Many of us are sick of poisoned wells. Anyway, here’s this:
Robert Arvay, “Old-guard scientists reveal their biases as new scientists suggest evidence for God” at American Thinker
That was their argument because, until recent years, there was not, in the strictest sense, the kind of evidence science requires. To be sure, there were claims of such evidence, but however sincere those claims may have been, they were not persuasive enough to convince an honest skeptic. The gold standard of science, stated informally, is that a new paradigm is accepted when the evidence is solid enough to convince an objective, unbiased, and qualified person.
It turns out that scientists are as biased as anyone else. Their biases are being exposed by an increasing number of younger, more open-minded scientists. These newcomers are breaking free of the unscientific philosophy, the doctrine of physicalism, that presently dominates their disciplines. They are willing to challenge the notion that nothing exists except the physical. The old guard is resisting. The entrenched establishment is making ever less credible excuses for holding on to its resolute belief that only the physical exists.
Even if you don’t believe in God, can you at least believe that 2+2=4? That puts you on one side of a growing cultural divide.
Hat tip: Philip Cunningham
and
Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd
You’re obsessed, News. There is no one who doubts that 2 + 2 = 4.
Signing back out ….
Oh, I’ve seen it. The quote was, “Why is it necessary to believe that 2+2=4? The teacher teaches the child to emit the signs the teacher was trained to teach her to emit.” Spoken by a man working foreign policy in Washington, or something near that kind of work, at least.
This article is somewhat confused. The “physicalists” are the ones who believe in dark matter and dark energy and multiverses. The “non-physicalists” are the ones who prefer to deal with actually observed phenomena, even if the observation is internal and “subjective”. Conscousness is observable. Dark matter is not.
At least once a decade, every theory should be asked of itself if the evidence continues to support the theory. Any theory that is no longer supported by evidence should be dismissed as a valid theory. In the case of evolution, there has never been anything witnessed and the results have never been replicated. By definition, evolution is not a valid theory and never should have been.
@Viola Lee & news
I believe the original claim of the crazy woke lady was that the default interpretation of 2+2 being 4 is racist.
As to this question:
Well, it turns out that, via Godel’s incompleteness theorem, that although atheists may believe 2+2+4, atheists simply have no way of proving that 2+2=4.
Godel’s incompleteness theorem was born out of the fact that mathematicians could not mathematically ‘prove’ that 1+1=2. You can pick up some of the details about that fact at 10:00 minute mark of the following video
So the answer to the question, “Even if you don’t believe in God, can you at least believe that 2+2=4?”, turns out to be, “No. not really. Without God, you simply have no way of ‘knowing’ that 2+2 really does equal 4.”
As Vern Poythress, (Doctorate in Theology, PhD in Mathematics, Harvard), described the mathematical dilemma that Godel put Atheists in, “Because of the above difficulties, anti-theistic philosophy of mathematics is condemned to oscillate, much as we have done in our argument, between the poles of a priori knowledge and a posteriori knowledge. Why? It will not acknowledge the true God, wise Creator of both the human mind with its mathematical intuition and the external world with its mathematical properties. In sections 22-23 we shall see how the Biblical view furnishes us with a real solution to the problem of “knowing” that 2 + 2 = 4 and knowing that S is true.”
As to, “(anti-theistic philosophy of mathematics) will not acknowledge the true God, wise Creator of both the human mind with its mathematical intuition and the external world with its mathematical properties.”,,,,
You don’t have to take Vern Poythress’s word that atheists will forever be stymied In their efforts to provide an explanation as to why we have a intuitive capacity to understand mathematics, nor why the external world might be describable by mathematics, Both Wigner and Einstein are on record as to regarding such a situation to be a ‘miracle’,
In fact, Einstein went so far as to chastise ‘professional atheists’ in process of calling it a ‘miracle’,
Interestingly, a essential belief in the rise of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe was the Christian belief that mathematics, especially any mathematics that might describe this universe, was, and is, the product of the Mind of God.
And as Paul Davies observed, “All the early scientists, like Newton, were religious in one way or another. They saw their science as a means of uncovering traces of God’s handiwork in the universe. What we now call the laws of physics they regarded as God’s abstract creation: thoughts, so to speak, in the mind of God. So in doing science, they supposed, one might be able to glimpse the mind of God – an exhilarating and audacious claim.”
The following quote succinctly captures how the Christian founders of modern science viewed any mathematics that might describe this universe as being the product of the Mind of God.
In 1619, Johannes Kepler, shortly after discovering the mathematical laws of planetary motion, stated,
Moreover, besides viewing any mathematics that might describe this universe as being the product of the Mind of God, and that view of mathematics being essential to the rise of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe,,, besides all that, when we rightly allow the Mind of God ‘back’ into science, then a successful resolution to the most enigmatic problem facing theoretical physicists today readily pops out for us.
Namely, the most enigmatic problem facing theoretical physicists today is that we do not have just one mathematical theory describing the universe, but we have two mathematical theories that describe this universe, i.e. Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, and these two theories simply refuse to be mathematically reconciled with each other.
In fact, there is an infinite mathematical divide that separates the two theories.
As Sera Cremonini states, ” the quantum version of Einstein’s general relativity is “nonrenormalizable.”,,, “The problem with a quantum version of general relativity is that the calculations that would describe interactions of very energetic gravitons — the quantized units of gravity — would have infinitely many infinite terms. You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,”
Likewise, Professor Jeremy Bernstein states the situation as such, “there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite.”
Moreover, when theorists try to combine the two theories, i.e. Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, then the resulting theory predicts that spacetime, atoms, and even the universe itself should all be literally blown apart. Here are a few references that get this point across.
And yet, despite both theories contradicting each other to the point of literally blowing the universe apart, the fact remains that quantum mechanics and general relativity are both tested to extreme levels of precision, (in fact, both general relativity and quantum mechanics are consider, by a wide margin, to be our most successful theories ever in the history of science),
And since quantum mechanics and general relativity are both tested to such an extreme level of precision, (and we can thus have a very high level of confidence that both theories are, in fact, true mathematical descriptions of reality), and since Godel’s incompleteness theorem itself requires something to be ‘outside the circle’ of mathematics (Hawking),,”,,,
,,,, since all that is true, then it is fairly safe to assume that there must be something very powerful that must be holding the universe together in order to keep it from blowing itself apart. ,,,
For the Christian, this theoretical finding from our very best theories in science, (i.e. that something very powerful must be ‘outside the universe’ that is holding this universe together), should not be all that surprising to find out. Christianity, a couple of millennium before this ‘infinite’ conflict between the General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics was even known about, predicted that Christ is before all things, and ‘in him all things hold together,,,’
Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, although he was not directly addressing the ‘infinite’ conflict between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers this insight into what the ‘unification’ of infinite God with finite man might look like mathematically:
Moreover, if we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), if we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, then that provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an ’empirically backed’ reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”. Here are a few posts where I lay out and defend some of the evidence for that claim:
To give us a small glimpse of the power that was involved in Christ’s resurrection from the dead, the following recent article found that, ”it would take 34 Thousand Billion (Trillion) Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”
Verse:
Thus in conclusion, and although much more could be said about this topic, the main impasse for modern day physicists today in finding the ‘theory of everything’, i.e. a unification between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, apparently, seems to be that modern day physicists have, basically, completely forgotten the philosophical, i.e. Christian, roots that gave rise to modern science in the first place, (i.e. That the universe, and math itself, are both the result of the ‘thoughts of God’), and have instead regressed back into ancient Greek rationalism in which math served as a rival to God rather than a path to Him.
In short, modern day theoretical physicists have apparently, for the most part, completely forgotten the philosophical presuppositions that enabled the Christian founders of modern science in medieval Christian Europe to make their breakthrough into modern science the first place. Namely, that any mathematics that might describe this universe must be the product of the Mind of God,,,
The truth of 2 + 2 = 4 has nothing to do with with God. It is based on definitions and axioms that form the basis of our number system, and is absolutely true within that system.
People can change definitions and axioms, Viola.
ET: People can change definitions and axioms, Viola.
But they haven’t. There is a whole study of how axioms affect structures built upon them.
Nice non-sequitur
There is no one proposing any changes to the fundamental structure of our number system. If you change the axioms then you have a new system. In Euclidean geometry it is absolutely true that the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180°. If you change the parallel postulate to one of its other two possibilities the sum of the angles in a triangle is not 180°. That doesn’t change the truth of the fact in Euclidean geometry.
Give it time, Viola. They are going after everything else. They have even said that mathematics is racist.
ET: They have even said that mathematics is racist.
No one is going to change the basic setup that underlies all of physics and chemistry. Under certain circumstances you might throw out an axiom because the mathematics better models an extreme or un-normal (by human experience standards) situation. Topology is very weird by experiential standards but it works well when considering gravitational well. But even relativity and Quantum Mechanics sits on a bed of some very basic mathematics.
JVLO, VL et al, whoever said we are dealing with those with any respect for civilisation? Science is just another racist institution, and Maths too. KF
When the mob tells you that “white male” mathematics is fundamentally racist and pummels your university or other employer, you will also agree . . . or be replaced with someone who does. And then when using the word, “God” is recognized as hate speech that triggers profound psychological pain in certain individuals, you will face criminal charges as well.
The design inference screams at anyone with an open scientific mind, but how many in academia are willing to openly admit to this observation, which is both obvious and pragmatic*? Are you willing to suffer the consequences when everyone else caves in?
* Obvious in the sense of the massive quantity and density of information, which is conserved in nature and overcomes entropy, but doesn’t have any known natural source, Maxwell’s daemon notwithstanding. It’s pragmatic in the sense that the presumption of intelligent design leads to accelerated scientific discovery rather than the presumption of purposelessness as with “junk” DNA for example.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . . – Romans 1:20-22 (KJV)
-Q
Querius: When the mob tells you that “white male” mathematics is fundamentally racist and pummels your university or other employer, you will also agree . . . or be replaced with someone who does.
The design inference screams at anyone with an open scientific mind, but how many in academia are willing to openly admit to this observation, which is both obvious and pragmatic.
Umm . . . are you sure you’re drawing the right parallels between those two situations?
EVERYONE, except a few people trying to garner some attention (and who clearly do not understand how mathematics works) thinks that, while mathematics has mostly be developed by white males (arguably Arabic and Indian mathematicians have added some core concepts) the truth of mathematics transcends the people who formalised it. It has to. There is no mass attempt to cast mathematics as racist. There just isn’t. You just like to highlight the ones on the fringe.
The design inference is accepted by very, very few working scientists especially amongst the biological community. And there are some famous cases of people, like Dr Behe, who kept their position and their tenure even though their employer found their opinions contrary to currently understood science. So believing in Intelligent Design is NOT the academic death threat despite the way it’s commonly presented here.
So, it looks like the idea that mathematics is racists and the intelligent design inference are both highly fringe beliefs. Not accepted by a vast majority of the people working in the pertinent fields.
None of this politics, sociology, pedagogical theory, design philosophy, or theology has anything to do with the purely mathematical fact that 2 + 2 = 4 is true.
KF
Exactly. Civilization is not sacred to some people. Nor is math, science, technology. God is not sacred to them. Founding fathers, constitutions – none of that. The male-dominated, Euro-centric rules of math are oppressive and highly Trumpian-conservative. Some would prefer a society reduced to stone-age primitivism. We can all be equalized through poverty and misery.
The revolution eats its own. Even professors with all the correct, leftist credentials come under assault.
The same people who cried out in horror because supposedly ID and Creationism is an attack on education, welcome the very Marxists into their camp who can bring the entire structure down to the ground.
JVL is full of non-sequiturs today.
JVL
There’s a mass effort to redress the wrongs of racism. You seem to be arguing for populism. Math has some common, very widespread appreciation and support.
But the point for the leftist-revolution is about “minority rights”.
There was no mass movement to take down statues of Abraham Lincoln, for example. But the statues came down because of consideration of fringe-minority concerns.
The same is true of transgender rights. There’s no mass movement of interest in that, even though now it is a part of US Presidential campaign platforms and our society will continue to radically change as a result.
Silver Asiatic: There’s a mass effort to redress the wrongs of racism.
Nothing to do with mathematics.
You seem to be arguing for populism. Math has some common, very widespread appreciation and support.
Huh? Not even close.
There was no mass movement to take down statues of Abraham Lincoln, for example. But the statues came down because of consideration of fringe-minority concerns.
And the evidence of very long term, systemic racism in the US.
The same is true of transgender rights. There’s no mass movement of interest in that, even though now it is a part of US Presidential campaign platforms and our society will continue to radically change as a result.
