[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?[/quote]Not for us. That’s not how we were designed.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
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]
Technically speaking, the author of logic can make it whatever he wants. The logic we are familiar with is the way God designed it.
By definition, God cannot be bound by anything or he would not be God.
[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.
[/quote]
No. It’s the other way around.
By definition, they are not physical, whether or not the objects of the laws, moral or rules, exist physically is not relevant
[quote].
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.
[/quote]
“By definition” describes essence or nature, we are not talking about the Webster’s dictionary definition.
[quote]
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.
I’ve read some Plato.[/quote]
All science is wrong? Really? Well, if it were all wrong, anything based on it could not work, including computers.
I think the biggest problem is you don’t understand metaphysics. Once you understand metaphysics everything becomes much clearer.
[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?[/quote]
It cannot equal 11, ever. The other thing about metaphysics is it is not bound by time, therefore the metaphysical is necessarily eternal. If you have 2 things and you add 2 more things to it, you cannot magically have 11 of them.
[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.
[/quote]
No. It’s the other way around.
By definition, they are not physical, whether or not the objects of the laws, moral or rules, exist physically is not relevant
[quote].
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.
[/quote]
“By definition” describes essence or nature, we are not talking about the Webster’s dictionary definition.
[quote]
I would have long ago if you�¢??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, it�¢??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 wouldn�¢??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.
I’ve read some Plato.[/quote]
All science is wrong? Really? Well, if it were all wrong, anything based on it could not work, including computers.
I think the biggest problem is you don’t understand metaphysics. Once you understand metaphysics everything becomes much clearer.[/quote]
Yes it’s wrong. All uses of science have a tolerance for error though, it doesn’t make computers not work.
[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?[/quote]
It cannot equal 11, ever. The other thing about metaphysics is it is not bound by time, therefore the metaphysical is necessarily eternal. If you have 2 things and you add 2 more things to it, you cannot magically have 11 of them.[/quote]
Really…? “Technically speaking, the author of logic can make it whatever he wants”
This seems mildly contradictory.
Do you mean he could have in the past, but cannot change it now?
[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?[/quote]
It cannot equal 11, ever. The other thing about metaphysics is it is not bound by time, therefore the metaphysical is necessarily eternal. If you have 2 things and you add 2 more things to it, you cannot magically have 11 of them.[/quote]
Really…? “Technically speaking, the author of logic can make it whatever he wants”
This seems mildly contradictory.
Do you mean he could have in the past, but cannot change it now?[/quote]
No, if he wanted to change it, he could and we wouldn’t be the wiser. What ever rules he sets forth, will be what it is eternally. If he changed the rules, we would not be aware, it will be what it is eternally and to us, it would be transparent. But that’s not what logic is. He made it what it is and that’s what we have.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:"So then, how is 2+2=4 “universally binding” if you believe tomorrow it could equal 11?"Not for us. That’s not how we were designed.
[/quote]You know what God designed for you tomorrow? >>>[/quote]In the area of the nature of His created reality? Yes. His Word tells me. And you.[quote]DoubleDuce wrote: He could make it that way for him, >>>[/quote]God is immutable. He does not change. He is the same yesterday, today and forever to quote the book of Hebrews.[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< but not for us? >>>[/quote]The testimony of His Word brought to bear on the realities of His creation reveal that in any way that we will ever be able to function under, 2+2 will for us always be 4. Modified addition and blah blah blah aside, we don’t live that way and never could.[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< Could you clarify what you mean?[/quote]He’s God n I ain’t. As long as I don’t forget that, we get along rather famously He n I.
[quote]pat wrote:[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:"So then, how is 2+2=4 “universally binding” if you believe tomorrow it could equal 11?"Not for us. That’s not how we were designed.
[/quote]You know what God designed for you tomorrow? He could make it that way for him, but not for us? Could you clarify what you mean?[/quote]There is no ‘today’ or ‘tomorrow’ in metaphysics.[/quote]Very true Pat, but that’s not the same as saying that everything metaphysical is eternal as I think you’ll agree. There are metaphysical realities that have been created by God just as physical ones have.
[quote]pat wrote:[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:"So then, how is 2+2=4 “universally binding” if you believe tomorrow it could equal 11?"Not for us. That’s not how we were designed.
[/quote]You know what God designed for you tomorrow? He could make it that way for him, but not for us? Could you clarify what you mean?[/quote]There is no ‘today’ or ‘tomorrow’ in metaphysics.[/quote]Very true Pat, but that’s not the same as saying that everything metaphysical is eternal as I think you’ll agree. There are metaphysical realities that have been created by God just as physical ones have.
