So the point of this is to find a large number of people who are opposed to this to see how well it holds up. Go ahead and try to find a fault if you could, because I'd rather be back to square 1 than be lying to people. Ok, to the thing:
Numbers' only value is relative value. That is to say, 2 is the same thing as 1+1, and means nothing without 1 to go before it and 3 to go after and so on. Thus, numbers have no intrinsic value of their own. Even stacked to infinity, relative value does not give any intrinsic value. With no anchor point the whole structure is supported by things that do not exist, and thus the structure itself can be said not to exist. Our physical universe functions on mathematics, and obviously exists.
Thus it can be said there must be something which gives these numbers their real value, and this thing cannot itself be a number or governed by them (this means it cannot be a physical thing). Further, this force, in order not to have the same problem as the numbers it's propping up this force must be complete unto itself and require nothing else to give it value. Such a force would not be required by anything outside itself to create (give value to) the physical world. Thus, this force made a choice. To choose requires a mind. Thus it can be said the universe was created by a thinking being which is complete unto itself and independent of any governance.
This is not quite proof of the Abrahamic God, but it's getting very close, assuming all the logic can stand.
1: define intrinsic value
2: "With no anchor point the whole structure is supported by things that do not exist, and thus the structure itself can be said not to exist." This does not follow
3: "Our physical universe functions on mathematics, and obviously exists." disagree on this. We defined mathematics to explain our universe. That doesn't mean that it functions on it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Numbers are defined by 1(existance of a singular object), 0(lack of existance), and an operation of addition. As such, they have intrinsic value if applied to the existance of a given object.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wizards can start putting booster packs inside dog poo and dog owners will still complain.
Math is meant to explain things found within the universe. You have it the wrong way around.
Agreed. Mathematics is a field of study of the nature of the universe. To say the nature of the universe follows mathematics is backward, as it is mathematics that is one of many fields of our endeavor to understand the nature of the universe, in this case mathematics being the study of quantity, among other things.
Although this does call into question exactly what logic is and how it exists. That is to say, if things in the universe are "logical," and that which is "logical" follows certain rules by its very nature, then what exactly are the rules of logic, and in what manner do they exist?
The answer is, there is no logical evidence that disproves or proves God. It is a concept beyond that which can be explained logically or empirically that has no definite answer and can only be deemed to be more likely or less likely to be true based on the evidence that we have of our universe.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently Playing:
Modern: RUGScapeshift[RUG...Occasionally with goyfs RUGTarmotwinRUG(RIP)
Legacy: UWxuwr miracles and stonebladeUWx
Commander: UWRShu Yun/Ruhan SmashUWR
The answer is, there is no logical evidence that disproves or proves God. It is a concept beyond that which can be explained logically or empirically that has no definite answer and can only be deemed to be more likely or less likely to be true based on the evidence that we have of our universe.
No, see, it's one thing to say that God cannot be empirically proven.
But you cannot say that God cannot be explained logically. If God cannot be explained logically, then we cannot possibly conceive of God or make any statement about him with any meaning at all.
Except that cannot be because you just made statements about him. "God can be deemed more or less likely to be true based on the evidence we have" is conceiving of God logically and making a logical statement about him. "God is God" is conceiving of God logically and making a logical statement about him. If we can make ANY statement about God, then God is logical and can be explained logically. Even the statement "God is not logical" is a logical statement, and to proclaim that would demonstrate that God is logical.
The answer is, there is no logical evidence that disproves or proves God.
You must be an agnostic then.
It is a concept beyond that which can be explained logically or empirically that has no definite answer and can only be deemed to be more likely or less likely to be true based on the evidence that we have of our universe.
Are you not using logic to explain you views on him in this post?
In the Critique of Pure Reason, he knocks out basically why all of the arguments in this thread are pretty bunk. What is being referred to as the logical proof of god is just the old cosmological and ontological arguments stuffed into a new costume. That doesn't mean don't believe in God, but don't act like your mind can grasp the existence of God either. Not to mention the earlier issue of math being integral to the universe or being applied by our minds to Nature as if it was a part of a natural order is right out of Kant's transcendental account and how the faculties of the mind do not simply apprehend the world, but produce it as something able to apprehended at all.
http://sqapo.com/kant.htm Skip down to "CRITICISM OF THE CHIEF ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD" with Ctrl+F.
