Michael Egnor talks with podcaster Lucas Skrobot about how we can know we are not zombies

_{News
July 5, 2020

Mind, Neuroscience

1}_{Categories
Mind
Neuroscience}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Also: Egnor , a neurosurgeon, told Skrobot: “My wife jokes with me that meeting me is always the worst part of a person’s life.”

Comments

JVL, see the just above and earlier, you are again unresponsive to core points.one for RW now. KFkairosfocus_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT}

Doubter, the attributes of God are compossible and indeed bound up inextricably in one another. As any possible world will have a distinct identity as outlined certain core aspects of math flow from that and are necessary. The issue shifts as noted to there being the possibility of worlds, pointing to causally adequate world root, thus a second level of cause. In context, non core aspects of math can be explored through contingent logic model worlds, which opens up math fields of study and different physics for PWs. In all these the core is there. Have to go. KFkairosfocus_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

BornAgain77: Simple, and to repeat, there are an infinite number of different axioms that could have been chosen that could have given rise to an infinite number of different mathematical frameworks, Can you come up with a consistent form of mathematics different from ours? One that works for the most basic problems? As Chaitin pointed out, “an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.” Quite true, as per Godel's work. But theorems are NOT axioms. For instance, the parallel postulate and/or axiom of Euclidian geometry does not hold for the Riemannian geometry and/or the four-dimensional Minkowski space that lies at the basis of relativity. Yup, it's like going from Newtonian mechanics to Einstein. But 2 + 2 still = 4. The area of a circle on a plane is the same. (Don't tell ET that under non-Euclidian geometry parallel lines meet at infinity, he won't like that.) But the axiom you're throwing out was defined by MEN, it's not an inherent or obvious rule to depend on. In other words, if God designed mathematics he did NOT come up with the parallel axiom, men did. In fact, since not using the parallel postulate means you can better model part of God's creation then I would say that God was probably working with non-Euclidian geometry in the first place! Human's thought parallel lines never meet and then changed their minds. Thus the fact that the math that describes this universe ‘could have been different’ was in fact the way that it was. The math that actually describes the space-time of this universe is very different than Euclidian math and that difference between the two mathematical systems lies in the different axioms of each mathematical system. And again, to repeat, axioms are a matter of choice, not necessity, But, again, the underlying arithmetic is the same. Algebra is the same. Number theory is the same. Throwing out the parallel postulate (which, again, was a human assumption) oddly enough works when modelling certain phenomena (and it was 'discovered' before there were applications) but that doesn't change how numbers work together. Subtraction, addition, multiplication, division, exponents, logarithm, integrals, derivatives, etc, all that stuff still works. Thus JVL’s claim that math ‘just is’ and that math could not have been different, is simply a naively false claim for him to make. The math that describes this universe could have been infinitely different depending on then infinite number of axioms that God could have chosen to implement. Okay, give me an example then of a consistent axiomatic mathematical system that would be completely different from ours but still work for real world problems. This is my point; I don't hear anyone coming up with an example. You can talk and pontificate all you like but if you can't come up with an example then maybe what you propose does not exist.JVL_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
05:01 AM
5
05
01
AM
PDT}

JVL asks,
If math was part of the design then choices were made which means things could have been different. How could math be different?
Simple, and to repeat, there are an infinite number of different axioms that could have been chosen that could have given rise to an infinite number of different mathematical frameworks,
Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test – Douglas S. Robertson?Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information.?http://cires.colorado.edu/~doug/philosophy/info8.pdf
As Chaitin pointed out, "an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms."
The Limits Of Reason – Gregory Chaitin – 2006 Excerpt: Unlike Gödel’s approach, mine is based on measuring information and showing that some mathematical facts cannot be compressed into a theory because they are too complicated. This new approach suggests that what Gödel discovered was just the tip of the iceberg: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms. http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/sciamer3.pdf
For instance, the parallel postulate and/or axiom of Euclidian geometry does not hold for the Riemannian geometry and/or the four-dimensional Minkowski space that lies at the basis of relativity.
Riemannian geometry Riemannian geometry, also called elliptic geometry, one of the non-Euclidean geometries that completely rejects the validity of Euclid’s fifth postulate and modifies his second postulate. Simply stated, Euclid’s fifth postulate is: through a point not on a given line there is only one line parallel to the given line. In Riemannian geometry, there are no lines parallel to the given line. Euclid’s second postulate is: a straight line of finite length can be extended continuously without bounds. In Riemannian geometry, a straight line of finite length can be extended continuously without bounds, but all straight lines are of the same length. The tenets of Riemannian geometry, however, admit the other three Euclidean postulates,,, https://www.britannica.com/science/Riemannian-geometry Four-dimensional space - with 4-D animation: Excerpt: The idea of adding a fourth dimension began with Joseph-Louis Lagrange in the mid 1700s and culminated in a precise formalization of the concept in 1854 by Bernhard Riemann.,,, Higher dimensional spaces have since become one of the foundations for formally expressing modern mathematics and physics. Large parts of these topics could not exist in their current forms without the use of such spaces.,,, Einstein's concept of spacetime uses such a 4D space, though it has a Minkowski structure that is a bit more complicated than Euclidean 4D space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensional_space
Thus the fact that the math that describes this universe 'could have been different' was in fact the way that it was. The math that actually describes the space-time of this universe is very different than Euclidian math and that difference between the two mathematical systems lies in the different axioms of each mathematical system. And again, to repeat, axioms are a matter of choice, not necessity,
Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test – Douglas S. Robertson?Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information.?http://cires.colorado.edu/~doug/philosophy/info8.pdf
And again, "an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms."
The Limits Of Reason – Gregory Chaitin – 2006 Excerpt: Unlike Gödel’s approach, mine is based on measuring information and showing that some mathematical facts cannot be compressed into a theory because they are too complicated. This new approach suggests that what Gödel discovered was just the tip of the iceberg: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms. http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/sciamer3.pdf
Thus JVL's claim that math 'just is' and that math could not have been different, is simply a naively false claim for him to make. The math that describes this universe could have been infinitely different depending on then infinite number of axioms that God could have chosen to implement. Of supplemental note:
ever since modern science was born in medieval Christian Europe, science has had a history of looking for ‘platonic perfection’, and assuming the Mind of God to be behind that ‘platonic perfection’. That is to say, that science has a history of reaching for perfect agreement between the immaterial mathematics that describe a facet of this universe and the experimental results that measure those mathematical predictions.,,, And indeed for most of the history of modern science in the Christian west, finding ‘platonic perfection’ for the mathematical descriptions of the universe has been a very elusive goal. This all changed with the discoveries of Special Relativity, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. That is to say, as far as experimental testing will allow, there is no discrepancy to be found between what the mathematical descriptions of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics predict and what our most advanced scientific testing of those predictions are able to measure. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-elements-of-fine-tuning-of-our-universe-vs-the-multiverse-would-pass-this-test-of-science-truth/#comment-680868
bornagain77_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @85
5: That is, there is adequate, finitely remote root cause for the actual world we inhabit and others that may or do actually exist. Such, is a reality root, necessary being. Once a world is, something always was, a something of different order from ourselves. Something, capable of creating worlds. 6: So, there are consequences to there being possible worlds. >> And, if it was designed, how it could have been different?>>
Excuse the digression, but one thing has always puzzled me, that may have already been solved by philosophers generations ago. This is the proposition that, if God is truly omnipotent, it would seem that He could create a world where the to us fundamental laws of logic and mathematics are different. If not, the laws of logic and mathematics are ultimate realities prior to and out of the control of God. But He is supposed to be truly omnipotent. Could He create if He chose a world reality where 2 + 2 = 5, where the laws of logic are different? Are there such world realities, forever inaccessible to humans? This notion does not seem acceptable, so where is the flaw in this reasoning?doubter_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: 12: Choices connected to actualising particular worlds with structures such as a particular physics and cosmology. Some structural-quantitative aspects of a PW are in common, others will be distinct to particular worlds such as our own. But what about the mathematics? Could the underlying mathematics be different? If you say yes then how? Can you give an actual example.JVL_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT}

