Two questions (sort of)

[CrossofChrist]

I actually have 2 questions, so here they come…

1. Does the argument from design as it is generally formulated (short version: the world is so complex and ordered that it necessarily must have a designer) have to fall back on Aquinas’ first or second way? Because then when one says that God must be even more complex in order to design the complex universe, so someone must have designed God etc, then you have to respond with “God is simple”. And then as far as I can tell it spirals toward the first mover argument.

I sense it’s more likely that I just don’t understand the argument as well as I should, or else why is it so commonly used?

1. I don’t really get how the following from Benedict XVI makes sense. Maybe someone who gets it could answer?

*Let us now reflect on what mathematics is: in itself, it is an abstract system, an invention of the human spirit which as such in its purity does not exist. It is always approximated, but as such is an intellectual system, a great, ingenious invention of the human spirit.

The surprising thing is that this invention of our human intellect is truly the key to understanding nature, that nature is truly structured in a mathematical way, and that our mathematics, invented by our human mind, is truly the instrument for working with nature, to put it at our service, to use it through technology.

It seems to me almost incredible that an invention of the human mind and the structure of the universe coincide. Mathematics, which we invented, really gives us access to the nature of the universe and makes it possible for us to use it.

Therefore, the intellectual structure of the human subject and the objective structure of reality coincide: the subjective reason and the objective reason of nature are identical. I think that this coincidence between what we thought up and how nature is fulfilled and behaves is a great enigma and a great challenge, for we see that, in the end, it is “one” reason that links them both.

Our reason could not discover this other reason were there not an identical antecedent reason for both.

In this sense it really seems to me that mathematics - in which as such God cannot appear - shows us the intelligent structure of the universe. Now, there are also theories of chaos, but they are limited because if chaos had the upper hand, all technology would become impossible. Only because our mathematics is reliable, is technology reliable.

…

Of course, no one can now prove - as is proven in an experiment, in technical laws - that they both really originated in a single intelligence, but it seems to me that this unity of intelligence, behind the two intelligences, really appears in our world. And the more we can delve into the world with our intelligence, the more clearly the plan of Creation appears.*

Me:

---

Hope you all had a great Christmas!

 

[DaveBj]

I’m not going to touch #1, but as for #2, I’m too, especially by the first paragraph:

Let us now reflect on what mathematics is: in itself, it is an abstract system, an invention of the human spirit which as such in its purity does not exist. It is always approximated, but as such is an intellectual system, a great, ingenious invention of the human spirit.

First of all, how is mathematics always approximated? Granted, when one starts rounding up or down, or dealing with significant digits, there is approximation, but 1 is always 1, never 0.995 or 1.005.

Second, I can’t believe for a minute that humans “invented” mathematics; they discovered what was already existing in the universe. 2+2 was =ing 4 before there was ever a human being to say it.

 

[vz71]

The universe is full of these relationships.

As soon as we write them down, by necessity it is a representation.
As such it is an approximation of what is reality.

 

[CrossofChrist]

The universe is full of these relationships.

As soon as we write them down, by necessity it is a representation.
As such it is an approximation of what is reality.

And this proves there is a “creative reason” (aka God) how?

 

[D_Martin]

I am sure this doesn’t help you at all, but I don’t agree with Benedict XVI’s observation of mathematics in respect to, it’s a human invention. Reason being when men use mathematics to calculate something to make something do some desired result creation responds to it. And since God speaks and creation responds, and He is the first to make creation respond to a expressed will, then He would be the one who has made the method by which creation responds to a expressed will, and the fulfillment thereof.

It don’t make sense that mathematics is a human invention.

 

[Beryllos]

First of all, how is mathematics always approximated? Granted, when one starts rounding up or down, or dealing with significant digits, there is approximation, but 1 is always 1, never 0.995 or 1.005.

It could be that in this regard he was writing about mathematical physics. The ancients thought the heavens moved in perfect circles, which was not a bad approximation. Kepler said it was ellipses, which was a better approximation. Newton refined that, Einstein did one better, and so it goes. Our latest mathematical model is still an approximation, but a very accurate and useful one.

Similarly our mathematical model of subatomic particles is approximate.

(Please accept my apologies if my history of orbital mechanics is off. It’s an approximation. )

 

[vz71]

And this proves there is a “creative reason” (aka God) how?

I was not addressing the first question.
I was addressing the second.

 

[vz71]

It don’t make sense that mathematics is a human invention.

It is a human invention used to explain the universe around us.

All languages are human inventions.

 

[D_Martin]

It is a human invention used to explain the universe around us.

All languages are human inventions.

How can “All languages are human inventions” be true since God spoke to man first? Or was that something other than language?

Gen;1:28: And God blessed them,** and God said unto them**, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29: And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30: And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

And the variety of languages is also God’s doing, and not an invention of man.

Gen:11:7: Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.

Where in scripture does it say that man is the creator or even his own designer of his own articulations? But yet I have shown you where it states that the Lord God spoke to man first. Man is not the creator of articulation nor expression. Man must figure out what to articulate in order to be understood first. Just as he has to learn math to its working.Hence the language and the math was there before man. God spoke let there be Light and creation understood and responded. That was long before man. Without being understood there is no language, if you can’t be understood by anything, you have no language.

 

[vz71]

Where in scripture does it say that man is the creator or even his own designer of his own articulations? But yet I have shown you where it states that the Lord God spoke to man first. Man is not the creator of articulation nor expression. Man must figure out what to articulate in order to be understood first. Just as he has to learn math to its working.Hence the language and the math was there before man. God spoke let there be Light and creation understood and responded. That was long before man. Without being understood there is no language, if you can’t be understood by anything, you have no language.

I think you have missed the main point.
Language is simply a representation of what is.
There is a ball in my yard. Of course, there are many different words for this object, every language describes it differently. But all these words simply describe the object sitting in my yard…none of them actually is that object.

And in that same way, math.
We have all kinds of mathematical functions and formulas, but none of these actually is what is described.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I was not addressing the first question.
I was addressing the second.

 

[DaveBj]

It could be that in this regard he was writing about mathematical physics.

snip

If he was writing in that context, then I can buy it, no huhu. All of our measurements are definitely approximations.

 

[D_Martin]

I think you have missed the main point.
Language is simply a representation of what is.
There is a ball in my yard. Of course, there are many different words for this object, every language describes it differently. But all these words simply describe the object sitting in my yard…none of them actually is that object.

And in that same way, math.
We have all kinds of mathematical functions and formulas, but none of these actually is what is described.

No you are missing the point to what you responded to.

“It don’t make sense that mathematics is a human invention.”

By saying

“It is a human invention used to explain the universe around us.

All languages are human inventions.”

I showed you that was incorrect, now you seek to back peddle your way out by saying I’m in some kind of error. In the OP it states by the quoted (Benedict XVI) that in so many words mathematics is a human invention, and that is incorrect. Which could be one a reason why its confusing to the poster of the OP.

If a mean looking junkyard dog is growling and barking at you from the other side of the fence, do you get the representation of what is? Language is not only a mankind thing.

 

[tonyrey]

I actually have 2 questions, so here they come…

1. Does the argument from design as it is generally formulated (short version: the world is so complex and ordered that it necessarily must have a designer) have to fall back on Aquinas’ first or second way? Because then when one says that God must be even more complex in order to design the complex universe, so someone must have designed God etc, then you have to respond with “God is simple”. And then as far as I can tell it spirals toward the first mover argument.

The essence of Design is that rational, purposeful activity must be the product of rational, purposeful activity because it is based on hindsight, insight and foresight which do not exist in atomic particles.

1. I don’t really get how the following from Benedict XVI makes sense. Maybe someone who gets it could answer?

*Let us now reflect on what mathematics is: in itself, it is an abstract system, an invention of the human spirit which as such in its purity does not exist. It is always approximated, but as such is an intellectual system, a great, ingenious invention of the human spirit.

The surprising thing is that this invention of our human intellect is truly the key to understanding nature, that nature is truly structured in a mathematical way, and that our mathematics, invented by our human mind, is truly the instrument for working with nature, to put it at our service, to use it through technology.

It seems to me almost incredible that an invention of the human mind and the structure of the universe coincide. Mathematics, which we invented, really gives us access to the nature of the universe and makes it possible for us to use it.

