Ty
Moderator
Numbers are a concept easily demonstrated using physical objects.
Also, number theory makes useful predictions.
Comparing nebulous god concepts to numbers isn't really working. Unless you were making the point that concepts without physical mass can be said to exist? Because if that's all, I will readily agree that the concept of god exists. So does the concept of my giant chocolate panda.
Elemenope
Moderator
Meh. I tend to think one of two things are possibly true: Number Theory describes observable reality because reality is a mathematical construct (via Max Tegmark), or that Number Theory describes observable reality because Number Theory was constructed by beings in physical reality, and as such is merely a reflection of their inescapable prejudices of being such beings, and thus number theory really only describes itself.
Elemenope
Moderator
My reply is, "Math, it works, Bitchz!"
LOL. Funny you should say, because there is a long running argument on that issue in the PoM:It either works, bitchz...or it doesn't.
Elemenope
Moderator
we don't necessarily know numbers, numbers were not just hanging around waiting to be found we created numbers as a tool for calculation and communication
That's far from a settled issue, either.
Elemenope
Moderator
I hear that Catholic dogma is a good thing to consult when thinking about making communion wafers.
The point is not that math is useless; the point is that math is a narrowly constructed tool with narrow purposes that have haphazard application outside those contexts, suggesting that perhaps the truths it generates are true only in those contexts and those contexts that are accidentally analogous.
Ty
Moderator
"I hear that Catholic dogma is a good thing to consult when thinking about making communion wafers"
Oh come on. Find me a communion wafer that is different in any chemical way from a cracker, and we'll talk. You're better off checking a cookbook. Exact same results, less mumbo jumbo.
"the point is that math is a narrowly constructed tool with narrow purposes that have haphazard application outside those contexts"
So math is not good at describing what an orange tastes like?
"suggesting that perhaps the truths it generates are true only in those contexts and those contexts that are accidentally analogous"
This conclusion seems ludicrous to me.
cynic
Member
Elemenope, the existence or non existence of numbers doesn't really subtract from my point about nature being all we know and all that there is .
were you being facetious when you wrote
"Numbers don't exist.
We know numbers."
cos i don't think you have any valid beef with my point
Elemenope
Moderator
I wasn't being facetious, though I suppose on the net I come off as a jerk sometimes. :) No, I disagree with the assumption that everything that is, is natural, in the sense that it must be derived by experience with the physical universe. And, in point of fact, if the mathematical Platonists are correct, then it does undercut your point rather fiercely.
Elemenope
Moderator
Oh come on. Find me a communion wafer that is different in any chemical way from a cracker, and we'll talk. You're better off checking a cookbook. Exact same results, less mumbo jumbo.
Well, no, actually, simply making a cracker would not serve to make a communion wafer. And this is the crux of my point; there are crackers and then there are communion wafers, and despite there being no physical difference between them, there is an objective difference between them. Namely, one has been blessed and is thus deemed suitable to be used in a particular ceremony, and one is not. It *does not matter* that we both believe that ceremony and the blessing itself to be mumbo-jumbo.
This conclusion seems ludicrous to me.
Read some Morris Kline or Hartry Field. I agree that it sounds intuitively ludicrous (but then again, most of what we accept as true is, if you think about it for very long), but it is not an opinion on the edge of whackaloon-land, by any means. It is not, however, an opinion I share. I was just being a pain in the ass. My personal opinion is closer to Tegmark's the-universe-is-a-mathematical-construct hypothesis.
Ty
Moderator
"Well, no, actually, simply making a cracker would not serve to make a communion wafer."
Unless there is a test that can show a communion wafer eater whether his current cracker is a valid communion wafer or not, I say there is no difference. When a person is kneeling in front of the priest eating the cracker, there is no way for them to know if it just came out of a Nabisco box, or if it was made by a cadre of benedictine monks who prayed over every step of the process.
"Read some Morris Kline or Hartry Field."
Philosophy is a discipline where one can make a name for themselves arguing in favor of ridiculous positions. While I recognize the overall value in having a few smart people doing exactly this, I also find much of it hard to take seriously.
I also doubt any rocket scientists are going, "Oh noez! Our orbital mechanics calculations only work by accident! A philosopher said so!" :)
Elemenope
Moderator
Unless there is a test that can show a communion wafer eater whether his current cracker is a valid communion wafer or not, I say there is no difference. When a person is kneeling in front of the priest eating the cracker, there is no way for them to know if it just came out of a Nabisco box, or if it was made by a cadre of benedictine monks who prayed over every step of the process.
I tend to believe in a notion of truth that relies on the elimination of counterfactuals in its historical trajectory, rather than on the objective present. That is because each object has a history, and what it is (in many senses) includes what it was, what has happened to it, etc.. As Whitehead pointed out, there are several possible antecedents for any given present given any number of phenomenal facts, but only one of them is *actually true*. There is an objectively true statement that can be made about the history of every cracker; some crackers' history will include having participated in a catholic blessing ceremony, and some will have not.
This is a real difference; i.e. you can make a non-trivial statement about each cracker's past that is true about one and false about the other.
cynic
Member
"No, I disagree with the assumption that everything that is, is natural, in the sense that it must be derived by experience with the physical universe"
interesting. i would like you to give me some examples of things that are not natural or that are not derived by experiences with the natural world.
in other words i would like you to give me an example of something that is outside our natural world
rodneyAnonymous
Member
This is a real difference; i.e. you can make a non-trivial statement about each cracker's past that is true about one and false about the other.
I guess I'm more functional. If I can't determine which is which no matter what test I apply, then there is no difference.
I'd say not that there is no difference at all, but there is no important difference, virtually no difference. They are both non-magic crackers. It is too fine a distinction, and not useful, to wax sophistic about their history, and someone's belief that one or both crackers are magic does not have an effect on the crackers.
It may (arguably) be useful for the individual who thinks they're magic, but many irrational beliefs might arguably be useful, and that doesn't affect whether or not the belief is irrational, let alone true.
Reason is awesome. It is the best way to think about things.
hatch22
Member
Hi everybody. Sorry I've taken so long to get back to you. Unfortunately, between work obligations and dissertation-related deadlines, I'm still too busy to address the posts made about my last post with the rigor they deserve. Tuesday is probably the earliest I'll be able to respond, so bear with me.
@George, sorry for not being able to get back with you as soon as I'd anticipated. Life doesn't like to follow my plans.
@Everybody. The communication wafer and numerology posts were very interesting. For the record, not being Catholic, I don't believe in transubstantiation, so for me a communion wafer is just a cracker that also happens to be a symbol, much the same as a flag is just a piece of cloth that also happens to be a symbol.
Be sure to chase off any angry fundies that show up :-). I'd like to keep this thread cordial.
-hatch22
Simple answer, no. But where's the fun in that?
Science is continuity-based. We recognize this in the continuity of cause and effect, in the smoothness of space and time, and in things like inertia and energy states.
Creation and spirit are discontinuity-based. Spirit is not a cog in physical reality, but is invulnerable to it and separate from it. Creation is discontinuous by its very definition. One moment something doesn't exist, and the next moment it does.
Things like forgiveness are also discontinuous in nature. Resentment is the continuity of feeling based on a perceived hurt. It has a certain inertia to it. Blood feuds are built on that juggernaut inertia. Forgiveness, on the other hand, is a complete break with the continuity of resentment.
The idea that it is more blessed to give than receive is also discontinuous in nature. Physical survival demands taking. Giving sometimes requires a "leap of faith" so to speak that you will survive despite giving up your hard-earned cash (shirt, car, boat, house, etc). My wife is teaching me this kind of generosity, but it's a hard lesson to learn.
Religion is the reality-based activity which studies the discontinuous. Therein lies the source of many confusions. Too many of the religious attempt to impose their understanding of the continuity-based (physical) realm onto the discontinuity-based realm of creation and spirit.
Science and religion are, in this respect, less compatible than are oil and water. At least oil and water are both liquid.
Yet, science and religion can help each other. They could be compatible in this respect.
Where there appear to be disagreements between science and religion, there may be opportunities for new discoveries.
Okay, let's start with the simple side of this equation: science helping religion. More specifically, we're talking science and the Judeo-Christian Bible and the Young Earth Creationist take on things.
Science has shown in multiple disciplines that humans and the cosmos are far older than 6,000 years. Humanity is at least 200,000 years old and the universe is 13.7 billion. To ignore reality is to court delusion — by simple definition!
Say the Bible is sacred and true. Okay, but that doesn't mean one interpretation is true, and there are so many conflicting interpretations.
In 1650 AD, Archbishop Ussher of Ireland published his timeline for everything. His excellent scholarship is still valid today for many of the dates he determined. For the early patriarchal period, his timeline sucks. He took Genesis too literally. If he had known the science of today, he might have agreed.
If Genesis is true, then we need to greatly lengthen the already outrageous ages of the early patriarchs. There is precedent for this in the Bible. This is part of a code. And the result of that code is a timeline compatible with those found in science. Is this the right timeline? I don't know, but it seems pretty cool.
Take Ussher's date for the Flood, for instance. He says Noah's Flood occurred 2348 BC. Not good for the biblical literalists. Three years after this date, Egypt's sixth dynasty was founded. If Noah and his family were the only ones on planet Earth after the Flood, then from whence did all those citizens of Egypt come? Thirteen years after this date, Sargon the Great conquered Sumer. I venture to guess that Sargon was more than thirteen years old.
The new Genesis timeline (detailed in my upcoming book, "The Noah Mystery, God's Reason for the Flood") pegs the Flood at 27,970 BC, and Adam's birth at 10,454,130 BC. I bet some anthropologists are going to have a laughing fit on that one. But hey, in the search for truth, what's a little heckling amongst friends.
Personally, I think scientists who heckle or ridicule should be barred from the hallowed halls of science until they learn a little humility. Be tough, yes, but not pig headed and arrogant. Arrogant scientists missed out on Troy, leaving that to an amateur. Arrogant scientists missed out for over a century after Troy the burial kurgans of Southern Russia where proof of Amazon warriors was found. Arrogant scientists put a choke hold on North American anthropology for years with their "Clovis first" dogma.
Arrogant biblical literalists have held onto the deluded idea of a young Earth, concocting their own very silly version of science.
There are many answers derived from the code discovered in Genesis. The answers may not track with other people's interpretations of science or the Bible, but they possess an internal consistency that reads like a good novel, or a good thesis. And there remain many millions of square miles of land yet to be unearthed by anthropologists. There are many more bones yet to be discovered.
The new date for the Flood coincides with another event found in science. This reveals the likely target of the Flood — the real "daughters of man," and the real meaning of the "corruption of flesh" that threatened humanity and the future of civilization.
Science and religion working together can be a beautiful thing, if done right. It doesn't have to be an adversarial relationship.
elizabethdamaro
Member
I think the question stems from a false dilemma in reasoning. Pitting science and religion against each other, or wondering if they should be. Religions utilize science, they always have. Considering that science stems from philosophy, and so do belief systems.
The problem is that those who engage in the institution of religion often times ignore the further process of discovery. Religion has become for them, the way to practice the theories they have accepted, without further examination.
One might argue that the devout religious opt to ignore advances in science. This doesn't necessary mean that they are opposed to each other, only that those indoctrinated into the institutionalized belief of supernatural, will not be able to get objective. Whereas, those who aren't religious are less subjective.
Science is a method. Religion is an institution. I think the question needs to be framed in a way that doesn't ignore that.
Elemenope
Moderator
I would say that religions are also a set of methods, but unlike science they are not intended to be empirically driven or really even aletheic in the classical sense. Because they generally fail to accommodate uncomfortable empirical findings, they tend to ossify into institutions unresponsive to the state or present understanding of the world, but at root are still just methods employed by human beings to some end.
Elemenope
Moderator
Well, no. Institutions are an instance of a method that (through its structure and power) attempts to exert normative control over other instantiations of the method.
EDIT: To clarify, methods are inchoate. They can be referenced when they become instantiated in something (a person, object, or institution) that executes the instructions of which the method is composed. Institutions are a special instance of a method because an institution seeks to codify and control correct subsidiary methods (epistemological standards, interpretive rules, behavioral rules) for pursuing the method for which it stands.
You must log in to post.
