Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[brokensymmetry]

Well, in set theory that is not only possible, but obviously well defined. And set theory is the foundation of mathematics.

If the two sets contain a large portion of common elements (events) except one, then their difference (the union minus the intersection) contains one well defined element.

There is absolutely not problem in computing things like this, even if the common portion contains infinite elements.

Ciao

- viole

Right.

So how do we get to the current temporal event, say it is happening at time n. n=(n-1)+1, where (n-1) is the time of the previous event, each one is 'arrived at' by going an additional unit of time, +1. If we want x steps backward in time, n=(n-x)+x, we start with the time of event n-x, then simply go x time steps forward.

Well, call of the wild might say, what if x is an infinite number of steps?? then what? I can transverse any number of steps I want to in this stepwise way and meaningfully ask about the difference between any two events you bother to give a time for. Suppose some event occurs at t, and another event occurs at n, and we can insist on counting them both from x which is now an infinity number of steps. the difference between the two is still n-t as the xs subtract out.

Now the challenge I have is to give me any event, at any point in time, and tell me it's a problem. I can always give you a finite interval of time between that event and the current one *no matter how far in the past that other event is*. You (or more to the point call of the wild) can only give me a time that approaches infinity in the past if he actually names any event. No matter what event he gives to me I can calculate a finite interval of time between then and now.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Genesis says no such thing.

Eastern spiritualist claim the same confirmations. Weird how everyone knows more than science even though we are just figuring the stuff out.

And science confirms no such thing. Nobody has a source to explain where a singularity comes from. The singularity is the closest to the answer we get and on top of that law of conservation says none of the stuff can have been created, unless the singularity is a state in which creation can happen which would go along lines of multiverse theory.


Science already shows the quantum world is timeless, we don't need god for that.

I need a direct response to what I said, anything outside of that is gibberish.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That is the same problem your concept of god has when he is supposed to be timeless or whatever, atemporal. You propose that God came about in a creating mode but why and how would a atemporal being just be in a changing mode. Same thing with the universe coming about by natural means. Any "natural" means would have came about in "creation" mode so to speak, there is no other way.

I don't understand your critique.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes, the same scientists who confirm that the Universe "started" 13.7 billions years ago, plus change. And the same scientists who confirm that we are related with fungi and we all come from tiny specks of reproducing material.

The difference between the two is one is has been scientifically proven through observational and experiment...the other is just speculation, or what I like to call..."voodoo science".

It is refreshing to hear that you find the scientific method a reliable way to find truths.

But this is confusing. If the scientific method concludes that we all come from unconscious entities (unless you think that prokaryotic cells are conscious) and you find absurd to believe that consciousness can come from unconsciousness, how can you rely on science when it confirms Genesis?

That is the problem!!!!!! Science DOESN'T conclude it.

Well, this is not what I said. X is the RESULT (not the beginning) of a chain of events that is fully contained within one year.

Actually, that is what you said. You said if X is the RESULT....and I said "If X was one point within the infinite chain, then event X would never come to past, neither would the year."

If X was one point within the infinite chain, then it WOULD be the result of a chain of events, right? So it is the same thing.

Anyway, I wonder how you came to the conclusion that once the year is traversed there would be only a finite amounts of events in it. It is perfectly possible to have an infinite chain of events that takes one year to unfold.

What?? You would not reach any "result" of anything if infinite regression is true. That is the whole point......no event can come to past if there were an infinite number of events which lead to it. Not possible.

You seem to believe that a finite amount of time can only contain a finite amount of events.

Can you explain why?

So give me a scenario at which an infinite amount of events that can come to past in a finite amount of time then.

 

[idav]

I need a direct response to what I said, anything outside of that is gibberish.

It isn't gibberish at all.

I don't understand your critique.

I've noticed. God is atemporal so you say. Quantum level is atemporal according to special relativity. God = QM? Anyway.....Your problem is when someone says something 'natural' is atemporal and all of a sudden can be temporal and do things. Well I say God is a natural part of existence so, what part of gods nature allows him to be atemporal and unchanging while being able to create and be changing? Just throwing in supernatural or intent into nature doesn't solve the issue. Well we see it in our very nature, we are energy and light which have levels that defy space-time. Nature is both inside and outside of time.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well, in set theory that is not only possible, but obviously well defined. And set theory is the foundation of mathematics.