BornAgain77: Thus JVL is actually defending a necessitarian view of mathematics that the ancient Greeks also held. A fruitless view of mathematics that played a major role in preventing the rise of modern science since a necessitarian view of gives rise to the “Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave”. You may be right about the mindset most conducive to the rise of modern science, certainly the weight granted to people like Aristotle slowed things down. But I'm talking about mathematics and the Greeks were excellent mathematics. Arguably no major advancements were made after the Greek era for another 1000 years. They figured out that the square root of 2 is irrational! Euclid's Elements are still studied and still true. And just about everyone knows the Pythagorean theorem. They may have slowed down science but they discovered the mathematics upon which science sits.JVL_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT}

ET: That’s the way the universe was designed. Designed means choices were made. If math could have been different how? Just because you can say something stupid that doesn’t make it so. If math was part of the design then choices were made which means things could have been different. How could math be different? To design or not to design is a choice. To have the laws that govern nature to be the way they are, was also a choice- to have intelligent observers or not, was a choice that affected that prior choice. I'm talking about mathematics which I say is invariant no matter what nature is like.JVL_{July 9, 2020
July
07
Jul
9
09
2020
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT}

JVL, I am late to the party, but observe: >>Do you have an explanation of how math came to be?>> 1: Yes, as you know I have examined a core of Mathematics, showing that once a distinct possible world is, a certain logically ordered structure linked to quantity obtains. Indeed, we then see that such core aspects necessarily extend to any possible world, i.e. all of them, securing universality and global relevance. Which in turn answers Wigner on the astonishing power of Mathematics. 2: So, this is not a matter of clever rhetorical games dependent on whatever ideas, suggestions or gaps may obtain with particular interlocutors, but something established as a base for further thought. 3: There is, however, a second order question: how are possible worlds just that, possible? 4: To answer that, notice, that were there ever utter, genuine nothingness -- utter non-being -- then as such has no causal capability, such would forever obtain. Further, transfinite regress cannot be traversed in finite stage steps, i.e. an actual infinity of successive contingent worlds with finite duration [years, say] is also ruled out, as is retro-causation by which a not yet future state reaches back to generate the chain that leads to itself. That, too would be pulling a world out of a non-existent hat. 5: That is, there is adequate, finitely remote root cause for the actual world we inhabit and others that may or do actually exist. Such, is a reality root, necessary being. Once a world is, something always was, a something of different order from ourselves. Something, capable of creating worlds. 6: So, there are consequences to there being possible worlds. >> And, if it was designed, how it could have been different?>> 7: Possibility of a distinct world W implies near neighbour worlds such as W' that lack some particular attribute or aspect A unique to W and singling it out. This of course then leads to world partition W = {A|~A} thence 0,1,2 etc, and on to structured core sets and frameworks of Mathematics. 8: Distinct identity directly implies just that, distinction, i.e. actualisability of what else could also be, here W'. So, we have general possibility of alternatives pivoting on locally unique defining thus structural attributes such as A, 9: In addition, a given world will be structured and does not preclude that other worlds may be structured in equally distinct but distinguishable ways. So, we see for example how we may have different logic-model worlds creating distinct mathematical domains that nonetheless share core necessary structures present in any possible world. N, Z, Q, R, C etc and linked things come instantly to mind as such in-common structures as we just saw. >> Design means there are choices.>> 10: Yes, and distinct possibilities are inherent in there being unique possible worlds. So, choice would exist connected to actualising one or the other of neighbours W and W' or even both. 11: Choice, of course, is inherent in design. >>What choices did the designer make regarding mathematics?>> 12: Choices connected to actualising particular worlds with structures such as a particular physics and cosmology. Some structural-quantitative aspects of a PW are in common, others will be distinct to particular worlds such as our own. 13: There is abundant evidence that our world sits at a deeply isolated operating point amenable to C-Chemistry, Aqueous medium, terrestrial planet in galactic and circumstellar habitable zone life. 14: As there is no reason to hold neighbouring but life-inhibiting worlds logically impossible of being there is good reason to hold that we thus see signs of design. KFkairosfocus_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT}

JVL holds that the 'beyond space and time' math that describes this universe 'just is' and that it is not contingent upon the Mind of God for its existence and also holds that God did not choose the particular mathematical form that this universe takes. JVL's position, as far as the philosophy of science is concerned, is a major step backwards. JVL's position is very similar, if not exactly like, the position that was held by the ancient Greeks. The ancient Greeks held to a necessartarian view of mathematics. A view in which mathematics, to use JVL's term 'just is'. And that necessartarian, i.e. 'just is', view of mathematics, played a major role in preventing the rise of modern science. As Peter Williams notes in the following article, “Both Greek and biblical thought asserted that the world is orderly and intelligible. But the Greeks held that this order is necessary and that one can therefore deduce its structure from first principles. Only biblical thought held that God created both form and matter, meaning that the world did not have to be as it is and that the details of its order can be discovered only by observation. "
Is Christianity Unscientific? - Peter S. Williams Excerpt: “Both Greek and biblical thought asserted that the world is orderly and intelligible. But the Greeks held that this order is necessary and that one can therefore deduce its structure from first principles. Only biblical thought held that God created both form and matter, meaning that the world did not have to be as it is and that the details of its order can be discovered only by observation. " https://www.bethinking.org/does-science-disprove-god/is-christianity-unscientific
And as Henry F. Schaefer III noted in the following video, “The emergence of modern science was associated with a disdain for the rationalism of Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”
“The emergence of modern science was associated with a disdain for the rationalism of Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.” – Henry F. Schaefer III – Making Sense of Faith and Science – 23:30 minute mark https://youtu.be/C7Py_qeFW4s?t=1415
In fact, it was only with the quote-unquote ‘outlawing’ of the ancient Greek philosophers’s deterministic and necessitarian views of creation that modern science was finally able to achieve a viable birth. As the following article states, “If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation. These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos.”
The War against the War Between Science and Faith Revisited – July 2010 Excerpt: …as Whitehead pointed out, it is no coincidence that science sprang, not from Ionian metaphysics, not from the Brahmin-Buddhist-Taoist East, not from the Egyptian-Mayan astrological South, but from the heart of the Christian West, that although Galileo fell out with the Church, he would hardly have taken so much trouble studying Jupiter and dropping objects from towers if the reality and value and order of things had not first been conferred by belief in the Incarnation. (Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos),,, Jaki notes that before Christ the Jews never formed a very large community (priv. comm.). In later times, the Jews lacked the Christian notion that Jesus was the monogenes or unigenitus, the only-begotten of God. Pantheists like the Greeks tended to identify the monogenes or unigenitus with the universe itself, or with the heavens. Jaki writes: Herein lies the tremendous difference between Christian monotheism on the one hand and Jewish and Muslim monotheism on the other. This explains also the fact that it is almost natural for a Jewish or Muslim intellectual to become a pa(n)theist. About the former Spinoza and Einstein are well-known examples. As to the Muslims, it should be enough to think of the Averroists. With this in mind one can also hope to understand why the Muslims, who for five hundred years had studied Aristotle’s works and produced many commentaries on them failed to make a breakthrough. The latter came in medieval Christian context and just about within a hundred years from the availability of Aristotle’s works in Latin,, If science suffered only stillbirths in ancient cultures, how did it come to its unique viable birth? The beginning of science as a fully fledged enterprise took place in relation to two important definitions of the Magisterium of the Church. The first was the definition at the Fourth Lateran Council in the year 1215, that the universe was created out of nothing at the beginning of time. The second magisterial statement was at the local level, enunciated by Bishop Stephen Tempier of Paris who, on March 7, 1277, condemned 219 Aristotelian propositions, so outlawing the deterministic and necessitarian views of creation. These statements of the teaching authority of the Church expressed an atmosphere in which faith in God had penetrated the medieval culture and given rise to philosophical consequences. The cosmos was seen as contingent in its existence and thus dependent on a divine choice which called it into being; the universe is also contingent in its nature and so God was free to create this particular form of world among an infinity of other possibilities. Thus the cosmos cannot be a necessary form of existence; and so it has to be approached by a posteriori investigation. The universe is also rational and so a coherent discourse can be made about it. Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos. http://www.scifiwright.com/2010/08/the-war-against-the-war-between-science-and-faith-revisited/
As to the last sentence of the preceding quote, “Indeed the contingency and rationality of the cosmos are like two pillars supporting the Christian vision of the cosmos”, it is important to note just how radical of a departure this ‘contingency vs. necessatarian’ transformation in the philosophy of mathematics was. As Edward Fesser notes in the following article, for Christian scholastic philosophers of the medieval period “Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts,” whereas for ancient Greek philosophers, “mathematical objects such as numbers and geometrical figures exist not only independently of the material world, but also independently of any mind, including the divine mind."
KEEP IT SIMPLE – by Edward Feser – April 2020 Excerpt: Mathematics appears to describe a realm of entities with quasi-divine attributes. The series of natural numbers is infinite. That one and one equal two and two and two equal four could not have been otherwise. Such mathematical truths never begin being true or cease being true; they hold eternally and immutably. The lines, planes, and figures studied by the geometer have a kind of perfection that the objects of our experience lack. Mathematical objects seem immaterial and known by pure reason rather than through the senses. Given the centrality of mathematics to scientific explanation, it seems in some way to be a cause of the natural world and its order. How can the mathematical realm be so apparently godlike? The traditional answer, originating in Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, is that our knowledge of the mathematical realm is precisely knowledge, albeit inchoate, of the divine mind. Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world. For some thinkers in this tradition, mathematics thus provides the starting point for an argument for the existence of God qua supreme intellect. There is also a very different answer, in which the mathematical realm is a rival to God rather than a path to him. According to this view, mathematical objects such as numbers and geometrical figures exist not only independently of the material world, but also independently of any mind, including the divine mind. They occupy a “third realm” of their own, the realm famously described in Plato’s Theory of Forms. God used this third realm as a blueprint when creating the physical world, but he did not create the realm itself and it exists outside of him. This position is usually called Platonism since it is commonly thought to have been Plato’s own view, as distinct from that of his Neoplatonic followers who relocated mathematical objects and other Forms into the divine mind. (I put to one side for present purposes the question of how historically accurate this standard narrative is.) https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple
In the minds of the Christian founders of modern science, mathematics, especially any mathematics that might describe the universe, was certainly not held to be necessary, as the ancient Greeks held and JVL currently holds, but any mathematics that might describe was instead held to be contingent upon God’s thoughts. Perhaps the best example that I can give for the fact that the Christian founders of modern science held mathematics, especially any mathematics that might describe the universe, to be God’s thoughts is the following quote by Kepler, (which he made shortly after discovering the laws of planetary motion),,
“O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee!” – Johannes Kepler, 1619, The Harmonies of the World.
Several quotes along similar lines we presented in post #53 https://uncommondescent.com/neuroscience/michael-egnor-talks-with-podcaster-lucas-skrobot-about-how-we-can-know-we-are-not-zombies/#comment-706255 Thus JVL is actually defending a necessitarian view of mathematics that the ancient Greeks also held. A fruitless view of mathematics that played a major role in preventing the rise of modern science since a necessitarian view of gives rise to the "Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave". In short, a necessitarian view of mathematics and/or creation, undermines empirical science itself since those who hold to a necessitarian view of mathematics, apparently, didn't, and still don't, believe that it was possible for the universe to take any other mathematical form than the one it currently has.. On this point they are sadly, and profoundly mistaken. Godel's incompleteness theorem is more that enough, in and of itself, to prove this point. But to add even more weight to the claim that the mathematics that describe this universe could have been different. The free will loop-hole in quantum mechanics has now been closed by Anton Zeilinger and company. On top of that, "Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information."
Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test - Douglas S. Robertson?Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information.?http://cires.colorado.edu/~doug/philosophy/info8.pdf
And as James Franklin noted, "the intellect (is) immaterial and immortal. If today’s naturalists do not wish to agree with that, there is a challenge for them. ‘Don’t tell me, show me’: build an artificial intelligence system that imitates genuine mathematical insight. There seem to be no promising plans on the drawing board.,,,"
The mathematical world - James Franklin - 7 April 2014 Excerpt: the intellect (is) immaterial and immortal. If today’s naturalists do not wish to agree with that, there is a challenge for them. ‘Don’t tell me, show me’: build an artificial intelligence system that imitates genuine mathematical insight. There seem to be no promising plans on the drawing board.,,, - James Franklin is professor of mathematics at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. http://aeon.co/magazine/world-views/what-is-left-for-mathematics-to-be-about/
Thus the Christian Theist has multiple lines of strong evidence, (many more lines than what I have presented here in this short post), that he can appeal to to support his claim that the mathematics that describe this universe is contingent upon the Mind of God for its existence, and indeed that God chose this particular mathematical form that this universe has taken. Whereas JVL has, basically, only his ignorance of the history of science, and his ignorance of the evidence itself, to appeal to, It is truly sad that he repeatedly chooses ignorance over God:bornagain77_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

JVL:
Design means there are choices.
To design or not to design is a choice. To have the laws that govern nature to be the way they are, was also a choice- to have intelligent observers or not, was a choice that affected that prior choice. Choices abound, choices all around. But do keep flailing about.ET_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

JVL:
How did your designer come to be?
Question-begging.
I think mathematics is just part of the fabric of reality.
That's the way the universe was designed.
But if you can’t come up with a different kind of mathematics then you have less of platform to say it was designed.
Just because you can say something stupid that doesn't make it so.
If you haven’t got an example then maybe you’re wrong.
That doesn't follow.
Wheels don’t have to be round.
Yes, they do. If you put a non-round wheel on a car, either the wheel or something on the car, will break. The road will be torn up, too.ET_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

Asauber: That’s very poetic but it doesn’t explain why or how there is math. Do you have an explanation of how math came to be? And, if it was designed, how it could have been different? Design means there are choices. What choices did the designer make regarding mathematics?JVL_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT}

"I think mathematics is just part of the fabric of reality." JVL, That's very poetic but it doesn't explain why or how there is math. Andrewasauber_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

ET: How do you think mathematics came to be, then, JVL? Your turn- your “math just is” is a cop out. How did your designer come to be? I think mathematics is just part of the fabric of reality. No being had to design it or create it. I don’t have to give an example of a different kind of math. That has nothing to do with what I said. What I said is more of a thought experiment. That is why you are so confused. You don't HAVE to do anything. But if you can't come up with a different kind of mathematics then you have less of platform to say it was designed. Designed means having choices. Means things could have been different. Could math have been different? If you haven't got an example then maybe you're wrong. The bike on youtube is close to useless. And I never said anything about gears Wheels don't have to be round. Sorted.JVL_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

How do you think mathematics came to be, then, JVL? Your turn- your "math just is" is a cop out. A cave as a house still has a roof and walls. Bridges are only where they are needed. I don't have to give an example of a different kind of math. That has nothing to do with what I said. What I said is more of a thought experiment. That is why you are so confused. The bike on youtube is close to useless. And I never said anything about gearsET_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

ET: Not necessarily. You think you can have design without choices being made? That's the same as necessity isn't it? How does the explanatory filter view that? Even if there aren’t any alternatives mathematics had to come into existence somehow. And seeing that it was required to design the universe it is obvious we did not invent it. Yes so . . . was mathematics designed? I say no. Oh noes! Car designers did not have any choice but to make the wheels round! Houses all have roofs and walls! No choice!!! And bridges they can’t be just anywhere. Wheels don't have to be round. Houses can be in caves. Bridges are partially dependent on land rights and available spaces aside from the geographic considerations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk7s4PfvCZg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-circular_gear And, guess what: you still haven't been able to provide an example of a different kind of mathematics. So, I say, mathematics was not designed or decided upon. It just is. It's pre-design, if design in nature exists.JVL_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Oh noes! Car designers did not have any choice but to make the wheels round! Houses all have roofs and walls! No choice!!! And bridges they can't be just anywhere.ET_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

JVL:
Design implies choices were made, yes?
Not necessarily. Even if there aren't any alternatives mathematics had to come into existence somehow. And seeing that it was required to design the universe it is obvious we did not invent it.ET_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

ET: Just because it has to be the way it is does not mean it wasn’t intelligently designed. Design implies choices were made, yes? If something has to be a certain way then there are no choices, yes? Of what? You want an example that math couldn’t be different? Are you daft? Okay, so you think math has to be the way it is? How are there any choices in that? How can it be designed then? Design implies choices. If there are no choices there is no design. If math has to be the way it is then it wasn't designed. If you think it was designed then you should be able to come up with choices or alternative to the way math works as we understand it. You should be able to come up with a different kind of math. Can you do that? If there are no alternatives then was it designed? I say no.JVL_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

JVL:
I say math was NOT designed because it has to be the way it is.
Just because it has to be the way it is does not mean it wasn't intelligently designed. Mathematics was used to design the universe in a similar fashion to the way we use it for engineering.
Give an example.
Of what? You want an example that math couldn't be different? Are you daft?ET_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
09:04 AM
9
09
04
AM
PDT}

ET: You lose and now you try to change the subject. The entire universe required mathematics, Jerad. The laws that govern the universe are purely mathematical. That doesn't mean math was designed does it? I say math was NOT designed because it has to be the way it is. It had to. Mathematics was used to design the universe. Like how? Give an example. Not necessarily. Give an example.JVL_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

LoL! @ JVL- You lose and now you try to change the subject. The entire universe required mathematics, Jerad. The laws that govern the universe are purely mathematical.
You agreed that math existed before biological design was implemented.
It had to. Mathematics was used to design the universe.
Again, if math was designed then it could have been done differently.
Not necessarily.ET_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

ET: Bridges require mathematics. Tall buildings require mathematics. Rocket launches and recovery depend on mathematics. Those were not part of the design intelligent design is talking about. Give an example of something BIOLOGICAL you think was designed and how math was used. That doesn’t follow. You agreed that math existed before biological design was implemented. So it's independent from that design process. It existed before then. So it was not affected by the design process. So it exists apart from the biological design you believe happened. Math was designed so that the universe could then follow. So, how could math have been designed differently? How could math have been designed without using math? Mathematics was part of the Intelligent Design. So, step 1? Again, if math was designed then it could have been done differently. How could it have been done differently? Does it? Just because choices were made does not mean mathematics was not intelligently designed. Perhaps there was a different math that didn’t work in the physical realm Like what? Give an example.JVL_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

If math can be no other way then what does intelligent design have to do with it?
Mathematics was part of the Intelligent Design.
Design implies choices were made.
Does it? Just because choices were made does not mean mathematics was not intelligently designed. Perhaps there was a different math that didn't work in the physical realmET_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

Bridges require mathematics. Tall buildings require mathematics. Rocket launches and recovery depend on mathematics.
If math existed before choices were made in the design process then math has nothing to do with design.
That doesn't follow.
It might have been used during the design process but it exists apart from design.
That doesn't follow, either.
So math was not designed.
How do you figure? Math was designed so that the universe could then follow.ET_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

ET: Most likely the same way we use it to design things today. Or very similar. Give an example of something you think was designed and how math was used in the design process. Yes. So we agree! That’s your opinion. However, materialism is incoherent and is a non-starter. I say math has nothing to do with materialism, especially if materialism is incoherent since math is very coherent. If math existed before choices were made in the design process then math has nothing to do with design. It might have been used during the design process but it exists apart from design. So math was not designed.JVL_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

BobRyan: If math exists, which you believe, then where did it originate? I think it's always been there. I don't see how 2 + 2 can equal anything but 4, ever. I am sure you know that new formulas are not referred to as having been created, but of discovering what already exists Depends on the mathematician. Without intelligence designing the entire universe, there can be no math to discover. Why? If math can be no other way then what does intelligent design have to do with it? Design implies choices were made. I don't think there are choices with mathematics. It is what it is. Something created the formulas, just as something created the laws of physics. I disagree. The fact that the infinite series 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + . . . . converges has nothing to do with a designer. You couldn't decide to make that come out to be something else. Can you conceive of a different kind of mathematics? If you can' then doesn't that mean it has to be the way it is? If that's true then there's no choice about it. That means, if intelligent design is true, that the math existed before the design was implemented.JVL_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

JVL:
How was it used then?
Most likely the same way we use it to design things today. Or very similar.
Do you think the math existed before the design was conceived?
Yes.
Math has nothing to do with theology or materialism.
That's your opinion. However, materialism is incoherent and is a non-starter.ET_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

Asuaber: So at the end of the day, JVL is just another unresponsive troll. Again. Good Times, though. Sorry for not agreeing with you.JVL_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply