How do you plan to measure complexity?

[Sophia]

False. 1 divided by zero is not a number on the plane. Similarly, the limit as epsilon tends to zero of 1 divided by epsilon is not a number on the plane. You have to introduce a point at infinity which is not on the plane if you perform such operations.

Division by zero is undefined. And calculus is NOT part of algebra. Of course my point was that “imaginary numbers” are not “imaginary”. And yes, it was a tad verbose.

You seem to recognize this, but it’s disconcerting that you feel the need to throw that red herring out there.

The most important question of all time - is a “red herring”???

You seem to want to continue to assert some doctrine which the Church does not teach.

Nope, I say that the LACK of teaching about this subject is a FATAL omission, which puts all the teachings into jeopardy.

God has not told us the ‘mechanism’ or ‘process’ by which he saves the unbaptized. The Church teaches that we believe that they are saved, however.

No. The church “HOPES” that they will saved. But, of course it is not an official teaching accepted by every member of the church. There are the “ultra-conservatives” who believe that all the unbaptized are condemned to hell. And that ultra-conservative view was prevalent, until some people realized the incredible cruelty of it. I might not be around when the teaching WILL change again, and from that moment on, the “new, improved” teaching WILL say that the “original sin” cannot put anyone into the fires of hell. It is true that the mills of the church grind agonizingly slowly, but eventually this teaching WILL change. I wish I would be alive to see it.

OK. Then I suppose the only reason you posted 278 words of explanation was … well, petty vanity.

Oh, I hope you understood it. It just does not matter in the greater scheme of things.

 

[buffalo]

I have been gone for a week. Scanning the posts does not show much progress in how to measure complexity.

What is the consensus so far? or the sticky point?

 

[Sophia]

What is the consensus so far? or the sticky point?

There is still no definition, and obviously no way to measure what cannot be defined. So the floor is yours.

 

[AlNg]

Division by zero is undefined .

This was not stated originally. You only added it here.

 

[Sophia]

This was not stated originally. You only added it here

Yes. So what? I did not state the obvious. The post was “too” long anyhow according to the remark of o_mlly. I did not mention the quaternions either, because it would have been unnecessary for the question at hand. The only point was that the expression “imaginary” number is an ill-conceived and easy to misunderstand wording to describe the numbers on the “y-axis” on the complex number plain. Oh and the word “complex” has nothing to do with “complexity” - before some ignoramus bring it up.

 

[Dan123]

Division by zero is undefined .

Off topic but one of my favorite quotes: “Dividing by zero is undefined, infinity, or ‘who cares?’ depending on whether you’re talking to a mathematician, a physicist, or an engineer”

 

[AlNg]

So what? I did not state the obvious.

It is not obvious because division of a non-zero number by zero is defined for the one point compactification of the complex plane into the Riemann Sphere.

 

[o_mlly]

Yes it does. It changes a non-creator into a creator by its existence, just as a child changes a non-parent into a parent.

I think not. The faculty to create as a property of the Creator preexists creatures.

One of Nagarjuna’s insights was that causation is a two-way-street. Is there anywhere a parent (cause) who has not had children (effect)?

See above. The same logic would apply to “parents.”

Why? Quantum mechanics is part of the scope of material science, and virtual particles are ‘created’ from nothing.

“Virtual” particles are inferred, not observed, to explain phenomena of the observed particles. As such, they are similar to imaginary numbers.

 

[rossum]

I think not. The faculty to create as a property of the Creator preexists creatures.

Let us now worship the great Ukumecaf, creator of Armadillos, who has created exactly zero Armadillos. The “facility to create” is not to create. A Catholic Priest and a Catholic Nun between them possess all the facilities to create a child. That does not make them parents. Merely possessing the facilities is insufficient. There is no child/creation/effect. The facility-to-X is not the same as X.

rossum

 

[Sophia]

Off topic but one of my favorite quotes: “Dividing by zero is undefined, infinity, or ‘who cares?’ depending on whether you’re talking to a mathematician, a physicist, or an engineer”

Nice quote. Since the thread is now pretty much gone, here is another one:

The mathematician, the physicist and the engineer are given the problem: “Prove the theorem that all integers are prime numbers”.

The mathematician answers: “One is a prime, two is a prime, three is a prime, four is not a prime… the theorem is false.”

The engineer answers: “One is a prime, two is a prime, three is a prime, four is a prime, five is a prime… the theorem is true.”

The physicist answers: “One is a prime, two is a prime, three is a prime, four is not a prime, five is a prime… but four is obviously just a measurement error, so the theorem is true.”

 

[Sophia]

“Virtual” particles are inferred, not observed, to explain phenomena of the observed particles. As such, they are similar to imaginary numbers.

Just like “God is never observed , only inferred… as such it is similar to the imaginary numbers (or friends)”.

But I guess I wasted my time, when I tried to educated you about the ill-conceived name of “imaginary” numbers. I will have to remember that.

 

[o_mlly]

… creator of Armadillos, who has created exactly zero Armadillos.

Like this one?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Do I smell an eyeball? Gee whiz, your father and I never saw that comin’!

Merely possessing the facilities is insufficient.

Oh, but it is. Potentially means to possess the property, that is the power to act.

Premise: an effect cannot have a property not present in one or more of its causes actually or potentially.

 

[Gorgias]

The most important question of all time - is a “red herring”???

The most important question of all time is “how do unbaptized persons get saved?”…? Really?

I would think a much more important one is “do unbaptized persons get saved?”, and the Church’s answer is YES!

No. The church “HOPES” that they will saved.

Read the doc. The Church believes it.

it is not an official teaching accepted by every member of the church. There are the “ultra-conservatives” who believe that all the unbaptized are condemned to hell.

Official teaching is not determined by how many believe it.

 

[Dan123]

Interesting related reading. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - Wikipedia

 

[o_mlly]

Just like “God is never observed , only inferred… as such it is similar to the imaginary numbers (or friends)”.

You’re quite wrong. I saw Him again this morning.

 

[Sophia]

The most important question of all time is “how do unbaptized persons get saved?”…? Really?

It might be useful if you actually read what I wrote.

Here is what I wrote:

There is no official enumeration of what should anyone do to “earn” salvation - and since that is the most important question anyone can face, the lack of the unquestionable list tells us that the church seriously lacks the necessary knowledge.

Not the salvation of unbaptized and miscarried fetuses - that is only important for their poor mothers. And that is what you declared a “blue whale” or “green snake” or maybe “red herring”. Suggestion: Learn to read and retain what you read.

Read the doc. The Church believes it.

Well, since only humans can “believe” something your sentence is already incorrect - grammatically. But the declaration is that “we cannot know, but we can HOPE that the unbaptized will be saved”. This replaced the old, and categorical declaration: “every unbaptized human WILL be condemned to hell”. Just like the “ultra ecclesiam nulla salus” originally meant that only the explicit Catholics were part of the Catholic church, and everyone else (protestant, Hindu, atheist, etc…) were declared to be hell-fodder, and only quite recently has the “teaching” been modified.

It is useful to know your own history. You would not shoot yourself in the foot.

Official teaching is not determined by how many believe it.

Yes, and that refers to you, too. But of course the so-called “official teaching” changes, as the wind blows. Just like in 1984: “Oceania is at war with Eurasia, therefore Oceania has ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia”.

 

[Gorgias]

Not the salvation of unbaptized and miscarried fetuses - that is only important for their poor mothers. And that is what you declared a “blue whale” or “green snake” or maybe “red herring”. Suggestion: Learn to read and retain what you read.

And then you went on to admit that salvation isn’t “earned”. And, that the “how” is the important point. Trust me, @Sophia, I do read what you write – that’s why I call you on your misstatements and half-truths all the time.

Well, since only humans can “believe” something your sentence is already incorrect - grammatically.

Well, if you can’t assail my logic, go for the grammar. Good approach.

Just like the “ultra ecclesiam nulla salus” originally meant that only the explicit Catholics were part of the Catholic church, and everyone else (protestant, Hindu, atheist, etc…) were declared to be hell-fodder, and only quite recently has the “teaching” been modified.

Except that… that’s not what it meant. Ever. I recommend you read Sullivan’s excellent Salvation Outside the Church, in which he provides an exhaustive history of the context and meaning of EENS …

It is useful to know your own history. You would not shoot yourself in the foot.

I do know it. It’s you who is unaware. Read the Sullivan…

But of course the so-called “official teaching” changes, as the wind blows.

You keep saying that, as if you think that the more you assert it, the more likely it is we’ll stop laughing at its falsity.

 

[Sophia]

And then you went on to admit that salvation isn’t “earned”.

And with this you admit that the church is incapable of giving the proper information about “how to get to heaven”. So what use is the church, if it cannot answer the most important question of all?

 

[Gorgias]

And with this you admit that the church is incapable of giving the proper information about “how to get to heaven”.

No. No I’m not admitting that, at all.

So what use is the church, if it cannot answer the most important question of all?

If “the most important question of all” is how do I attain to salvation, then the answer has been proclaimed by the Church for 2000 years: believe in Christ; adhere to His teachings; follow His Church.

“What use is the Church”??? It tells you – despite your claims that it does not – how you might attain to salvation.

 

[Sophia]

If “the most important question of all” is how do I attain to salvation, then the answer has been proclaimed by the Church for 2000 years: believe in Christ; adhere to His teachings; follow His Church.

This is so “generic” that it is useless. What about the ones who were born before Christ?

Unfortunately (for you) your argument suffers from the same error. You now say that “believing in Christ, adhering to his teachings and following his church” WILL “earn” you salvation. Which means that none of the unbaptized will “earn” salvation. None of the people who were born before Christ will “earn” salvation. None of those who are not actually “catholics” will “earn” salvation.

You try to have your cake and eat it, too. The problem is that the church tries to argue from both sides of its “virtual” mouth. You might have the necessary doublethink to believe it, but it does not help those who do not practice this doublethink.

What about the invincible ignorance? Those, who - though no fault of their own have never heard of Jesus, and yet live their life in some unspecified (good??) manner - MAY also attain salvation? Not “will”, but “may”? That also means that the church lack the necessary information about “how to attain salvation - CERTAINLY”?

“What use is the Church”??? It tells you – despite your claims that it does not – how you might attain to salvation.

Might? How about “WILL”?