GENIUS FORUMS

In this post i will define a system as a particular field of endevour together with its assumptions or as we call it , axioms.

Consider a soccer player and a rugby player.
Now if these people were to have an argument over which is true, whether or not you are allowed to use your hands in a "game", these two people would not agree on the answer.
The obvious answer would be that both answers would be correct if you say which particular "game" you are talking about.

Now both science and religion could be considered different "games" and as such will have different rules that apply only to each game but never to both.
These systems would have different assumptions or axioms, so it would not make sense to say which system is the true truth since truth of statements would depend on the axioms from which the truth was inffered.

Now according to religion the existence of god is an axiom.
It would not make sense to ask whether this could be proved or not since by definition an axiom is always true or rather it proves itself.

According to the game called science one of its axioms is that nothing is certain (excerpt this statement). This is one reason why science continues to grow.

A player of each game would argue strongly that their particular system is the one that embraces total truth but what the "actual truth" is is that in a way they are both right.
The axiom of the existence of god would be just as valid/invalid as any axiom that science has.
It could even be argued that the one axiom of science that i gave shows how insecure science is about itself and so any person deciding on which game to follow should be more likely to follow the religious system.

There is also the issue of the uncertainty principle of quantum physics which states that it is impossible to know both position and momentum of an electron (and everything else).
Lets explore the implications of this.

Say you had an electron in a box and you know its momentum.
This would mean that you would not know its position.
Now if you decide to know its momentum, because of the uncertainty principle , all information about its momentum would be lost.
Mass and velocity are both forms of energy and so momentum (mass*velocity) is also a form of energy.
If the momentum must change then it means that you have effectively increased the amount of energy in the system.
This change in energy came in nother manner than that you now know where the electron is.

It could then be argued that if we can create energy just by thinking about it , then why cant god?

Another issue that would shows us that matter depends of minds and not the other way around is the issue of free will.

According to current knowledge , things happen either randomly or deterministicaly.
That would mean that it is not fair to put people in prison because their actions were either determined at their birth (possibly earlier) so whatever they do is not their fault , or it happened randomly in which case it still isnt their fault.
(I know that it also means that there is also no point in them not being arrested because the arrestees also had no choice ,but you know what i mean).

What do you think?

chikoka wrote:Now according to religion the existence of god is an axiom.
It would not make sense to ask whether this could be proved or not since by definition an axiom is always true or rather it proves itself.

Axioms aren't necessarily true and if an axiom isn't true then it's not a good axiom.

Matt Gregory wrote:Axioms aren't necessarily true and if an axiom isn't true then it's not a good axiom.

In what way would an axiom be false if not bu inference from other , lower, axioms that would themselves be unverifiable?

chikoka wrote:Now according to religion the existence of god is an axiom.
It would not make sense to ask whether this could be proved or not since by definition an axiom is always true or rather it proves itself.

This particular axiom doesn't prove itself (if we are talking about the regular God who is some kind of a person or being).

For example, I could say it is an axiom that I have a personal cash wealth of a hundred billion dollars. And it can't be proven that I don't.

That's the kind of "axiom" religion has. That is, it's not a good one. And it doesn't prove itself.

Some things do prove themselves, like the fact that A=A. That is, a thing is itself, and not other than itself. So the law of identity is a good axiom.

In what way would an axiom be false if not by inference from other, lower, axioms that would themselves be unverifiable?

Take my good axiom above, "A thing is itself, and not other than itself". In other words, we are talking about logic.

It doesn't mean anything to say that we can't verify logic itself, because the only way we could verify it would be with logic, and that would be defeating the purpose.

So the fact that something is not verifiable, such as logic itself, does not invalidate it or cast any suspicion on it.

By contrast, that there is a personal God who consciously created the world, or that I have a hundred billion dollars at my ready disposal, is highly suspicious, if other explanations seem more likely.

chikoka wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote:Axioms aren't necessarily true and if an axiom isn't true then it's not a good axiom.

In what way would an axiom be false if not bu inference from other , lower, axioms that would themselves be unverifiable?

