Math's existence

[TEPO]

I am the OP.

I found an answer.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking

Hawking has stated that he is “not religious in the normal sense” and he believes that “the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws.”[285] In an interview published in The Guardian, Hawking regarded the concept of Heaven as a myth, believing that there is “no heaven or afterlife” and that such a notion was a “fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”[146]

Asking Hawking about the afterlife makes no sense. He’s not an all-wise oracle, he’s only a scientist. There are many other more qualified people who could answer that question much, much better than he did. I’d even go as far as saying that he doesn’t have much of a way with words.

 

[Oreoracle]

I’d even go as far as saying that he doesn’t have much of a way with words.

Granted, when you’re talking about someone who’s practically mute, that’s not saying much.

In all seriousness, he’s just as qualified as anyone to speculate about an afterlife, since that’s all we can do: speculate. Anyone who tells you they “know” what will happen when you die is a huckster.

 

[weller2]

But you’re comparing apples and oranges. Math isn’t attempting to “explain” anything, nor is it attempting to predict phenomena. The fact that we use math for those purposes is immaterial, since we could also develop impractical mathematics. Math is a formal science and physics is a natural science–we shouldn’t expect them to be equal in this regard.

But the idea behind having the “final theory” in physics is to have a set of laws which will generate the universe. This is what Lawrence Krauss argues for when he talks about universe from nothing.

The problem with this argument is that while the current set of laws will indeed generate the universe by itself, it is too complicated and contains incompatible elements (i.e. QM and GR) and magic numbers (constants).

Your final theory should be able to generate the universe the same way the basic set of axioms generates mathematics.

 

[TEPO]

But you’re comparing apples and oranges. Math isn’t attempting to “explain” anything, nor is it attempting to predict phenomena. The fact that we use math for those purposes is immaterial, since we could also develop impractical mathematics. Math is a formal science and physics is a natural science–we shouldn’t expect them to be equal in this regard.

If the two sciences can’t be used interchangeably and universally, then how can we count on the accuracy of their values?

 

[TEPO]

Granted, when you’re talking about someone who’s practically mute, that’s not saying much.
.

(In all due respectfulness, that’s funny)

 

[Oreoracle]

But the idea behind having the “final theory” in physics is to have a set of laws which will generate the universe. This is what Lawrence Krauss argues for when he talks about universe from nothing.

That’s a valid point. I guess that is a bit more ambitious than what I had in mind; I’ve never really considered that universal constants would ever be explained. Frankly I’d settle for a consistent theory unifying QM and Relativity at this point.

If the two sciences can’t be used interchangeably and universally, then how can we count on the accuracy of their values?

The conclusions we reach about nature through mathematical reasoning are only as valid as the axioms we choose. If we make the wrong assumptions about nature, we will arrive at incorrect conclusions even if our math is flawless.

That’s the difference between natural sciences and formal sciences in a nutshell: In formal sciences, you can choose any set of consistent axioms and you’re guaranteed to have consistent conclusions as long as your deductive reasoning is correct. But natural sciences rely on induction, which is imperfect, so the axioms we choose for our math may not accurately reflect the physical world. Those conclusions will still be true in the mathematical sense, however.

 

[Grym]

Asking Hawking about the afterlife makes no sense. He’s not an all-wise oracle, he’s only a scientist. There are many other more qualified people who could answer that question much, much better than he did. I’d even go as far as saying that he doesn’t have much of a way with words.

That was a little bit rich was it not?

I would Like to add that Mathematics does not exist any place else than in hte heads of people.

It is more or less totally made up by people.

Parts of it might be applied to the world yielding amazing results but there are loads of it without no practical or pragmatic implementation at all.

/Victor

 

[Jim_Baur]

TEMPO

I posted Hawking’s ideas about an impersonal god.

He, at least in that interview, said that there is a god–impersonal.

Earlier in the article he said what seems to be a denial of god.

The list of laws was really nice, Bob Crowley. THANKS!

 

[Oreoracle]

Parts of it [mathematics] might be applied to the world yielding amazing results but there are loads of it without no practical or pragmatic implementation at all.

Thank you, this summarizes what I said earlier nicely.

 

[TEPO]

TEMPO

I posted Hawking’s ideas about an impersonal god.

He, at least in that interview, said that there is a god–impersonal.

Earlier in the article he said what seems to be a denial of god.

The list of laws was really nice, Bob Crowley. THANKS!

That’s not good enough for me though.

It’s not right to criticize people for their belief in the afterlife if one doesn’t have knowledge of all axioms within all time and space.

…but as far as quoting Hawking -we shouldn’t. We know he can’t express his thoughts as fully as others can -it’s more strenuous for him considering his condition.

 

[Oreoracle]

It’s not right to criticize people for their belief in the afterlife if one doesn’t have knowledge of all axioms within all time and space.

So let me get this straight. Christians can voice any opinion they want about an afterlife even though they admit to various uncertainties about the nature of the afterlife and even God himself (“the Lord works in mysterious ways”). But atheists have to practically be omniscient in order to express any opinion at all? I detect a double standard.

 

[TEPO]

So let me get this straight. Christians can voice any opinion they want about an afterlife even though they admit to various uncertainties about the nature of the afterlife and even God himself (“the Lord works in mysterious ways”). But atheists have to practically be omniscient in order to express any opinion at all? I detect a double standard.

Hawking says those who believe in the afterlife are “scared of the dark”.

…what does the Church claim is ‘wrong’ with atheists…? The Church doesn’t make such, shall I say, foolish claims.

 

[TEPO]

…but again, to digress from this, I’d rather not quote Hawking on things outside of science. It’s not his field, and his condition probably limits the expression of his ‘full’ thoughts during interviews.

 

[Jim_Baur]

This board is too complex for me to follow.

I just want to state my position as clearly as I can.

I had one concern only: Where do people like Hawking and Dawkins think the math that we see in nature originated?

 

[TEPO]

This board is too complex for me to follow.

I just want to state my position as clearly as I can.

I had one concern only: Where do people like Hawking and Dawkins think the math that we see in nature originated?

Complex you say? Some hidden or unforeseen axioms perhaps?

 

[Grym]

This board is too complex for me to follow.

I just want to state my position as clearly as I can.

I had one concern only: Where do people like Hawking and Dawkins think the math that we see in nature originated?

Eer. Shouldn’t you ask them? They are alive still I suspect?

Just a thought.

/Victor

 

[Ion]

So let me get this straight. Christians can voice any opinion they want about an afterlife even though they admit to various uncertainties about the nature of the afterlife and even God himself (“the Lord works in mysterious ways”). But atheists have to practically be omniscient in order to express any opinion at all? I detect a double standard.

Well it is the atheists pretending the e. theory is true even though they admit is going to be changed…

Hawking says those who believe in the afterlife are “scared of the dark”.

Can this be plain lack of culture, there are so many saints who did not hesitate to give up their life rather than to deny Jesus.
Probably Hawking is scared of the dark …

 

[Ion]

That was a little bit rich was it not?

I would Like to add that Mathematics does not exist any place else than in hte heads of people.

It is more or less totally made up by people.

Parts of it might be applied to the world yielding amazing results but there are loads of it without no practical or pragmatic implementation at all.

/Victor

Can you prove that there will never be any pragmatic implementation? You cant really delimitate areas this way because theoretical results can be “implemented” in other theoretical works which can have later so to speak the answer to a practical problem

 

[Grym]

Can you prove that there will never be any pragmatic implementation? You cant really delimitate areas this way because theoretical results can be “implemented” in other theoretical works which can have later so to speak the answer to a practical problem

I can not rule out anything given the entire eternity of time no. But that was not what I said nor was it meaning of that post.

 

[TEPO]

I think there’s a lot to be said for things that are “made up by people”…

If numbers are made up by people, yet they hold such value and truth, then couldn’t the same be said for religion and belief in the afterlife.

If string theory holds true, then isn’t it possible that the human imagination comes from a collection of the imagination of the universe and eternity? Or perhaps is an extension of something that existed prior to the Big Bang or in heaven?