IS Math Real?

Technology, computers, sciences, mysteries and phenomena of all kinds, etc., etc. all here at The Loresraat!!

Moderator: Vraith

User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23440
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

Well, of course, it eventually comes down to that. How do we ever know that the bottom of the rules that underlie the rules that underlie the rules that underlie the rules is solid?
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
StevieG
Andelanian
Posts: 5814
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:47 pm
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Post by StevieG »

sgt.null wrote:Math, like Australia 🇦🇺 is not real.
You’re doing nothing to help my existential crisis Sgt :D
Hugs and sh!t ~ lucimay

I think you're right ~ TheFallen
Image
User avatar
sgt.null
Jack of Odd Trades, Master of Fun
Posts: 47250
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:53 am
Location: Brazoria, Texas
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 6 times

Post by sgt.null »

Lenin, Marx
Marx, Lennon
Good Dog...
User avatar
sgt.null
Jack of Odd Trades, Master of Fun
Posts: 47250
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:53 am
Location: Brazoria, Texas
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 6 times

Post by sgt.null »

Lenin, Marx
Marx, Lennon
Good Dog...
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 11489
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by peter »

It's the final line of the article that intrigues me.
We certainly do live in a designed universe in the sense that it is anything but a mere jumble of numbers.
What is the meaning of this? What is he/she saying? Is it what I take it to be? To be designed, something has to have had a designer - no?
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23440
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

Just found a couple quotes.

In At Home in the Universe, a book about self-organization, Stuart Kauffman wrote:
We will be showing that the spontaneous emergence of self-sustaining webs is so natural and robust that it is even deeper than the specific chemistry that happens to exist in earth; it is rooted in mathematics itself.
Mathematician Eddie Woo showed photos of a river delta, tree, lightning, and human capillaries, which all have remarkably similar patterns, and said:
There's a mathematical reality woven into the fabric of the universe that you share with winding rivers, towering trees, and raging storms. - Eddie Woo
peter wrote:It's the final line of the article that intrigues me.
We certainly do live in a designed universe in the sense that it is anything but a mere jumble of numbers.
What is the meaning of this? What is he/she saying? Is it what I take it to be? To be designed, something has to have had a designer - no?
Yeah, could be that's what the writer means.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Avatar
Immanentizing The Eschaton
Posts: 61651
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Post by Avatar »

That's certainly the implication I usually take from the word "designed."

However, it's not how I often use the word. Which is more in the "form follows function" kind of sense.

--A
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 11489
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by peter »

Yes - things are often the way they are because they have to be that way to exist at all (given the physical parameters they exist within). But design in the teleological sense is of course something totally different.

But isn't it a problem that probability calculation could, if not solve, then at least give a good indicator of the state of play?

I mean, what is the (perhaps heuristically) calculated probability that the universe and everything in it, right up to the human brain, could organise itself to be what it is without a teleological design plan (and purely on the basis of the few fundamental parameters it had to work within), as opposed to the probability that there is evidence of a designing entity?

Is such a calculation even possible?
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by wayfriend »

peter wrote:Is such a calculation even possible?
Such a calculation is meaningless.

Suppose the odds of us existing is 10 to the 100th power to 1. Still, we exist.

And there are no other universes out there which have rolled the dice and come up short. At least, none that we can look at. So why do the odds matter?

If there WERE any other universes, then they all would have SOMETHING for which the odds were 10 to the 100th power to 1 that it would happen. So they are all just as "lucky" as ours. So why do the odds matter?

And here's the one that kicks: if the course of our universe is chosen by a giant roulette wheel in the sky, and it has 10 to the 100th outcomes, then EVERY outcome is a 10 to the 100th power to 1 probability, and whatever kind of being occupies that outcome would be saying "look at the odds of us existing" and seeing the same odds as us.

Yes, some outcomes will not produce a being who can think on it. But let's not confuse conditional probablility with some kind of holy fate. We are here, we exist: the probably of us existing given that we exist is 100%!
.
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23440
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

I don't know enough about the topics of complexity and self-organization to know if such a calculation can be made. And even if a calculation could be made, and it shows that, given the initial conditions, the odds are very good, some would question the odds of those initial conditions existing. But it doesn't matter. Ultimately, we have to get to an uncaused cause, whether initial conditions or designer, the odds of which we won't be able to calculate, but which, obviously, existed.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19621
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am

Post by Zarathustra »

peter wrote:I mean, what is the (perhaps heuristically) calculated probability that the universe and everything in it, right up to the human brain, could organise itself to be what it is without a teleological design plan (and purely on the basis of the few fundamental parameters it had to work within), as opposed to the probability that there is evidence of a designing entity?

Is such a calculation even possible?
I don't think it's possible. There could always be an organizing principle you're not aware of that explains it. In fact, the entire history of science has been nothing else but the discovery and confirmation of just such principles. Even if we go back to 'where did these principles (and universal constants) come from?,' there could always be an unknown scientific explanation that answers that question, and renders your calculation useless.

I also think that it's absurd, because any designer capable of designing this universe must be at least as complex--and quite likely much more complex--than that which is designed. So we can ask the same question: what are the probabilities that this designer didn't have a designer? And so on to infinity. From this argument alone, we must recognize that 'design' or at least organization can indeed come from nothing, or from itself, because an infinite regression of ever more complex designers is not only impossible and absurd, it's the opposite direction that explanation goes, which is explaining the complex in terms of the simple.

However, this obviously doesn't eliminate the possibility that self-organization can produce designers. It produced us! And as I've argued in the evolution/consciousness thread, conscious beings may have had a hand in their own evolution all along. (This wouldn't account for the laws of physics, of course.)
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
High Lord Tolkien
Excommunicated Member of THOOLAH
Posts: 7376
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:40 am
Location: Cape Cod, Mass
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Post by High Lord Tolkien »

Zarathustra wrote:
peter wrote:I mean, what is the (perhaps heuristically) calculated probability that the universe and everything in it, right up to the human brain, could organise itself to be what it is without a teleological design plan (and purely on the basis of the few fundamental parameters it had to work within), as opposed to the probability that there is evidence of a designing entity?

Is such a calculation even possible?
I don't think it's possible. There could always be an organizing principle you're not aware of that explains it. In fact, the entire history of science has been nothing else but the discovery and confirmation of just such principles. Even if we go back to 'where did these principles (and universal constants) come from?,' there could always be an unknown scientific explanation that answers that question, and renders your calculation useless.

I also think that it's absurd, because any designer capable of designing this universe must be at least as complex--and quite likely much more complex--than that which is designed. So we can ask the same question: what are the probabilities that this designer didn't have a designer? And so on to infinity. From this argument alone, we must recognize that 'design' or at least organization can indeed come from nothing, or from itself, because an infinite regression of ever more complex designers is not only impossible and absurd, it's the opposite direction that explanation goes, which is explaining the complex in terms of the simple.

However, this obviously doesn't eliminate the possibility that self-organization can produce designers. It produced us! And as I've argued in the evolution/consciousness thread, conscious beings may have had a hand in their own evolution all along. (This wouldn't account for the laws of physics, of course.)

Great post. I have to check out that other thread now. :goodpost:
https://thoolah.blogspot.com/

[Defeated by a gizmo from Batman's utility belt]
Joker: I swear by all that's funny never to be taken in by that unconstitutional device again!


Image Image Image Image
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23440
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

:lol: Have fun with that!
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
peter
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 11489
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 10:08 am
Location: Another time. Another place.
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by peter »

:lol: But Z, are we perhaps not running here, before we have learned to walk?

I didn't ask about the explanation of the origin of the whole shebang - the infinite regression that occurs if you start down the road of "what created the creator". I'm limiting the question to this universe - what we have before our eyes and what Wayfriend rightly says we can know - with one hundred percent certainty - that exists.

And if we apply the method of probability calculation (if it can be done) to the problem, can it provide any useful clue as to the probability that what we see before us arose by purely random chance (the chimpanzees with typewriters and Shakespeare thing) as compared to the probability that there was a deliberate designing principle (in a teleological sense) at work.

I suppose it's Paley's argument in a way, with a mathematical question put to it? If, walking down that path, we find his watch, and we applied our methods of probability calculation to it (as to whether it was deliberately designed or whether conditions pertain whereby it could have come together by random shuffling of atoms into components, then components into the finished article) could any useful knowledge come out of it?

I don't even know if our methodology for probability calculation could even address such a question - but if it could (big if) then I see no qualitative difference between Paley's watch and the universe. Simply one of scale.

And Wayfriend - surely the question here is not about whether we exist or could exist - you rightly point out that we know we do. This is an entirely different question (surely?) to the one as to how (given our existence) it came about that we do?
The truth is a Lion and does not need protection. Once free it will look after itself.

....and the glory of the world becomes less than it was....
'Have we not served you well'
'Of course - you know you have.'
'Then let it end.'

We are the Bloodguard
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6086
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+
peter wrote:[…]

… as to the probability that what we see before us arose by purely random chance (the chimpanzees with typewriters and Shakespeare thing) …

[…]

Image


Image
User avatar
wayfriend
.
Posts: 20957
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:34 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Post by wayfriend »

Someone might reasonably say (in some other universe) "there is no way that matter can self-organize and become a sentient being, so let's not consider THAT dumb idea any longer."

Once you accept one improbable proposition, it's not reasonable to disregard other ones on the basis of improbability. We are discussing things in a realm where everything is improbable and inexplicability is the cover charge to get in.

