What did it all started with?

[SelfSim]

What is this creative force? Where did it come from?

.. @diamberth's mind!

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

So? Why would nature have regularity? Why does it obey the rules of mathematics?

Because mathematics is a set of ideas that humans have come up with that seem to be useful in our observation. We could certainly create others, ask sjastro. Human mathematics themselves do not however imply anything beyond their own creation by humans.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

What we call 'nature' is a model (just like @sjastro's descriptive one) which displays regularities because we all possess a common type of mind .. which perceives in similar ways.
Because no-one can contradict the axioms (which humans wrote down). Ie: math tracks consistencies of statements, using its axioms as the basis of comparison for coming up with we mean by 'consistent'.

If one could not contradict axioms, we would not be having these conversations. That said, I am getting closer to understanding your posts.

 

[SelfSim]

If one could not contradict axioms, we would not be having these conversations.

Sure .. so: that axioms might be contradictable is thus, possible (and so we don't rule that out .. for consistency purposes. Ie: Different minds thinking differently are capable of ruling them out .. its therefore, still quite possible for humans).

That said, I am getting closer to understanding your posts.

Its not easy ..
(I get that .. However, at the same time, its also definitely not a load of the usual mumbo-jumbo that we're all used to seeing 'round these parts ..)

 

[dlamberth]

The entropy S of a system is defined by the mathematical equation;

S = k.logₑ(Ω)

k is Boltzmann's constant and Ω is the number of microstates of the system.
Here we have an example of nature obeying a mathematical equation that describes disorder (entropy).

How would consciousness fit into that system.

 

[SelfSim]

How would consciousness fit into that system.

As a 'critically balanced system' on the boundaries of order and chaos.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Sure .. so: that axioms might be contradictable is thus, possible (and so we don't rule that out .. for consistency purposes. Ie: Different minds thinking differently are capable of ruling them out .. its therefore, still quite possible for humans).
Its not easy ..
(I get that .. However, at the same time, its also definitely not a load of the usual mumbo-jumbo that we're all used to seeing 'round these parts ..)

Time to go away for a while, (dinner) but I think we need to understand axiom and contradict for the moment lest we make to many assumptions.

 

[ViaCrucis]

There are laws about how the creation acts. They are technically not natural because they were all created by a supernatural being who holds all matter together.
You can not have rules about how nature acts without someone creating the rules. Why is there gravity? Because God designed the earth in such a way that gravity would be a result.
There's a reason Satan is known as the chaos bringer, because God is a being of order and deliberate design.

God's Divine Law by which He has ordered the whole cosmos is not the issue. That is a theological statement, not a scientific one.

When we talk about our describing the universe, we are not talking about the Divine Will of God; we are talking about how we observe the universe, and how we have tested our ideas to see if they accurately describe the universe. If they do, then great, if they don't, then we continue to seek answers. That's how science works.

When talking about "scientific laws", that has nothing to do with God's Divine Will. It's about our descriptions of what we have observed, and which we have tested to see if there are repeatable results.

Newton's "Laws of Motion" weren't perfect, they weren't Divine Will ordering the way of all reality, they were Newton's best efforts at explaining the observations of the universe. And they did a great job of doing that, they just turned out not to be the full picture. And so Newton's Laws have been superceded by modern, better theories. Which account for more data, more observations, and further testing.

So talking about such "laws" as though they are established by the Creator Himself fundamentally misunderstands what the subject matter is about.

And simply going "God did it" to the question of "why is there gravity" isn't an answer.

Would you think it would be sufficient to tell someone that the way babies are made is "God did it"? Yes, God did it, He is the One who works through His creation, the natural works of the universe are by His will, design, and purpose--but "God did it" is not a sufficient answer to "how are babies made?" Because knowing how procreation works is actually really important information for us to have learned.

Understanding how the universe works is a good thing.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[sjastro]

How would consciousness fit into that system.

It doesn't; it's an example of humans using their intelligence to use mathematics to model an observation called disorder.
Consider an ideal sandcastle.
Every grain of sand is in an assigned position in the sandcastle since Ω is very small.
The sandcastle is therefore in a very low state of entropy or disorder.
If a gust of wind destroys the sandcastle, Ω becomes very large and is the number of the grains of sand in a new position.
Since Ω is large the entropy is large.

This brings up another aspect of human intelligence.
The above example is of a system that goes from a small to large value of entropy.
Is the reverse possible?
Using the sandcastle example suppose there is a second gust of wind that restores the sandcastle.
The odds are astronomical, even a partial restoration is highly unlikely.
We can conclude the universe is evolving into a state of high entropy rather than the far less probable reverse case.

This forms the basis of the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[renniks]

It came into being at the moment of the Big Bang. It's Life.

Life doesn't create. It changes and only that because of God's design. Life has no force of it's own.

 

[renniks]

What we call 'nature' is a model (just like @sjastro's descriptive one) which displays regularities because we all possess a common type of mind .. which perceives in similar ways .. (ETA: even whilst describing disorder).
Because no-one can contradict the axioms (which humans wrote down). Ie: math tracks consistencies of statements, using its axioms as the basis of comparison for coming up with we mean by 'consistent'.

Doesn't even begin to explain the precise order of the universe and the earth in particular. Anyone looking in from the outside would have to conclude that this world was created specifically for the existence of life forms by an Intelligence.

 

[SelfSim]

Life doesn't create. It changes and only that because of God's design. Life has no force of it's own.

So ya reckon some artist's abstract painting isn't one of her own creations .. its God's?

 

[renniks]

So ya reckon some artist's abstract painting isn't one of her own creations .. its God's?

I reckon God gave the artist the ability to create. All good comes from his hand. He holds it all together. If he didn't, we would cease to exist instantly. There's nothing that exists outside of his continued grace that allows it to exist.

 

[SelfSim]

Doesn't even begin to explain the precise order of the universe and the earth in particular.

So who would be doing 'the explaining' there .. In your (own) mind experiment there?

Anyone looking in from the outside would have to conclude that this world was created specifically for the existence of life forms by an Intelligence.

'Anyone looking in from the outside' there, would have to have some human perceptions in order for us to even recognise what they're, (you're?), saying!

 

[SelfSim]

I reckon God gave the artist the ability to create.

Yes .. that's your belief .. (whether you recognise that, or not).

All good comes from his hand. He holds it all together. If he didn't, we would cease to exist instantly. There's nothing that exists outside of his continued grace that allows it to exist.

More of your belief there .. Do you have anything of your own to share? .. Ie: beyond just your personal beliefs?

 

[renniks]

So who would be doing 'the explaining' there .. In your (own) mind experiment there?

The world explains itself that it was designed and created for a purpose. And most people down through the ages have at least understood that the world didn't come about by accident. It's only now that people have been educated to not believe the evidence of their senses that they decided it's all a big accident.

 

[SelfSim]

The world explains itself that it was designed and created for a purpose.

So, I plainly see its you saying that .. (and not 'the world').

.. It's only now that people have been educated to not believe the evidence of their senses that they decided it's all a big accident.

So why do you think people there, have been educated to not 'believe' then, eh?

 

[dlamberth]

Life doesn't create. It changes and only that because of God's design. Life has no force of it's own.

Sure it does, or you would not have been in your mothers womb. That's where your life was created by life. It was a combination of both your mothers life AND your fathers life that created your life. To be able to create life like that sure seems like there's a pretty strong force within Life itSelf.

 

[Neogaia777]

Mathematics, even without the numbers, still exists, as a set of axioms or patterns, that, to me, indicate design, etc, and therefore, also an original designer or programmer or creator, etc...

And I think there is a very, very good reason why we do use math, or can use math, for just about "anything/everything", etc...

This is in my signature, but I'm going to put it here:

"Order/Patterns/Laws/Structures (especially mathematical ones) are all (direct) evidence of design."

And therefore an original designer, etc, etc, etc...

To me anyway...

God Bless!

 

[renniks]

Sure it does, or you would not have been in your mothers womb. That's where your life was created by life. It was a combination of both your mothers life AND your fathers life that created your life. To be able to create life like that sure seems like there's a pretty strong force within Life itSelf.

God created me in my mother's womb. Yes, he use already existing material, but life in itself isn't some force able to do whatever it pleases. That's like saying if I create a computer capable of reproducing, the computer itself is a creator.