Is Intelligibility of the Quantum Universe an evidence of God's Existence?

[stevevw]

[block quotes removed]

That's what they were trying to describe with their math and often why they invented it.

Yes but I am asking was the invention of maths a reflection of what was inherent in what they were looking at. Were those relationships reflected in nature.

The topic of the thread is a claim about the intelligibility of physics, not of math. Have you viewed the OP video?

Isn't maths tied with physics. Anyway that is why I pointed out that logic would have it that if maths helps pave the way for theorectical physics that it would work all the way down to the bottom. To the void.

But this seems to also be where the maths gets a little wobbly. Logic and physical laws breakdown.

So the maths and the theory have to introduce new dimensions to accommodate the quantum world. Perhaps some sort of maths can be created. Look at string theory.

But then if you notice at the end of the video they came to the same conclusion as Lennox. The fact that maths works so well and is able to reveal deeper insights into reality points to a creator God who wanted us to understand His greatness by giving us the mind to discover this about Him.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

... and here I thought this mine was abandoned.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No it doesn't.

It points to the fact that humans are very good at coming up with accurate ways to describe reality.

To some extent, but they're not very good at sustaining constructive ways of using their descriptive knowledge of reality without further deviation, however accurate it may be.

But at center, I'm going to stick with Frank Close's closing question in his book, The Void (also in Nothing: A Very Short Introduction).

So, what do I mean? What I mean is that where the OP topic is concerned, the answer to the question is an interpretive enigma.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes but I am asking was the invention of maths a reflection of what was inherent in what they were looking at. Were those relationships reflected in nature.

Isn't maths tied with physics. Anyway that is why I pointed out that logic would have it that if maths helps pave the way for theorectical physics that it would work all the way down to the bottom. To the void.

What "void"?

But this seems to also be where the maths gets a little wobbly. Logic and physical laws breakdown.

That's weird, because I remember QM and QFT being so mathematical that knowing about them leads some people to think physics is just math. (Add GR to the mix for this conclusion as well.)

So the maths and the theory have to introduce new dimensions to accommodate the quantum world. Perhaps some sort of maths can be created. Look at string theory.

I'd rather not.

But then if you notice at the end of the video they came to the same conclusion as Lennox. The fact that maths works so well and is able to reveal deeper insights into reality points to a creator God who wanted us to understand His greatness by giving us the mind to discover this about Him.

It's she making the conclusion (it is an interview after all), and I watched this video 6 months ago. If she got to "Lennox" at the end then that would be the "strongest" argument she made, but it is overall a very weak argument that does not reflect well on the person making it. Have you read the first two pages of posts from February?

 

[stevevw]

What "void"?

You know, 'nothing, the quantum vacume.

That's weird, because I remember QM and QFT being so mathematical that knowing about them leads some people to think physics is just math. (Add GR to the mix for this conclusion as well.)

I mean just like classical physics needs new kinds of physics such as added dimensions so does the math. Theres room to manipulate and experiment to find the right formulas to move forward. Sometimes posing new problems or solving others.

I'd rather not.

It's she making the conclusion (it is an interview after all), and I watched this video 6 months ago. If she got to "Lennox" at the end then that would be the "strongest" argument she made, but it is overall a very weak argument that does not reflect well on the person making it. Have you read the first two pages of posts from February?

Some of it. It seems regardless of the evidence or lack there of its coming down to a belief as to what a person will see and conclude. If a person is closed to possibilities beyond the physical parameters then that is all they will see.

If someone is open then they will appreciated the possibilities beyond.

If those who disagree with the inference of a designer are using the scientific evidence as the measure to dispute this possibility they are doing so by belief, an epistemic and metaphysical truth claim that there is only empiricle evidence. This is beyond science and more to do with belief.

Research shows that teleological belief in nature is a natural human tendency and we are born with. So its quite natural for humans to believe there is design behind what we see and it goes beyond logical and scientific explanations.

Is There a God-Shaped Hole at the Heart of Mathematics?​

Is There a God-Shaped Hole at the Heart of Mathematics?

www.templeton.org

 

[Hans Blaster]

You know, 'nothing, the quantum vacume.

Then say that. Don't use nonsense terms like "The Void".

I mean just like classical physics needs new kinds of physics such as added dimensions so does the math.

It doesn't. Please stop talking about physics (which will be the end of your participation on this thread, sorry). You clearly don't have any idea what you are talking about and are just stringing together ideas like a chatbot.

Theres room to manipulate and experiment to find the right formulas to move forward. Sometimes posing new problems or solving others.

This was meaningless.

Some of it.

Let's see if you understood it...

It seems regardless of the evidence or lack there of its coming down to a belief as to what a person will see and conclude. If a person is closed to possibilities beyond the physical parameters then that is all they will see.

If someone is open then they will appreciated the possibilities beyond.

Nope. That's not what it was about, nor what the OP video was about.

If those who disagree with the inference of a designer are using the scientific evidence as the measure to dispute this possibility they are doing so by belief, an epistemic and metaphysical truth claim that there is only empiricle evidence. This is beyond science and more to do with belief.

Research shows that teleological belief in nature is a natural human tendency and we are born with. So its quite natural for humans to believe there is design behind what we see and it goes beyond logical and scientific explanations.

You haven't demonstrated anything about your claim (or Erika's). Only *why* you are so eager to make it.

Is There a God-Shaped Hole at the Heart of Mathematics?​

Is There a God-Shaped Hole at the Heart of Mathematics?

www.templeton.org

Templeton. LOL. Oh, wait you were serious. LOL.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Templeton. LOL. Oh, wait you were serious. LOL.

Sometimes, life is Crull like that, Hans .....................

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sometimes, life is Crull like that, Hans .....................

I never saw Krull and I don't think I will today.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I never saw Krull and I don't think I will today.

Don't be a fundamentalistic anti-intellectual with your science, Hans. We already have too many of those running around in other quadrants of society and human thought.

And by the way, I never saw Krull either. 1983 wasn't a big movie year for me.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Don't be a fundamentalistic anti-intellectual with your science, Hans. We already have too many of those running around in other quadrants of society and human thought.

And by the way, I never saw Krull either. 1983 wasn't a big movie year for me.

I don't need your 50 minute video podcast. I like Neil and all, but I don't have time for it (and the title is uninteresting). And tempelton (which was all you quoted when you posted it, so might be somehow associated) is just a trojan horse to inject religion into science. Templeton -- we know who you are and we see you. (Though I did once have an idea to squeeze some cash from them and use it against their aims...)

 

[stevevw]

Then say that. Don't use nonsense terms like "The Void".

I am only going off commonly uses words.

AI Overview

In quantum physics, the "void" or "vacuum" is not truly empty, but rather a dynamic space teeming with energy and fleeting particles.

Void (astronomy)

Void (astronomy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It doesn't. Please stop talking about physics (which will be the end of your participation on this thread, sorry). You clearly don't have any idea what you are talking about and are just stringing together ideas like a chatbot.

In your opinion.

This was meaningless.

AI Overview

Mathematics, while often perceived as a realm of objective truth, is also a field where manipulation and invention play crucial roles in the development of new theories and concepts. Mathematicians create new mathematical structures and systems by abstracting from known concepts, inventing novel rules and axioms, and exploring the logical consequences of these constructions. This process of invention and manipulation allows for the exploration of possibilities beyond what is directly observable and can lead to breakthroughs in various scientific and technological fields.

Let's see if you understood it...

Nope. That's not what it was about, nor what the OP video was about.

How can it not be when you dispute the commentators conclusion that the maths and physics points to intelligence. Disputing the claim is itself a belief.

Do you have evidence that there is no intelligence behind the physical laws. Otherwise its a belief. Its making claims beyond the science.

You haven't demonstrated anything about your claim (or Erika's). Only *why* you are so eager to make it.

The same can be said as to why those are so eager to dispute this beyond what the science can verify. I am not trying to claim intelligence or design is a fact. Only that it ultimately comes down to a belief on boths sides.

Templeton. LOL. Oh, wait you were serious. LOL.

An ad hominem.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am only going off commonly uses words.

The thread's topic is based on physics, not common words. Use physics terms properly.

AI Overview

I don't care what your AI said. Do you own work. An AI can't understand for you.

[AI output removed]

Void (astronomy)

Void (astronomy) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not related to QM at all.

In your opinion.

As an expert.

AI Overview

I don't care what your AI said. Do you own work. An AI can't understand for you.

[AI output removed]

How can it not be when you dispute the commentators conclusion that the maths and physics points to intelligence. Disputing the claim is itself a belief.

Do you have evidence that there is no intelligence behind the physical laws. Otherwise its a belief. Its making claims beyond the science.

Because I was disputing that *you* understood the claims made in the OP based on your responses. You clearly didn't.

The same can be said as to why those are so eager to dispute this beyond what the science can verify. I am not trying to claim intelligence or design is a fact. Only that it ultimately comes down to a belief on boths sides.

Which is not what my responses from February were about, nor my commentary on the video's claims. You are arguing against things I haven't been saying.

An ad hominem.

I know what Templeton is and what their (semi-hidden) goals are. I don't care what they publish.

Steve, a few things you need to know:

1. I discard all AI output posted to this site. (I also skip all bible quotes, unless the discussion is specifically about them.)
2. Links are not arguments. Links provide references and sources to back your argument.
3. I'm probably not going to watch any embedded videos either, with exceptions like the OP.

As to this thread, what you have posted is not tied to the claims made by the Purdue physics professor in the video in the OP. That video uses the regularity of physics as an argument for god. I made my assessment of her claim quite plainly in the first two pages of this thread. If you want to discuss those claims and counter claims, that is fine, but be sure you know what is being discussed first. (If you have a question, I am open to replying.)

 

[Grafted In]

Perhaps it's been pointed out.
Knowledge isn't Wisdom.