Mathematical Proof Of God

[Guest nat]

 

So you can't admit you were wrong on what you said about Kabbalah.

 

 

So what if I was? I see no reason to think that your personal assessment of that mythical book is any more valid than any other Jew I've spoken to about it. None of them have agreed with your ideas about Ein-Sof. In fact, they all suggested that the idea of the holy trinity was in fact stolen from the Kabbalah. I'm not speaking of my personal understanding of the Kabbalah here, but what I was told by practicing Jews, none of which agree with your 'it's a completely different thing' assessment of Ein-sof and Yahweh. What I read in the Kabbalah seemed to support their views more than yours. Though, I admit it didn't make much sense to me, but then neither did the Bible, so that's pretty irrelevant.

 

It doesn't matter if it's the same being or if it is just an aspect of it anyway. You're making a big deal out of an unimportant detail that really has no impact on the overall discussion. As far as I can tell you are doing this for no other reason than to distract from the problems in your own argument. It's till a 'God' based on the iron age beliefs of the Hebrew religion. It's a specific God that is entirely based on Abrahamic relgion. You're talking about a mystical being from a mystical book. The god you're referring to in your argument is the specific god of the Jewish faith. Not some 'gender neutral undefined blanket god of indeterminate origins and no specific qualities' that you later suggested.

 

At the end of the day, it's irrelevant what type of God you were speaking of anyway. It's still too poorly defined to be of any use, and your arguments are no more valid if that god is the one of the Bible/Torah, or some separate Kabbala God that is the aspect or origin of said god. It's still a lot of irrelevant poorly defined bunk that you're trying to wedge into a sort of math problem that doesn't prove or even actually allude to anything. You've failed at any sort of correlation regardless of how you vaguely define God/Infinite Noodles/All Being Source of Pixie dust/or whatever you want to call it.

 

You just don't have a compelling case and what little argument you did make at the beginning of the thread has only gotten worse and less rational as you've gone deeper into this. Your definitions have gotten softer, and your conjecture has grown worse. You started off with something that was a bit irrational and somewhat illogical and have dived off the deep end into complete silliness. You've not posted anything that isn't either a distraction away from the problems in your argument, or a logical fallacy ridden block of meaningless non-mathematical spiritualism. What little sense you made to begin with has given way to a rather Glen Beckian rant of nonsensical numbers and mystical buzzwords.

 

You're not making any sense, and the problem isn't on our end.

 

Once we can agree on the math, we can go on to the correlations. Just don't say the math is bunk. I know that your area of expertise is on the philosophical side, not on the math side. Do you know when people write books how many times they need to revise and how many accidental mistakes crop up. No I am not perfect. And I am not the best messenger. There are some mathematical points that I believe and want to be true, but math is not there yet. The argument (although sidetracked) is still the same. I just had to word it in the conventional way. That is all. There are smart people here who corrected me when I went to far or made an error. Still, the ridicule was wrong. Let's agree on the math as I last presented it last as clearly and conventionally as i can, and then we will debate the correlations. I can't debate the correlations until we agree on the math.

 

And, by the way, the infinite or ein sof is completely universal. It does not even relate to us at all in such form and makes no demands at all. It is only the manifested and not completely infinite form that is religion specific. 

[ContraBardus]

And, by the way, the infinite or ein sof is completely universal. It does not even relate to us at all in such form and makes no demands at all. It is only the manifested and not completely infinite form that is religion specific. 

 

 

Um, no. It's not 'universal'. It's an idea specific to Judaism. Christianity doesn't teach anything of the sort and as far as I know no other religion teaches the stuff in the Kabbalah. It's specific to the Jewish faith. It's not a universal idea at all. You saying that is no different than a Muslim claiming that Allah is universal and that Mohammed was a prophet to everyone and that everyone knows it is fact but many simply deny it. It's not actually true, it's an exclusive belief of those of the Muslim faith. [Many Christians say similar things about Jesus, but they have as much validity.]

 

I get that it's a belief you have about the 'infinite source' being some sort of energy well or some such that relates to 'every' God that someone might pray too, but that's -your- belief, and by no means universal in any way. As far as I know most Christians don't believe in -any- God but the God of Abraham, and those that do believe in other Gods don't believe that any God or power exists over him. Not even some undefined 'infinite source' without intelligence. Most Christians believe God is simply God, and that's all there is to it, and no, even though they might say that 'he has infinite power' or whatever, it's still not related in any way to your concept of 'infinite source' or Ein-Sof.

 

It also doesn't fit with any Eastern religion I know of either. They're mostly concerned with balance and inner energies. Yes there are other mystical elements involved, but nothing like this 'infinite source' of Ein-sof you speak of.

 

It's an idea exclusive to the Hebrew faith, and the only places I know of that you might find a -similar- [that word is important as it's still not the specific idea of Ein-Sof] belief is [possibly, maybe] among weak Agnostics, New Agers, or simple Deist.

 

So no, it's most definitely -not- universal. That claim is absolutely false.

[Ouroboros]

Let me be clear here.

Any number from 0 to infinity (not including infinity) times 0=0  

Any number from 1 to infinity times infinity = infinity

The limit of constant numbers (0 not included) over x as x approaches 0 is positive infinity when approached from the positive side and negative infinity when approached from the negative side.

The limit of constant numbers (infinity not included) over x as x approaches infinity is 0.

Infinity times 0 is indeterminate and can equal anything.

 

Can we agree on these mathematical facts?

Does anyone disagree?

 

If we can agree on the math, we can then discuss the correlations.

Yes. I agree with above statements. Much better.

 

So, now I'm interested in the correlations.

 

I can point out that limit of ln(x) when x approaches 0 is negative infinity, if you'd like to add to the list. There's a bunch of these.

 

Here's actually the coolest formula of all time: e^πi+1=0. All the basic constants in one beautiful identity.

 

After looking up Ein Sof and just slightly scanning what it is, I like it. You can see in my avatar that I'm using Ouroboros.

[Ouroboros]

You make a good point. Classical mathematics stays away from division by actual zero by introducing limits. You either approach 0 from the positive side or from the negative side. Classical math stays away from division by 0. (I mentioned before that i hope math can get beyond this limitation, but it likely won't anytime soon.)

Limits and calculus is the method of going beyond the problem. Just using straight algebra (what you call "classic math") won't work. Perhaps someone could invent some new notations that would make it easier and more intuitive to deal with the limits and such (just like there are two ways of notation for derivatives). Sometimes dealing with end-behavior in calculus is tricky and non-intuitive (like harmonic series being divergent. Man we spent a good hour just trying to accept the fact. The math was solid. The proof evident. But brain-wise, trippy.).

 

But again, I think I like the ein sof idea.

[Guest nat]

 

You make a good point. Classical mathematics stays away from division by actual zero by introducing limits. You either approach 0 from the positive side or from the negative side. Classical math stays away from division by 0. (I mentioned before that i hope math can get beyond this limitation, but it likely won't anytime soon.)

Limits and calculus is the method of going beyond the problem. Just using straight algebra (what you call "classic math") won't work. Perhaps someone could invent some new notations that would make it easier and more intuitive to deal with the limits and such (just like there are two ways of notation for derivatives). Sometimes dealing with end-behavior in calculus is tricky and non-intuitive (like harmonic series being divergent. Man we spent a good hour just trying to accept the fact. The math was solid. The proof evident. But brain-wise, trippy.).

 

But again, I think I like the ein sof idea.

 

Limits is the way math gets behind the problem, But I hope that math eventually sees that there is no problem of dividing by 0 or infinity. The problems that I have seen stated don't seem to me to be real problems, but I am not advanced enough to to make a meaningful argument.

[Guest nat]

 

And, by the way, the infinite or ein sof is completely universal. It does not even relate to us at all in such form and makes no demands at all. It is only the manifested and not completely infinite form that is religion specific. 

 

 

Um, no. It's not 'universal'. It's an idea specific to Judaism. Christianity doesn't teach anything of the sort and as far as I know no other religion teaches the stuff in the Kabbalah. It's specific to the Jewish faith. It's not a universal idea at all. You saying that is no different than a Muslim claiming that Allah is universal and that Mohammed was a prophet to everyone and that everyone knows it is fact but many simply deny it. It's not actually true, it's an exclusive belief of those of the Muslim faith. [Many Christians say similar things about Jesus, but they have as much validity.]

 

I get that it's a belief you have about the 'infinite source' being some sort of energy well or some such that relates to 'every' God that someone might pray too, but that's -your- belief, and by no means universal in any way. As far as I know most Christians don't believe in -any- God but the God of Abraham, and those that do believe in other Gods don't believe that any God or power exists over him. Not even some undefined 'infinite source' without intelligence. Most Christians believe God is simply God, and that's all there is to it, and no, even though they might say that 'he has infinite power' or whatever, it's still not related in any way to your concept of 'infinite source' or Ein-Sof.

 

It also doesn't fit with any Eastern religion I know of either. They're mostly concerned with balance and inner energies. Yes there are other mystical elements involved, but nothing like this 'infinite source' of Ein-sof you speak of.

 

It's an idea exclusive to the Hebrew faith, and the only places I know of that you might find a -similar- [that word is important as it's still not the specific idea of Ein-Sof] belief is [possibly, maybe] among weak Agnostics, New Agers, or simple Deist.

 

So no, it's most definitely -not- universal. That claim is absolutely false.

 

I see that we will always have issues in understanding the same terms differently. When I say universal, I mean that it is completely equal to all things. It does not demand or choose or involve itself directly with anything of the natural finite world other than in being the source of it. It is something that equally applies to all things. It may not be universally accepted. And it may not fit well within certain religions. I didn't say any of that. I'm saying that it applies to everything universally.

