Can logical thinking lead towards faith?

[Nick Soapdish]

But in trying to reach 0 degrees Kelvin, It seems that science has no problems making the fractions smaller and smaller. You just can't have it both ways.. Not even in theorie.
Also.. PI would become a finite number.

Becareful about assuming our mathematic models are equivilant to that which the represent. Just because we can say this particle is located at point P, does not mean that point P really exists.

Pi is an idea, not a material thing that exists in space and time.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Angellous Evangellous -
The argument that logic is ruled by presuppositions is only slightly more ludicrous than some of the other statements being hurled in this thread about the discipline of logic. I have to leave to attend a meeting right now, but I will address these statements about the use and application of logic later today, as time allows.

Thanks,
TVOR[/QUOTE]
While we are waiting for your reply, I can pose a question for all that will outline my thinking. How can you logically conclude anything that you have excluded in your presuppositions? By your presuppositions you set limits for your logic even before you chose or create your model.

 

[No*s]

>With some of the more recent theories in quantum physics

No*s, can I hear your opinion on this, please? :woohoo:

That the universe could be finite on the authority of quantum physics? I don' thave a clue and cannot speak . I may like to read the stuff, but that one's out of my league.

 

[No*s]

The argument that logic is ruled by presuppositions is only slightly more ludicrous than some of the other statements being hurled in this thread about the discipline of logic. I have to leave to attend a meeting right now, but I will address these statements about the use and application of logic later today, as time allows.

Thanks,
TVOR

TVOR, I started that tangent way earlier in the thread.

Here's my favorite example (and it is emminently logical, just false):

All men are pink with purple polka dots.
John Doe is a man.
Therefore John Doe is pink with purple polka dots.

If the statements are true, then the premises are true, then the logic must follow. If they are flase, then the statement may or may not be true, but the logic would be based on flawed presuppositions. Fortunately in this case, the presuppositions are quite wrong .

The more you get away from being ruled by the premises, the more you get subjective elements.

Logic != truth

 

[TranceAm]

Becareful about assuming our mathematic models are equivilant to that which they represent. Just because we can say this particle is located at point P, does not mean that point P really exists.

Well, that begs for the question then: How can particle P in this time-space continium exist on a point that doesn't exist?

>Pi is an idea, not a material thing that exists in space and time.
Point for you.. but the idea was for the "rounding" of inconvinient continuing numbers after the decimal dot... Hence infinity.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

That the universe could be finite on the authority of quantum physics? I don' thave a clue and cannot speak . I may like to read the stuff, but that one's out of my league.

I am certainly no expert, but if anyone is interested the theory I am referring to is called Loop Quantum Gravity. Its one of the hip new theories in physics. It sounds intriguing to me, but who knows if it is on the right track or not.

 

[No*s]

I am certainly no expert, but if anyone is interested the theory I am referring to is called Loop Quantum Gravity. Its one of the hip new theories in physics. It sounds intriguing to me, but who knows if it is on the right track or not.

Since you used it as an argument, you might want to explain how it works if it's to carry force .

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Well, that begs for the question then: How can particle P in this time-space continium exist on a point that doesn't exist?

I'm sorry, that is not what I meant.

What I am saying is that just because we can produce a mathematical model that places a particle at position P, does not mean that the position P must exist in the real world.

 

[No*s]

What I am saying is that just because we can produce a mathematical model that places a particle at position P, does not mean that the position P must exist in the real world.

If I hadn't fruballed you yesterday, I would do so here . It's an important thing to remember, that no matter how good our model is, it's still just a model. It's not real.

 

[TranceAm]

I'm sorry, that is not what I meant.

What I am saying is that just because we can produce a mathematical model that places a particle at position P, does not mean that the position P must exist in the real world.

I see.. But what good is that mathematical model then? Or do you have to exclude that Position P from the domain of "x"'s when using that model to get to the "y"'s for the "real world"?
Alike the previous example y=1/x && x > 0

And to put this back into the thread, let me rewrite your statement and see what you think of it:
"just because we can produce a theological model that places a particle at position P, does not mean that the position P must exist in the real world."

I would still have the same answer as that I gave above to the mathematical model.
You think the same about the theological model as about the mathematical model above?

As an funny addition.. Theological contains the word "logical" :biglaugh: :tsk:
Sorry 'bout that.

 

[linwood]

What I am saying is that just because we can produce a mathematical model that places a particle at position P, does not mean that the position P must exist in the real world.

Thank you..thank you..thank you....THANK YOU!!

If the link is back I`m fruballing you.

Thank you.

Have I got a thread for you!!

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8871&page=1&pp=10

 

[linwood]

Well, that begs for the question then: How can particle P in this time-space continium exist on a point that doesn't exist?

Yes..again yes.

Would you guys start posting in that other thread?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8871&page=1&pp=10

(I know you have Trance)

 

[linwood]

I see.. But what good is that mathematical model then?

Attempting to discover the parameters for the equations and the study/research involved to design any model leads those researchers to new evidence which offers more questions, which offers more models which offers more evidence .

The whole thing is a deliciously beautiful system for discovering the universe around us.

Not to mention that sooner or later we hone those models and manipulate those models based on the new info we find and eventually we form a model that is a correct representation.

