Jump to content
DaniWhite

God and science

Recommended Posts

On 14/11/2017 at 11:49 PM, Endercreeper01 said:

You missed my point. If you look through the lens of science, the universe cannot be described as anything more than a mathematical system.

It seems it's you that missed the point, Maths is a language and so no more profound or fallacious than English; its use is the key factor.

Edited by dimreepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2017 at 9:46 AM, dimreepr said:

It seems it's you that missed the point, Maths is a language and so no more profound or fallacious than English; its use is the key factor.

Mathematics is more than just a way to describe the universe because it can be used to make predictions.

On 11/15/2017 at 10:46 AM, Strange said:

Although science tries to quantify things not everything can be described mathematically. 

And, of course, the fact that our brains are able to describe the world using mathematics doesn’t mean that the world is inherently mathematical. We can also describe the universe using poetry. It doesn’t mean it is a poem. 

(Map vs territory, etc. )

Mathematics is a fundamental aspect of the universe because it can make predictions about the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Mathematics is more than just a way to describe the universe because it can be used to make predictions.

That is because they are accurate descriptions and the universe is (luckily) consistent and predictable.

16 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Mathematics is a fundamental aspect of the universe because it can make predictions about the universe.

Huh? That is the most bizarrely illogical statement I have heard for a long time. It is close to "affirming the consequent" but less rational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Strange said:

That is because they are accurate descriptions and the universe is (luckily) consistent and predictable.

Huh? That is the most bizarrely illogical statement I have heard for a long time. It is close to "affirming the consequent" but less rational.

Mathematics is clearly fundamental to how the universe operates, which is why it is a fundamental aspect to the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Mathematics is clearly fundamental to how the universe operates, which is why it is a fundamental aspect to the universe.

So you keep saying. It is getting boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Mathematics is more than just a way to describe the universe because it can be used to make predictions.

 

Ever heard of a weather report? It uses language to gain and explain predictions.

19 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Mathematics is a fundamental aspect of the universe because it can make predictions about the universe.

That's like saying a storm is a fundamental aspect of English because it predicts it'll be wet and windy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Ever heard of a weather report? It uses language to gain and explain predictions.

No, a weather report does not make predictions, it just explains them.

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's like saying a storm is a fundamental aspect of English because it predicts it'll be wet and windy.

Equations are algorithms which take an input and produce an output. Mathematics makes predictions that we can measure and that are consistent. We can measure numbers but we can't measure "wet and windy" unless we have an idea of what "wet and windy" is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

No, a weather report does not make predictions, it just explains them.

So you don't have a service that tells you what the weather will be tomorrow on your planet? How interesting.

17 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

but we can't measure "wet and windy"

Relative humidity. Precipitation. Wind speed. 

I guess this ignorance explains why your assertions are completely baseless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Equations are algorithms which take an input and produce an output.

That assertion would earn you a fail in (serious) Mathematics.

 

Have you heard of equivalence classes?

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=e4QUWuq4C8ScgAaG8q7YBg&q=equivalence+classes&oq=equivalence+classes&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0l10.1337.5286.0.8989.19.13.0.6.6.0.190.1402.6j7.13.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.19.1553...0i131k1.0.JsrJqbw1DHk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, studiot said:

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

Edited by Endercreeper01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

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

Not always, no.

 

How about the equation a=b ?

Where is the input, the algorithm and the output?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Strange said:

So you don't have a service that tells you what the weather will be tomorrow on your planet? How interesting.=

Weather reports explain what scientists predict. These predictions are based on mathematical models.

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Relative humidity. Precipitation. Wind speed. 

I guess this ignorance explains why your assertions are completely baseless.

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.

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Ever heard of a weather report? It uses language to gain and explain predictions.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

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

So maybe it is time for you to stop pontificating about things you don't understand.

1 minute ago, Endercreeper01 said:

If you considered that "wet and windy" then it could be something that you can measure,

So why did you say it couldn't be measured? You are not making very much sense here. I can't take anything you say seriously. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, studiot said:

Not always, no.

 

How about the equation a=b ?

Where is the input, the algorithm and the output?

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

Edited by Endercreeper01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Endercreeper01 said:

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

*facepalm*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So If I said what happens if I write the equation the other way round?

You have just defined a as the input, so how can it also be the output or is that a different equation?

BTW are twelve pence equivalent to one shilling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Strange said:

So why did you say it couldn't be measured? You are not making very much sense here. I can't take anything you say seriously. 

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.

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

So maybe it is time for you to stop pontificating about things you don't understand.

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.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

*facepalm*

It's not mathematically wrong to say that the output is b if a=b and a is the input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I understand what equations are and how they are used.

You have demonstrated quite convincingly that you don't have a single clue. Not one. Quit kidding yourself. #dunningkruger

Quote

Physics is based on equations and functions, to say otherwise is clearly wrong.

No one has said otherwise.So that's OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, studiot said:

So If I said what happens if I write the equation the other way round?

You have just defined a as the input, so how can it also be the output or is that a different equation?

BTW are twelve pence equivalent to one shilling?

It doesn't matter what you define as the input. There is nothing preventing a from being both the input and the output.

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

You have demonstrated quite convincingly that you don't have a single clue. Not one. Quit kidding yourself. #dunningkruger

No one has said otherwise.So that's OK.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

It doesn't matter what you define as the input. There is nothing preventing a from being both the input and the output.

Which just proves what I said

If the output = the input I have an equation, but no algorithm has taken place.

 

By the way why have you not answered my earlier question about Godel's theorems

The problem is that you are to all embracing with your assertions to the exclusion of other equally valid possibilities.

If you had said one type or use of an equation is "whatever you said" that would be OK.

BTW2

Do you know the difference between an equation and an identity in mathematics?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Physics is a fundamental aspect to how the universe operates

It is our attempt to describe how the universe works. 

Quote

Are you refuting that mathematics is fundamental to the universe?

I am saying it is not obvious. Having read some arguments on both sides, I am not convinced that the universe is fundamentally mathematical.

If you had some argument beyond your personal belief, there could have been a useful discussion but "the universe is mathematical because it is mathematical" is not very compelling. Neither is "the universe is mathematical because I say so". I am not really interested in your personal beliefs, however strongly you hold them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, studiot said:

Which just proves what I said

If the output = the input I have an equation, but no algorithm has taken place.

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.

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

By the way why have you not answered my earlier question about Godel's theorems

The problem is that you are to all embracing with your assertions to the exclusion of other equally valid possibilities.

If you had said one type or use of an equation is "whatever you said" that would be OK

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.

13 minutes ago, studiot said:

BTW2

Do you know the difference between an equation and an identity in mathematics?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Endercreeper01 said:

There is nothing wrong with that statement.

If you don't know what you are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is our attempt to describe how the universe works. 

I am saying it is not obvious. Having read some arguments on both sides, I am not convinced that the universe is fundamentally mathematical.

If you had some argument beyond your personal belief, there could have been a useful discussion but "the universe is mathematical because it is mathematical" is not very compelling. Neither is "the universe is mathematical because I say so". I am not really interested in your personal beliefs, however strongly you hold them.

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

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

If you don't know what you are talking about.

I know what equations are.

Edited by Endercreeper01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

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 don't believe it is. And you have not provided any convincing reason for me to change my mind.

12 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

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.

That is a non-sequitur.

Physics is a description of the universe. Therefore our description of the universe is based on mathematics. A description of the universe is not the universe itself.

"A map is not the territory."

Maybe you should do an introductory course in philosophy so you understand what logic is, how to avoid fallacies, and the difference between a signifier and the signified.

11 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I know what equations are.

You have already proved that you don't so there is no point repeating that. No one believes you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.