The Sudden Dawn of the Cosmos and the Constancy of Physical Laws

quote:

---

So far the God of the Bible has a perfect track record of keeping His promises and fulfilling prophecy.

---

Which is why the world came to an end in the 2nd Century BC (Daniel). And the 1st Century AD (the Gospels).

quote:

---

Though God does seem to change His mind in response to the actions of men, He changes it according to His word, which tells us the way that He will deal with us. Hebrews says, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and forever."

---

Leviticus tells us that God will always do what he says he will do. Jeremiah says that God can and does change his mind.

Really it depends on what you mean. There is the fact that things behave in particular ways. That "exists" so long as the things exist (but only in the sense it is true, I've seen some very silly arguments that get confused about that). Then there is the description which is a human creation.But there's no reason to suppose that there is anything external making things behave that way.

To repeat the point I made last time, it's the description that originated with humans - and I don't see why anyone would think otherwise.

Interesting change of name. The AWB in South Africa liked the number 777. They used it in their party flag. Which seems to bear a resemblance to another infamous party flag. I don’t think that’s an association you want to make.

Then trust me. Stop using the number unless you are happy to be associated with them. I don’t think you are.

quote:

---

If people wish to associate me with them, that is up to them; I have already declared that I'm not associating myself with them. When you count from 1 to 1,000, after you have counted to 776, then you say, 777. This is a number.

---

A number you choose to identify yourself by. Obviously it’s not just a number to you.

quote:

---

Stop paying $666 dollars for items in the store unless you want to be associated with the devil. Don't go inside and stand were there are three six feet apart signs unless you want to be associated with the devil.

---

If you called yourself 666 you WOULD be intentionally trying to associate yourself with the Devil.

quote:

---

I am using the number 7 because God's number is seven.

---

7 is not 777. But thanks for admitting that is is not just a number to you.So you’re doing a good job of raising suspicions that you DID mean it to refer to the AWB.

quote:

---

Just be mindful that if you worship the Antichrist and take his mark, his number being 666, then you're going to the Lake of Fire and there's no way out.

---

Are you using 777 (rather than 7) as a symbol of opposition to the Antichrist?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The universe is limited and governed by non-physical reality, like logic and math.

---

I don’t think so. In what way does logic meaningfully limit the universe? Consider wave-particle duality. If logic allows that, what won’t it allow ?

quote:

---

These are not physical; these are mental. Therefore, being mental, they must have predated the universe

---

That is not logical. Just because something is mental does not mean that it must predate the universe. Not at all.Further, if they are purely mental how can they “govern the universe” ? There seems no obvious connection between the presence of minds and the way the universe behaves. Indeed, since logical truths are necessary truths, how can they be dependent on the existence of minds? That would be a contradiction. So, no this does not make sense. Probably it’s based on a hopelessly confused idea of logic.Well, at least nonsense is better than dishonesty. But neither paints Christianity in a good light at all.

quote:

---

You reject logic

---

I did no such thing. I reject your confused ideas about logic.

quote:

---

…. and yet make arguments with logic, supposing that truth is according to logic, but denying that the universe is limited by logic, thereby denying that the cosmos is limited by what can possibly be true. Therefore, what you say is this: The universe contradicts truth.

---

I deny that logic meaningfully governs the universe. I would also argue that the application of logic does not require any meaningful “limitation”. None of this denies that logic may be usefully applied to the universe.

quote:

---

The universe is limited by logic and math, and logic and math are not physical. Therefore, non-physical things can limit physical things.

---

Repeating your assertion rather than explaining it only confirms my opinion that you lack any understanding.

quote:

---

If logic and math are not mental, they are nevertheless non-physical, otherwise they would appear as physical objects, and we no of no object which we call logic and math, but have symbols to represent them, which represent things that exist in our minds.

