Indeterminism in mathematics

[josef rosenkranz]

Indeterminism as controversial as it may be for biologists, physicists, or philosophers, is my "idea fix" in connection with atheism because in my opinion it is the only way to fill an important gap in the disproval of God, and particularly the disproval of the belief of people in Destiny.

In mathematics there is a branch named stochastical calculus which deals with indeterminism problems.
I don't have the expertise of stochastical calculation but I would like to remind us a particular thing about indefinite numbers we have learned in College.

Infinite is defined as a limit of a series of ever increasing numbers , let's note it as w
Now, w divided by a finite number or multiplied with a finite number is also w.
But w divided by w is an indefinite number.
Similar 0 divided by a finite number or multiplied by a finite number is 0, but 0 divided by 0 is an indefinite number

Analysis of graphical functions deals also in particular cases with indefinite solutions

This was only a little demonstration that indeterminism expressed by indefinite numbers is a mathematic reality in the physical world despite it's controversial situation in science.

[Edwardo Piet]

I don't really know anything about indeterminism...all I've heard is something like it's something to do with free will or something?

I'm not sure about free will if this is the case...maybe the more conscious an animal or being the more freedom of free will it has?

Dawkins has said that human being's have evolved to have a brain powerful, intelligent, conscious and big enough to create it's own goals....

Is this on topic? If not, sorry.

[Tiberius]

How many threads are you going to start on indeterminism? I don't even think the idea of god can be "disproved". God will always move further and further away from what we perceive and will always remain the answer to the "what if".

[starbucks]

I'm not an expert on Indeterminism but from what I've gathered through online research, it fits right into the definition of God. God is not created, He is not caused by anything. Isn't this what was meant when He said "I am the alpha and omega"? He just "is" as He told to Moses, "tell them I AM sent you".

In one of the articles I read that brought up "the butterfly effect", it only further describes how time does not apply to God. To God, the future is the present. The study talked about how as human beings we are not omniscient, meaning there is no way for us to have all the data to predict accurately the future. We may have enough data to make good guesses but not perfect, accurate predictions of the future. Thus, we move along on a timeline gathering such data. Whereas God, who is omniscient, has ALL the data, thus already knowing what's ahead, thus the future is no longer "future" but present. While we have to wait to get there.

Anyways, very philosophical stuff we're delving into here.

[infidel666]

Anyways, very philosophical stuff we're delving into here.

I think it is philosphy and not science, really. This math looks like logic mathto me, like it is realted to discrete mathematics. And the ideas of "sufficeint cause" instead of "necessary cause" still proposes that something must exist as a suffieiceint casue of the next thing, and whether that thing actually manifests is a just a probability. But it would still require something to be around as a condition precedent.

So we get back to the same old observation that SOMETHING must have spontaneously existed at least initially.

Creationists like to think that God exists outside of time and space and so it eliminates the need for that spontaneous thing to exist. But it is so illogical to me. That's just another way of saying he spontaneously exists. But it makes more sense to me to presume that we spontaneously exist, and the need to believe in a creator is a primitive reaction.

[starbucks]

Anyways, very philosophical stuff we're delving into here.

I think it is philosphy and not science, really. This math looks like logic mathto me, like it is realted to discrete mathematics. And the ideas of "sufficeint cause" instead of "necessary cause" still proposes that something must exist as a suffieiceint casue of the next thing, and whether that thing actually manifests is a just a probability. But it would still require something to be around as a condition precedent.

So we get back to the same old observation that SOMETHING must have spontaneously existed at least initially.

Creationists like to think that God exists outside of time and space and so it eliminates the need for that spontaneous thing to exist. But it is so illogical to me. That's just another way of saying he spontaneously exists. But it makes more sense to me to presume that we spontaneously exist, and the need to believe in a creator is a primitive reaction.

But at the same time do you ever wonder that IF indeed it is just a reaction to want to believe in a god, why?

