It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Why God Exist!!!?

page: 16
13
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 12:44 PM

spy66

If I wrote down every even number it'd be an infinite set
If I wrote down every odd number it's be an infinite set
If I got piece of string and cut it in half, then cut each half and reapeated add inifnitum I'd have infinite cantor dust.

We are not talking about unreal numbers. They have nothing to with the physical reality. They are just numbers, they represent nothing real.

If you have a string, you can not cut it in half, and than cut it in half again, inifinite times. Not in the physical world.
At a point the string would just vanish because of the atmospheric pressure / density.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

That's not true. The cardinal sets are called Natural Numbers because they occur in nature

An unreal number is known as an imaginary number such as 2i.

If you kept cutting the string you end up with Cantor Dust where the sum of the cuts is equal the line - this is the paradox Cantor discovered that caused the separation between physical and imaginary infinity. It's very definition is that it's nowhere dense.

I had to spend our years doing number theory so I'm annoyingly pedantic/good at it.

These are precisely the problems you'll encounter when removing scientific and mathematical terms from their original meaning.

As far as I'm aware no one has specified which inifnity they are using. No offence but I would like yourself or e=mc^2 to describe/define infinity as this is something even the best mathematical minds struggle with but you appear to be treating it as a simple concept.

I'm not trying to catch you out or anything as I only know because of decades of study but I'm intrigued as to what you think infinity is.
edit on 23-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 01:20 PM

bastion

spy66

If I wrote down every even number it'd be an infinite set
If I wrote down every odd number it's be an infinite set
If I got piece of string and cut it in half, then cut each half and reapeated add inifnitum I'd have infinite cantor dust.

We are not talking about unreal numbers. They have nothing to with the physical reality. They are just numbers, they represent nothing real.

If you have a string, you can not cut it in half, and than cut it in half again, inifinite times. Not in the physical world.
At a point the string would just vanish because of the atmospheric pressure / density.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

That's not true. The cardinal sets are called Natural Numbers because they occur in nature

An unreal number is known as an imaginary number such as 2i.

If you kept cutting the string you end up with Cantor Dust where the sum of the cuts is equal the line - this is the paradox Cantor discovered that caused the separation between physical and imaginary infinity. It's very definition is that it's nowhere dense.

I had to spend our years doing number theory so I'm annoyingly pedantic/good at it.

These are precisely the problems you'll encounter when removing scientific and mathematical terms from their original meaning.

As far as I'm aware no one has specified which inifnity they are using. No offence but I would like yourself or e=mc^2 to describe/define infinity as this is something even the best mathematical minds struggle with but you appear to be treating it as a simple concept.

I'm not trying to catch you out or anything as I only know because of decades of study but I'm intrigued as to what you think infinity is.
edit on 23-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)

If the numbers accure in nature. They represent finite. Therefor they can not represent anything that can be infinite.
Nature and all its properites are finite and can never be infinite. Because they are finite.

Lets take your string theory. A string must be within a minimum volume of 3Dimensional space. A string can never be infininte in any way. Because it dosent take up all space possible. No matter how many times you split it. It would always be less than the infinite.

On a computer you can set it up to split the string for ever. But that has nothing to with what is really physically possible.

There is only 1. space that can be absolute infinite and take up all space possible. And that is a absolute infinite empty space. A space that is absolute neutral. Your string must be within this space to be a string. If not it would not be a string. It would be something that takes up all space possible.

So when you split your string enough times, it would desolve and disappear eventually. Because of the absolute neutral space surrounding the string. The string can never be absolute neutral as a string. Because it consists of compressed energy "finites", energy will expand and desolve the string. You woulnt know what to split up in the end.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 02:18 PM
You're wrong there. Infinite sets occur in nature, they're known as concrete infinites they can be countable or uncountable and some are bigger than others. I'm not interested in arguing on here but I am willing to teach if you want. Everything is number after all. It's a very complicated but incredibly interesting subject.

Natural numbers are used in aerodynamics where infinity often occurs.

Since the late 1700s there's been a big distinction between theoretical/mathematical and physical infinities. Cantors string/dust threw out Aristotle's ideas of metaphysics and replaced them with actualism. You seem to be using the old ideas of metaphysics and not the modern understanding of the Universe.

He's written a brilliant paper here - that explains infinity, infinity in nature and what implications this has on the idea of a creator www.academia.edu...

The string is an example of compactive symmetry. This was mathematics discovered in the 18th Century. The line converges to infinity same same as number sets do. It's been proven time and time again.

If you have Sum 1...infinity(2^n-1/3n) = 1 then you're left with an infinite set that is uncountable.

I don't hold it against you for not understanding/believing it it as it's completely counter-intuitive. I just like encouraging people to learn this stuff because real numbers are far more interesting than what school teaches people.

When Kaku talks about infinity he's talking about Abstract and Concrete infinities, not the Absolute infinities e=mc^2 seems to be confusing it with.
edit on 23-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 02:33 PM

bastion
You're wrong there. Infinite sets occur in nature, they're known as concrete infinites they can be countable or uncountable. I'm not interested in arguing on here but I am willing to teach if you want. Everything is number after all. It's a very complicated but incredibly interesting subject.

Natural numbers are used in aerodynamics where infinity often occurs.

Since the late 1700s there's been a big distinction between theoretical/mathematical and physical infinities. Cantors string/dust threw out Aristotle's ideas of metaphysics and replaced them with actualism.

He's written a brilliant paper here - that explains infinity, infinity in nature and what implications this has on the idea of a creator www.academia.edu...

The string is an example of compactive symmetry. This was mathematics discovered in the 18th Century. The line converges to infinity same same as number sets do.

When Kaku talks about infinity he's talking about Abstract and Concrete infinities, not the Absolute infinities e=mc^2 seems to be confusing it with.

No matter what you can think of or can come up with. It will never be infinite. Unless it already take sup all space possible. That is what "The Infinite is" That is a fact. Only the space that takes up all space possible can be infinite, that is a fact.

No matter what number you mention or can come up with. It will always be less than the infinite. The infinite will always be larger than what ever number you can imagine. So you can not prove to me that you know that there are infinite numbers. There can only be one dimension that is absolute infinite. Not 2, 3 or 4 and so on. All other numbers are finite and must exist within the infinite dimension. PERIOD.

No matter how many times you split your string, it will always be less than the infinite. It is common sense and a mathematical fact. Infact the bits you split will always be within the infinite space.

You string can never be infinite in any way. That is a mathematical and a physical fact. Even before you start to split your string, the infinite space is already taking up all space possible.

And what are you going to teach me??? You cant teach me something i have more knowledge about than you do.

Question.

If your string is 10 cm long. Will it ever be any longer than 10 cm if you split it in half like you mentioned earlier; a infinite times?

Question 2.

If you split the string infinite time will it gain anything in volume or mass?

- How can it ever be infinite when it is a finite?

I will answer the queations for you.

The 10cm string would look exactly like the 10cm string after it has been sliced a infinite times, if you dont move anything around, and keep all the space between the properties that have been sliced as it is. You will gain nothing by spliting anything in half a infinite times.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 08:05 PM
I give up, all of that is nonsense, your concept of infinite couldn't be more wrong and outdated. I already provided the proof of Cantor's string its Sum 1...infinity(2^n-1/3n) = 1, this is something proven time and time again over the last 300 years.

I teach maths and have a degree in it, there's no use pretending you know what you're talking about.

Please learn maths, it's very useful. Read books on Number Theory if you don't want to believe me.
edit on 23-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 10:40 PM

bastion
You guys obviously spend a lot of time thinking about this so why not use that time to learn some Physics instead as at the moment you're misinterpreting terminology and not coming up with arguement that have substance.

You're misunderstanding what infinity is.

If I wrote down every even number it'd be an infinite set
If I wrote down every odd number it's be an infinite set
If I got piece of string and cut it in half, then cut each half and reapeated add inifnitum I'd have infinite cantor dust.

edit on 23-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)

Although it's nice to delve into such subject deeper, to me it's not really a productive one for time is required to fully understand it. In addition it becomes very difficult to distinguish real physics with metaphysics, for as soon as philosophy becomes part of the discussion, words tend to get a new meaning and gets twisted in every way possible - something that I purposefully stay away from.

Case in point Cantor's Theorem that Infinity is divided into three kinds:

1. The Absolute infinite - which refers to God alone. Something that can't be quantified for he is outside the bounds of infinity.

i.e.

2. The Concrete infinite - found in nature (spacetime per my understanding)

3. The Abstract infinite - which you're referring to (I think).

In any case, whichever infinity you're referring - the bottom line is this: IT exist.

Hence, if it exist, thus it's uncreated, always existing.

And if such phenomena exist, thus the concept of God is not "nutty" concept at all but logical.

Besides, who wants to calculate infinity?

Opp, this reminds me to watch "A Beautiful Mind again".

posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 04:31 AM

bastion
I give up, all of that is nonsense, your concept of infinite couldn't be more wrong and outdated. I already provided the proof of Cantor's string its Sum 1...infinity(2^n-1/3n) = 1, this is something proven time and time again over the last 300 years.

I teach maths and have a degree in it, there's no use pretending you know what you're talking about.

Please learn maths, it's very useful. Read books on Number Theory if you don't want to believe me.
edit on 23-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)

All finite can be split a infinite amount of time. But that does not make any of them infinite.

If you split the 10 cm long string a infinite amount of times, the 10 cm string will not change in any way. The string will still be 10 cm lang. You can disproove this with a mathematical equation if you like? But i know you cant, because there aint one that can do it.
And you know that i am right. The 10 cm string will never take up more space if you split it a infinite amount of time.
You can do the math on that.

I dosent matter what you teach. It dosent give you any more high grounds that you actually know what your teaching.
You just know how to suffel a bunch of numbers in a equation.

If you knew what we were actually talking about, You would never have mentioned anything of what you do and say that you have a degree in math.

The singularity can be split a infinite amount of times, a infinite amount of times. But the singularity will never be infinite. It will always be a finite. It will never change no mater how many times you split it.

Another question.

What source would you use to make the right calculated split?
If you are going to make a inifnite thin slice? What would you measure with to make the right cut?
If you know the math. You should know the answer. Than you can ask you self, CAN IT BE DONE? Or is it just mathematical impractical theory?

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 01:22 PM

spy66

bastion
I give up, all of that is nonsense, your concept of infinite couldn't be more wrong and outdated. I already provided the proof of Cantor's string its Sum 1...infinity(2^n-1/3n) = 1, this is something proven time and time again over the last 300 years.

I teach maths and have a degree in it, there's no use pretending you know what you're talking about.

Please learn maths, it's very useful. Read books on Number Theory if you don't want to believe me.
edit on 23-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)

All finite can be split a infinite amount of time. But that does not make any of them infinite.

If you split the 10 cm long string a infinite amount of times, the 10 cm string will not change in any way. The string will still be 10 cm lang. You can disproove this with a mathematical equation if you like? But i know you cant, because there aint one that can do it.
And you know that i am right. The 10 cm string will never take up more space if you split it a infinite amount of time.
You can do the math on that.

I dosent matter what you teach. It dosent give you any more high grounds that you actually know what your teaching.
You just know how to suffel a bunch of numbers in a equation.

If you knew what we were actually talking about, You would never have mentioned anything of what you do and say that you have a degree in math.

The singularity can be split a infinite amount of times, a infinite amount of times. But the singularity will never be infinite. It will always be a finite. It will never change no mater how many times you split it.

Another question.

What source would you use to make the right calculated split?
If you are going to make a inifnite thin slice? What would you measure with to make the right cut?
If you know the math. You should know the answer. Than you can ask you self, CAN IT BE DONE? Or is it just mathematical impractical theory?

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

Easy a plank-length lamina. No the slice removes the middle third an infinite number of times and electron microscopes can do he measuring.

If you think it's impractical then you must think most of the inventions of the past 300 years are. They're used in almost all systems here change takes place plus fractal geometry and bounded orbits, examples can be seen on the rings of Saturn and X-ray diffraction.

Also if you understood maths you'd know there's no such thing si an impractical theory.

Seeing as you're interested in learning this is the las post I'm making as I'm not wasting my time anymore.
edit on 25-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 05:30 PM

Easy a plank-length lamina. No the slice removes the middle third an infinite number of times and electron microscopes can do he measuring.

If you think it's impractical then you must think most of the inventions of the past 300 years are. They're used in almost all systems here change takes place plus fractal geometry and bounded orbits, examples can be seen on the rings of Saturn and X-ray diffraction.

Also if you understood maths you'd know there's no such thing si an impractical theory.

I see you want to bring Plank into this. That wont help you get far if yo want to split something a infinite amount of times in halvs.

If you want to test Your Mathematical theory to see if you can cut a string that is 10 cm long a infinite amount of times in half, You have to set up a Equation to check and see if Your Tools and instrumenst can do the job.

You do teach dont you? This should be on Your need to know list.

1. Your cutting tool would have to be a minimum of infinitely thin to be able to split a object a infinitely amount of times in halvs. Your cutting tool would always have to be "X" Times thiner than the obeject being split a infinite amount of times in half.

This is need to know information when you state a Mathematical theory as a practical fact.

2. You would need a instrument that can scale up and magnify Objects that are infinitely small.
Do we have instruments that can scale up Objects that are infinitely small?

NO we dont.

3. Do we have instrumens that are precise enough to position the infinitely thin cutter in the center of an Object that is infinitely small??

No we dont.

I am starting to believe that you are just a Math teacher. Because you dont know if what you teach is practical.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 10:25 AM
Wow. Is this what the thread has devolved to?

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 10:51 AM

God exists via global Majority... the naysayers are wrong.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 10:53 AM

edit on 27-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 11:02 AM

AfterInfinity

if it was a court of law, the minority could be held in contempt. Or shipped off to a State run facility for an evaluation to see if they were fit to stand trial.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 11:48 AM

AfterInfinity
Wow. Is this what the thread has devolved to?

Sadly yes. Amazing how people can solve the most intriguing (and probably impossible) areas of science without understanding any of the Maths or Science behind it.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 02:00 PM

bastion

AfterInfinity
Wow. Is this what the thread has devolved to?

Sadly yes. Amazing how people can solve the most intriguing (and probably impossible) areas of science without understanding any of the Maths or Science behind it.

No one is stoping you from doing Your Math.

So far you have not argued mathematically against my question about the Object that you said could be split a infinite amount of times in half. Because it can not. I am saying it is impossble. Prove me wrong mathematically if you want.

You will have very big problems explaining matematically how an Object will split it self a infinite amount of times just on its own, without a exsternal Source that is infinite.

You know this. That is why yor are not puting up. Instead Your just Fishing for moral support.

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 02:49 PM

AfterInfinity
Wow. Is this what the thread has devolved to?

We believe and have proof the the phenomena called INFINITY / SPACETIME / Blak Holes / Singularity exists.

Since these "things" exist, does this mean then that an Eternal Being can't exist?

If so, tell us why not?

posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 08:26 AM

I'm not even sure infinity exists. It is beyond our ability to comprehend or express, if it does, so I sure as hell am not taking you as an authority on the nature of "infinity".

posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 08:30 AM

AfterInfinity

I'm not even sure infinity exists. It is beyond our ability to comprehend or express, if it does, so I sure as hell am not taking you as an authority on the nature of "infinity".

Can it be said that God is infinity?

"An incomplete definition. Poverty of human speech incompetent to define what transcends human intelligence."

God is infinite in His perfections, but "infinity" is an abstraction. To say that God is infinity is to substitute the attribute of a thing for the thing itself, and to define something unknown by reference to some other thing equally unknown.

Will man ever become able to comprehend the mystery of the Divinity?

"When his mind shall no longer be obscured by matter, and when, by his perfection, he shall have brought himself nearer to God, be will see and comprehend Him."

The inferiority of the human faculties renders it impossible for man to comprehend the essential nature of God. In the infancy of the race, man often confounds the Creator with the creature, and attributes to the former the imperfections of the latter. But, in proportion as his moral sense becomes developed, man's thought penetrates more deeply into the nature of things, and he is able to form to himself a juster and more rational idea of the Divine Being, although his idea of that Being must always be imperfect and incomplete.link

edit on 29-11-2013 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 08:32 AM

I'm not a huge fan of the dominance complex. I'm not interested in establishing a hierarchy of entitlement. And this whole "infinite perfection" business is just that.

I'm not interested in your interpretive abstractions. You are inventing excuses to redefine that which has already been defined in order to define that which cannot be defined.
edit on 29-11-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 08:35 AM

AfterInfinity

I'm not even sure infinity exists. It is beyond our ability to comprehend or express, if it does, so I sure as hell am not taking you as an authority on the nature of "infinity".

All comprehension happens within the infinite so infinity will never comprehend itself but it can realize what it is not.

You may think that you are finite - that you have a beginning and end but it may be just a case of misidentification.

edit on 29-11-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

13