Does the cosmos have a reason?

Good to see you backtrack, surrender, abandon your babble about giraffes, lemurs, and earth worms.

Again, another misrepresentation, but I've come to expect your dishonesty.

Every post I made on this thread, including the OP, was about what, if any, significance lay behind the mathematical rationality of the cosmos.

I explained my position.

Math is not a physical object, but you are free to harangue other people with your babble about a menagerie of animals.

What does that even mean? Math is not a physical object? Why does everything need to be an OBJECT? Can't something be as a concept without some weird supernatural/beyond-space-and-time type thing?

Do you think some intelligence NEEDED to establish that 1+1 = 2?
 
Do you think some intelligence NEEDED to establish that 1+1 = 2?
Take an introductory physics class before you waste my time with trying to foolishly draw equivalencies between a simple arithmetic statement, and the universal laws of physics and the universal physical constants.
 
Take an introductory physics class before you waste my time with trying to foolishly draw equivalencies between a simple arithmetic statement, and the universal laws of physics and the universal physical constants.

Waste your time? LOL.

Actually the essence of math is summed up in 1+1=2. It is the core of the entire enterprise. It is how quantities work and it establishes the "equivalence" which, at the end of the day, is really all mathematical formula is.

Even THIS is just a statement of equivalence, like 1+1=2

4ff1bb5c6bb3f76023000002


There's nothing "magical" about any of it. It is merely telling you that one thing is equivalent to another thing.

Which is why I asked the question (knowing you would dodge, as per usual).

What do YOU think the essence of mathematics is? Clearly you think it needed to be "defined" by some outside intelligence which means you think that the simple aphorism that a thing is what it is and not some other thing is somehow a "mystical" or "metaphysical" concept that must have some pure platonic form outside of space and time or whatever.

I'm taking it back to brass tacks. And even THEN you can't understand the point or formulate your position
 
Waste your time? LOL.

Actually the essence of math is summed up in 1+1=2. It is the core of the entire enterprise. It is how quantities work and it establishes the "equivalence" which, at the end of the day, is really all mathematical formula is.

Even THIS is just a statement of equivalence, like 1+1=2

4ff1bb5c6bb3f76023000002


There's nothing "magical" about any of it. It is merely telling you that one thing is equivalent to another thing.

Which is why I asked the question (knowing you would dodge, as per usual).

What do YOU think the essence of mathematics is? Clearly you think it needed to be "defined" by some outside intelligence which means you think that the simple aphorism that a thing is what it is and not some other thing is somehow a "mystical" or "metaphysical" concept that must have some pure platonic form outside of space and time or whatever.

I'm taking it back to brass tacks. And even THEN you can't understand the point or formulate your position
Your wasting my time.

1 +1 has nothing to do with the rational organization of the universe. 1+1 does not require an explanation or raise any questions. Remarkable that you can't see that. This thread has nothing to do with simple arithmetic or with your menagerie of zoo animals. You simply lack the background and depth of imagination and perception to understand why. The prominent theoretical physicist in the OP understands why this is a legitimate philosophical question, as do I. That's why it's obvious you lied about having been awarded a glorious geochem PhD.
 
Your wasting my time.

1 +1 has nothing to do with the rational organization of the universe. 1+1 does not require an explanation or raise any questions.

OF course I'm wasting your time because you never want to think through your assumptions. You just quote the most intelligent person's book you can find and assume you don't have to think about what you are espousing.

The essence of mathematics is summed up with 1+1 = 2. Everything else falls out of that. Trust me, even though I'm sure you'll claim to have read it, no one on earth ever learned math by studying Russel's Principia.

Remarkable that you can't see that.

What's more remarkable is that you don't want to even discuss the FOUNDATIONS of your own position. But I understand. It's because you don't really understand what your position is. It's a new-age mush in your head about things beyond space and time.

If math is so transcendental then you should have NO PROBLEM answering a simple question: do you believe that 1+1=2 needed to be defined by whatever created the universe?

This thread has nothing to do with simple arithmetic or with your menagerie of zoo animals.

It has everything to do with it. But you are simply too dense to understand it.

You simply lack the background and depth of imagination and perception to understand why.

Actually I'm the one questioning the premises of your points which means I have INFINITELY more imagination than you do. And the fact that you run away from anything that even HINTS of questioning the premises indicates you lack the background or depth to understand your own position.


The prominent theoretical physicist in the OP understands

LOL. THere you go. All you EVER do is appeal to authority. Saves you the time of actually THINKING ABOUT WHAT YOU POST.

Face it, Cypress. You know deep down in your hear that you are a superficial thinker AT BEST. You read things so you can show people your bookshelf and they will think you smarter than you are. But you and I both know what kind of student you were and it resulted in you not being able to achieve in that area. So you carry this chip on your shoulder about your lack of education. And you know deep down that you really aren't as smart as you desperately want everyone else to think you are.

why this is a legitimate philosophical question, as do I.

Bullshit. You don't know. You have a mush of New Agey shit about mathematics beyond space and time etc. Who knows what you actually think because you can't even answer SIMPLE questions about your position.


That's why it's obvious you lied about having been awarded a glorious geochem PhD.

LOL. No, it's an indicator that you are too uneducated to understand my posts. That's why you CONSTANTLY misrepresent my position and always get it wrong.

Remember Cypress: if you run up against someone they MIGHT be smarter than you. Just a pro-tip that will help you in life.
 
Alexander Vilenkin, theoretical physicist: "What we are doing is somewhat strange in the sense that we find there is this mathematical structure that underlies the universe, and we are in the process of discovering this structure. This mathematics describes how the universe evolves, it also seems to describe how the universe came into being. So, it's very puzzling: does this mathematics have some independent existence of its own in some Platonic realm, or is it a mere description of the universe? It appears the development of physics points to the first possibility."



Physicist Alan Guth, who is heralded as the father of cosmic inflation, also says we should conclude that the laws of physics somehow existed before the universe existed, but we don't have a clue where those laws come from.


 
Board moderators,

Hume claims to be banned from this thread. I made no such request to ban. Please unban him.
 
Board moderators,

Hume claims to be banned from this thread. I made no such request to ban. Please unban him.

Hume trolled the thread mercilessly. If you want proof, here is the SUM TOTAL of all of his contributions to the thread Hume has made. ONLY ONE OF WHICH WAS ABOUT THE TOPIC. The rest was attacking me personally.

Stop lying. You never took a philosophy class.

Stop lying. You never took a philosophy class.

Stop lying. You never took a philosophy class.

I think he is one of these right wing trolls on the forum.

Stop lying. You never took a philosophy class.

Stop lying. You never took a philosophy class.

Stop lying. You never took a philosophy class.

Stop lying. You never took a philosophy class.

Stop lying. You never took a philosophy class.

Stop lying. You never took a philosophy class.

I am beginning to think this person is yakuda or Ibdaman.

The behavior is similar.

get lost troll

get lost troll



eat shit you troll

There is no math for what ha

Agree with you on this. Why doesn't Obtenebrator start his own threads on topics he wants to discuss with others?

He just admitted he is a troll. "It's honestly fun to see you dodge and weave"

You are a troll.




buzz off troll

He's like Yakuda. Trolls you with insults then gets self-righteous when you point it out.

Stop lying. You never took a philosophy class.

Don't lie. You never took a philosophy class.

You lie about taking a philosophy class.

Stop lying. You never took a philosophy class.

Stop lying. You never took a philosophy class.

Stop lying. You never took a philosophy class.

Stop lying. You never took a philosophy class.

Stop lying. You never took a philosophy class.

Stop lying. You never took a philosophy class.

Stop lying. You never took a philosophy class.

Stop lying. You never took a philosophy class.

Stop lying. You never took a philosophy class.

Stop lying. You never took a philosophy class.
 
Alexander Vilenkin, theoretical physicist: "What we are doing is somewhat strange in the sense that we find there is this mathematical structure that underlies the universe, and we are in the process of discovering this structure. This mathematics describes how the universe evolves, it also seems to describe how the universe came into being. So, it's very puzzling: does this mathematics have some independent existence of its own in some Platonic realm, or is it a mere description of the universe? It appears the development of physics points to the first possibility."
Melchizedek-Files.com has the full explanation

 

What Happened Before the Big Bang?​

Cosmologist Alex Vilenkin does the math to show that the universe indeed had a starting point

By now, there’s scientific consensus that our universe exploded into existence almost 14 billion years ago in an event known as the Big Bang. But that theory raises more questions about the universe’s origins than it answers, including the most basic one: what happened before the Big Bang? Some cosmologists have argued that a universe could have no beginning, but simply always was.

In 2003, Tufts cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin and his colleagues, Arvind Borde, now a senior professor of mathematics at Long Island University, and Alan Guth, a professor of physics at MIT, proved a mathematical theorem showing that, under very general assumptions, the universe must, in fact, have had a beginning.

Since that discovery, others in the field have countered with alternate theories describing other kinds of universes where the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, as it is called, would not apply. Vilenkin, a professor of physics and astronomy, and graduate student Audrey Mithani, G15, used mathematics to examine three potential logistical loopholes in the 2003 theorem, strengthening their original premise that the universe did, in fact, begin

Q: Some people claim your work proves the existence of God, or at least of a divine moment of creation. What do you think?

Alexander Vilenkin: I don’t think it proves anything one way or another.

I went to a meeting of some theologians and cosmologists. Basically, I realized these theologians have the same problem with God. What was He doing before He created the universe? Why did He suddenly decide to create the universe?

For many physicists, the beginning of the universe is uncomfortable, because it suggests that something must have caused the beginning, that there should be some cause outside the universe. In fact, we now have models where that’s not necessary—the universe spontaneously appears, quantum mechanically.

In quantum physics, events do not necessarily have a cause, just some probability.

As such, there is some probability for the universe to pop out of “nothing.” You can find the relative probability for it to be this size or that size and have various properties, but there will not be a particular cause for any of it, just probabilities.

I say “nothing” in quotations because the nothing that we were referring to here is the absence of matter, space and time. That is as close to nothing as you can get, but what is still required here is the laws of physics. So the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.


yeah.

but religion is really about morality and getting along and how to treat each other.

not this dumb bullshit.

:truestory:

You're a fool who's wasted your life on dumb shit.
 
Back
Top