Is math “physical evidence”?
Is there physical evidence that the Qur’an is from God? The followers of Rashad Khalifa believe that the Qur’an contains physical evidence to prove the Holy Writ’s divine origin. (https://www.masjidtucson.org/submission/faq/rashad_khalifa_summary.html) One can look at the latest edition of the “The Final Testament” and see the term “physical “evidence” on the back cover. Dr. Khalifa taught that the “mathematical miracle” in the Qur’an was physical evidence as early as 1982. Dr. Khalifa produced books, lectures and appendixes to the “Final Testament” with these “physical facts” to attempt to prove the Qur’an was a miracle in the sense he conceived it. But can math really be described as “physical”? The question of whether there is a “mathematical miracle” is beyond our scope.
Is mathematics a physical thing? The question of the nature of math is important for scientists as well as philosophers of science. The question is also important for people who claim that there is a physical miracle that is embedded in holy books. If mathematics is physical than it would be appropriate to discuss physical mathematical “evidence” in the Qur’an, the Torah or any other book. But if mathematics is not physical then it would simply be inappropriate to refer to the claimed math in the Qur’an as a “physical” evidence.
Can mathematics be described as physical in any sense? The answer is NO. There is no scientist from any branch of sciences that holds this view. There are also no philosophers of science that believe math can be described as “physical.” Mathematicians also do not hold his view. Dr. Khalifa is wrong and misleading people to use the term “physical” evidence to describe his findings in the Qur’an.
The question of why math is not physical is an easy answer that does not require one to be a mathematician or a trained philosopher. Can we imagine the possibility of numbers existing even if the universe did not exist? Of course we can. If anyone is aware of someone that disputes this claim then I would want to know about it.
Philosophers have pondered over the question of the reality of numbers and other concepts for years. People continue to be intrigued that numbers can exist without being physical. Yet, numbers are a real in some sense. The nature of the reality of numbers was debated since ancient Greece. Plato hypothesized a whole world of “ideas” that had a reality but in a different realm from the tangible world we experience. Concepts of things like humans, horses, trees, had a reality in this realm of ideas and some how influenced our reality. Numbers are included in these ideas. Aristotle was antagonistic to the idea that there existed “ideas” out there somewhere. He sought to ground philosophy in physical facts and derive conclusions about nature from those facts. However, Aristotle did not hold the materialistic views popular after the Enlightenment, and still managing to have impact today by people who think they are enlightened. Even Aristotle believe that there were things that existed in “potential” some how and manifested themselves throughout nature that came through his understanding of causality. The idea of a “final cause” as part of metaphysics is an Aristotelian idea that, although rejected by mechanistic philosophy, still managed to influenced some people today. The discussion about the reality of numbers is too much for our discussion. These questions come up again throughout the ages. Despite Aristotle’s critique of ideas, some variations of Platonism continue to exert influence today people today.
Why would anybody think numbers are “physical”? With the enlightenment in the 16th century and the new interest in science there was a push to find the nature of ultimate reality. The metaphysics of early years was pushed aside by Kant’s critique of pure reason. Intellectuals could no longer talk concepts of angels or intangible realities in a serious way. Isaac Newton seemed to have found the basis of reality through his work, which involved a lot of math. During the nineteenth century these mechanistic views of the universe crystallized. The concept of God was also attacked, as well as angels and other religious concepts that did not fit the scientific world view.
The brief and simplistic history above is provided to only give a feel for the atmosphere of the turn of the early 20th century. Because there was an explosion of knowledge, there was a push to keep finding the ultimate nature of reality. The enigma of math, with it’s non tangible reality was part and parcel to this process. Physicists and mathematicians, whose fields often intercepted, shared this project. Leaving aside physics, there were mathematicians who launched an enquiry into the nature of math itself. Their hope to find a system of sorts in which math could be based on pure logic. The famous British philosopher-mathematicians, Bertrand Russel and his mentor, Alfred North Whitehead were at the head of this enterprise and produced the book “Principia mathmetica.”
Whitehead and Russel were representatives of the Enlightenment in which all reality could be easily attested for according to mechanistic, physical thinking. However, things did not go according to plan. The discoveries and implications of Quantum physics question threw the Enlightenment project to the curve. Niels Borh would invoke the old, seemingly deceased, final causes of Aristotle to understand what was found. In the math spectrum, Kurt Godel brought the world the Incompleteness Theorem which showed non-mathematicians how a system of math could not be self-contained. Godel’s works made the Russel-Whitehead project outdated and both philosophers were forced to reconsider their understanding of nature. Alfred North-Whitehead created a superbly interesting theory of the cosmos which came to be known as process philosophy. Whitehead considered his thinking Platonic as it derives much from Plato as well as Aristotle. For Whitehead, numbers and other abstract ideas are “there” ready to be put into actuality but this is a digression.
Even though numbers are not considered physical entities there is still the question of math as a physical science. Mathematics is used for practical purposes across the spectrum of established sciences. Math is also used in non-physical disciplines for discussions on the nature of math itself. Physicists talk about math in a theoretical manner to discuss the nature of the universe. But does the fact that math is used for physical sciences make math itself a physical science? The Encyclopedia Britannica(https://www.britannica.com/editor/The-Editors-of-Encyclopaedia-Britannica/4419) says that there is a debate on this issue. Proponents believe that universal laws express math as such. There is a science called mathematical physics as an example. This is "the application of mathematics to problems in physics and the development of mathematical methods suitable for such applications and for the formulation of physical theories" Journal of Mathematical Physics("Physical mathematics and the future" (PDF). www.physics.rutgers.edu. Retrieved 2022-05-09.) There is also the related “physical mathematics” which is not the same thing as mathematical physics.
Objectors to the notion that math is a physical science point out that although numbers are good for describing thigs, the numbers themselves are still abstract concepts. Siegel, a physicist concurs with Britcanica’s point that math helps to describe things but the physical world itself is not a mathematical entity. Siegel goes through an interesting brief history of how math applications had to be developed when they did not meet the criteria to describe what was actually observed in nature. (No, The Universe Is Not Purely Mathematical In Nature,Ethan Siegel,May 20, 2020, Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/05/20/no-the-universe-is-probably-not-mathematical-in-nature/?sh=1d4866611653)
The fact that numbers are not physical entities has created interesting debates. The mathematician Rueben Hirsch once noted that 80% of mathematicians take a platonic view of math. (Reuben,Hirsch, What is Mathematics, Really? (New York, Oxford University Press, pp 2-3) Hirsch himself was critical of this view and the interesting thing is that some philosophers of science may be hard core materialist but take an exception to math, which they acknowledge to “exist” in the same way that Plato’s ideas exist. To get around these problems there have been some thinkers that argue math is not real. Lisa Zyga argues that the fact math was so successful in application does not take away from the reality that math is a product of human imagination. (Is mathematics an effective way to describe the world? Lisa Zyga , Phys.org https://phys.org/news/2013-09-mathematics-effective-world.html) Zyga uses examples of how math becomes ineffective at certain observations and may create a good model but not a complete accurate representation of something. Many people may find the latter thinking to be extreme.
The brief historical survey of math and philosophical debates is meant to illustrate the problem of why math cannot be considered physical. Although he was not a mathematician, Rashad Khalifa had a PH,d in science and would be expected to know better than to describe math as “physical.” Dr. Khalifa surrounded himself with people who happened to be well educated and it is a shame they did not pick up the problem. Whatever conclusion one comes to about Dr. Khalifa’s “miracle” claims, the evidence cannot be described as “physical.”
No comments:
Post a Comment