new worlds with different mathematics

Discussions like this make me wonder how theists can function. They must shut their intellect down whenever the subject is somehow associated with god and then turn it back on in order to cope with their environment.

1 = 1 = 3???!!! How about god making a triangle with 4 or 5 sides? If you say this is possible, I give up!
 
Chris Cremin said:
If we assume for the purpose of argument that God made this world. Could He/she make another world where 1+1=3? Or are some things impossible even for God? :-eek-:
Click to expand...
hmmm. you may have wandered into the wrong universe, I mean forum ;-)
question, did you mean world or universe? because if its world, then the rules of the universe would have to be diff in that area, either dimensionally or quantumly?

its like a Schroeder's cat experiment, only here you put 2 items in a box, close it & then open it & there's 3 items?

are you sure you're in the right forum?
 
ashura said:
Theoretically, God can create anything we can imagine, so I think the answer would definitely be yes.
Click to expand...
But then you'd think he could also create something heavy enough that he couldn't lift it...?

If we start with the theistic assumption that God creates universes (for whatever reason... a whim, a bet, a dare, boredom etc) then the answer is that he probably could create one with the starting logic of 1+1=3, but that it would almost instantly become unstable... for wherever 2 things were together, a third would pop up out of nowhere. And now, with 3 things, 1+2 = ?? - would it cascade out of control? :eek:

For a stable universe one would probably assume that 1+1=2
 
It throws up a problem for theists if anything is impossible for God.
For him to be said to have created this world, it had to be impossible for it to have come into being in any other way. If God is restricted in what he does by the same mathematics that governs our world, then he could only have brought the world into existence if it was possible to do so.

WildBlueYonder:
I originally posted it to cosmology, but they kicked it here. They don't like the G word unless it stands for gravity.
 
theoritically, an equilibrium state could be modelled, while operation of 1+1 pops another one out of nowhere, on the other hand, at some certain numbers-operation, things vanish to nowhere.
Unstable, in an equilibrium state.

Why would a universe stable?
Sun is unstable. Material in the sun are always reacting, emitting energy to the earth, thanks to it's unstability state (fision and fusion).

Even the earth is unstable, if time dimesion were to be contracted, until anything moves in the speed of light.
 
I proposed the problem as something I thought impossible, and something that
God could not do. I have been wrong-footed by some people saying that if God wanted to do it, he could, but we can't understand it. That argument seems self consistent, and I can't dispute it.
 
Chris Cremin said:
If we assume for the purpose of argument that God made this world. Could He/she make another world where 1+1=3? Or are some things impossible even for God? :eek:
Click to expand...

he already has - depends whether you are working out of rationalism or empiricism
:p


Suppose you and I agree, on the basis of mathematical logic like that deemed indubitable by Descartes, that one plus one is two is a sure fact. We form a school of philosophy, the Too True To Two school. We challenge any other school to come forward and prove that one plus one is two is not certain. The losers have to give the winners all the money in their wallets except one banknote. A member of the One On One Won school takes up the bet. He places one drop of water on a flat glass surface with an eyedropper, then carefully adds a second drop to it. The result, to our chagrined surprise, is not two drops. We lose, cheated by our own minds and senses. After giving away the money, I have one dollar in my wallet. You have a ten dollar bill in yours. Pooling our funds, we fall into a grave philosophical contradiction. My senses tell me we now have two notes, but your mind tells you we have eleven dollars. We quarrel. I shout, Believe your eyes! Two! You shout back, Believe your mind! Eleven! Condemning one another, we dissolve our school.

substance and shadow - s.swami
 
Proof that 1 + 1 = 3:

First, assume:

b = a

then, multiply both sides of the equation a = b by "a," getting:

ab = a²

then, subtract b² form both sides, getting:

ab - b² = a² - b²

then, factor both sides, getting:

b(a - b) = (a - b)(a + b)

then factor out the common term (a - b), getting:

b = (a + b)

Since we have assumed that a = b, we can substitute "b" for "a" freely, giving us:

b = (b + b)

or equivalently

b = 2b

then divide both sides by the common factor "b" and we get:

1 = 2

Finally we add 1 to both sides and we get:

1 + 1 = 2 + 1

or equivalently,

1 + 1 = 3

Q.E.D?? :bugeye: :D :D (just kidding)
 
lightgigantic said:
he already has - depends whether you are working out of rationalism or empiricism
:p


