The Problem with Atheism

Topic: The Problem with Atheism (Read 205340 times)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #425 – 2014-07-02, 04:47:25

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-01, 19:53:40

It's because in the binary system the concepts of positive and negative don't apply. If you had any systematic reasoning, you would have seen this far away.

Mostly wrong!
That's because the binary system is a code! I mean, the same way as the Sheffer stroke or the Peirce Arrow are: as, for some -mostly theoretical- contexts, convenient definitional simplifications; otherwise, they're a pain!
But they are sufficient: As binary notation is.
(BTW: the stroke and dagger are NAND and NOR, respectively.

)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #426 – 2014-07-02, 05:13:26

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-02, 04:47:25

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-01, 19:53:40
It's because in the binary system the concepts of positive and negative don't apply. If you had any systematic reasoning, you would have seen this far away.

Mostly wrong!

Wrong in your new random context, maybe. Perfectly right in the context where I said it. To 0 and 1 in the binary system, the concepts of positive and negative cannot be applied the way it is in natural numbers.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-02, 04:47:25

That's because the binary system is a code!

If you want to explain how this explains anything, follow up in the Philosophy and Logic thread.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #427 – 2014-07-02, 05:42:55

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-01, 21:13:26

To 0 and 1 in the binary system, the concepts of positive and negative cannot be applied the way it is in natural numbers.

The concepts of positive and negative were added to the natural numbers… (Also known as the counting numbers.) Likewise, 7/8 bit or 15/16 bit or 31/32 bit … binary "numbers" have added interpretations of positive and/or negative.

(I'll check out this Philosophy and Logic thread you mention… But I think these excursions help elucidate the topics wherein they occur. YMMV)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #428 – 2014-07-02, 09:14:07

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-02, 01:22:47

Do numbers "exist" before they are constructed? Was the square root of two (or negative one) an entity before someone considered them?

Of course.
Numbers are concepts. You're not a creator but a discoverer. Can't discover what doesn't exists already.
If by "considering" something you attribute yourself demiurgical powers, I have bad news for you Oakdale.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-02, 01:22:47

Have you recanted your belief in Platonic ideas, and accepted the Nominalism of common sense?

As you can see by my last answer, nope. We keep on being the slave at the bottom of the cavern, "true" reality transcending us.

There's something in numbers that makes us feel to be closer. By getting rid of the direct links with materiality, that numbers provides, the human spirit accelerates. That's why mathematicians (the real good ones) risks much more turning crazy...

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #429 – 2014-07-02, 09:48:27

is numbers make people crazy ?
or perception , thoughts and minds that make them crazy ?

if

10 = 25
15 = 75
20 = 125
25 = 175

how many 10 x 25 ?

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #430 – 2014-07-02, 10:28:29

Quote from: Sparta on 2014-07-02, 09:48:27

is numbers make people crazy ?

It seems so.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #431 – 2014-07-02, 10:57:05

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-02, 03:45:50

I spent 10 hours today dealing with a six year-old and a four year-old… And then their mother! I'm entitled to some recreation that involves my interests and experience.

Lol...okay, a small commonality perhaps. I have 3 children and although my Swedish wife was indeed lovely and just so much fun, I outgrew her--she went another direction and died much too young as a result of her choice, so in the end I raised my kids alone. Yes, life with kids can get hectic at times and you are certainly deserving, but if you are anything like me--you love it. No pressing need to reply, just an observation--and not a scientific one for sure.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #432 – 2014-07-02, 14:19:50

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-01, 17:10:52

﴾͡๏̯͡๏﴿ O'RLY? Not in the binary system which uses only 0 and 1, neither of which are negative.

In this case 1 and 0 represent switch positions. Not numbers. It's an ignorant point to make.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #433 – 2014-07-02, 15:04:27

Quote from: ensbb3 on 2014-07-02, 14:19:50

In this case 1 and 0 represent switch positions. Not numbers. It's an ignorant point to make.

Real numbers can't be written in binary? The binary system works under the exact same principles as the decimal system, only it operates in base 2 rather than base 10. What is the binary number 1011 in decimal--on or off?

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #434 – 2014-07-02, 15:53:27

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-02, 15:04:27

Quote from: ensbb3 on 2014-07-02, 14:19:50
In this case 1 and 0 represent switch positions. Not numbers. It's an ignorant point to make.

Real numbers can't be written in binary? The binary system works under the exact same principles as the decimal system, only it operates in base 2 rather than base 10. What is the binary number 1011 in decimal--on or off?

1011 is a data fragment. (on-off-on-on.) The sequence is what's relevant. Perhaps you should let this point go, or read into it.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #435 – 2014-07-02, 16:04:09

Maybe it's time to make a distinction between numbers and numerals.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #436 – 2014-07-02, 16:38:51

I have smoked a number, but never a numeral...what's it like?

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #437 – 2014-07-02, 19:41:05

0101010001101000011000010111010000100111011100110010000001101110011011110111010000100000011001100111010101101110011011100111100100101110

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #438 – 2014-07-02, 21:07:27

Just on the off chance anyone is confused about it: Numerals are the signs with which we write numbers. So, saying that the binary system consists of 0 and 1 and neither is negative is confusing use and mention; specially so, since the binary system is uninterpreted…
Does anyone here doubt that there are interpretations of binary arithmetic that include negative numbers? Fractions and Reals?
(Or that binary arithmetic itself is but an interpretation…?)

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-07-02, 01:14:07

Numbers are concepts. You're not a creator but a discoverer. Can't discover what doesn't exists already.

That's certainly a tempting stance… So, of course, you agree that all the Cantor's alephs are as real as our natural numbers? That they always existed, and always will?
You know, of course, that your reasoning is circular… You assume your conclusion in your premise: I understand concepts as abstractions; you take them to be another, superior, realm of existence!
Jaybro's quip of a question can be taken seriously! Did Portuguese exist in this ideal realm, before anyone spoke it? Are all (or most or some…) instances of historical Portuguese bad copies of a perfect version?
Do you see why the non-nominalistic view leads to silly and unnecessary confusion?

———————————————————————

Quote from: ensbb3 on 2014-07-02, 11:41:05

0101010001101000011000010111010000100111011100110010000001101110011011110111010000100000011001100111010101101110011011100111100100101110

Yes, it is funny, ensbb3! And it could be considered negatively or positively…

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #439 – 2014-07-02, 21:41:20

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-02, 21:07:27

That's certainly a tempting stance… So, of course, you agree that all the Cantor's alephs are as real as our natural numbers? That they always existed, and always will?
You know, of course, that your reasoning is circular… You assume your conclusion in your premise: I understand concepts as abstractions; you take them to be another, superior, realm of existence!

Any number, always existed and always will and my reasoning has nothing of circular. It's totally disruptive and fertile.

I said that we don't create we can only discover and to reinforce it found a very interesting statement about Cantor...

Quote

To Cantor, his mathematical views were intrinsically linked to their philosophical and theological implications – he identified the Absolute Infinite with God,[56] and he considered his work on transfinite numbers to have been directly communicated to him by God, who had chosen Cantor to reveal them to the world.[12]

Got it?

Quote from: OakdaleFTL

Did Portuguese exist in this ideal realm, before anyone spoke it?

All possible languages already exists. Everything already exists, the Creation was total and perfect, not partial and imperfect.
It couldn't had been any other way regardless what we can be conscious about,
That's man condition, discovering the miracle of God's creation, one step at the time.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #440 – 2014-07-03, 00:34:40

And such pronouncements could be falsified — how? That is: Do they actually say anything? (Besides ascribing utterances to the category of Blasphemy, for which there are severe consequences…)

By the same token, they can be supported only by vagaries and fiat. Just because the history of Mankind shows such to be persistent, the result of Might Makes Right, doesn't prove they are right, true or reasonable…
These terms are (not so!) modern innovations.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #441 – 2014-07-03, 09:47:32

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-03, 00:34:40

And such pronouncements could be falsified — how?

By way of claiming or, at least, admitting the hypothesis of Creation to be partial and/or imperfect. I told you that already.
Since it would be an absurd incoherent with the definition of God, you have no escape. It's a logical consequence of a perfectly "falsifiable" hypothesis.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #442 – 2014-07-03, 10:56:34

Many pronouncements can only be falsified once you meet the Creator, ask him, and he tells you: "You are mistaken."

This is not a problem to many philosophers.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #443 – 2014-07-03, 15:49:52

As I said elsewhere recently: "What do you think of Pascal's Wager? I'll give my (almost) off-the-cuff: It's a futile gesture. Belief isn't a matter of choice… And sincerity can't be faked, if one's audience is God!
(If I'm wrong, the Creator and I will toss back a couple of cold ones before I'm sent to Hell…

)"

@Belfrager: I'm afraid we don't have a meaning for 'falsification' in common, so we're not talking about the same thing...

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #444 – 2014-07-03, 16:27:08

so if something cant be proven if wrong / false [ have margin of error ]

that's not science

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #445 – 2014-07-03, 16:30:18

Not exactly. For something to be "science", there must be a way to prove that it is wrong if it's wrong.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #446 – 2014-07-03, 16:37:16

allow me to make a premature conclusion

definition of science ;

Scientia / knowledge of right and wrong

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #447 – 2014-07-03, 19:14:08

Quote from: Sparta on 2014-07-03, 08:37:16

Scientia / knowledge of right and wrong

That's a very restrictive definition, and not likely acceptable to many... (Would you, Sparta, consider posting in your native language? I'd like to see if, between Google Translate and my own intuition, I can get a better sense of what you're saying.) At any rate, conflating all of science with but a portion of ethics -as it's usually understood- seems un-helpfully idiosyncratic.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #448 – 2014-07-04, 00:38:38

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-03, 15:49:52

@Belfrager: I'm afraid we don't have a meaning for 'falsification' in common, so we're not talking about the same thing...

You're mistaken, I had the trouble of using yours, meaning misunderstanding Popper.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter at all.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #449 – 2014-07-04, 01:15:53

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-07-03, 16:38:38

I had the trouble of using yours, meaning misunderstanding Popper.

Do you really think I've misunderstood Popper? Pray tell, how?
————————————————————

Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-07-03, 16:38:38

Anyway, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter at all.

If you mean that the "problems" with inductive reasoning are over-blown, I'd agree. But it's entertaining to see the variety of boxes one can construct that enclose normal, everyday thought…

Did you mean something more, or something different?