Ask a Unitarian Universalist

[Tomdstone]

His example is not nonsensical if you look at it in the context which he intended it to be read, which seemed obvious to me.

Well then if you are speaking poetically and not mathematically, the first example (which he claimed was nonsensical) is not nonsensical if you look at it in the poetic and figurative context which was intended.

 

[Tomdstone]

Speaking of limits of analogies…

Hate to break up the vibrant discussion, but math is a tad relative, isn’t it? I appreciate that part of this miscommunication is over the understanding of what an analogy is. But consider….at the subatomic level, according to quantum physics, two electrons can exist in the same place at the same time.

QM postulates an uncertainty in their position, given that there is a certain momentum to the particles.

 

[PRmerger]

Quite often, though, the professor is wrong. I presume this is a failure of the analogy?

Really? You’ve had kindergartners correct professors “often”?

I don’t think so.

 

[PRmerger]

His example is not nonsensical if you look at it in the context which he intended it to be read, which seemed obvious to me.

Just so you know, I am a she, not a he.

 

[Major_Tom]

QM postulates an uncertainty in their position, given that there is a certain momentum to the particles.

Sure thing. I do recall some readings and lectures positing that two particles can exist in the same place at the same time. Don’t want to get lost in the weeds,l though… All I’m saying, big-picture-wise, is that Newtonian physics breaks down at the quantum level, where another set of rules applies. Yes? So classical math and physics may be inherently limited as far as analogies go.

 

[mek42]

QM postulates an uncertainty in their position, given that there is a certain momentum to the particles.

Given that there is a certain knowledge of the momentum of the particle. The Truth of the particle momentum is irrelevant to the certainty of position, rather it is how closely we know the Truth about the momentum that limits how closely we may know the Truth of the position.

 

[PRmerger]

As can, then, the Protestant denominations, yes? For ease of discussion, let’s define them as the ones with baptism recognized by the Catholic Church.

Well, if you mean that they departed from the original church, the Catholic Church, then by extension, yes, they do trace their roots, through the CC, to Christ.

Also, PR, I appreciate the grace shown agreeing about corruption being at least part of the seed of the Protestant movement.

shaw:

 

[PRmerger]

So “proving” something can or can’t exist (using math), has it’s limits doesn’t it?

No one has posited anything at all about proving something can or can’t exist using math, Tom.

 

[mek42]

But what about the wave collapse? And you assume simultaneity which is a big mistake if you’re in motion relative to another.

I made no reference to the time domain in my assertion.

 

[PRmerger]

Disorderlies of the world, unite! I’m right there with you.

 

[Tomdstone]

I made no reference to the time domain in my assertion.

In #296 did you mention simultaneous existence? If two things exist simultaneously, would that not mean that they exist at the same time? Or does it mean something else?

 

[Tomdstone]

Sure thing. I do recall some readings and lectures positing that two particles can exist in the same place at the same time…

However, one would be spin up and the other spin down. Also the smaller the uncertainty in energy, the larger will be the uncertainty in time.

 

[Major_Tom]

No one has posited anything at all about proving something can or can’t exist using math, Tom.

Poor choice of verbs. Strike “poor”. People are using math as an analogy. If math is relative (as I claim that it is, in a sense), it may weaken its strength when used in an anology.

 

[Tomdstone]

Given that there is a certain knowledge of the momentum of the particle. The Truth of the particle momentum is irrelevant to the certainty of position, rather it is how closely we know the Truth about the momentum that limits how closely we may know the Truth of the position.

In any case there will be an uncertainty in the position so that you really can’t say that two particles will be in exactly the same place at the same time. There will also be an uncertainty in the time according to QM.

 

[Tomdstone]

Poor choice of verbs. Strike “poor”. People are using math as an analogy. If math is relative (as I claim that it is, in a sense), it may weaken its strength when used in an anology.

In what sense do you claim that math itself is relative. Mathematics is used to describe the theory of relativity, but wouldn’t it be that the physics is relative and not the math?

 

[PRmerger]

Poor choice of verbs. Strike “poor”. People are using math as an analogy. If math is relative (as I claim that it is, in a sense), it may weaken its strength when used in an anology.

You are arguing that using math to prove God exists has its limits.

You said: So “proving” something can or can’t exist (using math), has it’s limits doesn’t it?

To which I respond: of course. We would be dum-dums to say, “We can prove God exists using math alone!”.

Thankfully, no Catholic I know here has made that claim.

 

[Tomdstone]

You are arguing that using math to prove God exists has its limits.

You said: So “proving” something can or can’t exist (using math), has it’s limits doesn’t it?

To which I respond: of course. We would be dum-dums to say, “We can prove God exists using math alone!”.

Thankfully, no Catholic I know here has made that claim.

It depends on what you mean by math. Some people extend the definition of math to include any form of logical reasoning. And I believe that it is a defined doctrine of the RCC that the existence of God may be known by reason alone.

 

[Major_Tom]

The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, would never proclaim something to be true which is untrue.

So your example is a nonsensical one. It’s untrue that popcorn is made out of buttercups, so the Church would never proclaim that to be so.

However, if the Church proclaims something to be black that I once viewed as white, then I would conform to the Church’s view and work backwards, attempting to understand why it is indeed black.

And I would invoke Cardinal Newman’s quote here again: “Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, for a man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, without doubting that it admits an answer.”

It is as if the professor has said, here’s the answer to this problem:

f(θ)=100(A2B3−A3B2)2−(c1B3−c2B2)2−(c2A2−c1A3)2=0,
where:
A2=3cos(θ)−5
B2=3sin(θ)
A3=3(cos(θ)−sin(θ))
B3=3(cos(θ)+sin(θ))−6
c1=p22−25−A22−B22
c2=−16−A23−B23

The answer is: “23!”
and I believe the answer is “32!”

I need to change my computations.

That’s the Catholic way. The smart way. The way to become a good mathematician.

At great risk of belaboring this further…… the only way that I can understand your explanation of Ignatius here is if you’re defining words differently from me. Isn’t claiming that something is “black”, when it appears “white”, an untrue statement? I claim that it is an untrue statement. You claim that the Church can’t proclaim untrue things. Therefore the church could not do that. Are you differentiating between the words “viewed” and “is made out of”?

The meaning from Ignatius’s quote that I understood is this: if the Church says it, I believe it. If the Church says it’s black, I believe it’s black. If the Church says (fill in the blank), I believe (fill in the blank), and will conform my thinking accordingly. No conditions.

If I understand you correctly (forgive my obtuseness, it’s late and I know that there have been scads of follow-ups on this that I may have missed), you would conform to the Church’s ruling. But then you claim my example is in error, which doesn’t make sense.

Why wouldn’t have Ignatius have used your own words: “It’s untrue that something black could be white, the Church would never proclaim that to be so”.

 

[nmgauss]

Incorrect.

Catholics regard the Word of God as our authority.

This is one of the key arguments presented by the Reformation. With Catholics, they need priests to tell them the Word of God. At the time of the Reformation, it was not expected that Catholics would read the Bible, since most of them were illiterate. In fact, I have read that in some dioceses, Catholics were prohibited from reading the Bible. This lead many to believe that Catholic priests were distorting the Word of God to suit their own agenda. Of course, Bibles were not readily available at the start of the Reformation.

In the Reformation, literacy was encouraged so that people could read the Bible themselves and verify the Word of God. This emphasis on literacy for Bible reading was characteristic of American society, especially in the 19th century.

 

[PRmerger]

This is one of the key arguments presented by the Reformation. With Catholics, they need priests to tell them the Word of God.

Well, nmgauss, with Protestants you need the Catholic Church to tell you the Word of God.

You would not know it any other way, right?

IOW: how do you know that the book of Hebrews is the inspired word of God but the Epistle of Barnabas is not?

Because the CC told you Hebrews is inspired and that the Epistle of Barnabas is not.