Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
This Is All Allowable In Your System Of Belief

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on November 8, 2001 21:31:12 UTC

Alex,

The system of your belief allows for mathematical necessity to control any aspect of our universe. For example, it is consistent in your view (I believe) that c, G, h, etc. are mathematically derived, correct?

It is also consistent in your view (I believe) that mathematical necessity require certain systems to act according to mathematical patterns (e.g., fractals), correct?

It is also consistent in your view (I believe) that mathematical necessity require certain systems to behave catastrophically (i.e., catastrophe theory), correct?

It is also consistent in your view (I believe) that mathematical necessity require certain large systems to conform as a single system (e.g., quantum cosmology), correct?

It is also consistent in your view (I believe) that mathematical necessity require human societies to follow a mathematical path (e.g., fractal pattern, chaotic pattern, catastrophic pattern, complex system pattern, etc), correct?

It is also consistent in your view (I believe) that mathematical necessity require certain separate systems to be unified under a single all-encompassing theory (e.g., grand unification theory - GUTs, or theory of everything - TOEs, etc), correct?

So, why is it illogical to treat the whole universe and all that occurs in that universe (past, present, and future) as ONE system that has no loose ends but evolves to a specific mathematical end. That is, why can't the universe be a theorem in construction where the end of the theorem is the mathematical result?

You haven't provided a shred of evidence that the above shouldn't be the case. In fact, you have indicated that *everything* is mathematical. This includes sub-systems being treated as one mathematical entity, systems being treated as one mathematical entity, and, I think, the whole universe (past, present, future) treated as one whole mathematical entity.

There is no reason to necessarily reject the notion that the universe is evolving under the guise of some particular mathematical restrictions that require the existence of life and intelligent life. If so, then those mathematical dictates require certain constants to be such as they are to produce the intended results.

Warm regards, Harv

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins