God does exist. Itelligent design in the Universe is prof of God.

[ding]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

So you're changing your tune again.

Did you not say the math does not exist?

If it does not exist it cannot be discovered can it?

Exact right triangles are a man made construct. So the math describing them is a man made construct

There is no reason to think the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Never changed my tune. You take things out of context cause you have nothing else.

I love how hard you are trying to prove this.

Einstein did not invent E=mc^2. He discovered it.

I quoted you verbatim.

And you still deny you said it

Math is a human invention as a way to represent what we see.

You are confusing math and what math was invented to describe.

There is nothing to prove that the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours

Man discovered math. Man did not invent math. Math is universal. Same for logic, science, music, etc.

you are confusing math with the things it was invented to describe.

No. I'm not. E=mc^2 wasn't invented. It was discovered. Einstein could not make it be anything he wanted it to be like Apple could with its iPod. So E=mc^2 isn't an invention, it is a mathematical reality that describes a physical phenomenon. The physical phenomenon and the math that describes it were discovered.

The math that describes the relationship between matter and energy is a human invention.

You are confusing the math with the things it is being used to describe.

So I invented that if A=B and B=C then A=C?

Mathematics was invented to describe observed phenomenon in the natural world.

Like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a body due to gravity.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself.

So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered?

All you are doing is saying A =A

Not much of a "discovery" is it ?

Logic is nothing but a system invented by humans to examine human reasoning.

Is that your way of saying the transitive law was discovered?

No it was invented when man invented a system of correct inference AKA logic

You said it wasn't much of a discovery though, right? You didn't say it was no discovery.

It's not a "discovery" to say A=A

Do you know what sarcasm is?

But it's not saying A=A. It is comparing three different things. A, B and C.

No it isn't

because we have a definition for the concept represented by the = sign.

If A =B then B and A are the same thing so you are not comparing different things but rather you are giving the same thing different names.

Let's say A is a house and B is a diamond ring and C is a Lamborghini. Are they all the same thing?

Like I said we have defined the meaning of the = sign.

if you do not use the = sign then you are not giving different names to the same thing.

So you are arguing that a house and a diamond ring and a Lamborghini are all the same things?

I guess since you believe you can make logic be anything you want that makes sense to you.

 

[Blues Man]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

Logic can be subjective, like the guys who thought it was logical to crash 747s into buildings, or put explosives in their underwear.

Only you would believe that logic is subjective, taz, only you.

Muslims thought that 9/11 was logical. You lose.

That's some impressive display of logic on your part, taz.

You are just as logical as they were.

That's why logic can be subjective. You're for sure not the final arbiter of logic, that would be totally against logic.

Taz, Taz, Taz.... people are subjective. Logic is objective. You are confusing people's subjectivity for logic.

Logic can be both, as in 2+2=4, that's objective logic. Subjective logic is like someone who thinks that it's logical that they know everything. Like you.

That's a silly use of logic on your part and shows your subjectivity. I have never claimed to know everything; far from it as I will gladly admit to my ignorance on many things. What I do claim is that logic cannot be anything people want it to be. That logic is objective. And the only way logic can be subjective is from the misapplication of logic by subjective humans. Which is what you have used for every one of your examples.

Misapplication according to you. Not to them. So who gets to choose?

Reality

Then it was logical for them to do 9/11, which they said was retaliation for the US bombing Muslim countries and backing Israel. Seems logical to me too.

Any rationalization of violence as good is illogical, taz.

So if I kill someone who is trying to kill me, that’s not logically good?

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

Logic can be subjective, like the guys who thought it was logical to crash 747s into buildings, or put explosives in their underwear.

Only you would believe that logic is subjective, taz, only you.

Muslims thought that 9/11 was logical. You lose.

That's some impressive display of logic on your part, taz.

You are just as logical as they were.

That's why logic can be subjective. You're for sure not the final arbiter of logic, that would be totally against logic.

Taz, Taz, Taz.... people are subjective. Logic is objective. You are confusing people's subjectivity for logic.

Logic can be both, as in 2+2=4, that's objective logic. Subjective logic is like someone who thinks that it's logical that they know everything. Like you.

That's a silly use of logic on your part and shows your subjectivity. I have never claimed to know everything; far from it as I will gladly admit to my ignorance on many things. What I do claim is that logic cannot be anything people want it to be. That logic is objective. And the only way logic can be subjective is from the misapplication of logic by subjective humans. Which is what you have used for every one of your examples.

Misapplication according to you. Not to them. So who gets to choose?

Reality

Then it was logical for them to do 9/11, which they said was retaliation for the US bombing Muslim countries and backing Israel. Seems logical to me too.

Any rationalization of violence as good is illogical, taz.

But not all acts of violence are considered bad or immoral because we have subjectively rationalized that not all violence is "bad".

The lesser of two evils does not moralize the lesser of the two evils.

Of course it does because we do not punish one and we do punish the other therefore one is right and one is wrong.

It's OK for your government to send you to a foreign country to kill people but not OK for you to go to a foreign country and kill those same people on your own.

It's OK for the government to kill a murderer but it's not OK for a member of the victim's family to kill that same murderer.

Evil is just another subjective value judgement we make.

It's called the lesser of two evils for a reason.

Evil is subjective. So any action predicated upon the evilness of another action is subjective and therefore rationalized

Evil is not extant. It is the absence of good.

Good is subjective.

therefore evil is subjective

Evil is the absence of good. It's like cold or darkness. It's the negation of something else.

Good is a effectively a standard which exists for logical reasons.

good is not a standard because it is subjective.

Standards are not subjective. Human beings are subjective. Standards are based upon logic and logic exists independently of man.

There is no standard as to what is good.

And logic was invented by men as a system for correct inference.

Logic is nothing but man's study of his own reasoning process.

If that it were true that there is no standard as to what is good, then all behaviors would lead to equal outcomes and we know they don't.

If logic is an invention, then we could conclude anything we want from logic which we can't.

If logic is nothing but man's study of his own reasoning process, then there is nothing which can define the outputs of his reasoning process as right or wrong. In fact, you couldn't even say what I am arguing is wrong because you would have no logical basis for saying what is right or wrong.

Anytime we make a value judgement it is subjective.

One can logically come to the conclusion that killing a person is the correct action even if you think killing is "wrong".

As I have stated many times killing a person can be called good or bad so there is no absolute agreement that killing is right or wrong.

 

[ding]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

Logic can be subjective, like the guys who thought it was logical to crash 747s into buildings, or put explosives in their underwear.

Only you would believe that logic is subjective, taz, only you.

Muslims thought that 9/11 was logical. You lose.

That's some impressive display of logic on your part, taz.

You are just as logical as they were.

That's why logic can be subjective. You're for sure not the final arbiter of logic, that would be totally against logic.

Taz, Taz, Taz.... people are subjective. Logic is objective. You are confusing people's subjectivity for logic.

Logic can be both, as in 2+2=4, that's objective logic. Subjective logic is like someone who thinks that it's logical that they know everything. Like you.

That's a silly use of logic on your part and shows your subjectivity. I have never claimed to know everything; far from it as I will gladly admit to my ignorance on many things. What I do claim is that logic cannot be anything people want it to be. That logic is objective. And the only way logic can be subjective is from the misapplication of logic by subjective humans. Which is what you have used for every one of your examples.

Misapplication according to you. Not to them. So who gets to choose?

Reality

Then it was logical for them to do 9/11, which they said was retaliation for the US bombing Muslim countries and backing Israel. Seems logical to me too.

Any rationalization of violence as good is illogical, taz.

So if I kill someone who is trying to kill me, that’s not logically good?

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

Logic can be subjective, like the guys who thought it was logical to crash 747s into buildings, or put explosives in their underwear.

Only you would believe that logic is subjective, taz, only you.

Muslims thought that 9/11 was logical. You lose.

That's some impressive display of logic on your part, taz.

You are just as logical as they were.

That's why logic can be subjective. You're for sure not the final arbiter of logic, that would be totally against logic.

Taz, Taz, Taz.... people are subjective. Logic is objective. You are confusing people's subjectivity for logic.

Logic can be both, as in 2+2=4, that's objective logic. Subjective logic is like someone who thinks that it's logical that they know everything. Like you.

That's a silly use of logic on your part and shows your subjectivity. I have never claimed to know everything; far from it as I will gladly admit to my ignorance on many things. What I do claim is that logic cannot be anything people want it to be. That logic is objective. And the only way logic can be subjective is from the misapplication of logic by subjective humans. Which is what you have used for every one of your examples.

Misapplication according to you. Not to them. So who gets to choose?

Reality

Then it was logical for them to do 9/11, which they said was retaliation for the US bombing Muslim countries and backing Israel. Seems logical to me too.

Any rationalization of violence as good is illogical, taz.

But not all acts of violence are considered bad or immoral because we have subjectively rationalized that not all violence is "bad".

The lesser of two evils does not moralize the lesser of the two evils.

Of course it does because we do not punish one and we do punish the other therefore one is right and one is wrong.

It's OK for your government to send you to a foreign country to kill people but not OK for you to go to a foreign country and kill those same people on your own.

It's OK for the government to kill a murderer but it's not OK for a member of the victim's family to kill that same murderer.

Evil is just another subjective value judgement we make.

It's called the lesser of two evils for a reason.

Evil is subjective. So any action predicated upon the evilness of another action is subjective and therefore rationalized

Evil is not extant. It is the absence of good.

Good is subjective.

therefore evil is subjective

Evil is the absence of good. It's like cold or darkness. It's the negation of something else.

Good is a effectively a standard which exists for logical reasons.

good is not a standard because it is subjective.

Standards are not subjective. Human beings are subjective. Standards are based upon logic and logic exists independently of man.

There is no standard as to what is good.

And logic was invented by men as a system for correct inference.

Logic is nothing but man's study of his own reasoning process.

If that it were true that there is no standard as to what is good, then all behaviors would lead to equal outcomes and we know they don't.

If logic is an invention, then we could conclude anything we want from logic which we can't.

If logic is nothing but man's study of his own reasoning process, then there is nothing which can define the outputs of his reasoning process as right or wrong. In fact, you couldn't even say what I am arguing is wrong because you would have no logical basis for saying what is right or wrong.

Anytime we make a value judgement it is subjective.

One can logically come to the conclusion that killing a person is the correct action even if you think killing is "wrong".

As I have stated many times killing a person can be called good or bad so there is no absolute agreement that killing is right or wrong.

So your value judgements are just opinions? They can't be right or wrong because there is no right or wrong?

 

[Blues Man]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

So you're changing your tune again.

Did you not say the math does not exist?

If it does not exist it cannot be discovered can it?

Exact right triangles are a man made construct. So the math describing them is a man made construct

There is no reason to think the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Never changed my tune. You take things out of context cause you have nothing else.

I love how hard you are trying to prove this.

Einstein did not invent E=mc^2. He discovered it.

I quoted you verbatim.

And you still deny you said it

Math is a human invention as a way to represent what we see.

You are confusing math and what math was invented to describe.

There is nothing to prove that the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours

Man discovered math. Man did not invent math. Math is universal. Same for logic, science, music, etc.

you are confusing math with the things it was invented to describe.

No. I'm not. E=mc^2 wasn't invented. It was discovered. Einstein could not make it be anything he wanted it to be like Apple could with its iPod. So E=mc^2 isn't an invention, it is a mathematical reality that describes a physical phenomenon. The physical phenomenon and the math that describes it were discovered.

The math that describes the relationship between matter and energy is a human invention.

You are confusing the math with the things it is being used to describe.

So I invented that if A=B and B=C then A=C?

Mathematics was invented to describe observed phenomenon in the natural world.

Like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a body due to gravity.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself.

So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered?

All you are doing is saying A =A

Not much of a "discovery" is it ?

Logic is nothing but a system invented by humans to examine human reasoning.

Is that your way of saying the transitive law was discovered?

No it was invented when man invented a system of correct inference AKA logic

You said it wasn't much of a discovery though, right? You didn't say it was no discovery.

It's not a "discovery" to say A=A

Do you know what sarcasm is?

But it's not saying A=A. It is comparing three different things. A, B and C.

No it isn't

because we have a definition for the concept represented by the = sign.

If A =B then B and A are the same thing so you are not comparing different things but rather you are giving the same thing different names.

Let's say A is a house and B is a diamond ring and C is a Lamborghini. Are they all the same thing?

Like I said we have defined the meaning of the = sign.

if you do not use the = sign then you are not giving different names to the same thing.

So you are arguing that a house and a diamond ring and a Lamborghini are all the same things?

I guess since you believe you can make logic be anything you want that makes sense to you.

No. I never once said that or tried to prove it.

And what you are doing is playing with language and that is not logic.

 

[Crick]

We can see the vast number of life forms here on the planet Earth. The oceans, on land, the different varieties of plants. All this life did not just happen by accident , as many non beleiving scientist say. God does exist. This is a planet with air , water, and food for us all to consume. It was not made by accident. This world was created for us by an intelligent God. We did not evolve from apes . We were all created by God. Designed in his likeness. Your thoughts.

Life and evolution both began when molecules began reproducing themselves. The plethora of life extant now is simply a reflection on the multitudinous ways in which successful reproduction can be achieved. Life forms evolve to make use of their environment. The 750F sulfur compounds spewing from thermal vents deep in the ocean would instantly kill all the life we're typically familiar with. Yet the tubeworms down there live on it. The vents weren't created to feed the worms. The worms developed to thrive in that niche.

You are right that we did not evolve from apes. Both apes and humans evolved from earlier life forms who evolved from earlier life forms who evolved from earlier life forms, etc, etc, etc.

There is no evidence for the existence of god for the simple reason that there is no evidence for the occurrence of supernatural events; ie, events which violate basic physics - the "laws of nature". And, as has been pointed out here repeatedly, if you are going to choose to have "faith" (belief without or even counter to evidence) in a certain set of supernatural tenets, there is no discernible reason to choose one over the other. It is very likely that you believe in the Christian god because your parents and your friends and the community you grew up in believed in the Christian god. Someone growing up in India or Saudi Arabia or Japan or China would have been exposed to different supernatural beliefs and would very likely accept them instead. None of you has any valid reason to prefer one over the other and none of you has any real justification for your beliefs. They are simply choices you have made.

 

[Blues Man]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

Logic can be subjective, like the guys who thought it was logical to crash 747s into buildings, or put explosives in their underwear.

Only you would believe that logic is subjective, taz, only you.

Muslims thought that 9/11 was logical. You lose.

That's some impressive display of logic on your part, taz.

You are just as logical as they were.

That's why logic can be subjective. You're for sure not the final arbiter of logic, that would be totally against logic.

Taz, Taz, Taz.... people are subjective. Logic is objective. You are confusing people's subjectivity for logic.

Logic can be both, as in 2+2=4, that's objective logic. Subjective logic is like someone who thinks that it's logical that they know everything. Like you.

That's a silly use of logic on your part and shows your subjectivity. I have never claimed to know everything; far from it as I will gladly admit to my ignorance on many things. What I do claim is that logic cannot be anything people want it to be. That logic is objective. And the only way logic can be subjective is from the misapplication of logic by subjective humans. Which is what you have used for every one of your examples.

Misapplication according to you. Not to them. So who gets to choose?

Reality

Then it was logical for them to do 9/11, which they said was retaliation for the US bombing Muslim countries and backing Israel. Seems logical to me too.

Any rationalization of violence as good is illogical, taz.

So if I kill someone who is trying to kill me, that’s not logically good?

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

Logic can be subjective, like the guys who thought it was logical to crash 747s into buildings, or put explosives in their underwear.

Only you would believe that logic is subjective, taz, only you.

Muslims thought that 9/11 was logical. You lose.

That's some impressive display of logic on your part, taz.

You are just as logical as they were.

That's why logic can be subjective. You're for sure not the final arbiter of logic, that would be totally against logic.

Taz, Taz, Taz.... people are subjective. Logic is objective. You are confusing people's subjectivity for logic.

Logic can be both, as in 2+2=4, that's objective logic. Subjective logic is like someone who thinks that it's logical that they know everything. Like you.

That's a silly use of logic on your part and shows your subjectivity. I have never claimed to know everything; far from it as I will gladly admit to my ignorance on many things. What I do claim is that logic cannot be anything people want it to be. That logic is objective. And the only way logic can be subjective is from the misapplication of logic by subjective humans. Which is what you have used for every one of your examples.

Misapplication according to you. Not to them. So who gets to choose?

Reality

Then it was logical for them to do 9/11, which they said was retaliation for the US bombing Muslim countries and backing Israel. Seems logical to me too.

Any rationalization of violence as good is illogical, taz.

But not all acts of violence are considered bad or immoral because we have subjectively rationalized that not all violence is "bad".

The lesser of two evils does not moralize the lesser of the two evils.

Of course it does because we do not punish one and we do punish the other therefore one is right and one is wrong.

It's OK for your government to send you to a foreign country to kill people but not OK for you to go to a foreign country and kill those same people on your own.

It's OK for the government to kill a murderer but it's not OK for a member of the victim's family to kill that same murderer.

Evil is just another subjective value judgement we make.

It's called the lesser of two evils for a reason.

Evil is subjective. So any action predicated upon the evilness of another action is subjective and therefore rationalized

Evil is not extant. It is the absence of good.

Good is subjective.

therefore evil is subjective

Evil is the absence of good. It's like cold or darkness. It's the negation of something else.

Good is a effectively a standard which exists for logical reasons.

good is not a standard because it is subjective.

Standards are not subjective. Human beings are subjective. Standards are based upon logic and logic exists independently of man.

There is no standard as to what is good.

And logic was invented by men as a system for correct inference.

Logic is nothing but man's study of his own reasoning process.

If that it were true that there is no standard as to what is good, then all behaviors would lead to equal outcomes and we know they don't.

If logic is an invention, then we could conclude anything we want from logic which we can't.

If logic is nothing but man's study of his own reasoning process, then there is nothing which can define the outputs of his reasoning process as right or wrong. In fact, you couldn't even say what I am arguing is wrong because you would have no logical basis for saying what is right or wrong.

Anytime we make a value judgement it is subjective.

One can logically come to the conclusion that killing a person is the correct action even if you think killing is "wrong".

As I have stated many times killing a person can be called good or bad so there is no absolute agreement that killing is right or wrong.

So your value judgements are just opinions? They can't be right or wrong because there is no right or wrong?

I never said we as a society do not agree on what behaviors are acceptable or not.

The thing is different societies think different behaviors are acceptable or unacceptable.

 

[ding]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

So you're changing your tune again.

Did you not say the math does not exist?

If it does not exist it cannot be discovered can it?

Exact right triangles are a man made construct. So the math describing them is a man made construct

There is no reason to think the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Never changed my tune. You take things out of context cause you have nothing else.

I love how hard you are trying to prove this.

Einstein did not invent E=mc^2. He discovered it.

I quoted you verbatim.

And you still deny you said it

Math is a human invention as a way to represent what we see.

You are confusing math and what math was invented to describe.

There is nothing to prove that the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours

Man discovered math. Man did not invent math. Math is universal. Same for logic, science, music, etc.

you are confusing math with the things it was invented to describe.

No. I'm not. E=mc^2 wasn't invented. It was discovered. Einstein could not make it be anything he wanted it to be like Apple could with its iPod. So E=mc^2 isn't an invention, it is a mathematical reality that describes a physical phenomenon. The physical phenomenon and the math that describes it were discovered.

The math that describes the relationship between matter and energy is a human invention.

You are confusing the math with the things it is being used to describe.

So I invented that if A=B and B=C then A=C?

Mathematics was invented to describe observed phenomenon in the natural world.

Like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a body due to gravity.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself.

So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered?

All you are doing is saying A =A

Not much of a "discovery" is it ?

Logic is nothing but a system invented by humans to examine human reasoning.

Is that your way of saying the transitive law was discovered?

No it was invented when man invented a system of correct inference AKA logic

You said it wasn't much of a discovery though, right? You didn't say it was no discovery.

It's not a "discovery" to say A=A

Do you know what sarcasm is?

But it's not saying A=A. It is comparing three different things. A, B and C.

No it isn't

because we have a definition for the concept represented by the = sign.

If A =B then B and A are the same thing so you are not comparing different things but rather you are giving the same thing different names.

Let's say A is a house and B is a diamond ring and C is a Lamborghini. Are they all the same thing?

Like I said we have defined the meaning of the = sign.

if you do not use the = sign then you are not giving different names to the same thing.

So you are arguing that a house and a diamond ring and a Lamborghini are all the same things?

I guess since you believe you can make logic be anything you want that makes sense to you.

No. I never once said that or tried to prove it.

And what you are doing is playing with language and that is not logic.

You were the one who said they were the same thing to justify that math is an invention. I am the one who said the transitive law was discovered and not created by man but exists unto itself just as logic does because the transitive law is based upon logic.

 

[ding]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

Logic can be subjective, like the guys who thought it was logical to crash 747s into buildings, or put explosives in their underwear.

Only you would believe that logic is subjective, taz, only you.

Muslims thought that 9/11 was logical. You lose.

That's some impressive display of logic on your part, taz.

You are just as logical as they were.

That's why logic can be subjective. You're for sure not the final arbiter of logic, that would be totally against logic.

Taz, Taz, Taz.... people are subjective. Logic is objective. You are confusing people's subjectivity for logic.

Logic can be both, as in 2+2=4, that's objective logic. Subjective logic is like someone who thinks that it's logical that they know everything. Like you.

That's a silly use of logic on your part and shows your subjectivity. I have never claimed to know everything; far from it as I will gladly admit to my ignorance on many things. What I do claim is that logic cannot be anything people want it to be. That logic is objective. And the only way logic can be subjective is from the misapplication of logic by subjective humans. Which is what you have used for every one of your examples.

Misapplication according to you. Not to them. So who gets to choose?

Reality

Then it was logical for them to do 9/11, which they said was retaliation for the US bombing Muslim countries and backing Israel. Seems logical to me too.

Any rationalization of violence as good is illogical, taz.

So if I kill someone who is trying to kill me, that’s not logically good?

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

Logic can be subjective, like the guys who thought it was logical to crash 747s into buildings, or put explosives in their underwear.

Only you would believe that logic is subjective, taz, only you.

Muslims thought that 9/11 was logical. You lose.

That's some impressive display of logic on your part, taz.

You are just as logical as they were.

That's why logic can be subjective. You're for sure not the final arbiter of logic, that would be totally against logic.

Taz, Taz, Taz.... people are subjective. Logic is objective. You are confusing people's subjectivity for logic.

Logic can be both, as in 2+2=4, that's objective logic. Subjective logic is like someone who thinks that it's logical that they know everything. Like you.

That's a silly use of logic on your part and shows your subjectivity. I have never claimed to know everything; far from it as I will gladly admit to my ignorance on many things. What I do claim is that logic cannot be anything people want it to be. That logic is objective. And the only way logic can be subjective is from the misapplication of logic by subjective humans. Which is what you have used for every one of your examples.

Misapplication according to you. Not to them. So who gets to choose?

Reality

Then it was logical for them to do 9/11, which they said was retaliation for the US bombing Muslim countries and backing Israel. Seems logical to me too.

Any rationalization of violence as good is illogical, taz.

But not all acts of violence are considered bad or immoral because we have subjectively rationalized that not all violence is "bad".

The lesser of two evils does not moralize the lesser of the two evils.

Of course it does because we do not punish one and we do punish the other therefore one is right and one is wrong.

It's OK for your government to send you to a foreign country to kill people but not OK for you to go to a foreign country and kill those same people on your own.

It's OK for the government to kill a murderer but it's not OK for a member of the victim's family to kill that same murderer.

Evil is just another subjective value judgement we make.

It's called the lesser of two evils for a reason.

Evil is subjective. So any action predicated upon the evilness of another action is subjective and therefore rationalized

Evil is not extant. It is the absence of good.

Good is subjective.

therefore evil is subjective

Evil is the absence of good. It's like cold or darkness. It's the negation of something else.

Good is a effectively a standard which exists for logical reasons.

good is not a standard because it is subjective.

Standards are not subjective. Human beings are subjective. Standards are based upon logic and logic exists independently of man.

There is no standard as to what is good.

And logic was invented by men as a system for correct inference.

Logic is nothing but man's study of his own reasoning process.

If that it were true that there is no standard as to what is good, then all behaviors would lead to equal outcomes and we know they don't.

If logic is an invention, then we could conclude anything we want from logic which we can't.

If logic is nothing but man's study of his own reasoning process, then there is nothing which can define the outputs of his reasoning process as right or wrong. In fact, you couldn't even say what I am arguing is wrong because you would have no logical basis for saying what is right or wrong.

Anytime we make a value judgement it is subjective.

One can logically come to the conclusion that killing a person is the correct action even if you think killing is "wrong".

As I have stated many times killing a person can be called good or bad so there is no absolute agreement that killing is right or wrong.

So your value judgements are just opinions? They can't be right or wrong because there is no right or wrong?

I never said we as a society do not agree on what behaviors are acceptable or not.

The thing is different societies think different behaviors are acceptable or unacceptable.

But society would have no basis for agreeing based upon correctness. It's just their preference. They could agree on raping children and you would have no basis for opposing it.

 

[Crick]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

Logic can be subjective, like the guys who thought it was logical to crash 747s into buildings, or put explosives in their underwear.

Only you would believe that logic is subjective, taz, only you.

Muslims thought that 9/11 was logical. You lose.

That's some impressive display of logic on your part, taz.

You are just as logical as they were.

That's why logic can be subjective. You're for sure not the final arbiter of logic, that would be totally against logic.

Taz, Taz, Taz.... people are subjective. Logic is objective. You are confusing people's subjectivity for logic.

Logic can be both, as in 2+2=4, that's objective logic. Subjective logic is like someone who thinks that it's logical that they know everything. Like you.

That's a silly use of logic on your part and shows your subjectivity. I have never claimed to know everything; far from it as I will gladly admit to my ignorance on many things. What I do claim is that logic cannot be anything people want it to be. That logic is objective. And the only way logic can be subjective is from the misapplication of logic by subjective humans. Which is what you have used for every one of your examples.

Misapplication according to you. Not to them. So who gets to choose?

Reality

Then it was logical for them to do 9/11, which they said was retaliation for the US bombing Muslim countries and backing Israel. Seems logical to me too.

Any rationalization of violence as good is illogical, taz.

So if I kill someone who is trying to kill me, that’s not logically good?

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

Logic can be subjective, like the guys who thought it was logical to crash 747s into buildings, or put explosives in their underwear.

Only you would believe that logic is subjective, taz, only you.

Muslims thought that 9/11 was logical. You lose.

That's some impressive display of logic on your part, taz.

You are just as logical as they were.

That's why logic can be subjective. You're for sure not the final arbiter of logic, that would be totally against logic.

Taz, Taz, Taz.... people are subjective. Logic is objective. You are confusing people's subjectivity for logic.

Logic can be both, as in 2+2=4, that's objective logic. Subjective logic is like someone who thinks that it's logical that they know everything. Like you.

That's a silly use of logic on your part and shows your subjectivity. I have never claimed to know everything; far from it as I will gladly admit to my ignorance on many things. What I do claim is that logic cannot be anything people want it to be. That logic is objective. And the only way logic can be subjective is from the misapplication of logic by subjective humans. Which is what you have used for every one of your examples.

Misapplication according to you. Not to them. So who gets to choose?

Reality

Then it was logical for them to do 9/11, which they said was retaliation for the US bombing Muslim countries and backing Israel. Seems logical to me too.

Any rationalization of violence as good is illogical, taz.

But not all acts of violence are considered bad or immoral because we have subjectively rationalized that not all violence is "bad".

The lesser of two evils does not moralize the lesser of the two evils.

Of course it does because we do not punish one and we do punish the other therefore one is right and one is wrong.

It's OK for your government to send you to a foreign country to kill people but not OK for you to go to a foreign country and kill those same people on your own.

It's OK for the government to kill a murderer but it's not OK for a member of the victim's family to kill that same murderer.

Evil is just another subjective value judgement we make.

It's called the lesser of two evils for a reason.

Evil is subjective. So any action predicated upon the evilness of another action is subjective and therefore rationalized

Evil is not extant. It is the absence of good.

Good is subjective.

therefore evil is subjective

Evil is the absence of good. It's like cold or darkness. It's the negation of something else.

Good is a effectively a standard which exists for logical reasons.

good is not a standard because it is subjective.

Standards are not subjective. Human beings are subjective. Standards are based upon logic and logic exists independently of man.

There is no standard as to what is good.

And logic was invented by men as a system for correct inference.

Logic is nothing but man's study of his own reasoning process.

If that it were true that there is no standard as to what is good, then all behaviors would lead to equal outcomes and we know they don't.

If logic is an invention, then we could conclude anything we want from logic which we can't.

If logic is nothing but man's study of his own reasoning process, then there is nothing which can define the outputs of his reasoning process as right or wrong. In fact, you couldn't even say what I am arguing is wrong because you would have no logical basis for saying what is right or wrong.

Anytime we make a value judgement it is subjective.

One can logically come to the conclusion that killing a person is the correct action even if you think killing is "wrong".

As I have stated many times killing a person can be called good or bad so there is no absolute agreement that killing is right or wrong.

I saw a discussion on this topic many years ago in which the challenge was given to identify an event that was purely evil - that had absolutely no potential for good. It was argued that an infinitely powerful and benevolent god would not allow such things to take place. The horrors we are all familiar with are nearly universally addressed by believers with some variation on "god works in mysterious ways", claiming that some good will result from what may look to us as purely evil. The candidate occurrence was the suffering of newborns with harlequin ichthyosis syndrome. Feel free to look that up yourself. I warn the reader that pictures of victims go well beyond disturbing. Victims these days can be treated via an intensive and multidisciplinary approach and may survive for extended periods, but as the cause is completely genetic, there is no cure. In the religious argument, it was noted that the newborn would be innocent of any sin and that, at the time the discussion took place, they would invariably die after experiencing nothing in life but extreme suffering. Thus there was no potential for any good coming to the infant and thus the event was purely evil and thus disproved the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent god.

 

[ding]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

Logic can be subjective, like the guys who thought it was logical to crash 747s into buildings, or put explosives in their underwear.

Only you would believe that logic is subjective, taz, only you.

Muslims thought that 9/11 was logical. You lose.

That's some impressive display of logic on your part, taz.

You are just as logical as they were.

That's why logic can be subjective. You're for sure not the final arbiter of logic, that would be totally against logic.

Taz, Taz, Taz.... people are subjective. Logic is objective. You are confusing people's subjectivity for logic.

Logic can be both, as in 2+2=4, that's objective logic. Subjective logic is like someone who thinks that it's logical that they know everything. Like you.

That's a silly use of logic on your part and shows your subjectivity. I have never claimed to know everything; far from it as I will gladly admit to my ignorance on many things. What I do claim is that logic cannot be anything people want it to be. That logic is objective. And the only way logic can be subjective is from the misapplication of logic by subjective humans. Which is what you have used for every one of your examples.

Misapplication according to you. Not to them. So who gets to choose?

Reality

Then it was logical for them to do 9/11, which they said was retaliation for the US bombing Muslim countries and backing Israel. Seems logical to me too.

Any rationalization of violence as good is illogical, taz.

So if I kill someone who is trying to kill me, that’s not logically good?

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

Logic can be subjective, like the guys who thought it was logical to crash 747s into buildings, or put explosives in their underwear.

Only you would believe that logic is subjective, taz, only you.

Muslims thought that 9/11 was logical. You lose.

That's some impressive display of logic on your part, taz.

You are just as logical as they were.

That's why logic can be subjective. You're for sure not the final arbiter of logic, that would be totally against logic.

Taz, Taz, Taz.... people are subjective. Logic is objective. You are confusing people's subjectivity for logic.

Logic can be both, as in 2+2=4, that's objective logic. Subjective logic is like someone who thinks that it's logical that they know everything. Like you.

That's a silly use of logic on your part and shows your subjectivity. I have never claimed to know everything; far from it as I will gladly admit to my ignorance on many things. What I do claim is that logic cannot be anything people want it to be. That logic is objective. And the only way logic can be subjective is from the misapplication of logic by subjective humans. Which is what you have used for every one of your examples.

Misapplication according to you. Not to them. So who gets to choose?

Reality

Then it was logical for them to do 9/11, which they said was retaliation for the US bombing Muslim countries and backing Israel. Seems logical to me too.

Any rationalization of violence as good is illogical, taz.

But not all acts of violence are considered bad or immoral because we have subjectively rationalized that not all violence is "bad".

The lesser of two evils does not moralize the lesser of the two evils.

Of course it does because we do not punish one and we do punish the other therefore one is right and one is wrong.

It's OK for your government to send you to a foreign country to kill people but not OK for you to go to a foreign country and kill those same people on your own.

It's OK for the government to kill a murderer but it's not OK for a member of the victim's family to kill that same murderer.

Evil is just another subjective value judgement we make.

It's called the lesser of two evils for a reason.

Evil is subjective. So any action predicated upon the evilness of another action is subjective and therefore rationalized

Evil is not extant. It is the absence of good.

Good is subjective.

therefore evil is subjective

Evil is the absence of good. It's like cold or darkness. It's the negation of something else.

Good is a effectively a standard which exists for logical reasons.

good is not a standard because it is subjective.

Standards are not subjective. Human beings are subjective. Standards are based upon logic and logic exists independently of man.

There is no standard as to what is good.

And logic was invented by men as a system for correct inference.

Logic is nothing but man's study of his own reasoning process.

If that it were true that there is no standard as to what is good, then all behaviors would lead to equal outcomes and we know they don't.

If logic is an invention, then we could conclude anything we want from logic which we can't.

If logic is nothing but man's study of his own reasoning process, then there is nothing which can define the outputs of his reasoning process as right or wrong. In fact, you couldn't even say what I am arguing is wrong because you would have no logical basis for saying what is right or wrong.

Anytime we make a value judgement it is subjective.

One can logically come to the conclusion that killing a person is the correct action even if you think killing is "wrong".

As I have stated many times killing a person can be called good or bad so there is no absolute agreement that killing is right or wrong.

I saw a discussion on this topic many years ago in which the challenge was given to identify an event that was purely evil - that had absolutely no potential for good. It was argued that an infinitely powerful and benevolent god would not allow such things to take place. The horrors we are all familiar with are nearly universally addressed by believers with some variation on "god works in mysterious ways", claiming that some good will result from what may look to us as purely evil. The candidate occurrence was the suffering of newborns with harlequin ichthyosis syndrome. Feel free to look that up yourself. I warn the reader that pictures of victims go well beyond disturbing. Victims these days can be treated via an intensive and multidisciplinary approach and may survive for extended periods, but as the cause is completely genetic, there is no cure. In the religious argument, it was noted that the newborn would be innocent of any sin and that, at the time the discussion took place, they would invariably die after experiencing nothing in life but extreme suffering. Thus there was no potential for any good coming to the infant and thus the event was purely evil and thus disproved the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent god.

Maimonides responds...

MEN frequently think that the evils in the world are more numerous than the good things, that just isn't the case. He who thinks that he can have flesh and bones without being subject to any external influence, or any of the accidents of matter, unconsciously wishes to reconcile two opposites, viz., to be at the same time subject and not subject to change. If man were never subject to change there could be no generation: there would be one single being, but no individuals forming a species. It would be in vain to expect to see living beings formed of the blood of menstruous women and the semen virile, who will not die, will never feel pain, or will move perpetually, or will shine like the sun. Whatever is formed of any matter receives the most perfect form possible in that species of matter: in each individual case the defects are in accordance with the defects of that individual matter. The best and most perfect being that can be formed of the blood and the semen is the species of man, for as far as man's nature is known, he is living, reasonable, and mortal. It is therefore impossible that man should be free from this species of evil. You will, nevertheless, find that the evils of the above kind which befall man are very few and rare.

It must be admitted as a fact that it cannot be said of God that He directly creates evil, or He has the direct intention to produce evil; this is impossible His works are all perfectly good. He only produces existence, and all existence is good. God is perfect goodness, and that all that comes from Him is absolutely good. Consequently the true work of God is all good, since it is existence. ALL the great evils which men cause to each other because of certain intentions, desires, opinions, or religious principles, are likewise due to non-existence, because they originate in ignorance, which is absence of wisdom. The numerous evils to which individual persons are exposed are due to the defects existing in the persons themselves. We suffer from the evils which we, by our own free will, inflict on ourselves and ascribe them to God, who is far from being connected with them. Man himself is the author of this class of evils. The error of the ignorant goes so far as to say that God's power is insufficient, because He has given to this Universe the properties which they imagine cause these great evils.

 

[Blues Man]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

So you're changing your tune again.

Did you not say the math does not exist?

If it does not exist it cannot be discovered can it?

Exact right triangles are a man made construct. So the math describing them is a man made construct

There is no reason to think the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Never changed my tune. You take things out of context cause you have nothing else.

I love how hard you are trying to prove this.

Einstein did not invent E=mc^2. He discovered it.

I quoted you verbatim.

And you still deny you said it

Math is a human invention as a way to represent what we see.

You are confusing math and what math was invented to describe.

There is nothing to prove that the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours

Man discovered math. Man did not invent math. Math is universal. Same for logic, science, music, etc.

you are confusing math with the things it was invented to describe.

No. I'm not. E=mc^2 wasn't invented. It was discovered. Einstein could not make it be anything he wanted it to be like Apple could with its iPod. So E=mc^2 isn't an invention, it is a mathematical reality that describes a physical phenomenon. The physical phenomenon and the math that describes it were discovered.

The math that describes the relationship between matter and energy is a human invention.

You are confusing the math with the things it is being used to describe.

So I invented that if A=B and B=C then A=C?

Mathematics was invented to describe observed phenomenon in the natural world.

Like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a body due to gravity.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself.

So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered?

All you are doing is saying A =A

Not much of a "discovery" is it ?

Logic is nothing but a system invented by humans to examine human reasoning.

Is that your way of saying the transitive law was discovered?

No it was invented when man invented a system of correct inference AKA logic

You said it wasn't much of a discovery though, right? You didn't say it was no discovery.

It's not a "discovery" to say A=A

Do you know what sarcasm is?

But it's not saying A=A. It is comparing three different things. A, B and C.

No it isn't

because we have a definition for the concept represented by the = sign.

If A =B then B and A are the same thing so you are not comparing different things but rather you are giving the same thing different names.

Let's say A is a house and B is a diamond ring and C is a Lamborghini. Are they all the same thing?

Like I said we have defined the meaning of the = sign.

if you do not use the = sign then you are not giving different names to the same thing.

So you are arguing that a house and a diamond ring and a Lamborghini are all the same things?

I guess since you believe you can make logic be anything you want that makes sense to you.

No. I never once said that or tried to prove it.

And what you are doing is playing with language and that is not logic.

You were the one who said they were the same thing to justify that math is an invention. I am the one who said the transitive law was discovered and not created by man but exists unto itself just as logic does because the transitive law is based upon logic.

Where did I say a house and a diamond ring are the same thing? The entire if A=B and B=C then A=C statement is based on certain assumptions. If you change those assumptions or ignore then then the rule breaks down.

Logic is a human invention as a system of correct inference.

Math was invented by humans to describe observed phenomena

There is no reason to think the mathematics or logic of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

 

[ding]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

So you're changing your tune again.

Did you not say the math does not exist?

If it does not exist it cannot be discovered can it?

Exact right triangles are a man made construct. So the math describing them is a man made construct

There is no reason to think the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Never changed my tune. You take things out of context cause you have nothing else.

I love how hard you are trying to prove this.

Einstein did not invent E=mc^2. He discovered it.

I quoted you verbatim.

And you still deny you said it

Math is a human invention as a way to represent what we see.

You are confusing math and what math was invented to describe.

There is nothing to prove that the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours

Man discovered math. Man did not invent math. Math is universal. Same for logic, science, music, etc.

you are confusing math with the things it was invented to describe.

No. I'm not. E=mc^2 wasn't invented. It was discovered. Einstein could not make it be anything he wanted it to be like Apple could with its iPod. So E=mc^2 isn't an invention, it is a mathematical reality that describes a physical phenomenon. The physical phenomenon and the math that describes it were discovered.

The math that describes the relationship between matter and energy is a human invention.

You are confusing the math with the things it is being used to describe.

So I invented that if A=B and B=C then A=C?

Mathematics was invented to describe observed phenomenon in the natural world.

Like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a body due to gravity.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself.

So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered?

All you are doing is saying A =A

Not much of a "discovery" is it ?

Logic is nothing but a system invented by humans to examine human reasoning.

Is that your way of saying the transitive law was discovered?

No it was invented when man invented a system of correct inference AKA logic

You said it wasn't much of a discovery though, right? You didn't say it was no discovery.

It's not a "discovery" to say A=A

Do you know what sarcasm is?

But it's not saying A=A. It is comparing three different things. A, B and C.

No it isn't

because we have a definition for the concept represented by the = sign.

If A =B then B and A are the same thing so you are not comparing different things but rather you are giving the same thing different names.

Let's say A is a house and B is a diamond ring and C is a Lamborghini. Are they all the same thing?

Like I said we have defined the meaning of the = sign.

if you do not use the = sign then you are not giving different names to the same thing.

So you are arguing that a house and a diamond ring and a Lamborghini are all the same things?

I guess since you believe you can make logic be anything you want that makes sense to you.

No. I never once said that or tried to prove it.

And what you are doing is playing with language and that is not logic.

You were the one who said they were the same thing to justify that math is an invention. I am the one who said the transitive law was discovered and not created by man but exists unto itself just as logic does because the transitive law is based upon logic.

Where did I say a house and a diamond ring are the same thing? The entire if A=B and B=C then A=C statement is based on certain assumptions. If you change those assumptions or ignore then then the rule breaks down.

Logic is a human invention as a system of correct inference.

Math was invented by humans to describe observed phenomena

There is no reason to think the mathematics or logic of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Logic, like math is discovered. You can't make them be anything you want them to be. Just like you can't make right and wrong be anything you want them to be.

 

[Blues Man]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

Logic can be subjective, like the guys who thought it was logical to crash 747s into buildings, or put explosives in their underwear.

Only you would believe that logic is subjective, taz, only you.

Muslims thought that 9/11 was logical. You lose.

That's some impressive display of logic on your part, taz.

You are just as logical as they were.

That's why logic can be subjective. You're for sure not the final arbiter of logic, that would be totally against logic.

Taz, Taz, Taz.... people are subjective. Logic is objective. You are confusing people's subjectivity for logic.

Logic can be both, as in 2+2=4, that's objective logic. Subjective logic is like someone who thinks that it's logical that they know everything. Like you.

That's a silly use of logic on your part and shows your subjectivity. I have never claimed to know everything; far from it as I will gladly admit to my ignorance on many things. What I do claim is that logic cannot be anything people want it to be. That logic is objective. And the only way logic can be subjective is from the misapplication of logic by subjective humans. Which is what you have used for every one of your examples.

Misapplication according to you. Not to them. So who gets to choose?

Reality

Then it was logical for them to do 9/11, which they said was retaliation for the US bombing Muslim countries and backing Israel. Seems logical to me too.

Any rationalization of violence as good is illogical, taz.

So if I kill someone who is trying to kill me, that’s not logically good?

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

Logic can be subjective, like the guys who thought it was logical to crash 747s into buildings, or put explosives in their underwear.

Only you would believe that logic is subjective, taz, only you.

Muslims thought that 9/11 was logical. You lose.

That's some impressive display of logic on your part, taz.

You are just as logical as they were.

That's why logic can be subjective. You're for sure not the final arbiter of logic, that would be totally against logic.

Taz, Taz, Taz.... people are subjective. Logic is objective. You are confusing people's subjectivity for logic.

Logic can be both, as in 2+2=4, that's objective logic. Subjective logic is like someone who thinks that it's logical that they know everything. Like you.

That's a silly use of logic on your part and shows your subjectivity. I have never claimed to know everything; far from it as I will gladly admit to my ignorance on many things. What I do claim is that logic cannot be anything people want it to be. That logic is objective. And the only way logic can be subjective is from the misapplication of logic by subjective humans. Which is what you have used for every one of your examples.

Misapplication according to you. Not to them. So who gets to choose?

Reality

Then it was logical for them to do 9/11, which they said was retaliation for the US bombing Muslim countries and backing Israel. Seems logical to me too.

Any rationalization of violence as good is illogical, taz.

But not all acts of violence are considered bad or immoral because we have subjectively rationalized that not all violence is "bad".

The lesser of two evils does not moralize the lesser of the two evils.

Of course it does because we do not punish one and we do punish the other therefore one is right and one is wrong.

It's OK for your government to send you to a foreign country to kill people but not OK for you to go to a foreign country and kill those same people on your own.

It's OK for the government to kill a murderer but it's not OK for a member of the victim's family to kill that same murderer.

Evil is just another subjective value judgement we make.

It's called the lesser of two evils for a reason.

Evil is subjective. So any action predicated upon the evilness of another action is subjective and therefore rationalized

Evil is not extant. It is the absence of good.

Good is subjective.

therefore evil is subjective

Evil is the absence of good. It's like cold or darkness. It's the negation of something else.

Good is a effectively a standard which exists for logical reasons.

good is not a standard because it is subjective.

Standards are not subjective. Human beings are subjective. Standards are based upon logic and logic exists independently of man.

There is no standard as to what is good.

And logic was invented by men as a system for correct inference.

Logic is nothing but man's study of his own reasoning process.

If that it were true that there is no standard as to what is good, then all behaviors would lead to equal outcomes and we know they don't.

If logic is an invention, then we could conclude anything we want from logic which we can't.

If logic is nothing but man's study of his own reasoning process, then there is nothing which can define the outputs of his reasoning process as right or wrong. In fact, you couldn't even say what I am arguing is wrong because you would have no logical basis for saying what is right or wrong.

Anytime we make a value judgement it is subjective.

One can logically come to the conclusion that killing a person is the correct action even if you think killing is "wrong".

As I have stated many times killing a person can be called good or bad so there is no absolute agreement that killing is right or wrong.

So your value judgements are just opinions? They can't be right or wrong because there is no right or wrong?

I never said we as a society do not agree on what behaviors are acceptable or not.

The thing is different societies think different behaviors are acceptable or unacceptable.

But society would have no basis for agreeing based upon correctness. It's just their preference. They could agree on raping children and you would have no basis for opposing it.

Society bases it's acceptable and unacceptable behaviors on what the majority thinks. In fact throughout history societies were forced to conform to another society's rules at the point of a sword.

If there was a universal standard than all societies would have adopted them without force.

 

[Blues Man]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

So you're changing your tune again.

