And similarly, I have no doubt that you are more skilled mathematically than I am, so truly there's no need for hostility.
And similarly, I have no doubt that you are more skilled mathematically than I am, so truly there's no need for hostility.
I didn't read everything but I would think the main difference between science/mathematics and spirituality/religion is that I'm able to create something physical out of science/mathematics. I can feel it, I can see it, I can use it without knowing anything complicated. Whereas spirituality/religion is ideas, ideas and more ideas. You get nothing physical out of it and it can change with a thought. That's why more people prefer to trust science/mathematics.
I think I didn't answer your post, I merely answered your title. A typical example of tl;dr. :|
The point is that religion and science may be seeking the same thing. There would be no spirituality or religion if they didn't have at least some bearing on the physical world. Religion is the finger, and spirituality is the moon, if you are familiar with this concept in Zen. If you read nothing else, then do as the others have not, and read the article which beautifully articulates that which I am trying to convey.
htt p: // www .bpra mana .org /scientific- spirituality /math. htm (spaces because I can't post links)
I'll help you with the link, Scientific Spirituality - Mathematical explanationQuote:
Originally Posted by nietstein
I'm not exactly a maths and science person so I can assure you, I got lost after the introduction. I see the article is breaking down mathematics to compare it with religion and spirituality. No matter whether maths/science are seeking the same thing as religion/spirituality, they're still largely different. At least it is to most people. Like I had mentioned, you don't need to know anything about maths or science to experience its effects and products. However you need to read and understand religion and spirituality concepts before you're able to experience it. All 4 of these, mathematics, science, religion and spirituality are languages or terms people have created to understand about this world. Since they are products of humans, I wouldn't be surprise if they are seeking the same thing.
It just comes down to definitions as far as I can tell. I don't know of any 'rule' that says a set should be mappable (in fact maps are formally defined in terms of sets alone, so that would be circular if true), but in any case, you can actually create valid maps using the empty set. The definition of a map is that it sends each element in the set to some (single) element in some other set. A map which sends the empty set to some other set does therefore meet the demands of the definition, although vacuously so; there are no elements in the set, so trivially the map sends 'all of the elements' in the set to some element elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by tempusername
I don't see how it's either. You can use it to make distinctions; therefore it isn't meaningless. You can't map {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} to the empty set, so 5 is not 0. You can map the set of all real roots of x^2 + 1 to the empty set, so there are 0 real roots of x^2 + 1.Quote:
This definition seems pretty meaningless and if anything is a contradiction.
This is all just niggly formalism really. If you wanted you could arbitrarily ban the empty function, it wouldn't make any important difference. Stuff only becomes worth talking about when we have non-empty and/or infinite sets.
Counting is about the sizes of sets. We are not interested in what is actually inside the sets; we are trying to abstract the 'number' of elements from the set without considering anything out about it, in the same way that the number three is abstracted from three sheep and three trees and three rocks. Creating a one-to-one map between the respective elements of {1, 2, 3} and {5, 9, 11} does not show that 5 = 1 or anything, it just shows that the latter set has three elements; creating a one-to-one map from {0.5} to {1} does not show that 0.5 = 1 as you seem to suggest.Quote:
Originally Posted by nietstein
Nowhere have I been hostile with you or anybody else for not knowing things about mathematics. Everybody has different areas of knowledge, no doubt you know thousands of things I don't in other areas. The only thing I'm hostile to is doublethink; intentionally deluding oneself in various ways, one of which is balking at contemplation of counterarguments. This is what it looks like you're doing, because you keep repeating misconceptions, and misconstruing other people's positions, when they've explained otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by nietstein
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Quote:
Originally Posted by tempusername
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Quote:
Distinctions denote meaning
Quote:
Distinctions denote meaning
OP CONFIRMED NIHILISM FETISHISTQuote:
Distinctions denote meaning
DO YOU HEAR THAT, OP? YOU AND YOUR FRANK N. WILEY ARE FETISHISTS OF NIHILISM. YOU HAVE A BONER FOR MEANINGLESSNESS
But wait...
SO, OP, NOT ONLY IS YOUR WISH TO UNITE NOTHING WITH EVERYTHING A REFLECTION OF YOUR OBSESSION WITH MEANINGLESSNESS, THE CONCEPTS YOU'RE CONCERNED WITH IN THE FIRST PLACE (NOTHING AND INFINITY) ARE ALSO TOTALLY WORTHLESS! SUCKS TO SUCKQuote:
Stuff only becomes worth talking about when we have non-empty and/or infinite sets.
But hey, we just went full circle thanks to Xei calling an empty set worthless, so I guess OP wins in the end. Lel (full circle, get it?)
Or are you implying worthiness doesn't correlate to meaning, Zei?
And one more question, just to clarify some math:
Are you telling me that anything, even the concept of zero, even "nothing," mathematically falls into a set?!Quote:
A map which sends the empty set to some other set does therefore meet the demands of the definition, although vacuously so; there are no elements in the set, so trivially the map sends 'all of the elements' in the set to some element elsewhere.
Size... d-do sets even truly have the property of size? Any property of a set is defined by the elements which it holds... So:Quote:
Counting is about the sizes of sets.
Counting is about the sizes of sets.
Sizing sets is about maps.
Mapping is about distinguishing elements.
Numbers distinguish.
And the only thing to do with numbers is count them... f-f-full circle...
What is it called mathematically when we're not considering the number of elements but trying to distinguish them from one another based on their properties like color or shape, real or fake?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Isn't this method of "abstraction" reproduced outside of counting? Or is everything counting? We have sets and elements which aren't the verb counting obviously. They are nouns but we can't distinguish a set from another set or one element from another element (make a noun essentially) without counting. Same goes for distinguishing elements from sets, right? But what about things like fucking brackets {}, equal signs and all those non-numerical symbols mathematical equations require?
C = { red, green, blue }
How would we show the above equation using math alone without falling into an infinite mapping sequence to distinguish each element as a standalone ... uh number instead of a word?
And isn't it impossible for an element to standalone in the sense that other elements distinguish its ... uh ... distinctness?
FUCK I SUCK AT MATH
http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/829/hyperbola.gif
I miraculously came in contact with another human since I last posted and managed to bring up these topics of nothing and everything. She reminded me what an asymptote was when I explained how another person was trying to claim +∞ = 0. This led me to discuss negative numbers. That's when we realized what distinguishes −∞ from +∞ is 0.
Girl: So 0 is finite
Me: Then the concept of nothing exists relatively
It seems too easy so I'll just wait for a mathematical smack down.
I'm sorry this question might be really stupid. Even though I am Asian (raised in Sweden) I have no brain for matemathics at all xD I just wonder if infinity equals zero/ 0, how do you then explain the following example.
Adam have infinite apples, does that then mean that he have zero apples, which then means that he have no apples at all o. O?
I once again apologize if that's a really stupid question ^-^
Why??? I'm an Asian too. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterMind
---
I would like to state something, the word "Zero" and "Infinite" most probably possess different meaning in religion/spirituality than mathematics. That's why the argument between both sides never came to an agreement. Zero means something more than just nothing in religion/spirituality if I didn't remember wrongly.
Hehe sorrry it's just a bad joke. The claim that all Asians know math: Family Guy - Cmon , Do Math - YouTube ^-^Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrot
And about zero and spirituality, I have never heard that zero means anything else than nothing and I am into many things that are considered spiritual :P So if you can find an example for that, it would be good. :)
1/0 = infinity then 0 x infinity should be 1 but at the same time if infinity is 0 then 0 x 0 is 1. I know that you can't divide with zero but if someone says that zero is infinity I need a simple explanation.
But I think I'll leave this thread I have no valid reason to believe zero isn't infinity, it's just an opinion because I can't understand the two concepts.
I mean things in nature never fully cease to exist, they are just not as clear as a solid thing, like the air you see now can be percieved as nothingness, but when you realize that air is something you just can't see but that it exist you realize that it is something, obviously.
But when matter and anti-matter touches it cease to exist o. O And I can't really make up my mind about what that really means.
So I'll leave this and let the math people talk, I am more of an empirical person, and as you can see in my other posts I can believe in very crazy things, if I have a valid empirical reason for it, that reasoning is of course subjective so feel free to call me crazy.. ^^
Anyway I hope you find your answers with the math, someday it will explain everything, I hope ;)
And one last advice. Never divide by zero!
http://reikna.skjabjort.is/wp-conten...e-by-zero1.jpg
I'm very sorry but I'm not very well read. I recalled borrowing a book about numbers from my teacher and it was explaining what each number meant spiritually. I found an article online, I'm not sure how much it will help in explaining. But it seems like zero is infinity because it resembles a circle and that links to infinity. Nothing to do about its value.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterMind
Symbolic Meanings Blog by Avia Venefica » Blog Archive » Spiritual Meaning of Number Zero
Funny conclusion though ^-^Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrot
You are right the conflation of zero and infinity satisfies aesthetic values rather than mathematical ones. It has about as much utility as Pythagoras believing that the number 1 symbolized the god Apollo, in other words no utility at all. I read the Op but I am having some difficulty understanding this thread. I dont believe I understand what "spirituality" is meant to convey nor its relation to mathematics. I'm not really trying to bash on the thread but I have never had a mind for mysticism so perhaps someone could help me out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrot
To reply to what a few have said; there are several different meanings for infinity. The one I have been talking about so far is the most common colloquial meaning, which is the size of the set of counting numbers, {1, 2, 3, ... }. Another meaning of infinity is that found in analysis, where it is used as shorthand for statements like, '1/x tends to infinity as x tends to 0 from above', but this isn't actually about any entity 'infinity', as x never actually reaches 0, it's just a statement about the way that 1/x is behaving for non-zero values of x. The last use that I can think of for infinity in maths is a formal use, where for instance you might want to say that actual division of 1 by 0 is okay, so you just add some new point to the set, which you call 'infinity' for colloquial reasons, and then add some rules for how it behaves. This last usage is just formalism, you could just as well label the new point 'Garry' rather than 'infinity'; wouldn't make any difference.
The point is that for all three of these different meanings, they each have very precise definitions, and the definitions are about simple and non-contradictory things.
You can take different approaches, and it's kind of too philosophical and/or meaningless for most mathematicians to worry about, but if you're aiming to put mathematics on a highly formal, minimal basis, that basis tends to be sets, yes. I'm not sure there is anything in mathematics that couldn't in principle be reduced to some statement of set theory. Some of the ways it is done are quite cool... for instance, in modern mathematics, the real, continuous number line is formulated in terms of sets (using things called Dedekind cuts, which are basically just a splitting into two sets of the fractions, and fractions in turn are basically just a set of pairs of natural numbers, with some rules).Quote:
Originally Posted by tempusername
It doesn't really come full circle. It goes sets -> mappings -> number. You distinguish mappings without reference to number.Quote:
Size... d-do sets even truly have the property of size? Any property of a set is defined by the elements which it holds... So:
Counting is about the sizes of sets.
Sizing sets is about maps.
Mapping is about distinguishing elements.
Numbers distinguish.
And the only thing to do with numbers is count them... f-f-full circle...
I believe in some stuff that is considered spiritual like Out of body experiences, and what I tried to say was that what's the math of this time doesn't have to prove the experiences people have.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
Of course there are alot of other things that is considered spiritual that I don't beleive in, like the Yeti or Snowman, but if I had actually met him I would believe and know, that's obvious.
But I believe that math someday will be able to explain the OBEs and in fact it already is theories of how it could be possible, perspectives and questions Einstein and lots Nobel Price winners present and that Thomas Campbell is trying to solve by taking the consciousness into account.
I know this is equivalent to some people with to say that he is trying to solve Einstein problems by taking a unicorn to account. But listen to the guy before you judge... If that unicorn truly is the solution, you are really missing out on something.
Physics, Metaphysics & the Consciousness Connection 1 of 18 - YouTube
And science is going in a more and more spiritual direction: Just look at the qutoes from some familiar nobel price winners:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giWvh...feature=relmfu
And Campbell explains a good way to consider something reaonable plausible. Around 06:40:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtfJ2...feature=relmfu
The math and logic before was that if someone sailed out to sea they would end up falling of the earth in the end. The math and logic of that time wasn't enough to explain something else.
And this is what I am trying to say is the same problem about OBEs. However there was probably people back then that believed that the earth was round and later on someone else proved it.
Empirical knowledge has more value than non-empirical in logic. That's what I have learned in philosophy class anyway.
And with empirical knowledge to prove OBE, I mean that it is highly reasonable to believe that you didn't had information before but you attain it from an OBE.
Like visiting a house you never been in and then confirming it with the person who live in the house, the next day. That's valid empirical knowledge to me.
It was a little off-topic of me to talk about this and that might have caused the confusion, but is now when I think about unclear to me as well
o. O
I always think that I will write a short post, ah well... What I am trying to say is that I believe math and science can explain everything, but that doesn't mean that we can't experience stuff that math or science hasn't explained yet. But I believe that we can find explanations if we stop marking everything supersticious.
So we need to unite science with spirituality and maybe we can make valuable discoveries.
Like this science center have done: http://noetic.org/
I've probably got something elaborate to say but for the time being it seems like that thread over there sums up this threadhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Sorry for bringing up a 4-5 month thread, but I see no point in me making another thread with my belief on this.
(I skimmed through the content of this page and saw it just went to wild tangents here).
Anyway, to question if Science/Mathematics is "necessarily" the same thing as Spirituality/Religion fundamentally is completely out of the question.
-Religion/Spirituality is merely people placing faith on something to be true, even going to lengths of wanting it to be true by conjecture, and making false and illogical associations that have no substantial evidence that could be analyzed, peer-reviewed, and repeated in filters science has made before a claim is considered practical and true. Religion also has the tendency to be fixed (while science is continually updating because it's more progressive), people use religion/morality find "origin" in morality, and other psychological predispositions that make them feel at comfort. It's like being a defeatist and giving up the endeavor of attempting to find ways why things are what they are.
Basically, when people use religion to the point where it defines the origin of something, that it's the only true way, or the "practical" way to live life, that's when it gets concerning and obviously DIFFERENT from what Science is served for.
