|
Post by scottishviking on Aug 9, 2006 2:50:44 GMT -5
I came across a mathematical discussion about the number of gods which could exist; can anyone refute the maths ? It goes as follows...
The number of gods must be an integer, ie a whole number (fractions of a god would be nonsensical). In the natural world the number of integers run from + infinity to - infinity (no discussion was made as to what negative gods would be like !). Frequency of numbers will follw a gaussian (normal) distribution therefore the most likely number is the median number, which in a range from infinity to infinity is zero. therefore, mathematically, the most likely number of gods existing is none.
Comments ?
Scottishviking
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Aug 9, 2006 3:01:49 GMT -5
I came across a mathematical discussion about the number of gods which could exist; can anyone refute the maths ? It goes as follows... The number of gods must be an integer, ie a whole number (fractions of a god would be nonsensical). In the natural world the number of integers run from + infinity to - infinity (no discussion was made as to what negative gods would be like !). Frequency of numbers will follw a gaussian (normal) distribution therefore the most likely number is the median number, which in a range from infinity to infinity is zero. therefore, mathematically, the most likely number of gods existing is none. Comments ? Scottishviking This doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand "Frequency of numbers will follw a gaussian (normal) distribution". Seems the "distribution" should be "there is one God". Seems to me you could ask the question "How many people using the nickname Scottishviking exist?" and apply the same logic. The answer then would be there are no people using the nickname Scottishviking. And perhaps tha is correct. Maybe you are not a person. Perhaps the devil himself? So, plainly anyone can come to any conslusion with numbers missapplied and with imagination that you want.
|
|
eurp
Senior Member
Posts: 290
|
Post by eurp on Aug 9, 2006 3:28:10 GMT -5
Having some math background, I quite understand this point, but do not agree with it.
Greg: a "normal distribution" is a statistics term, and refers to what could be expected in the spread of a set of results. For example the heights of people. Most are bunched round the average, and there's a "tail" (graph term) out to the extremities of short and tall.
But as to the number of Gods, I think this is more likely to be an imaginary number (imaginary numbers are like the square root of -1.
Imaginary numbers were invented for doing things that people couldn't do with real numbers, like taking the sq root of -1. "i" is a complex number. As God's dealings are mosty with our mind this seems a strong possibility.
It could be that the number is a complex number. These are a mixture of imaginary numbers and real numbers (like i + 4) As Gods dealing merge between the imaginary and the real, and as they are hard for a human mind to understand, they are complex.
|
|
|
Post by scottishviking on Aug 9, 2006 3:50:59 GMT -5
So, plainly anyone can come to any conslusion with numbers missapplied and with imagination that you want.
Greg, how did my question missapply numbers ? my original question was can anyone refute the math ? if you feel you can refute it (which would mean the numbers have been misapplied) then please elaborate your post along the lines of Eurp's (thanks Eurp; i like the idea of complex numbered gods). If you cannot refute the math then please dont make accusations which, in a science / math field are quite serious.
SV
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Aug 9, 2006 4:45:02 GMT -5
So, plainly anyone can come to any conslusion with numbers missapplied and with imagination that you want. Greg, how did my question missapply numbers ? my original question was can anyone refute the math ? if you feel you can refute it (which would mean the numbers have been misapplied) then please elaborate your post along the lines of Eurp's (thanks Eurp; i like the idea of complex numbered gods). If you cannot refute the math then please dont make accusations which, in a science / math field are quite serious. SV The missapplications to me are: 1 - Negative numbers. I see no justification to assume any negative numbers in the distribution or sample. 2 - Error. Did you allow for error in the sample? I cannot recall much of statitics learning (obviously), but there seems the need for an allowance of error. Perhaps that allowance is very small and thus the number of gods (rounded) is one. Yet that would be assumming negative gods. Still again, I question the premise. Let me explain. Your premise seems in error. To me asking how many gods are there is like asking how many suns of the earth are there or how many moons of the earth are there. I think all that your (adopted) theory did was show that the mean number of integers is zero.
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Aug 9, 2006 4:54:07 GMT -5
Greg: a "normal distribution" is a statistics term, and refers to what could be expected in the spread of a set of results. For example the heights of people. Most are bunched round the average, and there's a "tail" (graph term) out to the extremities of short and tall. Thanks for that. So, in this case we would assign a height to the sample or distribution from a particular known individual. To me using all integers as an assignment to the sample or distribution must be quantifiable or identifiable. I do not see this in the theory presented. I would think the distribution would be along the manner of: - The Christians have one god. - The Muslims have one god. - "Name your religion group" has ______ god(s). What would be the result if our sample was limited to the first two? Would we determine that there is one god? Or there is one god per group? Yet I might be all wrong.
|
|
|
Post by scottishviking on Aug 9, 2006 5:56:16 GMT -5
Hi Greg
I'm not a professional mathematician so let me work through this to the best of my ability:
the baseline statment is that the numer of gods must be a whole number, we are then into the definition of a whole number (integer). integers are defined as + to - infinity (you cannt restrict the definition to just positive integers on the premise that you cannot have a negative god; the mathematical (not theological) probability of a negative god is the same as a positive god. if you retsrict the integers to a subset of named gods it would get more challenging; you would have to divide the gods up based on theological leanings; i assume GOD would be a positive god, Allah would be negative, Jehovah positive, Odin negative, Morrigan negative, Buddha ? Thunderbird ? Your point on errors is well taken but only partially applicable in this instance since we are talking about integers which have no errors ie the number one is defined as 1, not 1.0 which is where significant figures and errors come in. The results of statistics are usually expressed with confidence intervals ie for any particular result there is a 95%, or 99% or whatever chance that the number is true, the higher the number of samples used the higher the confidence interval, an infinitely large number of samples should give an infinitely high confidence inetrval ie 100%. Your point re suns and moons is interesting but fallacious in this instance; to go back to eurps explanation re hight, statistics will not tell you that person x is ycm in hight from a distribution graph but it will say that the most probable hight for person x to be is Z. go back to my pont of errors and sample size; a sample size of 1 sun is too small to perform statistics on, a sample of all solar systems would almost certianly give a median value of 1 since solar systmes have predominatley one star (ie a non normal distribution which was a requirement of the original question), a similar analysis of moons, even from within our own system would give a result stating that earth is below average / median in moons but since still lies within the normal curve.
SV
|
|
|
Post by scottishviking on Aug 9, 2006 6:00:01 GMT -5
Greg
By the way, you are quite correct to question the premise, as the saying goes there are lies, dammed lies and statistics. I just found the math cute.
SV
|
|
eurp
Senior Member
Posts: 290
|
Post by eurp on Aug 9, 2006 6:34:17 GMT -5
This premis is based on several assumptions: I see these to be the following: That the number of Gods is an integer That the number of Gods can be negative as well as positive That there is a normal distribution That the most likely is the median.
Examining them: An integer? This assumption asserts there can be no part Gods, no fractions. But My GOD is a fractional one, 1/3 Father, 1/3 Son, and 1/3 Holy Spirit. (33.333% +/- errors for you Greg)
Negative Gods? Assuming this is talking about positive and negative numbers, not about attitudes (My God has a positive attitude not negative), then this is falacious. A negative is the absence of a God, and a negative would cancel a positive. I'd tend to agree if the assumption was that on a positive integer.
Normal distribution? There are statistical tests for this. They should be applied to a sample. Its erroneous to start with the assumption of normality without testing the sample (or the whole population). So this assumption is debunked unless the data tests show normality.
Most likely is median = 0? I see no problem with this in isolation, but it rests on the previous assumptions, which are found erroneous, so nit has to be laid aside.
So what is left? A lack of data, and assumptions built on hypothetical data. Therefore the orginal premise is invalid.
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Aug 9, 2006 7:14:07 GMT -5
Someone has too much time on their hands.
|
|
|
Post by scottish viking on Aug 9, 2006 7:41:08 GMT -5
You have me intrigued eurp, the christian / 2x2 god is a unit (or, if you want, integer) diety. the fact he has 3 aspects does not negate this, nor does it mean he is 3 gods. under the terms of this thread he would have to count as an integer, thus this premise is valid.
Negative Gods? Assuming this is talking about positive and negative numbers, not about attitudes (My God has a positive attitude not negative), then this is falacious. A negative is the absence of a God, and a negative would cancel a positive. I'd tend to agree if the assumption was that on a positive integer.
negative (again, under the terms of this thread ie mathematical / statistical) is more than the absence of something; thats a vacuum. negative numbers do exist. they will cancel out positives but only when manipulated (added, multipied etc) as long as they do not interact they can exist thus mantaining the validity of this premise.
Normal distribution? There are statistical tests for this. They should be applied to a sample. Its erroneous to start with the assumption of normality without testing the sample (or the whole population). So this assumption is debunked unless the data tests show normality.
Good point, i have not performed any stat tests on the data (i dont have that much free time)and do not know if the original author did so (i suspect not since it was a short article in new scientist, not an indepth study).
Most likely is median = 0? I see no problem with this in isolation, but it rests on the previous assumptions, which are found erroneous, so nit has to be laid aside.
So what is left? A lack of data, and assumptions built on hypothetical data. Therefore the orginal premise is invalid.
My conclusion rigorous statistical anlysis would need to be performed to validate the theory but generation of the data set would be impossible (infinity, by definition, cannot be reached in mathematical terms) thus, like many theological debates, no proof, either positive or negative can be offerred. Thank you all for your comments.
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Aug 9, 2006 8:02:27 GMT -5
If you are really into the mathematical analysis, then you must say that the number of possible gods is a natural number. Then you must identify the characteristics of an entity that would deem its classification as a god. Then you can begin your analysis. There is no reason to believe that this would result in a normal distribution since the number of possible gods is "a" number, not a sample. What are you sampling?
|
|
eurp
Senior Member
Posts: 290
|
Post by eurp on Aug 9, 2006 8:05:54 GMT -5
Good point Brick - what is being sampled to determine a normal distribution?
It would have to be opinions that are sampled - one says 3, next says 1 etc.
As these are opinions, not facts, then their validity must be questioned.
|
|
|
Post by scottishviking on Aug 9, 2006 8:53:28 GMT -5
i have a feeling the original premise was based on gods obeying the rules of maths (which by itself is a seperate debate; if gods are man made they will obey such rules). once you start reducing the number of gods by creating subsets through applying selection criteria (eg must have created the universe, must be able to damn souls to hell, must be jealous, must show love beyong human comprehesion etc) then the original math will be altered and the median number change from 0 to 1
|
|
|
Post by A large number on Aug 9, 2006 11:54:27 GMT -5
i have a feeling the original premise was based on gods obeying the rules of maths (which by itself is a seperate debate; if gods are man made they will obey such rules). once you start reducing the number of gods by creating subsets through applying selection criteria (eg must have created the universe, must be able to damn souls to hell, must be jealous, must show love beyong human comprehesion etc) then the original math will be altered and the median number change from 0 to 1 I believe there are the same number of gods as there are people who have believed in them. I think there was a typo in the Bible. It should have been that Man created God in his image". Not the image he has but the image he would like to have. The goals he strives toward.
|
|