God's truth is in the Numbers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Icarus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Icarus

Guest
[SIGN]Truth in Numbers?[/SIGN]

Just curious!
Can anybody tell me what the last number is? 1, 2, 3………

Could this be God’s way of showing us that eternity is true?
Remember anything can be worked down to numbers (math)

One other curious observation via math (numbers)

In Plato’s dialogue of “Menon” apart and removed from Socrates initial intention & reasoning for the conversation, we get this also…

In his dialogue he ends up working out (from a) 2 foot by 2 foot = 4sq.f That when doubled (and kept square) it cannot be exactly (with equal sides ) doubled to a result of 8sq.f

There is a deterioration from the whole number (remember it has to always remain sq), and when the process is repeated from the original – it further deteriorates.
Could this also be Gods way (through numbers – Math) to show that we are truly living in a fallen deteriorating (dying world) existence?
Pythagorean Physics employs an **axiomatic system that incorporates both philosophy and science **in order to achieve meaning. Epistemology - Scientists sometimes have a difficult time understanding the limits and validity of what they think they know. Neither the theory of relativity nor quantum mechanics employs an axiomatic system that can guard against such errors. Rather, they both superimpose notions for convenience. **Pythagorean Physics follows an axiomatic system that starts with definitions and proceeds step by step from there in a logical fashion **that provides meaning in a way that other approaches can not.
Click to expand...
On a side-note…

Is this a good way of explaining the Holy Trinity.

When you are conversing with your conscience (like your talking to someone else right)
And should you (self) and your conscience be in agreement (at peace) through truth, reason, via this amazing moral compass that convicts you from a higher unknown source…. you get this energy to get up and act out with great conviction and enthusiasm what has been decided after your at peace with your conscience.

So I see the Conscience as the FATHER
The Self as the SON
And the energy that is sent out, to act out (like a whole different you) as the SPIRIT

All in one – yet all distinct
All 3 interwoven with each other - yet seemingly (amazingly) separate!
 
42+ views and not a single comment…🙂

We’ll I suppose this either “blows your mind” or your all being very charitable;)
 
60+ views and not 1 response…🙂

Now I know that I’ve blown your mind… pitty that your spite prevents you from receiving good council…:eek:

Matthew 10:14
 
Icarus said:
60+ views and not 1 response…🙂

Now I know that I’ve blown your mind… pitty that your spite prevents you from receiving good council…:eek:

Matthew 10:14
Click to expand...
For me, there’s not much to discuss. I’ve never been much for applying math (or science) to religion. Trust me…it doesn’t have anything to do with spite. There just not anything to dispute or affirm in my opinion.
 
I have dealt pretty extensively with this exact issue (the ‘end’ of numbers) in a discrete mathematics course I took in my Sophomore year in college. In the course we dealt with what my professor so nicely called ‘big and small’ infinities. That is, when comparing a summation or another infinite-type series, there are really small infinities and very large ones. In general it is accepted that because numbers themselves are a human creation, they are obviously not perfect, and must be infinite to be able to represent conditions we do not yet know…otherwise they would be pretty useless.

As for the 2x2 square, I fail to see how you can form another square out of two squares, without of course making a rectangle or laying one on top of the other. In the case of the rectangle you would get a 2x4 shape and thus 8sqft… in the case of the laying on top you would gain depth, and thus a 3d shape. Something doesn’t seem right with what you wrote, I’ll try to look up the exact words and see what the assumption was.

As for explaining the Holy Trinity… I would stay away from math, I’ve found most people run at the shear mention of it.
 
there are really small infinities and very large ones.
Click to expand...
Sound like an oxymoronic statement to me - forget that professor!
And these guys as well…
sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/9269/title/Math_Trek__Small_Infinity,_Big_Infinity
Numbers are a human creation, they are obviously not perfect.
Click to expand...
Tell that to N.A.S.A and others…… including all the scientists on here!

Did man create the Wheel or was the wheel always there waiting to be created?
Did man create the concept of counting or was the concept there waiting to be discovered?
As for the 2x2 square, I fail to see how you can form another square out of two squares, without of course making a rectangle or laying one on top of the other. In the case of the rectangle you would get a 2x4 shape and thus 8sqft… in the case of the laying on top you would gain depth, and thus a 3d shape. Something doesn’t seem right with what you wrote, I’ll try to look up the exact words and see what the assumption was.
Click to expand...
Yes maybe you should look it up. Read “menon” look deeper – try it yourself.
Basically friend the 2x2 foot square is “perfect” Yet it can’t be doubled in size and remain perfect. This is just an exemplar to show deterioration from the original” that was perfect (as an analogy to the fallen Human race)…. don’t alter it to suit your argument
As for explaining the Holy Trinity… I would stay away from math, I’ve found most people run at the shear mention of it.
Click to expand...
This part was a side note and had you actually read it and understood it… you’d see that it has nothing to do with math. (Hence the side note comment )
 
nicolep said:
For me, there’s not much to discuss. I’ve never been much for applying math (or science) to religion. Trust me…it doesn’t have anything to do with spite. There just not anything to dispute or affirm in my opinion.
Click to expand...
You cannot say maths and science don’t apply to religion. Maths and science are the language we created to understand the universe, the universe we blieve God created.

There is a lot numbers have to say about the world and God. The beauty of mathematical equations to describe the world around us with the complexity too gives Glory to God who created the natural order of things.
 
Icarus said:
Did man create the Wheel or was the wheel always there waiting to be created?
Did man create the concept of counting or was the concept there waiting to be discovered?
Click to expand...
These are interesting questions. There is a certain problem, the wheel is required to effectively solve the problem. So we can say that the wheel was required to solve the problem and hence it existed as a potential in the universe but didn’t materialize until a human created it. Alternatively we can say it never existed, and that our understanding of the problem led us to create the wheel, but the wheel may not have been the best solution and that a better solution exists, a solution that does not require a circular object.

There really is no definite answer.
Yes maybe you should look it up. Read “menon” look deeper – try it yourself.
Basically friend the 2x2 foot square is “perfect” Yet it can’t be doubled in size and remain perfect. This is just an exemplar to show deterioration from the original” that was perfect (as an analogy to the fallen Human race)…. don’t alter it to suit your argument
Click to expand...
The question is, is there such a thing as a perfect 2 foot by 2 foot square? Won’t there always be +/- 0.000000000000001 foot error to it?
 
Icarus I like how you conceptualized the Trinity, I will read it again later as it’s late here. But just realize, no matter how abstract we may get about fully understanding the trinity, we need to demonstrate love, and one can never love enough, hence we must always keep trying.

Thanks for bringing up this thread, I study engineering, haven’t done maths in a semester but you reminded me I need to keep my maths knowledge intact.
 
I’m not quite sure I want to take what this author says as true:
(I’m referring to the infinity article you provided)
Lots of infinite things are countable. For example, suppose you take just the even numbers. They’re countable, just like all the natural numbers are. You can prove it by counting them
Click to expand...
So let’s ask the question, what’s the last even number? Prove to me the last even number exists and what is that number?

Can you count to the last even number? If you imply that infinity is countable you are setting a limit, for the principle of counting is, you count until you reach a certain number.

If you want to count to 5, you start: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, you stop there.

There are infinite even numbers.

She says that you can count all the even numbers, that would imply you stop counting, when you stop counting, it’s not infinity anymore, it’s finite. Infinity doesn’t stop. You can’t count all the even numbers, you can count even numbers, but not ALL of them.

Her reasoning is wrong, so obviously this can’t be logical:
This leads to the peculiar result that, in some sense, there are the same number of even numbers as there are of all the natural numbers—even though there are only half as many. Infinity is an odd beast.
Click to expand...
Yea it’s peculiar because the logic earlier was incorrect.
 
Harmony1988 said:
These are interesting questions. There is a certain problem, the wheel is required to effectively solve the problem. So we can say that the wheel was required to solve the problem and hence it existed as a potential in the universe but didn’t materialize **until a human created it. **Alternatively we can say it never existed, and that our understanding of the problem led us to create the wheel, but the wheel may not have been the best solution and that a better solution exists, a solution that does not require a circular object.
Click to expand...
As we are in agreement that it (wheel) existed as a potential in the Universe, then it had to have been already conceptually put there by God (yes of course a better one can still exist) but to me it would appear logical that God created it (as a potential) until we eventually discovered it.

Before anyone can create anything (bring it into existence - matter) it is in the form of a thought / contemplation (the word) Hence…

John 1:1
In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Mark 13:31
Heaven and earth will disappear, but my words will never disappear. H&E = The material Universe

Consider this also….
You and me (everything we know of – and what we don’t) since we/it exist now…. It/we must have always existed.
 
Icarus said:
As we are in agreement that it (wheel) existed as a potential in the Universe, then it had to have been already conceptually put there by God (yes of course a better one can still exist) but to me it would appear logical that God created it (as a potential) until we eventually discovered it.

Before anyone can create anything (bring it into existence - matter) it is in the form of a thought / contemplation (the word) Hence…

John 1:1
In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Mark 13:31
Heaven and earth will disappear, but my words will never disappear. H&E = The material Universe

Consider this also….
You and me (everything we know of – and what we don’t) since we/it exist now…. It/we must have always existed.
Click to expand...
I think you are right, I guess I don’t read my words carefully enough 🙂
 
There are “bigger” and “smaller” infiinities in math. The “smallest” infinite set is the one you were talking about in the first place: 1, 2, … Sometimes we include “0”. This is called the set of natural numbers. It is denoted w. That is, the Greek lower case omega. Also, the smallest transfinite ordinal number, w, is a cardinal number, and we denote that “aleph-null” (the Hebrew letter capital aleph with a zero for subscript). The successor x+ of a set x is defined as x U {x} and w is constructed as the smallest set that contains 0 and that contains x+ whenever it contains x. This is just a little taste of set theory. It’s the foundations of math. I’m a mathematician. Let me know if you wanna learn more. There are plenty of great texts out there as well. I’d be happy to recommend some. An example in math of bigger and smaller infinities is the set of natural numbers and the set of real numbers. Between every natural number on the real line there are an infinite number of real numbers. Also, there are an infinite number of real numbers between any two reals. Then there’s the set of complex numbers. The size of the integers is the same as the size of the naturals, but the reals are much bigger.

God Bless

Jon Winterburn
 
The bit about the square in Plato’s dialog with Meno is just Meno’s misunderstanding of the relationship between the length of a square’s sides and its area. You can’t get a square with an area of 8 square feet by doubling the length of the sides of a 2 foot by 2 foot square, but you can get one if you make a square where each side is 8^(0.5) feet long. I’m not sure if that’s what you meant or not, but it really confused me until I realized what you were referring to. 🙂
 
JonW said:
An example in math of bigger and smaller infinities is the set of natural numbers and the set of real numbers.
Click to expand...
Is it possible to have an infinity in between the infinity of the natural numbers and the infinity of the real numbers?
 
I had a really neat insight this evening about the number pie, which I think fits well in this thread. Throughout history, people have often seen a circle as symbolic of eternity, because it has no beginning and no end. Plato discussed these parallels- the view predated Christianity, and Christians believed it too. Many different cultures and religious groups have taken the circle to represent eternity.

No one can calculate circles without the number pie. The number pie begins with the number 3 and then the next number is 1. This parallels Christian theology in a very interesting way. God is 3 and he is 1, a Trinity and One Lord, and according to Christian theology, Jesus Christ is the only way to eternal life. Similarly, no one can calculate circles without the number pie. No one can calculate the circles without pie, a random number that begins with 3 and 1, goes on infinitely and is beyond the technology of humans to find order in. In the same way, no one can reach eternity without Christ, an eternal and infinite being whose glorious ways are, according to St. Paul, “beyond tracing out.”
 
Lief_Erikson said:
I had a really neat insight this evening about the number pie, which I think fits well in this thread. Throughout history, people have often seen a circle as symbolic of eternity, because it has no beginning and no end. Plato discussed these parallels- the view predated Christianity, and Christians believed it too. Many different cultures and religious groups have taken the circle to represent eternity.

No one can calculate circles without the number pie. The number pie begins with the number 3 and then the next number is 1. This parallels Christian theology in a very interesting way. God is 3 and he is 1, a Trinity and One Lord, and according to Christian theology, Jesus Christ is the only way to eternal life. Similarly, no one can calculate circles without the number pie. No one can calculate the circles without pie, a random number that begins with 3 and 1, goes on infinitely and is beyond the technology of humans to find order in. In the same way, no one can reach eternity without Christ, an eternal and infinite being whose glorious ways are, according to St. Paul, “beyond tracing out.”
Click to expand...
I think that pi is not a random number but is more of a transcendental number in the sense that it cannot be expressed as the ratio of two integers.
 
bobzills said:
I think that pi is not a random number but is more of a transcendental number in the sense that it cannot be expressed as the ratio of two integers.
Click to expand...
It is a transcendental number, an irrational number. I wouldn’t say it’s “random,” because it has a distinct order to its numbers. The order is simply beyond the human ability to calculate.
 
bobzills said:
Is it possible to have an infinity in between the infinity of the natural numbers and the infinity of the real numbers?
Click to expand...
that’s the continuum hypothesis.

god alone knows if it’s true (and whoever he might have told).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top