From: keithd@well.sf.ca.us (Keith Doyle)
Subject: Re: Probability of Evolution
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 07:38:54 GMT



Another accumulation of responses to Kalki snippets:

kalki33!system@lakes.trenton.sc.us writes:
>The Goldbach conjecture, that any even number greater than 2 is the sum
>of two primes, is predicated on the existence of the natural numbers,
>which include the primes. The existence of natural numbers is generally
>regarded as following from a set of hypotheses, such as Peano's axioms.
>However, Peano's axioms were formulated long after the natural numbers
>were already in de facto use. What Peano's axioms did, in part, was to
>give an efficient language in which to formulate statements about the
>natural numbers. A great deal (some would say all) of mathematics is
>just such a process: developing more efficient ways of speaking about
>already existing objects. Occasionally, the mathematics itself will
>reveal objects that were unknown before the development of the
>particular mathematical formalism which describes them. But this does
>not mean that their existence is caused by the mathematical formalism.

However, please note that "natural numbers" are a concept, merely
a mental representation of conceptual entities or relationships, not
an identification of the existance of "real" entities of any sort.

>Similarly, the "creationist conjecture", that the universe and life are
>the creations of an intelligent God, is predicated on the existence of
>God. God's existence is thought by some to follow from "faith" in the
>scriptures. But the scriptures were written down long after the idea of
>God was already in de facto use. What the scriptures do, in part, is to
>offer a language in which to formulate statements about God.

Similarly it can just as easily be said that God is merely a mental
representation of a conceptual entity, not an identification of the
existance of a "real" entity of any sort.

>Just as Peano's axioms clarified what was known about the basic
>structure of the natural numbers, the scriptures clarify what is
>basically known about God.

At best, this correlation only states that scriptures, if they
contain scriptural equivalents of Peano's axioms, clarify only
what is basically known about the mental conception of God, not
of any actual existance of such a God.  A mental exercise.

>And just as Peano's axioms are insufficient
>for dealing with many of the higher-order properties of the natural
>numbers, so also the scriptures are insufficient for describing all that
>can be known about God. But we have not abandoned Peano's axioms,
>because, although they are simplistic, they work. So we should not
>abandon the scriptures, even though they may be simplistic. What is
>needed instead is a more efficient language in which to formulate
>statements about nonmaterial phenomena such as God, the soul,
>consciousness, and life. This is the mission of the Bhaktivedanta
>Institute.

However, just as Peano's axioms do not demonstrate the existance of
natural numbers beyond their mental representations, neither does
any of your scriptures demonstrate the existance of your nonmaterial
phenomena.  It's a philosophic exercise, NOT a scientific one, and
only objective within the assumption that nonmaterial phenomena
exist, an assumption which itself lacks an objective basis and
therefore becomes entirely circular.

>But we have given an analogy whose purpose is not to make a claim about
>mathematics, but a claim about nonmaterial phenomena by comparing their
>investigation with a certain method of investigation that is found in
>mathematics.

This is why mathematics is not considered a science.  It deals in
conceptual mental representations.  Mathematicians do not study
evidence.  Scientists do.  There are no subjective interpretations
in mathematics that need associated methods of identifying and
eliminating them (at least as far as I know, perhaps someone
disagrees?).  Neither are there in your investigation of nonmaterial
phenomena.  If you disagree, cite what methods are used to
differentiate material phenomena from nonmaterial phenomena from
illusory phenomena.

Keith
Newsgroups: talk.origins