Math Faces God
Prelude
Math Faces God
*If something is uncontainable, it cant be wholly measured, and if it cant be wholly measured, then its not wholly subject to rational analysis and therefore cannot be wholly rationalized.
- Math operators talk to and negotiate outcomes with numbers. In other words, there is deep crosstalk between operator identities and number identities. So, operator identities and number identities are closely related. Number identities parallel verbal subjects, and math operators act the role of verbs who animate number identities.
- Integration across symmetry with conservation expresses dynamical identity.
- Whether it be verbal language or numerical language, calculation exploits symmetries and conservation laws toward verbal or numerical expression. Logical manipulation of math operators and number identities creates meaning that supports narratives. Calculation in math parallels with conjugation and declension in verbal language.
- Meaning is a property emergent from logical manipulation of the symmetry and conservation of identity.
Math Faces God
- Premise You preserve God in your understanding by understanding God will not be understood. Consider this to be an irreducible expression that approximates the trans-rationality of God. So, how we understand God and thus make our approach to God is by understanding we dont understand God. What we understand in rational terms, is the imperfectible simulation of God. It is the rational component that corrupts the human perception of God. This flawed type of rationalist simulation of God is the highest approximation to divinity the human mind can attain to.
- Rationalism is bounded by finitism. For this reason, infinite values, being incompletely containable, limit mathematicians.
- Just as pi is irrational, human understanding of God is likewise incompletable. There can be an approach to God, but no arrival. In this contemplation of reality we see that the human experience of same will always be incomplete.
- The best argument the atheist can mount against theism is claiming its irrational, which is true.
- Since faith in God cannot be expressed as a ratio, then the human relationship to God can only be legitimately expressed as an unprovable expression of faith. Moreover, the unprovability of Gods existence is the heart of Gods presence.
- [math]X?4-pi=F?[/math] (Note: F? is my symbol for faith.)
- Because I can cognize an infinite approach to God, I can fantasize an existing God. Through manipulation of my fantasy of God, I can develop precepts that guide my behavior.
- The atheist can argue that my approach resembles the rational approach to developing moral principles and socially sanctioned laws based upon them. This claim is true. There is, however, a nuance of difference pertaining to the parameters of theism versus the parameters of rationalism. Theism, not being wholly bound by rationalism, can access options not available to the rationalist. Chief among the theism-only options is faith. The leap of faith resides outside of reason. When the numbers tell you that a certain outcome is possible, perhaps even probable, then the leap of faith carries you further towards the desired outcome.
- Modally speaking, theism embraces infinite values whereas rationalism cautiously deigns to do so with logical rigor.
- Does the atheist, on principle, always shun the leap of faith? (If not, then rationalist atheism has no discrete separation from theism.)
- The answer here is nuanced. Math manipulates infinite value by manipulating the declension of numbers and the conjugation of operations with remaindering of ratios as infinite series. Infinity is the remaindering ratio that cant be completely simplified.
- It can be hierarchically stacked as per Cantor, but there is no resolution to simplification featuring integers exclusively.
- The human-deity relationship can be represented by irrational pi. Science, wanting to be more definitive, makes its rationalish computations while being compelled to remainder infinite values as infinite series.
- The universe, then, can be represented as a multi-part system that cant be simplified, and as a bi-lateral infinite series without beginning or end. Identity and its presence, consciousness, a property emergent from the declension and conjugation of identity, are unsearchable. Existence, identity and presence are axiomatic.
- Evolved Premise God expresses in narrative as an irrational as, for example: pi. The human relation to trans-rational God, being inexpressible as a ratio, resides exclusively within faith, which, being outside of reason, super-positions itself as uncontainable. This is the rationalish justification for faith in God: the unprovability of Gods existence is the heart of Gods presence: uncontainable.* Through faith which cannot entirely escape rationality, a human requisite humanity trans-conceptualizes itself as uncontainable presence. This is the simulation of Gods uncontainable presence.
*If something is uncontainable, it cant be wholly measured, and if it cant be wholly measured, then its not wholly subject to rational analysis and therefore cannot be wholly rationalized.
Comments (92)
I would disagree with that. I can imagine a perfect circle, not a regular polygon with trillions of sides (or something like that).
And anyway, there is uncomputable math. So mathematics isn't limited to computability/finitism and the like.
Your title reminds me of the two books edited with commentary by Stephen Hawking: [i]God Created the Integers[/I] and [i]On the Shoulders of Giants[/I]. both available from Penguin Books.
In my work I found the concept of [i]God[/I].
"My only contribution is that there exists a unique purpose for the Universal System. This purpose consists of an interaction with a specific component that is the only component that is not a component of the Universal System - it is a very unique thing in the Universal Collection of Components. We cannot object if this unique interaction or this unique component is named God or any other name, for that matter. It is interesting to note that, according to our Understanding - this theory; this unique component does consist of mass or energy that does not change, ..." How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence
Quoting ucarr
Quoting ssu
Can you express the measure of the number of sides of a circle as an integer?
Quoting ssu
Can pi be computed to an integer?
Regarding the Halting Problem, does ZFC apply restricted comprehension to it?
When the Universal system and the unique component interact, is there a Venn diagram of shared identity?
No. The most direct and effective counter-argument to theism concludes by claiming theism is not true.
(2019)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/391820
(2020)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/463672
(2021)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/563185
Yes. In evidence we trust. :chin:
Well I prefer apophatic theology ...
So "not true" as you say in that the idea of God misses the mark, or in other words there is no mark there for us to miss.
That is to say, the rationality of theism, like any behavior, is judged by the objectives it achieves. If your highest objective is to live your life according to the implications of science, even if that should mean accepting a certain level of meaninglessness foreign to a theist, then do that. It's not irrational to do otherwise though.
The atheistic belief that belief is the primary reason for religion and not behavior leads you guys down interesting little paths.
Theism is to be judged as a form of life, not as a proposition with a true value.
There's no such thing.
Also, whereas theism is a belief (either noncognitive or cognitive), religion is an institutional practice; and 'false hope to pacify false fear' (e.g. E. Becker's terror management) seems, as far as I can tell, the primary motivation for most persons throughout recorded history comforming to either or both of these complementary forms of life (i.e. traditions).
So atheism is no belief, just an empty set?
Quoting 180 Proof
Assuming that's a correct bit of psychoanalysis, how does it change what I said? A belief is not to be measured in terms of its truth value but in terms of whether it's a preferable form of life.
I'll accept the condescending. If Billy and the rest the world is happier by all measure in belief in Santa Claus, why tell them otherwise unless you think scientific truth adherence has inherent value? And this is a hypothetical, so you can't change the antecedent. It is assumed. That is, he and the world will not mysteriously be unhappier for some reason.
Unless you're willing to commit to my reasoning and thereby claim happiness is advanced by atheism and therefore preferable, then we'll be speaking past each other. So, if the real reason atheism is the best belief is because it makes us most happy, then let's stop submitting all these other reasons and instead advocate it in the market of ideas just like any other, showing how following your belief brings the joy unbeknown to the theist.
Yes. Theism is not of the same category as science. The latter is but an empirical gathering tool, occasionally at odds with religious claims. The former an entire way of life.
To my knowledge, no. Simply an interaction - a transfer of mass, energy or information.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting 180 Proof
Do you deny that God consciousness is a component of human psychology? This question seeks to examine the connection - the identity linking narrative God and human psychology - in a correspondence relationship of truth. This would be an argument against your claim theism is not true.
Quoting 180 Proof
Do you have criteria establishing the falsifiability of (1) and (2)?
Quoting 180 Proof
If truth emerges from an identity correspondence - a=a - then how does emptiness, wherein there is no identity and therefore no correspondence, have relevance to truth?
Quoting 180 Proof
In your acknowledgement of theism, undeniably a component of human psychology - and thus your acknowledgement of theism a simultaneous acknowledgement of theistically textualized human psychology - do you make a corollary acknowledgement of theistic narratives as acknowledgably real human psychology?
Quoting ucarr
Like magical / wishful / group thinking no I don't "deny" it.
Btw, ucarr, what do you mean by "God consciousness"? :sparkle:
Yes, defeasible reasoning.
Tautologies are empty expressions. Truth claims require truth makers.
I.e. delusions, fantasies, etc
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Why don't you think an interaction contains a component of shared identity? A transfer of mass, energy, and information involves three components shared by both parties to the exchange.
Infinity isn't defined as an integer. But the geometric aspects of a circle indeed show the existence of infinity.
And basically, finitism is in a way rather naive and simplistic. The only good aspect is that a finististic critique of let's say analysis just show how little we still know about infinity.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting 180 Proof
God consciousness is meant to be a straightforward term. Like it says, there's a concept of an existing God held in the mind of a believer. In other words, a believer, in his mind, is conscious of a God presenting to his perceiving mind.
Regarding magical_wishful_group thinking, why do you think there's a logical skein extending from you to a scale of consciousness larger than you? I'm asking this question backwards in order to expose the logical content, which goes as follows: I say you assume there's a logical skein extending from you to a scale of consciousness larger than you in order enable you to then turn around and deny it. You must assume existence of something - at the very least in theoretical abstraction - before you can deny it.
Next point: if God consciousness can be characterized as a function of human psychology writ large - there's broad consensus about some of the bible passages being wisdom narratives giving instruction for intelligent navigation of moral, political and social precincts (The Book of Job) - then what essential logic forbids theoretical scalable consciousness beyond the human scale?
Quoting ucarr
Quoting ssu
Indeed, it's not. In the face-off between, say, an infinite series and a discrete interval like, say, all of the odd numbers between one and ten, we've got a high-contrast pairing of infinite and finite.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting ssu
What does it mean for math to be able to ask questions it can't answer? Moreover, especially what does it mean for math to able to ask questions it can't answer regarding infinite values such as Turing's halting question about a computer program knowing when another program will either halt or run on an infinite loop?
I don't grok you.
I'm skeptical about your claim not to understand that the Christian God examples a scale of consciousness greater than your human scale of consciousness. I'm also skeptical about your claim not to understand that your thinking about God's thinking mirrors your thinking about your thinking.
My interpretation of your anti-theism says your reading of theistic narratives has lead you to conclude human type consciousness at cosmic scale has not been logically established. Nowhere in your counter-narratives have I seen compelling logic precluding the mirroring of humanoid consciousness to a grand scale.
Where's the atheistic narrative detailing the transition from randomness to order?
Where's the atheistic narrative detailing the possibility of human consciousness knowing empirically first hand true randomness. Perception and analysis assume a very highly ordered ecology wherein the question of the possibility of instantiating true randomness is unanswered.
Atheism, to preclude cosmic consciousness, must embrace cosmic randomness. Can it uncouple itself from order? How could it do so and maintain its purpose to learn the truth?
Not at all. Unconscious-deterministic speculations e.g. Spinoza's substance, Epicurus' atomic void, Laozi's dao, etc
Yeah, that's not at all how Mill seperated the higher and lower pleasures. It had nothing (as in zero) to do with epistemic methods. Moral concern was specifically among the higher. The virtue of religious practice would be measured by utility.
Quoting 180 Proof
Since you argue for human determinism, do you also argue for cosmic determinism? If so, why isn't cosmic determinism, i.e., a deterministic God, just a valid scaled up human determinism? Yes, this would allow for a God who prefers atheism by programming, thus suggesting a yin-yang relationship between the two isms.
How do you explain deterministic atheism being valid whereas deterministic theism is invalid? In all cases, no sentient choice is involved.
How do you explain the determinism of your conscious preference for atheism as against the determinism of your theism? If all of this is determined, you're merely an atheist by impersonal programming, and theists likewise. Sans debates by selective sentients, the dialectic is just programming. Differences are trivial.
I expect you to have a wealth of nuanced arguments with hair-splitting distinctions in the denotations of words. Doesn't this spin you back towards a paradoxical claim to possess the power to choose?
If we're allowed programmatically to pivot between the two isms, then we swim in an ocean of uncertainty, determinism notwithstanding. If this is the case, then philosophy, as I've thought, examples another flavor of entertainment.
Perhaps I misunderstand you, I'm interested in your idea of atheism; does it need tweaking? Apologies if I have you wrong. Some of what you write indicates you are only talking about rationalist forms of atheism.
I am an atheist. All atheism means is to have no belief in gods. Theism simply hasn't captured my imagination. Theres no need for alternative cosmologies, Im not seeking to replace one source of meaning with another. I'm not interested in trying to adapt Thomistic rationalism to 'demonstrate' a state of godlessness. More of that later.
There are atheists who believe in the supernatural; ghosts, clairvoyance, etc. Some may be idealists. Some others (the ones best known because theyre the loudest) might be the Dawkins-style scientistic thinkers. But the only thing they have in common is the lack of belief in gods.
Ive often said that theism is a bit like a sexual preference, for some it's possibly innate and separate from reasoning. We cant help what were attracted to. And of course, culture and upbringing add a strong incentive to the beliefs we chose. We then use reasoning as a post hoc justification to try to demonstrate the superiority of our lifestyle choice.
I don't think humans have access to reality as it is in itself, the best we do is generate provisional narratives that, to a greater or lesser extent, help us to make interventions in the world. These stories tend to be subject to revision and never arrive at absolute truth. I also hold that my experience of the world does not have need for most metanarratives; I am a fan of uncertainty. I am also a fan of minimalism and think that people overcook things and want certainty and dominion where knowledge is absent and where they have no expertise.
Quoting ucarr
Isnt this a commonly offered conclusion about atheism (often expressed by the better American fundamentalists)?
No I don't. I'm a compatibilist.
I'm not at all familiar with these terms.
Quoting 180 Proof
You believe your behavior, being personal, operates freely is spite of deterministic events that control your life?
Do you see that your free will maintains its independence in spite of common ground wherein impersonal causation and personal choice intersect?
To illustrate the object of the question, let's imagine the common ground as being like the field where the x and y axes intersect. The x-axis represents the domain, which is the set of all possible input values (independent variable) for a function. The y-axis represents the range, which is the set of all possible output values (dependent variable) that the function can produce.
The input of an independent causal event (It's raining.) determines your response output of a chosen behavior (I walk outdoors under my umbrella.). The function is your reasoning mind which decides the umbrella response is best. There's a causal relationship between the rain and your choice of an umbrella, but you could've chosen to walk in the rain without an umbrella, so your choice of an umbrella was free. Your walk in the rain under your umbrella is the intersection (common ground) where input and output intersect.
Perhaps I did not explained myself properly. You are quite correct in your (above quoted) statement. I just do not know what is inside the Venn diagram that you are speaking of.
In the context of exposing your atheism (as I promised earlier in another thread),
So, you're not asserting God or something definite, but something indefinite, as a metaphysical justification?
Once more: I'm a compatibilist my conscious volition (i.e. decision-making, choosing) is a function of, or constrained by, prior unconscious involuntary processes (i.e. one brain-body out of many other brain-bodies ecologically-situated in the cosmos structured by invariant regularities and constants). In other words, "free will" (free action) is not un-conditional much as chaotic systems as such (e.g. weather, radioactive decay, disease vectors) are not in-deterministic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
Quoting Tom Storm
:up: :up:
Yet when theism is preached, it is always preached as a proposition with a truth value.
As a Jew, you don't relate to that, because Jews normally don't preach. But Christians and Muslims do preach. They make claims that they expect (demand!) that the people they are preaching to will accept as true.
Not at all. There are better arguments. For example, as summarized in the question,
"How is it, that God, in his infinite goodness and wisdom, granted some people the privilege to believe in God by making them be born and raised into a theistic religion, but withdrew this privilege from others?"
The best argument I can think of against theism is that God clearly cares about some people, but doesn't care about others. And I'm not talking about allowing babies to die from hunger and such. I'm talking about the extreme privilege of being born and raised into a religion; the privilege of having internalized fundamental religious beliefs before one is old enough to understand what they are about. The privilege of never having to choose one's religion.
He and his followers are responsible for the quasi-rationalistic approach to questions of faith and God. This man who made a point of inventing arguments through which atheists and Protestants were supposed to be convinced that the RCC is the only true church and religion. And somehow, the history of philosophy ate it all up, this Trojan horse.
You can't acknowledge an exception and say "always." The best you can say is "mostly , " but then you'll have to start counting. Maybe we can say "sometimes." But a rabbi certainly believes he speaks absolute truth, so I don't see your distinction. I'll agree Jews and Christians prostelisze differently, but so do Baptists and modern Catholics. Jews do reach out to unaffiliated Jews, but only some (compare Chabad to Litvak).
Regardless, it misses my point. I described how religion is to be objectively judged for its value. That is, even if it fails a correspondence theory of truth, if it advances a positive lifestyle, then it can have positive value.
You might say it fails in that regard as well, which also would miss my point, and it would be agreeing with me. It'd be agreeing that the way religion is judged is by use, not upon its metaphysical correspondence.
Maimonides attempted to offer a philosophicaly rational basis for specific religious revealed beliefs centuries earlier. Descartes' required a rational God who guaranteed rationality without reference to revelation. Making an argument that Descartes' writings were particularized to specific Catholic dogma presents him a priest of some sort. His comments were generalized, not the sort of thing you could claim of Maimonides, which were directed at presenting a rational basis for revelation.
Describing Descartes as a shill for the Catholic Church isn't historically correct either. He was at best guarded so as to not offend the Church, particularly being a contemporary of Galileo. Descartes' books were later banned and burned by the Church.
There is a modern annoyance among analytics with Descartes related to his metaphysical framings, but that's not a church/reason dispute.
What I said is also in response to another thing you said:
Quoting Hanover
As if atheists invented the "rationalistic" approach to religion. No, it's from how theists preach!
The distinction refers to how Christianity and Islam are religions that aim to make adult converts, while Judaism does not.
When a Christian preaches to a non-Christian, it is with the aim to convert the other person; and the Christian makes claims that the other person is expected to accept as true.
(Also, with the implicit, "Believe as I say, do as I say, not as I do.)
"Objectively judged"? What is that?
A "positive lifestyle"? What is that? It really depends on whom you ask. The various religions do not agree on what exactly a "positive lifestyle" is. Nor on what makes for "objective judgment".
What is "use"?
One thing I've consistently observed in religions, theistic and atheistic ones, and especially in the ones that aim to make adult converts, is that they operate by the motto, "Talk the talk and walk the walk", whereby the talk and the walk are usually two very different things. What is more, practicing such doubleness appears to be extremely evolutionarily advantageous. Notice that I'm not calling it duplicity; because it doesn't seem to be mere duplicity, but a conscious, deliberate saying one thing and doing another, while there is apparently some higher aim to doing so, a type of metaphysical street smarts.
That's awfully generous, and it's the general consensus among Western philosophers, yes.
But read his prefaces and introductions to his works. He wasn't a "shill", he was a Catholic, defending the Catholic faith. Stop looking at him as a philosopher first and as a Catholic as a distant second. It's very common to read Descartes as if he was a "seeker, just like we are". Instead, look at him as a Catholic first. In a patronizing manner, he sought to devise arguments that were supposed to convince non-Catholics.
Yes, he presents his case in a general manner -- taking for granted, just like Pascal, that there is only one true, right religion.
And just because his books were banned doesn't mean anything. The RCC also opposed general literacy and reading the Bible for a long time because it thought that the ordinary people could not properly understand it without proper guidance.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting 180 Proof
I understand you to be telling me that: a) our ecology, with its involuntary processes structured by invariant regularities and constants leads to: b) the compatibilist believing his choices are constrained to outcomes not strictly predictable or inevitable.
Quoting Tom Storm
I understand you to be implying that Tom Storm's quote, with respect to: a) self-referential higher orders entertains a belief that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions; b) constraints with outcomes not strictly predictable or inevitable are to be preferred to hard determinism; c) higher orders of things should be shunned in favor of minimalism whenever logically possible; d) given an apparent lack of sufficient knowledge and expertise, overthinking should be constrained.
Inside of a Venn Diagram, by definition, lie the common properties linking two otherwise distinct things. An example would be two math inequalities that share a zone wherein their points intersect.
Quoting baker
I take this to be your way of saying that God has unjustifiable biases in favor of certain preferred populations. I offer no defense of this apologist rationalizing.
My recourse to irrationality for the defense of theism arises from some of my thinking about ZFC and its comprehension restriction.
His books were not generally banned due to concerns about limited literacy. They were officially and specifically banned for all readers because they were considered heretical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum
Also, the Catholic Church never banned the Bible for anyone. They banned certain translations they thought inaccurate.
Descartes wasn't banned because Catholics just didn't like books generally. They chose him and others to ban, but still let people read other works.
It's the basis for all social decisions we make. Why do we pass some laws and not others? Why do we build some buildings and not others?
Your asking how we decide (as in what is our specific calculus) to live a preferred life misses the point. My point is that we decide whether to be religious for the same reasons we decide to do anything that achieves our goals. Choosing to live in a way that accepts a reduced significance for human value is a choice, even if it's justified upon valid scientific grounds. Doing what is most consistent with scientific grounds is a choice and is not a requirement. That goes to my original statement. The value of religion is not rooted in the scientifically arrived at truth values of its claims.
Quoting baker
I don't follow the relevance. There are some horrible religions, horrible governments, and horrible people. Let's even assume every religion bar none is horrible, leading to misery and sadness. That still has zero impact on my position, which is that the value of religion is based upon its outward manifestations. As in, does it lead to a happier more productive person and society. If it does not, it should be rejected. If you can show that the religious life is empty and sad, then let's rid ourselves of it. If you can't, then don't.
What this means is simply that if Joe Blow finds great meaning and value in his religion and he has a community and friends he has built around it, all to their mutual satisfaction and happiness, it would not be a valid basis to dismantle it due to the fact it's claims are false. That is, whether there is a god up high as Joe Blow preaches is wholly irrelevant to whether the religion is of value.
My comments are responsive to the general atheistic claim that projects the idea upon the religious that the primary purpose of sacred text and religious life is at all the same as science, which is as a tool to study the mundane. Religion does delve obviously into origin stories, but those must be judged (again) on how well they provide for a meaningful life by their sanctification of humanity, not by their propositional truth value.
I think the placehodler 'God' does many different conceptual jobs for people depending on their orientation and values. Its such a slippery notion its virtually unintelligible. Which is why I tend to prefer the apophatic approach. Negative theology. Say nothing. :wink:
My current position is that people dont have access to a capital T Truth or to reality in itself (a God surrogate). I think some of our beliefs work subject to certain conditions and some don't. I suppose I'm a simple minded pragmatist, the justification for a belief lies in its practical consequences, in how well it helps us navigate experience, solve problems, and maintain community coherence. Neither atheism nor god is necessary for this.
But beyond this, almost no one here has any real expertise in theoretical physics or philosophy to answer the big questions. Hubris seems to be the lubricant of choice.
There are any number of middle-aged, male monomaniacs in philosophy circles with no real expertise, but an unshakable belief that theyre uncovering reality and answering questions no one else can. Misunderstood geniuses. This must be a common type of human being, which is how George Eliot so magnificently satirised that style of person in her character Mr Casaubon in Middlemarch.
Please enlighten me; what is the common properties linking the Purpose of the Universal System with the rest of this system. The properties that is then inside this Venn diagram that you propose?
You are familiar with these arguments presumably? This is a strawman.
I studied comparative religion for a time, but my point is salient: the world is full of claims about which we have inadequate or no knowledge. All we can do is believe or not to believe: whether it's the existence of Bigfoot or Muhammad splitting the moon in two. :wink:
Quoting Punshhh
That's interesting. Why deism?
Because there are no actual fsbs out there I would need to see evidence of their existence before I take them seriously.
If there is a God, you need to provide evidence, or you could be claiming any of an infinite number of fanciful claims, like the fsb.
Where it falls down is it confines belief to the contents of human imagination. But God is implicitly defined as something outside the confines of human imagination. So it doesnt fit into the category we are being confined to. The argument fails to address the issue in question, by insisting that God must fit into the category of human imagination and that that confined imagined entity must be demonstrated to exist to be taken seriously.
Well I find the omni attributes of an infinite God unpalatable. I prefer creator Gods with a more Brahman like backdrop. You know, Theosophy.
I sympathize with your reflection on this matter. I often wonder, "By engaging in philosophy, am I finding meaning or simply engaging in intellectual masturbation?"
It seems a fine line.
In my opinion, an idea is worth expressing if it offers some heuristic benefit. If it doesn't, then there's no point in expressing it. At the same time, I often see myself and others "catching a sparrow in a field" logical iterations for the sake of iterations, without any "going beyond." Entire books are written on this topic. People even defend their doctorates.
On the other hand, without this "noise," without this "environment," truly worthwhile ideas would have no place to thrive.
Returning to the "metaphysical" (transcendental, Divine) justification, I still agree with you: it doesn't necessarily have to be called "Faith." Atheism does the same thing, it just calls it something else.
As I read you, the rest of the system is a subset of the universal system. If so, then given that the universal system has members a, b, and c, lets say the subset has member c. Member c is what the two sets have in common. Member c is the Venn diagram where the two sets intersect. A real world example is the city of Dublin within the nation of Ireland. Within Dublin youre also within in Ireland.
That's a neat summary of how David Bentley Hart might put it. I disagree with this, Im not making the argument you think I am.
I'm talking about whether I know something or not and would say this applies to non-supernatural claims as well, so we can set aside that dangerous spaghetti monster comparison.
My point is about belief versus knowledge. For a secular example: while I believe that Oswald actually shot JFK, I dont know that he did.
Quoting Tom Storm
Quoting ucarr
Regarding the above, please show me where I'm mis-reading you.
I am afraid you have read me wrong. The definition of a system that I use reads as follows:
System := Components (things that are) and the interaction between these components (things that happen), contributing to a single unique purpose. How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence
There are no sets or subsets in this - it is impossible to define a system in terms of sets or subsets - it is a fundamental thing by and in itself.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
When I read this, I got the impression that by "Universal System" you meant the super-system and that by "the rest of the system" you meant one or more sub-systems.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Although, I haven't read How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence, I will answer as follows. A familiar example of a system that possesses sub-systems is an automobile. The automobile is the super-system, and its function is to provide transportation. One of its sub-systems is its electrical system. The battery supplies current to the ignition-lock assembly that powers the electric motor that makes the ignition of the combustion engine possible. The super-system can't operate without the operation of an essential sub-system such as the electrical system.
If you're describing a system which has no sub-systems, then we have no argument as there are systems which have no sub-systems.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
I disagree with this generalization as per my statements above.
Quoting Hanover
In the above, are you articulating a type of pragmatism?
Quoting Hanover
If you are linking religious value with practical results, is it not necessary for you to embrace truth value propositions pertinent to achieving goals systematically by rational means?
I am.
Quoting ucarr
You'll have objectively measurable results to determine if you've met your subjective goals, which would not necessarily mean accepting truths (particularly those with weaker levels of proof) damaging to your personal well being.
For example, if evolutionary theory leaves me in a state of despair by relegating me to the level of ordinary animal and its rejection offers me greater meaning in my life, I am rational to reject it.
It would not be rational if my values require acceptance of scientific truth no matter what, but we have to accept our values are choices. If I were an evolutionary biologist, my rejection of evolution's truth becomes more complex, but if I'm satisfied maintaining dissonance, and compartmentalizing my beliefs leads to my happiness, then that is a rational decision by me.
Subordinating truth to value is a valid worldview and is no less rational than a scientific one that does the opposite.
Quoting Hanover
You seem to be saying that the value of religion is distinct from evidence, facts, logic, experimental verification and behavioral norms.
Quoting Hanover
Let's suppose you practice some type of faith-based science that elevates spiritual healing over vaccines. Taking vaccines in your view lowers you to an unprivileged status within the animal kingdom. Shunning vaccines protects you against catastrophic loss of self-esteem, however, rejecting the pneumococcal vaccine during an outbreak in your habitat threatens you with death. This situation is a dilemma because either choice is bad. Why do you think prioritizing belief over science in this situation is rational?
Vaccine avoidance isn't typically based upon religious objection, but upon a misunderstanding of science. That is, they think they are being scientific, but they're not.
But there are real examples of true foolishness, like those who would die instead of getting a transfusion. That is a matter of choice in the sense they're living up to their ideals, but I can't accept any moral system that allows for unnecessary death.
My view is that there are many instances where belief in God offers greater meaning than without and there will be no negative consequences as might exist at extremes.
But there is a flip side to this. Religion can be therapeutic, meaning it could save lives (particularly addicts), which would suggest truth can be an impediment to happiness.
You've taken my simple point and jazzed it up and perhaps provided motivations I don't hold.
Quoting ucarr
Id put it this way: Im not concerned with discovering some final or objective truth about reality. The idea that such a truth lies hidden, waiting to be uncovered, depends on a representational view of knowledge I find unconvincing. My position isnt based on logic or simplicity, but on the sense that our ways of thinking and speaking are practical tools for getting by, not exact reflections of the world. Speculative metaphysics adds nothing to that. I simply go on treating the world and my experiences as real, because thats the only way any of us can make sense of it and act within it.
I do not understand what you mean by "sub-system" because I do not understand what you mean by "system". Please share your definition of a system[/I], then we might have a conversation about [i]systems and perhaps reach an agreement on what we are talking about.
You say the universal system has a unique purpose. My definition is similar: a group of parts that work together to achieve a purpose, like the parts of a car working together to provide transportation.
:fire: :up:
Sure, there are such instances. The problem with belief in God is, though, that one cannot actually choose to believe in God.
God is, by definition, a being that contextualizes one. As such, one cannot unilaterally declare anything in relation to God, without this necessarily being also a denial of God (unilaterally -- ie. without waiting for God for his take on the matter). And since God doesn't seem to be all that interested to communicate with us directly, personally, we're left to this solipsistic, unilateral, one-way "relationship" that is no different from talking to walls.
Interesting reading skills ...
Because some rich and powerful people decided that way. Mostly because they wanted to be even more rich and powerful.
This is absurd! One cannot "decide" to be religious! This is the height of solipsistic, egotistical madness!
And not because of some issue of collectivism or whatever cheap Randian excuse you want to throw at me.
One cannot "choose" a religion. It would be like "choosing" one's grandparents and parents. It would be like "choosing" the country one was born in. It would be like "choosing" one's native language. It would be like "choosing" which company to work for. Or like "choosing" the weather.
One cannot choose such things because they 1. precede one, 2. contextualize one, 3. require the concurrent action of all parties involved, 4. are beyond one's control.
My experience with religion has been that it is the most dehumanizing, demoralizing experience I've ever had.
I'm not coming from a position of valuing science over religion. To me, it makes no difference whether I go to church or whether I go to a science lecture. In both cases, I am supposed to be quiet, bow my head, give them money, and don't ask any real questions.
I'm saying that I have observed in many religions that there is an unwritten, unspoken rule that the official religious tenets should not be taken all that seriously. I've seen too many times religious people ridiculing (and worse) other religious people from their same religion for taking religious tenets "too seriously". Like when the same religious people who preach abstinence from alcohol also ridicule those who actually abstain from alcohol and consider them "zealots".
And if anything, the whole point of religion seems to be precisely that: a smokescreen, dust thrown in the eyes of the opponent.
I'm not disagreeing. It's just that religion is "good" in ways that make Machiavelli look like an amateur.
While we're at it, for illustrative purposes, shall we discuss the Asian idea of "social harmony"? Or the Stepfordian ideal?
Don't forget that you, as a religious person, are helping to create the image of religion that other people have of religion. Being glib and absurdist like you're above really isn't helping your case. With what you're saying above, you're basically making a case for atheism!
In that case, religion is no different from what some wannabe positive psychologist says on his blog.
Do you really want to argue this line of reasoning?
If you want to kill people in the name of God, then that God better be real.
So, this Venn diagram that you are speaking of, does it contain such a group of parts? Then, is the purpose also in this Venn diagram or not?
Let's review our conversation: you understand the universal system has a unique purpose. That's your statement about system, and my understanding of system, by this definition, is similar.
The Venn diagram is a separate thing. Let me suggest that you enter Venn diagram into your Google AI search engine. It'll give you a good definition.
Questions define our answers and thus when math gives answers that "it cannot answer", I think it really it is our questions in the first place that are wrong.
First of all, counting and using the natural numbers has been the useful, practical basis for math, but obviously isn't the logical basis on which we can build the whole of mathematics. Infinity and infinitesimals or analysis in general show this. This is the great problem math has even now. And when we think about, naturally something like mathematics would obviously define also the uncomputable. And it's just our fallacy that everything would be computable.
Perfect example of similar misunderstanding of the "premises" or axioms of mathematics was the idea that every number is either an integer or can be expressed as a fraction or a ratio of two integers... because math supposedly is perfect. Well, people in Antiquity learnt the hard way of there being irrational numbers and by the story told about it, were not happy about it. Irrational numbers don't make mathematics illogical. And so doesn't uncomputability.
The undecidability results of Turing and Gödel etc. have had a similar response in our time. And I would add also the Russell's paradox on the fate of naive set theory here too. We simply don't understand just how large issues are still unknown in mathematics. But that's just human nature.
Quoting Tom Storm
Quoting ucarr
Quoting Tom Storm
I'm not sure the points you make are simple. You say I've jazzed up what you've communicated. By that do you mean I've exaggerated the range and scope of your points? What motives have I falsely ascribed to you?
My takeaway from your statement goes as follows: a) your experience of the world, being down to earth, shuns pettifogging trivial details; b) being a fan of uncertainty, you like to roll the dice; you're a gambler; c) you like to keep things simple as much as possible (does c conflict with b?); d) you think over-analysis of things is a folly in abundance here; e) you give a wide berth to pretentious fools who would be wise men.
Quoting ssu
I'll go along with saying, "Questions constrain our answers." Let's suppose each question specifies a field providing a limited context which the answer inhabits. Might we then proceed to speculate about a question being a function that takes given A as input and then outputs it as B, a permutation or transformation of A that yields new information?
Under this scheme, a wrong question is a function that proposes to transport given A into a field impertinent to A. Against my better judgment, I want to defend wrong questions as spurs to serendipity. The wrong question benefits not given A, however, it transforms given A' into a pot of gold. If there's any truth to this conjecture, then perhaps serendipity is not really random.
Id say thats an exaggeration of my position, and the wording youve used is full of judgments I wouldnt normally make. I wasnt referring to pettifogging trivial details. Also, expressions like roll of the dice or youre a gambler dont fit Im not a risk-taker by inclination. I do sometimes wing things, yes, but thats different. Id also be unlikely to use terms like folly or pretentious fools. Are these word choices AI?
If I had to sum up the paragraph of mine you sited I would describe it like this: Im skeptical of grand narratives and the tendency to claim certainty or authority in areas where we lack real expertise. When I say I am a fan of uncertainty, I refer to being content to say, "I don't know".
:up: :up:
Quoting Tom Storm
No AI text posted by me.
Quoting Tom Storm
Expertise and its authority are hard won over years of dedicated work entailing sacrifices. Yes, the experts deserve my respectful silence and deference to their judgments and opinions.
I agree for the most part. But who counts as an expert on the transcendent?
I have been taught the principles of naive set theory, using Venn diagrams, when I was 10 years old - more than 50 years ago - no need of Prof. Google.
Our understanding of a system is definitely similar. Let me check my understanding of the Venn diagram that, according to you, exists between the Universal System and its unique purpose. To my understanding this Venn diagram contains the mass, energy and information that is exchanged between the Universal System and the Purpose of the Universal System.
Is my understanding correct?
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Given system as you define it above, consider that it's the totality of parts acting in harmony towards a purpose. Now, suppose that only some of the parts act in harmony towards a secondary purpose that supports the main purpose. Under this construction, the totality of parts forms the superset, and the less-than-total number of parts forms a subset of the superset.
As you know, the superset and the subset share parts, but the superset has additional parts not contained in the subset. The Venn diagram, as you also know, presents a visual representation of the interaction of the two sets. This interaction has the subset circle lying entirely within the larger superset circle. At a glance, this visual tells us that the two sets share common parts.
As you know, the subset shares some of the parts and therefore some of the purpose of the superset. As you know, common language says that the purpose of the subset is a sub-routine that performs a specific task essential to the main purpose of the system as a whole (superset).
My purpose in our dialogue is to examine whether or not your statement above in bold italics expresses a contradiction. The appearance of a contradiction arises from you saying the unique component interacts with the the universal system and also saying the unique component is the only component that is not a component of the Universal System.
If one set interacts with another set, as in the superset_subset relationship, then it's a contradiction to also say that same set is not a component of the other set. The premise supporting my suspicion of a contradiction is the Venn diagram. The Venn diagram illustrates the common set that is the intersection of the subset and its superset. In keeping with this configuration, your description: there exists a unique purpose for the Universal System. This purpose consists of an interaction with a specific component that is the only component that is not a component of the Universal System. describes a unique component that is part of a common set while at the same time not a part of a common set.
Hence if you have a question like "How can you square the circle?" you already have the idea that there's the algorithm to do this just to be found. And then you can just hope for a pertinent solution to appear from some great math genius in the future, because you aren't at all willing to give away your false premiss. And likely you aren't open in your mind to conclusions saying that it cannot be done.
I think that a similar false premiss is to think that the foundations for math start with the natural numbers. The foundations of counting and computation might start with the natural numbers, but not mathematics itself.
Quoting ssu
What you say is true within the constraining context of statistics. Statistical random sampling methods and their margins of error accommodate chance deviations from facts guiding design of methodologies toward goals. I will guess that many scientists are prone to tamping down their margin of error calculations for the sake of making experimental results look more acceptable.
Random sampling margins of error in application to premises can sometimes be the engine driving science forward:
Quoting ssu
This is an apt portrait of the theoretician. Can we suppose someone said to Newton, "Can you square the circle?" Newton (and Leibniz) respond with their calculus calculating the integral sum of the area under a curve with an infinite series of infinitesimal rectangles.
As you say, questions with currently false premises can be stored in the collective memory as functions with future applications.
Quoting ucarr
Quoting ssu
Yes, we know how to use infinitesimals/limits and do use them, but don't have the clear and straightforward answer to Bishop Berkeley's criticism. That ZF-logic has an axiom "there exists an infinite set" (or something similar) doesn't in my view cut it.
Quoting ssu
Your example, like calculus, doesn't finalize the comprehension of the infinite series. The approximation forever stands "as if." To the extent your imagining a perfect circle is tied to the calculation of a circle using delta-epsilon approaches to limits with finite numbers - how else can you conceptualize a perfect circle beyond imagining the incalculable transcendence of an infinite-sided polygon - you're only imagining the "as if" rendition of a perfect circle. This leads to the strange conclusion no one have ever seen a circle. What we see is a polygon which, in abstraction, we count as a circle. In short, no one has seen nor calculated infinity. (Even the theists acknowledge Moses didn't actually see God.)
By our agreed upon understanding of a system, if there is a "secondary purpose" it indicates a different system, not so?
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
Not so because, given the example of an automobile as a system, we see that the main purpose is transportation. Transportation is the top priority, however, achievement of this goal requires a variety of sub-systems with sub-ordinate purposes that function in support roles. In order for the automobile to get to its destination, it needs a cooling system that keeps it from overheating as it drives through the desert. Keeping the engine within a temperature range that prevents overheating is not the main goal; if the automobile sat idling in the garage, the cooling system, working properly, would keep the engine within a safe temperature range. Doing this is necessary to the auto's main goal, but this action alone doesn't get us to our destination, it supports that goal.
Many systems have sub-systems with supporting functions. Main system and supporting system have a Venn diagram of shared functionality; the driving auto, which encompasses all of the parts, has a cool engine; it's the intersection of the whole system and its cooling system. The cooling system, being a sub-system, doesn't encompass the electrical system for example.
So a sub-system is not a system?
Quoting ucarr
Since Venn diagrams is simply a graphical representation of sets and their logic, you could consider [i]sets of shared functionality[/I].
My counter claim - From my understanding of things I have found an understanding of this thing you named "God". Then, by your premise I will not be able to preserve my understanding of "God" - this I reject by my claim.
Quoting Pieter R van Wyk
This is a natural way to proceed with your life, not strictly by faith, but instead with understanding included. I belong to this set.
There are but few believers who don't vacillate between reason and faith; perhaps I should better say there has been but one on earth.