Thread: Go Ahead And Ask Me, Universal (and Others)

Anything at all. I mean that is what OP means. But ... there is one thing it can't do: Escape a paradox.

If youre the paradox then you can't escape it.

True, but also many different people. What is logical to you may not necessarily be logical to me.

Mathematical logic is true always. I use mathematical logic.

this only counts if we are talking about a God who can do everything. Something we haven't established

If god can't do everything then he is not all powerful.

What on God's green earth does Maths have to do with Metaphysical and Spiritual logic?

Their is only one true logic, which is mathematical logic. Maths is too do with truth a pattarn, so maths is truth like 2.00 apples plus 2.00 appless will always equal 4.00 apples.

Yes, but Science doesn't equal maths, Art doesn't equal maths, Thought doesn't equal maths, etc. Yet they also employ logic. You are trying to compare apples and oranges.

First off all art is about emotions and science is about testing stuff. Now, what does this have to do with truth, art is not higher truth a artist will never solve a paradox by drawing it on a piece of paper. It something is true you can prove it using maths.

And that is why you are wrong. You can't prove or disprove the presence of an atom with maths, nor can you prove thought with maths. YET both are LOGICAL.

Well, thought can be classed in artifical intelligence if you want to know how maths handles thought then read this book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach
You can prove atoms with mathematics. Firstly look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac now he predicted the exsistance of a antiparticle using only mathematics, again the greeks used mathematics of infinty to prove atoms or quarks. Paul Dirac only used mathematics to make one of physics best theories to date, it is the most precise and all off this came from logic.

In this universe, away from Naked Singularities.

Quantum gravity makes sure naked singularities don't exsist.

So by your argument, unless I can mathematically prove you, you aren't real?

No this is wrong. See god has certain properties like being all powerful, now being all powerful is the paradox. If I said their is a person that exsist if this statement is false, then the person does not exsist as the property he has is impossible. Now god has a impossible property.

So does logic work outside the universe?

Of course, 2.00 apples plus 2.00 apples equals 4.00 apples exsist outside the universe. Truth exsist.

Do you know of Zeno's paradox? It states that nothing can move.

But we can: the logic behind the paradox was either deliberately or intentionality flawed.

The zeno paradox is not a paradox, now less able people who don't know mathematics would proberly see it as a paradox. Do you know calculus, if you do then you would now that he constantly moving and so it infintly sums up to the real value. Again no paradox, it just some fun for mathematical lazy to think about.
Also the zeno paradox was not based on logic, but some philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides
Now any person with basic logic can see the zeno paradox is nothing but rubbish philosophy.

Could a being who lives where logic does not be a servant of it?

Logic is the truth, so your basically anwsering can god exsist outside of truth. I agree god does exsist outside the truth, he doesn't exsist that the truth.

Keeper, let's cut to the chase. The point is that the concept of an infinitely powerful being, which you yourself in this very thread have said is a being that "can do ANYTHING", contradicts itself. It is an illogical concept. An infinitely powerful being would, by definition, be able to create a being more powerful than itself, but also by definition, not be able to create a being more powerful than itself. That concept contradicts itself. An infinitely powerful being would be able to create a stone so heavy it cannot lift it, yet be able to lift what it cannot lift, even though it can. The idea does not make sense.

When will people realize that math is not some "law of the universe?" Math can be used to describe any phenomena and can be set up to represent any situation. Mathematics are a language and nothing more. I can show you a case in which 2.00 apples plus 2.00 apples is equal to 11.00 apples. Math means absolutely nothing without a context and the context you are using it in is observed physical phenomena in our perceived locale. The maths you are using can just as easily be used to describe a completely contrary set of observed physical phenomena under a different set of physical laws and will still hold up just as well.

This is in response to Wendylove.

The maths you are using can just as easily be used to describe a completely contrary set of observed physical phenomena under a different set of physical laws and will still hold up just as well.

True, however I was using something really easy so Keeper can understand. In reality maths is infintely more complex, however for argument reasons this will do. However you wouldn't call them real numbers, I am only talking about real numbers. Also I like to add apples follow only real number mathematics.

Originally Posted by wendylove

True, however I was using something really easy so Keeper can understand. In reality maths is infintely more complex, however for argument reasons this will do. However you wouldn't call them real numbers, I am only talking about real numbers.

Yes I would actually. Real numbers 2+2=11

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

When will people realize that math is not some "law of the universe?" Math can be used to describe any phenomena and can be set up to represent any situation. Mathematics are a language and nothing more. I can show you a case in which 2.00 apples plus 2.00 apples is equal to 11.00 apples. Math means absolutely nothing without a context and the context you are using it in is observed physical phenomena in our perceived locale. The maths you are using can just as easily be used to describe a completely contrary set of observed physical phenomena under a different set of physical laws and will still hold up just as well.

This is in response to Wendylove.

Humans made up the language, not the facts they represent. With everything else being represented the way it is, Pi could not be 5, and neither could 2 + 2.

Yes I would actually. Real numbers 2+2=11

No that would be called hyper real numbers. That above is basically non standard analysis, which use numbers like 2+2=11 however 2 is infintly large. Mathematics is more then just fancy symbols, however you do raise a good point.

Yeah, universal minds point.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Humans made up the language, not the facts they represent. With everything else being represented the way it is, Pi could not be 5.

The facts, as you call them are actually only what I called them; Observed physical phenomena. The only thing factual about them is that they remain constant under the specific circumstances that we are capable of observing them. There is really no way for you to know whether or not our physical laws behave completely differently when you are under the influence, lets say, of a different gravitational field. It is entirely possible (and likely) that our observed phenomena would be different if we were to get significantly closer to the center of our galaxy for instance.

Originally Posted by wendylove

No that would be called hyper real numbers. That above is basically non standard analysis, which use numbers like 2+2=11 however 2 is infintly large. Mathematics is more then just fancy symbols, however you do raise a good point.

Yeah, universal minds point.

No, actually, 2+2=11 is an example of an equation using a base 3 number system. There is nothing hyper about them and I doubt you have much knowledge concerning what you are talking about.

There is really no way for you to know whether or not our physical laws behave completely differently when you are under the influence, lets say, of a different gravitational field.

Look up mathematical proof. Mathematics is pattarns, I don't see how truth can change.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The facts, as you call them are actually only what I called them; Observed physical phenomena. The only thing factual about them is that they remain constant under the specific circumstances that we are capable of observing them under. There is really no way for you to know whether or not our physical laws behave completely differently when you are under the influence, lets say, of a different gravitational field. It is entirely possible (and likely) that our observed phenomena would be different if we were to get significantly closer to the center of our galaxy for instance.

So you think there is a possibility that in another setting **** could be *** + ***? I don't. If you add *** to ***, you have ******.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Look up mathematical proof. Mathematics is pattarns, I don't see how truth can change.

"truth" changes on a fairly regular basis. Whenever new scientific evidence is uncovered, the common "truths" undergo a change to better fit the new set of observed phenomena. This is the reason why science is valid. Not because it is capable of describing any ultimate Truth, but because its truths are subject to revision and therefore will continue to be better at describing our observed physical universe.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So you think there is a possibility that in another setting **** could be *** + ***? I don't. If you add *** to ***, you have ******.

Some might say that if you add *** to *** you'd have;

***
***

The difference is subtle, yet significant to my argument. The reason for this is because the math that we use seems so universal, only because we follow certain rules of organization instilled by its creators. I'm assuming you are taking the dots to represent 3, 3 and 6 but they could easily be taken to represent 1, 1 and 2, as I have shown them. they could also be taken to represent 3/2, 3/2 and 3, if you assume one column of 2 dots is equal to 1 and 1 column of 1 dot is equal to 1/2.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Some might say that if you add *** to *** you'd have;

***
***

The difference is subtle, yet significant to my argument. The reason for this is because the math that we use seems so universal, only because we follow certain rules of organization instilled by its creators. I'm assuming you are taking the dots to represent 3, 3 and 6 but they could easily be taken to represent 1, 1 and 2, as I have shown them. they could also be taken to represent 3/2, 3/2 and 3, if you assume one column of 2 dots is equal to 1 and 1 column of 1 dot is equal to 1/2.

I was only saying that three dots plus three dots equals six dots. But you could of course treat each three set as a single unit and use it to conclude that one unit plus one unit equals two units. The point is that three plus three does not equal four or eight or a thousand or anything other than six. If there were some strange realm or situation where three dots plus three dots equals four dots, two dots would not be present where they are present, which would be a self-contradicting concept. It is therefore an impossible situation. The laws of math are absolute even though the language of math is not.

Originally Posted by wendylove

If youre the paradox then you can't escape it.

And this is the point we keep disagreeing on. The main problem, I think, is that we are thinking in limited terms. Your thinking is istricktly in the "here-and-now": Current physics/Your Logic stat this this and this. That is that.

