Well that was an easy report. After flame, now mad, and try to derail. Next step, follow me and flame.
You're following every letter of being a troll. Are you even aware you're that guy now?
Well that was an easy report. After flame, now mad, and try to derail. Next step, follow me and flame.did you guys hear Jimmy Garoppolo got a 5 year $137.5 million contract? crazy
He should buy Bitcoin and triple it next year.Think of all the poosay 137.5 million will buy him, bastard.
Well that was an easy report. After flame, now mad, and try to derail. Next step, follow me and flame.
You're following every letter of being a troll. Are you even aware you're that guy now?
Just ignore him and press on.Well that was an easy report. After flame, now mad, and try to derail. Next step, follow me and flame.
You're following every letter of being a troll. Are you even aware you're that guy now?
stop being so triggered dude. QQ some more
Math creates nothing, it describes things. Often, it doesn't do very well so, humans create new math.Just ignore him and press on.
To answer your OP, the short answer is: you aren't having a crisis of faith, you're just smart enough to realize that the whole concept is dumb (mind you, that's not a hard bar to get above). The entire notion is a construct of humanity to explain things we didn't have explanations for. As time has gone on, less things relevant to normal day-to-day life are left un-explainable in ways people can understand, so the role of a higher power has shifted into purely a tool of control, or a final answer for 'why' for the remaining people searching for it.
I'll note there's still a subset of people as well that believe in a higher power, but no established religion. Those are the people I'd classify as 'agnostic' if one is required to use such a term, and in my mind, it's defining people still searching for a higher power, but acknowledging it's none of the established ones. If my mind were to meander into simpler places, and I were looking for such a 'final answer' in the form of a power greater than myself, it'd either be the creator of a simulation (if we could prove that, or if it's even relevant), or it would be Math. Math is the handwriting of the universe, and everything that has, does, and ever will exist is created by it.
Everything that we've ever defined is a human construct, that includes the concepts of right/wrong, morality, emotions, and thought (arguably may constitute consciousness, which I believe is an end-result of math, so may not count as a human construct).
If you want more information on the direction I'm moving, check out the book 'Our Mathematical Universe' by Max Tegmark. Very approachable for 95% of it (for anyone on this board), and provides compelling evidence, and thought experiments, for the existence of a math-based reality.
LOVE it. My personal troll in years. You joined in 2004- what were you a literal child when you joined?seems like you are older than me and you are making religion threads on ATOT. lmfao. I think we both know who needs to grow up and try to grow some IQ points
keep calling me a troll though, it's turning me on
If you're interested in this topic, I highly, highly recommend the aforementioned book. He clarifies how reality is actually created *from* math.Math creates nothing, it describes things. Often, it doesn't do very well so, humans create new math.
How do you 'discover' math? That implies math is something that existed waiting to be discovered.If you're interested in this topic, I highly, highly recommend the aforementioned book. He clarifies how reality is actually created *from* math.
And humans do not create math, at best we discover the ways in which math operates, then translate that discovery into human process-able language.
LOVE it. My personal troll in years. You joined in 2004- what were you a literal child when you joined?
See you around kiddo in the next flame.
You are misguided. Humans did create math and logic. It wasn't waiting to be discovered. If you're willing to take a leap of faith, put it in God.If you're interested in this topic, I highly, highly recommend the aforementioned book. He clarifies how reality is actually created *from* math.
And humans do not create math, at best we discover the ways in which math operates, then translate that discovery into human process-able language.
You may be reading some intent into my words that doesn't exist. Saying there is no historical evidence to support the existence of Jesus is fine. Not believing in Jesus is fine. And if you want to discard anything that hasn't been proven by empirical evidence, that's fine, too. But some people might consider the latter to be something that puts limits on the experiential. There are plenty of people that can simultaneously hold empirical evidence in the utmost regard, and still concede that there are some things that may never be explained adequately by science. There are usually contradictions between those two viewpoints, but not necessarily so.And therein lies the last excuse of the truly desperate wannabelievers. "You can't prove it didn't happen!!"
