Is God Rational?

[Write4U]

Mathematics may have its limitations but it remains the best connection we have with reality.

Does it really have limitations? Or is it just a matter of as yet undiscovered properties of universal functions?

I still stick with the cosmologists who all agree that they are discovering mathematical functions of the universe . They are doing the actual calculations, in my book that is important to remember. We just have not yet discovered all of the universal functions which lie below direct observation and quantification of values and patterns.

 

[sideshowbob]

If you can't answer that, you've got serious problems at the point of "correct data".

Can you just answer? What would "false data" be?

I would say that data is inherently real. Yes, we really did make that measurement; it might be inaccurate or imprecise, but how would it be "false"?

Are hammers and nails somehow outside the purview of reality or somehow outside of the capacity of mathematics to describe?

What I said was that hammers are better than mathematics for inserting nails. What are you on about?

In fact the more important the thing, the more important it becomes to define it according to the degree it is true or false. Our very survival depends on not confusing pandas with icecreams.

You're shooting yourself in the foot. Which is true and which is false? Pandas or ice cream? Ice cream or pandas?

But I am prepared to suspend my disbelief and offer you the opportunity to write a different version of that paragraph with hopefully less obvious mistakes.

No, I'll stand by what I wrote. Here it is again:

It isn't just about scientific data. We can all agree that gravity is a real phenomenon, whether we have any scientific data on it or not. But we can't agree on what "ultimate truth" would look like, if it did exist, so it doesn't have the same degree of reality.​

Go ahead and point out the mistakes.

 

[sideshowbob]

Does it really have limitations? Or is it just a matter of as yet undiscovered properties of universal functions?

I don't know. I don't think we'll ever come up against a wall that mathematics can not go beyond but it doesn't really matter, as far as I'm concerned. We'll still keep trying.

 

[Musika]

Can you just answer? What would "false data" be?

Try asking these guys.
Unless its a modern art installation, somewhere along the line, something other than "correct data" made an appearance.

I would say that data is inherently real. Yes, we really did make that measurement; it might be inaccurate or imprecise, but how would it be "false"?

And measurements, regardless of whether they were pulled from a slide rule or someone's ass, that don't tally with reality are called what? I mean, it seems that we require a special word so we don't confuse them with measurements that do tally with reality ....

What I said was that hammers are better than mathematics for inserting nails. What are you on about?

If you think "mathematics can represent reality in a reproducible manner" (your quote, not mine), why has the act of hammering a nail suddenly evaded your powers of language?

You're shooting yourself in the foot. Which is true and which is false? Pandas or ice cream? Ice cream or pandas?

If you can't distinguish between a true definition of either a panda or an ice cream, you will never know. In the meantime, it may be wise to not visit the zoo (assuming you have access to a correct definition of a zoo).

No, I'll stand by what I wrote. Here it is again:

Ok. I just thought I would give you a chance for revision because it was so poorly written. I thought you might have been in a rush or something

It isn't just about scientific data. We can all agree that gravity is a real phenomenon,
​

Pretty sure that if you said that in certain company on this site you would be summarily executed. Establishing universal constants (such as gravity) are not well known for being shy in the scientific data department

whether we have any scientific data on it or not.

Given that ideas on the subject prior to the late 1600s, sans scientific data, are not only incompatible with post-newtonian ideas, but also each other, its obvious you are incorrect.

But we can't agree on what "ultimate truth" would look like, if it did exist, so it doesn't have the same degree of reality.

I am trying to exercise restraint here, but this is even worse than your previous attempts to discuss philosophy.

If you want to lay down as the necessary conditions for fundamental reality that a higher the truth is determined by a higher consensus of perception, you will have to turf out 99% of every advancement of culture from at least the last 5000 years (science, philosophy, architecture, art, music, literature, language etc) .... and furthermore, its the top 99% you will have to turf out. The only "truths" that draw a consensus in the minds and eyes of everyone are those that revolve around animal propensities (like eating and mating). Basically, in one foul swoop, you have just reduced civilization to animalistic grunting in order to render the "highest truth" valid.

For someone who is supposedly anti-woo, you sure have a lot of swell ideas for ushering in a new era of obscurantism.

Maybe I should now head over to Westminster Abbey (burial site if Newton) and see if I can get any icecreams from the pandas that are likely to have manifested there. If you never hear from me again, its probably because I had no access to either a true definition of either a panda or an icecream.​

 

[Write4U]

Unless its a modern art installation, somewhere along the line, something other than "correct data" made an appearance.

No, the "correct data" was always available and enfolded in the natural geography and lasers don't make mistakes.
It's human error which measured or applied the data "incorrectly".

 

[sideshowbob]

Unless its a modern art installation, somewhere along the line, something other than "correct data" made an appearance.

Even if that image was real, what would the "false data" be?

And measurements, regardless of whether they were pulled from a slide rule or someone's ass, that don't tally with reality are called what?

Inaccurate or imprecise, as I said.

If you think "mathematics can represent reality in a reproducible manner" (your quote, not mine), why has the act of hammering a nail suddenly evaded your powers of language?

Again, what are you on about? Seriously, what are you trying to say in that statement?

If you can't distinguish between a true definition of either a panda or an ice cream, you will never know.

Well, I'm asking you. How do pandas and ice cream relate to true and false?

Pretty sure that if you said that in certain company on this site you would be summarily executed.

So you're not interested in being taken seriously at all?

I am trying to exercise restraint here, but this is even worse than your previous attempts to discuss philosophy.

I haven't made any attempt to discuss philosophy.

If you want to lay down as the necessary conditions for fundamental reality that a higher the truth is determined by a higher consensus of perception....

How many times do I have to repeat it? I don't believe there is such a thing as "higher truth".

 

[Michael 345]

How many times do I have to repeat it? I don't believe there is such a thing as "higher truth"

Puts on a sing song voice "PREACHING"

 

[Musika]

Even if that image was real, what would the "false data" be?

Whatever contributed to the structure taking a turn for the worse

Inaccurate or imprecise, as I said.

Then you have just been evading within semantics

Again, what are you on about? Seriously, what are you trying to say in that statement?

If you can't place hammering a nail within your favoured language for reproducing reality, you have a pretty weak language.

Well, I'm asking you. How do pandas and ice cream relate to true and false?

If you say you licked pandas as a child, you either had a very unusual upbringing or a false definition (according to standard english) of an icecream

So you're not interested in being taken seriously at all?

Pretty sure there is a thread about gravity out there doing the circuit. Feel free to make an appearance extolling the glories of gravity divorced from scientific data and see where it leads you.

I haven't made any attempt to discuss philosophy.

Incorrect.
You haven't made any attempt to understand philosophy (which makes your forays into delineating reality as distinguished from illusion disasterous)

How many times do I have to repeat it? I don't believe there is such a thing as "higher truth".

So what did you mean by "degree of reality"?

 

[sideshowbob]

Whatever contributed to the structure taking a turn for the worse

The most likely cause of the problem would be that somebody read the data wrong, not that the data was wrong.

So what did you mean by "degree of reality"?

Accuracy and/or precision. I said that, "We can all agree that gravity is a real phenomenon, whether we have any scientific data on it or not. But we can't agree on what "ultimate truth" would look like, if it did exist, so it doesn't have the same degree of reality." We can measure gravity precisely. We can predict its effects accurately. But different people have different ideas of what "ultimate truth" is. A person doesn't have the same confidence in somebody else's view of "ultimate reality" as he has in his own. There is no consensus.

"Degree of reality" is your level of confidence that your perception of reality is similar to everybody else's.

When you shoot at a target, the precision is reflected in how closely your shots are grouped and the accuracy is reflected in how close to the bulls-eye your grouping is. But when you're talking about "ultimate truth", there isn't even any agreement on what the target is.

 

[sideshowbob]

Puts on a sing song voice "PREACHING"

Shall we gather at the river? Watch your step on that bridge.

 

[Michael 345]

Shall we gather at the river? Watch your step on that bridge.

I'd prefer not feeding the troll preacher

 

[Musika]

Puts on a sing song voice "PREACHING"

You mean, like the real truth would be I am preaching?

The notion of truth and the attempt to discern its higher and lower states is so universal that not even trolls can avoid invoking it.

 

[Write4U]

If you think "mathematics can represent reality in a reproducible manner" (your quote, not mine), why has the act of hammering a nail suddenly evaded your powers of language?

Apparently hammering a nail is very mathematical, depending on what you are nailing and the size of nails. I doubt if you could drive a 6" spike with a upholstery hammer, or use a sledge hammer to drive a tack in upholstery.

Have you ever considered how many types and weights of hammers there are? It's all very mathematical.

 

[Write4U]

So what did you mean by "degree of reality"?

Bohm calls it the "enfolded" and "unfolded" orders.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

You mean, like the real truth would be I am preaching?

The notion of truth and the attempt to discern its higher and lower states is so universal that not even trolls can avoid invoking it.

I haven't been really paying attention.

Have you given an example of a higher truth versus a lower one?

 

[Musika]

The most likely cause of the problem would be that somebody read the data wrong, not that the data was wrong.

So what do you call it when you have information that doesn't tally with one's plans?
And how would you describe a continuum to distinguish the variety within that margin for error.
Are the mistaken decisions that result in a bridge being misaligned by a few centimetres the same as those that result in a bridge being misaligned by a few metres or the same that result from a bridge being made of marshmellows?
Or are some mistakes more grave than others?

Accuracy and/or precision. I said that, "We can all agree that gravity is a real phenomenon, whether we have any scientific data on it or not. But we can't agree on what "ultimate truth" would look like, if it did exist, so it doesn't have the same degree of reality." We can measure gravity precisely. We can predict its effects accurately. But different people have different ideas of what "ultimate truth" is. A person doesn't have the same confidence in somebody else's view of "ultimate reality" as he has in his own. There is no consensus.

Once again, you are not making sense.

For a start there is certainly no consensus on the behaviour of universal constants (such as gravity) divorced from scientific data. If you want to bring (authoritative) consensus to a term like gravity, you have to bring scientific data.

For instance, people involved in high speed car accidents have a certain view on velocity and the forensic team has another. Assuming that the intention of the motorist was not to kill themselves or others, their ideas on velocity prove to be inferior from those charged with working out how the accident occurred. Its interesting to note, that the maelstrom of ideas surrounding velocity are resolved (in otherwords, how one arrives at the higher truth) by a minority - namely those who have the skills to access and process scientific data.

If you want to slap a political label on investigating reality, you are better served by a meritocracy than a democracy.

Your talk about resolving the ceiling of greater reality by the limits of consensus simply destroys the cultivation of knowledge.

obscurantism
ˌɒbskjʊˈrantɪz(ə)m/
noun

1. the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or full details of something from becoming known.

"Degree of reality" is your level of confidence that your perception of reality is similar to everybody else's.

Well then for a start, you have just entered through the front door of philosophy (even if you didn't wipe your muddy shoes beforehand). You are conceding that reality is layered (some things are "more real" or "less real" than others).

When you shoot at a target, the precision is reflected in how closely your shots are grouped and the accuracy is reflected in how close to the bulls-eye your grouping is.

So this must be an example of innacurate marksmanship, yes?

Or is there a more accurate manner to describe marksmanship? A higher, superior definition, if you will?

But when you're talking about "ultimate truth", there isn't even any agreement on what the target is.

So the suggestion that mathematics is relegated to defining an inferior aspect of reality is ok with you? Or do you feel it fundamentally violates some core principle integral to the pursuit of truth distinguishable from illusion?

 

[Musika]

I haven't been really paying attention.

Have you given an example of a higher truth versus a lower one?

Scroll above to the reply to sideshow bob with the smiley face shooting target

....

Or even scroll further to Mike's trolling

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Scroll above to the reply to sideshow bob with the smiley face shooting target

....

Or even scroll further to Mike's trolling

So, if I have a green apple and a red one.

The green apple is more 'green apple' than the red apple, even though, the red apple is still an apple?

 

[Musika]

So, if I have a green apple and a red one.

The green apple is more 'green apple' than the red apple, even though, the red apple is still an apple?

Kind of a clumsy way to describe things.
If you ask for a green apple and are brought a red apple, you would understand that they are getting the apple thing right. If you are brought a banana, you understand they are getting the fruit thing right. If they bring you a box of spark plugs, you understand you have a bit of work ahead of you explaining things.

So, inasmuch as you require a green apple for eating, you could break down the matter to:

green apple < apple< fruit< food

according to what you wanted vs what you got.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Kind of a clumsy way to describe things.
If you ask for a green apple and are brought a red apple, you would understand that they are getting the apple thing right. If you are brought a banana, you understand they are getting the fruit thing right. If they bring you a box of spark plugs, you understand you have a bit of work ahead of you explaining things.

So, inasmuch as you require a green apple for eating, you could break down the matter to:

green apple < apple< fruit< food

according to what you wanted vs what you got.

But the green apple would be the higher truth, would it not?