[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< invented rules of mathematics. >>>[/quote]By who?[/quote]Convention today. I am not sure the first guy who thought up the rules of abstract math.[/quote]And you were doin so good for a minute there too. =] You get to keep the award though.
Logic IS metaphysical and yet governs every single thought we think and is therefore very VERY real. Unless of course you can send me some logic in a box and or type one syllable in response to this post without it.
[/quote]
lol.
Math (and the metaphysical) can be real when related to the physical world. Reasoning that describes/results in physical systems are real. Pure abstract math, without that relation, is not. Can you show me one syllable of the abstract without use of the physical?
Edit:
Hint: Even to think on this post is to use the physical. [/quote]
Ontology. Yes it is possible to discuss purely metaphysical principles without the use of physical examples. No it’s not possible to do it in a non-physical medium. We’d have have to be able to communicate without physical existence and we cannot do that. [/quote]
No, I contend that it isn’t. You only know that integer means because of it’s relation to physical objects. If we were truly able to break that relationship, the abstract idea of an integer becomes nonsense. You cannot have a quantity without a medium.
Tell me what an integer is, with a full definition, without using physical relations. (I’ll even allow the use of your physical brain and a physical medium of communication).
Let me try it this way. Science, including math, is a model. Addition, subtraction, est are representations of observed behavior. Calculous models the physical behavior of systems. Science is a map of the universe. A map is neither sensical nor truth without the object that it represents.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< invented rules of mathematics. >>>[/quote]By who?[/quote]Convention today. I am not sure the first guy who thought up the rules of abstract math.[/quote]And you were doin so good for a minute there too. =] You get to keep the award though.
Logic IS metaphysical and yet governs every single thought we think and is therefore very VERY real. Unless of course you can send me some logic in a box and or type one syllable in response to this post without it.
[/quote]
lol.
Math (and the metaphysical) can be real when related to the physical world. Reasoning that describes/results in physical systems are real. Pure abstract math, without that relation, is not. Can you show me one syllable of the abstract without use of the physical?
Edit:
Hint: Even to think on this post is to use the physical. [/quote]
Ontology. Yes it is possible to discuss purely metaphysical principles without the use of physical examples. No it’s not possible to do it in a non-physical medium. We’d have have to be able to communicate without physical existence and we cannot do that. [/quote]
No, I contend that it isn’t. You only know that integer means because of it’s relation to physical objects. If we were truly able to break that relationship, the abstract idea of an integer becomes nonsense. You cannot have a quantity without a medium.
[/quote]
You can represent the metaphysical in quantity. Actually, quantity is metaphysical. It’s merely a grouping represented by a symbol. There a can be 2 ideas, for instance.
A whole number positive or negative. Numbers are abstract by definition. Integers aren’t just negatives.
[quote]
Let me try it this way. Science, including math, is a model. Addition, subtraction, est are representations of observed behavior. Calculous models the physical behavior of systems. Science is a map of the universe. A map is neither sensical nor truth without the object that it represents. [/quote]
You have it backwards. Science uses math to infer about the physical observations that are made. The further away you get from the actual math the less reliable the conclusion that is drawn.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< invented rules of mathematics. >>>[/quote]By who?[/quote]Convention today. I am not sure the first guy who thought up the rules of abstract math.[/quote]And you were doin so good for a minute there too. =] You get to keep the award though.
Logic IS metaphysical and yet governs every single thought we think and is therefore very VERY real. Unless of course you can send me some logic in a box and or type one syllable in response to this post without it.
[/quote]
lol.
Math (and the metaphysical) can be real when related to the physical world. Reasoning that describes/results in physical systems are real. Pure abstract math, without that relation, is not. Can you show me one syllable of the abstract without use of the physical?
Edit:
Hint: Even to think on this post is to use the physical. [/quote]
Ontology. Yes it is possible to discuss purely metaphysical principles without the use of physical examples. No it’s not possible to do it in a non-physical medium. We’d have have to be able to communicate without physical existence and we cannot do that. [/quote]
No, I contend that it isn’t. You only know that integer means because of it’s relation to physical objects. If we were truly able to break that relationship, the abstract idea of an integer becomes nonsense. You cannot have a quantity without a medium.
