Math and God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-07-2016, 07:50 AM
RE: Math and God
(19-07-2016 12:52 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-07-2016 06:20 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Statement A is correct. Premise 2 can be shown to be invalid. Kindly observe:

- Every integer is infinitely divisible. Between 0 and 1 lies 1/2, between 0 and 1/2 lies 1/4, 1/8, 1/16....1/(2^infinity).

- If we number each fraction between two integers we will reach infinity.

- Better, the same can be said for any two fractions between integers.

So infinity exists on your number line between 0 and 1 (or any two arbitrary integers) and it is present an infinite number of times.

Welcome to the wonderful world of cardinality.

Sorry but you are wrong. Premise 2 requires there to a unique identifiable point. You claim there are multiple points none of which correspond to the number infinity because they all correspond to some other real number. All you have done is shown that there are an infinite number of real numbers between any two points on a number line. You haven't shown that you can point to point and say that one is infinity.....which is what you need to do to disprove premise 2.

You should learn the difference between ordinals and cardinals, then maybe you would start making sense. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2016, 01:30 PM
RE: Math and God
(19-07-2016 02:20 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(19-07-2016 02:06 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  But we did have a proper definition of the aspects we were describing.

We were pretty clueless about what we were describing when we started to describe the world with math. Paleophyte's claim that you have to first define what you describe is just wrong.

I'm sorry. Did I stutter?


(19-07-2016 02:06 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  But we did have a proper definition of the aspects we were describing.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2016, 09:05 PM
RE: Math and God
A mathematical description of the height, width, length, weight, composition of a particular thing doesn't hint at intelligent design.

It's our intelligence describing what we observe in terms of a standard unit of measure.

If I use a grain of sand as a standard unit of measure, I can describe a cube of dirt that is so many grains tall, so many grains wide and so many grains long. It will weigh a certain number of grains and it's composition may be softer than the grains of sand.

We are using our intelligence when we use math.

If you encountered something and it changed so much that you couldn't measure any aspect of it, what would you call it ? How could you describe it ?

Our universe is stable enough for us to measure.
A fallen tree is stable enough for us to sit on.
So is a park bench.
The tree naturally fell to the ground. (Nature)
The park bench was man made. (Design)

Just because it's stable doesn't mean it's designed.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-07-2016, 11:39 PM
RE: Math and God
(19-07-2016 09:05 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Just because it's stable doesn't mean it's designed.
Just because we have incredibly complex organisms with specialist parts such as eyes for seeing, ears for hearing, immune system for fighting off disease etc. Doesn't mean that there was ever a design.

Evolution doesn't require planning or design.

BTW, evolution also doesn't require purpose. We don't have eyes because we needed some mechanism to see. We have eyes as a result of their ability to improve our ability to survive and procreate in comparison with others competing in our same adaptive space which don't have these features working quite so well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2016, 02:25 AM
RE: Math and God
(19-07-2016 12:47 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(18-07-2016 06:32 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  In order to accurately describe something using mathematiics you must first properly define it.

We didn't have a proper definition for the universe before we started to use math to describe it. Newton used math to describe gravitational forces but he had no idea what those forces were.

He was describing the known behavior of known objects (planets, and also people and apples) as affected by a force (which was as a general concept well-defined).

Newton didn't know about curved space-time and general relativity, and could not have expressed the idea of gravitons. But he could define it as that-force-attracting-masses-to-each-other-and-also-causing-things-to-fall-to-the-ground, and then set about measuring that force.

The god-concept has no such clear definition in terms of measurable real-world phenomena.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2016, 02:40 AM
RE: Math and God
(20-07-2016 02:25 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  The god-concept has no such clear definition in terms of measurable real-world phenomena.

Let A = the number of things a being can do.
Let B = the number of bits of information a being knows.

Godliness = A + B. The higher the value, the closer a being is to being a god.

God = maximum possible value for A + the maximum possible value for B.

I just used math to describe God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2016, 02:58 AM
RE: Math and God
(20-07-2016 02:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(20-07-2016 02:25 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  The god-concept has no such clear definition in terms of measurable real-world phenomena.

Let A = the number of things a being can do.
Let B = the number of bits of information a being knows.

Godliness = A + B. The higher the value, the closer a being is to being a god.

God = maximum possible value for A + the maximum possible value for B.

I just used math to describe God.

It's describing a concept, not certainly that it is the concept God. Perhaps just the concept you choose to give to the already existing label of God. So you used math to describe a couple aspects and deemed it god.

Still though it's not something describing a known behavior or a real world phenomena.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2016, 03:25 AM
RE: Math and God
(20-07-2016 02:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(20-07-2016 02:25 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  The god-concept has no such clear definition in terms of measurable real-world phenomena.

Let A = the number of things a being can do.
Let B = the number of bits of information a being knows.

Godliness = A + B. The higher the value, the closer a being is to being a god.

God = maximum possible value for A + the maximum possible value for B.

I just used math to describe God.

I could point to questions of how you are quantifying A and B, and, in particular, what is keeping them from being infinite by finely parsing variations of closely-similar actions or similar pieces of information.

I could question whether these... sets? There's kind of implied sets here, even if they're not explicitly laid out. I could question whether these sets have maximal elements or even suprema. A lot of sets don't. I suspect these don't.

I could ask if these sets even measurable by any conventional metric. If so, which one? It makes a difference. If you're defining it in terms of bits -- you use the word, I don't think you meant it literally, but it's the closest thing provided -- then human beings are capable of at least continuum-order of infinite information.

But I won't focus on any of these problems. All of that would be taking away from the most glaring failure here. You are not defining god in terms of any real, observable, measurable phenomenon. You're defining god -- poorly, vaguely, and imprecisely -- in terms of abstract concepts. You're not leveraging the advantages of real-world referents that Newton did, and that (plus your inability to employ mathematical or even logical rigor) is why all the problems I'm alluding to were possible in the first place.

Mathematicians, at least competent ones, don't make this sort of mistake. They use rigorous and precise definitions (which you didn't). They track down possible exceptions and eliminate unstated assumptions (which you didn't).

Again. You don't know how to do math. Maybe the basic stuff you were taught in high school, but not the intermediate to advanced techniques which you are trying, and quite comically failing, to employ here. While I would fully endorse you learning that material, what you are doing here is the exact opposite of how to go about learning. Without first gaining those skills, what you are doing here is an exercise in futility, and us trying to correct you is an exercise in frustration, and even reading your inept failings is an exercise in exasperation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2016, 03:28 AM
RE: Math and God
(20-07-2016 02:40 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(20-07-2016 02:25 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  The god-concept has no such clear definition in terms of measurable real-world phenomena.

Let A = the number of things a being can do.
Let B = the number of bits of information a being knows.

Godliness = A + B. The higher the value, the closer a being is to being a god.

God = maximum possible value for A + the maximum possible value for B.

I just used math to describe God.


So your god is finite then? Otherwise what is the point of adding A + B?

If your god is finite, then is it really a god? There will be a better description for a finite being. How did your finite being come about?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-07-2016, 03:40 AM
RE: Math and God
(25-02-2013 03:07 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Premise 1: Math can be used to describe things real and imagined.
Premise 2: God is a thing that is either real or imagined.
Conclusion: Math can be used to describe God.

Premise 1: Jablome writes many comments on this forum.
Premise 2: Many comments on this forum are nonsensical rubbish.
Conclusion: Jablome writes many nonsensical comments which are rubbish.

Tongue

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: