One of my Physics teachers used to describe Physics is the tree, with Maths as the roots, Chemistry is a branch and Biology is a twig. Boy did he hate Biology!

So-called "Laws" of physics are all tied up in "constants". Things like the speed of light, Planks constant and how many observable spacial dimensions there are. Those constants are only measured and observed and subject to change, and mathematics can tell you if the result is self-consistent or interesting.

, in any universe.

Can this thread now be about how cool maths is

Furthermore, Mathematics doesn't use "laws" but rather "theorems" - one step higher than a law.

As someone once noted, constants aren't, variables don't.

Just randomly thinking now... I'd half expect the laws of thermodynamics to apply in any conceivable alternative universe. I guess my problem is that word "conceivable". As our Professor said earlier, the "arrogance of conviction"

Arrogance is subjective, and it is more a personal opinion of a speaker, not really a counter-argument to what they are saying. For instance Christopher Hitchens is an arrogant bastard, but good luck blowing his reasoning out of the water.

I'm not sure you see what I mean - having conviction in something by definition blinkers you to possible alternatives. There's a tendency to simply dismiss anything that contradicts something you "absolutely know" to be true.

In my case, you might say that Mathematics is my God and I refuse to believe anything that contradicts it. Because I know it to be true. The one and only absolute truth.

Well if you've rationally evaluated the worth of another argument then you have every right to dismiss it, "there is such a thing as being so open-minded your brain falls out".

Quite true. If your arguments were as scientifically valid as your fantasies suggest, you would not hope to promote them ahead of a hypothesis you couldn't disprove because that is blatantly unscientific.

So what is your point?



So your apparently arrogant claims that all religions are absolutely and unequivocally a pile of bull poopy are actually nuanced assessments of the balance of probabilities?

And no doubt you would like to take this opportunity to withdraw any comments you have made that gave the mistaken impression that you felt you had certain knowledge of the non existence of God.

That's very big of you.

Mr Wolf was talking about a universe that defies known logic. You can't use a rational argument to deny that. In that universe, minds fall out of open brains all the time because it's normal.

It's past the Twilight Zone. It's beyond The Outer Limits. Perhaps it's where the dæmons play.

I wouldn't worry too much about that universe then.

Physics, yes, no problem. Maths... that depends on your point of view. At question is whether 2+2 = 4 in this and all possible worlds.

Now if 2 + 2 does equal 4 here, that leaves open the question of why it does. If the reason is that you can take 2 oranges, and add two more oranges, and then count and find out you have 4 oranges, then mathematical propositions are based on experience of the world.

If two plus two MUST equal 4 because that's how numbers work*, then 2+2=4 in this and all possible worlds, and that includes possible worlds in other universes. I guess that still means that 2 + 2 might equal 7 in an impossible universe, but I've decided not to think too hard about that, because it might hurt.



* See synthetic a-priori propositions
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/apriori/#NatPriJusKno

The thing is, mathematics is so much more encompassing than that.

Group theory and abstract algebra can describe a universe where 2+2=7 or anything else you want. It just has to be consistent. There's probably a branch of abstract mathematics dedicated to inconsistent arithmetic, but I don't know what it is. It's not chaos because that's something else.

Note my maths is over 20 years out of date and all rather hazy. Others could offer far better examples of just how very abstract Mathematics can be.

Any mathematics that can be described in another universe could be described here. It's abstract. It does not depend on the universe. At least, that is my holy belief

You've effectively made everything unprovable, so whatever I type, whatever reasoning I use, it is automatically wrong. Creating such standards of evidence means you auto-win any debate. I win because I was the first to invoke the "you can't prove anything ever rule". I would say that that rule is so absurd that it makes any debate or argument totally impotent - so no I'm not arrogantly dismissing it, I've consciously decided it's unnecessary and unhelpful. It's an easy get out clause for anything that is illogical, it is as grating as the people who say there is no atheism, only agnosticism can exist. Well in that case we may as well be an agnostic about whether there will be gravity tomorrow, and perhaps it would be a good idea to buy some magnetic shoes.

No it isn't worth considering, even though we can't prove 100% that there will be gravity tomorrow.

Never have I stated my arguments are scientifically infallible, I do believe I have given very cogent reasoning as to my views on the topic, this is a debate about the worth of science, it is not a scientific hypothesis itself.

Yes I can see the intellectual validity of your approach, but I feel that adopting such a ridiculous standard of evidence tends to make any argument practically impotent. I feel confident saying all faith is crap, because as Rusty so helpfully put it, "faith is by definition illogical" and at some point you need a sort of cut-off point, so you can go, no actually I don't need to worry about that, it's so improbable as to have no bearing on my life.

Besides saying something is illogical is the equivalent of saying it's useless in the real world. It only has any bearing on your inner world of emotions. Religion is a device of the world of human emotion, very powerful and undeniably relevant to understand human behaviour, but worthless if you're trying to explain pretty much anything in the "outside world" from a non-human-centric point of view. Like Einstein imagining he is a beam of light.

It's very grating for me therefore when we choose to let religion dictate our behaviour. Because in effect we're giving up responsibility, we're trusting in the idea itself.

If you haven't seen it, this video will I hope provide an insight in to why I keep saying things like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzGjEkp772s

I don't pretend that I am in the same intellectual league as the people I reference, but I would say you're being a bit unfair if you treat me like some narrow-minded idiot making broad statements about something he hasn't put a lot of thought into. I find it comforting when people like Carl Sagan say things liek "science is a baloney detector".



I like to think that I have struck a balance that works for me in regards to the following quote:


So no, I won't retract what I said. I would also state that if we put your ridiculous standards or evidence into science, the scientific method would itself grind to a halt. How many theorems have been developed that require some guesses about variables in physics? Isn't the Big Bang Theory based on an assumption (excuse my BBC2 Horizon level of knowledge about it). So science isn't about proving things beyond any possible doubt, it's about separating the wheat from the chaff, pragmatically saying that if a model works then there must be some truth in it, even if humans aren't omniscient, maybe we know "this" at least.

Even though science, the best Baloney Detection Kit ever devised by humans still hasn't provided all the answers to everything ever - it doesn't mean that we should turn to "miracles" and ambiguous, self-contradictory, vague "faiths".

I'm saying faith is worthless, it's up to you whether you think that makes me arrogant. I just think it makes me sensible.