Actually what Kaku's talking about was a key moment way back as I was revising electrodynamics on the prof's (Giovannini?)provided lecture notes,. At some point in the middle of it he put down a 4d equation of perhaps a dozen glyphs in all, and adds something like "All of electrodynamics is contained in this formula", and my reaction, like, --bullshit, that formula is but a fig leaf on the many dozen pages I'd just read, necessary to explain its special programming language!- - a language likely to reveal cumbersome for applications other than writing down Maxwell's equations in this spectacularly compact way.
Mariusz Rozpędek I believe equating the measure of God(s) not to zero but to Planck's bound (on the physical dimension you wish to consider) has rich poetic potential.
You get a hint of this when you hear Muslims say that Allah is ℏ
Planck's bound is obviously the measure of God's greatness in any physical dimension, if we assume God humble. It's the least size necessary, to be large -- infinitely larger than zero, for instance -- while not larger than necessary to be at once largest and incomparable.
Boris Borcic If the world is observable, then can be measured and described. If the world is repeatable, then can be rationally understood. The concept of God is not rational. God hypothesis does not explain anything. God is not the answer – god is lack of answer and lack of understanding.
Mariusz Rozpędek Zero isn't a lack of answer or understanding, is it? God is a name that finds uses in sentences, even you demonstrate that. It's more like an algebraic variable than a zero. Of course the simultaneous equations in which it's put -- the sentences -- admit no solution. You need to prune and doctor them for that, and there's no unique way.
However, that justifies in turn to characterize the name of God(s) as an ancestor of the algebraic variables, easier on minds too simplistic for algebra. It's pretty noteworthy that in your comment you end up saying of the name of God what can be said of the unknown in an unsolved algebraic equation.
And of course if you approach x the same way as God as a name, by requiring it means the exact same thing every time it's used, you end up with a similarly nonsensical mess.
Boris Borcic Mathematics is a creation of the human mind. The human mind is an epiphenomenon of the brain. In the course of the evolution, the nervous system is specialized in pattern matching. Our mind perceives reality processed by our nervous system. When we see patterns, we feel pleasure. This is because our nervous system is doing well own duty. Mathematics is the search for patterns. That is why we so much like to use it to describe the world. This way, one can see universe as a structured and understandeable entity. Understandable world means the safer world - one that over which we can take more control. It's a world that can be predicted. Mathematics helps us to match patterns of reality. In this context, mathematics, although it is only a product of the human brain, may be seen as super-pattern. Just as God is super-methaphore of our human mind. Beauty and order, that we perceive, are our internal states. This is the reward for successful pattern matching. Such inner feelings, can be inter-subjective – because we are alike. God also was created by human mind – on his own image…
Mariusz Rozpędek Well, I don't believe in substance, but in appearances (note the plural) -- this is not to say that anything goes; anyway, the reason I'm saying this is just to make clear that I hold appearances for first class citizens, before telling you I concede mathematics admit the appearance you just detailed.
This then allows me to use a mathematical analogy to describe an horizon I find to your optics. Indulge me by analogizing causality as known to sciences (which is the ground on which you construct the view of your comment) to the simple algorithm of Newton's method -- that I can assume you know, can't I?
Under the light of this analogy, your picture of mathematics is to me like saying the solution to which an instance of Newton's method converges owes its existence to Newton's method.
