It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
oneoneone
You should read my answer about what spirituality is:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
And a comparison between spirituality and science:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Woodcarver
reply to post by oneoneone
There is no clear definition of what spirituality is. So if i am not understanding you correctly, you may have to define what you mean more precisely.
Carl Sagan — 'Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.'
There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see.
Leonardo da Vinci
“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” ― Nikola Tesla
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. Albert Einstein
“My brain is only a receiver, in the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength and inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know that it exists.” ― Nikola Tesla
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit. Stephen Hawking
Woodcarver
reply to post by demus
Im pretty sure i proved that there is a very low probability of its liklihood which is about the same level as any other ancient myth or mythological creature.
As far as the (0/0) i answered correctly and explained myself. The answer is not infinity. It is 0. Very simple.
I am actually quite well rounded in my education, but for you to say that i am more rigorous than a scientist, well.... That just goes beyond flattery. I am actually a scientist.
The rest of your post just sounds bitter and mean so i'll leave it at that.
Why can't we divide by zero? The reason that the result of a division by zero is undefined is the fact that any attempt at a definition leads to a contradiction.
Such a division can be formally expressed as a/0 where a is the dividend (numerator). In ordinary arithmetic, the expression has no meaning, as there is no number which, multiplied by 0, gives a (assuming a≠0), and so division by zero is undefined.
Woodcarver
reply to post by demus
The contradiction is in the question because you literally cannot divide by 0. If i have 5 cookies and i want to share them equally between two people, they would each get 2.5 cookies.
If i want to share it between 0 people then i pass out zero. Its quite simple. Read up. In no equation ever is the answer infinity because you can always add 1 or multiply infinity by any number. I did take a math class once or twice.
Woodcarver
reply to post by demus
Your right. I should tear up my Phd.
What is 0/0?
Woodcarver
reply to post by demus
I will swear by mathematics.
The only other acceptable answer would be (0/0)=indeterminate. Which would then be represented as a 0.
You brought up education.
Plus i dont put much stock into the piece of paper myself. It is the knowledge that comes with it that matters. There are plenty of subjects that i dont have a formal education in. I would consider myself proficient in several of them and im sure you are too.edit on 7-4-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)
Woodcarver
reply to post by demus
Holy crap!! Would you just tell me what you think the answer is then?
...not exactly known, established, or defined.
demus
Woodcarver
reply to post by demus
I will swear by mathematics.
The only other acceptable answer would be (0/0)=indeterminate. Which would then be represented as a 0.
You brought up education.
Plus i dont put much stock into the piece of paper myself. It is the knowledge that comes with it that matters. There are plenty of subjects that i dont have a formal education in. I would consider myself proficient in several of them and im sure you are too.edit on 7-4-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)
except it wouldn't be represented as zero, not in mathematics.