1401. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129567 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 10:12 am

hao,

That's misleading. Not all religious beliefs involve an after life

But most do. I would say early Judaism is an anomaly.

Our awareness of our own death might be one reason why such ideas and beliefs appeal to a lot of people but it can not be the central 'reason' for the evolutionary development of religion. It's an important distinction.

You're right that it is not the only reason, but I think it is still a most important reason, another one, which is not unrelated, is that as an intelligent species we do experience and inner world.

1402. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129564 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 10:09 am

Ian Bamlett,

Not hard to see how this all got started really is it?

Coping for external hardship is only one reason for belief, certainly it is more than that.

Even if all external challenges are overcome we still can't escape the fact that we experience an "inner world" in our mind quite apart from the outside world. This makes it possible for us to engage in introspection and conjure up a simulated world in our head. The divide of the internal world of mental representations and the external physical world gives rise to a feeling of other worldliness. It is the source of existential anxiety and a fertile ground for religious belief.

There is no "cure" for that short of a lobotomy.

1403. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129550 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 9:42 am

Steve

It's all about how our minds model other minds. This is far from perfect, but allows us to function as social beings. The problem is that our filters for determining what has minds and what doesn't aren't that good. This leads to the idea of Nature being full of spirits - in the animals, the trees, and rivers...

Well put. There are some autistic children who were born without the ability to model other minds, as you put it. While we know that it is very difficult for them to interact with others and have a social life, it would be interesting to find out if they also tend to have a lesser propensity to imagine Gods and spirits, if that can be somehow formulated in a scientifically testable hypothesis.

1404. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129544 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 9:33 am

Geoff

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could find a cure, though?

Well I am not so sure about that.

I don't think gullibility alone accounts for religious beliefs and sentiments. There are other traits which bias people towards religion such as the desire to find deeper meanings, the tendency to make associations, the awe for existence, the ability for introspection and abstract thinking. For example, the ability to anticipate our own death and imagine an afterlife is the most potent driving force behind all religious beliefs. This would not be possible without the capacity to abstract thinking and mentally simulate situations beyond our immediate environment.

There is an upside and downside to everything. Traits such as ability to think abstractly, to feel awe, beauty and passion underly not only religious beliefs, but also all arts and sciences. None of these can be captured by logic and rationality,

Science is a rational enterprise in terms of its methodology, but rationality alone doesn't explain why people do science. Richard talks of awe and beauty and describes science in a language which is almost poetic. These are all subjective and appeal to the emotion. Passion and aesthetics cannot be reduced to rationality and logic, neither are the creativity and the compulsive obsessiveness that are necessary for great science.

I think civilization would be impossible if we are "cured" of our "irrationality" and all become like DATA in Star-Trek. He is just a glorified information processor.

1405. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129532 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 9:09 am

al rawandi,

I didn't mean you were an idiot. I meant that people who still hold on to irrational beliefs are generally known as "idiots".

Sorry for the misunderstanding. My apologies for the snide remark.

1406. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129515 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 8:43 am

al-rawandi,

The blockquote you provide. In layman's terms "idiots".Religion had some evolutionay value, granted

However people hold on to it in a way we haven't seen anywhere else. It isn't like the religious also like to climb trees and fling feces.... oh wait nevermind.

Well I am the idiot who wrote the origin message,

I didn't say what people should do, I was only suggesting a reason why people do what they do.

Also, I didn't say religion itself has evolutionary value, but it is a byproduct. In the end it may have some value or not, but that is a scientific question which can only be settled through evaluating the data and evidence, not whether we like the conclusion or not.

1407. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129508 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 8:33 am

An attempt to justify religious belief in scientific terms. Its just a marketing ploy.

How is it justification? Belief may or may not be "genetic",--depending on what you mean by that,--but that is a scientific proposition which can only be evaluated by looking at data and evidence, You are saying that it should be dismissed out of hand simply because you don't like the conclusion. It is not a scientific attitude,

BTW, there is nothing supernatural in this study.

1408. Why do we believe in God? 2m study prays for answer

Comment #129502 by Bonzai on February 19, 2008 at 8:21 am

avatarIt seems obvious to me that people believe in a god because they're told it has merit and virtue by their parents! Is this really in need of study? Would my granddaughters come up with a god figure on their own if their mother didn't take them to Sunday school? Hardly! I know my granddaughters well and they think their mother *is* God

I find this kind of dogmatic attitude distressing. It is true that many people subscribe to religious beliefs because of their cultures and upbringing, but how do you explain people who convert to other religions or "ex-atheists",--yes, they do exist,--who become religious in adulthood?

Even though I don't have the data, but anecdotal experience seems to suggest that culture and upbringing in itself cannot explain the intensity of belief. Those who come to their faith through what you call indoctrination tend to be lukewarm believers and many actually drift away from their religions in later life, at least that seems to be the case in the developed world where individuals are not coerced by law to remain religious.Based on their testimonies, people who believe fervently seem to go through some kind of searching process on their own, especially those who are a bit older and have some experience in life . While we may not agree with their reasoning process, it is wrong and unscientific to simply say that they believe because of childhood indoctrinations,

I don't think religious belief itself is hardwired, but it is very likely that it is a byproduct of some traits that are. For examples, the tendency to see patterns even when there is none and the propensity to ascribe agency and intentions. These are probably very important survival instincts for our ancestors: if you mistaken a predator for a rock, you will surly be eaten so there is certain advantage in being cautious and seeing things as alive, even though sometimes you may err in thinking that there is a saber tooth tiger while it fact it is only a rock.

If I remember correctly Justin Barrett is a Christian but he has done some interesting work on the origins of religious belief with Scott Atran, who is an atheist.

1409. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129215 by Bonzai on February 18, 2008 at 9:40 pm

qster,

Further to that, To assume that a mind requires a brain is to simplify the issue a bit isnt it? why do we think that the mind exists in the brain only

What does a "mind",--at least what we can identify as a "mind",-- consist of if it doesn't have sensory input? What is "pure consciousness" like? Imagine yourself, detached from all bodily experience , all that is physical. We know it is the physical that endows you with your unique personality, for I can drastically change all that is you by changing your physical state,--through frontal lobe surgery, drugs, hormones etc.

So without the physical what is left of your "soul"? Pure computational power?

1410. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #129192 by Bonzai on February 18, 2008 at 8:57 pm

Steve,

Also, it looks like the entanglement argument (favoured by people like Roger Penrose) is wrong - it seems to have been clearly dismissed by Lawrence Krauss (sadly!)

I don't think that is Penrose's argument. Even exploiting entanglement, the notion of computability does not change. QM computers may speed up some computations, but they still define the same set of Turing computable functions. Penrose argues that consciousness,--whatever that means,-- involves (Turing) noncomputable mechanisms, thus Quantum computers would not address his concerns (if those concerns are valid)

He goes further than that. His idea has to do with some kind of gravity induced collapse of the wave function,--objective reduction.

Based on my decidedly sketchy understanding Penrose's "theory of the mind" consists of two parts.

1) Models based on Turing computability,--whether with "classical" or quantum computers,--are in principle incapable of explaining consciousness because, he argues, consciousness must involve Turing non computable mechanisms. 2) Objective reduction may provide the key noncomputable mechanisms, somehow, if it is true.

I think Penrose's main interest is still physics, in particular the relation of QM and gravity. He is convinced that there is something wrong with QM in the way it is understood today. His "theory of the mind" sounds like just an interesting side alley which he thinks an overarching new QM might shed some important light on, but I don't think that is where he invests his time and energy.

Also, I think we shouldn't confuse Hameroff's ideas with Penrose's. It seems that Penrose found something interesting in Hameroff's micro tubulars and wrote a paper or two with him on that but that was it. Penrose never endorses Hameroff's more outlandish ideas such as those he espoused on the Beyond Belief conference.In fact he is quite skeptical of ideas along similar lines as he explained in his book "the road to reality".

1411. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128700 by Bonzai on February 17, 2008 at 5:13 pm

JDCherry,

His beliefs are truly religious. "Singularitarianism" is an eschatology, and a misanthropic, dehumanizing one at that. To these people all that humans basically are is computers. We need to build more computers and stronger computers for computers sake. Eventually the whole universe must become a computer. I find it offensive.

Hear, hear. Exactly my thought.

