Numbers, what are they?

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skip
Posts: 2674
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Numbers, what are they?

Post by Skip »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 7:50 pm I don't "mean" anything here.
I didn't think so.
I'm asking you about what YOU said.
nothing > chaos > coalescence > pattern > order > organization > evolution > consciousness > intelligence > agency > mathematics

nothing > intelligence > consciousness > agency > mathematics > pattern > order

It's right up there ^^ in green and purple: two alternate progressions from nothing to the present. Granted, the second sequence stops before the human use of mathematics,
order > Creation > Earth > man > numbers , since we only re-discovered it, after God had been was using it already.

In one scenario, chaos gradually gives rise to order, patterns and eventually, an intelligence capable of inventing numbers. This one is a mere speculative projection into the distant past, based on observations in the present. There is no absolute proof.
In the other, there is nothing and then there is an intelligence making something out of it.
To the people who swear by this version of events as a tenet of their faith, it's obvious [self-evident] that there must have been a God before there was anything else. I assumed that god must have been intelligent enough to understand mathematics, in order to create crystals, solar systems and RNA. Perhaps that doesn't follow from the faith.
You said it's self-evident that "nothing" gives rise to "intelligence."
Not precisely. I don't think anyone believes that this sort of things happens as a matter of course. According to theists; it just happened the one time.
Now, on the face of it, that's a pretty wild claim.
I thought so, too! But, then, I'm just an ignorant atheist.
Perhaps you can explain where that sequence of events is incorrect.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2636
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Numbers, what are they?

Post by Ginkgo »

Immanuel Can wrote: If we posit an infinite universe, then it never would have begun.

Well, I would have to disagree with that. A universe that has always existed can have a starting point. It is a cyclical universe moving from one state to another, it just so happens that we call the Big Bang the starting point.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10452
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Numbers, what are they?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skip wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 11:19 pm
You said it's self-evident that "nothing" gives rise to "intelligence."
Not precisely.
Well, that's what you said. On it's face, it's a bit bizarre.

If it isn't what you meant to say, that's different.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10452
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Numbers, what are they?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Ginkgo wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 1:03 am
Immanuel Can wrote: If we posit an infinite universe, then it never would have begun.

Well, I would have to disagree with that.
That's actually not possible...at least to rationally disagree. You could disagree irrationally, of course, but the maths are against you, and conclusively.
Skip
Posts: 2674
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Numbers, what are they?

Post by Skip »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:07 am On it's face, it's a bit bizarre.
On its ass, too. All theist beliefs are bizarre. But there's no reasoning with them.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2636
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Numbers, what are they?

Post by Ginkgo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:08 am
Ginkgo wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 1:03 am
Immanuel Can wrote: If we posit an infinite universe, then it never would have begun.

Well, I would have to disagree with that.
That's actually not possible...at least to rationally disagree. You could disagree irrationally, of course, but the maths are against you, and conclusively.
You can forget the maths IC, my argument is an empirical one, not a mathematical one.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10452
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Numbers, what are they?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skip wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:11 am All theist beliefs are bizarre. But there's no reasoning with them.
Then I'll trouble you no longer.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10452
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Numbers, what are they?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Ginkgo wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:19 am You can forget the maths IC, my argument is an empirical one, not a mathematical one.
The problem is that it's not possible to reason from "We happen to be here" to "It must have been from an infinite universe." That's just the old "anthropic fallacy," at best, and a complete non sequitur at worst.

Meanwhile, to say, "I disagree with what maths proves" is a even less rational than saying, "I opt out of the law of gravity on Wednesdays."
Ginkgo
Posts: 2636
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Numbers, what are they?

Post by Ginkgo »

Immanuel Can wrote: The problem is that it's not possible to reason from "We happen to be here" to "It must have been from an infinite universe." That's just the old "anthropic fallacy," at best, and a complete non sequitur at worst.
This is just a strawman. I said nothing about "We happen to be here" "It must have been from an infinite universe."
Immanuel Can wrote: Meanwhile, to say, "I disagree with what maths proves" is a even less rational than saying, "I opt out of the law of gravity on Wednesdays."
Another strawman. I didn't say anything about disagreeing with the maths. I said there is no need for a mathematical argument.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10452
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Numbers, what are they?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Ginkgo wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 2:55 am I said there is no need for a mathematical argument.
Well, there IS one, whether you feel you "need" it or not.

