@@freddan6fly Actually Whoever picked the initial conditions and physical constants was indeed the most brilliant mathematician we’ve ever encountered. With the magnitude of the cosmological constant being pinned down, all (of the many) cosmological physicists (except one) agree that both the initial conditions and the fundamental constants are on a knife-edge for any complex existence at all and have apparent fine-tuning, and that this begs explanation. Even Alan Guth now acknowledges this. Most of them hope it is anthropic, but Roger Penrose (co-author of A Brief History of Time) says the complex and intricate fine-tuning is so impossible that anthropic is no longer reasonable. (It is vastly more probable that you have quantum-fluctuated into existence for an hour, with memories and a local environment included, than it is to have found yourself in one in the on of 10^XXX universes, which btw we have no evidence exist). Not only is it now evidence that chance didnt do it, but if designed then the designer is a mathematical genius beyond all comprehension to have created this. Very prominent theoretical physicist Michio Kaku wonders if a universe with any complex ensembles of matter could be achieved any other way at all, since it is so intricate and balanced. Just the cosmological constant is on a one in 10^55 knife-edge, such that if any higher no chemicals could have formed and if lower the universe would have immediately collapsed and ceased.
@@ibperson7765 There is no evidence there was an entity "who picked the initial conditions and physical constants" for our universe. Without QG and TOE we don't even know how many physical constants there are. We don't know if the physical constant(s) must have its/their value or can vary. What a religious science communicator Micho Kaku says is not science. What a religious and an agnostic scientist speculate over is not science. The scientific consensus among cosmologist is that we don't know why the constant(s) have its/their value. To say goddunit is by default an argument from ignorance. To assign an odds to it is an argument from ignorance. I can also pull an odds out of my behind: The odds for an existence of a god is one in 10!^10!^10!^10!. That is a number with more digits than fermions and bosons in the universe, so I win.
@@freddan6fly Well if you searched “susskind fine tuning” youll find the inventor/discoverer of string theory disagrees with you. He discusses the possibility that there are other models and the constants we think are arbitrary are not. Isnt reasonable that it’ll be solved that way. Cosmological constant is tuned perfectly. Initial conditions that we know of are too. The knife edge of all knife edges. If you do the same for longterm fine tuning holdout Alan Guth, he does now too. Same search roger penrose co-author of “a brief history of time”. And the others. It’s you and Sean Carroll alone in the woods on that one. As I wrote many of them still hope for an imagined giant multiverse with 10^150 universes and penrose shows why thats no longer plausible. Design from a mind is the only source that seems reasonable. (Einstein and Heisenberg and many many many others thought that was the case even before knowing the extent of fine tuning was clear). But you dont get to hear any of the logic of this because of the dogma of the day. Steeped in the lie of scientific materialism (which is self-contradictory) from birth, as I was.
@@ibperson7765 If I search "susskind fine tuning" - I'll find Leonard Susskind's private view on fine tuning. He have not published any paper on the subject. I don't agree with him. Btw in no part of his presentation he says "goddunit". He is just amazed over nature, in his case physics, just like trees can be amazing and still evolved naturally, the same goes for the universe. What we do know is that the exponential growth of the universe stopped at a time 10^-35 seconds after the beginning of big bang. We got some/most the physics for this period of time, but we don't (yet) got the answer to why the exponential expansion stopped. Our biggest accelerator takes us back to 10^-12 seconds after the big bang when the electroweak force was one force. String theory is not yet accepted science. It is a hypothesis. What we *do need* to judge if the universe is fine tuned is both of all of physics: Both Quantum Gravity and Theory Of Everything, a theory that merges the strong force with the electroweak force. But we also need another universe to compare with. Sean Carroll says (rightfully) that the universe seems fine tuned for black holes, since there are more black holes in the universe than living creatures on earth.
I studied at two Ivy League universities, taught mathematics for 19 years, and have spoken on many campuses in the northeastern US including Yale, Columbia, MIT, Rutgers, RPI, Carnegie Mellon, and NYU. Mathematics is indeed the language through which God designed our universe, and the evidence for that only grows stronger with new discoveries in physics, molecular biology, and other fields. Design is in fact everywhere which is why, as the Pew studies have shown, over 80% of mathematicians believe that there is a God. Life is not a chemical accident!
"over 80% of mathematicians believe that there is a God" I'm a faculty member at a math department in an R1 institution. I have met only a handful of people in my field (less than I can count with my hand) who believe in a god. I need a source for this, especially considering that other studies have shown that most scientists are agnostic/atheists. I suspect that the proportion of mathematicians who do not believe is higher. www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ I also want to point out that you have a BA in history, and an MA in education. Neither of which prepares you to understand mathematics at a sufficient level to discuss this subject. And no, teaching math to high school students is not enough, no matter how long you do it.
@@richardgamrat1944 I think he is referring to this poll: www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/ that shows that 80% of the *general public* believe in god, while the majority of scientists do not. My guess, from being in academia (math), is that this number is much lower for mathematicians, and much lower when you consider the personal god, e.g. christian god. I'm going to be charitable and say this guy misread the article (how? I don't know), or maybe there's another Pew study that completely contradicts this study. But, I'm being very, very charitable.
The evolutionary theory is pure speculation without any empirical basis. No lab experiment, computer simulation or other empirical data supports evolution.
That's wonderful, if ever I heard an argument from authority this is it. Well done sir.... It appears that your Ivy league education missed out on logical fallacies 101. I have a post graduate degree from one of the most prestigious universities in the world. It's also a physical science degree. Of course, that's not an argument for anything. Saying I have studied X as University Y and lectured for Z number of years is not evidence that God exists.
My 11 and 13 year old sons are big fans of Numberphile and 3blue1brown and have become quite the math nerds. Their response to this was "whoa". I think it encouraged their love of math even more because it's a way for them to tap into God's mind.
It's a shame the entire argument presented in this video is wrong then. Humans created systems of mathematics to describe reality. When there's a breakdown in our understanding of maths that leads to disagreement with reality, we either alter our current mathematical systems or create new ones to better describe what we see in nature. You might as well ask why a video game controller fits your hands: because we designed controllers to fit our hands. Not because our hands were designed to fit controllers.
I cannot believe anyone would still doubt the existence of God after seeing such a perfect design of the universe and the spotless beauty of nature. The infinite genius of God seen in His uncountable creations is just way beyond our understanding. Just one example: Do you know the earth is at a perfect distance from the Sun? If the earth is moved a notch closer or farther, the whole world is doomed. Thus perfect distance was fashioned by God and the system has stood for over 4.5billion years! Yes, it is the command of God. It never fails!
100% of the Universe is uninhabitable within a rounding error of a billionth, and the rest of it is home to microbes and parasites that could make your last days alive a living hell. Earth also isn't at a perfect distance. It could have been tens of millions of kilometres closer or farther from the Sun and life could still have come about.
@@HarryNicNicholas i was gonna say that it could be that god doesn't want everyone to survive cancer because of a greater purpose but why would god want someone to die to cancer what is the necessity of death in this situation so than why not cure all people do some deserve to be healed while others don't it just makes no sense
“If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics.” ~ Sir Roger Bacon
So take your quote -since you believe it to be truth- as a matter of the science of Philosophy... did you use math to come to this conclusion or philosophy? Therefore, philosophy presupposes math.
well bacon was clearly an idiot :) that is in no way a modern definition of the scientific method :) you doubt everything, no theory is above attack .. and never ever should be. Just because we cannot disprove a theory today, doesnt mean new evidence wont pulverise it tomorrow .. we can only think of things as TEMPORARILY correct, or close enough to observable reality. "certainty without doubt" would literally mean the death of science
That was an amazing argument for God. I was trying to use this argument, but I wasn't all that good at wording it correctly. I really like this argument. It is one of my favorite. Thank you for explaining it so well.
It's not that you weren't able to word it its just that this argument is a logical fallacy, because we've created mathematics based on our observations to the world around us, and based on these rules we've reached possibilities that have not been witnessed yet so we've extracted mathematics from our observations of the physical world, its only natural for it to work with it and to answer the question of why it does, the answer is neither of us know, not a theist or atheist could answer that question right now
@@mr.raider744 It's not just the way mathematics work with the physical world, but the way the physical world (and mathematics which are essentially the representation of the physical world) works within itself that is miraculous. One such example would be Euler's identity, which elegantly connects all the seemingly unrelated components of mathematics that are drawn from everywhere (e a transcendental that represents natural growth, pi from geometry, i from imaginary numbers, and just -1 and 0) and put it in a beautiful and simple equation. We of course can say "yeah that's just how things are. Things were just like that from the very beginning," but it seems inexplicable when we ask "why" it is the way it is.
@@mr.raider744 that cannot be the case because there are mathematical formulas, like i, that cannot have any physical or universal relation to any other thing
He may have designed your brain to be good at something else, something you may haven't found yet. Trust in the Most High Creator, He and His Word will not let you down
The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!
Mathematics is a man made language that defines and describes how reality operates. To proffer mathematics as evidence for a mythological deity is ridiculous.
I wish this video was around when I was in Grade school and High School - I strongly believe it would have made me more interested and pay more attention in my Math classes.
This video considers & dismisses this superficial explanation. The question is not merely, “Why does it describe nature so effectively?” but “Why does it APPLY to nature so effectively?”. Why can we use descriptions of what has happened in one situation, to make predictions of what will happen in every situation? What is forcing the universe to abide by these procedures?
@@geomicpri the video solves a mystery by adding a greater mystery. And it goes the route of using ignorance as a type of evidence. "I dont understand, therefor god"
@@TheAndnor No, if anything, you could sooner accuse it of going the route of arrogance; “I DO understand, therefore God.” But I think you’d fail there too.
@@geomicpri sure, arrogance is also present. But so is ignorance. either way, their reasoning for inserting a god must also apply to their god, so its not an explanation.
