Math, God and party Politics.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Orwellian Nightmare: Science Is Whatever 'the Party' Says It Is

Last week I was on a university panel formed to debate the issue of science and religion. My argument was the same one I've been making for years: given the known laws of physics in particular, general relativity (Einstein's theory of gravity) and quantum mechanics we have no choice but to conclude that God exists.

I defined "God" as the "uncaused first cause," which is the definition used by St. Thomas Aquinas in his "second way" (Aquinas' second of five proofs of God's existence). Aquinas took his proof from Moses Maimonides, who in turn took it from the Kalam Muslim theologians. That is, these leading theologians of the three leading monotheist religions all defined "God" the same way, so I thought this would be an acceptable definition. Knowing what is meant by the word "God," we can now use physics to see if there is indeed "God" out there.

There is. The laws of physics tell us that the universe began about 14 billion years ago at the initial (or big bang) singularity. What is this "singularity"? Looking at its properties, one sees that it is the uncaused first cause. Something that is the cause of all causes, but Himself without a cause. Given the laws of physics, the existence of the initial singularity follows necessarily from the mathematics. Now of course we cannot be certain that the laws of physics are correct. We learn about nature via experiment, and new experiments may tell us tomorrow that general relativity and quantum mechanics are just limits of more fundamental laws, which do not possess an initial singularity.

I doubt this, since general relativity and quantum mechanics can themselves be shown mathematically to be special cases of the classical mechanics as developed in the nineteenth century. So there is no evidence, experimental or theoretical, that there are any laws of physics more fundamental than general relativity or quantum mechanics. But I can't rule it out. In science we can only say that the truth of these two theories is highly probable, not certain.

But given these laws of physics, the singularity is certain. It is certain because His existence follows of necessity, from the mathematical analysis of the equations of relativity and quantum mechanics. Given the laws of physics, the existence of the singularity is as certain as 2 + 2 = 4.

I made this point on the panel. No one challenged the laws. No one challenged my calculations. What they challenged was my statement that 2 + 2 = 4!

I was told that 2 + 2 = 4 is merely a matter of opinion. I was told that Gödel showed mathematics could be inconsistent, so anything goes. (Actually, 2 + 2 = 4 is a theorem of Presburger arithmetic, which is arithmetic with addition and subtraction only, and Presburger arithmetic is, and has been proven to be, decidable, complete, and consistent.)

I've had this experience several times now. University faculties now teach that truth is whatever the consensus of the faculty says it is (this was made explicit is the Berkeley faculty handbook a few years ago). This idea that the ruling group of faculty can establish truth by authority, even over the truths of mathematics like 2 + 2 = 4, has a chilling Orwellian flavor.

Literally.

George Orwell's classic 1984 ends with the hero Winston, who believes that truth is something external to mankind and unalterable by any human agency, being tortured by O'Brien, the head of the ruling party's secret police. In Orwell's own words:

O'Brien held up his left hand, its back toward Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.

"How many fingers am I holding up, Winston."

"Four."

"And if the Party says it is not four but five then how many?"

"Four."

The word ended in a gasp of pain [as O'Brien sent a strong electric current through Winston]. …

"How many fingers, Winston?"

"Four." [Again O'Brien applied the current] …

"You are a slow learner, Winston," said O'Brien gently.

"How can I help it?" he blubbered. "How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."

"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once."

The Party the political class of the world does not want God to exist. Therefore, if the laws of physics and the laws of mathematics say He does, then the laws of physics and the laws of mathematics must be changed to whatever the Party wants.

Therefore, God does not exist. He must not be mentioned, must not be prayed to in class.

The Party wants the Earth to be warming, so that its members can establish their power over every aspect of our lives. The Earth has not warmed in a decade, in fact it has gotten colder. But the Party says warmer, and further, says that the warming is due to human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere.

For years, as we have learned from Climategate, climate "scientists" have been fudging the data to obtain the result wanted by the Party. Today, following the decree of the Party, the EPA announces that the Earth is indeed getting warmer, and that indeed, CO2 is responsible for the warming.

God help us.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Gaf The Horse With Tears

[Rev.Reverence]

I doubt this, since general relativity and quantum mechanics can themselves be shown mathematically to be special cases of the classical mechanics as developed in the nineteenth century. So there is no evidence, experimental or theoretical, that there are any laws of physics more fundamental than general relativity or quantum mechanics. But I can't rule it out. In science we can only say that the truth of these two theories is highly probable, not certain.

I asked MAJIK 8-BALL...& it said:

"Outlook Good"

...not that I did not agree, I have just been SO grumpy today, I thought I'ld be silly for a moment & see if MAJIK 8-BALL was with Us (Gaf &I) on the above point.

...so...it's funny to me, that I posted this earlier...

In my response to another thread, that I DO see is linked; somehow, someway...it is the pattern, grok?

(edit to add a missing space)

Edited December 11, 2009 by Rev.Reverence

[Simon Bar Sinister]

the guy blew it in the 2nd paragraph.

[Rev.Reverence]

the guy blew it in the 2nd paragraph.

?? what?

[Slogo]

I'd like to know how Singularity=god

I've always thought Aquinas' proof by "first cause" was kind of a cop-out. "Every effect has to have a cause...except god" I'm not saying there isn't a god, I'm saying it's pretty flimsy proof. As Marcell Truzzi once said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.".

BTW. If you have "proof", is it really faith anymore?

Just one man's opinion

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Singularity does not = God in the above... read it again. The singularity is what exploded (the big bang) and "God" is the "uncaused first cause," . To put it in simpler terms...

The Big Bang is pretty much a proven fact. OK... So... about 15billion years ago we have the Singularity. Everything that is, squashed into a single point of infinite density and infinite mass. For it to exists at all it would have to be in perfect balance. That means, according to physics, special physics and relativity that it will always be that way. Except it wasn't. It exploded. Which means it had to interact with something other. Thats the "God" he is refering to. That "other" that interacted with the singularity and created teh Universe we live in.

[Rev.Reverence]

...we are stardust, we are golden...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

the guy blew it in the 2nd paragraph.

That guy is a Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane. I think he might know a tad more than any of us about math and physics.

[torn asunder]

i can explain the "first cause" with one term... inherent variation. nothing is ever fully stable, and all it would take is one fluctuation to destabilize a singularity. and really, think about it - that singularity could have existed for (what we call) billions of years. all it would take is *one* fluctuation, one "uncertainty" for it to start a chain reaction "big bang".

"god" has nothing to do with it, in my opinion.

[n0Mad]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein

"Science not only purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our understanding of life." -Albert Einstein

"There are two ways to live your life - one is as though nothing is a miracle, the other is as though everything is a miracle." -Albert Einstein

[Slogo]

Well than I suppose my question is, where did god come from?

[n0Mad]

Well than I suppose my question is, where did god come from?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1 ASL

Does that answer your question?

Didn't think so.

[Slogo]

Where the fuck did the word come from.

[n0Mad]

Where the fuck did the word come from.

Werd from da homies!

[candyman]

I thought the Bird was the word?

[n0Mad]

Word up.

[Slogo]

word to ya mother

[taysteewonderbunny]

The way I see it, faith and science are like oil and vinegar. You might end up with a really good salad dressing, but they still don't mix.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

i can explain the "first cause" with one term... inherent variation. nothing is ever fully stable, and all it would take is one fluctuation to destabilize a singularity. and really, think about it - that singularity could have existed for (what we call) billions of years. all it would take is *one* fluctuation, one "uncertainty" for it to start a chain reaction "big bang".

"god" has nothing to do with it, in my opinion.

2+2=4

You can't change the science or the math with your opinion.

What caused that fluctuation? Thats the point. Nothing but the super dense particle existed. In a perfect state of balance and harmony or it would have never formed. There would be no movement... even on a subatomic level... no transfer of energy because there would be no energy to transfer....

This question is why Hawkings still goes to church on Sundays.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Gaf The Horse With Tears

[SomeDanGuy]

This is the classic, old "we won't yet understand [X]...therefore god!"

And it still doesn't work. Just because we don't have an explanation does not mean you can just substitute any unsubstantiated claim in there.

(I don't know if the text tone comes off as mean, but it's not intended to be. I enjoy discussions like this!)

[phee]

This is the classic, old "we won't yet understand [X]...therefore god!"

And it still doesn't work. Just because we don't have an explanation does not mean you can just substitute any unsubstantiated claim in there.

(I don't know if the text tone comes off as mean, but it's not intended to be. I enjoy discussions like this!)

+1... hard for me to get into these conversations and still get work done...

But I agree with the above...

The "God in the Gaps" argument doesn't hold water, as the gaps get smaller and smaller....

Here is a question for the believers out there to ponder... If we go by some of the factors of intelligent design, in that certain things are so fundamentally complex a higher being MUST have designed it. And if God is as people say he/it is... Then He/She/It would be the most complex thing in existence... so something higher up MUST have designed Him/Her/It, by virtue of that argument. In other words... What made God?

[creatureofthenyte]

+1... hard for me to get into these conversations and still get work done...

But I agree with the above...

The "God in the Gaps" argument doesn't hold water, as the gaps get smaller and smaller....

Here is a question for the believers out there to ponder... If we go by some of the factors of intelligent design, in that certain things are so fundamentally complex a higher being MUST have designed it. And if God is as people say he/it is... Then He/She/It would be the most complex thing in existence... so something higher up MUST have designed Him/Her/It, by virtue of that argument. In other words... What made God?

If we can't answer that question conclusively, then we truely don't know why or how we're all here... What if all we were ever told about God, is just bs ? Yikes!

[phee]

If we can't answer that question conclusively, then we truely don't know why or how we're all here... What if all we were ever told about God, is just bs ? Yikes!

You are speaking wisdom sir...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

This is the classic, old "we won't yet understand [X]...therefore god!"

And it still doesn't work. Just because we don't have an explanation does not mean you can just substitute any unsubstantiated claim in there.

(I don't know if the text tone comes off as mean, but it's not intended to be. I enjoy discussions like this!)

No, this is not that case. In this case, we know. The Big Bang therory is well documented and it states that somwthing other.. an outside force HAD to be there or the super particle would not have destabalized and exploded. By the definition of "Creator of the Universe" that outside force is "God". What was that outside force? Now thats the really good question. Thats the question that physisits are trying to answer.

but you all are missing the point of the article. 2+2=4. The current state of mind in acadamia is that the "truth" is subjective. It's what ever the majority decides it is no matter if the data proves otherwise.

[torn asunder]

No, this is not that case. In this case, we know. The Big Bang therory is well documented and it states that somwthing other.. an outside force HAD to be there or the super particle would not have destabalized and exploded. By the definition of "Creator of the Universe" that outside force is "God". What was that outside force? Now thats the really good question. Thats the question that physisits are trying to answer.

disagree. we don't even understand all of the physics in our universe, there's no possible way we can understand the physics contained within a singularity, and therefore, even my "uncertainty" argument is invalid. saying something else HAD to be there is not necessarily true.