The Mathematician We Call “God”

It is absolutely incredible how much time and effort we have wasted trying to grasp “God” through
traditional theological methods. It is tragic that we have driven so many thoughtful and reasonable
people away from a pursuit of the divine because our approach has been so flawed and “doctrinal”. A
major change is long overdue, a change we can begin right now.

Our new approach must be far removed from what we have been doing and our starting point must be
putting aside the garbage we have packaged into a conception of “God”. If your need to believe requires
that you accept a divine conception based upon “faith” and that “faith” expects you to reject reason,
evidence, and common sense, then by all means, “keep the faith”. But stop trying to force your purely
subjective (even if you think they’re “divinely inspired”) views upon others. If your sense of reason and
need for “proof” has led you to such skepticism that you refuse to even consider the possibility of an
intelligent force or entity that was causative in the origin of the Universe, then it’s time to be skeptical of
your unreasonable rejection of reality1.

“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”

Albert Einstein

And it is in reality where we should begin and base our search for the most important truth. To be more
precise, our search must focus upon objective/objectifiable truth – truth that is always true 2 and is
established by evidence3. As it is the role and function of science to seek, find, and establish
objective/objectfiable truths (facts), we should rely upon science and its proponents to provide a proper
and useful view of reality. However, we should recognize that science focuses upon physical reality (the
reality of objects)4 and has found that non-physical aspects of reality (e.g. information and perception)
may better define its nature.5 Furthermore, it is generally understood that mathematics is the “language
of science” so scientists may have an intrinsic bias regarding it. 6

Reality is confusing… in part because it includes things that we don’t think of as “real”. And, some things
we view as real may merely be illusions or imaginations. Our thoughts – the very things that make us
“sapient” – are real but may include things that are not real. To avoid this confusion, scientists have
tended to focus upon “physical reality” or the realm of actual and possible sense perceptions. Ironically,
a thoughtful scientist focused upon the realm of actual and possible sense perceptions would largely
ignore the non-physical realm of thought (experienced directly, but not directly measured). Similarly, a

1
Reality is the aggregate of all existence. While that which is imaginary may not be “real”, even imagination is part
of reality.
2
And is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.
3
And is capable of being expressed in concrete form.
4
The essence of physical reality for science was well defined by A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen: “If, without in
any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an
element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity”.
5
“[I]nformation is the very essence of reality.” See, for example, “Searching For The Essence Of Physical Reality” by
Marcelo Gleiser in Cosmos & Culture: Commentary on Science and Society, NPR 13.7 at
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2011/01/19/133037010/searching-for-the-essence-of-physical-reality.
6
“The reliance on mathematics to describe nature is the foundation on which science is built.” MIT on-line course
801T (Physics I) at http://web.mit.edu/8.01t/www/materials/modules/guide02.pdf
scientist may necessarily rely upon mathematics to describe physical reality but must view mathematics
itself as non-physical or outside of reality. If that seems nonsensical, then you’ve grasped the issue.

“A vision of mathematics different from that which we were taught at school holds an
accessible key to a nearby world of wonder and beauty.” 7

The conundrum of mathematics has led some scientists to suggest that mathematics must be a human
created construct (like thought?) that is not real (in the way that a table is “real”). I find such arguments
rather silly and “desperate”; silly in that they make little sense and desperate in that they reflect
intention to hold firm to a concept of reality that denies the mystery and “magic” of mathematics.
Anyone who believes that mathematics would not exist in the Universe if humans didn’t exist is clearly
wearing blinders. Pretty much everything that follows refutes this notion.

A Scientific View of Reality:

Philosophy is written in this grand book - I mean the universe - which stands continually
open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the
language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language
of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures,
without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these,
one is wandering about in a dark labyrinth.

Galileo Galilei (1611)

The last 170 years have seen dramatic changes in our conception of reality. James Clerk Maxwell's
unification of electromagnetism in 1865 (expanded in 1873) 8 led to subsequent mathematical methods
of physics. The work of Max Plank in 1900 showing that radiation comes in discrete amounts (“quanta”)
led to the exploration and realization of quantum physics and has forced a scientific epiphany of reality 9.
The astounding work of Albert Einstein (1905 and 1912) led to the “Big Bang” concept describing the
way the Universe began and evolved is now fundamental to our science 10. His work on special and
general relativity has led to a paradigm shift in scientific thinking about reality 11. Then, Louis de Broglie
proposed that matter has wave properties; Wolfgang Pauli formulated the exclusion principle (for
7
“A Beginner’s Guide to Constructing the Universe: Mathematical Archetypes of Nature, Art, and Science” by
Michael S. Schneider, Harper Perennial (1995), p.12… https://www.amazon.com/Beginners-Guide-Constructing-
Universe-Mathematical/dp/0060926716.
8
Maxwell's “A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field” (Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 155, 459–512 (1865)) and
his “[T]reatise on Electricity and Magnetism” (Clarendon Press (1873)) gave the world “one of the most
fundamental pieces of scientific research ever undertaken” (“Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and special
relativity” by Graham Hall in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (Mathematical, Physical And
Engineering Sciences), Vol.366, Issue 1871 (28 May 2008)).
9
The transformation from determinism to uncertainty coupled with the deeper complexity of quantum behaviors
(or interactions) have revealed a deeper and even more mathematical conception of reality – one where
information takes on a central role.
10
More accurately, the idea (or theory) is that a “naked singularity” emerged (without explanation) and, from
nothing, everything in the Universe appeared in a super compressed super force which expanded, condensed,
unfolded, and changed in a highly organized and specific manner determined by “laws” of unknown origin. This
“explosion” occurred within a multi-dimensional framework termed “space-time”.
11
That there is an equivalency of energy and matter (at a ratio equal to the speed of light) means far more than
atomic power and knowing that gravity bends light and that gravity bends/distorts space-time (geometrically) has
forced a broad scale re-conception of the cosmos.
electrons); Erwin Schroedinger developed wave mechanics; Werner Heisenberg formulated the
uncertainty principle; Paul Dirac found a description of the electron that combined quantum mechanics
and special relativity; Hideki Yukawa proposed new particles (mesons called "pions") by combining
relativity and quantum theory and describing a new form of nuclear interactions; Chen Yang and Robert
Mills proposed "gauge theories" as a formulation of both electroweak unification and quantum
chromodynamics; Eugene Wigner structured the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics; and
John Stewart Bell derived the “Bell inequalities” – formulas which showed that no physical theory of
local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics 12 thereby
inaugurating the study of quantum entanglement.

“The world we perceive is a small slice of a vast, mostly invisible energy-event.

Mathematics can take us beyond our ordinary limits to the cosmic depths.” 13

The sum of these discoveries (along with many others) and the processes by which these discoveries
were produced have led to a strange and unexpected outcome – reality has hidden layers of complexity
that are revealed mostly through mathematics. Eugene Wigner (physics Nobel Laureate) deemed this
strange result ‘The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences’ 14. In his lecture,
Wigner offers a few examples where scientists were led (or guided) to critical new discoveries regarding
reality through the unintentional application of mathematics. Noting that “mathematical concepts turn
up in entirely unexpected connections” and that “they often permit an unexpectedly close and accurate
description of the phenomena in these connections”, Wigner proposed that “the laws of nature must be
already formulated in the language of mathematics to be an object for the use of applied mathematics.”
The statement (quoted above) that the laws of nature are written in the language of mathematics was
originally made three hundred years ago [by Galileo].”

The laws of nature are written in the language of mathematics.

How? By whom? Who created this language and how is it that nature seems designed around
mathematics? These questions have simply been ignored for too long… not that they always have been.
Pythagoras of Samos (6th Century BCE) was both a philosopher and mathematician 15 who believed that a
complete system of mathematics could be constructed using the systematic methods 16 still in use today.
With religious fervor, Pythagoras and his followers sought to show that the universe could be described
in terms of whole numbers (1, 2, 3, 4…) and that the Universe itself was a manifestation of numbers and
geometry17. But they were stymied by the square root of 2 (which we now know is an “irrational
number” as it cannot be represented by any ratio of two whole numbers). This led to an entirely
different perspective on mathematics based upon a more rigorous or exacting approach (versus the
practical approximations of the Egyptians). Based largely upon geometry, these early Greek thinkers

12
And, implying that quantum mechanics has a property of non-locality.
13
Schneider, supra, p. 18.
14
Richard Courant Lecture in Mathematical Sciences delivered at New York University, May 11, 1959 available at
http://links.uwaterloo.ca/amath731docs/wigner_unreasonable_effectiveness_1960.pdf.
15
He likely coined both the words "philosophy" ("love of wisdom") and "mathematics" ("that which is learned") and
his political and religious teachings profoundly influenced the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle (among others).
16
Especially, the use of abstraction and generalization techniques and developing the concept of mathematical
proof using a deductive method using logical steps to prove or disprove theorems from initial axioms.
17
See https://cosmosmagazine.com/mathematics/the-square-root-of-2.
proved that mathematics (or math “facts”) are always true and offered a rational approach to
understanding reality (both scientifically and aesthetically 18).

But using a rational approach to understanding reality left many unanswered questions, not the least of
which were those pesky irrational numbers (soon realized by the Greeks to include pi and the cube root
of 2). The Greeks were also aware of the work by Indian mathematicians with infinity, combinations, and
the use of zero19. We now use zeros and infinities in mathematics without giving them due attention
(which I cannot give them here). But ponder for a moment the meaning of an infinite number such as
the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter (”pi”). Why is pi an infinite number? Why is the
square root of 2 an infinite number? Theoretically, an infinite number must contain all the information in
the Universe.

We simply cannot grasp infinity. In some “small” section of the number pi there must exist a sequence of
information which represents the sum of all human knowledge (including millions of copies of a digitized
Encyclopedia Britannica). How is that possible? This also means that pi includes all the information that
can be or ever will be created by all humans (and all sentient beings in the Universe). This mathematical
“fact” has profound “religious” implications. Rest assured that had the Bible focused upon “God the
Mathematician” we wouldn’t need to accept its basis upon “faith alone” and those of us in the Judeo-
Christian world would have been taught a more compelling theology: truth = math 20. But, before we
delve deeper into that topic, we should review the nature of reality as revealed through mathematics.

Anyone who claims to have discovered anything about mathematics is really saying that they discovered
the existence of something that was already there (just as “Columbus discovered the new world”). Such
discoveries may be very important and insightful, but they never create a new mathematics or extension
of it. The language of mathematics is so complex and complete that we have only grasped a very small
part of it. So let us be clear - mathematics and mathematical entities exist independently of humans just
like the natural relationships they describe so clearly and completely.

