The word god is a metaphor, an equality presented with all possible potentials so there can be no adjective added. The OP question is redundant. There can be no "lesser" or "greater" metaphotical gods . In the abstract there is only one Wholeness and it is primarily mathematical (physics) in function and expression as has been proven time and again, by science. What happenened to all the "lesser" gods? Not enough potential to be reliable ? Today the gods don't rule the weather or the oceans. We know how they work. They're a kind of mathematically chaotic environments, certainly not controlled by Thor or Zeus. Note that I am an atheist interested in Max Tegmark's Mathematcal Univserse.
You can't even represent all abstractions with mathematics. You can't even represent yourself with mathematics. You can't even represent your breakfast with mathematics. Why on earth should we accept such a hideously dumbed down version of reality?
I was actually thinking of Froot Loops. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Why do you think they couldn't be represented mathematically?
not all but definitely most. My body is made up from some 500 molecules, about 30 -70 % water and fractal neural and arterial systems. Today we can repair damaged DNA. How do you think we do that? Mathematics. Of course you can. Ask anyone on a specific diet about their % of a balanced diet they choose or must follow. Maybe because you want to make it more complicated than it is by introducing a superfluous mystical aspect to the universe..Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Simple answer: even mathematicians get hungry. At the end of the day (or maybe beginning of the day, since we are talking about breakfast), telos wins, not maths. Complex answer: a paradox of oneness and difference makes it impossible to either isolate the parts or contextualize the whole outside of semantics (parts reveal more parts and wholes exist within greater wholes). If you define froot loops by their parts or their whole, you are left with an inferior definition. If however you eat the froot loops, you can actually understand what they are about.
Not even close to most. The only abstractions you can represent are the useless ones that no one really cares about. If you disagree, mathematically represent justice. Yes. Both in its living and dead stages .... just a small detail. Obviously some parts are missing from your so-called complete inventory. Sometimes we can ... sometimes we can't ... remarkably distinct from, say, mathematics .... I mean 1+1 always = 2, right? Must follow? What margin for error do they have to avoid having an unsuccessful breakfast? Just the maths please. It appears you are already introducing that, but for the sake of reducing the universe to a state of stupidity to make you feel more comfortable.
Was looking all over to find this video ... the whole video is quite good, but the part I want to focus on comes in around the 6.50 mark ... it talks about the shortcomings of the brainless (aka mathematical) model of managing muscle fatigue in athletes A focus on the parts neglects the whole. A focus on the whole neglects the parts. The actual synthesis lies in action. "50% of what we are teaching in science is incorrect ... we just don't know which 50%" .... technically gambling is also part of mathematics, so .... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Abstraction; in its main sense is a conceptual process where general rules and concepts are derived from the usage and classification of specific examples, literal ("real" or "concrete") signifiers, first principles, or other methods [/quote] Among which mathematics plays a overwhelmingly large part. Among which mathematics plays an overwhelmingly large part. Conceptual abstractions may be formed by filtering the information content of a concept or an observable phenomenon, selecting only the aspects which are relevant for a particular subjectively valued purpose. For example, abstracting a leather soccer ball to the more general idea of a ball selects only the information on general ball attributes and behavior, excluding, but not eliminating, the other phenomenal and cognitive characteristics of that particular ball.[1] In a type–token distinction, a type (e.g., a 'ball') is more abstract than its tokens (e.g., 'that leather soccer ball').[/quote] For it's purpose it was clear enough and if you think you can troll me into wasting more of my time, I have a quick link for you to watch: Did I say it was a complete inventory? You asked for a sample of a mathematical representation and I gave it to you. You are misrepresenting my posts. That make you a troll. And who's shortcoming is that. Lack of available information or the maths? 1 + 1 = 2 (always) And so it is in all the sciences, but when the input is mathematically incorrect the the answer wil be incorrect. Garbage in, garbage out. For one the doctor may prescribe a low sodium or low calory diet. That's a mathematical function. Are you using any prescriptions? What is the dosage ? We are having a discussion of generalities. This is not a forum for "formal" scientific discussion, It's about Religion. And in religion maths are not important. It's all miraculous anyway isn't it. God created everything in 6 days and then he rested. Break that down for me in detail , can you? Tell me in detail how God makes things happen. You can't can you? Troll.
Write4U The evidence so far: Can you provide mathematical representations of abstractions that are important, of yourself, or even your breakfast? No. When you attempt to present such abstractions, do they rely on a hideously dumbed down version of reality? Yes Just to clarify, its not that I have a problem with the abstractions you present. Its only when you attempt to establish them as the highest ontological category that you become a fool. The failure is self evident. To be fair, you can talk about them being an effective system for progressing in a certain field ... but if you try to philosophically canonize them as topmost, you are just pushing shit up hill in the name of semantics. Uncle google cannot save you from such stains.
That is why I did no such thing. You're speaking with "forked tongue". That is why I did no such thing. You're speaking with "forked tongue". You don't even have a clear idea about fairness. Uncle google cannot save you from such stains.[/QUOTE] The only stains are being introduced by you, but I just shrug them off as I would with a child.
Write4U "In the abstract there is only one Wholeness and it is primarily mathematical (physics) in function and expression as has been proven time and again, by science." This is simply self referential semantics at worst or an exclusive discussion of the language used to analyze necessary relationships of cause and effect at best. Either way, it requires a reduced (as in missing essential parts) version in order to function. When you start to allude that nothing of great importance exists outside this "mathematics", you are simply dumbing down the universe for the sake of kowtowing your pet ideology. Traditionally, this is often described as being dogmatic.
Yes and religion sets us free from all that, I get it. But as far as I know the word "dogma" is most often used in context of religion.
Actually its rational philosophy put in to action that does the trick... which may or may not include certain aspects from things such as science, religion etc etc Traditions are observed to change over time
using your words; "This is simply self referential semantics at worst or an exclusive discussion of the language used to analyze necessary relationships of cause and effect at best. Really?
Feel free to employ an alternative (irrational philosophy put into action?) and get back to us with the results. Even dogma has its avant garde components
Then why this ? I would say that Bohm (wholeness), Tegmark (mathematical values), Loll (CDT) are the "avant garde", breaking away from dogma.
