If we imagine an alternative universe that did not have a logical mind underpinning it, what might it look like? What would be different?
Well, for starters, math wouldn’t provide such a useful tool for modeling reality. 2+2 really could be equal to mashed potato. Such a universe would be governed by illogic. Existence would be truly meaningless in every sense of the word. There would be no correspondence between cause and effect. So on and so forth.
I don't think anything in logic itself dictates how stars should behave.
I’m wrapping the “Laws of Physics” into the broader umbrella concept of “Applicability of Mathematics to Reality”. The star functions the way it does (mostly) because of the interplay of gravity, nuclear fusion, and electromagnetism. The reason for these processes playing out by logical, coherent rules is ultimately the observable fact that our universe is governed by logic.
But applied to mathematics? You seem to be taking the divine origin of mathematics as axiomatic, and as such, it really can't be refuted
I’m not trying to be tautological, though I understand how these arguments could be interpreted that way. The key point is that there is no reason why mathematics should be so applicable to reality that it has long been called “the language of nature”, unless you include the possibility of intelligent design. You could say, “I believe in the thing so mind bogglingly implausible that it could be rightly said that the possibility of its occurrence is approaching 1/∞” but that is just an inferior answer in my opinion.
So basically, realism or instrumentalism? In my uninformed opinion, basic math is realist, while the more specialized you get, the more instrumentalist it might get. Of course, you don't even know
So two things:
Firstly - even the parts of math we think don’t apply to reality often end up astoundingly showing up in some theretofore poorly understood realm. A great example of this are the imaginary numbers and their associated operations.
Secondly - “Math” isn’t a physical thing right? It is, like Plato’s forms, an idealized abstraction that exists only in the minds of humans (as far as we know), right? So for math to be “real”, that means this idealized, non-physical form must also be real, but somehow existing outside of the universe. If one can accept this, God is basically just a name given by us to this underlying order and meaning which exists outside of, and was wholly responsible for shaping, the universe itself.
Nothing actually. I'm only familiar with some of the arguments because they're part of history. I assume this is the argument that even a very tiny change in the conditions would have resulted in there being no humans, or perhaps even no universe?
Oh it’s good stuff. Basically what you describe and variations on the theme usually dealing with changes in scale. One of the most interesting versions I’ve seen even applied the logic to the evolution of universes themselves, in an assumed multiversal situation. I can look for the link if you’re interested, I think I posted it a while back.
I can think of some counter-arguments against that. Perhaps there would have been other forms of life. It's also hard to judge it from the inside. Even if it is unlikely for things to be as they are, in any hypothetical universe where the conditions were not ripe for intelligent life, there would be no people to contemplate why things are the way they are.
Yes, this is effectively the “Anthropic Principle”, which is admittedly the best attempt at a counter-argument I’ve come across, but I agree with Roger Penrose that to invoke it provides no explanatory power at all, and is in fact the far more tautological option than concluding a higher order intelligence behind the universe (imo at least).
That's what I meant. You can say that there was nothing before the Big Bang, or you can say that a god put it into motion - which is as good a hypothesis as any, probably even better.
Glad to find a subject we have so much agreement on. Maybe we can sharpen each others arguments to better effect!
math wouldn’t provide such a useful tool for modeling reality. 2+2 really could be equal to mashed potato. Such a universe would be governed by illogic.
Could a universe governed by illogic even exist? I don't really see the reason why 2+2 could equal something different or even absurd. The whole point of something like 2+2 is that its value holds true in any conceivable universe, whether there is a god or not. And I don't know theological opinions on it, but could God make 2+2 equal 5 or make a square circle?
The reason for these processes playing out by logical, coherent rules is ultimately the observable fact that our universe is governed by logic.
Right, but rules do not necessarily imply a rulemaker. There is such a thing as spontaneous order. In this case, any universe where life exists probably would have to have some laws, or at least, I don't see any reason why the existence of laws implies a divinity.
I’m not trying to be tautological
I didn't mean it like that, more like that any view of the universe ultimately boils down to some assumptions which are taken as axiomatic. One can be 'parallel lines cannot cross'. Or that 'the origin of mathematics is a divinity'.
The key point is that there is no reason why mathematics should be so applicable to reality
The whole reason we discover mathematics and do apply it to reality, is because we created it based on our experiences with reality - not the other way around. It's not as if mathematics was something that just coincidentally happened to be applicable to reality, correct?
It is, like Plato’s forms, an idealized abstraction that exists only in the minds of humans (as far as we know), right?
Technically, Plato's forms would be an actual reality in the real world.
So for math to be “real”, that means this idealized, non-physical form must also be real, but somehow existing outside of the universe. If one can accept this, God is basically just a name given by us to this underlying order and meaning which exists outside of, and was wholly responsible for shaping, the universe itself.
But if we give a name to an 'underlying order', that is quite different from attributing agency or the creation of the world to that. Suppose that we did agree to label the underlying order of the universe, which we can agree on, 'god'. Would that imply that this is a personal god that is responsible for creating the universe? On the other hand, does agreeing to such a minimalistic idea of god not undermine the theist or deist? He is reducing the idea of a god to an 'underlying order', after all.
One of the most interesting versions I’ve seen even applied the logic to the evolution of universes themselves
You seem very interested in abstract ideas and metaphysics. Less so for me. I tried reading a book on the alleged nature of time recently, and it just befuddled me.
Yes, this is effectively the “Anthropic Principle”, which is admittedly the best attempt at a counter-argument I’ve come across, but I agree with Roger Penrose that to invoke it provides no explanatory power at all, and is in fact the far more tautological option than concluding a higher order intelligence behind the universe (imo at least).
Ultimately, we're just in a cage with no way to definitively figure out what is beyond. Either way, it's absurd. And I'll freely admit that having a higher intelligence is less absurd than there being no time and a singularity at the time of the big bang. At least that would make some sense. But are natural processes obliged to make sense to us puny humans?
Glad to find a subject we have so much agreement on. Maybe we can sharpen each others arguments to better effect!
Not that much agreement yet, but at least good conversation.
Well, for starters, math wouldn’t provide such a useful tool for modeling reality. 2+2 really could be equal to mashed potato. Such a universe would be governed by illogic. Existence would be truly meaningless in every sense of the word. There would be no correspondence between cause and effect. So on and so forth.
I’m wrapping the “Laws of Physics” into the broader umbrella concept of “Applicability of Mathematics to Reality”. The star functions the way it does (mostly) because of the interplay of gravity, nuclear fusion, and electromagnetism. The reason for these processes playing out by logical, coherent rules is ultimately the observable fact that our universe is governed by logic.
I’m not trying to be tautological, though I understand how these arguments could be interpreted that way. The key point is that there is no reason why mathematics should be so applicable to reality that it has long been called “the language of nature”, unless you include the possibility of intelligent design. You could say, “I believe in the thing so mind bogglingly implausible that it could be rightly said that the possibility of its occurrence is approaching 1/∞” but that is just an inferior answer in my opinion.
So two things:
Firstly - even the parts of math we think don’t apply to reality often end up astoundingly showing up in some theretofore poorly understood realm. A great example of this are the imaginary numbers and their associated operations.
Secondly - “Math” isn’t a physical thing right? It is, like Plato’s forms, an idealized abstraction that exists only in the minds of humans (as far as we know), right? So for math to be “real”, that means this idealized, non-physical form must also be real, but somehow existing outside of the universe. If one can accept this, God is basically just a name given by us to this underlying order and meaning which exists outside of, and was wholly responsible for shaping, the universe itself.
Oh it’s good stuff. Basically what you describe and variations on the theme usually dealing with changes in scale. One of the most interesting versions I’ve seen even applied the logic to the evolution of universes themselves, in an assumed multiversal situation. I can look for the link if you’re interested, I think I posted it a while back.
Yes, this is effectively the “Anthropic Principle”, which is admittedly the best attempt at a counter-argument I’ve come across, but I agree with Roger Penrose that to invoke it provides no explanatory power at all, and is in fact the far more tautological option than concluding a higher order intelligence behind the universe (imo at least).
Glad to find a subject we have so much agreement on. Maybe we can sharpen each others arguments to better effect!
Could a universe governed by illogic even exist? I don't really see the reason why 2+2 could equal something different or even absurd. The whole point of something like 2+2 is that its value holds true in any conceivable universe, whether there is a god or not. And I don't know theological opinions on it, but could God make 2+2 equal 5 or make a square circle?
Right, but rules do not necessarily imply a rulemaker. There is such a thing as spontaneous order. In this case, any universe where life exists probably would have to have some laws, or at least, I don't see any reason why the existence of laws implies a divinity.
I didn't mean it like that, more like that any view of the universe ultimately boils down to some assumptions which are taken as axiomatic. One can be 'parallel lines cannot cross'. Or that 'the origin of mathematics is a divinity'.
The whole reason we discover mathematics and do apply it to reality, is because we created it based on our experiences with reality - not the other way around. It's not as if mathematics was something that just coincidentally happened to be applicable to reality, correct?
Technically, Plato's forms would be an actual reality in the real world.
But if we give a name to an 'underlying order', that is quite different from attributing agency or the creation of the world to that. Suppose that we did agree to label the underlying order of the universe, which we can agree on, 'god'. Would that imply that this is a personal god that is responsible for creating the universe? On the other hand, does agreeing to such a minimalistic idea of god not undermine the theist or deist? He is reducing the idea of a god to an 'underlying order', after all.
You seem very interested in abstract ideas and metaphysics. Less so for me. I tried reading a book on the alleged nature of time recently, and it just befuddled me.
Ultimately, we're just in a cage with no way to definitively figure out what is beyond. Either way, it's absurd. And I'll freely admit that having a higher intelligence is less absurd than there being no time and a singularity at the time of the big bang. At least that would make some sense. But are natural processes obliged to make sense to us puny humans?
Not that much agreement yet, but at least good conversation.