Mathematical proof "intelligent design" is meaningless



30082014, 01:21 AM
(This post was last modified: 30082014 02:13 AM by phil.a.)




RE: Mathematical proof "intelligent design" is meaningless
(29082014 07:23 PM)cjlr Wrote: Quantum mechanics isn't random; it's probabilistic. Yup  which hints at underlying logical structure, the nature and parameters for which is simply out of sight to us. Phil 

30082014, 01:28 AM




RE: Mathematical proof "intelligent design" is meaningless
(29082014 08:23 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: Just to amplify on my last post: I claimed that we can't really prove things in the real world the way we do in logic and mathematics. I'm anticipating that phil.a will claim that this is due to Gödel's Theorems. Nope ;P Quote: I emphatically claim that it has nothing to do with Gödel, and here's why: Proof (formal proof, anyway) is a structure built on definitions, axioms, and rules of inference. Gödel says that even in a formal system, where all that stuff is exactly nailed down, there are limits to what we can prove. In the real world, we don't need Gödel to set limits  the limits are set much lower right off the bat, because none of that stuff is nailed down. The definitions are fuzzy and inexact, and we don't know exactly what the axioms are. We don't have to worry about the inherent limitations of logic, because we can't even properly do logic  key pieces of the underlying sturcture are missing. Gödel's Theorems are like the rules of a game, and we're not playing that game. We're playing a different game, with rules that are considerably looser. I agree  so if you'd rather use that as the basis for a "the ID debate is futile" argument, then I think it's perfectly valid! Quote:Thanks to cjlr for clearing up some of the scientific stuff. Like I said, going too deep gives me a headache, and quantum mechanics is way too deep. False ;P I think that if we are talking about God, it's not yet deep enough! I think that in order to have that discussion, it's necessary to take a step right into the heart of Truth, into a place where truth becomes fully abstract (and unrepresentable). Phil 

30082014, 06:28 AM




RE: Mathematical proof "intelligent design" is meaningless
(30082014 01:20 AM)phil.a Wrote: So humans aren't ever going to get to the bottom of it in practical terms, but that's completely different to saying it's not logical, I think it is logical. And if it is, then I think Godel's insights apply. You would first have to prove that reality is a formal system. Good luck. Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims. Science is not a subject, but a method. 

2 users Like Chas's post 
30082014, 07:20 AM




RE: Mathematical proof "intelligent design" is meaningless
(30082014 01:28 AM)phil.a Wrote:(29082014 08:23 PM)Grasshopper Wrote: Just to amplify on my last post: I claimed that we can't really prove things in the real world the way we do in logic and mathematics. I'm anticipating that phil.a will claim that this is due to Gödel's Theorems. But you have been more or less claiming that all along. That has been your whole point. I'm saying Gödel has nothing to do with it. We can't prove (or disprove) the existence of God, which is what ID boils down to, for much simpler reasons (absolute lack of evidence, conceptual incoherence, etc.), not because of any Gödelian properties of logic. You're trying to use integral calculus to count the number of apples in the bowl. Not only is it ridiculously overpowered, it's an inappropriate tool for the job. Quote:Quote:Thanks to cjlr for clearing up some of the scientific stuff. Like I said, going too deep gives me a headache, and quantum mechanics is way too deep. I meant that it was too deep for me to contemplate without cranial pain. As for God, quantum physics (and science in general) is irrelevant. God is not a scientific concept, and science won't help us answer those questions (yet another reason that has nothing to do with Gödel). 

30082014, 07:25 AM




RE: Mathematical proof "intelligent design" is meaningless
(30082014 06:28 AM)Chas Wrote:(30082014 01:20 AM)phil.a Wrote: So humans aren't ever going to get to the bottom of it in practical terms, but that's completely different to saying it's not logical, I think it is logical. And if it is, then I think Godel's insights apply. I admire your terseness. 

30082014, 08:28 AM




RE: Mathematical proof "intelligent design" is meaningless
(30082014 01:21 AM)phil.a Wrote:(29082014 07:23 PM)cjlr Wrote: Quantum mechanics isn't random; it's probabilistic. It does no such thing. Hidden variables are pseudoclassical strawgrasping. ... this is my signature! 

1 user Likes cjlr's post 
30082014, 03:31 PM




RE: Mathematical proof "intelligent design" is meaningless
(30082014 06:28 AM)Chas Wrote:(30082014 01:20 AM)phil.a Wrote: So humans aren't ever going to get to the bottom of it in practical terms, but that's completely different to saying it's not logical, I think it is logical. And if it is, then I think Godel's insights apply. If it's not, it can't be used to prove the existence of God Your move. Phil 

30082014, 03:34 PM




RE: Mathematical proof "intelligent design" is meaningless
(30082014 07:20 AM)Grasshopper Wrote: But you have been more or less claiming that all along. That has been your whole point. No, that has nothing to do with my point. Phil 

30082014, 03:34 PM




RE: Mathematical proof "intelligent design" is meaningless
(30082014 08:28 AM)cjlr Wrote:(30082014 01:21 AM)phil.a Wrote: Yup  which hints at underlying logical structure, the nature and parameters for which is simply out of sight to us. That's a fancy name for it! Does it mean anything? Phil 

30082014, 04:13 PM




RE: Mathematical proof "intelligent design" is meaningless
(30082014 03:31 PM)phil.a Wrote:(30082014 06:28 AM)Chas Wrote: You would first have to prove that reality is a formal system. Good luck. My move on what? I'm not trying to prove or disprove god. What gave you that idea? And your statement is unsupported. Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims. Science is not a subject, but a method. 

1 user Likes Chas's post 


« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)