So, just what are we talking about?

[Jester]

"When "The Amazing Randi" claims to be bending spoons with his mind, I'm right with you on the skeptical -- let's get some controls on this and see if it's a hoax."

I seem to remember "The Amazing Randi" being on the *other* side of this debate.

http://www.randi.org/

Jester

[kandrathe]

Oh! I thought I had picked any old name, but I guess my brain picked it from somewhere. I'm psychic!!! :)

[--Pete]

Hi,

Some is actually provable, but as you say when you get to even basic geometry, axioms become assumptions.

Each branch of mathematics is based on its own set of axioms. Those are just assumptions, beliefs, "self evident facts", or whatever. Every theorem of mathematics (i.e., every valid statement) Is really the compound statement: "The theorem X is true assuming that the axiom set A is true (and that the logic leading from A to X is valid -- a no longer trivial assumption given the complexity of some modern proofs)".

Godel's famous theorem, which you brought up in a previous post, says nothing about the validity of mathematics. It is actually a very simple concept (its the proof that is complex). All Godel's theorem actually says is that in an axiomatic system of sufficient power there exists statements that are correctly formed but not provable. So Godel's work does not cast any doubt on the "truth that is proveable truth" as you imply. If a theorem can be constructed, then a statement is true given the axioms. That remains as is. Prior to Godel, it was assumed that for any statement, either the statement or its negation could be constructed. Godel simply shows that this is not so. It was thought that a sufficiently clever axiomatic system would be able to answer every question in a given field, Godel showed that there were some questions that would not have an answer.

Also, to be perfectly fair, Godel's theorem applied to one specific representation of number theory. However, it can be pretty easily extended to any axiomatic system of equivalent power.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Some is actually provable...

...within it's own set of axioms. What I was trying to get to was that even within those given axioms, mathematics quickly gets unproveable. Every even # > 2 can be expressed as the sum of 2 primes. Through a point, not on a line, there exists exactly 1 line parallel to the given line. Twin primes infinitely exist (e.g. 2 integers apart, like 5 & 7). And some are very difficult to prove -- a^x +b^x = c^x.

[--Pete]

Hi,

What I was trying to get to was that even within those given axioms, mathematics quickly gets unproveable.

Are you trying to parody Lewis Carrol, or is this nonsense unintentional?

Look, I know you never quit replying, never back off a position no matter how ridiculous, but just this once take my word for it. You don't know enough about math to be saying anything that isn't foolish. So pick another field, preferably one that you know something about, to illustrate your points.

--Pete

[Cryptic]

In my own personal cosmology, spirituality is "personal faith" - it works for you, it's perfect for you, and you can share it with anyone who expresses interest in understanding your own private philosophy. But other than that willful sharing, it has no bearing on other people's lives.

Religion, on the other hand, is "structured faith" - it works for you, and you're pretty certain it works for others, too, so you find like-minded people to share your life with. (And the problems arise when the overly zealous find unlike-minded people that threaten their worldview with alien views of liberty and happiness.)

According to these personal definitions, I regard spirituality as one of the most majestic things humanity has ever conceived of, and religion as one of the most horrible evils ever to scourge the planet. Mass conformity of mind to any given orthodox pantheon inevitably leads to metaphysical nation-building, in which the game becomes "believe as we do or die," or at the very least "believe as we do or go to Hell." The very concept of any alternate viewpoint is seen as dangerous competition, and the idea of an entirely separate, individual spirituality is completely alien as well. It's funny how the Chosen People *always* seem to include the speaker, no matter what their beliefs may be! (I'm lumping Muslim extremism, Christianity, and everything else in here, because they're organized; but I've had the least difficulty with proponents of eastern Asian religions.)

As you might have guessed, I have no problem with Christ, and lots of problems with Christians. These beliefs of mine are based on personal experiences (very deeply in the negative!) whose particulars I really don't feel like getting into.

Suffice it to say that, after repeated warnings to leave me alone, I've threatened more than one fervent Christian proselytizer with death, and I'm sure it will happen again in the future. Religion, and its proponents, bring out the worst in me.
:angry:

Nice topic, though.
:lol:

[--Pete]

Hi,

I regard spirituality as one of the most majestic things humanity has ever conceived of, and religion as one of the most horrible evils ever to scourge the planet.

With your definitions (which I have no problem with) I completely agree. Well said indeed.

And, to continue from where you left it, I wish we had a lot more Christians and a lot less Christianity.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

It's actually quite clear to me. You believe in one type of universe, Lewis Carrol and I believe in a very different one. I see yours as trying to put everything into a neat and tidy box. I don't think you understand mine, and everytime we have these discussions you resort to your usual method of shutting down discussion with a combination of ad hominems, and bah humbugism. It's hard to have any serious discussion or make any progress when there is no respectful consideration given to the salient points and even if not fully proven, no one (hardly) ever concedes any point has been made. If I backed down every time someone took a cheap shot, attacked the credibility of the sources, or hurled some falacious unsubstantiated garbage back at me, then it would be no discussion. Just a bunch of cowed observers watching the board regulars pontificating and shooting down any inferior intellect that dares to question their genius.

I will try to be very, very, clear. For the third time, all I'm saying is; Let's say we have an infinite number of propositions, within our defined system. If we examine the first thousand propositions, and find all indicate a particular trend, it is still conceivable that one of the unexamined (or underexamined) propositions might invalidate your entire understanding of the universe. I believe there is room for some doubt.

I'm willing to discuss things, to keep an open mind, to be friendly and respectful of people. I try to be optimistic, to see the positive, to find the value in all people. My ego is not wrapped up in being the genius of everything at the Lurker Lounge.

[kandrathe]

As you might have guessed, I have no problem with Christ, and lots of problems with Christians. These beliefs of mine are based on personal experiences (very deeply in the negative!) whose particulars I really don't feel like getting into.

Yes, but just as not all Muslims are Jihadists, not all Christians come knocking on your door on Saturday. There are many Christians, some evangelicals, and some really pushy, obnoxious evangelicals. Not all Jews want to bomb Hamas. I don't like the use of the broad brush.

I see religion as the discipline (in the good sense of the word), but the Church as the mechanism for the accumulation of wealth and power. I see the need for "religion" in the sense that their needs to be an intellectual owner of the ideology, and to guide the followers to a common set of beliefs and understandings. I don't see any danger in the high holy shamans imparting their knowledge and wisdom to the learning masses. It's only when they use mechanisms of power (Church or State) to try to enforce beliefs that any religion runs amok. Christianity has moved beyond it's days of inquisition, and burning heretics. As I see it, much of Islam has not.

[--Pete]

Hi,

It's actually quite clear to me. You believe in one type of universe, Lewis Carrol and I believe in a very different one. I see yours as trying to put everything into a neat and tidy box. I don't think you understand mine, and everytime we have these discussions you resort to your usual method of shutting down discussion with a combination of ad hominems, and bah humbugism. It's hard to have any serious discussion or make any progress when there is no respectful consideration given to the salient points and even if not fully proven, no one (hardly) ever concedes any point has been made. If I backed down every time someone took a cheap shot, attacked the credibility of the sources, or hurled some falacious unsubstantiated garbage back at me, then it would be no discussion. Just a bunch of cowed observers watching the board regulars pontificating and shooting down any inferior intellect that dares to question their genius.

Yeah. But since I wasn't discussing world views, I don't see what this has to do with anything. You used math as an example and you got the concepts wrong.

I will try to be very, very, clear. For the third time, all I'm saying is; Let's say we have an infinite number of propositions, within our defined system. If we examine the first thousand propositions, and find all indicate a particular trend, it is still conceivable that one of the unexamined (or underexamined) propositions might invalidate your entire understanding of the universe. I believe there is room for some doubt.

I have no problem with this. But this has nothing to do with what you tried to say using math. Math does not work this way. Perhaps *you* thought it did, but if so, it just goes to prove my point: you are ignorant of math and should not try using it in your arguments.

I'm willing to discuss things, to keep an open mind, to be friendly and respectful of people. I try to be optimistic, to see the positive, to find the value in all people. My ego is not wrapped up in being the genius of everything at the Lurker Lounge.

As your last posts shows, clearly what you are not willing to do is shut up when the discussion goes beyond your understanding in a field. I did not question your world view, I did not contradict your opinions. I simple pointed out that when you tried to use math to make your points, your math was wrong. I could care less about your points.

Oh, and get a spell checker -- amongst other things I find objectionable about you is the number of times I have to tell my checker to ignore the mistakes in what I quote from you.

--Pete

[Jester]

"I believe there is room for some doubt."

Clearly. But so does Pete. If anyone can disprove the proposition that these things do not exist (which is at least a falsifiable hypothesis) by demonstrating their existence under reproducible, scientific condidtions, then we'll have a whole new ballgame.

That's the place of doubt in the scientific method. Anyone is free, at any time, to demonstrate an exception to each and every rule. No rule is beyond questioning.

However, there is the notion of inference. It may not be strictly logical to say that, just because jumping off a cliff 500 times led to death, that the 501st time won't be different. But it is reasonable. Doubt is preserved; feel free to demonstrate the 501st time, and we'll see. If you can't, the rule stands. That's how the game is played.

Jester

[Leah_heartsword]

As Christians, sometimes we try to help bear the cross (metaphorically speaking), but a lot of the time we behave more like the Roman soldiers or the Jewish leaders.  So it's very disturbing to see a brutal depiction of him going through that, but it's also reassuring to know he was willing to go through it all, and pray for their forgiveness as his dying wish. 

I know what the cross sybolizes, and I approve of how Jesus Christ delt with it. It is not the acctual thing that he did that was disturbing, it is the action of seeing it with your own eyes that makes it disturbing.

[Cryptic]

I have no problem with religious people commingling, though. If two Christians want to share their beliefs, that's fine. It's when they come to me and challenge my beliefs, on the sole ground that they are different from Christianity, that we have a serious problem. To me, trying to change someone else's most deeply-held spiritual beliefs, to conform to your own, is one of the cruelest, most inconsiderate outrages one can commit on another individual. But that's just me.
;)

So religion is great, as long as I'm not forced into it, or compelled to confront it ... because it then fits into my definition of spirituality instead.

I would go so far as to argue that if someone is seeking a link between their own soul and a deity, then bringing a third party into the group (especially an entire organization, such as a church) is about the worst thing you can do to blind yourself from the sight you're trying to attain.

Keep in mind that I lived in Colorado Springs for 17 years (official home of Focus on the Family and hatred of gays, some of my dearest friends are gay), experienced lots of persecution (I'm a goth), and have a born-again sibling who has said and done some horrible things to me. Sssss, details, they burns ussss ...
:ph34r:

[Nystul]

experienced lots of persecution (I'm a goth),

Isn't the whole point of being a goth to experience persecution? If people treated you like a normal part of the group, wouldn't you have to find some more extreme appearance change to separate yourself from that group and make people treat you like an outcast again? Or is there something to it beyond being "nonconformist"?

[kandrathe]

Yes, perhaps it was excrement. I probably muffed it all up. You've now rubbed my nose in if for three consecutive posts. Yours is the superior intellect. Revel in it.

I have no idea how I could have passed all those difficult engineering and mathematics courses at university, being so ignorant. But, you know better. I'm better at spelling when I'm not angry from you repeatedly calling me an idiot. Be nicer, and I promise to take more time to review my spelling.

[--Pete]

Hi,

you repeatedly calling me an idiot.

I've never called you an idiot, just ignorant of math. But if you feel that way, I'll not disagree.

I have no idea how I could have passed all those difficult engineering and mathematics courses at university

Simple. The math courses required for engineering (and, for that matter physics) are applied courses. They teach you how to solve problems, not how to do mathematics. Someone who truly knew what they knew would know that.

--Pete

[Jester]

Now, I'm stepping in *way* over my head here. But I think I know what you're talking about, although the way you've said it is incorrect.

You're talking about decideability, right? It's not that the infinitude of twin primes is unproveable, just that we have no universally applicable method for determining whether a proof exists (and if it is true, then a proof must exist). Therefore, we're stuck waiting until some brilliant mathematician figures it out, if ever.

Those statements were just examples of that, correct? A list of problems, not just assertions?

The last line... was that supposed to be Fermat's last theorem? Or does it just kinda look like it?

Jester

[Cryptic]

>>Isn't the whole point of being a goth to experience persecution? If people treated you like a normal part of the group, wouldn't you have to find some more extreme appearance change to separate yourself from that group and make people treat you like an outcast again? Or is there something to it beyond being "nonconformist"?

Was that a serious question? I’ve met a few inexperienced teenagers with victim complexes, but I know of no group of people whose sole reason for being is to seek persecution from the others around them. You’re posting under the (outrageous and unfounded, IMHO) preconceived notion that I identify with a philosophy simply to shock people, and feel bad about myself. Neither is the case – it’s akin to saying that the point of being a Christian is to get yourself nailed to a cross.

What there “is to it” (the goth scene) depends on who you ask. Since it’s a social subculture, everyone derives something different from it.

I would broadly split the main mentalities into club goths and literary ones. The clubbers build their scene around music and fashion, with lots of shared “dark” interests (cinema, performance art, photography, etc.). The literary focus mainly on the Gothic philosophy, derived from the 18th-century fiction movement and the 19th- & 21st-century revivals. (Extensive subject, but basically it’s focused on sensitivity to the possibility of the supernatural and an obsession with human mortality and the passing of time.)

A very quick summary of the elements of the literary Gothic can be found here:
http://www.virtualsalt.com/gothic.htm

Some people feel that these two mentalities are mutually exclusive, but I’ve found that most goths embody both, and it’s only the proportion that differs.

That’s not the extent of my personal philosophy, but given the temperature in these forums it’s likely the furthest I’m willing to share of my own beliefs. You see? I’m not seeking persecution, I’m actually quite interested in avoiding it. Been there, done that, and all.
<_<

[whyBish]

I was going to respond to your reply to my point, but it seems that Pete has done it for me. The point is, maths is based on assumptions (axioms) that are held to be true, which I thought would have actually strengthened your position if you followed up this line.

Investigating axioms of systems can be interesting, as can seeing what happens when axioms are removed/added/altered, as well as comparing the axioms of various systems.

Lets take a (biased to my viewpoint) look at a simplified model of Christianity.

Axiom 1) The Bible is the literal truth.

If this axiom is in the system then you have Creationists (is that what they are called there, or am I using a local term?), if it is not, you have every other branch (not true, but just as illustration).

For those Christian systems without axiom one you can follow some (sketchy) rules and imply that (assuming that an axiom exists stating the Bible is the Truth)

The Bible contains metaphorical truths

From that conclusion you can generate questions like, 'which parts are metaphorical', and 'who decides so' etc. which leads to large differences between the two systems with and without axiom one, much like my point about non-Euclidean geometry.

To show something to be false that has already been 'proven' true, you need to show that one of the assumptions that the conclusion was based on is false (or can be false under some situation), or you need to show a misapplication in the logic leading to the conclusion.

Note also that conclusions are often used as axioms.

[kandrathe]

I am influenced by the work of Roger Penrose, and his book Shadows of The Mind. That was my unsubstantiated aside about arithmetic, at which point I was assailed as ignorant of all mathematics.

But, I agree with your characterization. I think we got derailed on some semantics.

Lets take a (biased to my viewpoint) look at a simplified model of Christianity.

Axiom 1) The Bible is the literal truth.

If this axiom is in the system then you have Creationists (is that what they are called there, or am I using a local term?), if it is not, you have every other branch (not true, but just as illustration).

For those Christian systems without axiom one you can follow some (sketchy) rules and imply that (assuming that an axiom exists stating the Bible is the Truth)

I would say this is the axiom used by some fundamentalists. The majority of Catholic and Protestant Christians use the book as a confirmation of their belief, not as an exact literal truth. So, in speaking of Creation; they believe the universe was created, rather than spontaneously popping into existence. Only a very few believe it as it is recounted in Genesis, and have odd explanations when posed questions like "What is a day, when there is no earth to revolve about a sun?", and questions of the order of events. So then, to the metaphorical. Well, I would say that religious scholarship, debate and at times free discussion has influenced the interpretation of biblical texts. In Protestantism, this has led to an extensive fracturing of Christians in to a whole tree of various interpretations (doctrine), and subtle differences. Something as simple as "Is it acceptable to baptize infants, who have no concept of what is happening to them?" Leads to huge schisms in the church. And, a secondary effect is that a plethora of obvious extreme deviations from the core of Christianity have appeared, which further erode its credibility. The Christians that I know and respect are the ones that look to the example of Christ, and his teachings as their personal and primary inspiration -- and then doctrines (interpretation by man) of the church as secondary.

I would say that it is a waste of time to try to apply logic to the bible.