Re: New thread: Mathematical truth (Was a sin-off of Re: How Einstein and Hammond proved God exists)

From: george murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Wed Sep 05 2001 - 08:16:31 EDT

  • Next message: Ted Davis: "Important creationist book/ RC Sproul"

    "D. F. Siemens, Jr." wrote:

    > ..........................................................
    > > If we assume for the sake of argument that God is indeed
    > > immutable &
    > > is never surprised then the God who was aware of the work of Bolyai
    > > and
    > > Lobachevsky ~1820 is identical in all respects with the God who
    > > spoke with
    > > Moses ~1000 years before Euclid. & while speaking with Moses, God
    > > knew
    > > non-Euclidean geometry. & I don't think that he got that knowledge
    > > simply by
    > > foreknowing what B & L would do.
    > > My question was, you will realize, posed in a somewhat
    > > whimsical
    > > way. What I would say more substantively is that math pattern is a
    > > fundamental aspect of the world that science discovers, and if we
    > > believe
    > > that the world is God's creation, that pattern is God's creation. &
    > > since
    > > God created the world freely, God could have (& maybe did) create
    > > worlds with
    > > other math patterns.
    >
    > I think two distinct matters are here conflated. First, every
    > mathematical calculus is true in all possible worlds. This, of course,
    > requires that it be understood within its given axioms, postulates and
    > definitions. These may be changed to produce different calculi. Thus the
    > Riemannian plane geometry that can be mapped onto the surface of a sphere
    > requires that there be no parallel lines. Taking this provision out of
    > its context, and the Euclidean proof (original) or postulate (current)
    > out of its context, no parallel lines and one parallel line contradict
    > each other. In empirical practice, none of our vernier protractors can
    > measure accurately enough to establish which multidimensional geometry
    > holds in our universe. Second, which mathematical system "fits" the
    > universe does not have to be the same if there are more than one. I
    > understand that a non-theistic view argues that ours is only one of an
    > infinite number of "bubbles" that produced alternate universes. But they
    > are inaccessible to us, as I presume an alternate created universe would
    > be, at least apart from divine intervention, and so do not affect our
    > science. If I understand the situation correctly, even wormholes won't
    > connect us.
    >

            First, our measurements _can_ show that the geometry of the world is
    not that of Euclid: The observations that are involved are those that show
    the superiority of general relativity to Newtonian theory.
            2d, belief in multiple universes is not _necessarily_ non-theistic:
    There are, e.g., rabbinic speculations that God had created other universes
    before this one. I wasn't referring to such ideas or modern notions about
    bubble universes &c but to the theological view that God's creation of the
    world is contingent, that God could have created other universes or that he
    could have created one universe with a kind of order different from the one
    we observe. (The latter belief, BTW, is expressed in the ASA Statement of
    Faith. The story of how it got there is a little odd, but that's another
    matter.)

    Shalom

    George

    George L. Murphy
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    "The Science-Theology Interface"



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 05 2001 - 08:15:54 EDT