... before I get too deep. Too late!
Before I completely abandon this deep line of thinking that I've been swimming through the last couple of days, I had a truly bizarre philosophical notion yesterday. It sounds more like pseudo-philosophy to me - the kind you find in only the best science fiction stories. So hear me out because I want to see what anyone else thinks of this.
My initial thought was this, "Mathematics points to God." This is probably nothing new in terms of thinking. Lots of people would point to the neatly ordered world and explain that there must be a higher power at work here to bring order out of chaos. But my mind is never content at stopping at the superficial statements. It delved deeper.
Mathematics is the language of science. All things is science are generally explained using mathematics. Even a social science like Anthropology uses a great deal of mathematics to help explain its theories (statistical analysis of bone densities, for instance). So, positing that mathematics is the language of science, I decided to try a thought experiment about the origins of math.
Its generally believed that the origin of human languages comes from an attempt to communicate between two people (as opposed to language simply appearing in situ). Like animals cry out in danger or amorous advancements, so too would there need to be a way to communicate more subtle concepts - boundaries, emotions, etc... Applying this notion of the development of language to mathematics leads one to posit that the first number of any mathematical system would have to be one.
One would be the first number because we would always point to ourselves first. We are the origin. We are the source of mathematics. First there is me, then there are others. I know me - and me knows others. So, one is the source, the primary concept. All mathematics flows from this. If I add to myself, there are two (or three, etc...), but no matter how large the number, the source always remains the same. The One is always there and never goes away.
But, of course, even if we were the proverbial Adam, we would not actually be the Source. The entire world is controlled by mathematics. Science believes that at its source, mathematics can explain everything. The laws of the universe are written in mathematics. Therefore, everything has mathematics as its source. Math, then becomes the universal language. And Math has, at its source, the One. (I hope you're still with me... cause quite frankly, even I'm just barely hanging on to this thin thread... ;)
So if Mathematics points to a single source, then that source must be something that existed first. We can go backwards and discover that, indeed, there is a single source for all things in the Big Bang - which was a singularity (a single point in spacetime) that exploded and created the entire universe. But what caused the singularity to come into existence? A single creator.
(Okay, that last part requires a stretch of the logic. Realistically, my philosophy can actually only trace back mathematics to the Big Bang singularity. From a religious point of view, this brings up an interesting thought that perhaps the God we worship is the singularity - or the entirety of the universe. I'm insufficiently wise to ponder whether that is a good thing or blasphemy. God's being is something that I shall never fully grasp - like the thought of something existing outside of existence.)
Anyway, I said it was a slippery concept. And now I'm ready to ponder more shallow thoughts.
Go 49ers! (See, I'm feeling better already!)
7 comments:
A few thoughts.
I get where you're headed. A different road to the same place would be first acknowledging the existence of Truth. Truth is explainable in some fashion. Mathematics certainly is the code or language which is used for the explanations, but not the sole code or medium of expression.
I think what you're getting at is simply the relationship between cause and effect, i.e. every effect has a cause. An understanding, albeit partial, of the Universe and its components have allowed us, via the language of mathematics, to posit a beginning, before which we cannot see, literally because there is no "there" there to be seen. The only question then which remains, is "why?"
Naturalist's would posit all sorts of fanciful explanations, including "alternate realities" and so forth, yet none of these can be proven using math, because we reach a point where the universe is contained in a point of nothing.
Thus, we are left with two alternatives, which are solely within the purview of metaphysics or philosophy and not science: (That is, if you by in to the arbitrary division of Truth into "spirtual" and "physical" proposed by Immanuel Kant. I don't. There is only one corpus of Truth. Either way, though, the two questions/alternatives remain.)
Did the universe come into being ex nihilo? or Was there an "Initiator" to bring it into being? I cannot accept a "yes" to the first question, inasmuch as everything else in the universe has a demonstrable cause. Therefore, I must answer "yes" to the second question.
(Actually, one can still maintain the existence of God in an affirmative answer to he first question, if you use the first chapter of John's Gospel. In a sense, the universe did appear ex nihilo in the form of Logos, the Word. That word was the "singularity," the injunction or imperative to "BE!"
In a sense, then the two alternative origins of the universe mentioned, "from nothing" or "as an effect" still lead to the same "singularity," the "I AM" of God the Father.
Cheers.
See, e.g. this, though N.B. the use at the end of the word "possibilities" regarding "before" the beginning. These various theories of "before" have existed for a while, yet it is conceded, we can never know or understand that because we are constrained by the laws (Truth) of the universe in which we reside.
Cheers.
Also, your thoughts about "one" being the beginning point are good, but rather than equating one with the pronoun "I," perhaps a better analogy would be equating "one" with the whole, i.e. a singular completeness of existence which then further leads to the "I" of the sentence expressing the Truth, "I AM."
Cheers.
Oh, and the 49ers suck, too.
Randall;
I see that I've dragged you down with me into the deep waters. Its fun to splash around in such powerful thoughts.
As to your interpretation of one as completeness, that thought had crossed my mind as well - but I just didn't explore it as fully as the rest. I wanted to follow my original train of thought into a station before I took any side trips.
Just be glad you have the Cardinals to enjoy because the Rams ain't going nowhere! After tonight, I think we'll have a much clearer idea of whether the 49er's truly suck, or if they're just mediocre.
You probably shouldn't bring your hypothesis to Presbytery for a vote.
Ranger Rick,
Thank you for making me laugh. Its good to be back in the shallow waters. I'm much more comfortable here.
Will
Post a Comment