Mathematics Philosophy Science

Is there a hole at the bottom of math?

Spread the love

Apparently so. See: “This is Math’s Fatal Flaw” (Veritasium, 33:59 min), May 22, 2021

Not everything that is true can be proven. This discovery transformed infinity, changed the course of a world war and led to the modern computer.

Indeed. That was the remarkable insight of Kurt Gödel (1906–1978), which destroyed formerly triumphant positivist philosophy.

When you get to the bottom of the universe (if you do), it’s mostly questions, not answers.

Don’t miss: Gregory Chaitin’s almost-meeting with Kurt Gödel. (Yes, that Gregory Chaitin, of Chatin’s unknowable number.)

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

30 Replies to “Is there a hole at the bottom of math?

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    Repost from KF’s thread on this video:

    It is interesting to note that despite the fact that “Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing (mathematical) theory of everything in his theorem,,,”

    “Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”.
    – Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010)

    ,,, It is interesting to note that despite that fact, most every theoretical physicist alive today still believes that they eventually will find a purely mathematical theory of everything.

    Despite Godel’s proof being around for 90 year’s now, It is still as if the word has not gotten out that Hilbert vision for mathematics, which is engraved on Hilbert’s tombstone, “We must know. We shall know.”, is still somehow tenable.

    David Hilbert
    Excerpt: The epitaph on his tombstone in Göttingen consists of the famous lines he spoke at the conclusion of his retirement address to the Society of German Scientists and Physicians on 8 September 1930. The words were given in response to the Latin maxim: “Ignoramus et ignorabimus” or “We do not know, we shall not know”:[25]

    Wir müssen wissen.
    Wir werden wissen.

    In English:

    We must know.
    We shall know.

    The day before Hilbert pronounced these phrases at the 1930 annual meeting of the Society of German Scientists and Physicians, Kurt Gödel—in a round table discussion during the Conference on Epistemology held jointly with the Society meetings—tentatively announced the first expression of his incompleteness theorem.[f] Gödel’s incompleteness theorems show that even elementary axiomatic systems such as Peano arithmetic are either self-contradicting or contain logical propositions that are impossible to prove or disprove.
    per wikipedia

    In short, despite the fact that it has been known, via Godel, for 90 years now that mathematics can’t possibly serve as the basis for its own foundation, (and that mathematics therefore has a contingent existence, not a necessary existence), most theoretical physicists alive today still act as if there exists some purely mathematical theorem that will be capable of explaining everything in the universe without reference to God whatsoever. i.e. a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’.

    Theory of everything
    A theory of everything (TOE[1] or ToE), final theory, ultimate theory, or master theory is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.[2]:6 Finding a TOE is one of the major unsolved problems in physics.[3] String theory and M-theory have been proposed as theories of everything.
    – per wikipedia

    It is also interesting to note that the belief that mathematics itself, all by its lonesome, without any reference to God whatsoever, will be capable of explaining everything in the universe is in direct contradiction to what the Christian founders of modern science themselves believed.

    Namely, the Christian founders of modern science, (via Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology), believed that any mathematics that might describe this universe were based on the thoughts of God.

    KEEP IT SIMPLE by Edward Feser – April 2020
    Excerpt: Mathematics appears to describe a realm of entities with quasi-­divine attributes. The series of natural numbers is infinite. That one and one equal two and two and two equal four could not have been otherwise. Such mathematical truths never begin being true or cease being true; they hold eternally and immutably. The lines, planes, and figures studied by the geometer have a kind of perfection that the objects of our ­experience lack. Mathematical objects seem immaterial and known by pure reason rather than through the senses. Given the centrality of mathematics to scientific explanation, it seems in some way to be a cause of the natural world and its order.
    How can the mathematical realm be so apparently godlike? The traditional answer, originating in Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, is that our knowledge of the mathematical realm is precisely knowledge, albeit inchoate, of the divine mind. Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world. For some thinkers in this tradition, mathematics thus provides the starting point for an argument for the existence of God qua supreme intellect.
    There is also a very different answer, in which the mathematical realm is a rival to God rather than a path to him. According to this view, mathematical objects such as numbers and geometrical figures exist not only independently of the ­material world, but also independently of any mind, including the divine mind. They occupy a “third realm” of their own, the realm famously described in Plato’s Theory of Forms. God used this third realm as a blueprint when creating the physical world, but he did not create the realm itself and it exists outside of him. This position is usually called Platonism since it is commonly thought to have been ­Plato’s own view, as distinct from that of his Neoplatonic followers who relocated mathematical objects and other Forms into the divine mind. (I put to one side for present purposes the question of how historically accurate this standard narrative is.)
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple

    Perhaps the best example of just how integral this Augustinian view of mathematics, (i.e. “because they are God’s thoughts”), was for the rise of modern science is this following quote by Johannes Kepler. A quote which he made shortly after he discovered the laws of planetary motion in 1618,

    “O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee!”
    – Johannes Kepler, “The Harmonies of the World.”, book five – 1619 – best known for his three laws of planetary motion,

    This view that mathematics exists “because they are God’s thoughts” and the Christian view that God created the universe and that the universe has not always existed, (as Aristotle had held), were, in fact, presuppositions that were necessary for modern science to take root in Medieval Christian Europe.

    In fact, the birth of modern science can be traced back to the quote-unquote ‘outlawing’ of Aristotle’s ‘deterministic and necessitarian views of creation.’

    The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited – July 2010
    Excerpt: … If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation.
    These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos.
    http://www.scifiwright.com/201.....revisited/

    Thus, the present view of theoretical physicists that mathematics, contrary to Godel, can serve as the basis of its own foundation, and that it has a necessary existence instead of a contingent existence that is based on ”God’s thoughts’, is, philosophically speaking, a major step backwards for modern theoretical physicists to take.

    God In Mathematics – 2016
    Jerry Bowyer – Interview with Vern Poythress
    Excerpt: The standard modern culture-war revolves around God vs. the mathematical sciences. Take your choice: Faith or physics. Then there are the voices of mutual toleration, which attempt to leave room for science among the faithful and for faith among the scientific. Poythress, though, taps into a different tradition entirely, one which is seldom heard in modern debate: That God and science are neither enemies, nor partners, but rather that God is the necessary foundation for mathematics and therefore of every science which uses it.
    The argument is that mathematical laws, in order to be properly relied upon, must have attributes which indicate an origin in God. They are true everywhere (omnipresent), true always (eternal), cannot be defied or defeated (omnipotent), and are rational and have language characteristics (which makes them personal). Omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, personal… Sounds like God. Math is an expression of the mind of God. Sound strange? It isn’t. Modern natural science was created by people who said that they were trying to “think God’s thoughts after Him.”
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jerrybowyer/2016/04/19/where-does-math-come-from-a-mathematiciantheologian-talks-about-the-limits-of-numbers/

    And although modern day theoretical physicists are seemingly loathe to ever allow a ‘Divine foot in the door’, it is interesting to note that the belief that any mathematics that might describe this universe are “God’s thoughts” has not yet completely died for modern theoretical physicists.

    In fact, Eugene Wigner, (who’s insights into quantum mechanics continue to drive breakthroughs in quantum mechanics; per A. Zeilinger), and Albert Einstein, who needs no introduction, are both on record as to regarding it as a miracle that math should even be applicable to the universe. Moreover, Wigner questioned Darwinism in the process of calling it a miracle, and Einstein even went so far as to chastise ‘professional atheists’ in his process of calling it a miracle.

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
    Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,
    It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,,
    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. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

    On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952
    Excerpt: “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.
    There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.”
    -Albert Einstein
    http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine

    As to the fact that the Christian founders of modern science believed the universe to be “contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; (and that) the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities”,

    As to that fact, it is also interesting to note that “an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.”

    The Limits Of Reason – Gregory Chaitin – 2006
    Excerpt: Unlike Gödel’s approach, mine is based on measuring information and showing that some mathematical facts cannot be compressed into a theory because they are too complicated. This new approach suggests that what Gödel discovered was just the tip of the iceberg: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.
    http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/sciamer3.pdf

    In other words, an infinite number of true mathematical theorems could have described this universe but don’t.

    This puts the atheistic theoretical physicist in an awkward position.

    As Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, (an atheist), honestly admitted, “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws of nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that.”

    “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws of nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that.
    The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe,,,”
    (Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists)
    “No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don’t even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. But it is a possibility.”
    – Steven Weinberg – as stated to Richard Dawkins at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video
    – Leonard Susskind – Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg – 1 in 10^120 – Cosmological Constant points to intelligent design – video
    https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, we, obviously, don’t have an infinite number of mathematical theorems that describe the universe, but we have only two. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics respectfully.

    Yet these two theories simply refuse to be mathematically reconciled. In fact, there is found to be a ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that separates the two theories.

    Professor Jeremy Bernstein states the ‘infinite mathematical divide’ between the two theories as such, “there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite.The theory is not renormalizable.”

    Quantum Leaps – Jeremy Bernstein – October 19, 2018
    Excerpt: Divergent series notwithstanding, quantum electrodynamics yielded results of remarkable accuracy. Consider the magnetic moment of the electron. This calculation, which has been calculated up to the fifth order in ?, agrees with experiment to ten parts in a billion. If one continued the calculation to higher and higher orders, at some point the series would begin to break down. There is no sign of that as yet. Why not carry out a similar program for gravitation? One can readily write down the Feynman graphs that represent the terms in the expansion. Yet there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite.
    The theory is not renormalizable.
    https://inference-review.com/article/quantum-leaps
    Jeremy Bernstein is professor emeritus of physics at the Stevens Institute of Technology.

    And as theoretical physicist Sera Cremonini noted, “You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,”

    Why Gravity Is Not Like the Other Forces
    We asked four physicists why gravity stands out among the forces of nature. We got four different answers.
    Excerpt: the quantum version of Einstein’s general relativity is “nonrenormalizable.”,,,
    In quantum theories, infinite terms appear when you try to calculate how very energetic particles scatter off each other and interact. In theories that are renormalizable — which include the theories describing all the forces of nature other than gravity — we can remove these infinities in a rigorous way by appropriately adding other quantities that effectively cancel them, so-called counterterms. This renormalization process leads to physically sensible answers that agree with experiments to a very high degree of accuracy.
    The problem with a quantum version of general relativity is that the calculations that would describe interactions of very energetic gravitons — the quantized units of gravity — would have infinitely many infinite terms. You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,
    Sera Cremonini – theoretical physicist – Lehigh University
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-gravity-is-not-like-the-other-forces-20200615/

    Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, although he was not directly addressing the ‘infinite’ mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers this insight into what the ‘unification’ of infinite God with finite man might look like mathematically:, Specifically he states, “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.”

    The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31
    William Dembski PhDs. Mathematics and Theology
    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.....of_xty.pdf

    Philippians 2:8-9
    And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,

    Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, and when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God back into physics as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company,

    Cosmic Bell Test Using Random Measurement Settings from High-Redshift Quasars – Anton Zeilinger – 14 June 2018
    Excerpt: This experiment pushes back to at least 7.8 Gyr ago the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have exploited the “freedom-of-choice” loophole to engineer the observed Bell violation, excluding any such mechanism from 96% of the space-time volume of the past light cone of our experiment, extending from the big bang to today.
    – per journals

    ,,, then that very reasonable concession on our part then provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.

    In regards to gravity being dealt with in the Shroud of Turin, the following article states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’

    Particle Radiation from the Body – July 2012 – M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind
    Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images.
    https://academicjournals.org/journal/SRE/article-full-text-pdf/CC774D029455

    And in the following video, Isabel Piczek states,,, ‘The muscles of the body are absolutely not crushed against the stone of the tomb. They are perfect. It means the body is hovering between the two sides of the shroud. What does that mean? It means there is absolutely no gravity.’

    “When you look at the image of the shroud, the two bodies next to each other, you feel that it is a flat image. But if you create, for instance, a three dimensional object, as I did, the real body, then you realize that there is a strange dividing element. An interface from which the image is projected up and the image is projected down. The muscles of the body are absolutely not crushed against the stone of the tomb. They are perfect. It means the body is hovering between the two sides of the shroud. What does that mean? It means there is absolutely no gravity. Other strange you discover is that the image is absolutely undistorted. Now if you imagine the clothe was wrinkled, tied, wrapped around the body, and all of the sudden you see a perfect image, which is impossible unless the shroud was made absolutely taut, rigidly taut.”
    Isabel Piczek –
    Turin shroud – (Particle Physicist explains the ‘event horizon’ on the Shroud of Turin) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27Ru3_TWuiY

    Kevin Moran, an optical engineer, describes the Shroud Image in this way, “The unique front-and-back only image can be best described as gravitationally collimated. The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image. The radiation is parallel to gravity,,,”

    Optically Terminated Image Pixels Observed on Frei 1978 Samples – Kevin E. Moran – 1999
    Discussion
    Pia’s negative photograph, from 1898, showed what looked to be a body that was glowing, but slightly submerged in a bath of cloudy water. This condition is more properly described as an image that is visible, at a distance, but by locally attenuated radiation. The unique front-and-back only image can be best described as gravitationally collimated. The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image. The radiation is parallel to gravity and, if moving at light speed, only lasted about 100 picoseconds. It is particulate in nature, colliding only with some of the fibers. It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique,,,
    Theoretical model
    It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed.
    Discussion
    The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was “lifted cleanly” from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state.”
    https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/moran.pdf

    Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with on the Shroud of Turin, the Shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics itself was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.

    The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete (quantum) 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/mus/541/1/c1a0802004.pdf

    Moreover, the following rather astonishing study on the Shroud, found that it would take 34 Trillion Watts of what is termed VUV (directional) radiation to form the image on the shroud.

    Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016
    Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”.
    ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come only to several billion watts)”.
    Comment
    The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion (trillion) Watts of VUV radiation to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.
    – per predator

    So thus in conclusion, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God back into physics as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned then a very plausible solution to the number one unsolved mystery in science today, of finding a reconciliation between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, readily pops out for us in that, as the Shroud of Turin gives witness to, both Gravity and Quantum Mechanics were dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

    Verses and Video

    Matthew 28:18
    Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me,”

    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.

    Jesus Christ as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://youtu.be/Vpn2Vu8–eE

  3. 3
    jerry says:

    Are we using a make believe world to comment on the real world? That’s what it seems to me. This make believe world is extremely useful, but still not the real world.

  4. 4
    JVL says:

    The video is excellent by the way. I’d highly recommend watching it all the way through.

  5. 5
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: It is interesting to note that despite that fact, most every theoretical physicist alive today still believes that they eventually will find a purely mathematical theory of everything.

    Godel’s theorems just say there will be some truths that are unprovable; it doesn’t say what they are. So, we still have to look and search and check out new ideas and push the horizons.

    Also, physics isn’t mathematics. The laws of physics are models of the real world, approximations for the most part. Newton’s laws of motion aren’t ‘true’ in the strictest sense, they’re just pretty accurate for certain situations. The math is adapted to the situations not the other way around.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    And JVL, as I quoted, and you ignored, the fact that the abstract, even mental, world of mathematics can model the ‘real’ world is, according to both Einstein and Wigner, to be considered miraculous.

    You mentioned Newton’s theories aren’t ‘strictly true’, so what? We’ve moved on from there to theories in which we can find no discrepancy between the mathematical predictions of those theories and what we are able to measure in so far as experimental accuracy will allow.

    “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?”
    -Arkani-Hamed – discovered the amplituhedron

    Naturalists have no clue why this should be so, and again, such applicability of the abstract, even mental, world of mathematics to the ‘real’ world should rightly be considered nothing less than ‘miraculous’.

  7. 7
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: And JVL, as I quoted, and you ignored, the fact that the abstract, even mental, world of mathematics can model the ‘real’ world is, according to both Einstein and Wigner, to be considered miraculous.

    I didn’t mention that because it has nothing to do with the point I was making.

    You mentioned Newton’s theories aren’t ‘strictly true’, so what? We’ve moved on from there to theories in which we can find no discrepancy between the mathematical predictions of those theories and what we are able to measure in so far as experimental accuracy will allow.

    Which was the case for Newton’s laws for a few hundred years. So, maybe, someday our current laws of physics will be found to be limited in their application.

    Naturalists have no clue why this should be so, and again, such applicability of the abstract, even mental, world of mathematics to the ‘real’ world should rightly be considered nothing less than ‘miraculous’.

    I don’t know why you’re trying to argue with me about a point I wasn’t making or trying to address. Sometimes you seem to be stuck on attack mode.

    You also seem a bit conflicted: you marvel at the ability of mathematics to model the real universe whereas previously you decried efforts of physicists to try and find a unified field theory.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL, when you’ve got nothing coherent to say, perhaps it is best if you left it unsaid.

  9. 9
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: JVL, when you’ve got nothing coherent to say, perhaps it is best if you left it unsaid.

    Perhaps you’d like to explain how mathematics has a ‘miraculous’ ability to describe the real world but that physicists should not try and find a unified field theory.

    Bornagain77

    at comment 1: It is interesting to note that despite that fact, most every theoretical physicist alive today still believes that they eventually will find a purely mathematical theory of everything.
    . . .
    In short, despite the fact that it has been known, via Godel, for 90 years now that mathematics can’t possibly serve as the basis for its own foundation, (and that mathematics therefore has a contingent existence, not a necessary existence), most theoretical physicists alive today still act as if there exists some purely mathematical theorem that will be capable of explaining everything in the universe without reference to God whatsoever. i.e. a purely mathematical ‘theory of everything’.
    . . .
    It is also interesting to note that the belief that mathematics itself, all by its lonesome, without any reference to God whatsoever, will be capable of explaining everything in the universe is in direct contradiction to what the Christian founders of modern science themselves believed. Namely, the Christian founders of modern science, (via Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology), believed that any mathematics that might describe this universe were based on the thoughts of God.
    . . .
    As Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, (an atheist), honestly admitted, “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws of nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that.”

    From comment 2:

    Yet these two theories simply refuse to be mathematically reconciled. In fact, there is found to be a ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that separates the two theories. Professor Jeremy Bernstein states the ‘infinite mathematical divide’ between the two theories as such, “there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite.The theory is not renormalizable.”
    . . .
    Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, although he was not directly addressing the ‘infinite’ mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers this insight into what the ‘unification’ of infinite God with finite man might look like mathematically:, Specifically he states, “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.”
    (that’s all just weird and strange)
    . . .
    then that very reasonable concession on our part then provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.
    . . .
    Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with on the Shroud of Turin, the Shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics itself was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.

    From comment 6:

    And JVL, as I quoted, and you ignored, the fact that the abstract, even mental, world of mathematics can model the ‘real’ world is, according to both Einstein and Wigner, to be considered miraculous.
    . . .
    Naturalists have no clue why this should be so, and again, such applicability of the abstract, even mental, world of mathematics to the ‘real’ world should rightly be considered nothing less than ‘miraculous’.

    So . . . mathematics is miraculous except when it isn’t? And you’ve included some very weird and strange theology which I’m not able to judge but sounds pretty odd to me.

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    Whatever JVL, you are just confused.

    I have not told anybody to not try to find anything. I was remarking on the fact that modern day physicists, in their quest to try to find a purely mathematical theory of everything, without any reference to God whatsoever, have completely forgotten God. Who was the one who brought the Christian founders of physics to the dance in the first place.

    In fact, I applaud the decades long failure by the most brilliant minds in the world to find a purely mathematical theory of everything without any reference to God whatsoever. It makes my case for Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead providing the only plausible solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything, all that much stronger.

    Let them try tell they are blue in the face. Every failure of theirs simply makes my case stronger.

  11. 11
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: I was remarking on the fact that modern day physicists, in their quest to try to find a purely mathematical theory of everything, without any reference to God whatsoever, have completely forgotten God.

    Show an example of how you account for God in a mathematical equation or law.

    In fact, I applaud the decades long failure by the most brilliant minds in the world to find a purely mathematical theory of everything without any reference to God whatsoever. It makes my case for Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead providing the only plausible solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything, all that much stronger.

    Please state your theory of everything based on and referencing the resurrection of Jesus.

    Let them try tell they are blue in the face. Every failure of theirs simply makes my case stronger.

    Please state your law.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL states,

    Show an example of how you account for God in a mathematical equation or law.

    Yet God is the cause of the mathematical equations and laws that describe this universe. To ask to find God “IN” a mathematical equation that describes this universe is like asking for a cause to be found “IN” an effect.

    We can reason back from an effect to the prior cause. But to ask for the cause to be found “IN” the effect is simply to ask a nonsense question.

    JVL then states,

    “Please state your theory of everything based on and referencing the resurrection of Jesus.”

    I have many times over. Here is a video I made on the subject:

    Jesus Christ as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpn2Vu8–eE

    JVL then states,

    Please state your law.

    JVL is confusing cause and effect again: God is the author of all of the laws and equations of nature. They all point to Him.

    Psalm 119: 89-91
    Your word, O LORD, is everlasting;
    it is firmly fixed in the heavens.
    Your faithfulness continues through all generations;
    You established the earth, and it endures.
    Your ordinances stand to this day,
    for all things are servants to You.

  13. 13
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: Yet God is the cause of the mathematical equations and laws that describe this universe. To ask to find God “IN” a mathematical equation that describes this universe is like asking for a cause to be found “IN” an effect.

    You’re the one who discussed a mathematical theory that referenced God. I’m just asking you to show an example.

    We can reason back from an effect to the prior cause. But to ask for the cause to be found “IN” the effect is simply to ask a nonsense question.

    You said:

    Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, and when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God back into physics as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company,

    And

    Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, although he was not directly addressing the ‘infinite’ mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers this insight into what the ‘unification’ of infinite God with finite man might look like mathematically:, Specifically he states, “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.”

    So, Phillip C, show us an example of what the unification of God with man might look like mathematically.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL, not that I have any hope that you are actually being serious in your questions to me, but, in a nutshell, there is an infinite mathematical divide that separates the space-time of General Relativity from the “Theistic”‘ world of Quantum Mechanics. And I hold that Jesus, in his resurrection from the dead, bridged that infinite mathematical divide that separates those two theories.

  15. 15
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: And I hold that Jesus, in his resurrection from the dead, bridged that infinite mathematical divide that separates those two theories.

    I’m still not sure what that means since you haven’t offered any mathematical statements that establish your ideas. But you’re clearly not going to present any mathematical justifications so I’ll let it pass.

    But do remember: mathematics is not a spectator sport. If you can’t do the work then you’re just slinging around what is effectively, to you, magic. You have to trust that what others are saying is true. And how do you pick who to trust? Based on whether or not they say they are supporting the views you already hold? Is your whole house built on sand instead of rock? You don’t know because the actual work is opaque to your eyes.

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL, just as I thought, you are not being serious in your questions,

    Asking questions and then claiming that you were not properly answered in the exact manner that you wished to be answered is pretty much your whole game in your defense of your anti-Christian worldview.

    I’ve seen you pull this fake routine at least a dozen times now.

    I call BS on you.

    You are not genuine.

  17. 17
    kairosfocus says:

    News, I see you also picked up the same theme. KF

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    To more clearly defend my position from JVL’s claim that “you haven’t offered any mathematical statements that establish your ideas.”

    My claim throughout this thread, (which is the same claim that I have been making for years), (and which is based on Godel’s Incompleteness proof for mathematics, and also based on the decades long failure of thousands of the most brilliant mathematical minds on earth to ever find a single mathematical theorem that can ‘unify’ General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics),,, my specific claim is that there is no purely mathematical theorem that can bridge the ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

    In other words, the fact that there are no known ‘mathematical statements’ that can unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, (despite an extensive, decades long, search by thousands of the most brilliant mathematical minds on earth to try to find one), is what, in and of itself, supports my position that we must appeal to the infinite Mind of God in order to bridge the infinite mathematical divide that exists between the two theories.

    Yet JVL acts as if my failure to offer him any ‘mathematical statements’, that would mathematically establish my ideas as true, is a weakness for my claim that only Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead offers us a plausible solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’. Yet it is precisely the absence of such mathematical statements that can unify the two theories that supports my claim that only the agent causality of God, via the resurrection of Christ from the dead, can bridge that infinite mathematical divide.

    Despite my fairly clear explanation of this fact throughout this thread, JVL still seems to be stuck on the idea that a purely mathematical reconciliation between the two theories will be forthcoming when he states “you haven’t offered any mathematical statements that establish your ideas.”

    So again, it is precisely the absence of any ‘mathematical statements’ that can unify the two theories which supports my claim.

    In fact, if there were any ‘mathematical statements’ that could coherently unify the two theories that would then falsify my claim that only the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead offers us a plausible reconciliation between the two theories.

    JVL still seems to labor under the idea that any mathematics that might describe this universe can exist independently of the mind of God.

    Yet, besides Godel’s incompleteness theorem proving that mathematics cannot serve as its own foundation, (i.e. proving that mathematics is ‘contingent’), and proving that the truth of any mathematical theorem cannot be based within the mathematical theorem itself, besides that little detail, is the fact that mathematics, all by its lonesome, is also abstract and inert in its foundational essence and can have no causal power based upon itself.

    As Bruce Gordon explains, “This transcendent reality, (that this universe is dependent upon), cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, 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.,,,”

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy.
    This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,,
    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.....arguments/

    And as Stephen Meyer explained, “The laws of nature typically describe how nature behaves, using abstract mathematics. Those mathematical equations exist in our minds, not in nature itself. Thus, saying that the laws of nature — even the laws of quantum mechanics — explains where the matter and energy, space and time of the universe came from is like saying that the longitude and latitude lines on the map explain how the Hawaiian Islands ended up in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.”

    “Spontaneous Creation”: Meyer on Stephen Hawking’s Category Error – March 23, 2018
    Excerpt: “The laws of nature typically describe how nature behaves, using abstract mathematics. Those mathematical equations exist in our minds, not in nature itself. Thus, saying that the laws of nature — even the laws of quantum mechanics — explains where the matter and energy, space and time of the universe came from is like saying that the longitude and latitude lines on the map explain how the Hawaiian Islands ended up in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.”
    Hawking earlier seemed to realize this. He asked poignantly in A Brief History of Time, “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” But in The Grand Design he slipped back into reifying our mathematical descriptions of nature — treating the mathematical descriptions in our own minds as if they existed as real things in nature, things that could, moreover, cause other entities they describe to originate in the first place.
    “The laws of nature,” says Meyer, “describe how stuff behaves once it exists. They do not explain where that stuff came from.”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/03/spontaneous-creation-meyer-on-stephen-hawkings-category-error/

    Moreover, that it must be the infinite Mind of God that is behind the mathematical equations that describe this universe is further established by the fact that, theoretically speaking, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity contradict each other to the point of literally blowing the entire universe apart.

    As the highly respected mathematician Gregory Chaitin stated, “There are serious problems with the traditional view that the world is a space-time continuum. Quantum field theory and general relativity contradict each other. The notion of space-time breaks down at very small distances, because extremely massive quantum fluctuations (virtual particle/antiparticle pairs) should provoke black holes and space-time should be torn apart, which doesn’t actually happen.”

    “There are serious problems with the traditional view that the world is a space-time continuum. Quantum field theory and general relativity contradict each other. The notion of space-time breaks down at very small distances, because extremely massive quantum fluctuations (virtual particle/antiparticle pairs) should provoke black holes and space-time should be torn apart, which doesn’t actually happen.”
    – Gregory J. Chaitin , Francisco A. Doria, and Newton C. a. Da Costa – Goedel’s Way: Exploits into an Undecidable World

    And as Jessica Orwig stated, “we’re lucky that dark energy is smaller than theorists predict. If it followed our theoretical models, then the repulsive force of dark energy would be so huge that it would literally rip our universe apart. The fundamental forces that bind atoms together would be powerless against it and nothing could ever form — galaxies, stars, planets, and life as we know it would not exist.”

    The 2 most dangerous numbers in the universe are threatening the end of physics – Jessica Orwig – Jan. 14, 2016
    Excerpt: Dangerous No. 2: The strength of dark energy
    ,,, you should be able to sum up all the energy of empty space to get a value representing the strength of dark energy. And although theoretical physicists have done so, there’s one gigantic problem with their answer:
    “Dark energy should be 10^120 times stronger than the value we observe from astronomy,” Cliff said. “This is a number so mind-boggling huge that it’s impossible to get your head around … this number is bigger than any number in astronomy — it’s a thousand-trillion-trillion-trillion times bigger than the number of atoms in the universe. That’s a pretty bad prediction.”
    On the bright side, we’re lucky that dark energy is smaller than theorists predict. If it followed our theoretical models, then the repulsive force of dark energy would be so huge that it would literally rip our universe apart. The fundamental forces that bind atoms together would be powerless against it and nothing could ever form — galaxies, stars, planets, and life as we know it would not exist.
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/.....57366.html

    Here are a few more references that drive this point home,

    Cosmic coincidence spotted – Philip Ball – 2008
    Excerpt: One interpretation of dark energy is that it results from the energy of empty space, called vacuum energy. The laws of quantum physics imply that empty space is not empty at all, but filled with particles popping in and out of existence. This particle ‘fizz’ should push objects apart, just as dark energy seems to require. But the theoretical value of this energy is immense — so huge that it should blow atoms apart, rather than just causing the Universe to accelerate.
    Physicists think that some unknown force nearly perfectly cancels out the vacuum energy, leaving only the amount seen as dark energy to push things apart. This cancellation is imperfect to an absurdly fine margin: the unknown ‘energy’ differs from the vacuum energy by just one part in 10^122. It seems incredible that any physical mechanism could be so finely poised as to reduce the vacuum energy to within a whisker of zero, but it seems to be so.
    http://www.nature.com/news/200.....8.610.html

    “In order for quantum mechanics and relativity theory to be internally self-consistent [Seeking consistency between quantum mechanics and relativity theory is the major task theoretical physicists have been grappling with since quantum mechanics emerged], the physical vacuum has to contain 10^94 grams equivalent of energy per cubic centimeter. What that means is, if you take just a single hydrogen atom, which is one proton and one electron and all the rest of the atom is ‘empty space,’ if you take just that volume of empty space, … you find that you end up with a trillion times as much vacuum energy as all the electromagnetic energy in all the planets, all the stars, and all the cosmic dust in a sphere of radius 15 billion light-years.”
    To summarize, the subtle energy in the vacuum space of a single hydrogen atom is as great as all the electromagnetic energy found in everything within 15 billion light-years of our space-time cosmos.” ,,,
    Dr. William Tiller – Human Intention

    Moreover, since Godel’s incompleteness theorem for mathematics can be succinctly summarized as such, “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”.

    “Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”.
    – Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010)

    And since we also know that General Relativity and Quantum mechanics, (despite contradicting each other to the point of literally blowing the universe apart), are in fact true mathematical descriptions of the universe,,,,

    The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science – May 5, 2011
    Excerpt: So, which of the two (general relativity or QED) is The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science?
    It’s a little tough to quantify a title like that, but I think relativity can claim to have tested the smallest effects. Things like the aluminum ion clock experiments showing shifts in the rate of a clock set moving at a few m/s, or raised by a foot, measure relativistic shifts of a few parts in 10^16. That is, if one clock ticks 10,000,000,000,000,000 times, the other ticks 9,999,999,999,999,999 times. That’s an impressively tiny effect, but the measured value is in good agreement with the predictions of relativity.
    In the end, though, I have to give the nod to QED, because while the absolute effects in relativity may be smaller, the precision of the measurements in QED is more impressive. Experimental tests of relativity measure tiny shifts, but to only a few decimal places. Experimental tests of QED measure small shifts, but to an absurd number of decimal places. The most impressive of these is the “anomalous magnetic moment of the electron,” expressed is terms of a number g whose best measured value is:
    g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 73 (28)
    Depending on how you want to count it, that’s either 11 or 14 digits of precision (the value you would expect without QED is exactly 1, so in some sense, the shift really starts with the first non-zero decimal place), which is just incredible. And QED correctly predicts all those decimal places (at least to within the measurement uncertainty, given by the two digits in parentheses at the end of that).
    http://scienceblogs.com/princi.....sted-theo/

    Since we know those two facts to be true, then it is fairly safe to assume that there must be something very powerful that must be outside the ‘circle of the universe’ that is holding the universe together in order to keep it from blowing itself apart.

    For the Christian, this theoretical finding from our very best theories in science, (i.e. that something very powerful must be ‘outside the universe’ that is holding this universe together), should not be all that surprising to find out. Christianity predicted that Christ is before all things, and in him all things hold together,,,

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

    But hey, don’t take my word for it. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross comments on the ‘disturbing implications’ that “dark energy” has given atheistic astrophysicists at the 6:09 minute mark of the following video

    Astrophysicist Hugh Ross – Incredible Astronomical Discoveries & Dark Energy – 2018 video
    https://youtu.be/c9J9r7mdB6Q?t=367

    Here are some of the ‘disturbing implications’ for these atheistic astrophysicists. In their 2002 paper they stated, “Arranging the universe as we think it is arranged would have required a miracle.,,,”, and they also stated, “A unknown agent [external to time and space] intervened [in cosmic history] for reasons of its own.,,,”

    Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant – Dyson, Kleban, Susskind (each are self proclaimed atheists) – 2002
    ?Excerpt: “Arranging the universe as we think it is arranged would have required a miracle.,,,”
    “The question then is whether the origin of the universe can be a naturally occurring fluctuation, or must it be due to an external agent which starts the system out in a specific low entropy state?”
    page 19: “A unknown agent [external to time and space] intervened [in cosmic history] for reasons of its own.,,,”
    Page 21 “The only reasonable conclusion is that we don’t live in a universe with a true cosmological constant”.
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0208013.pdf

    Of note, as Dr. Ross noted, Dyson, Kleban, and Susskind withdrew their paper from consideration when the empirical evidence for a finely tuned cosmological constant (1 in 10^122) became overwhelming.

    So thus, even atheists themselves, in unguarded moments, honestly confess that God must be ‘holding all things together’.

    So already, (prior to any further theoretical considerations about Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridging the ‘infinite mathematical gap’ between the two theories), we are well on our way to firmly establishing the fact that God must be behind the two theories and is the quote-unquote, “unknown agent [external to time and space] (Who) intervened [in cosmic history] for reasons of its own.,,,”

    Verse and video

    Acts 17: 22-23
    Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

    Jesus Christ as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpn2Vu8–eE

  19. 19
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: Yet JVL acts as if my failure to offer him any ‘mathematical statements’, that would mathematically establish my ideas as true, is a weakness for my claim that only Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead offers us a plausible solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’. Yet it is precisely the absence of such mathematical statements that can unify the two theories that supports my claim that only the agent causality of God, via the resurrection of Christ from the dead, can bridge that infinite mathematical divide.

    I just don’t understand what God or Jesus’s resurrection has to do with mathematics or physics. The fact that physicists have yet to find a unified field theory doesn’t mean they won’t nor does it mean they will or that one exists.

    Despite my fairly clear explanation of this fact throughout this thread, JVL still seems to be stuck on the idea that a purely mathematical reconciliation between the two theories will be forthcoming when he states “you haven’t offered any mathematical statements that establish your ideas.”

    Nope, it might not ever happen.

    In fact, if there were any ‘mathematical statements’ that could coherently unify the two theories that would then falsify my claim that only the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead offers us a plausible reconciliation between the two theories.

    But how? I don’t understand what the resurrection of Jesus has to do with physics or mathematics.

    JVL still seems to labor under the idea that any mathematics that might describe this universe can exist independently of the mind of God.

    That is true; I consider the rules of mathematics to be invariant across all of space and time and, therefore, independent from any mind or consciousness. That is just my opinion.

    Moreover, that it must be the infinite Mind of God that is behind the mathematical equations that describe this universe is further established by the fact that, theoretically speaking, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity contradict each other to the point of literally blowing the entire universe apart.

    They are human created models of some of what we observe. Since they are incomplete and limited it’s not surprising that they don’t agree on everything. As noted: the reality didn’t come from the laws.

    I’m happy to let the topic go because I don’t think it’s possible to explain how theology creates a plausible unified field theory with no data or mathematical expressions of how that works. And if it can then it should be possible to model it with mathematics.

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    Well JVL’s confusion is apparently self imposed. He simply refuses to accept that any mathematics that might describe this universe are “God’s thoughts”.

    This leaves JVL with a rather gaping hole in his atheistic worldview. Namely, how can the abstract world of mathematics, which is apprehended by the immaterial mind of man, come to describe the material world?

    As previously mentioned, both Einstein and Wigner are on record as to regarding it as a miracle that mathematics should be applicable to the physical universe.

    And as Weinberg noted, there are other mathematically consistent laws that could have described this universe but don’t.

    In fact, as Chaitin pointed out, there are an infinite number of other consistent mathematical laws, which are not derivable from any finite set of axioms, that could have described this universe.

    So even if theoretical physicists could find just one mathematical theory for the universe, instead of the two that we currently have, we will always left with the question of why does that mathematical theory describe the universe and not some other mathematical theory describe it.

    The Christian Theist has a ready answer in that God, via His free will, chose, among an “infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and (brought) into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them.”

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy.
    This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,,
    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.
    – per Washington Times

    Moreover, that God must have chosen among an “infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and (brought) into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them” is strongly reflected in our empirical evidence in that free will is now shown, (via the closing of the free will loop hole to 7.8 billion years ago by Zeilinger and Company), to be a fundamental part of reality.

    As Weinberg stated, “In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,”

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017
    Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,,
    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
    Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,,
    Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. 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,,,
    http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/46.....inberg.pdf

    So, in regards to the Christian’s belief that any mathematics that might describe this universe are necessarily “God’s thoughts’, and that God chose which mathematical laws might describe this universe, (out of an infinity of possible mathematical laws), all of this leaves the Christian in a very comfortable position as far as the science itself is concerned.

    Whereas, on the other hand, the atheist is, once again, forced to ignore, and/or try to ‘explain away’, the current state of evidence and hope against all hope that some future scientific discovery might rescue his atheistic worldview. i.e. The atheist is, basically, forced to believe in a pipe dream that in all realistic likelihood will never come to pass.

    Apparently unsubstantiated pipe dreams are far more desirable for the atheist to believe in than for him to ever believe in God.

    It is truly a sad and pathetic state of affairs for the atheist to be in.

    Here is a quote to that effect

    “I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind …. This is a somewhat ridiculous situation …. [I]t is just as irrational to be influenced in one’s beliefs by the hope that God does not exist as by the hope that God does exist.” 1
    – Thomas Nagel – semi-famous professor of philosophy
    https://creation.com/thomas-nagel-i-hope-there-is-no-god

  21. 21
    Sandy says:

    I just don’t understand what God or Jesus’s resurrection has to do with mathematics or physics.

    🙂 Yep, at least you understand how something appear from nothing or how chemicals produce information and then even dare to produce a mind .

    Bornagain77
    Well JVL’s confusion is apparently self imposed. He simply refuses to accept that any mathematics that might describe this universe are “God’s thoughts”.

    You are right but you are doing it wrong.

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related note to the Christian’s neo-Platonic and Augustian claim that any mathematics that might describe this universe are necessarily God’s thoughts, is last week’s response to Gordon Davisson on how the Theist’s “Mind First” view of reality has far more explanatory power, in regards to our experimental results in quantum mechanics, than his Many Worlds view of reality does.

    ,,, it would now be much more appropriate to rephrase Einstein’s answer to the philosopher Rudolph Carnap in this way:

    “It is impossible for “the experience of ‘the now’” to ever be divorced from physical measurement, it will always be a part of physics.”,,,

    ,,, Scientifically speaking, the comparison is not even close as to which of our explanations (Theism or Many Worlds) has more explanatory power.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/granville-sewell-on-origin-of-life-as-a-provably-unsolvable-problem/#comment-731531

  23. 23
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: Well JVL’s confusion is apparently self imposed. He simply refuses to accept that any mathematics that might describe this universe are “God’s thoughts”.

    You haven’t presented any mathematics that support that notion. You have argued that the lack of mathematical models supports your idea but that’s not the same thing.

    This leaves JVL with a rather gaping hole in his atheistic worldview. Namely, how can the abstract world of mathematics, which is apprehended by the immaterial mind of man, come to describe the material world?

    It’s not a gaping hole in my view. I don’t see the mystery.

    As previously mentioned, both Einstein and Wigner are on record as to regarding it as a miracle that mathematics should be applicable to the physical universe. And as Weinberg noted, there are other mathematically consistent laws that could have described this universe but don’t.

    See, that’s the point. Mathematics covers many, many, many options so the fact that the math could describe other realities makes sense. And doesn’t make our reality necessary.

    So even if theoretical physicists could find just one mathematical theory for the universe, instead of the two that we currently have, we will always left with the question of why does that mathematical theory describe the universe and not some other mathematical theory describe it.

    You’re asking the wrong question because you think we were planned and designed. It is possible for maths to describe other realities so . . . it’s not a mathematical requirement that our reality happened. So what?

    The Christian Theist has a ready answer in that God, via His free will, chose, among an “infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and (brought) into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them.”

    That’s not a mathematical argument or model.

    Moreover, that God must have chosen among an “infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and (brought) into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them” is strongly reflected in our empirical evidence in that free will is now shown, (via the closing of the free will loop hole to 7.8 billion years ago by Zeilinger and Company), to be a fundamental part of reality.

    Only if you think we were the goal. What if we weren’t? What if we just happened?

    Whereas, on the other hand, the atheist is, once again, forced to ignore, and/or try to ‘explain away’, the current state of evidence and hope against all hope that some future scientific discovery might rescue his atheistic worldview. i.e. The atheist is, basically, forced to believe in a pipe dream that in all realistic likelihood will never come to pass.

    Not at all. We may never come up with a mathematical model of a unified field theory. I’m okay with that.

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    It is apparent that JVL, being the good Darwinian monkey that he is, is now just throwing stuff against the wall to see if anything will stick. Perhaps amusing for his Darwinian monkey brain, but not so much for us humans who are made in the ‘image of God’.

    So to move on to more fruitful areas of inquiry, and to further solidify my case for God being behind any mathematics that may describe this universe.

    In making my case, it is interesting to note that the universe, in regards to its topology, is “very close to the most unlikely state of all, absolute flatness.” and “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,”

    “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

    The universe is flat as a pancake. Coincidence?
    Dark energy is smoothing the expanding cosmic curves – but only exactly the right amount can make that happen – Oct. 2016
    Excerpt: NEXT time you fancy doing something really frustrating, try balancing a pencil on its sharpened tip. Your efforts will succeed for a second at most. Yet the universe has been succeeding at a similar gravitational trick for the last 13.8 billion years.,,,
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230970-800-cosmic-coincidences-the-universe-is-flat-as-a-pancake/

    There simply are “no laws of physics that predict or restrict the topology” of the universe to be exceptionally flat.

    Yes, the world (universe) really is flat – December 8, 2016
    Excerpt: The universe has all sorts of deformations in space-time where it varies from the perfectly flat. Any place where there’s mass or energy, there’s a corresponding bending of space-time — that’s General Relativity 101. So a couple light beams would naturally collide inside a wandering black hole, or bend along weird angles after encountering a galaxy or two.
    But average all those small-scale effects out and look at the big picture. When we examine very old light — say, the cosmic microwave background — that has been traveling the universe for more than 13.8 billion years, we get a true sense of the universe’s shape. And the answer, as far as we can tell, to within an incredibly small margin of uncertainty, is that the universe is flat.,,,
    ,,, but there are also no laws of physics that predict or restrict the topology.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....y-is-flat/

    Yet, if it were not for the ‘insane coincidence’ of the universe being exceptionally flat, 1 part in 10^57, then the universe simply would not make sense to us mathematically. Yet since the universe is exceptionally flat, then “this means that parallel lines will always remain parallel. 90-degree turns behave as true 90-degree turns, and everything makes sense” to us mathematically,,,

    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.
    https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html

    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

    We should be grateful that the universe is, as the preceding author put it, “ever-so-boringly flat” since that flatness allows the universe to make sense to us mathematically in the first place, i.e. “On large, cosmic scales, parallel lines stay parallel forever, interior angles of triangles add up to 180 degrees, and so on.”

    But here is the kicker to the ‘insane coincidence’ of the universe being “”ever-so-boringly flat”, although atheists have no clue as to why the universe should be exceptionally flat, Christianity predicted the universe to exceptionally flat thousands of years before it was discovered by modern astronomy,

    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?

    Of note: Job is widely considered to be the oldest book of the Bible.

    I can already see JVL greasing up his keyboard to respond and say something to the effect. “So what, just because we atheists have no clue why the universe is exceptionally flat that does not necessarily mean God did it. There is no reason that some other reason that does not include God may be discovered in the future. And even is we never discover a reason for why the universe is exceptionally flat, I’m OK being ignorant of the cause rather than ever choosing God as an explanation.”

    So to preempt JVL’s hand-waving dismissal, I will point out that not only is the universe set up in a ‘mathematically friendly’ way, (i.e. exceptional flatness), so as to allow the universe to make sense to us mathematically, (i.e. “parallel lines will always remain parallel. 90-degree turns behave as true 90-degree turns, and everything makes sense”), but I will also point out that Darwinian atheists have no clue why humans in particular, among all creatures on earth, should uniquely possess an ability to do mathematics.

    In fact, Alfred Russel Wallace, co-discoverer of Natural Selection, held that Mathematics was alone sufficient to prove the existence of the soul.

    “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 interview

    Moreover, the situation has not gotten any better for Darwinists since Wallace’s day. In 2014, a group of Darwinists, who are leading experts in this area of research, authored a paper in which they 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.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92141.html

    And as Dr. Michael Egnor pointed out, because of our unique ability to think abstractly among all creature on earth, “We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses. Our difference is a metaphysical chasm.”

    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/

    Darwinists simply have no coherent explanation whatsoever as to why man, uniquely among all the creatures on earth, possesses a unique ability to think abstractly.

    You don’t have to have a PhD to understand why the materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution will never be able to explain man’s unique ability to ‘do mathematics’. Mathematics itself simply does not need the physical/material world in order for it to exist.

    As Dr. Michael Egnor put it, “Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,,”

    Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018
    Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”?,,, What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,,
    Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame.
    The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/

    I will take it to be self-evidently true that we need immaterial minds in order for us to even think about immaterial mathematics and immaterial logic in the first place.

    Moreover, since our own immaterial minds came into being, and yet we can discover eternal, immaterial, mathematical truths with our immaterial minds, then it necessarily follows that “there must exist an eternal Mind in which these eternal (mathematical) truths ultimately reside.”

    11. The Argument from Truth
    This argument is closely related to the argument from consciousness. It comes mainly from Augustine.
    1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being.
    2. Truth properly resides in a mind.
    3. But the human mind is not eternal.
    4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.
    https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#11

    And please note that this argument for our immaterial minds, and for God, from the existence of mathematics is perfectly consistent with what we now know to be true about mathematics from Godel’s incompleteness theorem. Namely, that mathematics itself has a contingent existence and does not have a necessary existence,

    “Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”.
    – Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010)

    Thus, mathematics itself offers us compelling proof that we ourselves must possess immaterial, and eternal, minds and/or souls, and also offers us compelling proof that the eternal Mind of God must also necessarily exist.

    And although atheists such as JVL, for whatever severely misguided reason, may desperately not want God and our eternal souls to exist, the fact of the matter is that it is VERY good news for us to know, via our mathematical ability, that there is a eternal component to our being, and to also know that the death of our material bodies does not have the final say in regards to the existence of our eternal minds and/or souls.

    Verses:

    1 Corinthians 15:54-55
    When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come to pass: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
    “Where, O Death, is your victory?
    Where, O Death, is your sting?”

    Mark 8:37
    Is anything worth more than your soul?

    John 3:16
    For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

  25. 25
    JVL says:

    Bornagain77: Yet, if it were not for the ‘insane coincidence’ of the universe being exceptionally flat, 1 part in 10^57, then the universe simply would not make sense to us mathematically.

    What? It’s pretty easy to mathematically model a non-flat universe.

    But here is the kicker to the ‘insane coincidence’ of the universe being “”ever-so-boringly flat”, although atheists have no clue as to why the universe should be exceptionally flat, Christianity predicted the universe to exceptionally flat thousands of years before it was discovered by modern astronomy,

    Your quote from Job is not that clear.

    So to preempt JVL’s hand-waving dismissal, I will point out that not only is the universe set up in a ‘mathematically friendly’ way, (i.e. exceptional flatness), so as to allow the universe to make sense to us mathematically, (i.e. “parallel lines will always remain parallel. 90-degree turns behave as true 90-degree turns, and everything makes sense”), but I will also point out that Darwinian atheists have no clue why humans in particular, among all creatures on earth, should uniquely possess an ability to do mathematics.

    Again, it’s not hard to mathematically model a non-flat universe. As pointed out in some of your quotes, some people expected it to be NOT flat. It’s not a big deal.

    Some animals have been shown to have a rudimentary mathematical ability.

    I will take it to be self-evidently true that we need immaterial minds in order for us to even think about immaterial mathematics and immaterial logic in the first place.

    Well, if you’re going to assume one of your conclusions . . .

    Moreover, since our own immaterial minds came into being, and yet we can discover eternal, immaterial, mathematical truths with our immaterial minds, then it necessarily follows that “there must exist an eternal Mind in which these eternal (mathematical) truths ultimately reside.”

    Other opinions are available.

    And although atheists such as JVL, for whatever severely misguided reason, may desperately not want God and our eternal souls to exist, the fact of the matter is that it is VERY good news for us to know, via our mathematical ability, that there is a eternal component to our being, and to also know that the death of our material bodies does not have the final say in regards to the existence of our eternal minds and/or souls.

    Sigh. I’m not arguing against God, I’m saying you haven’t shown the mathematics behind your claim that God and Jesus’s resurrection bridge the gap between Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. Just show us the math. That’s all. That will make your case, no question.

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    I could have saved JVL a bunch of time. Here is JVL’s response in a nutshell:

    The Naked Gun – “Nothing to see here!”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKnX5wci404

    🙂

    JVL hand-wavingly states, “It’s pretty easy to mathematically model a non-flat universe.”

    Really???

    Euclidean geometry was, practically speaking, the only geometry that was around in Newton’s day. And Newtonian mechanics is, in fact, based upon Euclidean geometry where “parallel lines will always remain parallel. 90-degree turns behave as true 90-degree turns, and everything makes sense”.

    So JVL, please tell us exactly how Newton would have been able to make that crucial first step into physics, (i.e. the “first great unification” of physics), if the universe were ‘non-flat’, i.e. non-Euclidian, in its overall topology?

    Unification of Gravity and Astronomy
    The “first great unification” was Isaac Newton’s 17th century unification of gravity, which brought together the understandings of the observable phenomena of gravity on Earth with the observable behaviour of celestial bodies in space.[2][4][5]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_(physics)#Unification_of_Gravity_and_Astronomy

    In fact, non-Euclidean Geometry was not mathematically developed to any significant degree until Gauss and, especially, Riemann, came along. (Of note: Gauss and Riemann were both devout Christians)

    The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality – Gauss & Riemann – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxy3JhPRlV0

    Non-Euclidean Geometrie
    Drama of the Discovery
    Four names – C. F. Gauss (1777-1855), N. Lobachevsky (1792-1856), J. Bolyai (1802-1860), and B. Riemann (1826-1866) – are traditionally associated with the discovery of non-Euclidean geometries.
    Gauss invented the term “Non-Euclidean Geometry” but never published anything on the subject. On the other hand, he introduced the idea of surface curvature on the basis of which Riemann later developed Differential Geometry that served as a foundation for Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.
    https://www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/Drama.shtml

    In fact, If the universe were not exceptionally flat to begin with, besides Newton not being able to make that ‘first great unification’ in physics, we would have never eventually discovered the ‘deviations from flatness”, (i.e. Mercury’s anomalous orbital precession), in Newtonian mechanics that led Einstein to discover the ‘non-flat” topology of the 4-D space-time of General Relativity.

    Simply put, your hand-waving dismissal that ‘It’s pretty easy to mathematically model a non-flat universe” is a patently false claim. Einstein struggled mightily for 15 years, with help from his friend Besso, to try to find the correct ‘non-Euclidean’ solution to General Relativity before he was finally able to come up with the correct solution.

    In fact Einstein once told a child who was struggling with math, “Do not worry too much about your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure you that mine are still greater.”

    Your hand-waving dismissal of the extreme effort it took Einstein to discover the non-Euclidean 4-D space-time geometry of General Relativity betrays an ignorance, or willful blindness, on your part of what actually took place in order for physics to take root, flourish, and then to advance into Einstein’s ‘non-flat’, i.e. non-Euclidean, relativity.

    JVL then hand-wavingly dismisses this verse from Job as “not that clear.”

    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?

    “Who stretched a measuring line across it?” seems pretty doggone clear to me.

    In fact, that whole passage from Job matches what we now know to be true from cosmology:

    Here is the whole passage from Job

    Job 38:4-11 ?
    “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? Or who shut in the sea with doors, when it burst forth and issued from the womb; When I made the clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band; When I fixed my limit for it, and set bars and doors; When I said, ‘This far you may come but no farther, and here your proud waves must stop!”

    And here is what we now know to be true from cosmology

    For the first 400,000 years of our universe’s expansion, the universe was a seething maelstrom of energy and sub-atomic particles. This maelstrom was so hot, that sub-atomic particles trying to form into atoms would have been blasted apart instantly, and so dense, light could not travel more than a short distance before being absorbed. If you could somehow live long enough to look around in such conditions, you would see nothing but brilliant white light in all directions. When the cosmos was about 400,000 years old, it had cooled to about the temperature of the surface of the sun. The last light from the “Big Bang” shone forth at that time. This “light” is still detectable today as the Cosmic Background Radiation.
    This 400,000 year old “baby” universe entered into a period of darkness. When the dark age of the universe began, the cosmos was a formless sea of particles. By the time the dark age ended, a couple of hundred million years later, the universe lit up again by the light of some of the galaxies and stars that had been formed during this dark era. It was during the dark age of the universe that the heavier chemical elements necessary for life, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and most of the rest, were first forged, by nuclear fusion inside the stars, out of the universe’s primordial hydrogen and helium. ?It was also during this dark period of the universe the great structures of the modern universe were first forged. Super-clusters, of thousands of galaxies stretching across millions of light years, had their foundations laid in the dark age of the universe. During this time the infamous “missing dark matter”, was exerting more gravity in some areas than in other areas; drawing in hydrogen and helium gas, causing the formation of mega-stars. These mega-stars were massive, weighing in at 20 to more than 100 times the mass of the sun. The crushing pressure at their cores made them burn through their fuel in only a million years. It was here, in these short lived mega-stars under these crushing pressures, the chemical elements necessary for life were first forged out of the hydrogen and helium. The reason astronomers can’t see the light from these first mega-stars, during this dark era of the universe’s early history, is because the mega-stars were shrouded in thick clouds of hydrogen and helium gas. These thick clouds prevented the mega-stars from spreading their light through the cosmos as they forged the elements necessary for future life to exist on earth. After about 200 million years, the end of the dark age came to the cosmos. The universe was finally expansive enough to allow the dispersion of the thick hydrogen and helium “clouds”. With the continued expansion of the universe, the light, of normal stars and dwarf galaxies, was finally able to shine through the thick clouds of hydrogen and helium gas, bringing the dark age to a close.
    (adapted from How The Stars Were Born – Michael D. Lemonick)
    http://www.time.com/time/magaz.....-2,00.html

    That is pretty doggone impressive in my book. And to add a cherry on top of the cake, there is also this verse from Job

    Job 26:10?
    He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness.

    Moreover, “Who marked off its dimensions?” is also, by itself, pretty doggone amazing in its own predictive power.

    graph – fine-tuning of Time vs Space Dimensions
    http://ej.iop.org/images/0264-.....l/img5.gif?

    JVL then repeats his hand waving dismissal, “it’s not hard to mathematically model a non-flat universe.”

    Since that claim has already been shown to be patently false in this post, I will move on to JVL’ next claim, “Some animals have been shown to have a rudimentary mathematical ability.”

    Leading evolutionary scientists, who have spent their entire careers studying this question, wholeheartedly disagree with JVL’s claim.

    As Chomsky himself noted, “There are no significant analogues or homologues to the human language faculty in other species.5,,,”,,, Claims made in favor of their semantic powers, we might observe, are wrong.”

    The Siege of Paris – Robert Berwick & Noam Chomsky – March 2019
    Excerpt: Linguists told themselves many stories about the evolution of language, and so did evolutionary biologists; but stories, as Richard Lewontin rightly notes, are not hypotheses, a term that should be “reserved for assertions that can be tested.”4
    The human language faculty is a species-specific property, with no known group differences and little variation. There are no significant analogues or homologues to the human language faculty in other species.5,,,
    How far back does language go? There is no evidence of significant symbolic activity before the appearance of anatomically modern humans 200 thousand years ago (kya).22,,,
    There is no evidence that great apes, however sophisticated, have any of the crucial distinguishing features of language and ample evidence that they do not.48 Claims made in favor of their semantic powers, we might observe, are wrong. Recent research reveals that the semantic properties of even the simplest words are radically different from anything in animal symbolic systems.49,,,
    Why only us?,,, We were not, of course, the first to ask them. We echo in modern terms the Cartesian philosophers Antoine Arnauld and Claude Lancelot, seventeenth-century authors of the Port-Royal Grammar, for whom language with its infinite combinatorial capacity wrought from a finite inventory of sounds was uniquely human and the very foundation of thought. It is subtle enough to express all that we can conceive, down to the innermost and “diverse movements of our souls.”
    https://inference-review.com/article/the-siege-of-paris
    Robert Berwick is a Professor in the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems at MIT.
    Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor and Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus) at MIT.

    JVL then states, “Well, if you’re going to assume one of your conclusions . . ”

    That statement is a complete joke coming from a Darwinist. Darwinists, although they have no empirical evidence that Darwinian evolution is true, nor any empirical evidence that it is remotely feasible, never-the-less Darwinists still assume Darwinian evolution as being true from the start. i.e. They ‘assume their conclusion’.

    Moreover, they never allow empirical evidence to falsify their ‘assumed conclusion’ of Darwinian evolution being true.

    Empirical evidence, from molecular biology to the fossil record, (and everything in between), falsifies Darwinian claims time and again, and yet Darwinists pretend as if it is no big deal and still assume Darwinian evolution to be true despite all empirical evidence to the contrary.

    Darwinists are, bar none, the reigning kings of disingenuously ‘assuming their conclusion’ into their argument for Darwinian evolution.

    Yet when I, rightly, point out that it is self-evidently true that it takes an immaterial mind to even have the capacity to think about the immaterial realm, JVL hypocritically accuses me of ‘assuming my conclusion.” The audacious hypocrisy on JVL’s part is breathtaking. Perhaps JVL, instead of disingenuously accusing me of ‘assuming my conclusion’ for a self-evidently true statement, would care to prove how it is even remotely possible for material/physical objects to contemplate the immaterial realm?

    As Adam Sedgwick chastised Charles Darwin, “There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly.”

    In regards to the fairly straightforward reasoning that the Mind of God must be behind any eternal mathematical truths that our own immaterial minds discover, JVL simply waves his hands in the air and states, “Other opinions are available.”

    That is, to put it mildly, a pathetic response.

    No other coherent explanation currently exists, and although JVL may, in the dark recesses of his imagination, hold out hope that another explanation becomes available, that simply is par for the course for Darwinists. Darwinian atheists always retreat into imaginary explanations, i.e. ‘just so stories’, instead of ever accepting what is clearly put right in front of their faces.

    JVL then states, “Sigh. I’m not arguing against God, I’m saying you haven’t shown the mathematics behind your claim that God and Jesus’s resurrection bridge the gap between Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. Just show us the math. That’s all. That will make your case, no question.”

    Yet arguing against God is exactly what he is doing when he refuses to accept God as the foundation of mathematics and demands that mathematics give an explanation of God. i.e. JVL is insanely demanding that an effect gives an explanation of its cause.

    Since I have already clearly explained this self imposed, and fatal, flaw in JVL’s reasoning in detail at post 20, I will assume that JVL is now just being purposely ignorant, i.e. willfully blind, in his responses towards me.

    Matthew 13:15
    For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    Of supplemental note: Here is a graphic representation of the “Dark Ages” of the early universe which was predicted in Job 38:9 “When I made the clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band;”

    Big Bang – Cosmic History
    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg/2560px-CMB_Timeline300_no_WMAP.jpg

  28. 28
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, on top of all the other evidences that I have presented, (Godel’s incompleteness, Exceptional Flatness of the universe which enables the universe to mathematically ‘make sense’ to us, the Christian founders of modern science believing that any mathematics that might describe this universe must be “God’s Thoughts”, etc..),, on top of all the other evidences that I have presented that any mathematics that describe this universe are “God’s Thoughts”, there is also the argument from mathematical beauty.

    It is said that the best mathematical theories, that are later confirmed empirically to be true, were born out of the mathematicians ‘sense of beauty’. Paul Dirac is said to have mathematically discovered the ‘anti-electron’, before it was empirically confirmed, solely through his mathematical ‘sense of beauty’:

    Graham Farmelo on Paul Dirac and Mathematical Beauty – video (28:12 minute mark – prediction of the ‘anti-electron’)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfYon2WdR40

    As the preceding video highlighted, Paul Dirac was rather adamant that beauty was integral to finding truth through math. In fact, Paul Dirac, in seeming contradiction to the entire scientific method, stated that, ‘it is more important to have beauty in one’s equations than to have them fit experiment’.

    A thing of beauty – A. Miller – 2006
    Excerpt: Even when the evidence was going against them, Nobel prize-winners Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman clung on to cherished theories just because they thought they were “beautiful”.
    ,,, back in the 1960s, Paul Dirac famously asserted that: “It is more important to have beauty in one’s equations than to have them fit experiment.” Richard Feynman, too, insisted on believing in one of his theories even when it seemed to contradict experimental data. “There was a moment when I knew how nature worked,” he wrote in 1957. “[The theory] had elegance and beauty. The goddamn thing was gleaming.”,,,,
    In 1957, experimental evidence weighed heavily against Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman’s theory of weak interactions. As we saw, Feynman had declared that the theory “had elegance and beauty. The goddamn thing was gleaming”. In other words, it had an inner perfection that suggested it could be generalised further, it hinted at how to unify the weak and electromagnetic interactions, and its mathematical representation was the simplest that could be constructed. Despite the high reputation of the physicists responsible for the actual experiments, Feynman and Gell-Mann’s response was that there was something wrong with the experiments. They were right. Thus although experiments are essential for scientific theories, certain theories are just too important – too beautiful, one could say – to be discarded when the experiments don’t go your way. Perhaps in the future beauty will provide an important criterion for selecting one theory over another, now that theories are emerging which cannot be verified by experimentation as we know it today.
    https://www.arthurimiller.com/AThingofBeautyPERSPECTIVES.pdf

    Albert Einstein was also a big fan of beauty in math. Einstein stated: ‘the only physical theories that we are willing to accept are the beautiful ones’

    Truth not equal to Beauty – Philip Ball – May 2014
    Excerpt: ‘the only physical theories that we are willing to accept are the beautiful ones’
    Albert Einstein – Quoted in Graham Farmelo, It Must be Beautiful: Great Equations of Modern Science (Granta Books, 2002), p. xii. Farmelo provides an extensive discussion of this topic and gives numerous examples from the history of science.
    http://aeon.co/magazine/philos.....-equation/

    In regards to General Relativity itself, mathematical physicist Clifford Will said, “Fiddling with general relativity would be tantamount to changing the Fifth Symphony.”

    “Fiddling with general relativity, he believes, would be tantamount to changing the Fifth Symphony. “General relativity is so unbelievably beautiful and simple – it’s in some ways the most perfect gravitational theory that you could possibly imagine,” he says. All of the alternatives he’s seen so far are “horrendously ugly by comparison”
    https://uncommondescent.com/physics/general-relativity-still-beautiful-ahead-of-its-time/

    ‘Mathematical beauty’ even had a guiding hand in the discovery of the Amplituhedron:

    The Amplituhedron (mathematical beauty – 21:12 minute mark) – Nima Arkani-Hamed, Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J. – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By27M9ommJc#t=1272

    As well, Alex Vilenkin, commenting on Euler’s Identity, stated,,,

    “It appears that the Creator shares the mathematicians sense of beauty”
    Alex Vilenkin – Many Worlds in One: (page 201)

    Paul Dirac, when pressed for a definition of mathematical beauty, stated mathematical beauty ‘cannot be defined any more than beauty in art can be defined’

    Dirac threw up his hands. Mathematical beauty, he said, ‘cannot be defined any more than beauty in art can be defined’ – though he added that it was something ‘people who study mathematics usually have no difficulty in appreciating’.
    http://aeon.co/magazine/philos.....-equation/

    And indeed, just as Dirac held, it is found when mathematicians are shown equations such as Euler’s identity or the Pythagorean identity the same area of the brain used to appreciate fine art or music lights up:

    Mathematics: Why the brain sees maths as beauty – Feb. 12, 2014
    Excerpt: Mathematicians were shown “ugly” and “beautiful” equations while in a brain scanner at University College London.
    The same emotional brain centres used to appreciate art were being activated by “beautiful” maths.,,,
    One of the researchers, Prof Semir Zeki, told the BBC: “A large number of areas of the brain are involved when viewing equations, but when one looks at a formula rated as beautiful it activates the emotional brain – the medial orbito-frontal cortex – like looking at a great painting or listening to a piece of music.”
    http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc.....t-26151062

  29. 29
    bornagain77 says:

    It is also interesting to note exactly where the mathematicians ‘sense of beauty’ breaks down. It, (unsurprisingly), breaks down for the standard model, string theory, and m-theory.

    Our universe’s fine tuning may be why the Standard Model is so mathematically ugly – April 7, 2021
    Excerpt: Kaku went on to say that the Standard Model is “one of the ugliest theories proposed so far”.
    https://medium.com/the-infinite-universe/the-beauty-and-the-ugliness-of-grand-unification-theory-18ddb8077d52

    String theorists (some time later): Wait a minute, Nature, there’s too many different ways to fold our Calabi-Yao manifold up. And it keeps trying to come unfolded. And string theory is only compatible with a negative cosmological constant, and we own a positive one.
    Nature: No problem. Just let me tie this Calabi-Yao manifold up with some strings and branes, and maybe a little duct tape, and you’ll be all set.
    String theorists: But our beautiful new theory is so ugly now!
    Nature: Ah! But the Anthropic Principle says that all the best theories are ugly.
    String theorists: It does?
    Nature: It does. And once you make it the fashion to be ugly, you’ll ensure that other theories will never beat you in beauty contests.
    String theorists: Hooray! Hooray! Look at our beautiful new theory.
    ———- Okay, I’ve taken a few liberties here. But according to Smolin’s book, string theory did start out looking like a very promising theory. And, like a scam, as it looks less and less promising, it’s hard to resist the temptation to throw good money (or research) after bad in the hope of getting something back for your effort.
    http://www.amazon.com/review/R2H7GVX4BUQQ68/

    The interesting thing about the mathematician’s sense of beauty being such an uncanny guide to mathematical theories that are subsequently confirmed to be true is that Darwinian evolution cannot ground our sense of beauty.

    In fact Charles Darwin himself stated that, “They believe that very many structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety. This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory.”

    “The foregoing remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest lately made by some naturalists, against the utilitarian doctrine that every detail of structure has been produced for the good of its possessor. They believe that very many structures have been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety. This doctrine, if true, would be absolutely fatal to my theory.”
    (Charles Darwin – 1859, p. 199)

    From the horses mouth, the existence of beauty is ‘fatal’ to his theory.

    Darwinian evolution simply can never ground our intuitive, and subjective, sense of beauty,

    Beauty Evades the Clutches of Materialism – March 27, 2013
    Excerpt: In their final two paragraphs, Conway and Behding basically “give up” on the idea that science can explain beauty
    https://evolutionnews.org/2013/03/beauty_evades_t/

    The reason why Darwinian evolution can never ground our intuitive, and subjective, sense of beauty is simple enough to understand.

    Beauty must be subjectively experienced in order to be appreciated. And that necessarily makes beauty a property of “qualia”, which is defined as ‘individual instances of subjective, conscious experience.’

    And “Qualia” is the central defining attribute of the immaterial mind that has been labeled as ‘the hard problem of consciousness’ which is forever beyond the scope of reductive materialistic explanations.

    David Chalmers is semi-famous for getting the ‘hard problem’ of consciousness across to lay people in a very easy to understand manner:

    Hard Problem of Consciousness — David Chalmers – 2016
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5DfnIjZPGw

    In short, it takes a immaterial mind to appreciate beauty, and yet, since Darwinian evolution denies the existence of the immaterial mind, then that renders it impossible for the materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution to ever give a coherent account for our subjective sense of beauty.

    Moreover, like the argument from mathematics, the argument from beauty is also a very powerful argument for the existence of God.

    As Saint Augustine himself noted, “Beauty… can be appreciated only by the mind. This would be impossible, if this ‘idea’ of beauty were not found in the Mind in a more perfect form….”

    Beauty and the Imagination – Aaron Ames – July 16th, 2017
    Excerpt: Beauty… can be appreciated only by the mind. This would be impossible, if this ‘idea’ of beauty were not found in the Mind in a more perfect form…. This consideration has readily persuaded men of ability and learning… that the original “idea” is not to be found in this sphere
    (Augustine, City of God).
    https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/07/beauty-imagination-aaron-ames.html

    The Reason Why God Is the Beauty We All Seek – Sept. 4, 2019
    Excerpt: God loves beauty. As Thomas Aquinas asserts, God “is beauty itself”[1] St. Anselm argues that “God must be the supreme beauty for the same reasons that He must be justice and other such qualities.”[2] As the contemporary theologian Michael Horton so aptly states in his book The Christian Faith, “God would not be God if he did not possess all his attributes in the simplicity and perfection of his essence.”[3] The reason why we gravitate toward beauty is because God created us in his image.,,,
    In a chapel sermon titled, “Can Beauty Save the World,” Albert Mohler explains,
    “The Christian worldview posits that anything pure and good finds its ultimate source in the self-existent, omnipotent God who is infinite in all his perfections. Thus the Christian worldview reminds us that the “transcendentals”—the good, the true, and the beautiful—are inseparable. Thus when Psalm 27 speaks of the beauty of the Lord, the Psalmist is also making a claim about the goodness of the Lord and the truthfulness of the Lord. While we distinguish God’s attributes from one another in order to understand them better, we must also recognize that these attributes are inseparable from one another.[19]”
    Mohler goes on to state, “Our job as Christians is to remember the difference between the beautiful and the pretty,” because pure beauty is found in goodness and truth.[20] When we gaze upon ascetically pleasing objects or witness kind deeds in this world, we are at best seeing imperfect versions of the pure beauty that can only be found in God.
    https://www.beautifulchristianlife.com/blog/reason-why-god-is-the-beauty-we-all-seek

    And here is an interesting quote from C.S. Lewis on the subject of beauty:

    “We do not want merely to see beauty, though, God knows, even that is bounty enough. We want something else that can hardly be put into words—to be united with the beauty we see, to pass into it, to receive it into ourselves, to bathe in it, to become part of it.”
    – C.S. Lewis, – The Weight of Glory

    And here is a song that reflects Lewis’s rather noble sentiment on beauty

    Brooke Fraser – CS Lewis Song
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PycBrNP8dXg

    Verse:

    Isaiah 33:17
    Your eyes will behold the king in his beauty; they will see a land that stretches afar.

  30. 30
    bornagain77 says:

    JVL, In regards to my claim that it is self-evidently true that it takes a immaterial mind to even contemplate the immaterial realm of mathematics in the first place, and in regards to your claim that I was just ‘assuming my conclusion’ when I said that it was self-evidently true,,,,

    ,,, Instead of me just pointing out the fact that Darwinists are the reigning kings of ‘assuming their conclusion’ of Darwinian evolution in spite of the fact that their claims for Darwinian evolution have been falsified time and again, instead of me doing that, I will instead offer a falsification criteria for my self evidently true claim that it takes an immaterial mind to even contemplate the immaterial realm of mathematics in the first place.

    James Franklin, who is a professor of mathematics at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, puts the falsification criteria like this, “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.”

    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.
    http://aeon.co/magazine/world-.....-be-about/

    Or to put the falsification criteria for my claim more specifically, build a computer that can create new mathematical axioms and thus violate the law of conservation of information.

    As David Robertson stated, “Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation.”

    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/~dou...../info8.pdf?

    Moreover JVL, if you can prove that a computer can create axioms and violate the law of conservation of information, then not only will you have proved that it does not take an immaterial mind to contemplate the immaterial realm of mathematics in the first place, but you will have also falsified the primary claim of Intelligent Design advocates that only Intelligent minds can create information.

    So JVL, there you go, it is a ‘two birds with one stone’ falsification criteria for you.

    “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
    – Karl Popper

    Shoot JVL, if you meet that falsification criteria you will be well on your way to collecting the 10 million dollar prize that Perry Marshall and company are offering for the first person who can prove that it does not take Intelligence to create a code.

    Evolution 2.0 Prize: Unprecedented $10 Million Offered To Replicate Cellular Evolution
    Excerpt: An incentive prize ten times the size of the Nobel – believed to be the largest single award ever in basic science – is being offered to the person or team solving the largest mystery in history: how genetic code inside cells got there,,,,
    https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/evolution-2-0-prize-unprecedented-10-million-offered-to-replicate-cellular-evolution-875038146.html

    Here are a few more notes on the ‘self-evidently true’ fact that it takes an immaterial mind to even contemplate the immaterial realm of mathematics in the first place,

    “What he (Godel) shows is that if you trust this algorithm for proving mathematical things then you can see, by the way that it is constructed, that it is true. But you can also see, by the way it is constructed, that it cannot be proved by this procedure. Now this is amazing to me. It tells me that you can not formalize your understanding in a scheme which you can put on a computer.”
    – Roger Penrose explains Godel’s incompleteness theorem in 3 minutes – video (2:45 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/w11mI67R95I?t=164

    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.....-stupidity

    The Turing Test Is Dead. Long Live the Lovelace Test.
    Robert J. Marks II – July 3, 2014
    Excerpt: Here are a few others statements expressing doubt about the computer’s ability to create Strong AI.
    “…no operation performed by a computer can create new information.”
    Douglas G. Robertson
    “The [computing] machine does not create any new information, but it performs a very valuable transformation of known information.”
    Leon Brillouin
    “Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine.”
    – Kurt Godel
    and, of course, my favorite:
    “Computers are no more able to create information than iPods are capable of creating music.”
    – Robert J. Marks II
    The limitations invoked by the law of conservation of information in computer programming have been a fundamental topic of investigation by Winston Ewert, William Dembski and me at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab. We have successfully and repeatedly debunked claims that computer programs simulating evolution are capable of generating information any greater than that intended by the programmer.8,9,10,11,12,13
    https://evolutionnews.org/2014/07/the_turing_test_1/

    Robert Marks: Some Things Computers Will Never Do: Nonalgorithmic Creativity and Unknowability – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm0s7ag3SEc

    What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018
    Excerpt: In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities.
    https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

    Verse:

    2 Corinthians 4:18
    “So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.”

Leave a Reply