God and Mathematics

Please understand that I regard this as a very strong statement, and would not expect anyone to accept it. It is a possibility that I play with driven by aesthetics. That is all. But I think Dirac would have like it This has been a major discussion point in the field for a long time. What subset of mathematics applies to the "real" world? In the last 10 years we have seen an explosion of application, of which half is probably due to Alain Connes alone!!! I like to avoid the choice by stipulating It is one way of solving the issue... but I have no rigorous defence of the position other than it's great at sparking up debates like this one... I agree 100%. That does not preclude it from being something more... You seem to be pre-supposing an understanding of the word "reality" and even "description". I think you are assuming that the everyday world around you somehow conveys a more "real" existence than the one hinted at by our uiverse at its extreme limits, where words like "description" and "reality" have very very different meaning. It's very understandable why you would have such a narrow world-view

Hey, I'm a small fish. It's quite possible... BUT it is a brave man who claims that some of the "mathematicsl physicists who share your view" are intellectually trapped Are you that brave? Shall we start listing names???

quote:

---

You seem to be pre-supposing an understanding of the word "reality" and even "description".

---

I hope that we can agree on an understanding of those concepts at least (unless you are an Idealist as well as a Platonist !)

quote:

---

I think you are assuming that the everyday world around you somehow conveys a more "real" existence than the one hinted at by our uiverse at its extreme limits, where words like "description" and "reality" have very very different meaning.

---

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here but I'm certainly not assuming that the everyday world is any more real than the world of QM (If anything I'd suggest the reverse) or GR (the everyday world is just a special case of the more general view of GR). I'm not even suggesting that our perceptions are anything more than a description.
But I don't think that "description" and "reality" have fundamentally different meanings in any of these spheres.(edit to correct tag)This message has been edited by PaulK, 07-15-2005 09:46 AM

Sicne I regard your viewpoint as the product of an intellectual trap, it follows that those who share it have fallen into the trap. I don't need to know names to follow that logic.You made the claim that there are others that share that view. If I cared about whether that were true then it would be appropriate for me to ask you to supply names. But really I don't see the relevance. I don't see that an argument from authority can make a difference when it can't be confirmed that the "authorities" in question are actually in a better position to know the truth of the matter.

Paul, I had replies to BOTH your posts on the go... and they were lengthy... then my machine decided to switch off I must get this marking done, so I will return to this after the weekend. Apologies... if you see me post, shoo me away!

In fact I did not leave out that named drop because it was the community of Kant that communicates both sides of said, "juncture" (which no name, not even Pascal would reenumerate) where GG fits but the rationality of that depends on if the shifting balance is required to mediate the streche or if something more fundamental like there being NO APERODICITY at all IF Gladyshev's law is at least as relative frequent as Punc Eq IN THE EQUILIBRIUM. The use of Cantor I have not decided MUST be a part of nature irrespective of man and so the broader physical teleology that will always be a part of NASA exploration of the solar system and races hanging on, yet the pure math of that man made asthetic could be possibly only a charm as far as the judgement sublimely between the mathematical and the dynamical that is propositional nontheless.Of course I would agree that GOD will never be found FROM THIS MATH of the future but it CAN conVInC/e ev0s that still are foundering around netural trait effects towards the broader perspective that survives war for the MINE and THINE that would not be in conflict.I can give it a third go but that will have to be constrained by more than the title of the thread.

After reading your posts in the cosmology section I wanted to see what else you had written and I came across this thread. Regarding light, the math tells us (as I understand it), that light operating at the speed of light is beyond time and distance. Theoretically then any photon can be at any place at any time, or in all places at all times.Isn't this very much a parallel of what we believe about God. He is anywhere and everywhere and outside of time.It seems to me that if we accept a creator that can create photons that function at the speed of light, it isn't much of a stretch to believe that the creator can function at the speed of light, putting Him anywhere and everywhere at any time. It seems to me that it is math that brings order to a universe that is becoming increasingly disorderly. (I was just reading about entropy. ) If even that which appears to be disorderly can be explained mathematically it makes it reasonable to come to the conclusion that there is metaphysical design. In this way I would agree that mathematics transcends the physical and the spiritual.

Hello cavediver, Yes, I do, but the reciprocal of that statement. In that the expressions of math eventually emerged to allow a being that was intelligent enough to begin connecting the dots, to eventually discover the relationships between reality and this newly developing language that could be used to communicate reality and show how our physical world is so wonderfully organized even in its most seemingly caotic levels. Just my own opinion. ) **edit typo.This message has been edited by 1.61803, 08-05-2005 11:49 AM

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

It seems to me that you migh be conflating pratical reasons' duty (sic!) to will and the will to seperate categorically pure from pratical reasons through taste?It seems that mathematics as it applies today does not in any absolute sense "tranSend" although it might extripate current spirtuality in the future nor does it by itself purely design its own bootstrap. It seems most likely to me that we lack the analytic understanding that permits a synthetic a priori to be committed beyond pathology. I can not say more without calling up the dreams of my past.