Call Me
On Numbers: A Reply To Wirinet
In an earlier piece discussing the Cosmological Argument, I wrote the following:
"....the universe along with space, time, matter and energy came into being. The universe is not a necessary entity; it is a contingent entity. It does not have an infinite past. Theonly necessary being/entities one can think of are a) numbers b) an unembodied personal mind."
Therefore Wirinet asked:
"Please explainto me the existence of NUMBERS, where can i interact with numbers in thephysical universe. Has any body ever seen, heard or felt a number.
Numbers just like God is convenient expression,used to explain some properties of the physical universe"
My Reply:
There are many shades or categories of being/existence ie to say, that when we talk of things existing, there are different senses in which to understand that. There are things which exist because they possess matter;they are physical objects. They have concrete bodies or parts and as such can be seen, touched or felt. This is the most intuitive and common understanding of what it means when one says that a thing exists for they are all around us. So for example, one can say that cars, trees, rocks, water, air, planets, starsexist. This is an understanding that comes from a naturalistic examination of our world.
But why, my good friend should we say that existence is limited to just the physical things that can be empirically manipulated? Not too many people live their actual daily lives on the presupposition that the only valid things existing are those things which are physical particulars or that have material form. Think about this for a second.
So in addition to physical objects we have other reliable understandings of what it means for something to exist. Consider the notion of “Space and Time”. These entities (space and time) are what physical objects are extended into; physical object (matter) obtrudes into space-time; space and time exist even though one cannot literally see, touch or feel them.
Furthermore, consider this expression “Wirinet went to a judo match”. This statement makes sense to you, doesn’t it? I assume it does. In other words, if I make another equivalent statement like “Mary went to a dance rehearsal”, someone listening to me will not frown and declare that the statement is meaningless and cannot exist. But if we use a strict naturalistic sense in interpreting what exists, in both sentences the only substances we can empirically isolate are “Wirinet” in the first sentence and “Mary” in the second sentence. Those two objects have physical form. What then do we call “went to a judo match” or “went to a dance rehearsal”? It seems absurd, to say the least, that “went to a judo match” or “went to a dance rehearsal” is a property of Wirinet or Mary. These are simply events.
Events are that which can occur, have occurred or are occurring in a present active sense. They have their own legitimate ontological existence. So for example, let us say that a certain John brushed his teeth this morning. This is an event that has already taken place—which is to say that the event has already occurred or existed. That is quite different from the active and present activity you are doing right now as you read this reply. What if someone comes out then and declares flatly that the event of John “brushing his teeth” cannot exist because the entire event is not a physical object and is thus incapable of being touched, seen or felt? That is almost as absurd as saying that the event “Wirinet went to a judo match” does not exist or is unreal because from the statement all we can grasp at is the physical form Wirinet. Once again, an event is another example of existence that is non-material.
But we have other philosophical (metaphysical) and equally valid understanding of what it means for something to exist. These would include things like properties (size, color,weight etc), relations (being taller than, being sweeter than, being fastert han, being greater or less than, being equal to etc), number or number sets (the set of all integers from negative infinity through zero to positive infinity),logic, or mathematical proofs/theorems which are not concrete but abstract. These things have abstract existence very much unlike the way physical objects have concrete existence.This means that because these things exist in abstract form you could not possibly test them by empirical methods—which is to say that you cannot touch, see or feel them. They exist independent of any physical observer. In other words, these things exist whether or not there are human beings around to apprehend this abstract realm. But of course we do apprehend this abstract realm; and I’ll put it to you that no sane and higher-functioning human being lives his or her life as though these abstract entities do not exist.
So in a sense you are correct when you say that numbers can be used to express some understanding of the physical world. But that view does not invalidate the idea that numbers themselves exist otherwise they cannot be employed in any meaningful way by humans who purport to make rational and logical sense of the world. By your very own argument, numbers will not cease to exist if the only things existing in the world were simple-celled micro-organisms incapable of apprehending the existence of numbers.
Therefore, I disagree with your suggestion that “God is an expression used to explain some properties of the physical universe”. The physical universe is governed by physical laws. What this means is that there are statements or propositions with great explanatory powers and scope that describe what obtains in the universe. The properties of the universe are physical properties and are definitionally finite in scope and magnitude. For along time the conventional atheist view was that the universe is boundless and eternal even as theists maintained that the universe was not always in existence and had to have begun to exist a finite time in the past. Science and current cosmology have verified the theist position; so the accurate view now is that the universe did not always exist but came into existence at some specific time in the past bringing with it all space and time and all matter and energy. God transcends the universe by definition—is eternal in the past and future; is immaterial or incorporeal; and is boundless or spaceless. God therefore is not subservient to the universe neither can he be summarily invoked as some expression to explain physical phenomena. Rigid naturalists will deeply frown at the suggestion you just made suggesting that one needed to use God as some means of explaining the properties of this physical universe. The reason is very evident already—God is not empirically testable or reducible.