 

By the way, I didn't say that the infinite source is without intelligence. I tend to think that it is with intelligence and is self aware. Others may feel otherwise. In any case, we can't comprehend its nature.

[ContraBardus]

I see that we will always have issues in understanding the same terms differently. When I say universal, I mean that it is completely equal to all things. It does not demand or choose or involve itself directly with anything of the natural finite world other than in being the source of it. It is something that equally applies to all things. It may not be universally accepted. And it may not fit well within certain religions. I didn't say any of that. I'm saying that it applies to everything universally.

 

By the way, I didn't say that the infinite source is without intelligence. I tend to think that it is with intelligence and is self aware. Others may feel otherwise. In any case, we can't comprehend its nature.

 

 

Way to miss the point. Look, this is nothing but a bald assertion. You're making a claim you have absolutely no backing for, and no, none of what you've posted previously qualifies as any sort of evidence to support this claim.

 

This is what is getting you into so much trouble here, you're acting as if these wild bald assertions of yours are some kind of 'given fact' or some concept we should all accept. You're acting like you've provided a compelling case for it and made valid evidence based arguments that support it, and you haven't. Not even close.

 

I understood what you meant, but that didn't mean it was valid, made any sense, or had any merit or value.

 

Not even you can comprehend what you're talking about, you said so right there at the end of your post. That's not because it's some wondrous truth about the universe that is beyond your capacity.

 

It's because -it doesn't make any sense-.

 

There's no good reason for any of us to buy into that philosophy, it's nonsensical and lacks any sort of evidence. It's just something you're claiming without credible backing, and no, the Kabbalah is no more credible backing as evidence of fact than the Bible, the Qua'ran, the Vedas, or the Lord of the Rings. It doesn't even really -mean- anything.

 

It's really nothing more than spiritual philosophical poetry, and not very good poetry at that.

[Ouroboros]

Limits is the way math gets behind the problem, But I hope that math eventually sees that there is no problem of dividing by 0 or infinity.

I'm not sure I understand that last point. The problems are what they are and can't be solved unless you do some limit handling.

 

Just look at the graph for f(x)=1/x:

 

Then look at the graph for f(x)=tan(x):

There are many ±∞. One for each π/2+nπ.

 

Also know that the whole invention of limits was actually to solve the problems of /0 and inf, not the other way around. The problem was there. Limits solved it.

 

With that being said, I have no problem with the Ein Sof idea. I just don't need to write a formula to understand it. Math might help to visualize it though, but that's where its use ends.

[boftx]

 

With that being said, I have no problem with the Ein Sof idea. I just don't need to write a formula to understand it. Math might help to visualize it though, but that's where its use ends.

 

 

Precisely what I have said earlier more than once now.

 

I also feel compelled to defend nat on one point though. ContraBardus let nat have it on the statement that ein sof is universal on the ground that it applies only to nat's belief and is not a universal concept.

 

I thought it was obvious that nat's statement was with reference to his framework, not every possible belief system in the world. Nat was giving a definition of his term. I have no problem at all with that statement when taken in the intended context. Like Ouroborus, I find the concept of interest and within reason for someone who wishes to maintain some form of spiritual view as opposed to "God" of the Bible.

 

I think the main discussion now is going to center on whether or not ein sof can embody any form of self-awareness. I would tend to think not, since that is applying a predicate and it seems to me that by definition ein sof can have no predicates.

[Ouroboros]

I also feel compelled to defend nat on one point though. ContraBardus let nat have it on the statement that ein sof is universal on the ground that it applies only to nat's belief and is not a universal concept.

 

I thought it was obvious that nat's statement was with reference to his framework, not every possible belief system in the world. Nat was giving a definition of his term. I have no problem at all with that statement when taken in the intended context. Like Ouroborus, I find the concept of interest and within reason for someone who wishes to maintain some form of spiritual view as opposed to "God" of the Bible.

 

I think the main discussion now is going to center on whether or not ein sof can embody any form of self-awareness. I would tend to think not, since that is applying a predicate and it seems to me that by definition ein sof can have no predicates.

The thing that struck me as interesting with the Ein Sof was that it's encapsulating the idea of a non-sentient eternal "thing" which is from where all things came to be. Perhaps it can be called "singularity goo" or "pre-big bang hot ball". There are some unifying ideas in these mystic religions that can be applied to modern view of the world (even scientific)... well, at least to some degree, perhaps not 100%. At least it can fit a little better than the ancient idea of a personal god.

[boftx]

I found a good deal of similarity between ein sof and Tillich's view of God (as opposed to "God" of the Bible) as the ground of being, except that as you said, Ouroborus, ein sof can be seen as non-sentient. I think a Deist would be fairly comfortable with that concept.

[ContraBardus]

 

Precisely what I have said earlier more than once now.

 

I also feel compelled to defend nat on one point though. ContraBardus let nat have it on the statement that ein sof is universal on the ground that it applies only to nat's belief and is not a universal concept.

