Quote:I wonder what he would have said if you had given the more advanced answer of 'plus or minus 3'.
It did cross my mind to do so, but I had one eye on the clock (I had a date). I wonder if he might have said I had confirmed the existence of the Devil, or ant-Christ as well as God.
"EveryTHING in existence is based on mathematical properties"
I doubt whether you understand that this can be considered as a vacuous tautology. "Thing-hood" starts with the human process of naming...the nominal level of measurement...counting one of...a potential member of a set. In short, no humans=no 'things'=no mathematics. On this view, unless you play the dubious game of 'man made in the image of god' , there is nothing that mathematics can tell us about 'existence of things' per se...it can only suggest re-assignment of 'thinghood'.
. . . there is nothing that mathematics can tell us about 'existence of things' per se. . .
fresco wrote:The suggestion that mathematical relationships cannot exist independent of human perception seems insufficient.. . . there is nothing that mathematics can tell us about 'existence of things' per se. . .
None the less, the fundamentals of mathematics cannot be ignored. Everything in existence is based on mathematical properties. This provides us with a question: Where did the numbers, the mathematical equations that make up all existing matter, come from?
The irony is that ' word smorgasborde' seasoned with a few mathematical condiments can be considered to be all that what we call 'human thought' is about! That word 'insufficient is no exception since it can merely imply a reference Godel's incompleteness theorem in which every 'system' involves at least one axiom whose 'truth' must be assumed.
NB If you were local to my philosophy group you would have been welcome to our Xmas meal in which more than a few beers were had !
As for 'ants thinking about the cosmos' that bit of anthropomorphic myopia is typical of Frank's restricted level of analysis which justifies his fence sitting.
Fence sitters like you equate 'not knowing' with 'not wanting to know'.
They don't want to know that the meaning of words like 'reality' are de facto context dependent, and that we can never extricate ourselves from such context.
That means that statements about 'guessing the nature of reality' are as vacuous as ' guessing the length of an apocryphal piece of string'.' Your nebulous view of 'reality' as some absolute apocryphal 'state of being' is equivalent to a religion with mentioning "God". But are YOU 'man enough' to admit you have boring us all to death with such rubbish for all these years because you have nothing else to say ? Are YOU man enough to recognize that your use of 'reality' constitutes just as much a 'belief system' as you have the cheek to accuse others of having ? ....or are we going to have the usual face saving denials and diversions ? My guess is the latter!
But one possibility on the cosmology table is that the universe (or multiverse.. whatever) is infinite, which means that all sorts of unlikely events will not only happen once, but multiple times. I'm assuming Dembski is assuming the universe is not infinite? What's his cosmological assessment? Anybody know?
Nah...Thinking that 'threatened by' equates to 'bored to death by' is one of your face saving ploys. If you had ever risen to the challenge to discuss what is meant by 'know' (which also turns out to be relative to context and never a pseudo religious absolute), then people might take you as seriously as you take yourself.
Merry Winter Solstice !