Re: New thread: Mathematical truth (Was a sin-off of Re: How Einsteinand Hammond proved God exists)

From: George Andrews Jr. (gandrews@as.wm.edu)
Date: Tue Sep 04 2001 - 17:11:51 EDT

  • Next message: Tom Pearson: "Re: New thread: Mathematical truth (Was a sin-off of Re: How Einstein and Hammond proved God exists)"

    Hi James;

    I have a few honest questions (and of course some comments :-) ):

    James W Stark wrote:

    >
    > In my worldview reality consists of a physical universe
    > (matter), a mental world, (our awareness of the laws of
    > mathematics as well as any subject matter.), and the
    > spiritual realm (known to us through our consciousness.)
    >

    Are not our minds an epiphenomenan of our brains and therefore belong to
    your first category of physical? i.e. mental activity =
    electrical/chemical activity = subsets of physical phenomena.

    Can you explain what you mean by a "real" "spiritual realm"? I mean in
    terms other then faith based; e.g. the statement: "I believe that ghosts
    are real" is faith based; qualitatively different then say "electrons
    exist". It seams to me that even the notion of spirit is fraught with
    rational difficulties -- where as the notion of electrons is only
    difficult epistemologically.

    > >God created matter.
    >
    > Or should we say energy rather than matter? Einstein's
    > discovery of E = mc2 can be interpreted to imply how much
    > energy is required to give the appearance of a certain
    > amount of mass, which suggests that matter is an illusion.
    > Did God create matter an illusion? Eastern religions start
    > creation with illusion, while Christianity starts with
    > truth.
    >

    Matter is indeed a "form" of energy but this is very, very different
    than an "illusion". Matter really exists as "mass=inertia"; e.g.
    baryons have mass (inertia) -- photons don't. E=mc^2 is a positive
    assertion regarding the existence of matter; not a negation of it; i.e.
    mass = E/c^2.

    >
    >
    > How ought we feel about mathematics not always estimating
    > truth?
    >
    > James Stark
    >

    I think you may be confusing matematical truth with physical models and
    observation; 1+1=2 is exactly true and 1+1=3 is not -- assuming one
    accepts the requisite axioms for number theory (which one must in order
    to add two numbers :-) ). Formal mathematics is about precise
    mathematical truths; not estimates of physics. Of course, physics uses
    math in formulating physical theories and models -- because math is so
    very good in explaining physical phenomenon.

    Sincerely;

    George A.

    --
    George A. Andrews Jr.
    Physics/Applied Science
    College of William & Mary
    P.O. Box 8795
    Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 04 2001 - 17:09:21 EDT