RE: Van Till's Ultimate Gap

From: Alexanian, Moorad (
Date: Wed Sep 03 2003 - 13:07:57 EDT

  • Next message: Debbie Mann: "RE: Van Till's Ultimate Gap"

    Irrational numbers occur because of our over idealization of nature by
    the mathematical concepts we want to use for its description. The latter
    in the sense that our description of nature over idealizes the reality
    one is trying to describe in terms of human mental constructs that are
    related to but are not identical to what we want to describe.


    -----Original Message-----
    From: [] On
    Behalf Of Debbie Mann
    Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 12:38 PM
    To: Asa
    Subject: RE: Van Till's Ultimate Gap

    I don't understand your definition of 'physical realization'. Irrational
    numbers describe the relationship between the diagonal and the side of
    square; the relationship between the circumference and area of a circle;
    are vital to computing the area under many curves. In my mind, these are
    definitely physical realizations.

    I suppose one might argue that there are no true squares realized in
    and that we cannot definitely describe the area under a naturally
    curve. However, I believe that circular motion does occur multiple
    places in
    nature. The relationship between the area orbitted and length of orbit
    be described by an irrational number.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: []On
    Behalf Of Alexanian, Moorad
    Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 10:57 AM
    To:; Asa
    Subject: RE: Van Till's Ultimate Gap

    Irrational numbers have no physical realizations in nature. They are
    over simplifications based on the notion of the continuum, which may
    also not be a true concept of nature but rather a useful approximation.


    -----Original Message-----
    From: [] On
    Behalf Of
    Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 11:03 AM
    To: Asa
    Subject: RE: Van Till's Ultimate Gap

    The Bible says that the simple things confound the wise - this would
    mathematics. I do not believe that math is a creation of man - man
    create. I believe that we discovered math and, like Debbie, find myself

    continually intrigued and amazed with the wonder of mathematics and our
    universe. Math is one of those wonderful things that furthered my
    belief in
    God. The simplicity and amazing complexity of pi are incredible. God
    is an
    awesome God.

    Quoting "Alexanian, Moorad" <>:

    > I believe mathematics is a creation of man and the fact that it is the
    > language that describes the physical aspect of nature successfully
    > corroborates that both man and nature are created by God.
    > Moorad
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: []
    > Behalf Of Debbie Mann
    > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 9:58 AM
    > To: Asa
    > Subject: RE: Van Till's Ultimate Gap
    > I tutored my step-son last night in probability. I've tutored him
    > before
    > in
    > Calculus. Every so often in the process, we get to a point where he
    > sees
    > the
    > wonder in the math as I do. "And that just happens?" To which I reply,
    > "Isn't it cool how it all works together?"
    > I studied projective geometry for my masters. It is great fun. It is
    > possible to do many neat 'party tricks' with it. It is the third
    > possibility, with Euclidean being the first and elliptical the second.
    > Stepping beyond Euclidean was fundamental for Einstein.
    > The math in this universe alone is a miracle. It is phenomenal,
    > and
    > I absolutely believe it was created by a great mind. It didn't just
    > happen.
    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: []On
    > Behalf Of Iain Strachan
    > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 1:49 AM
    > To: Josh Bembenek;
    > Subject: Re: Van Till's Ultimate Gap
    > I think Stephen Hawking alludes to the "ultimate gap" very clearly in
    > the
    > last page of "Brief History of Time", by asking questions such as
    > does
    > the universe go to the bother of existing at all?" "What is it that
    > breathes fire into the equations?" "Why is there something rather
    > nothing?". His book concludes famously with the statement that if we
    > knew
    > the answer to these questions, then we would truly know the mind of
    > God.
    > Though Hawking is an atheist, I think he is perhaps making the point
    > that
    > there are some things for which we may not expect to find a
    > naturalistic
    > explanation. It just IS, and from there we enter the realm of
    > philosophy/theology/metaphysics, or whatever. The maths tells us HOW,
    > but
    > it doesn't tell us WHY.
    > ------------------------------------------------------------------
    > Iain .G.D. Strachan
    > There are 10 types of people in the world ...
    > those who understand binary and those who don't.
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Josh Bembenek" <>
    > To: <>
    > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 6:42 AM
    > Subject: Van Till's Ultimate Gap
    > > Just a quick thought that I'd like some feedback on. Many on this
    > list
    > have
    > > expressed dismay over IDers usage of God's "hand-like" action as a
    > magic
    > > wand to use whenever scientists don't understand a particular
    > phenomena.
    > I
    > > agree that it is fruitful to point out that God never ceases to act
    > in
    > > sustaining Creation and that such rhetorical strategy implies
    > unintelligent
    > > creation when natural mechanisms are found to account for such
    > phenomena.
    > > However, I wonder if this same problem exists for the fully-gifted
    > creation
    > > viewpoint? What makes us think that the origin of space time and
    > > derivation of matter, energy and all of the universe is simply a gap
    > in
    > our
    > > understanding that some future naturalistic discovery won't
    > > explain, again making the "God Hypothesis" obsolete? Perhaps I
    > should
    > > remember some discussion of this in some article, but its not coming
    > to
    > me.
    > > I don't care to defend my idea by trying to give any explanation for
    > a
    > > naturalistic origin of space-time. Besides for those here, isn't it
    > > sufficient enough to hypothesize that a naturalistic explanation is
    > out
    > > there awaiting our discovery instead of "jumping the gun" and
    > prematurely
    > > attributing creation to the act of God before all explanations are
    > fully
    > > explored? The Big Bang Hypothesis is younger than evolution isn't
    > it?
    > I'm
    > > not looking for a drawn out debate, just some thoughtful
    > considerations.
    > >
    > > Josh
    > >
    > > _________________________________________________________________
    > > Get MSN 8 and enjoy automatic e-mail virus protection.
    > >
    > >

    Sheila McGinty Wilson

    This mail sent through OnRAMP/GeoTEC Webmail:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 03 2003 - 13:10:13 EDT