Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Fibonacci Life

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

galaxyThe Fibonacci sequence is one of those math marvels that even elementary students can appreciate. Like the discovery of the √2, it possesses this element of mystery that makes Pythagoras‘ harmonic series look like a rubber-band shoe-box next to a concert grand. Pythagoras famously drowned the fellow who discovered that √2 was neither even nor odd. It went against his religion. Fortunately for Gödel, the Pythagoreans did not control peer review when he demonstrated that unprovability was a whole lot worse than irrational numbers, but all math was  “incomplete” and unable to exclude ambiguous theorems. But if we don’t demand that math obey our ideas of God, we can sit back an enjoy it. Here’s a YouTube video marvelling at the ubiquity of Fibonacci, calling it the fingerprint of God.

It is a well-worn metaphor, which other mathematicians might reserve for the Mandelbrot set. Physicists, on the other hand, prefer to see this in things like cosmology. Which raises the question, is the Fibonacci series merely a mathematician’s trick, or is there something hiding in the physics? Do the sunflower whorls contain a physical necessity, or merely an aesthetic necessity to match Fibonacci? And if so, then what about the spirals of galaxies? Surely we can say more about Fibonacci than mathematical aesthetics!

(Read more…)

Comments
ellazim @(106)quoting me: “The point is that at any given time,when I was trying to find a definition for the space that constitutes a data set, I saw that I had to need prove that a material world needs another intangible immaterial world for to conform, to fill it with informationthe first could be possible.” My apologies for my bad english, but I'm used to be in my own language as short as possible, and it's difficult for me with another languaje, because in my own one some words are intended to be, without really to be, in many phrases, and so, it is difficult to translate, sorry. On the other hand, maybe the Theorem can be out of the book in a separate paper, before the book will be ended. But it is hypothetical for now. Althoug, just for curiosity, have you replied my first answer? Have you a good rest! kairofocus @104: thank you for your kind words. I'll try to be here with regularity, if my job allow me. Some times I'm too busy.Obriton
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
EZ, you ask: "And what happens to your proof if a maximally great being doesn’t exist?" That is the beauty of the ontological argument coupled with the multiverse,,, If it is even remotely possible for God to exist, however slight, then He of 100% certainty must exist,,, and as Aleta and yourself have already conceded by admitting that you are not 100% certain of your uncertainty for the existence of God, you have conceded that remote possibility to the ontological argument,,, and but yet if you try to say you are 100% certain that God does not exist then I will have you there to for I can then refer you to the site that you said 'I don't know' to.bornagain77
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
correction,,, much like Aleta’s almost being 100.000000,,,% uncertain that God exists quip,,,bornagain77
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
BA77: If I don't know is not an acceptable answer then I guess I don't understand the question. And I AM willing to accept that all knowledge is provisional. That nothing can be known for certain. I can live with that. I can stay open to new data, new concepts, new discoveries that force me to revise my outlook. And what happens to your proof if a maximally great being doesn't exist? What if our limited understanding and logic is flawed? Is that not too a possibility? Do we not also have to accept the notion that we might be wrong? I could be way off the mark. What if you are? What then? It's almost 1am where I live. I have to stop for the night. Thanks one and all.ellazimm
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
EZ: Again, the peculiar force of the Euler equation lies in the way it unites in one such uttrerly diverse mathematical entities, showing he underlying unity of Mathematics. Coherence. Astonishing coherence that points to the unity of truth. If these things were mere accidents or arbitrary inventions, they would not reasonably be expected to come together like that. In short, this is a compass needle, and we would do well to heed where it points. Especially given other pointers that join with it in pointing the same way. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
