Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 257 Guests and 8 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Topic Options
#27269 - 07/24/08 04:15 AM "All things are numbers"/Pythagoreans
Adib Ben Jebara Offline
Member

Registered: 07/02/08
Posts: 36
"All things are numbers"/Pythagoreans

This is an attempt to apply the mathematical infinite to philosophical concepts involving the infinite and which we view as a part of philosophical reality such as the universe of Plato 's Dialectic. The idea to write such a text came from reading some philophical texts of Albert Lautman and of Jean Cavailles. "All things are numbers" is not to be taken literally. Let us assume the attributes of God are counted by the alephs. And the attributes of Good are counted by Dedekind cardinals. If we assume the numbers of the attributes of Evil are the infinite products of integers, we can see , from the model, the problem of the existence of Evil.

With the axiom of choice ,all infinite products of integers exist, but without the axiom of choice,some of them do not exist. It is the case with the restricted axiom of choice. The axiom is : CC(n) true from 2 to m, with CC(n),countable choice for families of sets of number of elements n. (It was proved by Mr A. Blass that such an axiom exists). The infinite product of integers exist if it is the same integer n repeated
infinitely , n from 2 and up to m included. We see that Evil is infinite but restricted.

The infinite numbers of Evil are founded not on otherness but on sameness. As the numbers of attributes are themselves important attributes, the Evil itself is somehow founded on sameness. About Good, we see from the numbers of Good that Good is not subordinated to God. About God,we see the link between God and Evil, as their numbers of attributes can sometimes be the same. If God is the set of the laws of nature and the laws of ethics, laws of ethics are elements of both God and Good. We should investigate the consequences of the mathematical universe being not a model but that it can be one
of an infinity of models.

How about the physical universe ? Could there be an infinity of physical universes ? Let us define Good as the set of laws of ethics and of patterns of good behavior. and Evil as the set of offenses to laws of ethics. The axiom of choice would be the counterpart of a rule of blind faith. It is possible to move from a world without Good to a world with Good in the way we move from a mathematical universe where the axiom of choice is true to the universes where only the restricted axiom of choice is true. In the new world, questions of philosophy will be changed, with less linear ordering of concepts. But we could be moving from the risk of fanaticism of those who believe in God to the risk of dogmatism of those who believe in Good.

The world, which is finite, has to be explained by the universe of philosophy, such as the universe of Plato's Dialectic, with some concepts involving the infinite. The understanding of the philosophical universe requests both faith and doubt about the existence of the infinite. We understand better the philosophical reality by understanding the reality of set theory. The knowledge of the mathematical infinite helps us to understand the finite, in mathematics and in the finite world as well. The model shows
that Good and Evil are not symmetrical sides of a reality.

Also, Good is somehow self-sufficient and that is not the case for Evil. As for the Devil, it is only a way to make Evil a character. That God is a set of laws does not mean necessarily that there is no after life. The question remains: what kind of after life could there be ? Such a research was not undertaken, before this, because of the partitioning of disciplines. I thank Mr Andreas Blass, of the university of Michigan, who provided some mathematical background.
Adib Ben Jebara.
http://www.freewebs.com/adibbenjebara

Top
.
#27274 - 07/24/08 10:37 AM Re: "All things are numbers"/Pythagoreans [Re: Adib Ben Jebara]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: Adib Ben Jebara
"All things are numbers"
Like I presented just before, the observable reality contains elements, which aren't countable, like numbers. For example for the ripples at the water surface the laws of addition doesn't work. From this follows, the math cannot describe the observable world in its entirety.

Top
#27276 - 07/24/08 04:48 PM Re: "All things are numbers"/Pythagoreans [Re: Zephir]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"Let us assume the attributes of God are counted by the alephs. And the attributes of Good are counted by Dedekind cardinals."
GIGO.

Top
#36639 - 11/14/10 09:19 PM Re: "All things are numbers"/Pythagoreans [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
george.bil
Unregistered


hello.
me george.i am really happy to be part f this community.its really knowledge full for me.i found it really different from other.so keep it up.
thanks

Top
#36642 - 11/15/10 08:43 PM Re: "All things are numbers"/Pythagoreans [Re: Zephir]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: Zephir
Originally Posted By: Adib Ben Jebara
"All things are numbers"
Like I presented just before, the observable reality contains elements, which aren't countable, like numbers. For example for the ripples at the water surface the laws of addition doesn't work. From this follows, the math cannot describe the observable world in its entirety.


The above is simply wrong. Describing waves, and their interactions with each other, solid objects, the underlying surface, etc, is well within the capasity of math - largely through stokes formula (although phemomina such as McLeans instabilities also need to be accounted for). To say we cannot do so is, simply put, a lie.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#36849 - 12/17/10 03:47 PM Re: "All things are numbers"/Pythagoreans [Re: ImagingGeek]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Adib Ben Jebara
(It was proved by Mr A. Blass that such an axiom exists)


In some ways, maths and philosophy may seem odd "bedfellows", but they have one important thing in common.

In maths, if an axiom can be proved to exist, it is a mathematical truth; but this is not necessarily a physical truth.

In philosophy, if a premise can be presented with enough fervour and apparent logic, it can become accepted as truth. This too is not necessarily a physical truth.

Having said that, I believe that both maths and philosophy are worthwhile activities. Perhaps there are instances in which each can temper the other, to mutual advantage. Undoubtedly some of what is produced will fall into the GIGO range, but in the same way that some philosophical ideas are subjective, so, to some extent, is garbage. Ask preearth and Bryan about that one. smile
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.