its amazing that you,security, manage to type as much nonsense in one sentence as you do in 3 paragraphs.
If the laws of mathematics are man made, how were they decided before man existed? Was the Earth not revolving around the Sun according to Newtonian gravity? Have you not heard of 1984? You are jumping between objective truths and dogma and applying no reason to discern the two, there's nothing else to say.
Before man there was no math. I'm willing to bet that in an advanced alien civilization there is a completely different way to calculate things than we have now.
i don't think your willingness to bet on things can be trusted when you think beliefs don't need to be defended.
I once heard a story of a city in Italy banning round goldfish bowls because it was cruel. When the goldfish looked out of the bowl, it would have a distorted view of reality. The goldfiish's picture of reality is different from ours, but is it less real? If the goldfish was somehow able to establish mathematics for it's own curved universe, it undoubtedly would be different from ours.
that's why i said symmetry dumbass. Math at a fundamental scale tells you a relationship. You can boil a theory or a principle down to the point where you have an indivisible symmetry in nature. That is universal. It doesn't matter what ****ing aliens you've spoken to, even if their understandings were so advanced they were opaque to us, there would still be a relationship. Never mind the fact that math and it's later developments physics and cosmology have provided us with endless factors and parameters that govern the universe. Regardless of what else exists within the universe, it has to abide by these rules. I don't know why you would even try and push me on a topic such as this.
Conversation kind of veered off topic but for this specific thing security is somewhat right, though it really depends on how you define "math". If you view math as a system of applied metrics using numbers then he is right. Our math is based off our own observations. Things make sense at a fundamental level to us because that is the perspective we are given, we cannot change our perspective, we can only theorize how different perspectives might arrive at the same or different conclusions from ours. Matty the fundamental language you are thinking of is more centered around Quantum mechanics (which does involve math but that is just how we describe our observations of quantum matter and reactions). An atom is an atom, an advanced life form might call it something else but there is no different perspective on the component parts life is made up. However, numbers are not a fundamental concept. We use them to describe complex and simple things and they mesh nicely with our perspective of how and why the Universe works but the same relationships would still be there without math if looked at from a pure numbers perspective. For instance, humans adhere to a decimal numbering system because we have ten fingers, it made it easy to count that way so that is the number system evolution dictated we take. All of history's math equations could have easily been done in base 2 (binary), base 3, base 4, base fifty-two, etc. The ability to count necessitated the need for math but our math did not exist prior to human existence. The same relationships existed as did the same perspective of describing them but then again, are we talking about math as a system of numbers or as a way to describe fundamental reactions with the fundamental forces that make up the universe.
i think you are judging this topic far too lightly. Math can describe extra dimensions, just as math describes doppler shift, and many things that are too much for our lowly mammalian origins. If it can describe something that not only have we not seen, but we cannot imagine, then surely math is not restricted to Earth? I don't know why you think of Math as the numbers of 1 to 10, they are more like the language math uses to explain nature. When i say math i am talking about the laws governing the atom, along with everything else. If the atom exists everywhere then the laws governing it do too? So math is universal. I've said from the beginning that it was about relationships/patterns/symmetries so don't blame this on a misunderstanding.
Math as we know it is a human construct. 2+2 will still =4, but that equation wouldn't look the same to us. If you went to a different civilization they might not have the same operations, the definitely wouldn't use arabic numerals, and like Pac said, they probably wouldn't count in base 10. Whether you misunderstood my point or not, I'm saying that reality can be perceived differently to everyone. Math is just an example. If I'm uber-religious then there is nothing you can do and there's nothing you should do, unless I use my religion to cause harm, emotional or physical. Let me live in the "delusion".
most people who try to support religion end up falling on relativism. It's nice that you think it's a good place to be, but more than a delusion, the idea that people should be lied to for consolation is bad for society, and that would be if preaching and conversion wasn't their primary agenda. No, they won't leave people alone. They don't leave people alone. How else do you think religion has survived? You're clearly not reading my comments thoroughly. In my first reply i illustrated the contrasts between religious dogma and scientific inquiry. That is why saying 2+2=5 makes you sound as maniacal and totalitarian as the Stalinist Russia that repeated those tones (5 year plan in 4 years?) that Orwell was alluding to in 1984. And what an advanced civilization use as 'numerals' isn't of importance. The laws of nature are described through math, as i've tried to iterate in the last 4 posts. If they are universal then regardless of what mathematical language you create, it must still be translatable, as their laws of nature must be the same as ours. Your relativism falls flat on it's face. Religion does not provide the basis for morality, nor does it provide a good set of rules to follow. Consolation for the unfortunate or destitute is not morally a good thing, because it does nothing to benefit the persons involved, and only works to continue their misery. Moreover religions try to answer questions that cannot be answered, and provide nothing for our important search for truth in the world. It positively inhibits our search by providing not just providing stupid answers, but telling us to stop asking questions, and trust in the dogma over our own natural scepticism. Finally, religious scripture is laced in agriculture primitiveness, and warrants untold destruction and misery. You can be a la carte and cherry pick the 'values' you find in these probably metaphorical and superstitious statements, but you will never quench the verses of their absolutism and totalitarianism, of which religion is saturated, and all you do is highlight the glaring defects in these supposed truths through the masses of text you have had to discard. The mere fact that religion is worthless without it's corresponding scripture proves that not only does religion provide nothing to the argument but that it is man-made. I wish you would read up on your side if your not going to bother reading up on mine. You might sound nice and pacifist in the centre but then what is the point of your argument? You merely save yourself from religion. This argument has been going on in literature all the way back to Socrates. My arguments aren't new at all, unlike yours.
I'm interested in what the reasoning is for this/what proof you have. Just curious Also, pls tone down the ****-ishness Matty (and others) (eg personal attacks/inflammatory remarks), it's deterring others from the discussion.
I won't change my tone in response to your ignorance. These questions have already been catered to previously in the topic. Repetition of questions that were touched on before, without even referencing the material provided is what's deterring others from the discussion. And also because the side you are trying to defend has a lot more to answer for than the side i am, mainly because such extraordinary claims are made. If you can't spend the time providing a proper response then please go somewhere else.
To be fair, there hasn't be a legitimate defensive response from any "christian" in this entire thread, besides "I have faith" and "That's just what I believe", which isn't really helpful. I have yet to see a logical, factual based argument for any religion in this thread. I'm going to go ahead and say one doesn't really exist, but I would love to see some of the members defending their "Faith" actually... you know..... defend their beliefs. And not argue about whether or not someone should have to defend their beliefs (Security -_-)
And that has been my fundamental issue with this thread, aside from the attitudes. One side is sharing their personal reasons for a given belief, while the other is claiming on a broader scale that they shouldn't have certain beliefs to begin with. Essentially, you are both expecting certain responses from this thread, but none of you are even on the same page in the first place.
I'm under the belief that "Christianity" can't be defended objectively because it requires faith, which is almost entirely subjective.Belief by virtue of the absurd. <-miracles n' stuff Linkzorz What would be a better medium then?