Theory of Everything

[Native]

Skepticism is the key: it is easier to fool yourself than it is to fool others.

You´re sort of correct there. It succeeded for 1 Newton to fool himself and x-numbers of others when his *laws of celestial motion* was contradicted on galactic scales.

Where was you excelllent *key skepticism* then? It was shamefully an unscientifically shuffled down in a *black sack*. from where it later on escaped as a black ghost far out in the observable Universe.

*Skepticism* is mostly yet another theory i modern astrophysical and cosmological science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You´re sort of correct there. It succeeded for 1 Newton to fool himself and x-numbers of others when his *laws of celestial motion* was contradicted on galactic scales.

Where was you excelllent *key skepticism* then? It was shamefully an unscientifically shuffled down in a *black sack*. from where it later on escaped as a black ghost far out in the observable Universe;

*Skepticism* is mostly yet another theory i modern astrophysical and cosmological science.

Once more: if you think you have a better model that explains all this data better and makes more accurate predictions.... by all means, publish it - or have it published by someone else - in appropriate channels.

Rock the world.
Have your name written down in the cultural inheritance of humanity.
Be immortalized as one of the great thinkers in human history who could solve what so many others couldn't.

Why don't you?

 

[Native]

I feel some kind of conspiracy-ish accusation is coming up next. Am I right?

Excuse me then, I wasn´t aware that you´re a Trump believer

Einstein, off course, is one of those "gravitational thinkers". Perhaps even one of the founders, lol.
So not sure why you think invoking him, will do your case any good.

Then I rather hold onto Newton who, even without knowing anything of the nature of his force, he indirectly lead to the knowledge of launching and navigating spacecrafts.

Up against this, Einstein is completely lost in his speculative *curved space time*

 

[Native]

publish it - or have it published by someone else - in appropriate channels.

Thanks my nice little TagliatelliMonster I newer thought of this possibility.

 

[Native]

I leave you to triump for a while

 

[Polymath257]

Up against this, Einstein is completely lost in his speculative *curved space time*

And you have an objection to curved spacetime? Isn't that exactly the sort of 'maverick mathematics' you want?

 

[Native]

And you have an objection to curved spacetime? Isn't that exactly the sort of 'maverick mathematics' you want?

Are you already missing me, dear Polymath257 ? Sorry, you have to wait as I wrote black on white above.

 

[leroy]

What "possibilities" are you talking about?



If you say so. "elegant" seems to me to be quite subjective.
Personally for example, I think quantum physics is far from "elegant". It's rather spooky and weird.




Why would a god?
And it's not clear to me at all that the universe is explainable with "elegant equations". The universe, in fact, isn't "explained" at all - so how could you possibly know it is "elegant".

Classical physics is quite elegant perhaps, sure. E = mc² for example. A very simple equation that explains quite a lot. Same with relativity. But it doesn't play nice with quantum physics. Attempts at marrying the two are also far from elegant. String theory anyone? And quantum physics itself is the very opposite of "elegant" imo.

But nevermind if it is "elegant" or not. It doesn't actually matter to me, nore is it the point I was actually replying to. What I was replying, was your bare claim that a "god created universe" - hypothesis includes a prediction that it must be elegant, while a "natural universe" - hypothesis supposedly includes the opposite prediction.

Please demonstrate this. Please explain this. So far, it seems to be just something you claim for no particular reason. The only motivation I can see at this point, is just you trying to paint the bullseye around the arrow again...



And you claimed some predictions. I'm asking you to explain how you arrived at them.

What about a "natural universe" rules out a universe that is fundamentally simple or can be fundamentally described in an "elegant" math equation?

And what about a "god universe" suggests the opposite.

You haven't explained this at all. You just claimed it.



I don't know. "naturalism" is not a hypothesis that makes such predictions.
You would require an actual origins hypothesis to see what kind of universe would result from such a specific mechanism.

I don't know what kind of possible universes a natural process could result in and I know even less what kind of possible universes your deity of choice would or could create.

Unlike you, I see no need to stacking the deck like that.



No, it is a matter of not making baseless claims.

If the universe was created by an ID then it would be probable that he would have had created the universe with a mathematical structure in mind.

If the universe was not created then math and the universe would be completely independent entities (independent from each other) so why would the universe be describable by math? Why would the universe be describable with simple and elegant ecuations?

As an analogy imagine that you find a cake and there are 2 hypothesis

1 it was designed

2 it was not designed

Then imagine that you look at the ingredients and found out that the cake can be described with a simple recipe. (2 eggs, 2 cups of milk, 3.5 cups of flower, 2 spoons of sugar etc)

*(With eggs spoons and cups I mean exactly the ones that can be found in my kitchen)



Wouldn’t it be obvious that the cake was designed?.... if the cake would have beed created by a random mechanisms then we would expect a complex recepie with ugly numbers something like 2.0916729348 eggs + 1.93948939292 cups of milk etc.

in this analogy

cake = universe

recepie = math

 

[Polymath257]

If the universe was created by an ID then it would be probable that he would have had created the universe with a mathematical structure in mind.

Why would you assume that?

If the universe was not created then math and the universe would be completely independent entities (independent from each other) so why would the universe be describable by math? Why would the universe be describable with simple and elegant ecuations?

Why should the universe be describable by English?

As an analogy imagine that you find a cake and there are 2 hypothesis

1 it was designed

2 it was not designed

Then imagine that you look at the ingredients and found out that the cake can be described with a simple recipe. (2 eggs, 2 cups of milk, 3.5 cups of flower, 2 spoons of sugar etc)

*(With eggs spoons and cups I mean exactly the ones that can be found in my kitchen)

Wouldn’t it be obvious that the cake was designed?.... if the cake would have beed created by a random mechanisms then we would expect a complex recepie with ugly numbers something like 2.0916729348 eggs + 1.93948939292 cups of milk etc.

in this analogy

cake = universe

recepie = math

No, not if 2 eggs and 2 cups of milk was an equilibrium point. Eggs tend to come in quanta and cups were invented by us.

We made up mathematics to help us describe the universe. So we shouldn't be surprised when parts of it help us describe the universe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Excuse me then, I wasn´t aware that you´re a Trump believer

Huh?

You are all over the place.
Just make your point already.

Then I rather hold onto Newton who, even without knowing anything of the nature of his force, he indirectly lead to the knowledge of launching and navigating spacecrafts.

Yes, getting rockets to accelerate to achieve escape velocity and use the gravitational fields of celestial bodies to have yourself "slingshotted" through space in specific directions, is one of the results of understanding the effects of gravity.

What's your point?

Up against this, Einstein is completely lost in his speculative *curved space time*

Try building a GPS satellite that ignores this "speculative curved space time".
See what happens.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thanks my nice little TagliatelliMonster I newer thought of this possibility.

Really? But it's so obvious.... I thought you were such a master at noticing the obvious.

 

[leroy]

Why would you assume that?

we know that at least sometimes designers create stuff with a mathematical structure in mind

Why should the universe be describable by English?

Elaborate your argument, I don’t what to refute to a strawman

No, not if 2 eggs and 2 cups of milk was an equilibrium point. Eggs tend to come in quanta and cups were invented by us

.

The important thing is the number “2”…….. Why 2? Why a nice and round number? Why not 2.1901423199957640574694334574623?

If I designed the cake and I willingly and deliberately selected a given amount of milk, it would be at least probable that I would select a nice and round number of cups, but if the milk was added by accident then it would be very unlikely to have a nice and round number of cups ¿why would an explotion result in exactly 2 cups? Why not a long and ugly number with many decimals?

We made up mathematics to help us describe the universe. So we shouldn't be surprised when parts of it help us describe the universe.

If math was invented by us, then why would the universe be describable by something invented by a cave man?

Why do we have sometign as simple and nice as E = MC^2? Why not E = MC^2.369082897497097379537359735939 ?

 

[Polymath257]

we know that at least sometimes designers create stuff with a mathematical structure in mind

Only after being trained in math. Much more common is NOT having a mathematical structure in mind.

Elaborate your argument, I don’t what to refute to a strawman

Both English and math are languages invented by us to help us describe the world around us.

The important thing is the number “2”…….. Why 2? Why a nice and round number? Why not 2.1901423199957640574694334574623?

Well, in the case of eggs, they come in quanta. So you expect an integer number of quanta.

If I designed the cake and I willingly and deliberately selected a given amount of milk, it would be at least probable that I would select a nice and round number of cups, but if the milk was added by accident then it would be very unlikely to have a nice and round number of cups ¿why would an explotion result in exactly 2 cups? Why not a long and ugly number with many decimals?

