tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832136017893749497.post4151019170796067079..comments2023-09-29T08:49:30.765-04:00Comments on Elliptic Composability: Florin Moldoveanuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01087655914212705768noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832136017893749497.post-19387460193139166532016-06-13T00:10:00.197-04:002016-06-13T00:10:00.197-04:00Hi, Florin
Thanks for the reply. I thought I migh...Hi, Florin<br />Thanks for the reply. I thought I might add something you might find amusing. The above topic touches on my work, as I am currently writing a satirical novel on scientific, religious and pretty much every kind of dogma. The ideas are nearly all mine, but I actually got the novel's premise from Ruth Kastner, who suggested a story about an around-the-world cruise chartered by the Flat Earth Society. I call it "Across the World in Eighty Days" (so I guess I'm also borrowing from Jules Verne). My personal favorite in this bag of mixed nuts is "The Logical Positivist School for the Blind", whose slogan is "making sense of the world of the four senses". Also the Solipsist Speed-dating Club is kind of fun. :)<br /> Eric.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832136017893749497.post-73939743526330533092016-06-08T21:59:40.316-04:002016-06-08T21:59:40.316-04:00Hi Eric,
Thank you for your comment. Such topics ...Hi Eric,<br /><br />Thank you for your comment. Such topics do interest me, but now I am focusing in a different direction. I promise I will revisit the area in (hopefully) not too distant future.Florin Moldoveanuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01087655914212705768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832136017893749497.post-60099824730193551852016-06-08T17:30:17.101-04:002016-06-08T17:30:17.101-04:00Florin,
I realize this comment is a bit late, but ...Florin,<br />I realize this comment is a bit late, but something about this post always bugged me and I had to think for awhile about why. Personally, I've always thought that many theologians and many atheists seem to make the same mistake: assuming that, in order for God to exist, the laws of mathematics and physics must somehow be broken and require God to fix them. The theologians claim math and physics are wrong and this proves God; the atheists claim math and physics are right and this disproves God. Why should either of these statements be true? First of all, a created universe where math and physics didn't work would seem to imply God is incompetent. God would be Ikea basically, and the cosmos would be one of those shelves that seemingly don't fit together without an act of magical intervention--who wants to believe in that? On the other hand, why should a beautiful, mathematically and physically sound universe imply purposelessness? I find the fact that everything is here (and that anything or anyone is conscious of it) awe-inspiring enough to suggest God without invoking the "supernatural". And I don't know if this question would interest you or not (you seem to be a brilliant mathematician, and it is a bit hand-waving), but why does the Platonic mathematical world you mentioned above exist? Why is there math rather than "mathlessness"?<br /> All of this notwithstanding, you have a point that Americans such as myself have things to be embarrassed about: evolution denial; climate change denial; homophobia; Donald Trump; the Iraq war; our fascination with guns; all those Pirates of the Caribbean sequels; Donald Trump (I mentioned the Donald twice for emphasis--those of us with brains are really, really sorry about him!) So, to Europe: mea culpa.<br /> Best,<br /> Eric Hamilton. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832136017893749497.post-85504911384772294982015-11-02T20:28:55.085-05:002015-11-02T20:28:55.085-05:00Kashyap, I don't know about the claims from th...Kashyap, I don't know about the claims from the books, but in the video several versions of progressive "nothingness" are described. On religion, the criticism is not on misleading statements, but on fitting the dogma with evidence, or on having pre-existing conclusions. I have watched some debates with some theologians who presented mostly uninteresting handwaving nonsense, but there is a debate between Krauss and Tipler -the general relativity guy- who is trying to prove religion using physics. Perhaps I should comment on this next time to better illustrate the difference between genuine science and nonsense.Florin Moldoveanuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01087655914212705768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832136017893749497.post-36068057881694483432015-11-02T13:58:54.219-05:002015-11-02T13:58:54.219-05:00Florin: OK! His book and talk are good for people ...Florin: OK! His book and talk are good for people who do not know physics and cosmology. But my main point (in agreement with many people who are much more distinguished than me!) is that his title is absolutely misleading for common people.E=0 does not mean *nothing* in physics (specially in modern physics) and it is merely a gimmick to sell books! Moreover, he attacks religions for misleading statements, when he is making many!kashyap vasavadahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10732897306667764590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832136017893749497.post-19523275314892331352015-10-31T13:38:13.097-04:002015-10-31T13:38:13.097-04:00Kashyap, I did not want to spoil the content of th...Kashyap, I did not want to spoil the content of the video, but he does talk about different kinds of nothingness along your lines. However, the more he digs into it the more handwaving there is. The talk may be old, but I was not aware of it until this summer. I also did not read any of his books so I cannot comment. I have no doubt other people have criticized it; I do not agree with him as I mentioned on the question why and on the role philosophy plays. But I found the perspective given by cosmology to be truly awe inspiring.Florin Moldoveanuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01087655914212705768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3832136017893749497.post-37674860139245850382015-10-31T12:03:15.861-04:002015-10-31T12:03:15.861-04:00You have some interesting points about why, how an...You have some interesting points about why, how and Godel which I will carefully read later. But here I will comment on Krauss's book (and talk). It is quite old stuff now and you probably know that it has been heavily criticized by philosophers and scientists both atheists and theists. The problem is that he is trying to pull a fast one on people who do not know physics and thus sell his ideas and books! When he says universe from *nothing*, he knows fully well that it (nothing , vacuum) is not *nothing* as understood by common man i.e absence of anything. This is quantum mechanical vacuum. It has quantum fields! So to call it nothing is disingenuous! Thus something from nothing is a bogus claim!kashyap vasavadahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10732897306667764590noreply@blogger.com