Christian 'Mythology'.

[Rosindubh]

Well I think we are almost agreeing, then, this is close to what I have been saying all along, that spatial relationships exist out there independent of observer, whilst concepts do not 'exist' out there and only exist in minds.  The difference between us is that for you, the principles, though not out there in nature, do exist independently of mind in some sense, and are there for minds to discover. If we take circularity, as an example, we agree that circles do not exist in nature (being a 2d concept) but we could say that the principle of circularity ie the conceptual relationships between radius and area and circumference, these principles are eternal - they are non-temporal and non-local.  Is it surprising that the area of a circle for instance would be related to its radius ? Can you imagine a universe where this was not the case ?

Hi again torridon,
Thanks for the above post.   It is nice to agree sometimes, but it is interesting to consider the critical differences which distinguish mathematical concepts from other abstract concepts (e.g from chess, Harry Potter, democracy, etc).

Take your example of the circle.   As you say, we cannot imagine a universe where the mathematical relation between its area and radius was not the case, but we would have no difficulty at all imaging a universe where chess, Harry Potter, democracy etc do not exist.   The former is a distinguishing feature of mathematical concepts, the latter a feature of all other abstract concepts.

To the extent they are true now, mathematical concepts were true before humans existed and will still be true after all humans have disappeared.  So they are independent of the human mind (in a similar way to the moons around Saturn).

A further aspect of maths is an apparent interaction with the invariances which are essential to the science of physics.   For every invariance, there appears to be a mathematical equation acting as a straight jacket controlling that invarience, e.g. E=MC².   

If every human disappeared right now, the Higgs and other quantum fields and particles would still behave in accordance with the equations of the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and energy-matter would still be controlled by the mathematical concept of the square of the speed of light.

However, the most significant feature of mathematical concepts is the way (since AD 1905) that the science of physics has progresed by using abstract mathematical concepts to forecast the existence of physical phenomena for which there was no previous evidence.   How could this be if there was no interaction between these abstract concepts and the physical phenomena?

Maths and physics are works in progress, but if we accept the theorems of Einstein, Dirac, Higgs etc, then we are forced to accept the objective existence (independent of the human mind) of all the elements which make up their theorems, including the mathematical concepts which dominate them.

It may seem strange to a materialist that there is more to the Universe than just the physical, but the evidence points that way.   I apologise if I am repeating myself.
God bless

[SusanDoris]

It may seem strange to a materialist that there is more to the Universe than just the physical, but the evidence points that way.

Can you list some of the other things you think make up the 'more to the universe than just the physical/ you refer to? What is your evidence for whatever you will put on said list?

 

[torridon]

Hi again torridon,
Thanks for the above post.   It is nice to agree sometimes, but it is interesting to consider the critical differences which distinguish mathematical concepts from other abstract concepts (e.g from chess, Harry Potter, democracy, etc).

Take your example of the circle.   As you say, we cannot imagine a universe where the mathematical relation between its area and radius was not the case, but we would have no difficulty at all imaging a universe where chess, Harry Potter, democracy etc do not exist.   The former is a distinguishing feature of mathematical concepts, the latter a feature of all other abstract concepts.

To the extent they are true now, mathematical concepts were true before humans existed and will still be true after all humans have disappeared.  So they are independent of the human mind (in a similar way to the moons around Saturn).

A further aspect of maths is an apparent interaction with the invariances which are essential to the science of physics.   For every invariance, there appears to be a mathematical equation acting as a straight jacket controlling that invarience, e.g. E=MC².   

If every human disappeared right now, the Higgs and other quantum fields and particles would still behave in accordance with the equations of the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and energy-matter would still be controlled by the mathematical concept of the square of the speed of light.

However, the most significant feature of mathematical concepts is the way (since AD 1905) that the science of physics has progresed by using abstract mathematical concepts to forecast the existence of physical phenomena for which there was no previous evidence.   How could this be if there was no interaction between these abstract concepts and the physical phenomena?

Maths and physics are works in progress, but if we accept the theorems of Einstein, Dirac, Higgs etc, then we are forced to accept the objective existence (independent of the human mind) of all the elements which make up their theorems, including the mathematical concepts which dominate them.

It may seem strange to a materialist that there is more to the Universe than just the physical, but the evidence points that way.   I apologise if I am repeating myself.
God bless

Morning Rosindubh.

