The Forum > General Discussion > God Over Pi r Squared or (Y+H+V+H)/(22/7)r2
God Over Pi r Squared or (Y+H+V+H)/(22/7)r2
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 7
- 8
- 9
-
- All
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 12:15:45 PM
| |
42?
Posted by Vanilla, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 12:44:26 PM
| |
Vanilla,
It is tough when the mice don't know. Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 1:04:20 PM
| |
A large part of religion's success and appeal to the small-minded and fearful is that it doesn't attempt to answer difficult questions with reason, and instead simply decrees its preferred version of reality.
A mathematician must consider the state of Schrodinger's cat unknown. A bishop or mullah simply declares that the cat is dead and reminds the faithful that thinking hard leads to damnation. Posted by Sancho, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 3:14:28 PM
| |
Philo, George, Foxy, Pericles, Boaz, et al.,
Restated: Can 1 + 1 = 2 exist, as a hypothical construct, in a non physical realm outside of God or this universe? If, neither God nor this universe existed, would 1 + 1 still equal 2? Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 3:18:15 PM
| |
If the universe didn’t exist, one plus one would equal zero. Yes ?
And pi would not equal 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971. It would equal ….no, not zero….but one. Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 3:48:53 PM
| |
Dear Oliver,
I'm a bit confused by the use of your terminology. Especially the term, "null realm." Because the use of the term "null" in front of "realm" implies that it's a nonexistent realm. Therefore your question of - does one and one make two, in a non - existent realm, doesn't make sense. At least to me. A "null Realm," would contain no elements, it would be empty, void. Therefore 1 and 1 would not make 2. In a "null realm," it would amount to zero. Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 3:56:14 PM
| |
and now dear foxy, you know why Oliver sometimes has a mild sulk :) about me not answering his questions... Oly.. u really are a dag.. such questions..
The concept '2' is a human construct.. developed to cope with quantities of objects. Its just a name, but to us it means not 1, not 3 but 2. Interesting... if we apply this reasoning 1+1=2 and Christ lived, Christ died, Christ rose, Christ will return..... where does that take us? I recall Michael Moor-on saying: YES.. there hav been many terrorist acts against us. YES..there will be more terrorist acts against us. NO... this does NOT mean there is a vast terrorist plot out there! err.. 1+1=3? :) In Moore's world it apparently does. To be honest..I don't know what ur asking.. "Null"? hmmmm I'll stand back and wait. LOVE.. :) (I'm learning from Keysar:) Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 4:32:18 PM
| |
Dear Oliver,
I forgot to answer your question, "Can pi represent the ration of any circle's circumference to its diameter in a null-realm without the existence of God?" No, of course not. Who but God could measure the circumference of a non-existent realm? (smile). Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 4:42:00 PM
| |
Dear Oliver,
You are a very clever man. I finally got it. Posted by Foxy, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 4:48:31 PM
| |
Hello Foxy,
Could one 1 or the other 1 exist to make zero? :-) I posit a true null can't even be put on a number line, whereas zero can. My use or misuse is different. What I am saying is can a mathemematic concept stand-alone in the absence of God's or the Universe's existence. I called this state a null-realm, to describe the aforementioned hyper-abstraction. The realm that is not God's realm [if God does/does not exist, hypothetically] and the Universe did not exist [hypothetically]. Not the realm of a singuality or phase space, either. A realm perhaps metaphyshical; not physical, not QM and not teological. The raw abstraction, alone. Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 4:52:10 PM
| |
And in a circular universe full of circular arguements why couldn't the circle reign supreme and be the new 1, leaving of course the diameter as .31830988618379067153776752674503?
Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 6:23:18 PM
| |
“I forgot to answer your question, ‘Can pi represent the ratio of any circle's circumference to its diameter in a null-realm without the existence of God?’
No, of course not.” Foxy, I’ll take that as being the same as being without the existence of the universe. Yes pi can represent that ratio……which would be of zero to zero…….which is one!! Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 7:05:30 PM
| |
editors comment says too much use of["-"]characters
God IS Over ans above any symbol ie Pi r Squared , [above]that and so much more god is logus [logic] law, light , life and love (Y+H+V+H] =[means] = yod-heh-uav-heh =[means]= TO be , that can be further abriviated as yah= yod-heh, yaho,yeho, yhwh equals EL is mercy and grace[ex 34;6] for yhwh = your god is mercyfull EL [deut[4;31] and your yhwh = mercyfull and pardoning EL [ps 86;15 god = I AM /(22/7)r2\ [equals] only the formula for an approximation of the circum-ference of a circle In a null-realm, nothing could be , nor could it even be a realm n. 1. A community or territory over which a sovereign rules; a kingdom. 2. A field, sphere, or province: the realm of science. See Synonyms at field. [Middle English realme, from Old French, alteration (influenced by Old French reial, royal) of Latin regimen, government, from regere, to rule; see reg-in Indo-European roots.] would 2 + 2 still equal 4, becomes subject to reality that underpins the realm ,if a realm it needs have a sovereign [ie god] reveal the reality i will still say judging by this one rewalm alone [as logus [logic] is here thus god is here thus in a realm yes 2+2 would yet = 4 if god did not exist that is incorrect [god does egsist [where ever logic life light love is , is his realm] if no god [there would only be nothing but a seeming dark deep void [even devoid of life light and love is yet a 'realm' Moreover,even in a null-realm; the existence of god is revealed by his logic his life and his love hope this gives you light HIS LIGHT Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 12:21:01 AM
| |
Dear Oliver,
I'm not as clever as I thought I was. This is one challenge of yours that I obviously don't get. Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 11:26:22 AM
| |
Thank heavens you restated, Oliver. I didn't understand it the first time round, and felt totally inadequate as a result.
>>Philo, George, Foxy, Pericles, Boaz, et al., Restated: Can 1 + 1 = 2 exist, as a hypothical construct, in a non physical realm outside of God or this universe? If, neither God nor this universe existed, would 1 + 1 still equal 2?<< Your question, as you very well know, cannot be answered in its present form. You have - presumably deliberately - conflated two concepts: God and the Universe. Your question in its present form does not allow these to be separated. If you were to say "Can 1 + 1 = 2 exist, as a hypothical construct, in a non physical realm outside this universe?", we would be able to discuss the possibility of there being a universe in which the addition of two numbers might never be required, in which case neither "1" nor "+" would have any meaning. Unfortunately, as with many situations we face in our everyday lives, adding God to the equation renders any intelligent discussion impossible. Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 1:05:26 PM
| |
One Under God
Thank you for your efforts with the equation. You are correct, I was playing with the Hewbrew style of dropping vowles. More later. Editorial: All the + signs [you said hyphens] were needed for the play using equation. I wasn't cheating the word limit. Foxy, Thanks for the compliment. Might not be deserved, if I am confusing folks. Good work you have commenced building a model of the concept of God from a religionist [not all believers are Christian] perspective. Something, which failed emerge, when I asked for an explanation of god. H1: If x exists; then y does exist. [Only god can allow existence of non-existence in a null-realm.] H2: If x does not exist; then y cannot exist. Ho: If x does not exist; then y cannnot exist. The Null Realm, The Realm of Formulae cannot exist. Where x = God; Where y = Null realm You have stated your opinion. Only god can create a null-realm in which mathematical formulae can exist. That is your position. I fully recognize and respect that position. Good one, Foxy! Albeit, I disagree: Herein, I posit Ho is problematic. Confirmation of Ho would be confirmation of an extension of Plato's Perfect Forms. Something, I am prepared to approximate. The posts will need to roll-out a bit first. I have, perhaps, not been precise in my use of the word "null" with my original post, etymologically. My excuse is that in computer programming a null can be a region that is, that represents something that is not. Null even has a hexidecimal value on some operating systems. O representing lowest value and F highest value. Lowest value meaning less than nothing but not zero, nor a minus. It is a realm of the lowest value. This might be a hard concept for folks, who have not programmed Artificial Intelligence. [or need to re-assign for deletion a an unprintable character unrecognized by the bit-map]. -cont- Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 1:47:08 PM
| |
...
So, yesterday, I did some research. Philosophers/Physicists sometimes use the term Realm of Numbers, when applying Philosphy to Mathematics. Previously, I have been meaning a Realm of the Remotest Value from other realms, including God and the Universe. All are to be independent constructs to retain the internal consistency of each construct. Can such a realm contain formulae? Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 1:47:59 PM
| |
ok oliver as-i-like-to-ask-logus-[logic]-for-answers i will attempt to convey-that-my-logic-reveals-me to-reply.
from-your-statement [quote] ''Previously, I have-been-meaning a-Realm-of-the Remotest-Value from-other-realms,''... [as-i-previously-quoted a realm , has a boundry that defines it because it has its natural [unique] order that-defines-it [thus-is-it-able to be deemed a-realm by-its-sovereign-version-of-order ,or even 'its' non-being of dis-order.] a-realm of 'the remotest value'' , yet has its unique 'value' [logus] logic [order] that deems it a-realm a circle [or square ;or whatever ]of nothing is yet a realm-of-nothing ..'' ...God-and-the-Universe.'' one is realm [the other determines the logic-[logus]-withing the-realm] ..'' All are to be independent-constructs to-retain the-internal consistency of-each-construct.''... [life is infinatly vairiable' [like each has thier own finger prints] so to is uniquness-a-constant to-god [who-knows every-barb from-every feather on-every-sparrow-that falls ] ..'' Can-such-a-realm contain-form-u-la-e?''.. it-must to-be called a-realm realm ; n. 1. A community or territory over which a sove-reign rule-s; a kingdom. 2. A field, sphere, or province: the realm of science.[logic/sepperated from non-logic] not-that-it-is-for men to deduce or discover which ''certain formula' or indeed which set-of-formulations ,except-via their-own unique versions-of-logus [logic] mine is that the 'living ' god reveals himself via 'life ' that being the 'life-giver' is served by life living [not death] death-is-that-which- 'takes' life death-serves-god-not] further any-deliberated-intentional-death can be said to demean god but in-this-realm we are-allowed to believe as-we chose-to-believe -OR_NOT. god [the life giver] is the light sustaining life into love good=god god saw the-light [and it was perfect] i know i-should have quit while ahead. anyway jesus said even-a-beast knows the-voice of his-master god being-knowable-via-the-logic-in-life = [love ] sustaining the dust to live Life-rules this-realm for a certainty [via-logic] where-ever logic is he-must-be where insanity is love is rejected [not absent] But we are free to accept or reject in-so-doing-WE-{ME}-create our own after being realm [H or H] one is in the light [but the other for those chosing to reject light ] The-light-is-good [it-all comes-from god [the-only-good] sorry about preaching thanks for making me think Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 3:31:17 PM
| |
Pericles,
