What is God?

[Vap841]

Actually I think that the question "what is reality? " (at least "what is physical reality") must be addressed thorugh a rational analysis of our scientific knowledges.

I just recently learned that the term universe gets used differently, and that it has been redefined a few times, that was news to me. So I was probably being careless with how I was going back & forth between the words reality and universe. By reality I mean absolutely everything that there is, by universe I mean everything that exists in reality that is physical.

Since I am a physicist, I think that physics provides fundamental information about the nature of phsyical reality.
In fact, the extraordinary success of the laws of physics in predicting sistematically with great accuracy natural phenomena, reveals a fundamental property of the universe, which is its close correspondence with abstract mathematical structures, to the point that abstract mathematical structures are the only means to identify general principles able to account coherently for the variety of natural phenomena.

The physical reality manifests itself as a realization of some specific abstract mathematical structures (what we call “the laws of physics”); in fact, according to modern science, the building blocks of the universe are not particles, but quantum fields, which are abstract mathematical structures which properties are abstract mathematical properties. This close correspondence with abstract mathematical structures represents the most fundamental and relevant information that science provides about the nature of the universe and the physical reality.

I don’t know quantum physics but that’s interesting. It reminds me of larger examples of how so many times the math formulas are strangely exact. Like how if you exactly double one parameter another one of its parameters are exactly squared. I would have expected almost everything in nature to look more mathematically messy like Pi. Of course there are messy formulas in reality too, but it seems like we shouldn’t really have any neat & exact math formulas about the real world, yet there are so many of them. But even if we look past the numbers being exact, and even if they were all irrational numbers I still get where you’re going. Like how Kant talks about how our cognitive apparatus (human minds) predigests and organizes input sense data to make sense of it, as opposed to the claim that we are blank slates that simply chew on raw sense data unassisted by any innate form of understanding. His argument for Synthetic A Priori knowledge if you’ve come across that.

On the other hand, mathematical structures are only constructions of the rational thought and a mathematical structure can exist only as a thought in a thinking mind conceiving it; this implies that matter (and the physical reality) is not the foundation of reality, but its existence depends on a more fundamental reality i.e. consciousness: contrary to the basic hypothesis of materialism, consciousness is a more fundamental reality than matter.

Therefore the existence of this mathematically structured universe implies the existence of a conscious and intelligent God, conceiving it as a mathematical model. In other words, the universe can be only the manifestation of a mathematical theory existing in the mind of a personal God.

I will have to read this 100 times and keep thinking it over lol, this it interesting it is a more technical way to think about something that I have already been thinking about for a while, which is the idea of whether or not it makes sense for there to be things in reality that are left un-comprehended by anything at all in reality, since comprehension itself is one of the details of reality. But I kept admitting to myself that that line of thought sounded flimsy or poorly articulated, I like your version better, I never thought about attaching the idea with the link between the universe and abstract math, that’s cool I like it.

Now the skeptical side of me might say that perhaps humans just think mathematically because concepts of math are simply wrapped up in the architecture of reality, and so us humans being products of reality that are self aware and of a higher cognitive level, we will naturally be more inclined to ‘Get or See’ the mathematical construction of what our own reality looks like. Basically I sometimes think of reality like the ocean, the ocean is teeming with life, the ocean/reality keeps pumping out living beings, and different conscious beings in this ocean have minds that comprehend various parts/concepts of the ocean. But need there be anything at all that comprehends the entire ocean? Does the entire ocean itself (Ie God) really need to itself be a conscious being? Perhaps I’m falling into Pantheism. Well your abstract math insight is helpful I will add it into my thinking about the question.

There is another argument from physics that I find strongly convincing; according to our scientific knowledges, all chemical and biological processes (including cerebral processes) are caused by the electromagnetic interaction between subatomic particles such as electrons and protons. Quantum mechanics accounts for such interactions, as well as for the properties of subatomic particles. The point is that there is no trace of consciousness, sensations, emotions, etc. in the laws of quantum mechanics (as well as in all the laws of physcis). Consciousness is irreducible to the laws of physics, while all cerebral processes are, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness is irreducible to cerebral processes and that cerebral processes cannot be identified as the cause of consciousness. The basic assumption of materialism (which identifies cerebral processes as the origin of consciousness) is then contradicted by this fundamental scientific result, i.e. the irreducibility of consciousness to cerebral processes. This result represents the most strong argument in favour of the existence of the soul, as the unphysical and trascendent principle necessary for the existence of our consciousness. Since our soul cannot have a physical origin, it can only be created directly by God. The existence of God is a necessary condition for the existence of our soul, as well as for the existence of us as conscious beings.

I agree, in this case my opinion is not split on the matter, materialism never makes sense to me, reading arguments that tries to equate minds with brains always leaves me scratching my head, I therefore have no problem at all with a spiritual realm (although that doesn’t mean that I’m arguing that other realms must exist, just that if they did it would make sense to me because I believe in a non-physical aspect of reality). Also, I am always confused at the point that non-reductive Physicalists are trying to make. It either reduces, or science isn’t the right tool for the phenomenon. Below consciousness emergent properties are not ontology emergent properties, they are novel teleological properties. But when you get up to the level of consciousness you get an emergent ontological property.

To nitpick even a little more I think that “Physical” is relative to realm. Whatever humans can’t weigh, measure, detect empirically, etc, is non-physical FOR US. If there are entities of some other realm that humans can’t touch it would make sense to me that empiricism for them would have different categories, therefore their “Physical Science” would cover a different basket of goods than ours. However for both of our realms, for either of us to try to call our consciousness physical wouldn’t make logical sense, the mind categorically is an aspect of reality that is a non-physical phenomenon.

 

[mmarco]

I don’t know quantum physics but that’s interesting. It reminds me of larger examples of how so many times the math formulas are strangely exact. Like how if you exactly double one parameter another one of its parameters are exactly squared. I would have expected almost everything in nature to look more mathematically messy like Pi. Of course there are messy formulas in reality too, but it seems like we shouldn’t really have any neat & exact math formulas about the real world, yet there are so many of them. But even if we look past the numbers being exact, and even if they were all irrational numbers I still get where you’re going. Like how Kant talks about how our cognitive apparatus (human minds) predigests and organizes input sense data to make sense of it, as opposed to the claim that we are blank slates that simply chew on raw sense data unassisted by any innate form of understanding. His argument for Synthetic A Priori knowledge if you’ve come across that.

I think that Kant's argument cannot be applied to the laws of physics; Kant claims that our knowledge of phenomena is built through some categories which force us to know in the way we know (Kant's analogy is the one of the red glasses, which force us to see everything red). The point is that man can organize the knowledge of the reality through the categories of understanding ONLY IF such reality is intrinsecally organizable, which means that reality must have a structure compatible with the principles or categories used to organize it. Modern science has proved that it is possible to give a very accurate description of the phenomenal reality through a given system of mathematical equations. The point is that we can invent infinite mathematical equations, which could never describe the phenomenal reality. Why then is the phenomenal reality described so accurately by those specific equations and isn't it described by any of the other infinite equations we can invent? The only acceptable answer is that the laws of physics represent accurately the intrinsic mathematical structure of the noumenal reality. It would be absurd to hypothesize that the equations of physics are a category of understanding, given that it took many millennia before those equations were discovered, and that they are the result of long studies "a posteriori" of the experimental data. Besides, the categories of understanding should have a universal character, common to all men; they should be intrinsic to human nature, while most people do not even have any idea about quantum mechanics. So, physics reveal us an intrinsic property of the noumenal reality, that is the existence of an intrinsic mathematical structure in the universe.

I would like to point out that in Kant's age scientific knowledges were very limited and a well known statement by Kant is "Newton's science can't even explain a blade of grass". Quantum mechanics explain the blade of grass as well as every other biological or chemical processes. The laws of pjhysics provide a much more complete exlanation of the natural phenomena. But there is another fundamental aspect: the predictive capability of the equations of physics. In a non-mahematically structured universe we should have the following situation: through the analysis of experimental data we could find a mathematical function or equation to represent such data. However, every new experiment would give us some new data which do not fit our equations, so that we should revise our equations. There is no reason to expect that a new experiment should give data compatible with our equations; in fact,in principle, the possible outcome for our data are infinite numerical values, so the probability to find the predicted values is zero (the probability is calculated as the quotient of the favorable outcomes and the possible outcomes, and since the possible outcomes are infinite, this quotient is zero). We have found however the opposite situation, i.e. the sistematic confirmation of the predictions of the equations of physics. Consider that the equations of quantum mechanics have been discovered in the first decades of the last century, through the analysis of some simple atoms; these equations have then correctly predicted the behavior of billions of other molecules and systems, and no revisions of the equations have been necessary. Since last century, we have been observing a systematic confirmation of the laws of physics, in our numberless studies on new systems and materials. It then correct to say that the probabilty that the universe is not intrinsecally ruled through some specific mathematical equations is zero.

Consider that we are incapable to find a mathematical solution even to problems inner to math itself, event to aritmetics; for example we cannot find a mathematical formula for twin prime numbers. If the universe didn't have an intrinsic mathematical structure, it would be totally unresonable to expect to predict such a large number of natural phenomena through few mathematical equations.

Now the skeptical side of me might say that perhaps humans just think mathematically because concepts of math are simply wrapped up in the architecture of reality, and so us humans being products of reality that are self aware and of a higher cognitive level, we will naturally be more inclined to ‘Get or See’ the mathematical construction of what our own reality looks like.

I totally disagree. As I said before, most humans are totally unable to understand maths and the laws of physics, which is sufficient to prove that math is not wrapped in up in human mind and that man is not naturally inclined to ‘Get or See’ the mathematical construction of what our own reality looks like. As I said, it took many millennia before the laws of physics were discovered, and that they are the result of long studies "a posteriori" of the experimental data.

 

[Vap841]

I think that Kant's argument cannot be applied to the laws of physics; Kant claims that our knowledge of phenomena is built through some categories which force us to know in the way we know

Oh I only like part of what Kant says, I like his idea of reality being predigested through our cognitive apparatus only to the extent that it speaks of ingrained human aptitude, I like that as a response to the claim that we are nothing but passive blank slates that feed on input data, and that that input data is the only knowledge that we can ever know. So Kant says no knowledge is a mixture of the sense data that we take in PLUS our built in tool of cognition to make sense of it and to add more meaning to it, the two of them combined results in more data than just the raw sense data that we take in. Synthetic A Priori knowledge.

So the only reason I brought Kant up was to give a reason for Pantheism, I disagree with Kant as he moves on, I don’t at all believe his suggestion that we can’t know anything at all about how reality really is, noumenal.

(Kant's analogy is the one of the red glasses, which force us to see everything red).

Funny that he would use that analogy because I actually agree with that analogy, but that analogy isn’t really what he believes so I’m shocked that he used it. I believe that primary sensations like shape, weight, dimensions, etc, truly represent reality, but secondary sensations like color, taste, etc, are just human specific interpretations of reality filtered through human sense organs. So red glasses is actually a good analogy for what I believe but isn’t a good analogy for what Kant believes, he should have used a blindfold in his analogy not red glasses.

The point is that man can organize the knowledge of the reality through the categories of understanding ONLY IF such reality is intrinsecally organizable, which means that reality must have a structure compatible with the principles or categories used to organize it. Modern science has proved that it is possible to give a very accurate description of the phenomenal reality through a given system of mathematical equations.

The point is that we can invent infinite mathematical equations, which could never describe the phenomenal reality. Why then is the phenomenal reality described so accurately by those specific equations and isn't it described by any of the other infinite equations we can invent? The only acceptable answer is that the laws of physics represent accurately the intrinsic mathematical structure of the noumenal reality.

I agree, physics and abstract math accurately measure the true reality that is represented by primary sense data.

It would be absurd to hypothesize that the equations of physics are a category of understanding, given that it took many millennia before those equations were discovered, and that they are the result of long studies "a posteriori" of the experimental data.

I wasn’t trying to take it that far, at just a very basic level humans have the aptitude to think geometrically and we understand space, and we naturally understand arithmetic at the basic level. In additional to that we have innate POTENTIAL for deeper levels of math understanding that isn’t automatic.

All I was trying to get at is your argument #1 about a mathematical world being compatible with a personal agent that comprehends that mathematical world (Theistic God). So to play devil’s advocate for a Pantheistic God - we have a reality that is definitely a mathematical reality, so it would make sense that living entities of higher intelligence inside of that mathematical reality would naturally grasp more & more math the higher their intelligence level got. Furthermore consciousness is also an undeniable part of this reality, and to comprehend anything at all is to be conscious. It’s tough to make the leap from a mathematical reality that produces math comprehending conscious agents, to the entirety of reality itself being a self comprehending agent. But it could be a matter of something not clicking for me yet.

Besides, the categories of understanding should have a universal character, common to all men; they should be intrinsic to human nature, while most people do not even have any idea about quantum mechanics. So, physics reveal us an intrinsic property of the noumenal reality, that is the existence of an intrinsic mathematical structure in the universe.

I would like to point out that in Kant's age scientific knowledges were very limited and a well known statement by Kant is "Newton's science can't even explain a blade of grass". Quantum mechanics explain the blade of grass as well as every other biological or chemical processes.

Why do some say that quantum mechanics argues for a multiverse? I’ve been seeing that a lot lately.

The laws of pjhysics provide a much more complete exlanation of the natural phenomena. But there is another fundamental aspect: the predictive capability of the equations of physics. In a non-mahematically structured universe we should have the following situation: through the analysis of experimental data we could find a mathematical function or equation to represent such data. However, every new experiment would give us some new data which do not fit our equations, so that we should revise our equations. There is no reason to expect that a new experiment should give data compatible with our equations; in fact,in principle, the possible outcome for our data are infinite numerical values, so the probability to find the predicted values is zero (the probability is calculated as the quotient of the favorable outcomes and the possible outcomes, and since the possible outcomes are infinite, this quotient is zero). We have found however the opposite situation, i.e. the sistematic confirmation of the predictions of the equations of physics. Consider that the equations of quantum mechanics have been discovered in the first decades of the last century, through the analysis of some simple atoms; these equations have then correctly predicted the behavior of billions of other molecules and systems, and no revisions of the equations have been necessary. Since last century, we have been observing a systematic confirmation of the laws of physics, in our numberless studies on new systems and materials. It then correct to say that the probabilty that the universe is not intrinsecally ruled through some specific mathematical equations is zero.

Yes, but I’m wondering why it can’t just be a mindless automated system/reality. I always think about a philosophical point that said any line of thinking eventually reaches an end point, and you eventually reach the most foundational explanation of “That is simply the way that things are.” I always think about that towards reality, and I wonder why can’t an automated reality that’s not a personal agent simply be the way that things are?

 

[mmarco]

Yes, but I’m wondering why it can’t just be a mindless automated system/reality. I always think about a philosophical point that said any line of thinking eventually reaches an end point, and you eventually reach the most foundational explanation of “That is simply the way that things are.” I always think about that towards reality, and I wonder why can’t an automated reality that’s not a personal agent simply be the way that things are?

My point is that if the universe did not have an intrinsic specific mathematical, the probability to predict systematically new phenomena through few mathematical equations would be zero. It is then totally unreasonable to hypothesize that the universe does not have an intrisic mathematical structure. Since maths is just the product of rational thinking and it cannot exists outside a thinking mind, the fact that the unverse has an intrinsic mathematical structure implies that the universe is created by an intelligent conscious God.

I would like to stress that I think that the existence and the goodness of God is the most fundamental truth and I do not think we can deduce such truth from some other truth, because this would mean that we believe more in the other truth than in God.
I believe in God because the certainty of His existence is in me and I feel His Presence, expecially during prayer. Nevertheless, I think that a rational analysis of our scientific knowledges provides a striking confirmation of what I believe by faith.

 

[Vap841]

My point is that if the universe did not have an intrinsic specific mathematical, the probability to predict systematically new phenomena through few mathematical equations would be zero. It is then totally unreasonable to hypothesize that the universe does not have an intrisic mathematical structure. Since maths is just the product of rational thinking and it cannot exists outside a thinking mind, the fact that the unverse has an intrinsic mathematical structure implies that the universe is created by an intelligent conscious God.

I would like to stress that I think that the existence and the goodness of God is the most fundamental truth and I do not think we can deduce such truth from some other truth, because this would mean that we believe more in the other truth than in God.
I believe in God because the certainty of His existence is in me and I feel His Presence, expecially during prayer. Nevertheless, I think that a rational analysis of our scientific knowledges provides a striking confirmation of what I believe by faith.

I like your articulation, you organize your points really well. Even though I was in agreement with you that Kant is wrong that reality can’t be known at all I still really liked reading your rebuttal of his belief.