Mathematics, Discovered or Invented?

[Polymath257]

WITH PLEASURE!

If you ponder the word "existence", you would see in its very definition things that go beyond the physical. But include the mental as well.

Well, I consider the mental to be based in the physical, so that isn't an issue for me. Everything is still ultimately physical.

Perhaps you should give a definition of the term 'existence'?

For instance, if we consider that anything and everything that exists is identifiable by the very nature of its existence, this broadens the horizon of the word to include the mental as well as the physical, the immaterial and the material. I.e. existence is more general than previously believed.

I don't believe that the mental is non-physical: it is the result of the physical operation of our brains.

Reality contains all and only that which exists. (A supertautology advanced by Langan and I).

Yes. And to exist means to be physical (at least, to supervene on the physical).

Existence and non-existence are one.

Laughably wrong.

In the further above statement lies the possibility of existence containing more than just the material, but every possible kind of existence as implied by the word.

You have still not shown this.

Do not simply dismiss this logic based on the illusionistic nature of experience. You have to really see beyond your material experience which includes the sun and the moon and the trees and the grass, but the pitch black darkness of the night as well. You have to open your eyes to the possibility of the genuine spiritual experience as well, which is ineffable.

So you claim. But claims are not proofs and you have given me no reason to think you are right in this matter.

 

[Polymath257]

How do you explain the spiritual? Can ants be spiritual? We create reality by observing reality. Ants have this ability to a lesser extent. They too are syntactors. As God permeates all matter.

The only sense I can make of the word 'spiritual' is the feelings of connection we get to others and to the world around us. That is eaisly explained through brain chemistry.

You haven't shown that a deity exists at all, let alone that it permeates all matter.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And my point is that *for determining truth* the brain (logic, reasoning, skepticism) is far more important than the 'heart' (emotions, goals, and feelings).

Hmm .. I don't think so. Why?
..because our underlying reasons for what we do, is more important than the actual 'doing'.

Naturally, if we don't use our intellectual skills to determine truth, we are presumably relying on
others, who we trust.
That is not necessarily a bad strategy .. but I for one, like to decide for myself..
..I've always been like that i.e. I want to know how everything works

From around the age of 8, I spent a fair amount of my time alone, in HongKong.
Perhaps it was there, the climate being fairly amenable, where I started to meditate and wonder
about my existence, and how all I was experiencing couldn't be a coincidence...

If you find it reasonable to assume that it likely IS (all one big coincidence), then that's 'how you tick'.
I couldn't possibly believe that.

..which is probably the underlying reason, why I have never stopped believing in G-d .. just putting it
on hold in my teenage years, with no particular creed.

In fact, if I have a strong emotional response for or against a concept, it only invokes my skepticism more..

You don't trust your instincts?
There should be a balance .. in all things .. that is more healthy, imo.

 

[Polymath257]

Hmm .. I don't think so. Why?
..because our underlying reasons for what we do, is more important than the actual 'doing'.

I disagree here. There are too many examples of people who intend well, but end up committing great evil, of people looking for something and discovering something more important by accident, etc. I consider the consequences to be the most important aspect, actually.

Naturally, if we don't use our intellectual skills to determine truth, we are presumably relying on
others, who we trust.
That is not necessarily a bad strategy .. but I for one, like to decide for myself..
..I've always been like that i.e. I want to know how everything works

Some reliance on the work of others is inevitable, especially in today’s societies. There is simply no way for one person to verify all we have found from scratch. It does help to know some math.

From around the age of 8, I spent a fair amount of my time alone, in HongKong.
Perhaps it was there, the climate being fairly amenable, where I started to meditate and wonder
about my existence, and how all I was experiencing couldn't be a coincidence...

If you find it reasonable to assume that it likely IS (all one big coincidence), then that's 'how you tick'.
I couldn't possibly believe that.

Is that a conclusion for you or an axiom? Saying you can’t possibly believe something seems like a very bad way to determine truth. I have found that it is better to modify my intuitions to fit the truths I have found than to make assumptions that might be wrong.

..which is probably the underlying reason, why I have never stopped believing in G-d .. just putting it
on hold in my teenage years, with no particular creed.


You don't trust your instincts?
There should be a balance .. in all things .. that is more healthy, imo.

That’s complicated. Instincts are typically trained by evolution to give workable solutions to problems we encountered long before we had civilization. They can be very good for interpersonal relations, but not so good in situations outside of common experience.

More generally, intuitions have to be trained. I do not trust an intuition in a subject I have not studied deeply. I have seen too many cases where the truth isn’t as untrained intuition would suggest.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Is that a conclusion for you or an axiom? Saying you can’t possibly believe something seems like a very bad way to determine truth..

Well, you can either deem it plausible that all you see has no real significance, and existence
is mere coincidence (without reason) or you can't.

I can't !
As I say, I like to know how things work, and although it's not possible to know everything, I
haven't come across anything that has no reason. Intellect must have a source.

While I believe in basic evolutionary principles, I do NOT believe that intellect has evolved from
nought, and without reason.
"Evolution" is no reason, but a process .. and that also has a reason for happening.

To believe that it merely exists without reason seems rather insincere to me, when most people,
particularly scientists, want explanations for everything.

If one believes that our existence IS significant (not just human life!), then how can we believe that
it really doesn't matter about tomorrow, because we die .. and that's it .. who cares.

I do not trust an intuition in a subject I have not studied deeply..

Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law..
..neither is it in the eyes of the Lord.

 

[Ostronomos]

Well, I consider the mental to be based in the physical, so that isn't an issue for me. Everything is still ultimately physical.

I'll direct your attention to the following:

1.] Mind is not an illusion. If it were materialistic, then it would lead to the Cartesian mind-matter split. This materialistic view is false as it is based on the fallacious argument that matter can create mind.

2.] If matter can create mind as you say, then it would be an even stronger argument for a Quantum mind. Since it would imply that the particles that create the mind can become entangled with the environment, leading to all manner of supernatural phenomenon.

3.] God is real because He is proven using logic.

Well, I consider the mental to be based in the physical, so that isn't an issue for me. Everything is still ultimately physical.

This is a common misconception. The illusion of materialism is defeated by the Quantum mind, which is "supernatural". It is actually mind that is fundamental and the material world an illusion.

Clearly you are in the grips of materialism and have lived most of your life in materialistic delusion. Not to worry, the Great Genius of Nostradamus Prophecy is here to deliver you from this delusion.

Perhaps you should give a definition of the term 'existence'?

I don't believe that the mental is non-physical: it is the result of the physical operation of our brains.

Yes. And to exist means to be physical (at least, to supervene on the physical).

False. Materialism and naturalism is self-contradictory as shown above.

I am not here to preach my philosophy, simply to deliver truth to the masses. I believe my intent is noble, and I try not to offend.

Laughably wrong.

Please do not condescend to one who is simply hoping to enlighten those with the noblest of intentions.

Existence must be distinguished from non-existence in order to be identifiable in every scenario in existence.

 

[Polymath257]

I'll direct your attention to the following:

1.] Mind is not an illusion. If it were materialistic, then it would lead to the Cartesian mind-matter split. This materialistic view is false as it is based on the fallacious argument that matter can create mind.

Prove that is fallacious. By all the evidence we can see, the claim you make is false.

2.] If matter can create mind as you say, then it would be an even stronger argument for a Quantum mind. Since it would imply that the particles that create the mind can become entangled with the environment, leading to all manner of supernatural phenomenon.

This is a false deduction. The brain is primarily a classical object, not a quantum one. In fact, at the temperatures of the brain, decoherence happens almost instantaneously.

Your mistake is thinking that quantum entanglement is relevant here. it isn't.

3.] God is real because He is proven using logic.

OK, give the argument using logic.

This is a common misconception. The illusion of materialism is defeated by the Quantum mind, which is "supernatural". It is actually mind that is fundamental and the material world an illusion.

From everything we know, this is simply a false claim. Your use of the term 'quantum mind' betrays a serious misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.

And no, the quantum world is not 'supernatural': it is *completely* natural.

Clearly you are in the grips of materialism and have lived most of your life in materialistic delusion. Not to worry, the Great Genius of Nostradamus Prophecy is here to deliver you from this delusion.


False. Materialism and naturalism is self-contradictory as shown above.

You argument was easily shown to be wrong.

I am not here to preach my philosophy, simply to deliver truth to the masses. I believe my intent is noble, and I try not to offend.

OK, but you can still be wrong. And I believe you are.

What you percieve as truth may not be. A common mistake.

Please do not condescend to one who is simply hoping to enlighten those with the noblest of intentions.

Sorry, but what you said was, I believe, laughably wrong. This is true no matter what your intentions are.

Existence must be distinguished from non-existence in order to be identifiable in every scenario in existence.

Huh?

 

[Ostronomos]

Prove that is fallacious. By all the evidence we can see, the claim you make is false.

This is a false deduction. The brain is primarily a classical object, not a quantum one. In fact, at the temperatures of the brain, decoherence happens almost instantaneously.

Your mistake is thinking that quantum entanglement is relevant here. it isn't.

OK, give the argument using logic.

From everything we know, this is simply a false claim. Your use of the term 'quantum mind' betrays a serious misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.

And no, the quantum world is not 'supernatural': it is *completely* natural.

You argument was easily shown to be wrong.

OK, but you can still be wrong. And I believe you are.

What you percieve as truth may not be. A common mistake.

Sorry, but what you said was, I believe, laughably wrong. This is true no matter what your intentions are.

Huh?

Allow me to express my displeasure.

You appear to lack a fundamental understanding of the supernatural.

I just posted a logical proof of God.

You have a poor understanding of Quantum Physics as it is the science of the supernatural.

If your mind became entangled with reality and suddenly instant communication became possible between you and reality you will see how fast you will convert from atheism to a gnostic theist.

 

[Polymath257]

Allow me to express my displeasure.

OK. You are displeased.

You appear to lack a fundamental understanding of the supernatural.

Show that there is a supernatural to have understanding of.

I just posted a logical proof of God.

No, you simply claimed it follows from logic without actually giving the argument.

You have a poor understanding of Quantum Physics as it is the science of the supernatural.

My PhD qualifying exams in quantum theory say I have at least a basic understanding. And no, it is NOT the science of the supernatural. It is the science of the atomic scale and below. You are the one with fundamental misunderstandings here.

If your mind became entangled with reality and suddenly instant communication became possible between you and reality you will see how fast you will convert from atheism to a gnostic theist.

Nope. Once again you show you have picked up quantum theory from popular accounts, not from actual scientific accounts. Entanglement does NOT allow instant communication.

My recommendation: learn some real math and science.

 

[Ostronomos]

OK. You are displeased.

Show that there is a supernatural to have understanding of.

No, you simply claimed it follows from logic without actually giving the argument.

My PhD qualifying exams in quantum theory say I have at least a basic understanding. And no, it is NOT the science of the supernatural. It is the science of the atomic scale and below. You are the one with fundamental misunderstandings here.

Nope. Once again you show you have picked up quantum theory from popular accounts, not from actual scientific accounts. Entanglement does NOT allow instant communication.

My recommendation: learn some real math and science.

Spoken like a true nonbeliever.

I am the one who's the authority on the supernatural sciences. And while my background in math and science has a ways to go, I still have seen enough evidence and logic to conclude that there is indeed a supernatural world. You simply refuse to accept it due to the epistemological limitations of all atheists.

Consider the self-inclusion paradox for example: the universe contains the universe, making it self-contained.

Your arguments shout atheistic delusion loud and clear from my understanding. And although you may possess more education in science and math than I, you still lack serious knowledge of the supernatural. I posted the logical proof of God in another thread.

Math and science as it currently stands is primitive in comparison to Langan and my scientific philosophies.

I guarantee that in the next ten years the world will come to light and truth and atheism will become a thing of the past. As Langan and I are pioneers in this new metaphysical science unbeknownst to you and other atheists. I advise you to use more logic if you can.

 

[Polymath257]

Spoken like a true nonbeliever.

I am the one who's the authority on the supernatural sciences. And while my background in math and science has a ways to go, I still have seen enough evidence and logic to conclude that there is indeed a supernatural world. You simply refuse to accept it due to the epistemological limitations of all atheists.

You have yet to give any evidence. If you have some, please give it.

Consider the self-inclusion paradox for example: the universe contains the universe, making it self-contained.

Every set is a subset of itself. So?

Your arguments shout atheistic delusion loud and clear from my understanding. And although you may possess more education in science and math than I, you still lack serious knowledge of the supernatural. I posted the logical proof of God in another thread.

You have yet to show that there is a supernatural to have knowledge about. if you have any evidence of such, please give it.

Math and science as it currently stands is primitive in comparison to Langan and my scientific philosophies.

According to you. But I see no reason to accept you as an authority.

I guarantee that in the next ten years the world will come to light and truth and atheism will become a thing of the past. As Langan and I are pioneers in this new metaphysical science unbeknownst to you and other atheists. I advise you to use more logic if you can.

Well, at least that is a test of sorts. If, after 10 years, this has not come to pass, will you be willing to admit you are wrong?

 

[Heyo]

I guarantee that in the next ten years the world will come to light and truth and atheism will become a thing of the past. As Langan and I are pioneers in this new metaphysical science unbeknownst to you and other atheists. I advise you to use more logic if you can.

*Calendar entry: 2034-04-19 Mock @Ostronomos for his failed prophecy*

 

[Ostronomos]

You have yet to give any evidence. If you have some, please give it.

The thing about the supernatural realm is that one needs to access it. Unlike ordinary physical reality, it is a reality that is unique to each individual mind because it is reflexive. I am not limited to making only claims, but can provide logic as well. Mr. Langan's CTMU is one of the most thorough examples of a proof of a deity. If you are curious, I suggest you turn your attention to that.

 

[Polymath257]

The thing about the supernatural realm is that one needs to access it. Unlike ordinary physical reality, it is a reality that is unique to each individual mind because it is reflexive. I am not limited to making only claims, but can provide logic as well. Mr. Langan's CTMU is one of the most thorough examples of a proof of a deity. If you are curious, I suggest you turn your attention to that.

If it depends on each individual mind, then it is a matter of opinion and not of fact. That is the difference, after all, between opinion and fact. I would even go so far as to call it fantasy.

I have looked into the CTMU and have found it not worth much, actually. Like most metaphysics, it says almost nothing while trying to seem deep. And, while Langan likes to talk about super-tautologies, what he actually offers seems just false.

 

[Ostronomos]

If it depends on each individual mind, then it is a matter of opinion and not of fact. That is the difference, after all, between opinion and fact. I would even go so far as to call it fantasy.

I failed to mention that it is objective, though it is specific to each individual mind. I am referring to a higher level of reality, whereby the mind influences reality. Don't you think I know the difference between opinion and fact. The supernatural world is a fact. But because it is not a consensus reality, that makes it all the more difficult to prove.

I have looked into the CTMU and have found it not worth much, actually. Like most metaphysics, it says almost nothing while trying to seem deep. And, while Langan likes to talk about super-tautologies, what he actually offers seems just false.

The CTMU is a veritable masterpiece on par with such works as Grey's Anatomy and Leonardo Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man. You are not a good judge of quality it seems. It is a theory about theories or a meta-theory.

 

[Ostronomos]

Allow me to clarify: The higher dimension contains the separation, effecting the non-separation.

I am referring to the separation between mind and reality. Which leads to the delusion of atheism.

 

[Polymath257]

I failed to mention that it is objective, though it is specific to each individual mind. I am referring to a higher level of reality, whereby the mind influences reality. Don't you think I know the difference between opinion and fact. The supernatural world is a fact. But because it is not a consensus reality, that makes it all the more difficult to prove.

The difference between opinion and fact is that opinions vary from person to person and facts don't.

It isn't a 'higher level of reality' that minds influence reality. We do this literally every day whenever we turn thoughts into actions. Nothing special there.

You keep saying the supernatural world is a fact, but you have yet to actually give any evidence of it. The fact that it is not 'consensus reality' is, precisely, why it is not a fact.

The CTMU is a veritable masterpiece on par with such works as Grey's Anatomy and Leonardo Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man. You are not a good judge of quality it seems. It is a theory about theories or a meta-theory.

Well, it looks like pretty typical crank material to me: claiming mystical aspects to quantum mechanics, talking about metaphysics, but saying almost nothing.

What we have is a very misunderstanding of set theory, math, quantum mechanics, science, etc.

Maybe *you* are the one unable to make a correct judgements on this?

 

[Polymath257]

Allow me to clarify: The higher dimension contains the separation, effecting the non-separation.

I am referring to the separation between mind and reality. Which leads to the delusion of atheism.

Yeah, *that* clarifies things. Looks like meaningless blather to me.

 

[Ostronomos]

The difference between opinion and fact is that opinions vary from person to person and facts don't.

It isn't a 'higher level of reality' that minds influence reality. We do this literally every day whenever we turn thoughts into actions. Nothing special there.

You keep saying the supernatural world is a fact, but you have yet to actually give any evidence of it. The fact that it is not 'consensus reality' is, precisely, why it is not a fact.

Although consensus reality is shared between different individuals, it might escape them if it is directed toward a single individual as the source of the supernatural phenomenon.

Well, it looks like pretty typical crank material to me: claiming mystical aspects to quantum mechanics, talking about metaphysics, but saying almost nothing.

What we have is a very misunderstanding of set theory, math, quantum mechanics, science, etc.

Maybe *you* are the one unable to make a correct judgements on this?

I am not here to preach my philosophy as I stated earlier. I simply wish to bring truth to the masses and enlighten those who may be of a materialist persuasion.