Suppose you and I agree, on the basis of mathematical logic like that deemed indubitable by Descartes, that one plus one is two is a sure fact. We form a school of philosophy, the Too True To Two school. We challenge any other school to come forward and prove that one plus one is two is not certain. The losers have to give the winners all the money in their wallets except one banknote. A member of the One On One Won school takes up the bet. He places one drop of water on a flat glass surface with an eyedropper, then carefully adds a second drop to it. The result, to our chagrined surprise, is not two drops. We lose, cheated by our own minds and senses. After giving away the money, I have one dollar in my wallet. You have a ten dollar bill in yours. Pooling our funds, we fall into a grave philosophical contradiction. My senses tell me we now have two notes, but your mind tells you we have eleven dollars. We quarrel. I shout, Believe your eyes! Two! You shout back, Believe your mind! Eleven! Condemning one another, we dissolve our school.

substance and shadow - s.swami
Click to expand...
One drop of water dropped onto one drop of water certainly makes one single drop, albeit a little larger.
 
Good question, Chris Cremin. I think it goes right to the heart of the question of the possible existence of deity.

If "God" cannot create a universe where 1 + 1 = 3, then there is no need for deity nor utility in its existence. A god constrained by mathematics is one fully shackled and with no freedom to make design choices in creating a universe. All mathematically-consistent universes must exist whether the deity likes it or not.

By this line of reasoning, every logical proof is a proof of the non-existense of deity. 1 + 1 can never equal 3 and thus there is no god.

Tegmark lays it out quite neatly, seems to me:

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe_frames.html
 
Dave Lush said:
Good question, Chris Cremin. I think it goes right to the heart of the question of the possible existence of deity.

If "God" cannot create a universe where 1 + 1 = 3, then there is no need for deity nor utility in its existence. A god constrained by mathematics is one fully shackled and with no freedom to make design choices in creating a universe. All mathematically-consistent universes must exist whether the deity likes it or not.

By this line of reasoning, every logical proof is a proof of the non-existense of deity. 1 + 1 can never equal 3 and thus there is no god.

Tegmark lays it out quite neatly, seems to me:

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe_frames.html
Click to expand...

numbers 13 and 4

;)
 
I guess numbers 13 and 4 refer to post numbers?

Logical systems, of which mathematics is a special case, are arguably not invented but rather discovered. If they are discovered then we are merely exploring them, not making them up. They exist simply because they must. No further explanation is needed or possible. So, if the universe itself is merely a logical system, it needs no deity and a deity can have no useful role in creating or maintaining it.
 
Dave Lush said:
I guess numbers 13 and 4 refer to post numbers?

Logical systems, of which mathematics is a special case, are arguably not invented but rather discovered. If they are discovered then we are merely exploring them, not making them up. They exist simply because they must. No further explanation is needed or possible. So, if the universe itself is merely a logical system, it needs no deity and a deity can have no useful role in creating or maintaining it.
Click to expand...
I thought numbers might be a Bible reference. I've looked them up and Numbers 13 is where Moses sends spies into Canaan on a reconnaissance mission, and Numbers 4 covers the duties of the Levites and how to treat the ark of the Covenant. Doesn't fit really. What do you mean Lightgigantic?
 
Chris Cremin said:
I thought numbers might be a Bible reference. I've looked them up and Numbers 13 is where Moses sends spies into Canaan on a reconnaissance mission, and Numbers 4 covers the duties of the Levites and how to treat the ark of the Covenant. Doesn't fit really. What do you mean Lightgigantic?
Click to expand...

sorry

looks like I forgot to post the link
 
Chris Cremin said:
That makes more sense.
Yes, I think it is a valid attack on a proposition to say that if it contradicts itself, it is meaningless. "Can God move an immoveable rock" is certainly such a question.
Click to expand...

I think the point is that human logic, knowledge and sense perception is limited
 
lightgigantic said:
I think the point is that human logic, knowledge and sense perception is limited
Click to expand...
I can't dispute that, otherwise we would know everything and we wouldn't need to ask questions. It still leaves the question, which is basically whether things are true because God makes them true, or are they just true.
 
Chris Cremin said:
I can't dispute that, otherwise we would know everything and we wouldn't need to ask questions. It still leaves the question, which is basically whether things are true because God makes them true, or are they just true.
Click to expand...

to answer that question requires knowledge of god (as opposed to tremendous empirical efforts)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top