Graphenium 1 point ago +3 / -2

Pretty sure it nullifies the tag so the other person doesn’t actually get notified, not sure though never been much of a twit

Graphenium 5 points ago +5 / -0

Like when people say X-men was a “coded” discussion of the different approaches to the civil rights movement (prof x = mlk, magneto = malcolm x)

Graphenium 2 points ago +2 / -0

The story of AC is unironically closer to real life than “anatomically modern humans sat around jerking off in caves for 290,000 years until inventing agriculture 10,000 years ago”.

Graphenium 5 points ago +5 / -0

I’ve been asking the admins for over two years now for a setting which would let communities sort their front page by /active...it might finally be coming now that the legacy sites have been switched over to the system

Graphenium 13 points ago +13 / -0

.win limitation... mods can filter posts from new accounts, but it’s all or nothing (someone correct me if I’m wrong - the filter is written in YAML so it could be possible I just don’t really know the language’s limitations)

Graphenium 1 point ago +1 / -0

The argument that math and the complex symbol systems required by chemistry, physics, and so forth MUST have been existing out there in the ether

Is that not the obvious case? The universe developed for billions and billions of years according to these physical laws with no humans around to write them down symbolically. Simultaneously, these laws don’t physically “exist” in the sense that they aren’t written down anywhere. Protons aren’t labeled “this side up”, yet somehow the universe knows just how to proceed, in all respects.

Math, physics, chemistry are highly effective maps of the natural world, so effective you can make predictions about how some stuff will act or behave.

Can you think of anything “real” which can’t be explained/modeled by math? How could a mindless universe be so totally governed by something which is synonymous with mind? It’s (LITERALLY) illogical

And just so you know, this post isn’t suggesting any specific God over another, it’s about trying to find common ground where everyone can congregate to through logical argument, from where the discussion could branch off in many interesting directions

Graphenium 1 point ago +1 / -0

Tell me which part of the argument makes a mockery of math:

There are, according to the standard model, 27 independent and fundamental variables which underpin “the laws of physics”

There is no reason for these variables to have the value they do (hence independent), or any other value, beyond the logical necessity that they must have some value

One of these 27 variables is lamda, the cosmological constant, which has been determined to posses a value on the order of 1x10^-122 (unitless)

Should the value of this number change, a variety of effects would occur depending on the degree of change. A very very very very small change would result in galaxies never forming. A very very very small change would result in stars never forming. A very very small change would result in the universe collapsing in on itself nearly instantaneously after the big bang.

That same reality applies to each of the 27 independent fundamental variables, and while I may not be able to actually produce this equation which multiplies the acceptable error bounds, it is clearly logically possible to produce it.

If you want to, from this point, make some Anthropic Principle-esque rebuttal along the lines of “well who says these variables can take any other value than the one they hold in our universe” / “there could be infinite universes, we just happen to be in the one where they take these values”, congrats on shutting down the conversation, but I and Roger Penrose alike assure you, you haven't actually responded to the argument, merely attempted to avoid it (Dip, Dodge, Duck, Davoid, and Dip right? Been a while since school)

It is implausible to the degree of practical impossibility to suggest that this is the result of chaos, chance, and meaninglessness (“beyond a shadow of a doubt”? We execute people on less grounds than you seem to be demanding from a fucking forum conversation lol).

Graphenium 0 points ago +1 / -1

Go back to your first statement, where you effectively claim everyone who perceives existence as possessing meaning is stupid. You’re the one who kicked things off on a poor foot. I made a logical argument to start a discussion, you made a judgement and placed yourself above everyone with a different understanding. The fact you don’t understand limits is just the cherry on top.

Graphenium 1 point ago +1 / -0
  1. If God did not exist, the applicability of mathematics would be just a happy coincidence. 2. The applicability of mathematics is not just a happy coincidence. 3. Therefore, God exists.

Still waiting for you to deal with that argument. If you recall, all you’ve done so far is bitch, spout non-sequitors, and insult the intelligence of others

Graphenium 1 point ago +1 / -0

If we imagine an alternative universe that did not have a logical mind underpinning it, what might it look like? What would be different?

Well, for starters, math wouldn’t provide such a useful tool for modeling reality. 2+2 really could be equal to mashed potato. Such a universe would be governed by illogic. Existence would be truly meaningless in every sense of the word. There would be no correspondence between cause and effect. So on and so forth.

I don't think anything in logic itself dictates how stars should behave.

I’m wrapping the “Laws of Physics” into the broader umbrella concept of “Applicability of Mathematics to Reality”. The star functions the way it does (mostly) because of the interplay of gravity, nuclear fusion, and electromagnetism. The reason for these processes playing out by logical, coherent rules is ultimately the observable fact that our universe is governed by logic.

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

I’m not trying to be tautological, though I understand how these arguments could be interpreted that way. The key point is that there is no reason why mathematics should be so applicable to reality that it has long been called “the language of nature”, unless you include the possibility of intelligent design. You could say, “I believe in the thing so mind bogglingly implausible that it could be rightly said that the possibility of its occurrence is approaching 1/∞” but that is just an inferior answer in my opinion.

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

So two things:

Firstly - even the parts of math we think don’t apply to reality often end up astoundingly showing up in some theretofore poorly understood realm. A great example of this are the imaginary numbers and their associated operations.

