Historicity of Claimed Miracles

[brokensymmetry]

LMAO



It is absurd to subtract from a given amount and to have no less of an amount than you had before the subtraction.





Numbers are abstract, they don't exist in reality other than as concepts. Now of course, infinity exists as an abstract idea, but when you apply the idea to reality, you get contradictory results. My point is simple.....one cannot POSSESS an infinite number of things (baseball cards, marbles, etc). Nor can one reach infinity as a destination...or....traverse infinity.

To further drive home the point.....I woke up this morning (thank God). Me getting out of bed this morning is an event. Now theoretically speaking, there was an infinite amount of events which led to me getting up this morning...so that "set" in itself is already infinite, not to mention the infinite amount of events that will follow the event of me getting up this morning.

Do you follow? The event of me getting up is a point on the infinite chain, and all the points that preceded this event would make up the infinite set. So the events that followed the event of me getting out of bed would be included on the infinite set that succeeds the event of me getting out of bed.

So pretty much, infinity sliced in half is infinity. Absurd.



That would depend on what you mean, which is why I like real life examples. If by "take away the set of odd numbers", you mean if I was to have the entire set of odd numbers in my possession, and I gave you the entire set of odd numbers in my possession, I would not have any.



Ok, so that is what you meant.



That is the problem!!! First off, you could of used that same example just by giving a scenario of me having an infinite set and giving you the entire set...the answer would still be the same, right?

With infinity, to add or subtract from it is meaningless, because you are not really losing or gaining anything, which is absurd...or how about this...

Take any astronomical number you like....like say 1 to the gazillionth power. If you divide that number into infinity, it can be divided into infinity an infinite number of times.....now take a smaller number, the #2, now divide that into infinity...it can be divided into infinity the same number of times as 1 to the gazillionth power.

But no two numbers can be divided into any amount the same number of times. That is more than counter-intuitive...that is flat out absurd.



I need specifics. You like to get specific for everything except the analogy.

I don't know what is so funny about my claim. I typically translate concepts into 'toy problems' if possible.

There isn't anything absurd about the subtraction I did. You keep saying it is absurd. It isn't. If I have the set of all integers, and I take out the odd numbers, I have a set left of the even numbers. It isn't the *same set*, it's precisely what I'd expect. Where is the absurdity? If you have an infinite set of cards, and we labeled them with natural numbers, and I take all the even ones, you simply have a set left with only the ones that happened to be indexed with odd numbers. The answer is NOT the same. The set is quite different! That's all there is to say about that. I don't see the problem.

You slip from (my version of your argument of course) "with out experience of ordinary objects if you take some away the cardinality of the set is less!" to "therefore this set subtraction stuff is nonsense! can't represent reality!" Well, how do we know that? It is *counter intuitive* but it is a long way from showing that because it is counter intuitive it is literally impossible. Quantum mechanics seems absurd in that sense, being counter intuitive, special relativity even, but we know those things are true about the world. Show me *why* it is impossible to be true in the 'real world' even though it is counter intuitive?

Take the infinite set of all integers. Now, divide the set into two, so you have one that contains all the numbers from 0 and greater and the other one contains all numbers less than zero. You have *2 different sets* now. They are NOT the same! You keep claiming you get the same answer but you don't. You didn't in the case of the odds and evens, and you don't here. I can't help but think you are confusing the cardinalilty of sets with the actual contents of the sets themselves. When you look at what is actually happening to the contents of the sets, the mystery, the absurdity, disappears. This is what I mean by being concrete and specific.

 

[viole]

Ok, one point at the time, in order of importance.

Yeah, and a gazillion can also be divided into infinity an infinite amount of times. That is the problem...a gazillion is astronomically bigger than the #2, yet despite the astronomical difference, they can both be divided into infinity the same number of times!!!

If you can't see how absurd that is, then there is no point is discussing this further. What more is there to say?

And? What is the contradiction?

You seem to indicate that 2 and gazillions can only be divided a finite amount of times. What finite number can that be, in your opinion?

Suppose that it is a mega gazillion. What prevents me to take the result of 2 divided by this mega gazillion, and divide it by 2 again? Is there some unknown law of logic that prevents me from doing that? And what about 1/3? Do you think the repeating infinite sequence of decimals will stop?

Don't you see? It is actually postulating that two can only be divided a finite amount of times that generates an immediate contradiction.

On top of that, do you think that the square root of 2 has a finite amount of (repeating) decimals? If yes, then you will see immediately (I hope) that its square cannot be 2. How does it work exactly? Is the square root of 2 absurd?

Or do you think there is only a finite amount of prime numbers or integers?

I can go on all day like that, lol.

I am aware that the Bible shares your problem (by thinking pi = 3) but I seriously hope you did not gain your mathematical knowledge, if any, from the Bible

Ciao

- viole

P.S. i take the sentence "no point of discussing any further" as an admission of defeat.

 

[viole]

Take the infinite set of all integers. Now, divide the set into two, so you have one that contains all the numbers from 0 and greater and the other one contains all numbers less than zero. You have *2 different sets* now. They are NOT the same! You keep claiming you get the same answer but you don't. You didn't in the case of the odds and evens, and you don't here. I can't help but think you are confusing the cardinalilty of sets with the actual contents of the sets themselves. When you look at what is actually happening to the contents of the sets, the mystery, the absurdity, disappears. This is what I mean by being concrete and specific.

Oh dear, I just saw a huge problem.

If I take zero and multiply it (or divide it) by 3, I obtain the same number I started with.

Ergo, zero is absurd

Ciao

- viole

 

[brokensymmetry]

Oh dear, I just saw a huge problem.

If I take zero and multiply it (or divide it) by 3, I obtain the same number I started with.

Ergo, zero is absurd

Ciao

- viole

That just shows me that math can't be trusted at all. It's absurd. That and mathematicians are weird.

 

[viole]

That just shows me that math can't be trusted at all. It's absurd. That and mathematicians are weird.

I just told my kids: if the teacher asks you the result of 2-2, tell them that it is an impossible result.

Ciao

- viole

 

[brokensymmetry]

I just told my kids: if the teacher asks you the result of 2-2, tell them that it is an impossible result.

Ciao

- viole

0 is also later on the scene than other integers historically. What about negative numbers? What in the hell does it mean to say I have negative 2 apples? There is some cosmic apple debt accountant? If we go by non intuitive=absurd most of math has to go.

 

[viole]

0 is also later on the scene than other integers historically. What about negative numbers? What in the hell does it mean to say I have negative 2 apples? There is some cosmic apple debt accountant? If we go by non intuitive=absurd most of math has to go.

Yeah, my banker told me that I have -1,000 swiss francs on one account, and what I could do about it.

I told him he is crazy, just to find out that swiss bankers do not have much of a sense of humor, lol.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

That just shows me that math can't be trusted at all. It's absurd. That and mathematicians are weird.

Yes, I should change job.

You, too, by the way. Still using absurd calculus to derive theories that are based on absurd tools?

Ciao

- viole

 

[brokensymmetry]

Yes, I should change job.

You, too, by the way. Still using absurd calculus to derive theories that are based on absurd tools?

Ciao

- viole

Yeah I'm living in a fantasy world. But you know how it is. What do you expect from someone who swallows hook, line and sinker nonsense about magical spaces that you have to to 720 degrees in to get back where you started from?

 

[viole]

Yeah I'm living in a fantasy world. But you know how it is. What do you expect from someone who swallows hook, line and sinker nonsense about magical spaces that you have to to 720 degrees in to get back where you started from?

Well, you like fermions.

Your problem really

Schei... i like Moebius stripes. Same boat, lol.


Ciao

- ciao

 

[brokensymmetry]

Well, you like fermions.

Your problem really

Schei... i like Moebius stripes. Same boat, lol.


Ciao

- ciao

who doesn't though??

 

[factseeker88]

Can history be enough to accept any miracles as anything supernatural? Where are the miracles that are breaking laws of nature at these days? Our natural world really doesn't seem to have a case for the supernatural, or it is just plain natural.

The following article takes a pretty educated look at the debate for the supernatural. I will quote the conclusion in case TLDR syndrome kicks in.

There are no Miracles, only incomplete investigations.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I don't know what is so funny about my claim. I typically translate concepts into 'toy problems' if possible.

There isn't anything absurd about the subtraction I did. You keep saying it is absurd. It isn't. If I have the set of all integers, and I take out the odd numbers, I have a set left of the even numbers. It isn't the *same set*, it's precisely what I'd expect. Where is the absurdity? If you have an infinite set of cards, and we labeled them with natural numbers, and I take all the even ones, you simply have a set left with only the ones that happened to be indexed with odd numbers. The answer is NOT the same. The set is quite different! That's all there is to say about that. I don't see the problem.

Of course the set is different, but the quantity is the same!!! Here is the problem; you have a set...and the set has an infinite amount of integers total....you've subtracted an infinite amount of integers from the set, and you STILL have an infinite amount of integers in the set. So while you are technically "losing" an infinite set, you are not really "losing" anything!!!

And buddy, let me let you in on a little secret.....when you SUBTRACT from ANY amount, you should have less than what you had BEFORE you subtracted the amount. So take 10-8=2...do you see how 8 is subtracted from 10, and the amount left over (2) is LESS than what you started off with (10). But in the case of infinity....infinity-infinity= infinity.

And things seem to get worse once you divide with infinity...this is actually the same point I made before, and it is WORTH repeating...Take any natural number, from 1 to gazillion and beyond....no matter what finite number you can give, no matter how large, that astronomical number can be divided in to infinity an infinite amount of times...every single number can be divided into infinity an infinite number of times, despite the fact that each number having a different value. A gazillion and 2 has two completely different values, yet both are divided into infinity an infinite number of times. Absurd.

You slip from (my version of your argument of course) "with out experience of ordinary objects if you take some away the cardinality of the set is less!" to "therefore this set subtraction stuff is nonsense! can't represent reality!" Well, how do we know that? It is *counter intuitive* but it is a long way from showing that because it is counter intuitive it is literally impossible. Quantum mechanics seems absurd in that sense, being counter intuitive, special relativity even, but we know those things are true about the world. Show me *why* it is impossible to be true in the 'real world' even though it is counter intuitive?

What?

Take the infinite set of all integers. Now, divide the set into two, so you have one that contains all the numbers from 0 and greater and the other one contains all numbers less than zero.

All numbers less than zero are negative, and you can't divide into negative numbers, so that just leaves one set, right?

 

[brokensymmetry]

Of course the set is different, but the quantity is the same!!! Here is the problem; you have a set...and the set has an infinite amount of integers total....you've subtracted an infinite amount of integers from the set, and you STILL have an infinite amount of integers in the set. So while you are technically "losing" an infinite set, you are not really "losing" anything!!!

And buddy, let me let you in on a little secret.....when you SUBTRACT from ANY amount, you should have less than what you had BEFORE you subtracted the amount. So take 10-8=2...do you see how 8 is subtracted from 10, and the amount left over (2) is LESS than what you started off with (10). But in the case of infinity....infinity-infinity= infinity.

And things seem to get worse once you divide with infinity...this is actually the same point I made before, and it is WORTH repeating...Take any natural number, from 1 to gazillion and beyond....no matter what finite number you can give, no matter how large, that astronomical number can be divided in to infinity an infinite amount of times...every single number can be divided into infinity an infinite number of times, despite the fact that each number having a different value. A gazillion and 2 has two completely different values, yet both are divided into infinity an infinite number of times. Absurd.



What?



All numbers less than zero are negative, and you can't divide into negative numbers, so that just leaves one set, right?

I just lost all the odd numbers. Now I look in my set and all the odd numbered elements are gone. Just as I'd expect. There is nothing whacky about this. The fact that the cardinality doesn't change is just what I'd expect also. I had an infinite number of elements, I know there are an infinite number of even and odd numbers too. So what? {1,2,3,4,...} and {1,3,5,7,...} the elements in each set can be matched to an element in the other. That's easy to see. 1-3, 2-5 and so on. Nothing crazy about that.

Again, you keep insisting on there being a problem, and I don't see one. Everything that is happening is just as I'd expect. The number of elements in the set is *different than* the content of the sets. If you think in terms of what is happening to the content of these sets all is precisely as it should be. Slipping from talk about what happens to to the contents of the sets, the elements, to the cardinality is bad form and is at the root of all of your confusion.

Something seeming counterintuitive doesn't mean it is literally absurd. To get from 'hmm that seems odd' to 'that is logically impossible' you have to demonstrate that is the case. You haven't done that. In fact, everything that happens to these sets is what I'd expect. You can the number of elements finite if you want, but you have to subtract off something that makes sense that will do that-- and you know what will do that if you think about the *content of the sets* what the elements actually are. I gave you an example of this. Two identical sets, A/A gives back the empty set. Just as you'd expect. All the elements from one are taken from the other and no element is left.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And? What is the contradiction?

You seem to indicate that 2 and gazillions can only be divided a finite amount of times. What finite number can that be, in your opinion?

Not finite, but an infinite amount of times.

Suppose that it is a mega gazillion. What prevents me to take the result of 2 divided by this mega gazillion, and divide it by 2 again? Is there some unknown law of logic that prevents me from doing that? And what about 1/3? Do you think the repeating infinite sequence of decimals will stop?

Ok, so divide this mega gazillion into infinity...and let me know what laws of mathematics (or otherwise) will allow you to give a definitive answer.

Don't you see? It is actually postulating that two can only be divided a finite amount of times that generates an immediate contradiction.

Two can be divided an infinite amount of times into infinity.

On top of that, do you think that the square root of 2 has a finite amount of (repeating) decimals? If yes, then you will see immediately (I hope) that its square cannot be 2. How does it work exactly? Is the square root of 2 absurd?

Relevance?

I am aware that the Bible shares your problem (by thinking pi = 3) but I seriously hope you did not gain your mathematical knowledge, if any, from the Bible

Last I checked, the bible isn't a math book.

P.S. i take the sentence "no point of discussing any further" as an admission of defeat.

I just love to intellectual whoop someone, and they keep getting up, begging for more.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I just lost all the odd numbers. Now I look in my set and all the odd numbered elements are gone. Just as I'd expect. There is nothing whacky about this.

That would be equivilent to subtracting the entire set, so yes, all odd numbers are gone.

The fact that the cardinality doesn't change is just what I'd expect also. I had an infinite number of elements, I know there are an infinite number of even and odd numbers too. So what? {1,2,3,4,...} and {1,3,5,7,...} the elements in each set can be matched to an element in the other. That's easy to see. 1-3, 2-5 and so on. Nothing crazy about that.

You keep saying it is what you'd "expect"...ok, here is what I "expect"..I expect that when I subtract from any given amount, for that amount to be decreased in quantity, not remain the same, and not to increase. Again, infinity does not have any magical powers that it can do things that goes against our intuitions.

Again, you keep insisting on there being a problem, and I don't see one. Everything that is happening is just as I'd expect. The number of elements in the set is *different than* the content of the sets.

But the quantity is the same. The quantity is infinite. The entire set is infinite...or better yet.....If I had an infinite amount of money...then theoretically speaking, I can give every single person that has ever lived an infinite amount of money EACH, and despite this, I still technically would not "lose" any money!!!!!!!! I would still have any infinite amount of money!!!

Something seeming counterintuitive doesn't mean it is literally absurd. To get from 'hmm that seems odd' to 'that is logically impossible' you have to demonstrate that is the case. You haven't done that. In fact, everything that happens to these sets is what I'd expect. You can the number of elements finite if you want, but you have to subtract off something that makes sense that will do that-- and you know what will do that if you think about the *content of the sets* what the elements actually are. I gave you an example of this. Two identical sets, A/A gives back the empty set. Just as you'd expect. All the elements from one are taken from the other and no element is left

Well, unless you change the definition of the word "subtract", then it is absurd.

 

[brokensymmetry]

That would be equivilent to subtracting the entire set, so yes, all odd numbers are gone.



You keep saying it is what you'd "expect"...ok, here is what I "expect"..I expect that when I subtract from any given amount, for that amount to be decreased in quantity, not remain the same, and not to increase. Again, infinity does not have any magical powers that it can do things that goes against our intuitions.



But the quantity is the same. The quantity is infinite. The entire set is infinite...or better yet.....If I had an infinite amount of money...then theoretically speaking, I can give every single person that has ever lived an infinite amount of money EACH, and despite this, I still technically would not "lose" any money!!!!!!!! I would still have any infinite amount of money!!!



Well, unless you change the definition of the word "subtract", then it is absurd.

It does exactly what set subtraction is supposed to do. Elements in one sets are taken out of the other. Nothing odd or crazy about it.

You wouldn't have all of his money. You'd have only the elements left in the set. Suppose you labeled them with natural numbers, then remove all the odd ones. Now you have only the subset of the odds, it *isn't* the same. That there are an infinite number of elements left over, so what? Everything I expected to happen does. Suppose you take from him all of the elements of the set except {1,...,100} ? Now he has only the bills marked 1 through 100 and you have the rest. You can do whatever you want and it turns out to make perfect sense if you keep your focus on what is happening to the elements in the set.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It does exactly what set subtraction is supposed to do. Elements in one sets are taken out of the other. Nothing odd or crazy about it.

So why isn't 8-8=8?

You wouldn't have all of his money. You'd have only the elements left in the set.

Duh lol

Suppose you labeled them with natural numbers, then remove all the odd ones. Now you have only the subset of the odds, it *isn't* the same.

Infinity is infinity.

That there are an infinite number of elements left over, so what? Everything I expected to happen does. Suppose you take from him all of the elements of the set except {1,...,100} ? Now he has only the bills marked 1 through 100 and you have the rest. You can do whatever you want and it turns out to make perfect sense if you keep your focus on what is happening to the elements in the set.

 

[idav]

Infinity is counting forever. You can keep dividing all you want but it would never be done as the counting would never cease. There is nothing logically wrong with that. Counting backwards in time infinitely makes little sense though. We could never arrive to now if there is an infinite past, counting through the past forever just doesn't work. I do believe before time was an eternity but the type that doesn't have to count backwards, it's just timeless. There is no history where there is no change. There must be something prior to time. The beginning of time must be distinguished from the beginning of existence.

 

[brokensymmetry]

So why isn't 8-8=8?



Duh lol



Infinity is infinity.

The set of odd numbers is not the same as the set of all integers, is not the same as the set of all reals. These are not the same thing. It only takes a moment of reflection to see that. If that is what you mean by 'infinity is infinity' that is clearly false. Infinity in this context is only the cardinality of these sets, it doesn't tell you anything about the contents except that there is an infinite number of elements in them.

The fact is everything that should happen *with the elements of the sets* happens just as it should.