(December 4, 2021 at 8:41 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(December 2, 2021 at 7:38 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Meaning is something *humans* (and potentially other conscious creatures) assign to things and events. it isn't something inherent in those things or events.

Well, I agree with that and, oddly to you perhaps, is one of the reasons I remain a Christian. Where I part ways with physical reductionists, is that I do not truly believe intentionality can be so reduced.

What about thinking that intentionality can't be reduced leads you to the idea that a god became a man and died on the cross to save the world from sin and death?

(December 6, 2021 at 5:12 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(December 4, 2021 at 8:41 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Well, I agree with that and, oddly to you perhaps, is one of the reasons I remain a Christian. Where I part ways with physical reductionists, is that I do not truly believe intentionality can be so reduced.

What about thinking that intentionality can't be reduced leads you to the idea that a god became a man and died on the cross to save the world from sin and death?

The Schrodinger equation, Einstein's equations of General Relativity and (especially) the Dirac equation have very few analytic (exact) solutions; most, to nearly all, real world sets of differential (in most cases, partial) equations do not have exact solutions either. Instead, numerical solutions are the norm. This fact should nix any notion of reducibility. For instance, ecologists do not need Quatum Mechanics to do their jobs.

(December 6, 2021 at 8:32 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(December 6, 2021 at 5:12 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: What about thinking that intentionality can't be reduced leads you to the idea that a god became a man and died on the cross to save the world from sin and death?

The Schrodinger equation, Einstein's equations of General Relativity and (especially) the Dirac equation have very few analytic (exact) solutions; most, to nearly all, real world sets of differential (in most cases, partial) equations do not have exact solutions either.  Instead, numerical solutions are the norm.  This fact should nix any notion of reducibility.  For instance, ecologists do not need Quatum Mechanics to do their jobs.

Just a nit-pick. They have exact solutions, often unique ones. Those solutions just can't be given in terms of the relatively few functions we typically work with. We can also describe the properties of those solutions, often, without getting explicit solutions in terms of 'elementary functions'.

All very interesting, but I doubt that resolution of this issue, or any item within this issue, has anything to do with believing in vicarious redemption through the mortal sacrifice of god incarnate.

I suspect we'll get some cumulative case piffle, but if the cumulative grab bag is full of stuff like this... Well. I appreciate it when people try to offer some sense of why they believe what they do, even in part..but I do think that those things probably ought to have something to do with their belief in actuality. I think it's pointless to bicker over a thing only held up to shield some other belief derived by wholly different means. So much of religious discourse just plugs along throwing this stuff out.

(December 6, 2021 at 9:04 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(December 6, 2021 at 8:32 am)Jehanne Wrote: The Schrodinger equation, Einstein's equations of General Relativity and (especially) the Dirac equation have very few analytic (exact) solutions; most, to nearly all, real world sets of differential (in most cases, partial) equations do not have exact solutions either.  Instead, numerical solutions are the norm.  This fact should nix any notion of reducibility.  For instance, ecologists do not need Quatum Mechanics to do their jobs.

Just a nit-pick. They have exact solutions, often unique ones. Those solutions just can't be given in terms of the relatively few functions we typically work with. We can also describe the properties of those solutions, often, without getting explicit solutions in terms of 'elementary functions'.

Yeah, you can use approximations to get "exact" solutions. The TSP (Traveling Salesman/Salesperson) is one example of many, converting an intractable NP problem to a more tractable polynomial one by making certain assumption/concessions. But, still, the fact remains that most problems in physics and engineering are so complex that they are solved numerically.

(December 6, 2021 at 11:21 am)Jehanne Wrote:

(December 6, 2021 at 9:04 am)polymath257 Wrote: Just a nit-pick. They have exact solutions, often unique ones. Those solutions just can't be given in terms of the relatively few functions we typically work with. We can also describe the properties of those solutions, often, without getting explicit solutions in terms of 'elementary functions'.

Yeah, you can use approximations to get "exact" solutions.  The TSP (Traveling Salesman/Salesperson) is one example of many, converting an intractable NP problem to a more tractable polynomial one by making certain assumption/concessions.  But, still, the fact remains that most problems in physics and engineering are so complex that they are solved numerically.

Again, a nit-pick. We use numerical solutions because we want to test things with numbers.

Mathematically, the equations can be shown to have solutions (well, it may be quite difficult to do so--see Millennium Problems). The numerical techniques are ways to approximate those *exact* solutions.

But we do approximations even for 'standard' functions. Saying a value is e^(1.5) or sin(.32) is usually NOT what is required (even if it is exact). Instead, a numerical approximation is what is wanted.

The TSP has an exact solution. We just don't know how to find it efficiently.

(December 6, 2021 at 11:30 am)polymath257 Wrote:

(December 6, 2021 at 11:21 am)Jehanne Wrote: Yeah, you can use approximations to get "exact" solutions.  The TSP (Traveling Salesman/Salesperson) is one example of many, converting an intractable NP problem to a more tractable polynomial one by making certain assumption/concessions.  But, still, the fact remains that most problems in physics and engineering are so complex that they are solved numerically.

Again, a nit-pick. We use numerical solutions because we want to test things with numbers.

Mathematically, the equations can be shown to have solutions (well, it may be quite difficult to do so--see Millennium Problems). The numerical techniques are ways to approximate those *exact* solutions.

But we do approximations even for 'standard' functions. Saying a value is e^(1.5) or sin(.32) is usually NOT what is required (even if it is exact). Instead, a numerical approximation is what is wanted.

The TSP has an exact solution. We just don't know how to find it efficiently.

And, as you know, there are a whole host of problems that have no solution (Turnings halting problem); Godel's Incompleteness theorem also puts limits on the ability of formal systems to solve certain problems.

That consciousness and intentionally are not reducible is hardly a reason to embrace one religion, or any other; it's the either/or fallacy at work here.

(December 1, 2021 at 9:56 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(December 1, 2021 at 5:10 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: So Ten is making an argument that if there was evidence for God then God would be part of science and not part of religion...and what he is also saying is that that other stuff that falls out of the domain of science has no practical use.

Thank you for the clarification. I can respect that position while at the same time it seems very counter-intuitive to me. Kinda of like if-the-only-tool-you-have-is-a-hammer kinda way. Most of life's experiences are outside the domain of science, such as the obligations we have to future generations and also only to ourselves, the honor we have for our ancestors, etc. The world of meaning and significance is closed to atheists, though I can tell that some of you still see the Light :-)  

I mean, the "no evidence" bromide is so lame. I don't believe most of you are such sticklers about evidence for everything else in your lives.

To be fair, most other things in my life are not as elaborate, or extraordinary, or weighted with so many implications as the god proposition. Not all claims are equal.

Here is another way to elaborate

(December 5, 2021 at 2:44 am)Ferrocyanide Wrote: You seem to be talking about design in this case.
A design (blueprint) is not a physical thing. It is not made of atoms.
But the actual chair is made of atoms. The collection of atoms is a representation of a chair.

The reason philosophers choose ordinary objects to talk about the issue is because it simplifies things. Philosophers posit that the chair is "made of simples"... some constituent parts: atoms... or quarks or whatever particle, quantum field, or what have you, that is most fundamental.

But "atom" is a conceived of object just like the chair. All you are doing by saying that "atoms are real" is shifting the metaphysical burden to a different ordinary object. "Are atoms real?" is just as a metaphysically salient question as "Are chairs real?"

Quote:Instead of calling it design, you can call it information as well.

Words are pieces of information as well. They aren’t made of atoms.
However, you can take some ink and put it on paper and you have a representation of the word. The ink and paper is made of atoms.

Is design real? Is information real? (Again) are atoms real? All these are concepts. Just like chair. We're focusing on chairs because it's a simple thing.

Quote:Music is also information. It is non-physical.

Music is a physical phenomenon. A disturbance. A wave traveling through air molecules. Music is sound. Sound is a physical phenomenon.

Quote:Stories in books, musics, the blueprint for an airplane, a circle, letters and languages and basically anything has a design component and a physical component.

Do stories exist? I would say yes and no. It depends on how you look at it.
Maybe it doesn’t exist as long as it isn’t written on paper or in the mind of a person.
Normally I say no to make it clear to people I make a distinction between information and reality (atoms).

Does a god exist? Yes, in the minds of people. Smurfs exist in the minds of people as well.

If you want to argue that songs, chairs, stars, black holes, atoms and other ordinary objects exist, I pretty much agree with you. Gods are a different story. I'm highly suspicious of the category error claims being advanced by Bel and Neo. I did want to step in and defend the assertion that metaphysical assumptions (such as "chairs exist", "chairs don't exist", "atoms exist", "atoms don't exist") don't depend on empirical findings to be proven true or false. I agree with them on that, but little else.

I think the comparison of God to a tooth fairy is apt. If someone thinks God hears their prayers like a person does, and answers (or doesn't answer) those prayers like a person would, then I think the best conclusion is that they are talking about an imaginary being.

Quote:For a social convention to exist, you need a population of humans and humans are made of atoms.

Is a social convention real? Are atoms real? Shifting the metaphysical burden doesn't resolve the issue. That's why we keep it to something simple like chairs. Philosophers understand that things are composed of atoms and atoms are composed of subatomic particles. We aren't idiots. If atoms solved the problem, we could figure that out. And there are several good solutions to the problem. You should watch the vsauce video. One of the proposed solutions will appeal to you. I can almost guarantee.