Way to miss the point.
For example, if the universe followed Newton's Laws, we wouldn't have needed General Relativity, and we know GR itself is incomplete...
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ten arguments for intelligent design
- Thread starter rockytopva
- Start date
For example, if the universe followed Newton's Laws, we wouldn't have needed General Relativity, and we know GR itself is incomplete...
Approximate in as much as they are either inaccurate (e.g. Newton's Laws), or incomplete (e.g. GR, QM) descriptions, or both.
The point is that we derive them from observation and measurement; they are descriptions limited in domain and/or precision.
Upvote
0
So you are referring to the innacuracies inherent in the design of measurement equipment then?
Hmm .. theory also comes into that ..
Upvote
0
See, the pretense that any of those assumptions might be 'conditional', in my experience, is usually (demonstrably) just more unevidenced belief. (I should await FB's response before concluding that in this case however .. I'm certainly not sure about that myself yet ..)
Provisional assumptions, when put the test, frequently turn out to be mind independent beliefs lurking under the guise of 'reasonable-ness'. Not all minds see things the same way .. this forum is testament to that. But this is just normal for the notion of mind dependence .. and actually works against the truly mind independence idea.
Upvote
0
stevil
Godless and without morals
Yes, scientists and mathematicians have created formulas which accurately predict future observations, showing that 1. there is a consistency to reality and 2. humans are gaining a very good understanding of reality and are able to devise formula and models that are consistent with new discoveries found after the formula and models were formed.
One would think if an intelligent consciousness were dictating events then there would be a level of unpredictability and inconsistency about events as this consciousness could try something new, or change their mind. If the intelligent consciousness is merely maintaining or following a consistent set of rules, then where is the "intelligence" needed in the equation?
Also as documented thoughts in science and math textbooks as well.
I do agree though with the premise that it took intelligent life forms to devise mathematics systems and equations.
But where is the part where a proof is presented for an intelligent designer or god creator of the universe and natural properties of our physical reality?
Upvote
0
.. where the objectively demonstrated position is that the similarities are more to do with the in-common mode of their thinking (objectivity) .. and the outcome of objective testing is what provides science with the meaning of the term 'reality', whenever reality is used by scientists. ('Reality' is a testable model amongst scientific thinkers .. which when retested by them, regenerates the meaning of 'reality').
The observations made by humans and their descriptions (the latter of which, actually qualifies them as observations) are models. In science, those models are objectively testable. Math formulae (as it pertains to the scientific model of reality) are themselves, also testable models. Our scientific understanding is what emerges from following that modelling/testing process.stevil said:
The equation reflects the intelligence of the 'intelligent consciousness' .. which would be human, otherwise we couldn't make sense of our own perceptions/observations (eg: of the universe).stevil said:
Yes .. they were all written and the contents were conceived by human minds (objectively evidenced).stevil said:
Thank goodness!stevil said:
.. is the notion even testable in the first place?stevil said:
Upvote
0
Having done three years of Pure Mathematics as an undergraduate before going over to the dark side of the Force (Applied Mathematics), I strongly suspect the vast majority of pure mathematicians are in the business of discovering mathematics not inventing it.
Pure mathematicians use logic, a human invention, as a tool for making discoveries much like astronomers use a telescope as a tool making discoveries about our Universe.
While mathematical theorems are largely in the field of Pure Mathematics, some theorems have their origins in Physics, which provides perspective to whether maths is discovered or invented.
Once such theorem is Birkoff’s theorem;
This important theorem led to the validation of the Schwarzschild metric which is a solution of the Einstein’s vacuum equations and has led to the various successful predictions such as Black Holes, the perihelion advance of Mercury’s orbit and gravitational time dilation.
If Birkoff’s thereom was invented, then one can argue the theorem was made up to justify the existence of the Schwarzschild metric; otherwise if it was discovered then the Schwarzschild metric becomes a logical conclusion of the theorem.
Pure mathematicians use logic, a human invention, as a tool for making discoveries much like astronomers use a telescope as a tool making discoveries about our Universe.
While mathematical theorems are largely in the field of Pure Mathematics, some theorems have their origins in Physics, which provides perspective to whether maths is discovered or invented.
