Text 8700, 77 rader
Skriven 2006-09-20 19:52:00 av Robert E Starr JR (9197.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <ith3h29hhiuluddupfsn8hg8v3n9fmlven@4ax.com>
@REPLY:
<ead5d2$cuo$1@odo.d2dc.net><1154357062.245629.71640@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>

On 31 Jul 2006 07:44:22 -0700, kruegerb76@hotmail.com wrote:

>
>Jeff Teunissen wrote:
>> Indeed, mathematics are not said to be invented or developed, but
discovered.
>
>Actually, I always recall my professors referring to math as being
>"derived".
>
>And Josh's assertion that the universe is basically made up of numbers
>prompts me to make a comment.  In reality, we can't really say that.
>We use math to understand the universe.  So of course, from that
>perspective, the parts of the universe that obviously follow a
>mathematical pattern are seen as being comprehensible to us.
>
>But can we really say the source is somehow "following" the rules of
>math?  Who knows?  All we can say is that we tend to _see_ things
>mathematically.  We shouldn't start confusing how we perceive with what
>might really be happening.
>
>I'd tend to agree that so much of the universe seems to follow rules
>that can be mathematically modelled, there must be a reason for it.
>But I don't know if I'm ready to make the leap in philosophy it takes
>to say the math somehow is _in_ these events.

Here's another way of looking at it.

We are, by definition, part of the universe. And we make mathematics.

Therefore, the universe can make mathematics and mathematics is part
of the universe. Not necessarily the whole, but part of it.

It doesn't take much of a leap to suppose that if that mathematics can
successfully model the non-human parts of the universe, those parts
share something of the mathematics as well.

That being said, I agree with your comment regarding parts of the
universe that don't follow the rules of math or of thought. Providing
one makes a refinement: that if a successful model allows us to
predict measured events based on measurement of initial conditions,
then there are some events that cannot be predicted by a model, except
statistically. A complete model of these measured events may be
outside of mathematics, and outside of thought -- I think it is.

Or another way of looking at it: assume that we are a finite subset of
a larger set, the universe. Intuitively, a finite subset cannot
represent every possible random sets of infinite size. It can only
represent the infinite set to the extent that that set contains
recurring patterns -- symmetries. Those elements of the infinite set
that are subject to finite representation can be represented by the
subset, while those that are not cannot be. And those we could not
hope to know, if indeed they exist, or can be truly distinguished from
those that are not, since intuition also suggests to me that any
infinite set of binary elements can be reordered to allow its
representation by a finite one (and that, one could argue, is the
function of intelligence . . . ).

-- 
Josh

[Truly] I say to you, [...] angel [...] power will be able to see that [...]
these to whom [...] holy generations [...]. After Jesus said this, he departed.

- The Gospel of Judas
                                                                               
                                        
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)