 

[TranceAm]

>Attempting to discover the parameters for the equations and the study/research involved to design any model leads those researchers to new evidence which offers more questions, which offers more models which offers more evidence .

I know, but in this case the model gives new questions and answers but not to the most important question the model was made for. We can make an infinity of models describing an unperceivable reality (Outside the box.)? However with what purpose?

>The whole thing is a deliciously beautiful system for discovering the universe around us.

True, but as you notice, in the other BB thread, at one or another moment in time the whole cardhouse of discovering is build on something that is in sight but just "outside the box" and thus unprovable...
Gosh, I'm waiting for the next official press release from the ministry of truth and science:
"Black holes are the eyes of God with who he is watching our progress in the universe."
Science takes over where religion can't follow.
And religion cant claim that that claim isn't true.

>Not to mention that sooner or later we hone those models and manipulate those models based on the new info we find and eventually we form a model that is a correct representation.

Correct toward what perception? Maybe it is impossible for humans to perceive the correct representation? Or to build a model towards it. Heck we are allready dissing infinity when it becomes inconveniant. I'm still waiting for the answers in the BB thread about red shift, wave stretching, space stretching. And I am afraid that that is going to take a long time.
We can't even agree how to unify perceptions about the universe. One way or another it is what side you believe will bring the truth without actually ever giving you the truth since they have to believe also. And don't even bother throwing in another possibility if your not a trained highpriest in one of the major religions/beliefsystems that go around in their yearning for control of the minds on this earth.

 

[TranceAm]

Yes..again yes.

I know you have Trance

I think I put some nice eggs in that basket... No need for other replies at this moment.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

TVOR, I started that tangent way earlier in the thread.

Here's my favorite example (and it is emminently logical, just false):

All men are pink with purple polka dots.
John Doe is a man.
Therefore John Doe is pink with purple polka dots.

If the statements are true, then the premises are true, then the logic must follow. If they are flase, then the statement may or may not be true, but the logic would be based on flawed presuppositions. Fortunately in this case, the presuppositions are quite wrong .

The more you get away from being ruled by the premises, the more you get subjective elements.

Logic != truth

No*s, thanks for the illustration. You are too kind. :162:

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Thank you..thank you..thank you....THANK YOU!!

If the link is back I`m fruballing you.

Thank you.

Have I got a thread for you!!

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8871&page=1&pp=10

Thanks for the link Linwood. I have posted my thoughts there.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Since you used it as an argument, you might want to explain how it works if it's to carry force .

Thanks No*s. I am certainly not going to claim the theory is indisputable, but rather, it contradicts some assumptions that were being made. It is a rather well supported theory--many people regard it as a leading competitor to String Theory (which I can't stand). I rather like it.

A central theme to Loop Quantum Gravity is that space is not continuous, but rather discrete. There are quanta-distances that are not divisible. Quantum Physics has been claiming energy exists in discrete quantum measurements for a 100 years. This basically applies the same ideas to the space-time dimensions. That's really the whole extent of how it applies to the topic at hand.

 

[No*s]

Thanks No*s. I am certainly not going to claim the theory is indisputable, but rather, it contradicts some assumptions that were being made. It is a rather well supported theory--many people regard it as a leading competitor to String Theory (which I can't stand). I rather like it.

A central theme to Loop Quantum Gravity is that space is not continuous, but rather discrete. There are quanta-distances that are not divisible. Quantum Physics has been claiming energy exists in discrete quantum measurements for a 100 years. This basically applies the same ideas to the space-time dimensions. That's really the whole extent of how it applies to the topic at hand.

However, the infinite size of the universe Spinks referred to wasn't in dimensions but in size. Why couldn't it be infinite with an infinite amount of quanta? The argument doesn't address that, and either my lack of knowledge on the issue has misled me, or you have misunderstood Spinks' argument on infinite space .

For my part, I read the proofs he put up, and I still lean towards boundryless, but they made sense, and I can't fault him for thinking that...it just seemed to have "fudge" room to me.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

I see.. But what good is that mathematical model then? Or do you have to exclude that Position P from the domain of "x"'s when using that model to get to the "y"'s for the "real world"?
Alike the previous example y=1/x && x > 0

The goal is to find the mathematical model that best represents the physical world. For spacial geometry we have Euclidean, Lorentzian and Riemannian (and probably others I don't know of). Which model you use depends on your application (kinematics vs. relativity vs. quantum). Our models aren't perfect--otherwise what good would it do to attempt to find better ones?

And to put this back into the thread, let me rewrite your statement and see what you think of it:
"just because we can produce a theological model that places a particle at position P, does not mean that the position P must exist in the real world."

I would still have the same answer as that I gave above to the mathematical model.
You think the same about the theological model as about the mathematical model above?

Any theology is going to be limited, just as all domains of science and philosophy are limited. Logic and language can be used to help reveal the truth, but you will never end up with a description that is perfect and absolutely complete. An entity like God could never be encapsulated completely into a constructed model. I will be the first to admit that we cannot come close to fully understanding God.

As an funny addition.. Theological contains the word "logical" :biglaugh: :tsk:
Sorry 'bout that.

Perhaps you would prefer to call it "Theoillogical"?

I have a feeling that it is not the validity of logic you disagree with in Theology, but rather the assumptions it is based upon.