The Catholic church has been searching for evidence of Jesus for 2000 year and come up empty. And this is not like the big bang or the rise of the trilobytes, so long ago to be lost in antiquity. This is 2000 years and we have records way older than that. We have proof of specific people living long before that. We have life histories of butchers and bakers and candlestick makers from BC Rome. We have quotes from religious leaders that predate Jesus, we have speeches and criminal records and surviving artifacts from long before that period. And yet NOTHING from or about Jesus. That's all a reasonable person needs to laugh at anyone who believes in him. If all you can say is that it's impossible to prove a negative and that anything is theoretically possible then you've already lost. At least have the sense to lose in a way that's a little less stupid.
Because it does exist, waiting to be discovered. Two objects combined with two other objects is four objects, even if there's no humans around to observe it. You might have different words for 'two' 'plus' and 'four' but the core of it, the math, still holds irrespective of the observer. If it didn't, reality itself wouldn't exist, as everything is tied back to math in some way and must operate regardless of an observer to define it.How do you 'discover' math? That implies math is something that existed waiting to be discovered.
Math is merely a language we created to organize our thoughts. It's just a tool to describe the world phenomena.
You are misguided. Humans did create math and logic. It wasn't waiting to be discovered. If you're willing to take a leap of faith, put it in God.
Troll, flame, get mad, and say troll things like 'QQ and triggered.'
Grow up kiddo. Aren't you a little too old to be so childish? What are you 40 actually. Go to reddit or instagram or whatever your mental age belongs to.
seems like you are older than me and you are making religion threads on ATOT. lmfao. I think we both know who needs to grow up and try to grow some IQ points
keep calling me a troll though, it's turning me on
I don't agree but I get what you're saying.Our *language* for math is something we created, but the math itself was there prior.
Slayer, I say we take down ElFenix,Quit engaging with him.
Quit being a dick.
AT Moderator ElFenix
Not to create some knock-down, drag-out fight, but what part do you not agree with? Just curious.I don't agree but I get what you're saying.
Slayer, I say we take down ElFenix,
Without being described, things just "are." Math is one means by which we describe reality, it does not have an existence of its own. You could say that the mathematical relationships between things exists latently, but without anyone to observe or describe them, there's no math, and no reason. Without conscious intelligence to observe, define, and describe, the universe just IS.Because it does exist, waiting to be discovered. Two objects combined with two other objects is four objects, even if there's no humans around to observe it. You might have different words for 'two' 'plus' and 'four' but the core of it, the math, still holds irrespective of the observer. If it didn't, reality itself wouldn't exist, as everything is tied back to math in some way and must operate regardless of an observer to define it.
Our *language* for math is something we created, but the math itself was there prior.
Alright, now we're talking on the same page for the most part. The definitions of those relations don't exist without a describer (or at least someone/something to logic through it) but that 'is' part, that's the key. The function that exists to keep atoms together still exists whether someone is describing it using terms for the mathematical functions and terms for the numbers that get plugged in. So let's back off the term 'math' and maybe use something more amorphous, like 'mathematically-defined construction' or whatever.Without being described, things just "are." Math is one means by which we describe reality, it does not have an existence of its own. You could say that the mathematical relationships between things exists latently, but without anyone to observe or describe them, there's no math, and no reason. Without conscious intelligence to observe, define, and describe, the universe just IS.
This guys knows how to write. Agreed.Without being described, things just "are." Math is one means by which we describe reality, it does not have an existence of its own. You could say that the mathematical relationships between things exists latently, but without anyone to observe or describe them, there's no math, and no reason. Without conscious intelligence to observe, define, and describe, the universe just IS.
It's fair to say that the laws of physics wouldn't change if we weren't around to describe them, sure. But I might not say that reality depends on those equations, but that they comprise the basis of our description of reality.Alright, now we're talking on the same page for the most part. The definitions of those relations don't exist without a describer (or at least someone/something to logic through it) but that 'is' part, that's the key. The function that exists to keep atoms together still exists whether someone is describing it using terms for the mathematical functions and terms for the numbers that get plugged in. So let's back off the term 'math' and maybe use something more amorphous, like 'mathematically-defined construction' or whatever.
Reaching back to that book, there's a handful of equations (6? or 9? I think... book isn't in front of me) that everything else in reality is derived from, and everything depends on. Those relationships would exist without anyone to describe them, without any human intervention or thought.