Dear Thomas; Cause of Causality; In the Beginning

[James_S_Saint]

This thesis is on a completely different level of understanding from quantum Science in that it requires no evidence, but merely logical conclusion of what must be even if I were totally blind to what is.

The only epistemology involved is logic and/or mathematics.

---

The Void and the Light
Within a true void of absolute nothingness (not merely empty space), I have nothing with which to cause something from nothing.

But then it takes only an infinitely small effort (0) being exerted onto my nothingness to cause it to become anything or something. But the question is really, “how do I express that in mathematical terms?”

I can express my infinitely small effort as “dx” or necessarily “1dx” that necessarily equals 0. But I don’t really know to what degree of zero I am dealing. I only know that it is the ambiguous “infinitely small” = 1/infinity.

But in an infinite void of nothingness, I have an infinite amount of nothingness. This yields an infinite opportunity for 1dx to become greater than absolute 0;

infinity * 0.

But without knowing the relative degrees involved concerning the greatness of infinity and the smallness of the effort, (the cardinality), this term is not determinable.

But I can grant that the degree of greatness of my infinite amount is equal to the degree of smallness of my infinitely small (they are equinumerous). I can assume this because for any greater degree in either direction (greater or smaller), I must grant an equal degree in the other direction, which yields no change in the final concern. Thus regardless of the cardinality of the 0 and the infinity involved, I know that their degree or cardinalities are equal.

Or I could say that as the limit of my infinite sum approaches infinity, the limit of my required effort, dx, approaches absolute 0. And for every step I make closer to 0, I take an equal step closer to infinity;

Lim(x->inf and dx->0) of x*dx will equal x

Thus in calculus terms I have [where “iS” is “infinite sum”];

iS(1)dx = 1

as my situation describing the opportunity for an infinite amount of nothingness to cause an infinitely small point of nothingness to become something. Therefore,

iS(1)dx = 1 = 100%

expresses the probability that absolute nothingness will spontaneously become something.

The result is that because there can be no time associated with nothingness, nothingness CANNOT exist because in zero time the nothingness will become something and everything.

The Natural Mind
The seemingly untenable conclusion that indeed from absolute nothingness would instantly come something reveals the natural unintentional arrogance of a mind.

The arrogance of which I speak is that of even suspecting that the mind can grasp anything close to the idea of infinity. Infinity is so great that even zero cannot challenge it, yet our natural instinctive mind believes the opposite. Perhaps it is because we are closer to being nothing than being everything that we think we are.

Perhaps to get the mind a little closer to seeing the true magnitude of infinity think about having infinity raised to the infinite power which is raised to the infinite power continued an infinite number of times;

I = Inf^inf^inf^inf^inf^inf…^inf

But now take,

I^I^I^I^I^I^I^I^I^I^I^I….^I

And that staggering and inconceivably enormous figure merely begins the first day of still yet an infinite number of days to come where all of the day before is raised to its own power an infinite number of times again.

Why did we ever presume that the Infinity was so insignificant? The Abyss and darkness of nothingness has no power at all over the light of Infinite Reality.

God’s magnitude is far more significant than His invisibility.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Interestingly, this same OP under the title of “The Cause of Somethingness” posted on a non-religious (neither pro nor con) philosophy forum, after a good deal of discussion, was deleted for being only “pseudo-philosophical”.

 

[yppop]

Interestingly, this same OP under the title of “The Cause of Somethingness” posted on a non-religious (neither pro nor con) philosophy forum, after a good deal of discussion, was deleted for being only “pseudo-philosophical”.

James
I would be interested in such a discussion. Is it still possible to reference it?

I’ve read you’re OP several times without extracting a clear understanding of what your thesis entails even though I find it intriguing. However, before I engage you in a discussion with the intent of gaining understanding, I have a couple of questions:

1. Is this thesis the result of a “eureka moment”, in which you found a way to argue your conclusion as expressed in the last statement of the OP? Or, did you arrive at it as the result of a more extensive contemplation as part of a development of a broader personal world view? In other words how much thought have you put into it?
2. Is the implied conclusion that the calculated probability of 1 “expresses the probability that absolute nothingness will spontaneously become something” means that God was not involved? Or, as the title of this post implies, is this mathematical support for St. Thomas’ uncaused cause argument?
3. I am interested in discussing ideas for the purpose of extracting meaning. I am not interested in arguing. I prefer to critique rather than criticize. What is your purpose in presenting this thesis?
4. Are you willing to engage in a meaningful discussion?

Yppop

 

[James_S_Saint]

James
I would be interested in such a discussion. Is it still possible to reference it?

Not as far as I know. I stopped attending that website at the moment it was deleted. That action and a few others informed me that the website was being moderated with undue bias which leads to an overall deception of the perception of people and reality. I get enough of that through the media in general.

1. Is this thesis the result of a “eureka moment”, in which you found a way to argue your conclusion as expressed in the last statement of the OP? Or, did you arrive at it as the result of a more extensive contemplation as part of a development of a broader personal world view? In other words how much thought have you put into it?
2. Is the implied conclusion that the calculated probability of 1 “expresses the probability that absolute nothingness will spontaneously become something” means that God was not involved? Or, as the title of this post implies, is this mathematical support for St. Thomas’ uncaused cause argument?
3. I am interested in discussing ideas for the purpose of extracting meaning. I am not interested in arguing. I prefer to critique rather than criticize. What is your purpose in presenting this thesis?

Some time ago, here at CAF, while I was in the “what is Catholicism really all about” mode, I posted a thread to ask a probing question, “What is the Fundamental Logic of the Impossibility of Indifference?” (ref;“Wanna Get Deep?”). From the responses, I couldn’t be certain that truly no one understood the question, but certainly no one seemed to be able to yield and answer.

The short answer was simply, “God”.

But that answer would have been a little too inexplicative and certainly misleading to a casual reader. In effect, the question itself is God. God is the “fundamental logic of the impossibility of indifference.” And to ask of the make of God is Life, which is also God as the Son of God. I had asked the question merely to see how much of what kinds of thought were a part of Catholicism.

Although I knew that answer, I was not here to alter anything, but rather merely to discover. I don’t believe in destroying something unless I can very clearly see that it will certainly be replaced with something better. If I am on a Mormon site and I see something very clearly wrong with the Joseph Smith story, I will not shoot it down just because I can.

Here, on a different thread, despite my attempt to divert someone from doing so, he splashed Thomas Aquinas’ 5 ways up in front of me leaving me in a position of having to decide whether to argue the legitimacy of those “objections” or leave it be. After some contemplation/prayer/consideration, I posted a “Dear Thomas” reply explaining that I would not challenge him at that moment, but that his “hollow leg” would be soon filled.

It is continually fascinating to me that during the time of Ahdam, the answer to that question and what I have posted here was known, although I’m relatively sure the math aspect was not a part of the understanding. Math merely displays quantitative logic.

But then around 1800 BC, the Egyptians displayed the possibility of even using such math and around 400 BC the Greeks displayed clear use of such math. The math isn’t really necessary other than to make more clear what a more clouded mind might doubt.

Thus I can see a pattern of Man’s understanding of God and the effects it has brought.

During the 1970’s it was clear to me that America and essentially the world was “rebooting” by their understanding espoused by Nietzsche that “from chaos rises order”. At the same time, they obviously understood that from chaos energy is released (the “energy crisis”). I had a variety of complaints regarding that endeavor, but for some reason, they failed to ask for my signature on the action item.

The inevitable order that arose from Nietzsche’s chaos in Europe was Nazism. And during the 1980’s it was clear to me that yet again, that same order must rise but in disguise, Secularism. The disguise was the only thing Hitler had left out and adds that touch of the invisibility of a Pharaoh god.

But the reason that I don’t get along with Secularism is that it is actually an unnecessary destruction and reconstruction that inevitably tempts Hell on Earth for a very long time. During the 1990’s I set out to demonstrate in a very minuscule way that such Nazi like order was unnecessary. But as I pointed out in another thread on this site, “The Proof is in the Eye of the Beholder” I found that no one was watching who could also understand what was being demonstrated (“order without hatred nor force”).

continued…

 

[James_S_Saint]

Finally in the early 2000’s, a close friend asked me how I manage to accomplish what I do. I wasn’t willing to give a flippant answer and in contemplation of how to explain, I gave in to the only real issue that humanity has, explaining himself, and allowed my life to be consumed as I sought what could possibly be done about Man’s situation regardless of it not really being mine to bare. Nothing else seemed worth doing despite not really being equipped to do it after having to step into the corrosive cesspool of the Western world in order to demonstrate my point and acquiring a serious case of ADD and the associated memory dysfunction (which, btw is not genetically derived, but instilled) which put me at the opposite end of the pole from where I needed to be.

The combination of all of that led me to what is certainly the only thing worth doing regarding mankind and life itself, otherwise known as the “Son of God” and the very make of life.

A big part of the “way of life” is finding clarity and distributing clarity when possible. There are deep reasons for that, but for now, just accept that I came to that as part of my conclusion. But that means seeking out “ways to explain”, hence “philosophy”. I, being able to see through many clouds, am necessarily not very equipped to see the clouds, yet it is to the clouds the clarity and explaning is in need.

I found very many ways to explain many fundamental things, but how to explain the most fundamental of all stayed a puzzle for me for quite a while. Eventually the math idea came to light. And yes, that particular part was a “Eureka moment”, but as you can see, a great deal of thought and my life had led up to it. So;

1. Yes and no, as explained above.
2. God IS the Difference between absolute nothingness and absolute infinitude and in all things. But Thomas was wrong about the universe “having to have a beginning” (ref:”Before God”). The “First Cause” wasn’t referring to a point in time, but a point in the logic. I’m uncertain if Moses knew that, but certainly Ahdam did.
3. Critique away. Seek Clarity

 

[James_S_Saint]

And perhaps to express the needful message of the OP;

From the Infinitude;

With a bit of hyperbole; from the very depths of Hell, one can rise to harmonize all of Mankind and Life itself. Although realizing the euphemistic “snowball’s chance in Hell”, one should not despair, fore the nothingness of despair can never compare to the ever present Infinitude even in solitude. Thus hope in the infinite probability of a miracle can never be mathematically nullified by merely the clear possibility of inescapable futility. - “Have Faith” in finding harmony in the chaos of current Life.

 

[yppop]

James
I confess that you are not an easy read, especially for a person my age and diminished mental acuity. Since I promised a serious attempt to understand the meaning of what you write and in the process produce a critique, please allow me the time to digest your posts, including those you reference. I will be away over the weekend so I will not be able to get into this discussion too deeply until next week. In the meantime let me begin:

Within a true void of absolute nothingness (not merely empty space), I have nothing with which to cause something from nothing…

What do you mean by: “a true void of absolute nothingness (not merely empty space)"? Doesn’t the use of the word ‘void’ contradict the phrase “not merely empty space”?

It seems that the word nothing (used twice) has two distinct meanings: “I have nothing” indicates the absence of the means to affect a cause, i.e., no power, no information, no time, etc. Wouldn’t it have been better to say, “I haven’t the ‘means’ with …” Or do you have a different meaning than the one I assumed?

But then it takes only an infinitely small effort (0) being exerted onto my nothingness to cause it to become anything or something. But the question is really, “how do I express that in mathematical terms?”

I agree with this statement in general although I would go further with, “…takes no effort (0) being…”. But I do understand where you are going with the infinitesimal dx. I do take exception with your next statement however:

I can express my infinitely small effort as “dx” or necessarily “1dx” that necessarily equals 0. But I don’t really know to what degree of zero I am dealing. I only know that it is the ambiguous “infinitely small” = 1/infinity.

“dx” which can be made as small as one can imagine, it isn’t necessarily = 0. I think your idea here can better be expressed by speaking of a vanishingly small “interval” instead of “…degree of zero…” by which I assume you mean the size of an infinitesimal. I also assume that you are using the concepts of the real number line which extends from the infinitesimal to the infinite.

But in an infinite void of nothingness, I have an infinite amount of nothingness. This yields an infinite opportunity for 1dx to become greater than absolute 0;

infinity * 0.

Again I am interested in what you mean by “infinite void of nothingness”? Since many (most?) mathematicians view infinity as a concept and not a number (Cantor would disagree) they find the term infinity* 0 meaningless, you’d might be better off multiplying dx by infinity to get to your intended conclusion that multiplying by infinity by an infinitesimal will produce a probability = 1 and infinite nothingness will spontaneously become something.

This is all I can do tonight. Let me know if my approach to understanding is suitable.
Yppop

 

[James_S_Saint]

What do you mean by: “a true void of absolute nothingness (not merely empty space)"? Doesn’t the use of the word ‘void’ contradict the phrase “not merely empty space”?

It seems that the word nothing (used twice) has two distinct meanings: “I have nothing” indicates the absence of the means to affect a cause, i.e., no power, no information, no time, etc. Wouldn’t it have been better to say, “I haven’t the ‘means’ with …” Or do you have a different meaning than the one I assumed?

Language
My unfortunate condition is that I often try to say too much with too little and thus end up communicating too little by saying too much. I could use a skilled writer.

What words to choose of course, depends on to whom you speak. Online today, that might include anyone. No matter what words are chosen within the variety of people, someone will certainly misunderstand them. And you usually hear from the ones who object rather than those who agree, not that anyone actually understood.

I find that I need to speak to physicists who aren’t really physicists, mathematicians who aren’t really mathematicians, psychologists who aren’t really psychologists, meta-physicists who aren’t really meta-physicists, logicians who aren’t really logicians, theologians who aren’t really theologians, and worse, all of them at the same time.

Semantics
Today many people understand that what we call our “empty outer space” isn’t really empty. It is only empty of objects and radiation. And if you speak of the emergence of energy or anything from nothing, they often assume that you are speaking of the “not really empty space” producing useful energy from its pre-energy “stuff” (“e-stuff”). Thus I found that I needed to make it clear that when I say “void” in this thesis, I mean the real thing, true absolute nothingness, not merely what appears as nothingness to the eye.

In addition, some will argue that if there is only nothingness, then there are no dimensions, and therefore, no “space”. So even the word “space” becomes an issue.

Thus I chose the simple phrase “a void of absolute nothingness” with the added parenthetical, “(not merely empty space)” due to a prior poster’s argument.

I agree with this statement in general although I would go further with, “…takes no effort (0) being…”. But I do understand where you are going with the infinitesimal dx.

Yes I could have said, “I have no means” in place of saying “I have nothing”, although my tendency is to try to maintain cognitive relationship from one point to another (despite being so poor at accomplishing it). I was trying to relay that if I only have nothing, then *I only have nothing *with which to work (…to cause something from nothing). So actually I had not changed the exact meaning of the word “nothing”. I can’t be certain which, if either, wording would be better (I seriously need an “Aaron” ).

In a previous writing, I had gone into the aspect of nothingness having no “inertia” and thus requiring no effort to change it. But to a physicist, the word “inertia” is generally only associated with a particular property of mass. The concept of inertia, meta-physically applied to anything, means its “reluctance to change”. I decided to remove that explanation so as to simplify a bit and merely say, “But then it takes only an infinitely small effort (0) being exerted onto my nothingness to cause it to become anything or something.” Absolute zero is “1/(absolute infinity)” and thus the most absolute infinitesimal. So I’m sure there is a better way to say it, but again, it depends on who is reading it.

“dx” which can be made as small as one can imagine, it isn’t necessarily = 0. I think your idea here can better be expressed by speaking of a vanishingly small “interval” instead of “…degree of zero…” by which I assume you mean the size of an infinitesimal. I also assume that you are using the concepts of the real number line which extends from the infinitesimal to the infinite.

The term “dx” is a *variable *that is allowed to become absolute zero, but might not be at any one time during the explanation. I stated that in the case to which I was referring, “my dx” would have to be (or become) absolute zero in order to display the proper logic.

I agree that I should have worded it a little better, perhaps, “I can express my infinitely small effort as “dx”, or necessarily “1dx”, that necessarily becomes 0.” I hesitated referring to an operation (the becoming) that I had not yet introduced.

I feel like I not only have to talk 5 languages at once, but also justify 4 concepts within each sentence.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Although I’m uncertain of your questions and might be totally off base, let me try a different wording of the explanation;

Dichotomy
What you have with an absolute void, is not merely nothingness, but also infinite opportunity. You must include both concerns. The more primitive mind looks merely at the nothingness and declares, “there is nothing with which to alter it, but since it becomes something, it must only take nothing to cause it to become something. Therefore, God is nothing, i.e. ‘no God’”. This is the nature of recent Quantum Science that predicts from ignorance through “possibilities” and averages, and assumes blindness to cause (God). Interestingly, the effort to know without knowing is also called “superstition”.

What that thought leaves out is that you do not merely have no impetus. You also have infinite opportunity/freedom. The common fallacy is the thought that God is merely the impetus. In a meta-physical understanding, all states or changes of state have a logical cause that is defined by its situation. Even if a state is to remain unchanged, there must be a logic that dictates that it is prevented from changing. What truly can change, will. The mere lack of impetus is not sufficient reasoning, especially when deriving the very cause of impetus, and presumes an inertia of state. A true void has no such inertia.

The natural mind again says, “no, there is nothing to cause change, therefore it does not change.” That thought stems from the instinctive idea of inertia and momentum, but those are thoughts concerning physical substance. The prevention of something changing also requires a cause. Physical substance largely maintains itself while in the form of matter and radiant energy is only maintained by its surroundings or containment. But in the state of absolute nothingness, there is no inertia, no momentum, no containment, and nothing to keep that nothing stable as nothingness, yet infinite freedom for it to change. That state is the logical cause for the finite existence via the infinite difference.

For example; you have the opportunity to lift your arm not merely by having the muscles, but also by having the freedom from anything blocking your effort. Both conditions must be included in the analysis of your situation. But your arm has inertia and thus is never totally free to move and requires impetus. When considering what is available in the situation of absolute nothingness, you must consider that there is nothing to cause a change, but you must also consider that there is nothing to prevent a change either – zero inertia and infinite freedom.

Mathematics
For the state of anything to change, logically, two concerns are relevant; an impetus and an opportunity. But the two concerns are inversely proportional; less opportunity requires more impetus to cause the same effect and zero of either requires an infinitude of the other. The combination of these is the reluctance to change state (inertia) and is actually why nothing can travel faster than light (a meta-physically predictable phenomena). The opportunity to move faster than light becomes zero (because light is already traveling at the fastest unimpeded speed logically possible) and thus would require an absolute infinite amount of impetus to accomplish any more.

Using “op” for opportunity, “pi” for positive impetus, and “cs” for degree of change of state;

op * pi = cs

Lim(op->inf and pi->0) of (op*pi) = cs = degree of change
Or with example values;
op = 1
pi = 1

op______pi_________cs__
1.0___1.0000000___1.0000000
2.0___0.5000000___1.0000000
3.0___0.3333333___1.0000000
4.0___0.2500000___1.0000000
5.0___0.2000000___1.0000000
6.0___0.1666667___1.0000000
7.0___0.1428571___1.0000000
8.0___0.1250000___1.0000000
9.0___0.1111111___1.0000000
10.0__0.1000000___1.0000000

Or generically;

iS(dx) = 1

As the calculus indicates; as the opportunity becomes absolutely infinite, the required impetus becomes absolute zero for the same degree of change as would have occurred if there were a small impetus and large opportunity.

This means that within the state of having absolutely no impetus, absolute infinite opportunity must be present for a change of state to occur.

The state of absolute void is the state of absolutely zero impetus, but also absolute zero negative impetus, thus infinite opportunity. Thus change will occur for the same reason that it occurs for any other state.

God is not merely the impetus (as often presumed), but rather the entire situation, including the infinite opportunity. That situation is what brings about the first occurrence of impetus, the “Cause of Cause/Impetus”, the “Logical Cause of Impetus”, or the “First Cause”.

The highest conceivable God above all possible others is the actual situation, what I used to call “MyGod” in reference to my situation. Each person has their own situation and thus they each have their own “MyGod”. But the situation of all people, including the self, is the one and only situation of reality as a whole (Holy). That situation is necessarily the God above all others, once called “Elohim”, the combined effect of all concerns.

 

[MindOverMatter]

But that answer would have been a little too inexplicative and certainly misleading to a casual reader. In effect, the question itself is God. God is the “fundamental logic of the impossibility of indifference.” .

If you mean here that Gods being is the root of all logical truth; then you are correct, and i am happy that you know this. Its Gods very being that determines the logical fact that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time. Your awareness of this fact has given me a little bit of confidence in your ability to think…

 

[yppop]

James,
I haven’t given up. I am determined to understand your thesis, but it is harder to understand than I originally thought especially since I read your nice little conundrum in the OP of “Before God”. I will respond in a day or two. What are thoughts on the Big Bang theory?
Yppop

MOM,
Take it easy on us “nothingness” guys.
Yppop

 

[James_S_Saint]

Ahh da Big Bad Boom…

A very shortened synopsis from my book, “The Logic of Creation” [to be perhaps ];

If we falsely assume a beginning of a true absolute void, we discover, due to the logic of such a situation, points of mutual affectance must occur (which actually must have always been and what Aristotle called “aether”). Those points necessarily must permeate all of reality and are what Science calls electric charge in the form of pre-radiance.

The degree of effect that each point in space has upon each other forms distance and our dimensional space. Three dimensions are required to create stable entities from the affectance or “charge fields” that can resist natural entropy.

Also due to the infinities involved, time is created as each point of affectance has effect on others, which in turn have effect upon the first. Time is created due to the impossibility of having instantaneous effect that wraps back around to instantaneously affect the affecter. Such a situation causes finite change delay – time. From this the “speed of light” is set.

At this point, we have waves of moving charge fields (the affectance) that can, in three dimensions form stable particles having inertia in three dimensions which forbids their own light speed travel due to being made of waves already traveling as fast as logically/mathematically possible, or form traveling 2 dimensional particles (photons) that are free of the transverse spin required to have 3 dimensional inertia. Those stable relatively slow entities are what we will later call “matter”.

But as the particle forms it not only gains the property of inertia, but also creates the effects we call gravity and magnetism while often maintaining a higher degree of relative charge.

So at this point, we have small particles scattered across the cosmos that each have gravity, magnetism, and charge working against their self maintained inertia. As those properties work together affecting all of the particles swimming in the field of affectance, they begin to draw closer to each other.

Particles combine sometimes as clumps and sometimes as single larger particles, depending on exactly how they were introduced.

Eventually enough particles combine to form single extremely large particles we refer to as black-holes. These large particles contain the same properties of the smaller particles but magnify all associated properties. Within these larger particles, what we might call “superconducting rings” form as a part of the make of the particles that inherently create even more inertial, gravitational, and magnetic effect.

At that point, such huge particles are necessarily very distant from each other yet still growing as they absorb more and more affectance into their harmonious inner spin.

Those huge particles gravitate toward each other. Sometimes they merge into yet a larger single particle and sometimes collide such as to break apart again. But every time they break apart, they begin to gather back either into the same particle or into others closer by.

Eventually some extremely large super black holes have formed at great distances from each other but move closer as time continues.

Due to the nature of gravitational attraction, the velocity of their travel gradually increases from distances of lightyears carrying immeasurable mass. Their speed becomes a sizable fraction of the speed of light making their relative mass even greater.

Now imagine what happens when 2 or more black-holes traveling at perhaps ¼ the speed of light meet. If you don’t think that would make a Big Bang, then either you don’t understand the word “Big” or the word “BANG!!!”

Yet our universe is but the result of a single drop of rain that fell upon the surface of an ocean totally under God’s absolute reign.

And then trillions of years pass by while the scattered bits whirl and swirl far apart and entropy reigns again to scatter what enthalpy had gathered. But that isn’t the end of the story, only “The Beginning”.

Now you might ask, “How does God play into all of this?”

He who we so casually refer to as “God”, is He who is the combination of certain fundamental principles (the Eloha(s)) such as the “fundamental logic of the impossibility of indifference” that forbids infinite homogeneousness, the discontinuity of infinite distinction, and instantaneous effect. But also the fundamental logic that forbids effect without counter affect and the stability of spherical effect and causes limited dimensionalism. God harnesses the infinities and the infinitesimal forbidding randomness from existence.

God is both the instigation of effect as known by the Deist as well as the absolute controller of the most minuscule to the most infinite in every moment of time. God, in every instant, governs every tiny motion and every great calamity. God is the harmony of the fundamental principles of all existence, “Elohim”. That Word spells out the Principle and God is the Principle of that Word.

 

[James_S_Saint]

James,
I haven’t given up. I am determined to understand your thesis, but it is harder to understand than I originally thought …

Something occurred to me;

Are you saying that it is hard to understand what concept I am trying to present or are you saying that it is hard to make the concept fit into prior understanding?

1. “I’m sure those words he wrote can be rearranged into some kind of coherence, but…”
2. “No way! That can’t be right… …can it?”

Which way do you mean when you say “hard to understand”?

 

[yppop]

James.
Here is my interpretation of what you wrote in your OP and follow up posts #5, #8, and #9:

1. The seminal concept of your thesis is “Difference” as defined by the end points 0 and infinity.
2. For “something” to happened two “concerns” (“factors” may be a better word to use here) are necessary: opportunity and impetus.
3. Let the infinite end point represent the opportunity’s probability of existence and the 0 end point represent impetus’ probability of existence.
4. Then combining the end points so the “probability” product equals 1, means that no matter what the impetus, infinite opportunity guarantees that something will happen.
5. And what happens is “creation” and what it happens to is the void of absolute nothingness. So something emerges from the absolute nothingness
6. The statement: “The result is that because there can be no time associated with nothingness, nothingness CANNOT exist because in zero time the nothingness will become something and everything”. Combined with your conclusion in your “Before God” thread that God and the Universe come into existence simultaneously, means God is the “Void of Absolute Nothingness”, the essential property of which is “DIFFERENCE”.

At this point my only question was to be: if Difference causes “something happens”, what do you mean by “something”. You anticipated my question when you posted a synopsis in post #12 in which you presented a theory of creation. I will get to that in my next post.

As my post #7 indicates I have issues with your math. A few comments:

To me the only math required to advance your thesis is:
“Since x/infinity=0”; and since x can be any real number; it is okay to argue that if “0*infinity= an indeterminate anything”, we can assume that the “indeterminate anything= 1”. Then you wouldn’t have to violate standard math by allowing and infinitesimal, as represented by dx, to be equal 0.

Interestingly, this same OP under the title of “The Cause of Somethingness” posted on a non-religious (neither pro nor con) philosophy forum, after a good deal of discussion, was deleted for being only “pseudo-philosophical”.

You are only dealing with two cardinalities: 0 for the empty set represented by the number 0, and c or aleph(1) the cardinality of the infinite set of transcendental numbers that make up the continuum. No matter how close you get to 0 as expressed when you allow dx to approach 0, you are still dealing with cardinality aleph(1) as you obviously indicated when you wrote that they (the intervals approaching infinity and 0) are equinumerous. Aleph (0), which is a lower cardinality than aleph(1), is the set of all integers, rational numbers, and algebraic numbers doesn’t appear to enter into your arguments. However you may want to consider it when you advance the argument for “points of mutual affectance” of post #12.

Thus in calculus terms I have [where “iS” is “infinite sum”];

iS(1)dx = 1

It is not clear what your summing.

I = Inf^inf^inf^inf^inf^inf…^inf

But now take,

I^I^I^I^I^I^I^I^I^I^I^I….^I

I get the idea, but I don’t think it is acceptable math. Perhaps you know more about transfinite numbers than I do. What I know is that “aleph(0)*aleph(0)=aleph(0)” and the continuum hypothesis, “2^aleph(0))=aleph(1)”, don’t seem to allow raising infinity to an infinite power. Georg Cantor, the father of set theory and the master of transfinite analysis, proved that there are an infinite number of infinities using power sets. I don’t know for sure but I don’t think raising infinity by infinity changes the cardinality. I could be wrong. If I’m not, your demonstration of bigness could be superfluous in that it is not needed to make your point. Infinity would suffice; even poor Cantor couldn’t imagine it. Every time he came close he’d have a mental collapse and end up in an asylum.

Take this post for what it’s worth, not a rebuttal, but rather a critique that you are free to consider or ignore. No response is needed unless something in my interpretation of your OP is amiss. In don’t want to dwell on your idea of creation because I am anxious to get to post #12, your description of the mechanics of creation.
Yppop

 

[James_S_Saint]

1. The seminal concept of your thesis is “Difference” as defined by the end points 0 and infinity
2. For “something” to happened two “concerns” (“factors” may be a better word to use here) are necessary: opportunity and impetus. .

Correct. And I agree that “factors” would have been a better word, thank you.

1. Let the infinite end point represent the opportunity’s probability of existence and the 0 end point represent impetus’ probability of existence.
2. Then combining the end points so the “probability” product equals 1, means that no matter what the impetus, infinite opportunity guarantees that something will happen.

I have misled. I am not really talking about “probability” at all except in conclusion. It is hard to not be infected with the over use temptation of probability issues.

What I am stating prior to the conclusion is the issue is between “degree of impetus” and “degree of opportunity”. I am NOT referring to the number of opportune instances.

When I stated “iS(1)dx = 1 = 100%”, what I was trying to relay is that because the infinite summing of diminishing impetus equal “anything other than 0”, then the probability is 100%. A little subtle voice told me when I wrote that line that this would probably be an issue.

We are infinitely summing (because we have a infinite degree of opportunity) the most infinitesimal impetus even to the point of dx=0. The cardinality refers to the degrees of opportunity (degree=0, degree=1, degree=2…), not the number of opportune instances as in “trial 1, trial 2, trial 3…”.

Realize as I stated earlier, this is not an explanation to present to a mathematician of which there are very few, but rather to the much larger mass of common people who are not an average but rather a mean, deviation, and distribution of the education of the day. Most of these presume that the word “cardinality” must have something to do with the Bishops.

Such an attempt might very well be futile, but hey, what else have us old retired guys have to do?

1. And what happens is “creation” and what it happens to is the void of absolute nothingness. So something emerges from the absolute nothingness
2. The statement: “The result is that because there can be no time associated with nothingness, nothingness CANNOT exist because in zero time the nothingness will become something and everything”. Combined with your conclusion in your “Before God” thread that God and the Universe come into existence simultaneously, means God is the “Void of Absolute Nothingness”, the essential property of which is “DIFFERENCE”.

Emmm… no. The nothingness is the “Mother” typological analogy. Logic is the “Father” that is applied to that Mother and thus yields the “Son” of Creation or Existence. That Mother could have never existed because the Father would so immediately impregnate that Mother, that she would never have been able to say her vows. She is SO open to consummation that it would have taken zero time for impregnation. {Good thing the women aren’t reading this, huh. }

At this point my only question was to be: if Difference causes “something happens”, what do you mean by “something”. You anticipated my question when you posted a synopsis in post #12 in which you presented a theory of creation. I will get to that in my next post.

The unavoidable conclusion was to be that;

1. A true void of absolute nothingness has zero opportunity to exist and thus has never been.
2. What would “happen” is merely that “affectants” would instantaneously appear (although since the nothingness could never exist, they would not really need to appear). They have actually always been. “Affectants” are the very essence of existence. This is a logical necessity pointed out in “Rational Definition of Existence”. Nothing exists unless it is effecting something else that exists which defines the set of all existence within a given realm. This is also what separates the Divine realm from the physical realm (pointed out in another post buried inside another thread somewhere).

To me the only math required to advance your thesis is:
“Since x/infinity=0”; and since x can be any real number; it is okay to argue that if “0*infinity= an indeterminate anything”, we can assume that the “indeterminate anything= 1”. Then you wouldn’t have to violate standard math by allowing and infinitesimal, as represented by dx, to be equal 0.

Well, that proposes a conundrum. When I tried (already) to explain as you just pointed out, the argument was “’0*infinity’ is undefined and therefore nothing you have said makes any sense at all”. My attempts to refute the accepted were merely met with more proclamations of “superior understanding” to anything I would present.

On the other hand, the use of infinite summation of dx allows the more natural mind to see the progression to zero while the needed “change of state, cs” remains finite (it doesn’t have to be any particular number as long as it isn’t zero).

 

[James_S_Saint]

You are only dealing with two cardinalities: 0 for the empty set represented by the number 0, and c or aleph(1) the cardinality of the infinite set of transcendental numbers that make up the continuum. No matter how close you get to 0 as expressed when you allow dx to approach 0, you are still dealing with cardinality aleph(1) as you obviously indicated when you wrote that they (the intervals approaching infinity and 0) are equinumerous. Aleph (0), which is a lower cardinality than aleph(1), is the set of all integers, rational numbers, and algebraic numbers doesn’t appear to enter into your arguments. However you may want to consider it when you advance the argument for “points of mutual affectance” of post #12.

Well no, I am actually only dealing with one cardinality, Aleph[0] OR aleph[1]. Which cardinality doesn’t matter to the logic. The “degree of impetus” and the “degree of opportunity” are equinumerous or “bijectional”.

What I know is that “aleph(0)*aleph(0)=aleph(0)” and the continuum hypothesis, “2^aleph(0))=aleph(1)”, don’t seem to allow raising infinity to an infinite power.

Huh?? That IS raising infinity to an infinite power.

I don’t know for sure but I don’t think raising infinity by infinity changes the cardinality.

That IS changing the cardinality. The cardinality merely expresses the number of items within the set. Obviously if you raise any set quantity to a power of infinity (or anything less) you have raised the number within the final set. The point and purpose of cardinality is merely to express the relative size of the sets involved.

But in this reasoning, I am only concerned with expressing that the “infinity” to which I refer is the same infinity in both cases of degree of opportunity and degree of impetus. I only had to use the word “cardinality” to get the harpies off my back who wanted to claim issues about infinity.

Realize that this has NOTHING to do with probabilities and quantum statistical reality. In fact, if I had a tech-writer at my elbow, I would have killed that tree long ago. I am strictly talking about knowable LOGIC, not probability in ignorance. The only thing that rises from the logical acceptance of ignorance is the ignorant dismissal of logic (God).

Now on to the “Mechanics of Creation”;

Keep 3 thoughts in mind;

1. Inertia is the ability to self-sustain
2. Nothingness has absolutely zero inertia
3. Infinity is infinitely bigger than people think.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Huh?? That IS raising infinity to an infinite power.

Oops… sorry, I caught my misread of your post.

Aleph(0)*aleph(0) merely means that I am taking the quantity in the real number series and multiplying it by itself or in effect, “infinity^2” when “infinity” represents the real number series.

“2^aleph(0)” represents the set of all binaries = aleph(1).

But what of the set of all trinaries? In math, numbers are given descriptive categories for numbers, “real numbers”, “imaginary numbers”, “intergers”,… But reality isn’t merely about categories of numbers. Reality is about variations of effects, or variations of properties. For every identifiable property there can be an infinite variation between any 2 states of that property.

If we have 5 properties for something that are of interest to us, then we have 5^aleph(1) values within the set of properties.

But how many properties can we be interested in? A property is a relative or comparative concern and thus for every property, there is a subjective identifier. We can say that something has a property of being “only slightly more loving than I”. Or we can say, “That cloud is greatly varied from the last”. We have an infinite number of things to compare anything to, especially since we can be comparing it to the degree of an existing property.

This yields “infinity^infinity” as the number of variations for the set of property comparisons.

But we can’t really stop there either. “That set of infinity^infinity is smaller than twice its value.”

Don’t get caught by the assumption that the totality of numbers is the totality of sets within reality. We are discussing creation of reality, not the creation of numbers.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Actually a better way to explain it;

God has informed me that He is going to call His entire host of angels to march single file through the gates of Heaven for review and I am to keep perfect count. I am proud to be appointed such a task and certainly do not want to do a poor job, so I prepare by devising a counting scheme that surely even God’s host of angels could not over run.

If I assume an infinite line, along that line, I have an infinite number of points. But for a given plane, around each point I can draw an infinite number of circles by size. This yields;

inf[0]^2

as the number of circles.

But now knowing that God is not really all that impressed with merely infinity, I decide to make this line a counting system for infinities rather than merely counting a possible infinite number of infinities. So I decide to have all but the first circle remain with a zero radius as I draw an infinite number of expanding circles around the first point. But at the end of my infinite count for that first circle, I draw an infinitesimal circle around the second point to indicate a new order of magnitude. Then I redraw each of the circles around the first point again and I use the state of the drawing as my count rather than the number of circles.

As I keep counting, I go through an infinite number of circles around the second point with each having an infinite number of circles being redrawn around the first point. This 2 point system already represents;

inf[0]^2

possible states for my counting system. But I am concerned that I might need more, so I do the same with the third point as I take the first 2 points through their entire range of possible states, this yields;

inf[0]^3

But as you can see, I still have an infinite number of points to go before I have filled the line that constitutes my counting system. The total number of states for such a system would be;

inf[0]^inf[0]

But then I am still concerned that God might have more than I imagined, so I decide to include another similar line;

(inf[0]^inf[0])^2

Yet still, I cannot underestimate God’s host of angels, so I keep adding more lines parallel to the first;

(inf[0]^inf[0])^inf[0]

But still, I wonder, I don’t dare stop. Disappointing God can be traumatic, so I take that plane of lines and duplicate it vertically again use each state as my count;

((inf[0]^inf[0])^inf[0])^((inf[0]^inf[0])^inf[0])

About that time I am thinking that surely I have enough, but it dawns on me that not all of God’s angels are round. So trying to be proper, I decide to do all of that again, except using squares. With each square, I redraw every circle that I had drawn before over again;

(((inf[0]^inf[0])^inf[0])^((inf[0]^inf[0])^inf[0]))^(((inf[0]^inf[0])^inf[0])^((inf[0]^inf[0])^inf[0]))

But gosh, what of rectangles, triangles, rhombi, ellipses, rectangles with rounded corners, triangles with rounded corners,…

Oh but that might be a limited set, so I better include 3D shapes as well; spheres, cubes, tetrahedrons, dodecahedrons,…

But now is God perhaps "extradimensional?? Hmm… I better do the same for each of the possible dimensions.

Ahh… but then there are the COLORS…kewl, I can have each shape go through all possible colors before I proceed to the next shape.

Oh man, but then I can **ROTATE **each shape around its point…

 

[James_S_Saint]

When asking of the Big Bang, you are actually asking about the end of the story of Creation of our universe. The following theses based completely on logic are required to fully understand the logic that led up to it and extend from it. I am currently writing a program involving a virtual region of space to demonstrate the process wherein inertial particles form with the attributes of matter.

Existence is affectance – “Rational Definition of Existence”
Existence from nothingness – “Dear Thomas; Cause of Cause; In The Beginning…”
Types of affectants
Discontinuity
Dimensionality
Locality
Time - Propagation
Conservation of affectants
Charge
Spin - Photons
Inertia – What ‘Matter’s
Magnetism
Gravity
Quantumisation
Big Bang; Creation – The End
Elohim, The Concept
The Adversary
Harmony
Momentum
Clarity
Verification
Hope and Threat
The Life
The Governance and the Saving

 

[yppop]

James,
I am seriously lagging behind in this discussion; you have me at a distinct disadvantage because: (1) you know what you mean when you explain it; I have to expend time and energy to extract the meaning, sometimes incorrectly, from your explanation; (2) you are a far more prolific writer (averaging 14 posts per day on this forum) than me; (3) in keeping with Friday 13 I inadvertently deleted a long post I spent considerable time to create (I do that often), and (4) for you induced me to reread a book called, *The Mystery of Aleph by Amird Aczel *. So where are we?

The two of your posts I am most interested in are: post #12 – a synopsis of your thesis, and post #15 – your reply to my interpretation in post #14. I have spent too much time on the math; and plan to put it to rest from my end at least with the following comments:

Your approach to describing the “bigness” of God by sequentially raising infinity to successive powers of infinity will do the trick. I had expressed a question as to whether or not that it was a mathematically sound technique on the basis that I had never come across infinity raised to the infinity power in the literature and my understanding of Cantor’s technique seemed to argue against it. Let me explain (more for the general reader’s benefit than yours) with one last venture into Cantorville:

Cantor, who is known as the father of set theory and the inventor of transfinite numbers, derived a technique for establishing a hierarchy of infinities. His approach required him to establish a way of dealing with infinities. He applied set theory that defines number as the count of things in a set. The “ordinal” numbers are those up to infinity. To include infinities, he abstracted the term “number” and called the “count” of things in a set, both finite and infinite sets, the “cardinality” of the set. A transfinite number is associated with the cardinality of infinite sets. Instead of “numerals” that we use for the ordinal numbers, he used the symbol for aleph, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Thus the sequence: aleph-sub zero that I write aleph(0) because I forgot how to do subscripts in this forum followed by the transfinite numbers: aleph(1) aleph(2)……. aleph.

Cantor identified the first three transfinite numbers and devised a methodology for creating and endless list of others. Before looking at this methodology, here are his first three alephs. (There is an assumption in mathematics that is seldom mentioned, but without which mathematics could not survive and that is: every point if space can be represented by a number, and every number is associated with a point in space; this assumption allows a merger of mathematics and geometry). Therefore in the following you may notice that I replace numbers with points without recrimination:

Aleph(0) is the set of all rational numbers: integers {1,2,3…17….n} and ratios of integers {1/2, 3/7, 5/4 …}. They do not form a continuous line; there are gaps between the numbers. Rational numbers can be put in order, hence can be counted.

Aleph(1) is the set of all irrational numbers. Irrational numbers are infinitely dense on the real number line. Pick two numbers to define a length segment and no matter how close together you make them, there will always be an infinite number of points in between. The points associated with the irrational numbers define the second hierarchy of infinities called Aleph(1); it defines the continuum.

Aleph(2) is the set of all the functions on the real number line.
–Continued–