For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Religion is about an abstract Platonic being of which we can only see the subtle Platonic shadows.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 7:02 am There is nothing in your holy texts that support the chasing of Platonic shadows.
Can you produce evidences that your God said so.godelian wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 7:15 amReligion is about an abstract Platonic being of which we can only see the subtle Platonic shadows.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 7:02 am There is nothing in your holy texts that support the chasing of Platonic shadows.
God is limitatively:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 7:25 amCan you produce evidences that your God said so.godelian wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 7:15 amReligion is about an abstract Platonic being of which we can only see the subtle Platonic shadows.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 7:02 am There is nothing in your holy texts that support the chasing of Platonic shadows.
Similar teaching:https://islamqa.info/en/answers/130759/ ... her-bodies
Praise be to Allah.
The idea that Allah is a body [physical being] not like other bodies is not correct, because there is nothing in the Qur’an or Sunnah to indicate that Allah, may He be exalted, may be described as being a body. The basic principle that is followed by Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah is that Allah, may He be exalted, is to be described in the ways that He has described Himself or His Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) has described Him. So we should not go beyond what is mentioned in the Qur’an and hadith. But if the one who believes that He is a body wants to affirm that Allah, may He be exalted, is all-hearing and all-seeing, that He speaks, that He rose over His Throne, and that He may be seen and referred to, and other attributes, it may be said to him: These attributes are true, but you are mistaken when you refer to them or some of them in terms of Him being a body. Hence this wording is not known from the early generations of this ummah.
This teaching mentions quite a few verses from the Quran to support this view, but I am not going to paste it all here.https://preciousgemsfromthequranandsunn ... ing-allah/
Allāh (سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ ) tells us some of His qualities that have physical names. When we study these qualities, we should keep in mind the following guidelines:
1. These qualities are real, because what Allāh (ﷻ) tells us about Himself is real and accurate.
2. These qualities cannot have physical meanings, because they belong to Allāh (ﷻ) who created the physical world where we live.
3. We cannot imagine how these qualities are for Allāh (ﷻ), because this is beyond our human ability
4. We know for sure that Allah’s (ﷻ) qualities are not like any of His creation.
5. We know for sure that Allāh’s (ﷻ) qualities are most supreme and perfect.
6. We only describe Allah (ﷻ) with the qualities of physical names that He describes Himself with. For example, we cannot say that Allāh has a body, because He does not say this.
Your above are merely personal claims.godelian wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 8:01 amGod is limitatively:
(1) a collection of positive attributes;
(2) the creator of the heavens and the earth.
Every other description is rejected in Islam, according to the following jurisprudential ruling:
Similar teaching:https://islamqa.info/en/answers/130759/ ... her-bodies
Praise be to Allah.
The idea that Allah is a body [physical being] not like other bodies is not correct, because there is nothing in the Qur’an or Sunnah to indicate that Allah, may He be exalted, may be described as being a body. The basic principle that is followed by Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah is that Allah, may He be exalted, is to be described in the ways that He has described Himself or His Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) has described Him. So we should not go beyond what is mentioned in the Qur’an and hadith. But if the one who believes that He is a body wants to affirm that Allah, may He be exalted, is all-hearing and all-seeing, that He speaks, that He rose over His Throne, and that He may be seen and referred to, and other attributes, it may be said to him: These attributes are true, but you are mistaken when you refer to them or some of them in terms of Him being a body. Hence this wording is not known from the early generations of this ummah.
This teaching mentions quite a few verses from the Quran to support this view, but I am not going to paste it all here.https://preciousgemsfromthequranandsunn ... ing-allah/
Allāh (سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ ) tells us some of His qualities that have physical names. When we study these qualities, we should keep in mind the following guidelines:
1. These qualities are real, because what Allāh (ﷻ) tells us about Himself is real and accurate.
2. These qualities cannot have physical meanings, because they belong to Allāh (ﷻ) who created the physical world where we live.
3. We cannot imagine how these qualities are for Allāh (ﷻ), because this is beyond our human ability
4. We know for sure that Allah’s (ﷻ) qualities are not like any of His creation.
5. We know for sure that Allāh’s (ﷻ) qualities are most supreme and perfect.
6. We only describe Allah (ﷻ) with the qualities of physical names that He describes Himself with. For example, we cannot say that Allāh has a body, because He does not say this.
We cannot physically see God with our eyes. We can see, however, subtle hints even across our very small part of the universe which are consistent with what the holy scripture says.
Your God has Face, Eyes, Hands, Fingers, Leg, Foot although they would be different from human ones.godelian wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 6:57 amNot true. God has no physical body. This is a similar situation as with numbers or sets. They do not have physical bodies either.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 6:37 am It is an insult & blasphemous to identity your God as merely a Platonic abstract being.
If the multiverse exists, it is real. However, how are you going to observe that from within this universe? We can only see this from the structural similarity with the universe of the natural numbers. Furthermore, according to your definition for reality, the multiverse is not real, as it is not part of our universe, since it is exactly the other way around.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 8:13 am To exists as real, your God has to be physical at least in the physics sense which is not restricted to directly observable things but also the indirectly observable, e.g. gravity and other forces and powers.
Plato's shadows on the cave were illusions that fool human beings. How do we know who is seeing "reality" and who isn't? Is anyone seeing "reality"? Or do we all see "reality"? Do some see reality and others do not?godelian wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 8:45 amIf the multiverse exists, it is real. However, how are you going to observe that from within this universe? We can only see this from the structural similarity with the universe of the natural numbers. Furthermore, according to your definition for reality, the multiverse is not real, as it is not part of our universe, since it is exactly the other way around.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 8:13 am To exists as real, your God has to be physical at least in the physics sense which is not restricted to directly observable things but also the indirectly observable, e.g. gravity and other forces and powers.
It is the same problem as people in antiquity who could see from subtle hints that the earth was round. How were they, however, going to demonstrate that it was true? Eratosthenes knew it was true just by looking at Platonic shadows. He even correctly computed the circumference of the earth. Eratosthenes was, however, not in a position that he could try to circumnavigate the Earth, just like it is not possible for us to circumnavigate our multiverse.
Sometimes, all we have, are Platonic shadows.
I don't agree with the typical theory of the multiverse.godelian wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 8:45 amIf the multiverse exists, it is real. However, how are you going to observe that from within this universe? We can only see this from the structural similarity with the universe of the natural numbers. Furthermore, according to your definition for reality, the multiverse is not real, as it is not part of our universe, since it is exactly the other way around.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 8:13 am To exists as real, your God has to be physical at least in the physics sense which is not restricted to directly observable things but also the indirectly observable, e.g. gravity and other forces and powers.
That the Earth was round was not computed but earlier speculated and inferred based on empirical evidences and at present based directly in empirical evidences.It is the same problem as people in antiquity who could see from subtle hints that the earth was round. How were they, however, going to demonstrate that it was true? Eratosthenes knew it was true just by looking at Platonic shadows. He even correctly computed the circumference of the earth. Eratosthenes was, however, not in a position that he could try to circumnavigate the Earth, just like it is not possible for us to circumnavigate our multiverse.
Sometimes, all we have, are Platonic shadows.
Eratosthenes' approach was not scientific, simply because a scientific approach was not possible in his time. He did not have the option to circumnavigate the earth. His approach was mathematical only. He made use of subtle Platonic shadows left by the unknown shape of the earth to figure out the bigger picture.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 3:54 am That the Earth was round was not computed but earlier speculated and inferred based on empirical evidences and at present based directly in empirical evidences.
Eratosthenes' approach was not illusory. His take on the shape of the earth was not illusory at all.
If science can be applied, then by all means, apply it. However, the problem may not lend itself to science. In fact, most real-world problems arguably do not lend themselves to a scientific approach.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 3:54 am I have argued the scientific framework and system is the gold standard of reality.
You confuse science with mathematics here. Again, science is not about provability but about testability. Proof is always about Platonic abstractions. Therefore, the phrase "proven to be real" is always and in every case necessarily nonsensical.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 3:54 am By definition, your God cannot be proven to be real.
Seriously, scientism is objectively stupid, and considered stupid by the vast majority of scientists.https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ab ... 90542815D0
Scientific epistemology begins from the idea that the truth of a universal statement, such as a scientific law, can never be conclusively proved. No matter how successful a hypothesis has been in the past, it can always turn out to make incorrect predictions when applied in a new situation.
If it is 'real' then it can be deal with scientifically, either speculated or theorized based in the principle of empirical possibility.godelian wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 4:24 amEratosthenes' approach was not scientific, simply because a scientific approach was not possible in his time. He did not have the option to circumnavigate the earth. His approach was mathematical only. He made use of subtle Platonic shadows left by the unknown shape of the earth to figure out the bigger picture.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 3:54 am That the Earth was round was not computed but earlier speculated and inferred based on empirical evidences and at present based directly in empirical evidences.
Eratosthenes' approach was not illusory. His take on the shape of the earth was not illusory at all.
If science can be applied, then by all means, apply it. However, the problem may not lend itself to science. In fact, most real-world problems arguably do not lend themselves to a scientific approach.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 3:54 am I have argued the scientific framework and system is the gold standard of reality.
There are two senses of 'prove' and proof, i.e.You confuse science with mathematics here. Again, science is not about provability but about testability. Proof is always about Platonic abstractions. Therefore, the phrase "proven to be real" is always and in every case necessarily nonsensical.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 3:54 am By definition, your God cannot be proven to be real.
We have already discussed the epistomology of science umpteen times and you keep repeating the same bullshit about proof in science. What you write, is simply in violation of every standard textbook on the epistemology of science, first chapter, first paragraph:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ab ... 90542815D0
Scientific epistemology begins from the idea that the truth of a universal statement, such as a scientific law, can never be conclusively proved. No matter how successful a hypothesis has been in the past, it can always turn out to make incorrect predictions when applied in a new situation.
That is a strawman.Seriously, scientism is objectively stupid, and considered stupid by the vast majority of scientists.
Historical facts are empirical but cannot be tested either. They are justified by witness depositions. Science is not the only method, even when it is about the physical universe. A lot of claims about the physical universe cannot be tested. Testability is the exception and not the rule.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 5:30 am If it is 'real' then it can be deal with scientifically, either speculated or theorized based in the principle of empirical possibility.
Mathematical realism is not about empirical entities but its objects are nonetheless very real.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 5:30 am On the other hand, with perfect circles, perfect God, they are not empirically possible, thus it is a non-starter to question whether they are real.
Science uses the term "proof" in a mathematical sense. It simply constitutes abuse of terminology to use the layman meaning for "proof" in the context of science. Furthermore, the informal meaning of "proof" is plain wrong. Furthermore, science is is falsificationist and not verificationist. You are almost a century behind on the epistemology of science. Science does not confirm by verifying:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 5:30 am There are two senses of 'prove' and proof, i.e.
1. Ordinary sense
2. Mathematical sense.
When I refer to scientific proof, it meant verifying [testing] and justifying the claim via the scientific method.
Science does not look for examples that confirm a theory but for counterexamples that invalidate it. Science eventually always finds these counterexamples. Hence, all scientific theories are deemed to be mathematically false. Therefore, the very idea that science would be the benchmark for truth is simply absurd.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Falsifiability is a deductive standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses, introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934).[ B] A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable (or refutable) if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test.
Popper emphasized the asymmetry created by the relation of a universal law with basic observation statements[C] and contrasted falsifiability to the intuitively similar concept of verifiability that was then current in logical positivism. He argued that the only way to verify a claim such as "All swans are white" would be if one could theoretically observe all swans,[D] which is not possible. On the other hand, the falsifiability requirement for an anomalous instance, such as the observation of a single black swan, is theoretically reasonable and sufficient to logically falsify the claim.
In science itself, mathematics is the gold standard for truth. So, your views are circular.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 5:30 am I accept there are others approaches in establishing 'what is reality' with varying degrees of credibility and objectivity with Science as the gold-standard.
Experimental testing does not yield absolute certainty. It can certainly never be used to attack mathematical proof. You are the only one who tries that. Furthermore, your definition for the term "reality" is also flawed. Abstractions are real. They are not physical but they are perfectly real. You are trying to shoehorn absurd arguments into some kind of failed proof that "God does not exist". The question cannot be addressed by science, simply because there is nothing to test. Furthermore, the fact that there is nothing to test, does not make the claim false. For example, there is nothing to test about history.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 5:30 am I claimed the scientific method is the most credible and objective approach to verify and justify reality.
For any Framework and System [FS], there are a varying degrees of credibility and objectivity within itself [intra-]. Example there is a difference in terms of reality if we compare 'water is H20' [testable and repeatable] which very credible to the extreme the Big Bang Theory or Evolution Theory [not testable and repeatable].godelian wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 6:41 amHistorical facts are empirical but cannot be tested either. They are justified by witness depositions. Science is not the only method, even when it is about the physical universe. A lot of claims about the physical universe cannot be tested. Testability is the exception and not the rule.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 5:30 am If it is 'real' then it can be deal with scientifically, either speculated or theorized based in the principle of empirical possibility.
Note if rated in terms of reality, mathematics is 20/100 compared to science at 100/100 indexed as the gold standard.Mathematical realism is not about empirical entities but its objects are nonetheless very real.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 5:30 am On the other hand, with perfect circles, perfect God, they are not empirically possible, thus it is a non-starter to question whether they are real.
The above are very contentious issues.Science uses the term "proof" in a mathematical sense. It simply constitutes abuse of terminology to use the layman meaning for "proof" in the context of science. Furthermore, the informal meaning of "proof" is plain wrong. Furthermore, science is is falsificationist and not verificationist. You are almost a century behind on the epistemology of science. Science does not confirm by verifying:Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 5:30 am There are two senses of 'prove' and proof, i.e.
1. Ordinary sense
2. Mathematical sense.
When I refer to scientific proof, it meant verifying [testing] and justifying the claim via the scientific method.
Science does not look for examples that confirm a theory but for counterexamples that invalidate it. Science eventually always finds these counterexamples. Hence, all scientific theories are deemed to be mathematically false. Therefore, the very idea that science would be the benchmark for truth is simply absurd.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Falsifiability is a deductive standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses, introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934).[ B] A theory or hypothesis is falsifiable (or refutable) if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test.
Popper emphasized the asymmetry created by the relation of a universal law with basic observation statements[C] and contrasted falsifiability to the intuitively similar concept of verifiability that was then current in logical positivism. He argued that the only way to verify a claim such as "All swans are white" would be if one could theoretically observe all swans,[D] which is not possible. On the other hand, the falsifiability requirement for an anomalous instance, such as the observation of a single black swan, is theoretically reasonable and sufficient to logically falsify the claim.
Science is NEVER about absolute certainty.Science itself is the gold standard for reality, fact, truth and objectivity.In science itself, mathematics is the gold standard for truth. So, your views are circular.
The most critical criteria for science is the empirical and empirical possibility not mathematics which is not based on the empirical but merely human invented axioms.
Experimental testing does not yield absolute certainty. It can certainly never be used to attack mathematical proof. You are the only one who tries that. Furthermore, your definition for the term "reality" is also flawed. Abstractions are real. They are not physical but they are perfectly real. You are trying to shoehorn absurd arguments into some kind of failed proof that "God does not exist". The question cannot be addressed by science, simply because there is nothing to test. Furthermore, the fact that there is nothing to test, does not make the claim false. For example, there is nothing to test about history.
Another example. What you can see on your computer screen, is real. It is not physical but it is real nonetheless. Most jobs revolve around dealing with information on a computer screen. If you cannot deal with abstractions or virtualities -- that only exist on a computer screen -- then that is a you-problem.
Abstraction are real?Arthur Eddington proved Einstein's theory of general relativity during a solar eclipse in 1919. He observed that light from distant stars was bent as it passed the sun. This bending of light was predicted by Einstein's theory, which stated that gravity can warp space and time, causing light to follow a curved path. Eddington's observations matched Einstein's predictions, providing strong evidence for the theory.
Science and mathematics describe different realities.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 9:03 am The best of mathematics cannot be as realistic as the best of science.
Note if rated in terms of reality, mathematics is 20/100 compared to science at 100/100 indexed as the gold standard.
The most effective theory of truth is Tarski's theory of truth. It is mathematical.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 9:03 am Science itself is the gold standard for reality, fact, truth and objectivity.
We can achieve certainty about abstract, Platonic worlds.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 9:03 am In any case, absolutely absolute-certainty is an impossibility in terms of reality.
No, because it is a theory about the physical universe, of which we do not know the axiomatic foundation. Therefore, mathematical proof of relativity is impossible. Einstein merely used mathematical language but not proof.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 9:03 am Note the case of Einstein Theory of Relativity first proven by mathematics.
Relativity is not a mathematical theorem. It is physics. When a theory is about the physical universe, it is never mathematical. The use of mathematical notation won't make any difference. It can still not be mathematical.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 9:03 am But it is only proven [justified] to be convincingly true and real on the production of empirical evidences to confirm the mathematical model.
As stated, truth = real, fact, exists.godelian wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 9:46 amScience and mathematics describe different realities.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 9:03 am The best of mathematics cannot be as realistic as the best of science.
Note if rated in terms of reality, mathematics is 20/100 compared to science at 100/100 indexed as the gold standard.
Science is always about the physical universe.
Mathematics is never about the physical universe. It is about abstract, Platonic universes, that are equally real.
The most effective theory of truth is Tarski's theory of truth. It is mathematical.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 9:03 am Science itself is the gold standard for reality, fact, truth and objectivity.
Einstein initial hypothesis relied upon the principles of mathematics.We can achieve certainty about abstract, Platonic worlds.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 9:03 am In any case, absolutely absolute-certainty is an impossibility in terms of reality.
No, because it is a theory about the physical universe, of which we do not know the axiomatic foundation. Therefore, mathematical proof of relativity is impossible. Einstein merely used mathematical language but not proof.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 9:03 am Note the case of Einstein Theory of Relativity first proven by mathematics.
Relativity is not a mathematical theorem. It is physics. When a theory is about the physical universe, it is never mathematical. The use of mathematical notation won't make any difference. It can still not be mathematical.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 9:03 am But it is only proven [justified] to be convincingly true and real on the production of empirical evidences to confirm the mathematical model.
Truth and physical reality are not the same things.
What does the term "true" in "true arithmetic" have to do with the physical universe?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_arithmetic
In mathematical logic, true arithmetic is the set of all true first-order statements about the arithmetic of natural numbers.[1] This is the theory associated with the standard model of the Peano axioms in the language of the first-order Peano axioms.
The central result on true arithmetic is the undefinability theorem of Alfred Tarski (1936). It states that the set Th(N) is not arithmetically definable.
Post's theorem is a sharper version of the undefinability theorem that shows a relationship between the definability of Th(N) and the Turing degrees, using the arithmetical hierarchy.
Your own views on truth are completely divorced from the literature on the theory of truth. You are simply not familiar with the mathematical theory of truth.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 5:13 am I have demonstrated what is most credible and objective in terms of reality aka truth is from the scientific FS of polished conjectures.
Science uses mathematics to maintain consistency in what it says. That is why mathematical truth is the benchmark in science. Without mathematical truth, science collapses very quickly. You see science as the benchmark for truth, while science considers mathematics the benchmark for truth. Therefore, your views are circular.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 5:13 am Tarski's theory of truth is mathematical cannot be more real and truer than that of science.
No, it didn't. Einstein used mathematics only to maintain consistency in what he said. His hypothesis was essentially about the physical universe. That is why it is physics and not mathematics. Einstein never sought to prove anything. Einstein (more) accurately described things (than Newton did).Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 5:13 am Einstein initial hypothesis relied upon the principles of mathematics.
Mathematics does not say anything about the physical universe, if only, because there is no axiomatic foundation for doing so. Einstein merely used mathematics to express with maximum consistency what he wanted to say about the physical universe. His ideas turn out to be quite accurate. His stubborn observable pattern is a good match, while its mathematical description maximizes consistency.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 5:13 am If mathematic principles and truth are the most real, most true, there is no need for it to be confirmed with empirical evidences to be real.
Yes, that is exactly the power of mathematics.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 5:13 am Note the mathematical truth, i.e.
1+1=2 is the most certain mathematical truth as qualified within the mathematical FS.
But in terms of reality, it is meaningless and literally nonsensical [not sensual].
The above mathematical truth of 1+1=2 is only meaningful when it is contingent upon something realistic like apples or whatever the realistic thing.
Wrong. You assume again, incorrectly, that God would be a physical object in the physical universe. There is no religion on the planet that defines God as being a physical object in the physical universe. Your physicalism/materialism concerning God is not only incorrect. It is also completely irrelevant and entirely disconnected from what religion does. As I have pointed out already, your views are also incompatible with mathematics.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 5:13 am It is the same for Godel's Argument For God, in terms of reality, it is meaningless and literally nonsensical [not sensual]; it only meaningful when it is contingent upon something realistic like any psychical entity or whatever the realistic thing.
You are too mathematical bias and inclined which is not in exactly alignment with philosophical which is the essence of this Forum, i.e. a philosophical forum.godelian wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 6:40 amTruth and physical reality are not the same things.
Truth is belief that you adopt from the theory of truth that you accept.
For example, true arithmetic is the collection of all facts in the universe of natural numbers:
What does the term "true" in "true arithmetic" have to do with the physical universe?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_arithmetic
In mathematical logic, true arithmetic is the set of all true first-order statements about the arithmetic of natural numbers.[1] This is the theory associated with the standard model of the Peano axioms in the language of the first-order Peano axioms.
The central result on true arithmetic is the undefinability theorem of Alfred Tarski (1936). It states that the set Th(N) is not arithmetically definable.
Post's theorem is a sharper version of the undefinability theorem that shows a relationship between the definability of Th(N) and the Turing degrees, using the arithmetical hierarchy.
The reason why you limit truth to the physical universe, is because you are not familiar with the literature on the theory of truth. Logical truth is completely divorced from the physical universe. Mathematical truth too. In mathematics, truth is a Platonic abstraction.
Your own views on truth are completely divorced from the literature on the theory of truth. You are simply not familiar with the mathematical theory of truth.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 5:13 am I have demonstrated what is most credible and objective in terms of reality aka truth is from the scientific FS of polished conjectures.
Science uses mathematics to maintain consistency in what it says. That is why mathematical truth is the benchmark in science. Without mathematical truth, science collapses very quickly. You see science as the benchmark for truth, while science considers mathematics the benchmark for truth. Therefore, your views are circular.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 5:13 am Tarski's theory of truth is mathematical cannot be more real and truer than that of science.
No, it didn't. Einstein used mathematics only to maintain consistency in what he said. His hypothesis was essentially about the physical universe. That is why it is physics and not mathematics. Einstein never sought to prove anything. Einstein (more) accurately described things (than Newton did).Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 5:13 am Einstein initial hypothesis relied upon the principles of mathematics.
Mathematics does not say anything about the physical universe, if only, because there is no axiomatic foundation for doing so. Einstein merely used mathematics to express with maximum consistency what he wanted to say about the physical universe. His ideas turn out to be quite accurate. His stubborn observable pattern is a good match, while its mathematical description maximizes consistency.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 5:13 am If mathematic principles and truth are the most real, most true, there is no need for it to be confirmed with empirical evidences to be real.
Yes, that is exactly the power of mathematics.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 5:13 am Note the mathematical truth, i.e.
1+1=2 is the most certain mathematical truth as qualified within the mathematical FS.
But in terms of reality, it is meaningless and literally nonsensical [not sensual].
The above mathematical truth of 1+1=2 is only meaningful when it is contingent upon something realistic like apples or whatever the realistic thing.
Mathematics does not introduce meaning because that would only disturb the meaning to be introduced by downstream users. Describing the physical universe is just one of the many downstream users of mathematics. There are many other downstream users that do not care at all about physical reality. For example, video games do not care about physical reality. Instead, they create their own virtual world. Physical reality is not some kind of ultimate benchmark. It is often even irrelevant.Wrong. You assume again, incorrectly, that God would be a physical object in the physical universe. There is no religion on the planet that defines God as being a physical object in the physical universe. Your physicalism/materialism concerning God is not only incorrect. It is also completely irrelevant and entirely disconnected from what religion does. As I have pointed out already, your views are also incompatible with mathematics.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 5:13 am It is the same for Godel's Argument For God, in terms of reality, it is meaningless and literally nonsensical [not sensual]; it only meaningful when it is contingent upon something realistic like any psychical entity or whatever the realistic thing.
The physical universe by default is real and that is justified via the scientific-physic FS.Mathematics does not say anything about the physical universe, if only, because there is no axiomatic foundation for doing so.