the laws of the universe eg second law of thermo ect ect most certainly controls the universe without it, we would be nothing there would be nothing, the laws of our existence are very much designed and complex
@@rhysbryant9010the study of thermodynamics is not the same a the physical phenomenon that controls the universe. The former is an observation, the latter is an occurrence. What @chewhammer2213 is saying is that the math we use that exists in the mind does not control the universe. The math that exists in the mind is a description of the universe and its tenancies. We can't change the math in our minds to change how the universe operates, thus the math in our minds is not the same as whatever controls the universe.
Math is a language to explain our universe with logical dependencies. It’s not only in the mind, humans just translated it into numbers and equations which we can understand
It is a language but, not like speaking language. With mathematical language we discover things that are beyond our capacity and it goes into infinity. Many things are discovered through math so you can't say we invented certain stuff. It's just that we discovered there are certain patterns in nature. Patterns do not physically exist, same can be applied to God I guess. So if there is a true pattern of nature, there should also be truth behind our existance, we aren't just a plain coincidence.
I think what you wanted to say is: "Math is a language, that describes our universe by using logical dependencies." Logistics is the thing that warehouses and shipping services do. 🤓
@@petarpetrovic8133 but it could be a coincidence we exist. Our universe exists because the physical constants are what they are. That could prove that either there is a higher power that personally set that values. Or the multiverse exists and each universe has their own universal constants and the one we’re in just happen to be one of POSSIBLY multiple configurations that allow life to exist. And we don’t really have a way to prove either of them tbh
shoutout to johnny test for the idea that you can zoom out the universe far enough and see us or zoom in close enough and still see our dumbasses, like a mandelbrot. But what we see isnt actually "us" its something really similar to us like 1.1 is similar to 1.11 or like where the infinite possibilites can be seen. Maybe when you zoom in its like going forward and when you zoom out its like going backwards. Johnny test is crazy I swear, favorite show as a 72 year old yall should look it up.
I am a Christian, and I admit, this argument is actually really bad, really really bad, it’s circular reasoning, it doesn’t explain why math has to exist in a mind… at best it’s an argument for mathematical platonism but not much more. I think mathematics is discovered because there are patterns and rules objects have been following in our universe prior to any human mind, and the comments say math is just describing these patterns, but I’d argue it is the patterns themselves and we shouldn’t confuse this with notation. Just like how if we look at an apple bigger than an ant, we discover that an apple is bigger than an ant, and we use language to describe what that means, we invented the sentence “an apple is bigger than an ant” but discovered the concept. It’s not because of us that apples are bigger than ants. Or how the idea of 2+2=4 remains true even if everyone were to disappear
@@ptla.2361 A modified version of the contingency argument has always struck me as something special and standing out among all of them. I one sense it seems there are many possible worlds, yet we live in the only possible world. A short version of the argument is that there’s multiple possibilities, and therefore something that chooses one out of the many, but the choice mechanism can’t be randomness, and therefore a being. Now, some might propose a randomisation mechanism to explain this, that it’s just random, randomly choosing this specific universe, this specific world as it is with it’s specific laws of physics over all of the others. The problem is, that even if it was a random mechanism, all random mechanisms are tied to a probability distribution, that describes the probability that the mechanism will actualise a given world… The thing is, we can ask the same question “why that particular probability distribution?”. Then you might invoke another random mechanism to explain why the random mechanism world generator is the way it is, but that mechanism is based on a specific probability distributions of different possibilities of distributions for the random world generator… It becomes a regress, and it must end with something necessitated, we can keep adding on to the chain, but the same problem arises, it’s the only way for the problem to end, which means there’s a necessitated world or at least some probability distribution necessitated over others. Now, here’s the kicker…. This means that there’s something necessiatted above all other options, and all of those other options seem to have equal claim to actualisation, each of the other worlds and options do not contradict the laws of logic at all (5 laws of logic that define what the concept of “truth” means 1. Law of identity. 2. Law of non contradiction. 3. Law of excluded middle. 4. Law of Contraposivity. 5. Law of immutability that states all logical laws are eternally binding and can’t change or be violated). For something to be necessitated though, it means that if we create a universe (like imagine making one on a laptop) and we input laws for the universe, we type the 5 laws of reason, but if we do that, it means that the specific necessiated thing must be there. This means, whether it’s a specific distribution or world, that if you have the laws of logic, you must have that world, and you can’t have the laws of logic without that world eventually existing, you can’t have truth if that world doesn’t pop up…. It means all other worlds are incompatible with the laws of logic, yet in an atheistic world it seems they don't contradict them or violate them in any way… that’s very strange. Now, here’s the kicker… the contingent (things that don’t have to be) has now been converted to necessity (what must be), which seems to be only what a being, will, character, mind..etc can do… like a decision. Now someone may just say “this world is actualised above all others because it just is!” but if that were true then it means there’s no reason for it being there above all the others, except for itself, which means it’s self rising, self defining, being it’s own reason for itself, which is similar to the duns scotus view of God as something radically free and unconstrained. The other decision to the dilemma is that it isn’t just is, but has a cause, but as we’ve seen it can’t be an abstract object like the laws of logic, the only other timeless, spaceless, and immaterial candidate for what makes space, time, and matter is God, which is closer to the Acquinas view. It then seems there’s a supreme intellect that makes every other world incompatible with logic because it is there, exercising it’s intention and will, choosing out of it’s character what worlds must be, and if it weren’t there, we wouldn’t have anything as everything would be of equal claim to exist… Now, an objection to this could be some hypothetical multiverse, where every idea generated from logic, every concept corresponds to a world that exists somewhere, the problem is, there’s a specific arrangement of universes in that multiverse spatially, and many possibilities of times of the order in which they show up. Now some one may say there’s a disunited multiverse, but that has issues too and there’s still multiple possibilities, because of Russel’s paradox if we allowed all universes we’d get a universe of all universes that don’t contain themselves (which is problematic as this universe itself must neither contain or not contain itself). Someone might say that the probability of each world is the same, but that makes a problem, as a probability distribution must have it’s integral add to 1, and with infinite possibilities, the probability density of each must be infinitesimal, which just means they all approach 0 which means impossibility for any world.. So, this is what I’d say is a pretty solid argument. Also, now from the argument we concluded God exists, God by definition controls all these future events in necessity or not too, God has complete control over adjusting all the knobs, getting rid of any randomness. So there it is… sorry its long.
@@ptla.2361 Everybody knows numbers but they do not exist in the physical world. But you can still consider them entities. We work with them and solve problems with them. They have real existence otherwise you could not tihnk of them. If that is true why can God not be real but non-physical at the same time? By that logic unicorns are also real. If unicorns exist in our thoughts but not in the material then the world of thoughts(spiritual) is superior to the material.
@@Apebek the numbers aren't alive maybe because of that they are bit seperate category. And humans created numbers. Humans when they started naming numbers could name any number how they want so if humans decided 2 was like having 4 sticks and 4 was lile having 2 sticks, than we (people from future) wouldn't mind
@@Ryoba__chan The names we give to numbers are just names, but it doesn't change the characteristics of the entity. It doesn't matter how you call the number two. The concept of that quantity cannot be destroyed. Every language has a different word for the number two but it's still the same thing. A circle could also be called a square but it would still be the same round shape without corners.
This makes sense if you don't really understand math in a fundamental level, if you actually get to the source of the number system we use named "the real and complex numbers" you'll find math is based on axioms which are pretty much "things we declare as true because they're obvious to everyone but impossible to prove" such as the existence of 0, 1 being different than 0, and a few more; everything else is a logic consecuence of these axioms which are pretty much made up by human minds to understand the world; of course infinite numbers exist but because they are part of a system which we declared to have infinite numbers so it could be compatible with our experience of space, currency, energy, combinations, etc. To actually prove the existence of god using math in the way you want, you would need to prove that the axioms are a direct consequence of a fundamental force of the universe and that the universe is all a direct consequence of mathematics. But it's impossible, fundamentalist mathematicians resort to the human experience as the basis of math and phisicist only make models of very precise but limited accuracy of the real world which will never be perfect because math is processed by us mere mortals. I'm not trying to say god isn't real (which may or may not be) but the whole video is based on the premise that math is fundamentally discovered and not invented when math is at it's core declared by us limited mortals playing with ideas and then discovering other things that come as logic conclusions of those axioms. Then there is the Mandelbrot set, which is just a graph drawn on a cartesian/complex plane that we invented with established rules for expressing equations on it which we made, is a graph as special as any other graphic such as the circumference graph which also gives you a set of infinite points with a pretty pattern but of course you wouldn't use that as an exaple because it's just too simple and everyone could understand it and replicate it; to me the Mandelbrot set argument falls into the theistic argument category of "It looks pretty but it's natural and only artists can make pretty things so an all powerful artist made it" without taking into consideration the mental computing of what makes a human think that something is pretty and even nothingness could be pretty because "prettyness" is a completely subjective quality that depends of the one that experiences it, not of the one who made it
So, all humans, living throughout the world and throughout time, just happened to create the same set of axioms that lead to the same infinitely logical and yet completely consistent system of math?
Thank you for this. His video sounded like a whole lot of gibberish to me. Especially his part on the Mandelbrot set, which is graphed on something humans invented which happened to look kind of cool. Us humans didn’t invent nor discover maths, maths is merely our interpretation of the world.
@@IncredibleMDbruv... You do realise before the 20h century and the progagation of recorded knowledge throughout the world, different regions had their own regional mathematical systems? Of course, the basics of these were the same; but these could be seen as pretty obvious like the fact that 1 is not equal to 0 and 1 + 1 = 2, purely by observing the world
@@fernandofernandez8723if math is how we interpret the world then why is infinite such an important and foundational subject in Math when it doesn't exist in the known world?
@@krovrainkyour claim that math is different in other regions of the world is just wrong 💀. You do realize we derive our math from the Arabians and the Greeks right? And they build off each other too.
Idk, this whole video was so strange and clearly not well thought out. His example for math being above the universe was that it contains the universe? Like just because you can model it or explain its interactions doesn’t mean it’s contained. I say the word “universe”, that doesn’t suddenly mean English is supernatural
Math doesn’t have every combination, the every combination are only there if someone arranged them. There aren’t every combination, it’s just a concept. Even if they’re were every combination, not counting numbers since they’re just symbols that don’t exist, it wouldn’t be infinite since infinity doesn’t exist as far as we know.
@@sarthak-ti English, and any other language are finite, math is infinite. Infinity is impossible to fully comprehend, due to the nature of infinity, and the finite nature of our minds. If infinity cannot exist in our minds, or the physical universe, how is it possible for the concept of infinity to exist in math (which we did not make up) without an infinite mind?
The problem with this video is that maths isn't just discovered or invented, it's both. Maths is definitely something we can quantify and measure but at the same time, mathematics as a system of logic is fundamentally natural. True, mathematics does contain infinite information, an infinite amount of possibilities, but that doesn't necessarily mean they exist, it just means they can exist. We do of course discover math, the example of pi is a good one, but at the same time, we invent mathematics. Take for example, i, the square root of -1, a new type of number that hadn't existed previously, that's used in multiple areas such as holomorphic dynamics. This number cannot exist in the real world because it quite literally doesn't, yet with mathematics we invented it to help solve problems. Similarly we use this invention and leverage its properties to apply it to the real world. Another way you can almost show we invent mathematics is the fact that practically every mathematical problem, at its heart, requires absurd requirements to be calculable outside of an ideal, theoretical environment. Take something as simple as a circle, which is defined as all the points a radius length away from a central point. No matter how hard you try, you can never get an actual, true circle because length is quantised, as in, there is a minimum amount of length(the planck length). Your argument completely breaks down once you consider that even though we can prove things in maths, we cant always prove things. This is the incompleteness theorem, which proves mathematics is incomplete because it's a logical system. No system of logic can prove everything, and this applies to proving God. To say you can prove God using maths is to say there is a proof for such a thing, but if there was a proof for such a thing then you would have to show it isn't subject to the incompleteness theorem. Furthermore to prove God with maths you need numbers, algebra etc. You can't just name qualities of both mathematics and God and declare them equal because of such. That's like saying that since penguins have two feet, two eyes and a mouth and bears have two feet, two eyes and a mouth, they are therefore the same. You also make the mistake of saying mathematics is not of the natural world, which it very much is if we're also inventing it at times, such as with the mandelbrot set. There is also the final step of saying that God invented mathematics as opposed to, mathematics is something that is akin to a God, the difference being that mathematics doesn't care at all about moral and philosophical questions. While I myself know very little about mathematics, I do know enough to be able to say that you cannot generalise mathematics to either a creation of the human mind or to a creation of God, it's somewhere in between where its more so a creation that applies very closely to the natural world of which we know next to nothing of why it exists. Your video at its heart is lacking in research and misunderstands a lot of what makes maths a creation of the human mind, and its rather fallacious, however If you are interested in mathematics and not just trying to find ways to prove an unprovable God, I suggest you read up a lot on proofs, axioms, complex numbers and everything we have created in pursuit of a finer logical system. Oh and just I small thing about proofs, to prove something, you don't just need to note qualities and quantities, you need to verifiably prove via numerous methods such as contradiction, induction etc that a statement or two variables are true or equal.
Very great argument, summed up exactly why I have always disliked the idea of "proof" when it comes to arguments about theism and atheism. You are very articulate and I would love to see Redeemed Zoomer respond to this.
great response, this video argument is fundamentally flawed and poor in general, the spirit is there, but the creator needs to do his research properly otherwise he makes himself look like a child with those easily disprovable arguments. (sorrry for my english, im not native)
What I had heard of regarding the connection between mathematics and theism comes from an idea from Eugene Winger’s article “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences” which argues that it cannot be by mere chance that maths are so effective at explaining the physical world if the universe came from a random explosion and masses crashing into each other by chance. It has to do with the intelligibility of the universe (one of the axioms that makes science work), and a valid answer to this intelligibility is a creative intellect. If we discover a book with a story, setting, conflict, plot, characters, etc, we can reason that it has an intelligent author because the story is intelligible and intends to convey/reveal some truth. In the same way, the theistic argument is that we can observe the entire natural world and find that it has intelligibility, which points to an intelligent creator (though maybe it doesn’t prove it in the strict sense, idk). Thoughts?
@@killianmiller6107the real world has both intelligible and unintelligible properties so it doesn’t always make sense by our predictable standards of logic. Math is basically our effort at reverse engineering and trying to make sense of the concepts of the universe but it doesn’t guarantee that its how it was originally created, randomly or otherwise. Math isn’t foolproof either, it starts to more or less fall apart at the quantum level where things start getting hazy and can’t easily be explained by our current version of mathematics.
Math is a language model, this is like saying that the English language contains everything in the universe because the language can he used to describe it. Math doesn't contain anything, it represents it. It's just a way to understand what we observe and hypothesise what we may observe using patterns that have been demonstrated to be consistent
@@kingkwam3816 Doesn't refute his point though, do you believe that it's a 1 to 1 or a representation based on testable results? do you believe that our ruler to measure the universe is absolute, and not a scale made from our frame of reference?
To provide a more formal analysis of the argument presented in the video using propositional logic, let’s break down the argument into its core propositions and analyze the logical structure. We’ll use standard logical notation and then assess the validity of the argument. Propositions 1. P1: Science cannot explain the supernatural (S → ¬SN) • Where S = Science explains, SN = Supernatural 2. P2: Mathematics is not observable in the natural world (¬O → M) • Where O = Observable, M = Mathematics 3. P3: Mathematics explains the natural world (M → EN) • Where EN = Explains Natural world 4. P4: Either mathematics is a human invention or it pre-exists as a controller of the universe (H XOR P) • Where H = Human invention, P = Pre-existing controller 5. P5: Mathematics contains infinite information (M → I) • Where I = Infinite information 6. P6: The universe is finite (U → F) • Where U = Universe, F = Finite 7. P7: If mathematics is infinite and the universe is finite, then mathematics cannot be contained within the universe (I ∧ F → ¬C) • Where C = Contained within the universe 8. P8: The Mandelbrot Set demonstrates infinite complexity (MDS → IC) • Where MDS = Mandelbrot Set, IC = Infinite Complexity 9. P9: Infinite complexity suggests a designer (IC → D) • Where D = Designer 10. P10: If mathematics is in the mind and contains infinite information, it implies an all-knowing, all-powerful, supernatural mind (M ∧ I → G) • Where G = God (all-knowing, all-powerful, supernatural mind) Logical Structure 1. (S → ¬SN) ∧ (¬O → M) ∧ (M → EN) ∧ (H XOR P) 2. (M → I) ∧ (U → F) ∧ (I ∧ F → ¬C) 3. (MDS → IC) ∧ (IC → D) 4. (M ∧ I → G) Analysis • The argument’s validity depends on whether the conclusions logically follow from the premises. • Premises P1, P2, and P3 set up the distinction between the natural world and the realm of mathematics. • Premises P4, P5, P6, and P7 suggest that mathematics, being infinite, cannot originate from the finite universe. • Premises P8 and P9 link the complexity of the Mandelbrot Set to the idea of a designer. • The crucial premise P10 asserts that the nature of mathematics implies the existence of God. Critique • The transition from P7 to P10 is a significant logical leap. The conclusion that an infinite, abstract realm implies a divine mind is not a necessary consequence of the premises. • Premises P8 and P9 (related to the Mandelbrot Set) employ a form of the teleological argument, which is more an inference than a logical deduction. • The argument also assumes that the abstract nature of mathematics (P5) necessitates a supernatural origin, which is a metaphysical assumption rather than a logical conclusion. While the argument presents a series of logical propositions connecting mathematics with the concept of God, the leap from abstract mathematical concepts to the existence of a divine, supernatural being is more inferential and metaphysical than strictly logical. The premises do not necessarily entail the conclusion, indicating a potential weakness in the argument’s overall validity.
Also we are talking about God, Whom you cannot see, Hear or other stuff in normal circumstances, so it probably seems life a metaphysical leap, but its not. its just that we cant define God in our minds, and if we do, the thats not the true God, it would be your version, Math is just one proof of God, There is Much more, for instance, History , Creation itself, the Bible and how historically and Scientifically accurate it is long before people discovered what it says Sometimes my ingenuity is Stupendous🥲I dont know Also im 17 failing math, so i wont pretend i know what you said in the math, but i read the conclusion and made my answer based on that
Mathematics is NOT just something in our mind, it exists even without humans. All humans did was figure out how to put it on paper. It also absolutely does not control the universe, as math just presents values and their interaction.
@@xCessivePresure Math exists all around us and is present in everything. The number 2 as it is written is the written presentation of 2. The same way as the word tree is the written presentation of tree.
I agree, humans just figured out a way to define what we see around us using a system, we created, the system is not natural but what it measures is. Like a Geiger counter measuring radiation, a Geiger counter is a thing humans invented that uses real materials and real math to work, radiation is just the natural thing it’s measuring. (Probably a bad example but I tried my best :) )
That is not true, math does not contain truth. Read about Gœdel’s theorems: math is just a language, a beautiful but incomplete language. If you think about it, what it proves are just tautologies.
If you apply this logic, that means that the English alphabet, for example, was discovered and not invented as the 26 letters (plus the spaces between them) can create an infinite amount of words, combinations, and everything ever, in the past or future, has been encoded.
I’m a catholic, so i believe in God, but couldn’t one argue that we designed math in such a way that “has to be” like this and thus explaining the points in the video?
Yes, there are axioms "simple basic non-proven rules" that develop into all sorts of interesting propierties, potentially infinite, but math is invented
As a math major, I would like to point out that the Planck length exists, and math studies relationships between groups, just because math (especially analysis based systems) describes infinite things doesn’t mean the universes set of possible information is infinite.
@shuwohd2343essentially, because distances below a plank length basically have no meaning, as it is physically impossible to determine the positioning of something to that fine of detail, and generally nothing we've come up with can explain gravity, geometry, and time at that small a scale (yet)
But it could be if we expanded outside of our own universe. Maths can contain infinite possibilities, but some of those possibilities are not infinite. As I say elsewhere x^2 + y^2 = 1 is finite, and yet exists within maths which is infinite. In fact there would be an infinite number of finite things within that infinite set. Maybe our finite universe is one of them?
I don't believe in this nonsense of a video, but I have a curious question. If the Planck length exists, does that mean that nothing is actually, absolutely infinite?
Math is actually one of the subjects I like the least, but these videos occupy my mind while I'm busy doing other mundane things like laundry, dishes, etc. Thanks for the videos man, keep it up!
As a Math major this was a bit cringy... Pi isn't "The number that explains the area of a circle", it's just the ratio between a circumference and its diameter. That's why we can't "make it have whatever value we want", because all circles are similar to each other -- meaning this ratio is the same for every circle. It's no more mystical than saying that, in a square, the ratio of height divided by length is 1. Or diagonal divided by length is sqrt(2). These things are embedded in the definition of a square or of a circle, you just state the definition and then derive these properties. There's no need for magic in that process. The argument about how "You can encode books as numbers, therefore Math is supernatural" was a little weird too, how does that argument go exactly? "There's a 1-to-1 correspondence between natural numbers and states of the universe, therefore natural numbers are a larger infinity than the physical universe"? Is that it? That's just saying "The universe is finite but the naturals are never-ending", but that also just comes from the definition of the naturals. You simply state, "At least one natural number exists" and "Every natural number has a successor" and there you go, from those two sentences you can derive these properties, you don't need them to "exist somewhere". You're just applying logic to statements.
It makes sense why most ancient civilizations across all continents considered mathematics to be a philosophical discipline, as opposed to just a tool. Edit: 1. Ancient Greek Society: • Pythagoreans (6th century BC): Explored the idea of the mathematical harmony of the cosmos, connecting mathematics with the fundamental structure of the universe. • Euclid (3rd century BC): Demonstrated the logical rigor and axiomatic structure in mathematics, laying the foundation for deductive reasoning and the philosophy of mathematics. 2. Ancient Indian Society: • Aryabhata (5th century AD): Explored the astronomical significance of mathematics, integrating mathematical calculations with celestial observations, contributing to the philosophical understanding of the cosmos. • Brahmagupta (7th century AD): Introduced philosophical concepts related to zero, negative numbers, and the solutions to quadratic equations, challenging traditional Indian philosophical ideas about the nature of numbers and reality. 3. Ancient Chinese Society: • Liu Hui (3rd century AD): Philosophically explored the concept of infinite geometric series, raising questions about the nature of infinity and its implications for the understanding of the universe. • Zu Chongzhi (5th century AD): Extended the philosophical discussions on the mathematical concept of π, contemplating the infinite and the finite within mathematical and cosmological contexts. 4. Islamic Golden Age: • Al-Khwarizmi (9th century AD): Philosophically delved into the nature of equations and solutions, leading to abstract algebraic thinking, challenging conventional philosophical ideas about mathematical abstraction and reality. • Omar Khayyam (11th century AD): Explored the philosophical implications of mathematical geometry, investigating the nature of Euclidean postulates and the conceptual foundations of geometric space.
But the first civilizations did use mathematics as a tool, such as the "Kashim" table, from Babylon, the oldest civilization, only later with the Phoenicians, Greeks and Latins had a truly "complete" vocabulary like today's.
that has little to do with metaphysical reasons, it's just that academic thoought and philsophy were much more related before they had time to branch off during modernity
The Bible is a contradictory mess. Sam Harris and the reason project found near 70,000 contradictions between the canonical Greek New Testament and the Masoretic Text version of the Torah. Do you think the Bible is supposed to be that way? I don't. So here's how to remove the contradictions: During the Babylonian captivity the "harlot of Babylon" syncretized God's biblical titles, those being El, Elah and Elohim, to all simply mean "God". So from 500-600bc to this day El still means God, which is cool, but Elah also just means God... and Elohim...yep, just means God. Anyone think that creates a lot of contradictions in the Bible? I sure do. The Church even made it heretical to call Yahweh Elohim from Genesis 2 the bad guy of the Old Testament. This spawned "apologetics" (for the Devil). They did this because the Septuagint just said Theos everywhere that El, Elah and Elohim should be. So, the Greeks thought Yahweh was introduced as "Theos" in Genesis 2. The Vulgate does the same thing it just says Deus in all the places El, Elah and Elohim should be. Also, the Latin people thought Yahweh was introduced as "Deus" in Genesis 2. Modern English Bibles still do this with removing God's titles. Most just say God and LORD God everywhere. Try using the NOG translation it's on Bible Gateway and also there's a free App on your phone. Remember to use a different language when you want info on God's titles. Hebrew is forever syncretized. The Latin counterparts are Deus "God", Dea "Goddess or feminine title of God" and Dei which has two uses one plural "gods" and one possessive "God's" based on context. Genesis 1 is the possessive context for Elohim. True Elohim. Genesis 2 is the plural context for Elohim. False Elohim. BAM! No more contradictions in the Bible. Cohesive story :)
This video makes a huge leap in logic when it goes from math possessing a concept of infinity to math therefore being created by God. Infinity is just that -- a concept.
But he mentions that math can only exist in the mind near the beginning of the video. So if math is infinite, it must exist in the mind of a infinitely existing person. I wish he spend more time on that aspect, or made a longer video, but idk.
@@thegreatchipmanthat is the problem we will never know. Like, we may never disprove super natural because we don’t know what it is, and we can’t prove super natural. Because it is the supernatural. The video is arguing for a God which is pretty invalid cuz God is supernatural and it will be hard to observe. The question, “did we invent math or discover math” already renders “math proves god exist” pointless.
@@MatiasCumsille Any form of logic that proves his existance. Anything. The only logic I've ever had to work with is people's accounts, which is never reliable.
Well than I can say 2+2=5 and I would be no less correct than someone who says 2+2=4 2+2 still equals 4 even if there is no humans to have an opinion about it, therefore math is objective and not an opinion.
those were some leaps in logic. math is not a physical thing which is the reason why it doesn't need physical space. it also doesn't control the universe, it describes it. the physical properties we use are completely made up. we just defined what a force or a potential is, it's not something that was revealed to us. the reason math is so complex now is because over a long period of time a whole bunch of people found new ways to explain the universe.
I'm pretty sure if you go back to the start of the video that no matter what language you study math with it will always be infinite. Even if it's in letters. We only chose numbers because it's easier for us to study. Mandelbrot is something that is exactly the opposite of randomness. You can't have an infinite set of designed figure and claim it came from randomness. You gotta understand that it is Infinitely desgined and that will make it impossible to ever be made up from randomness. For example About Infinites: If a car moved 100 mile per hour and each mile it passed the speed will be cut in half becoming 50 miles per hour, And it just continues doing so to a point where it starts to barley even move and be closer to staying still than it is to moving fast.
@@deejaythedeejay This statement is flawed. It suggests that any thing which cannot be disproven is intrinsically true. This holds up under deductive reasoning, but falls apart when it is not supported by any evidence or observation to be broken down into fundamental parts. Your argument is saying that since you cannot disprove that universe came from a singularity, it must be true, being contrary to your statement. As I said, this logic is sound given any physical evidence, but can not be used to form postulates. I hope this makes sense. Also please capitalize.
One big issue -- How can you say that the universe is finite? That is a statement present evidence for it. And something which is infinite can have more infinites in it.
One even bigger issue, we can't actually represent infinite numbers without infinite space, just because you can keep getting ever more precise, or representing an ever bigger number does not mean that infinity truly exists.
@@ancmolfese4825 numbers are a system through which any value may be represented, because there is no limit to how long numbers may be made, numbers may represent every number approaching (but not including) infinities
@@jonathandeneke7192 Those numbers are not stored anywhere, they do not exist. They are merely a set of abstract symbols which can be used to represent values.
i failed calculus 1 ... but i am sure good at using c ++ !!! i'm sure i could understand calculus 1 if it was explained to me in programming terms instead of academic mathematical notation... unforch...
@@dangit69420 Ok bro, you can't just make a claim and back it up without reasoning. Plus, you haven't (and never will) live in the consciousness of someone else's, so you can't just say math isn't hard because it isn't hard for you. That's called an opinion, and based on the way your saying it, it's quite inconsiderate of people who don't truly understand it. I don't know the science behind it, but I am more than sure that math people have a psychological advantage over "non-math people." Rather foolish comment.
@@TahirAhmad-io6uw true, while i wasn't exactly trying to say that "bro math is the simplest thing ever you are dumb if you don't understand it" or something like that, the way i wrote that reply made it seem like i was trying to say that. almost everything in your reply is absolutely true. also math people don't have psychological advantage over others.
No. Discovering math wouldn’t make it supernatural. That’s like saying hydrogen is supernatural because we discovered it. Also, math isn’t the thing that’s ruling the universe, physics is - and there’s literally no way of confirming whether our models of physics are what’s actually going on. We’re making repeated inferences and attempting to explain phenomena using limited information. You could say “the universe is a smooth manifold because general relativity is accurate” but it would be more accurate to say “when the universe is treated as a smooth manifold general relativity is accurate.” It doesn’t mean that the universe is a smooth manifold, it means that when it’s treated like one, gravity is explained accurately by general relativity.
You misunderstand; hydrogen and all of physics functions within the bounds of the universe or natural world; beyond space, time and existence those things do not exist. whereas maths exists both within and beyond the universe and the natural world. if maths is a language; then all of existence is a story book i.e language exists beyond books.
You just said that things don't exist beyond existence, which is true albeit redundant. Math doesn't exist either beyond existence because if you're beyond 'exist'ence than nothing exists, including math. The biggest misconception is that math existed before humans and was discovered by us: this is false. Math is a tool created and used by humans to help process complexities with ease. The fundamental truths of math, which are cited as proof of a supernatural power, are called axioms, and they exist because mathematicians decided that they should since they make the system of analyzation we call "mathematics" function.@@hamzaimran771
This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of "information" in quantum mechanics. Just because an idea can be indefinitely expanded upon, or because the concept of infinity exists within mathematics, does not mean that the universe would need to be infinitely large to "contain" every possible number in mathematics. There is an infinite number of digits in pi because pi does not fit neatly into our numbering system. That's it. There is also an infinite number of digits in 1/3 after the decimal. That doesn't prove that the numbers pi and 1/3 must be supernatural in origin. Those infinite digits do not actually exist anywhere unless you compute them, because numbers and digits are just an invention of the mind that we use to more easily understand mathematical relationships. Now, actually *computing* all of those digits would require an infinite amount of information, which is impossible in a finite universe, but that's not what you were talking about.
As an atheist I wonder how this man thinks a flying god that knows everything and can do everything and just existing bc of no reason is more logical then a universe just simple existing fir no reason, theres no debate, god objectively does not exist, anyone who belives in god today is either a person who was in a religous family their whole childhood and now they're to emotionaly connected to leave flying tea cups and a bunch of bs, or they have 50-90 iq and first didnt belive in god and then suddently they start beliveing in it. have tou also noticed that every religous person ever has been religous for their entire life almost? Hmm maybe thats bc god was made up thousands of years ago by dumb people trying to explain reality? So now that we know how the world works, naturally, without god and magic supernatural things that objectively cant exist, shold we still bring back Tor to explain lightning???????? Fuck me man
That's the issue. If he wants to believe in God, that's fine. However claiming the mandelbrot set proves God? That's too far fetch. Math doesn't automatically mean God is real.
No it means the patterns are complex and yet beautiful and infinite, which is weird if you consider everything was born from nothingness and pure chaos if God wasn't real
@@emmersonsimeao yeah one of my issues is that he seems to just twist words to equate what is being referred when OP isn’t doing or saying that at all it’s little changes to make the dishonest points in either case the real mystery is how this thread doesn’t have like 20 r-slurs autists screaming at each other
That “someone” is Benoit Mandelbrot, and he taught at Yale for years before he retired and unfortunately passed away in 2010. He was the man that figured out that very calculation to explain fractals. I’m sure you can find a lecture or thesis where he explains it.
Even as a Christian, this argument is ridiculous. The primary error in the video lies in the assertion that mathematics contains an infinite amount of information. In reality, no known mathematical framework encompasses infinite information, nor will it ever. A useful metric for estimating the informational content of a dataset is its Kolmogorov complexity, which measures the length of the shortest possible description (or program) for generating the data on an abstract computational machine. The precise outcome depends on the chosen method of compression, but the principle remains consistent: mathematical structures, no matter how vast, can often be expressed concisely. While there is an infinite set of natural numbers, the information they encode is remarkably compact, encapsulated succinctly within the Peano axioms. Similarly, the other examples presented in the video rely on mathematical constructs that can be described with finite systems. Mathematics, as we know it, is recorded in a finite number of texts, each of finite length. The idea of generating an infinite number of mathematical papers is inherently implausible. Regarding the claim that mathematics perfectly describes reality, this is an overstatement. Mathematics provides models and approximations of physical phenomena, not definitive representations. There is no discovered mathematical framework that fully encapsulates reality, such as a theory unifying quantum mechanics and gravity. As it stands, our mathematical descriptions remain sophisticated approximations, not ultimate truths.
I'm muslim and I also found this nonsense. As you said, everything in mathematics is based on axioms which are fundamental assumptions we make. In mathematics things can go to infinity because we have the assumptions that make them go to infinity. It's like chess, in chess there are infinite probabilities then does that mean chess is made by a supernatural being? What I think about mathematics' explanation of the universe is this: I believe that God created the universe in a certain logical system. We are also capable of understanding the main essence of this logical system. Thus, we can abstract the essence of this concrete world in our own minds. This is actually mathematics. Mathematics is like a perfect model of the universe. Just like checkers could actually theoretically model chess.
@@juilianbautista4067 First of all, our universe is infinite, not finite. Second of all, math was invented to comprehend the universe. Mandelbrot set is cool and all that but because there's an infinite amount of real numbers to plug in, it has some weird properties, which has nothing to do with there being a god or not.
@@millec60Its still possible for it to be finite. All we can declare for now is just that its bigger than we can observe. Its big, but it definitely has a limit. General relativity agrees to this, since it requires a finite spherical universe; it cannot be infinite because of Mach's Principle, with which Einstein strongly agreed, that the mass of a body is finite, is determined by all other matter in the universe, thus all other matter in universe must be finite. Conclusion is that we cannot prove the universe as finite neither infinite.
I was gonna make a long comment regarding the fallacies but many people already did that. I just wanna point out that it seems as like the author of this video has just experienced a completly normal fascination with math and the mandelbrot set, and he attributed it to his beliefs.
If you are going to call out this video then I will call out your claim (that's the way I do things). First I've been scrolling down a while and have only seen one comment against this video other than yours. Second this entire video is using math to prove his beliefs so thank you for verifying that I guess. Third the Mandelbrot set is an example of proving (infinite) fractals and how we have discovered them. The Mandelbrot set already existed before we discovered it, it is like a tree falling in the woods, it still makes a sound even if no one is around to hear it.
research axiom theory, fundamental logic, and incompleteness theorem of math, and then you will realize that math is invented at its core and the arguments in this video are totally wrong @@hyperblueeonbeta
@@hyperblueeonbeta By that logic the code behind procedural terrain generation existed, and notch just discovered it? So Minecraft is a creation of "gOd"? Discovering something abstract and inventing it, are very close, dare I say, impossible to distinguish!
@@hyperblueeonbeta, I'm seeing a lot of comments disagreeing and I'm relieved about that, because a lot of misconceptions are being spread by someone who clearly doesn't have the expertise to deal with math concepts, and there are people who are there to point out these errors. Complex things arise from a system of simple rules. Conway's Game of Life is a perfect example of this. The simple rules he dictated for the game are not intended to create specific things, but many things were created obeying this system of rules, and they exist because they respect them and not because they already exist. Things that do not exist, but can exist, fall into the realm of possibility and not of existence. I can invent a machine that stamps sheets while doing flips on mondays, but that doesn't exist if it hasn't been created yet, it's just possible.
@@hyperblueeonbeta, furthermore, the Mandelbrot set is just a fractal. Newton's fractal was born before we could draw cool graphs and know what fractals were like. But we had an idea of what they are because fractals are merely the product of recursive mathematics and repeated patterns.
Humans can't create infinities, but we *can* create sets of rules that create infinite possibilities. Math, and the components of it that created the mandelbrot set, are sets of rules that happened to be accidentally put together in a way that forms the mandelbrot set. Sometimes, when coding, I accidentally create a program that could theoretically create infinite information, in an infinite computer. Does this mean I'm god? No. It means I've incorrectly coded a recursive function, and I'm going to fail the exam coming up.
i think you are wrong in this because in the video it says that the math itself is infinite, and creates infinite possibilities. You are talking about creating something finite that creates infinite possibilities. Not the same thing, there is actually a big difference and that may be the gods difference. I still dont know what to believe tho😊
This should be the top comment of every video debating the existence or non-existence of God. There will always be another question, placed somewhere new or deeper that can then be deflected / spun by the other side, continuing on and on forever. Personally, I don't subscribe to any one religion, or the existence of God / gods, but I am willing to listen to anyone that thinks they have the true answer, the one final solution to end the debate. But I wholeheartedly believe that day will never come, unless something happens that completely alters the direction of humanity in a way that can be explained completely by divine interference and not some other natural phenomena that we have already observed time and time again.
If god exists, then he definitely can be proven to exist. For example he could just show himself. Disproving god is impossible. So imo it makes sense to assume, that god doesn't exist, as long as the provable existance isn't proven.
@@fabianwittmann8121You need to take into account of God's property before just dismissing it easily as "he could just show himself." First of all, God cannot be confined by space or boundary, he is everywhere. God is also omnipotent, so he is not bounded by the natural law. Problem is how do you expect a human can perceive a being that is everywhere and doesn't follow the natural order? We see through light, hear from vibration. Should a being like that 'show' himself, can we even perceive him?
Incredibly real take. The whole point of faith is to believe in it, not to have evidence or proof for that belief in question. Have a great day gedstrom
@@viccym thats not true, math is exactly about inventing rules and proving truths (Theorem and propositions) about objects we define using those rules (mathematical objets like numbers, functions, matrixes...). If we find something in the natural world that is similar in some sense to those objetcs we invent, we can apply those rules to the natural world too.
@@FireArch1024 The things we're discovering we didn't invent. We write out a formula for something, but we didn't make the formula, that's merely just our way of explaining what we found, and we still don't even realize what it really means. The rules of math always stay the same, we didn't make them, because if we tried to change them math wouldn't work. The rules and formulas were already there, we just discovered them and learned how to use them.
@@viccym If you put an example of what you call formula and why "it was always there" I could explain better, but take for example (a+b)²=a²+b²+2ab. That formula is true for real numbers (that apply to measuring physical quantities). But if you work in 2mod, you would write (a²+b²)=a²+b², so whether a formula is true depends on the rules/definitions you make. There are many math branches that have very little application to the real world and their objects of study are completely useless, they are just fun and challenging areas of math (knot theory for example, which is the math area I study). Sometimes the math techniques developed inside these theories are used to prove important truths in other areas though.
As a PhD scholar in a field of science I doubt any scientist believe or ever claimed that we know everything about the universe as stated at the beginning of the video.
Math doesn't CONTROL everything, as it was stated in the video, it DESCRIBES, and not even everything, only phisical properties of objects. This is because math is only in our minds, so it can't control anything, but we can describe something with math
If you take it literally, math does actually control everything. At a certain level, every function of everything in the universe could be described as a near infinite series of mathematical equations. Even the individual cells within your own body could be described using equations.
@@athletico3548 Math by its very nature requires a mind to exist. You seem to be conflating mathematics with physics. Mathematics is simply one of the ways that humans interpret physics.
@@Aygeu Every cell in the body could be described using words, if we wanted to. Does that mean that words control everything, or does it mean that we use words to describe what already exists?
@@albedougnut I don’t think you’re understanding my comment. Literally every individual movement, transfer of information, chemical reaction, LITERALLY ANYTHING, is at it’s most basic level a bunch of equations. You can describe something with words but that doesn’t change anything about it no matter how horribly you were to describe it. If you try to define an object’s motion with 1000 equations and even one of them is wrong, you are incorrect and it is not undergoing the same motion.
A logical fallacy used here is that math "contains information". Math is a tool, not a library of information. There are some constants in the world like π or the speed of light that can be described by using math. If there is a clue that a higher consciousness exists, that would be the fact that these constants hold their particular values instead of different ones. Also the Mandelbrot set is an example of fractal geometry that emerges by using math (a man made tool to describe the natural world) and plotting it in the complex plane (another man-made tool). This is just an example of the concept of emergence, which roughly means order is created by chaos.
I think the point here is that the author starts from the idea “science explains everything,” and thus it turns out that mathematics = God, because she explains everything exactly like God, but for atheists
If you divide 1 by 3, you get .3-repeating. That’s an infinitely long number, but it hardly seems like a proof of god. It’s the same with the Mandelbrot set. It happens to be very interesting, but the fact that there’s infinite interesting detail to zoom into is no more mysterious than the way you could zoom into a straight line forever. Math doesn’t really explain anything, it just describes things in different terms.
@@mctulkyviperbit6166 In what way does 0.333 repeating control the universe? Remember that this is just 1/3 in the base-10. We have yet to even discuss the other bases.
@@ultimaxkom8728 it is a rule of division that anything into three equal parts will have each part be exactly 1/3 the original object, so therefore every dividable thing in the universe must follow this rule. But that is besides the point dum dum, you mistook my comment as me saying that jack’s example controls all thing in the universe whereas I meant math as a whole is the rulebook by which the universe must abide by as shown by my previous statement. Even in the other bases this does not change. In summary, u=🤡
0:22 Woah, God IS math. Math is above nature, it has an answer for everything (even if we don’t know it yet), it’s everywhere, and it can do anything logically possible.
I would say math is discovered and invented. We invent the notation (numbers, symbols), but we discover the patterns (aurial proportion, PI, prime numbers)
@@latetry8593 This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Mathematics is not an invention of us, but rather an observation of what already exists in the universe.
@@KingArthurWs Based on that. Everything we humans have observed has been both invented and discovered. As we perceive things in our way. Like gravity. The fundamentals of it existed before human society did but the concept gravity only exist because of the human mind.
Math isn’t an inherent property within physics. It’s merely our human conceptual understanding of physics. It’s the way that we quantify physics based on our own basis of knowledge.
@@LetsDOARTinfinity is simply a concept we determine by a never ending result of something, or a seemingly never-ending result. The fact that you see infinity as this strange and mysterious concept shows how little you know of math. Infinity is not a complicated concept at all. In fact, it's one of the easier ones.
@@LetsDOART To ask for a quantity means to ask “how much”. Therefore infinity is quantified as infinity. Just as 4 is quantified as 4. Or pi is quantified as pi Infinity is conceptual. The number 4 is conceptual. Pi is conceptual. All math is a concept. Attempting to “quantify” infinity as anything more than its mathematical definition (it being infinite) won’t yield any results
I think this is a truism. No one claimed otherwise. Everyone knows, that math is an abstraction to describe reality. But due to the fact, that we use this tool to remodel what we see around us, it is our current understanding of it, and not entirely flawless. Some of which seems to fit into this universe, other things don't. We have an approximation on how close we are to describing reality with math, by its application and coherence/consistency. Good example, Newtons laws apply up until a certain threshold of size. They are obviously useful to describe a good chunk of physical interactions, but not flawless. By refining those unknowns, we come closer and closer to objective reality.
[ Discrete mathematics has entered the chat ] By the way, the Mandelbrot Set visualization does, in fact, contain evidence of intelligent design. The reason for this is because it was made by computer scientists. I hope this helps.
It was not made by computer scientists. It started existing when the universe started existing, and all computer scientists did was find out that it exists.
As someone who has some background in math, here are some problems I found about the video: Math is a system to describe (potentially infinitely) complex behavior with finite or otherwise simple rules. The invention vs. discovery dilemma is complicated but in a simplified way it works like this: We invented math, and then discovered things in the real world that the math describes. Contrary to 1:45, we actually *can* change math arbitrarily, and as long as we don't get a contradiction, we can accept it, even if it describes nothing in the real world (as far as we know). If we want negative numbers to have a square root, we can make it so. If we want to remove Euclid's 5th postulate, we can. Eventually, both imaginary numbers and non-euclidian geometry proved to be useful, but only after we *discovered* that there exist things in the real world whose behavior is described by these systems, and it might even be just approximately, not perfectly. It is often said in the video that math is infinite and that it exists. But as I said before, math is only a system for describing larger things with smaller things; a tool. Just because math can describe a book, or the universe, just like a hammer can drive nails into wood, doesn't mean it has. Just because you can conceive of something, doesn't mean it exists. Saying that the reason why the Mandelbrot set is infinitely complex is because it was designed is technically a possible explanation, although you could argue that the creator is at least as complex, and so something must have created it... but that aside, there is another explanation for this, which is that complex behavior can be described by simple rules. Again, as I said before, this is exactly what math does: describe complexity with simplicity, and given all the other amazing things it can do, something like the Mandelbrot set is pretty much expected. As a side note, the Mandelbrot set is really cool, and it does evoke feelings of divineness in some, including myself, but I cannot base my worldview on feelings alone. Common sense is also just a feeling. To some, say, when they encounter a homosexual, their common sense tells them that they are unnatural and should not exist, but... maybe that's not true, you know? Sometimes truth is unintuitive, and that is why claims need to be supported by proofs to be believed.
While I understand where you're coming from, there are a few points you've made that I would argue with. For reference I'm a 3rd year undergraduate in applied mathematics & statistics: 1. "We invented math, and then discovered things in the real world that the math describes" This is only true in some cases. We did not invent counting before discovering objects to count, but we did invent complex numbers before using them in fluid dynamics. 2. We cannot change math arbitrarily. What you described would make the logical process that the original math described change to include new rules (that we discover, not invent) while discovering a new method that can more accurately describe the world. This new method existed previously and could have always been used, so we did not invent it, but only after its discovery by the human mind can we put it into mathematical terms (symbols). 3. Math is not conceived. When new math is discovered, that same math still described the world 10,000 years ago. A nuclear reactor, for example, is something that we conceived because although nuclear fission has existed since the beginning of time, the mechanism that utilizes it had to be designed and built by humans. In relation to math, the logical symbols that we use to write math were invented, but the logic that it describes has existed since the beginning of time.
I really don't understand how nobody in this whole comment section has mentioned mathematical platonism or abstract objects, this is a philosophical problem and not a scientific one.
"math cannot be contained in our universe so it must be contained somewhere else" i love how you completely ignored the possibility that it is not contained
@@playfulmathematician5928 Welcome to the cult "playfulmathematician"... We have all of the answers. There is no need to worry. Trust Mandelbrot. Trust the fractal. You must begin the initiation.
@@playfulmathematician5928i'll lay down some ground rules 1. you CAN NOT look at the mandelbrot set or any other math and think "this was created by god" BECAUSE THAT GOES AGAINST THE POINT OF MANDELBROTISM 2. mandelbrot is a famous mathmatician and created a famous piece of math, so he must have created math, which is the "language of the universe", and language is required for communocation which causes civilization and when you think of it the universe is kind of like a giant continent of the countries/galaxies which has provinces/states/solar systems of cities/towns/villages/planets, with the stars acting like state/province capitals and centers of galaxies being nation capitals
The Mandelbrot set, like many mathematical structures, is indeed fascinating. It is a _necessary and unavoidable_ result of strict step by step logic. The simple algorithm that generates the Mandelbrot set is indeed "designed" by an "intelligence" - human intelligence. The amazing pattern that results is an _inevitable_ consequence. Imagining that it's "designed " by a "higher intelligence" displays a profound misundersanding of what mathematics is.
I can grab a kaleidoscope, choose some pattern and use a super advanced AI so that it describes that algorythm, and create something like a second Mandelbrot set. Maybe there are infinites "mandelbrot sets". But that wouldn't correlate to god (or to what most people think about 'god' )
The problem is, that the properties that the Mandelbrot set has weren’t intended by the designers at all. If you throw a pile of rocks together and they independently organise into a castle, you’d have to conclude that there was an exterior force or law at play that made it so that the action you took had such unintended, complex, consequences.
@@iamnotgandalf9308 Until you realize that you do not have to conclude anything, as its not surprising that there would be some order in the Mandelbrot set as its creation is itself not random. There is no reason to conclude that there is an exterior force or law at play, just as there is no reason to assume that the Mandelbrot set would have no observable patters. I mean if you understand the math its pretty unsurprising.
@@Biggyweezer69 This is like saying "it's unsurprising that there is some order in the collatz". Of course its unsurprising that there is *some order* in a recursively generated structure, but the question isn't "is the outcome of a function in some order or another?", that is obvious (as the generating function IS the order of the structure which its generates, so identifying that a generated structure can in fact be encoded/ordered by its generating function is like proving that water is wet). The question is "what characteristics are exhibited by the function and why?". For example, relations based on the fibonacci sequence can be found in the Mandelbrot set, yet these characteristics weren't intended to be contained in it. Ergo they are innate, not designed. Similarly, the complex geometries of the Buddhabrot set, or of Mandelbrot derivative Julia sets, clearly exhibit emergent properties which are not explained. I recommend you, for example, familiarise yourself with texts actually authored by the creator of the set, Benoit Mandelbrot, such as "The fractal geometry of Nature" or "Fractals and Chaos: The Mandelbrot Set and Beyond" which will give you an insight into the currently just developing discipline of complexity theory, which was in large parts spawned by the Mandelbrot.
Isn’t saying that the Mandal BR Set having infinite patterns being proof of a supernatural creator no different than saying putting two mirrors against each other to create an infinite void proof of a supernatural creator? Finding patterns in the natural formations of the universe adds to the mystery yes, but I’d hardly consider that proof of otherworldly influence.
He didn't though. Literally JUST before clicking this video, I watched a video about valid logic and logical consistency before watching one about necessary and sufficient conditions BEFORE watching two videos about be-ought fallacy (Hume's law) and naturalistic fallacy. I discovered some of these EXACTLY IN THIS VIDEO. What bugs me, is that I can only spot it but not explain it, because it's complex asf and I'm not an English native speaker.
Godel's incompleteness theorems is "True", the statement itself, however, is illogical. The "proofs" used in programming languages prove this. The computers are viewing the statement to be "True" yet the statement leads to a halt in the programming because it is illogical.
@@EvilWolf2 that's not making a lot of sense to me. Gödel's incompleteness theorems are about theorems within a mathematical system (that is complex enough to include the natural numbers) being true, but not provable. What's that got to do with some random faulty computer program?
@@BobHutton he is referencing another famous problem known as the halting problem. Its not just some random faulty program. It is a proof for computers being limited. The paradox goes like this: Assume we can create a program that determines if another computer program will stop or put itself into an infinite loop. Then we attach another porgram to our initial halting program that takes the output from it and if the first program declared that the inout progrtam would halt, we go into an infinite loop. And vice versa if it would not halt we halt. What happens then, if we put our new "anti-halts" program into the original halting porgram. Will it return true or false? it cannot decide which one it will be so therefoe the ultimate halts program can never exist, therefore not all things can be solved by computers. ua-cam.com/video/eqvBaj8UYz4/v-deo.html tom scott has a video on it.
Yeah I've been thinking the same. To me it's would even mean that it's really natural, as in a core essence of nature and not something over nature and "separated" from it
He's basically saying that maths existed before the big bang therefore god which is obviously not a strong argument. And we don't know has maths existed or exists at all, there's lots of things in this video that he states as fact that aren't
@@leonconnelly5303 But scientifically, math as we know it WOULDN'T have existed before the Big Bang. The laws of physics change with things like quantum particles, stringlets, black holes, etc.
@@maskedchicken8746yeah, agreed, he has no idea what he’s talking about, he just googled everything. He tries to act so smart and everything but he’s not, he’s using illogical explanations based on something he learned in high school. He doesn’t even understand what he’s saying, just trying to get people on his side using god. Another point he misses is that you can believe in both god and science/math. He doesn’t understand that the concepts he’s attempting to explain and contradict is much more complicated and deeper than a surface level google search. Thank you for reading this.
He also is completely dumb for posing two theories and then immediately disregarding one theory and then assumes that the other theory is 100% true. how dumb do you have to be to make a youtube video like this?
@@NotFedwards maybe you just didn't understand the video? he explained why he thought the other theory was 100 percent correct, but as an atheist u will prove him wrong
This is why we have a branch of mathematics called Proof Theory. Check out "Veritasium- Maths Fundamental Flaw" ua-cam.com/video/HeQX2HjkcNo/v-deo.html
I'm currently a 4th year PhD student at MIT doing research on applied mathematics, and this whole video is making my head swell. FIRST, the concept of infinite information emerges when considering the exhaustive description of numerical entities, indicating an intrinsic challenge as math grapples with the inherent finiteness of information. Math's ostensibly infinite nature remains theoretically expansive, typified by instances such as Conway's Game of Life or the Mandelbrot set, generated by simple equations resulting in vast complexity. However, this theoretical infinitude does not manifest objectively. Contrarily, the generation of infinite information is relatively facile and arbitrary, achievable by constructing rule sets without implying objective existence. The initial perspective of mathematics being merely "fabrication" is more aptly characterized as the formulation of a formal system to articulate observed phenomena in the natural world. For instance, the conceptualization of π stems from the observation of near-perfect circularity, thereby defining it as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. While acknowledged as a contrived value, π's precision diverges from an exact "3" to align with empirical circularity in nature. Gödel's demonstration of math's inherent incompleteness underscores the existence of propositions within any axiomatically sufficient algebraic system that evade proof or refutation. This revelation, encapsulated in Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, refutes notions depicting mathematics as a Platonic entity transcending the universe or ascribing to supernatural affiliations.
@@mihaifloares2503bro god doesn’t exists. When “Judgement Day” comes I won’t give a freaking freak. If god created everything then that means he created evil. That means god is evil. The Bible is wrong. Tell me, which god is correct in all of the religions. Which one exists while the others don’t? Why does where you are born determine your religion? I’m an atheists and I’m proud of it. Don’t waste your Sunday morning in a stinky a*s khaki colored building.
@@Jaydunnnn I might not understood, because I didn't chose to study math. If you really read my comment, I said how impressive his didactic achievements are so I recognize and appreciate his efforts. I might not understood his explication, I might never understand, but your logic makes me question your abilities. I didn't understand what he explained because math isn't my field, but I understood the part about faith in God in his answer, so that was the part meant to be commented by me, and fortunately, theology is one of my fields, so I can comment that. Your logic has a major flaw in it. If someone does have way superior understandings than me in one particular field, that doesn't mean that I can't tell him when he is wrong in other field. Richard Dawkins, a scienceman with far more knowledge in different aspects of science than me, who is able to write a speech where I won't understand a singe word is wrong about faith in God, and I wouldn't hesitate to tell him. Secondly, I never said that God will judge the original commenter. I'm not God, so I don't know what God will do with any of us. I can't even know if I will be found not guilty on God's judgement, I told him that his lack of faith is a clue of an empty hearth.
@@mihaifloares2503 NIce choice of words it makes you sound very smart. Just look at your original comment. If someone were trying to "bring you to jesus" would you like if they spoke to you like that? Do you think that would make you receptive? "but you heart is so weak for not being able to give...", "pray that god will make your heart as strong as your mind." You know nothing of his heart. Quit hiding behind god to judge him.
@@tox3417 the mandlebrot shown in this video literally shows how randomness can appear to be designed, go read some madlebrot books and look into chaos theory and you imght have a better undrstanding on the mathematics behind this. I myself am an agnostic but just dont think your comment has much merit to it.
Randomness can create perceived order. For example, if every atom in the universe changed to a random location every second for an infinite amount of time, eventually our universe would be created.
Math doesn’t prove God now I know I won’t get much attention for this because I’m probably one of the only the atheist but I believe that math doesn’t prove the existence of God because math doesn’t prove that God is real because it is a human invention, not a discovery. We created math as a tool to interpret and understand the world around us. Throughout history, different cultures have developed their own mathematical systems independently, which shows that math is a flexible framework tailored to human needs and contexts. For example, the ancient Egyptians used math for building pyramids, while the Babylonians developed a base-60 number system for astronomy and timekeeping. The symbols, notations, and systems we use in math have evolved over time, reflecting human ingenuity and adaptation.While math can describe natural phenomena and patterns, it remains an abstract construct that exists in our minds. Its ability to model the universe doesn’t imply a physical or supernatural existence. Math is simply numbers and symbols arranged in specific ways to represent relationships and patterns we observe. For instance, the concept of zero was independently developed in different cultures, such as by the ancient Indians and Mayans, to solve specific problems in counting and calculations. Therefore, math is just a part of our existence, and its capacity to describe everything doesn’t suggest a higher form of existence. Our minds developed math to explain why things happen and to solve practical problems. For example, ancient civilizations used math for trade, astronomy, and engineering. The Greeks, like Euclid and Pythagoras, formalized mathematical principles that are still used today. Today, we use math in science, technology, economics, and everyday life to make sense of complex systems and predict outcomes. For example, calculus, developed by Newton and Leibniz, allows us to understand changes and motion, which is crucial in physics and engineering. However, using a tool from our plane of existence to describe a higher being or allude to something supernatural is not valid. Math is simply combinations of numbers and abstract concepts, not evidence of a higher power. Moreover, the fact that mathematical principles can predict outcomes and describe the behavior of physical systems with such accuracy is a testament to the utility of math as a language, not necessarily evidence of a divine origin. The existence of abstract mathematical concepts, such as imaginary numbers or higher-dimensional spaces, which have no direct physical counterparts but are crucial for advanced scientific theories, further supports the idea that math is a product of human cognition and creativity. These concepts often lead to real-world applications and discoveries, indicating that they are powerful tools created by humans to understand the universe, not pre-existing truths that point to a higher power
Math is just a framework to explain relation, proportion, difference etc. between elements in the world. What we see in Mandelbrot set is a non-repetitive relation of proportions with some iteration and we use math framework to explain it easily. Universe is more than math, physics even meta physics. We just find it easy to explain it with these frameworks.
Back when you mentioned the concept of Math proving your points in your other videos, I struggled to argue against it and figure out why it sat wrong with me. Thank you for making this video, because it *very* quickly became clear why this theory doesn’t hold water
@Frozen_Shedinja I would go into detail about the amount of circular logic and unfounded claims, but the primary reason is that he asserts that "math cannot be contained within our universe therefore it must have been created by a higher power," when there is no reason that math can't simply be, well, not contained, and that Math HAS to define the world, rather than even addressing that it is merely a language to describe it (neither something actively created by humans nor discovered by them). The reason I couldn't get myself around without seeing this video is because I'm bad at explaining it, because, get this, I'm not a mathematician. BUT, there are *plenty* of mathematicians in other comments here who can put the doubts I had into a much better argument
Okay, so, I didn't communicate my argument well, because that's not actually what I had a problem with, so I'm doing this again. The main problem with this video is that, it claims that forces that act upon the natural world are not themselves part of the natural world. Fundamentally, there is nothing here that counters the idea that Math is merely a fundamental force of nature, like Gravity or Electromagnatism. (Or hell, maybe like, the entire field of physics?) Nothing here can give credence to the idea that math as we know it is not simply the inevitable consequence of the foundational assumptions of math
@@SussySupcon The main issue I had was the rather faulty assumption that because X is "discovered" must mean the X is "supernatural". And like most failures of intellect, er, apologists, this person just assumes that even if they could prove some "supernatural" existence/plane/reality, that not only supernatural personalities exist, but that they are in fact gods, indeed, their particular western God. As a rather strong agnostic, I find it perfectly easy to imagine scaling up the patterns we find around and in us and suppose we are merely part of some greater order from which a consciousness might emerge. I also find the idea of such a being is aware of us is only surpassed in improbability by the idea that being cares about what we eat, wear, say, and how we fuck. The idea that such a being, if it existed, would need some undergrad using MS Paint and faulty logic to convince us it existed? 💀💀💀
@@durs_co I need no daddy, but that complex goes a long ways towards explaining why evangelicalism in particular and Christianity generally throughout the ages has always led to tyranny and authoritarianism. By all means, keep babbling like the baby you want to be and keep putting responsibility that should be yours on your cosmic daddy. That story will only end in pain for you, and perhaps enough to shake you out of your fear and stupor. It would be funny if it weren't so bloody and sad.
and math is a concept we invented to help explain the world around us. the difference is we can observe that math applies to the real world because it's all LITERALLY a description of physical phenomena, but god is still just an abstract concept made up to control medieval peasants
In the ancient times Greek and Arabic philosophers focused on the universality and perfection of geometrical forms as belonging to divinity, but the way through the concept of infinity you have mentioned a few times before is also a major one. (As a sidenote: this may be thematic to your argument in this video as well; I am commenting before the video is live). This is also, most certainly, prominent in the history of philosophy, theology and mathematics, and here's a key example from not too long ago: The philosopher, mathematician, Catholic priest and theologian Bernard Bolzano (very influential in the fields of logic, epistemology, and math), and his work "Paradoxes of the Infinite" (1851), was revolutionary for the development of set theory ("set theory", or its German equivalent, being explicitly a word coined by him), and thus for recognizing the sublime majesty of 'infinity' - or even its very Idea - in a sense that maths (and sciences in general) nowadays heavily utilize. Georg Cantor would of course, by the influence of Bolzano (and, as he personally recounts, "by the influence of God"), kickstart set theory proper and thus a wholly renewed comprehension of mathematical infinity. Importantly in this context: his theories and work were thoroughly defined by struggles of faith ("wrestling with God", one could say) - with a constant tension between the mathematical and the theological (in a manner that does not really separate these two but rather underline and emphasize their relations authentically). By "tension" I do not mean anything necessarily "negative". Rather, I use it as an expression of the 'intensity' manifested by the immense proximity between mathematics and theology (concerning the subject matter of infinity) that was heavily present in and demonstrated by Cantor's work and personal life. Indeed, far from being a tale of triumph (cf. Cantor's tragic life) this epoch of mathematics should be studied by everyone interested in the fascinating connections between mathematics and theology (via the Idea of infinity), and when it comes to "foundations of all things". As a further sidenote: I am providing these remarks from a philosophical perspective, not from a theological or mathematical perspectives; I, for one, believe that logic precedes mathematics, even if both of them are transcendental, and even if mathematics is THE formal ontology of Nature/reality. Regardless of my own personal beliefs (i.e., specifics of my religiosity) I am recommending these topics and pointing towards them as someone who recognizes their value and unity (theological, mathematical, philosophical etc.) independently from my own stances. Needless to say, I'm looking forward to the video, and I'm looking forward to hearing your thesis from the side that is much more informed about mathematical/theological side of things.
What you stated was great, i just have one question, after this video, how can we link the existence of God and proving that christianity is the right religion, not any other religion?
@@elijahmikaelson5319because the Bible has a shit ton of cross references even though it’s written over a span of a long time and has a constant single narrative. There are over 300 prophecies about Jesus by the prophets of the Old Testament especially in isiah. Also the resurrection of Christ is true because of what happened to the deciples. They became martyrs and they all know of the prophecy but were doubtful at first but the only reason they could’ve changed their minds and fight relentlessly to start churches despite facing persecution and got brutally executed is if they saw Jesus. People don’t have this change of heart unless they truly believe in something through seeing it with their own eyes as described in the Bible where Jesus was missing from the tomb and talked to his deciples before ascending to heaven. It could also be proven through the birth of Jesus by a virgin woman which in itself is a miracle not to mention it coincides with the prophecies of the Old Testament.
@@elijahmikaelson5319Christianity fits the bill because A.) It is monotheist and describes and infinite and omnipotent/omniscient/eternal God B.) The ontology of said God does not explode into a billion pieces when examined due to his triune nature (which explains how God is able to love even before the creation of the universe, which is important because, if God relied on his creation to love, he would rely on creation to be able to have the ability to love and morality and it would be truly questionable if he was divine were this the case. This doesn’t happen in Christianity because the Father loves the Son outside of time). C.) The moral integrity of Christianity that is based off of the word of the morally perfect God makes perfect sense, especially when examined within it’s own context. This final reason is pretty circular reasoning, I will admit. However, literally no other religion passes this hurdle. Islam can be morally compromised, for example, by the fact that, on judgement day according to Islam, Jesus won’t interfere in judgement and will pass it off to a sinful man, despite never sinning (even in Islam he is considered to be sinless). There is a lot more but these are just some proofs that show Christianity to work out. Not really going into historic proof and stuff for the sake of time and because, unfortunately, I am not exactly a theologian. Just a humble slave of Christ. God bless you, and may He guide you in all truth and righteousness.
@@elijahmikaelson5319simple: the historical evidence of Jesus Christ; his life, death and most importantly, his resurrection. The resurrection proves he's God and whatever he taught must also be true.
1:40 "If we were just making this stuff up we could make pi be whatever we want it to be." Pi didn't always have the standard 3.14 definition. Gauss used the symbol in a similar way as we treat theta today, as a variable. This also doesn't count the other forms of pi. For example, in the taxicab metric pi, the ratio of a circle circumference to its diameter, is equal to 4. 2:20 "And if we use numbers as code for particles and their locations, then you could say that there is an exact copy of our universe encoded in math." I think the jury's still out on whether the universe is finite or not. Firstly, the size of the universe hasn't been determined to be finite. We can only observe the observable universe (about 94 billion lightyears but we cannot know about anything beyond this (unless faster than light transportation devlops). Second, the resolution of the universe may be infinite. The current theories of quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of relativity do not apply to particles that are smaller than the Planck length (unless humanity develops a working theory for quantum gravity). 4:25 I view math as akin to language. No one mind developed math but it was invented in a manner similar to how languages are invented. Rather than state that math controls the universe, I'd say math describes the universe. Claiming that the universe doesn't have infinites seems a little presumptuous, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this statement. What does it mean for the universe to contain something? Is the mandelbrot set not contained within the universe because humanity can interact with it?
We can calculate part of the mandelbrot set but not contain its entirety within a finite universe. Please elaborate on stating that the universe could be infinite.
I'm sorry, I meant the Bible gives pi a value of 3, The real value of pi was not found until 150 AD. I personally believe math is the language of the universe due to the several equations that man has used to predict orbits, energy, and even things down to the atomic level.
if we change pi but we don't change the base we use to calculate , the calculus are wrong , so we can't explain proprely this universe , we need the right pi in the right base , that means that we didn't created it because we didn't defined it , however we discovered it
@@Leonetninthere could be infinitely many stars. Simple as. We can only see a determined amount of them as we are enclosed in a sort of space box determined by the speed of light vs the speed of expansion of the universe. We’re stuck in a bubble, and can’t see outside of it, and thusly can’t determine what is or isn’t outside of it. If you have any proof that there are not infinitely many stars outside the observable universe pls give it.
I used chatgpt to analyze the video and heres what it said: Prompt: If I give you a video transcript would you be able to analyze it and point out each the flaws in the argument? Analysis of Flaws False Dichotomy: The argument presents only two possibilities: math is either a human invention or a supernatural discovery. There could be other explanations, such as math being an inherent property of the universe. Non Sequitur: The conclusion that math's infinite nature implies a supernatural origin doesn't logically follow from the premises. Just because math describes the universe doesn't mean it must exist outside the universe. Argument from Incredulity: The assertion that the Mandelbrot Set's complexity means it must be designed is based on the speaker's disbelief that it could exist otherwise, not on evidence. Equivocation: The term "infinite" is used ambiguously. Mathematical infinity (conceptual) and physical infinity (actual) are different, and conflating the two leads to faulty conclusions. Begging the Question: The argument assumes what it tries to prove: that the existence of complex mathematical structures necessitates a designer. Category Error: The video suggests math exists in a supernatural mind, which conflates abstract concepts (math) with physical existence. Appeal to Authority: Citing Galileo without context is an appeal to authority. Galileo's metaphor about math being the language of the universe doesn't necessarily support the video's conclusions. Conclusion The video's argumentation contains several logical fallacies, including false dichotomy, non sequitur, argument from incredulity, equivocation, begging the question, category error, and appeal to authority. Each of these undermines the strength of the claim that the existence of math proves the existence of God.
