Easy proof for Inteligent Design

That's true and false! I sense a kind of tautology here. You create quantum mechanics based on probabilistic models and then claim that this is the way it is. So if anybody asks you deterministic questions you tell them your question is wrong! Because quantum world is probabilistic so you can't ask this question!This is true for all probabilistic modelings. For example, we can do probabilistic model of how people move about around their homes. There are mathematical models for this and it shows for example people spend 70% of their time around their home in specific areas and give you a map based on that. Now if I ask, can you tell me where is person X now? you would reply you are asking wrong question! But you can tell the probabilities and maps of where he might is and even say what he usually buy. I don't call this deterministic. It is rather what probability model is and can achieve. It is true for humans for weather for geologist and for atoms as well. But that doesn't make them deterministic.Edited by MrQ, : spell

quote:

---

Then it is not tautology. Please be exact with details.

---

No, I've just explained why it IS a tautology.

quote:

---

What system are you talking about? brain, mind, universe?

---

The formal system that the statement exists in. The definitions, rules, axioms. Mathematics for 1+1 = 2 or predicate logic for ~(~A) = A.

What formal system are you talking about? Number theory? I suggest that you read some articles on Godel's incompleteness theorem. I have never ever seen any body saying that necessary truth's are tautologies. Godel proves that any logical system needs some basic axioms to start with. Which means you have to accept and believe in some truths with no proof. These are called necessary truths and you can't get it from the system itself. Godel has got extensive proof for this.

quote:

---

What formal system are you talking about?

---

Whichever one applies of course.

quote:

---

I suggest that you read some articles on Godel's incompleteness theorem.

---

I have. And I know enough mathematics to understand what it means.

quote:

---

Godel proves that any logical system needs some basic axioms to start with.

---

No, he didn't prove any such thing - because it is utterly trivial. His result was far more interesting. Of course if you were paying attention you would note that I listed the axioms as a part of the formal system anyway, so you're not even disagreeing with my point.

quote:

---

Which means you have to accept and believe in some truths with no proof. These are called necessary truths and you can't get it from the system itself. Godel has got extensive proof for this.

---

Obviously you've ever read anything about Godel's incompleteness theorem it was either complete rubbish or you failed to understand it. What you say here is nothing to do with it. It isn't even true that the axioms are called necessary truths (although they are within the system as a consequence of being axioms !)

Obviously you don't know what you even want to say. I gave you a couple of examples. System should have name. At least name them for those examples I gave you. Oh really!! Then read this from philosophical implication of godel's theory. I copied from wikipedia so you don't blame be on not understanding it!"The following rephrasing of the second theorem is even more unsettling to the foundations of mathematics:If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from within itself, then it is inconsistent.Therefore, to establish the consistency of a system S, one needs to use some other more powerful system T, but a proof in T is not completely convincing unless T's consistency has already been established without using S."I guess it was you who said that these necessary truths are coming from within the system itself! I categorize axioms philosophically the same as they are both assumed to be true with no proof. In fact, necessary truths are said to be logical axioms.Edited by MrQ, : spell

quote:

---

Obviously you don't know what you even want to say. I gave you a couple of examples. System should have name. At least name them for those examples I gave you.

---

I already did name them for the examples ! And they were different systems which is why I cannot tell you what "the" system is.

quote:

---

Oh really!! Then read this from philosophical implication of godel's theory. I copied from wikipedia so you don't blame be on not understanding it!

​

"The following rephrasing of the second theorem is even more unsettling to the foundations of mathematics:

​

If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from within itself, then it is inconsistent.

​

Therefore, to establish the consistency of a system S, one needs to use some other more powerful system T, but a proof in T is not completely convincing unless T's consistency has already been established without using S."

​

I guess it was you who said that these necessary truths are coming from within the system itself!

---

I'd say that wikipedia says that because it is correctly reporting the basics of Gdel's result. Which is why it offers no support for your claims at all. If you think that it does, then you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

quote:

---

I categorize axioms philosophically the same as they are both assumed to be true with no proof. In fact, necessary truths are said to be logical axioms.

---

You shouldn't. The axioms of a system need not be necessarily true outside of the system.

I mentioned several times that the root of necessary truths are from physical world outside of mathematics itself. You can say it is either our mind created it or discovered it. You mentioned that they come from subconscious mind and now you are claiming that they are from withing the system. I guess it is you who doesn't know what you are talking about. At least it is obvious that a mathematical system is very different from subconscious mind. So you need to make up your mind and decide from where these neccessary truths are coming from?!

I also found this for you in wikipedia It clearly says that logical truths are not tautologies.

quote:

---

I mentioned several times that the root of necessary truths are from physical world outside of mathematics itself. You can say it is either our mind created it or discovered it. You mentioned that they come from subconscious mind and now you are claiming that they are from withing the system. I guess it is you who doesn't know what you are talking about

---

You're mangling what I said very badly there. And I KNOW that you don't know what you are talking about with regard to Gdel's Theorem. Did you not even notice that the text you quoted from Wikipedia didn't agree with you at all ?

quote:

---

At least it is obvious that a mathematical system is very different from subconscious mind. So you need to make up your mind and decide from where these neccessary truths are coming from?!

---

I've been consistent all along. The statements you refer to are necessary truths within systems, and the systems are designed to model certain aspects of reality. Thus the concept comes from reality, but the necessity comes from the system.

That's all I wanted to hear! Do please reaffirm that the concept is coming from reality! So you don't blame be later on twisting your words. This is what I was trying to say all along!Edited by MrQ, : spell and addition

quote:

---

It clearly says that logical truths are not tautologies.

---

It says that they are not tautologies "in the strict sense". Do you know what that means ?

quote:

---

That's all I wanted to hear! Do please reaffirm that the concept is coming from reality! So you don't blame be later on twisting your words. This is what I was trying to say all along!

---

So you agree that all that is needed for physics is an objective reality and human minds ? Because that's all that is needed if you really agree with me.

Yes that means they might be tautologies in the relaxed sense. But we have to define what relaxed or strict means here. To me tautologies are the ones that have redundant information. Then you can omit one. So for example in 1+1=2. You can say it is 1+1. But this is not equal to 1+1=2. Clearly 1+1=2 gives us some information that is extra in comparison to 1+1 therefore, it is not tautology.

We are not talking about physics now my friend. We are talking about necessary truths. This is now you who is twisting things here. We will get to physics later. We want to know what is the source of necessary truths. You said the concept is in reality. So I just wanted to recheck that if you really agree with it.

quote:

---

So for example in 1+1=2. You can say it is 1+1. But this is not equal to 1+1=2. Clearly 1+1=2 gives us some information that is extra in comparison to 1+1 therefore, it is not tautology.

---

But what if the definitions of the symbols '1', '+', '=' and '2' mean that '1 + 1 = 2' must be the case ? Indeed under the usual definition of equality '1 + 1 = 2' means that '1 + 1' is the same as '2'.