eriksank wrote:

cptrelentless wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 2:26 pmPhilosophy before the discovery of neurochemistry is all semantic bollocks.

"Mathematics before the discovery of neurochemistry is all semantic bollocks."
"Anything before the discovery of neurochemistry is all semantic bollocks."
... not sure about that ...

cptrelentless wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 2:26 pmPeople have religious beliefs because we evolved from a god-fearing fish or hedgehog.

No, that point of view is not provable ("math") nor testable ("science"). If you believe that this point of view is testable, then feel free to evolve a human from a god-fearish fish, and to explain to us, how to successfully repeat such experiment.

Aristotle pointed out that religious belief automatically follows from observing the structure of the universe. Time progresses by addition. Hence, it cannot be infinite. Therefore, there is a beginning of times. Since causes strictly precede their consequences, if you recursively map consequences onto their causes, you will arrive at a first cause that is the principle of causality to the entire universe.

Physics, Aristotle, 350 B.C.E, Book VIII
If then everything that is in motion must be moved by something, and the movent must either itself be moved by something else or not, and in the former case there must be some first movent that is not itself moved by anything else, while in the case of the immediate movent being of this kind there is no need of an intermediate movent that is also moved (for it is impossible that there should be an infinite series of movents, each of which is itself moved by something else, since in an infinite series there is no first term)-if then everything that is in motion is moved by something, and the first movent is moved but not by anything else, it much be moved by itself.

When the consequences of either assumption are the same, we should always assume that things are finite rather than infinite in number, since in things constituted by nature that which is finite and that which is better ought, if possible, to be present rather than the reverse: and here it is sufficient to assume only one movent, the first of unmoved things, which being eternal will be the principle of motion to everything else.

Aristotle shows that it is perfectly possible to derive the existence of a first cause exclusively from a set of consistent axioms that don't mention it. Hence, it is absolutely valid mathematics.

cptrelentless wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 2:26 pmKant can waffle on as much as he wants about theoretical behaviors, he's 250 years out of date

That is the same as claiming that Euclid's Elements would be out of date. Not true. The math is still perfectly correct. Euclid is still a greater mathematician than most people today.

Think you'll find that the evolutionary basis of your brain structures is very much proven, unlike arguing the toss about what word theoretically means what, which is just masturbation. Evolution has been proven on many occasions, your brain is the result of a chain of evolutionary steps. So I was being slightly facetious as we don't exactly know what the fish/frog/squirrel used that bit for, but it shows up in brain scans in humans when you have religious thoughts.

cptrelentless wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 5:26 pmThink you'll find that the evolutionary basis of your brain structures is very much proven ...

Only mathematics produces theorems that can be proven. Science produces theorems that can be experimentally tested only. Provability and falsifiability/testability exclude each other. It is either the one or else the other. In the one case, the building bricks are exclusively virtual (math), such as numbers, sets or functions, and cannot be experimentally tested, because they are not part of the physical world, and in the other case, the building bricks are exclusively physical (science), and it is therefore impossible to visit all possible cases, because that would require infinite amounts of energy. Evolution was never proven nor experimentally tested. Furthermore, the building bricks in evolution are not virtual objects. Therefore, such theorem can impossibly be proven.

eriksank wrote:

cptrelentless wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 5:26 pmThink you'll find that the evolutionary basis of your brain structures is very much proven ...

Only mathematics produces theorems that can be proven. Science produces theorems that can be experimentally tested only. Provability and falsifiability/testability exclude each other. It is either the one or else the other. In the one case, the building bricks are exclusively virtual (math), such as numbers, sets or functions, and cannot be experimentally tested, because they are not part of the physical world, and in the other case, the building bricks are exclusively physical (science), and it is therefore impossible to visit all possible cases, because that would require infinite amounts of energy. Evolution was never proven nor experimentally tested. Furthermore, the building bricks in evolution are not virtual objects. Therefore, such theorem can impossibly be proven.

As much of an anti-religious person that I am, I hate to say I agree with eriksank here. I don't hate what you're saying, only the implications that it makes me look like a religious nut job by agreeing and stating that while evolution may have a lot of circumstantial bits that make it seem like the correct theorem of the day, it is very far from being "proven" and there are still lots of holes in the theory.

eriksank wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 5:49 pm

cptrelentless wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 5:26 pmThink you'll find that the evolutionary basis of your brain structures is very much proven ...

Only mathematics produces theorems that can be proven. Science produces theorems that can be experimentally tested only. Provability and falsifiability/testability exclude each other. It is either the one or else the other. In the one case, the building bricks are exclusively virtual (math), such as numbers, sets or functions, and cannot be experimentally tested, because they are not part of the physical world, and in the other case, the building bricks are exclusively physical (science), and it is therefore impossible to visit all possible cases, because that would require infinite amounts of energy. Evolution was never proven nor experimentally tested. Furthermore, the building bricks in evolution are not virtual objects. Therefore, such theorem can impossibly be proven.

So whenever you drop something, a chaos vortex ensues, rather than it falling to the floor? I think Plato already dealt with the basics, can I observe this, is this a square or is my mind deceiving me, etc etc. My mate did theoretical maths as a university degree, he could spout bollocks much like yourself. Works for the NHS now. Don't get me wrong, it's a very neat piece of art, your arguments are pleasing and fulfilling - plus tl;dr - but they are just abstract concepts, an idealised and rationalised virtual world, based upon the chemical soup inside your head. Like the holodeck in Star Wars. Ask yourself why these abstract concepts are so pleasing to yourself and I'll point to your dopamine receptors. You do not have free thought, you are basically a train on rails, being driven by a monkey. Fuck, eat, fight ad infinitum.

is that swedish erik?

AE86 wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 8:42 pm

eriksank wrote: Some lengthy diatribe

As much of an anti-religious person that I am, I hate to say I agree with eriksank here. I don't hate what you're saying, only the implications that it makes me look like a religious nut job by agreeing and stating that while evolution may have a lot of circumstantial bits that make it seem like the correct theorem of the day, it is very far from being "proven" and there are still lots of holes in the theory.

So you'll listen to his maths twaddle and yet you cannot see the fundamental basics of our existence? It's not a theorem, maths thing, it's a theory, much like gravity is a theory but the theory seems to apply such that we can use it in mathematics. I had an A-level physics question on Centripetal Acceleration, so there is certainly maths applied to science. I never got my head round differential equations. We're going back to Eriksanks proof things, did a magical wizard poof things into existence, or can we apply models to real life and obtain results that match real world results? Thus are our choices driven by a supreme being, with a fetching hipster beard, or is the cosmos a cold hard place where a massive bang went off and the results are some sort of chimp who likes to posit windy lemmas?

cptrelentless wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 10:51 pmLike the holodeck in Star Wars.

Wash your mouth out.

ricefarmersdaughter wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 10:58 pmis that swedish erik?

Nah. Not Swedish!

If you consider that time progresses, and is therefore finite, and that causes precede their consequences, there is nothing strange in believing that there is a first cause, located at the beginning of times.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Everywhere in our universe, living beings will have the same impression. It is obviously a natural intuition. It is certainly also very plausible, as it only rests on claiming the existence of time and of causality.

Furthermore, it suits me fine to believe this. As you can imagine, I only believe what I want to believe. It is clear that there are other people who do not like the idea, and do not want to believe it. But then again, everybody believes what they want!

eriksank wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 11:38 pm

ricefarmersdaughter wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 10:58 pmis that swedish erik?

Nah. Not Swedish!

I'm curious (nothing to do with Swedishness), have you ever challenged the Bible though and dug deeper into trying to disprove it? Because I find it very unsatisfying to read "God made the Heavens", and then just accept it. If I were to accept what the Bible says, I would like a lot more than a simple "this book says so" because it seems to make sense.

cptrelentless wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 11:02 pm So you'll listen to his maths twaddle and yet you cannot see the fundamental basics of our existence? It's not a theorem, maths thing, it's a theory, much like gravity is a theory but the theory seems to apply such that we can use it in mathematics.

Hang on, gravity can be tested in the here and now. Biological (macro) evolution can not, and neither can creationism let's be very clear. What we can do is look at the present, and then make conjecture on what we think happened in the past by observing known phenomena. i.e. I saw a moto in pieces in the middle of the road today nearby an indentation in the side of a Lexus with an unconscious man next to it. I can assume he rammed into the vehicle since that seems to fit what would cause such an observation, but I was not there to see it, therefore I can only infer.

cptrelentless wrote: ↑Sun May 28, 2017 11:02 pm We're going back to Eriksanks proof things, did a magical wizard poof things into existence, or can we apply models to real life and obtain results that match real world results? Thus are our choices driven by a supreme being, with a fetching hipster beard, or is the cosmos a cold hard place where a massive bang went off and the results are some sort of chimp who likes to posit windy lemmas?

What did Erik's statement have to do with God or No God? I think you're making a lot of assumptions here, I was agreeing that evolution was not and can not be tested. I added my comment that evolution (and I'm talking about biological macro evolution) was then "far from proven" and that "there are lots of holes in the theory", because there are.

I said nothing of God but you immediately brought it up? Why?



EDIT: I just realised my post talking about religion was my 666th. Illuminati confirmed or something!

AE86 wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2017 12:49 amI'm curious (nothing to do with Swedishness), have you ever challenged the Bible though and dug deeper into trying to disprove it? Because I find it very unsatisfying to read "God made the Heavens", and then just accept it.

The bible does not try to explain why it looks like there is a God who created the heavens and the earth. Aristotle does.

AE86 wrote: ↑Mon May 29, 2017 12:49 amIf I were to accept what the Bible says, I would like a lot more than a simple "this book says so" because it seems to make sense.

That is only about morality, which is a list of arbitrary, unexplained, revealed categorical imperatives, that forbids particular behaviours. Immanuel Kant explains in Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, why morality must have that form. It would not work otherwise.

Still, because of the confusion in Christianity as to the status of the Jewish Law that it inherited, using the Bible as a legal system is not particularly recommended.

The approach works much better with the Quran, which is a very consistent legal system ("Sharia"), in widespread use. Just the fact alone that Sharia prevents secular rulers from inventing new law, turns it into a desirable solution. It shuts down every attempt by parliaments of further restricting people's freedom. Sharia does that by declaring man-made law illegitimate. If Sharia did not exist, we would have to invent it.