[/quote]
You are the one that started the chronology of metaphysics discussion Trib, not me.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:"So then, how is 2+2=4 “universally binding” if you believe tomorrow it could equal 11?"Not for us. That’s not how we were designed.
[/quote]You know what God designed for you tomorrow? >>>[/quote]In the area of the nature of His created reality? Yes. His Word tells me. And you.[quote]DoubleDuce wrote: He could make it that way for him, >>>[/quote]God is immutable. He does not change. He is the same yesterday, today and forever to quote the book of Hebrews.[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< but not for us? >>>[/quote]The testimony of His Word brought to bear on the realities of His creation reveal that in any way that we will ever be able to function under, 2+2 will for us always be 4. Modified addition and blah blah blah aside, we don’t live that way and never could.[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< Could you clarify what you mean?[/quote]He’s God n I ain’t. As long as I don’t forget that, we get along rather famously He n I.
[/quote]
“In the area of the nature of His created reality? Yes. His Word tells me. And you.” I’m interested in this. What specifics does the word have to say about this?
“in any way that we will ever be able to function under, 2+2 will for us always be 4” So God can’t make 2+2 = 11 for us? I’d contend he already has. A couple of fish and a little bread minus the amount it takes to feed thousands equals numerous baskets full.
Water plus Jars equals awesome wine.
You cannot hold the absolute of math, think that for us it always has been and always will be and believe in those things.
I’d also point out that, at a fundamental level, all matter may do things like that all the time.
No, if he wanted to change it, he could and we wouldn’t be the wiser. What ever rules he sets forth, will be what it is eternally. If he changed the rules, we would not be aware, it will be what it is eternally and to us, it would be transparent. But that’s not what logic is. He made it what it is and that’s what we have.
[/quote]
So, he could change it, BUT couldn’t make us aware he had? He couldn’t make you realize tomorrow that 2+2 is in-fact 11, and that it was never 4 like you thought today?
Which makes it deductively true and therefore not a matter of faith. Things true by definition are absolute. Only abstracts can be absolute, nothing physical can be. [/quote]
â??The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for all the blood that is now spilled in the world. Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute. Whether you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looter’s stomach, is an absolute." ATLAS SHRUGGED
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
A professor stood before his engineering class and had some items in front of him. When the class began, he wordlessly picked up a very large and empty mayonnaise jar and proceeded to fill it with golf balls. He then asked the students if the jar was full. They agreed that it was, full of golf balls, dust, air, etc.
The professor confirmed that he wasn’t lecturing to a bunch of dumb shit philosophy students, and proceeded on with his class.
[/quote]
LOLOLOLOLOLOL!
I’m reminded of the scene in Atlas Shrugged where the kid named Tony (Non-absolute) gets shot. As Reardon carries the dying boy for help, Tony looks at a bullet hole in his body and says, “There’s an absolute.” Reardon calls him Tony for the first time – “No more Non-absolute, Mr. Reardon?” “No Tony, no more Non-absolute.” and the boy dies in his arms.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:"So then, how is 2+2=4 “universally binding” if you believe tomorrow it could equal 11?"Not for us. That’s not how we were designed.
[/quote]You know what God designed for you tomorrow? >>>[/quote]In the area of the nature of His created reality? Yes. His Word tells me. And you.[quote]DoubleDuce wrote: He could make it that way for him, >>>[/quote]God is immutable. He does not change. He is the same yesterday, today and forever to quote the book of Hebrews.[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< but not for us? >>>[/quote]The testimony of His Word brought to bear on the realities of His creation reveal that in any way that we will ever be able to function under, 2+2 will for us always be 4. Modified addition and blah blah blah aside, we don’t live that way and never could.[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< Could you clarify what you mean?[/quote]He’s God n I ain’t. As long as I don’t forget that, we get along rather famously He n I.
[/quote]
“In the area of the nature of His created reality? Yes. His Word tells me. And you.” I’m interested in this. What specifics does the word have to say about this?
“in any way that we will ever be able to function under, 2+2 will for us always be 4” So God can’t make 2+2 = 11 for us? I’d contend he already has. A couple of fish and a little bread minus the amount it takes to feed thousands equals numerous baskets full.
Water plus Jars equals awesome wine.
You cannot hold the absolute of math, think that for us it always has been and always will be and believe in those things.
I’d also point out that, at a fundamental level, all matter may do things like that all the time.
[/quote]We’re talking about 2 different things, but I apologize. I’m on my way back out the door again. Also, We’re having a friendly exchange here. Just to be clear. I’m not attacking you.