I am an orthodox Christian with education in math, science, and engineering. I know this is a high level presentation, but one must be careful when slinging around terms like miracles (a very loaded (connotative) word usually referring to exceptions to the way things normally work, but mean something else here that perhaps need not be called a miracle.) And even the scope of what mathematics can do (in our hands) is more limited that what is suggested. In simple physical systems, with OBJECTS experiencing FORCES which do follow simple laws, we can create differential equation (or other mathematical models) that fully define the classical mechanics of the system. And WHEN these equations can be solved (not all can), we get a mathematical description of the behavior of that system over time, etc.. As the system gets more parts the equations get too hairy and eventually become unsolvable (to us) so we resort to numerical iterated approximations of the solutions that can be as accurate as we want. But at some point, we cannot even do such iterative approximations because real-world computation speeds cannot handle the complexity. Then we look for new laws and formulas that govern or describe new and useful EMERGENT PROPERTIES (& behaviors) that EMERGE and for awhile we can often find math that describes the net behavior of the system even though we cease to be able to computing it from the simpler underlying laws. We find that there are heuristic and statistical formulas that work pretty well, for a few kinds of behavior, but we cannot know or predict everything about the system behavior. [Though likely God can see it.] At yet higher levels of complexity, or size (where quantum and relativistic effects emerge, we find that only statistical solutions can be found, the system is no longer strictly deterministic--there are things that are unobservable to us that affect behavior [where we could imagine God fiddling with system behavior in ways that can never be observed--the realm of Miracles]. When you get to subatomic or biological or human levels, only a few things can be described mathematically, even with statistics, and most behavior is uncaptureable with mathematics--there is a lot that cannot even be described by us, even though everything "below" is coming out of "physical laws" but if we are clever, we can find new things that can be described by mathematics and new kinds of mathematics so that we can engineer the system to make it do what we want. [Of course God may not be limited in these ways, and indeed likely is not relying just on mathematics to see and control.]. CONCLUSIONS: There are indeed a lot of things that allow mathematical analysis This can be beautiful and impressive, but like all the creations of mankind, it is a humble and weak thing compared to what God can do with the universe. And it may be that God does not use math Himself, but still may have chosen to build in these math-modelable qualities into his design primarily FOR OUR BENEFIT, so that we can understand how to control some things, and to make the universe not be entirely inscrutable to us.
The very meaning of supernatural is that which is beyond our experience of what we deem as natural. A supernatural being,therefore may not be affected by cold or heat or perhaps not needing air or water, light or darkness etc or become physically tired or hungry etc. They are unaffected by things that affect us,also having an ability to be everywhere at the same time, just like the ambient air that surrounds us or the ability to dematerialise and pass through solid objects . Things we would consider as a miracle to do.
The earth has never existed… 4.6 Billion/Infinity=0. I’m also an Engineer/Math major and I followed your wording very carefully. Why are you avoiding the answer to your own explanations?
I used to say to atheists in discussions, that their theory of the Universe and life, demands many miracles! So, between the two explanations, I preffer the Universe created by God!
@@Alarcahu --- The argument is pointless if it cannot logically get you to you to Jesus. At the end of the day, the Christian Theist has to make an argument for Christian Theism and a defence for Christian Theism. William Lane Craig’s argument just does not accomplish this. At some point the Christian has make the leap of faith from Arguments to the pages of the Bible. In the end it all comes down to faith. You guys want to believe. Ok, but don’t try and pretend you have arguments that lead you straight to Jesus because none of you guys have got any.
As a mathematician, I must confess, I've never thought about this before. Excellent argument. I do wonder though wheter mathematics is a contingent (i.e. created) concept, or whether it exists necessarily.
@@abraao2213 Are you familiar with the incompleteness theorem, or the undefinability theorem? It states that a formal system, such as logic, has, at its core, something that is unprovable (axiom). If god is logical (or if logic is an expression of how god thinks), that means god also contains something that is unprovable (even to him). This seems to be a tricky proposition, as it invokes a modified version of the Euthyphro dilemma. If god is logic, then god is not "complete" (from the incompleteness theorem), but if god gives us logic, it can change, making it subjective and not universal, as god can change logic. It's a dilemma, because either choice leads to conclusions that are uncomfortable. Something to think about.
@@dr.shousa I am aware of this theorem. But I do not see how this can affect God, since God is the Truth himself He will always knows for sure anything He states, so this theorem can eve apply to us, mere mortals with limited knowledge, but not to God, that is whom defines what is and what is not. If I am not mistaken, axioms can be understood also as self evident truth, something that does not need to be proven because it is self evident truth, so the unproven does not entail absence of knowledge.
@@dr.shousa also I cannot see how this leads to euthyphro dilemma of sorts, because if God can be illogical then he can be logical and illogical at the same time, if God can be illogical then there is no dilemma. The dilemma actually is illogical, because it assumes that God can do something illogical. It assumes God can actualize something illogical, if He can, then what is the dilemma?
Whatever belief this guy has, I respect it. I'm a Muslim and really like this video. It's just doesn't make sense to me when atheists tell me that all these design we found on the universe is a mere coincidence. Believing in a creator is far more logical than believing the perfect universe comes from none.
@@silentghost751 lol .. please show me proof of jesus, an afterlife, anything youve got :) prove to me that the earth is flat and stable and the sun orbits it .. prove half the old testament isnt stolen from the stories of osiris or the epic of gilgamesh .. prove jesus own ideas are in NO WAY stolen from socrates (famously executed for doubting athena and zeus might be real, amongst other "crimes" lol .. that jesus did NOT steal his ethical ideas from an atheist .. prove that one lol) .. prove there was a planetwide flood .. prove all animals and humans on the planet are descended from single original pairs .. prove all the aussie animals were at one point taken to iraq or somewhere, put on a boat that held them for 40 days, then deposited back in Oz after the floodwaters receded, by some bronze age desert dwellers who didnt even know Oz existed lol .. prove a WOODEN BOAT built by a single family in what I presume is a few months, could handle all known land animals, which is over 30 million species .. and ofc you need TWICE that because youve a boy and girl of each one .. prove it also held food for 60 million animals for 40 days LOL .. prove at any point was there enough wood even available on earth to build this monstrous nautical death star of a vehicle lol .. prove a loving god that designed a hell of infinite pain for infinite time is somehow a sane being worthy of any form of worship, rather than being the foundation of an ethical necessity to join Lucifer and the rebels .. PS also prove Lucifer is real too, ofc lol
@@markhill3858 all scholars agee Jesus is real. There's plenty of NDEs too. The Bible said the earth was a sphere. You should see the differences between the Bible and all the others. Some believe the flood to be a lesson, rather than an historical event. God made everything out of love, but our sinful nature ruined it
Amen! Enlightenment is such a blessing! The orderly structure of the universe gives us a glimpse of the beautiful mind of God. The deeper you delve into the math, the harder it becomes to not become aware of the Presence of God. Grateful to be able to see the awe in the numbers and so be humbled by the Infinite!
@@gctcauto thing is through the mathematics/law to describe the universe, they are able to predict many things that were previously unknown. Ie, location of nepture, theory of relativity, expansion of the universe and so on. So its not only a descriptive language.
It's not a coincidence that maths describes the world. It was designed for that purpose. We made maths to describe the world. Being amazed that it works so perfectly is like being amazed that a ship floats
@@JM-jj3eg calculus was invented to explain the motion of planets. Maths was made to describe the world. 1+1=2. That was done for trade. Multiplication and division were invented to save ourselves time. Just like algebra to find out unknown numbers
It is amazing that ships float. That we have so many elements out of a primitive start. That some material can sail on others. That we are in the middle of nowhere and we can actually sail to each other. That life exists in oceans and land in so much variety. Shows God’s masterful creativity.
“The physical world operates mathematically” is an unproven claim. The only thing we can assert for now is that mathematics seems to be a pretty good set of tools to model how the physical world operates up to a certain degree of precision. You can’t infer from that that there exist a mathematical set of tools that perfectly models how the physical world operates. Plus the only way it would not violate the Gödels’ incompleteness theorem would be to posit that the physical world is not all there is. This too is an unproven claim that leads to circular reasoning.
I find your comment illogical. Mathematics seems to prove reality is not running on randomness, but following rules that are described by maths. One example is the ballistic path of a bullet, but also, the so many, if not all phenomenons following a Normal distribution pattern from which we can deduct a probability that is related to standard deviation.
BeyondAnyBeliefs it could just mean that there is always a mathematical model that is a better approximation of how the universe operates. That does not mean that there is one that matches exactly how the universe operates.
How did they find out that planet Mercury will be a little late on horizon next Tuesday? By using mathematics. And when they looked, it sure was late. So the claim is valid. The world is governed mathematically. The question was is physical world all there is? No, there is also this set of mathematical tools that exists beside it. There are two worlds, thew world of ideas and the physical world. We can imagine, that without the physical world, there would still be this other world of just numbers. Now the question is, also, how does this physical world emerge? Can it emerge from immaterial mathematics, or how does it relate at least, to this other realm? The research has been done on that question, with this video or otherwise. What they did with this research is they reverse engineered the matter. The smallest matter, they found out, is only half material, half immaterial. Like photon, for example, it has some property measured in meters, but that all that is has, it doesn't feel any kilograms or any seconds. So this fundamental matter is already half mathematical half physical. Now this is not exactly Godel's theorem, but because, once you have sheer dimensionless numbers in the first realm, they can be arranged on a line, then you get a dimension, then an imaginary number can be added, then you get a notion of other dimensions. Then name the dimensions meter, second and kilogram, any name will do. Then in the realm of mathematics, you have infinitely many dimensions with infinitely many possible names, and one thing is also there, natural constants. They exist simply because the numbers and the dimensions exist. And that numbers do wonders. They "relate" somehow meter to second (constant c), second to kilogram (Planck's constant), kilogram to temperature (by Boltzman's constant... or some other number for some other universe, all ideas are there). But that is all still all in the immaterial world. The question still remains unanswered. How does the break through from immaterial to material world happen? First guess should be, obviously, that it happens through things that are half material half immaterial.
Kasius Klej that’s the thing though: you are still making an unproven (and I’d argue probably unprovable) claim that the world is governed by mathematics, where the most we can say right now is that it seems that given a degree of precision, we are always able to find some mathematics that allows us to accurately model how the world behaves. Also, you claim that there is somehow the immaterial and the material world, and classify mathematics and ideas in the immaterial without any proof of the matter. Ideas and hence mathematics could simply be seen as emerging abstractions represented by brain states and transitions following specific and recurring patterns. Nothing immaterial there.
@@Steponlyone No, the ideas are not material by definition. Take away the whole material world, for example. What's left? Numbers 1,2,3, and others are certainly still there. They are immaterial, but they exist. And then about the claim. Yes, I think the same. It cannot be proven.To be more precise, the planets, for example, obey the laws of motion, and these are physical laws, expressed by mathematics. But this is a bad example. Take for example 1 kilogram of anything. That is material by definition. But that kilogram of anything also exists, or rather the immaterial copy of it, in the world of mathematics. There in this world it is just a combination of number one and an arbitrary name, like kilogram.
In a similar conversation, I made the following comments (slightly edited)- Dr. Robert Kuhn in his ‘Closer to Truth’ interviews has done a lot of fascinating work on this topic, i.e., math and reality. One is his interview of Dr. Hossenfelder (see ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QUWbe5KGaQY.html). I admire Dr. Hossenfelder's candor in admitting that she neither asks nor likes the 'why?' questions that Dr. Kuhn raises. Obviously, because it leads to a terrain that's outside of science proper-an area where, as a scientist, she feels she’s no longer competent to say anything that would be of any real weight. Kuhn has asked this question to top mathematicians and theoretical physicists, apparently not getting satisfactory answers. But perhaps he should go back to Wigner and take seriously his language. Wigner describes this "unreasonableness" as a "miracle" and as a "gift" that we should simply be thankful for. These terms are pregnant with metaphysical-even theological!-implications. When putting the question to Edward Witten (multi-awarded theoretical physicist and mathematician), he said something that, IMO, should be taken with careful thought; he said it's "uncanny" because "it's as if the universe has been created by a mathematician.” Dr. Kuhn responded with a nervous laugh and said, "that goes into a whole other area"-an area outside the empirical and into metaphysics and theology, an area that he explores but doesn't really like. (See Edward Witten - Why the ‘Unreasonable Effectiveness’ of Mathematics, starting at 1m ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1-Zl9o7I4Fo.html) But like Einstein's 'superior reasoning power' as behind the beauty and comprehensibility of the cosmos, the idea that a Mind is the source of the beauty of the cosmos is a very rational inference based on what is empirically observed. As agnostic Sir Fred Hoyle grudgingly said that a "common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature." Some ancient Greek thinkers posited the Logos, the Universal Reason that governed the order and structure of the cosmos. In Christian thought, John states that this Logos is the Word (creative wisdom and power) of God instantiated and incarnated in the person of Jesus Christ (see John 1:1-14). Though neither a complete nor perfect explanation, a mathematical Mind as the source of the “miracle” of the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" (Wigner’s very words) makes more sense and has more explanatory power than either a brute fact assertion that it's just the way it is and that there's no reason for it, or attributing it as a mere coincidence. But one could always reject mathematical realism and ontologically deny any objective reality to math, and that math is simply a creation of our minds and not something we discover out there in nature. But then many would disagree. Authorities such as Penrose, Tegmark, et. al. argue that there’s an entire Platonic world filled with mathematical objects that we discover (although we invent the language we use to describe what we discover). Another is Kuhn’s interview of Mlodinov (see ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uqGbn4b3LPM.html). And wow, Mlodinov simply echoes Wigner himself and understands the issues as Wigner himself did. Hence this unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics is MIRACULOUS, and as Wigner added, a GIFT we should all be thankful for. But then these descriptions cry out for an explanation, at least offer a reasonable inference. So, brute fact-no reason? Coincidence (what a jackpot!)? Multiverse (extravagant violation of the law of parsimony!)? Or inferring a single, simple mathematical MIND doing the math behind the universe (Einstein's 'superior reasoning power')-or as Mlodinov said at the end of the clip, God. Now that's a pretty rational inference. Only those committed to the ideology of reductive naturalism will find that unacceptable, not on the basis of the data but on dogma.
I find it really interesting people can make the comment that math is a language we use to describe things we discover. Yet at the same time, scientist use and rely on math to make many calculations including launching a rocket, predicting the weather, predicting the location of planets. Feels like there's a disconnect of understanding there.
@@JenYangLim I'm not sure I understand your point but it seems you're making a distinction without a difference. If you were to say " scientists use and rely on language to make many calculations...." would that change the reality in any way? Math is a universal language that simplifies and makes accurate the communication of the laws of physics, chemistry, finance etc for the use of it's practitioners. Similarly musical notation simplifies the communication of key, tone, note, beat and measure for the use of musicians. In each realm there is remarkable congruence between the language used and the thing described - if the grammar and spelling is correct.
@@gordonepema722 I just making an observation where few people on here are saying that Math is just a language used to describe what we understand our known universe. As a statistician, I know that math can be used to accurately predict many events and thus is not merely a language used to understand what we have. But there are actual proper Laws governing such things. Thus Einstein's observation of there being a creator. It is too accurate to say it is by sheer coincidence.
@@JenYangLim "I know that math can be used to accurately predict many events and thus is not merely a language used to understand what we have" Can you not do the same thing with a natural language?
This is limited thinking. Naturalist dont believe its "happy coincidence". They discover nature and try to figure out what laws operate them using mathematical explanations. It's not that they formulate mathematical equations and later realize "oh, its something". Although they realize that one mathematical equation actually applies to many phenomena. And also, there are phenomena that defies some established laws. For example, black holes are enomaly in gravitational law.
You are missing the point here. Why Math is. Math is not a product of human mind, but a discovery transcribed mentally from the Universe. Fundamentaly this intrinsic logic of relationships and ratios is behind the Universe, it also can be said that the math is the result of how the Universe is. In both cases this relationship in itself shows that the properties of the universe are fully ratio-nal. As Nikola Tesla said: "What one man calls God, another calls the laws of physics." What atheism in nutshell is saying that the laws aren't constructed rationally. But intrinsically they are. This relationship between abstract and material cannot be expanded as "coinsidence" because it is self reference tautology - "coinsidence" is a mathematical property of probability.
Clearly you are ignorant of history of science and math. At least read Eugene's paper. There are many cases where math was conceived first and later that turned out to reflect reality.
@@LyubomirIko No, that's not what atheism says. Atheism is not believing in god. An atheist can be ignorant of what the laws of physics are and what math is and they're still an atheist. For that matter, an atheist can believe in another supernatural explanation (that isn't god) for the laws of physics. Ultimately we can't test whether or not any of these explanations are correct. So I think it's best to not make any assumptions and accept that we don't know why the universe has patterns that can be understood and described by a rational mind.
@@sugetsumillenium2112 No, I don't think I can. That would require knowing why the universe works the way it works, which isn't something we can investigate, at least right now. Of course, I *could* just make up an explanation (which would need to be unfalsifiable so that you can't prove me wrong), but that wouldn't get us anywhere now would it?
Oppy refuted this argument in his discussion with Craig. It collapses into an unexplained brute contingency or a "happy coincidence" which was the exact same criticism the theist was making of the naturalist. The theist's explanation is no better.
I'm no expert in any of this, but just to assume you are somewhat correct (I suspect Craig might have a different perspective)... it is possible we can run into a linguistic wall that seems like it results in an "unexplained brute contingency". However, the limitation is due to language constraints when attempting to be hyperprecise. It is somewhat like the difference between the quantum world and the macroscopic world. If you step back just a hair, the "happy coincidence" is a potential answer indeed, but certainly unsatisfying if that is the only explanation for the myriads of similar such fine-tuned conditions. If, in fact, there is a Mind behind it all, there are not just puzzle pieces placed together, but a meaningful picture that emerges. One might respond with the analogy of the mountain climber when asked why she does so says 'because it is there." What a horribly unsatisfying retort. The climber does so because of the satisfaction that results from the success of the achievement. Now, you can probe asking about those feelings and eventually get down to dopamine, synapses, atoms, etc. and eventually get to quarks and quantum entanglement possibly. But the "Why?" will not be found down at that level - although I admit it will likely be involved. The "Why" will be found at the level of the person. Why does that person's mind think differently than someone else who is content with streams meandering through a valley? Mathematics is "beautiful" only if there is a meaning to the word "beautiful". If it is beautiful, it can only be if there is a mind to perceive it as such. I'm glad to appreciate that there is both beauty and mathematics and their entanglement is the product of a Mind to which I also can relate as a creature.
@@msvvero There is still no explanation at the bottom for _why_ God chose to make _this_ universe with _these_ fine tuned constants as opposed to _another_ universe with different constants. It still ends up being a "happy coincidence" in the end.
@@resurrectionnerd Very good point. I agree. Yet, if that "happy coincidence" is the result of a Mind making a decision, I still want to relate more to the Mind than merely make use of the coincidence.
@@msvvero I just want to add that Dr.Craig did respond to that exact point in his question of the week 2 weeks ago. www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/explaining-the-applicability-of-mathematics
This has to be the worst argument I have ever heard from Craig, and that's saying something. Being a mathematician who studies quantum field theory, I find the part at 3:17 to be especially misguided. If you think imaginary numbers can't have any place in the physical world, you don't know what imaginary numbers actually are. Spoiler, the name is a horrible misnomer. The imagination of nature is far greater than man's. They keep saying that naturalists can't explain it, but I'd rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned (god).
Are you saying there's no absolute truth? and why CAN'T the answer be God? The imagination of nature is far greater than man's, that sounds like something that would be supernatural.
@@raspberrymist That's just god-did-it, personal incredulity with supposed imagination found in nature. And then there's the absolute truth -- while I am not denying it's existence rather I am just not affirming it -- what is "absolutely true" may never be known, and thus it is not useful. I mean could you even tell us the absolute "truth" without relying on faith? History proved us that it's a resounding "NO". Science, with it's language Math, is used to get as close to the truth as if possible through trial-and-error and self-correction, and while it's not absolute truth, at least it's useful.
You cannot believe in a God but you believe BY FAITH that "nature has an imagination". Atheists are the greatest religion by far in our known world. Atheists have WAY more faith than any belief system. Can you prove what imagination is scientifically or is your statement pure nonsense? Maybe you can explain what mind is? Not the brain, but mind? Logic?
@@raspberrymist Why can't the answer be god?? You demonstrate experimentally to us all why god should or must be the answer, and then we've got something going. And yes I believe that the true statements about the nature of of the universe are absolute, which is to say, they don't depend on our opinions of them. I just don't have the hubris to think that I do or even can come to know all of those truths. We know some things about the universe and don't know others. Let's just keep looking for more truths! In the meantime, keep religion out of science classrooms.
@@redfaux74 //You cannot believe in a God but you believe BY FAITH that "nature has an imagination".Atheists are the greatest religion by far in our known world. Atheists have WAY more faith than any belief system.// That theism hasn't met it's burden of proof is not a matter of faith. All it takes to be an atheist is to be aware of this fact. //Can you prove what imagination is scientifically or is your statement pure nonsense? Maybe you can explain what mind is? Not the brain, but mind? Logic?// Let's say this can't be shown scientifically here and now, that doesn't mean the answers aren't there. There are many things we once couldn't explain but we can now. A lack of explanation to a difficult question now isn't evidence God is the explanation. You need more than that to show God is the explanation.
What is the mystery here? 1. The universe has patterns. 2. Mathematics is the study of patterns. 3. The universe's patterns can be described with mathematics. Solved.
Orbital Dew: Misquotes Galileo, even though he, presumably, JUST HEARD the statement he misquoted; then, misspells 'proceeds'; then, runs his "mouth" about someone-else's "understanding" of a statement that he himself has just misquoted; then, commits the same misquotation AGAIN. 😏😉😜
@QuantumRat2005 I don't think that the Atomized Satellite is CAPABLE of learning math to that degree. And, of course, Misty's cranial-insufficiencies aren't surprising: The VAST MAJORITY of self-identifying "atheists" that one encounters are just ill-informed, pseudo-intellectual science fan- boys/girls with emotional-health issues (anger-issues; daddy-issues; autism-spectrum disorders; delusions of persecution.....). 😉😜
The premise of the argument is completely flawed. This is the epitome of the puddle argument. Maths perfectly describes nature because we developed math to describe nature. When we find something in nature that doesn't work with the current understanding we change the maths.
Hmm, then why would the nobel prize winner claim that it is a miracle that mathematic law apply so perfectly? And why Einstein believe that there's a God out there with such precise mathematics applying to the physical world?
"Maths perfectly describes nature because we developed math to describe nature." But why does the mathematics come PRIOR to the physics?? When QM was discovered NO NEW MATHEMATICS WAS INVENTED! Instead mathematics which were used for a totally different purpose were considered. Your argument does NOT explain this.
@@jonassattler4489 Quantum Mechanics weren't "discovered", they're a theory meant to explain certain behaviors that were discovered. That's also why it's called "Quantum Theory".
@@UlfDerDritte This is meaningless sophistry and is in no way an argument against what I am saying. I also don't see why you can not discover a theory, but that discussion is just dumb.
No, we made mathematics to count wheat and pay taxes. The application of maths to science was considered "witchcraft" not too long ago, it's just that we have taken the strangeness of mathematics for granted completely.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:03 🧮 Understanding Mathematics in the Universe 02:20 🤔 Philosophical Perspectives on Mathematics' Effectiveness 03:44 🌌 The Argument for God's Existence Made with HARPA AI
I think you need to look into your discussion with Grahem Oppy some more on this subject. I think he really demonstrated the intuition which dismisses the claim that "The universe is based on mathematics". However your argument is structured very very well.I suspect Dr. Oppy's argument suggests that mathematics is the mere observation of the consistent nature of reality. The "Rules" are just principles of consistency and it's not really about anything else. Which basically dissolves this argument among others into the contingency argument, which I have always asked in the form "why anything?"
It wouldn't really dissolve the argument because it would just push it further towards the issue of natural laws and regularities. If we are just describing the consistent nature of reality, there is still the deeper question of why reality is orderly, how come things follow and display regularities (that we can then describe mathematically) instead of being utterly chaotic and unpredictable. Reality is, at its base-level, orderly, regular, harmonious, predictable. All of that sits much better with the theistic idea that the foundation of reality is the Logos, Mind, than with the naturalistic picture.
Not seeing to the sun and only looking to skies and telling skies give us light and there is no sun does not undo the fact that there is sun and is covered to y due to Ur ignorance
@Ogutu-TishOg M well. God gave wisdom and knowledge to king Solomon and other people as well. These people have basically share wisdom and knowledge from god to others. If you read the book of Solomon, Solomon had Been given wisdom and knowledge of music, and science and much more. People around the world came to visit him for his knowledge and wisdom
Bobsheaux - yeah, I’m with you I that. It just does not sit well with me. There are plenty of good arguments for the existence of God, but this is not one of them.
Well mathematics is at its roots a way of predicting events. You can only predict events, however, if they follow a structured pattern. Mathematics essentially describes those patterns so that we as humans can make use of them. There is no naturalistic reason why these “patterns” such as the law of gravity, the general theory of relativity, and so on would ever be in place. How can a series of chemical reactions result in the seemingly designed and structured natural laws we see. Why doesn’t everything just happen at random, but rather in a predictable manner? Someone (God) had to have put these patterns in place for us to realize. In summary, mathematics would not be possible without a God to create the laws that mathematics describes.
Rick in Texas I wish I would see at least one good argument for god’s existence! All I see is “it is easier than actually searching for answers therefore god” or “it is scary otherwise therefore god” or “I want there to be an afterlife and an intrinsic meaning for my existence therefore god”. So pathetic...
Chris Mahn Why do you attribute “will” to the reason of everything being in order? Why do you ask “someone” instead of “something”? Why do you think it was intentionally done and not “just so happened”? There is no “order” in quantum physics for example - most of things “just happen” there - so by your logic nobody created the particles as they act too chaotically!
Mathematics isn't really the study of numbers and equations, it's a study of the rules that govern them, and ultimately about the conclusions of conditional logic with respect to quantifiable objects. The reason why math models nature so well is ultimately because the universe respects the principle of causality, and why that's the case is where we ought to turn our attention to our amazing creator.
@@sunilrampuria7906 He seems to be very clear that we do not understand why mathematics works as well as it does. If it was because we understand things mathematically, why would he say this?
@@MrDoctorSchultz It was a mistake from his part. Just because he won a Noble prize doesn't mean that everything he says is correct. We do understand why mathematics work the way it works. You may read his "misconstrued" paper and you may also think about the whole thing by yourself instead of just trusting some stranger like me. You may also want to read Nietzsche's essay "On truth and lies in a nonmoral sense".
Without referring to any Religious Book and any biases that anyone may have, which God is the Creator ? The argument in-and-of-itself does not get you to Yahweh. The argument in-and-of-itself does not get you to Jesus.
@@ChannelPabilona ---- Historical Arguments are Terrible. They only convince people who want to be convinced. I went to Wallsend High School and came top of the year in Math. That is Historically True. Do you believe it ?
@@TheMirabillis how else would you come to the conclusion of which religion is right? Isn't looking at the origins/foundation of the religion important?
@@joewaldner6986 You call cancer cells, contagious diseases, natural disasters and vestigial organs that can become inflamed and infected and serve no biological purpose “intelligent design”?
@@2l84me8 What a facile argument. That's like coming up to a car wreak on the highway and blaming Ford's "poor" design. Cancer is proof of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics and there is no such thing as *_vestigial organs_* I remember when they used to call the Appendix. Not any more. *_But the reputation of the appendix is improving. Researchers are learning that your appendix may play a role in good health._* If you believe in evolution the burden is upon you to *_show_* it happened. Not guess that it happened, or hopped that it happened.
Two critiques: 1. (3-minute mark) When naturalists say the world "happens to have a mathematical structure", they aren't saying every mathematical concept exists in the physical world. That part of your argument is a strawman. 2. (3:30) "This answer still doesn't explain...mathematical structure." Correct-that's why naturalists say "happens to have..." They've already addressed this. Your objection is just restating what they already told you, which is 'we don't know why yet.' I honestly enjoyed the video, I just think you're setting yourself up for a pretty easy broadside by using those 2 arguments.
Wow amazing....I thought so hard about the mystery and infinity of numbers and integers as a young high school student ...I really appreciate that God is the origin and creator the universe who created the mathematical patterns and laws of physics...We see it every where from the molecular to the macro universe....
IoDavide1 Pagans do not believe that Odin is the creator of the universe, he is just another part of it. Please actually learn a bit about the subject before trying to be witty.
Md.Bahroz Babur Ali No you don’t understand, he believes that Odin is the one true God, stop assuming that he believes in the entire Norse pantheon, there is way too much evidence proving that what they supposedly govern is just natural causes.
I don't think the second premise of the argument is sound, or at least the way it is expressed is not correct. Because, how to explain a happy coincidence without mathematics? Coincidence just points to something we don´t have enough information to explain, we are trying to explain something here.
I don't like the summary of the Mathematical argument.. it's like saying: 1) If I didn't go to the shop, then my wife was the one who bought the bananas 2) But my wife didn't buy those bananas 3) Therefore, I bought the bananas.
