146 replies to this topic

[Mr Right Wing]

This is an anti-materialism debate.

For me I dont accept that materialism describes the universe we live in. The problem is the materialists have hi-jacked science to support their ideology and people dont know enough to see through it. I'm gong to define three concepts -

1. Mathmatical universe  - The one as described by scientific forumlae
2. Material universe - The one materialists think exists
3. Legobrick reality - One where every aspect of the universe is reducable to fundamental building blocks

Now for us to live in a material universe we require everything to be reducable to fundamental building blocks or as I call it a legobrick reality. I'm not going to bring up hare and tortoise paradoxes to show people that reality is not of the legobrick variety. I have something much better.

An area of a circle is defined in maths as 2nr. n is an irrational number meaning it has infinite decimal places. That means the area of a circle would be different in a material universe than a mathmatical one. Why? Well numbers with infinate decimal places violate a legobrick reality thats why.

The universe is described by scientific formulae many of which contain irrational numbers or give answers which are irrational numbers. The mathmatical universe is not a legobrick reality yet the materialists have hi-jacketed it as one. They then use their flawed ideology to convince themselves there is no God.

Scientific formula containing irrational numbers is proof that materialism is wrong.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 18 June 2012 - 02:39 PM.

[ealdwita]

It is impossible to define the area of a circle, ipso facto - God exists. Am I correct so far?

[Rlyeh]

Not sure how mathematics (which is abstract and every number is divisible), compared to the material universe (which isn't infinitely divisible) proves it materialism wrong; but then again Mr Right Wing's posts imply he lives in a world that borders on solipsism.

[Mr Right Wing]

ealdwita, on 18 June 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

It is impossible to define the area of a circle, ipso facto - God exists. Am I correct so far?

It isnt a proof of God

But it is disproof of reductionism which lies at the heart of why most people dont believe in God

[Mr Right Wing]

Rlyeh, on 18 June 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

Not sure how mathematics (which is abstract and every number is divisible), compared to the material universe (which isn't infinitely divisible) proves it materialism wrong; but then again Mr Right Wing's posts imply he lives in a world that borders on solipsism.

You do realise to get the maths to match the measurements scientists have to introduce margins of error?

[Tiggs]

Numbers with infinite decimal places violate a legobrick reality?

You realize that you're writing that on a screen composed of pixels that's perfectly capable of displaying a circle, right?

[karmakazi]

Tiggs, on 18 June 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

Numbers with infinite decimal places violate a legobrick reality?

You realize that you're writing that on a screen composed of pixels that's perfectly capable of displaying a circle, right?

Pixels can create the appearance of a circle however it is not a perfect circle.   It is a visual illusion.

[Tiggs]

karmakazi, on 18 June 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

Pixels can create the appearance of a circle however it is not a perfect circle.   It is a visual illusion.

There are no perfect circles in reality either. Reality is just as quantized as a computer screen.

Edited by Tiggs, 18 June 2012 - 03:58 PM.

[karmakazi]

Tiggs, on 18 June 2012 - 03:56 PM, said:

There are no perfect circles in reality either. Reality is just as quantized as a computer screen.

Yup.  Which is why

Mr Right Wing, on 18 June 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

An area of a circle is defined in maths as 2nr. n is an irrational number meaning it has infinite decimal places. That means the area of a circle would be different in a material universe than a mathmatical one.

If you could extrapolate the infinite decimal (impossible in a finite universe) you could describe a perfect circle in numerical terms.  You cannot do so with pencil, atoms, or pixels.

Edited by karmakazi, 18 June 2012 - 04:04 PM.

[Rlyeh]

Mr Right Wing, on 18 June 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

You do realise to get the maths to match the measurements scientists have to introduce margins of error?

That should tell you something why maths doesn't refute materialism. Maths doesn't translate to the material world 1 for 1.

[eight bits]

How does idealizing tolerably round objects as circles imply that anything exists besides material objects? Slowly, this time, and please show your work.

[Mr. Miyagi]

My view point on the existence of a material universe versus a spiritual one, or metaphysical universe, etc... whatever... Boils down to my views on my own religion. For me, things have to be practical. For it to be useful, I need to see an effect on the world around me. Results. God, heaven, hell... these concepts have no effect on my life, they may have one on my afterlife, I dunno yet. Karma, Rebirth, Enlightenment, Nirvana... None of these things require belief in then them. The Eightfold Path is dependent upon our physical actions in a material exsistance. Science has examined the effects of meditation upon the human brain for instance. There is a physical reason for the way meditation makes us feel in this material existance. An understanding of Anatta, a practical understanding... a materialist understanding, if you will, deals with the impermanence of the notion of Self, not necesarily "No Self or Not Self". that doesn't mean that there is no self. The concept deals with the fact that exactly what the self is is difficult to pin down at best and is determined by constantly changing factors based upon how we conduct ourselves and how we and others percieve the way we conduct ourselves in this "material existance". It's an impermanent concept, thus there's nothing to become attached to. If there is a spiritual side at work here, Karma, Rebirth, etc... these things are based upon our actions in this "material existance." regardless of if we can percieve these things or not. They are natural results of our actions in this physical existance. Belief in the metaphysical, spiritual, etc... is irrelevent imho.

Good to be back.

edit- spelling, etc.. I'm sure there are plenty more errors I didn't catch as well. lol

Edited by Mr. Miyagi, 18 June 2012 - 05:10 PM.

[karmakazi]

eight bits, on 18 June 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

How does idealizing tolerably round objects as circles imply that anything exists besides material objects? Slowly, this time, and please show your work.

Is this directed at me?  I wasn't suggesting that it did.

[Rlyeh]

BTW materialism accepts that immaterial concepts exist as being derived from the material world. I'm not seeing how maths is an exception.

[Seeker79]

It's much more simple than that. Quite obviously Byronic matter ceases to exist upon the boundary of the big bang. whatever process leading up th that is  not at all material as we understand it to be. Aside from that, the most fundamental processes In QM  are outside of space and time, and therefore fundamental reality cannot possibly be of a materialistic nature.

This is reductionism, however, divinity is going to be a ultra macro concept. Reductionism is not capable of discovering or discussing macro concepts.  This is why I think LHC will fail to discover the graviton. I think gravity is a larger universal macro concept. And adding together of things with exponential potential. The other forces have additive potential while gravity has exponential. The casameer affect on a large  scale is a potential culprate.