This
was written about 8 years ago, and published as a

**Blog post**about 6 years ago. It is the summarising thesis that makes up a whole book of material I've written on God, Philosophy and Mathematics. Today's Blog post is the newer, redux version - published today because it contains a few additional analogies and clarification points that should supplement the original work and amplify its key tenets.Look around and you and you’ll see a plethora of dubious theology and pseudo-science centred on Creationist ideas and Intelligent Design movements. I reject Creationism and Intelligent Design as being fabrications of the truth. What’s often missed, though, is that real, authentic science gives (I think) some kind of exhibition to the Divine Cosmic Mathematician behind the law and disorder of the cosmos. So here are a few ‘back of the envelope’ style jottings on why I think there almost certainly is a God. I’ve decided to call it The Mathematical Bias Theory: Why There Almost Certainly ‘IS’ a God – in 20 Steps

**Introduction**

Various proposals have been put forward by physicists about descriptions of
nature; there are speculations about string theory, M theory and other
conjectures about multi-dimensionality; conjectures that at sub-Planckian
levels the universe has no dimensions at all and is just an arrow line. We’ve had different conjectures about what
spacetime is, the nature of gravity, non-linearity effects in spacetime, a
geometric duality that reverses linear dimensions and undermines spacetime,
theories about the true nature of particles and waves, or differing kinds of
energy and mass relative to differing speeds – the list goes on. All those examinations have one thing in
common – they won’t tell us if there a Divine Cosmic Mathematician underpinning
it all, because they are heuristics that deal only with the descriptive aspects
of nature’s law and disorder. As the
last few thousand years of science has shown, our heuristics are almost always
subject to augmentation with further knowledge and technology. Most importantly, though, descriptive science
cannot eliminate the burden of contingency related to the

**‘Why is there Something?’**question.
I’ve said all of the above for one good reason; grand theories that explain
reality will not take the form of descriptive physics – they will take the form
of a conflation of mathematics and philosophy, because both those subjects
bootstrap our physical descriptions - and physical descriptions of reality are
not complete, as they only simulate possibility.

What
I’m going to say isn’t one bullet-pointed proof of God – it is a picture of a
worldview that suggests to me that the cosmos is designed by a Cosmic Mathematician.

**1)**If mathematics is the language to describe the signature of God as some sort of Cosmic Mathematician, then nature can be modelled by some sort of mathematical template or blueprint that deals purely with constitution in numbers. This is because when seen through the mind of omniscience, nature as we know it and engage with must be amenable to statistical description if concepts like laws, patterns and information are to mean anything. For this reason, given that at a simple human level mathematics is the language we use to embed conceptual reality into patterns of description, I can conceive that a complete and totalising description of reality in the mind of omniscience will be (at least in one form) a complete set of information that consists of mathematical pattern storage.

**2)**As nature is reducible to bits of information, then to an omniscient mind (with no gaps in knowledge) the whole cosmic spectrum of law and disorder is computable - so even though omniscience has other forms of complex conception that we cannot grasp, we know of at least one way to describe nature in that way – a description of pure pattern storage.

**3)**From points 1 and 2, a fairly obvious corollary follows. Nature provides us with a form that is descriptively compressible. But descriptive science can only compress so far - we reach a point at which our road to compression hits a conceptual brick wall. Further, even compression doesn't tell the full story because each physical compression requires an algorithm, so the ultimate compression of our cosmos must involve algorithmic precursors to enable compression, so whichever way we look at it, we seem to be faced with a reality that ‘just is’ – and that seems like a miracle.

**Note:**

**Mathematical compression is not to be confused with the reducible complexity found in the material substrate.****4)**Given that information is measured using probability, and probability doesn’t have a negative value, the formal structures of data compressing equations and algorithms must always return ‘something’ not ‘nothing’ – so we can’t reach the point of reducing or compressing the universe out of existence or ‘to nothing’ anymore than we could compress one of Hooke’s springs to zero.

**Note:**

*Most complex forms can only be converged upon algorithmically if either the algorithm is executed for a period of time far beyond the capacity of any human or computational machine or if we had access to the initial precursory conditions. There’s no way of escaping it - given what we know of our universe, those precursory algorithms would have to be alarmingly complex if they underwrite our cosmos, because we know how alarmingly complex our cosmos is, even in its most elemental statistical descriptions.*

**5)**When it comes to ultimate explanations, complexity only comes from precursors that are also at the upper end of the complexity spectrum. That's not to say, in the simple physics of our universe, that with a long execution time simplicity cannot produce complexity, because it can - but that's not a satisfactory 'ultimate' explanation, because it fails to eliminate the burden of contingency, and it doesn’t leave us with a plausible ‘just is’ closure – it only relates to mathematical patterns ‘within’ physics. An algorithm posited as an ultimate explanation must be scrutinised to provide a reason why it exploits a principle that is algorithmically ordered at all - and so, we are left with a multiple regression of 'why?'

**6)**At the heart of “something” the mathematical configurations must be complex, because at every instance we are always left with complex brute fact algorithms. At the very least we know that any bootstrapping algorithms must have complex blueprints because we know for a fact that this universe has an incredibly complex blueprint. In fact, the algorithm that underwrites the cosmos may well be as long as the cosmic data itself, and that won’t just pop up out of nothing.

**Note:**

*Considering the patterning view of randomness - it is a dynamic that produces a sequence, and this could be anything from a book of random numbers, through to a computer printout, to the heads/tails sequence of coin tossing. Hence if we have, say, a coin that we continue to toss, as far as the patterning notion of randomness is concerned, the eventual sequence of heads and tails stretches out producing a pattern notion that has a denumerable (in other words, ‘countable’) set of possibilities available to it, and so we know that the sequence generated by the coin tossing will assume one value taken from a countable set of possibilities, it’s just that we don’t know which one! The patterning view of randomness sees that the ‘to-be actualised’ possibility is simply an unknown pattern stretching out into the future before us! This is configurational randomness; it is a rigorous mathematical description of what our intuition tells us are ‘untidy’ and complex sequences of 1s and 0s. So, a configurationally random sequence is a particular class of pattern.*

**7)**Given the foregoing, the universe and all its laws are bootstrapped by complex algorithms, and as complex algorithms of that order will not just pop up, nor are they intelligible at all unless they are reified on an up and running sentience, there seems to be a senselessness without a mind to reify them, because patterns are meaningless without a mind to interface with them. What this hints at is that the universe is endowed with a network of computation that is itself only intelligible if 'mind' is at the core of that intelligibility. It appears very plausible that complex sentience bootstraps the kind of universe we find ourselves in, and in an extraordinary way, our minds make everything intelligible by reifying those concepts. To that end, the relationship between mind and mathematics can be regarded as being extraordinarily ‘hand in glove’.

**8)**In our universe of compact and neat physical laws we can conceive of a type of data compression, because it is the ordered patterns that make it amenable to compression. However, like all data compression, there comes a point when no further compression can take place, so we are left with this problem of what I call an ‘is-ness’ that just won’t go away and cannot be removed from the burden of contingency. That is to say, I’ve said that those compact and neat physical laws in our universe cannot be compressed to a mathematical zero, but what of the patterns that provide the compression for those laws?

**9)**In the morass of disorder those highly compressed compact and neat physical laws would be highly unrepresentative patterns in that configurational system. Pictured mathematically, what we have is a mathematical generating system that generated mathematical configurations which tended towards maximum disorder, yet embedded a constraint on itself to produce the order of stars, planets, life, and minds that would go on to understand concepts (including those of God) with high level self-awareness. This wouldn’t be unreasonably construed to be giving exhibition to conscious sentience creating and sustaining the cosmos in its vast mind.

