Maybe, but premise 1 is faulty and vague whether or not I did. For one, how precisely would one define 'applicability' and 'happy coincidence'? Does it mean that there's no mathematics if there is no god, that 2+2 could equal 4 one moment and 5 another? Or that the fact that it is, is a 'coincidence'?
I don't see why this does not have to be true in any universe, whether or not a god exists.
Logic is synonymous with mind. How could mind govern a mindless universe?
The point being, “mathematics” becomes a meaningless word in a universe governed by chaos, randomness, and meaninglessness (i.e. God-less). I implore you to describe such a universe, hopefully such that you will see its utter implausibility
The point being, “mathematics” becomes a meaningless word in a universe governed by chaos, randomness, and meaninglessness (i.e. God-less).
Do you mean that the mere fact of God's existence (according to you) imbues mathematics with meaning for everyone, or that the word mathematics only has meaning to people who believe in a god?
I implore you to describe such a universe, hopefully such that you will see its utter implausibility
I just don't see it, nor its implausibility, at least as it specifically relates to mathematics. If you believe in a god, and think that the laws of mathematics are laws posited by the divinity, then it may seem obvious - sort of a William Paley watch argument - but not to me.
The best argument for a god I've heard is the cosmological argument. Everything has a cause, at least in our experience. But what caused the universe to come into existence? A god is a decent hypothesis for that. What then caused god? Some religious people say that this necessitates a cause that stands outside of time.
Here do you refer to something like “cause and effect”? A “mindless” star runs out of Hydrogen and thus implodes? It is my contention that the reason for the the universe proceeding logically can only be a logical mind (God) underpinning these processes. So the notion that even “mindless” parts of the universe proceed according to logic does indeed bolster my point. Unless you meant something else by “mindless processes”?
Do you mean that the mere fact of God's existence (according to you) imbues mathematics with meaning for everyone, or that the word mathematics only has meaning to people who believe in a god?
What I mean is, in a Godless universe mathematics should be no more privileged than smathematics (which is like mathematics but every number and logical operation is replaced with a mashed potato). The only conceivable reason for the applicability of math and logic to the universe is that the universe was designed with math and logic in mind. That’s what I’m trying to get at. Do you get where I’m coming from? Can you conceive of a counter-argument?
I just don't see it, nor its implausibility, at least as it specifically relates to mathematics. If you believe in a god, and think that the laws of mathematics are laws posited by the divinity, then it may seem obvious - sort of a William Paley watch argument - but not to me.
Fair enough, I probably wouldn’t have grokked the argument immediately back in my materialist reductionist days either. We can back up a bit: do you think math is fundamentally woven into the universe, or do you think math is fundamentally a human-created overlay with which we can analyze the world and it just so happens to have an utterly absurd degree of overlap? Are the mechanisms of the universe proceeding via mathematics and logic, or do they merely appear to be that way?
The best argument for a god I've heard is the cosmological argument.
Yeah same, it allows for the invigorating discussion without being bogged down by the baggage of dogma. Have you read much on the fine-tuned universe argument?
But what caused the universe to come into existence? A god is a decent hypothesis for that. What then caused god? Some religious people say that this necessitates a cause that stands outside of time.
I think God would be that “cause standing outside of time[/space/“the universe”]”, but that’s just a logical intuition of mine.
Here do you refer to something like “cause and effect”? A “mindless” star runs out of Hydrogen and thus implodes? It is my contention that the reason for the the universe proceeding logically can only be a logical mind (God) underpinning these processes. So the notion that even “mindless” parts of the universe proceed according to logic does indeed bolster my point. Unless you meant something else by “mindless processes”?
It is an example of what I meant. But this is something that can't be refuted or proven in any way. If we imagine an alternative universe that did not have a logical mind underpinning it, what might it look like? What would be different? I don't think anything in logic itself dictates how stars should behave. You could also talk about things like non-contradiction and basic math. Is there a possible universe where 2+2 equals 5, and propositions are simultaneously true and false?
What I mean is, in a Godless universe mathematics should be no more privileged than smathematics (which is like mathematics but every number and logical operation is replaced with a mashed potato). The only conceivable reason for the applicability of math and logic to the universe is that the universe was designed with math and logic in mind. That’s what I’m trying to get at. Do you get where I’m coming from? Can you conceive of a counter-argument?
No, but I think I can reply to it. This sounds a lot like a sort of deistic Platonism. Where Plato argued that mathematics, as well as a whole host of things, were what they were because they participated in certain 'forms', and he later semi-abandoned it because forms cannot be demonstrated, nor shown where they are - later thinkers like Augustine argued that forms are actually ideas in the mind of god. You seem to be making a similar sort of argument.
I think it's very persuasive, or rather appealing, when you apply this to things that are not as exact - like morality. Good being a form in the mind of god nicely rounds out the whole thing. But applied to mathematics? You seem to be taking the divine origin of mathematics as axiomatic, and as such, it really can't be refuted - just like you can't refute Euclid, but you can propose alternatives which start out from different axioms.
Fair enough, I probably wouldn’t have grokked the argument immediately back in my materialist reductionist days either. We can back up a bit: do you think math is fundamentally woven into the universe, or do you think math is fundamentally a human-created overlay with which we can analyze the world and it just so happens to have an utterly absurd degree of overlap? Are the mechanisms of the universe proceeding via mathematics and logic, or do they merely appear to be that way?
So basically, realism or instrumentalism? In my uninformed opinion, basic math is realist, while the more specialized you get, the more instrumentalist it might get. Of course, you don't even know, because for 2 centuries we thought that Newton described everything perfectly, until it turned out that things are different with relativistic speeds or at subatomic levels. So maybe we're off too right now, even if slightly?
Yeah same, it allows for the invigorating discussion without being bogged down by the baggage of dogma. Have you read much on the fine-tuned universe argument?
Nothing actually. I'm only familiar with some of the arguments because they're part of history. I assume this is the argument that even a very tiny change in the conditions would have resulted in there being no humans, or perhaps even no universe? I can think of some counter-arguments against that. Perhaps there would have been other forms of life. It's also hard to judge it from the inside. Even if it is unlikely for things to be as they are, in any hypothetical universe where the conditions were not ripe for intelligent life, there would be no people to contemplate why things are the way they are.
I think God would be that “cause standing outside of time[/space/“the universe”]”, but that’s just a logical intuition of mine.
That's what I meant. You can say that there was nothing before the Big Bang, or you can say that a god put it into motion - which is as good a hypothesis as any, probably even better. Far more persuasive than the ontological argument say.
Maybe, but premise 1 is faulty and vague whether or not I did. For one, how precisely would one define 'applicability' and 'happy coincidence'? Does it mean that there's no mathematics if there is no god, that 2+2 could equal 4 one moment and 5 another? Or that the fact that it is, is a 'coincidence'?
I don't see why this does not have to be true in any universe, whether or not a god exists.
Logic is synonymous with mind. How could mind govern a mindless universe?
The point being, “mathematics” becomes a meaningless word in a universe governed by chaos, randomness, and meaninglessness (i.e. God-less). I implore you to describe such a universe, hopefully such that you will see its utter implausibility
Is it? Even mindless processes proceed logically.
Do you mean that the mere fact of God's existence (according to you) imbues mathematics with meaning for everyone, or that the word mathematics only has meaning to people who believe in a god?
I just don't see it, nor its implausibility, at least as it specifically relates to mathematics. If you believe in a god, and think that the laws of mathematics are laws posited by the divinity, then it may seem obvious - sort of a William Paley watch argument - but not to me.
The best argument for a god I've heard is the cosmological argument. Everything has a cause, at least in our experience. But what caused the universe to come into existence? A god is a decent hypothesis for that. What then caused god? Some religious people say that this necessitates a cause that stands outside of time.
Here do you refer to something like “cause and effect”? A “mindless” star runs out of Hydrogen and thus implodes? It is my contention that the reason for the the universe proceeding logically can only be a logical mind (God) underpinning these processes. So the notion that even “mindless” parts of the universe proceed according to logic does indeed bolster my point. Unless you meant something else by “mindless processes”?
What I mean is, in a Godless universe mathematics should be no more privileged than smathematics (which is like mathematics but every number and logical operation is replaced with a mashed potato). The only conceivable reason for the applicability of math and logic to the universe is that the universe was designed with math and logic in mind. That’s what I’m trying to get at. Do you get where I’m coming from? Can you conceive of a counter-argument?
Fair enough, I probably wouldn’t have grokked the argument immediately back in my materialist reductionist days either. We can back up a bit: do you think math is fundamentally woven into the universe, or do you think math is fundamentally a human-created overlay with which we can analyze the world and it just so happens to have an utterly absurd degree of overlap? Are the mechanisms of the universe proceeding via mathematics and logic, or do they merely appear to be that way?
Yeah same, it allows for the invigorating discussion without being bogged down by the baggage of dogma. Have you read much on the fine-tuned universe argument?
I think God would be that “cause standing outside of time[/space/“the universe”]”, but that’s just a logical intuition of mine.
It is an example of what I meant. But this is something that can't be refuted or proven in any way. If we imagine an alternative universe that did not have a logical mind underpinning it, what might it look like? What would be different? I don't think anything in logic itself dictates how stars should behave. You could also talk about things like non-contradiction and basic math. Is there a possible universe where 2+2 equals 5, and propositions are simultaneously true and false?
No, but I think I can reply to it. This sounds a lot like a sort of deistic Platonism. Where Plato argued that mathematics, as well as a whole host of things, were what they were because they participated in certain 'forms', and he later semi-abandoned it because forms cannot be demonstrated, nor shown where they are - later thinkers like Augustine argued that forms are actually ideas in the mind of god. You seem to be making a similar sort of argument.
I think it's very persuasive, or rather appealing, when you apply this to things that are not as exact - like morality. Good being a form in the mind of god nicely rounds out the whole thing. But applied to mathematics? You seem to be taking the divine origin of mathematics as axiomatic, and as such, it really can't be refuted - just like you can't refute Euclid, but you can propose alternatives which start out from different axioms.
So basically, realism or instrumentalism? In my uninformed opinion, basic math is realist, while the more specialized you get, the more instrumentalist it might get. Of course, you don't even know, because for 2 centuries we thought that Newton described everything perfectly, until it turned out that things are different with relativistic speeds or at subatomic levels. So maybe we're off too right now, even if slightly?
Nothing actually. I'm only familiar with some of the arguments because they're part of history. I assume this is the argument that even a very tiny change in the conditions would have resulted in there being no humans, or perhaps even no universe? I can think of some counter-arguments against that. Perhaps there would have been other forms of life. It's also hard to judge it from the inside. Even if it is unlikely for things to be as they are, in any hypothetical universe where the conditions were not ripe for intelligent life, there would be no people to contemplate why things are the way they are.
That's what I meant. You can say that there was nothing before the Big Bang, or you can say that a god put it into motion - which is as good a hypothesis as any, probably even better. Far more persuasive than the ontological argument say.