Atheist, Gnostic, Theist, Agnostic

[scythe]

I highly doubt that "random" organizes in any way, ever.

A set of arbitrary numbers and rules can be used to produce a much larger set which displays an order dependent on the smaller set. And vice versa, we say a set is ordered because it can be described by a smaller, less ordered set. The size of the smallest such set is called the Kolmogorov complexity of the whole class of sets. This is, of course, a very informal treatment of the whole thing.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting the nihilistic conclusion that life is meaningless; I'd just say that looking for meaning in physics is like looking for a cure for depression in a bottle of whisky.

[Kablizzy]

I highly doubt that "random" organizes in any way, ever.

A set of arbitrary numbers and rules can be used to produce a much larger set which displays an order dependent on the smaller set. And vice versa, we say a set is ordered because it can be described by a smaller, less ordered set. The size of the smallest such set is called the Kolmogorov complexity of the whole class of sets. This is, of course, a very informal treatment of the whole thing.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting the nihilistic conclusion that life is meaningless; I'd just say that looking for meaning in physics is like looking for a cure for depression in a bottle of whisky.

But whiskey works so well... ;_;

[scythe]

I guess, uh, what I'm saying, is that the elegance in the physics of the universe is an artifact of that in mathematics. Math can get pretty cool.

[squibbles]

Second, having a cause != having a purpose.

I disagree. I personally think that it is impossible to perform any action without a purpose, and thus anything that could be created must have been created with a purpose, even if it is as menial as satiating boredom.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Suki: If we're not here to "just exist," then we're here for another purpose! Suck on *that*, cripple king!

Well, I mean, false dichotomy, etc... but more importantly, let me be more specific.

cripple

I am utterly failing to understand how this word relates to anything or anyone in this thread.
Like... are you calling me a cripple or something?

[Mute Monk]

I believe he's referring to Stephen Hawking.

[SlappyMcGee]

cripple

I am utterly failing to understand how this word relates to anything or anyone in this thread.
Like... are you calling me a cripple or something?

King of the Cripples. Rather rule in Hell and all that.

[Kablizzy]

Like... are you calling me a cripple or something?

Yeah, I'm better than Dr. Hawking in every tangible way. I mean, he can't even theorize himself some new limbs.

[otters~1]

I guess, uh, what I'm saying, is that the elegance in the physics of the universe is an artifact of that in mathematics. Math can get pretty cool.

But math was invented to explain the physical world, was it not? What do you mean?

[SlappyMcGee]

I guess, uh, what I'm saying, is that the elegance in the physics of the universe is an artifact of that in mathematics. Math can get pretty cool.

But math was invented to explain the physical world, was it not? What do you mean?

Relationships between quantities and values exist independent of our invention of math.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Ohhhh, I see.

Suki: If we're not here to "just exist," then we're here for another purpose! Suck on *that*, cripple king!

Yeah, false dichotomy.
"To just exist" as a purpose is preposterous, but just existing without any particular purpose is what we're doing now.

[otters~1]

I guess, uh, what I'm saying, is that the elegance in the physics of the universe is an artifact of that in mathematics. Math can get pretty cool.

But math was invented to explain the physical world, was it not? What do you mean?

Relationships between quantities and values exist independent of our invention of math.

Right. Aren't you agreeing with me? I thought scythe was saying that the elegance in the physical world is caused by the elegance of mathematics, directly disagreeing with your statement. His use of the word "artifact" is confusing me.

[SlappyMcGee]

\
I thought I was agreeing with you, but ???

[otters~1]

\
I thought I was agreeing with you, but ???

See, I thought so, but you use big words.

[smartalco]

Yeah, I'm better than Dr. Hawking in every tangible way. I mean, he can't even theorize himself some new limbs.

So that is how you gained the extra dong?

[scythe]

I guess, uh, what I'm saying, is that the elegance in the physics of the universe is an artifact of that in mathematics. Math can get pretty cool.

But math was invented to explain the physical world, was it not?

That isn't a remotely easy question. The short answer is that ZF set theory and Peano arithmetic, two formulations of the "foundations of math", neither of these depend on the physical universe. Logic was created to win debates in Athens, but it found a lot of use in other parts of the world.

[otters~1]

I guess, uh, what I'm saying, is that the elegance in the physics of the universe is an artifact of that in mathematics. Math can get pretty cool.

But math was invented to explain the physical world, was it not?

That isn't a remotely easy question. The short answer is that ZF set theory and Peano arithmetic, two formulations of the "foundations of math", neither of these depend on the physical universe. Logic was created to win debates in Athens, but it found a lot of use in other parts of the world.

But I think the world is elegant regardless of mathematical formulae. I'm not seeing the cause/effect you are.

On another note, I haven't heard of the two things you mentioned, but I'm pretty sure the original purpose of primitive number-crunching was practical rather than theoretical. Math may not "depend" on the physical universe, but it was created for it. Calculus is an example.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Math may not "depend" on the physical universe, but it was created for it. Calculus is an example.

Nah. It just so happens that mathematics is super-convenient when you try to kludge your observations of the world into its terms.
Mathematical principles, more complicated expressions like integrals, etc., are just consequences which people have discovered the foundations of mathematics end up implying. It's pretty cool that reality and math can talk to each other so well, but neither is based on the other.

[otters~1]

Math may not "depend" on the physical universe, but it was created for it. Calculus is an example.

Nah. It just so happens that mathematics is super-convenient when you try to kludge your observations of the world into its terms.
Mathematical principles, more complicated expressions like integrals, etc., are just consequences which people have discovered the foundations of mathematics end up implying. It's pretty cool that reality and math can talk to each other so well, but neither is based on the other.

Okay, but why did humanity originally come up with math? Are you saying that it was invented as a ... thought experiment rather than as a tool? I've always been told/assumed the latter, but I know very little about this.

[Universezero]

I doubt there's much I could add to this conversation, so I'm just going to state that I'm a gnostic atheist. Also, this video is relevant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P47OC439x88

[Tanner]

I doubt there's much I could add to this conversation, so I'm just going to state that I'm a gnostic atheist. Also, this video is relevant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P47OC439x88

Edward Current is not a Christian, he's a comedian, in case you couldn't tell by the "satire" tag on the video.

Also, I'm interested to hear from people who describe themselves as gnostic. When I spoke with heartattack on IRC (the only other person in this thread so far to label themselves gnostic) it didn't take long for him to realize that he hadn't really understood the connotations of that standpoint and to adjust his thinking. So, Universezero, why do you think we can know absolutely if there is a god or not?

[amomentlikethis]

This is interesting.

I suppose I'm half way between: "It's impossible to gain absolute knowledge of God, so I tend towards thinking there isn't one", and," I really don't care". I'm kinda neutral on the whole (a)theist thing - I can't say I believe or disbelieve in God as an entity.

I firmly believe that existence of God is something that can never be proved; yet I'm not going to go around preaching this to others.

[Heartattack]

When I spoke with heartattack on IRC (the only other person in this thread so far to label themselves gnostic) it didn't take long for him to realize that he hadn't really understood the connotations of that standpoint and to adjust his thinking

I would like to point out that when I changed my mind I did so gracefully because of Tanner and Skyline's outstanding logic. I now label myself an agnostic atheist.

[ska]

Where's the one for "Extreme Religious Fanaticism"?
You know, the one where you wage wars in the name of religion

and reap the spoils in gold and oil

, smack my children and believe dinosaurs co-existed with humans?

Put me down as a born again atheist, because the way I see it, if you want anything in this life, you have to earn it yourself or have a rich sugar-daddy. This religion was created when people thought the earth was flat and was funded by hopelessly manipulated people who would pay priests all they have so they can wave there hands to absolve them from sin. The catholic church to this day is phenomenally rich, funded from crime, heresy and gambling (ironic eh?) - when all we have to go by is ancient text that we must take on face value or perverted, child fondling priests who get off free from jail and a church with more sinister intentions than Satan himself.

If we choose to follow this holy text to the letter, we should treat women as lesser beings, trade slaves and burn homosexuals at the stake. (No Wonder God is so often personified as a man). I would like to think we live in a technologically advanced and enlightened age where religion is eradicated and equality and justice reigns supreme. I'll see you all at the "religious fundamentalist recruitment drive" in December 2012.

Peace.

[Tanner]

Thanks for contributing but you're still going to need to clean up that Bill Maher-shaped vomit you just expelled.