Mathematics is all about developing logical tools. Basically things like “if we start with this assumption, then you can make this conclusion”. After you’ve developed all of these tools, then you can look at the universe around you and apply those tools to your observations in order to come to new conclusions about that same universe. There necessarily needs to be that input that ties it back to reality. Mathematics on its own doesn’t tell us anything about reality.
idk, it seems to have described so much about the universe with so few input. And can just study itself like in “Gödel’s incompleteness theorems” to give constraints on what you aspire to achieve with it. I’d call math/logic/reason fairly strong by themselves.
I’d call math/logic/reason fairly strong by themselves.
What does strong mean in this context? It’s a very useful tool. No one is denying that. It just doesn’t tell us anything about the universe without input from that same universe.
theologians argue that logic is enough to prove the existence of God
they have to. science keeps painting ‘god’ into a smaller and smaller corner every day.
Remember that math doesn’t seem to follow the scientific method either you know
LOLOLOL
it’s repeatedly provable, stood the test of time, like the scientific method, it’s consistency and reproducibility weigh much more than philosophy stack exchange k thnks.
this really isn’t a discussion I’m interested in continuing.
In their 2017 paper (opens a new tab), published in Physical Review Letters, Turok and his co-authors approached Hartle and Hawking’s no-boundary proposal with new mathematical techniques that, in their view, make its predictions much more concrete than before. “We discovered that it just failed miserably,” Turok said. “It was just not possible quantum mechanically for a universe to start in the way they imagined.” The trio checked their math and queried their underlying assumptions before going public, but “unfortunately,” Turok said, “it just seemed to be inescapable that the Hartle-Hawking proposal was a disaster.”
yes, theologians argue that logic is enough to prove the existence of God: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
If you refute logic/reason cuz you only like science that you experiment on, then you’re too caught in the material buddy. Remember that math doesn’t seem to follow the scientific method either you know ? Please don’t tell me you refute it too.
I notice that the word I know in my language kalam is a little different from theology, but theology is the closest translation I have.
Mathematics is all about developing logical tools. Basically things like “if we start with this assumption, then you can make this conclusion”. After you’ve developed all of these tools, then you can look at the universe around you and apply those tools to your observations in order to come to new conclusions about that same universe. There necessarily needs to be that input that ties it back to reality. Mathematics on its own doesn’t tell us anything about reality.
idk, it seems to have described so much about the universe with so few input. And can just study itself like in “Gödel’s incompleteness theorems” to give constraints on what you aspire to achieve with it. I’d call math/logic/reason fairly strong by themselves.
Yes, few inputs. Not none.
What does strong mean in this context? It’s a very useful tool. No one is denying that. It just doesn’t tell us anything about the universe without input from that same universe.
hmm, idk, okay.
they have to. science keeps painting ‘god’ into a smaller and smaller corner every day.
LOLOLOL
it’s repeatedly provable, stood the test of time, like the scientific method, it’s consistency and reproducibility weigh much more than philosophy stack exchange k thnks.
this really isn’t a discussion I’m interested in continuing.
I feel like I know who you’re quoting, and I remember encountering: https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/
to quote the part that appeals to me: