Forum
»
science is becoming a religion / cult
05-15-2018, 08:32 PM
-
#31
Originally Posted By jfcantu⏩
Can you describe to me mathematically how the topology appearance of a 5 dimensional object would be as it passed through a 4th dimensional perspective plane ?No can do.
But I can tell you mathematically how to put something in orbit and move it around once it's there.
But I can tell you mathematically how to put something in orbit and move it around once it's there.
05-15-2018, 08:34 PM
-
#32
- tank2003
- Join Date: Sep 2003
- Location: Mississippi, United States
- Posts: 41,636
- Rep Power: 371828
-
-
Originally Posted By PisseninMisc⏩
With that logicEVERYTHINGisarbitrarilymade up to assign meaning to something. I mean...how do you explain spatula....or Albuquerque? But when it comes to numbers, which are quantitative and not qualitative, the system of mathematics works perfectly by using its opposite operation. You can use subtraction in an equation to check your work and CONFIRM that it is correct.I've been saying this for a while too. First of all math (the basis of science itself) is made up. Did you know math didn't exist till Egyptians made it up? They came up with these "numbers" and went from there. So what you think is a 0 or 1 or 2 may actually be a 5 or 7 or 9. There is no way to know cause they basically made that chit up.
Plus they came up with this arbitrary "number" system like hundreds of years ago mane so it's natural that their understanding of the world was totally flawed. They thought the earth was round for example, just lol. So basically all of our current science is based on a bunch of bullchit made up "mathemethics" that some ancient dumbasses made up a really long time ago. Does any of it makes sense? Fuk no. I rest my case.
Plus they came up with this arbitrary "number" system like hundreds of years ago mane so it's natural that their understanding of the world was totally flawed. They thought the earth was round for example, just lol. So basically all of our current science is based on a bunch of bullchit made up "mathemethics" that some ancient dumbasses made up a really long time ago. Does any of it makes sense? Fuk no. I rest my case.
If you weight 200 lbs and you lose 50 then 200 - 50 = 150. To check your work you could say 150 + 50 = 200.
My point is that its ONLY arbitrary if you dont stay consistent in what you assign a value to. If you first name an apple and apple but then call it an orange later, then yeah, its arbitrary then
Originally Posted By Deezenutz⏩
Both science and religion are attempts at humans to explain what they do not understand. Religion was humanities first attempt and science is its latest. But science has yet to explain religion's fundamental belief, the belief in a single creatorI believe in science and not religious at all but it's kinda funny you're right. There could be things that we can't even comprehend, science just works because of what we know only from human knowledge, experience and restrictions. Science can only take us so far, what about when it gets to the parts that are unexplainable? Shirley something has to be beyond science.
“That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.” - The Nameless City by HP Lovecraft
"The higher the prevalence of infectious diseases the higher the probability of totalitarian political attitudes."
-Dr. Jordan Peterson Sept 2017
"The search for a moral equivalent of war continues to define American Liberalism to this day."
05-15-2018, 08:35 PM
-
#33
- numberguy12
- Registered User
-
- numberguy12
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2017
- Posts: 6,938
- Rep Power: 51915
-
-
Originally Posted By Caeculus⏩
Sure, math is abstract. I don't think anyone is claiming that the number 1 is a physical object.....sitting in a museum somewhere with people streaming past, gasping at "1" in awe. (as a side note...when I hear students complain about imaginary/complex numbers......."but they're not real!! i^2 can't be -1!".....my reply is that neither are the normal counting numbers 1,2,3 real in any sense. Everything is abstract).Science is ruled by dogma just as any religion if not more. New information and new theories and new ideas are always shut down by "peer review". There is a saying that "the progress of science through time is measured by grave stones".
Mathematics is based on not understanding what 0 is. What we call zero is not nothingness. The whole thing is flawed. Mathematics only exists as abstract thought thatonly exists inside the human mind. Mathematics does not exist anywhere outside of us in the concrete reality. Mathematics is subjective.
Mathematics is based on not understanding what 0 is. What we call zero is not nothingness. The whole thing is flawed. Mathematics only exists as abstract thought thatonly exists inside the human mind. Mathematics does not exist anywhere outside of us in the concrete reality. Mathematics is subjective.
Whether or not it is a construction of the human mind is an open matter of discussion. In a hypothetical scenario where we encountered ETs from some distant part of the galaxy, I would be pretty surprised if they had no concept of number (obviously named differently), especially if they were, say, arriving in high-tech spaceships. It seems so natural to abstract the same concept of 2 from both two trees and two rocks. I look at all the theorems of number theory, and it sure seems we are discovering existing truths about the structure of numbers. Who knows though.
I will say I can't agree about math being about not understanding 0. 0 is well defined in any of the main constructions of numbers in modern mathematics. If I had to define math (as impossible as that is), maybe id say something like math is the study of structure, symmetry, and infinity.
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑
♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮
Nullius in verba
05-15-2018, 08:43 PM
-
#34
Science is science. It's just our word for writing down measurable and repeatable results. That can't/won't be a cult.
What is a cult and what the real problem is are incomplete explanations of those results.
One situation can happen, and two people can tell completely different tales of what happened and explain it differently, both being scientific and factual. The issue these days is how things are reported on. ABDF and G might be the results of a realistic factual study, one person can report on A and B, the other person reports on DF and G.
Obviously some science is more clear cut and easy to explain, like math. Other things are much more complex and while the science is real, the reporting of everything is skewed based on which parts of the results fit a persons narrative.
What is a cult and what the real problem is are incomplete explanations of those results.
One situation can happen, and two people can tell completely different tales of what happened and explain it differently, both being scientific and factual. The issue these days is how things are reported on. ABDF and G might be the results of a realistic factual study, one person can report on A and B, the other person reports on DF and G.
Obviously some science is more clear cut and easy to explain, like math. Other things are much more complex and while the science is real, the reporting of everything is skewed based on which parts of the results fit a persons narrative.
05-15-2018, 08:43 PM
-
#35
- jfcantu
- ANTIHACKERMAN
-
- jfcantu
- ANTIHACKERMAN
- Join Date: Jun 2016
- Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States
- Posts: 2,113
- Rep Power: 10134
-
-
Originally Posted By Caeculus⏩
I don't do drugs.Can you describe to me mathematically how the topology appearance of a 5 dimensional object would be as it passed through a 4th dimensional perspective plane ?
USAF '09-'18. Master of Science. WoW player. Computer guy. Probably multitasking.
"That statement is either so deep it would take a lifetime to fully comprehend every particle of its meaning, or it is a load of absolute tosh. Which is it, I wonder?"
05-15-2018, 08:50 PM
-
#36
- jfcantu
- ANTIHACKERMAN
-
- jfcantu
- ANTIHACKERMAN
- Join Date: Jun 2016
- Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States
- Posts: 2,113
- Rep Power: 10134
-
-
Originally Posted By Hadtodoit⏩
Also, complex subjects require specialized education that most of us don't have... so the rest of us have to just rely on the people who do.Science is science. It's just our word for writing down measurable and repeatable results. That can't/won't be a cult.
What is a cult and what the real problem is are incomplete explanations of those results.
One situation can happen, and two people can tell completely different tales of what happened and explain it differently, both being scientific and factual. The issue these days is how things are reported on. ABDF and G might be the results of a realistic factual study, one person can report on A and B, the other person reports on DF and G.
Obviously some science is more clear cut and easy to explain, like math. Other things are much more complex and while the science is real, the reporting of everything is skewed based on which parts of the results fit a persons narrative.
What is a cult and what the real problem is are incomplete explanations of those results.
One situation can happen, and two people can tell completely different tales of what happened and explain it differently, both being scientific and factual. The issue these days is how things are reported on. ABDF and G might be the results of a realistic factual study, one person can report on A and B, the other person reports on DF and G.
Obviously some science is more clear cut and easy to explain, like math. Other things are much more complex and while the science is real, the reporting of everything is skewed based on which parts of the results fit a persons narrative.
I believe in anthropogenic climate change, simply because the majority of people who specialize in that field, have concluded that the evidence indicates it's likely. I'm not a climatologist, so, I opt to trust the consensus of the people who are.
It's certainly possible that the majority of climatologists are wrong, but I don't have the credentials to argue with them. Some people do, and that's fine, and those people shouldn't be ridiculed for doing it.
What I don't have much tolerance for, are the people who are completely convinced that a particular opinion is true, especially when they don't have the background necessary to form an educated opinion of their own.
USAF '09-'18. Master of Science. WoW player. Computer guy. Probably multitasking.
"That statement is either so deep it would take a lifetime to fully comprehend every particle of its meaning, or it is a load of absolute tosh. Which is it, I wonder?"
05-15-2018, 08:55 PM
-
#37
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
Numbers only exist in the human mind. Numbers exist nowhere else in the universe. The universe only appears this way because we are experiencing it in a human life from this plane of existence.Sure, math is abstract. I don't think anyone is claiming that the number 1 is a physical object.....sitting in a museum somewhere with people streaming past, gasping at "1" in awe. (as a side note...when I hear students complain about imaginary/complex numbers......."but they're not real!! i^2 can't be -1!".....my reply is that neither are the normal counting numbers 1,2,3 real in any sense. Everything is abstract).
Whether or not it is a construction of the human mind is an open matter of discussion. In a hypothetical scenario where we encountered ETs from some distant part of the galaxy, I would be pretty surprised if they had no concept of number (obviously named differently), especially if they were, say, arriving in high-tech spaceships. It seems so natural to abstract the same concept of 2 from both two trees and two rocks. I look at the all the theorems of number theory, and it sure seems we are discovering existing truths about the structure of numbers. Who knows though.
I will say I can't agree about math being about not understanding 0. 0 is well defined in any the main constructions of numbers in modern mathematics. If I had to define math (as impossible as that is), maybe id say something like math is the study of structure, symmetry, and infinity.
Whether or not it is a construction of the human mind is an open matter of discussion. In a hypothetical scenario where we encountered ETs from some distant part of the galaxy, I would be pretty surprised if they had no concept of number (obviously named differently), especially if they were, say, arriving in high-tech spaceships. It seems so natural to abstract the same concept of 2 from both two trees and two rocks. I look at the all the theorems of number theory, and it sure seems we are discovering existing truths about the structure of numbers. Who knows though.
I will say I can't agree about math being about not understanding 0. 0 is well defined in any the main constructions of numbers in modern mathematics. If I had to define math (as impossible as that is), maybe id say something like math is the study of structure, symmetry, and infinity.
Assuming that extra terrestrials have a physical form in this dimension and assuming they see reality in the same way as us and create symbols like letters or numbers or make mouth noises like words or whatever we use to put a structure of thought from my mind to yours is arrogant as well
0 is wrong. We do not experience true nothingness. If we say a person is living=1 and a person dead =0 we are not representing the person of not ever existing at all. I have 1 apple, you have 0 apples, we don't represent apples not existing at all. Saying there are 0 apples in the world means that apples still exist. You can not represent true 0 or nonexistence or whatever you call it with mathematics or comprehend what I am talking about with a human mind
05-15-2018, 08:56 PM
-
#38
- dinosaurus1987
- Banned
-
- dinosaurus1987
- Banned
- Join Date: May 2018
- Age: 39
- Posts: 460
- Rep Power: 0
-
-
I didn't do it.
05-15-2018, 09:00 PM
-
#39
Originally Posted By jfcantu⏩
Confirmed retard with the climate propaganda. No scheit the climate changes. What human event caused the Pleistocene to end abruptly with a 16 degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperatures and a 350 foot ocean/sea level rise in 50 years and a 400 foot rise within a 100 ? Typical Soulless zombie meat puppet that eats opinions and regurgitates them as his own. smhAlso, complex subjects require specialized education that most of us don't have... so the rest of us have to just rely on the people who do.
I believe in anthropogenic climate change, simply because the majority of people who specialize in that field, have concluded that the evidence indicates it's likely. I'm not a climatologist, so, I opt to trust the consensus of the people who are.
It's certainly possible that the majority of climatologists are wrong, but I don't have the credentials to argue with them. Some people do, and that's fine, and those people shouldn't be ridiculed for doing it.
What I don't have much tolerance for, are the people who are completely convinced that a particular opinion is true, especially when they don't have the background necessary to form an educated opinion of their own.
I believe in anthropogenic climate change, simply because the majority of people who specialize in that field, have concluded that the evidence indicates it's likely. I'm not a climatologist, so, I opt to trust the consensus of the people who are.
It's certainly possible that the majority of climatologists are wrong, but I don't have the credentials to argue with them. Some people do, and that's fine, and those people shouldn't be ridiculed for doing it.
What I don't have much tolerance for, are the people who are completely convinced that a particular opinion is true, especially when they don't have the background necessary to form an educated opinion of their own.
05-15-2018, 09:05 PM
-
#40
- jfcantu
- ANTIHACKERMAN
-
- jfcantu
- ANTIHACKERMAN
- Join Date: Jun 2016
- Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States
- Posts: 2,113
- Rep Power: 10134
-
-
Originally Posted By jfcantu⏩
What I don't have much tolerance for, are the people who are completely convinced that a particular opinion is true, especially when they don't have the background necessary to form an educated opinion of their own.
Originally Posted By Caeculus⏩
Quod erat demonstrandum, ladies and gentlemen.Confirmed retard with the climate propaganda. No scheit the climate changes. What human event caused the Pleistocene to end abruptly with a 16 degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperatures and a 350 foot ocean/sea level rise in 50 years and a 400 foot rise within a 100 ? Typical Soulless zombie meat puppet that eats opinions and regurgitates them as his own. smh
USAF '09-'18. Master of Science. WoW player. Computer guy. Probably multitasking.
"That statement is either so deep it would take a lifetime to fully comprehend every particle of its meaning, or it is a load of absolute tosh. Which is it, I wonder?"
05-15-2018, 09:27 PM
-
#41
- tank2003
- Join Date: Sep 2003
- Location: Mississippi, United States
- Posts: 41,636
- Rep Power: 371828
-
-
Originally Posted By Caeculus⏩
you are just making chit up brah.....lolCan you describe to me mathematically how the topology appearance of a 5 dimensional object would be as it passed through a 4th dimensional perspective plane ?
“That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.” - The Nameless City by HP Lovecraft
"The higher the prevalence of infectious diseases the higher the probability of totalitarian political attitudes."
-Dr. Jordan Peterson Sept 2017
"The search for a moral equivalent of war continues to define American Liberalism to this day."
05-15-2018, 09:35 PM
-
#42
- dashdash89
- Registered User
-
- dashdash89
- Registered User
- Join Date: Mar 2017
- Age: 37
- Posts: 598
- Rep Power: 4366
-
-
ITT more examples of why critical thinking should be taught as early as possible
05-15-2018, 09:38 PM
-
#43
- seanb1979
- Platinum User
-
- seanb1979
- Platinum User
- Join Date: Dec 2006
- Location: Boise, Idaho, United States
- Posts: 48,650
- Rep Power: 150567
-
-
science isn't 'made up' op - it's a process, a method of eliminating what is false
A million miles away - I don't.. feel.... anything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXGZu4yxjW0
05-15-2018, 09:42 PM
-
#44
- numberguy12
- Registered User
-
- numberguy12
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2017
- Posts: 6,938
- Rep Power: 51915
-
-
Originally Posted By Caeculus⏩
Never said I was assuming ETs, if they exist, would be anything remotely similar to us. All I'm saying is it's a possibility, if they do exist, especially if sufficiently advanced, that they would have somewhat of an understanding of math, just in a different garb (which would essentially disprove the thesis that math only exists in the human mind). We certainly wouldn't have English in common. We certainly wouldn't have Spanish in common. It is possible....just possible....that we might have the language of mathematics in common, and I find this fascinating. There is a reason why the record on Voyager 1 (now zooming far, far away outside our solar system) contains a healthy dose of mathematics, in an effort to describe who we are, where we come from. It's most likely the best way to communicate with an intelligent life form that's never lived on earth.Numbers only exist in the human mind. Numbers exist nowhere else in the universe. The universe only appears this way because we are experiencing it in a human life from this plane of existence.
Assuming that extra terrestrials have a physical form in this dimension and assuming they see reality in the same way as us and create symbols like letters or numbers or make mouth noises like words or whatever we use to put a structure of thought from my mind to yours is arrogant as well
0 is wrong. We do not experience true nothingness. If we say a person is living=1 and a person dead =0 we are not representing the person of not ever existing at all. I have 1 apple, you have 0 apples, we don't represent apples not existing at all. Saying there are 0 apples in the world means that apples still exist. You can not represent true 0 or nonexistence or whatever you call it with mathematics or comprehend what I am talking about with a human mind
Assuming that extra terrestrials have a physical form in this dimension and assuming they see reality in the same way as us and create symbols like letters or numbers or make mouth noises like words or whatever we use to put a structure of thought from my mind to yours is arrogant as well
0 is wrong. We do not experience true nothingness. If we say a person is living=1 and a person dead =0 we are not representing the person of not ever existing at all. I have 1 apple, you have 0 apples, we don't represent apples not existing at all. Saying there are 0 apples in the world means that apples still exist. You can not represent true 0 or nonexistence or whatever you call it with mathematics or comprehend what I am talking about with a human mind
The problem with 0 is you are trying to make physical sense out of the number.....referring to apples, life, or whatever. This is not the path mathematics in the modern sense takes regarding numbers. They are constructed withno regard to physical reality whatsoever. Think of a game of sorts, where numbers are completely abstract pieces that fit together in certain ways, that we can write down and symbolize (but this is not actually the number in any sense). We can for example consider a structure of arithmetic (that is, ordinary whole numbers with an operation +): If we take as an axiom that within this structure there exists an element e, such that for all whole numbers x, that e+x = x+e = x, we could identify e with the number 0. Note no reference to physical reality or anything like that.
Abstract or not, the usefulness of mathematics can't be argued. Good luck trying to understand most of modern science, especially physics, chemistry, and probability/statistics, without math.
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑
♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮
Nullius in verba
05-15-2018, 10:12 PM
-
#45
- numberguy12
- Registered User
-
- numberguy12
- Registered User
- Join Date: Jan 2017
- Posts: 6,938
- Rep Power: 51915
-
-
Originally Posted By TruKnight⏩
How come when Einstein figured out special and general relativity, which is a total paradigm shift from the well established physics of Newton, no one supressed all of his work?science has devolved into mathematical mysticism imo.
lets say you discover something new and profound that will overturn long established paradigms, never mind that you have the hard data to back up your claim, you are sure to get viciously attacked by other so called 'objective' scientists that have written too many books on the old paradigm and have too much money at stake to let you sweep it all away and make them look like luddites.
these people cling to their dogma with all the tenacity of theologians, and as much as you would like to think that thats not true and they would immediately and mechanistically adopt new proven facts, they just dont. example:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Harlen_Bretz
even if you discovered a legit perpetual motion machine, and demonstrated it right in front of them, they would still berate you for decades as a loon before grudingly giving you the nobel prize a decade after you died.
the moral of the story here is to think for yourself and dont just swallow whole whatever you are told is science based, because it may only be 10% verifiable science and 90% hand waving.
lets say you discover something new and profound that will overturn long established paradigms, never mind that you have the hard data to back up your claim, you are sure to get viciously attacked by other so called 'objective' scientists that have written too many books on the old paradigm and have too much money at stake to let you sweep it all away and make them look like luddites.
these people cling to their dogma with all the tenacity of theologians, and as much as you would like to think that thats not true and they would immediately and mechanistically adopt new proven facts, they just dont. example:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Harlen_Bretz
even if you discovered a legit perpetual motion machine, and demonstrated it right in front of them, they would still berate you for decades as a loon before grudingly giving you the nobel prize a decade after you died.
the moral of the story here is to think for yourself and dont just swallow whole whatever you are told is science based, because it may only be 10% verifiable science and 90% hand waving.
How come mainstream science embraces quantum mechanics, which produces results that seem so absurd compared to what scientists understood a couple centuries ago? With the above logic, it seems like science would never advance with people sticking to the old paradigms. This is clearly not the case, as science has advanced quite a lot.
No....science is very much open to criticism. Science is humble. This leads to better accuracy with the refining of existing theories. Contrast this with almost any religion, which is traditionally against any change, any criticism, and soley operating from dogma.
∫∫ Mathematics crew ∑∑
♫1:2:3:4 Pythagoras crew ♫ ♫ 🧮
Nullius in verba
05-16-2018, 09:07 PM
-
#46
- cobhc
- Structural Engineer Brah
-
- cobhc
- Structural Engineer Brah
- Join Date: Dec 2010
- Location: Brooklyn, New York, United States
- Posts: 44,106
- Rep Power: 281429
-
-
Originally Posted By PisseninMisc⏩
Response modification factor you Stoke’s theorem abiding flux *******. <3Why do SE's always have to talk down to the rest of us mane? Just because you know what the fuk a response amplification factor is doesn't mean you get to call me a monkey.
NEW YORK FOOTBALL GIANTS
RED BULL RACING
05-16-2018, 09:21 PM
-
#47
- TheJediBrah
- One with the Force
-
- TheJediBrah
- One with the Force
- Join Date: Dec 2012
- Posts: 15,289
- Rep Power: 25168
-
-
No, science is science. **** has to be pretty well supported clinically to get through as accepted fact.
You're right though that a lot of non-scientific people treat it a bit like a cult, preaching anything that turns up in an abstract or conclusion while completely lacking the skills to critique studies or understand the meaning and relevance of a result
You're right though that a lot of non-scientific people treat it a bit like a cult, preaching anything that turns up in an abstract or conclusion while completely lacking the skills to critique studies or understand the meaning and relevance of a result
05-16-2018, 09:25 PM
-
#48
- GreenArrow89
- Make Misc Great Again
-
- GreenArrow89
- Make Misc Great Again
- Join Date: Jul 2014
- Posts: 2,758
- Rep Power: 20928
-
-
Originally Posted By butwhowasfeel⏩
fukin hiliarous how nerds all think science is fact when in actuality it isnt because science was made up byhuman beansand humans arent perfect
*** Positive Crew ***
*** Lifting keeps my sane Crew ***
05-16-2018, 09:27 PM
-
#49
05-16-2018, 09:28 PM
-
#50
Science is the exact opposite of a cult. I will agree that some aspects of publication and blind worship in the press is cultlike, but the entire point of science is reproducibility of experiment, and questioning everything. Everything you learn about in science has, for the most part, been thoroughly tested via experiment, and can be tested by you.
It is a sign of poor education in our society that today's science has shifted from understanding and doing the science to blindly lauding and following those who do or denying it entirely.
If you think physics is "made up" then explain why nuclear weapons work so damn well. Physics is "made up" in that we invented the descriptions and theories, but we made them to describe things we actually observe.
Math is also made up in that we invent the definitions, but once the definitions are set, the relationships are discovered. Furthermore, much of math was invented to describe physically observed phenomena.
It is a sign of poor education in our society that today's science has shifted from understanding and doing the science to blindly lauding and following those who do or denying it entirely.
If you think physics is "made up" then explain why nuclear weapons work so damn well. Physics is "made up" in that we invented the descriptions and theories, but we made them to describe things we actually observe.
Math is also made up in that we invent the definitions, but once the definitions are set, the relationships are discovered. Furthermore, much of math was invented to describe physically observed phenomena.
05-16-2018, 09:30 PM
-
#51
- TheJediBrah
- One with the Force
-
- TheJediBrah
- One with the Force
- Join Date: Dec 2012
- Posts: 15,289
- Rep Power: 25168
-
-
Originally Posted By tank2003⏩
Why would you need to science to explain "religion's fundamental belief, the belief in a single creator"? It's pretty self explanatory why people believed that and were encouraged to believe itBoth science and religion are attempts at humans to explain what they do not understand. Religion was humanities first attempt and science is its latest. But science has yet to explain religion's fundamental belief, the belief in a single creator
05-16-2018, 09:32 PM
-
#52
- TinySquats
- 🍑y
-
- TinySquats
- 🍑y
- Join Date: Mar 2017
- Posts: 406
- Rep Power: 4128
-
-
At its core it is fundamental for society.
However it is more often used by buying the result you want to sway consumers.
However it is more often used by buying the result you want to sway consumers.
05-16-2018, 09:33 PM
-
#53
Originally Posted By numberguy12⏩
I agree that any intelligent lifeform should arrive at similar (perhaps with slightly different axioms or foundations), virtually identical mathematics to us. They will arrive at the same results from number theory, topology, algebra, etc.Never said I was assuming ETs, if they exist, would be anything remotely similar to us. All I'm saying is it's a possibility, if they do exist, especially if sufficiently advanced, that they would have somewhat of an understanding of math, just in a different garb (which would essentially disprove the thesis that math only exists in the human mind). We certainly wouldn't have English in common. We certainly wouldn't have Spanish in common. It is possible....just possible....that we might have the language of mathematics in common, and I find this fascinating. There is a reason why the record on Voyager 1 (now zooming far, far away outside our solar system) contains a healthy dose of mathematics, in an effort to describe who we are, where we come from. It's most likely the best way to communicate with an intelligent life form that's never lived on earth.
