What view of Origins is more profound?

[Eilonnwy]

It seems to me that Saerules is trying to explain away physics with mathematics (which is a human invention after all...not a "science" strictly). The problems I foresee in this are:

1) Mathematics is abstract. The number "1" doesn't actually exist anywhere in the universe...we invented it in our minds.
2) Saerules has shown a complete lack of mathematical skill in other threads, so I wouldn't trust anything she had to say on mathematical proofs of the universe being cyclic...

[theVOID]

It seems to me that Saerules is trying to explain away physics with mathematics (which is a human invention after all...not a "science" strictly). The problems I foresee in this are:

1) Mathematics is abstract. The number "1" doesn't actually exist anywhere in the universe...we invented it in our minds.
2) Saerules has shown a complete lack of mathematical skill in other threads, so I wouldn't trust anything she had to say on mathematical proofs of the universe being cyclic...

I wouldn't trust anything she had to say on cosmology, she has a layman grasp tinged with her existing expectations and it leads her to argue against objectively supported conclusions (accelerating expansion) with nonsense ideas about cyclic universes (big bounce or steady state - both conclusively discredited).

[Violet]

It seems to me that Saerules is trying to explain away physics with mathematics (which is a human invention after all...not a "science" strictly). The problems I foresee in this are:

1) Mathematics is abstract. The number "1" doesn't actually exist anywhere in the universe...we invented it in our minds.
2) Saerules has shown a complete lack of mathematical skill in other threads, so I wouldn't trust anything she had to say on mathematical proofs of the universe being cyclic...

<giggle> Fire is fire, unless it isn't a fire A telephone is a telephone, unless it isn't a telephone.

1 is the concept of the identity... that I am me and not you Unless you are going to debate me on that? I take it that Sol is not Sol and is instead a telephone? Therefore telephones give light and heat? ^_^ Well of course they do, but not as much as Sol generates

Simply, one glass is half full, and another glass is filled to the brim. It is not an abstract human idea that one is holding more water: it is the physical truth.

As for what it seems to you (and 2): That you haven't justified believing what I say is no concern of mine... and hopefully soon you will see fit reason to read what I have to say

Anyway, @theVOID: I haven't had been anywhere to watch those videos you posted... but hopefully will be able to see them this weekend Than you for posting them. Also, your analysis seems to me quite likely... Discover magazine has failed us

[Eilonnwy]

<giggle> Fire is fire, unless it isn't a fire A telephone is a telephone, unless it isn't a telephone.

You just butchered the law of identity. A = A. A =/= not A. So a fire cannot be a fire that isn't a fire. This is basic fundamental logic. hock:

[theVOID]

<giggle> Fire is fire, unless it isn't a fire A telephone is a telephone, unless it isn't a telephone.

You just butchered the law of identity. A = A. A =/= not A. So a fire cannot be a fire that isn't a fire. This is basic fundamental logic. hock:

This is priceless.

[Eilonnwy]

XD I just read your signature, Void. Nice.

[Edwardo Piet]

In my opinion the beauty of nature, the beauty of the naturalistic process is the most profound. I find the whole - what I see to be a man-made - God concept trivial, ridiculous, shallow and even bleak in comparison. The literal one is more amusing, but I still see the assisted one as pathetic compared to pure unassisted naturalism.

But this is of course, just my own opinion, as is my vote: This is a matter of aesthetics here. Logic doesn't dictate an answer here.

EvF

[fr0d0]

God is as awesome in comparison to me.. and I can appreciate nature exactly as you can appreciate it Evie.

[Violet]

<giggle> Fire is fire, unless it isn't a fire A telephone is a telephone, unless it isn't a telephone.

You just butchered the law of identity. A = A. A =/= not A. So a fire cannot be a fire that isn't a fire. This is basic fundamental logic. hock:

lol ^_^ Exactly It is also the most basic rule governing our universe, and is completely independent of thought.

So how could anyone possible disagree with it?

I find the concept of the Identity's Equality quite fascinating, to be honest It may be one of the simplest rules of everything... but that doesn't stop me from being fascinated by its truth

[Rhizomorph13]

From my understanding of reality 1 never equals one but sequential measurements define the nominal value as 1 with a standard deviation derived from all the sources of variation.

Rhizo