{"id":2366,"date":"2024-12-30T17:22:27","date_gmt":"2024-12-30T22:22:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/skywritings\/?p=2366"},"modified":"2024-12-30T17:32:26","modified_gmt":"2024-12-30T22:32:26","slug":"rubik-einstein-god-and-awe","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/skywritings\/2024\/12\/30\/rubik-einstein-god-and-awe\/","title":{"rendered":"Rubik, Einstein, \u201cGod\u201d and Awe"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

1. In Rubik\u2019s cube discourse, why are the solutions called \u201cgod\u201d algorithms or \u201cgod-numbers\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Within the Rubik\u2019s Cube (and broader puzzle) community, \u201cGod\u2019s algorithm\u201d refers to an\u00a0optimal<\/em>\u00a0solving method\u2014one that always produces the shortest possible solution from any given configuration. The idea is that an all-knowing entity (\u201cGod\u201d) could see the perfect route to solve the puzzle in the minimum number of moves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Historical Notes<\/strong>:The phrase gained popularity in discussions around \u201cGod\u2019s number,\u201d which is the maximum number of moves needed to solve the cube from any<\/em> 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 \u201cGod\u2019s algorithm.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Informal Usage<\/strong>: It\u2019s not a formal or religious usage. The term is more of a playful nod to an omniscient perspective\u2014an algorithm that \u201cknows\u201d the absolute optimal path.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Any relation to how Einstein (and others?) used \u201cgod\u201d in connection with the laws of physics<\/span><\/b>?<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/span>Einstein\u2019s \u201cGod\u201d<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/span>When Einstein used phrases like \u201cGod does not play dice,\u201d he was typically referring to the underlying determinism or structure in the laws of physics, rather than a personal deity.\u201cGod\u201d in this context alluded to the universe\u2019s governing rules, which Einstein believed were elegantly consistent.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comparing to \u201cGod\u2019s Algorithm\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/span>The Rubik\u2019s Cube usage is much more informal. It hints<\/i> at an ultimate principle (optimality), but it doesn\u2019t really draw from Einstein\u2019s 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.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/span>3. How is this related to whether the \u201cgod-laws\u201d are (a) empirical, as in science, or (b) formal, as in mathematics?<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/span>(a) Empirical Laws in Science<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/span>Physical laws are discovered through observation, experiment, and inference. For instance, Einstein\u2019s 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.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(<\/strong>b) Formal Laws in Mathematics<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/span>Mathematical \u201claws\u201d (theorems, proofs) are established through logical deduction within an axiomatic system. They don\u2019t depend on experiments; they rely on consistency with axioms.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

God\u2019s Algorithm in the Rubik\u2019s Cube<\/span><\/b> falls into the category of formal problem-solving.<\/i> It\u2019s grounded in group theory and combinatorics\u2014the \u201claws\u201d behind it aren\u2019t empirical but logical<\/i> constraints of the cube\u2019s configuration space.So, \u201cGod\u2019s algorithm\u201d sits firmly in the \u201cformal\u201d realm of mathematics and theoretical computer scienc<\/span>e<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/span>4. And is there any relation to the various foundational views of mathematics\u2014(i) Platonism, (ii) Intuitionism, (iii) Constructionism, or (iv) other options?<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/span>(i) Platonism<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/span>Platonists see mathematical entities (like numbers or group structures) as existing in an abstract realm. \u201cGod\u2019s algorithm\u201d could be seen as discovered<\/i> from this realm, a perfect solution that exists objectively<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(ii) Intuitionism<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/span>Intuitionists argue that math is a creation of the human mind, focusing on constructive proofs. One might say that the \u201coptimal solution\u201d is only meaningful insofar as we can construct<\/i> it or approximate it with an algorithm.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(iii) Constructionism<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/span>Closely related to intuitionism, constructionism emphasizes building mathematical objects step by step. In that vein, the quest for \u201cGod\u2019s algorithm\u201d is a constructive process: we want an explicit procedure that yields the optimal path.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

(iv) Other Views (e.g., Formalism)<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/span>Formalists see math as manipulations of symbols under given rules. The concept of \u201cGod\u2019s algorithm\u201d fits well here too: it\u2019s a statement within the formal system describing the Rubik\u2019s Cube group, and we seek a sequence of symbols (moves) that minimize the path.Overall, the concept of a \u201cGod\u2019s algorithm\u201d can be interpreted differently based on one\u2019s philosophical stance. Platonists might say it exists<\/i> out there to be discovered, while intuitionists might say it\u2019s only \u201creal\u201d once we construct it. Either way, the term \u201cGod\u201d is more of a metaphor for perfect knowledge<\/i> than a literal or religious reference.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. Have there been interpretations of what Einstein meant by “god”?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Einstein\u2019s Own Statements<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/span>Spinoza\u2019s God:<\/span><\/b> <\/span>Einstein often mentioned that he believed in the \u201cGod of Spinoza.\u201d Spinoza\u2019s philosophical view is broadly taken as pantheistic<\/i>, equating \u201cGod\u201d with the totality of nature or the universe\u2019s lawful harmony rather than a personal deity.Hence, for Einstein, \u201cGod\u201d was a metaphor for the underlying rational structure, elegance, and consistency in the laws of the universe.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Non-Personal Deity:<\/span><\/b> <\/span>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 \u201cwho concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.\u201dFamous Quotes and Their Context<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/span>\u201cGod does not play dice\u201d<\/span><\/b> <\/span>This phrase was Einstein\u2019s 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.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mixed Interpretations<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/span>Religious Interpretations:<\/span><\/b> <\/span>Some theologians and laypeople initially took Einstein\u2019s words about \u201cGod\u201d as support for a traditional theistic stance. However, Einstein\u2019s later clarifications made clear he was not endorsing a personal, interventionist God.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Philosophical\/Metaphorical Interpretations:<\/span><\/b> <\/span>Most modern scholars agree that Einstein\u2019s references to \u201cGod\u201d were predominantly metaphors for nature\u2019s laws and the deep sense of wonder he felt when studying the cosmos.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Einstein\u2019s Personal \u201cReligiousness\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/span>Awe and Wonder:<\/span><\/b> <\/span>While he did not follow an organized religion, Einstein described himself as feeling a \u201ccosmic religious feeling\u201d\u2014an awe at the grandeur and mystery of the universe.He used \u201cGod\u201d as a shorthand for that awe-inspiring order, rather than a being with personality or will.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Key Takeaway<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Einstein\u2019s \u201cGod\u201d is best understood in the context of Spinozistic<\/b> or pantheistic<\/b> thought, focusing on the harmony and unity of nature. It was a poetic or metaphorical use of the word \u201cGod\u201d\u2014far removed from the typical doctrinal or personal interpretations found in many religions.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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”?\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The term \u201cgod\u201d has a deep cultural and linguistic resonance. When Einstein or others refer to \u201cGod,\u201d they tap into a well-known concept that suggests something ultimate, beyond ordinary human understanding.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Convenience and Cultural Familiarity:<\/span><\/b> Even if non-religious thinkers reject supernatural claims, using \u201cGod\u201d as shorthand for \u201cultimate reality\u201d or \u201cthe fundamental laws\u201d can be a convenient metaphor because it\u2019s already embedded in the vernacular.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Poetic or Emotional Connotation:<\/span><\/b>Saying \u201cGod\u201d can evoke awe, mystery, and reverence\u2014emotions that mirror how scientists might feel about the grandeur of nature and the cosmos.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/span>The \u201cFlying Spaghetti Monster\u201d was coined satirically to highlight perceived absurdities in certain religious arguments. It deliberately underscores the idea that \u201cany deity is as likely as another.\u201dEinstein\u2019s usage of \u201cGod\u201d has a more\u00a0serious<\/i>\u00a0or\u00a0reverential<\/i>\u00a0historical weight. It\u2019s less about satire and more about expressing awe or the sense of a grand underlying principle.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cultural Reactions Differ:<\/span><\/b><\/span>\u201cGod,\u201d in many societies, carries an air of solemnity; \u201cBeelzebub\u201d or \u201cFlying Spaghetti Monster\u201d carry connotations either of the demonic or the absurd. So, in terms of widespread acceptance or emotional tenor, \u201cGod\u201d remains a more common metaphor for grandeur and unity in the laws of physics.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Historically, philosophical and scientific writings have often co-opted religious or theistic language to express wonder. It\u2019s partly a carryover from periods when religion was the default lens of cultural interpretation.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Connotations of \u2018Ultimate\u2019 or \u2018Absolute\u2019:<\/span><\/b> Calling it \u201cGod\u201d connotes something all-encompassing, a concept that stands in for \u201cthe ultimate nature of reality.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201d<\/span>Emotional Resonance:<\/span><\/b> Words like \u201cgod\u201d may resonate emotionally more than purely secular words (e.g., \u201cthe laws of physics\u201d), especially for expressing profound awe.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/span>Inevitably Ambiguous:<\/span><\/b> Indeed, calling it \u201cGod\u201d invites confusion because most people associate \u201cGod\u201d with a personal, intervening deity. Hence the repeated clarifications by figures like Einstein: \u201cI don\u2019t mean a personal God.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Metaphor vs. Literal Meaning:<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Metaphors often extend words beyond their literal origins. Still, some argue that using \u201cGod\u201d for an impersonal force is misleading if one must always add caveats.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rhetorical Power vs. Precision:<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/span>Pro:<\/span><\/b> Using \u201cGod\u201d can evoke a stronger emotional or rhetorical impact.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Con:<\/span><\/b> It risks conflation with traditional theism, requiring disclaimers (\u201cGod but not personal\u201d), which some find contradictory or confusing.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cultural Momentum:<\/span><\/b> <\/span>Despite these drawbacks, the cultural inertia behind \u201cGod\u201d as a term of ultimate reference remains potent. So even if it\u2019s not perfectly apt, it continues to be used, partly because no alternative metaphor carries the same widespread recognition.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Calling the laws of physics \u201cGod\u201d (in Einstein\u2019s sense) is a metaphor that leverages cultural and emotional weight\u2014yet it often necessitates disclaimers to avoid implying belief in a supernatural or personal deity. Whether it\u2019s apt or inapt depends on one\u2019s communication goals: it\u2019s evocative and poetic but can also be ambiguous or confusing.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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…<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thought about metaphors and reverence in science for a couple of seconds Indeed\u2014metaphors, especially those involving \u201cgod\u201d or \u201cgods,\u201d 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<\/i>\u2014vehicles for conveying awe, reverence, or wonder\u2014than 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\u2019s a creative way of communicating emotion rather than making a claim about empirical reality.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1. In Rubik\u2019s cube discourse, why are the solutions called \u201cgod\u201d algorithms or \u201cgod-numbers\u201d Within the Rubik\u2019s Cube (and broader puzzle) community, \u201cGod\u2019s algorithm\u201d refers to an\u00a0optimal\u00a0solving method\u2014one that always produces the shortest possible solution from any given configuration. The idea is that an all-knowing entity (\u201cGod\u201d) could see the perfect route to solve the … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Rubik, Einstein, \u201cGod\u201d and Awe”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3074,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[146,111,106,188],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2366","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chatgpt","category-computation","category-language","category-rubiks-cube"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/skywritings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2366","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/skywritings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/skywritings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/skywritings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3074"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/skywritings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2366"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/skywritings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2366\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2373,"href":"https:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/skywritings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2366\/revisions\/2373"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/skywritings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2366"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/skywritings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2366"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/generic.wordpress.soton.ac.uk\/skywritings\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2366"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}