The problem with 0 is you are trying to make physical sense out of the number.....referring to apples, life, or whatever. This is not the path mathematics in the modern sense takes regarding numbers. They are constructed withno regard to physical reality whatsoever. Think of a game of sorts, where numbers are completely abstract pieces that fit together in certain ways, that we can write down and symbolize (but this is not actually the number in any sense). We can for example consider a structure of arithmetic (that is, ordinary whole numbers with an operation +): If we take as an axiom that within this structure there exists an element e, such that for all whole numbers x, that e+x = x+e = x, we could identify e with the number 0. Note no reference to physical reality or anything like that.
Abstract or not, the usefulness of mathematics can't be argued. Good luck trying to understand most of modern science, especially physics, chemistry, and probability/statistics, without math.
The problem with 0 is you are trying to make physical sense out of the number.....referring to apples, life, or whatever. This is not the path mathematics in the modern sense takes regarding numbers. They are constructed withno regard to physical reality whatsoever. Think of a game of sorts, where numbers are completely abstract pieces that fit together in certain ways, that we can write down and symbolize (but this is not actually the number in any sense). We can for example consider a structure of arithmetic (that is, ordinary whole numbers with an operation +): If we take as an axiom that within this structure there exists an element e, such that for all whole numbers x, that e+x = x+e = x, we could identify e with the number 0. Note no reference to physical reality or anything like that.
Abstract or not, the usefulness of mathematics can't be argued. Good luck trying to understand most of modern science, especially physics, chemistry, and probability/statistics, without math.
These plebs will never appreciate math or science. They are literally living 400 years behind. The idea that quantum mechanics still shocks people after being around for about 100 years and having lasers, MRIs, and solid state devices now tells us something about how backwards most of the world is.
05-16-2018, 10:14 PM
-
#54
- tank2003
- Join Date: Sep 2003
- Location: Mississippi, United States
- Posts: 41,636
- Rep Power: 371828
-
-
Originally Posted By TheJediBrah⏩
never said there was a need. But the big bang itself is evidence of a creator. To think that everything within the radius of 13.8 billion light years was once contained within and infinitely small, hot and dense point, then suddenly underwent MASSIVE inflation on its own is...well, ridiculous. The ultimate goal of astrophysics is to uncover what catalyzed the genesis our universe. So, in the pursuit of higher knowledge, one day, humanity may just discover godWhy would you need to science to explain "religion's fundamental belief, the belief in a single creator"? It's pretty self explanatory why people believed that and were encouraged to believe it
“That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.” - The Nameless City by HP Lovecraft
"The higher the prevalence of infectious diseases the higher the probability of totalitarian political attitudes."
-Dr. Jordan Peterson Sept 2017
"The search for a moral equivalent of war continues to define American Liberalism to this day."
05-16-2018, 10:44 PM
-
#55
Originally Posted By tank2003⏩
No it isn't. It's not ridiculous at all, and there are cosmological models to explain how the inflation has occurred.never said there was a need. But the big bang itself is evidence of a creator. To think that everything within the radius of 13.8 billion light years was once contained within and infinitely small, hot and dense point, then suddenly underwent MASSIVE inflation on its own is...well, ridiculous. The ultimate goal of astrophysics is to uncover what catalyzed the genesis our universe. So, in the pursuit of higher knowledge, one day, humanity may just discover god
05-16-2018, 10:50 PM
-
#56
- propreffered7
- Registered User
-
- propreffered7
- Registered User
- Join Date: Mar 2010
- Posts: 36,839
- Rep Power: 86393
-
-
i kind of agree
but only if you go really, really far
we dont have all the answers man
try to wrestle with consciousness or philosophy of mind and theres some harrowing chit
some of the universal consciousness theories/ or things of that nature can kind of hint at a "creator"
how about "belief" vs. "no belief"? i guess both could be cults. one is just way more random
what about belief in "i" you and i and pretty much everyone in existence believe in so.. is that kind of a cult? what about no "i"?
what about life vs. death?
also fwiw in science you need to prove things false
theories become laws when theyre extensively tested and havent been disproven
it doesnt mean thats how it works for 100% certainty; it means thats what we know now
but only if you go really, really far
we dont have all the answers man
try to wrestle with consciousness or philosophy of mind and theres some harrowing chit
some of the universal consciousness theories/ or things of that nature can kind of hint at a "creator"
how about "belief" vs. "no belief"? i guess both could be cults. one is just way more random
what about belief in "i" you and i and pretty much everyone in existence believe in so.. is that kind of a cult? what about no "i"?
what about life vs. death?
also fwiw in science you need to prove things false
theories become laws when theyre extensively tested and havent been disproven
it doesnt mean thats how it works for 100% certainty; it means thats what we know now
05-16-2018, 10:53 PM
-
#57
- tank2003
- Join Date: Sep 2003
- Location: Mississippi, United States
- Posts: 41,636
- Rep Power: 371828
-
-
Originally Posted By wincel⏩
what i meant was, that SOMETHING caused the universe to come into existence vs saying "it just happened on its own, nothing really caused" and leaving it at that. Something caused it and we are one effect of itNo it isn't. It's not ridiculous at all, and there are cosmological models to explain how the inflation has occurred.
“That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.” - The Nameless City by HP Lovecraft
"The higher the prevalence of infectious diseases the higher the probability of totalitarian political attitudes."
-Dr. Jordan Peterson Sept 2017
"The search for a moral equivalent of war continues to define American Liberalism to this day."
05-16-2018, 11:00 PM
-
#58
Originally Posted By tank2003⏩
That's an unfounded assumption. The whole point is that the very causal structure you are imposing is actually not necessary. And it has to be that way. Think about it. Did God just come into existence on his own? If the universe doesn't make sense doing that, why does God make sense? You perceive causality and notions of a direction of time because you exist at the scales you exist at. Our universe may actually be a very complicated 11 dimensional quantum thing. During the planck epoch, the notion of time and space starts to break down. The "dimensionality" of the universe starts to break down too. We have no current theory to describe it, but it is possible that classical notions of causality may not apply there at all. If that sounds logically paradoxical to you, consider that our entire concept of "present" is observer dependent, and that what we perceive as "time" really is just a perception of another dimension. The idea that there is some God perceiving the universe moving along some absolute time scale is inconsistent with what we already know about physics.what i meant was, that SOMETHING caused the universe to come into existence vs saying "it just happened on its own, nothing really caused" and leaving it at that. Something caused it and we are one effect of it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relati...f_simultaneity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rietdi...utnam_argument
It is difficult for lifeforms like us to comprehend these things, but there are now models that show that time and space may emerge from something more fundamental. Our universe is more complicated than it seems, and these simple, ancient notions of a creator creating the universe along some absolute timeline are almost certainly false.
If you want to argue for a God, there are other possible ways to interpret that our universe might have been deliberately created. The models of cosmology that exist now allowed for a huge class of possible kinds of universes to exist with a lot of different physical laws. The results would have been very different. Many of these cannot support life. The anthropic principle gives a kind of answer to why our universe is so special, but some problems like the fine-tuning problem suggest that there really is something special about our universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_problem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
These are describing finely tuned parameters. We are indeed, very fortunate to exist in the universe we are in.
05-16-2018, 11:08 PM
-
#59
- TheJediBrah
- One with the Force
-
- TheJediBrah
- One with the Force
- Join Date: Dec 2012
- Posts: 15,289
- Rep Power: 25168
-
-
Originally Posted By tank2003⏩
I see what you're saying, it's fair. We don't know everything about everything in the universe and we never will.never said there was a need. But the big bang itself is evidence of a creator. To think that everything within the radius of 13.8 billion light years was once contained within and infinitely small, hot and dense point, then suddenly underwent MASSIVE inflation on its own is...well, ridiculous. The ultimate goal of astrophysics is to uncover what catalyzed the genesis our universe. So, in the pursuit of higher knowledge, one day, humanity may just discover god
05-16-2018, 11:11 PM
-
#60
Originally Posted By TheJediBrah⏩
The thing is that the metaphysical models of physics proposed by most major religions are demonstrably false without some heavy reinterpretation. Religion will forever introduce "the God of the gaps", and God will be a comfort we can turn to when we cannot explain something. The thing is that those gaps are shrinking everyday.I see what you're saying, it's fair. We don't know everything about everything in the universe and we never will.
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-
- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts