# "God cannot create a square circle"

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
Power has nothing to do with logic.

You can't force logic to do anything. It is what it is.

Give me an example where some being could use force to change logic. What would that look like?
Exactly. You can't force logic to do anything. It's simply a method of analysis. If what you're analyzing changes, then the analysis leads to different results. It's reality that changes, not the tools you use to model reality.
If logic cannot be effected by force than to expect an omnipotent being to be able to change it is illogical.

Logic has nothing to do with power or omnipotence.

A being unable to change logic can still be omnipotent. It has the power to change all things that can possibly be changed with power.

#### Tom Sawyer

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Power has nothing to do with logic.

You can't force logic to do anything. It is what it is.

Give me an example where some being could use force to change logic. What would that look like?
Exactly. You can't force logic to do anything. It's simply a method of analysis. If what you're analyzing changes, then the analysis leads to different results. It's reality that changes, not the tools you use to model reality.
If logic cannot be effected by force than to expect an omnipotent being to be able to change it is illogical.

Logic has nothing to do with power or omnipotence.

A being unable to change logic can still be omnipotent. It has the power to change all things that can possibly be changed with power.

Why did you quote my post for the sole point of repeating the latter sentences as if I hadn't said them? Logic tells us about reality. If reality changes, logic would change along with it, not because the logic itself is influenced, but simply because what it's describing has become different.

#### Kharakov

##### Quantum Hot Dog
What if the part of reality that changes is that which allows us to make logical statements?

Something like a change in the electromagnetic permittivity of free space, which made it so our minds (or brains... if you think you're a meat puppet) no longer function. Then does logic gurk gorp?

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
Power has nothing to do with logic.

You can't force logic to do anything. It is what it is.

Give me an example where some being could use force to change logic. What would that look like?
Exactly. You can't force logic to do anything. It's simply a method of analysis. If what you're analyzing changes, then the analysis leads to different results. It's reality that changes, not the tools you use to model reality.
If logic cannot be effected by force than to expect an omnipotent being to be able to change it is illogical.

Logic has nothing to do with power or omnipotence.

A being unable to change logic can still be omnipotent. It has the power to change all things that can possibly be changed with power.

Why did you quote my post for the sole point of repeating the latter sentences as if I hadn't said them? Logic tells us about reality. If reality changes, logic would change along with it, not because the logic itself is influenced, but simply because what it's describing has become different.
If reality changed logic would not change. Logic would be the same thing. It would just conform to a different reality.

Logic is not tied to some specific reality. But any reality, to have logic, requires beings like humans to create their systems of logic.

#### Tom Sawyer

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
What if the part of reality that changes is that which allows us to make logical statements?

Something like a change in the electromagnetic permittivity of free space, which made it so our minds (or brains... if you think you're a meat puppet) no longer function. Then does logic gurk gorp?

I don't know what kind of hell hole you feel comfortable living in, but no universe of mine is going to have its logic gurking gorp, thank you very much.

I don't think that would make a difference, though. Two and two equal four regardless of anyone's ability to make a statement that two and two equals four and the same would hold true in a reality where they equalled five. I suppose you could have a universe where one of the properties of the universe is the inability for any of the sentient beings in that universe to make valid statements about the universe, however.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
What if the part of reality that changes is that which allows us to make logical statements?

Something like a change in the electromagnetic permittivity of free space, which made it so our minds (or brains... if you think you're a meat puppet) no longer function. Then does logic gurk gorp?

I don't know what kind of hell hole you feel comfortable living in, but no universe of mine is going to have its logic gurking gorp, thank you very much.

I don't think that would make a difference, though. Two and two equal four regardless of anyone's ability to make a statement that two and two equals four and the same would hold true in a reality where they equalled five. I suppose you could have a universe where one of the properties of the universe is the inability for any of the sentient beings in that universe to make valid statements about the universe, though.
There is no reality where you could put two things on the table and then put two more and end up with five.

#### Tom Sawyer

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
There is no reality where you could put two things on the table and then put two more and end up with five.

Correct. That's because we live in a universe without anyone with omnipotent abilities, so the rules of reality aren't up for debate.

If you had someone like that and he couldn't warp the rules of reality and make the illogical logical, he wouldn't actually be omnipotent and would, quite literally, be the Magus without the Reality Gem.* Really powerful, to be sure, but only possessing a finite amount of power. He's 5/6th omnipotent and needs the reality warping ability to be able to multiply a finite number and get to infinity, which he doesn't have because Thanos fucked him because Thanos is awesome and better than everyone else.

When discussing beings with infinite power, the finite limitations that you're placing on their power are as relevant to the discussion as the argument as saying that stars can't generate fusion power because worms don't have feet. The limitations of completely different entities without anywhere near the power of the entity you're talking about aren't qualified as limitations of the far more powerful entity under discussion.

* If you don't get that reference, then why the hell not? The Infinity War miniseries was put out in 1993, so you've had a couple of decades to read it and it's available for Kindle download on Amazon and is too awesome for you to have not read. It's inappropriate to have internet discussions without at least a minimal level of cultural context to go along them.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
There is no reality where you could put two things on the table and then put two more and end up with five.

Correct. That's because we live in a universe without anyone with omnipotent abilities, so the rules of reality aren't up for debate.

If you had someone like that and he couldn't warp the rules of reality and make the illogical logical, he wouldn't actually be omnipotent and would, quite literally, be the Magus without the Reality Gem.* Really powerful, to be sure, but only possessing a finite amount of power. He's 5/6th omnipotent and needs the reality warping ability to be able to multiply a finite number and get to infinity, which he doesn't have because Thanos fucked him because Thanos is awesome and better than everyone else.

When discussing beings with infinite power, the finite limitations that you're placing on their power are as relevant to the discussion as the argument as saying that stars can't generate fusion power because worms don't have feet. The limitations of completely different entities without anywhere near the power of the entity you're talking about aren't qualified as limitations of the far more powerful entity under discussion.

* If you don't get that reference, then why the hell not? The Infinity War miniseries was put out in 1993, so you've had a couple of decades to read it and it's available for Kindle download on Amazon and is too awesome for you to have not read. It's inappropriate to have internet discussions without at least a minimal level of cultural context to go along them.
This has nothing to do with power.

When discussing reality, we are limited. There is only one for all we know.

What you are discussing is fantasy, not reality. In fantasy I can put two things on the table and then put two more and end up with five. But I can't do that in any reality that I know of. And I can't imagine a reality where it would be possible.

Your claims that it would be possible are not convincing.

#### Tom Sawyer

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
There is no reality where you could put two things on the table and then put two more and end up with five.

Correct. That's because we live in a universe without anyone with omnipotent abilities, so the rules of reality aren't up for debate.

If you had someone like that and he couldn't warp the rules of reality and make the illogical logical, he wouldn't actually be omnipotent and would, quite literally, be the Magus without the Reality Gem.* Really powerful, to be sure, but only possessing a finite amount of power. He's 5/6th omnipotent and needs the reality warping ability to be able to multiply a finite number and get to infinity, which he doesn't have because Thanos fucked him because Thanos is awesome and better than everyone else.

When discussing beings with infinite power, the finite limitations that you're placing on their power are as relevant to the discussion as the argument as saying that stars can't generate fusion power because worms don't have feet. The limitations of completely different entities without anywhere near the power of the entity you're talking about aren't qualified as limitations of the far more powerful entity under discussion.

* If you don't get that reference, then why the hell not? The Infinity War miniseries was put out in 1993, so you've had a couple of decades to read it and it's available for Kindle download on Amazon and is too awesome for you to have not read. It's inappropriate to have internet discussions without at least a minimal level of cultural context to go along them.
This has nothing to do with power.

When discussing reality, we are limited. There is only one for all we know.

What you are discussing is fantasy, not reality. In fantasy I can put two things on the table and then put two more and end up with five. But I can't do that in any reality that I know of. And I can't imagine a reality where it would be possible.

Your claims that it would be possible are not convincing.

WTF?

Of course it's a fantasy. How has that in any way been even the slightest bit unclear? We're talking about the fictional abilities of a fictional character. The wingspan of a dragon is also not large enough to generate lift for a creature of that much mass, but that's not in any way relevant to discussions about dragons because they're just huge things that can fly with the wings that they have and discussions about flying dragons take place within the context of a fictional reality where that makes sense. Similarly, we're talking about a being with the ability to change the rules of reality and discussions about that being take place within the context of the fictional reality where such a being exists.

