The Zero Persuasive Power of the Zero Power God Equation

The Zero Persuasive Power of the Zero Power God Equation 

This will be a simple philosophical refutation of Tony Berard's Zero Power equation. I'm going to assume his equation is correct as I plan to demonstrate that regardless of its truth value, it simply does not prove what it is created to do. 

Here is a link to the original article where Tony Berard’s equation may be found. Please read it before proceeding. 

https://medium.com/the-globally-responsible-atheist/the-god-power-equation-a115fbbe528d

For a quick introduction to the nature of the topic, please watch this episode from Closer to Truth, Episode 408 “Is Mathematics invented or discovered?” 

https://youtu.be/6CVjoOtA5eg?si=F76juvsmJNu3Vyzi

“I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.”

A. Einstein to R. A. Thornton, unpublished letter dated 7 December 1944 (EA 6-574), Einstein Archive, Hebrew University, Jerusalem

All theories of mathematics whether it be platonism, nominalism, fictionalism, intuitionism, formalism etc. basically reduce to two underlying premises. 

Math is discovered by humans and has a reality independent of human thought (ex. numbers are real). 

Math is invented by humans and is a useful fiction we use to make sense of the physical world but has no independent reality outside of the human mind (ex. numbers are not real). 

Before I share my personal view I want to ask a simple question (don't worry, you won't need Tony’s level of math to understand). 

π=C/d 

This is a simple equation used to calculate Pi by dividing the circumference of a circle by its diameter. You probably remember this from your days in high school and that it is an irrational number, meaning it does not seem to have an end, usually rounded off to 3.14. Again, you won't need any refresher courses on anything to understand my argument, all you have to know is that when someone wants to calculate Pi, this is the value they will always calculate regardless of the size of the circle. Now let's run a thought experiment. 

Imagine we have a set of three exceptionally brilliant minds capable of outstanding mathematical feats, however they are simply unaware of their abilities due to the harsh circumstances of their life. Suppose all three are separated by vast great distances and all three happen to be discovered by three different philanthropists who want them to excel in their abilities. It's not long before all three of these exceptional students make significant progress in all of their intellectual pursuits and all three are asked to calculate Pi. All of them arrive at the same answer rounded off to 3.14. Two questions come to my mind. 

Were each of the individuals coming to the same conclusion because they were all following the same logical structure of mathematics that was created by their predecessors? 

Or… 

Were each of the individuals coming to the same conclusion because they were interacting with an objective and real reality of abstract objects independent of their minds existing outside of the physical world? 

It seems that even nature itself follows mathematical rules and I want to make a critical note here that both Leibniz and Newton discovered calculus independently of each other by studying nature. 

“Calculus is commonly accepted to have been created twice, independently, by two of the seventeenth century’s brightest minds: Sir Isaac Newton of gravitational fame, and the philosopher and mathematician Gottfried Leibniz. The consensus has not always been so peaceful, however: the late 1600s saw fierce debate between the two thinkers, with each claiming the other had stolen his work.”

https://www.oxfordscholastica.com/blog/newton-and-leibniz-the-fathers-of-calculus/

This strongly suggests that nature follows mathematical laws and that by studying nature itself, we would have no choice but to discover math and the convergence of two independent minds converging to the exact same system of math suggests that math is intrinsically woven into the nature of reality itself and mind independent as if calculus for instance were something that was invented by humans, why did they both invent the same system to describe nature through observing it? 

We either seem to be discovering an abstract reality independent of physical reality or we are discovering someone else's math. What do we do when simpler mathematical constructs lead us to discover more complex constructs like Julia sets and eventually the Mandelbrot set? 

Well, in true Tony Berard fashion, I decided to consult the source he trusts the most, Chatgpt4. Here are the results of our conversation. 

Me: Does the Mandelbrot equation prove math is discovered?

Chatgpt4: The Mandelbrot set, named after Benoit Mandelbrot, is a fascinating example of a complex structure arising from a simple equation, but it doesn't necessarily prove that mathematics is discovered rather than invented.

