we can dispense with these terms, "subject" and "subjective" and get by just fine. It seems to me that it is the use of those terms that cause the confusion. — Harry Hindu

:up:

You're right, it's not really about God at all, it's about everything that can be said about the world or everything that is the case — S

No. From the OP:

does God posses 'subjecthood'? — Wallows

It's about a word, and whether that word applies to God. So does it? :chin:

It's an irrational emotional attachment. They want something which they can relate to. — S

It's worth remembering that this topic is not about God, but whether a particular word - "subjecthood" - might apply to God. We might as usefully ask whether a dog or a martian is adequately described by "subjecthood".... :chin:

A robot with a computer brain could be programmed to update its own programming — Harry Hindu

Indeed it could. But this we must avoid at all costs! :fear:

Once an AI has the freedom to evolve and improve itself, there is no predicting what it might do. To unleash such a thing into the universe is typically human - when Curie discovered radioactivity, the first thing the Victorians did with it was to drink it as a remedy. Thousands of people died of throat cancers, and the story isn't even known! - but hugely dangerous and irresponsible. If you agree we should not fill the world with (say) active and uncontained nuclear fuel, then you must also agree that we should not release uncontrolled and unconstrained AIs into the world?

why does no other country pay the same? — Inis

Because very few countries are as rich as we are? Only five countries in the whole world (which boasts hundreds of countries) have more than we do. And besides, I thought Germany paid more than we do, and maybe other members too? :chin:

Then why mention a 'better deal'? There won't be one.

Unicorns are not real because they are as they are only because people think of them that way... — aletheist

...which is what makes them real! They are not real in the same way that rocks and crocodiles are real. They're real like Harry Potter and mathematics are. For unicorns, Harry and mathematics are all human inventions that have no existence in the space-time universe that science so ably describes. They were invented for quite different reasons, admittedly, but none of them are "real" as you use the term. :up:

No, we should seek a better one. — S

Hasn't the EU already told us it's this deal or none? They are the biggest economic power bloc on the planet. Once we've left, we're just a third-world country struggling (and failing) to accept the end of our Empire. The position we occupy in the world, on the UN Security Council, and our privileged position in the EU, are all courtesy based on our history. We no longer rate that kind of respect, as we are about to find out when we leave our cosy seat in the EU....

Is the trinity logically incoherent? — Walter Pound

Logically? Probably, yes. Outside of a strictly logical/scientific framework, it is coherent, just as the triple goddesses of history are. If you are trying to analyse spiritual matters in a logical fashion, I'm afraid you might be wasting your time. :roll:

if you say that to a socialist or a social democrat, then you will be accused of engaging in methodological individualism or of being an apologist of the status quo for not seeing the systemic nature of the inequality in question. — Walter Pound

Bo**ocks! This is like me accusing fascists and capitalists of paedophilia, just because they're the people I most disagree with. Please confine yourself to describing what people-like-you think, and leave those with whom you disagree to express their own views.

None of those. We just treat people fairly. It's a simple enough concept; I don't think it benefits from a political brand, do you?

[I.e. it is political, of course. Almost everything is. But fairness is well-enough understood by all of us to travel alone, without the need for it being assigned or denied to libertarians, socialists or cyclists.]

The social justice crowd is an obnoxious bunch — Walter Pound

Just look at the description you offer: social justice. Fairness in the way people treat one another. And this offends you? I wonder why?

"Political correctness" is a slightly silly synonym for "courtesy". And the purpose of courtesy is to allow plain speech without the interchange degenerating into violence. It's a way of getting on with other humans, we being a social species. Your intolerance of others trying to treat others fairly is difficult for me to understand.

An axiom should be more than a guess IMO. The original definition of axiom was 'self evident truth'. — Devans99

And a self-evident-truth is ... a guess. For if we could manage anything more - ideally, proof - then we would. And when we can't, we guess. Self-evidently, of course. :wink:

Sorry I have given up on the maths of infinity. What is the point of having a quantity (infinity) that you can do nothing with mathematically; you cannot add/subtract/multiply/divide without hitting a contradiction... sort of my point... every way we turn, infinity leads to contradictions. It's too illogical to be a real world concept. — Devans99

Quite right. But mathematicians needed infinity, so they shoe-horned it into their arithmetic and algebra, even though it is obvious that it doesn't and can't fit there, as you describe. :up: But them's the rules (of how infinity is handled), so your attempt to ridicule it is pointless. The whole idea is ridiculous but necessary, so that's that. <wry grin + shrug>

∞ = ∞ * 100 — Devans99

...always remembering that it is mathematically invalid to divide both sides of the equation by infinity. You did remember that, right? :chin:

I think I will maybe adopt 'things need a non-zero length to exist' as an axiom. — Devans99

Interesting. So consider length, the human concept of length. It has no length, being a non-physical thing. But it exists. And remember that axioms are guesses, that we call axioms partly to make them sound more credible and scientific, but mainly because we cannot prove them, so we assert them instead, without a shred of evidence or justification. If we could prove them, we would. When we can't we pretend: axioms.

Returning to the original sub-thread:

Where in the scientific space-time universe is "two"? — Pattern-chaser


Two (or any other number) is a very specific and distinct condition and relation in the universe (or in reality). We could call it by any other name but the exact significance of that identity can never alter. I think numerical values exist because, otherwise, it would be impossible to account for relativity or the many aspects of reality. — BrianW

Impossible to account for? Impossible to/for who? Humans, of course. The universe has no need for numbers, which is lucky because they don't exist in the space-time universe.

But numbers sure as Hell do exist, just as Harry Potter does. In the minds of humans. We created them. Harry we made to entertain us, and he does so admirably. Numbers we made to help us describe the space-time universe. Because we can't grok the universe in one piece, as it really is, we split it up into smaller and smaller parts until we stand a chance of the merest whiff of understanding. It's what we do, because we have no choice. But what we do is out of necessity, and it has no logical or rational justification other than that: we have no choice. Numbers help us describe the universe, but they are not part of the universe.

As for these 'specific and distinct condition and relations', these too are human inventions. The universe is what it is, and it is able to do what it does with none of this human baggage you are dragging into the mix. Some parts of the universe were attracted to one another billions of years before Newton conceived of "gravity". The attraction the universe just does, all on its own, because it cannot do otherwise. But it doesn't need 'gravity' to do it. It's us who need 'gravity', because without it we cannot clarify or describe our understandings to ourselves or to one another.

The symbol "2" is not itself 2... — Walter Pound

No, it's not. But it represents 2, the number. If numbers don't exist, 2 does not exist, and the symbol ("2") has no meaning, for there is nothing for it to symbolise. Your position is untenable and ridiculous. Please drop it. Thanks.

2 = 2 is true without 2 being a real entity. — Walter Pound

You didn't say "not real" you said not-existing:

Numbers don't have to exist for a mathematician to say... — Walter Pound

With no numbers, there can be no number theory. Your position is unjustifiable. Sorry.

On the contrary. Have you noticed that fertility rates globally have gone down? — ssu

They have indeed, but not enough to slow things down all that much, and it wasn't something we did, it just happened. God did it! :wink:

This is 1970's reasoning, which has been shown to be incorrect. — ssu

Interesting. I was under the impression that global warming and pollution are proceeding as they have done since the 70s and before, and (in many cases) still accelerating. It seems I'm wrong. Can you offer some justification for your happy conclusion? :chin:

I was generalizing for other people who might have experienced something similar or the same. — Wallows

...without actually knowing if anyone did experience what you did not! :wink:

My experience was completely like this. Completely controlled as a child with no preparation for adulthood. Then turn 17 and expected to fend for myself. — Andrew4Handel

Ah, here's someone with actual experience. :smile:

Numbers don't have to exist for a mathematician to say that the square root of 2 is irrational or that 2 is equal to 4 divided by 2. — Walter Pound

:chin: :wink:

No, you weren't just let go, your mother supported you. So you have not had the experience you speculate upon. So who has? :chin:

But you introduced the topic by asserting that experience...?

Then it isn't your experience. Whose experience is it?

I no longer think numbers were invented. I'm now inclined to think numbers are an expression of a relationship which has always existed in nature, and which we discovered. — BrianW

Where in the scientific space-time universe is "two"? Yes, you can find similar (is there any such thing as exactly identical?) things there, which we might enumerate, but where is "two"? It isn't there. There is no logical reason to subdivide the universe anyway; it's one thing. Thus we need only the number "one", and even that is a concept we invented, as it doesn't exist in the universe.

Yes, we can say that these things (help us to) express things about the universe, but that doesn't mean they exist in the universe. Perhaps it is more helpful if we refer to all of these things ( the things like numbers that we invented) as 'maps' that we have made to help us navigate the universe? [No, "navigate" not meant literally.]

If numbers didn't exist at all, mathematics would be dead in the water, wouldn't it?

Our problem is, we have used scientific tools without reading the instructions. — karl stone

Yes, the misapplication of science, outside of its sphere of relevance, is, er, unwise. :up:

Can anyone explain how God is the creator of time and remains changeless? — Walter Pound

Yes, God can. Ask Her. :up: :wink:

Actual infinity, if it existed, would be a quantity greater than all other quantities, but:

There is no quantity X such that X > all other quantities because X +1 > X

Now you could define:

∞ + 1 = ∞
But that implies:
1 = 0 — Devans99

Didn't you know that the mathematics of infinity is a kludge put there to force it into the arithmetic we use on finite numbers? :chin:

Where does the number two exist in? Our heads only? — Wallows

Yes.

Is information lost when going from the fourth dimension to the third dimension? — Wallows

Yes. How could it not be?

1. A point in space cannot have size=0 because it would only exist in our minds and not reality (no width; insubstantial)
2. Similarly, the point in time ’now’ cannot have length=0 (if it exists for 0 seconds, it does not exist)
3. Or if a ‘now’ had length=0, then a second would contain 1/0=UNDEFINED ‘nows’
4. So ‘now’ has length >0
5. Can’t be length = 1/∞ because ∞ does not exist (∞ + 1 > ∞ making a nonsense of ∞. Or if you define ∞ + 1 = ∞, implies 1 = 0)
6. So a ‘now’ has a finite, non-zero length. Time is composed of a chain of ’nows’ so time must be discrete — Devans99

I think all this depends on your concept of time. What is time, to you? What do you want to do with it? Before you decide it's quantised, perhaps you should wonder whether it is quantisable (if that's a word)?

Now can indeed be of zero length. Now is a bookmark, not a duration (which would require a start and an end).

Constantly I see historical figures being vilified or being hailed as heroes, which of course is fine on its own, but should we be teaching that to children as objective truth? — TogetherTurtle

We should teach children that nothing can be (correctly) recognised by a human as "objective truth". History is as good a subject as any to introduce the concept of uncertainty to our children, and how there is nothing that is ironbound-absolute-guaranteed-truth. Nothing will benefit them more. :up:

I used to think that numbers were invented components of the numerical language which mathematics used to express logic or principles of nature. Now, I think part of it is true. — BrianW

OK, so which part have you recognised as being false?

Ignore philosophers. By this I mean it doesn't matter who thought of the idea, Schopenhauer, Kant, Hulme, Aristotle.... It's the idea that matters. Read anything that looks interesting to you, anything at all. Be a magpie. Pounce on shiny, interesting ideas, steal them, and take them back to your nest for incubation and hatching. Talk to people. Read posts here on this forum.

Enjoy! :smile:

The UK removing itself from the EU won't make it isolationist. — Hanover

:chin:

I fully expect trade to continue, just under terms negotiated by Britain. — Hanover

And how long (after Brexit) must we wait before these negotiations start, never mind bear fruit? At least one country has told us to 'get in line', as they're currently negotiating deals with bigger and more important trading partners than us. Meantime ... no imported food for us? :chin:

I think there's a definition of "independent" that doesn't include being a hermit. — Hanover

A hermit chooses to live in isolation. We won't be choosing that, we'll be finding that it's the case because everyone else is too busy living their interconnected, dependent, lives to have anything to do with a very minor country unable to transcend (or even accept) the loss of its historic empire.... :roll:

Alice Coltrane - Huntingdon Ashram Monastery

We go through life, listening to our parents until we are 18, and then poof. You're on your own? — Wallows

That isn't mandatory. Is it your experience? Most people move gradually from childhood to adulthood, helped, guided and protected by their parents, schools and maybe churches. :chin:

What are a bunch of words which rhyme with "pathetic"? — Jake

"Cathartic" isn't a very good rhyme, is it? :meh: