Mathematical Proof Of God

[Guest nat]

 

 

Infinity and zero  are opposites, but both are transcendental opposite forces, ........

 

wrong actually zero is neutral. Infinity has an opposite of negative infinity. Thats as far as i got in your post. sorry

 

Just because negative infinity is opposite of positive infinity in one sense, zero is the far truer opposite of infinity. Infinity is boundless, negative infinity is also boundless, but zero is void. It is the true opposite, and its affect on infinity is much more significant. To prove this even more, look at division. It is division by 0 that gets you a boundless answer, because by dividing you turn 0 into its opposite. OK?  So I am correct on this point.

[Guest nat]

 

 

 

I already said that I can't debate this on the advanced level. I will leave that for others.

 

What, you thought that everybody would look at your original post and say, "Wow! He's right! How could I have been so wrong? God does exist!" and that you wouldn't have to say anything else? Why bring up the argument if you couldn't back it up either yourself or with other resources?

 

I can and have defended the math and the logic. It's just when people bring up very high level of math, I cant argue on that level. 

 

The simple fact is that science never did and can't explain how matter got there in the first place. They can only say what happened afterward. People ask then how did god get there. So we have to say that something was always there and that is exactly my point.

 

What was always there? Always there means that it was infinite. It can't be matter because matter is not infinite as it can be divided. Something infinite was always there. Infinity cannot be defined. Something unknowable was always there. You can't avoid it. I call the infinite source God. You can call it what you want.

 

How did matter get there? Infinity times zero is not nothing. It is undetermined. It can be anything. infinity times 0 can equal one or two or anything else.

 

Not trying to convert anyone. Just ideas here. Nothing more. I should care more, but I don't.

 

 

The simple fact is that science never did and can't explain how matter got there in the first place.

 

 

 Nat,

 

Please let me bring you up to date.

 

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-109

The Planck satellite data has confirmed that Andrei Linde's model of Chaotic Inflation is the one that best fits the data.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation

"Eternal Inflation is an inflationary universe model, which is itself an outgrowth or extension of the Big Bang theory. In theories of eternal inflation, the inflationary phase of the universe's expansion lasts forever in at least some regions of the universe. Because these regions expand exponentially rapidly, most of the volume of the universe at any given time is inflating. All models of eternal inflation produce an infinite multiverse, typically a fractal."

.

 

In 1986, Linde published an alternative model of inflation that also reproduced the same successes of new inflation entitled "Eternally Existing Self-Reproducing Chaotic Inflationary Universe",^[7] which provides a detailed description of what has become known as the Chaotic Inflation theory or eternal inflation. The Chaotic Inflation theory is in some ways similar to Fred Hoyle’s steady state theory, as it employs the metaphor of a universe that is eternally existing, and thus does not require a unique beginning or an ultimate end of the cosmos.

 

Nat, it's currently impossible to say if Linde is right or wrong about the Multiverse being eternal (without beginning and without end), but what cannot be avoided is correctly applying the Cosmological Principle to ourselves, in the light of this new paradigm.  When we do this, we find that the question, 'Where does matter come from?' is radically changed.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle

"The cosmological principle contains three implicit qualifications and two testable consequences. The first implicit qualification is that "observers" means any observer at any location in the universe, not simply any human observer at any location on Earth: as Andrew Liddle puts it, "the cosmological principle [means that] the universe looks the same whoever and wherever you are."

 

We humans are observers.

Any intelligent beings, located anywhere else in the Multiverse are also observers, sharing exactly the same status as us.  No observer can be accorded a different status to any other.  Therefore, no observer can categorically claim that they inhabit the first universe - the one that began the exponentially accellerating process of chaotic inflation.  If it did actually have a beginning.  Therefore, the question, 'Where does matter come from?' should be changed to read, 'Where does our universe come from?'  The answer to that question requires a complete re-think of the entire issue.

 

Our universe is part of a greater (and possibly eternal) ensemble of universes, referred to collectively, as the Multiverse.  Our place within the Multiverse is impossible to define because every observer (including us) will observe their own universe springing into existence from an infinitely-dense gravitational singularity.  Each observer will also observe their own 'Big Bang' and each observer will may be tempted to conclude that theirs is the one and only universe that exists. However, that would be a false conclusion to draw.  Just as no observer can claim the status of 'first and original' for themselves, no observer can claim the status of  'one and only' for themselves.  Both conclusions violate the Cosmological Principle. 

 

Also, Linde's model is self-reproducing - so our universe gave rise to others and they in turn spawned others and these gave birth to still more, on and on and on, possibly without end.  Likewise, our universe was the product of an earlier one and it was derived from ones preceding it, back thru the aeons, possibly without end.

 

Here is Linde's 1986 paper.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1402-4896/1987/T15/024/

 

Here is a much more accessible Scientific American article about chaotic inflation from 1998.

http://mukto-mona.net/science/physics/Inflation_lself_prod_inde.pdf

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

Btw,

What does the acronym O.O.L. mean to you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

I would like to comment on this, but you would need to brake it down into simple points for me to comment on.

[Guest nat]

Perhaps this will be of help re: defining what Infinity is or isn't and what the Infinite is or isn't?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor

 

"The actual infinite arises in three contexts: first when it is realized in the most complete form, in a fully independent other-worldly being, in Deo, where I call it the Absolute Infinite or simply Absolute; second when it occurs in the contingent, created world; third when the mind grasps it in abstracto as a mathematical magnitude, number, or order type.  I wish to make a sharp contrast between the Absolute and what I call the Transfinite, that is the actual infinities of the last two sorts, which are clearly limited, subject to further increase, and thus related to the finite."

Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 1932.

 

So, if I understand Cantor's position correctly, he might say that Nat's proposition is fatally flawed. Nat presents a line of mathematical argument and then changes gear at this point, by asking...

"What does all this mean? God is the infinite. The opposite of God is nothing. Judaism teaches that God made this world from nothing. God*0=all things.  And that is the mathematical proof to God. Thank you."

 

Cantor might say that this change represents a shift from the third class of infinity (in abstracto) to the first (in Deo) and that these two definitions of infinity cannot be compared in this way.  Abstract human concepts of the infinite cannot be coherently compared to the Absolute Infinite represented by God. 

 

The first (In Deo) is unknowable and incomprehensible, while the third (in abstracto) is not. 

In Deo is not equal to, divisible by, less than or greater than In abstracto.

In Deo cannot be linked to, related to or connected to In abstracto.

In abstracto (being a function of the limited human mind) cannot be used to say anything coherent or meaningful about the absolute and unlimited In Deo, because the mind is simply not up to the job.

 

You can only prove what is knowable by the human mind and you cannot prove what you cannot know.

 

Thus, a mathematical proof of God is impossible. 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Nat,

 

Please note that I'm playing devil's advocate here and arguing the case from what I think Cantor's p.o.v. would be, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

I already tried to get past the linkage between infinity and God. There has to be some unending unknowable everlasting thing out there. My tradition links it to God. Many are comfortable with that, and obviously many are not.

[Guest nat]

I think the whole thing shows that 'god' seems to be a placeholder for that which we just don't understand. Infinity and absolute are not descriptors... they describe NOTHING in reality... just holding a spot for where WE DON'T KNOW.. and REALLY REALLY UNIMAGINABLY BIG BEYOND OUR ABILITY TO COMPREHEND. If it's that ALL OF EVERYTHING then it kind of loses it's meaning, doesn't it?

 

Like absolute zero.. does it actually exist in nature?, or is it a marker to measure from?  If the universe has a thermal register dating from the BB - then it doesn't, at least not in our little patch of reality. Theoretically?, sure... in virtual reality (quantum gas, for example) but.. the point is that the imagination is the only thing that I've seen that seems infinite.

 

It's philosophy, not science.

 

That's what I got out of the exchange, anyway.

 

The god of the bible does not exist.. and if it did we should hunt it down and kill it. Sorry - that's my conclusion from reading the OT.

It has to be more than a placeholder. It is a real everlasting incomprehensible thing that always was is and will be. It is not all of everything. All of everything is not infinite. Infinite is much more profound than all of everything.

[midniterider]

There has to be some unending unknowable everlasting thing out there.

 

 

Why must there be some unending unknowable everlasting thing out there?

[Guest nat]

 

There has to be some unending unknowable everlasting thing out there.

 

 

Why must there be some unending unknowable everlasting thing out there?

 

Because you keep going back and ask what was before that? It does not end. It is something infinite. Infinity is not dividable, so it can't be material. Infinity cannot be understood so it is unknowable. It is everlasting because it is infinite.

 

Then you take nothing. You take it a million times, you still get nothing. But you take it infinite times, you don't get zero. Infinity times 0 is undetermined. It can be anything. That is where matter came from.

[Ravenstar]

 

There has to be some unending unknowable everlasting thing out there.

 

 

Why must there be some unending unknowable everlasting thing out there?

Yes... why?  I've never understood this... and I don't see the support for this as an assertion. Maybe brighter minds than mine can answer this... maybe.

 

or, 42

[roadrunner]

 

 

 

Infinity and zero  are opposites, but both are transcendental opposite forces, ........

 

wrong actually zero is neutral. Infinity has an opposite of negative infinity. Thats as far as i got in your post. sorry

 

Just because negative infinity is opposite of positive infinity in one sense, zero is the far truer opposite of infinity. Infinity is boundless, negative infinity is also boundless, but zero is void. It is the true opposite, and its affect on infinity is much more significant. To prove this even more, look at division. It is division by 0 that gets you a boundless answer, because by dividing you turn 0 into its opposite. OK?  So I am correct on this point.

 

Sorry bud. Its a cute analogy but its not mathematical by any stretch. Infinity is a concept not a number. Also math has nothing to do with god. You are simply linking two unrelated concepts god and math.

[boftx]

roadrunner is getting at the truth of the matter. What nat is presenting as a "proof" is actually an analogy. It might have some entertainment value from a philosophical standpoint, but is nowhere close to what can be considered a "proof" in mathematics or logic.

 

Here is what an attempt at a rigorous proof for God looks like:

 

 

That is what Godel came up, and even that is badly flawed in the axioms (remember your high school geometry?). You can find a reasonable discussion of it here.

[Bhim]

Because you keep going back and ask what was before that? It does not end. It is something infinite. Infinity is not dividable, so it can't be material. Infinity cannot be understood so it is unknowable. It is everlasting because it is infinite.

 

Then you take nothing. You take it a million times, you still get nothing. But you take it infinite times, you don't get zero. Infinity times 0 is undetermined. It can be anything. That is where matter came from.

Hi Nat, you seem to view this as the crux of your argument. As I've said before, what you're saying simply isn't correct. Nothing times infinity is still nothing. And since infinity isn't a number, what I mean by this is that you can add nothing (i.e. zero) to itself as many times as you want, and you will always get zero. There are so called indeterminate forms, including 0*infinity, but they can be evaluated in closed form. You might want to read this Wikipedia page, which is at the level of senior year high school calculus and should be accessible to most people on this forum:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminate_form

 

0*infinity is covered by this. Even if it weren't, I don't know that your proof would be any more convincing. But I'm hoping you'll see that your argument is wrong at the mathematical level.

 

I'm sympathetic to your case as I myself believe in God. But I don't want to propagate false arguments for God's existence (and to be honest, I don't know of any good arguments in favor of our view). On the one hand you're admitting that you're not an expert in mathematics, but on the other you say that your logic is sound. Do you not see the error here? This is like an ordinary layperson claiming to not be a lawyer while simultaneously giving legal advice. I'm not claiming to be an expert in mathematics myself, but even what I learned back in high school calculus is enough for me to know that your mathematical reasoning is just plain wrong.

 

Again, no hard feelings here; since you're a Jew I know you don't have any malicious intent to convert any of us to another religion. Indeed, your own faith prohibits you from doing so unless one of us expresses interest in Judaism on at least three separate occasions. Really my only motivation here is for no one to embrace bad mathematics.

 

 

nat, so you call 'it' God? But arent' you a proud Jew? So your god must be old testament god? Am I wrong? And we who make up our own version of 'god'...are we saved....will we go to heaven? Will our god love us the same as 'it' loves you?

If I may advocate for Nat here, I do want to point out that the Jewish God is nothing like Jesus, who torments people for an eternity for failure to intellectually assent to certain doctrines about him. From what I've read about Judaism, Jews do not view God as favoring Jews over Gentiles; each group is simply under a different covenant. A Jew may understand God as per the teachings of Judaism, a Muslim may know him as Allah, a Hindu may regard God as depicted in the Vedas (good news for me), and even Christians may use Jesus as an adequate Gentile representation of God. As ex-Christians, each one of us is pre-programmed to read the Old Testament the way our pastors taught us to read it: through the lens of the New Testament. But the New Testament horribly misrepresents the Old, and after discarding the NT altogether I've found that the OT is nothing like how Christians read it. Here's an article on the Jewish viw of the afterlife from a quite reliable source of information:

 

http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm

 

I'd be interested to see if Nat considers this to be a good representation of the Jewish take on things.

[Bhim]

I would like to comment on this, but you would need to brake it down into simple points for me to comment on.

 

Heh, that's going to be a difficult thing to do.  People go through four years of college in physics and typically six years of graduate study in cosmology to understand inflationary cosmology and the various means of empirically verifying this phenomenon.  It's not the sort of thing I can explain I can explain in a single post, or even hundreds of posts.  And I'm not even a professional comsologist.  But I'll see if I can outline the basic principles.

 

We start with the observation that for the most part, the universe looks the same in all directions.  This is the so-called "cosmological principle," i.e. homogeneity and isotropy.  However, it can be observed that the cosmological principle is violated at some level.  For example the cosmic microwave background, which is a relic of the epoch of recombination (when protons combined with electrons to form the first hydrogen atoms), shows very slight variation across the sky.  This result was demonstrated by the WMAP experiment, and also was verified last month by the Planck collaboration, as BAA cited.  In order to explain this, the idea of inflationary cosmology is invoked.  The theory suggests that in the first moment of the Big Bang, the universe underwent very rapid expansion.  Certain symmetries were also broken, resulting in the production of matter being favored slightly over anti-matter.  Quantum fluctuations were also magnified so that filament structures could be formed; these later evolved into galaxies.  This is why the universe is the way it is today, instead of being completely uniform.

 

Are there still open questions?  Of course!  We don't know what brought the infant universe into being.  But some theoretical cosmologists suggest that the universe may not have even had a beginning in our linear temporal sense of the word, so this might not ultimately be a problem.  Scientists are constantly studying these problems, and we don't need to invoke the notion of God to do so.  Some of us do believe in God, although most don't, and in any case our belief is irrelevant to our work.

