Scientific Proof of the Existence of the Soul and God

[Kurieuo]

But if we ourselves are created separate from God's dream, then what reason is there to assume that the world around us is not actually something created separate from God's mind also?

The reason is that science has proved that the state of the universe is determined by abstract mathematical equations; so the universe cannot exist independently from these equations, and in their turn, these equations, being only abtract concepts, cannot exist independently from a thinking mind. Hence the universe cannot exist by itself, separate from God; it can exist only as a thought in an intelligent mind.

Wouldn't all that can be implied by the abstract mathematical equations is that God may simply interact with and sustain the world on such a level? The world need not only exist as a thought in God's mind, but can still be as real as we are.

If the world around us is a product of God's mind, then it could be said nature is God, Earth is God, space, time, matter and energy is God (as such things are all apart of God's mind). These pantheistic implications just don't seem to sit too well with me.

Kurieuo.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

The reason is that science has proved that the state of the universe is determined by abstract mathematical equations; so the universe cannot exist independently from these equations, and in their turn, these equations, being only abtract concepts, cannot exist independently from a thinking mind. Hence the universe cannot exist by itself, separate from God; it can exist only as a thought in an intelligent mind.

Ha ha! Something simple enough for me to grasp.

You obviously use a computer. I don't know how to program or do any such thing yet, but I do know that what a computer do is guided by an extensive amount of equations. There's the if-then one, where if I hit this button, then this happens, and millions more probably. This computer exists separate from it's "creator", though. After the guy is finished making the computer, it is shipped off. The computer, though, still works according to those equations its creator gave it. Hopefully someone doesn't find a giant flaw as I translate this to the universe. As Genesis says, In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. After He finished with His six days, He quit creating. (He didn't pack up and leave, I'm not a deist, but a Chrstian). The universe still works, even though God doesn't have to mentally keep the planets spinning, the atoms from flying apart or blowing up (electrons and protons somehow don't attract each other, and somehow all the protons and the nucleus don't repel...very strong force to do that I'm guessing..and if you have good information on the strong force, could you send it to me via private message/e-mail?). He set up laws, so He doesn't have to mentally keep things working, just like the programmer sets up the computer so he doesn't have to fiddle with it to keep on going.

[Felgar]

I'm inclined to agree with Kurieuo and KM on this one. I do agree that the universe only exists because God allows it to exist, but at the same time I definately think it's real and somewhat self-governing.

Really though it's splitting hairs. Even if we were just a thought in the mind of the only all-powerful being, does that make our world any less real? Are our thoughts not real? Is God not powerful enough that His thoughts *make* something real? Certainly His spoken word can make something real; perhaps also His thoughts?

[marcobiagini]

Wouldn't all that can be implied by the abstract mathematical equations is that God may simply interact with and sustain the world on such a level?

Yes, this is possible, but I do not find such hypothesis convincing. I see no reason why God should interact and sustain the universe, when He could simply project the universe in our minds. It seems to me that the hypothesis that the universe exists is a superfluous hypothesis. The Copenhagen interpretation presupposes the existence of the universe as an entity interacting with our minds; as I have said, I find the Copenhagen view logically consistent, but not sufficiently convincing.

If the world around us is a product of God's mind, then it could be said nature is God, Earth is God, space, time, matter and energy is God (as such things are all apart of God's mind). These pantheistic implications just don't seem to sit too well with me.

I totally disagree. An idea has a totally different nature from the mind who conceived it. There is no pantheistic implications in my view.

Marco

[marcobiagini]

You obviously use a computer. I don't know how to program or do any such thing yet, but I do know that what a computer do is guided by an extensive amount of equations.

I perfectly know how to program a computer and how a computer works; the equations guiding the computers are the equations of quantum mechanics; the computer couldn't work independently from such equations; hence the computers cannot exist independently from the Creator of such equations, and such Creator is God, and not the man who has simply assembled the components.

Think about it,

Marco

[sandy_mcd]

However we know that a mathematical equation cannot exist by itself, but it exists only as a thought in a conscious and intelligent mind. In fact, a mathematical equation is only an abstract concept, which existence presupposes the existence of a person who conceives such a concept.
Marco Biagini Ph.D in Solid State Physics

What percentage of mathematicians and philosophers "know" that mathematical equations do not exist by themselves ? Here's a quote from http://slate.msn.com/id/2114561/ :
"One person who would not have been surprised about the relative inconsequence of Gödel's theorem is Gödel himself. He believed that mathematical objects, like numbers, were not human constructions but real things, as real as peanut butter sandwiches."

Certainly any concept, whether abstract or not, by its very definition requires an intelligent being to conceive of it. But it seems to me that the concept of something, again whether abstract or not, is not the same as the something itself.

sandy

[Joel Freeman]

"...as real as peanut butter sandwiches."

Lol. The person who wrote that must have been hungry.

[Anonymous]

Marco, I rather think of mathematical equations as abstract human representations, not laws which nature is duty-bound to obey. To begin with, the concept of a number--1,2,3...--is abstract. Operations on numbers--and everything derivative thereof--are also abstractions. The remarkable thing is that we are able in some cases to develop abstractions of sufficient fidelity to nature that they are predictive.

Take quantum mechanics, for example: Schroedinger's equation cannot be derived; it is an axiom, which is motivated by observations that matter has certain wave-like properties, and energy is quantized (E=hv). One then massages the classical wave equation, using the above relationship for energy, and presto--we have Schroedinger's equation. Again, it is remarkable how well our guessed equation predicts nature as the atomic level.

Nature certainly is very well ordered, and most of us do not see order in our lives without intent, so we conclude that this order demands intent--or design--which demands a designer. But unless we assume that the designer is just randomness, without order and intent, we are left with the question of how the designer--His order and intent--came into being. If we are comfortable with the idea that the designer is, has always been, and always will be, then why can't we be comfortable with the same statement of the observable universe? After all, modern science tells us nothing conclusive about the ultimate origin or fate of the universe; or even if these concepts even apply.

I have wrestled with this question for so long: how is it we cannot accept fundamental order and eternity in the observable universe, when we can so easily accept these qualities in a Being who is not observable?

[marcobiagini]

Marco, I rather think of mathematical equations as abstract human representations, not laws which nature is duty-bound to obey.

The point is that science has proved that nature sistematically does obey these mathematical equations; hence these equations cannot be only human representations. I think that your position is totally unreasonable.

Think about it,

Marco.

[Anonymous]

Marco, I am only asking a question. I do not have a position, so how can it be unreasonable?

In mathematics, there are an infinite number of equations, only a small subset of which accurately describe nature. And among those which do, they describe only a limited part of nature. A great example are the Navier-Stokes equations, which describe fluid flow, but no general solution has been developed. In the case of purely laminar flow, computers can predict behavior; in the case of a breaking wave at the ocean's shore, we have no way of predicting the behavior of any given water molecule. Thus, waves break regardless of our ability to predict or even describe this behavior.

I am merely saying that nature clearly has order and laws, and we have been partially successful in describing those laws via mathematical equations. In most cases--at least in any practical sense--our equations fail to fully describe the complexity of the world we see around us. Thus I only see our limited ability to describe order which we see in nature, and this ability, at least in terms of mathematics, is only an approximation. Schroedinger's equation works fine in the non-relativistic limit; otherwise we need to use the Klein-Gordon equation or the Dirac equation, both of which have their own limitations.

More importantly, however, I am still troubled by the conclusion that there must be a God because the order of the universe demands a creator. I very much agree with this logic, but this only leads me to the next question, which is how a creator came to be. I do not understand how we can accept the notion of an eternal ordered creator, when this is same question which lead us to posit that we need a creator to explain the order and apparent eternality of the universe, .

This is all I am asking. I was just hoping that as someone more knowledgeable in physics, you might shed some light on this.

[Anonymous]

Maybe it would help to put this in more Biblical terms...The Bible clearly describes and explains much of nature and human history, yet we do not claim that nature is duty-bound to follow Biblical proscription. Rather, we think of the Bible as a description and explanation of a pre-existing order and structure, which pre-dates that writing of the Bible.

Similarly, I think of mathematics as a philosophy; a way of viewing nature in relational quantitative terms, which is predictively successful in some cases. Given that mathematics is an axiomatic system of assumptions and deductive conclusions, that fact that it so well describes much of nature is testimony to the inherent order of nature itself. Nevertheless, the principles of mathematical analysis are derivative of human definitions and axioms, and thus is subservient to the judgement of natural order for verification of its validity.

[Anonymous]

Marco--sorry for the multiple posts...

Maybe what I am really trying to say is that scientists take it on faith that nature does have order and logic which can be described via mathematical equations, and thus scientists doggedly try to find the equations which describe nature. (Otherwise, science is doomed from the start.) It is certainly true that in the evolution of scientific understanding there have been many equations put forth to describe nature, only to find that these equations are either only approximations (such as the equations of Newtonian mechanics) or are just plan wrong (as in the case of the Euler-LaGrange equations for energy conservation in the quantum limit). When the latter is true, we are forced to develop better mathematical equations of nature. This leads me to believe that mathematics is a human construct in a constant state of evolution, as dictated by empiric validation.

Does this make sense???

[marcobiagini]

In mathematics, there are an infinite number of equations, only a small subset of which accurately describe nature. And among those which do, they describe only a limited part of nature.

You are totally wrong. The equations of Quantum Electrodynamics explain all mechanical, electric, magnetic, chemical and biological processes. This is not a limited part of nature.
You should also consider that a typical property of mathematical equations is the existence of approximations giving accurate results in limited range of values.
So the fact that we can find some useful approximate equations (for example the Newton laws) is a direct consequence of the fact that the state of the universe is continually determined by some mathematical equations.
If the natural processes were not determined by some mathematical equations, there would be no reason to expect to be able to describe, even a limited number of phenomena, through some mahematical equations.
So the existence of the universe implies the existence of some specific mathematical equations, and the existence of these equations implies the existence of a conscious and intelligent God.
What I find unreasonable is your idea that the laws of physics may be only a human representation; representation of what?
Do you think that the Schrioedinger equation may be the representation of a concrete entity? Try to describe such a concrete entity, represented by the Schrodinger equation;
maybe this may help you to understand that the laws of physics are intrinsically abstract concepts.

I hope this may help you to understand my point.

marco

[Anonymous]

Marco--A little politeness might make this conversation go a little more smoothly. Your rapid and absolute condemnation of others assertions seems a little defensive; it is annoying at a minimum.

I think you actually pointed out that QED does describe only a limited part of nature, since it does not describe gravity or nuclear forces (QCD), and is useless in any practical sense to describe many parts of the observable universe outside of simple electromagnetic phenomena.

Second, I did not say that the laws of physics were human representations; I said that abstract mathematical equations are humanly created symbolic representations, some of which appear to describe behavior in nature quite well and so are useful as symbolic proxies for, or representations of, the laws of physics.

Marco, I think this may be more of a semantic issue, but I don't think it's correct to say that science has 'proved' that the state of the universe is 'determined' by abstract mathematical equations, as this implies a causal relationship between a symbolic representation of an abstract idea—the mathematical equation—and the behavior we witness in nature.

Here are some relevant dictionary definitions for 'determine':

• To be the cause of; regulate: Demand determines production.
• To give direction to: The management committee determines departmental policy.
• Mathematics. To fix or define the position, form, or configuration of.
• Logic. To explain or limit by adding differences.

Here is a definition of 'abstract': Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.

In order for science to have proved that abstract mathematical equations determine behavior in nature, some scientist would have to demonstrate that altering one of these equations *causes* the alteration of some corresponding part of nature (or catch God in the act of doing this). I think you are being more accurate when you say that the equations of QED 'explain' electromagnetic phenomena. 'Explain' and 'determine' have different meanings. (And philosophic honesty might compel me to say that the equations of QED merely describe certain phenomena, though this is getting a little far afield of our discussion.)

However, the more important question which has so far gone ignored in this discussion is the question concerning the origins of physical order and laws—mathematical or otherwise—and the necessity of such laws to have a law-giver (e.g. God at his whiteboard writing down the equations which determine the laws of nature): If we demand the existence of a conscious Being as Creator to explain the order we observe in nature, then why does not the same demand apply to explain the existence of the Creator?
If we can accept that the Creator has always been, then why is this unacceptable belief for nature?

This is a variation of the First Cause/ First Mover argument, which has always puzzled me: We seem to be incapable of accepting eternity and order the observable universe, but have no problem accepting eternity and order in the unobservable universe. It seems to me that if God can indeed conceive of abstract equations at will, which, when chosen, go on to determine physical law, He must possess an even higher level of consciousness and order, and therefore even more strongly demand a Super-Creator. For the difficulty many of us have in believing that the universe just popped into existence--or just happened to be-- seems to vanish when we consider how God just happened to be.

My objection to arguments like Marco's is that they push the answer to the question of Creation into the realm of the unobservable, and therefore the answer is not provable. Perhaps we are more comfortable with not being able to prove our assertions than having them subjected to test.

[Anonymous]

Marco--can you please supply references in the scientific literature for the following initial claim: "Science has in fact proved that all chemical, biological and cerebral processes consist only in some successions of elementary physical processes, determined in their turn only by the laws of quantum mechanics. Such a view of biological processes does not allow to account for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies then the presence in man of an unphysical element. Such element, being unphysical, can be identified as the soul."

I am not aware of any observed unphysical processes in the human mind, only unexplained processes. It is not a valid to say that the lack of an existing explanation proves the truth of a given assertion.

I have access to university libraries, so can get electronic copies and send it to anyone who is interested.