Does Harry Potter exist ?  Clearly the simplest answer is 'no', he is fictional.  But does the fictional character Harry Potter exist in some sense ? I've seen the films and got the books and they are real enough; and anyone in the street can list some of his properties.  Maybe we can describe Harry Potter as an information product - there is no simple ontology involved but a subtle one in terms of patterns of meaning shared between human minds. 

Does beauty exist ? How about redness or niceness or fluency or difficulty or tastiness ? I think we would also have to put such things down as shared patterns of meaning and perception in minds although unlike Harry Potter, these are not all limited to minds of the human variety.  But still, take away all minds and these things disappear along with Harry Potter.

Earth orbits the Sun on an elliptical path.  It would still pursue the same path in the absence of human observers to describe it as elliptical or understand planetary dynamics. Planets will still obey the Newtonian inverse square law of gravitation, so does that mean that the inverse square law exists in some sense independently of human mind ? A theist will hold that the existence of laws suggests a law giver, there must be some source for such things. I would be more inclined to a notion of the primacy of logic, that all such principles derive ultimately from logic; logic needs no logician to give it, to recognise something as logical is to recognise that it could not be otherwise, as is the case with the relationship between radius and area of a circle.  We don't need a law giver to arbitrarily decide such things, rather they are inevitably true.  Hope this makes sense.

[Rosindubh]

It still sounds to me as if you are trying to say the concepts were there before space/time/singularity/etc. That to me is too far from reality to make any rational sense.

Hi SusanDoris,
Thanks for the above post.

If a mathematical concept is true right now, then it must also have been true before we thought of it.

When did Pythagoras's theorem become true?   When he published it?   Or was it true from the beginning of time?

God bless

[ippy]

It looks to me Rosin as though you'll turn yourself inside out, stand on your head, streach your ideas about maths to fit your bias in any direction to convince yourself of something you would like to think really exists.

I can't argue your ideas about maths but I'm equally sure your maths wouldn't stand up to the test or a challenge offered by someone like Laurence Krauss.

If you really think you have something to your maths idea that coud substanciate whatever it is you think they propose, why not offer them up for appraisal, if you have it right; world news! I somehow doubt you would jump the first hurdle, no one else ever has.

Just in case  you do respond to my post in any way please stick your mindless god bless up to where the sun doesn't shine, right up.

ippy

[Gordon]

If a mathematical concept is true right now, then it must also have been true before we thought of it.

When did Pythagoras's theorem become true?   When he published it?   Or was it true from the beginning of time?

God bless

This is where language has its limitations, since words like 'truth' and 'concept' are the products of human minds (and the evolved biology that supports these minds).

That there are aspects of the physical world that behaved in the same ways or patterns that we now describe using certain forms of language, and did so prior to our being here to apply this language, is self-evident given that the universe is older than our species - but so what!   

[Rosindubh]

.........   And your persistent use of the term 'the speed of light' in your posts is misleading .
'C' represents the universal constant.  a maximum speed the universe allows which could include an electric toaster , a thought ,an electron ,a photon , a gravitation wave , any transfer of information, any electro magnetic wave, a quantum leap or fall back, the effect of gravity between bodies, a space craft .

Hi Walter,
Thank you for your post.   The 'c' in Einstein's equation was the square of the speed of light, but you can call it a constant if you wish.

Whether referred to as a square of a number or as a constant number, it is still an abstract mathematical concept which cannot be observed by the senses, but enabled Einstein to forecast the physical relationship between energy and matter long before empirical evidence was available.

I hope you find that interesting
God bless

[Enki]

Hi again torridon,
Thanks for the above post.   It is nice to agree sometimes, but it is interesting to consider the critical differences which distinguish mathematical concepts from other abstract concepts (e.g from chess, Harry Potter, democracy, etc).

Take your example of the circle.   As you say, we cannot imagine a universe where the mathematical relation between its area and radius was not the case, but we would have no difficulty at all imaging a universe where chess, Harry Potter, democracy etc do not exist.   The former is a distinguishing feature of mathematical concepts, the latter a feature of all other abstract concepts.

To the extent they are true now, mathematical concepts were true before humans existed and will still be true after all humans have disappeared.  So they are independent of the human mind (in a similar way to the moons around Saturn).

A further aspect of maths is an apparent interaction with the invariances which are essential to the science of physics.   For every invariance, there appears to be a mathematical equation acting as a straight jacket controlling that invarience, e.g. E=MC².   

If every human disappeared right now, the Higgs and other quantum fields and particles would still behave in accordance with the equations of the Standard Model of Particle Physics, and energy-matter would still be controlled by the mathematical concept of the square of the speed of light.

However, the most significant feature of mathematical concepts is the way (since AD 1905) that the science of physics has progresed by using abstract mathematical concepts to forecast the existence of physical phenomena for which there was no previous evidence.   How could this be if there was no interaction between these abstract concepts and the physical phenomena?

Maths and physics are works in progress, but if we accept the theorems of Einstein, Dirac, Higgs etc, then we are forced to accept the objective existence (independent of the human mind) of all the elements which make up their theorems, including the mathematical concepts which dominate them.

It may seem strange to a materialist that there is more to the Universe than just the physical, but the evidence points that way.   I apologise if I am repeating myself.
God bless

I go along with Torridon here.

It seems to me that whatever the universe is, it seems to have a logical self consistent structure which is not dependent on human beings, and, therefore, our attempts to disentangle this logic is the most reliable form of thinking. Mathematics, it seems to me, helps to clarify our logical thinking, and,  to this extent,  is a powerful tool that we can use to disentangle this logical structure.

Also I'm not sure where you are going with this. For instance, I can't see any reason why, by  suggesting that because logic or mathematics seems to underpin our universe, there exists some outside intelligence which brought it all into being. Why should that conclusion carry any particular weight?

I leave you with a question. If the universe didn't exist(and assuming there were no other universes), in other words, if there were nothing at all, would the nature/characteristic of logic still exist in some form, or is it dependent on/a characteristic of the physical make up of our universe?

[Rosindubh]

Earth orbits the Sun on an elliptical path.  It would still pursue the same path in the absence of human observers to describe it as elliptical or understand planetary dynamics. Planets will still obey the Newtonian inverse square law of gravitation, so does that mean that the inverse square law exists in some sense independently of human mind ? A theist will hold that the existence of laws suggests a law giver, there must be some source for such things. I would be more inclined to a notion of the primacy of logic, that all such principles derive ultimately from logic; logic needs no logician to give it, to recognise something as logical is to recognise that it could not be otherwise, as is the case with the relationship between radius and area of a circle.  We don't need a law giver to arbitrarily decide such things, rather they are inevitably true.  Hope this makes sense.

Hi again torridon,
Thanks for the above post.   I apologies for my delay in responding.

Your key point seems to be - "I would be more inclined to a notion of the primary of logic ...... to recognise something as logical is to recognise that it could not be otherwise".

By logic, I assume you mean deductive reasoning of maths.   Analytic reasoning never tells us anything about the Natural world, while inductive reasoning never tells us anything about what "could not be otherwise".

How can mathematical logic, (abstract and not observable in the natural world) jump over Hume's Fork and enable us to recognise physical things which "could not be otherwise" (e.g. Higgs field), unless mathematical concepts are objective entities which can interact with the material Universe?

Logic could only be primary, if it enabled us to jump Hume's Fork.

On an arbitrary "law giver", a theist might say that maths is the understandable mind of the Logos, a law giver who decides rationally, not "arbitrarily.   Surely the successes of modern physics point that way?

Food for your thoughts, I hope.
God bless

[ippy]

I would be one of the first non-religious people to convert when presented with a substantial wedge of verifiable evidence that proves this god figure exists; going by experience I don't think that event will be happening today.

To date I haven't seen anything or heard anything that points in the direction of anything such as these things described by others as gods, we have a few contributers to this forum using a Do Do of an idea about gods, all travelling from one end of the scale to the other in ever decreasing circles; some take the simplistic approach to faith and then it goes through all shdes of approach right up to the well educated have't got a clue irrationalists wrestling with all of their unrelated pot pourri of thouroughly mixed up ideas going around their heads.

From my experience both the former and latter of these people have been indoctrinated at that so very tender young age and are only using everthing they have learned to make, as they see it, to try to make sense out of the many  irrational beliefs; I find it sad seeing examples of these people struggling and trying to make sense out of this not so intellectual nonsense.

Ippy

[torridon]

Hi again torridon,
Thanks for the above post.   I apologies for my delay in responding.

Your key point seems to be - "I would be more inclined to a notion of the primary of logic ...... to recognise something as logical is to recognise that it could not be otherwise".

