Is God a mathematician? Mathematics explains the laws of creation. The universe is best explained through the mathematical models of either relativity or quantum mechanics (neither have been reconciled yet as far as I understand). Why doesn't God reveal the laws of the universe to us then?
Is God a mathematician? Mathematics explains the laws of creation...
Other urls found in this thread:
God is beyond a mathematician, because God created math. Mathematicians are mortal.
If he is, he's one hell of a sloppy mathematician.
God is the greatest mathematician
Wait then how is there the Trinity? The Trinity is the quantity of members in God, how can there be quantity in God if God created quantity? In fact, how can God even be one if one is a quantity? How can God be any number if numbers are created?
Some things in life you will never fully understand. But in the next life you will have all eternity to know drawer closer and learn these things.
If we follow Aristotle on this, then we can say that quantity isn't a thing in itself (qua being) but rather a relation between things that do have a particular mode of existence which is exactly what the Trinity is. Therefore in some sense it cannot be said that mathematics was really created by God since it doesn't exist within itself, it is rather a logical property of things that exist within relation to one another. God exists, and God as a thing that exists within himself operates within the realm of logic, and God in fact predicates himself according to St. Thomas Aquinas so therefore God is logic unto himself and operates accordingly.
He did, Christ is Logos.
math explains how objects travel through space and change over time, that's about it. It doesn't explain subjectivity, morality, human relations, meaning, life, death, judgment, love, hate, good, evil, sickness, health, etc…It doesn't touch upon things that actually matter to us, only things that matter very little.
Well, if you need to get somewhere in a hurry, or you feel driven to build a magnificent church…knowing math and the physics that spring from it is quite handy and important.
Also, while it doesn't have any answers for morality, it can be used to guess how a crowd or a person will behave in a given situation, aka the processing of behavioral metadata (and the more you give, the better the answer you'll get). So it can inform instances where a person is more likely to sin, and you could then craft a response over that information. Although, that's not much different than what intelligence agencies do (except they confine themselves only to secular matters), so that does raise the spectre of the moral use of such a thing.
1. Is God a Mathematician?
This question is category error. It places mathematics distinct and precedent to God.
You might as well ask "Is God a theologian?"
2. Mathematics explains the laws of creation.
Mathematics approximates the laws of creation as we've best seen, measured, and reckoned them in our small sphere of existence. That which we can fit through the electromagnetic force through which all sense data enters the mind.
"We don't know one millionth of one percent of anything" ~ Thomas Edison
3. The universe is best explained through the mathematical models of either relativity or quantum mechanics (neither have been reconciled yet as far as I understand)
The physical laws probably. Stuff like how the Earth goes around the Sun (stress-energy tensor, law of least action, Hilbert Lagrangian), how water flows in a pipe (Bernoulli's laws, partial differential equations), how metal bends and breaks (Cauchy stress tensor, yield criteria), or why gravity is so weak (Lie algebras/E8 string theory)
But the unsolved questions, and probably unsolvable questions, are metaphysical and philosophical.
Examples of these questions are like:
- Why does time move forward? (or why do we think that anyway?)
- What is causality? Does it exist?
- Why do the physical constants have the values they do?
- The whole thing of epistemology, ontology, philosophy of science and knowledge
I'm not intelligent or creative enough to understand or grok any of this metaphysical stuff. I'll stick with my numbers and diagrams. >tfw autistic
And the fact that you bring up the fact that Quantum Field Theory (which has been reconciled with special relativity) hasn't been reconciled with General Relativity shows that these are just theories (not in the sense of American 20th century protestants saying "Evolution is just a theory", speaking of which, we know so little about evolutionary historiography…), not the truth. We asymptotically approach the "Truth" but we will never reach it, because that is divine. It's beyond us, categorically.
A danger that we now have as Christianity is ripped out of society and people's lives, is they turn not only into heathen debauchery and worship of flesh (cold), or new age pagans/personal philosophy (warmer!), but into neo-Pythagoreans!
Pythagoras wanted to hold everything in his tidy neat little mathematical boxes. Arrogant. Same thing with your average Redditor. They'll take out Logos and replace with the Standard Model Lagrangian, 26-dimensional Calabi-Yau manifolds, adinkraic symbols, or the newest and shiniest (and unfalsifiable) mathematical tool.
4. Why doesn't God reveal the laws of the universe to us then?
Now, I can't answer that question. I don't even know why I'm not unqualified to not answer that question haha. Perhaps you need to ask God. Or just a philosopher.
I'm mostly pulling this out of my behind. So don't take what I'm about to say seriously. Let's say there is some perfect Grand Theory that perfectly predicts everything. Ignore the problem of weak measurement and hidden variables, etc. Isn't that becoming like God? Isn't that Babel? Isn't that Eden? Why doesn't God give us the apple?
Furthermore, all our theories are like poor copies of paintings. Only one can truly make the original.
I would imagine if he did truly reveal the laws of the universe, that it would be completely beyond us.
Like trying to explain our theories to ants. A fish never thinks about the ocean. Or maybe it'd be like looking at the face of God.
Saying is God is an X means that God is subordinate or elementary to X. Which contradicts God as Ω. Contradiction. The question doesn't make sense. Mu. (Pardon my zen)
If you're talking about this ugliness (pic), that's our fault. God is perfect. Identity. Drink some cold water.
You have the right intent, but make sure not to subordinate God to the type of Mathematician.
You need to think of it less like one before the other but one as within and same. Imagine a light wave. It has component E (electric) and B (magnetic), orthogonal to one another. Imagine some analogue of this wave existing in some infinite dimensions. You have components F_0, F_1, … to F_a. They are all orthogonal to one another. However, they are all intimately symmetrical as they cannot be split apart from each other (In EM, one generates the other and back). Letters out of word are not still of the word. Try to imagine a clap with only one hand.