Once such theorem is Birkoff’s theorem;
Birkoff's theroem said:
This important theorem led to the validation of the Schwarzschild metric which is a solution of the Einstein’s vacuum equations and has led to the various successful predictions such as Black Holes, the perihelion advance of Mercury’s orbit and gravitational time dilation.
If Birkoff’s thereom was invented, then one can argue the theorem was made up to justify the existence of the Schwarzschild metric; otherwise if it was discovered then the Schwarzschild metric becomes a logical conclusion of the theorem.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
stevil
Godless and without morals
Sometimes the tests uncover some surprises and so the scientists need to discard their held ideas and instead explore this "new" reality which is revealed to them by the data/results.
Science is a method of discovery, rather than a creation or defining of reality.
But the equation represents our modelling of our understanding of reality and represents this in a falsifiable way. Good experimental scientists, construct tests that can invalidate those models and when multiple models are being assessed, they construct tests which distinguish between those models in contradictory ways, such that at least one is proven false.
I have yet to see a definition of a god or intelligent designer which is constructed in such a way that it is testable. Those proposing gods or IDs haven't got that far yet. So, personally, I'd reject those ideas until the definition has been formed sufficient enough for testing.
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 15,823
- 1,696
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Not according to one of the great minds of mathematics Roger Penrose. It has always been there for us to discover. As Penrose states some think that math is the best way we have come to understand the world but it is not us that has discovered this it is really out there. These mathematical equations that describe reality are very precise beyond what humans could have worked out. Feynman's described its accuracy as measuring the distance between New York and Los Angles as being precise within the thickness of a hair. Newtons theory has an accuracy of 10 to the 7 and Einsteins theory is accurate to 10 to the power of 14.
Mathematical facts like there is no largest prime number is true independent of humans and has always been true and didn't suddenly become true because we discovered it. Penrose likens Math to archeology or geology where we are discovering beautiful things that have always been there and we are revealing them for the first time.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Birkoff's theorem looks to have emerged from some pretty deep thinking around the topic of the field equations(?)
If this is so, then I can see that borrowing some other 'logically true' theorems from the bowels of other already proven math, as a way to come up with a solution to the FEs would be a great idea .. (If I'm off track here .. just say so) ..
Ideas happen all the time .. I guess at the end of the day, does it really matter whether ideas (like this) are 'invented' or 'discovered' .. especially if they end up producing something as importantly useful as the Schwarzschild metric?
Upvote
0
Sure. It would be pretty silly not to at least consider updating their models to accommodate the best tested out results.
.. And I would argue that using already tested (objectively) models to make predictions and pursuing those, gives us a better chance than proceeding on 'faith' (or beliefs).stevil said:
(I guess this goes without the need for saying it explicitly though, eh?)
Sure .. this is a productive use of math (and logic).stevil said:
Sure .. untestability is a sure way for science to 'park' beliefs and proceed with testing. I'm not sure untestable ideas are necesarily rejected though(?) Perhaps 'neutralised' might be a better description of how science handles them(?)stevil said:
Upvote
0
And yet, other 'great minds' like Stephen Hawking have published books like 'The Grand Design' which portrays a different 'model dependent reality' .. a view which is testable, and generates abundant evidence, whereas Penrose's personal amazement has led him to believe that the universe is mathematics and can offer not much more than the accuracy argument (see below).
So what is the accuracy argument supposed to be telling us?stevevw said:
A colleague of mine argued that we still don't know if there is a 'true mathematical theory that is exactly correct, so how does having a theory that is 'close to perfect' actually demonstrate that there is some sort of reality that is independent from either Penrose's (or Feynman's) minds? Are we supposed to think that if we have a theory that is 'close to true', there should be some other theory that is 'exactly true'? Or are we supposed to think there is no 'exactly true' theory, but the truly mind independent one, is the thing that is 'nearly true'?
How are we supposed to figure out which of those is the actual evidence of some mind independent math based reality?
Whilst Penrose, Feynman and most of us, are justifiably amazed that math works as well as it does, (even in applications we almost never encounter in our everyday lives), none of that adds up to being evidence of anything existing independently from any of those amazed minds.
