I have no idea where to post this, since it's only a rumour so far, and probably not a big deal, but still, I was wondering if anyone else has heard about this.

I was reading a recent interview with Mark Oliver Everett (a.k.a. "E&quot, frontman of the excellent band Eels, and he casually mentioned that among some of his dad's old papers, a mathematical equation had been found. A mathematical equation that proves god doesn't exist.

Since his dad was Hugh Everett, the man who invented the many worlds theory of quantum physics, there might be something to this. 

So, weird practical joke or the real thing ?

BobSpence1 wrote:

 

Either a wierd practical joke or a misunderstanding of what the equation was claimed to show, or the product of senile dementia or whatever.

 

Impossible for a mathematical equation to disprove such a nebulous and poorly defined concept as 'God'.

 

What you could conceivably do is express mathematically how one or more of the things typically claimed for a God, such as the typical Christian concept of God, are logically self- or mutually contradictory, or lead to absurdities such as the infinite non-converging regression that follows from the assumption that the Creator must be 'greater' than its creation.

 

That would be just another way of expressing one or more of the arguments we regularly put up here.

 

I am mostly with you on this one BobSpence1. However, I have some other info from google that may be relevant here. Before I get to that, let me cover some intermediate ground.

 

First, the idea that they guy was a respected scientist is an appeal to authority. Granted that his work was eventually peer accepted, that does not tell us much about the specific work that is the topic of this thread.

 

Second, let's say just for shits and giggles that there actually is an equation. Right now, it has only been seen by a guitarist. As a fellow musician, I am not wanting to down the guy but is he qualified to understand the material at hand?

 

------>>>>>>

 

Now, onto the google material.

 

Apparently, Hugh Everett was a staunch atheist. I am not clear on the usage of the word staunch but right there, he could have had motivation to skew his work towards his ideas. Whatever.

 

Also, he appears to have been a heavy smoker and a raging alcoholic. He died fairly young. So the senility angle probably does not play out. However, the idea of a drunken atheist deprived of the “immediate response” of posting on the internet could potentially paint a different picture.

 

Whatever the material in his papers may be, it would be appropriate for it to be published in some form so that it can be worked over by people who are given the ability to consider it and determine if it is anything at all. Basically, I am calling for a sort of peer review (although I have no good idea of who the peers for this material would be).
 

Stated in internet terms: Tits or it didn't happen.