Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Mathematician wonders about the respectful reception new multiverse book is getting

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Columbia mathematician Peter Woit offers some interesting comments on Max Tegmark’s The Mathematical Universe. We’d noted it last weekend, because the New Scientist review comprised one of the few instances of critical thinking on multiverse theory we’ve encountered in popular science media. Anyway, here’s Woit:

Tegmark’s career is a rather unusual story, mixing reputable science with an increasingly strong taste for grandiose nonsense. In this book he indulges his inner crank, describing in detail an utterly empty vision of the “ultimate nature of reality.” What’s perhaps most remarkable about the book is the respectful reception it seems to be getting, see reviews here, here, here and here. The Financial Times review credits Tegmark as the “academic celebrity” behind the turn of physics to the multiverse:

As recently as the 1990s, most scientists regarded the idea of multiple universes as wild speculation too far out on the fringe to be worth serious discussion. Indeed, in 1998, Max Tegmark, then an up-and-coming young cosmologist at Princeton, received an email from a senior colleague warning him off multiverse research: “Your crackpot papers are not helping you,” it said.

Needless to say, Tegmark persisted in exploring the multiverse as a window on “the ultimate nature of reality”, while making sure also to work on subjects in mainstream cosmology as camouflage for his real enthusiasm. Today multiple universes are scientifically respectable, thanks to the work of Tegmark as much as anyone. Now a physics professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he presents his multiverse work to the public in Our Mathematical Universe.

File:Multiverse - level II.svg It’s part of the “mainstreaming” of the multiverse—quite apart from any evidence in support—that I wrote about here:

Hailed as the “world’s smartest man,” with cameos to his credit on The Simpsons and Star Trek, Stephen Hawking has blessed the multiverse for popular culture. Denouncing philosophy (and religion) as “outdated and irrelevant”, he announced that science dispenses with a designer behind nature because the law of gravity explains how the universe “can and will create itself from nothing.”

Those who want to be in the know, whether or not there is anything to know, will not know enough not to ask about evidence.

Especially when they learn things like this (Woit’s post is must reading):

1. The Templeton Foundation gave Tegmark and Anthony Aguirre nearly $9 million for a “Foundational Questions Institute” (FQXi)

2. Tegmark has little interest in mathematics, it turns out, and

There are no mathematicians among those thanked in the acknowledgements, and while “mathematical structures” are invoked in the book as the basis of everything, there’s little to no discussion of the mathematical structures that modern mathematicians find interesting (although the idea of “symmetries” gets a mention).

3. The book closes with a plea for scientists to “get organized to fight things like ‘fringe religious groups concerned that questioning their pseudo-scientific claims would erode their power’.” This, let’s understand, is from a well-funded multiverse advocate whose discipline rests on no evidence at all.

Woit says he doesn’t understand the attraction of the multiverse. If he means “scientific” attraction, I don’t either. If he had meant “political” attraction, the answer is obvious. Stay tuned.

