Christian Thought: Christian Theology & Philosophy
  • Home
  • Introduction
  • An Outline of the Bible
  • Verse Observations
  • The Ultimate Question
  • Theology
    • Cosmic Law >
      • Good & Evil/Pain & Suffering >
        • God Using Evil for Good
        • Sacrifice & Mortification
        • Judges: Irony & Meaninglessness
      • Spiritual & Physical//Natural & Supernatural >
        • Grace vs Work >
          • The Sabbath
        • Angels
      • (About) the Divine Plan/Fate & Free Will >
        • The Interwovenness of Human Lives & Their Inevitable Mutual Effects on Each Other – aka The Ripple Effect
        • Faith in God's Will >
          • Prayer
          • Tests to Determine God's Will or Approval
    • The (Actual) Divine Plan (Biblical History) >
      • Necessity of the Law & a Chosen Nation >
        • Importance of Sacrifices & the Nature of Holiness/Determination of Guilt, Under the Law
        • The Mosaic Law
      • Theological History >
        • Jewish Beliefs as Relates to Christianity
      • The Creation
      • Eschatology
    • The Attributes of God and His Character >
      • The Trinity
    • Sin & Salvation >
      • Original Sin
      • Predestination and the Elect >
        • Losing One’s Salvation/Falling from Grace/Apostasy/Perseverance >
          • Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit
      • Sin & Guilt >
        • Collective Guilt/National Sin
      • Reward & Punishment; Mercy
      • The Afterlife >
        • Heaven/the New Creation
        • Hell
        • Purgatory & the Harrowing of Hell
    • The Christian Life >
      • Receiving the Holy Spirit
      • Persecution & Hardship
      • Christian Ethics >
        • Marriage & Celibacy
      • Demon Possession & Activity
    • Determining the Truth of Christianity >
      • The Sinlessness and Perfection of God — Accusations against God >
        • Concerning Reward & Punishment >
          • Sweeping the Innocent Away with the Wicked/Many Suffer for the Sin of One >
            • The Innocent Punished for the Sins of the Wicked (to Punish the Wicked) >
              • Punishing the Children for the Father’s Sin
          • Harshness
          • Manipulation of Free Will (to the Person’s Damnation)
        • The Law of God Flawed >
          • Sins against Love (Revenge Seeking)
          • Unjust Warfare/War
          • Racism & Slavery
          • Sexism >
            • Theology of the Sexes >
              • Women’s Gender Role >
                • Submission
            • Male Chauvinism >
              • Unequal Opportunity/Deprivation of Rights
              • Polygamy
              • Women’s Chastity
            • Rape & Sex Slavery
        • Sins of People in the Bible (that Reflect Poorly on God)
      • Can We Take the Bible Seriously? >
        • The Creation of the Canon
        • False Prophecy/Broken Promises
        • Contradictions in the Bible
        • False Reasoning
    • Ambiguous/Strange/Bizarre Passages of the Bible
  • Philosophy
    • Spiritual & Physical//The Natural & Supernatural >
      • Mind & Body
      • Thinking & Doing >
        • Work
    • Metaphysics >
      • Reality
      • Generalities vs Exceptions
      • The Problem of Relativity
      • The Problem of the Distribution of Goodies (Randomness) >
        • Natural & Inevitable Inequality/The Unequal Distribution Wealth >
          • Communism
      • Cause & Effect/Human Action & Reaction
      • Beauty >
        • Art
      • Mathematics & Logic
      • Science & the Natural Laws
    • Epistemology/Faith >
      • Atheism
      • Idealism
      • Asceticism & False Religion
    • Man >
      • Created in the Image of God (Comparing Humans & Animals)
      • Sinful Nature >
        • Levels of the Will
      • Psychology >
        • The Conscious & Subconscious
        • Personality
      • Stages of Life >
        • Death
      • Society >
        • Hermitism
      • The Sexes >
        • Men
        • Women
    • History of the World >
      • How Ideas & Knowledge Spread
    • Ethics >
      • Good & Evil
      • Happiness
      • Love >
        • Romantic Love >
          • Sexuality >
            • Homosexuality

Mathematics & Logic

Picture
Julia Set. [Thanks to skeeze]
Movement: There are some people who can’t see movement. I remember reading about a woman who had to mark all the inner rims of her teacups so that when she was pouring tea she’d know when to stop. But how can this be? I cannot even conceive of this. The amount of tea increases in the cup. If she can see any amount of tea, whether just a little at the bottom or full to the brim, why wouldn’t she be able to see every other increment in between? And this gradual and smooth increase in increments we call “movement”. Does this call into question our common sense understanding of movement, as well as our philosophical one? (Note: This is just another variation of Zeno’s paradox)

How can the abstract be useful if it doesn't exist? (EXs: complex numbers, higher dimensions, etc)

​Hume Euclid infinity spiritual physical

Godel's Proof -- Ernest Nagel and James R Newman remark, "Most of the postulate systems that constitute the foundations of important branches of math can't be mirrored in finite models."​

So why are some fractals and others not? Why is the Mandelbrot set a mixture of two?

“For some plunger positions, a tiny change makes no difference. But for others, even an arbitrarily small change will make the difference between red and green.” (from Chaos, p 234, last sentence of first full paragraph) Might this be because of the nature of numbers themselves, the quirks of calculation and the relationship of the numbers to each other? 

The Butterfly Effect – yes, how can one little thing make such a big difference, since things are supposed to cancel out, and the larger the scale the more this would be so, but it seems to me, that even with huge systems like the weather, chaos reigns at all levels, but now we’re back to the question of scale.

Interesting observation – doesn’t the yin-yang symbol look like the phase-space graph of two attractors? (see diagram on p 235 of Chaos)

Funny that even randomness has its limits, but within that limit it’s unlimited. (That is, there’s infinite variety.) → But how can there be infinite variety within a finite space and finite variables and possibilities? (The infinity of irrationals between any two rational numbers.) → With Barnsley’s “chaos game” technique, if the points are truly random, why does a definite shape appear, with no points outside the limits designated by the algorithm? 

Is there a relationship between chaos and aperiodic tiling? Aperiodic tiling is deterministic nonperiodicity. Could also be something fractal about it.

​What is the geometry of aperiodic tiling? Does aperiodic tiling seem entropic? Might the prime numbers be aperiodically distributed? 
​
What’s the significance of 4.669 (Feigenbaum)?

​Geometry as both physical and spiritual

​What's the purpose of logic? When Russel formally proved that 1+1=2, what did he accomplish, since we humans (I'm guessing, and I think I must be right though I don't know how the brain calculates this), grasp this intuitively, and even computers don't "think" in this way (after all, how could we program the computers this way, it'd be much too difficult for us), so if it's never actually used, what good is it? But if it exists, it must have some kind of meaning or purpose.

​How can you know what makes a good conjecture? As Euler (or was it Gauss?) said, he could come up with a ton of these all day long (which is why he though it was a waste of time and declined to do so). Related, what makes the math community decide that a conjecture is important and that it's even worth your whole life trying to solve it?

​Is there a way to categorize proofs and "provability" (that is, ease of proof) into whether something is easy (or even possible) to prove or not?

So you can come up with criteria that a potentially existant mathematical object must have. Isn't that just bizarre? Am I mistaken in thinking this, or is there something here? If the thing exists, I understand; but let's say it DOESN'T exist; if something doesn't exist how can you prove that it must have certain characteristics? Like the odd perfect # conjecture -- apparently somebody proved that if an odd perfect number exists, it has to be divisible by 5. Right now we don't even know if odd perfect numbers exist, but if they don't what's up with the claim that they have to be divisible by 5? Let's say there's no answer to my question -- it just is and if we don't like it, oh well. Fine, I can live with that. But what I STILL want to know, the heart of my question is -- might this be significant in the sense that artificial mathematical objects, though artificial and in many ways just plain unreal, can and do in fact tell us abstract truths about the fabric of reality? That's my speculation. I don't know if it has any merit or not or if  the question should be taken in another direction.

​Derivatives (spiritual) are used often in machine learning math, but not so much integrals (physical), which is used only in an indirect way in probability (an important field to machine learning), whereas the derivative is directly calculated. Is there not supposed to be some direct use for the integral? Also, Maxwell's equations are just a set of integrals, so in this area, integrals come to the foreground. Then in Newtonian mechanics the focus is on derivatives (one exception being the calculation of work, which requires integrals). So why do some types of calculations prefer one side of the UQ over the other? Is there some kind of rhyme and reason to this?

Let's clear up the BS about P=/≠NP. 
It used to be that most computer scientists and mathematicians thought that P=NP. Now, at long last, the tide has changed. People have woken up to the fact that that was all wishful thinking. This is really no different from the
Tower of Babel, where people thought they could be mightier than God. This is also a good example where having the wrong faith will lead you down a rabbit hole, chasing the wrong question. Now they're focusing on a proof for P≠NP, which is more like it.
     Let's talk about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This states that everything tends toward greater disorder/entropy. If P=NP, I don't think we could say this about the universe any longer. I'm not saying that if P=NP it could totally eradicate entropy, but it would be almost like living without it. It'd just be too perfect, too utopian, something that this world clearly can't handle. Not that you really need the 2nd law of thermodynamics to tell you this. It just goes against common sense. It's never been our experience that it goes the other way, unless you want to include miracles, but that's exactly why we call them miracles -- because they go against natural law. So why at the beginning they were so optimistic, I have no idea, other than knowing that having false faith can lead you to adopting really screwy ideas. For more examples of how this is so, you can go to the end of the UQ page, where it talks about the unfounded hope of AI and failure of logicizing math. I can also say that I've noticed that the false faith that gave rise to all these examples of wishful thinking have a common trait -- the belief that 1)people aren't inherently evil, nor is this a fallen world, and therefore 2)it naturally follows that they have an unlimited ability to believe in human progress, to the point that utopias are possible, and that we can eradicate all forms of pain and suffering. Perhaps the most "successful" of these believers have been the communists, who at one point, had taken over a full 1/3 of the world's population. It's really ridiculous what these people are capable of holding to -- there's even futurists out there who think that the aging process and even death itself are totally unnecessary and will be dispensed with as humans march on in their quest for technological prowess, widely hailed as the salvation of mankind. I don't see how you can be more out-of-touch with reality. But perhaps we shouldn't be surprised -- it's just the episode of the Tower of Babel playing out over and over again. 
     People have it completely backward. They think the problem is all the death, disease, war, poverty, natural disasters, etc, when none of these things would have happened if we hadn't fallen from grace. However, if you think that way, it's to be expected that you'll look to technology, or some now economic system or government or what-have-you, to cure all of mankind's ills. What they don't realize is that it's mankind's pride, our sinfulness so deeply rooted within us, that gives rise to all our other problems. So salvation can't come from an algorithm, or the singularity, or any other source except God. But that's what the Tower of Babel was all about -- thrusting God behind our backs and saying we can do it ourselves.
     I'd also like to add that I think it's interesting that though the P/NP problem is ostensibly a computer science/math problem, faith has something to say, and can lead us in the right direction, toward figuring out whether P=NP or not. Maybe to God P= NP, but not to us, not that God even needs an algorithm to solve anything.

​What is randomness? How do we determine what's truly random? Is anything truly random? Does randomness exist to God?
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.