Our own reality where such things don't exist isn't the context within which to have the discussion. Doing so is the same as interrupting a Star Trek thread to go on about how the light speed barrier can't be breached, so humans can't make it to these alien worlds through a few weeks of travel time.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
We're talking about the fictional abilities of a fictional character.
The discussion was about the concept of omnipotence.

And logic.

Omnipotence would mean a being could create things in any order. But it doesn't mean everything created has the ability for life to evolve and create systems of logic.

It is only a fantasy that logic would apply to every creation of an omnipotent being.

#### Tom Sawyer

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
We're talking about the fictional abilities of a fictional character.
The discussion was about the concept of omnipotence.

And logic.

Omnipotence would mean a being could create things in any order. But it doesn't mean everything created has the ability for life to evolve and create systems of logic.

It is only a fantasy that logic would apply to every creation of an omnipotent being.

Unless the omnipotent being wanted it to be that way, in which case it would be. There's no more effort required in creating one thing which has the ability to evolve and create systems of logic and creating 826 trillion things which have the ability to evolve and create systems of logic and each one of those things can be guided with exact individual precision according to the specifications that the omnipotent guy desires. Doing all of that is no more difficult than creating an average nebula.

#### RCW

##### New member
The way I've heard omnipotence defined by Christians something like this:
Omnipotence is the ability that God has to do anything that is not illogical (square circle), contradictory like (do something and not do something simultaneously) or to do something against His nature (like lying).

That, of course, means we're all omnipotent. I, for instance, can't lift my car... it's against my nature... I am too weak... naturally.

#### Tom Sawyer

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
The way I've heard omnipotence defined by Christians something like this:
Omnipotence is the ability that God has to do anything that is not illogical (square circle), contradictory like (do something and not do something simultaneously) or to do something against His nature (like lying).

That, of course, means we're all omnipotent. I, for instance, can't lift my car... it's against my nature... I am too weak... naturally.

Well, there's two main definitions of omnipotence. Aquinas's omnipotence is that God can do anything that's logically possible, meaning that square circles and contradictory actions are out. Descrtes's omnipotence is that God can do anything whether or not it's logically possible, meaning that they're in.

Aquinas's one was part of his whole "Hey guys, lets' not get stupid with all this shit because it makes the whole religion look idiotic" spiel where he was trying to keep a rational basis for Christian faith so people would have a better acceptance of it. Descartes's one was along the lines of "Come on, people, infinite means fucking infinite, not less-than-infinite" and actually applying the definition of the term to how the term gets defined and not caring whether or not the application of that will put bodies in the pews or not.

When Christians want to put some thought into their God and not have him come off as inane, they tend to use the Aquinas definition because a definition not constrained by logical bounds is inherently illogical, despite being more accurate.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
We're talking about the fictional abilities of a fictional character.
The discussion was about the concept of omnipotence.

And logic.

Omnipotence would mean a being could create things in any order. But it doesn't mean everything created has the ability for life to evolve and create systems of logic.

It is only a fantasy that logic would apply to every creation of an omnipotent being.

Unless the omnipotent being wanted it to be that way, in which case it would be. There's no more effort required in creating one thing which has the ability to evolve and create systems of logic and creating 826 trillion things which have the ability to evolve and create systems of logic and each one of those things can be guided with exact individual precision according to the specifications that the omnipotent guy desires. Doing all of that is no more difficult than creating an average nebula.
How would an omnipotent being make putting two objects on the table then two more into five objects?

How would something like that occur?

Simply saying it could is no kind of an answer, no kind of an argument, it is an empty claim.

#### Tom Sawyer

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
There's ... no way to do it. Reality doesn't work that way. He would turn reality into something different. There's no way to describe it using our current reality.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
There's ... no way to do it. Reality doesn't work that way. He would turn reality into something different. There's no way to describe it using our current reality.
There's no reality where it could be different.

If you have a reality with discreet objects then putting two of them on the table and then two more will always result in four objects on the table. Even if we talk about some fantasy reality where putting four objects on the table results in five, we would still have the same rules. We would have the two objects plus two objects plus one magically appearing object resulting in five objects.

#### Tom Sawyer

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
There's ... no way to do it. Reality doesn't work that way. He would turn reality into something different. There's no way to describe it using our current reality.
There's no reality where it could be different.

If you have a reality with discreet objects then putting two of them on the table and then two more will always result in four objects on the table. Even if we talk about some fantasy reality where putting four objects on the table results in five, we would still have the same rules. We would have the two objects plus two objects plus one magically appearing object resulting in five objects.

