Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 38 of 213 (555793)
04-15-2010 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by MrQ
04-15-2010 11:28 AM


Re: Physical Laws, Not Logical Laws
MrQ writes:
Like can a reality exist that in it 1+1=3?
Everybody knows that 1+1 = 0.
Well, okay, make that everybody who does mod 2 arithmetic.
MrQ writes:
Now why should reality be able to be described by logic?
It isn't.
Before reality could be described, we humans (or our ancestors) had to devise a description language. They devised a language that happens to be amenable to logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by MrQ, posted 04-15-2010 11:28 AM MrQ has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 76 of 213 (556034)
04-16-2010 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by MrQ
04-16-2010 6:01 PM


Re: Summery
I am not Blue Jay, but I'll comment anyway.
MrQ writes:
Do you believe MS Word is a concrete or an abstract object?
MSWord, the program, is abstract.
The disk or CDROM that you have containing MSWord is physical.
The encoding of MSWord on that disk is physical, but it is not the program. Rather, that encoding is a physical representation of the program.
I'll add that there is some disagreement about this question, though I think most computer scientists, mathematicians and philosophers would agree with me.
MrQ writes:
I believe that reason for the fact that the world around us is so astonishingly, explained by mathematics is not just a coincidence. It can't be!
You are correct. It isn't coincidence. It is because scientists try to design their description language to be as mathematical as possible.
MrQ writes:
I believe that logic is inter-weaved into the fabric of the universe ...
Sorry, no, it isn't. However, it is interwoven into the language we use to describe the universe, but that's because we designed our scientific language that way.
MrQ writes:
Also the fact that our mind is so logical that even thinking about an illogical thing like 1+1=3 makes us go dizzy is not a coincidence.
Those of us who have taught classes on mathematics are aware that the human mind is not at all logical.
MrQ writes:
The physical laws have shaped us during the passage of the time and also since birth everything around us looked and behaved like that.
Actually, no, the physical laws have little effect on you until you study them in class. It is the behavior of the universe that shapes us. The physical laws are just our way of describing that behavior.
MrQ writes:
That's why discoveries in quantum physics looks so distant and strange to us.
Actually, quantum physics uses some very mathematical laws, too.
MrQ writes:
Poeple here have the positivist philosophical view toward the world and that's why this is very hard for them to sallow.
Speaking only for myself, I think logical positivism is silly. So, no, I am not a positivist.
MrQ writes:
Why mathematics does explain the world so good?
Actually, mathematics does not explain the world at all. However, I'll take it that you are really asking about why some of our scientific laws are so mathematical. That is actually because scientists choose to design their laws that way. Scientific laws are not God's prescription on how the world runs. Rather, they are man's prescription on how we describe the world. And while scientists cannot command the world to behave in particular ways, they often have some freedom of choice in how they design their description language. When they have sufficient freedom, they choose to make the description language as mathematically tractable as possible because that makes the resulting descriptions easier to use.
MrQ writes:
Why all human beings agree on necessary truths and logic but differ on everything else?
LOL. If you read some of the philosophy literature, you will find lots of arguments and disagreements over what are necessary truths.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by MrQ, posted 04-16-2010 6:01 PM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by MrQ, posted 04-17-2010 5:43 AM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 78 of 213 (556094)
04-17-2010 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by MrQ
04-17-2010 5:43 AM


Re: Summery
MrQ writes:
Now assume we have three copies of MS word one on CD one on flash disk and one running on a computer. Now, my question is how do you identify and present concrete part of MS Word? What is the difference between these three?
These are copies of the program. They are different physical representations.
We would still say that they are the same program, not different programs. What makes MSWord abstract, is that we talk about it in ways that require it to be abstract. That we say all three copies are the same program (as distinct from saying that they are three different programs) is an example of that way of talking that requires that the program be abstract.
I should add that the way we talk about the program reflects the way that we think about it. And it is the way that we think about it that has to do with it being abstract.
MrQ writes:
Assume that you are blind folded and there is a toolbox infront of you and one screw on the wall. I will ask you to open that screw, you just reach out and take one tool and that tool happens to match exactly the screw for opening!
I'm not sure why you think that has to do with anything.
If you think science is a matter of marvelous coincidence, where the scientist just happens to have the right "tool", then you don't understand much about science. There is often a great struggle and lots of debate on how to organize a scientific study and how to formulate a theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by MrQ, posted 04-17-2010 5:43 AM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by MrQ, posted 04-17-2010 9:17 AM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 80 of 213 (556107)
04-17-2010 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by MrQ
04-17-2010 9:17 AM


Re: Summery
MrQ writes:
Try to come out of the abstract part. I asked about the concrete part. I asked you to identify that for me. Like draw a border around the bits that constitutes MS Word.
If MSWord is abstract, then there is no concrete part.
MrQ writes:
Like for example we have flash disk that has many programs on it including MS Word. I want you to show me the concrete part of MS Word.
The flash disk has electrical encodings (parts that are ionized). That's physical.
We say that the flash disk has bits (binary digits). But bits are just how we interpret it in our minds. The flash disk physically (in concrete terms) has only the electrical encodings. We say that those encoding respresent the bits. Sometimes we talk losely and say that they are the bits. However a binary digit is purely a logical structure, and not physical at all. What is physical, is how we represent those binary digits in physical structure.
MSWord is made of binary digits. So it is entirely abstract, though it is represented on the disk in those electrical encodings that represent the binary digits.
MrQ writes:
You didn't get my point. Scientist do debates but all the debates are still in the realm of mathematics. For example they don't even consider art and literature. Why is that?! Because they know those won't work! Only mathematics works!
Is that intended to be a serious comment? It seems like complete nonsense.
There's no way you could build a scientific theory out of art and literature. You are not making sense when you suggest that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by MrQ, posted 04-17-2010 9:17 AM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by MrQ, posted 04-17-2010 1:13 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 82 of 213 (556119)
04-17-2010 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by MrQ
04-17-2010 1:13 PM


Abstractions
MrQ writes:
Now what an apple, is that abstract or concrete?
The apple that I eat is concrete (or non-abstract). After I have eaten it, then it is only a memory.
The Apple computer is also concrete. The Apple Corporation is an abstraction.
I'm not sure what you take to be the point of all that. Whether something is abstract depends mostly a matter of how we look at it, think about it, talk about it.
MrQ writes:
But in fact, math and art both have the same root.
Only in the broad sense that both are human inventions.
MrQ writes:
You look at the nature, get inspired and then develop something out of your imagination. One is working the other one not.
Did it ever occur to you that mathematics is useful because it was made to be useful?
MrQ writes:
Why? because of logic! The first one is based on logic but the second isnt!
Whether mathematics is based on logic is itself disputable.
I have never understood this attitude to logic. Some people, such as you, seem to think that logic is some wondrous thing, a kind of magic
I just see it as a name for some pragmatic methods we use to organize our thoughts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by MrQ, posted 04-17-2010 1:13 PM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by MrQ, posted 04-17-2010 2:05 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 85 of 213 (556138)
04-17-2010 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by MrQ
04-17-2010 2:05 PM


Re: Abstractions
MrQ writes:
OK, good now tell me if the apple you eat is concrete then can you identify and present its concrete parts? Like can you identify the molecules and atoms and draw a line around them and say this is an apple? Do you also call apple molecules an apple?
While the apple is still growing on the tree, there is a continuous exchange of atoms and molecules. Some atoms that were once part of the apple are replaced by others. Some new ones were added.
After the apple matures and stops growing, the rate of molecular exchange with the environment reduces, but it does not stop completely.
An apple is not defined in terms of the molecules. It is defined in terms of its characteristics (appearance, texture) and its history (how it came to be).
MrQ writes:
Also then tell me what is freedom, abstract or concrete?
Freedom, as a concept, is abstract. Particular instances of freedom might have physical aspects.
MrQ writes:
Do you see any difference between an abstract subject like freedom and MS Word?
I am inclined to say that the are different kinds of abstract things. However, I have never attempted to make a generic hierarchical classification of abstract things.
MrQ writes:
That's true. But art is also useful!
But art was not made to be useful, though it sometimes is. Art was made to challenge the perceptions of people.
MrQ writes:
I don't understand how can you dispute that? If mathematics is not based on logic so it is based on what?
I'm not sure I would say that it is based on anything, other than the desires of mathematicians to understand and idealize how they interact with the world.
Formalism: the thesis that mathematics is based on the study of formal notations;
logicism: the thesis that mathematics is based on logic, andn is a branch of logic;
platonism: the thesis that mathematics is based on the study of platonic idea forms;
intuitionism: the thesis that mathematics is based on the study of human intuitions.
Of those, platonism is perhaps the closest fit. And most mathematicians seem to be platonists. I consider myself a fictionalist, meaning that I see mathematical objects (such as numbers) as useful fictions, and I don't see mathematics as actually based on anything other than what mathematicians want to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by MrQ, posted 04-17-2010 2:05 PM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by MrQ, posted 04-17-2010 4:20 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 88 of 213 (556150)
04-17-2010 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by MrQ
04-17-2010 4:20 PM


