1712 replies to this topic

[Jeoshua]

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. 

I do, because that assumption is not at all correct!

Science is predicated on the idea that the universe is able to be understood through observation and experimentation. It makes no claims about the universe being actually "made of mathematics" as you are implying. That is not Science, that is Idealism. I have told you this before, as have others. You are not arguing against Atheism by proving Science incomplete, and you're not proving the Universe is incomplete.

What you're saying actually disproves your own point, since if any logical system is Incomplete, that means any theory is limited, and that means your assertion is not true. It does not say anything about the underlying nature of reality, just your understanding of it.

You are trying to say that the understanding and image of a thing are one and the same as the thing, itself. This would be like claiming that the people on the TV are actually in the TV. You do understand that nobody is really stuck inside the TV, and cameras don't steal your soul when they put your image onto paper, yes?

So yes, I throw your assumption because it is not correct, and yet Science stands and the Universe remains, regardless.

Edited by Jeoshua, 23 April 2014 - 06:04 PM.

[shadowhawk]

1. The cosmos can be understood to a degree.  There are lots of issues that are beyond science.
2.  I did not say the physical universe was made by the abstract and non physical, though real Mathematics.  Nor have I implied such a thing anymore than a design is part of a car.  It is the logic under its existence which dictates what it is and how it behaves.
3.  You have made a straw man but it is nothing I have ever said.
4.  No one else has ever made this argument.  Where?
5.  Everything, from the big bang outward is incomplete and incapable of explaining itself.
6.  I never said the image (icon, picture) of a thing are the same thing as the thing itself.  Nonsense.

Throw it all out, Straw man.  I never assumed any of it.
 

[addx]

I said it, 10 times, and others as well.

You're applying a mathematical theorem to the universe itself to come to a conclusion about it - itself.

Godel theorem can only prove that our mathematical system devised to explain the universe is incomplete.

And yes, we live by it, even though it is incomplete. It works. It predicts observable events and allows us to prepare

If religion works for you - live by it. I'm not sure what observable events it predicts, but it does involve preparations so... maybe one day you'll observe the prediction... until then you're running on BLIND faith and it is not the same as having faith that the sun will rise tomorrow because the exact time has been calculated and its position detected etc.

You again made no point.

----

You claim "the universe can not explain itself" while in fact providing the argument that "our mathematical system conceived to explain the universe can not explain itself.

This is your error in logic. Now quit it already.

Edited by addx, 23 April 2014 - 07:48 PM.

[shadowhawk]

The science of Information is Mathematical to its roots.  Godel noted that even a computer is subject to his incompleteness therm.  There are always more things that are true, than you can prove and this includes the physical.  The Big Bang is a perfect example of that.  The cosmos operates by its inner soul, information and math.  It is the logic of the cosmos, so much so scientists such as Charles Seife have written books such as, “Decoding the Universe,”  http://www.amazon.co.uk/Decoding-Universe-Information-Explaining-Everything/dp/0143038397  Seife does not separate the physical from the information logically central and embedded in its existence.  

Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. (In other words, children can do math by counting their fingers, water flowing into a bucket does integration, and physical systems always give the right answer.)

Therefore the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a computer, is incomplete. I said this before.

1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete

2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system

3. Therefore the universe is incomplete

Some think the cosmos is math But I think it is the internal logic of the rules by which the cosmos works.  It is not physical.  We even predicted the existence of the Higgs particle many years before any physical evidence because mathematics were so basic to reality.  We have Einsteins deceptions of the real world using math.  We learn most of what we know about reality by math.  Math logic is deeply embedded and encoded in the physical whether you get it or not..
 

[Jeoshua]

None of those points I raised were strawmen, they were valid points. By claiming that Godel's Theorem applies to the actual universe and not just our understanding of it, you are in fact (and not in some imaginary, easier-to-argue-against way) arguing that the universe IS Mathematics. You stated it plainly.

And you're wrong.

Water falling into a bucket can be expressed as calculus, but not a single one of the atoms involved in this dance is doing so because of a differential equation. The equation only predicts the behavior, it does not direct it.

Edited by Jeoshua, 24 April 2014 - 06:04 AM.

[addx]

Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. (In other words, children can do math by counting their fingers, water flowing into a bucket does integration, and physical systems always give the right answer.)

Therefore the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a computer, is incomplete. I said this before.

Yes you did.

"The universe is capable of "expressing arithmetic" so it must be a computer." - is just logic fallacy

I am capable of many things, but I am not any of those things.

Even if I performed some of them, I am still more than each performance I gave.

The fact that you can predict some things about the universe with mathematics does not neccesarily mean it is subject to all things that a mathematical system is.

The systems for prediction can be subject to anything that a mathematical system is subject to.

The universe itself can not.

So, logic fallacy.

1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete

2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system

No it is not. Look up.

3. Therefore the universe is incomplete

This just sounds so stupid, I can't beleive you're repeating it. Read that line over and over until you get it.

The universe is incomplete, The universe is incomplete, The universe is incomplete, The universe is incomplete, The universe is incomplete, The universe is incomplete, The universe is incomplete, The universe is incomplete, The universe is incomplete, The universe is incomplete, The universe is incomplete, The universe is incomplete, The universe is incomplete, The universe is incomplete, The universe is incomplete, The universe is incomplete, The universe is incomplete, The universe is incomplete, The universe is incomplete, The universe is incomplete, The universe is incomplete, The universe is incomplete, The universe is incomplete

Some think the cosmos is math But I think it is the internal logic of the rules by which the cosmos works.  It is not physical.  We even predicted the existence of the Higgs particle many years before any physical evidence because mathematics were so basic to reality.  We have Einsteins deceptions of the real world using math.  We learn most of what we know about reality by math.  Math logic is deeply embedded and encoded in the physical whether you get it or not..

People "get" many things becase their brains make bad connections. Look up schizotypal personality disorder.

Yes, math is a tool to learn about the world to predict future events and prepare better, make use of the world better.

Applying math to the world in its entirety, as if you know what the world is in its entirety, as if you know that you can apply all math theorems to it, says that you dont even have to apply math, you already know what it is.

The universe is math. That explains the suffering in this world I guess.

Anyway that sums up your argument quite well, you already know that there is a God, afterlife and how the universe is bounded and what lies beyond.

So, you dont need maths, you KNOW.

And proof just falls into place as you cherry pick arguments and assemble them with logic fallacies to prove what you KNOW.

[Jeoshua]

Anyway that sums up your argument quite well, you already know that there is a God, afterlife and how the universe is bounded and what lies beyond.

So, you dont need maths, you KNOW.

And proof just falls into place as you cherry pick arguments and assemble them with logic fallacies to prove what you KNOW.

Nail. Head. Hit.

[shadowhawk]

None of those points I raised were strawmen, they were valid points. By claiming that Godel's Theorem applies to the actual universe and not just our understanding of it, you are in fact (and not in some imaginary, easier-to-argue-against way) arguing that the universe IS Mathematics. You stated it plainly.

And you're wrong.

Water falling into a bucket can be expressed as calculus, but not a single one of the atoms involved in this dance is doing so because of a differential equation. The equation only predicts the behavior, it does not direct it.

Another straw man.  I never said matn caused anything.  We di not understand the actual universe.  Understanding is not the actual universe any more than math is.  Just thought it would be fun to try out your logic. 

[shadowhawk]

 

Anyway that sums up your argument quite well, you already know that there is a God, afterlife and how the universe is bounded and what lies beyond.

So, you dont need maths, you KNOW.

And proof just falls into place as you cherry pick arguments and assemble them with logic fallacies to prove what you KNOW.

Nail. Head. Hit.

 

And you know I am wrong on all counts.  Must be talking to yourself because I haven't been arguing any of these points here .  I haven't even been talking about God, unless his name is Godel!  Somebody does have a nail for a head.

 

My points again.

1. The cosmos can be understood to a degree.  There are lots of issues that are beyond science.
2.  I did not say the physical universe was made by the abstract and non physical, though real Mathematics.  Nor have I implied such a thing anymore than a design is part of a car.  It is the logic under its existence which dictates what it is and how it behaves.
3.  You have made a straw man but it is nothing I have ever said.
4.  No one else has ever made this argument.  Where?
5.  Everything, from the big bang outward is incomplete and incapable of explaining itself.
6.  I never said the image (icon, picture) of a thing are the same thing as the thing itself.  Nonsense.

Throw it all out, Straw man.  I never assumed any of it.

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 24 April 2014 - 06:15 PM.

[Jeoshua]

1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete

2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system

3. Therefore the universe is incomplete

Some think the cosmos is math But I think it is the internal logic of the rules by which the cosmos works.

Yes, you did claim that the Universe is math. Repeatedly. Changing the way in which you say it doesn't change what you're implying.

[shadowhawk]

Show me where I said the universe IS math.  http://www.longecity...-26#entry658056

 

You are so invested in your straw man, that I don't care.  For the record, I DO NOT, NOR EVER HAVE THOUGHT THE UNIVERSE IS MATH.

[addx]

Show me where I said the universe IS math.  http://www.longecity...-26#entry658056
 
You are so invested in your straw man, that I don't care.  For the record, I DO NOT, NOR EVER HAVE THOUGHT THE UNIVERSE IS MATH.

Why did you apply Godels theorem on it then?



Bottom line is:

You don't know what the universe is.

Thus, you can't apply mathematical theorems to it which apply to mathematical systems.

End of story.



Quit it.

[Jeoshua]

You are so invested in trying to say that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem says something real about the physical universe, and not just our understanding of it, you might understand why I am so convinced that you believe that the universe is made of Math. The fact is, that only if the universe is a purely mathematical system that Godel's theorem applies to it. This is not a strawman, this is what you are arguing.

If you believe, as you claim, that the universe is not made of mathematics, then you cannot also claim that Godel's theorem applies to it, in any way other than our understanding of it!

Keep insulting me, it shows I'm getting through to you.

[shadowhawk]

You are so invested in trying to say that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem says something real about the physical universe, and not just our understanding of it, you might understand why I am so convinced that you believe that the universe is made of Math. The fact is, that only if the universe is a purely mathematical system that Godel's theorem applies to it. This is not a strawman, this is what you are arguing.

If you believe, as you claim, that the universe is not made of mathematics, then you cannot also claim that Godel's theorem applies to it, in any way other than our understanding of it!

Keep insulting me, it shows I'm getting through to you.

 

I didn't say the universe is math, then did I.  Insane!  And then you again repeat your strawman argument!  You are convincing me there are other issues here beside Godel.

[shadowhawk]

 

Show me where I said the universe IS math.  http://www.longecity...-26#entry658056
 
You are so invested in your straw man, that I don't care.  For the record, I DO NOT, NOR EVER HAVE THOUGHT THE UNIVERSE IS MATH.

Why did you apply Godels theorem on it then?



Bottom line is:

You don't know what the universe is.

Thus, you can't apply mathematical theorems to it which apply to mathematical systems.

End of story.



Quit it.

 

http://www.longecity...-26#entry658056

 

[Jeoshua]

I don't think you understand what a strawman argument is, you keep using it incorrectly. I am not mis-characterizing your point, at all, in order to make it easier to argue against.

There is only one way that Godel's theorem applies to the real universe, and that is if the universe is made of mathematics. If you say that it is not made of mathematics, then Godel's theorem doesn't apply, and only applies to our understanding of the universe and not its capabilities, its structure, or how it works.

This is fact, not exaggeration, not a mis-characterization, but the hard truth.

---

But lets assume for one brief moment that Godel's Theorem does apply to the universe at large, beyond just our understanding of it.

Now, prove that God exists.

What's that? You can't? Because the universe is incomplete, and the universe can never be everything?

This is why you should drop this line of argument. If true, it would disprove more than just Atheism - it would disprove the God and the Universe, itself!

Edited by Jeoshua, 24 April 2014 - 09:10 PM.

[addx]

Show me where I said the universe IS math.  http://www.longecity...-26#entry658056
 
You are so invested in your straw man, that I don't care.  For the record, I DO NOT, NOR EVER HAVE THOUGHT THE UNIVERSE IS MATH.

Why did you apply Godels theorem on it then?



Bottom line is:

You don't know what the universe is.

Thus, you can't apply mathematical theorems to it which apply to mathematical systems.

End of story.



Quit it.

http://www.longecity...-26#entry658056

NO!!!

I commented that post 5 times already, on this page even.


I commented heaps of your posts, you ignore and deny everything, evade and spam with videos.


Now you comment my post. Prove me wrong. Find the logic fallacy in my post!!!


Do it or I'm reporting this thread and the other as religious fundamentalist spam.

[shadowhawk]

You are doing nothing but raving.  Report me as you have done before.  I am not interested in your pissing contests .  Here is what I said:

http://www.longecity...-26#entry658056

 

Here is your misrepresentation of what I said;

http://www.longecity...-26#entry658186

 

Edited by shadowhawk, 24 April 2014 - 09:37 PM.

[addx]

You are doing nothing but raving.  Report me as you have done before.  I am not interested in your pissing contests .  Here is what I said:
http://www.longecity...-26#entry658056
 
Here is your misrepresentation of what I said;
http://www.longecity...-26#entry658186

How is it a misrepresentation?


Here, I'll use your own examples, maybe you can understand then.


You don't know what the universe is.


You pour water in a bucket and you see that it integrates.


From that, you conclude that the universe is a non-trivial computational system.


This allows you to apply Godels theorem.


--------------

You concluding EXACTLY what the universe is (a non-trivial computational system) from pouring water in a bucket is identical to your 4 blind men and the elephant.

You're the blind man who grabbed the tail and called the elephant a snake.

It's called inductive logic and is deemed a logical fallacy within deductive logic reasoning.

So, where's the misrepresentation?

You don't know what the universe is, as said. You just grabbed it by the tail. And you're blind.

So your "faith" (that the universe is a computational system) begins even before you apply Godels theorem.

This means that your "faith" (that the universe is a computational system) is in fact the first axiom of your own system of understanding.

And you can apply Godel to that - your own system. It doesn't mean anything for anyone else since you're the author of the first axiom.

[Jeoshua]

This is what he does, addx. He pulls out some kind of contrived point that seems to prove an idea that he already knew, then when someone calls him out that it makes no sense, he claims that you just didn't understand him, then restates his point in slightly different words, and then the whole cycle repeats. He's been doing this since the beginning of these threads. It's a trap.

Any time you prove him wrong, he'll just dodge the point by claiming you didn't understand his point.

He thinks he's smarter than anyone who disagrees with him. Disagreeing with him only serves to reinforce his blind faith in his contrivances.

I, for one, am done. I have seen through the charade. This is not a discussion, this is not a valid line of inquiry, and this is going nowhere because he doesn't want it to. He's only using these threads as a honey pot to draw in people he can argue with and attempt to feel superior.

[addx]

This is what he does, addx. He pulls out some kind of contrived point that seems to prove an idea that he already knew, then when someone calls him out that it makes no sense, he claims that you just didn't understand him, then restates his point in slightly different words, and then the whole cycle repeats. He's been doing this since the beginning of these threads. It's a trap.

Any time you prove him wrong, he'll just dodge the point by claiming you didn't understand his point.

He thinks he's smarter than anyone who disagrees with him. Disagreeing with him only serves to reinforce his blind faith in his contrivances.

I, for one, am done. I have seen through the charade. This is not a discussion, this is not a valid line of inquiry, and this is going nowhere because he doesn't want it to. He's only using these threads as a honey pot to draw in people he can argue with and attempt to feel superior.

I know

It doesn't say much for us either though, this was obvious from the start and we knew it all along...

[Jeoshua]

Oh, I smelled it from a mile away, just from the name of the thread.

I will admit to liking to argue with people. It's just getting really old rehashing the same basic argument over and over again.

We haven't gotten to the "I'll pray for you" stage, tho. Which is sad, but what can you do. I think he knows that we'd consider that a concession speech.

[addx]

Well, I'm not sure I'll stick around for that

[shadowhawk]

Jeoshua:  Any time you prove him wrong, he'll just dodge the point by claiming you didn't understand his point.

He thinks he's smarter than anyone who disagrees with him. Disagreeing with him only serves to reinforce his blind faith in his contrivances.

There is only one way that Godel's theorem applies to the real universe, and that is if the universe is made of mathematics.

Prove that God exists.

You have proved a straw man wrong and now you claim to know what I think..  You are mis cauterizing my point for some reason known only to you.

Godel only proves incompleteness a real problem for Atheists who explain everything on materialism.  Explain the cosmos completely.

Also, I never said anything about praying for you.  Obviously, from your snarkey comment you wouldn't welcome it.  OK. That is an issue outside this topic and I wasn't planning on it. Saying this does not mean I don't care about you though.

Though this is about Atheism, God is not the universe, the subject of math and measurement, therefore not incomplete.

http://www.longecity...-26#entry658056

http://www.longecity...-26#entry658205

http://www.longecity...-26#entry658209


 

[Jeoshua]

Now you are the one setting up strawmen to knock them down. I didn't claim to be an Athiest, or a Materialist. You're arguing against points that were never made with a theorem that was never intended for such a use.

Additionally, you are proving my point about restating a point repeatedly and then claiming that others were misguided or wrong when they disagree.

[shadowhawk]

Now you are the one setting up strawmen to knock them down. I didn't claim to be an Athiest, or a Materialist. You're arguing against points that were never made with a theorem that was never intended for such a use.

Additionally, you are proving my point about restating a point repeatedly and then claiming that others were misguided or wrong when they disagree.

I never said you were an Atheist or materialist.   Straw man again and again. 

[Jeoshua]

Done. This is becoming transparent.

[shadowhawk]

Done. This is becoming transparent.

 

It sure is, you don't care what I really said.
 

[DukeNukem]

 

 

My points again.

1. The cosmos can be understood to a degree.  There are lots of issues that are beyond science.
 

 

 

 

 

The crux of your misunderstand is in the above statement.  Allow me to fix it for you:

 

1. The cosmos can be understood to a degree.  There are lots of issues that are beyond CURRENT science.

 

BTW, have you read the book, A Universe From Nothing?  It shows that current science already understands that our universe is a zero-energy event.  It's been famously called, "the ultimate free lunch."  In other words, all of the energies in the universe that we are currently aware of add up to zero, including gravitational energy.  Hence, something from nothing is a misnomer.  We are still a form of nothing--so if there's a god, he did not actual create anything.  (Let that sink in.)  

 

It is highly expected that we'll have a much better understanding of the universe in coming years and decades, leaving believers in the supernatural with even less area to fit their gods.

 

http://www.amazon.co.../dp/1451624468/

[Duchykins]

Oh gawd now he's going to on and on about Victor Stegner. *sigh*

I cite this paper often, among a few other related ones:

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0605063

We've known two things since the early 80s:

1) the total energy of the universe is zero
2) it is possible for a zero total energy universe to come into existence without any input of energy, IF the universe is flat rather than open or closed



Evidence pre-WMAP about the shape of the universe fell weakly in favor of a flat universe as opposed to open or closed. In 2011, from WMAP, we acquired strong evidence that the universe is flat. Ergo, the old hypotheses about an ab nihilo (*from* nothing, not out of nothing) universe have resurfaced with a vengeance.


It is important to note in a discussion involving physics is that there is a distinct difference between the concepts of "nothing" in philosophy and physics. The philosophical concept of "nothing" does not really exist in quantum mechanics; there is always something. Theists not working in physics frequently fail to grasp or acknowledge this. This nearly always leads to misinterpretations of various facts in physics, especially QM, as well as metaphorical statements from various physicists.