All we have here is language that is in a conflict between the meanings of 'mind-independent' and 'reality'.
How did it get to be 'true' if mathematicians didn't figure it out as being 'true' based on the initial axioms of math? And when last I looked, mathematicians are humans .. and are certainly dependent on their minds!stevevw said:
What is the basis of the declaration of: 'it is true independent of of humans' when we already know that its 'truth' was declared by humans who were following the logical processes laid out in math, which is based on axioms similarly merely declared as being 'true'?
So he's created that as a new model in his mind because it pleases him .. so what's new about that? And how can that be a demonstration of true mind independence?stevevw said:
Upvote
0
There is that, but my main point is that the laws of physics we've devised are descriptive (of our observations) not prescriptive (of the universe). The universe does what it does, and we formulate physical laws to match what appear to be the significant aspects of that behaviour in some context.
Upvote
0
Whether mathematics was invented or discovered is one of those philosophical 'angels on the head of a pin' arguments that go nowhere - if you devise a set of logical rules and axioms and explore their implications you'll likely find many different ways of saying the same thing using that formal system. Did those various results exist before you expressed them? Yes and no - they were latent in, or implied by, the formal system you devised. If you choose rules and axioms derived from practical experience of the world, counting and so-on, then you'll get something like standard mathematics. But if you choose different axioms for your formal system you'll get a non-standard logic or mathematics that behaves quite differently - did you invent or discover this different formal system? Both, kind of - you invented a new set of axioms, but the whole edifice is latent in those axioms - anyone who chose those axioms would get the same result. If you think about it, the same principle applies to any 'invention'; it's really more a sematic argument.
Of course they're absolutely precise - they're mathematical; but they're only approximately accurate. Obviously they're very good approximations, they were derived from very careful observations, and with that intent. But they're only as good as our assumptions about the world - for example, we discovered that our assumption that velocities were strictly additive was incorrect.
Mathematical statements are true because they follow from the axioms - they are, in a sense tautologically true, true by definition. If you use different axioms you'll get different truths, just as the physical rule that velocities are strictly additive produces a description of a universe where faster than light travel is possible, but is not true of our universe.
It's true to the extent that we discover the implications of the rules and axioms of such formal systems. See above.
Upvote
0
stevil
Godless and without morals
By rejection, I don't mean asserting that the idea is false.
But just rejecting it as a poorly formed idea, or hypothesis.
There are an infinite amount of things we can imagine. But the vast majority of those ideas are going to be false. This doesn't mean that all of them are false though.
But if the idea does lend itself towards measurability or testability, then there is no point wasting time on it.
Upvote
0
And what about predictions? Aren't they 'prescriptive'?
A truism, eh?FrumiousBandersnatch said:
So 'matching' significant behaviours implies the universe is independent of our laws of physics then?FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Upvote
0
This seems to be a semantic argument about 'prescription'; physical laws are prescriptive in the sense that they are specified laws, but not in the sense that they determine behaviour. Does that clarify my meaning?
Well I guess our physical laws, like everything else we construct, are part of the universe, and because they're also derived from our observations of the universe, they're dependent, to some extent, on the behaviour of the universe. So not independent.
Upvote
0
Ok .. (thanks).
Its interesting .. the model you have for of all this, brings up cause and effect .. ie: the laws don't cause (or determine) the effect (the behaviour) .. and yet cause/effect is a very slippery slope in physics.
The model I present however, treats a prediction as a belief under test. Such beliefs are prescriptive (in the sense of giving us an idea about what we can expect).
Its really a personal choice as to which model one chooses ... I guess I'm more passionate about keeping track of precisely how we arrived at both respective models and always remembering any assumptions made along the way. I don't have to work that hard in remembering any however because objective testing reproduces the evidence, whereas yours starts out with the fundamental untestable belief that we are observing 'something independent' from us, which then permeates everything following that, making it very complex to redistinguish similarly repeated assumptions. (I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth here .. I'm just trying to fast-track a little here).
And yet you still hold 'the behaviour of the universe' in a way that implies the universe as being something held independently from us? (Ie: rather than, itself, being a testable mind model we came up with?)FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Upvote
0
