In the beginning...

[Toxick]

A popular skeptic's question about the origin of things is, "What came before us?" Scallion recently posted that god has "always been" (i.e., an infinite presence), yet we know that our universe had a finite beginning - whether you believe in the young or old universe.

I'm curious to hear what people think.

I think that scientifically speaking, you cannot say with certainty that the universe has a finite beginning. Even assuming that there was a "Big Bang" or a "Let There Be Light" incident, we cannot say with certainty that there was nothing "before" that (Although, "Before" is a term that is mallable and/or meaningless).

Anyway, the Big Bang may be the result of a Big Collapse, which concluded the existence of a previous universe.... ad infinitum.



Secondly, you're assuming that the time/space acts the same, in both pre and post Big Bang/Creation scenarios. I, personally, doubt this is the case.


IMO, until we know the nature of time and space better than we do - like incredibly better than we do, discussions about "what came before" is pointless.

 

[Toxick]

Because time must have a beginning by it's very nature or we would have an infinite number of past and future events. If the number of past events is infinite, then how can you measure time?

Cyclicly?

 

[hvp05]

Anyway, the Big Bang may be the result of a Big Collapse, which concluded the existence of a previous universe.... ad infinitum.

That idea works for me. The idea of a grand 'multiverse' is also intriguing, because there could be countless other "bubbles" beyond our own.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

To say that something/one is infinite can mean different/many things. For example, there are an infinite amount of numbers right? No beginning, no end. Also, there are an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2. So, God can have no beginning nor end (WRT time) and/or God can have an infinite existence i.e. He is not finite. We are finite (our bodies) but our souls are infinite...

IDK, hard to explain in text

Your example of ‘1 and 2’ is a false premise; called (what I remember to be) the halfway theory. If you drop an object to the ground, in theory, it will always get halfway there infinitely and never touch the ground. But we know this isn’t true. Just the same with counting, in any instance from 1 to 2. You will eventually reach 2, which means there must be a finite instance of numbers between the two numbers; otherwise you’d never reach 2.

Ok, how many rational numbers are between 1 and 2?

 

[Toxick]

Just the same with counting, in any instance from 1 to 2. You will eventually reach 2, which means there must be a finite instance of numbers between the two numbers; otherwise you’d never reach 2.

I don't know what bull#### math book you've been reading, but you need to throw it away.

I know exactly how many numbers there are between one and two.

Zero.




Any "number" between 1 and 2 is not a number - it's 1 + a fraction of a number. And there are, in fact, an infinite number of fractional possibilities between 1 and 2.






Can we really not even agree on math? Honestly?

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Of course it's illogical. What's logical about God and any of this universe anyway? If there were logic to be applied to explaining God and His infinite existence, then we wouldn't have any problem getting people to believe.

Depends on how you look at god, it can be very logical (and I mean A god, in general. So not a Christian God) I read an interesting proof on this the other day: (don't know how well this will work on the
Mobile SOMD) Philosophy of Religion » The Modal Ontological Argument

(1) If God exists then he has necessary existence.
(2) Either God has necessary existence, or he doesn't.
(3) If God doesn't have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn't.
Therefore:
(4) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't.
(5) If God necessarily doesn't have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn't exist.
Therefore:
(6) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn't exist.
(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn't exist.
Therefore:
(8) God has necessary existence.
(9) If God has necessary existence, then God exists.
Therefore:
(10) God exists.

 

[PsyOps]

I don't know what bull#### math book you've been reading, but you need to throw it away.

I know exactly how many numbers there are between one and two.

Zero.

Any "number" between 1 and 2 is not a number - it's 1 + a fraction of a number. And there are, in fact, an infinite number of fractional possibilities between 1 and 2.

Can we really not even agree on math? Honestly?

What does debate have to do with agreeing? If you state you disagree then demand we agree then you have inserted yourself into this "Can we really not even agree...".

A fraction is a number ; it’s just not a whole number. What sort of bull**** math book are you using? You can no more prove there are an infinite number of ‘fractions’ between 1 and 2 than you can prove there was some beginning to time or that time is infinite. Infinity assumes that you can never reach the end; or even the beginning. It’s obvious you can reach an end when counting from 1 to 2. I am speaking in theoretical terms to make a larger point, which you’ve decided to ignore in order to be DISAGREEABLE.

 

[This_person]

A popular skeptic's question about the origin of things is, "What came before us?" Scallion recently posted that god has "always been" (i.e., an infinite presence), yet we know that our universe had a finite beginning - whether you believe in the young or old universe.

