|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Easy proof for Inteligent Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrQ Member (Idle past 5052 days) Posts: 116 Joined: |
As I have stated, you really do not know enough about this subject to continue in this vein - the above nonsense is clear evidence of this. Actually I now believe that you are a robot! So I agree with you completely!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: In other words you know the general definition of consistency, and you haven't even attempted to explain completeness as it refers to formal systems. These are standard technical terms, and if you don't understand them then it you won't understand what even Wikipedia is saying. (Which is ironic, when you consider it).
quote: Basically what you are telling me that you don't understand what you are talking about. Without axioms - which don't have proofs because if they did they wouldn't be axioms - you wouldn't even have a system worth speaking of. And if we took a system without axioms as a degenerate case it couldn't possibly be inconsistent, which shows that you don't understand the concept of consistency either.
quote: And what does it mean - to you - for the axioms to be consistent ? Is it enough that they do not directly contradict ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrQ Member (Idle past 5052 days) Posts: 116 Joined: |
You haven't even attempted to explain completeness as it refers to formal systems. These are standard technical terms, and if you don't understand them then it you won't understand what even Wikipedia is saying. (Which is ironic, when you consider it). Logical Completeness is the idea that you can prove everything within a mathematical system to be either true or false. For long time mathematicians believed that the only reason some of the problems in math are not resolved is that still they still don't know the way and they had hope some day they eventually will. Godel proved that this belief is false and there are some theories in math that can never be proven by mathematics itself to be false or to be true. This is the idea of incompleteness.
which don't have proofs because if they did they wouldn't be axioms - you wouldn't even have a system worth speaking of. And if we took a system without axioms as a degenerate case it couldn't possibly be inconsistent, which shows that you don't understand the concept of consistency either. You can have a set of axioms that are inherently contradicting but you don't notice their contradictions. So having just axioms doesn't resolve the issue but you have to have consistent axioms. Also, the number of axioms are important. Because you can start with a couple and then later on realize there are some other statements that can't be proven and should be assumed to be truth.
And what does it mean - to you - for the axioms to be consistent ? Is it enough that they do not directly contradict ? No Godel has solution for this. I guess it is called proof tree. As I said the contradictions might be hidden.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: At least you've learned something ! There are some complications but that's the simple version.
quote: So in fact when you talk about the axioms being consistent you mean the whole system being consistent. Good. We have made a little progress, at least.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrQ Member (Idle past 5052 days) Posts: 116 Joined: |
At least you've learned something ! There are some complications Well, I still don't understand why you rejected originally and accept now. The whole point I made was that there are sets of axioms which includes necessary truths as well that should be accepted as truth. These axioms are not from the system itself. So you were wrong to say they come from the system. As you said later they create the system. So what are the sources of them? subconscious mind? reality?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: If you understood you'd know that that wasn't true.
quote: They are only necessarily true within the system.
quote: I never said that, so you are wrong again.
quote: The axioms of a formal system are created by the conscious mind - specifically the mind of the human being who defines the system. That should be perfectly obvious to anyone who understands what a formal system is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrQ Member (Idle past 5052 days) Posts: 116 Joined: |
The axioms of a formal system are created by the conscious mind - specifically the mind of the human being who defines the system. That should be perfectly obvious to anyone who understands what a formal system is. Ok now we are progressing after three pages of side debates! So are you saying human mind creates these axioms and necessary truths? Also does it mean that when there is no system then there is no axiom or necessary truths?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Yes, you are beginning to understand but still making some silly mistakes. Formal systems are created by humans. The only necessary truths outside of formal systems are tautologous in at least some sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrQ Member (Idle past 5052 days) Posts: 116 Joined: |
The only necessary truths outside of formal systems are tautologous in at least some sense. As I said before they are not tautologies(in strict sense) as if they were there were no use of them. Why would a formal system needs repetitions? There is something inside these necessary truths that are needed. These are information that seems very obvious for us and thus you categorize them as repetitions. But in fact they are so fundamental and important that the system won't work without them. This is mind that processes these information so inherently this is the starting point for the formal system. Even a simple equation like a+b=b+a contains information. Now if you are saying mind creates them does it imply that they are hypothetical or does it mean that they have roots in reality?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Please pay attention to what I say. The sentence you quote explicitly says that it is NOT bout formal systems. The rest of your post is equally confused and wrong.
quote: I see that I am going to have to repeat myself. The definition of addition as commutative is created by the mind. It is intended to represent an aspect of reality. So the answer is both.(But the reality is NOT a necessary truth !)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrQ Member (Idle past 5052 days) Posts: 116 Joined: |
It is intended to represent an aspect of reality. So the answer is both. (But the reality is NOT a necessary truth !) OK lets call this reality roots of necessary truth as 'the root'. Now how do you think that this the root manifest itself? can be in the general relations between forces? Remember, we already agreed that necessary truth were there since beginning. So there was not that much of physical world created.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: OK, so you want to change the subject from necessary truths to the nature of our reality - or, in another word, physics. The root there would be the behaviours of physical objects as we observe them.
