Scientific Argument for God's existence

[mmarco]

I'm not sure, in fact I'm quite uncertain about it, but shouldn't Heisenberg be spelt with an N, not an M. Now don't just collapse in shock, or wave this off with a catty comment like Schrodinger, tell us what your position is.

OK, I pressed the wrong key on the keyboard: I apologize.

My position is exactly what I wrote in my initial post: the laws of physics describe nature in terms of quarks, quantum fields, bosons, etc.; all these terms actually refer to abstract mathematical models which are the elements of a complex mathematical theory; also the intuitive concept of particle has revealed inadequate to describe the microscopic phenomena. Unless you consider the success of the laws of physics, which represents the basis of modern technological progress, as an unbelievably lucky series of coincidences, you should agree with the idea that our mathematical models describe the intimate structure of the universe; such structure would consist of abstract mathematical relations, because this is what the laws of physics express. The rational conceptual nature of the structure of the universe implies that the universe cannot exist without a mind conceving it according to such mathematical structures. Unless you choose solipsism (which means that such mind conceiving the universe is your own mind) you must identify such mind with the mind of an intelligent God.

 

[Speedwell]

OK, I pressed the wrong key on the keyboard: I apologize.

My position is exactly what I wrote in my initial post: the laws of physics describe nature in terms of quarks, quantum fields, bosons, etc.; all these terms actually refer to abstract mathematical models which are the elements of a complex mathematical theory; also the intuitive concept of particle has revealed inadequate to describe the microscopic phenomena. Unless you consider the success of the laws of physics, which represents the basis of modern technological progress, as an unbelievably lucky series of coincidences, you should agree with the idea that our mathematical models describe the intimate structure of the universe; such structure would consist of abstract mathematical relations, because this is what the laws of physics express. The rational conceptual nature of the structure of the universe implies that the universe cannot exist without a mind conceving it according to such mathematical structures. Unless you choose solipsism (which means that such mind conceiving the universe is your own mind) you must identify such mind with the mind of an intelligent God.

The mathematical models don't describe the intimate structure of the universe, they model, with some success, the behavior of the universe. And this is not just a coincidence because the models were constructed based on our observations of that behavior.

 

[Ophiolite]

OK, I pressed the wrong key on the keyboard: I apologize.

There was no need to apologise. My humour can be obscure.

 

[mmarco]

The mathematical models don't describe the intimate structure of the universe, they model, with some success, the behavior of the universe. And this is not just a coincidence because the models were constructed based on our observations of that behavior.

I think you have missed the point: there is no reason to expect that a mathematical model could be constructed so that it can sistematically predicts natural phenomena.
Quantum mechanics was developped in the first decades of last century, but it has predicted correctly thousands of experiments performed afterwards.
If QM didn't describe the intimate structure of matter, these predictions would be to me just an unbelievable lucky serioes of coincidences.

 

[Speedwell]

I think you have missed the point: there is no reason to expect that a mathematical model could be constructed so that it can sistematically predicts natural phenomena.
Quantum mechanics was developped in the first decades of last century, but it has predicted correctly thousands of experiments performed afterwards.
If QM didn't describe the intimate structure of matter, these predictions would be to me just an unbelievable lucky serioes of coincidences.

And the models have undergone constant revision. But as long as the models work, who cares? Instrumentality is what we want from scientific theories, not unfalsifiable ontological claims.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

there is no reason to expect that a mathematical model could be constructed so that it can sistematically predicts natural phenomena.

Why not? In order for the world to be structured and behave the way it does - and for living things to evolve - the interactions between its fundamental parts must have, or produce, consistent and repeatable patterns at some scale. It seems unsurprising that mathematics can model those patterns.

Quantum mechanics was developped in the first decades of last century, but it has predicted correctly thousands of experiments performed afterwards.

QM only tells you the probability of getting a particular outcome when you measure a quantum system.

 

[mmarco]

And the models have undergone constant revision. But as long as the models work, who cares? Instrumentality is what we want from scientific theories, not unfalsifiable ontological claims .

The point is that if such models didn't express the intimate structure of reality, they shouldn't work and sistematically predict natural phenomena. The fact that they work is to me something worth considering.

 

[Speedwell]

The point is that if such models didn't express the intimate structure of reality, they shouldn't work and sistematically predict natural phenomena. The fact that they work is to me something worth considering.

You'll have to explain that in more detail.

 

[mmarco]

Why not? In order for the world to be structured and behave the way it does - and for living things to evolve - the interactions between its fundamental parts must have, or produce, consistent and repeatable patterns at some scale. It seems unsurprising that mathematics can model those patterns.
.

I consider your term "repeatible patterns" just an empty and vague rethorical term to avoid the more specific term "mathematical or rational structure".
It is always easy to use vague terms.
A working model must have a structure similar to the modelled entity; for example you can make a map of a town because both the town and the map have a geometrical structure. You cannot make a map of a smell, because a smell doesn't have a geometrical structure. The success of the laws of physics proves that what you call "repeatable patterns" are indeed the mathematical relations expressed by the laws of physics.

 

[Speedwell]

I consider your term "repeatible patterns" just an empty and vague rethorical term to avoid the more specific term "mathematical or rational structure".
It is always easy to use vague terms.
A working model must have a structure similar to the modelled entity; for example you can make a map of a town because both the town and the map have a geometrical structure. You cannot make a map of a smell, because a smell doesn't have a geometrical structure. The success of the laws of physics proves that what you call "repeatable patterns" are indeed the mathematical relations expressed by the laws of physics.

Yet there are many ways to map a town, all with good predictive value but without the "visual" geometric similarity to, say, an overhead photo.

 

[mmarco]

Yet there are many ways to map a town, all with good predictive value but without the "visual" geometric similarity to, say, an overhead photo.

I don't understand what you mean; a map is never predictive; it just described a static situation; a map cannot tell you how the town will become during the next years

 

[Speedwell]

I don't understand what you mean; a map is never predictive; it just described a static situation; a map cannot tell you how the town will become during the next years

But a schematic transit map can predict where to get off the subway to get to a certain part of town, all without resembling the actual physical layout of the town.

 

[SelfSim]

But a schematic transit map can predict where to get off the subway to get to a certain part of town, all without resembling the actual physical layout of the town.

The 'physical layout of the town' is a model too.

So is 'the smells in the town' .. and different minds hold different meanings for 'smells' too.

 

[mmarco]

But a schematic transit map can predict where to get off the subway to get to a certain part of town, all without resembling the actual physical layout of the town.

I think you are trying to avoid the problem; a schematic map still have a geometrical structure. Could you make a detailed map of a town using a smell? The point here is to make a working model, able to reproduce very well the properties of a modelled entity. The laws of physics in fact can predict very well and sistematically natural phenomena.

Let me try a different approach; what do you think we know about matter? I mean: what is matter made of?

 

[SelfSim]

I think you are trying to avoid the problem; a schematic map still have a geometrical structure. Could you make a detailed map of a town using a smell? The point here is to make a working model, able to reproduce very well the properties of a modelled entity.

This is no problem when one takes on that different minds experience smells differently. This is a prediction of the mind dependence of all models and yet, the 'reality of smells' is something you seem to imply is not able to be modelled. There is common ground upon which we can make an objective map, though.
I mean somehow, I've manage to do that as an individual, as I prepare to cringe when I approach a smelly part of town on my way to work in the train .. I can see other folk's faces contorting at the same point in the journey, too.

 

[Speedwell]

I think you are trying to avoid the problem; a schematic map still have a geometrical structure. Could you make a detailed map of a town using a smell? The point here is to make a working model, able to reproduce very well the properties of a modelled entity. The laws of physics in fact can predict very well and sistematically natural phenomena.

Let me try a different approach; what do you think we know about matter? I mean: what is matter made of?

I don't know that there is any such thing as "matter." Matter is a mental construct that we have build out of our perceptual experiences. Matter is what we visualize when we think of subatomic particles as hard little beads of "stuff." Which they're not.

 

[mmarco]

I don't know that there is any such thing as "matter." Matter is a mental construct that we have build out of our perceptual experiences. Matter is what we visualize when we think of subatomic particles as hard little beads of "stuff." Which they're not.

OK, so you say you have no idea what matter is .
This means that you think that our scientific knowledges give us no insight about the nature of the universe.
From my point of view, even if you deny it, you are implicitly assuming that all our scientific and technological success is a lucky series of coincidences.

At this point we may only agree to disagree because I do not believe in serial coincidences.

 

[Speedwell]

OK, so you say you have no idea what matter is .
This means that you think that our scientific knowledges give us no insight about the nature of the universe.
From my point of view, even if you deny it, you are implicitly assuming that all our scientific and technological success is a lucky series of coincidences.

At this point we may only agree to disagree because I do not believe in serial coincidences.

No, I don't necessarily think that. What I think is that I don't know that there is such a thing as matter, and in response to your latest post, I think you are confusing it with a property we call mass.

 

[SelfSim]

OK, so you say you have no idea what matter is .
This means that you think that our scientific knowledges give us no insight about the nature of the universe.

No .. our scientific knowledge gives us insight into what we mean when we say 'the nature of the universe'.

From my point of view, even if you deny it, you are implicitly assuming that all our scientific and technological success is a lucky series of coincidences.

No .. that's what you're assuming .. and the basis of that assumption is not testable.

The reason we note similarities is because we constrain ourselves to relevancies when we do some study. That doesn't mean we forget what it is that is actually doing that study (scientifically thinking humans) and what we put aside in order to constrain it. That's how objectivity works y'know ..

Noticing similarities is not evidence of what you conclude it as being.

At this point we may only agree to disagree because I do not believe in serial coincidences.

.. and therein, belief appears to be what you're all about .. (and not science).

 

[SelfSim]

No, I don't necessarily think that. What I think is that I don't know that there is such a thing as matter, and in response to your latest post, I think you are confusing it with a property we call mass.

The model science refers to as 'matter', is objectively testable. 'Mass' is one of the properties we can test for. The properties of matter test out well so from that, we infer that 'matter exists' (objectively).