3 of 5
3
Do atheists believe in some intelligent entity?
Posted: 08 December 2016 06:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4335
Joined  2014-06-20
CuthbertJ - 07 December 2016 11:16 AM
LoisL - 06 December 2016 11:59 AM
peter.berry - 05 December 2016 04:10 PM

For me the question of an intelligent creator is something of interest.  We are indeed just star dust that came together with very precise forces and chemistry and evolutionary tricks.  Don’t forget the consciousness bit.  If we want to define this as the spaghetti-jelly monster that is fine.  All this is for me still pretty awesome.  Most probably there is life abundantly over the universe.  And photons might look different elsewhere.  But none of this contradicts with the intelligent creator theory.  I am not too concerned about the further question of the creator’s, creator, and its creator, I think we have enough on our plates for now.  The theory of the “we are the God”, for me also falls in the creator theory.

I am somewhat amazed that atheists quickly stops at the science portion and do not philosophy about the beauty of science, in all its splendour - from atoms to consciousness.  Does this appreciation not at least push you towards some creator?  The ‘what does a creator imply?’ is the next set of questions.  A true atheist then cannot believe in a non-creator, only that it does not care to speculate further, not withstanding the “awesomeness"factor… is this an accurate deduction?

No and no. “Awesomeness”  means nothing. It’s simply an emotional response. In no way does it support a creator claim. That’s no more than wishful thinking.

LoisL is a little harsh I think. True scientists, Einstein especially, are driven primarily by that sense of wonder and not knowing. And part of that IS wondering about the possibility of either a Creator or a creator (little c - as in super advanced being that isn’t the big C). I mean look at Star Trek. One of the best characters is Q, who is an immortal omnipotent being who is a small c creator, not a big C. It’s fun and fascinating, but ultimately fruitless because it all boils down to “who created the Creator”. And that’s a showstopper. So scientists move on and get down to the real work of figuring stuff out.

Nothing wrong with wondering or speculating. Accepting claims without evidence as true is the problem.

[ Edited: 08 December 2016 09:28 PM by LoisL ]
 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2016 07:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7845
Joined  2009-02-26
LoisL - 08 December 2016 06:49 PM
Write4U - 07 December 2016 02:31 AM

@ Lois,

I am not sure if I agree with the very last part of your post. Why do we keep looking? Perhaps new equipment will give us new information, until we have sufficient secondary data to infer a mathematical function which was causal to the BB.

It’s human nature to keep looking, but only irrational people accept explanations without evidence.

Can we establish a math base on pure speculation? How would that work?

No, but with more secondary data we may be able to form a mathematical model. The actual causal event itself will forever be hidden from direct observation, but the beauty of mathematical functions is their reliability.
I believe several models have already been proposed and are being studied. But when we speak of *symmetry breaking*, etc. we are addressing
mathematical functions, and if any mathematical patterns emerge from our observations, we might be able to infer a pre-universe causal event.

I know this is an optimistic view, but if we consider how fast our knowledge is expanding, I have hope that someday we may be able to say “this is the way it must have happened because all the secondary effects point to a specific mathematical function. This is what Tegmark posited and he believes the answer may be a simple mathematical function which made the BB a mathematical imperative.

[ Edited: 08 December 2016 07:29 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 December 2016 10:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2227
Joined  2013-06-01
Write4U - 08 December 2016 12:32 PM

W4U said,

But the Antonsen clip is very encouraging and with our knowledge expanding and accelerating by use of computers, I believe that someday we will gain enough knowledge to propose a fundamental dynamical precursor, causal to the BB.
He demonstrates the forms and perfectly artistic shapes abstractly implied in the number 4/3. It’s really beautiful.

http://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world?

Mike Yohe said,

The way I understand math is that it is a form of measurement. There seems to be a lot of matrix types of thinking like in the movie. But math like the alphabet is a knowledgeable method of communication and method of gaining more knowledge. As far as the creator. You don’t need math to understand the creator idea is denialism of science and history.

Obviously you have not yet watched the clip or you would not try to reduce mathematics to just a “measurement”, it runs much deeper.
Distance is a measurement, mathematics is the language which translates all measurements and their implications., which Antonsen so elegantly showed in his analysis of the number 4/3 (1.33333…) and creating a curved pattern (parabola) from purely straight lines, which IMO shows the pervasive power of mathematical functions.

I agree with Tegmark that the universe has not just some mathematical properties, but that it has only mathematical properties. We live in an ocean of mathematical systems, actions, and interactions, from the very subtle (in the abstract) to gross expression in our reality.. We have pretty well figured out how to translate our reality in mathematical terms, but at the very subtlest level (quantum) we still havethings to discover, but whatever we discover, it will be of a mathematical nature.  It cannot be otherwise, regardless if God exists or not.

 
I watched the clip. We don’t need math to prove if god the creator exists or not. All we need is a calendar. I didn’t get that math has any magical powers. I agree that math is the language, but math is still comparison which is knowledge. I thought that the examples of other animals using math was rather weak. And I didn’t get that the universe is only mathematical properties. It may be that we can only explain the universe with mathematics,

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 December 2016 02:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7845
Joined  2009-02-26
MikeYohe - 08 December 2016 10:25 PM
Write4U - 08 December 2016 12:32 PM

W4U said,

But the Antonsen clip is very encouraging and with our knowledge expanding and accelerating by use of computers, I believe that someday we will gain enough knowledge to propose a fundamental dynamical precursor, causal to the BB.
He demonstrates the forms and perfectly artistic shapes abstractly implied in the number 4/3. It’s really beautiful.

http://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world?

Mike Yohe said,

The way I understand math is that it is a form of measurement. There seems to be a lot of matrix types of thinking like in the movie. But math like the alphabet is a knowledgeable method of communication and method of gaining more knowledge. As far as the creator. You don’t need math to understand the creator idea is denialism of science and history.

Obviously you have not yet watched the clip or you would not try to reduce mathematics to just a “measurement”, it runs much deeper.
Distance is a measurement, mathematics is the language which translates all measurements and their implications., which Antonsen so elegantly showed in his analysis of the number 4/3 (1.33333…) and creating a curved pattern (parabola) from purely straight lines, which IMO shows the pervasive power of mathematical functions.

I agree with Tegmark that the universe has not just some mathematical properties, but that it has only mathematical properties. We live in an ocean of mathematical systems, actions, and interactions, from the very subtle (in the abstract) to gross expression in our reality.. We have pretty well figured out how to translate our reality in mathematical terms, but at the very subtlest level (quantum) we still havethings to discover, but whatever we discover, it will be of a mathematical nature.  It cannot be otherwise, regardless if God exists or not.

 
I watched the clip. We don’t need math to prove if god the creator exists or not. All we need is a calendar. I didn’t get that math has any magical powers. I agree that math is the language, but math is still comparison which is knowledge. I thought that the examples of other animals using math was rather weak. And I didn’t get that the universe is only mathematical properties. It may be that we can only explain the universe with mathematics,

  That’s the point. Everything can be explained mathematically because it functions mathematically.  The functions were there before we *discovered* them.

Thus, in direct answer to the OP question, IF there is a God. It must be of an abstract mathematical nature and more importantly, not an intelligent and motivated mathematician.

If you can provide alternative properties of God, I invite you to present them now/.

[ Edited: 09 December 2016 02:13 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 December 2016 06:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2227
Joined  2013-06-01
Write4U - 09 December 2016 02:06 PM
MikeYohe - 08 December 2016 10:25 PM
Write4U - 08 December 2016 12:32 PM

W4U said,

But the Antonsen clip is very encouraging and with our knowledge expanding and accelerating by use of computers, I believe that someday we will gain enough knowledge to propose a fundamental dynamical precursor, causal to the BB.
He demonstrates the forms and perfectly artistic shapes abstractly implied in the number 4/3. It’s really beautiful.

http://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secret_to_understanding_the_world?

Mike Yohe said,

The way I understand math is that it is a form of measurement. There seems to be a lot of matrix types of thinking like in the movie. But math like the alphabet is a knowledgeable method of communication and method of gaining more knowledge. As far as the creator. You don’t need math to understand the creator idea is denialism of science and history.

Obviously you have not yet watched the clip or you would not try to reduce mathematics to just a “measurement”, it runs much deeper.
Distance is a measurement, mathematics is the language which translates all measurements and their implications., which Antonsen so elegantly showed in his analysis of the number 4/3 (1.33333…) and creating a curved pattern (parabola) from purely straight lines, which IMO shows the pervasive power of mathematical functions.

I agree with Tegmark that the universe has not just some mathematical properties, but that it has only mathematical properties. We live in an ocean of mathematical systems, actions, and interactions, from the very subtle (in the abstract) to gross expression in our reality.. We have pretty well figured out how to translate our reality in mathematical terms, but at the very subtlest level (quantum) we still havethings to discover, but whatever we discover, it will be of a mathematical nature.  It cannot be otherwise, regardless if God exists or not.

 
I watched the clip. We don’t need math to prove if god the creator exists or not. All we need is a calendar. I didn’t get that math has any magical powers. I agree that math is the language, but math is still comparison which is knowledge. I thought that the examples of other animals using math was rather weak. And I didn’t get that the universe is only mathematical properties. It may be that we can only explain the universe with mathematics,

  That’s the point. Everything can be explained mathematically because it functions mathematically.  The functions were there before we *discovered* them.

Thus, in direct answer to the OP question, IF there is a God. It must be of an abstract mathematical nature and more importantly, not an intelligent and motivated mathematician.

If you can provide alternative properties of God, I invite you to present them now/.

 
I don’t believe there is a creator god. But if there was, I can see your point.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2016 02:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7845
Joined  2009-02-26

Mike Yohe said,
I don’t believe there is a creator god. But if there was, I can see your point.

Are you purposely misunderstanding me? I don’t believe in a creator god. I believe in a creative Mathematical function. A timeless permittive condition with a certain inherent Mathematical Potential.  Probability.

Mathematics is a logical language of patterns, some creative, some destructive, but recognizable by their constant recurrence in specific forms.of specific patterns.
Fractals , patterns that are based on the simplest known plane (form) , the triangle.

CDT (Causal Dynamical Triangulation), by Renate Loll and colleagues has found great support. (search Wiki for Renate Loll). It proposes that Spacetime itself unfolds (evolves) in a fractal (mathematical) manner.

The potential for variety inherent in the fractal functions is near infinite as long as it is mathematically permitted is derived from basic simplicity of mathematical requirements. It is mathematically permitted by the “permittive condition”. 
white-and-blue-peacock.jpg

“I find the ideas in the fractals, both as a body of knowledge and as a metaphor, an incredibly important way of looking at the world.” Vice President and Nobel Laureate Al Gore, New York Times, Wednesday, June 21, 2000, discussing some of the “big think” questions that intrigue him

 

IMO,  causal Potential (that which may become reality) can only be coherently expressed through *some form* of purely logical functions and processes. (Patterns). Man’s greatest asset is the invention of several mathematical languages which can translate known patterns. which we clearly see all around us.  Its a remarkable ability of dynamical expressions.

[ Edited: 10 December 2016 08:31 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2016 04:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2227
Joined  2013-06-01
Write4U - 10 December 2016 02:07 AM

Mike Yohe said,
I don’t believe there is a creator god. But if there was, I can see your point.

Are you purposely misunderstanding me? I don’t believe in a creator god. I believe in a creative Mathematical function. A timeless permittive condition with a certain inherent Mathematical Potential.  Probability.

Mathematics is a logical language of patterns, some creative, some destructive, but recognizable by their constant recurrence in specific forms.of specific patterns.
Fractals , patterns that are based on the simplest known plane (form) , the triangle.

CDT (Causal Dynamical Triangulation), by Renate Loll and colleagues has found great support. (search Wiki for Renate Loll). It proposes that Spacetime itself unfolds (evolves) in a fractal (mathematical) manner.

The potential for variety inherent in the fractal functions is near infinite as long as it is mathematically permitted is derived from basic simplicity of mathematical requirements. It is mathematically permitted by the “permittive condition”. 
 

“I find the ideas in the fractals, both as a body of knowledge and as a metaphor, an incredibly important way of looking at the world.” Vice President and Nobel Laureate Al Gore, New York Times, Wednesday, June 21, 2000, discussing some of the “big think” questions that intrigue him

 

IMO,  causal Potential (that which may become reality) can only be coherently expressed through *some form* of purely logical functions and processes. (Patterns). Man’s greatest asset is the invention of several mathematical languages which can translate known patterns. which we clearly see all around us.  Its a remarkable ability of dynamical expressions.

 
Then I don’t get your point. I thought your point was that if there was a creator the only way it could be defined was by mathematical language. Please step me though your points.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2016 07:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7845
Joined  2009-02-26

Mike Yohe said,
Then I don’t get your point. I thought your point was that if there was a creator the only way it could be defined was by mathematical language. Please step me though your points.

