Einstein & Faith

Post Reply New Topic

Sounds pretty much like what science IS discovering.

I beg your pardon?

Count me in.

The laws by which nature operates, which are probably, by their very nature, beyond our understanding - given the incompleteness theorem.

I'm still trying to grasp prime numbers, myself. I tried charting them on an excel pad, but I just couldn't find any rule of thumb. Anyway, nature doesn't operate by laws. Laws are of our making, based upon what nature actually tends to do. Nature can do whatever it wants to. We're actually getting a little better at working out why particles do one trick or another, though.

You ain't the only one. I'm becoming convinced that not only is there no pattern, but the very lack of pattern is vital to the proof. Hence, I think that I might have a bit of a grasp on how to show the Goldbach Conjecture to be of the same nature as Godel's unprovable statement.

There are formulas you can use to find primes and some savants have the ability to see them instantly.

Therefore there is a pattern.

The formulae for finding primes rely on all of the previous primes, and are too expensive to be of any value. If it were otherwise, modern encryption techniques would be trivially breakable. Moreover, IF there was such a formula, the twin primes conjecture would also be solved. Thus, there is no known pattern.

As to the savants, I'd like to see how large a prime they could recognize. i.e. how many fully filled sheets of digits they could still determine. My guess is that even one sheet of paper would be too much, and that they simply have somehow memorized the first few - no real pattern is implied.

I played around with them over last summer, trying to impose a group involving addition on primes, and quite simply, I believe that it can't be done. Now, certainly there are patterns, but they don't seem to exist in ANY mathematics involving addition.

Daniel Tanamet has handled numbers in the Sextillions.

That sounds like it would fit on a single line of text, no? Certainly programs have handled much larger, and there is NO discernible pattern. Not that this is as telling as the apparent fact that addition simply does not seem to be imposable on a group only containing the primes.

I honestly don't know how they do it with the larger ones. I'm lost beyond the triple-digits, and even then I'm unreliable.

http://fpx.de/fp/Software/Sieve.html

as to the savant's, the human brain is very complex. My guess (though I'm no psychologist) is that they have simply made these calculations and memorized them, probably without noticing.

Yes, but their calculators are apparently more sophisticated. Any NT mind can pick out an early prime, easily so. It's apparently something that most people can do naturally to some extent, and the savants simply have a bigger, badder number cruncher.

wow for someone who knows c thats a pretty sh***y way to calc prime numbers. this is a program i wrote in VB long time ago (i know vb is less effecent than c, but the overall method i think mine is more effecent)



i think i was 13-14 when i wrote this (i keep ALLLLL my old source codes) this was before i really knew much VB, if i where to code it now it would be a lot cleaner. anyways this gets all the prime numbers that will fit in an integer. it checks each number is not divisible by all the prime numbers up to it, witch is how i find prime numbers in my head. say a number like 49, it is divisible by 7, no prime. then i see a num like 89, i see no small prime number factors for it. i know the 7 "times tables", and thats the only weird one. so 89 must be prime.
i can count is prime numbers. i go by 2s starting at 3. 3,5,7,9,etc. than each num i see factors for i skip. 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 etc. i start having to really think when i get into 3 digit nums

here is how Einstin viewed the world, his own words from his own book

http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/worldsee.html

He also said:
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.

—Albert Einstein

to which I say, AMEN!

Merle

Einstein's Spinozism was a colossal joke at the expense of annoying atheists who seem to be suffering from a massive persecution complex. The point of it was that such atheists were so concerned with trying to push religion away that they had turned the act of doing so into a religion. He strikes me as one who wanted merely to be unfettered by the chains of either religion or avoidance thereof, both of which would leave one uninspired and rather boring. In endorsing Spinozism, he wasn't endorsing a belief so much as he was endorsing a practice.