made some great philosophical statement you have to keep repeating it. Since JVL is apparently wanting me to just take his word that Steve Faulkner is ‘so incredibly wrong’, it is obvious that JVL, (an atheistic troll on UD), is far, far, more impressed with his supposed mathematical prowess than I am. Well, I am really sorry that you are ignorant of the multitude of other uses for complex numbers. That's not my fault or problem. That's your wilful ignorance of mathematics and physics. When you don't actually understand the science and you quote mine for support for your views then you're going to get caught out like you've done. Because you're too lazy or disingenuous to look things up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number#In_applied_mathematics It's not really clear that Dr Faulkner thinks that the only place in all of physics and mathematics you need imaginary numbers is in the case you cite. I suspect he is discussing things in a limited situation and I bet he made that clear in the work you quote. But, of course, you would leave that out. It's dead easy to find lots and lots of applications of complex numbers in real-world situations. You just haven't bothered to look because doing so would go against your quote-mined support. That's not how science and mathematics is done. You clearly are not a scientist or a mathematician. You should stop pretending that you understand it as well as actual mathematicians and scientists. Stick to what you actually know and have done instead of thinking you can graze through serious research and pull out a phrase here or there which you think supports your view. Not only is that rude and insulting but it shows your own ignorance.JVL_{December 24, 2021
December
12
Dec
24
24
2021
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

ET: No, they only started to write about them when they wanted to work on a particular kind of problem. Too funny. People who don't understand or use mathematics should not make up stuff about mathematics. Or, more charitably: can you prove that? We have not invented anything. Ever. Oh good. So different sizes of infinity like aleph-nought have always existed. And Cantor figure it out. Great. Cuz you say so? Really? No, because you cannot demonstrate or prove that it does. It has to be able to account for everything that exists. No, it does not. You are nothing but a poseur. You have proven that you don’t understand science. You have proven that you are not capable of following a discussion. And you are big on spewing false accusations. Too funny. Have you done Fourier analysis? Have you stepped through a proof of the prime number theorem? Off the top of your head can you explain what a Hamiltonian circuit is and what branch of mathematics it belongs to? Is that a discrete or continuous topic? How is a donut different from a vest in terms of topology? What is the area of the Sierpinsky gasket? What is the sum of 1 + 1/3 + 1/9 + 1/27 + . . . Explain what NP-complete means. If you take the function 1/x from x = 1 out to infinity and rotate it about the x-axis what are the volume and surface area of the resulting object? That's just a few undergraduate topics. In mathematics. Would you like to also consider some things in physics and chemistry and biology? For instance: what is the volume of a mole of hydrogen? Give an example of an adiabatic process. What physical measurements are part of Boyle's Law? Entropy is 'opposed' to what other 'value'? You don't work with any of those or thousands of other concepts and topics in science and mathematics. You don't write about them. You don't study them. You don't teach them. Math and science are not spectator sports. Until you've done the time actually playing the game you should just shut up.JVL_{December 24, 2021
December
12
Dec
24
24
2021
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

"Mathematics has nothing to do with materialism"
Exactly right! Mathematics is profoundly immaterial and cannot possibly be reduced to materialistic explanation.
"You can have a deterministic view or a theological view and still have the same mathematics. It’s independent of both of those world views. "
Well, actually the mathematics of quantum mechanics destroys a purely 'deterministic' and/or materialistic view of reality, (funny, you, being the self professed mathematical savant that you are, should have known that)
Maverick branches, a proof that Everett's (Many Worlds) theory is totally wrong - December 02, 2015 Excerpt: To make any predictions, one must pick a basis and use the Born rule to compute the probabilities of each possible outcome. The basis of "possible outcomes" must be actively chosen by an observer. There can't exist any "canonical" or "objective" way to pick the right basis for the Hilbert space. If the people were thinking about actual physical problems and not some idealized propagandist clichés that are designed to make the MWI paradigm look viable, even though it is not, they would know that what they claim to be possible clearly isn't possible. http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/12/maverick-branches-proof-that-everetts.html?m=1
As the late Steven Weinberg, an atheist, explained,
The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics - Steven Weinberg - January 19, 2017 Excerpt: The trouble is that in quantum mechanics the way that wave functions change with time is governed by an equation, the Schrödinger equation, that does not involve probabilities. It is just as deterministic as Newton’s equations of motion and gravitation. That is, given the wave function at any moment, the Schrödinger equation will tell you precisely what the wave function will be at any future time. There is not even the possibility of chaos, the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions that is possible in Newtonian mechanics. So if we regard the whole process of measurement as being governed by the equations of quantum mechanics, and these equations are perfectly deterministic, how do probabilities get into quantum mechanics?... Today there are two widely followed approaches to quantum mechanics, the “realist” and “instrumentalist” approaches,9 which view the origin of probability in measurement in two very different ways. For reasons I will explain, neither approach seems to me quite satisfactory.10,,,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11,,,, ,,, 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,,, In the realist approach the history of the world is endlessly splitting; it does so every time a macroscopic body becomes tied in with a choice of quantum states. This inconceivably huge variety of histories has provided material for science fiction. 12 http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/466-17/QuantumMechanicsWeinberg.pdf
JVL then states:
"Christians and Buddhists and Janes and Hindus and Muslims and Zoroastrians and atheists all agree on the same mathematics."
Well funny that you tried to sneak your atheistic materialism in with all those other various 'non-materialistic' worldviews. So again, and to repeat, "mathematics is profoundly immaterial and cannot possibly be reduced to materialistic explanation." Tell me JVL, is the number "2" closer to Texas or to Nebraska? How much does Godel's incompleteness theorem weigh? Is the Pythagorean theorem faster or slower than the speed of light?
"Stop trying to bend everything to your view."
LOL, says the atheistic troll who refuses to concede the exceedingly simple point that Darwinian materialism cannot possibly account for our ability to do 'immaterial' mathematics in the first place. In response to this quote from Steve Faulkner, “the only place where i (the square root of negative one) is needed is in the wave packet prior to measurement.”
Why do you need imaginary numbers (the square root of negative one) to describe Quantum Mechanics? “Quantum theory needs existence of an x such that x^2= -1. The reason for this is that orthogonal function spaces, of dimension greater than 2, cannot exist otherwise. In fact the only place where i (the square root of negative one) is needed is in the wave packet prior to measurement. Even the Canonical Commutation Relation doesn’t need it. And nor do the eigenvalue equations. In those, any general scalar will do. But in the wave packet, you need an i.” – Steve Faulkner – Philosophy of Science, Logic, Epistemology https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_do_you_need_imaginary_numbers_to_describe_Quantum_Mechanics2
in response to that quote, JVL, (without citation), responds thusly,
"That is just so incredibly wrong that it’s really, really clear you are just quote mining for things that support your pre-held view. You really do not understand mathematics. So stop pretending you do."
Since JVL is apparently, without citation, wanting me to just take his supposedly unquestionable word that Steve Faulkner is 'so incredibly wrong', it is obvious that JVL, (who I remind is an atheistic troll on UD), is far, far, more impressed with his own supposed mathematical prowess than I am. Oh well, if it is all the same with you JVL, I think I will, (since Faulkner has written several papers, and a technical book, on the subject of quantum mechanics, and you are, well, you are an dogmatic atheistic troll on a blog), take Steve Faulkner's word over yours, :)
The Underlying Machinery of Quantum Indeterminacy The Answer to a Century of Questions — A book by Steve Faulkner Excerpt: What this book does The book is a rigorous dissection of Quantum Mathematics, from the standpoint of Mathematical Logic,,, https://quantum-indeterminacy.science https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steve-Faulkner-4
bornagain77_{December 24, 2021
December
12
Dec
24
24
2021
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

JVL:
But they only bothered to look for them when they wanted to work on a particular kind of problem.
No, they only started to write about them when they wanted to work on a particular kind of problem.
I guess you think surreal numbers have always existed. And hyper-real numbers. And different sizes of infinity.
We have not invented anything. Ever.
Mathematics has nothing to do with materialism.
Cuz you say so? Really?
Materialism doesn’t have to account for mathematics.
It has to be able to account for everything that exists.
You talk a lot about things you yourself cannot manage.
Nice projection.
Math is not a spectator sport so stop pretending you know anything about it.
You are nothing but a poseur. You have proven that you don't understand science. You have proven that you are not capable of following a discussion. And you are big on spewing false accusations.ET_{December 24, 2021
December
12
Dec
24
24
2021
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: but the fact of the matter is that mathematics, (particularly our ability to do mathematics and apply our mathematical understanding to the universe in the first place), has a tremendous amount to say about whether the materialistic worldview of Darwinian Atheism is true or whether the worldview of Intelligent Design is true.” Mathematics has nothing to do with materialism. You can have a deterministic view or a theological view and still have the same mathematics. It's independent of both of those world views. Christians and Buddhists and Janes and Hindus and Muslims and Zoroastrians and atheists all agree on the same mathematics. Stop trying to bend everything to your view. Specifically, “the only place where i (the square root of negative one) is needed is in the wave packet prior to measurement.” That is just so incredibly wrong that it's really, really clear you are just quote mining for things that support your pre-held view. You really do not understand mathematics. So stop pretending you do.JVL_{December 24, 2021
December
12
Dec
24
24
2021
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

ET: That is false. Imaginary numbers always existed. Mathematicians discovered them. Perhaps. But they only bothered to look for them when they wanted to work on a particular kind of problem. I guess you think surreal numbers have always existed. And hyper-real numbers. And different sizes of infinity. Mathematics destroys materialism. Materialism cannot account for the existence of mathematics. Heck, materialism cannot account for any existence. Uh huh. Mathematics has nothing to do with materialism. Materialism doesn't have to account for mathematics. Mathematics doesn't trump or explain materialism. You talk a lot about things you yourself cannot manage. Math is not a spectator sport so stop pretending you know anything about it.JVL_{December 24, 2021
December
12
Dec
24
24
2021
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

JVL:
Mathematicians came up with ‘imaginary’ numbers in order to solve certain kinds of problems.
That is false. Imaginary numbers always existed. Mathematicians discovered them.
Oh and by the way, some animals have been shown to have rudimentary arithmetic skills.
That is how they were intelligently designed. Mathematics destroys materialism. Materialism cannot account for the existence of mathematics. Heck, materialism cannot account for any existence.ET_{December 24, 2021
December
12
Dec
24
24
2021
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

It seems that the objectors here on this thread are basically arguing that there is nothing that is particularly 'weird' with the fact that 'imaginary' complex numbers are now experimentally demonstrated to be irreducible to real numbers in quantum mechanics. Yet, I hold the objectors to be wrong in arguing that there is “Nothing to see here. Please disperse.”,,,
“Nothing to see here. Please disperse” https://tenor.com/view/leslie-nielsen-nothing-to-see-here-disperse-crowd-disperse-disaster-gif-12767181
There is something profoundly 'weird' in our use of 'imaginary' complex numbers is quantum mechanics. Specifically, "the only place where i (the square root of negative one) is needed is in the wave packet prior to measurement."
Why do you need imaginary numbers (the square root of negative one) to describe Quantum Mechanics? “Quantum theory needs existence of an x such that x^2= -1. The reason for this is that orthogonal function spaces, of dimension greater than 2, cannot exist otherwise. In fact the only place where i (the square root of negative one) is needed is in the wave packet prior to measurement. Even the Canonical Commutation Relation doesn't need it. And nor do the eigenvalue equations. In those, any general scalar will do. But in the wave packet, you need an i.” - Steve Faulkner - Philosophy of Science, Logic, Epistemology https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_do_you_need_imaginary_numbers_to_describe_Quantum_Mechanics2
And 'measurement' happens to be precisely where everything that is truly 'weird' about quantum mechanics happens. For instance, as the following article states, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It - June 3, 2015 Excerpt: Some particles, such as photons or electrons, can behave both as particles and as waves. Here comes a question of what exactly makes a photon or an electron act either as a particle or a wave. This is what Wheeler’s experiment asks: at what point does an object ‘decide’? 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
Thus, although the objectors on this thread may complacently try to claim that there is nothing particularly 'weird' about our use of 'imaginary' complex numbers in quantum mechanics, i.e. “Nothing to see here. Please disperse.”,,,
“Nothing to see here. Please disperse” https://tenor.com/view/leslie-nielsen-nothing-to-see-here-disperse-crowd-disperse-disaster-gif-12767181
,,, contrary to that misplaced complacency on the part of objectors on this thread, I find the fact that "the only place where i (the square root of negative one) is needed is in the wave packet prior to measurement", and that, "measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it” to be an extraordinarily 'weird' thing to behold.bornagain77_{December 24, 2021
December
12
Dec
24
24
2021
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

Viola Lee:
And, following from that, therefore learning new things about the role of complex numbers doesn’t change anything.
Right, because materialism is a non-starter.ET_{December 24, 2021
December
12
Dec
24
24
2021
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

JVL: "I implied the MATHEMATICS has nothing to do with any worldview." Yes indeed, you directly implied that, “it (mathematics) has nothing to do with any kind of worldview except mathematics.” And as I clearly demonstrated, that is a patently false implication and/or claim on your part. i.e. "Thus in conclusion, JVL may falsely claim that “”it (mathematics) has nothing to do with any kind of worldview except mathematics”, but the fact of the matter is that mathematics, (particularly our ability to do mathematics and apply our mathematical understanding to the universe in the first place), has a tremendous amount to say about whether the materialistic worldview of Darwinian Atheism is true or whether the worldview of Intelligent Design is true." JVL, for someone who prides himself on his own supposedly superior mathematical prowess, you, ironically, seem to be having an extremely difficult time following a simple logical argument. :)bornagain77_{December 24, 2021
December
12
Dec
24
24
2021
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: So our ability to even be able to ‘do mathematics’ in the first place has nothing whatsoever to say about the materialistic worldview of Darwinian Evolution??? nor about the worldview of Intelligent Design??? I implied the MATHEMATICS has nothing to do with any worldview. I don't happen to believe that the ability to reason and 'do' mathematics has anything to do with any worldview either but that is a separate issue. Clearly. Oh and by the way, some animals have been shown to have rudimentary arithmetic skills. I know you'll continue to talk about mathematics even though you yourself can't 'do' mathematics but you really shouldn't. Math is not a spectator sport.JVL_{December 24, 2021
December
12
Dec
24
24
2021
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

