Status
Not open for further replies.

Ronald

Exhortations
Supporter
Jul 30, 2004
4,620
982
southern
✟111,578.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
As a physiscist, I think that the strongest rational argument for God's existence is the mathematical representability of the natural laws. Science has proved that natural phenomena can be predicted through some specific mathematical equations, the laws of physics.

The fact that through a system of mathematical equations it is possible to predict sistematically the results of all mechanical, chemical, electromagnetic, optical and thermal processes makes it unreasonable to suppose that nature hasn't an intrinsic mathematical, and therefore rational, structure. There is in fact no reason to expect that a non-mathematically structured universe could be sistematically described by a system of mathematical equations. Actually the first scientists (Galileo and Newton) who began to use mathematical equations to express the natural laws, were christians and they justified their choice because they believed that the universe was a creation of an intelligent God. Their intuition has certainly revealed one of the most fruitful intuitions in history and all scientists now accept the idea that the natural laws can be expressed through matemathical equations, even if some of them (atheists and agnostics) seem not to understand the theological implications of this fact.

I would like to point out that a mathematical equation cannot exist by itself because it is an abstract concept and it may exist only as a thought in a conscious and intelligent mind.

The insurmountable problem for atheists is to explain the existence of the laws of physics and their intrinsic conceptual and mathematical nature.

Usually atheists refer to the natural laws as "patterns or regularities" (or equivalent expressions) but these are only vague and empty rethoric figures, without any real meaning. The point is that all modern physics, and in particular quantum mechanics, consists of abstract mathematical models without any concrete representations.

In conclusion, the existence of this mathematically structured universe does imply the existence of an intelliogent and conscious God; this universe cannot exist by itself, but it can exist only if there is a conscious and inteligent God conceiving it according to some specific mathematical equations.
I've heard others say it similarly, but you got it, a great defence for Gods existence. I heard someone else say, "The universe is so finely tuned, that it couldn't have happened by chance. It is made with mathematical laws that man did not make, man discovered them."
One I like to use is the fetus. How it's designed and created, not by itself. Cells into fibers into organs and systems simultaneously happens miraculously. Cells don't have intelligence, they don't decipher the genetic codes, they don't know how to create thousands of miniaturized factories within themselves that in turn create complex molecules, amino acids, proteins, etc. When you think The brain has a network of connections - 4 quadrillion. How much is that? Think of a forest of trees each having 100k leaves, then 40k trees in a square mile, and them a million square miles. Now imagine they are all connected.
But really, one cell is more complex than anything man has ever made. And with a special topping on the cake, the baby looks like both parents. You can go into it further but realize, this process cannot happen by itself. It requires an intelligent supreme being to create life, every single time with every organism.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mmarco

Active Member
Aug 7, 2019
232
83
64
Roma
✟54,312.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Which implied that anyone who disagreed with you was a solipsist.
No, this was not what I meant.

I am convinced that other people exist, and I think that also you believe the same.
I am however aware of the fact that I cannot prove the existence of other people.
The fact that I cannot prove the existence of other people is completey irrilevant to me because I need no proofs for that. In fact I find the idea that other people are only an unconscious creation of my mind, a totally unbelievable hypothesis.

In other words, we do not need a proof for everything; sometimes we just need convincing arguments.

On the basis of my knowledges in physics, the hypothesis that the universe is not a realization of mathematical models is to me as unbelivable as the hypothesis that other people are a creation of my own mind.
 
Upvote 0

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
So you need to know whether reality is mind dependent, or mind independent, before you’d know the answer to that question? (Is that right??)

How do you propose to go about knowing that, then?
It's your argument, so you need to tell us. If you want to insist that semantics is so important you need to support your position.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Well, if you consider the *whole of eternity*, it's quite likely that something intelligent has existed for a very long time.
'A very long time' is relative; quite meaningless with reference to an infinitely long period of time. With no beginning or end, can eternity even be considered a 'whole' ?
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Actually, I use these terms as synonimous; if you conceive a mathematical model and then you construct a real situation which behaves exactly as your model, you have made a realization of your model.
Er, that means they're not synonymous - one means a mathematical model, the other means a physical instantiation of a mathematical model; i.e. type/template/class vs instance.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
All we know about the universe is based on our scientific knowledges, which do not describe the universe as a "thing" but as a possible realization of abstract complex mathematical models.
We describe the universe in terms of mathematical models.

If you like the idea that our universe is a mathematical model, you should read Max Tegmark's book, 'Our Mathematical Universe', in which he argues that every mathematical structure is a universe (a universe can be arbitrarily simple).

I suspect you'd find this unpalatable for it's implied lack of intelligent direction.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
On the basis of my knowledges in physics, the hypothesis that the universe is not a realization of mathematical models is to me as unbelivable as the hypothesis that other people are a creation of my own mind.
How do you know that the mathematical models we use now exactly reflect the universe? They never have in the past.
 
Upvote 0

mmarco

Active Member
Aug 7, 2019
232
83
64
Roma
✟54,312.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Er, that means they're not synonymous - one means a mathematical model, the other means a physical instantiation of a mathematical model; i.e. type/template/class vs instance.
If you read more carefully the question I answered, I didn't mean that the words "model" and "realization" are synonymous, byt that the expressions "is modeled by" and "is the realization of" are synonymous because if A is modelled by B, then A is a realization of B.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
If you read more carefully the question I answered, I didn't mean that the words "model" and "realization" are synonymous, byt that the expressions "is modeled by" and "is the realization of" are synonymous because if A is modelled by B, then A is a realization of B.
No, that is not true at all. If A is modeled by B, then A is simulated to some degree by B, is the most you can justify.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mmarco

Active Member
Aug 7, 2019
232
83
64
Roma
✟54,312.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
How do you know that the mathematical models we use now exactly reflect the universe? They never have in the past.

Actually, I do not think that the mathematical models we use now exactly reflect the universe. What I know is that mathematical models have a property; they can be approximated by simpler mathematical models. However , these approximate models do not give the exact results of the correct models, but , within a certain range of values of the relevant parameters of the models, they reproduce well the results of the exact models.

This is exactly the relation between classical and relativistic mechanics (here I am refferring to special relativity); when the speed involved are much smaller that the speed of light, classical mechanics gives pratically the same results of relativistic mechanics.
So, classical mechanics can be derived as a particular case of relativistic mechanics.

This is exactly what happend in the history of physics; new more general models include the previous models as particular cases.

The present laws of physics explain very well all low energy processes (which includes mechanical, electromagnetic, chemical and biological processes). I do not expect that in the future there will be relevant changes in the way we describe these processes, exacltly as the advent of quantum mechanics has not changed the way we describe macroscopic processes.
It is possible that more general laws can be found for the description of high energy processes, and these models will include the present models as particular cases.
 
Upvote 0

mmarco

Active Member
Aug 7, 2019
232
83
64
Roma
✟54,312.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
No, that is not true at all. If A is modeled by B, then A is simulated to some degree by B, is the most you can justify.
I think you are simply misunderstanding my meaning of the word "realization" = real situation behaving as described by the model.
I am not interested in discussing empty semantic issues
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
If you read more carefully the question I answered, I didn't mean that the words "model" and "realization" are synonymous, byt that the expressions "is modeled by" and "is the realization of" are synonymous because if A is modelled by B, then A is a realization of B.
Ah - I think this may be where your confusion about the nature of reality arises. When you realize a model, you base the realization on the model: model -> realization; i.e. the realization is derived from the model. When you model something you base the model on that thing: thing -> model; i.e. the model is derived from the thing. In the latter case, the thing is not a realization of the model; if anything, the model is an idealization, simulation, or rendering of the thing.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mmarco

Active Member
Aug 7, 2019
232
83
64
Roma
✟54,312.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Ah - I think this may be where your confusion about the nature of reality arises. When you realize a model, you base the realization on the model: model -> realization; i.e. the realization is derived from the model. When you model something you base the model on that thing: thing -> model; i.e. the model is derived from the thing. In the latter case, the thing is not a realization of the model; if anything, the model is an idealization or simulation of the thing.

From my point of view, to say that "A is a simulation of B" or that "B is a realization of A" have exactly the same meaning.
However I think that this is an irrilevant semantic issue which does not change the meaning of what I wrote, that is:

All we know about the universe is based on our scientific knowledges, which do not describe the universe as a "thing" but as the possible realization of abstract complex mathematical models.

Personally, I find totally unbelievable the hypothesis that the universe behaves as if it was the realization of abstract mathematical models but it isn't.

On the contrary, as a physicist, I find absolutely convincig the idea that the universe is what science describes, i.e. the manifestation of abstract mathematical models, which implies a thinking God.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
First of all, fundamental particles are not "things", as also Heisenberg said; in physics, with the word "fundamental particles" we refer to abstract mathematical models; the intuitive common meaning of the word "particle" is absolutely inadequate do describe what "quantum particles" are.

"Things" shorthand for object.

If they aren't those they don't exist.

This is my point:
All we know about the universe is based on our scientific knowledges, which do not describe the universe as a "thing" but as the realization of abstract complex mathematical models.

Personally, I find totally unbelievable the hypothesis that the universe behaves as if it was the realization of abstract mathematical models but it isn't.

On the contrary, as a physicist, I find absolutely conving the idea that the universe is what science describes, i.e. the manifestation of abstract mathematical models, which implies a thinking God.

Of course you are free to reject our scientific knowledges about the universe, but in this case, what do you know about the external reality? Do you think it is just a creation of your own mind, like a dream?

It's not your knowledge I am rejecting but rather your interpretation that the universe is actually literally made out of an an abstract concept like math, and that in the case where it were that it must require an external mind for some reason to sustain it.

Those are two prospects you don't actually "know" they are what I would call a philosophical interpretation of the things you do know and you are free to simply be misunderstanding this on a very basic level as you can't really demonstrate what you know.

You've explained one problem you see, that the universe at very small levels behaves very logically like mathematics, or a mathematical model would. And you've posited a solution that you understand even less. A mind that could somehow accomplish that.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
From my point of view, to say that "A is a simulation of B" or that "B is a realization of A" have exactly the same meaning.
Yeah, that's not what 'realization' means - it's has a causal or derivative direction, similar to reification; the hint is in the 'of', as in 'X is a realization of Y'. For example, a model village of Eastling is a miniature realization of the actual village of Eastling.

However I think that this is an irrilevant semantic issue which does not change the meaning of what I wrote, that is:

All we know about the universe is based on our scientific knowledges, which do not describe the universe as a "thing" but as the possible realization of abstract complex mathematical models.
Well if a 'realization' was really synonymous with 'that which can be modelled or simulated' as you suggested above, then it very much would change the meaning - to one with which I'd agree; it does seem to possible to model or simulate or describe the universe with mathematical models.

Personally, I find totally unbelievable the hypothesis that the universe behaves as if it was the realization of abstract mathematical models but it isn't.

On the contrary, as a physicist, I find absolutely conving the idea that the universe is what science describes, i.e. the manifestation of abstract mathematical models, which implies a thinking God.
A physicist worth the name would know better than to use an argument from incredulity to bolster unsubstantiated assertion and speculative fantasy.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
How do you know that the mathematical models we use now exactly reflect the universe? They never have in the past.

The idea that quantum mechanics accurately reflects the universe in an idealized way is a bit odd to me because I was under the impression that quantum mechanics relied heavily on statistical models, where we don't know the exact nature of anything.
 
Upvote 0

mmarco

Active Member
Aug 7, 2019
232
83
64
Roma
✟54,312.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
"Things" shorthand for object.

If they aren't those they don't exist.
You have simply answered changing the word "things" with the word "object" which is a synonymous. This does not change the meaning of what I wrote:

Fundamental particles are not "things", as also Heisenberg said; in physics, with the word "fundamental particles" we refer to abstract mathematical models; the intuitive common meaning of the word "particle" is absolutely inadequate do describe what "quantum particles" are.

If you think that "If they aren't those they don't exist", you should either reject our scientific knowledges or conclude that all external reality do not exist.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,625
6,387
✟293,730.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
You have simply answered changing the word "things" with the word "object" which is a synonymous. This does not change the meaning of what I wrote:

Fundamental particles are not "things", as also Heisenberg said; in physics, with the word "fundamental particles" we refer to abstract mathematical models; the intuitive common meaning of the word "particle" is absolutely inadequate do describe what "quantum particles" are.

If you think that "If they aren't those they don't exist", you should either reject our scientific knowledges or conclude that all external reality do not exist.

No, they Simpy do exist and are external reality, thus are things.

It's a pretty broad category and accommodates your weird assertion that they must be mathematical models in the mind of a God.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mmarco

Active Member
Aug 7, 2019
232
83
64
Roma
✟54,312.00
Country
Italy
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
No, they Simpy do exist and are external reality, thus are things.
You are free to believe so, but you should be aware that your belief is incompatible with our scientific knowledges; therefore you are actually rejecting our scientific knowledges.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.