Gretings friend. Yep, I am guilty of a little deliberate side-stepping, but I am looking towards, we, collectively, working through a process. Not skulduggery, rather, anapproach, which treats "god", "the universe" and "formulae" as separate constructs on questions of existence. Once these are treated as scales with internal consistence, one cannot have, God + Realm [one under god], as the atomic construction. Each must stand-alone. Thence, we can make deductions from both; and The Universe, of course. Juan under God, Logic: F. logique (13th c.), ad. med.L. logica, ad. Gr. (first found in Cicero; ellipt. for , rendered in med.L. by ars logica), fem. of (whence L. logicus) pertaining to reasoning, f. word, oration, reasoning, reason, etc.: see LOGOS. The word is current in all the mod.Rom. and Teut. langs.: Sp. lógica, Pg., It., Du. logica, Sw. logika, Ger., Da. logik. Cicero uses also logica neut. pl. = Gr. ‘logics’ (see 1b below).] 1. a. The branch of philosophy that treats of the forms of thinking in general, and more especially of inference and of scientific method. (Prof. J. Cook Wilson.) Also, since the work of Gottlob Frege (1848-1925), a formal system using symbolic techniques and mathematical methods to establish truth-values in the physical sciences, in language, and in philosophical argument. The proper scope of this department of study has been and is much controverted, and books on ‘logic’ differ widely in the range of subjects which they include. The definition formerly most commonly accepted is ‘the art of reasoning’; for various modern definitions see the later quots. At all times the vulgar notion of ‘logic’ has been largely that it is a system of rules for convincing or confounding an opponent by argument. OED - Unabridged LOGOS, above, has a OED link to its own separate etymology, which, in short, relates to Hellised Theology and Neo-Platoism. Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 5:22:06 PM
| |
-cont-
One Under God, cont. Appreciate your contribution. Some later uses of Logic: 1776 ADAM SMITH W.N. V. i. (1869) II. 354 Logic, or the science of the general principles of good and bad reasoning. 1837 SIR W. HAMILTON Logic i. (1866) I. 4 Logic is the Science of the Laws of Thought as Thought. 1843 MILL Logic Introd. (1846) 9 Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. 1870 JEVONS Elem. Logic i. 1 Logic may be most briefly defined as the Science of Reasoning. 1903 B. RUSSELL Princ. Math. I. i. 4 But now Mathematics is able to answer, so far at least as to reduce the whole of its propositions to certain fundamental notions of logic. 1932 LEWIS & LANGFORD Symbolic Logic v. 118 This logistic method requires that the first branch of logic to be developed should be the calculus of propositions. - OED Unabridged What is the calculus or formulae of God in context with all formulae and The universe? [Noting Lewis above]. Mill's [1843] Logic is in direct opposition to Logos of a contemporary period: a1834 COLERIDGE Lit. Rem. (1838) III. 158 If Christ be that Logos or Word that was in the beginning. 1882 S. D. F. SALMOND in Encycl. Brit. XIV. 803/2 Heraclitus holds that nothing material can be thought of without this Logos, but he does not conceive the Logos itself to be immaterial. - OED Unbridged. Is logos material or immaterial? Neither? ... in a theist's world view? If neither, you have adopted a realm of non-existent existence: metaphysical perhaps, but, said metaphysical construct is not immaterial. My aim, with the valuable help of our OLO colleagues, is to build a formulation of God, The Universe and All Formulae, without a priori bias. [Theists to me jump steps before commitment.] We will create these constructs, examine interactivity, analyse, and draw deductions, empirically. Herein, my posit is, that theorical constructs could exist without Logos; i.e, without the existence of God. Contrarily, reasoning can be applied to build our conceptual model. Ludwig, Thank you. No space. Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 5:52:49 PM
| |
clearly-i am-uneducated.
all the-thinking-you-proposed-[quoted]-goes-largly-over-my-head, but these-quotes i-will-try to-respond-to ''Is_logos_material_or-immaterial? ''.. logus[logic]-is-aether[immaterial[but-its-basis-is logiclly-based-in-the-material] ... ''in-a-theist's_world-view?''... as-in a-'christ' that-became-man? read the-many-teachings [none-can-look-upon-me and live et-al] mine-father_and_i-am-one_is-via-our-logus-[logic]-not-the material-of logus-[god become flesh-ie all-flesh-That-you-did-to-the-least-you-did-to-ME[HE]-god is-not-one-body but-the-logus of-all-bodies [it is written gods throne is our heart heart is-the-symbol-[immaterial]-of-love gods love-and-logus is-our [lifes/\lives] animism Ye-shall-have-no-god_before-me [nor-son , nor-image , nor-rite , nor-ritual] [this is where gods-own dont-get-god] they [WE]have-the 'holy'texts , the-circumzision, the-holy-land , even the arc-of-the-covenant [all-of-which they [WE]put before god][ME] [mE-inverted-becomes-wE] [even-those of-islam [meaning to-follow gods_will ] put-the-prophet[MAY-PEACE-BE-UPON-THEM-ALL] and-his-[their]-texts before the-living_loving=god [one bit of leaven [materialism] spoils the-whole-batch] ...'you have adopted a realm of non-existent existence'... very insightfull [i am but one outcast and rejected even by his own] , my-reality-consists-solely in-responding-and-communing via-the-web blogging-about god_and_his-creation but as-i eat as-i use a key-board, and get-angry-i am of-course material as an undenyable reality, gladly-awaiting-the-day-this-material-realm-drops-the-veil-between-the-heavens-and-the hells,and this realm[just-as-god-is-one-so-too- 'metaphysical perhaps, .... said meta-physical construct is not immaterial''.... you-lost me-there [but-words-are-not-the-best-conumication-medium [i knew god-was-real before i read the holy-texts [of many-prophets]it might seem sick but i only love humans because god does [i trust him to know better than my own-realised-experience with his 'huh-manity ..''to-build-a-formulation-of-God'',... ok-divide-eternity-into-infinity times mass =EL is-not-possable your the formulation [from god] [we all are ] god thunk us into being [he has but to say [and it is , and behold we all are] ..''The Universe and All Formulae, without a priori bias.''... is impossable [god allways was [allways will be [no begining NO end[not for god [logus] lets say material realm began with a big-bang ,the initiation of the bang was god saying ''BE' ,lets say we live in an expanding [rather than eternally recycling universe] Moving away from big-bang 'material matter expands out till mere specks that in time fall in to a lump the size of ["."][a fullstop], then it changes state ['be'] [A big bang]and time begins again [god was in the beginning as well as the end] as well as was logus at the beginning etc [ie all beginnings [and all ends]] Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 8:57:50 PM
| |
one under god, if you want people to read your posts, I strongly suggest that you refrain from all those hyphens.
We know that you use them to circumvent the word limit - this latest effort was in reality 533 words long, according to my word editor - but the problem is, it actually makes the posts more difficult to read. You might get more respect for your views if you played by the rules. Just a suggestion Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 29 May 2008 8:56:34 AM
| |
as im restricted to 5 posts per day thank you Pericles,
for helping me to waste one on essentially nothing but a complaint about word numbers have you thought of becoming or are you a moderator? it dosnt appear you had much else to say but your good at word counting not athiest are you? have you anything else to say? any comment on the content? not its length or words but i guess your right to say is equal to my right to say that being said do you have any valid contribution to make to the problem? any wisdom to contribute its funny [it would never have occured to me to count words[unless i was trying to make some relitive point or trying to stop the posters comments in some way] well i have 4 left [one ,more on this post for today] hoping next ytime there is a valid response not just petty word counting if what i say has upset you complain about what has upset you not the number of words i needed to respond to the topic [oh and if you are by chance a forum moderator] please put it into the rules , but not because someone who has no thoughts other than police things they dont want to be heard ,then look for ways to shut them down i only regret i had to post this response to a provacaative non respondant ,but i dont turn the other cheek cheers eh may next time you have a real comment [on topic] not just a complaint about teqnique Posted by one under god, Thursday, 29 May 2008 9:27:48 AM
| |
Correction: "Is logos material or immaterial? Neither? ... in a theist's world view? If neither, you have adopted a realm of non-existent existence: metaphysical perhaps, but, said metaphysical construct is not immaterial NOR matgerial. - Olly
I appreciate that at times my posit is not clear, especially with the words, Null and Real: Last night, I was The Tarner Lectures [1956] on "Mind and Matter", Edwin Schrodinger's paper, "The Physical Basis for Consciousness" also required a curly explanation/wording. Well, Ed. called the Realm a Domain, in a different context to our tpic; but regarding concept, close. Herein, Schrodinger asks, I am paraphasing/ condensing a page: "If satient beings did not exist; would the domain of consciousness play to an empty house?" Restated for us; Would 1 + 1 = 2, play to an empty house, if neithre God nor the Universe existed. Foxy, Spinoza would agree with your God + Realm. He argued the thought of God penetrtated everything. Herein, your posit, restated could be, x(y), a co-efficient. Such a position has significant onocological implications. Does a rock have soul? Does Stan contain the thought of God. Hello All. O. George, where are you? Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 29 May 2008 5:08:58 PM
| |
So we stay on track:
Would the Domain of Formulae "play to an empty house" [but still exist], without the existence of God or The Universe? [Thanks Ed.] Religionists, please think of the Domains of Formulae, God and The Universe, having internal consistency, as when building a conceptual model. Thanks. Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 29 May 2008 5:17:07 PM
| |
Oliver,
nice of you to call me. I have been following this thread only superficially firstly because I have been too busy, and secondly because, frankly speaking, I could not understand what it was all about, e.g. the strange speculations about mathematical concepts and relations between them. You cannot even define the term “exist“ in a way that would be acceptable to everybody (see e.g. Bertrand Russell's criticism of St. Anselm’s Argument for the existence of God based on different understandings of the term). For instance, many (most?) mathematicians believe in the existence of mathematical concepts (i.e. that they exist in a world of their own, outside our mind), everybody believes in the existence of their own thoughts and mental constructs “inside their minds”, practically everybody believes in the existence of a material world external to our mind that our senses and instruments relate to, and most monotheists believe in the existence of God modeled by our mind and cultures (notably “holy books”). Nevertheless, it is hard to define the term “exists” in such a way that it would encompass all these instances (and possibly others, e.g. a multiverse of many universes whose existence might follow only from the mathematical models of the physical theories explaining verifiable phenomena). So I am sorry, but I do not understand questions like “what would hold about this realm if that realm did not exist”, since all these realms that you refer to, if I understand them properly, are intrinsically interconnected. Posted by George, Thursday, 29 May 2008 6:50:14 PM
| |
Hello George,
What about my post, as restated, after reading Schrondinger's attempt at a word-tangle? In my post above yours', Schrondinger uses the word "domain", whereas, I have said, "realm"*. My use of the word null came from having been an analyst/programmer, a long time ago. Here, a null does have a [lowest] value, a position on the bit-map. Sometimes programmers assign unprintable characters to null. In the cyber world it does not exist, does exist as a magnetic entry on a computer. If, like Foxy and Spinoza, one says God's thought permeates everything, i.e., there are no independent domains; without God; we have the serious ontological issues, I have abovementioned. If, god did not exist and the Universe did not exist, would 1 + 1 = 2 exist, unobserved? Do we need any configuration of the Universe(s) to be, or, God to be, Hamlet to be, for 1 + 1 = 2, to be? Playing to "an empty house" as E.S. would say. I will do some homework on the word "exist". My philosphy books have arrived from HK but are boxed-upped. It's good to be back in Oz. I fully understand if you just follow/view the posts, owing to your other commitments. Hope you enjoyed your time with your daughter. In July, the pace with of own research should pick-up a bit, as the chemo-brain effects subside. I'm going along okay with the treatment. Your are correct, I am a seeker. Best wishes... Have a happy day. O. * I read ES's [1956] essay, after the earlier posts. Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 29 May 2008 7:38:09 PM
| |
researched_your-word-definitions
Exist=EL[logus] ex·ist –verb (used without object) 1. to have actual-being; to-be: whether you like it or not. 2. to have life or animation; live/logus. 3. to continue to-be or live: Belief it still exists. 4. to-have-being in a specified-place[heaven] or-under certain conditions; Existance=ex·ist·ence [el-ME made-we] –noun 1. the-state or-fact of existing; being. 2. continuance in-being or-life; life: for-existence. 3. mode-of existing: E 4. all that-exists: Existence shows-a-universal order. 5. being-something that exists; entity; being. null[hell] A-special-value used in several-languages to_represent the_thing referred to-by an uninitialised-pointer.BEING_yet-not-being[in-hell] In NULL is-a-special-marker[abcence-of-light/love/logus] used to indicate-that a-data value[EL] is-unknown A value indicating that-a-=variable [L]contains no-valid data. lacking any legal or binding force; "null/hell'' and void;[hell] invalidate: declare invalid clear of occupants or empty or clear of something containing nothing; " In law, void means of no legal effect the earth was without form, and void" realm [heaven] kingdom: a-domain in which something-[love]-is-dominant; "the untroubled kingdom of reason"; "a land of-make-cinfirmed-believe[belief]"; "the rise-of the-realm of light/life/love ... domain: a knowledge domain that you are interested in or are communicating about; "it was a UN-limited domain of discourse"; "here we enter the region of opinion"; "the realm of the occult" kingdom: the domain ruled by a king or queen domain the set of values of the independent variable for which a function is defined In mathematics, a domain of a k-place relation L ⊆ X1 × … × X'k is one of the sets X'j, 1 ≤ j ≤ k. In abstract algebra, a domain is a ring with 0 ≠ 1 such that ab = 0 implies that either a = 0 or b = 0 (the zero-product property). That is, it is a nontrivial ring without left or right zero divisors. empty[=] [the=space=inbetween=that=sepperates=definative=being from=realm from=realm] holding or containing nothing; "empty=hours" make void or empty of contents; become empty or void of its content; "The room emptied" [yet-mine fathers house has-many-rooms-realm/domains] devoid of significance or point; "empty=promises"; "a hollow=victory"; "vacuous=comments" vacate: leave behind empty; move=out=of;[pass-through] "You must vacate your office by tonight?" having nothing inside; "an empty=sphere Posted by one under god, Thursday, 29 May 2008 11:04:53 PM
| |
Pericles - "one under god, if you want people to read your posts, I strongly suggest that you refrain from all those hyphens."
I for one find the hyphens useful. They tell me to hit the scroll button. Posted by Bronwyn, Thursday, 29 May 2008 11:51:25 PM
| |
Oliver,
Do I understand properly, that you are/have been undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer? My thoughts (and prayers, if you do not mind) are with you. I have not read Schrödinger’s paper you are referring to, but it seems that whether you call it ‘domains‘ or ‘realms‘ it is something similar to (an extension of?) Penrose‘s ‘worlds‘ (mental, physical and mathematical), distinct but interrelated, that we already discussed in another thread. “Would 1 + 1 = 2, play to an empty house, if neither God nor the Universe existed” “If, god did not exist and the Universe did not exist, would 1 + 1 = 2 exist, unobserved” Well, 1+1=2 does not “exist”, it “holds”. However, if I understand you properly you are asking whether the mathematical world could exist if neither God nor the physical world nor our mental worlds existed. It is at the same level of metaphysics as the classical question of philosophy “why there is something rather than nothing”. Or more down to earth, what does existence that cannot be observed directly (i.e. distant galaxies, or “our” dinosaurs) mean? If you believe in God, you have both a simple and a very sophisticated answer; if you do not, you have either a very sophisticated answer or you can claim that the question does not make sense. There is a recent paper by John Byl [Matter, Mathematics and God, Theology and Science, vol. 5 (2007), pp. 73-86] essentially explaining why it is easier to accept the existence of a (Platonic) world of mathematics (and its “unreasonable effectiveness“ for physics) if you believe in God: the complementary nature of creating and discovering mathematics corresponds to the complementary nature of what is in your mind and what is in His. If you accept that then the answer to your above questions is probably “no“. Spinoza’s pantheism is just one of many ways of “modeling” God, as interesting, and controversial, as it is, (like many other “models”) although in agreement with neither the Christian nor the Jewish understanding of God. Posted by George, Friday, 30 May 2008 1:16:08 AM
| |
George, there is one level here that I haven't quite unravelled.
Oliver >>“If, god did not exist and the Universe did not exist, would 1 + 1 = 2 exist, unobserved”<< George >>If you believe in God, you have both a simple and a very sophisticated answer; if you do not, you have either a very sophisticated answer or you can claim that the question does not make sense.<< My problem with the question is not that it doesn't make sense, but that it rolls two concepts into one: God and the Universe. Would it not be more palatable, from a philosophical point of view, to address the questions separately? To make them part of the same question invites the "very sophisticated answer" that God and the Universe are in fact the same entity. Which is fine for theists, but doesn't actually move the discussion forward. To a non-theist, the presence of God in the question tilts the playing field towards the metaphysical, when the concept of mathematics is intensely physical in nature. It is possible to posit a universe that has no requirement for mathematics, but only if you do not believe in God. At least, the God that most theists describe. And one under god, deal with it. >>may next time you have a real comment [on topic] not just a complaint about teqnique<< It was a suggestion, not a complaint. Take it or leave it. Posted by Pericles, Friday, 30 May 2008 6:07:58 AM
| |
In the NULL realm [hell] might is right
thus it is much like living a lie [for all intent and purpose [E exist but L dont [logic dosnt egsist in the null [hell] realm [or rather it is suspended] L[logus/logic] has been activilly rejected by those rejecting of freewill [L] [logus/god\logic] [L-Love-Light-Life-Logic=E the E [energy] that underpins all M [mass] [ALL M] EL alone sustains to be [mass = material reality] El is light love life logic that is underpinning all realms null realm is E alone in Hell ; the might is right [E rules over E by might] thus is the null [hell] devoid oF light/logus/logic as hell is ruled by M [might ] the might that is right deems beyond [L] that 1 plus 1 = -0- [-m-0-m-]= the logic of might [hell] rejecting L thus in a null realm 2 plus 2 = anything [M][E] L allows it to be in the null realm [Without L ] E = mass but just a mass with out L ie becomes LiE if the M-asses chose E over L M-ass = Might and the mob of the masses [becomes knowable] because it is revealed as LiE , Me has given L>L>L>L to allow WE L less M = EL in between EL inverted [LE] insert i [its hard to put into words] but we are allowed our own time [eternal lief to figure it out] i am>me AHH men Posted by one under god, Friday, 30 May 2008 9:53:17 AM
| |
Pericles,
I am keeping the Universe and God separate, as soft-constructs. Yet, I wish to apply the discipline of "internal consistency" to these constructs/scales. Comment by Foxy and Spinoza suggest should not take this action, raising very significant questions about the [absolute] permeation of their God [not metaphysical to thesis]. Spinoza and Fechner developed permeation to the "Thought of God" how far does it extend? The hylozoits considered similar themes c. 200 BCE. Giordano Bruno, who was burnt at the stack for questioning several ideas of the Catholic Church, explored the notion of the Thought of God too. He not only belived that the Earth circled the sun, he raised the if God's thought permeates inorganic matter, Does inorganic matter have a soul? [To which I would add does everything contain God's ousia and inversely is everything in the ousia of God's godhead?] Sorry, I am drifting a bit, but deliberately, I ask you as an Atheist, to suspend the notion of God as totally non-existent [only for a while] and think of God, as a hypothetical construct [as Gallileo was; Popper], if not a realty, just for a few posts. Propisition x + n-Domains, is very different to x(n-Domains), if x equals God. I [tentatively*] would the former, except God subsists but does not exist. This debate could have it's own thread. For now, I need to deal with each God and the Universe separately. IF I recall correctly you are a medical student? In medicine if the patient is bleeding, presumably you think of "blood" generally, and stop the bleeding with pressure. With a transfusion you need to consider ABO groupings. I am working the lattter with my constructs. *Unless someone has a better proof. Posted by Oliver, Friday, 30 May 2008 2:30:04 PM
| |
csteel and Ludwig,
The mice claim it is not .31830988618379067153776752674503, rather its 13.369015219719208204586236123293. :-) Squeak, squeak, Oly. George, I will search for the paper you cited. Thanks. I couldn't find a specific reference to "holds" in the OED Unabridged nor several maths dictionaries, but I know the word in its common usage, holds true. Unless you correct me, I will take "holds" to mean adherence of the equations elements, including homomophism in factorisation. 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 - 1 = 1. Cheers friend. Posted by Oliver, Friday, 30 May 2008 9:07:07 PM
| |
Well_done oliver [you-have by-passed my-under-standing] all-this educated musing has lost-me [in-having-to search every-second word it-gets-me beyond where-i-feel urge to-go]
I feel if-anyone needs special-knowledge to-explain words they-are missing the-fact that children_'get'_god better-than many adults, any-way i found a-line i-feel i-can help-out with [for-what its worth] quote >>if-God's-thought-permeates-inorganic-matter, Does-inorganic-matter-have a soul?<< does-a copper-wire that conducts-electricity retain the-current flow it-conducted? Clearly-not unless hooked up-to-a battery_or_condenser or-other charge_retaining_capacitor.[because electicity>is-a-flow-rate that only conducts the-ELect-ron-flow] We-are missing the-fact that the-soul_isnt-the_spirit ,just-as there is-a spiritual heaven and hell , there-is a celestial H=H ,[as-well as the 'natural [H=H] We-are given the_spirit [life-,living-logus_Holy-spirit ,that_ALL ways_belongs to_god ,as a_gift We cloth it in mass while-in the material_realm ,that forms our soul-body [id] that becomes born'again' at our 'material death , where-our spirit is-eventually-released [along-with our soul_body into the astral-realm] Till in time we lose our physical-attatchment to 'our sins or our percieved good 'we assume-we-did-of our-selves chose to-do while being incarnate ''as-our material-'selves' during this-material incarnation ] [in-short in-time the 'truth ' sets our_spirit free [from our material flesh then our soul -ody] [we clothe it [our_spirit] in our soul_body before becomming born again into the celestial_realm where it is clothed in light , the saying the-devil-take your soul is-because your spirit belongs to god [but the_soul is simply the-body for spiritual transition into the celestial into H>or<H] What the soul is is aether-material [just in this realm our physical body is litterally_made_from 'dust' [its not the in-animate dust that contains our living spirit ,but_the_soul] Thus is mere-Mass inanimate , without soul [even if gods spirit permeates straight through it] , the whorship of idols thus is revealed totally absurd ,indeed to put anything before god , but we are getting to the material that may become infused with spirit but yet not have a soul. [spiritual texts [are inanimate but may reveal the spirit captured in the words or images ,but they in essence are sans soul] any way such is as best my logic can explain in my igno-rant way. Posted by one under god, Saturday, 31 May 2008 12:33:28 AM
| |
George,
Thank you for your prayers and good wishes. The after-effects of the chemo. could last several months, yet I am hoping to start back into my own new research into the effects of culture antecedents on knowledge discovery by July. In about a year, I will be happy to discuss findings with colleagues. Thus far, treatments have worked. I could see Schrödinger's Domain was not very different to my Realm, yet presumedly ES was effective in making his point/question understood; whereas I haven't been clear to our olo friends. Thanks for the citation. I will try to find the article. I still have access to the University's databases. Also, I will contemplate your interesting and sophisticated comments. Back in a day or two. csteel, Ludwig and Vanilla, Just in case you missed my reply, and a hint to the ultimate question, please look back a page. Thanks. O. Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 31 May 2008 12:52:11 AM
| |
Pericles,
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was not commenting on Oliver’s question but rather on the basic question of metaphysics (why there is something rather than nothing) and on the question of a possible independence of the four worlds (realms, domains). I agree that one should not “roll two concepts into one: God and the Universe“. Besides, that objection of yours was already addressed by Oliver. By a “very sophisticated answer” I did not mean that “God and the Universe are in fact the same entity“. That is just the basic tenet of classical pantheism. What I meant by “sophisticated“ was the by now very rich literature on the relation of (natural) science and theology, preceded by an even richer centuries old “pre-scientific” literature (in the West) on the relation of philosophy (metaphysics) and theology. Not only “theists” see metaphysics as a legitimate discipline of philosophy, though they probably prevail among those who take metaphysics seriously. Of the four worlds (realms, domains) I mentioned, the existence (in the intuitive meaning of the word) of only the second one (mental) and the third one (physical) are generally accepted, including their interrelation. The existence of the first (the “Platonic” world of mathematics) is accepted only by some mathematicians (and philosophers of mathematics). So your contention that the “concept of mathematics is intensely physical in nature“ meaning, if I understand you, that mathematics is just a part of science describing certain properties of the physical world, is understandable, though it is common mostly among non-mathematicians. The same, of course about the fourth (transcendent, supernatural, ultimate) world, not everybody accepts its existence, nowadays not even everybody who claims to be a Christian. I should add that I do not regard these four worlds as four mutually disjoint “supersets“, in particular I do not subscribe to Stephen Jay Gould’s “non-overlaping magisteria” (of science and theology). The interrelation is, I think, much more intriguing: even if you leave out the fourth world (God) the mutual interaction between the mental, physical and mathematical worlds is complicated enough (see e.g. Roger Penrose mentioned also by Oliver). Posted by George, Saturday, 31 May 2008 1:54:09 AM
| |
...>>keeping-the-Universe-and God-separate, as-soft-constructs.<<....
as god-[logus]- is the-logic/law underpinning the-universe it-is-not possable to treat them sepperate [cause-affect] [unsure_what soft-constructs may-be refering-to [organic_mortal-constructs? life?-nature? >>to-apply the-discipline-of "internal-consistency" to-these constructs/scales.<<... Clearly science is-based by-faith in-fact [filtered by logic] into a mathimatical-scientificlly accountable 'order'-called science. It isnt-that math under pins reality but that its logic can be defined by the mathimatical certainty of the observed logic/law that the material logic that underpins that-being-observed at the material level [yet at the quantum-level we can-see the-observed particle reverse its spin when observed [it seemsthat-the closer we-get to-the underlying logus, the less math certainty can-be relitive to 'test' its hypothesis or confirm its mathimatical 'certainties'] >>to-not-take this-action,<< ... seems to be raising very significant questions about the [absolute] permeation of the faulse-God-of-math [as its not meta-physically mathimatical as a predictor [nor refuitor] to-[of]-the math thesis]. THis logus-[logic]-permeation when-equated-or substituted-for the "Thought of God" logic does extend into the smallest observable logic ,on both the particle particular levels as well as the wholesale organic material ,even astral and cyber levels of logic ,yet people fail to see the elephant in the room. Some see things as they are and ask why ,some dream things that can never be , i see what is is and try to understand the why of why god is revealing it at this time [NOW] for me to see. God lives in this live time living moment [now. [ALL the time ,All through time ,live time in this ever now time] when yesterday was then called NOW ,he was live time then, when tomorrow becomes the LIVE time NOW he will yet be providing the logus [logic that ever underpins EVERY live time [now ] Every 'now' moment [just-as he all-ways has [and allways will] so know now do the math [so to speak] ask your own logic [now] then you too will know 'E'=energy 'L'=logic = EL [light , love , life , logic , energy] = Mass +EL 2 ie EL-vis lives now peace and love cheers Posted by one under god, Saturday, 31 May 2008 12:37:10 PM
| |
One under God,
"as god-[logus]- is the-logic/law underpinning the-universe it-is-not possible to treat them sepperate [cause-affect]" By Logos, I assume The Word, not logic in its everyday sense nor the School of Metaphysics. I assume you are saying that the Word and the Domain of Numbers should not be separated. That Mathematical formulae cannot "hold" [George] without the Logos of God. I was not endeavour to treat Mathematics as an effect caused of God. Rather, would the Domain of Formulae, exist, transendentially, if God did not exist, say, God suicided, and, become non-existent. Is 1+1=2, a truism, in the absence of God or the Universe. Boazy, I realise 1 and 2 are symbols and represent deeper latent entities: The concepts of singualarity and plurality. One single plus another single is a duality. Pericles, Can a perfect circle exist in our universe, if not, what about as an abstract [Plato]. If not in our universe, would the abstract have a meta-reality in the Domain of Perfect Forms? If yes, to a Domain of Perfect Formd independent to the universe. Would said Perfect Forms exist without God [for the Atheeist] or God committed suicide [for the Thiests]. The posit is there is No God and no Universes. Do the Domains of Formulae and/or Perfect Forms exist, in any manner, way, shape or form, even is non-physicaally or conceptually, as unobserved. Are there truths that are truly independent of the Thought of God: e.g., 1=1. If the Thought of God did not exist and 1 did not equal 1, we still have a rule. Herein, would 1 not be 1, in the absence of the Thought of God Would 1 be 2, 3, 4, 5, n, null. Posted by Oliver, Saturday, 31 May 2008 10:31:08 PM
| |
oliver you wrote>>By Logos, I assume The Word, not logic in its everyday sense <<
Thats not as i see it , logus allows us [created in his image ] to see the logic of the word [the 'thing' the word describes [or defines] Are you not amased that of ALL of gods billions of creations WE alone WE ALONE can write , invent and make sense of words we EVEN can make sense of THE word We alone need NEVER go to the moon [or see jesus , or be with mosus on the mount] ,but can by simply reading words know how the person who did felt WE can read the words of LONG DEAD PEOPLE [reading their own private thoughts ,that they put into word] It has been reported by seers that god , angels and US alone can read and understand words [because our material body is capable of recieving its logus direct from god [like the angels do] >>I assume you are saying that the Word and the Domain of Numbers should not be separated.<< JUst by knowing their [wordss/numbers /symbols] logic we ARE sepperated from this the vast majority of the rest of incarnation , even from many of men incarnated From this incarnation we can accend into the highest heavens ,think of a bacteria evolving spiritually [think of the evolutionary chart as a spiritual evolutionary guide] The steps to understanding that god evolved OUR SPIRIT to the stage where most in this mortal mankind type flesh are able to 'get' the meaning of words and numbers , ie to get the logus [god logic] that underpins them ,or is revealed by them >>That Mathematical formulae cannot "hold" [the meaning of the symbols in the word]; George] without the Logos [logic] of God. << that allows us to make sense from mere shadowed shapes on a white background [words/letters etc yes egsactly Posted by one under god, Saturday, 31 May 2008 11:44:04 PM
| |
Peracles,
Following on from post to your attention above I mention that in some computer languages 1=1, is a universal truth, used to start a condition set rolling: If 1=1, Then.., If.., Else.., If.., Else.., End Would 1=1 "hold" [George] as a universal trust without the universe? One Under God, You are saying only humans know the Word of God? That posit presuposes a natural and a superatural. If the Mind of Humankind, alone, can transcend the natural to contact the Ethereal,; how do we know the contact is with God and not another less worthy supernatutal being, with cognitions far superior to our own Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 1 June 2008 3:57:59 PM
| |
George, Peracles, Boaz, Foxy, one under god,
- Philo? I had the Theology & Science article on the screen of my computer but everything froze when I attempted to print. Will try again. Also taking a peek at: BIG SCIENCE (2003): by James Franklin EXISTENCE AND FAITH (1960): Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann INTRODUCTION TO MATHEMATICAL PHILOSOPHY (1920): by Bertrand Russell I had not expected that the Domains/Realms of God, Formulae would take us down the path of The Thought of God [Spinoza]. That topic could be deserving of its own thread. Where I have been been heading is, towards of The Realm of God(s) subsisting in the superset of The Realm of Ideas. Except the sub-set of The Realm of God's [s'] subsistence does not appoximate, nor is in reasonable agreement with [Kuhn], the existence of a universe known to us; whereas the subsets of the Realms of Formalae and Perfect Forms [Plato] subsistence, do, in fact, approximate and are in reasonable agreement with the existence of a universe: Moreover, said universe does exhibit self-orderliness: e.g., Goldbach's [strong, unproven?] Theorem [as cited in Schrodinger] or similarly Levy's conjecture. http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/GoldbachConjecture/ On Earth, in our universe, we might be able to point to a sublime circle in lieu of a perfect circle; but, where is the sublime God in lieu of a Perfect god? Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 1 June 2008 5:34:17 PM
| |
Let's see if I can catch up a little Oliver.
>>Can a perfect circle exist in our universe, if not, what about as an abstract [Plato]<< I would propose a perfect "anything" can exist only as a Platonic ideal. There is simply too much background noise in our real universe to conceive of a situation where this level of mathematical perfection can exist anywhere except as a theoretical construct, defined mathematically. Given the inherently unfinished nature of pi, even this construct is somewhat fuzzy, and even the idea that it is possible to determine a perfect circle needs to be taken as a given, where pi = pi, if you like. >>If not in our universe, would the abstract have a meta-reality in the Domain of Perfect Forms?<< Only if there is a requirement for a circle to exist, or a requirement for a Domain of Perfect Forms to exist. Without this requirement, the universe - or any universe - would have no reason to be brought into being. In other words, the limitation of abstraction here is bounded by at least one level of reality: that reason exists. If reason does not exist, or there is no requirement for reason to exist, then no answer to the question can be possible. >>Would said Perfect Forms exist without God<< Only if there is a reason for God to exist. If God exists, he/she/it would have no inherent meaning as an abstraction, since there is no requirement for an abstract God. The universe - any universe - can exist without God. But God cannot exist (i.e. would have no meaning or relevance) in the absence of a universe. Posted by Pericles, Monday, 2 June 2008 10:03:27 AM
| |
Peracles,
Thoughtful answers. If neither god nor plutonic forms exist or subsist [Batman subsists], without a reason, then that leaves us with universe(s). Why a reason? Is there a posit for the existence/subsistence of god or a posit for the existence/ subsistence of the Realm of Perfect Forms, noting the difference between actual existence as portrayed and subsistence as a notion like a character in a play like, Sydney Carton? In a sense the latter is a subsistence in literature. My posit, until proven otherwise is, 1. The universe exists, 2. There is a reason for Perfect Forms & Perfect Formalae to exist, or at least subsist in the Releam of Ideas, as a standard against which we can [merely] build approximatons, herein accepting Kuhn's obsercations of approximate agreement in science. 3. Religions are human inventions derived from neurological [Limbic System] and sociological needs, which could be in their sun-set. Politicians and the clergy have a stake in keeping the old traditions alive. 4. If god does exist, said entity has not manifested itself or its motives to us and, therefore is a tentative hypothesis void of our valid rationalisations. Scriptures don't count. The hypothesis is at best a weak conjecture. Cheers, O. Philo? Posted by Oliver, Monday, 2 June 2008 11:55:54 AM
| |
Nice wrap-up, Oliver.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 2 June 2008 9:38:31 PM
| |
Thanks Peracles,
I still need to read George's recommended paper. I do have access. On theist side of the discourse, I would have liked to have heard from Philo. But perhaps, h isn't following this one. Hope you played with the above link on-line, there is no need to down and risk your computer. I will wait a day or two for tail-end comment and close. Regards. O. Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 3 June 2008 12:40:33 AM
| |
Peracles and George,
Plato's of the Good is supposed to be an objective entity or principle which not only governs the universe but is creatively responsible for the existence of everything: 'you may say of the objects of knowledge that not only their being known comes from the good, but their existence and being also come from it, though the good is not itself being but transcends even being in dignity and power'. Plato compares the Form of the Good with the sun, which provides not only the light which enables us to see things but also the creative energy which brings plants and animals to life; similarly, objective value not only makes everything intelligible but also brings everything into existence; but it is itself 'on the far side of being'. This metaphysical theory is a real alternative to the doctrine that there is a personal creator, a divine mind or spirit. Its central idea, that objective value both explains things and creates them, has continued as a strand in philosophical and religious thinking, though often combined with or submerged within personal theism. But it deserves to be separated out and examined in its own right. [Leslie, Value and Existence ( Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1979] Herein, Plato offers a moral realm, to complement the physical universe. The Realm of Ideas contains the subsets of Perfect Forms [Plato] and Perfect Formulae [Oliver] and the Realm {derived from Lesley] . Our universe, as noted above, can be seen to exist. Its known form's and numbers in mere approximate agreement with the perfect counterpart. Leslie plays a similar card for morality. As civilized sentient beings we may never recognize perfect morality, yet we can work towards approximating the Realm of Perfect morality. Thus, if we can explain our unverse as a closed system with science and strive towards personal & civil moralities. What place hath God? With atheism tethered to metsphysics, we do have two complementary models, which are observable. With God, there is no superset, no model, no evidence, no approximation demostrating reasonable agreement [Kuhn] with anything. Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 4 June 2008 5:57:55 PM
| |
Here endth the thread? The findings might re-emerge as a new thread sometime.
George, if you are reading me, please note I will the Theology & Science article, mu uni has access. Shortly, my real studies will become more time consuming. Together with several others, I have enjoyed the exchange of ideas. Not gone for good. Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 5 June 2008 2:18:44 PM
|
[Hint: The above is a composition of Plato & Popper & of course Oliver :-). The answer may involve Newton, Curie & Schrodinger.]
Greetings all,
O.