Christian 'Mythology'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seb,

Roof on, foundations laid.
He was talking about building houses wasn't he? 

Roof On, Foundations Lacking surely?

[Sebastian Toe]

Seb,

Roof On, Foundations Lacking surely?

Foundations for Vladistics, definitely!

[SqueakyVoice]

Seb,

Roof On, Foundations Lacking surely?

I assumed that Chunsty built the roof first so that he knew where the foundations needed to go?

[torridon]

If we accept that the Standard Model of Particle Physics is correct and true, then we are forced to accept the reality of the mathematical entities which dominate it.   However, by saying that the truths of maths are 'incontingent' while the physical entities are only 'contingent', you appear to be saying that its mathematical entities are even more true than its physical entities.

Reality is what is true independent of the human mind, and surely this must include all 'incontingent' mathematical entities necessary for the objective measurements which are the foundation of modern science.   So, mathematical entities have an objective existence, or modern physics is circular reasoning.
God bless

I'm not sure it is valid to say that abstract mathematical laws 'exist' in any normal sense of the word.  Perhaps to claim they exist would imply contingency. Rather I think of them as inevitabilities that we have come to understand and describe; a conceptual principal of logic or maths would be like a baseline in our schemes of how to understand what is possible and what is not.  Thus Pi R2 for instance is not some independently existing principle that guides the character of circles, rather it is a statement summing our understanding of the inevitable truth regarding the nature of circular things. Not sure if this is making sense or not, the words are not coming out right today   

[SusanDoris]

Thought this might help:

I clicked on the link and listened ... Hmmm I don't think I'll try and  learn what it means! However, I see that rosindubh has written another 440 or so words, but I note that neither he, nor Sriram, nor AB comment on the fact that top scientists, mathematicians, engineers and Nobel Prize committee members are not beating a path to their doors.

[SusanDoris]

Roof on, foundations laid.
He was talking about building houses wasn't he? 

[ippy]

I clicked on the link and listened ... Hmmm I don't think I'll try and  learn what it means! However, I see that rosindubh has written another 440 or so words, but I note that neither he, nor Sriram, nor AB do not comment on the fact that top scientists, mathematicians, engineers and Nobel Prize committee members are not beating a path to their doors.

There's no need for all of us to be mathematicians because anything Rosindubh feels the need to spend his time on with his various conclusions would have been jumped on years ago by some other, clutching at straws, religionist equally as keen as he obviously is; since we haven't heard anything from that direction I'd say the stuff he keeps on coming out with can be dismissed, with some confidence and without a need to watch this space of his either.

ippy

[SusanDoris]

There's no need for all of us to be mathematicians because anything Rosindubh feels the need to spend his time on with his various conclusions would have been jumped on years ago by some other, clutching at straws, religionist equally as keen as he obviously is; since we haven't heard anything from that direction I'd say the stuff he keeps on coming out with can be dismissed, with some confidence and without a need to watch this space of his either.

ippy

Agreed - as usual.

By the way, I have modified my post as I hadn't noticed the grammatical error - 'do not' now deleted.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You'll reach Australia soon. A "thing" is a thing - a manifestation of it is something else that shows or demonstrates it. Octopi are "manifestations" of evolution for example. They are also contingent on it.

0/10 - See me

Yes there are several definitions of manifestation Hillside. You make yourself manifest through your internet drivel....But you are not contingent on it.

I suspect being a big muggle materialist you want to appear to be a slick informationist but at base believe that material IS information or even that information contingent on material. You seem to be evasive about what you mean.

Can you prove yourself to be no longer a dyed in the wool materialisthead but a new, go ahead, thrusting informationist?

[Stranger]

Vald, you really, really should stop digging. Then again, it is funny!

You make yourself manifest through your internet drivel....But you are not contingent on it.

You make yourself manifest through your hilarious misunderstandings of basic logic - and said basic misunderstandings are contingent on you.

A manifestation is contingent on what it is a manifestation of - not the other way around. The original claim that you scoffed (#384 to #389), was that matter and forces were manifestations of (and hence contingent on) information.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes there are several definitions of manifestation Hillside.

None of which are "the same as". A house is not "the same as" bricks and mortar, you are not "the same as" lots of cells etc.

Stop digging. 

[Jack Knave]

The question is not whether we "impose" mathematical concepts onto the physical Universe with our minds.    That happens from time to time when people try to force a concept to fit a particular situation where it does not fit.   Fortunately, peer review protects against this.

So, the question is whether mathematical concepts are solely imaginary (with no more power than Harry Potter's wand); or whether they are true independently of the human mind, with a propensity to interact with the physical Universe.   Successes of modern science indicate the latter.

If mathematical concepts were solely imaginary, then they would be the product of random processes in our contingent brains, with no purpose but amusement, and no more relevance to reality than Harry Potter's wand.   If just imaginary and random, it would be difficult to "impose" them on the physical Universe in a coherent way.

Are you saying here that the function of our brains are random? If so how do we manage to get anything done? How would we manage to hold and apply, sufficiently long enough, those mathematical concepts you so love?

If we, as you say, with this random brain of ours, couldn't "impose them on the physical universe in a coherent way" how does this brain of ours impose, with its 'randomness', on these so called incontingent, objective mathematical concepts that you claim are 'out there' as oppose to being 'in here'? These concepts have to be held and understood by our brains internally even if they are objective and 'out there'. You claim about the feebleness of our brains to 'impose' applies to all things which are 'out there', which would mean that the scope to understand these mathematic concepts would be out of our reach.

Your implication of imaginary is all wrong these concepts are developed from observations
etc. not from someone just sitting at a desk and making them up like a story or tale. And that is my point that the concepts that have been developed have come from what has been observed of our physical world. How else would we know that they are correct and represent the reality we see?

Numbers, squares of numbers, square roots, right angles, triangles, second derivatives etc are not visible in the natural world.   For thousands of years, maths developed these concepts, aware of their usefulness for man-made things, but unaware of a relevance to the physical Universe.

However, in about AD 1590, Galileo dropped some stones frim the Tower of Pisa, and from then until AD 1905, he, Newton, Maxwell etc made objective measurement, followed by mathematical equations the critical factor in science - i.e. the certainty of science depended upon the certainity of its mathimatical concepts.   How could that be if maths was just an imaginary product imposed by contingent brain?

To be coherent, science needs its maths to be as objective (independent of human mind) as the objectivity of its physical elements (e.g. moons around Saturn).

However, from AD 1905, the sequence of physics was turned on its head.  Instead of experiment followed by maths, the more fruitful sequence became abstract maths followed by empirical experiment.  Mathematical reasoning enabled forecasts of previously unsuspected phenomena to an extraordinary extent.  I gave four examples in my previous post.  I can give more examples if you wish.

One could "impose" equations upon a few things which are already known (if you can get around modern peer review and incoherence), but impossible to make your maths forecast new phenomena such as black holes, gravitational waves, Higgs field etc of modern physics unless the mathematical concepts are as objective as the phenomena they forecast.

So, if we accept the reality of the forecasts of modern physics, then we are forced to accept the reality of the abstract concepts used to make the forecasts.  In modern physics, the Universe is contingent upon the maths.
God bless

As for forecasting that is just a function of the scope and range of the maths at hand etc. seeking out all the potentialities of the tools at our finger tips. This is an interlinked universe, it is not surprising that something found and developed in one aspect of it is found to relate to some other part of it.

I feel this isn't a thorough response to your post but I'm a little busy at the moment to delve fully into its nuances.

[Jack Knave]

I assumed that Chunsty built the roof first so that he knew where the foundations needed to go?

Arrh, yes, those sky hooks. Sky implying Heaven.