1712 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

MATH & GODEL






 

[Jeoshua]

Again, you are avoiding the point put to you.

 

Godel himself never tried to use the Incompleteness Theorem on anything except mathematical systems and logical ways of thought. He used it to argue against the idea of any system created by man ever being able to be fully complete. He did not use it to try and disprove Atheism, and it doesn't work that way. Even if it did work that way, how would you feel if I turned the argument around and used it against your understanding of God? Not good, I would imagine, and you would fight tooth and nail against that. Why? Because it would be a misuse of the Incompleteness Theorem! It's not meant to have anything to say about spirituality, beliefs, God, or the universe at large, only our systems of thought and understanding of it.

 

Stop trying to explain this theorem to me. I obviously understand it better than you ever could!

[shadowhawk]

[quote] Jeoshua:  I must admit, you do have a way of spinning everything that anyone ever says into something it was never intended to be. You've done it with me, with addx, with Godel, over and over again. [/ quote]  

 Saying this does not make it so.

  [quote]  Jeoshua: What I said was that no intellectually honest theist has ever tried to use Science to prove God. I do not deny that a great many of the greatest thinkers were theists, but that is a... what would you call it? A Red Herring! What I said was not that theist thinkers don't exist, but the ones who are honest with themselves and others do not attempt to use Science to prove their points. And Godel never used his Theorem to prove anything except that mathematical systems of thought can never be complete. He called it the Incompleteness Theorem, not the Use This To Prove Or Disprove God Theorem.

 

Intellectually honest theists see the fingerprints of God in all kinds of things.  Science is a method and as such is not an ideology.  Science can and has been used to support all kinds of points including theism.  Just listen at yourself, who made you the custodian of science, You need more exposure to Godel.  You could start with the last web sources I gave you to see why Theists feel excited to talk about him.  Addx’s last post is hot Godel but is anj example of his use by a non theist.

Edited by shadowhawk, 16 April 2014 - 02:05 AM.

[Jeoshua]

I will not listen to anyone, theist or not, on a Youtube channel, trying to explain how Godel's theorem is this or that or any other such thing. It is about logic, mathematics, and not about physical systems or the universe at large. It is not about God, it is not about Athiesm, it is not about any of that no matter how much you want it to be or how many theists on Youtube are eager to talk about it.

 

To bring up a wonderful example of how intellectually honest theists can go about Science, I give you Sir Isaac Newton. He was a devout believer, even looking into cracking the Bible Code, as we could call it today. He spent many years trying to use systematic exploration of the biblical texts to try and prove God, to make predictions of the future, and to discover God's plan for us written between the lines. Have you ever seen one paper written by him, on this matter? No. And you will not, because even the greatest of minds of Science was not able to make the Bible into anything other than what it is: A collection of stories written about morals, and a loose history of one of the tribes of the Middle East in great antiquity. He never put out a paper on any of what he was attempting to discover. Why? Because he was intellectually honest about it. He found nothing, so he published nothing. But he never stopped looking, so great was his faith.

 

Imagine what he could have discovered if he had spent his time on more fruitful endeavors.

[shadowhawk]

I will not listen to anyone, theist or not, on a Youtube channel, trying to explain how Godel's theorem is this or that or any other such thing. It is about logic, mathematics, and not about physical systems or the universe at large. It is not about God, it is not about Athiesm, it is not about any of that no matter how much you want it to be or how many theists on Youtube are eager to talk about it.

 

To bring up a wonderful example of how intellectually honest theists can go about Science, I give you Sir Isaac Newton. He was a devout believer, even looking into cracking the Bible Code, as we could call it today. He spent many years trying to use systematic exploration of the biblical texts to try and prove God, to make predictions of the future, and to discover God's plan for us written between the lines. Have you ever seen one paper written by him, on this matter? No. And you will not, because even the greatest of minds of Science was not able to make the Bible into anything other than what it is: A collection of stories written about morals, and a loose history of one of the tribes of the Middle East in great antiquity. He never put out a paper on any of what he was attempting to discover. Why? Because he was intellectually honest about it. He found nothing, so he published nothing. But he never stopped looking, so great was his faith.

 

Imagine what he could have discovered if he had spent his time on more fruitful endeavors.

Speaking of Newton I am well aware of his theological interests.  He wasn’t trying to make the bible into a science textbook.  http://en.wikipedia....religious_views
https://www.apologet...=9&article=1052
He was writing about prophesy!  Your take on Newton shows you have limited your media of learning,  http://dlib.nli.org.il/R/?func=collections&collection_id=7856
 

[addx]

Here's some nice URLs explaining the buddhistic views. Since they have bravely(not blindly) explored their inner minds they have made themselves aware of all that one can be aware of.

Your "emotional truth" of universe and things needing a creator is dispelled by buddhism. The "nagging need for a heavenly father" is quieted in the buddhist mind rather than endulged in. So the buddhist is free to see this nagging need for what it is - dukkha - and dispell it as I have explained it in more physchological terms and also neurological. So that's three almost completely separate theories proving that what you think is "intuitive emotional truth" is just a consequence of the brain as "real" apparatus with limitations rather than a "perfect intuitive feeler of truth".

http://buddhism.abou...s/a/genesis.htm

No beings or phenomena exist independently of other beings and phenomena. All beings and phenomena are caused to exist by other beings and phenomena. Further, the beings and phenomena thus caused to exist cause other beings and phenomena to exist. Things and beings perpetually arise and perpetually cease because other things and beings perpetually arise and perpetually cease. All this arising and being and ceasing go on in one vast field or nexus of beingness

http://buddhism.abou.../skandhadef.htm

The fifth skandha, consciousness, is awareness of or sensitivity to an object, but without conceptualization. Once there is awareness, the third skandha might recognize the object and assign a concept-value to it, and the fourth skandha might react with desire or revulsion or some other mental formation. The fifth skandha is explained in some schools as base that ties the experience of life together.