Is an abstract mathematical function necessarily intelligent or motivated.?

The god you describe does not exist in spiritual literature.  If we had to fashion a name for IT, Mathematics actually has an equation for a mathematical imperative.  Potential.

Today science speaks of a different kind of god with this equation,  God = Potential = *That which may become reality*, through natural mathematical *imperatives*, but NOT intelligent or motivated in and of itself. I’s just Potential waiting to become expressed by way of Probability and the law of *necessity and sufficiency*.

Potential is a common denominator of all things, it is the “soul” of the universe. It is mathematical in essence, but it a not a motivated intelligence.  IMO, in Science the word God, as an intentional creator, is superfluous and by Occam’s Razor…...?

p.s. I do like Bohm’s “Wholeness and the Implicate order”.  It is a beautiful and elegant metaphor.

[ Edited: 10 December 2016 08:57 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 December 2016 10:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2227
Joined  2013-06-01
Write4U - 10 December 2016 07:59 PM

Mike Yohe said,
Then I don’t get your point. I thought your point was that if there was a creator the only way it could be defined was by mathematical language. Please step me though your points.

Is an abstract mathematical function necessarily intelligent or motivated.?

The god you describe does not exist in spiritual literature.  If we had to fashion a name for IT, Mathematics actually has an equation for a mathematical imperative.  Potential.

Today science speaks of a different kind of god with this equation,  God = Potential = *That which may become reality*, through natural mathematical *imperatives*, but NOT intelligent or motivated in and of itself. I’s just Potential waiting to become expressed by way of Probability and the law of *necessity and sufficiency*.

Potential is a common denominator of all things, it is the “soul” of the universe. It is mathematical in essence, but it a not a motivated intelligence.  IMO, in Science the word God, as an intentional creator, is superfluous and by Occam’s Razor…...?

p.s. I do like Bohm’s “Wholeness and the Implicate order”.  It is a beautiful and elegant metaphor.

Can you replace the word “GOD” with the word “KNOWLEDGE”?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 December 2016 01:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7845
Joined  2009-02-26
MikeYohe - 10 December 2016 10:30 PM
Write4U - 10 December 2016 07:59 PM

Mike Yohe said,
Then I don’t get your point. I thought your point was that if there was a creator the only way it could be defined was by mathematical language. Please step me though your points.

Is an abstract mathematical function necessarily intelligent or motivated.?

The god you describe does not exist in spiritual literature.  If we had to fashion a name for IT, Mathematics actually has an equation for a mathematical imperative.  Potential.

Today science speaks of a different kind of god with this equation,  God = Potential = *That which may become reality*, through natural mathematical *imperatives*, but NOT intelligent or motivated in and of itself. I’s just Potential waiting to become expressed by way of Probability and the law of *necessity and sufficiency*.

Potential is a common denominator of all things, it is the “soul” of the universe. It is mathematical in essence, but it a not a motivated intelligence.  IMO, in Science the word God, as an intentional creator, is superfluous and by Occam’s Razor…...?

p.s. I do like Bohm’s “Wholeness and the Implicate order”.  It is a beautiful and elegant metaphor.


Can you replace the word “GOD” with the word “KNOWLEDGE”?

No. even the universe itself emerges through mathematical expression in reality. It does not need to know anything, but it must follow a mathematical function. Else the event is not mathematically allowable.

[ Edited: 11 December 2016 01:57 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 December 2016 09:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2227
Joined  2013-06-01
Write4U - 11 December 2016 01:53 AM
MikeYohe - 10 December 2016 10:30 PM
Write4U - 10 December 2016 07:59 PM

Mike Yohe said,
Then I don’t get your point. I thought your point was that if there was a creator the only way it could be defined was by mathematical language. Please step me though your points.

Is an abstract mathematical function necessarily intelligent or motivated.?

The god you describe does not exist in spiritual literature.  If we had to fashion a name for IT, Mathematics actually has an equation for a mathematical imperative.  Potential.

Today science speaks of a different kind of god with this equation,  God = Potential = *That which may become reality*, through natural mathematical *imperatives*, but NOT intelligent or motivated in and of itself. I’s just Potential waiting to become expressed by way of Probability and the law of *necessity and sufficiency*.

