Physicist Marcelo Gleiser: Beauty in the universe is an “illusory consequence of our human mathematics”

Whatever CD. Gleiser thinks "he" is making a rational argument. Yet Gleiser holds Darwin's theory to be true. Thus Gleiser undermines any claim that he is making, or can ever make, a rational argument.

(1) rationality implies a thinker in control of thoughts. (2) under materialism a thinker is an effect caused by processes in the brain (determinism). (3) in order for materialism to ground rationality a thinker (an effect) must control processes in the brain (a cause). (1)&(2) (4) no effect can control its cause. Therefore materialism cannot ground rationality. per Box UD

bornagain77

Bornagain It is hard to miss; it is a common theme in your comments. However, I don't see its relevance. You say that in Gleiser's view, "beauty and mathematics [are] to be considered illusory...." You are clearly trying to paint Gleiser as some kind of nihilistic bogeyman who claims that all beauty and mathematics are illusory. But that is not what Gleiser says. What he says is that attempting to deny the imperfection of nature and instead impose on nature mathematical perfection, as many physicists do in their obsession with finding symmetries, leads to a false and illusory worldview. It seems like a pretty simple distinction to me....... chuckdarwin

CD, you do realize that I was talking about the self-refuting epistemology inherent in what Darwin's theory actually entails do you not? bornagain77

seversky:

The problem is that science is trying to ascertain what are the facts.

Scientists do that using science. The lie is that nature didit. The lie is that the universe spontaneously arose. That is untestable and ass such still nonsense. ET

So what, exactly, is this “false and illusory” view? Is this short essay another veiled “correct” assault on the fact of the fine-tuning of the universe for life? There seems to be a lot of that out there these days....:

To the extent that this comment is even coherent, it is a complete non sequitur. Gleiser's short article has nothing to do with ID's sacred cow of fine tuning. More important, it does not "mean that even the beauty and symmetry people find in mathematics is an illusion." Gleiser is clearly not saying, as Bornagain suggests, that:

[N]ot only are beauty and mathematics to be considered illusory, but Marcelo Gleiser’s entire sense of self also becomes illusory.

Rather, Gleiser explains very clearly what he means, following directly from the title of his article:

Asymmetry is the engine of change..... Nature has its own aesthetics of the imperfect. To pretend otherwise and try to impose mathematical perfection as the only path to the truth impoverishes the many facets of nature’s beauty and leads, ironically, to a worldview as false and illusory as that depicted on Plato’s cave wall. (my emphasis)

In other words, as Gleiser's title says, physics needs an aesthetic revolution..... chuckdarwin

I don't quite understand why Gleiser thinks that his examples of asymmetries, such as the directionality of time, are support for his claim that the universe lacks beauty. What is he doing anyway? Is "beauty" a scientific concept? Origenes

Marcelo Gleiser, who holds Darwinian evolution to be a true scientific theory,,,,

Why Is 'Theory' Such a Confusing Word? - Marcelo Gleiser - 2016 Excerpt: A first step in trying to clarify the meaning(s) of theory is to understand in which context the word is being used, and to keep different contexts separate. So, if a scientist is using the word theory, as in "theory of relativity," "theory of evolution," or "Big Bang theory," it should be understood as a statement within a scientific context. In this case, a theory is certainly NOT mere subjective speculation, or something that is probably wrong, but, quite the contrary, something that has been scrutinized by the scientific process of empirical validation and has, so far, passed the test of explaining the data. https://marcelogleiser.com/blog/why-is-theory-such-a-confusing-word

,,, Marcelo Gleiser, who holds Darwinian evolution to be a true scientific theory, should take a deeper look at what Darwinism actually entails and realize that if the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution were actually true then, not only are beauty and mathematics to be considered illusory, but Marcelo Gleiser's entire sense of self also becomes illusory. i.e. Marcelo Gleiser himself is merely a 'neuronal illusion' generated by his brain! Here are a few notes to that effect:

Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asked-at-reason-magazine-how-much-science-research-is-fraudulent/#comment-734527 Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, April 18, 2021 - Detailed Defense of each claim https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/philosopher-mary-midgeley-1919-2018-on-scientism/#comment-728595

Although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of illusions and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Of supplemental note, although Marcelo Gleiser, a physicist, grouped evolution with the Big Bang and Relativity, evolution simply has no right to be grouped with those well tested theories of physics.

“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?” – David Berlinski, “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003 ‘Before you can ask ‘Is Darwinian theory correct or not?’, You have to ask the preliminary question ‘Is it clear enough so that it could be correct?’. That’s a very different question. One of my prevailing doctrines about Darwinian theory is ‘Man, that thing is just a mess. It’s like looking into a room full of smoke.’ Nothing in the theory is precisely, clearly, carefully defined or delineated. It lacks all of the rigor one expects from mathematical physics, and mathematical physics lacks all the rigor one expects from mathematics. So we’re talking about a gradual descent down the level of intelligibility until we reach evolutionary biology.’ David Berlinski - EXPELLED - video (29:31 minute mark) https://youtu.be/V5EPymcWp-g?t=1768

Even arch-Darwinist Jerry Coyne himself honestly admitted as much,

In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.” - Jerry A. Coyne

bornagain77

Belfast I’d like to know what the lie is over which they are huddled. You make it sound pretty dramatic, whatever it is… chuckdarwin

Belfast: Seversky and JVL still huddling over the sinking coals of a lie. What's your alternative? Something which is specific, time conscious, well documented in the scientific literature? JVL

Seversky and JVL still huddling over the sinking coals of a lie. Belfast

Seversky: I quite agree. All scientific knowledge is provisional, i.e. subject to new data and research. Also, all models are limited so there should be a continuous search for 'better', more comprehensive models. JVL

Orthodox science is now in a deadly conflict with facts… There can only be one outcome.

The problem is not with science being in conflict with the facts. The problem is that science is trying to ascertain what are the facts.

Ethan Siegel makes another paper assault on the Big Bang Is the Big Bang the least popular widely accepted science theory? Theoretical astrophysicist Ethan Siegel wishes it out of existence by positing a cosmic inflation that wipes out all possibility of knowledge.

There are known problems with the Big Bang theory so trying to find other explanations which address them is what science should be doing. We have relativity theory now because there were known problems with Newtonian mechanics which scientists of the period were trying to address. Einstein got there first. Seversky