4 ms·

Math people seem to have this more than other engineering/science etc ; math, and this is actual bloody Godel, seems so perfect and beautiful that is has to hav

Math people seem to have this more than other engineering/science etc ; math, and this is actual bloody Godel, seems so perfect and beautiful that is has to have a creator. Everything else is incredibly sloppy (including most software).

aragonite 3y ago
Well, Maxwell was so impressed by the perfect similarity of the hydrogen molecules he concluded that they must have been created! > No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules, for evolution necessarily implies continuous change, and the molecule is incapable of growth or decay, of generation or destruction. > None of the processes of Nature, since the time when Nature began, have produced the slightest difference in the properties of any molecule. We are therefore unable to ascribe either the existence of the molecules or the identity of their properties to the operation of any of the causes which we call natural. > On the other hand, the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article, and precludes the idea of its being eternal and self existent. > Thus we have been led, along a strictly scientific path, very near to the point at which Science must stop. ... Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing ... > ... But though in the course of ages catastrophes have occurred and may yet occur in the heavens, though ancient systems may be dissolved and new systems evolved out of their ruins, the molecules out of which these systems are built — the foundation stones of the material universe — remain unbroken and unworn. > They continue this day as they were created, perfect in number and measure and weight, and from the ineffaceable characters impressed on them we may learn that those aspirations after accuracy in measurement, truth in statement, and justice in action, which we reckon among our noblest attributes as men, are ours because they are essential constituents of the image of Him Who in the beginning created, not only the heaven and the earth, but the materials of which heaven and earth consist. https://victorianweb.org/science/maxwell/molecules.html https://victorianweb.org/science/maxwell/molecules.html
- nprateem 3y ago
  They never thought of infinite multiverses with random variations in each, and survivor bias.
  - ChainOfFools 3y ago
    But this really just kicks the can down the road doesn't it? It's still an attempt to resolve a "why" question with a "how" answer. a fancier way of saying it's turtles all the way down.
    - namaria 3y ago
      Yes, multiverse, big bang, creationism, are all just a "beyond this point we're not sure but I like to extend the lines thusly" claim.
      - nprateem 3y ago
        It doesn't explain why, but does explain how.
        namaria 3y ago
        I think it explains more about one's world view than anything else.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    Having to invent an infinite amount of complexity to solve the conundrum of existence is certainly one way to gloss over things :)
mingus88 3y ago
Yeah there is a nice crossover also in religion, where some sects have agreed that theories like the Big Bang are not incompatible with a creator. But my initial take on Godel’s belief here is that even if he is correct, and the order of the universe demands that there is more to existence than this, why do Humans get the afterlife? Parameciums don’t have the inherent consciousness or great individual potential, so there is a cutoff where beings would “qualify” for an afterlife to continue developing their potential, as he posits it. Are lesser apes bound for the afterlife? Are dolphins? Or are Humans just the first to get here, and we will be supplanted by an even more rationally destined species to be blessed with the afterlife?
- krapp 3y ago
  I think that at the end of the day, every rationalization of an afterlife is personal - people believe humans get an afterlife so they can assure themselves of life after death. Of course it's entirely possible for the universe to have been designed and still operate under purely naturalistic rules, without any hint of supernatural elements, but what would be the point of believing that?
  - austinjp 3y ago
    Oh, now that's a nice twist, if I follow you. A universe with a creator, but no afterlife. Or another possibility: a universe without a creator, but with an afterlife. Huh. Don't think I've considered those options before. I'm sure some religions have proposed these possibilities already, though?
    - krapp 3y ago
      Some flavors of Buddhism might be close, but it would seem counterproductive. Why follow a religion that offers no hope of an afterlife?
- anonzzzies 3y ago
  > But my initial take on Godel’s belief here is that even if he is correct, He was/is correct about many things, but not about the afterlife. It's just because some people are so lucky to see the face of god by deep and hard mental studies, they believe there is such a thing. And if you have been told all your life that is reality and you 'saw' it, why question it?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
knome 3y ago
I don't know. If just following logical consequences of elementary school arithmetic leads you to discover that numbers have to be two dimensional to work ( in requiring 'i' for square roots of negatives to function, and from there 'i' being found peppered throughout the rest of our exploration of the consequences of numbers ), it might be that all things fail to be as simple as we would like.
tim333 3y ago
My take is the opposite. Math is so perfect that it doesn't need a creator, it just is. Like pi just is what it is, it didn't need a committee or a god to choose the value. Sloppy software however was probably created by some idiot.

aragonite 3y ago

Well, Maxwell was so impressed by the perfect similarity of the hydrogen molecules he concluded that they must have been created! > No theory of evolution can be formed to account for the similarity of molecules, for evolution necessarily implies continuous change, and the molecule is incapable of growth or decay, of generation or destruction. > None of the processes of Nature, since the time when Nature began, have produced the slightest difference in the properties of any molecule. We are therefore unable to ascribe either the existence of the molecules or the identity of their properties to the operation of any of the causes which we call natural. > On the other hand, the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article, and precludes the idea of its being eternal and self existent. > Thus we have been led, along a strictly scientific path, very near to the point at which Science must stop. ... Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing ... > ... But though in the course of ages catastrophes have occurred and may yet occur in the heavens, though ancient systems may be dissolved and new systems evolved out of their ruins, the molecules out of which these systems are built — the foundation stones of the material universe — remain unbroken and unworn. > They continue this day as they were created, perfect in number and measure and weight, and from the ineffaceable characters impressed on them we may learn that those aspirations after accuracy in measurement, truth in statement, and justice in action, which we reckon among our noblest attributes as men, are ours because they are essential constituents of the image of Him Who in the beginning created, not only the heaven and the earth, but the materials of which heaven and earth consist. https://victorianweb.org/science/maxwell/molecules.html https://victorianweb.org/science/maxwell/molecules.html

nprateem 3y ago
They never thought of infinite multiverses with random variations in each, and survivor bias.
- ChainOfFools 3y ago
  But this really just kicks the can down the road doesn't it? It's still an attempt to resolve a "why" question with a "how" answer. a fancier way of saying it's turtles all the way down.
  - namaria 3y ago
    Yes, multiverse, big bang, creationism, are all just a "beyond this point we're not sure but I like to extend the lines thusly" claim.
    - nprateem 3y ago
      It doesn't explain why, but does explain how.
      - namaria 3y ago
        I think it explains more about one's world view than anything else.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  Having to invent an infinite amount of complexity to solve the conundrum of existence is certainly one way to gloss over things :)

mingus88 3y ago

Yeah there is a nice crossover also in religion, where some sects have agreed that theories like the Big Bang are not incompatible with a creator. But my initial take on Godel’s belief here is that even if he is correct, and the order of the universe demands that there is more to existence than this, why do Humans get the afterlife? Parameciums don’t have the inherent consciousness or great individual potential, so there is a cutoff where beings would “qualify” for an afterlife to continue developing their potential, as he posits it. Are lesser apes bound for the afterlife? Are dolphins? Or are Humans just the first to get here, and we will be supplanted by an even more rationally destined species to be blessed with the afterlife?

krapp 3y ago
I think that at the end of the day, every rationalization of an afterlife is personal - people believe humans get an afterlife so they can assure themselves of life after death. Of course it's entirely possible for the universe to have been designed and still operate under purely naturalistic rules, without any hint of supernatural elements, but what would be the point of believing that?
- austinjp 3y ago
  Oh, now that's a nice twist, if I follow you. A universe with a creator, but no afterlife. Or another possibility: a universe without a creator, but with an afterlife. Huh. Don't think I've considered those options before. I'm sure some religions have proposed these possibilities already, though?
  - krapp 3y ago
    Some flavors of Buddhism might be close, but it would seem counterproductive. Why follow a religion that offers no hope of an afterlife?
anonzzzies 3y ago
> But my initial take on Godel’s belief here is that even if he is correct, He was/is correct about many things, but not about the afterlife. It's just because some people are so lucky to see the face of god by deep and hard mental studies, they believe there is such a thing. And if you have been told all your life that is reality and you 'saw' it, why question it?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

knome 3y ago

I don't know. If just following logical consequences of elementary school arithmetic leads you to discover that numbers have to be two dimensional to work ( in requiring 'i' for square roots of negatives to function, and from there 'i' being found peppered throughout the rest of our exploration of the consequences of numbers ), it might be that all things fail to be as simple as we would like.

tim333 3y ago

My take is the opposite. Math is so perfect that it doesn't need a creator, it just is. Like pi just is what it is, it didn't need a committee or a god to choose the value. Sloppy software however was probably created by some idiot.