Did you not say the math does not exist?

If it does not exist it cannot be discovered can it?

Exact right triangles are a man made construct. So the math describing them is a man made construct

There is no reason to think the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Never changed my tune. You take things out of context cause you have nothing else.

I love how hard you are trying to prove this.

Einstein did not invent E=mc^2. He discovered it.

I quoted you verbatim.

And you still deny you said it

Math is a human invention as a way to represent what we see.

You are confusing math and what math was invented to describe.

There is nothing to prove that the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours

Man discovered math. Man did not invent math. Math is universal. Same for logic, science, music, etc.

you are confusing math with the things it was invented to describe.

No. I'm not. E=mc^2 wasn't invented. It was discovered. Einstein could not make it be anything he wanted it to be like Apple could with its iPod. So E=mc^2 isn't an invention, it is a mathematical reality that describes a physical phenomenon. The physical phenomenon and the math that describes it were discovered.

The math that describes the relationship between matter and energy is a human invention.

You are confusing the math with the things it is being used to describe.

So I invented that if A=B and B=C then A=C?

Mathematics was invented to describe observed phenomenon in the natural world.

Like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a body due to gravity.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself.

So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered?

All you are doing is saying A =A

Not much of a "discovery" is it ?

Logic is nothing but a system invented by humans to examine human reasoning.

Is that your way of saying the transitive law was discovered?

No it was invented when man invented a system of correct inference AKA logic

You said it wasn't much of a discovery though, right? You didn't say it was no discovery.

It's not a "discovery" to say A=A

Do you know what sarcasm is?

But it's not saying A=A. It is comparing three different things. A, B and C.

No it isn't

because we have a definition for the concept represented by the = sign.

If A =B then B and A are the same thing so you are not comparing different things but rather you are giving the same thing different names.

Let's say A is a house and B is a diamond ring and C is a Lamborghini. Are they all the same thing?

Like I said we have defined the meaning of the = sign.

if you do not use the = sign then you are not giving different names to the same thing.

So you are arguing that a house and a diamond ring and a Lamborghini are all the same things?

I guess since you believe you can make logic be anything you want that makes sense to you.

No. I never once said that or tried to prove it.

And what you are doing is playing with language and that is not logic.

You were the one who said they were the same thing to justify that math is an invention. I am the one who said the transitive law was discovered and not created by man but exists unto itself just as logic does because the transitive law is based upon logic.

Where did I say a house and a diamond ring are the same thing? The entire if A=B and B=C then A=C statement is based on certain assumptions. If you change those assumptions or ignore then then the rule breaks down.

Logic is a human invention as a system of correct inference.

Math was invented by humans to describe observed phenomena

There is no reason to think the mathematics or logic of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Logic, like math is discovered. You can't make them be anything you want them to be. Just like you can't make right and wrong be anything you want them to be.

The rules of logic have been set down in the past and expanded by different cultures throughout history.

The system of rules was made by men and is a product of the human mind and are therefore uniquely human.

Logic isn't something floating out in the ether like hydrogen atoms

 

[ding]

Where did I say a house and a diamond ring are the same thing?

When you simplified if A=B and B=C then A=C into A=A

God does exist. Itelligent design in the Universe is prof of God.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself. So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered? . apples and oranges. just curious, how can they all equal the same without being the same ... sounds like an invention.

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[ding]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

So you're changing your tune again.

Did you not say the math does not exist?

If it does not exist it cannot be discovered can it?

Exact right triangles are a man made construct. So the math describing them is a man made construct

There is no reason to think the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Never changed my tune. You take things out of context cause you have nothing else.

I love how hard you are trying to prove this.

Einstein did not invent E=mc^2. He discovered it.

I quoted you verbatim.

And you still deny you said it

Math is a human invention as a way to represent what we see.

You are confusing math and what math was invented to describe.

There is nothing to prove that the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours

Man discovered math. Man did not invent math. Math is universal. Same for logic, science, music, etc.

you are confusing math with the things it was invented to describe.

No. I'm not. E=mc^2 wasn't invented. It was discovered. Einstein could not make it be anything he wanted it to be like Apple could with its iPod. So E=mc^2 isn't an invention, it is a mathematical reality that describes a physical phenomenon. The physical phenomenon and the math that describes it were discovered.

The math that describes the relationship between matter and energy is a human invention.

You are confusing the math with the things it is being used to describe.

So I invented that if A=B and B=C then A=C?

Mathematics was invented to describe observed phenomenon in the natural world.

Like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a body due to gravity.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself.

So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered?

All you are doing is saying A =A

Not much of a "discovery" is it ?

Logic is nothing but a system invented by humans to examine human reasoning.

Is that your way of saying the transitive law was discovered?

No it was invented when man invented a system of correct inference AKA logic

You said it wasn't much of a discovery though, right? You didn't say it was no discovery.

It's not a "discovery" to say A=A

Do you know what sarcasm is?

But it's not saying A=A. It is comparing three different things. A, B and C.

No it isn't

because we have a definition for the concept represented by the = sign.

If A =B then B and A are the same thing so you are not comparing different things but rather you are giving the same thing different names.

Let's say A is a house and B is a diamond ring and C is a Lamborghini. Are they all the same thing?

Like I said we have defined the meaning of the = sign.

if you do not use the = sign then you are not giving different names to the same thing.

So you are arguing that a house and a diamond ring and a Lamborghini are all the same things?

I guess since you believe you can make logic be anything you want that makes sense to you.

No. I never once said that or tried to prove it.

And what you are doing is playing with language and that is not logic.

You were the one who said they were the same thing to justify that math is an invention. I am the one who said the transitive law was discovered and not created by man but exists unto itself just as logic does because the transitive law is based upon logic.

Where did I say a house and a diamond ring are the same thing? The entire if A=B and B=C then A=C statement is based on certain assumptions. If you change those assumptions or ignore then then the rule breaks down.

Logic is a human invention as a system of correct inference.

Math was invented by humans to describe observed phenomena

There is no reason to think the mathematics or logic of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Logic, like math is discovered. You can't make them be anything you want them to be. Just like you can't make right and wrong be anything you want them to be.

The rules of logic have been set down in the past and expanded by different cultures throughout history.

The system of rules was made by men and is a product of the human mind and are therefore uniquely human.

Logic isn't something floating out in the ether like hydrogen atoms

Logic is based upon truth and truth is based upon objectivity. Truth and logic are discovered through objectivity.

 

[ding]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

Logic can be subjective, like the guys who thought it was logical to crash 747s into buildings, or put explosives in their underwear.

Only you would believe that logic is subjective, taz, only you.

Muslims thought that 9/11 was logical. You lose.

That's some impressive display of logic on your part, taz.

You are just as logical as they were.

That's why logic can be subjective. You're for sure not the final arbiter of logic, that would be totally against logic.

Taz, Taz, Taz.... people are subjective. Logic is objective. You are confusing people's subjectivity for logic.

Logic can be both, as in 2+2=4, that's objective logic. Subjective logic is like someone who thinks that it's logical that they know everything. Like you.

That's a silly use of logic on your part and shows your subjectivity. I have never claimed to know everything; far from it as I will gladly admit to my ignorance on many things. What I do claim is that logic cannot be anything people want it to be. That logic is objective. And the only way logic can be subjective is from the misapplication of logic by subjective humans. Which is what you have used for every one of your examples.

Misapplication according to you. Not to them. So who gets to choose?

Reality

Then it was logical for them to do 9/11, which they said was retaliation for the US bombing Muslim countries and backing Israel. Seems logical to me too.

Any rationalization of violence as good is illogical, taz.

So if I kill someone who is trying to kill me, that’s not logically good?

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

Logic can be subjective, like the guys who thought it was logical to crash 747s into buildings, or put explosives in their underwear.

Only you would believe that logic is subjective, taz, only you.

Muslims thought that 9/11 was logical. You lose.

That's some impressive display of logic on your part, taz.

You are just as logical as they were.

That's why logic can be subjective. You're for sure not the final arbiter of logic, that would be totally against logic.

Taz, Taz, Taz.... people are subjective. Logic is objective. You are confusing people's subjectivity for logic.

Logic can be both, as in 2+2=4, that's objective logic. Subjective logic is like someone who thinks that it's logical that they know everything. Like you.

That's a silly use of logic on your part and shows your subjectivity. I have never claimed to know everything; far from it as I will gladly admit to my ignorance on many things. What I do claim is that logic cannot be anything people want it to be. That logic is objective. And the only way logic can be subjective is from the misapplication of logic by subjective humans. Which is what you have used for every one of your examples.

Misapplication according to you. Not to them. So who gets to choose?

Reality

Then it was logical for them to do 9/11, which they said was retaliation for the US bombing Muslim countries and backing Israel. Seems logical to me too.

Any rationalization of violence as good is illogical, taz.

But not all acts of violence are considered bad or immoral because we have subjectively rationalized that not all violence is "bad".

The lesser of two evils does not moralize the lesser of the two evils.

Of course it does because we do not punish one and we do punish the other therefore one is right and one is wrong.

It's OK for your government to send you to a foreign country to kill people but not OK for you to go to a foreign country and kill those same people on your own.

It's OK for the government to kill a murderer but it's not OK for a member of the victim's family to kill that same murderer.

Evil is just another subjective value judgement we make.

It's called the lesser of two evils for a reason.

Evil is subjective. So any action predicated upon the evilness of another action is subjective and therefore rationalized

Evil is not extant. It is the absence of good.

Good is subjective.

therefore evil is subjective

Evil is the absence of good. It's like cold or darkness. It's the negation of something else.

Good is a effectively a standard which exists for logical reasons.

good is not a standard because it is subjective.

Standards are not subjective. Human beings are subjective. Standards are based upon logic and logic exists independently of man.

There is no standard as to what is good.

And logic was invented by men as a system for correct inference.

Logic is nothing but man's study of his own reasoning process.

If that it were true that there is no standard as to what is good, then all behaviors would lead to equal outcomes and we know they don't.

If logic is an invention, then we could conclude anything we want from logic which we can't.

If logic is nothing but man's study of his own reasoning process, then there is nothing which can define the outputs of his reasoning process as right or wrong. In fact, you couldn't even say what I am arguing is wrong because you would have no logical basis for saying what is right or wrong.

Anytime we make a value judgement it is subjective.

One can logically come to the conclusion that killing a person is the correct action even if you think killing is "wrong".

As I have stated many times killing a person can be called good or bad so there is no absolute agreement that killing is right or wrong.

So your value judgements are just opinions? They can't be right or wrong because there is no right or wrong?

I never said we as a society do not agree on what behaviors are acceptable or not.

The thing is different societies think different behaviors are acceptable or unacceptable.

But society would have no basis for agreeing based upon correctness. It's just their preference. They could agree on raping children and you would have no basis for opposing it.

 

[Blues Man]

Where did I say a house and a diamond ring are the same thing?

When you simplified if A=B and B=C then A=C into A=A

God does exist. Itelligent design in the Universe is prof of God.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself. So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered? . apples and oranges. just curious, how can they all equal the same without being the same ... sounds like an invention.

www.usmessageboard.com

No because i was working under agreed upon definition of the = sign.

If you want to prove that a house equals a diamond ring then you have to show the proof not just state it.

Like I said it has been established that for the statement If a=b ...... that certain assumptions are accepted.

But we do not have to accept those assumptions if we choose not to but then the parties of every conversation would first have to establish the definitions of all the terms used in that conversation. This is the reason we have agreed upon definitions for words and symbols.

 

[Blues Man]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

So you're changing your tune again.

Did you not say the math does not exist?

If it does not exist it cannot be discovered can it?

Exact right triangles are a man made construct. So the math describing them is a man made construct

There is no reason to think the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Never changed my tune. You take things out of context cause you have nothing else.

I love how hard you are trying to prove this.

Einstein did not invent E=mc^2. He discovered it.

I quoted you verbatim.

And you still deny you said it

Math is a human invention as a way to represent what we see.

You are confusing math and what math was invented to describe.

There is nothing to prove that the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours

Man discovered math. Man did not invent math. Math is universal. Same for logic, science, music, etc.

you are confusing math with the things it was invented to describe.

No. I'm not. E=mc^2 wasn't invented. It was discovered. Einstein could not make it be anything he wanted it to be like Apple could with its iPod. So E=mc^2 isn't an invention, it is a mathematical reality that describes a physical phenomenon. The physical phenomenon and the math that describes it were discovered.

The math that describes the relationship between matter and energy is a human invention.

You are confusing the math with the things it is being used to describe.

So I invented that if A=B and B=C then A=C?

Mathematics was invented to describe observed phenomenon in the natural world.

Like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a body due to gravity.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself.

So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered?

All you are doing is saying A =A

Not much of a "discovery" is it ?

Logic is nothing but a system invented by humans to examine human reasoning.

Is that your way of saying the transitive law was discovered?

No it was invented when man invented a system of correct inference AKA logic

You said it wasn't much of a discovery though, right? You didn't say it was no discovery.

It's not a "discovery" to say A=A

Do you know what sarcasm is?

But it's not saying A=A. It is comparing three different things. A, B and C.

No it isn't

because we have a definition for the concept represented by the = sign.

If A =B then B and A are the same thing so you are not comparing different things but rather you are giving the same thing different names.

Let's say A is a house and B is a diamond ring and C is a Lamborghini. Are they all the same thing?

Like I said we have defined the meaning of the = sign.

if you do not use the = sign then you are not giving different names to the same thing.

So you are arguing that a house and a diamond ring and a Lamborghini are all the same things?

I guess since you believe you can make logic be anything you want that makes sense to you.

No. I never once said that or tried to prove it.

And what you are doing is playing with language and that is not logic.

You were the one who said they were the same thing to justify that math is an invention. I am the one who said the transitive law was discovered and not created by man but exists unto itself just as logic does because the transitive law is based upon logic.

Where did I say a house and a diamond ring are the same thing? The entire if A=B and B=C then A=C statement is based on certain assumptions. If you change those assumptions or ignore then then the rule breaks down.

Logic is a human invention as a system of correct inference.

Math was invented by humans to describe observed phenomena

There is no reason to think the mathematics or logic of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Logic, like math is discovered. You can't make them be anything you want them to be. Just like you can't make right and wrong be anything you want them to be.

The rules of logic have been set down in the past and expanded by different cultures throughout history.

The system of rules was made by men and is a product of the human mind and are therefore uniquely human.

Logic isn't something floating out in the ether like hydrogen atoms

Logic is based upon truth and truth is based upon objectivity. Truth and logic are discovered through objectivity.

Truth. Obviously your truth and my truth are not the same thing.

a statement can only be true if we all agree on the definition of the terms used.

So now i suppose that there is some ultimate source of the definitions of all terms waiting to be "discovered " too right?

 

[ding]

Where did I say a house and a diamond ring are the same thing?

When you simplified if A=B and B=C then A=C into A=A

God does exist. Itelligent design in the Universe is prof of God.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself. So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered? . apples and oranges. just curious, how can they all equal the same without being the same ... sounds like an invention.

www.usmessageboard.com

No because i was working under agreed upon definition of the = sign.

If you want to prove that a house equals a diamond ring then you have to show the proof not just state it.

Like I said it has been established that for the statement If a=b ...... that certain assumptions are accepted.

But we do not have to accept those assumptions if we choose not to but then the parties of every conversation would first have to establish the definitions of all the terms used in that conversation. This is the reason we have agreed upon definitions for words and symbols.

Based upon your "logic" there would be no need for the transitive law of mathematics.

Here's another example of the transitive law.... If I'm blood related to Kevin Bacon and Kevin Bacon is blood related to you, then we're related.

if A=B and B=C then A=C

This is not A=A