How Atheism Has Adopted a Worldview That Science Never Intended

[ComradeMan]

"The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books---a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects." -- Albert Einstein



I found this article

at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-schrei/the-burden-of-proof-how-a_b_504667.html


Any thoughts or ideas on this?

[Lt. Ferret]

you dont need the "spirit" in math or science, thats the best part about math or science. Numbers are numbers, 1=1 and you can logically deduce it and prove it.

[piet11111]

I assume that most atheists, who are generally intelligent people, are smart enough to realize that standing from the sidelines and claiming that there is no value in something that they do not practice themselves is not a defensible position.

I do not have to be a part of the jackass crew to know that their stunts are dangerous and stupid and to be able to say to others that they should not be trying those stunts for themselves.

Nor do i need to be a rally driver to know that racing over narrow dirt roads is dangerous.

[ComradeMan]

I do not have to be a part of the jackass crew to know that their stunts are dangerous and stupid and to be able to say to others that they should not be trying those stunts for themselves.

Nor do i need to be a rally driver to know that racing over narrow dirt roads is dangerous.

Ignorance of evidence is evidence of ignorance.

Sweeping generalisation too---- this is the exact problem with any discussion on the subject, ignorant statements filled with hate that work on the same level as religious fundamentalists.

Are Jains dangerous? I couldn't imagine a more "un-dangerous" spiritual belief system.

[Crimson Commissar]

Ignorance of evidence is evidence of ignorance.

Sweeping generalisation too---- this is the exact problem with any discussion on the subject, ignorant statements filled with hate that work on the same level as religious fundamentalists.

Are Jains dangerous? I couldn't imagine a more "un-dangerous" spiritual belief system.
Just because it isn't dangerous doesn't make it right to believe in it. Spirituality is harmful to humanity and slows down progress. How the fuck are we going to advance when the majority of our species STILL believes this bullshit? I am constantly amazed at how religion has survived this long, and still continues to be the dominant opinion amongst humanity. That isn't proof of religion being true, it's proof of fucking stupidity. I only hope that religion will die off soon enough, and become nothing but a terrible, terrible memory.

[ComradeMan]

Just because it isn't dangerous doesn't make it right to believe in it. Spirituality is harmful to humanity and slows down progress. How the fuck are we going to advance when the majority of our species STILL believes this bullshit? I am constantly amazed at how religion has survived this long, and still continues to be the dominant opinion amongst humanity. That isn't proof of religion being true, it's proof of fucking stupidity. I only hope that religion will die off soon enough, and become nothing but a terrible, terrible memory.

If you read the article you may note just how some of the greatest minds that humanity has produced were spiritual in a sense too.

Where is your evidence to suggest that spirituality slows down progress? Most of the ancient civilisations we know of were highly spiritual and ritualised and made great advances. The ancient Vedic and then Greek philosophers were also spiritual, were they harmful to humanity? Did they hold back progress?

Simplistic statements like "religion being true" don't help either. We are not talking about the tooth mouse we are talking about a vast array of worldviews, cosmologies, cultures and spiritual philosophies here.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If you read the article you may note just how some of the greatest minds that humanity has produced were spiritual in a sense too.

Yeah, in a sense not shared by 99% of the human population. You can hardly generalise such special cases.


Where is your evidence to suggest that spirituality slows down progress? Most of the ancient civilisations we know of were highly spiritual and ritualised and made great advances. The ancient Vedic and then Greek philosophers were also spiritual, were they harmful to humanity? Did they hold back progress?

Progress can be made in spite of spirituality. Also, the nature of the spirituality in question is somewhat relevant - when humans are generally considered fundamentally evil, something which Christians believe but not the ancient Greeks, that is bound to be reflected in thought and action.


Simplistic statements like "religion being true" don't help either. We are not talking about the tooth mouse we are talking about a vast array of worldviews, cosmologies, cultures and spiritual philosophies here.

All of which can and have been subjected to empirical tests and thus far have been found wanting.

[ComradeMan]

All of which can and have been subjected to empirical tests and thus far have been found wanting.

