The very existence of the universe constitutes the proof. Not in your very limìted sense of proof but in the broader sense that everything that has no scientific explanation for its existence is a proof of creation. — EugeneW

That is basically the reason they say that Columbus discovered America, because there was no proof of it existing before he got there. And we all know what kind of bullshit that is.
Once again no scientific explanation being available for something does not mean that there is not a scientific explanation for it.

There was once a time, and not to long ago, that man could not explain what all of the "stars" in the sky were. Many believed that they were all stars in the cluster that came to be known as the Milky Way. It turned out, about a hundred years ago, that many are separate galaxies.
Time is needed to find the properties of the universe and work out the details to explain it.

It's eternal and infinìte and the laws are too dumb to create themselves. So they can only be created. — EugeneW

Maybe you should try reading a science book or two. There are some very good ones made for 5th, 6th graders that explain a lot of things about the universe. Are you really sure that you need the greatness of a god to create dumb laws for the universe? You make it sound like he did it as a hobby.

Yes. Boring argument! "How can the gods let that happen?" I've heard it 1000 times now. WTF should they care what and how we fuck up? — EugeneW

Yes, I have heard it used many times as well, but I figured out why it keeps happening. Because no one has been smart enough to give an answer. It is impossible for anyone with half a brain and a teaspoon of intelligence to reconcile a kind, loving, supposedly super intelligent creator of the universe with the shithead that does not seem to care about his own creation.

How else can it be? A physical explanation doesn't explain why the physical is there in the first place. — EugeneW

Some people cannot explain why their kids exist, that does not mean that there is no explanation.

But what exactly do you mean when you say "physical explanation"? An explanation would surely have to be contained in some form of communication method, so I am guessing you mean a book or something similar. If there is still no known explanation of how the universe came into being, would it not be surprising to find a "physical explanation" of it in the library?

It's possible not to believe. You wouldn't be a liar but a denier. — EugeneW

Actually no, you are wrong.
I don't believe in the Spaghetti Monster so I am not a believer. But I do not be a denier either. I would just be someone that does not give a shit about it. Action is implicit in being a denier.

Bad idea! — Agent Smith

Boring as hell as well. :worry:

Jackpot! And if the gap is closed, we can nothing but conclude that the building blocks of the universe had to be created. — EugeneW

I have still not seen any proof of that. Are you going to provide any evidence or just continue chanting the same sentence with different words. Repetition of a mistake or untruth does not make it right or true. Conclusions prove nothing, it is the evidence that is used to reach a conclusion that counts.

Modern man is on its way to destroy the beauty that evolved from it. By building railroads, energy plants, factories, etc. — EugeneW

And the gods are OK with that? If so, then there is the proof that mankind was not made in the image of a god. Because no one I know would let someone into their personal home to destroy it.
I think you must have missed the part where I explained about that. Lots of people feel no remorse about the way the planet is treated, but tread on a flower in their garden and they get pissed off. It is their creation, their personal piece of ground. Just as the earth is said to be gods personal creation that he does not seem to give a damn about..

It is also interesting that you used the word evolve to talk about a creation, but we can let that slip unnoticed I believe.

The gods play their own game, not worrying about the games played here. — EugeneW

I once knew a gentleman that spent more than 30 years building a miniature railway in his basement. He used to work at two jobs and get in as much overtime as he could in both and spent most of his money on pieces to build it.
Just looking at the love and dedication put into building all of the thousands of tiny trees, buildings, roads with signs, lakes and so many other details made me want to cry for joy. To see the cars and trains moving around was like watching scenes from real life. He could run about 8 or 10 trains at the same time the thing was so big and on so many levels.

So some religions see mankind as made in the image of their god and think that we were created to be like him.

The man I knew was mentally retarded to a certain degree, never married, no kids and lived in his mothers house. A truly gentle man.

But there is no way in hell he would have just let the fucking neighbor's kids come in and start smashing things up and making a mess of his creation.

But I suppose that if one could create the universe in just seven days or get a turtle to lay an egg or any of those other creation stories why should you give a shit about it. When it breaks, just create a new one.

The fundamental laws of nature and the stuff acting conformly to them contain no recipe how they came into being. — EugeneW

Which fundamental laws are we talking about here? Maybe you could give us an example.
My granny's potato cakes never had a recipe for them either, but they were delicious every time.

Just because something has not been explained does not mean that there is no explanation for it. It just means ignorance still exists.

I don't find the real responsibility for writings to be readable in this chain of logic that I have found. — The Absolute Future

Supposedly, your writing is for others to read. Otherwise you would not have wasted your time.
Supposedly those who read it should enjoy it or maybe form some sort connection to it.

Part of reading something is understanding the words, ideas and information in the writing. When you understand something it makes it possible to form an opinion about it. That is why most good writes break their writing into smaller pieces that are well organized and use clear language.

And judging from the number of posters on this thread that actually respond to your thoughts, maybe you should rethink the way you present future posts.

But please feel free to ignore my friendly advice, and I won't be sending a bill for my services.

No, we don't. All gods are true gods. But if people wanna fight about it, it's up to them. — EugeneW

And I suppose that the benevolent gods sit on the sidelines cheering their team on as well. But I suppose you answer that the gods gave them free will to do as they please.

The universe can't exist because of natural laws only. — EugeneW

And how exactly do you now this? Maybe you could share the evidence you have, I am sure that many of us here would love to see it.

It would be an empty meaningless universe without gods. Now that's proof. — EugeneW

So we need gods so that people can go to war about which is the true god and give the universe meaning.

Before you can make this statement, I think you should submit some proof that the universe either should have, needs, or is somehow dependent on having a meaning.
You cannot state that it would be meaningless without mankind's gods unless it is actually supposed to have a meaning.

You mentioned 'Wet-gloom-shine' in the OP. — ucarr

:lol: :rofl:

Patterns: We have no choice in this regard. If what goes up must come down — Agent Smith

Right, gravity exists without human intervention. Even without humans coming up with the idea of describe it by using numbers it would still hold us on the ground, but there would be no description of it. Math is in the human mind.

These patterns are not invented by us, they're out there, independent of us. The universe exhibits mathematical patterns and these weren't imposed on the universe by us with the aid of language. — Agent Smith

As I have said, everything has properties.

OK, so Banno's red cup actually has red as part of it's being. Or does it just have a property we call red?

First thing a writer should learn to do is organize the words into readable groups called paragraphs. Each paragraph should contain its own idea.

Small pieces are easier to digest.

There's no wiggle room here. — ucarr

Only your word for that, and I am a non believer. The key to your concept is the "built in" bit. But nothing can be proven to contain any mathematical information. If you can show any definitive proof of this claim, please do so. But stating that it is true does not make it so.

If a stone contains that information about itself, which of the stones in a quarry contains the data about the pile? None of them.
As I said already, you are repeating yourself. Please stop.

An invention, in my view, is essentially imagination based. Ergo, what's invented needn't correspond to reality (unicorns, leprechauns, fairies don't exist). — Agent Smith

Most, if not all languages spoken on earth were invented or came from someone's imagination. So you think that languages need not correspond to reality then? That they would not correlate to anything physical?

This has to mean something; it can't be ignored, oui?

The logic here is airtight, is it not? — ucarr

PSsssssssssssssss. :smirk:

When and if I invent a language, the words, their definitions, can't be arbitrary i.e. if I coin a word and define it as I please, the properties listed in my definition will not/should not magically appear in the world.

The words "leprechaun", "elf", "fairy" are such kinds of words - their extension is empty. — Agent Smith

Ask almost anyone to describe a leprechaun or an elf, maybe even an angel. I bet they can do it.

These are words that are used to describe things, whether concrete or abstract. Math is used to describe the properties of the universe and uses words such as inches, meters, degrees, numbers. None of which appear magically in the world but all are just as "real" as a faerie.

Here's where things get interesting because what you have written above is a full, unconditional affirmation of what I've been claiming from the start. — ucarr

Could you just go back to the OP and point out exactly where you stated that. No, don't bother.

You are repeating yourself using different words but saying the same thing. I doubt that anyone has any possibility of change your way of thinking and you have no way of changing anyone else's. The argument has been running for years with advancing at all.

One last question. You don't have to answer.
If mankind had never invented and renovated and updated mathematics to fit into the little bit of the universe that it actually manages to describe reasonably well, would we be stuck with describing it as a very big colorful place with lots of stuff floating around?
My answer would be yes, because math has nothing to do with the universe. It is just the method of describing the properties. We would still be able to describe a lot of the properties because ordinary langue suffices for that.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. — Agent Smith

Look at your favorite coffee mug, now describe it. You use words to describe right? Did it have the properties you used before you described it or did they come into being when you did it? Now imagine try to describe something without the words to do it. Impossible right?

That is what math does. Describes the properties of things using numbers instead of words.

If universe is non- mathematical, how does this impact status of applied math? — ucarr

Mankind will have to find another way to describe the universe and they will chuck applied math out of the window as obsolete.

Do you know you're entangling mental objects with physical objects? I suspect your premise here is rooted in subjective materialism. — ucarr

Do you think that math cannot be applied to non material objects. I had two dreams last night and three the day before.

Holy shit!!! Non material things are mathematical as well. OR NOT.

I suspect you have no idea how to continue proving your point so you are trying to confuse the topic.

Are you okay with science reverted back to the period before the scientific method? — ucarr

Apart from the fact that it is a bloody stupid question, how do you think my answer would help you to prove that the universe is mathematical?

You are the one that has stated that mathematics was clearly a part of the universe before humans existed, therefore the universe is mathematical. Exactly what proof have you offered?

but the universe was/had to be mathematical before we learned how to describe it, no? — Agent Smith

No, it was only describable. Then math was invented to help describe it.

Well, what about cosmology - the Big Bang Theory for example? Scientists project backwards from the knowns of the present - speed of expansion of the universe (accelerating), estimates of mass of the universe, etc. - and they find that the universe must've begun 13.8 billion years ago. Then they searched for corroborative evidence and found it as cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). All these projections into the past are mathematical in nature. In other words, given humans are only a 300k year old species, it follows that the universe was mathematical way before humans came into existence. — Agent Smith

Yes they do just that. They have invented a language that describes the universe in its current state and they use that to. Then they use the same language to look for evidence of it being true. From that it follows that it has only been possible for humans to describe it for a few years.

You can do the same with a couple of photos of someone that were taken a few years apart, you can guess what they looked like in the past and what they will look like in the future. Then go and look for pictures of them in the past to see if you were right or hang around for a few years to see if they change the way you predicate.

Something about material things makes them countable.

Mind you, the language that does the counting, math, does not make material things countable.

Being countable is part of the makeup, part of the being of material things. — ucarr

Could that something that makes them countable be their presence? Based on the idea that you cannot count things that are not there to be counted, maybe this is so.
I can count my ideas about how to solve a problem, I can count sheep on the field or in my mind, I can even count how many times you have failed to provide any detailed proof to back up your way of thinking. But I find it incredibly hard to count nothing. You try it, how many diphthongs are in the following paragraph?



How many did you find? None I guess.
You did not find any because there were none to find, If I had written any there they would have been easy to find.
The logical conclusion is that what makes objects countable is simple their presence.

We suspect that these as yet uncountable things will eventually become countable, when their mathematical expression gets resolved, but the fact of their being countable prior to math being able to actually do the counting makes it logically clear that math does not impart countability to these material things, otherwise we would not struggle to count them. Instead, all we would have to do is create some math that imparts countability to these things and then they would be countable.

We both know that's not how the world works. — ucarr

I don't know who we are but maybe you are right, or not. Who knows, mankind might be extinct before the can invent languages complicated enough to describe the rest of the universe.

The reason is more likely that most of the universe has no mathematical structure. Already three bodies interacting gravitationally do not move on mathematically well-defined ways, unless specific boundary conditions are fulfilled. So a mathematical universe is a fiction, a myth. — EugeneW

Thank you. At least someone else understands that math is just another language used to describe the universe. :100: :party:

therefore, per your stipulation, acknowledge that humans put numbers onto material objects to describe what was already there before they developed the writing of numbers? — ucarr

Yes, just as they put colors, shapes and lots of other stuff.

Since you've made this statement, do you acknowledge that material things are countable? — ucarr

Of course they are, did I not make it clear enough that was the reason for inventing numbers.

Could something be described fluxmatically if math has not been invented? Could something be described noxmixically if math has not been invented? Could something be described (fill in the blank with your own word) if math has not been invented? Could something be described... — ucarr

Oh dear, you do go on a bit don't you. And you are good at invent gobbledygook. Humans need to describe things, they will always find a way to do so. A river gets deeper one day and some measures it at 5 meters, the next day someone else measures it a 17 feet. Did the level rise or lower? Metric and standard are two methods of measuring, but both describe the depth of the river. There are many examples of measuring systems for anything that can be measured. And they have all been invent by humans.

Numbers have always existed, 3.1415929... being one of the worst ever imagined. Then [but until] someone invented a method of naming them. Now it has the illustrious name of Pi. Could it be possible that the same has happened to colors? — ucarr

Would we even know about Pi if someone had not invented a method to work it out and describe it? The same goes for black holes, they say that they have always been there, but until recently they have invent the mathematical equations to more or less prove their existence.

Since you have made the above statement, do you think if follows that the universe, which pre-dates human math, has always been describable via the language of math? — ucarr

I suppose it has, and I know that is the only method of doing so that humans have discovered. But I cannot be sure whether other methods exist or not, and neither can you. All we know is what the science department has told us.

Do you agree that from this it follows that math expresses its form and content in connection with the form and content of the universe? — ucarr

That is what humans made it for, it would not exist still if it did not work to some extent.

Do you agree that when you talk of math striving to fit reality, and sometimes failing, you imply that math fails in its core mission when it doesn't fit reality? — ucarr

If math was perfect why did it take so long and have so many theories thrown out or overturned by new theories? If the math had been there all along why does it need to change. The simple reason is that while the universe is describable mathematically humans have still not figured out all of the math necessary to do the job and are still working on invent new ideas and methods to do so.

I have asked you if you would give 2-stone and 3-stone the same number. Are you unwilling to answer this question? — ucarr

I honestly thought you were joking when you asked such a ridiculous question. But I think that you yourself answered it when you called both of them piles of stones. Same name would even fit 20-stone.

Right in that the mathematical laws of nature preexisted humans — Agent Smith

How could they exist if math had not been invented. The universe exist before humans did, and humans wanted to describe it. So they invented the names of colors, shapes, sizes and many other characteristics that objects have. Mathematical laws are made by mankind to do that job, describe. They are nothing more than a specialized language.
Math is the human's way of describing the universe's characteristics as well but they had to do a lot of trying to get the formulas to fit the reality. And they have still a very long way to go and a lot of methods to invent to get to the end.
We humans believe that it must be a universal way of describing things, even going to the extent of send mathematical messages into space in the hope that beings from other worlds will understand the concepts. Maybe they will but there is always the possibility that they have other methods of doing it.

Read my reply. :cool: :smirk:

Do you acknowledge that the numbers we put onto material objects describe what was already there before human started writing numbers? — ucarr

If you acknowledge that humans spoke the numbers for thousands of years before they wrote then yes, I can do that.
But that just means that numbers were invented for counting before writing was invented for accounting. It in no way shows that numbers are part of the articles they describe.

Sorry for butting in, but the universe was behaving in a mathematical way (physics + chemistry) long before humans (biology) even entered the fray so to speak. I dunno, just saying. — Agent Smith

Actually, you are right and wrong. Could something be described mathematically if math has not been invented?
Colors have always existed, drab brown being one of the worst ever imagined. But until someone invented a method of naming them. Now it has the illustrious name of Pantone 448 C. Could it be possible that the same has happened to numbers?
We now use math to describe the universe, but we had to invent the math(numbers and equations) to explain it, to make the calculations fit reality. And a lot of explanations turn out to be wrong.

I'm incredibly overworked and came here to decompress and now I want to offer my services to write an algorithm to prevent morons from posting just because I'm so sad right now. — SkyLeach

Think you are too late mate, they are all around us. They come talking sweetly and seduce the minds of the smart and brave so that they become blathering idiots. Don't trust anyone, anyone of the posters here might suck up your intellect. :wink:

Pile of 2-stones sits on a red square. Close by, pile of 3-stones sits on a green square.

Seeing pile-of-2-stones and pile-of-3-stones, would you give each pile the same label? — ucarr

I doubt that many would call two or three stones a pile, but who knows. The same applies here as I said above, if the piles of stones already had a label there would be no need to give them one. Nothing has numbers as part of their make up, numbers were invented by man so that he could work out how the universe works.

If it were discovered that Germany has already established Fluxmax-stones = 3-stones, would the equation 2-stones = Fluxmax-stones have to be changed to 2-stones ≠ Fluxmax-stones? — ucarr

That is sort of like asking if the cowshit you found was discovered to come from a bull would we have to call it NOT COWSHIT.
No, we would just call it bullshit.

And of course we see numbers everywhere, we put them there.

There's a stone sitting on a red square. Close by, there's a stone sitting on a green square. A person sees them and gives them a label. Label = 2-stones. — ucarr

Giving them a label is the key there, if the number label where part of the stone no one will need to "give" them anything

Do you think 2-stones can be replaced with Fluxmax-stones and would make no difference? — ucarr

Of course it could be replaced with anything, as long as it is universally accepted. Fluxmax-stones could quite easily be 2-stones in some sort of technical language.

Whatever they are called is because of human constructed language, not because of stones having built in numbers.

Ever read a biology book? — ucarr

Yes.

You've been debating me about pure math & how it's uncoupled from the material world — ucarr

No, I cannot remember even mentioning it. We were discussing the materialistic qualities of numbers, which is no existent.

Human concepts are based on observations of surrounding natural forms. — ucarr

Which natural forms are the base for books? On which natural form is animal training based?

And how does this all intertwine with the OP?

Concept - Philosophy - an idea or mental picture of a group or class of objects formed by combining all their aspects. -- The Apple Dictionary — ucarr

But it is not always necessary to have physical representations.

Consider a) Mental representations of material objects; b) material representations of concepts

Which comes first? — ucarr

I would think that it would be impossible to have a man made physical object without there being a concept on which to base it.
But it would be impossible to form a concept of something natural without having at least some of the characteristics being known.

I'm saying that number symbols refer to & derive meaning from material things whose set of attributes includes one particular attribute I call number. All of this verbiage is an attempt to say material objects are numericalizable because they have a built-in property of being movable, which is to say, positionable. — ucarr

645,798,845,635,345,665,332,313,464,655,876,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

If numbers derive meaning from material things, then the number above either has no meaning or a meaning that is unknown. Which do you think it is.

Numbers do not represent objects they specify the quantity of objects, the length of object, the weight of objects. But not the objects themselves.

If I remember Battleship correctly, there is a plastic platform full of holes, the grid where a player's battleship moves to various positions. — ucarr

Before that was invented we used to play on 2 pieces of paper. Draw lines with a pencil to form a grid, letters on the top numbers down the side. But they decided to make easier and dumb down the people. But they both are only physical representations of concepts. The location C12 is not a physical thing, ask any kid that learns about map coordinates or Excel in school.

Yes, number symbols & words are signs that refer to material things. — ucarr

Could you then please indicate to me where I can appreciate a nice looking number 69. I doubt that you can.


This is the image of a Greek road sign. Is it a physical number? No, it is only the paint on a piece of metal that has been manipulated so at to form what is commonly accepted as the visual representations of the numbers 6 and 9. The paint is physical, the metal is physical but the idea is still an abstract.

Numbers do not refer to physical things either, they refer to the quantity(another abstract) of physical objects.

Are you saying the positional grid, a material thing, possesses the property of number? — ucarr

The positional grid is not a material thing, it is an abstract. And numbers are also abstract ideas that have physical representations or icons so that dumb people like most of us can use the concepts.

Just like an word does, they represent ideas. Writing words and numbers down does not make them physical objects, it just makes it easier to transmit ideas.
Try playing telegraph with a few friends using a complicated idea, see if the idea can be passed on accurately.

Material Numbers – because a material object can hold a position, perhaps we can understand that any material object has a built-in property of number. The number property of a material object is its ability to afford a slot wherein a set of possible numbers gives value to its position within an array of other material objects in interrelationship. — ucarr

Did you ever play battleship? The numbers are part of the positional grid, not properties of the object.

RIP Gary Brooker

I hadn't noticed before "Flying high in the sky" instead of "Blotted out from the sky" which, beside Mick's clear vocal, makes more sense. "Mistake?" Maybe ... — 180 Proof

Yep, that's the one I heard and saw. Maybe Mick's voice is the reason for it, but you can find the lyrics all over the internet.

Did you notice the mistake in the video?

But we've just established that at a certain speed only distance is metered. So if there isn't much traffic, a taxi driver can increase his daily income if he speeds to get more fares for the day. — Nils Loc

Agreed, but this would then depend on variables such as final location, route taken, distance from starting point, time of day. It would not be standard set of variables for each customer.

There would also be limits imposed in some places on speed of vehicles. I don't know if it is still true but the cab company my mother worked for had speed regulators on all of their cars, many companies had them.

But one thing that is almost always true, the cabby is not going to lose money. He just has to find a way to maximize the number of trips he makes.