Right. Say, for instance, that an omnipotent guy was talking to a crowd. After awhile, they tell him that they're hungry. This kind of pisses the guy off and he's like "WTF? Telling them how to spend eternity in paradise as opposed to burning forever in the fires of Hell isn't fucking good enough? Now I'm supposed to feed these twats too? Dad kind of dropped the ball when he put these things together".

But, he looks around and sees that he has two loaves of bread and two pieces of fish. So, he says fine and causes a localized warping of the laws of reality and puts those together and ends up with five things to eat. He grabs two in each hand and puts them together and has another extra one. So on and so on and then there's enough to feed the whole crowd. It's no more difficult than increasing the molecular density of water to be able to walk across it or changing the chemical composition of a barrel of water so that his boys can get their drunk on.

Infinite means just that. It doesn't mean "this finite thing here". Unlimited means just that. It doesn't mean "this thing with all these limitations". Putting constraints on the unconstrained is just using words wrong.

#### Juma

##### Gone
So on and so on and then there's enough to feed the whole crowd. It's no more difficult than increasing the molecular density of water to be able to walk across it or changing the chemical composition of a barrel of water so that his boys can get their drunk on.

Infinite means just that. It doesn't mean "this finite thing here". Unlimited means just that. It doesn't mean "this thing with all these limitations". Putting constraints on the unconstrained is just using words wrong.
Or showing that "omnipotent" as in " above logic" is as impossible as "free will"

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
There's ... no way to do it. Reality doesn't work that way. He would turn reality into something different. There's no way to describe it using our current reality.
There's no reality where it could be different.

If you have a reality with discreet objects then putting two of them on the table and then two more will always result in four objects on the table. Even if we talk about some fantasy reality where putting four objects on the table results in five, we would still have the same rules. We would have the two objects plus two objects plus one magically appearing object resulting in five objects.

Right. Say, for instance, that an omnipotent guy was talking to a crowd. After awhile, they tell him that they're hungry. This kind of pisses the guy off and he's like "WTF? Telling them how to spend eternity in paradise as opposed to burning forever in the fires of Hell isn't fucking good enough? Now I'm supposed to feed these twats too? Dad kind of dropped the ball when he put these things together".

But, he looks around and sees that he has two loaves of bread and two pieces of fish. So, he says fine and causes a localized warping of the laws of reality and puts those together and ends up with five things to eat. He grabs two in each hand and puts them together and has another extra one. So on and so on and then there's enough to feed the whole crowd. It's no more difficult than increasing the molecular density of water to be able to walk across it or changing the chemical composition of a barrel of water so that his boys can get their drunk on.

Infinite means just that. It doesn't mean "this finite thing here". Unlimited means just that. It doesn't mean "this thing with all these limitations". Putting constraints on the unconstrained is just using words wrong.
Making food appear from thin air doesn't violate logic.

It violates what we think we know about matter.

A miracle isn't a violation of logic. It's a violation of what we think are the laws of the universe.

A ball doesn't roll down the stairs as opposed to up because of logic.

#### Tom Sawyer

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Making food appear from thin air doesn't violate logic.

It violates what we think we know about matter.

That depends on how you go about making the food appear. One of the good things about omnipotence is that you actually have an infinite variety of ways of achieving any result. Jesus decided to go with changing how addition works. That's just how he rolls.

A miracle isn't a violation of logic. It's a violation of what we think are the laws of the universe.

A ball doesn't roll down the stairs as opposed to up because of logic.

Right. It seems that you're involved in another thread where you're arguing against someone who's saying that logic gets violated and you've confused your responses there with this thread. All logic does is help tell us what the laws of the universe are. If those laws change, logic doesn't ever get violated, it's just that proper logical analysis leads to different conclusions.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
That depends on how you go about making the food appear. One of the good things about omnipotence is that you actually have an infinite variety of ways of achieving any result. Jesus decided to go with changing how addition works. That's just how he rolls.
Nothing about addition was changed. If things appear by some miracle addition is still the same thing. But now you have to add the things that appeared by a miracle.

A miracle isn't a violation of logic. It's a violation of what we think are the laws of the universe.

A ball doesn't roll down the stairs as opposed to up because of logic.
Right. It seems that you're involved in another thread where you're arguing against someone who's saying that logic gets violated and you've confused your responses there with this thread. All logic does is help tell us what the laws of the universe are. If those laws change, logic doesn't ever get violated, it's just that proper logical analysis leads to different conclusions.
I await that logical analysis.

The laws of the universe have nothing to do with logic. If they would change logic would be the same thing. No matter what universal laws some being existed in two plus two would always equal four. How would changing gravity change that?

#### Tom Sawyer

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Nothing about addition was changed. If things appear by some miracle addition is still the same thing. But now you have to add the things that appeared by a miracle.

A miracle isn't a violation of logic. It's a violation of what we think are the laws of the universe.

A ball doesn't roll down the stairs as opposed to up because of logic.
Right. It seems that you're involved in another thread where you're arguing against someone who's saying that logic gets violated and you've confused your responses there with this thread. All logic does is help tell us what the laws of the universe are. If those laws change, logic doesn't ever get violated, it's just that proper logical analysis leads to different conclusions.
I await that logical analysis.

The laws of the universe have nothing to do with logic. If they would change logic would be the same thing. No matter what universal laws some being existed in two plus two would always equal four. How would changing gravity change that?

Why the hell would changing gravity change how addition works? I'm really not sure what conversation you think you're having here because your responses are getting more and more randomized as time goes on.

If an omnipotent being changed reality so that a property of the universe was that every time someone put two things together with another two things, a fifth thing would also be there (call it magically appearing if it makes you happy), then any logical analysis which suggests that two plus two equals four would fail against empirical observations. It would be an invalid analysis because it doesn't match up to reality.

You're correct that the laws of the universe have nothing to do with logic and that would be a valid point to make if you were in a conversation with anyone who was suggesting such a thing. Given that there's nobody who's suggesting such a thing, it's just one more randomized response.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
Why the hell would changing gravity change how addition works?
My point exactly. Change the laws of the universe and logic doesn't change.
If an omnipotent being changed reality so that a property of the universe was that every time someone put two things together with another two things, a fifth thing would also be there (call it magically appearing if it makes you happy), then any logical analysis which suggests that two plus two equals four would fail against empirical observations. It would be an invalid analysis because it doesn't match up to reality.
Again, a magically appearing object is still an object in need of counting. You count it, so two plus two, plus the always appearing one, equals five. The rules of math don't change. And math here is just an example of logic.

#### Tom Sawyer

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
My point exactly. Change the laws of the universe and logic doesn't change.
If an omnipotent being changed reality so that a property of the universe was that every time someone put two things together with another two things, a fifth thing would also be there (call it magically appearing if it makes you happy), then any logical analysis which suggests that two plus two equals four would fail against empirical observations. It would be an invalid analysis because it doesn't match up to reality.
Again, a magically appearing object is still an object in need of counting. You count it, so two plus two, plus the always appearing one, equals five. The rules of math don't change.

But they do change. Two and two no longer gets you to four. Circles have no edges and four edges at the same time. A being a subset of B means that B is a subset of A. Logical analysis that remains the same and doesn't take the new rules of reality into account are no better than communism - they work in theory but fail when they're applied to reality.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
But they do change. Two and two no longer gets you to four. Circles have no edges and four edges at the same time. A being a subset of B means that B is a subset of A. Logical analysis that remains the same and doesn't take the new rules of reality into account are no better than communism - they work in theory but fail when they're applied to reality.

There is no rule of addition that says you don't count magically appearing objects when determining the sum of objects.

#### Tom Sawyer

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
But they do change. Two and two no longer gets you to four. Circles have no edges and four edges at the same time. A being a subset of B means that B is a subset of A. Logical analysis that remains the same and doesn't take the new rules of reality into account are no better than communism - they work in theory but fail when they're applied to reality.

There is no rule of addition that says you don't count magically appearing objects when determining the sum of objects.

I have no idea who you're having a conversation with, but it doesn't seem to be me.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
But they do change. Two and two no longer gets you to four. Circles have no edges and four edges at the same time. A being a subset of B means that B is a subset of A. Logical analysis that remains the same and doesn't take the new rules of reality into account are no better than communism - they work in theory but fail when they're applied to reality.

There is no rule of addition that says you don't count magically appearing objects when determining the sum of objects.

I have no idea who you're having a conversation with, but it doesn't seem to be me.
You claim that the rules of addition would change if two objects were placed on a table then two more which would cause a fifth to magically appear.

This would not change the rules. You can't change the rules.

Especially when you abstract the situation and use symbols. Here it is easier to see. In abstract symbols, 2+2 will always equal 4. And what happens in any universe doesn't matter at all. The symbols combine with one another with defined rules, not according to what happens in the real world.

#### Kharakov

##### Quantum Hot Dog
Why the hell would changing gravity change how addition works?
My point exactly. Change the laws of the universe and logic doesn't change.
Unless logic is a consequence of the fundamental constants. Wouldn't that be interesting.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
Why the hell would changing gravity change how addition works?
My point exactly. Change the laws of the universe and logic doesn't change.
Unless logic is a consequence of the fundamental constants. Wouldn't that be interesting.
I think consistency must exist before a being can invent logic. And to a degree logic reflects that consistency.

But without a certain amount of consistency you won't get evolved beings in the first place.

#### Kharakov

##### Quantum Hot Dog
Why the hell would changing gravity change how addition works?
My point exactly. Change the laws of the universe and logic doesn't change.
Unless logic is a consequence of the fundamental constants. Wouldn't that be interesting.
I think consistency must exist before a being can invent logic.
That might not be true. Perhaps logical consistency was selected for from infinite possibilities, in other words, it existed as a possibility and was consciously selected instead of being "invented".

#### Juma

##### Gone
Why the hell would changing gravity change how addition works?
My point exactly. Change the laws of the universe and logic doesn't change.
Unless logic is a consequence of the fundamental constants. Wouldn't that be interesting.
I think consistency must exist before a being can invent logic.
That might not be true. Perhaps logical consistency was selected for from infinite possibilities, in other words, it existed as a possibility and was consciously selected instead of being "invented".
Eh. That is what he wrote... If it didnt "exist as a possibility" it couldnt exist...

#### MxM111

##### New member
My view on "God cannot create a square circle" is simply that it is invalid sentence. All sentences listed below invalid and carry zero meaning:

"God can create square circle"
"God can not create a square circle"
"asdfa can asdfasd dqaefr"

It is just first two SOUND like there is some meaning in them, but there is none.

#### Kharakov

##### Quantum Hot Dog
Eh. That is what he wrote... If it didnt "exist as a possibility" it couldnt exist...
Nah Juma, I've talked with untermensche before, he believes logic is an invention of man, rather than a discovery.

Discovering logic is not the same thing as inventing it...

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
Eh. That is what he wrote... If it didnt "exist as a possibility" it couldnt exist...
Nah Juma, I've talked with untermensche before, he believes logic is an invention of man, rather than a discovery.

Discovering logic is not the same thing as inventing it...
It's like these physicists who talk about how the universe is a mathematical construct.

I say, no, mathematics is an incredibly flexible tool that can explain moving systems.

The universe has nothing to do with mathematics. Mathematics is a human invention.

#### Kharakov

##### Quantum Hot Dog
Man, I can't even think of a non-sarcastic way to respond. Seriously, that is... anyway, here is the sarcastic response:

Sure, the mathematical principles that the universe follows were invented by, rather than discovered by, humans. We discovered abstract mathematical entities by "inventing" them, instead of discovering them. lol... anyway.. Seriously?

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
Man, I can't even think of a non-sarcastic way to respond. Seriously, that is... anyway, here is the sarcastic response:

Sure, the mathematical principles that the universe follows were invented by, rather than discovered by, humans. We discovered abstract mathematical entities by "inventing" them, instead of discovering them. lol... anyway.. Seriously?
I'm not sure I follow, but there is a distinction between inventing something and discovering it.

And in terms of mathematics this is an unending debate.

Is it something out there that humans discovered? Is god a mathematician?

Or is it something humans just invented?

There is no answer. Only opinions.

#### Juma

##### Gone
Eh. That is what he wrote... If it didnt "exist as a possibility" it couldnt exist...
Nah Juma, I've talked with untermensche before, he believes logic is an invention of man, rather than a discovery.
Of course it is an invention. It is a creation of the "hardwiring" of humans and a discovery of the "software" of humans.

#### Kharakov

##### Quantum Hot Dog
Nah Juma, I've talked with untermensche before, he believes logic is an invention of man, rather than a discovery.
Of course it is an invention. It is a creation of the "hardwiring" of humans and a discovery of the "software" of humans.
If you call something discovered by witnessing the natural order an "invention".

#### Tom Sawyer

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Of course it is an invention. It is a creation of the "hardwiring" of humans and a discovery of the "software" of humans.
If you call something discovered by witnessing the natural order an "invention".

Good idea! I'm now patenting logic and anytime someone says something that makes sense, they owe me a dollar.

#### Juma

##### Gone
Of course it is an invention. It is a creation of the "hardwiring" of humans and a discovery of the "software" of humans.
If you call something discovered by witnessing the natural order an "invention".
All inventions are cinclusions drawn from witnessing the "natural order".

#### Kharakov

##### Quantum Hot Dog
If you call something discovered by witnessing the natural order an "invention".

Good idea! I'm now patenting logic and anytime someone says something that makes sense, they owe me a dollar.
You will never get a penny out of me! <-- haha, analyze that version of the liar's paradox.

#### Kharakov

##### Quantum Hot Dog
If you call something discovered by witnessing the natural order an "invention".
All inventions are cinclusions drawn from witnessing the "natural order".
Yeah. For some reason I have the idea in my head that when we discover something (such as logical progression), by witnessing something else doing something, we didn't "invent" that something, but instead we "discovered" it (or simply witnessed it).

So we didn't make up logic- we witnessed its occurrence and utilized it.

It would be like me seeing someone else use logic, witnessing it, and then claiming to have invented it. Logical progressions existed prior to our usage of them...

Unless you want to end up paying Tom a lot of loot...

#### jonJ

##### Member
If you call something discovered by witnessing the natural order an "invention".

Good idea! I'm now patenting logic and anytime someone says something that makes sense, they owe me a dollar.

You'll never get rich...

#### Juma

##### Gone
Logical progressions existed prior to our usage of them...
no, it didnt.

#### Kharakov

##### Quantum Hot Dog
Logical progressions existed prior to our usage of them...
no, it didnt.
You should probably research a dead language that we call "English". Anyways (anyway doesn't have an "s" on it, but I personally have decided that it will, because my writings WILL influence the thought of mankind for eternity).

Anyways- they did. Let it be written, let it be done, I sense that I am the chosen one.

Juma- there is no way in logic that you can prove that logic was not preceded by order- if you assume that order did not precede logic, logic is illogical.

#### Juma

##### Gone
Kharakov; said:
Juma- there is no way in logic that you can prove that logic was not preceded by order- if you assume that order did not precede logic, logic is illogical.
i did not write that order did not precede logic.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
Of course it is an invention. It is a creation of the "hardwiring" of humans and a discovery of the "software" of humans.
If you call something discovered by witnessing the natural order an "invention".
Do you have any logic to actually make this an argument?

There are many who claim mathematics is part of the observed universe.

I say that is nonsense.

Mathematics is just a very flexible system capable of modeling moving systems.

The fact that it can be used to approximate natural phenomena is just a feature of invented mathematics. It has nothing to do with mathematics being involved in natural phenomena. Despite the fact that many scientists don't seem to comprehend the difference between their invented models and the real thing.

#### Kharakov

##### Quantum Hot Dog
Kharakov; said:
Juma- there is no way in logic that you can prove that logic was not preceded by order- if you assume that order did not precede logic, logic is illogical.
i did not write that order did not precede logic.
So order which allows logic precedes logic, an order that logic is based on. Discovery (or "invention") of logic is like a child "discovering" or "inventing" English.

#### Kharakov

##### Quantum Hot Dog
If you call something discovered by witnessing the natural order an "invention".
Do you have any logic to actually make this an argument?
Make a wild guess. I'll play later.

The fact that it [itex] can be used to approximate natural phenomena is just a feature of invented mathematics. It has nothing to do with mathematics being involved in natural phenomena. Despite the fact that many scientists don't seem to comprehend the difference between their invented models and the real thing.
Are you actually naive enough to think that a language that describes specific attributes of reality was formed around reality, rather than formed by reality? Math, in all its exactness, describes very specific aspects of reality- it was not formed to describe reality, it was formed by reality itself. In other words, various ratios exist as absolutes, and math does not impose these things upon reality.

#### untermensche

##### Contributor
Math, in all its exactness, describes very specific aspects of reality- it was not formed to describe reality, it was formed by reality itself.
Nonsense.

Math is a human creation. It is an abstraction of reality. Reality does not have numbers or derivatives or circles or straight lines. Only human math does.