Hmm, well I disagree. How else would the laws of physics know how to act in any given situation if not for the underlying laws of mathematics.
I have a slightly different take. I agree that we invented the symbolic language to describe a concept, as we have done with all other languages. Why do we use "c" to indicate the speed of light? Maybe because it describes a universal mathematical "constant"? But where can the logic be found in that constant? In fact, it is a locically counter-intuitive phenomenon. Yet the mathematics have proven that "c" a universal constant, in spite of the logical "begging the question". But the speed of light came long before we arrived on the scene. Thus the mathematics of "c" existed long before we named it "c". IOW, we invented the mathematical language to describe a discovered universal mathematical constant, and proved it, even if this constant is illogical on the face of it. Is chaos logical or illogical? And so it is with all of our mathematical language. It is always based on proven universal properties and functions and in theoretical science we are able to use mathematics to predict the existence of "uknown" or "unobservable" universal properties and functions. I agree that the universe functions "logically". But mathematics (if done correctly) are of necessity logical. The catch is that the logic is not always observable or even intuitive. Thus saying the universe functions logically is too large a concept to make any predictions. Logic has no language, other than Mathematics, which allows us to discover the logic behind the expressions in reality and formalize the logic through the language of numbers and equations. Thus, if the maths are correct we can identify the logical functions of the universe, ergo, Mathematics is the logical "language" of the universe. IMO, to say the universe is logical is not much different than saying the universe functions mathematically. The great difference is that the maths can be understood by all scientists, while logic is dependent on Relativistic observation, which may lead to "garbage in, garbage out", as was done for thousands of years. Mathematics don't just describe the physical world, it can predict things, which are impossible to predict by pure logic. http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2010/04/01/is-mathematics-invented-or-discovered/ and http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2010/04/01/is-mathematics-invented-or-discovered/ "Logic is the essence of the universe, mathematics is the accurate translation (proof) of this essence." Compare this to, "God is the essence of the universe, theology is the translation (proof) of this essence".
Fractals seem chaotic at first glace, but each can be described by a relatively simple mathematical operation. I believe there must be a connection between chaos theory and fractals, and therefore there must be some underlying logic.
The universe doesn't act, it reacts. Passively, through its nature, which happens to have certain symmetries which we can symbolize in math. It doesn't follow laws, we use laws to describe it. Laws which we must periodically update when reality shows them to be inadequate.
This discussion is probably more suited to a thread in the Physics & Maths subforum, rather than this thread in Religion. Either way, it seems that we won't be agreeing on this issue any time soon. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I have a feeling you might be interested in this; Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation and this excellent video: and more in contxt of the OP, this interview with David Bohm may shed ome light on the question why we believe there is a God.
If you put three oranges together, do they consult the math to form a triangle, or is a triangle merely a description of the relationship between them?
Who said mathematics was absurd? I said it was a description of reality. You seem to be saying, "In the beginning was mathematics and mathematics was God."
But you are using reverse logic . One might just as well ask how do the laws of logic "know" how to act. (Is the BB an act of logic or the result of mathematical functions?). The law of "cause and effect" is logical. The expressions and functions of cause and effect in reality are mathematical. Fact is, neither form "knows" anything. Even the universe does not "know" how it acts (simplified for convenience). But all functions (actions) within the universe are mathematical and can be discovered and defined by our symbolic representation of these mathematical functions. In the presentation, Mario Livio explained a recurring theme of the Fibonacci Sequence in daisies. Is that logical or mathematical? Christophe Gole explains that daisies do not "know" how or why they follow the Fibonacci Sequence. They just function that way. This is not a logical function, it is a mathematical function. If you have three oranges and line them up side by side you get a "line". If you place them randomly, they form a triangle . If you place them in a specific configuration (one 90 degree angle) you get a "right triangle". These are not logical functions, they are mathematical functions. The very essence of the fabric of the universe is not logical, it is mathematical.
What an odd question. It's like asking how does 1+1 know how to equal 2? The laws of physics follow mathematical operations. Equations, patterns, and everything else has a mathematical basis. From pi, to Fibonacci, to fractals, to circles and hexagons - they're all determined by mathematical processs. It's my belief that mathematics underlies the very essence of how the Universe functions. Even if, for example, there was a Universe with different physical laws then the rules of mathematics would still be the same. 1 plus 1 would still equal 2, the circumference of a static circle divided by its diameter would still equal pi, and so on. Maybe for that reason, the Universe can't have any other physical laws, I don't know know. Or maybe each Universal constant has a limited range of variation determined by the laws of mathematics. I'm not qualified to state anything for certain. All I do know is, this has nothing to do with religion.
I agree, but IMO, that is one of the crucial areas in the debate of ID. If the universe were logical, then a case can be made that this logic is the product of a sentience. OTOH, if the universe is only mathematical, then that renders any argument of a God moot. I believe early in this discussion, someone asked if God = Mathematics, in order to suggest that such an equation would be absurd. Of course, IF the universe is only mathematical, that would render the argument of a logical God absurd. I agree and I think this has already been proven within this universe itself, where we have an unimaginable number of different conditions, which should affect the maths, but they never do, the maths always stay the same. example: water (H2O) can exist in three different states depending on temparature; as liquid, as a (fractal) solid, and as a gas. Logically, this is counter-intuitive, but mathematically it can be demonstrated and explained.
That is, in fact, what I'm asking. If the laws of physics need the laws of mathematics to tell them how to behave, what is the actual root of that behaviour? If the laws of mathematics don't need a root, why do the laws of physics? The "essence of the fabric of the universe" is physical. The mathematics is just a description of the physical.
Indeed it is. It's a mirror of the question, "How else would the laws of physics know how to act in any given situation if not for the underlying laws of mathematics." Why do the laws of physics need to "follow" anything if the laws of mathematics don't? Yes, it's a belief - the same as the belief that God underlies the very essence of how the Universe functions. I, on the other hand, don't believe in any underlying essence. The (physical) functions themselves are all that is.
