Upon what foundation does that god “mathematics” exist?
The equation I’ve been referring to:
There is Only God = There is Only Reality
Simply requires acknowledging the significance of non-relative infinitude. That being the immeasurable horizon line for all paradigms.
The bugaboo to this is defining, or not defining, “Reality”
There are as many Gods as humanity wants there to be (since God is created from within the human mind and experience) ≠ there is only one physical reality that all creatures perceive slightly differently.
Because each of us is bound up in our own particular unique body and existence.
Welcome back brmckay, missed your considered opinions.
To answer your question a single word will suffice: “Logic”
Let’s start with Foundations of Mathematics
Foundations of mathematics is the study of the philosophical and logical[1] and/or algorithmic basis of mathematics, or, in a broader sense, the mathematical investigation of what underlies the philosophical theories concerning the nature of mathematics.[2]
In this latter sense, the distinction between foundations of mathematics and philosophy of mathematics turns out to be quite vague. Foundations of mathematics can be conceived as the study of the basic mathematical concepts (set, function, geometrical figure, number, etc.) and how they form hierarchies of more complex structures and concepts, especially the fundamentally important structures that form the language of mathematics (formulas, theories and their models giving meaning to formulas, definitions, proofs, algorithms, etc.) also called [metamathematical concepts](Metamathematics - Wikipedia), with an eye to the philosophical aspects and the unity of mathematics.
The search for foundations of mathematics is a central question of the philosophy of mathematics; the abstract nature of mathematical objects presents special philosophical challenges.
Foundations of mathematics - Wikipedia
which rests on Mathematical Logic
Mathematical logic is the study of formal logic within mathematics. Major subareas include model theory, proof theory, set theory, and recursion theory. Research in mathematical logic commonly addresses the mathematical properties of formal systems of logic such as their expressive or deductive power. However, it can also include uses of logic to characterize correct mathematical reasoning or to establish [foundations of mathematics](Foundations of mathematics - Wikipedia).
Since its inception, mathematical logic has both contributed to and been motivated by the study of the foundations of mathematics. This study began in the late 19th century with the development of axiomatic frameworks for geometry, arithmetic, and analysis. In the early 20th century it was shaped by David Hilbert’s program to prove the consistency of foundational theories. Results of Kurt Gödel, Gerhard Gentzen, and others provided partial resolution to the program and clarified the issues involved in proving consistency.
Work in set theory showed that almost all ordinary mathematics can be formalized in terms of sets, although there are some theorems that cannot be proven in common axiom systems for set theory.
Mathematical logic - Wikipedia
I see the concept of Logic as the identity of an abstract axiomatic order from which mathematical guiding equations are derived, which have been discovered, symbolized, codified, and formalized.
David Bohm termed this relationship as the “Implicate” enfolded logical order, expressed as the “Explicate” unfolded mathematical order.
The term God identifies this abstract guiding equation but then has been anthropomorphized as having human attributes such as “motive” and “emotions” which is IMO totally irrelevant and superfluous.
Used by its current definition, the term God creates more confusion than clarity as is exemplified by the total confusion among religious sects.
God has never been credited with being Logical.
I have never heard of anybody going to war and killing millions of people over a mathematical concept!
Is it logical to have interpreted my comment in terms of some other people’s tendencies, rather than address the equation I provided.
As for other people’s tendencies, why ignore the obvious question that arises…upon what foundation does the “god” logic exist? When I was deliberately pointing to the universal horizon line of non-relative infinitude. That, being my intuited understanding of what David Bohm more elaborately referenced as Entirety.
(I say “intuited”, because my associates degree in liberal arts relied on it a lot.)
“logic and math” being something the Universe/Reality does,…no actual beginning or end to it.
Since there are many different types and colors of hats, does that disqualify the use of the term “Hat” ?
When you say “each of us is bound up in our own particular unique body and existence” are you not declaring your choice of hat more real than mine?
When I’m obviously using the therm “Reality” to reference the aggregate of of all relative realities.
(aka Reality-as-it-actually-is)
No. I think what I’m saying, following your analogy, is that only one of those hats belongs to me.
But how do you mean that?
The aggregate of what’s going on in all of our respective minds?
To my way of perception, it’s physical reality, that following physical laws, other demand that it mean math, let that be what it may.
Seems to me, the physical reality that created us, is beyond our perceptions of it.
In that our perceptions impacts our understanding,
but our perception, in itself, does not impact that physical reality.
Not to be mistaken with turning thoughts into physical reality, via our bodies and hands,
which most certainly impacts physical reality as Earth’s current ill-health demonstrates.
In that case, is there a reason why Reality should need to be redefined as God?
I always come back to the questions; Has the concept of Reality ever been used to wage war? Has the concept of Mathematics ever been used to wage war?
If God can be used as representing these “common” terms. Why have there been so many wars in the concept of God?
because g
because God is not the reality, but a representation of it, an ideology.
As such religion reflects not the reality per se, but the idea of reality of the believers.
And wars are not waged and crimes are not committed for the concept of god, but in the name of god. In fact in the name of these representations.
And religions are tools of powers. Powers fight for supremacy.
It represents my personal evolution. Your war with religion has no bearing on that.
Reality-as-it-actually-is/God, accommodating both our models as well as the anthropomorphic, and war inspiring versions.
Your relation to both the term, and Reality, is political. What I’m pointing out is simply more reflective of Truth. Same way as mathematics.
And your relation to both the term and Reality is not political?
And, pray tell, what is demonstrably true about religion?
We can prove that mathematics is true, because it is functional and it does not cause war because mathematics is universally accepted.
Did you watch the Ricky Gervaise exchange with Stephen Colbert (a devout catholic) . In case you missed it, this was a brilliant argument by Gervais proving the foundational reliability of universal mathematics as compared to religious dogma.
Your reluctance to entertain understanding non-relative infinitude, as both the responsible potential, and the seamless aggregate of realities can always be examined…but I can’t do it for you.
Not acknowledging the absolute context, doesn’t actually cancel it.
Same thing that is true about you or me enjoying a beautiful sunset, the spacetime continuum, and 1+1=2.
Relativity is an effect of the undivided Whole. Comparisons of this and that, belief or any phenomenon, are subsets, not the measure of Reality. Reality-as-it-actually-is being immeasurable.
I understand the poetic impact nature has on the human psyche.
But to compare God with Mathematics is a false equivalence.
According to Gospel, God is a motivated agency and is therefore a sentient being without origin or physical properties. If Reality is a product of God’s mind how then can we functionally apply “faith in God” to our lives today and a 1000 years from now?
What revised version of the Bible shall we use to affect Reality vs what revised version of mathematics shall we use to affect Reality?
And here it becomes apparent that religion is the political (psychological) tool.
God is not considered relative but a supernatural absolute in Reality, a political statement. Prayers are not natural functional tools except for affecting the human psyche, a psychological statement.
Whereas applied Mathematics is the proven natural functional tool for affecting conditions in Reality, a scientific statement.
They sound more like words to impress than concept you can define.
Write makes much more coherent arguments, and is happy to define himself as much as anyone presses him.
I don’t fully agree with him, but that’s more about a philosophical perspective from a human being who sees a bit more to our reality than simply math, but I surely couldn’t deny his fundamental observation that the essence of mathematics permeates all of physical matter and interactions.
Both good points.
Neither you or write4u have gotten your projections out of the way long enough to understand that just as 1+1=2 does not support an opinion, neither does my statement that the absolute context of Reality (as it actually is) is just that…the absolute context. In Truth, undivided (else there would be two absolute contexts), representing non-relative infinitude.
The Whole, of which the parts, representing the flux of change and interaction, are in Truth not greater than or less than .
All sense of significance, and of this or that being synchronistic effects. The non-relative infinitude of the Whole remaining unchanged.
If this explanation does not break the logjam I will quietly acknowledge my limitations and move on once again.
What I have pointed to is that the Truth underlying mathematics is not something different than the non-relative infinitude of Entirety.
The rest of your comment about the “Bible”, a “relative God” and something you are calling “supernatural” is not relevant to anything I’ve said.
From past experience, I’ve learned that you won’t stop wasting our time. (prove me wrong and I might stick around)
You have my unqualified agreement as long as you call it “the Wholeness” (see “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”, David Bohm)
But then that makes the term God superfluous, especially if taken as a biblical construct.
Ricky Gervais put a proper perspective on the biblical story of creation.
“In the beginning there was nothing, then God created light. There was still nothing, but you could see it a whole lot better.”
Sorry doesn’t help one bit. Guess I’m hung up with the folds within folds of cumulative harmonic complexity flowing down the cascade of time. That harmonizes, it makes sense and is reflected in Earth’s development and life’s evolution, it’s what my experience and learning and mediations have led me too.
The non-relative infinitude of the Whole feels like a word salad, no matter how I roll around that sentence in my mind, it doesn’t convey any idea I can do anything with.
Guess I’m realizing a part of it is that at 67 yrs, I’ve had enough of thinking about the Cosmos and the cosmic, at this point, for me, it’s dissolving into old reruns.
The stuff that has remained and increased in importance and interest for me, has to do with here on Earth, life and what this planet was and is, in full stone sober realization its irreversibly transitioning away from what we’ve known and loved. So it becomes ever more precious, while the grand cosmos become ever more irrelevant.
Sorry, pm
I agree in principle with the implacable nature of the universe.
But many scientists will argue that for one, universal time is relative to the POV of the observer and synchronicity is a relative function. i.e. if two events at each end of the universe happen at the exact same time, it may take a billion lightyears for each to receive and experience that event. The argument is that ;
In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity – whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time – is not absolute, but depends on the observer’s reference frame. This possibility was raised by mathematician Henri Poincaré in 1900, and thereafter became a central idea in the special theory of relativity. In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that distant simultaneity – whether two spatially separated events occur at the same time – is not absolute, but depends on the observer’s reference frame. This possibility was raised by mathematician Henri Poincaré in 1900, and thereafter became a central idea in the special theory of relativity.
Relativity of simultaneity - Wikipedia
That seems to speak directly against a non-relative wholeness.
Mind that I am In Bohm’s corner with his concept of “Universal Wholeness”, but you will have a terrible time with relativists.
I found a talk in one your other threads