 

I thought it was obvious that nat's statement was with reference to his framework, not every possible belief system in the world. Nat was giving a definition of his term. I have no problem at all with that statement when taken in the intended context. Like Ouroborus, I find the concept of interest and within reason for someone who wishes to maintain some form of spiritual view as opposed to "God" of the Bible.

 

I think the main discussion now is going to center on whether or not ein sof can embody any form of self-awareness. I would tend to think not, since that is applying a predicate and it seems to me that by definition ein sof can have no predicates.

 

 

I guess I can see that. Perhaps 'it doesn't make sense' wasn't the best way to put it. 'It's just not likely or supported enough to really consider' might have been a better way to put it.

 

I have little problem with the deistic idea of God, or infinite energy as a belief, but it's not really a proven concept or even really a relevant observation. If such a vague God does exist, then it's not really important that anyone believes that it exists and there's no good reason to worship it or seek any meaning or guidance from it's existence. It doesn't really matter if such a thing exists or not. There's no real reason to think there is such a thing, but also no real point to considering that it does even if it does exist. It's an unprovable abstract.

 

My main issue is that he seems to be putting it forth as an acceptable concept that is supported by evidence and something that should be assumed as a valid variable in the discussion. As if it's an obvious conclusion to begin with and it should simply be taken at face value and considered to be a valid and logical conclusion. From his posts, he seems to think that it's a clearly defined thing that has a valid use in the discussion at hand beyond simple hyperbole. That's simply not the case.

 

He really can't claim that he's trying to be hypothetical and hyperbolic because he spent quite a bit of this thread arguing that it was valid, and trying to use infinity and zero to show that. He's trying to assert that it's a real thing that is more than something he simply believes in and is presenting it as an idea that should be seriously considered as fact.

 

His ideas are entirely hypothetical what ifs. There's nothing wrong with hypotheticals, but they should be presented as such. He's presenting the idea of 'infinite source' as if it should be assumed and accepted despite there being no real backing for any such thing existing. Even if it is real, it's a useless variable anyway. What good does knowing about an infinite being or energy if it has no practical value. It certainly doesn't make the existence of a God or God like being, no matter how you define it, any more likely anyway. They could be two completely unrelated concepts or exactly the same thing. There's no way to determine it either way without a sound definition of both, and I see no way that's actually going to happen.

 

It's irrelevant either way and whether we call it Ein-Sof or 'infinite source' doesn't actually make it any more useful a concept. It's just a term with no real definition and a vague abstract description either way.

[Guest nat]

 

I see that we will always have issues in understanding the same terms differently. When I say universal, I mean that it is completely equal to all things. It does not demand or choose or involve itself directly with anything of the natural finite world other than in being the source of it. It is something that equally applies to all things. It may not be universally accepted. And it may not fit well within certain religions. I didn't say any of that. I'm saying that it applies to everything universally.

 

By the way, I didn't say that the infinite source is without intelligence. I tend to think that it is with intelligence and is self aware. Others may feel otherwise. In any case, we can't comprehend its nature.

 

 

Way to miss the point. Look, this is nothing but a bald assertion. You're making a claim you have absolutely no backing for, and no, none of what you've posted previously qualifies as any sort of evidence to support this claim.

 

This is what is getting you into so much trouble here, you're acting as if these wild bald assertions of yours are some kind of 'given fact' or some concept we should all accept. You're acting like you've provided a compelling case for it and made valid evidence based arguments that support it, and you haven't. Not even close.

 

I understood what you meant, but that didn't mean it was valid, made any sense, or had any merit or value.

 

Not even you can comprehend what you're talking about, you said so right there at the end of your post. That's not because it's some wondrous truth about the universe that is beyond your capacity.

 

It's because -it doesn't make any sense-.

 

There's no good reason for any of us to buy into that philosophy, it's nonsensical and lacks any sort of evidence. It's just something you're claiming without credible backing, and no, the Kabbalah is no more credible backing as evidence of fact than the Bible, the Qua'ran, the Vedas, or the Lord of the Rings. It doesn't even really -mean- anything.

 

It's really nothing more than spiritual philosophical poetry, and not very good poetry at that.

 

It is clear you disagree, but you are not clear on exactly what you disagree and why. I did not say i was bringing evidence for everything. It depends on what i said. Some things are just what I believe.

 

However, After reading your next post it is a little more clear on what your issue is. 

 

But there are certain things I do think are unavoidable and a whole bunch of things that are uncertain or debatable. It depends what. 

 

After my next post where I clarify what i am referring to, we can have it out in a more clear fashion. But you do need to be specific on what your issue or issues are.

[Guest nat]

Before I get to correlations, I need set forth the things that I want to correlate to. So I will now discuss the Ein Sof infinite source

Ein Sof means without end, infinite. A secondary way to say Ein is Ayin (rymes with lion) which means nothingness. There is a very big element of nothingness in relation to the Ein Sof, as I will discuss later on.

 

Both the infinite and nothingness are beyond human comprehension.  Some people will shut down and not be able to contemplate the incomprehensible and will not believe in it. However, there is clear evidence of an infinite past before us. It is impossible to understand, but we see that we came from and continue forward from the infinite past. So there was and is something infinite out there. How can you avoid the infinite past?

 

The infinite is not all of everything. All of everything is finite. The infinite goes beyond that. There are some forms of intertwined infinite and finite, but that is neither completely finite nor completely infinite.

 

In regard to nothingness, we are comfortable with the idea of nothing more, but absolute nothingness cannot be understood. Even empty space is not absolute nothingness. But both nothingness and the infinite are evidenced. If there was only absolute nothing, how could we be here? Even Hawkins talks about Quantum principals alongside nothingness. And If there was only the absolute infinite, what would change it?

 

Ein Sof includes both the infinite and nothingness. Both cannot be understood. It is also not understood how both can be there. If there is something infinite, how can there be nothing. If there is nothing, how can there be something infinite. The same way we can't understand each one, we can't understand the two together. Some people will like the idea of infinite nothingness (as one concept), but this too is contradictory in nature.

 

In regard to Ein Sof (if you google it) you will see a lot about the infinite and a lot about nothingness. We will not know exactly how the two coincide or if it is more of one or more of the other or if the two are one concept or two concepts. I like to think that the two are both absolute and exist in different realms. Still, it is all unfathomable no matter how you slice it.

 

I have to reiterate that not being able to comprehend it is unavoidable. That is the nature of it. But shutting off from it because of that does not help. You can't avoid it, and you can't avoid not knowing it. If that spins your head to much and it shuts off, I can understand that.

 

It is the duality of the infinite and nothingness that makes everything possible. Each one by itself has no room for anything else. But in-between nothing and the infinite is everything else. That is why we and all of this world are here.

 

The Ein Sof is a universal concept. It is whatever existed in the infinite past before us. In Kabbalah, God of the bible is a manifestation of Ein Sof, but not Ein Sof itself. It is very telling that Kabbalah calls the manifestation the "first man." This tells a lot about its created nature.

 

We stem from Ein Sof and it seems to be within us, but we don't relate to it or worship it. It is beyond us and does not relate to us. I am not completely sure how or if it relates to various semi infinite manifestations. But it has no relationship to anything finite. All finite things are equal before it. It makes no demands are requires no worship. It is both religious and secular at the same time. It is truly universal and the same to all. I mean that in the same way the sun lights up the day for all of us. You can shut out the sunlight but it does not shut you out. 

[Guest nat]

 

Limits is the way math gets behind the problem, But I hope that math eventually sees that there is no problem of dividing by 0 or infinity.

I'm not sure I understand that last point. The problems are what they are and can't be solved unless you do some limit handling.

 

Just look at the graph for f(x)=1/x:

Whelk-Graph1OverX.jpg

 

Then look at the graph for f(x)=tan(x):

tanx.gif

There are many ±∞. One for each π/2+nπ.

 

Also know that the whole invention of limits was actually to solve the problems of /0 and inf, not the other way around. The problem was there. Limits solved it.

 

With that being said, I have no problem with the Ein Sof idea. I just don't need to write a formula to understand it. Math might help to visualize it though, but that's where its use ends.

 

If I understand your issue correctly, the problem is that we head to positive and negative infinity at the same time. I said that I am not advanced enough to make a meaningful argument, but to me that does not seem to be an issue. The answer can be + and - infinity at the same time, just like the sqaure root of 25 is +-5. I don't want to push this though. It did enough damage to sidetrack everything already.

 

And by the way, I said many times that the math is meant as a correlation, which means similarities between the abstract concepts and the mathematical ones. Since the abstract concepts use similar words as the math, it makes sense that they will have similar properties. The point of the math is that we relate to it much better than to abstract concepts, so it helps us grasp it. I am not writing mathematical formulas for the abstract concepts. Let's get over that.

[ContraBardus]

 

 

Both the infinite and nothingness are beyond human comprehension. 

 

Why? I see no reason to accept the idea that these ideas are beyond human comprehension. What is 'nothingness' anyway? There's no reason to think there is such a thing. As stated before, even the most 'empty' parts of space are filled with exotic energies and all sorts of particles.

 

 

 

Some people will shut down and not be able to contemplate the incomprehensible and will not believe in it. However, there is clear evidence of an infinite past before us. It is impossible to understand, but we see that we came from and continue forward from the infinite past. So there was and is something infinite out there. How can you avoid the infinite past?

 

Again, there's no real reason to think this is true. It's just a claim. Yes, I know you're describing your beliefs here, but I see no reason to accept these ideas or let this one go without rebuttal. They aren't substantiated claims. I don't see how these concepts are 'impossible to understand' or 'beyond human comprehension'. Math can indeed express the concept of endless, and it can even express less than nothing. That makes both of these things well within human understanding.