Because if you try to use belief systems to explain the unknown, it means:
-Believing in Thor to explain something, that it was the work of Thor
-Believing in the Russel's Teapot being a justification of the unknown not being able to be understood.
-Believing in the JuJu monster in the sea being a justification
-Believing in fairies, warlocks, succubi, as a justification of truth.
All of those are just as equal or on par with each other when trying to make "plausible" explanations out of faith.
The list can go on and on and on.
But if an individual can know their faith and religion/spirituality is more on a personal basis and don't try to mix it in with science, then they're just fine.
-Science/Mathematics (mostly just Science really) on the other hand, is completely different. Unlike religion/spirituality, Science takes the approach through a reasonable manner. Through peer-review, rational analyzing without trying to skew in pure faith, going through as much repetition in a practical way, even though Science may not answer the bigger mysteries of life and the Universe, it's at least NOT going into a defeatist mindset that many people get into when they can't explain or understand something and put "Religion" as an explanation.
Even if Science shifts to the "spiritual" side of things, it doesn't mean it's going to be similar to religion/spirituality. Science is going to change constantly when evidence comes to show that some mechanics of science may become outdated; but it doesn't mean it's being spiritualistic.
Even if Science may not be a way to solve everything (origins of nature, universe, etc.), it's completely illogical, and again, a defeatist's way of presuming Religion can. Because with religion, there's thousands and thousands of beliefs systems, and if it gets to the point where there's millions and millions of other belief systems, that's where Religion is obviously impractical to explain something.
Science on the other hand, clearly is not trying to be caught in the delusions of manifested belief systems of a god or many gods or whatever belief system that is based on pure faith with no coherent stringing of rationalization.
Basic endeavor of how people associate Religion/Spirituality: "If something cannot be explained YET reasonably, it's either the work of a creator, someone supernatural, etc. (or it's just magic)"
THOR DID IT!!! ZEUS DID THIS!! THE FLYING TEAPOT HAS THE ORIGINS OF THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. <--- = :facepalm:
Basic endeavor of Science: "We're getting there... but if something cannot be explained YET or in the future reasonably, it doesn't mean placing Religion/Spirituality as the explanation for our inability to understand the unknown is 'better.' But we're not assuming we can disprove something or say it's impossible, but to use Religion as something credible based on the delusional principles behind it is not practical. "
No similarities there.
Science updates if there's error.
Religion itself has errors if it's used as something scientific (if one believed they were the same, which they aren't obviously)....especially if people cherry-pick whatever verses in scriptures or books that makes that religion great and disregard the majority that has many contradictions.
Both are trying to understand, but with religion, they usually just slab "god/deity/other supernatural entities" as some explanation and usually stop there. Or they wait for science and just try to combine their conjectured religion with as "plausible" evidence that the Talking Teapot exists, or the JuJu Monster under the sea exists, and so forth.
And there's many other things as why Science/mathematics is not the same as spirituality/religion, but this distinction itself is SO obvious that it doesn't need deeper penetration.
Science is the critical evaluation of evidence in order to determine if something is true or not objectively.
Religion and spirituality are not concerned with objectivity.
To conflate the two is as foolish as conflating the mathematical terms zero and infinity. And yes, they are mathematical terms, created and defined by mathematicians and with very specific meanings that have never and will never change. Like many terms, they have been sloppily co-opted by pop culture and used to mean various and sundry things. If you're going to use the terms in their mathematical sense then you can't say they are equal.
Thread should be renamed Spirituality/Religion is the same thing as sloppy new-age concepts misusing terms borrowed from Science/Mathematics. :cheeky:
inb4 lock
Does anyone remember that mind-blowing video of just how awesomely huge the universe is? Where you fly through clusters of stars and are then told, no those aren't stars but clusters of galaxies? Yeah, thats a spiritual experience
Oh yeah, I remember that - amazing stuff!!! And no belief in a god or eternal spirit required. So if by spirituality you simply mean transcendent experiences then I agree some of the products of science and math do that. That's not the goal of science or math though - the goal is precision - to make sure were not just making crap up. Now obviously much of the spiritual experience is beyond anything that can be objectively studied, and therefore beyond the reach of science or math. And obviously, neither religion nor spirituality have anything to say about the Pythagoream Theorem or Evolution (aside from certain exremist branches of religion denying it of course), though they do like to try to make statements about some of the fringe ideas in science when those ideas seem to suggest something transcendent or when they introduce a new level of mystery - a new gap for God. But by its very nature science doesn't make assertions that can't be verified, which is exactly what religion and spirituality do.
However of course - science isn't a way to give life meaning like religion and spirituality - it's just a way of observing things intended to separate fact from fiction in objective terms (or as close as we can get to objectivity). So all I'm saying is, though sometimes we an derive a veru spiritual experience from science or math, that's not it's goal. It's more just a property of the real world, which is what science explores.