If something DOESN'T exist, how would our mind even know to think of it? Unless it revealed itself to us be it directly/indirectly so that we may start thinking about it.

I'm not going to say that people haven't embellished God because I feel many have. And maybe that's the discrepancy that has caused all this uproar.

If I told you that God is a source that moves through everything you know as reality, it may be more acceptable than to ascribe superhuman characteristics that appear beyond absurd. But is it absurd or just outside of our human comprehension?

Anyways, when I debate about "imagination" I'm reluctant to say that we humans create from nothing. Our imagination is still reflective of something that actually exists (or I should say "known"). The "unknown" does not mean it doesn't exist, just that it has yet to be discovered "known".

Having said thus, the existence of God is a possibility but certainly NOT in the way that some humans have been describing it.

[Alan]

It's obvious why we think there's a man pulling the sun across the sky. Our mind has only evolved to deal with cause-effect relations on OUR scale. When a bush rattles, there is probably something inside, which may be out to get us (or become our meal).

There's really no divine factor to our thinking.

[starbucks]

It's obvious why we think there's a man pulling the sun across the sky. Our mind has only evolved to deal with cause-effect relations on OUR scale. When a bush rattles, there is probably something inside, which may be out to get us (or become our meal).

There's really no divine factor to our thinking.

It goes both ways.

Do we think there is a divine being because we're only thinking on OUR scale?

Do we think there is no divine being because we're only thinking on OUR scale?

[infidel666]

But at the same time do you ever wonder that IF indeed it is just a reaction to want to believe in a god, why?

If something DOESN'T exist, how would our mind even know to think of it? Unless it revealed itself to us be it directly/indirectly so that we may start thinking about it.

I'm sorry, I don't follow the point. We clearly imagine all kinds of things, like elves that leave presents under trees and fairies that take teeth and leave money under pillows and <GASP> butt probing space aliens. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. It seems you are saying nothing we conceptualize can possibly be a total fabrication. I have no idea why you would think that is the case. I must have misunderstood.

Maybe you are asking, whay should we have this inherent need to believe in a God. Well there are all kinds of reasons, but the big one one is to explain what happens when we die in a reassuring way. There's reincarnation, but it does not alone explain how everything came about. So believing in a creator and heaven kills two birds with one stone. But it is a trick of the mind to think it makes sense for God to have been around to make us, without wondering who created God or who created whoever created God and so on. It is a placebo for the the primitive mind.

[josef rosenkranz]

How many threads are you going to start on indeterminism? I don't even think the idea of god can be "disproved". God will always move further and further away from what we perceive and will always remain the answer to the "what if".

Look to the reply by starbucks from the 25-9-08 and you'll agree with me that he is quoting from the bible, pointing out just the problems which have no answers except to accept causality and randomness as two interwinned laws of nature.
We should not be depressed for not being able to disprove God .
That's just the purpose of the forum to dicuss to exchange views.
We are not a "party"of atheists so the more we discuss contradictory problems the more are we able to bring atheism to the knowledge of others.

---

. God is not created, He is not caused by anything. Isn't this what was meant when He said "I am the alpha and omega"? He just "is" as He told to Moses, "tell them I AM sent you". ....

.... Whereas God, who is omniscient, has ALL the data, thus already knowing what's ahead, thus the future is no longer "future" but present. While we have to wait to get there.....

You have put the nail on the core of the problem.
You don't really believe in God I suppose otherwise you should care from now for a good and warm place in hell.
Atheism will never came closer to disproval of God whithout solving the problem that he "has all the data,thus already knowing what's ahead"
He has obviuosly a super nanotechnical computer.
The thing is that he exists only in the minds of people thinking of him and not in any real world so the only way ,in my opinion ,for atheism is to admit that causality and randomness are intertwinned laws of nature.
Randomness being a cotroversial topic in science ,I have very modestly tried to prove that ineterminism is used in basic mathematics