The geeky types do often fall into the trap of thinking that humans are just brains in jars. The brain may be our central processor, but it is our bodily experience that makes us who we are. There is something graceful and beautiful about an agile human form or an expressive face. There is something noble and romantic about struggling against one's limitation and transcending it. There is more to life than barren functionalism and increasing brain power through technological fix. It would be a pity if all that is left of humanity is a disembodied mind.

1412. Sharia fiasco

Comment #128061 by Bonzai on February 16, 2008 at 2:30 am

oisha

I attributed this to the fact that the swastika is not as abhorred in her society as it is in most of Europe and indeed Australia, and I attempted to communicate to her the tacit endorsement of certain Nazi behaviours which it symbolises

Growing up in Hong Kong I think I do understand where your friend is coming from.

Nazi symbols such as the swastika don't have the same significance in Asia because of the different historical context. These items are widely available in novelty stores and hobby stores. They are simply seen as collector items and memorabilia by many people. The people may be naive but they are quite innocent.

On the other hand, symbols of imperial Japan have much more profound connotations in Asia.

A few years ago a Hong Kong fashion magazine published pictures of young female models in seductive posts, dressed up in WWII German military uniform. They were pulled after complaints from the German and Israeli embassies. The locals seemed to have no clue what the big fuss was all about. However, I cannot imagine any Asian company using Japanese imperial army outfits and symbols as marketing gimmicks, though I have seen that quite often in novelty stores in North America. My late grandmother would shake with horror when she saw a Samurai sword because she had witnessed Japanese soldiers beheading people with such swords.

Cultural sensibility has a historical context.

I know this is not your main point, I just find it interesting so I want to make a comment.

I agree with you and al-rawandi on Islam/Muslim.

1413. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #127132 by Bonzai on February 15, 2008 at 1:14 am

Cmon, at least the Muslims have to stones to call me what I am

Sure sound like you're stoned.

1414. Why Darwin matters

Comment #126123 by Bonzai on February 12, 2008 at 1:24 pm

We should always keep an open mind.

That is rich. Open to what? The idea that you are right because it is written in some old books even when all evidence and experience say you are wrong? That we should open to the possibility that declared dogmas and half baked spins trump observations, data and careful analysis?

How does your position represent open mindedness if you reject all evidence contrary to your dogmas from the get go?

1415. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126075 by Bonzai on February 12, 2008 at 12:46 pm

agn:

These people will only balk at one thing:
Become too terrified to engage in criminal acts.

al-rawandi:

But I thought they longed to die and go to heaven?

Maybe we can force feed them roast pig and pork chops for dinner if they don't confess?

1416. Bill Maher on Larry King Live

Comment #125597 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Maher is not even funny, just comes across as a smart ass IMHO.

1417. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125560 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 3:35 pm

HughCaldwell,

It's just inconceivable that in all of Jewish and Islamic culture, there is no applicable input to legal proceedings in the UK.

There might be. But in that case why should these features be applied only to Jews or Muslims? Shouldn't they be incorporated into the general legal code if they are indeed valuable to the U.K as a whole?

IMO it is hypocritical (and probably even racist)for a "mainstream" British to endorse Sharia courts for Muslims but would not allow himself to be subjected to laws based on the same philosophy of judirispudence.

1418. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125493 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 1:02 pm

I'm surprised an enlightened university such as Oxford still has a mandatory retirement age. In America those rules have generally been abolished.

I don't know if he is retiring as in taking a pension and stop being a professor. He probably just meant vacating his post as the Charles Simonyi Professor in the Public Understanding of Science, it is probably a position with a fix term like a research chair.

1419. What he wishes on us is an abomination

Comment #125492 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 12:52 pm

They can in China - so I read. Can I find the article? Can I hell!

Here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3656180.stm

To echo your point about the Chinese model

Beijing's tight control over religious practice means Chinese Muslims have been isolated from trends sweeping through the rest of the Islamic world.

According to Dr Khaled Abou el Fadl from the University of California in Los Angeles, that means that ancient traditions like female jurists - which have been stamped out elsewhere - have been able to continue in China.

"The Wahhabi and Salafis have not been able to penetrate areas like China and establish their puritanical creed there," said Dr Khaled Abou el Fadl.

1420. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125428 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 10:57 am

I should add that my issue of Sharia goes beyond applying different laws to different communities, though that is a major objection.

In addition, Sharia is based on a philosophy (regarding gender in this context) which is utterly repugnant to the modern mind, It is not a system that we would subject ourselves to as non Muslims, thus it comes across as doubly objectionable.

It is as if saying that Muslim women deserve less rights simply because of the culture they were born into. If this is not racism I don't know what is.

Another message is that you, Muslims, can and should stay in the bubble we create for you as long as you keep your objectionable practices to yourself and leave us in peace. "Keep your shit to yourself" is perversely euphemized and marketed as "tolerance" and "social harmony" This is patronizing and despicable. It does injustice to Muslim women twice.

1421. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125416 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 10:37 am

HughCaldwell,

Why bother having Beth Din Jewish courts? If there is no call for such courts, they'll just fade away. Since, I believe, they are flourishing, there's obviously a demand for them, however pointless you may think they are. A little tolerance, please.

Jewish courts were banned in Ontario, Canada, as well. How is it "intolerant" to insist that there should be one law for all and that all citizens should be protected by the law to the same extent regardless of religion? I think you are trying to push hot buttons here. It may work in other websites but not here.

Recourse to community courts would be voluntary and national law would take precedence.

It has been pointed out numerous times that "voluntary participation" is only in theory. If Sharia is recognized Muslims would be pressured into participating, especially Muslim women who newly emigrate and don't know their legal rights and their way around. In Ontario, even when incorporating Sharia into family law was only in the discussion stage some Imams already told their congregations that it was apostasy if Muslims chose to go to Canadian courts while the Sharia option was available.

For how "voluntary participation" works in some real life situations, see http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2245,What-he-wishes-on-us-is-an-abomination,Yasmin-Alibhai-Brown-The-Independent,page1#125385

1422. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125394 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 10:05 am

Well just heard in the news that the ArchBishop has backtracked, This morning he said that he was merely posing a question and inviting discussions. He reiterated his right to "talk about the issue".


I am sure you can find a link.

1423. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125388 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 9:57 am

HughCaldwell,

If the Bishop is saying that only those parts of Sharia that are compatible with British law should be incorporated why bother introducing Sharia in the first place? There is already the real court system.

And who is to decide whether a Sharia ruling is compatible with British law or not? I don't presume your Sharia administering Imams would have British Law degrees. Would we allow people without legal training to sit as judges in any real British court?

In addition, the law is not just about applying rules mechanically in situations. There is an entire philosophy behind any legal system. Based on what I understand the philosophy behind Sharia is entirely alien to the Western secular legal system.

1424. What he wishes on us is an abomination

Comment #125385 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 9:50 am

Rastararians?

I think pot should be legalized for everyone.

1425. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125370 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 9:35 am

HugeCaldwell,

I'm having trouble figuring out what we mean by 'laws'. Beth Din (Jewish courts) lay down all sorts of rules which consenting Jews are supposed to obey. I imagine anything Islamic would be the same. This is my idea of multiculturalism.

Well people make private agreements and settlements out of court all the time, But these agreements are not automatically legally binding. They don't have formal legal status and participants can always back out in case a court decision is sought,

If this is how "Sharia courts" work then they don't require any legal recognition. But by enshrining them into legal system the state is granting Sharia special status that other private agreements don't enjoy and effectively formalizing Sharia court rulings in the law. That must not be allowed to happen.

I don't know how Jewish courts work but in my province Ontario, Jewish courts are stripped of their legal status as well after the rejection of Sharia. As our Premier puts it, there is only one law in Ontario, no religious courts, period. I think that is great.

1426. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125358 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 9:26 am

Al-Ranwandi,

Once the state was established in a more serious manner these communities were allowed to maintain these legal institutions and were forced to pay a tax. They were excused from military service, but were largely discriminated against in all areas of life, however never forced to convert, so long as they were Christian or Jewish or in some instances Zoroastrian and Hindu.

I may be wrong on that, my understanding is that even under ideal circumstances, the "protection racket" extends only to "People of the Book", namely Jews and Christians, but Hindus and other Pagans are fair game. So there is a hierarchy of superstitions under Sharia. In reality even Jews and Christians are under pressure to convert.

1427. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125345 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 9:03 am

Regardless of interpretation, a central idea of Sharia is exactly to slot people based on religion and apply separate laws to different communities based on the superstition they happen to subscribe to. It is the idea of "equality" in idealized Sharia ,--that is, ignoring the difficulties and unbalance of power when different faiths interact in a legal context. Some Muslims actually try to use this as a selling point for Sharia,

1428. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125337 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 8:57 am

Steve,

The difficulty with that is that people have different ideas of what "equal before the law" means.

I remember hearing the following argument against gay rights : "Gay men have the same rights as 'normal' men - they can marry women too."

Well straight men and women can marry members of the same sex too under same sex marriage. The law is universal. It doesn't create special status for gays, it just makes marriage gender blind.

Actually some straights do marry with same sex "partners" for convenience. Again this only broadens equality to make abusing the law more accessible to gays and straights alike.

In conclusion, same sex marriage doesn't contravene the principle of equality before the law.

1429. Why multiculturalism must be abandoned

Comment #125324 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 8:31 am

First, this is not entirely a race issue. Religion is self segregating, some of the most strident Muslims are Western converts,

Secondly, "Multiculturalism" doesn't have the same connotation in Europe as it is in Canada where the term is coined.

In Europe "multiculturalism" is basically a form of institutionalized cultural apartheid. Identity is binding, "Multiculturalism" is way to slot and manage people based on some collective identity.

It is an adaptation of colonial technique to the domestic immigrant population.Under this scheme the "multi-cultural" people are supposedly represented by their tribal elders and chiefs and the government would only deal with these self appointed representatives. Hence you have the funding of faith schools, the musing of separate laws as long as they only apply to "your kinds", and the assumption that outfits such as MCB actually "represent" Muslims.

In spite of the appearance of catering to minority, ultimately it is a kind of racism which serves the purpose of keeping minorities in their ghettos rather than helping them to become full citizens. It erects a firewall between the minorities and the mainstream society. The assumption is that as long as you keep your own crap to your own community you can live in the bubble we create for you, but don't let the shit spill over to pollute us.

Moreover, the minorities themselves don't necessarily ask for these "special treatments", really absurd ideas like banning the three little pigs in the name of "sensitivity" are more often than not the creation by the hpersensitive "white" elite,--I hate to use the word "liberal" as a pejorative,--with encouragement from "community leaders" with their own agendas when the everyday Muslims are unfairly targeted for backlash when the "appeasement" goes too far.

In Europe "Multiculturalism" should be more appropriately called Multiple Monoculturalism.

In Canada, predegree is not as important comparing to Europe and "identity" is in general more fluid, "Multiculturalism" is this context merely provides a comfort zone, especially for first generation immigrants, It doesn't exclude and doesn't preclude participation in mainstream society. It merely allows an identity in addition to the common citizenship, nothing is taking away. It allows people to slip in and out of different identities, it is liberating rather than binding.

1430. What he wishes on us is an abomination

Comment #125305 by Bonzai on February 11, 2008 at 8:08 am

Speaking about gays I remember a few years ago some gay man from Iran was seeking political asylum in the U.K. He was rejected and was slated to be sent back to Iran. He shot himself as a result. It was disgusting.

1431. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124936 by Bonzai on February 10, 2008 at 12:45 pm

On a unrelated issue, does anyone know what happens to the "preview" option for posting?

1432. Sharia fiasco

Comment #124934 by Bonzai on February 10, 2008 at 12:44 pm

USA need judges who give more credence to the constitution than to the vatican

The Vatican??!! I think the Protestantism, not Catholicism, is the established religion of the U.S.A.

1433. Biology teacher fired for referring to Bible

Comment #124163 by Bonzai on February 8, 2008 at 2:40 pm

DavidJMH

We all need to be a little less intolerant of views different from our own and the only way children can develop a broad spectrum of understanding is to experience it.

Good advice from David, he should heed his own words on the subject of homosexuality.

1434. Blasphemy

Comment #124161 by Bonzai on February 8, 2008 at 2:32 pm

For an historian of science like Gould to make such an error is breathtaking. Gould himself wrote about the folly of Lord Kelvin who confidently proclaimed, just before the discovery of radioactivity, that his calculations on the cooling rate of the Earth proved its maximum age must be far less than the geologists of his day were claiming. Gould of all people should have exercised enough intellectual humility to know it's far too early to proclaim the limits of science.

I think you are being a bit too harsh on Gould. True enough there are questions that science either in principle cannot answer or the scientific answers may not be what we seek.

Ill formulated questions are unanswerable scientifically. Most theological questions such as the mystery of the Trinity, whether God loves us or why there is evil probably all fall in this category. In some sense they are meaningless questions, but they are questions nonetheless and theology is the pointless subject specialized in making up and answering such questions. I have no problem that science lays off in this realm in keeping with NOMA if theologians keep up their end of the bargain.

Science seeks objective explanations, but not all questions are asked for the sake of getting objective, third person type answers. Most questions concerning "meanings" are probably scientifically non answerable as people are looking for subjective meanings, which science must expunge a priori. Neuroscience may explain why we feel sad or angry when tragic events happen, but neuro chemical explanations of "why we feel this way" are probably of little use to the aggrieved unless chemical lobotomy is contemplated as a way to eliminate unpleasant feelings, most people would devise coping strategies and rationalizations that don't involve scientific explanations.

I am not saying that when science doesn't have the answers religion would have them. I am of the opinion that religion only pretends to have answers, virtually on every subject, scientific or not. All I am saying is that it seems obvious that there are questions of a non scientific nature or asked in a non scientific context that science either cannot answer or scientific answers are inappropriate.

1435. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123887 by Bonzai on February 7, 2008 at 9:19 pm

I have the feeling that it is not even the desire of most British Muslims to want Sharia. It is just a few "leaders" and a minority of Islamists.

The Arch Bishop shot himself on the foot while creating more unwanted attentions and suspicion for British Muslims, most of whom I think just want to make a living and fit in, The irony is that this is all supposedly for "harmony". It is typical of misguided, overly "sensitive" (usually white) PC types to instigate measures in the name of "inclusiveness" and "diversity" that not only serve no one, but may actually create backlash against the intended beneficiaries.

1436. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #123171 by Bonzai on February 6, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Steve,

To put it bluntly, if the incompleteness phenomenon discovered by Gödel in 1931 is really serious â€" and I believe that Turing's work and my own work suggest that incompleteness is much more serious than people think â€" then perhaps mathematics should be pursued somewhat more in the spirit of experimental science rather than always demanding proofs for everything. Maybe, rather than attempting to prove results such as the celebrated Riemann hypothesis, mathematicians should accept that they may not be provable and simply accept them as an axiom."

Well the problem is how do we know that the Riemann hypothesis is not provable? That requires a proof! For example, we know that Cantor's continuum hypothesis is unprovable within ZFC (Zermelo-Frankel set theory plus the axiom of choice) because Cohen proved that using forcing. So some people indeed take CH as an axiom.

But again, echoing other mathematicians I respect, if a result in math is hinged upon independence results (axiomatics) it is probably not very interesting mathematically anyway. Most interesting mathematics, in my view, are about fairly concrete objects (by mathematicians' standard, of course)

1437. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #123163 by Bonzai on February 6, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Of course these are very specific, and by knowing how to derive theorems and sentences from axioms via inference-rules, and only when you know these specific constrictions, the actual axioms, rules and theorems can you "do" mathematics - only when you know how to construct a system of meaningful grammatical sentences of a certain kind (the constriction on systems of sentences that make them a work of science fiction) do you know how to write science fiction.

It is like saying without knowing how to construct sentences you can't be a writer.

This is kind of trivial and really doesn't tell you much about fiction writing, does it? I know the inferential rules since time immemorial, that has never been a problem. Most mathematicians I know never learn that by reading logic books, let alone formal logic. It is just a more disciplined way of being "logical", there is no straight demarcation from "ordinary" thinking. Yet trying to come up with theorems (and even proving known theorems) is still *very hard*. It takes a lot more than just knowing inferential rules to do math. It is taken for granted, like knowing the alphabets for a writer.

To say that math is just an extension of logic is as I said, completely missing the substance because of the form. As we say in Chinese, who doesn't know your mother is a woman? It is true but trivial to the point of pointlessness.

1438. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #123132 by Bonzai on February 6, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Of course science fiction literature is "just" consists of grammatically correct sentences. What else? Of course mathematics is just axioms, inference rules, theorems and sentences. That its very specific axioms, rules, theorems and sentences with doesn't make it something else. That would be like saying that you can find more in science fiction books..

This is call mistakening forms for substance. While trivially true, it doesn't say much. That is to say, missing the point. If fiction writing is just about stringing together grammatically correct sentences then any English teacher who knows her grammar can be a great fiction writer. Since that is not the case there must be something amiss in your characterization.

EDIT

And btw, do you think that formal logic has no such things as a calculus? I have written exams where I had to construct formal proofs of over 200 steps. The Kalish-Montague calculus for example is extremely powerful and able to model highly complex states of affairs.

I know. That is how they teach symbolic logic in the philosophy departments and in my view they precisely focus on the most uninteresting part of the subject,--again missing the point. No one would waste his time writing up deductions in first order logic in mathematical logic courses taught in the math departments. We know this can be done in principle and move on to more interesting stuffs, like Godel theorem and so on. In mathematics we see formal systems as just models, a caricature amendable to mathematical investigations and see what we can say about them. We prove theorems about these systems using just normal language, we do not try to pretend to be robots working within those systems.

I took two symbolic logic courses in third and forth year with the philosophy department to get my easy electives, I learned a lot more in the first three weeks in an introductory math logic course in my own department.

P.S. I used Kalish-Montague's book for my philosophy courses, what a waste of paper and money. I find for example, Yuri Mannin's book on mathematical logic a lot more interesting and substantial, with only a fraction of the size.

1439. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #123125 by Bonzai on February 6, 2008 at 1:30 pm

It seems that Chaitin's work again shows the limit of formal systems, but since Godel we already know that no single formal system can capture all of mathematics. Regardless of details, Chaitin must have some kind of model for mathematics based on formal rules in order to get his result. His result, if I understand correctly, only shows that the type of systems he constructed are not rich enough to capture all of mathematics.

1440. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #123110 by Bonzai on February 6, 2008 at 1:17 pm

It's structure is logic: Axioms, inference rules, theorems, sentences... that's what logic is - and that's what mathematics is. Logic is (among other things) the science of exactly that - how to correctly derive theorems and sentences from axioms... how to proceed from premises to conclusions, and this is at the core of every conceptual thinking.

That just proves my point that you completely miss the point.

This is like saying fiction writing is about how to construct grammatically correct sentences. Your knowledge about how real mathematics is done is probably as good as my knowledge of Kant, namely, almost nil, except for a few soundbites through nth handed accounts.

P.S. I didn't mention you by name and the claim that mathematics is just logic is not an uncommon one by certain arm chair philosophers, so I wasn't deliberately trying to insult you in particular, you are just too eager to take personal offense.

1441. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #123091 by Bonzai on February 6, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Then we discovered that mathematics was necessarily incomplete (or inconsistent), and then we found that there are mathematical truths are unreachable,

That just shows that mathematics cannot be captured by any single formal system. I think most working mathematicians wouldn't find that very surprising, it just demonstrates the problem of trying to reduce mathematics to logic and formalized deduction. Most working mathematicians seldom think like that anyway.

1442. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #123085 by Bonzai on February 6, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Am I the only one to find that something has been changed in the forum system so that posting and logging in have become kind of awkward? Also, I find the cut and paste function doesn't work sometimes and I have this problem only on this site.

1443. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #123064 by Bonzai on February 6, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Mathematics is not = computation. Computation is only a small part of mathematics.

The study of chaotic systems,-which Steve brought up numerous times,-- for example, is mainly concerned with understanding the topological and other qualitative features of such systems rather than computing approximating trajectories. Mathematically, these features are a lot more interesting than grinding out numbers because they provide theoretical and conceptual understanding of the structures of these systems while number crunching may be important for engineering, it offers little conceptual insight.