Have you ever looked at the precise value of the fine structure constant? it is one of the fundamental constants of the universe, dictating the strength of the E&M force:

0.0072973525693

There are other, similar values for other fundamental constants. NONE are close to being 'numerically nice'.

If math was invented by us, then why would the universe be describable by something invented by a cave man?[/QTE]Why do we have sometign as simple and nice as E = MC^2? Why not E = MC^2.369082897497097379537359735939 ?

Because we have chosen energy to be in certain units and velocity in certain units. That choice fixes the exponent.

In 'natural units', where c=1, we just have E=m for a body at rest.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If the universe was created by an ID then it would be probable that he would have had created the universe with a mathematical structure in mind.

Huh?

1. why would god use a human invented symbolic modeling language?
2. why would such a structure necessarily be "elegant" - even only from our perspective?

If the universe was not created then math and the universe would be completely independent entities

How can that ever be the case, if math is invented / developed specifically to describe the workings of universe?

(independent from each other) so why would the universe be describable by math?

Because math is developed to do exactly that...............
To me, this question is like asking "why would ideas by describable by english?"

English is developed specifically for communicating ideas. That's why.

And when there are things we can't describe in english, we invent new words to do so.
We didn't have a word for "computer" before we invented the concept of such a machine.

Just like we didn't have the math to describe orbital paths until we required such math and then developed it specifically for that.

Why would the universe be describable with simple and elegant ecuations?

Why wouldn't it?
And again, "elegant" is kind of subjective. Do you think quantum mechanics is "elegant"? I certainly don't.

As an analogy imagine that you find a cake and there are 2 hypothesis

1 it was designed

2 it was not designed

No, there are not 2 hypothesis. There's not even one hypothesis. Cakes are factually created by cake bakers. It's what cakes are. But let's see where this is going...

Then imagine that you look at the ingredients and found out that the cake can be described with a simple recipe. (2 eggs, 2 cups of milk, 3.5 cups of flower, 2 spoons of sugar etc)

That doesn't describe a cake at all.

Wouldn’t it be obvious that the cake was designed?

I don't need to see, or even know about, a recipe to know a cake is designed.
And how "elegant", or not, it is, has no bearing on that at all.

I still have no clue how you came to the conclusion that a god-created-universe will only result in an "elegant" universe while a natural universe will only result in a "non-elegant" universe.

In fact, I'm not even sure I understand what would make it a "non-elegant" universe as opposed to an "elegant" one. Sounds like a subjective judgement call.

.... if the cake would have beed created by a random mechanisms then we would expect a complex recepie with ugly numbers something like 2.0916729348 eggs + 1.93948939292 cups of milk etc.

I think it's hilarious how you consistently change all the "language" in your replies.
Like in the beginning when you switched from "elegant" to "mathematical structure", is if a mathematical structure can't be ugly.

Now, you're jumping from "natural process" to "random mechanism", as if they are synonyms.

In any case, I can assure you that no created cake in the history of cake baking has had EXACTLY 2.000000000000000000000000000000000000 cups of milk in them.

And like @Polymath257 has pointed out, you are completely ignoring the very real possibility that the "2eggs, 2 this, 3 that" is some kind of equilibrium that manifests out of physical necessity.

See this is why I said that you would require specific hypothesis instead of the vague "god dun it" or "nature dun it" stuff, because neither makes useful or testable predictions.
Yet you continue to claim that they do. And you fail miserably in explaining how those predictions necessarily follow.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Have you ever looked at the precise value of the fine structure constant? it is one of the fundamental constants of the universe, dictating the strength of the E&M force:

0.0072973525693

There are other, similar values for other fundamental constants. NONE are close to being 'numerically nice'.

ow, but those were "finetuned" by the "designer" obviously.

So the neat round numbers support a designer because they are neat and round.
And the long ugly numbers support a designer because they are "fine tuned" as long ugly numbers.










//sarcasm

 

[Polymath257]

if the cake would have beed created by a random mechanisms then we would expect a complex recepie with ugly numbers something like 2.0916729348 eggs + 1.93948939292 cups of milk etc.

Have you actually looked at the Lagrangian for modern particle physics?

Now, *that* is an ugly recipe with very ugly numbers used for the basic constants. Pretty much NO part of it is the 'simple' version you would initially hope for. Instead, each and every piece is 'rotated' by an angle that has some very strange value.

