Christian 'Mythology'.

[torridon]

..
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).
..

Hope you don't mind me boiling your last post down to the above, which is the nub of the matter I think.

Science is contingent on maths, as you say, but maths itself (as a form of pure logic) is incontingent; the truths expressed by maths are self-referentially true and dependent on nothing. Does that justify us in calling maths an ultimate reality ? I think that would be to make capricious use of the word 'reality'.  That something exists in reality normally means it has mass/energy/coordinates/speed etc. and we cannot say that of abstract concepts.  The truths of maths are inevitably true, and they do not need some prior truth giver to decide that they should be true. In my understanding this is implied by the incontingency of maths, the primacy of logic. I think your position is self-contradictory because you recognise the incontingency of maths (say) on one hand, but then go on to imply a law giver who decides such things - this is flatly denying the incontingency of maths.  Why should the fact that two plus two equals four need someone to decide that it should be so ? You are saying that, yes, maths is incontingent, but it is contingent on a mathematician in the sky. That looks an incoherent position to me; and that without even touching upon the question of the contingency of the great mathematician.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hope you don't mind me boiling your last post down to the above, which is the nub of the matter I think.

Science is contingent on maths, as you say, but maths itself (as a form of pure logic) is incontingent; the truths expressed by maths are self-referentially true and dependent on nothing. Does that justify us in calling maths an ultimate reality ? I think that would be to make capricious use of the word 'reality'.  That something exists in reality normally means it has mass/energy/coordinates/speed etc. and we cannot say that of abstract concepts.  The truths of maths are inevitably true, and they do not need some prior truth giver to decide that they should be true. In my understanding this is implied by the incontingency of maths, the primacy of logic. I think your position is self-contradictory because you recognise the incontingency of maths (say) on one hand, but then go on to imply a law giver who decides such things - this is flatly denying the incontingency of maths.  Why should the fact that two plus two equals four need someone to decide that it should be so ? You are saying that, yes, maths is incontingent, but it is contingent on a mathematician in the sky. That looks an incoherent position to me; and that without even touching upon the question of the contingency of the great mathematician.

Classic intellectually imperialistic post.

Reality corresponds to what philosophical materialism says it is? That is the mere et pere of circular argument.

When last we looked maths was not subject to any physical context. Gravity apparently does not affect how 'mathive'
something is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hope you don't mind me boiling your last post down to the above, which is the nub of the matter I think.

Science is contingent on maths, as you say, but maths itself (as a form of pure logic) is incontingent You are saying that, yes, maths is incontingent, but it is contingent on a mathematician in the sky. That looks an incoherent position to me; and that without even touching upon the question of the contingency of the great mathematician.

Why does God HAVE to be contingent, if you allow that maths IS incontingent?....You aren't being coherent.

[Stranger]

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).

Tegmark's book was interesting but I see absolutely no way in which his speculation could be tested.

Your further speculation (that there might be a "an abstract mathematician's intellect" seems like nothing but wishful thinking. Everything we know (from actual evidence) about intellects is that they need a physical reality to support them. Taking one of the most complex products of the reality we observe and trying to make it fundamental seems bizarre in the extreme.

As for your 'reason' - where is this "goodness and miracles of Jesus" of which you speak (apart from in an old, inconsistent and contradictory book)...?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Tegmark's book was interesting but I see absolutely no way in which his speculation could be tested.

Your further speculation (that there might be a "an abstract mathematician's intellect" seems like nothing but wishful thinking. Everything we know (from actual evidence)

You seem to have fallen behind and out of step. An infinite, eternal universe is now ''in'', as is the multiverse and string theory even in the lack of actual evidence.....particularly if it sticks one on the theists.

[Stranger]

You seem to have fallen behind and out of step. An infinite, eternal universe is now ''in'', as is the multiverse and string theory even in the lack of actual evidence.....particularly if it sticks one on the theists.

Is there a point you are struggling to make...?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is there a point you are struggling to make...?

Make a quick survey of the posts and see how many times an atheist declaration of an unproved infinity or an unproved multiverse is delivered as if it trumps all considerations.

But then you haven't been in these parts lately.

[Stranger]

Make a quick survey of the posts and see how many times an atheist declaration of an unproved infinity or an unproved multiverse is delivered as if it trumps all considerations.

Why?

It doesn't have anything to do with what I said. The only such concept I mentioned was Tegmark's and I pointed out that it seemed to be untestable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why?

It doesn't have anything to do with what I said. The only such concept I mentioned was Tegmark's and I pointed out that it seemed to be untestable.

Testability doesn't seem to matter to string theorists and multiversists or those given to scientism....They are always telling us that science will find an answer one day.

[Stranger]

Testability doesn't seem to matter to string theorists and multiversists or those given to scientism....They are always telling us that science will find an answer one day.

This (even if true) still has nothing to do with what I said...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This (even if true) still has nothing to do with what I said...

I think something should only be classed as science if it is scientifically testable also.

[Stranger]

I think something should only be classed as science if it is scientifically testable also.

I didn't say that either (science needs speculation, conjecture, and hypothesis in order to arrive at theory).

Do you have anything to say that actually has anything to do with what I originally said (#328)?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Make a quick survey of the posts and see how many times an atheist declaration of an unproved infinity or an unproved multiverse is delivered as if it trumps all considerations.

But then you haven't been in these parts lately.

That's easy - there are none.

What you're attempting to do here is to conflate conjecture or hypothesis with theory or fact. Statements about multiverses and the rest are the former - ideas that are logically cogent but pending further investigation that would validate or invalidate them. Statements like, "God is" on the other hand are the latter - essentially they skip the process that would take you beyond conjecture and jump straight to the fact bit.

If instead you wanted to find an equivalence you'd have to say something like, "I have a conjecture that I call "God"". The response would be, "OK then - what method or process do you propose to validate or to invalidate it, perhaps starting with some coherent definitions of your terms?"

Which, as we both know, is precisely the point at which you disappear over the hill. 

Oh, and conjectures about multiverses have nothing to do with atheism by the way.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Testability doesn't seem to matter to string theorists and multiversists or those given to scientism....They are always telling us that science will find an answer one day.

No "they" don't. Stop lying.

[SusanDoris]

torridon #325

Much applause from me!! 

[torridon]

Why does God HAVE to be contingent, if you allow that maths IS incontingent?....You aren't being coherent.

God is not even well defined, it varies from person to person and culture to culture.  If we subtract all the cultural embellishments, God is great, God hates sin etc what is there that is left.  What data do we have to go on ? If we look for an origin of all things it must be by definition irreducible and  incontingent and most portrayals of god, such as they are, are manifestly culturally derivative.  Exactly how is hating sin relevant to the construction of spiral arm galaxies or deciding the charge on an electron ? The psychological state of hatred is a contingent outcome of complexity not the primal source of it.

[Jack Knave]

Vlad,

That's easy - there are none.

What you're attempting to do here is to conflate conjecture or hypothesis with theory or fact. Statements about multiverses and the rest are the former - ideas that are logically cogent but pending further investigation that would validate or invalidate them. Statements like, "God is" on the other hand are the latter - essentially they skip the process that would take you beyond conjecture and jump straight to the fact bit.

If instead you wanted to find an equivalence you'd have to say something like, "I have a conjecture that I call "God"". The response would be, "OK then - what method or process do you propose to validate or to invalidate it, perhaps starting with some coherent definitions of your terms?"

Which, as we both know, is precisely the point at which you disappear over the hill. 

Oh, and conjectures about multiverses have nothing to do with atheism by the way.

You ask Vlad what methods he would us to investigate his hypothesis and this is a valid question but an hypothesis is worthless unless there is some conjecture on how to follow this up and investigate it. So things as multiverse or string theory are as stupid as claims about God because what method would science use to investigate these? Until they set out their method for this it is just farting in the wind.

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

You ask Vlad what methods he would us to investigate his hypothesis and this is a valid question but an hypothesis is worthless unless there is some conjecture on how to follow this up and investigate it. So things as multiverse or string theory are as stupid as claims about God because what method would science use to investigate these? Until they set out their method for this it is just farting in the wind.

Not really. In the first place, as I understand it string theory etc have some logic to support them - they're not just white noise. In the second though - and more to the point - Vlad doesn't think "God" is just a hypothesis at all; he thinks it's a fact. That's where he went wrong earlier - he tried to draw an equivalence between conjectures and hypotheses about the multiverse and such like with his asserted fact of "God".

[Rosindubh]

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.

Hi again torridon,
And thanks again for the above post.

We appear to agree that "the application of the laws of probability .......... are inevitably true in all possible worlds".

Probability is a mathematical concept not observable with our five senses (discovered in about AD 1654), but is an abstract concept without which modern science could not function.  If it were not objective (true independent of human minds), then modern science would be meaningless.

You are not correct about 'intelligence'.    It is the human brain which is "derivative and contingent and so is a poor candidate for any ultimate answers to 'why questions'", but intelligence itself is something different.   Intelligence (in the natural world) is a measure of what the brains of evolutionary animals can achieve.   For some humans it is an IQ of 100, for others (say watch-makers) it may be an IQ of 160, and for aliens (if they exist) who knows, say an IQ of 2000!   However, for an immaterial God (the Logos), there would be no limit as he (like maths) would exist from or before the beginning of time and not be formed by evolution.

A claim that "these laws need no giver" is an opinion without evidence.   On the other hand, in our experience of this world, mathematical ability and personal intelligence go hand in hand, and nobody has explained how the situation would or could be different elsewhere.

Maths is a function of rational intelligence, with higher maths needing above average intelligence, and ground breaking maths needing exceptional intelligence.   In all known experience, the more complex the maths, the higher is the IQ which is needed.    This escalating need for intelligence makes it plausable abductive reasoning to posit the existence of an immaterial mathematician 'law giver' underlying the complex abstract mathematical nature of the physical Universe.

One final point, objective existence of mathematical concepts (independent of the human mind) is a valid abductive reason for believing in a God who sustains the Universe, but it is the goodness and miracles of Jesus which are the primary reasons for Christian belief.

I hope you find this interesting
God bless

[SusanDoris]

Hi again torridon,
And thanks again for the above post.

We appear to agree that "the application of the laws of probability .......... are inevitably true in all possible worlds".

Probability is a mathematical concept not observable with our five senses (discovered in about AD 1654), but is an abstract concept without which modern science could not function.  If it were not objective (true independent of human minds), then modern science would be meaningless.

You are not correct about 'intelligence'.    It is the human brain which is "derivative and contingent and so is a poor candidate for any ultimate answers to 'why questions'", but intelligence itself is something different.   Intelligence (in the natural world) is a measure of what the brains of evolutionary animals can achieve.   For some humans it is an IQ of 100, for others (say watch-makers) it may be an IQ of 160, and for aliens (if they exist) who knows, say an IQ of 2000!   However, for an immaterial God (the Logos), there would be no limit as he (like maths) would exist from or before the beginning of time and not be formed by evolution.

A claim that "these laws need no giver" is an opinion without evidence.   On the other hand, in our experience of this world, mathematical ability and personal intelligence go hand in hand, and nobody has explained how the situation would or could be different elsewhere.

Maths is a function of rational intelligence, with higher maths needing above average intelligence, and ground breaking maths needing exceptional intelligence.   In all known experience, the more complex the maths, the higher is the IQ which is needed.    This escalating need for intelligence makes it plausable abductive reasoning to posit the existence of an immaterial mathematician 'law giver' underlying the complex abstract mathematical nature of the physical Universe.

One final point, objective existence of mathematical concepts (independent of the human mind) is a valid abductive reason for believing in a God who sustains the Universe, but it is the goodness and miracles of Jesus which are the primary reasons for Christian belief.

I hope you find this interesting
God bless

Here we have another 356 words but you still fail to provide the essential observation which would, if available, provide an objective starting point for a method.  You even point out that there are no observations to be had.
You seem to think that numbers, intelligence, probability.and whatever else is in that post are objective and independent of human minds; you say that the lack of need for a law-giver is an opinion which is wrong and without evidence.

When you come up with a fact to support your belief that there must be some God or something behind everything, then you will have something testable to put forward.

[torridon]

Hi again torridon,
And thanks again for the above post.

We appear to agree that "the application of the laws of probability .......... are inevitably true in all possible worlds".

Probability is a mathematical concept not observable with our five senses (discovered in about AD 1654), but is an abstract concept without which modern science could not function.  If it were not objective (true independent of human minds), then modern science would be meaningless.

You are not correct about 'intelligence'.    It is the human brain which is "derivative and contingent and so is a poor candidate for any ultimate answers to 'why questions'", but intelligence itself is something different.   Intelligence (in the natural world) is a measure of what the brains of evolutionary animals can achieve.   For some humans it is an IQ of 100, for others (say watch-makers) it may be an IQ of 160, and for aliens (if they exist) who knows, say an IQ of 2000!   However, for an immaterial God (the Logos), there would be no limit as he (like maths) would exist from or before the beginning of time and not be formed by evolution.

A claim that "these laws need no giver" is an opinion without evidence.   On the other hand, in our experience of this world, mathematical ability and personal intelligence go hand in hand, and nobody has explained how the situation would or could be different elsewhere.

Maths is a function of rational intelligence, with higher maths needing above average intelligence, and ground breaking maths needing exceptional intelligence.   In all known experience, the more complex the maths, the higher is the IQ which is needed.    This escalating need for intelligence makes it plausable abductive reasoning to posit the existence of an immaterial mathematician 'law giver' underlying the complex abstract mathematical nature of the physical Universe.

One final point, objective existence of mathematical concepts (independent of the human mind) is a valid abductive reason for believing in a God who sustains the Universe, but it is the goodness and miracles of Jesus which are the primary reasons for Christian belief.

I hope you find this interesting
God bless

Morning Rosindubh

you have a peculiar habit of addressing not the latest post from me but rather the one before, rather in the comic style of a Ronnie Barker sketch. Perhaps I ought to let you catch up as I've already addressed the points you make in this post in #325, then maybe we will be in step.

[Gordon]

Hi again torridon,
And thanks again for the above post.

We appear to agree that "the application of the laws of probability .......... are inevitably true in all possible worlds".

Probability is a mathematical concept not observable with our five senses (discovered in about AD 1654), but is an abstract concept without which modern science could not function.  If it were not objective (true independent of human minds), then modern science would be meaningless.

You are not correct about 'intelligence'.    It is the human brain which is "derivative and contingent and so is a poor candidate for any ultimate answers to 'why questions'", but intelligence itself is something different.   Intelligence (in the natural world) is a measure of what the brains of evolutionary animals can achieve.   For some humans it is an IQ of 100, for others (say watch-makers) it may be an IQ of 160, and for aliens (if they exist) who knows, say an IQ of 2000!   However, for an immaterial God (the Logos), there would be no limit as he (like maths) would exist from or before the beginning of time and not be formed by evolution.

A claim that "these laws need no giver" is an opinion without evidence.   On the other hand, in our experience of this world, mathematical ability and personal intelligence go hand in hand, and nobody has explained how the situation would or could be different elsewhere.

Maths is a function of rational intelligence, with higher maths needing above average intelligence, and ground breaking maths needing exceptional intelligence.   In all known experience, the more complex the maths, the higher is the IQ which is needed.    This escalating need for intelligence makes it plausable abductive reasoning to posit the existence of an immaterial mathematician 'law giver' underlying the complex abstract mathematical nature of the physical Universe.

One final point, objective existence of mathematical concepts (independent of the human mind) is a valid abductive reason for believing in a God who sustains the Universe, but it is the goodness and miracles of Jesus which are the primary reasons for Christian belief.

I hope you find this interesting
God bless

This is little more than your personal incredulity affecting your thinking.

Your final paragraph being notable since you refer to abductive reasoning (which means reasoning to the simplest/most likely explanation) which, if I read you correctly, implies that you think the most likely explanation for the fact that when rolling two dice you are more likely to score 7 than score 3 is 'God' - seriously!

In addition the 'goodness' of Jesus reads like an example of the reification fallacy and the 'miracles' of Jesus are anecdotal claims that are indistinguishable from fiction.

I think you need to remove the theoglasses.

[Stranger]

A claim that "these laws need no giver" is an opinion without evidence.   On the other hand, in our experience of this world, mathematical ability and personal intelligence go hand in hand, and nobody has explained how the situation would or could be different elsewhere.

Maths is a function of rational intelligence, with higher maths needing above average intelligence, and ground breaking maths needing exceptional intelligence.   In all known experience, the more complex the maths, the higher is the IQ which is needed.    This escalating need for intelligence makes it plausable abductive reasoning to posit the existence of an immaterial mathematician 'law giver' underlying the complex abstract mathematical nature of the physical Universe.

If mathematical laws are being discovered (that is, they have an independent existence), then your argument suggests that intelligence is required to make discoveries in that field. That says nothing whatsoever about why those laws exist in the first place.

If mathematics is a purely human construct (as many would argue), then (obviously) your argument doesn't get off the ground.

...but it is the goodness and miracles of Jesus which are the primary reasons for Christian belief.

I'll ask again: where are they (outside of old myths, unsupported anecdotes, and subjective feelings)?

[Jack Knave]

In addition the 'goodness' of Jesus reads like an example of the reification fallacy and the 'miracles' of Jesus are anecdotal claims that are indistinguishable from fiction.

I think you need to remove the theoglasses.

Indeed. After Rosindubh step by step rationally based argument they then make a quantum leap to Jesus. I wonder on the probability of that truly happening? If ever there was a supernatural miracle, where there is no connection at all between the two items, that would have to be it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

Indeed. After Rosindubh step by step rationally based argument they then make a quantum leap to Jesus. I wonder on the probability of that truly happening? If ever there was a supernatural miracle, where there is no connection at all between the two items, that would have to be it.

Our Ros reminds me of this famous cartoon by Stanley Harris:

http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/pages/gallery.php