RE: Do you believe in god or math?
September 30, 2011 at 7:01 pm
(This post was last modified: September 30, 2011 at 7:03 pm by IATIA.)
I see the theists have not addressed the OP.
This thread has taken an interesting turn. It would seem that the main problem is semantics which truly can never be overcome.
As the posters are quibbling over definitions, I have noticed one definition that has eluded any discussion. That being the definition of math itself.
If 'math' is strictly defined as a language, then it will always be subjective. 'Math', however, is supposed to be 'objective'. As 'edk141' stated, "If you drop something in a vacuum at constant Earth surface gravity, it will accelerate at 9.8m/s no matter what units you measure the 9.8m/s in.", this is where the semantics comes into play. No matter the language used, the rate of fall does not change. That is 'math'. We have attached a language to the math to be able to communicate our observations and theories, but the language itself is not the 'math'.
'Math' is objective. The language used to describe the 'math' is supposed to be objective, but (as shown in this thread) can be semantically charged with subjectiveness. Ultimately, I see no way around this as it is apparently human nature to create discourse when none is present.
The other problem being, language itself is a poor way of conveying one's own thoughts to another, (as will be shown by responses to this post).
I see RED. Simple enough. Bright red? Dull red? Maybe a little blue in it , but still red. Did i mean brick red? How about burgundy, carmine, madder, maroon, rose, rouge, ruby, russet? What color did I mean?
This thread has taken an interesting turn. It would seem that the main problem is semantics which truly can never be overcome.
As the posters are quibbling over definitions, I have noticed one definition that has eluded any discussion. That being the definition of math itself.
If 'math' is strictly defined as a language, then it will always be subjective. 'Math', however, is supposed to be 'objective'. As 'edk141' stated, "If you drop something in a vacuum at constant Earth surface gravity, it will accelerate at 9.8m/s no matter what units you measure the 9.8m/s in.", this is where the semantics comes into play. No matter the language used, the rate of fall does not change. That is 'math'. We have attached a language to the math to be able to communicate our observations and theories, but the language itself is not the 'math'.
'Math' is objective. The language used to describe the 'math' is supposed to be objective, but (as shown in this thread) can be semantically charged with subjectiveness. Ultimately, I see no way around this as it is apparently human nature to create discourse when none is present.
The other problem being, language itself is a poor way of conveying one's own thoughts to another, (as will be shown by responses to this post).
I see RED. Simple enough. Bright red? Dull red? Maybe a little blue in it , but still red. Did i mean brick red? How about burgundy, carmine, madder, maroon, rose, rouge, ruby, russet? What color did I mean?
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy