Not the whole mathematics of course, but I am not sure I recall what Newton's contribution to it was.
Still you are correct that math is our invention, just like physics or chemistry. They dont actually "exist" in that way.
But what I mean is, the mechanics of world is very well described by mathematics. I dont mean "world" in any spiritual sense. Every sequence of events we encounter we write down in mathematical terms, because it's what works.
That's what I meant.
Exactly my point.
Feelings are results of some large number of physical and chemical processes. And words is the result of our brain developing a way to communicate information, very slowly, very imprecisely, and with large amount of errors. All those things are driven by physics and chemistry (and not just them), which are described in math only. It's all math at the end.
I disagree there's a mathematical order... maybe "order" is not the best word here... there's mathematics. Chaos has not been yet measured, detected or predicted. Until then, the universe is deterministic. I didnt mean to say ordered or designed, just that it the effect is always goes after the cause, not the other way around. (sorry for my sloppy definition of determinism)Ketraar wrote: ↑Sun, 7. Jun 20, 14:28There is no order in the universe, it looks like order when you look back, entropy is always on the rise and things look like being in order only if you look broadly. Chaos dominates the universe and "only" a constant battle between "things" to get to their natural state is that makes stuff happen, but anyone thinking that there is some sort of design is only being fooled by the beauty of the current chaos. Enact the next 10 decisions you have to make by flipping a coin, then look back and ask yourself if it could have been any other way. It couldn't could it? You are here now so it HAD to be THAT way.
So the coin toss example, I'd say is fully predictable if you know required variables, without even involving probabilities since we arent dealing with micro scale.
Of course the kicker here is that each coin toss is unaware of a result of a previous coin toss, either in that room or anywhere else in the universe.
You did
It's a good story, I enjoyed it.Mightysword wrote: ↑Sun, 7. Jun 20, 09:02I believe I told this story before but in another thread in less detail.
Ok, so this is understood by all/most practitioners and monks? It's an interesting and distinct approach compared to some older Christianities for sure.Mightysword wrote: ↑Sun, 7. Jun 20, 09:02I'm free to cross them out from 'my version' of Buddhism. And I can do that without stepping on anyone toe. At its core, Buddhism gives pretty much free range to its practitioner what to believe and what to apply.
That's a good example. But it is an abstraction, nothing is wrong with that. It's unfortunately a fairly weakly defined one as it's a big unknown, but it's not unusual. We abstract things all the time.Mightysword wrote: ↑Sun, 7. Jun 20, 20:15Mentioned this before but: the problem of missing mass of the universe and dark-matter.
In fact, the invention of dark-matter to address something that can't not be currently explained, and the usage of place-holder concept as the current accepted explanation until it can be proven otherwise are both fairly ... religious approach don't you think. Just like the often question of "you can't prove religion but you can't disprove it either".
For example, - Force, potential energy, kinetic energy, acceleration. They sound different but they basically all describe different way to think of the same interactions. None of them "exist", but it's really handy to have them in order to make the calculations.
So the dark matter is there for basically same reason. Do you agree with that?
That is correct I am only speaking about the problems where logic is needed.Mightysword wrote: ↑Sun, 7. Jun 20, 20:15Also I think you're making an assumption: math is good at solving one specific type of problem - "logic" problem. But while it's often a good idea to have the decision making to be logical, you don't want society to be driven by pure hard-cold logic
I personally keep those concepts a bit separate. When I mean everything in the world, I mean the mechanics of this world not the social constructs of humans of different eras. Those change and not necessarily in any logical ways. [1]Mightysword wrote: ↑Sun, 7. Jun 20, 20:15Saying math (or even science) can explain everything is just as bad as a claim as the one saying religion can explain everything to me. Just like far left and far right are equally bad, the key is moderation in everything.
The human society of course doesnt need to run on pure logic along, it could use some, but we need some agreements on how to live better between ourselves that mathematics doesnt care about.
[1] but maybe that's a different discussion, of whether or not there's free will at all