killsmith:
i just dey laugh the guy since....they read a few pages and they come to carry their shoulder on the internet.

most of the people that hold its type of ideology are found in India, he even make a reference to it.

He has claimed to be a former researcher which I strongly believe he is lying .....

vaxx:
most of the people that hold its type of ideology are found in India, he even make a reference to it.

He has claimed to be a former researcher which I strongly believe he is lying .....

he's lying. He claims to be a pure mathematical researcher but he doesn't know the works of Gödel's as regards to the incompleteness and inconsistencies of logical systems. He just flipped a few books and he's showing off...I'm waiting for him.

killsmith:

Be patient. You're going to stumble anytime soon

As long as you don't get into repeating soundbites ad nauseam, and you have an understanding of what you are saying, we'll be fine.

If you just repeat at me what you have been told, but don't know enough to answer questions and critique the topic, then discussion will be worthless.

killsmith:
"if a system conforms to logic", isn't a mathematical system rooted in logic?

Mathematical systems are based (rooted) on axioms and logic.

killsmith:
Is it impossible for a consistent system to show or exhibit contradictions and ambiguities?

No.

The system defines what a "contradiction" or "ambiguity" is. If its logic allows them then they are consistent with the system.

killsmith:
Can you name a mathematical system that doesn't have a set of axioms and rules, as its base?

Already answered. See above.

killsmith:
In simple words, give an example of an inconsistent system.

The rational numbers as a group under multiplication.

killsmith:
he's lying. He claims to be a pure mathematical researcher but he doesn't know the works of Gödel's as regards to the incompleteness and inconsistencies of logical systems. He just flipped a few books and he's showing off...I'm waiting for him.

He probably will not come back, vaxx has become an eyesore for him, go read his thread bro. You will understand better.

This made me remember a Yoruba proverb that says-""Ogbon ologbon kii je ki a pe agba ni were""_other people's wisdom saves the elder from being called a fool(learn from other's experience) """

sinequanon:


As long as you don't get into repeating soundbites ad nauseam, and you have an understanding of what you are saying, we'll be fine.

If you just repeat at me what you have been told, but don't know enough to answer questions and critique the topic, then discussion will be worthless.



Mathematical systems are based (rooted) on axioms and logic.



No.

The system defines what a "contradiction" or "ambiguity" is. If its logic allows them then they are consistent with the system.



Already answered. See above.



The rational numbers as a group under multiplication.

what is consistency? And how is the set of rational numbers inconsistent?

killsmith:
what is consistency? And how is the set of rational numbers inconsistent?

In first order logical systems, the rule NOT (A AND NOT(A)) defines consistency.

I didn't say that the set of rational numbers is inconsistent.

I said that a system consisting of the rational numbers as a group under the operation of multiplication is inconsistent.

Did you understand any of the above?

sinequanon:


In first order logical systems, the rule NOT (A AND NOT(A)) defines consistency.

I didn't say that the set of rational numbers is inconsistent.

I said that a system consisting of the rational numbers as a group under the operation of multiplication is inconsistent.

Did you understand any of the above?

nobody has time to massage your ego. I asked you to give an example of a system that is inconsistent. You said the set of rational numbers as a group under multiplication. I want to know how "a system consisting of the rational numbers as a group under the operation of multiplication is inconsistent" as you claim. Can you give a logical proof that a superset of the set of rationals is inconsistent? You cannot just make claims and be dodging....


I honestly want to think you're mistaking inconsistency for incompleteness. If you are, then it'd mean you've been rambling all the while.

The set of real number is a superset of the set of rational.are you in anyway saying the set of real numbers, which is foundation of all physical scientific knowledge, inconsistent?

If yes, prove that the set of real numbers is inconsistent...

vaxx:
This made me remember a Yoruba proverb that says-""Ogbon ologbon kii je ki a pe agba ni were""_other people's wisdom saves the elder from being called a fool(learn from other's experience) """

truism.

killsmith:
nobody has time to massage your ego. I asked you to give an example of a system that is inconsistent. You said the set of rational numbers as a group under multiplication. I want to know how "a system consisting of the rational numbers as a group under the operation of multiplication is inconsistent" as you claim. Can you give a logical proof that a superset of the set of rationals is inconsistent? You cannot just make claims and be dodging....

2 x 0 = 1 x 0

Group axiom: Every element of a group has an inverse. Let 0^-1 be the multiplicative inverse of 0.

