How about Higgs-Bosons ?

No, but really, Lestat and All-in Flynn, I get what you're saying and I mean I agree with you...I'm not a theist and don't believe in supernatural things, so that's probably why I'm having a hard time explaining myself. I'm attempting to put myself in the shoes of a theist, since that's what the question asks, and when doing so, my conception of god doesn't seem to have a problem reconciling his supernaturalness with his ability to do things in the natural world.

I would say that 1+1=3 is false, regardless of how many brains are thinking it.

The point is that if it is indeed a fact of reality that 1+1=2 (not just the collection of symbols, but the content of the symbols), and that 1+1=3 is false (not just symbols), this would show the existence of non-physical "stuff" in the universe (namely, the objects "1" "2" and "3" and some sort of relationship operators "+" and "=").

What do you mean by 'a fact of reality'?

Something that is true within or about the universe.

this is similar to the question " if a tree falls and noone is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"
If 1+1=2 is a 'fact of reality', whatever that means, the existence of non-physical "stuff" does not necessarily follow. If something has the property Green, this does not point to the existence of Green as non physical "stuff" . Even more, something is green only to eyes that see it, otherwise it is just light of a certain wavelength.
You also make a contradiction, in that you say that 1,2, and 3 are non physical, then you call them objects. An object is physical no? I would say that 1, 2, and 3 are concepts, which is a totally different thing

This is a question of definitions, and in particular whether "sound" is mind-dependent. If sound is merely a propagation of waves through air, then of course it makes a sound (unless your tree is in a vacuum). If sound is the process of a mind taking those waves and translating them into some sort of experience of a conscious being, then there is no sound.

You're creating a person-dependent concept of green. That is, it's only "green" because of the language convention that "green" corresponds to light of a certain wavelength, and it is only accessible to those who can measure it. This is substantially different from 1+1=2 as a fact of reality. As I've pointed out, human cultures that have had any level of mathematical knowledge have all independently come to the conclusion that 1+1=2 (math facts in ancient China are the same as the math facts in Mesopotamia). This points to a person-independent concept of "1" "2" "+" and "=" because of the universality of the relationship.

Only if you declare that "object" must refer to something physical. I can use a different word, if you would like.

When you say that "1, 2, and 3 are concepts," what do you mean by a "concept"? Are these mind-dependent things? That is, do they go away if the minds go away?

This is the nub of it, and yes, for my money.

A binary switch in a computer is in one of two states - 1 or 0. But only if the computer is on. If the computer is off, the switch is neither at 1 nor 0. So 1 + 1 = 2 wouldn't be true if there were no minds for the concepts to reside in, but neither would it be false. It wouldn't be.

Yes I agree its a question of definitions, thats what I was trying to get across with my sound example. Is a sound mind dependent? is a concept mind dependent?


Maybe quantity is person dependent? Does the universe care that 1+1=2? As baldrick says in answer to the question " what do I have if I have 3 beans, and add this one", "A very small casserole".
Maybe at the fundamental level there is no concept of quantity. Kind of like how one thing can be in 2 places at once on a Quantum level.
I admit the colour example wasnt a very good one, as 2 people can see the same wavelength of light differently. I was just trying to point out that things can have properties that are an intrinsic part of the object, and dont exist outside the object. Eg a table is hard. you cant hold hardness in your hand and show it to people( without some object to reference to) maybe you cant show 1+1=2 without some universe to reference to.

[QUOTE=Aaron W.;26309838]
When you say that "1, 2, and 3 are concepts," what do you mean by a "concept"? Are these mind-dependent things? That is, do they go away if the minds go away?



What do you mean when a concept "goes away", what happens when a concept doesnt go away? does it kind of hang about in the air or what?

Asking what makes me up is absurd. I am indivisible.

If at some particular moment, no brain is thinking "1+1=2", does that mean that at that particular moment, the concept of "1+1=2" does not exist? So that "1+1=2" comes in and out of being all the time as humans think different thoughts?

Implicit in your question is the idea that these things must exist in a physical space.

A concept existing, and a concept being true, are 2 different things. That is the point I was trying to make with my first post. You went from talking about what thoughts or ideas are, to talking about whether a thought or idea is true, as if this had some relevance on what thoughts are. You seem to be saying that things (concepts, thoughts,ideas) exist outside of physical space ( as a prelude to saying god does as well?), because a concept is true.

the concept of "flying invisible teapot on the other side of the moon" comes in and out of peoples consciousness all the time, but this has no effect on the truth of the statement " there is a flying invisible teapot on the other side of the moon"

I dont think it is implicit in my question that concepts exist in a physical space, but maybe thats down to definitions again
Does a thought exist in physical space? what is a thought? what do you mean by exist in( or out of) physical space? what do you mean by exist ?

I will try again with my properties analogy. Hardness is the property of a table, 1+1=2 is the property of a universe. Does Hardness exist outside of physical space?

Do you think it possible that a universe could exist where 1+1=3? or that the speed of light was 1 metre per second less than in our universe?

Nit picking, but it is impossible for 1+1=3 in any possible world.
The speed of light, as far as im aware could be different in different universe

I did make a transition there, yes. My question about the truth of a statement was a follow-up to his response that ideas exist as energy. It was more of a probing question to draw out the existence of eternal truths that exist, but do not exist as physical objects. In other words, there exists a true statement that is not tied to anything physical. Does that help to clarify my intentions?

I don't think it's meaningful to ask this about hardness in the same way that you can ask it about 1+1=2. That is, the hardness of the table is tied to the physical existence of the table. The same cannot be said of "1+1=2." It is not a property made manifest by physical objects.

No, unless you're merely talking about redefining the symbols.

If we grant that the speed of light is a constant for all time and throughout all space, then no. But that's sort of trivial when it's stated that way. I do not know the actual limits of the things that we model to be constant in our universe. For example, I suppose it might be possible that the speed of light is actually changing in time, but changing at a rate slow enough that it is not detectable. So I don't have a good answer for you.

Atoms don't exist, energy continues the illusion. Try toilet paper; at least you can get a "grasp and feel" of some truth in reality.

That's interesting.

It's very easy to confuse scientific frameworks with actual truth but these couldn't be more different. When a (good) scientist says that there is a "law" of gravity or that that "matter is made of elementary particles," he does not mean these statements literally.

In other words, nobody (with a clue) is going to tell you that the existence of elementary particles is a fundamental fact describing the nature of the cosmos. Instead, the various particles, laws, attributes and so on that physicists like to talk about are convenient notation. When they say

"Gravity affects all matter"

they really mean:

"If we describe matter in the contextually obvious conceptual framework, i.e., objects in motion continue their motion until acted upon by a force, etc., etc., and then imagine or pretend that there is a force which acts upon all matter in the framework according to the following equations, and call that 'gravity,' the results are highly consistent with our experience/perception which, presumably, is some kind of reflection of whatever it is that is really real in the cosmos."

Of course it would be ridiculous to always speak that way. This sort of shorthand (pretending it's all true) is good enough to fly airplanes and keep us high on adderall, so it's almost never necessary to think so carefully about these finer methodological points when we do scientific stuff.

See: http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_non_fingo

The point is, nobody (except an idiot) is trying to say that you are literally made of atoms or molecules. That is not the message or consensus of science. All that science tells you is that it is very useful and expedient to pretend that you are made up of atoms and molecules.

I am, of course, not surprised that you did not present any arguments. But at least try to be honest, and read your own posts. You wrote that you believed that God "created" the universe. That makes the universe an artifact (something that has come to existence, i.e "made" or "created", by something else. Of course the common definition of an artifact implies something made by humans, but, obviously, that is not what I meant). We do have absolutely zero reason or evidence to assume that the universe (i.e) "reality" was made or created (and no, please do not shout big bang, it does not work this way). Other than that, what can I say? Business as usual...Christian is being Christian...Would you please explain what you mean by "in" and "out" of the universe again? I may need another laughter. And finally, this is not directed to you but to all Christians in the forum, would you please stop pretending that your theology is something "rationally consistent", "deep" and "meaningful"? It is really neither of those. Thank you.

Cheers

BTW, it is precisely the aforementioned idiots who will tell you that science and religion are mutually inconsistent. Real scientists, whatever they believe personally, know very well that science is inherently agnostic. As soon as scientific practitioners become dogmatically attached to their own hypotheses, they cease to be scientists (and become a lot more like priests).

Well this comes back to my question, what does exist mean? what does not exist as physical objects mean?
There are also ( an infinite number of) false statements that are not tied to anything physical, Im not sure that theres any significance in this.

I think you would find it hard to define 1 or 2 without using physical objects in the definition( maybe thats true of everything though)
Maybe , as I said before "oneness" and "twoness" arise from our perspective on the world, and at some level the concept has no meaning. Just as we understand how a snooker ball works at our level, but on a quantum level, we dont understand how single particles behave, even though they both follow the same rules. Ok this is just theorizing or supposition or whatever, but its just as valid as to theorize that there is an "outside of physical space" that things can exist in

Maybe if you define "exist outside of physical space" I will be more able to follow where you are coming from

Yep, basically...

Now, however, comes a question. What if the "existence" itself (i.e all that there is) is structured like a mind? I think Stu wrote something like that earlier in the thread, implying that what he means by "God" is this underlying, evolving mind (this alone puts Stu light-years above and beyond the Christian clowns in the thread, of course). If something like that is the case, then it would mean that the numbers 1 and O as well as 1+1=2 would be "eternal" truths since there would always be this eternal mind (i.e, God) to grasp them. Bishop Berkeley would not object to that, I think.

Cheers

Is the constant pi, the ratio of circumference to diameter of any given circle, located in the universe?

No, a transcendental quantity cannot be physically instantiated, therefore pi is nowhere in physical space.

I have no short answer for you.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/existence/

Truth is significant to this.

It depends on your view of knowledge.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ra...sm-empiricism/

Edit: You can define 1 as the successor of 0 as in Peano's axioms. It's a technical math thing.

If you're asking me to "show" something to you, I'll never be able to accomplish your task. In whatever place it is possible to have an idea that is *about* something else (no physical object can be *about* another one), that's where it is.

A number is nowhere in physical space, an invisible teapot is nowhere in physical space,a leprechaun is nowhere in physical space, an idea is nowhere in physical space, whats your point?

"where" cant refer to anywhere except in physical space, otherwise it has no meaning.

Im not asking you to show me anything, just define what it means to be outside of physical space?

Meaning aside from pointing out the constant ratio of circumference to diameter for every circle is not located in physical space? That about sums it up for now.