Is God a mathematician?

[alal...@gmail.com]

I came across a book that asked this question. My answer is "no", for there is no God. I believe Pythagoras believed that the ultimate nature of reality is number. What I believe is that math exists independent of man. If we were to one day meet aliens, what we'll have in common is maths. Shared concepts like prime numbers.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

[John Smith]

><alal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1dd68451-345a-4290...@googlegroups.com...

I've got a copy of this somewhere:
https://www.amazon.com/God-Programmer-Geoff-L-Simons/dp/0710812221
Looks like I should be selling books I bought more than 30 years ago.

[alal...@gmail.com]

The book I came across - but did not read - is, "Is God a Mathematician?" by Mario Livio.

[J.B. Wood]

Hmm, unless I'm mistaken an examination of recorded history will show
that the most noteworthy of individuals that contributed to the pool of
scientific knowledge did/do believe in God. Some of those folks may
have been agnostics but not atheists (a philosophy that also requires an
act of faith - you believe in the non-existence of God). Great
scientific minds know that that there is something greater than
themselves that is responsible for all we perceive. Whether you want to
call that God, Jesus, Allah, mother nature or something else is up to
you. Yes, depending on your religious persuasion and its texts held
sacred, God's "plan" for the human species varies. Sincerely,

--
J. B. Wood e-mail: arl_1...@hotmail.com

[alal...@gmail.com]

In the past, people were relatively ignorant. IIRC, Newton also worked on alchemy. Nowadays you find a positive correlation between atheism and intelligence, and between atheism and education. We have moved from a god centric world to a human centric, where humans are judged responsible for their future. There is no greater meaning to life, than that which we can make for ourselves.

[J.B. Wood]

On 08/14/2017 09:48 AM, alal...@gmail.com wrote:

> In the past, people were relatively ignorant. IIRC, Newton also worked on alchemy. Nowadays you find a positive correlation between atheism and intelligence, and between atheism and education. We have moved from a god centric world to a human centric, where humans are judged responsible for their future. There is no greater meaning to life, than that which we can make for ourselves.
>
> Abhinav Lal
> Writer & Investor
>

Hmm, let's see. Albert Einstein believed in God so he must have been
ignorant. I think I'll stay with my earlier response. You seem to be
equating a belief in God as somehow engendering the rejection of
scientific knowledge. Truly enlightened minds know better.

[FromTheRafters]

J.B. Wood laid this down on his screen :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

[Simon Roberts]

If there is no god then god is not a mathematician since mathematicians exist, profound.

If any exists then god may well be a mathematician, also profound.

[A.) Anyway I am not a mathematician] therefore I cannot be god, if god exist and if god is a mathematician, asshole.

[B.) Assume an existent god is not a mathematician] I can in fact be god given A.

If you are a mathematician you therefore cannot be god if god is not a mathematician.

given B.) I'll just call myself a mathematician, if this makes you happy.

given A.) I'll say God is a mathematician.

Who gives a sh*t, retard.

[Vinicius Claudino Ferraz]

no, not a mathematchishian.

IT does the same work W to each flower = spirit or intelligent principle.

[alal...@gmail.com]

Einstein was agnostic. One case doesn't prove anything. Different religions contradict each other, and it is illogical to believe in the validity of all religions. I reject religion and the existence of their gods.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor


>
>

[J.B. Wood]

On 08/14/2017 07:58 PM, alal...@gmail.com wrote:

> Einstein was agnostic. One case doesn't prove anything. Different religions contradict each other, and it is illogical to believe in the validity of all religions. I reject religion and the existence of their gods.
>
> Abhinav Lal
> Writer & Investor
>

This from someone who has "faith" that there is no God. I think
Einstein did believe in a creator of the universe (and everything
comprising it) but struggled with society's interpretation of what
relationship(s) that God wanted with each and all of his children. In
that manner Einstein was agnostic.

It's highly unlikely that accepted scientific methods (not TV shows like
Ghosthunters) will ever demonstrate the existence of supernatural
phenomena. If that was possible then it wouldn't be "super". One last
point: Only the truly faithful would ever dare question the validity of
their faith. Now back to math... Sincerely,

[alal...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 4:03:05 PM UTC+5:30, J.B. Wood wrote:
> On 08/14/2017 07:58 PM, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Einstein was agnostic. One case doesn't prove anything. Different religions contradict each other, and it is illogical to believe in the validity of all religions. I reject religion and the existence of their gods.
> >
> > Abhinav Lal
> > Writer & Investor
> >
>
> This from someone who has "faith" that there is no God. I think
> Einstein did believe in a creator of the universe (and everything
> comprising it) but struggled with society's interpretation of what
> relationship(s) that God wanted with each and all of his children. In
> that manner Einstein was agnostic.

