Endercreeper01

Senior Members
  • Content count

    573
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Neutral

About Endercreeper01

  • Rank
    Molecule

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics

Recent Profile Visitors

7852 profile views
  1. Can Science be my religion?

    Science becomes a religion when absolute faith is put into scientific thinking, to the point that other ways of thinking, when they lead to reasoning not complying with the standard scientific paradigim, are simply dismissed because of a reluctance and unwillingness to accept any other ways of thinking, out of a faith in science only.
  2. God and science

    It's not about god being something which exists, it's about god being something which affects change in the universe. It doesn't explain the nature of god, but it can explain that there is a reason why humans exist, as in the sense of "purpose" and "meaning". God doesn't have to be anything more than something which is necessary to exist in order to lead to consciousness arising. Although god's physical, mechanical nature is still unknown (just as the mechanisms behind the universe itself), it would explain what god "is". No, mathematics is describing algorithms which dictate the operation of the universe. If the universe functions in a logical, consistent manner, it is reasonable to state that algorithms are a part of the operation of the universe. What we would describe as algorithms are rules which describe how what we would describe as quantities relate to one another. These rules are what are fundamental to the universe.
  3. God and science

    I am aware of those hypotheses. However, those are not the hypotheses I am talking about. None of those hypotheses explain how consciousness arises in the same way that Newton's theory does not describe how gravity arises. My reasoning for accepting other humans as conscious is because I am a human, and I am also conscious, so I have reason to assume that other humans should be conscious as well. Artificial intelligence, however, I would not assume to be conscious without good reason to.
  4. God and science

    Mathematics is describing algorithms. My argument is not that mathematics is an intrinsic part of the universe, but that the universe functions based on algorithms. If we are not to make assumptions about the nature of god and be rational about the concept, "god" can be considered an agent of change in the universe, the nature of which is not fully understood. In this way, we are not confusing "god" with the symbolism that is used to describe god. If "god did it" then what that explains is there is a reason why humans are supposed to exist in the universe.
  5. God and science

    What is mathematics describing? It is describing how the universe operates. It doesn't have to be a perfect description to be an accurate one. If the universe operates a certain way that can be described by mathematics, then what the mathematics is really describing is algorithms which dictate how the universe functions. My argument is that the universe functions on algorithms, while mathematics describes those algorithms. It's not math that "is" part of the universe, but algorithms which are a part of the universe's functioning. That is why mathematics can make predictions, because it is describing algorithms. Words do not describe algorithms, they describe things and their relation to one another. How can something be proven to be conscious? Consciousness is not just about a machine such as the brain being able to process information in a way that it appears to have it's own subjective experience, but actually having such subjective experience. This would mean that the consciousness would be the thing that is experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and subjective experience and sentience that the brain, as a machine, appears to have. as a result of it's functioning. If something cannot be proven to be conscious, then the scientific hypothesis for how consciousness arises would not be able to be tested. I am not aware of any scientific hypotheses describing how the brain (which can be described as a machine), can produce consciousness, as in sentience and subjective experience (qualia). I do not suppose computers would be conscious as a result of being sufficiently complex and/or convincing enough. The only way I would accept a computer to be truly conscious is when a workable mechanism for human consciousness is worked out, and not just being a matter of complexity and appearance, and for a computer to adhere to those mechanism which produce consciousness.
  6. God and science

    Does god have to be a deity? May I add that god need not be strictly a deity as some may imagine god to be. Explain to me how Godel's theorems would go against anything that I say. Seriously? Comparing words and mathematics does not make any sense whatsoever. So are you saying that the universe does not operate according to mathematics? When did I say that the universe "is" geometry? It's not about what the universe fundamentally "is" but how it operates. I have stated this numerous times in my previous posts. You don't seem to understand that there is a difference between something "being" what the universe fundamentally "is" versus being an integral aspect of the universe's function. It's not that the universe "is" geometry, but that it operates BY geometry and mathematical algorithms which dictate it's operation. There are algorithms which dictate the function and operation of the universe, to say that such algorithms are not a part of the universe would be saying that the universe does not have any rules by which it functions by. If the universe operates according to certain rules and principles, it must be operating according to certain rules and algorithms. There is no other way that the universe could operate and still follow certain rules and principles if the universe was not like this. It is clear that the universe is based in 4-dimensional space-time. Are you seriously not aware that Euclidean and pseudo-Riemann models of manifolds are not mutually exclusive of each other? A Euclidean manifold can still be a pseudo-Riemann manifold. The fact that the universe is not Euclidean means that space-time is something "real" in and of itself which can be curved, which makes the "realness" of space-time an integral aspect of the operation of the universe. The only difference in the models you stated is in how the way that the geometry of space-time behaves, but they don't dispute whether the universe is based in 4 dimensional space-time. The universe functions in accordance with the laws of physics. Certain quantities, such as force and energy, are related to other quantities such as mass and acceleration in accordance with algorithms which relate such quantities and can be described in an equation. The universe clearly operates in a certain manner that can be distinguished from other possibilities in which the universe could operate by. For example, the gravitational constant could be imagined to be a different value, and that would make the universe operate in a different way by altering the strength of the gravitational force, which is something which can be measured. The universe's mechanical and physical operation are not random, there are rules which describe how certain measurable quantities (such as the force of gravity) relate to other measurable quantities (such as the distance between two masses). These relations are dictated by rules which relate the quantities to one another, these rules are called algorithms. The universe's operation is in accordance with these specific algorithms which can only be part of the universe itself. Are you arguing that the universe does not base the rules by which it functions on mathematical algorithms and the geometrical structure of four dimensional space-time? It's clear that the universe must operate according to certain rules and principles that dictate the way that the universe mechanically and physically operates. The universe's function is dictated by something, and that something is based on it's structure in space-time and specific algorithms. There is no way that the universe can't be based in algorithms if it is clear that the universe has rules that it operates by, which are necessary for the universe to work a certain way and not a different way. It's simple: The universe operates in a certain way, in accordance with the laws of physics. The algorithms by which the universe functions, in order for quantities such as force and energy to be related to other quantities such as mass and acceleration, and in order for space time to be something which can be "curved", must base it's functioning in four dimensional space-time to function in such a manner. As for sacred geometry, it is basically the idea of certain geometrical concepts being associated with a spiritual significance. If you are talking about this idea in a strictly scientific sense, then you can't necessarily prove that something has spiritual significance, but that doesn't mean that the idea of sacred geometry can't be supported by observation. For example, the golden ration and Fibonacci spirals are observed in nature. One could relate this to their own previous ideas about spiritual significance to reason that the golden ration and Fibonacci spirals have some sort of significance. It would only make sense in the context of previous ideas about spirituality that such a feature would have spiritual significance. While not exactly scientific, that doesn't make it wrong. It can still be correct without being scientific. It could be related to the idea of god in that sacred geometry would be "divine" in a sense. The question is not just "why is the universe so complex" but "why does the universe exist at all" and "why does consciousness exist in the first place". There is no scientific mechanism which can explain the emergence of consciousness. The concept of god arises as something which would have led to the processes that created the complexity in the first place, and also being something which leads to the emergence of consciousness. While not a scientific concept, that doesn't make it wrong. Science doesn't have to be the only way of obtaining knowledge. Just because something is not provable or disprovable by the scientific method does not mean it is wrong.
  7. God and science

    Equations can make predictions that can be measured and quantified. They don't have to be complete or exact for the universe to operate based on them (although modern physics is very accurate). How could the universe be described by mathematics if mathematics had nothing to do with the universe? The universe is geometrical, and mathematics is used to describe geometry. That alone shows that mathematics is a part of the operation of the universe, because it has quantities which can be measured and so mathematical models can be proven with those measurements. This would not only prove the mathematical model true, but it proves that the universe functions according to that mathematical principle. If the universe was not operating mathematically, it could not form an output which can be measured (such as gravitational force) which depends, in a mathematical way, on other quantities which can be measured (such as distance). Says the guy that doesn't understand how geometry is a part of the universe.
  8. God and science

    It doesn't have to "be" the universe itself to be a fundamental aspect of it's operation. You can't refute that the universe obeys the laws of physics and the equations that physics uses to make predictions about the universe. It is reasonable to conclude that mathematics is part of the operation of the universe when it is not only geometrical, but obeys certain equations. That could only mean that the universe is mathematical if it obeys equations, because if it didn't function mathematically, it could not obey equations. You haven't demonstrated that you are able to reason about my points.
  9. God and science

    You don;t understand the argument I am making. My statement is not "the universe is fundamentally mathematical" but "mathematics is fundamental to the operation of the universe". I never said that the universe is only mathematical. It's not personal belief to state that mathematics is fundamental to the operation of the universe when all of physics is based on mathematics. You are I know what equations are.
  10. God and science

    Algorithms are rules which describe how to get an output form an input. In the case of the identity a=b, the rule is that you don't do anything to the input. That means the algorithm is doing nothing to a. My assertions are reasonable. It is reasonable to state that an equation is an algorithm which takes an input and produces an output. There is nothing wrong with that statement. An identity is an equation where no operations are performed. That is, a=b is an identity because it is an equation where two quantities are equal without any operations being performed on either.
  11. God and science

    It doesn't matter what you define as the input. There is nothing preventing a from being both the input and the output. Physics is a fundamental aspect to how the universe operates, and mathematics is fundamental to physics, so mathematics is clearly a fundamental aspect of the universe. I don't see what your point is. Are you refuting that mathematics is fundamental to the universe?
  12. God and science

    Because it depends on what you consider to be "wet and windy". If mathematical measurements and quantities are interperted as "wet and windy" then wet and windy can be measured. I understand what equations are and how they are used. Physics is based on equations and functions, to say otherwise is clearly wrong. There is no other system which can be applied to physics to make predictions other than math. It's not mathematically wrong to say that the output is b if a=b and a is the input.
  13. God and science

    The input is a, the output is b. The algorithm is the equation which describes how to get b from a.
  14. God and science

    Weather reports explain what scientists predict. These predictions are based on mathematical models. Those are mathematical quantities. If you considered that "wet and windy" then it could be something that you can measure, but "wet and windy" is a concept. How does this statement relate to my statement that "mathematics uses math to make predictions"? Weather reports are based on mathematical models, so I don't know what your point is.
  15. God and science

    Are you really saying that equations don't take in an input and produce an output?