God's law

2011-07-08 19:44:45

#26

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6914|Canberra, AUS

Jay wrote:
Spark wrote:
Aussie the question "who created God" is a pointless one if you take the standard assumption that God exists "outside" of time. In which case questions of causality and whatnot become utterly meaningless.

Jay is correct. God, in the way it's normally defined, is fundamentally outside the realm of mathematical or scientific proof. Just stop worrying about it.
Which is precisely why I don't give it any thought

Is there anything more pointless than theological discussions? Arguing over American Idol would be more satisfying

Meh. It's fundamentally the same as any pure-logic argument (or close to). Can be fun as a mental exercise at times. Completely pointless, yes, but...

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-07-08 19:49:34

#27

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6914|Canberra, AUS

Superior Mind wrote:
Right, I should have been more clear in my wording.

I really wonder if this is a matter of ignorance. Isnt Believing in a god different from believing in the mathematics behind the observable cosmos? Since as young as I can remember I have never believed that God was real. I wasn't a cynic or proclaimed atheist. I still underwent some religious schooling, I just never felt any godly prescence in my mind or body. I always knew that the religious texts I was meant to learn from were full of fables and myth. Even though the rabbis tried to indoctrinate me, it never worked. Perhaps it was because the rest if my family was so flip about religion. My dad is an atheist, as was his dad, as was was his dad. But I didn't really know all of that until later in my life.

Religious zealots don't offend me, they intrigue me. Because maybe they feel something I do not. Some cosmic warmth.

Just two quick points: 1. You are assuming a lot here. Firstly that our mathematics does inherently describe the cosmos in that it "follows" our ZFC-based maths in some "pre-ordained" manner, rather than our maths being merely a useful tool to describe it. Secondly, you're ignoring the fact that our maths is a fairly narrowed branch of logic, and just because "our maths" may not describe God does not mean that God is logically indescribable. 2. Why does God have to have some "presence" in your life for it to exist?

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-07-08 19:53:52

#28

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5598|London, England

Spark wrote:
Superior Mind wrote:
Right, I should have been more clear in my wording.

I really wonder if this is a matter of ignorance. Isnt Believing in a god different from believing in the mathematics behind the observable cosmos? Since as young as I can remember I have never believed that God was real. I wasn't a cynic or proclaimed atheist. I still underwent some religious schooling, I just never felt any godly prescence in my mind or body. I always knew that the religious texts I was meant to learn from were full of fables and myth. Even though the rabbis tried to indoctrinate me, it never worked. Perhaps it was because the rest if my family was so flip about religion. My dad is an atheist, as was his dad, as was was his dad. But I didn't really know all of that until later in my life.

Religious zealots don't offend me, they intrigue me. Because maybe they feel something I do not. Some cosmic warmth.
Just two quick points: 1. You are assuming a lot here. Firstly that our mathematics does inherently describe the cosmos in that it "follows" our ZFC-based maths in some "pre-ordained" manner, rather than our maths being merely a useful tool to describe it. Secondly, you're ignoring the fact that our maths is a fairly narrowed branch of logic, and just because "our maths" may not describe God does not mean that God is logically indescribable. 2. Why does God have to have some "presence" in your life for it to exist?

Correct. Math isn't inherent, it's just a human-made tool, like language, that was invented to describe the world. For example, calculus was invented to describe gravity and motion. It wasn't discovered, it simply didn't exist prior to the 17th century.

Last edited by Jay (2011-07-08 20:03:14)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-07-08 19:59:27

#29

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

newton and leibniz were the 17th century

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-07-08 19:59:29

#30

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6651|'Murka

I don't know how many times it's been said, but I guess it bears repeating: religion/faith and science are not mutually exclusive. The only ones who say they are are zealots of either.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-07-08 20:02:00

#31

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5598|London, England

Uzique wrote:
newton and leibniz were the 17th century

newton died in the 1700s, but by then he wss a theologian. Thanks for the correction though, you are correct.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-07-08 20:10:44

#32

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

logic is interesting. spark you say it is useless 'mental games' but it is actually hugely beneficial and functional. deductive logic got us through most of the scientific and mathematic knowledge that we needed to go from socrates to the scholastics. inductive logic is a key to the scientific and empiricist method. analytic logical positivism is, now, solving many time-old 'problems' of maths, science and epistemology, generally, by showing how they are problems in fact of language, i.e. grammar and syntax, rather than problems of idea/referents. logic is probably the most essential part of the rational side of human thought; though if you're a romantic, idealist or irrationalist then perhaps it is a little too narrow in its scope and ambition.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-07-08 20:14:03

#33

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6914|Canberra, AUS

Uzique wrote:
logic is interesting. spark you say it is useless 'mental games' but it is actually hugely beneficial and functional. deductive logic got us through most of the scientific and mathematic knowledge that we needed to go from socrates to the scholastics. inductive logic is a key to the scientific and empiricist method. analytic logical positivism is, now, solving many time-old 'problems' of maths, science and epistemology, generally, by showing how they are problems in fact of language, i.e. grammar and syntax, rather than problems of idea/referents. logic is probably the most essential part of the rational side of human thought; though if you're a romantic, idealist or irrationalist then perhaps it is a little too narrow in its scope and ambition.

Okay I should have been more precise.

It's "useless" in that it has no direct, immediate, quantifiable benefits. A discussion about logic won't directly help get you to a new fusion reactor design, for example. It is however very interesting and the indirect benefits are obvious. Why else do (proper ) mathematicians still have jobs?

Last edited by Spark (2011-07-08 20:15:17)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-07-08 20:20:39

#34

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

but the foundations of the systems you're using to power your fusion reactor's technology are... of course... logical. calculus was a system devised by philosophers and scientists schooled in the triumvirate/quadrivium/tripos of heavy logic, no? they're superstructures on the base of logic. now if you want to take the 'pragmatist' approach and say "what use is it? who is employed by it?" well, surely basically everyone involved with maths can thank those that invented wonders like the syllogism 2.5k years ago.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-07-08 20:21:10

#35

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6914|Canberra, AUS

That's what I meant by indirect. I've looked into foundations of maths, I know how it works... sort of

Last edited by Spark (2011-07-08 20:21:38)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-07-08 20:24:13

#36

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

i'm an irrationalist anyway, so don't mind me, i'm not going to valorize it any more than necessary. just maintaining that god is, oddly enough, often a perfectly logical construct. there are problems to be found in that logic, but the 'God' construction has been rather meticulously worked out.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-07-08 21:18:58

#37

DesertFox-: The very model of a modern major general; +796|6924|United States of America

I only understand the posts of Jay and FEOS on this page. Logic is one area that I simply have a hard time with.

2011-07-08 22:30:03

#38

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6914|Canberra, AUS

Logic and foundations-of-maths is one of those topics which I really like talking about more than I justifiably should.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-07-08 23:09:52

#39

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|6954|US

AussieReaper wrote:
You argued that the two are complimentary. They are not.

"The creator of the universe also created the rules by which it functions."

Is circular logic. What laws were needed for God to exist? Where did God come from?

It's circular logic. Your answer will undoubtedly be that "God has always existed." Rather than a just as easy example "the laws of the universe have always existed."

It is NOT circular. If one creates something and designs the mechanism by which it operates, the creator does not necessarily need to operate by the same mechanism as the thing created. The watch-maker does not need to be wound daily.

2011-07-08 23:11:48

#40

-Whiteroom-: Pineapplewhat; +572|6898|BC, Canada

Bottom line is, Dood, it's gods law, don't argue that shit...

2011-07-08 23:29:36

#41

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7015|Moscow, Russia

Uzique wrote:
the metaphysics of a 'god' or 'whole' or 'absolute' have been well-stated in logic...

they have also been completely disproven, by means of mathematics no less. in the realm of logic the concepts of "absolute" and "infinite" only exist as abstract constructs impossible to define or research. i thought, of all people, you would know that.

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2011-07-08 23:33:28

#42

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6914|Canberra, AUS

Shahter wrote:
Uzique wrote:
the metaphysics of a 'god' or 'whole' or 'absolute' have been well-stated in logic...
they have also been completely disproven, by means of mathematics no less. in the realm of logic the concepts of "absolute" and "infinite" only exist as abstract constructs impossible to define or research. i thought, of all people, you would know that.

Um, no. Infinity is an extremely subtly defined and very well-researched topic in mathematics.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-07-08 23:35:36

#43

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7015|Moscow, Russia

Spark wrote:
Shahter wrote:
Uzique wrote:
the metaphysics of a 'god' or 'whole' or 'absolute' have been well-stated in logic...
they have also been completely disproven, by means of mathematics no less. in the realm of logic the concepts of "absolute" and "infinite" only exist as abstract constructs impossible to define or research. i thought, of all people, you would know that.
Um, no. Infinity is an extremely subtly defined and very well-researched topic in mathematics.

/sigh
go back to school.

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2011-07-08 23:40:50

#44

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6914|Canberra, AUS

Abstract constructs? Well, all maths is abstract constructs.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-07-08 23:47:43

#45

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7015|Moscow, Russia

Spark wrote:
Abstract constructs? Well, all maths is abstract constructs.

there's this thing called "applied math", man. it deals with application of math to rl tasks (duh). fascinating shit, you should get yourself some - helps with keeping you cranium clean of bullshit, religion included.

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2011-07-09 00:00:14

#46

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6914|Canberra, AUS

Shahter wrote:
Spark wrote:
Abstract constructs? Well, all maths is abstract constructs.
there's this thing called "applied math", man. it deals with application of math to rl tasks (duh). fascinating shit, you should get yourself some - helps with keeping you cranium clean of bullshit, religion included.

I'm a physicist. "Applied" maths is a complete and utter misnomer. There is useful maths, and useful maths. For example, the standard mathematical spanner that is the Fourier transform would not work at all without first defining some incredibly abstract notions such as the delta function and distributions.

Last edited by Spark (2011-07-09 00:01:16)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-07-09 00:11:14

#47

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7015|Moscow, Russia

Spark wrote:
I'm a physicist. "Applied" maths is a complete and utter misnomer. There is useful maths, and useful maths.

wat?

anyway, we are derailing this thread. on topic:
if we are again at it, first, god it not possible to prove, just as it is impossible to disprove, because it is impossible even to define. mathematics or not, the notion invented by religious cretins describes god as infinite and thus completely irrational.
and second, i think uzique nailed it with his first reply: ignorance is bliss. most people don't go beyond "goddidit" in their thoughts on the matter - talking logic to them is like talking to a brick wall.

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2011-07-09 00:13:04

#48

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6914|Canberra, AUS

Yeah I was just taking exception to your implication that infinity was some vague, out-there placeholder thing for something we don't quite get and couldn't be bothered to work out properly. Which is something mathematicians and physicists of all persuasions have been completely happy to do at times.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-07-09 00:29:29

#49

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|7015|Moscow, Russia

Spark wrote:
Yeah I was just taking exception to your implication that infinity was some vague, out-there placeholder thing for something we don't quite get and couldn't be bothered to work out properly. Which is something mathematicians and physicists of all persuasions have been completely happy to do at times...

... for the purposes of application of mathematics to certain tasks. infinity is what you get when you divide by zero, man - what does mathematics say about dividing by zero again? classic mathematics deal in a lot of "impossible" shit (complex numbers), because, unlike any other science, it has the power of pure logic on its side and thus can deal with just about any nonsense as long as it makes it work within the realm of logic. but irl 2+2 does not equal four, because there's no four identical objects for this formula to apply - surely you as a physicist would understand, right?

and them we get religion which pulls infinity from the abstract realm into the real world and says "infinity loves you and has ten commandments for you". wft?

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2011-07-09 00:34:28

#50

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6914|Canberra, AUS

Oh yeah of course. But that doesn't make a process such as renormalization any less uncomfortably tenuous. Nor does it make the sum 1+1+1+1+...1+1+... infinite times equal to -1/2, which is a rather important (and oh so hilariously wrong - adding infinite amounts of positive numbers results in a negative number?!) result in quantum field theory.

and the assertion that there do not exist two perfectly equal objects is not strictly true

Last edited by Spark (2011-07-09 00:37:00)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

BF2S Forums God's law

Jay wrote:

Spark wrote:

Superior Mind wrote:

Spark wrote:

Superior Mind wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Spark wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Spark wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

Board footer