Plato’s View of the Multiverse

People who think everything can be reduced to equations. Mung

Who doesn't, Axel? Elizabeth B Liddle

They don't like the math of QM. They think math suddenly got fuzzy and mysterious, so metaphysical inferences must be considered dubious at best. 'Supernaturalness, non-locality, indeed! Whatever next?' Axel

Moreover, even the 1 and the 0 in Euler's equation find place in how the universe operates if one considers the zero/infinity problem between quantum mechanics and general relativity:

THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today's physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. "The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common - and what they clash over - is zero.",, "The infinite zero of a black hole -- mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely -- punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.",, "Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge. http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit01_02/edit6_mar02.htm Quantum Mechanics and Relativity – The Collapse Of Physics? – video – with notes as to plausible reconciliation that is missed by materialists http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6597379/

Yet if a person allows that, as Godel held, 'God can play the role of a person', then, as somewhat pointed out in post #2, a reconciliation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity readily pops out when one considers the relation between 1, 0, and infinity:

The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31 William Dembski PhD. Mathematics Excerpt: “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.” http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy, and The Shroud Of Turin – updated video http://vimeo.com/34084462

The mystery/beauty doesn't stop there, this following video shows how pi and e are found in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 respectfully:

Fascinating Bible code – Pi and natural log – video (of note: correct exponent for base of Nat Log found in John 1:1 is 10^40, not 10^65 as stated in the video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg9LiiSVaes This following website has the complete working out of the math of Pi and e in the Bible, in the Hebrew and Greek languages respectively, for Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1: http://www.biblemaths.com/pag03_pie/

verse and music:

Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Metallica & San Francisco Symphony Orchestra - Nothing Else Matters http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziThYl6B2vw

bornagain77

On finding mathematical unity where, given atheistic materialism/naturalism, none should have ever been found:

0 = 1 + e^(i*pi) — Euler God by the Numbers - Connecting the constants Excerpt: The final number comes from theoretical mathematics. It is Euler's (pronounced "Oiler's") number: e^pi*i. This number is equal to -1, so when the formula is written e^pi*i+1 = 0, it connects the five most important constants in mathematics (e, pi, i, 0, and 1) along with three of the most important mathematical operations (addition, multiplication, and exponentiation). These five constants symbolize the four major branches of classical mathematics: arithmetic, represented by 1 and 0; algebra, by i; geometry, by pi; and analysis, by e, the base of the natural log. e^pi*i+1 = 0 has been called "the most famous of all formulas," because, as one textbook says, "It appeals equally to the mystic, the scientist, the philosopher, and the mathematician.",,, The discovery of this number gave mathematicians the same sense of delight and wonder that would come from the discovery that three broken pieces of pottery, each made in different countries, could be fitted together to make a perfect sphere. It seemed to argue that there was a plan where no plan should be.,,, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/march/26.44.html?start=3 "Like a Shakespearean sonnet that captures the very essence of love, or a painting that brings out the beauty of the human form that is far more than just skin deep, Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence." Stanford University mathematics professor - Dr. Keith Devlin “It appears that the Creator shares the mathematicians’ sense of beauty.,, An example of what mathematicians find beautiful is what is known as Euler's formula, e^ipi+1=0. One criterion for beauty is simplicity, but simplicity alone does not do it. The relation 1+1=2 is simple, but not particularly beautiful because it is trivial. In contrast, Euler's formula shows a rather surprising connection between three seemingly unrelated numbers: the number e, which is related to 'natural' logarithms; the "imaginary" number i -- the square root of -1; and the number pi -- the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. We call this property 'depth.' Beautiful mathematics combines simplicity with depth." (Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes, pp. 201-202)

Moreover Euler’s Identity, rather than just being the most beautiful equation in math, finds striking correlation to how our 3D reality is actually structured and operates. For instance, with the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), the universe is found to be a circular sphere which 'coincidentally' corresponds to the circle of pi within Euler's identity:

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 The Known Universe by AMNH – video - (please note the 'centrality' of the Earth in the universe in the video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U

This 'roundness' for the universe was predicted in the Bible long before it was ever discovered:

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,

As well, an unexpected flatness for the universe, which also 'coincidentally' corresponds to the diameter of pi in Euler’s identity, was recently found;

Did the Universe Hyperinflate? – Hugh Ross – April 2010 Excerpt: Perfect geometric flatness is where the space-time surface of the universe exhibits zero curvature (see figure 3). Two meaningful measurements of the universe’s curvature parameter, ½k, exist. Analysis of the 5-year database from WMAP establishes that -0.0170 < ½k < 0.0068.4 Weak gravitational lensing of distant quasars by intervening galaxies places -0.031 < ½k < 0.009.5 Both measurements confirm the universe indeed manifests zero or very close to zero geometric curvature,,, http://www.reasons.org/did-universe-hyperinflate The curvature of the space time of the universe is 'flat' to at least 1 in 10^15 places of accuracy http://books.google.com/books?id=O_beAVEoR7sC&pg=PT88&lpg=PT88&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false

This exceptional 'flatness' found for the universe was also predicted in the Bible long before it was discovered by modern science:

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?

This following video shows that the universe also has a 'unexpected' characteristic of expanding/growing equally in all places, which 'coincidentally' strongly corresponds to the 'e' in Euler's identity. 'e' is the constant that is used in equations of math, specifically compound interest, for finding what the maximum rates of growth are:

Centrality of Earth Within The 4-Dimensional Space-Time of General Relativity - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8421879

This following video shows how finely tuned the '4-Dimensional' expansion, i.e. 'growth', of the universe is (1 in 10^120);

Fine Tuning Of Dark Energy and Mass of the Universe - Hugh Ross - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4007682

Here are the verses in the Bible, which were written over 2000 years before the discovery of the finely tuned expansion of the universe by ‘Dark Energy’, that speak of God alone ‘Stretching out the Heavens’; Job 9:8; Isaiah 40:22; Isaiah 40:24; Isaiah 48:13; Zechariah 12:1; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13; Jeremiah 51:15; Jeremiah 10:12. The following verse is one of my favorites out of the group of verses:

Job 9:8 He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.

As well, towards the end of the following video, Michael Denton speaks of the necessity of the square root of negative 1, which is also in Euler's equation, for understanding the quantum behavior of this universe:

Michael Denton – Mathematical Truths Are Transcendent And Beautiful – Square root of -1 is built into the fabric of reality – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003918"

I find it extremely strange, even miraculous to borrow Wigner's term, that the enigmatic Euler's equation, which was deduced centuries ago, would find such striking correlation to how reality is actually found to be structured by modern science. In pi we have correlation to the 'sphere of the universe' as revealed by the Cosmic Background radiation, as well pi correlates to the finely-tuned 'geometric flatness' within the 'sphere of the universe' that has now been found (Of note, we also find that pi is required in Einstein's General Relativity equation).,, In 'e' we have the fundamental constant that is used for ascertaining exponential growth that strongly correlates to the fact that space-time is 'expanding/growing equally' in all places of the universe. In the square root of -1 we have what is termed a 'imaginary number', which was first proposed to help solve equations like x2+ 1 = 0 back in the 17th century, yet now, as Michael Denton pointed out in the preceding video, it is found that the square root of -1 is required to explain the behavior of quantum mechanics in this universe. The correlation of Euler's identity, to the foundational characteristics of how this universe is constructed and operates should be enough to send shivers down any mathematicians spine. bornagain77

Is (6) supposed to be a reply to my (5)? Kantian Naturalist

"It is not only not right, it is not even wrong," Wolfgang Pauli - physicist bornagain77

I don't see any tension between Kitcher and Talbott -- both of whom I admire considerably. (I've been in correspondence with Talbott -- very sweet guy! - and I also know Kitcher personally.) I mean, I see how Talbott is interested in describing the phenomenology of life -- of livingness -- and Kitcher is interested in explanations -- in particular, he's interested in explaining what it is to explain. So they're just doing different things, and I don't see why those conflict. Kantian Naturalist

as to:

it is a philosophically defensible option to not have an absolute or final theory of everything:

I read the article. IMHO, It is a horrendous piece of tripe. If you really think Philip Kitcher truly offers a 'philosophically defensible option', I strongly suggest that you burn your degree in philosophy and look for a new career. Perhaps flipping burgers is more your calling? For prime instance of the tripe used to try to refute Nagel, what evidence does Kitcher reference to refute Nagel's claim that the materialistic version of Darwin's theory cannot explain consciousness? Why the materialistic version of Darwin's theory of course!:

Darwin did not supply a major set of new principles that could be used to derive general conclusions about life and its history: he crafted a framework within which his successors construct models of quite specific evolutionary phenomena.,,, Thinkers in the grip of the Newtonian picture of science want a general basis for general phenomena. Life isn’t like that. Unity fails at both ends. To understand the fundamental processes that go on in living things — mitosis, meiosis, inheritance, development, respiration, digestion and many, many more — you need a vast ensemble of models, differing on a large number of details. Spelling out the explanations requires using metaphors (“reading” DNA) or notions that cannot be specified generally and precisely in the austere languages of physics and chemistry (“close association”). But the phenomena to be explained also decompose into a number of different clusters.

