Numbers, what are they?

[Belinda]

Immanuel, I know the sort of atheist you mean.

I mentioned some different types. What "sort" do you mean?

this is the sort I meant:

Why don't Atheists ever seem to want to notice the difference? Why do they not recognize the injustice of grouping them all as one, as "religion"? Because they're not interested. They're only keen to dismiss the whole lot at one time.

IC

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, I know the sort of atheist you mean.

I mentioned some different types. What "sort" do you mean?

this is the sort I meant:

Why don't Atheists ever seem to want to notice the difference? Why do they not recognize the injustice of grouping them all as one, as "religion"? Because they're not interested. They're only keen to dismiss the whole lot at one time.

Ah. I see. What did you have to say about Don Quixote? That the concept "religion" is a "windmill"? Yes, I think it is, in one sense. It's much easier for the Atheist to "tilt" at the artificial construct of his own mind than to face the complexities of dealing with the fact that there are many different "religions," each with quite different claims, ethics, values and outcomes. That would get messy to deal with; so the Atheist simplifies, at the cost of really having lost any entity to conquer.

That's why their critiques never seem to stick. They accuse everyone who is "religious" of doing all the bad things anybody at all did, and don't remember any of the good things good people who were "religious" ever did. So "religious" people often don't find themselves represented in the Atheist rhetoric, and aren't impressed by the critiques.

It's very much as if somebody accused you of being a "Nazi collaborator" because some white women once were. You would (rightly) flick your teeth with your tongue, and walk away.

[Impenitent]

speaking of numbers...

did you hear about the drummer who had twin girls?

he named them Anna 1, Anna 2...

-Imp

[Belinda]

I mentioned some different types. What "sort" do you mean?

this is the sort I meant:

Why don't Atheists ever seem to want to notice the difference? Why do they not recognize the injustice of grouping them all as one, as "religion"? Because they're not interested. They're only keen to dismiss the whole lot at one time.

Ah. I see. What did you have to say about Don Quixote? That the concept "religion" is a "windmill"? Yes, I think it is, in one sense. It's much easier for the Atheist to "tilt" at the artificial construct of his own mind than to face the complexities of dealing with the fact that there are many different "religions," each with quite different claims, ethics, values and outcomes. That would get messy to deal with; so the Atheist simplifies, at the cost of really having lost any entity to conquer.

That's why their critiques never seem to stick. They accuse everyone who is "religious" of doing all the bad things anybody at all did, and don't remember any of the good things good people who were "religious" ever did. So "religious" people often don't find themselves represented in the Atheist rhetoric, and aren't impressed by the critiques.

It's very much as if somebody accused you of being a "Nazi collaborator" because some white women once were. You would (rightly) flick your teeth with your tongue, and walk away.

I hoped you might see your attacking 'atheists' could be quixotic. Atheists, even the militaristic sort, are not the enemy which you as a religious person know is larger than any demographic you choose to call atheists.

[Sculptor]

As I was solving my calculus homework, a simple question popped into my mind..

What exactly is a number? How can something define our world like so?

Is it real? because well..we can't see them, we can only calculate them,
or rather is it only a system of some kind so that we can make sense of the things around us?

It's a "basic" ontological problem, but I'm interested in what others think

There are no numbers, except in the imagination.
Maths does NOT "define" our world is it merely a tool to help us describe it. It is an over precise tool that nature cannot exactly comply with.
Maths is a towering collection of abstractions and conceits.
There are no circles, straight lines, or points in nature. Like a sphere (of which no exact example can ever be presented) such things are ideals not reals.
Since no two oranges or apples or pears are exactly the same, there are also no integers in nature too. Numbers are more like an approximation and convenience.

[Immanuel Can]

I hoped you might see your attacking 'atheists' could be quixotic.

But you never, for a second, imagined that to combine unlike belief systems into a single entity ("religion") and then to dismiss them all, regardless of their particulars, could be "quixotic"?

Atheists, even the militaristic sort, are not the enemy which you as a religious person know is larger than any demographic you choose to call atheists.

That depends. They certainly declare themselves enemies of faith. Of course, their level of understanding is often so weak that their dismissals are truly quixotic.

This I will say, though...that there are thoughtful, reflective people who are dubious about faith: they just don't tend to call themselves "Atheists." Rather, they usually say something like, "I have my doubts," or, "I'm unconvinced." Those who declare arbitrarily against God have usually already closed their minds very quickly; and that's usually not a signal of great wisdom.

[Ginkgo]

But these are big and obscure topics, requiring a level of knowledge in physics and cosmology that transcend the present audience, I suspect.

I hope you include yourself in that audience.

[Immanuel Can]

But these are big and obscure topics, requiring a level of knowledge in physics and cosmology that transcend the present audience, I suspect.

I hope you include yourself in that audience.

Perhaps. We're all limited in regard to the physics of the early universe. But I can do logic very well...certainly well enough to know that if time is linear, as all the actual, empirical, scientific data attests it is, and as our ordinary experience tells us it is, then the universe has a beginning. That's rationally and mathematically inescapable.

[wtf]

But I can do logic very well...certainly well enough to know that if time is linear, as all the actual, empirical, scientific data attests it is, and as our ordinary experience tells us it is, then the universe has a beginning. That's rationally and mathematically inescapable.

How does that follow? The integers

..., -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...

are linear, one number after another, but have no beginning. Each number has an immediate predecessor and an immediate successor. That falsifies your claim.

[Immanuel Can]

But I can do logic very well...certainly well enough to know that if time is linear, as all the actual, empirical, scientific data attests it is, and as our ordinary experience tells us it is, then the universe has a beginning. That's rationally and mathematically inescapable.

How does that follow? The integers

..., -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...

are linear, one number after another, but have no beginning. Each number has an immediate predecessor and an immediate successor. That falsifies your claim.

Actually, I can prove it to you very simply that way.

Let the prerequisite for writing the number "4" be that you write the number "3" just before doing so. Let the prerequisite for writing "3" be that you already having written "2". Let the prerequisite for you writing "2" be that you must beforehand have written "1"...and so on.

In other words, treat the sequence as a causal sequence, with each integer representing the cause (or "prerequisite") of the former one. Continue that chain backward into eternity, so it represents an infinite causal sequence.

Here's the question: if you do that, then when will you get to write "4"?

Answer: never.

QED.

[wtf]

Here's the question: if you do that, then when will you get to write "4"?

Right after you write 3. Your argument assumes that which you're trying to prove. You're saying, "There can't be a backward causal chain because ... there can't be a backward causal chain." Even the most casual forum denizen can see what's wrong with that argument.

[Immanuel Can]

Here's the question: if you do that, then when will you get to write "4"?

Right after you write 3.

But you never get to write "3," until you've already written "2." But you can't write "2" until you've written 1....and backwards to infinity. So no, you're never going to do it.

You're saying, "There can't be a backward causal chain because ... there can't be a backward causal chain."

Not at all.

I insist there IS a backward causal chain. That's empirical and obvious.

I'm showing you it's mathematically impossible that it's an INFINITE backward causal chain.

And I'm assuming nothing. I'm demonstrating. And if you think I'm wrong, try actually doing it. But remember not to write "2" until you've already written "1," and not "1" until you've written "0", and so on back to infinity.

QED, man.

[wtf]

I insist there IS a backward causal chain. That's empirical and obvious.

I'm showing you it's mathematically impossible that it's an INFINITE backward causal chain.

How interesting. Then you'll have no trouble identifying the first integer with no immediate predecessor.

[Belinda]

I hoped you might see your attacking 'atheists' could be quixotic.

But you never, for a second, imagined that to combine unlike belief systems into a single entity ("religion") and then to dismiss them all, regardless of their particulars, could be "quixotic"?

Atheists, even the militaristic sort, are not the enemy which you as a religious person know is larger than any demographic you choose to call atheists.

That depends. They certainly declare themselves enemies of faith. Of course, their level of understanding is often so weak that their dismissals are truly quixotic.

This I will say, though...that there are thoughtful, reflective people who are dubious about faith: they just don't tend to call themselves "Atheists." Rather, they usually say something like, "I have my doubts," or, "I'm unconvinced." Those who declare arbitrarily against God have usually already closed their minds very quickly; and that's usually not a signal of great wisdom.

Religions which are not democratic or universally accepting of all persons are dangerously veering towards the enemy. Even the word 'God' is tainted with its being claimed by such religions. Dangerous religions ,which hand power to the enemy, are structurally hierarchical when they should be networks of peers.

'Atheist' has been variously defined throughout times and customs: there is therefore no possibility that any 'atheists' can idolise something as indefinable and individualistic as atheism. Hierarchical institutions however can be and are idolised. One glaring example of idolatry of the institution is the paedophile scandal in certain churches where the hierarchy was protected and children were sacrificed to protect the hierarchy. This form of idolatry cannot happen in a network where there are no priests or other authorities.

[Immanuel Can]

I insist there IS a backward causal chain. That's empirical and obvious.

I'm showing you it's mathematically impossible that it's an INFINITE backward causal chain.

How interesting. Then you'll have no trouble identifying the first integer with no immediate predecessor.

I didn't say that. You're missing the key point again.

The point is that there is ALWAYS a prerequisite. ("Predecessor" means somebody died, by the way.) There is no digit that can be written (Just try it, and see) because the prerequisite for the prerequisite for the prerequisite...infinitely backward...is never located. Since the chain of causes is said to go back infinitely, no prerequisite is ever met. And nothing ever happens.

But you can see that something IS happening, which means the chain of prerequisite causes cannot even possibly be infinite. If it were, you would not be here. Your parents wouldn't have been born, because your grandparents weren't born, because your great grandparents were never born...and so on.

Infinity-past as a causal chain, you see, is not a number. It's a concept, the concept of an infinite postponement of everything.