Ellazimm you state; 'I don’t know why it’s not allowed to say you don’t know if absolute truth exists. Isn’t it better to admit ignorance when that’s what you think?' 'I don't know' will not be an answer. The answer is only one of two possible choices,, Either absolute truth exist or it does not exist.,,, And as the site programmer wisely programmed,, if you say you don't know then you end up in a endless loop of never being able to know any answer of any problem with certainty,,, much like Aleta's 100.000000,,,% uncertain that God exists quip,,, Yet it dawned on me after reading that quip of Aleta's, that, much contrary to lack of 100% certainty for her uncertainty, I am 100% certain that God does exist! One of the best ways to arrive at this 100% certainty is to use the materialists own line of reasoning for a multiverse against them,,, if an infinite number of other possible universes must exist in order to explain the fine tuning of this one, then why is it not also infinitely possible for a infinitely powerful and transcendent Creator to exist? Using the materialist same line of reasoning for an infinity of multiverses to explain the extreme fine-tuning of this one we can surmise; If it is infinitely possible for God to exist then He, of 100% certainty, must exist no matter how small the probability is of His existence in one of these other infinity of universes, and since He certainly must exist, then all possibilities in all universes automatically become subject to Him since He is, by definition, All Powerful. To clearly illustrate the absurdity of what the materialists now consider their cutting edge science: The materialistic conjecture of an infinity of universes to explain the fine tuning of this one also insures the 100% probability of the existence of Pink Unicorns no matter how small the probability is of them existing. In fact a infinity of universes insures the existence of an infinity of Pink Unicorns an infinite number of times. Thus it is self-evident the materialists have painted themselves into a inescapable corner of logical absurdities in trying to find an escape from the Theistic implications we are finding for the fine-tuning of this universe. This argument is actually made into a formal philosophical proof: Ontological Argument For God From The Many Worlds Hypothesis - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4784641 God Is Not Dead Yet - William Lane Craig - Page 4 The ontological argument. Anselm's famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue: 1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. 7. Therefore, God exists. Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God's existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God's existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it's impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn't appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, all knowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God's existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html?start=4 ,,,,Aleta's quip also reminded me of this video,,, Richard Dawkins Vs. Ben Stein - The UFO Interview - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4134259 ,,,In which Stein asked Dawkins to put a percentage on his certainty that God does not exist.,,, The extreme, and completely unscientific, bias that Dawkins exhibits is clear for all to see in the video.bornagain77
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
KF: I agree, it's very, very cool. That is NOT under dispute. I think we'd better just leave this alone. There's nothing else to say really. It's fabulous whether it's a lucky outcome or a signpost to God. Whether mathematics is invented or there to discover. If you don't love it you don't know mathematics; on that we can agree. I'm also still marvelling at Goldbach's conjecture and Fermat's Last Theorem. Or even just prime numbers. And Pythagorean triples. And the prime number theorem. And Gabriel's horn. And Zorn's lemma. And the Well Ordered Principle. All epiphanies in their own way.ellazimm
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
EZ: Please, pause again, and look at the way that numbers so utterly diverse come together in an astonishing unity, in the Euler identity: 0 = 1 + e^i*pi Then, whatever the fundamental theorem of the calculus may have to say about how rates and accumulations of change relate as mutually inverse operations, and draw in the limit and the infinitesimal as further wonders [and my favourite illustration for my students was a pipe running into a bucket, then moving on tot he bucket with an outflow . . . ], think about the revealed unexpected unity in mathematics. Behold, and reflect. Then, let us wonder with awe as we begin to understand that which we know and so easily pass by with a ho hum. GEM of TKI PS: But hen even something so "humdrum" as a simple plane mirror has behind it a virtual half-universe, with the reflected virtual -- non-material -- images at definable, measurable locations that can be located through parallax! PPS: Put two such mirrors directly across form one another and we will see an infinite regress of reflections in progress. Yet another wonder in the humdrum. How blase we are!kairosfocus
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
I'm going to do my best but . . . it's late, I'm tired and I'm not really able to answer some questions. But, based on my own personal views and experience I'll do my best. gpuccio @91: Thank you. You speak from your heart. I won't argue with you about these points because I have nothing to add not having thought about it on the same level. But I appreciate your approach. BA77 @92: I don't know why it's not allowed to say you don't know if absolute truth exists. Isn't it better to admit ignorance when that's what you think? I don't want to be forced into an opinion that I cannot honestly support. Would you want me to? Godel's theorem was far from 100 years after Cantor's work . . . but I get your implication. And hardly any major finding happens in a vacuum. I 'think' your summary of Godel's theorem is good but I still don't see what that