God and Pre-universe

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Assuming you are right, and there is no reason not to, this would make a helluva bar bet.

It was proved by Cantor in the 19th century, and writing to another famous mathematician for comments, he famously included the line "I see it, but I don't believe it" (actually, the line was Je le vois, mais je ne le crois pas). The most famous proof is one I used in my thread on infinities and is called a diagonal proof (other mathematicians used this method of proof, including Turing when he basically founded computer science and "invented" computers, but I think Cantor was the first). This isn't, though, the only way to prove that result or similar results, such as the fact that the power set of the natural numbers is as large as the set of real numbers and as large as the set of numbers in the interval (0,1).

That said, there is a difference between the fact that the set of real numbers is larger than infinite sets like the rational numbers or integers and the "fact" that there are infinitely many infinities. If it were false that there are more real numbers than rational numbers, most of mathematics would come crashing down along with all the technology that required it. Important numbers like pi couldn't be used in most applications, high school students wouldn't be able to learn any algebra that involved graphs of functions, most of physics would fall apart, etc.

This is not true of the assertion that there are infinitely many infinities (understood to mean we can order them such that each one is larger than the one before it).


The simplest way to prove that there are infinitely many infinities is to use the power sets. This makes sense when we are thinking in terms of finite sets like the set {1,2,3,4}. Given that set of 4 elements, or any other set, the power set contains all subsets and the set itself (technically, every set has itself as a subset). I won't give the proof, but I think it's fairly intuitive that given a set (a collection of elements/objects), something that includes all of those elements as well as collections of some of the elements (subsets) has to be bigger, because it includes the whole set and more.

The power set of a set is defined this way, such that it includes the set and all possible subsets as well, so it makes sense that it would be bigger.

...Until we get to infinite sets. It is not as easy to provide the kind of incontrovertible (if wholly counter-intuitive) proof that the real numbers are a larger infinity than e.g., the rationals here. In fact it is proved by using the clearly true proof that for finite sets, the power set is always greater than the set, and saying this holds true of infinite sets. There are in general two kinds of proofs. One kind consists of proofs of existence. I can prove to you, for example, that if I add up the terms

and let n go to infinity (i.e., add up infinitely many terms of the form

) that the result will be a finite number. I cannot tell you what that is, nor can anybody else. That's because there is a proof that shows any infinite summation of terms of the form

, if p is greater than 1 than this infinite summation will "converge" to a finite number (for example, adding infinitely many terms of the form

starting at n=1 will "converge" to the number 2).

The proof that shows this is true for all such infinite summation is an existence proof because, given some value of p greater than 1, it only tells you that the summation of infinite terms will converge; it doesn't tell you what it will converge too,

 

[Shad]

I come across many people that say God existed for an eternity before creation.

Putting aside all the problems coming from that idea. (time before time, eternity implies no end and so here we are, etc)

If God existed eternally before he made the universe, why did it take him so long?

Also, what did he exist in? Space is post-creation, as is time. A sequence of events must have happened before creation, right? So now he has no time.

Time is required to act (create) - Without it, God cannot do any action at all until he created time.

By avoiding the very issues the concept of God causes in most theist arguments one is reduced to axioms which any one can freely put forward or reject. Already a number of posts have put forward typical incoherent religious axioms as answers. One can limit the concept of God or accept that their axioms are not proofs nor sound arguments. Many will reject both or either.

 

[`mud]

hey Legion,
Try using those limits with not using zero,
go ahead, start with 1, and find zero for me.
There is no value as zero.
Find your infinity in that set !
~
Now....invent your 'set' including any 'negative' values.
now assign the directions and distances,
and get to the end of your 'set' of numbers.
~
I'm still quite curious as to the solution,
and confused as well.
~
'mud

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

hey Legion,
Try using those limits with not using zero

Here:

That limit will get you infinitely many 0's.

go ahead, start with 1, and find zero for me.

That's easy. Let

Then

converges to 0. As you can start with m=1, and 1/1 equals 1, then we start with 1 and converge to 0 (I chose this one because it converges to 0 but

). There are easier examples, of course, but they're no fun. In fact, speaking of fun, consider series.

For a series to converge, i.e., the summation of the terms of an infinite sequence to converge to a number, the terms must go to 0. Pick any convergent sequence. Define a function that f of that sequence such that the values of f take on the values of the terms of the sequence as the tend towards infinity.

There is no value as zero.

