Thursday, February 02, 2006
Mathematics and God
Like many people trained in the sciences, I appreciate the elegance and simplicity of e^i*pi=-1, but to elevate it to the realm of religion seems like an attempt to co-opt the rational by the irrational, and does a disservice to the understanding of the make-up of the Universe.
However, if I had to choose between a society which worships a mathematical truth over one that worships 2000-year-old philosophers, I would probably side with the math geeks.
let me say that
the capacity to extrapolate meaning
from conquered fact is the main
engine for human psychic evolution.
The various frivolous, ungrounded
"mere constructions" that have
only much later been found to
entirely explain some physical regime,
are definitely not just "good luck".
The mathematical ability, although strained,
cramped, and partial, is humanity's
finest antenna into regions not
given us by way of sense organs,
and wondering about the hidden whole
does no disservice to science,
except to motivate more of it.
Irrationality, being one half of your brain,
and about 90% of your neural makeup,
is not to be sneered at by disembodied
Nostradamus heads living under bell jars.
Irrationality is why you were conceived,
why you feel joy at posting here at
Godlorica, and why you are proud of your
mathematical savoir faire.
You should get out more.
I just read elsewhere
that New Scientist Mag
has a workup on:
"Why Humans Believe in God"
Let's see if they
are as perceptive
as the Godlorica crew.
Humans are intelligent.
Math is proof of intelligent design.
(I am not a crackpot). Q.E.D.
for another bunch
of holy idiots
working all these questions
I didn't discount
only its motives.
Attempting to see
the mystical everyday
is as important
as gaining insight
by studying Great Questions
with simpler answers.
But I'm sure that you
have more irrational things
to which you must see.
2 It appeals in a rather poetic way
3 Science cannot be poetic
4 Therefore god exists
Life is not possible by random chance.
I am one of those who learned not to make messes, but cannot handle math.In the physics books I've read, they repeatedly describe mathematics as a "language." Trusting they know what they are talking about, I believe this to be true.
In my earlier comment on Richard Dawkins, I mentioned seeing a speech made by him. In it he described how much, get this, "faith" he had in quantum theory. He did not use the word faith, but that is what it is.
Quantum theory is the "super theory" in all history, but it is a language that tells a story & takes precise measurements.
Since 1900, when quantum theory took it's first step under Max Plank, is there a single world class theorist that agrees with any other on what quantum theory is telling us? In all the books I've read, there are different speculations by every one.
Does this mean mathematical theory & religious theory are very similar, with the real difference being math takes precise measurements? Do mathematics & religion, both, actually fall under the heading of philosophy?
Not being religious & not having a mind for math, am I totally off by suggesting that perhaps they are both in a headlong rush to find the same thing, taking different paths?
It seems to me that higher math & physical theory tell us no more with certainty than religion, but math does build much better tools.
It is NOT necessarily irrational to espouse belief in the paranormal or what some would call the "religious" . When it comes to deductive logic something is only NON-logical /NON-rational when there is some sort of contraditction, equivocation, or internal fallacy in the terms or the thinking.
A scenario going against physical /natural law (such as the resurrection, a virgin birth ect) is *NOT* irrational/ *NOT* un-logical merely because it goes against physical /natural law. Physical natural /law is merely *inductive* and logical law instead is *deductive*. The deductive is always more authoritative ultimately than the inductive!
A scenario that there is some factor or agency or agencies that go beyond physical law (as it generally occurs) an d/or goes beyond adequate description in ordinary language (though perhaps an artificial , linear /analytical language would better describe it) ..venturing into the domain of awareness and encounter that Rudolf Otto called 'the numinous' ...can be quite compatible with logic (though the conceptualizing of it requires demonstrative argument whenever a specific scenario of such exotic sorts of agencies or factors are claimed to be operant ) .
It does NOT follow js vp that one half of radrik's brain is irrationality nor that it governs 90 percent of anyone's neural makeup. Irrationality is NOT necessarily why Radrik was conceived ---his parents may have wanted a child for the sake of having someone to be generous to and/or someone who in turn might be generous and help other sentient agents . Irrationality is NOT necessarily the goad that causes a person to post at Godloria . Furthermore , (and please don't take the following personally) it is rather presumptious to presume that radrik is somehow proud of himself for having mathematical savoire faire ---since radrik didn't explicitly state that he was proud of himself for having mathematical savoire faire in the first post . Mr.radrik might be glad for having mathematical savoire faire , but that is a separate context from being proud of *himself* for having mathematical savoir faire .
Whether or not Mr.radrik is proud of his personal self for having mathematical savoir faire remains to be seen, apparently .
But one must see maths for what it is ,. a LANGUAGE , it is used to describe the universe,.. it is the how and not the why, to try say maths implies god is isomorphic to saying the universe implies god,..
this is a redundant arguement.
It is dispicable to use the respected name of science to push forward religious ideas.
1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144 ...to infinity.
"His formula without question is all throughout the universe, from orbiting galaxies right down to Dna (sic) structure, a gemometric (sic) formula that proves without question that an intelligent being had to create everything we know, and that the science of probablity (sic) is left in the dust to the fact that this being is God himself an allknowing (sic) entity that we can't even begin to comprehend." - Bigfoot
...you can better understand why people are eager to equate the end of their logical progression to a proof of God's existence. The problem is that most of us are of merely average intelligence. When we reach the end of our intelligence rope, we cannot fathom that truth exists beyond what we can comprehend. So, we decide that since we cannot take this any further with our puny brains, that something greater than our understanding must be at the controls. So we take huge leaps in logic and make statements like "the Fibonacci sequence proves the existence of God", when in reality it has proven nothing more than the existence of things in nature that can be represented with mathematics, a language that we created to describe things in nature.
Don't be a fool. Whenever you reach the end of your logic, try exploring, reading, learning. You need to be big enough to admit that you cannot possibly know everything and leave it at that. Don't assume that you have to know everything and jump to a thousands of years old superstition, with no proof whatsoever that it exists, as an answer. That's not science. That's not even pseudoscience.
n terms of creation & evolution this is the theorum:
0 = 1 (0)= 2(0) = 4.
zero equals the miracle of creation & reveals the lack or necessity of 3. 3 is not necessary until after creation or reproduction has taken place and you place an addition. i say this is truth. do some math & prove it wrong.
1 god out of nothing = created 2 - adam and eve = union of 2 with (0) through the miracle of creation make one from nothing = 4...
nothing = 1 organism with nothing splits into 2, 2 organisms with nothing split into 4.
therefore evolution & creation are the same.
it is the same conclusion. 4. all need 0 to exist. 1 can exist without 2 but not without zero. 2 can exist and make 1 out of nothing. 2 can exist without 3 but not without 1 or 0. 0, 1 or 2 is all that is needed for creation or evolution to take place. 3 is not necessary. this also proves the trinity (3) is unnecessary until after creation has taken place and an addition is made to the equation? prove me wrong.
2. You comprehend you
3. You don't feel good
4. You ask yourself why am I here
5. You are an accident so noone can tell you
6. Who is responsible/in charge?
7. Compute, philosophize, babble,
8. You still don,t feel good so you stop thinking
9. You find a woman and feel connected and get laid.
10. Now you feel good again. You realize you did not comprehend you for a while.