why I'm a atheist

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;171598 wrote:

Okay, show me how mathematics is extraordinarily efficacious in any science other than physics and in any way other than calculation of measurements.Quote at least one post written by me in which I state a belief that the world is devoid of meaning.

I removed that remark shortly afterward, and withdraw it, with apologies, written in the heat of the moment.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;171606 wrote:

I removed that remark shortly afterward, and withdraw it, with apologies, written in the heat of the moment.

Okay, thanks for that.

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;171601 wrote:

Balaguer has demonstrated that this is not true.

A new name to me. Got a reference? I'm in a bit of a quandary because I haven't studied QM (I hope to get around to learning at least the gist of it in the next few years), so I would be bluffing if I were to argue that surely QM necessarily involves such topics as partial differential equations (e.g. Schroedinger's), Hilbert spaces (or at least some special cases thereof), compact operators, spectral theory, representation theory for certain kinds of lattices (for quantum logic), and much, much more mathematics besides (none of which, to my undying shame, I have studied).

OK, I know the absolute basics about Hilbert space, but that's about it. (Mustn't put myself down too much.)

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;171570 wrote:

The universe appears to be fundamentally unintelligible .

I would like to know why you say this when it appears, to me at least, demonstrably absurd. This would be a statement of extreme skepticism, would it not? Because if it were true, then why, we would have to ask, does science have any predictive power at all? Or does science only appear to work?

0 Replies

@Twirlip,

Twirlip;171613 wrote:

A new name to me. Got a reference?

Here's his publications page: CSULA: Mark Balaguer
I haven't read the directly relevant stuff, but in his Stanford article about fictionalism: Fictionalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) he mentions this one: http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/mbalagu/Towards%20a%20Nominalization%20of%20Quantum%20Mechanics.pdf#view=FitH,top

---------- Post added 06-01-2010 at 01:58 PM ----------

jeeprs;171618 wrote:

I would like to know why you say this when it appears, to me at least, demonstrably absurd.

The behaviour of micro particles, chemotactic processes, human actions, etc, are algorithmically intractable. Basic questions such as 'does the world have a beginning?' and 'why do I experience being this particular human?' have no intelligible answer.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;171619 wrote:

The behaviour of micro particles, chemotactic processes, human actions, etc, are algorithmically intractable. Basic questions such as 'does the world have a beginning?' and 'why do I experience being this particular human?' have no intelligible answer.

But this does not justify the statement 'the universe is unintelligible'. It just means some questions cannot be answered.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;171621 wrote:

But this does not justify the statement 'the universe is unintelligible'. It just means some questions cannot be answered.

I wrote "the universe appears to be fundamentally unintelligible", this means that things at the most basic levels appear to be unintelligible, thus whatever the universe is and how it "works", appear to be matters beyond human intellectual capacity. If this is actually the case, I dont think there's anything surprising about it, to the contrary, I think it would be an odd and fortuitous situation if I happened to be a member of a species intellectually equipped to fully understand the fundamentals of the world in which they live.

2 Replies

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;171622 wrote:

I wrote "the universe appears to be fundamentally unintelligible", this means that things at the most basic levels appear to be unintelligible, thus whatever the universe is and how it "works", appear to be matters beyond human intellectual capacity.

Nevertheless we are able to understand it to the degree where we can manipulate it to produce such things as computer technology and the other miracles of modern technology. The fact is that mathematical physics have revealed properties of matter and facts about the nature of the universe that were previously unthinkable. What more do you want?

I suspect what you are sensing is that science does not provide us with any ultimate truths. Is that what you are saying?

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;171623 wrote:

What more do you want?

In support of the claim "the intelligibility of the universe is in fact a good argument for the existence of - if not God, then 'a higher order of being'", I want a demonstration that the world is fundamentally intelligible, and by this I dont mean that there is a small set of predictable phenomena.
And in support of the claim that there's an "extraordinary efficacy of mathematics", I want to see a demonstration that mathematics is extraordinarily efficacious in the majority of sciences and in ways other than calculation of measurement, because I dont see anything extraordinary about mathematics being used to accurately calculate measurements.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;171622 wrote:

I wrote "the universe appears to be fundamentally unintelligible", this means that things at the most basic levels appear to be unintelligible, thus whatever the universe is and how it "works", appear to be matters beyond human intellectual capacity. If this is actually the case, I dont think there's anything surprising about it, to the contrary, I think it would be an odd and fortuitous situation if I happened to be a member of a species intellectually equipped to fully understand the fundamentals of the world in which they live.

Is the end of intelligibility directly related to what we call the fundamental level? Do we get to something that just is?

---------- Post added 06-01-2010 at 01:45 AM ----------

What if the intelligence of the universe exists nowhere but in our linguistic/mathematical interaction with it? Isn't anything else just an abstraction anyway from this same position --of inescapable interaction? There's simply no way to see the universe except as human beings see things, and there is nowhere else for us to be, it seems, than in this universe. Perhaps this thread (and all other human thought) is what the intelligibility of the world is.

---------- Post added 06-01-2010 at 01:59 AM ----------

prothero;171563 wrote:

The notion that reason and order and mathematical law do not "exist" without human minds to perceive them seems like an equivalently "silly" notion to me.

I'm just another human, but since I've thought about this sort of thing constantly for months now, I'll venture a comment.

I completely agree that there is a structure to physical reality that is well described by certain equations. To deny this without qualification does indeed seem silly.

But we must look at this in more detail, I think. Quantum physics aside, which I don't know much about, most physics equations are proportional relationships. If I am wrong, correct me. I will graciously recant. Let's take a classic. F = ma.

We have three variables in a continuous relationship. Is perfectly precise measurement even possible? I say no, because we can imagine "infinitely" precise measurement, because of the way we understand space.

Quote:

If one considers science to be strictly about the physical world, then mathematics, or at least pure mathematics, is not a science. Albert Einstein stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."[6]

I suggest that we must look at the difference between the continuous and the discreet. I also suggest that the concept of the unit is something like a Platonic form.

I think if we look at numbers like pi and e, which are tangled in nature, we might find support for this in the transcendental nature of such numbers. I suggest that arithmetic is made from an intuition. I concur that nature has what might be called mathematical form. But we could also say that nature has a form that is useful described by some of mathematics.

Man sees the world as a collection of finite objects. But his physics suggest that as far as the visible earthly world goes these same "objects" are a continuity of atoms and waves, etc. I am excepting quantum physics, which is a strange exception perhaps.

I'm no expert, of course. But I do think of mathematics night and day....

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

[QUOTE=ughaibu;171626] And in support of the claim that there's an "extraordinary efficacy of mathematics", I want to see a demonstration that mathematics is extraordinarily efficacious in the majority of sciences and in ways other than calculation of measurement, because I dont see anything extraordinary about mathematics being used to accurately calculate measurements.[/QUOTE]
I do not think any of us would assert that rational intelligibility or mathematical expressions are the sum total of the basis of reality or of "higher levels of reality" or can explain all of human experience.

The universe has chaos as well as order, freedom as well as necessity and unpredictability as well as determined events. Spinoza held that the divine had infinite attributes of which only two were accessible to human experience. Einstein held that we were children in the library of a hidden author. Some hold the divine can only be understood in negative theology neti, neti (not this, not that).

One can only comprehend or verbally express these things partially and imperfectly. Science of course only captures human experience partially and imperfectly as well. One constructs a world view based on their intuitive nature as well as their reason and sense experience. It is perhaps not meant that we should all arrive at the same conclusions. The best that can be hoped is that we learn to better understand and respect each other's views.

I think creativity, novelty and experience are higher values in the world than order and predictability. Non the less I think what order and predictability we find in the world should cause us to consider the possibility that blind purposeless indifference is not an adequate description of fundamental reality.

1 Reply

@north,

"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And it is because in the last analysis we are part of the mystery we are trying to solve." Max Planck

0 Replies

@north,

i am atheist; BUT I am a diacritical one at that. As far seeing the world. the world is ruled by science. I mean astrologically/biologically/chemically, its a damn "miracle" we are existent talking through computers at this moment, you really have to sit back and just think "WOW! what are the odds of all this happening making our whole existence 'existent' ". Then when i think i really do question the odds, i think about the elements in OUR universe, and let my imagination think of what else could be out in (as far as we know it) endless galaxy, i think the odds were in our favor to begin with from the get go, and i believe if it happen in this galaxy, then WHY couldn't it happen in another?
As far as religion goes, i honestly think its all about control. theres too many rules. too many fail safe argument tools. me arguing with a passionate religion nut is like this

Me: Hey tom! i just found out 2+2=4! is'nt that crazy?
Tom: No Jordan, 2+2=1... Trust in me. trust in the lord.
Me: hahaha what? what are you talking about, we got facts tom, we got evidence, we got things to cleary show you that its 4. What makes you think its 1?
Tom: because i said do. to even question it might be 4 is a blasphemy, your going to hell. I HAVE FAITH AND LOVE!

now. as far as relgion goes. the only thing i can really get out of it is "we are human. we have EMOTIONS. love is a good feeling" and yeah thats pretty much the only useful thing i bought out of it, which, ive already known, i dont need a book to tell me that. I dont need something written by a human being to tell me how to love. i naturally as a person rebel again any type of control. i think its wrong. i honestly dream of cold blooded anarchy, atleast then id truly be free. I think alot of people turn to religion because they fear the unknown. they fear the dark ocean surround earth. they fear the dark that IS death. and i dont think we should fear anything. I mean in sense weve always been here since the earth has been here, we just had to grow. aliens just didnt drop us off here, we were just in a different form (bacteria?)

as far as spirituality goes. well. if there is a god who made this, then he is as imperfect or less then perfect then i am. hell if i was god, my world would be way better then this. im talking people would have super powers, hot chicks, free ice creme, unicorns, heavy metal, immortality, all that jazz. but thats just not how it worked out... so thats just my imagination.

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT
if i am ever gooing to worship

ANYTHING!

its going to be...

THE SUN! - it the founder of life. i can acrtually SEE it. everything that IM AWARE OF revolves around it. i can feel it. I LIKE it in the summer. it doesnt judge me. it doesnt have a personality. it doesnt expect anything out of me, and i only expect it to keep working so i can stay alive, and by golly thats exactly whats it does. occasionaly someone might get some skin cancer from it, by hey,that just tells me the sun is imperfect as i am.

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;171637 wrote:

Non the less I think what order and predictability we find in the world should cause us to consider the possibility that blind purposeless indifference is not an adequate description of fundamental reality.

Why? And bringing this back to maths, here you wrote

prothero;171563 wrote:

The notion that reason and order and mathematical law do not "exist" without human minds to perceive them seems like an equivalently "silly" notion to me.

This suggests that you think that there is some kind of actual mathematics, in which case you have problems. For example, if you accept the statements of the majority of contemporary physicists and mathematicians, and doing so seems to me to be required for Jeeprs' position, then you have commitment to real numbers and hierarchies of infinities. One consequence of this is that even the simplest evolving universe, that of two particles moving with constant velocity, is almost completely unpredictable. But in any case, neither physicists nor mathematicians constitute a body of people in agreement, there are theorems that can be proved true in constructive mathematics but false in classical mathematics, and vice versa, so it doesn't seem to me that there is any mathematical law, and certainly not one which exists independently of humans.

2 Replies

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;171657 wrote:

But in any case, neither physicists nor mathematicians constitute a body of people in agreement, there are theorems that can be proved true in constructive mathematics but false in classical mathematics, and vice versa, so it doesn't seem to me that there is any mathematical law, and certainly not one which exists independently of humans.

How isnt there a law? what are your sources? you put a correlation of two fundamentals that are different from another, thats why there not the same to begin with. its like comparing painting to photography. If your trying to find an error within mathmatical law, who knows, you may one. but its not the numbers themselves that make the errors, its the people. Sure math hasent been able to solve everything we would like to know yet, but i feel it has made us get closer to answering some of the questions of the unknown in the past 500 years more so then any religious scripture has.

1 Reply

@imfreakinman,

imfreakinman;171660 wrote:

How isnt there a law?

There isn't a single mathematics.

1 Reply

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;171661 wrote:

There isn't a single mathematics.

different math applys to different things. the concept itself is a singularity.

1 Reply

@imfreakinman,

imfreakinman;171662 wrote:

different math applys to different things. the concept itself is a singularity.

You are incorrect, there are various different mathematics which apply to the same things.

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;171563 wrote:

The notion that reason and order and mathematical law do not "exist" without human minds to perceive them seems like an equivalently "silly" notion to me.

post 25).

In other words, the intellect is not the passive recipient of sensory objects which exist irrespective of your perception of them. Instead, the intellect is an active agent which constructs reality - partially on the basis of sensory input, but also on the basis of an enormous number of subconscious processes, memories, intentions, and also the unconscious processes which underlie these. (I think this is related to the Aristotlean notion of 'the active intellect' and in direct contradiction to Locke's 'tabula rasa'.)

And perhaps this is why

ughaibu;171622 wrote:

things at the most basic levels appear to be unintelligible, thus whatever the universe is and how it "works", appear to be matters beyond human intellectual capacity.

0 Replies

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;171657 wrote:

here are theorems that can be proved true in constructive mathematics but false in classical mathematics, and vice versa, so it doesn't seem to me that there is any mathematical law, and certainly not one which exists independently of humans.

yeah constructive math can be applied to many
yeah classical math can be applied to alot of things

can you explain the things these dont compare or figure in to?

its law in the sense there is a dialectical induction serving as the basis for the fundamental itself. if your referring to an ultimate mathematics law then just makes me believe were not advanced YET. i mean honestly, it wasn't that long ago in our existence as human beings we found out the earth is round; these things take time. i have faith in the numbers because it gives rise to science, and from where i can see, science is perpetually building upon itself, brick by brick, faster and faster every time. the more we know, the more we can know.

i don't think there would be a mathematical law independent of humans because its a concept of consciousness trying to measure and explain things that are unexplainable. the same goes for religion. these are abstract ideas. But numbers allow us to contrast and comprehend.

1 Reply

why I'm a atheist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know