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.html
where there are results of my search in Google. The story seems
to
have a happy end. Yet if Newton were a deist, then we would not
have
the Newton laws.
What? You think he would have discarded his law of universal
gravitation
if he had been a deist? Why wouldn't he have just concluded the
solar
system was unstable and would eventually be dispersed?
"Ancient Babylonian records showed that the planetary system had
been
stable for a considerable time."
"At any rate, there was a clash between the facts and Newton's
law of
gravitation used without additional assumptions."
Actually not. Newton's gravity would have shown that it would have
been
sufficiently stable much longer than Babylonian times - if Newton
had
been able to solve the multi-body problem. It is solved
numerically now
using computers.
Why do you suppose the solar system has been stable enough to be
predictable over millions of years? Do you think general
relativity is
necessary to explain that?
Brent
I believe that we should consider Newton in his historical context.
As far as I have understood, because of not quite right empirical
values (masses, etc.) and/or because of low level of mathematics
that was available at his time, his use of his laws did not agree
with observations.
Right. There was no "clash between the facts and Newton's law of
gravitation used without additional assumptions." There was a clash
between Newton's calculations of the consequences of his laws and
the actual consequences.
Hence his use of God.
This also raises a question about mathematics that bothers me. If
we assume that mathematics (for example Newton's laws written as
equations) is the result of neuron spikes, then to me this whole
story seems like a wonder. For example, try to think about the
history of Newton's laws according to the quote from
http://www.csc.twu.ca/byl/matter_math_god.pdf
(the references are in pdf)
"Materialists believe that mathematical objects exist only
materially, in our brains.[3] Mathematical objects are believed to
correspond to physical states of our brain and, as such, should
ultimately be explicable by neuroscience in terms of biochemical
laws. Stanislas Dehaene suggests that human brains come equipped at
birth with an innate, wired-in ability for mathematics.[4] He
postulates that, through evolution, the smallest integers (1, 2,
3 . . .) became hard-wired into the human nervous system, along
with a crude ability to add and subtract. A similar position is
defended by George Lakoff and Rafael Nunez, who seek to explain
mathematics as a system of metaphors that ultimately derive from
neural processes.[5] Penelope Maddy conjectures that our nervous
system contains higher order assemblies that correspond to thoughts
of particular sets.[6] She posits that our beliefs about sets and
other mathematical entities come, not from Platonic ideal forms,
but, rather, from certain physical events, such as the development
of pathways in neural systems. Such evolutionary explanations seek
to derive all our mathematical thoughts from purely physical
connections between neurons."
The same view expounded by W. S. Cooper's book "The Origin of
Reason" 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
Brent
Finally a good quote from the same paper
"Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of theism, concluded from
his study of the history of Greek philosophy that ‘‘Mathematics
is . . . 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 fifth
column all the time.
Evgenii
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
.
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