JVL falsely claims that, "it (mathematics) has nothing to do with any kind of worldview except mathematics." Really??? So our ability to even be able to 'do mathematics' in the first place has nothing whatsoever to say about the materialistic worldview of Darwinian Evolution??? nor about the worldview of Intelligent Design??? (which holds, as a primary presupposition, that only intelligent (immaterial) minds have the capacity within themselves to create (immaterial) functional information?) Sorry JVL, but for someone who assumes himself to 'understand math' far better than I do, you are not really thinking too deeply about the 'ontology' of mathematics, nor are you thinking too deeply about our unique ability to even do mathematics in the first place.
"Why should a limited and finite organ such as the human brain have the power to see into the heart of matter or mathematics? These are subjects that have nothing to do with the Darwinian business of scrabbling up the greasy pole of life. It is as if the liver, in addition to producing bile, were to demonstrate a unexpected ability to play the violin. This is a question that Darwinian biology has not yet answered." - David Berlinski - The Devil's Delusion - page 16 “Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine.” - Kurt Godel The mathematical world - James Franklin - 7 April 2014 Excerpt: the intellect (is) immaterial and immortal. If today’s naturalists do not wish to agree with that, there is a challenge for them. ‘Don’t tell me, show me’: build an artificial intelligence system that imitates genuine mathematical insight. There seem to be no promising plans on the drawing board.,,, - James Franklin is professor of mathematics at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. - per aeon The danger of artificial stupidity – Saturday, 28 February 2015 “Computers lack mathematical insight: in his book The Emperor’s New Mind, the Oxford mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose deployed Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem to argue that, in general, the way mathematicians provide their “unassailable demonstrations” of the truth of certain mathematical assertions is fundamentally non-algorithmic and non-computational” http://machineslikeus.com/news/danger-artificial-stupidity Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test - Douglas S. Robertson? Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information.? http://cires.colorado.edu/~doug/philosophy/info8.pdf? “Algorithm and data-driven products will always reflect the design choices of the humans who built them,” Benenson explained in a recent Q&A with Technically Brooklyn, “and it’s irresponsible to assume otherwise.” https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601775/why-we-should-expect-algorithms-to-be-biased/?set=601766
Alfred Russel Wallace himself, (co-discoverer of natural selection), held that "Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove" that the human soul must have been a "separate creation", and to therefore disprove Darwinian evolution.
“Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.” Alfred Russel Wallace – 1910
And as Dr. Michael Egnor pointed out, because of our unique ability to think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts, “We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses. Our difference is a metaphysical chasm.”,,, "Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different — ontologically different — from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial."
The Fundamental Difference Between Humans and Nonhuman Animals Michael Egnor – November 5, 2015 Excerpt: Human beings have mental powers that include the material mental powers of animals but in addition entail a profoundly different kind of thinking. Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals. Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different — ontologically different — from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,,, We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses. Our difference is a metaphysical chasm. https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/the_fundamental_2/
And you don't have to take Alfred Russel Wallace or Michael Egnor's word for the fact that Darwinian materialism cannot possibly account for our unique ability to think about an 'endless library' of abstract 'immaterial' concepts such as mathematics. In 2014, an impressive who’s who list of leading ‘Darwinian’ experts in this area of language research, authored a paper in which they, (after 4 decades of research) honestly admitted that they have, "essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,"
Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language - December 19, 2014 Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,, (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, "The mystery of language evolution," Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).) Casey Luskin added: “It's difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.” - per evolution news
Moreover, it is not only that the materialistic explanations of Darwinian atheists are 'already dead' in so far as ever giving us a coherent account for our ability to do 'immaterial' mathematics in the first place, but the 'bottom up' materialistic explanations of Atheists are also "already dead' as to ever being able to give an account for why the immaterial realm of mathematics should. 'miraculously' (Wigner, Einstein), be applicable to the universe in the first place. Specifically, the universe is found to be 'insanely' flat. And since the universe is 'insanely' flat, then we are able to make 'mathematical sense' of the universe, i.e. "parallel lines will always remain parallel. 90-degree turns behave as true 90-degree turns, and everything makes sense.,,,"
How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe – by Fraser Cain – June 7, 2017 Excerpt: With the most sensitive space-based telescopes they have available, astronomers are able to detect tiny variations in the temperature of this background radiation. And here’s the part that blows my mind every time I think about it. These tiny temperature variations correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe. A region that was a fraction of a degree warmer become a vast galaxy cluster, hundreds of millions of light-years across. The cosmic microwave background radiation just gives and gives, and when it comes to figuring out the topology of the universe, it has the answer we need. If the universe was curved in any way, these temperature variations would appear distorted compared to the actual size that we see these structures today. But they’re not. To best of its ability, ESA’s Planck space telescope, can’t detect any distortion at all. The universe is flat.,,, We say that the universe is flat, and this means that parallel lines will always remain parallel. 90-degree turns behave as true 90-degree turns, and everything makes sense.,,, Since the universe is flat now, it must have been flat in the past, when the universe was an incredibly dense singularity. And for it to maintain this level of flatness over 13.8 billion years of expansion, in kind of amazing. In fact, astronomers estimate that the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts. Which seems like an insane coincidence. - per physorg
Of related note:
“When a geometry is described by a set of axioms, the notion of a line is usually left undefined (a so-called primitive object).” per wikipedia Why We Need Cosmic Inflation By Paul Sutter, Astrophysicist | October 22, 2018 Excerpt: As best as we can measure, the geometry of our universe appears to be perfectly, totally, ever-so-boringly flat. On large, cosmic scales, parallel lines stay parallel forever, interior angles of triangles add up to 180 degrees, and so on. All the rules of Euclidean geometry that you learned in high school apply. But there’s no reason for our universe to be flat. At large scales it could’ve had any old curvature it wanted. Our cosmos could’ve been shaped like a giant, multidimensional beach ball, or a horse-riding saddle. But, no, it picked flat. https://www.space.com/42202-why-we-need-cosmic-inflation.html
Atheistic Materialists simply have no clue why the universe should be 'insanely' flat so as to allow the universe to even make 'mathematical sense' to humans in the first place.
"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
Whereas Christianity, on the other hand, 'predicted' the universe to be 'insanely flat' long before the 'insane flatness' of the universe was even discovered.
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?
Thus in conclusion, JVL may falsely claim that ""it (mathematics) has nothing to do with any kind of worldview except mathematics", but the fact of the matter is that mathematics, (particularly our ability to do mathematics and apply our mathematical understanding to the universe in the first place), has a tremendous amount to say about whether the materialistic worldview of Darwinian Atheism is true or whether the worldview of Intelligent Design is true. Of supplemental note:
A BIBLICAL VIEW OF MATHEMATICS Vern Poythress - Doctorate in theology, PhD in Mathematics (Harvard) 15. Implications of Gödel’s proof B. Metaphysical problems of anti-theistic mathematics: unity and plurality Excerpt: Because of the above difficulties, anti-theistic philosophy of mathematics is condemned to oscillate, much as we have done in our argument, between the poles of a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge. Why? It will not acknowledge the true God, wise Creator of both the human mind with its mathematical intuition and the external world with its mathematical properties. In sections 22-23 we shall see how the Biblical view furnishes us with a real solution to the problem of “knowing” that 2 + 2 = 4 and knowing that S is true. http://www.frame-poythress.org/a-biblical-view-of-mathematics/
Verse and quote:
John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” What is the Logos? Logos is a Greek word literally translated as “word, speech, or utterance.” However, in Greek philosophy, Logos refers to divine reason or the power that puts sense into the world making order instead of chaos.,,, In the Gospel of John, John writes “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John appealed to his readers by saying in essence, “You’ve been thinking, talking, and writing about the Word (divine reason) for centuries and now I will tell you who He is.” https://www.compellingtruth.org/what-is-the-Logos.html
bornagain77_{December 24, 2021
December
12
Dec
24
24
2021
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

BA77, materialism is a long since dead horse. Unfortunately, like the warhammer 40k god emperor, reeking, it is propped up as an institutionally backed idol, dressed in a lab coat. KF PS: Wiki: >>The Imperium of Man is an authoritarian human empire that comprises approximately 1 million worlds, and has existed for over 10,000 years. Its culture is highly religious, with their chief deity being the Emperor of Mankind, an extremely powerful psyker whom they mistake for a god. Anyone who does not revere the Emperor properly is liable to be persecuted for heresy. The Emperor founded the Imperium and is still its nominal ruler, but roughly two centuries after founding the Imperium he was mortally wounded in battle and has been on life support in an unresponsive state ever since. Despite his condition, his mind still generates a psychic beacon by which starships navigate the Warp, making him the linchpin of the Imperium's infrastructure. Although the Imperium has highly advanced technology, it has long ceased practicing science and its technologies have not improved for thousands of years. Imperial citizens are taught to obey authority without question, to worship the Emperor, to hate and fear aliens, and to be incurious about anything that does not concern their duties. Most Warhammer 40,000 fiction has humans of the Imperium as the protagonists, with other races being antagonists or supporting characters. Of all the factions, the Imperium has the largest catalogue of models spread across numerous subfactions, which gives Imperium players the flexibility to design their army for any style of play. That said, players tend to build their armies around specific sub-factions which have more focused playstyles. For instance, an army of Space Marines will consist of a small number of powerful infantry, whereas an Imperial Guard army will have weak but plentiful infantry combined with strong artillery. >>kairosfocus_{December 24, 2021
December
12
Dec
24
24
2021
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT}

F/N: Here is the vid https://uncommondescent.com/physics/the-reality-of-imaginary-numbers-discovery-not-invention/kairosfocus_{December 24, 2021
December
12
Dec
24
24
2021
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT}

Eugen, Actually your definition is tantamount to describing the role of sqrt - 1 in a vector system of numbers, extensible to the ijk vectors and onward to quaternions etc. I often just say take the j* operator as rot 0x 90 degrees anticlockwise. do a double and we see j*j* x --> - x, i.e, the sqrt has a natural, rotation linked sense as j^2 = - 1. Where, oscillations and waves including transients [think here Laplace and Fourier transforms] are closely tied to rotations. Where of course waves are pervasive in quantum mechanics, the Schrodinger expression is about waves and of course energy with standing waves under constraints naturally being quantised as we know from school physics. Further to such, I showed that from {} --> 0 thence N,Z,Q,R,C,R* etc, once distinct identity of possible worlds obtains, core math is embedded in any possible world which gives it universal power as Wigner marvelled at. KF PS: I've been meaning to post a vid for weeks, this is my excuse and Christmas gift.kairosfocus_{December 24, 2021
December
12
Dec
24
24
2021
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PDT}

then turned out to be a useful construct for other situations.
Figure that ..."turned out" :)
People who don’t understand
Theology is much more complex than math and every atheist is "expert".Lieutenant Commander Data_{December 24, 2021
December
12
Dec
24
24
2021
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Hmm go figure, so basically you are just honestly admitting that materialism can’t possibly explain higher dimensional ‘imaginary’ numbers What? Too funny. Mathematicians came up with 'imaginary' numbers in order to solve certain kinds of problems. It has nothing to do with any kind of worldview except mathematics. It then turned out to be a useful construct for other situations. People who don't understand mathematics should really not comment about it.JVL_{December 24, 2021
December
12
Dec
24
24
2021
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT}