Einstein is just one scientist. He famously said that God doesn't play dice with the universe. IIRC, he didn't believe Quantum Mechanics is a complete theory. Like any human, he is fallible. I have faith that there are no dragons. Do you have faith that there are no dragons?

>
> It's highly unlikely that accepted scientific methods (not TV shows like
> Ghosthunters) will ever demonstrate the existence of supernatural
> phenomena. If that was possible then it wouldn't be "super". One last
> point: Only the truly faithful would ever dare question the validity of
> their faith. Now back to math... Sincerely,

You want math, I'll give you logic.

God is infinite
Nothing infinite is real
Therefore God is not real

God is all powerful, all knowing, and perfectly good
There is evil and suffering in the world, which God does not stop
Therefore such a God does not exist

Maybe I am agnostic. For while I believe a perfect God cannot exist, I admit to the slim possibility of imperfect creators or Gods.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

>

[Jerry Kraus]

Personally, I'm inclined to define mathematics as the purest form of knowledge, the closest thing to pure truth that human beings can conceive of. Hence, the Greek verb mathein, the root world of mathematics, simply means "to know".

Now, my friend, presumably you believe in something, if only the theorems of mathematics, if you are a mathematician. If we define "God" as simply that which we believe in, then, then, not only is God a mathematician, but, mathematics is, indeed, God. From the perspective of a mathematician, of course.

[empt...@hotmail.com]

Read the Book of Genesis but replace the word "God" with the words "The Universe" or with the words "Mother Nature".

So "God" is an explanation of existence.

Now "science" and "nature" are not synonyms. Science is a being's explanation of nature.

So math is not "nature" but a being's explanation of nature.

And "God" is not a mathematician but a field of math.

[alal...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 1:39:23 AM UTC+5:30, Jerry Kraus wrote:
> On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 11:23:24 AM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I came across a book that asked this question. My answer is "no", for there is no God. I believe Pythagoras believed that the ultimate nature of reality is number. What I believe is that math exists independent of man. If we were to one day meet aliens, what we'll have in common is maths. Shared concepts like prime numbers.
> >
> > Abhinav Lal
> > Writer & Investor
>
> Personally, I'm inclined to define mathematics as the purest form of knowledge, the closest thing to pure truth that human beings can conceive of. Hence, the Greek verb mathein, the root world of mathematics, simply means "to know".

I agree. Maths is the foundation for much scientific knowledge.

>
> Now, my friend, presumably you believe in something, if only the theorems of mathematics, if you are a mathematician. If we define "God" as simply that which we believe in, then, then, not only is God a mathematician, but, mathematics is, indeed, God. From the perspective of a mathematician, of course.

Here, I disagree. Yes I believe in things, like axioms of mathematics. The consensus definition of truth is, truth is whatever is the consensus - or something like that, I do not remember the exact definition. Another definition of truth I like is, whatever works.

One definition of God is:

The one supreme being; the creator and ruler of the universe

So God is not mathematics. I believe in many things, like truth, beauty, and morality, but they are not gods.

[empt...@hotmail.com]

Read the Book of Genesis but replace the word "God" with the words "The Universe" or with the words "Mother Nature".

So "God" is an explanation of existence.

Now "science" and "nature" are not synonyms. Science is a being's explanation of nature.

So math is not "nature" but a being's explanation of nature.

And "God" as a synonym of "nature" is what math is applied-to.

A being applies math to nature just like a being wrote the Book of Genesis.


Somewhat like Cat-in-the-Hat:

Numbers do not grow on trees
Leaves grow on trees
But there are a number of leaves on the tree.

[Tim Golden BandTech.com]

If it is true about the contributors then perhaps we should doubt the journals for their religious bias. Now that would be some investigation. I wouldn't doubt if it is true. It's pretty clear that western math ignores eastern math historically speaking and I guess to this day. Care to differentiate between Abrahamic faiths and Hindu of Buddhist faiths? I do. The Abrahamics are an exclusive bunch who have excluded away their legitimacy. Still, consider a human with no prior knowledge; the god hypothesis is a fine start, but we are engaged in a progression.

We do hope that the universe makes sense but we may still be missing some fundamental constructs. Our very language may not be evolved enough to accommodate the sensible structures that will yield a sensible universe. We are primates within the mammalian branch. We still have a long way to go. The best corollary to this way of thinking is to realize that the system is alive; that superior solutions do await our discovery. We celebrate every little gain and then go about mimicing it and worshipping its discoverer. I thought mathematicians had written themselves a ticket out of that type of behavior. No, it is not that easy. We have to study human limitations, of which we are learning many in this day and age. We are no ideal creature. After stepping off the pedestal back down to the ground we should have a look around some more.