In a sense, mathematics is not "just a tool". At least in physics, it is not an exaggeration to say that all our theories and "explanations" are essentially mathematical in nature, there is no other way to describe and "explain" the deep structures of the physical world other than through mathematics. In some sense mathematics is all there is! Physicists and mathematicians cannot escape the feeling that the universe appears to be constructed from a mathematical skeleton (so I find the claim that mathematics = logic is also a very poor caricature, it fails to convey the richness of mathematics and conveys very little of the way real mathematics is done. It is typically the philosopher's way of seeing mathematics,--completely missing the point)

The three body problem again is not about finding numerical approximations, but the study of asymptotic behaviour and stability of such systems, which can only be attacked conceptually. BTW, I was mistaken in saying that the three body problem was solved, but some important break throughs concerning some special cases were made in the 1990s.

1444. Math Religion Trouble

Comment #122793 by Bonzai on February 6, 2008 at 5:05 am

I don't believe it is that successful. We can't even solve the equations of motion for just three particles. Much modeling has to be done through simulation because we can't do the maths

Well I disagree. Math is not just about grinding out numbers and solving equations. The conceptual understanding of complex dynamical systems and chaotic systems is mathematical. While we cannot compute exact solutions we do know a lot about these systems.BTW, the three body problem has been solved.

1445. God the psycho

Comment #122213 by Bonzai on February 4, 2008 at 11:45 pm

Diacanu. I disagree. We need sophistication and eloquence. I rate you far higher than Condell in those area.

Pat is certainly eloquent. I actually think most of his rants are spot on.

1446. Admitting that you have no religion is not politically correct

Comment #122091 by Bonzai on February 4, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Before we get carried away let's note that this was the decision of "student administrators", in other words,ultra politically correct student council types and probably was not reflective of the university's policy. I am willing to bet that if enough noise is made the decision will be reversed.

1447. Islam in Europe

Comment #114512 by Bonzai on January 22, 2008 at 10:49 am

Good job. Unfortunately I don't know if any politician would be listening.

1448. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113799 by Bonzai on January 20, 2008 at 3:33 pm

Well, yes, but my impression is that the proportion of gay men who make use of such facilities is probably not that large.

That was what I suggested in my last paragraph.

1449. Why people believe weird things about money

Comment #113795 by Bonzai on January 20, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Steve,

They do???

I think one has to be careful as to what "average" means. If one chap has 1000 partners that could bias the average, and also people have a habit of exaggerating their sexual history.

I think there are venues for gay men to have sex that are not available for straight people. I am thinking of bath houses. Apparently people can have sex with many partners in one night especially if you count oral sex as well (thereby using a broader definition than Clinton's)

In my statistical consulting job on the side I am currently working with some survey data on bath house encounters among gay people and the reported number of sex partners of some people seem surreal. Not having any first hand experience of the scene I can't say whether these guys are exaggerating or not, I can only take them on their words. According to the people who created the survey and gathered the data the numbers are realistic.

I think it is difficult to extrapolate data such as these to the gay population in general as it is more spread out and hidden than many such surveys reveal. Data are easier to gather on those who are relatively active in the gay scene and one would expect an upward adjustment to variables such as sex partners and frequency of sexual activities.

1450. The New Theology

Comment #113779 by Bonzai on January 20, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Well I have to say my opinion of why people believe in religion differs from many of you here. Many of you seem to say that religion is a kind of poor substitution of science as a way to explain the world. The implication is that it can be eradicated with proper scientific education. My experience is that most religious people (those that I know, that is) couldn't give a rat's ass about explanatory models of the world. To them religion is a clutch that gives them hope, delusional as it may be. It is a kind of wishful thinking that helps them deal with the trials and tribulations of life, whether religion is "true" in the scientific sense is profoundly irrelevant to such people,--and I believe that these people represent a significant number of believers if not the vast majority.

I gave my sister in law TGD as a Christmas gift. I am pretty sure she never bothers to read it because the book was still in its shrink wrap a few weeks later when I visited them. It was sitting quietly on a book shelf swarming with Christian books.

My mother looked up the dictionary for the word "delusion" and then went hysterical and yelled at me. She pretty much said that she didn't care whether Christianity was "true" scientifically, the important thing was that it helped her coped and that I shouldn't have attempted to take it away from her.