‘Imaginary numbers needed to describe reality’ sounds like a puckish play on words. And, ‘isn’t materialism dead already’ is a rhetorical question naturally following the word-play, given away by the ‘already’ ending. So I read it. Normally this sort of thing is philosophical at best, leading to, ‘can any number describe reality’? and ‘don’t numbers measure rather than describe?’ And ‘can anything describe reality?’ And ‘what is the nature of reality?’ Good for 500 comments into the New Year and Covid is in the rear-view mirror. Viola’s comment that materialism is irrelevant is true enough, but adding that the headline was a ‘snark’ meant that the irrelevancy now became an issue for taking sides. I hope VL doesn’t stay away. Happy Christmas everyone, if it isn’t spreading misinformation to say so.Belfast_{December 23, 2021
December
12
Dec
23
23
2021
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @24,
If I get your argument correctly, you are assuming that since Newton’s mathematical description of gravity failed “such as with the orbit of mercury” then you believe that all of our current ‘higher dimensional’ mathematical models may eventually fail at some extreme? and therefore math is “not a fundamental reality”?
Not exactly. What I intended to say is that math is routinely applied to reality based on how well it conforms to our observations. However, every mathematical system deals with logic based on certain axioms. According to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, we cannot prove all true statements in any one system, nor can we prove any system is consistent. It might be that more than one system is applicable to our reality and it may also be true that some mathematical systems (I'm thinking of non-Euclidean geometries) might not be applicable to our reality. Similarly, at extremes of many phenomena, mathematical formulae often need to be modified to contain additional terms or parameters. I didn't intend to take a position on the reality of mathematics, which does exist conceptually. For example probabilities certainly exist, but they have no temperature, volume, energy, or mass. I also think that the term "imaginary" is misleading, especially when one considers how "real" they are in electrical computations. However, I stand by my rejection of the statement, "If Imaginary Numbers Are Needed To Describe Reality, Then Isn’t Materialism Dead Already?", as a confusion of two very different meanings of the word "imaginary." It analogous to the problems that emerge when "nothing" and "zero" are confused. Hope this clarifies my previous comment. -QQuerius_{December 23, 2021
December
12
Dec
23
23
2021
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT}

No, I'm not saying that, BA. As usual, you hear what you want to hear, not what others are saying. Every once in a while I drop back in here and am quickly reminded of why I left.Viola Lee_{December 23, 2021
December
12
Dec
23
23
2021
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

VL, "I’m just saying that on this thread the people who have had some objections about the OP are not arguing for (or against) materialism." Hmm go figure, so basically you are just honestly admitting that materialism can't possibly explain higher dimensional 'imaginary' numbers (or any other mathematical objects for that matter). i.e. materialism, since you refuse to defend it in this instance, is, practically speaking, 'dead already' as to ever giving us a coherent account of higher dimensional ‘imaginary’ numbers!
"If Imaginary Numbers Are Needed To Describe Reality, Then Isn’t Materialism Dead Already?" The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality – Gauss & Riemann – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxy3JhPRlV0
bornagain77_{December 23, 2021
December
12
Dec
23
23
2021
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

No, I'm just saying that on this thread the people who have had some objections about the OP are not arguing for (or against) materialism. The article in the OP is not about (for or against) materialism, and thus New's headline is not relevant to the actual paper she cites.Viola Lee_{December 23, 2021
December
12
Dec
23
23
2021
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT}

VL "No one here is arguing for materialism." HUH??? Darwinists on UD have finally honestly admitted that their reductive materialistic model is 'not even wrong'?bornagain77_{December 23, 2021
December
12
Dec
23
23
2021
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

