How do you get to "arbitrary axioms"?

Arbitrary implies decisions based on personal whim or random choice. What axiom is based on such things?

Wouldn't you agree that there are parts of your life for which math is really important? The baud rate of your computer, the number of dollars in your account, the speed limit of your car, the time of day you pick up your daughter from school, the accuracy of your motorcycle's fuel gauge, the megajoules of power you get billed for by your utility company, the calculations of lift that keep your Airbus in the sky.

And not important like a 'god' (whatever that is, I still have no idea), just important in terms of the underlying way we measure and make sense of the fixed and variable parameters of our sense of reality? And if you agree math-based calculations do have something real to say about our understanding of material reality, something that helps us stay alive, at what point does it lose its value?

DP

Since ridicule almost always impedes productive discussion, your opinion likely holds only if you are not interested in engaging in such.

Sorry guys, I'm not going to be able to post on these forums if I have to constantly format my posts. It's too difficult to add quoteblocks for everybody..


"So, you're an atheist who doesn't accept "irrational explanations"?  Also, what kind of god are you referring to in you're last sentence?" -Blacklight915

No, atheism involves "beliefs". My position on God & Mathphyz is that they ARE irrational and I can demonstrate it to you.


"Notwithstanding the fact I don't know what a god actually is, I'd be keen to hear why you think a human god concept is impossible -" -Atheistextremist

God is the Creator of the Universe and this is impossible because

1. Existence is not a process & therefore has no beginning/end.

2. God, in order to exist, must have shape (provided by space) and location (provided by a distance to other objects).  Existence PRESUPPOSES a universe. Even God cannot perform his magic tricks without space.

"Could some one please clearly show me how it is that math-based measurement fails to be a viable method of forming reasonable beliefs in support of what our senses consistently show us are certain aspects of reality. " - Atheist Extreme

Measurement is inherently SUBJECTIVE because measurement is a VERB, an action performed by humans.

How tall am I? You might say 6'4 I might say 6'5? Do we count the length of my hair? Can I stand on my tip toes? Do we use metric or english? Any measurement is done by a subjective human observer... there is no way around this.

" What I mean to say is that without observation, science has no fundamental basis.  You can theorize about evolution because we can observe the fossil record, continuity in the DNA and other anatomical connections." -Ktulu

The FUNDAMENTAL basis of Science is ASSUMPTION & EXPLANATION. that is all. We make assumptions (hypothesis) and then explain how an event occurs (Theory) simple as that! Science and exploration are completely divorced.

"What other epistemic method do you possess that does not involve your senses?  Do you perhaps magic information directly into your memory?"

Epistemology is about KNOWLEDGE and knowledge is NOT what Science is about. Science is about understanding and explaining. There is no such thing as certain knowledge.

"You come across as in irrational skeptic. "

Define irrational, dunce.

"An Electron doesn't "look" like anything.  Any photon frequency that we can measure is much too large to "see" an electron."

IDIOT! You think that because our limited EYEBALLS cannot detect the light coming from electrons then they simply must not have a shape?  Tell that to the people who came up with Germ Theory! If it exists, it has a shape, whether or not it can shine light into your brain or not.

"Well, I will use the oxford dictionary instead of picking and choosing whatever semantics fit my agenda. "

THE DICTIONARY is what gives YOU the ability to pick and choose semantics as YOU see fit.  The dictionary gives a PLETHORA (too many) meanings and does not actually DEFINE (limit the extent of it's usage) any term to a SINGLE unambiguous meaning.  I do.  You are a rhetorician and I am a Scientist.

"When you choose to make up your own definition for words it is appropriate to footnote it with your invented definition. "

ALL concepts have meaning and must be DEFINED. See above.

"Truth is for philosophy. "

You cannot define truth without invoking SUBJECTIVE verification.  Truth has nothing to do with Science. Don't believe me? Define truth: ___________

"Why? Can you give me an example of why the thing that holds you to the earth has a shape, and what shape that is?"

Why does the THING that hold me to the earth have shape?

It is PURSUANT to the definition of "THING".  What does the word THING mean for the purposes of Physics?  Thing is synonymous with object: that which has shape.

And processes like "holding" are defined too! Process: a relation between two or more objects.  Done! Simple as that!

If something is holding me to the earth then it HAS A SHAPE.


So far, nobody has even ADDRESSED the main criticisms, let alone refuted them.  There are even some who keep trying to deflect the conversation to irrelevant garbage like "ad homs".  I say they are IDIOTS and if they think that is an ad hom then they can find another discussion to throw off topic.

Actually, epistemology encompasses everything regarding knowledge.  This includes what knowledge is, its validity, and how it is attained.  So how can you be so certain that there there is no such thing as certain knowledge?  Is "cogito ergo sum" certain knowledge? How is this relative to what I asked?  

I'll repeat, because you have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old.  What OTHER epistemic method (how do you gain knowledge), do you posses, that does not involve your senses?  You argue against observation as "subjective" and therefore invalid, how do you make this assessment without your senses?

This is just one of the reasons I find your rant completely irrational, that and you don't understand any of the key terms you are using.

see above

That was levity at your question of what an electron "looks" like.  It has obviously gone over your head, but take that answer, and direct it at your idiotic question.

No, you ignoramus, you cannot pick and choose whatever definitions allow you to move the goal posts, or make up your own definitions.  There is no such as thing as SINGLE unambiguous meaning for any term except in a tautological system such as mathematics.  If you define something ahead of time as the SINGLE MOST AWESOME MEANING THAT IS 100% CORRECT IN EVERY SITUATION AND THEREFORE CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE.  And go ahead and base your idiotic aberrations on said definition, you are just trapped in an silly tautological system.

Edit: fixed quotes.

naked assertions.  this is precisely the reason why i think aristotle is overrated, magnified tenfold.

Yes, if I remember correctly, theism/atheism deal with the 'belief' category, and gnosticism/agnosticism deal with the 'knowledge' category. Meaning, your position could be described by the phrase 'gnostic atheist'.

The existence of an individual human has both a beginning and an end.

What, so concepts don't exist?

Since you claimed it was impossible for God to exist and, later, gave an argument for it, you clearly have some beliefs and knowledge about God. Besides, your labels are subjective too.

Okay, exist: to be able to be located or thought of.

Do you not care if your ridicule only makes productive discussion more difficult?

So you're telling me that something does NOT exist just because YOU cannot locate or think of it?  The MOON, SUN, EARTH and so on require YOU to locate it and think about it for them to exist???  What idiocy!

When was the discussion ever productive? I haven't received a SINGLE argument from you addressing any of my statements directly. 

So, your statement that "my beliefs and knowledge have nothing to do, whatsoever, with whether or not God or any other entity exists", is false?

Where did I say it had to be me doing the locating or thinking? However, I probably should have said "to have a location" rather than "to be able to be located".

Are you always this unpleasant?

i'm just hoping he was being deliberately thick, trying to rile you or something.

This idiot hasn't the slightest clue what he's talking about. Made an amusing read though.

I noticed a request to see an electron in there somewhere. The link below will show you what an atom looks like. Electrons are those tiny things orbiting the nuclei. Hopefully you know what a nuclei is.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/image/atom

I saw several people point out your declarations on "shape" were pulled-out-of-your-ass gibberish. What I did not see is your defense of that gibberish.

I know this is an old thread, but to give an example of mathematics being used successfully to describe and predict the behavior of a system, one needs to look no farther than the planet Neptune, the first planet to be discovered via mathematical prediction, rather than empirical observation. Deviations were noted in the orbit of Uranus, which was not exactly behaving in accordance with Newton's laws. I believe Neptune was later discovered within 1 degree of its predicted position (12 degrees from the original prediction of John Couch Adams).

'tis gibberish.

But there is an interesting issue. If all reference frames have to yield the same results, same principles of physics, then the reference frame of photons must also work. From the time frame of the photon there is no time between emission from one atom and absorption by another. In that sense atoms from the first light of cosmic background radiation connects the atoms in our sensors that measure it today.

Also, ignoring time, where did the big bang occur. It occured in all existing space today. The points are only separated because of time.

Atoms are connected by photons in the first case but have to be separated in time in the second. And both reference frames have to result in the same physics.

I am still working on it, including on how to phrase the issue before trying to answer it. So far I think time is a local dimension and the four continuous dimensions of the universe are x,y,z and entropy.

I dunno, but smart asses like this are the type to suggest you can divide by 0, despite the fact that in order to accomplish such they predefine 0 as a variable (ie, not 0). Which is why I didn't bother much with this thread.