h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think that's a question for Julian Jaynes and Daniel Denett, don't you?

- Jordan

Quibbles quibbles quibbles! Jordan & mwp you're just waffling!

Anyway "ice=frozen water" is a perfectly cromulent statement and actually explains something. So does "God=universal consciousness", in my humblest of opinions.

Formulae don't have to behave, particularly.

E=mc*squared* is very badly behaved; multiplying mass by a speed is jumbling the categories in a most ungentlemanly way, but it's still a formula, and seems to mean a lot to those wot know.

the fact is i'm neither a scientist nor a mathematician so i am in no way qualified to provide the exact semantics of the word 'formula' and it's various applications.

the original point i was humbly attempting to raise was simply to question the presupposition that formula (of any kind), mathematical proofs or logical statements are really adequete dialectical tools in discussing god.

i think that they can take you to a point but in the end i think it all dissolves away into mystery.

however, from a lingustic standpoint calling ice frozen water or calling god the universal consciousness (which i'm not inclinded to disagree with) is simply an exercise in providing synonyms. using an equals sign in place of "is" in its copulative function is just symbolically making the statement.

but again science and math isn't really my game so it could quite easily mean much more than that.

the fact is i'm neither a scientist nor a mathematician so i am in no way qualified to provide the exact semantics of the word 'formula' and it's various applications.

the original point i was humbly attempting to raise was simply to question the presupposition that formula (of any kind), mathematical proofs or logical statements are really adequete dialectical tools in discussing god.

i think that they can take you to a point but in the end i think it all dissolves away into mystery.

however, from a lingustic standpoint calling ice frozen water or calling god the universal consciousness (which i'm not inclinded to disagree with) is simply an exercise in providing synonyms. using an equals sign in place of "is" in its copulative function is just symbolically making the statement.

but again science and math isn't really my game so it could quite easily mean much more than that.

mwp
Lets get away from math formulas for a moment and use subsets and supersets.
I think that there are sub sets for any one that wants to be in a subset. You could be in an agnostic christian subset of your very own if you wanted to, or Muslim, or whatever.
Lets say there is a subset for universe and another for whatever you choose to call god.
Lets say you can make other subsets for magic, luck, or whatever.
I think you CAN be where all your pertinent subsets overlap, but only if you WANT to be there, and you have to work it out for yourself. I think that overlap is heaven, or nirvana, and you work your whole life to put it together. Or maybe it is there the whole time and you work your whole life to realize it. It is easier to find your happiness if you don't spend all your time trying to make others be happy by your formula, and you can enjoy other people on their quest if you don't expect them to live up to your standards. I, for one, enjoy logic but loathe math. No offense, ok?

Jordan - well, we could see....i agree with someone with two seperate eyebrows...but a monobrow could provide us with endless entertainment if it's a male, and he grows a moustache later in life...upside down!!

One question - how many??

In Islam we believe that every one is born pure and free from sin. Hence if a baby dies at birth it goes to paradise plus if you've not heard of god then you will go paradise as they can't be judged by God's law if they have not heard of it, plus you do not have to be a muslim to go to paradise as people who are not religious will be judged for what they did and there intention not what they believe. Where as Muslims are not guarentied Paradise either.

Adib

From this I assume that the quickest way to heaven/paradise would be to keep away from any clerics or religions.

mwp -- "to question the presupposition that formula (of any kind), mathematical proofs or logical statements are really adequete dialectical tools in discussing god"

Well I don't disagree with you.

Douglas Adams's 42 could be read as "Sure, the answer may be simple but that doesn't mean you will know what to do with it"

(Keep away from clerics seems a good start.)

that is a problem meny people have knowlage the problem is what thay do once thay have it

I'm sorry, I'm going to math in your faces. (And I don't mean the apostate kind!)

A formula is derived from a proof. In the case of 'ice = frozen water,' we are stating the result of a proof - in this case, one derived through the scientific method. Now, we come to 'God = the universal consciousness'. All formulas require proof beforehand, otherwise it isn't a formula - it's a hypothesis. The very definition of a formula requires that it be demonstrably correct. There is no proof that God is the universal consciousness, it's a totally unqualified statement. It's flowery prose along the lines of 'Dune'.

- Jordan

But what is conscience when you created the world?

how canm you form a concevable hipothasis when you have no facts at all?
it makes no sence
i know froozzen water=ice of that we have proff
but of god thair is no forseable proff and so no answer can be found untill we are in no posable way to respond to everyones ouestion
ie we are dead

"It's flowery prose along the lines of 'Dune'. "
Or the bible
where is the proof in that great work?
what formula fits in those pages?

No what it means is that aperson will be more rewarded for a action if he is a believer than a none believer.
An the same for doing bad. If a Muslim does bad then he will have a stronger punishment than a none believer.

Adib

The Bible doesn't offer a formula. It doesn't claim to, either, 'cause basically it's a record. Not an entirely accurate one, mind, but a record nevertheless. With a few allegories, mind...

When I said that about Dune, I mean that it was mostly meaningless. It looked deep and philosophical, but a lot of that seemed to me only surface impressions. 'Children of Dune' and 'God Emperor of Dune' particularily, I gathered tbe plot but the supposedly 'deep' remarks seemed almost formulaic, as though Herbert were trying to give the impression of intelligence through incomprehensibility. Rather like the way someone with a passing knowledge of mathematical writing can easily produce the phrase '...beginning with an L(x) mapping over the Lagrange transform sequence for an nth-order Eddleman polynomial, we can construct a constraint-division of the order (n-1) with a non-trivial element tau which fulfils the partiality equations for a finite subgroup,' Herbert constructs a complex but often meaningless diatribe, which combined with the almost psychic genius of his characters bequeaths his book a falsified aura of subtle and monolithic intelligence. It's mostly a narrative device. Most of the stuff in the Bible isn't too hard to understand despite being hard to identify with, and the 'flowery prose' there is mostly metaphor.



- Jordan

Yeah but they did a good tv adaption to the first book dune though.
Actually did you know the bible says about the coming of Mohammed and it actuaaly calls god Allah in one part. Though they edited it out of the Revised edition.

Adib

Oh...

'E=mc*squared* is very badly behaved; multiplying mass by a speed is jumbling the categories in a most ungentlemanly way, but it's still a formula, and seems to mean a lot to those wot know.'

Firstly, we're multiplying a mass by a speed /squared/. There's a big difference. Compare: -

E.K. = m * v^2E = m * c^2Compare units
J = kg * (m * s^(-1))^2J = kg * (m * s^(-1))^2Simplify
J = kg * m^2 * s^(-2)J = kg * m^2 * s^(-2)Dimensional analysis
M * D^2 * S^(-2) = M * D^2 * S^(-2)M * D^2 * S^(-2) = M * D^2 * S^(-2)

It's perfectly legitimate. It was known in Newton's time that you could multiply a mass and a speed squared (in the scalar case) to obtain energy.

- Jordan

I didn't know that. Shame.

Yes, I saw the TV adaption with a friend who had it on tape. Excellent!

- Jordan

I think just the one will do! No reason we should have to look after fifty screaming kids when we only have to have one!

Hmm... monobrows... Sound's like we might need to supply him/her with some tweezers...

I remember being in the throes of agony over a joke about plucking, but you had to be there.

- Jordan