Querius states,
"that mathematical models typically fail at some extreme and need to be replaced by more complex mathematics is also telling. For example, the inverse square law applied to gravity produces reasonably good results at our typical scales means it’s pragmatic. That it fails at larger scales such as with the orbit of mercury in proximity of the sun means that it’s not a fundamental reality."
If I get your argument correctly, you are assuming that since Newton's mathematical description of gravity failed "such as with the orbit of mercury" then you believe that all of our current 'higher dimensional' mathematical models may eventually fail at some extreme? and therefore math is "not a fundamental reality"? There is a 'small' problem with your argument and/or assumption. We can find ZERO deviation between the predictions of our current 'higher dimensional' mathematical models and experimental observation, (in so far as far as current technology will allow us to test those mathematical predictions). For instance, researchers, (via some very clever experimental techniques), have been testing General Relativity to greater and greater extremes trying to find some, any, deviation from its predictions with our experimental observation, so as to be able to find some, any, mathematical loop-hole in which they could possibly unite General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics into a single mathematical framework. In all these 'extreme' tests, they can find no deviations and the predictions of General Relativity have, time and time again, passed with flying colors.
Troubled Times for Alternatives to Einstein’s Theory of Gravity - April 30, 2018 New observations of extreme astrophysical systems have “brutally and pitilessly murdered” attempts to replace Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Excerpt: The neutron-star collision was just the beginning. New data in the months since that discovery have made life increasingly difficult for the proponents of many of the modified-gravity theories that remain. Astronomers have analyzed extreme astronomical systems that contain spinning neutron stars, or pulsars, to look for discrepancies between their motion and the predictions of general relativity — discrepancies that some theories of alternative gravity anticipate. These pulsar systems let astronomers probe gravity on a new scale and with new precision. And with each new observation, these alternative theories of gravity are having an increasingly hard time solving the problems they were invented for. Researchers “have to sweat some more trying to get new physics,” said Anne Archibald, an astrophysicist at the University of Amsterdam.,,, https://www.quantamagazine.org/troubled-times-for-alternatives-to-einsteins-theory-of-gravity-20180430/ Tests of general relativity In February 2016, the Advanced LIGO team announced that they had directly detected gravitational waves from a black hole merger.[1] This discovery, along with additional detections announced in June 2016 and June 2017,[2] tested general relativity in the very strong field limit, observing to date no deviations from theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
As well, the lack of deviation from mathematical prediction is found for special relativity, quantum mechanics, and quantum electrodynamics. If you know of any experimental deviation from our current theories in physics, write a paper and get yourself a Nobel prize. As far as we can presently tell with our current technology, (which is pretty impressive as it is), our current theories in physics are turning out to be 'perfect' mathematical descriptions. As Nima Arkani-Hamed, who discovered the 'higher dimensional' amplituhedron, (which greatly the simplified the calculations of quantum electrodynamics), stated, “It seems inconceivable that this intricate web of perfect mathematical descriptions is random or happenstance. This mystery must have an explanation. But what might such an explanation look like?”
“It seems inconceivable that this intricate web of perfect mathematical descriptions is random or happenstance. This mystery must have an explanation. But what might such an explanation look like?” - Nima Arkani-Hamed - discovered the amplituhedron
In regards to the 'hypergeometric' amplituhedron itself, it also, like 'higher dimensional' complex numbers, challenge fundamental assumptions about materialism. As Rob Sheldon explains, "What are these suspect principles? None other than two of the founding principles of materialism–that there do not exist “spooky-action-at-a-distance” forces, and that material causes are the only ones in the universe.,,,"
Bohemian Gravity – Rob Sheldon – September 19, 2013 Excerpt: Quanta magazine carried an article about a hypergeometric object that is as much better than Feynman diagrams as Feynman was better than Heisenberg’s S-matrices. But the discoverers are candid about it, “The amplituhedron, or a similar geometric object, could help by removing two deeply rooted principles of physics: locality and unitarity. “Both are hard-wired in the usual way we think about things,” said Nima Arkani-Hamed, a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., and the lead author of the new work, which he is presenting in talks and in a forthcoming paper. “Both are suspect.”” What are these suspect principles? None other than two of the founding principles of materialism–that there do not exist “spooky-action-at-a-distance” forces, and that material causes are the only ones in the universe.,,, http://rbsp.info/PROCRUSTES/bohemian-gravity/
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.
bornagain77_{December 23, 2021
December
12
Dec
23
23
2021
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

No one here is arguing for materialism. ET writes, "The fact the universe was intelligently designed using mathematics, means materialism was dead, already." And, following from that, therefore learning new things about the role of complex numbers doesn't change anything. That's my point, ET.Viola Lee_{December 23, 2021
December
12
Dec
23
23
2021
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

doesn’t add any special new element to to the argument that math disproves materialism.
There is no need of math to disprove materialism. The simplest thought a child is having is a disproval of materialism. The very definition of materialism (that involves formulating a concept/thought)destroys materialism.Lieutenant Commander Data_{December 23, 2021
December
12
Dec
23
23
2021
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

Imaginary numbers aren't imaginary. The fact the universe was intelligently designed using mathematics, means materialism was dead, already.ET_{December 23, 2021
December
12
Dec
23
23
2021
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

Does this article boils down to:
Because René Descares called a mathematical construct imaginary God exists
?DiEb_{December 23, 2021
December
12
Dec
23
23
2021
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply