In the Beginning...which one are you?

[Max Byzantium]

1. God created the Universe in 6, 24 hour days. (Young Earth view)

2. God created the Universe over billions of years. (Old Earth view)

3. God is behind the Big Bang, but allows the Universe to evolve based on the laws of physics and biology. (Theistic Evolution).

4. There is no God, he is construct of man. The Universe is a mathimatical probability. (Athiestic view).

Personally, I am number 3 guy.

[harvey1]

In other words, doesn't it seem compelling that our material realm is acting in response to some kind of mathematical realm?

No!Mathematics is used only to model the physical phenomena. The math may reveal something deeper about the underlying causes, but then again it may not.

If it doesn't, then you should be able to explain why the world can be understood in short, concise mathematical equations (e.g., e=mc^2). For example, Pythagorean's theorem which is used to calculate distances of a hypotenuse (etc) is extremely precise.

Not all of the world can be described in short, concise mathematical statements. We still struggle with accurate weather forecasts beyond a few days... In the planar realm, the Pythagorean theorem does serve us quite well. In non-Euclidean geometry, things can get much trickier.

Actually, chaos theory is filling in the holes in some of these chaotic systems. Also, the fact that the world is chaotic is all the more reason to be utterly amazed at the simplicity of the major theoretical equations. If the universe were completely non-mathematical, as many are suggesting, then you would not expect chaos conforming to rather straightforward fractal algorithms and you would not expect simplicity in the major theoretical equations and you would not expect approximately true theories (e.g., Newton's theories) to be deducible from the more fundamental theory (e.g., quantum theory or relativity theory).

In fact, it is used in special relativity as well. You can prove the theorem from simple axioms of math.

While the Pythagorean theorem can be proven using simple axioms, confirming special relativity was, again, a bit trickier.

Yes, a bit trickier, however after the work of physicists such as Emmy Noether, all the major known laws of physics have been deduced from global and local symmetries. This alone should settle the question. See http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0001061

Now, are you saying that there it is a matter of pure chance that some of our most accurate and wide-encompassing theories of science which use some of these equations just happen to be simple and concise?

Chance or not, it certainly is convenient that we can understand and predict several aspects of nature with some physics that uses not-so-difficult mathematics. On the other hand, I doubt that we'll ever be able to summarize some aspects of nature so tersely. In fact, I'd probably feel a bit shortchanged if my emotional attraction to the very lovely msmufin, for example, could be reduced to a handful of equations. Ultimately, I don't think nature has any obligation to adhere to our best theoretical or mathematical models. That so many things are predictable, however, suggests to me that we're on the right track in understanding our universe. That many things still confound us should help to keep us all humble.

I don't disagree with that at all. But, this is not exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying that you cannot explain the mathematical aspect of physics to be simple and beautiful (as many famous physicists have called this attribute) to be determined by chance alone. True, there is chaos equations that show that the world from the simple equations of physics the world can be very complex, but, this just shows the effectiveness of those simple equations to be complex allowing a world to exist. We should all be in utter awe of the Creator that governs this universe.

[harvey1]

If you look at equations of engineering designs, you would see the equations that are very messy. However, if you look at major scientific theories, you see that most of the main equations inevitably reduce to some pretty simply stated equations that everyone can at least understand to some point (e.g., "energy is equal to..."). This would seem to go against a case where mathematics is invented.

Mathematics at its root is not "invented" because enumerating or counting things is what intelligent beings do. We have fingers, toes, sheep, bananas, and we count them. Euclid didn't have computers, he drew pictures in the mud with sticks. His achievements are not metaphysical, they're intelligent. And if we ever come in contact with extra-terrestrials we will undoubtedly communicate via mathematics. Doesn't this say more about intelligence than it does about the universe? But as a language Mathematics is invented.

No, not at all. Inventions are sloppy. For example, if I were to invent electronic paper that will download the New York Times at 7:00 am every day, then you would see a lot of improvising in the materials, the chemistry, the electronic circuits, etc. The only simple equations would be the equations that I needed to understand chemistry and electronics, all of which I would have needed to learn long time ago. In no way could you deduce electronic paper that downloads the New York Times at 7:00 am by simply referring to some basic symmetry relations as you can do most of physics. And, the invention with all the sloppy equations would in no be nearly as accurate as my invention. I'd be dealing with micrometers of precision, whereas the physics laws that we currently have are extremely accurate at the quantum scales.

With no disrespect, harvey1 if you want to ascribe the mathematical nature of the universe to any religion I would think you would be espousing Dionysian Mysteries. Aren't you on the wrong bulletin board for this?

I worship the God of Truth. That God just happens to have declared that identity as a Symmetry, which not so coincidentally, is a Trinity. I think I'm in the right place.

[harvey1]

If it doesn't, then you should be able to explain why the world can be understood in short, concise mathematical equations (e.g., e=mc^2).

The simple elegance you admire is in fact an illusion. The equation you note is a simple one, showing only that energy and mass are proportional (E~M). Direct proportionality is one of the ways things can relate to each other. (Others being a=b^2, a= b^3, etc; trigonometric function, a=sin(b); exponenets, a=2^b, a=e^b; and several others.) All relationships between two things are simple when expressed in bare mathematical terms.

Wow. Do you really think physics is that simple? Two relationships and that's about it?

In order to declare this a fundementally simple and concise relationship you need to examine the value of the constant (c^2). That's where you will see order and regularity. The relationship E=M is simple. The relationship E=2M is simple. What do you make of the relationship E=M*2.99792458e8^2 (approximately)?

Constants have absolutely nothing to add or subtract to the notion of mathematical beauty. If all the constants were whole numbers, that would mean diddly. Let's say that you use a constant that is equal to 5280 feet. In physics you can just label it 1 mile. It really doesn't matter much.

In addition, what you are missing is that often physics is a specific case of a general case that is dealt with in mathematics. Constants in math are just labeled a constant variable, and the constant value could be anything. But, this still shows that the specific case of physics is a general case of math, and the general case (which physics is a specific case of) are deducible by some very simple axioms (e.g., associative law, transitive law, identity, etc). What the whole math-in-physics-is-random-mishmush hypothesis says is that you shouldn't be able to deduce equations of such enormous utility with such simple mathematical axioms. It would be an extraordinary coincidence of some fantastic order to suggest such a possibility.

Is there any order, simplicity, or regularity in the universe, as significed by the fundemental constants? No. The permittivity of the vacuum is 8.85418782e-12, approximately. The permeability of the vacuum is 12.5663706144e-7, approximately. Faraday Constant? 9.648456e4, approximately. Gas Constant? 8.31441, approximately. Gravitational Constant? 6.67204e-11, approximately.

Let's assume you were right that reals in the constants is significant (it's not, but let's assume). Then by changing the equations of physics you should be able to get the same predictive results just as long as you can 'fix' the constants (or even add constants). You might be able to construct some predictive laws, but you wouldn't get far. Every equation would be ad hoc, perfectly adjusted to predict some physical phenomena, but it wouldn't work in other areas. For example, you might be able to create a false Pythagorean equation that works for a few cases, but when you use your false Pythagorean equation in situations you didn't rig the results, it would not work. This is the fallacy similar to the Bible Code. You just rig the results after you already know what it is you must explain, but you can't explain situations that you haven't encountered. Such is the situation you would expect if mathematics is invented.

In addition to the above, with the actual equations themselves you can calculate values other than constants, such as the distance to the sun, diameter of the earth, etc. Does this mean that the equations are not beautiful because the results aren't beautiful? Of course not. That is a numerologists dream, not those seeing obvious beauty in the equations of physics. In fact, I strongly suspect the constants will eventually be shown to be necessitated by mathematical constants, etc, but I'll report that news if it ever comes available...

Pi, famously, is an irrational number.

Ironically, pi is apparently random in its digits, however the new Bailey-Borwein-Plouffe algorithm can now pick an nth digit in pi and find its value without calculating the previous digits that come prior to it (see http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc ... thland.htm ). So, be careful of randomness, things might not be as random as they look.

[Amphigorey]

If you look at equations of engineering designs, you would see the equations that are very messy. However, if you look at major scientific theories, you see that most of the main equations inevitably reduce to some pretty simply stated equations that everyone can at least understand to some point (e.g., "energy is equal to..."). This would seem to go against a case where mathematics is invented.

No, not at all. Inventions are sloppy. And, the invention with all the sloppy equations would in no be nearly as accurate as my invention.

harvey1 you may be selective in your choice of equations. Trig functions describe simple geometric figures, so you wouldn't expect complex equations. However, the world is full of more complex modeling problems like turbulence that have nothing to do with man made inventions.

I worship the God of Truth. That God just happens to have declared that identity as a Symmetry, which not so coincidentally, is a Trinity. I think I'm in the right place.

Again, no disrespect intended, harvey1. I'm certain we're all exactly where we're supposed to be. I'll have to read "Symmetry and the Beautiful Universe" by Leon Lederman whose other book is titled "The God Particle"

[harvey1]

harvey1 you may be selective in your choice of equations. Trig functions describe simple geometric figures, so you wouldn't expect complex equations. However, the world is full of more complex modeling problems like turbulence that have nothing to do with man made inventions.

Sure, the complex world has complex equations. BUT, this is not the point. The point is that the equations that describe the forces and describe the fundamental particle reactions (i.e., the world that evolves from quarks to planets) are simple and the equations are full of beauty. In addition, it looks like they stem from some general symmetry principles. Hence, this is not what you would expect if mathematics is invented - actually, far from what you would expect. I'm shocked that this is going by unnoticed.

[juliod]

Constants have absolutely nothing to add or subtract to the notion of mathematical beauty. If all the constants were whole numbers, that would mean diddly.

You're wrong! You're Wrong! You're Wrong!

When people talk about beauty and math (for example in architecture and art) it is always in terms of proportion. The constants in equations give the proportions.

So it may be aestetic to arrange columns so that their spacing is in a ratio of 1:3 with their height. No one claims that the proportion is irrelevant, or that a ratio of 1:9.648456 would be equally as pleasing.

But more importantly, the equations can be invented or formulated by humans. The constants are the one thing we have no control over. They are determined by the state of the universe, and we can only measure them, but not influence them.

If there were evidence of simplicity and beauty in physics it would be in the constants.

DanZ

[harvey1]

Constants have absolutely nothing to add or subtract to the notion of mathematical beauty. If all the constants were whole numbers, that would mean diddly.

You're wrong! You're Wrong! You're Wrong!

It looks like I ran into the core part of your conceptual scheme of the world that absolutely will not consider anything but atheism, even if it means you have to put your hands on your ears and stomp your feet saying I'm wrong repeatedly.

When people talk about beauty and math (for example in architecture and art) it is always in terms of proportion. The constants in equations give the proportions.

The constants are being reduced in number with each successive physical theory which presents a unification of multiple theories. For example, the standard model presented approximately 19 or so 'fundamental' constants. Now, new theories are popping up (e.g., string theory) which propose to drastically drop the number of fundamental constants to some obscene low number (e.g., 0, 1, 2, etc). See http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0110060 ].

But more importantly, the equations can be invented or formulated by humans. The constants are the one thing we have no control over. They are determined by the state of the universe, and we can only measure them, but not influence them. If there were evidence of simplicity and beauty in physics it would be in the constants.

As I mentioned above, as our theories become more fundamental, the number of constants are reduced as well. Or, as you might say, "You're Wrong".

[old ag]

[quote="harvey1"][quote="Max Byzantium"]1. God created the Universe in 6, 24 hour days. (Young Earth view)

2. God created the Universe over billions of years. (Old Earth view)

3. God is behind the Big Bang, but allows the Universe to evolve based on the laws of physics and biology. (Theistic Evolution).

4. There is no God, he is construct of man. The Universe is a mathematical probability. (Atheistic view).



Old Ag here is a No. 1 guy.

A local (Dallas/Ft. Worth) talk show host I USED to listen to, once asked a caller who was supporting view #1, "why is your faith so weak that you need "bad" science (HIS definition of Creation Science, NOT mine) to support your religion?" My question to him and anyone else in return is, "Why is your faith so weak that you can not believe what God tells you?'

We know at least two things about the nature of God: 1. He is not the author of confusion (1Cor. 14:33), and 2. He can not lie (Heb. 6:18). To bend the plain language of Gen 1 to accept evolution as God's method makes GOD violate both these fundamental tenants of his relations with man. (By the way, Creation ExNihilo Magazine reported over 10-years ago that the professors of Hebrew at 10 well known universities worldwide had analyzed the original Hebrew language, context and sentence construction of Gen. 1 and concluded that the word "day", as used there, in that language, can mean ONLY a normal 24-hr. day, See answersingenesis.org).

Question: By what possible rules of exegesis, logic or common sense can any Christian say that we can't believe what God plainly states in Gen. 1 but that we can believe what he plainly says in John 3:16? If the first falls, the second falls because the foundation is gone.

Old Ag

[Jose]

A local (Dallas/Ft. Worth) talk show host I USED to listen to, once asked a caller who was supporting view #1, "why is your faith so weak that you need "bad" science (HIS definition of Creation Science, NOT mine) to support your religion?" My question to him and anyone else in return is, "Why is your faith so weak that you can not believe what God tells you?'

And I wonder why so many Christians seem to think that the bible can be undermined by a mere scientific finding. Why is it such a big deal that there is evolution? It doesn't destroy the real fundamentals of Faith. It just points to another bit that we should take metaphorically.