Page 2 of 5 [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

17 Sep 2015, 5:50 am

Edenthiel wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Arguably, nothing in reality can infinitely loop.


An isolated, spinning mass that does not exchange angular momentum with the outside universe.

I don't think 'faith' is the same as 'accepting proof'?


?

There is no proof that infinity exists in reality.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

17 Sep 2015, 5:51 am

Humanaut wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Arguably, nothing in reality can infinitely loop.

This notion is not necessarily wrong, but can matter infinitely exist in one form or another?


Since it's an abstract concept , sure.



nerdygirl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,645
Location: In the land of abstractions and ideas.

17 Sep 2015, 5:57 am

The real question regarding math is where did it come from?

Science bows to math. You can't measure without math. Any orderliness we have in the universe is there because things are submitting to mathematical principles. So no matter how the universe came into existence (or didn't), or no matter how it has changed from then until now, everything had to follow mathematical principles.

Math is higher than matter. Where did it come from?



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

17 Sep 2015, 6:23 am

naturalplastic wrote:
No. Because doubting the existence of infinity takes MORE faith than accepting it. So I take it on the absence of faith.

But that's if youre talking about abstract math.

If youre talking about "things", or "objects" who said there was an "infinity"? At the moment the Universe is thought to be finite, and even the number of atoms in it are thought to be a certain finite whole integer number.


Here is a math professor troubled by the use of actual infinity in math.

“'What truly infinite objects exist in the real world?' asks Stephen Simpson, a mathematician and logician at Pennsylvania State University.

Taking a view originally espoused by Aristotle, Simpson argues that actual infinity doesn’t really exist and so it should not so readily be assumed to exist in the mathematical universe. He leads an effort to wean mathematics off actual infinity, by showing that the vast majority of theorems can be proved using only the notion of potential infinity".

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... logic-law/



Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

17 Sep 2015, 7:50 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
Humanaut wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Arguably, nothing in reality can infinitely loop.
This notion is not necessarily wrong, but can matter infinitely exist in one form or another?
Since it's an abstract concept , sure.

Your answer makes no sense to me. Please elaborate.



Edenthiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,819
Location: S.F Bay Area

17 Sep 2015, 3:06 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Edenthiel wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Arguably, nothing in reality can infinitely loop.


An isolated, spinning mass that does not exchange angular momentum with the outside universe.

I don't think 'faith' is the same as 'accepting proof'?


?

There is no proof that infinity exists in reality.


There is no proof that '2' exists in reality, either. Both are abstractions. Although, it might be argued that the infinite division of something - say, a line or distance - is an example that exists as much as any other measurement of that line or distance.


_________________
“For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.”
―Carl Sagan


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,262
Location: London

17 Sep 2015, 5:17 pm

infinity is a concept it is set by definition.

what mathematical proofs involve God or Santa?

In other words you are making pseudo-argument.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

17 Sep 2015, 5:51 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
infinity is a concept it is set by definition.

what mathematical proofs involve God or Santa?

In other words you are making pseudo-argument.


As I pointed out above in the reputable 'Scientific America', the math professor explains that mathematicians assume actual infinity exists to make their proofs.

Assuming something exists -- is faith-based reasoning.



Rudin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jun 2015
Age: 17
Posts: 1,046
Location: Southern Ontario

17 Sep 2015, 6:01 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Many math and scientific proofs are based on the concept of "infinity".

However, have you ever seen an infinity?

How do you know one exists?

Yet, you accept math and science 's faith based concepts as rational? How come?


The number of points in on a line is infinite, theoretically. Also, counting numbers are infinite. If someone thinks K is the biggest number one could take K+1 or 5K and one would have a larger number.


_________________
"God may not play dice with the universe, but something strange is going on with prime numbers."

-Paul Erdos

"There are two types of cryptography in this world: cryptography that will stop your kid sister from looking at your files, and cryptography that will stop major governments from reading your files."

-Bruce Schneider


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,262
Location: London

17 Sep 2015, 6:56 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
As I pointed out above in the reputable 'Scientific America', the math professor explains that mathematicians assume actual infinity exists to make their proofs.

Assuming something exists -- is faith-based reasoning.


Not necessarily. Yes if they use infinity in physical model you have a point. However the concept of infinity it not just used in physical models but also theoretically as a parameter choice. When you say you assume something in this context you are deciding to use it, often in a hypothetical scenario which you are fixing.

Even where infinity is used in physical model:
a. It is not a happy event and scientists don't tend to favour it. The standard model for example is the best they can come up with at that point.
b. Comparing the 'leap of faith' of a mathematical component as equivalent to believing in God is way off. You can describe mathematical relationships relating to infinity, such as tending towards it. How do you describe mathematically tending towards God or Santa?

You may have a point with Theoretical physics, but the point of that is to come up with idea which you could test or relate current physical models to.

The physical models where infinity is used, although they are not the ideal models, infinity fits within them. God doesn't fit within physical model to the same degree, God isn't used that way.

Maths is also there to test concept such as infinity, or how infinity relates to things. it doesn't always endorse its use.

I think you are largely making a pseudo-argument using kludged semantics or simply comparing apples with oranges.

The leap of faith involved in worship, isn't in anyway equivalent to the reasoned leap of faiths in mathematical model. The former is not subject to empiricism, it is accepted at face value that things are a certain way. For one these mathematical models are often superposed with better knowledge.

The idea that maths or science needs to make guesses and "leaps of faith" is in not any way a criticism of those fields nor is it an endorsement of religious ideology. The two are separate pursuits.

Where we are probably in agreement is there is some brain activity involvedin drawing conclusions, which has degree of connection with things like creativity and sometimes "faith". However those further up the scale on the schizotypal spectrum, rely less on the analytical side and more on faith based decisions. These people are not abnormal it is just the variety of life, and drawing conclusions is important even for analytical people, as few thing have definite answers.

However even this is over simplified, all of us have cogitative dissidence. It is possible to be extremely analytical with a specific area, but much more reliant broad belief explanations in others.

The other area which is in opposition to your premise, is the goal of reducing assumption chaining. By no means is this always done well, but were you use assumptions you are encouraged not to chain them before proof. Religious faith, were it to relate to physical models is more reliant on assumption chaining. It is not so much a parameter as broad and elaborate story.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

17 Sep 2015, 7:19 pm

Rudin wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Many math and scientific proofs are based on the concept of "infinity".

However, have you ever seen an infinity?

How do you know one exists?

Yet, you accept math and science 's faith based concepts as rational? How come?


The number of points in on a line is infinite, theoretically. Also, counting numbers are infinite. If someone thinks K is the biggest number one could take K+1 or 5K and one would have a larger number.


How do you know that K+1 or 5k can exist in reality though?

For example, Let K = number of humans on Earth.

Are you confident that you can just that you can add to K with K= K+1 or K = 5k endlessly? Reality has constraints that may prevent that assumption from being possible.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,190
Location: USA

17 Sep 2015, 7:53 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
As I pointed out above in the reputable 'Scientific America', the math professor explains that mathematicians assume actual infinity exists to make their proofs.

Assuming something exists -- is faith-based reasoning.


Not necessarily. Yes if they use infinity in physical model you have a point. However the concept of infinity it not just used in physical models but also theoretically as a parameter choice. When you say you assume something in this context you are deciding to use it, often in a hypothetical scenario which you are fixing.

True.

0_equals_true wrote:
The idea that maths or science needs to make guesses and "leaps of faith" is in not any way a criticism of those fields nor is it an endorsement of religious ideology. The two are separate pursuits.

The math professor proposes that infinity in math be represented by "potential infinity" and not "actual infinity". He argues, "actual infinity does not exist, so don't assume it does".

"Potential infinity is something that is never complete: more and more elements can be always added, but never infinitely many. For generally the infinite has this mode of existence: one thing is always being taken after another, and each thing that is taken is always finite, but always different."
_____________________________________________________________

The math philosophy of "Finitism" also rejects actual infinity.

"The main idea of finitistic mathematics is not accepting the existence of infinite objects such as infinite sets".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finitism
_____________________________________________________________

You seem to be leaning towards dismissing this position as "pseudo-intellectualism", however, I think I present a genuine argument.

Ones person has faith actual infinity exists.
One person has faith GOD exists.
______________________________________________________________



izzeme
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Apr 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,686

18 Sep 2015, 4:11 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
0_equals_true wrote:
infinity is a concept it is set by definition.

what mathematical proofs involve God or Santa?

In other words you are making pseudo-argument.


As I pointed out above in the reputable 'Scientific America', the math professor explains that mathematicians assume actual infinity exists to make their proofs.

Assuming something exists -- is faith-based reasoning.

No, it isn't, not really.
I can assume all i want, but it doesn't become faith untill i actually believe it is real and deny any claims to the opposite.


I can assume that ice is hot for all my life, and go around not touching it becouse it is hot.
But now, i see someone eating ice on a hot day who, when asked why, tells me it's nice and cold.

If i had a faith-based belief that ice was hot, i'd call this guy an idiot and a liar, but since i merely assumed, i would now try it out and (carefully) touch ice, since i saw someone else do it and not get hurt by it.

This is the difference between assumptions and beliefs.
Infinity has never been really challenged on its existence, not in mathematical approximations at least, and that's why it is still used



Aspinator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 676
Location: AspinatorLand

18 Sep 2015, 4:32 am

The way I see it, athesists and religious zealots are just on different ends of the same spectrum. Both are extremely intolerant of anyone who does not believe as they do.



neilson_wheels
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,463
Location: London, Capital of the Un-United Kingdom

18 Sep 2015, 5:35 am

Aspinator wrote:
The way I see it, athesists and religious zealots are just on different ends of the same spectrum. Both are extremely intolerant of anyone who does not believe as they do.


That's ridiculous. I'm an atheist, most of the people I know are too, I don't go around trying to convert anyone or get involved in discussions on theology. You seem to have a very narrow point of view based on a highly vocal minority.