 

That doesn't mean that 'nothing' actually exists, or that there is an infinite source of energy somewhere. [Perhaps a very large source of energy, but 'infinite' is very unlikely. A source that is difficult or even impossible to actually measure I might accept as possible, maybe even probable, but it would still be finite.] Both are equally unlikely as far as I'm concerned. It's simply not true that the ideas of nothing or completely empty space, or infinity are beyond comprehension. They are not, they are not necessarily easy to express, but claiming they are 'beyond human comprehension' needs to be explained further.

 

Why can we not comprehend such things? Math does a very good job of exactly that when properly applied. It's beyond my mathematical skills to do so, but saying that these things cannot be expressed or understood by humans just isn't true. I understand the concepts of infinity and complete emptiness, I couldn't express them very well, but endless and empty are not concepts that are beyond my grasp. I think most people actually have a pretty good if simplistic idea of these concepts. A mathematician could explain them in excruciating detail.

 

Even as it relates to the Kabbalah and in a spiritual sense it's not beyond comprehension. Let's assume that it is true and there is nothingness and an infinite source. Someone obviously understood it well enough to write it down and express it in the Kabbalah. Even if they were inspired by a higher power, they still comprehended the idea, and wrote it down clearly enough that others within the faith could grasp the concept. Otherwise what use are the sections of the Kabbalah that describe these things?

 

Also, this talk of 'nothingness' all sounds very Zen Buddhist to me. I always thought spending time contemplating 'nothing' or 'nothingness' is a waste of time better spent on more productive ideas. I never understood why someone couldn't attain 'balance' while thinking of a more useful idea than 'nothing'. [some Buddhist would say you can, but a lot are really into the whole 'nothingness' idea.]

 

It's entirely possible the two concepts are related somehow. [i mean outside of a spiritual connection, the ideas of one belief system influencing the other.]

[Guest nat]

 

 

Both the infinite and nothingness are beyond human comprehension. 

 

Why? I see no reason to accept the idea that these ideas are beyond human comprehension. What is 'nothingness' anyway? There's no reason to think there is such a thing. As stated before, even the most 'empty' parts of space are filled with exotic energies and all sorts of particles.

 

Some people will shut down and not be able to contemplate the incomprehensible and will not believe in it. However, there is clear evidence of an infinite past before us. It is impossible to understand, but we see that we came from and continue forward from the infinite past. So there was and is something infinite out there. How can you avoid the infinite past?

 

 

Again, there's no real reason to think this is true. It's just a claim. Yes, I know you're describing your beliefs here, but I see no reason to accept these ideas or let this one go without rebuttal. They aren't substantiated claims. I don't see how these concepts are 'impossible to understand' or 'beyond human comprehension'. Math can indeed express the concept of endless, and it can even express less than nothing. That makes both of these things well within human understanding.

 

That doesn't mean that 'nothing' actually exists, or that there is an infinite source of energy somewhere. Both are equally unlikely as far as I'm concerned. It's simply not true that the ideas of nothing or completely empty space, or infinity are beyond comprehension. They are not, they are not necessarily easy to express, but claiming they are 'beyond human comprehension' needs to be explained further.

 

Why can we not comprehend such things? Math does a very good job of exactly that when properly applied. It's beyond my mathematical skills to do so, but saying that these things cannot be expressed or understood by humans just isn't true. I understand the concepts of infinity and complete emptiness, I couldn't express them very well, but endless and empty are not concepts that are beyond my grasp. I think most people actually have a pretty good if simplistic idea of these concepts. A mathematician could explain them in excruciating detail.

 

Even as it relates to the Kabbalah and in a spiritual sense it's not beyond comprehension. Let's assume that it is true and there is nothingness and an infinite source. Someone obviously understood it well enough to write it down and express it in the Kabbalah. Even if they were inspired by a higher power, they still comprehended the idea, and wrote it down clearly enough that others within the faith could grasp the concept. Otherwise what use are the sections of the Kabbalah that describe these things?

 

Also, this talk of 'nothingness' all sounds very Zen Buddhist to me. I always thought spending time contemplating 'nothing' or 'nothingness' is a waste of time better spent on more productive ideas. I never understood why someone couldn't attain 'balance' while thinking of a more useful idea than 'nothing'. [some Buddhist would say you can, but a lot are really into the whole 'nothingness' idea.]

 

It's entirely possible the two concepts are related somehow. [i mean outside of a spiritual connection, the ideas of one belief system influencing the other.]

 

How can you understand infinity? We can understand what it is about, but not what it is. Think of the infinite past. How can something have no beginning?  How can something always be there? The essence is beyond comprehension. We can only understand that something of this sort exists, but not how it does so. 

 

All infinite things without end are the same. It is not just big. it is endless. How can something be endless and go on and on? What is the last number? There is none. Things without any end are not understandable. You can't grasp the unendingness. For me the hardest one of them is the infinite past, but they are all beyond any logic.

 

Yet, you can't avoid the existence of the infinite past. What else could it be?

[boftx]

Math allows us to work with "infinity" but our minds balk at "the infinite". The two are not the same even though they are similar concepts. With that in mind, there is no logical requirement that what is true for one must be true for the other.

[ContraBardus]

How can you understand infinity? We can understand what it is about, but not what it is. Think of the infinite past. How can something have no beginning?  How can something always be there? The essence is beyond comprehension. We can only understand that something of this sort exists, but not how it does so. 

 

 

Why -can't- I understand infinity? What makes you say we can't know what it is?

 

How do you know time is infinite? What if there is a point in the past where time began? What if there really is a start of the past? That's not as improbable as you might think. Even if there is some sort of 'infinite source' how do -you- know it was already there? What makes you say it 'always existed'? Because a really old book said so? Because you think it's there now?

 

There's a Starbucks on the corner down the street from me, it's been there since I moved in. I've never seen that street corner without that Starbucks being there. Does that mean I should believe that it has always been there and that it will always be there?

 

I have more reason to believe that than you do to believe that there is an infinite source that has always existed and will always exist. If only on the basis that I can walk down the street and actually see that it is there.

 

Physics deals with Space and Time. Relativity clearly shows that time can be influenced, it's entirely possible to manipulate it. Relativity is proven, our space program has actually shown that speed affects time. As you approach the speed of light, time slows down. Time passes at a different rate in orbiting bodies than it does on the surface of the planet because of the speed difference, it's a minor difference, but it's been proven. It's entirely possible that time exists as a finite force with a beginning and even an end.

 

These concepts are not as complicated as you're claiming. [That's not saying they are simple, or that we fully understand them right now.] There's actually no reason to believe that these things are beyond our ability to comprehend. It's true, our current understanding is limited, but there's no good reason to think that infinity and time are things humans cannot comprehend or that time is necessarily infinite to begin with.

 

Maybe the iron age society that the Kabbalah came from couldn't understand those concepts, but claiming that it's out of reach for humans to understand is entirely baseless.

 

Just because something is beyond your or my ability to understand, does not mean that it cannot be understood. It does not mean that it is beyond human comprehension. The fact that we don't have a complete understanding of something now does not preclude our ability to understand it now or in the future. That's kind of what science is for, to help us understand things that are difficult to comprehend and provide ways to practically apply that knowledge. It's why we have neat things like medicine and microwave ovens. Our ancestors had no understanding of such things, but we had the capacity to learn about them and understand them. I see no reason why 'infinity' and 'time' are any different in that regard. Even if we do not fully understand them now, that does not mean that we lack the ability to understand them or that we never will understand them.

 

[Guest nat]

 

How can you understand infinity? We can understand what it is about, but not what it is. Think of the infinite past. How can something have no beginning?  How can something always be there? The essence is beyond comprehension. We can only understand that something of this sort exists, but not how it does so. 

 

 

Why -can't- I understand infinity? What makes you say we can't know what it is?

 

How do you know time is infinite? What if there is a point in the past where time began? What if there really is a start of the past? That's not as improbable as you might think. Even if there is some sort of 'infinite source' how do -you- know it was already there? What makes you say it 'always existed'? Because a really old book said so? Because you think it's there now?

 

There's a Starbucks on the corner down the street from me, it's been there since I moved in. I've never seen that street corner without that Starbucks being there. Does that mean I should believe that it has always been there and that it will always be there?

 

I have more reason to believe that than you do to believe that there is an infinite source that has always existed and will always exist. If only on the basis that I can walk down the street and actually see that it is there.

 

Physics deals with Space and Time. Relativity clearly shows that time can be influenced, it's entirely possible to manipulate it. Relativity is proven, our space program has actually shown that speed affects time. As you approach the speed of light, time slows down. Time passes at a different rate in orbiting bodies than it does on the surface of the planet because of the speed difference, it's a minor difference, but it's been proven. It's entirely possible that time exists as a finite force with a beginning and even an end.

 

These concepts are not as complicated as you're claiming. [That's not saying they are simple, or that we fully understand them right now.] There's actually no reason to believe that these things are beyond our ability to comprehend. It's true, our current understanding is limited, but there's no good reason to think that infinity and time are things humans cannot comprehend or that time is necessarily infinite to begin with.

 

Maybe the iron age society that the Kabbalah came from couldn't understand those concepts, but claiming that it's out of reach for humans to understand is entirely baseless.

 

Just because something is beyond your or my ability to understand, does not mean that it cannot be understood. It does not mean that it is beyond human comprehension. The fact that we don't have a complete understanding of something now does not preclude our ability to understand it now or in the future. That's kind of what science is for, to help us understand things that are difficult to comprehend and provide ways to practically apply that knowledge. It's why we have neat things like medicine and microwave ovens. Our ancestors had no understanding of such things, but we had the capacity to learn about them and understand them. I see no reason why 'infinity' and 'time' are any different in that regard. Even if we do not fully understand them now, that does not mean that we lack the ability to understand them or that we never will understand them.

 

 

You ask how i know it was always there. Keep in mind i am not saying something specific was always there, just that something was always there. There is no other choice. If there wasn't something always there, then what was there before the something? Was there only nothing before? How can something come from only nothing? i mentioned that even Hawkins talks about Quantum principals alongside nothing. Even if there was nothing, it seems to be infinite nothing, so we are still back to something infinite.

 

I disagree with you that science can potentially find answers to everything. The infinite is not possible to grasp. Lets say people always existed. We would go back and back and not be able to realize who was first because there is no first. We keep asking who was before him and before him and before him. There is no end and it cannot be grasped. Something without an end can never be understood. The natural world is finite. The infinite is beyond nature and beyond understanding.

 

In any case, i am by far not alone is saying that infinity is not comprehensible. It is a valid position. (google it to see what others have to say.)

 

The mind does tend to shut down under all the contradictions. But it is what it is. The infinite past was always there and we can't comprehend how something can always be there. 

[Ouroboros]

If I understand your issue correctly, the problem is that we head to positive and negative infinity at the same time. I said that I am not advanced enough to make a meaningful argument, but to me that does not seem to be an issue. The answer can be + and - infinity at the same time, just like the sqaure root of 25 is +-5. I don't want to push this though. It did enough damage to sidetrack everything already.

It's okay. Take the parts from math that can work to describe what you want to describe, but just do them properly.

 

Here's another fun thing in math: sqrt(-1)=i. The imaginary constant is extremely useful in electrics, sound technology, advanced 3D manipulation systems for vector transformation (linear algebra--haven't taken that class yet), and more, even though, i doesn't really exist as a natural number.

 

 

And by the way, I said many times that the math is meant as a correlation, which means similarities between the abstract concepts and the mathematical ones. Since the abstract concepts use similar words as the math, it makes sense that they will have similar properties. The point of the math is that we relate to it much better than to abstract concepts, so it helps us grasp it. I am not writing mathematical formulas for the abstract concepts. Let's get over that.

Sure. But the only thing I reacted to was when the math was wrong. Wrongly stated math identities will not help to describe the abstract concepts but rather muddle them.

[Ouroboros]

nat, on 25 Apr 2013 - 9:28 PM, said:

The mind does tend to shut down under all the contradictions. But it is what it is. The infinite past was always there and we can't comprehend how something can always be there.

It reminds me of the time when I was a kid and thought about infinite space and time. It was mind boggling and hard to accept. One day, somehow, I did accept it and had peace. Infinity (or infinities, i.e. an infinity of infinities) doesn't bother me anymore, but of course I can't say I truly or fully grasp it.

 

Also, there is the infinitesimal numbers too, which goes to zero (like f(x)=sqrt(x)). And then you have rational numbers, irrational numbers, transcendental numbers, and transfinite number, and so on... And there's an infinite of all these in each group. Basically, if just finite in one direction wasn't enough, an infinite amount of different kinds of infinites just blows that out of the water.

[Guest nat]

 

The mind does tend to shut down under all the contradictions. But it is what it is. The infinite past was always there and we can't comprehend how something can always be there.

It reminds me of the time when I was a kid and thought about infinite space and time. It was mind boggling and hard to accept. One day, somehow, I did accept it and had peace. Infinity (or infinities, i.e. an infinity of infinities) doesn't bother me anymore, but of course I can't say I truly or fully grasp it.

 

Also mind boggling are the semi infinite forms. They play tricks on your mind in whether they are infinite or not. You look at it one way it is infinite, look at it another way it is not. Infinite numbers and space seem to be like this. It is sort of quantum in nature where it depends on how you look at it.

[Ouroboros]

Also mind boggling are the semi infinite forms. They play tricks on your mind in whether they are infinite or not. You look at it one way it is infinite, look at it another way it is not. Infinite numbers and space seem to be like this. It is sort of quantum in nature where it depends on how you look at it.

Yes. I can agree to that. Each fraction of time consist of an infinite progression of prior and current events and components in space to uphold it. We live a form of eternity each second. And we occupy an infinite space at each step. It all ties together.

[Guest nat]

 

Also mind boggling are the semi infinite forms. They play tricks on your mind in whether they are infinite or not. You look at it one way it is infinite, look at it another way it is not. Infinite numbers and space seem to be like this. It is sort of quantum in nature where it depends on how you look at it.

Yes. I can agree to that. Each fraction of time consist of an infinite progression of prior and current events and components in space to uphold it. We live a form of eternity each second. And we occupy an infinite space at each step. It all ties together.

 

Yet, I see that it all hinges on an absolute infinite beyond the beyond. It is sort of the infinite ends of the infinite.