By logic, I assume you mean deductive reasoning of maths.   Analytic reasoning never tells us anything about the Natural world, while inductive reasoning never tells us anything about what "could not be otherwise".

How can mathematical logic, (abstract and not observable in the natural world) jump over Hume's Fork and enable us to recognise physical things which "could not be otherwise" (e.g. Higgs field), unless mathematical concepts are objective entities which can interact with the material Universe?

Logic could only be primary, if it enabled us to jump Hume's Fork.

On an arbitrary "law giver", a theist might say that maths is the understandable mind of the Logos, a law giver who decides rationally, not "arbitrarily.   Surely the successes of modern physics point that way?

Food for your thoughts, I hope.
God bless

It is right I think to recognise a difference between logical truths and contingent truths but there must be some relationship between the two classes of truth and the nature of that relationship must be of the form that contingent truths are dependent on or are bounded by logical truths and this is what I mean by the phrase 'primacy of logic'.  Logical truths need no law giver to decide them;  two plus two would always equal four inevitably in any possible world; the area of a circle will always be 3.14 times the square of its radius in all possible worlds. However when we come to natural law things are much messier, the speed of light in a vacuum say or the charge on an electron.  These things are probably contingent but contingent upon what is not always easy to say, and that is why science is a process, a process of finding the way back from contingent truths to logical truths. 

I think we are often tempted to short-circuit that process of enquiry, to posit an intelligent law giver in some higher realm who just decided that things should be as they are but that looks like a category fail to me, not least because intelligence itself is derivative and contingent and so is a poor candidate for any ultimate answer to 'why' questions.  If we find a watch lying on the beach one day we might assume that someone must have made it. Fair enough for an everyday observation, but it's inadequate to extrapolate that line of reasoning into a formulation for the ultimate reason of all things.  Clearly the watch was made by a watch maker, superficially true, yes, but the watch maker himself is a contingent derivative thing, he is a sort of human which is a sort of primate which is a sort of mammal which is a sort of vertebrate which is a sort of multicellular eukaryote which is a bounded replicating metabolic system which is a form of energy exchange which is contingent on thermodynamic law which comes back down to the application of the laws of probability which in themselves are not contingent and are inevitably true in all possible worlds. A tornado racing through an aircraft hanger might reduce the Boeing 747 to clutter, but a tornado racing through a scrapyard never spontaneously assembles a Boeing 747; why, not because it is impossible but rather because it is improbable. Thermodynamics ultimately boils down to the immutable laws of probability and these laws need no giver.

[ippy]

It is right I think to recognise a difference between logical truths and contingent truths but there must be some relationship between the two classes of truth and the nature of that relationship must be of the form that contingent truths are dependent on or are bounded by logical truths and this is what I mean by the phrase 'primacy of logic'.  Logical truths need no law giver to decide them;  two plus two would always equal four inevitably in any possible world; the area of a circle will always be 3.14 times the square of its radius in all possible worlds. However when we come to natural law things are much messier, the speed of light in a vacuum say or the charge on an electron.  These things are probably contingent but contingent upon what is not always easy to say, and that is why science is a process, a process of finding the way back from contingent truths to logical truths. 

I think we are often tempted to short-circuit that process of enquiry, to posit an intelligent law giver in some higher realm who just decided that things should be as they are but that looks like a category fail to me, not least because intelligence itself is derivative and contingent and so is a poor candidate for any ultimate answer to 'why' questions.  If we find a watch lying on the beach one day we might assume that someone must have made it. Fair enough for an everyday observation, but it's inadequate to extrapolate that line of reasoning into a formulation for the ultimate reason of all things.  Clearly the watch was made by a watch maker, superficially true, yes, but the watch maker himself is a contingent derivative thing, he is a sort of human which is a sort of primate which is a sort of mammal which is a sort of vertebrate which is a sort of multicellular eukaryote which is a bounded replicating metabolic system which is a form of energy exchange which is contingent on thermodynamic law which comes back down to the application of the laws of probability which in themselves are not contingent and are inevitably true in all possible worlds. A tornado racing through an aircraft hanger might reduce the Boeing 747 to clutter, but a tornado racing through a scrapyard never spontaneously assembles a Boeing 747; why, not because it is impossible but rather because it is improbable. Thermodynamics ultimately boils down to the immutable laws of probability and these laws need no giver.

Well put Torri.

ippy

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#310

If we find a watch lying on the beach one day we might assume that someone must have made it. Fair enough for an everyday observation, but it's inadequate to extrapolate that line of reasoning into a formulation for the ultimate reason of all things.  Clearly the watch was made by a watch maker, superficially true, yes, but the watch maker himself is a contingent derivative thing, he is a sort of human which is a sort of primate which is a sort of mammal which is a sort of vertebrate which is a sort of multicellular eukaryote which is a bounded replicating metabolic system which is a form of energy exchange which is contingent on thermodynamic law which comes back down to the application of the laws of probability which in themselves are not contingent and are inevitably true in all possible worlds.

Some questions here Torridon...

1. Is it possible to reach the conclusion that the watch was designed without knowing anything about the designer?

2. Is the truth that the watch was designed dependent on knowing anything about the designer?

3. If the philosophical arguments used against religious belief were applied to the watch, would it ever be possible to reach the truth of the matter, with regard to how the watch came to be?

[Gordon]

#310
Some questions here Torridon...

1. Is it possible to reach the conclusion that the watch was designed without knowing anything about the designer?

Yes, since they are well known objects that most of us probably own.

2. Is the truth that the watch was designed dependent on knowing anything about the designer?

Not really since they are a common item with many different designers/manufacturers.

3. If the philosophical arguments used against religious belief were applied to the watch, would it ever be possible to reach the truth of the matter, with regard to how the watch came to be?

Why would you want to use fallacious arguments made for religion when considering jewellery - sounds like a category error to me?

I'm sure any high street jeweller would point you in the direction of Messrs Timex, Sekonda et al who'd be able to satisfactorily explain how they design watches: why, you could even watch them do it (if invited to of course).

[torridon]

#310
Some questions here Torridon...

1. Is it possible to reach the conclusion that the watch was designed without knowing anything about the designer?

2. Is the truth that the watch was designed dependent on knowing anything about the designer?

3. If the philosophical arguments used against religious belief were applied to the watch, would it ever be possible to reach the truth of the matter, with regard to how the watch came to be?

We can usually infer the designer from the design. I can usually recognise the composer from the style of the composition, a log jam in a north American river betrays the presence of a beaver, a clay nest in the rainforest is a hallmark of the weaver bird. These things are part of the extended phenotype of the designer involved.  But can we extend that principle to infer a grand designer of all things ?  Clearly not, I would say.  Consider how we identify design - we need at least the following two elements, distinctiveness and recurrence. Distinctiveness requires some sort of context to differentiate the design from background noise. Recurrence suggests it is not a one-off. We can say neither of things in relation to the question of an ultimate grand designer of our reality. We cannot compare reality against some background context because there is none and cannot be any by its own definition.  We cannot compare reality against other realities because there are none other to compare against. So there cannot be any justification for claims of design at that level; in fact the very term 'design' becomes meaningless in the absence of any broader context.

[Rosindubh]

This is where language has its limitations, since words like 'truth' and 'concept' are the products of human minds (and the evolved biology that supports these minds).

That there are aspects of the physical world that behaved in the same ways or patterns that we now describe using certain forms of language, and did so prior to our being here to apply this language, is self-evident given that the universe is older than our species - but so what!

Hi Gordon,
Thank you for the above post.  As usual, I have to apologise for my delay in responding.

You appear to be using the word "language" as a synomyn for 'mathematical concepts'. It is not.

Language enables us to communicate our experiences of the physical world and our thoughts about abstract concepts.   But it does not create the physical world nor the abstract concepts.   These exist independently of whatever language or words we use.

To say "we now describe" behaviour of the physical world "using certain forms of language" is to raise the question why should abstract concepts (maths which we cannot observe with our senses) be able to do that (and do it consistently, accurately and always).   What is your rational explanation for believing that?   Unless there is an objective interaction between the two (independent of the human mind).

Critical since 1905, to say that maths "describes" aspects of the physical world, is to ignore the fact that the primary use of maths in modern physics is to 'forecast' (not just describe) the objective existence of previously unsuspected physical phenomena.   The gravitational waves of Einstein and the Higgs field and boson of the Standard Model of Particle Physics (as well as Heisenberg's introduction of mathematical matrices into QM) are empirical evidence for an objective interaction between abstract and physical (independent of any human language).

Empirical evidence is inductive reasoning but if you do not accept it in this case, then you have no rational explanation for the successes of abstract maths in modern physics.

I hope you find this interesting
God bless

[ippy]

Hi Gordon,
Thank you for the above post.  As usual, I have to apologise for my delay in responding.

You appear to be using the word "language" as a synomyn for 'mathematical concepts'. It is not.

Language enables us to communicate our experiences of the physical world and our thoughts about abstract concepts.   But it does not create the physical world nor the abstract concepts.   These exist independently of whatever language or words we use.

To say "we now describe" behaviour of the physical world "using certain forms of language" is to raise the question why should abstract concepts (maths which we cannot observe with our senses) be able to do that (and do it consistently, accurately and always).   What is your rational explanation for believing that?   Unless there is an objective interaction between the two (independent of the human mind).

Critical since 1905, to say that maths "describes" aspects of the physical world, is to ignore the fact that the primary use of maths in modern physics is to 'forecast' (not just describe) the objective existence of previously unsuspected physical phenomena.   The gravitational waves of Einstein and the Higgs field and boson of the Standard Model of Particle Physics (as well as Heisenberg's introduction of mathematical matrices into QM) are empirical evidence for an objective interaction between abstract and physical (independent of any human language).

Empirical evidence is inductive reasoning but if you do not accept it in this case, then you have no rational explanation for the successes of abstract maths in modern physics.

I hope you find this interesting
God bless

The god of the gaps, heard that one.

ippy

[Rosindubh]

If you really think you have something to your maths idea that coud substanciate whatever it is you think they propose, why not offer them up for appraisal, if you have it right; world news! I somehow doubt you would jump the first hurdle, no one else ever has.

Hi ippy,
Thank you for your post.

I only report of what clever people than me have already explained.   For an early example, check what Paul Dirac (Nobel Prize 1933) said in his lecture to the Royal Society (Edinburgh) in 1939.   His concluding paragraph states:-

"there is thus a possibility that the ancient dream of philosopher to connect all Nature with the properties of whole numbers will some day be realised.   To do so physics will have to develope a long way to establish the details of how the correspondence is to be made.   One hint for this development seems pretty obvious, namely, the study of whole numbers in modern mathematics is inextricably bound up with the theory of functions of a complex variable, which theory we have already seen has a good chance of forming the basis of the physics of the future.   The working out of this idea would lead to a connection between atomic theory and cosmology."

Things have progressed since then, but it is the quality of the argument which counts, not who said it.  So check the whole lecture.

For a more recent example, look for a video of what Roger Penrose says on this subject.   But judge my posts on what they say, not on what others say.
God bless

[Gordon]

Hi Gordon,
Thank you for the above post.  As usual, I have to apologise for my delay in responding.

You appear to be using the word "language" as a synomyn for 'mathematical concepts'. It is not.

I'm not, so you're wrong.

Language enables us to communicate our experiences of the physical world and our thoughts about abstract concepts.

Yes: but only within the scope of current language(s) to express these. 

But it does not create the physical world nor the abstract concepts.

Which is a straw man in the case of the former, and in the case of the latter the implication that abstract concepts somehow equate to the physical world is true only in the sense of the biology used to do the thinking about them.

These exist independently of whatever language or words we use.

The physical ones seem to, but our use of language to be express the abstract doesn't mean that, say, altruism 'exists' in the same way that, say, what we call 'heat' does.

To say "we now describe" behaviour of the physical world "using certain forms of language" is to raise the question why should abstract concepts (maths which we cannot observe with our senses) be able to do that (and do it consistently, accurately and always).

You can't observe language either: show me an 'or'! You can't, but when the term is used you are able to infer a meaning: you can't show me a 'three' either, yet you can infer meaning from that, just as you can if I say I find a certain poem to be ' profound'. Of course language, and mathematics, isn't static and evolves to meet needs whether these involve entirely new requirements or to reflect refinements or subtleties in our understanding.   

What is your rational explanation for believing that?  Unless there is an objective interaction between the two (independent of the human mind).

I'm not exactly sure that I 'believe' what you think I do, largely since I suspect your approach involves the fallacy of personal incredulity (and probably others too). 

Critical since 1905, to say that maths "describes" aspects of the physical world, is to ignore the fact that the primary use of maths in modern physics is to 'forecast' (not just describe) the objective existence of previously unsuspected physical phenomena.   The gravitational waves of Einstein and the Higgs field and boson of the Standard Model of Particle Physics (as well as Heisenberg's introduction of mathematical matrices into QM) are empirical evidence for an objective interaction between abstract and physical (independent of any human language).

If anything I suspect the above is evidence only of your muddled thinking and tendency towards personal incredulity, and also the fallacy of equivocation since I'm not certain you're using terms such as 'objective', 'interaction' and 'abstract' in consistently meaningful ways.

[SqueakyVoice]

  The gravitational waves of Einstein and the Higgs field and boson of the Standard Model of Particle Physics (as well as Heisenberg's introduction of mathematical matrices into QM) are empirical evidence for an objective interaction between abstract and physical (independent of any human language.

Except maths is a language.

http://www.cut-the-knot.org/language/MathIsLanguage.shtml

Mathematics is pure language - the language of science. It is unique among languages in its ability to provide precise expression for every thought or concept that can be formulated in its terms. (In a spoken language, there exist words, like "happiness", that defy definition.) It is also an art - the most intellectual and classical of the arts. 

As I said before 4unicorns+3unicorns= 7unicorns is perfectly valid mathematically, but it tells you nothing about whether unicorns exist. Prattling on about higgs fields and Relativity doesn't change those expressions from being mathematical descriptions to some sort of "objective-y things".

[SusanDoris]

Posted by Gordon
I'm not exactly sure that I 'believe' what you think I do, largely since I suspect your approach involves the fallacy of personal incredulity (and probably others too). 

If anything I suspect the above is evidence only of your muddled thinking and tendency towards personal incredulity, and also the fallacy of equivocation since I'm not certain you're using terms such as 'objective', 'interaction and 'abstract' in a consistently meaningful ways.

Ditto, and I think there are lots of words written to blur the lack of objective facts at the core.

[ippy]

Hi ippy,
Thank you for your post.

I only report of what clever people than me have already explained.   For an early example, check what Paul Dirac (Nobel Prize 1933) said in his lecture to the Royal Society (Edinburgh) in 1939.   His concluding paragraph states:-

"there is thus a possibility that the ancient dream of philosopher to connect all Nature with the properties of whole numbers will some day be realised.   To do so physics will have to develope a long way to establish the details of how the correspondence is to be made.   One hint for this development seems pretty obvious, namely, the study of whole numbers in modern mathematics is inextricably bound up with the theory of functions of a complex variable, which theory we have already seen has a good chance of forming the basis of the physics of the future.   The working out of this idea would lead to a connection between atomic theory and cosmology."

Things have progressed since then, but it is the quality of the argument which counts, not who said it.  So check the whole lecture.

For a more recent example, look for a video of what Roger Penrose says on this subject.   But judge my posts on what they say, not on what others say.
God bless

Thank you for your rather supercilious post; whilst I have to admit I admire the standard of bullshit you have managed to acheive, it still doesn't seperate you from the knowledge available to all of us these days, so really all of those, I'm sure the noteably big hitters you love referring to, would have been even bigger hitters if they had found the definitive answer you're looking for.

Having said the above if the arguments of those on your big hitters list, were that good and possibly definitive even, no one would need to be into any of the forms of maths there are available, because others that study maths and don't let themselves get into the bullshit zone, would only be to pleased to spread the proven word if it was proved and then of course we would all then know the people we saw as bullshitters were right, all without having to know that much about maths; mind you R, it's not very likely we'll be hearing this world shattering news anytime soon.

Ippy

[Rosindubh]

It is right I think to recognise a difference between logical truths and contingent truths but there must be some relationship between the two classes of truth and the nature of that relationship must be of the form that contingent truths are dependent on or are bounded by logical truths and this is what I mean by the phrase 'primacy of logic'.  Logical truths need no law giver to decide them;  two plus two would always equal four inevitably in any possible world; the area of a circle will always be 3.14 times the square of its radius in all possible worlds. However when we come to natural law things are much messier, the speed of light in a vacuum say or the charge on an electron.  These things are probably contingent but contingent upon what is not always easy to say, and that is why science is a process, a process of finding the way back from contingent truths to logical truths. 

Hi torridon,
Thank you for the above post.

Whether there is a "law giver" or not, we appear to agree that mathematical concepts are true objectively (independent of human minds).   In you words:- "in all possible worlds".

However, except for maths, there is no "difference between logical truths and contingent truths" in respect of uncertainty.   Indeed, if there is "some relationship between the two classes of truth", it is that (except for maths) logical truths "are dependent on or bound by" contingent truths - the opposite of what you argue here.

Except for maths, logic cannot be primary in science, because it can never tell us anything about the world unless it is supplemented by something additional.   By their nature, logical statements have an implied 'IF' in each premises, and these 'ifs' need support from inductive (uncertain) reasoning before they can be considered 'sound' (i.e. probably true).

For example:- (a) all men are mortal (b) Socrates is a man (c) therefore Socrates is mortal.   That is a 'valid' logical statement which we accept as 'sound' because of the inductive support for both premises (a) and (b).  In essence, it means (a) if all men are mortal (b) and if Socrates is a man (c) then Socrates is mortal.

Compare that against:- (x) all men have red hair (y) Socrates is a man (z) therefore Socrates has red hair.  This also is a 'valid' logical statement, but we do not accept it as 'sound' because it lacks inductive support for premise (x).  So, unlike maths (true in all possible worlds), other logical statements are only true in particular cases (not true in all possible worlds).

However, mathematical concepts are different to all other human statements in that they are true in themselves, and in all possible worlds (whether humans inhabit those worlds or not).   Science would make no sense unless this was so.  It is contingent upon maths.

An interesting question then arises.   Is that all there is to it?   Are mathematical concepts the ultimate reality?   Or is there a further abstract reality underlying maths, something like an abstract mathematician's intellect?   Prof. Max Tegmark has published a book claiming the former, while Christians believe the latter due to the goodness and miracles of Jesus (i.e. the Logos).

Deciding between these (or any other idea you might like to raise) needs abductive reasoning, but then, so did Special and General Relativity.

I hope you find this interesting,
God bless

[SusanDoris]

Hi torridon,
Thank you for the above post.

Whether there is a "law giver" or not, we appear to agree that mathematical concepts are true objectively (independent of human minds).   In you words:- "in all possible worlds".

However, except for maths, there is no "difference between logical truths and contingent truths" in respect of uncertainty.   Indeed, if there is "some relationship between the two classes of truth", it is that (except for maths) logical truths "are dependent on or bound by" contingent truths - the opposite of what you argue here.

Except for maths, logic cannot be primary in science, because it can never tell us anything about the world unless it is supplemented by something additional.   By their nature, logical statements have an implied 'IF' in each premises, and these 'ifs' need support from inductive (uncertain) reasoning before they can be considered 'sound' (i.e. probably true).

For example:- (a) all men are mortal (b) Socrates is a man (c) therefore Socrates is mortal.   That is a 'valid' logical statement which we accept as 'sound' because of the inductive support for both premises (a) and (b).  In essence, it means (a) if all men are mortal (b) and if Socrates is a man (c) then Socrates is mortal.

Compare that against:- (x) all men have red hair (y) Socrates is a man (z) therefore Socrates has red hair.  This also is a 'valid' logical statement, but we do not accept it as 'sound' because it lacks inductive support for premise (x).  So, unlike maths (true in all possible worlds), other logical statements are only true in particular cases (not true in all possible worlds).

However, mathematical concepts are different to all other human statements in that they are true in themselves, and in all possible worlds (whether humans inhabit those worlds or not).   Science would make no sense unless this was so.  It is contingent upon maths.

An interesting question then arises.   Is that all there is to it?   Are mathematical concepts the ultimate reality?   Or is there a further abstract reality underlying maths, something like an abstract mathematician's intellect?   Prof. Max Tegmark has published a book claiming the former, while Christians believe the latter due to the goodness and miracles of Jesus (i.e. the Logos).

Deciding between these (or any other idea you might like to raise) needs abductive reasoning, but then, so did Special and General Relativity.

I hope you find this interesting,
God bless

There are around 400 words there. As you probably know, I use a screen reader and to try and extract some simple facts from that lot is just about impossible. I personaly would very much appreciate it if you could, in a few clear sentences, say what the most important facts are.

thank you.

[Bubbles]

Does it exist?

Can certain types of Christian idea be construed as mythological in essence & maybe didn't actually happen 'on earth' or is it all to be taken as literally true ?!!!??

I'm pretty well up on Hindu mythology & its use to help understand many idea IN that religion but do ALL Christians just blindly accept & not try to look deeper?

Bit of a rhetorical question but....
What do we all feel about this?

Nick

I'd say this is Christian mythology

http://www.storyline-features.co.uk/glastonbury.htm