It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: edmc^2
Nothing is something.
originally posted by: midnightstar
The question stumped no one .
Make a question that is answered with a question does not equate to being able to give a answer to the question .
Asking what came first the chicken or egg is a round question as both came at the same time .
That time being when Humans bread the first of what we now know as a chicken .
The wild bird already layed eggs all the back to when a few billion cells found a way to create a new way to procreate .
Cause and effect applys to things in motion of any type of motion heat water effect boiling water .
until the water is heated no effect can be seen in the case of the water heat created a effect .
This applys to any effect you wish to understand .
Most effects are caused by heat and heat its self can be a cause as just pressure can create it .
But you also have chemical effects put two or more chemicals together can create many effects ask any one who has shot a gun .
Of corse this wont answer your question because your question can not be answered in any fashion that you will be happy with .which was why you posted it to begin with .
But heres is teh best answer any one can give .
what came first your post or your need for attation ?
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0nautyou're right, I was unclear in my reasoning. let me try again:
Your previous example seems to be confusing numeration with measurement.
"So,what 'caused' the number one? The unitary case?"
what caused the cause that gave rise to the number one?
i disagree. imaginary numbers are one example. theoretical figures that don't actually exist being used to support an active formula. perhaps god is the number 0.
Those numerative descriptions do not have their origin in the measurement - the measurement does not create them.
much like love, truth, and the pursuit of happiness. all of which are subjective if you dig deep enough. is the apple red? or is it every color except red? hmmm.
Does a 'concept' exist, or is a concept non-existent? It is obvious that a concept is both non-material and existent.
wait...do concepts qualify as 'things'?
The point I was making is that things may objectively exist, that have no cause.
furthermore, if a concept forms and no one is around to talk about it or remember it, does it actually form?
a reply to: chr0nautI'm not talking about the "structure of reality". god of the gaps means that god fits best where the scientific method hasn't yet been fully applied. you know, where the gaps are. the only places where the god concept doesn't have to challenge the scientific method directly.
A God hypothesis, similarly, has no holes or gaps. It embraces a natural continuum entirely, and follows natural rules (as well as rules outside of the natural). God's universe, by nature of deductive reasoning, would have no gaps. It is explorable and knowable from a human intellectual perspective, and is fully known by God.
It is the scientific body of knowledge that has the gaps. Numerous and vast ones. These are not representative of gaps in the structure of reality but are specifically limitations in the knowledge accumulated by science.
it's not a strawman at all. I'm not misrepresenting anything. I stated in very plain english the mechanics of the god of the gaps. you are the one who just misrepresented the scientific method as being unreliable simply because it doesn't magically answer every imaginable question in less than a decade. because it isn't magic, it's an intellectual technique that requires time, training, and rigorous protocols. that's why god prefers gaps.
Suggesting that other people, who see there are no inconsistencies in reality under a God hypothesis, have a "the God of the gaps" conception which they don't hold, is a very poorly reasoned and fallacious strawman type argument.
because the god of the gaps pretends to be gapless. and that is where the trouble starts.
So how can someone decrying their own ignorance even speak to the question of the existence of God?
originally posted by: Xenogears
Regards numbers they are distinct from the symbols and words used to describe them. You can take a specific distance, and measure it in kilometers, feet, wackuwacku, etc It doesn't change the existence of the actual quantity specified by the existing distance. All such measures must be inter-convertible.
The genes use algorithms, the brain functions with algorithms. The mathematics discovered by evolution, and implemented physically, were discovered independent of man because they existed irregardless of the words or symbols used to describe them.
originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
originally posted by: Xenogears
Regards numbers they are distinct from the symbols and words used to describe them. You can take a specific distance, and measure it in kilometers, feet, wackuwacku, etc It doesn't change the existence of the actual quantity specified by the existing distance. All such measures must be inter-convertible.
The genes use algorithms, the brain functions with algorithms. The mathematics discovered by evolution, and implemented physically, were discovered independent of man because they existed irregardless of the words or symbols used to describe them.
Within an observable range. There is always a range of uncertainty. Any science or engineering will include +/- confidence levels because, numbers are an approximation of reality, not reality.
originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Barcs
Mathematics is inherent in the laws of physics and nature. We didn’t invent it, we discovered it. Of course numbers are testable, that’s the whole point of maths.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut
because the god of the gaps pretends to be gapless. and that is where the trouble starts.
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Barcs
Mathematics is inherent in the laws of physics and nature. We didn’t invent it, we discovered it. Of course numbers are testable, that’s the whole point of maths.
No, we did actually invent it.
is not tangible
we use it to represent things in nature and calculate forces. Numbers are not testable
you can't always know what they indicate when looking at things like complex math theories.
Math is our description of how we measure those laws, it isn't just there built into them, it's a tool we use to explain them. You are thinking of the physical attributes themselves, rather than our advanced counting system that measures them.
originally posted by: Barcs
Math represents our measurements and calculations of things. It isn't a tangible verifiable thing. It is how we interpret phenomena and try to extrapolate it to other data sets and things we don't fully understand. That's why there are so many math theories out there that aren't based on evidence, strictly number crunching and trying to guess what those numbers actually indicate to reality. That's why you have so many conflicting views of the universe prior to big bang or the macrocosm. Science and math should never be confused. Numbers aren't tangible or testable, they represent measurements and formulas to help understand things. Mathematics is entirely man made.