The Neccesary Connection Between Mathematics, Logic & The Existence Of A Perfect Transcendent Being

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
hatsoff said:
3+3=6 does not tell us anything directly about stars. Once we start talking about physical objects, we have left the bounds of math.
Click to expand...
No we haven’t left the bounds of math if we mean to describe the number of stars or objects.
 
hatsoff said:
I don’t believe in anything called “absolute being.”
Click to expand...
this denies then that anything can exist given the contingent nature of our beings, that they might not have been and as such require a necessary being to justify their existence, ultimately the chain can only end at an absolute being, or one whos essence is existence, the maximal state of being.
 
MindOverMatter said:
No we haven’t if we mean to describe the number of them.
Click to expand...
then use points, 3 points plus 3 points equals 6 points, the value of the points doesnt matter. only the number of them.

sorry, wrong post, im replying to hatsoff
 
MindOverMatter said:
You are better then you claim. But i admit that this is a bit of a chunky thread.🙂
Click to expand...
unfortunately, im intimately aware of my own failings, but thank you for the vote of confidence.🙂

check out my thread on the problem of evil, i killed it dead, it lit up an atheist forum and it survived trial by fire quite nicely.
 
MindOverMatter said:
Are you saying that a circle can be a square, or that a square can be both a circle and a square? If not, then you must admit that there is such a thing as eternal truth. Are you saying that 2 + 2 doesn’t equal 4? If not, then you must admit that there is such a thing as eternal truth.
Click to expand...
If Schrodinger’s cat can be both alive and dead at the same time, then why can’t something be both a square and a circle at the same time?

The logic of reality is quantum logic. Classical logic is based on metaphysics, not on the physical universe.
 
MindOverMatter said:
Integers are only true given the rules of integers; its tautological; this much as been explained. 2 + 2 is an ontological proposition, because it is a direct abstraction from the intrinsic order of real being. In the real world, we know that 3 stars add another 3 stars necessarily equals 6 stars altogether, which is a necessary truth of addition and order.
Click to expand...
According to the Banach-Tarski paradox (see here), 1 star = 2 stars.
 
Just_Lurking said:
If Schrodinger’s cat can be both alive and dead at the same time, then why can’t something be both a square and a circle at the same time?
Click to expand...
i dont suppose that the cat is both dead and alive at the same time, the states are mutually exclusive.
The logic of reality is quantum logic. Classical logic is based on metaphysics, not on the physical universe.
Click to expand...
quantum derives from propositional logic, propositional logic derives from the same tautologies as classical logic. im missing something here. what is it?
 
Just_Lurking said:
According to the Banach-Tarski paradox (see here), 1 star = 2 stars.
Click to expand...
or an infinite number of stars, which would really be points, as no matter how thinly one slices matter, one can only have a finit number of slices. i think:)
 
warpspeedpetey said:
i dont suppose that the cat is both dead and alive at the same time, the states are mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Well, if you say the cat is neither dead nor alive, isn’t that just as paradoxical from the point of view of classical logic?
warpspeedpetey said:
quantum derives from propositional logic, propositional logic derives from the same tautologies as classical logic. im missing something here. what is it?
Click to expand...
Quantum logic has fewer tautologies than classical logic. For example, (A or ~A) is not a tautology of quantum logic, as illustrated by A = Schrodinger’s cat is alive.
 
warpspeedpetey said:
or an infinite number of stars, which would really be points, as no matter how thinly one slices matter, one can only have a finit number of slices. i think:)
Click to expand...
Only a finite number of new stars works, but each new star is identical to the one original star.
 
Just_Lurking said:
Well, if you say the cat is neither dead nor alive, isn’t that just as paradoxical from the point of view of classical logic?
Click to expand...
if we say the cat is neither dead or alive then we imply a third state, uncertainty, not the same thing as it actually being neither dead or alive. it is still one or the other. we just dont know which. could we equate 'uncertainty" then with “possibility”?
Quantum logic has fewer tautologies than classical logic. For example, (A or ~A) is not a tautology of quantum logic, as illustrated by A = Schrodinger’s cat is alive.
Click to expand...
essentially reducing the possibility of error to the lowest possible value, but then we introduce new tautologies such as uncertainty, which may equate to possibility. im no expert, but it seems a “six of one, half a dozen of another” situation. could we just be trading out some tautologies?
 
warpspeedpetey said:
it is still one or the other. we just dont know which.
Click to expand...
What you are describing here (“it is one or the other, but we don’t know which”) is uncertainty, which is modeled in quantum mechanics as a statistical mixture. This is completely different than the state of Schrodinger’s cat, which is a known state which equals the quantum mechanical superposition of the two states alive and dead.
warpspeedpetey said:
essentially reducing the possibility of error to the lowest possible value, but then we introduce new tautologies such as uncertainty, which may equate to possibility. im no expert, but it seems a “six of one, half a dozen of another” situation. could we just be trading out some tautologies?
Click to expand...
Most people consider quantum logic to be completely different from classical logic. But my point is that the principles of logic that MindOverMatter describes as being eternally true are in fact false in the physical universe.
 
Just_Lurking said:
The 3-dimensional Borel measure (= size or volume) of each star remains the same.
Click to expand...
so while we can manipulate the coutable numbers, we dont actually change the value, and 2+2=4 is still a tautology? (excuse my lack of vocabulary here, im no expert)
 
Just_Lurking said:
What you are describing here (“it is one or the other, but we don’t know which”) is uncertainty, which is modeled in quantum mechanics as a statistical mixture. This is completely different than the state of Schrodinger’s cat, which is a known state which equals the quantum mechanical superposition of the two states alive and dead.

Most people consider quantum logic to be completely different from classical logic. But my point is that the principles of logic that MindOverMatter describes as being eternally true are in fact false in the physical universe.
Click to expand...
i guess im missing what makes them false in this universe. maybe i dont know the right questions to ask. how would you explain it to a 5th grader?
 
warpspeedpetey said:
so while we can manipulate the coutable numbers, we dont actually change the value, and 2+2=4 is still a tautology? (excuse my lack of vocabulary here, im no expert)
Click to expand...
No, it’s called a paradox for a reason. You start out with 1 star, and end up with 2 stars, and each of the new stars is identical (mathematical term: isomorphic) to the original star, so it is a case of 1 = 2.
 
warpspeedpetey said:
i guess im missing what makes them false in this universe. maybe i dont know the right questions to ask. how would you explain it to a 5th grader?
Click to expand...
The reality of the physical universe is not at all what we naively perceive (and what the ancient Greeks thought), but it is something completely different and weird. The naive logic of metaphysics (a.k.a. classical logic) is not at all appropriate to describe and reason about the physical universe.

The Mr. Tompkins books (see here) were very good at illustrating what would happen if the weirdness of the physical universe were of such a scale to be perceptible to our human senses directly.

The double slit experiment is often used to introduce people to the weirdness of the quantum world:

…Photon Source

---------Slit A-----------Slit B------------

…Detector

Each slit can be opened or closed. If both slits are closed, then nothing shows up at the detector. If just slit A is open, you get a certain amount of photons at the detector. If just slit B is open, you get a certain amount of photons at the detector. According to classical logic, A implies (A or B), and B implies (A or B), so that if both slits are open, you should get more photons at the detector, or at the very least just as many as went through either slit. After all, how can opening slit B affect the photons that go through slit A?

But when the experiment is performed with both slits open, no photons show up at the detector. Classical reasoning doesn’t apply at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top