The question of whether math is discovered or invented is a philosophical one. On one hand, proponents of mathematical Platonism argue that mathematical structures exist independently of us, and mathematicians merely discover them. This view is supported by the seeming universality of mathematics and its applicability in describing the natural world. The Mandelbrot set could be seen as a case in point - it's a mathematical object that exists independently of our knowledge of it.

On the other hand, formalists and constructivists see mathematics as a human invention, a product of our minds. They argue that mathematical concepts are abstract and do not have an existence independent of the human minds that think about them.

So, while the Mandelbrot equation and its resulting set are fascinating and beautiful, they don't necessarily settle the question of whether mathematics is discovered or invented. This question is still a topic of ongoing debate in philosophy of mathematics.

Me: Show how to argue it does prove mathematics is discovered. 

Chatgpt4: The Mandelbrot set, which is the set of values of c in the complex plane for which the orbit of 0 under iteration of the complex quadratic polynomial z_n+1 = z_n^2 + c remains bounded, could be used to argue that mathematics is discovered rather than invented, in the following ways:

1. **Universality**: The Mandelbrot set exists in the mathematical realm independently of human knowledge, waiting to be uncovered. The fact that we stumbled upon it during our exploration of mathematics suggests that its existence is not contingent on human activity. This suggests a mathematical universe that exists independently of human minds.

2. **Unchanging Nature**: No matter how many times we calculate the Mandelbrot set, the result remains the same. This consistency could be interpreted as evidence that the set, and by extension mathematics itself, is a discovered entity. If we invented math, we could presumably change it, but the Mandelbrot set remains the same, no matter the culture, era, or individual doing the calculation.

3. **Unexpected Complexity**: The Mandelbrot set is infinitely complex and contains an unending variety of shapes and forms, all arising from a simple quadratic equation. This unexpected complexity, arising from simple rules, could suggest that we are discovering pre-existing mathematical truths rather than inventing them.

4. **Applicability**: Many mathematical structures have applications in describing the physical world accurately. The Mandelbrot set is a key example of how complex dynamics (of which the set is a part) can be used to model and predict phenomena in various fields such as physics, biology, and finance. This could suggest that there is a pre-existing mathematical structure to the universe that we are discovering.

However, it's important to note that while these points can be used to argue that mathematics is discovered, this is a philosophical question and there is no definitive proof either way. Different philosophers and mathematicians may have different views on this matter.

Me: Argue it does not prove mathematics is discovered 

Chatgpt4: The Mandelbrot set could be used to argue that mathematics is not necessarily discovered, but rather invented, in the following ways:

1. **Human Interpretation**: The Mandelbrot set is the result of a human-defined process (the iteration of a complex quadratic polynomial). While the set is consistent and universal, it is based on rules and definitions that humans created. This could be seen as evidence that we are inventing mathematical structures, rather than discovering them.

2. **Language of Mathematics**: Mathematics is a language that we invented to describe the world around us. The Mandelbrot set is a part of this language. Just like we wouldn't say we discovered the concept of a novel by writing one, we might not say we discovered the Mandelbrot set by defining and exploring it.

3. **Subjectivity**: The beauty and complexity of the Mandelbrot set is subjective and dependent on our human perspective. Other beings might not find the set interesting or meaningful at all. This could be seen as evidence that the significance we attach to mathematical concepts is a product of our minds, not an inherent property of the universe.

4. **Absence of Physical Existence**: The Mandelbrot set doesn't have a physical existence in the same way that a mountain or a planet does. It exists only in the abstract realm of mathematics, which is a human invention. This could suggest that we are creating, rather than discovering, mathematical structures.

However, it's important to note that these points are part of an ongoing philosophical debate about the nature of mathematics. Different philosophers and mathematicians may have different views on whether mathematics is discovered or invented. 

Me: Does nature follow mathematical rules? 

Chatgpt4: The natural world often seems to adhere to mathematical rules and principles. Here are a few examples:

1. **Physics**: Many of the laws governing the physical world, such as the laws of motion or electromagnetism, are described using mathematical equations. This allows us to predict and understand physical phenomena with a high degree of precision.

2. **Astronomy**: The motions of celestial bodies, like planets and stars, can be predicted using mathematical models. Kepler's laws of planetary motion and Einstein's theory of relativity are key examples of this.

3. **Biology**: In biology, the Fibonacci sequence (a mathematical series where each number is the sum of the two preceding ones) appears in various forms, like in the arrangement of leaves on a stem or the pattern of seeds in a sunflower. 

4. **Chemistry**: Chemical reactions can be represented by mathematical equations, and the structures of molecules can be understood through mathematical models.

5. **Geology**: The formation and erosion of landscapes can be modeled using mathematical principles.

However, while mathematics is a powerful tool for understanding the natural world, it's important to remember that it is our interpretation of nature. It's a language we have developed to describe patterns we observe. Nature doesn't "follow" mathematical rules in the sense of consciously adhering to them; rather, the patterns and laws we have identified in nature can be described mathematically.

Me: Could we discover math by studying nature? 

Chatgpt4: Absolutely! In fact, many mathematical concepts and principles have been discovered or developed as a result of studying natural phenomena. Here are a few examples:

1. **Geometry**: The ancient Greeks developed geometry partly from studying natural phenomena, like the cycles of the moon and the seasons. They realized that these phenomena could be understood and predicted using geometric principles.

2. **Calculus**: Isaac Newton developed calculus in the 17th century to help explain the motion of celestial bodies. He observed the orbits of planets and discovered the laws of motion and gravitation, which required new mathematical tools to describe accurately.

3. **Fractals**: The concept of fractals, complex shapes that look similar at any scale, was developed in the 20th century by mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot. He was inspired by natural phenomena like the branching of trees and the shape of coastlines.

4. **Chaos Theory**: Chaos theory, which deals with systems that are very sensitive to initial conditions (like the weather), was developed in part by studying natural phenomena. The famous "butterfly effect" is a concept from chaos theory.

So yes, by studying nature, we can and have discovered new mathematical principles. This process is often a cycle, where our understanding of nature leads to new mathematical tools, which then deepen our understanding of nature.

Me: Put this into argument form

Essentially it's discovered through preexisting mathematical truths. 

Preexisting mathematical truths are found in nature. 

We discover math through nature. 

Starting with those axioms we discover more mathematical truths such as Julia sets 

Chatgpt4: Here's how we can structure that argument:

1. **Premise 1**: Preexisting mathematical truths are inherent in nature. This means that the patterns, structures, and phenomena we observe in the natural world often align with mathematical principles and rules that have already been established.

2. **Premise 2**: We discover mathematics through the study of nature. By observing and analyzing the natural world, we are able to discern these preexisting mathematical truths. The process of observation, inquiry, and analysis allows us to identify and articulate these mathematical principles.

3. **Premise 3**: Once we have a foundation of preexisting mathematical truths gleaned from nature, we can build upon that foundation to discover more complex mathematical concepts and structures. One such example is Julia sets, which are complex fractal structures discovered in the 20th century. These sets, like many mathematical concepts, can be seen as extensions or elaborations of simpler mathematical truths found in nature.

4. **Conclusion**: Therefore, the discovery of mathematics is deeply intertwined with the study of nature. Not only does nature provide us with a foundation of preexisting mathematical truths, but it also serves as the platform upon which we build and discover more complex mathematical realities. 

Me: Simplify it 

Chatgpt4: Sure, here's a simpler version of this argument:

1. **Start Point**: Math is found in nature. 

2. **Step 1**: We study nature to find these math rules.

3. **Step 2**: Using these rules, we discover more complex math, like Julia sets.

4. **End Point**: So, we discover math by studying nature.

Me: is it valid? 