Say you dislike it an idea. Say you are actively out to discourage anyone from believing it for weird personal reasons. But don't say it can't possibly be true.
.
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23440
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

There is no evidence that, and I have no reason to believe, my personal existence is the result of any sort of design. However, the odds against my existence are incalculably small. In Dr. Manhattan's words:
"Thermodynamic miracles... events with odds against so astronomical they're effectively impossible, like oxygen spontaneously becoming gold. I long to observe such a thing. And yet, in each human coupling, a thousand million sperm vie for a single egg. Multiply those odds by countless generations, against the odds of your ancestors being alive; meeting; siring this precise son; that exact daughter... Until your mother loves a man she has every reason to hate, and of that union, of the thousand million children competing for fertilization, it was you, only you, that emerged. To distill so specific a form from that chaos of improbability, like turning air to gold... that is the crowning unlikelihood. The thermodynamic miracle."
Odds against my existence so astronomical that it's effectively impossible. But here I am.

What is the probability that all the uncountable rocks and dirt at the bottom of a landslide would have ended up exactly where they are?
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Zarathustra
The Gap Into Spam
Posts: 19621
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:23 am

Post by Zarathustra »

peter wrote:I didn't ask about the explanation of the origin of the whole shebang - the infinite regression that occurs if you start down the road of "what created the creator". I'm limiting the question to this universe

And if we apply the method of probability calculation (if it can be done) to the problem, can it provide any useful clue as to the probability that what we see before us arose by purely random chance (the chimpanzees with typewriters and Shakespeare thing) as compared to the probability that there was a deliberate designing principle (in a teleological sense) at work.
I don't understand the distinction. Isn't "what we see before us" the universe? Aren't you you asking if the universe could have arisen by chance? Or do you mean "everything after the Big Bang?" Or do you mean life?

Everything besides life can can be explained by the laws of physics, which means there's no need to consider design. Life and consciousness may one day be fully explained by science, which would eliminate design there, too. That's what the laws of physics *do.* [Or at least the physical processes which those laws describe.]
Peter wrote:I suppose it's Paley's argument in a way, with a mathematical question put to it? If, walking down that path, we find his watch, and we applied our methods of probability calculation to it (as to whether it was deliberately designed or whether conditions pertain whereby it could have come together by random shuffling of atoms into components, then components into the finished article) could any useful knowledge come out of it?
Paley's watch analogy was an argument for the existence of God. So now we're right back to where you said you didn't want to go. I don't understand your logic here, or even your point.

Besides living organisms, there is nothing in the universe that even vaguely resembles a watch (or any class of artificial objects with intricate parts that interact to produce a functioning whole). I don't think anyone expects to find watches on lifeless alien planets, for instance. And that's because everything in the universe (besides life) operates on "blind" purposeless processes.

What part of the universe do you think is improbable? The formation of galaxies? There are trillions. The formation of stars? There are trillions. Planets? Ditto. These things aren't improbable.

I have to say I agree with Wayfriend here. Arguing from the idea that something is improbable in no way implies design. There's not even a way to define how much improbability would lead to this conclusion. I don't even think that life is improbable. I believe we'll soon find (with the Webb telescope or even bigger telescopes soon to be operational) that life exists elsewhere in the universe. I think we'll find that it's not improbable at all, given the right conditions.
Wayfriend wrote:Someone might reasonably say (in some other universe) "there is no way that matter can self-organize and become a sentient being, so let's not consider THAT dumb idea any longer."

Once you accept one improbable proposition, it's not reasonable to disregard other ones on the basis of improbability. We are discussing things in a realm where everything is improbable and inexplicability is the cover charge to get in.

Say you dislike it an idea. Say you are actively out to discourage anyone from believing it for weird personal reasons. But don't say it can't possibly be true.
Aside from you telling Peter what he should say and accusing him of having weird personal reasons for his position [WTF is up with that?? Talk about weird ...], I agree that improbability is a bad argument.
Joe Biden … putting the Dem in dementia since (at least) 2020.
User avatar
Fist and Faith
Magister Vitae
Posts: 23440
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Post by Fist and Faith »

We know quite a bit about how watches are made. We can find out which factory produced a specific watch, go to the factory, and watch others being made. Historically, we can read about different people doing different things, different designs, different manufacturing techniques, when and where, etc. We have never seen a watch that we have any reason to suspect was not created by one of the modern or historical methods we are aware of. And not one of us would believe it if we were told any given watch was the result of random chance, and the laws of physics.

We cannot compare watches with universes. We do not have data on the origin of our universe. If there was a big bang, the bang, itself, obliterated any trace of the conditions that allowed or required such an event. We have not seen other universes come into being, so can't use them to try to come up with general rules about how universes come to be.
All lies and jest
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest
-Paul Simon
User avatar
Wosbald
A Brainwashed Religious Flunkie
Posts: 6086
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:35 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post by Wosbald »

+JMJ+
Fist and Faith wrote:… Ultimately, we have to get to an uncaused cause …
Though risking crossover with The Close, it seems worth mentioning that a belief in an Uncaused Cause is classically considered a belief in God.

A rather embryonic belief, perhaps. But still a belief.

Here, roughly summated, is the 2nd of Aquinas' Classical "Five Ways" (Quinque Viæ):


Image


Just sayin'.

Image


Image
Post Reply

Return to “The Loresraat”