Those who suggest that humans are so intelligent that they perceive and grasp natural relationships as
mathematical symbolism (thereby creating mathematics) ignore history, logic, and overwhelming
evidence to the contrary. When a physicist uses mathematics to predict the existence of some unknown
object or relationship in nature (such as a new quantum particle and its interactions with other particles)
are they also then creating the particle when it is later discovered through experimentation? When an
astrophysicist uses mathematics to predict some cosmic event that occurred a billion years before the
first human arose, is she making mathematics retroactive – or did the math exist at the time of the
event?

It has been mathematics that allows us to confidently describe events that occurred within the first
micro-seconds after “the Creation” (of the Universe). It is mathematics that allows use to predict the
future of the Universe long after humans have disappeared. Mathematical entities and structures do not
have spatial or temporal characteristics – they have existed since the
18
Such as showing that music followed strict rules to produce beauty.
19
Its use as a number, so it could be used in calculations and mathematical investigations, wasn’t formalized until
7th Century by the Indian mathematician Brahmagupta.
20
The Islamic and Hindu religions have a more mathematical basis. The Qu’ran encourages the accumulation of
knowledge and algebra originated with the Moslem mathematician Muhammad Al-Khwarizmi (9 th century) who
strongly advocated the use of the Hindu numerical system thereby creating the powerful abstract mathematical
language still used around the world.
 beginning of the Universe. At the very least they have somehow been connected with the physical world
since the earliest moments. More so, mathematics exists beyond physical reality as there is an intrinsic
relationship between mathematics and logic. Logic exists independent from objects. Logic defines the
structure of and elucidates the validity of arguments. Logic exists within thought (sometimes) and is
inherent in morality.

In essence, mathematics is based upon a set of rules (axioms), the formal manipulation of symbols
(computations), and the processing of terms or processes (operations) consistent with these rules 21.
When humans first came to realize the power and beauty of mathematics, they were sure that this must
have a divine origin. While divine attribution for many natural features was common (and now accepted
as generally erroneous and simplistic), we still lack an answer to the question of where did mathematics
come from. Unlike physical reality which seems deterministic under evolutionary principles (many small
changes progressing over a long time), the existence of axioms and complex operations connected to
and controlling physical reality has no deterministic/evolutionary explanation.

Whereas physical reality demonstrates a clear beginning and long-term opportunity for change in
physical development, it shows the opposite for mathematics. All indications are that the same
mathematical axioms, computations, and operations that we observe imbedded within the physical
realm existed at the beginning and either existed entirely then or emerged along with the physical forces
and elements (all of which came into physical existence relatively early in the Universe). As those forces
and elements interacted to yield larger and more complex structures they followed the same
mathematical principles and processes we observe today. We have every reason to expect that they will
continue to do so until the end of the physical reality of the Universe.

Because physical reality has a specific beginning and has followed a known evolutionary progression to
produce the Universe we now study and are beginning to grasp, it has been easier to accept the
possibility or explanation that either the Universe has always existed (in a succession of expansions and
contractions) or that it simply emerged as some “natural” phenomenon that we simply haven’t
“discovered” yet. A long-term progression from simple to complex has a certain intellectual appeal and
figuring it out has been a distraction from the bigger questions. Scientists have answered these bigger
questions with remarkably simplistic replies such as saying that the naked singularity which initiated the
Universe “just happened”. Saying that mathematics “just is” is far less satisfactory even though it
appears that mathematics have always existed.

21
Mathematics involves processes of proof and demonstrable formulae. Axiomatic-style proof procedure requires
certain kinds of formulas to be admitted (premised) as axioms and certain kinds of inferences from premise
formulas to a conclusion formula are admitted as (primitive) rules. A proof (of a given formula) is a sequence of
formulas (the last being the given formula) in which every formula or step is either an axiom or follows from earlier
steps by a rule. Within proof procedure, a formula or a theorem is either demonstrable or indemonstrable. It is
demonstrable if there ia some formal proof or demonstration of it; otherwise it is indemonstrable. For any style of
proof procedure there are two results needed to be established for it: that every demonstrable formula is valid and
every valid formula is demonstrable. The task of establishing the first result, soundness, is generally tedious but
routine. The second result, completeness, is a centerpiece in logic. Since the relationship of deducibility and
consistency to demonstrability parallels the relationship of consequence and satisfiability to validity, the
coincidence of validity with demonstrability yields the coincidence of the other truth-related notions, consequence
and unsatisfiability, with their proof-related counterparts: deducibility and inconsistency. (The coincidence of
consequence and unsatisfiability with deducibility and inconsistency in the case of infinite sets of formulas depends
on Gödel’s compactness theorem).
Mathematics didn’t “just happen”. The existence of a highly ordered and very complex “language” that
has proven to be “unreasonably effective” in describing nature cannot be explained away with simplistic
arguments such as those offered for emergent physical events. We need to re-think our “world view”
and expand our consideration of reality to include the “abstract” aspect reflected so clearly in
mathematics. Doing so inherently takes us in the direction carefully avoided by science.

The existence of a magnificent, amazing, beautiful, complex, and self-aware physical reality has been
“explained” through careful study in the physical sciences. The success of science as a means of
discovering physical/empirical truth has led us to ignore its limitations. Science rarely addresses the
“why” issues and selectively ignores many “how” questions. Starting with the beginning, science finds an
“event horizon” at the on-set of the “Big Bang” and accepts this barrier as the end of science. Everything
before or beyond this barrier is simply beyond the realm of physical science and lacking access to
observations, measurements, and mathematics beyond this barrier, science cannot function. The result
has been a distinct demarcation between science and religion and the result of that divide has been
religious freedom to ignore reality.

Because scientific evidence and analysis has often conflicted with religious “myths” there has been a
strong rejection of each towards the other. Where science has failed to produce answers, there is a
tendency to simply ignore the questions. Where religion has produced erroneous or irrational answers
there is a tendency to ignore facts, evidence, and/or logic. The net result is ignorance and the product
has been a failure or refusal to rationally pursue the Divine. While science may be unable to provide a
complete study of reality, it provides the reasonable foundation for grasping its nature. That nature is
best described in the language built into reality – mathematics. But just as physical reality cannot
completely define nature, neither can its language. Fortunately, some aspects of mathematics clearly
apply to non-physical reality – especially logic.

Logically, we should study the whole of reality by starting with a premise, seeking and analyzing evidence
supporting or opposing the premise, and reaching a conclusion applying inductive and deductive
reasoning (not necessarily formal logic)22. Science has done this for us extensively when dealing with the
physical reality of the Universe. In science we have followed the math to discover an incredibly complex,
ordered, balanced, and “ingenious” system which has been reduced to a few key mathematical
expressions. Part of the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing this reality is that we
use the logic and certainty of the math to guide us – unfailingly – to new discoveries. When we derive
theories which contradict the math, we know the theory is flawed.

The complexity of the math is humbling: no human can claim to fully grasp all the mathematics we know
and we know there is math that we have yet to discover. The major quest in physics today is a search for
a “theory of everything” – a mathematical description of how the four major forces which form physical
reality are “unified” (they were once a single force which split). That the essence of physical reality might
be expressed in a single mathematical term is profound. It is so profound that we must take a moment to
delve into the math (I promise to keep it general).

22
With inductive reasoning one begins with a conclusion and one’s reasoning moves from specific instances to a
generalized conclusion while deductive reasoning begins with a premise or premises and when all premises are
true, the terms are clear, and deductive processes are properly followed, then the conclusion reached is necessarily
proven true.
Newton changed the world (in 1686) when he found a mathematical description for gravity – the “law of
universal gravitation” that explains the force that pulls any two objects (with mass) towards each other.

This formula says that the force of attraction between the two objects is equal to the
universal gravitational constant23 (which Newton determined through measurement) times the result of
the mass of the first object times the mass of the second object divided by the distance between the
centers of each object. In 1785 Coulomb followed Newton’s logic 24 to offer a description for the amount

of force with which stationary electrically charged particles repel or attract each other: .
Then (in 1813) Gauss offered his flux theorem relating the distribution of electric charge to the resulting
electric field. In 1865 James Clerk Maxwell25 formulated the classical theory of electromagnetism which
“unified” electricity, magnetism, and light as different manifestations of the same phenomenon. This
(and other) discoveries helped usher in the era of modern physics and led directly to special relativity
and quantum mechanics. His math is too complex to describe briefly here (being a linked set of
differential equations with 20 equations in 20 variables that are now expressed in the form of four partial
differential equations), but the resulting four equations describing how electric and magnetic fields
respond to moving charged particles “are some of the most amazing equations in physics because they
capture all there is to know about electricity and magnetism”26.

Maxwell’s work was amazing, but created some difficulties (such as requiring an absolute frame of
reference as the equations changed form for a moving observer). In an effort to resolve these
difficulties, in 1905 Albert Einstein was inspired to formulate the theory of special relativity (“STR”). The
intellectual leap taken by Einstein was breathtaking – it served to restructure our understanding of the
cosmos (forcing us to revise our notions of space, time, and simultaneity). In effect, STR delineates
(mathematically) the relationship between space and time (using "Lorentz transformations"). The theory
is based on two postulates:

1. The laws of physics are invariant in all inertial systems.

2. The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light
source.

STR implied a wide range of unexpected consequences (all of which were subsequently verified
experimentally) including:

1. length contraction (a moving object's length is shortened relative to the object's own rest
frame),
2. time dilation (a difference in time measured by two observers due to a difference of velocity,
relative to each other or being situated differently relative to a gravitational field),
23
The universal gravitational constant or “G” is approximately 6.67x10^-11 N (m/kg)^2.“N” is the Newton, a
measurement of force. This value doesn't change even if the masses change or the distance between them
changes.
24
In 1788, Lagrange offered a comprehensive treatment of classical mechanics (called Lagrangian mechanics which
simplified Newton’s calculus) and formed a basis for the development of mathematical physics in the nineteenth
century. His work was followed by Gauss.
25
While most have heard the names Newton and Einstein, few recognize Maxwell – so I offer his full name. He is
generally regarded as being in the same class of physicists as those other two geniuses.
26
From https://plus.maths.org/content/what-general-relativity - emphasis added.
 3. relativistic mass (dependent on the velocity of the observer),
4. mass–energy equivalence (e=mc2),
5. a universal speed limit for any object with mass (c), and
6. relativity of simultaneity (whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time
depends upon the observer's reference frame).

“Special relativity” replaced notions of an absolute universal time with the notion that time is dependent
upon frame of reference and spatial position. Einstein's great insight was that gravity acts as a field
comprised by “spacetime” – that the dimensions of space and the dimension of time are inextricably
linked. One result (as listed above) was that STR unified energy and matter (matter is a special form of
energy).

Ten years after we were given STR, Einstein gave us his general theory of relativity (“GTR”) based upon
ten equations - known as the Einstein Field Equations 27 - which describe gravity as a result of spacetime
being curved by mass and energy28. GTR has been aptly described as “one of the most amazing
achievements in the history of science”29, but it is also one of the great achievements in mathematics –
both in recognition and application. Unfortunately, the math Is quite complex and the physics it
describes and predicts is still not fully understood.

GTR - a rather simple-looking equation of great complexity

With GTR, Einstein opened a door into reality that has prompted a scientific revolution almost beyond
imagination. From “Big Bang” to “Black Holes”, GTR has guided us to a whole new cosmology.

And then, along came quantum mechanics. Shockingly, Einstein’s work with relativity did not win a Nobel
Prize – but his work with photons did. Just a few months before he announced special relativity (1905),
Einstein proposed the quantum theory of light - the idea that light exists as tiny packets (aka “particles”)
which he called “photons”. While his quantum insight was based more upon observation than
mathematics, Einstein relied upon observations and conclusions by Max Planck.

Planck, considered the father of the Quantum Theory, sought to resolve a contradiction in the laws of
classical physics revealed in experiments with the photoelectric effect 30. Plank realized that frequency
(the wave characteristic of light) is directly proportional to energy and that there was a minimum
amount of energy that could be gained or lost by an atom in discrete quantities. Planck termed the
27
Based largely upon “tensors” to describe curvature. A Riemann curvature tensor is a way to capture a measure of
intrinsic curvature consisting of a multi-dimensional array of sums and products of partial derivatives. See Einstein
field equations and Mathematics of general relativity.
28
Based upon the energy and momentum at that point… showing that the mass due to the acceleration of a frame
is the same as the mass due to gravity.
29
“What is general relativity?” by David Tong at https://plus.maths.org/content/what-general-relativity. These
tensor equations show how “gravity” is a result of spacetime being curved by mass and energy by describing the
relation between the Riemannian geometry of a four-dimensional manifold representing spacetime and the
energy–momentum within spacetime allowing one to determine inertial trajectories of particles.
30
Light focused on certain metals causes electrons to be emitted. For different metals there is a minimum threshold
frequency at which the effect will occur and a change to light with twice the intensity and half the frequency will
not produce the same outcome.
minimum amount of energy the “quantum” (one photon of light carries exactly one quantum of energy).
This marked the end of “classical physics” where events are viewed as continuous and deterministic
(every cause matches up to a specific, local effect) and initiated “quantum physics” where events occur
in discrete/quantum leaps based upon probabilistic indeterminism.

Planck found a formula31 for the radiation energy density inside a heated oven. That formula implied that
the energy given off by a blackbody was not continuous, but given off at certain specific wavelengths, in
regular increments. This led to his realization of another equation 32 that related directly to the quantum
phenomenon:

E=hν =hcλ
The key to this equality is “h” – a proportionality constant (one of the most accurately known
fundamental constants) which describes the behavior of particles and waves at the sub-atomic level. It is
known as the quantum of action – a product of energy multiplied by time. (We will look at constants
shortly).

It’s been over a century now and we’re still trying to develop a complete picture of quantum reality –
through mathematics33. At this time we have reached a mathematical conundrum… Relativity gives
nonsensical answers when you try to scale it down to the quantum level (descending to infinite values in
its description of gravity). Quantum mechanics runs into serious trouble when you expand it to cosmic
dimensions. Scientists hope to reconcile our understanding of the small scale world of atoms and
particles (predicted with extraordinary accuracy by the so-called Standard Model of fundamental
interactions) with that of the large scale of the cosmos (remarkably well described by Einstein’s
equations). This conundrum parallels our difficulties in finding a unification theory for gravity and the
electro-weak interaction (or “force”).

Modern physics attempts to explain every observed physical phenomenon 34 through fundamental
interactions and to reduce the different interaction types into a unified interaction. Since Faraday’s
conjecture that the forces of electricity and magnetism were really unified forces (shown later by
Maxwell’s formulas), scientists have sought to show that all four fundamental forces 35 can be similarly
unified. A Grand Unified Theory (“GUT”) would unite the electroweak 36 and strong interactions and a

31
dρ(ν,T)=ρν(T)dν
32
E=energy, h=constant, v=frequency: the energy for a resonator of frequency v is hv where h is a universal
constant – “Planck's constant” (6.62607004…×10 −34 J⋅s). Because we can substitute mc2 for E, the Planck constant
also relates mass to frequency.
33
And, perhaps consistent with one of quantum reality’s key features – the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle – I’m
far less than certain that we will ever develop a complete grasp of quantum reality. At the quantum level we are at
the boundary of physical reality and while physics may develop a complete understanding of quantum mechanics,
it is unlikely to reach into non-physical quantum effects (for which we currently have no mathematical
representation).
34
Elementary quantum particles, whose behaviors are modelled in quantum mechanics (QM) are seen as
information carriers where predictive success with probabilistic outcomes are modeled across a field set related to
special relativity and relativistic quantum field theory (QFT).
35
Gravity, electro-magnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. Their magnitude and behavior vary greatly.
36
Electromagnetism and weak interaction appear to be very different at everyday (low) energies and they can be
modelled using two different theories. However, at energies around 100 GeV they merge into a single electroweak
Theory of Everything (“ToE”) would unite quantum gravity (“QG”) and GUT within a single framework
(formula). This effort was initiated through and has been guided by mathematics. As has been the case
throughout our exploration of modern physics, we have discovered as much or more about mathematics
from physical reality as we have learned about physical reality itself.

Thus, we have scientists asking the question: “Is God a Mathematician?” 37 And, one of the greatest
mathematicians of the last century claimed that:

“God is a mathematician of a very high order, and He used very advanced mathematics
in constructing the universe. Our feeble attempts at mathematics enable us to
understand a bit of the universe, and as we proceed to develop higher and higher
mathematics we can hope to understand the universe better.” 38

The existence of a “language” as complex and ordered as mathematics that is unreasonably effective in
describing, explaining, and predicting throughout physical reality – and which has no “natural” or
evolutionary explanation - is a great mystery. And, it is a mystery quite unlike most others within the
natural sciences as mathematics is intrinsic, unchanging, and clearly relates to things that are non-
physical (such as logic). But mathematics is inexorably linked to structural aspects of the Universe in ways
both obvious and subtle. Next, we will examine just two of those links: numbers and constants.

Numbers are easily taken as obvious and simple. Instead, they are recondite and immensely complex.
Symbolic integers, such as the numbers we generally count with, are obvious and simple. But, as noted
above, these numbers hold amazing and striking secrets: mathematical secrets. The simplest example is
the square root of 2 (meaning what two numbers multiplied times each other equals two) 39. The Greeks
(specifically the Pythagoreans) ran into this number when they sought a fraction that would produce the
length of the diagonal in a square with sides of one unit. They discovered that no such ratio could exist
and this revealed a whole new class of numbers (what mathematicians term “irrational numbers” – no
ratio)40. This discovery was so disturbing to the Pythagoreans that it was made a secret – and anyone
who divulged it was punishable by death.

What’s the big deal? The Pythagoreans (as with other early Greek intellectuals) saw mathematics as an
indication or proof of an underlying orderliness to the Universe. Such orderliness, they reasoned, was
proof of Divine Creation and offered a window through which one could see the nature of God 41. The

force. The electroweak theory unifies the weak and electromagnetic forces. See http://hyperphysics.phy-
astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/unify.html.
37
Title of book by Mario Livio, Simon & Schuster (2009). See also “Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the
Ultimate Nature of Reality” by Max Tegmark, Vintage; Reprint edition (2015)
38
"The Evolution of the Physicist's Picture of Nature" in Scientific American (May 1963) reprinted at
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-evolution-of-the-physicists-picture-of-nature/.
39
More accurately termed the positive algebraic number that is the principal square root of 2.
40
It was intuitive that numbers lined up in a sequence but between any two numbers there were fractional
amounts expressed by a ratio such as ½ and that for any two fractions there would always be a fraction in between
them: between 1/4 and 1/2 is 1/3. Between 1/3 and 1/2 is 2/5, between 1/3 and 2/5 is 3/8, and so on – to infinity.
41
The theology of Pythagoras is uncertain, but it seems apparent that he pursued belief in divinity objectively and
reasonably. He was well travelled and showed interest and influences from a variety of religions ultimately adopting
strong ideas regarding immortality of the soul (“metempsychosis”), righteousness, mathematicism, and balancing
moral teachings (relating to harmony, justice, purity and righteousness – “akousmatikoi” with the logical and
philosophical quest for establishing the fundamental essence of reality through mathematics – “mathēmatikoi”.
existence of an “incommensurable number” was incommensurate with and contradictory to their
theological conceptions42. And then, along came pi.

The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter (now designated by the symbol π) was of interest
long before the Greeks formalized mathematicism. Archimedes used Pythagoras' Theorem, a geometric
technique, and method of proof by contradiction (“reductio ad absurdum”) to calculate the approximate
value of π43. His “polygonal algorithm” for calculating pi prevailed through the 14 th century when the
infinite series method took over…

In 1768 Johann Lambert proved that π is irrational and, in 1882, Ferdinand von Lindemann proved that pi
is transcendental.

What does this have to do with reality? To answer this question we should first answer another: What
the heck is a transcendental number? We shall overlook the formal mathematical definition 44 of
transcendental numbers and focus instead upon the nature of three special transcendental constants:

π (pi)- The ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter (as above)

φ (phi) - the Golden Ratio or Golden Section - the division of a line into two unequal parts such
that the lesser is to the greater as the greater is to the whole.

e (aka Euler’s number - the base of the natural logarithm) - the unique number whose natural
logarithm is equal to one. It is a ratio mapping multiplication into addition by relating geometric
and arithmetic sequences45.

Each of these numbers - known as numerical constants – has a unique and often surprising role in
explaining reality. But that fits within the “unreasonable effectiveness” discussion above. The
unreasonable oddity we’re interested in here is the precision of these numbers.

Precision relates to the certainty of things. Prior to the quantum era, it was widely accepted that
everything in physical reality had some fixed “precision” that – with proper instruments – allowed us to
know with certainty the size of things. Even the beginning of “quantum physics” defined reality in the
certain size of the quantum – discreteness meant limits and certainty down to the limit of Planck’s
constant. No space could be smaller and no time could be shorter than the quantum limits established
by Planck (in the order of .0000000000000000000000000000000001 – 10 -34). We now measure things in

42
We actually know little about Pythagoras, but Aristotle wrote: “[For Pythagoras] the principles of mathematics
were the principles of all things.” (Metaphysics 1–5, c. 350 BCE).
43
He used a doubling technique for polygons inside and outside the circumference of circle to fix the range of pi
between 223/71 < π < 22/7 (3.1429 and 3.1408 – the actual value is 3.14159…).
44
A transcendental number is a real or complex number that is always irrational, non-Euclidian (cannot be
constructed using classical geometric constructions., non-algebraic (not a root of any nonzero integer polynomial),
and belongs to an uncountable set (requires an infinite series of numbers to define).
45
John Napier (in 1614) first called L an "artificial number", but later introduced the word "logarithm" to mean a
number that indicates a ratio: λόγος (logos) meaning proportion, and ἀριθμός (arithmos) meaning number.
the order of a hundred billionths (10 -11)46 and even trillionths (10-13)47 – near the limits imposed by the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle48.

The reality is that we cannot measure the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter more
accurately than a trillionth (10-12) of a centimeter – but we know this ratio to a trillion places
(101000000000000) and understand that its accuracy is unlimited. The transcendental constants have infinite
accuracy… INFINITE ACCURACY. Here we need to take a closer look at “infinity”.

We are not infinite and we really cannot grasp the really big numbers 49 that are infinitely smaller than
infinity. We have had a tendency to label really big things as infinite even when they’re not… such as the
Universe50 itself. There are a finite number of stars, atoms, and quarks in the Universe. We think of
gravity and magnetic forces as extending to infinity, but they do not. We have reasoned that there are an
infinite number of intervals between two seconds of time and we would logically think that all infinities
are equal. But we know of “transfinite numbers” and “countable infinities”. 51 It was the concept of
infinities that guided some of the great mathematicians to base their “proof” of God upon the existence
of infinity52. It seems logical to accept that our inability to grasp infinity must deny us the ability to fully
grasp “God” (Kurt Gödel’s “that which is greater than anything that can be conceived” as restated by St.
Anselm of Canterbury).

That several fundamental constants relating to the structure of the Universe are transcendental is a
powerful argument for something which is greater than anything that can be conceived being behind the
Creation.

Aside from the perfect precision of transcendental constants, there are numerous Universal “variables”
and constants that are incredibly precise.

46
https://gizmodo.com/physicists-just-made-the-most-precise-measurement-ever-1828720455
47
http://gabrielse.physics.harvard.edu/gabrielse/overviews/ElectronMagneticMoment/ElectronMagneticMoment.h
tml
48
See “The Limits of Accuracy In Physical Measurements“ by Arthur E. Ruark, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A. 1928 Apr;
14(4): 322–328 @ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1085485/pdf/pnas01816-0032.pdf.
49
Number of atoms in the universe 1082. In terms: one-hundred thousand quadrillion vigintillion atoms.
50
The Universe had a beginning and has been expanding for a fixed amount of time – it logically cannot be infinite.
Whatever the Universe is expanding into may be infinite, but that is unknown (and likely unknowable).
51
Georg Cantor is credited with “discovering” transfinite numbers around 1870 by showing that some infinite sets
were “larger” than others.
52
See http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians.
In principle, every known fundamental property of nature can he computed from the 32 values in this
table53. What determines these values and how critical are they in the Creation? A full explanation is well
beyond the scope of this work, so we will look at just a few – those critical to the creation of atoms and
stars.

In the beginning there were no atoms. Just after the beginning there were no atoms. Atoms are made up
of a nucleus (containing protons and neutrons (made up of quarks and gluons) and electrons. Just after
the “Big Bang” (the spontaneous emergence of a naked singularity within an unknown substrate) the
tiny new Universe contained only energy (no matter). The energy had to dissipate (cool down) enough
for matter to form (remember, e=mc2). So, even though we have a detailed mathematical description of
the production of early matter, the reason why matter formed remains a mystery.

We know the process – the initial homogeneous “primordial soup” (or “plasma”) was dominated by
radiation and this prevented the emergence of matter. At about one second into the unfolding of the
Universe neutrinos were able to decouple (an emergent result of thermal disequilibrium) from quarks to

53
From https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0511774.pdf
allow the formation (emergence) of nucleons (protons and neutrons). A few seconds later deuterium
nuclei begin to survive disruption by high-energy photons and after a few minutes the first stable atomic
nuclei are formed. Meanwhile, beta decay began yielding free electrons and neutrinos wile nuclear
fusion created the lighter atomic isotopes (lacking electrons). It took almost 400,000 years of
cooling/decay for electrons to start being trapped around nuclei, thereby forming the first atoms (mainly
helium and hydrogen). About one and one-half million years later, the Universe was large enough for
gravity to begin forming stars. Fusion reactions within the stars produced heavier atoms (such as carbon,
oxygen and iron) and several billion years later ecosystems evolved where organic molecules could
form54.

Now all of this could only happen if there were very specific forces acting in just the right way upon
objects that have very specific properties that interact in amazingly complex but ordered ways. Science
has revealed the details relating to forces, properties, and interactions and from those details we can
compute the incredible improbability of those things being random. That is part of the revelation of the
chart above – if one understands how precise these values have to be for us to exist. But the real
mystery is what happens beyond the physics described above – the emergent properties that repeatedly
arise as evolution occurs. (Not germane to this topic and discussed in detail elsewhere – see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence).

The phrase “mathematical precision” immediately comes to mind here. This applies to the “impossible”
precision of transcendental infinities, the remarkable precision of the fundamental constants and values,
and the sensitive interrelationships and interactions between the elementary forces and building blocks
of the Universe. Computationally, the probability of this mathematical precision is far less than the
probability of you winning with every lottery ticket you can buy for the rest of your life. To argue that
such precision is accidental or random is nonsense; to argue that it “just is” is avoidance. The Universe
was Created with laws, properties, constants, precision, and ordered complexity beyond our
comprehension. Underlying all of these is a unifying language – mathematics.

When we encounter foreigners the quest for understanding begins with language. Our quest to
understand the Creation must also begin with language – the language of the Creator. That language is
mathematics. But even if we don’t learn the language, we may rest assured that its existence proves that
a higher intelligence created the Universe.

Other Ideas/Further Reading:

“The Most Beautiful Equation of Math: Euler’s Identity” by Lê Nguyên: “Euler’s identity is the greatest
feat of mathematics because it merges in one beautiful relation all the most important numbers of
mathematics. But that’s still a huge understatement, as it conceals a deeper connection between vastly
different areas that Euler’s identity indicates. Above all else, Euler’s mystical identity is a clever insight
into the perfection of the unit circle, by combining complex and diverse subfields of mathematics! In
fact, the countless properties of this perfect unit circle are the reasons why Euler’s identity has become
essential in many applications, like in physics.”

Integrated Information Theory by Giulio Tononi, Melanie Boly, Marcello Massimini & Christof Koch,
consciousness results from information processing in the brain.

54
See https://home.cern/science/physics/early-universe.
Quantum Probability (QP) Theory by Emmanuel Pothos and Jerome R. Busemeyer: the potential of
quantum probability (QP) theory for modeling cognitive processes.

“Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision“ by Jerome R. Busemeyer, Zheng Wang, and Emmanuel
Pothos, The Oxford Handbook of Computational and Mathematical Psychology, Edited by Jerome R.
Busemeyer, Zheng Wang, James T. Townsend, and Ami Eidels, Oxford U. Press (2015)

Euler’s Identity: The “amazing relation between the ordinary trigonometric functions, imaginary
numbers, and e.”

“Napier’s ideal construction of the logarithms” by Denis Roegel: an arithmetic measure of a (geometric)
ratio.

“Dynamic Systems” by Jerome R. Busemeyer: dynamic systems theory has been adopted by a wide
range of fields in cognitive science, including perceptual-motor behaviour, child development, speech
and language, and artificial intelligence.

“A Beginner’s Guide to Constructing the Universe: Mathematical Archetypes of Nature, Art, and Science”
by Michael S. Schneider, Harper Perennial (1995): “Sooner or later there comes a time in life when you
start thinking about Reality and where to find it”. A book “for those of us who lack or have lost the gift
of simple faith, who need evidence for our beliefs.”

“Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality” by Max Tegmark: the
fascinating relations between computation, mathematics, physics and mind leading to and the
conclusion that reality is not only described by mathematics, but that it is mathematics.

“The Golden Ratio: The Story of PHI, the World’s Most Astonishing Number” by Mario Livio: The Golden
Ratio is an incommensurable irrational number… a discovery that changed the world.

“Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe” by Martin Rees: The picture that emerges
- a map in time as well as in space - is not what most of us expected. It offers a new perspective on how a
single 'genesis event' created billions of galaxies, black holes, stars and planets, and how atoms have
been assembled - here on Earth, and perhaps on other worlds - into living beings intricate enough to
ponder their origins.

“The Anthropic Cosmological Principle” by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler: The existence of the sun,
the earth, but also the chemical elements are the outcome of a process…

“The Constants of Nature: The Numbers That Encode the Deepest Secrets of the Universe” by John
Barrow: Reality as we know it is fixed by a set of constants - values that dictate the strengths of forces
like gravity, the speed of light, and the masses of elementary particles.

“The Constants of Nature: From Alpha to Omega—the Numbers That Encode the Deepest Secrets of the
Universe” by John D. Barrow, Pantheon Books (2002): The constants of Nature encode the deepest
secrets of the Universe and express at once our greatest knowledge about the cosmos. Their existence
has taught us the profound truth that Nature abounds with regularities.
 “What I'm really interested in is whether God could have made the world in a different
way; that is, whether the necessity of logical simplicity leaves any freedom at all.” 55

Albert Einstein

55
From “Einstein; A Centenary Volume” by S.W. Hawking and W. Israel, Cambridge University Press (1987), p. 128.