This analogy doesn't compare even close to what is being said in this video. No one is talking about purchasing anything. The store did not create itself it had a builder and a designer. Buying bananas doesn't compute in this theory at all.
I agree (but not with tallterri). It's a false dichotomy: The argument would have us believe that either mathematics is a gift from a loving god who sends gifts our way, like DEET, mosquitoes or mathematics, or there is literally not a single other possible explanation. An explanation is needed obviously, unlike for, say logic, which has to be causally prior to God, so therefore there's a loving god.
tallterri law ... I think you're missing the point here. The analogy is of the same formula; 1) if A didn't cause Z, then B must be the one who caused Z; 2) but B didn't cause Z; 3) so A must've caused Z; But what about CDEFGHIJK...?
I don't know why but I think youtube don't give this video more impression that it deserve Watched it 2years ago and still the view is same But this is a great video for anyone in planet earth
Humans invented the Mathematics to describe the universe. There's a reason you will not have advanced mathematics in the Bible. They hadn't been invented yet.
Brandon Shaver But very often mathematics predates the physics which uses the mathematics to describe reality. Why don’t physicists have to invent new mathematics for every new discovery in physics?
@Neil Graham What do you think a universe without order would look like and why would you expect to find yourself in any other universe then the one you’re in?
@@jonassattler4489 That the predictable of physics. We can use our tool of math to make predictions. A predictability that isn't in the Bible. Then Joshua spoke to the Lord on the day when the Lord delivered the Amorites before the children of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel: ‘Sun, stand still [dom] upon Gibeon; and you, Moon, in the valley of Ayalon.’” (Joshua 10:12). Also, the Bible get the movements of the sun and earth wrong. God would have had the stop the earth not the sun.
I'm a statistician. My job is to make mathematics "work" and explain the world (physical, social, biological, etc.). Given my experience and training, I can definitively say that, no, mathematics is not "surprisingly," "miraculously," or whatever, applicable to the physical world. I can see how someone in the 60's, such as Wigner, think so, with the limited knowledge and tools available at that time. But, I think you'll be hard pressed to find a mathematician/physicist/statistician that'll agree with the premise in the modern day. In fact, I spend all my days, and make a living, coming up with more complicated, sometimes ad hoc, solutions to real world problems to get a marginally better *approximation* using math, but in no way can I say that these models are "applicable" as this video suggests (they work, sometimes). I wish it was true, but it just isn't, to the point where we "know" the limitation of our axiomatic mathematical system, and that there are fundamental aspects that math can never explain.
I can appreciate the work that you do since it is a valuable occupation. Yes, approximations are a part of everyone's daily experience. Nonetheless, precise mathematical models do explain much of nature and those need an accounting of their existence. Just because approximations exist, does not make the simple and elegant mathematical expressions that are at the same time profound go away. When applied to "normal" life, yes boundaries get a little blurred. Can we, for instance, take a boat and precisely - down to the nanometer - show where is the dividing line between the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico? But the gravitational relationship between two bodies with mass can be described precisely. But, then again, how that maps out in space when the bodies are not perfectly spherical, will not be precise. So both precision and approximation apply. It is not one or the other. When I use Excel, if in general format, I can get a result that shows 3.1415927x10^-13. If I set that to comma format, I will get 0.00. If I want to go to Mars, I might need the extra precision. If I just need to pass an audit, comma format is more than sufficient. To say Wigner was in a time of "limited knowledge" as far as its application to this discussion is concerned is a bit much. The standard model of physics was mostly known - only a few additions since then such as quarks being confirmed, tau neutrino and Higgs boson. General relativity was long prior confirmed along with the whole quantum world. There still is no GUT/ToE to say we've reached a whole new peak of cosmic understanding. I'm very comfortable standing with Wigner's statement.
@@msvvero My criticism towards Wigner, and the premise/conclusion this video makes, is the notion that physics (and a limited view at that) is everything. I can name several fields (in natural and social sciences, even in physics), where mathematics is not "surprisingly" applicable. To say that because math is surprisingly applicable for some physical phenomena, therefore math is surprisingly applicable to the physical world, is sheer arrogance (and tbh I do see this from physicists from time to time). You're counting the hits and ignoring the misses. For every instance math is surprisingly applicable, I can name a dozen cases where it is not, which seems to defeat the premise. If math has this magical property of explaining the world, why do we have the uncertainty principle? If our physical world is fundamentally probabilistic, the notion that math explains anything is simply about probability approximations, making the argument moot. Why do we have 3000+ axioms in math? If math is so applicable and universal, why do we have the incompleteness theorem, and no unifying axioms? The points raised in this video flies in the face of what we know about math and the physical world, and just doesn't match up with what we (scientists) do, to the point where it's honestly offensive.
My humble guess is because you are not able to know all the needed variables and premises in order to be precise. Since God can know and know that in fact He is able to tell us anything that is going to happen in the universe, precisely.
@@abraao2213 That's a great point! We often think about processes with infinite variables, and check how well our models do, theoretically, against them, knowing that we can never be exactly precise (because we can't deal with an actual infinite number of variables, and more fundamentally the uncertainty principle). But this refutes the argument presented here, because this admits that math is simply an approximation (a finite variable model to an infinite variable process). Sometimes the models work well (because the few variables we have approximate the infinite variables well enough), sometimes it doesn't, making the applicability of math random (coincidental). This actually raises an interesting point regarding (in my opinion the best argument for god) the argument from contingency, which states that if everything is contingent on each another, there must be something that is necessary at the base (i.e. god). However, if there is a model of everything in the universe (which is fundamentally unknown to us), and therefore god can know everything precisely because he knows/created the model (past, present, and future), then things are no longer contingent, but necessary, because it could not have happened any other way (e.g. for e=mc^2, if we have m and c, e has to be e). This makes math and everything necessary (or brute fact), so the argument "math, therefore god" becomes "necessary thing, therefore necessary thing." This is what Oppy raised in his debate with WLC, which WLC had no real answer to. On the other hand, if these phenomena contain something that is fundamentally random (unknowable), even to god, that makes everything probabilistic (god can know the future to some precision, but not exactly), making even god probabilistic (there is something about god that god himself doesn't know, in order for him to create something that he doesn't know), which makes god, well, not god, and just the first random thing in a chain of random things. My view is the latter, because it aligns with what I know from my own studies, but I think the former is also, equally likely, given that we don't have any evidence for either (we don't know if there is even an infinite variable model that is exactly precise, and we can never know). That being said, I think theists and atheists should think hard about the implications of these two views (for example, the former does not allow for free will), and other possible views.
Because General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and other fields do not have this complicated ad hoc structure. Einstein's field equations can be written on the back of a postcard, and yet are confirmed to 14 places of a decimal by observation. Ad hoc models have very little predictive power and have to be made more and more complicated to fit additional observation. This is the exact opposite of what physicists encounter.
@@1godonlyone119 not even close. This is just a variation on the god of the gaps argument. You don't know why math works, so a god must have done it.... Math still works in a purely materialistic universe.
Immanuel Kant already answered that question and I really don't know why everyone forgets always about philosophy. Kant already said that mathematics and logic is the way our consciousness interacts with the world. Causality, time and space are contingent because they depend on our consciousness and the same goes for mathematics and logic and that's why we can only describe the "universe" with mathematics because that's how our consciousness perceives the world. Our consciousness works like that and if you want to perceive anything you need "Anschauung and term". The "Anschauung" interacts with our terms that's why our "Anschauung" of the world is influenced by the terms our consciousness has to rely on -> Mathematics.
Kants focus was more on how our thinking itself works, not on how nature _itself_ works. > _Causality, time and space _*_are contingent_*_ because they depend on our consciousness_ That's a misrepresentation of what his work shows. At best he called some of these concepts (e.g. causality/freedom, the temporal finitude of the universe, immortality, etc.) ein _gedacht werden Müssendes_ -> we, due to _our limitations_ must work using both the assumption of the truth and falsehood of these concepts (obviously not simultaneously), as _we_ cannot determine metaphysical truths. In terms of spacetime (or as was known to him: space, and time) this concept was on the one hand transcendental, but on the other _Bedingung der Möglichkeit von Erkenntnis_ So quite the contrary, he does not propose that they be contingent, but rather that _our framework of thought depends on THEM_ . So your representation is misleading and your application is wrong. > _and the same goes for mathematics and logic_ Due to your misrepresentation, your rushed/snuck in conclusion is invalid. In fact afaik, he viewed Mathematics as an irrefutable area of knowledge.
Wenn du deutsch kannst, dann sollte dieses Zitat von Kant deinen Text widerlegen: „Wäre also nicht der Raum (und so auch die Zeit) eine bloße Form eurer Anschauung, welche Bedingungen a priori enthält, unter denen allein Dinge für euch äußere Gegenstände sein können, die ohne diese subjektive Bedingung an sich nichts sind: so könntet ihr a priori gar nichts über äußere Objekte synthetisch ausmachen. Es ist also ungezweifelt gewiß, und nicht bloß möglich, oder auch wahrscheinlich, daß Raum und Zeit, als die notwendigen Bedingungen aller (äußeren und inneren) Erfahrung, bloß subjektive Bedingungen aller unserer Anschauungen sind […].“ (B 66) Raum und Zeit sind subjektive Bedingungen unserer Anschauung, dass heißt ohne unsere Anschauung gibt es keinen objektiven Raum.
@@Andy-yx2rw das mag sein, nur seit Einstein wissen wir mehr als Kant: Raumzeit ist eine verwirklichte Entität. Massen interagieren mit der Raumzeit und diese Interaktion ist uns als Gravitation bekannt. Rein aus der Informationsperspektive bleiben Kants Gedanken dennoch richtig im Sinne _unserer_ subjektiven Erfahrungen. In unseren Denkrahmen ist die Raumzeit der Startpunkt, die subjektive Bedingung von allen unseren Anschauungen. Sein Urteil, dass die Raumzeit an sich (ihm als Raum und Zeit bekannt) fiktiv ist, ist aber physisch widerlegt. Kants Kenntnisse der Physik waren beschränkt.
Wigner was wrong to be astonished, if he was. As Galileo put it, the book of the universe is written in the language of math. Math is just a language we find useful to describe what is. Math has no causal power, as was said in the video. Thus, it is merely a description of what we observe. We have poets and philosophers such as Russel; his quote shown at the head of Wigner's article is beautiful prose, who can compose sublime prose and poetry describing the world around us. Mathematicians, sometimes, write proofs that have sublime aesthetic form and value. Sometimes mathematicians write ugly equations as do poor poets write ugly poems. Why be amazed and dumbfounded when a beautiful proof is composed? The universe exists as it is, whether humans find it beautiful or not. Better explanations for its structure and origin exist than just, "God did it that way because he liked it like that."
1. First Wigner was not wrong and your attempt at an answer only confirms that because you obviously never read his article on this issue given the criticism you give. 2. The universe could not be described by mathematics if it did not have a mathematical structure, why is the universe not just chaos, or why does it not have some primitive mathematical structure that can only be described by the simplest arithmetic; the answer to theism is the lottery, that is, according to atheistic logic, we should not be surprised when something works well even though it is extremely unlikely. 3. Aesthetics have nothing to do with this argument (another indicator of how much you don't understand the argument)
@MP oh my... menkind created math to analize reality, that's why it works. My dear friend, the answer "god did it" is the answer of the person who stopped asking "why?" to himself, get out of this dead-end tunnel.
@MP you can write as long as you want, it will not make god more real without measurable proof. The fact you have no idea about what is math is your problem, I'm not interested in your misconceptions.
Galatians 1: 6 I am astonished that you have so quickly turned away from the One Who called you into the love of Messiah, to another message;7 Not that there is any other glad tidings, just that there are some who trouble you, and are trying to pervert the message of the Messiah.8 But even if we, or a malak from heaven, should preach a +message other than what we preached to you: May he be accursed!9 As we have already said, so I now say again: If any man preaches any message to you contrary to or different from what you have received from us: May he be accursed!10 So now, who am I trying to please man, or Father YAHweh? Do I seek to be a man-pleaser? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of the Messiah! 11 But I point out to you, brothers, that the message preached by me is not something any man invented.12 For I neither received it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Father YAHweh's Resurrected Son. May Father YAHweh bless your understanding.
@freddan6fly well then, did man create mathematics or is mathematics the discovery of natural laws. I believe mathematics existed with and during the creation of the universe, mathematics is a byproduct of intelligence. Therefore there is nontangle intelligence in the universe... Wither we conclude it as God or not. Intelligence exists in the construction of the universe.
Mathematics is a by-product of intelligence yes... The intelligence if man. Math was invented to model patterns discovered in the nature of reality. It's no surprise that math does what it was invented to do. It's also no surprise that the patterns found in the nature of reality are consistent with reality, because reality will always be consistent with reality.
A bridge is to connect two seperate place, but the bridge it self is not a place. Mathematic is the bridge that connects metaphysical with physical. Gin,
@@PappyGunn Hey Pappy. You must have been misinformed. Your argument goes like this: 1. H ∈ N 2. H ∈ V 3. V ⊂ N (1, 2) That's invalid. (3) doesn't follow from (1) and (2). Just because Hitler is an element of both Nazis and vegetarians doesn't mean that vegetarians are a subset of Nazis. There could still be other vegetarians that aren't Nazis, even though Hitler is both. On the other hand, the video's argument goes like this (G = God exists; MHC = mathematics is a happy coincidence): 1. ¬G → MHC 2. ¬MHC 3. ¬¬G (1, 2) 4. G (3) The video's argument is valid. (3) follows from (1) and (2) because of modus tollens. (4) follows from (3) because of a double negative. The video just abbreviates the syllogism by removing (3), which is perfectly fine since (4) still eventually follows from (1) and (2).
@@PappyGunn Yea - that is not how this argument works at all. The argument is absolutely 100% logically valid. The question is whether the 2 premises are more likely true than false.
"Because God did it" is not a conclusive, or persuasive, or even plausible argument. You are reasoning towards a forgone conclusion (which may yet be correct) not trying to follow the logic to wherever it leads.
Without God you have no reason to believe that mathematics work, you have no reason to believe that the laws of logic exist. You're simply stuck begging the question. As a Christian I know these things exist and work properly because they're rooted in the nature of God. You're mad that this isn't conclusive and yet your entire existence is not conclusive without God as the foundation.
@@vanyatsurkan6917 Really? Let's look at the Law of Identity, one of the classic laws of logic. The Law of Identity, A=A, states that a thing is what it is and is not what it is not. So we have two things here, the statement A=A and that to what the statement refers, being, that things can only be what they are. It's impossible for matters to be otherwise, things can only be what they are, they can't be what they are not. It's this impossibility for things to not be what they are that makes it an absolute and universal rule and therefore a Law of Logic. So there we are, an acount of a Law of Logic and God doesn't come into it.
@@vanyatsurkan6917 : I don't see a single thing that suggests a god is necessary to call 1 & 1 2. It just happened because we found it to be a necessary tool like a bowl to hold food. Look at Roman numerals. They begin with a collection of sticks. I, II, III,
@@vanyatsurkan6917 The reason to believe that the laws of logic work is that it can be demonstrated empirically. The fact that you can't be absolutely certain about it is irrelevant because there is nothing that you can be absolutely certain about. Absolute certainty is not a requirement for anything to be practically useful. Also if god created the laws of logic can he change it to his likings whenever he wants? That means what we believe about the laws of logic now can simply become invalid whenever god decides so. So throwing in god doesn't add anything to our confidence in the laws of logic. God just a superfluous additional assumption that we have to take on faith that doesn't add anything useful.
@@Whatsisface4 Boring. "Law" is misleading, rather postulate/axiom is what they really are. The classical "laws" are just postulates assumed to be self-evident via human intuition, but no real proof. "a thing is what it is and is not what it is not" Which is nothing but a baseless assertion on. The first part of this statement already implies a thing/entity is bounded or categorizable in some way ('what it is') but this may not be the case if for example the thing/entity in question is limitless/ineffable in some ways. Or in other words, not strictly countable (like an infinite sequence). This would invalidate the very task of trying to identify it and therefore incapable of being part of the law of identity. Aristotle's three axioms are just assumptions based on human cognitive limits, nothing more. Laws...how cute
Mathematics describes patterns. There are patterns in the universe. There is nothing miraculous or even surprising about the fact mathematics is effective at describing reality
Exsept the existence of those Laws to begin with. What you are saying is that becouse you can make your own battery and light bulb and make it shine and have some basic understanding of how it works - there is nothing special in the mere existence of those Laws.
"There are patterns in the universe." But why are the patterns simple? Why are the Maxwell equations 4 and not a million? Sure, we can all agree that any potential pattern could be described by mathematics, but the only reason anybody in physics gives a shit about mathematics is because mathematics can describe the universe quite concisely and I do not see an immediate reason why that would be the case....
@@jonassattler4489 if you think they are simple your understanding of the intricacies of physics are elementary level at best. They are not even close to simple. The maths involved in high precision physics is extremely complicated. If you think the patterns are simple you're lying to yourself. I've studied Quantum, astro and particle physics. None of it is simple patterns. The simple patterns are often just good approximations of a much more complicated system such as Newtonian physics
@@ClikcerProductions You are ignoring the point. Obviously the study of PDEs is extremely complex, but that seems totally irrelevant to the fact that the descriptions of the patterns is extremely simple. It is LITERALLY 4 equations to describe our entire theory of light and electricity. At the same time, obviously, the behavior of light or electricity is extremely complicated, so one would naively expect that any description of those phenomena to be extremely complex too, but that just isn't the case. You are very obviously correct that the Maxwell equations are extremely complex, yet that complexity is purely a product of the very simple statement of those 4 equations. To put my argument very simply "why are there 4 Maxwell equations and not a million?"
This is a briliant deductive argument. If you can't disprove the premises (ignoring them or discrediting the author is not disproving), the conclusion is sound and the argument is strong.
Looks like a good dose of Adobe After Effects/Photoshop/illustrator and for the 3D elements probably Cinema 4d (but could be Maya or Lightwave or 3D Studio MAX)
As an agnostic, I admit that the "unreasonable effectivness of mathematics" is what has led to so many modern mathematicians becoming neo-platonists. That is to say, they believe abstract entities exist concretely. You also bring up Bertrand Russell, who's life work in mathematical logic was intended to solve this problem by grounding mathematics in logic. Otherwise known as Logicism. However, you fail to mention why Russell's project failed. Because Gödel, in his two incompleteness theorems, proved that mathematical systems are inherently limited in the following ways: 1. For any consistent formal system, there are mathematical statments in the system that cannot be proven nor disproven from within the system itself. 2. For any formal system, the consistency of the system (lack of logical contradictions) cannot be proven from within the system. This profoundly limits mathematical systems. It's my belief that, had Russell actually proven Logicism, you would have a much stronger argument for the existence of God. Because mathematics has within it infinitely contradictory system, like euclidian and hyperbolic geometries to name one example. And as Gödel showed, none of the mathematical systems, like the many set theories modern mathematicians use, can be both complete and consistent. So none of which seem to be the perfect system upon which God based the universe. It is unlikely God created infinite systems, each contradicting one another, and based the universe of that. Some, like Russell, believe Logic is the perfect system, but the fact that mathematics is not one thing, that it contains within it infinite logically contradictory systems, each containing statments which cannot be proved or disproved within them, seems to prove just about the as difinitively as possible that mathematics is not the perfect system you make it out to be.
If you want a concrete example of a problem in mathematics that cannot be proven or disproven, look up the "Continuum Hypothesis" which Gödel first proven (indipendent of the incompletness theorems) that the negation of the hypothesis cannot be proven true in 1940. But then in 1963 it was proved by Paul Cohen that the hypothesis cannot be proven true either. Thus the Continuum Hypothesis cannot be proven true or false in standard set theory, so it is called "independent", exemplifying Gödels first incompleteness theorem.
@BLACK LIVES AGAINST GAYS As I said, my point is that Mathematics is not one thing. It is many, many different systems, each with axioms that contradict other mathematical systems, each, if consistent, having statements unable to be either proven or disproven, and each unable to prove their own consistency. Mathematics is not the system upon which God based creation because it is very much not one thing.
@Roof Korean If all you guys have to add to the discussion is "if it isn't "one thing" then why is it called by one name?" then we have nothing further to discuss.
What's further interesting is that mathematics, while abstract, requires the physical realm to give itself definition. For example, if the multiverse exists, then it is impossible for a universe to exist with only mathematics because there wouldn't be anything defining it. Numbers wouldn't have definition. Subtraction, multiplication, division, etc. can't exist. Mathematics must have something in the physical realm to provide purpose to exist. You can't separate the two. The physical and the abstract require each other in this mysterious relationship that we can't explain other than by a Creator.
“Numbers wouldn’t have definition”. Of course it wouldn’t because people are the one’s who create the definition. That’s all mathematics is. The physical does not require the abstract. In what way is LANGUAGE necessary for our existence? And by “our” I mean this from a universal perspective, including any organism that doesn’t use any language. The abstract is the discovery of the physical. Tell me one single part in which mathematics does not apply in the physical world.
I have been teaching math for 15+ years and I tell my students that math is just another way to describe the universe just like poetry, prose, music, dance, and the rest of human endeavors. BUT, that math, as a description, has a predictive quality that the others do not. We live and move in a Euclidean space but our bodies function in the quantum space. I think that the video as good as it is could have been better.
But why? Mathematics is an epistemological tool for understanding reality. We have discovered mathematical laws painstakingly over millenia. We have a natural need to understand nature and use it for survival. Mathematics is a means of doing so. It reflects reality because we are part of the reality it describes. Equally, one might say language is a proof of god because it can be used to describe reality.
Language doesn’t relate to actual physical processes it just describes them mathematics apply and shockingly in an accurate manner , the question is why abstract thoughts apply accurately to physical tangible entities ? Don’t straw man the argument friend the logical unbiased conclusion is a mind independent from it that’s after you trim down the fallacies along your journey such as the infinite regression but you’ll most certainly climb the mountain of knowledge and a band of theologians will welcome you like it or not my friend like it or not
@@abel3557 why do you say that ? Show me how prove it ? Your an atheist and if your really honest or educated about it you would commit suicide or have a very depressed look into life
@@abel3557 why do you say that ? Show me how prove it ? Your an atheist and if your really honest or educated about it you would commit suicide or have a very depressed look into life
@@RstRlx The video basically says atheists don't have an explanation of the applicability of mathematics whereas theists do and that explanation is God. That's a God of the gaps reasoning, so I don't really take that as a defense for premise 2.
Very good!! Godel utilize Modal 5 logic in his famous Proof: A translation of Gödel's proof sketch (in the version of Gödel's student Dana Scott) from formal logic into natural language: • Axiom 1: Either a property or its negation is positive. • Axiom 2: A property that is necessarily implied by a positive property is positive. • Theorem 1: Positive characteristics may be due to an existent entity. • Definition 1: A God-like entity has all the positive features. • Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive. • Conclusion: Perhaps God exists. • Axiom 4: Positive characteristics are necessarily positive. • Definition 2: A property is the essence of an entity, if it belongs to the entity and necessarily implies all the properties of the entity. • Theorem 2: To be God-like is the essence of every God-like entity. • Definition 3: An entity exists necessarily if all of its essences are necessarily realized in an existing entity. • Axiom 5: Necessarily existing is a positive property. • Theorem 3: God must necessarily exist.
'IF' my latest TOE idea is really true, (and I fully acknowledge the 'if' at this time), that the pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon is the energy unit of this universe that makes up everything in existence in this universe, and what is called 'gravity' is a part of what is currently recognized as the 'em' photon, then the oscillation of these 3 interacting modalities of the energy unit would be as follows: Gravity: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction; Electrical: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction; Magnetic: Maximum in one direction, Neutral, Maximum in the other direction. Then: 1 singular energy unit, with 3 different modalities, with 6 maximum most reactive positions, with 9 total basic reactive positions (neutrals included). Hence 1, 3, 6, 9 being very prominent numbers in this universe and why mathematics even works in this universe. (And possibly '0', zero, as possibly neutrals are against other neutrals, even if only briefly, for no flow of energy, hence the number system that we currently have).
Revised TOE: 3/25/2017a. My Current TOE: THE SETUP: 1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism. 2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.). 3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them. 4. Protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them. 5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them. FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO: 6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field. 7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field. 8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality. 9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between electrons and protons. 10. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary. 11. Quarks also supposedly have a charge to them and then would also most likely have electro-magnetic fields associated with them, possibly a different arrangement for each of the six different type of quarks. 12. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA: 13. Personally, I currently believe that the directional force in photons is "gravity". It's the force that makes the sine wave of EM energy go from a wide (maximum extension) to a point (minimum extension) of a moving photon and acts 90 degrees to the EM forces which act 90 degrees to each other. When the EM gets to maximum extension, "gravity" flips and EM goes to minimum, then "gravity" flips and goes back to maximum, etc, etc. A stationary photon would pulse from it's maximum extension to a point possibly even too small to detect, then back to maximum, etc, etc. 14. I also believe that a pulsating, swirling singularity (which is basically a pulsating, swirling 'gem' photon) is the energy unit in this universe. 15. When these pulsating, swirling energy units interact with other energy units, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe. 16. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate. 17. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure. 18. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons). THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY: 19. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up. 20. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency. 21. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies. NOTES: 22. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 23. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other. 24. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well. 25. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM with the energy unit, this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now. Of which with the current theory of understanding, how come the forces of nature haven't evolved by now since the original conditions acting upon the singularity aren't acting upon them like they originally were, billions of years have supposedly elapsed, in a universe that continues to expand and cool, with energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense? My theory would seem to make more sense if in fact it is really true. I really wonder if it is in fact really true. 26. And the universe would be expanding due to these pulsating and interacting energy units and would also allow galaxies to collide, of which, how could galaxies ever collide if they are all speeding away from each other like is currently taught? DISCLAIMER: 27. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty. Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way. a. Imagine a 12 hour clock. b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions. c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions. (The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.) d. Shoot a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields. e. Do this with the em fields on and off. (The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results.) f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects. (Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.) (And note: if done right, it's possible a mini gravitational black hole might form. Be ready for it. In addition, it's possible a neutrino might be formed before the black hole stage, the neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.) (An alternative to the above would be to shoot 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space.) 'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done. 'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. Science still wins either way and moves forward.
GOD DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST EXCEPT FOR AS A CONCEPT: For those who claim God actually exists (besides as a concept), consider the following: a. An actual eternally existent absolute somethingness truly existing. b. An actual eternally existent absolute somethingness that has consciousness, memories and thoughts truly existing. People who claim God actually and eternally exists basically are claiming that 'b' above is correct but yet simultaneously seem to be saying that 'a' is impossible to occur. 'a' above can exist without 'b' existing but 'b' cannot exist unless 'a' exists. Even per the scientific principal of Occam's razor, 'a' is more probable of being really true rather than 'b'. I am one step away from proving God's existence, but am unable to find any actual evidence to do so. And nobody I've talked to seems to have any actual evidence of God's actual existence either. All humans appear to have are 'Theories of God'. Some humans appear to go their whole life basing their life upon their specific theory of God. They even at times kill other humans based upon their own theories. Many give their God human characteristics and cannot even prove the existence of their God much less the characteristics given to their God. Some have circumstantial arguments for a God's existence, but others have circumstantial arguments for no God existing. Not one has any actual factual evidence that their God actually factually even exists. Hence, at this time in the analysis, God does not actually exist except for as a concept created by humans for humans. Humans have personified Nature and called that personification "God". It appears many of them are delusional and are believing in fairy tales as if those fairy tales were really true. Instead of what is claimed "God creating man in God's image", it's more likely that "Man created God in Man's image". Further consider that if the emotional parts of the brain override the logic and reasoning parts of the brain, people can be made to believe bascially anything at all as being really true. Plus modern science has already proven that humans can have visual and audio hallucinations that are very real to that individual. All the more reason for critical thinking being needed and to follow the facts wherever those facts might lead. In addition, while modern science does not know what consciousness actually is yet, memories and thoughts appear to require a physical correctly functioning brain to have those items occur. Where is God's brain? Where are God's memories stored at? How are God's memories stored and retrieved? How does God think even a single coherent thought? If inside of this space time dimension we appear are existing in, then where? If outside of this space time dimension we appear are existing in, then where is the interface between that dimension and this dimension? No such interface has been discovered as of yet as far as I am currently aware of.
I think the entire argument can be summed up by the first premise at 4:30: "If God does not exist, then the applicability of mathematics is just a happy coincidence". --- Is that really true? Couldn't there be other reasons that this particular youtube video has just not considered. Perhaps mathematics is just the natural way universes run themselves, and we have simply evolved to use reason --- sufficient to infer the laws of mathematics. It seems that this first premise is therefore probably not true. Besides, even if there is a God, surely a God could choose to make a non-mathematical universe? So why did God choose to make a universe that was very mathematical, but not so complicated that we couldn't understand it (if indeed we can understand it at its most fundamental)? It doesn't seem like there's an answer to that, so are theists really in a better position? This argument makes no sense at all when examined closely. --- Let us consider adding a new extremely plausible additional premise: 1b. Even if there was a God, it is still happy coincidence that God chose the applicability of mathematics (since He could easily have had it lots of other ways). Now the argument is infeasible meaning that one of the premises needs to go, but we have no idea which. --- One more point: The argument was put forward by Wigner, who remained atheist. If this argument, which on the face of it looks weak (unsound first premise), didn't convince Wigner, why should it convince us?
"So why did God choose to make a universe that was very mathematical, but not so complicated that we couldn't understand it (if indeed we can understand it at its most fundamental)?" Well, the math done on architectural structures vary from basic to complex, so we could just be slowly figuring out the complexity of our infinite universe. Also, if God chose mathematics, it's probably less coincidence and more by intentional design. Other then these qualms, I think your argument holds up. There are better arguments for God's existence, but this video seems to mix up aesthetics and physics. Maybe William Lane Craig has a stronger argument on his website for mathematics proving God. I haven't checked it out yet so I can't confirm.
@@gctcauto Is Mathematical system representing relations? The first math was putting stick (I) on the ground and seeing the relationship of them, can you see them? : I I I I Clearly even a child can rearrange them differently. For instance like this: II II Oh hey! Now that arrangement have new relationships - they appear from far away not as four sticks but as two. Wonder if I can do the same with one new stick on the ground: II III Nope ... But if I just snap the new stick in the middle ... IIi IIi Yep. These relations are DISCOVERED by humans through observations. By arranging visually only sticks you can EXPLORE them. The alien on the planet x will do the same - and will DISCOVER the same results. What is invented is the Mathematical symbols - to represent these relations. These relations are repetitive in nature however, so Mathematics fundamentaly is discovered, not invented.
@@LyubomirIko This REQUIRES intelligent beings to exist to create the relationships. Sticks are just sticks amd have no natural inherent relationship to each other.
@@gctcauto well you was in need of a stone age approach to understand that math is Universal discovery and that aliens too will come to the same discovery if are intelligent enough. Don't blame me that you don't understand this, that's on you buddy.
Yes the truth of the subject explored in this video is either communicated IN accurate or wrong explanations. As is true with any explanation of truth; it’s either accurate or wrong. 😉 Although sometimes we might think the accurate explanation is wrong, because we just simply don’t understand it. 🤷♂️
@SaintCynical iI smell straw mans, almost fainted but i'm still here. Who said i don't follow science, in fact i love science but it does not lead us to ultimate truth because it changes with new data presented. Saying mythical deity is not really an argument, you won't really convert a religious person to atheism by putting forth this weak insulting argument. It is actually a world view because atheism doesn't equal truth. Atheists actually have faith, they don't do the experiments themselves but they have faith in the scientists. Just like a religious people. So i would call it a world view because it is unfortunately for you. Ad hominems aren't arugments.
@SaintCynical fallacy of presentism, "Among historians, the orthodox view may be that reading modern notions of morality into the past is to commit the error of presentism. To avoid this, historians restrict themselves to describing what happened and attempt to refrain from using language that passes judgment. For example, when writing history about slavery in an era when the practice was widely accepted, letting that fact influence judgment about a group or individual would be presentist and thus should be avoided." Now that i refuted you, why is it wrong to mary a 10 year old according to a naturalistic world view? It's just the rearrangement if atoms isn't it? Now that you know that i'm a muslim. Ever heard of the islamic golden age? Want me to cite great muslim scientist? The oldest existing, and continually operating educational institution in the world is the University of Karueein, founded in 859 AD in Fez, Morocco. The University of Bologna, Italy, was founded in 1088 and is the oldest one in Europe. The earliest documented general hospital was built in 805 in Baghdad. The earliest documented general hospital was built about a century later, in 805, in Baghdad, by the vizier to the caliph Harun al-Rashid. Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi was a 9th-century Muslim mathematician and astronomer. He is known as the "father of algebra", a word derived from the title of his book, Kitab al-Jabr. Algorithms have a long history and the word can be traced back to the 9th century. At this time the Persian scientist, astronomer and mathematician Abdullah Muhammad bin Musa al-Khwarizmi, often cited as “The father of Algebra”, was indirect responsible for the creation of the term “Algorithm”. To explore the nature of light and vision, 11th-century physicist Ibn al-Haytham used a dark chamber he called “Albeit Almuzlim,” translated into Latin as “camera obscura” - the device that forms the basis of photography. He observed that light coming through a tiny hole travelled in straight lines and projected an image onto the opposite wall. Based on such experimentation, Ibn al-Haytham concluded that vision is accomplished by rays coming from external luminous sources and entering the eye, rather than through rays emitted from the eye as was commonly believed.
The Laws of Science explain 'why' the physical universe functions the way it does. The Laws of Mathematics explain 'how' the physical universe functions the way it does. For each function in the universe, a Law of Science meshes perfectly with a Law of Mathematics, seamlessly uniting the why with the how, to yield a complete explanation of the working of the function. For example, the Laws of Gravity explain why the earth orbits the sun, and the Laws of Mathematics explain how the earth orbits the sun.
One question I had though is that, aren't numbers supposed to be neccessary? Even if there is a Platonic realm of abstract objects, wouldn't those objects neccessarily have to exist in all possible worlds, including ours? So it seems that as long as math neccessarily exists, every physical world has to have applicable mathematics, otherwise they wouldn't be neccessary
not really. There is nothing in mathematics which talks about actual existence of the frameworks we work in. We at most prove whether within these frameworks certain structures exists -> and given we never prove the actual existence of the frameworks, these existence proofs are at best about ‘relative existence‘.
4:25 Premise one - False dichotomy fallacy, argument from ignorance fallacy. Premise 2 - Evidence required that it is not an coincidence that laws of nature (including maths) exists the way they are.
Except that Math is not a law of nature. It is one of many languages used to describe the laws of nature. It has been invented rather than discovered which is in contrast to the laws of nature itself.
Uhh... no. The language of math is DEscriptive, not PREscriptive. We use math to create models (descriptions) of the universe around us, and the models we come up with are always being modified to better fit what we see with more and better data. If you don't know this, you've never taken a real math class in a real school.
Yes, math is descriptive of reality. We calculate the laws of nature using maths, but the fact that it works implies that the universe operates according to a mathematical blueprint. If it didn't, maths couldn't describe reality.
@@apologetix2577 You are just scientifically illiterate. Math is the language we invented to describe reality. We get better and better models. Newton's law of gravity work for most of what happens in our solar system, but not for procession of Mercury's orbit, gravitational waves and light bending. General relativity works for these cases. But not perfect. We can not predict the orbits of the planets 10 billion years from now.
@@TheLyricsGuy No you are misunderstanding me on purpose. Numbers as an idea exists. Go read history of mathematics. Only know and unknown humans on that list, not a single god.
@@TheLyricsGuy I know that oc thinks that abstract numbers exist, but I disagree. The concept of there being two things makes intuitive sense, but just think about two cells for a moment. A couple of hours ago they were one cell. At what point in time did the number 2 start describing them? I would argue, that there isn't an answer to this.
premise 2 is begging the question based on the intuition of the knowing subject. nothing can be appealed to if the naturalist has a different intuition or doesn't see the need for a God and is satisfied with just saying i don't know why but nature of reality is such. As a Christian myself, I do believe indeed that ''The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands''. But i doubt this argument will persuade a staunch naturalist.
Mathematics be the best tool for humans to feel that they understand anything happening around them. Mathematics have been tweaked in certain areas to correlate with others. . .
yeah, the reason math is effective is because we made it to be effective. There was no universal rule that said you can't divide by zero, we tried it out and it didn't work for anything, so we made up a rule
this is getting ridiculous. mathematics has nothing to do with the existence of god. (for religious and non-religious people alike out there reading this, dont shy away from this. read on. im sorry if it makes you uncomfortable but religion needs to stop being such a touchy subject. feel that uncomfortable feeling and explore it. actually process what im saying and THINK). why do we give our amazing achievements to a big bearded man in the sky? mathematics works because it is a language humans have created as a way of understanding the universe as a whole. because the universe works the way it does, we can create labels that help us understand WHY. that is what the entire field of science is - finding the WHY of things and that is beautiful. the entire concept of a god existing is a way for us to feel satisfied. YOU want to be satisfied with knowing why we exist because the thought of NOT knowing scares you. ever since we as a species came about we wanted to know where we came from, and why we're here. whats the purpose of life? its OK to not know. its OK to let there be mystery. that is why we have to explore!! that is why we have to continue our scientific discoveries. notice how religions across the board stop you from questioning? the answer to 99% of questions raised like "well where does GOD come from? what was before god?" all get bullshit answers like "god is always and forever" and "god works in mysterious ways." how can you be satisfied with that? why does THAT satisfy you? people belonging and adding to the scientific community have worked hard, tirelessly to find where we come from and bringing up EXTREMELY logical points. the observations we have made that can explain the beginning of the universe and the theory of life are INCREDIBLE feats of human achievement and yet people continue to brush all this off and give credit to a magical man they have no proof of existing. in the end, i understand why religion began. it was a way for us to put our ever-worrying minds at ease with the thought of a creator, a solidified purpose. but that was back then, now we have the proper tools to see this isn't true. so its time to move on and wake up. there is "believing in god" and "believing in miracles." there is not "believing in science." you do not believe, you trust. you explore you understand. you DO NOT (like this video entails) assume that anything that has yet to be discovered automatically gets filled in with "magic." the understanding of science and math is beautiful, and i implore anyone reading this, dont waste your time, soak up knowledge, multiply your understanding, and follow the rest of us on this exciting ride. we are only on this planet for so long, why not learn as much of its beautiful inner-workings as you can before its too late?
I don't understand this argument. Surely maths is constructed around physics by humans in order to understand it. Like we count how many eggs are in a basket and give it an abstract value (say 12) . But it isn't a miracle that the number 12 perfectly describes the number of eggs. We just ascribe different abstract values to the quantities we visually perceive and end up with a system of numbers. Perhaps I am missing something?
