God is...

[godelian]

the gold standard of 'what is real' is contingent upon the scientific framework and system [FS].

Science is a collection of stubborn observable patterns for which it is currently hard to find counterexamples.

That collection is not a system. It has no pretense of systemic consistency. You somehow believe that this collection is the Theory of Everything. It is absolutely not:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

A theory of everything (TOE), final theory, ultimate theory, unified field theory or master theory is a hypothetical, singular, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all aspects of the universe.[1]: 6  Finding a theory of everything is one of the major unsolved problems in physics.[2][3]

What you are saying, is the hallmark of scientism, and is very misguided. Anybody who understands science, knows that your view is wrong.

By attributing magical powers to science, the only thing that you achieve, is to reveal that you do not understand science. No scientist worth his salt would ever do that. Your views are based solely on ignorance.

Whatever is 'physical' can be verified and justified with the science-physics-FS is real.

You are making again the same mistake. Science does not test in the hope of verifying. It tests with the hope of finding a counterexample that will falsify the stubborn pattern.

From what you write, it becomes obvious that you do not even understand what scientists do.

Whatever is proven via the mathematical FS cannot be real per se like as with 'what is real' from the science FS.

Mathematics is the benchmark for truth, if only, because it proposes the only consistent theory of truth.

What I see on my computer screen is real and is physical as can be confirmed by the science-physics FS.
So, it is not "illusory, imaginary, false, fictitious" in the scientific sense.

How exactly are you going to experimentally test the physical reality of a video game on your phone? So, the monsters on your screen are physically real, just because you can see them?

[Veritas Aequitas]

the gold standard of 'what is real' is contingent upon the scientific framework and system [FS].

Science is a collection of stubborn observable patterns for which it is currently hard to find counterexamples.

That collection is not a system. It has no pretense of systemic consistency. You somehow believe that this collection is the Theory of Everything. It is absolutely not:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

A theory of everything (TOE), final theory, ultimate theory, unified field theory or master theory is a hypothetical, singular, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all aspects of the universe.[1]: 6  Finding a theory of everything is one of the major unsolved problems in physics.[2][3]

What you are saying, is the hallmark of scientism, and is very misguided. Anybody who understands science, knows that your view is wrong.

By attributing magical powers to science, the only thing that you achieve, is to reveal that you do not understand science. No scientist worth his salt would ever do that. Your views are based solely on ignorance.

I have already explain that my position is not Scientism.
I don't claim science to be the ONLY WAY to truth or reality.
I claim science is the best and most credible among many other ways to truth and reality AT PRESENT.


I agree with Popper, scientific truths or facts are at best polished-conjectures.

But my point is, there is no better alternative to science is establish what is real at present.
I don't foresee any better in the future.
What other source of knowledge is more credible and objective in terms of establishing 'what is real'?

Whatever is 'physical' can be verified and justified with the science-physics-FS is real.

You are making again the same mistake. Science does not test in the hope of verifying. It tests with the hope of finding a counterexample that will falsify the stubborn pattern.

From what you write, it becomes obvious that you do not even understand what scientists do.

You have to exercise the Principle of Charity in this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
When I used the term 'proof' verified and justified they are sort of colloquial.

I am very familiar with the Philosophy of Science.
I agree with Popper, scientific truths or facts are at best polished-conjectures from the basis of induction.
Science first abduce from observations [empirical patterns]
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abduction_(logic)
to form a hypothesis
the hypothesis is then 'polished' via induction, the scientific method, framework and system to the point there is consensus with peers,
then the agreed hypothesis then becomes a scientific fact of varying degrees of objectivity.

I bet you are not familiar with science as above?

Whatever is proven via the mathematical FS cannot be real per se like as with 'what is real' from the science FS.

Mathematics is the benchmark for truth, if only, because it proposes the only consistent theory of truth.

Your above is too shallow.
true = in accordance with fact or reality. [Google Dict]
Truth is synonymous with reality, fact, exists.
The gold standard for truth aka reality, fact, exists is from the scientific FS not the mathematics FS.

I can agree mathematics is the gold standard for certainty [not absolute] but certainty is only confined to the FS and not in terms of reality.
e.g. 1+1=2 is very clear cut.
on the other hand, in science 'what is real' is never absolute certain but can be abandoned upon new evidences that refute the old polished hypothesis.

What I see on my computer screen is real and is physical as can be confirmed by the science-physics FS.
So, it is not "illusory, imaginary, false, fictitious" in the scientific sense.

How exactly are you going to experimentally test the physical reality of a video game on your phone? So, the monsters on your screen are physically real, just because you can see them?

I misunderstood your point.
What I meant was the 'images' I see on a computer screen as images are real images.
I did not mean what the images [monster, elephants in a Zoo, President Biden, whatever] presented on the screen are real per se.
Again there is a need to exercise the Principle of Charity.

[godelian]

.
I claim science is the best and most credible among many other ways to truth and reality AT PRESENT.

If a problem lends itself to provability, then you should try that first. If not;
If a problem lends itself to experimental testing, by all means, go for it. If not;
If a problem lends itself to providing evidence with witness depositions, then go for it.

These are the formal knowledge-justification methods, i.e. the mathematical, scientific, and historical methods.

The mathematical method trumps the scientific one. For example, you cannot prove Fermat's Last Theorem by sampling thousands of examples. That is invalid in mathematics. Instead, you must provide mathematical proof.

If the problem lends itself to mathematical proof, it is superior to experimental testing because there is no risk that counterexamples would ever be discovered.

Hence, it is clearly mathematics that is "the best and most credible". Experimental testing does not have the same credibility.

Hence, your claim is wrong.

[Veritas Aequitas]

.
I claim science is the best and most credible among many other ways to truth and reality AT PRESENT.

If a problem lends itself to provability, then you should try that first. If not;
If a problem lends itself to experimental testing, by all means, go for it. If not;
If a problem lends itself to providing evidence with witness depositions, then go for it.

These are the formal knowledge-justification methods, i.e. the mathematical, scientific, and historical methods.

The mathematical method trumps the scientific one. For example, you cannot prove Fermat's Last Theorem by sampling thousands of examples. That is invalid in mathematics. Instead, you must provide mathematical proof.

If the problem lends itself to mathematical proof, it is superior to experimental testing because there is no risk that counterexamples would ever be discovered.

Hence, it is clearly mathematics that is "the best and most credible". Experimental testing does not have the same credibility.

Hence, your claim is wrong.

Fermat's Last Theorem is merely a conjecture.

In number theory, Fermat's Last Theorem (sometimes called Fermat's conjecture, especially in older texts) states that no three positive integers a, b, and c satisfy the equation an + bn = cn for any integer value of n greater than 2. The cases n = 1 and n = 2 have been known since antiquity to have infinitely many solutions.
WIKI

While Fermat's Last Theorem is more complex, it is is equivalent to the mathematical truth,
1+1=2 which is meaningless and nonsensical by itself.

My point is [again, again and again and ...],
mathematical realism is not realistic in contrast to scientific reality from the scientific FS.

[godelian]

Fermat's Last Theorem is merely a conjecture.

It is a provable theorem. Andrew Wiles has finally discovered the proof. It took 350 years to achieve that.

For his proof, Wiles was honoured and received numerous awards, including the 2016 Abel Prize.

1995 - 1637 = 358 years.

It is not a conjecture.

My point is [again, again and again and ...],
mathematical realism is not realistic in contrast to scientific reality from the scientific FS.

Modern science is existentially dependent on mathematical realism. So, again, your argument is circular.

[Skepdick]

Is God?

A free variable.

The placeholder which answers ALL philosophical questions.

Greatest hack in the history of human civilization. A sealed door denying access to the infinite abyss of pointless philosophy. A dead end to the infinite "Why? train".

Saving you time. Putting YOU first.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Fermat's Last Theorem is merely a conjecture.

It is a provable theorem. Andrew Wiles has finally discovered the proof. It took 350 years to achieve that.

For his proof, Wiles was honoured and received numerous awards, including the 2016 Abel Prize.

1995 - 1637 = 358 years.

It is not a conjecture.

My point is [again, again and again and ...],
mathematical realism is not realistic in contrast to scientific reality from the scientific FS.

Modern science is existentially dependent on mathematical realism. So, again, your argument is circular.

You got it wrong.

Science in its essence [modern science] do not ground itself on mathematical realism. Note there is the counter, mathematical antirealism.

Not every aspect of modern science require mathematics.
Science in its essence [modern science] merely use mathematics as a tool to 'polish its conjectures into a smoother state.'
Mathematics being a tool is not a fundamental principle of science.

If you study the Philosophy of Science, mathematics is rarely mentioned.
The more critical elements of science are induction, the scientific method, limitations, assumptions, testing, verification [debated].

[godelian]

Science in its essence [modern science] do not ground itself on mathematical realism. Note there is the counter, mathematical antirealism.

Realism versus antirealism is undecidable in mathematics. Science simply inherits this problem through its quantitative methods.

Mathematics being a tool is not a fundamental principle of science.

It is not impossible but still quite hard to avoid quantification when performing observations. As soon as you use numbers, you effectively import the issues of mathematics. At that point, you have lost control to mathematics.

If you study the Philosophy of Science, mathematics is rarely mentioned.

Mathematics is implicit. As soon as you use numbers in any fashion, your approach cannot avoid mathematical control.
In fact, as soon as you use logic, you also import the problems of mathematics.

All humans are mortal.
Socrates is human.
Hence, Socrates is mortal.

Look at how mathematics grabs control. It is unstoppable:

https://github.com/peacexerox/pingping. ... text-block

Definition socrates_is_mortal_claim := mortal socrates.
Parameter socrates_is_mortal' : tag socrates_is_mortal_claim "socrates_is_mortal" "mortal socrates" "Socrates is mortal."%string.

Definition socrates_is_mortal : socrates_is_mortal_claim.
pose all_men_mortal as cc.
pose (premise all_men_mortal') as cc1; cbv in cc1.

pose socrates as sc.
pose (premise socrates') as socrates1; cbv in socrates1.
pose (conclusion socrates_is_mortal') as concl1; cbv in concl1.
apply cc.
Show Proof.
Qed.

Print socrates_is_mortal.

It is not just science that cannot avoid mathematical control. Seriously, the dictatorship of mathematics is relentless.

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Science in its essence [modern science] do not ground itself on mathematical realism. Note there is the counter, mathematical antirealism.

Realism versus antirealism is undecidable in mathematics. Science simply inherits this problem through its quantitative methods.

Mathematics being a tool is not a fundamental principle of science.

It is not impossible but still quite hard to avoid quantification when performing observations. As soon as you use numbers, you effectively import the issues of mathematics. At that point, you have lost control to mathematics.

If you study the Philosophy of Science, mathematics is rarely mentioned.

Mathematics is implicit. As soon as you use numbers in any fashion, your approach cannot avoid mathematical control.
In fact, as soon as you use logic, you also import the problems of mathematics.

All humans are mortal.
Socrates is human.
Hence, Socrates is mortal.

Look at how mathematics grabs control. It is unstoppable:

https://github.com/peacexerox/pingping. ... text-block

Definition socrates_is_mortal_claim := mortal socrates.
Parameter socrates_is_mortal' : tag socrates_is_mortal_claim "socrates_is_mortal" "mortal socrates" "Socrates is mortal."%string.

Definition socrates_is_mortal : socrates_is_mortal_claim.
pose all_men_mortal as cc.
pose (premise all_men_mortal') as cc1; cbv in cc1.

pose socrates as sc.
pose (premise socrates') as socrates1; cbv in socrates1.
pose (conclusion socrates_is_mortal') as concl1; cbv in concl1.
apply cc.
Show Proof.
Qed.

Print socrates_is_mortal.

It is not just science that cannot avoid mathematical control. Seriously, the dictatorship of mathematics is relentless.

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

You are equivocating.
Using mathematics as a tool in science does not give the assurance of certainty that the mathematical proof of God [Godel] is real.

"One ghost plus one ghost = 2 ghosts" is absolute true in terms of the numbers and mathematics.
However, can the above mathematical truth has any sense of reality?

It is the same with the mathematical true Godel's God, in term of reality, it is illusory, imaginary and fictitious.

[godelian]

Using mathematics as a tool in science does not give the assurance of certainty that the mathematical proof of God [Godel] is real.

Gödel mapped the claim onto five other claims and has done this in a mathematically unobjectionable manner. That is all there is to it. It just means that from now on you can only try to attack these five other claims.

But then again, it is not easy to achieve that because first of all you need to master higher-order modal logic. Next, you need to get intimately familiar with the formalisms of the Coq or Isabelle proof assistants. Be my guest!

If you fail to master higher-order modal logic or the proof assistant formalisms, you will no longer be invited to the debate.

However, can the above mathematical truth has any sense of reality?

The problem of mathematical realism versus antirealism is undecidable.

It is the same with the mathematical true Godel's God, in term of reality, it is illusory, imaginary and fictitious.