So, the 'quarks' that enter into the part of the equation for the strong force are NOT the ones that actually make up the proton and neutron. Instead, a 'rotated' version shows up, giving different masses and allowing interconversion. The 'symmetry breaking' angles are the 'ugly numbers' that you seem to think would show non-design.

In other words, if a complex, convoluted recipe with ugly numbers is the criterion for lack of design, then the universe is demonstrably not designed.

 

[leroy]

Have you actually looked at the Lagrangian for modern particle physics?

Now, *that* is an ugly recipe with very ugly numbers used for the basic constants. Pretty much NO part of it is the 'simple' version you would initially hope for. Instead, each and every piece is 'rotated' by an angle that has some very strange value.

So, the 'quarks' that enter into the part of the equation for the strong force are NOT the ones that actually make up the proton and neutron. Instead, a 'rotated' version shows up, giving different masses and allowing interconversion. The 'symmetry breaking' angles are the 'ugly numbers' that you seem to think would show non-design.

In other words, if a complex, convoluted recipe with ugly numbers is the criterion for lack of design, then the universe is demonstrably not designed.

All I am saying is that nice and round numbers are hard to explain with naturalism / and not so hard to explain with theism.

Under this basis I would predict that the “theory of everything” would be a nice and simple equation. … a naturalist has no basis for making such a prediction.

 

[Polymath257]

All I am saying is that nice and round numbers are hard to explain with naturalism / and not so hard to explain with theism.

That depends on the context. Equilibrium values are often 'nice' in some ways and many systems are close to equilibrium, leading to nice constants.

Under this basis I would predict that the “theory of everything” would be a nice and simple equation. … a naturalist has no basis for making such a prediction.

And that prediction is soundly falsified. The actual equations are horribly messy with very nasty constants. Even the 'unified' theories have horrid constants at base.

Once you have that basic equation with those nasty constants, OTHER facts can be derived.

For example, we expect large gravitating bodies to be spherical unless they are rotating because the minimal energy configuration is spherical.

Most 'nice' constants you see are due to basic geometry and minimizing energy. The actual fundamental constants are really ugly.

 

[leroy]

Because math is developed to do exactly that..........

mathematical concepts have applicability far beyond the context in which they were originally developed.

How do you explain that? why does “ancient -man-made math” explain the wonders of the universe?

In any case, I can assure you that no created cake in the history of cake baking has had EXACTLY 2.000000000000000000000000000000000000 cups of milk in them.

.

When someone uses an analogy it is important to try to understand the point of the analogy and refute such point……refuting the analogy itself is useless.

The question is why is it that something of the cosmos can be described by math, I math was not invented with the purpose of explaining the cosmos?




under naturalism how woudl you answer all this questions?

But this view has its own problems. If mathematics is just something we dream up from within our own heads, why should it “fit” so well with what we observe in nature? Why should a chain reaction in nuclear physics, or population growth in biology, follow an exponential curve? Why are the orbits of the planets shaped like ellipses? Why does the Fibonacci sequence turn up in the patterns seen in sunflowers, snails, hurricanes, and spiral galaxies? Why, in a nutshell, has mathematics proven so staggeringly useful in describing the physical world? Theoretical physicist Eugene Wigner highlighted this issue in a famous 1960 essay titled
What Is Math? | Science | Smithsonian Magazine
,

 

[leroy]

That depends on the context. Equilibrium values are often 'nice' in some ways and many systems are close to equilibrium, leading to nice constants.



And that prediction is soundly falsified. The actual equations are horribly messy with very nasty constants. Even the 'unified' theories have horrid constants at base.

Once you have that basic equation with those nasty constants, OTHER facts can be derived.

For example, we expect large gravitating bodies to be spherical unless they are rotating because the minimal energy configuration is spherical.

Most 'nice' constants you see are due to basic geometry and minimizing energy. The actual fundamental constants are really ugly.

I don’t think you understand the argument, this short articles summarizes the “problem of math”….. the best solution to that problem is theism (I would suggest) if you have a better solution feel free to share it
What Is Math? | Science | Smithsonian Magazine

But this view has its own problems. If mathematics is just something we dream up from within our own heads, why should it “fit” so well with what we observe in nature? Why should a chain reaction in nuclear physics, or population growth in biology, follow an exponential curve? Why are the orbits of the planets shaped like ellipses? Why does the Fibonacci sequence turn up in the patterns seen in sunflowers, snails, hurricanes, and spiral galaxies? Why, in a nutshell, has mathematics proven so staggeringly useful in describing the physical world?