Multiply both sides by 0^-1

(2 x 0) x 0^-1 = (1 x 0) x 0^-1

Use distributive axiom

2 x (0 x 0^-1) = 1 x (0 x 0^-1)

Use inverse axiom

2 x 1 = 1 x 1

Use identity axiom

2 = 1

but 2 is not 1 by definiton

so we have statement A, i.e 2 = 1

and we have NOT statement A i.e 2 not = 1

i.e

NOT (A AND NOT(A))

CONTRADICTION as I said.

To the layman it is presented as "you can't divide by zero".

To the mathematician, it is "the rationals numbers do not form a group under multiplication"

killsmith:
I honestly want to think you're mistaking inconsistency for incompleteness. If you are, then it'd mean you've been rambling all the while.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistency

The syntactic definition states a theory T is consistent if and only if there is no formula phi such that both phi and its negation not phi are elements of the set T

That's what I wrote in short hand, if you replace A by phi.

We're done as I predicted. You are in way over your head.

killsmith:
truism.

This dude must be a clown. And he is now borrowing from Wikipedia to validate his proposition.

vaxx:


This dude must be a clown. And he is now borrowing from Wikipedia to validate his proposition.

Anytime you see this man on this forum claim that he's a pure mathematician, be kind enough to remind him that he will be never be a pure mathematician. Look at what he wrote as proof. There's a consistent and complete set called the set of REAL CLOSED FIELDS. I could post a link to educate him but like I told him, he was going to stumble. And he did.....


Don't take him seriously.

killsmith:
Anytime you see this man on this forum claim that he's a pure mathematician, be kind enough to remind him that he will be never be a pure mathematician. Look at what he wrote as proof. There's a consistent and complete set called the set of REAL CLOSED FIELDS. I could post a link to educate him but like I told him, he was going to stumble. And he did.....


Don't take him seriously.

Don't bother about posting a link, he said he is only interested in his own veiw/explanation. And any other veiw you will be providing will be tantamount to brainwashing or programming in his own feeble mind.

I am not a trained mathematician but I can tell you is ignorant on it. I deal with maths and additional maths often (it is related to my minor ""informatics"".There is this statement of fact that all mathematical statements are logical statements but all logical statements are not mathematical statements. For a statement to be mathematically be the fact , it needs to be both logically and scientifically be fact base. For a statement to be mathematically false, it needs to be either logically false or scientifically false. He is Ignorantly unaware that without science, the existence of mathematics/logic will be invalid.


I want to ask him for a mathematical solution on this. suppose is in the midst of a monumental headache, what would be his constant/logical mathematical solution that will relax or improve his health?

sinequanon:


2 x 0 = 1 x 0

Group axiom: Every element of a group has an inverse. Let 0^-1 be the multiplicative inverse of 0.

Multiply both sides by 0^-1

(2 x 0) x 0^-1 = (1 x 0) x 0^-1

Use distributive axiom

2 x (0 x 0^-1) = 1 x (0 x 0^-1)

Use inverse axiom

2 x 1 = 1 x 1

Use identity axiom

2 = 1

but 2 is not 1 by definition

so we have statement A, i.e 2 = 1

and we have NOT statement A i.e 2 not = 1

i.e

NOT (A AND NOT(A))

CONTRADICTION as I said.

To the layman it is presented as "you can't divide by zero".

To the mathematician, it is "the rationals numbers do not form a group under multiplication"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistency

See how you, sinequanon sent buda to school. Simple maths that everyone learns in primary school, you present it in such a way that buda went back to school to learn. And your educating of buda is not simply the obvious, but also the implications, philosophically, that 2 x 0 = 1 x 0, despite the wuruwuru in the proof that 2 x 1 = 1 x 1 See Zero to the power of zero.

I think that if you were less "I am so much more knowledgeable than everyone else", and were to stop committing the "vaxx fallacy" that states, "I have come to teach you less knowledgeable people so shut up and learn from me vaxx", you would be of greater benefit here. Because, as you can see, even when you might not quite be aware of it, people learn, regardless.

budaatum:

See how you, sinequanon sent buda to school. Simple maths that everyone learns in primary school, you present it in such a way that buda went back to school to learn. And your educating of buda is not simply the obvious, but also the implications, philosophically, that 2 x 0 = 1 x 0, despite the wuruwuru in the proof that 2 x 1 = 1 x 1 See Zero to the power of zero.

I think that if you were less "I am so much more knowledgeable than everyone else", and were to stop committing the "vaxx fallacy" that states, "I have come to teach you less knowledgeable people so shut up and learn from me vaxx", you would be of greater benefit here. Because, as you can see, even when you might not quite be aware of it, people learn, regardless.

why my moniker?

How you guys take reach here from Morality and Ethics?

adedoyin393:
_Your thread_! Listen to your supposedly unemotive self. Vaxx, let me inform you that I am now going to specifi y follow you so that I don't miss any post you make. I hope you clearly understand the implications of this!

My browser can't open your image, what are you trying to communicate?

PastorAIO:
How you guys take reach here from Morality and Ethics?

By some fake arse boasting.

This link might help bring things back on course:

https://www.kialo.com/can-faith-and-science-co-exist-10223/10223.0=10223.1/=10223.1

PastorAIO:
This link might help bring things back on course:

https://www.kialo.com/can-faith-and-science-co-exist-10223/10223.0=10223.1/=10223.1

Why? Where does faith come into it?

A very relevant question is, "what do we mean by science?" If the definition is too loose, then science can lay claim to all progress in human deliberation.

So I asked, "do animals do science?"

Animals investigate, experiment and learn, too, but is it science? I say not. Science is not just "tinkering" or trial and error. It is narrower than that. It excludes as "invalid" certain modes and patterns of observation. The justification for this exclusion is a value judgment, not rigorous logic. The question is how good a value judgment it is. What, if anything, do we sacrifice or compromise in this narrowing of outlook?

"Tinkering" is not science, but many technological discoveries have come about almost by accident. Inquisitiveness, tinkering and alertness have been the important factors, rather than any attempt to find uniform, underlying principles of the "universe". Often the proceeds of the "scientifically invalid" tinkering make their way into technology long before a scientifically satisfactory explanation has been agreed upon. Science cannot retrospectively call such discovery "science" just because they become viewed as "useful" and "progressive". Yet, that is what it tends to do. It is a circular and empty argument which arbitrarily defines science as "progress". The value judgment that is supposed to give science its credibility is based on some hyped, romanticized and contorted history of delivering utility

Since we have measured the value and credibility of science based on its perceived history of delivering utility, we also have to examine that "utility". You cannot divorce science from human morals and ethics, since its status and credibility comes from its history of satisfying moral and ethical requirements. What if science is just pandering to an evil nature?

sinequanon:


A very relevant question is, "what do we mean by science?" If

This question has been answer over time yet you still could not make sense out of it.

the definition is too loose, then science can lay claim to all progress in human deliberation.

The word loose here is subjective and it needs adequate explanation.... regarding progress, it will depends on what you mean. But if you mean human progress as it is measured base on what is consider objectively as standard of living, then we have adequately made undeniable advance on technology and agriculture which science play a leading role.

So I asked, "do animals do science?"

yes i earlier gave example of crows.

Animals investigate, experiment and learn, too, but is it science? I say not. Science is not just "tinkering" or trial and error. It is narrower than that. It excludes as "invalid" certain modes and patterns of observation. The justification for this exclusion is a value judgment, not rigorous logic

You are now philosophising, philosophy itself is a value judgement, flexibility and adaptability which are the concepts that are formed through philosophizing. You seem to be asking /suggesting if science can be interpreted with such veiw ? Or in agreement with such tendency Which is a category of thinking through specific subsets of philosophical thought. And i said if that is the case It will only lead to tautological conclusion because Science follow an objective model .so it is a critical judgement Which is not base on personal.bias

scientific methodology is base on rigorous, logical and inflexible act. it a critical judgment , I shall be given diagram illustration below to better position this argument.

The question is how good a value judgment it is. What, if anything, do we sacrifice or compromise in this narrowing of outlook?

science is a critical judgment which is simply base on measuring and quantifying, that is base on generally acceptable phenomenon.

"

Tinkering" is not science, but many technological discoveries have come about almost by accident. Inquisitiveness, tinkering and alertness have been the important factors, rather than any attempt to find uniform, underlying principles of the "universe". Often the proceeds of the "scientifically invalid" tinkering make their way into technology long before a scientifically satisfactory explanation has been agreed upon. Science cannot retrospectively call such discovery "science" just because they become viewed as "useful" and "progressive". Yet, that is what it tends to do. It is a circular and empty argument which arbitrarily defines science as "progress". The value judgment that is supposed to give science its credibility is based on some hyped, romanticized and contorted history of delivering utility

Not so true, tinkering might not neccasrily be science, but it is base on the informed knowledge it pursuit to process it's own information to do something. And if inqusitveness is the main factor leading to technology then what it is doing is science, science does not appear to formerly become science, science begins with the use of applying critical judgment to validate its position and explanations,

Even on a philosophical point of view , not much has really been done since Ancient Greece, besides a couple of Enlightenment thinkers here and there.

Social progress, such as equality for women, homosexuals, etc., is not progress. It is rather a turning back of regressive "progress" caused by dogmatic fairy tales.

The rest? Governments, technology, even literature has been allowed by scientific progress the root of inqusitive.


The below diagram is what science is all about, and in a valid opinion, I say, human progress start with science.

It seems Catholicism has solved the issue of morality in science, albeit by placing it slightly beneath the not-so-scientific, faith

159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
PART ONE: SECTION ONE. CHAPTER THREE .Article 1, III.

budaatum:
It seems Catholicism has solved the issue of morality in science, albeit by placing it slightly beneath the not-so-scientific, faith

159 Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
PART ONE: SECTION ONE. CHAPTER THREE .Article 1, III.

faith for Catholics isn't unscientific, it takes of where science leaves off, it is not opposed to science, it transcends it

Ubenedictus:
faith for Catholics isn't unscientific, it takes of where science leaves off, it is not opposed to science, it transcends it

Science, itself, IS FAITH BASED. Unlike mathematics, which postulates it axioms, science ASSERTS its axioms.

In mathematics, axioms are viewed as initial ASSUMPTIONS.

In science, axioms are treated as FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS. They are DOGMA. Science is founded on FAITH in DOGMA.

As you can see from this thread, it is pointless arguing with people who are brainwashed by the DOGMA of science. All they do is repeat the dogma, while lacking insight into them. They don't address the issues because they cannot -- they lack the background and insight to know what the issue is, or realize that they are spewing DOGMA. Hence their incessant repetition and regurgitation of science PR.

As soon as you assert initial ASSUMPTIONS as "TRUTHS", you have crossed the line into FAITH, and that is what modern science has done.

Ubenedictus:
faith for Catholics isn't unscientific, it takes of where science leaves off, it is not opposed to science, it transcends it

Catholicism would have no choice but to be scientific, considering its history with science. It has blindly believed in the past and found egg on its face so it very rightly adopted what physical evidence showed. It is for this reason that Pentecostals would claim Catholics are heretics. They, the Pentys, haven't got the historical knowledge the Catholics have, yet.

However, in that Article, it clearly attempts to place faith above reason, though with the caveat that "there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason". And in reality, rather unfortunately, when there is discrepancy, the majority, being non-scientific, would go for faith above reason since they are less able to transcend. That Catholicism, amongst all Christian sects however, is the most intellectually advanced of all is incontestable. Though, amongst the laity, this might not be so obvious especially in a country like Nigeria where access to information is limited.
.
But its changing for the positive thanks to advances in science and technology and the human being's ability to reason. I got my Quran from the Metropolitan Cathedral of the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, is a case in point. It takes great wisdom and huge advancement in intellect to get to the point whereby it is reasoned that ones neighbour is ones neighbour despite the neighbour's religion. Another is the predominantly Catholic Ireland's adoption of the right to abortions. These are indicative of humans gorging on the fruits of knowledge.

Soon even the cherubim and flaming sword flashing back and forth would take forced retirement. We humans would then reach up and pluck of the fruit of the Tree of Life itself and eat. Perhaps then our life expectancy would transcend to a more healthy 3 score and ten, instead of the pitiable lowly 53.05 years it currently languishes at. I live in hope supported by my faith in my fellow human beings that it won't be too long a wait.

Does the Catholic Church have a university in Nigeria yet?

sinequanon:



In science, axioms are treated as FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS. They are DOGMA. Science is founded on FAITH

You are always confusing yourself, I am here to correct your error, don't have your time yet, we respond to you flawed post when at my spacious time.

Faiths in science are a bit different from other faith of believers, Nor dogma that you are trying to claim.scientific faith rested on research to support them that have been accepted as true for the sake of mental convenience . The faith made in science are based on observations about the natural world and form the foundations of hypotheses and theories. Scientific as include the idea that observations about the world around us have natural explanations and that these occurrences are predictable. For instance, if you were to drop a ball, you may predict that the ball will fall down unless another force makes it move in another direction. The assumption/ faith is that the ball will fall down because of gravity.

sinequanon:


Science, itself, IS FAITH BASED. Unlike mathematics, which postulates it axioms, science ASSERTS its axioms.

No learned person will argue if science is not a faith base, but the faith base position of science differ from that of believer, science faith base is rooted in established/empirical evidence. For example it will always be dark at night. This is a verified truth that is likely to happen all the time.

In mathematics, axioms are viewed as initial ASSUMPTIONS

.The thing is, the axioms use in scientific method is for all practical purposes/uses and it is mathematically provable through probability theory. That bayes theory.(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem)wh ich means as one believe that mathematics is correct, one must also believe the scientific method approaches is "truth." Unless the very individual is speaking base on ignorance Go learn, I doubt you to be mathemcian, no sound academia will postulate this nonsense. .

So Could mathematics be wrong? Yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems).

Moreover, even if mathematics does end up contradicting itself, its unlikely to affect probability theory which really relies more on arithmetic (of which another formulation could be found).

In science, axioms are treated as FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS. They are DOGMA. Science is founded on FAITH in DOGMA.

i think your ability not to see your wrongness and criticised your own writing base on what others are presenting to you is dogma on its own .

I advice You to better your ignorance by reading on Wikipedia, ""theory of relative of wrong or any other public source if you will not see it as brainwashing. But this is a summary of it . ""When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

Science is a theory that provably approaches the true laws underlying the universe. The work of scientists is to update, upgrade and falsify existing theory. This is the way science faith works, it is ready to be adjusted as new evidence state otherwise, law of relativity came to modify gravitational theory.

As you can see from this thread, it is pointless arguing with people who are brainwashed by the DOGMA of science. All they do is repeat the dogma, while lacking insight into them. They don't address the issues because they cannot -- they lack the background and insight to know what the issue is, or realize that they are spewing DOGMA. Hence their incessant repetition and regurgitation of science PR.

I think you spew dogma more than the rest of us here. In fact, your postulation shows you had very little information of what you typing, how can you be seperating mathimatics from science. The later validate the former, without the later , the former is useless.

As soon as you assert initial ASSUMPTIONS as "TRUTHS", you have crossed the line into FAITH, and that is what modern science has done.i think your ability not

Yes , Science is faith base that strives to provide evidence which is testable, measurable and re-produceable, therefore establishes a truth that is base on evidence. That is, if I do this under these conditions, this is what will happen. This is indeed a rational faith that rested on knowledge .

budaatum:

Catholicism would have no choice but to be scientific, considering its history with science. It has blindly believed in the past and found egg on its face so it very rightly adopted what physical evidence showed. It is for this reason that Pentecostals would claim Catholics are heretics. They, the Pentys, haven't got the historical knowledge the Catholics have, yet.

However, in that Article, it clearly attempts to place faith above reason, though with the caveat that "there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason". And in reality, rather unfortunately, when there is discrepancy, the majority, being non-scientific, would go for faith above reason since they are less able to transcend. That Catholicism, amongst all Christian sects however, is the most intellectually advanced of all is incontestable. Though, amongst the laity, this might not be so obvious especially in a country like Nigeria where access to information is limited.
.
But its changing for the positive thanks to advances in science and technology and the human being's ability to reason. I got my Quran from the Metropolitan Cathedral of the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, is a case in point. It takes great wisdom and huge advancement in intellect to get to the point whereby it is reasoned that ones neighbour is ones neighbour despite the neighbour's religion. Another is the predominantly Catholic Ireland's adoption of the right to abortions. These are indicative of humans gorging on the fruits of knowledge.

Soon even the cherubim and flaming sword flashing back and forth would take forced retirement. We humans would then reach up and pluck of the fruit of the Tree of Life itself and eat. Perhaps then our life expectancy would transcend to a more healthy 3 score and ten, instead of the pitiable lowly 53.05 years it currently languishes at. I live in hope supported by my faith in my fellow human beings that it won't be too long a wait.

Does the Catholic Church have a university in Nigeria yet?

actually the last time I checked the Catholic church had a pretty good record with science, we pretty much built the schools that taught science, and sponsored the scientists and their enquiry. Almost all the universities of Europe at the time was church built, church founded and maintained by the church.


And yes the Catholic church through her priests and dioceses do have universities in Nigeria.