/sci/ - Science & Math

>axiom
>proof
pick one

I liked Leibniz's Monadology better, though as I recall this particular "proof" was essentially the same. Usually the problems with these proofs is that it is not obvious why they prove, you know, a *god*. Godel's proof, for instance, I always read as merely demonstrating that "necessary existence exists."

The concept of god itself is just not logical. If we rewind the universe all the way back to before the big bang where the entire universe was basically condensed to a single spec of dust.

The smallest but most condense black hole ever.

Time itself hasn't started running yet, so there would be no time for a god to set everything into motion. The universe set itself into motion and doesn't require anything to do so.

>>4178812
stfu hawking

>>4178818
I can't help myself if I am FOREVER STUCK IN A CHAIR.

Note that Spinoza's god isn't a god in the classical sense, there's no persona or will associated with it. It's more of a pantheistic view than a theistic one.

>>4178818
I just pictured Stephen Hawking browsing /sci/ and desperately trying to type the captcha, because most of the words in captcha are outside of his usual dictionary.

>>4178807

ahahahahhhahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahhaaaa oh good grief you're silly

>>4178826
> niggers niggers

>>4178829
Ever heard Stephen Hawking say nigger? I think that word also isn't programmed into his dictionary.. he'd have to use the ABC which takes him ages BECAUSE HE CAN ONLY USE A FUCKING CHEEK MUSCLE.

>>4178802
Philosophy is mental masturbation, no place in /sci/ whether troll or no troll.

Logical deduction is not proof. It's hypothesising.

>>4178802
God exists. He's a punk little faggot, I kick his ass regularly just for the lulz.

>>4178809
wait, didn't voltaire destroy Leibniz?

>>4178802
I don't seen any God in there, and I'm squinting REALLY hard right now.

>>4178812
>not addressing the proof and spurting bs

>>4178839
>deduction
>not proof

Do you know what deduction is? I'm genuinely confused by what you said there...

>>4178844
Nah. He just didn't like the idea of Leibniz's that our universe is the best possible universe.

>>4178850
Deduction is accepting something as generally true, no matter of whether it actually is or not, and then implying a lot of stuff from that.

it's you who doesn't understand it.

>>4178852
But voltaire was right.

>>4178854
Logic fail (definition of deduction)

>>4178857
Actually no, it's the correction definition. why don't you tell us what you think the definition is, spaz

>>4178844
No, he destroyed a caricature of Leibniz's position, that was perhaps all too common in the era. Anyway Candide is more important for the other subjects it satirizes than for the position of Pangloss.

Leibniz makes way too many assumptions about the nature of God, but damned if he isn't infinitely easier to read than Spinoza. I'm much more partial to Spinoza's ideas but he seems to take the most frustrating and convoluted method possible of organizing them.

>>4178854
Deduction is the only form of reasoning for the proof of truths. You seem to have a problem with the idea of axioms... unfortunately, all forms of reasoning are necessarily relient upon axioms.

Deductive reasoning goes like this:
If we assume A and B, then C <span class="math"> \mathbf{must}[/spoiler] be true.
For example:
All men are mortal. (A)
Socrates is a man. (B)
Therefore Socrates <span class="math">\mathbf{must}[/spoiler] be mortal. (C)


No form of reasoning can function without assumptions, the most basic of which are axioms.

>>4178860
Deductive arguments are attempts to show that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set of premises or hypotheses : -> A therefore B

faggot

>>4178855
It was a play, not a treatise. We say of such things that they aren't even wrong.

>>4178854
What? The only things that are accepted as true without being substantiated are axioms... which are necessarily unsubstantiated. If we didn't begin from unjustified assetions (i.e. axioms) we would never be able to prove anything- our arguments would <span class="math">necessarily[/spoiler] be either circular or relient upon an infinite regress of justifications...

>>4178866
I am aware of all that, you condescending cunt.

You seem to be offended by my criticism of your reliance on axioms.

Just because you think something is true axiomatically, doesn't make it the way things are.

>>4178854
pro-tip: all justifications require axioms, and deductive proof is the closest we can ever get to absolute proof. you be chattin' shit

>>4178874
circular or relient upon an infinite regress of justifications...

and just as valid as axioms. fucktard

>>4178877
You said that deductive proof was simply hypothesising because it was relient upon axioms. <span class="math">\mathbf{All}[/spoiler] proofs are relient upon axioms, and so your criticism is not relevant to only deductive proof.

You're critising axioms and not deductive logic.

I wish people would stop using the word "true" about axioms. It really makes no sense.

>>4178862
The best of all possible worlds bullshit relies on circular reasoning. apparently, everything exists because there is reason for it to exist. the reason for it's existence is just the fact that it exists.

>>4178883
>All proofs are relient upon axioms, and so your criticism is not relevant to only deductive proof.

Wrong. circular reasoning and infinite regress are not axiomatic and they are just as valid.

>>4178884
Axioms and deductive proof isn't true. It's accepted. Just because someone accepts it doesn't mean everyone has to. In fact there equal justification for not accepting axioms as accepting them.

>>4178885
Yeah, not quite. The principle of sufficient reason suggests that everything that happens/exists/whatever, does so/is so/whatever for a reason, which determines it. Since there is an infinity of divisibility, there are infinite chains. So if there is ever *any* reason for anything *at all* in this infinite chain, it must lie outside this infinite chain, which is Leibniz's god.

>>4178895
To me truth has a specific meaning. One can assume things one knows are false, for the sake of argument, for practicing logic, etc. Assumptions and truth have little to do with each other. This includes axioms.

this is not science

>>4178901
>oes so/is so/whatever for a reason, which determines it.


so it's just cause and effect justification. it's all just the kalam.

>infinity of divisibility

what's zeno's paradox?

I think he was an autistic moron if he made such an argument which is a total waste of thought and words.

>>4178908
Look I tried to explain it in a short space. Just fucking read it, it's like ten pages. Fucking /sci/ is so pathetic.

>>4178866
Logic fail... see induction.

Define:
Everything
Exists
in, in itself
conceive
cause, definite cause
effect

There's a reason formal proofs of god aren't taught. It's because everyone knows that while they may be rationally sound, they imply nothing without several non sequiturs . They don't tell you why faith is superior to nonfaith. That's what the god debate is. it's not an argument over truth, not an argument over proofs/axioms/whatever. it's just that some think it's better to have faith, others think having faith doesn't matter. To stress formal proofs or to look for definitive arguments removes from the importance of faith that pope and all the religious leaders tell us about. The faith argument is the best argument for god precisely because it doesn't command truth.

Define "god"

>>4178919
> induction
> logic
let's see your reference for inductive logic pls

>>4178890
>circular reasoning
>non-axiomatic
pic one

>>4178919
You are wrong. Induction is different; perhaps you should look it up.

>>4178936
circular reasoning is different from axiomatic reasoning. read more.

>>4178934
obvious troll.... is obvious

>>4178915
Ah I see. you don't understand what I'm talking about. just say so.

>>4178947
say something coherent that shows you know anything of which you speak

>>4178901
shows one thing: since it's outside the infinite chain, you know fuck all about it and can't know anything more.

see: >>4178927

>>4178890
>infinite regress
>valid
pic one

>>4178931
Read Spinoza ;)

>>4178953
Just read the fucking Monadology, dude. Your criticism is seriously retarded.

>>4178958
Put it in your own words, you illiterate fuck.

>>4178936
>circular reasoning
>valid
pic one

>>4178959
All I'm doing is pointing out that once you prove god, you're still left with the question of implications and faith. How is that retarded? by the way, it's a not criticism of the Monadology you apparently worship. No need to get so defensive. Fuck is wrong wit you

>>4178965
>prove
>god
pic one

>>4178965
> All I'm doing is pointing out that once you prove god, you're still left with the question of implications and faith.
Oh, really, that's what you said? Well, golly! I am sorely mistaken.

>>4178972
Seriously, what's up?

>>4178955
it's as valid as anything else since there's no way to find truth.

>>4178974
This is what you said:
> since it's outside the infinite chain, you know fuck all about it and can't know anything more
This is what you want it to mean:
> All I'm doing is pointing out that once you prove god, you're still left with the question of implications and faith.
It doesn't, mostly because the Monadology isn't arguing for the biblical god, even if Leibniz were a true believer (which, I believe, was the case). No conclusions are drawn in that vein.

It really was a good read. Had I not already been persuaded into deep pessimism by Schopenhauer I might have been convinced. Incidentally, Schopenhauer's PhD thesis was about the principle of sufficient reason. Leibniz and Schopenhauer would have had some interesting fucking discussions.

>>4178959
>Just read the fucking Monadology

So you haven't explained it properly meaning you can't because you don't understand it. So you refer people elsewhere to the law that,since you don't understand it, is only valid to you because it's eponymous––sharing the name of a famous philosopher. Obvious argument from authority.

>>4178991
have you even had any experience of religion? I assume you haven't because you don't seem to have any idea what faith is.

formal proofs are mental exercises like arithmetic in school but significantly more advanced and philosophy instead of math. there's no particular purpose other than challenging yourself and the fact that the philosopher is to do with his faith and not his proof. By the way, those two things you quoted aren't opposed.

>>4178991
have you even had any experience of religion? I assume you haven't because you don't seem to have any idea what faith is.

formal proofs are mental exercises like arithmetic in school but significantly more advanced and philosophy instead of math. there's no particular purpose other than challenging yourself and the fact that the philosopher is a believer is more to do with his faith and not his proof. By the way, those two things you quoted aren't opposed.

>>4178993
Yeah, summarize the monadology in a 4chan post. I'll get right on that. Totally reasonable request, pip pip.

>>4179012
>trying to summarise it
>fail
>pretend you never tried


weaseling your way out. nice

>>4179016
Oh don't worry, I'm working on it! Should only take me a few seconds.

>>4179022
you ignored : >>4179009

>>4179025
Oh, that was intentional.

>>4179029
Quit the mocking tone. do you have you any experience of religion at all?

>>4179029
what is the purpose for devising formal proofs then? theres so many of them, there must be something they're aiming for.

>>4179034
Do you have any clue how beside the point that is from the actual conversation?

>>4179043
reword so it make sense and I'll answer.

>prove
>god
Pic one

>>4178802
I dont like it, I think I can see what he was doing, (though the language is difficult), but I dont find that to be adequate logical proof of god, only that at the beginning of the universe there was one thing, and now there are many things.

Also the argument that some with a particular set of attributes cannot create something with a different set of attributes doesn't hold water, this post has an ENTIRELY different set of attributes to myself, and yet I can create it.

>>4179046
Reword what? I didn't bring up religion. I only indicated that I like the Monadology better than Spinoza and that Voltaire wasn't right with his criticism, because either out of ignorance or intentional trolling he misconstrued Leibniz's point about this being the best possible world.

That's it. The rest of it is retards and trolls.

>>4179043
it's not beside the point. there's an important point to make here. Faith is more important than reason when it comes to god. It's all you can utilise even with the most well reasoned arguments.

If your looking for more on logic related to god, see St. Thomas Aquinas, hes kind of the OG on the subject

Spinoza? Yeah I know his god, he's a punk faggot who I kick the shit out of for the lulz.

I don't accept these axioms so it's a non-starter.

Also lol at

>Before you ask, yes the proof is valid, albeit he does choose 3 axioms.
>In contrast, mathematics has 5 axioms.

"math" is not a single monolithic entity with only 5 axioms governing it and in any case, less axioms doesn't necessarily make an argument more sound

>>4179063
> I don't accept these axioms so it's a non-starter
You realize that's like sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LA LA LA LA", right faggot?

>>4179053
could you please answer this: >>4179041 and >>4179056

Are you sure you're even understanding Leibniz for that matter. You never actually commented on voltaire. you responded to that comment but you only mentioned how Leibniz's's god comes about. you never said anything about why you think Leibniz 'best of all possible worlds' makes sense. To my mind, it doesn't. 'best of all possible world's isn't anything do with Monadology. it's a theodicy. The fact the you can't separate the 'best of all possible worlds part' and the Monadology leads me to believe you understand neither Leibniz or voltaire.

>>4178802
The faggotry is strong with this one...

>>4179073
that scenario is is applicable to many internet arguments but not this one.

>>4179074
> To my mind, it doesn't.
I really don't care what you think. If I were just giving a summary, I'd do it, but what people want here is me to give a summary and then they want to argue with that summary. I'm not Leibniz's proxy, I don't agree with him, so what would be the fucking point? If you want to discuss the Monadology, go read it and we'll have a discussion. It's short enough to read in one sitting, if you dodge all the commentary. But I'm not going to play devil's advocate just because you're not interested in learning on your own.

>>4179087
you're the one that started the thread for discussion, faggot. you can't expect many people to have read the Monadology but i'm trying to help your discussion. I'm not familiar with the Monadology but I am familiar with Leibniz's 'best of all possible world's theodicy. I just wondered if you could connect the dots. How do these two parts align: the theodicy and the Monadology.

Don't start a discussion and then tell people to fuck off. fucking idiot.

>>4179084
Accepting axioms doesn't imply any commitments on your part, bro.

>>4178812
you are aware that the "speck of dust" would necessarily have to contain within it the combined mass and energy of the current universe, yes?

>>4179095
I didn't start it, I just stated a preference. I'm not interested in arguing for positions I don't agree with. But I am interested in scolding people who prefer strawmen to the real position.

Do I expect people to have read the Monadology? No. But then I expect them to keep their fucking mouths shut because they don't know what they're talking about.

>>4179096
regardless, not accepting the axioms is not analogous to what you described, it's not a criticism of the proof but it's not analogous to what you described

>>4179096

if we take as an axiom that God exists then we can prove God exists but that doesn't lead to any meaningful discussion.

These axioms and Spinoza's proof are crafted to lead inevitably to the conclusion that God exists, but I don't accept the axioms in the first place so once again, it's a non-starter.

>>4179073

Why?

"God" is a misnomer and Spinoza is a faggot, what he really would prove by those propositions is that everything is made out of a single substance, that there are infinite things and that those necessarily exists. Then he goes out to call this little monad "God" and fuck shit up.

Essentially, by calling the universe "God". And by doing so, he disfigures God so badly that the whole use of the term is meaningless.

>>4179101
I've never spoken of the Monadology in this thread. I've only spoken of your description of it. since i've read your summary of the thing, im perfectly entitled to comment on it. if my comment didn't apply, then it's your fault for the misleading description, not mine.

i think you should go back to the Monadology. you love it but you apparently don't understand it.

>>4179012
austrian dude, imagined higgs boson 300 years ago

>>4179117
> I've only spoken of your description of it.
This much is certain.

>>4179121
you're an idiot.

>>4179129
Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

>>4179133
nah there was reason for that. You haven't actually responded to anything I've said or asked. You just assert that the Monadology is amazing. I've read it now. It's very short. it repeats the same laboured point. very dry.

>>4179133
Btw I'm still waiting on you connecting those dots with regards to Leibniz's theodicy and the MONADOLOGY. Leibniz certainly doesn't do it, but you seem to think he does.,

>>4179163
> asserted it is amazing
It wasn't like I was arguing a doctoral thesis on it. I like the fucking book, I think Leibniz was a cool guy, etc. Why you suppose that I should therefore be compelled to defend his opinions or forever be a fag it beyond me. To furthermore start blabbering about faith (if that was you and not some other anon---I can't tell) is just silly. It's just not my job to educate you.

> I've read it
I doubt it. It's short but it isn't that short. But it doesn't really matter. You should be able to see for yourself now how Voltaire was just trolling. Congratulations.

>>4179182
> Leibniz certainly doesn't do it
Actually, he does, if you get the edition of the Monadology from Rescher it includes gobs of Leibniz's commentary and cross-references. Which, I suppose, you'd like me to summarize too, just real quick like.

>>4179193
Well seeing as I don't have a copy at hand and you've apparently read the commentary, it wouldn't be an unreasonable thing for me to ask. but of course you'll pretend like it is so you don't have t. why? because you can't. you are filled with pretentions, deluding yourself into believing you understand philosophy.

>>4179198
It would not have been a reasonable thing to ask, if I wasn't already used as a stand-in for Leibniz and tasked with defending his position.

Maybe some other day, some other thread.

>>4179189
nah voltaire employs a caricature and makes a good point. but voltaire is irrelevant to the Monadology since here we are only discussing proof of god, not theodicy.

Even if we had all the data necessary, humans are incapable of assimilating it. Even if we had the most powerful tools imaginable to help us, it would all ultimately be reliant on human values. Our minds work to arrange all the data in a very specific way for US; we're only trying to get our ducks in a row. We're incapable of true objectivity because it simply is not the way our minds handle information. Maybe after another couple million years of evolution. Until then, we're just chasing our tail. It all degenerates down to vain, futile discourse like you see here. Spinoza's God doesn't work because it's trying to bring God into our microcosm of reality.

>>4179203
> already used as a stand-in for Leibniz and tasked with defending his position.

Irrelevant to the point we're not at in this thread.

Nice dodge though. :P

>>4179218
>logic fail - multiple assumptions

>>4179227

Refute the assumptions.

isn't the only reason we attempt proofs of god because we have developed language. and the reason we have ideas of god is because of the same. The reason we imagine god is because of our sapience. So really the only argument for god is our sapience?

>>4179262
It doesn't work that way, you have to support your assumptions before he can refute it.

>>4179302
i disagree

>>4179109
Because that would be like saying "I don't accept the axioms of mathematics so it's a no-starter"

>>4179111
> what he really would prove by those propositions is that everything is made out of a single substance,
Please leave and never come back.

>>4179063
> less axioms doesn't necessarily make an argument more sound
Yes, it does. Less unsupported pretenses = more sound.

>>4179338

Right, I just think it's all been touched on already, hasn't it? It's pretty obvious stuff. Our minds work on associations, it's how we make sense of the outside world; everything relates to a context, or frame of reference. Even mathematical values are only working to prove things that have meaning to us. Look at that picture and consider epistemology. What is human knowledge in all of that? What human frame could encompass true knowledge of that?

Some thought experiments: imagine having anything you could ever want. Not as a dream or a simulation, but imagine that you can make it a reality, and that you're immortal. It would be great for the first couple hundred years, or maybe even a couple thousand. But in the eyes of the universe it would be just a few moments until you would realize that it all comes down to chemicals that dictate your mental state - serotonin, dopamine, etc. What would anything MEAN to you at that point? If it were some sort of market, what would be the ultimate currency? Simple electrochemical mechanisms in the human body.

Another one is the same old question of where the universe came from. We have some level of an answer to that, now. So where did that super condensed black hole come from? And where did that come from? Where did THAT come from? How far back could you go before realizing that you're just trying to reconcile it with your human means of thought? We can't assimilate the data because we can't change the way our brains function. We are such a small part of reality.

>>4179369
0/10

>>4179400
Wow, no retort. Cute.

>>4179408
You just metaphorically shit your pants, and then pulled them down to show everyone. There's nothing to do but look on in horror, wondering to oneself, "Is this real life?" As the stink fills the room, the only conclusions is that yes, that did just happen. There can be no response.

The second axiom's pretty much the corollary of the first

The first one's ill-defined and suspiciously arbitrary, unless you're question-begging god's existence

The thid one's just about tautological, doesn't mean anything or tell us exactly what causes and effects are

>>4179393

Chemicals?

It seems that You know what conclusion an immortal would have after a few hundred years, yet there is a great chance that You won't live even 100.

>>4178844
fuck no. Leibniz invented calculus before newton did, he invented modern formal logic before Boole did, he was the first one to point out the analytic/synthetic distinction of meaningful propositions which is one of the biggest issues in philosophy since.

Voltaire made fun of a caricature of one of the ideas he probably didn't actually believe anyway and pulled out of his ass to give the queen ladyboners

candide is still awesome tho :D

>>4179095
"best" was used in a very specific sense that got lost along the way to voltaire. i don't remember the specifics but it had something to do with like.. the "most existence"? might have been out of all possible universes god would choose the one that had the most monads while still being consistent

or something

>>4179095
I'm the OP and I haven't written anything in this thread other than the OP itself.

>>4179619
I'm the OP and I've written everything in this thread.