I suggest Kitcher, after he burns his degree in philosophy, read Talbott to get an inkling of how incoherent he is:

What Do Organisms Mean? Stephen L. Talbott - Winter 2011 Excerpt: Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern. Lewontin went on to remark: "Unlike a machine whose totality is created by the juxtaposition of bits and pieces with different functions and properties, the bits and pieces of a developing organism seem to come into existence as a consequence of their spatial position at critical moments in the embryo’s development. Such an object is less like a machine than it is like a language whose elements... take unique meaning from their context.[3]",,, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-do-organisms-mean HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE - Stephen L. Talbott - May 2012 Excerpt: “If you think air traffic controllers have a tough job guiding planes into major airports or across a crowded continental airspace, consider the challenge facing a human cell trying to position its proteins”. A given cell, he notes, may make more than 10,000 different proteins, and typically contains more than a billion protein molecules at any one time. “Somehow a cell must get all its proteins to their correct destinations — and equally important, keep these molecules out of the wrong places”. And further: “It’s almost as if every mRNA [an intermediate between a gene and a corresponding protein] coming out of the nucleus knows where it’s going” (Travis 2011),,, Further, the billion protein molecules in a cell are virtually all capable of interacting with each other to one degree or another; they are subject to getting misfolded or “all balled up with one another”; they are critically modified through the attachment or detachment of molecular subunits, often in rapid order and with immediate implications for changing function; they can wind up inside large-capacity “transport vehicles” headed in any number of directions; they can be sidetracked by diverse processes of degradation and recycling... and so on without end. Yet the coherence of the whole is maintained. The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?” The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary. Two systems biologists, one from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Germany and one from Harvard Medical School, frame one part of the problem this way: "The human body is formed by trillions of individual cells. These cells work together with remarkable precision, first forming an adult organism out of a single fertilized egg, and then keeping the organism alive and functional for decades. To achieve this precision, one would assume that each individual cell reacts in a reliable, reproducible way to a given input, faithfully executing the required task. However, a growing number of studies investigating cellular processes on the level of single cells revealed large heterogeneity even among genetically identical cells of the same cell type. (Loewer and Lahav 2011)",,, And then we hear that all this meaningful activity is, somehow, meaningless or a product of meaninglessness. This, I believe, is the real issue troubling the majority of the American populace when they are asked about their belief in evolution. They see one thing and then are told, more or less directly, that they are really seeing its denial. Yet no one has ever explained to them how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,, http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2 The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Steve Talbott Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. ,,,Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings

Related notes:

Doubts on Darwinism (Per Thomas Nagel) – JP Moreland, PhD – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Oc1lvvt60Y "I have argued patiently against the prevailing form of naturalism, a reductive materialism that purports to capture life and mind through its neo-Darwinian extension." "..., I find this view antecedently unbelievable---a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense". Thomas Nagel - "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" - pg.128 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199919755/ref=pe_240370_26181270_nrn_si_1_im

bornagain77

Except that, as Philip Kitcher explains beautifully in his criticism of Thomas Nagel here, it is a philosophically defensible option to not have an absolute or final theory of everything:

Nagel is in the grip of a philosophical perspective on science, once very popular, that the work of the last four decades has shown to be inadequate to cope with large parts of the most successful contemporary sciences. Because of that perspective, a crucial option disappears from his menu: the phenomena that concern him, mind and value, are not illusory, but it might nevertheless be an illusion that they constitute single topics for which unified explanations can be given. The probable future of science in these domains is one of decomposition and the provision of an enormous and heterogeneous family of models. Much later in the day, it may fall to some neuroscientist to explain the illusion of unity, a last twist on successful accounts of many subspecies of mental processes and functions. Or, perhaps, it will be clear by then that the supposed unity of mind and of value were outgrowths of a philosophical mistake, understandable in the context of a particular stage of scientific development, but an error nonetheless.

That's the key: not some absolute final theory that explains everything, but "an enormous and heterogeneous family of models," each of which explains something. Kantian Naturalist

An interesting sidelight to the incompleteness theorem and to God having to ‘breathe fire into the equations’, it is interesting to note that our two best mathematical descriptions of reality required higher dimensional mathematics in order to be formulated. Thus strongly suggesting that whatever is ‘breathing fire into the equations’ resides in a higher dimension:

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality – Gauss and Riemann – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6199520/

Moreover, if we allow that God ‘can play the role of a person’ as even Godel himself allowed when he chided Einstein for having an 'abstract' god,,,

The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” – Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed) http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians

,,if we allow that then we find a very credible reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into a ‘theory of everything’, i.e. into an ‘absolute truth’. Into a 'unity' that we intuitively know must exist:

General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy, and The Shroud Of Turin – updated video http://vimeo.com/34084462 Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural – December 2011 Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists. However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax. Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic. “The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” they said. And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: “This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete values – Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio – 2008 Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril. http://cab.unime.it/journals/index.php/AAPP/article/view/C1A0802004/271

Verses and music:

Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. Natalie Grant – Alive (Resurrection music video) lyric: “Death has lost and Love has won!” http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KPYWPGNX

bornagain77

Dr. Sheldon as to this comment from your article:

Would Plato have believed in multiverses? No! Because Plato believed in unity. If Math is the god that rules the realm of Truth, there could never be multiple realms. Especially multiple realms with different math!

This 'unity' somewhat touches on a question that I had asked an atheist the other day:

Exactly how is absolute truth (i.e. unity) grounded within the randomness/chaos of your atheistic worldview?

Earlier this year niwrad had touched on this subject:

Comprehensibility of the world – niwrad - April 4, 2013 Excerpt:,,,Bottom line: without an absolute Truth, (there would be) no logic, no mathematics, no beings, no knowledge by beings, no science, no comprehensibility of the world whatsoever. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/mathematics/comprehensibility-of-the-world/

Pastor Joe Boot states the insurmountable problem for atheists this way,,

“If you have no God, then you have no design plan for the universe. You have no prexisting structure to the universe.,, As the ancient Greeks held, like Democritus and others, the universe is flux. It’s just matter in motion. Now on that basis all you are confronted with is innumerable brute facts that are unrelated pieces of data. They have no meaningful connection to each other because there is no overall structure. There’s no design plan. It’s like my kids do ‘join the dots’ puzzles. It’s just dots, but when you join the dots there is a structure, and a picture emerges. Well, the atheists is without that (final picture). There is no preestablished pattern (to connect the different facts with one another given atheistic materialism).” Pastor Joe Boot as quoted around the 13:20 minute mark of the following video: Defending the Christian Faith – Pastor Joe Boot – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqE5_ZOAnKo

And indeed why should we even think there should be an overarching absolute truth, i.e. an overarching ‘theory of everything’ that unifies all these seemingly different facts into a coherent whole if randomness and chaos were truly the cause for all the order we see around us? Professor Steve Fuller comments on this mysterious intuition for unity we all seem to have here:

“So you think of physics in search of a “Grand Unified Theory of Everything”, Why should we even think there is such a thing? Why should we think there is some ultimate level of resolution? Right? It is part, it is a consequence of believing in some kind of design. Right? And there is some sense in which that however mulrifarious and diverse the phenomena of nature are, they are ultimately unified by the minimal set of laws and principles possible. In so far as science continues to operate with that assumption, there is a presupposition of design that is motivating the scientific process. Because it would be perfectly easy,, to stop the pursuit of science at much lower levels. You know understand a certain range of phenomena in a way that is appropiate to deal with that phenomena and just stop there and not go any deeper or any farther.”,,, You see, there is sense in which there is design at the ultimate level, the ultimate teleology you might say, which provides the ultimate closure,,” Professor Steve Fuller, quote as stated at 17:34 minute mark of the following video, https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/news/in-cambridge-professor-steve-fuller-discusses-why-the-hypothesis-of-intelligent-design-is-not-more-popular-among-scientists-and-others/

Moreover, that ultimate theory of everything, i.e. that absolute truth, that all people, even atheists, intuitively know must exist,,,

Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? – October 17, 2012 Excerpt: “Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find.” The article describes a test by Boston University’s psychology department, in which researchers found that “despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose” ,,, Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/design_thinking065381.html

this absolute truth, this unity, according to Godel’s incompleteness theorem,,,

Kurt Gödel – Incompleteness Theorem – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8462821 Alan Turing and Kurt Godel – Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition – video (notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8516356/

this absolute truth cannot be a purely mathematical theory of everything, i.e. a purely mathematical absolute truth as Plato seemingly held. This 'incompleteness' proof from Godel is a fact that even Hawking himself has admitted to in the past but has now apparently subsequently forgotten.

The nature and significance of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems – Princeton – 2006 Excerpt: ,,Stephen Hawking and Freeman Dyson, among others, have come to the conclusion that Gödel’s theorem implies that there can’t be a Theory of Everything.,, http://math.stanford.edu/~feferman/papers/Godel-IAS.pdf

i.e. If there is to be a ‘theory of everything’, an absolute truth, a unity, that unifies all the different mathematical facts about the universe into a coherent whole, then it must be based in a ‘personal agent’, i.e. in must be based in God. The following quote from Dr. Bruce Gordon conveys this 'intuitive' fact in a very concise fashion:

BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: 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/

bornagain77