.

Dear George,

.

Thanks for your comments which I find enlightening as always.
.

[>>This is the result of an analysis of nature independently of mankind.<<

Who is doing that analysis if not a member of mankind? ... ]
.

Yes, I’m afraid there’s no escaping that. Probably the best method would be to constitute a multidisciplinary team composed of reputable mathematicians/scientists, philosophers and others, with the objective of answering the following question:

“Do mathematics exist in nature independently of mankind. If so, how is this manifested?”

In the meantime, having no preconceived ideas or prejudices on the question, I am doing my best to answer the question myself, with your help and that of David and One Under God. I feel confident that the results will be of value.

Thanks to all three of you.

.

<<“Do mathematics exist in nature independently of mankind.
If so, how is this manifested?”>>

i came across a study..of ants once
that showed a mathematical ratio..that corresponded with increase in size

there are of course
the math ratios..exampled..in sunflower seed placement..in the seed head..and the shell formations etc..

it dosnt as much prove..
any real egzistance..of the math..[as such]..
as much show firmly..an ant..[regardless of size..is still..an ant]..and hasnt morphed into say..a termite

math..as such measures/weighs..gets numbers
then determines why..forms a theo-ry/..validates..
[via more weights measures etc]..determines its falsifiability..

becomes a proper science [ie has falsifiable thesis
that if refuted..nullify the claim to be called true science

evolution..isnt a science
cause it has no falsifiability
plus no change of genus..has ever been validated/verified
or even reported nor seen..let alone replicated*..[essential to validate any true science]..

a theo-wry
at best...it failed its test.

natural-selection=definitively..science didnt
survival of the fit-test=not science

genetics=science
mendelic ratio=science[ants]

mendelism alone..refutes taxonomic.classification..by looks like [phenotype]..
you can gather rocks.[fossils]..all you like..
but rocks cant validate genotype..

thus..rocks..are not..any true science proof*..for macro-evolution..[as in..species mutating..into a new genus...

which..evolution..needs..*to..validate
BEFORE claiNg itself..a science

event though..it claims some science method
its proof is pheno-type...not..faulsify-able...*gene-o-type

Dear Banjo,

Thank you for quoting me to contradict me. Like Whitman I contain multitudes.

Pure mathematics need not be a barrier to knowledge. Number theory is mainly pure mathematics although it does have some practical applications. I am sure you have sufficient background to read about it and appreciate the steps by which theorems in that field are solved even you may not be able to solve one of those theorems yourself. However, I think you well might be able to do so.

Try “Elements of Number Theory” by Vinogradov. Elementary mathematics is not merely a tool but has a background of interesting theory. Felix Klein wrote “Elementary Mathematics from an Advanced Standpoint” in German. It has been translated into English. Don’t sell yourself short, Banjo. I am sure you could have many happy hours with mathematics. It might be even better than the happy hours at the local bar. I think you are an intelligent man who would appreciate the world of mathematics.

Bacon was a deeply religious person. However, in the sixteenth century in which Bacon was born a person who was not openly a religious Christian would have been denied entrance to English universities. Religious restrictions still existed in Darwin’s time. The two universities in England namely Oxford and Cambridge, were under the Church of England and required students to sign the Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican faith, so many English Non-conformists sent their children to the Scottish universities which had a better reputation in fields like medicine. Darwin could not in good conscience sign the 39 articles so he went to the University of Edinburgh.

If Bacon had been born in this century his religious views might have been quite different. Einstein would have been barred from universities in Christendom had he been born a few years earlier of Jewish parents.

In contrast the universities of the Islamic world were open to non-Muslims of any beliefs until the Muslim world entered their Dark Ages which they are still in.

Dear George,

You mentioned that there was a higher percentage of theists among the physical scientists than among the life scientists. The balance may be in the process of being redressed. A friend who is a professor of zoology told me that about a fifth of his graduate students are creationists. They are conversant with Darwinism and pass tests citing Darwinian thought. However, they really believe in Creationism. and have chosen the field of zoology to spread their beliefs. I know that you do not have the naïve sort of theism that they have. Nevertheless, they add to the statistics.

Why do you think that there was a higher percentage of theists among the physical scientists than among the life scientists?

Perhaps the life scientists are in general more confined to reality. One can develop many theories regarding multiverses and string theory without any experimental data to confirm or refute their speculations. Particle physics creates entities which may or may not be imaginary.

Paul Erdös used to refer to God as the “Supreme Fascist.” I regard Paul as the supreme mathematician. I can’t see him spending time as we are on olo. He did have his fun moments. One of his antics was to read a menu in a restaurant and give the items the Hungarian pronunciation. Pineapple upside-down cake was a riot.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark:

For some time, Gell-Mann was undecided on an actual spelling for the term he intended to coin, until he found the word quark in James Joyce's book Finnegans Wake:

Three quarks for Muster Mark!
Sure he has not got much of a bark
And sure any he has it's all beside the mark.
—James Joyce, Finnegans Wake

Quark rhymes with snark, and I feel there are overtones of Lewis Carroll’s “The Hunting of the Snark” in the name.

Dear OUG,

I am glad you are still with us. Graham Young allowed that thread concerning you to demonstrate his criteria for posters. I find your style somewhat Joycean and playful.

thanks david
i just think..if were not having fun..why bother
if we cant see the joke..we risk becoming the joke..or worse..the joker..[trickster/prankster]

everything..in nature can be grasped
how..we say..the beasts evolved..[genus wise]..is as..yoki...did..it

god needs to know..sees the joke..
does what needs doing..and sees it is done..[nature/nurture]

gods evolution..is reflected in nature
[if god was first..a single cell..amoeba..
people forget HOW amazing..even..an..ameoba is

the issue of amoeba
an omnipresent little beast unchanged from the beginning]

in researching our ameba..i found only more about
how imposable evolution is

http://www.present-truth.org/3-Nature/Creation/creation-not-evolution-4.htm

<<..The common amoeba..is found..in fresh/water ponds>>

salty.water..not till later..
[needs biological-salts..from-life][launa/flora]
thus first life..[flora]..must?have..been in...alkaline/freshwater?

<<ameba..ranges in size..from an invisible microscopic animal.to one that reaches..a diameter of about half..a millimeter,..visible to the naked eye..as a tiny..white/speck.

Each ameba..is a little mass of gelatinous protoplasm,..containing many granules..and droplets...The protoplasm..is covered with a delicate*..cell membrane.

In many ways..this strange little creature..bears witness to its Creator.

(1)The Ameba..is gifted...with many Strange Abilities..for a Microscopic/Animal...

It..can crawl;
it can breathe..(though..it has no lungs..or gills);

it.can distinguish..inert particles..from the minute plants.and animals..on which it feeds;>>..

ok..first came plants..got it..[fixtures]
then..movement/fauna..[fungibles]

..<<..it can thrust out..
its jelly-like body..*at any point to lay hold..of its food;

it can digest..and absorb..its food;

though..it has no feet,
it crawls..by projecting.."pseudopods."

Such a..strange little creature..could not.."just happen.
"One cannot fail..to see..in these abilities..the Hand of the Creator.

The Ameba..moves around.by means of "Ameboid movement,"..projecting a "pseudopod"(..false foot).from any part..of its body...Because of this..it changes shape..when it moves..or engulfs food,

hence.its name.."ameba"
(derived from..a Greek word..meaning..."change").

The "legs"..of an ameba..are temporary,..and soon flow..back into its body,..when it stops moving..or completes the ingestion..of food particles.

This is totally different..from the muscular movements..of higher animals...Who designed it?

Moreover,.if the ameba is about to "swallow"..an active organism,
the pseudopods..are thrown out widely..and do not touch*.or irritate the pre..* before it has been surrounded;

but..when the ameba..is about to ingest..a quiescent object,such as a single algal cell,..the pseudopods surround the cell..very closely.

Apparently the ameba..can "think"
even though..it has no brain

so logus/logic..came
before..even..the first fauna/cell?

Dear Banjo,

>>“Do mathematics exist in nature independently of mankind. If so, how is this manifested?”<<

As I said, some mathematicians believe mathematics is independent some don’t, however they probably all agree that it is not “in nature”, if by nature you mean physical reality. Those who believe that mathematics is not merely a product of human imagination are called (mathematical) Platonists or realist (the distinction is subtle). I am not sure, how you would “manifest” this belief, except by pointing to the triangle of relations and enigmas in my article www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464.

I also thank you for a fruitful exchange of ideas and opinions that certainly enriched my way of looking at the things we discussed.