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips and

Popular science writer “sort of” gets it about the multiverse scam

Hawking [now] says there are no black holes?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Ok. I cannot let this go without a response. Some dumbass over at antievolution.org who calls itself CeilingCat, wrote the following as a refutation of my argument @11:
[CeilingCat (here and now): "I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to the Eiffel Tower I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to Mt. Everest I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to infinity, I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to a fireplug I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to a mouse I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to a bacteria I'm 175 cm tall. Compared to an infinitely small thing I'm 175 cm tall. Your argument fails in both directions. Bow down and start apologizing, tard-boy!
LOL. CeilingCat has no clue as to what a comparison is. A comparison is a question or test that demands a true or false answer. For example, given the finite values X and Y, we can ask: X is greater than Y, true or false? or, within the context of my argument against infinity, if Y is given as an infinitely small value, we can phrase the question thus: X is infinitely greater than Y, true or false? or, if Y is given as an infinitely large value, we can phrase the question thus: X is infinitely smaller than Y, true or false? The answer is a resounding YES to both questions. CeilingCat should claw its way back to the ceiling and let grownups take care of grownup business.Mapou
January 30, 2014
January
01
Jan
30
30
2014
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
M: While you may no longer wish to debate the topic, you may find the already linked readings helpful. Again, I commend to you the street level survey with reference links here on. KFkairosfocus
January 28, 2014
January
01
Jan
28
28
2014
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT
Barb, I no longer want to discuss this topic. Thanks for the comments.Mapou
January 27, 2014
January
01
Jan
27
27
2014
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
Mapou writes,
Q. Is God eternal, a necessary being? A. Yes. But eternal is not synonymous with infinite. It simply means immortal or indestructible. Why? Because God is the greatest power in the universe.
Eternal is most certainly synonymous with infinite. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/eternal) You claim that God is the greatest power in the universe, yet below you claim that He is not all powerful. See the contradiction in your own beliefs?
Q. is God all knowing? A. No. Q. All-powerful? A. No.
You and I are reading entirely different Bibles then.
Q. All-good? A. I have no idea what this means. Something is either good or bad.
You didn't know what eternal meant, either.
Q. All-wise? A. If God can make mistakes and can regret making such mistakes, then the answer is no. Yahweh admits that he made a mistake creating humans on earth.
No, He did not. I'm not sure what scriptural reference you're using here. At times, God changes his attitude toward people. For example, more than once, the ancient Israelites left Jehovah and followed other gods. Jehovah then took away his protection. However, when the people felt sorry for their error and called to God for help, he changed his feelings toward them, or ‘felt regret.’ (Judg. 2:18) God is perfect and never errs in judgment, so it is not that he feels regret in the way that a human does when he has completely misjudged a matter. Rather, Jehovah feels regret by adjusting his dealings, responding to the change of heart he observes. This is not just a cold rescinding of a sentence. Jehovah’s feelings change toward repentant sinners. According to some scholars, the origin of the Hebrew verb translated “feel regret” in the verses cited above is thought to reflect the idea of “breathing deeply,” maybe with a sigh. This may indicate that when Jehovah sees genuine remorse in a human heart, figuratively he breathes deeply, as with a sigh of relief. God can show the repentant person the loving attention enjoyed by those having His approval. That sinner may still face certain consequences, yet God is pleased with his change of heart. He softens “the calamity,” or divine discipline, that otherwise might be due. (Jer. 26:13) You also never answered my point about the Big Bang, either.Barb
January 27, 2014
January
01
Jan
27
27
2014
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
M: The validity of infinity has nothing to do with whether or not there is a multiverse, for instance. The continuum is not primarily a scientific concept but a mathematical one and is just as valid. And, with al due respect people may differ on big issues without being crack pots all on one side. KF PS: I am about as Protestant as they come, and the angelic doctor is one of the greatest minds in the history of Christendom, with Paul, Augustine, Calvin and Wesley up there too in that league -- warts and all.kairosfocus
January 27, 2014
January
01
Jan
27
27
2014
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
kairosfocus @65, I'm sorry but anybody who legitimizes infinity as a viable concept in science is a crackpot in my view. The belief in continuous structures (which presupposes infinity) in the physics community is probably the biggest impediment to progress in the field, IMO. Worse, thanks to the belief in infinity, physics has been inundated with crackpottery, what with time travel, parallel universes, wormholes, black holes, etc. Even Einstein, Mr. Continuity par excellence, had serious doubts about it as seen in this partial quote from a letter he wrote to a friend near the end of his life:
