There appears to be confusion over what math is. Math is pure and provable.

Fitting something on to math however is a different story. We do experiments and take measurements, thus putting numbers to the experiments. Numbers are real things.

We see a pattern that looks like a mathematical function. So we posit that the function represents what the experiment measures. We go out and try the experiment again. We use the function to attempt to predict the result. If it matches, closely, then we have a theory. Repeat the test a few hundred thousand times and it always matches then we declare it a law. However at no time do we posit that the math is how nature works. We just use it as a convenient tool to study problems.

---

First I will start by admitting I have not read every line of every post in this thread.

Being raised in the southeastern USA I was exposed at an early age to several manifestations of Christian faith. I settled on the Presbyterian Church and to ease the minds of friends and co-workers I have maintained minimal ties to that church.

Over the years I have come to believe that God or "the gods" are creations of the human mind and were invented for several practical reasons. The first and to me most important reason was to have a way to explain things that were not understood. If it rained too much God did it, if there was a drought God did it, if a volcano erupted God did it, if someone died too young God did it and so on. As we have increased our collective knowledge over the centuries the list of events that we didn't understand diminished as well as the extent of God's influence.

The second practical reason to promote the existence of God is behavior control of the lower classes. Law and order was to a large degree up to priests or the clergy to convince the general population that as long as they abided by the ten commandments or other moral code that their reward would be recieved in heaven. This served the purposes of the "upper" classes since it helped to preserve their status. If you can't convince John Doe to live by the rules any other way convince him that if he doesn't he will burn in hell for eternity.

While I believe there may be some form of superior being out there I can't believe he/she or it is aware of or participates in our daily lives. Too many bad things happen to good people while on the other hand too many bad people seem to get away with doing some terrible things. Why would God save one person from drowning in a flood while allowing thousands of children to die of starvation every day. It just doesn't add up. We need to face the fact that the world is what we make it and God, whether he is out there or not, isn't going to help.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Thank you Bob. My experience and opinion of religion is very much the same.

---

#resist

Being raised in the southeastern USA I was exposed at an early age to several manifestations of Christian faith. I settled on the Presbyterian Church and to ease the minds of friends and co-workers I have maintained minimal ties to that church.

And what if your friends and co-workers are doing exactly the same thing?

If so, is there really any foundations to that church?

And if there are no foundations to your local church, how many other churches are based on this fallacy?

So is there any basis to suppose the majority of the population of the USA is truly christian?

If that is so, why do they only want politicians that are members of christian churches, even if it is a christian church with a different perspective to their own?

Ex member of British Army who served in Northern Ireland.

I would suppose that if most others who profess to be Christian have similar beliefs as me then the Church serves more as a social club than a place of worship. So the members of the social club want to elect public officials that have similar foundations of behavior.

And I would suggest that you have little or no understanding of the effects of the "church" in the southeastern Bible belt of the USA

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Gary,

Merely convenient or also universal? I would posit that most mathematicians are Mathematical Platonists. And so are most people if they take the time to ponder the subject...

http://www.iep.utm.edu/mathplat/

I would suppose that if most others who profess to be Christian have similar beliefs as me then the Church serves more as a social club than a place of worship. So the members of the social club want to elect public officials that have similar foundations of behavior.

And I would suggest that you have little or no understanding of the effects of the "church" in the southeastern Bible belt of the USA

My most recent knowledge of the bible belt is from Rich Hall's "The Dirty South"
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xgd2v6_rich-halls-dirty-south-part-4_shortfilms

Are both of you (Volunteer tester and Rothamel) implying that there are mathematical objects? That the symbols we use for mathematics, refer to actual things, not dependent upon human minds for their existence?

Or, are one or both of you stating that they are completely abstracts and mind dependent with no anchor as it were in objective reality?

No, I said "not necessarily", which means they can have relationships to physical objects, but not always.

Statistical math, like all of math, deals with abstract concepts and theories that aren't necessarily directly related to objective reality.

I take issue with the above statement. Probability underlies all of statistics and set theory underlies all of probability. These issues are not abstact. Flip a coin 5000 times and the percentage of heads of heads will be very close to 50% and well within the Margin of error predicted by statistics. Axiomatic set theory is accepted as a valid proof of all mathematical theorems and mathematics stangely enough describes our world at least to the point of useful control of the things in our world such as the atom, electricity and the fact that our buildings and bridges tend not to fall down when proper math is employed.

All of man's progress and functioning involves abstraction, modeling and thought.

What good is math if the numbers are man-made, only agreed upon by those that are aware of the rules? It is in this sense that I refer to the maths as "abstract".

Are they, surely Pi is Pi no matter who or what works in out. the ratio between the circumference of a circle and it's diameter is 3.14159...:1 I do not see what is abstract about that.

Well, we certainly hope so. We have yet to confirm this with another race that has come to the same conclusion without being "educated" in our human systems.

There appears to be confusion over what math is. Math is pure and provable.

Fitting something on to math however is a different story. We do experiments and take measurements, thus putting numbers to the experiments. Numbers are real things.

We see a pattern that looks like a mathematical function. So we posit that the function represents what the experiment measures. We go out and try the experiment again. We use the function to attempt to predict the result. If it matches, closely, then we have a theory. Repeat the test a few hundred thousand times and it always matches then we declare it a law. However at no time do we posit that the math is how nature works. We just use it as a convenient tool to study problems.

I fully agree. I was afraid that people would seize on my "math is abstract" statement and not the "aren't necessarily related to objective reality", and I see that my fears were well founded.

(I will also accept the responsibility that I don't always choose the right words to fit my thoughts well enough to convey a specific message.)

"math is abstract"?

But now you say it isn't? O.K. then...

No round squares? No square circles?

"math is abstract"?

But now you say it isn't? O.K. then...

No round squares? No square circles?

Who, other than you, said math is no longer abstract? From the link provided by CMPO:

Mathematical platonism is any metaphysical account of mathematics that implies mathematical entities exist, that they are abstract, and that they are independent of all our rational activities.

Mathematical entities are abstract. No disagreement there (apart from you perhaps, and, maybe some confusion from WinterKnight). A circle is an abstraction, so it follows that the ratio represented by Pi is also an abstraction. Physical objects may have some resemblance to a circle, for instance, a bicycle wheel may look circular from a particular angle, though a bicycle wheel is not a circle.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Therefore Statistical math is not abstract.

Therefore the Statistical math that is applied to the Theory of Intelligent Design is just as valid as the math and theories used in Neo-Darwinism.

Therefore Statistical math is not abstract.

Therefore the Statistical math that is applied to the Theory of Intelligent Design is just as valid as the math and theories used in Neo-Darwinism.

Not sure how you managed the first therefore, why do you think statistical math is not abstract? What makes a mode any less abstract than Pi?

No clue how you managed the therefore, the validity of any approach is based, in part on the suitability of the tools, in part on the competence of the practitioners, in part the amount of verification, etc, etc. We've already seen that some of the practitioners are not particularly competent in their criticisms of Neo-Darwinism, they use statistics to support straw man arguments (e.g. the improbability of a chimpanzee evolving into a human).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Do you actually have to draw a circle to be able to calculate the ratio of the circumference:diameter?

Do you actually have to draw a circle to be able to calculate the ratio of the circumference:diameter?

without the circle there is no circumference or diameter to calculate.

---

Janice

Well I tried to get this thread back on topic. Oh well.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Do you actually have to draw a circle to be able to calculate the ratio of the circumference:diameter?

without the circle there is no circumference or diameter to calculate.

Ok lets ask that again.

Can I calculate the ratio of the Diameter/circumference of the circular shape I imagined in my head?

Do you actually have to draw a circle to be able to calculate the ratio of the circumference:diameter?

without the circle there is no circumference or diameter to calculate.

Ok lets ask that again.

Can I calculate the ratio of the Diameter/circumference of the circular shape I imagined in my head?

Yes. Pi is property of an abstract object, the abstract object is called a circle.

abstract

thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.

The platonist will likely say that when we draw a circle, we are not drawing The Circle, as that Form is non-physical, perfect, eternal, and unchangeable (i.e. abstract), while the drawing is an imperfect representation of the Form. Pi is a property of the Form.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

All of what you think is reality is an abstraction of what you see and experience in the world. Abstraction, manipulation and thought are how we function. Often in terms of what we already believe, not completely correctly, to be true reality/