For example? Pythagoras?

What is the empirical test of the Tao?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

For example?

What is the empirical test of the Tao?

Fair point. Not all religious claims are coherent enough to subject to empirical testing.

[ComradeMan]

Fair point. Not all religious claims are coherent enough to subject to empirical testing.

Is the Big Bang subject to empirical testing?

The Big Crunch? The Big Chill? Are they subject to empirical testing?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Is the Big Bang subject to empirical testing?

Observation ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence) serves when testing is impossible.

But who's seen God? Or measured Nirvana?

[ComradeMan]

Observation (http://[url=%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence) serves when testing is impossible.

But who's seen God? Or measured Nirvana?

Kurt Cobain.
:lol:

[ckaihatsu]

As far as the value of religion, I will only touch on this briefly. I assume that most atheists, who are generally intelligent people, are smart enough to realize that standing from the sidelines and claiming that there is no value in something that they do not practice themselves is not a defensible position. Atheists obviously don't know the value of spiritual practice, because they don't experience its value. Its a bit like someone who has sat idle in front of a computer for most of their lives telling a soccer player that there's no value in soccer. Coming from a non-soccer player, the statement means absolutely nothing.


This is an unsound formulation.

One can derive understanding from observation or description alone, to some extent -- so the person at the computer presumably knows *what* soccer is, at least conceptually, according to this formulation. The fact that they *disdain* soccer and are expressive of it has *no bearing whatsoever* on whether they *understand* it or not.

Worse, the person at the computer has an *incorrect* position on soccer -- this is the premise used here to *generalize from* in dismissing *all* who reach conclusions on the basis of understandings that are non-experiential. If all of our learning had to come from experience alone no one would bother recording anything -- all books, videos, etc., would be considered worthless.








As far as the value of religion, I will only touch on this briefly. I assume that most atheists, who are generally intelligent people, are smart enough to realize that standing from the sidelines and claiming that there is no value in something that they do not practice themselves is not a defensible position. Atheists obviously don't know the value of spiritual practice, because they don't experience its value.

[...]

There are 4 billion+ people in this world who practice some form of religion. They are not all -- every single one of them -- enslaved by fear or ignorance as some atheists seem to imply. Clearly many of them are getting some personal value out of it.





Intuition (knowledge)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Insight

The term intuition is used to describe "thoughts and preferences that come to mind quickly and without much reflection".[1] "The word 'intuition' comes from the Latin word 'intueri', which is often roughly translated as meaning 'to look inside'’ or 'to contemplate'."[2] Intuition provides us with beliefs that we cannot necessarily justify. For this reason, it has been the subject of study in psychology, as well as a topic of interest in the supernatural. The "right brain" is popularly associated with intuitive processes such as aesthetic abilities.[3][4][5] Some scientists have contended that intuition is associated with innovation in scientific discovery.[6] Intuition is also a common subject of New Age writings.[7]

[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(knowledge)

[Revolution starts with U]

Science never intended anything. Whether or not people's knowledge of science led them to certain logical conclusions is a different matter.



As far as the value of religion, I will only touch on this briefly. I assume that most atheists, who are generally intelligent people, are smart enough to realize that standing from the sidelines and claiming that there is no value in something that they do not practice themselves is not a defensible position. Atheists obviously don't know the value of spiritual practice, because they don't experience its value. Its a bit like someone who has sat idle in front of a computer for most of their lives telling a soccer player that there's no value in soccer. Coming from a non-soccer player, the statement means absolutely nothing. There are 4 billion+ people in this world who practice some form of religion. They are not all -- every single one of them -- enslaved by fear or ignorance as some atheists seem to imply. Clearly many of them are getting some personal value out of it.



This is all dealing with anti-religionists/spiritualists, not atheists per se. There's nothing stopping a theist from not joining in with the spiritual escepades of the church.
And, as I've said many times, many/most atheists came from religous backgrounds.


It is well known that many of the world's greatest scientists were spiritual and saw the value in spiritual belief. Just as Einstein said that we exist in a library of books written by someone else, Max Planck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck#Religious_view), the founder of modern quantum theory, stated that science is able to measure the 'symbols' of the universe -- ie its physical structure, its laws, and its mechanics -- but that there is a greater spirit beyond the symbols that is immeasurable. He specifically called out atheists for placing too great an emphasis on the symbols and not on the spirit behind the symbols.
Planck regarded the scientist as a man of imagination and faith, 'faith' being akin to "having a working hypothesis."
Which leads us to last point, which is the sticking point. The matter of proof.

Good for them. But it's still an appeal to authority.


The scientific method, of course, is the accepted way to validate theorems and forward scientific understanding. It is the mechanism through which scientific progress takes place. It allows us all the great advances of science and allows us a better understanding of the mechanics of our universe. But it is not necessarily meant to be a worldview in and of itself. The idea that if science hasn't proven it then it doesn't exist or it isn't worth believing in would be considered insufferably narrow-minded to most of the great scientists of history. If Einstein, or Bohr, or Planck, or Schroedinger were to witness the "Oh Yeah, Well Prove It!" attitude of many modern atheists, they would be the first to take them to school.

I don't undertand. Is he/she saying they would prove it?
I think it's safe to say most/all of these people he/she is talking about were deists more than theists tho. Which is only slightly more believable.

[ComradeMan]

Good for them. But it's still an appeal to authority.

It's not an appeal to authority. He is not saying because the mighty Planck or Einstein believed this so must you. He is pointing out the fact that great scientific/mathematical minds who one might expect to reject the "primitive" "superstitions" of religion/spirituality were actually quite spiritual and drew a lot of personal inspiration from it. Whereas people who are religious/spiritual are constantly referred to here as primitive, stupid, or mentally ill by some members the article is an attempt to show some moderation and open-mindedness.

[NGNM85]

Are Jains dangerous? I couldn't imagine a more "un-dangerous" spiritual belief system.

It is important to critically compare various religious traditions. We can look at the structure of these belief systems and compare them and learn things, it can be a valuable tool. Unfortunately, in the radical left this rather simple truth can be a major fault line, for various reasons, mostly a combination of Marxist dogmatism that resembles nothing more than religious fervor, and a peculiar tendency of the radical left to engage in impassioned debate against the patently obvious. Anyhow...

Just because a delusional belief isn't harmful, from outward appearances, is not reason to encourage delusional beliefs.

Also, these beliefs can have very unpredictable consequences. Take the Victorian (And then some.) attitude of Christianity toward the act of procreation or any permutation thereof. You might think that's just a bizarre attitude that causes neurosis and general unhappiness in the devout, but nothing more. Except, because of these ideas about procreation, as we speak, Catholic missionaries in sub-Saharan Africa are going into villages and pursuading people, in the most AIDS-ravaged regions, not to use prophylactics. They are, quite literally, killing people.

That these beliefs may increase happiness is also bogus. I could most assuredly increase the happiness of a number of cancer patients if I were to put on a lab coat, walk into the room and tell them they've gone into a miraculous remission. I would probably be a happier person if I believed I was a millionaire and I had a supermodel girlfriend. That's just ignoring reality. In every other context, it's considered unhealthy, religion, undeservedly, gets a free pass.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Religion does have a social use for its practitioners - it wouldn't be around in non-theocracies if it didn't. In the US where most people live alienated lives and don't talk to their neighbors and don't get much in the way of community support when induviduals fall on hard times (not much unemployment help or welfare), churches and other religious institutions fill that role. It's a support network a community in an anti-community society that tells us we need to be atomized into family units and not trust anyone else.

But there are problems with this - churches and temples and so on give some relief or will raise money for a sick member of their congregation, but these organizations are band-aids on a society that doesn't need to let the sick or poor fend for themselves. Churches can feed homeless people, but they can not solve homelessness - ironically christian churches give people fish but can't teach them how to get fish themselves. Additionally, this kind of semi-privatized kind of community creates replaces one kind of isolation and inwardness and social hegemony. The fact that many christian churches are de-facto segregated shows some of the problems with this kind of "community life".

So I really don't have a problem with churches and religion when it comes to personal belief... if a belief helps someone feel better or whatnot, then it's fine by me as long as that belief doesn't repress others (like homophobic or elitist religious ideas and practices do). But I think objectively religion does not help people to deal with systemic material problems in society... often it teaches individual morality and behaviors and this not effective for solving our collective social problems. Material problems require material solutions.

[piet11111]

Ignorance of evidence is evidence of ignorance.

Sweeping generalisation too---- this is the exact problem with any discussion on the subject, ignorant statements filled with hate that work on the same level as religious fundamentalists.

Are Jains dangerous? I couldn't imagine a more "un-dangerous" spiritual belief system.

What i am trying to illustrate is that the argument of "if you have never experienced it yourself then you can not know what it is" is simply bullshit.

That kind of argument can be used to defend all kinds of nonsense by avoiding the whole burden of proof.

[Raúl Duke]

I assume that most atheists, who are generally intelligent people, are smart enough to realize that standing from the sidelines and claiming that there is no value in something that they do not practice themselves is not a defensible position. Atheists obviously don't know the value of spiritual practice, because they don't experience its value.
Ignorance of evidence is evidence of ignorance.
"if you have never experienced it yourself then you can not know what it is"I'm sorry to burst a bubble but in real life the majority of atheists were raised in a religion and soon dropped it when they reasoned out that it was total BS; so may of them have an idea what religion is (some more so than theists), what's like to follow one, etc. I myself was raised in non-denominational protestant christianity.

Also what is the value of spiritual practice (i.e. spirituality)?
People who believe it has one will give a whole bunch of different answers and even than some or most answers are either untestable or have been tested and found lacking.

Lastly, does this prove any form of spirituality is true? Because we might as well be talking about the value of any and all imaginary things, like unicorns; but why should we care about imaginary things?

[Astarte]

Just because it isn't dangerous doesn't make it right to believe in it. Spirituality is harmful to humanity and slows down progress. How the fuck are we going to advance when the majority of our species STILL believes this bullshit? I am constantly amazed at how religion has survived this long, and still continues to be the dominant opinion amongst humanity. That isn't proof of religion being true, it's proof of fucking stupidity. I only hope that religion will die off soon enough, and become nothing but a terrible, terrible memory.

Why is it wrong to know something? The reason "religion" (spirituality) will never be rooted out, and people "STILL believe this bullshit" is because the spirituality of the buddhist, taoist, gnostic, and various mystery traditions all relate the notion that "God"/the Tao/Dharma/the absolute is realized at a certain point through either enlightenment or gnosis - this usually occurs after extreme physical or psychological stress and can be likened to a near death experience, if not actually be a true near death experience - psychologically it is essentially ego death without bodily death.

Spirituality has been with humanity since way before state civilization, it was hardly harmful a thing when the earliest paleolithic people first started to develop rudimentary funerary rituals in the absence of any ruling class.

Even in the epoch of the state though organized religion has always been a motor force of progress. In the city-states of the Sumerians all property was owned by the God of the city-state - the priest-king was able to progress the growth of human population, production of food stuffs, and culture, including the development of literature, by way of religion - in fact organized religion was such an integral part of the state in the ancient world that it is impossible to imagine a state that was not sanctioned by some kind of Heavenly authority. In Egypt too - grand monuments of what is now universally ingrained in our collective mind as the cultural attributes of the infancy of civilization owe their creation to religion. Egyptian society itself ran and progressed, and expanded, because of the need of the Pharaoh for ascendancy.

So, if you view things even from a dialectical materialists point of view, or a marxist-leninists point of view, you have to realize that religion was an integral part of the development of the earliest states, and without those states like assyria, babylon, and egypt, and greece and rome then feudalism never would have developed accordingly, and the protestant ethic of capitalism would not have come... and hence there would be no socialism and finally glory of communism - saying religion has always slowed down progress defies historical materialism (if you are into that kind of thing).

[Rafiq]

The problem I have with some spiritual people is that they view this life as meaningless and that the REAL cheese is in the 'next life'.

When they look for 'God' to help them or solve their problems,

When they look at Material things as meaningless.

Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes

[ckaihatsu]

So, if you view things even from a dialectical materialists point of view, or a marxist-leninists point of view, you have to realize that religion was an integral part of the development of the earliest states, and without those states like assyria, babylon, and egypt, and greece and rome then feudalism never would have developed accordingly, and the protestant ethic of capitalism would not have come... and hence there would be no socialism and finally glory of communism - saying religion has always slowed down progress defies historical materialism (if you are into that kind of thing).


*Or*....

You're putting the cart before the horse -- religion can be seen to be the political-cultural *result* of a class-based system of production and societal surplus. Religion is the *superstructure* to the already-existing economic *base*. In the schematic frameworks, attached, the 'base' is the 'mode of production' (and everything below) and the 'superstructure' is 'class struggle', or class rule.


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

http://postimage.org/image/34mjeutk4/


[22] History, Macro Micro

http://postimage.org/image/35q8b6o84/

[ComradeMan]

Which came first- spirituality or class based systems of production?

I think you'll find spirituality- it's "natural".

[ckaihatsu]

Which came first- spirituality or class based systems of production?

I think you'll find spirituality- it's "natural".


If by "spirituality" you mean constructing a grand narrative by which to describe natural forces that are greater and more powerful than ourselves as biological organisms, okay -- yes, that came first. But are we *dependent* on such fables, or have our understandings and abilities come a long way since then?

[Meridian]

you dont need the "spirit" in math or science, thats the best part about math or science. Numbers are numbers, 1=1 and you can logically deduce it and prove it.
The interesting part about mathematics is how it is possible that it corresponds to observed phenomena. We can not explain that simply by anything being mathematically provable.

[ckaihatsu]

The interesting part about mathematics is how it is possible that it corresponds to observed phenomena. We can not explain that simply by anything being mathematically provable.


Yeah, but we could say the same thing for *non*-math *narratives*, too -- what counts is the correct *applicability* of whatever cognitive tools, as appropriate and helpful *descriptions* of the world around us. Math just happens to be on the *quantitative* side of things, and so is more *formal* than character-dependent stories -- but both the humanities and the technological side of things are still our *descriptions* of the world, and so are entirely dependent on our cognitive abilities to "put them on paper".


Humanities-Technology Chart 2.0

http://postimage.org/image/1d4ldatxg/


[27] Humanities-Technology Chart

http://postimage.org/image/35qtt66n8/

[ComradeMan]

you dont need the "spirit" in math or science, thats the best part about math or science. Numbers are numbers, 1=1 and you can logically deduce it and prove it.

But 1=0 too. :)

x = y, so x2 = xy.Then by subtracting the same both we get x2 - y2 = xy - y2. If we divide (x-y) the we get x + y = y. If x = y then 2 y = y therefore 2 = 1 because y= non-zero. If we then take 1 away from both we end up with 1 = 0.:lol:

However these are fallacies just to annoy maths teachers I think!!! You cannot divide by 0!!! Not at least in this universe.

However 1=2 is more interesting.

a=b if we multiply both sides we get ab= b2 and if we subtract a2 from both sides we get ab-a2 = b2-a2. If we factorise both sides we find that a(b-a) = (b+a)(b-a). By cancelling (b-a) from both sides it brings us too a=b+a- but a=b so therefore a=2a and thus 1=2. However there is a hidden divison by 0 so it too is fallacious.:lol:

0.9=1 is the best.

If x= 0.9 then 10x is 9.9. 9x=9 and therefore x=1.

1/3= 0.33333333... multiply 1 by 3 = 3 and 3 by 3 = 9 therefore 3/9 is 1/3 and we get 1 = 0.9

1-0.9 = 0.0 = 0---- but the the distance between 0.9 and 1 is 0 therefore 0.9=1 if the distance between the two is 0.

[Astarte]

If by "spirituality" you mean constructing a grand narrative by which to describe natural forces that are greater and more powerful than ourselves as biological organisms, okay -- yes, that came first. But are we *dependent* on such fables, or have our understandings and abilities come a long way since then?

Yes, as comrade man stated, spirituality has been around long before organized religion, the state and classes.

And no, "spirituality" does not mean "constructing a grand narrative by which to describe natural forces that are greater and more powerful..." because that was essentially the role of organized religion, and it is by way of these yarns that the ruling elite of a religion control their followers.

People too much lump together the notions of spirituality as some kind of crutch used to explain what science can't and actual mystical experiences taking place in the psyches' of individuals.

By spirituality I am referring to the oldest kind - enlightenment/gnosis experiences and a kind of psychological apotheosis probably experienced by humans as they ingested certain wild plants.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But 1=0 too. :)

x = y, so x2 = xy.Then by subtracting the same both we get x2 - y2 = xy - y2. If we divide (x-y) the we get x + y = y. If x = y then 2 y = y therefore 2 = 1 because y= non-zero. If we then take 1 away from both we end up with 1 = 0.:lol:

That doesn't work because x and y are variables, not actual numbers. Also, x and y denote different variables so they are not necessarily equivalent.


0.9=1 is the best.

If x= 0.9 then 10x is 9.9. 9x=9 and therefore x=1

Wrong! 10 * 0.9 = 9, and 9 * 0.9 = 8.1, actually.


1/3= 0.33333333... multiply 1 by 3 = 3 and 3 by 3 = 9 therefore 3/9 is 1/3 and we get 1 = 0.9

No we don't. You are just asserting that 1 = 0.9 after some basic arithmatic.


1-0.9 = 0.0 = 0---- but the the distance between 0.9 and 1 is 0 therefore 0.9=1 if the distance between the two is 0.

Something is seriously wrong with your calculator. 1 - 0.9 gives us 0.1, not 0. Nine-tenths of a cake is not the whole cake by definition.

[ckaihatsu]

I'll vouch for this one:


0.999...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...#Digit_manipulation

[ComradeMan]

That doesn't work because x and y are variables, not actual numbers. Also, x and y denote different variables so they are not necessarily equivalent.

Wrong! 10 * 0.9 = 9, and 9 * 0.9 = 8.1, actually.

No we don't. You are just asserting that 1 = 0.9 after some basic arithmatic.

Something is seriously wrong with your calculator. 1 - 0.9 gives us 0.1, not 0. Nine-tenths of a cake is not the whole cake by definition.


Dude.... the first two are cited as classical FALLACIES of mathematics... i.e. not serious because they are FLAWED but present arguments about 0=1 etc.

However the 0.9=1 is trickier.
If 10x-x = 9x thus = 9.9...- 0.9... = 9 thus 9x = 9 and x = 1 :lol:

LOL!!!

It's typical of elementary level students of mathematics to resist this notion.

Have a look here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
The equality 0.999... = 1 has long been accepted by mathematicians and taught in textbooks. In the last few decades, researchers of mathematics education (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Mathematics_education) have studied the reception of this equality among students, many of whom initially question or reject it. Many are persuaded by an appeal to authority (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Argument_from_authority) from textbooks and teachers, or by arithmetic reasoning as below to accept that the two are equal. However, some are often uneasy enough that they seek further justification. The students' reasoning for denying or affirming the equality is typically based on their intuition that each number has a unique decimal expansion (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Decimal_expansion), that nonzero infinitesimal (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Infinitesimal) numbers should exist, or that the expansion of 0.999... eventually terminates. These intuitions fail in the real numbers, but alternative number systems can be constructed bearing some of them out. Indeed, some settings contain numbers that are "just shy" of 1; these are generally unrelated to 0.999..., but they are of considerable interest in mathematical analysis (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Mathematical_analysis)

Try a Cauchy Sequence if you want
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/0/7/d/07d98e2a1fe01a03ee833f312fe7f758.png

Thus in this formalism the task is to show that the sequence of rational numbers has the limit 0. Considering the nth term of the sequence, for n=0,1,2,..., it must therefore be shown that:-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/9/3/59350169ae12a6a75269f60329c015f5.png

This limit is plain;[23] one possible proof is that for ε = a/b > 0 one can take N = b in the definition of the limit of a sequence. So again
0.999... = 1.
:scared:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...#Cauchy_sequences

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'll vouch for this one:


0.999...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...#Digit_manipulation

Well, shit. I guess this goes to show that mathematics is not my strongest point.

If 0.999... divided by 3 = 0.333..., that is a third. Multiply that by three and I must reluctantly accept that 0.999... = 1.

Seems fucking broken to me, but nobody said the truth had to be pretty.

[ComradeMan]

Well, shit. I guess this goes to show that mathematics is not my strongest point.

If 0.999... divided by 3 = 0.333..., that is a third. Multiply that by three and I must reluctantly accept that 0.999... = 1.

Seems fucking broken to me, but nobody said the truth had to be pretty.

Yeah!!! LOL!!! :lol:

I wouldn't recommend trying to use this the next time you have a $100 bill and you only want to pay $99!!! ;) But there's truly some weird stuff in mathematics!!!

[ckaihatsu]

But there's truly some weird stuff in mathematics!!!


Don't know if you'd call this "weird", but there's been a historical development of new kinds of domains of numbers themselves -- perhaps at some point in social history there came a time when people had a need to express fractions in a formal way whereas they hadn't really had to before....

Just found this from a search:





Illustration

Natural numbers are a subset of Integers

Integers are a subset of Rational Numbers

Rational Numbers are a subset of the Real Numbers

Combinations of Real and Imaginary numbers make up the Complex Numbers.


http://www.mathsisfun.com/sets/images/number-sets.gif


http://www.mathsisfun.com/sets/number-types.html

[ComradeMan]

Oh no...... sets!!!!!!!!!!!!! Minefields of potential ruined theses and mathematical careers!!! ;)

Or some quite cool stuff....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Mandel_zoom_00_mandelbrot_set.jpg/322px-Mandel_zoom_00_mandelbrot_set.jpg (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/File:Mandel_zoom_00_mandelbrot_set.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mandel_zoom_00_mandelbrot_set.jpg

[Princess Luna]

Ignorance of evidence is evidence of ignorance.

Sweeping generalisation too---- this is the exact problem with any discussion on the subject, ignorant statements filled with hate that work on the same level as religious fundamentalists.

Are Jains dangerous? I couldn't imagine a more "un-dangerous" spiritual belief system.
yes Jains are dangerous to the extent that extreme pacifism lets people who arewilling to use violence do what ever the fuck they want , if someone is trying to rape a women its much better that she fights back and wounds or kills her attacker then do nothing because her god or believe system says it wrong to hurt people even if they are hurting you.

[ZeroNowhere]

There is nothing weird about mathematics.

[ComradeMan]

There is nothing weird about mathematics.

Let a = rational, b= irrational

When maths is perceived as a but is often b in its results then c= weird comes into play!!! ;)

The "weirdness" comes in when commonly held notions that most people hold, quite reasonably, are challenged but what seems crazy- like Mandelbrot's infinite coastline of Britain.

[Twin City Lines]

Ignorance of evidence is evidence of ignorance.

Sweeping generalisation too---- this is the exact problem with any discussion on the subject, ignorant statements filled with hate that work on the same level as religious fundamentalists.

Are Jains dangerous? I couldn't imagine a more "un-dangerous" spiritual belief system.

Jains believe "thou shalt not kill" applies to viruses and bacteria. During an epidemic that would be quite dangerous....

[ComradeMan]

Jains believe "thou shalt not kill" applies to viruses and bacteria. During an epidemic that would be quite dangerous....

Jains do have quite "far out" beliefs in that sense. But at the same time they have managed to survive for around 2,700 years.

However there is a distinction in Jainism made between that which is expected of a "monk"/"nun" and a lay person. Although ahimsa or non-violence is a fundamental moral precept of Jainisms there is the acceptance of that which is unavoidable as long as it is reflected upon with meditation and regret. It's a bit like you take anti-biotics or use disinfectant and then sort of pray for the souls of the bacteria. I think that's how they deal with this problem.