Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[evol-psych] Re: Quiz: Are you smarter than an atheist? A religious quiz

Expand Messages
  • Nils K.
    Dear Stan, dear All! Stan: As usual, I agree with almost everything you say, especially about apparent contradictions often both containing some truth. I
    Message 1 of 46 , Jan 19, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Stan, dear All!


      Stan:
      As usual, I agree with almost everything you say, especially about apparent contradictions often both containing some truth. I must, however, take issue with your attribution to Russell: "Russell's
      word that we do not understand a shit regarding maths," I presume this
      assertion was provoked by Russell's saying that "Mathematics may be defined as the subject where we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true." We don't know what we're talking about, because mathematics is not about the real world. We're not talking about anything real. We don't know what we are saying is true because theorems are if-then statements, if some assumptions, then something is true. But the theorem say nothing about the assumption being true. Hope this helps.

      NKO:
      Thanks a lot, Stan.
      I must go back to Bohr's complementarity principle about opposite
      truths. This principle is NOT about contradictions, but about
      opposites. It's about removing contradictions TOTALLY.
      Bohr had many striking examples from physics and philosophy.
      Here I will add my own "new" examples. World's greatest inventor
      T. A. Edison was obviously an INVENTOR who invented his inventions.
      But we can equally well say that he was a DISCOVERER and that he
      discovered his discoveries. His equipments were nothing new to the
      Universe. Inventors are both inventors and discoverers. Geologists
      have found in Africa a couple of examples of natural atomic
      explosions, big explosions. Humans did later discover AND invent
      the atomic bomb, in that order, so to speak. The H-bomb mimicked what
      is happening inside the Sun. "There is nothing new under the Sun."
      Axioms is preventing infinite regress, which is the death of science.
      When R. Dawkins, say, says that a creator MUST have a creator, he is
      asking for the death of science. I count mathematics as a part of
      reality, even if it does not "consist" of space, time, matter,
      energy, etc. Maths is "spiritual" that is it's non-physical. Human
      brains are physical according to mainstream science.
      So I cannot see that maths is marks and traces in human brains, only.
      I (and some maticians) claim that maths is independent of the
      human brains, but nevertheless I'm claiming that maths is invented.
      But equally true: Maths is discovered. I'm taking Bohr's
      complementarity principle totally serious. ------ "But the theorem[s]
      say nothing about the assumption [axioms] being true." Yes, formally,
      pure mathematically. However, the fact that all the relatively few
      axioms of maths work perfectly well is a kind of proof that they are
      true. (I know that "new" axioms can produce "new" maths ...) All
      science (including maths) is IF-THEN science. We humans cannot see
      into Das Ding An Sich. We can only invent or discover mathematical
      relations between events. We do not really Understand anything.

      Gamow: We do not know why the elementary particles have the masses
      they do; we do not know why they transform into another the way they
      do; we do not know anything. Hawking: What is it that breathes fire
      into the equations and makes a Universe for them to describe.

      Cetainly, we are uncertain.

      Best,
      NKO
    • Nils K.
      Dear All! ... At it s fundamental level the universe is a purely computational information structure analogous to software. That is how both the data
      Message 46 of 46 , Feb 10, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear All!

        --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen wrote:

        At it's fundamental level the universe is a purely computational information structure analogous to software. That is how both the data information and the code information can be part of the same actual structure of the universe. The appearance of physicality is the interpretation of this computational structure by the minds of observers in their simulations of reality.

        NKO:
        "At it's fundamental level the universe is ..".

        No, Edgar. "The fundamental level" must be Das Ding An Sich.
        We cannot know anything about Das Ding An Sich. See Kant, GRT, and QM.

        "The appearance of physicality" What is that?
        " ... interpretation of this computational structure ..." What is that?
        "... simulations of reality ..." What is that?

        And what is reality?

        Hello Edgar, the following rhetorical product is far too foggy:

        "That is how both the data information and the code information can be part of the same actual structure of the universe. The appearance of physicality is the interpretation of this computational structure by the minds of observers in their simulations of reality."

        Best,
        NKO
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.