Do you believe in god or math?

[IATIA]

"Quantum" anything draws a lot of mysticism doesn't it. Ramtha approves.

Well I guess that is fair, as Quantus in Latin means "how much", and with math it is how many.

Numbers may be a partial aspect of the objective world, but only using them to describe things loses a lot of data. You see 10 horses in a field. reporting them as such means nothing to the tax man, who wants also to know how much are they worth? That amount varies through the life of the horse. And the value of individual horses varies quite a bit too.

The only thing the math does is give 10 equal horses. After quantifying them in terms of money, we can let the math shine with much more detail. 1 prize stud worth $250,000 (who ran away) and is hanging out with 9 scrub mares worth $800 each. We shall have to see if they gave him some bad horse disease that brings his value down to 0 however.

It all depends on what you are looking for. How many pounds of horses, how many varieties, etc. As to math describing everything, probably not, but it can describe the subatomic actions that define the horse.

[Modular Moog V]

Our problem at the quantum level is that we cannot see the 'eggs'. Any attempt to look, changes them. Right now, we do not even know if we have 'eggs'.

To develop a precise equation, all variables would have to be accounted for,including the variables of observation, then there is the variable of the observation of the observation and on ad infinitum. We can probably never create an equation that will be absolutely precise, but we can get close enough to pursue further knowledge of our universe.

Our problem at the quantum level is we do not really understand the quantum level. Can't remember who, but someone put it to me once that our approach to finding out about very small particles is akin to an alien finding out how a complex machine works without being able to look inside it, and resorting to launching machines at each other and trying to guess how they work based on the bits that come out.

But that's not the point. The point is, ALL math is objective. We cannot directly relate the math of the universe with the math we know and understand, but only because we haven't discovered it. For example, we know the math behind the distortion of space and time by mass, but we can't predict the distortion with zero error because we can't measure mass with zero error. That's just the numbers you put in, though. The math is objective and complete.

The point is that our viewpoint is subjective. The math, or knowledge of the objective world will always be incomplete, and distorted. Therefore, the math inside us "the math we know and understand" will be distorted.
And the subjective world is all we ever have.

[IATIA]

The point is that our viewpoint is subjective. The math, or knowledge of the objective world will always be incomplete, and distorted. Therefore, the math inside us "the math we know and understand" will be distorted.
And the subjective world is all we ever have.

And I admitted that several times in several various ways. Though our mathematics is intended to be objective, human nature and the availability of knowledge will always inject a certain amount of subjectivity into our mathematics. We can never completely know a system from within that system.

[Modular Moog V]

The point is that our viewpoint is subjective. The math, or knowledge of the objective world will always be incomplete, and distorted. Therefore, the math inside us "the math we know and understand" will be distorted.
And the subjective world is all we ever have.

And I admitted that several times in several various ways. Though our mathematics is intended to be objective, human nature and the availability of knowledge will always inject a certain amount of subjectivity into our mathematics. We can never completely know a system from within that system.

I agree with you, but some seem not convinced of our human subjective position regarding knowledge. As what we call math has no choice but to be examined from our subjective position, questions can, and should arise as to how objective any of it can be.

[Nappeun]

Since you are talking about quantum theory etc. I'll just post this vid here .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws6AAhTw7RA

[Bertran]

In math; there is no god except epsilon>0 and delta>0 is its prophet.

[Modular Moog V]

In math; there is no god except epsilon>0 and delta>0 is its prophet.

Can you describe this a with more clarity for the less gifted in math?

---

In math; there is no god except epsilon>0 and delta>0 is its prophet.

Maybe more useful, do you believe this well crafted bit:ironchariot wiki

[Bertran]

In math; there is no god except epsilon>0 and delta>0 is its prophet.

Can you describe this a with more clarity for the less gifted in math?

During the first year of studying analysis, "epsilon-delta" language is widely used. And the analysis is one the foundations of mathematics.

Maybe more useful, do you believe this well crafted bit:ironchariot wiki

No, I don't. By the way, I sometimes use many of arguments of this article too.

[mathgenie99]

I believe in God and Math both. Math's problem are always conceptual .

[houseofcantor]

I believe that comparing the field of mathematics to the self-delusion of god invalidates the sentience of the original poster and depreciates the value of the community.