Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...

[polymath257]

Popper's Three Worlds system shows how non-physical entities also have a kind of existence, not testable through empirical means. They exist, but they have no extension or location.

In math, there is a conflict resolution procedure for claims: If I prove something based on the axioms, another can challenge my proof by pointing out a flaw in the argument. I can respond by showing how that flaw does not apply. The ultimate authority is the assumed axioms (usually Zormelo-Fraenkl set theory for modern mathematics). if there is a lfaw in my proof, I have to retract the claim.

In the sciences, there is a conflict resolution procedure. if two people disagree, they find some observation (an experiment, for example) where their views would give different predictions. Then, the result of the observation determines who is wrong. Any views that cannot be tested in this way are considered to be equivalent: the differences don't matter.

So, what conflict resolution procedure do you propose for determining the truth or falsity of claims about the supernatural? If two people make conflicting claims about some supernatural topic, how can the dispute be resolved? It seems to me that in order to make truth claims, there has to *at least* be some sort of process to separate truth from falsity. Both math and science have such. What about the study of the supernatural?

---

It should be pointed out that even math statements like 1+1=2 need to be tested in the real world to determine *when* they apply.

For example, if you pour 1 quart of water and 1 quart of ethanol together, you do NOT get 2 quarts of mixture. You get slightly less. So, in this case, 1+1=2 is NOT a good description of reality.

Another: If you smash 1 proton against 1 other proton, it is quite possible to end up 3 protons, 1 anti-proton, and a number of pions and other particles. The description 1+1=2 is simply not a good descriptor of what happens in this case.

Another: if you take 1 rock and forcefully smash it into another rock, it is quite possible to get 3 or more rocks out at the end. Once again, 1+1=2 is not a good descriptor of what is going on.

And, in fact, those cases where some quantity (like energy) *does* work in a way where addition 'works' consistently are known as 'conservation laws' and are quite important *because* the math works for those cases.

This is a very simplistic case, but the basic idea remains: the application of math to the real world and observations needs to be tested. It is quite possible that the phenomena being studied are not well described by any particular mathematical formalization.

This is why math is a *language* for helping us to understand the world. It alone is not and cannot be definitive about anything, but needs to be tested just like any other scientific issue.

I agree that math is a language, but when it comes to equations like 1 + 1 = 2, we not only expect this to be precisely true in math but also be unconditionally true in the real world as well, even if not perfectly (in a Platonic sense). The examples you provided aren't simply "1 + 1 = 2" examples, but rather "1 + 1 + some other stuff happening = outcome other than 2". The way I see it, a "1 + 1 = 2" example in real life is one where you assume if you have one particular object and you have another object that is identical to that, then (short of other factors involved that may interfere with their interactions or whatever) we must have only two of these objects, not more not less.

And like I said, in any particular case, you have to *test* to see if the mathematical formulation fits the data or not. The whole game is in that phrase 'short of other factors involved that may interfere with their interactions or whatever'. You have to *test* to see if there are such 'interactions' and whether you broke things into 'objects' correctly, and whether there is 'conservation of objects'. Once again, the situations where the math does apply are the interesting ones because they are saying there is a conservation law of sorts.