Replies

There is nothing unreasonable about mathematics. They are effective in natural sciences to the extent that they mathematics allows for working models. Working models prove nothing, They just work. Thye do not necessarily represent truth or "reality."

Indeed, only God speaks Truth. Only He does not suffer from the “observer problem.” The rest of us are denizens of space/time and therefore part of the observation itself.

Nevertheless, mathematics is unreasonably effective in the natural sciences.

That term was coined by Physicist Eugene Wigner is his famous article The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Math in the Natural Sciences.

The preceding two stories illustrate the two main points which are the subjects of the present discourse. The first point is that mathematical concepts turn up in entirely unexpected connections. Moreover, they often permit an unexpectedly close and accurate description of the phenomena in these connections. Secondly, just because of this circumstance, and because we do not understand the reasons of their usefulness, we cannot know whether a theory formulated in terms of mathematical concepts is uniquely appropriate. We are in a position similar to that of a man who was provided with a bunch of keys and who, having to open several doors in succession, always hit on the right key on the first or second trial. He became skeptical concerning the uniqueness of the coordination between keys and doors.

Most of what will be said on these questions will not be new; it has probably occurred to most scientists in one form or another. My principal aim is to illuminate it from several sides. The first point is that the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious and that there is no rational explanation for it. Second, it is just this uncanny usefulness of mathematical concepts that raises the question of the uniqueness of our physical theories….

Harvard Physicist Cumrun Vafa also commented on it here: Geometric Physics - bringing in examples of dualities and mirror images.

As I recall, you and I have been down this road before – your mathematical worldview (and perhaps your theological belief) is Aristotlean whereas mine is Platonic. Every atheist and agnostic has an Aristotlean worldview - but not every Aristotlean is atheist or agnostic. Platonists, on the other hand have a worldview which is "beyond" space/time - so if they are not Judeo/Christian they are at least theistic in some sense or have some concept of a collective consciousness (e.g. Eastern mysticism.)

Aristotle and Plato did not resolve the debate, neither did Einstein and Gödel, neither did Hawking and Penrose. Max Tegmark (a Platonist) described it this way (formatting mine):

A mathematical structure is an abstract, immutable entity existing outside of space and time. If history were a movie, the structure would correspond not to a single frame of it but to the entire videotape. Consider, for example, a world made up of pointlike particles moving around in three-dimensional space. In four-dimensional spacetime — the bird perspective — these particle trajectories resemble a tangle of spaghetti.

If the frog sees a particle moving with constant velocity, the bird sees a straight strand of uncooked spaghetti. If the frog sees a pair of orbiting particles, the bird sees two spaghetti strands intertwined like a double helix.

To the frog, the world is described by Newton’s laws of motion and gravitation. To the bird, it is described by the geometry of the pasta — a mathematical structure.

The frog itself is merely a thick bundle of pasta, whose highly complex intertwining corresponds to a cluster of particles that store and process information. Our universe is far more complicated than this example, and scientists do not yet know to what, if any, mathematical structure it corresponds.

The Platonic paradigm raises the question of why the universe is the way it is. To an Aristotelian, this is a meaningless question: The universe just is. But a Platonist cannot help but wonder why it could not have been different. If the universe is inherently mathematical, then why was only one of the many mathematical structures singled out to describe a universe? A fundamental asymmetry appears to be built into the very heart of reality.

Taking a few excerpts from our book, Timothy [TFB is the first bird, TSB is the second bird, F is the frog and T is Saint Timothy:]

TFB: Whoever thinks heaven is boring should hear you, Timothy!

Now the frog is a nominalist. He would say that universals do not exist, such things as redness, sound, threeness, and so on. He would call them language only. To him, mathematical constructs such as pi are invented by the mathematician to describe the world the frog sees. Physical laws don’t exist in themselves, they are “observations.” The soul, mind, or consciousness is merely an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. To the frog, when a tree falls in the forest it makes no sound if no one is around to hear it.

F: Hullo! Did I hear you mention my name? How goes it on your lily pads, lady frogs?

TSB: Hello Brother Frog! So nice of you to join us! How was your trip?

F: What trip? I’m sitting here on my lily pad in my happy pond, sunning myself. Then I heard you two talking about me…. What’s up?

TFB: You are most welcome to join us. We were chatting about the differences in worldview of frogs and birds….

F: I don’t believe in birds.

TSB: (Aside to Timothy) And he doesn’t believe in you either, Timothy….

T: Be that as it may. I continue to believe in him.

Brother Frog is most welcome here. He brings a certain point of view regarding the issues you want to discuss, which promises to be important to their illumination.

And so I shall be very glad to attend to your exchange of ideas.

TFB: Well, Froggie, you know that my sister and I do believe in birds — we are birds! As I was saying (though you may disagree), the bird is a realist. He would say that universals such as redness, sound, and threeness do exist, that geometry exists and the mathematician doesn’t invent it, but comes along and discovers it. To the bird, a variable in a mathematical formula is a universal per se. The physical laws exist. The soul, mind, or consciousness exists and may be “in” space/time or “beyond” space/time — or both. And when a tree falls in the forest it makes a sound even if no one is around to hear it.

You continued:

In your previous post you defined infinity as bound by time and space.

Er, I said just the opposite. When one looks at infinity from the lens of the physical (the frog view) – he cannot conceive of the “Point in Infinity” which is defined as the intersection of two parallel lines.

Infinity is the unbounded quantity which is greater than every real number.

Please define "parallel" and explain how parallel lines intercent at some "point" in infinity.

Parallel lines do not intersect in the set of real numbers. It is the point at which the parallel lines extend to infinity which is the unbounded quantity greater than every real number, that they intersect. Think about it.

So what? Besides, positive and negative directions is irrelevant in infinity.

I am not sure what is the point you are trying to make. Can you reduce it to a single sentence or at least a paragraph?

“Timeless” is a better adjective than “eternal” when speaking of God the Creator of “all that there is” whether spiritual or physical - including time.

And Moses said unto God, Behold, [when] I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What [is] his name? what shall I say unto them?

And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. – Exodus 3:13-14

To God be the glory!