Secondly - “Math” isn’t a physical thing right? It is, like Plato’s forms, an idealized abstraction that exists only in the minds of humans (as far as we know), right? So for math to be “real”, that means this idealized, non-physical form must also be real, but somehow existing outside of the universe. If one can accept this, God is basically just a name given by us to this underlying order and meaning which exists outside of, and was wholly responsible for shaping, the universe itself.

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?

Oh it’s good stuff. Basically what you describe and variations on the theme usually dealing with changes in scale. One of the most interesting versions I’ve seen even applied the logic to the evolution of universes themselves, in an assumed multiversal situation. I can look for the link if you’re interested, I think I posted it a while back.

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.

Yes, this is effectively the “Anthropic Principle”, which is admittedly the best attempt at a counter-argument I’ve come across, but I agree with Roger Penrose that to invoke it provides no explanatory power at all, and is in fact the far more tautological option than concluding a higher order intelligence behind the universe (imo at least).

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.

Glad to find a subject we have so much agreement on. Maybe we can sharpen each others arguments to better effect!

Graphenium 0 points ago +1 / -1

No offense, but did you take any math classes in college?

Yeah about a quarter of my STEM program, you?

Very large numbers multiplied by very small numbers end up being somewhere between the two. This isn't complicated stuff.

You don’t seem to understand the argument if this is your response. Start again with the logical proposition in the title and disprove it if you can. From there we can move on to the fine tuning argument on the other side of the cross-post.

And it's all a moot point anyway, because the probability of an even that has already happened happening is 1.

Lol, all you’ve done, like the vast majority of people who’ve summoned what they think is a “counter argument” is restate the Anthropic Principle in other words. Here is Sir Roger Penrose on your “rebuttal”:

[The Anthropic Principle] tends to be invoked by theorists whenever they do not have a good enough theory to explain the observed facts."

Graphenium 1 point ago +1 / -0

Equations don't create the universe, they describe it.

Do humans invent math or discover it?

Effect can suggest a cause

Effect: an ordered, non-random universe which appears to contain meaning and operate based on the principles of math and logic, all hallmarks of intelligence

Suggested cause: an intelligent design

and then you go off and prove that's indeed the cause of the effect

Elaborated proof: the post I linked to in the first place

How many universes are there

One, hence “uni-verse”

Do you understand the reason now why you can't answer any of these questions I've posed? You shouldn't feel bad about not knowing; nobody has answers other than the universe exists (to us) and is how it is.

Again, just restating the Anthropic Principle.

Graphenium 1 point ago +1 / -0

How do you know those are even variables

They’re defined as such by the equations they’re used in

much less independent

This is established rigorously by the standard model. Here is some further reading if you want it:


How do you know that all of those hypothesized universes don't also exist

What, “multiverse theory” combined with “Anthropic Principle”? Unfortunately invoking the magical idol of “Anthropic Principle” is no argument, as Roger Penrose points out:

“It [the Anthropic Principle] tends to be invoked by theorists whenever they do not have a good enough theory to explain the observed facts."

You're in the universe with a 1 for that 'variable', what's the chance of that happening? It's not 1/6, it's 100%

Ackshully it’s 50/50, either it happens or it doesn’t [note, hopefully by my use of an exaggerated and clearly incorrect statistical argument, you can reflect on the fact that all you’ve done in this section is restate the Anthropic Principle which can be summarily dismissed as an argument. Invoking it is the true circular, tautological argument, even though you currently see the initial argument made in the title that way]

Graphenium 1 point ago +1 / -0

it's still vastly too small to be effectively 1/∞, infinitely too small technically.

Except for the inferred fact that the universe is on the order of 1x10^60 plank time units old. You could perform a random operation literally as often as is physically possible and still be more orders of magnitude away from the magnitude of the VERY FIRST TERM IN A 27+ TERM MULIPLICATION than you started (122 exp - 60 exp = 62 exp, 62>60).

That is, like the randomly shuffled deck of cards(10^67), effectively infinite. You will NEVER be able to achieve what we observe through random chance, and that’s according to the very Standard Model which you bow to.

Graphenium 0 points ago +1 / -1

What's the chance of it randomly deciding to operate on logic?

Feel free to go back to the start and try to formulate an answer to this. Considering it can be demonstrated to be the multiplicative product of googolplex by googolplex calculations (1x10^-120 for lamda for example, in addition to 25 or 26 other fundamental and importantly independent variables, which can have their possible changes before breaking some fundamental process calculated and multiplied together to get a number which effectively approaches 1/∞)

Graphenium 3 points ago +3 / -0

Is it? Even mindless processes proceed logically.

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.

Graphenium 2 points ago +3 / -1

You posit a universe which is governed by chaos

You further posit that this chaotic universe, for no reason at all (because remember, reason doesn’t exist in your universe), gives rise to logic and order.

You have no justification for this, no prior observations of anything approaching this scenario, and in fact we observe only the opposite - without conscious direction, ORDER becomes CHAOS, never the opposite way around.

Graphenium 3 points ago +3 / -0

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

Graphenium 3 points ago +3 / -0

Premise 1 is accurate. You aren’t making anything approaching an argument.

Premise 2 is demonstrated through the fact you’re typing your message to me on a device you don’t understand the first thing about.

view more: Next ›