If it leads to a logical contradiction, or requires the support of a logical contradiction, or if the axiom turns out to be meaningless, then the axiom has been verified to be false. But I don't see choosing axioms as primarily about falsifying bad ones, but as about verifying that the axioms you are using are true. If you can't verify that an axiom is true, then I don't see any reason why I should assume that it's true. It just seems like a waste of time thinking about it to me, and I don't like to waste time.

Kevin Solway wrote:It doesn't mean anything to say that we can't verify logic itself, because the only way we could verify it would be with logic, and that would be defeating the purpose.

So the fact that something is not verifiable, such as logic itself, does not invalidate it or cast any suspicion on it.

Yeah, it's true that logic doesn't need to be verified, but I wouldn't go so far as to make a general rule out of it. Everything else needs to be verified with logic.

It could then be argued that if we can create energy just by thinking about it, then why cant god?

You are not creating energy but releasing it from a more bound state, by the action of your tools of observation.
Don't underestimate the effects of light. Light causes volitility and heat, it changes things dramatically over time.

uncertainty principle of quantum physics

You don't know it's exact position and momentum at the same time. Using this word makes a big difference.

The axiom of the existence of god would be just as valid/invalid as any axiom that science has.
It could even be argued that the one axiom of science that i gave shows how insecure science is about itself and so any person deciding on which game to follow should be more likely to follow the religious system.

Rationality is not a closed system. It must be based on sound logic, not accepted axioms.

According to the game called science one of its axioms is that nothing is certain (excerpt this statement). This is one reason why science continues to grow.

To what degree is everything uncertain. To what degree are you certain you just read this sentence and that you exist, to what degree are you certain about god, to what degree are you certain you had a piss yesterday?

A good deal of irrational uncertainty, relates to the problem of language generally and what occurs when things are named. When things are named people tend to falsely assume that the named thing is finite and has some sort of intrinsic existence. Neither is the case. Things have infinite causal actions that formed its existence, and its nature is interconnected and will change because of that which surrounds it. Science requires black and white interinsic things in order to assist it develop theories supported by analysis. The sceince must be repeatable and testible, so things must be taken as what they are to allow objective analysis and confirmation by others. This is not really how things are. There are many things that science and philosophers have correctly found to be certain, but step outside the defined situation, and the relationship to other science and peoples emotions causes uncertainty - one can always find other causal paths to investigate and expand upon. They excuse this problem by saying "everything is uncertain", when it is not.

This is not to say all science is right and completely rational, but much of it is. Science can help you understand the big picture, but philosophy ties it all together.

You are talking about two games with different rules.

Life is 1 game, but people are using different rules.

There is only 1 true rule to life.

One of these... Big Bang, God, other.. is true for 1 game. And there will be a final result.

chikoka wrote:That would mean that it is not fair to put people in prison because their actions were either determined at their birth (possibly earlier) so whatever they do is not their fault, or it happened randomly in which case it still isnt their fault.

What do you think?

Even though everything is determined, imprisoning people still keeps them off the streets, and therefore might make everyone else safer. Imprisonment may also work as a deterrent, and some would argue that it gives people a better chance for reform, or of getting psychological help that otherwise wouldn't be available.

Even though everything is determined, imprisoning people still keeps them off the streets, and therefore might make everyone else safer. Imprisonment may also work as a deterrent, and some would argue that it gives people a better chance for reform, or of getting psychological help that otherwise wouldn't be available.

You can't say that everything is determined. The universe had to start from nothing~(or God had to start from nothing..), and therefore other things can happen without cause as well. Probably observation. Even better.. self observation.

Pincho Paxton wrote:The universe had to start from nothing.

See new topic, "Can anything be without a cause?"

Kevin Solway wrote:Even though everything is determined, imprisoning people still keeps them off the streets,

My point was that they have no choice.
Imprisoning people would imply that you chose to do it.

Pincho Paxton wrote:Life is 1 game, but people are using different rules.

In what way is it one game if it has different rules.The best you can say is that there are different versions of the same game. My points would still apply because different versions have different rules and so can not be compared. Their axioms, if not the same must, contradict each other.

Jamesh wrote:You are not creating energy but releasing it from a more bound state, by the action of your tools of observation.
Don't underestimate the effects of light. Light causes volitility and heat, it changes things dramatically over time

The "light affects observation explanation" is not the true nature of quantum physics . What is actualy happening is that you knowing something changes it.
Look at the case of schrodingers cat.

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition ... 36,00.html

http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/ardlouis/d ... hrcat.html

Jamesh wrote:Rationality is not a closed system. It must be based on sound logic, not accepted axioms.

Could you prove the logical axioms ? If you cant then that would be an unsatisfactorial answer for any thinker.
It could also be proved false .
An example is the wave/pariticle duality found in quantum physics that violates the axiom of identity.

Jamesh wrote:Science requires black and white interinsic things in order to assist it develop theories supported by analysis.

In what way is the wave/particle duality black and white.
A particle can be considered a wave or a particle.

Jamesh wrote:here are many things that science and philosophers have correctly found to be certain, but step outside the defined situation, and the relationship to other science and peoples emotions causes uncertainty

In what way is something certain? (in general)

Matt Gregory wrote: Yeah, it's true that logic doesn't need to be verified, but I wouldn't go so far as to make a general rule out of it. Everything else needs to be verified with logic.

Why should this be true?
It just is , is an unsatisfactoral statement.

Jamesh wrote:To what degree is everything uncertain. To what degree are you certain you just read this sentence and that you exist, to what degree are you certain about god, to what degree are you certain you had a piss yesterday?

This universe could have just sprung into existance just one second ago just as it is together with your (illusioned) memory.

Matt Gregory wrote:If it leads to a logical contradiction, or requires the support of a logical contradiction, or if the axiom turns out to be meaningless, then the axiom has been verified to be false

Why should logic be above everything?

Matt Gregory wrote:If you can't verify that an axiom is true,

Could you give me a truth that doesnt need to be verified by an unverifiable axiom.

Kevin Solway wrote:For example, I could say it is an axiom that I have a personal cash wealth of a hundred billion dollars. And it can't be proven that I don't.

If an axiom contradicts another axiom within a particular system then that system wouldnt be very usefull.

We could build a version of the game mathematics that defines 2+2 as = 5.
This system would just as justifiable as any other game but playing this game would not help us in any way because it has no parrallels in the real world.

Your axiom (of having great wealth) would be true in your system but that system wouldnt be very useful.
When you say :

------
And it can't be proven that I don't.
-----

The word "proved" means derived from the axioms, so the way you use it is contradictoral since you are trying to prove a fact in one system (the one about your wealth)with axioms from another system(the "logical" system)

Kevin Solway wrote:Some things do prove themselves, like the fact that A=A. That is, a thing is itself, and not other than itself. So the law of identity is a good axiom.

As i explained earlier this is violated by the wave/particle duality of matter.

Kevin Solway wrote:"Can anything be without a cause?"

Using quantum erasure experiments it is possible to cause somthing in the past to change.

Here is a useful link

http://www.bottomlayer.com/

Go to the reality project


The site developers try to argue that we exist in a computer simulated world like in the matrix but apart from this nonsense ,(though it could be true), they explain quantum physics concepts quite accurately.

There is also the fact that abstract things only exist in minds.
Now everything can be viewed as a wave. What compounds this statement is that the thing that is waving doesnt exist.
Its like having a mexican wave without the mexicans.
In a stadium people make the wave .
It can be argued that the wave is just a description of the movement of the people,
What quantum physics has discovered is that the wave exists while the thing that is described by it does not.
In whose mind do we all exist?

chikoka wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:Even though everything is determined, imprisoning people still keeps them off the streets,

My point was that they have no choice.
Imprisoning people would imply that you chose to do it.

No, it doesn't necessarily imply that. All the reasons I gave for imprisonment are valid even though people don't have a choice about commiting a crime.

Kevin Solway wrote:Some things do prove themselves, like the fact that A=A. That is, a thing is itself, and not other than itself. So the law of identity is a good axiom.

As i explained earlier this is violated by the wave/particle duality of matter.

You can't say that something is "violated" without using logic (and the law of identity). So you are assuming that which you are trying to prove. And you can't do that.

Kevin Solway wrote:"Can anything be without a cause?"

Using quantum erasure experiments it is possible to cause somthing in the past to change.

In that case it's still being caused. You said it yourself.

There is also the fact that abstract things only exist in minds.

If a thing exists, it is caused. It doesn't matter what kind of thing it is.

What quantum physics has discovered is that the wave exists while the thing that is described by it does not.

It all depends on your definition of "exist".

In whose mind do we all exist?

We only have access to one mind, and that's our own.

In what way is it one game if it has different rules.The best you can say is that there are different versions of the same game. My points would still apply because different versions have different rules and so can not be compared. Their axioms, if not the same must, contradict each other.



In what way is the wave/particle duality black and white.
A particle can be considered a wave or a particle.

I didn't say that life has different rules, it only has 1 rule. I said that people are using different rules, which means that some of them are incorrect.

And wave/particle duality falls apart if you get rid of the Big Bang, and start with Dark Matter instead. You get light as a particle travelling through a wave, which isn't the same as light as both a particle, and a wave at the same time. the wave that you see is just the path that the light has taken through the dark matter.

I dont know if you people have read that link i posted on the "reality program" , but i was wondering that if you dont find quantum physics to be supernatural then ,(occams razor), wouldnt you think that the existence of god is more believable?

Look at the case of Schrödinger's cat again.

Its both dead and alive to start with.
I mean...

chikoka wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote: Yeah, it's true that logic doesn't need to be verified, but I wouldn't go so far as to make a general rule out of it. Everything else needs to be verified with logic.

Why should this be true?

Because logic is the only tool that can find truth.

Matt Gregory wrote:If it leads to a logical contradiction, or requires the support of a logical contradiction, or if the axiom turns out to be meaningless, then the axiom has been verified to be false

Why should logic be above everything?

Because everything is created with the support of logic. Without logic a thing can't exist because its boundaries would merge with the boundaries of all the things around it and literally disappear. Logic allows us to conceive of boundaries that don't change.

Matt Gregory wrote:If you can't verify that an axiom is true,

Could you give me a truth that doesnt need to be verified by an unverifiable axiom.

A=A

chikoka wrote:Look at the case of Schrödinger's cat again.

It's both dead and alive to start with.

It's not logically possible for a thing to be both dead and alive.

Logic takes precedence over all other concerns.

It is possible that the thing doesn't actually exist, in which case it would be neither dead nor alive.

Just like there's no such thing as something being in two places at the same time. Unless it's a hologram, but then it's not the same thing. It's not the same thingness.

chikoka wrote:I dont know if you people have read that link i posted on the "reality program" , but i was wondering that if you dont find quantum physics to be supernatural then ,(occams razor), wouldnt you think that the existence of god is more believable?

Look at the case of Schrödinger's cat again.

Its both dead and alive to start with.
I mean...

The problem with Schrodinger's cat is that the cat is an observer, therefore it dies in an hour. But a particle can be in two states at the same time, but it has to be free of sentience.

Ignis Fatuus wrote:Just like there's no such thing as something being in two places at the same time. Unless it's a hologram, but then it's not the same thing. It's not the same thingness.

Photons can be in two places at the same time. Time is only relevent to nature, because nature is the passage of information between one Dark Matter cradle and the next, so it has no liniarity, it is binary. There are particles that travel faster than nature, some are linear. They can get from one place in nature to the other before the information has been passed from one Dark Matter cradle to the next. Therefore in nature these particles appear to be in two places at the same time.

Pincho Paxton wrote:Photons can be in two places at the same time.

How logical is this.

Light is 100% a wave and 100% a particle.
Doesn't this violate the axiom of identity?

Pincho Paxton wrote:But a particle can be in two states at the same time, but it has to be free of sentience.

Doesnt this mean that sentience has a special place in this world?
It can change the properties of matter.
Wouldn't the existence of god be just taking this to its logical conclusion?

Kevin Solway wrote:chikoka wrote:
Look at the case of Schrödinger's cat again.

It's both dead and alive to start with.

It's not logically possible for a thing to be both dead and alive.

Logic takes precedence over all other concerns.

It is possible that the thing doesn't actually exist, in which case it would be neither dead nor alive.

Its not logical but according to current theory it is possible.
That is part of the reason i think logic is incomplete.