Christian 'Mythology'.

[Walter]

Hi Walter,
Thanks for the above post.

Both may be expressed mathematically.   

Anything convertible into mathematical equations becomes 'understandable' in scientific terms.   This means 'intelligible' rather than 'user-friendly'.   Nothing in Quantum Mechanics is 'user-friendly' but everything is convertible into mathematical equations.   That is the essence of modern physics.

Science cannot progress unless scientists believe that current mysteries can each be resolved eventually by their efforts.   In the case of physics, this will be by abstract mathematical equations initially, to be followed by verification from experimental measurement (same sequence as worked for the Higgs field).

Modern physics is so dependent on maths, that it is impossible to even discuss much of its current work in any other terms.   If the current differences between QM and classical gravity is eventually resolved (a Theory of Everything), it will be in mathematical terms because cause and effect can no longer be discussed in any other way.

If abstract maths is not an objective reality (independent of the human mind), then QM is meaningless, but if it is an objective reality, then it is an intelligent abstract force permeating and controlling the Universe (ie the Logus of Christianity).

God bless

well, its a reply.

but its nothing more than waffle and confusion and makes no sense.
Once again you've used some scientific terms hoping it will create an appearance of understanding. Its as though you pulled them blindly out of a bag and tried to fit them into a sentence and arriving at Christianity as the answer to everything.
Very strange .

god less.

[torridon]

If abstract maths is not an objective reality (independent of the human mind), then QM is meaningless, but if it is an objective reality, then it is an intelligent abstract force permeating and controlling the Universe (ie the Logus of Christianity).

Perhaps it is better to think of 'abstract maths' as being a language we have invented to describe what is 'out there'.  Stuff exists, we we need to develop ways of describing the numerical aspects of said stuff, hence maths.  Maths is something we invent in order to describe stuff that we discover.

[Sassy]

well, its a reply.

but its nothing more than waffle and confusion and makes no sense.
Once again you've used some scientific terms hoping it will create an appearance of understanding. Its as though you pulled them blindly out of a bag and tried to fit them into a sentence and arriving at Christianity as the answer to everything.
Very strange .

god less.

Okay walter explain how you reached the above conclusion. To me it suggests you deliberately ignored what was actually being said. Show us your answer using Quantum Mechanic/physics and theory. Because Quantum Mechanics is basically all three.
Then show us how God would become all three.

[SqueakyVoice]

Perhaps it is better to think of 'abstract maths' as being a language we have invented to describe what is 'out there'.  Stuff exists, we we need to develop ways of describing the numerical aspects of said stuff, hence maths.  Maths is something we invent in order to describe stuff that we discover.

Except maths is perfectly capable of describing stuff that doesn't exist as well,
4unicorns + 3unicorns = 7unicorns
is a perfectly valid mathematically, but it tells you absolutely nothing about whether unicorns exist.

(Incidentally, it's far more often the case that pure mathematics has been used and understood well before any application to the real world is even contemplated. I.E. its usually the case that the (mathematical) language is invented and then its found it describes something.)

[Walter]

Okay walter explain how you reached the above conclusion. To me it suggests you deliberately ignored what was actually being said. Show us your answer using Quantum Mechanic/physics and theory. Because Quantum Mechanics is basically all three.
Then show us how God would become all three.

Sassy,
as someone who has no understanding of basic physics or even that humans have stood on the moon , it would be a complete waste of time . Therefore I will not be explaining it to you, sorry.

[Rosindubh]

Your idea of mathematics as an externally and objectively, eternally true realm of eternal Platonic truth is held by many mathematicians (e.g. Roger Penrose).

Unfortunately for you, "many" does not equal "all" - there are plenty of mathematicians and/or mathematical physicists who take the opposite view that mathematics is a human construct, i.e. something that human brains make and impose upon the cosmos (e.g. Michael Rowan-Robinson).

In short, opinion.

Hi Shaker,
Thank you again for the above post.

Nice to know that "many mathematicians (e.g. Roger Penrose)" hold a similar 'opinion' to mine.   But of course, number of supporters (or opponents) of an opinion is not a reliable guide to its correctness.   It is the quality of argument which matters (even with Roger Penrose).

If mathematical principles are "something that human brains impose upon the cosmos", then they are subjective, uncertain and the whole of Quantum Mechanics a circular and meaningless argument.

On the other hand, if mathematical principles are correct independently of the human mind (i.e. Objective), then they must have been correct before their discovery by humans and correct at the beginning of time (i.e. Big Bang).   

So, if objective, they are eternal, and the question is where did they come from?

God bless

[floo]

Sassy,
as someone who has no understanding of basic physics or even that humans have stood on the moon , it would be a complete waste of time . Therefore I will not be explaining it to you, sorry.

I agree!

[Walter]

Hi Shaker,
Thank you again for the above post.

Nice to know that "many mathematicians (e.g. Roger Penrose)" hold a similar 'opinion' to mine.   But of course, number of supporters (or opponents) of an opinion is not a reliable guide to its correctness.   It is the quality of argument which matters (even with Roger Penrose).

