Endercreeper01

Does god have to be a deity? May I add that god need not be strictly a deity as some may imagine god to be. Explain to me how Godel's theorems would go against anything that I say. Seriously? Comparing words and mathematics does not make any sense whatsoever. So are you saying that the universe does not operate according to mathematics? When did I say that the universe "is" geometry? It's not about what the universe fundamentally "is" but how it operates. I have stated this numerous times in my previous posts. You don't seem to understand that there is a difference between something "being" what the universe fundamentally "is" versus being an integral aspect of the universe's function. It's not that the universe "is" geometry, but that it operates BY geometry and mathematical algorithms which dictate it's operation. There are algorithms which dictate the function and operation of the universe, to say that such algorithms are not a part of the universe would be saying that the universe does not have any rules by which it functions by. If the universe operates according to certain rules and principles, it must be operating according to certain rules and algorithms. There is no other way that the universe could operate and still follow certain rules and principles if the universe was not like this. It is clear that the universe is based in 4-dimensional space-time. Are you seriously not aware that Euclidean and pseudo-Riemann models of manifolds are not mutually exclusive of each other? A Euclidean manifold can still be a pseudo-Riemann manifold. The fact that the universe is not Euclidean means that space-time is something "real" in and of itself which can be curved, which makes the "realness" of space-time an integral aspect of the operation of the universe. The only difference in the models you stated is in how the way that the geometry of space-time behaves, but they don't dispute whether the universe is based in 4 dimensional space-time. The universe functions in accordance with the laws of physics. Certain quantities, such as force and energy, are related to other quantities such as mass and acceleration in accordance with algorithms which relate such quantities and can be described in an equation. The universe clearly operates in a certain manner that can be distinguished from other possibilities in which the universe could operate by. For example, the gravitational constant could be imagined to be a different value, and that would make the universe operate in a different way by altering the strength of the gravitational force, which is something which can be measured. The universe's mechanical and physical operation are not random, there are rules which describe how certain measurable quantities (such as the force of gravity) relate to other measurable quantities (such as the distance between two masses). These relations are dictated by rules which relate the quantities to one another, these rules are called algorithms. The universe's operation is in accordance with these specific algorithms which can only be part of the universe itself. Are you arguing that the universe does not base the rules by which it functions on mathematical algorithms and the geometrical structure of four dimensional space-time? It's clear that the universe must operate according to certain rules and principles that dictate the way that the universe mechanically and physically operates. The universe's function is dictated by something, and that something is based on it's structure in space-time and specific algorithms. There is no way that the universe can't be based in algorithms if it is clear that the universe has rules that it operates by, which are necessary for the universe to work a certain way and not a different way. It's simple: The universe operates in a certain way, in accordance with the laws of physics. The algorithms by which the universe functions, in order for quantities such as force and energy to be related to other quantities such as mass and acceleration, and in order for space time to be something which can be "curved", must base it's functioning in four dimensional space-time to function in such a manner. As for sacred geometry, it is basically the idea of certain geometrical concepts being associated with a spiritual significance. If you are talking about this idea in a strictly scientific sense, then you can't necessarily prove that something has spiritual significance, but that doesn't mean that the idea of sacred geometry can't be supported by observation. For example, the golden ration and Fibonacci spirals are observed in nature. One could relate this to their own previous ideas about spiritual significance to reason that the golden ration and Fibonacci spirals have some sort of significance. It would only make sense in the context of previous ideas about spirituality that such a feature would have spiritual significance. While not exactly scientific, that doesn't make it wrong. It can still be correct without being scientific. It could be related to the idea of god in that sacred geometry would be "divine" in a sense. The question is not just "why is the universe so complex" but "why does the universe exist at all" and "why does consciousness exist in the first place". There is no scientific mechanism which can explain the emergence of consciousness. The concept of god arises as something which would have led to the processes that created the complexity in the first place, and also being something which leads to the emergence of consciousness. While not a scientific concept, that doesn't make it wrong. Science doesn't have to be the only way of obtaining knowledge. Just because something is not provable or disprovable by the scientific method does not mean it is wrong.

Equations can make predictions that can be measured and quantified. They don't have to be complete or exact for the universe to operate based on them (although modern physics is very accurate). How could the universe be described by mathematics if mathematics had nothing to do with the universe? The universe is geometrical, and mathematics is used to describe geometry. That alone shows that mathematics is a part of the operation of the universe, because it has quantities which can be measured and so mathematical models can be proven with those measurements. This would not only prove the mathematical model true, but it proves that the universe functions according to that mathematical principle. If the universe was not operating mathematically, it could not form an output which can be measured (such as gravitational force) which depends, in a mathematical way, on other quantities which can be measured (such as distance). Says the guy that doesn't understand how geometry is a part of the universe.

It doesn't have to "be" the universe itself to be a fundamental aspect of it's operation. You can't refute that the universe obeys the laws of physics and the equations that physics uses to make predictions about the universe. It is reasonable to conclude that mathematics is part of the operation of the universe when it is not only geometrical, but obeys certain equations. That could only mean that the universe is mathematical if it obeys equations, because if it didn't function mathematically, it could not obey equations. You haven't demonstrated that you are able to reason about my points.

You don;t understand the argument I am making. My statement is not "the universe is fundamentally mathematical" but "mathematics is fundamental to the operation of the universe". I never said that the universe is only mathematical. It's not personal belief to state that mathematics is fundamental to the operation of the universe when all of physics is based on mathematics. You are I know what equations are.

Algorithms are rules which describe how to get an output form an input. In the case of the identity a=b, the rule is that you don't do anything to the input. That means the algorithm is doing nothing to a. My assertions are reasonable. It is reasonable to state that an equation is an algorithm which takes an input and produces an output. There is nothing wrong with that statement. An identity is an equation where no operations are performed. That is, a=b is an identity because it is an equation where two quantities are equal without any operations being performed on either.

It doesn't matter what you define as the input. There is nothing preventing a from being both the input and the output. Physics is a fundamental aspect to how the universe operates, and mathematics is fundamental to physics, so mathematics is clearly a fundamental aspect of the universe. I don't see what your point is. Are you refuting that mathematics is fundamental to the universe?

Because it depends on what you consider to be "wet and windy". If mathematical measurements and quantities are interperted as "wet and windy" then wet and windy can be measured. I understand what equations are and how they are used. Physics is based on equations and functions, to say otherwise is clearly wrong. There is no other system which can be applied to physics to make predictions other than math. It's not mathematically wrong to say that the output is b if a=b and a is the input.

The input is a, the output is b. The algorithm is the equation which describes how to get b from a.

Weather reports explain what scientists predict. These predictions are based on mathematical models. Those are mathematical quantities. If you considered that "wet and windy" then it could be something that you can measure, but "wet and windy" is a concept. How does this statement relate to my statement that "mathematics uses math to make predictions"? Weather reports are based on mathematical models, so I don't know what your point is.

Are you really saying that equations don't take in an input and produce an output?

No, a weather report does not make predictions, it just explains them. Equations are algorithms which take an input and produce an output. Mathematics makes predictions that we can measure and that are consistent. We can measure numbers but we can't measure "wet and windy" unless we have an idea of what "wet and windy" is.

If we look at mathematical systems besides the brain, they are not conscious. Why should the brain be different if the brain is all there is to consciousness? There has to be a reason that the brain is conscious and other mathematical systems aren't.

I'm not making a statement about whether consciousness can exist in a mathematical system or if a mathematical system can experience consciousness, I am saying that the system itself is not what "is" conscious and what "is" perceiving.

It is perfectly logical to reason that that a mathematical system is not something which subjectively experiences, because mathematical systems are comprised of algorithms which process information but aren't composed of anything subjectively experiencing.

If we define consciousness as something which is able to experience subjective experience, then by that definition, a mathematical system cannot be conscious in and of itself, because there is nothing "perceiving" or "experiencing" which is a fundamental component of the algorithm, but simply information processed in a mechanical, algorithmic fashion to produce an output. So the algorithm itself cannot be conscious as it does not "experience", but that does not prevent the introduction of something which "experiences" what the algorithm experiences.

You aren't making any attempt to refute anything that I say. It's reasonable to state that logic and mathematics are not fundamentally conscious. Consciousness is more than a concept or idea which can be used to describe how a particular system behaves, which is why it can be considered "real".

Mathematics is clearly fundamental to how the universe operates, which is why it is a fundamental aspect to the universe.

It's not that there isn't a "cause", but that the algorithms of the brain and the brain itself are not what the consciousness fundamentally "is", since the algorithms of the brain cannot be conscious. "Wetness" is a concept which is related to the way water behaves. The behavior of water is determined by mathematics, so it follows that wetness is a concept which arises from the behavior of water. Consciousness, however, is not a concept, but "real" in a sense, which distinguishes it from other emergent properties, which are concepts about the way a particular system will behave, but which can be shown to, in a direct chain of logic, to arise from the mathematical properties of a particular system.

What is considered "wetness" fundamentally arises from the mathematical properties of water in a direct and logical manner. Consciousness, however, cannot be shown to arise in such a direct manner.

Mathematics is more than just a way to describe the universe because it can be used to make predictions. Mathematics is a fundamental aspect of the universe because it can make predictions about the universe.

"Playing videos" is fundamentally the result of, or "caused" by many different processes working together to carry out an algorithm. However, with consciousness, there isn't a "cause" by which the algorithms in the brain create an individualized consciousness, with subjective experience and sentience.

Consciousness is not something which can "be" the logical and physical processes in the brain, because the components which make up the brain, such as the neurons and the mechanical circuitry of the brain, are not conscious. The mathematical and physical components of the brain cannot be conscious in and of themselves, which is why logical processes cannot be the sole reason for consciousness. Consciousness is something which can arise out of these structures, but it doesn't have to "be" made up of only the brain, as something distinct from the brain which perceives what it perceives. Science cannot explain the nature of consciousness, so it can't be used to answer questions about the afterlife.

Mathematics cannot be conscious in and of itself, so it cannot be the sole reason for consciousness. "Life" is a concept which can be distinguished from consciousness. Not anything which can be considered "alive" can be considered "conscious".

So what? It implies that science can't explain the nature of consciousness.

Because mathematical systems such as the brain are based on logical systems with causes and effects which are supposed to be able to operate independently, without the need of a conscious observer. Consciousness therefore has no reason to arise out of a completely logically based system of mathematical operations, such as the brain. If we assumed that consciousness has no free will and cannot influence the machine it inhabits, that would make consciousness something which is even more meaningless. If we suppose consciousness does have a need to arise then that would mean it would have to preform a function in and of itself that would allow it to affect the logical processing of what it is arising in in order for consciousness to be of any significance or importance of the machine or logical processes of that which it is attached with, which could only mean that it is something separate able to affect change in the brain. Not to mention the impossibility of something as abstract and conceptual as math to ever be able to, in a direct and clear way in accordance with cause and effect, have a clear mechanism which leads it to cause something which cannot be described mathematically, which is a sentient being. It is impossible for mathematics, a system arising for logic, to have something arising from it which isn't logic. If sentience and subjective cannot be described by math, then it can't be caused by math. Need I say more?