quote: We agree that necessary truths were TRUE in the beginning. We also agree that they would be true even if your external mind didn't exist, so no help for you there. But of course, you've changed the subject away from necessary truths, and we are talking not of the beginning but of a time where humans were making observations and using them to construct abstracted models of reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrQ Member (Idle past 5052 days) Posts: 116 Joined: |
We agree that necessary truths were TRUE in the beginning. We also agree that they would be true even if your external mind didn't exist, so no help for you there. But of course, you've changed the subject away from necessary truths, and we are talking not of the beginning but of a time where humans were making observations and using them to construct abstracted models of reality. It is not changing the subject. We wanted to see if traces of necessary truth are in physics as well. I mentioned that necessary truths are build in fabric of the universe. I am just showing which I claimed that. You already said that necessary truths have some roots in the reality in the form of relations between forces in physics. Here is what you said:
The root there would be the behaviours of physical objects as we observe them. So this relationship exists as following: physical objects or forces -> root of necessary truth ->our mind -> necessary truth presented in our language Do you accept this or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I am glad that you are finally getting around to answering my question, however I must point out that we have yet to see any support for your idea.
quote: Let us be clear, the "necessary truths" referred to are necessary within the models we construct to model physics, and they are necessary as a consequence of the definitions of the systems.
quote: Not exactly. better would be: observations of physical phenomena -> human minds -> construction of systems to enable modelling physical phenomena -> theorems of these systems. Remember the theorems are necessarily true only within the systems where they are theorems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Hi All Hi! I see you are presenting us with the Transcendental argument for the existence of a god. I think you have a lot of work to do to a) Prove godb) Prove it intelligently designed anything. In philosophy we have a concept which is called 'necessary truth'. 'Necessary truths' are true in all possible worlds in all times. One basic example is 1+1=2 or ~(~A)= A (two negatives will give you positive effect) And in philosophy there is much disagreement as to what would make something necessarily true.
Assumption is that physical world can't create the concept of 'necessary truth' but these are only abstract ideas that exists only in a conscious mind. I see no reason that we must make that assumption. What if necessary truths are only necessary because of the nature of the physical world?
Abstract concepts doesn't need physical reality to exist. Demonstrate that this is true and you will be close to proving the existence of god. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, abstract concepts require minds. Minds only seem to exist when there is a physical object creating one (ie., a brain). So you are going to have first prove the existence of non physically based minds, which has proven difficult.
If there is no mind, there is no calculation and no abstract concept. Just simple existence of two things. Agreed. Despite this hypothetical physical universe existing and having dimensions - given there are no minds in it there is no talking about what exists within it. Yet it still exists and despite the absence of minds a sphere cannot both exist and not exist. Doesn't that prove your argument to be flawed?
Law of physics are based on mathematics and mathematics is based on logic and 'necessary truths'. In other words, laws of physics can't exists unless 'logic' exist before it. You assume that logic and physics are entirely separate. Physics is just practical logic regarding specific things (if it is theoretical then it is basically just logic). If my observation is correctand if Hawking's equation is accurate then the prediction is y. If the logic behind the epistemology of science is soundand if the prediction y is observed in the physical world then it is likely that my observation is correct and Hawking's equation is accurate. Logic is just fundamental physics: stuff that we have observed or defined or logically deduced as being true. We observe that entities have the property 'existence' which has an exclusive binary condition (true or false). We observe that this is true in all observed cases and cannot define a hypothetical situation where it is false. So we generalise it and say that it is universally true: A = !A is false.
Laws of physics depend on mathematics which depends on logic which in turn depends on necessary truths and abstract concepts which depends on a conscious mind. Yes, the laws of physics are themselves a concept - so necessarily require an entity capable of conceieving ie., a mind. But the way the universe functions continues regardless of whether anyone knows how. At least, you have given no reason to think so. You have just equivocated around and tried to convince us that an abstract concept needs to be thought up in order for things to happen and therefore in order for anything to happen there needs to be a mind. But then we are just pushing the imaginary problem back since we now have to justify how a mind that exists in a reality with no logic can possibly do anything if the concept of doing things hasn't yet been conceived by the mind? What really happens is that we are born into a world in which stuff happens (such as our birth). We observe stuff happening. We come to realize that objects have permanency (we stop being surprised by peek-a-boo type games). We come to realize that somethings we think of don't exist in the observed world (fantasy vs real). And then we either self discover, or have pointed out to us, other properties of entities both real and imagined. And a system of rules by which those entities seem to follow. So we start applying these general observed principles to more observations. Which leads to science. And therefore to physics. Logic is a way of thinking that is consistent with the way the world seems to function when examined closely given a brain that takes often times erroneous shortcuts in its thinking by default. There is no evidence of logic or any reasoning at all existing before life did. Things did things in a certain way, and some of those things resulted in life, which created simple rules to understand the world, and finally started formulating a more formal system of understanding how things work. It is not a coincidence that things seem to working in a logical fashion around here. What we call a logic is just the way we think things seem to working around here. The universe does not require logic to do its thing. The universe goes on and we try to understand those goings on using logic and observation.
Mind should be simple so it can exist before anything else But be able to function without logic well enough to conceive of logic without any points of external reference. This is a logicless mind that exists (and yet manages to not not exist) with no time and no space made of no material that then has an idea which then allows for the universe to exist? Really? Like I say - there's a lot of philosophical work left to be done. And it's not an entirely new argument so I'm not expecting it to be completed any time soon.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024