In maths, one is what one does is what one has. This might sound Humean but bear with me here. So you can't speak chronologically analogy, because chronological didn't exist. It was all one Everything or something.
I don't know. Any Thomist can tell me what I'm trying to get at in proper words? :P
Maybe this? :<
Rude. Also not an argument.
math has some pragmatic uses, like bodybuilding and weight training. But it is not something existentially or spiritually interesting or useful. It should be treated with neutrality, like cooking recipes, useful, in their own contexts. That's about it.
Fair enough, but how I think what OP is trying to get at is predictive value. As in, can we use the Bible to build a bridge, design a microchip, or get to Jupiter. If you want to really force it, then you might become an unhinged numerologist/occult type like the Kabbalists.
Ouch. But it's right.
Don't know if this is nominalist, but whether things exist come through our own mind, how we divide about sense and semantic space. Physics is natural philosophy. Math is purely philosophical. Physics tells you why an apple falls, but not why it tastes good.
I'd also like more discussions on techno-ethics in the Church. I'm very, very committed to the free software movement and free information etc, and against intellectual property and surveillance. But this is mostly because I haven't heard any pronouncement on it. If I'm wrong, then I'll guess I have to change.
Welcome to the People's Republic of China.
Search "China Sesame Credit".
You're in a whole different realm man.
There is actually a debate in math if it's invented or discovered, and similar other really philosophical issues that result in semi-theological awe and mindscrews, if you really think about them.
Listen to 2 mins of this:
Actually, we have some tools to partially predict that.
Game theory, haldanic kin selection, stuff like that.
Of course, that is just one factor.
It doesn't devolve into Sam Harris tier "science answers moral questions. Also, CAT pleasure scanners"
I'm flattered, or embarassed. Can't tell if you're trying to complement me or push me aside haha
I'm sure there are some good well-read people on this board in philosophy and so on. We need them. especially as the caliber of posts and threads continue to drop.
When I think about mathematics, sometimes I do feel in the process something value-unneutral or "existentially or spiritually interesting" like underwrites but something.
Vsauce is the granola bars of science.
Math is pretty invented, along with its logical foundations. The ZF axioms we use are arbitrary. But I think it's neither invented nor discovered. I think mathematics is grown, like a plant from a seed of first principles.
Selection by meme and gene, individual and group, human biodiversity, and generative anthropology (i think thats the word) are all things Im piqued interest in.
God's a poet.
Precisely. What I outlined is a theoretical use, that is being put into practice elsewhere, for other reasons. But since every use that has been made for that seems ethically questionable, I don't think it should be emulated by Christians. And that's discounting the spiritual side of that situation, I think there's no good to be had there.
As far as surveillance goes, God has you under surveillance 24/7/365; so there's no escape from a final accounting that way, but that's also a divine judgement. On the human and organization end…well, technology is a tool. You can use a tool to build a house or strike someone dead. The closest things I can think of that relate to the internet, at least as tools that are repositories of information, are books. But since there's also a social side to the internet, social mores would also come into play. I think there's very much a "play it by ear" scenario that's going on right now, at least when it comes to how one would fit in the internet with faith, since there's a merging with the tool aspect and the social aspect of the internet that still hasn't fully revealed itself to us.
One thing you mentioned, free software, I can't imagine that it's bad however in and of itself. If the free software is, say, some digital Bible program then anyone can access it for free. Incredibly revolutionary, if the printing press made Bibles easy to reproduce, electronics has made any given edition you wish to name (from the past or into the future) essentially free.
And that's just one possibility with it that could positively impact the faith. It's also great for discrediting bad ideas. Look at atheism; it was becoming popular in the 90s, and it became popular for a time ten years ago. But now that fire is quenched since, once you see it exposed for what it really is, it cannot survive the rational scrutiny that it claims is its bread and butter. That's why you've seen the degeneration of it from a counter-culture movement to "mega-atheist-churches" and "Atheism+" so quickly from it's heady days. I'm sort of getting off topic a little here, but you are right, it would be a great thing to go over.
Yes, but God and human governments/corporations are not same.
Also you are misunderstanding free software. Free software doesnt mean free of price. It means free as in freedom.
Free software is about ethics, not about economics.
See N.N.Taleb, most great historical Cathedrals and monuments in general were constructed almost purely using heuristics developed through trial and error, with very little mathematics or knowledge of physics.
In fact, much like the principles of flight and jet propulsion, a lot of the principles of architecture were discovered through reverse-engineering them from the inventions themselves, which were created with very little understanding of principles.
It's hard to imagine how an invasive surveillance state of the type liberals fantasize about could be put to a moral use. Even in the hands of a hypothetical benevolent Christian government, God gave us private thoughts for a reason. I'm sure many anons here could confess to having fetishes or some other perversion. To be exposed to have a sexual perversion is to be indelibly stained in the opinion of other people, whether you struggle with them and repent or not. Of course that's why it's left for us to repent of them to God (through confession, whose secrecy cannot be breached), because there is no permanent stain on one's soul if removed through the grace of God. God is infinitely understanding and merciful, this isn't true of even a mightily righteous person.
God is essentially one, and his oneness is what we base quantity off of. Not the other way around. He is the first and the truly existing one. So when we speak of "one apple" or "one plus one" or "quantity", we are really referring to concepts that emerged forward out of God's existence, and these quantities depend on God, but God does not depend on them.
To say it in another way, we use God's essential existence to measure out quantity. He is the measuring rod. It would be wrong to use some other measuring rod onto God.