PeterJ

Quite. Stating that matter is prior to consciousness is not doing science, it's reading tea leaves. Let's stop with the wild statements and stick with the science.

Fair enough. I read Kant differently. An a priori intuition is not a very substantial thing. But no matter. I thought these days that physicists were happy to say that everything happens at once in a block universe. Iow, time and space are arbitrary, No? I'm not up to speed with this idea.

Your argument works, Tar, as long as you reify the phenomena that are in time. If they are truly real, then so is time. Hence the argument about time has to start with the ontology of matter. Only if we say that phenomena have no inherent existence, that they are reducible, can time also be reduced. Then reductionism works. Time cannot be reduced otherwise, for the reasons that you give. .

Sorry. I forgot where I was for a moment. Please don't let me disturb your game of fantasy religion.

God is not eternal. This is a mater of logic. Try reading Meister Eckhart on the 'perennial present'. The idea that God is fundamental and yet exists in time is a non-starter for sound philosophical reasons. Or, that is to say, for common-sense reasons. We have to get beyond such naive ideas of God for something that stands up to analysis. Even the long gone Parmenides and Zeno had more sophisticated ideas. If we argue against a God that exists eternally in time then we are arguing against our own incoherent invention. For a sophisticated view of God it would not be correct to say that He exists, let alone that He is subject to time. On this point Keith Ward is very good, and he explains a lot in his book God: A Guide for the Perplexed. For religion it is not necessary to believe in ideas that fail in logic, and I would recommend avoiding all attempts to do so.

Oh, you are a materialist Fred. I hadn't realised this. I'm afraid I have no magic cure for materialism other than a study of metaphysics. A bit of thought soon shows it does not work.

Oh dear Moontanman. Bronze age savages. Clearly you have done no research and have no interest in the topic. I can't imagine why Fred would bother arguing with you, or why you bother joining the discussion. Why get involved? To display your lack of interest? To proudly display your ignorance? We won't be able to define religion here. I have seem many people try to do it and the result is never quite satisfactory. By many definition Moontanman's view would qualify, and by other definitions there are some religions that would not qualify. At least we should be able to agree that God is not a necessary phenomenon for religion, since the evidence is clear, and that's a start. And we can be very sure that no sensible discussion can flow from ad hominem blanket attempts to dismiss religion as the work of savages. We should be identifying the claims of religion and testing them in logic and experience, not waiving our arms angrily around like know-it-all teenagers and making fools of ourselves. If someone wants to argue against religion they should pick a religious idea and reduce it to absurdity, and then keep going until they've all been so reduced. This requires engaging with the topic. If we do not engage with it, then our posts are likely to do no more than make ourselves look lazy and foolish, and they will give our opponents nothing to argue about.

We do know for sure. We know that the primes are not random. It is obvious that they are a completely determined and predictable sequence of numbers. The facts are there for anyone to see and we need not argue. We're talking about the definition of 'random', that's all. That and Acme's intransigence. But I'm away for a few days so I'll have to stop here.

Sorry Nicholas. You said you were interested,, that you could not give up religion and that you thought it was all speculation. I took you at your word. I said clearly that in my opinion religion and science are not incompatible. So you have my answer to your question. It seems you already have a definite opinion, however, so I'm not sure why you asked. I'm away as a funeral for a few days so will leave you in peace.

Tao would not be 'made' or have intentions. For much more than this best to read Lao-tsu, Chuang-tsu etc. I'm away to a funeral for a few days, so will have to depart for now...

I referred to the difference between a theoretical thinker and a technician, and the difference of approach. If you think the lab technician is inferior then it will look like an insult. In mysticism the lab technician is superior to the theoretician. But yes, I suppose it was rude. Maybe I watch too much Big Bang Theory. If you can not discern the difference between physics and metaphysics then are you not going to be any good at either. It is vital to be able to distinguish between questions that concern physics and those that concern metaphysics. If a theory is not testable in physics then it does not belong in physics. If a theory is not testable in logic then it does not belong in metaphysics. If a theory is untestable in logic or experience then it is not even wrong. Nicholas - If this is your opinion of religion then you should quit it at once. This is sincere advice. Then, if you are serious about this, go and find out what religion really is. become a student of comparative religion for a few months. In particular, you should look into your belief that religion is entirely speculation. This is true for those who do nothing but speculate. But if you imagine that this is what the prophets and sages do, or what the practice is about, then you are reducing religion to absurdity.

I feel you not doing your opponents justice, Acme. The prime number theorem states the prime distribution is not random, but the result of strict mathematical laws. We can use these laws to predict the next prime, and it is not difficult to do. But it takes forever for large primes, and it's probably just as easy test for them as predict them. Still, we do not have to just stick a pin in the board. Because they are not random we can predict with certainty that they will not appear at 6n+/-1, at 30n+/-5 and so on. For all practical purposes the distribution may as well be random. It is as if it is random. But it is not random. It is as non-random as any sequence of numbers could be. 'Pseudorandom' seems a happy compromise. If the distribution of the primes is truly random then the Riemann hypothesis is false. It would be dead easy to build a simple machine that produced the endless sequence of primes given a non-halting Turing machine, or some different sized wheels and a long enough road. To call the primes random is a mathematical shorthand, not a rigorous description. It is this shorthand that I'm complaining about. I think it is profoundly misleading outside of mathematics. What happens inside mathematics is none of my business.

John - I think you need to go look up metaphysics in the dictionary. The questions I listed are not answerable in physics, They are metaphysical questions. No need to disagree about it, it's just a fact. Delta - Yes, alchemy is sometimes physical chemistry. But check out Carl Jung for an explanation of alchemy as it relates to religion. Or google unus mundus.

How big is the universe? Did it begin with something or nothing? Is time fundamental? Is anything fundamental? Is there continuity after death? is Materialism true? Are we living in a dream? Is there a God? Why are all partial world-theories logically indefensible? What is the correct interpretation of QM? What is the origin of the laws of physics? The list goes on indefinitely.

It's no use Fred. This is not about rational arguments. John - About scientific questions. Most important questions are not scientific. Or, this is the case if we say that metaphysics is not a science. I like the Christopher Hitchens quote. It seems he thinks alchemy is proto-chemistry, and that he has an equally naïve view of all religion. No wonder he thinks it's nonsense.

This makes good sense to me John. I'd be happy with 'pseudorandom'. It's accurate and seems a perfect solution.

Science is the search for the answers to scientific questions. If this is the only kind of question you want answered then you will make an excellent lab technician.

Ah, such arrogance. As you seem to be unable to explain why we should call the primes random I'm not going to do so. If mathematicians want to call them random that's up to them. To me it is an unrigorous and confusing use of language and on the evidence of this discussion it is indefensible. Your quote said they are law-governed and that's good enough for me. if I come across a decent reason to change my mind I will, but there does not seem to be one, or not one you can explain.

That quote exactly sums up the view that I do not understand. It's no use just repeating this claim and expecting me to understand it better each time. As it states, the primes 'obey laws with military precision'. They only appear random from a certain perspective, which means, in my book, that they are not random. In mathematics everybody knows what they mean when they say that the primes are randomly distributed, but tell this to a layman and he will completely misunderstand the primes. He will assume you mean random like a lottery.

Endy - There's no need to know any primes to do the prediction. Just the list of natural numbers. Imatfaal - Are you suggesting that there is no function for producing the products of the natural numbers? I presume so, since if there is such a function then the primes are just the gaps. If there is a way to produce the products, then there is way to produce the primes. Is this not so?

If you haven't come across nondualism before you're in for a treat. The nub of the matter here seems to be your non-acceptance of the continuum. If you have time you might find this interesting. I prefer Weyl's view as expressed here. http://theworldknot.wordpress.com/the-continuum-east-and-west2/

I'm still not sure of the correct view here. There seem to be differences of opinion. Acme - Have you nothing to contribute to this? Or are you just feeling irritable?

I still don't see why we should call a distribution random just because it is difficult to recreate. If it can be recreated, then how can it be random? The primes are not like raindrops. If you tell me all the primes up to P then I will calculate the next prime. I might need a few years, depending on size of P, but it can be done. The next prime does not appear randomly. It's just a bit of a pain to calculate. I'm happy to change my mind, it makes no difference to me whether the primes are called random, but why should I?

I don't really understand why we disagree. There is no might 'about' it. The squares of primes occur at 6n+1. Where is the randomness in this? How can this be true if they are random. If the primes were random, then there might be a prime at 5^2. But we know there is not, because the primes are predictable. They never occur where there is a product of a prime. It would not be difficult to build a machine that produces the prime sequence. So in what sense are they random?

Nope, sorry Imatfaal, I still don't agree. There is a very easy to way to generate primes. This is to generate them the way they are generated in the first place. It's not a quick way of doing it but speed is not the point. The products of the primes are easy enough to predict, and the gaps are the primes. It's just a combination of waveforms. No randomness in sight. What you say is right, but it doesn't seem to be an objection. The fact that we can predict the 6n+/- rule by simple arithmetic is surely proof that there is no randomness, just no convenient algorithm to calculate the next prime. There never will be, since the primes are not causally related. Knowing the previous one does not help us predict the next. The relationship is between their products. I wonder if we're just disagreeing about the meaning of 'random'. I know it has various technical meanings.