h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Having reached the plateau of learning that enables us humans to manipulate the surrounding nature to our advantage, we should ask ourselves the question that are we really intelligent enough even to recreate ourselves. Cloning and genetics can go so far, but intelligence and creativity that goes into creating out of nothing at all (which GOD did apparently)? That means before us, there was everything that needs to be in the universe. All there is in the universe is in a constant flux of changing and rearranging, all by itself, and not with our help or doing. Therefore there must be a program or formulae or something that drives the universe the way it is which brings me to the point that NATURE and the universe itself is the picture or representation of form and function. SO we all just created nothing out of something instead of the otherway around.

Or in plain human nature we are creating things just for ourselves and not for nature as a whole. If not we wouldn't be human then would we.

Sir (I'm being very polite, because I'm going to challenge a fundmental postulate of yours),

The universe does not run on mathematics. Mathematics is used to model the universe. We do better and worse at that depending on the scale of inspection and the degree of accuracy required.

I believe that you, sir, have made the mistake of confusing the map with the territory. It's a common mistake and one that we all make often. For instance, it is very easy to believe that because we have names for things, we understand them. Map and territory. It is equally easy to believe that because we can predict the orbiting of Mars for centuries that we understand, at least, celestial mechanics. The math is there isn't it? Consider, it was recently announced that it had been discoved that Planck's Constant had changed. Did you get that? The constant had changed. Not that it was wrong, it had changed. Something as fundamental to physics as Planck's Constant has been measured very carefully. The previous value had a known derivation and it was announced that new measurements have shown that Planck's Constant is a slowly changing variable. What we thought we knew, we now know we don't know.

I, personally, am still waiting for the philosophical equivalent of E=MC^2 (which now may be invalid -- I'm not physicist enough to know if Einsteins derivations depended on Planck's Constant being constant.) Some formula or expression that provides for an exact conversion between maths and the real world. So far, all we have are postulates on which we base everything, literally everything.

Does there have to be a "formula that drives the universe?" No, but we hope there are fundamental, understandable relationships that will allow us to take full control of our portion of everything. If there is a god, and I am one of those who on even days isn't sure but hopes that there might be, then there is no need for such fundamental laws. He is the law and if he can change that part of himself in which we reside then everything can change. (If He is, Who made Him?)

If there is no god, and on odd days I'm not sure, but I sure hope there isn't, then there might be some hope that we can deduce every last possible variable that goes into making up everything, because there need not be any central mystery to the whichness of what? But, it's going to be impossible to know that we know everything until we can make predicitons to the nth decimal place and be able to measure that they are correct.

There are more mysteries in heaven and earth, Horatio . . .

Barton

1: E=mc^2 does not, so far as I know require Plack's Constant to be constant.

2: It has fairly recently been shown that the universe seems to run on something more akin to a computer programme than mathematics.