Category: Rubik’s Cube

Posted on

Rubik, Einstein, “God” and Awe

1. In Rubik’s cube discourse, why are the solutions called “god” algorithms or “god-numbers”

Within the Rubik’s Cube (and broader puzzle) community, “God’s algorithm” refers to an optimal solving method—one that always produces the shortest possible solution from any given configuration. The idea is that an all-knowing entity (“God”) could see the perfect route to solve the puzzle in the minimum number of moves.

Historical Notes:The phrase gained popularity in discussions around “God’s number,” which is the maximum number of moves needed to solve the cube from any position (20 moves in half-turn metric, 26 in quarter-turn metric). Once that number was proven, the algorithm that always hits that bound if necessary was called “God’s algorithm.”

Informal Usage: It’s not a formal or religious usage. The term is more of a playful nod to an omniscient perspective—an algorithm that “knows” the absolute optimal path.

2. Any relation to how Einstein (and others?) used “god” in connection with the laws of physics?

Einstein’s “God”

When Einstein used phrases like “God does not play dice,” he was typically referring to the underlying determinism or structure in the laws of physics, rather than a personal deity.“God” in this context alluded to the universe’s governing rules, which Einstein believed were elegantly consistent.

Comparing to “God’s Algorithm”

The Rubik’s Cube usage is much more informal. It hints at an ultimate principle (optimality), but it doesn’t really draw from Einstein’s philosophical or theological implications.Both usages share a metaphorical sense of an ultimate or perfect knowledge, but they operate in different domains: puzzle-solving vs. describing physical reality.

3. How is this related to whether the “god-laws” are (a) empirical, as in science, or (b) formal, as in mathematics?

(a) Empirical Laws in Science

Physical laws are discovered through observation, experiment, and inference. For instance, Einstein’s field equations in general relativity are tested against measurements of planetary orbits, gravitational lensing, etc.If they fail in experiments, scientists must refine or replace them.

(b) Formal Laws in Mathematics

Mathematical “laws” (theorems, proofs) are established through logical deduction within an axiomatic system. They don’t depend on experiments; they rely on consistency with axioms.

God’s Algorithm in the Rubik’s Cube falls into the category of formal problem-solving. It’s grounded in group theory and combinatorics—the “laws” behind it aren’t empirical but logical constraints of the cube’s configuration space.So, “God’s algorithm” sits firmly in the “formal” realm of mathematics and theoretical computer science

4. And is there any relation to the various foundational views of mathematics—(i) Platonism, (ii) Intuitionism, (iii) Constructionism, or (iv) other options?

(i) Platonism

Platonists see mathematical entities (like numbers or group structures) as existing in an abstract realm. “God’s algorithm” could be seen as discovered from this realm, a perfect solution that exists objectively

(ii) Intuitionism

Intuitionists argue that math is a creation of the human mind, focusing on constructive proofs. One might say that the “optimal solution” is only meaningful insofar as we can construct it or approximate it with an algorithm.

(iii) Constructionism

Closely related to intuitionism, constructionism emphasizes building mathematical objects step by step. In that vein, the quest for “God’s algorithm” is a constructive process: we want an explicit procedure that yields the optimal path.

(iv) Other Views (e.g., Formalism)

Formalists see math as manipulations of symbols under given rules. The concept of “God’s algorithm” fits well here too: it’s a statement within the formal system describing the Rubik’s Cube group, and we seek a sequence of symbols (moves) that minimize the path.Overall, the concept of a “God’s algorithm” can be interpreted differently based on one’s philosophical stance. Platonists might say it exists out there to be discovered, while intuitionists might say it’s only “real” once we construct it. Either way, the term “God” is more of a metaphor for perfect knowledge than a literal or religious reference.

5. Have there been interpretations of what Einstein meant by “god”?

Einstein’s Own Statements

Spinoza’s God: Einstein often mentioned that he believed in the “God of Spinoza.” Spinoza’s philosophical view is broadly taken as pantheistic, equating “God” with the totality of nature or the universe’s lawful harmony rather than a personal deity.Hence, for Einstein, “God” was a metaphor for the underlying rational structure, elegance, and consistency in the laws of the universe.

Non-Personal Deity: Einstein explicitly rejected the idea of a personal God who intervenes in daily human affairs.He wrote in letters that he did not believe in a God “who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”Famous Quotes and Their Context

“God does not play dice” This phrase was Einstein’s way of expressing skepticism about the randomness and probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. He believed the universe had a more deterministic or at least deeper, as-yet-unknown, lawful structure.It did not imply a belief in a personal God but rather an insistence on an orderly universe.

Mixed Interpretations

Religious Interpretations: Some theologians and laypeople initially took Einstein’s words about “God” as support for a traditional theistic stance. However, Einstein’s later clarifications made clear he was not endorsing a personal, interventionist God.

Philosophical/Metaphorical Interpretations: Most modern scholars agree that Einstein’s references to “God” were predominantly metaphors for nature’s laws and the deep sense of wonder he felt when studying the cosmos.

Einstein’s Personal “Religiousness”

Awe and Wonder: While he did not follow an organized religion, Einstein described himself as feeling a “cosmic religious feeling”—an awe at the grandeur and mystery of the universe.He used “God” as a shorthand for that awe-inspiring order, rather than a being with personality or will.

Key Takeaway

Einstein’s “God” is best understood in the context of Spinozistic or pantheistic thought, focusing on the harmony and unity of nature. It was a poetic or metaphorical use of the word “God”—far removed from the typical doctrinal or personal interpretations found in many religions.

Last question series: (1) The notion of “god” and “gods” originated (etymologically?) from supernatural and metaphysical beliefs — beliefs which non-religious people believe to be false. Why choose “god” as the metaphor for the discovered and empirically supported truths of physics? (2) Does it fit any better (or worse) to scientific findings than Dawkins’s “Flying Spaghetti Monster”, or, for that matter, “Beelzebub”? (3) Even if it is just a metaphor for the sense of awe at the universe and its laws, why call that “god”? (4) Doesn’t that make awe a metaphor for the notion of god? (5) Last: since the notion of god(s) in its origin anthropomorphic, hence personal, is it not a mark of an inapt trope if one then has to qualify it with “put I don’t mean a personal or supernatural deity”? 

The term “god” has a deep cultural and linguistic resonance. When Einstein or others refer to “God,” they tap into a well-known concept that suggests something ultimate, beyond ordinary human understanding.

Convenience and Cultural Familiarity: Even if non-religious thinkers reject supernatural claims, using “God” as shorthand for “ultimate reality” or “the fundamental laws” can be a convenient metaphor because it’s already embedded in the vernacular.

Poetic or Emotional Connotation:Saying “God” can evoke awe, mystery, and reverence—emotions that mirror how scientists might feel about the grandeur of nature and the cosmos.

The “Flying Spaghetti Monster” was coined satirically to highlight perceived absurdities in certain religious arguments. It deliberately underscores the idea that “any deity is as likely as another.”Einstein’s usage of “God” has a more serious or reverential historical weight. It’s less about satire and more about expressing awe or the sense of a grand underlying principle.

Cultural Reactions Differ:“God,” in many societies, carries an air of solemnity; “Beelzebub” or “Flying Spaghetti Monster” carry connotations either of the demonic or the absurd. So, in terms of widespread acceptance or emotional tenor, “God” remains a more common metaphor for grandeur and unity in the laws of physics.

Historically, philosophical and scientific writings have often co-opted religious or theistic language to express wonder. It’s partly a carryover from periods when religion was the default lens of cultural interpretation.

Connotations of ‘Ultimate’ or ‘Absolute’: Calling it “God” connotes something all-encompassing, a concept that stands in for “the ultimate nature of reality.

”Emotional Resonance: Words like “god” may resonate emotionally more than purely secular words (e.g., “the laws of physics”), especially for expressing profound awe.

Inevitably Ambiguous: Indeed, calling it “God” invites confusion because most people associate “God” with a personal, intervening deity. Hence the repeated clarifications by figures like Einstein: “I don’t mean a personal God.”

Metaphor vs. Literal Meaning:

Metaphors often extend words beyond their literal origins. Still, some argue that using “God” for an impersonal force is misleading if one must always add caveats.

Rhetorical Power vs. Precision:

Pro: Using “God” can evoke a stronger emotional or rhetorical impact.

Con: It risks conflation with traditional theism, requiring disclaimers (“God but not personal”), which some find contradictory or confusing.

Cultural Momentum: Despite these drawbacks, the cultural inertia behind “God” as a term of ultimate reference remains potent. So even if it’s not perfectly apt, it continues to be used, partly because no alternative metaphor carries the same widespread recognition.

Calling the laws of physics “God” (in Einstein’s sense) is a metaphor that leverages cultural and emotional weight—yet it often necessitates disclaimers to avoid implying belief in a supernatural or personal deity. Whether it’s apt or inapt depends on one’s communication goals: it’s evocative and poetic but can also be ambiguous or confusing.

I suppose it’s much the same for those who use it in the formal/platonic realm of maths and logic: this time analogous to the aesthetic awe at symmetry or the vastness of space. Some people use “gods” as the metaphor for their reverential awe of the great composers, or the great creators (sic) in all human areas of endeavor… In the end, there’s no arguing about metaphors, because they are not literal, falsifiable statements of truth but just the airing of sentiments. The anthropomorphic metaphors especially…

Thought about metaphors and reverence in science for a couple of seconds Indeed—metaphors, especially those involving “god” or “gods,” tap into cultural and emotional resonance rather than strict, literal statements. The same applies whether the realm is physics, mathematics, the arts, or any other field that inspires profound admiration. Because metaphors are inherently symbolic (not falsifiable in the scientific sense), they serve more as expressions of sentiment—vehicles for conveying awe, reverence, or wonder—than as precise definitions or doctrinal truths. As you note, anthropomorphic language in particular can both humanize and potentially obscure the concepts it describes, which is why such metaphors often require clarification. Ultimately, it’s a creative way of communicating emotion rather than making a claim about empirical reality. 

Posted on

Eight Questions to ChatGPT about Rubik’s Cubes

1. What is the distance of a random starting configuration from a correct solution?

2. There’s obviously a minimum distance: Presumably there is a maximum distance? 

3. I guess a virtual cube could be simulated, with a virtual mouse, like a complex “joy-cube” computationally configurable to a specified distance from a solution, and manipulable by players?

4. Real players could be tested for their speed (number of manipulations) at reaching a solution from (a) a given starting distance, (b) an average starting distance, or (c) the maximal starting distance? 

5. They could also be trained and tested from differently sized and shaped virtual  “cubes”, all the way up to a (digitally approximated) virtual “sphere”?

6. Besides testing real players with simulations on a mouse, I suppose algorithms could be generated and tested (and trained) for their “speed” (in number of manipulations) to reach a solution?

7. These are all parameters. Do they have any meaning or use (analogous to the way  the parameters of prime number distributions are studied by number theorists, when they are trying to generating potential proofs or theorems)? 

8. Or am I talking nonsense (or trivia)?

1. What is the distance of a random starting configuration from a correct solution?

  • Answer Overview:
    The “distance” typically refers to how many moves are required, under a given move metric, to transform a scrambled cube into its solved state. On a standard 3×3×3 Rubik’s Cube, this is often measured in either:
    1. Quarter-Turn Metric (QTM) – each 90° turn counts as 1 move.
    2. Half-Turn Metric (HTM) – a 180° turn counts as 1 move, and a 90° turn also counts as 1 move.
  • Average Distance for a Random Configuration:
    Most random configurations lie near (but not exactly at) the upper part of the possible “distance” spectrum. Empirical research suggests that, in half-turn metric, many random scrambles take around 17–18 moves (on average) to solve optimally. In quarter-turn metric, that average is a bit higher (19–20 moves).

2. There’s obviously a minimum distance: Presumably there is a maximum distance?

  • Minimum Distance:
    The minimum distance is 0 moves if you’re already in the solved state.
  • Maximum Distance:
    • In quarter-turn metric (QTM), the proven “God’s number” for the 3×3×3 cube is 26. This means noconfiguration requires more than 26 quarter-turn moves to solve.
    • In half-turn metric (HTM), the proven number is 20. No configuration requires more than 20 half-turn moves.
  • Interpretation:
    This maximum distance is the farthest any scramble can be from the solved configuration under optimal solving.

3. I guess a virtual cube could be simulated, with a virtual mouse, like a complex “joy-cube” computationally configurable to a specified distance from a solution, and manipulable by players?

  • Implementation Feasibility:
    • Virtual Mouse / “Joy-cube”: It is indeed possible to create a 3D interactive interface (e.g., with WebGL or a game engine) that:
      1. Generates a specific cube scramble with a known “distance” from solved.
      2. Allows users to perform standard legal moves with a mouse or other input device.
    • Distance Configuration:
      Generating scrambles at a precise known distance is more challenging because you need to work backward from the solved state using a known sequence length. However, it can be done by applying exactly ddrandom moves from the solved state to ensure the scramble is at distance dd or fewer.
  • Practical Applications:
    • Training & Education: Players can practice on configurations that systematically increase in difficulty (i.e., distance).
    • Competitive Settings: Timed challenges can be set up where each puzzle is guaranteed to be at the same distance from solved.

4. Real players could be tested for their speed (number of manipulations) at reaching a solution from (a) a given starting distance, (b) an average starting distance, or (c) the maximal starting distance?

  • Yes, this is a viable testing methodology.
    1. (a) Given Starting Distance:
      • A known scramble distance tests how players adapt their solving strategies or heuristics when they are certain how “deep” the puzzle is from solved.
    2. (b) Average Starting Distance:
      • Random scrambles reflect real-world solves. This is how most speedcubers test their times in competitions.
    3. (c) Maximal Starting Distance:
      • Testing how long it takes a solver to unravel the worst-case scenario can be used to measure both skill and stamina (in solving). This is less common in real competitions but interesting for theoretical or research purposes.

5. They could also be trained and tested from differently sized and shaped virtual “cubes”, all the way up to a (digitally approximated) virtual “sphere”?

  • Different Puzzle Variants:
    • NxN Cubes: There are official NxN cubes (4×4, 5×5, etc.), and each has its own complexity and group theory nuances.
    • Other Twist Puzzles: Megaminx, Pyraminx, Skewb, and more can also be simulated in 3D environments.
  • Virtual “Sphere”:
    • In puzzle terms, a sphere might be visualized as a puzzle with rotating “bands.” Some puzzle inventors have indeed created spherical twisty puzzles.
    • Why Train on Different Shapes?:
      1. Increases familiarity with more generalized “group moves.”
      2. Offers variety in problem-solving approaches.
      3. Expands the solver’s spatial reasoning.

6. Besides testing real players with simulations on a mouse, I suppose algorithms could be generated and tested (and trained) for their “speed” (in number of manipulations) to reach a solution?

  • Algorithmic Solvers:
    • Examples:
      • Kociemba’s Algorithm for 3×3×3.
      • Thistlethwaite’s Algorithm (an older but historically significant approach).
      • More recent optimizations in two-phase solvers.
    • Metrics & Training:
  • Move Count: Minimizing the total number of moves to solve.
  • Algorithmic Complexity: Some methods might produce short solutions but take longer in computation. Others might solve quickly (in real-time) but produce longer solutions.
  • Machine Learning Angle:
    • Reinforcement learning or other data-driven approaches can be tested at different distances, puzzle sizes, or puzzle shapes.

7. These are all parameters. Do they have any meaning or use (analogous to the way the parameters of prime number distributions are studied by number theorists, when they are trying to generate potential proofs or theorems)?

  • Yes, they do have theoretical and practical meaning.
    1. Group Theory Significance:
      • The Rubik’s Cube (and related puzzles) are finite groups. Studying distances and configuration spaces informs research on group diameter, symmetry, and combinatorial aspects.
    2. Algorithmic Complexity:
      • Identifying typical or worst-case puzzle states helps to explore “God’s algorithm” (optimal solutions) and the computational complexity behind them.
    3. Heuristic & Practical Value:
      • In puzzle design or AI solvers, these parameters matter for how efficiently or quickly a puzzle can be solved.
    4. Recreational Math & Education:
      • Insights from these parameters help create teaching tools that illustrate concepts in math and computer science.

8. Or am I talking nonsense (or trivia)?

  • These questions are quite relevant to both recreational mathematics and more formal studies in group theory, search algorithms, and computational complexity. While these topics can seem niche, they have parallels to important problems in computer science (search algorithms and optimization), mathematics (group theory and combinatorics), and educational technology.

Summary

Your questions touch on well-researched territory in Rubik’s Cube mathematics and puzzle theory. Distances, maximum depths, testing methodologies, and algorithmic approaches all have real-world and theoretical applications. Far from being trivial, these areas intersect with math, computer science, education, and even psychology (e.g., how humans approach problem-solving).