Re: Abstractions
MrQ writes:
There is an abstract concept, product of mind, for both MS Word and apple.
Okay. We agree so far.
MrQ writes:
So for me and you an apple growing on tree or in a basket is still an apple even if its molecules change! The same is true about MS Word. The MS Word, on a flash disk, CD or running on a computer to us is still MS Word. But there its concrete part changes.
And there, we completely disagree.
The molecules of MSWord never change. That's because it does not have molecules. What constitutes MSWord, is a pattern of binary digit, and this is independent of what method we use to represent those binary digits.
If I have an apple in my left hand, and an apple in my right had - those are two distinct apples. I happen to own two copies of MSOffice 2007. If I hold one in my left hand and one in my right hand, those are two distinct CD, but they are not two distinct MSWords. There is only one MSWord 2007.
MrQ writes:
To sum it up, if you have categorized apple as concrete then you need to categorize MS Word as concrete as well! But I disagree!
You can disagree all you like. But your disagreement won't change anything.
You would need to come up with a different way of describing MSWord. But it would have to be a way that works just as well in our speech and our thought. Identifying MSWords with the molecules of the CD does not work for that.
MrQ writes:
The point I wanted to make was that logic is an essential part of mathematics.
Is it? That is far from clear.
Some logicians and philosophers think that mathematics is a branch of logic. But most mathematicians think that logic is a branch of mathematics, but is only a relatively small part of mathematics.
MrQ writes:
No matter what view point you hold from the above mentioned philosophies, still all parts of mathematics deal with logic.
But what does that mean?
I have a Ph.D. in mathematics. However, I have never taken a class in logic in my life. No class in logic was ever prerequisite to studying mathematics.
MrQ writes:
Now, you might not believe that all mathematics can be reduced to logic but the fact that logic plays an essential role in mathematics is undeniable.
Clear, precise thing is essential to doing mathematics. If you want to identify logic with clear precise thinking, then I guess you could say that logic is essential. But I am inclined to think that a bit of a stretch.
MrQ writes:
Specially after defining the initial axioms which are agreed to be true things goes forward based on logic.
The Peano axioms are normally taken to define arithmetic. Yet arithmetic was being used 1000 years before the Peano axioms were ever defined. The idea that mathematics consists of logical derivation from axioms is seriously mistaken.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by MrQ, posted 04-17-2010 4:20 PM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by MrQ, posted 04-17-2010 6:20 PM nwr has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 90 of 213 (556159)
04-17-2010 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by MrQ
04-17-2010 6:20 PM


Re: Abstractions
MrQ writes:
If I asked you to eat an apple. You could eat the left one or right one. If I asked you give me a copy of MS Word 2007 or give me MS Word then also you could give me the left one or right one.
Notice the difference between eating (in the case of the apple) and copying (in the case of MSWord). That's an example of why you cannot treat them equivalently.
In any case, I am exiting from this discussion of the abstract. It has become pointless. I already mention in Message 76 that there is some disagreement about this. I believe I have adequately explained why I consider programs to be abstract, although this has not persuaded you. I will leave it at that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by MrQ, posted 04-17-2010 6:20 PM MrQ has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by MrQ, posted 04-17-2010 7:09 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 94 by MrQ, posted 04-18-2010 2:03 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024