I keep coming back to this because, without understanding and acceptance of the natural world, you will never be able to relate to it.
Clearly, you have only a superficial understanding of natural mathematical functions.
Let’s begin with some basics.
When we look at nature, more often than not we see shapes and patterns that somehow self-organize by some inherent ordering system, which we have named “evolution via natural selection”
This process passively selects for strength, balance, maximum efficiency of energy distribution for maximum growth ability and survivability.
Examples are The Fibonacci Sequence which can be found everywhere, especially in flora that relies on sunlight.
Daisies, Sunflowers, and Trees, all grow via the Fibonacci sequence.
The Fibonacci sequence is particularly prevalent in plants, comprising more than 90 percent of all spirals found among them. Sunflower heads, pinecones, pineapples, and succulent houseplants all display Fibonacci spirals on their petals, leaves, and seeds.
Clearly, honeycombs are mathematical objects and were used by bees long before humans were around. Did bees invent mathematics???
To the first humans, this was thought to be proof of the existence of gods, unseen but powerful beings that were responsible for weather, seasons, sun, moon, constellations, growth, etc.
The truth is that all these naturally occurring repeatable patterns are proof of an underlying and fundamental mathematical ordering of relational physics.
For an excellent and in-depth video on the question of universal mathematics;
No it’s right, that’s why the debate is ongoing in mathematics.
It’s the difference between you catching a ball and getting hit in the face.
I find the more one sees the less you realize there is to people. As for the good time, that sounds like hindsight bias and not really what life is like.
Well no, the things don’t make you feel so there is no reason to feel any way about them since they are neutral.
Well no. It’s about as straightforward as the definition of what “life” is, which seems like a moving target on a good day. If you think it’s straightforward you don’t know that much about it.
But what is there to appreciate about it exactly?
No it doesn’t, for reasons already stated.
No that seems to be the case for you since you seem to think math is something we discovered instead of invented. We model reality so it makes sense to us, but that could always be wrong. That’s the foundation of science and math.
Not exactly, this is a mistaken notion of evolution.
No, you are still displaying human projection.
Not even close. You have to stop thinking like a human and assume the universe operates on concepts that make sense to us. I doubt bees know what a hexagon is, they just do what they do. We explain things so they make sense to us but that doesn’t always mean that’s what’s going on.
Universal mathematics isn’t supported by anyone except those types who think we can explain everything unaware that we invented the metrics that we measure everything by. At least those in other sciences recognize that base fact.
Well no, we assume such.
Again no, we infer that but without getting into their heads we don’t know that. That’s sorta the problem of other minds.
It’s not a decision, existence is empty. It’s easy to recognize when you stop trying to invent meaning and purpose, we are projecting outward and calling that reality when it’s all just our imagination.
You’re disconnected from reality by assigning meaning and value to anything you do or say or think. It’s not unfair to call it psychosis because that is what it is. Pretending something matters when it doesn’t. Thinking there is a point when there isn’t.
It’s got nothing to do with religion, not sure where you got that from. It’s in everything we do. Any time people make a pile of steel and glass into more than what it is, or paint and canvas more than it is, or ink on paper, all of it. It’s delusion to believing in meaning and purpose to life.
The fact that it’s all chemicals further supports that since it’s just reactions, it doesn’t mean anything if you’re happy or sad or angry, it’s just a chemical reaction. Any meaning you assign to it is delusional.
If you make meaning, if you think anything is good, bad, fun, great, etc, then you’re not living in reality.
Did you smiled at the Orangutan clip? If you did, it proves my point.
No that seems to be the case for you since you seem to think math is something we discovered instead of invented. We model reality so it makes sense to us, but that could always be wrong. That’s the foundation of science and math.
Don’t you see that you are contradicting yourself?
Humans invented math because we modeled it from reality. Think about that statement.
Not exactly, this is a mistaken notion of evolution.
And here is where you reveal your ignorance of the subject.
The process is not called “evolution”. It is called “evolution via natural selection”
Evolution by Natural Selection
Evolution is the change in inherited characteristics or traits in a population of organisms over many generations. The mechanism that best explains evolution is a phenomenon known as natural selection. Natural selection is the process by which certain inherited traits—such as the color of a fish, height of a person, or shape of a leaf—are favored within a population. A population is a group of organisms that mate and reproduce with one another.
In general,
traits persist in a population because they contribute to the success of the organism, or
traits are eliminated because they detract from the success of the organism.
Thousands of years of selective pressures have determined the shapes, colors, sizes, and behaviors that optimize the survival and reproductive success of organisms in the environment in which they evolved. In fact, it is often possible to tell a lot about where something lives by how it looks and behaves. Evolution by Natural Selection | manoa.hawaii.edu/ExploringOurFluidEarth
No, you are still displaying human projection.
No, you are projecting that bees know maths, because they use the honey comb
The “hexagon” is a mathematical object. Bees are mathematicians?
Hexagons in natureHoneycombs, snowflakes, the compound eyes of various insects, benzene and other cyclic compounds, and certain types of minerals are among the most well-known examples of hexagonal structures in nature.
Nov 7, 2024
hexagon , in geometry, a six-sided polygon. In a regular hexagon, all sides are the same length, and each internal angle is 120 degrees. The area of a regular hexagon is commonly determined with the formula: area = 3√3/2× side2In an irregular hexagon, the sides are of unequal length, and each internal angle can be more or less than 120 degrees.
Regular hexagons can be used to pack the most number of units into a flat plane with no wasted space and with a minimum perimeter. Hexagons are not only commonly found in nature, they are also used in various types of human designs and data displays. Hexagon | Definition, Shape, Area, Angles, & Sides | Britannica
Evolution via natural selection caused the natural formation of hexagons in many natural objects. Humans had nothing to do with the formation of hexagons (mathematical patterns) in nature. These patterns emerged because of their utilitarian efficiency. NATURE INVENTED MATHEMATICS, not humans.
Humans copied natural mathematics and assigned symbolic values to the structure.
Not even close. You have to stop thinking like a human and assume the universe operates on concepts that make sense to us. I doubt bees know what a hexagon is, they just do what they do. We explain things so they make sense to us but that doesn’t always mean that’s what’s going on.
Noooo! (he exclaimed in exasperation). It is you who is anthropomorphizing the concept of naturally occurring mathematical functions.
Humans did not invent maths. We codified and symbolized naturally occurring maths. The universe does not know maths. It just functions mathematically, just as bees do when they create hexagonal honeycombs.
Universal mathematics isn’t supported by anyone except those types who think we can explain everything unaware that we invented the metrics that we measure everything by. At least those in other sciences recognize that base fact.
That is a false statement, supported by those types who think that there are only physical objects unable to self-organize into mathematical patterns, but must use mathematics to make any sense of it all to begin with.
Question: Name me one object that cannot be represented with a symbolic “relational value”. Ever heard of “Relativity”? Think about what that means.
Clearly you did not bother to watch Antonsen. For shame.
Following your logic, the ball speeding at your face a neutral nothing?
That’s funny.
What’s your notion of evolution?
What creates that imagination?
Empty Existence?
You forget about “frames of reference” and such.
Sure, your body is just a sack of chemical reactions.
And it has no reason to think about the other sacks of chemical reactions?
You sure don’t give living creatures much credit.
Did you smile at the Orangutan clip? If you did, it proves my point.
No that seems to be the case for you since you seem to think math is something we discovered instead of invented. We model reality so it makes sense to us, but that could always be wrong. That’s the foundation of science and math.
And what is it that we are modeling? Is it something that we know nothing about or is it something that we are observing in nature, like recurring patterns everywhere we look?
Don’t you see that you are contradicting yourself?
Humans invented math because we modeled it from reality. Think about that statement.
Not exactly, this is a mistaken notion of evolution.
The process is not called “evolution”. It is called “evolution via natural selection”
It is a mathematically based probabilistic function that selects for "best"adaption to the environment.
[quote=“write4u, post:502, topic:11076”]
The natural occurrence of the exponential sequence was “discovered” and codified by humans, but it was present long before humans were around.
Many hive insects like bees use hexagonal honeycombs for efficient food storage and egg depositories.
No, you are still displaying human projection.
Not even close. You have to stop thinking like a human and assume the universe operates on concepts that make sense to us. I doubt bees know what a hexagon is, they just do what they do. We explain things so they make sense to us but that doesn’t always mean that’s what’s going on.
No, bees do not think like humans. Humans observe bees and how they unconsciously but practically use their evolved ability to construct their honeycombs, which are based on “the most efficient mathematical structure” for storing maximum inventory.
Universal mathematics isn’t supported by anyone except those types who think we can explain everything unaware that we invented the metrics that we measure everything by. At least those in other sciences recognize that base fact.
The reason why other scientists hesitate to give credit to the concept of a mathematical ordered universe is due to the fact that science is unable to make measurements at Planck scales (the fine structure), where mathematics become “superposed”.
The general consensus is that quantum field theory fails at the energy scale we call the Planck scale. At this scale, quantum gravity becomes important, and perturbative quantum field theory can no longer make reliable predictions.Aug 13, 2023 https://www.quora.com/At-the-Planck-scale-are-there-quantum-fields#
But there is an ongoing debate about The nature of “fractals” which is independent of physics. Physics do not work at Planck scale, so you might as well say that we don’t yet have a clue what the Universe is made of and how it functions.
Introduction to Fractals:
A Fractal is a type of mathematical shape that are infinitely complex. In essence, a Fractal is a pattern that repeats forever, and every part of the Fractal, regardless of how zoomed in, or zoomed out you are, it looks very similar to the whole image.
Fractals surround us in so many different aspects of life. Since the term is becoming more widely used we wanted to create the definitive guide to understanding what Fractals are, why Fractals are important, and how Fractals impact our lives. This Ultimate Guide to Fractals will address common questions like: What is a Fractal? How do fractals work? What are Fractals used for? and much more.
The major different types of categories of Fractals we will explore in this guide include:
Fractals in Nature
Fractals in Computers
Fractal Shapes
Fractals in Math
Fractals in 3D modeling
Fractal in Information and Data Management
Fractals in Computer System Architecture
Fractals in other areas of Technology
Fractals in Physical Structures
Fractals and Human Psychology
Fractals in Time
Fractals in Sound
Fractals in Art
Fractals in Law
It is now suspected (at Plank scale) that the spacetime fabric itself unfolds in a fractal manner.
Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT)
There is evidence [1] that, at large scales, CDT approximates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime but shows spacetime to be 2-dimensional near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time.
These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work.
You bring in psychology studies when it’s convenient for you then throw them out when they start talking about your feelings.
Okay. Now we have no basis for anything. Even if you we are brains in vats, there are still brains and vats. You said we are chemicals. Are those objects?
0:42
Plantinga argues that there’s a better chance of Discerning the truth with a mind created by a loving God than a cognitive system formed by Evolution
Oh so we are back to thinking we human are created by a personal God - of course with Earth as ours to consume and dispose of as our egos dictate.
That works splendidly in your metaphysical imagination - but in the real world you’ll find your body has a different opinion.
I’m into the here and now, interacting with reality, then allowing my body/brain to process best it can. You exist on a slightly loftier plain, but one with no foundation.
Oh so “chemicals” are “empty existence” - I’m assuming empty existence means they don’t exist? Or?
Oh then you double down.
I think you have much more of ruminating on the inconsistencies with your vision.
What ever that’s supposed to mean.
See I started out much dumber than you and confined myself to observing and learning, and working out from there. You seem to start with assumption and back fill. That is not the scientific method.
Inthedarkness joined one year and a couple days ago. I mentioned early on that his line of reasoning resembled that of theists who come here and have an argument that pokes holes in reasoning or naturalism or how minds work and then eventually stop using logic and just say we’re all wrong and God is the only possible right answer.
We finally got there. He’ll deny he did this, he denies everything. Plantiga takes some serious thought to get through so I’m not surprised he doesn’t see the errors. It makes no difference. He told us he couldn’t figure what was wrong with the website that he was reading, so we always knew he lacked the skills to work through ideas about minds.
What’s different about this guy is his persistence in saying others are wrong despite his inability to even say why he thinks what he does.
I told you I didn’t, even if I did it would prove nothing.
Nope, we are creating models to predict reality, though you seem to think that is objective reality.
No it’s because we invented math and we are just modeling our perceptions which may or may not be reality.
It’s not, again this is still rooted in human perception.
They aren’t talking about my feelings, but it’s not bringing it in when it’s convenient. You said to stop saying meaningless is bad and yet the science seems to suggest thinking that IS bad, thereby making your point irrelevant.
It’s more like it’s based on the older philosophical arguments about the distinctions and borders we draw between objections and how those are arbitrary. There is a line of thinking in Buddhism that says that there are no objects because it’s only the mind that creates such distinctions between things.
Not the point and if that’s what you thought you missed the whole argument being made.
Nope, your body doesn’t have an opinion unless you do, and if you don’t put any stock in the ball then it will just hit you in the face.
you’re not but there’s no point getting into that.
More like you’re still not getting it after having it explained several times.
There aren’t inconsistencies and I’ve already explained why such frames of reference are delusions.
Well no, that’s you. All this is just based on observation and learning. You’re just adding what isn’t there to it and considering that observation when that’s not true. When you just observe everything else falls away, you’re not there yet.
I’m not suggesting God at all though. And you haven’t really gotta over the rebuttals I had without fallacies.
It was more like you never gave any reasons why that was wrong when I asked you about it. You just asserted so or suggested therapy and I already explained why that didn’t work.
Even still you never really gave a reason why he was wrong or explained anything. I’m starting to wonder if you really understood what he was getting at, because it wasn’t about building habits like you said.
If you actually addressed any of it I wouldn’t be asking about it or be here.
It’s just acceptance of reality which is empty of everything you say it is. It’s basic observation.
Lordie, lordie! You’re just all over the place, aren’t you?
Natural selection is the engine that drives evolution.
The individual organisms with the variation best suited to survive in their particular circumstances have a greater chance of passing that trait on to the next generation. Nov 3, 2023
Charles Darwin coined the term “natural selection.” You’ll typically hear it alongside the often misunderstood evolutionary catchphrase “survival of the fittest.”
But survival of the fittest isn’t necessarily the bloody, tooth-and-claw battle for survival we tend to make it out to be (although sometimes it is).
Rather, natural selection occurs as species change to adapt to life: how efficient a tree is at dispersing seeds; a fish’s ability to find a safe spawning ground before laying her eggs; the skill with which a bird retrieves seeds from the deep, fragrant cup of a flower; a bacterium’s resistance to antibiotics.
I don’t think you realize who Plantiga is or why he is making the arguments he is making. You saw some anti-naturalism logic and it fit your bias, so you linked to it. The video addresses it just fine, so the fact that I’m not repeating things that are easily available to you, has nothing to do with what I know or how logic works.
I’m talking about other studies, referenced months ago, that talk about how to improve our feelings of happiness. You reference nothing. What science? A random comment about the difficulty of dealing with our existence is not scientific proof of your logic.
This is, again, the part about information without understanding or analysis.
I think you misunderstand why I linked the video. It had nothing to do with the guy arguing for a soul.
And I explained why those studies were not valid and why the field of positive psychology isn’t taken seriously. Like…you guys cite studies that don’t prove your point and it’s something I learned when studying psychology in college about how positive psychology has issues with replication among other things that lead it to not be taken seriously.
In short it’s a fad and you suffer from the same errors my previous therapists had when they tried to help and couldn’t fathom their methods being done and not working.
Nevermind the other remark that things don’t make us happy because there is no emotions being transferred from the thing or action to us.
Like again…you never actually address the issue, even when I made that post about feelings you never addressed the arguments in the post and what you said wasn’t cited in the post even when I directly quoted it to prove you wrong.
You just deflect because you don’t really have an argument against it.
That’s what I was trying to say. You picked out the arguments against naturalism and ignored that those arguments were being made by a Christian Apologist. You hear the arguments against naturalism and evolution, which includes Darwin doubting himself, but you don’t appear to hear the counter discussion at all.
If you look back over the 500+ posts in this thread, and hundreds of others in our other discussions, yes, I do give reasons. Then you say, “Buddhism doesn’t work” in response, or whatever it is I said, you just say “that” didn’t work, even though today you said,
You pick out what you agree with and don’t apply your own experience or your own ability to reason to the difficult questions that you are exploring.
Let me remind you that by your own admission it is you who seems to need therapy, while you accuse everyone else of ignorance and misunderstanding. How convenient.
Again no. The point was that we model whatever this experience is and what we use is what enable us to best predict what is going to happen. Why would you think I’m siding with the soul guy?
Thing is I did and I see the parts where I quoted direct how you were wrong about what Gary said or meant by it to which you never really replied.
The point was that things don’t make us feel, thoughts and beliefs do. So you can just edit those to always been happy since the feelings are coming from you then you can just create whatever feeling you want. That’s what saying X makes me feel Y is wrong.
I didn’t say I agreed with it, I’m just saying there is an argument for the doubt of the existence of objects because we draw the lines between the “things”. Personally I found the Buddhist reasoning for that wonky because we can clearly see boundaries between things even if they do shift there is still a form held together. Their definition of “real” I find problematic also. Though it was always something I couldn’t shake.
I question that at times, especially since the therapist never seems to understand what the problem is no matter how much I repeat myself or break it down. Without showing them the full article they can’t really help me because the tools they talk about using don’t work.