Mine may be far to "Trancendent" (though to me I doubt it) if I may use that word. I am looking that things from a vastly different perspective, for I feel that the human can't understand everything. Our minds aren't capable of seeing things that it has never experienced.

There within lies the problem.

I'm sorry wendy, but you will have a very hard time convincing me that we as humans can know everything, and that our "laws" govern everything. WE may know a little, but we will never know all the Mysteries.

Mathematical logic is true always. I use mathematical logic.

Prove yourself to me mathematically.

If god can't do everything then he is not all powerful.

Define "All". Does it mean He can escape from a Paradox?

Their is only one true logic, which is mathematical logic. Maths is too do with truth a pattarn, so maths is truth like 2.00 apples plus 2.00 appless will always equal 4.00 apples.

Once again, I ask you to prove yourself to me Mathematically.

First off all art is about emotions and science is about testing stuff. Now, what does this have to do with truth, art is not higher truth a artist will never solve a paradox by drawing it on a piece of paper. It something is true you can prove it using maths.

Prove that there was a yesterday mathematically. Do the same for the existence of Apples. Prove existence using maths. If you can disprove God with maths, then proving everything else should be easy, no?

Well, thought can be classed in artifical intelligence if you want to know how maths handles thought then read this book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach
You can prove atoms with mathematics. Firstly look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac now he predicted the exsistance of a antiparticle using only mathematics, again the greeks used mathematics of infinty to prove atoms or quarks. Paul Dirac only used mathematics to make one of physics best theories to date, it is the most precise and all off this came from logic.

I will look into it.

Quantum gravity makes sure naked singularities don't exsist.

That is actually still not proven, but okay.

No this is wrong. See god has certain properties like being all powerful, now being all powerful is the paradox.

But as I have said before, being OP means you can escape from a paradox. Also, if logic is only confined to this reality, then a being who exists outside. But how can we know that without evidence, you no-doubt ask. True, we can't, but we also cannot dismiss the possibility out of hand. That is not the way of science or logic.

If I said their is a person that exsist if this statement is false, then the person does not exsist as the property he has is impossible. Now god has a impossible property.

See above

Of course, 2.00 apples plus 2.00 apples equals 4.00 apples exsist outside the universe. Truth exsist.

I'm glade to hear that.

The zeno paradox is not a paradox, now less able people who don't know mathematics would proberly see it as a paradox.

Yet it has been called a paradox by mathematicians for a very long time. Yet you just proved my point: Where one person sees a paradox, other do not. Zeno would argue with you that this is a paradox, and that this is logic, yet you argue the opposite. Who is right?
Little doubt that you will say you, but only because you see the answer and he didn't

Do you know calculus,

I know basic calculus, yes.

if you do then you would now that he constantly moving and so it infintly sums up to the real value. Again no paradox, it just some fun for mathematical lazy to think about.

I know this, the whole "limit" thing, correct? Yes, you don't see a problem, neither do I, for that matter. But others do.

Oh, and it actually doesn't ever reach infinity

Also the zeno paradox was not based on logic, but some philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides
Now any person with basic logic can see the zeno paradox is nothing but rubbish philosophy.

That is the origin of Logic.

Logic is the truth, so your basically anwsering can god exsist outside of truth. I agree god does exsist outside the truth, he doesn't exsist that the truth.

To each his own. I have little left to say on this matter that I haven't already.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Keeper, let's cut to the chase. The point is that the concept of an infinitely powerful being, which you yourself in this very thread have said is a being that "can do ANYTHING", contradicts itself.

Only if you think that a Infinitely powerful being is not infinitely powerful enough to escape a logical paradox, in which case it is not infinitely powerful. However, as I have mentioned, that may not be what God is. How would we ever know?

It is an illogical concept. An infinitely powerful being would, by definition, be able to create a being more powerful than itself, but also by definition, not be able to create a being more powerful than itself. That concept contradicts itself. An infinitely powerful being would be able to create a stone so heavy it cannot lift it, yet be able to lift what it cannot lift, even though it can. The idea does not make sense.

As I have said, there are two answers.

I just realized that this isn't a "Ask Me" thread anymore

So, any other Questions?

Originally Posted by Keeper

Only if you think that a Infinitely powerful being is not infinitely powerful enough to escape a logical paradox, in which case it is not infinitely powerful. However, as I have mentioned, that may not be what God is. How would we ever know?

Yes, an infinitely powerful being would hypothetically be able to escape a logical paradox. That is why I think the concept of infinite power is illogical. There is no way to escape a logical paradox, so infinite power is impossible.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes, an infinitely powerful being would hypothetically be able to escape a logical paradox. That is why I think the concept of infinite power is illogical. There is no way to escape a logical paradox, so infinite power is impossible.

And for that reason arguing the matter is pointless, as we will in all likelihood never know. Also, I can't make you see things the way I see them when to you - knowing my argument on the subject - feel it is illogical.

Shall we agree to disagree?

Originally Posted by Keeper

Shall we agree to disagree?

No, I think we should disagree to disagree.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I was only saying that three dots plus three dots equals six dots. But you could of course treat each three set as a single unit and use it to conclude that one unit plus one unit equals two units. The point is that three plus three does not equal four or eight or a thousand or anything other than six. If there were some strange realm or situation where three dots plus three dots equals four dots, two dots would not be present where they are present, which would be a self-contradicting concept. It is therefore an impossible situation. The laws of math are absolute even though the language of math is not.

Similar to what I said in my example to Wendy, 3+3=11 in a base 5 number system. Just like any language, you can only communicate successfully with mathematics when you define all terms, conditions and their relevance to the phenomena you are trying to explain. Without context math is meaningless and all contexts are subjective in regards to the observer.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Similar to what I said in my example to Wendy, 3+3=11 in a base 5 number system. Just like any language, you can only communicate successfully with mathematics when you define all terms, conditions and their relevance to the phenomena you are trying to explain. Without context math is meaningless and all contexts are subjective in regards to the observer.

So I need to specify that I am dealing with base 10? Okay, I am dealing with base 10. I think you know what meanings my words have without my defining every single one of them. My point is that the reality behind the symbols as they are intended is objective reality that is absolute. If you have this many and you add this many , you have this many . There are no exceptions to that.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So I need to specify that I am dealing with base 10? Okay, I am dealing with base 10. I think you know what meanings my words have without my defining every single one of them. My point is that the reality behind the symbols as they are intended is objective reality that is absolute. If you have this many and you add this many , you have this many . There are no exceptions to that.

When using such blanket statements as, "The point is that three plus three does not equal four or eight or a thousand or anything other than six," you better specify; otherwise you'll be shown to be wrong time and again.

This could go round and round all day. I've seen it happen before. One more counter-example, and then I'm done.

squareroot4+squareroot4+squareroot4= 6, 2, -2, or -6. Thats 4 different possible outcomes, none of which could you actually say is the "right" one. Whats more, it would even be valid to say that simplified, this equation shows how 3=4;

3(integers) = 4(possible outputs)

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

When using such blanket statements as, "The point is that three plus three does not equal four or eight or a thousand or anything other than six," you better specify; otherwise you'll be shown to be wrong time and again.

This could go round and round all day. I've seen it happen before. One more counter-example, and then I'm done.

squareroot4+squareroot4+squareroot4= 6, 2, -2, or -6. Thats 4 different possible outcomes, none of which could you actually say is the "right" one. Whats more, it would even be valid to say that simplified, this equation shows how 3=4;

3(integers) = 4(possible outputs)

Every positive real number has a negative and a positive square root.

It is always understood that people are using base 10 unless stated otherwise. Does your post number need to have "using base 10" beside it? What about the national debt or number of new immigrants per year? I know algebra and geometry books don't specify it. I also specified it in my last post. My point that the realities behind the symbols are absolute stands.

The inherent problem with speaking in absolutes as you so often do is that you must cover all your bases if you hope to not be so easily proven wrong. The post count does not claim to be an absolute truth. The statistics you mentioned do not claim to be absolute truths. You did, and so you will be held to higher standards; standards you are incapable of meeting.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The inherent problem with speaking in absolutes as you so often do is that you must cover all your bases if you hope to not be so easily proven wrong. The post count does not claim to be an absolute truth. The statistics you mentioned do not claim to be absolute truths. You did, and so you will be held to higher standards; standards you are incapable of meeting.

I did meet the standards, and the post count and the statistics I mentioned are absolutes. This is the 125th post in this thread, and that number does not depend on perspective or gravity or anything else. There were 124 posts before it. I don't have to define every word in this paragraph to legitimately make that point.

This conversation, like our triangle one, is getting away from the point. The topic is the objective and absolute nature of mathematical reality, in terms not of the symbols but in terms of what the symbols are used to represent. You are not addressing the major point I keep making. The mathematical realities behind the intended symbols are objective and absolute. If you disagree with that, why?