What's your "empirical" argument, then?
cicero117
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue May 12, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Numbers, what are they?

Post by cicero117 »

Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:07 am
To the question,"how can an order be maintained when there is no one controlling it?" should be,

Why does an origin in Nothing REQUIRE obeying a law of consistency?

Order is dependent necessarily on Non-order to mean something by contrast. But if anything originates unordered (chaos of an infinity of things OR nothing at all), then what is 'non-ordered' is not complelled to require 'order' by default.
Then everything just boils down to the fact that there is actually someone that controls order (?)
Ginkgo
Posts: 2636
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Numbers, what are they?

Post by Ginkgo »

cicero117 wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 4:59 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:07 am
To the question,"how can an order be maintained when there is no one controlling it?" should be,

Why does an origin in Nothing REQUIRE obeying a law of consistency?

Order is dependent necessarily on Non-order to mean something by contrast. But if anything originates unordered (chaos of an infinity of things OR nothing at all), then what is 'non-ordered' is not complelled to require 'order' by default.
Then everything just boils down to the fact that there is actually someone that controls order (?)
Or, as I like to think, "something" that controls order.
Last edited by Ginkgo on Fri Nov 20, 2020 10:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2636
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Numbers, what are they?

Post by Ginkgo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Well, there IS one, whether you feel you "need" it or not.
What I am saying is that your mathematical argument doesn't apply to a cyclical universe.
Immanuel Can wrote: What's your "empirical" argument, then?
I am still working on it. I'll post it when I get some more time.
Belinda
Posts: 4573
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Numbers, what are they?

Post by Belinda »

Change happens, and that is indisputable whatever the ontic base.


"Does it matter whether creator deity is intelligent or not?"

" Does creator deity purpose to do what creator deity does?"

" Is the essence of creator deity change itself, or alternatively does possibility transcend actuality?"
All forms of energy are either potential or kinetic energy. Potential refers to stored energy while kinetic is energy in motion. All energy, whether potential or kinetic, is measured in Joules (J).
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10452
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Numbers, what are they?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Ginkgo wrote: Fri Nov 20, 2020 10:16 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Well, there IS one, whether you feel you "need" it or not.
What I am saying is that your mathematical argument doesn't apply to a cyclical universe.
Problem: we don't live in a cyclical universe. And that's empirical. The universe, as we know from things like the Red Shift Effect, is expanding, and time is verifiably linear.

Evolution is also linear, as a theory, by the way. It's only reincarnation that's cyclical, but so far as Darwin goes, there's no thought of that at all, and no ability of the theory of evolution to deal with that or incorporate it -- there is only the supposition of linear progression.

And empirically as well, we can discern that the distribution of energy in the universe is equalizing linearly...a scientific principle known as "entropy," developing toward an eventual energy-equilibrium called "heat death," after which nothing ever happens -- which also demonstrates that time is linear.

Here's master-physicist Alexander Vilenkin on the subject:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)."

So you've got a great deal of very well-established science to overcome if you're going to posit a cyclical universe now.

That being said, there are a few attempts to save the idea of a past-eternal universe, because the implications are quite serious for the theory of Atheism if the universe is linear. But these remain speculative models, and are totally lacking in empirical confirmation. Vilenkin and colleagues think they're beyond the reasonable expectation of any such empirical support even appearing.

So you're really asking a lot of yourself there: to know more than the scientists do, and to pull up a theory they think not only IS not empirically confirmed now, but cannot even potentially be confirmed.

Understandably, therefore, I am curious to see what you will come up with.
Immanuel Can wrote: What's your "empirical" argument, then?
I am still working on it. I'll post it when I get some more time.
Fair enough now. But regarding your last response, you can hardly be disgruntled with me for failing to anticipate an empirical argument you can't even yet articulate to yourself, can you?
Post Reply