Re: Are there things that don't evolve?

You have just dogmatically disenfranchised a group of mathematicians, the
strict constructionists. Also, the three Aristotelian calculi do not
match the logics that have developed from Frege's work. I recall a remark
that C. L. Dodgson had come up with a calculus that differed from both
Aristotle and PM, which remained undeveloped. I have not dug into that.

I note that there are various conjectures floating around mathematics.
Are these discovered axioms, invented assumptions, wicked perversions, or
something else?

I think we can safely say that nothing that is a constant evolves. This
must apply as surely to pi as to G. If they change, they can hardly be
constants.
Dave

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 22:52:03 EST Philtill@aol.com writes:
In a message dated 3/25/2006 8:07:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,
gregoryarago@yahoo.ca writes:
help put the thread back on track.

Can you give an example or examples of things that don't evolve? Are
there things that don't evolve?

Off the top of my head, I can think of two things that don't evolve (not
counting supernatural things). These are:

1. logic and mathematics. While the "body" of mathematical research
does grow and evolve over time, the mathematics itself as an abstract
concept does not evolve; it is only discovered. Things discovered ages
ago are exactly the same today as they were back then, because the logic
itself has not changed one iota.

2. the fundamental physics that rules the universe. While there is
discussion that maybe the fine structure constant does change over time
very slowly, so perhaps some of the "constants" of physics do evolve,
nevertheless there is a firm belief among physicists that even this kind
of evolution can be understood by appealing to more fundamental laws that
themselves do not evolve. This is closely akin to #1, because of the
close relationship between reductionistic physics and mathematics.

Personally, I think that the laws of physics in the universe are
analogous to an axiomatic system in mathematics. There are a certain
number of physical "axioms" that science seeks to discover through
reductionism. By the strength of this analogy I think that there must be
an infinite mind behind the universe, because no axiomatic system can be
complete and provably consistent without first performing an infinite
number of logical deductions (analogy to the incompleteness theorem) and
so I think the non-evolution of logic and physics is closely related to
the non-evolution of God's infinite mind.

God bless!
Phil Metzger
Received on Sun Mar 26 00:01:19 2006