Therefore, the intellectual structure of the human subject and the objective structure of reality coincide: the subjective reason and the objective reason of nature are identical. I think that this coincidence between what we thought up and how nature is fulfilled and behaves is a great enigma and a great challenge, for we see that, in the end, it is “one” reason that links them both.

Our reason could not discover this other reason were there not an identical antecedent reason for both.

In this sense it really seems to me that mathematics - in which as such God cannot appear - shows us the intelligent structure of the universe. Now, there are also theories of chaos, but they are limited because if chaos had the upper hand, all technology would become impossible. Only because our mathematics is reliable, is technology reliable.

…

Of course, no one can now prove - as is proven in an experiment, in technical laws - that they both really originated in a single intelligence, but it seems to me that this unity of intelligence, behind the two intelligences, really appears in our world. And the more we can delve into the world with our intelligence, the more clearly the plan of Creation appears.*

The success of science is sufficient evidence that mathematics reflects the nature of physical reality with extreme accuracy.

Hope you all had a great Christmas!

Not forgetting you and yours.

 

[Nita]

I think you have missed the main point.
Language is simply a representation of what is.
There is a ball in my yard. Of course, there are many different words for this object, every language describes it differently. But all these words simply describe the object sitting in my yard…none of them actually is that object.

And in that same way, math.
We have all kinds of mathematical functions and formulas, but none of these actually is what is described.

 

[tonyrey]

No you are missing the point to what you responded to.

“It don’t make sense that mathematics is a human invention.”

By saying

“It is a human invention used to explain the universe around us.

All languages are human inventions.”

I showed you that was incorrect, now you seek to back peddle your way out by saying I’m in some kind of error. In the OP it states by the quoted (Benedict XVI) that in so many words mathematics is a human invention, and that is incorrect. Which could be one a reason why its confusing to the poster of the OP.

If a mean looking junkyard dog is growling and barking at you from the other side of the fence, do you get the representation of what is? Language is not only a mankind thing.

Mathematics is expressed with human symbols and like words they correspond to reality but unlike words those symbols are restricted to physical reality. The number “two”, for example, is not an arbitrary concept but a description of a fact which existed before man appeared on this planet - and certainly **not **a human invention.

 

[Beryllos]

If he was writing in that context, then I can buy it, no huhu. All of our measurements are definitely approximations.

I didn’t mean measurements, which certainly are approximate (as our instrument have limited precision, noise, and systematic errors). I was referring to our theories, which even in their mathematical purity are approximate, because the universe does not work in quite so simple a manner. There are details yet to be understood, and perhaps some not yet dreamed of.

 

[Beryllos]

Mathematics is expressed with human symbols and like words they correspond to reality but unlike words those symbols are restricted to physical reality. The number “two”, for example, is not an arbitrary concept but a description of a fact which existed before man appeared on this planet - and certainly **not **a human invention.

I disagree. I’m new here in the Philosophy forum, so perhaps this is an old argument that I am unfamiliar with, but I think this is a fascinating question. Does an equation or a number exist in nature, or only in our imagination? Of course there may be two protons, and an electron has two spin states, but that is two of something. Does the number two itself exist in nature? If so, where can the number itself, or the concept of two, be found? I say the universe has no numbers or equations, and it gets along fine without them.

 

[D_Martin]

I disagree. I’m new here in the Philosophy forum, so perhaps this is an old argument that I am unfamiliar with, but I think this is a fascinating question. Does an equation or a number exist in nature, or only in our imagination? Of course there may be two protons, and an electron has two spin states, but that is two of something. Does the number two itself exist in nature? If so, where can the number itself, or the concept of two, be found? I say the universe has no numbers or equations, and it gets along fine without them.

If I may, everything seen and unseen in creation that is created is a work of God, hence all that man can know (other than God Himself) is already done. Which includes the methods in which they are fulfilled. Man can only be credited for learning what has been already, and most if not all of that is a revelation. Which includes math and how mathematics works.

I would say in the context of your comment that creation gets along fine without man’s knowledge of it, but is completely dependant on God’s Knowledge of it.

 

[vz71]

If a mean looking junkyard dog is growling and barking at you from the other side of the fence, do you get the representation of what is? Language is not only a mankind thing.

Is it your contention that dogs talk?