|
Author
|
Topic: can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 25. May 2007 10:34
I agree with the opinion of this well known IBM scientist Gregory Chaitin, who said "In my opinion, if Darwin's theory is as simple, fundamental and basic as its adherents believe, then there ought to be an equally fundamental mathematical theory about this, that expresses these ideas with the generality, precision and degree of abstractness that we are accustomed to demand in pure mathematics." His article is here http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/mex.html
If mathematics is the language of God, as a Newton or Einstein believes, a proper understanding of mathematics must be key to understanding God. Unfortunately, we have not yet understood the foundation of mathematics. Our understanding of the most basic concept of mathematics, numbers and in particular prime numbers, are grossly flawed. Here is why.
Why indivisibility is not a proper way of defining primes?
To use indivisibility to define primes leads to logical absurdity. Prime is commonly viewed as the foundation of numbers and mathematics. But divisibility/indivisibility must be the foundation of primes if we define primes by indivisibility. You need the idea of divisibility first in order to understand indivisibility or primes. It then follows that divisibility is the foundation of primes and in turn mathematics, which is pretty absurd. Furthermore, divisibility needs minimally the number 4 to have meaning, which is the first composite number that is divisible. It thus follows that 4 is the foundation of primes and in turn mathematics, which is absurd. This absurdity originates from a tautology. To define numbers by division that is itself defined by numbers is a tautology. Division is a higher or more advanced concept than numbers. To use an advanced concept to define a more basic concept is circular. We cannot use molecules to define atoms. When we have to use a tautology to define primes, it just means that we don’t really know what a prime is yet. If prime is the atom, non-prime the molecule, and division the manipulation of molecules and atoms, we must use the equivalent of quantum particles to define primes/atoms.
Why 1, 2, 3 cannot be a prime as defined by division?
A prime is not divisible by smaller numbers. Thus, the primality of a prime is only linked to numbers smaller than the prime but is independent of larger numbers. The primality of a prime needs the concept of division. But the concept of division cannot be established without the number 4, which is the first composite number that is divisible. So 4 is needed to confer pramality to 1, 2, 3. This makes the pramality of 1, 2, 3 different from that of all other primes. All primes greater than 3 do not need a larger number for its primality to have meaning. The prime 5 does not need 6 to be found a prime. The primality concept as defined by division really only start to have meaning after the number 4.
Until we find the true meaning of primes, we have no hope of proving God. God created the integers. Until we find His way of creating the integers or primes, we will not truly know what is a prime or God.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 07. June 2007 05:58
Mathematics, including probablity and all of population genetics, has had absolutely nothing to do with either ontogeny or phylogeny.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis page 134.
Furtheremore, mathematics exists entirely independent of the human condition and has been largely discovered. Much of what passes as mathematics is probably not correct.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 07. June 2007, 13:47: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic