Can science prove mathematics?

[Strength & Honor]

I was watching a "Does God Exist?" debate on youtube the other day. The christian debator, Dr. William Lane Craig, made the claim that science cannot prove mathematical and logical conclusions. Further, he claimed that science actually presupposes math, so to claim that it actually proves math would be arguing in a circle. What does the RF community make of this? Can mathematical truths be scientifically tested, or do they, so to speak, "prove" themselves?

 

[Skwim]

In a sense, mathematics is a science.

The mathematician Benjamin Peirce called mathematics "the science that draws necessary conclusions".
​

Carl Friedrich Gauss referred to mathematics as "the Queen of the Sciences". In the original Latin Regina Scientiarum, as well as in German Königin der Wissenschaften, the word corresponding to science means (field of) knowledge. Indeed, this is also the original meaning in English, and there is no doubt that mathematics is in this sense a science. The specialization restricting the meaning to natural science is of later date. If one considers science to be strictly about the physical world, then mathematics, or at least pure mathematics, is not a science. Albert Einstein stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
source

​

 

[Meow Mix]

I was watching a "Does God Exist?" debate on youtube the other day. The christian debator, Dr. William Lane Craig, made the claim that science cannot prove mathematical and logical conclusions. Further, he claimed that science actually presupposes math, so to claim that it actually proves math would be arguing in a circle. What does the RF community make of this? Can mathematical truths be scientifically tested, or do they, so to speak, "prove" themselves?

WLC is correct. Science as a methodology rests on certain ontological and epistemic foundations; the efficacy of mathematics to describe the universe being one of those.

Mathematical truths prove themselves just fine without science anyway as most of them are incorrigible.

 

[A Thousand Suns]

I was watching a "Does God Exist?" debate on youtube the other day. The christian debator, Dr. William Lane Craig, made the claim that science cannot prove mathematical and logical conclusions. Further, he claimed that science actually presupposes math, so to claim that it actually proves math would be arguing in a circle. What does the RF community make of this? Can mathematical truths be scientifically tested, or do they, so to speak, "prove" themselves?

You need to tell him that the people who wrote Bible doesn't knows maths as well

[youtube]ZldOWaSubfY[/youtube]
YouTube - Mathematical contradictions in Bible - Dr. Zakir Naik

 

[A Thousand Suns]

[youtube]xpYKIuss-XM[/youtube]
YouTube - Bible: Huge and unbelievable mathematical contradictions !

 

[skydivephil]

Maths is basded upon axioms and science is based upon data.

 

[Revoltingest]

WLC is correct. Science as a methodology rests on certain ontological and epistemic foundations; the efficacy of mathematics to describe the universe being one of those.

Mathematical truths prove themselves just fine without science anyway as most of them are incorrigible.

Curse you, woman, for sending me to my dictionary!

 

[Reptillian]

Math is just the language we use to describe nature. Math is the language of choice primarily because of its precision. Science presupposes math in the way that a description presupposes words. Imagine that you were going to describe a duck to someone in the spanish language. There are a lot of spanish words, but only certain ones would be appropriate for accurately describing the duck. Is "quacky" a spanish word?

 

[PolyHedral]

Mathematics is true if you accept it's axioms, though that isn't obligatory.

I'd like to see you argue without them, though.

 

[stlekee]

Marh is the language of science. In fact math is the underlying 'language' of everthing, which means the language of the universe. Possibly the language of God.

 

[Gloone]

You need to tell him that the people who wrote Bible doesn't knows maths as well

[youtube]ZldOWaSubfY[/youtube]
YouTube - Mathematical contradictions in Bible - Dr. Zakir Naik

The guy in that video is a doctor? That is hard to believe because he doesn’t seem to know anything about the bible. He should actually go back and reread it before he uploads anymore videos to YouTube and makes himself sound any dumber.

 

[Gloone]

I was watching a "Does God Exist?" debate on youtube the other day. The christian debator, Dr. William Lane Craig, made the claim that science cannot prove mathematical and logical conclusions. Further, he claimed that science actually presupposes math, so to claim that it actually proves math would be arguing in a circle. What does the RF community make of this? Can mathematical truths be scientifically tested, or do they, so to speak, "prove" themselves?

