What if God wants to come visit us?

Religion and Secularism
61

Welcome back Cuthberth, we missed you.

Well, you know me, I 'm an atheist

IMO, there is no god as defined in scripture. There are as many gods as there are people believing in gods. A god made in mans’ image?

I like to stick with hard facts, such as human applied mathematics are as “intentionally functional” as if they were spontaneous natural events. That’s power.

But I do my best to remain objective and look at this from a reductionist perspective.
The concept of an “irreducible complexity” is illogical, IMO.
A god presumes an “irreducible complexity” from outside the beginning, and speculation ranges from “mathematical” complexity to “intelligent designer” complexity.

It’s really not complicated. If you believe that the Universe has some mathematical properties then there is no valid argument against the notion that the Universe is a mathematical pattern. I believe the name is “manifold”, like possibly a torus.

I find it interesting that David Bohm used the terms “enfolded” and “unfolded” orders as part of the “manifold” equation. That’s elegant.
If you think I am consistent, you’re right. I consistently label all scientific jargon and descriptions as being mathematical in essence. Mathematics does not only allow us to measure and codify natural phenomena, but also allows us to control the universal physical properties. Mathematics, regardless of human symbolic representatrion is the natural guiding equation of relationships between fundamental values.

Chaos theory calls for an inherent mathematical spacetime guiding equation. (DeBroglie-Bohm)

Mathematical universe hypothesis

In physics and cosmology, the mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH), also known as the ultimate ensemble theory, is a speculative “theory of everything” (TOE) proposed by cosmologist Max Tegmark.[1][2]

Description
Tegmark’s MUH is the hypothesis that our external physical reality is a mathematical structure.[3] That is, the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics — specifically, a mathematical structure.

Mathematical existence equals physical existence, and all structures that exist mathematically exist physically as well. Observers, including humans, are “self-aware substructures (SASs)”. In any mathematical structure complex enough to contain such substructures, they “will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically ‘real’ world”.[4]

The theory can be considered a form of Pythagoreanism or Platonism in that it proposes the existence of mathematical entities; a form of mathematicism in that it denies that anything exists except mathematical objects; and a formal expression of ontic structural realism.

Now Penrose-Hameroff have proposed ORCH OR , that describes how quantum mechanics can work inside a brain.

See, I cannot associate the term God with anything that is described in science.
There is no definition of God and any metaphysical properties must be of a mathematical nature, not via an intentional supernatural observer.

Mathematics are quasi-intelligent and IMO, all ordering principles that appear to be consciously intelligent designers, i.e. gods, are mathematical in essence. Patterns do not suggest, they prove the mathematical ordering of patterns in nature. It’s axiomatic.

quote=“cuthbertj, post:60, topic:10479”]
But once you realize that the limits of the human mind apply to math as well, then you start to realize there’s more to it.
[/quote]
No, the human mind is remarkable and is only limited in memory storing capacity.
But now we have “solved a problem” (a biological term) of limited access to various levels of expressed reality and have invented AI that is capable of going to places and environments where humans cannot go.

Moreover.

In order to survive, organisms must solve a wide range of physics problems. Understanding the phenomena of life means understanding the emergence and integration of essential biological functions. To search systematically for unifying physical principles, scientists must work together in a highly interactive environment that supports theorists working in concert with experimentalists on multiple relevant systems, rather than pursuing separate projects in disparate fields of biology. To this end, the Center is organized around four general questions, each of which is illustrated by different biological examples and explored through close collaboration between theory and experiment. These include:

  • Examination of animal behavior from the development of organisms to the locomotion of worms and flies
  • Emergence of collective phenomena in groups of molecules, genes, neurons, and organisms

Behavior from cells to animals

  • Role of physical limits on information transfer and processing in the genetic code, neural circuits, cellular sensors, and genetic and biochemical networks
  • Mechanisms via which biological systems arrive at a particular operating point from protein number to adaptive immunity.
62

Something is bothering me: I hope that the universe can one day be described mathematically, but it is a method of description, not the universe itself. And the map is not the territory, the reflection in the mirror is not the person reflected.

We can describe the universe as completely as possible, we will obtain an expression, not the universe itself, in all its dimensions.

2 Likes
63

I agree. Regardless of the abstract functional laws that make up mathematically ordered recurring patterns, there is a tactile physical aspect to the universe and that is what we experience physically, via sensory receptors and emotional (empathic) responses. We experience a physical world.

Tegmark observes that there is no difference between a living and a dead body, except for the patterns formed by the constituent molecules.
He cited being frozen, yet having the exact same molecular quantity, but it is the difference in pattern density that makes the difference between life and death.

IOW , molecular pattern density affects its physical properties in relation to the sensory (experiential) abilities of the observer.

Note that many insects live in and observe a color reality outside of human experience.
Many animals have sensory abilities far beyond the human senses.
And that is the foundation for the theory of General Relativity.

64

General Relativity concerns how light works and spacetime. It’s not about relative perception due to differences in physiology. Last time you cut and pasted some articles, those just confirmed what I said.

65

I was pretty busy when this post was made, so I didn’t click on that article. I see now that the question posed by @Write4U changed the title. The article presents two sides of a discussion about math being a language. It discusses math as a “universal” language, but that is not the same as “language of the universe”. Not even close.

The thread mostly goes in circles. Evidence is not presented for formulas that can express morals for example. Frequent comments are made about how religion is wrong, but no one except vanamail would argue that, so not sure why they are even said.

Anyway, I’ll just say my favorite quote, “the evidence does not support the argument”. The link about math as a language doesn’t say math is the language of the universe.

66

Then there is this.

Why Math is the “Language of the Universe:”

/ FromQuarkstoQuasars
Mathematics is the most fundamental type of logic possible (in physics anyway), and therefore it is easy to reason that mathematics is the best way of expressing the universe. But if we choose to ignore the murky waters of elementary logic, mathematics becomes the language of the universe simply because it has to be .

more… Why Math is the "Language of the Universe:"

67

Now it seems like you’re just googling phrases and looking for agreement. “Language of the Universe” isn’t what you originally asserted above. It’s just a statement about what the word “God” means. Never did figure out if there was more to it.

68

Ah yes, those were my words, not copies.

I have always maintained that effectively the different models function similarly by producing the same results.
( abstract mathematics) equates (abstract God) - (minus) intent.

By Occam’s razor, the simpler functional model would offer a new way of looking at the
importance of a self-ordering, self-referential system, uncluttered by the question of consciousness.

Our knowledge of Universal values and related functions suggests that all universal constants contain mathematical (quasi-intelligent) axioms and that the notion of an a priori "motivated " intelligence is unnecessary. IMO, the maths, as an expression of abstract impersonal logic becoming mathematically expressed in reality, can do it all.

69

This is where you started, putting math above religion. No one ever argued about that. We filled God of the gaps with science, okay. But then you go on to stuff like math is the essence of the universe, or whatever it was, and other math equals gods statements.

Those are philosophical statements.

The links weren’t. That’s what I referred to.

70

[quote=“lausten, post:69, topic:10479”]
This is where you started, putting math above religion. No one ever argued about that. We filled God of the gaps with science, okay.

Excellent, and what if god does not exist at all ? What will fill the remaining gap?
Mathematics, there is nothing else.

But then you go on to stuff like math is the essence of the universe, or whatever it was, and other math equals gods statements.

Yes, what has god done that mathematics could not?

Those are philosophical statements.

Only a philosophical standpoint allows for a possible god. From a scientific standpoint mathematics can easily replace all of God 's miracles.

71

I can’t prove one does exist, so I live as if one doesn’t.

That would be “gaps”. There are many. No one can answer how we will answer all the unanswered questions.

There is no possible basis that could prove that true.

Non-sequitur. We already dismissed gods.

This avoids my point, instead of responding to it. Yes, gods are philosophy, bad philosophy, pseudo-science, but that’s not my point. My point is, statements about the essence of the universe, or what method can solve all unsolved problems are philosophy, almost by definition.

philosophy, noun, “the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.”

72

Nice nuance! Well said.

But I would read that as acknowledging that the internal consistently needed for the universe to unfold, required a precise internal regularity that makes Math, simply because it has to be. Humans have been able to study that consistency with ever increasing detail with math inevitably evolving out of that. Invented as much as discovered.

What I really don’t understand is, what’s the point of elevating to some supreme entity, as in Write’s arguments, achieve for our understanding of the universe, math or ourselves?
Why turn it into a quasi-religious thing?

So this is a search for the “real god”?
I thought we agreed that god come from within the human mindscape?
Same place math was invented.

1 Like
73

[quote=“lausten, post:71, topic:10479, full:true”]

I can’t prove one does exist, so I live as if one doesn’t.

That would be “gaps”. There are many. No one can answer how we will answer all the unanswered questions.

There is no possible basis that could prove that true.

Non-sequitur. We already dismissed gods.

Then what are we talking about?

This avoids my point, instead of responding to it. Yes, gods are philosophy, bad philosophy, pseudo-science, but that’s not my point. My point is, statements about the essence of the universe, or what method can solve all unsolved problems are philosophy, almost by definition.

philosophy, noun, “the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.”

But the question “What if God wants to come and visit” is not a philosophical question.

It establishes that God exists, but we don’t know what his plans are.
This is a question among believers. Atheists can only respond with; “God doesn’t exist”

This question is moot if used in context of a mathematical universe.
Mathematics don’t come to visit. They are ubiquitous

74

There you go. This is what I’m talking about, but that’s OK, Gene has his hand my brain. (Fellow members, just laugh at the inside joke write4you knows what I’m talking about)

2 Likes
75

…“MAKE IT SO”… image

76

The thing you said in post #5. It’s very frustrating when you switch back and forth between defending your “state of being” claim about math and saying “god doesn’t exist”. It’s two topics, keep them separate. There is no need to tell me gods don’t exist.

1 Like
77

Then why are discussing the possible visit of a non-existent thing?
We don’t discuss the possibility of spotting Unicorns.

I offer a viable alternate that makes the concept of a biblical God moot.

78

But does it when you talk about the burning bush and god using math? Let me find that again. It was either in this thread or another. I found it, but can’t share it here.

79

I’ll save you the trouble.

W4U said: We are assuming a god, ok? Let’s assume a mathematical universe.
Could you spot a difference in reality? If so, how would you distinguish God’s intelligently designed universal functions and expressions from mathematical universal functions and expressions?
Is God a mathematician?
Is a “burning bush” proof of God or of a chemical reaction based on the mathematics of chemistry?

Actually, I am making the argument that both concepts produce the exact same results, the universe as it is today, including ourselves, but by very different means .
One concept (god) is of an unprovable abstract and “unknowable nature”, whereas the other concept (maths) is of a provable abstract but “knowable nature”.

We know that Universal mechanics are of a mathematical nature, we use maths to make things work.
If God wanted to make anything, It would have to use mathematics, i.e. God the Mathematician.

But if mathematics works well without a god, God becomes superfluous, no?

I am not addressing the psychological aspects of existential beliefs.
That falls under universal consciousness.

But that also may be an emergent property in a complex self-referential mathematical pattern. There are infinite levels of pattern complexities that have a more or less evolved self-referential consciousness and awareness of its local environment.

This can be observed in the evolution of sensory awareness, from the paramecium to humans. Just trace the evolutionary history of complex neural networks.

It is in this context that my interest lies in the future of scientifically exploring what is a pattern that produces self-aware consciousness

Imagine, we are already dabbling in AI. What “emergent” properties may emerge and assume their own evolutionary benefits. A new species that we created.

80

We aren’t. Vanamali wrote the OP and moved on. We aren’t discussing that anymore. We are discussing your response to it

1 Like