"...but intelligent people believe in God" Analysis, Discussion, and Debate

[sayak83]

It's more than theoretical. If, say, time and space were infinitely divisible, then light would be unable even to cross a Planck length because it would take an infinite amount of time to cross that infinitely divisible length of space.

Think of it as continually going half-way. If there is no smallest unit of length, it could never get there, and in fact it couldn't even get half way, and so on. It would never even get started if units of space were infinitely divisible, it would be stuck at the start, going zero miles for and infinite amount of time. This is true even if the value of a Planck length were different than the currently accepted 10 to the -38 meters.

You are completely wrong about this. It is indeed possible to traverse arbitrary distances when both space and time are infinitely divisible (i.e. continuous). It's a very famous mathematical proof. It demonstrates that it is possible to traverse a completed infinity of spatial points over a finite distance in a finite time interval as as long as time also is continuous and has an infinity of time points.
Zeno’s Paradoxes | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
So there is no Paradox involved in space and time being both continuous.

My theory is that quantum transactions take place when signals between two quantum entities pass through the Planck foam fabric of the universe into the "external" ether which is timeless and non-local. When one photon, say, is absorbed, the other reacts instantly because there is no time or locality involved for the communication between them, each being within 10 to the -38 meters of access to the ether wherever it is.

Please link your published paper.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The points made in the video are good, and I agree that the hypothetical progressions displayed are very much representative of the way religion has reached its level of prevalence. However, I feel as though it loses just a bit of effect by (even if only slightly) implying that "the truth" is known, or can be known by a given person. Granted, "the truth" is something, obviously. But (at least in the current day and age) it is not possible to know "the truth" in totality.

You may note from my tag-line that I don't like this use of "the truth" (in quotation marks) as being something. Truth is not a thing, it is a predicate about some statement (or ridiculous claim, if you will). A claim like "if we cut the heart out of a living victim, the rains will be sent by the god" can be tested -- but isn't.

What do I mean by "it isn't?" It's rather like that old nostrum, "things always come in threes!" Things don't always come in threes -- when the human who believes that silliness gets to three, he stops counting and say "see!" And when it happens a fourth time, he will start counting from 1 again -- even though it would now appear that at least this thing comes in at least four!

So with human sacrifice to please the gods. If the gods don't comply, the default assumption is "we did it wrong," or "the sacrifice wasn't a virgin (who knew)" and so you do it again. Eventually the in the rains come -- weather is like that on earth -- and the priest can proudly lay claim to having delivered the people. And of course, ask for a raise in the annual levy of food and virgins (of whichever gender he prefers).

In many ways do we humans fool ourselves.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You are completely wrong about this. It is indeed possible to traverse arbitrary distances when both space and time are infinitely divisible (i.e. continuous). It's a very famous mathematical proof. It demonstrates that it is possible to traverse a completed infinity of spatial points over a finite distance in a finite time interval as as long as time also is continuous and has an infinity of time points.
Zeno’s Paradoxes | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
So there is no Paradox involved in space and time being both continuous.

To quote your link: "Assuming the hypothetical division is “exhaustive” or does comes to an end, then at the end we reach what Zeno calls “the elements.” "

To "come to the end of the division" means you stop the division with what must be a finite number of parts. But that means a limit to the divisibility was found or employed. If not, you have to keep on dividing, or at some point you come to a natural limit to the division.

Please link your published paper.

Snark is not necessary. It is obvious I'm merely proposing a rough form theory, where the Truth will speak for itself when evidence not yet available comes to hand. But if you see a flaw, let fly.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>PARTIAL QUOTE

In many ways do we humans fool ourselves.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<PARTIAL QUOTE

Agree with the above. With the addendum no one group has dibs on who is fooling who, and maybe all of reality is a fools game. Einstein wasn't too enthralled with reality calling it an illusion although a persistent one, or words to that effect. So truth if it exists has no favorite groups etc. We absolutely have no way to know if the spiritually minded people are fooling themselves, ie believing the truth of the existence of God etc or if atheists are doing the same, meaning being correct in their world view. So 'truth' remains hidden for that infinity* called eternity. Or maybe not..... ?

infinities usually means a mistake is in the mathematical machine, but religion embraces the infinity known as eternity, for better or worse.

; {>

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In many ways do we humans fool ourselves.
[QUOTE="MrMrdevincamus, post: 5180054, member: 58305]Agree with the above. With the addendum no one group has dibs on who is fooling who. And that again is where truth lies or where lies truth lol. We absolutely have no way to know if the spiritually minded people are fooling themselves, ie believing the truth of the existence of God etc or if atheists are doing the same, meaning being correct in their world view. So 'truth' remains hidden for that infinity* called eternity. Or maybe not..... ?

infinities usually means a mistake is in the mathematical machine, but religion embraces the infinity known as eternity, for better or worse.

; {>

Perhaps, but perhaps there are also ways to find out. One can look, for example, at the claims made by one religion or another, compare those claims to observations right here in the world, and see if they actually stand up -- WITHOUT the need for complex and unprovable apologetics that make claims to what nobody knows anything about to prove that "it isn't what it really looks like." Mostly, it really IS what it really looks like. An uncomfortably large percentage of the claims that Christians have made to me over the past 69 years about what their deity does and wants bear quite literally zero resemblance to the world that both they and I live in.

Of course, one way past that is to try to imagine that this isn't "the real world," but that fantasy is kind of hard to demonstrate when -- sadly -- here we all are anyway.

And do you know, I disagree with you that "religion embraces...eternity." Any religion that begins with "In the beginning...." couldn't possibly do that. Eternity doesn't have a beginning.

 

[Polymath257]

It's more than theoretical. If, say, time and space were infinitely divisible, then light would be unable even to cross a Planck length because it would take an infinite amount of time to cross that infinitely divisible length of space.

Sorry, Zeno, this is incorrect. If *both* space and time are infinitely divisible, there is no problem.

Think of it as continually going half-way. If there is no smallest unit of length, it could never get there, and in fact it couldn't even get half way, and so on. It would never even get started if units of space were infinitely divisible, it would be stuck at the start, going zero miles for and infinite amount of time. This is true even if the value of a Planck length were different than the currently accepted 10 to the -38 meters.

Again, sorry Zeno, this is wrong. If you divide by two in space, you can also divide by two in time. So it gets half-way in half the time. Even with a Planck length and Planck time, neither are discrete in the way required for the Zeno paradoxes.

My theory is that quantum transactions take place when signals between two quantum entities pass through the Planck foam fabric of the universe into the "external" ether which is timeless and non-local. When one photon, say, is absorbed, the other reacts instantly because there is no time or locality involved for the communication between them, each being within 10 to the -38 meters of access to the ether wherever it is.

How nice of you to present your 'theory'. How about some math to help with that? Without that, you have absolutely nothing but vague intuition.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

[quote="Evangelicalhumanist]In many ways do we humans fool ourselves.
[QUOTE="MrMrdevincamus, post: 5180054, member: 58305]Agree with the above. With the addendum no one group has dibs on who is fooling who. And that again is where truth lies or where lies truth lol. We absolutely have no way to know if the spiritually minded people are fooling themselves, ie believing the truth of the existence of God etc or if atheists are doing the same, meaning being correct in their world view. So 'truth' remains hidden for that infinity* called eternity. Or maybe not..... ?

infinities usually means a mistake is in the mathematical machine, but religion embraces the infinity known as eternity, for better or worse.

Perhaps, but perhaps there are also ways to find out. One can look, for example, at the claims made by one religion or another, compare those claims to observations right here in the world, and see if they actually stand up -- WITHOUT the need for complex and unprovable apologetics that make claims to what nobody knows anything about to prove that "it isn't what it really looks like." Mostly, it really IS what it really looks like. An uncomfortably large percentage of the claims that Christians have made to me over the past 69 years about what their deity does and wants bear quite literally zero resemblance to the world that both they and I live in.

Of course, one way past that is to try to imagine that this isn't "the real world," but that fantasy is kind of hard to demonstrate when -- sadly -- here we all are anyway.

And do you know, I disagree with you that "religion embraces...eternity." Any religion that begins with "In the beginning...." couldn't possibly do that. Eternity doesn't have a beginning.

 

[sayak83]

To quote your link: "Assuming the hypothetical division is “exhaustive” or does comes to an end, then at the end we reach what Zeno calls “the elements.” "

To "come to the end of the division" means you stop the division with what must be a finite number of parts. But that means a limit to the divisibility was found or employed. If not, you have to keep on dividing, or at some point you come to a natural limit to the division.

Why are you quote mining? That paragraph simply states the problem as Zeno understood it and then goes onto show using modern Mathematics why he was wrong. A continuous entity can indeed be infinitely divisible, it's components can be an infinity of zero dimensional points, and yet can be finite in size.

Here is the solution just two paragraphs below

Let's assume the object is one-dimensional, like a path. According to the Standard Solution, this "object" that gets divided should be considered to be a continuum with its elements arranged into the order type of the linear continuum, and we should use the contemporary notion of measure to find the size of the object. The size (length, measure) of a point-element is zero, but Zeno is mistaken in saying the total size (length, measure) of all the zero-size elements is zero. The size of the object is determined instead by the difference in coordinate numbers assigned to the end points of the object. An object extending along a straight line that has one of its end points at one meter from the origin and other end point at three meters from the origin has a size of two meters and not zero meters. So, there is no reassembly problem, and a crucial step in Zeno's argument breaks down.

Here is measure theory detailing how this can happen
Lebesgue measure - Wikipedia

Snark is not necessary. It is obvious I'm merely proposing a rough form theory, where the Truth will speak for itself when evidence not yet available comes to hand. But if you see a flaw, let fly.

It's either a published mathematical theory or its speculative fantasy like those cheap sci-fi "explanations" . Since you do not have a published theory, it's the latter. So I will ignore it.

I have provided an example of what counts as a bona fide theory of cosmos in the thread below. Check the paper out and it may help you sort fantasy Sci-fi from science
Original Papers on Cosmology

 

[Polymath257]

Here is measure theory detailing how this can happen
Lebesgue measure - Wikipedia
.

Just a technical quibble: It is possible to resolve the Zeno paradoxes with countable sets in both space and time. But the Lebesgue measure of any countable set is zero. So, the Lebesgue measure here is beside the point, although it *does* show one way to look at the problem.

 

[sayak83]

Just a technical quibble: It is possible to resolve the Zeno paradoxes with countable sets in both space and time. But the Lebesgue measure of any countable set is zero. So, the Lebesgue measure here is beside the point, although it *does* show one way to look at the problem.

I defer to your greater knowledge on this. I was more interested in showing the mathematical structure that makes its possible for a continuous trajectory to have a coherent concept of length even if it's infinitely divisible and is composed of zero length points. Does Lebesgue measure show this?

 

[Polymath257]

I defer to your greater knowledge on this. I was more interested in showing the mathematical structure that makes its possible for a continuous trajectory to have a coherent concept of length even if it's infinitely divisible and is composed of zero length points. Does Lebesgue measure show this?

It gets technical. Lebesgue measure is overkill.

Lebesgue measure is a generalization of the concept of length. For intervals, it gives the usual length of the interval. For single points, it gives zero. It also has some very nice technical properties (translation invariance and countable additivity) making integration theory work out nicely.

But because it is countably additive, it will give measure zero to *any* countable set, including the set of all rational numbers (fractions with whole numbers as numerator and denominator).

But, it is quite possible to drop the countable additivity and get a 'finitely additive measure' which will still give points measure zero and intervals of rationals a measure equal to their length. This would *also* solve the Zeno paradoxes quite nicely.

To go further into this rabbit hole requires some discussion of Cantor set theory. I can go there, but it may be off topic.

 

[sayak83]

It gets technical. Lebesgue measure is overkill.

Lebesgue measure is a generalization of the concept of length. For intervals, it gives the usual length of the interval. For single points, it gives zero. It also has some very nice technical properties (translation invariance and countable additivity) making integration theory work out nicely.

But because it is countably additive, it will give measure zero to *any* countable set, including the set of all rational numbers (fractions with whole numbers as numerator and denominator).

But, it is quite possible to drop the countable additivity and get a 'finitely additive measure' which will still give points measure zero and intervals of rationals a measure equal to their length. This would *also* solve the Zeno paradoxes quite nicely.

To go further into this rabbit hole requires some discussion of Cantor set theory. I can go there, but it may be off topic.

Thanks. But if you are traversing from A to B in a finite time and use a coordinate system and assume space and time to be continuous, there will necessarily be irrational space and time coordinate points on the way. So to show that it is possible that traveling from A to B in a finite time is possible even if space and time are continuous, one has think about traversal over all reals instead of only rationals. We are not only discussing Zeno, but rather if it's mathematically coherent to consider space and time as continuous and hence modeled by the real number set and still recover the notion of distance, traversal over distance etc.

But if it's possible to do this using rationals alone that's even better.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

The problem with the criticism I see here about Christianity in general by members like EHumanists is even if we take their self sourced, sometimes ridiculous claims at face value (which I don't) is that they blame the wrong thing. One big reason Christianity hasn't transformed the world into a much better place are Christians who aren't, at best they are Christians in name only. The Christian religion would make the world a much better place if all Christians actually practiced Christianity. Jesus Christ was a teacher of mankind. I don't blame the religion and teacher but rather the students and even more hating atheists or others who live to harm others. If we would apply a fraction of the teachings of Christ the world would be a paradise. But no we poop in our own back yard and wonder why the world is a cesspool (in many areas). Even considering all the above most major religions especially Christianity has produced far more good than any non religious group throughout history.

God bless our forum ~

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Congratulations.

You do not know how philosophy and/or logic works and I doubt you watched the video.

Rational arguments are based on concepts and thought experiments.

In other words:

Argument A is supported by Thought Experiment A.

Empirical arguments are based on empirical observations.

In other words:

Argument A is supported by Chemistry Experiment B.

I recommend taking Intro to Philosophy 1301 or looking at some online resources. If you have a good teacher in Composition then they often will teach that as well.

Why do you state such a dichotomy between 'rational' and 'empirical?' You belive empirical arguments to be irrational? That observation can not lead to rational reasoning?

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks. But if you are traversing from A to B in a finite time and use a coordinate system and assume space and time to be continuous, there will necessarily be irrational space and time coordinate points on the way. So to show that it is possible that traveling from A to B in a finite time is possible even if space and time are continuous, one has think about traversal over all reals instead of only rationals. We are not only discussing Zeno, but rather if it's mathematically coherent to consider space and time as continuous and hence modeled by the real number set and still recover the notion of distance, traversal over distance etc.

But if it's possible to do this using rationals alone that's even better.

Yes, it is clear that the real numbers are sufficient. I'm not completely convinced that they are necessary. Which irrationals are required? For example, the collection of algebraics (solutions to polynomial equations with integer coefficients) is also countable. You even add in a few nice numbers like pi and e and *still* have a countable set. All any of these would allow a 'movement' (y=x^2 works for rationals just as well for reals. And it works both ways for algebraics).

Also, there are stranger questions when you get all the way to Lebesgue measure. There are, for example, non-measurable sets where additivity breaks down. This is (sort of) similar to the Banach-Tarski paradox in 3 dimensions. And *this* rapidly gets into issues of decidability and Godel's theorems. How much such issues affect the physics is, at the very least, debatable.

 

[sayak83]

Yes, it is clear that the real numbers are sufficient. I'm not completely convinced that they are necessary. Which irrationals are required? For example, the collection of algebraics (solutions to polynomial equations with integer coefficients) is also countable. You even add in a few nice numbers like pi and e and *still* have a countable set. All any of these would allow a 'movement' (y=x^2 works for rationals just as well for reals. And it works both ways for algebraics).

Also, there are stranger questions when you get all the way to Lebesgue measure. There are, for example, non-measurable sets where additivity breaks down. This is (sort of) similar to the Banach-Tarski paradox in 3 dimensions. And *this* rapidly gets into issues of decidability and Godel's theorems. How much such issues affect the physics is, at the very least, debatable.

Ah cool, won't belabor the matter. There are many ways to show that Zeno's paradox is resolved by modern Mathematics. That should work for the thread.

 

[sayak83]

Why do you state such a dichotomy between 'rational' and 'empirical?' You belive empirical arguments to be irrational? That observation can not lead to rational reasoning?

All rational arguments are not emperical.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

All rational arguments are not emperical.

Agreed. But your statement indicted a dichotomy. I.e. Rational arguments are ____; while empirical arguments are ____.

 

[sayak83]

Agreed. But your statement indicted a dichotomy. I.e. Rational arguments are ____; while empirical arguments are ____.

As long as one accepts Bayesian reasoning, all valid empirical arguments are rational.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

It gets technical. Lebesgue measure is overkill.

Lebesgue measure is a generalization of the concept of length. For intervals, it gives the usual length of the interval. For single points, it gives zero. It also has some very nice technical properties (translation invariance and countable additivity) making integration theory work out nicely.

But because it is countably additive, it will give measure zero to *any* countable set, including the set of all rational numbers (fractions with whole numbers as numerator and denominator).

But, it is quite possible to drop the countable additivity and get a 'finitely additive measure' which will still give points measure zero and intervals of rationals a measure equal to their length. This would *also* solve the Zeno paradoxes quite nicely.

To go further into this rabbit hole requires some discussion of Cantor set theory. I can go there, but it may be off topic.

You're saying that there's a solution to Zeno's dichotomy paradox that is settled science, with infinitely divisible space-time being no barrier to settling that paradox?

Also, I believe that any cosmological concept that can be proven by math, can also be translated into the written word. Further, both are subject to error, either through error outright, or the error of being incomplete (e.g. Newtonian physics).