The fifth skandha is supported by the last evolved part of the brain, the one that I explained allows us to perceive everything we experience from a hypothetical position outside of this experience. The one that allows you to imagine circles around everything you know and step out of such circles. It allows you to choose your knowledge pool, choose your roles, see the role you're in from outside. Consciosness plays a role (of a mother, father, warrior, princess, bully). Awareness is only aware of it and can think about it "from outside of the context that consciousness reacts to in typical behavior - a context causing a role to be automatically assumed by the consciousness of this context".
When people do stuff and later say they werent aware(mother saving her child from certain death) while they actually were obviously conscious of everything around them they were unable to also be "aware" of it. This means they were not able to experience it with their "awareness"(last evolved part of the brain) and this awareness, if it did experience what was being endured, could choose to "inhibit" the context and thus the role(by SUBJECTIVE comparison to other experienced contexts - meaning wisdom). The awareness can only recognize and inhibit/dispell "context" that causes role playing(consciousness behavior).

The buddhist thought makes profound sense when one looks at quantum mechanics, quantum observer paradox etc.



The buddhist logic thought is also profound and impecable and predates all other great logic and philospophy thought.

The buddhist awareness shows a profound understanding of the inner workings of the mind which psychology, psychiatry and neurology have just begun to uncover.

This intent of yours on this thrad is reactive to your emotion of theism being contrasted against "rationality". You convicted yourself with theism and are now refusing the accept the accompanying "irrationality"(which is infact also a part of your own persecutory scheme - you're attacking yourself for choosing theism but cant admit it so you project attackers of your rationality to everyone else).

A quote from the url you can't read because you're too childish to see the word "tantric" written in a text and still be able to read it.

The text actually starts with this quote

We cannot underestimate how frightening the world must feel for paranoid individuals who transform even the most harmless of words or events into persecutory attacks and the most harmless and well-intentioned of people into monstrous bad objects and bad subjects reacting to and treating them accordingly. The problem is that even the most marginal awareness of doing so will be accompanied by or arouse a deep sense of guilt, and, along with this - a fear of retaliation that leaves them feeling even more open to attack, thus intensifying both their persecutory anxiety and paranoid hostility towards others a hostility they are impelled to either take out on others or turn in on themselves, for example through self-harm, somatic symptoms or attacks of one form or another, or persecutory voices. Whatever the specificity or idiosyncrasies of their symptoms and behaviours, such individuals will be thus permanently trapped in a fight-flight state with long-term effects on both their body and on all their human relationships - forcing them to permanently seek out occasions to fight others and/or flee from them, or else retreating into even greater isolation (whether self-imposed or the result of illnesses or medications) from the human beings around them. For whosoever they are, good reasons will be found for turning others into malign agents or bad subjects.

So, how many "bad subjects" you have gathered here on the topic?

And is this topic(both of these "is there evidence" threads) in fact a result of "forcing them to permanently seek out occasions to fight others/"

And is your refusal to discuss with anyone who proves any fallacies in your logic maybe the result of "/or flee from them, or else retreating into even greater isolation"

So, tell us, why do you not respect your parents? Why did you have to be different from them? Why does it have to be a validated "better different"?

[shadowhawk]

“Logical Positivism” which was espoused by a group known as “The Vienna Circle” in Austria, led by Ludwig Wittgenstein. Logical Positivism says that anything that cannot be experimentally verified or mathematically proven is invalid.  I grew up with that view.  I was raised on the verify ability principal.  

The Logical Positivists were confident that very soon, all the loose ends of mathematics would be nailed down by a single grand unifying theory. The world would finally fully embrace reason and logic and leave the failures of religion behind.

Kurt Godel was a member of the Vienna Circle and in 1931 proved that a single unifying theory was impossible. He proved that the goal of the Logical Positivists was unachievable. This was a devastating blow to anyone that thought materialism could explain itself..

I tried to show this but obviously my posts were not being read.
http://www.longecity...-23#entry655289
http://www.longecity...-24#entry655580
http://www.longecity...-24#entry655684
http://www.longecity...-24#entry656258
http://www.longecity...-24#entry656477
http://www.longecity...-24#entry656541
http://www.longecity...-24#entry656543

Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem says that any system that is complex enough to express mathematics cannot prove, by itself, that everything it says is true. It will always rely on something outside the system that you have to assume is true but cannot prove.

You can then step outside the system and complete your proof, but in order to do that you will now have to invoke something else from the outside. So you keep expanding ever outward, invoking still more things that you cannot prove.

Nearly everyone agrees that math is incomplete. The idea that the cosmos is also incomplete  makes some people such as addx, very uncomfortable. If the universe cannot explain itself then there has to be some kind of higher power at work.  Oh no!

As I said before, you cannot prove that the universe is mathematical. But belief that the universe is mathematical is the #1 assumption of modern science. Toss out that assumption and the whole philosophical framework of western civilization crumbles.

I am going to post a paper next on this subject by a scholar.  It is his field not mine.


 

[Jeoshua]

Logical Positivism which was espoused by a group known as The Vienna Circle in Austria, led by Ludwig Wittgenstein. Logical Positivism says that anything that cannot be experimentally verified or mathematically proven is invalid.  I grew up with that view.  I was raised on the verify ability principal.  

The Logical Positivists were confident that very soon, all the loose ends of mathematics would be nailed down by a single grand unifying theory. The world would finally fully embrace reason and logic and leave the failures of religion behind.

Kurt Godel was a member of the Vienna Circle and in 1931 proved that a single unifying theory was impossible. He proved that the goal of the Logical Positivists was unachievable. This was a devastating blow to anyone that thought materialism could explain itself..

I tried to show this but obviously my posts were not being read.
((Links removed for conciseness)

Godels Incompleteness Theorem says that any system that is complex enough to express mathematics cannot prove, by itself, that everything it says is true. It will always rely on something outside the system that you have to assume is true but cannot prove.

You can then step outside the system and complete your proof, but in order to do that you will now have to invoke something else from the outside. So you keep expanding ever outward, invoking still more things that you cannot prove.

Nearly everyone agrees that math is incomplete.

Up until this point, your logic and apparent understanding of Godel's theorem is very much on point, and completely true... but...

The idea that the cosmos is also incomplete  makes some people such as addx, very uncomfortable. If the universe cannot explain itself then there has to be some kind of higher power at work.  Oh no!

This is where you step out from being correct into being incorrect. You have stepped outside of what Godel's Theorem was ever saying, and entered into the realm of the real world. Godel's theorem, by your own admission above, is about mathematics, and logical systems. The universe, however, is not such a man-made logical system. It has its own existence, independent of our models for it.

E=MC² is a (simplified, admittedly) model of how part of our universe seems to operate. It is a good theory, and one that has proven true in all but the theoretical realm of the black hole, near the event horizon, where even light cannot escape. It adequately predicts the curvature of space, the dilation of space-time under extreme circumstances such as traveling near to the speed of light or being in a gravity well, and many other such predictions which have been tested over and over again and found to be true...

But it is not an actual part of the universe. Nowhere in the heavens is E=MC² ever emblazoned as an actual cog in any heavenly machinery. It is only a figment of our imagination... a good one, but imagination, nonetheless. It doesn't actually exist. What you're arguing, in Godel's Theorem actually applying to the physical world in any way, would require a form of Idealism to be true, which Godel would have explicitly argued cannot be true.

[shadowhawk]

 

Logical Positivism which was espoused by a group known as The Vienna Circle in Austria, led by Ludwig Wittgenstein. Logical Positivism says that anything that cannot be experimentally verified or mathematically proven is invalid.  I grew up with that view.  I was raised on the verify ability principal.  

The Logical Positivists were confident that very soon, all the loose ends of mathematics would be nailed down by a single grand unifying theory. The world would finally fully embrace reason and logic and leave the failures of religion behind.

Kurt Godel was a member of the Vienna Circle and in 1931 proved that a single unifying theory was impossible. He proved that the goal of the Logical Positivists was unachievable. This was a devastating blow to anyone that thought materialism could explain itself..

I tried to show this but obviously my posts were not being read.
((Links removed for conciseness)

Godels Incompleteness Theorem says that any system that is complex enough to express mathematics cannot prove, by itself, that everything it says is true. It will always rely on something outside the system that you have to assume is true but cannot prove.

You can then step outside the system and complete your proof, but in order to do that you will now have to invoke something else from the outside. So you keep expanding ever outward, invoking still more things that you cannot prove.

Nearly everyone agrees that math is incomplete.

Up until this point, your logic and apparent understanding of Godel's theorem is very much on point, and completely true... but...

The idea that the cosmos is also incomplete  makes some people such as addx, very uncomfortable. If the universe cannot explain itself then there has to be some kind of higher power at work.  Oh no!

This is where you step out from being correct into being incorrect. You have stepped outside of what Godel's Theorem was ever saying, and entered into the realm of the real world. Godel's theorem, by your own admission above, is about mathematics, and logical systems. The universe, however, is not such a man-made logical system. It has its own existence, independent of our models for it.

E=MC² is a (simplified, admittedly) model of how part of our universe seems to operate. It is a good theory, and one that has proven true in all but the theoretical realm of the black hole, near the event horizon, where even light cannot escape. It adequately predicts the curvature of space, the dilation of space-time under extreme circumstances such as traveling near to the speed of light or being in a gravity well, and many other such predictions which have been tested over and over again and found to be true...

But it is not an actual part of the universe. Nowhere in the heavens is E=MC² ever emblazoned as an actual cog in any heavenly machinery. It is only a figment of our imagination... a good one, but imagination, nonetheless. It doesn't actually exist. What you're arguing, in Godel's Theorem actually applying to the physical world in any way, would require a form of Idealism to be true, which Godel would have explicitly argued cannot be true.

 

We do agree on the first part. 

 

However I said,

"As I said before, you cannot prove that the universe is mathematical. But belief that the universe is mathematical is the #1 assumption of modern science. Toss out that assumption and the whole philosophical framework of western civilization crumbles."

 

The cosmos is mathematical in its logic, therefore Godel applies here as well.  It is at this point we have our issue.  Abstract objects such as math, do they exist?  Where do they come from?  Why does the physical world follow rules of math, so much that it is the heart of science?

[Jeoshua]

"The universe can be understood through mathematics"

That is the assumption of modern science. Not that is MADE UP of mathematics! You are conflating our understanding of a thing with the thing, itself. The universe is no more a mathematical entity than you are a fish. You could be understood as a fish, having a spine, and a brain, and eyes, and requiring a mostly aqueous internal environment in which to thrive. But that does not make you a fish.

