The Awesomesauce with Religion

You seem like some sort of little groupie always trying to rub shoulders with science, math & physics because somehow you think that that will make you and your philosophy more legitimate. Can't your M-philosophy stand on its own two feet?

But it does. Math stands on its own and so do physics and metaphysics. They are equals, and they are comparable. They are all legitimate in their own right.

Which came first, an M-realm or the idea of one? Logically the idea came first which means the M-realm was made up by an idea. It simply had to be made up because no one knows where or what it is.

This applies to equally to math, physics, and metaphysics.

You call science haphazard and random guessing, that was some pretty amazing guessing that got the astronauts landed on the moon and safely back home again with pin point precision.

As in Apollo 13?

Quantum mechanics was needed to make your computer, cell phone and CD/DVD player--were those haphazard random guesses as well. Science works and has propelled us to where we are today...would you prefer to be sitting in a cave with a stone hatchet?

And you conveniently forget all the weird and unusable inventions that didn't make it to the limelight. Well, no wonder, they didn't make it to the big market and were thus either unnoticeable or forgettable, so that's why we don't mention them. However, I still know about them even when you don't mention. Plus I could mention a bunch of dangerous scientific experiments that cost millions of lives, and inventions that poison our food and environment as we speak. Does your other eye not see anything at all?

By the way, hatchet works. That's how I actually cut my wood. You should try it too.

Moreover, of what practical use has M been lately, other than to provide false hope for those who can't muster the courage to die with dignity. (Those people very much need that, so don't get me wrong.)

What's your idea of dying with dignity? Is there any science in it? Is it devoid of metaphysics?

Quote from: ersi on 2014-04-07, 19:35:22

If I remember correctly, you're not much for math or science, so how can you logically say I'm not knowledgeable about science? You mimic all M believers who have some irrational need to demean science and scientists.

As soon as you provide an actual usage case of science or rationality, instead of emotional outpouring, I will definitely acknowledge it. Thus far you don't even demonstrate the capacity to read what I type with a balanced mind the way it was written.

I acknowledge sincere exercise of rationality, as soon as you demonstrate some. For example. show that you can read text as it was written, instead of reading your own bias into it. Or if the text is too difficult for you, try interpret it charitably as good philosophical debate tradition requires, instead of making things worse by piling insults upon your misunderstandings.

The way you are now, you don't look like doing anything constructive and the end result for you won't be constructive either. At the same time, in your tremendous ignorance you simply talk past my fields of inquiry. Your apparent aim is to demolish my views, but you fail to even remotely address them, thus failing at your objective. My views are not based on emotions and they are not subject to any revision based on emotions either.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #306 – 2014-04-07, 19:45:47

However, I still know about them even when you don't mention. Plus I could mention a bunch of dangerous scientific experiments that cost millions of lives, and inventions that poison our food and environment as we speak.

Do you mean human lives or other animals?

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #307 – 2014-04-07, 19:49:49

Quote from: Jimbro3738 on 2014-04-07, 19:45:47

Quote from: ersi on 2014-04-07, 19:35:22
However, I still know about them even when you don't mention. Plus I could mention a bunch of dangerous scientific experiments that cost millions of lives, and inventions that poison our food and environment as we speak.

Do you mean human lives or other animals?

The example I had in mind are military inventions. I could raise the number to a modest billion. But with animals it could be uncountable.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #308 – 2014-04-07, 22:29:46

"Which came first, an M-realm or the idea of one? Logically the idea came first which means the M-realm was made up by an idea. It simply had to be made up because no one knows where or what it is."

"This applies to equally to math, physics, and metaphysics."

No, science and math deal with ideas in this reality, not an imaginary one.

"You call science haphazard and random guessing, that was some pretty amazing guessing that got the astronauts landed on the moon and safely back home again with pin point precision."

"As in Apollo 13?"

This wisecrack simply reinforces my vision of you as child-like in the, 'beyond-your-grasp', world of science. It takes great courage to go where no one else has gone (Columbus, the pioneers, astronauts), why not take a shot at all of them. You speak of the Apollo 13 mission as if that incident alone somehow invalidates all science. Apollo 13 was a clear demonstration of the resourcefulness of brave scientists in a strange and hostile environment and of their human will to survive. Scientists will indeed use cardboard and tape to repair a rocketship if it means surviving the absolute cold of outer space--so what?!!

"And you conveniently forget all the weird and unusable inventions that didn't make it to the limelight. Well, no wonder, they didn't make it to the big market and were thus either unnoticeable or forgettable, so that's why we don't mention them. However, I still know about them even when you don't mention. Plus I could mention a bunch of dangerous scientific experiments that cost millions of lives, and inventions that poison our food and environment as we speak. Does your other eye not see anything at all?"

I have no idea of what scientific experiments have cost millions of lives, even atomic weapons have killed perhaps 200,000 people, but that wasn't an experiment--it was intended to kill. And besides your M God in his M realm is responsible for killing many times more people on purpose than science ever has done by accident. I must say that because of your naive responses here, my single eye sees much more than both of yours.

"Moreover, of what practical use has M been lately, other than to provide false hope for those who can't muster the courage to die with dignity. (Those people very much need that, so don't get me wrong.)"

"What's your idea of dying with dignity? Is there any science in it? Is it devoid of metaphysics?"

Dying with dignity to me simply means facing the cold hard fact that this life necessarily will end and there is no rational proof of anything beyond that. Death is a scientific certainty and yes, it is bereft of M.

"I acknowledge sincere exercise of rationality, as soon as you demonstrate some. For example. show that you can read text as it was written, instead of reading your own bias into it. Or if the text is too difficult for you, try interpret it charitably as good philosophical debate tradition requires, instead of making things worse by piling insults upon your misunderstandings."

Are you completely unaware that provoking people by acting too big for your britches will elicit emotional responses in this realm?

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #309 – 2014-04-08, 03:48:03

No, science and math deal with ideas in this reality, not an imaginary one.

You are making no sense. Define real and define imaginary, then we can move on.

You speak of the Apollo 13 mission as if that incident alone somehow invalidates all science.

And besides your M God in his M realm is responsible for killing many times more people on purpose than science ever has done by accident.

If God is unreal, then how does that compute? You really are not making any sense.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-04-08, 03:48:03

Dying with dignity to me simply means facing the cold hard fact that this life necessarily will end and there is no rational proof of anything beyond that.

So, dignity is found by enthroning irrationality. You must be very dignified by your own terms then, whereas I am sadly lost in rationality? And you are the guy to save me from this? Interesting.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #310 – 2014-04-08, 10:25:16

Define real and define imaginary, then we can move on.

Here is where all hope is gone - and bullshit starts filling the room.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #311 – 2014-04-08, 12:11:02

Quote from: ersi on 2014-04-08, 03:48:03

Define real and define imaginary, then we can move on.

Unrelated (or maybe not) with your discussion with jseaton2311, your words made me thought that, firstly, you'll need to define defining.

Define comes from the Latin De Finire which means putting limits, boundaries, separating what is from what is not. How is it done i's an extremely complex process that evolves logics but not only logics, also capacity for perception, as well as cultural framesets are deeply involved in the process of defining something.

There's also a certain amount of admissible (or not) margin of error, our mind works with definitions that are the outcome of previous definitions that are the outcome of previous definitions... and so on. Small mistakes are made at each of those steps and the final result rarely can be one hundred percent correct from a strict logic point of view.
For such accuracy we need mathemathical logics with mathematic notation and that's not an easy thing to do.

Finally, by the very definition of definition, God can't be defined. He has no limits to point.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #312 – 2014-04-08, 12:41:44

For such accuracy we need mathemathical logics with mathematic notation and that's not an easy thing to do.

Mathematical definitions are okay by me. And easy too.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-04-08, 12:41:44

Finally, by the very definition of definition, God can't be defined. He has no limits to point.

Infinity and unboundedness are satisfactorily defined terms in math.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #313 – 2014-04-08, 13:38:06

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-04-08, 12:11:02

For such accuracy we need mathemathical logics with mathematic notation and that's not an easy thing to do.
Mathematical definitions are okay by me. And easy too.

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-04-08, 12:11:02
Finally, by the very definition of definition, God can't be defined. He has no limits to point.
Infinity and unboundedness are satisfactorily defined terms in math.

Not exactly Ersi, infinity can still be very problematic in mathematics. Concerning infinity, here is my take. When we say, for example, that there is an infinity of natural numbers, we mean only that there is no largest number. Whenever you add 1 to a number, you will get another number that is greater still. Nothing very profound there. To say otherwise would greatly complicate even basic arithmetic.

It may even be possible to do away with the use of the word "infinity" (or any equivalent notion) in most if not all of mathematics. It may be nothing more than a convenient shorthand. When we say, for example, the limit of some expression as x tends to infinity, we could as easily have said, the limit as x increases without bound. The latter would have the advantage that there would be no confusion about there being some kind of metaphysical endpoint called "infinity."

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #314 – 2014-04-08, 14:19:40

God can't be defined.

Belfrager, I think this sentence means ultimately that nobody has any idea about what God is, or, put in other words, God can be anything and anything can be God. I suppose this is not what you meant, right?
According to your summary, nobody can define God ultimately or with absolute accuracy, but nevertheless, to some extent, it's possible to say what God is (or can be) and what God surely is not. This definition may not be accurate, but puts some imprecise bounds around what can be called God. Right?

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #315 – 2014-04-08, 14:20:24

There are various reactions to the logical paradoxes that stem from naive set theory. One is to deny infinity, which is the most primitive reaction, IMHO.

My solution is to admit self-referential logic. This makes sense because personal selfhood is the self-evident experience of anyone. Also, mirror and holograph are objectively observable phenomena. Hence it doesn't make sense to deny infinity and it makes sense to admit self-referential logic that solves the logical paradoxes of the naive set theory.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #316 – 2014-04-08, 14:33:42

You speak of the Apollo 13 mission as if that incident alone somehow invalidates all science.

You are totally not paying attention. Apollo 13 is an example that science is not all-good to absolute precision the way you said. Science can go wrong. Bad science exists and it's necessary to distinguish it from the good. This is a necessary distinction. Moreover, science itself cannot make this distinction. Philosophy can.

In this realm Ersi, mistakes and errors abound in everything humans do--not just science. "Bad science" is simply science done imprecisely or not according to the scientific method--no philosophy is needed to understand that. "Evil science" is mostly a figment of science fiction books and movies. There are chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction which can be used as a deterrent to aggression or by evil rulers as a warped way of keeping order or to simply kill the enemy in times of war. The degree of evil involved there, philosophy can have.

Are you the type of person who would ban all childhood vaccines because 1 in 10,000 will end in the death of a child?

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #317 – 2014-04-08, 16:24:26

Quote from: ersi on 2014-04-08, 14:20:24

Quote from: ersi on 2014-04-08, 03:48:03
Define real and define imaginary, then we can move on.

Unrelated (or maybe not) with your discussion with jseaton2311, your words made me thought that, firstly, you'll need to define defining.

Define comes from the Latin De Finire which means putting limits, boundaries, separating what is from what is not. How is it done i's an extremely complex process that evolves logics but not only logics, also capacity for perception, as well as cultural framesets are deeply involved in the process of defining something.

There's also a certain amount of admissible (or not) margin of error, our mind works with definitions that are the outcome of previous definitions that are the outcome of previous definitions... and so on. Small mistakes are made at each of those steps and the final result rarely can be one hundred percent correct from a strict logic point of view.
For such accuracy we need mathemathical logics with mathematic notation and that's not an easy thing to do.

Finally, by the very definition of definition, God can't be defined. He has no limits to point.

So. Can god create a stone he cannot lift? Or does a lack of limitations mean he can not exist?

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #318 – 2014-04-08, 17:03:11

There are various reactions to the logical paradoxes that stem from naive set theory. One is to deny infinity, which is the most primitive reaction, IMHO.

My solution is to admit self-referential logic. This makes sense because personal selfhood is the self-evident experience of anyone. Also, mirror and holograph are objectively observable phenomena. Hence it doesn't make sense to deny infinity and it makes sense to admit self-referential logic that solves the logical paradoxes of the naive set theory.

Let me try this. Our mind and our senses were designed to detect things in the realm where we dwell which is in the realm of the large or Newton's and Einstein's realm. It was developed that way by nature simply for us to survive in this realm. There is another realm of the exceptionally small (quantum realm), where particles no longer act as they do in the large realm. Light will behave as both a wave and particles depending simply upon whether you are observing it or not. Physics called this bizarre simply because our minds did not develop in the quantum realm. The reverse would of course also be true; if our minds and senses developed in the quantum realm then the realm of the large would seem equally bizarre. This is NOT metaphysics, although I believe M would like to claim it as such. M does claim to be the study of all reality (real and imaginary), in terms of concepts and perceptions which is more physics than M, but whatever, that’s fine...so is logic just leave the philosophy out of it--no, they are not the same thing. Logic clarifies, philosophy muddles by using convoluted logic to try and make it work.

Now the mathematical realm works somewhat the same way, except to some people math is obvious and easy and for others it is foreign and bizarre (why…who knows). As to infinity, we have nothing in our realm that we perceive as infinite. We live in the world of the finite, and aside from the concept of infinity, we cannot visualize or relate to it in a meaningful way. A board is 2x4x12 and is finite in all 3 dimensions of space, in fact there is nothing that we observe in this realm that is infinite, therefore when you tell someone that something is infinite is both directions (no beginning, no end), it is impossible to thoroughly understand that. Cantor had an elegant mathematical demonstration of infinity on paper that included different ‘sizes’ of infinities and infinite sets that were ‘more infinite’ than others proving there was no ‘greatest’ infinity—there was always one infinity more infinite. I have gone quite far in the field of mathematics including the use of imaginary numbers, however, I'd have to say that while the concept of infinity is not that difficult, comprehending ‘actual infinity’ is beyond my capacity and most others’ as well.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #319 – 2014-04-08, 18:34:58

Our mind and our senses were designed to detect things in the realm where we dwell which is in the realm of the large or Einstein's realm.

The way I define the mind and senses, the senses are spatio-temporal, yes, but the mind, if the intellect is included, is beyond that.

It was developed that way by nature simply for us to survive in this realm.

Highly arguable, but I will argue this some other time.

There is another realm of the exceptionally small (quantum realm), where particles no longer act as they do in the large realm. Light will behave as both a wave and particles depending simply upon whether you are observing it or not. Physics called this bizarre simply because our minds did not develop in the quantum realm.

As I noted, the mind (incl. intellect) is not spatio-temporal. Conceptual abstraction is perfectly normal, nothing bizarre to the intellect. There have been physicists to whom wave-particle duality was easily conceivable as a mathematically definable unity since day one. Such as Niels Bohr, Max Planck, and Wolfgang Pauli. To others this was not so easily grasped, so they disputed, debated, argued, puzzled, and called things "bizarre". This also makes sense. Individual intellects are not equal.

The difference between the wave and the particle is only verbal. In reality they are (or can be understood as) different aspects of the same continuum. The particle can be described either as a series of waves (a Fourier transform) or as a wave looped into itself (a self-referential wave). The wave can be described as the oscillating trajectory of a particle.

Logic clarifies, philosophy muddles by using convoluted logic to try and make it work.

Prejudice noted.

As to infinity, we have nothing in our realm that we perceive as infinite.

We live in the world of the finite, and aside from the concept of infinity, we cannot visualize or relate to it in a meaningful way.

You can't. I can. And I can live with this fact. Can't you?

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #320 – 2014-04-08, 18:40:43

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #321 – 2014-04-08, 20:17:32

As to infinity, we have nothing in our realm that we perceive as infinite.

If there's "our realm", then there's also some other, "their" realm, logically conceivable. Our, their, and so on to infinity. This is how the mind works, effortlessly for me. Mental conception is a form of perception, at least is to me. I perceive it clearly and I can direct it any way I want, and stop it whenever I want, to deal with some mundane business for a change. Can't you?

More precisely perhaps, there two sub-realms within this reality that are necessarily indispensable to the whole. Namely the quantum realm and the mathematical realm (upon which the whole of our reality is likely based). There will be a unified theory of everything soon, hopefully within my lifetime.