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

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,,,”

,,, 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.

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.

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,

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.’

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.

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.

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.”

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.”

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.”

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

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.”

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,

,,, 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.’

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.’

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,,,”

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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’.

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.

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

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.

Bornagain77at 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.”(that’s all just weird and strange). . .

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.”

. . .

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.

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.

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.

JVL states,

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,

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

JVL then states,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.,,,”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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

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”.

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,,,,

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,,,

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

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.,,,”

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

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.

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.”

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,,,”

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

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

You are right but you are doing it wrong.

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.

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.

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,”

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

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,

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.

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.”

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.”

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,,,”

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.”

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,

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:

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.

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

🙂

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?

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)

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.”

“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

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

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

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

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.”

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.

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;”

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’:

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’.

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’

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

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

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

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’

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:

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.

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.”

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,

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:

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….”

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

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

Verse:

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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,

Verse: