mathematics

  • Thread starter Thread starter hazcompat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ronnie_bonigli said:
Even better, the Mandelbrot set. Everything you see all formed by a simple formula. Evidence of Plato’s real but nonmaterial world of mathematical forms?
Click to expand...
A disproof of the hypothesis that mathematics is merely a manmade set of rules unrelated to reality!
 
tonyrey said:
A disproof of the hypothesis that mathematics is merely a manmade set of rules unrelated to reality!
Click to expand...
tonyrey, I see you’re from the UK, your fellow Brit Roger Penrose devotes an entire chapter to the Mandelbrot Set in his book The Emperor’s New Mind arguing for the real nonmaterial world of mathematical truths and forms. Quite the neoplatonist is Sir Roger.
 
tonyrey said:
A disproof of the hypothesis that mathematics is merely a manmade set of rules unrelated to reality!
Click to expand...
I believe John Forbes Nash has shown that just about everything follows the laws of mathematics. Or at least mathematics can be expanded to apply to everything.
 
hazcompat said:
youtube.com/watch_popup?v=h60r2HPsiuM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

peace
Click to expand...
Starts out interesting, quickly becomes contrived. I assume it’s not meant seriously - not even the most ardent religious wingnut would truly attempt to justify their invented deity using mathematical equations built out of the arbitrary arrangement of letters in one specific language. “Love of Unicorns” scores more than “Love of God.” As does “Love of kettles,” “Love of socks” and “Disbelief in God.” Not to mention many thousands of other arbitrary word combinations.
 
“religious wingnut would truly attempt to justify their invented deity”?

so much love from the atheists among us. I often think modern atheism is one of those self-esteem boosting programs, become a new atheist and you get to think the majority of the world are religious wingnut worshiping their invented deities, while you are one of the few elightened elites of humanity. And you can even buy a t-shirt or a grocery tote bag from the Richard Dawkins Store showing the world how elightened you really are.
 
ronnie_bonigli said:
tonyrey, I see you’re from the UK, your fellow Brit Roger Penrose devotes an entire chapter to the Mandelbrot Set in his book The Emperor’s New Mind arguing for the real nonmaterial world of mathematical truths and forms. Quite the neoplatonist is Sir Roger.
Click to expand...
Materialists are hard put to explain the correspondence of mathematics to reality, a notable example being the Poisson distribution. They regard its laws as the rules of a game but then they also regard truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love as human inventions. How irrational can they get?!

Plato has been much maligned but he had far deeper insight into reality than the superficial devotees of science… 🙂
 
ronnie_bonigli said:
“religious wingnut would truly attempt to justify their invented deity”?

so much love from the atheists among us. I often think modern atheism is one of those self-esteem boosting programs, become a new atheist and you get to think the majority of the world are religious wingnut worshiping their invented deities, while you are one of the few elightened elites of humanity. And you can even buy a t-shirt or a grocery tote bag from the Richard Dawkins Store showing the world how elightened you really are.
Click to expand...
I was referring to a hypothetical apologist - as I said, I presume the YouTube video is some sort of spoof.

You appear to have taken an opportunity to launch an *ad hominem *attack based on a straw man.

Do you genuinely think the phrase “Love of God” has some mathematical significance?
 
wanstronian said:
You appear to have taken an opportunity to launch an *ad hominem *attack based on a straw man.
Click to expand...
ad hominem? no, ad hominem is usually the tool of the supercilious atheist. Tell me, having a tag line that appears to have no purpose other than to mock another member here, is that ad hominem? Or for that matter is it something CAF would consider inappropriate?
 
tonyrey said:
Materialists are hard put to explain the correspondence of mathematics to reality, a notable example being the Poisson distribution. They regard its laws as the rules of a game but then they also regard truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love as human inventions. How irrational can they get?!
Click to expand...
Yes, Eugene Wigner explained it well in his article The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.

dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences
 
ronnie_bonigli said:
ad hominem? no, ad hominem is usually the tool of the supercilious atheist. Tell me, having a tag line that appears to have no purpose other than to mock another member here, is that ad hominem? Or for that matter is it something CAF would consider inappropriate?
Click to expand...
GODravity - God “impels” objects to move downwards so that the “kinds” can find stuff they’ve dropped. Wanstronian
Click to expand...
Surely this infringes Forum rule 7:

Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.
 
tonyrey said:
Surely this infringes Forum rule 7:

Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.
Click to expand...
Actually I find the “(hat-tip to Buffalo for the idea of inventing a catchy phrase for an indescribable and unfalsifiable process.)” that follows to be the real problem. He sure appears to be ridiculing the member Buffalo, and he’s got it in his tag line that follows every one of his post.
 
ronnie_bonigli said:
Actually I find the “(hat-tip to Buffalo for the idea of inventing a catchy phrase for an indescribable and unfalsifiable process.)” that follows to be the real problem. He sure appears to be ridiculing the member Buffalo, and he’s got it in his tag line that follows every one of his post.
Click to expand...
 
ronnie_bonigli said:
Actually I find the “(hat-tip to Buffalo for the idea of inventing a catchy phrase for an indescribable and unfalsifiable process.)” that follows to be the real problem. He sure appears to be ridiculing the member Buffalo, and he’s got it in his tag line that follows every one of his post.
Click to expand...
It remains to be seen whether he will attempt to justify it…

Of far more significance are the fascinating ideas about mathematics to which you referred us… 🙂
 
tonyrey said:
It remains to be seen whether he will attempt to justify it…

Of far more significance are the fascinating ideas about mathematics to which you referred us… 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, quotes from Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner in the earlier referenced paper;

“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.”

“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 laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.”
 
ronnie_bonigli said:
Yes, quotes from Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner in the earlier referenced paper;

“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.”

“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 laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.”
Click to expand...
“miracle” is the most appropriate description in view of the absurdity of the hypothesis that the power of reason is derived from inanimate objects. It always strikes me as ironic that reason is used to show that reason exists for no reason! 🙂
 
Can anyone explain to me Godel’s proof for God’s existence?

And Cantor’s ideas about God?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top