The Sudden Dawn of the Cosmos and the Constancy of Physical Laws

quote:

---

The universe is limited by logic and math, for it does not contradict the rules of logic, nor the rules of math. If it were not limited by logic and math, then it could contradict them. But since it cannot, it is limited by them

---

This again is without explanation. Indeed what “rules of logic” or “rules of math” could the universe contradict ? Logic and mathematics are generalities applied to the universe, indeed developed to help us understand the universe. The “rules of mathematics” were originally developed to describe real situations, so it is surprising when they work to do so?

quote:

---

Since it is limited by them, and logic and math are not the physical reality, it is limited by something other than itself, something which is non-physical, seeing they do not appear as physical entities.

---

Again you are making assertions without explaining. I’m still waiting for your explanation of these supposed limits and why you think they are imposed by math and logic - or indeed how they could be imposed by math or logic.

quote:

---

We understand the universe through logic and math, because the universe operates according to it. If the universe did not operate according to it, we could not understand it through logic and math. For the universe, able to violate logic and math, would not be understood through logic and math, for logic and math would be useless for comprehending it, being violated by it.

---

Or so you assume. You have yet to offer the slightest support - or indeed to address the problems I have raised. Rather than dropping a questionable argument or explaining git you are just repeating yourself - again.

quote:

---

We do not understand the universe through language, but through what our language signifies. We do not understand through words, but through the meaning of the words.

---

And exactly the same can be said for math and logic.

quote:

---

Therefore, since our universe cannot contradict this meaningfulness, it is limited by this as well. It would certainly seem, following from these things, that the universe is limited by a mental reality, seeing that meaning is mental.

---

Alternatively your ideas are wrong and the “limits” you suppose come not from the mental entities - to the extent that those l8mits actually exist. That certainly seems more plausible than the idea that the idiosyncrasies of human languages actually limit reality,

quote:

---

Therefore, since our universe cannot contradict this meaningfulness, it is limited by this as well. It would certainly seem, following from these things, that the universe is limited by a mental reality, seeing that meaning is mental.

---

This is just more confused nonsense. The universe is not meaningful in that sense - the meaning is a mapping from the language to the universe (as we perceive it). Neither the language nor the mapping limit the universe and it is absurd to suggest otherwise,

quote:

---

I never said that the particle/wave duality was a violation of the laws of logic

---

And I never said that you did. So, please, let us not waste time with irrelevancies while you have still to address the serious problems with your argument,Let us deal with one of the more serious ones. Logical truths are necessarily true. Therefore they cannot be dependent on the existence of minds for their truth. Please explain how you would answer that.

quote:

---

This again is without explanation. Indeed what “rules of logic” or “rules of math” could the universe contradict ? Logic and mathematics are generalities applied to the universe, indeed developed to help us understand the universe. The “rules of mathematics” were originally developed to describe real situations, so it is surprising when they work to do so?

---

And yet, you say that the reality of God is impossible because logic disallows it. If logic explains the universe, and is not limiter of the universe, then why should it limit something which is not the universe, from whom being you need not derive the same system. And if necessarily, from both entities the same system must be derived, then are they not both bound by logic? And if bound by them, are they not limited by them? But God is not bound by logic; yet he follows the rules of logic, invented by Him.God is not the universe; the concept of God is not the universe. Therefore descriptions of the universe say nothing concerning God, according to your claims.

quote:

---

Again you are making assertions without explaining. I’m still waiting for your explanation of these supposed limits and why you think they are imposed by math and logic - or indeed how they could be imposed by math or logic.

---

One plus two is three. Put an apple on the table. Then add two apples. How many apples do you have? Can it be any different?

quote:

---

Or so you assume. You have yet to offer the slightest support - or indeed to address the problems I have raised. Rather than dropping a questionable argument or explaining git you are just repeating yourself - again.

---

I am trying to explain it.

quote:

---

And exactly the same can be said for math and logic.