If mathematical principles are "something that human brains impose upon the cosmos", then they are subjective, uncertain and the whole of Quantum Mechanics a circular and meaningless argument.

On the other hand, if mathematical principles are correct independently of the human mind (i.e. Objective), then they must have been correct before their discovery by humans and correct at the beginning of time (i.e. Big Bang).   

So, if objective, they are eternal, and the question is where did they come from?

God bless

So, if objective, they are eternal, and the question is where did they come from?

that's a good question and the answer is,NOBODY KNOWS and that includes you !

[Rosindubh]

that's a good question and the answer is,NOBODY KNOWS and that includes you !

Hi again Walter,
Thanks for your post.

Does not the objective existence of an abstract intellectual 'thing' which explains the whole of the physical Universe meets the criteria for the Logos of Christianity?

God bless

 

[Shaker]

An explanation actually has to explain things though - an unbroken chain stretching from thing-to-be-explained to explanation, with evidence all the way along and in every link -, and not be a gap-plugging Polyfilla concocted because you're unhappy with "I don't know."

[Gordon]

Does not the objective existence of an abstract intellectual 'thing' which explains the whole of the physical Universe meets the criteria for the Logos of Christianity?

God bless

The likes of mathematics is axiomatic - if it is objective please send me a '2' at your earliest convenience. The 'Logos of Christianity' sounds like an example of the reification fallacy.

[torridon]

Hi Shaker,
Thank you again for the above post.

Nice to know that "many mathematicians (e.g. Roger Penrose)" hold a similar 'opinion' to mine.   But of course, number of supporters (or opponents) of an opinion is not a reliable guide to its correctness.   It is the quality of argument which matters (even with Roger Penrose).

If mathematical principles are "something that human brains impose upon the cosmos", then they are subjective, uncertain and the whole of Quantum Mechanics a circular and meaningless argument.

On the other hand, if mathematical principles are correct independently of the human mind (i.e. Objective), then they must have been correct before their discovery by humans and correct at the beginning of time (i.e. Big Bang).   

So, if objective, they are eternal, and the question is where did they come from?

God bless

If we agree that two plus two equals four, why does that have to come from somewhere ? It is an observation that is expressed in abstract atemporal form.  It has no existence of its own, it did not start to exist and it owes nothing to concepts of space and time.

[Hope]

An explanation actually has to explain things though - an unbroken chain stretching from thing-to-be-explained to explanation, with evidence all the way along and in every link -, and not be a gap-plugging Polyfilla concocted because you're unhappy with "I don't know."

A pity that science often doesn't fulfil these requirements, even when it tries to explain things.

[Rosindubh]

Perhaps it is better to think of 'abstract maths' as being a language we have invented to describe what is 'out there'.  Stuff exists, we we need to develop ways of describing the numerical aspects of said stuff, hence maths.  Maths is something we invent in order to describe stuff that we discover.

Hi torridon,
Thanks for your post.

Some people argue as you suggest, but that would make maths subjective while facts point to it being objective.

Humans do invent the labels we use in maths - e.g. two, two squared, square root of two etc.   But under each such label is an abstract reality, independent of the physical world, which is capable of defining relationships between all physical things - whether in units, distances, weights, momenta, spin, locations etc.

Firstly, humans invent words in national languages for theses realities (e.g. two, zwei, deux), then international symbols (e.g. 2), but the underlying realities must exist independently of these inventions, because they have an amazing propensity to forecst the existance of physical things of which we had no previous knowledge.

Higgs field and gravity waves are merely recent demonstration of this propensity.   Quantum Mechanics itself owes much to Max Born introducing Heisenberg to mathematical matrices. These not only confirmed Heisenberg's work on hydrogen but also resolved problems with helium and heavier elements which Heisenberg had thought meaningless.

God bless

[Gordon]

A pity that science often doesn't fulfil these requirements, even when it tries to explain things.

When in doubt misrepresent eh: you already know, or should do by now, that science provides provisional explanation where 'don't know' may be the best provisional explanation.

Science, unlike religion, doesn't do faux certainty.

[Shaker]

A pity that science often doesn't fulfil these requirements, even when it tries to explain things.

Give examples.

[Walter]

Hi torridon,
Thanks for your post.

Some people argue as you suggest, but that would make maths subjective while facts point to it being objective.

Humans do invent the labels we use in maths - e.g. two, two squared, square root of two etc.   But under each such label is an abstract reality, independent of the physical world, which is capable of defining relationships between all physical things - whether in units, distances, weights, momenta, spin, locations etc.

Firstly, humans invent words in national languages for theses realities (e.g. two, zwei, deux), then international symbols (e.g. two), but the underlying realities must exist independently of these inventions, because they have an amazing propensity to forecst the existance of physical things of which we had no previous knowledge.

Higgs field and gravity waves are merely recent demonstration of this propensity.   Quantum Mechanics itself owes much to Max Born introducing Heisenberg to mathematical matrices. These not only confirmed Heisenberg's work on hydrogen but also resolved problems with helium and heavier elements which Heisenberg had thought meaningless.

God bless

If you are trying to use science to prove Christianity , do it now or fuck off .

[Rosindubh]

If you are trying to use science to prove Christianity , do it now or fuck off .

Hi Walter,
Why are you so upset?   If there is an error in my post, why not point it out so we can all debate it?

God bless

[Rosindubh]

The likes of mathematics is axiomatic - if it is objective please send me a '2' at your earliest convenience. The 'Logos of Christianity' sounds like an example of the reification fallacy.

Hi Gordon,
Thank you for your post.
A '2' is an abstract reality, not a physical thing.   It cannot be held in the hand or sent physically.   Its existence can only be understood.  It cannot be perceived by the senses.   

Rather like God in those respects.
God bless

[ippy]

Hi Gordon,
Thank you for your post.
A '2' is an abstract reality, not a physical thing.   It cannot be held in the hand or sent physically.   Its existence can only be understood.  It cannot be perceived by the senses.   

Rather like God in those respects.
God bless

I had two this morning that could be perceived, physically held in the hand and the two I'm referring to can also be named as a description certain beliefs; I can prove the reality of my two,  rather like verifiable evidence in that respect.

Foreign Office to your G B.

ippy

P S, are you Alan Burns or genitically related to him?

[torridon]

Hi torridon,
Thanks for your post.

Some people argue as you suggest, but that would make maths subjective while facts point to it being objective.

Humans do invent the labels we use in maths - e.g. two, two squared, square root of two etc.   But under each such label is an abstract reality, independent of the physical world, which is capable of defining relationships between all physical things - whether in units, distances, weights, momenta, spin, locations etc.

Firstly, humans invent words in national languages for theses realities (e.g. two, zwei, deux), then international symbols (e.g. 2), but the underlying realities must exist independently of these inventions, because they have an amazing propensity to forecst the existance of physical things of which we had no previous knowledge.

Higgs field and gravity waves are merely recent demonstration of this propensity.   Quantum Mechanics itself owes much to Max Born introducing Heisenberg to mathematical matrices. These not only confirmed Heisenberg's work on hydrogen but also resolved problems with helium and heavier elements which Heisenberg had thought meaningless.

God bless

Would two plus two still equal four when all humans and any other beings capable of understanding it have gone extinct ?  Does a principle of logic have an existence of its own, or is it like beauty being in the eye of the beholder - is a principle something that exists in the mind of the understander ?

[Gordon]

Hi Gordon,

A '2' is an abstract reality, not a physical thing.   It cannot be held in the hand or sent physically.

A human construct then: a useful idea, provided the use of the idea doesn't exceed its utility.

Its existence can only be understood.  It cannot be perceived by the senses.   

Rather like God in those respects.

Or misunderstood, or just imagined (humans are quite good at imagining stuff). 

[Sassy]

Sassy,
as someone who has no understanding of basic physics or even that humans have stood on the moon , it would be a complete waste of time . Therefore I will not be explaining it to you, sorry.

Why not say you don't know. Appears my basic knowledge is even more than your knowledge. What you really mean is you don't fancy the truth coming out about what you THINK you know.

You pretend and that is not good. You went and checked what I said and found I was right, didn't you.
But that word came up 'theory' and you haven't anything to argue with that, have you? Make all the excuses you want but other people would have a liked an answer, an answer you are 'unable' to give and hide behind excuses. TUT! TUT! TUT!.

[Rosindubh]

If we agree that two plus two equals four, why does that have to come from somewhere ? It is an observation that is expressed in abstract atemporal form.  It has no existence of its own, it did not start to exist and it owes nothing to concepts of space and time.

Hi torridon,
Thanks for the above post.

I agree with you that for each mathematical concept we can say "it did not start to exist and it owes nothing to concepts of space and time."   Surely, Pythagoras's theorem was true before he discovered it and (as far as we can know) true at the beginning of time?

Is our recognition of twoness + twoness = fourness instinctive to all humans, or is it something we have to be taught?    Whichever, it is not something dependent upon what "we agree".   It is true whether we know it or not.   The role of mathematical concepts in the successes of science demonstrates that they are objective truths independent of the human mind.

In that regard, mathematical concepts are similar to moons around Saturn.   The later are physical realities, true before we discovered them (i.e. objective).    Mathematical concepts are abstract realities, true before we discovered them (i.e. objective).

If non-euclidean geometry is not an objective reality, then how was Einstein able to use it to discover gravitational waves 100 years before we could confirm their physical existence.

God bless

[Rosindubh]

I had two this morning that could be perceived, physically held in the hand and the two I'm referring to can also be named as a description certain beliefs; I can prove the reality of my two,  rather like verifiable evidence in that respect

Hi ippy,
Thank you for your post.

'Twoness' and 'two' are different things.  The former is abstract and objective, the later is physical and objective.   Human brains identify the former by intellectual understanding, the later by physical senses.

If mathematical concepts were not objective, science would not be objective.   But abstract maths has enabled discovery Higgs field, gravitational waves etc as well as development of Quantum Mechanics, so both are objective.

God bless