---

I did not say that they are not mental. But then language is mental, too is it not? But you don’t say that language limits the universe even though it applies in pretty much the same way as logic and mathematics (indeed it is often stated that mathematics is a language - and one that enables descriptions more useful to physics).

quote:

---

And if they exist in our minds, where did they come from? If they were invented by our minds, then how do they limit the universe?

---

That is the question you were meant to be answering. I grant that it is a very deep question - but it is your assertion.

quote:

---

And if the universe is not limited by them, how can we use them to understand it?

---

In much the same way as we use language - and with the very many different languages in the world - and the way that they have changed over time - it seems rather likely that they were “invented” by humans.

quote:

---

And if they do exist in our minds, and they came from the universe, then where in the universe did they come from, seeing there is no object in the universe which we call logic and math, or which is contained in logic and math. Therefore, the universe is influenced by non-physical realities.

---

Let’s not jump ahead to questionable conclusions until you can defend the premises. So far all you’ve done is misrepresent my position and repeat your assertions - without addressing my questions at all. Until you can address them there is no reason to take your claims seriously - indeed they seem to be obviously false.

quote:

---

And if these non-physical realities are not mental, then what do we have in our minds, which is not a reference to something physical, and not a mental object, what do we have in our minds that we call logic and math?

---

Mental tools which we use to help us understand our experiences and - we hope - the reality that underlies them.

quote:

---

If our minds are governed by logic and math…

---

Are they? In what way? I mean your thinking is not very logical at all. Indeed you have yet to explain how logic “governs” anything.

quote:

---

….then how did our minds arise? For if a mind is brought forth by logic and math, then they are not logic and math. Therefore, a mind does not by necessity depend on logic and math. Therefore, if a mind by necessity does not depend on logic and math, but our own minds are governed by logic and math, where did logic and math come from? Therefore, no non-mental reality contains logic and math; therefore, logic and math exists in a mind, which in one aspect differs from our mind, that it is not governed by logic and math.

---

It seems to me that the same argument would apply to any mind - which implies that logic and math are more basic than mind and therefore cannot be purely mental entities - if your assumptions are correct. However since you seem unable to even explain what your assumptions mean we certainly cannot grant that they are correct. That would be very bad logic indeed.

quote:

---

If I made an unsound or invalid or non-sensical argument, and you refute it, then I will reject that argument, and use a different one. But if it is sound and logical, and you misunderstood it, or I did not properly communicate it, then I will explain it.

---

In fact it seems that you just insist that you are right without explaining - even when explicitly asked to do so. As demonstrated in Message 81

quote:

---

PaulK clearly questioned whether logic permits the particle wave duality, thus elevating physics above the truth of logic.

---

In fact I did not. I suggested that logic permits the wave-particle duality and therefore does not impose much control (it indeed any) on the universe. But of course you never addressed that issue.

quote:

---

The universe is limited by logic and math, for it does not contradict the rules of logic, nor the rules of math. If it were not limited by logic and math, then it could contradict them. But since it cannot, it is limited by them

---

This again is without explanation. Indeed what “rules of logic” or “rules of math” could the universe contradict ? Logic and mathematics are generalities applied to the universe, indeed developed to help us understand the universe. The “rules of mathematics” were originally developed to describe real situations, so it is surprising when they work to do so?

quote:

---

Since it is limited by them, and logic and math are not the physical reality, it is limited by something other than itself, something which is non-physical, seeing they do not appear as physical entities.

---

Again you are making assertions without explaining. I’m still waiting for your explanation of these supposed limits and why you think they are imposed by math and logic - or indeed how they could be imposed by math or logic.

quote:

---

We understand the universe through logic and math, because the universe operates according to it. If the universe did not operate according to it, we could not understand it through logic and math. For the universe, able to violate logic and math, would not be understood through logic and math, for logic and math would be useless for comprehending it, being violated by it.

---

Or so you assume. You have yet to offer the slightest support - or indeed to address the problems I have raised. Rather than dropping a questionable argument or explaining git you are just repeating yourself - again.

quote:

---

We do not understand the universe through language, but through what our language signifies. We do not understand through words, but through the meaning of the words.

---

And exactly the same can be said for math and logic.

quote:

---

Therefore, since our universe cannot contradict this meaningfulness, it is limited by this as well. It would certainly seem, following from these things, that the universe is limited by a mental reality, seeing that meaning is mental.

---

Alternatively your ideas are wrong and the “limits” you suppose come not from the mental entities - to the extent that those l8mits actually exist. That certainly seems more plausible than the idea that the idiosyncrasies of human languages actually limit reality,

quote:

---

Therefore, since our universe cannot contradict this meaningfulness, it is limited by this as well. It would certainly seem, following from these things, that the universe is limited by a mental reality, seeing that meaning is mental.

---

This is just more confused nonsense. The universe is not meaningful in that sense - the meaning is a mapping from the language to the universe (as we perceive it). Neither the language nor the mapping limit the universe and it is absurd to suggest otherwise,

quote:

---

I never said that the particle/wave duality was a violation of the laws of logic

---

And I never said that you did. So, please, let us not waste time with irrelevancies while you have still to address the serious problems with your argument,Let us deal with one of the more serious ones. Logical truths are necessarily true. Therefore they cannot be dependent on the existence of minds for their truth. Please explain how you would answer that.

quote:

---

And yet, you say that the reality of God is impossible because logic disallows it

---

And now you are just making things up.

quote:

---

One plus two is three. Put an apple on the table. Then add two apples. How many apples do you have? Can it be any different?

---

Put a few bacteria on a nutrient plate, wait a while and you’ll have a lot more.More importantly you aren’t doing anything to show that this is a limit imposed by mathematics rather than an example of a situation mathematics was invented to describe.

quote:

---

I am trying to explain it.

---

If that were true you shouldn’t be simply repeating your assertions. You should be answering the questions and addressing the objections.

quote:

---

Which means that the universe would be influenced and limited by even more meaningfulness.

---

And there you go again insisting you are right without any answer to the objection.

quote:

---

Certainly the rules of phonetics and grammar do not limit the universe, but what can can be possible, according to meaning, according to math, according to logic, and whatever else.

---

But languages differ in the meanings they express. Colour words can vary, for instance. Does that limit reality or is it just a limit of languages?

quote:

---

And what are we mapping which gives us math and logic?

---

Mathematics works exactly like a language in this sense - though a more precise one, without the ambiguities of natural language. With logic the mapping would be through language - logic does not address the meaning of the premises or conclusions - but it does demand strong consistency in the use of language (which means that the ambiguities of natural language must be suppressed).

quote:

---

Necessarily true in what realm, in one that is not governed by logic, as well as in one that is governed by logic?

---

In all realms, of course. (There are no realms meaningfully “governed by logic” anyway - you just assume that because you don’t understand what logic is or how it works).

quote:

---

Maybe you're not an atheists, but many atheists affirm that God is a logical impossibility.

---

In other words you are allowed to attribute beliefs to me just because you think I might believe them? That does not seem either good or sensible - or in the interests of honest discussion.

quote:

---

You still started out with a few bacteria, and they replicated, not contrary to the laws of math.

---

Then it wouldn’t be contrary to the “laws of math” for you to have more or fewer apples. It’s the behaviour of apples that matters, not your “laws of math”.

quote:

---

Just coin a new word and you can express the same meaning. Just add a new part of speech, or a new grammatical rule, or a new syntax, or use more words, and you can express the exact same meaning.

---

Obviously it’s not that simple or translators would do it all the time (your new word might not be accepted or might change in meaning). More importantly the whole idea is in line with my beliefs, not yours. If language is a tool we use to represent reality then changing it to better reflect reality is obviously good. But if language governed reality changing the language would change reality - whic( it obviously doesn’t.

quote:

---

I know all that.

---

You asked, I answered. It’s past time you started answering my questions.