There are infinitely many, and also only one unique. Given any dimensional space, the value of 0 is defined in terms of the dimensions of that space such that each added dimension means the point 0 is different than the point 0 in any other space. However, considered in terms of sets, there is only one empty/null set {∅} (and it is a subset of all sets).

Find your infinity in that set !

Which set?

Now....invent your 'set' including any 'negative' values.
now assign the directions and distances,
and get to the end of your 'set' of numbers.

I'm not sure why my set has to be of numbers, but ok. My set is {1}. Done.
I'm guessing you were looking for a different answer, but you're going to have to rephrase the question as I'm not sure what you were looking for.

 

[Willamena]

Also, what did he exist in?

Category error, the result of grammatical convention.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Category error, the result of grammatical convention.

Grammatical convention, the result of the error of categorial grammar (and the rest of formal linguistics).

 

[`mud]

Aside from all that double and triple manipulation of improper sets,
you still haven't a zero 'point' of reference.
All your references end in negative relationships,
and don't exist in real comparisons of real numbers.
So much double talk and word salad, and you asked:
Quote: "Which set?"
Answer is: "You don't have one."
And I'm still confused !
~
'mud

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Aside from all that double and triple manipulation of improper sets,

Care to point these out?

you still haven't a zero 'point' of reference.

That's because 0 isn't a point of reference.

All your references end in negative relationships,
and don't exist in real comparisons of real numbers.

Negative relationships isn't a mathematical notion (relations, yes; relationships, no). Are you asking a question about mathematics or something else?

So much double talk and word salad, and you asked:

Mostly formulae and equations, but then I imagine to one who can't read these they seem like "word salad", whereas to one who can your questions and descriptions are nonsense that seem to derive from a lack of familiarity with the subject matter.

Quote: "Which set?"
Answer is: "You don't have one."

You asked me to "find my infinity in that set". Ignoring math here and switching to grammar, "that" is deictic here, and I was asking what it was pointing to.

 

[`mud]

From what did God exist, before the advent of distance.
~
'mud

 

[`mud]

An infinite set !
~
'mud

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

An infinite set !
~
'mud

Again, you asked me to "find my infinity in that set". Clearly, I can do so with an infinite set. What was the set that you wished me to find my "infinity" in?

 

[`mud]

{1}

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Let's try this again:

Try using those limits with not using zero

I didn't use 0 with those limits.

go ahead, start with 1, and find zero for me.
There is no value as zero.
Find your infinity in that set !

I'm not sure how these connect. I interpreted the topmost statement to relate to the challenge to find "limits with not using zero", and the claim that there "is no value as zero" to be a claim that I couldn't because...well...if there isn't such a value I can't "find" it.

I am not sure why you would assert what you did about 0, but I still don't even understand which set you referred to when you asked me to find my infinity in it. It can't have been the set {1} because I hadn't as yet proffered that as an answer.

Now....invent your 'set' including any 'negative' values.
now assign the directions and distances,
and get to the end of your 'set' of numbers.

Aside from all that double and triple manipulation of improper sets,

The great thing about mathematics is that it is precise. However, we seem to have a disconnect here over the nature of sets. In order to answer your original question (or respond to your original challenge) I would need to know how you are understanding sets such that my post involved "double and triple manipulation of improper sets".

 

[`mud]

Aside from the confusion:
Explain to me what the limit of your {1} is.
What's the minimum and I guess 1 is the maximum.
Outside of that 'set', ({1}), how do you incorporate infinity?
~
'mud

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Aside from the confusion:
Explain to me what the limit of your {1} is.

You didn't ask me anything about limits regarding the construction of my set:

Now....invent your 'set' including any 'negative' values.
now assign the directions and distances,
and get to the end of your 'set' of numbers.

Limits by definition do not "get to the end" or they wouldn't be of much use, as only continuous functions could have limits. Hence this:

Note that for the limit to exist it suffices that one is able to fine a delta for any epsilon desired such that as the argument of the function approaches a particular value the function approaches the limit (i.e., we can choose values for x to make the function infinitely close to the limit/arbitrarily close to the limit). One can, of course, have a function with a limit that is defined, but that doesn't change the definition of a limit. And the above is only the definition over the real number line (limits are much trickier in higher dimensions).

What's the minimum and I guess 1 is the maximum.

One is the minimum and maximum.

Outside of that 'set', ({1}), how do you incorporate infinity?

In every possible way there is (because that set isn't infinite and thus outside of it exists every possible way one can incorporate infinity)? Or are you asking how I incorporate infinity into that set (in which case I don't)?

 

[godnotgod]

I come across many people that say God existed for an eternity before creation.

Putting aside all the problems coming from that idea. (time before time, eternity implies no end and so here we are, etc)

If God existed eternally before he made the universe, why did it take him so long?

Also, what did he exist in? Space is post-creation, as is time. A sequence of events must have happened before creation, right? So now he has no time.

Time is required to act (create) - Without it, God cannot do any action at all until he created time.

To say that God existed for an eternity is to say God has always existed in the eternal Present, which is without Time or Space. Time and Space are merely concepts. There is no past or future.

The existence of the Universe is a cyclical affair. It always exists, either in potential, or in actualization, but this 'existence', or rather, manifestation, is an illusion. God did not exist eternally before he made the universe; the Universe IS God as seen through the filters of Time, Space, and Causation. IOW, God is playing at being all the various parts of the Universe in a cosmic game of Hide and Seek. Now you see it; now you don't.

God cannot exist 'in' anything, as the nature of God cannot be encapsulated in any way. The nature of God is not in Time or Space, Time and Space being a part of the illusion of a created Universe.

God is The Changeless. There is/was no 'Creation'. All that you perceive as 'changing' in Time and Space is illusion. The 'changing' Universe is the illusion God is manifesting as such. What we call 'creation' is actually a projection in consciousness. The Big Bang was/is an event in consciousness, and the resulting illusion of it being real is an illusion on a higher plane than ordinary illusion. We see it as real because we are asleep, dreaming, thinking ourselves to be awake, just as in dream-sleep. Upon waking, we then see the illusory nature of the dream state. The same is true when we further awaken to the next level of conscious awareness. But until that occurs, we will continue to see the universe as real, existing in time and space, composed of 'parts' called 'atoms', and changing all the time.

'The Universe is [none other than] the Absolute, as seen through the glass of Time, Space, and Causation'
Vivekenanda

That a paradox exists is only because we attempt to understand the Universe via the rational mind. The Universe is non-rational. Awakening consists of seeing beyond the rational mind. There is no such paradox.

Note: The use of the word 'God' is merely to provide you a handle to work with. I prefer 'The Absolute', as the Universe is, because there is no 'other' to which it can be compared.

If you are interested in a new definition of 'God' as understood by Quantum Physics, here is a video by quantum physicist Amit Goswami:

 

[`mud]

https://www.religiousforums.com/media/limit-definition-full.4459/full
try this one

or:The Open Graph protocol
interesting websites
~
'mud

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

https://www.religiousforums.com/media/limit-definition-full.4459/full
try this one

That's a screen-shot from the paper
Todorov, T. D. (2001). Back to classics: teaching limits through infinitesimals. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 32(1), 1-20.

Any chance I could get an answer to what you refer to by this:

Aside from all that double and triple manipulation of improper sets,

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If you are interested in a new definition of 'God' as understood by Quantum Physics

I am. I am also interested in the definition of "religion" as understood by Lego, spirituality as understood by HD television, and mysticism as understood by Nintendo. I mean, as long as we're trying to understand concepts through methods that are wholly unsuited to the task and can't even begin to make meaning of it (although QM does have the advantage here in that people like you can have basically no clue as to what it is and still regurgitate Chopra's nonsense despite the entirety of physics literature).

 

[godnotgod]

I am. I am also interested in the definition of "religion" as understood by Lego, spirituality as understood by HD television, and mysticism as understood by Nintendo. I mean, as long as we're trying to understand concepts through methods that are wholly unsuited to the task and can't even begin to make meaning of it (although QM does have the advantage here in that people like you can have basically no clue as to what it is and still regurgitate Chopra's nonsense despite the entirety of physics literature).

ha ha ha...love it!

There are only 3 things certain in this world: death, taxes, and Legion's infamous Knee Jerk responses (or is that Pavlovian salivation?)

Uh...BTW...that is AMIT GOSWAMI talking; not Chopra, who happens to be a bona fide Quantum Physicist who understands what the Quantum view signifies.

That aside, my real interest is in Legion's definition of God and the Universe as understood by his dead, sterile and oh so anal mathematical models. Of course, mathematics and physics are, as self defined and self appointed, THE methods wholly suited to the task of understanding the true nature of Reality, as their primary approach is DISSECTION. Isn't that right, Legion?

Ah, the Quantum God: sexy; provocative; alluring. grrrrrrr....