Those who have read my essay "What is God," at:
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/god.htm
might be interesed in God-related conceptual difficulties of some preachers, quoted at:
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/god2.htm
Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia).
Please share these links with those who might be interested.
I don't subscribe to NOMA's claim, "The first step toward mutual respect between theists and atheists should be the recognition that most people on earth are surrounded by material structure and by spiritual superstructure." Maybe to you it is the equivalent of an axiom, it isn't to me. You are postulating something existing outside of scientific enquiry, and that leaves the door open to any unverifiable hypothesis. We might as well believe in invisible unicorns, elves, Zeus or any imaginary entity that our mind can create.
My favorite rabbi is a rebbe, Rebbe Nachman of Bratislav. He was a spiritual storyteller, prayer warrior and died 200 years ago. He was initially intrigued by Kabbalah, being a descendant of Baal Shem Tov, but dropped that particular "spiritual superstructure" in favor of humble simplicity.
So yes, imaginary entities are wonderful creations of human beings ... but they aren't epistemology, they are aesthetics. I agree with my Rebbe, that speculative metaphysics is ... questionable and arrogant. If I created a story ... and someone doesn't appreciate it, then they can listen to another or make their own.
Here we go again with the God of the gaps in our knowledge and many assumptions about the universe and imaginary magical aspects of energy. :021: :1rij: :ecomcity: This is an example of top down thinking with the assumption and faith of a God first, to explain everything below that is unknown. :wall:
"Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler" ... Einstein. Sophisticated theology doesn't adhere to this advice.
Good reply!
Quote from: Baruch on September 30, 2015, 07:52:26 PM
My favorite rabbi is a rebbe, Rebbe Nachman of Bratislav. He was a spiritual storyteller, prayer warrior and died 200 years ago. He was initially intrigued by Kabbalah, being a descendant of Baal Shem Tov, but dropped that particular "spiritual superstructure" in favor of humble simplicity.
So yes, imaginary entities are wonderful creations of human beings ... but they aren't epistemology, they are aesthetics. I agree with my Rebbe, that speculative metaphysics is ... questionable and arrogant. If I created a story ... and someone doesn't appreciate it, then they can listen to another or make their own.
Unfortunate this not the mind of the religious nutcase who wants his fantasy to be your fantasy, or is offended when you question the nature of his fantasy. The fantasy has become the truth, the only truth and how dare you to not believe in it!
Generally rabbis are smarter than priests and imams .. but then I am prejudiced ;-) Some Jews are storytellers, others are physicists. Wanting everyone to be a physicist is just as manic as our Catholic poster. Because as any mathematician can tell you, physicists don't understand math ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on October 02, 2015, 06:53:07 AM
Generally rabbis are smarter than priests and imams .. but then I am prejudiced ;-) Some Jews are storytellers, others are physicists. Wanting everyone to be a physicist is just as manic as our Catholic poster. Because as any mathematician can tell you, physicists don't understand math ;-)
I beg to differ. A great part of math was invented by physicists - and most of contemporary is directly from String theorists. Know your facts before...
Physicists don't understand math? All this time........
Quote from: stromboli on October 02, 2015, 09:34:28 AM
Physicists don't understand math? All this time........
Guilty. We're the one saying that AxB not necessarily equal to BxA...:d030:
Quote from: stromboli on October 02, 2015, 09:34:28 AM
Physicists don't understand math? All this time........
That is what mathematicians say ... when the physicists aren't at the cocktail party ;-) Sometimes even the mathematicians don't understand their own stuff ... but they only think about that when on the potty. If mathematicians understood numbers, there would be no need for number theory. It took over 2000 years for Euclidean geometry to be rigorously understood. So obviously even Euclid didn't fully understand what he was doing.
Yes, Fourier did some excellent mathematics. But when he was doing it, was he a physicist or was he a mathematician ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on October 02, 2015, 01:21:04 PM
Yes, Fourier, Euler, Lagrange, Gauss, Riemann, Hamilton did some excellent mathematics. But when he was they were doing it, was he were they physicists or was he were they mathematicians ;-)
FIFY
On that last question, I paraphrase Newton ... i make no hypotheses ;-)
My math is along the lines of measure twice, cut once.
Quote from: stromboli on October 02, 2015, 09:31:29 PM
My math is along the lines of measure twice, cut once.
(Jeopardy) What is topology?
Not answering for Stromboli and carpentry ... but cutting isn't allowed in topology, just stretching and folding the clothes after being cleaned ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on October 03, 2015, 06:29:11 AM
Not answering for Stromboli and carpentry ... but cutting isn't allowed in topology, just stretching and folding the clothes after being cleaned ;-)
You're right I was thinking of Dedekind cut, which is more in set theory than in topology.
Yes, if your daughter mentions the Dedekind Cut ... call 911! She responds with ... "get Real, dad".
Quote from: Baruch on October 03, 2015, 11:10:54 AM
Yes, if your daughter mentions the Dedekind Cut ... call 911! She responds with ... "get Real, dad".
Does that mean you need extra care when you raise a daughter?!??
Maybe knot (calling knot theorist) ... a topologist father wouldn't be concerned with anorexia/bulemia ... since the "genus" of his daughter is still the same (technically a toroid, just like our worm ancestors).
Quote from: Baruch on October 03, 2015, 11:21:04 AM
Maybe knot (calling knot theorist) ... a topologist father wouldn't be concerned with anorexia/bulemia ... since the "genus" of his daughter is still the same (technically a toroid, just like our worm ancestors).
Yikes, I ain't responding this...
Don't you think that embryology is a fertile place for topological research? ;-)
:017:
Time lapse of an embryo, first it is a sphere, then it folds in on itself ... plus my use of "fertile".
Research... no. All topological spaces have already been explored. I would classify this kind of research as infertile. (Euler is not proud of you).
Really? The general metrizability problem (of a topological space) remains ... well worked, but not completely solved. So further research there, will continue to impinge metrical theories like GR.
Granted but it has nothing with embryos. The biologists don't have to learn topology.