Proof there is a God

[Spellbound]

sideshowbob,

Do not take this as an insult or a humiliation of your intelligence. But...

All is number.

-Aristotle.

I.e. Equations are real.

Thank you. I believe you can process this information in an orderly fashion. I believe in you.

 

[sideshowbob]

sideshowbob,

Do not take this as an insult or a humiliation of your intelligence. But...

All is number.

-Aristotle.

That's Pythagoras.

I won't take it as an insult. Whoever said it, it's just an empty philosophical opinion. It's no more profound than the opinion that chocolate ice cream is best.

 

[Spellbound]

That's Pythagoras.

I stand corrected.

I won't take it as an insult. Whoever said it, it's just an empty philosophical opinion. It's no more profound than the opinion that chocolate ice cream is best.

You seem to think that just because we do not see mathematics with our eyes like a cat or a tree that it doesn't exist. This would be wrong. We represent reality with symbols and equations because it is reality.

 

[sideshowbob]

You seem to think that just because we do not see mathematics with our eyes like a cat or a tree that it doesn't exist.

I didn't say mathematics doesn't exist. I said it doesn't cause anything physical to exist.

We represent reality with symbols and equations because it is reality.

Yes, we represent. Mathematics is a representation of reality. Fred Flintstone is a representation of a caveman, though not necessarily an accurate one.

 

[Spellbound]

Yes, we represent. Mathematics is a representation of reality. Fred Flintstone is a representation of a caveman, though not necessarily an accurate one.

Correct. And because we are able to represent reality with it we undoubtedly conclude that it is no illusion or chimera. The abstract world of mathematics is reality.

 

[sideshowbob]

And because we are able to represent reality with it we undoubtedly conclude that it is no illusion or chimera. The abstract world of mathematics is reality.

That's a religious statement.

 

[Write4U]

The laws of physics are expressed mathematically - or verbally.

Yes maths are expressed in reality. From those expression we can extrapolate which mathematical law is functional in a specific circumstance. We "recognize" the law at work.

I was replying to a post that asked, "How else would the laws of physics know how to act in any given situation if not for the underlying laws of mathematics." I was mocking the idea that the laws of physics wouldn't "know" what to do unless mathematics told them what to do.

Ah yes, then we agree.

Again, I was mocking the statement that, "The laws of physics follow mathematical operations."

Well, I would put it that "the laws of physics" ARE the mathematics of the universe. That makes them "constants" or "inherent" properties of the mathematical function which create our physical reality. The FS is a universal potential and exists in the abstract. Why would a distant spiral galaxy have the same mathematical properties

The "laws" of physics are expressed mathematically and/or verbally - but the actual stuff that physically happens is not dependent on mathematics or verbiage.

The actual physical actions are always mathematical. Else we would have chaos.
Take the Fibonacci Sequence, its is a mathematical function and is clearly apparent in the Nautilus, daisies, and spiral galaxies. Each of those shapes do not randomly create the FS, the follow the maths of FS.

Apparently it is a natural but useful mathematical function in the formation of certain shapes and shows up in many physical expression. That makes it a constant, one of the mathematical ways in which nature expresses itself.

As Tegmark says. "there are only 33 constants and equations (that we have discovered) on which all universal functions and expresions are founded". This very simplicity is elegant in concept and seems to be working throughout the universe.

As I mentioned before, a daisy does not know it folows the FS, its molecular development (the biological machine that creates petals) somehow functions in accordance with the FS. It is a mathematical function in the biological development of a daisy or a spiral galaxy.

 

[Daecon]

I was replying to a post that asked, "How else would the laws of physics know how to act in any given situation if not for the underlying laws of mathematics." I was mocking the idea that the laws of physics wouldn't "know" what to do unless mathematics told them what to do.

Did you honestly not understand the point I was making or were you just being snarky?

 

[sideshowbob]

The actual physical actions are always mathematical.

The physical actions can be described mathematically. They can also be described in Portuguese.

As I mentioned before, a daisy does not know it folows the FS, its molecular development (the biological machine that creates petals) somehow functions in accordance with the FS.

The Fibonacci Sequence is a mathematical function that happens to coincide with some things in the natural world. The word "red" also happens to coincide with some things in the natural world. The natural world doesn't "need" either.

 

[sideshowbob]

Did you honestly not understand the point I was making or were you just being snarky?

You said, "How else would the laws of physics know how to act in any given situation if not for the underlying laws of mathematics." I pointed out that if the law of physics have to "know" how to act, then the laws of mathematics would also have to "know" how to act - i.e. the laws of mathematics can not be the "mentor" of the laws of physics unless they have a mentor of their own.

I was ridiculing a ridiculous notion. What did I miss?

 

[Write4U]

The physical actions can be described mathematically. They can also be described in Portuguese.

No you can't. That's the point, you cannot understand mathematcal concepts and function except through mathematial language of numbers and equations..

The Fibonacci Sequence is a mathematical function that happens to coincide with some things in the natural world. The word "red" also happens to coincide with some things in the natural world. The natural world doesn't "need" either.

Obviously you keep refusing to look at the link of the "mathematical nature of the Universe. All you objections are explained in simple terms and persuasive examples.

The Fibonacci Sequence and pi, "c", and a few other constants are found everywhere throughout the universe and not by coincidence.and expressed in the most evolved complex organizations.

_

Every theory of functional constants have been proven to exist in the abstract or thing could not work they do.
We only are discovering and recording and describing the actual predictable dynamic events in a shorthand form. Yes our numbers and equations are descriptive, but they also prove the consistency and predictability of these inherent universal constants. They existed before we discovered them!.

 

[sideshowbob]

That's the point, you cannot understand mathematcal concepts and function except through mathematial language of numbers and equations..

Nonsense. We all learn mathematics through words. Just try teaching mathematics without words.

Mathematics is a more precise language than most, with more rigid rules, which makes it eminently useful for describing reality unambiguously. But in the end, it's just another language.

Obviously you keep refusing to look at the link of the "mathematical nature of the Universe.

I haven't been shown any such link. All I've seen is assertions.

The Fibonacci Sequence and pi, "c", and a few other constants are found everywhere throughout the universe and not by coincidence.

Of course it's coincidence. Why else would some flowers follow one sequence and others not?

 

[Daecon]

You said, "How else would the laws of physics know how to act in any given situation if not for the underlying laws of mathematics." I pointed out that if the law of physics have to "know" how to act, then the laws of mathematics would also have to "know" how to act - i.e. the laws of mathematics can not be the "mentor" of the laws of physics unless they have a mentor of their own.

I was ridiculing a ridiculous notion. What did I miss?

I wasn't using the word "know" to refer to conscious awareness. That's just silly.

Physics can only follow the rules of mathematics because they can't do anything else. That doesn't mean to imply that physics is choosing to be obstinate or any other personality attribute.

 

[Write4U]

Nonsense. We all learn mathematics through words. Just try teaching mathematics without words.

Wrong, even a Lemur (and many more non-human organisms) "know" how to count (recognizing the difference between "more" and "less") without using human maths.

Mathematics is a more precise language than most, with more rigid rules, which makes it eminently useful for describing reality unambiguously. But in the end, it's just another language.

And understood by all scientists.
1 + 1 = 2 is the same in English or in Italian., but can you say "one plus one equals two" in Italian or German or Chinese? I can't.

But aside from the language of the "narrative", they all use the same formal language of mathematics (1 + 1 = 2) . You can check this out on wiki (just pick a different language). The alphabetical language differs, but the mathematical numbers remain the same..

I haven't been shown any such link. All I've seen is assertions.

For the third time, here is the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuGI6pQFZC0

This is a NOVA presentation by real scientists. Thus these are not just assertions (such a convenient term), but are demonstrable in physical reality and can be mathematically falsified.

Of course it's coincidence. Why else would some flowers follow one sequence and others not?

. They don't. The point is that they all use the Fibonacci Sequence and use the same maths in creating these structures, regardless of the number of petals . The FS is not a fixed number, it is a sequence (a formula) . The Golden Ratio follows the Fibonacci Sequence. That's not coincidence, it is a mathematical function in nature (constant) and exists in the abstract as well as in the physical expressions of reality.

 

[Write4U]

That's a religious statement.

No, it's not.
Metaphysics (the essence of a thing) is not supernatural, nor intentional, nor motivated. It is the mathematical Potential of that thing.

Potential, noun, "That which may become Reality". Anything religious about that statement?
I just call it an "abstraction".

 

[Baldeee]

And understood by all scientists.
1 + 1 = 2 is the same in English or in Italian., but can you say "one plus one equals two" in Italian or German or Chinese? I can't.

That's a rather weak argument, as mathematics merely follows a world-wide convention, using the Arabic numeral system, whereas national languages follow localised conventions.
Early languages had their own numeral system - and some still do.
You probably wouldn't know what number is represented by the numerals -=+ in the Brahmi numeral system without looking it up?

Convention is not an argument for anything other than a desire for efficiency.

. They don't. The point is that they all use the Fibonacci Sequence and use the same maths in creating these structures, regardless of the number of petals . The FS is not a fixed number, it is a sequence (a formula) . The Golden Ratio follows the Fibonacci Sequence. That's not coincidence, it is a mathematical function in nature (constant) and exists in the abstract as well as in the physical expressions of reality.

It is a physical function in nature and is more along the lines of taking of the current state plus the previous state to determine the next state.
The FS is a very specific example of that function, with the opening two conditions being 0 and 1, but the Golden Ratio is arrived at irrespective of the opening conditions, as long as that rule / function is followed.
(Try it with 7 and 9 as your opening conditions, or 1 and 100, or any numbers... you'll always end up, after a few iterations, with the next number being c.1.618 x the current).

As others might have said, I see physics and maths as merely two sides of the same piece.
I see them as the same, just different perspectives.

 

[Daecon]

It doesn't matter if you use Arabic numbers, Brahmi numbers, or anything else.

· plus : is equal to ...

Whatever symbol you use to represent a specific value, the mathematics will always be the same.

 

[Baldeee]

It doesn't matter if you use Arabic numbers, Brahmi numbers, or anything else.

· plus : is equal to ...

Whatever symbol you use to represent a specific value, the mathematics will always be the same.

Of course it will always be the same.
Yet that is trivially true of a chair, a plate, a car... they are what they are, whatever symbols (language, script etc) you use to represent them, they are still what they are.

Write4U's argument was: "but can you say "one plus one equals two" in Italian or German or Chinese? I can't." as if this somehow gave the symbols we use (i.e. "1 + 1 = 2") some significance beyond merely being a convention that the world has adopted.
My point is that even "1 + 1 = 2" is still merely a language.
If you can say "one plus one equals two" is this no less mathematical than "1 + 1 = 2", or "uno más uno es igual a dos" (if my Spanish is correct - it's been a long time).
The symbols we use are merely a language - and as said, a worldwide language is evidence of nothing but a desire for efficiency.

 

[Write4U]

That's a rather weak argument, as mathematics merely follows a world-wide convention, using the Arabic numeral system, whereas national languages follow localised conventions.
Early languages had their own numeral system - and some still do.
You probably wouldn't know what number is represented by the numerals -=+ in the Brahmi numeral system without looking it up?

That is a strawman argument. We are speaking of today's standardized scientific language.
Note that inches, feet and yards are not part of the scientific language which is based on the decimal system.

Convention is not an argument for anything other than a desire for efficiency.
It is a physical function in nature and is more along the lines of taking of the current state plus the previous state to determine the next state.

I agree, IMO, it is based on the physical law that things tend to move in the direction of greatest satisfacton (compatibility, stability).

The FS is a very specific example of that function, with the opening two conditions being 0 and 1, but the Golden Ratio is arrived at irrespective of the opening conditions, as long as that rule / function is followed.

They are intimately connected with the golden ratio; for example, the closest rational approximations to the ratio are 2/1, 3/2, 5/3, 8/5, .

(Try it with 7 and 9 as your opening conditions, or 1 and 100, or any numbers... you'll always end up, after a few iterations, with the next number being c.1.618 x the current).

But you have moved the goal posts to Phi and Pi, which are related but do not follow the FS itself .

In mathematical terms, the sequence Fn of Fibonacci numbers is defined by the recurrence relation

with seed values

By definition, the first two numbers in the Fibonacci sequence are either 1 and 1, or 0 and 1, depending on the chosen starting point of the sequence, and each subsequent number is the sum of the previous two.

and

Leonardo Fibonacci discovered the sequence which converges on phi.
Starting with 0 and 1, each new number in the sequence is simply the sum of the two before it. 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, . . .
The ratio of each successive pair of numbers in the sequence approximates phi (1.618. . .) , as 5 divided by 3 is 1.666…, and 8 divided by 5 is 1.60.

But the point of discussing the FS was in relation to its common recurrence in nature

They also appear in biological settings,[9] such as branching in trees, phyllotaxis (the arrangement of leaves on a stem), the fruit sprouts of a pineapple,[10] the flowering of an artichoke, an uncurling fern and the arrangement of a pine cone's bracts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number

As others might have said, I see physics and maths as merely two sides of the same piece.
I see them as the same, just different perspectives.

Yes, and if you had read my posts you would have seen I have already said that, so what is your point?

 

[Write4U]

Of course it will always be the same.
Yet that is trivially true of a chair, a plate, a car... they are what they are, whatever symbols (language, script etc) you use to represent them, they are still what they are.

Write4U's argument was: "but can you say "one plus one equals two" in Italian or German or Chinese? I can't." as if this somehow gave the symbols we use (i.e. "1 + 1 = 2") some significance beyond merely being a convention that the world has adopted.
My point is that even "1 + 1 = 2" is still merely a language.

If you can say "one plus one equals two" is this no less mathematical than "1 + 1 = 2", or "uno más uno es igual a dos" (if my Spanish is correct - it's been a long time).
The symbols we use are merely a language - and as said, a worldwide language is evidence of nothing but a desire for efficiency.

I have no argument with that in general but you just proved the inexactness of using alphabethical language to describe mathematical functions. However, the mathematical language would leave no doubt.