Potential is a common denominator of all things, it is the “soul” of the universe. It is mathematical in essence, but it a not a motivated intelligence.  IMO, in Science the word God, as an intentional creator, is superfluous and by Occam’s Razor…...?

p.s. I do like Bohm’s “Wholeness and the Implicate order”.  It is a beautiful and elegant metaphor.


Can you replace the word “GOD” with the word “KNOWLEDGE”?

No. even the universe itself emerges through mathematical expression in reality. It does not need to know anything, but it must follow a mathematical function. Else the event is not mathematically allowable.

Is this correct? To demystify one could say math is use to describe the paradigm of creation.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 December 2016 03:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7845
Joined  2009-02-26

Mike Yohe said: Is this correct? To demystify one could say math is use to describe the paradigm of creation.

  Yep,  Creation was a mathematical event and as we all can testify to a creative event, scientifically we end up with an equation based on pure energy, infinite potential, implied probabilities, mathematical functions, A spontaneous mathematical event.

“Wholeness and the Implicate Order”. I can visualize that as an abstract dynamical condition or Potential, emergent patterns naturally associated in a concept of Wholeness.

In understanding the properties of a Wholeness lies the path to Empathy, the ultimate form of *human understanding*..

[ Edited: 11 December 2016 04:10 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 December 2016 11:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1577
Joined  2012-04-25
Write4U - 11 December 2016 03:31 PM

Mike Yohe said: Is this correct? To demystify one could say math is use to describe the paradigm of creation.

  Yep,  Creation was a mathematical event and as we all can testify to a creative event, scientifically we end up with an equation based on pure energy, infinite potential, implied probabilities, mathematical functions, A spontaneous mathematical event.

“Wholeness and the Implicate Order”. I can visualize that as an abstract dynamical condition or Potential, emergent patterns naturally associated in a concept of Wholeness.

In understanding the properties of a Wholeness lies the path to Empathy, the ultimate form of *human understanding*..

I use to believe pretty much the same thing as you until I learned that the same mathematics that cosmologists and physicists use to describe the universe are also used to describe earthly economics. (Not everything of course, but many concepts). It really took the wind out of my sails because like you I’d always thought there was something inherent in math that actually linked it to the universe. Then I saw (but can’t say I understood) the same math of physics being used to decribe “economic systems”, “flow of products”, etc. and economists using the same basic language to describe ordinary, i.e. mundane, economics.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 December 2016 12:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4335
Joined  2014-06-20
Write4U - 07 December 2016 02:31 AM

@ Lois,

I am not sure if I agree with the very last part of your post. Why do we keep looking? Perhaps new equipment will give us new

information, until we have sufficient secondary data to infer a mathematical function which was causal to the BB.

No problem with looking. The problem arises when we accept a premise as true with no evidence. Everyone is free to speculate and “look.” Just keep it rational.

Lois

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 December 2016 12:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4335
Joined  2014-06-20
peter.berry - 05 December 2016 04:10 PM

For me the question of an intelligent creator is something of interest.  We are indeed just star dust that came together with very precise forces and chemistry and evolutionary tricks.  Don’t forget the consciousness bit.  If we want to define this as the spaghetti-jelly monster that is fine.  All this is for me still pretty awesome.  Most probably there is life abundantly over the universe.  And photons might look different elsewhere.  But none of this contradicts with the intelligent creator theory.  I am not too concerned about the further question of the creator’s, creator, and its creator, I think we have enough on our plates for now.  The theory of the “we are the God”, for me also falls in the creator theory.

I am somewhat amazed that atheists quickly stops at the science portion and do not philosophy about the beauty of science, in all its splendour - from atoms to consciousness.  Does this appreciation not at least push you towards some creator?  The ‘what does a creator imply?’ is the next set of questions.  A true atheist then cannot believe in a non-creator, only that it does not care to speculate further, not withstanding the “awesomeness"factor… is this an accurate deduction?

Please describe a “non-creator” so we can decide whether there is any evidence for it.

Atheists philosophize all the time. We just try to see the difference between philosophy and objective evidence. We can also be awed. But we know the difference between awe and evidence. Awe is an emotion, nothing more. Emotions are easily manipulated and misunderstood, and have been since the dawn of man. And they’ve caused untold trouble.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 5
3
 
‹‹ Media bias      Math-related metaphors ››