[J.B. Wood]

On 08/21/2017 08:54 AM, Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 6:43:23 AM UTC-4, J.B. Wood wrote:
>> On 08/13/2017 12:23 PM, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I came across a book that asked this question. My answer is "no", for there is no God. I believe Pythagoras believed that the ultimate nature of reality is number. What I believe is that math exists independent of man. If we were to one day meet aliens, what we'll have in common is maths. Shared concepts like prime numbers.
>>>
>>> Abhinav Lal
>>> Writer & Investor
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, unless I'm mistaken an examination of recorded history will show
>> that the most noteworthy of individuals that contributed to the pool of
>> scientific knowledge did/do believe in God. Some of those folks may
>> have been agnostics but not atheists (a philosophy that also requires an
>> act of faith - you believe in the non-existence of God). Great
>> scientific minds know that that there is something greater than
>> themselves that is responsible for all we perceive. Whether you want to
>> call that God, Jesus, Allah, mother nature or something else is up to
>> you. Yes, depending on your religious persuasion and its texts held
>> sacred, God's "plan" for the human species varies. Sincerely,
>>
>> --
>> J. B. Wood e-mail: arl_1...@hotmail.com
>
> If it is true about the contributors then perhaps we should doubt the journals for their religious bias. Now that would be some investigation. I wouldn't doubt if it is true. It's pretty clear that western math ignores eastern math historically speaking and I guess to this day.

<snip>

Hello, and you have provided some thought-provoking points. Except for
perhaps symbolic representation there is no "Western" and "Eastern" math
just as there's no "German" vs "Jewish" physics. 1+1 is always 2 no
matter who describes it. No doubt some ancient Greek, Arab, and Chinese
concepts were rediscovered during the Renaissance in Europe. But the
birth of modern mathematics (starting with the calculus) probably owes
more to Newton and Leibniz than anyone else. Often it's the person(s)
who unites a bunch of, at first glance, disparate concepts into a
unified theory that gets the credit (James C. Maxwell comes to mind).

As for the divine, my take on finding out how the universe and all in it
behaves is the human attempt to look under the hood for detail of God's
engineering. But I don't "mix" religion and science. I don't take the
Bible to a grad school class on quantum physics nor do I show up at
Sunday school with a textbook on nuclear reactors. I admit having such
a view places restriction on literal interpretation of all things
Biblical - but that doesn't mean the biblical message is somehow
obscured by such a view. No doubt, as you point out, current human
brain capacity places a limit on understanding God's handiwork (sans
intervention by the Master). I think we're a ways away from that limit,
though we may well destroy ourselves before we get there. Sincerely,

[ELI SOLOMON]

I do not know if God is a Mathematician.

However, I think some Mathematicians like Pubkeybreaker think they are Math Gods.

[Tim Golden BandTech.com]

I can see that you have a strong and stable position, but to what degree does the bifurcation you admit deny you an eye for unification which you also mention so highly. This criticism can be laid down without even entering religion into the picture since modern academia happily separates physics, mathematics, and philosophy.

In that all such limbs are fit to a tree then we see that tree supporting every variety of fruit and any proper grafter will tell you it does not work like that. Are humans capable of practicing fallacy? When they do is it so easy to prove them wrong and move the system forward in a scientific progression? No. Religion is fine instance of an old form that is preserved and perverted along the way to fit modern norms; otherwise it would be dead and gone. So the human form is ultimately to blame for religion. If I am speaking to a Christian then please consider the Muslims. If I am speaking to a Muslim then please consider the Catholics. If I am speaking to a mathematician then please consider the physicist, and if the physicist then consider the philosopher, and if the philosopher then the mathematician...

Unification is not just an ultimate goal of the physicist. It is in fact a tenet of the Abrahamic religions as well. This is why Christianity was forcibly spread and how so many cultures have lost their way. OK, so I am not seeing the forest for the trees. No, I am digging at their roots. How can we have diversity and tolerance and still seek out unification? We should confess that we have multiple identities as you have done. But ultimately we should confess that we are all Earthlings first. Achieving this global identity as the superscalar one which it obviously is does go converse to nationalistic and religious identities as primal. Here in the U$A there is a problem with my thinking. Over in France there is a problem with my thinking. We are bumping into what that global identity actually is. It is simply the human, but what the human is is still being uncovered. Be prepared to step down some before we achieve transcendence.

[Serg io]

On 8/27/2017 10:39 AM, Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 6:55:36 AM UTC-4, J.B. Wood wrote:
>> On 08/21/2017 08:54 AM, Tim Golden BandTech.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 6:43:23 AM UTC-4, J.B. Wood wrote:
>>>> On 08/13/2017 12:23 PM, alal...@gmail.com wrote:

>> --
>> J. B. Wood e-mail: arl_1...@hotmail.com
>

<snip crap>