T
tonyrey
Guest
You have just offered a proof!
- Status
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
I didn’t realize numbers take up space, unlike universes that apparently do.
I
inocente
Guest
Oh I think you can work that out. When you say “you think you have walked all over us” (post #799), by “us” you either mean you and your glove puppet, or you mean some kind of group you think you’re a member of and I am not.
Your continued silence on what the Pope actually said speaks volumes.
I
inocente
Guest
Thanks, yes it’s proof that trying to prove the existence of God reduces Him to the status of a dead hypothesis.You have just offered a proof!
F
frobert
Guest
A biblical translation of a version of the Aramaic “Our Father” starts out
Têtê malkuthach.
Your Heavenly Domain approaches.
Nehwê tzevjânach aikâna d’bwaschmâja af b’arha.
Let Your will come true - in the universe (all that vibrates)
just as on earth (that is material and dense).
The term vibration is strikingly similar to string theory as is it is to some Buddhist beliefs and Plato’s divide line. I don’t believe string theory diminishes the belief or fact that God is prime mover of the universe and everything that may exist.
Y
yppop
Guest
Tom
When these articles mention minimum length scale, I believe they are referring to the Planck scale, which is derived from the Planck mass converted to energy. The high energy (high frequency) gamma rays mean higher frequency, shorter wave lengths (de Broglie) but are subject to the uncertainty principle thus the concern for Lorentz invariance, which is to say, we don’t know what it means! If you look at the equations for the Planck length, Planck time, and the Planck mass, all three are calculated using the 3-fundamental constants: G, h, and c. A change in any of the Planck units will require a change in the 3-fundamental constants or their derivation.
The articles illustrates the speculative state of theoretical physics that has for the last 60 years been slogging around in mathematical morass that can only end in a philosophical cul-de-sac. The boys arrived at that end by taking two wrong forks in the scientific road: the first happened 24 centuries ago when Aristotle ignored Zeno’s analysis of motion and opted for continuous space as the background for objective reality. The second happened 3-centuries ago when Newton invented calculus to deal with continuous space then applied abstraction to explain objective reality with mathematical equations. The philosophical cul-de-sac consists of the effort to explain everything with a single equation ( the TOE Lagrangian) in order to combine the big and the small, relativity and quantum mechanics, gravity and the quantum forces. IMO science will eventually have to assume that space is discrete and not continuous and will have to explain objective reality with algorithms rather than equations. At any rate no matter what minimum distance is established, it will still be the metric for discrete space. I believe, however, it will always be the Planck length or else one or more of the three fundamental constants, G, h, and c, will also have to be changed.
Interesting discussion.
Yppop.
Y
yppop
Guest
Gentlemen,
Numbers do not take up space, but they can be used to represent points in space. Dedekind Axiom of continuity states that: "To every real number corresponds a unique point of a directed straight line and conversely to every point on this straight line corresponds a unique real number." In other words we can analyze space by analyzing numbers.
Analysis shows that the infinite set of odd numbers {1,3,5,7…} equals the infinite set of even numbers {2,4,6,8…} and they both equal the infinite set of all rational numbers ( it includes all of the odd and even natural numbers and their ratios. This is the first transfinite number, or infinite set, called aleph (0). I know, it’s hard to believe that parts can be equal to the whole, but that is the nature of the infinite.
The second transfinite number, aleph (1) is the infinite set of all real numbers (all numbers, even the rational numbers)
All of space can be described with those two transfinite numbers, there are no “infinite sets” in between.
Yppop
T
Tomdstone
Guest
The continuum hypothesis has not been proven or disproven. In fact, if you assume the ZF axiomatic system, it can’t be proven or disproven within that system.
Y
yppop
Guest
Tom
Both Godel and Paul Cohen proved that to be true and Cohen thought that aleph (1) was so richly dense and so much bigger than aleph (0) that there had to be other alephs in between, but couldn’t prove it. What he did prove was that you could assume that the continuum hypothesis was either true or false without contradiction. I prefer Cantor’s choice because it is so much neater. Also, what kind of numbers lie between the rationals and the real, to which we could reference an in-between aleph? I didn’t initially mention c, because I was afraid someone would bring up the axiom of choice and that only gives me a headache.
Nice talking with you Tom.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Is it a logical proof? If so can you express it as a syllogism?Thanks, yes it’s proof that trying to prove the existence of God reduces Him to the status of a dead hypothesis.
P
Phil_Marinus
Guest
Looking forward to the next Big Bang… As I reach out for the popcorn,
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
It is interesting that for 1,600 years Christians, Catholics, Anglicans, Protestants, and others alike saw nothing wrong with demonstrating the existence of God through Philosophical arguments. They did not think this reduced God to the " status of a dead hypothesis. " Indeed St. Thomas demonstrated many of the properties of this " dead hypothesis, properties which defined a Spiritual, Eternal Being, of Infinite Power and Perfection which could only be the God of Christianity.
It has been left to the prejudiced noses of modern impericists and closed minded Sola Scriptorists to heap coals of scorn on this effort. So screech on all ye doubters. Thomas will still be around long after you are off the stage
. Indeed modern science seems to be verfying many of the elements of Aristotle and Thomas, certainly there is nothing in modern science which threatens Thomistic Philosophy. In fact, when set side by side to many of the wild assertions of modern physicists and astrophysicists, Aristotle and Thomas seem singularly enlightened .
Linus2nd
It has been left to the prejudiced noses of modern impericists and closed minded Sola Scriptorists to heap coals of scorn on this effort. So screech on all ye doubters. Thomas will still be around long after you are off the stage
. Indeed modern science seems to be verfying many of the elements of Aristotle and Thomas, certainly there is nothing in modern science which threatens Thomistic Philosophy. In fact, when set side by side to many of the wild assertions of modern physicists and astrophysicists, Aristotle and Thomas seem singularly enlightened .Linus2nd
I
inocente
Guest
God is beyond definition.
What cannot be defined cannot be proved.
God cannot be proved.
However, even thinking of God as an hypothesis to be proved is to put God in our back pocket, to replace God Almighty in our thoughts with a little tribal spirit. Neither the CCC nor the Pope or his predecessor agree with doing this:-
*CCC 42 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God–“the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable”–with our human representations. Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.- vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c1.htm
What Ratzinger suggests is that the revelation by God that his name is YWHW is really a “rebuff” or a “refusal to give a name than the announcement of a name.” God’s name may be that he is nameless because His real essence, as God, is unknowable. As Meister Eckhart puts it “God is nameless, for no man can know or say anything of Him.” - catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=49807
The pope replies: “Yes, in this quest to seek and find God in all things there is still an area of uncertainty. There must be. If a person says that he met God with total certainty and is not touched by a margin of uncertainty, then this is not good. For me, this is an important key. If one has the answers to all the questions—that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You must leave room for the Lord, not for our certainties; we must be humble. Uncertainty is in every true discernment that is open to finding confirmation in spiritual consolation. - americamagazine.org/pope-interview*
T
tonyrey
Guest
If God is **totally **undefined the term “God” is meaningless.
NB “an area of uncertainty” does not entail **total **uncertainty - which amounts to agnosticism.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I hate to say it but your opinions and interpretations of what the Pope said are just opinions. I can’t see any point in arguing against private opinions. Of course I interpret his message differentlyOh I think you can work that out. When you say “you think you have walked all over us” (post #799), by “us” you either mean you and your glove puppet, or you mean some kind of group you think you’re a member of and I am not.
Your continued silence on what the Pope actually said speaks volumes.
. You have a right to think what you want and so do I. Now if you can point to a specific, concrete example where the Pope says that Thomas’ First Way or the rest of the Five Ways are pointless and incorrect, or that anything else Thomas taught that is contrary to reason and the thinking and teaching of the Church, then please do so. Unless you can do that you are wasting your time.Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I will take your word on the translation. I like the translation I am used to much better. As far as the effect of " String Theory " on the philosophy of Thomism, I would agree. It has no effect on it at all. Nothing genuine and true in science has any adverse effect on anything St. Thomas taught. By the way " String Theory " is a media phenomenon. It has absolutely no substance at all, it depends on endless constants which have no meaning in reality, phantoms used to save the appeariences.
You should read Bankrupting Physics by Alexander Unzicker and Shellia Jones. It will be an eye opener to you.
Linus2nd
H
hildegaard
Guest
No. God created it. Science has led us down a primrose path, but science is proving itself wrong. Recent observations (signal in WMAP and Planck at farthest reaches of space pointing back to us) have led some of our recent cosmologists to say (see the posted link for a movie trailer where you can hear this yourself):
“There is a crisis in cosmology…”
Michio Kaku
“It’s an exciting time in cosmology, because everything has changed…”
Lawrence Krauss
“Life is extremely rare, …, we are in fact the only life in our entire universe and I actually think we are very significant…”
Max Tegmark
facebook.com/theprinciplemovie
youtu.be/p8cBvMCucTg
I keep trying to post this, but it keeps getting deleted. In the past (have not been here for a while), mods would tell you if there was an issue.
“There is a crisis in cosmology…”
Michio Kaku
“It’s an exciting time in cosmology, because everything has changed…”
Lawrence Krauss
“Life is extremely rare, …, we are in fact the only life in our entire universe and I actually think we are very significant…”
Max Tegmark
facebook.com/theprinciplemovie
youtu.be/p8cBvMCucTg
I keep trying to post this, but it keeps getting deleted. In the past (have not been here for a while), mods would tell you if there was an issue.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Yes, the questions begin with Newton’s constant " G. " Things got along pretty well up to the 1930’s or so. But now they are well out of hand. As one observer commented, " we are not much better off now than were the " scientists " of the Middle Ages with their epicycles. They were saving the " appearances " of geocentrism by the device of adding epicycles. Today physics is " saving the appearances " by endless addition of constants ( most of which do not seem related to any reality ) and " parameters. " There are many good books on the subject. I am reading Bankrupting Physics by Alexander Unzicker and Sheilla Jones. An easy read with lots of enlightening quotes from numerous physicists and reading suggestions.
P.S. On your posting problem. You only have about five minutes to make your comment. After that you are timed out and if you haven’t saved your post you will loose it. What I usually do is Copy my post from the biggining of the previous posters comment and then I can Paste to restore the whole thing, if I get timed out. Sometimes I forget, then I loose everything.
It works like this:
Yes, the questions begin with Newton’s constant " G. " Things got along pretty well up to the 1930’s or so. But now they are well out of hand. As one observer commented, " we are not much better off now than were the " scientists " of the Middle Ages with their epicycles. They were saving the " appearances " of geocentrism by the device of adding epicycles. Today physics is " saving the appearances " by endless addition of constants ( most of which do not seem related to any reality ) and " parameters. " There are many good books on the subject. I am reading Bankrupting Physics by Alexander
Unzicker and Sheilla Jones. An easy read with lots of enlightening quotes from numerous physicists and reading suggestions.
P.S. On your posting problem. You only have about five minutes to make your comment. After that you are timed out and if you haven’t saved your post you will loose it. What I usually do is Copy my post from the biggining of the previous posters comment and then I can Paste to restore the whole thing, if I get timed out. Sometimes I forget, then I loose everything.
I Copied, then hit the " post " icon. When the screen came back, I Pasted.
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
Unjustified dogmatism.
- Status