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." (From: Subtle is the Lord by Abraham Pais.)
Too bad Einstein did not live long enough to work on that angle. The only reason that physicists, including Einstein during his heyday, still cannot figure out why C is the fastest possible speed in the universe is that they believe in continuity and infinity. If they could only get rid of those shackles, they would understand that, not only is C the fastest possible speed, it is also the only possible speed. Nothing can move faster or slower, period. Surprise! So I don't care how great a contribution Cantor has made to set theory. His obsession with the legitimacy of infinity and his ability to captivate and deceive the minds of so many generations of thinkers with his crackpottery is unforgivable, IMO. PS. The veneration that some people (mostly Catholics, I think) have for the Angelic Doctor (Thomas Aquinas) borders on the idolatrous, IMO. Talk about worshiping doctrine.Mapou
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT
PPS: Your ad hom on one of the most significant mathematicians in history -- who, similar to several others suffered bipolar depression -- is unworthy and verges on being offensive. Cantor is a founding father of Set Theory, and in that context a main pioneer of the mathematics of the infinite . . . or better, the transfinite (the Absolute Infinite, he reserved for the Godhead). His reputation is not on trial. Period. This one is in the league of a Gauss, or a Newton. If one can show his work and its cumulative legacy materially in error or in need of limitation and generalisation, fine, but a trash-talk dismissal is simply not acceptable. PPPS: I see your framing of your own system of theology. Your privilege, but not compelling. The interested onlooker may wish to refer to say Hodge here on . . . 3 vols (with defense of approach in an ultra-mod era here) or to the alas incomplete (he passed on . . . ) magisterial work by the Angelic Doctor, here. Grudem's contemporary Systematic Theology is a short [relatively speaking], simple [ditto] survey. Onlookers may like to look at the humble street level course here on, and yes, it starts with where to go for more, including the heavy artillery.kairosfocus
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT
M: Just a note, eternal in the context of being the necessary being at the root of reality is already infinite, of endless duration. KF PS: Other necessary beings such as the proposition 2 + 3 = 5, are endlessly contemplated by God as eternal mind. Another infinity in aggregate.kairosfocus
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT
as to: "The word “transcendent” means nothing to me." What Properties Must the Cause of the Universe Have? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SZWInkDIVI Psalm 115:2-3 Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God? Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him.bornagain77
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT
bornagain77 @59:
i.e. Mapou, your argument from the infinitely large and from the infinitely small against the validity of infinity itself addresses the issue from the wrong conceptual basis to begin with! i.e. I NEVER disagreed with you that infinity within the space-time of the material realm was completely absurd. You are the one who erroneously assumed that such absurdities for infinitely in the finite material realm hold for the timeless-spaceless transcendent realm that is above this one, and indeed the transcendent realm that brought this universe into being, but you simply are not justified in such an radical extrapolation from the material realm to say that the infinite does not exist in God who brought this material realm, all the space-time matter-energy of it, into being by his word and who continues to uphold it in his infinite power.
There is no question, at least in my yin-yang, dualistic philosophy, that reality consists of both a physical realm and a spiritual realm. The word "transcendent" means nothing to me. Here is how I define the two. 1. In the physical realm, everything can be created, destroyed or modified. Everything has a beginning and can have an end. 2. In the spiritual realm, nothing can be created, destroyed or modified. Things just are. I see no reason to believe that the spiritual realm is infinite. It contains as many entities as are necessary, no more and no less. Personally, I could not worship a God who is infinitely knowledgeable and powerful. Setting aside, for argument's sake, the fact that such a God is logically absurd, the problem I see is that everything would come easy to such a God. He would have no merit in my view. I prefer the idea of a self-made God who spent trillions upon trillions of years perfecting his wisdom and power through trial and error and hardship. That's the kind of God that appeals to me and that's the kind of God I am not ashamed to call Master. And I believe that's the God that scriptures refer to as the "ancient of days." I truly believe that humans were made in the image of the Gods (Elohim). The Gods have brains just like us and learn through trial and error just like us. The main difference is that Yahweh Elohim has honor whereas humans don't.Mapou
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
07:30 PM
7
07
30
PM
PDT
Mapou writes,
The science of this world is hopelessly infatuated with infinity. Black holes, wormholes, Big Bangs, infinite parallel universes, etc., are all based on continuity, which assumes infinity.
Doesn't the Big Bang presuppose a beginning, i.e, a starting pooint? That would make the universe finite, not infinite. Hawking uses imaginary numbers in his theorems, but according to William Lane Craig, when he converts the numbers to real integers, a singularity appears (the beginning point). I don't see at all how Big Bang cosmology supports infinity.Barb
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
kairosfocus @41:
F/N: Is God eternal, a necessary being? Your answer will give us a clear view of the matter, and of your particular theology . . . and closely linked philosophy. Similarly, is God all knowing, all-powerful, all-good, all-wise, etc. These questions help clarify what is meant when God is said to be “infinite-personal.” KF PS: This, from Wiki, will be interesting. The world has some really strange things in it.
Q. Is God eternal, a necessary being? A. Yes. But eternal is not synonymous with infinite. It simply means immortal or indestructible. Why? Because God is the greatest power in the universe. Q. is God all knowing? A. No. Q. All-powerful? A. No. Q. All-good? A. I have no idea what this means. Something is either good or bad. Q. All-wise? A. If God can make mistakes and can regret making such mistakes, then the answer is no. Yahweh admits that he made a mistake creating humans on earth.
PS: This, from Wiki, will be interesting. The world has some really strange things in it.
Cantor was a self-important crackpot and a con artist, IMO. His contribution to society amounts to a disaster, considering the enormous amount of time wasted by the world's acceptance of infinity as a logical concept. Even after Planck discovered that the universe was discrete, physicists still continue to act as if infinity is a valid concept. It's painful just to think about it.Mapou
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT
Mapou, you continue to want me (or anyone) to 'refute' your argument at 11, which is as such,,,
Compared to the infinitely large, everything is infinitely small. And compared to the infinitely small, everything is infinitely large. So, if infinity existed, everything would be infinitely large and infinitely small while also being finite at the same time. This is absurd on the face of it.
to which I responded to your argument in 13 as such:
Infinity is a wild, wild, horse and any material explanation will be thrown off into the dirt of epistemological absurdity. Only God, who is infinite, not infinity, can tame infinity. Only God who is omniscient, knows every number in pi, or possesses the infinite knowledge necessary to collapse the infinite dimensional quantum wave state to a photon of one bit. The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect;,,, from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done. He is not eternity or infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present. He endures for ever, and is every where present: Sir Isaac Newton – Quoted from what many consider the greatest science masterpiece of all time, his book “Principia”
and to which I again responded to your argument at 22:
Mapou, in your argument, you are trying to understand the infinite from a finite materialistic/naturalistic perspective. OF COURSE it is logically absurd from that position. Why should I try to refute your argument when I agree with you 100% that materialism/naturalism cannot handle the infinite? i.e. non sequitur!
And Mapou to further show you that I agree 100% with your argument against a naturalistic/materialistic interpretation of infinity, which is once again,,
Compared to the infinitely large, everything is infinitely small. And compared to the infinitely small, everything is infinitely large. So, if infinity existed, everything would be infinitely large and infinitely small while also being finite at the same time. This is absurd on the face of it.
,,,I think you may find the following site very interesting:
The Scale of The Universe - Part 2 - interactive graph (recently updated in 2012 with cool features) http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white
The preceding interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which 'just so happens' to be directly in the exponential center of all possible sizes of our physical reality (not just ‘nearly’ in the exponential center!). i.e. 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of 'observable' length since space-time was created in the Big Bang, which is the diameter of the universe. This is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions than directly in the exponential middle; also of note:
Planck length - Theoretical significance This implies that the Planck scale is the limit below which the very notions of space and length cease to exist.,,, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length#Theoretical_significance The End Of Cosmology? - Lawrence M. Krauss and Robert J. Scherrer Excerpt: We are led inexorably to a very strange conclusion. The window during which intelligent observers can deduce the true nature of our expanding universe (and see the Cosmic Background Radiation) might be very short indeed. http://genesis1.asu.edu/0308046.pdf We Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History - Hugh Ross - video http://vimeo.com/31940671 Evidence for Belief in God - Rich Deem Excerpt: Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 10^59 larger, the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 10^80 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 10^21 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro2.html "Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past." (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970 i.e. Mapou, there was no time and no space (which your argument is predicated on) before the Big Bang so where did it come from?