Boris Borcic I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. Maybe this is because language barrier (English is not my native language), it can be also your choice of words, and you can just fineness argument. The scientific method has proved to be the most effective way of describing reality. This precision and correctness is possible, because in science the world is explained by the world itself – without postulating any additional entities – whose existence is unverifiable. Mathematics is a powerful language to describe the world, because it is a byproduct of the human brain. Postulating that mathematics is prior to reality, is anachronistic recall of the Platonic conception of ideas. This is confusion between cause and the effect. The world is not a "reflection" of the perfect world of ideas. Perfect beings are a reflection of the world and simplification of existing beings. They are the metaphor and abstraction. Some form of extract. Perhaps you are aware of the basic fact that the information does not exist without matter. This way any idea can not exist without material basis. So – it is obvious that matter is a source of ideas – not vice versa. Looking more philosophically, we can say that everything that exists is a form of energy. Energy is basis of matter and space. Any information is the configuration of the quanta of energy. Time is change of that configuration. Everything, that exists, is a process. This processes interact with each other. They merge and split. But a source of all this phenomena, and the ultimate goal of everything is energy. Energy, itself, has no structure. The structure have only portions of energy. Energy is also the simplest being. Energy is timeless and dimensionless. And informationless. All comes from energy and energy is the ultimate destiny of all. Existence is only a fluctuation of energy.
Mariusz Rozpędek I am just saying that characterizing a product by the only process known to result in it, is no proof that the process is necessary to the product.
Many results in pure mathematics -- I'd take as example the classification of finite simple groups, including the sporadics and the Monster -- don't display anything you could predict from the picture of mathematics you favor.
Boris Borcic Mathematics is the language. As each language has a semantic blind alleys. No doubt at least some mathematical problems, it is only semantic twists the language. Just like a Chomsky's "Colorless green ideas sleeping furiously". This sentence, though meaningless, it is semantically correct. When not having a certain (and complete) knowledge of the world, one would not be able to tell his inadequacy to reality. Many mathematical concepts have no relation to physical world. Are this simply semantical glitches of mathematical language? Since the time of Gödel, we know that math is not able to prove the correctness of his own. It's impossible – because to prove correctness – one need for each language to have metalanguage of higher level. So we have an infinite sequence of impossibility… Explaining world by world itself is more effective way. Each of us is a product of evolution. Also our brains are shaped, by evolution, to process information on the surrounding environment. No matter how complex and abstract problems were processed by our brains – it is not escape from the limitations of their own construction and self-adaptation. Therefore, both really existing hollow tree trunk and completely abstract ideal cylinder, must be processed by the same part of the nervous system. In reality, however, the motor cortex of the brain – dealing with such tasks – processes only internalized representations of the external world (the so-called "qualia"). Sticking our finger in the wooden pipe, we plug – in fact – our internal representation of the finger in our internal representation of the pipe. But we perceive this as an act of true, because our nervous system and our senses are constantly keeping corrections to our subjective experiences. For this reason, by the time (due to training) – abstract entities become as real for our mind like objectively existing objects. So mathematicians, training himself in the processing of idealized beings, perpetuate their internal representations and makes them integral objects. Since the only entities, which actually can be manipulated by the mind, are qualia – it is blurring the distinction between the representation of the reality, and its idealized version. Our nervous system is specialized in pattern matching and manipulating spatial objects. It's one of the reasons for which geometrisation of mathematical problems is such an effective way of solving them. A side effect of this phenomenon is the illusion of the real existence of idealized objects. But this existence is delusional…
Mariusz Rozpędek Please, could you try to have your responses not repeatedly turn into sprawling lectures marginally related to the point? I am doing my best to re-focus without addressing their detailed contents, not least because doing so would mean battling with the approximations you align, none of which battles is particularly relevant. As an example of such an approximation, when you say:
Just like a Chomsky's "Colorless green ideas sleeping furiously". This sentence, though meaningless, it is semantically correct. When not having a certain (and complete) knowledge of the world, one would not be able to tell his inadequacy to reality.
I'd have like 5 things to protest in this passage, but I'll stick to a single point: either it's the case that you claim to hold on a "certain (and complete) knowledge of the world" -- in which case, according to my definition, you'd be God -- or it's the case you just admitted you can not yourself "tell its inadequacy to reality"...
...from which follows that your lecturing on the basis of it being known as meaningless, fails to caution that you are arguing figuratively, on the basis on a fictional case (whatever Chomsky says).
And as a matter Chomsky is wrong (or at least your interpretation of him is). Metaphors can generally provide any glaring oxymoron with denotation. In the case of Chomsky's example, it's not rocket science to see how his "Colorless green ideas sleeping furiously" can read off like a barely coded allusion to environmentalist concern simmering in populations whose governance is impervious to this concern.
What's in turn not a picture of reality wholly alien to current times.
Fruit would be, the title of an English language linguistics paper : Oxymoron made artificially salient to English speakers and linguists, by the ban on mixing metaphors
Boris Borcic All my comments relate to the same subject. I argued that ideas are born in the mind. They are construction, emerging through abstracting characteristics of objects perceived sensually. This is the case for the fact that ideas arise a posteriori – following sensations. Ideas do not exist in isolation from the real world, but arise from observations. There is no a dimensionless point. There is no perfect sphere. No one can draw infinite figure made from dimensionless points. The very fact that you say something does not imply that it might occur. The semantic correctness of expression does not mean its "truth". That was the Chomsky's idea. Of course we do not know "exactly and completely" about our world. And never will… It also means that there will always be a mathematical theorems that will not be adequate to reality – although semantically correct. Their accuracy will not be verifiable. For example in 1963, Paul Cohen proved the independence of the continuum hypothesis from the axioms of set theory by Zermelo–Fraenkel. This can't be neither proved nor refuted. So it is either true or false – like Schrödinger's cat, which is death or alive. And nobody knows, which possibility is true…
No, you argued that Gods were equal to zero. I argued for poetic value of equalling them rather to Planck's bound -- the closest to zero of all physical measures of things -- and gave a hint of why. You then launched into a long exposition of what could be called a standard view on the nature of mathematics, which was both uncalled for and disputable. I shorthanded how it found it disputable. You misconstrued/reduced my response for arguing in favor of Platonism (which, again, was uncalled for) and I extracted out of your response an example of what was wrong with it, providing a detailed refutation that you didn't really acknowledge, choosing instead to return to your imaginary safe space of debunking my imagined Platonism using standard fare. Instead of talking to me like I am talking to you.
Mariusz Rozpędek I defy you to reveal with what words I'd have even named the world of ideal forms against which your anti-Plato arguments are aimed. I specifically named a famous mathematical result while specifically putting it a role opposite to that of ideal forms from Plato's Cave
Boris Borcic Oh… Have not you noticed the sarcasm in that my sentence? You have not noticed, it's simply a joke? Zero mean that there are no any gods… And, in any case – they do not exist outside our mind (if we can call this "existence"). Gods and other supernatural beings are the product of human imagination – like any ideas. But the existence of God is impossible. This idea is self–contradictory and illogical. We can use the word "god" in a semantically correct sentences. But the sole fact, that we can talk about "god", does not mean that any "god" exists. You can talk "poetically" about Plank's constant, or other measured parameters of reality – but this has nothing to real existence of objects used in your phrases. World can be only explained by world itself – there is no other accurate way of knowing it.
Mariusz Rozpędek Of course saying that Gods are zero is a joke; what I was telling you is that equaling Gods to Planck's bounds is a much better joke. And similar, for instance Planck's bound for physical size is 1.6e-35 m, which the same as zero for most practical purposes.
You've obviously no idea what "poetic value" is. And you swing from pointless sprawling lecture about theology to pointless sprawling lectures about math, and back, addressing under my name ignorant people that are only there in your imagination.
Meanwhile, you make such mistakes that it's not possible to say "OK", for instance if you say "mathematics is a language" and then add to it a clearly naive and wrong paragraph on the nature of language around an example you blindly borrowed from Chomsky, what you intend to mean with "mathematics is a language" is made obscure -- and making things obscure runs contrary to the title of post.
Boris Borcic Better joke? I'm not think so… Why? Because this leaves infinitesimally small hope that our delusions can come true? You not convinced me… Zero here means "nothing". Null. Nonexistence. Although I must admit that the presence of the concept of God, in our minds, is some form of existence. But in the same way there exist also fairies and invisible pink unicorns. And, of course, nothingness… :-)
Mariusz Rozpędek > Better joke? I'm not think so… Why? Because this leaves infinitesimally small hope that our delusions can come true?
No. Because it allows to expose further things in amusing ways, while your version serves nothing unless you assume your environment populated by the people it's meant to antagonize, and yourself above them.
For instance, after taking the hint from spinning dervishes saying Allah is ℏ -- that indeed Allah is about Planck's bound, you might get to observe that Inch Allah in turn forms allusion to the dimensionless number obtained by expressing an imperial inch in units of Planck's length, what gives you
1.57 10^33
And elaborate from there. One way to do this is to observe that 1.57 is half of 3.14 alluding to π/2 -- from what a sermon on back-tracking, repentance and imagination is ready-made. I am more amused however by how
IST -- to BE, 3rd person singular in German IO -- acronym for Input-Output ^ -- power BB -- my initials
given how that self-referentialy pictures the way I have here to bypass Mahomet while making Allah talk (despite the fundamental tenet of Islam expressed in the Shahada).
Boris Borcic Your previous comments seemed intelligent. Now it's just gibberish… You can't prove the existence of god(s). It's impossible. And π is not equal to 3.14.
Mariusz Rozpędek Where did I write that π equals 3.14? If you stopped for a minute assuming the persons facing you don't know what you (believe you) know, your communications might become bearable.
Besides, you shouldn't claim to jokes if you refuse to show any sense of humor.
Hey, Mariusz Rozpędek, I looked up and Google-translated your profile to have an idea of where such an impossible interlocutor was talking from.
This makes me regret not having made the remark I was repeatedly tempted to make during the thread, that your use of the first person plural "we" or "us" is in essence religious.
Also, what I called "pointless sprawling lectures" are really sermons.
Also, your defensiveness about Gods=0 tells of your Polish environment. Your country is notorious for record religiosity in Europe, and at once for having been the country of the Pope for half a lifetime.
I am absolutely not representative of such an environment.
It's ironic -- but a thing at once almost inevitable and regularly observable from people of similar situation -- that your antagonism to an overly religious environment would lead you to borrow and propagate some of its forms while filling them with adversary content.
Boris Borcic You wrote: "1.57 is half of 3.14 alluding π/2". Don't you?
I know from my experience, that when my interlocutor, instead of using substantive arguments, starts attacking me personally – its is obvious sign of the end of the conversation. The art of discussion teaches, that the arguments ad personam mean no arguments at all…
Mariusz Rozpędek > You wrote: "1.57 is half of 3.14 alluding to π/2".
// Right. Now explain why Americans celebrate π day on March 14 if 3.14 doesn't allude to π. Or are you going to continue claiming that allusion equals equation?
> I know from my experience, that when my interlocutor, instead of using substantive arguments, starts attacking me
// I don't see I've attacked you. Is it because I used the word "impossible"? In general and also in context, "impossible" told to an interlocutor, describes not the person, but the experience of the current interaction. And the simple fact of continuing to engage, proves it's not meant literally/definitively, since the only appropriate attitude if meant literally is to dismiss the other person.
> its is obvious sign of the end of the conversation.
// "camouflaging a performative as a observation". I will try to remember it if I ever compile a list of the forms of bad faith.
> The art of discussion teaches, that the arguments ad personam mean no arguments at all…
// le tout n'est pas de le dire, encore faut-il le mesurer.
I knew it! :D
ReplyDeleteMichio rocks.
the verb of God's sentence being in the singular while the subject is in the plural -- doesn't help to parse it.
ReplyDeleteKakunian god hates grammar but loves Maxwell's equations...so, stop disturbing my temple.
ReplyDeleteAny worthwhile god can be both singular and plural simultaneously.
ReplyDeleteJohn Bump Gods are equal to zero. Any gods. And this is what one can call perfection… :-)
ReplyDeleteActually what Kaku's talking about was a key moment way back as I was revising electrodynamics on the prof's (Giovannini?)provided lecture notes,. At some point in the middle of it he put down a 4d equation of perhaps a dozen glyphs in all, and adds something like "All of electrodynamics is contained in this formula", and my reaction, like, --bullshit, that formula is but a fig leaf on the many dozen pages I'd just read, necessary to explain its special programming language!-
ReplyDelete- a language likely to reveal cumbersome for applications other than writing down Maxwell's equations in this spectacularly compact way.
Mariusz Rozpędek I believe equating the measure of God(s) not to zero but to Planck's bound (on the physical dimension you wish to consider) has rich poetic potential.
ReplyDeleteYou get a hint of this when you hear Muslims say that Allah is ℏ
Planck's bound is obviously the measure of God's greatness in any physical dimension, if we assume God humble. It's the least size necessary, to be large -- infinitely larger than zero, for instance -- while not larger than necessary to be at once largest and incomparable.
Boris Borcic If the world is observable, then can be measured and described. If the world is repeatable, then can be rationally understood.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of God is not rational. God hypothesis does not explain anything. God is not the answer – god is lack of answer and lack of understanding.
Mariusz Rozpędek Zero isn't a lack of answer or understanding, is it? God is a name that finds uses in sentences, even you demonstrate that. It's more like an algebraic variable than a zero. Of course the simultaneous equations in which it's put -- the sentences -- admit no solution. You need to prune and doctor them for that, and there's no unique way.
ReplyDeleteHowever, that justifies in turn to characterize the name of God(s) as an ancestor of the algebraic variables, easier on minds too simplistic for algebra. It's pretty noteworthy that in your comment you end up saying of the name of God what can be said of the unknown in an unsolved algebraic equation.
And of course if you approach x the same way as God as a name, by requiring it means the exact same thing every time it's used, you end up with a similarly nonsensical mess.
Boris Borcic Mathematics is a creation of the human mind.
ReplyDeleteThe human mind is an epiphenomenon of the brain. In the course of the evolution, the nervous system is specialized in pattern matching. Our mind perceives reality processed by our nervous system. When we see patterns, we feel pleasure. This is because our nervous system is doing well own duty.
Mathematics is the search for patterns. That is why we so much like to use it to describe the world. This way, one can see universe as a structured and understandeable entity.
Understandable world means the safer world - one that over which we can take more control. It's a world that can be predicted. Mathematics helps us to match patterns of reality. In this context, mathematics, although it is only a product of the human brain, may be seen as super-pattern. Just as God is super-methaphore of our human mind.
Beauty and order, that we perceive, are our internal states. This is the reward for successful pattern matching. Such inner feelings, can be inter-subjective – because we are alike. God also was created by human mind – on his own image…
Mariusz Rozpędek Well, I don't believe in substance, but in appearances (note the plural) -- this is not to say that anything goes; anyway, the reason I'm saying this is just to make clear that I hold appearances for first class citizens, before telling you I concede mathematics admit the appearance you just detailed.
ReplyDeleteThis then allows me to use a mathematical analogy to describe an horizon I find to your optics. Indulge me by analogizing causality as known to sciences (which is the ground on which you construct the view of your comment) to the simple algorithm of Newton's method -- that I can assume you know, can't I?
Under the light of this analogy, your picture of mathematics is to me like saying the solution to which an instance of Newton's method converges owes its existence to Newton's method.
Boris Borcic I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. Maybe this is because language barrier (English is not my native language), it can be also your choice of words, and you can just fineness argument.
ReplyDeleteThe scientific method has proved to be the most effective way of describing reality. This precision and correctness is possible, because in science the world is explained by the world itself – without postulating any additional entities – whose existence is unverifiable. Mathematics is a powerful language to describe the world, because it is a byproduct of the human brain.
Postulating that mathematics is prior to reality, is anachronistic recall of the Platonic conception of ideas. This is confusion between cause and the effect. The world is not a "reflection" of the perfect world of ideas. Perfect beings are a reflection of the world and simplification of existing beings. They are the metaphor and abstraction. Some form of extract.
Perhaps you are aware of the basic fact that the information does not exist without matter. This way any idea can not exist without material basis. So – it is obvious that matter is a source of ideas – not vice versa.
Looking more philosophically, we can say that everything that exists is a form of energy. Energy is basis of matter and space. Any information is the configuration of the quanta of energy. Time is change of that configuration. Everything, that exists, is a process. This processes interact with each other. They merge and split.
But a source of all this phenomena, and the ultimate goal of everything is energy. Energy, itself, has no structure. The structure have only portions of energy. Energy is also the simplest being. Energy is timeless and dimensionless. And informationless. All comes from energy and energy is the ultimate destiny of all. Existence is only a fluctuation of energy.
Mariusz Rozpędek I am just saying that characterizing a product by the only process known to result in it, is no proof that the process is necessary to the product.
ReplyDeleteMany results in pure mathematics -- I'd take as example the classification of finite simple groups, including the sporadics and the Monster -- don't display anything you could predict from the picture of mathematics you favor.
Boris Borcic Mathematics is the language. As each language has a semantic blind alleys. No doubt at least some mathematical problems, it is only semantic twists the language. Just like a Chomsky's "Colorless green ideas sleeping furiously". This sentence, though meaningless, it is semantically correct. When not having a certain (and complete) knowledge of the world, one would not be able to tell his inadequacy to reality. Many mathematical concepts have no relation to physical world. Are this simply semantical glitches of mathematical language?
ReplyDeleteSince the time of Gödel, we know that math is not able to prove the correctness of his own. It's impossible – because to prove correctness – one need for each language to have metalanguage of higher level. So we have an infinite sequence of impossibility…
Explaining world by world itself is more effective way. Each of us is a product of evolution. Also our brains are shaped, by evolution, to process information on the surrounding environment. No matter how complex and abstract problems were processed by our brains – it is not escape from the limitations of their own construction and self-adaptation. Therefore, both really existing hollow tree trunk and completely abstract ideal cylinder, must be processed by the same part of the nervous system. In reality, however, the motor cortex of the brain – dealing with such tasks – processes only internalized representations of the external world (the so-called "qualia"). Sticking our finger in the wooden pipe, we plug – in fact – our internal representation of the finger in our internal representation of the pipe. But we perceive this as an act of true, because our nervous system and our senses are constantly keeping corrections to our subjective experiences. For this reason, by the time (due to training) – abstract entities become as real for our mind like objectively existing objects. So mathematicians, training himself in the processing of idealized beings, perpetuate their internal representations and makes them integral objects. Since the only entities, which actually can be manipulated by the mind, are qualia – it is blurring the distinction between the representation of the reality, and its idealized version.
Our nervous system is specialized in pattern matching and manipulating spatial objects. It's one of the reasons for which geometrisation of mathematical problems is such an effective way of solving them. A side effect of this phenomenon is the illusion of the real existence of idealized objects. But this existence is delusional…
Mariusz Rozpędek Please, could you try to have your responses not repeatedly turn into sprawling lectures marginally related to the point? I am doing my best to re-focus without addressing their detailed contents, not least because doing so would mean battling with the approximations you align, none of which battles is particularly relevant. As an example of such an approximation, when you say:
ReplyDeleteJust like a Chomsky's "Colorless green ideas sleeping furiously". This sentence, though meaningless, it is semantically correct. When not having a certain (and complete) knowledge of the world, one would not be able to tell his inadequacy to reality.
I'd have like 5 things to protest in this passage, but I'll stick to a single point: either it's the case that you claim to hold on a "certain (and complete) knowledge of the world" -- in which case, according to my definition, you'd be God -- or it's the case you just admitted you can not yourself "tell its inadequacy to reality"...
...from which follows that your lecturing on the basis of it being known as meaningless, fails to caution that you are arguing figuratively, on the basis on a fictional case (whatever Chomsky says).
And as a matter Chomsky is wrong (or at least your interpretation of him is). Metaphors can generally provide any glaring oxymoron with denotation. In the case of Chomsky's example, it's not rocket science to see how his "Colorless green ideas sleeping furiously" can read off like a barely coded allusion to environmentalist concern simmering in populations whose governance is impervious to this concern.
What's in turn not a picture of reality wholly alien to current times.
Fruit would be, the title of an English language linguistics paper : Oxymoron made artificially salient to English speakers and linguists, by the ban on mixing metaphors
ReplyDeleteBoris Borcic All my comments relate to the same subject. I argued that ideas are born in the mind. They are construction, emerging through abstracting characteristics of objects perceived sensually.
ReplyDeleteThis is the case for the fact that ideas arise a posteriori – following sensations. Ideas do not exist in isolation from the real world, but arise from observations. There is no a dimensionless point. There is no perfect sphere. No one can draw infinite figure made from dimensionless points.
The very fact that you say something does not imply that it might occur. The semantic correctness of expression does not mean its "truth". That was the Chomsky's idea. Of course we do not know "exactly and completely" about our world. And never will…
It also means that there will always be a mathematical theorems that will not be adequate to reality – although semantically correct. Their accuracy will not be verifiable.
For example in 1963, Paul Cohen proved the independence of the continuum hypothesis from the axioms of set theory by Zermelo–Fraenkel. This can't be neither proved nor refuted. So it is either true or false – like Schrödinger's cat, which is death or alive. And nobody knows, which possibility is true…
No, you argued that Gods were equal to zero. I argued for poetic value of equalling them rather to Planck's bound -- the closest to zero of all physical measures of things -- and gave a hint of why. You then launched into a long exposition of what could be called a standard view on the nature of mathematics, which was both uncalled for and disputable. I shorthanded how it found it disputable. You misconstrued/reduced my response for arguing in favor of Platonism (which, again, was uncalled for) and I extracted out of your response an example of what was wrong with it, providing a detailed refutation that you didn't really acknowledge, choosing instead to return to your imaginary safe space of debunking my imagined Platonism using standard fare. Instead of talking to me like I am talking to you.
ReplyDeleteMariusz Rozpędek I defy you to reveal with what words I'd have even named the world of ideal forms against which your anti-Plato arguments are aimed. I specifically named a famous mathematical result while specifically putting it a role opposite to that of ideal forms from Plato's Cave
ReplyDeleteBoris Borcic Oh… Have not you noticed the sarcasm in that my sentence? You have not noticed, it's simply a joke? Zero mean that there are no any gods…
ReplyDeleteAnd, in any case – they do not exist outside our mind (if we can call this "existence"). Gods and other supernatural beings are the product of human imagination – like any ideas. But the existence of God is impossible. This idea is self–contradictory and illogical. We can use the word "god" in a semantically correct sentences. But the sole fact, that we can talk about "god", does not mean that any "god" exists. You can talk "poetically" about Plank's constant, or other measured parameters of reality – but this has nothing to real existence of objects used in your phrases.
World can be only explained by world itself – there is no other accurate way of knowing it.
Mariusz Rozpędek Of course saying that Gods are zero is a joke; what I was telling you is that equaling Gods to Planck's bounds is a much better joke. And similar, for instance Planck's bound for physical size is 1.6e-35 m, which the same as zero for most practical purposes.
ReplyDeleteYou've obviously no idea what "poetic value" is. And you swing from pointless sprawling lecture about theology to pointless sprawling lectures about math, and back, addressing under my name ignorant people that are only there in your imagination.
Meanwhile, you make such mistakes that it's not possible to say "OK", for instance if you say "mathematics is a language" and then add to it a clearly naive and wrong paragraph on the nature of language around an example you blindly borrowed from Chomsky, what you intend to mean with "mathematics is a language" is made obscure -- and making things obscure runs contrary to the title of post.
Boris Borcic Better joke? I'm not think so… Why? Because this leaves infinitesimally small hope that our delusions can come true? You not convinced me…
ReplyDeleteZero here means "nothing". Null. Nonexistence. Although I must admit that the presence of the concept of God, in our minds, is some form of existence. But in the same way there exist also fairies and invisible pink unicorns. And, of course, nothingness… :-)
Mariusz Rozpędek > Better joke? I'm not think so… Why? Because this leaves infinitesimally small hope that our delusions can come true?
ReplyDeleteNo. Because it allows to expose further things in amusing ways, while your version serves nothing unless you assume your environment populated by the people it's meant to antagonize, and yourself above them.
For instance, after taking the hint from spinning dervishes saying Allah is ℏ -- that indeed Allah is about Planck's bound, you might get to observe that Inch Allah in turn forms allusion to the dimensionless number obtained by expressing an imperial inch in units of Planck's length, what gives you
1.57 10^33
And elaborate from there. One way to do this is to observe that 1.57 is half of 3.14 alluding to π/2 -- from what a sermon on back-tracking, repentance and imagination is ready-made. I am more amused however by how
I.ST IO^BB mimics
1.57 10^33
IST -- to BE, 3rd person singular in German
IO -- acronym for Input-Output
^ -- power
BB -- my initials
given how that self-referentialy pictures the way I have here to bypass Mahomet while making Allah talk (despite the fundamental tenet of Islam expressed in the Shahada).
Boris Borcic Your previous comments seemed intelligent. Now it's just gibberish… You can't prove the existence of god(s). It's impossible.
ReplyDeleteAnd π is not equal to 3.14.
http://goddoesnt.blogspot.com/2013/10/pi-and-signature-of-god-from-carl.html?m=1
I wish you good health…
Mariusz Rozpędek Where did I write that π equals 3.14? If you stopped for a minute assuming the persons facing you don't know what you (believe you) know, your communications might become bearable.
ReplyDeleteBesides, you shouldn't claim to jokes if you refuse to show any sense of humor.
Hey, Mariusz Rozpędek, I looked up and Google-translated your profile to have an idea of where such an impossible interlocutor was talking from.
ReplyDeleteThis makes me regret not having made the remark I was repeatedly tempted to make during the thread, that your use of the first person plural "we" or "us" is in essence religious.
Also, what I called "pointless sprawling lectures" are really sermons.
Also, your defensiveness about Gods=0 tells of your Polish environment. Your country is notorious for record religiosity in Europe, and at once for having been the country of the Pope for half a lifetime.
I am absolutely not representative of such an environment.
It's ironic -- but a thing at once almost inevitable and regularly observable from people of similar situation -- that your antagonism to an overly religious environment would lead you to borrow and propagate some of its forms while filling them with adversary content.
Boris Borcic You wrote: "1.57 is half of 3.14 alluding π/2". Don't you?
ReplyDeleteI know from my experience, that when my interlocutor, instead of using substantive arguments, starts attacking me personally – its is obvious sign of the end of the conversation. The art of discussion teaches, that the arguments ad personam mean no arguments at all…
Have a nice day :-)
Mariusz Rozpędek > You wrote: "1.57 is half of 3.14 alluding to π/2".
ReplyDelete// Right. Now explain why Americans celebrate π day on March 14 if 3.14 doesn't allude to π. Or are you going to continue claiming that allusion equals equation?
> I know from my experience, that when my interlocutor, instead of using substantive arguments, starts attacking me
// I don't see I've attacked you. Is it because I used the word "impossible"? In general and also in context, "impossible" told to an interlocutor, describes not the person, but the experience of the current interaction. And the simple fact of continuing to engage, proves it's not meant literally/definitively, since the only appropriate attitude if meant literally is to dismiss the other person.
> its is obvious sign of the end of the conversation.
// "camouflaging a performative as a observation". I will try to remember it if I ever compile a list of the forms of bad faith.
> The art of discussion teaches, that the arguments ad personam mean no arguments at all…
// le tout n'est pas de le dire, encore faut-il le mesurer.