All arguments, however, to prove the existence of God must, in order to be theoretically valid, start from specifically and exclusively sensible or phenomenal data, must employ only the conceptions of pure physical science, and must end with demonstrating in sensible experience an object congruous with, or corresponding to, the idea of God. But this requirement cannot be met, for, scientifically speaking, the existence of an absolutely necessary God cannot be either proved or disproved. Hence room is left for faith in any moral proofs that may present themselves to us, apart from science.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
One of these day I have to get myself organizized.
In the Critique of Pure Reason, he knocks out basically why all of the arguments in this thread are pretty bunk.
Only one argument has been put forth, that of the OP.
That doesn't mean don't believe in God, but don't act like your mind can grasp the existence of God either.
That doesn't make any sense.
All arguments, however, to prove the existence of God must, in order to be theoretically valid, start from specifically and exclusively sensible or phenomenal data, must employ only the conceptions of pure physical science, and must end with demonstrating in sensible experience an object congruous with, or corresponding to, the idea of God. But this requirement cannot be met, for, scientifically speaking, the existence of an absolutely necessary God cannot be either proved or disproved. Hence room is left for faith in any moral proofs that may present themselves to us, apart from science.
You are aware that later on is an affirmation of both Christianity and the existence of God, right?
Numbers' only value is relative value. That is to say, 2 is the same thing as 1+1, and means nothing without 1 to go before it and 3 to go after and so on.
If we accept that 2 and every higher natural number is defined relative to 1, that still leaves the question of what 1 is. You have just ignored this. If 1 is absolute, then every number defined relative to it likewise snaps into the absolute by induction. And 1 is absolute. There can be no debate over whether you have one of a given well-defined thing or not. If we have consensus on what an apple is, and I put one apple on the table, nobody can reasonably say, "I believe that there are two apples." So then if I continue to add apples to the table one by one, we find that all the natural numbers are likewise absolute.
Thus, numbers have no intrinsic value of their own.
Numbers are value. When you ask what the value of something is, you are asking for a number. The problem with your logic is that you're treating value like a single, monolithic, absolute concept. But in fact there are many, many different forms of value, so a pure number is not meaningful - when you just say "three" that's not useful information. This is not because the number is valueless; it is because you have failed to specify what you have three of. Three apples? Three dollars? Three meters? Three aspects of the Godhead? The unit answers the question "what?" and the number answers the question "how much?" Quality and quantity. You need both to say something meaningful about the world.
With no anchor point the whole structure is supported by things that do not exist, and thus the structure itself can be said not to exist. Our physical universe functions on mathematics, and obviously exists.
Frankly, this is so confused I'm having a hard time deciding where to start with it.
Okay. Existence. There's a whole field of metaphysics called ontology that is dedicated to puzzling over what's up with existence, and you're just breezing right through it with some huge assumptions. What is an "anchor point" and why does the number system need one? Does it even make sense to ask the question of whether an abstract system "exists", or is it a category error, like asking what color Tuesday is? When you say our physical universe functions on mathematics, what does that mean? Can mathematics, by its nature as an abstract system, stand in a relationship of ontological priority to the universe? Is it perhaps ontologically posterior instead? Or do they have a different relationship entirely? And why would it matter if they did?
Thus it can be said there must be something which gives these numbers their real value, and this thing cannot itself be a number or governed by them (this means it cannot be a physical thing).
The only way you've ruled out these possibilities is by assuming they can't be true. Again, you've simply ignored the question of the number 1, as well as the relationship between numbers and the physical things they quantify.
Such a force would not be required by anything outside itself to create (give value to) the physical world. Thus, this force made a choice.
This is just a complete non sequitur. Even assuming your premise that the "force" (and what do you mean by "force", anyway? surely not mass times acceleration) must not have had external impetus, how on earth does this imply mental choice?
