5 ms·

I’m an atheist, but when Ramanujan claims to derive all of their formulas from god, I ask how we can make it easier for them to listen to god, rather than feel

I’m an atheist, but when Ramanujan claims to derive all of their formulas from god, I ask how we can make it easier for them to listen to god, rather than feel the urge to argue against them.

jdthedisciple 3y ago
[flagged]
- cassepipe 3y ago
  Right, let's start a cultural flamewar over your personal emotion of the moment. Can't wait for HN to turn into Reddit, can you ?
- sjacob 3y ago
  Please don't start mate.
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  Since Ramanujan is dead, I assumed that he had no interest in arguing with the man and was instead talking about anyone with such inspiration. As an English grammar stickler, of course thou should have said "Why art thou" since the use of "you" in the singular is simply grammatical hooliganism and has no place in polite society.
- schrectacular 3y ago
  GP is obviously using "them" to refer to the formulas. I understand how it could be confusing; on first pass I too looked back for the first word "them" could be referencing - but GP tricks us by writing out "god" again later in the sentence! Since we know Ramanujan is male and "god" is used again, the only valid noun "them" could be referencing is "formulas".
- viciousvoxel 3y ago
  This is a really unnecessarily rude way to call out a minor grammar quibble. The sentence was perfectly understandable. Also, whether you like it or not, it is quite common English (at least in the US) these days to use they/them as third person singular. Perhaps we are slowly losing the distinction between singular and plural the same way we lost it for second person. Language changes.
  - jdthedisciple 3y ago
    My official and sincere apologies! I think I was tired and I might even have heavily misunderstood
- bigbillheck 3y ago
  Do they not teach the concept of linear time anymore?
FieryTransition 3y ago
If you meet him, and he thought discussing god was interesting, would you then do it? If he wanted to discuss your faith in god, would you do it then?
- cassepipe 3y ago
  Discussing is always interesting but I would probably interpret it as him not being able to explain his own abilities like some people just "see" good chess moves or just "know" that there are actually 48 matches on that floor
  - mistermann 3y ago
    I would wonder what the truth of the matter is, but each to their own, the unknown is not popular/pleasant.
methinksstuff 3y ago
If you look the origin of the word genius I think there is a good parallel as thinking that your own genius is an external spiritual entity whispering you solutions
vjerancrnjak 3y ago
I feel like his statements on god are very similar to this one: > Simon P. Norton, an expert on the properties of the monster group, is quoted as saying, "I can explain what Monstrous Moonshine is in one sentence, it is the voice of God." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_group#Moonshine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_group#Moonshine
- fuzztester 3y ago
  Solid. Pun intended.
fuzztester 3y ago
Goddess also, actually. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan Check section "Personality and spiritual life".
sumeruchat 3y ago
I feel like this comment and comments by western atheists make me think that the west has this idea of judeo-christian god that they just bring into any conversation without thinking deeply. For ramanujan god is more like an emotion.
- FieryTransition 3y ago
  I'll never figured out whether Einstein thought that the god as described by Spinoza is a real thing? Since there's so many misattributed quotes of him which frames him as talking about the judeo-Christian god as most people know by modern standards. Also, there have been other early religions like Gnosticism in the west, which also falls into this category. Point is, even western religion has way more nuances.
  - shagie 3y ago
    I would suggest that the answer to that is "yes" in that the Spinozan God is... for lack of a better word the Universe. (Kaizō in 1923 https://books.google.com/books?id=vLm4oojTPnkC&pg=PA262#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=vLm4oojTPnkC&pg=PA262#v=on... ) > Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. > This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza). https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3800/3800-h/3800-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3800/3800-h/3800-h.htm (Ethics was one of the hardest reads I had back in modern philosophy class) And while it is a gross simplification of Ethics, from news://rec.humor.funny ( https://everything2.com/title/Existence+of+the+System+Administrator https://everything2.com/title/Existence+of+the+System+Admini... ) 1. The System Administrator is defined as the most perfect user possible. 2. The property of necessary existence means that anything which possesses it must necessarily exist. 3. If existence is better than non-existence (see the ontological proof), then necessary existence is better still. 4. Any perfect user must possess the property of necessary existence. 5. Therefore the System Administrator must necessarily exist. However: 6. Being perfect, the System Administrator cannot make mistakes, delete the wrong account, trash the root directory, mess up a tape load, etc. 7. Being perfect, the System Administrator can not be capable of goal-directed action, because such action would imply that the network is somehow less than perfect in its current state. 8. Therefore, the System Administrator is really more of a force of nature within the system. 9. Arguably, then the System Administrator *is* the system itself. Counter-argument: 1. None, since the System Administrator has been defined to the point where it is a totally useless concept, there's no point in arguing. At least this resolves one of the major issues: the Spinozist argument proves that *if* the System Administrator does exist, it cannot be intelligent. --- The God of Spinoza and Einstein is the magnificence of the universe as it reveals itself to us. The universe is real as is its majesty.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
blueprint 3y ago
Then you need to understand it from a theoretical perspective first. Firstly, when people use the word "god" they honestly ought to define what they refer to by using that word, and what the abilities of that god are supposed to be. If we're in a physical universe with energy, then it's been explained that a creator-like god can be argued to have 'created' the principle of existence, itself, on which all other things then evolved with energy. So then, what is that principle, stated concretely? Modern physics has already found out almost everything about it. What is left of an entity if it becomes capable (at least beyond some meaningful threshold) of functionally discarding / disobeying the influence of untruth? Is someone (in properly controlled circumstances) going to be more or less perceptive of 'what is' when they are more truthful?
kloch 3y ago
I have a personal theory about human intuition. It feels like answers come "from outer space" or "from God" but it's really just a highly optimized and efficient part of the brain for a very specific function. For that narrow function your brain has an effective IQ of something like 2000. As our brains have a much lower average IQ, we don't have the context to understand how we found the answer so we experience it and describe it as intuition. If our entire brain operated at an IQ of 2000, we wouldn't experience it as intuition or a flash of genius, we would just say "I figured it out". What I have read about Ramanujan sounds like he had some form of high functioning savant syndrome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome
- harperlee 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in...
- citizenpaul 3y ago
  Its been a while since I read about it but there is some theorizing on the split halves of the brain and the corpus callosum that connects the two halves. One theory is that the connection between the two halves is a recent evolution and that people used to and some still do perceive the other half of their brain as a separate entity that communicates with them. Possibly being due to the corpus callosum not being the same in everyone. The greater theory being that this is basically the root of all religion.

I’m an atheist, but when Ramanujan claims to derive all of their formulas from god, I ask how we can make it easier for them to listen to god, rather than feel the urge to argue against them.

jdthedisciple 3y ago

[flagged]

cassepipe 3y ago
Right, let's start a cultural flamewar over your personal emotion of the moment. Can't wait for HN to turn into Reddit, can you ?
sjacob 3y ago
Please don't start mate.
readthenotes1 3y ago
Since Ramanujan is dead, I assumed that he had no interest in arguing with the man and was instead talking about anyone with such inspiration. As an English grammar stickler, of course thou should have said "Why art thou" since the use of "you" in the singular is simply grammatical hooliganism and has no place in polite society.
schrectacular 3y ago
GP is obviously using "them" to refer to the formulas. I understand how it could be confusing; on first pass I too looked back for the first word "them" could be referencing - but GP tricks us by writing out "god" again later in the sentence! Since we know Ramanujan is male and "god" is used again, the only valid noun "them" could be referencing is "formulas".
viciousvoxel 3y ago
This is a really unnecessarily rude way to call out a minor grammar quibble. The sentence was perfectly understandable. Also, whether you like it or not, it is quite common English (at least in the US) these days to use they/them as third person singular. Perhaps we are slowly losing the distinction between singular and plural the same way we lost it for second person. Language changes.
- jdthedisciple 3y ago
  My official and sincere apologies! I think I was tired and I might even have heavily misunderstood
bigbillheck 3y ago
Do they not teach the concept of linear time anymore?

FieryTransition 3y ago

If you meet him, and he thought discussing god was interesting, would you then do it? If he wanted to discuss your faith in god, would you do it then?

cassepipe 3y ago
Discussing is always interesting but I would probably interpret it as him not being able to explain his own abilities like some people just "see" good chess moves or just "know" that there are actually 48 matches on that floor
- mistermann 3y ago
  I would wonder what the truth of the matter is, but each to their own, the unknown is not popular/pleasant.

methinksstuff 3y ago

If you look the origin of the word genius I think there is a good parallel as thinking that your own genius is an external spiritual entity whispering you solutions

vjerancrnjak 3y ago

I feel like his statements on god are very similar to this one: > Simon P. Norton, an expert on the properties of the monster group, is quoted as saying, "I can explain what Monstrous Moonshine is in one sentence, it is the voice of God." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_group#Moonshine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_group#Moonshine

fuzztester 3y ago
Solid. Pun intended.

fuzztester 3y ago

Goddess also, actually. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan Check section "Personality and spiritual life".

sumeruchat 3y ago

I feel like this comment and comments by western atheists make me think that the west has this idea of judeo-christian god that they just bring into any conversation without thinking deeply. For ramanujan god is more like an emotion.

FieryTransition 3y ago
I'll never figured out whether Einstein thought that the god as described by Spinoza is a real thing? Since there's so many misattributed quotes of him which frames him as talking about the judeo-Christian god as most people know by modern standards. Also, there have been other early religions like Gnosticism in the west, which also falls into this category. Point is, even western religion has way more nuances.
- shagie 3y ago
  I would suggest that the answer to that is "yes" in that the Spinozan God is... for lack of a better word the Universe. (Kaizō in 1923 https://books.google.com/books?id=vLm4oojTPnkC&pg=PA262#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=vLm4oojTPnkC&pg=PA262#v=on... ) > Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. > This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza). https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3800/3800-h/3800-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3800/3800-h/3800-h.htm (Ethics was one of the hardest reads I had back in modern philosophy class) And while it is a gross simplification of Ethics, from news://rec.humor.funny ( https://everything2.com/title/Existence+of+the+System+Administrator https://everything2.com/title/Existence+of+the+System+Admini... ) 1. The System Administrator is defined as the most perfect user possible. 2. The property of necessary existence means that anything which possesses it must necessarily exist. 3. If existence is better than non-existence (see the ontological proof), then necessary existence is better still. 4. Any perfect user must possess the property of necessary existence. 5. Therefore the System Administrator must necessarily exist. However: 6. Being perfect, the System Administrator cannot make mistakes, delete the wrong account, trash the root directory, mess up a tape load, etc. 7. Being perfect, the System Administrator can not be capable of goal-directed action, because such action would imply that the network is somehow less than perfect in its current state. 8. Therefore, the System Administrator is really more of a force of nature within the system. 9. Arguably, then the System Administrator *is* the system itself. Counter-argument: 1. None, since the System Administrator has been defined to the point where it is a totally useless concept, there's no point in arguing. At least this resolves one of the major issues: the Spinozist argument proves that *if* the System Administrator does exist, it cannot be intelligent. --- The God of Spinoza and Einstein is the magnificence of the universe as it reveals itself to us. The universe is real as is its majesty.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

blueprint 3y ago

Then you need to understand it from a theoretical perspective first. Firstly, when people use the word "god" they honestly ought to define what they refer to by using that word, and what the abilities of that god are supposed to be. If we're in a physical universe with energy, then it's been explained that a creator-like god can be argued to have 'created' the principle of existence, itself, on which all other things then evolved with energy. So then, what is that principle, stated concretely? Modern physics has already found out almost everything about it. What is left of an entity if it becomes capable (at least beyond some meaningful threshold) of functionally discarding / disobeying the influence of untruth? Is someone (in properly controlled circumstances) going to be more or less perceptive of 'what is' when they are more truthful?

kloch 3y ago

I have a personal theory about human intuition. It feels like answers come "from outer space" or "from God" but it's really just a highly optimized and efficient part of the brain for a very specific function. For that narrow function your brain has an effective IQ of something like 2000. As our brains have a much lower average IQ, we don't have the context to understand how we found the answer so we experience it and describe it as intuition. If our entire brain operated at an IQ of 2000, we wouldn't experience it as intuition or a flash of genius, we would just say "I figured it out". What I have read about Ramanujan sounds like he had some form of high functioning savant syndrome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome

harperlee 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in...
citizenpaul 3y ago
Its been a while since I read about it but there is some theorizing on the split halves of the brain and the corpus callosum that connects the two halves. One theory is that the connection between the two halves is a recent evolution and that people used to and some still do perceive the other half of their brain as a separate entity that communicates with them. Possibly being due to the corpus callosum not being the same in everyone. The greater theory being that this is basically the root of all religion.