I have never known a case where math was dependent on science for anything, if there is then let me know.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Can mathematical truths be scientifically tested, or do they, so to speak, "prove" themselves?

In a sense, sure they can. You can measure the volume and sides of a cubic container, or the radius and area of a circle, or the angles of various triangles, and compare your measurements to the predictions of math.

 

[IF_u_knew]

I was watching a "Does God Exist?" debate on youtube the other day. The christian debator, Dr. William Lane Craig, made the claim that science cannot prove mathematical and logical conclusions. Further, he claimed that science actually presupposes math, so to claim that it actually proves math would be arguing in a circle. What does the RF community make of this? Can mathematical truths be scientifically tested, or do they, so to speak, "prove" themselves?

Actually, many Christians would probably find depressing knowing what many physicists have dubbed as the forbidden knowledge (that is the knowledge that we, as individuals are "nothing" in comparison to the realm of the Eternal ... the realm in which belongs to God alone).

Any mathemetician of worth with the knowledge we have today knows well enough that the "distance" between 1 and 20 is not any different than that between 1 and a million ....

that is not the point of mathematics anymore, particularly some of the greatest minds, even in the more recent past have killed themselves from insanity at trying to find "the absolute."

No longer is that the objective (again, to those minds of any value to us in our reality) ... rather, the objective is to understand how WE relate to what is around us and how it relates to us ...

Today's science explores reality not so much in the realm of the infinite/eternal (of which we ARE all existing w/in even now) and more in the realm of time as we know it (relatable to our senses) ... focusing more on what we are able to grasp rather than what we will NEVER fully grasp for the simple fact that the Eternal is and always will be beyond our reach (other than in the mind of philosopher who has more the ability to elaborate that "out of reach" realm by using allegorical language ... conceptual metaphors)

 

[Atomist]

Any mathemetician of worth with the knowledge we have today knows well enough that the "distance" between 1 and 20 is not any different than that between 1 and a million

... in what sense? In a lot of contexts the distance between 1 to million is pretty significantly off from 1 to 20. I mean are you arguing that saying a feet is 12*(One million)/20 inches isn't any different than saying a feet is 12 inches?
So no... the difference between 1 and 20 is pretty different than 1 and a million with respect to the real world...

 

[gnomon]

If_you_only_knew

 

[Skwim]

... in what sense? In a lot of contexts the distance between 1 to million is pretty significantly off from 1 to 20. I mean are you arguing that saying a feet is 12*(One million)/20 inches isn't any different than saying a feet is 12 inches?
So no... the difference between 1 and 20 is pretty different than 1 and a million with respect to the real world...

Any distance can be divided into as many parts as one wishes, be it 20 units or a million. It's a recognition that the notational values we assign are, in a sense, quite arbitrary, and therefore not absolutes.

 

[Atomist]

Any distance can be divided into as many parts as one wishes, be it 20 units or a million. It's a recognition that the notational values we assign are, in a sense, quite arbitrary, and therefore not absolutes.

That not what the quote say... it clearly says that 1 to 20 is essentially the same as 1 to 1 million... which it's not... even though they both contain infinite numbers between them AND integers extend from 1 to infinity.

I mean you could argue that it's different units... but then that defeats the whole point that he's trying to make...

 

[Skwim]

That not what the quote say... it clearly says that 1 to 20 is essentially the same as 1 to 1 million... which it's not... even though they both contain infinite numbers between them AND integers extend from 1 to infinity.

I mean you could argue that it's different units... but then that defeats the whole point that he's trying to make...

Actually, it says "the 'distance' between 1 and 20 is not any different than that between 1 and a million.'

Not to say I haven't got If_u_knew's point wrong, but that's what it looked like to me. Perhaps she'll explain.

 

[Atomist]

Actually, it says "the 'distance' between 1 and 20 is not any different than that between 1 and a million.'

Not to say I haven't got If_u_knew's point wrong, but that's what it looked like to me. Perhaps she'll explain.

okay... well if you use the same units then it's obviously false... if you don't use units then it's false. If you use different units such that the ratio is Million/20 then it's true but meaningless.

I think that she's trying to say is that because of numbers go to infinity 1 to 20 is essentially the same as 1 to a million with respect to all the numbers... but... what I'm contesting is that the distance is very significant... since we don't live in mathematics, but rather the real world...