cannot be falsified, is entirely consistent with our knowledge of truth, and maximizes cooperation over timeHealth and Religion...
My point was that sometimes we work ourselves into a thinking knot as you put it. Instead you should look at what is known and supported by evidence.
...
The world does look like it was fine tuned, but that is probably just an illusion.
Indeed we certainly can tie ourselves into thinking knots. To avoid this we must deeply scrutinize our assumptions for these are the foundation our structures our thought rest upon. We must identify and look at each a priori belief and genuinely consider the possibility and that the assumption is untrue. Not a trivial rejection but a full exploration of a foundational shift on ones entirely structure of thought. This is actually extremely difficult to do because our basic assumption deeply shape our very patterns of thoughts. Everything rests on them. Perhaps one of us has tied ourselves into such a thinking knot. Are you absolutely certain that I am the one tangled up? Which of us has adopted a set of beliefs that has been shown in basically every study to be correlated with lower health, lower fertility, and reduced well-being? Which of us has adopted beliefs that appear to [/u][/url], limit possible cooperation over time? The world does indeed look like it was fine tuned. Maybe that's not an illusion but a simple observation of reality. I will leave that for you to decide. Time constraints force me to bow out of this conversation. I will leave you the final word. I could definitely be wrong. Some new evidence of the supernatural effects will invalidate my position. To be honest with you, I don't try to validate my position by looking at the effects it has or used to have on the society. Why? Because people are good or evil despite their world view so you will always find a paper that would argue benefits of your world view. My reality is based on science. I am an engineer, always was and always will be, so I will probably never understand metaphysics, quantum energy levels of Deepak Chopra or Peterson's inner self dream actualization etc.or whatever world salad they use. I do know one thing for sure. Religions are parasitic in nature and are immoral. |
|
|
|
...
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.
In this also you are mistaken. What's the Universe Made Of? Math, Says Scientisthttps://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.htmlSaying that something can be expressed in Math does not mean you actually can. We don't know anything about how the space time behaves when the length is less than the Planck's length or express events in less than Planck's time. How can you say you can express these in the Math equation if you don't know what you need to express or simulate on the computer? Ask any of the guys you listed above. Don't take it personally, I actually enjoy talking to you. My hope is you'll start thinking for yourself rather than just read what others said. You know, I still think you are delusional but I engage all kinds of people on this forum. You are entertaining af_newbie. First you argue my claim is ridiculous and that I will not be able to find a single scientist that supports my view. Then when I show you not one but several highly regarded scientist who take this idea very seriously you argue that I should stop reading scientist's books and think for myself? Just so you know I wrote my Argument for God a few months before I stumbled across professor Tegmark's excellent book: Mathematical Universehttps://www.amazon.com/dp/0307599809?_encoding=UTF8&isInIframe=0&n=283155&ref_=dp_proddesc_0&s=books&showDetailProductDesc=1#product-description_feature_divWhy are you twisting yourself up into such rhetorical knots. It is not necessary. All you need to say is that you are not convinced that the universe is logical and mathematical thus you reject my first claim. You could also correctly point out that the idea of a logical and mathematical universe as outlined by professor Tegmark is not universally accepted among scientists. By going beyond that and turning to personal attack calling me delusional and implying that I am "far gone" presumably into insanity you only expose you own bias and weaken your arguments. In regards to your other comments the Planck length is a certain combination of the three physical constants fundamental to general relativity and to quantum theory. As we currently lack a unified physical theory that incorporates all three of these constants we do not fully understand the physical meaning and significance of the Planck length. Such an understanding would require a physical theory that subsumes both quantum theory and general relativity. Should such a theory be discovered we cannot even be certain it would continue to ascribe a fundamental status to the three constants from which the Planck length is derived. If the universe is logical and mathematical then the answers to these questions exist and simply wait to be discovered. Sorry it was my unprofessional opinion. My background is in Electrical Engineering not Psychiatry. My point was that sometimes we work ourselves into a thinking knot as you put it. Instead you should look at what is known and supported by evidence. Sometimes really smart people can believe in batshit crazy stuff and argue eloquently to support their position. I have worked with one really smart guy, probably the smartest guy on my team who later was diagnosed with schizophrenia. If you talked to him you would never know that the guy was losing touch with reality. Fantasing about something that gives you comfort does not make your fantasy any more true. I just offered you my unbiased opinion. BTW, the biggest issue that I see are the singilarities that cannot be computed in bound time. Math can deal with infinities, Physics or Computer Science not so much. The world does look like it was fine tuned, but that is probably just an illusion. |
|
|
|
.....
Perjury ("FFFF"): CONFIRMED
....
Wait, he lied about FFFF? What does it REALLY MEAN? If a killer kills once or five times, either way he is still a killer, no? |
|
|
|
with jews you lose
Say what? What does the fact that his parents were born into Jewish religion have anything to do with what the man accomplished? You are full of it. Without people like him humans would still be sitting in cold, dark caves licking their wounds, hoping for sun God to give them light and warmth. |
|
|
|
...
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.
In this also you are mistaken. What's the Universe Made Of? Math, Says Scientisthttps://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.htmlCongrats you found one to confirm your bias. Thanks but credit for that initial logic goes to Perry Marshall who's background was in electrical engineering before he went on to make his money in IT. My own educational background was in biochemistry before I went on to a doctorate in medicine so your "bet" was really not a wise one. Perhaps having been shown incorrect in one area you should reexamine other axioms? Regardless if you are interested in further exploration Professor Tegmark wrote an entire book on this topic. Mathematical Universehttps://www.amazon.com/dp/0307599809?_encoding=UTF8&isInIframe=0&n=283155&ref_=dp_proddesc_0&s=books&showDetailProductDesc=1#product-description_feature_divHere are some reviews of that book also by scientists. Brian Greene, physicist, author of The Elegant Universe and The Hidden Reality “Our Mathematical Universe boldly confronts one of the deepest questions at the fertile interface of physics and philosophy: why is mathematics so spectacularly successful at describing the cosmos? Through lively writing and wonderfully accessible explanations, Max Tegmark—one of the world’s leading theoretical physicists—guides the reader to a possible answer, and reveals how, if it’s right, our understanding of reality itself would be radically altered.”Michio Kaku, author of Physics of the Future “Daring, Radical. Innovative. A game changer. If Dr. Tegmark is correct, this represents a paradigm shift in the relationship between physics and mathematics, forcing us to rewrite our textbooks. A must read for anyone deeply concerned about our universe.” Ray Kurzweil, author of The Singularity is Near “Tegmark offers a fresh and fascinating perspective on the fabric of physical reality and life itself. He helps us see ourselves in a cosmic context that highlights the grand opportunities for the future of life in our universe.” Prof. Edward Witten, physicist, Fields Medalist & Milner Laureate “Readers of varied backgrounds will enjoy this book. Almost anyone will find something to learn here, much to ponder, and perhaps something to disagree with.” Prof. Andrei Linde, physicist, Gruber & Milner Laureate for development of inflationary cosmology “This inspirational book written by a true expert presents an explosive mixture of physics, mathematics and philosophy which may alter your views on reality.”Prof. Mario Livio, astrophysicist, author of Brilliant Blunders and Is God a Mathematician? “Galileo famously said that the universe is written in the language of mathematics. Now Max Tegmark says that the universe IS mathematics. You don’t have to necessarily agree, to enjoy this fascinating journey into the nature of reality.”Prof. Julian Barbour, physicist, author of The End of Time “Scientists and lay aficionados alike will find Tegmark’s book packed with information and very thought provoking. You may recoil from his thesis, but nearly every page will make you wish you could debate the issues face-to-face with him.”Prof. Seth Lloyd, Professor of quantum mechanical engineering, MIT, author of Programming the Universe “In Our Mathematical Universe, renowned cosmologist Max Tegmark takes us on a whirlwind tour of the universe, past, present—and other. With lucid language and clear examples, Tegmark provides us with the master measure of not only of our cosmos, but of all possible universes. The universe may be lonely, but it is not alone.”Prof. David Deutsch, physicist, Dirac Laureate for pioneering quantum computing “A lucid, engaging account of the various many-universes theories of fundamental physics that are currently being considered, from the multiverse of quantum theory to Tegmark’s own grand vision.”Saying that something can be expressed in Math does not mean you actually can. We don't know anything about how the space time behaves when the length is less than the Planck's length or express events in less than Planck's time. How can you say you can express these in the Math equation if you don't know what you need to express or simulate on the computer? Ask any of the guys you listed above. BTW, I like the idea of universe being a computer simulation. Just because I like some idea or want it to be true does not mean it is true. Don't take it personally, I actually enjoy talking to you. My hope is you'll start thinking for yourself rather than just read what others said. You know, I still think you are delusional, but I engage all kinds of people on this forum. Some are gone more than others. The idea that some supernatural being is overseeing this universe, never mind creating it, is just plain stupid since you have absolutely no proof that what you believe is actually true, IMHO. But it looks like I failed to convince you to change your position. PS. If some alien civilization is running us as a simulation, what makes you think they have good intentions? They can unplug us and restart it to work out the bugs. Anyway, a sci-fi novel writes itself... |
|
|
|
...
Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms.
In this also you are mistaken. What's the Universe Made Of? Math, Says Scientisthttps://www.livescience.com/42839-the-universe-is-math.htmlBROOKLYN, N.Y. — Scientists have long used mathematics to describe the physical properties of the universe. But what if the universe itself is math? That's what cosmologist Max Tegmark believes.
In Tegmark's view, everything in the universe — humans included — is part of a mathematical structure. All matter is made up of particles, which have properties such as charge and spin, but these properties are purely mathematical, he says. And space itself has properties such as dimensions, but is still ultimately a mathematical structure.
"If you accept the idea that both space itself, and all the stuff in space, have no properties at all except mathematical properties," then the idea that everything is mathematical "starts to sound a little bit less insane," Tegmark said in a talk given Jan. 15 here at The Bell House. The talk was based on his book "Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality" (Knopf, 2014).
"If my idea is wrong, physics is ultimately doomed," Tegmark said. But if the universe really is mathematics, he added, "There's nothing we can't, in principle, understand."
The idea follows the observation that nature is full of patterns, such as the Fibonacci sequence, a series of numbers in which each number is the sum of the previous two numbers. The flowering of an artichoke follows this sequence, for example, with the distance between each petal and the next matching the ratio of the numbers in the sequence.
The nonliving worldalso behaves in a mathematical way. If you throw a baseball in the air, it follows a roughly parabolic trajectory. Planets and other astrophysical bodies follow elliptical orbits.
"There's an elegant simplicity and beauty in nature revealed by mathematical patterns and shapes, which our minds have been able to figure out," said Tegmark, who loves math so much he has framed pictures of famous equations in his living room.
One consequence of the mathematical nature of the universe is that scientists could in theory predict every observation or measurement in physics. Tegmark pointed out that mathematics predicted the existence of the planet Neptune, radio waves and the Higgs boson particle thought to explain how other particles get their mass.
Some people argue that math is just a tool invented by scientists to explain the natural world. But Tegmark contends the mathematical structure found in the natural world shows that math exists in reality, not just in the human mind. Max Erik Tegmark is a Swedish-American physicist and cosmologist. He is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the scientific director of the Foundational Questions Institute. Congrats you found one to confirm your bias. |
|
|
|
You state several times that it is easy to disprove any religious text. I would imagine that would depend on the particular religion but I would challenge this broad claim. Some religions texts cannot be dismissed so easily when approached with an open mind. Jordan Peterson approaches this very question from a very logical perspective and I recommend his video on the topic if you are interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w Thanks CoinCube, I watched some of the video you posted. He uses a lot of word salads. As a psychologist, well versed in the English language, I am surprised he has chosen such a complicated way of expressing his ideas. ... As far as his fascination with the Bible stories, well, I will agree with him/you that the people in those times were inspired and drew inspiration from those stories and myths. Religion played a role to unite people, to give them comfort, I do understand that. Your welcome af_newbie. I think we have taken this conversation and its parallel partner in the other religious thread to its logical conclusion. We have identified limited areas of agreement and isolated some core a priori philosophical differences where we likewise part ways. These differences cause us to reach profoundly different conclusions about the nature of the universe and our role within it. I always enjoy a determined attempt to deconstruct my arguments as there is no better way to test ones logic. Thank you for the conversation. Don't assume that the universe is logical, prove it to yourself. Think about singularities, black holes, birth and death of stars, streching of space time by the dark energy and pulling it all together by the dark matter, all uneven across the observable universe. Carnage caused when galaxies colide etc. All natural processes, but not logical in a sense as in intelligently designed by a sentient being. Give your claim#1 to other scientists/enginees to look at. Get their feedback. I bet you you will find not one scientist or engineer who would agree that the world can be reconstructed as a set of arithmetic axioms. As for religions, well, I see wealthy religions and poor worshippers. The idea that a sentient being created all the mess that we observe and that being is somehow interested in us, it just does not compute with me. I see the world as is not as it could be.Life started thanks to supernovae. Without them there would be no atoms to create the first amino acids. PS. Discover magazine (November 2018, page 26) has a good article on the subject of superstitions and how to overcome them. Read it, it might help you. |
|
|
|
@af_newbie We agree that if the fundamental tenets of a society are false then over time, as people become more educated, you will have fewer believers and the societal foundations will crumble. False fundamental tenets thus ultimately limit how developed a society can become before it turns on its own foundations and collapses. We disagree that political or patriotic dogmas hold longer than religious one. History in fact argues for the opposite conclusion with religions that have far outlasted any empire. Perhaps this will change in the future but I am skeptical. You state several times that it is easy to disprove any religious text. I would imagine that would depend on the particular religion but I would challenge this broad claim. Some religions texts cannot be dismissed so easily when approached with an open mind. Jordan Peterson approaches this very question from a very logical perspective and I recommend his video on the topic if you are interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-wWBGo6a2w Finally we agree that science is the best way we know to discover how the world works. We simply disagree on what is necessary for science to exist. Science is dependent on a supporting structure of culture which in turn rest on a foundation of apriori axioms aka religion. Science is something like the window in a skyscraper penthouse providing an unprecedented view over vast distances. The culture that enables science the steel support beams holding the building aloft and the shared aprior truths are the bedrock on which the entire edifice rests. Thanks CoinCube, I watched some of the video you posted. He uses a lot of word salads. As a psychologist, well versed in the English language, I am surprised he has chosen such a complicated way of expressing his ideas. 12:37 - rationality divorced from your being is self-destructive? As a scientist you deal with data, not psychology of yourself! His approach is to over analyze the emotions of his subjects. Of course, a person would go mad if you second guess your actions, emotions every second of your life. Strong individuals do not do that. 16:20 - the dream was informed by the way we act? What is he talking about? We act based on our morals, ethical standards, our values. What we feel is right. If you don't know why you act a certain way, well, you have psychological or mental issues. 21:40 - transcendent psychological entity that inhabits the body? Sorry he lost me there. I think he studied too many deviants. I lost interest after that. I have no idea what he is talking about. Listening to him I can say that psychology is not science. As far as his fascination with the Bible stories, well, I will agree with him/you that the people in those times were inspired and drew
inspiration from those stories and myths. Religion played a role to unite people, to give them comfort, I do understand that. Today, you have to use your reason and conclude that those stories are not applicable to the modern times as they were written by very primitive humans and reflect their primitive nature. I see no value in the stories written in the Bible, Quran or Talmud. I have disqualified all these books as a source of wisdom based on the moral code they espouse. I have better morals than any of the writers (Gods) of these holy scriptures. I do not understand how anyone can believe that these books were inspired by some supernatural God, who I presume had an infinite wisdom. The scriptures stories reflect the realities of life of the writers. Nothing to do with transcendent beings. |
|
|
|
The difference is that the the Koran/Hadiths instructions are for Muslims to go out and kill at certain time, under certain circumstances. And some of the instructions are to kill violently.
The Bible instructs no Christian to go out and kill, ever. The closest it might come is to allow Christians to protect their families and loved ones from those who are harming them.
That's a big difference. Leviticus 20:13, Do you want more quotes? I have created the whole thread about it. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1367154.0You really are having your problems, aren't you. Look through that Bible passage you posted, and you will see that Christians are never mentioned in there at all! Now we understand why you talk the way you do. You can't read... probably not comprehend. Did your God inspire the writers to write these verses in the Bible? Show us a directive for Christians to do the things of that verse. I already showed the Muslim directives from the Koran and Hadiths. Just burn the Bible if you think it does not apply to Christians. |
|
|
|
That's like saying you're not a good Christian if you don't murder people for all the things that are punishable by death according to the bible. How many people have you stoned to death for things like working on Sundays, blaspheming or being gay? If people followed the bible literally then they'd be in jail. Neither the bible or Quran are compatible with modern day values and absolutely cannot be taken literally.
The difference is that the the Koran/Hadiths instructions are for Muslims to go out and kill at certain time, under certain circumstances. And some of the instructions are to kill violently.
The Bible instructs no Christian to go out and kill, ever. The closest it might come is to allow Christians to protect their families and loved ones from those who are harming them.
That's a big difference.Leviticus 20:13, Do you want more quotes? I have created the whole thread about it. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1367154.0You really are having your problems, aren't you. Look through that Bible passage you posted, and you will see that Christians are never mentioned in there at all! Now we understand why you talk the way you do. You can't read... probably not comprehend. Did your God inspire the writers to write these verses in the Bible? |
|
|
|
You are playing with the semantics. Logical universe vs universe that can be reduced to logical axioms.
Neither of the statements can be asserted.
BTW, many things that have been discovered by science are neither intuitive nor logical.
Good luck with your conjectures.
Good luck with your conjectures as well. Ultimately we all live out our beliefs an experiment in real time if you will. Your belief's whatever they may be are similarly grounded in a priori truths which you cannot prove only assert. All beliefs trace back to the a priori aka assumed truths. Most people are unwilling or unable to actually question their foundations. Even nihilism is an assertion of this kind. For clarity, however, I never said anything about the universe being intuitive. Nor do I agree with your claim that science has made discoveries that show the universe is illogical. I would argue the very opposite that body of science is gradually revealing an highly ordered and logical creation. I only accept truths that can be verified by science. So you believe supernova explosions to be highly ordered? For all we know our universe could have exploded from a black hole singularity somewhere else in the cosmos. Why do you think we have such a big universe, why do we have black holes? All logical to you? |
|
|
|
Again you are a talking in philosophical terms. Godel's theorem cannot be applied to that, period. There is even a book for it because so many people tried to apply it incorrectly.
Please try to keep up we just went through a long discussion of what is necessary to apply Godel's theorem in the way I have. Af_newbie summed it up immediately above. If you want to prove that the universe is an incomplete system that has some axioms that are true but cannot be proven, you have to represent the universe as a system of such axioms, then the use of the theorem would be valid.
To apply Godel's theorem in the way that I did requires me to assume that the universe is ultimately logical aka that it is possible to describe every phenomenon in the universe mathematically. This is an assumption I make in my argument. You can alternatively choose to believe as af_newbie apparently believes that the universe is illogical and thus globally indescribable with mathematics. Then you would reject my first claim as Godel's theorem would not be applicable.
I wish science would work like that. You just state that something must be possible, and boom you have a proof.
Your claim is basically: Arithmetic axioms that describe the universe must be possible to exist, therefore one of them is true but cannot be proven.
...
BTW, the world as we know it at the quantum level, near or at singularities (Big Bang or Black Holes) is not intuitive nor logical
You are twisting my words out of context again. Who said anything about a proof? I have laid out a logical argument and like all logical arguments it rests on some basic assumptions. I never said that I could prove the universe is logical. I said that if the universe is logical then it is incomplete. It is a conditional argument not a proof. Everything in our lives including the reproducibility of science is consistent with a logical universe. Only at the very boundaries of our knowledge with esoteric phenomena such a black holes and quantum effects so poorly understood that their continue to be multiple competing theories explaining what exactly is happening it is more difficult to say things are logical. Black holes and poorly understood quantum phenomena strike me as shaky ground to rest a belief in an illogical universe upon but to each his own. You are playing with the semantics. Logical universe vs universe that can be reduced to logical axioms. Neither of the statements can be asserted. BTW, many things that have been discovered by science are neither intuitive nor logical. Good luck with your conjectures. |
|
|
|
You are so silly. You pick out one little Koran quote, and try to use it to denigrate the whole Bible. In doing so, you show that you are just the same as God... without His power and mercy and love, of course... and that you are against Him.  . I didn't pick out anything. I just 'snipped' the quote because I didn't need to quote it all. If anyone is being silly and picking quotes it's you. There's lot's of 'love your neighbor' type things in the Quran too. - What are you even talking about? The whole world is just like that. You can go to a Walmart and find soldiers who kill all over the Middle East at times, picking out loving birthday cards for their kids. If you want to know what is going on in religious books, you need to get into them and read them. The passage you show is Ezekiel 35:28. God is announcing how He will protect His people, Israel, against Edom. The Koran quote is telling Muslims to kill wantonly. Big difference. And like the Quran there is also a lot of rubbish about god being a dick and wantonly murdering people or even commanding people to murder. There really is not much difference between either book. - Again, you are making a big mistake between the religions. The basic difference is that Allah requires perfection, and judges people based on how well they did their job of maintaining perfection.
God of the Bible sent His Son as a sacrifice for all the imperfection of mankind. The only requirement is to accept the sacrifice.
However, you have your property. You are allowed to use your property as you wish... or even destroy it if you want. God owns everything. So He has the absolute right to do with it all as He wishes. He is very patient with you when you talk against Him.There's no problem being a muslim, the problem was some radikalism people are muslim and bring they religion into a bad attitude, like some Haram stuff (not about dog and pork), here in indonesia the Indonesian Council of Ulama said Bitcoin is Haram, WTF dude?? And some people accidentaly are muslim too use the religion for politics, black campaign, etc. As long u didn't bother other people, i think its okay mate  Standard good Muslims are not Islamic. They should change their religion by rewriting the Koran, removing all the directives to do violence. If they did that, they might be a little closer to being Muslims. As it is, they don't know what being a Muslim is all about... not according to ancient Islamic writings, that is. That's like saying you're not a good Christian if you don't murder people for all the things that are punishable by death according to the bible. How many people have you stoned to death for things like working on Sundays, blaspheming or being gay? If people followed the bible literally then they'd be in jail. Neither the bible or Quran are compatible with modern day values and absolutely cannot be taken literally.
The Bible instructs no Christian to go out and kill, ever. The closest it might come is to allow Christians to protect their families and loved ones from those who are harming them.
That's a big difference.Leviticus 20:13, Do you want more quotes? I have created the whole thread about it. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1367154.0 |
|
|
|
If you want to prove that the universe is an incomplete system that has some axioms that are true but cannot be proven, you have to represent the universe as a system of such axioms, then the use of the theorem would be valid.
Yes and this requires that the universe be fundamentally logical. In other words every phenomenon in the universe must be describable by some type of mathematical axiom. Such axioms may be totally beyond current human understanding or knowledge but their existence must be possible.As I said the fact that the universe is ultimately logical is assumed in my argument. I think this is both a reasonable assumption and mostly self evident. Our limited understanding of quantum mechanics is evidence only of our ignorance and in no way shows that the universe is illogical or indescribable by mathematical axiom. I wish science would work like that. You just state that something must be possible, and boom you have a proof. Your claim is basically: Arithmetic axioms that describe the universe must be possible to exist, therefore one of them is true but cannot be proven. I am telling you that there is no way of representing the world as a Turing machine. So your "must be possible to exist" is just wishful thinking on your part. Same as saying God must be possible to exist. And your proof is just, well, it is only logical. LOL BTW, the world as we know it at the quantum level, near or at singularities (Big Bang or Black Holes) is not intuitive nor logical. PS. Even if you prove that the world is a computer simulation, how does this get you any closer to prove that your (Jewish like) God exists? You know the one who likes to own slaves, wants to kill gays and is very interested in the Homo Sapiens reproductive system. |
|
|
|
Read my previous post. Our universe cannot be represented by the "elementary arithmetic". We have infinities and quantum effects that we know cannot be represented in a Turing automaton.
The above deduction is invalid. Full stop.
You are misrepresenting my statement. I only need to show that the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic to show that it is incomplete. I never said the universe can be entirely represented with elementary arithmetic. If the universe can be entirely represented mathematically such math is far beyond human understanding. Here is the entirety of my first argument. An Argument for God
Claim #1 There are things in this universe that are true yet cannot ever be proven true no matter how much knowledge or technology advance.
This first step is a general statement about the possibility of truths that can never be proven and it can be derived from mathematical deduction.
Gödel’s theorem proved that any generated system capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. What this means is that in any created system that determines basic arithmetical truths/answers, there is at least one statement that is true, but not provable in the system.
The universe is a non-trivial computational system. We know this from the Church-Turing thesis which tells us that physical systems can express elementary arithmetic. It is a system capable of expressing elementary arithmetic.
Thus we can conclude that the universe is incomplete.
There is at least one thing in the universe that is true but cannot ever be proven from inside the universe. Optimal understanding of the universe necessitates we develop a way of evaluating concepts that are possibly true yet forever unprovable.
We know that we can prove some truths and we know that we cannot prove all truths. Therefore we must develop a theory of truth that allows us to prove the truths we can and infer the truths we cannot.
Just because you can express some physical system using arithmetic, and such physical system is part of the universe, it does not mean that the universe can be used in the Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. Why not? Because this theorem applies to the system of arithmetic axioms. If you want to prove that the universe is an incomplete system that has some axioms that are true but cannot be proven, you have to represent the universe as a system of such axioms, then the use of the theorem would be valid. You are playing with "capable" and "can" words. |
|
|
|
Please show us that the universe can be treated as a Turing machine.
Here is the formal logic behind claim #1. Credit for this goes to Perry Marshal who outlined it here: See: The #1 Mathematical Discovery of the 20th CenturyStated in Formal Language:Gödel’s theorem says: “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.” The Church-Turing thesis says that a physical system can express elementary arithmetic just as a human can, and that the arithmetic of a Turing Machine (computer) is not provable within the system and is likewise subject to incompleteness. Any physical system subjected to measurement is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. (In other words, children can do math by counting their fingers, water flowing into a bucket does integration, and physical systems always give the right answer.) Therefore the universe is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic and like both mathematics itself and a Turing machine, is incomplete. Syllogism: 1. All non-trivial computational systems are incomplete 2. The universe is a non-trivial computational system 3. Therefore the universe is incomplete Read my previous post. Our universe cannot be represented by the "elementary arithmetic". We have infinities and quantum effects that we know cannot be represented in a Turing automaton. The above deduction is invalid. Full stop. |
|
|
|
You are making logical mistakes in your claim#1, as follows:
You are assuming the universe is a machine that can be modeled by a mechanical machine and you applied Church-Turing thesis and claimed that the universe can be expressed in arithmetic axioms, then you applied Gödel’s incompleteness theorem to arrive that there must be a true axiom that cannot be proven. Then you moved that axiom outside of the system, to make it your God I presume.
Please show us that the universe can be treated as a Turing machine. Where is your proof of that? Are you familiar with quantum effects, or you continue to live in the 1930s?
You are twisting the existing Math theorems to fit your conclusions. Why do you even bother when you skip the fundamental steps along the way?
...
You are applying Math incorrectly and connecting the dots to fit your desired outcome.
This is a fair challenge. "Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem applies not just to math, but to everything that is subject to the laws of logic. Incompleteness is true in math; it’s equally true in science or language or philosophy. And: If the universe is mathematical and logical, Incompleteness also applies to the universe." My argument assumes apriori that the universe is mathematical and logical. I take the position that the totality of human experience including science backs that claim. Nevertheless I concede that I cannot prove it. All systems of belief can be traced back to assumed axioms. Belief in a mathematical and logical universe is one of mine. I would note that quantum mechanics in no way shows that the universe is illogical or that it cannot be described with mathematics. CoinCube, You should re-phrase the description of your claim#1 and state that you cannot prove it. Then you can stop there. Doing otherwise, you are just fooling yourself. If you care about the truth, you should double check each step in your logic before you proceed further. BTW, the universe as we know it has infinities and probabilistic representations that are hard to represent by logic or arithmetic. |
|
|
|
Alright guys, let's get this back on track. So far I've had a lot of blabbering, and no real rationale behind beliefs.
I want you to explain to me WHY you believe in God despite the evidence presented in OP.
Parodium the link below is the logic that led me to believe in God despite the arguments outlined in your opening post. It's a bit long so I will link to it rather then quote the entirety of it here. The words and logic are mine. In it I demonstrate to my satisfaction that it is far more logical to believe in God then to deny his God's existence. An Argument for GodYou are making logical mistakes in your claim#1, as follows: You are assuming the universe is a machine that can be modeled by a mechanical machine and you applied Church-Turing thesis and claimed that the universe can be expressed in arithmetic axioms, then you applied Gödel’s incompleteness theorem to arrive that there must be a true axiom that cannot be proven. Then you moved that axiom outside of the system, to make it your God I presume. Please show us that the universe can be treated as a Turing machine. Where is your proof of that? Are you familiar with quantum effects, or you continue to live in the 1930s?
You are twisting the existing Math theorems to fit your conclusions. Why do you even bother when you skip the fundamental steps along the way? I did not go over the rest of your claims (I remember we went over them in the past), I feel it is like talking to notbatman with his electric field replacement for gravity. You are applying Math incorrectly and connecting the dots to fit your desired outcome. You are confounding enough Math, Metaphysics into your word salad to confuse the uninitiated. Sorry buddy, you'll be challenged here. This is the bitcoin forum, not some religious "#jesuslovesme" forum. |
|
|
|
Nationalism, politics can unite people just as well, and unite them long-term.
No it can't not on non trivial time horizons. Nationalism and politics require a common cooperative foundation to sustain them. Inertia can only holds things together for a limited time. ... And belief in an imaginary friend will hold the society forever? LOL. You base this on what? . Ultimately on the logical necessity of maintaining the top-down control necessary to prevent freedom from becoming destructive and the simultaneous logical necessity to minimize such control as it limits knowledge formation and progress. A complicated answer to be sure but it's not a trivial question. In the opening post of this thread I linked to The Rise of Knowledge where Anonymint discussed the the nature of knowledge and its relationship to entropy. Immediately up-thread I discussed the prerequisites of freedom. What freedom is and what is necessary to achieve it. This post will explore the relationship between freedom and knowledge. Knowledge and Power by George Gilder https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Power-Information-Capitalism-Revolutionizing/dp/1621570274The most manifest characteristic of human beings is their diversity. The freer an economy is, the more this human diversity of knowledge will be manifested. By contrast, political power originates in top-down processes—governments, monopolies, regulators, elite institutions, all attempting to quell human diversity and impose order. Thus power always seeks centralization.
Capitalism is not chiefly an incentive system but an information system. We continue with the recognition, explained by the most powerful science of the epoch, that information itself is best defined as surprise: by what we cannot predict rather than by what we can. The key to economic growth is not acquisition of things by the pursuit of monetary rewards but the expansion of wealth through learning and discovery. The economy grows not by manipulating greed and fear through bribes and punishments but by accumulating surprising knowledge through the conduct of the falsifiable experiments of free enterprises. Crucial to this learning process is the possibility of failure and bankruptcy. In this model, wealth is defined as knowledge, and growth is defined as learning.
Because the system is based more on ideas than on incentives, it is not a process changeable only over generations of Sisysphean effort. An economy is a noosphere (a mind-based system) and it can revive as fast as minds and policies can change.
That new economics—the information theory of capitalism—is already at work in disguise. Concealed behind an elaborate mathematical apparatus, sequestered by its creators in what is called information technology, the new theory drives the most powerful machines and networks of the era. Information theory treats human creations or communications as transmissions through a channel, whether a wire or the world, in the face of the power of noise, and gauges the outcomes by their news or surprise, defined as “entropy” and consummated as knowledge. Now it is ready to come out into the open and to transform economics as it has already transformed the world economy itself.
All information is surprise; only surprise qualifies as information. This is the fundamental axiom of information theory. Information is the change between what we knew before the transmission and what we know after it.
Let us imagine the lineaments of an economics of disorder, disequilibrium, and surprise that could explain and measure the contributions of entrepreneurs. Such an economics would begin with the Smithian mold of order and equilibrium. Smith himself spoke of property rights, free trade, sound currency, and modest taxation as crucial elements of an environment for prosperity. Smith was right: An arena of disorder, disequilibrium, chaos, and noise would drown the feats of creation that engender growth. The ultimate physical entropy envisaged as the heat death of the universe, in its total disorder, affords no room for invention or surprise. But entrepreneurial disorder is not chaos or mere noise. Entrepreneurial disorder is some combination of order and upheaval that might be termed “informative disorder.”
Shannon defined information in terms of digital bits and measured it by the concept of information entropy: unexpected or surprising bits...Shannon’s entropy is governed by a logarithmic equation nearly identical to the thermodynamic equation of Rudolf Clausius that describes physical entropy. But the parallels between the two entropies conceal several pitfalls that have ensnared many. Physical entropy is maximized when all the molecules in a physical system are at an equal temperature (and thus cannot yield any more energy). Shannon entropy is maximized when all the bits in a message are equally improbable (and thus cannot be further compressed without loss of
information). These two identical equations point to a deeper affinity that MIT physicist Seth Lloyd identifies as the foundation of all material reality—at the beginning was the entropic bit.
...
The accomplishment of Information Theory was to create a rigorous mathematical discipline for the definition and measurement of the information in the message sent down the channel. Shannon entropy or surprisal defines and quantifies the information in a message. In close similarity with physical entropy, information entropy is always a positive number measured by minus the base two logarithm of its probability. Information in Shannon’s scheme is quantified in terms of a probability because Shannon interpreted the message as a selection or choice from a limited alphabet. Entropy is thus a measure of freedom of choice. In the simplest case of maximum entropy of equally probable elements, the uncertainty is merely the inverse of the number of elements or symbols.
...
Linking innovation, surprise, and profit, learning and growth, Shannon entropy stands at the heart of the economics of information theory. Signaling the arrival of an invention or disruptive innovation is first its surprisal, then its yield beyond the interest rate—its profit, a further form of Shannon entropy. As a new item is absorbed by the market, however, its entropy declines until its margins converge with prevailing risk adjusted interest rates. The entrepreneur must move on to new surprises. The economics of entropy depict the process by which the entrepreneur translates his idea into a practical form from the realms of imaginative creation. In those visionary realms, entropy is essentially infinite and unconstrained, and thus irrelevant to economic models. But to make the imagined practical, the entrepreneur must make specific choices among existing resources and strategic possibilities. Entropy here signifies his freedom of choice.
As Shannon understood, the creation process itself escapes every logical and mathematical system. It springs not from secure knowledge but from falsifiable tests of commercial hypotheses. It is not an expression of past knowledge but of the fertility of consciousness, will, discipline, imagination, and art.
Knowledge is created by the dynamic interaction of consciousness over time. This process results in surprise (new information) which is the foundation of new knowledge. Entropy in this context is a measure of freedom, it is the freedom of choice. An information system with higher entropy allows for greater dynamic interaction of consciousness and thus greater knowledge formation. Freedom must be subject to the constraint of convergence. Some top-down order must be maintained to prevent destructive chaos aka noise that would otherwise destroy rather than create knowledge. The amount of top-down control needed increases in the presence of increased noise. A primitive population may require the iron fist of a dictator whereas an educated one may thrive in a republic. However, power always seeks centralization. Thus the tendency of both of the dictatorship and the republic will be towards ever increasing centralization restricting freedom beyond that what is necessary and hobbling knowledge formation. I posit that that the only model of top-down control that facilitates knowledge formation without inevitable progressive centralization is Ethical Monotheism. Uniformly adopted and voluntary followed it may be the only restraint on freedom that is necessary. Political or patriotic dogmas will hold longer than religious nonsense for one reason: it is easier to demonstrate that the details of the religious dogma are simply not true. Pick any scriptures, they are all complete BS. They make no sense scientifically and morally. Never mind some supernatural nonsense. You want to base society on that? We HAD to go through years of reformation and eventually HAD to abandon the religious ideas because the moral code was just not in line with the progress we've made in sociology and psychology. If we stuck with the religious governments, women would never get their equal rights, gays would be either killed or held in mental hospitals. If you take any religion, it is trivial to show that the fundamental tenets are simply not true. Therefore over time, as people become more educated, you will have less followers and the religious societal foundations will crumble. You would need to physically coerce people with fear, real or imaginary for people to stay in their religion. That is what Islam is doing as I type this post. Political or patriotic dogmas are based on real, physical societal structures, cultures, national history etc. That is a lot harder to invalidate. As for centralization of power, well, that will happen no matter what the underlying dogma is. At least in the western style democracies you can vote to elect your president. Try that with the Catholic church. When was the last time a church goer had a chance to elect the Pope? I am telling you that the secular thought is far superior on many different levels from human rights to morality; and it agrees with science. I hope you'll admit this much that science is the best way we know to discover how the world works. Science is the way to go, religion is not. Sorry religion, you had your day in the sun. |
|
|
|
Is there free will in heaven?
You have the free will to do whatever God wants... that's free enough, right? What if my uncle molested me as a child and I hate him, but he is also a christian? If he is in heaven too, then it is not heaven for me since I hate him... If God changes me so I don't hate him any longer, then I am not me, and whatever is in heaven, is not me... Sounds like a lose-lose proposition... glad I'm going to hell so I don't have to worry about it I was going with If there is free will in heaven, then there is evil in heaven, so it is not heaven. If there is no free will in heaven, then it is a prison, so it is not heaven.i.e. there is no heaven. All using religitards' logic. In Heaven, evil won't exist. So there is no free will to do evil. But not because there wouldn't be if it existed. So you will not be able to lift your finger, never mind to do anything else, like taking a piss whenever you want, LOL. Nice heaven concept you got there. At least Muslims talk about streets full of gold, wine and virgins. And you guys hope to go to a place where you won't be able to do anything on your own free will. Before you reply with your: "But in heaven, with free will, we will be able to only do good, not evil", it is not free will if you cannot do both good and/or evil. That is why you guys call it FREE will. Checkmate. There is no heaven using your own Christian logic. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