[shadowhawk]

"The universe can be understood through mathematics"

That is the assumption of modern science. Not that is MADE UP of mathematics! You are conflating our understanding of a thing with the thing, itself. The universe is no more a mathematical entity than you are a fish. You could be understood as a fish, having a spine, and a brain, and eyes, and requiring a mostly aqueous internal environment in which to thrive. But that does not make you a fish.

I didn't say math turned you into a fish!  Where did that come from? 

 

The great physicist Eugene Wigner spoke of   “the uncanny effectiveness of mathematics.” How is it that a theoretical physicist like Peter Higgs can sit down at his desk and on the basis of certain mathematical equations predict the existence of a particle and field which nearly a half century later the experimental physicists go out and discover? (The god Particle) Why is mathematics the language of nature?  Math is not just a game of logic with no connection to the physical world.

The Theist can argue that God has fashioned the world on the structure of the mathematical objects. This is essentially what Plato believed. The world has mathematical structure as a result of an intelligent mind.  The theist has a ready explanation of the applicability of mathematics to the physical world: God has created it according to a certain blueprint He had in mind. There are any number of blueprints He might have chosen

The Theist  has the explanatory resources to account for the mathematical structure of the physical world and, hence, for mathematics’ applicability, resources which the Atheist lacks.

 

With all of its connection to the physical we cannot explain things logically because it is incomplete.  We must go outside.
 

[johnross47]

 

"The universe can be understood through mathematics"

That is the assumption of modern science. Not that is MADE UP of mathematics! You are conflating our understanding of a thing with the thing, itself. The universe is no more a mathematical entity than you are a fish. You could be understood as a fish, having a spine, and a brain, and eyes, and requiring a mostly aqueous internal environment in which to thrive. But that does not make you a fish.

I didn't say math turned you into a fish!  Where did that come from? 

 

The great physicist Eugene Wigner spoke of   “the uncanny effectiveness of mathematics.” How is it that a theoretical physicist like Peter Higgs can sit down at his desk and on the basis of certain mathematical equations predict the existence of a particle and field which nearly a half century later the experimental physicists go out and discover? (The god Particle) Why is mathematics the language of nature?  Math is not just a game of logic with no connection to the physical world.

The Theist can argue that God has fashioned the world on the structure of the mathematical objects. This is essentially what Plato believed. The world has mathematical structure as a result of an intelligent mind.  The theist has a ready explanation of the applicability of mathematics to the physical world: God has created it according to a certain blueprint He had in mind. There are any number of blueprints He might have chosen

The Theist  has the explanatory resources to account for the mathematical structure of the physical world and, hence, for mathematics’ applicability, resources which the Atheist lacks.

 

With all of its connection to the physical we cannot explain things logically because it is incomplete.  We must go outside.
 

This is a frequently deployed idea; that it is astonishing that the universe shows order and pattern, and can therefore be depicted mathematically. It is a total reversal of reality. It would be truly astonishing if the universe did not show regularity, pattern and order. Imagine a universe where there was an infinite number of kinds of elementary particles in an infinity of combinations following an infinity of different rules. The real universe is a much simpler and more obvious kind of place. There are only a few particles in a small number of combinations and all following the same limited set of rules. The non predictable universe that your ideas imply should be there, is so improbable that the odds against it are inconceivably massive.

 

[shadowhawk]

We are talking about Godel and the fact the internal logic of the cosmos is incomplete.  No use repeating myself except to say it is incomplete.

[addx]

We are talking about Godel and the fact the internal logic of the cosmos is incomplete.  No use repeating myself except to say it is incomplete.

your (our) understanding of the logic of the cosmos is incomplete. the cosmos is complete, works, exists, persists and doesn't care about your understanding of it nor is responsible to provide it to you.

[shadowhawk]

 

We are talking about Godel and the fact the internal logic of the cosmos is incomplete.  No use repeating myself except to say it is incomplete.

your (our) understanding of the logic of the cosmos is incomplete. the cosmos is complete, works, exists, persists and doesn't care about your understanding of it nor is responsible to provide it to you.

 

It is good that somebody knows.  We have been looking for a replacement for Godel.  Wow have I underestimated you.  And here you also speak for the cosmos! 

[addx]

We are talking about Godel and the fact the internal logic of the cosmos is incomplete.  No use repeating myself except to say it is incomplete.

your (our) understanding of the logic of the cosmos is incomplete. the cosmos is complete, works, exists, persists and doesn't care about your understanding of it nor is responsible to provide it to you.

It is good that somebody knows.  We have been looking for a replacement for Godel.  Wow have I underestimated you.  And here you also speak for the cosmos! 

ROFL, project much?

Your entire argument rests on claims like "the universe can not explain itself". Did you talk to it? Did it say that to you? Did it say "I don't know what I'm about?"? Did it shrug its shoulders? Or did you take the lack of cooperation as a "no"?

Also, YOU seem to be "finishing" Godels "work", not I. He was a Christian but he failed to notice that his own theorem proves Christianity? You're here to finish his work. With the help of the special channel of communication with the universe itself and a better understanding of Godels theorem than himself, tell us o mighty prophet what is the truth?

The universe told you it has a border and on the outside of that border is God? God is something irrational and is not to be questioned. The universe was created because things can't exist without being created, but God is no thing, he can exist without being created, he is timeless.


So, that's what you're saying and I'm reading:

shadowhawk is proposing system A

within the system A there exist things, human bodies, souls and a deity.
deity lasts forever and has existed since ever
deity existence is undetectable by things or human bodies but
deity existence is allencompassing and everpresent
things last forever but have not existed since ever.
human bodies are created by birth/sexual reproduction and die of old age or violence.
souls last forever and but have started to exist by birth of a human body.
deity creates and destroy souls
deity creates souls by splitting off a part of itself
birth of human bodies requires the creation of a soul.
deity must split off a part of itself for each human birth to create a soul for the body.
soul exists within the human body until it dies.
souls then persistsn without the body for eternity in an undetectable but allencompassing state as does the deity.
deities can create and destroy things.
deities can create and destroy human bodies.
things can not detect deities
human bodies can not detect deities
human bodies can not detect souls
etc
etc
etc..


I can't even continue as this is getting ridiculous. shadowhawk is also proposing that all that fabrication of imagination is scientific - godel theorem proves its all scientific and validated by science. its ok to trust the snake oil, look here's a certificate of "godel theroem approved" by shadowhawk the current official holder of "godel theorems stamp of officialness".

I think the "system" of "game of thrones" is much more entertaining. I like dragons. Angels are boring.

Maybe you should stamp that.


Oh yea, the christian God is decided to be "the deity" on the base that the shadowhawk- the author of the fabrication was raised in the western civilization and has noticed that the majority of people agree with each other about some parts of this fabrication. in fact his fabrication was assembled from other peoples passed on fabrications. The amount of agreement on these fabrications between people(wittnessed by shadowhawk) is proof of the truth. It doesnt matter that there are more muslim people agreeing about Allah, shadowshank does not wittness/experience that personally so it is irrelevant - he doesnt "feel" its the truth. He doesn't think why this happens, but simply trusts his mind to pick the right truth. While in fact if a muslim does the same he winds up beleiveing in the wrong deity. So it's really something special about shadowhawk himself that his mind simply picks the right truth and so he presumes there must be SOME evidence for it and godels theorem nicely reduced all other theories to "SOME" evidence as well. so, snake oil it is.

You should rename yourself to shallowhawk

Edited by addx, 18 April 2014 - 07:44 AM.

[addx]

As I said before, you cannot prove that the universe is mathematical. But belief that the universe is mathematical is the #1 assumption of modern science. Toss out that assumption and the whole philosophical framework of western civilization crumbles.

There is no "beleif" that the universe is mathematical. Noone beleives exactly THAT.

People are aware that mathematics and physics are a mere attempt to understand the universe. And as people get smarter the attempts get better and better.

There is a "beleif" that we can understand it - one day. Which makes us attempt to do so. We do not beleive our attempts result in perfect understanding, we are just happy to increase our imperfect(incomplete) understanding.

As already explained somewhere, these attempts are a way too weed out evolutionary ignorance. Attemps to understand the universe that produce systems with applicable predictability enable the species that gained this knowledge to use the universe to their advantage.

Theism is no different than atheism in beleiveing that it can understand the universe.

And when things are positioned properly you can begin to apply godels theorem to "understandings"(systems) of theism and "understandings"(systems) of atheism. it works the same for both and doesnt result in any new conclusions and thus is a void effort.

There is however a great difference in theism and atheism when doing such a comparison and it is not a result of Godels theorem but of the beleifs themselves.

While atheism does beleive it can understand the universe one day, theism beleives it understands the universe now. Theism denies ability to evolve knowledge further as it claims to know all that is meaningful at this point in time and also all the time since its inception.

Atheism in itself is in fact a rejection of this inability to evolve. Rejection of theistic brainwashing that mostly puts us on this earth to suffer in humility in order to gain entry to heaven. Reducing our lives to this causes intellectual degeneration which is often apparent within the ranks of theists. Atheism rejects this as it is 100% uncofirmed and 100% against progress. Stopping your progress for old-wives tales is unreasonable. Theism is unreasonable.

So no more meaningful progress is possible with theism as your guiding beleif. As such, theistic research/scientific effort has mainly consisted out of distorting, cherry picking, censoring and manipulating historical facts to support itself as a beleif better rather than evolving anything meaningful for societies future like atheism. This is historically obvious and undeniable. The sun would still spin around the earth, the earth would still be a flat board, witches would still be burned for sleeping with the priest and so it would be if Christianity "infested" everyone. Why "figure stuff out" when you can just enroll into a priesthood and call it as you like it. You only have to answer to the priest above you in hierrachy, and if he's just as corrupted as you, you two together can rape women and burn them at the stakes "free of charge". Oh yea, this is not a hypothetical situation, this is in fact what happened under the flag of theism and Christianity!

It hurt people in the past and it will do so in the future. When I see your "stage speakers" calling the name of Christ and abusing science I instantly see all the women raped and burned in the name of Christ with a similar "scientific method" as the one you're using here. It's seriously disturbing to see for any "honest intellectual". As can be seen by the reactions on this thread. It's the wrong century for this. Seriously.


----

Just recently a Red Cross children shelter 40km from my city was forcibly closed by authorities due to being overwhelmed by accusations of child sexual abuse. They were proven in court and the people that ran it were put in prison, after decades of comitting child abuse.
At the same time the Church in my country orchestrated a public vote for a constitutional change that forbids the use of the term "marriage" for anything other than a male-female relationship effectively providing the scaffold to discriminate homosexual "marriage". This in effect will enable child adopting laws to discern homosexual from heterosexual marriages - enableing future discrimination against homosexuals in regards to child adoption. It has been argued by the church that homosexual homes are no place for children. Their "Red Cross" shelters seemingly are.

Edited by addx, 18 April 2014 - 11:03 AM.

[addx]

Oh yea,

happy easter!




I'm going to paint some eggs this easter. As is tradition in pagan societies worhiping female reproduction abilities. I will also have some bunnies around. To worship reproduction abilities further. :p

Point being: the only "christian" things that most christians respect are in fact pagan and are in no way related to the bible. So really, your apparent abundance of Christian god worshippers that discern truth is really an just an abudance of tree/santa/egg/bunny celebrating sheep that discern nothing.

And that's your main evidence for christianity - the ability of christians to subjectively discern the truth. It's pathetic.

Edited by addx, 18 April 2014 - 12:14 PM.

[shadowhawk]

addx :  Your entire argument rests on claims like "the universe can not explain itself". Did you talk to it? Did it say that to you? Did it say "I don't know what I'm about?"? Did it shrug its shoulders? Or did you take the lack of cooperation as a "no"?

Also, YOU seem to be "finishing" Godels "work", not I. He was a Christian but he failed to notice that his own theorem proves Christianity? You're here to finish his work. With the help of the special channel of communication with the universe itself and a better understanding of Godels theorem than himself, tell us o mighty prophet what is the truth?

The universe told you it has a border and on the outside of that border is God? God is something irrational and is not to be questioned. The universe was created because things can't exist without being created, but God is no thing, he can exist without being created, he is timeless.

Before you start recreating what I said into a windy straw man, here is what I actually said.  http://www.longecity...-25#entry656740

1. I said the cosmos has at its heart information that is mathematical which is incomplete.  This is what Godel’s incompleteness therom is about.  Answer your own insane questions about the cosmos, “Did you talk to it? Did it say that to you? Did it say "I don't know what I'm about?"? Did it shrug its shoulders? Or did you take the lack of cooperation as a "no"?”

2.  You seem to know the answer.  The universe did speak to you.   You are blowing a lot of smoke!  I will let your work speak for itself.

 

As for Godel, his fantastic work speaks for itself.

Edited by shadowhawk, 18 April 2014 - 08:19 PM.

[addx]

"As I said before, you cannot prove that the universe is mathematical. But belief that the universe is mathematical is the #1 assumption of modern science. Toss out that assumption and the whole philosophical framework of western civilization crumbles."
 
1. I said the cosmos has at its heart information that is mathematical which is incomplete.  This is what Godels incompleteness therom is about.

So, what exactly are you saying here? You can not prove that the universe is mathematical but you're nevertheless applying a mathematical theorem to it and then concluding the universe is incomplete.


Seriously, you're not making any sense to anyone and you keep squirming.

[Jeoshua]

 

"As I said before, you cannot prove that the universe is mathematical. But belief that the universe is mathematical is the #1 assumption of modern science. Toss out that assumption and the whole philosophical framework of western civilization crumbles."
 
1. I said the cosmos has at its heart information that is mathematical which is incomplete.  This is what Godels incompleteness therom is about.

So, what exactly are you saying here? You can not prove that the universe is mathematical but you're nevertheless applying a mathematical theorem to it and then concluding the universe is incomplete.


Seriously, you're not making any sense to anyone and you keep squirming.

 

 

Not only that, attempting to apply a mathematical theorem to the universe that proves that nothing can be absolutely proven in a mathematical system. It's at least 3 levels deep of abstraction, here, in the inability to prove any of it. How can you prove that the universe is mathematical with a theory that shows that nothing can be proven in mathematical theories? It really boggles the mind.

 

I suspect the ultimate goal is to knock any Atheist who would argue with him so off kilter that they get confused and leave.
 

[shadowhawk]

As for logic, math and information being basic to the reality of the physical, read “Decoding the Universe: How the New Science of Information Is Explaining Everything in the Cosmos, from Our Brains to Black Holes “ I just finished it.  Another fantastic book, this time by a non christian. We ought to have a discussion of information theory as well as Godel.  But addx knows better.  It is not intelligent is it?  The cosmos told him so in English, not code.

 

http://www.amazon.co...g/dp/0143038397

 

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 18 April 2014 - 08:51 PM.

[shadowhawk]

 

 

"As I said before, you cannot prove that the universe is mathematical. But belief that the universe is mathematical is the #1 assumption of modern science. Toss out that assumption and the whole philosophical framework of western civilization crumbles."
 
1. I said the cosmos has at its heart information that is mathematical which is incomplete.  This is what Godels incompleteness therom is about.

So, what exactly are you saying here? You can not prove that the universe is mathematical but you're nevertheless applying a mathematical theorem to it and then concluding the universe is incomplete.


Seriously, you're not making any sense to anyone and you keep squirming.

 

 

Not only that, attempting to apply a mathematical theorem to the universe that proves that nothing can be absolutely proven in a mathematical system. It's at least 3 levels deep of abstraction, here, in the inability to prove any of it. How can you prove that the universe is mathematical with a theory that shows that nothing can be proven in mathematical theories? It really boggles the mind.

 

I suspect the ultimate goal is to knock any Atheist who would argue with him so off kilter that they get confused and leave.
 

 

I guess you don’t like science which applies math to the physical cosmos all the time.  Read carefully what I said.  By the way, what do you accept as proof and do you only believe what can be proved absolutely?  Obviously it is not math.  I am saying everything like math, is incomplete.  Why are you complaining about what I have said.  What do you believe absolutely if I have made such a fundimental error?

Both of you have said you are not atheists, right?  http://www.longecity...-24#entry655686
 

[johnross47]

We are talking about Godel and the fact the internal logic of the cosmos is incomplete.  No use repeating myself except to say it is incomplete.

 

No point in repeating yourself because your point is stupid and empty. To say that the internal logic of the cosmos is incomplete is beyond pretentious; it's an arrogance of almost godlike proportion. You understand the logic of the cosmos so completely that you can confidently make such a comment? How many Nobels do you have? In the mean time you can perhaps lower yourself to my level and answer the point I made in direct response to a remark of yours. 

 

 

"The universe can be understood through mathematics"

That is the assumption of modern science. Not that is MADE UP of mathematics! You are conflating our understanding of a thing with the thing, itself. The universe is no more a mathematical entity than you are a fish. You could be understood as a fish, having a spine, and a brain, and eyes, and requiring a mostly aqueous internal environment in which to thrive. But that does not make you a fish.

I didn't say math turned you into a fish!  Where did that come from? 

 

The great physicist Eugene Wigner spoke of   “the uncanny effectiveness of mathematics.” How is it that a theoretical physicist like Peter Higgs can sit down at his desk and on the basis of certain mathematical equations predict the existence of a particle and field which nearly a half century later the experimental physicists go out and discover? (The god Particle) Why is mathematics the language of nature?  Math is not just a game of logic with no connection to the physical world.

The Theist can argue that God has fashioned the world on the structure of the mathematical objects. This is essentially what Plato believed. The world has mathematical structure as a result of an intelligent mind.  The theist has a ready explanation of the applicability of mathematics to the physical world: God has created it according to a certain blueprint He had in mind. There are any number of blueprints He might have chosen

The Theist  has the explanatory resources to account for the mathematical structure of the physical world and, hence, for mathematics’ applicability, resources which the Atheist lacks.

 

With all of its connection to the physical we cannot explain things logically because it is incomplete.  We must go outside.
 

This is a frequently deployed idea; that it is astonishing that the universe shows order and pattern, and can therefore be depicted mathematically. It is a total reversal of reality. It would be truly astonishing if the universe did not show regularity, pattern and order. Imagine a universe where there was an infinite number of kinds of elementary particles in an infinity of combinations following an infinity of different rules. The real universe is a much simpler and more obvious kind of place. There are only a few particles in a small number of combinations and all following the same limited set of rules. The non predictable universe that your ideas imply should be there, is so improbable that the odds against it are inconceivably massive.

 

Just in case you forget which point. I'm tired of you ducking any argument you don't have an answer to.

 

[shadowhawk]

Johnross47, obviously you have not been following the discussion.   Try again.  Here is my response to incompleteness. http://www.longecity...-25#entry656740

All you have ever done is commit logical fallacies and call names.  Not any points or argument at all.   Usual, but amazing in totality.

Obviously nothing is incomplete to you or are you just blowing smoke.  Tell us what is complete since you know.  And, we are going to present you with the Nobel Prize, not me. 

[johnross47]

Johnross47, obviously you have not been following the discussion.   Try again.  Here is my response to incompleteness. http://www.longecity...-25#entry656740

All you have ever done is commit logical fallacies and call names.  Not any points or argument at all.   Usual, but amazing in totality.

Obviously nothing is incomplete to you or are you just blowing smoke.  Tell us what is complete since you know.  And, we are going to present you with the Nobel Prize, not me. 

 

What a procession of non sequiteurs. Show me where I have said any such thing as, nothing is incomplete. You still haven't answered the point I made, as a direct response to a comment you made, that it is not amazing and awesome that maths can describe the universe. The reverse is true. Substituting abuse for argument is infantile and does your reputation no good at all.

[addx]

"As I said before, you cannot prove that the universe is mathematical. But belief that the universe is mathematical is the #1 assumption of modern science. Toss out that assumption and the whole philosophical framework of western civilization crumbles."
 
1. I said the cosmos has at its heart information that is mathematical which is incomplete.  This is what Godels incompleteness therom is about.

So, what exactly are you saying here? You can not prove that the universe is mathematical but you're nevertheless applying a mathematical theorem to it and then concluding the universe is incomplete.


Seriously, you're not making any sense to anyone and you keep squirming.

Ill just repeat it until I get an answer

[shadowhawk]

 Decoding the Universe: Information as the Basis of Everything?
Book review.
“The universe is all about information. That's Charles Seife's theme throughout his 2006 book, Decoding the Universe: How the New Science of Information is Explaining Everything in the Cosmos, From Our Brains to Black Holes. From the length of the subtitle it appears he, or his publisher, wanted to squeeze in a lot of information even on the cover of the book! What's between the covers is all remarkably clear and intriguing.

It takes someone like a Charles Seife, who twice previously has delivered highly regarded technical writing for non-technical people, to explain for laymen the leading edge of physics. And Seife says that now, that leading edge is information theory. He begins with wars won and lost through information theory (cryptography), and ends up with wild fascinating speculations about infinities of universes; all of it based in information.

He shows that information theory is inextricably bound up with the very core of physical reality. (Math) For example, surprisingly to me, entropy and information are, at least in many contexts, mathematically interchangeable. And did you know that Einstein's Special Relativity does not mean nothing can travel faster than light? The experiments have been run. In one of them, light itself traveled more than 300 times the usual speed of light in a vacuum. None of the Internet sources I found on Google told this story as well as Seife, unfortunately; but they did validate him on his central point, which is that what we have considered to be the universal speed limit applies to information. (It also applies to any particle with mass, which Seife passes over.) He treats a number of other mysteries in physics according to information theory, seeking to resolve paradoxes like action at a distance and mysteries like teleportation and what information may be released from black holes.

Information, says Seife, is as discrete and quantifiable as any physical phenomenon. When it comes to the most intricate information-processing device we know of--the human brain--he maintains a mostly safe distance. It is not, he acknowledges, a kind of quantum computer, designed to outstrip the limitations of classical physics. As to what's really going on in the brain, and in particular what consciousness is all about, he writes,

"Philosophers and scientists have a hard time even defining what consciousness is, much less where it comes from. Is consciousness something that simply emerges from a sufficiently complex collection of bits moving about? Scientists have no compelling reason--other than squeamishness about what it means to be human--to say it isn't."

(In context, "bits moving about" are bits of information, as in a computer.) I suppose in a way he's right: scientists as scientists have no way to say what consciousness is, other than to observe its correlates in brain activity. But that bit about "squeamishness" is inaccurately loaded and mis-aimed. Philosophers have far more than just an unpleasant gut feeling to go on. Yes, it's difficult to define consciousness, yet there are sound and rather hard-headed reasons to believe it has to involve more than just computing, and more than just what happens on a physical level. (What I've written on rationality probably applies as well to consciousness.)

Seife's approach is typically naturalistic; he has no sympathy for intelligent design, for example. It's a conclusion he won't draw, in spite of this from the Introduction to the book:

"Each creature on Earth is a creature of information: information sits at the center of our cells, and information rattles around in our brains. But it's not just living beings that manipulate and process information. Every particle in the universe, every electron, every atom, every particle not yet discovered, is packed with information--information that is often inaccessible to us, but information nonetheless, information that can be transferred, processed, and dissipated. Each star in the universe, each one of the countless galaxies in the heavens, is packed full of information, information that can escape and travel. That information is always flowing, moving from place to place, spreading throughout the cosmos.

"Information appears, quite literally, to shape our cosmos."

For Seife, information is quite literally a physical thing. And yet... he also says later that physics has learned that information can never be created or destroyed, only "transferred, processed, and dissipated." Was all of it present in the Big Bang? He speculates on other universes possibly riding inside black holes, building on the information that falls in them; but he ventures no guess at where the information in ours came from. He simply says that information may well be the ultimate reality.

And we theists have been saying all along there's an infinite Mind and his ????? (lógos)--which means, among other things, a divine message, or information--who created it all and holds it all together.”  

That all this information may be described by the logic of math is consistant with Godel.







 

[shadowhawk]

addx: " So, what exactly are you saying here? You can not prove that the universe is mathematical but you're nevertheless applying a mathematical theorem to it and then concluding the universe is incomplete.

Seriously, you're not making any sense to anyone and you keep squirming.
Ill just repeat it until I get an answer"

 

I know you don't get that the logic of the physical cosmos has the information and logic of math at its core and hence Godel applies but

 

"As I said before, you cannot prove that the universe is mathematical. But belief that the universe is mathematical is the #1 assumption of modern science. Toss out that assumption and the whole philosophical framework of western civilization crumbles."

 

Do you want to toss the assumption?  Go ahead. 

 

[addx]

addx: " So, what exactly are you saying here? You can not prove that the universe is mathematical but you're nevertheless applying a mathematical theorem to it and then concluding the universe is incomplete.

Seriously, you're not making any sense to anyone and you keep squirming.
Ill just repeat it until I get an answer"
 
I know you don't get that the logic of the physical cosmos has the information and logic of math at its core and hence Godel applies but
 
"As I said before, you cannot prove that the universe is mathematical. But belief that the universe is mathematical is the #1 assumption of modern science. Toss out that assumption and the whole philosophical framework of western civilization crumbles."
 
Do you want to toss the assumption?  Go ahead. 

That assumption does not hold your theory, it holds science.

If it did hold your theory then any insane lunatic would also have his theory held by the same argument.

--


Yes, modern science rests on the notion that all observations from reality can be explained(made predictable) through a mathematical system.

Any mathematical system explaining such observations of reality(for example, theory of relativity, or thermodynamics) is not the universe itself.

The entire multitude of all such mathematical systems combined is still only explaining our observations - not the universe itself.

So, science is well aware that it is only making our observations predictable by devising such systems.

How did you manage to "use science" to prove something that's never been observed scientifically and that's never predicted anything scientifically. It's just mind melting. I'm sure you could prove that the earth is a flat board if you wanted to with that kind of blind enthusiasm.

 

addx: " So, what exactly are you saying here? You can not prove that the universe is mathematical but you're nevertheless applying a mathematical theorem to it and then concluding the universe is incomplete.

Seriously, you're not making any sense to anyone and you keep squirming.
Ill just repeat it until I get an answer"
 
I know you don't get that the logic of the physical cosmos has the information and logic of math at its core and hence Godel applies but
 
"As I said before, you cannot prove that the universe is mathematical. But belief that the universe is mathematical is the #1 assumption of modern science. Toss out that assumption and the whole philosophical framework of western civilization crumbles."
 
Do you want to toss the assumption?  Go ahead. 

That assumption does not hold your theory, it holds science.

If it did hold your theory then any insane lunatic would also have his theory held by the same argument.

--


Yes, modern science rests on the notion that all observations from reality can be explained(made predictable) through a mathematical system.

Any mathematical system explaining such observations of reality(for example, theory of relativity, or thermodynamics) is not the universe itself.

The entire multitude of all such mathematical systems combined is still only explaining our observations - not the universe itself.

So, science is well aware that it is only making our observations predictable by devising such systems.

How do you manage to "use science" to prove something that's never been observed scientifically and that's never predicted anything scientifically is beyond me. It's just mind melting. I'm sure you could prove that the earth is a flat board if you wanted to with that kind of blind enthusiasm.

I'm tired of this and you've gone quite insane in the other topic so... enjoy your freedom of speech.

Edited by addx, 23 April 2014 - 02:00 PM.