Do you believe in god or math?

[Modular Moog V]

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics#Etymology
Right of the bat, it says: Mathematics (from Greek μάθημα máthēma "knowledge, study, learning") is the study of quantity, space, structure, and change.[2][3] Mathematicians seek out patterns[4][5] and formulate new conjectures. Mathematicians resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proofs, which are arguments sufficient to convince other mathematicians of their validity.

Ok, so the first meaning of MATH is knowledge, study, learning. [url]Mathematics (from Greek μάθημα máthēma "knowledge, study, learning") is the study of quantity, space, structure, and change.[2][3] Mathematicians seek out patterns[4][5] and formulate new conjectures. Mathematicians resolve the truth or falsity of conjectures by mathematical proofs, which are arguments sufficient to convince other mathematicians of their validity. [/url]

The prime argument of skepticism is that complete knowledge is not possible.

Positivists say we do know some things. ( but not everything, just playing into the hands of evil skeptics)

If math means knowledge, then it is subjective.

Do you think it "means" something else? Just asking.

[IATIA]

Do you think it "means" something else? Just asking.

In a word, Yes!

Definitions are subjective. With the exception of axioms and the like.

1+1=2. Absolutely. (Damn, there it is again!) That is an axiom. Not up for debate, no ands, ifs or buts, no interpretations. That is the basis for all mathematics. (I did however engage in a short debate on that subject. Like talking to a xtian)

The symbols are common language and notation for mathematics. They are objective only in the respect that they are accepted universally for clarity.

Back to subjective definitions. Definitions are decided by the powers that be through common usage and collected into a reference to be adopted as 'rule'. Words and definitions change, however, on a daily basis. Ergo, subjective.

Math does not change. 1+1=2 now and it did 5000 years ago. Drop a stone and the rate of fall for that particular event will always be the same. The description of that fall can be subjective. What variables should be used? Should the position of the sun and moon be considered or is the effect negligible? Negligible is not non-existent though. Should the effect of Jupiter be considered?

9.8m/s is not an absolute. It depends on the position of the planets and the point on earth the measurement is made. It is not the math that changes, it is the variables.

Is math discovered or invented? I side with Plato on this idea. The language of math was invented but the math itself has always existed and we are discovering it, even to this day.

The Platonic notion is that mathematics is the imperturbable structure that underlies the very architecture of the universe

[Modular Moog V]

Do you think it "means" something else? Just asking.

In a word, Yes!

Definitions are subjective. With the exception of axioms and the like.

1+1=2. Absolutely. (Damn, there it is again!) That is an axiom. Not up for debate, no ands, ifs or buts, no interpretations. That is the basis for all mathematics. (I did however engage in a short debate on that subject. Like talking to a xtian)

The symbols are common language and notation for mathematics. They are objective only in the respect that they are accepted universally for clarity.

Back to subjective definitions. Definitions are decided by the powers that be through common usage and collected into a reference to be adopted as 'rule'. Words and definitions change, however, on a daily basis. Ergo, subjective.

Math does not change. 1+1=2 now and it did 5000 years ago. Drop a stone and the rate of fall for that particular event will always be the same. The description of that fall can be subjective. What variables should be used? Should the position of the sun and moon be considered or is the effect negligible? Negligible is not non-existent though. Should the effect of Jupiter be considered?

9.8m/s is not an absolute. It depends on the position of the planets and the point on earth the measurement is made. It is not the math that changes, it is the variables.

Is math discovered or invented? I side with Plato on this idea. The language of math was invented but the math itself has always existed and we are discovering it, even to this day.

The Platonic notion is that mathematics is the imperturbable structure that underlies the very architecture of the universe

So you are Plato's spawn! (a King Crimson line I think)

Is Math Your GOD?

Maybe the skeptical points need to be reviewed. They are the beating heart of atheism.

Of course new things are discovered, maybe some naughty bits seem to go faster than the speed limit, perhaps they will be sent to limbo again.
Entangled particles, now that's another issue . Can you send the Math (knowledge) to understand this?

[edk]

So you are Plato's spawn! (a King Crimson line I think)

Is Math Your GOD?

Maybe the skeptical points need to be reviewed. They are the beating heart of atheism.

Of course new things are discovered, maybe some naughty bits seem to go faster than the speed limit, perhaps they will be sent to limbo again.
Entangled particles, now that's another issue . Can you send the Math (knowledge) to understand this?

Not knowing all the math doesn't mean it isn't there.

[Autumnlicious]

How shall I not violate gauge invariance? Gosh, almighty, I so want to violate it. Is there invariance anywhere? Or do all things change? Do you think the simplistic ideas in science now, will be laughed at in 100(more or a lot less) years?

That is not an argument, shit-for-brains.

I do!

Do you not laugh at Victorian era science, and their projective ideas?

Except for the bits that seem true Sometimes genius humans figure important bits out.
If the jury we are hoping to impress, maybe just 1 year, or even 10 years from now, thinks this may solve some of their physics issues...,

That was already way too many words for "I can't do physics."

[Modular Moog V]

"That is not an argument, shit-for-brains."

"That was already way too many words for "I can't do physics."

Curiously, the argument is philosophical, not Physics. If YOU can "do" physics, care to show me your work in this field? Are you being paid to be a scientist? Maybe working like dear old Albert?

Most people working, or teaching physics are nervously awaiting confirmation, or denial of the faster than light results from CERN.

If correct, then what will you do with the wreckage? We will see.

My argument has nothing to do with physics, and everything to do with the subjective state of our minds. This is where math is discovered. Same with a certain teapot, and various pasta monsters.
Oh, don't forget the concept of infinity.

Every God, fairy tale, and Urban legend come from here. Numbers are no different, though perhaps more useful. God is pretty useful to a priest. Numbers seem useful to bankers. Do you trust how they use them?

Do you trust a scientist who knows he is wrong, but is angling for one more grant to come through before he retires? How many professors do you think are shitting bricks? An old quote about science is that it advances one funeral at a time.

That is how the human world works. I think we have a couple hints, and a clue or two how the universe really works. Not much more. And possibly a lot less than we thought.

Einstein thought quantum entanglement to be a bigger problem to general relativity. His work with Podensky, and Rosen, laid the groundwork.

EPR has been testing out quite well. You seem to be quite the physics major, what do you think? Is it already faster than light?

[The Grand Nudger]

Except that math isn't actually happening in your mind. You're translating observations with your mind, using what should be a sterile language called numbers. If you're skeptical about physics, (as some sort of product of the human mind entirely) then your skepticism is misplaced. Be skeptical that we have the correct values, that the variables are all accounted for.

[Modular Moog V]

Except that math isn't actually happening in your mind. You're translating observations with your mind, using what should be a sterile language called numbers. If you're skeptical about physics, (as some sort of product of the human mind entirely) then your skepticism is misplaced. Be skeptical that we have the correct values, that the variables are all accounted for.

Ok, lets count snowflakes. Fairly simple. As we know each snowflake is different (as far as we can tell.) One snowflake never equals another snowflake. (But in math 1 always equals 1) We need an equal snowflake to get 2. Sorry, no dice.
We are also not certain when the very first snowflake fell. That would logically be 1. The next would be 1+(unique properties), as each is the first of its kind that ever fell. And so on. Not so simple. We only have one snowflake. The rest are snowflakes #1 each its own. Can a sterile language have just 1 bit? Guess it does. And quite a few issues accounting for all the variables.

The other issue is more bothersome for atheists. What kind of physical (objective)world includes a language? If humans no longer exist, who shall hear this language. If it is objective, and not in our heads, something out there must be speaking (dry sterile language)

I don't believe in a universe that talks. Sounds like god issues to me.

[edk]

Except that math isn't actually happening in your mind. You're translating observations with your mind, using what should be a sterile language called numbers. If you're skeptical about physics, (as some sort of product of the human mind entirely) then your skepticism is misplaced. Be skeptical that we have the correct values, that the variables are all accounted for.

Ok, lets count snowflakes. Fairly simple. As we know each snowflake is different (as far as we can tell.) One snowflake never equals another snowflake. (But in math 1 always equals 1) We need an equal snowflake to get 2. Sorry, no dice.
We are also not certain when the very first snowflake fell. That would logically be 1. The next would be 1+(unique properties), as each is the first of its kind that ever fell. And so on. Not so simple. We only have one snowflake. The rest are snowflakes #1 each its own. Can a sterile language have just 1 bit? Guess it does. And quite a few issues accounting for all the variables.

The other issue is more bothersome for atheists. What kind of physical (objective)world includes a language? If humans no longer exist, who shall hear this language. If it is objective, and not in our heads, something out there must be speaking (dry sterile language)

I don't believe in a universe that talks. Sounds like god issues to me.

The bullshit you spew is more akin to numerology than mathematics. Please stop tearing apart straw men ("We need an equal snowflake to get 2. Sorry, no dice.", "That would logically be 1", and your insistence that math is a language).

We CAN count snowflakes. The first snowflake is one snowflake. Add another, and you have two snowflakes. Sure, you've lost a bit of information, but it isn't information you were interested in if you only wanted the number of snowflakes.

[Modular Moog V]

Except that math isn't actually happening in your mind. You're translating observations with your mind, using what should be a sterile language called numbers. If you're skeptical about physics, (as some sort of product of the human mind entirely) then your skepticism is misplaced. Be skeptical that we have the correct values, that the variables are all accounted for.

Ok, lets count snowflakes. Fairly simple. As we know each snowflake is different (as far as we can tell.) One snowflake never equals another snowflake. (But in math 1 always equals 1) We need an equal snowflake to get 2. Sorry, no dice.
We are also not certain when the very first snowflake fell. That would logically be 1. The next would be 1+(unique properties), as each is the first of its kind that ever fell. And so on. Not so simple. We only have one snowflake. The rest are snowflakes #1 each its own. Can a sterile language have just 1 bit? Guess it does. And quite a few issues accounting for all the variables.

The other issue is more bothersome for atheists. What kind of physical (objective)world includes a language? If humans no longer exist, who shall hear this language. If it is objective, and not in our heads, something out there must be speaking (dry sterile language)

I don't believe in a universe that talks. Sounds like god issues to me.

The bullshit you spew is more akin to numerology than mathematics. Please stop tearing apart straw men ("We need an equal snowflake to get 2. Sorry, no dice.", "That would logically be 1", and your insistence that math is a language).

We CAN count snowflakes. The first snowflake is one snowflake. Add another, and you have two snowflakes. Sure, you've lost a bit of information, but it isn't information you were interested in if you only wanted the number of snowflakes.

You can count snowflakes in a very limited way, but you cannot count them in the middle of a storm. You can guess, make models, which are educated guesses, but you are overwhelmed.

There have fallen on earth, a very large, yet finite number of snowflakes. We do not know when the first fell, but that would be #1.
The rest must have their own number based on this series, but I hear no "sterile Voice" speaking their name. And I am very certain you cannot count snowflakes when a single storm is hundreds of miles in its movement cycle.

And do not be idiotic, math is a language. 2+2=4 is the same as if I said 'two plus two equals four".