Beauty and Atheism. Please peer-review it.

[questfortruth]

The following text is not a variant of Ontological Argument for God because: 1. No
word God in the proof, 2. the ontology is about existence; my demonstration of the
Law of Beauty is about presence.

Friends, I need full report about the following part of my proof of the Riemann Hypothesis.
Especially, I ask the atheistic community. Please say:
1. Is it clearly written?
2. Is Grammar OK? If not, tell some mistakes.
3. Is this about God? Might it be about laws of Reality or Nature?

``Einstein was a man who could ask immensely simple questions. And
what his life showed, and his work, is that when the answers are simple
too'', said Jacob Bronowski in ``The Ascent of Man'' (1974).

Einstein once said: ``I believe in Spinoza's [Law of Beauty], who reveals himself in the
lawful harmony of all that exists.'' Within the paper, the object of
Einstein's admiration was equated to the Law of Beauty.

It is the Law of optimization of reality. According to this,
a complicated problem can find the simplest solution.
All essential tasks are expected to be solved in finite
time using mind-power [see AI research and use] because
one can have a beautiful mind. This is a reminder of the film ``A Beautiful
Mind'' about Dr. John Nash.

Non-existent item B does not exist. And that sentence seems to make the B existent
because there is either existent B or non-existent B.
To avoid that contradiction, one writes: ``Non-present item B is not present.''
Hence, the verb ``to be present'' is undeniable and pragmatic, but ``to be existent'' is
a vague term in Philosophy.

The set of knowledges is S= X1, X2, X3, ..., Xn, where a knowledge
for instance, is X2= ``Pythagorean Theorem is Mathematically Proven''.
It is beautiful to know the entire set S; therefore, the perfect Beauty is all-knowing.
This implies that X1= ``Beauty is present''. It cannot be All-knowing without self-awareness.

Hence,

Perfect Scientific Beauty (the All-knowing Beauty) must be present, there is
no option for it to be non-present.

 

[Estro Felino]

What I want to point out, if I may, is that what you call "meaning" is just the rational observation of Beauty.
Earth compared to other planets is the epitome of Beauty, because everything is meaningful. Water made life possible, together with the other elements of carbon chemistry.
Meaningfulness= beauty.
Reality restlessly and unconsciously tries to beautify itself. So the Law of Beauty makes sense to me.

 

[questfortruth]

So the Law of Beauty makes sense to me.

Please reread the thread, for example, I have added:

Non-existent item B does not exist. And that sentence seems to make the B existent
because there is either existent B or non-existent B.
To avoid that contradiction, one writes: ``Non-present item B is not present.''
Hence, the verb ``to be present'' is undeniable and pragmatic, but ``to be existent'' is
a vague term in Philosophy.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Friends, I need full report about the following part of my proof of the Riemann Hypothesis.
Especially, I ask the atheistic community. Please say:
1. Is it clearly written?
2. Is Grammar OK? If not, tell some mistakes.
3. Is this about God? Might it be about laws of Reality or Nature?

``Einstein was a man who could ask immensely simple questions. And
what his life showed, and his work, is that when the answers are simple
too'', said Jacob Bronowski in ``The Ascent of Man'' (1974).

Einstein once said: ``I believe in Spinoza's [Law of Beauty], who reveals himself in the
lawful harmony of all that exists.'' Within the paper, the object of
Einstein's admiration was equated to the Law of Beauty.

It is the Law of optimization of reality. According to this,
a complicated problem can find the simplest solution.
All essential tasks are expected to be solved in finite
time using mind-power [see AI research and use] because
one can have a beautiful mind. This is a reminder of the film ``A Beautiful
Mind'' about Dr. John Nash.

Non-existent item B does not exist. And that sentence seems to make the B existent
because there is either existent B or non-existent B.
To avoid that contradiction, one writes: ``Non-present item B is not present.''
Hence, the verb ``to be present'' is undeniable and pragmatic, but ``to be existent'' is
a vague term in Philosophy.

The set of knowledges is S= X1, X2, X3, ..., Xn, where a knowledge
for instance, is X2= ``Pythagorean Theorem is Mathematically Proven''.
It is beautiful to know the entire set S; therefore, the perfect Beauty is all-knowing.
This implies that X1= ``Beauty is present''. It cannot be All-knowing without self-awareness.

Hence,

Perfect Scientific Beauty (the All-knowing Beauty) must be present, there is
no option for it to be non-present.

Your ability (or perhaps your willingness) to form coherent chains of thought is diminishing.

 

[questfortruth]

Your ability (or perhaps your willingness) to form coherent chains of thought is diminishing.

Do not bull or troll your brother, please. I am your long missing brother.

 

[Sirona]

Ontological argument - Wikipedia

@questfortruth I think you come up with a variant of the ontological argument, but I'm no expert and I don't want to start hair-splitting.

 

[questfortruth]

Ontological argument - Wikipedia

@questfortruth I think you come up with a variant of the ontological argument, but I'm no expert and I don't want to start hair-splitting.

No. Prove it.

 

[questfortruth]

Ontological argument - Wikipedia

The ontology is about existence, my proof is about presence.

 

[questfortruth]

The ontology is about existence, my proof is about presence.

The following text is not a variant of Ontological Argument for God because: 1. No
word God in the proof, 2. the ontology is about existence; my demonstration of the
Law of Beauty is about presence.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The following text is not a variant of Ontological Argument for God because: 1. No
word God in the proof, 2. the ontology is about existence; my demonstration of the
Law of Beauty is about presence.

Friends, I need full report about the following part of my proof of the Riemann Hypothesis.
Especially, I ask the atheistic community. Please say:
1. Is it clearly written?
2. Is Grammar OK? If not, tell some mistakes.
3. Is this about God? Might it be about laws of Reality or Nature?

``Einstein was a man who could ask immensely simple questions. And
what his life showed, and his work, is that when the answers are simple
too'', said Jacob Bronowski in ``The Ascent of Man'' (1974).

Einstein once said: ``I believe in Spinoza's [Law of Beauty], who reveals himself in the
lawful harmony of all that exists.'' Within the paper, the object of
Einstein's admiration was equated to the Law of Beauty.

It is the Law of optimization of reality. According to this,
a complicated problem can find the simplest solution.
All essential tasks are expected to be solved in finite
time using mind-power [see AI research and use] because
one can have a beautiful mind. This is a reminder of the film ``A Beautiful
Mind'' about Dr. John Nash.

Non-existent item B does not exist. And that sentence seems to make the B existent
because there is either existent B or non-existent B.
To avoid that contradiction, one writes: ``Non-present item B is not present.''
Hence, the verb ``to be present'' is undeniable and pragmatic, but ``to be existent'' is
a vague term in Philosophy.

The set of knowledges is S= X1, X2, X3, ..., Xn, where a knowledge
for instance, is X2= ``Pythagorean Theorem is Mathematically Proven''.
It is beautiful to know the entire set S; therefore, the perfect Beauty is all-knowing.
This implies that X1= ``Beauty is present''. It cannot be All-knowing without self-awareness.

Hence,

Perfect Scientific Beauty (the All-knowing Beauty) must be present, there is
no option for it to be non-present.

You can't remove the word 'God' from Einstein's quote. It is then no longer a quote.

Whether that befouls your aversion to using the word 'God' in your paper is neither here nor there.

 

[sun rise]

Riemann Hypothesis

The headline of the thread and the OP are in conflict. There is nothing in the Riemann hypothesis about beauty and atheism.
Riemann hypothesis - Wikipedia
In mathematics, the Riemann hypothesis is a conjecture that the Riemann zeta function has its zeros only at the negative even integers and complex numbers with real part 1/2. Many consider it to be the most important unsolved problem in pure mathematics.[1] It is of great interest in number theory because it implies results about the distribution of prime numbers. It was proposed by Bernhard Riemann (1859), after whom it is named.

The Riemann hypothesis and some of its generalizations, along with Goldbach's conjecture and the twin prime conjecture, make up Hilbert's eighth problem in David Hilbert's list of twenty-three unsolved problems; it is also one of the Clay Mathematics Institute's Millennium Prize Problems, which offers a million dollars to anyone who solves any of them. The name is also used for some closely related analogues, such as the Riemann hypothesis for curves over finite fields.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

The following text is not a variant of Ontological Argument for God because: 1. No
word God in the proof, 2. the ontology is about existence; my demonstration of the
Law of Beauty is about presence.

Friends, I need full report about the following part of my proof of the Riemann Hypothesis.
Especially, I ask the atheistic community. Please say:
1. Is it clearly written?
2. Is Grammar OK? If not, tell some mistakes.
3. Is this about God? Might it be about laws of Reality or Nature?

``Einstein was a man who could ask immensely simple questions. And
what his life showed, and his work, is that when the answers are simple
too'', said Jacob Bronowski in ``The Ascent of Man'' (1974).

Einstein once said: ``I believe in Spinoza's [Law of Beauty], who reveals himself in the
lawful harmony of all that exists.'' Within the paper, the object of
Einstein's admiration was equated to the Law of Beauty.

It is the Law of optimization of reality. According to this,
a complicated problem can find the simplest solution.
All essential tasks are expected to be solved in finite
time using mind-power [see AI research and use] because
one can have a beautiful mind. This is a reminder of the film ``A Beautiful
Mind'' about Dr. John Nash.

Non-existent item B does not exist. And that sentence seems to make the B existent
because there is either existent B or non-existent B.
To avoid that contradiction, one writes: ``Non-present item B is not present.''
Hence, the verb ``to be present'' is undeniable and pragmatic, but ``to be existent'' is
a vague term in Philosophy.

The set of knowledges is S= X1, X2, X3, ..., Xn, where a knowledge
for instance, is X2= ``Pythagorean Theorem is Mathematically Proven''.
It is beautiful to know the entire set S; therefore, the perfect Beauty is all-knowing.
This implies that X1= ``Beauty is present''. It cannot be All-knowing without self-awareness.

Hence,

Perfect Scientific Beauty (the All-knowing Beauty) must be present, there is
no option for it to be non-present.

To answer your questions:

1. No

2. No… a quick example:

``Einstein was a man who could ask immensely simple questions. And
what his life showed, and his work, is that when the answers are simple
too'', said Jacob Bronowski in ``The Ascent of Man'' (1974).

“His life showed when the answers are simple too…..what?

3. I have no idea what it’s about.
It seems nonsensical to me.