Prof. Mario Livio was asked this question at the end of a lecture held last Thursday as part of the Astronomical Club of Tel Aviv University * Later, Prof. Livio answered the questions of the Yden site about the grief and the discovery he shared with Israeli scientists of the smallest object in the Kuiper Belt
"
I say that I don't believe in God, but the answer is too short and does not give the spirit of things." Prof. Mario Livio said in response to a question from the audience at the end of a lecture he gave last Thursday at Tel Aviv University, which presents the issues at the heart of his new book "Is God a Mathematician." The question of course was: do you believe in God?
"What my fellow scientists and I do is constantly try to push the questions further and further. We can say what happened in the universe over the last 13.7 billion years, how the universe began and all sorts of things about its nature. We constantly try to confirm our theories, and push knowledge further and further back.
As a non-believer, I am satisfied with the fact that I know that the universe works according to the same physical laws that I discovered. It does not hinder a person of faith to ask why the physical laws are the way they are and decide that a reason is needed, and there are many religious scientists, including my friends - both Christians and Jews who engage in science but also believe in religion.
But there is another completely different question. People of faith generally need a God, not the kind of God who created the world some number of years ago and then left the world to its own devices. A person who truly believes needs a God who is there for him every day every hour and every second, guiding all his moral behavior. Science has nothing at all to say about this kind of God, it is on a plane that never conflicts with the scientific plane.
I respect anyone who thinks this way about the concept of divinity, even though I don't feel it in my life. I am satisfied with the scientific discoveries, and do not think that a guiding hand is required.
After that, Prof. Livio answered short questions from the knowledge website. And first and foremost, how is the mourner?
"He's doing great, we had a service mission in May, they put in two new devices that work wonderfully, they repaired the previous camera and spectrograph and they work wonderfully, what's giving us trouble is the electronic board that connects the computer to the devices. Every now and then, for reasons that are not entirely clear, it has some sort of failure, but then when it does, all that happens is that it is rebooted."
What about the discovery published this week, by Israeli scientists whose research you participated in, who discovered a small object in the Kuiper belt?
"I am a partner in this article, I did very little in it, people who worked very hard on it were Ilka, Avishi Gal-Yam, Ram Sri and Eran Ofek. This is a discovery of the smallest object in the Kuiper belt - less than half a kilometer. The method in which this was discovered is simply amazing - and kudos to the people who thought of this idea, it is to use a fine guidance sensor - one of the devices that help to direct the telescope, which is always locked on stars. There is all the data on these stars. They asked for the data and said that if we look at all the stars, at some point an object from the Kuiper belt will pass in front of the star and when it passes it will cause an eclipse phenomenon. They searched through four and a half years of data and discovered the smallest bone."
"I helped in obtaining the data, and of course I read the article, but my contribution is limited. Now they will receive all the data since the telescope has been in existence (1990 AB), maybe we will discover a few more such things."
82 תגובות
There are people here who deny the truth of the Creator in ridiculous and unwise ways, a caveat to the wisdom of silence is an excellent sentence for them.
It's such a shame for the time you waste in pointless arguments... really.
Camilla, nothing is implied from my words except your personal opinion.
"The question of the formation of the first living cell is a legitimate question for which there is no clear answer yet, although all the signs point to a natural development" - on the contrary: despite all the attempts, all the studies show that there is no natural way for the formation of a living cell. Whether it is Yuri Miller's experiment or Ada Yonet's protoribosome or Shostak's self-replicators or any other experiment.
"The question is why not knowing the exact mechanism that led to the development of the first cell entails, in your opinion, both the failure to program for a natural mechanism and the necessity of an intelligent creator" - precisely for the same reason that not knowing a natural mechanism for the creation of a robot does not mean that a robot can be created by itself.
"After all, this is a much better "explanation" than the theory of evolution because it literally answers everything and does not leave a single hole, can you disprove it?"-Yes. Prove that a natural process can create a replicating organic robot.
"What is the use of an "explanation" that not only does not explain, but raises additional, even more difficult problems?" - Really, what is the use of the evolutionary explanation?
As usual, you didn't answer anything and again avoided giving an alternative explanation, well, I didn't expect you to say anything else. To put your things in order, it is implied that you have no problem with the theory of evolution at all since once there was already a living cell there is no problem explaining the chain of events and it seems that the problem for you is only about the question of how the first living cell was created, so why do you need all the talk about an organic robot ? After all, the question of the formation of the first living cell is a legitimate question for which there is no clear answer yet, although all the signs point to a natural development within the framework of the laws of physics, chemistry and biology. The question is, why does not knowing the exact mechanism that led to the development of the first cell entail, in your opinion, both the failure to program a natural mechanism and the necessity of an intelligent creator (and this despite all the evidence of the lack of reason that is common in various organisms ranging from ineffective anatomical and physiological structures to genetic and autoimmune diseases)? Both things are not logically derived from ignorance of the mechanism, why do you insist on making such a false claim? No one is trying to claim that evolution is the only absolutely possible explanation, after all it is clear that the spaghetti monster is responsible for all the mess around us and it is also possible that you were created just before reading these lines with all the memories and feelings as if the world exists and has existed for years, all we can It is to find the most plausible explanation that is supported by the reality that we can observe and measure. So obviously I can say that the holy Omicron who is omnipotent and omniscient is the explanation for everything. After all, it is a much better "explanation" than the theory of evolution because it literally answers everything and does not leave even one hole, can you disprove it? Does attributing anything to St. Eumicron really explain anything? But as mentioned, all the nonsense you write is not important, what is important is that you avoid describing and explaining an alternative. The fact that you said "an intelligent creator" not only does not explain anything and is completely equivalent to the statement "I have no clue" it also raises new and even bigger problems regarding his identity, origin, manner of creation, his place of residence, his work technique and many more questions that are not required at all In the theory of evolution, what is the use of an "explanation" that not only does not explain but raises additional, even more difficult problems?
to Camilla and Israel,
In order for an organic robot to reproduce, it is first necessary to create a living cell. We know of no natural process that creates living cells. And hence we do not know of any natural process that creates an organic robot.
Regarding the desired assumption: one can ask whether an object identical to a robot can be created by itself. Then the desired discount is avoided.
"Still, that future ability will not explain a wide variety of phenomena for which, as of this moment, evolution is the only explanation." - What phenomenon can only be explained by evolution and not by an intelligent process?
"Here in front of your confused eyes creatures, already for countless generations, show you that indeed no intelligent creator is needed to create a new creature that did not exist before. "-What exactly do you mean?
"Can you clarify what the alternative explanation is in your opinion?" - Yes. I have evidence from a robot (or an object identical to a robot if it matters). A replicating robot, that's the whole point.
Xinghua,
Why are you again trying to steal a mind using the broken robot argument that has already been answered and found to be unfit for food for a thinking person?
A. After all, this is not what the evolution claims and you just made it up.
B. The very use of the word robot, which by definition expresses the creation of an intelligent creator, is an inclusive and demagogic act, since a living being is not a robot.
third. Even if science reaches a point where it can assemble a complete and mature living being molecule by molecule, all that can be said is that living beings can be produced in more than one way, so what? Still, that future ability will not explain a wide variety of phenomena for which, as of this moment, evolution is the only explanation. In addition, when it will be possible to produce a living creature artificially, raw materials, a production line, plans, a laboratory (or factory) and other things will be needed for this, just as it is needed for every product created by Teboni Kihan until today. There is not even a single piece of evidence for the existence of such a laboratory/factory except for the living body itself, where the hereditary material is the assembly instructions and the parent's body (usually the mother) is the "factory/laboratory" within which the creature develops, but this is confirmation of evolution since it is a chain in which a generation of creatures The next generation of creatures is developing. Here before your bewildered eyes creatures, already for countless generations, show you that indeed no intelligent creator is needed to create a new creature that did not exist before. In fact, even a woman of the highest order can get pregnant and give birth to a child. Do you think an intelligent creator is involved here as well?
But what is more important than the nonsense you wrote is the discussion you avoid like fire regarding the alternative you offer to the theory of evolution. Can you clarify what the alternative explanation is in your opinion? Can you clarify what are the attributes of that creator who you claim must exist (and who evidently does not intervene in this world in any way that can be measured or quantified)?
xianghua
https://www.hayadan.org.il/mario-livio-2012099/#comment-314835
"I meant, of course, that it cannot be created by a natural process, according to the opponents of evolution."
Why not?
xianghua, there is only a small difference between evolutionists and evolutionists. The former rely on facts and the latter on wishful thinking. Therefore it is not so important what they claim. It's made up anyway.
Rani:
Right.
I wrote similar things here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/does-evolution-disprove-god-0711/#comment-298792
Anonymous:
Certainly the sentence "belief in God leads people to talk nonsense" does not prove that belief in God is nonsense.
In fact - the opposite is true: precisely from the fact that belief in God is nonsense (along with the fact that believers talk about their faith) I came to the conclusion that belief in God leads people to talk nonsense.
I meant of course that it cannot be created by a natural process, according to the opponents of evolution.
to anonymous,
According to evolution, a robot identical to a human (a robot made of DNA and capable of replicating) can be created by itself.
According to the opponents of evolution, the opposite is true - a replicating organic robot can be created through a natural process. The question arises, what is more reasonable and reasonable?
anonymous,
You have a logical error that most religious people fall into and it is: not knowing an explanation for a certain thing does not mean that the explanation must be X. In fact, there is even an internal contradiction here since it is impossible to not know something and know the same thing at the same time. At most you can say that you choose to believe that X is the correct explanation. If you would be willing to explain to us what and who exactly is the God you are referring to, I would be happy to show you why belief in God is indeed nonsense. In any case God and evolution are very different things from each other (with only the latter giving any explanation, however partial, and only the latter having scientific evidence to support it) and one would have to be very confused or an unscrupulous liar to think they are equivalent or that the former has any value.
Michael, people see that the products of evolution are "divine" so they call it God. If they understand that God is probably not intelligent then maybe they will leave him alone.
An interesting lecture on the origin of God:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg&feature=relmfu
The sentence Belief in God causes people to talk nonsense does not prove that belief in God is nonsense, but that there are people who believe in God and talk nonsense, I don't know if there is a God but I am sure that in order to reach such a level of legality in the universe you need something to put it in order, otherwise I have no explanation why my house Doesn't manage on its own - if I don't fix it then it's messy. And if I don't solve a problem in mathematics then I don't have an answer for it, someone has to do the things for them to happen - this is the legality of the things that are done in our world, and according to this legality I understand that in order for the world to continue to behave in a certain order something or someone has to make this order in order to that it will continue to happen, I have no idea who is doing it and I guess you can call it God or evolution or any other mental trick,
Yoav,
In response 60 you asked for absolute proof of the existence of evolution and gave several examples.
I don't understand enough about evolution or biology in general, but it seems to me that if I want enough I will be able to arrange a bird with a brain from some butcher...
Belief in God makes people talk nonsense
The fact that a person believes in God opens up a lot of possibilities for him. For example, if it weren't for faith in God, we wouldn't have a country, there wouldn't be the Bible, the book of books and everything it contains (the act of creation, the Exodus, the splitting of the Red Sea, the Ten Commandments, values, Samson the hero, King David, the prophets and more...). Faith is used by man as a starting point and a starting point, to move without hesitation in the midst of uncertainty and in the sea of doubts. The mere doubt prompts man to action, to prove that God does exist, or to prove that he does not exist. Without faith in God, none of this would happen and the world would look pale and soulless.
Two proofs of God's existence.
1. It is not possible that the whole universe and all the wonderful laws of nature were created alone. It is clear that the Creator of the world created everything. God created the world. God created the laws of nature, and the laws of the Torah, and all so that he could punish sinful humans who move in the eighteen prayer and think lewd thoughts while reading the holy Song of Songs, and the sinners are sent to the fire of hell, which is beyond the Sambation River in the TZN (Tiz to Prophet) galaxy, where they sit The sacred animals are busy removing lice from each other's fur. What does God the creator of the world do today after he has already finished creating everything? God is pleased when he sees human beings being saved in the heart of boiling excrement. And all this because he is kind and merciful.
2. Only God, may his name be praised and blessed, can be messengers like bin Laden.
My response was deleted and censored - why??
The proof
How does commenter 62 see (himself) 61's response and assert himself ??? You - that is, it is hereby proven that one comment that disappeared disrupted the numbers!!!!
And I don't need to prove it at all!!!
Thank you.
It will take me some time to go through everything you sent, please wait a day or two for my response
What a beauty:
I just saw comment 60 in which you almost openly state that nothing will convince you because if it is known today it is untenable by definition.
In short - only if I bring you unknown evidence will you be convinced, but I - being a truth teller - will not be able to bring unknown evidence.
Yoav:
First of all - it is better that you identify yourself.
As for your question - the wording of your question already proves to me that no data will convince you.
There is something in the formulation of creationists that betrays this fact in advance.
Especially - their use of nonsensical terms like microevolution (as if micro and more micro and more... and more micro cannot give macro).
There are endless testimonies and some of them you can find in the second part of the response I sent to Ehud on this topic:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/animals-in-danger-1612095/#comment-257372
Besides - I recommend that you also read what is written in these links:
http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Creationist_Arguments
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217143838.htm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=15-answers-to-creationist
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
At least you'll have more things to keep ignoring.
And forgive me, maybe I didn't make myself clear...
The intermediate steps I asked you for are not the very shaky intermediate steps we know today.
But stages such as a bird with a brain. Reptiles with human organs. Not the nonsense that exists today and forgive me yes, but what we know today is simply a joke compared to what we really need to discover. In relation to the amount of the population
Dear Michael
You haven't told me anything until now except the proof itself.
Could you please bring me a link to an archaeological find that was found that realizes the theory of evolution. And I mean macroevolution and not micro, I mean not evolution from species to species, but a change from species to species unequivocally and not what is known to date and I am quite familiar with what exists today.
Thank you
Yoav:
No matter how many times you repeat things - evolution is self-evident.
It is possible to prove mathematically that in any world where there are elements that are capable of replicating themselves when occasionally the replication is not very accurate and where the ability to reproduce depends on the success of a certain competition (and let's simplify even though it is not really necessary - where the duration of the existence of the elements is limited) - there will be evolution in the sense that elements that succeed will develop in competition better than their predecessors.
This can be proven mathematically, so it goes without saying.
Our world is like that.
In the role of the elements that the mathematical theorem talks about, you can put living creatures, or genes - in any of the cases - the theorem promises - evolution will take place.
Therefore - the clear knowledge that there is evolution here is self-evident and is not related to belief in God.
If someone believes in logic and if he believes what he sees with his eyes, he must believe that there is evolution.
Of course, evolution also has many confirmations, but I'm sure I've gone over your head by now, so I'll end at this point and let you digest things.
If you understand them and want to know something else - feel free to ask.
Michael
The method of natural selection is not at all self-evident. Your need for acceptance is clear to me because you do not believe in God and you have no other way to explain the existence of the world. But this is no reason to accept this theory.
Yoav:
To your question if I don't think that the laws of nature, physics and the like are laws whose very complexity is binding on God - my answer is that I don't think so at all.
I also do not intend to explain beyond that to those who do not even understand that the "method" of natural selection - not only is not stupid but is necessary and self-evident, nor does he show the proper humility to say that he does not understand and instead calls the "method" stupid and thus gives the title "stupid" To billions of people who are all smarter than him.
You really don't need to mention nonsensical claims that are worded even more nonsensically.
Another thing I would love to get an answer about is the very existence of the concept of soul. How can you explain this using the laws of science?
Michael
A small question, don't you think that the laws of nature, physics and the like are laws whose very complexity is binding on God?
After all, the natural selection method is fundamentally stupid. I don't need to mention that the statistical possibility of the existence of a world + life is something that is far from impossible.
People don't need God. God is something that is required to understand the order and systematicity in the universe
Yoel Moshe:
Basically I agree with your words.
My argument about reading comprehension refers to the interpretation you gave to the words - as if I am arguing that the law needs a legislator.
Such a God that science has no interest in is probably of no interest to anyone else either.
Certainly not the religions.
As we know - religion is a set of laws that oblige people more than faith (the word "religion" is of Persian origin and the meaning of the Persian word is "law").
It is based on a belief that the one who wants those laws to be followed (and punishes if they are not followed) is God, but such a God is necessarily an intervening God - both by handing us the laws and by punishing or rewarding us according to our behavior.
to bless
Right. You just skip a step and link between the abstract God who is the subject of the discussion, "is God a mathematician" and the concept of the God of the religions that have "the Holy Scriptures".
In the first case, God is only the legislator of the laws of systematicity and causality in nature. In the case of the Holy Scriptures, they try to describe a God who has an ongoing relationship with humans. In both cases no answers should be given to your practical problems. In the first case, because he made available to you a systematic set of rules that you live within, please use it wisely. In the second case, he intervenes as he pleases without an understandable method. According to the religious view, your ability to interact with him is only on the moral level. And affairs like water ash and ribs should be read as a metaphor.
According to what I understood from the esteemed professor, this is the accepted separation for him.
The Bible and all the scriptures in other religions have no practical answers to anything from rain Tornaden darkness in Lapland in winter not even the time of day or the beginning of the Sabbath.
And surely from where is our son as if from ashes and water and the woman from the side of the man?
All the best.
To Michael
I checked the comments again and you are right about the law/legislator. Accept my apologies. Apparently those who claim that a law binds a legislator are hanging on the linguistic pretext according to which 'law' is identified with an agreed procedure. This is probably true in modern Hebrew, but in biblical Hebrew a law/s is interpreted as a permanent thing that is not subject to human decisions.
I would appreciate it if you pointed out my reading comprehension problems.
In the meantime, I stick to the understanding that science = deciphering systematics in the behavior of the world/matter. And also that the basis of the scientific method is that there are rules and laws about matter everywhere uniformly.
The scientific system created from these assumptions, which are within existence, leaves room for philosophical questions outside of existence. Is the systematicity = the laws of nature necessary or accidental or decisive or possible.
Necessary means that there is some 'ancient wisdom' with eternal existence that obligates or rather to say subjects reality to logic.
Coincidence means that this is how things turned out but if [blind fate] had happened otherwise the laws would have been different.
Possible means similar to random, except that it assumes that there are indeed other parallel worlds in which the laws are indeed different. This means that we are experiencing one possible world out of many others with different laws and different logic [perhaps there are also out of order]
Decisive means that it is the product of a decision or of [legislative] will
In general, the option of deciding is identified with God. It is important to note that if thoughts of this type are the basis of faith, they cannot have anything to do with belief in a God who intervenes in reality, because then there is no systematicity [because God violates its rules], and if so it is not a scientific conclusion.
But the believer owes nothing to scientific thought, and for this the honorable Professor Mario demanded that "science has nothing to say about this type of God. It is on a level that never conflicts with the scientific level."
Yoel Moshe:
Some of your words make sense (and that is why I have said them in the past many times and therefore I have not repeated them here), some are too vague to allow reference and the other part proves a problem with reading comprehension.
What is your accusation based on "[laws must not be said so that Michael does not look for a legislator]"?
Did you really manage to completely turn the tables and see in my fight against the claim that a law requires a legislator the very claim I was fighting?
Reality is the starting point for the ability to establish contact between us.
The science(s) developed against the background of the assumption/feeling that there is a systematicity that repeats itself in all that exists.
From this the assumption developed that if there is a systematicity then it can be used after its identification both to predict results and to achieve results.
The identity between the mathematical theoretical thinking and the rules and the success in using those rules/laws to predict and achieve results are identical in our case to 'truth'.
When we understand that a stone falls with an acceleration that is the derivative of the square of the distance - a clear mathematical result, no one assumes that the stone calculates its acceleration, nor that there is some external supercomputer that determines this.
Accordingly, it is legitimate to ask whether this legality is a necessity or an accidental product of development.?
Does it exist in the same way in all reality? Will there be other laws in other places?
C- If legality is a necessity, then is there a coercion? Or is the nature of this necessity metaphysically eternal?
And if it has no necessity but is a random product of events, when why and how did the random events begin?
Of course, every answer is worthy of reference, but even if someone introduces God as a factor, it is certainly not something that can be proven, confirmation or denial.
On the other hand, any assumption that ascribes to God who is responsible for the "rules" [it is forbidden to say laws so that Michael will not look for a lawmaker] both an obligation to observe them and an immanent intervention whenever it suits him, in violation of the rules that he himself established - such an assumption is not within the scope of scientific investigation [because it is investigates the rules and not their violation] and her partner does this outside the scientific rules, literally.
I think this is what the esteemed Professor Mario said and it's a shame that the believers [in what/who?] and non-believers will try to hang on to this interesting and fruitful tree
Shmuel - you are simply lying. There is no other word. This is a gross and baseless lie. "This type of science has been losing its prestige for years and in all fields" is simply a lie. All science in all fields is based on a lack of God. You don't see rabbis, priests and mullahs issuing new scientific paradigms and in general science is completely disconnected from religion.
It is only the religious who claim the same gross lies over and over and over again. It's pretty simple. Here I will demonstrate to you:
Orthodox Judaism understands more and more in recent years that there is in fact no creator of the world and changes its worldview accordingly.
Here I wrote it online so it must be true. No?
Logic will not help and logic will not help. I have a suspicion that humans are "programmed" to believe in something they are comfortable believing in. The day we reach a secular world is far away, unfortunately. It is better now to try to "moderate" the existing religions instead of trying to uproot them, at least without adequate scientific education.
I don't understand how a person who deals with the cosmic creation does not come to the understanding that there is a god.
Apparently he is some kind of mechanistic technocrat. Actually, I don't care who did it, the main thing is that it travels!
Or he is afraid to express his true opinion because of the terror of his colleagues. This type of science has been losing its prestige for years and in all fields, from medicine to astrophysics, people see that there is order and want to know who the order is and how to recognize it. This is ancient wisdom that has been suppressed for hundreds of years and the Jews have always been the bearers of the torch of faith due to the power of the Torah and the Tosheba which are in essence supernatural and they have also degenerated into worshiping the mechanistic structures without asking too many questions or yes asking but God forbid not physically deviating from faith and religion. But even in this dark time man Still looking for the god in the machine.
Let's hope that in his next book, Mario Livio will have more courage to scratch this area as well.
point:
Not true, but I don't have the strength.
Michael, you have to pay attention to what is necessary and what is not necessary. And I also use a slightly advanced version of the anthropic principle.
This topic (what to do) is also related to the psycho-physical problem. If the self is created only, and exclusively, from a specific brain. So no matrix claim can exist. Because as soon as we understand that the self is created from the brain, we will understand how the whole self is created and it is not possible otherwise.
And if the self identified with a mind is specific then it is necessary that the laws be as they are, because only they can create the specific mind.
Logical necessity is immediate. The assumptions immediately lead to the conclusions.
Dan Welver:
To solve a mathematical problem you need the belief that it can be solved. Had faith not been taken in this ability, mathematics would not have been created at all. As long as the desired connection/solution has not been discovered there is no way to predict if it will be discovered at all and therefore one needs faith. You also need faith that your claims are true. Because something that does not yet exist in reality as you yourself claim is a hallucination. Therefore, in order to turn your arguments from a delusion into a claim worthy of attention, you need faith.
God is a form of hallucination, a cognitive bias.
The very word faith is already problematic.
If the person needs to believe in something that does not have a realistic perception, it means that the same thing does not exist in reality, only at the level of cognition, thought and delusion.
The question "Is God a mathematician"-
Trying to find out how a collection of connections in a metaphysical field such as mathematics is coordinated and related to a collection of connections in the field of physics. Because this is the reality and we have no explanation for it. This situation can perhaps be attributed to force majeure.
It doesn't matter what the author of the book believes in his private life. Obviously, the answer to the above question is not found within
the field of human knowledge.
Yigal G.:
Legality describes relationships between different elements. These interest us in our ability to use them for our needs.
Connections allow us to see and understand orders and create technologies.
Connections exist on any scale and anywhere in the universe according to experience.
Science as it is today exists thanks to the collection of connections in various fields found over the years.
No one can predict where else new connections will be found. As I could not have predicted it before.
There is no law that describes our ability to find such connections.
Therefore, the existing collection of connections is not a collection that anyone can explain how it was created.
And in our eyes, science cannot explain the nature of the connections found to be so compatible between mathematics and physics.
Science exists only within the boundaries of the collection of connections that already exist.
It is important:
It's a complete waste of time to tell someone what they say in almost every discussion.
Point (30):
Your words are simply not true.
It is not a mathematical necessity because the starting point of it is our inventions here.
This is the good old anthropic argument but it says nothing about mathematical necessity but (at best - and in fact the careful examination of the matter has never been carried out) about the fact that if we exist then the world must be as it is.
But this (again, at best) comes from the basic premise that we exist and it's a basic premise like any other basic premise (like, for example, that rocks exist, or electrons or whatever you like). And in addition - it obviously does not deal with the matrix claim. Therefore no! Mathematical necessity has not been proven and in my opinion this kind of necessity will never be proven.
Sparrow:
Science certainly has something to say about such a God.
You yourself said that it was created in the human mind as a result of need and not as a result of objective reality (which is also the reason why religions differ from each other).
In science it is called a hallucination.
In everyday language it is called wishful thinking
This is a phenomenon that definitely deserves psychological and neurological investigation (and indeed they discovered that it is possible to evoke a feeling of divine revelation by electrically stimulating a certain area of the brain).
When it comes to God intervening in the world - it is also possible to check whether things that are claimed to be the result of this intervention are indeed the result of it (in the case of the Jewish religion, for example, some of the so-called "results" of the divine intervention - not only are they not the results of this intervention but are not the results generally because these are factually incorrect claims).
Science certainly has something to say - both about the facts and about the derivation of certain facts from others.
Beyond that - not only does science have something to say on the matter, but the scientists must deal with it, since the extent of the evil that the various religions pour on our world is truly unfathomable.
Yigal, I think you are wrong.
"You explain to yourself and the world why and how a stone falls." This is simply not true, there is no explanation why the stone falls just like that. There is an explanation based on the fact that the stone falls because there is a law in nature that "tells" the stone to fall. This is not called a full explanation. And that is exactly the meaning of finding rules.
There is a difference between saying order exists in nature, and the laws of nature. It doesn't matter at all. As long as the universe is not random it is enough.
Agnon, legality is a product of man's feverish imagination. Order exists in nature and we interpret (enforce) this order with laws. Order exists only where the universe can exist. He is not invented! It exists because that's the only way the universe exists. When the order is not fulfilled, the system collapses and there is no universe (until the next attempt).
Point, you can continue to reduce and simplify the claim to the point of ridiculousness (although even then it is true). If that's your intention, you won't get my cooperation. If not, and you still don't understand, I'm sorry I can't make it any easier for you.
Legality when it has already been found belongs to science to humans.
** The way/process of how to find a new law or how to solve a difficult problem is a matter for a higher power.
Because there is no law by which anyone can say how to find new laws.
As there is no law that explains or correlates mathematical patterns with physical processes.
Just as there is no law that can predict how mathematics will fit the physics that will develop in 100 years.
Legality is not a law, and the order that man understands from the happenings is the nature of the happenings.
The claim is that we explain nature to ourselves and not that nature behaves like something predetermined. You explain to yourself and the world why and how a stone falls, it does not fall because of your explanation and he does not dictate to it how to fall. The behavior of nature with all the order in which it occurs occurs this way because this is how it can exist and maybe not in another way (surely there are other possibilities as well).
Yigal, to find order = to find regularity in the sense that unlike random processes if you find regularity you will be able to predict what will happen, to assume that all our predictions are luck is ridiculous. And of all the things you say, it is not clear to me what exactly you want to say in them, what exactly is the claim. You can write in one sentence. If in the end you agree with me that an explanation is needed then there is no argument.
Point, I wasn't talking about "all universes" but about all the possibilities that can exist (or not exist) in the universe. We do not have the possibility to know about other "universes", we know about the one that exists and hypothesize possibilities that could or could not exist in our universe. You state that it is more natural for there to be nothing, but this is an arbitrary statement. It may be that the probability of the existence of the universe is extremely low, but, in probability as in probability, it still exists, and the fact that we are here (in extremely low probability, but here!). The questions would not be asked and the hypotheses about the answers would not be given if the probability did not materialize. All this does not necessarily require that this arrangement be created in a deliberate way. If he had not been created here and now, this conversation would have taken place in another time, in another place in another universe by other beings.
"A". You probably didn't have a child. Having a child is a natural action that creates humans.
Michael, precisely this mathematical necessity you spoke of has already been discovered. We live in a universe that makes our existence possible. It is imperative that it be this exact universe.
But my question was about the laws, why there would be laws of nature at all. Why would there be nature at all. It is more natural that there will be nothing.
Science is supposed to deal with questions about the creation of such complex creatures. If we don't know natural processes that create humans, then unnatural processes occurred, simple. No?
sparrow bird A non-believer understands that God is a human need.
A believer completely disagrees with him and says that God is a fact. And God influences and intervenes in nature. It is part of his faith. In the person who believes there is an interaction between God and nature and hence there is a head-on collision with the natural sciences. Evasions will not help.
Yigal, you are talking about the things I just asked about. What is all the possible universes. Why would there be any universe at all. It is more natural that there will be nothing.
Totally right!
I'm with you Sparrow!
Let everyone believe as they wish.
but!!
May faith remain faith and not try to be science (and not enter science classes at any level of education), may you not interfere in politics and may not set state policies, may not set state laws, in short, may faith remain faith for those who believe and for him only!
"People of faith generally need God, not the kind of God who created the world some number of years ago and then left the world to its own devices. A person who truly believes needs a God who is there for him every day every hour and every second, guiding all his moral behavior. Science has no What can be said about this kind of God that is on a level that never conflicts with the scientific level."
It is time that all scientists wherever they are take note of this paragraph. God is not something that science is supposed to deal with, and not something that can be defined as science, and not something that science has the tools to measure. Stop trying to prove or disprove God's existence through science.
Chaim and Michael, you are wasting your precious time in vain. There is no possibility of proving anything empirically (let alone metaphysically) to those who do not want the proof. A proof is built on assumptions, and every assumption can be disproved. Therefore it is not possible to prove that there is a God, nor is it possible to prove that there is no God. You can only warm the ego and polish swords. This is done by those who believe but do not really know.
Haim:
This is not my arbitrary determination. This is news.
You can do whatever you want.
You can demand a lawmaker
You can demand red mars
You can demand stinker to stinker
I really don't care.
After all, you can even claim that one and one are not two!
Why should this matter to me?
How fortunate that the author does not believe in God. It really pissed me off.
LeMichael: I mean it's an arbitrary determination of yours.
That is, I can also state arbitrarily that every law must have a legislator. point.
D.A. There is a connection between Mars and Red.
Jonathan:
Instead of telling us the things in the form of a conclusion - maybe you will tell us the facts?
We can't help you otherwise.
point:
What is "there should be an explanation"?
Need because I want or need because there is?
I would like to be able to explain everything, but the only possibility for receiving such an explanation is that all reality will result from some mathematical necessity - something that in my opinion at least - can be a basis beyond which there is no need to investigate (as we have seen in the discussions here - there are those who do not even accept mathematics as an explanation. I have no idea about these Medication).
As I have said many times - an explanation always consists of two components: "known" assumptions of origin and mathematical derivation of conclusions from these assumptions of origin.
I cannot derive the starting assumptions unless I assume others in their place.
I don't think that reality has to be the way it is for some mathematical reason, so there are only two possibilities:
One is to accept Tagmark's approach
The second is to assume that there are things that simply exist without explanation.
Haim:
I state that the law does not have to have a legislator because I don't see any reason for the law to have a legislator and no one has ever proven to me that there should be a legislator.
The laws of mathematics, for example, could not be legislated differently by any legislator (in my opinion).
I do say "in my opinion" but if you ask me for proof - maybe it should be concluded from that in your opinion as well?
Why, by the way, do you require "legislator" for "law" and you do not require "Mars" for "red"?
to the point
I would read the Bible trying to understand how I should act in such a situation and in what way I should turn to God to change my situation. and acts accordingly.
One point, I'm sorry you didn't understand, the matter is very simple: nature (the universe) behaves as it does not because there are laws (or rules) that dictate how it should act, but because this is its action. Humans find order in the behavior of nature and explain this behavior using rules that describe the aforementioned order. Of all the possibilities that a universe could exist, there are some that are stable and allow the existence of the universe over time. The fact that you and I correspond via the Internet proves that the state in which the universe is (currently) ) is a stable state, which can be described using rules, which humans understand and formulate in such a way that they can be explained to other people.
Even if we do need an explanation for everything (a statement I disagree with - humans want an explanation for everything), it is not necessary for this explanation to be available to us here and now - we can postpone gratification a little...
And Haim, look at the beginning of the explanation and understand why these are not laws and do not need a legislator for them.
to Michael You state that laws don't have to be made.
Explain why?
Yonatan I am interested to know what sensations you would feel when you were walking around somewhere in the extermination camps.
Michael, don't you agree that everything should have an explanation?
to run
It's an amazing feeling. To know that apparently God exists and that he listens to your requests.
I've been walking around with this feeling for several weeks now. Although the feelings are mixed and disturbing because some things have very difficult consequences for certain people.
As I mentioned - there is always room for doubt, I have no scientific nor statistical proofs. But I don't think I need it. I will not be able to detail the miracles themselves, partly because I am ashamed of the things I asked for and partly because the things are very personal.
I hope some people who read this will believe me.
Jonathan - I'm sorry to disappoint you, but no matter what you experienced, it was not a miracle.
Even if you are very sure that your cases are so special, and that your circumstances are something else and that there is no statistical possibility that things that happened to you actually happened by chance, rest assured that everything is a coincidence. There is no God and no flying spaghetti monster.
I'm sure you won't agree with me because you are a religious and believing person who strongly convinces himself that everything was created by Jehovah. That's why I'm ready to help you - you're welcome to publish the "miracle" that happened to you and I'll help you statistically understand why the chances of it happening are much higher than you think.
All my life, but especially recently amazing miracles happen to me, after I turned to God in a certain way.
Although it can always be said that this is a matter of chance, the personal circumstances of the way things happened to me greatly reduce the probabilistic possibility, and the sequence of events also almost negates this.
Therefore I came to the final conclusion that God exists with near certainty.
I'm afraid my father will go berserk now. But it had to be said for reasons of fairness.
: )
To Michael.
he.
especially:
Take all the time you want and try to be less vague.
Laws do not have to have a legislator.
By virtue of which law do you establish this and who enacted this law?
Yigal C, thanks for the response.
Laws that describe some object are not really laws but characteristics, since a law has a legislator.
A law must have a legislator, this is because laws are created in order to limit the object and/or its characteristics in an illogical way (although it can be logical [although logic is only a characteristic of the laws]).
For example, in chess you need to know that the knight can only move diagonally, and only in one color.
But is there a reason why these are the laws on Hertz? I mean, is there a legislator?
There is a legislator, because there is no relationship of internal logic between the restrictions on the runner and another piece in chess.
That is, the runner does not move only diagonally because the pawn only moves forward, and it does not move only diagonally because chess is divided into squares. There is no connection between them.
Don't forget that the connection doesn't have to be "logical". The connection is internal within the game.
* This is not really related, but this begs the question "Can we understand an illogical object?"
Because perhaps chess does have a connection, but if it doesn't make sense, how can you (as a person with a law of logic) understand it? *
In life (in the game of life, if you will), there are logical connections, and this is because in the internal group of everything (the universe), it is possible to explain connections between seemingly different objects through logic.
* Here the question arises: "Is there really a connection, or is the connection created only because all objects are made up of atoms?" *
Thank you for the time you gave me. I have to rush to math class!
"Science has nothing to say about this kind of God. It is on a level that never conflicts with the scientific level." I did not understand, if science can determine that there is no benefit in praying to God, how can it be said that the two levels do not collide?
Yigal, I didn't quite understand what you wrote, but it doesn't sound serious.
Two additions:
A. It is understood that the intention is that the laws describe the behavior of nature (the universe) to the extent possible (which depends on a period and perhaps also a principle). For this matter, the uncertainty principle is also a way of describing the universe.
B. The conclusion is that there is no need for something that created the laws or that determined the way the universe behaves.
Prof. Mario Livio himself once said: the laws are like that, not because someone arranged them that way, but because they were created according to what exists in reality.
I want to say, if nature had acted differently, the laws would also have been different, and if nature had acted in a way that it could not have existed for a long time, it would have existed for a long time. The fact that it exists shows that nature (that which exists) can exist over time and the laws only describe it as it is.
Rules don't just come?? All for nothing!! And it's the most fun. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. There is nothing better than that!
I loved this quote:
"A person who truly believes needs a God who is there for him every day every hour and every second, guiding all his moral behavior. Science has nothing to say about this kind of God. It is on a plane that never conflicts with the scientific plane."
Only disagrees with the terminology "this kind of God". I would write instead - "this kind of faith."
"It does not hinder a person of faith to ask why the physical laws are the way they are and decide that a reason is needed"
This should disturb any thinking person. Laws don't just come out of nowhere.
Not that God is the answer, but the question is a question that must be asked by every true scientist.