Jump to content


Photo

Mathematics


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#81 DJP

DJP

    Lambda

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,011 posts

Posted 22 June 2005 - 09:10 AM

The field Z2. You've probably looked at it if you've studied discrete maths at uni. The operations + and * where
0 + 0 = 0
0 + 1 = 1
1 + 1 = 0 ( -> -1 = 1)
1 * 0 = 0
1 * 1 = 1
etc. obey all the field axioms. In such a system 0 = 2 = -2 = 4 etc., 1 = -1 = 3 = 5 etc..

It's not terribly exciting. The question is whether this sort of 0 = 2 conflicts with the more normal 0 != 2, and whether either can be said to be true.

DJP

p.s. i.e. yes, it's probably the one you're talking about.

Edited by DJP, 22 June 2005 - 09:11 AM.


#82 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 22 June 2005 - 09:18 AM

OK, I'm out of here ...

:chase:

:rofl1:

#83 mji2

mji2

    Mu

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,855 posts

Posted 22 June 2005 - 10:03 AM

:Dj:p+-->
QUOTE (:Dj:p)
But nobody's reading between the lines well[/quote]Its a discussion board - reading between the lines well don't happen on a discussion board.

#84 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 22 June 2005 - 10:38 AM

Well, if you like maths, I'd feel rude if we ignored you. I am (and I assume others are) happy to explain things as we go along, but you have to ask, because we don't know what you (don't) know.

DJP

No, no, no. I’m just mildly amused at threads like this and have a good laugh at how boffinesque we can all be.

#85 pantrog_*

pantrog_*

    Zeta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 22 June 2005 - 12:06 PM

Question: can mathematics be labeled "objectively true"?

I made these two very important statements:

1) Since mathematics is a non-empirical system of symbolic logic, it relies on a system of (logical and non-logical) axioms.

2) At the level of axioms, no system of logic can be said to be "true".

Just to clarify exactly what I am saying about the truth of mathematics: at the level of axioms, mathematics cannot be said to be true.

Simple as that.

If any part of that assertion is not clear, please show which part and I will try my best to explain it.


Skeptic, when your next around, if your assertion is correct - what is the significance?

My gut reaction on this one is that quite a bit of maths is tautological. It can therefore self evidently logical for '2 = 1 + 1' as all you are saying is '1+1 = 1+1'.

We just accept that you get out what you put in, you get the results appropriate for the axiom. Which axioms actually reflect profoundly 'true' observations about the universe remains a separate (and probably unknowable) matter.

#86 Skeptic

Skeptic

    Kappa

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,108 posts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 01:00 AM

Pantrog

Skeptic, when your next around, if your assertion is correct - what is the significance?


In the thread entitled "Pantrog's version of atheism..." you made the statement:

I don't think humans can know anything to the extent that would logically exclude the possibility of being wrong.


Fortigurn then responded:

Mathematics.


I then responded:

Nope: use of axioms.


Significance: the argument supports the proposition you offered, that human beings can probably not know anything that would logically exclude the possibility of being wrong.

Edited by Skeptic, 23 June 2005 - 01:01 AM.


#87 pantrog_*

pantrog_*

    Zeta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 10:23 AM

Skeptic,

I recognised the recurrence of the maths theme from next door I wasn't sure if it was a reprise of the same core rational. It apparently is ... and I still agree with you.

An additional point - although we may recognise that knowledge obtained from 'deductive' or 'inductive' approaches is never free from some level of methodic doubt - just to take on the 'devils advocate' position for a second - a putative deity may have 100% reliable knowledge of which axioms are correct. He/She/It may even be able to alter these profound truths at will.

Therefore whether mathematics is objective true hinges on whether there is a deity or not ....

Given that we cannot prove or disprove the existance of a deity logically we must remain agnostic on whether or not mathematics be labeled "objectively true".

{I'm not sure 'He' is a very good pronoun for a deity, maybe 'Dhe' or 'De' should be used instead?}

#88 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 10:46 AM

Given that we cannot prove or disprove the existance of a deity logically

That's where you're wrong.

#89 pantrog_*

pantrog_*

    Zeta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 11:06 AM

a) My last post was directly addressed to skeptic who holds the position that 'we cannot prove or disprove the existance of a deity logically '. For him my conclusion is what I think is the logical answer to his original question.

b) To reiterate the logical steps from another thread 'humans are frequently sure about their metaphysical position when they are in fact wrong, you are human therefore logically you have to accept you could be wrong too'.

c) Where is the place for 'faith' if you could 'prove' a deities existance. .. "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen"!

#90 Flappie

Flappie

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 7,644 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 23 June 2005 - 11:28 AM

I have a feeling you misunderstand that verse.

Are you saying that because we have faith in God, his existance can't be proven? All this talk about logic, and you make a statement like that? :eek:
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#91 mji2

mji2

    Mu

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,855 posts

Posted 23 June 2005 - 11:35 AM

Where is the place for 'faith' if you could 'prove' a deities existance. .. "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen"!

The people in Hebrews 11 generally appear to have had no reason to doubt the existence of God (quite the reverse), rather the test of their faith was to to do God's will with trust in the faithfulness of God.

#92 pantrog_*

pantrog_*

    Zeta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 03:18 PM

Are you saying that because we have faith in God, his existance can't be proven? All this talk about logic, and you make a statement like that?


Thanks for the question Flappie. No thats not it.

I was questioning the rational underlying Adanac's exhaustively analytical comment. A concept in both mainstream theology (and some CDs depending on who you talk to ) is that although someone may feel they have profound evidence of a deity - that ultimately absoloute proof is not available to humans.

A rational explanation of this situation is that a deity has specificaly chosen not to provide absolute proof - to allow the follower to demonstrate faith - as an act of service or trust. This is called Fideism

So my point related to the interplay between 'proof' and 'faith' and wasn't a direct comment on the existance of a deity. As an aside the philosophical consequences of an unintentional proof of divine existance, on divine existance has been commented on elsewhere ...

The people in Hebrews 11 generally appear to have had no reason to doubt the existence of God (quite the reverse), rather the test of their faith was to to do God's will with trust in the faithfulness of God.


Thanks - you feel that the author is discussing solely their faith in God's faithfullness rather than God's existance. Isn't one reason (particularly for modern Christians) to doubt Gods faithfulness - to doubt his existance?

Many of the 'ancient faithful' he refers to had direct experience of divine intervention or conversations with angels - similarly these early Jewish Christians the author is addressing may have had first hand experiences of the power of the Holy Spirit.

I think it would be unfair to suggest that modern Christians have access to the same level of evidence as a first century apostle, however good you think the Teleological argument is.

Edited by pantrog, 24 June 2005 - 03:20 PM.


#93 Adanac

Adanac

    Tau

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,874 posts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 04:03 PM

It depends on what you define as proof. I think there is absolutely overwhelming proof of God's existence. And I don't think Bible faith is blind faith.

For all we know you could have proof charging at you like an angry bull but you are just choosing to ignore it because you don't want to believe in God.

Edited by Adanac, 24 June 2005 - 04:04 PM.


#94 mji2

mji2

    Mu

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,855 posts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 04:08 PM

The people in Hebrews 11 generally appear to have had no reason to doubt the existence of God (quite the reverse), rather the test of their faith was to to do God's will with trust in the faithfulness of God.

Thanks - you feel that the author is discussing solely their faith in God's faithfullness rather than God's existance. Isn't one reason (particularly for modern Christians) to doubt Gods faithfulness - to doubt his existance?

Many of the 'ancient faithful' he refers to had direct experience of divine intervention or conversations with angels - similarly these early Jewish Christians the author is addressing may have had first hand experiences of the power of the Holy Spirit.

I think it would be unfair to suggest that modern Christians have access to the same level of evidence as a first century apostle, however good you think the Teleological argument is.

Yep to some extent I agree, although my struggle with God's will does not particularly spill into any hardened doubt in his existence.

Re. experience of God: my experience at times feels more like an average Israeli living out his life in Beersheba in the days of a Judean king with a fairly uneventful reign rather than that of a Paul or an Abraham...but maybe I'm not a very good watcher and listener.

I do think Hebrews 11's focus is on the faithfulness of God rather than his existence, even v6:

And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

I tend to read the and as 'and not only that but also'.

#95 pantrog_*

pantrog_*

    Zeta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 04:16 PM

Adanac, OK. lets be quite specific, are you saying:

1) You think things and you are never wrong.

AND

2) There is 100% proof of a deity.

If so what 'trust' or 'faith' can you demonstrate if you a certain about it all?

or are you infact just like the rest of us Adanac - we can think things but we must admit that we are sometimes incorrect - and that we have somewhere between 0.0001% and 99.9999% evidence that their is a deity.

And as a passing thought - I think it would be excellent if there was an all powerful cosmic father figure looking after us. I just don't think its the case.

Edited by pantrog, 26 June 2005 - 09:06 AM.


#96 pantrog_*

pantrog_*

    Zeta

  • Non-Members
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 24 June 2005 - 04:39 PM

I do think Hebrews 11's focus is on the faithfulness of God rather than his existence, even v6:

And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

I tend to read the and as 'and not only that but also'.


Fair enough, I appreciate your insight - those 'unseen things' in Hebrew 11 are the promises offered by God to the faithfull of ages past. I used the chapters introduction to illustrate the generic point that faith necessarily bridges an evidence gap - it is a trust taken by people in the absence of hard visual proof.

Though thanks for pointing out vs. 6 which specifically mentions the need for faith in his existance - as well as his faithfullness.

Speaking personally the former is the harder of the two.

#97 mordecai_*

mordecai_*

    Iota

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 672 posts

Posted 04 July 2005 - 08:43 PM

I think everyone should be doubtful of the fact that they have gods message or even his identity correct, it's one thing to believe in god or a creator, its quite another to say that book x describes the creator, his personality, and that he has a particular interest in one group of people over another, when those sacred books of all monotheistic religions were written by fallible human beings.

Edited by mordecai, 04 July 2005 - 08:44 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users