 

I don't think anyone here is asking you to discard your belief in God.  But again, it's important to not make academically-poor arguments.  When expert opinions are cited on the topics you bring up, you shouldn't just dismiss them in favor of your own opinion.  After all, don't Jewish rabbis make statements along the lines of "Blessed be the Lord, King of the Universe, who gives knowledge to man?"  If indeed God gives us the ability of scientific reasoning, I urge you not to throw away the fruits of such reasoning in favor of lay opinions that have the appearance of plausibility.

[Guest nat]

 

Because you keep going back and ask what was before that? It does not end. It is something infinite. Infinity is not dividable, so it can't be material. Infinity cannot be understood so it is unknowable. It is everlasting because it is infinite.

 

Then you take nothing. You take it a million times, you still get nothing. But you take it infinite times, you don't get zero. Infinity times 0 is undetermined. It can be anything. That is where matter came from.

Hi Nat, you seem to view this as the crux of your argument. As I've said before, what you're saying simply isn't correct. Nothing times infinity is still nothing. And since infinity isn't a number, what I mean by this is that you can add nothing (i.e. zero) to itself as many times as you want, and you will always get zero. There are so called indeterminate forms, including 0*infinity, but they can be evaluated in closed form. You might want to read this Wikipedia page, which is at the level of senior year high school calculus and should be accessible to most people on this forum:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminate_form

 

0*infinity is covered by this. Even if it weren't, I don't know that your proof would be any more convincing. But I'm hoping you'll see that your argument is wrong at the mathematical level.

 

I'm sympathetic to your case as I myself believe in God. But I don't want to propagate false arguments for God's existence (and to be honest, I don't know of any good arguments in favor of our view). On the one hand you're admitting that you're not an expert in mathematics, but on the other you say that your logic is sound. Do you not see the error here? This is like an ordinary layperson claiming to not be a lawyer while simultaneously giving legal advice. I'm not claiming to be an expert in mathematics myself, but even what I learned back in high school calculus is enough for me to know that your mathematical reasoning is just plain wrong.

 

Again, no hard feelings here; since you're a Jew I know you don't have any malicious intent to convert any of us to another religion. Indeed, your own faith prohibits you from doing so unless one of us expresses interest in Judaism on at least three separate occasions. Really my only motivation here is for no one to embrace bad mathematics.

 

 

nat, so you call 'it' God? But arent' you a proud Jew? So your god must be old testament god? Am I wrong? And we who make up our own version of 'god'...are we saved....will we go to heaven? Will our god love us the same as 'it' loves you?

If I may advocate for Nat here, I do want to point out that the Jewish God is nothing like Jesus, who torments people for an eternity for failure to intellectually assent to certain doctrines about him. From what I've read about Judaism, Jews do not view God as favoring Jews over Gentiles; each group is simply under a different covenant. A Jew may understand God as per the teachings of Judaism, a Muslim may know him as Allah, a Hindu may regard God as depicted in the Vedas (good news for me), and even Christians may use Jesus as an adequate Gentile representation of God. As ex-Christians, each one of us is pre-programmed to read the Old Testament the way our pastors taught us to read it: through the lens of the New Testament. But the New Testament horribly misrepresents the Old, and after discarding the NT altogether I've found that the OT is nothing like how Christians read it. Here's an article on the Jewish viw of the afterlife from a quite reliable source of information:

 

http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm

 

I'd be interested to see if Nat considers this to be a good representation of the Jewish take on things.

 

Bhim,

 

How can you say infinity times 0 is still 0. It is not 0. It is indeterminate. I never said infinity is a number. It is not. It can't be understood, nor can its affects. 

 

Judaism does not view all religions as equal paths. But I think many feel that they are still a path, just a lesser one.

Judaism, however, does not require one to be Jewish. Other religions, though, will most often have issues that Judaism considers a sin. Then again, many sins are by accident, and god forgives. So it is complicated.

[Guest nat]

 

I would like to comment on this, but you would need to brake it down into simple points for me to comment on.

 

Heh, that's going to be a difficult thing to do.  People go through four years of college in physics and typically six years of graduate study in cosmology to understand inflationary cosmology and the various means of empirically verifying this phenomenon.  It's not the sort of thing I can explain I can explain in a single post, or even hundreds of posts.  And I'm not even a professional comsologist.  But I'll see if I can outline the basic principles.

 

We start with the observation that for the most part, the universe looks the same in all directions.  This is the so-called "cosmological principle," i.e. homogeneity and isotropy.  However, it can be observed that the cosmological principle is violated at some level.  For example the cosmic microwave background, which is a relic of the epoch of recombination (when protons combined with electrons to form the first hydrogen atoms), shows very slight variation across the sky.  This result was demonstrated by the WMAP experiment, and also was verified last month by the Planck collaboration, as BAA cited.  In order to explain this, the idea of inflationary cosmology is invoked.  The theory suggests that in the first moment of the Big Bang, the universe underwent very rapid expansion.  Certain symmetries were also broken, resulting in the production of matter being favored slightly over anti-matter.  Quantum fluctuations were also magnified so that filament structures could be formed; these later evolved into galaxies.  This is why the universe is the way it is today, instead of being completely uniform.

 

Are there still open questions?  Of course!  We don't know what brought the infant universe into being.  But some theoretical cosmologists suggest that the universe may not have even had a beginning in our linear temporal sense of the word, so this might not ultimately be a problem.  Scientists are constantly studying these problems, and we don't need to invoke the notion of God to do so.  Some of us do believe in God, although most don't, and in any case our belief is irrelevant to our work.

 

I don't think anyone here is asking you to discard your belief in God.  But again, it's important to not make academically-poor arguments.  When expert opinions are cited on the topics you bring up, you shouldn't just dismiss them in favor of your own opinion.  After all, don't Jewish rabbis make statements along the lines of "Blessed be the Lord, King of the Universe, who gives knowledge to man?"  If indeed God gives us the ability of scientific reasoning, I urge you not to throw away the fruits of such reasoning in favor of lay opinions that have the appearance of plausibility.

 

Knowledge is great and powerful. Unfortunately, nobody knows everything. Should all be quiet then? We all have to do the best we can. If someone more knowledgeable says something which he feels disproves you, there may be someone more knowledgeable than him yet. I will not back down from my argument. People can go on and on with higher math and this and that, or disagree on semantics or applications, but all that does is evade.

 

Plain and simple. What was the first cause? Big bang? Alternate universes? Who cares what is was. What was before that? And before that? No one can ever know it. It is infinite and unknowable. God is the same way (note: that is an application). 

 

People get hung up on that infinity is not a number. Of course it is not. It is beyond reason. 

 

I have tried to keep the mathematical proofs away from the God application. We can go round and round on this, but no one has disproved my points about infinity and about infinity times 0.

[Bhim]

How can you say infinity times 0 is still 0. It is not 0. It is indeterminate. I never said infinity is a number. It is not. It can't be understood, nor can its affects.

 

Well there's a contradiction in your logic right here.  You agree with me that infinity isn't a number.  So why are you multiplying it by zero, which is a number?  Only numbers can be multiplied.  If infinity isn't a number, then multiplying it by zero makes about as much sense as multiplying Aristotelian metaphysics by the square root of six.

 

On those rare instance when a mathematician will abuse terminology by talking about multiplying zero by infinity, what the person means is that he or she is adding zero to itself an infinite number of times.  That would still give you zero.  There are cases where you can construct a function and take a limit which amounts to the indeterminite form 0*infinity.  But again, even here you'll get a finite number, not "anything you want."  Please read the Wikipedia article I provided and tell me what you think.  Like I said, it's written at the level that any upper-level high school student should be able to understand it.  We're talking calculus here, not advanced math, so it should be accessible to most people on this forum.

 

 

Judaism does not view all religions as equal paths. But I think many feel that they are still a path, just a lesser one.

Judaism, however, does not require one to be Jewish. Other religions, though, will most often have issues that Judaism considers a sin. Then again, many sins are by accident, and god forgives. So it is complicated.

 

I have no problem with this.  Every religion views other paths as lesser ones, I can live with that.  As for the requirements that Judaism imposes on people of other religions: you don't believe we're all going to an eternal hell.  That alone makes you infinitely better than a Christian.  Your view seems to be a lot more restrictive than that of most other Jews I've talked to (even Orthodox ones).  But it's still well within the bounds of what I consider respectable.

[Bhim]

Knowledge is great and powerful. Unfortunately, nobody knows everything. Should all be quiet then? We all have to do the best we can. If someone more knowledgeable says something which he feels disproves you, there may be someone more knowledgeable than him yet. I will not back down from my argument. People can go on and on with higher math and this and that, or disagree on semantics or applications, but all that does is evade.

Well...no, these people (me, in this case) are providing legitimate arguments. At some point, a person more qualified than you is going to say something that you aren't in a position to disprove. You can either educate yourself further, find another scholar who has a competing viewpoint, or cede the argument. Right?

 

Plain and simple. What was the first cause? Big bang? Alternate universes? Who cares what is was. What was before that? And before that? No one can ever know it. It is infinite and unknowable. God is the same way (note: that is an application).

You could ask the same questions about God. And the same answers (such as "God is eternal") can be applied to the primordial universe. I think that the first cause of the universe is God, but I don't know of a way to prove it. Let me know if you have a good argument, because I'd like to hear it. No offense, but your mathematical proof isn't convincing. It's not even a formal proof.

 

People get hung up on that infinity is not a number. Of course it is not. It is beyond reason.

It's not beyond reason, though. It's a well-defined mathematical concept. It's so clearly defined that kids learn about this in high school.

 

I have tried to keep the mathematical proofs away from the God application. We can go round and round on this, but no one has disproved my points about infinity and about infinity times 0.

 

Oh but I did disprove this point.  Indeterminate forms such as infinity*0 can easily be evaluated by high school students.  I did hundreds of these problems back when I was 16.  My friend, you're trying to extract profundity from quite a mundane concept.

[Guest nat]

 

How can you say infinity times 0 is still 0. It is not 0. It is indeterminate. I never said infinity is a number. It is not. It can't be understood, nor can its affects.

 

Well there's a contradiction in your logic right here.  You agree with me that infinity isn't a number.  So why are you multiplying it by zero, which is a number?  Only numbers can be multiplied.  If infinity isn't a number, then multiplying it by zero makes about as much sense as multiplying Aristotelian metaphysics by the square root of six.

 

On those rare instance when a mathematician will abuse terminology by talking about multiplying zero by infinity, what the person means is that he or she is adding zero to itself an infinite number of times.  That would still give you zero.  There are cases where you can construct a function and take a limit which amounts to the indeterminite form 0*infinity.  But again, even here you'll get a finite number, not "anything you want."  Please read the Wikipedia article I provided and tell me what you think.  Like I said, it's written at the level that any upper-level high school student should be able to understand it.  We're talking calculus here, not advanced math, so it should be accessible to most people on this forum.

 

 

Judaism does not view all religions as equal paths. But I think many feel that they are still a path, just a lesser one.

Judaism, however, does not require one to be Jewish. Other religions, though, will most often have issues that Judaism considers a sin. Then again, many sins are by accident, and god forgives. So it is complicated.

 

I have no problem with this.  Every religion views other paths as lesser ones, I can live with that.  As for the requirements that Judaism imposes on people of other religions: you don't believe we're all going to an eternal hell.  That alone makes you infinitely better than a Christian.  Your view seems to be a lot more restrictive than that of most other Jews I've talked to (even Orthodox ones).  But it's still well within the bounds of what I consider respectable.

 

We will have to disagree. I have a different view of how to deal with something like infinity which is does not conform to normal things. I also disagree on indeterminate. It is not 0. To keep it simple  6/3=2 2*3=6. 1/0=infinity (or infinitely large) infinity*0=1, 2/0=infinity infinity*0=2, and so on. Real simple. Since it can be anything it is indeterminate.

[Guest nat]

 

Knowledge is great and powerful. Unfortunately, nobody knows everything. Should all be quiet then? We all have to do the best we can. If someone more knowledgeable says something which he feels disproves you, there may be someone more knowledgeable than him yet. I will not back down from my argument. People can go on and on with higher math and this and that, or disagree on semantics or applications, but all that does is evade.

Well...no, these people (me, in this case) are providing legitimate arguments. At some point, a person more qualified than you is going to say something that you aren't in a position to disprove. You can either educate yourself further, find another scholar who has a competing viewpoint, or cede the argument. Right?

 

Plain and simple. What was the first cause? Big bang? Alternate universes? Who cares what is was. What was before that? And before that? No one can ever know it. It is infinite and unknowable. God is the same way (note: that is an application).

You could ask the same questions about God. And the same answers (such as "God is eternal") can be applied to the primordial universe. I think that the first cause of the universe is God, but I don't know of a way to prove it. Let me know if you have a good argument, because I'd like to hear it. No offense, but your mathematical proof isn't convincing. It's not even a formal proof.

 

People get hung up on that infinity is not a number. Of course it is not. It is beyond reason.

It's not beyond reason, though. It's a well-defined mathematical concept. It's so clearly defined that kids learn about this in high school.

 

I have tried to keep the mathematical proofs away from the God application. We can go round and round on this, but no one has disproved my points about infinity and about infinity times 0.

 

Oh but I did disprove this point.  Indeterminate forms such as infinity*0 can easily be evaluated by high school students.  I did hundreds of these problems back when I was 16.  My friend, you're trying to extract profundity from quite a mundane concept.

 

We will have to disagree on many points.

Matter of any kind can't be eternal, because it is dividable. Infinity can't be divided. The original prime cause must be not material. Infinity a well defined concept? Please! You can package it nicely, and work with it, but understand it? Sorry. Keep going back and back and back till when? No one can grasp the infinite eternal. 

Infinity *0 is indeterminate. It can be anything. I never said it was undefined. I said that about infinity. 

[Bhim]

We will have to disagree. I have a different view of how to deal with something like infinity which is does not conform to normal things. I also disagree on indeterminate. It is not 0. To keep it simple  6/3=2 2*3=6. 1/0=infinity (or infinitely large) infinity*0=1, 2/0=infinity infinity*0=2, and so on. Real simple. Since it can be anything it is indeterminate.

 

The great thing about math is that it can be provable.  We don't need to agree to disagree, rather one of us can be proven right.  For example, you made a clear flaw in the above statement.  You said that since 2/0=infinity, therefore 2=0*infinity.  That's not a correct statement.  To do this operation, you have to multiply both sides of the equation by 0.  When you do that, you'd get 2*0 = 0*infinity, which reduces to 0=0*infinity (since 2 times 0 equals 0).  If you replace the 2 with any other number, you get the same result.  Even if I agree with the false assumption that infinity is a number, I am still correct.  You're ignoring a lot of mathematical formalism here, which is why you are ultimately arriving at wrong answers.

[Bhim]

We will have to disagree on many points.

Matter of any kind can't be eternal, because it is dividable. Infinity can't be divided. The original prime cause must be not material. Infinity a well defined concept? Please! You can package it nicely, and work with it, but understand it? Sorry. Keep going back and back and back till when? No one can grasp the infinite eternal. 

Infinity *0 is indeterminate. It can be anything. I never said it was undefined. I said that about infinity.

 

Who said matter is eternal?  The origin of the first matter is still debatable, but there are models available to describe the genesis of the first subatomic particles of the universe (google baryogenesis and leptogenesis if you want to read about this).

 

Is infinity a well-defined concept?  Yes!  Again, you're trying to make a simple concept into something profound.  To say that some variable is infinite means that you are taking a limit, and letting that variable increase without bound.  Infinity is a concept invented by people, and thus people can define it clearly.

 

I noticed you changed your terminology.  Now you say that infinity times zero is "indeterminate."  Indeterminate doesn't mean "anything."  I encourage you to pick up a calculus textbook and look for either "indeterminate forms" or "L'Hospital's Rule" in the index.  That section will clearly describe how you can get finite numbers from indeterminate forms.  I guarantee you, these indeterminte forms aren't arbitrary!  They can't be anything, like you suggest.

[bornagainathiest]

Hello Nat and thanks for replying. 

 

 

 

 

Note:

 

The site is calling me an authentic christian believer. I am not!!!

I am a proud Jew!!!

 

Infinity and zero  are opposites, but both are transcendental opposite forces, the eternal versus the void. Mathematically, infinity and zero have unusual qualities. Unlike standard numbers, zero times or divided by any number is still zero, and infinity times or divided by any number is still infinity.

What happens when you divide by zero? The closer the denominator gets to zero, the bigger the result. Division by 0 seems to produce infinity. Conventional mathematics says that division by zero is undefined. Infinity, likewise, cannot be defined, so undefined and equals infinity may actually be the same thing. There is more of a consensus, though, that any number divided by infinity equals zero. Since 6/3=2 and 6/2=3, it is logical that any number/infinity=0 and any number/0=infinity.

There is an exception to the 0*x=0 and infinity*x=infinity rule. Since any number/infinity=0, and any number/0=infinity, it follows that infinity*0=any number. And since any number*0=0 and any number*infinity=infinity, it follows that 0/0 and infinity/infinity=any number. Conventional mathematics indeed considers these to be undetermined, meaning that it could be anything.

What does all this mean? God is the infinite. The opposite of God is nothing. Judaism teaches that God made this world from nothing. God*0=all things.

 

And that is the mathematical proof to God.

Thank you.

It seems to me that a mathmatical paradox is pretty far from proof of god.  The universe is anything but infinite or zero, it had a finite beginning (the Big Bang) therfore a finite quantity of mass/energy.  The only thing that can contain infinity, is infinity.  So if the universe had a beginning (not eternal), it is not infinite.

 

There had to be something before the big bang, no? Things don't spontaneously generate.

 

 

 

I'd like to reply to your last sentence ("Things don't spontaneously generate.") with a hypothetical story.  The thrust of the argument underpinning the story is this.  Our hard-and-fast beliefs about what is true and what is real must yield to the facts we discover or else we are in denial about those facts.  Even if those facts appear to defy common sense, our everyday experience and even our traditions and our belief systems - we must acknowledge them as true and real.  Not to do so is to live in denial of the facts and the truth they illuminate.

 

Now to the story...

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Cook

Let's suppose that on his third and last voyage of discovery the British explorer Captain Cook met with the religious leader of an island people, somewhere in the Pacific ocean.  The leader explains his religious beliefs and traditions to Cook, saying that the world is flat and that the sea which surrounds his island extends forever, in all directions.  Now, what should Cook do?

 

He's already circumnavigated the world twice, so he knows from his own experience, from his own measurements and from the facts collected by other explorers, that the leader's belief is simply not true.  It's within Cook's ability to prove this by showing the leader his charts of the entire, spherical Earth.  But will the leader believe him?  More to the point, Cook would have to teach the leader how to read a nautical map properly, otherwise the markings and lines on the charts would be meaningless to the man.

 

Another option is for Cook to take the leader on board his ship and show him the globe in the captain's cabin.  Once again, there's no guarantee that the leader will comprehend what a spherical world is - because such a concept is completely alien to him.  Even if Cook went to the final step of taking the man on a voyage around the entire world to prove his case, would that sway the man's mind and heart?  Maybe.  Maybe not.

 

So Cook hears the man out, knowing the other is wrong, but keeping his counsel out of respect for the other's beliefs and traditions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Heart...?  Yes, exactly Nat.

 

Accepting a totally new way of understanding reality isn't just a coolly intellectual decision - it's an emotionally-charged one too.  The religious leader would have to discard everything he's been taught from birth as being true.  His personal values and those of his parents, peers and whole community would be brought into question.  These would be very difficult hurdles for him to overcome.  Acceptance of a new truth is often a step too far for many people - not for intellectual reasons but for emotional ones.

 

Now, please trust me when I say that I'm not talking down to you here, ok?

In this forum, you and I and everyone else are equals and equally worthy of respect and tolerance.  I respect your right to believe what you want and I also respect your right to honor the traditions of your forefathers.  However, when you posted in this forum, that was a declaration of intent on your part.  Doing so gave us permission to examine and call into question the content of your posts.  This is what we have been doing.  This is what happens here. I hope you can see and understand that.

 

So, if your beliefs (of any kind) are being challenged by us, please don't conclude that we are being wantonly spiteful, xenophobic or even anti-semitic.  We aren't!  We are simply responding to your proposition, working on the basis that whatever you write is NOT above criticism.  If you don't want something you cherish to be challenged by us, please say so now.  Doing this will spare us all a lot of heartache and misunderstanding.  Are we on the same wavelength here?  I hope so.

 

Lastly Nat, I'd like to ask you some questions.

There's no obligation on your part to answer, but in the spirit of mutual respect, I would appreciate it if you didn't just ignore them, ok?

 

1.

If the evidence did point to things spontaneously springing into being from nowhere, could you accept this?

If not, why not?

 

2.

If the evidence did indicate that your beliefs about the infinite are wrong, could you accept this?

If not, why not?

 

3.

If the evidence did point to an eternal reality that required no creator, could you accept this?

If not, why not?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

 

I would like to comment on this, but you would need to brake it down into simple points for me to comment on.

 

 

 

 

 

Nat,

 

How about this?

 

I don't understand much about how cosmological theories work either, but I do accept that they do work. 

I also accept that they make predictions that have been repeatedly and strongly confirmed by independent lines of evidence.

By accepting these two things, I'm happy to conclude that Chaotic Inflation is the best explanation of the available evidence.

 

So, would you be prepared to match me in this... acknowledging that neither of us truly understands the complexities of the math, but that the data fits the theory of Chaotic Inflation best... and is therefore the best explanation of the reality we inhabit?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Ravenstar]

One of the problems I see here is a common one. The 'first cause' thing which I find results from a mis-comprehension of the nature of spacetime.

 

There is no 'before'. Time came into being at the moment of inflation... it did not exist 'before' that. Time is a quality of space and when there was no space, there was no time. The concept of 'before' has no meaning when talking about the conditions of the universe pre-BB. You can't keep 'going back'.. there is nothing to go back to... time effectively began at the moment of inflation.

 

This makes the first cause moot... BAA explained it to me once when we were discussing whether the universe could have expanded faster than the speed of light (and it apparently did) and this is how I conceptualize it: because the very fabric of space is what was expanding, not just the matter/energy within. Hard to visualize but think of a balloon with glitter in it... the glitter is the matter/energy (or stars, galaxies) and the balloon is actual space.. the glitter can't travel faster than the speed of light because it is within the balloon which is ruled by the laws of physics (for that particular balloon - there may be many other balloons) but the balloon can expand faster than light because it is the medium FOR the physics. Therefore the matter within the space CAN travel faster than light...but only because the space is moving too, and we would never see it because we are also moving at the 'speed of space' along with the other matter.

 

Now this isn't entirely accurate as the analogy of a balloon presupposes a center... and since spacetime is curved that doesn't exactly fit... and then you get into observer status and localities - but it's a place to start.

 

The point is that when saying things like 'it has to come from somewhere' is inaccurate scientifically... because that presupposes a 'somewhere' and a 'sometime' when the reality is those concepts don't exist in a pre-BB state. It's true eternity - frozen. no before, no after, no between. No motion, no distance, no anything.

 

I can't do the math... I can barely balance a cheque book  LOL  But the universe as our best minds know it now does not line up with philosophy... at all. It's MUCH stranger and wondrous.

[raoul]

Note:

 

The site is calling me an authentic christian believer. I am not!!!

I am a proud Jew!!!

 

Infinity and zero  are opposites, but both are transcendental opposite forces, the eternal versus the void. Mathematically, infinity and zero have unusual qualities. Unlike standard numbers, zero times or divided by any number is still zero, and infinity times or divided by any number is still infinity.

What happens when you divide by zero? The closer the denominator gets to zero, the bigger the result. Division by 0 seems to produce infinity. Conventional mathematics says that division by zero is undefined. Infinity, likewise, cannot be defined, so undefined and equals infinity may actually be the same thing. There is more of a consensus, though, that any number divided by infinity equals zero. Since 6/3=2 and 6/2=3, it is logical that any number/infinity=0 and any number/0=infinity.

There is an exception to the 0*x=0 and infinity*x=infinity rule. Since any number/infinity=0, and any number/0=infinity, it follows that infinity*0=any number. And since any number*0=0 and any number*infinity=infinity, it follows that 0/0 and infinity/infinity=any number. Conventional mathematics indeed considers these to be undetermined, meaning that it could be anything.

What does all this mean? God is the infinite. The opposite of God is nothing. Judaism teaches that God made this world from nothing. God*0=all things.

 

And that is the mathematical proof to God.

Thank you.

Wow! You've just convinced me...............................to remain as an Atheist. Thank You! LOL

Your presuppositional premises are just that and nothing more. But if it rocks your boat, go for it..

[RankStranger]

So Jews play the same kind of word-games that Christians love so much? Good to know.

[roadrunner]

I can no longer read this thread and keep my sanity. Clearly the result of starting with the answer