Philosopher of science Bjørn Ekeberg, author of Metaphysical Experiments: Physics and the Invention of the Universe, reflects on recent discrepancies in the measurement of the universe’s expansion, the so-far-unsuccessful hunt for dark matter, he states,
"For a scientist to be confident of this picture requires an exceptional faith in the power of mathematical unification."
The belief that there should be just one overarching theory of everything, whether theoretical physicists realize it or not, is a belief that is not born out of empirical evidence, but is a presupposition that is born out of theism.
As John D Barrow stated “Our monotheistic traditions reinforce the assumption that the universe is at root a unity, that is not governed by different legislation in different places.”
“Our monotheistic traditions reinforce the assumption that the universe is at root a unity, that is not governed by different legislation in different places.”
John D. Barrow
Professor Steven Fuller articulates the hidden Theistic presumption, that undergirds the belief that there should even be a single overarching mathematical ‘theory of everything’, very well in the following quote;
“So you think of physics in search of a “Grand Unified Theory of Everything”, Why should we even think there is such a thing? Why should we think there is some ultimate level of resolution? Right? It is part, it is a consequence of believing in some kind of design. Right? And there is some sense in which that however multifarious and diverse the phenomena of nature are, they are ultimately unified by the minimal set of laws and principles possible. Insofar as science continues to operate with that assumption, there is a presupposition of design that is motivating the scientific process. Because it would be perfectly easy,, to stop the pursuit of science at much lower levels. You know understand a certain range of phenomena in a way that is appropriate to deal with that phenomena and just stop there and not go any deeper or any farther.”,,, You see, there is a sense in which there is design at the ultimate level, the ultimate teleology you might say, which provides the ultimate closure,,”
Professor Steve Fuller discusses intelligent design in Cambridge – Video – quoted at the 17:34 minute mark
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....nd-others/
Likewise, Father Robert Barron weighs in here:
Stephen Hawking’s “God-Haunted” Quest – December 24, 2014
Excerpt: “Why in the world would a scientist blithely assume that there is or is even likely to be one unifying rational form to all things, unless he assumed that there is a singular, overarching intelligence that has placed it there? Why shouldn’t the world be chaotic, utterly random, meaningless? Why should one presume that something as orderly and rational as an equation would describe the universe’s structure?
I would argue that the only finally reasonable ground for that assumption is the belief in an intelligent Creator, who has already thought into the world the very mathematics that the patient scientist discovers.”
Robert Barron
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92351.html
In fact, it was Sir Isaac Newton’s Theistic presupposition that allowed the first major unification in physics (and arguably the founding of modern empirical science itself):
Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation
Excerpt: The first major unification in physics was Sir Isaac Newton’s realization that the same force that caused an apple to fall at the Earth’s surface—gravity—was also responsible for holding the Moon in orbit about the Earth. This universal force would also act between the planets and the Sun, providing a common explanation for both terrestrial and astronomical phenomena.
https://www.learner.org/courses/physics/unit/text.html?unit=3&secNum=3
In regards to this first unification, Sir Isaac Newton stated: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One;,,,”
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler;,,, The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,, from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present”:
– Sir Isaac Newton – Quoted from what many consider the greatest science masterpiece of all time, his book “Principia”
http://gravitee.tripod.com/genschol.htm
Nor is it a presupposition (that there should be just on unifying mathematical theory of everything) that is born out of math. In fact, Godel proved mathematics is incomplete.
THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010
Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
http://www.firstthings.com/art.....ematicians
And as Vern Poythress stated in the following article after detailed analysis of Godel’s incompleteness theorems, since anti-theistic mathematics “will not acknowledge the true God, wise Creator of both the human mind with its mathematical intuition and the external world with its mathematical properties”,,, then the “anti-theistic philosophy of mathematics is condemned to oscillate between the poles of a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge.”
A BIBLICAL VIEW OF MATHEMATICS
Vern Poythress – Doctorate in theology, PhD in Mathematics (Harvard)
15. Implications of Gödel’s proof
B. Metaphysical problems of anti-theistic mathematics: unity and plurality
Excerpt: Because of the above difficulties, anti-theistic philosophy of mathematics is condemned to oscillate, much as we have done in our argument, between the poles of a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge. Why? It will not acknowledge the true God, wise Creator of both the human mind with its mathematical intuition and the external world with its mathematical properties. In sections 22-23 we shall see how the Biblical view furnishes us with a real solution to the problem of “knowing” that 2 + 2 = 4 and knowing that S is true.
http://www.frame-poythress.org.....thematics/
Moreover, as Stanley Jaki stated,
“Clearly then no scientific cosmology, which of necessity must be highly mathematical, can have its proof of consistency within itself as far as mathematics go. In absence of such consistency, all mathematical models, all theories of elementary particles, including the theory of quarks and gluons…fall inherently short of being that theory which shows in virtue of its a priori truth that the world can only be what it is and nothing else. This is true even if the theory happened to account for perfect accuracy for all phenomena of the physical world known at a particular time.”
Stanley Jaki – Cosmos and Creator – 1980, pg. 49
Yet we do not have just one theory in science that has ‘perfect accuracy’. We have two theories that reveal ‘perfect accuracy’.
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space,
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html
"For a scientist to be confident of this picture requires an exceptional faith in the power of mathematical unification."
The belief that there should be just one overarching theory of everything, whether theoretical physicists realize it or not, is a belief that is not born out of empirical evidence, but is a presupposition that is born out of theism.
As John D Barrow stated “Our monotheistic traditions reinforce the assumption that the universe is at root a unity, that is not governed by different legislation in different places.”
“Our monotheistic traditions reinforce the assumption that the universe is at root a unity, that is not governed by different legislation in different places.”
John D. Barrow
Professor Steven Fuller articulates the hidden Theistic presumption, that undergirds the belief that there should even be a single overarching mathematical ‘theory of everything’, very well in the following quote;
“So you think of physics in search of a “Grand Unified Theory of Everything”, Why should we even think there is such a thing? Why should we think there is some ultimate level of resolution? Right? It is part, it is a consequence of believing in some kind of design. Right? And there is some sense in which that however multifarious and diverse the phenomena of nature are, they are ultimately unified by the minimal set of laws and principles possible. Insofar as science continues to operate with that assumption, there is a presupposition of design that is motivating the scientific process. Because it would be perfectly easy,, to stop the pursuit of science at much lower levels. You know understand a certain range of phenomena in a way that is appropriate to deal with that phenomena and just stop there and not go any deeper or any farther.”,,, You see, there is a sense in which there is design at the ultimate level, the ultimate teleology you might say, which provides the ultimate closure,,”
Professor Steve Fuller discusses intelligent design in Cambridge – Video – quoted at the 17:34 minute mark
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....nd-others/
Likewise, Father Robert Barron weighs in here:
Stephen Hawking’s “God-Haunted” Quest – December 24, 2014
Excerpt: “Why in the world would a scientist blithely assume that there is or is even likely to be one unifying rational form to all things, unless he assumed that there is a singular, overarching intelligence that has placed it there? Why shouldn’t the world be chaotic, utterly random, meaningless? Why should one presume that something as orderly and rational as an equation would describe the universe’s structure?
I would argue that the only finally reasonable ground for that assumption is the belief in an intelligent Creator, who has already thought into the world the very mathematics that the patient scientist discovers.”
Robert Barron
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92351.html
In fact, it was Sir Isaac Newton’s Theistic presupposition that allowed the first major unification in physics (and arguably the founding of modern empirical science itself):
Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation
Excerpt: The first major unification in physics was Sir Isaac Newton’s realization that the same force that caused an apple to fall at the Earth’s surface—gravity—was also responsible for holding the Moon in orbit about the Earth. This universal force would also act between the planets and the Sun, providing a common explanation for both terrestrial and astronomical phenomena.
https://www.learner.org/courses/physics/unit/text.html?unit=3&secNum=3
In regards to this first unification, Sir Isaac Newton stated: “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One;,,,”
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler;,,, The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,, from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present”:
– Sir Isaac Newton – Quoted from what many consider the greatest science masterpiece of all time, his book “Principia”
http://gravitee.tripod.com/genschol.htm
Nor is it a presupposition (that there should be just on unifying mathematical theory of everything) that is born out of math. In fact, Godel proved mathematics is incomplete.
THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010
Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
http://www.firstthings.com/art.....ematicians
And as Vern Poythress stated in the following article after detailed analysis of Godel’s incompleteness theorems, since anti-theistic mathematics “will not acknowledge the true God, wise Creator of both the human mind with its mathematical intuition and the external world with its mathematical properties”,,, then the “anti-theistic philosophy of mathematics is condemned to oscillate between the poles of a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge.”
A BIBLICAL VIEW OF MATHEMATICS
Vern Poythress – Doctorate in theology, PhD in Mathematics (Harvard)
15. Implications of Gödel’s proof
B. Metaphysical problems of anti-theistic mathematics: unity and plurality
Excerpt: Because of the above difficulties, anti-theistic philosophy of mathematics is condemned to oscillate, much as we have done in our argument, between the poles of a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge. Why? It will not acknowledge the true God, wise Creator of both the human mind with its mathematical intuition and the external world with its mathematical properties. In sections 22-23 we shall see how the Biblical view furnishes us with a real solution to the problem of “knowing” that 2 + 2 = 4 and knowing that S is true.
http://www.frame-poythress.org.....thematics/
Moreover, as Stanley Jaki stated,
“Clearly then no scientific cosmology, which of necessity must be highly mathematical, can have its proof of consistency within itself as far as mathematics go. In absence of such consistency, all mathematical models, all theories of elementary particles, including the theory of quarks and gluons…fall inherently short of being that theory which shows in virtue of its a priori truth that the world can only be what it is and nothing else. This is true even if the theory happened to account for perfect accuracy for all phenomena of the physical world known at a particular time.”
Stanley Jaki – Cosmos and Creator – 1980, pg. 49
Yet we do not have just one theory in science that has ‘perfect accuracy’. We have two theories that reveal ‘perfect accuracy’.
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space,
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html
No comments:
Post a Comment