Chatgpt4: This argument is valid in its structure, meaning the conclusion logically follows from the given premises or steps. It states:

1. Math is inherent in nature.

2. We study nature to find math.

3. Using basic math, we find more complex math.

4. Therefore, we discover math through nature.

The conclusion (step 4) is a logical outcome based on the premises. However, the validity of an argument doesn't guarantee that the facts within the argument are true. The truth of this argument depends on whether you agree that math is inherent in nature and that we study nature to discover math. This could be a philosophical or scientific discussion depending on different viewpoints. 

Me: Attack the weakest premise 

Chatgpt4: The argument's weakest premise might be "Using basic math, we find more complex math like Julia sets." This statement assumes that complex mathematical concepts, such as Julia sets, are directly discovered or derived from basic mathematical principles found in nature.

While it's true that many complex mathematical concepts build on simpler ones, saying they are "discovered" in nature might be a stretch. Julia sets, for instance, are a concept from complex dynamics, a branch of mathematics that deals with the behavior of dynamical systems that involve complex numbers. While these sets can produce patterns that seem natural or organic, their discovery and study are largely abstract and theoretical endeavors.

These complex mathematical concepts often require a level of abstraction and theoretical reasoning that goes beyond simple observation of natural phenomena. So, while nature might inspire or inform mathematical thought, it's not accurate to say all complex math is directly "discovered" in nature.

Impressive and I agree the argument is sound and so I will absolutely use it as a guide constructing my own I will use later.  

It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing to do at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can’t reach them; but it cannot be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of theoretical foundations; for he himself knows best and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for a new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities.

Albert Einstein 

A. Einstein , J. Franklin Inst. 221, 349 (1936)

Here is the main problem I have with Tony’s use of the Zero Power equation and I will demonstrate that by using his own equation to demonstrate that numbers themselves have zero power. 

Numbers themselves are spaceless, timeless and immaterial and so if the equation suggests that zero power in the universe implies the nonexistence of that thing that's fine, but then the whole exercise of using a useful fiction (numbers and mathematics) to prove that another useful fiction can not interact with the physical universe (God) is absurd. 

If Tony wants to maintain his philosophical position of physicalism, then he has no choice but to adopt the theory of math known as Fictionalism or something similar. 

‘Fictionalism’ generally refers to a pragmatic, antirealist position in the debate over scientific realism. The use of a theory or concept can be reliable without the theory being true and without the entities mentioned actually existing. When truth (or existence) is lacking we are dealing with a fiction. Thus fictionalism is a corollary of instrumentalism, the view that what matters about a theory is its reliability in practice, adding to it the claim that science often employs useful fictions. Perhaps the fullest expression of fictionalism occurs in Vaihinger’s once popular philosophy of ‘as if’.

https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/fictionalism/v-1

I am going to use a piece of his own article and simply replace one non corporeal entity (God) with another (numbers and mathematics). 

“Another equation we will need is the very simple P = E/t or power is energy divided by time. 

So, we replace E in the first equation with Pt from the second equation. This gives us (Pt)² = (mc²)² + (pc)². Next, we divide both sides by t² to get the next equation:

P² = (mc²)²/t² + (pc)²/t²

Now, if mass is zero, which is the case for numbers, math sets and the like, we can eliminate that term:

P² = (pc)²/t²

Note that capital P is for power and lowercase p is for momentum. Next, we have an equation for momentum!! It is p = mv, which is momentum is mass times velocity. We replace the lowercase p in that last equation, then, as follows:

P² = (mvc)²/t²

Finally, if m is zero, which it is for incorporeal beings, this term also eliminates.

P²= 0

We take the square root of both sides to get the final number power equation:

P = 0

Thus, the almighty numbers have a zero power level if numbers have no mass.

This is now an irrefutable equation because it uses all the valid equations of physics. Thus, it is now proven that number power or the power of any mathematical equation has zero in our universe.”

So if physicalism is true, his own equation demonstrates that numbers have zero power to affect our universe and if all that humans are is just a recollection of particles, then the fiction (Fictionalism) he is using to try persuade others God has zero casual power in our universe, also has zero casual power in our universe, meaning that his mathematics will be unable to change anyone's minds because it does not have the power to affect the particles that comprise the neurons to change their mind! 

The moment his equation persuades anyone of its truth means we must assign a power value to his equation and thus be stuck with the logical incoherence of his zero power equation proving immaterial numbers have no causal power in the universe, somehow having the causal power to change a physical system (the neuron configurations on the brain) which his equation shows they can not to. 

In other words, if his equation convinces you that God has zero power, then you must concede that numbers have zero power and the mathematics that arise from it as well, but the moment numbers prove to have casual power the moment they persuade any theist, makes his math equation based on a false premise (sort of like the ultraviolet catastrophe where light was considered a wave and the equations did not work for higher frequency light). 

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/The_Live_Textbook_of_Physical_Chemistry_(Peverati)/16%3A_The_Motivation_for_Quantum_Mechanics/16.03%3A_The_Ultraviolet_Catastrophe

To put it another way, if any Theist becomes an atheist because of the Zero Power Equation, then numbers, which are spaceless, timeless and immaterial do have causal power to affect the universe, thus if he achieves his dream of “proving four billion people wrong” he immediately disproves his very equation as the mathematics he uses to prove non corporeal entities (like numbers) have zero power, do have physical power to alter brain chemistry, but if that's the case his equation is immediately not an accurate description of reality and he needs to write a new equation about how much spaceless, timeless and immaterial thoughts weigh… Good luck. 

Any deconversion proves his equation is false and if this happens his only escape as far as I can tell to preserve his equation is to either reject physicalism and accept the existence of some immaterial reality but the moment he does, he affirms the existence of the very reality his equation attempts to disprove and so as long as he maintains physicalism, he is stuck in a dilemma he can't escape. 

If physicalism is true and all that has the ability to affect physical reality is physical things, his equation then has no persuasive power (proven by his own equation) as it relies on non corporeal entities (numbers) to change physical structures of the brain from one set of beliefs based on neural chemistry, to another set of beliefs based on neural chemistry. 

If physicalism is true, then he must adopt some sort of fictionalism for his equations but at that point I can just dismiss his equation as if all that exists is the physical world and numbers are not real, I can simply deny the existence of numbers unless he convinces me numbers are real, but the moment he does he affirms an immaterial reality and is subject to my argument for the existence of God from mathematics. 

Premise 1: Mathematical truths are discovered by studying nature and thus are inherent in nature itself. 

Premise 2: Using the mathematical truths we are able to derive from nature, we discover more complex math built on the basic mathematical axioms found in nature. 

Conclusion 1: Either nature produces math or nature follows mathematical constructs. 

Premise 3: Math is mental in nature and only apprehended through minds, regardless of whether it is invented or discovered. 

Premise 4: Nature is a physical substance that is not a mind and not capable of apprehending mathematical structures which only minds are capable of either inventing or discovering. 

Therefore the math we discover in nature must be a product of a Mind and mathematics exists in a reality independent of the physical world. 

I'm going to take it one step further and argue that if Tony's equation is true then the universe we find ourselves in would not exist! I found it interesting that he believes this is a proof against the Kalam Cosmological Argument but he fails to understand the infinite regress problem that leads to the conclusion of a necessary spaceless, timeless and immaterial cause of some sort. 

We have at least three possible causes for the universe. 

Either nothing created the universe or something that is necessary (meaning that it can not fail to exist and is self-existent). 

Numbers are considered a necessary entity but since when did numbers cause anything? Thankfully, we can use the Zero Power equation that Tony Berard was kind enough to work on to rule out numbers and so we are left with only one other cause that meets the definition of a necessary cause and that is God. 

God is defined as a spaceless, timeless and immaterial cause with infinite power that brought the universe into existence. 

Already God as defined by classical Theism already is not subject to the Zero Power Equation because an Immaterial Being of infinite power can produce any value into the equation and so Tony has committed a false equivalence fallacy. 

“False Equivalence

Description: An argument or claim in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. The confusion is often due to one shared characteristic between two or more items of comparison in the argument that is way off in the order of magnitude, oversimplified, or just that important additional factors have been ignored.

Logical Form:

Thing 1 and thing 2 both share characteristic A.

Therefore, things 1 and 2 are equal.

Example #1:

President Petutti ordered a military strike that killed many civilians. He is no different than any other mass murder and he belongs in prison!

Explanation: Both president Petutti and a mass murder share the characteristic that something they did resulted in the death of civilians. However, the circumstances, the level of responsibility, and the intent are significantly different for the president than the typical mass murder and ignoring these factors is unreasonable, thus makes the argument fallacious.”

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/False-Equivalence

God as defined by Theism is a spaceless, timeless and immaterial Being with infinite power Who brought the universe into existence. 

Numbers are spaceless, timeless and immaterial, necessary objects that have no power. 

If the equation assumes that immateriality means zero power, the assumption behind the equation must be justified and so he must either prove that immaterial beings can not affect material reality or that it is unlikely they exist, but his equation then would not be an absolute proof, however he still hasn't escaped the problem. 

We now know that our universe began to exist and so our universe is a contingent entity (meaning it could fail to exist) and not necessary (it is not self existent). If our universe is the product of another universe then we must explain that universe and we immediately run into an infinite regress which is impossible. 

If there were an infinite number or parents going backwards into infinity when would you ever be born?

If there were an infinite number of days going backwards into infinity when would we ever reach today? 

If there were an infinite number of material causes going backwards into infinity our universe when would our universe ever begin to exist? 

We could always add one more set of parents ad infinitum, one more day ad infinitum and one more universe ad infinitum, eventually we will need a cause that is outside of the physical system, that is necessary, self-sustaining and able to bring physical reality into existence to start the chain of events that led to the universe we find ourselves in, which led to your parents, which led to you experience this day, at this moment in time, reading this article. 

Whatever this cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. 

Nothing meets this definition but since when does nothing ever produce anything (a quantum vacuum and foam is not nothing)? 

Numbers meet this criteria but the Zero Power Equation proves they could not bring the universe into existence. 

Whatever the spaceless, timeless and immaterial cause of the universe must have been powerful enough to bring the universe into existence and a Will to decide to bring it into existence otherwise, otherwise if this cause had no power, the universe would not exist and so the fact the universe exists because of a necessary spaceless, timeless and immaterial cause, disproves the Zero power equation! It must be false because here we are! 

Paradoxically, the physicist he relies on for his equation, questioned the nature of physical reality himself! 

We are … all aware of the situation regarding what will turn out to be the basic foundational concepts in physics: the point-mass or the particle is surely not among them; the field, in the Faraday—Maxwell sense, might be, but not with certainty. But that which we conceive as existing (“real”) should somehow be localized in time and space. That is, the real in one part of space, A, should (in theory) somehow “exist” independently of that which is thought of as real in another part of space, B. If a physical system stretches over A and B, then what is present in B should somehow have an existence independent of what is present in A. What is actually present in B should thus not depend upon the type of measurement carried out in the part of space A; it should also be independent of whether or not a measurement is made in A.

If one adheres to this program, then one can hardly view the quantum-theoretical description as a complete representation of the physically real. If one attempts, nevertheless, so to view it, then one must assume that the physically real in B undergoes a sudden change because of a measurement in A. My physical instincts bristle at that suggestion.

However, if one renounces the assumption that what is present in different parts of space has an independent, real existence, then I don’t see at all what physics is supposed to be describing. For what is thought to be a “system” is, after all, just conventional, and I do not see how one is supposed to divide up the world objectively so that one can make statements about the parts.

Albert Einstein 

M. Born , ed., Albert Einstein—Hedwig und Max Born. Briefwechsel 1916-55, Nymphenburger, Munich (1969), p. 223

I personally tend to agree with the scientist who challenged his philosophical assumptions about how reality should be and accepted it for what it is by accepting what the data was telling him. 

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.

We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.

Max Planck

I hope this will help Tony and anyone else thinking about his equation do the same. 

Thanks for reading me and as always, God Bless you my friend and see you in the next one where I will share why I believe consciousness is irreducible to brain chemistry.