A Proof For Gods Existence By M.O.M

[MindOverMatter]

If the present time is t=0 measured in years, then 100 years ago could be signified by -100

The present moment is not “objectively” t=0. From you subjective veiw, considering yourself as “0”, you can consider every event that came before you as -0. But that is not a true reflection of objective events; because you are not 0. There is no such thing as an event that is minus. All events are positive numbers.

Example, 2: If your credit statement shows -$200, it means that you owe $200, +$200 would mean that your account shows a balance of $200 credit…

You certainly owe £200, and we can use -200 to represent the fact that you have over-drawn. But there is no such thing as an “objectively” existing “-200”. Its not real; it doesn’t exist. In ontological metaphysical reality there is no money in your bank account. The only thing that is objectively real, is the fact that you owe £200. The only numbers that exist in objective metaphysical reality is positive numbers. That is to say, potential beings are born from other beings or being. They do not come from nothing or an objectively real “negative” reality.

Actually the first example is something we use all the time. The present year is 2009. This does not mean that the world started in t=0

Precisely. It therefore doesn’t represent the real and actual number of events.

The term BC is similar to the use of a negative number according to which we count back from t=0, the birth of Christ. So 2500 BC in mathematical terms understood by a computer would be denoted by -2500.

This is ridiculous. We us BC and AD in order to designate before and after Jesus Christ. But ontologically speaking, time did not begin when Christ died! Unless t=0 repesents the actual beginning of time, it is either a subjective representation of something important to us, or in fact it is ontologically meaningless.

 

[MindOverMatter]

There are an infinite number of integers, but each integer is a finite number.

How did you determine that each finite number is an integer?

 

[sidbrown]

The present moment is not “objectively” t=0. From you subjective veiw, considering yourself as “0”, you can consider every event that came before you as -0. But that is not a true reflection of objective events; because you are not 0. There is no such thing as an event that is minus. All events are positive numbers.

You certainly owe £200, and we can use -200 to represent the fact that you have over-drawn. But there is no such thing as an “objectively” existing “-200”. Its not real; it doesn’t exist. In ontological metaphysical reality there is no money in your bank account. The only thing that is objectively real, is the fact that you owe £200. The only numbers that exist in objective metaphysical reality is positive numbers. That is to say, potential beings are born from other beings or being. They do not come from nothing or an objectively real “negative” reality.

Precisely. It therefore doesn’t represent the real and actual number of events.

This is ridiculous. We us BC and AD in order to designate before and after Jesus Christ. But ontologically speaking, time did not begin when Christ died! Unless t=0 repesents the actual beginning of time, it is either a subjective representation of something important to us, or in fact it is ontologically meaningless.

By asserting t=0, and there is nothing before t=0, you are assuming that time had a beginning which is what you wanted to prove in the first place.

 

[sidbrown]

How did you determine that each finite number is an integer?

there is a distinction between the two statements:
Each integer is a finite number (this is true)
Each finite number is an integer (this is false)

 

[MindOverMatter]

there is a distinction between the two statements:
Each integer is a finite number (this is true)
Each finite number is an integer (this is false)

We are talking about an objective number of events or parts or meters. We are talking about ontological numbers. You are assuming that integers exist in objective “physical” reality, and i have shown you that they don’t, at least not in the same context as events or distances.

 

[MindOverMatter]

By asserting t=0, and there is nothing before t=0, you are assuming that time had a beginning which is what you wanted to prove in the first place.

I have already told you that it wasn’t me that originally brought up the idea that time is finite; that was not my original argument. I argued that if time is finite, then its cause lies outside of time, ontologically speaking.

 

[sidbrown]

We are talking about an objective number of events or parts or meters. We are talking about ontological numbers. You are assuming that integers exist in objective “physical” reality, and i have shown you that they don’t, at least not in the same context as events or distances.

It is your question which you brought up yourself. The fact is that there are finite numbers which are not integers, such as fractions for example. Let us take the simple case of a half dollar. This is neither one dollar nor is it zero dollars. It is somewhere in between, namely 1/2 of a dollar. It is still a finite amount of one dollar, but it is not an integer value.

 

[sidbrown]

I have already told you that it wasn’t me that originally brought up the idea that time is finite; that was not my original argument. I argued that if time is finite, then its cause lies outside of time, ontologically speaking.

A person could argue that time extends ad infinitum into the past and how would that be disputed?

 

[MindOverMatter]

It is your question which you brought up yourself. The fact is that there are finite numbers which are not integers, such as fractions for example. Let us take the simple case of a half dollar. This is neither one dollar nor is it zero dollars. It is somewhere in between, namely 1/2 of a dollar. It is still a finite amount of one dollar, but it is not an integer value.

You are not making much sense. I have already shown you that money deals with conceptual amounts. There is no half of one dollar in objective reality. We merely call an objective object half a dollar so as to make symbolically existent that which cannot be demonstrated existentially by objective objects, because we need that figure in respect of our economic constructs (inventions). There is no such thing as half of one in objective reality accept when the number one is employed to describe something that’s only relatively one or whole according to its “form”, and thus has parts that make up that whole or form. It is true that you can break some forms down in to smaller parts or fractions. One analogous example would be that a person is one in terms of “form” but also has physical parts which helps to make up a functionally whole person. But it is only relatively true that a person is a whole, since that person is only a fraction of all physical existence. In objective reality there comes a point where the quantity becomes irreducible, since there is no such things as that which is infinitely small; it is meaningless, since there is no such thing as “minus one” in reality. There are only beings which exist on the foundation of other beings. Ontologically speaking, there are only irreducible “ones”, and there are also functional wholes which are one according to their “form”, but yet are not irreducible in terms of its ontological “being”. In metaphysics, you can certainly apply fractions to reality, but not to ontological irreducible numbers. In sum, a whole that is reducible to smaller parts is only a whole in terms of its “form” and so its oneness is relative; not absolute. But an ontological one that is not reducible to other forms, is irreducibly one. If it becomes less then one, then it becomes zero, which is nothing.

Your confusion arises because you are using numbers in a purely functional sense and then applying it to objective reality. But i am using numbers in an ontological metaphysical objective sense. Again, i advise you to please get a book on metaphysics.

 

[sidbrown]

You are not making much sense. I have already shown you that money deals with conceptual amounts. There is no half of one dollar in objective reality. .

There is no half of one dollar???
You do not admit that money is real ?
Do you admit that a pumpkin pie is real?
Take a simple example of one whole pumpkin pie. You can cut it in six pieces and one piece is one sixth of a pie.

 

[MindOverMatter]

There is no half of one dollar???
You do not admit that money is real ?
Do you admit that a pumpkin pie is real?
Take a simple example of one whole pumpkin pie. You can cut it in six pieces and one piece is one sixth of a pie.

As i explained; half of one dollar is** conceptually real**, but it is not physically or objectively real. There is no such thing as an objective “nature” in existence that is by its nature one dollar or half a dollar. We are merely employing pieces of shaped matter, that we call paper and metal, in order so that we can apply conceptual values to them. That is all. The concepts remain concepts regardless of the fact that we call some particular piece of paper a dollar, or call a coin half a dollar. The concepts never become physically objective.

 

[sidbrown]

As i explained; half of one dollar is** conceptually real**, but it is not physically or objectively real. There is no such thing as an objective “nature” in existence that is by its nature one dollar or half a dollar. We are merely employing pieces of shaped matter, that we call paper and metal, in order so that we can apply conceptual values to them. That is all. The concepts remain concepts regardless of the fact that we call some particular piece of paper a dollar, or call a coin half a dollar. The concepts never become physically objective.

So there is no such thing in the real world as a slice of pumpkin pie?

 

[MindOverMatter]

So there is no such thing in the real world as a slice of pumpkin pie?

First of all the concept of money is different to the concept of a pumpkin pie. The differences is that there is actually an object or nature in reality that we call a “pumpkin”. But the word pumpkin is not its real name, its just something we call it in order to describe it and distinguish it from the other natures and objects of our sense experience. The term “pumpkin-pie” is used to describe a particular way of preparing pumpkin in respect of our eating it. Its a pie that has what we call pumpkin in it. The words we are using to describe these natures are conceptual inventions of our imagination. However, they correspond to the existence of an objective nature or object. Money values are purely conceptual abstractions that we apply to paper and metal. While a pumpkin describes an actual nature that exists in the real world, a dollar or half dollar does not. Only the metal or the paper, that we use to represent our conceptual inventions, actually and objectively exist. The values do not exist, except as abstractions.

 

[sidbrown]

How did you determine that each finite number is an integer?

there are finite numbers that are not integers. There is the example of one sixth of a pumpkin pie. The fractional value 1/6 is a finite number, but it is not an integer.

 

[MindOverMatter]

there are finite numbers that are not integers. There is the example of one sixth of a pumpkin pie. The fractional value 1/6 is a finite number, but it is not an integer.

I never denied that there were fractions. There are certainly fractions of “forms”. There is also 1/6th of that which is relatively 1. That’s not the same as saying 1/6 of that which is ontologically 1. When i speak of one i am talking about the smallest possible amount before it becomes zero, which is nothing in the real world. In any case i have shown that there is no such thing as events that are objective integers, and no matter how many times you can fraction something you can never achieve an infinite fraction.

 

[sidbrown]

I never denied that there were fractions. There are certainly fractions of “forms”. There is also 1/6th of that which is relatively 1. That’s not the same as saying 1/6 of that which is ontologically 1. When i speak of one i am talking about the smallest possible amount before it becomes zero, which is nothing in the real world. In any case i have shown that there is no such thing as events that are objective integers, and no matter how many times you can fraction something you can never achieve an infinite fraction.

In the real world there is no smallest possible amount before it becomes zero. There are situations where each amount can be divided in half ad infinitum.

 

[MindOverMatter]

In the real world there is no smallest possible amount before it becomes zero.

Yes there is; i.e. the smallest amount that is logically possible before it becomes nothing. If you don’t think that’s the case then please demonstrate that i am wrong.

There are situations where each amount can be divided in half ad infinitum.

Explain these situations and how they apply to the real world.

 

[sidbrown]

Yes there is; i.e. the smallest amount that is logically possible before it becomes nothing. If you don’t think that’s the case then please demonstrate that i am wrong.

Explain these situations and how they apply to the real world.

In the real world, we have a time interval of one second.
We can have a time interval of 1/2 second
or 1/4 second
or 1/8 second
or 1/16 second, etc.
There is no smallest amount of time.

 

[MindOverMatter]

In the real world, we have a time interval of one second.
We can have a time interval of 1/2 second
or 1/4 second
or 1/8 second
or 1/16 second, etc.
There is no smallest amount of time.

This does not demonstrate the possible existence of an actual infinite. Firstly, time is the measure of “change”, not the measure of seconds. Secondly even if you can “potentially” fraction a second an infinite amount of times, this is not a demonstration of an “actual infinite”; it merely demonstrates a potential infinite. Also, the conceptual context of fractioning a second is different to when we speak of a “duration” between two points, although in both cases we are speaking about time. In terms of events or ontological quantites, you cannot complete numbers or transcend them and yet still speak of a number or quantity of something. In respect of duration, just because you might be able to fraction a second as much as you want, does not mean that it can be applied to the real world or to the context of an “actual infinite”; since there is not an actually infinite amount of time between the beginning of a second and the finishing of one. If there was an infinite amount of time between each second, or if each second was comprised of an actually infinite duration, you would never reach the next second. You can certainly imagine doing something or fractioning something a “potentialy” infinite number of times, but you will never achieve an actual infinite, because an infinite has no number that defines it; it is not a number or a group of numbers.

You have demonstrated that you break a second in to smaller parts, that is all; this does not mean that an infinite fraction actualy exists or can possibly do so. For example, if we apply an actual infinite to a spatial extent, the space between to points will become infinitely dense; i.e. there will nolonger be any space and it would be meaningless to speak of there being any space under those conditions.

 

[sidbrown]

This does not demonstrate the possible existence of an actual infinite. Firstly, time is the measure of “change”, not the measure of seconds. Secondly even if you can “potentially” fraction a second an infinite amount of times, this is not a demonstration of an “actual infinite”; it merely demonstrates a potential infinite. Also, the conceptual context of fractioning a second is different to when we speak of a “duration” between two points, although in both cases we are speaking about time. In terms of events or ontological quantites, you cannot complete numbers or transcend them and yet still speak of a number or quantity of something. In respect of duration, just because you might be able to fraction a second as much as you want, does not mean that it can be applied to the real world or to the context of an “actual infinite”; since there is not an actually infinite amount of time between the beginning of a second and the finishing of one. If there was an infinite amount of time between each second, or if each second was comprised of an actually infinite duration, you would never reach the next second. You can certainly imagine doing something or fractioning something a “potentialy” infinite number of times, but you will never achieve an actual infinite, because an infinite has no number that defines it; it is not a number or a group of numbers.

You have demonstrated that you break a second in to smaller parts, that is all; this does not mean that an infinite fraction actualy exists or can possibly do so. For example, if we apply an actual infinite to a spatial extent, the space between to points will become infinitely dense; i.e. there will nolonger be any space and it would be meaningless to speak of there being any space under those conditions.

What is the smallest duration of time, beyond which t=0 ?