… that it is knowable and mathematically based.

That was said better by Eugene Wigner.

The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. – “The Unreasonable Effectiveness “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences,” in

Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics,vol. 13, No. I (February 1960). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Copyright © 1960 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

– Nobel Laureate physicist Eugene Wigner (1902–1995)

*See also:* At PBS: Puzzle of mathematics is more complex than we sometimes think Astrophysicist Mario Livio: There are actually two facets to the “unreasonable effectiveness,” one that I call active and another that I dub passive.”

In science, as in politics, people acknowledge facts that they can no longer plausibly deny, but then seek to undermine them and those who insist on them.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

A comment I made on Dr. Torley’s ‘Is ID Dead?’ thread seems strangely appropriate to Tyson’s ‘biggest mystery’ video:

Dr. Torley, although probability arguments are certainly very good mathematical arguments supporting the validity of the inference to Intelligent Design, I’ve been thinking recently that an even more convincing case can be made that Intelligent Design is not dead from looking at Jason Rosenhouse’s own field of expertise.

Specifically, mathematics itself provides a more excellent evidence for Design than probability does, and ‘proves’ that not only is Intelligent Design not dead, but the Intelligent Designer, who I hold to be God, is alive and well.

In laying the ‘mathematical’ case out, Alfred Wallace, co-discoverer of natural selection, stated:

And indeed, as Wallace contended, we find that the difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable.

And also as Wallace contended, we find that math is not so much of a learned ability of man as it is an inherent ability of humans that must be polished by education:

But what is it, particularly, about mathematics that convinced Wallace that humans had a soul?

I think Berlinski puts the ‘natural’ inference between mathematics and the soul, that Wallace intuitively saw, best in the following interview:

Wallace and Berlinski are hardly alone in noticing this correspondence. There are many quotes from the Christian founders of modern science noting this correspondence.

Sir Isaac Newton stated:

In fact, on discovering the mathematical laws of planetary motion, Johann Kepler declared these very ‘unscientific’ thoughts:

Galileo stated:

And these Christian founders of modern science were hardly uttering dark age superstitions when they made their remarks about the correspondence of mathematical laws of the universe, the human mind’s ability to discern them, and God. The mystery persists to this present day:

Einstein expressed his wonder like at the correspondence this:

Eugene Wigner, in a paper the ruffled quite a few atheistic feathers, termed the correspondence between the ability of the human mind to discern mathematics and our ability to accurately discribe the universe with mathematics, a ‘miracle’:

William Lane Craig developed a philosophical proof for God from the unexpected applicability of mathematics to nature:

The usual retort from Atheists to this argument is that the applicability of mathematics ‘just is’ and that you don’t need to appeal to God to explain mathematics, i.e. atheists held/hold that mathematics was a self consistent system that needed no other explanation.

But Kurt Godel, using the ‘logic of infinity’, destroyed the notion that mathematics can be its own self existent explanation:

Bruce Gordon puts the present ‘incomplete’ mathematical situation for atheists like this:

And although, planets, stars, and galaxies, following universal mathematical laws is certainly a very compelling evidence that the universe is indeed, as is held in Theism, governed by One omnipotent being, i.e. governed by God almighty,,,

Quantum mechanics goes one step further and shows quite clearly that material particles are directly under the control of this ‘non-abstract’, and transcendent, world of mathematics:

Moreover, this transcendent, ‘non-abstract’, mathematical quantum world is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale:

Thus Alfred Wallace’s contention that Mathematics is proof that “the soul was a separate creation” has far more validity to it than he realized at the time he said it:

Verse and Music:

Neil being famous for sciency stuff is a bigger mystery. I have suspicions though.

same as this wigner.

Its not mysterious to see a mathy universe if the bible was believed and a god was involved.

in other words a intelligent being would make the universe in a splendid order as opposed to a chaos. order preserves itself for life.

Math is a trivial special case of this order.

the universe is not mathy however. its just well laid out and measured.

The bible says this.

God doesn’t do the math mankind does. Obviously.

“Biggest mystery” How about: Does consciousness collapse the wavefunction?

Robert Byers,

Both were/are scientists as well as gifted communicators. I’m not sure why their fame is so mysterious?

Comparing Tyson to Wigner is stolen valor. Wigner is/was a scientist of the first rank who ideas are, to this day, continuing to push science forward.

Whereas, IMHO, Tyson did more harm to science education in America than whatever good he could have ever possibly contributed with his COSMOS debacle from last year in which he constantly lied about the history of science and pushed pseudo-scientific multiverse tripe.

Cosmos Scrubs Religion’s Positive Influence from the History of the Scientific Revolution – Casey Luskin – March 25, 2014

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....83641.html

Cosmos Is Slammed for its “Inaccurate” and “Revisionist” History of Giordano Bruno – Casey Luskin – March 2014

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....83111.html

How Cosmos Does Religious History Badly – Jay Richards – April 30, 2014

http://thefederalist.com/2014/.....ory-badly/

Darwin-Defending Historians Debate Whether It’s Justified for Cosmos “to Lie” for the Sake of Science

Casey Luskin May 21, 2014

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....85831.html