Therefore I very strongly disagree that mathematics is a creation of man. That is the Aristotlean paradigm.
Came across an interesting take on the "Aristotelian paradigm" in my reading last night, from D. S. Kothari, writing about the complementarity principle in Niels Bohr: A Centenary Volume (Harvard University Press, 1985):
Hideki Yukawa was once asked whether young physicists in Japan, like most young physicists in the West, found it difficult to comprehend the idea of complementarity. He replied that Bohr's complementarity always appeared to them as quite evident: "You see, we in Japan have not been corrupted by Aristotle."The implications of complementarity go well beyond applications in physics. Kothari writes, "...the principle of complementarity, which we owe principally to Niels Bohr, is perhaps the most significant and revolutionary concept of modern physics. The complementarity approach can enable people to see that seemingly irreconcilable points of view need not be contradictory. These, on deeper understanding, may be found to be complementary and mutually illuminating -- the two opposing contradictory aspects being parts of a 'totality,' seen from different perspectives. It allows the possibility of accommodating widely divergent human experiences into an underlying harmony, and bringing to light new social and ethical vistas for exploration and for alleviation of human suffering. Bohr fervently hoped that one day complementarity would be an integral part of everyone's education and would provide guidance in the problems and challenges of life." [emphasis added](LOLOL!!!)
Anyhoot, the above-mentioned "totality" is (I think) that which is fundamentally constituted by the underlying geometry, presumably from the beginning. Math (geometry) is a sort of "dimensionless existent" which man is able to discover (because it is implicit in the order of the universe -- what David Bohm referred to as the "implicate order"). Indeed, mathematical formalism and symmetry led to the discovery of certain particles -- the positron and neutrino, for example; and also a certain species of quark. In the formalism, these appeared as "holes" (there were eerily "present" in their absence, so to speak!) or something missing that ought to have been there. So the particles were predicted theoretically. In the cases of the positron and neutrino, it took a while for physical confirmation -- that had to wait until the observational/measurement tools were adequate to that task. But viola! Both particles subsequently have been "observed" experimentally.
Alamo-Girl, you wrote: "Recently, a noted biologist, Lanza, proposed that the act of observation itself causes reality." That is an extraordinarily radical idea, to say the least. It may even be true in some sense. But I'm not quite ready to speculate on that issue yet!
Thank you so much for your stimulating essay/post!
AMEN!
A lot of conflicts hereon have to do with either/or’s
when God seems to be about the business of one of His
both/and’s.
Have said that more than a few times. Evidently in exceedingly ignorable ways! LOL.
The underlying geometry is necessary for any concept of form (spatial) - time - and most especially, physical causation.
In the absence of time, events cannot occur.
All of the physical cosmologies rely on geometry for physical causation, which is to say that regardless of cosmology - there had to be an uncaused cause of physical causation itself, i.e. the underlying geometry!
As much as science tries to obviate God the Creator, it cannot come up with a "just so" story to explain the beginning of space/time, i.e. physical causation.
The geekiest of Lurkers will no doubt quickly recognize complementaries in the underlying geometry of the cosmos! Dualities, for instance, suggest that two different physical systems with completely different looking properties can nevertheless be isomorphic if one considers quantum geometry on either side. S-duality is an equivalence between two quantum field theories, string theories or M-theory which allows the physicist/mathematician to transport his observations from one frame to the other. Likewise, Calabi-Yau manifolds because mirror symmetry (e.g. right hand v left hand) can exist between two of them which makes string theory all the more reasonable.
Oh, and I agree with you about Lanza's speculations. I'm not ready to embrace them either - though I keep them "on the shelf" for future reference.
Like a Dream... Reality follows the plot and players in a dream.. not the other way around.. In a dream time is a nuisance.. What "could" happen when dreams merge.. A merging of realities.. except the plot and players would be the mergees.. Dreamers observing each other.. creating yet another reality..
Not being saddled to/with a human body could take some getting used to.. Maybe thats why humans dream.. To get us ready for some future mind blowing adventure.. A Spiritual Saga of Universal Scope.. The adventure of the Citizens of the Universe into the Universe.. Where the book of Revelation leaves off and reality begins..