The proof is not "illusory, imaginary and fictitious". I have showed you a copy. Didn't you see it? The proof runs correctly in both proof assistants.

[Wizard22]

Is God?

Yes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Using mathematics as a tool in science does not give the assurance of certainty that the mathematical proof of God [Godel] is real.

Gödel mapped the claim onto five other claims and has done this in a mathematically unobjectionable manner. That is all there is to it. It just means that from now on you can only try to attack these five other claims.

But then again, it is not easy to achieve that because first of all you need to master higher-order modal logic. Next, you need to get intimately familiar with the formalisms of the Coq or Isabelle proof assistants. Be my guest!

If you fail to master higher-order modal logic or the proof assistant formalisms, you will no longer be invited to the debate.

However, can the above mathematical truth has any sense of reality?

The problem of mathematical realism versus antirealism is undecidable.

It is the same with the mathematical true Godel's God, in term of reality, it is illusory, imaginary and fictitious.

The proof is not "illusory, imaginary and fictitious". I have showed you a copy. Didn't you see it? The proof runs correctly in both proof assistants.

What is so great with higher-order modal logic, it is still basically logic.
Logic merely has its advantage in its limitations, i.e. based on abstraction and not on reality. Logic and mathematics are merely useful tool to facilitate science and other fields of knowledge.
The final conclusion is whatever is based on mathematics and logic, e.g. as in Godel's case, it cannot represent what is real, thus illusory, imaginary and fictitious.

[Sculptor]

Dog is god

This is a no brainer.
DOG. Is mysterious, but has over millenia tended towards GOD.
Domesticated over 25,000 years ago, debate remains if the dogwolf domesticated us rather than we them..

Old English docga, a late, rare word, used in at least one Middle English source in reference specifically to a powerful breed of canine; other early Middle English uses tend to be depreciatory or abusive. Its origin remains one of the great mysteries of English etymology.

[Sculptor]

Using mathematics as a tool in science does not give the assurance of certainty that the mathematical proof of God [Godel] is real.

Gödel mapped the claim onto five other claims and has done this in a mathematically unobjectionable manner. That is all there is to it. It just means that from now on you can only try to attack these five other claims.

But then again, it is not easy to achieve that because first of all you need to master higher-order modal logic. Next, you need to get intimately familiar with the formalisms of the Coq or Isabelle proof assistants. Be my guest!

If you fail to master higher-order modal logic or the proof assistant formalisms, you will no longer be invited to the debate.

However, can the above mathematical truth has any sense of reality?

The problem of mathematical realism versus antirealism is undecidable.

It is the same with the mathematical true Godel's God, in term of reality, it is illusory, imaginary and fictitious.

The proof is not "illusory, imaginary and fictitious". I have showed you a copy. Didn't you see it? The proof runs correctly in both proof assistants.

What is so great with higher-order modal logic, it is still basically logic.
Logic merely has its advantage in its limitations, i.e. based on abstraction and not on reality. Logic and mathematics are merely useful tool to facilitate science and other fields of knowledge.
The final conclusion is whatever is based on mathematics and logic, e.g. as in Godel's case, it cannot represent what is real, thus illusory, imaginary and fictitious.

Good.
You almost have it.
Maths can be used to "represent" what is real. Such as the means to describe the tracectory of a missle. But the missile does not obey the maths; the maths is simply a way to describe the motion. Hypotheses non fingo. So you are right but not using the right word here.

Maths is an edifice of abstraction, self satisfying and internally coherent. But it is not derived FROM reality, but devised to describe it.


It is a tragic shame that you cannot apply this insight to your posts on "objective morality", since you seem to be using the "geometric method" to impose your own will upon the moral landscape yet can have not objective justification for doing so.

[godelian]

[Logic and mathematics are merely useful tool to facilitate science and other fields of knowledge.

Mathematics has numerous downstream users but facilitating their work is not the goal of mathematics. It is merely a side effect of doing it right.

The goal of mathematics is to discover the structure and truth of preexisting abstract Platonic worlds.

The final conclusion is whatever is based on mathematics and logic, e.g. as in Godel's case, it cannot represent what is real, thus illusory, imaginary and fictitious.

Mathematicians would never say that

Scientists would never say this either.

The only people who say this kind of things are neither mathematicians not scientists but atheists trying to invent fake proof by using their very poor understanding -- ignorance really -- of both mathematics and science.