Depends on who you talk to. Most of the under-25 year-olds I know are perfectly okay with transgender rights. Many of them have known someone who is transgender and they know there’s nothing to be afraid of. Being nice to people whose gender identity is not the same as yours is no great sacrifice.
Anyway, again, nothing to do with mathematics. Mathematics is not going to change because of some cultural movement. It’s not. It can’t. You guys trying to making it sound like it’s under threat is just scare mongering.
I agree with JVL’s last paragraph.
Transgender rights always confuse me because they are people and they have the same rights all other people do
It feels more like additional rights
Furthermore, transgender, why is that considered normal when it is very likely psychological disease that needs to be treated like schizophrenia
I’m not trying to be racist and I have no problem with transgender but they have a Y chromosome that dictates biologically that they are a male including their brain.
they go through great efforts to Disfigure
Their body and remove their genitals to achieve their goal of being the other sex
The same goes for having 2 X chromosomes
They are biologically a female that includes their brain, so why is it that they destroy their body in an attempt to be something they biologically can never really be
So again I have no problem with human rights but I think there’s a little bit more going on here than I am a woman trapped in a man’s body
JVL
Well, educators in Seattle disagree. It has a lot to do with mathematics:
This is from last year. So it’s just beginning. Seattle is perceived as one of the most progressive communities. Progressive? In the educational community that term is their gold-standard. This will not disappear but will grow.
I appreciate your point of view and your concern. I perceive that you have a strong personal belief in this. Math is somehow sacred. Untouchable.
But you’re under-estimating the power of leftist revolutionary forces in our society.
Yes, SA, there can be different terminologies, but “dos más dos es igual a cuatro” doesn’t change the underlying mathematical abstraction. And the politics of who gets taught what, and what gets emphasized, etc., concerns the politics of math education, not the math itself.
One can be concerned about that politics (I am not a supporter of the ideas you quote), but I don’t see why the distinction between the math itself and these other cultural issues are not clear. No one is offering some alternative to 2 + 2 = 4.
I don’t know but when you say nothing is something than you might has well 2 + 2 = 4
is actually 8 for the the spaces + and = all constitute something and nothing can be a variable
Also the abstract exists of this is only in you perception (head) It can be argued through string theory 2 + 2 = isn’t exactly 4 which was an argument an old friend of mine had put up years ago, I’ll have to ask what that was
This can effectively turn 2 + 2 = 4 into a circumstantial equation being its 4 only in standard Arithmetic
Then there is the novel 1984
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
Also if it was always 4, and no exceptions, then H2O wouldn’t be a thing and nor would most compounds as often they are more then the some of their parts and sport additional emergent properties.
I’m just being an ass but
Even if you could without a shadow of a doubt prove the equation Infallible you can still have a crazy fringe groups of nuts pollute peoples perception and Deceive them to believe otherwise
@sev
Before you even mention it no IM NOT referring to religion and yes there are religious groups that do exactly that NOT all of them
AaronS1978: Furthermore, transgender, why is that considered normal when it is very likely psychological disease that needs to be treated like schizophrenia
Because it’s not a psychological disease. Maybe you’d like to update your sociological standards to something closer to 2020.
They are biologically a female that includes their brain, so why is it that they destroy their body in an attempt to be something they biologically can never really be
If you really want to know I’m sure with even a very small amount of effort you could find narratives written by some of the folks under discussion and find out why they feel compelled to alter their physical body.
Anyway, who cares? it doesn’t affect you.
This can effectively turn 2 + 2 = 4 into a circumstantial equation being its 4 only in standard Arithmetic
It’s easy enough to find systems where ‘symbolically’ 2 + 2 does not equal 4, try using base three for example. But the quantities underlying the equation do not change, just the symbols and the words.
As an aside, modular arithmetic has lots of good practical uses and you will see the mod function in any of your standard spreadsheet programs.
Even if you could without a shadow of a doubt prove the equation Infallible you can still have a crazy fringe groups of nuts pollute peoples perception and Deceive them to believe otherwise
Whatever, if they don’t want to be engineers or physicists or chemists or even biologists what do I care?
Silver Asiatic:
So, nothing to do with saying 2 + 2 is not equal to 4.
How is this markedly different from teaching Roman numerals? Anyway, it wasn’t co-opted, the mathematical community eventually always goes for the cleanest, neatest nomenclature or symbolic representation. That’s why Liebniz’s notation mostly beat out Newton’s in the great Calculus ‘war’.
That’s clearly just stupid. What we need are better math teachers, period. Teachers who are passionate about the topic and will spend time with all their students showing them the joy and pleasure and incredible uses of mathematics.
It’s just a fad, it will fade just like all the others. As soon as anyone gets to an engineering course all that stuff will go out the window in favour of good techniques and rigorous methodologies.
I’m all in favour of highlighting the contributions of all peoples to mathematics. I’m all in favour of showing different systems and ways of thinking. But, in the end, the mathematics is what it is; it’s true and immutable and if you think otherwise then you’re probably in the wrong subject area.
But you’re under-estimating the power of leftist revolutionary forces in our society.
Fads come, they go. This will pass just like the ‘new math’ of the 60s.
If the ironclad, commonsense, and universal observation that there are only 2 genders, male and female, can become a highly controversial proposition within just a decade, then there is ample reason to doubt that even 2+2 = 4 is secure on its logical pedestal.
OldArmy94: If the ironclad, commonsense, and universal observation that there are only 2 genders, male and female, can become a highly controversial proposition within just a decade,
Except there have always been exceptions:
Those from the Wikipedia entry on Hermaphrodite.
Real biology is a lot messier than you think.
This from the article on Intersex:
I have heard some real horror stories from people born with ambiguous genitalia because of some doctor deciding when they were young that they had to be a male or a female and then performing surgery to make their decision final.
there is ample reason to doubt that even 2+2 = 4 is secure on its logical pedestal.
Stop worrying about it! Believe me, once you get to Calculus all the faddish stuff starts to fade away. You can’t really progress beyond that unless you were taught under a very isolated More methodology. And even then, despite the nomenclature and symbolic differences the underlying mathematics is still the same.
Seriously, just stop worrying about it.
@JVL
Oh JVL did I hit a button
I did didn’t I
Your first reply is nothing more Snide remark
So what is transgender then? It’s not a social construct. A choice? What is it because it’s certainly not natural and should’ve been selected out by natural selection long ago
AND updating my social perception to 2020 I am sorry I look at this stuff all the time and if I offended you I don’t care
Maybe you should really look at the reality of the situation and know that there’s probably something wrong with the individuals brain when something like this to occur
Rest of your replies are nothing more than arguing semantics so ignorable but not as enjoyable as the one that you said at the very beginning
By the way what is gender dysphoria other than a psychological disease that’s probably triggered by a genetic defect, some form of environmental abuse or both
You are literally fighting your biology which dictate who you are so maybe you should update your biology to 2020 standards before you make any more dumb comments, just saying
In fact it’s pretty much settled science but wait isn’t that what the argument here is about? You see people make exceptions for things that have long since been settled like 2+2 = 4 in your case you make an exception for a psychological disease because it doesn’t fit your personal political beliefs.
So people can make exceptions for 2+2 = 4 based on their personal political beliefs the same way you’re capable of making an exception for a psychological disorder that causes people to chop off their genitals because they BELIEVE that they were not the sex they were born with
Cool
JVL and Viola
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/08/2-plus-2-never-equals-5/
Both of you drastically underestimate the cancer that is Critical Theory. You have no clue about what’s coming to a neighborhood near you.
Vivid
AaronS1978: Your first reply is nothing more Snide remark
I can live with that.
So what is transgender then? It’s not a social construct. A choice? What is it because it’s certainly not natural and should’ve been selected out by natural selection long ago
Did you try search for definitions or are you wanting someone else to ‘enlighten’ you?
AND updating my social perception to 2020 I am sorry I look at this stuff all the time and if I offended you I don’t care
You’re not offending me but I suspect a transgender person would feel insulted.
Maybe you should really look at the reality of the situation and know that there’s probably something wrong with the individuals brain when something like this to occur
That’s not the way it feels to them.
By the way what is gender dysphoria other than a psychological disease that’s probably triggered by a genetic defect, some form of environmental abuse or both
If you really are interested in finding out I’m sure you could find some stuff to read.
You are literally fighting your biology which dictate who you are so maybe you should update your biology to 2020 standards before you make any more dumb comments, just saying
There are human beings, now referred to as intersex (see excerpts from the Wikipedia article above) who have ambiguous genitalia and sometimes odd sex hormone combinations. Hopefully God loves them more than you do.
In fact it’s pretty much settled science but wait isn’t that what the argument here is about? You see people make exceptions for things that have long since been settled like 2+2 = 4 in your case you make an exception for a psychological disease because it doesn’t fit your personal political beliefs.
I don’t think it is a psychological disease; psychology no longer considers it a psychological disease and transgender people don’t feel that they have a disease. Besides, why do you care? It harms you not at all to let them get on with it.
So people can make exceptions for 2+2 = 4 based on their personal political beliefs the same way you’re capable of making an exception for a psychological disorder that causes people to chop off their genitals because they BELIEVE that they were not the sex they were born with
What do you care? Why are you trying to impose your views on other people? Why not just let them be especially because it affects you so little? Do you want LGBTQ people to tell you how to live your life? Stop telling them how to live theirs.
Vividbleau: Both of you drastically underestimate the cancer that is Critical Theory. You have no clue about what’s coming to a neighborhood near you.
It’s just a fad, it’s not going to affect how engineers or physicists or chemists learn or use mathematics. Spend you time worrying about stuff that matters.
Viola Lee
There’s a teacher here who says that the reason 2+2=4 is not inherent or unchangeable but is, rather, cultural:
A different cultural or philosophical system could replace the idea.
As someone like KF has argued here hundreds of times, our philosophical heritage affirms the Law of Identity – where one thing has an identity distinct from another. I believe there have been anti-ID atheists here through the years who have denied the Laws of Identity and Contradiction – the foundations of math. Certainly, under materialistic monism, the Law of Identity can be refuted. “All is one, there is no identity”.
True, nobody has tried to create a new math – yet, that I know of. But by destroying the philosophical foundations of math, or by saying they are the product of a corrupted, racist culture, gives the foundation for a denial of mathematics or opposition to math.
I think the teacher is right – our math and the science that flows from it, are cultural artifacts, built upon timeless, inherent truths about reality and having a divine origin (created by God). But all of that can still be denied, just as conscience is denied, good versus evil and all meaning of life is denied.
For the transgender movement, saying 2+2 does not equal 4 is a “liberating” thing. It’s saying that “a man can be a woman”.
It’s the same contradiction which is inherent in our society.
The affirmation of 2+2=4 is support for the traditionalist philosophical position. It’s the foundation of ID – so I would always welcome those who support that affirmation, even while I point out that there is a movement to deny it (the same movement to deny logic and philosophical truths – and ID).
JVL
“It’s just a fad,”
Yep clueless
In critical theory it’s called “White Math” I am sure there were many in Germany that said the same thing about Hitlers “ Jew Math” Its just a fad.
Vivid
Silver Asiatic: For the transgender movement, saying 2+2 does not equal 4 is a “liberating” thing. It’s saying that “a man can be a woman”.
Conflating those two issues is just ridiculous. The math silliness will pass, soon I should think. And I think you should stop worrying about what transgender people do or think. You would not want them to tell you how to behave so I think you should just leave them alone especially since it actually affects you so little.
Civilisation is not going to end because a small percentage of people are transgender. Start worrying about stuff that matters.
JVL
In your view, knocking down a statue of Abraham Lincoln is an appropriate (needed?) response to “very long term, systemic racism in the US” (your words).
So, teachers who want to redress racism and then say that math is oppressive …
They can teach it badly. They can discourage students from taking math. They can spread racial hatred through math, thus damaging the field. Much more can happen.
This hurts engineers, physicists and chemists – among many others who use math. It hurts our society if less people are interested in math enough to learn it.
Vividbleau: Yep clueless
Oh, I forgot, you’re never wrong are you? My bad.
When was the last time you were in a mathematics classroom? Let’s say Calculus level or above. I bet they look and feel pretty much the same way they did 10 or 20 or 30 years ago with the exception of the use of things like graphing calculators (although those are not used in the UK in secondary education at all). No one who teaches engineers and physicists and mathematicians and statisticians and chemists is going to pay any attention to someone saying something stupid as reported above. They just don’t care, they have a tough job to do and they work hard to do it well. All the mathematics teachers I’ve known are happy to highlight contributions made by non-whites and women; they’re happy to show people other number schemes like the Roman numerals partially because it helps to show that our ARABIC numerals and decimal place system are far superior.
Two cows plus two more cows will always be four cows; you might use different words or symbols but that will always be true. It doesn’t matter what someone who has a massive chip on their shoulder says. Stop worrying about it.
JVL
The problem is that if you attach the fad to a concern for racial equality, you can’t just go around saying “all of that’s a fad”. It’s like saying transgenderism is a fad.
Vivid,
Yup.
VL & JVL:
I note from Britannica:
Fads are short-term, 40+ years is a generation.
This is Marxism 2.0, demanding power to control our civilisation.
KF
Silver Asiatic: In your view, knocking down a statue of Abraham Lincoln is an appropriate (needed?) response to “very long term, systemic racism in the US” (your words).
I do not support the destruction of any statues, period. They’re part of history and should be preserved. If you want to move them I guess I’ll concede but destroying history is losing your culture, the good and the bad, and it’s wrong. The fact that people in the southern US were still naming their schools after Confederate soldiers should tell you something about them. Instead of shouting them down maybe you should talk to them. Besides, the whole movement is hypocritical; George Washington owned slaves and no one is removing his statues or taking him off the money. I don’t believe destroying history is a way to learn from it; my point was that some people do feel that way AND I disagree with them.
So, teachers who want to redress racism and then say that math is oppressive …
Two completely different things. Math cannot be oppressive, it is what it is and would be that way no matter who ‘discovered’ it.
They can teach it badly. They can discourage students from taking math. They can spread racial hatred through math, thus damaging the field. Much more can happen.
They would be bad teachers and should not be hired. And all the parents who want their children to have the option to be an engineer or a physicist or a doctor or a mathematician will send their kids to another teacher who will teach the subject they’re paid to teach.
This hurts engineers, physicists and chemists – among many others who use math. It hurts our society if less people are interested in math enough to learn it.
I agree but a) I doubt it’s going to get that bad and b) even if the US becomes that stupid Europe and China and Japan won’t. The Russians are no slouches either.
Kairosfocus: Since the 1970s, critical theory has been immensely influential in the study of history, law, literature, and the social sciences.
But not the sciences or mathematics. And it’s not going to ’cause it doesn’t work there. It doesn’t deliver the goods. You can’t use it to get a PhD in physics or mathematics. Maybe the history of physics or mathematics but history is a social science.
Silver Asiatic: The problem is that if you attach the fad to a concern for racial equality, you can’t just go around saying “all of that’s a fad”. It’s like saying transgenderism is a fad.
I’m not tying the true quest for racial equality to a fad for trying to say mathematics is oppressive. If some people are trying to do that then after their ten minutes of fame is over things will chug along much the same way they always have. It ain’t gonna last.
Why don’t you stop worrying about transgenderism? What difference does it make to you? Just leave them alone as you would prefer to be left along, that’s simple isn’t it? That’s the golden rule isn’t it?
vividbleau
Fascinating topic which I was not familiar with – just reading quickly a story.
Nazis destroyed German expertise in mathematics (at least regionally) in order to redress a racial situation.
JVL
Ok, you may be right. However, the way I see it, people with racial grievances are deeply committed to “fixing” society and will not just stop after ten minutes of fame. I think the revolutionary movements have only just started. But we’re just trying to predict the future and we don’t know.
As for transgenderism, I used it as an example of radical social change emerging out of a fringe movement – one which does not have a logical foundation, just as 2+2=5 is not logical.
SA
“Fascinating topic which I was not familiar with – just reading quickly a story.
Nazis destroyed German expertise in mathematics (at least regionally) in order to redress a racial situation.”
Yeppers, ideas have consequences. But don’t worry to quote JVL “ It’s just a fad”
Vivid
Silver Asiatic: Nazis destroyed German expertise in mathematics (at least regionally) in order to redress a racial situation.
Yup, being prejudiced against a group of people is usually a stupid thing. Like being prejudiced against gays and lesbians and transgender people . . . Alan Turing was a genius of the first order and was viscously prosecuted for his sexual orientation and that’s AFTER he helped the Allies win the war.
JVL
Ok, I misinterpreted that. I think you would agree then that our society faced radical changes ( statues were being torn down) due to a fringe movement. So small groups can have a big effect.
Yes, I fully agree! But you’re conflicting head-on with the people who disagree with that.
JVL
I acknowledge your passion on this issue, which is tangential at best and which you are turning around into some sort of moral statement. When transgender activists demand changes to social norms, marriage, education, language and perhaps even math and science – we should all quietly accept it because otherwise it would be to persecute them?
Silver Asiatic: Ok, you may be right. However, the way I see it, people with racial grievances are deeply committed to “fixing” society and will not just stop after ten minutes of fame. I think the revolutionary movements have only just started. But we’re just trying to predict the future and we don’t know.
Well, those aren’t the people who decide the mathematical curriculum; that driven primarily by its use to other disciplines and then later by its own goals and boundaries.
When I was a kid there was ‘new math’. it didn’t really work and while a few ideas stuck mostly it was abandoned within 10 or 15 years. In some places it never caught on at all. In the 90s there was a ‘revolution’ in the way Calculus was taught. Again, some of the good new ideas stuck but mostly things are back to normal.
In the hard sciences and mathematics that’s the way it goes: radical ‘reforms’ die out leaving a few good notions that get incorporated. Those disciplines are not like the social sciences, they have to deliver the goods which can be tested and scrutinised much more quickly than in something like sociology or psychology.
Mathematics stays the same; what was true 1000 years ago is still true. The notation changes, the terminology changes but the math stays the same. And the best way to learn it, as has always been the case, is by practicing. No matter how hard some folks try and force the train off the tracks it just keeps chugging along because that what works. No physicist, no chemist, no accountant, no statistician, no actuary and certainly no mathematician is going to buy some dopey math is oppressive nonsense. Because that doesn’t work. It can’t. It’s stupid.
Ok, I misinterpreted that. I think you would agree then that our society faced radical changes ( statues were being torn down) due to a fringe movement. So small groups can have a big effect.
It’s no different than the Taliban destroying statues from ancient cultures. It’s vandalism. And I hate it. Plus it doesn’t address the underlying problem; in fact it might make it worse. Dumb and misguided.
When transgender activists demand changes to social norms, marriage, education, language and perhaps even math and science – we should all quietly accept it because otherwise it would be to persecute them?
You can’t change math and science, they are what they are. You can change the way they are taught and I’m happy to consider any reasonable ideas but saying math is oppressive is just stupid. That sounds like someone who hated having to take it so they PERSONALLY found it oppressive. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Aside from that I firmly support them having the same legal rights as anyone else. They should be able to marry certainly. Who cares anyway? And if ‘normal’ women can have nose jobs and liposuction and breast implants then what do I care if someone wants gender reassignment surgery? Who cares? It doesn’t affect me at all. The real question (in the UK anyway) is: should it be paid for by the national health service? That IS a societal issue and one that should be discussed.
I think treating LGBTQ (did I get that right . . . not sure) people nicely is just applying the Golden Rule. I don’t want them to tell me how to live my life so I’m certainly not going to tell them how to live theirs as long as it’s not affecting me negatively. And I will argue to the death for NOT tearing down statues or saying math is oppressive.
Viola Lee claims that,,,
That’s a pretty audacious claim. Viola Lee must have some pretty powerful proof for that claim. So what does Viola Lee offer as proof for that claim?
What is interesting about Viola Lee’s supposed proof that “2 + 2 = 4 has nothing to do with with God” is that axioms themselves are a matter choice, i.e. are a matter of free will, i.e. A person, via his free will, chooses which axioms he will define his mathematical system with.
The problem for Viola Lee is that Materialists/Physicalists and/or Darwinian atheists, or whatever you want to call them, simply have no place for free will within their worldview.
In fact, free will is one of the foundational defining attributes of the immaterial mind,
Thus, since Viola Lee himself stated that 2+2+4 is “based on definitions and axioms”, and since whatever axioms we choose to employ is a matter of our free will choices, and since free will is a defining property of the immaterial mind, then, contrary to what Viola Lee believes, The truth of 2 + 2 = 4 has “EVERYTHING” to do with with God.
To go a bit further, our unique ability, (among all creatures on earth), to ‘do mathematics’ is proof, in and of itself, that we must possess a immaterial mind/soul to our bodies that is not reducible to the material constituents of our temporal bodies,,
The existence of Mathematics itself is simply devastating to any materialistic and/or naturalistic worldview since mathematics itself exists in a immaterial, beyond space and time, realm. A “Platonic Realm” that simply is not reducible to any possible materialistic explanation.
As David Berlinski, (who has taught mathematics at several prestigious universities), explains, “Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time….”
Simply put, Mathematics itself, directly contrary to the materialistic/naturalistic philosophies, (philosophies which dominate much of our American Universities, and American science, today), mathematics itself simply does not need the physical world in order for it to exist.
As Dr. Michael Egnor put it, “Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,,”
And yet atheistic materialists and/or naturalists, although they deny that anything beyond the material/physical/natural realm exists, need this immaterial, beyond space and time, “Platonic realm” of mathematics in order to even do science in the first place.
As M. Anthony Mills explains, “And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract (mathematical) objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities.”
Thus our ability to even ‘do science in the first place’, (since science itself is crucially dependent on the objective existence and truthfulness of mathematics), is proof, in and of itself, that the Theistic worldview must necessarily be true,,,
To drive this point further home, as should be obvious by now, the fact that man himself has access to, and can use, this transcendent, beyond space and time, immaterial world of mathematics, offers fairly compelling evidence that man in not a purely material being but that man must also possess a transcendent, beyond space and time, immaterial mind and/or soul.
We simply could never discover these ‘eternal’ truths about mathematics unless we ourselves first possessed a transcendent component to our being,, i.e. a immaterial soul and/or mind that is not reducible to the material constituents of our material bodies.
As Charles Darwin’s contemporary, Alfred Russel Wallace himself stated, “Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.”
Moreover, since our own immaterial minds came into being and are therefore contingent, and are not eternally existent, and yet we can discover eternal mathematical truths with our immaterial minds, then it necessarily follows that “there must exist an eternal mind in which these eternal (mathematical) truths reside.”
And please note that this argument for our immaterial minds, and for God, from the existence of mathematics is perfectly consistent with what we know to be true about mathematics from Godel’s incompleteness theorem.
Thus, mathematics itself offers us compelling proof that we must possess immaterial minds and/or souls, and also offers us compelling proof that God must exist.
And despite to how badly atheists may want God, (and our eternal souls), to not exist (for whatever severely misguided reason), the fact the matter is that, since we are all destined to die here on this earth, the undeniable fact that we do indeed have eternal minds/souls that are not reducible to the material constituents of our temporal bodies, i.e. transcendent souls that can live beyond the death of our temporal bodies, is extremely good news for us the hear personally,,, I know that I myself am personally very happy to know it to be undeniably true, and that death does not have the final say in regards to my own life, and in regards to the lives of loved ones, and that I, and my loved ones, i.e. our eternal souls and minds, will continue to live, even though our material, temporal, bodies will perish,,
Verses:
@ JVL
More snide remark’s
You are laughable
And why do you care because you seem to be imposing your beliefs on me as well
You are quite literally ignorable
By the way I’m still a disease just because you choose to ignore that doesn’t make it go away lolololololololololololol
By the way it’s your failed ignorance that actually allows these people to NOT get the proper help they need
It’s OK to chop your genitals off even though you were probably molested as a child and you have a chemical in balance in your brain, but you be you.
But I guess it’s OK to watch them on TV (“Botched” is a good example) butcher themselves with plastic surgery for your personal entertainment because they can’t get comfortable with who they are
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/12/lgbt-mental-health-sexuality-gender-identity
JVL
“Yup, being prejudiced against a group of people is usually a stupid thing”
Welcome to Critical Race and Social Justice Theory.
BTW is 2+ 2=4 objectively true?
Vivid.
Oh and JVL you’re a hypocrite
LGBTQ make it a personal goal to tell people how to live their lives that they must celebrate their sexuality being THEIR sexuality
Do you remember that little cake shop that got sued over refusing business to a gay couple that wanted to have them bake a cake for their wedding
How about Chick-fil-A
Pretty sure they all got real pissed off and did some pretty shoddy things to Chick-fil-A and Chick-fil-A didn’t even directly say they did not support LGBTQ Just turned out that Chick-fil-A supported the Salvation Army
Oh and what’s that they got boycotted until Chick-fil-A stopped supporting the Salvation Army
Pretty sure that’s an exact example of what you said about not telling people how to live their lives
No I’m a bit of a libertarian and if a business decided to tell me that they refuse service for any reason such as my hair color being blonde they had every damn right to do so
It’s their business
If you want to be gay go for it it’s your business but don’t tell me I have to support you and absolutely agree with everything you do
So you are hypocrite
I used to support them
For many years because my sister is a lesbian both my sister and I stopped supporting them
Because they became a bunch of woke crybaby you have to except me or I’ll punish you Liberal trash
I have no problem with them until they literally start punishing me for not celebrating their sexuality then I have a problem and yes they do tell you how to live your life! liberals have a tendency to do exactly that, like you.