[/quote]
You can represent the metaphysical in quantity. Actually, quantity is metaphysical. It’s merely a grouping represented by a symbol. There a can be 2 ideas, for instance.
A whole number positive or negative. Numbers are abstract by definition. Integers aren’t just negatives.
[quote]
Let me try it this way. Science, including math, is a model. Addition, subtraction, est are representations of observed behavior. Calculous models the physical behavior of systems. Science is a map of the universe. A map is neither sensical nor truth without the object that it represents. [/quote]
You have it backwards. Science uses math to infer about the physical observations that are made. The further away you get from the actual math the less reliable the conclusion that is drawn.[/quote]
2 ideas of what? The idea then requires physical inference. You are just changing terminology.
For your definition, what is a number? I’m asking you to assume I know nothing. I’m a blank slate. Explain a number without physical reference. You can’t use math words without defining/explaining them.
Again, what makes you think the universe is analytic to begin with? It is possible the universe isn’t expressly mathematical.
And you still haven’t told me what addition means.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
For human beings each requires the other though the metaphysical (I’d say spiritual) governs the physical in every way that we actually function by.[/quote]Seems the other way around to me.[/quote]Tell me how the computer you’re viewing this on right now could exist unless an entire world of metaphysical logic were brought to bear on the physical world on a whole bunch of levels. Everything we think say or do is PREceded by and governed by an abstract non material, but universally unavoidable logical construct without which we would be reduced to energy exchanging organic objects indistinguishable in any meaningful way from a dandelion.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
For human beings each requires the other though the metaphysical (I’d say spiritual) governs the physical in every way that we actually function by.[/quote]Seems the other way around to me.[/quote]Tell me how the computer you’re viewing this on right now could exist unless an entire world of metaphysical logic were brought to bear on the physical world on a whole bunch of levels. Everything we think say or do is PREceded by and governed by an abstract non material, but universally unavoidable logical construct without which we would be reduced to energy exchanging organic objects indistinguishable in any meaningful way from a dandelion.
[/quote]
I agree with you Tiribulus. What does that mean? Haha. I pray that the holiday season treated you well.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
For human beings each requires the other though the metaphysical (I’d say spiritual) governs the physical in every way that we actually function by.[/quote]Seems the other way around to me.[/quote]Tell me how the computer you’re viewing this on right now could exist unless an entire world of metaphysical logic were brought to bear on the physical world on a whole bunch of levels. Everything we think say or do is PREceded by and governed by an abstract non material, but universally unavoidable logical construct without which we would be reduced to energy exchanging organic objects indistinguishable in any meaningful way from a dandelion.
[/quote]
I agree with you Tiribulus. What does that mean? Haha. >>>[/quote]It means you’re right for a change =D [quote]Legionary wrote:<<< I pray that the holiday season treated you well.[/quote]Indeed. And you as well.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< invented rules of mathematics. >>>[/quote]By who?[/quote]Convention today. I am not sure the first guy who thought up the rules of abstract math.[/quote]And you were doin so good for a minute there too. =] You get to keep the award though.
Logic IS metaphysical and yet governs every single thought we think and is therefore very VERY real. Unless of course you can send me some logic in a box and or type one syllable in response to this post without it.
[/quote]
lol.
Math (and the metaphysical) can be real when related to the physical world. Reasoning that describes/results in physical systems are real. Pure abstract math, without that relation, is not. Can you show me one syllable of the abstract without use of the physical?
Edit:
Hint: Even to think on this post is to use the physical. [/quote]
Ontology. Yes it is possible to discuss purely metaphysical principles without the use of physical examples. No it’s not possible to do it in a non-physical medium. We’d have have to be able to communicate without physical existence and we cannot do that. [/quote]
No, I contend that it isn’t. You only know that integer means because of it’s relation to physical objects. If we were truly able to break that relationship, the abstract idea of an integer becomes nonsense. You cannot have a quantity without a medium.
[/quote]
You can represent the metaphysical in quantity. Actually, quantity is metaphysical. It’s merely a grouping represented by a symbol. There a can be 2 ideas, for instance.
A whole number positive or negative. Numbers are abstract by definition. Integers aren’t just negatives.
It doesn’t matter what the objects of the ideas are, so long as there are two of them, it sufficient to pass your test.
It’s not ‘my definition’. It’s an abstract representation of anything with regards to quantity.
I never said is was analytic or mathematical. As a matter of fact, I said we cannot even prove, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that it even exists.
What I was saying is that math is a tool used in science as an analytic and predictive tool, but the more steps are removed between scientific theory and the math, the less reliable the result. Math is math, science uses it, but all scientific results are inferred from the calculations.
[quote]
And you still haven’t told me what addition means.[/quote]
I don’t recall you asking. What it means? The process of adding something(s) to something(s) else.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
For human beings each requires the other though the metaphysical (I’d say spiritual) governs the physical in every way that we actually function by.[/quote]Seems the other way around to me.[/quote]Tell me how the computer you’re viewing this on right now could exist unless an entire world of metaphysical logic were brought to bear on the physical world on a whole bunch of levels. Everything we think say or do is PREceded by and governed by an abstract non material, but universally unavoidable logical construct without which we would be reduced to energy exchanging organic objects indistinguishable in any meaningful way from a dandelion.
[/quote]
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
For human beings each requires the other though the metaphysical (I’d say spiritual) governs the physical in every way that we actually function by.[/quote]Seems the other way around to me.[/quote]Tell me how the computer you’re viewing this on right now could exist unless an entire world of metaphysical logic were brought to bear on the physical world on a whole bunch of levels. Everything we think say or do is PREceded by and governed by an abstract non material, but universally unavoidable logical construct without which we would be reduced to energy exchanging organic objects indistinguishable in any meaningful way from a dandelion.
[/quote]
It is the metaphysical that is driven by the physical in physics. The discovery of the equations of electronics are driven by the behavior of what the circuits in my computer do. Without the electron, there is no “law” governing electrons. And you, like Pat are making the same mistake of assuming there are laws. There is no proof that there are consistent, determined, analytic rules to the behavior of things. I contend that there may not be these laws, that they may be fluid, and there is no guarantee that they are even continuous.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< invented rules of mathematics. >>>[/quote]By who?[/quote]Convention today. I am not sure the first guy who thought up the rules of abstract math.[/quote]And you were doin so good for a minute there too. =] You get to keep the award though.
Logic IS metaphysical and yet governs every single thought we think and is therefore very VERY real. Unless of course you can send me some logic in a box and or type one syllable in response to this post without it.
[/quote]
lol.
Math (and the metaphysical) can be real when related to the physical world. Reasoning that describes/results in physical systems are real. Pure abstract math, without that relation, is not. Can you show me one syllable of the abstract without use of the physical?
Edit:
Hint: Even to think on this post is to use the physical. [/quote]
Ontology. Yes it is possible to discuss purely metaphysical principles without the use of physical examples. No it’s not possible to do it in a non-physical medium. We’d have have to be able to communicate without physical existence and we cannot do that. [/quote]
No, I contend that it isn’t. You only know that integer means because of it’s relation to physical objects. If we were truly able to break that relationship, the abstract idea of an integer becomes nonsense. You cannot have a quantity without a medium.
[/quote]
You can represent the metaphysical in quantity. Actually, quantity is metaphysical. It’s merely a grouping represented by a symbol. There a can be 2 ideas, for instance.
A whole number positive or negative. Numbers are abstract by definition. Integers aren’t just negatives.
It doesn’t matter what the objects of the ideas are, so long as there are two of them, it sufficient to pass your test.
It’s not ‘my definition’. It’s an abstract representation of anything with regards to quantity.
I never said is was analytic or mathematical. As a matter of fact, I said we cannot even prove, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that it even exists.
What I was saying is that math is a tool used in science as an analytic and predictive tool, but the more steps are removed between scientific theory and the math, the less reliable the result. Math is math, science uses it, but all scientific results are inferred from the calculations.
So, you admit that the ideas have OBJECTS. interesting. And it does matter. It means that you cannot know what an idea is without the physical. It means that even the notion of 2 ideas requires the physical to give rise to it.
Yes, and a quantity requires the reference to the physical. In the pure abstract there is no quantity. A quantity requires a physical medium. It is similar to asking the weight of God. A metaphysical concept has no measure. Even in number. It is said that God is fully here with me AND fully there with you. But can I not then determine there are 2 gods? No, the physical concepts of quantities and groupings are nonsense in the metaphysical. If I think of the number 2 and you think of the number 2, does that mean there are 2 2’s? No that’s nonsense. Quantity is a physical concept. Likewise you cannot have 2 ideas unless they are related to the physical.
Math is a science, just so you know. Math is relative. It functions differently in different situations. The rules of addition for putting water in a bucket is very different from the mathematical rules of adding mass to a black hole. There is nothing absolute or true about addition. This is why I’ve asked repeatedly for you to tell me what it means to add things. Whatever you choose, I can prove it false. Math is very relative.
2+2 is 4 in simple physical scaler notation in the conventional rules of arithmetic. And only then. if you include the added physical variable of direction (another spatial relation) it is anything from 0 to 4. In quantum 2+2 can be unknowable because the universe doesn’t manifest that information.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< invented rules of mathematics. >>>[/quote]By who?[/quote]Convention today. I am not sure the first guy who thought up the rules of abstract math.[/quote]And you were doin so good for a minute there too. =] You get to keep the award though.
Logic IS metaphysical and yet governs every single thought we think and is therefore very VERY real. Unless of course you can send me some logic in a box and or type one syllable in response to this post without it.
[/quote]I’m impressed…[/quote]Well thank you Pat. I’m hoping maybe you and I can communicate in a more productive manner going forward. I commented on your question about drop sets in the T-Cell a while back too btw.
[/quote]
I will go take a look. I haven’t been in the T-cell in a while. It’s a very slow moving forum…
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
For human beings each requires the other though the metaphysical (I’d say spiritual) governs the physical in every way that we actually function by.[/quote]Seems the other way around to me.[/quote]Tell me how the computer you’re viewing this on right now could exist unless an entire world of metaphysical logic were brought to bear on the physical world on a whole bunch of levels. Everything we think say or do is PREceded by and governed by an abstract non material, but universally unavoidable logical construct without which we would be reduced to energy exchanging organic objects indistinguishable in any meaningful way from a dandelion.
[/quote]
It is the metaphysical that is driven by the physical in physics. The discovery of the equations of electronics are driven by the behavior of what the circuits in my computer do. Without the electron, there is no “law” governing electrons. And you, like Pat are making the same mistake of assuming there are laws. There is no proof that there are consistent, determined, analytic rules to the behavior of things. I contend that there may not be these laws, that they may be fluid, and there is no guarantee that they are even continuous.[/quote]
Oh most certainly there is rules governing electrons, and further the rules cannot be broken otherwise the cease being electrons. For instance, an electron must have a negative charge. You cannot have an electron with a positive charge, for if you do, it’s no longer an electron but something else.
It’s the difference between what an object is essentially and the arbitrary properties of an object. An apple can be red, or green or other colors, but it must be a fruit, it must have the pulp properties that constitutes it’s ‘appleness’, etc. It cannot have the pulp of an orange and still be an apple. It’s a different fruit.
Laws are static. If they are not, then they are not laws. Then they are theories at best. A law defines what must always be the case. If the law is broken, the essence of the object changes and it is no longer that thing.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< invented rules of mathematics. >>>[/quote]By who?[/quote]Convention today. I am not sure the first guy who thought up the rules of abstract math.[/quote]And you were doin so good for a minute there too. =] You get to keep the award though.
Logic IS metaphysical and yet governs every single thought we think and is therefore very VERY real. Unless of course you can send me some logic in a box and or type one syllable in response to this post without it.
[/quote]
lol.
Math (and the metaphysical) can be real when related to the physical world. Reasoning that describes/results in physical systems are real. Pure abstract math, without that relation, is not. Can you show me one syllable of the abstract without use of the physical?
Edit:
Hint: Even to think on this post is to use the physical. [/quote]
Ontology. Yes it is possible to discuss purely metaphysical principles without the use of physical examples. No it’s not possible to do it in a non-physical medium. We’d have have to be able to communicate without physical existence and we cannot do that. [/quote]
No, I contend that it isn’t. You only know that integer means because of it’s relation to physical objects. If we were truly able to break that relationship, the abstract idea of an integer becomes nonsense. You cannot have a quantity without a medium.
[/quote]
You can represent the metaphysical in quantity. Actually, quantity is metaphysical. It’s merely a grouping represented by a symbol. There a can be 2 ideas, for instance.
A whole number positive or negative. Numbers are abstract by definition. Integers aren’t just negatives.
It doesn’t matter what the objects of the ideas are, so long as there are two of them, it sufficient to pass your test.
It’s not ‘my definition’. It’s an abstract representation of anything with regards to quantity.
I never said is was analytic or mathematical. As a matter of fact, I said we cannot even prove, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that it even exists.
What I was saying is that math is a tool used in science as an analytic and predictive tool, but the more steps are removed between scientific theory and the math, the less reliable the result. Math is math, science uses it, but all scientific results are inferred from the calculations.
So, you admit that the ideas have OBJECTS. interesting. And it does matter. It means that you cannot know what an idea is without the physical. It means that even the notion of 2 ideas requires the physical to give rise to it.
[/quote]
Admit? That’s a bizarre thing to say. Yes, an idea has an object on which the idea is based. Physical has nothing to do with it. There is no physical in ideas, they are purely metaphysical entities. They have no form, shape, size, mass, no physical attributes what so ever.
You may have ideas about physical objects, but the idea itself is purely metaphysical.
Numbers do not have to represent anything physical. There can be 2 laws, 2 ideas, 2 concepts, 2 forms, 2 morals, 5 rules, etc. None of those things are physical and all can have quantity.
The objects of ideas do not have to be physical either. I can have an idea about morality. I can have ideas about ‘goodness’ and evil. I can have ideas of numbers without. I can calculate math problems, etc.
Math is probably the most pure form of metaphysics because it’s definitionally correct, always and it can refer to things of no substance what so ever.
Oh boy. Nothing could be further from the truth, which is also a metaphysical entity. Math is relative??!! Are you serious? Okay, prove it.
And science is NOT math, nor is math science. Math is a tool used by science.
The behavior of different physical entities does not have any impact on math, at all. It just means there’s a lot we don’t know about black holes. We don’t know if they accumulate mass, actually. They may or may not. We do know they can dissipate, but we don’t know how or why. There is the thought of Hawking radiation, but that’s only a theory. Since black holes are difficult to observe, it is difficult to know a lot about them. But at that level of mass and energy, the two things become one. What does not change is the math. The calculations used to understand the behavior of black holes, may or may not represent what is actually happening. It’s not problem of the math itself, it’s the application of the math.
Math itself is absolute. 2+2=4 does not change, ever. It must be so by definition. If you get a different answer your premises were wrong. If you have different premises than the answer will be different.
You really have this backwards. But I will let you attempt to prove to me that math itself is relative.
I’ll put it to you this way, if you were correct by some chance then all of the science based on math would from here on out be completely wrong. Which would invalidate basically 2000 years of scientific progress.
Science uses math for the precise reason that it is static and unchanging. If it were not, it could not be used.
You need to start with Plato and then work your way up. I am not a fan of Plato, but he is the father of metaphysics.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< invented rules of mathematics. >>>[/quote]By who?[/quote]Convention today. I am not sure the first guy who thought up the rules of abstract math.[/quote]And you were doin so good for a minute there too. =] You get to keep the award though.
Logic IS metaphysical and yet governs every single thought we think and is therefore very VERY real. Unless of course you can send me some logic in a box and or type one syllable in response to this post without it.
[/quote]
lol.
Math (and the metaphysical) can be real when related to the physical world. Reasoning that describes/results in physical systems are real. Pure abstract math, without that relation, is not. Can you show me one syllable of the abstract without use of the physical?
Edit:
Hint: Even to think on this post is to use the physical. [/quote]
Ontology. Yes it is possible to discuss purely metaphysical principles without the use of physical examples. No it’s not possible to do it in a non-physical medium. We’d have have to be able to communicate without physical existence and we cannot do that. [/quote]
No, I contend that it isn’t. You only know that integer means because of it’s relation to physical objects. If we were truly able to break that relationship, the abstract idea of an integer becomes nonsense. You cannot have a quantity without a medium.
[/quote]
You can represent the metaphysical in quantity. Actually, quantity is metaphysical. It’s merely a grouping represented by a symbol. There a can be 2 ideas, for instance.
A whole number positive or negative. Numbers are abstract by definition. Integers aren’t just negatives.
It doesn’t matter what the objects of the ideas are, so long as there are two of them, it sufficient to pass your test.
It’s not ‘my definition’. It’s an abstract representation of anything with regards to quantity.
I never said is was analytic or mathematical. As a matter of fact, I said we cannot even prove, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that it even exists.
What I was saying is that math is a tool used in science as an analytic and predictive tool, but the more steps are removed between scientific theory and the math, the less reliable the result. Math is math, science uses it, but all scientific results are inferred from the calculations.
So, you admit that the ideas have OBJECTS. interesting. And it does matter. It means that you cannot know what an idea is without the physical. It means that even the notion of 2 ideas requires the physical to give rise to it.
[/quote]
Admit? That’s a bizarre thing to say. Yes, an idea has an object on which the idea is based. Physical has nothing to do with it. There is no physical in ideas, they are purely metaphysical entities. They have no form, shape, size, mass, no physical attributes what so ever.
You may have ideas about physical objects, but the idea itself is purely metaphysical.
[/quote]
The idea is purely governed by the physical and lacks any rationality absolute without it.
They all reference and are driven by the physical. Laws, morals or rules are ideas about the physical actions of things, they do not exist without those things. Ideas, and concepts is just a rewording of the original. None of this is definable without the physical.
See above. Without the physical concept of an object, numbers are senseless. Without the physical nature of putting things together, addition is senseless. Definitionally correct means without proof or reason. To make it change or false, you need only change the definition.
I would have long ago if youâ??d define addition for me, without using the verb form of the word in the definition.
But, it is your assertion that math is absolute. Provide me proof or even evidence of that in the abstract.
Nah, itâ??s all physics. Math is an attempt to model the behavior of the physical world, same as all other science.
So, if tomorrow, I put 2 apples next to 2 other apples, and that made 11 apples sitting there, that wouldnâ??t change algebraic addition?
[quote]
Math itself is absolute. 2+2=4 does not change, ever. It must be so by definition. If you get a different answer your premises were wrong. If you have different premises than the answer will be different.
You really have this backwards. But I will let you attempt to prove to me that math itself is relative.
I’ll put it to you this way, if you were correct by some chance then all of the science based on math would from here on out be completely wrong. Which would invalidate basically 2000 years of scientific progress.
Science uses math for the precise reason that it is static and unchanging. If it were not, it could not be used.
You need to start with Plato and then work your way up. I am not a fan of Plato, but he is the father of metaphysics. [/quote]
Sure, I will, define add. You must provide me with the definition of your premise for me to disprove.
Yes, all science is wrong, it would be pointless otherwise. It is a model for the universe. As such it is inexact (scientifically wrong). For it to become exact, it would duplicate the universe and thereby cause an infinite loop. There are no exact systems in science.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< The discovery of the equations of electronics are driven by the behavior of what the circuits in my computer do. >>>[/quote]No sir. The behaviors of the microelectronics in your computer have been brought about by the manipulation of already existent matter according to already existent principles inherent in the material universe. This was done by utilizing and applying an already existent universally binding intellectual construct without which, once again, not even 2+2 would equal 4 to saying noting of binary language and the machines required to interpret it into useful work and information. Logic was first. Both chronologically and structurally. [quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< There is no proof that there are consistent, determined, analytic rules to the behavior of things. >>>[/quote]On the basis of pure scientism as practiced by humanistic autonomous man? I couldn’t agree more.[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< I contend that there may not be these laws, that they may be fluid, and there is no guarantee that they are even continuous.[/quote]Moving on from the previous point, lemme know when you have made it through one minute of your life practicing what you have just preached in this last statement of yours.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< The discovery of the equations of electronics are driven by the behavior of what the circuits in my computer do. >>>[/quote]No sir. The behaviors of the microelectronics in your computer have been brought about by the manipulation of already existent matter according to already existent principles inherent in the material universe. This was done by utilizing and applying an already existent cz without which, once again, not even 2+2 would equal 4 to saying noting of binary language and the machines required to interpret it into useful work and information. Logic was first. Both chronologically and structurally. [quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< There is no proof that there are consistent, determined, analytic rules to the behavior of things. >>>[/quote]On the basis of pure scientism as practiced by humanistic autonomous man? I couldn’t agree more.[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< I contend that there may not be these laws, that they may be fluid, and there is no guarantee that they are even continuous.[/quote]Moving on from the previous point, lemme know when you have made it through one minute of your life practicing what you have just preached in this last statement of yours.
[/quote]
Well to ignore the fallacy in assuming there is a chronological order. The math is indefinable without the physical (as I’ve repeatedly requested be defined). If it’s indefinable without the physical, it can’t be said to be first. And no, the circuits would do the same thing if math had never been invented. The math allowed us to reasonable predict and manipulate the function of the circuits, it does Not cause it. Especially sense the the equations for the behavior (if there are any) are as of yet unknown.
You couldn’t disagree more? You think there is proof of binding unchanging laws of the universe? Feel free to provide a source on that. You don’t believe in miracles?
I do behave that way. I thank the Lord for today with the knowlege that there may not be a tomorrow.
I also believe the universe is caused which necessitates that the “laws” were broken.
Trib, do you think God could make 2 and 2 be 11? Do you believe he is bound by these logical constructs? Though you’ve already answered no and yes respectively, I want to emphasize what your beliefs mean.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< Trib, do you think God could make 2 and 2 be 11? >>>[/quote]God cannot think or do anything that is contrary to His nature and or being. Whether the version of mathematics we have been created bound to, reflects that nature and being to such a degree that God could not ever violate it, I am not sure, but tend to believe He could.[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< Do you believe he is bound by these logical constructs? >>>[/quote]No.[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< Though you’ve already answered no and yes respectively, >>>[/quote]No I haven’t. Gods’ internal logic is eternal, comprehensive and perfect. He does not suffer from philosophical conundrums that we do. We are finite and derivative of Him and are fr that reason wholly incapable of operating our minds apart from Him which is why nobody does, regardless of what futile protestations to the contrary they attempt to bring.[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< I want to emphasize what your beliefs mean.[/quote]Be my guest. Of course I believe in miracles because the proposition that nothing I can understand can be true is laughably idiotic to say nothing of self exalting and idolatrous. God is free to work in, against, with, above, through or upon any and or all of His creation in any way that is pleasing to Himself. All without ever once violating His own holy nature and being. He is alone worthy of all my worship and regardless of how personally painful to myself, I will in the end praise Him for all that He is and all that He does, which is by definition, just, right and good because He does it. That oughta bring some questions for sure though I certainly wasn’t tryin. Man do I have too many things goin. =[
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< Trib, do you think God could make 2 and 2 be 11? >>>[/quote]God cannot think or do anything that is contrary to His nature and or being. Whether the version of mathematics we have been created bound to, reflects that nature and being to such a degree that God could not ever violate it, I am not sure, but tend to believe He could.[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< Do you believe he is bound by these logical constructs? >>>[/quote]No.[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< Though you’ve already answered no and yes respectively, >>>[/quote]No I haven’t. Gods’ internal logic is eternal, comprehensive and perfect. He does not suffer from philosophical conundrums that we do. We are finite and derivative of Him and are fr that reason wholly incapable of operating our minds apart from Him which is why nobody does, regardless of what futile protestations to the contrary they attempt to bring.[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< I want to emphasize what your beliefs mean.[/quote]Be my guest. Of course I believe in miracles because the proposition that nothing I can understand can be true is laughably idiotic to say nothing of self exalting and idolatrous. God is free to work in, against, with, above, through or upon any and or all of His creation in any way that is pleasing to Himself. All without ever once violating His own holy nature and being. He is alone worthy of all my worship and regardless of how personally painful to myself, I will in the end praise Him for all that He is and all that He does, which is by definition, just, right and good because He does it. That oughta bring some questions for sure though I certainly wasn’t tryin. Man do I have too many things goin. =[
[/quote]
So then, how is 2+2=4 “universally binding” if you believe tomorrow it could equal 11?