For God to have created the universe, He would need to be outside of the limits of the universe - one limit being time. Existing on a different level of dimension than those He created.

Scallion said god created us because he wanted to be loved. Apparently, he did not feel that need for a long time until he, seemingly randomly, decided to create us.

The randomness of it is self-imposed. Did He create other universes? What is the concept of time to God (as it is clearly not limited to what we understand it to be)?

The answers are beyond our comprehension - literally.

Was god sitting in darkness twiddling his thumbs all that time? Or, perhaps, were there other universes before ours? If there were others, people may see quite a range of lifeforms when they ascend to heaven - or fall to hell.


I'm curious to hear what people think.

It is inconceivable to me that we would not run into more than we see now.

 

[UNA]

What does debate have to do with agreeing? If you state you disagree then demand we agree then you have inserted yourself into this "Can we really not even agree...".

A fraction is a number ; it’s just not a whole number. What sort of bull**** math book are you using? You can no more prove there are an infinite number of ‘fractions’ between 1 and 2 than you can prove there was some beginning to time or that time is infinite. Infinity assumes that you can never reach the end; or even the beginning. It’s obvious you can reach an end when counting from 1 to 2. I am speaking in theoretical terms to make a larger point, which you’ve decided to ignore in order to be DISAGREEABLE.

First of all there are different types of 'numbers'. A number is just a mathematical object used for counting and measuring.

Natural numbers: Positive 'whole' numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 ... infinity
Integers: Natural number plus the negative numbers: -infinity ... -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 ... infinity
Rational/Real: Any number that can be written a/b where a and b are integers


There are more but they don't really apply to this discussion.

Second of all, I CAN prove that the set of real numbers in uncountably infinite (there are an infinite number of integers between 1 and 2). It's called a mathematical proof and has been established for more than 100 years. Published in 1891 by Georg Cantor. The proof is called Cantor's Diagonal Argument and "proves that there are infinite sets which cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence with the infinite set of natural numbers. Such sets are now known as uncountable sets, and the size of infinite sets is now treated by the theory of cardinal numbers which Cantor began." This quote is from here: Cantor's diagonal argument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...but you can check any set theory book for the non-Wiki citation. I just moved so I don't know where my old text books are. I have a BS in Mathematics and set theory is my passion. Other mathematicians view us set theorists as other people view mathematicians ...really nutty

 

[PsyOps]

First of all there are different types of 'numbers'. A number is just a mathematical object used for counting and measuring.

Natural numbers: Positive 'whole' numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 ... infinity
Integers: Natural number plus the negative numbers: -infinity ... -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 ... infinity
Rational/Real: Any number that can be written a/b where a and b are integers


There are more but they don't really apply to this discussion.

And this point adds or changes what? All you’ve done is substantiate my counter to Tox’s claim that “Any ‘number’ between 1 and 2 is not a number”.

Second of all, I CAN prove that the set of real numbers in uncountably infinite (there are an infinite number of integers between 1 and 2). It's called a mathematical proof and has been established for more than 100 years. Published in 1891 by Georg Cantor. The proof is called Cantor's Diagonal Argument and "proves that there are infinite sets which cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence with the infinite set of natural numbers. Such sets are now known as uncountable sets, and the size of infinite sets is now treated by the theory of cardinal numbers which Cantor began."

This is like saying because physicists have thrown a bunch of numbers together they can prove the big bang happened, even though it’s impossible to actually prove it with something as limiting and finite as numbers. Supposedly neutrinos and bosons iare the smallest particles. Nothing smaller? Isn’t it theoretically possible to infinitely split them into even smaller pieces? But supposedly, according to ‘the laws of quantum physics’ nothing can be smaller than 10^-33 cm. Well, certainly we could argue that anything can be infinitely split in half; I mean based on your contention that there are an infinite amount of divisions between 1 and 2. But given we represent the size of particles and measure these according to energy and mass, and that nothing can be smaller than 10^-33 cm, this makes it impossible for there to be an infinite number of fractions between 1 and 2.

And for the record, I am trying to make a logical argument about time and when it might have begun. Certainly you can contend there are an infinite number of possibilities between 1 and 2, but you can no more prove it than trying to prove that time began *HERE*. I am not trying to disprove there are an infinite number of segments between 1 and 2; I’m trying to establish the possibility that time, in terms of understand God’s infinite existence, has no beginning or end.

 

[Toxick]

What does debate have to do with agreeing? If you state you disagree then demand we agree then you have inserted yourself into this "Can we really not even agree...".

On math.

Math.

Math is built strictly on self-evident facts and axioms and is 100% not subject to opinion. If you use the word "debate" and "opinion" in conjunction with "math" then, by definition, something is wrong. In other words: There's nothing to disagree about... yet somehow we have one person saying that there's an infinite number of numbers between one and two, and one person saying there's not.

A fraction is a number ; it’s just not a whole number. What sort of bull**** math book are you using?

Don't be dense. You know what I mean.

You can no more prove there are an infinite number of ‘fractions’ between 1 and 2 than you can prove there was some beginning to time or that time is infinite.

I absolutely can.

Step 1: Please tell me what the smallest number greater than zero is.

When I get your response, I'll show you Step 2.

Infinity assumes that you can never reach the end; or even the beginning. It’s obvious you can reach an end when counting from 1 to 2.

Not infinity. An inifinite number. There is literally no end to the fractional possibilities between 1 and 2. Or between 1 and 1.0000000001 for that matter.

You're assuming a granularity when there is no granularity. There is continuity, but no granularity.

Finite assumes that you can list everything in a given set. You cannot list all the possibilities of fractional numbers between 1 and 2. You cannot list them, because that list is infinite.

I am speaking in theoretical terms to make a larger point, which you’ve decided to ignore in order to be DISAGREEABLE.

Because I didn't intend to argue your point. My point is that this endless bickering over ridiculous minutiae is counterproductive. The fact that the bickering is over mathematical axioms also makes it irrational.

And not irrational in the cool way - like pi.

 

[Toxick]

And this point adds or changes what? All you’ve done is substantiate my counter to Tox’s claim that “Any ‘number’ between 1 and 2 is not a number”.

Context:
I'm trying to make a distinction between a natural "number" and a "fraction".




Do you really think I'm that stupid? Honestly?

 

[PsyOps]

Context:
I'm trying to make a distinction between a natural "number" and a "fraction".

Do you really think I'm that stupid? Honestly?

Absolutely not! I see you as a very intelligent person. I think you’re quibbling with semantics in order to try to prove me wrong; when in reality I’m not trying to prove I’m right or wrong, I’m simply making logical analogies. Quite honestly none of us know the answers, with absolute certainty, and in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t really matter. It’s just fun to debate until folks become defensive and ugly.

 

[Toxick]

I think you’re quibbling with semantics in order to try to prove me wrong;

I am quibbling with semantics in order to make a distinction between two concepts which are almost - but not quite - identical. I wasn't quibbling sematics to prove you wrong, however.


Although - you are wrong.

Quite honestly none of us know the answers, with absolute certainty

Usually I'd agree with you here.

In this case, I do not.


Which is not to say that I disagree with your larger point. (Which I'd have to go back and see what it is by now). But in this case I thought your numbers argument was horribly and tragically flawed and I had to chime in.

and in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t really matter. It’s just fun to debate until folks become defensive and ugly.

Problem with the written medium, you can't hear my voice and tone. You seemed to get irritated by my first post, and I can see how it can come off as disagreeable and pushy, although it was meant to be playful and somewhat wry, even if I meant everything I asserted.

My delivery is somewhat dry and pompous.


This is one of my greatest weaknesses in here. I'm working on it.

 

[PsyOps]

On math.

Math.

Math is built strictly on self-evident facts and axioms and is 100% not subject to opinion. If you use the word "debate" and "opinion" in conjunction with "math" then, by definition, something is wrong. In other words: There's nothing to disagree about... yet somehow we have one person saying that there's an infinite number of numbers between one and two, and one person saying there's not.

Then you have far more faith in the people that use math to come to certain conclusions. There can be no math without humans. And humans are fallible.

I absolutely can.

Step 1: Please tell me what the smallest number greater than zero is.

When I get your response, I'll show you Step 2.

Not infinity. An inifinite number. There is literally no end to the fractional possibilities between 1 and 2. Or between 1 and 1.0000000001 for that matter.

You're assuming a granularity when there is no granularity. There is continuity, but no granularity.

Finite assumes that you can list everything in a given set. You cannot list all the possibilities of fractional numbers between 1 and 2. You cannot list them, because that list is infinite.

Read my post #30 to UNA regarding the smallest particle and applying math to this. In theory you can slice the smallest particle into infinitely smaller pieces; but according to the applied physics you can’t get any smaller. Numbers must represent/measure something. Devoid of that fact, numbers have no meaning.

Because I didn't intend to argue your point. My point is that this endless bickering over ridiculous minutiae is counterproductive. The fact that the bickering is over mathematical axioms also makes it irrational.

And not irrational in the cool way - like pi.

Counterproductive to what? The fact that you try to prove your point through endless bickering, yet accuse other of the same? I thought we were having a discussion. I’m not sure why you feel privileged to throw your opinions out there while insisting others drop it. The original discussion was about God being infinite and contending that our universe has a finite beginning. All of these things are relevant in trying to conclude whether infinity - whether in small numbers or large - is possible in defining our universe and God.

 

[PsyOps]

My delivery is somewhat dry and pompous.


This is one of my greatest weaknesses in here. I'm working on it.

Actually I've seen enough of your posts and should have learned this lesson by now. I admit I am a slow learner.

 

[Toxick]

Then you have far more faith in the people that use math to come to certain conclusions. There can be no math without humans. And humans are fallible.

As a rule, I have very little faith in people.

Saying that there can be no math without people is ridiculous. People did not invent math. We may have "discovered" it... and applied symbols to represent parts of it and we stick little labels all over the little different rules and things.

But to say that there'd be no math without people is egocentrism beyond measure.


And I agree that people are fallable - however, mathematics is not.

Read my post #30 to UNA regarding the smallest particle and applying math to this. In theory you can slice the smallest particle into infinitely smaller pieces; but according to the applied physics you can’t get any smaller. Numbers must represent/measure something. Devoid of that fact, numbers have no meaning.

Whether they have meaning or not, they're still there. And I'm not arguing about applied physics. Applied physics is a completely separate discipline from mathematics and not something I have even remotely addressed here. I was harping on your invalid assertion that there is not an infinite number of fractional values between 1 and 2.

That's it.

And there is.

Counterproductive to what?

To everything.

Math is absolute. It may very possibly be the only absolute in the universe. And yet you wanted to bicker that you cannot prove something that was proven eons ago and is demonstrably true.

The fact that you try to prove your point through endless bickering, yet accuse other of the same? I thought we were having a discussion. I’m not sure why you feel privileged to throw your opinions out there while insisting others drop it.

I didn't insist a damn thing.

Not once did I say "Shut Up" or any variant thereof to anyone. Not once did I issue a "cease and desist" demand or request. I first expressed shock, disbelief, annoyance and amusement that something like this is even being debated. Since then everything else I've said has been in response to you.


And for the record, I haven't thrown out any opinions about math. I've only relayed facts.

Proven facts.

The original discussion was about God being infinite and contending that our universe has a finite beginning. All of these things are relevant in trying to conclude whether infinity - whether in small numbers or large - is possible in defining our universe and God.

I know.

But eventually you will have to agree on a set of givens, or this debate will become infinitely futile. I would tend to think that at least - at the very least - agreeing on proven and established mathematical axioms and principals would be a good start.

If you cannot agree on simple mathematical axioms for goodness sake, then you're arguing from two very distinct universes and thus debate is pointless..


QED.

 

[UNA]

And this point adds or changes what? All you’ve done is substantiate my counter to Tox’s claim that “Any ‘number’ between 1 and 2 is not a number”.

I was defining the sets so that you would understand better...there are an infinite amount of 'number' between 1 and 2 i.e. "mathematical object used for counting and measuring." There just aren't any 'numbers' like you think of which are whole numbers.

This is like saying because physicists have thrown a bunch of numbers together they can prove the big bang happened, even though it’s impossible to actually prove it with something as limiting and finite as numbers.

I can prove it empirically, I don't think you understand the difference between the well understood facts I'm refering to and the less understood facts and theories you are refering to...

Supposedly neutrinos and bosons iare the smallest particles. Nothing smaller? Isn’t it theoretically possible to infinitely split them into even smaller pieces? But supposedly, according to ‘the laws of quantum physics’ nothing can be smaller than 10^-33 cm. Well, certainly we could argue that anything can be infinitely split in half; I mean based on your contention that there are an infinite amount of divisions between 1 and 2. But given we represent the size of particles and measure these according to energy and mass, and that nothing can be smaller than 10^-33 cm, this makes it impossible for there to be an infinite number of fractions between 1 and 2.

You're not understanding what it means for a set to be 'uncountable'. Tell me, what is the smallest number greater than 1?

And for the record, I am trying to make a logical argument about time and when it might have begun. Certainly you can contend there are an infinite number of possibilities between 1 and 2, but you can no more prove it than trying to prove that time began *HERE*. I am not trying to disprove there are an infinite number of segments between 1 and 2; I’m trying to establish the possibility that time, in terms of understand God’s infinite existence, has no beginning or end.

I know you're not trying to disprove it but I'm trying to get you to understand that you actaully cannot disprove it. This is the fundamental difference between facts and faith. All I was trying to do by introducing the concept was to illustrate the different types of infinite existance a god could have. If you would like me to I can post the proof here and you can try to disprove it, I'm willing to bet any success would yield quite a bit of money for you!

 

[UNA]

Then you have far more faith in the people that use math to come to certain conclusions. There can be no math without humans. And humans are fallible.

Here we go again...once again, I can prove these mathematical facts, you could too! I'm not relying on what some professor or text book tells me because I can (and do) go back and prove these things for myself! Yes, the professor could be wrong, the text book, the original proof writer, me and everyone one who confirmed the proof...we could all be wrong! But as of today, certain proofs are infallible and until they're proved wrong I'm going with them because I CAN SEE THEM TO BE RIGHT!

Read my post #30 to UNA regarding the smallest particle and applying math to this. In theory you can slice the smallest particle into infinitely smaller pieces; but according to the applied physics you can’t get any smaller.

You're not understanding the difference between two types of infinity, countable (the natural numbers you use to count, 1, 2, 3, 4 ... inf) and the Real numbers (fractions). Infinity is a VERY difficult concept to grasp, I know I don't completely understand it! It is said that mathemeticians have gone crazy trying to understand it!

Numbers must represent/measure something. Devoid of that fact, numbers have no meaning.

No, you can study the nature of numbers alone. This is [at least partially] what Cantor did.

 

[PsyOps]

As a rule, I have very little faith in people.

Saying that there can be no math without people is ridiculous. People did not invent math. We may have "discovered" it... and applied symbols to represent parts of it and we stick little labels all over the little different rules and things.

But to say that there'd be no math without people is egocentrism beyond measure.

And I agree that people are fallable - however, mathematics is not.

“Egocentrism beyond measure”… You do like to exaggerate don’t you?

So, how did we get E=MC2? Was it an equation that was always there and Einstein discovered it? How does something that humans use exist if humans don’t exist? And I find it funny that we use math to figure things out and the people that use it are fallible but the math is not. Math is only what we make it. The string theory is a good example of it. Hawking thought he was so right. His math was wrong. And given that, since no one knows what really happens to matter in a black hole, the rest of the scientific community could be wrong as well. What we apply here, in the limitations of this earth, may not apply in some deep spot in space. What’s so egocentric is believing the math we use is absolutely correct across the spectrum of the universe. I don’t subscribe to such absolute paradigms.

Whether they have meaning or not, they're still there. And I'm not arguing about applied physics. Applied physics is a completely separate discipline from mathematics and not something I have even remotely addressed here. I was harping on your invalid assertion that there is not an infinite number of fractional values between 1 and 2.

That's it.

And there is.

Hmmm… physics uses math, but is a different discipline. There’s those semantics again. If you can calculate numbers infinitely smaller, yet can’t conclude that particles can be infinitely small, what sort of math would apply to this?

Math is absolute. It may very possibly be the only absolute in the universe. And yet you wanted to bicker that you cannot prove something that was proven eons ago and is demonstrably true.

Math is absolute… So you’re telling me that the math we use to calculate something like measuring the mass of an object would be exactly the same in a place 3 trillion lights from earth? Please tell me how you prove this? How do you know that the conditions don’t change?

I didn't insist a damn thing.

Not once did I say "Shut Up" or any variant thereof to anyone. Not once did I issue a "cease and desist" demand or request. I first expressed shock, disbelief, annoyance and amusement that something like this is even being debated. Since then everything else I've said has been in response to you.

Yes you did, you implied it…

My point is that this endless bickering over ridiculous minutiae is counterproductive. The fact that the bickering is over mathematical axioms also makes it irrational.

And for the record, I haven't thrown out any opinions about math. I've only relayed facts.

Proven facts.

You refuse to see that your ‘facts’ may not actually be the facts as applied elsewhere. When it comes to human’s use of things like math, there are no absolutes. We are limited to a very small point in space. Only our arrogance makes us believe we have it right.

… eventually you will have to agree on a set of givens, or this debate will become infinitely futile.

This is the religion section. It’s a rule that discussions are infinite,

I would tend to think that at least - at the very least - agreeing on proven and established mathematical axioms and principals would be a good start.

Yes. Proven.