Is it possible to prove something does NOT exist?

[Bunyip]

I have already done so. You want me to do something like prove that Santa Clause, unicorns, or Jeff don't exist, because for some reason your grasp of logic is so poor you fail to realize that if a statement is assumed to be true and (under that assumption) a contradiction follows, the assumption is necessarily false. I find it difficult to prove anything to someone who displays so little a grasp of basic logic, let alone anything remotely resembling a framework within which anything can be proved. I've tried to scale the logic down to your level, but have thus far apparently failed to simplify enough so that you can understand.

As I tire of arguing logic with an historian who majored in history but is a specialist in espionage and is incapable of relying on basic logic, here we go:



Were that true, you could show the fallacy. This:

Is nonsense. But unlike you (and using logic rather than avoiding it like the plague as you do), I can show how it is fallacious. I am doing far more than proving that an entity doesn’t exist. That’s comparatively trivial. I am demonstrating that were that the case (i.e., were it true), then we find a contradiction. To relate this to the “round circles” argument, what I am doing is assuming (for the sake of argument) that there are round circles, and showing that this leads to a contradiction and thus is false.
However, as your grasp of logic is virtually non-existence, I’ll try to stimulate some semblance of rational thought in your argument(s). Prove something exists.
When (or if) you finally figure out that you can’t do that, and realize that proof is fundamentally a matter for formal logic & mathematics (ignoring the fact that the two aren’t distinct), then perhaps you’ll realize that the question is utterly meaningless and the discussion pointless.

Sure. Define "proof", "entity", "exist", and then relate this to your question and I'll happily answer. Of course, as you haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about, I won't hold my breath.

I might try to demonstrate how utterly you are incapable of addressing this question simply by addressing how a proposition (or anything) can be proved. As you have shown you aren't familiar with any formal system, logic, argumentation, or basic reasoning, I know you can't do this. But as you insist on asserting a claim that refutes itself, you might at least try to grapple with the depths of your incapacity to actually understand the relevant questions here.

Legion, I did give the definitions mate, you must have misread. Anyhow you are confusing the abstract world of logic with the real world. In practice it remains impossible to prove the non-existence of an entity. Logical abstracts and practical possibilities are different things Legion. The non-existence of the kind of entities that are the subceft here can not be proven.

The bulk of your response is your usual moaning about how I fail to grasp logic - but it is you who is failing to grasp the most basic concepts here. Your logical arguments work to prove the non-existence of hypothetical entities whose characteristics are known. Those arguments do not work for real world entities whose characteristics are not knowable.

You can not prove the non-existence of unicorns for example, but you can prove the non-existence of a square circle. The first is a creature, the second is a hypothetical logical abstract. Your argument only works for the latter.

 

[Bunyip]

I haven't seen where legion claimed he could disprove god. We can disprove gods that have characteristics we know to be false or self conflicting. Beyond that no.

Exactly my point. It only works in hypothetical logical arguments, where the characteristics are known. That is all I was arguing. That was my contention.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

You can prove that Jeff does not exist in a hypothetical logical argument in which you know Jeffs characteristics (and if those known characteristics make his existence contradictory). But in practice you can not prove that Jeff does not exist, and you can That is all I was pointing out Legion. I had stated outright that you can prove non-existence in a logical argument - which is what you are attacking, as opposed to the point in question. Despite my making this clarification several times now.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I agree with what I have colored in magenta.

Regards

I would argue the opposite. It is trivially true that it is much easier to garner evidence about the physical cosmos we inherit than it is to do so for e.g., abstract mathematical entities in Hilbert space (which, FYI, includes any and all quantum systems, which do not and cannot exist in what we perceive to be our 3D reality as they require an infinite dimensional space with certain properties that are satisfied not by our Euclidean space but by Hilbert's). However, proof requires a formal framework wherein, given certain axioms (or postulates, schemata, etc.) and/or valid "rules", we can determine that given the truth of some proposition it is necessarily the case that some conclusion x follows. For the physical world we inhabit, we can easily point to observations and so forth, but this isn't proof of anything. The development of modern physics drove this home like nothing else. Thus we can "prove" certain things about abstractions but arguably prove nothing about the physical environment we inhabit.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Anyhow you are confusing the abstract world of logic with the real world.

The abstract world of logic is the only world in which things can be proven. You cannot prove that you exist, you cannot prove that anything you've ever observed exists, and it is debatable whether you can even prove your conception of self (your "I") exists (i.e., prove cogito ergo sum).

In practice it remains impossible to prove the non-existence of an entity. Logical abstracts and practical possibilities are different things Legion.

You can prove logical abstracts, and cannot prove anything else. All entities are abstracts (there is no "tree" only the abstract concept; this is so elementary it predates the formulation of formal logic by thousands of years and may be found in Plato). "Practical possibilities" is a meaningless phrase without any relation to either a system in which anything can be proven, probability theory, physics, and even common parlance.

As all entities are abstract, and all such abstracts are conceptual abstracts which can be incorporated into (or applied to) formal systems- the only frameworks wherein proof of anything is possible.

The fact that assuming "one can't prove the non-existence of entities" leads to a contradictions is sufficient to demonstrate it is logically flawed, obviously false, and based on nothing other than baseless assertions. You have defended just such an assertion by a false dichotomy between this "real world" you claim exists and an "abstract world" of logic. First, you can't demonstrate there is any "real world" other than by asserting it (just like you can't prove anything else without your so-called "abstract world of logic"). Second, you haven't demonstrated you are in any way remotely familiar with how anything can be proved at all. You have demonstrated a lack of familiarity with any formal system (or what these are) and have not shown that you are capable of understanding what a proof actually is. Third, your rather simplistic analysis of the "real world" is contradicted by decades of research in fields from particle physics to cognitive neuropsychology.

The non-existence of the kind of entities that are the subceft here can not be proven.

All entities are abstracts. There is no "tree" that defines all trees but rather a conceptual abstract; there is no person other than the abstract which is applied to all people; there is no...oh screw it. Just read Plato and/or some basic research in cognitive linguistics, cognitive science, modern physics, or any other of the multiple fields that demonstrate how far from expressing a coherent argument you are and all without demonstrating thoroughly you have eschewed logic, reasoning, argumentation, and any class of systems/languages wherein anything can be proven.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You can prove that Jeff does not exist in a hypothetical logical argument in which you know Jeffs characteristics

Wrong. Even

if those known characteristics make his existence contradictory

you are still incorrect. Were it true that logically contradictory characteristics were sufficient, the entirety of quantum mechanics would prove that matter doesn't exist.

You are conflating abstract concepts with instantiations of those concepts and mistaking characteristics of physical systems with the logical properties one must know of in order to derive anything within the necessary formal framework for proof.

But in practice you can not prove that Jeff does not exist

If Jeff existed, he would (according to you) be able to prove that something doesn't exist. Therefore, either Jeff exists and it is possible to prove something does not exist, or Jeff cannot exist.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

Funny how you misread the original comment, respond to a point I am not making - and then post comment after achingly long comment addressing the same point I am not making over and over again.

You even agree with my actual contention, several times - whilst simultaneously pontificating ad naseum over the point that I wasn't making.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

All entities are abstracts.

LOL No mate, they are not. That is just laughable - Barrack Obama is a homo sapiens, a real physical entity - not an abstract. You are so busy pompously pontificating and lecturing me on logic, that you have neglected to consider your argument.

There is no "tree" that defines all trees but rather a conceptual abstract;

WOW! There are most definitely actual real trees Legion. I am sitting under one right now - not an abstract tree, an actual real West Australian Jarrah. It is about 120 feet tall and would have approx 9 cubic metres of actual real wood.

there is no person other than the abstract which is applied to all people; there is no...oh screw it.

Another ridiculous and ill considered comment Legion. There exist actual real people. I am not applying an argument to all people, all trees or all somethings - I am referring to a specific entity. Not a general case.

Just read Plato and/or some basic research in cognitive linguistics, cognitive science, modern physics, or any other of the multiple fields that demonstrate how far from expressing a coherent argument you are and all without demonstrating thoroughly

Uh huh, says the dude who has just posted the most absurdly ill-considered and illogical rant imaginable.

 

[Etritonakin]

"Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour"

It is possible to prove false statements about God or his alleged activities false, but it is not possible to prove God does not exist. If God did not exist, our present limitations would make it impossible to prove. It's a big universe (& beyond), and we're still stuck on one planet. The same would apply somewhat to proving God does exist.