has to do with theology. Unless you're willing to define an axiomatic system and even then you can not anticipate what 'truths' will crop up without following through with things. You've got to be really careful in how you apply results outside of their intended field of application. Obriton @96: "The point is that at any given time, trying to find a definition for the space that constitutes a data set, I saw that I had to prove a material world need another intangible to conform, to fill it with information." I'm sorry, and I don't mean to pick at your English but I have no idea what you're talking about. So I can't really comment on my reaction if it's proven true since I don't get what you're proposing. Sorry. And I'm not any closer after your comments @100 "Given A, a set of a space of elements that are defined material so and so…(this so accomplishes all we intend for a material world, intended as commonly intended), then B dont partain to A if the conditions for A are not accomplished for B. B then is named immaterial… And the teorem-> For A to be true, B need to be true. That’s all the hypothesis." I will wait for your completed work. Okay?? KF: I agree that Euler's equation/identity is an amazing and beautiful congruence of important mathematical constants. I love it! I love showing to people and marvelling that it is true. But . . . it's just an assertion that it proves anything about a deity. The point has been made on this site many times that 'Darwinists' are not allowed to take on faith something which has not been demonstrated. You and I can be shaken to the core that something like Euler's equation represents a true statement utilising some of the most basic terms in mathematics but . . . is its improbability or our own inability to anticipate such a result enough to prove a greater mind behind the machinery? I'd prefer to be agnostic on that issue. It sounds like the fine tuning argument in physics. And, to be honest, Euler's equation, as beautiful as it is, didn't change the mathematical landscape one jot. It didn't force a paradigm shift. It didn't create a legion of theistic mathematicians. It didn't even create a new field of research unlike Euler's examination of the Konigsburg Bridge progblem. I'm not sure it even convinced Euler of the existence of a greater mind. I know you know that there are lots of theorems in mathematics that are surprising and beautiful and elegant. Euler's identity may be the best but it's pretty self evident to an undergraduate. Zorn's lemma and the Goldbach conjecture reach much more deeply into mathematics and they are, as yet, unestablished. Euler was a mathematical vacuum, he sucked up everything, digested it and used it all. He may be the greatest mathematician of all time and he's certainly one of the last, great generalists. But does his identity imply divinity any more than the fundamental theory of calculus? Or the axiom of choice? Or Cantor's work? I'm not so sure. Anyway, it's after 11pm here. I'm sorry that my comment are discontinuous but I have to find time when I can.ellazimm
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
@kairosfocus I really enjoy reading your posts. Keep them coming :). The form your arguments take remind me of Pascal's Pensees. Some random thoughts of my own. I think BA77 has a point about missing the forest for the trees. Its is a bit like quantum mechanics. We can't - with high resolution - measure the properties of an individual particle but when we look at a collection of them we can. When we look at individual evidences for God we can't quite get quite the resolution(certainty) we want, but when you look at them collectively it becomes undeniable. Its like looking at the individual features of a face to determine if you know the person. You can't really tell if it is the person with certainty. We need to step back and look at the whole face. Immediately the answer is obvious.andrewjg
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
PS: Obriton, keep coming, I like what I am hearing.kairosfocus
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
q --> Then, when we pause and explore mathematics itself, we find that amazing coherence that the Euler identity epitomises. This too bespeaks that such abstractions are real, and are integral to reality. r --> Ultimate reality is plainly mental. s --> Indeed, we may dare speak the word, Soul. t --> And so -- with apologies to Jastrow -- after centuries of toil, the scientists and mathematicians over-top the ascent of learning, and find themselves greeted by theologians, philosophers, and even ordinary people who have known that transcendent reality through life-transforming encounter. s --> Here is Plato, in The Laws, Bk X, 360 BC:
Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second. [[ . . . .] Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it? Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life? Ath. I do. Cle. Certainly we should. Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life? [[ . . . . ] Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul? Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things? Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things. Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer? Cle. Exactly. Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler? [[ . . . . ] Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.]
__________________ And so, as the Greeks were wont to say: in whatever direction we go, we meet Plato and Socrates; on the way back . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
k --> To such a notion, we at once can rebut [cf here]:
a: evolutionary materialism argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature. b: Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws of chance and/or mechanical necessity acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance initial circumstances. c: But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus, we arrive at Crick's claim: what we subjectively experience as "thoughts" and "conclusions" can only be understood materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. d: These forces are viewed as ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance shaped by forces of selection [["nature"] and psycho-social conditioning [["nurture"], within the framework of human culture [[i.e. socio-cultural conditioning and resulting/associated relativism]. e: Therefore, if such evolutionary materialism is true, then the "thoughts" we have and the "conclusions" we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity. (The conclusions of such arguments may still happen to be true, by lucky coincidence — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” them.) f: And, if materialists then say: “But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must note that to demonstrate that such tests provide empirical support to their theories requires the use of the very process of reasoning which they have discredited. g: Thus, evolutionary materialism reduces reason itself to the status of illusion. But, immediately, that includes “Materialism.” h: For instance, Marxists commonly deride opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismiss qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? Should we not simply ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is simply another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze? And, would not the writings of a Crick be little more than the firing of neurons in networks? i: In the end, materialism is evidently based on self-defeating logic.
l --> In short, evolutionary materialism is a patently self-refuting non-starter as a worldview. (It only survives as a dominant view because of ideological domination of key scientific and educational institutions as a legacy of the late C19 lingering into the early C21. Now, beginning to fade.) m --> Instead, we should let the obvious import of a discovery like the Euler equation speak to us: numbers are real, and speak of an abstract realm of reality, a realm accessible to the mind and which is in fact the basis for the physical realm. n --> Thus, the coherence of mathematics, its astonishing power in the physical world and our ability to use it to unlock the secrets of that physical realm are best explained on longstanding insight from the founding era of modern science: we are thinking God's thoughts after him. o --> Now, we may debate who or what "God" is, but the essential point stands: the observed cosmos, per its astonishing finetuning and the underlying mathematically framed order it exhibits, bespeaks its being an artifact of design by a mind with sufficient power and wisdom to create a cosmos. p --> Similarly, when we find digitally coded information systems at the heart of the metabolic and self-replicating mechanisms of life, noting that he cosmos is finetuned in ways that support such life based on C-chemistry, this points to the design of life, and that the same designer of the cosmos is a likely candidate. [ . . . ]kairosfocus
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT
Participants & Onlookers: I see things got very hot in this thread overnight. In appreciation for the Weir link, here is the Google Books link. Well worth a ponder or two. Some of the onward remarks led me to think it would be advisable to re-post what I noted in 52 (leaving off for now the tag end on how materialism is self-referentially incoherent):
The Euler identity indeed is most easily demonstrated through using power series expansions. But that has little to do with its significance. For, what it [d]oes is to unite the five or six most significant numbers in mathematics, showing the sort of unexpected coherence that testifies to the unity of truth and reason. If these numbers and their reasons for being were merely arbitrary, they would not be expected to come together like that. That is why this equation is so astonishing. And you have rightly pointed out that these same numbers are right there in the heart of key equations in so many vital fields of physics. Such things are like a compass-needle, pointing to the reality of numbers, which are of course utterly abstract entities. Which brings into serious question the claims of the materialists, in the heart of a domain they thought they had under their control . . .