**Note:**

*In trivial and simplistic form, most of these algorithms are counting operations which involve systematically sifting through a search space of all possible permutations of characters. Whichever way we look at it, whether from a theistic or naturalistic perspective, knowledge of the entire cosmos would bring with it a system with a permutation of characters that effectively holds the data describing our cosmos – and this will consist of a finite map of information, with a scale of order and disorder, and this what we are looking at here.*

**Logical incompressibility has to do with equations and algorithms used for data compression. Although in mathematical terms it is true that physics effectively defines a set of stable structures in morphospace (where morphospace = the richly ordered mathematical configurations that facilitate biochemical life) - with the random walk of morphospace and physics, combinatorial space has a huge class of possible configurations which simulate many other alternative possibilities embedded in the mathematical potential.**

*10)*

**Note:**

*Combinatorial space is the level at which something is computationally complex – and hereby refers to*

*11)*

**An analogy:**Suppose by way of analogy that the most ordered state of the universe, the point of the big bang, represents a book in its most ordered state - let’s say Shakespeare's play Hamlet. In this state the book is at its most ordered in terms of grammar, text and thematics. Now imagine all the text of Hamlet gets plugged into a computer program that breaks it all apart into a less and less ordered state, and does so at an accelerated rate too. So after the first few minutes, acts and paragraphs have been separated, sentences have been broken into pieces and the thematics have become more and more fragmented. Then the disordering process accelerates so that after a while longer mere words are broken up into letters, and the book becomes a random configuration of letters, maxing out at a level of disorder than contains no structure of words whatsoever.

This is essentially what
the universe is set up to do after the big bang - as matter stretches out, and
the combinatorial search space of possibilities for order becomes more and more
diffuse, the properties of hydrogen and helium become less and less like
acts and paragraphs, and more and more like fragments of words. Like the text of
Hamlet subjected to the computer program that increases disorder, there is less
and less likelihood of the kind of order you see in stars, planets and life.
The second law of thermodynamics allows for local decreases in entropy as long
as those decreases are balanced out by an increase in entropy somewhere else: but the bias appears to be that the otherwise unbiased nature of random walk is
not unbiased, but is, in actual fact, a biased random walk, which is somewhat remarkable beyond remarkable. In fact, if you don't understand how remarkable it is, you don't understand it at all. It would be a bit like running the
computer program with Hamlet text, increasing the disorder of the linguistic
configurations to blow apart all the acts, paragraphs and sentences being retained in the
configuration, and then finding somewhere down the line that the program had
thrown up whole paragraphs of Macbeth, Othello and Romeo and Juliet. The
universe's biased random walk behaves like a computer program that started with
Hamlet, began to break up the text into greater and greater disorder, but has throughout the execution time
been manipulated by instructions in the program to obtain formations of
entirely new Shakespeare plays later on in the process. That is the bias in the
universe.

*14)**Why do we have a universe with laws that ought to tend heavily towards maximum disorder (and do in most cases)? The reason for this is fairly straightforward; at an atomic level thermal energy has a diffusion that arranges mass in random motions causing an increase in disorder. But that doesn’t mean that increasing entropy necessarily corresponds to increased complexity due to the random arrangements of mass and energy – in fact, it is a mistake to equate simplicity with disorder because there is a vast degree of complexity in highly disordered random systems because their complexity is such that they contain vast numbers of cases in which they are not amenable to a simple mathematical system.*

**Note:**

*When it comes to means and frequencies in mathematics, even a highly disordered system is configurationally complex in that it contains a lot of complex data. Even in the evolution of life, in the mathematical sense phenotypical organisms are configurationally not maximally ordered or disordered, and this means that high order doesn’t necessarily entail high complexity.*

**15)**

*We have a universe with laws that ought to tend heavily towards maximum random walk disorder but that also contains an astonishing mathematical skew in its emergent order towards stars, galaxies and planets, and the eventual facilitating of genetic algorithms, conservation of sequence and function in biology, and maximisation of fitness of those organisms. This alone tells us that there is such a constraint provided by the physical regime of laws.*

**Note:**

*Obviously the distribution of energy in the universe doesn’t tend towards maximum disorder – if it did there would be no thermal energy and chemical energy to produce stars, planets and life. Once we get to the stage of the emergence of biochemical life and the point at which organisms begin to evolve and eventually pass on their genetic material we can say that the active information in the laws of physics has leaped over a significant hurdle, because bit by bit evolution achieves progression through the system of cumulative ratchet probabilities*

**16)**We can see that in less localised terms the laws of physics impose order on the universe in that the physical model has many possible states, but regulating laws limit those possibilities. In actual fact, the question of why we have any order at all in the universe is a very worthwhile one, so the fact that we have an order of the magnitude that produces stars and planets is quite astounding. The problem is that most people think of stellar explosions and the seemingly happenstance occurrence of the formation of the planets in our solar system and see a pretty chaotic and disordered mess, thanking their lucky stars (literally) that we ever got here at all. On one level this is acceptable, but in truth the sort of mathematical skew I am talking about makes even that seemingly fluky activity incredible. Here’s why. Given that the universe should be heavily tending towards maximum disorder, even something like the emergence of stars requires an extraordinary restriction on the laws to facilitate the cosmic bottle neck to eliminate every other possible state to see that such a facilitation occurs. This cosmic frontloading should under no circumstances be such that this kind of order should ever occur, because a universe without a mathematical bias would run down to maximum disorder very freely.

**Note:**

*As I’ve said once we get to the earth’s biochemistry the appearance of another bottleneck is easier to reconcile because with biochemistry the severe constraint on the space of possibilities has already limited the possibilities and produced an increased ratchet probability where the statistical weighting favours the probability of life and not maximum disorder.*

**17)**As an illustration concerning combinatorial space, consider that quantum mechanics is all about measuring probabilities. In quantum mechanics the wavefunction is a single-valued function of position and time, and it is a model we use to support a value of probability of finding a particle at a particular position and time. Even concerning one particle we have a complex conjugate because specifying the real physical probability of finding the particle in a particular state involves a fairly broad search space. Search space is best seen as a metaphor for our representing the probability amplitude for finding a particle at a given point in space at a given time. Now imagine the complex permutational variables in a cosmos that has been expanding for nigh-on 14 billion years. That is a lot of information and an incredibly vast search space of possibilities. For the conditions of any order to be met, the laws of nature must preclude so many degrees of permutation (trillions of trillions) that far from physical probability being even diffused throughout nature, it must heavily constrain the laws in favour of non-maximal disorder (let alone biochemical life) to the following extent; that whether one believes in a personal God or not, the fact that the cosmos looks blueprinted for life is impossible to deny.

**18)**As a second illustration; consider in biology one of those tiny gradual steps up evolution’s mount improbable. Yes, it’s an accumulation of bit by bit selection, but that doesn’t tell the whole story - for even one very simple beneficial mutation which is just one small step in a long evolutionary history is itself woven into a huge fabric of other possibilities, and is just one tiny part of an incredible bias that drives the laws of physics towards life – a bias already embedded in nature and that is required to severely reduce the size of the cosmological search space by providing what seem to all intents and purposes carefully blueprinted generating algorithms that produced an information-rich universe set up for life.

**Note:**

*What the second law of thermodynamics does is produce a random walk across all possible states, and settles on the state that the statistical weight skews it towards. In other words, the second law facilitates a migration based on huge statistical weighting whereby the skew directs a system towards its most probable state. As a simple illustration, if I turn on a gas flame, the statistical weighting does not tend towards heat all staying in the same region, it tends towards diffusion into colder regions away from the flame’s output. The reason being is that the colder regions provide far more microstates (that is, possible combinatorial search spaces) for the diffusion to arrange itself in than the hottest regions, so the heat tends towards regions with the greatest possible search space.*

**19)**On a greater scale, what we are seeing is thermodynamically optimum diffusions, but under the constraints of the laws of physics, and as a mathematical pattern we are seeing this right through nature’s blueprint. Many make the mistake and say ‘Well in a universe the size and age of ours we are bound to have the occasional cosmic fluke that then goes on to produce stars and (if we’re ‘really’ lucky) planets and life’. But such a claim shows that the person has a misjudged understanding of the subject at hand, because the very very tiny number of ways of locking in to order are not do with serendipitous moments of cosmic fortuity that just happen to throw up the odd fluke, they are to do with the enormous unlikelihood of having laws that constrain a system enough to produce anything other than maximum disorder - that is what is so remarkable.

**20)**I fancy that a universe without a designer would be nothing like the universe we see – it would be maximally disordered and we would not have ever been born to talk about it, because a physical regime where disorder is unconstrained by a mathematical bias wouldn’t produce any biological evolution at all.