You have also just equivocated between "create" and "give value to". Who's to say that those two acts are the same, or even in any way related?
Thus it can be said the universe was created by a thinking being which is complete unto itself and independent of any governance.
This is not quite proof of the Abrahamic God, but it's getting very close, assuming all the logic can stand.
No, it's still a long way away from the Abrahamic God. You've got to get all the way from "sapient creator being" to "being who cares about humanity and intervenes in human history, selected the Jews as his Chosen People, talked to the various prophets, talked to or incarnated himself as Jesus Christ, and maybe talked to Muhammad."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Disclaimer: I am a Deist and don't believe in divine intervention, and this is all just my own personal attempt to explain the world in accordance with some semblance of logic and science. Take from that what you will.
My theory is that there is a non-physical portion of the universe, just as well as there is the physical portion that we are familiar with. Should this exist, in theory it is where things like the soul and/or deity(s) would reside, should you believe in such things.
Think about it like this: we know what a circle is. A circle is a concept, and you can imagine a perfect circle with your mind with relative ease. But in the physical universe, there is no such thing as a perfect circle, only imperfect replications made of tiny bits of matter. And furthermore, a perfect circle would still be a perfect circle regardless of whether you understood / knew about it or not. Thus, idea of a circle does not require anything physical, yet we clearly know that it exists because we know what it is.
This leads me to believe that things can exist in purely non-physical form. If this is the case, there would also seem to be a few rules regarding such an existence, like:
* Physical things cannot affect non-physical things in any way. (IE, ideas are bulletproof.)
* Non-physical things can be eternal. (Any sentient being, regardless of timeframe, could discover for themselves the concept of a perfect circle because it doesn't decay/die. I would suspect that ALL non-physical things might be eternal, but have no evidence to support that.)
* Non-physical things are not affected by [physical] location. (Two people can have the exact same idea at the same time regardless of location.)
What's particularly interesting is that if you do believe in the existence of the soul, then it means that humans have a dual existence, which also lends credence to the idea of an eternal afterlife. Because we don't see any physical evidence of the divine, it would also lead one to believe that God exists purely outside of the physical world and does not interfere with the physical world.
Define non-physical. Obviously things exist non-physically -- ideologies for instance. I don't see how you logically go from from geometric shapes that only exist theoretically to a creator deity existing.
Disclaimer: I am a Deist and don't believe in divine intervention, and this is all just my own personal attempt to explain the world in accordance with some semblance of logic and science. Take from that what you will.
My theory is that there is a non-physical portion of the universe, just as well as there is the physical portion that we are familiar with. Should this exist, in theory it is where things like the soul and/or deity(s) would reside, should you believe in such things.
Think about it like this: we know what a circle is. A circle is a concept, and you can imagine a perfect circle with your mind with relative ease. But in the physical universe, there is no such thing as a perfect circle, only imperfect replications made of tiny bits of matter. And furthermore, a perfect circle would still be a perfect circle regardless of whether you understood / knew about it or not. Thus, idea of a circle does not require anything physical, yet we clearly know that it exists because we know what it is.
This leads me to believe that things can exist in purely non-physical form. If this is the case, there would also seem to be a few rules regarding such an existence, like:
* Physical things cannot affect non-physical things in any way. (IE, ideas are bulletproof.)
* Non-physical things can be eternal. (Any sentient being, regardless of timeframe, could discover for themselves the concept of a perfect circle because it doesn't decay/die. I would suspect that ALL non-physical things might be eternal, but have no evidence to support that.)
* Non-physical things are not affected by [physical] location. (Two people can have the exact same idea at the same time regardless of location.)
What's particularly interesting is that if you do believe in the existence of the soul, then it means that humans have a dual existence, which also lends credence to the idea of an eternal afterlife. Because we don't see any physical evidence of the divine, it would also lead one to believe that God exists purely outside of the physical world and does not interfere with the physical world.
Define non-physical. Obviously things exist non-physically -- ideologies for instance. I don't see how you logically go from from geometric shapes that only exist theoretically to a creator deity existing.
Non-physical, as in not made of matter or any other sort of particles. Ideas are non-physical. I'm not saying there definitely is proof that deities exist, just that those would likely be the conditions in which one did.
I don't see how you can say with any sort of confidence which conditions are more or less likely to harbor a god that created the universe.
Numbers' only value is relative value. That is to say, 2 is the same thing as 1+1, and means nothing without 1 to go before it and 3 to go after and so on.
If we accept that 2 and every higher natural number is defined relative to 1, that still leaves the question of what 1 is. You have just ignored this. If 1 is absolute, then every number defined relative to it likewise snaps into the absolute by induction. And 1 is absolute. There can be no debate over whether you have one of a given well-defined thing or not. If we have consensus on what an apple is, and I put one apple on the table, nobody can reasonably say, "I believe that there are two apples." So then if I continue to add apples to the table one by one, we find that all the natural numbers are likewise absolute.
In this apple based mathematics, doesn't that imply a hard upper limit on numbers though?
In this apple based mathematics, doesn't that imply a hard upper limit on numbers though?
Why would it? And apples aren't based on mathematics, mathematics are based on apples (well, not really apples per say but I think you get my point'9.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
In this apple based mathematics, doesn't that imply a hard upper limit on numbers though?
Why would it? And apples aren't based on mathematics, mathematics are based on apples (well, not really apples per say but I think you get my point'9.
Since at a certain point the apples would gain the critical mass required for the creation of a star. This means that at a certain point numbers would not go any higher since another apple cant be added to the table because the table is now a star.
Since at a certain point the apples would gain the critical mass required for the creation of a star. This means that at a certain point numbers would not go any higher since another apple cant be added to the table because the table is now a star.
Uhh, no. Where do you get the belief that they would create a star from? Stars are huge balls of helium and hydrogen fusing. An apple are mostly carbohydrates.
And again even if apples would create a star if you gathered 15 of them in a pile, would that mean that 15 was the limit on numerals? No it wouldn't. What you are putting forth is not a logical proof. What you are putting forth are claims that doesn't hold up.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Since at a certain point the apples would gain the critical mass required for the creation of a star. This means that at a certain point numbers would not go any higher since another apple cant be added to the table because the table is now a star.
Uhh, no. Where do you get the belief that they would create a star from? Stars are huge balls of helium and hydrogen fusing. An apple are mostly carbohydrates.
And again even if apples would create a star if you gathered 15 of them in a pile, would that mean that 15 was the limit on numerals? No it wouldn't. What you are putting forth is not a logical proof. What you are putting forth are claims that doesn't hold up.
Ah, but you've forgotten that stars, like our own sun, convert Hydrogen to Helium through the fusion process and that carbohydrates contain hydrogen. Your comment might change the number of apples required (which is of no consequence since its still not infinite), but not the core feasibility of the apples => sun thing. And, yes, based upon the thing I quoted if 15 apples turns into a sun and no more apples could be added to the pile than 15 would be the limit on numerals.
Put formally,
If the absolute nature of integers is based upon adding apples to a table, and
At X apples a star forms,
then,
X is the hard limit on integers
Ah, but you've forgotten that stars, like our own sun, convert Hydrogen to Helium through the fusion process and that carbohydrates contain hydrogen. Your comment might change the number of apples required (which is of no consequence since its still not infinite), but not the core feasibility of the apples => sun thing. And, yes, based upon the thing I quoted if 15 apples turns into a sun and no more apples could be added to the pile than 15 would be the limit on numerals.
Put formally,
If the absolute nature of integers is based upon adding apples to a table, and
At X apples a star forms,
then,
X is the hard limit on integers
Bam
In what way have I given the impression that I've "forgotten" what happens in a star? Did you miss the line where I said that they are balls of hydrogen and helium fusing? And yes, apples contain hydrogen, a lot of organic compunds contain hydrogen. And the feasability of the apple->sun thing? You have given no reason whatsoever as to why apples would turn into a sun if you stack them in a pile.
And as I said, even IF apples would turn into a sun if you stack enough of them, why would that mean there's a limit on numerals? What happens if you stack suns in a big enough pile then?
And regarding your "formal proof".
The first line of text immediatley breaks this statement since you put out an if-statement that has no connection to reality. So no matter what follows the founding principle is wrong.
EDIT: Euclids proof is a pretty pretty proof regarding inifnite primes.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote me for replies.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
My theory is that there is a non-physical portion of the universe, just as well as there is the physical portion that we are familiar with.
If it's non-physical, in what way is it a portion of the universe?
Should this exist, in theory it is where things like the soul and/or deity(s) would reside, should you believe in such things.
The immediate problem I see is that there a huge difference between saying a concept of a deity exists and a deity actually exists, just as it is different to say that a concept of anything exists and that the thing actually exists. It seems like you're treating the two as synonymous when they're not.
And furthermore, a perfect circle would still be a perfect circle regardless of whether you understood / knew about it or not.
Wait, hang on. You're saying the perfect circle is a concept, right? Can a concept exist without anyone to conceive of it?
In other words, if every single person on earth died, what would happen to the concept of a perfect circle? If there were no one alive to conceive of a perfect circle, does not the concept of a perfect circle go away?
This leads me to believe that things can exist in purely non-physical form. If this is the case, there would also seem to be a few rules regarding such an existence, like:
* Physical things cannot affect non-physical things in any way. (IE, ideas are bulletproof.)
I don't see how this follows when they are concepts, and thus are things human beings conceive of.
For example, let's take something more complex than the concept of a circle: the concept of "mammal." Everybody in elementary school learns what a mammal is, it's an animal that has a backbone, is warm-blooded, gives birth to live young instead of laying eggs, and nurses its young. Except then we learn about mammals that DO lay eggs and our definition of mammal changes.
Concepts change. Our conceptualization of concepts change. Take something like "justice." Or "best food ever." You will probably get as many different conceptualizations of those two ideas as there are people to conceive of them, and everyone's definition of those two terms will change as they learn more and more about the world.
* Non-physical things can be eternal. (Any sentient being, regardless of timeframe, could discover for themselves the concept of a perfect circle because it doesn't decay/die. I would suspect that ALL non-physical things might be eternal, but have no evidence to support that.)
But what does that mean? You're saying that ideas exist eternally, and that the existence of these ideas precede anyone having those ideas.
So what exactly does it mean when you say that these ideas exist, what does it mean to say they are eternal, and how can an idea precede anyone having the idea?
What's particularly interesting is that if you do believe in the existence of the soul, then it means that humans have a dual existence, which also lends credence to the idea of an eternal afterlife. Because we don't see any physical evidence of the divine, it would also lead one to believe that God exists purely outside of the physical world and does not interfere with the physical world.
And here's the other problem. You're trying to say that ideas of something exist, therefore souls. Where is the connection?
Again, it's completely different to say the idea of something exists and to say that something actually exists. The luminiferous aether does not exist. The concept of it does. However, no one would say that because of the concept of the luminiferous aether exists, the luminiferous aether exists.
To save posting as may times as there are replies:
Rodyle
1: define intrinsic value
2: "With no anchor point the whole structure is supported by things that do not exist, and thus the structure itself can be said not to exist." This does not follow
3: "Our physical universe functions on mathematics, and obviously exists." disagree on this. We defined mathematics to explain our universe. That doesn't mean that it functions on it.
EE
1: Has value in and of itself, requires nothing else in order to exist as is.
2: Numbers do not exist without each other, thus they might possibly be able to <i>continue</i> to exist* but could not begin to exist without something to start them. It comes to the same but this is possibly more clear.
3:Granted on vague phrasing. "Can be expressed by" would have been better.
*Unsure. It's interesting, but not important to the point.
Am Shegar
Numbers are defined by 1(existance of a singular object), 0(lack of existance), and an operation of addition. As such, they have intrinsic value if applied to the existance of a given object.
EE
But the object itself, if a physical thing, is governed by numbers, thus leading to the same problem as before.
Magickware999:
Math is meant to explain things found within the universe. You have it the wrong way around.
EE:
#3 on Rodyle's list. Once again I could have said it better and lesson learned.
**Alpinefroggy:
The answer is, there is no logical evidence that disproves or proves God. It is a concept beyond that which can be explained logically or empirically that has no definite answer and can only be deemed to be more likely or less likely to be true based on the evidence that we have of our universe.
EE:
Incidentally I am very nearly convinced of same. I put a lot of effort into it but still sometimes say not-quite what I mean. "Very strong evidence for the existence of God." might have been better, but at a certain point I wonder if we get off into questioning our own perceptions and logic to such a degree that any evidence of anything becomes moot anyway. I am presented when I walk outside with evidence that is a sunny day, but the possibility exists that it is actually raining and I am being fooled somehow. But I have no reason to believe that is the case.
**I think a lot of things will be covered by this and so I'll direct them to the double asterisks.
TrappedUnderIce: http://sqapo.com/kant.htm
EE:
I plan to work my way through this and get back to you, but from what I saw it was very interesting.
Unexpectedly long weekend. Further posts to follow.
In this apple based mathematics, doesn't that imply a hard upper limit on numbers though?
It's a good thing mathematics isn't based on apples, then.
But if we're going to be facetious, you'll note that I never specified the size of the table.
I was going in another direction with the facetiousness, Hugseal jumped onto it for some reason. I assumed that the organization of the apples was of no concern and tried to find a novel avenue
I'm kind of happy you posted though, since I don't know how much longer I could have kept this up without feeling bad for the guy
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You can trust me, I work for the government
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Numbers' only value is relative value. That is to say, 2 is the same thing as 1+1, and means nothing without 1 to go before it and 3 to go after and so on. Thus, numbers have no intrinsic value of their own. Even stacked to infinity, relative value does not give any intrinsic value. With no anchor point the whole structure is supported by things that do not exist, and thus the structure itself can be said not to exist. Our physical universe functions on mathematics, and obviously exists.
Thus it can be said there must be something which gives these numbers their real value, and this thing cannot itself be a number or governed by them (this means it cannot be a physical thing). Further, this force, in order not to have the same problem as the numbers it's propping up this force must be complete unto itself and require nothing else to give it value. Such a force would not be required by anything outside itself to create (give value to) the physical world. Thus, this force made a choice. To choose requires a mind. Thus it can be said the universe was created by a thinking being which is complete unto itself and independent of any governance.
This is not quite proof of the Abrahamic God, but it's getting very close, assuming all the logic can stand.
2: "With no anchor point the whole structure is supported by things that do not exist, and thus the structure itself can be said not to exist." This does not follow
3: "Our physical universe functions on mathematics, and obviously exists." disagree on this. We defined mathematics to explain our universe. That doesn't mean that it functions on it.
What?
Math is meant to explain things found within the universe. You have it the wrong way around.
Although this does call into question exactly what logic is and how it exists. That is to say, if things in the universe are "logical," and that which is "logical" follows certain rules by its very nature, then what exactly are the rules of logic, and in what manner do they exist?
Modern:
RUGScapeshift[RUG...Occasionally with goyfs
RUGTarmotwinRUG(RIP)
Legacy:
UWxuwr miracles and stonebladeUWx
Commander:
UWRShu Yun/Ruhan SmashUWR
But you cannot say that God cannot be explained logically. If God cannot be explained logically, then we cannot possibly conceive of God or make any statement about him with any meaning at all.
Except that cannot be because you just made statements about him. "God can be deemed more or less likely to be true based on the evidence we have" is conceiving of God logically and making a logical statement about him. "God is God" is conceiving of God logically and making a logical statement about him. If we can make ANY statement about God, then God is logical and can be explained logically. Even the statement "God is not logical" is a logical statement, and to proclaim that would demonstrate that God is logical.
You must be an agnostic then.
Are you not using logic to explain you views on him in this post?
http://sqapo.com/kant.htm Skip down to "CRITICISM OF THE CHIEF ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD" with Ctrl+F.
That doesn't make any sense.
You are aware that later on is an affirmation of both Christianity and the existence of God, right?
Numbers are value. When you ask what the value of something is, you are asking for a number. The problem with your logic is that you're treating value like a single, monolithic, absolute concept. But in fact there are many, many different forms of value, so a pure number is not meaningful - when you just say "three" that's not useful information. This is not because the number is valueless; it is because you have failed to specify what you have three of. Three apples? Three dollars? Three meters? Three aspects of the Godhead? The unit answers the question "what?" and the number answers the question "how much?" Quality and quantity. You need both to say something meaningful about the world.
Frankly, this is so confused I'm having a hard time deciding where to start with it.
Okay. Existence. There's a whole field of metaphysics called ontology that is dedicated to puzzling over what's up with existence, and you're just breezing right through it with some huge assumptions. What is an "anchor point" and why does the number system need one? Does it even make sense to ask the question of whether an abstract system "exists", or is it a category error, like asking what color Tuesday is? When you say our physical universe functions on mathematics, what does that mean? Can mathematics, by its nature as an abstract system, stand in a relationship of ontological priority to the universe? Is it perhaps ontologically posterior instead? Or do they have a different relationship entirely? And why would it matter if they did?
The only way you've ruled out these possibilities is by assuming they can't be true. Again, you've simply ignored the question of the number 1, as well as the relationship between numbers and the physical things they quantify.
This is just a complete non sequitur. Even assuming your premise that the "force" (and what do you mean by "force", anyway? surely not mass times acceleration) must not have had external impetus, how on earth does this imply mental choice?
You have also just equivocated between "create" and "give value to". Who's to say that those two acts are the same, or even in any way related?
No, it's still a long way away from the Abrahamic God. You've got to get all the way from "sapient creator being" to "being who cares about humanity and intervenes in human history, selected the Jews as his Chosen People, talked to the various prophets, talked to or incarnated himself as Jesus Christ, and maybe talked to Muhammad."
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Define non-physical. Obviously things exist non-physically -- ideologies for instance. I don't see how you logically go from from geometric shapes that only exist theoretically to a creator deity existing.
I don't see how you can say with any sort of confidence which conditions are more or less likely to harbor a god that created the universe.
In this apple based mathematics, doesn't that imply a hard upper limit on numbers though?
Why would it? And apples aren't based on mathematics, mathematics are based on apples (well, not really apples per say but I think you get my point'9.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Since at a certain point the apples would gain the critical mass required for the creation of a star. This means that at a certain point numbers would not go any higher since another apple cant be added to the table because the table is now a star.
Uhh, no. Where do you get the belief that they would create a star from? Stars are huge balls of helium and hydrogen fusing. An apple are mostly carbohydrates.
And again even if apples would create a star if you gathered 15 of them in a pile, would that mean that 15 was the limit on numerals? No it wouldn't. What you are putting forth is not a logical proof. What you are putting forth are claims that doesn't hold up.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
Ah, but you've forgotten that stars, like our own sun, convert Hydrogen to Helium through the fusion process and that carbohydrates contain hydrogen. Your comment might change the number of apples required (which is of no consequence since its still not infinite), but not the core feasibility of the apples => sun thing. And, yes, based upon the thing I quoted if 15 apples turns into a sun and no more apples could be added to the pile than 15 would be the limit on numerals.
Put formally,
If the absolute nature of integers is based upon adding apples to a table, and
At X apples a star forms,
then,
X is the hard limit on integers
Bam
In what way have I given the impression that I've "forgotten" what happens in a star? Did you miss the line where I said that they are balls of hydrogen and helium fusing? And yes, apples contain hydrogen, a lot of organic compunds contain hydrogen. And the feasability of the apple->sun thing? You have given no reason whatsoever as to why apples would turn into a sun if you stack them in a pile.
And as I said, even IF apples would turn into a sun if you stack enough of them, why would that mean there's a limit on numerals? What happens if you stack suns in a big enough pile then?
And regarding your "formal proof".
The first line of text immediatley breaks this statement since you put out an if-statement that has no connection to reality. So no matter what follows the founding principle is wrong.
EDIT: Euclids proof is a pretty pretty proof regarding inifnite primes.
Did I write something useful? Leave a like.
Any new cool Daretti cards printed in the latest set? Tell me about it!
Rules Advisor
But if we're going to be facetious, you'll note that I never specified the size of the table.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The immediate problem I see is that there a huge difference between saying a concept of a deity exists and a deity actually exists, just as it is different to say that a concept of anything exists and that the thing actually exists. It seems like you're treating the two as synonymous when they're not.
Wait, hang on. You're saying the perfect circle is a concept, right? Can a concept exist without anyone to conceive of it?
In other words, if every single person on earth died, what would happen to the concept of a perfect circle? If there were no one alive to conceive of a perfect circle, does not the concept of a perfect circle go away?
I don't see how this follows when they are concepts, and thus are things human beings conceive of.
For example, let's take something more complex than the concept of a circle: the concept of "mammal." Everybody in elementary school learns what a mammal is, it's an animal that has a backbone, is warm-blooded, gives birth to live young instead of laying eggs, and nurses its young. Except then we learn about mammals that DO lay eggs and our definition of mammal changes.
Concepts change. Our conceptualization of concepts change. Take something like "justice." Or "best food ever." You will probably get as many different conceptualizations of those two ideas as there are people to conceive of them, and everyone's definition of those two terms will change as they learn more and more about the world.
But what does that mean? You're saying that ideas exist eternally, and that the existence of these ideas precede anyone having those ideas.
So what exactly does it mean when you say that these ideas exist, what does it mean to say they are eternal, and how can an idea precede anyone having the idea?
And here's the other problem. You're trying to say that ideas of something exist, therefore souls. Where is the connection?
Again, it's completely different to say the idea of something exists and to say that something actually exists. The luminiferous aether does not exist. The concept of it does. However, no one would say that because of the concept of the luminiferous aether exists, the luminiferous aether exists.
Rodyle
1: define intrinsic value
2: "With no anchor point the whole structure is supported by things that do not exist, and thus the structure itself can be said not to exist." This does not follow
3: "Our physical universe functions on mathematics, and obviously exists." disagree on this. We defined mathematics to explain our universe. That doesn't mean that it functions on it.
EE
1: Has value in and of itself, requires nothing else in order to exist as is.
2: Numbers do not exist without each other, thus they might possibly be able to <i>continue</i> to exist* but could not begin to exist without something to start them. It comes to the same but this is possibly more clear.
3:Granted on vague phrasing. "Can be expressed by" would have been better.
*Unsure. It's interesting, but not important to the point.
Am Shegar
Numbers are defined by 1(existance of a singular object), 0(lack of existance), and an operation of addition. As such, they have intrinsic value if applied to the existance of a given object.
EE
But the object itself, if a physical thing, is governed by numbers, thus leading to the same problem as before.
Magickware999:
Math is meant to explain things found within the universe. You have it the wrong way around.
EE:
#3 on Rodyle's list. Once again I could have said it better and lesson learned.
**Alpinefroggy:
The answer is, there is no logical evidence that disproves or proves God. It is a concept beyond that which can be explained logically or empirically that has no definite answer and can only be deemed to be more likely or less likely to be true based on the evidence that we have of our universe.
EE:
Incidentally I am very nearly convinced of same. I put a lot of effort into it but still sometimes say not-quite what I mean. "Very strong evidence for the existence of God." might have been better, but at a certain point I wonder if we get off into questioning our own perceptions and logic to such a degree that any evidence of anything becomes moot anyway. I am presented when I walk outside with evidence that is a sunny day, but the possibility exists that it is actually raining and I am being fooled somehow. But I have no reason to believe that is the case.
**I think a lot of things will be covered by this and so I'll direct them to the double asterisks.
TrappedUnderIce:
http://sqapo.com/kant.htm
EE:
I plan to work my way through this and get back to you, but from what I saw it was very interesting.
Unexpectedly long weekend. Further posts to follow.
I was going in another direction with the facetiousness, Hugseal jumped onto it for some reason. I assumed that the organization of the apples was of no concern and tried to find a novel avenue
I'm kind of happy you posted though, since I don't know how much longer I could have kept this up without feeling bad for the guy