Here we go again: 0 = 1 + e^i*pi a --> The five most important numbers in mathematics all explicitly interwoven (with the sixth, -1, implied), coming together from vastly diverse lines of inquiry. b --> So, we are looking here at an unusual view of mathematics, a worldview perspective, and one on inference to best explanation. (The attempt to brush this aside on oh, it is the implication of a chain of argument, ho hum, misses the point.) c --> Were these things simply diverse arbitrary human inventions with no inherent inner connexion, we would have no reason to expect such astonishing coherence. d --> And yet, here it is. Staring us in the face and trying to evoke something. e --> For, at the heart of scientific thought in a scientific age lies mathematics, a decidedly non-empirical, logical discipline assessing he import of certain key abstractions, starting with number itself. f --> Number is not tangible, but is real, and is central to the operations of the world. g --> Worse, numerical patterns and their logical implications capture such an essence of reality that scientists have had to publicly wonder on the "unreasonable" effectiveness of mathematics, that magic chalice that flows with the sweetly intoxicating wine of predictive accuracy and power to influence and control reality. h --> Including of course, most notably, the absolutely astonishing, arcane powers of the imaginary root of -1. (My students spotting complex domain poles of dynamical systems they observe, down to the car hitting a pothole and bouncing, are only the beginning of the astonishing power of complex frequency domain analysis, as just one domain of its eldritch powers.) i --> So, here we see the power of mind, symbol, abstract realities and abstract mental operations, logical and mathematical. And we must ask: what best explains this? j --> That by an astonishingly lucky accident in a warm little pond or the like, a self-replicating metabolising entity came into being against all odds [well beyond astronomical], and then by chance variation and environmental culling on differential reproductive success threw up an entity capable of a brain so organised that it somehow accurately infers not only 1, 0, e and pi, but i and then reasons its way to Euler's identity and beyond. All, programmed by lucky noise? [ . . . ]kairosfocus
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
Thanks, Aleta. I can't now show well my arguments, because for it I need to show the Theorem. I'm speaking not in a formal mathematical sintaxis, but in a plane languaje. But I try again: Given A, a set of a space of elements that are defined material so and so...(this so accomplishes all we intend for a material world, intended as commonly intended), then B dont partain to A if the conditions for A are not accomplished for B. B then is named immaterial... And the teorem-> For A to be true, B need to be true. That's all the hypothesis. Do you like so?Obriton
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
To Obitron: you write, "I intend “mathematical entities”, that they are out of time, then for this entities there is not before nor after." Then you have already defined them as being immaterial, so any proof that they were immaterial would be circular.Aleta
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
Hi gpuccio. I;ve gone back and re-read your statement b) about agnosticism, and I at first it ddin't quite make sense to me, but now I understand. You wrote,
A person who believes that those answers cannot be found. IOWs, that kind of agnostic says: “I am reasonably sure that those answers don’t exist”. Let’s call that an “ideological agnostic”. That kind of agnostic is probably not a true agnostic, because he is not agnostic about the truth that answers to the major questions about reality cannot be found.
In comparison, I wrote,
I don’t believe we can answer the type of questions you mention. It’s not just that I personally don’t know, I don’t think that human beings can know what the “true” state of metaphysical reality is (or if there is even such a thing.)
I think I see now that perhaps what you wrote would apply to me. I do believe that we can't answer certain kinds of questions, so to the extent that I feel certain about that, I am not agnostic about my agnosticism, so to speak. This deepens the issue, in an interesting way. My agnosticism, and people's beliefs in general, exist along a spectrum of certitude. I leave open the possibility that I could be convinced that I am wrong about my agnosticism. Mine is not a so much a dogmatic position as it is a practical one, based on my experience and knowledge of the arguments used in respect to possoble metaphysical reality, on my knowledge of religion a a humen phenomena, on my knowledge of psychology, etc. I have lots of reasons to believe that the standard arguments offered are not compelling, so I consider that my agnosticism is a reasonable conclusion of which I am highly confident, but certainly not 100.00000000% certain. You also write, "If your statement were limited to the fact that those answers cannot be found only by logic and reason, I would probably agree....What I mean is that any final, deep and humanly certain answer to those questions implies always, together with a correct and sincere use of reason, an involment of all our powers, both cognitive and non cognitive, including personal experience, intuition, free will, love, desire, sincerety, and so on.." I agree with this. Our beliefs are formed with our whole being. Of course we bring to bear the power of logic and reason, but we also have our holistic experiences, some of which are both ineffable and subjecive, experienced only by ourself and no one else. And again, the source and validation for our beliefs are spread across a spectrum, with purely logical beliefs such as mathematics on one end, moving through empirically-based and consensually validated beliefs such as those of science on over to the more subjective beliefs of value, personal opinion, emotion, and so on. One other point: the problem with being an agnostic, which is a position of not knowing, is that one must balance that with the need to act, and to act is to implicitly choose to believe. So even though I believe that we can't know about metaphysical reality, I know there are some metaphysical systems that don't appeal to me at all and some that do, and so I choose to act in accordance with the ones that do appeal to me even though I'm not attached to whether they are "really" true or not. Bob Dylan wrote in "High Water", "“You can’t open your mind, boys, To every conceivable point of view”. One has to have a perspective even if one is agnostic - one can't treat all metaphysical systems equally. People have to act - can't avoid it, and through our actions we implicitly manifest a perspective of some sort. Therefore, in my opinion, one might as well do so with as much clarity and commitment as possible. In this sense, I am what you might call a "weak existentialist": we can't know, but to some extent we have to act as if we do know. So I have chosen certain ideas from the broad range of religion and philosphy as guides for my life, and rejected others, not because I think one is true and the other is not (that I cannot know), but because, taking all those things that you mention into account, they help inform my actions in what I consider to be the best possible way.Aleta
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
Aleta @(95): "No, that doesn’t work, because the word “entity” implies existence, and so you would need to prove that the entity existed first, before you could apply a dichotomy as to whether it was material or immaterial." I intend "mathematical entities", that they are out of time, then for this entities there is not before nor after. For example, a circle, although I think that it can be defined more in abstract as a set. Thanks, again.Obriton
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
Pleased to greet you ellazim. I think that it can be proved. I'm writing now a book (not english) about a new Theory of Information, from an analytical perspective, namely to define what information is from any system using formulas and values such as being able to find how much information on a system, the complexity of this system, the complexity of language, etc. It is a difficult job, but I think eventually I managed to get published. The point is that at any given time, trying to find a definition for the space that constitutes a data set, I saw that I had to prove a material world need another intangible to conform, to fill it with information. The problem is that until it is published, I can not show the theorem. Hence, my question is, what do you think if this theorem is mathematically correct? Thanks for answering and greetings to all.Obriton
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
Obitron writes, "Thanks, Aleta. I define then inmaterial: entities that are mathematically proved impossible to be material. ¿Do you like this definition?" No, that doesn't work, because the word "entity" implies existence, and so you would need to prove that the entity existed first, before you could apply a dichotomy as to whether it was material or immaterial. Maybe you should be more specific and just show an example of what kind of "mathematical proof" you have in mind?Aleta
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT
BA77: Give me some time. I'll be back. Sometime. Gotta eat first. :-)ellazimm
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
Obriton: I doubt that can be done (that a material world needs an immaterial world) but I'd be happy to see your argument. But I REALLY have to deal with things at the moment. I'll be baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!! My family needs me first. Sorry.ellazimm
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
ellazim, Ok,,, you don't know if absolute truth exists.,,, But in reality the only options to answer that question are that absolute truth either does exist or it does not exist. If you agree on the site, and say yes that it does exist, then the site kicks you on up to the next step, but if you say that absolute truth does not exist, then I believe, the site asks you something like this, do you believe that Absolute truth not existing is an absolute truth??? Then, it gives you a few chances to see that you are making a absolute truth claim,,, I believe,, the site has a few different paths besides the endless loop you were on,,, For instance one person told me they were on the site trying the site out, pretending to be the dogmatic atheist, just to see what would happen, and he told me after a completely series of illogical answers the site bid him ado and redirected him to the Disneyland website, with the not to subtle hint that he was living in a fantasy land. As far as Godel goes, the incompleteness theorem was the end product of about 100 years of work which started with Cantor. And in fact the incompleteness theorem goes directly to the heart of even such 'taken for granted' truths as 1+1=2,, Here is a excerpt of Godel's work: Gödel is best known for his two incompleteness theorems, published in 1931 when he was 25 years of age, one year after finishing his doctorate at the University of Vienna. The more famous incompleteness theorem states that for any self-consistent recursive axiomatic system powerful enough to describe the arithmetic of the natural numbers (Peano arithmetic), there are true propositions about the naturals that cannot be proved from the axioms. To prove this theorem, Gödel developed a technique now known as Gödel numbering, which codes formal expressions as natural numbers. He also showed that the continuum hypothesis cannot be disproved from the accepted axioms of set theory, if those axioms are consistent. He made important contributions to proof theory by clarifying the connections between classical logic, intuitionistic logic, and modal logic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del i.e. Gödel’s Incompleteness: The #1 Mathematical Breakthrough of the 20th Century Excerpt: Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem says: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume to be true but cannot prove “mathematically” to be true.” THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010 Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.bornagain77
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
Aleya: Again, I find I agree with most of what you say. In particular: So, in summary (and I’d be interested in trying to think about this some more – time is sort this morning), I think math and logic are abstract formalizations of basic human cognitive functions. That's my opinion too. And you are right that not all human beings have the same ability for abstract thought, but still the important thing is that, where abstract thought is efficiently implemented, some common intuitions are certainly necessary to achieve an agreement (which, definitely, is achieved in most cases). I will add here that I am a great fan of Penrose's argument form Godel's theorem. I know it is very controversial (all the best things are :) ), but I believe that it gets a point which is very important: the basic role of consciousness and representation in human knowledge. I am a firm believer in that. While great part of human thought is certainly algorithmic, conscious representation has a crucial role which cannot be substituted by purely algorithmic processes. That is specially evident in the concept of CSI, and in the obvious empirical impotence of powerful computers to create it. But that's another story. So, in short, I believe that the basic cognitive functions which allow us to achieve highly efficient abstract thought (even in very complex algorithmic forms), to define foundations for logic and mathematics (whatever they are), and to have a sense of concepts like meaning and purpose, are mainly intuitive, and are tied to our conscious representations. I offer that as a proposal for further discussion. About the second point, I would like to understand better why you say that strong agnosticism (which seems to be your position) is not well represented in my definition (I am ready to change it). You define your position as follows: "I am, to use a somewhat common term, a strong agnostic: I don’t believe we can answer the type of questions you mention. It’s not just that I personally don’t know, I don’t think that human beings can know what the “true” state of metaphysical reality is (or if there is even such a thing.)" That is for me very much what I had tried to describe in what I had called "ideological agnosticism". I meant no negative judgement about the position, just that it is a strong answer anyway. My position is obviously different, but perhaps not completely. I will try to be more clear. If youe statement were limited to the fact that those naswers cannot be found only by logic and reason, I would probably agree. And I am not saying here that some special divine grace is necessary (I believe that divine grace is necessary, obviously, but I also believe that it is always there for all, and anyway I would never use a specific belief from faith in a general discussion). What I mean is that any final, deep and humanly certain answer to those questions implies always, together with a correct and sincere use of reason, an involment of all our powers, both cognitive and non cognitive, including personal experience, intuition, free will, love, desire, sincerety, and so on. This is my opinion, and that's why I never try to convince others that God exists, although I am always happy to share with them the reasons why I believe that.gpuccio
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
Thanks, Aleta. I define then inmaterial: entities that are mathematically proved impossible to be material. ¿Do you like this definition?Obriton
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
But as I said, it's too hypothetical of a question, in part because I don't believe that you could prove that mathematically. If I thought the arguments for an immaterial world were compelling, I already would have adopted that view, but I don't and I haven't, and it doesn't make sense to try to think about how I would be different if I believed differently.Aleta
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
Thanks Aleta for your answer, but I say mathematically, using SET Theory. I would like to know what would this mean for you.Obriton
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
Too hypothetical of a question, as I am sure that it can't be done. There are people right here that think that a material world requires an immaterial world, but their arguments are philosophical, not mathematical.Aleta
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
Hi, all. A single question to ellazim & Aleta (if you want to answer, of course): If can be mathematicaly proven that a material world needs a inmaterial (supranatural, can be named) world to exist, what would this mean for you? If someone else wants to respond, you can do. Thanks in advance.Obriton
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
Very good remarks, ez. I agree with you about Russell's reductionist program - I am more practical than that. I appreciate the deep rigor that in other places has proven very useful, but I think for basic discussions like this, especially when they are about the philosophy of math and not math itself, my statement about 1 + 1 = 2 not depending on God are perfectly adequate.Aleta
September 24, 2010
September
09
Sep
24
24
2010
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply