Are mathematical equations, and scientific observations pointing to the kingdom?

[shnarkle]

Traditionally, the hard sciences have looked to the observable world as fundamental to acquiring knowledge, but over the last few decades that paradigm has changed. Quantum mechanics originally dealt with an abundant amount of information that was impossible to observe, but recently they're seeing that they're able to actually make observations. More importantly, what they've discovered is that the observable world isn't actually fundamental at all, but rather an interface with reality.

It's not unlike what we experience when we are looking at a computer screen. There are icons which we click on, and move around a computer screen. We interact with people all over the world, but what is happening on the screen isn't the reality at all, it's just the "interface" with the computer and other people.

This term is quite appropriate in that it spotlights the interaction between the subjective and objective aspects of reality. The face, persona, facade, etc. is the objective aspect while there is a corresponding subject that identifies with it. Likewise, reality also has this distinction between the subject and object; the knower, and the known; the consciousness and what it is conscious of, etc..

Mathematicians are coming up with equations proving that the observable world as well as the faculties used to interact with it are not fundamental to reality. What we see with the senses is just part of the "interface" with reality. As it turns out, objective reality is only a miniscule piece of the equation, or interface with reality. The rest can't be observed, and what effective difference is there between that conclusion, and Christ's "observation" that the kingdom of heaven doesn't come about by observation?

 

[Windmillcharge]

My inital reaction was Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat.
It to some extent still is.

I haven't heard anything like this, so will ferret around to find something.

My fith or sixth reaction is to repeat that Maths etc are an outworking of the reasonableness of God.
That science has to either accept that there is a 'supernatural' explanation or to explain how and why maths works.

 

[shnarkle]

My inital reaction was Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat.
It to some extent still is.

I haven't heard anything like this, so will ferret around to find something.

My fith or sixth reaction is to repeat that Maths etc are an outworking of the reasonableness of God.
That science has to either accept that there is a 'supernatural' explanation or to explain how and why maths works.

You might find this an entertaining place to start:

 

[Yehren]

This isn't exactly new. In the 1930s, physicists began to realize that the universe is very different than it had been supposed.

In modern physics, the double-slit experiment is a demonstration that light and matter can display characteristics of both classically defined waves and particles; moreover, it displays the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena. The experiment was first performed with light by Thomas Young in 1801. In 1927, Davisson and Germer demonstrated that electrons show the same behavior, which was later extended to atoms and molecules.[1][2]

Thomas Young's experiment with light was part of classical physics well before quantum mechanics, and the concept of wave-particle duality. He believed it demonstrated that the wave theory of light was correct, and his experiment is sometimes referred to as Young's experiment[3] or Young's slits.

The experiment belongs to a general class of "double path" experiments, in which a wave is split into two separate waves that later combine into a single wave. Changes in the path lengths of both waves result in a phase shift, creating an interference pattern. Another version is the Mach–Zehnder interferometer, which splits the beam with a mirror.
...
Furthermore, versions of the experiment that include detectors at the slits find that each detected photon passes through one slit (as would a classical particle), and not through both slits (as would a wave).[8][9][10][11][12] However, such experiments demonstrate that particles do not form the interference pattern if one detects which slit they pass through. These results demonstrate the principle of wave–particle duality.
Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia

How does a particle "know" whether it's being watched or not, and act accordingly? As J.B.S. Haldane noted, "Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."

 

[Willie T]

Are we doing this silliness again?

 

[amadeus]

Are we doing this silliness again?

Is our friend Mr. Snarkle like a bee and honey? Unfortunately he is educated in ways which too often trip up unwary believers. Always we must keep our focus on the Lord so that such things even when they sound good will not cause us to look away from Him and along with Peter begin to sink. We really must live for God by faith rather than based on how well we know what scientists and politicians are doing [or not doing] their jobs.

 

[Yehren]

Are we doing this silliness again?

It's silly if it's presented as a proof for God. If you have faith and understand Who God is, it's perfectly understandable why He would create, out of disorder, an orderly world in which humans could appear and live.

 

[Yehren]

We really must live for God by faith rather than based on how well we know what scientists and politicians are doing [or not doing] their jobs.

Yep.

 

[shnarkle]

This isn't exactly new. In the 1930s, physicists began to realize that the universe is very different than it had been supposed.

In modern physics, the double-slit experiment

The mathematical formulations are brand new. The double slit experiment is also a potent example of Christ's comment as well in that those conducting the experiment can't extricate themselves from the experiment. They can't stand outside the experiment. They are an integral piece of the experiment so much so that they influence the outcome simply by observing it.

 

[Yehren]

Is our friend Mr. Snarkle like a bee and honey? Unfortunately he is educated in ways which too often trip up unwary believers.

It seems that it's a rather thin veneer, some knowledge without understanding.

The mathematical formulations are brand new.

Einstein used Wein's formula to show that light sometimes behaves like a particle, and other times like a wave. He did this in 1905. Anything that happened before I was born, is not "brand new." In this case, it happened before my father was born.

So you're either misinformed, or you have a very odd idea of "brand new."

 

[aspen]

A quantitative approach to studying the universe allows us to understand its material aspects and mathematics is the language we use. Spirituality is a qualitative approach and gives us frameworks for the meaning behind the material - both approaches are valuable and necessary.

unfortunately, many Christians are dualistic in their approach to everything - if one approach is valuable and fits a preconceived framework it must be ‘right’, and once discovered, naturally classifies every other approach as wrong. Dualism provides false security and leads to anti-intellectualism, rigid thinking, righteous indignation, and idol worship.

 

[Yehren]

A quantitative approach to studying the universe allows us to understand its material aspects and mathematics is the language we use. Spirituality is a qualitative approach and gives us frameworks for the meaning behind the material - both approaches are valuable and necessary.

unfortunately, many Christians are dualistic in their approach to everything - if one approach is valuable and fits a preconceived framework it must be ‘right’, and once discovered, naturally classifies every other approach as wrong. Dualism provides false security and leads to anti-intellectualism, rigid thinking, righteous indignation, and idol worship.

Well said. And wise.

 

[Base12]

Mathematicians are coming up with equations proving that the observable world as well as the faculties used to interact with it are not fundamental to reality.

In other words, there is an underlying 'invisible' Software Code to the Simulation we all live in...

Hebrews 11:3
"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear"

​

So who will be the first to hack into the Matrix and give life unto the image?

Revelation 13:15
"And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed"

 

[Dcopymope]

In other words, there is an underlying 'invisible' Software Code to the Simulation we all live in...

Hebrews 11:3
"Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear"

​

So who will be the first to hack into the Matrix and give life unto the image?

Revelation 13:15
"And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed"

With Satan being the price of devils, there isn't much if any "hacking" he'd have to do to make an apparently inanimate object of some type as the verse suggests be able to speak. I don't believe God can be hacked, him being "the life", otherwise, he wouldn't be much of a "God" me thinks.