The lack of Math and Scientific Knowledge in Ultra-Religious.

Mathematics is a human construct, far from perfect. It exists as we perceive it. Fortunately we only have our own perceptions to consider, so its designed to work specifically within our own limitations. Its nothing more than a tool to help us understand things, it is not absolute by any means...

 

My Faith?

Philosophy as Physics?

Are you sure your posting to the right person?

AboveAlpha

 

You keep saying that, but what good is it unless it can be used to instill such things as Self Reliance and an equitable concept of Compensation? It would be about as helpful and interesting as an essay detailing a day in the life of a rock.

 

You sound like some people I know in Boston.

Who are constantly saying..."Hey! What are you retarded?" Except they pronounce it...Reetarted.

AboveAlpha

 

No worries... you can begin where I did here to understand the context of my position. Just look for my avatar across the 4 pages for both his and my replies. It feels like about 10.

 

Yes quite. You said it is proven that all past present and futures exist "at the same time".

That is wicked wrong. That is borrowing from physics to assert a philosophy. Is that really all you took away from my reply?

Do you understand that string theory is philosophy, and not physics? That is a serious question you probably don't see as such.

 

There has never been a case in Human History where the Math dictated something to exist...and it didn't.

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

And just exactly HOW do you think a person learns self reliance and the like?

AboveAlpha

 

Not at all....we know that all past, present and Future time is concurrent because we can use and observe such Quantum Particle/Wave Forms existing in such a Time State such as how a Photon wil exist simultaniously at all positions upon a wave length.

It is YOU who are vastly out of your depth in this debate.

AboveAlpha

 

The 'it' I was talking about was math, I don't know what you are thinking I meant. Math is still just an imperfect tool. You make it sound as though its an absolute, it simply is not...

 

Describe Maths imperfections please.

AboveAlpha

 

Reading is fundamental.

(*)(*)(*)(*) your Schrödinger's cat philosophy. We cannot know potentiality in states that do not occur, nor can we test against them. I did not suggest that phase states do not exist, the philosophy you are injecting is potentiality.

All I said was that you might not simply assume your faith is knowledge, and that those who do not share it are not by default inerudite. I am asking you only for the respect I have shown you. Not a big ask. Stop asserting what you believe I know... and address the topic.

I don't attempt to demean you. I could if you prefer... but I see this other thread of yours that seems to be tired of R v D insults. I am hoping you can address the topic with civility. I find braggadocio to be a tactic, not confidence, in this area... because I am not intimidated by the material.

Be respectful. You act as if I am demanding subservience... that is your demand. I will not yield it. You are already wrong enough for me to be confrontational. I just enjoy the subject.

 

The only thing going on here is I am watching you post illogical associations with no ties whatsoever as well every time you try to speak in scientific terms you fail miserably.

It is becoming an extremely tiresome chore to read your posts.

As example such posts of yours like..."All I said, was that you might not simply assume your faith is knowledge"

I cannot possibly express to you how ridiculous this post is.

AboveAlpha

 

Part of that has to be instilled by parents and society, if that influence is available. Whether that influence is available or not, one engages in the academic study of these things, and strives to put them into practice in his own affairs. How would this be approached as a mathematical subject?
A very interesting read is "A pocket companion" by Joseph Campbell. In it, he condenses his life's study in Anthropology. He approached the subject from the aspect of the development of mankind's' evolving concept of spirituality. At one point, he muses that he gradually went from wondering how it all happens to realizing that his own self actualization had occurred. How could that be described in mathematical terms?
I see that you have done a fair amount of research into the same things, and I wonder how you can feel that it makes sense to remain Agnostic? I'm reminded of a quote that Emerson offered in one of his essays:
"On the brink of the waters of Life and Truth, we are miserably dying".

 

Math's imperfections are that it is bound to our human limitations and based solely on our perceptions. You are either severely over thinking it or severely under thinking it.

 

I can mathematically "prove" that a .9 infinite remainder "becomes" 1. It is incorrect.

 

I am Agnostic because the existence of a GOD can not as yet be definitively proven or not.

There is of course an extremely high probability that a GOD does not exist and an extremely low probability that a GOD does exist....but since there as yet does not exist any proof either way I remain Agnostic.

A Human Beings choices are based upon cause and effect and learned experience. Since everything in the Universe is completely comprised of Quantum Particle/Wave Forms and this of course includes every person or living thing and all non-living things in the Universe....it is possible to place a Mathematical assignment to each Particle/Wave Form and if all positions of all such Quanta were known every single cause and effect...action and reaction and even decided choice can be predicted.

AboveAlpha

 

Incorrect....you stated Math is just an imperfect tool....that is what you posted.

If fact Math is a perfect tool.....it is Humans that are imperfect.

AboveAlpha

 

Chicken(*)(*)(*)(*).

It is tiresome to read my posts because they assail your faith in the possible, that you assert as fact. (*)(*)(*)(*) it. It's on. You can barely communicate in the only language in which you are fluent, and presume to school me in philosophy derived from theoretical physics you accept as fact.

The quantum level is steeped in chaos. Address that, and that alone. I won't correct your command of the language as others have. Stay on point. Quantum mechanics, and randomness. I am about to start linking things you WILL find tiresome... because they are not comic books.

 

The LAUGH-O-METER is tilting off the scale here! LOL!!!

Please...I have no desire to see any member make themselves look the way you are making yourself look now.

Give it a break before you really say something even more foolish.

AboveAlpha

 

That becomes a limitation we created when we chose to translate fractions into numbers. Like I said, math a nice tool, but it is not absolute...

 

How? Humans created math, its flawed and tied specifically to our own understanding of what we created. Nothing we can conceive is going to be perfect. It would be naive to think otherwise...

 

Has he decided whether saint Thomas Aquinas was ultra religious yet?

Or are only ignorant religious people included, and if so aren't they ignorant in more then math and their religion has nothing to do with it?

 

Mathematics is self evident and Maths basic tenets are even understood by other life forms in the Animal kingdom.

Ask I have already asked you to provide...show ONE example of Maths imperfection.

You have stated Math is imperfect so by the rules of this Forum I challenge you to provide evidence of this and if you cannot please either admit you are wrong or retract or remove your post.

AboveAlpha

 

In 1268 the Dominican Order assigned Thomas to be regent master at the University of Paris for a second time, a position he held until the spring of 1272. Part of the reason for this sudden reassignment appears to have arisen from the rise of "Averroism" or "radical Aristotelianism" in the universities. In response to these perceived evils, Thomas wrote two works, one of them being De unitate intellectus, contra Averroistas (On the Unity of Intellect, against the Averroists) in which he blasts Averroism as incompatible with Christian doctrine.[44] During his second regency, he finished the second part of the Summa and wrote De virtutibus and De aeternitate mundi,[39] the latter of which dealt with controversial Averroist and Aristotelian beginninglessness of the world.[45] Disputes with some important Franciscans such as Bonaventure and John Peckham conspired to make his second regency much more difficult and troubled than the first. A year before Thomas re-assumed the regency at the 1266–67 Paris disputations, Franciscan master William of Baglione accused Thomas of encouraging Averroists, calling him the "blind leader of the blind". Thomas called these individuals the murmurantes (Grumblers).[45] In reality, Thomas was deeply disturbed by the spread of Averroism and was angered when he discovered Siger of Brabant teaching Averroistic interpretations of Aristotle to Parisian students.[46] On 10 December 1270, the bishop of Paris, Etienne Tempier, issued an edict condemning thirteen Aristotlelian and Averroistic propositions as heretical and excommunicating anyone who continued to support them.[47] Many in the ecclesiastical community, the so-called Augustinians, were fearful that this introduction of Aristotelianism and the more extreme Averroism might somehow contaminate the purity of the Christian faith. In what appears to be an attempt to counteract the growing fear of Aristotelian thought, Thomas conducted a series of disputations between 1270 and 12

LINK....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas

Yes...he was a Zealot.

AboveAlpha

 

But these things can't be known. You say "not yet". You leave the door open wider for science to "prove" things than you leave the door open for God to exist. I find this all the more peculiar, because science has to be approached with a very abstract view, where the larger part of understanding is being open minded enough to allow the truth to be manifest in your understanding. Within the scientific discipline, this implies a whole lot of humility, because you can never consider yourself to have "mastered" anything.
To my thinking, this is the same "portal" that connects our understanding to the influence of the divine (for lack of a better word). Part of what I take to be the "proof" of intelligent design is that we have these capacities to begin with. On the other side of your assertion that the probability of God is small, I say that the probability of human existence having oozed from primordial slime is nil.
Ah. The other thing. It strikes me as odd that you can allow the belief in 10 or more dimensions, and infinite universes, but you deny the possibility of a spiritual realm, where math and physical phenomena don't even exist. What was there, before the universe(s)?