(January 24, 2009 at 5:42 pm)CoxRox Wrote:Well, as I said, I don't have an interpretaion: just as the atheist doesn't have a religous belief, neither do I make any claims as to the origin of mathematical laws: I simply point out that there is nothing indicative of a Lawmaker (of which I would gladly welcome disproof).(January 24, 2009 at 5:13 pm)DD_8630 Wrote: Our 'interpretation' is correct insofar as we don't have one: we don't read anything into mathematical laws, simply because there is nothing indicative of a Grand Lawmaker.
Naturally, there may Grand Lawmaker, but there is nothing that suggests there is.
Unless, of curse, you can argue otherwise. Else you're just making non sequitur after wild conjecture after unsubstantiated hypotheses.
Is your interpretation really correct?
(January 24, 2009 at 5:42 pm)CoxRox Wrote: Well forgive me for this 'crime' I'm about to committ, but I'm going to appeal to authority, as I'm just not clever enough where maths and physics are concerned and if Gödel could 'see' the suggestion that there is intelligence behind these 'laws' then I'm interested to know why he and many other scientists don't view this like you and the others do.Probably for the same reason that Einstein opposed quantum mechanics, or Newton spent his last decades in alchemy. Genius does not preclude irrationality or subjective beliefs.
(January 24, 2009 at 5:42 pm)CoxRox Wrote: I'm am equally interested in why scientist like Stenger do not share this view. You have all tried to explain why I'm seeing this incorrectly but still I 'see' it.Well, why do you see it that way?
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right." - Stargate: SG1
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone. - Charles Darwin
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone. - Charles Darwin