If the two sets contain a large portion of common elements (events) except one, then their difference (the union minus the intersection) contains one well defined element.

There is absolutely not problem in computing things like this, even if the common portion contains infinite elements.

Ciao

- viole

I find it amazing that you continue to get ahead of yourself without giving me a direct response to my post. You are on here advocating set theory as if set theory proves that the concept of infinite (actual infinity) can exist in reality.

I asked you to, using set theory, explain to me how the event of your birth would come to past if the event of your birth was but one event on an infinite chain of births that preceded it.

I am still waiting on an answer to this.

 

[brokensymmetry]

I find it amazing that you continue to get ahead of yourself without giving me a direct response to my post. You are on here advocating set theory as if set theory proves that the concept of infinite (actual infinity) can exist in reality.

I asked you to, using set theory, explain to me how the event of your birth would come to past if the event of your birth was but one event on an infinite chain of births that preceded it.

I am still waiting on an answer to this.

Seems to me you can define a finite interval of time between any two events you can name, infinite regression of past events or not.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I've noticed. God is atemporal so you say. Quantum level is atemporal according to special relativity.

Quantum level is not atemporal, idav. If the universe didn't exist, then there is no quantum level...no quantum physics.....no quantum mechanics. According to the standard model, the singularity was not something that was just sitting there waiting to expand 13.7 billion years ago...it appeared..and before it appeared, it didn't exist.

God = QM? Anyway.....Your problem is when someone says something 'natural' is atemporal and all of a sudden can be temporal and do things. Well I say God is a natural part of existence so, what part of gods nature allows him to be atemporal and unchanging while being able to create and be changing? Just throwing in supernatural or intent into nature doesn't solve the issue. Well we see it in our very nature, we are energy and light which have levels that defy space-time. Nature is both inside and outside of time.

God was atemporal "before" creation, and temporal after creation, plain and simple.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Seems to me you can define a finite interval of time between any two events you can name, infinite regression of past events or not.

LOL ok so how many times can 2 be divided into infinity?

 

[idav]

Quantum level is not atemporal, idav. If the universe didn't exist, then there is no quantum level...no quantum physics.....no quantum mechanics. According to the standard model, the singularity was not something that was just sitting there waiting to expand 13.7 billion years ago...it appeared..and before it appeared, it didn't exist.

So you know more than science does now? Thanks for the heads up. Just disagreeing doesn't work. Refute special relativity and law of thermal dynamics.

God was atemporal "before" creation, and temporal after creation, plain and simple.

Ok but you avoided answering the question.

 

[brokensymmetry]

LOL ok so how many times can 2 be divided into infinity?

none of that is necessary. I don't want to divide infinite, I want to subtract them.

Give me two specific events with some temporal label, as far apart as you can. I will give you back a finite interval--- even if we start the count an infinite number of steps ago.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

none of that is necessary. I don't want to divide infinite, I want to subtract them.

That was my original point...subtracting infinity will give you contradictory results...subtract all of the odd numbers and you have an infinite amount of even numbers, and vice versa...you subtract and you still have the same amount you had before you subtracted?? That is absurd, which is why in transfinite math, subtracting and dividing is prohibited, because of these absurdities.

Give me two specific events with some temporal label, as far apart as you can. I will give you back a finite interval--- even if we start the count an infinite number of steps ago.

If you start an infinite number of steps ago, where would you start?? If I told you to count BACKWARDS from infinity to 1, when will you get to the #1? If you can't reach 1 counting backwards, then you can't reach infinity counting FORWARD, which is why no event would come to past if there were an infinite number of events preceding it....because for every event that comes to past, theoretically speaking, infinity would be traversed!!!

You don't see the absurdity with that?

 

[viole]

The difference between the two is one is has been scientifically proven through observational and experiment...the other is just speculation, or what I like to call..."voodoo science".

I am not aware of science having directly observed or experimented the beginning of the Universe; are you?

In any case, even in this restricted field, the general consensus is that it took place 13.7 billions years ago and there was no formless earth (whatever that means) around for at least several billions years after. Do you agree with them?

So give me a scenario at which an infinite amount of events that can come to past in a finite amount of time then.

Simple.

- X has been caused by X1 today
- X1 has been caused by X2 1/2 year ago
- X2 has been caused by X3 1/4 year before X1
- X3 has been caused by X4 1/8 years before X2
- X4 has been caused by X5 1/16 years before X3
- etc.

An infinite sequence of causal events that is entirely contained in one year.

So?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I find it amazing that you continue to get ahead of yourself without giving me a direct response to my post. You are on here advocating set theory as if set theory proves that the concept of infinite (actual infinity) can exist in reality.

Didn't I just do that?

If "possibly existing in reality" means being free of contradictions, then yes. I just showed you how you can manipulate actual infinities easily without absurdities.

Or do you see problems in calculating the difference between two infinite sets? Which ones?

I asked you to, using set theory, explain to me how the event of your birth would come to past if the event of your birth was but one event on an infinite chain of births that preceded it.

I am still waiting on an answer to this.

In the same way that the number -1 exists, even if it is preceded by an infinite amount of negative numbers but can be defined entirely in terms of its predecessor.

Or do you think that -1 is absurd?

Ciao

- viole

 

[brokensymmetry]

That was my original point...subtracting infinity will give you contradictory results...subtract all of the odd numbers and you have an infinite amount of even numbers, and vice versa...you subtract and you still have the same amount you had before you subtracted?? That is absurd, which is why in transfinite math, subtracting and dividing is prohibited, because of these absurdities.



If you start an infinite number of steps ago, where would you start?? If I told you to count BACKWARDS from infinity to 1, when will you get to the #1? If you can't reach 1 counting backwards, then you can't reach infinity counting FORWARD, which is why no event would come to past if there were an infinite number of events preceding it....because for every event that comes to past, theoretically speaking, infinity would be traversed!!!

You don't see the absurdity with that?

Well no. You can meaningfully subtract infinity and it happens all of the time. In fact if you couldn't do this physics would be in trouble in general.The key is if it is the exact same infinity. In this case it is. You tell me that this moment now is n. You then tell me some event happened t time units ago, so n-t. Now it's very easy to see that you can add in any arbitrary amount of time *to both* and the interval is the same. , where n is the ticks from arbitrary past time r, an dt is the ticks from the same arbitrary past tick r. n+x and t+x, n+x-(t+x)=n-t still. Now you can let x be infinity. So long as it is the same infinity, which it will be in the case in the infinite regression of past events, the infinities properly cancel.

If I replace x with an expression that happened to evaluate to infinity you would probably be happier. You could see it was the exact same integral, say, and would agree that they cancel completely even if they are both separate infinity. This is what I am doing.

Now, I want you to give me the earliest event we should find a time interval between. That's the issue isn't it, the interval between events? Let the earliest time interval you want tend toward infinity-- I will still be able to subtract off the infinity of events before it, no matter what you pick. The upshot is, no matter what past event you pick we can understand that there is a finite time interval between them because we can subtract off the *same* infinity of past events first.

 

[brokensymmetry]

D



In the same way that the number -1 exists, even if it is preceded by an infinite amount of negative numbers but can be defined entirely in terms of its predecessor.

Or do you think that -1 is absurd?

Ciao

- viole

This is why I find Craig's distinction between potential and actual infinities silly. If we can make sense of a number line which is symmetrically infinite we can make sense of an infinity of events. Well, that and I don't think he can actually meaningfully give a relevant distinction between those things except his convenience because he wants us to live forever.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I am not aware of science having directly observed or experimented the beginning of the Universe; are you?

No but I am aware of science observing an expanding universe, which, on the Christian view, is also recorded in the bible. If space is currently expanding outwards as we move towards the future, if you go back in time space becomes smaller and smaller, to which absolutely nothing existed. That is the standard big bang model which is the predominate model in cosmology. That is called a cosmic beginning, viole.

I know you this is hard to accept, but if we are supposed to go where science takes us, then you or other naturalistics should be willing to accept this.

In any case, even in this restricted field, the general consensus is that it took place 13.7 billions years ago and there was no formless earth (whatever that means) around for at least several billions years after. Do you agree with them?

Well, whether you are a young earth creationist or old earth, the fact is, we can all agree that the earth is began to exist and how it began to exist is up for debate, doesn't matter.

Simple.

- X has been caused by X1 today
- X1 has been caused by X2 1/2 year ago
- X2 has been caused by X3 1/4 year before X1
- X3 has been caused by X4 1/8 years before X2
- X4 has been caused by X5 1/16 years before X3
- etc.
An infinite sequence of causal events that is entirely contained in one year.

So?

Ciao

- viole

So if every event that you mentioned above had a natural number attached to it, what number would you attach to the event that preceded the infinite number. What would that number be...the one RIGHT before infinity was traversed, what would that number be?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well no. You can meaningfully subtract infinity and it happens all of the time.

No you can't, not in reality. Those kind of absurdies cannot actually "happen".

In fact if you couldn't do this physics would be in trouble in general.

The key is if it is the exact same infinity. In this case it is. You tell me that this moment now is n. You then tell me some event happened t time units ago, so n-t. Now it's very easy to see that you can add in any arbitrary amount of time *to both* and the interval is the same. , where n is the ticks from arbitrary past time r, an dt is the ticks from the same arbitrary past tick r. n+x and t+x, n+x-(t+x)=n-t still. Now you can let x be infinity. So long as it is the same infinity, which it will be in the case in the infinite regression of past events, the infinities properly cancel.

I am not gonna pretend like I understand what you are saying...so instead of trying to figure it out...I will just stand by my own absurd example...and if we can imagine going in time in a time machine, and we wanted to travel EQUAL distance going backwards that would EQUAL the distance that we've traversed at lets say, 8:00 today, and we were to STOP at that exact time in the past when we've reached the distance.....at what point would we stop?

The answer is incoherent, because whatever point we stop, there was still time before it...so the distance would never be traversed!!! So we would never reach an equal point, because there were points before it that would have to be included in the total equal distance..see how that works?

So if we would never reach an equal distance moving backwards, then we can't reach any equal distance moving forward. See how that works?

If I replace x with an expression that happened to evaluate to infinity you would probably be happier. You could see it was the exact same integral, say, and would agree that they cancel completely even if they are both separate infinity. This is what I am doing.

Now, I want you to give me the earliest event we should find a time interval between. That's the issue isn't it, the interval between events? Let the earliest time interval you want tend toward infinity-- I will still be able to subtract off the infinity of events before it, no matter what you pick. The upshot is, no matter what past event you pick we can understand that there is a finite time interval between them because we can subtract off the *same* infinity of past events first.

Before you give me ANYTHING...i would like my examples to be addressed. If you can give an adequate response to what I said, I will be more than happy to address what you said. If you can't adequately answer my analogy, then there is no reason for me to address yours because if what you say is correct, you SHOULD be able to answer my analogy.

 

[brokensymmetry]

No you can't, not in reality. Those kind of absurdies cannot actually "happen".



I am not gonna pretend like I understand what you are saying...so instead of trying to figure it out...I will just stand by my own absurd example...and if we can imagine going in time in a time machine, and we wanted to travel EQUAL distance going backwards that would EQUAL the distance that we've traversed at lets say, 8:00 today, and we were to STOP at that exact time in the past when we've reached the distance.....at what point would we stop?

The answer is incoherent, because whatever point we stop, there was still time before it...so the distance would never be traversed!!! So we would never reach an equal point, because there were points before it that would have to be included in the total equal distance..see how that works?

So if we would never reach an equal distance moving backwards, then we can't reach any equal distance moving forward. See how that works?



Before you give me ANYTHING...i would like my examples to be addressed. If you can give an adequate response to what I said, I will be more than happy to address what you said. If you can't adequately answer my analogy, then there is no reason for me to address yours because if what you say is correct, you SHOULD be able to answer my analogy.

You absolutely can subtract infinities *which are identical* and have them cancel out. Yes, this is done often. Think of some expression which when evaluated gives you an infinite result, some specific integral. Now, simply subtract one from the other, of the exact same thing. Something really easy, say x^2 evaluated from 0 to infinity. That's clearly infinity. But, what is x^2-x^2 each term individually evaluated from 0 to infinity? 0 of course. That is what I am proposing here. We can take some reference time and say the number of events before that is infinite. we've agreed on how to divvy up time and so on, and use the same standard. Now we define all events with reference to this time, call it r.

I'm not attempting to make this purposefully difficult. My issue is, if we don't formalize them even a little, attempt to make it careful and systematic, we aren't ever going to see if this is really a problem or not. Relying on vague terms, analogies and metaphors won't cut it here. You are claiming we can't subtract 'infinities' meaningfully. Sure, if you subtract the set of odd numbers from the set of all integers, you are left with an infinite set. But, let me ask you this, what if we subtract the set of all odd numbers from the set of all odd numbers? That is, if we subtract identical sets from each other? where there is 1 in the first there is 1 in the second, subtract those, we get 0. For 3, it appears in both, we get 0, and so on. Every single one is paired. THIS is analogous to what I am saying about subtracting infinities in this case. We've agreed there are time ordered events, 1, 2, 3 and so on. I say, great, let that be infinite, now set r somewhere, and subtract off every event, one by one, each and every time we need to calculate an interval of time.

You seem to think that we can never reasonably think that we are 'at this time' if there are an infinite number of past events. But let's look at my scheme above. Give me any past event that you think that we can't get from there to here from, any one. Give me the farthest one in the past you can conceive of. I can define a finite interval of time each and every time. So really, what is the problem?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You absolutely can subtract infinities *which are identical* and have them cancel out.Yes, this is done often.

Exactly. So what happens when you subtract the identical amount from 8? 8-8=0...but when you subtract the identical amount from infinity (odd numbers) from infinity (even numbers), you have the same exact amount. So what is the difference? Why the different results? It isn't as if infinity is some magical entity that has special powers or something...the results are clearly absurd.

Think of some expression which when evaluated gives you an infinite result, some specific integral. Now, simply subtract one from the other, of the exact same thing. Something really easy, say x^2 evaluated from 0 to infinity. That's clearly infinity. But, what is x^2-x^2 each term individually evaluated from 0 to infinity? 0 of course. That is what I am proposing here. We can take some reference time and say the number of events before that is infinite. we've agreed on how to divvy up time and so on, and use the same standard. Now we define all events with reference to this time, call it r.

Look, if you are so confident that infinity can exist in reality, why can't I get an answer to my analogy? You can use whatever mathematical equation you want to use to answer it too.

I'm not attempting to make this purposefully difficult. My issue is, if we don't formalize them even a little, attempt to make it careful and systematic, we aren't ever going to see if this is really a problem or not. Relying on vague terms, analogies and metaphors won't cut it here.

Actually, it does. I am giving you a scenario based on something that can happen in reality, and not only can it happen, YOU are alleging that something like this DID happen. I am saying that there is NO POSSIBLE world at which this could happen in reality. None...unless you can prove that it can happen, and if you can, not only will I be shocked, but I will be impressed.

You are claiming we can't subtract 'infinities' meaningfully. Sure, if you subtract the set of odd numbers from the set of all integers, you are left with an infinite set. But, let me ask you this, what if we subtract the set of all odd numbers from the set of all odd numbers?

You would still have infinity.

That is, if we subtract identical sets from each other?

Infinity.

where there is 1 in the first there is 1 in the second, subtract those, we get 0. For 3, it appears in both, we get 0, and so on. Every single one is paired. THIS is analogous to what I am saying about subtracting infinities in this case. We've agreed there are time ordered events, 1, 2, 3 and so on. I say, great, let that be infinite, now set r somewhere, and subtract off every event, one by one, each and every time we need to calculate an interval of time.

So using these infinite principals you laid out, what is your response to my analogy.

You seem to think that we can never reasonably think that we are 'at this time' if there are an infinite number of past events. But let's look at my scheme above. Give me any past event that you think that we can't get from there to here from, any one. Give me the farthest one in the past you can conceive of. I can define a finite interval of time each and every time. So really, what is the problem?

Yeah, you can find a finite interval if you have a starting point...I am saying you cannot arrive at infinity as a DESTINATION...there is no such thing as "I've reached infinity"....or, "I just traversed infinity"...and that is exactly what you are saying if you believe the past is eternal.