So why do you care about my opinion because it doesn’t fit your opinion and you have to tell me how to live my life and you have to be right
Move along hypocrite
Vividbleau: BTW is 2+ 2=4 objectively true?
Obviously.
AaronS1978: LGBTQ make it a personal goal to tell people how to live their lives that they must celebrate their sexuality being THEIR sexuality
I’ve never had that experience and I wouldn’t let them boss me around.
Do you remember that little cake shop that got sued over refusing business to a gay couple that wanted to have them bake a cake for their wedding
Yup. In this case, I agree with you; the shop can refuse serving anyone they don’t like. The only time I can see that NOT applying is if you’re providing a service like filling prescriptions or supplying water or electricity. IF there’s no reasonable competition then I think the situation is different. Who wants to eat at Chick-fil-A anyway?
Pretty sure that’s an exact example of what you said about not telling people how to live their lives
That’s right, I don’t agree with those actions. Just like I don’t agree with abortion protestors who stand outside doctor’s offices trying to convince women to not have an abortion.
I’m not a hypocrite; I do not support anyone imposing their standards on others. Which is why I think it’s wrong to deny them the right to marry; that’s imposing a standard on them which is wrong.
But I guess it’s OK to watch them on TV (“Botched” is a good example) butcher themselves with plastic surgery for your personal entertainment because they can’t get comfortable with who they are
I’ve never even heard of that show and have zero interest in watching it. Sounds like you know all about it though. Why is that?
Sorry you’ve never had that experience that usually indicates you don’t live in the real world and you’re not watching the media
I’m glad that we could at least agree on one thing though when it comes to the cake shop
By the way my sister who is a lesbian found out that she was also religious and conservative her very liberal job with Liaka
Forced her to resign I watched as they chastised the hell out of her and did attack her like I said there’s reasons why I don’t support it and I’m sorry you haven’t experience the Darkside of the people you support
AaronS1978: Sorry you’ve never had that experience that usually indicates you don’t live in the real world and you’re not watching the media
I watch the BBC News almost every day and listen to their morning news programme on the radio, it’s three hours long. I’ve had lots of gay and lesbian friends and students and no one has ever tried to impose their standards on me. I live in a country which has lots of openly gay and lesbian entertainers and news reporters and athletes and there are few arguments or problems with such things. Mostly it’s just not an issue. You’re much more likely to hear a heated argument regarding Brexit or climate change. Most of Europe is the same way. Who cares if someone is gay or lesbian or whatever. If you let them be then why would they feel the need to try and impose their standards on you?
Sounds like your sister was treated appallingly. I don’t understand why anyone would actually care about her sexual orientation or political leaning or faith as long as she was doing her job well and not annoying other people with her personal standards. I’d have sued ’em.
But that does bring up a previous point: if a cake store owner can refuse to serve a lesbian customer then can a company fire an employee who’s religious views are contrary to the company owners? Is it the company owner’s right to decide who they want to hire and fire like it’s the shop owner’s right to decide who to serve? The real world is messy.
JVL
You’ve asked this several times and now you’re claiming that “since we don’t let them be, that’s why they want to impose their standards on us”. So, it’s our fault that they attack and impose? If we “leave them alone” everything will be fine. They can change society to suit themselves and nobody should say anything about it.
But there’s your double-standard. You wonder why people oppose gay-lesbian-transgender activism, but then you expect that that group should have all the privileges to change things without any opposition.
The LGBT position attacks moral and cultural norms. Children are expected to learn certain things on their behalf.
So, why can we not be free to oppose that attack?
Why is my opinion of less value than theirs?
Vividbleau: BTW is 2+ 2=4 objectively true?
We’ll it’s certainly not just an opinion. If we agree upon a few certain starting points then it can be demonstrated that it is in fact, without a doubt, true.
BA writes, “The problem for Viola Lee is that Materialists/Physicalists and/or Darwinian atheists, or whatever you want to call them, simply have no place for free will within their worldview.”
Just FYI: I am none of those things.
@JVL
With the cake store owner that’s a little bit different from what happened to my sister
they forced her to quit after they hired her
Her employee rights that were violated
If they chose to turn her application down I could understand that however they hired her she developed characters for a movie called ParaNorman and then after a few things were divulge it was a couple months later when they kind of forced her to quit
A similar situation happened to me when I was accused of something that I was definitely not and force to Resign
JVL do you live in America?
Because LGBTQ rights are blasted every single day especially on Facebook
The whole incident like with Chick-fil-A was huge and on the news for a very long period of time, months
The same with the cake shop incident
Which is fueled an entire controversy surrounding religious rights
Then there’s the entire problem with being doxxed and other forms of social media bullying
I mean do you get on Facebook or any other form of social media because you just get bombarded with that stuff ?
In this case none of my questions are being sarcastic
Well Viola Lee, whatever you think you are, you did claim that, “The truth of 2 + 2 = 4 has nothing to do with with God.”
That sure smells like a claim that an atheist would make to me.
Further too what I have written this far as post 53, via Godel’s incompleteness theorem(s) we know that mathematics has a ‘contingent’ existence.
i.e. Math cannot explain its own existence therefore we must appeal to a ‘necessary’ existence in order to explain the existence of mathematics, i.e. we must refer to the Mind God to explain why mathematics exists in the first place.
There are many beliefs about who, what, or how god might be. I don’t think that the truth of 2 + 2 = 4 depends on one’s particular religious beliefs.
https://neurosciencenews.com/delusion-religion-neurotheology-17510/?fbclid=IwAR0EvEErs-IxFJck5nT6j5HZG8_wOvY1Z6RsVPJRmcyYgeDeY2f7n7a40N8
All right peeps this just in directly pertains to this article
JVL @17 and Viola Lee @18,
You missed the point. As AaronS1978 referenced in Orwell’s 1984, the assertion that 2+2 = 4 is racist has nothing do with “transcendent truth,” but rather it’s about what the Woke mob says is truth. If a Woke person holds up four fingers and tells you that it’s five, you had better agree that it’s five and make yourself truly believe it, or you will be cancelled!
“Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.” – George Orwell, 1984
“Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.” – Robert A. Heinlein
“We don’t need doctors, we need communist doctors.” – Mao Tse-Tung
“Power diminishes unless it’s exercised both frequently and, of necessity, arbitrarily.” – Q
-Q
I think the anti-math proposal as given is logical:
1. Racism is bad
2. Giving privilege to one culture or race is racism
3. Our math was created by one culture that is given precedence over all others
4. Therefore, our math is racist and as a result, oppressive
That syllogism follows logically. I reject the second premise but someone could debate that and remain consistent.
Irrespective of the validity of the argument (I think both 2 and 3 are faulty, and therefore so is 4), this is not about math itself but about how people have access to and use math in a wider socio-political context. It is not about whether 2 + 2 =4 is true or not.
Viola Lee,
That was an evasive answer and therefore not compelling in the least.
Let’s just stick with the Judeo-Christian religion which uniquely predicted the creation of the entire universe and thus God, with a capital G, would necessarily be the ‘architect’ responsible for the ‘miracle’ of the mathematics that describe this universe, and the ‘miracle’ of our immaterial minds being able to understand those immaterial mathematics.
But hey, if you disagree that it is a ‘miracle’, I suggest you argue with Wigner and Einstein, not me.
In fact, Einstein went so far as to chastise ‘professional atheists’ in process of calling it a ‘miracle’,
As to my claim that the Bible alone, among all the religious beliefs on earth, uniquely predicted the creation of the entire universe,
Of all the major religions in the world, only the Holy Bible was correct in its claim for a completely transcendent origin of the universe. Some later ‘holy’ books, such as the Mormon text “Pearl of Great Price” and the Qur’an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact.
(Hugh Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5)??
Verse:
Q
“You missed the point.”
Yes as I said they are clueless
Vivid
Viola
“Vividbleau: BTW is 2+ 2=4 objectively true?
We’ll it’s certainly not just an opinion. If we agree upon a few certain starting points then it can be demonstrated that it is in fact, without a doubt, true.”
Is it objectively true?
Vivid
Viola Lee
The logic for that is more clear:
1. Cultural artifacts and norms can be changed for a variety of reasons
2. The idea that 2 + 2 = 4 is based on cultural, philosophical norms
3. Therefore, if there is a reason to change the norms underlying the formula, then the formula would not be true.
They could (but haven’t yet) gone on to say that racism is a good reason to change the norms.
As I said before, materialist monism would not accept that there are two individual things that can be added to each other. “Everything is one”. There is no separation between one bunch of molecules and another – they are all connected by molecules so to say that there are “two things” would be false.
BA writes, “Let’s just stick with the Judeo-Christian religion …”
Let’s not. I know that is your religion, and like many you are absolutely convinced it is the correct one. Others differ: some think theirs is the correct one, and some think all religions, to some degree or another, are all different expressions of some universal truths. The truth of 2 + 2 = 4 is available to all, no matter what their religious beliefs are.
re 75 to Vividblue: what I described seems pretty objective to me. Maybe you should explain what you mean by “objective” here, as you appear to have something in mind that I haven’t addressed.
Viola Lee, I provided an argument for why the Judeo-Christian religion is the true one. You offered an ‘opinion’ that there could be another true one. But provided no argument
Again, your answer, i.e. opinion, is evasive and certainly not compelling.
And to repost an argument I made at post 6 for the truthfulness of Christianity in particular
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/can-we-have-an-honest-discussion-about-science-and-god/#comment-721280
re 70 to Querius: When I wrote at 18 “None of this politics, sociology, pedagogical theory, design philosophy, or theology has anything to do with the purely mathematical fact that 2 + 2 = 4 is true”, you said I “missed the point.” I think I was making the point that the political et al points being made by others were irrelevant to the pure mathematics. Did I miss a point, did you miss a point, or are we just making different points and not very interested in the points that the other is making?
I’m not interested in Biblical apologetics, BA. I also didn’t say there could be another true religion. I said there are many other people of different religious beliefs who believe their religion is true, and that your religion is not.
Well if you are not going to back up your claims, then don’t make them! You are the one who made the blanket statement “The truth of 2 + 2 = 4 has nothing to do with with God.”
That simply is a factually incorrect statement! Opinions about other religions notwithstanding!
Q, you write, “As I said before, materialist monism would not accept that there are two individual things that can be added to each other. “Everything is one”. There is no separation between one bunch of molecules and another – they are all connected by molecules so to say that there are “two things” would be false.”
As I have said, our number system, from which 2 + 2 = 4 follows, is based on two axioms: these is a distinct unit “one”, and every unit has a successor that is “one more”. Therefore, it would not be applicable to monism. In fact someplace back in a math discussion, someone (maybe you) posted the thoughts of a mathematician (I forget who) who that is somehow intelligent beings lived in a completely fluid universe where there were no distinct units, then they might have a notion of 2 + 2 = 4. But these are philosophical and not practical speculations that aren’t related to the current situation, I don’t think.
Q, it was Rovelli in a article News posted
Viola
“Maybe you should explain what you mean by “objective” here, as you appear to have something in mind that I haven’t addressed.”
It cannot not be untrue in this world or any other possible world.
Vivid
How about this, BA: The truth of 2 + 2 = 4 has nothing to do with any particular religious beliefs. People of all religious beliefs learn that 2 + 2 = 4 by the age of six or so, and mathematicians of all religious beliefs learn and use the math that follows from there, despite the fact that they have radically varying ideas about the nature of metaphysical reality.
Viola Lee
Right. The first is the Law of Identity – one of necessary first principles. The laws of excluded middle and non-contradiction apply.
However, all of this assumes an acceptance for rationality and logic.
One has to accept the axioms and the assumption that logic is a superior means of thought than illogic or irrationality is.
Not everybody believes that.
Vivid, if you accept the premises that I mentioned in 83, which are the foundation of the number system: “Our number system, from which 2 + 2 = 4 follows, is based on two axioms: there is a distinct unit “one”, and every unit has a successor that is “one more”, then 2 + 2 = 4 cannot be untrue.
It is total speculation, but my bet would be that if there are intelligent beings anyplace in the universe, they will have developed an analogous fact, although of course words and symbols will be different.
I really can’t think about “all possible worlds”. As Q and Rovelli above have suggested, if there were some world that was a totally monistic whole, with no individual entities of any sort, then 2 + 2 = 4 wouldn’t apply. But that kind of metaphysical speculation can’t be taken very seriously except as philosophical play.
Vivid, just to keep playing, is it objectively true that a person can not stick their hand through a brick wall?
Viola
“Vivid, just to keep playing, is it objectively true that a person can not stick their hand through a brick wall?”
I think I read somewhere that in a 4 dimensional world a basketball can be turned inside out without breaking the plane of the sphere so I guess it might be possible in a different world.
Vivid
So the fact (opinion?) that it is not objectively true that one can’t stick one’s hand through a brick wall is based on one’s ability to imagine a possible world where it might not be true?
In that case, do you accept that it is not objectively true that 2 + 2 = 4 because I (and Querius, and Rovelli) can imagine possible worlds where it might not be true?
If so, it would seem odd to me to base “objective truth” on the capability of our imagination to speculate on “possible worlds”.
Vivid, much more seriously: is it objectively true that there are 180° in a triangle. Whatever your answer, explain your reasoning.
Bornagain77/53
Actually, free will is a much greater problem for Christians since, as has been noted before, their own Bible provides evidence that it cannot exist.
Viola
“Vivid, much more seriously: is it objectively true that there are 180° in a triangle. Whatever your answer, explain your reasoning.”
Viola you asked from me to give you my definition of what I meant by “objectively true” I gave it to you “that which cannot be untrue in this world or any possible world. “ It seems that you are making the case that there are possible worlds where 2+ 2 = 4 is untrue ,am I misreading you?
Vivid
Viola Lee @83,
Thanks for the attribution, but it wasn’t me. I still think you’re missing the point (or at least skew to it) because objective reality itself is what’s being *rejected* by the Woke mob. Thus, your arguments based on objective reality are irrelevant to them.
Regarding your comments about the existence of God, consider that we’ve only been able to come up with wildly improbable scenarios to get everything in the universe from nothing (i.e. non-existence) not to mention the mind boggling amount information contained in DNA and epigenetic codes, complex interrelated chemical cycles, and cellular complexity that dwarfs that of modern cities or anything we humans have created. It’s wildly improbable that the information assembled itself from chaos contrary to entropy without intelligent intervention. So, how would you determine the one true super-sentient God from all the others?
The majority of scientists in the field of Quantum Mechanics now believe they have enough evidence to conclude that reality as we know it is a simulation. So, another question is why would the one true super-sentient God want to observe us in a simulation?
-Q
Seversky @ 93
“Actually, free will is a much greater problem for Christians since, as has been noted before, their own Bible provides evidence that it cannot exist.”
It is the side of the Darwinists who claim there is no free will, only the illusion that it exists. There is nothing beyond the physical and nothing that has any true meaning. Every action is based on nothing more than prior action. There is no meaning behind any words, since meaning implies the mind cannot exist.
If the Christian Bible claims free will does not exist, I suspect you have never read a single book, including the first book of the Tanakh, Genesis. Genesis 4:7 is the first verse of many throughout the Tanakh, what Christian’s refer to as the Old Testament, and continues on through what Christians refer to as the New Testament.
Sefaria has the closest translation from Hebrew to English. It is the first mention of sin as well as the first mention of free will. To put it in perspective of when 4:7 takes place, 4:8 is the moment Cain murders his brother.
Bereshit (Genesis) 4:7
Surely, if you do right, There is uplift. But if you do not do right Sin couches at the door; Its urge is toward you, Yet you can be its master.”
https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.4.7?lang=bi&aliyot=0
Silver Asiatic: You’ve asked this several times and now you’re claiming that “since we don’t let them be, that’s why they want to impose their standards on us”. So, it’s our fault that they attack and impose? If we “leave them alone” everything will be fine. They can change society to suit themselves and nobody should say anything about it.
As I’ve already said: I have never felt personally attacked or imposed upon. Nor do I think the reasonable requests for equal treatment under the law by members of the LGBTQ community should be ignored. Having grown up in the 60s when women were not allowed to run in marathons and mixed marriages were still a bit ehhh in some areas I think we should continue to make sure that all members of our societies are treated equally and fairly. They should be allowed to marry, to express they orientation in public to the same extent as heterosexual couples, etc. I just think they should be treated the same way. What’s wrong with that?
But there’s your double-standard. You wonder why people oppose gay-lesbian-transgender activism, but then you expect that that group should have all the privileges to change things without any opposition.
No, they should be treated equally, just like you or me. Look at the marriage issue: it’s not just gay and lesbians driving that issue, many, many heterosexuals now think they should be allowed to marry. It’s now the cultural norm, at least where I live. Same-sex couples are portrayed in video games, in television programmes, on the news, in politics. And I think that’s good because that’s fair and equal treatment.
The LGBT position attacks moral and cultural norms. Children are expected to learn certain things on their behalf.
Why not teach children that all people should be treated fairly and equally regardless of race, creed, faith, sexual orientation, etc? Isn’t that they way it should be? And I do not understand how that can possibly hurt you or change your own personal morals and norms.
So, why can we not be free to oppose that attack?
Why is my opinion of less value than theirs?
I don’t think you are being attacked is the point. You are being asked to treat everyone the same way. Your opinion is just as valuable as anyone else’s but you can’t expect to impose your own personal views on everyone else.
Again, what is wrong with treating everyone the same way, granting them the same legal privileges and rights? What harm does that do?
AaronS1978: they forced her to quit after they hired her
Her employee rights that were violated
As I said, I think she definitely had a legal case against them.
JVL do you live in America?
Not anymore.
Because LGBTQ rights are blasted every single day especially on Facebook
Don’t go on Facebook then. Or unfriend people whose views you find objectionable. If you don’t like the product (Facebook) then don’t use it.
The whole incident like with Chick-fil-A was huge and on the news for a very long period of time, months
The same with the cake shop incident
Which is fueled an entire controversy surrounding religious rights
I remember the cake shop situation in the UK and it did get some press. But most people thought the shop owners were prejudiced and biased and (I believe) some heterosexuals decided not to frequent that shop anymore. So, while I do believe private businesses and individuals can express their own personal prejudices (as long as they’re not providing a public service) the rest of us can choose to stop buying their products.
Then there’s the entire problem with being doxxed and other forms of social media bullying
I mean do you get on Facebook or any other form of social media because you just get bombarded with that stuff ?
I don’t know what ‘doxxed’ means. Most of my Facebook friends are pro-LGBTQ rights but I don’t find it offensive or intrusive. It’s just someone’s opinion; I happen to agree with most of what they support. And my friends and relatives who don’t agree tend to be polite and respectful and don’t start shouting and complaining; at least not on my wall often. I do have this one cousin . . .
In this case none of my questions are being sarcastic
I didn’t think they were.
If you don’t like the things you see on Facebook you have some choices other than just complaining.
If you have some problems with some social trends then you have the same rights as everyone else to express your opinion and to try and influence and introduce legislation. But you have no more right to ‘win’ than anyone else. And I would hope you get treated with respect and deference as I would expect you to treat those with whom you disagree.
Things change: 200 years ago slavery was still a protected institution in the US. Blacks and women had no rights to vote. Labourers were frequently abused and exploited by their employers. Abused women and children had very little chance of recourse or escaping. I think 200 years from now people will scratch their heads wondering why giving gays and lesbians and trans-people the same rights as everyone else was so controversial. In fact, many, many people under the age of 25 already feel that way.
Querius: You missed the point. As AaronS1978 referenced in Orwell’s 1984, the assertion that 2+2 = 4 is racist has nothing do with “transcendent truth,” but rather it’s about what the Woke mob says is truth. If a Woke person holds up four fingers and tells you that it’s five, you had better agree that it’s five and make yourself truly believe it, or you will be cancelled!
Uh huh. IF anyone is actually doing that or considering doing that it will be laughed out of every hard science department on the planet.
Don’t worry about the stupid things you think someone might do. Why don’t you talk with those people and find out what they really want?
Viola Lee, trying to put some meat on his fallacious claim that “The truth of 2 + 2 = 4 has nothing to do with God”, states.
HUH? How in the world does appealing to the fact that humans are uniquely made ‘in the image of God’ possibly support your claim that “The truth of 2 + 2 = 4 has nothing to do with God”?
The Bible, like it uniquely ‘predicted’ the creation of the physical universe, the Bible also explicitly states that human beings alone, among all creatures on earth, are uniquely made in the image of God.
In fact, the biblical belief that God created the universe, and that we alone, among all creatures on earth, are uniquely made in the image of God, and that we can therefore dare to understand the universe, was a major reason why modern science arose in Medieval Christian Europe, and in Medieval Christian Europe alone,
And a major part of being ‘made in the image of God’ is our unique ability to understand, and use, mathematics. Thus for you to appeal to our universal ability to understand and use mathematics, contrary to what you may believe, only further strengthens my position and further refutes your claim that “The truth of 2 + 2 = 4 has nothing to do with God”.
Viola Lee, apart from God creating us in His image, you simply have no explanation as to why humans should have this unique universal ability, among all creatures on earth, to understand and use mathematics.
In 2014, a group of leading (Darwinian) experts in the area of language research, authored a paper in which they admitted that they have, “essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,”
The late best selling author Tom Wolfe was so taken aback by this honest confession from leading Darwinists that he wrote a book on the subject. Here is a general outline of his main argument;
In other words, humans have, completely contrary to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking, managed to become masters of the planet, not by brute force, but simply by our unique ability to communicate information and also to, more specifically, infuse information into material substrates in order to create, (i.e. intelligently design), objects that are extremely useful for our defense, basic survival in procuring food, furtherance of our knowledge, and also for our pleasure.
And although the ‘top-down’ infusion of immaterial information into material substrates, that allowed humans to become ‘masters of the planet’, was rather crude to begin with, (i.e. spears, arrows, and plows etc..), this top down infusion of immaterial information into material substrates has become much more impressive over the last half century or so.
Specifically, the ‘top-down’ infusion of mathematical and/or logical information into material substrates lies at the very basis of many, if not all, of man’s most stunning, almost miraculous, technological advances in recent decades.
What is more interesting still about the fact that humans have a unique ability to understand and create information, and have come to ‘master the planet’ through the ‘top-down’ infusion of immaterial information into material substrates, is the fact that, due to advances in science, both the universe and life itself, are now found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.
It is hard to imagine a more convincing proof that we are ‘made in the image of God’, than finding that both the universe and life itself are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and have come to ‘master the planet’ precisely because of our ability to infuse immaterial information into material substrates.
A more convincing proof that we are ‘made in the image’ of God, (rather than just the fact that we uniquely possess an ability to understand and use immaterial information), is the fact that God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was God.
And that just so happens to be precisely the proof claimed within Christianity.
And although Christianity is certainly rich in apologetic resources that Christians can utilize to defend their Christian faith, my favorite ‘proof’ that Jesus is exactly who He claimed to be, (namely God incarnate), is the Shroud of Turin,,, which just so happens to be, by far, the most ‘scientifically’ scrutinized ancient relic on the face of earth.
Verse:
VL & JVL, on fad again, the problem is, that critical theories are part of a totalitarian system. They intend to take it all over under dictatorial control of a lawless ideological oligarchy. That’s the point of the 1984 exchange over 2 + 2 and what the party wants to be acknowledged. I embedded the vid in my current live event post, why not watch. KF
So the 2 + 2 doesn’t equal 4 business is just being used as a metaphor and symbol of a political idea, and is not really about math. I agree with that.
re 94 to Vivid. It would clarify our understanding of what we each mean if you would answer my question, as I have tried to answer yours.
But to answer you, I don’t think it’s clear what “all possible worlds” means. If you mean some kind of other universe, I can imagine (and I got this idea from the physicist Carlo Rovelli) a universe that is completely undifferentiated so that there are no individual elements of any kind, and no intelligent beings of any kind. In such a world the concepts embodied in 2 + 2 = 4 would just not apply. It wouldn’t be true or untrue: it would just be meaningless.
As I have said, and I would be interested if you would comment on this statement, the truth of 2 + 2 + 4 is dependent upon a few basic axioms: if you assume, as an axiom, that a unit exists and that each unit has a successor that is one unit more, than 2 + 2 = 4 is absolutely true.
One issue that may be confusing our discussion is that I think you are talking about the physical universe while I am talking about the “universe” of pure mathematics: logically constructed systems of clearly defined abstract concepts.
Following my attempt to further the discussion with some more of my thoughts, would you answer my question: “Is it objectively true that there are 180° in a triangle?”
And perhaps you could explain more about what you mean by all possible worlds? Are you talking about actual “worlds” such as our physical universe, or are you talking about abstract symbolic “worlds” such as mathematical systems?
I proudly wear a T-shirt that says
A couple people asked me if I actually believe this. I had to tell them I was mocking those who espouse a subjective explanation for the world.
I can’t believe that anyone here actually believes 2+2 is not equal to 4. So what is the conflict? But it goes to show that we will argue over misrepresentations anytime we want.
By the way triangles don’t exist in the real world and neither does a degree or a straight line. They only exist in our minds but acting like these concepts do actually have physical reality are extremely useful tools for dealing with the real world.
The expression “all possible worlds” could mean anything, even worlds where the basic laws of physic may not exist or ones where there are other laws that operate. It could also mean any world where there were different values to the basic laws of physics. This latter has led to the multiverse theory in order to combat the fine tuning hypothesis as a proof there is a God.
Of course the greatest enigma of all is why does anything exist?
JVL
being doxxed is when someone finds and takes your personal info, all of it, and leaks it all over social media, it’s usually sensitive info and they often tell everyone where you live, your phone number, your ssn, and then say how you are a racist or bigot
What Happens next is people start attacking this person because they know where they live they’ll have things like having the swat team called over to their house due to suspected drug trafficking
Often something terrible will happen to them it will also ruin their career and it’s like cancer on the web
This has been something that has been deployed by SJW’s for quite some time “social justice warriors”
Jerry writes, “I can’t believe that anyone here actually believes 2+2 is not equal to 4. So what is the conflict? But it goes to show that we will argue over misrepresentations anytime we want.”
I completely agree.
He also writes, “By the way triangles don’t exist in the real world and neither does a degree or a straight line. They only exist in our minds but acting like these concepts do actually have physical reality are extremely useful tools for dealing with the real world.”
I agree with that also, although I would add “perfect” to triangles, straight lines, etc. The physical world is imperfect and the math is perfect, but the math works as a model for the world. That has been a source of both usefulness and wonder since the dawn of history.
“I proudly wear a T-shirt that says 2 + 2 = 5 for large values of two”
Lawrence Krauss, a militant atheist, wears that T-shirt in all seriousness, not as a joke,,,
Lawrence Krauss Contradicts HImself by Denying Logic (2+2=5?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so0TOp1GMQE
VL, kindly see here, once a distinct possible world is on the table, a lot of Math is embedded as framework to that, including the case being discussed by properties of 2, 4 and meaning of + and =. That comes from the force of the law of identity, and it readily explains Wigner’s observation on the power of Math. KF
PS, BTW, I have now taken excerpts and made time indexed notes from the GA hearing. This SHOULD have been headline news across the US but I suspect it was hardly noted. The overall picture reflects what has been built up over weeks and it points decisively to a seriously tainted election.
BA77, Krauss, I am ashamed to acknowledge, is a Physicist. KF
JVL
It’s an attack against my culture and my moral norms. It’s corrupted and evil behavior being taught. So, it does hurt me, my life, my family very much – it’s a deep attack on what I hold as sacred and it’s an assault on the cultural norms that I uphold. So, I should have the right to oppose it – just as they supposedly have the right to attack.
LGBT cannot expect to impose their personal views on me and on those who agree with me.
Treating them the same way means treating them with love, honesty and respect. We don’t lie to them and ignore the damage they are doing to themselves and to society. If they are wrong, we correct them – that is what I would expect someone to do for me – to help me.
So, the transgender movement is wrong. I treat them fairly by trying to stop the evil they are doing, and this will be the best way I can help them turn around and walk in the right path.
That’s treating everyone fairly and honestly. Ignoring their sins and public evils is unjust and unfair.
Viola Lee
It’s a representation of a philosophical idea. That’s what math is. Math only works under certain philosophical assumptions. Change those assumptions and 2+2 does not equal 4.
That’s the point here. People trust math and science and think those intellectual methods are necessarily a part of society but they’re not. They can be destroyed or removed. People can try to affirm an irrational social foundation (although I agree it is impossible to completely affirm an irrational structure).
I think we see it here continually among materialist-atheists.
They affirm an irrational foundation.
Then they insist that 2+2 must necessarily equal 4.
But if your foundation undercuts and destroys logic – when it’s philosophically irrational, then the math has no foundation.
KF
Every atheist who accepts math, accepts the Law of Identity – an unproven axiom, the origin of which cannot be sustained by materialism.
From the Law of Identity, we arrive at the values of:
Being vs non-being
Reality vs non-reality
Truth vs falsehood
Good vs evil
Those are the elements implanted in the rational soul of human beings at their creation by God.
Starting from the Law of Identity – which must be affirmed, not proven, in order for any logical mathematics to exist. (you could have illogical mathematics possibly).
JVL @99,
They will replace those science departments with people of their choice.
“We don’t need doctors, we need communist doctors.” – Mao Tse-Tung
“We don’t need science professors, we need Woke science professors.” – 2020 and on
Simple. They want to be in power. They want everything you have and for you to be their slave forever in perpetual payment for their victimhood, real or imagined. They will do or say anything to get that power.
“Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.” – George Orwell, 1984
Silver Asiatic @110 and 111,
Nicely stated!
Yes, indeed. Nevertheless, blinded by their hatred, they will reject the people who treat them equitably (even “silence is violence”) and then finally go after each other in an orgy of Woke autophagy similar to the excesses of the French Revolution.
And this is why it’s important for them to remove the lessons of history.
-Q
VL
“Following my attempt to further the discussion with some more of my thoughts, would you answer my question: “Is it objectively true that there are 180° in a triangle?”
Viola my point was addressing the ideas of Critical Theory as it relates to math. I posted a link to show that indeed Critical Theory is making inroads on math and science and indeed Critical theorists do indeed deny that 2+ 2=4. My additional point is that math and science will not , nor is it, escaping the ramifications of Critical Theory which is destructive to science, that’s it.
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/08/2-plus-2-never-equals-5/
Regarding 180 degree triangles I do not disagree with what you , SA, or Jerry have written about them
Vivid
Q
“They will replace those science departments with people of their choice.”
Or subject them to Chinese struggle sessions.
Vivid
No, Vivid, I was NOT “addressing the ideas of Critical Theory as it relates to math.” I was specifically saying that the politics and the actual math are separate items. You want to combine them, but I am not addressing the socio-political issues at all. But we’ll have to leave it at that.
And you seem to have not answered my question. You have said “objective” means “true in this and any possible world.” Just referencing unspecified things that Jerry, SA, and I have said doesn’t clearly answer the question: Does “there are 180° in a triangle” meet your criteria?
VL
“And you seem to have not answered my question. You have said “objective” means “true in this and any possible world.” Just referencing unspecified things that Jerry, SA, and I have said doesn’t clearly answer the question: Does “there are 180° in a triangle” meet your criteria?”
Why should I answer your question? I have made no claims regarding triangles nor 2+ 2 = 4 meeting any particular criteria, I gave a definition and asked you a question which frankly I am still unclear on your answer and I asked for clarification because you seem to be saying there are possible worlds 2+2=4 is untrue.
You act as if I am obligated to respond to your commands, sorry no.
Vivid
VL
“You have said “objective” means “true in this and any possible world.” “
No I did not say that.
Vivid
Vivid, You asked a question back at 55 and I responded. You asked me further questions, to which I responded. Given that this is a discussion forum I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask questions back in order to have a discussion. It’s pretty clear that that is not something you want to do.
Also, when I wrote, “You have said “objective” means “true in this and any possible world, you replied, “No I did not say that.”
I just went back and looked: what you wrote was “It cannot not be untrue in this world or any other possible world.” That could be phrased, I think as, “must be true …”, but I just went from memory.
And I am very aware that no one is obligated to respond, and I also think that asking a question is not a demand. But it does seem to me that you look for opportunities to be antagonistic, which doesn’t make responding to you very fruitful. I should have known better, but I’m interested in the subject so I tried to discussion it. My bad.
VL
“Vivid, You asked a question back at 55 and I responded. You asked me further questions, to which I responded.”
Your response was unclear and I will ask this a 3rd time
“ I gave a definition and asked you a question which frankly I am still unclear on your answer and I asked for clarification because you seem to be saying there are possible worlds 2+2=4 is untrue.?”
“But it does seem to me that you look for opportunities to be antagonistic,”
I think there is some truth to that, I will try to do better
Vivid
Q 113
Thank you! I’m never sure if my point came across well or not – so I appreciate the validation!!
Thanks, Vivid. I’m not sure that I could say much more than what I’ve said, so let me repeat a few things, and perhaps you could tell me more specifically what is unclear. These are quotes from previous posts, edited a bit and leaving out all my questions about triangles.
and
If you wish, I can explain why the example about triangles is relevant to this discussion of both “can’t be untrue” (which I think is no different than “must be true”) and the issue of what is meant by “possible worlds.”
VL
I know that ideas have far reaching consequences and sometimes what you think is antagonistic is more me being combative. I do admit I can be very sarcastic though.
“If you wish, I can explain why the example about triangles is relevant to this discussion of both “can’t be untrue” (which I think is no different than “must be true”) and the issue of what is meant by “possible worlds.”
I think “cannot be untrue “is different from “ must be true” Regarding triangles I am interested and I do wish.
Vivid
Let me work backwards. Vivid, you write, “I think “cannot be untrue “is different from “ must be true”. I don’t undestand that, but I’ll try to explain what it might mean, and then maybe you can clarify.
If it is known that a proposition must either be either true or false, such as propositions in math or symbolic logic, then if it cannot be untrue it must be true, because those are the only two possibilities.
Do you agree with this? Are you thinking about some type of proposition other than math and logic? Can you give an example, perhaps of a statement that “cannot be untrue” but is nevertheless not necessarily true?
As to triangles, I’ll tell a famous math story. Pardon me if you know all this, but I’ll keep it short. Euclid built all of classical (what we now call Euclidean) geometry starting from a few undefined terms and five famous axioms (or postulates). The 5th postulate was about the existence of a single, unique line parallel to a given line through a given point. Since this postulates what happens at an infinite distance (the two lines never intersect), for centuries people were concerned that this wasn’t as obvious as the rest of the foundations of geometry. Using this postulate we can prove that there are 180° in a triangle.
Centuries later, as often happens in math, some people decided experiment and replace the Parallel Postulate, as it is called, with some alternativea: either there is no parallel line through the given point or there are an infinite number. It turns out that each of those not only produces a geometry as fully consistent and full-bodied as Euclidean geometry, but that these non-Euclidean geometries are applicable to curved surfaces, as opposed to the flat surface of Euclidean geometry. One produces a geometry of a positively curved surface, like a sphere, and the other of a negatively curved surface like a saddle.
On a positively curved surface, there are more than 180° in a triangle, and on a negatively curved surface, there are less than 180°
So if one asks “are there 180° in a triangle” (or more strongly, is it objectively true that there are 180° in a triangle), the answer has to be that it depends on which geometrical system you are in, or more specifically, which parallel postulate you are using. Within each system the appropriate conclusion is absolutely true, and I consider that an objective truth. Anyone who understands the foundation of the system and the logical techniques used within it will see the truth of the appropriate statement.
However, if someone protests that there’s got to be an answer to the question without reference to a particular geometry, the response is that there isn’t any. The question “are there 180° in a triangle” has no answer in of itself. The answer is neither Yes or No without a qualifier.
This is an example of what I have been calling a “mathematical world”. Once you establish the foundation, which always involves some choices that aren’t provable, you can be successful lead to a fruitful set of conclusions that are indubitably (hence objective, in my thinking) true in that system. To talk about whether they are true “outside” the system is not a meaningful question.
On the other hand, if you are talking about a real world of some kind of space, then the question “are there 180° in a triangle” can be considered an experimental question about the curvature of the surface you are on. Airplane pilots and ships on the ocean routinely use spherical geometry, which has many different theorems than Euclidean plane geometry. And modern theories about the curvature of space use these ideas all the time. Long ago the famous mathematician Gauss tried to measure the angles between three mountain peaks in Europe to see if the angles added up to 180° or not, but there was no way to get sufficient accuracy to draw any conclusions.
So the question of interest is a mathematical statement “objectively true”. In the world of mathematic, facts are either true or false, and if they are true, they are objectively so: there is no room for subjective opinions about the facts of math!
I hope some of this explain the points I’ve been making better, or stimulates some questions or comments on your part.
Vividbleau @115
Exactly.
Viola Lee @124
Great point! This is also why all non-trivial True-False questions are false at a deep-enough level.
But objective truth is now considered racist and misogynistic. Ultimately, political power is all about coercion. As Mao said in a Communist Party meeting, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
When you face an angry mob or supervisor, what do you imagine the response will be when you inform them that planar triangles enclose a total of 180 degrees?
Silver Asiatic @121,
Your point came across, and you’re most welcome. 🙂
Hope you all have a great new year, regardless.
-Q
VL
Briefly
“If it is known that a proposition must either be either true or false, such as propositions in math or symbolic logic, then if it cannot be untrue it must be true, because those are the only two possibilities.”
Agreed and now I understand your answer to my question.
Maybe this will help as to why I use “untrue” In one of my posts I referenced that evidently in a 5 dimensional world you could turn a basketball inside out without breaking the plane of the sphere but we don’t exist in a five dimensional world. So in our world it is not possible ( true) to do this but in a extra dimensional world it is not untrue. I do think you do make a fair point and I am nit picking but I gotta think on it some more. Logic cannot tell us what is true only what is untrue. Are you familiar with the book “Flatland” ?
I’ve been dealing with a family emergency so I am just popping in. and wanted at least give you a brief response. I was aware about triangles but you put it in very understandable terms. I am afraid when it comes to math you are way above my pay grade
Vivid
SA, LoI is antecedent to proof, we must recognise distinction to exist much less think and reason. I clip from Paul, who was likely using a standard didactic ABC example to hammer home the exposure of flaws in thought he was addressing, next chapter he used LNC BTW, to overturn a chain of absurd implications:
My argument in my linked paper (it’s short) is that a possible world W, to be distinct from some close neighbour W’ has to have some aspect A that marks the distinction, in effect W – W’ = A. So we partition W = {A|~A} yielding nil in the dichotomy |, two distinct unities, so 0,1,2 immediately by inspection. From such by construction, {} –>0. {0} –>1, {0,1} –>2 then extending without limit {0,1,2 . . .k} ->k+1, etc finally {0,1, 2 . . .} –> w, first established transfinite ordinal. From this, additive inverses gives integers [already, vectors], then ratios rationals then infinite sum of real and fractional parts, reals, onward complex through the j rotation operator. Beyond, we extend to hyperreals etc, bringing in especially infinitesimals and of course transfinites.
In this context, the undifferentiated world is simply one possible world. That being in effect a sufficiently complete description in propositions of how this or another world in principle could be actualised. Further to this, mathematical systems lay out logic-model possible worlds. Math being best understood as the study of the logic of structure and quantity.
In which context, the study of part is where critical theory can corrupt. The actual structure is built in.
KF
VL,
First, kindly see the just above to SA i/l/o my already linked paper.
Next, the what is a triangle example actually inadvertently highlights a key point: implicit context and how that is subject to rationalisation and rhetoric, thus the sort of games Critical Theorists and activists play.
That oh so humble source, Wiki, against ideological bent:
The implication is, that unless otherwise specified for non-standard discourse, triangle denotes a planar figure with three straight intersecting sides or edges, forming the three vertices, i.e. angles. To develop algebraically, carry the above to SA to the point of a reals continuum. Apply j* a/c rot by a right angle, twice, sweeping a plane. Which we can denote 0x, j*0x –> y, thence go y = m*x + c to describe a straight line unambiguously. Already, j*0x –>y has defined the second leg of an isosceles triangle on 0, x, y, thus has defined a flat plane, with all that comes with such. Where a straight line is a unidirectional succession or extension of points in a continuum with a particular direction relative to an origin, the 0x reals line being the classic example, and yes vectros lurk everywhere. This is a logic model world.
In that world triangles with angle sum two right angles are readily defined. Likewise that lines with same slope relative to 0x, m, will be at uniform separation for any given x, i.e. are parallel, indicating a flat space.
This can readily be extended to three dimensions.
So, is this logic model world the only possible one? No, as Gauss et al discovered. Surface of a sphere will in the large diverge though in the small, it is close enough that it suggests a Euclidean space, our common sense space. For the cosmos, geometry becomes a material issue per Relativity, masses warp spacetime.
None of this undermines that a Euclidean space is a valid logic-model world with structural, quantitative patterns that are intelligible to reasoned investigation and in some cases can be empirically discovered through local observation. However, that process is vulnerable to Critical Theory attack.
As is beginning.
KF
Thanks for your reply, Vivid, and good luck with your family emergency. And yes, I read Flatland ages ago, and it’s a good introduction to some ideas about dimensionality.
KF, Wikipedia talks about non-planar triangles also, and for some people (airplane pilots or even large-scale surveyors), “standard discourse” would take spherical geometry into account. Yes, virtually all the time in real-world applications or general discussion people are referring to planar triangles. But from the point of view of the philosophy of math, the fact that those follow from an assumption that as viable alternatives is an important fact.
And what this has to do with Critical race theory is absolutely beyond me, but I am also not at all interested in your thoughts about that. I’ve seen the arguments here in many posts, and they just don’t have anything to do with math itself.
This OP is about science and belief in God. First some have latched onto 2+2=4 as the point to argue. No rational person disputes this. Then it’s triangles. Then it’s different types/definitions of triangles. An angle in a plane is not the same thing as an angle on a non planar surface. So to equate the two is specious. They are similar but different concepts.
I’m not sure what is being discussed or disagreed on. Can anyone succinctly state anything that is being disagreed on? If not why all the rhetoric?
The referenced article in the OP is standard ID evidence for an intelligence being behind the origin of certain physical phenomena. No one is disputing math here.
I think the most interesting point is being ignored and being replaced by irrelevancies. Nothing new there. And then there is the issue of truth and power which we are witnessing daily in our world which does have relevance to the OP.
I started the 2 + 2 stuff because News, in her first comment, wrote, “Even if you don’t believe in God, can you at least believe that 2+2=4?”, which I didn’t think was relevant at all, and the discussion took off from there. The recent part of the discussion started with the question of was it objectively true that 2 + 2 = 4, which is interesting philosophically. BA contributed by arguing that the truth of 2 + 2 = 4 depended on his version of the Christian God, which I disputed. Those are a few of the points that have driven the discussion. Somehow transgenderism snuck in there. Discussions take winding courses.
I started the 2 + 2 stuff because News, in her first comment, wrote, “Even if you don’t believe in God, can you at least believe that 2+2=4?”, which I didn’t think was relevant at all, and the discussion took off from there. The recent part of the discussion started with the question of was it objectively true that 2 + 2 = 4, which is interesting philosophically. BA contributed by arguing that the truth of 2 + 2 = 4 depended on his version of the Christian God, which I disputed. Those are a few of the points that have driven the discussion. Somehow transgenderism snuck in there. Discussions take winding courses.
VL, immediately, you tried to redefine context and framing by talking about a specialist usage as though it were standard. Let friend pilot or surveyor or draftsman go to a technical stationery shop and buy ruler, T-square and a set of triangles, as well as a protractor. What will he get, snippets from the surface of a finite radius sphere or planar figures? Then, say they are tiling a floor, will they get non-planar tiles? That tells us all we need to know. Next, the observable facts on triangles, e.g. Pythagoras’ 345 relationships are antecedent to axiomatisations and debates about other viable logic model worlds. In the case of core quantities and structures tied to N, Z, R, C, R* etc, these can be shown to be present in any possible world even a mush world such as you suggest, that is because such are framework abstracta for worlds to be. And they are highly suggestive that the root world that enables other worlds is minded. KF
PS: Your now usual lockoff, is duly noted. For record, Critical Theories — there are many — will impose ideologies lawlessly on any institution they can subvert, including practice of fields such as Math, Engineering, Physics, Chemistry etc. The phrases year zero reset and cancel culture are indicia. That was already noted but clearly cuts across what you are willing to acknowledge.
Actually very relevant to OP. Are there actual beliefs that rational people can agree on. This should be one of them.
If there are points of agreement, what are they? Nearly everything in math is a start.
What can we not agree on? I’m not sure what fits into this category that is legitimate because ID accepts nearly every finding in scientific study. It just challenges interpretation of these findings.
That is how ID proceeds. It takes what has generally been agreed upon and argues to its conclusion. And what is its conclusion? That an intelligence is a likely explanation for certain physical phenomena. Not an absolute certainty but a highly likely one. Current science commits the logical fallacy of “begging the question” by stipulating no intelligence can be considered an explanation. Illogical.
But power structures determine was is truth, not evidence and logic. That is the fundamental issue of the OP. Unfortunately it plays out in every aspect of our lives not just science.
Jerry,
we are seeing how objections are made by twisting issues into pretzels. Above, Vivid was overawed by use of discovery of non euclidean geometries, which is of course a rhetorical impact. I rebalanced.
Now, I am marking the difference between pre-axiomatic first principles and duties and culturally/situationally conditioned axiomatisations, world models, worldview presuppositions etc, as unless the distinction is recognised there can be no escaping of relativisation of rationality.
Even what objectivity means is being debated.
The answer is, truth comes in degrees and has a solid, core definition tracing to Aristotle that Dead White Man (as in tyranny of per Critical Theory fallacies).
Where, we have to get first things straight to get anywhere or the pretzel twisting game reduces all to relativistic chaos.
Truth is accurate description of reality, what is. That is it says of what is, that it is; and, of what is not, that it is not. But in a world where that error exists is a first undeniable truth, an issue of reliable access obtains and is used by radicals to claim oppressive imposition to relativise and dismiss inconvenient truth by falsely labelling it a tool of oppression. often by said DWM.
Subjective truth is truth as one perceives, perhaps quite accurately. Absolute truth is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on a matter. In theistic terms, reality as perceived by its source and sustainer, God. He is truth himself.
In between lies the province of provisionally, somewhat or even highly warranted, reliable truth claims, that in relatively rare cases can be incorrigible or even inescapable or self evident. This is the realm of responsible truth claims of objective character significantly independent of the mind or perceptions of some fallible thinker.
That is the province we aspire to and it is the context of credibility of the design inference or of holding God to be credibly real.
I hope this helps to level the playing field enough to play seriously.
In that context, my next move is in a PS.
KF
PS: Starting from first duties and principles, as we start the 3rd decade of the first century of the third Christian Millennium:
I turn, now to the framework for the second duty, using Epictetus on inescapability of logic
Law of Identity is the pivot here, non contradiction and excluded middle, strictly, are close corollaries. Without distinct identity we cannot even think or communicate intelligibly, here is St Paul:
Vivid, I hope things work out for your fam, an emergency is not a great way to start a new year. KF
kf writes, “Above, Vivid was overawed by use of discovery of non euclidean geometries,”
Baloney. I am not “overawed” by non-Euclidean geometries.
You aren’t worth talking to.
Kf referred to Vivid not Viola. Delete your comment and I’ll delete mine here.
Not deleted so I’ll leave my comment.
I just saw your comment, Jerry, and you are absolutely right. That’s a bad mistake on my part, and I apologize to KF. It’s too late to delete my comments, but my mea culpa is here.
Jerry
Exactly. Viola was trying to say “nobody denies this” so it’s irrelevant and ridiculous for the OP to present it. But there are many ways in which 2+2=4 is denied, indirectly, and which it supports ID.
If 2+2 represents reality – then materialism is false (because if everything is just molecules, in reality there cannot be 2 things adding to 2 other different things).
Radical subjectivism is false also (that nothing really exists, its all just in our head). Because 2 things exist and can be added to 2 more.
Skepticism is also false (we don’t know anything for certain). But we would know there are two things added to two more.
With an agreement that 2+2 really does equal 4, the basics of Logic are affirmed, and we know something about reality. Those anti-ID ideas are refuted.
If someone says that 2+2 doesn’t “really” equal four because everything is an illusion or we don’t really know anything – then they just refuted the math. They’re saying that the formula isn’t really correct and the answer could either be something different, or impossible to calculate.
That destroys math.
The Law of Identity (a thing has a unique, real identity, it is one thing and not identical with another) is the foundation by which we then have logic and then have ID inferences.
The Law of Identity cannot be the product of blind, material processes – it has to originate elsewhere. The classical idea is that it originated in the mind of God.
Obviously, that doesn’t go over too well with the anti-ID crowd, but there it is anyway.
SA, food for thought. KF
Going off on a bit of a tangent . . .
Nope.
T or F: Do you still beat your spouse?
The word “still” makes this impossible to answer if you never beat your spouse. It’s also ambiguous–my wife usually beats me at backgammon on our game nights, but she’s never beaten me at chess.
In the Bible, there’s a scene in which the Israelite military leader, Joshua, just lost a stupid battle when “the angel of the Lord” appeared to him. Joshua asked him, “Are you for us or against us?” A binary choice. The angel of the Lord, replied, “No.”
Having more than binary answers is analogous of curved space, where things get interesting. Have you ever noticed that Pi is a variable in curved space? For example , in a spherical space, the value of Pi depends on the relative size of the circle you’re measuring.
In quantum mechanics, superposition (which has now been visually observed in a paddle experiment), there are states where something is both true and false.
-Q
KF
“Above, Vivid was overawed by use of discovery of non euclidean geometries,”
Overawed, thats at’s a bit of an overstatement.
Off to the hospital.
Vivid
The statement “Do you still beat your spouse?” isn’t “a proposition in math or symbolic logic.”
English language statements are full of ambiguity and sometimes meaningless. My statement was about, as I clearly said, propositions in math or symbolic logic.
Best of luck with your emergency, Vivid. Not a good way to start the new year.
Q, actually, the wife-beating case is loaded innuendo turning on implicit context and creating a fallacy of the complex question, not a claim about a state of affairs that is either so or not so. Superpositions [of what, yielding what] etc in quantum mechanics do not invalidate that there are recognisable, distinctly identifiable states of affairs which may be accurately said to be the case or may fail of being accurately described. The slipping in of an unannounced, unusual context into a situation is fallacious; e.g. triangle has a normal default meaning, shifting context without announcement is an error at the least. 2 + 2 = 4 has a definite standard sense, but this is now being brought under pressure from the sort of contexts being described, the 1984 example is a satirical classic on such. If you want a more realistic case read Havel’s famous essay on the power of the powerless, highlighting the green grocer and the sign in the window. A good slice of the world just got out from that yoke, why do so many want to go back there again? KF
Folks, see why we need to sort out first principles and duties of reason? That is how bad things now are. KF
Viola Lee @146,
No, but you can get there with existential logic–the kind with the backwards capital E. : -)
KF @148,
Thank you. I was objecting to a simplistic binary interpretation of reality. The result is a heavily polarized and pixelated perspective, often wrong, reminiscent of the logical arguments of a Baruch Spinoza, for example. Or in quantum mechanics, there is not 0 or 1 relating to whether a particle exists, but rather a non-deterministic probability wave that can be a normal curve or a far narrower, leptokurtic wave. However, I’m definitely not arguing for the intellectual goo that passes for politically correct discourse.
The paper is long (I’m only about half done) and depressing but it has many good observations made by someone completely sick of being marinaded in vacuous ideological slogans for decades under a totalitarian regime. And Havel’s country, Czechoslovakia, was considered the country with the mildest form of Communism by a former colleague from the country. Some notable quotes:
This type of totalitarian regime is not content to be merely authoritarian, it also demands that the people under its power continually, obediently, and mutually reinforce its ideology throughout the oppressed society, using banal slogans.
It turns its people into mindless zombies and willing accomplices in the oppression. It’s not unlike a battered spouse telling their friends and the authorities that they “deserved” the beatings.
The downward spiral has now begun in our society. On a long walk through several neighborhoods, I observed a number of political signs in the front windows of houses that were obviously made by children under the direction of their politically fundamentalist teachers. The hand drawn signs had no political diversity—diversity is not an option in this case—but they all were identical except for their fonts and colors.
I’m sure if the signs weren’t prominently displayed, the children would be encouraged by their propaganda-machine teachers to rat out their parents as “dissidents.”
However, the people emerging from those sorts of societies are often slovenly and incompetent because they’ve been intoxicated by their victimhood and self-justified by their political religion. All their anger and frustration in their miserable little world are a hair-trigger away from their bottomless anger and cruelty against any human who dares tell them the truth.
And when the system finally collapses under its own weight, the pseudo-intellectuals in foreign universities all say, “Yes, but that wasn’t true socialism.”
Yes, it was. Repeatedly.
-Q
Q,
I see you are enjoying Havel. That essay was pivotal in the collapse of the Iron Curtain.
On quantum theory, notice my comment on superposition: of what, yielding what. It is at that level that the principle of distinct identity manifests itself, one cannot assert what is or may be without having some distinction recognised. In the equations, the symbols carry meanings and work by distinctions. The observations are distinct also.
Yes there is superposition of unresolved states and observations influence how such is resolved, but again and again we rely on distinct identity i/l/o defining characteristics.
Pardon, but the widely promoted, sing off the same hymn sheet, relativistic denial and belittling of “binary” thinking rather misses the point: it is not black vs white but White vs non-white, any shade of red, green or purple would do just as well. And, surprise: white is itself a superposition, the result of emission, transmission and [scattered] reflection across the visible spectrum — specular reflection gives mirror-like effects, and of course the two can be blended . . . superposed.
So is purple — as opposed to violet — BTW. Sandy, khaki like colours and the famous olive drab are dark yellows and brown is typically a dark orange possibly with other admixtures. Grey is darkened down from white. Colour of course is our perceptual response to a pattern of quantum effects.
Aristotle saw that long ago, he spoke of truth saying of what is, that it is and of what is not that it is not. That subtlety opens up room for recognition of complexity without undermining distinct identity.
Ironically the dismissive projection of simplistic binary thinking to the despised or belittled other may itself require a look in the mirror.
KF
PS: My point is, we need to clear up the fallacious patterns embedded in our failed intellectual culture if we are going to make sound progress on the main point.
Thank you for your response, KF.
. . . and white might only be a low-saturation version of gray/grey.
• In the wisdom of Lao-Tsu (Laozi) on the Tao, he asserts that the truth that can be articulated in words is not the truth.
• Jesus said “I AM the way, the truth and the life.”
• Pilate asked Jesus rhetorically, what is truth.
• In his first letter to the believers at Corinth, the apostle Paul, asserted that he determined not to know anything except Christ and him crucified, so that the faith of the believers should not rest on the wisdom of men, but in the demonstration of the Spirit and power.
Jesus also taught the people
Just look at the fruit in the lives of many vaunted political and religious leaders—their honeyed promises are poisoned with their self-interest or bitterness. And pots of their honey are given away by well-meaning but naïve academics and their followers, and the legacy press promotes its sweetness and covers up the sickness and death that always follows.
In terms of looking binary assertions in the mirror, yes indeed. This is exactly why I chose the words “heavily polarized and pixelated perspective.” A beautiful photograph may be displayed as your desktop background with each pixel using a binary code for its color. But what if your monitor could display the image using only 16 large pixels? Or worse yet, only one?
-Q
Q, with all due respect the teacher has erred. Had he said instead that there are realities beyond our ability to describe fully and accurately, yes. But insofar as one accurately describes some facet of reality, that is a statement of truth however limited. To pretend it is all of truth or that we have mastered all truth is error. But even if we see through a glass darkly, we do see. KF
PS: Vision works from rods and cones in an array, effectively updated every 1/8 second, and so vision is itself superposed. Ponder the blind spot.
KF,
Excellent observation about Lao-Tsu. All knowledge is abstracted to a certain level of detail, which is fine as long as we acknowledge them as abstractions.
And we should also remember that one of the basic assumptions of science is that humans are actually capable of understanding the ultimate truths of nature. What we learn from the scientific method always seems to be a succession of models approximating observed effects. We can only judge these models by their utility. While the discovery of nature through the scientific method may be attainable, to understand God is more in line with Lao-Tsu’s statement which was preceded by about 100 years by this quote from Isaiah :
But we enjoy uncovering God’s brilliance in creation, one abstraction layer at a time. We just need to do it with humility.
-Q
Q, I have long since been disabused of ultimacy on scientific theoretical claims, reconstructions of remote past, far cosmological future projections etc. The pessimistic induction gets a powerful boost from my home discipline. The Ptolemaic scheme after 1500 years collapsed, the Newtonian Synthesis barely lasted 200. What gives us confidence we finally got it right? KF
Several years ago I taught in a business school in New York City as an adjunct. One evening another adjunct and I shared an office. He was an elderly man, a Jewish lawyer and I a Christian. In New York one meets Jewish people every day and the business school had several Jewish faculty.
For some strange reason we started discussing God. Hard to imagine as such a discussion in New York is extremely rare especially amongst two people who just met. And I never met him again.
He said there was no proof for God that would absolutely convince everyone of His existence especially the intellectuals. It all came down to faith. He defined faith as belief in something that was not certain. Because belief in certainty is not faith and of no value for belief in God. He gave the example of the sun rising in the East every morning. There is no value in this other than we can plan our day around it which is obviously important in the short run. But it took no great assent to do so.
He said that belief in God must remain uncertain because if it was exact knowledge as the sun rising, it would be of little value to believe. He then said it would always be this way by design. Because if it wasn’t, there would be no free will and we would be automatons.
There will always be countervailing information. As we now use science to demonstrate the high probability of the existence of a creator, the science community is out in force to discredit science if it should support the concept of a creator.
This idea or designed uncertainty has been in the back of my mind for years as to how best express it or discuss it. If I were God, would it be necessary to incorporate it in My creation? Must there always be a knife’s edge between belief and non belief?
A modern day example which has no relevance to belief in God is whether there was significant fraud in the past presidential election.
Is uncertainty in God intelligent design?
KF,
Exactly. The history of science should only give us confidence that we’ve never got it right so far, only a bit less completely wrong. In 50 or 100 years, we’ll certainly look back at our scientific “facts” with similar condescension as how we look at what was accepted as scientific fact in the 1800s.
Jerry,
Good points.
Here are my perspectives.
Belief in the existence of a Creator is practically unavoidable with what science tells us despite the herculean efforts of notable materialistic scientists who are desperate to try to rescue Realism.
Werner Heisenberg, wrote the following in his 1958 book, Physics and Philosophy:
Nevertheless, the obvious implications of quantum mechanics and the conservation of information have been virtually ignored since then. Instead, the focus has been on finding interpretations that rationalize the experimental results with Realism. As a result, you had Albert Einstein hoping that the moon is still there even if he’s not looking at it, and Erwin Schrödinger inventing an unfortunate cat to ridicule quantum superposition. Many others have taken up their crusade since then. Even the dualistic “wave” nature of matter has nothing to do with electromagnetic waves, but rather mathematical probability waves and their interferences and collapses (or at least, extremely leptokurtic probability waves)!
Likewise, conservation of information and entropy, have also been waved off with the many worlds interpretation and impossible amounts of luck resulting in the most egregious violation of parsimony (Occam’s razor) possible.
But belief in God is fundamentally and significantly different than trust in God for our salvation.
Belief in God, does the demons no good. Incidentally, I prefer the simple word “trust” over the baggage-laden one, “faith.”
To me, the paradigm of intelligent design in science is simply the presumption of purpose instead of the presumption of randomness or purposelessness, which leads only to failed ideas such as “vestigial organs” and “junk DNA.”
-Q
I am not going to disagree. But it is not what my objective in discussing this is. I want to clarify my thoughts on the necessity of uncertainty.
Step 1 is to get people to assent to the concept that a creator is highly likely. Most societies in history took this for granted but had different notions of just what this creator was about. But not now. In the Western world this belief is now token.
Most in the US/Western world will say they believe in God but then act as if this God does not exist. The creator is irrelevant to their lives and most will doubt there is a life after death. So why bother to do anything based on this very weak assent in a God.
Especially if uncertainty is necessary for this life to be meaningful. But this uncertainty actually leads most to the opposite., doubt in any meaningful design by a God. They believe life has no meaning. Since life looks random in a lot of ways this uncertainty feeds into the feeling life has no meaning. So make the best of it since you are in it.
They will generally act in a moral way because they realize moral actions are necessary for a stable life for themselves and their children and the society they live in. They will be polite to those who actively participate in religion but are not tempted to do so themselves. They say why? There is nothing really in it. As long as they don’t bother me they can do anything they like.
Once there is a firmer belief that God is very likely, step 2 is engendering an understanding that there is a purpose in life. Right now that is foreign to most in the Western world.
Since it’s really getting people past step 1, we are a long way from getting to step 2.
Step 3 would be assenting to the most likely way God wants one to proceed in this life. Then there is the question would life be meaningful since everyone would act on the same set of basic beliefs and any deviation would be considered dysfunctional and punishable by the powers in charge.
Jerry @158:
Just because they act as if the God you believe in exists doesn’t mean they are acting as if the God they believe in doesn’t exist.
Jerry @158,
Yes, I agree with your points.
The common presumption is for a distant, feel-good, karma “God” that created the universe and makes things right for “good people.” Among many people, a good deal of superstition or fatalism creeps in.
I think what’s logically missing is that the God who created the universe along with ridiculously complex genetic codes and interrelated chemical cycles, and conscious intelligence might actually have a superior conscious intelligence.
Another way to think of it is that the god of deists is powerful but stupid. Also missing is the source of horrific evil, depravity, and disasters in the world, which is usually attributed to a lack of education, poverty, and “acts of God.”
Academics often argue that humans have no free will (B.F. Skinner comes to mind) and thus cannot be morally accountable, which is very convenient for them on some occasions, not so convenient in other cases.
Perhaps a place to start with is the mind of your pet Labrador retriever trying to comprehend your thoughts, actions, and motives. Have you ever seen how an experienced trainer, such as employed by Guide Dogs for the Blind, start their relationship with and then train a guide dog? It’s an amazing process!
-Q