On 08 Apr 2012, at 19:55, meekerdb wrote:

On 4/8/2012 5:20 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:On 08.04.2012 09:04 meekerdb said the following:On 4/7/2012 10:36 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:On 07.04.2012 22:16 meekerdb said the following:On 4/7/2012 5:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:...More to this story http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/04/god-as-a-cosmic-operator.htmlwhere there are results of my search in Google. The story seemstohave a happy end. Yet if Newton were a deist, then we would nothavethe Newton laws.What? You think he would have discarded his law of universalgravitationif he had been a deist? Why wouldn't he have just concluded thesolarsystem was unstable and would eventually be dispersed?"Ancient Babylonian records showed that the planetary system hadbeenstable for a considerable time.""At any rate, there was a clash between the facts and Newton'slaw ofgravitation used without additional assumptions."Actually not. Newton's gravity would have shown that it would havebeensufficiently stable much longer than Babylonian times - if Newtonhadbeen able to solve the multi-body problem. It is solvednumerically nowusing computers. Why do you suppose the solar system has been stable enough to bepredictable over millions of years? Do you think generalrelativity isnecessary to explain that? BrentI believe that we should consider Newton in his historical context.As far as I have understood, because of not quite right empiricalvalues (masses, etc.) and/or because of low level of mathematicsthat was available at his time, his use of his laws did not agreewith observations.Right. There was no "clash between the facts and Newton's law ofgravitation used without additional assumptions." There was a clashbetween Newton's calculations of the consequences of his laws andthe actual consequences.Hence his use of God.This also raises a question about mathematics that bothers me. Ifwe assume that mathematics (for example Newton's laws written asequations) is the result of neuron spikes, then to me this wholestory seems like a wonder. For example, try to think about thehistory of Newton's laws according to the quote fromhttp://www.csc.twu.ca/byl/matter_math_god.pdf (the references are in pdf)"Materialists believe that mathematical objects exist onlymaterially, in our brains.[3] Mathematical objects are believed tocorrespond to physical states of our brain and, as such, shouldultimately be explicable by neuroscience in terms of biochemicallaws. Stanislas Dehaene suggests that human brains come equipped atbirth with an innate, wired-in ability for mathematics.[4] Hepostulates that, through evolution, the smallest integers (1, 2,3 . . .) became hard-wired into the human nervous system, alongwith a crude ability to add and subtract. A similar position isdefended by George Lakoff and Rafael Nunez, who seek to explainmathematics as a system of metaphors that ultimately derive fromneural processes.[5] Penelope Maddy conjectures that our nervoussystem contains higher order assemblies that correspond to thoughtsof particular sets.[6] She posits that our beliefs about sets andother mathematical entities come, not from Platonic ideal forms,but, rather, from certain physical events, such as the developmentof pathways in neural systems. Such evolutionary explanations seekto derive all our mathematical thoughts from purely physicalconnections between neurons."The same view expounded by W. S. Cooper's book "The Origin ofReason" which I have recommended.

`But they confuse human mathematics and the mathematics (like notably`

`elementary arithmetic) that they use to make sense to notion like`

`brain, matter, etc.`

`UDA just refute the conjunction of materialism and mechanism. This`

`really leads to the elimination of the person (not to confuse with the`

`elimination of the "little ego" in some mystic tradition)/`

`This is well illustrated in this (one hour) BBC broadcast, featuring`

`Marcus de Sautoy (who wrote a nice book on the "music of the primes").`

`(thanks to the salvianaut linking to this in a salvia forum)`

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Biv_8xjj8E

`Despite being mathematicians, de Sautoy still believes he is flesh and`

`bones, and that consciousness is neuronal activity. His reasoning are`

`valid, but uses implicitly both mechanism and the aristotelian`

`conception of reality. That can't work (cf UDA).`

Bruno

BrentFinally a good quote from the same paper"Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of theism, concluded fromhis study of the history of Greek philosophy that ‘‘Mathematicsis . . . the chief source of the belief in eternal and exact truth,as well as in a supersensible intelligible world.’’".This shows nicely that the mathematicians have been as a fifthcolumn all the time.Evgenii--You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.