If god is a mathmatical formula, is it safe to say that Bitcoin is backed by god

[Xenland]

I was speculating how god isnt a person and really is a consistant force that we humans like to call math. I happed to stumble upon this page http://www.superiching.com/moreongod.htm and the more it got me thinking about bitcoins formula.

Thoughts? Ideas? Crazy comments?

[HorseRider]

I agree with you, however, IMHO, At this early stage of the development of bitcoin, this kind of theological PR strategy will make bitcoin weird.

[alatus]

In Code We Trust? :-))

[jim618]

Rene Descartes is the mathematical philosopher who in addition to giving us Cartesian coordinates also wrote:

"I think therefore I am".

Interestingly his view on the validity of the input of his senses actually appealed to the existence of god: (Wikipedia)

"Descartes also wrote a response to skepticism about the existence of the external world. He argues that sensory perceptions come to him involuntarily, and are not willed by him. They are external to his senses, and according to Descartes, this is evidence of the existence of something outside of his mind, and thus, an external world. Descartes goes on to show that the things in the external world are material by arguing that god would not deceive him as to the ideas that are being transmitted, and that God has given him the "propensity" to believe that such ideas are caused by material things."

He basically used god's existence as an axiom and the validity of his senses is inferred as a corollary.

He did live in the early 17th Century, so this might have been to appease the very powerful Roman Catholic church. You can imagine he was quite a radical thinker for his time.


If you were to use Descartes's philosophy, not only are bitcoins backed by god but every image you see, perfume you smell and the texture of everything you touch are also backed by god.


I have a maths degree from Cambridge University and have thus have seen hundreds of mathematical proofs. I can honestly say that not a single one of them started with an axiom:
1) Suppose there is an omnipotent, omniscient being god, which we will call G.

[the joint]

Rene Descartes is the mathematical philosopher who in addition to giving us Cartesian coordinates also wrote:

"I think therefore I am".

Interestingly his view on the validity of the input of his senses actually appealed to the existence of god: (Wikipedia)

"Descartes also wrote a response to skepticism about the existence of the external world. He argues that sensory perceptions come to him involuntarily, and are not willed by him. They are external to his senses, and according to Descartes, this is evidence of the existence of something outside of his mind, and thus, an external world. Descartes goes on to show that the things in the external world are material by arguing that god would not deceive him as to the ideas that are being transmitted, and that God has given him the "propensity" to believe that such ideas are caused by material things."

He basically used god's existence as an axiom and the validity of his senses is inferred as a corollary.

He did live in the early 17th Century, so this might have been to appease the very powerful Roman Catholic church. You can imagine he was quite a radical thinker for his time.


If you were to use Descartes's philosophy, not only are bitcoins backed by god but every image you see, perfume you smell and the texture of everything you touch are also backed by god.


I have a maths degree from Cambridge University and have thus have seen hundreds of mathematical proofs. I can honestly say that not a single one of them started with an axiom:
1) Suppose there is an omnipotent, omniscient being god, which we will call G.

Interesting though that Descartes asserted that there is essentially an absolute chasm between mental and physical reality which leads him to completely contradict himself.

[memvola]

Whether universe is a mathematical structure depends on what mathematics is, and not the other way around. Are laws of physics mathematical in nature because we can only perceive in mathematics, or is it because mathematical objects are real? If it is because of our perception/interpretation, where does the mathematics that shape it come from?

Either way, calling it God is pretty redundant, but it's interesting that we can still write "In God We Trust" on Bitcoin bills.

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis

[Realpra]

Bitcoin is backed more by physical laws than math. Basically it all rests on computing power being scarce.

It the laws of our world were different or changed doing a 51% attack might be easy.

Even if a God or Gods created the universe he/they may no longer control it, who knows?

"Backed by current physics" might be more correct.

[phatsphere]

the bitcoin network functions only, iff P != NP. We cannot proof this (and probably will never be able to). Hence, maths doesn't help you.

Still, ECC is cool :-)

[niko]

the bitcoin network functions only, iff P != NP. We cannot proof this (and probably will never be able to). Hence, maths doesn't help you.

Still, ECC is cool :-)

That is one of the assumptions we  built our logic, language, and science on, then forgot about it. Any "proof" would only be based on circular logic. The same goes for the idea that laws of physics are universal, and that constants are constant.

All that aside, I totally think we should try and convince evangelicals in the US that the OP statement is true. I suspect all that's needed would be to offer a big btc donation to one of the megachurches.  The problem is how to do all this without making bitcoin seem ridiculous in the eyes of  the rest of the world.

P.S. not serious
P.P.S. this should be moved to a different  board

[proudhon]

I was speculating how god isnt a person and really is a consistant force that we humans like to call math. I happed to stumble upon this page http://www.superiching.com/moreongod.htm and the more it got me thinking about bitcoins formula.

Thoughts? Ideas? Crazy comments?

Ok, sure.  If God is math, and bitcoin is backed by math, then bitcoin is backed by God.  Just as if a bachelor is an unmarried man, and John is an unmarried man, then John is a bachelor.  Your argument is certainly valid, but it's definitely not sound; at least not until you offer a compelling argument why anyone ought to believe that God is math, which, BTW, is going to entail you making an argument for why people ought to believe there is such a thing as God*.  Good luck.

*This is assuming that you really are trying to get to the conclusion that bitcoin is backed by God.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Crazy comments?

I hate to be the one that breaks the bad news to you all, but God is not a mathematician, but a civil engineer, for whom else would put a sewer dump right next to a great recreational site?

This is assuming that you really are trying to get to the conclusion that bitcoin is backed by God.

Unless, of course, God is backed by BTC.

~Cackling Bear~

[notme]

Rene Descartes is the mathematical philosopher who in addition to giving us Cartesian coordinates also wrote:

"I think therefore I am".

Interestingly his view on the validity of the input of his senses actually appealed to the existence of god: (Wikipedia)

"Descartes also wrote a response to skepticism about the existence of the external world. He argues that sensory perceptions come to him involuntarily, and are not willed by him. They are external to his senses, and according to Descartes, this is evidence of the existence of something outside of his mind, and thus, an external world. Descartes goes on to show that the things in the external world are material by arguing that god would not deceive him as to the ideas that are being transmitted, and that God has given him the "propensity" to believe that such ideas are caused by material things."

He basically used god's existence as an axiom and the validity of his senses is inferred as a corollary.

He did live in the early 17th Century, so this might have been to appease the very powerful Roman Catholic church. You can imagine he was quite a radical thinker for his time.


If you were to use Descartes's philosophy, not only are bitcoins backed by god but every image you see, perfume you smell and the texture of everything you touch are also backed by god.


I have a maths degree from Cambridge University and have thus have seen hundreds of mathematical proofs. I can honestly say that not a single one of them started with an axiom:
1) Suppose there is an omnipotent, omniscient being god, which we will call G.

Interesting though that Descartes asserted that there is essentially an absolute chasm between mental and physical reality which leads him to completely contradict himself.

My problem with it is that he assumes all mental activity arises from the will.  Did they not have a concept of the unconscious mind in the 1700s, or does he define will differently than we do today?  I don't know anyone who has complete, intentional control of all their mental activity, although it sounds like it would be nice.

[Xenland]

I'd just like to note that under no circumstances will I ever advertise... "Bitcoin is backed by god" lol

Fck you OP! as a religious man, i will pray for you everynight
 

lol

I was speculating how god isnt a person and really is a consistant force that we humans like to call math. I happed to stumble upon this page http://www.superiching.com/moreongod.htm and the more it got me thinking about bitcoins formula.

Thoughts? Ideas? Crazy comments?

Ok, sure.  If God is math, and bitcoin is backed by math, then bitcoin is backed by God.  Just as if a bachelor is an unmarried man, and John is an unmarried man, then John is a bachelor.  Your argument is certainly valid, but it's definitely not sound; at least not until you offer a compelling argument why anyone ought to believe that God is math, which, BTW, is going to entail you making an argument for why people ought to believe there is such a thing as God*.  Good luck.

*This is assuming that you really are trying to get to the conclusion that bitcoin is backed by God.

Looking at my argument, It might be better to say math is a universal representation of god (Assuming that we did find the formula for "everything" aka string theory or m-theory or what ever the universal theory is called these days)
I believe something is keeping everything consistent, as suppose we did find a formula for everything.... we will always be left wondering "Why does it do that?"

[proudhon]

I'd just like to note that under no circumstances will I ever advertise... "Bitcoin is backed by god" lol

Fck you OP! as a religious man, i will pray for you everynight
 

lol

I was speculating how god isnt a person and really is a consistant force that we humans like to call math. I happed to stumble upon this page http://www.superiching.com/moreongod.htm and the more it got me thinking about bitcoins formula.

Thoughts? Ideas? Crazy comments?

Ok, sure.  If God is math, and bitcoin is backed by math, then bitcoin is backed by God.  Just as if a bachelor is an unmarried man, and John is an unmarried man, then John is a bachelor.  Your argument is certainly valid, but it's definitely not sound; at least not until you offer a compelling argument why anyone ought to believe that God is math, which, BTW, is going to entail you making an argument for why people ought to believe there is such a thing as God*.  Good luck.

*This is assuming that you really are trying to get to the conclusion that bitcoin is backed by God.

Looking at my argument, It might be better to say math is a universal representation of god...

So how do you think the argument should go from this new premise that math is a universal representation of god to the conclusion that bitcoin is backed by god?

[the joint]

Also, you can trace back mathematics to something more fundamental, such as language...

All that is needed to constitute a language is syntax, content, and grammar.

Math is just a subset of language.

[cbeast]

We already had "In God we Trust" on our money and look how that went.

[fivemileshigh]

Bitcoin is backed the same way as gold:people's desire for it. Nothing more is needed or possible.

[memvola]

Math is just a subset of language.

When people say "Bitcoin is backed by mathematics", they don't mean the language.

You are talking about "representation", but I think the topic is "form". Mathematics as a language is just a projection of forms that exist regardless. These forms, or let's say mathematical facts, are what we are talking about. Cryptography would work the same it does now if all humanity disappeared, and even if we have never existed, it would function the same.

However though, Bitcoin's security depends on scarcity of computing power and some assumptions of human behavior, which is why the claim "Bitcoin is backed by mathematics" is ultimately wrong anyway.

[Coinabul]

In Code We Trust? :-))

Ingot we trust.

[Tuxavant]

In Crypto We Trust...

http://www.bitmit.net/en/trade/i/289-bitcoin-in-crypto-we-trust-vinyl-sticker



Also, if god is a math formula, it would be quite complex... Bitcoin would be fraction him. Therefore, I suspect, Bitcoin would be the penis of God.