• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[NT] NTs and God

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
The 2+2=5 thing doesn't work for this discussion because whether or not it's "true" is entirely dependent upon how we've defined it ahead of time. We've created our own arbitrary system where 2+2=4 by definition, so this is one thing we are absolutely certain of--but only because it's a result of our own theoretical constructs.

If I name my dog Rover, then I'm absolutely certain that his name is Rover, but only because I predefined the system that way. This doesn't really apply to our epistemology discussion here.

Saying that we can't know that 2+2=4 is like saying that we don't know if the word "and" really has three letters. We do know that because we decided what a letter is and what having three of them means.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
I think there are some examples of propositions we can know to be true for certain; "2+2=4", "a square has 4 sides", and, "given p&q, one can infer p (via simplification)".

Two things:

1) All of the things you mentioned are abstract concepts. They aren't directly related to anything concrete in reality.

2) Specifically,
a) "2+2 = 4" is based upon axioms, and we have to believe those axioms are true. There is still a degree of uncertainty in the axioms (although for 2+2 = 4 the degree of uncertainty is about as small as it gets).

b) "4 sides" is part of the definition of what a "square" is. It is true that things have the properties that we define them as having, but that is pointless since we arbitrarily gave them these properties to begin with.

c) "given p&q, one can infer p (via simplification)" is a property of formal logic, and we are assuming that logic can reach conclusions in a meaningful way.

DigitalMethod said:
But you can never prove that. More importantly, there is no evidence that that is true. You can always ask "what if." You can ask questions about consciousness however you will be forever stuck in consciousness. There is no way to observe anything outside of consciousness. Therefore it is largely irrelevant to question consciousness I would say.

You certainly could prove that 2 + 2 = 5 if you changed the axioms used to reach that conclusion. Evidence is irrelevant when discussing pure mathematics, because evidence is an inferior method of reaching conclusions. Therefore pure mathematicians always ignore evidence in favor of formal logic.
 

Helios

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2008
Messages
273
MBTI Type
INTP
Two things:

1) All of the things you mentioned are abstract concepts. They aren't directly related to anything concrete in reality.

Even if true, I'm not sure how this is relevant. Recall that my claim was "there are some examples of propositions we can know to be true for certain".

2) Specifically,
a) "2+2 = 4" is based upon axioms, and we have to believe those axioms are true. There is still a degree of uncertainty in the axioms (although for 2+2 = 4 the degree of uncertainty is about as small as it gets).

Which "axioms" are being referred to? As far as I am aware, the value of the addition function necessarily is 4.

b) "4 sides" is part of the definition of what a "square" is. It is true that things have the properties that we define them as having, but that is pointless since we arbitrarily gave them these properties to begin with.

Unfortunately, I do not fully understand this objection. Perhaps it ought to be asked whether, if a square, by definition, has four sides, this claim is pertinent. The proposition "A square has 4 sides" remains necessarily true; "A square has 5 sides" is, of course, necessarily false ( as we might tell a child learning elementary mathematics).

c) "given p&q, one can infer p (via simplification)" is a property of formal logic, and we are assuming that logic can reach conclusions in a meaningful way.

I've no idea what a "property of formal logic" is, or what is meant by "reach conclusions in a meaningful way". Simplification is a valid rule of inference in propositional logic; p can always be inferred from p&q, and there is no doubt whatsoever that this is the case.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Governor Blagojovich says, "If you can't prove it, it didn't happen." See how good that works?

He didn't really get fired, of course.
(You just think he did.)
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
Even if true, I'm not sure how this is relevant. Recall that my claim was "there are some examples of propositions we can know to be true for certain".

The examples are true but irrelevant. They are theoretically true, but they are entirely human constructs. You are basically saying that we can absolutely know something is true as long as it is in a system that we created entirely ourselves.

You do have an exception (sort of), but there was no actual discovery involved and the examples are not concrete in any way. My point is that one can never be absolutely certain of anything in reality.

Which "axioms" are being referred to? As far as I am aware, the value of the addition function necessarily is 4.

Every field of mathematics operates under axioms, even arithmetic. A couple of the most basic ones are
1) x = x
2) Given a = a and b = b then a + b = a + b

These axioms are both need to conclude 2 + 2 = 4. (I can't recall all of the axioms for arithmetic, but) there is also an axiom assuming that the operation addition exists.

Now these ideas may seem so basic that they don't seem like assumptions at all, but ideas which must be true. Well that is exactly the criteria for a good axiom.
I've no idea what a "property of formal logic" is, or what is meant by "reach conclusions in a meaningful way". Simplification is a valid rule of inference in propositional logic; p can always be inferred from p&q, and there is no doubt whatsoever that this is the case.

You are essentially saying the same thing that I am about your proposition. Your proposition is a property of logic. However to use logic one must assume that logic exists and can draw meaningful conclusions.
 

Helios

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2008
Messages
273
MBTI Type
INTP
The examples are true but irrelevant. They are theoretically true, but they are entirely human constructs. You are basically saying that we can absolutely know something is true as long as it is in a system that we created entirely ourselves.

Once again, my claim is: "there are some examples of propositions we can know to be true for certain". This was in response to a claim to the contrary; I did not specify of what nature these propositions are. Your task is to refute the claim that the examples adduced can be known for certain. Incidentally, all of my propositions are certain even without the existence of humans to conceive of them; 2+2=4 is certainly true irrespective of any human's existence.


Now these ideas may seem so basic that they don't seem like assumptions at all, but ideas which must be true. Well that is exactly the criteria for a good axiom.

Precisely; the axioms you cite must be true, and, consequently, 2+2=4 must also be true.


You are essentially saying the same thing that I am about your proposition. Your proposition is a property of logic. However to use logic one must assume that logic exists and can draw meaningful conclusions.

I can only repeat the foregoing: "I've no idea what a "property of formal logic" is, or what is meant by "reach conclusions in a meaningful way". I am requesting, implicitly, that you explain what is meant by these statements.
 

silverchris9

New member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
71
MBTI Type
ENFP
I thought it appropriate to at least mention that I withdrew myself from the conversation out of exhaustion. Hopefully I'll be able to gather myself and dive back in a few pages from now! Are we now arguing about the possibility of logical certainty/self-evident truths? Are we trying to refute "There are no married bachelors"?

(I really haven't read the thread, so I'm probably wrong.)

Also, @mycroft, sense experience = true by definition? Sure. Nice.

@Costrin, I'm worn out. I'll try to come back to the debate at some point. However, for now, I'd just like to say that you rather own at this.
 

Costrin

rawr
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
2,320
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
5w4
I thought it appropriate to at least mention that I withdrew myself from the conversation out of exhaustion. Hopefully I'll be able to gather myself and dive back in a few pages from now! Are we now arguing about the possibility of logical certainty/self-evident truths? Are we trying to refute "There are no married bachelors"?

I'd rather not. I see it as pretty pointless. I apologize to the thread for bringing it up in the first place.

@Costrin, I'm worn out. I'll try to come back to the debate at some point. However, for now, I'd just like to say that you rather own at this.

Why thank you.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
Precisely; the axioms you cite must be true, and, consequently, 2+2=4 must also be true.

No we cannot be sure that "2+2=4" is true. It only seems this way. In fact "2+2=4" is based upon assumptions and in fact it can be shown that 2+2 does not always equal 4. For example in mod 3 arithmetic 2+2=1 and in mod 4 arithmetic 2+2=0.

I can only repeat the foregoing: "I've no idea what a "property of formal logic" is, or what is meant by "reach conclusions in a meaningful way". I am requesting, implicitly, that you explain what is meant by these statements.

If you haven't studied formal logic, then I'm not sure if I can explain it to you in a way that you will accept. This is my simplest attempt: There is more than one way to reason. Formal logic is one way to do so. When using any type of reasoning we assume that our method is valid in reaching useful or meaningful conclusions.
 

Helios

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2008
Messages
273
MBTI Type
INTP
If you haven't studied formal logic, then I'm not sure if I can explain it to you in a way that you will accept. This is my simplest attempt: There is more than one way to reason. Formal logic is one way to do so. When using any type of reasoning we assume that our method is valid in reaching useful or meaningful conclusions.

I am currently in the process of studying formal logic (see "Elementary Symbolic Logic" by William Gustason and Dolphe E. Ulrich for an excellent introduction), and the terms you use are unrecognisable to me. Once again:
"I've no idea what a "property of formal logic" is, or what is meant by "reach conclusions in a meaningful way". I am requesting, implicitly, that you explain what is meant by these statements".
Furthermore, I would now like it to be explained what it is to "reach useful conclusions" and explicate what is meant by "a way to reason". I am asking you to explain what you mean. A failure to do this will be considered a form of obfuscation, and lead to the termination of our exchange.
 

Mycroft

The elder Holmes
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,068
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
No we cannot be sure that "2+2=4" is true. It only seems this way. In fact "2+2=4" is based upon assumptions and in fact it can be shown that 2+2 does not always equal 4. For example in mod 3 arithmetic 2+2=1 and in mod 4 arithmetic 2+2=0.

It is certainly possible to conceive of and develop elaborate systems wherein adding two things to another two things does not result in four things. However, in this universe, where adding two things to another two things results in four things, such systems fail to tell us anything real about the universe we inhabit.

Just because you can think a thing does not make it real.

If you haven't studied formal logic, then I'm not sure if I can explain it to you in a way that you will accept. This is my simplest attempt: There is more than one way to reason. Formal logic is one way to do so. When using any type of reasoning we assume that our method is valid in reaching useful or meaningful conclusions.

Spoken like a proper shaman.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
It is certainly possible to conceive of and develop elaborate systems wherein adding two things to another two things does not result in four things. However, in this universe, where adding two things to another two things results in four things, such systems fail to tell us anything real about the universe we inhabit.

Just because you can think a thing does not make it real.

Modulus arithmetic does exist in the real world although the most common example is modulus 12. Hours on the clock use numbers 1 through 12 and then start over again. When talking about hours 7 + 7 = 2.
 

Mycroft

The elder Holmes
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,068
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Modulus arithmetic does exist in the real world although the most common example is modulus 12. Hours on the clock use numbers 1 through 12 and then start over again. When talking about hours 7 + 7 = 2.

You're confusing mathematics with a unit of measurement. Mathematics is a representation of observed, real-world phenomenon. (e.g. if I have two objects and I add another object I will have three objects; if I divide these four objects into two separate groups, each group will contain two objects; etc.) Units of measurement, while useful, are, indeed, quite arbitrary and made-up.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
You're confusing mathematics with a unit of measurement. Mathematics is a representation of observed, real-world phenomenon. (e.g. if I have two objects and I add another object I will have three objects; if I divide these four objects into two separate groups, each group will contain two objects; etc.) Units of measurement, while useful, are, indeed, quite arbitrary and made-up.

I'm not confusing the two. Units of measurement are a part of mathematics, and they also have obvious application to reality. Science would fall apart pretty quickly without units of measurement.
 

Mycroft

The elder Holmes
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,068
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I'm not confusing the two. Units of measurement are a part of mathematics, and they also have obvious application to reality. Science would fall apart pretty quickly without units of measurement.

Yes, you are. In pure mathematics, units of measurement do not come into play.

Units of measurement are certainly useful. As you state, attempting science without them, while possible, would be a severe headache. You would have the metrics-versus-American issues that mechanics bemoan on an even greater scale. However, units of measurement are used simply to aid man in his endeavors; no scientist would claim that units of measurement, in and of themselves, tell us anything about the universe.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
Yes, you are. In pure mathematics, units of measurement do not come into play.

Units of measurement are certainly useful. As you state, attempting science without them, while possible, would be a severe headache. You would have the metrics-versus-American issues that mechanics bemoan on an even greater scale. However, units of measurement are used simply to aid man in his endeavors; no scientist would claim that units of measurement, in and of themselves, tell us anything about the universe.

I believe that you are saying that pure mathematics represents reality while units of measurement are disconnected. I would say the opposite is true. Units of measurement exist solely to describe reality. Pure mathematics does not have to represent reality at all. Units of measurement are what make mathematics concrete rather than abstract. The number "2" when used as a noun is abstract, but the words "two meters" are concrete. Units of measurement may be man made, but they are created specfically with the purpose of connecting mathematics to reality.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Here's why God must exist: We live in a vastly complex system that has endured for eons. Perhaps there was some progenitor race that constructed this all from nothing or nearly nothing, but then where did they come from? The big bang theory currently maintains that the universe as we experience it resulted from the collision of two massive 9-dimensional objects. I wish I more completely understood this, but so do most theoretical physicists. Anyway, those must have come from somewhere, and following this recursion back far enough, something must have come from nothing. Therefore, something which transcends our knowledge and understanding must have created the energy that coalesced into the universe as we know it today.
I agree with your position on the definitive origin of the Universe. Despite my belief in God, that still leaves me in a position where I want to see how everything happened. Perhaps a part of my mental block is caused by my inability to create a mental picture of what the Universe would be like in true nothingness. If it were just a vacuum, then it would still have volume and is therefore easy to imagine, but if it were truly nothing, then the weirdness of null space eludes me. Is it possible for anything to exist in the absence of matter/energy/time? Are these the universal constants which are the underpinnings of our existence? Can even God exist without these things?
What you're describing is string theory, as articulated in works such as Kaku's Hyperspace and Brian Greene's Elegant Universe. In the latter, he actually mentions a supposed "primal realm" that the strings making up the "fabric of space" lie in, in which the notions of time and space break down and ordinary geometry is replaced by something known as non-commutative geometry. [such as matrices, as opposed to normal Cartesian coordinates]. That to me showed that spacetime as we know it is not the ultimate reality.
Unfortunately, they seemed to have moved away from discussing this, for so-called "Membrane theory" where the collision of "branes" or 4D spacetimes in an 11 D space collide and spawn "big bangs". As was pointed out, this just pushes the question back further.

What you've just described is commonly referred to as the problem of causation. It does necessitate that some kind of greater force, some first cause, independent of the known universe must have existed in order for the universe to exist at all.

This is a good argument, actually. I agree that we can't really account for this, and so therefore some kind of something must have existed before or independently of the known universe.

The problem with theology is that right here is where the reasoning stops. We have no idea if this unknown force is a conscious entity, or just the sum of all natural forces, or any number of other things--in fact, we don't know anything about it, and therefore can't possibly attempt to assign any specific properties to it.

You are correct that anyone who claims he knows for certain that no such greater force of any kind exists or ever existed is fooling himself--it's obvious that he has no answer to the problem of causation.

But anyone who claims that he knows any specific properties of this vague greater force is also fooling himself, because there is no evidence for any of them and no way to obtain any. Whatever this vague greater force is--call it "God" if you really want to--it's a far a cry from most modern theistic conceptions of God, and that's why many people identify as atheists. Intelligent atheists don't claim to have any real knowledge about the origin of the universe or any solution to the problem of causation--they identify as atheists simply to signify that they don't buy into any of the specific theistic conceptions of "God" that are abundant in popular religion today.

I think it's quite possible to be an atheist and still not claim any answer to the problem of causation, because this "vague greater force" that we know nothing about and can't possibly hope to comprehend is not necessarily "God"--what are the properties of God? Most people who believe in God try to claim that they know specific properties about him, but that's clearly impossible.

Who says this vague greater force is actually God, anyway? It may not be omnipotent or omniscient or any of that stuff, but theists think that they know all about it. "God" by most people's definitions has all kinds of specific properties, and atheists identify ourselves in this way simply as a method of dismissing any conceptions of God as a conscious entity, or as something about which we can really know anything. We don't claim to know how the universe was created, and we don't have a good answer to the problem of causation--but these things don't necessitate the existence of so-called "God" by any modern popular definition.

There is actually a point to this, for Isaiah 40:25 does say "To whom then will all of you liken me, or shall I be equal? says the Holy One". There is nothing we can liken Him to. So a lot of the "properties" we have come up are either our own fabrication, or at least shorthand for things we cannot comprehend. The raw concept of God is some kind of reality who caused this to be, and in the case of revealed religion, communicated through creation. Hence, this debate is just the dispute with those who don't trust their fellow creatures to have perceived or relayed the information right (whether the inspiration of the texts to begin with, or on the next level, the interpretation of them), and want to test things for themselves.

For this reason, I have come to find trying to convince anyone to be futile.
 

Mycroft

The elder Holmes
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
1,068
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I believe that you are saying that pure mathematics represents reality while units of measurement are disconnected. I would say the opposite is true. Units of measurement exist solely to describe reality. Pure mathematics does not have to represent reality at all. Units of measurement are what make mathematics concrete rather than abstract. The number "2" when used as a noun is abstract, but the words "two meters" are concrete. Units of measurement may be man made, but they are created specfically with the purpose of connecting mathematics to reality.

What exists is a length; we may express this length as, say, x, in which case x becomes a representation of the existent length. We can apply units of measurement, say centimeters or inches, but these serve only to simplify the proceedings and allow different human beings discussing this length to share a frame of reference. The important distinction is that x is a representation of an existent, while the units of measurement are merely a tool -- they represent only themselves.

I believe that you are, again, placing the cart before the horse.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
What exists is a length; we may express this length as, say, x, in which case x becomes a representation of the existent length. We can apply units of measurement, say centimeters or inches, but these serve only to simplify the proceedings and allow different human beings discussing this length to share a frame of reference. The important distinction is that x is a representation of an existent, while the units of measurement are merely a tool -- they represent only themselves.

I believe that you are, again, placing the cart before the horse.

I can't believe that you are making a distinction on this minor level of abstraction, and yet at the same time think that numbers are real entities. If you consider measurement abstract, then numbers are much much more abstract, lol. :)
 
Top