(I think it is a sort of denial of the obvious to believe that all we are and can experience came to be without intelligence or forethought. I also see more evidence to support that position than the other [perhaps more on that later] -but you can't prove anything to someone who is unwilling to consider all possibilities, regardless of their position. It is also true that while we share the same reality, we do not all share one experience or perception -so evidence and proof are not instantaneously shared or accepted.)

It is possible to prove that a God-like being could exist, but proving that God or a God-like being does exist is a much taller order.

Biblically speaking, God hides himself (and certain truths) at various times for various reasons and has declared that he will reveal himself (and certain truths) to all in time.
It is possible to prove that God exists without seeing him (and some who saw still doubted), but probably not without his willingness to reveal himself to one. Still, it is usually little by little.
Apart from a very dramatic revelation of God by his will, one must seriously consider the possibility that God exists before attempting to prove he exists.
Still, it is written that none can come to God except he first calls them to do so -so God essentially proves himself to one either way.

Once one is of a mind to open-mindedly consider the matter, proving God begins by obeying God. It is written that our sins separate us from God -and that he will draw near to us if we draw near to him.

Therefore, proving God exists is not like proving that other things exist, as God has both a will and great power to hide and reveal himself as he chooses.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Barrack Obama is a homo sapiens, a real physical entity - not an abstract

1) What are homo sapiens (sapiens)? Do they differ from humans? Is Barrack Obama the president because of some property or because enough people consider him to be so?
2) Every "real physical entity" is composed of parts that are not that entity. It is only by abstraction that we are able to group any sensory input. This is so fundamental that it is researched in multiple fields because computers cannot do this. They are only capable of syntactical processing, not conceptual. Thus to get computers to e.g., perform facial recognition we require sophisticated algorithms that reduce the visual information into (or onto) a new space where we may have extracted features using PCA or distance functions or multi-dimensional scaling. Humans do not have to use such computational approaches to classify facial features as a) some face & b) a face belonging to a particular person.
3) We can speak meaningfully of concepts apart from their subjective existence (unique and internal to all) as collections of Ausdrücke (per Husserl) or langue (per Saussure). However, even when referring to things which have physical instantiations (rocks, trees, etc.) the concept is always an abstraction that refers to a collection or set. When I use the word "tree", I need not list every object in the universe that I would apply this word to. The concept is the set of all such object. If I say trees exist, I don't have to point out each and every thing I would label tree and each and every thing I would not. "Tree" already is that collection.

You are so busy pompously pontificating and lecturing me on logc, that you have neglected to consider your argument.

No, this just happens to be central to my field and perhaps I'm not used to having to explain the basics of the philosophy of language, cognitive science, neuroscience, logic, etc., to whatever it is you claim to be (I forget what your last claim to expertise was after the "expert in espionage" claim). The capacity to form concepts without language is extremely limited. Concepts are categories. The concept "computer" is an abstraction that does not refer to any specific computer yet refers to all computers. Perceptual experience cannot allow for the creation of such an abstraction. In general, there is still much debate over what aspects/properties/components of various objects of various types are more central to classification of some instantiation of some object as belonging to category x vs. y. A saw is an abstract concept. There are many different kinds of saws that come in different sizes and are used in different ways (e.g., a chainsaw vs. the saw one would find in a swiss army knife). What is it about saws that make us classify them as saws, yet not do so for objects with similar features (such as serrations on a bread knife or combat dagger/double-edged tactical knife)? Concepts are categories with vague boundaries and usually with more than one prototypical exemplar.


It is extremely difficult for cognitive systems (from computational intelligence programs to canines) to categorize and impossible for any cognitive system without a brain to process concepts. Without language to describe the functions, similarities, and features that make up the various instantiations of "computer" to be conceptualized as "computer" rather than TV, calculator, or even window? What is it that a pre-linguistic understands that allows distinct perceptual experiences to be classified as instances of the concept "computer" yet not others?

It often involves the claim that atheists don't even know what this "god" concept is that they are denying. Such a view is completely misinformed. Using the word "god" as atheists means that their possession of a concept of it is required by biology and by every linguistic model of language use:
"ideas, concepts, and the like are represented by neural activity. The exact circuitry involved is uncertain, but it suffices for us to assume that some stable connection pattern is associated with each word, concept, schema, and so on"
Feldman, J. (2006). From molecule to metaphor: A neural theory of language. The MIT Press.
A central control task in neuroimaging studies that involve e.g., response times for lexical processing, or for tests of categorization, is the necessity of nonsense words. This is so vital because any other word is represented conceptually in the brain in a taxonometric network of relations to other concepts believed to have similar properties:
"word presentation activates functional webs, including multiple reverberatory circuits, that fail to become fully active if pseudo-words are perceived.
Physiological differences between words and pseudo-words have been found in numerous studies using both electrophysiological and metabolic neuroimaging techniques (Creutzfeldt, Ojemann, & Lettich, 1989; Diesch, Biermann, & Luce, 1998; Hagoort et al., 1999; Price, Wise, & Frackowiak, 1996; Rugg, 1983). Thus, it is uncontroversial that the brain distinguishes between words and similar but novel and meaningless items." (emphasis added)
Pulvermüller, F. (2003). The neuroscience of language: on brain circuits of words and serial order. Cambridge University Press.
"lexical concepts do not arise in language use. Rather, they are units of linguistic knowledge abstracted from across usage events (i.e., utterances) that encode linguistic content and facilitate access to conceptual (i.e., non-linguistic) knowledge. Thus, a lexical concept is a unit of linguistic knowledge that populates the "mental grammar," deriving from commonalities in patterns of language use."
Evans, V. (2009). How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction. Oxford University Press.
"it is almost universally assumed that concepts play a pivotal role in linguistic communication. According to the standard picture, people understand each other’s words in virtue of the fact that they associate the same (or quite nearly the same) concepts with those words. If no two people associate the same concepts with their words, then communication is impossible. Therefore, concepts must be sharable."
Prinz, J. J. (2004). Furnishing the mind: Concepts and their perceptual basis. The MIT Press.

WOW! There are most definitely actual real trees Legion. I am sitting under one right now

You are (were) sitting under a collection of atoms. You perceive it to be a tree because you classify it as such according to a conceptual network in which the abstract notion "tree" corresponds to what you were sitting under.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion

Funny how you misread the original comment, respond to a point I am not making - and then post comment after achingly long comment addressing the same point I am not making over and over again.

You even agree with my actual contention, several times - whilst simultaneously pontificating ad naseum over the point that I wasn't making.

I don't agree with you. Your following post demonstrates this quite clearly, as do the others. A central problem (other than that you are not familiar with any formal system but insist upon using terms like "proof" and making ill-defined claims concerning ill-defined concepts) is that while I am quite used to understanding the ways in which that which we think of as trivially & obviously "real" are actually conceptual abstractions based upon particular perceptual classifications of sensory input, you are not.

You are not familiar with the ways in which logical/mathematical abstractions relate to the conceptual/perceptual networks that language tries to express (a category are unfamiliar with), and the ways in which linguistic representations of the conceptual abstractions, instantiated differently via different lexemes or constructions in various languages, relate to physical "reality".

You are thus limited in both directions. On the one hand, you lack the necessary familiarity with any formal system wherein you could prove anything (or make sense of "proof"). On the other, you lack the familiarity with the ways that our terms for "entities" are abstractions, such as the abstract concept of "tree" that allowed you to categorize (and classify as a "unit") the tree you sat under.

 

[Robert.Evans]

If not, why not?

If so, please show an example.

And if yes, and you are an atheist (this does not apply to agnostics of course) CAN you prove God does not exist? It matters not who has the burden of proof in this scenario. Ignoring that theists are responsible to prove God, and I agree, if you do have proof God doesn't exist, could you provide some?

If we sit in the same room together, I can prove that there is no elephant sittin on the table in front of us. As for proving something invisible does not exist, no. One would have to give a good reason for thinking something else was a better answer. Atheism does not have that answer. They rely heavily on science, and science is to do with the physical and is therefore limited

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If we sit in the same room together, I can prove that there is no elephant sittin on the table in front of us.

You can't even prove that you are in a room. All you can do is assume that the sensory input interpreted by your brain reveals a particular state. As special relativity alone is demonstrates the inability of an observer to observe anything other than a subjectively defined reference frame (QM and TGR do similar things as well, making modern physics pretty much completely incompatible with your assertion), the entirety of modern physics is opposed to such simplistic notions of proof. That's without getting into the cognitive sciences & the mechanisms behind proofs.

As for proving something invisible does not exist, no.

According to modern physics, every physical system is a quantum mechanical system. Every system in QM is not only invisible, it doesn't even exist in anything outside of a mathematical space and as a mathematical abstraction.

Atheism does not have that answer.

I am a scientist. The relevance & nature of modern physics to cognition is my field. Research in cognitive science, cognitive psychology, social psychology, etc., has repeatedly shown that atheistic worldviews (like my own) are aberrant and atheists in general no more capable of understanding either "atheism" (as an -ism) or logic than morons like William L. Craig (who has somehow managed to produce extremely important contributions to logic despite his general failure when it comes to his arguments).

They rely heavily on science, and science is to do with the physical and is therefore limited

A postulate of quantum mechanics is that all would-be "physical" systems are necessarily abstract, mathematical entities. In general, scientists tend to be atheists or agnostics more than they tend to espouse religious/spiritual views, but the difference isn't great. It is largely non-existence when one properly accounts for the relevant variables. See my posts here, here, & here for some analysis on this type of scholarship.

 

[Robert.Evans]

You can't even prove that you are in a room. All you can do is assume that the sensory input interpreted by your brain reveals a particular state. As special relativity alone is demonstrates the inability of an observer to observe anything other than a subjectively defined reference frame (QM and TGR do similar things as well, making modern physics pretty much completely incompatible with your assertion), the entirety of modern physics is opposed to such simplistic notions of proof. That's without getting into the cognitive sciences & the mechanisms behind proofs.

haha... ok. I knew someone would say something like this. I agree. But it would have been a lonf answer, and not put as well as you have. But then I learn you are a scientist of one level or another, so I am honoured. Perhaps it should be on your title so we can take your words as more authorative... just a thought.
I might say that all things belong in the mind, so we can't prove anything. But then I could ask you to show a mind, and you can't do that either. So there is a real problem then, haha. But, if I drop a brick on my foot, everything suddenly becomes clear, and I not what is real and what is not. What is real is what is real to me. I suppose in that I could say that we all have our own reality of existence with the mind of God.

According to modern physics, every physical system is a quantum mechanical system. Every system in QM is not only invisible, it doesn't even exist in anything outside of a mathematical space and as a mathematical abstraction.

I am a scientist. The relevance & nature of modern physics to cognition is my field. Research in cognitive science, cognitive psychology, social psychology, etc., has repeatedly shown that atheistic worldviews (like my own) are aberrant and atheists in general no more capable of understanding either "atheism" (as an -ism) or logic than morons like William L. Craig (who has somehow managed to produce extremely important contributions to logic despite his general failure when it comes to his arguments).
A postulate of quantum mechanics is that all would-be "physical" systems are necessarily abstract, mathematical entities. In general, scientists tend to be atheists or agnostics more than they tend to espouse religious/spiritual views, but the difference isn't great. It is largely non-existence when one properly accounts for the relevant variables. See my posts here, here, & here for some analysis on this type of scholarship.

I can't disagree with the last paragraphs, nor do I understand them too well either. Thanks for posting.

 

[Robert.Evans]

You can't even prove that you are in a room. All you can do is assume that the sensory input interpreted by your brain reveals a particular state. As special relativity alone is demonstrates the inability of an observer to observe anything other than a subjectively defined reference frame (QM and TGR do similar things as well, making modern physics pretty much completely incompatible with your assertion), the entirety of modern physics is opposed to such simplistic notions of proof. That's without getting into the cognitive sciences & the mechanisms behind proofs.



According to modern physics, every physical system is a quantum mechanical system. Every system in QM is not only invisible, it doesn't even exist in anything outside of a mathematical space and as a mathematical abstraction.




I am a scientist. The relevance & nature of modern physics to cognition is my field. Research in cognitive science, cognitive psychology, social psychology, etc., has repeatedly shown that atheistic worldviews (like my own) are aberrant and atheists in general no more capable of understanding either "atheism" (as an -ism) or logic than morons like William L. Craig (who has somehow managed to produce extremely important contributions to logic despite his general failure when it comes to his arguments).



A postulate of quantum mechanics is that all would-be "physical" systems are necessarily abstract, mathematical entities. In general, scientists tend to be atheists or agnostics more than they tend to espouse religious/spiritual views, but the difference isn't great. It is largely non-existence when one properly accounts for the relevant variables. See my posts here, here, & here for some analysis on this type of scholarship.

do you not think it is weird to say that all things are mathematical entities and then think there is no mind behind it as an atheist?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Perhaps it should be on your title so we can take your words as more authorative... just a thought.

While appreciated, I wholeheartedly disagree with taking any argument I present as somehow more authoritative simply because of some degrees I have (the exception being to published research).

I might say that all things belong in the mind, so we can't prove anything. But then I could ask you to show a mind, and you can't do that either.

There is that interesting proof that has plagued (or enlightened) scholarship from Descartes' publication unto today: cogito ergo sum. Can we at least prove that, in order for us to question our existence, mustn't we necessarily exist (else there'd be no "self" to question its own existence)?

I tend to side with Descartes here (and modern reformulations of his argument rather than criticisms). But then, what do I know?

πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν δ᾽ οὖν ἀπιὼν ἐλογιζόμην ὅτι τούτου μὲν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐγὼ σοφώτερός εἰμι: κινδυνεύει μὲν γὰρ ἡμῶν οὐδέτερος οὐδὲν καλὸν κἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι, ἀλλ᾽ οὗτος μὲν οἴεταί τι εἰδέναι οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐγὼ δέ, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ οἶδα, οὐδὲ οἴομαι: ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰδέναι.

"But going away I thought to myself that I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know."
Plato Apology

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

do you not think it is weird to say that all things are mathematical entities and then think there is no mind behind it as an atheist?

All things aren't mathematical entities. That is simply an outcome of modern physics wherein which there is no one-to-one correspondence between "physical systems" and their representation as existed in classical physics. It is certainly weird. So weird that Einstein called one effect of QM "spooky action at a distance", Bohr decreed that questioning the physical interpretation of physical systems was banned, and Feynman declared "nobody understands quantum mechanics".

 

[Robert.Evans]

While appreciated, I wholeheartedly disagree with taking any argument I present as somehow more authoritative simply because of some degrees I have (the exception being to published research).


There is that interesting proof that has plagued (or enlightened) scholarship from Descartes' publication unto today: cogito ergo sum. Can we at least prove that, in order for us to question our existence, mustn't we necessarily exist (else there'd be no "self" to question its own existence)?

I tend to side with Descartes here (and modern reformulations of his argument rather than criticisms). But then, what do I know?

πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν δ᾽ οὖν ἀπιὼν ἐλογιζόμην ὅτι τούτου μὲν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐγὼ σοφώτερός εἰμι: κινδυνεύει μὲν γὰρ ἡμῶν οὐδέτερος οὐδὲν καλὸν κἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι, ἀλλ᾽ οὗτος μὲν οἴεταί τι εἰδέναι οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐγὼ δέ, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ οἶδα, οὐδὲ οἴομαι: ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰδέναι.

"But going away I thought to myself that I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know."
Plato Apology

haha... i like the short sentance structure. Good message.. ta

 

[Robert.Evans]

All things aren't mathematical entities. That is simply an outcome of modern physics wherein which there is no one-to-one correspondence between "physical systems" and their representation as existed in classical physics. It is certainly weird. So weird that Einstein called one effect of QM "spooky action at a distance", Bohr decreed that questioning the physical interpretation of physical systems was banned, and Feynman declared "nobody understands quantum mechanics".

Yet physicists often use terms like, mind of god, matrix, information etc when speaking of everything. When you also consider the complexitites of the universe, now can you be atheist.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

haha... i like the short sentance structure. Good message.. ta

"ta", British for "thanks"? I've always wondered whether that word as used today is derived from "ta" in Gaelic, meaning (more or less) "yes" or in general affirmation.

Yet physicists often use terms like, mind of god, matrix, information etc when speaking of everything

Matrices are simply mathematical notations, but as for the use of terms like "god" in physics this is intended to be no more real than Maxwell's Demon or Laplace's "Intellect" (capable of calculating the entirety of the dynamics of the cosmos based on full knowledge of all initial conditions at a given point in time).

When you also consider the complexitites of the universe, now can you be atheist.

I'm actually an agnostic, but regardless my response would be the same: why do complexities entail (or suggest) a creator?