/sci/ - Science & Math

[Hello No.5898824]

Hello, my good fellows.

Recently I posted a question, which received no satisfactory answer in return. I had to go to work before reading anything conclusive.

Question is: what is the difference between Maths and Religion?

Thanks in return.

[Anonymous No.5898825]

>>5898824
that's like asking the difference between altitude and burger king.
it makes no fucking sense to compare the two, you slut

[Anonymous No.5898828]

[Hello No.5898829]

>>5898825

I think it has sense. After all, we're talking about systems to understand and interact with the Universe.

[Anonymous No.5898833]

>>5898829
well math is a good way to understand the universe, but religion is fucking retarded
<<<

[Hello No.5898831]

>>5898828

Buzz, if you didn't know you were a toy, why did you stayed frozen when the kid entered in the room?

[Anonymous No.5898832]

>>5898824
Fuck you faggot. Rule no. 3:
> 3. No "religion vs. science" threads.

Now fuck off back to /x/. That satisfactory enough for you?

[Anonymous No.5898835]

>>5898831
hey yeah! good point!

[Hello No.5898837]

>>5898832

This isn't a versus, but a comparison. And no, that isn't satisfactory enough.

>>5898833

Could a system able to define new theories, still needing faith to sustain itself?

[Anonymous No.5898853]

>>5898832
>No "religion vs. science" threads.

The rule doesn't say anythign about "religion vs math" threads.

[Anonymous No.5898857]

well, in mathematics there is no concept of a single instance. like for example when we're talking about a pile of rocks we can deal with an average rock, the sum of rocks, we can map all them rock distribution on an abstract concept, but a single concrete rock is completely elusive.

when we talk about numbers we talk about generalities, their properties in relation to each other. but lets say the number 4 is totally irrational, meaningless, lacking of substance, when taken out of the context.

or coin tosses, when we can tell everything about the distribution, but a single toss is a total unknown.

now in religion it's the other way around - it's all about irrational, unreplicable events, about single instances. we no longer map coin tosses on the distribution of possibilities, each event has its own quality.

[Anonymous No.5898860]

>>5898824
Mathematics is basically logic. It is not a way to define the universe (differently from physics), it is a requirement to understand things.
If X does not equal X, then your entire perception of everything is fucked.
That's math.

Mathematics is your brain. Religion is your favorite pair of sunglasses.

[Anonymous No.5898872]

>>5898829
One uses a system of logic that can be changed as new information is discovered, the other is a set in stone "because I said so" mentality.

[Anonymous No.5898884]

>>5898853
11/12, would read again

[Hello No.5898899]

>>5898857

>Now in religion it's the other way around - it's all about irrational, unreplicable events, about single instances. we no longer map coin tosses on the distribution of possibilities, each event has its own quality.

What you wrote is really interesting. This point in particular, reminds me the concept of "art". Your observation is related to "singularities". I will show my appreciation for your interest writing something about it -in a while-.

[Hello No.5898923]

>>5898872

If that was the case, Luc Montagnier, Masaru Emoto, Sainte Laudy and others wouldn't be so bad criticized talking about the "memory of water". As examples.

>>5898857 As I promised here >>5898899:

Imagine a video, in which a man appears sat down in front of a table. There is a box above the table with 100 dice. The man turns the box one hundred times -100- and all the dice come with the face of the six face up. How could that happen?

Let's assume that there is no trick in the video. No effects or assemblies or cuts of any kind. The dice are not loaded. The video is 100% real.

It's not necessary being a mathematician to intuit that the probability of someone getting 100 six simultaneous pulling 100 dice is extremely low. Scientists often dismiss these kind of events considering them almost zero. And this, even when it's not true in reality: if we had eternity at our disposition, we could eventually get six in all dices with 100% of probability. In a spatially and temporally infinite universe anything that does not have a zero probability of happening eventually happen at one time or another.

If you prefer it that way: everything that is not prohibited by the laws of physics will eventually occur safely in a universe of these features.

(Cont.)

[Anonymous No.5898927]

one question OP. have you ever seen the movie PI by darren aronofski?

watch it and all things will unfold.

[Anonymous No.5898929]

With the invention of imaginary numbers math stopped being science and became a religion.

[Anonymous No.5898934]

>>5898923
1.53 * 10^-78 != 0
It's unlikely, yes.
But no scientist would say it's scientifically impossible - just that it won't happen in your life time.

[Hello No.5898936]

>>5898927

I was searching a film for that lonely nights, thank you.

>>5898923 (Cont.)

Thus, the only two possible explanations for the video we talked about are:

1st. It is magic.
2nd. The man has turned the box probably a million times to get the desired result.

The first explanation is the religion. The second, the scientific reason.

In order to understand the enormity of the numbers we are handling, et's lower the quantity. Let's quit 90 dices from the box and let's make the experiment with just ten. Here it seems that we have a more friendly number to work.

But actually, no. Throwing these dices would take an average of 60,466,176 times to get the result of ten sixes. Five seconds per run would take nine and a half of our lives, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Although it is perfectly possible to roll the dice for 20, 30 or 100 consecutive years without showing those ten sixes. Just as it is perfectly possible to obtain the desired result in the first attempt.

[Hello No.5898956]

>>5898936 (Cont.)

Of course, we'll never see a video like that described in the first post (here >>5898923 )
. Not even lowering our ambitions at just ten dice.

However, strange as it may seem, we all see every day around us much more unlikely even that the 100 Six Video. Is the Universe. The bullets that didn't kill Vincent in Pulp Fiction. Our reality. Everyday you live and matter isn't converted into anti-matter. No matter how you want to interpret it.

That was exactly what Einstein meant when he wondered if God had no choice in creating the universe. And that speaks American physicist and cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss in his latest book, "A universe from nothing. Why is there something rather than nothing".

As title says, our universe was born from nothing. More specifically, of laws of physics that allowed NO OTHER POSSIBILITY than that: that of a universe without external cause arises spontaneously from nothing from quantum fluctuations. The quantum fluctuation term may seem intimidating but in reality it is relatively simple to explain: a quantum fluctuation is a temporal variation in the amount of energy at a given point of space.

[Anonymous No.5898957]

>>5898936
>a million times

[Anonymous No.5898969]

>>5898956
>However, strange as it may seem, we all see every day around us much more unlikely even that the 100 Six Video.
You are a dumb pattern reader.
Every day, every single fucking day, you see millions and billions of things that can amount to unique super special patterns.
The odds that you *never* see something with a recognized probability below 0.00000001% are crazy low - and thus zero (because not seeing something special would in itself be extremely special)

[Hello No.5898971]

>>5898956

In other words: in a quantum level, ie microscopic scales, the "nothingness" always produce something even if it lasts just a moment. Nothingness is very unstable. According to quantum theory of electromagnetism, the particles can arise from that nothingless only if they last just that instant, and disappear in an microscopic interval of time according to Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty. That fraction of time is indeed the tiniest possible. Below of that interval of time, time doesn't even exist.

The question is, Did these particles exist before appearing spontaneously from nothing in our reality? When we speak about particles, we include entire universes too. These universes, according to Krauss, don't have to be empty but they can hold matter and energy... as long as its total energy is zero.

And that is precisely the universe in which we live -a flat inflationary universe whose total energy is zero and that is born out of nothing. Understanding nothing for lack of space and time-.

[Hello No.5898987]

>>5898971

But discovering that our universe was born from nothing and that all matter and energy that has emerged from a tiny imbalance between matter and antimatter in the early moments of the Big Bang, is just moving back a step the key question.

If the laws of physics say nothingness always produces something, ie if nothingness has the potentiality of existence, then whence did those laws of physics come? Isn't the potentiality of existence, something in itself?

And that was another question Einstein formuled. Are the laws of physics only and eternal for all reality? Or are they eventual and change between Universes? In other words, are the laws of physics accidental? Are there other possible options beyond the laws that govern our universe? As Krauss says in the book, why gravity is much weaker than the other forces that govern our universe? Could be a little stronger or weaker than it is? Why proton is 2000 times heavier than the electron and not 10.000, 100.000.000 or 23 times?

[Anonymous No.5898997]

>>5898987
>>5898971
>>5898956
>>5898936
>showing a clear deficiency in understand statistics, math, physics, epistemology quantum-anything, and basic grammer

pls leave /sci/ and never return

[Anonymous No.5899003]

>>5898997
Not him, but you should be careful before telling people off about their grammar.
It tends to bite you in the ass.

[Hello No.5899004]

>>5898987

Here is where Krauss' book is related to the example of the dices: if something as improbable as the existence of intelligence in a universe able to hold life has happened, and we are the proof of this, only there are two explanations:

1st) It's magic.
2nd) There are tens of billions of parallel universes with their particular physical laws. Eventual laws that govern energy and matter and whose values vary from one universe to another.

Thus, it is likely that our reality is not formed by a single universe but a multiverse infinity in which each universe has its own physical laws. In some of these universes life is impossible. In others it is so viable that this flower immediately in all those planets which fits with some small requirements. In others, its particular laws of physics cause the universe to collapse on itself at birth. Others are meant to be empty of matter or energy over time. Infinite, eternal and dead.

The latter is precisely our universe. A universe without meaning or purpose or significance of being, just the sole reason that it would be impossible for it not to exist.

[Anonymous No.5899011]

>>5898987
Anthropic principle. If any of the constants that define our universe were different, one of two things would happen:
A) We'd still exist, but existence would be a little different, and we'd be asking "why is a proton 100 times heavier than an electron?"
B) We wouldn't exist, because the universe simply wouldn't "work" with the different constant values.

If (B) were the case, then we wouldn't be here to debate it. So you could think of it like this (but understand that this is only a way of thinking about it, not an explanation): The universe is the way it is because we are here to ask "why is the universe the way it is?" If it weren't that way, we wouldn't be asking why it's that way. Another possible interpretation is that the laws of physics tried a whole bunch of times until they found something that worked. It's essentially the same idea.

[Hello No.5899032]

>>5898997

I'm open to constructive feedbacks, thanks. And sorry for my eventual grammatical mistakes ... or in any other matter.

>>5899004

As Krauss says in "A universe from nothing", the problem of the concept of creation is that this seems to require a primordial external agent. The Wizard of the Video. God. A solution that seems absurd in the example of the dice but relatively normally accepted in the case of everything that surrounds us. It is logical to think that if God has been able to create a universe -in case that he ever exist-, then He will also make the 100 face dice fall the six face up. However, the explanation that we wouldn't never admit in a banal event like with dice roll, serves to explain the enormity of reality.

But this is just one of the intellectual inconsistencies that arise spontaneously when reality is confronted with religion. There are many more.

Of course, God is in this case only a magic trick with which believers stop the infinite regress of the original question at a random moment of the creation process. A random time which coincidentally coincided throughout human history with the limits of science at that particular point in history. According to a situational barrier of time. An opportunistic position to take benefit of the opponent's momentary technical and scientific limitations, right?

[sage No.5899038]

ill just leave this here
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2fPOEl/:RCvdzqA0:8BQ!w53u/www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem/

[Anonymous No.5899041]

>>5899032
>It is logical to think that if God has been able to create a universe
Look up what the words "logic" and "logical" mean.

[Anonymous No.5899099]

>>5898829
Math doesn't give a shit about your "universe."

If you don't believe me study some Homological Algebra.

[Hello No.5899104]

>>5899032

Hundreds of years ago , in Occidental world, that barrier in explanations was the cyclical nature of matter. Whence did all the matter we see around us come: the planets, stars, galaxies? Science could not respond to that and religions occupied the gap claiming that "God is the creator of all we see." These religions were talking about a god of art, a worldly god, a mere particle goldsmith. Well, this is false: our universe and everything it contains most likely arose from nothing. Science has already jumped the barrier of the origin of matter ... and religion has answered taking a step up the physical laws that govern that "nothingness".

Now religions say: "God is the creator of the physical laws that lead to the creation of something from nothing." And if tomorrow science discovered or had mere rational evidences of the existence of an underlying physical truth that could lead to the laws of physics as we know, religion would back another step to defend with all vehemence the idea that God is the creator of the physical truth underlying the laws of physics.

Of course, science cannot claim that God doesn't exist in the same way you cannot deny the existence of the Wookiees in a parallel universe. Everyone who had a girlfriend knows how difficult it is to prove that something didn't happened.

[Hello No.5899122]

>>5899104

But as I said, that's the thought prevailing in Occidental world, that perhaps suffers from certain variety of colonialist syndrome. In the sense that "if this is the way we conceive God, as unique and with all the properties we think He has, this should be the God every person in the Earth had, and thus, our atheism should be theirs too". It's enough to remember that the maximum Indian deity is suspended in the "nothingness" (as this is described), sleeping while Universes are created and exhaled through the porous of his skin. Tales of this kind are in many other places on Earth, with variations and one point in common: the person isn't the center of the universe, but the center of himself.

[Hello No.5899158]

>>5899122

The inherent direction in western spirits, has consisted in connecting again with the Cosmos about which was said that it lost all meaning or sense ( >>5899004 ), giving himself freely and consciously to an unity that both preserves human authonomy and trascends human alienation, in a growing needing of unity and reciprocity between different types of perspectives.

This is also observed in the extended urge for re-taking contact with the unconscious, imagination, the inner interpretation of life events, the concern about dignity related to material things and the recognizing of an intelligence in nature.

[Hello No.5899183]

>>5899158

http://dwhitsett.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/sir-john-carew-eccles-believer/

The creator of the Big Bang Theory was a priest, not an atheist Sheldon Cooper:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre