Good question to ponder overnight.

John Hartnett quotes cosmologist Lee Smolin*:

It is true that mathematics is not a human invention, but more of a discovery, and thus has objective existence in that sense. But to declare the magnificent edifice of Mathematics to inhabit an orthogonal dimension that is inaccessible to scientific scrutiny, is a hypothesis that cannot in principle be falsified, and thus, it is not a scientific hypothesis but more of a belief, for those who are inclined to believe it.

Best read the whole thing.

But is this part of the current, quite serious, war on falsifiability? If not, how not? Readers?

(**see also:* Should we be nicer to cosmologist Lee Smolin? )

Follow UD News at Twitter!

“Is mathematics intrinsic to the universe?”

Yes because the universe is conceived by a mathematician. Mathematics is an invention of mind. That it pertains in the physical universe is evidence that the universe was designed. When you get to the bottom turtle, there is no physical reality only mathematical relationships conceived by mind. The big bang is merely a thought. In a realm where only mind exists, the only things that are real are thoughts.

God is one of those equations I can never seem to be able to solve.

Mathematics is intrinsic to the universe for the following reason: The universe is discrete and so is math.

Mathematical posts are always awesome of course. 🙂

This Hartnett guy is a bit unhinged, however. How do these things go together?

1. Cosmologist with a PhD in physics

2. YEC who has found “flaws” in General Relativity

3. Anti-Catholic loon (check out his twitter)

“Rick Warren shows himself to really be a Catholic. He is probably an undercover Jesuit plant.”

Dang.

Is mathematics intrinsic to the universe?I don’t think so. Mathematics, in my opinion, exists separate from the universe. Mathematics pre-existed the universe. Is God a mathematician? I actually think that God created mathematics too — bit its a hard position to prove.Is mathematics discovered or invented?That is a stupid question. The real question is, what is invention — discovery or creation of man. Invention has a fundamental core of discovery. There is a creative component to invention — the desire to discover a way to do something (and the defining of the thing we are discovering a way to do.) Many inventions are little more than the desire to create something, and reaching into the common toolbox to pull out a solution. However, all of the great inventions, the things that come to mind when we think of invention, are almost completely discovery.The most profound confusion in modern physics is the fallacious belief that blind causality is superior to agent causality in terms of explanatory power.

Professor Budziszewski puts the ‘profound confusion in physics’ between blind causality and agent causality like this

In other words, because agent causality was thrown out of mathematical descriptions of the universe then agent causality is deemed ‘unscientific’ in terms of describing ourselves. This denial of agent causality for ourselves leads to epistemological failure since it undermines our ability to be rational agents instead of mindless automatons (See Pearcey: Darwin’s Robots).

As well, C. S. Lewis has noted that the mathematical laws of the universe have never ’caused’ anything. Lewis, in his usual crisp manner, clearly demonstrates that mathematical laws do not have causal adequacy within themselves in the following excerpt from one of his books:

C.S. Lewis also noted that agent causality is illegitimately imparted to material objects as a result of the denial of the agent causality (i.e. God) behind math

The Christian founders of modern science understood the distinction between a mathematical description of a law and the agent causality required to be behind the law quite well.

Moreover, Godel’s incompleteness theorem has proven that there will never be a ‘complete’ mathematical description of everything that is sufficient within itself so as to be a ‘theory of everything’.

Godel also stated:

And when one rightly allows God back into mathematics so as to bring ‘completeness’ to mathematics, and so as to ‘breathe fire into the equations’, i.e. so as to rightly bring agent causality back into math, then a solution to the most profound enigma in modern physics readily pops out for us.

Namely, the resurrection of Christ from death provides a empirically backed reconciliation of Quantum Mechanics/Special Relativity, (Quantum Electrodynamics), and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘theory of everything’:

And as would be expected if Gravity was truly unified with Quantum Mechanics in the resurrection of Christ from death, Gravity was overcome in the resurrection event of Christ:

Moreover, as would also be expected if General Relativity (Gravity), and Quantum Mechanics/Special Relativity (QED), were truly unified in the resurrection of Christ from death, the image on the shroud is found to be formed by a quantum process. The image was not formed by a ‘classical’ process:

Personally, considering the extreme difficulty that many, many, brilliant minds have had in trying to reconcile Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity(QED), with Gravity (General Relativity),,,

Reflecting on that extreme difficulty, I consider the preceding ‘quantum’ nuance on the Shroud of Turin to be a subtle, but powerful, evidence substantiating Christ’s primary claim as to being our Savior from sin, death, and hell:

Supplemental notes:

NO!! god never did or does math. math is a human invention. its a language trying to describe the measured universe by God.

its true as a special case. In other words math is too primitive to be a true measurement of the universe.

People discovering math proves they discover a special case only.

Math is boring and unrelated to true forces in the universe. Its only a language of existing forces etc.

Math gets in the way of the intellectual accomplishment of man in figuring things out.

What did math ever do?

So do you think that prior to humans “inventing” the equation “1 + 1 = 2” that one plus one didn’t actually equal two in an absolute sense?

If you don’t think the numerical relationships that mathematics describes is not fundamental to the nature and construction of the universe, you might ponder this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%27s_identity

Robert Byers, “math is a human invention.” By invention, I presume you mean creation. This is why math is not a creation of man:

If we were to discover an advanced alien civilization, we would not discover that they had a direct equivalent of Beethoven’s 5th symphony. They wouldn’t have a duplicate of the Mona Lisa. They wouldn’t have “Mary had a little lamb.” Nothing created by one is duplicated by another without copying. That is the foundation of the copyright system.

On the other hand, if we found that advanced alien civilization we would find EXACT duplicates to most of our mathematical forms. They would be surprised by a few forms that they had not discovered yet. We would be pleasantly surprised to find that they had mathematical forms that we don’t have.

They would very likely not use a vertical line to represent “one”. They would less likely use a circle to represent “none”. But they would have a representation for each of these. It would be really unlikely that they would use base 10 as their common base. However, they would have discovered base N systems, as we have. They will have the exact same models because these exact models are “correct”. The mathematical forms have been discovered — the nomenclature around these forms have been created.

bornagain77,

I’m wondering, when was the time agent causality part of mathematical descriptions of the universe? How did such a formulation look? Thank you.

News:

Scientism, multiplied by trying to get to rational contemplation from blindly mechanical computation on a substrate that happens to be.

Trying to get North by insisting on heading West.

KF

sergmendes, in the thinking of the Christian founders of modern science, it was not so much a ‘formulation’ within mathematics as it was an assumption of what, or more precisely Whom, was behind the equations ‘breathing fire into the equations’ that were and are describing the universe,,,

It should be noted that Newton got into a bit of philosophical trouble for positing that God had to step in from time to time to correct the orbits of the planets:

And indeed, Leibniz is found to be correct. The orbit of the planets are found to be ingeniously set up for long term stability:

And while the infinite genius of God is reflected in ‘making it right the first time’, it should also be noted that God continuously upholds this universe in its continued existence:

And this necessity for ‘agent causality’, i.e. God, to sustain the universe in its continued existence, (to ‘breathe fire into the equations’ in order to give them a universe to describe), is now clearly seen in the field of Quantum Mechanics.

Moreover, due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:

Moreover, as pointed out previously in post 6 and 7, If we rightly allow agent causality ‘back’ into math (as the Christian founders of modern science originally intended, so as to ‘“breathe fire into the equations” and make a universe for them to describe), then a successful, empirically backed, resolution between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity readily pops out for us that resolves the ‘infinity problem’ between the two theories.

Verses and Music:

Robert Byers

Math is a function of logic. It’s the difference between true and false. It is built into the universe.

You can’t carry out a rational discussion without it.

Robert Byers:

Agreed.

of related note:

mike1962

By invention i meant, and did say, that its a human construction to see this math. The real universe has no math. It has measurement and boundaries. yet I am aggressively saying math is a human idea. Yes the numbers worked from creation week.

i’m saying mans discovery of math is a primitive interpretation of how the universe really is. math is premature just as Newton was in thinking things are explained.

bfast. Yes your right and I did presume that our math conclusions were here from creation week.

Yet i see it as a human invention. A human interpretion of the real measurement system. Its only a special case of accuracy.

So i see it as a human invention.

Counting 10 alligators is accurate but the universe doesn’t recognize ten alligators but only alligators and a accurate number. Our count is not true but relative to a invented boundary.

Silver Asiatic.

oh no. i don’t agrere. Right and wrong is not from math. This because the settled presumptions of right and wrong are not settled. the math or logic is only a mechanism.

math like logic is meaningless to truth. Unless settled points are established.

Carpathian

thanks for agreeing but i mean in a careful way.

i mean math is just human discovery of details in the universe measurement.

so math is a invention because of the claim its a accurate way of measuring the universe. i say its not and only a special case. this from the bibles implying Gods measurements are beyond us and God doesn’t do OUR math.

RB

Ok, I disagree. Although it would certainly make it easier (in some ways) to be a YEC if math and logic are meaningless to truth. If there is no truth difference between a count of 6 and a million then there’s no way to tell if the earth is young or old anyway.

My theological point of view is different from yours, so this is probably not the best place to argue about that. I accept your difference of opinion – we could leave it at that.