So thus Mapou, I agree 100% with your argument, and nature itself agrees you, that a finite naturalistic/materialistic infinity, with space-time, cannot exist. Where I think your argument goes off the rails is when you try to extrapolate the obvious absurdities that are apparent for infinity in the material (space-time) realm,,,
William Lane Craig – Hilbert’s Hotel – The Absurdity Of An Infinite Regress Of ‘Things’ – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994011/ Time Cannot Be Infinite Into The Past – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg0pdUvQdi4
,,,off the rails when you try to extrapolate the obvious absurdity in the material, space-time, realm to the transcendent (i.e. higher dimensional) realm that is above this material realm. Yet how did this material, space-time, realm come into being if not from an infinitely powerful, omniscient, transcendent Being who had mastery over infinity so as to be able to do it?
An Interview with David Berlinski - Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time …. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html
i.e. Mapou, your argument from the infinitely large and from the infinitely small against the validity of infinity itself addresses the issue from the wrong conceptual basis to begin with! i.e. I NEVER disagreed with you that infinity within the space-time of the material realm was completely absurd. You are the one who erroneously assumed that such absurdities for infinitely in the finite material realm hold for the timeless-spaceless transcendent realm that is above this one, and indeed the transcendent realm that brought this universe into being, but you simply are not justified in such an radical extrapolation from the material realm to say that the infinite does not exist in God who brought this material realm, all the space-time matter-energy of it, into being by his word and who continues to uphold it in his infinite power. Verse and Music:
Hebrews 1:3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 1 Corinthians 2:7 No, we declare God's wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. You Are God Alone | Phillips, Craig & Dean - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JtS98aTGq0
bornagain77
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
bornagain77 asserted
A truly strong person does not try to exalt himself by belittling other people, but a truly strong person tries to help those he considers less fortunate than himself/herself.
This is so true. One of the most brilliant people that I work with is humble and soft-spoken. He carefully considers the technical questions and challenges put to him, and he answers them with both kindness and precision. -QQuerius
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
bornagain77 @56, But you got it wrong. I am not trying to help you at all. I have very little respect for you, especially after this exchange. You're a typical doctrinairian and I don't like doctrinairians. I don't think you're less fortunate. You have access to the same knowledge sources as I do. That's the way I feel. And I tell it like I see it.Mapou
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
Mapou, your ad hominem undermines your claim of 'being strong'. Claiming to be 'strong' while disparaging other people who may disagree with you is certainly not a sign of strength but of weakness. A truly strong person does not try to exalt himself by belittling other people, but a truly strong person tries to help those he considers less fortunate than himself/herself.bornagain77
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
Well, according to Georg Cantor, the inventor of the classification of infinities, I'm wrong about comparing counting numbers with even counting numbers. He recognized that there are different orders of infinities, which he called Alephs, and that counting numbers and even counting numbers are both in Aleph-0. My original thought was more in line with L'Hopital's rule where you take ratios of expressions as some part in the numerator or denominator goes to infinity. The *rates* of which each expression goes to infinity or to zero are compared. My thought was that in pairings of the two infinite sets, the the ratios are not 1 in this case; any element of one set is always double its pair in the other. Hmmm, but now I'm talking myself out of my position. The infinities are equal in number despite the fact the values of the numbers in one set are always double that in the other. However, Georg Cantor does assert that the infinity of real numbers is greater, because you cannot pair off real numbers with counting numbers (or natural numbers for that matter). In turn, you also cannot pair off the numbers of curves with the real numbers, so these are in different Alephs. My point about an infinite number of real numbers on a line of finite length still stands. -QQuerius
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
JWTruthInLove @32:
@Querius: Extrapolating, if you divide the infinite number of counting numbers by the infinite number of even numbers in the series, the answer will be exactly 2. The cardinalities of “counting numbers” and “even numbers in the series” are both the same. So the answer is 1, not 2.
This is not what is wrong with Querius's argument. The glaring problem with his argument is that he is assuming the existence of infinity (e.g., "if you divide the infinite number...") while arguing for its existence. Querius should man up or woman up, as the case may be, and acknowledge that his argument is invalid or lose face.Mapou
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
bornagain77 @52, It is precisely because I have read the so-called proofs of infinity that I reject them. My argument is a direct refutation of those proofs. You avoid it like the plague because you don't have the mental ability to even think about formulating a rebuttal, let alone refute it. You're weak. You know it and I know it. A true follower of Yahweh is strong, not weak. That being said, I don't challenge you specifically to refute my argument @11. I know you can't. You are a propaganda artist, not a thinker. I challenge everybody. It's a logical argument. If I am proven wrong, I will repent and acknowledge my foolishness.Mapou
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
Mapou, you want a 'logical refutation' of your ahem 'argument' when you have rejected the entire logical world of mathematics as to having any purchase over your own self-exalted infallible thinking in this matter in the first place? i.e. cart before horse! To shine a light in a darkened room it is first necessary to, at least, open a window! There's none so blind as those who will not see. Prov. You cannot make someone pay attention to something that he or she does not want to notice.bornagain77
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
And yet you expect us to ‘yield to the infinite superiority of your arguments’, and indeed you act like a spoiled child when no one takes your strawman argument seriously, when you yourself don’t take the entire field of mathematics seriously. Someone has an seriously hyper-inflated opinion of their own infallibility on this matter!
Maybe I have a hyper-inflated opinion of my infallibility in this matter but the same can be said about you. PS. I am still waiting for your logical refutation of my argument @11. I guess I'll have to wait until chickens grow teeth and evolve into predatory birds. LOL.Mapou
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Mapou you state:
'I yield to the infinite superiority of your arguments.'
But alas Mapou, I am not the one who said this:
'I don’t give a rat’s posterior about Gregory Chaitin’s opinion or the world of mathematics and their preeminent mathematicians.'
And yet you expect us to 'yield to the infinite superiority of your arguments', and indeed you act like a spoiled child when no one takes your strawman argument seriously, when you yourself don't take the entire field of mathematics seriously. Someone has an seriously hyper-inflated opinion of their own infallibility on this matter!bornagain77
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
bornagain77 @48, You got me, Mr. born again man. I yield to the infinite superiority of your arguments. NOT. LOL.Mapou
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
Mapou, to borrow your words, 'you are deceiving yourself'!bornagain77
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
bornagain77:
“Enlighten me.,” so this verse ‘Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done,’ Is not reflective of God’s omniscience in your book?
If humans, with their feeble means, can make predictions, imagine what a being who can create a universe can do. Not only can such a being make very accurate predictions, he can make his predictions happen by actively manipulating physical events. I fail to see the need for omniscience (infinite knowledge) here. Besides, the Yahweh of the scriptures is never presented as knowing everything. If one knows everything, one cannot have regrets. Did not Yahweh regret having created humans? The answer is yes, of course, because this is what the book of Genesis says in plain language that cannot be denied or futzed with unless one is a liar. On another note, is not Jesus God? If so, as God, he should know everything according to your theology, right? And yet we know from reading the scriptures that Jesus does not know everything. How can that be? Well, Jesus himself said that he did not know the exact time of his return, only the father knows. Methinks the holes your theology would let a Mack truck through.
I must say, I have never met anybody, and I mean anybody, that holds to your strange interpretation of scripture (and mathematics).
I am sure there is a point you are trying to make here but I can't place a finger on it. Sorry.
I find omniscience and omnipotence to be integral to Theism. For instance how people going to give an account for ‘every careless word uttered’ on the day of judgement if God is not omniscient?
Simple. Everything that occurs in the physical universe is being recorded in what I call "the lattice". It's a finite universe and a finite lattice.
And just because you personally believe God is not omniscient and omnipotent, in your own private interpretation of scripture I might add, what in God’s green earth gives you the audacity to believe that you can change thousands of years of Monotheistic thought on God’s omniscience and omnipotence,
It is not audacity. I just don't trust anybody, especially those who hold on to thousands of years of dogma at all costs. That's idolatry, in my opinion. I question everything this world throws at me.
by throwing, what I perceive to be, a rather childish tantrum on a out of the way blog?
Your personal opinion of my behavior is irrelevant to me.
If changing Theological thought were not enough for your unconstrained ambitions, you also want to exclude infinity from role in mathematics because you find absurdities with it that you, personally, have not been able to work your way through. But you offer no rigorous proof, in any system of logic, as to why infinity should be stricken.
I do offer a simple solid proof @11 above but I'm still waiting for your refutation.
Just because you are stuck in a personal mental mire on the infinity matter why do you think the world of mathematics should suddenly stop and take notice of you. Do you really think that name calling, and such as that as you have displayed here
I simply call a spade a spade. I am not a politician.
, is going to have any effect on the preeminent mathematicians of the world? Perhaps you should call Gregory Chaitin up with your insight that infinity should be stricken from math?
I don't give a rat's posterior about Gregory Chaitin's opinion or the world of mathematics and their preeminent mathematicians. I know my priorities. I always write for the simple man or woman. Those are my peers.Mapou
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
kairosfocus:
M: I am not trying to prove the existence of an infinite set, thus of an infinity.
In that case, this discussion is futile because my argument is that infinity is nonsense. Unless you are trying to disprove my argument, I fail to see the purpose of our debate, assuming this was a debate to begin with.Mapou
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
"Enlighten me.," so this verse 'Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done,' Is not reflective of God's omniscience in your book? I must say, I have never met anybody, and I mean anybody, that holds to your strange interpretation of scripture (and mathematics). I find omniscience and omnipotence to be integral to Theism. For instance how people going to give an account for 'every careless word uttered' on the day of judgement if God is not omniscient? Matthew 12:36 But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. And just because you personally believe God is not omniscient and omnipotent, in your own private interpretation of scripture I might add, what in God's green earth gives you the audacity to believe that you can change thousands of years of Monotheistic thought on God's omniscience and omnipotence, by throwing, what I perceive to be, a rather childish tantrum on a out of the way blog? If changing Theological thought were not enough for your unconstrained ambitions, you also want to exclude infinity from role in mathematics because you find absurdities with it that you, personally, have not been able to work your way through. But you offer no rigorous proof, in any system of logic, as to why infinity should be stricken. Just because you are stuck in a personal mental mire on the infinity matter why do you think the world of mathematics should suddenly stop and take notice of you. Do you really think that name calling, and such as that as you have displayed here, is going to have any effect on the preeminent mathematicians of the world? Perhaps you should call Gregory Chaitin up with your insight that infinity should be stricken from math? The Limits Of Reason - Gregory Chaitin - 2006 Excerpt: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.,,, http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/sciamer3.pdf I'm sure he could probably use a good belly laugh at your suggestion!bornagain77
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
M: I am not trying to prove the existence of an infinite set, thus of an infinity. That reality, has long been obvious. Set up a mirror. Locate images behind it, then understand it poses a virtual half-universe. Then, put two in parallel with a pin with a bright red knob on top in the middle, yielding (mathematically, if you will) an infinity behind each. Similarly, observe a line, the real number line and observe the property that between any two neighbouring values we can define a third, etc. Perhaps, your problem is with the logic involved, as is suggested by challenging on the supertask of measuring an infinity in finite succession. All that succeeds in doing is highlighting that one cannot traverse an infinity in steps. The whole set must be delivered at once. That a transfinite set may have strange properties should be no more surprising than negative numbers, zero, the incommensurate nature of sides and diagonals of squares, the sqrt(-1) = i, etc. And BA77 is dead right to highlight how all of these things (including implied infinite series) come together in the Euler expression 0 = 1 + e^(i*pi). KFkairosfocus
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
F/N: Is God eternal, a necessary being? Your answer will give us a clear view of the matter, and of your particular theology . . . and closely linked philosophy. Similarly, is God all knowing, all-powerful, all-good, all-wise, etc. These questions help clarify what is meant when God is said to be "infinite-personal." KF PS: This, from Wiki, will be interesting. The world has some really strange things in it.kairosfocus
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
kairosfocus @39:
M: First, I just note that your “ratios” — note, your use of compared to — are not the same as the things themselves. A subtle but important difference.
I fail to see the truth in what you're saying here. Is it a refutation of my argument?
The same finite distance, measured in light years will be a small fraction, but measured in Angstroms, it will be a large number. But all along it is the same distance, say from Papine to Half Way Tree in Kingston, Jamaica, or the length of Long Beach in Christchurch, Barbados [a mile].
This proves nothing. Be a hero and go right ahead and measure your finite distance using an infinitely small unit. Good luck with that. The rest of your argument @39 does not address my argument. Sorry. Notice that your argument assumes the very thing (the existence of infinity) it is trying to prove.Mapou
January 26, 2014
January
01
Jan
26
26
2014
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply