Do you believe in God?

[Polymath257]

But mathematicians, as Folland observed, are Platonists, we think that the things we are manipulating on paper have a higher existence. To quote Plato [266], "Let us take away any common instance; there are beds and tables in the world - plenty of them, are there not?"

Not all mathematicians are Platonists. Some of us are Formalists.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Not all mathematicians are Platonists. Some of us are Formalists.

But are you an ultra-formalist?

Edward Nelson got paired up with a physics guy talking about how the fundamental laws of physics are just your address. The ultimate relativist.

Incidentally, my friend was taking a logic class or something from Julia Robinson, and was there the day she walked into class and announced the solution to Hilbert’s 10th.

The full movie for this is online, if you haven’t seen it. I’ll put the description along with the trailer so folks can see what it is about.

Julia Robinson and Hilbert's Tenth Problem - Trailer

Julia Robinson and Hilbert's Tenth Problem features a heroine driven by the quest to solve one of the central problems of modern mathematics. She rises above formidable obstacles to assume a leading role in her field. Julia Robinson was the first woman elected to the mathematical section of the National Academy of Sciences, and the first woman to become president of the American Mathematical Society. While tracing Robinson's contribution to the solution of Hilbert's tenth problem, the film illuminates how her work led to an unusual friendship between Russian and American colleagues at the height of the Cold War.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So is it that you don't think a law (natural, that is) needs to be discerned by a conscious agent to be a fact of nature.

Yes.

SOME laws might not be observable by -- a "conscious agent."

We don't observe the laws. We observe nature and generate inductions about various aspects of its behavior, some of which have universal applicability. We call these natural laws, which are distinct from local phenomena such as the sun appearing each morning in the east and setting in the west - a valid and useful induction on earth once we agree what east and west mean, but not a law of nature.

If understanding these words is problematic for you, my apologies. You indicated that you don't like to see a lot of words, but it takes words to flesh out ideas, and the less the reader knows about the subject, the more words it takes. Do you know what induction is? Do you understand the difference between locally and universally valid?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes.

We don't observe the laws. We observe nature and generate inductions about various aspects of its behavior, some of which have universal applicability. We call these natural laws, which are distinct from local phenomena such as the sun appearing each morning in the east and setting in the west - a valid and useful induction on earth once we agree what east and west mean, but not a law of nature.

If understanding these words is problematic for you, my apologies. You indicated that you don't like to see a lot of words, but it takes words to flesh out ideas, and the less the reader knows about the subject, the more words it takes. Do you know what induction is? Do you understand the difference between locally and universally valid?

So then there could be laws we don't know about..

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes.

We don't observe the laws. We observe nature and generate inductions about various aspects of its behavior, some of which have universal applicability. We call these natural laws, which are distinct from local phenomena such as the sun appearing each morning in the east and setting in the west.

I understand that, please forgive me if I ask if you believe there are possibilities of occurrences that might happen that humans cannot attach a law to?

 

[RestlessSoul]

The word 'accident' here seems strange.

The universe did not 'come into existence'. Whenever there was time, the universe existed since time is part of the universe. So there was no time at which the universe failed to exist.

Second, the word 'accident' implies there is some intention, which seems to me to be simply false.

The way I would say it is that the universe 'simply exists'. But, in this context, the universe includes ALL space and ALL time.

But if the universe is finite into the past, it's surely reasonable to talk about it having a beginning; and if time began with the universe, this implies a point of origin for both. It's also worth pointing out here, that when astronomers talk about the universe, they are usually referring to the observable universe, rather than to the totality of everything.

The word 'accident' implies the opposite of intention. Naturally, as a believer that all of the existence is the expression of some divine will, I don't believe the Big Bang happened - if it happened at all - by accident. But I don't expect intent to be confirmed or falsified by observation, since it seems to me that the same observations can always be interpreted in a way that supports either perspective.

 

[danieldemol]

I don't expect intent to be confirmed or falsified by observation, since it seems to me that the same observations can always be interpreted in a way that supports either perspective.

But if we can intepret in a way that supports perspective A *and* perspective B then perspective A is not logically proven, since perspective B can't be eliminated. In other words the way I understand what you are saying, it points to God not being logically provable and hence I believe you jump to perspective A - that God exists through other than logical means.

For me if there is a supernatural explanation A and a natural explanation B the logical approach is to default to explanation B for the same reason when we see a cat's tail knock a pot off a shelf we default to the natural explanation as opposed to assuming a demon coincidentally pushes a pot off the shelf in timing with the cats tail which also fits but is superceded by the natural explanation in my view.

 

[Polymath257]

So then there could be laws we don't know about..

Not just could. Almost certainly are.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand that, please forgive me if I ask if you believe there are possibilities of occurrences that might happen that humans cannot attach a law to?

Hmmm. If the properties are so complex no human could figure them out, then possibly. So far, though, the basic laws seem to not be overly complicated. The ones we think we know build boil down to how fundamental particles can interact and how strongly they do so. So, mass determines the strength of interaction via gravity. Charge determines the strength of interaction via electromagnetism. The properties of a particle determine which forces it interacts by and fire strongly.

 

[Polymath257]

But if the universe is finite into the past, it's surely reasonable to talk about it having a beginning; and if time began with the universe, this implies a point of origin for both. It's also worth pointing out here, that when astronomers talk about the universe, they are usually referring to the observable universe, rather than to the totality of everything.

No, it does not necessarily imply a point of origin. Maybe a three dimensional submanifold of origin.

The word 'accident' implies the opposite of intention.

Again, that sounds like a very strange usage. If a tree limb falls, that is not an accident. There is no intention either way.

Naturally, as a believer that all of the existence is the expression of some divine will, I don't believe the Big Bang happened - if it happened at all - by accident.

I see the Big Bang as closer to the South Pole. It represents that time does not go farther back.

But I don't expect intent to be confirmed or falsified by observation, since it seems to me that the same observations can always be interpreted in a way that supports either perspective.

Fair enough. But then, why assume intention? It only makes the explanations more difficult.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The universe did not 'come into existence'. Whenever there was time, the universe existed since time is part of the universe. So there was no time at which the universe failed to exist..

Hmm .. that is troublesome. Why?
..because 'time' is something we measure scientifically .. but it is also a philosophical construct.

For example, nobody has measured a billion years, and yet we speak about the universe having
existed for billions of years.
It is only an assumption that 'before the universe existed' is not sane.
It is purely based on an extrapolated calculation, relying on a man-made definition of time quantity.

i.e. defining time relative to matter/motion
It becomes a circular argument.

 

[Kathryn]

It isn't "God's knowledge;" it's just the unknown.

Because it's the unknown, anything we say about it - including that it's "God's knowledge" is necessarily nonsense that was pulled out of someone's butt.

So you know this better than anyone else in the 20th century and earlier and I'd like to know how you know this. No wait, no I wouldn't. Uninterested. Sorry.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not just could. Almost certainly are.

OK...(if you say so)
but -- you don't believe these laws are controlled or set in motion by an intelligent force? I do. I do not think laws of stability, such as gravity, just came about by natural causes. Do I find it fascinating that atoms and cells have been discovered within the past century? Yes, I do. Hope that clears my beliefs up a little in your mind.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hmmm. If the properties are so complex no human could figure them out, then possibly. So far, though, the basic laws seem to not be overly complicated. The ones we think we know build boil down to how fundamental particles can interact and how strongly they do so. So, mass determines the strength of interaction via gravity. Charge determines the strength of interaction via electromagnetism. The properties of a particle determine which forces it interacts by and fire strongly.

I mean so far no one can really explain what gravity is, can they? They might explain the effects of the law of gravity, but not what it comprises or consists of.

 

[paarsurrey]

Do you believe in God?
paarsurrey said:
Yes, I do believe in G-d, and it is very natural and reasonable, right?

I had to study the Bible with those that I believe love God and follow His commandments in order for me to come to the conclusion that there IS a God who cares. And -- who can give everlasting life. At John 17:3, Jesus said the following: "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ." I have found this to be true in my case.

" John 17:3 " is neither written by (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah ( who was neither a Zealot, nor he belonged to the Zionism people nor to the Judaism people), nor dictated by him to John , please, right?
It is therefore not a reliable source for truthful guidance and or religious discussion, please, right?

Regards

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you believe in God?
paarsurrey said:
Yes, I do believe in G-d, and it is very natural and reasonable, right?

" John 17:3 " is neither written by (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah ( who was neither a Zealot, nor he belonged to the Zionism people nor to the Judaism people), nor dictated by him to John , please, right?
It is therefore not a reliable source for truthful guidance and or religious discussion, please, right?

Regards

Sorry, please -- but we're on two different paths. John 17:3 does not say that it was written by Jesus anyway. It also doesn't say he dictated those words to John. I really don't know where you're getting your ideas from, please, right? and regards to you also.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you believe in God?
paarsurrey said:
Yes, I do believe in G-d, and it is very natural and reasonable, right?

" John 17:3 " is neither written by (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah ( who was neither a Zealot, nor he belonged to the Zionism people nor to the Judaism people), nor dictated by him to John , please, right?
It is therefore not a reliable source for truthful guidance and or religious discussion, please, right?

Regards

What do you think is a reliable source for truthful guidance, since you obviously don't believe the Bible is. (I do, but that's another story...) So what, in your opinion and estimation is a "reliable source for truthful guidance," please?

 

[Polymath257]

Hmm .. that is troublesome. Why?
..because 'time' is something we measure scientifically .. but it is also a philosophical construct.

For example, nobody has measured a billion years, and yet we speak about the universe having
existed for billions of years.
It is only an assumption that 'before the universe existed' is not sane.
It is purely based on an extrapolated calculation, relying on a man-made definition of time quantity.

i.e. defining time relative to matter/motion
It becomes a circular argument.

It isn’t any more circulars than thinking any other operationally defined property will continue to obey the laws we have found so far. In fact, until we find an exception, that is a perfectly reasonable assumption.

ALL physical concepts are operationally defined.

 

[Polymath257]

I mean so far no one can really explain what gravity is, can they? They might explain the effects of the law of gravity, but not what it comprises or consists of.

The current best prediction is that gravity is “made from” gravitons (spin 2 massless particles) in a way similar to how electromagnetism is “made from” photons.

 

[paarsurrey]

The current best prediction is that gravity is “made from” gravitons (spin 2 massless particles) in a way similar to how electromagnetism is “made from” photons.

And what would be the next best prediction of Science, anybody please, right?

Regards