Additionally just to maintain a fair stance I asked... Prompt: Point out each of the supporting arguments While the video’s main argument is flawed, some points are based on sound logic and are worth considering: Science's Limits: Science explains the natural world but doesn't address questions about the supernatural. This is a reasonable distinction since science, by definition, deals with empirical evidence. Abstract Nature of Math: Math is an abstract system that we discover rather than invent. This perspective aligns with the philosophical view of mathematical Platonism, which suggests that mathematical truths exist independently of human thought. Math’s Explanatory Power: Math’s ability to describe natural phenomena accurately supports its fundamental role in understanding the universe. This doesn't prove a supernatural origin but underscores the deep connection between math and physical reality. These points highlight the importance of recognizing the limitations of science and the abstract nature of mathematics, although they don’t directly support the video's ultimate conclusion. Note: Its interesting to see that none of the points it suggested actually relate to god being connected to math, though its worth considering that I asked "point out the flaws" before asking "point out supporting arguments", though you'd normally expect a direct answer from chatgpt, but this time it seemed to divert the question, not answering it.
Theology 101: people like to feel important, they need it to survive the constant threat of unpredictable death and the idea that their consciousnesses will cease to exist. They fear the unknowable, so they project themselves on to the unknown to give it trust beyond what it deserves, and then bake in a more digestible set of fears to control their behavior and prolong their capacity to self-propagate and multiply. It's a surprisingly elegant system when examined under ideal conditions.
It’s also fun to point out that ancient Greeks used math to attempt to know the divine. The reason why they (especially pythagoreans) studied it so intensely was they believed they could know God thru math
@@lilpullout the cool thing about those cult religions was they were usually monistic, so they had the belief that all gods were a face of the one, ultimate god. it was often the "secret" revealed to those initiated. it's also why so many were sort of combined in worship, or have different variations that were worshiped in different areas. but it's not my idea, that's literally the entire point of pythagoreanism. it's really well-known, they're the cult that didn't eat beans.
@@LexiePersonForever You guys inhale such immense amounts of copium trying to go back to your little one god story.. I can smell the bullshit through my screen.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 (numbers ascending by adding one) 1,3,5,7,9, (yeah, those are odd numbers) 2,4,6,8,10 (even numbers, what now?) 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34 (That's the fibonacci sequence) Mandelbrot Set (Oh, so pretty) The mandelbrot set is just another sequence of patterns that in our *opinion* find beautiful, most likely because it resembles roots, leaves, galaxies. But there are plenty of other sets, patterns that we find mundane, boring and uninteresting just because our brains evolved to be wired in a certain way that we only find this and that beautiful and this and that mundane and boring. The madelbrot set just happens to be a pattern we humans find "beautiful" even though there so many other patterns out there that we find mundane, only because our brains aren't wired to find those aesthetically pleasing. Proving the existence of God using the Mandlebrot set is the same as proving God exists just because the sequence 1,2,3,4,5.... is a sequence that occurs when you add by one.
@@maksitaxi No, God exists because there's an inherent design found in nature. Math is the human science of deciphering said nature. If everything was random and chaotic there wouldn't be a pattern to anything. The video points out that because we're in a finite universe (considering modern science agrees with this, as there is a beginning and an end), it cannot create all these "coincidences" such as the solar system or human life. Simply put, because there's no time and is limited by the size of the universe. Surely you can enter the field of quantum physics and start talking about time dilations or black holes but none of this has been proven, it's all theories, on the contrary, it is proven that there are patterns found in nature, for example the golden ratio.
"every possible book and a complete copy of our universe is encoded in math" really sounds like something you'd hear from someone who is specifically appealing to people who have absolutely no knowledge on the subject matter. like news sites trying to explain high level physics. it works on a basic level but you need to be able to provide more detail to convince people who actually understand the subject matter
@@senlim8461yeah, that honestly makes no sense. By that logic, every book that will ever exist is “encoded” (what does he think that means?) into language.
@Twoopoint0-h4bhes being a hater just to hate. he's denying the truth. God made everything good and beautiful, other people's opinions dont matter, it wont change how God created something, which is beautiful
@ the bible is not fiction, and neither is God. if God was fiction, then none of us have a reason to be here and we all should just end it since there would be no point in living. and its not up to you to determine whether it is well written or not. the bible is a tool for life, not a book for entertainment
Makes a huge leap jumping to an unjustified conclusion. Similarly to what Aquinas states in his cosmological argument, he too jumps from Maths being infinite so therefore there must be infinite power possessing being. However, maths is simply a tool created by humans to explain things. Just because the decimal system works incredibly well doesn't signify a God, other systems of mathematics are flawed and don't have such sound applications.
Math isn't created by us. We put it in words, sure, but no matter if you show a monkey 2 sticks (it doesn't know math, it's a monkey) or a human the same 2 sticks, one can understand the existance of the "two" sticks and one just accepts the existance of the multiple of the things it sees in front of it. Does a monkey's lack of understanding the existance of the number 2 make the sticks anything but what we describe as '2 sticks"? Maybe in another language they are "dos" or "deux" or "doua" sticks, but no matter who looks at them. the 2 sticks will be 2 sticks. Even when there is no one to obeserve them, they are still two sticks.
Math is a formalism we invented, and all mathematicians are doing is discovering it’s consequences. This doesn’t downplay how beautiful these consequences turned out to be
Time coexists together all at once. The past. The present. The future. It all happens at the same time, therefore we didn't invent math. We simply followed the script.
So you are buying the atheistic/woke definition of mathematics? If the math that we know today is just a figment of our imagination, why does it work in the real world? So let us take the issue in its real sense: the unique role of mathematics in formulating truth and serving as the underlying reality of the universe - both quantitative and qualitative. As Aristotle summed it up, the ‘principles of mathematics are the principles of all things’. Aristotle’s broad stroke foreshadowed the possibility of what millennia later became known in the mathematical and science world as a ‘theory of everything’, unifying all forces, including the still-defiant unification of quantum mechanics and relativity. As the Swedish-American cosmologist Max Tegmark provocatively put it, ‘There is only mathematics; that is all that exists’ - an unmistakably monist perspective. He colorfully goes on: ‘We all live in a gigantic mathematical object - one that’s more elaborate than a dodecahedron, and probably also more complex than objects with intimidating names such as Calabi-Yau manifolds, tensor bundles and Hilbert spaces, which appear in today’s most advanced physics theories. Everything in our world is purely mathematical- including you.’ The point is that mathematics doesn’t just provide ‘models’ of physical, qualitative, and relational reality; as Descartes suspected centuries ago, mathematics is reality.
Numbers aren't something we invented. They exist outside of human existence. The relationships between one type of number and another sure are nice. I know it's how I personally would have designed the number system, all consistent and perfect... but we didn't invent it, it was discovered. The best example I can give is de moivre's theorem and the other shortcuts for doing multiplication and division with complex numbers. It's yet another way that multiplication becomes addition, division becomes subtraction, and exponents become multiplication. Is it just some coincidence that they perfectly follow logarithm rules? Euler related them all together with his e^cosx+isinx, but he didn't invent anything, it was discovery of what was designed.
@@sammy_trix The reason why it works in the real world is because we invented the formalism to describe the real world... This is the core origin of science. It was primarily created to try and describe the world around us. The fact that it now describes the world to this extent is due to hundreds of years of optimising the theories and formalisms to get to where we are now. Mathematics is not "all that exists", it just turns out that we are finding ways to make math describe all that is around us (and by now it does so scarily well).
@@ethanpatch6840 our universe is not infinite, you can ask scientists they say the same but they do always say this when saying that "The universe is not infinite, but its growing". other than that any fallacies you might find I don't have an answer for.
When calling anything fallacies it would be in best practice if you plan to discuss it to simply give your list of examples so others can debate instead of just leaving a comment with the debate set up and no actual information to debate about is being given.
I like your videos but this one just isn't very convincing. I don't wholly agree with the idea that we did not invent the Mandelbrot set. Take minecraft for example: The fact that each new world is randomly generated and unknown to us doesn't mean that it wasn't invented. It clearly had a creator (Notch) who established some rules about the world generation through code in such a way that the result is unpredictable but it was ultimately his creation. Furthermore, you can create any shape you want using the Fourier series, so all creations in math are kind of arbitrary.
@@313KB What I was getting at with the minecraft analogy is that it's possible to invent something and not be aware of its full scale. Minecraft's world generation is math-based and mostly unexplored but we consider each world to be man-made because it originated from man-made code. Likewise, the Mandelbrot is man-made because it originated from the man-made z=z^2+c axiom. We can make plenty of different fractals by playing around with different axioms. It is impressive how much complexity we can get with simple axioms but this doesn't mean they are not man-made or arbitrary
@@justiniani3585I would think that in the basis of his argument, the fact that the infinite nature of mathematics is present physically to some degree in simpler forms, like pi (that we ‘discovered’), alludes to the fact that God’s infinite nature is further evidently present with how something like “Minecraft” and it’s procedural (although not technically infinite) worlds were thought of by its creators, but could only be implemented by way of mathematical and math-based solutions that were already there and possible in theory, but in an actual physical sense that we understand impossible, so they could only be discovered by those who had the intellect to search for them, whether for need or want. And the only ones that could do that are those that are created with the ability to search for them, or the One who knows/made all possibilities but has the ability and will to choose what is ‘implemented’.
This doesn't really prove God either. If you look at the library of Babel you will find that everything ever to be written henceforth will be there, but that doesn't exactly make its creator a God.
But Minecraft was invented, and the world was made using his means. You're proving the point. The set wasn't invented, it was discovered and it's too complex to have come from nothing. Like turning on your computer one day and finding minecraft on it.
Its a fundamental difference in philosophy between the two of you, not him being misunderstood about what math is. He dose a great job explaining the difference between nominalist and realist philosophy in other vedios of his, and I definitely think that this vedio works best with that prior understanding. Which is why I wish he had included his nominalist vs realist explanation in this vedio, this cpmmemt section would look way diffrent if he did
same guy that made the first reply, just swapped from alt to main for reasons not pertaining to this discussion ua-cam.com/video/ZVLCGCRf7YU/v-deo.htmlsi=FWrI7fUWSY7oMLp1 even though it's on a different subject, he explains the philosophy that goes into his argument in this vedio
@@8-bitpersona16 Math describes the process of making rigorous conclusions from a set of assumptions. Math does not contain infinite numbers nor proves their existence. Existence of infinite numbers is just an assumption that often is made.
When human beings dont know an answer to something complex, the best thing they do is say that god must've done it, because there's no other explanation, i believe everything has an explanation, we just need look for it.
Math is a concept used to represent patterns we notice. It doesn't contain any information on its own. Pi is 3.14159... etc. because we use a base 10 system. If we used a base 5 or base 11 system it would be different (duh). If we used a base pi system it would be finite. Also, just because something has infinite complexity/can go on forever doesn't mean it's some supernatural thing that the universe shouldn't be able to contain. When you plot a line on a graph, that line might go on to infinity, but that doesn't mean the line is somehow a logical inconsistency with the universe. All the information is already contained in the equation you plugged in. Or take a googol, the value of which is greater than the number of atoms there are in the universe. Even so, that doesn't stop us from printing it on a screen; each zero multiplies the value by ten (it has more value than it does digits). What I'm trying to say is, your entire argument is fallacy.
Quantities and amounts and measurements is what he's getting at, it's not about just numbers themselves. And the point isn't the value of pi, it's that we didn't create that value, it existed before we did. This math concept and its values have existed long before we have, and its creator had to exist even before that. The creator had to be extremely intelligent and powerful. These are the points he's trying to make
hes saying that God created math. Math is everywhere and it is everything therefore God created "everything and is everything. However since God is outside of human comprehension such as math is sometimes out of human comprehension, we cannot fully understand how God came to be or how God is but we know God has to exist.
@@brandonnunez5401 but that whole argument falls apart if god didnt create math, just because something makes sense doesnt mean that its supernatural, the color blue will always be the color blue, thats just something thats true, nobody designed the color blue to be the color blue, its just something that is either true or false, maths is the exact same but on a more complicated scale surely.
@@brandonnunez5401 If math is everything, its also that a grasshopper is the fact that god exist and therefore a grasshopper is everything aswell as the fact that god doesn't exist. If he is everything, he is surely the fact that he doesn't and can't exist too. Which is just as little proof as the counter argument. Also I find it shocking that people think infinity and everything is even remotely close to equivalent. Also, if there practically exist a god that created our milkyway, I bet my soul in hell that he is just as clueless about whatever created him.
@@lurven666 At some point something has to exist outside of the realm of creation to create said collection. you logically at some point need to come to a creator.
math does not control the universe, it describes the universe
the laws of the universe eg second law of thermo ect ect most certainly controls the universe without it, we would be nothing there would be nothing, the laws of our existence are very much designed and complex
@@rhysbryant9010 I had a stroke reading that, next time you yap, use a fucking comma or parenthesis.
I just believe:
Bible: Explains everything in general
Science/Math: Explains everything in truth
@@rhysbryant9010the study of thermodynamics is not the same a the physical phenomenon that controls the universe. The former is an observation, the latter is an occurrence. What @chewhammer2213 is saying is that the math we use that exists in the mind does not control the universe. The math that exists in the mind is a description of the universe and its tenancies. We can't change the math in our minds to change how the universe operates, thus the math in our minds is not the same as whatever controls the universe.
Did the universe make up numbers or humans? How do you know the entire edifice of mathematics is not wrong?
Math is a language to explain our universe with logical dependencies. It’s not only in the mind, humans just translated it into numbers and equations which we can understand
Exactly. Math is based on constants. Constants exist in nature. Like the properties of geometric shapes etc so it can’t be made up.
It is a language but, not like speaking language. With mathematical language we discover things that are beyond our capacity and it goes into infinity. Many things are discovered through math so you can't say we invented certain stuff. It's just that we discovered there are certain patterns in nature. Patterns do not physically exist, same can be applied to God I guess. So if there is a true pattern of nature, there should also be truth behind our existance, we aren't just a plain coincidence.
I think what you wanted to say is: "Math is a language, that describes our universe by using logical dependencies."
Logistics is the thing that warehouses and shipping services do. 🤓
@@petarpetrovic8133 but it could be a coincidence we exist. Our universe exists because the physical constants are what they are. That could prove that either there is a higher power that personally set that values. Or the multiverse exists and each universe has their own universal constants and the one we’re in just happen to be one of POSSIBLY multiple configurations that allow life to exist. And we don’t really have a way to prove either of them tbh
@@grillpig3860 my engrish not very good
To me personally, the Mandelbrot set is not designed to be beautiful.
It just exists, and *we* found it beautiful.
shoutout to johnny test for the idea that you can zoom out the universe far enough and see us or zoom in close enough and still see our dumbasses, like a mandelbrot. But what we see isnt actually "us" its something really similar to us like 1.1 is similar to 1.11 or like where the infinite possibilites can be seen. Maybe when you zoom in its like going forward and when you zoom out its like going backwards.
Johnny test is crazy I swear, favorite show as a 72 year old yall should look it up.
i just see it has a infinite confusing repeating thing
i find it scary, that shape looks creepy
Mandelbrot, lol :D
Correct, because for me even thou we have great knowledge, we also are sensorial-limited. Think only the small fraction we have to perceive light
I am a Christian, and I admit, this argument is actually really bad, really really bad, it’s circular reasoning, it doesn’t explain why math has to exist in a mind… at best it’s an argument for mathematical platonism but not much more. I think mathematics is discovered because there are patterns and rules objects have been following in our universe prior to any human mind, and the comments say math is just describing these patterns, but I’d argue it is the patterns themselves and we shouldn’t confuse this with notation. Just like how if we look at an apple bigger than an ant, we discover that an apple is bigger than an ant, and we use language to describe what that means, we invented the sentence “an apple is bigger than an ant” but discovered the concept. It’s not because of us that apples are bigger than ants. Or how the idea of 2+2=4 remains true even if everyone were to disappear
What would you find is a solid argument for God?
@@ptla.2361 A modified version of the contingency argument has always struck me as something special and standing out among all of them. I one sense it seems there are many possible worlds, yet we live in the only possible world. A short version of the argument is that there’s multiple possibilities, and therefore something that chooses one out of the many, but the choice mechanism can’t be randomness, and therefore a being. Now, some might propose a randomisation mechanism to explain this, that it’s just random, randomly choosing this specific universe, this specific world as it is with it’s specific laws of physics over all of the others. The problem is, that even if it was a random mechanism, all random mechanisms are tied to a probability distribution, that describes the probability that the mechanism will actualise a given world… The thing is, we can ask the same question “why that particular probability distribution?”. Then you might invoke another random mechanism to explain why the random mechanism world generator is the way it is, but that mechanism is based on a specific probability distributions of different possibilities of distributions for the random world generator… It becomes a regress, and it must end with something necessitated, we can keep adding on to the chain, but the same problem arises, it’s the only way for the problem to end, which means there’s a necessitated world or at least some probability distribution necessitated over others.
Now, here’s the kicker…. This means that there’s something necessiatted above all other options, and all of those other options seem to have equal claim to actualisation, each of the other worlds and options do not contradict the laws of logic at all (5 laws of logic that define what the concept of “truth” means 1. Law of identity. 2. Law of non contradiction. 3. Law of excluded middle. 4. Law of Contraposivity. 5. Law of immutability that states all logical laws are eternally binding and can’t change or be violated). For something to be necessitated though, it means that if we create a universe (like imagine making one on a laptop) and we input laws for the universe, we type the 5 laws of reason, but if we do that, it means that the specific necessiated thing must be there. This means, whether it’s a specific distribution or world, that if you have the laws of logic, you must have that world, and you can’t have the laws of logic without that world eventually existing, you can’t have truth if that world doesn’t pop up…. It means all other worlds are incompatible with the laws of logic, yet in an atheistic world it seems they don't contradict them or violate them in any way… that’s very strange.
Now, here’s the kicker… the contingent (things that don’t have to be) has now been converted to necessity (what must be), which seems to be only what a being, will, character, mind..etc can do… like a decision. Now someone may just say “this world is actualised above all others because it just is!” but if that were true then it means there’s no reason for it being there above all the others, except for itself, which means it’s self rising, self defining, being it’s own reason for itself, which is similar to the duns scotus view of God as something radically free and unconstrained. The other decision to the dilemma is that it isn’t just is, but has a cause, but as we’ve seen it can’t be an abstract object like the laws of logic, the only other timeless, spaceless, and immaterial candidate for what makes space, time, and matter is God, which is closer to the Acquinas view.
It then seems there’s a supreme intellect that makes every other world incompatible with logic because it is there, exercising it’s intention and will, choosing out of it’s character what worlds must be, and if it weren’t there, we wouldn’t have anything as everything would be of equal claim to exist… Now, an objection to this could be some hypothetical multiverse, where every idea generated from logic, every concept corresponds to a world that exists somewhere, the problem is, there’s a specific arrangement of universes in that multiverse spatially, and many possibilities of times of the order in which they show up.
Now some one may say there’s a disunited multiverse, but that has issues too and there’s still multiple possibilities, because of Russel’s paradox if we allowed all universes we’d get a universe of all universes that don’t contain themselves (which is problematic as this universe itself must neither contain or not contain itself). Someone might say that the probability of each world is the same, but that makes a problem, as a probability distribution must have it’s integral add to 1, and with infinite possibilities, the probability density of each must be infinitesimal, which just means they all approach 0 which means impossibility for any world.. So, this is what I’d say is a pretty solid argument. Also, now from the argument we concluded God exists, God by definition controls all these future events in necessity or not too, God has complete control over adjusting all the knobs, getting rid of any randomness. So there it is… sorry its long.
@@ptla.2361 Everybody knows numbers but they do not exist in the physical world. But you can still consider them entities. We work with them and solve problems with them. They have real existence otherwise you could not tihnk of them. If that is true why can God not be real but non-physical at the same time? By that logic unicorns are also real. If unicorns exist in our thoughts but not in the material then the world of thoughts(spiritual) is superior to the material.
@@Apebek the numbers aren't alive maybe because of that they are bit seperate category.
And humans created numbers. Humans when they started naming numbers could name any number how they want so if humans decided 2 was like having 4 sticks and 4 was lile having 2 sticks, than we (people from future) wouldn't mind
@@Ryoba__chan The names we give to numbers are just names, but it doesn't change the characteristics of the entity. It doesn't matter how you call the number two. The concept of that quantity cannot be destroyed. Every language has a different word for the number two but it's still the same thing. A circle could also be called a square but it would still be the same round shape without corners.
This makes sense if you don't really understand math in a fundamental level, if you actually get to the source of the number system we use named "the real and complex numbers" you'll find math is based on axioms which are pretty much "things we declare as true because they're obvious to everyone but impossible to prove" such as the existence of 0, 1 being different than 0, and a few more; everything else is a logic consecuence of these axioms which are pretty much made up by human minds to understand the world; of course infinite numbers exist but because they are part of a system which we declared to have infinite numbers so it could be compatible with our experience of space, currency, energy, combinations, etc.
To actually prove the existence of god using math in the way you want, you would need to prove that the axioms are a direct consequence of a fundamental force of the universe and that the universe is all a direct consequence of mathematics.
But it's impossible, fundamentalist mathematicians resort to the human experience as the basis of math and phisicist only make models of very precise but limited accuracy of the real world which will never be perfect because math is processed by us mere mortals.
I'm not trying to say god isn't real (which may or may not be) but the whole video is based on the premise that math is fundamentally discovered and not invented when math is at it's core declared by us limited mortals playing with ideas and then discovering other things that come as logic conclusions of those axioms.
Then there is the Mandelbrot set, which is just a graph drawn on a cartesian/complex plane that we invented with established rules for expressing equations on it which we made, is a graph as special as any other graphic such as the circumference graph which also gives you a set of infinite points with a pretty pattern but of course you wouldn't use that as an exaple because it's just too simple and everyone could understand it and replicate it; to me the Mandelbrot set argument falls into the theistic argument category of "It looks pretty but it's natural and only artists can make pretty things so an all powerful artist made it" without taking into consideration the mental computing of what makes a human think that something is pretty and even nothingness could be pretty because "prettyness" is a completely subjective quality that depends of the one that experiences it, not of the one who made it
So, all humans, living throughout the world and throughout time, just happened to create the same set of axioms that lead to the same infinitely logical and yet completely consistent system of math?
Thank you for this. His video sounded like a whole lot of gibberish to me. Especially his part on the Mandelbrot set, which is graphed on something humans invented which happened to look kind of cool. Us humans didn’t invent nor discover maths, maths is merely our interpretation of the world.
@@IncredibleMDbruv... You do realise before the 20h century and the progagation of recorded knowledge throughout the world, different regions had their own regional mathematical systems? Of course, the basics of these were the same; but these could be seen as pretty obvious like the fact that 1 is not equal to 0 and 1 + 1 = 2, purely by observing the world
@@fernandofernandez8723if math is how we interpret the world then why is infinite such an important and foundational subject in Math when it doesn't exist in the known world?
@@krovrainkyour claim that math is different in other regions of the world is just wrong 💀. You do realize we derive our math from the Arabians and the Greeks right? And they build off each other too.
Basic common sense says that if math has every combination, then the Mandelbrot set must exist no matter how math was created
Idk, this whole video was so strange and clearly not well thought out. His example for math being above the universe was that it contains the universe? Like just because you can model it or explain its interactions doesn’t mean it’s contained. I say the word “universe”, that doesn’t suddenly mean English is supernatural
Then that just leads to questions about pantheism or pandeism or panendeism
@@sarthak-ti stop sharing your critical thinking abilities, supposed to be a secret
Math doesn’t have every combination, the every combination are only there if someone arranged them. There aren’t every combination, it’s just a concept. Even if they’re were every combination, not counting numbers since they’re just symbols that don’t exist, it wouldn’t be infinite since infinity doesn’t exist as far as we know.
@@sarthak-ti English, and any other language are finite, math is infinite. Infinity is impossible to fully comprehend, due to the nature of infinity, and the finite nature of our minds. If infinity cannot exist in our minds, or the physical universe, how is it possible for the concept of infinity to exist in math (which we did not make up) without an infinite mind?
We can’t see math, touch math, smell math, but can smoke math.
... nice
ua-cam.com/video/whD5UzxuwY4/v-deo.htmlsi=evzrgAQjA-qsyT-y
Good pun
Bro fr
that shit would go craaaaazy in a rap song
People keep forgetting that SCIENCE and RELIGION can co-exist.
The problem with this video is that maths isn't just discovered or invented, it's both. Maths is definitely something we can quantify and measure but at the same time, mathematics as a system of logic is fundamentally natural. True, mathematics does contain infinite information, an infinite amount of possibilities, but that doesn't necessarily mean they exist, it just means they can exist. We do of course discover math, the example of pi is a good one, but at the same time, we invent mathematics. Take for example, i, the square root of -1, a new type of number that hadn't existed previously, that's used in multiple areas such as holomorphic dynamics. This number cannot exist in the real world because it quite literally doesn't, yet with mathematics we invented it to help solve problems. Similarly we use this invention and leverage its properties to apply it to the real world. Another way you can almost show we invent mathematics is the fact that practically every mathematical problem, at its heart, requires absurd requirements to be calculable outside of an ideal, theoretical environment. Take something as simple as a circle, which is defined as all the points a radius length away from a central point. No matter how hard you try, you can never get an actual, true circle because length is quantised, as in, there is a minimum amount of length(the planck length).
Your argument completely breaks down once you consider that even though we can prove things in maths, we cant always prove things. This is the incompleteness theorem, which proves mathematics is incomplete because it's a logical system. No system of logic can prove everything, and this applies to proving God. To say you can prove God using maths is to say there is a proof for such a thing, but if there was a proof for such a thing then you would have to show it isn't subject to the incompleteness theorem. Furthermore to prove God with maths you need numbers, algebra etc. You can't just name qualities of both mathematics and God and declare them equal because of such. That's like saying that since penguins have two feet, two eyes and a mouth and bears have two feet, two eyes and a mouth, they are therefore the same. You also make the mistake of saying mathematics is not of the natural world, which it very much is if we're also inventing it at times, such as with the mandelbrot set. There is also the final step of saying that God invented mathematics as opposed to, mathematics is something that is akin to a God, the difference being that mathematics doesn't care at all about moral and philosophical questions.
While I myself know very little about mathematics, I do know enough to be able to say that you cannot generalise mathematics to either a creation of the human mind or to a creation of God, it's somewhere in between where its more so a creation that applies very closely to the natural world of which we know next to nothing of why it exists. Your video at its heart is lacking in research and misunderstands a lot of what makes maths a creation of the human mind, and its rather fallacious, however If you are interested in mathematics and not just trying to find ways to prove an unprovable God, I suggest you read up a lot on proofs, axioms, complex numbers and everything we have created in pursuit of a finer logical system. Oh and just I small thing about proofs, to prove something, you don't just need to note qualities and quantities, you need to verifiably prove via numerous methods such as contradiction, induction etc that a statement or two variables are true or equal.
Very great argument, summed up exactly why I have always disliked the idea of "proof" when it comes to arguments about theism and atheism. You are very articulate and I would love to see Redeemed Zoomer respond to this.
great response, this video argument is fundamentally flawed and poor in general, the spirit is there, but the creator needs to do his research properly otherwise he makes himself look like a child with those easily disprovable arguments. (sorrry for my english, im not native)
What I had heard of regarding the connection between mathematics and theism comes from an idea from Eugene Winger’s article “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences” which argues that it cannot be by mere chance that maths are so effective at explaining the physical world if the universe came from a random explosion and masses crashing into each other by chance. It has to do with the intelligibility of the universe (one of the axioms that makes science work), and a valid answer to this intelligibility is a creative intellect. If we discover a book with a story, setting, conflict, plot, characters, etc, we can reason that it has an intelligent author because the story is intelligible and intends to convey/reveal some truth. In the same way, the theistic argument is that we can observe the entire natural world and find that it has intelligibility, which points to an intelligent creator (though maybe it doesn’t prove it in the strict sense, idk).
Thoughts?
@@killianmiller6107the real world has both intelligible and unintelligible properties so it doesn’t always make sense by our predictable standards of logic. Math is basically our effort at reverse engineering and trying to make sense of the concepts of the universe but it doesn’t guarantee that its how it was originally created, randomly or otherwise.
Math isn’t foolproof either, it starts to more or less fall apart at the quantum level where things start getting hazy and can’t easily be explained by our current version of mathematics.
"While I myself know very little about mathematics" I refuse to believe this lol
Math isn't a real product of manship, but it's the instrument humans use to describe the laws of nature and universe.
Nope, pure math is done for its own sake
math is a language we use to speak with God
@@cozmic124damm bro 1 + 1 must mean "god" is blessing me with various gifts FRFR
@@cozmic124🤦♂️
@@cozmic124
God: 2+2?
Human: 4.
God: ∫ π/2
0 x⋅cos ^2 (x)⋅ln(sin(x))dx
Human: 👁👄👁
Math is a language model, this is like saying that the English language contains everything in the universe because the language can he used to describe it. Math doesn't contain anything, it represents it. It's just a way to understand what we observe and hypothesise what we may observe using patterns that have been demonstrated to be consistent
english cant describe evrything in the universe though nor is english infinite
@@kingkwam3816 Doesn't refute his point though, do you believe that it's a 1 to 1 or a representation based on testable results? do you believe that our ruler to measure the universe is absolute, and not a scale made from our frame of reference?
He literally talks about your argument at thr start of the video
@@hoetaru1711☝️🤓
@@hoetaru1711 i dont really give a fuck. just pointing out the difference
Proving god exists using math❌ proving god is math✅
fr fr
Bro has my pfp?
Bro has my pfp?
@@HIGHVOLTAGE-37ayo I'm confused lol which one is who
Proving ❌
Bong rip ✅️
To provide a more formal analysis of the argument presented in the video using propositional logic, let’s break down the argument into its core propositions and analyze the logical structure. We’ll use standard logical notation and then assess the validity of the argument.
Propositions
1. P1: Science cannot explain the supernatural (S → ¬SN)
• Where S = Science explains, SN = Supernatural
2. P2: Mathematics is not observable in the natural world (¬O → M)
• Where O = Observable, M = Mathematics
3. P3: Mathematics explains the natural world (M → EN)
• Where EN = Explains Natural world
4. P4: Either mathematics is a human invention or it pre-exists as a controller of the universe (H XOR P)
• Where H = Human invention, P = Pre-existing controller
5. P5: Mathematics contains infinite information (M → I)
• Where I = Infinite information
6. P6: The universe is finite (U → F)
• Where U = Universe, F = Finite
7. P7: If mathematics is infinite and the universe is finite, then mathematics cannot be contained within the universe (I ∧ F → ¬C)
• Where C = Contained within the universe
8. P8: The Mandelbrot Set demonstrates infinite complexity (MDS → IC)
• Where MDS = Mandelbrot Set, IC = Infinite Complexity
9. P9: Infinite complexity suggests a designer (IC → D)
• Where D = Designer
10. P10: If mathematics is in the mind and contains infinite information, it implies an all-knowing, all-powerful, supernatural mind (M ∧ I → G)
• Where G = God (all-knowing, all-powerful, supernatural mind)
Logical Structure
1. (S → ¬SN) ∧ (¬O → M) ∧ (M → EN) ∧ (H XOR P)
2. (M → I) ∧ (U → F) ∧ (I ∧ F → ¬C)
3. (MDS → IC) ∧ (IC → D)
4. (M ∧ I → G)
Analysis
• The argument’s validity depends on whether the conclusions logically follow from the premises.
• Premises P1, P2, and P3 set up the distinction between the natural world and the realm of mathematics.
• Premises P4, P5, P6, and P7 suggest that mathematics, being infinite, cannot originate from the finite universe.
• Premises P8 and P9 link the complexity of the Mandelbrot Set to the idea of a designer.
• The crucial premise P10 asserts that the nature of mathematics implies the existence of God.
Critique
• The transition from P7 to P10 is a significant logical leap. The conclusion that an infinite, abstract realm implies a divine mind is not a necessary consequence of the premises.
• Premises P8 and P9 (related to the Mandelbrot Set) employ a form of the teleological argument, which is more an inference than a logical deduction.
• The argument also assumes that the abstract nature of mathematics (P5) necessitates a supernatural origin, which is a metaphysical assumption rather than a logical conclusion.
While the argument presents a series of logical propositions connecting mathematics with the concept of God, the leap from abstract mathematical concepts to the existence of a divine, supernatural being is more inferential and metaphysical than strictly logical. The premises do not necessarily entail the conclusion, indicating a potential weakness in the argument’s overall validity.
cap
Cap
Also we are talking about God, Whom you cannot see, Hear or other stuff in normal circumstances, so it probably seems life a metaphysical leap, but its not. its just that we cant define God in our minds, and if we do, the thats not the true God, it would be your version,
Math is just one proof of God, There is Much more, for instance, History , Creation itself, the Bible and how historically and Scientifically accurate it is long before people discovered what it says
Sometimes my ingenuity is Stupendous🥲I dont know
Also im 17 failing math, so i wont pretend i know what you said in the math, but i read the conclusion and made my answer based on that
top tier comment
agreed
Mathematics is NOT just something in our mind, it exists even without humans. All humans did was figure out how to put it on paper. It also absolutely does not control the universe, as math just presents values and their interaction.
What the hell do you mean? Have you ever stumbled the number 2, and I mean the number itself, not a number of things, in the forest?
@@xCessivePresure Math exists all around us and is present in everything. The number 2 as it is written is the written presentation of 2. The same way as the word tree is the written presentation of tree.
I agree, humans just figured out a way to define what we see around us using a system, we created, the system is not natural but what it measures is. Like a Geiger counter measuring radiation, a Geiger counter is a thing humans invented that uses real materials and real math to work, radiation is just the natural thing it’s measuring. (Probably a bad example but I tried my best :) )
That is not true, math does not contain truth. Read about Gœdel’s theorems: math is just a language, a beautiful but incomplete language. If you think about it, what it proves are just tautologies.
Mathematics is just mathematics lol, that’s why we call it a universal language
If you apply this logic, that means that the English alphabet, for example, was discovered and not invented as the 26 letters (plus the spaces between them) can create an infinite amount of words, combinations, and everything ever, in the past or future, has been encoded.
it can creae a fuck ton of w9rds and combinations of words however that number is nowhere near infinity
The alphabet doesn't have only 26 letters, for some reason after the alphabet "z" there's "aa" and after "zz" there's "aaa".
But why though...
@@kingkwam3816 Its countably infinite, but nevertheless it is infinite.
Language is infnite, what would be the problem with that
@@jumbeer5572 so if numbers are infinite, it’s created by god?
if you could prove God exists, there would be no room for faith.
Makes sense, but since there are people who "deny" a 100% proved stuff then it wouldn't impossible to not believe
I’m a catholic, so i believe in God, but couldn’t one argue that we designed math in such a way that “has to be” like this and thus explaining the points in the video?
Yes, there are axioms "simple basic non-proven rules" that develop into all sorts of interesting propierties, potentially infinite, but math is invented
The universe wasn't created to fit math, math was created to fit the universe
@@mism847exactly
@@kingvax064 That might be true, but the Concepts and Systems that Math is based off aren't invented, they already exist in the Universe.
neither bc math wasn't invented@@mism847
As someone who loves calculus, it seems that the limit doesn’t exist
😂😂
🤓
🤓🤓🤓
theorem of incompletude of Godel , the reason why moral truth and mathematical truth can't be mixed
Yes
As a math major, I would like to point out that the Planck length exists, and math studies relationships between groups, just because math (especially analysis based systems) describes infinite things doesn’t mean the universes set of possible information is infinite.
@shuwohd2343essentially, because distances below a plank length basically have no meaning, as it is physically impossible to determine the positioning of something to that fine of detail, and generally nothing we've come up with can explain gravity, geometry, and time at that small a scale (yet)
But it could be if we expanded outside of our own universe. Maths can contain infinite possibilities, but some of those possibilities are not infinite. As I say elsewhere x^2 + y^2 = 1 is finite, and yet exists within maths which is infinite. In fact there would be an infinite number of finite things within that infinite set. Maybe our finite universe is one of them?
I don't believe in this nonsense of a video, but I have a curious question. If the Planck length exists, does that mean that nothing is actually, absolutely infinite?
@@g_g...YES!!!!!!!
@@aaryasuparey03 are you answering my question as a credible source or what's happening here?
Math is actually one of the subjects I like the least, but these videos occupy my mind while I'm busy doing other mundane things like laundry, dishes, etc. Thanks for the videos man, keep it up!
As a Math major this was a bit cringy... Pi isn't "The number that explains the area of a circle", it's just the ratio between a circumference and its diameter. That's why we can't "make it have whatever value we want", because all circles are similar to each other -- meaning this ratio is the same for every circle.
It's no more mystical than saying that, in a square, the ratio of height divided by length is 1. Or diagonal divided by length is sqrt(2). These things are embedded in the definition of a square or of a circle, you just state the definition and then derive these properties. There's no need for magic in that process.
The argument about how "You can encode books as numbers, therefore Math is supernatural" was a little weird too, how does that argument go exactly? "There's a 1-to-1 correspondence between natural numbers and states of the universe, therefore natural numbers are a larger infinity than the physical universe"? Is that it?
That's just saying "The universe is finite but the naturals are never-ending", but that also just comes from the definition of the naturals. You simply state, "At least one natural number exists" and "Every natural number has a successor" and there you go, from those two sentences you can derive these properties, you don't need them to "exist somewhere". You're just applying logic to statements.
Love this comment. I also cringed when he said "math is the study of numbers". That's how you know he has never taken a college level math class.
It feels like this guy hasn't taken beyond a high school math course. Hell I know kids that understand what math is better.
Lol he’s a math major guys
ur being pedantic.
A person who doesn't know basic mathematics tries to prove god using it, and proceeds to make a video about it, which some religious lunatics believe.
It makes sense why most ancient civilizations across all continents considered mathematics to be a philosophical discipline, as opposed to just a tool.
Edit:
1. Ancient Greek Society:
• Pythagoreans (6th century BC): Explored the idea of the mathematical harmony of the cosmos, connecting mathematics with the fundamental structure of the universe.
• Euclid (3rd century BC): Demonstrated the logical rigor and axiomatic structure in mathematics, laying the foundation for deductive reasoning and the philosophy of mathematics.
2. Ancient Indian Society:
• Aryabhata (5th century AD): Explored the astronomical significance of mathematics, integrating mathematical calculations with celestial observations, contributing to the philosophical understanding of the cosmos.
• Brahmagupta (7th century AD): Introduced philosophical concepts related to zero, negative numbers, and the solutions to quadratic equations, challenging traditional Indian philosophical ideas about the nature of numbers and reality.
3. Ancient Chinese Society:
• Liu Hui (3rd century AD): Philosophically explored the concept of infinite geometric series, raising questions about the nature of infinity and its implications for the understanding of the universe.
• Zu Chongzhi (5th century AD): Extended the philosophical discussions on the mathematical concept of π, contemplating the infinite and the finite within mathematical and cosmological contexts.
4. Islamic Golden Age:
• Al-Khwarizmi (9th century AD): Philosophically delved into the nature of equations and solutions, leading to abstract algebraic thinking, challenging conventional philosophical ideas about mathematical abstraction and reality.
• Omar Khayyam (11th century AD): Explored the philosophical implications of mathematical geometry, investigating the nature of Euclidean postulates and the conceptual foundations of geometric space.
But the first civilizations did use mathematics as a tool, such as the "Kashim" table, from Babylon, the oldest civilization, only later with the Phoenicians, Greeks and Latins had a truly "complete" vocabulary like today's.
Math was originally used to quantify and measure our world it wasn’t meant to be something that explained the world
that has little to do with metaphysical reasons, it's just that academic thoought and philsophy were much more related before they had time to branch off during modernity
The Bible is a contradictory mess.
Sam Harris and the reason project found near 70,000 contradictions between the canonical Greek New Testament and the Masoretic Text version of the Torah.
Do you think the Bible is supposed to be that way?
I don't. So here's how to remove the contradictions:
During the Babylonian captivity the "harlot of Babylon" syncretized God's biblical titles, those being El, Elah and Elohim, to all simply mean "God".
So from 500-600bc to this day El still means God, which is cool, but Elah also just means God... and Elohim...yep, just means God.
Anyone think that creates a lot of contradictions in the Bible? I sure do.
The Church even made it heretical to call Yahweh Elohim from Genesis 2 the bad guy of the Old Testament. This spawned "apologetics" (for the Devil).
They did this because the Septuagint just said Theos everywhere that El, Elah and Elohim should be. So, the Greeks thought Yahweh was introduced as "Theos" in Genesis 2.
The Vulgate does the same thing it just says Deus in all the places El, Elah and Elohim should be. Also, the Latin people thought Yahweh was introduced as "Deus" in Genesis 2.
Modern English Bibles still do this with removing God's titles. Most just say God and LORD God everywhere.
Try using the NOG translation it's on Bible Gateway and also there's a free App on your phone.
Remember to use a different language when you want info on God's titles. Hebrew is forever syncretized. The Latin counterparts are Deus "God", Dea "Goddess or feminine title of God" and Dei which has two uses one plural "gods" and one possessive "God's" based on context.
Genesis 1 is the possessive context for Elohim.
True Elohim.
Genesis 2 is the plural context for Elohim.
False Elohim.
BAM! No more contradictions in the Bible. Cohesive story :)
@@AnkuronMahantaRx4nthat's why physics is all math 😂
This video makes a huge leap in logic when it goes from math possessing a concept of infinity to math therefore being created by God. Infinity is just that -- a concept.
facts top to bottom
It's not that simple. We don't know if we invented math or we just discover it.
But he mentions that math can only exist in the mind near the beginning of the video. So if math is infinite, it must exist in the mind of a infinitely existing person. I wish he spend more time on that aspect, or made a longer video, but idk.
@@007arek Correct, and this argument assumes that math was discovered, which renders it invalid
@@thegreatchipmanthat is the problem we will never know. Like, we may never disprove super natural because we don’t know what it is, and we can’t prove super natural. Because it is the supernatural. The video is arguing for a God which is pretty invalid cuz God is supernatural and it will be hard to observe. The question, “did we invent math or discover math” already renders “math proves god exist” pointless.
Ah yes, the good old, "this doesn't make sense to me so it must be God."
What would it take for you to believe in God?
@@MatiasCumsille Any form of logic that proves his existance. Anything. The only logic I've ever had to work with is people's accounts, which is never reliable.
@doi5451 Reddit moment.
@@gormealbortrude5841 chronically online Christians trying not to call atheists with a valid argument redditors:
@@doi5451 what about the moral law? Or the historical evidence for Jesus? Or the fine tuning of the universe?
To be fair, after taking multiple college calculus courses to be an engineer, I wouldn’t be surprised if math was just our opinion.
Well than I can say 2+2=5 and I would be no less correct than someone who says 2+2=4
2+2 still equals 4 even if there is no humans to have an opinion about it, therefore math is objective and not an opinion.
yha i agree
@@NathanPaterson_2 that only makes sense for more complex equations because you can literally count with your fingers 2+2=4
@@cloud9epic26 what are you trying to say? my whole point is that yes 2+2=4 no matter what anyone's opinion says therefore math is objective.
@@NathanPaterson_2 you said it was no less correct than someone else you says 2+2=4
those were some leaps in logic.
math is not a physical thing which is the reason why it doesn't need physical space. it also doesn't control the universe, it describes it. the physical properties we use are completely made up. we just defined what a force or a potential is, it's not something that was revealed to us. the reason math is so complex now is because over a long period of time a whole bunch of people found new ways to explain the universe.
I'm pretty sure if you go back to the start of the video that no matter what language you study math with it will always be infinite. Even if it's in letters.
We only chose numbers because it's easier for us to study.
Mandelbrot is something that is exactly the opposite of randomness. You can't have an infinite set of designed figure and claim it came from randomness. You gotta understand that it is Infinitely desgined and that will make it impossible to ever be made up from randomness.
For example About Infinites:
If a car moved 100 mile per hour and each mile it passed the speed will be cut in half becoming 50 miles per hour,
And it just continues doing so to a point where it starts to barley even move and be closer to staying still than it is to moving fast.
you cant prove or disprove god its like me saying im harry potter you cant disprove or prove i am
@@deejaythedeejay This statement is flawed. It suggests that any thing which cannot be disproven is intrinsically true. This holds up under deductive reasoning, but falls apart when it is not supported by any evidence or observation to be broken down into fundamental parts. Your argument is saying that since you cannot disprove that universe came from a singularity, it must be true, being contrary to your statement. As I said, this logic is sound given any physical evidence, but can not be used to form postulates. I hope this makes sense. Also please capitalize.
@@deejaythedeejay thats not how formal logic works like at all
@@naizyexcept i can, because harry potter is a fictional character written for a book, just like god
One big issue -- How can you say that the universe is finite? That is a statement present evidence for it. And something which is infinite can have more infinites in it.
One even bigger issue, we can't actually represent infinite numbers without infinite space, just because you can keep getting ever more precise, or representing an ever bigger number does not mean that infinity truly exists.
@@mrfigaloopierre9610Numbers are infinite.
@@ancmolfese4825 numbers are a system through which any value may be represented, because there is no limit to how long numbers may be made, numbers may represent every number approaching (but not including) infinities
@@mrfigaloopierre9610I believe she is referring to the number of numbers, not numbers in and of themselves
@@jonathandeneke7192 Those numbers are not stored anywhere, they do not exist. They are merely a set of abstract symbols which can be used to represent values.
4:44 Math is also everywhere, so this mind must also be omnipresent
But, is it benevolent? Why does it produce Earthquakes and Tsunamis to kill people?
Math is a system designed to fail me in academics
Lol too true 🤣
i failed calculus 1 ... but i am sure good at using c ++ !!!
i'm sure i could understand calculus 1 if it was explained to me in programming terms instead of academic mathematical notation... unforch...
@@dangit69420 Ok bro, you can't just make a claim and back it up without reasoning. Plus, you haven't (and never will) live in the consciousness of someone else's, so you can't just say math isn't hard because it isn't hard for you. That's called an opinion, and based on the way your saying it, it's quite inconsiderate of people who don't truly understand it. I don't know the science behind it, but I am more than sure that math people have a psychological advantage over "non-math people." Rather foolish comment.
@@TahirAhmad-io6uw true, while i wasn't exactly trying to say that "bro math is the simplest thing ever you are dumb if you don't understand it" or something like that, the way i wrote that reply made it seem like i was trying to say that. almost everything in your reply is absolutely true.
also math people don't have psychological advantage over others.
@@rovertronic Sebastian Lague has a good overview on it, it's in his AI video, then ask chatGPT about it and you're done
No. Discovering math wouldn’t make it supernatural. That’s like saying hydrogen is supernatural because we discovered it. Also, math isn’t the thing that’s ruling the universe, physics is - and there’s literally no way of confirming whether our models of physics are what’s actually going on. We’re making repeated inferences and attempting to explain phenomena using limited information. You could say “the universe is a smooth manifold because general relativity is accurate” but it would be more accurate to say “when the universe is treated as a smooth manifold general relativity is accurate.” It doesn’t mean that the universe is a smooth manifold, it means that when it’s treated like one, gravity is explained accurately by general relativity.
You misunderstand; hydrogen and all of physics functions within the bounds of the universe or natural world; beyond space, time and existence those things do not exist. whereas maths exists both within and beyond the universe and the natural world.
if maths is a language; then all of existence is a story book i.e language exists beyond books.
@@hamzaimran771 Why do christians keep confusing analogies with the real thing? this is the same as the "DNA is code" bs.
You just said that things don't exist beyond existence, which is true albeit redundant. Math doesn't exist either beyond existence because if you're beyond 'exist'ence than nothing exists, including math. The biggest misconception is that math existed before humans and was discovered by us: this is false. Math is a tool created and used by humans to help process complexities with ease. The fundamental truths of math, which are cited as proof of a supernatural power, are called axioms, and they exist because mathematicians decided that they should since they make the system of analyzation we call "mathematics" function.@@hamzaimran771
@@Leadlight280 i mean dna is code
@@uncut4127 omfg
This is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of "information" in quantum mechanics. Just because an idea can be indefinitely expanded upon, or because the concept of infinity exists within mathematics, does not mean that the universe would need to be infinitely large to "contain" every possible number in mathematics. There is an infinite number of digits in pi because pi does not fit neatly into our numbering system. That's it. There is also an infinite number of digits in 1/3 after the decimal. That doesn't prove that the numbers pi and 1/3 must be supernatural in origin. Those infinite digits do not actually exist anywhere unless you compute them, because numbers and digits are just an invention of the mind that we use to more easily understand mathematical relationships. Now, actually *computing* all of those digits would require an infinite amount of information, which is impossible in a finite universe, but that's not what you were talking about.
Exactly. This guy makes a huge fallacious argument.
As an atheist I wonder how this man thinks a flying god that knows everything and can do everything and just existing bc of no reason is more logical then a universe just simple existing fir no reason, theres no debate, god objectively does not exist, anyone who belives in god today is either a person who was in a religous family their whole childhood and now they're to emotionaly connected to leave flying tea cups and a bunch of bs, or they have 50-90 iq and first didnt belive in god and then suddently they start beliveing in it. have tou also noticed that every religous person ever has been religous for their entire life almost? Hmm maybe thats bc god was made up thousands of years ago by dumb people trying to explain reality? So now that we know how the world works, naturally, without god and magic supernatural things that objectively cant exist, shold we still bring back Tor to explain lightning???????? Fuck me man
And some people believe this guy, can you believe that? Because they don't know anything about FUCKİNG SCİENCE.
Exactly
Disagree with all of you
I believe in an existence of a god but not in any religion in the world
Do you know about Islam. its very dangerous.don't take my warning lightly. don't try to know about it
Most sane God believer in the internet😂
@@TrollFaceHmm trollface pfp in the nearing 2025😂😭😭🙏
@@xxdfss don't make fun of him it's not even relevant to the comment/ reply
@@DogeBros_Gaming ?
This video is basically
- Math is infinite and complex
- God is infinite and complex
- Conclusion: MATH PROVES GOD!!!??
That's the issue. If he wants to believe in God, that's fine. However claiming the mandelbrot set proves God? That's too far fetch. Math doesn't automatically mean God is real.
thats like saying:
- this towel is wet
- i am wet
- conclusion: this towel is sentient
fallacy of undistributed middle is always funny i think
No it means the patterns are complex and yet beautiful and infinite, which is weird if you consider everything was born from nothingness and pure chaos if God wasn't real
@@vladyslavlavrenov9167 God was created from nothingness Is the only way I could possibly see it witch still has confusion
"Science can't prove or disprove god."
"Now we'll be using this branch of science called mathematics to..."
that doesnt really make much sense OP is against that argument but still entertains it
Math is not a branch of science. Math is the language of science. Without maths there is no science. Thus, math is above science.
Maybe math is not into science, maybe science is into math
@@herclasnido "Mathematics is the science and study of quality, structure, space, and change."
_Science._
QED
@@emmersonsimeao yeah one of my issues is that he seems to just twist words to equate what is being referred when OP isn’t doing or saying that at all it’s little changes to make the dishonest points in either case the real mystery is how this thread doesn’t have like 20 r-slurs autists screaming at each other
That “someone” is Benoit Mandelbrot, and he taught at Yale for years before he retired and unfortunately passed away in 2010. He was the man that figured out that very calculation to explain fractals. I’m sure you can find a lecture or thesis where he explains it.
But he didn't invented it, he discovered it like gravity.
@@noobnessmeenobody said he did?
@@noobnessmee inventing vs discovering math is an interesting debate, point is that mandelbrot was the first to graph it
@@LeLe-pm2pr I agree. Is there anything new? Or is everything simply reformed something?
benoit mandelbrot is god guys
Even as a Christian, this argument is ridiculous.
The primary error in the video lies in the assertion that mathematics contains an infinite amount of information. In reality, no known mathematical framework encompasses infinite information, nor will it ever.
A useful metric for estimating the informational content of a dataset is its Kolmogorov complexity, which measures the length of the shortest possible description (or program) for generating the data on an abstract computational machine. The precise outcome depends on the chosen method of compression, but the principle remains consistent: mathematical structures, no matter how vast, can often be expressed concisely.
While there is an infinite set of natural numbers, the information they encode is remarkably compact, encapsulated succinctly within the Peano axioms. Similarly, the other examples presented in the video rely on mathematical constructs that can be described with finite systems. Mathematics, as we know it, is recorded in a finite number of texts, each of finite length. The idea of generating an infinite number of mathematical papers is inherently implausible.
Regarding the claim that mathematics perfectly describes reality, this is an overstatement. Mathematics provides models and approximations of physical phenomena, not definitive representations. There is no discovered mathematical framework that fully encapsulates reality, such as a theory unifying quantum mechanics and gravity. As it stands, our mathematical descriptions remain sophisticated approximations, not ultimate truths.
I'm muslim and I also found this nonsense. As you said, everything in mathematics is based on axioms which are fundamental assumptions we make. In mathematics things can go to infinity because we have the assumptions that make them go to infinity. It's like chess, in chess there are infinite probabilities then does that mean chess is made by a supernatural being? What I think about mathematics' explanation of the universe is this: I believe that God created the universe in a certain logical system. We are also capable of understanding the main essence of this logical system. Thus, we can abstract the essence of this concrete world in our own minds. This is actually mathematics. Mathematics is like a perfect model of the universe. Just like checkers could actually theoretically model chess.
This is the level of Logic I have when I'm drunk
so fucking real
Even for a bible thumper this is some terrible logic lol
@@millec60 explain, or else you're just a thumper except without the Bible. Lol.
@@juilianbautista4067 First of all, our universe is infinite, not finite. Second of all, math was invented to comprehend the universe. Mandelbrot set is cool and all that but because there's an infinite amount of real numbers to plug in, it has some weird properties, which has nothing to do with there being a god or not.
@@millec60Its still possible for it to be finite. All we can declare for now is just that its bigger than we can observe. Its big, but it definitely has a limit. General relativity agrees to this, since it requires a finite spherical universe; it cannot be infinite because of Mach's Principle, with which Einstein strongly agreed, that the mass of a body is finite, is determined by all other matter in the universe, thus all other matter in universe must be finite. Conclusion is that we cannot prove the universe as finite neither infinite.
I was gonna make a long comment regarding the fallacies but many people already did that. I just wanna point out that it seems as like the author of this video has just experienced a completly normal fascination with math and the mandelbrot set, and he attributed it to his beliefs.
If you are going to call out this video then I will call out your claim (that's the way I do things).
First I've been scrolling down a while and have only seen one comment against this video other than yours.
Second this entire video is using math to prove his beliefs so thank you for verifying that I guess.
Third the Mandelbrot set is an example of proving (infinite) fractals and how we have discovered them.
The Mandelbrot set already existed before we discovered it, it is like a tree falling in the woods, it still makes a sound even if no one is around to hear it.
research axiom theory, fundamental logic, and incompleteness theorem of math, and then you will realize that math is invented at its core and the arguments in this video are totally wrong @@hyperblueeonbeta
@@hyperblueeonbeta By that logic the code behind procedural terrain generation existed, and notch just discovered it?
So Minecraft is a creation of "gOd"?
Discovering something abstract and inventing it, are very close, dare I say, impossible to distinguish!
@@hyperblueeonbeta, I'm seeing a lot of comments disagreeing and I'm relieved about that, because a lot of misconceptions are being spread by someone who clearly doesn't have the expertise to deal with math concepts, and there are people who are there to point out these errors.
Complex things arise from a system of simple rules. Conway's Game of Life is a perfect example of this. The simple rules he dictated for the game are not intended to create specific things, but many things were created obeying this system of rules, and they exist because they respect them and not because they already exist. Things that do not exist, but can exist, fall into the realm of possibility and not of existence. I can invent a machine that stamps sheets while doing flips on mondays, but that doesn't exist if it hasn't been created yet, it's just possible.
@@hyperblueeonbeta, furthermore, the Mandelbrot set is just a fractal. Newton's fractal was born before we could draw cool graphs and know what fractals were like. But we had an idea of what they are because fractals are merely the product of recursive mathematics and repeated patterns.
Humans can't create infinities, but we *can* create sets of rules that create infinite possibilities. Math, and the components of it that created the mandelbrot set, are sets of rules that happened to be accidentally put together in a way that forms the mandelbrot set. Sometimes, when coding, I accidentally create a program that could theoretically create infinite information, in an infinite computer. Does this mean I'm god? No. It means I've incorrectly coded a recursive function, and I'm going to fail the exam coming up.
WRONG
did you pass
i think you are wrong in this because in the video it says that the math itself is infinite, and creates infinite possibilities. You are talking about creating something finite that creates infinite possibilities. Not the same thing, there is actually a big difference and that may be the gods difference. I still dont know what to believe tho😊
u would not been able to create infinite information on a computer without binary math my man
lol
Guys The video is not stupid just replace math with meth
The existence of God can NEITHER be proved nor disproved by human logic.
This should be the top comment of every video debating the existence or non-existence of God.
There will always be another question, placed somewhere new or deeper that can then be deflected / spun by the other side, continuing on and on forever. Personally, I don't subscribe to any one religion, or the existence of God / gods, but I am willing to listen to anyone that thinks they have the true answer, the one final solution to end the debate. But I wholeheartedly believe that day will never come, unless something happens that completely alters the direction of humanity in a way that can be explained completely by divine interference and not some other natural phenomena that we have already observed time and time again.
If god exists, then he definitely can be proven to exist. For example he could just show himself. Disproving god is impossible. So imo it makes sense to assume, that god doesn't exist, as long as the provable existance isn't proven.
@@fabianwittmann8121You need to take into account of God's property before just dismissing it easily as "he could just show himself."
First of all, God cannot be confined by space or boundary, he is everywhere.
God is also omnipotent, so he is not bounded by the natural law.
Problem is how do you expect a human can perceive a being that is everywhere and doesn't follow the natural order? We see through light, hear from vibration. Should a being like that 'show' himself, can we even perceive him?
@@satriadicky3732 dude, he is supposed to be omnipotent. Not being able to show yourself contradicts omnipotence.
Incredibly real take. The whole point of faith is to believe in it, not to have evidence or proof for that belief in question. Have a great day gedstrom
why does math have to "control" anything? it's simply a way to describe what happens.
It does describe what happens, but it describes what our human minds can't fathom or comprehend by rules we didn't make
@@viccym thats not true, math is exactly about inventing rules and proving truths (Theorem and propositions) about objects we define using those rules (mathematical objets like numbers, functions, matrixes...). If we find something in the natural world that is similar in some sense to those objetcs we invent, we can apply those rules to the natural world too.
@@FireArch1024 The things we're discovering we didn't invent. We write out a formula for something, but we didn't make the formula, that's merely just our way of explaining what we found, and we still don't even realize what it really means. The rules of math always stay the same, we didn't make them, because if we tried to change them math wouldn't work. The rules and formulas were already there, we just discovered them and learned how to use them.
@@viccym If you put an example of what you call formula and why "it was always there" I could explain better, but take for example (a+b)²=a²+b²+2ab. That formula is true for real numbers (that apply to measuring physical quantities). But if you work in 2mod, you would write (a²+b²)=a²+b², so whether a formula is true depends on the rules/definitions you make.
There are many math branches that have very little application to the real world and their objects of study are completely useless, they are just fun and challenging areas of math (knot theory for example, which is the math area I study). Sometimes the math techniques developed inside these theories are used to prove important truths in other areas though.
No, as you can see math is a language that only a non-existent mf can understand
As a PhD scholar in a field of science I doubt any scientist believe or ever claimed that we know everything about the universe as stated at the beginning of the video.
this dude making the video barely knows a thing, cluelessly confident
he never said we know everything about the universe
@@swamprat22He did say that atheists believe science explains everything in the universe.
yes. science explaining everything is not the same as us understanding everything about the universe.@@hmingthansangavangchhia4913
@@hmingthansangavangchhia4913that doesn't mean atheists know all about science then right?
Bro just made maths even more scarier 💀
Math doesn't CONTROL everything, as it was stated in the video, it DESCRIBES, and not even everything, only phisical properties of objects. This is because math is only in our minds, so it can't control anything, but we can describe something with math
@@athletico3548L
If you take it literally, math does actually control everything. At a certain level, every function of everything in the universe could be described as a near infinite series of mathematical equations. Even the individual cells within your own body could be described using equations.
@@athletico3548 Math by its very nature requires a mind to exist. You seem to be conflating mathematics with physics. Mathematics is simply one of the ways that humans interpret physics.
@@Aygeu Every cell in the body could be described using words, if we wanted to. Does that mean that words control everything, or does it mean that we use words to describe what already exists?
@@albedougnut I don’t think you’re understanding my comment. Literally every individual movement, transfer of information, chemical reaction, LITERALLY ANYTHING, is at it’s most basic level a bunch of equations. You can describe something with words but that doesn’t change anything about it no matter how horribly you were to describe it. If you try to define an object’s motion with 1000 equations and even one of them is wrong, you are incorrect and it is not undergoing the same motion.
A logical fallacy used here is that math "contains information". Math is a tool, not a library of information. There are some constants in the world like π or the speed of light that can be described by using math. If there is a clue that a higher consciousness exists, that would be the fact that these constants hold their particular values instead of different ones.
Also the Mandelbrot set is an example of fractal geometry that emerges by using math (a man made tool to describe the natural world) and plotting it in the complex plane (another man-made tool). This is just an example of the concept of emergence, which roughly means order is created by chaos.
order is created by chaos 🙌
I think the point here is that the author starts from the idea “science explains everything,” and thus it turns out that mathematics = God, because she explains everything exactly like God, but for atheists
Well considering the fact that his argument for a higher consciousness relies on the horrible assumption that math is a library of information?
Math contains information buddy. It’s like a code, you never took a coding class. I can tell
@@adamfrank1182 I have a Bachelor degree in Computer Science, "buddy".
If you divide 1 by 3, you get .3-repeating. That’s an infinitely long number, but it hardly seems like a proof of god. It’s the same with the Mandelbrot set. It happens to be very interesting, but the fact that there’s infinite interesting detail to zoom into is no more mysterious than the way you could zoom into a straight line forever. Math doesn’t really explain anything, it just describes things in different terms.
bro could speak any language but chose to speak goddamn facts damn
bruh he clearly says that math controls everything and is infinite, thats just an example of it
@@mctulkyviperbit6166 In what way does 0.333 repeating control the universe? Remember that this is just 1/3 in the base-10. We have yet to even discuss the other bases.
@@ultimaxkom8728 it is a rule of division that anything into three equal parts will have each part be exactly 1/3 the original object, so therefore every dividable thing in the universe must follow this rule. But that is besides the point dum dum, you mistook my comment as me saying that jack’s example controls all thing in the universe whereas I meant math as a whole is the rulebook by which the universe must abide by as shown by my previous statement. Even in the other bases this does not change. In summary, u=🤡
Very well said
0:22 Woah, God IS math. Math is above nature, it has an answer for everything (even if we don’t know it yet), it’s everywhere, and it can do anything logically possible.
Yeah, people try to say "why can't God make 2+2=5?" But in truth, 2+2=4, and God IS truth.
Lies, math has alot of plot holes, doenst fully even understand infinity
I would say math is discovered and invented.
We invent the notation (numbers, symbols), but we discover the patterns (aurial proportion, PI, prime numbers)
Exactly!
yeah but math itself doesn't need the symbols, it just is. (and don't say humans invented numbers, that's just silly)
@@NguyenZander If humans ceased to exist numbers would to. As the idea of numbers were constructed by the human brain. Numbers on earth atleast.
@@latetry8593 This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Mathematics is not an invention of us, but rather an observation of what already exists in the universe.
@@KingArthurWs Based on that. Everything we humans have observed has been both invented and discovered. As we perceive things in our way. Like gravity. The fundamentals of it existed before human society did but the concept gravity only exist because of the human mind.
Math isn’t an inherent property within physics. It’s merely our human conceptual understanding of physics. It’s the way that we quantify physics based on our own basis of knowledge.
How do you quantify infinity?
@@LetsDOARTinfinity is simply a concept we determine by a never ending result of something, or a seemingly never-ending result. The fact that you see infinity as this strange and mysterious concept shows how little you know of math. Infinity is not a complicated concept at all. In fact, it's one of the easier ones.
@@LetsDOART To ask for a quantity means to ask “how much”. Therefore infinity is quantified as infinity. Just as 4 is quantified as 4. Or pi is quantified as pi
Infinity is conceptual. The number 4 is conceptual. Pi is conceptual. All math is a concept. Attempting to “quantify” infinity as anything more than its mathematical definition (it being infinite) won’t yield any results
I think this is a truism. No one claimed otherwise. Everyone knows, that math is an abstraction to describe reality. But due to the fact, that we use this tool to remodel what we see around us, it is our current understanding of it, and not entirely flawless. Some of which seems to fit into this universe, other things don't.
We have an approximation on how close we are to describing reality with math, by its application and coherence/consistency.
Good example, Newtons laws apply up until a certain threshold of size. They are obviously useful to describe a good chunk of physical interactions, but not flawless. By refining those unknowns, we come closer and closer to objective reality.
@@LetsDOARTsimple we invented something called a limit to do just that
[ Discrete mathematics has entered the chat ]
By the way, the Mandelbrot Set visualization does, in fact, contain evidence of intelligent design. The reason for this is because it was made by computer scientists. I hope this helps.
It already existed but was found
It wasn't created by computer scientists, however it _was_ created by sets of rules that were also invented by humans, so your argument still stands.
It dose not, there is a God read the Bible
It was not made by computer scientists. It started existing when the universe started existing, and all computer scientists did was find out that it exists.
@@EnderHedge you just completely ignored the argument and your rebuttal was a statement with no backing
Mandelbrot looks like Fibonacci in so many ways.
As someone who has some background in math, here are some problems I found about the video:
Math is a system to describe (potentially infinitely) complex behavior with finite or otherwise simple rules. The invention vs. discovery dilemma is complicated but in a simplified way it works like this: We invented math, and then discovered things in the real world that the math describes.
Contrary to 1:45, we actually *can* change math arbitrarily, and as long as we don't get a contradiction, we can accept it, even if it describes nothing in the real world (as far as we know). If we want negative numbers to have a square root, we can make it so. If we want to remove Euclid's 5th postulate, we can. Eventually, both imaginary numbers and non-euclidian geometry proved to be useful, but only after we *discovered* that there exist things in the real world whose behavior is described by these systems, and it might even be just approximately, not perfectly.
It is often said in the video that math is infinite and that it exists. But as I said before, math is only a system for describing larger things with smaller things; a tool. Just because math can describe a book, or the universe, just like a hammer can drive nails into wood, doesn't mean it has. Just because you can conceive of something, doesn't mean it exists.
Saying that the reason why the Mandelbrot set is infinitely complex is because it was designed is technically a possible explanation, although you could argue that the creator is at least as complex, and so something must have created it... but that aside, there is another explanation for this, which is that complex behavior can be described by simple rules. Again, as I said before, this is exactly what math does: describe complexity with simplicity, and given all the other amazing things it can do, something like the Mandelbrot set is pretty much expected.
As a side note, the Mandelbrot set is really cool, and it does evoke feelings of divineness in some, including myself, but I cannot base my worldview on feelings alone. Common sense is also just a feeling. To some, say, when they encounter a homosexual, their common sense tells them that they are unnatural and should not exist, but... maybe that's not true, you know? Sometimes truth is unintuitive, and that is why claims need to be supported by proofs to be believed.
Very well said 🎉
the only infinite thing i see is the number of characters in your comment
the homosexual example you just included makes absolutely no sense, I have seen midwit takes before but this one has to be one that takes the cake.
While I understand where you're coming from, there are a few points you've made that I would argue with. For reference I'm a 3rd year undergraduate in applied mathematics & statistics:
1. "We invented math, and then discovered things in the real world that the math describes" This is only true in some cases. We did not invent counting before discovering objects to count, but we did invent complex numbers before using them in fluid dynamics.
2. We cannot change math arbitrarily. What you described would make the logical process that the original math described change to include new rules (that we discover, not invent) while discovering a new method that can more accurately describe the world. This new method existed previously and could have always been used, so we did not invent it, but only after its discovery by the human mind can we put it into mathematical terms (symbols).
3. Math is not conceived. When new math is discovered, that same math still described the world 10,000 years ago. A nuclear reactor, for example, is something that we conceived because although nuclear fission has existed since the beginning of time, the mechanism that utilizes it had to be designed and built by humans. In relation to math, the logical symbols that we use to write math were invented, but the logic that it describes has existed since the beginning of time.
I really don't understand how nobody in this whole comment section has mentioned mathematical platonism or abstract objects, this is a philosophical problem and not a scientific one.
"math cannot be contained in our universe so it must be contained somewhere else"
i love how you completely ignored the possibility that it is not contained
@@regeneratus explain
This
@@regeneratusWhere are concepts contained?
@@edwinjaner5978 bet they'll say "god's mind"
@@nutronstar45 define "contained"
thought bro was gonna conclude that mandelbrot is god
hey we could start a religion out of that, mandelbrotism
@@playfulmathematician5928 Welcome to the cult "playfulmathematician"... We have all of the answers. There is no need to worry. Trust Mandelbrot. Trust the fractal. You must begin the initiation.
@@playfulmathematician5928i'll lay down some ground rules
1. you CAN NOT look at the mandelbrot set or any other math and think "this was created by god" BECAUSE THAT GOES AGAINST THE POINT OF MANDELBROTISM
2. mandelbrot is a famous mathmatician and created a famous piece of math, so he must have created math, which is the "language of the universe", and language is required for communocation which causes civilization and when you think of it the universe is kind of like a giant continent of the countries/galaxies which has provinces/states/solar systems of cities/towns/villages/planets, with the stars acting like state/province capitals and centers of galaxies being nation capitals
Mandelbrot didn’t create the Mandelbrot set
He just “figured it out”
@@playfulmathematician5928no don't
This kinda feels like the biggest logical fallacy of a video I’ve ever watched.
Why
@ Because he completely misunderstands what math even is.
Like when he used "the universe is finite" as a factual and proved statement it threw me off so hard
The Mandelbrot set, like many mathematical structures, is indeed fascinating. It is a _necessary and unavoidable_ result of strict step by step logic. The simple algorithm that generates the Mandelbrot set is indeed "designed" by an "intelligence" - human intelligence. The amazing pattern that results is an _inevitable_ consequence. Imagining that it's "designed " by a "higher intelligence" displays a profound misundersanding of what mathematics is.
I can grab a kaleidoscope, choose some pattern and use a super advanced AI so that it describes that algorythm, and create something like a second Mandelbrot set. Maybe there are infinites "mandelbrot sets". But that wouldn't correlate to god (or to what most people think about 'god' )
The problem is, that the properties that the Mandelbrot set has weren’t intended by the designers at all. If you throw a pile of rocks together and they independently organise into a castle, you’d have to conclude that there was an exterior force or law at play that made it so that the action you took had such unintended, complex, consequences.
@@iamnotgandalf9308 Until you realize that you do not have to conclude anything, as its not surprising that there would be some order in the Mandelbrot set as its creation is itself not random. There is no reason to conclude that there is an exterior force or law at play, just as there is no reason to assume that the Mandelbrot set would have no observable patters. I mean if you understand the math its pretty unsurprising.
@@Biggyweezer69 This is like saying "it's unsurprising that there is some order in the collatz". Of course its unsurprising that there is *some order* in a recursively generated structure, but the question isn't "is the outcome of a function in some order or another?", that is obvious (as the generating function IS the order of the structure which its generates, so identifying that a generated structure can in fact be encoded/ordered by its generating function is like proving that water is wet).
The question is "what characteristics are exhibited by the function and why?". For example, relations based on the fibonacci sequence can be found in the Mandelbrot set, yet these characteristics weren't intended to be contained in it. Ergo they are innate, not designed. Similarly, the complex geometries of the Buddhabrot set, or of Mandelbrot derivative Julia sets, clearly exhibit emergent properties which are not explained.
I recommend you, for example, familiarise yourself with texts actually authored by the creator of the set, Benoit Mandelbrot, such as "The fractal geometry of Nature" or "Fractals and Chaos: The Mandelbrot Set and Beyond" which will give you an insight into the currently just developing discipline of complexity theory, which was in large parts spawned by the Mandelbrot.
Interesting.
Mathematicians are secretly philosophers
Since they both explain logic one just does it with numbers, and the other one does it with words
well I mean
mathematics started as a branch of philosophy, basically
Are the words "God isn't real"
@@jakeroyle3127 I’m atheist so I’d agree
I just really wanted to make the comparison to math and philosophy
math IS philosophy
yea but it does not mean it cares about us or made heven or hell it might not even care about us
Isn’t saying that the Mandal BR Set having infinite patterns being proof of a supernatural creator no different than saying putting two mirrors against each other to create an infinite void proof of a supernatural creator? Finding patterns in the natural formations of the universe adds to the mystery yes, but I’d hardly consider that proof of otherworldly influence.
It's far easier to argue in favor of god using human imagination and consciousness than math
Mirrors aren't infinite, eventually the light gets absorbed into the mirror.
@@ghoulbuster1 semantics
@@ghoulbuster1 consider two hypoethetically perfectly aligned perfect mirrors with photons bouncing on a straight path between them
@@LeLe-pm2pr thats still a hypothetical, not whats actually in the video being clearly demonstrated.
This video and it's comment section is just so valuable
Oh boy, I can't wait to see how Redeemed Zoomer becomes the first person to prove the existence of god in a 5 minute youtube video.
He didn't though. Literally JUST before clicking this video, I watched a video about valid logic and logical consistency before watching one about necessary and sufficient conditions BEFORE watching two videos about be-ought fallacy (Hume's law) and naturalistic fallacy. I discovered some of these EXACTLY IN THIS VIDEO. What bugs me, is that I can only spot it but not explain it, because it's complex asf and I'm not an English native speaker.
well he didn't, he just explained the fine-tuning argument as if it's not a fine-tuning argument, which has been debunked thousands of times before
@@raxino774 it's astounding how many people can't detect basic sarcasm
It would be a totally original concept too with no other channels doing it
let him make his case, its all anyone can do
If you are equating God with mathematics, do Gödel's incompleteness theorems show that God has limitations?
Godel's incompleteness theorems is "True", the statement itself, however, is illogical. The "proofs" used in programming languages prove this. The computers are viewing the statement to be "True" yet the statement leads to a halt in the programming because it is illogical.
Matrix has his glitches 😅
@@EvilWolf2 that's not making a lot of sense to me. Gödel's incompleteness theorems are about theorems within a mathematical system (that is complex enough to include the natural numbers) being true, but not provable. What's that got to do with some random faulty computer program?
@@BobHutton he is referencing another famous problem known as the halting problem. Its not just some random faulty program. It is a proof for computers being limited.
The paradox goes like this:
Assume we can create a program that determines if another computer program will stop or put itself into an infinite loop. Then we attach another porgram to our initial halting program that takes the output from it and if the first program declared that the inout progrtam would halt, we go into an infinite loop. And vice versa if it would not halt we halt.
What happens then, if we put our new "anti-halts" program into the original halting porgram. Will it return true or false?
it cannot decide which one it will be so therefoe the ultimate halts program can never exist, therefore not all things can be solved by computers.
ua-cam.com/video/eqvBaj8UYz4/v-deo.html tom scott has a video on it.
Maybe it means that God can create limitations?
🤔
I don't see how math being a pre-existing fact of the universe means it's supernatural. Like wouldn't that just be natural?
Yeah I've been thinking the same. To me it's would even mean that it's really natural, as in a core essence of nature and not something over nature and "separated" from it
much agreed
It would. This video is nonsense.
He's basically saying that maths existed before the big bang therefore god which is obviously not a strong argument. And we don't know has maths existed or exists at all, there's lots of things in this video that he states as fact that aren't
@@leonconnelly5303 But scientifically, math as we know it WOULDN'T have existed before the Big Bang. The laws of physics change with things like quantum particles, stringlets, black holes, etc.
This video is a mockery to the entire field of mathematics
He for sure is so much better at math than you are.
@@Bspadz you can tell by the way he talks about maths that he doesn’t understand what he is talking about
@@maskedchicken8746yeah, agreed, he has no idea what he’s talking about, he just googled everything. He tries to act so smart and everything but he’s not, he’s using illogical explanations based on something he learned in high school. He doesn’t even understand what he’s saying, just trying to get people on his side using god. Another point he misses is that you can believe in both god and science/math. He doesn’t understand that the concepts he’s attempting to explain and contradict is much more complicated and deeper than a surface level google search. Thank you for reading this.
He also is completely dumb for posing two theories and then immediately disregarding one theory and then assumes that the other theory is 100% true. how dumb do you have to be to make a youtube video like this?
@@NotFedwards maybe you just didn't understand the video? he explained why he thought the other theory was 100 percent correct, but as an atheist u will prove him wrong
me when im in a competition of arguing based on baseless assumptions and my opponent is redeemed zoomer
@utetwo9709 Me when I don't understand how anything works
@@michaels7159bruh💀
@@Homer_Simpson248 what
@@michaels7159 poor fella is lost
Go ahead and tell us about these baseless assumptions if you are so sure of yourself.
how did you jump from "math is infinitely complex" to "math must be created by god" dawg
Cuz somehow infinite amount of information cannot be here, in possibly infinite Universe.
Hmm, great "argument" for infinite Universe.
watch the vdo again
@@zerinkhan3332 No need to rewatch, there is little to no reason for that.
@@Unknown_Planet the information isn't infinite, there's just nothing to stop it from *potentially* become infinite. There's a difference.
@@Teo97b Yeah, that's right. It's even not actual mathematics, it's just an unstoppable list of 0's and 1's.
Non mathematicians skipping everything and pretending to have understood anything they heard, but call it magic somehow
science only counts when it's useful to proving me right
@@thespecialkid1384 Which is why your not a mathematician lmao
Yeah lol. "Math contains infinite number therefore it is supernatural"??? what even the fuck
This is why we have a branch of mathematics called Proof Theory.
Check out "Veritasium- Maths Fundamental Flaw"
ua-cam.com/video/HeQX2HjkcNo/v-deo.html
@@victoriad407 he never said that math is supernatural?
you didn't prove He exists you just proved that Math and God share very similar qualities
Fractal: *exists*
Video: goddamn that thing looks kinda cool there must be a god
Infinities upon infinities of less popular, but way more beautiful fractals: 💀
yeah the video creator is basically just spreading misinformation outta nowhere
2 + 2 = 4 but I cant smell or taste 4. I can only think 4. How is that possible? Praise Jesus hallelujah.
I'm currently a 4th year PhD student at MIT doing research on applied mathematics, and this whole video is making my head swell. FIRST, the concept of infinite information emerges when considering the exhaustive description of numerical entities, indicating an intrinsic challenge as math grapples with the inherent finiteness of information. Math's ostensibly infinite nature remains theoretically expansive, typified by instances such as Conway's Game of Life or the Mandelbrot set, generated by simple equations resulting in vast complexity. However, this theoretical infinitude does not manifest objectively. Contrarily, the generation of infinite information is relatively facile and arbitrary, achievable by constructing rule sets without implying objective existence.
The initial perspective of mathematics being merely "fabrication" is more aptly characterized as the formulation of a formal system to articulate observed phenomena in the natural world. For instance, the conceptualization of π stems from the observation of near-perfect circularity, thereby defining it as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. While acknowledged as a contrived value, π's precision diverges from an exact "3" to align with empirical circularity in nature. Gödel's demonstration of math's inherent incompleteness underscores the existence of propositions within any axiomatically sufficient algebraic system that evade proof or refutation. This revelation, encapsulated in Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, refutes notions depicting mathematics as a Platonic entity transcending the universe or ascribing to supernatural affiliations.
@@mihaifloares2503 ba mihai stai linistit daca se supara dumnezeu pe omu asta ca a explicat ceva, nu e atat de iubitor cum crezi
@@mihaifloares2503bro god doesn’t exists. When “Judgement Day” comes I won’t give a freaking freak. If god created everything then that means he created evil. That means god is evil. The Bible is wrong. Tell me, which god is correct in all of the religions. Which one exists while the others don’t? Why does where you are born determine your religion? I’m an atheists and I’m proud of it. Don’t waste your Sunday morning in a stinky a*s khaki colored building.
@@mihaifloares2503bro just said, “im too dumb to understand what you wrote so get judged by god buddy!” 💀
@@Jaydunnnn I might not understood, because I didn't chose to study math. If you really read my comment, I said how impressive his didactic achievements are so I recognize and appreciate his efforts. I might not understood his explication, I might never understand, but your logic makes me question your abilities. I didn't understand what he explained because math isn't my field, but I understood the part about faith in God in his answer, so that was the part meant to be commented by me, and fortunately, theology is one of my fields, so I can comment that. Your logic has a major flaw in it. If someone does have way superior understandings than me in one particular field, that doesn't mean that I can't tell him when he is wrong in other field. Richard Dawkins, a scienceman with far more knowledge in different aspects of science than me, who is able to write a speech where I won't understand a singe word is wrong about faith in God, and I wouldn't hesitate to tell him. Secondly, I never said that God will judge the original commenter. I'm not God, so I don't know what God will do with any of us. I can't even know if I will be found not guilty on God's judgement, I told him that his lack of faith is a clue of an empty hearth.
@@mihaifloares2503 NIce choice of words it makes you sound very smart. Just look at your original comment. If someone were trying to "bring you to jesus" would you like if they spoke to you like that? Do you think that would make you receptive? "but you heart is so weak for not being able to give...", "pray that god will make your heart as strong as your mind." You know nothing of his heart. Quit hiding behind god to judge him.
i'll just say something: "just because something is beyond our comprehension, it doesn't make it divine, just worth studying"
Randomness can not create a design. Both are literally the opposite of eachother
you cant prove or disprove god its like me saying im harry potter you cant disprove or prove i am
@@tox3417 elaborate
@@tox3417 the mandlebrot shown in this video literally shows how randomness can appear to be designed, go read some madlebrot books and look into chaos theory and you imght have a better undrstanding on the mathematics behind this. I myself am an agnostic but just dont think your comment has much merit to it.
Randomness can create perceived order. For example, if every atom in the universe changed to a random location every second for an infinite amount of time, eventually our universe would be created.
Math doesn’t prove God now I know I won’t get much attention for this because I’m probably one of the only the atheist but I believe that math doesn’t prove the existence of God because math doesn’t prove that God is real because it is a human invention, not a discovery. We created math as a tool to interpret and understand the world around us. Throughout history, different cultures have developed their own mathematical systems independently, which shows that math is a flexible framework tailored to human needs and contexts. For example, the ancient Egyptians used math for building pyramids, while the Babylonians developed a base-60 number system for astronomy and timekeeping. The symbols, notations, and systems we use in math have evolved over time, reflecting human ingenuity and adaptation.While math can describe natural phenomena and patterns, it remains an abstract construct that exists in our minds. Its ability to model the universe doesn’t imply a physical or supernatural existence. Math is simply numbers and symbols arranged in specific ways to represent relationships and patterns we observe. For instance, the concept of zero was independently developed in different cultures, such as by the ancient Indians and Mayans, to solve specific problems in counting and calculations. Therefore, math is just a part of our existence, and its capacity to describe everything doesn’t suggest a higher form of existence.
Our minds developed math to explain why things happen and to solve practical problems. For example, ancient civilizations used math for trade, astronomy, and engineering. The Greeks, like Euclid and Pythagoras, formalized mathematical principles that are still used today. Today, we use math in science, technology, economics, and everyday life to make sense of complex systems and predict outcomes. For example, calculus, developed by Newton and Leibniz, allows us to understand changes and motion, which is crucial in physics and engineering. However, using a tool from our plane of existence to describe a higher being or allude to something supernatural is not valid. Math is simply combinations of numbers and abstract concepts, not evidence of a higher power.
Moreover, the fact that mathematical principles can predict outcomes and describe the behavior of physical systems with such accuracy is a testament to the utility of math as a language, not necessarily evidence of a divine origin. The existence of abstract mathematical concepts, such as imaginary numbers or higher-dimensional spaces, which have no direct physical counterparts but are crucial for advanced scientific theories, further supports the idea that math is a product of human cognition and creativity. These concepts often lead to real-world applications and discoveries, indicating that they are powerful tools created by humans to understand the universe, not pre-existing truths that point to a higher power
My bad for yapping like hell I just wish to provide a counter argument, as I myself do not believe in God
rewatch the video
@@TheKingEditzz already did I re-watched it multiple times so I can provide an argument. How the fuck do you think I came up with this?
@@lucaslund7892we didn’t create math the universe itself uses mathematical concepts
@@greatestindanationwide8332 exactly we just discovered it
Math is just a framework to explain relation, proportion, difference etc. between elements in the world. What we see in Mandelbrot set is a non-repetitive relation of proportions with some iteration and we use math framework to explain it easily. Universe is more than math, physics even meta physics. We just find it easy to explain it with these frameworks.
I agree, but in a way it's more like a set of frameworks.
Beautifully said
This is the sound of someone having a nervous breakdown while smoking pot.
*Math
Back when you mentioned the concept of Math proving your points in your other videos, I struggled to argue against it and figure out why it sat wrong with me. Thank you for making this video, because it *very* quickly became clear why this theory doesn’t hold water
quick question im gonna quickly ask, why doesn't it hold water? The answer can't just be "because I didn't like it" as that is not a valid argument
@Frozen_Shedinja I would go into detail about the amount of circular logic and unfounded claims, but the primary reason is that he asserts that "math cannot be contained within our universe therefore it must have been created by a higher power," when there is no reason that math can't simply be, well, not contained, and that Math HAS to define the world, rather than even addressing that it is merely a language to describe it (neither something actively created by humans nor discovered by them). The reason I couldn't get myself around without seeing this video is because I'm bad at explaining it, because, get this, I'm not a mathematician. BUT, there are *plenty* of mathematicians in other comments here who can put the doubts I had into a much better argument
Okay, so, I didn't communicate my argument well, because that's not actually what I had a problem with, so I'm doing this again.
The main problem with this video is that, it claims that forces that act upon the natural world are not themselves part of the natural world. Fundamentally, there is nothing here that counters the idea that Math is merely a fundamental force of nature, like Gravity or Electromagnatism. (Or hell, maybe like, the entire field of physics?) Nothing here can give credence to the idea that math as we know it is not simply the inevitable consequence of the foundational assumptions of math
@@SussySupcon The main issue I had was the rather faulty assumption that because X is "discovered" must mean the X is "supernatural". And like most failures of intellect, er, apologists, this person just assumes that even if they could prove some "supernatural" existence/plane/reality, that not only supernatural personalities exist, but that they are in fact gods, indeed, their particular western God. As a rather strong agnostic, I find it perfectly easy to imagine scaling up the patterns we find around and in us and suppose we are merely part of some greater order from which a consciousness might emerge. I also find the idea of such a being is aware of us is only surpassed in improbability by the idea that being cares about what we eat, wear, say, and how we fuck. The idea that such a being, if it existed, would need some undergrad using MS Paint and faulty logic to convince us it existed? 💀💀💀
@@durs_co I need no daddy, but that complex goes a long ways towards explaining why evangelicalism in particular and Christianity generally throughout the ages has always led to tyranny and authoritarianism. By all means, keep babbling like the baby you want to be and keep putting responsibility that should be yours on your cosmic daddy. That story will only end in pain for you, and perhaps enough to shake you out of your fear and stupor. It would be funny if it weren't so bloody and sad.
Pro tip: don’t try to prove gods existence with math
This guy should be in the olympics with how good he is a jumping to conclusions
real
So real tho
?
There are atheists: "God does not exist!
There are theists: "God exists!"
And then there's this guy: "God is math"
and math is a concept we invented to help explain the world around us.
the difference is we can observe that math applies to the real world because it's all LITERALLY a description of physical phenomena, but god is still just an abstract concept made up to control medieval peasants
Pythagoras?
Prolly@@DLCguy
you cant prove or disprove god its like me saying im harry potter you cant disprove or prove i am
@@naizy bro u got a point
But probably you've misunderstood the video
In the ancient times Greek and Arabic philosophers focused on the universality and perfection of geometrical forms as belonging to divinity, but the way through the concept of infinity you have mentioned a few times before is also a major one. (As a sidenote: this may be thematic to your argument in this video as well; I am commenting before the video is live). This is also, most certainly, prominent in the history of philosophy, theology and mathematics, and here's a key example from not too long ago:
The philosopher, mathematician, Catholic priest and theologian Bernard Bolzano (very influential in the fields of logic, epistemology, and math), and his work "Paradoxes of the Infinite" (1851), was revolutionary for the development of set theory ("set theory", or its German equivalent, being explicitly a word coined by him), and thus for recognizing the sublime majesty of 'infinity' - or even its very Idea - in a sense that maths (and sciences in general) nowadays heavily utilize. Georg Cantor would of course, by the influence of Bolzano (and, as he personally recounts, "by the influence of God"), kickstart set theory proper and thus a wholly renewed comprehension of mathematical infinity. Importantly in this context: his theories and work were thoroughly defined by struggles of faith ("wrestling with God", one could say) - with a constant tension between the mathematical and the theological (in a manner that does not really separate these two but rather underline and emphasize their relations authentically).
By "tension" I do not mean anything necessarily "negative". Rather, I use it as an expression of the 'intensity' manifested by the immense proximity between mathematics and theology (concerning the subject matter of infinity) that was heavily present in and demonstrated by Cantor's work and personal life. Indeed, far from being a tale of triumph (cf. Cantor's tragic life) this epoch of mathematics should be studied by everyone interested in the fascinating connections between mathematics and theology (via the Idea of infinity), and when it comes to "foundations of all things".
As a further sidenote: I am providing these remarks from a philosophical perspective, not from a theological or mathematical perspectives; I, for one, believe that logic precedes mathematics, even if both of them are transcendental, and even if mathematics is THE formal ontology of Nature/reality. Regardless of my own personal beliefs (i.e., specifics of my religiosity) I am recommending these topics and pointing towards them as someone who recognizes their value and unity (theological, mathematical, philosophical etc.) independently from my own stances. Needless to say, I'm looking forward to the video, and I'm looking forward to hearing your thesis from the side that is much more informed about mathematical/theological side of things.
What you stated was great, i just have one question, after this video, how can we link the existence of God and proving that christianity is the right religion, not any other religion?
@@elijahmikaelson5319because the Bible has a shit ton of cross references even though it’s written over a span of a long time and has a constant single narrative. There are over 300 prophecies about Jesus by the prophets of the Old Testament especially in isiah. Also the resurrection of Christ is true because of what happened to the deciples. They became martyrs and they all know of the prophecy but were doubtful at first but the only reason they could’ve changed their minds and fight relentlessly to start churches despite facing persecution and got brutally executed is if they saw Jesus. People don’t have this change of heart unless they truly believe in something through seeing it with their own eyes as described in the Bible where Jesus was missing from the tomb and talked to his deciples before ascending to heaven. It could also be proven through the birth of Jesus by a virgin woman which in itself is a miracle not to mention it coincides with the prophecies of the Old Testament.
@@elijahmikaelson5319Christianity fits the bill because
A.) It is monotheist and describes and infinite and omnipotent/omniscient/eternal God
B.) The ontology of said God does not explode into a billion pieces when examined due to his triune nature (which explains how God is able to love even before the creation of the universe, which is important because, if God relied on his creation to love, he would rely on creation to be able to have the ability to love and morality and it would be truly questionable if he was divine were this the case. This doesn’t happen in Christianity because the Father loves the Son outside of time).
C.) The moral integrity of Christianity that is based off of the word of the morally perfect God makes perfect sense, especially when examined within it’s own context. This final reason is pretty circular reasoning, I will admit. However, literally no other religion passes this hurdle. Islam can be morally compromised, for example, by the fact that, on judgement day according to Islam, Jesus won’t interfere in judgement and will pass it off to a sinful man, despite never sinning (even in Islam he is considered to be sinless).
There is a lot more but these are just some proofs that show Christianity to work out. Not really going into historic proof and stuff for the sake of time and because, unfortunately, I am not exactly a theologian. Just a humble slave of Christ. God bless you, and may He guide you in all truth and righteousness.
@@elijahmikaelson5319simple: the historical evidence of Jesus Christ; his life, death and most importantly, his resurrection. The resurrection proves he's God and whatever he taught must also be true.
@@campaigningmc7812
An excellent rationale, well delivered!
1:55 my pc wallpaper 💀💀💀
1:40
"If we were just making this stuff up we could make pi be whatever we want it to be."
Pi didn't always have the standard 3.14 definition. Gauss used the symbol in a similar way as we treat theta today, as a variable. This also doesn't count the other forms of pi. For example, in the taxicab metric pi, the ratio of a circle circumference to its diameter, is equal to 4.
2:20 "And if we use numbers as code for particles and their locations, then you could say that there is an exact copy of our universe encoded in math."
I think the jury's still out on whether the universe is finite or not. Firstly, the size of the universe hasn't been determined to be finite. We can only observe the observable universe (about 94 billion lightyears but we cannot know about anything beyond this (unless faster than light transportation devlops). Second, the resolution of the universe may be infinite. The current theories of quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of relativity do not apply to particles that are smaller than the Planck length (unless humanity develops a working theory for quantum gravity).
4:25 I view math as akin to language. No one mind developed math but it was invented in a manner similar to how languages are invented. Rather than state that math controls the universe, I'd say math describes the universe.
Claiming that the universe doesn't have infinites seems a little presumptuous, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this statement. What does it mean for the universe to contain something? Is the mandelbrot set not contained within the universe because humanity can interact with it?
The Bible itself give pi a value of 3.14 (And I'm Christian)
We can calculate part of the mandelbrot set but not contain its entirety within a finite universe. Please elaborate on stating that the universe could be infinite.
I'm sorry, I meant the Bible gives pi a value of 3, The real value of pi was not found until 150 AD. I personally believe math is the language of the universe due to the several equations that man has used to predict orbits, energy, and even things down to the atomic level.
if we change pi but we don't change the base we use to calculate , the calculus are wrong , so we can't explain proprely this universe , we need the right pi in the right base , that means that we didn't created it because we didn't defined it , however we discovered it
@@Leonetninthere could be infinitely many stars. Simple as. We can only see a determined amount of them as we are enclosed in a sort of space box determined by the speed of light vs the speed of expansion of the universe. We’re stuck in a bubble, and can’t see outside of it, and thusly can’t determine what is or isn’t outside of it. If you have any proof that there are not infinitely many stars outside the observable universe pls give it.
"we cant comprehend infinity, therefore god exists"
Lol
That's the worst summary I've ever seen to be honest
@@Totally_Not_Dan it's entirely accurate.
lol
@@Totally_Not_Dan The most concise, actually
I used chatgpt to analyze the video and heres what it said:
Prompt: If I give you a video transcript would you be able to analyze it and point out each the flaws in the argument?
Analysis of Flaws
False Dichotomy:
The argument presents only two possibilities: math is either a human invention or a supernatural discovery. There could be other explanations, such as math being an inherent property of the universe.
Non Sequitur:
The conclusion that math's infinite nature implies a supernatural origin doesn't logically follow from the premises. Just because math describes the universe doesn't mean it must exist outside the universe.
Argument from Incredulity:
The assertion that the Mandelbrot Set's complexity means it must be designed is based on the speaker's disbelief that it could exist otherwise, not on evidence.
Equivocation:
The term "infinite" is used ambiguously. Mathematical infinity (conceptual) and physical infinity (actual) are different, and conflating the two leads to faulty conclusions.
Begging the Question:
The argument assumes what it tries to prove: that the existence of complex mathematical structures necessitates a designer.
Category Error:
The video suggests math exists in a supernatural mind, which conflates abstract concepts (math) with physical existence.
Appeal to Authority:
Citing Galileo without context is an appeal to authority. Galileo's metaphor about math being the language of the universe doesn't necessarily support the video's conclusions.
Conclusion
The video's argumentation contains several logical fallacies, including false dichotomy, non sequitur, argument from incredulity, equivocation, begging the question, category error, and appeal to authority. Each of these undermines the strength of the claim that the existence of math proves the existence of God.
Additionally just to maintain a fair stance I asked...
Prompt: Point out each of the supporting arguments
While the video’s main argument is flawed, some points are based on sound logic and are worth considering:
Science's Limits:
Science explains the natural world but doesn't address questions about the supernatural. This is a reasonable distinction since science, by definition, deals with empirical evidence.
Abstract Nature of Math:
Math is an abstract system that we discover rather than invent. This perspective aligns with the philosophical view of mathematical Platonism, which suggests that mathematical truths exist independently of human thought.
Math’s Explanatory Power:
Math’s ability to describe natural phenomena accurately supports its fundamental role in understanding the universe. This doesn't prove a supernatural origin but underscores the deep connection between math and physical reality.
These points highlight the importance of recognizing the limitations of science and the abstract nature of mathematics, although they don’t directly support the video's ultimate conclusion.
Note: Its interesting to see that none of the points it suggested actually relate to god being connected to math, though its worth considering that I asked "point out the flaws" before asking "point out supporting arguments", though you'd normally expect a direct answer from chatgpt, but this time it seemed to divert the question, not answering it.
I would say you’re doing gods work here but nah lmao. Actually interesting to read though, this video is full of shit lmao
This comment needs to be on top
Theology 101: people like to feel important, they need it to survive the constant threat of unpredictable death and the idea that their consciousnesses will cease to exist. They fear the unknowable, so they project themselves on to the unknown to give it trust beyond what it deserves, and then bake in a more digestible set of fears to control their behavior and prolong their capacity to self-propagate and multiply. It's a surprisingly elegant system when examined under ideal conditions.
@@TheRealLightingnerdbake in more digestive fear like if you don’t believe in this religion you will burn in h311 forever?
3:42 bro trapped me in a genjutsu 💀
It’s also fun to point out that ancient Greeks used math to attempt to know the divine. The reason why they (especially pythagoreans) studied it so intensely was they believed they could know God thru math
"God" you mean the ancient greek gods lol.
the ancient greeks didnt have one "god" so your comment falls apart
@@lilpullout the cool thing about those cult religions was they were usually monistic, so they had the belief that all gods were a face of the one, ultimate god. it was often the "secret" revealed to those initiated. it's also why so many were sort of combined in worship, or have different variations that were worshiped in different areas. but it's not my idea, that's literally the entire point of pythagoreanism. it's really well-known, they're the cult that didn't eat beans.
@@LexiePersonForever You guys inhale such immense amounts of copium trying to go back to your little one god story.. I can smell the bullshit through my screen.
@@LexiePersonForeverall religions are basically cults lmao.
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 (numbers ascending by adding one)
1,3,5,7,9, (yeah, those are odd numbers)
2,4,6,8,10 (even numbers, what now?)
0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34 (That's the fibonacci sequence)
Mandelbrot Set (Oh, so pretty)
The mandelbrot set is just another sequence of patterns that in our *opinion* find beautiful, most likely because it resembles roots, leaves, galaxies. But there are plenty of other sets, patterns that we find mundane, boring and uninteresting just because our brains evolved to be wired in a certain way that we only find this and that beautiful and this and that mundane and boring. The madelbrot set just happens to be a pattern we humans find "beautiful" even though there so many other patterns out there that we find mundane, only because our brains aren't wired to find those aesthetically pleasing. Proving the existence of God using the Mandlebrot set is the same as proving God exists just because the sequence 1,2,3,4,5.... is a sequence that occurs when you add by one.
That's what I had in my mind but couldn't put into words. Thank you!
i don't think u understand this topic well
Explain,@@springtrap2550 , I think he formulated a perfect argument
God exists because 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 😁
@@maksitaxi No, God exists because there's an inherent design found in nature. Math is the human science of deciphering said nature. If everything was random and chaotic there wouldn't be a pattern to anything. The video points out that because we're in a finite universe (considering modern science agrees with this, as there is a beginning and an end), it cannot create all these "coincidences" such as the solar system or human life. Simply put, because there's no time and is limited by the size of the universe.
Surely you can enter the field of quantum physics and start talking about time dilations or black holes but none of this has been proven, it's all theories, on the contrary, it is proven that there are patterns found in nature, for example the golden ratio.
the amount of leaps in assumptions and fallacies in this are amazing.
Bro literally just skipped over the fact that we just made math up lmao, didn't even explain why.
This dude had an epiphany just looking at the Mandelbrot set. If he knew about incompleteness and undefinability theorems, his head would've exploded.
"every possible book and a complete copy of our universe is encoded in math" really sounds like something you'd hear from someone who is specifically appealing to people who have absolutely no knowledge on the subject matter. like news sites trying to explain high level physics. it works on a basic level but you need to be able to provide more detail to convince people who actually understand the subject matter
@@senlim8461yeah, that honestly makes no sense. By that logic, every book that will ever exist is “encoded” (what does he think that means?) into language.
For real
ah yes, god, who found no better use of his time other than to make mandelbrot sets
I know this is probably a joke, but the video meant that math is proven to be infinite because it can be used to create infinitely complex shapes.
@Twoopoint0-h4bhes being a hater just to hate. he's denying the truth. God made everything good and beautiful, other people's opinions dont matter, it wont change how God created something, which is beautiful
@@_jbroche04_god is fiction and the bible isnt even a nice written novel😂
@ the bible is not fiction, and neither is God. if God was fiction, then none of us have a reason to be here and we all should just end it since there would be no point in living. and its not up to you to determine whether it is well written or not. the bible is a tool for life, not a book for entertainment
@@_jbroche04_ to be fair there is no real point in living you just do it for yourself because its hella fun
Makes a huge leap jumping to an unjustified conclusion. Similarly to what Aquinas states in his cosmological argument, he too jumps from Maths being infinite so therefore there must be infinite power possessing being. However, maths is simply a tool created by humans to explain things. Just because the decimal system works incredibly well doesn't signify a God, other systems of mathematics are flawed and don't have such sound applications.
no one asked a atheist kid to comment so stop
Yeah it's another example of the dunning Kruger effect.
Math isn't created by us. We put it in words, sure, but no matter if you show a monkey 2 sticks (it doesn't know math, it's a monkey) or a human the same 2 sticks, one can understand the existance of the "two" sticks and one just accepts the existance of the multiple of the things it sees in front of it. Does a monkey's lack of understanding the existance of the number 2 make the sticks anything but what we describe as '2 sticks"? Maybe in another language they are "dos" or "deux" or "doua" sticks, but no matter who looks at them. the 2 sticks will be 2 sticks. Even when there is no one to obeserve them, they are still two sticks.
fr
exactly, the conclusion made after all that logical talk is not even relatable
Math is a formalism we invented, and all mathematicians are doing is discovering it’s consequences. This doesn’t downplay how beautiful these consequences turned out to be
Time coexists together all at once. The past. The present. The future. It all happens at the same time, therefore we didn't invent math. We simply followed the script.
So you are buying the atheistic/woke definition of mathematics? If the math that we know today is just a figment of our imagination, why does it work in the real world?
So let us take the issue in its real sense: the unique role of mathematics in formulating truth and serving as the underlying reality of the universe - both quantitative and qualitative. As Aristotle summed it up, the ‘principles of mathematics are the principles of all things’. Aristotle’s broad stroke foreshadowed the possibility of what millennia later became known in the mathematical and science world as a ‘theory of everything’, unifying all forces, including the still-defiant unification of quantum mechanics and relativity.
As the Swedish-American cosmologist Max Tegmark provocatively put it, ‘There is only mathematics; that is all that exists’ - an unmistakably monist perspective. He colorfully goes on:
‘We all live in a gigantic mathematical object - one that’s more elaborate than a dodecahedron, and probably also more complex than objects with intimidating names such as Calabi-Yau manifolds, tensor bundles and Hilbert spaces, which appear in today’s most advanced physics theories. Everything in our world is purely mathematical- including you.’
The point is that mathematics doesn’t just provide ‘models’ of physical, qualitative, and relational reality; as Descartes suspected centuries ago, mathematics is reality.
Numbers aren't something we invented. They exist outside of human existence. The relationships between one type of number and another sure are nice. I know it's how I personally would have designed the number system, all consistent and perfect... but we didn't invent it, it was discovered.
The best example I can give is de moivre's theorem and the other shortcuts for doing multiplication and division with complex numbers. It's yet another way that multiplication becomes addition, division becomes subtraction, and exponents become multiplication.
Is it just some coincidence that they perfectly follow logarithm rules? Euler related them all together with his e^cosx+isinx, but he didn't invent anything, it was discovery of what was designed.
@8gjames you be spittin fax, thank you
@@sammy_trix The reason why it works in the real world is because we invented the formalism to describe the real world... This is the core origin of science. It was primarily created to try and describe the world around us. The fact that it now describes the world to this extent is due to hundreds of years of optimising the theories and formalisms to get to where we are now. Mathematics is not "all that exists", it just turns out that we are finding ways to make math describe all that is around us (and by now it does so scarily well).
The amount of logical fallacies in this video is so much that it's laughable.
This dude said and I quote: "our universe Is finite". like what
our universe is expanding so it has borders @@ethanpatch6840
new planets dont just pop up out of no where, it is finite@@ethanpatch6840
@@ethanpatch6840 our universe is not infinite, you can ask scientists they say the same but they do always say this when saying that "The universe is not infinite, but its growing". other than that any fallacies you might find I don't have an answer for.
When calling anything fallacies it would be in best practice if you plan to discuss it to simply give your list of examples so others can debate instead of just leaving a comment with the debate set up and no actual information to debate about is being given.
this is distressing 3:41 it just keeps going. idky this makes me deeply uncomfortable
Makes me uncomfortable too
Idk why
I like your videos but this one just isn't very convincing. I don't wholly agree with the idea that we did not invent the Mandelbrot set. Take minecraft for example: The fact that each new world is randomly generated and unknown to us doesn't mean that it wasn't invented. It clearly had a creator (Notch) who established some rules about the world generation through code in such a way that the result is unpredictable but it was ultimately his creation. Furthermore, you can create any shape you want using the Fourier series, so all creations in math are kind of arbitrary.
@@313KB What I was getting at with the minecraft analogy is that it's possible to invent something and not be aware of its full scale. Minecraft's world generation is math-based and mostly unexplored but we consider each world to be man-made because it originated from man-made code. Likewise, the Mandelbrot is man-made because it originated from the man-made z=z^2+c axiom. We can make plenty of different fractals by playing around with different axioms. It is impressive how much complexity we can get with simple axioms but this doesn't mean they are not man-made or arbitrary
@@justiniani3585I would think that in the basis of his argument, the fact that the infinite nature of mathematics is present physically to some degree in simpler forms, like pi (that we ‘discovered’), alludes to the fact that God’s infinite nature is further evidently present with how something like “Minecraft” and it’s procedural (although not technically infinite) worlds were thought of by its creators, but could only be implemented by way of mathematical and math-based solutions that were already there and possible in theory, but in an actual physical sense that we understand impossible, so they could only be discovered by those who had the intellect to search for them, whether for need or want. And the only ones that could do that are those that are created with the ability to search for them, or the One who knows/made all possibilities but has the ability and will to choose what is ‘implemented’.
This doesn't really prove God either. If you look at the library of Babel you will find that everything ever to be written henceforth will be there, but that doesn't exactly make its creator a God.
But Minecraft was invented, and the world was made using his means.
You're proving the point.
The set wasn't invented, it was discovered and it's too complex to have come from nothing. Like turning on your computer one day and finding minecraft on it.
@@kriegjaegerinteresting
Hands down, the best math propaganda I've ever seen.
True💀
Fr I'm using it as motivation to study for my math exam
Yeah it’s good for math thou
Thought this was god propaganda
He just disproved him self at 2:05
The whole argument relies on a serious misunderstanding about what math is and does.
Its a fundamental difference in philosophy between the two of you, not him being misunderstood about what math is. He dose a great job explaining the difference between nominalist and realist philosophy in other vedios of his, and I definitely think that this vedio works best with that prior understanding. Which is why I wish he had included his nominalist vs realist explanation in this vedio, this cpmmemt section would look way diffrent if he did
same guy that made the first reply, just swapped from alt to main for reasons not pertaining to this discussion
ua-cam.com/video/ZVLCGCRf7YU/v-deo.htmlsi=FWrI7fUWSY7oMLp1
even though it's on a different subject, he explains the philosophy that goes into his argument in this vedio
Prove it instead of just stating some random conjecture without any proof
Okay, then what is math and what does it do?
@@8-bitpersona16 Math describes the process of making rigorous conclusions from a set of assumptions.
Math does not contain infinite numbers nor proves their existence. Existence of infinite numbers is just an assumption that often is made.
When human beings dont know an answer to something complex, the best thing they do is say that god must've done it, because there's no other explanation, i believe everything has an explanation, we just need look for it.
Math is a concept used to represent patterns we notice. It doesn't contain any information on its own.
Pi is 3.14159... etc. because we use a base 10 system. If we used a base 5 or base 11 system it would be different (duh). If we used a base pi system it would be finite.
Also, just because something has infinite complexity/can go on forever doesn't mean it's some supernatural thing that the universe shouldn't be able to contain. When you plot a line on a graph, that line might go on to infinity, but that doesn't mean the line is somehow a logical inconsistency with the universe. All the information is already contained in the equation you plugged in.
Or take a googol, the value of which is greater than the number of atoms there are in the universe. Even so, that doesn't stop us from printing it on a screen; each zero multiplies the value by ten (it has more value than it does digits).
What I'm trying to say is, your entire argument is fallacy.
I see you didn't watched this video attentively
wrong
I was going to agree with you, but@@serszei has a very compelling argument
@@Nazar-Ok-1946 I see you didn't learned grammar
Quantities and amounts and measurements is what he's getting at, it's not about just numbers themselves. And the point isn't the value of pi, it's that we didn't create that value, it existed before we did.
This math concept and its values have existed long before we have, and its creator had to exist even before that. The creator had to be extremely intelligent and powerful. These are the points he's trying to make
So basically what it comes down to is "math is complex, god is complex therefore god exists"
hes saying that God created math. Math is everywhere and it is everything therefore God created "everything and is everything. However since God is outside of human comprehension such as math is sometimes out of human comprehension, we cannot fully understand how God came to be or how God is but we know God has to exist.
@@brandonnunez5401 but that whole argument falls apart if god didnt create math, just because something makes sense doesnt mean that its supernatural, the color blue will always be the color blue, thats just something thats true, nobody designed the color blue to be the color blue, its just something that is either true or false, maths is the exact same but on a more complicated scale surely.
Yes, someone did design the color blue to look the way it does. His name is Jesus Christ.@@funnymark5494
@@brandonnunez5401
If math is everything, its also that a grasshopper is the fact that god exist and therefore a grasshopper is everything aswell as the fact that god doesn't exist. If he is everything, he is surely the fact that he doesn't and can't exist too. Which is just as little proof as the counter argument.
Also I find it shocking that people think infinity and everything is even remotely close to equivalent.
Also, if there practically exist a god that created our milkyway, I bet my soul in hell that he is just as clueless about whatever created him.
@@lurven666 At some point something has to exist outside of the realm of creation to create said collection. you logically at some point need to come to a creator.
Proving god exists using meth
underrated comment.
Yea. Undefeated comment
Good
Crystal clear meth 🤘🤘🤘
Underrated
Bro said “Get a taste of your own medicine!”😭💀
The author of a video definitely had a taste of the medicine alright... 🚬