Is time real? Is math real? Do spiritual things exist?

Post Reply New Topic

Is time real? Is math real? Do spiritual things exist?

I'm sorry, what are you getting at?

Time is part of the most useful model we have for describing the physical world. Not many people would say that time isn't real, but then again, not many people go around saying that time is real. The word "real" doesn't really work here. Try "useful".

Mathematics is a collection of true statements. Not sure what "real" might mean here.

"Spiritual things" is a category which contains some things which are said to never interact with the physical world (in which case we can't know anything about them) and some things which are said to interact with the physical world (and I have never been convinced of this).

Last edited by Declension on 02 Jan 2013, 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."

"Oh, that's deep. You should send that in to Reader's Digest - they've got a page for people like you."

Math is real. It is done every day by some humans.

Clocks keep track of time. The fact that dis-similar clocks properly synchronized track each other closely indicates that there is something that they are all measuring.

There is not empirical evidence whatsoever that spiritual things exists. Spiritual things are believed but never known by ordinary sense based means. Spiritual is a bogus semi-concept that is a snare and a delusion to otherwise intelligent people.

ruveyn

Yah, times real. Its motion, plain and simple, and math is used to model motion, among other things.

Not true statements (as in factual) but statements that follow from axioms or postulates.

Consider Playfairs axiom for parallel lines. Given a line L and a point p not on L there exists exactly on line L' passing through p and parallel to L.

This is true on planes and false on spherical surfaces.

Here is another. The angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. True for triangles on a plane, false for triangles on a spherical surface.

ruveyn

Define "real." (And for that matter, "spiritual things," and, "exist.")

Mathematics certainly exists--it is the language we use to recognize, analyse and understand patterns.

Time certainly exists. It is what prevents everything from occurring simultaneously, and the only thing that separates cause from effect.

As for spiritual things, it depends what you mean. If you are talking about a bunch of angelic Rockettes (tm) putting on a show on a pinhead, then I think we can all agree that they don't exist. But if you are talking about the emotional impact of prayer on the individual, or the emotional connection of two people in love with each other, then I think it is undeniable that in order for something to provoke an emotional response, it must exist--if only as a collection of action potentials in the neurons of the individual.

I would probably use something science doesn't agree with, than what it does for an argument.

Like does love exist according to science definitions for a thing to exist?

Last edited by Bezeone on 03 Jan 2013, 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The statement "You are a woman." is true when said to a woman, but false when said to a man. That doesn't mean that the statement "You are a woman." is somehow separate from the realm of truth. It just means that you need to specify what you are talking about.

In other words, the statement "Given a line L and a point p not on L there exists exactly on line L' passing through p and parallel to L." is not even a legitimate mathematical statement without further information. Once you provide the further information, it really is either true or false.

The fact that postulates that are proven true in plane geometry do not maintain their truth in spherical geometry says nothing about the truth of the statements. The statements continue to be absolutely true within the framework in which they were originally proved.

If you were to state the postulates correctly they would read:

On a plane, P, given a line L and a point p not on L there exists exactly on line on P, L', passing through p and parallel to L.
The angles of a triangle on a plane add up to 180 degrees.

Yes.


Yes.


Since there is no valid empirical evidence to support any claim favoring the existence of "spiritual things", it may be safe to assume that they do not exist at all, except as immaterial fantasies and fictional plotlines.

Since there is no valid empirical evidence to support any claim favoring the existence of "spiritual things", it may be safe to assume that they do not exist at all, except as immaterial fantasies and fictional plotlines.[/quote]

Fnord, for a long time I assumed you were an atheist; but seem to remember at some point you saying you were not. I'm curious what your actual stance is on this? Maybe worth a new thread huh? "Fnord's stance on religion" or something similar? I know you were in a seminary for a while (I was a Buddhist monk myself a long time ago) but you dislike organised religions and hypocritical churches. So... ?

This is a poor way of putting it. It is better to say that the theorems in the various branches of mathematics are correctly proven to follow form the basic axioms/postulates of the system. Truth says that a statement corresponds to a state of the world. It has nothing to do with being proved from axiom. It is a true statement that I have a twenty dollar bill in my wallet. It just happens to be the case and the only "proof" you would require is to look in my wallet and see it. There is no logic at work here.

Theorems are not true, they are proved to follow from the axiom.

Now there is a connection between what is proved and what is true. If it is the case that P implies Q and P happens to be a true statement about the word, the so is Q. This rule is the principle of modus ponens seen in formal logic.

ruveyn

I am a theist. I believe in one God. I have no reason to believe as I do, since all "evidence" for God's existence is both anecdotal and apocryphal - I just believe.

I was in seminary. I asked a lot of questions. I questioned the validity of church doctrine. I questioned the ecclesiastical authority of the instructors. When I asked why I should believe anything they were teaching me, someone in authority suggested that I seek education in a more material field of study. I took up engineering.

The OP's use of the phrase "Spiritual Things" seems to be synonymous with "The Supernatural". All "evidence" for the existence of either of these is both anecdotal and apocryphal.

When I delve into other people's beliefs, I keep running into the same "I Just Believe" monolith that is at the center of my own belief. I keep hoping that someone will demonstrate a valid and empirical reason to believe in anything for which no valid and empirical reason has ever been demonstrated to me before.

I used to say, "Show me your god, and I will believe". No one has ever successfully met that challenge. Instead, they try to impress me with their ability to present a tangled skein of apologetics and convoluted logic, perhaps in the hope that I will be mesmerized into abandoning my quest for material evidence and give up on ever trying to find God.

I do not want words. There are books and lecture halls full of words. I do not want to reason, I have reasoned myself out of the brain-washing imposed by religious leaders in my childhood. I do not need any more interpretations of Biblical lore, as I have heard and read so many conflicting interpretations that most of the lore seems like mediocre fiction to me.

So, to put it simply, there are only two reasons why there seems to be no valid, empirical evidence for all things spiritual or supernatural: (1) They don't exist, and all the arguments and debates are meaningless, or (2) They will remain hidden from us until we become immaterial ourselves, and all I need to do is wait.

In either case my quest may only be a waste of time...

I would worship at most one god.

ruveyn