Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Easy proof for Inteligent Design
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 166 of 213 (556818)
04-21-2010 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by cavediver
04-21-2010 7:23 AM


Re: Necessary Truths
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by cavediver, posted 04-21-2010 7:23 AM cavediver has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 167 of 213 (556821)
04-21-2010 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by MrQ
04-21-2010 8:31 AM


Re: Necessary Truths
quote:
Consistency means there is no contradiction between them. Now what?
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 this theory is saying is that if you don't want to be inconsistent then you should have set of axioms that don't have any proofs
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:
This is of course natural because everything is build up based on axioms based on logic and axioms themselves therefore if original axioms are consistent then the rest should be consistent as well.
And what does it mean - to you - for the axioms to be consistent ? Is it enough that they do not directly contradict ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by MrQ, posted 04-21-2010 8:31 AM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by MrQ, posted 04-21-2010 9:53 AM PaulK has replied

  
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 168 of 213 (556837)
04-21-2010 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by PaulK
04-21-2010 9:10 AM


Re: Necessary Truths
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2010 9:10 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2010 10:53 AM MrQ has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 169 of 213 (556850)
04-21-2010 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by MrQ
04-21-2010 9:53 AM


Re: Necessary Truths
quote:
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.
At least you've learned something ! There are some complications but that's the simple version.
quote:
No Godel has solution for this. I guess it is called proof tree. As I said the contradictions might be hidden.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by MrQ, posted 04-21-2010 9:53 AM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by MrQ, posted 04-21-2010 1:48 PM PaulK has replied

  
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 170 of 213 (556877)
04-21-2010 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by PaulK
04-21-2010 10:53 AM


Re: Necessary Truths
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2010 10:53 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2010 1:58 PM MrQ has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 171 of 213 (556879)
04-21-2010 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by MrQ
04-21-2010 1:48 PM


Re: Necessary Truths
quote:
Well, I still don't understand why you rejected originally and accept now.
If you understood you'd know that that wasn't true.
quote:
The whole point I made was that there are sets of axioms which includes necessary truths as well that should be accepted as truth.
They are only necessarily true within the system.
quote:
These axioms are not from the system itself. So you were wrong to say they come from the system.
I never said that, so you are wrong again.
quote:
As you said later they create the system. So what are the sources of them? subconscious mind? reality?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by MrQ, posted 04-21-2010 1:48 PM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by MrQ, posted 04-21-2010 2:14 PM PaulK has replied

  
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 172 of 213 (556881)
04-21-2010 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by PaulK
04-21-2010 1:58 PM


Re: Necessary Truths
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2010 1:58 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2010 2:19 PM MrQ has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 173 of 213 (556883)
04-21-2010 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by MrQ
04-21-2010 2:14 PM


Re: Necessary Truths
quote:
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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by MrQ, posted 04-21-2010 2:14 PM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by MrQ, posted 04-21-2010 2:46 PM PaulK has replied

  
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 174 of 213 (556893)
04-21-2010 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by PaulK
04-21-2010 2:19 PM


Re: Necessary Truths
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2010 2:19 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2010 5:44 PM MrQ has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 175 of 213 (556918)
04-21-2010 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by MrQ
04-21-2010 2:46 PM


Re: Necessary Truths
quote:
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?
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:
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?
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 !)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by MrQ, posted 04-21-2010 2:46 PM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by MrQ, posted 04-21-2010 6:36 PM PaulK has replied

  
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 176 of 213 (556932)
04-21-2010 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by PaulK
04-21-2010 5:44 PM


Re: Necessary Truths
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by PaulK, posted 04-21-2010 5:44 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2010 1:50 AM MrQ has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 177 of 213 (556988)
04-22-2010 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by MrQ
04-21-2010 6:36 PM


Re: Necessary Truths
quote:
OK lets call this reality roots of necessary truth as 'the root'. Now how do you think that this the root manifest itself?
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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by MrQ, posted 04-21-2010 6:36 PM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by MrQ, posted 04-22-2010 7:17 AM PaulK has replied

  
MrQ
Member (Idle past 5052 days)
Posts: 116
Joined: 04-04-2010


Message 178 of 213 (557017)
04-22-2010 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by PaulK
04-22-2010 1:50 AM


Re: Necessary Truths
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2010 1:50 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by PaulK, posted 04-22-2010 7:26 AM MrQ has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 179 of 213 (557019)
04-22-2010 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by MrQ
04-22-2010 7:17 AM


Re: Necessary Truths
quote:
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.
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:
You already said that necessary truths have some roots in the reality in the form of relations between forces in physics.
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:
physical objects or forces -> root of necessary truth ->our mind -> necessary truth presented in our language
Do you accept this or not?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by MrQ, posted 04-22-2010 7:17 AM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by MrQ, posted 04-25-2010 4:51 AM PaulK has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 180 of 213 (557027)
04-22-2010 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MrQ
04-13-2010 6:15 PM


Work is left to be done
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 god
b) 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 correct
and if Hawking's equation is accurate
then the prediction is y.
If the logic behind the epistemology of science is sound
and 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MrQ, posted 04-13-2010 6:15 PM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by MrQ, posted 04-25-2010 4:59 AM Modulous has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024