---

Which means that the universe would be influenced and limited by even more meaningfulness.

quote:

---

Alternatively your ideas are wrong and the “limits” you suppose come not from the mental entities - to the extent that those l8mits actually exist. That certainly seems more plausible than the idea that the idiosyncrasies of human languages actually limit reality,

---

Certainly the rules of phonetics and grammar do not limit the universe, but what can can be possible, according to meaning, according to math, according to logic, and whatever else.

quote:

---

This is just more confused nonsense. The universe is not meaningful in that sense - the meaning is a mapping from the language to the universe (as we perceive it). Neither the language nor the mapping limit the universe and it is absurd to suggest otherwise,

---

And what are we mapping which gives us math and logic?Edited by Christian7, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Let us deal with one of the more serious ones. Logical truths are necessarily true. Therefore they cannot be dependent on the existence of minds for their truth. Please explain how you would answer that.

---

Necessarily true in what realm, in one that is not governed by logic, as well as in one that is governed by logic?

quote:

---

And yet, you say that the reality of God is impossible because logic disallows it

---

And now you are just making things up.

quote:

---

One plus two is three. Put an apple on the table. Then add two apples. How many apples do you have? Can it be any different?

---

Put a few bacteria on a nutrient plate, wait a while and you’ll have a lot more.More importantly you aren’t doing anything to show that this is a limit imposed by mathematics rather than an example of a situation mathematics was invented to describe.

quote:

---

I am trying to explain it.

---

If that were true you shouldn’t be simply repeating your assertions. You should be answering the questions and addressing the objections.

quote:

---

Which means that the universe would be influenced and limited by even more meaningfulness.

---

And there you go again insisting you are right without any answer to the objection.

quote:

---

Certainly the rules of phonetics and grammar do not limit the universe, but what can can be possible, according to meaning, according to math, according to logic, and whatever else.

---

But languages differ in the meanings they express. Colour words can vary, for instance. Does that limit reality or is it just a limit of languages?

quote:

---

And what are we mapping which gives us math and logic?

---

Mathematics works exactly like a language in this sense - though a more precise one, without the ambiguities of natural language. With logic the mapping would be through language - logic does not address the meaning of the premises or conclusions - but it does demand strong consistency in the use of language (which means that the ambiguities of natural language must be suppressed).

quote:

---

Necessarily true in what realm, in one that is not governed by logic, as well as in one that is governed by logic?

---

In all realms, of course. (There are no realms meaningfully “governed by logic” anyway - you just assume that because you don’t understand what logic is or how it works).

quote:

---

And now you are just making things up.

---

Maybe you're not an atheists, but many atheists affirm that God is a logical impossibility.

quote:

---

Put a few bacteria on a nutrient plate, wait a while and you’ll have a lot more.

​

More importantly you aren’t doing anything to show that this is a limit imposed by mathematics rather than an example of a situation mathematics was invented to describe.

---

You still started out with a few bacteria, and they replicated, not contrary to the laws of math.

quote:

---

And there you go again insisting you are right without any answer to the objection.

---

quote:

---

But languages differ in the meanings they express. Colour words can vary, for instance. Does that limit reality or is it just a limit of languages?

---

Just coin a new word and you can express the same meaning. Just add a new part of speech, or a new grammatical rule, or a new syntax, or use more words, and you can express the exact same meaning.

quote:

---

Mathematics works exactly like a language in this sense - though a more precise one, without the ambiguities of natural language. With logic the mapping would be through language - logic does not address the meaning of the premises or conclusions - but it does demand strong consistency in the use of language (which means that the ambiguities of natural language must be suppressed).

---

I know all that.

Not quite Guido but speaking not as an atheist but as a Christian the God you try to market is both a logical and factual impossibility; it is but the creation of either ignorant or dishonesty or deluded humans.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

I formed these syllogisms.A: Every non-miraculous occurrence in the universe makes sense according to meaning and logic.
B: This would not be true if there were no minds to observe them.
C: Therefore, at least one mind exist for the universe to make sense according to meaning and logic.
D: Therefore, if no minds existed, the universe would not make sense according to meaning and logic.A: If the universe did something other than according to meaning and logic, it would not make sense according to meaning and logic.A: If the universe did not make sense according to meaning and logic, it would be violating the laws of meaning and logic.
B: If no minds existed, the universe would not make sense according to meaning and logic.
C: Therefore, if no minds existed, the universe would be violating the laws of meaning and logic.A: The universe cannot violate the laws of meaning and logic.
B: If no minds existed, the universe would be violating the laws of meaning and logic.
C: Therefore, one mind must exist for the universe to exist.

Strange way of phrasing your question, hard to know what you're really asking. If you're asking why the laws of physics seem to be the same across all time and space, then the answer is, "We don't know." Religious people throughout history and prehistory have often taken deep questions whose answer is "we don't know" and replaced it with "God did it." Why seasons, why phases of the moon, why tides, why the weather, why thunder and lightning, etc., religious people throughout history have replaced "we don't know" with "God did it." You're not doing anything different from cavemen marveling at the awesome power of their gods to light up the sky during a storm.Science doesn't know what caused the Big Bang or caused the laws of nature to be constant across time and space. Neither do you, and it chokes off discussion for you to repeatedly insist without evidence that God did it. What does it mean for the universe to move? Is English a second language for you, or are you just expressing yourself unclearly so no one can tell what you're saying and therefore can't argue with it.If you just mean motion of matter within the universe then say so. If you mean something else then say so. But at least string words together in an intelligible way. What does "the universe moves itself" mean? Not sure what you're trying to say here, but it is certainly true that within science there is no certainty. It's called tentativity. Our scientific knowledge is not certain but tentative, yet it *is* knowledge. For example we know that the gravitational constant is 6.674×10⁻¹¹ m³⋅kg⁻¹⋅s⁻², but only to four significant digits. We don't *know* it's actual exact value. Our knowledge of it is tentative, in this case meaning in an inexact or imprecise sense. Yet our tentative knowledge of its value is sufficient to guide rockets into space and to distant planets. Though our knowledge isn't certain or perfect, it is still knowledge. "Truth" isn't really a scientific concept. It isn't possible to know what you're trying to say. "The truth of the world"? "Something that upholds the world"? Who knows what "truth of the world means," but whatever it is you're trying to say, we certainly possess a great deal of scientific knowledge about the world. Maybe you should become a mystic.--Percy

No, you didn't. You threw a bunch of crap at the wall to see if any of it would stick. Nothing did. Even this fixed version is not quite right. Parts of QFT don't make any sense at all by any math, logic, meaning. Why do you think there are so many different interpretations from Copenhagen. What BS. Minds are not required. They are the key to our understanding but our understanding is not necessary for the universe to exist. It was here before us. It will be here after us.At this point your two therefores in the first sillyjism are dead. Paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson, this universe is under no obligation to make sense to you or anyone else.Remember both your meaning and your logic are human constructs. This universe has already defied our logic on numerous occasions for millennia. That is probably not going to change.Since the universe does not make sense, and does not need to make sense to us mere mortals, then the universe is not required to comply with your sense of meaning or logic at all. There, fixed this one, too.What our present reality is telling us is that no minds, not yours, mine or your non-existent spook, are required for this universe to exist.Again, C7(77), your logic is piss poor and your facts aren't even close to anything substantive. Your sillygisms are not valid.You do realize, C7(77), that none of your fantasy musings in this threat hold any effect on anything. The only things we know exist are those things physics shows us. All else is unknown, conjecture, speculation, superstition. And you cannot show otherwise.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

quote:

---

There, fixed this one, too.

​

What our present reality is telling us is that no minds, not yours, mine or your non-existent spook, are required for this universe to exist.

​

Again, C7(77), your logic is piss poor and your facts aren't even close to anything substantive. Your sillygisms are not valid.

​

You do realize, C7(77), that none of your fantasy musings in this threat hold any effect on anything. The only things we know exist are those things physics shows us. All else is unknown, conjecture, speculation, superstition. And you cannot show otherwise.

---

You don't even know what validity in a syllogism is. All my arguments should be valid. You have not proven their invalidity. You have only denied my premises.

You're not even looking at the validity of my arguments or examining their truth value. You're just quoting information from somewhere else and saying that whatever conclusion I came to is wrong because some other source contradicts it.

quote:

---

What BS. Minds are not required. They are the key to our understanding but our understanding is not necessary for the universe to exist. It was here before us. It will be here after us.

​

At this point your two therefores in the first sillyjism are dead.

---

Minds are not required for the universe to make sense. Wow. So, sense exists independently of minds, and is not mental? So, to whom would the universe make sense then?

quote:

---

Paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson, this universe is under no obligation to make sense to you or anyone else.

​

Remember both your meaning and your logic are human constructs. This universe has already defied our logic on numerous occasions for millennia. That is probably not going to change.

​

Since the universe does not make sense, and does not need to make sense to us mere mortals, then the universe is not required to comply with your sense of meaning or logic at all.

---

Then why are you doing science? That's a waste of time.

quote:

---

There, fixed this one, too.

​

What our present reality is telling us is that no minds, not yours, mine or your non-existent spook, are required for this universe to exist.

​

Again, C7(77), your logic is piss poor and your facts aren't even close to anything substantive. Your sillygisms are not valid.

​

You do realize, C7(77), that none of your fantasy musings in this threat hold any effect on anything. The only things we know exist are those things physics shows us. All else is unknown, conjecture, speculation, superstition. And you cannot show otherwise.

---

You don't know that the physical world exists. It could be a mental world that appears physical. It could exist is your subconscious mind. How do you know that the world is, in fact, physical.

quote:

---

Strange way of phrasing your question, hard to know what you're really asking. If you're asking why the laws of physics seem to be the same across all time and space, then the answer is, "We don't know." Religious people throughout history and prehistory have often taken deep questions whose answer is "we don't know" and replaced it with "God did it." Why seasons, why phases of the moon, why tides, why the weather, why thunder and lightning, etc., religious people throughout history have replaced "we don't know" with "God did it." You're not doing anything different from cavemen marveling at the awesome power of their gods to light up the sky during a storm.

​

Science doesn't know what caused the Big Bang or caused the laws of nature to be constant across time and space. Neither do you, and it chokes off discussion for you to repeatedly insist without evidence that God did it.

---

That's why, in the end, you have faith, either in God's word, or in something else.

quote:

---

What does it mean for the universe to move? Is English a second language for you, or are you just expressing yourself unclearly so no one can tell what you're saying and therefore can't argue with it.

​

If you just mean motion of matter within the universe then say so. If you mean something else then say so. But at least string words together in an intelligible way.

---

I mean to change, or to run, or to operate according to its animate nature.

quote:

---

For knowledge is certainty of truth.
"Truth" isn't really a scientific concept.

---

Then is science based on truth, or is truth based on science?

quote:

---

Not sure what you're trying to say here, but it is certainly true that within science there is no certainty. It's called tentativity.

---

Then evolution is not certain.

quote:

---

Our scientific knowledge is not certain but tentative, yet it *is* knowledge. For example we know that the gravitational constant is 6.674×10−11 m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2, but only to four significant digits. We don't *know* it's actual exact value. Our knowledge of it is tentative, in this case meaning in an inexact or imprecise sense. Yet our tentative knowledge of its value is sufficient to guide rockets into space and to distant planets. Though our knowledge isn't certain or perfect, it is still knowledge.

---

But does this knowledge get you anything beyond this life? Will it mean anything once the universe is dead?

quote:

---

Maybe you should become a mystic.

---

Why?