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.
MindOverMatter said:
So you are saying that numbers determine the truth of reality?
Click to expand...
I’m saying that metaphysical reasoning is not sound, and that it is instead inconsistent, so that any metaphysical statement whatsoever has a metaphysical proof, so you can’t rely on metaphysical arguments to provide any insight as to what is true or not as regards God. That’s why Jesus was born. That’s why God appeared as a burning bush to Moses. And so on.
 
MindOverMatter said:
So your saying that mathematical truth is not reflective of true reality?
Click to expand...
Correct. I assume you are talking about present day mathematical truth, and not what was considered mathematical truth in ancient Greece. I believe that in another 2000 years, the mathematicians of the future will have advanced just as far beyond us as we have advanced beyond the ancient Greeks.
 
Just_Lurking said:
Correct. I assume you are talking about present day mathematical truth, and not what was considered mathematical truth in ancient Greece. I believe that in another 2000 years, the mathematicians of the future will have advanced just as far beyond us as we have advanced beyond the ancient Greeks.
Click to expand...
So how is it that we are able to employ mathematics when measuring objective reality? Or would you say that particular aspect of science is tautological and not true of objective reality?
 
MindOverMatter said:
So how is it that we are able to employ mathematics when measuring objective reality?
Click to expand...
Some mathematics is useful in measuring objective reality, such as 2+2 = 4. Some mathematics is not useful in measuring objective reality, such as the Banach-Tarski paradox. It isn’t really clear which parts of mathematics belong to which category.

For example, take von Neumann’s impossibility theorem for hidden variable models of quantum mechanics. This theorem is mathematically true, but there is still debate even today about whether it applies to the physical universe, or objective reality, or whatever the correct metaphysical term is.
MindOverMatter said:
Or would you say that particular aspect of science is tautological and not true of objective reality?
Click to expand...
Mathematics is a useful tool in understanding the physical universe, as is the scientific method. I consider these statements to be true because they have been repeatedly validated in human history and experience.

Consider the late 19th century, when people finally had the idea that they needed to write down the precise rules for mathematical logic. It took several decades of attempts before the systems we use today, e.g., ZFC set theory, were developed. The answers were far from obvious, and it is certainly possible that better answers still wait to be developed.
 
It looks like some physicists take my mistrust of metaphysics and extend it to the entire field of philosophy (see here):

In our hunt for the final theory, physicists are more like hounds than hawks; we have become good at sniffing around on the ground for traces of the beauty we expect in the laws of nature, but we do not seem to be able to see the path to the truth from the heights of philosophy.

Physicists do of course carry around with them a working philosophy. For most of us, it is a rough-and-ready realism, a belief in the objective reality of the ingredients of our scientific theories. But this has been learned through the experience of scientific research and rarely from the teachings of philosophers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top