Are you defining discipline as obedience to one's self? — Pantagruel

Yes, but obedience to someone else can also be a good thing if that obedience has a purpose. An athlete needs to listen to and obey the trainer. Musicians need to be attentive to the conductor. Pupils needs to be obedient to the teacher. But obedience should be understood and its purpose needs to be understood. In evil obedience is slavery to a tyrant. But there are times when obedience is wise and good.

Isn't this slavery? A slave must obey his master's command and the master makes it clear that he has zero tolerance for any disobedience. — TheMadFool

It depends on what you mean by obedience. Obedience is essential for development. eg someone practicing music or art must have great discipline/obedience. A great tennis player must make their body obedient to their mind.
Wise obedience is a good thing if it leads to freedom. A good soldier must learn obedience. A bad soldier will get killed. One must try to understand why obedience is necessary and how it leads to freedom. Sloth and disobedience don't achieve anything worth while.

The vast majority of reality at every scale is space, that which we typically call nothing, or non-being. — Nuke

In our simple human definition of being, yes. God is energy and being. Space is God. There is nowhere where God is not (space is no-thing but not nothingness (there's a difference) It has positive being.)

Every act of creation is an act of destruction, and every act of destruction is an act of creation. — Nuke

Ultimately everything is evolving and moving forward. But you cannot judge these things in human terms. Even good and evil become unclear in the hurly-burly of human affairs. Ultimately being and life emerge from matter, time and space. We'll have to wait till the end to see how it all works out.

That was very poetic. I like your personal take on it. — Benj96

Glad you enjoyed it.

Wouldn't good have to be in reference to something? You know, good for who or what? — Nuke

The existence of the good as evidence for God's existence is hard to argue with. But yes, what is the good? Ultimately the good promotes life and being. Evil is ultimately non being. The good is unity. Evil is egoism and separation; the black hole detaches itself from everything else and becomes darkness.

Then how did energy ever give rise to mass (e=mc2)? If it cannot do anything to itself in a state of pure timelessness then how did it just spontaneously slow down and get "heavy" with matter in the first place. — Benj96

That's Higgs theory; mass is a slowing down of energy. Mass and matter are not substances, they are processes.

$\exists$ x = $\frac{1}{a_1^\frac{p - 1}{2}(mod p)}$
such that x = $\pm 1$

${\sqrt {ab \pm c} \over \sqrt{x/y}} \pm 1$

$a \equiv b (mod m)$

$\phi =$$\frac {1}{1 + \frac{1}{1 + \frac{1}{1 + ...}}}$

$\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}$

${\sqrt {2 - 1/\sqrt {2}}}$

2. The magnitude of the effect is proportional to the magnitude of the *effect* — TheMadFool

Shouldn't that be 'cause'?
Corruption moves away from the good which is love, life and being. Corruption moves towards hatred, death and non being. This is despair, hell. Call this karma if you will...

You sound like the opposite to a misanthrope; you believe in humanity and the fact that you see how people's behaviour is wrong shows you believe in standards of behaviour. As for being irritated - there will always be such people. Personally I choose to ignore them as far as possible. Gravitate towards better folk.

Thus, consciousness is needed to make physical reality meaningful.

Well, that goes without saying. How can meaning exist outside a mind? I think he is talking about something slightly different here.

'What did you do to the cat, Erwin? — Wayfarer

Schrodinger's Cat was not originally meant to be taken seriously. It was an illustration of the problems with emerging quantum mechanics at the time.

A lot of this confusion about things not happening until we 'observe' them has to do with a conflation between detection and observation, as if they were the same thing. But they are not.

Observation is when a scientist looks at the results of an experiment. That has nothing to do with how the experiments takes place or what the results are.

Detection is when a particle in the quantum universe/spacetime collides with an object (experimental apparatus) in physical spacetime. This is what determines the result of the experiment. Observation has nothing to do with it. After all, a scientist could wait months before observing the results of an experiment. Does that mean there are no results until he observes those results? I don't think so.

A lot of pseudo books have been sold on this 'changing reality by observing it' notion...

Patterns in mathematics are often simplifications. Also, some patterns apply in infinitely many situations. For example, if p is prime, a^p leaves a remainder a when divided by p: 3⁵ = 243 which leaves remainder 3 when divided by five.

This applies to all primes so we can say 733⁶¹⁰⁶⁹⁹ leaves remainder 733 when divided by 610699. We can know this without doing the calculation. Simplicity and universality of patterns in mathematics are what the mathematician seeks.

The category is bolded. See left. — Outlander

Ah. Thank you.

At least in the android store. — Benkei

Thanks.

check out the app xsection — Benkei

Where is that?

It is possible for both to suspend empathy. In fact, the psychopath is not devoid of empathy (that's almost an urban myth). The psychopath has repressed empathy and conscience with such ferocity he does not feel it. He supresses it because if he didn't he could not indulge in his monstrous behaviours.

If you commit a crime against a psychopath s/he will tell you in no uncertain terms what you did was wrong and why it was wrong and how you should be punished. But s/he forgets all this when it is the other way around.

imagine six crosses arranged in two rows of three crosses each, one row directly above the other. I can equally imagine the same six crosses as three columns of two each. Therefore 2 × 3 = 3 × 2. I not only notice that 2 × 3 is in fact equal to 3 × 2, I understand why 2 × 3 must equal 3 × 2. — The mathematical world - James Franklin

This is an example of induction (observation) awakening our powers of deduction. Resulting in deducing the commutative nature of multiplication: 2 x 3 = 3 x 2.

This visual proof is a bit more elegant: — InPitzotl

Very nice. I had not seen that one before.

That's actually a beautiful picture of things. I think it leads to a problem of evil though. Do you have a solution? — frank

Thank you. Because good (being) exists, distortions of good exist. As St. Augustine said, evil is not a positive thing in itself. It is a lack of the good. The good is a perfect symphony. Evil is disharmony. But evil cannot exist without the good, without being, which is God.

Could you guys share your philosophy of math with me? — frank

Numbers and the relationships between them are eternal truths. I'm sure God is aware of this. But math for God must be way beyond what we would even conceive of as math.

It is easy to create numbers.
Start with "/"
Iterate "//"
Reiterate "///"
etc "//////////////////..."

Partition each step:
/, //, ///,...
= 1, 2, 3,...
I'm sure God worked out this long before anyone else.

Once numbers exist mathematics (especially The Theory of Numbers) exists.
And once that exists, complexity exists.
Therefore God can be complex in terms of the contemplation of numbers.
And this answers Dawkins' assertion that God cannot be complex without a creator.
He can be complex by way of knowledge.
And once all this exists it is a matter of putting 'meat' on the abstract bones of mathematics.

Experience of reality in ordinary terms can awaken in our consciousness the mathematical order of reality because the world is intrinsically mathematical anyhow: induction awakens our powers of deduction. That, I think, is a big part of how science works.

One can show that if this is true for one shape it's true for any shape — InPitzotl

True. The spanner on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the spanners on the other two sides.

A-Theory: Time passes; the passage of time is real
B-Theory: Time doesn't pass; the passage of time is not real — Luke

Imagine a transparent ball rolling along a table. People live in the ball and look out at the surface of the table (time) going by. But all of the table is there all of the 'time'. Just a thought...

If time is real and the future did not happen yet then the earth of tomorrow (or the earth in one second from now) does not exist. Likewise with the past. The earth of one second ago does not exist. This means the earth, and everything else, must be recreated every nanosecond???

Religions are only echoes of the original revelations given to mankind. Through the years they have accumulated all kinds of secondary and sometimes dangerous teachings. Taoism is the essential teaching of religion; namely that there is a Way ("I am the way"). It is the way we practice religion that counts. Established religions are only different contexts in which people practice their faith. That is, what we believe is not very important. They way we live is.

Wisdom will never be able to keep up with knowledge. Knowledge grows exponentially, while wisdom grows incrementally at best. Thus, the gap between wisdom and knowledge (ie. power) grows ever wider, ever faster. — Nuke

So far anyhow, that's why we are in the fix we are in. Maybe the future will be better than this.

That's correct, but it's the 'you' that's supposed to tell me which perspective I am. — bizso09

Hardly possible. All possible relationships between people are infinite. Maybe that's what life is, infinite creativity.

Aah! Makes sense. Would the distinguished guests be keeping an ear out for strange sounds coming from the engine room? — TheMadFool

Not sure what you mean. What I'm saying is that science is about the nuts and bolts. But there's more to life and being than primitive truths. Of course it is possible for scientists to think in less primitive, reductive ways but I think that a reductive, scientific mind-set, by itself, cannot answer ontological questions convincingly.

Religion brings wisdom? Tell that to a young girl being stoned to death for becoming pregnant. :worry: — jgill

You are being a little selective in your portrayal of religion. I'm talking about religion properly understood, in particular mysticism. People need to be intelligent and moral about how they practice religion.

Science vs consciousness? Scientists are not conscious? :roll: — jgill

Some of them are more conscious than so called religious people. I'm talking about consciousness of spiritual reality.

I'm guessing the path from the trick to the theorem just came from playing with the components. Right? — frank

Probably, yes. 'Geometry' means 'earth measuring' or words to that effect; geo = earth.

Do you know what happens to the mind in a process of sensory deprivation? It goes crazy. — David Mo

Because it is locked onto the body and is deprived of sensation. If the body dies the mind can escape the prison and return to its original state of non corporeal awareness.

You make it look like humans are devolving into lower and lower states of intelligence. Why do you call scientific truths, "primitive truths"? As far as anyone can tell, science is the new kid on the block and that kid seems to be leading the vanguard in our quest for knowledge. — TheMadFool

I don't mean primitive in a cultural sense I mean it in a physical, abstract sense. Science and mathematics are involved with the most basic primitive truths about the physical world and about abstraction. If society is a passenger liner, scientists are down in the engine room. The distinguished guests are in the upper decks, listening to opera and discussing more evolved things.

What's your answer? — frank

Probably came from algebra x² + y² = z²
3² + 4² = 5²

The mind is aware by itself. The body, which is an imitation of a mind, has five senses to imitate the mind's consciousness in a physical context.

More knowledge is automatically better. False. — Nuke

Knowledge needs to be combined with wisdom. That's where 'religion' comes in.

The problem is that scientists have done an excellent job of providing us with all kinds of goodies, and so naturally they have acquired significant authority. — Nuke

Someone said that if a fellow says three clever things, he is considered a genius. Scientists have become the high priests of the materialistic world view and their authority concerning primitive truths makes people think they are an authority on all kinds of matters.

Why are these other worldviews, you mentioned religion, fading away while science seems to flourishing? — TheMadFool

Many are now turning against the materialistic philosophy. I guess the people who are not really religious were always there, they are just coming out of the closet.

Yes. What other paths to knowledge are there? — TheMadFool

Consciousness. Many say that knowledge about spiritual reality and God can enter the mind, directly. This is the real division: the materialists say that only the intellect is a way to knowledge. Others say consciousness is also a way. The materialists reject this, often by putting up a woo argument.

There is also a difference between the kinds of knowledge we are talking about. Science is concerned with primitive knowledge about material things. Consciousness is concerned with knowledge about life and being.

This state of affairs in re the scientific worldview begs an explanation and the one that comes to mind is that scientific claims are considered incontrovertible truths, very unlike claims made by other worldviews — TheMadFool

Generally speaking science is true or close to the truth. But truth about what? About primitive aspects of the physical world. Science and mathematics are primitive and can't answer the more sublime ontological questions about being and meaning. Lately scientists have had the temerity to pronounce upon all manner of things that are, let's face it, above their pay grade. Dawkins & Co. making philosophically juvenile remarks about God, religion and spirituality etc. It is amusing, even comical. Dawkins is not a good philosopher. Hawking is far far worse. Very often scientists making comments about greater things are like mechanics, who presume their knowledge about engines, entitles them to pronounce upon literature. It don't work that way.

And why should they disagree? Is there some alternative that makes more sense? — jgill

For me the problem is not about science versus religion, per se. It is about knowledge and about ways to knowledge. Some people claim that the only acceptable kind of knowledge is primitive, intellectual, verifiable knowledge that can be shared and 'proved'. Others say there are other ways to knowledge (eg consciousness). The question is: is science the only way to knowledge? That's really what the division is about.

No, a perception is not the totality of consciousness. I can have an empirical perception, at the same time someone hallucinates. — MonisticIdealist

The analogy of a television illustrates the brain/mind duality. Suppose there's a tv and some guy starts experimenting on it and correlates various parts of the tv with sound and vision. His experiments show that the film on tv is intimately related to the components of the tv and he therefore concludes that the television produces the film.

But this is not true. Correlation is not causation. The film is broadcast to the tv from a remote station. The television only structures the information so the human eye and ear can understand. The television does not produce, it configures.

If the mind is a non physical entity what is the brain for? It is there to enable the mind to partake in physical reality. And for this the brain needs to configure the mind's consciousness in human terms; it translates the mind's thoughts into a human context and allows the mind to engage with the physical world.

For this, a physical analogue of consciousness is required. This analogue is the five senses. The senses provide information from the physical world to the mind. But the mind is conscious in its own terms; it is aware, over and above physical consciousness.

There are strong arguments for this, the Wall of Woo notwithstanding.

All the misnamed "butterfly effect" means is that in a discrete deterministic iterative system, very small changes in the inputs can lead to huge changes in the outputs. It's mathematically true and easily reproduced. The Mandelbrot set provides a striking example. Starting points extremely close together may have strikingly different evolutions under repeated applications of the transformation rule. — fishfry

I tend to agree. The Butterfly Effect is observed in isolated abstract systems but in the real world there are a myriad of butterfly effects cancelling each other out. eg in a galaxy of stars there are numerous Lagrange Points where gravity is cancelled. One Butterfly Effect can be cancelled by another before it gets going.

Maybe there's a deeper principle like this, where everything happens for a reason. — InPitzotl

I don't think Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle undermines determinism. What humans can or can't measure don't say much. Likewise with radioactive decay. It is a function in quantum spacetime but we measure it in physical spacetime. What is 'random' in physical space time does not need to be random at its source. It is very easy to create mathematical functions that generate seemingly random results where the input is perfectly ordered*. So these are not arguments against determinism. What human beings can determine or measure does not have any bearing on whether events are truly deterministic.

If the physical universe is deterministic and mind is non physical then mind can create a non deterministic event. Say a rock rolls down a hill. That, the determinists would argue, is purely deterministic. But if a person, with a mind, decides to put his foot out and stop the rock, that is not physical determinism. If mind/soul are non physical then non deterministic events can be possible.

*eg. X³ modulo p where p is prime and X = 1, 2, 3...
Here are the results for p = 43 with input 1, 2, 3...Input is regular but output is random.
The function calculates the remainder when X³ is divided by 43

1
8
27
21
39
1
42
39
41
11
41
8
4
35
21
11
11
27
22
2

Political liberty is not the same thing as free will, of either a compatibilist or incompatibilist sense. Those are three separate things. — Pfhorrest

I don't imagine they are. I'm talking about free will in a mental/spiritual/moral sense.

Whether or not free-will exists comes partly down to how you define it, and what you consider to be "you", the self. Even if you're a deterministic process, you're still making decisions based on who you are. You are simply doing what it is in your nature to do. — Malice

This is a thread I started on this subject some time ago-
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4458/determinism-and-mathematical-truth/p1

Could be but why desire that? — TheMadFool

Because the alternative is slavery.