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

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 5, 2020

Mind, Neuroscience}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; 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

ET: You aren’t even responding to my comments. It’s as if you cannot comprehend what I am posting, Mathematics cannot work any differently because it permeates our universe. It permeates our universe because mathematics was used in its Intelligent Design. How was it used then? Do you think the math existed before the design was conceived? Materialism doesn’t work. It cannot account for mathematics. That’s because it cannot account for this universe. There isn’t any math that supports materialism. Math has nothing to do with theology or materialism. It's separate from any world view and supports none.JVL_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT}

JVL- You aren't even responding to my comments. It's as if you cannot comprehend what I am posting, Mathematics cannot work any differently because it permeates our universe. It permeates our universe because mathematics was used in its Intelligent Design. Materialism doesn't work. It cannot account for mathematics. That's because it cannot account for this universe. There isn't any math that supports materialism.ET_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

So at the end of the day, JVL is just another unresponsive troll. Again. Good Times, though. Andrewasauber_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

JVL: If math exists, which you believe, then where did it originate? I am sure you know that new formulas are not referred to as having been created, but of discovering what already exists. Without intelligence designing the entire universe, there can be no math to discover. Something created the formulas, just as something created the laws of physics.BobRyan_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT}

BornAgain77: And, irony of ironies, JVL accuses me of holding an unfalsifiable position in the face of he himself refusing to accept Godel’s falsification of his position. I agree with Godel's mathematics but interpreting it as theology . . . nah. That's why I said "so?", it's your use of Godel's mathematics to make a religious statement. That doesn't wash.JVL_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT}

ET: What are you talking about? There isn’t any math for all of this just happening to happen. The only reason math exists is because the universe was designed using it. It permeates our existence. I disagree. I can not see any way math could work differently.JVL_{July 8, 2020
July
07
Jul
8
08
2020
01:39 AM
1
01
39
AM
PDT}

JVL:
The math works. It can be proved.
What are you talking about? There isn't any math for all of this just happening to happen. The only reason math exists is because the universe was designed using it. It permeates our existence.ET_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT}

JVL: "I did not say nor do I believe that mathematics is a replacement or substitute for God." All evidence to the contrary be damned eh JVL?
JVL: “It (mathematics) exists outside of space and time. It just is.” BA77: "Godel begs to differ." JVL: "So"
And, irony of ironies, JVL accuses me of holding an unfalsifiable position in the face of he himself refusing to accept Godel's falsification of his position.bornagain77_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

BornAgain77: I did not say nor do I believe that mathematics is a replacement or substitute for God. You choose to look at is as evidence for God. I think that's misplaced and incorrect. I think mathematics has nothing to do with God. But you think all of existence is due to God so there is nothing I can say that will get you to change your mind. Your belief is unfalsifiable so I'm not going to try and argue with you about it. If you want to talk about mathematics that's fine. If you are going to use mathematics as support for God (and I gather you haven't studied math much yourself) then we've got nothing to say to each other really.JVL_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

ET: Yes, JVL ascribes to the “this all just happened to happen” scenario. Untestable and takes more faith to believe than Christianity. The math works. It can be proved. It's the most testable discipline ever.JVL_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

In fact, in 1619, Johannes Kepler, shortly after discovering the laws of planetary motion, stated,
“O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee!” – Johannes Kepler, 1619, The Harmonies of the World.
Likewise in 1687, Sir Isaac Newton, after discovering the law of universal gravitation, (which has been referred to as the first major unification in physics), stated that, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.,,,This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all;”
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another. This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God pantokrator, or Universal Ruler;,,, The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,, from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present”: Sir Isaac Newton – Principia; 1687, GENERAL SCHOLIUM. http://gravitee.tripod.com/genschol.htm
As well, as Ian H. Hutchinson noted in the following article on Faraday and Maxwell, “Lawfulness was not, in their thinking, inert, abstract, logical necessity, or complete reducibility to Cartesian mechanism; rather, it was an expectation they attributed to the existence of a divine lawgiver.,,, For them, the coherence of nature resulted from its origin in the mind of its Creator.”
The Genius and Faith of Faraday and Maxwell – Ian H. Hutchinson – 2014 Conclusion: Lawfulness was not, in their thinking, inert, abstract, logical necessity, or complete reducibility to Cartesian mechanism; rather, it was an expectation they attributed to the existence of a divine lawgiver. These men’s insights into physics were made possible by their religious commitments. For them, the coherence of nature resulted from its origin in the mind of its Creator. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-genius-and-faith-of-faraday-and-maxwell
As well in quantum mechanics and relativity, we find that both Eugene Wigner and Einstein are on record as to regarding it as a 'miracle' that mathematics is applicable to the universe. In fact, Einstein went so far as to disparage 'professional atheists' when he called it a miracle:
On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine - Albert Einstein - March 30, 1952 Excerpt: "You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the 'miracle' which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands. There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles." -Albert Einstein http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin's process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind's capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
Moreover, when 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), when 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:
November 2019 – despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican Principle (and/or the principle of mediocrity) is unquestionably true, the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principle is now empirically shown, (via quantum mechanics and general relativity, etc..), to be a false assumption. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/so-then-maybe-we-are-privileged-observers/#comment-688855 (February 19, 2019) To support Isabel Piczek’s claim that the Shroud of Turin does indeed reveal a true ‘event horizon’, the following study states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’,,, Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673178 The evidence for the Shroud’s authenticity keeps growing. (Timeline of facts) – November 08, 2019 What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know – Myra Adams and Russ Breault https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html
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 Watts (34 trillion Watts) of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”
Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016 Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”. ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion (34 trillion) watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”. Comment The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology. http://westvirginianews.blogspot.com/2011/12/new-study-claims-shroud-of-turin-is.html
Verse:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
bornagain77_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

BA77: "Godel begs to differ." JVL: "So?" Nothing to see here eh JVL?
The Naked Gun - "Nothing to see here!" (1080p) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKnX5wci404
Contrary to JVL's nonchalant attitude towards evidence that directly falsifies his claim, and as the following article states, “Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous.”
Taking God Out of the Equation – Biblical Worldview – by Ron Tagliapietra – January 1, 2012 Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties. 1. Validity … all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning. 2. Consistency … no conclusions contradict any other conclusions. 3. Completeness … all statements made in the system are either true or false. The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He (Godel) summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem. Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation. Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/why-god-appears-to-be-a-mathematician/#comment-703707
Physicists (and mathematicians) today, especially with the proof of Godel’s incompleteness theorems sitting right before them, simply have no basis for their belief that mathematics, all by its lonesome, can somehow function as a God substitute,
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. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/08/the-god-of-the-mathematicians
Stephen Hawking himself, an atheist, honestly admitted that “Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”
“Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove” – Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010)
As well, Steven Weinberg, also an atheist, also honestly admitted that, ” “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws of nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that.”
“I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws of nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that. The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe,,,” (Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists) “No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don’t even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. But it is a possibility.” – Steven Weinberg – as stated to Richard Dawkins at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video – Leonard Susskind – Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg – 1 in 10^120 – Cosmological Constant points to intelligent design – video https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495
In fact, there are an infinite number of mathematical theorems that could have described the universe but don’t, As Gregory Chaitin pointed out, “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. ”
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
Mathematics, contrary to what the vast majority of theoretical physicists believe today, simply never will have the capacity within itself to function as a God substitute. As Dr. Bruce Gordon explains, “The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.”
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: ,,,The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world,,, Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,, Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
Moreover, an essential belief in the rise of modern science, a belief that distinctly separated it from Platonic philosophy that preceded it, (a philosophy that held math to exist separate from God), was the Christian's belief that mathematics, especially any mathematics that might describe this universe, was, and is, the product of the Mind of God.
KEEP IT SIMPLE by Edward Feser - April 2020 Excerpt: 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
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.”
“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.” – Paul Davies http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/
bornagain77_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

Yes, JVL ascribes to the "this all just happened to happen" scenario. Untestable and takes more faith to believe than Christianity.ET_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

"The basic rules of what? Mathematics? Physics? Chemistry?" JVL, You tell me. You are the one who brought it up. Andrewasauber_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

Asauber: People are trying to give you an opportunity to present coherent ideas and you keep failing. What? Because I'm not saying what you want to hear? How did the basic rules come about? The basic rules of what? Mathematics? Physics? Chemistry? Chemistry is a subset of physics. The rules of chemistry are based on the underlying physics. Physics is a reflection of the basic underlying structures of the universe. It's complicated but let's say you start with electrons, protons and neutrons. The interactions between those particles give rise to a lot of other rules and laws. We are learning to delve deeper than those three particles. We are learning to dig further down. There's no indication it's planned or dictated. It's all just the way it is. Perhaps the very fabric of the universe can only react in certain ways? Mathematics I don't think can be another way. That doesn't mean that it was dictated or defined. I don't know why anyone would look at it and just say: see, that indicated some kind of design. I hear that more from people who haven't studied mathematics. I mean really studied it. That means a Bachelor's degree or more.JVL_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

"the basic rules" JVL, People are trying to give you an opportunity to present coherent ideas and you keep failing. How did the basic rules come about? Andrewasauber_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

BornAgain77: Godel begs to differ. So? Moreover, exactly how do you, a Darwinist who believes we are purely material beings, account for the fact that we can grasp mathematical concepts that have no material basis? Again, you, as a Darwinian materialist, simply have no place to stand. Whereas, we, as Christian Theists who rightly believe that we have immaterial minds, readily do have foundation to stand upon. The more intelligent and successful creatures are more aware of the basic rules that underlie the universes's existence. It's simple. The more advanced the intelligence the better able they are at grasping the basic rules and using and extending them. No god or soul needed. Just a better understanding of how things work. You look at the universe and look for justifications for your belief in God. Everything you find beautiful or complicated is an indication of your deity. I don't see it that way. I see the universe being built on some basic structures and rules and as we advance and pay attention we grasp those things better and better. You don't need a soul, you just need to pay attention and remember.JVL_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

"It exists outside of space and time." JVL, How Twilight Zone of you. lol Andrewasauber_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

"It exists outside of space and time. It just is." Godel begs to differ. Moreover, exactly how do you, a Darwinist who believes we are purely material beings, account for the fact that we can grasp mathematical concepts that have no material basis? Again, you, as a Darwinian materialist, simply have no place to stand. Whereas, we, as Christian Theists who rightly believe that we have immaterial minds, readily do have foundation to stand upon. As 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." - Alfred Russel Wallace - 1910
bornagain77_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

Asauber: Where is it? It exists outside of space and time. It just is. You cannot get away from one plus two equals three. You might use different words or terms but the basic mathematics stays true. Always.JVL_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

"I think it takes a mind to experience or perceive math but the math is there regardless." JVL. Where is it? Andrewasauber_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

ET: I see that the concepts of addition an subtraction and addition still elude JVL. Strange that set subtraction refutes Cantor’s alleged proof. Uh huh. If you'd like to propose a different system for handling infinities and then face the heat and answer questions about your system then by all means do so. Cantor’s diagonal just proves that the sets are countable. SOME sets are countably infinite. If you've got a better system lay it out and let us query it.JVL_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

BornAgain77: LOL, Too funny, a Darwinian materialist appeals to logical necessity to try to claim that mathematics does not depend ‘on any kind of design’. If you can propose another kind of mathematics then I'll be very, very interested. If you can't then . . . .JVL_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

Asauber: But it is. No mind, no math. I disagree. I think it takes a mind to experience or perceive math but the math is there regardless. You are an experiencialist. I'm not.JVL_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

Cantor's diagonal just proves that the sets are countable.ET_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT}

I see that the concepts of addition an subtraction and addition still elude JVL. Strange that set subtraction refutes Cantor's alleged proof.ET_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

JVL:
Because I cannot conceive of mathematics working any differently than it does I do not believe mathematics depends on any kind of design. I may be wrong but I think math HAS to be the way it is.
LOL, Too funny, a Darwinian materialist appeals to logical necessity to try to claim that mathematics does not depend 'on any kind of design'. To point out the glaringly obvious elephant in the living room, both mathematics and logic have no place to stand within the Darwinist's materialistic worldview.
Naturalism and Self-Refutation - Michael Egnor - January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”?,,, What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature as described by physics.,,, Clark would likely argue that the concepts of mathematics are the products of our brains, which are purely material things. But that’s merely an assertion based on metaphysical presupposition, without any basis in physics or science. The hallmarks of the mind — intentionality, qualia, restricted access, the generation of propositions and logic, etc., have nothing whatsoever to do with matter. Matter, as understood by physics, isn’t intentional — it isn’t about anything. Matter is not inherently subjective, it doesn’t generate propositions or logic, etc.,,, Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame. The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/
As the old joke goes about God telling the scientist to go 'get your own dirt',,
God was once approached by a scientist who said, “Listen God, we’ve decided we don’t need you anymore. These days we can clone people, transplant organs and do all sorts of things that used to be considered miraculous.” God replied, “Don’t need me huh? How about we put your theory to the test. Why don’t we have a competition to see who can make a human being, say, a male human being.” The scientist agrees, so God declares they should do it like he did in the good old days when he created Adam. “Fine” says the scientist as he bends down to scoop up a handful of dirt.” “Whoa!” says God, shaking his head in disapproval. “Not so fast. You get your own dirt.” https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/b0faut/get_your_own_dirt/
Likewise JVL, go get your own mathematics,
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. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple
bornagain77_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

"That’s not down to me or you;" JVL, But it is. No mind, no math. Andrewasauber_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Asuaber: You are stuck on something. I’m not sure what it is. Pure logic resides in your mind. I don’t think you can find it anywhere else. Math has to work the way it does. It can't be any different. Therefore it must exist outside of my mind or imagination. If you start with the same basic counting techniques humans arrived at millenniums ago and extend it you will get the same mathematical truths we know now. Maybe not in the same order, maybe expressed differently but the same truths. That's not down to me or you; that's something invariant. Try and find some other kind of mathematics. See if it's just in your mind.JVL_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

ET: Thank you for proving that the set of even integers is smaller than the set of all integers. Is an incorrect conclusion. As shown by the work of Cantor and others. You can match up the integers with the even integers one-to-one so that no even integer is unpaired with and integer and no integer is unpaired with an even integer. You tell me an integer and I'll tell you what even integer its matched with. You tell me an even integer and I'll tell you an integer it's matched up with. Nothing is left out. That can only happen if both sets have the same number of elements. If they had different number of elements there would be something unmatched. But there isn't. So, the set of all even integers is the same 'size' as the set of all integers. QED That same kind of matching procedure works for finite sets as well: if you can match two sets up one-to-one they must be the same size. In fact, that's how we count how many objects there are: we are matching up the positive integers with the elements of a set.JVL_{July 7, 2020
July
07
Jul
7
07
2020
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 27 28 29 30 31 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply