Something that causes doubt

[Freddy]

Think of it this way: if the ant was sitting in the center it would be 50% of the way to the end. If it waited a minute it would still be 50% there. The rope stretching doesn’t change its %. When it takes a step though, it gets slightly closer percentage wise. That means more of the stretching is behind it than before. Every step is progress percentage-wise and therefore it will eventually reach its destination. Even if that takes 10,000 times as long as the current age of the universe.

If the ant is a foot away when at 50% and 2 feet away when it’s at 49%, then is it moving towards you or away from you?

That percentage will keep dropping and never reach zero and the distance will keep increasing. It’s like walking backwards on a moving walkway that is continually stretching. You ain’t going to get to tbe start if you are walking slower than the walkway is expanding.

 

[Inquiry]

Because each step decreases the amount the rope expand in front of it. As long as it can keep decreasing that percentage it will slowly eat away at the disparity in speed.

 

[Aquinas11]

Because each step decreases the amount the rope expand in front of it.

But each second/step, the rope expands 495.9 m away from ant right? Ant steps forward 1cm, end rope expands away 500m for net 495.9 m away?

 

[Inquiry]

Net loss at 50% yes. Net gain when the ant gets to around 99.999%. Which it will, eventually.

It’s strange but this is one of the recognized veridical paradoxes. It is considered true, no matter how strange.

 

[Aquinas11]

Yeah wtf? Seemed like it would always be fixed 495.9m for infinity to be but I’m sure you’re right
Thx for that info

 

[Gorgias]

I guess that’s the best you could come up with.

It’s all conjecture, right? I’m thinking “for the greater glory of God”. That sounds better than “I dunno”, don’t you think…?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I guess that’s the best you could come up with.

It’s all conjecture, right? I’m thinking “for the greater glory of God”. That sounds better than “I dunno”, don’t you think…?

I guess when there’s no answer and you don’t want to say ‘I dunno’, then I guess that that would suffice for some.

 

[Gorgias]

I guess when there’s no answer and you don’t want to say ‘I dunno’, then I guess that that would suffice for some.

Nah… that’s not what’s going on here.

Instead, I’m suggesting that it speaks to our recognition of God’s majesty. If you want to heckle that, go ahead. I’ll pass.

 

[o_mlly]

Just recently, I had another ‘attack of doubt’ and this one related to the universe.

Could it be rather than an “attack of doubt”, an “attack of ignorance”? The experience of one’s ignorance does not require star gazing. One can realize that same lack of omniscience looking at a blade of grass. All creation is unfathomable reality.

Each [created existent thing] is, for us, in its individual existing reality, an inexhaustible well of know ability. We shall never know everything there is to know about the tiniest blade of grass or the least ripple in a stream. (J. Maritain, Existence and The Existent)

 

[BT3241]

Your trying to confuse religious practice with heritage - its not the same. There are lots of people who have heritage but never practiced the faith. Or don’t even know about it.

 

[BT3241]

I stand corrected there is Messianic Judaism and they do believe Jesus is the messiah.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I guess when there’s no answer and you don’t want to say ‘I dunno’, then I guess that that would suffice for some.

Nah… that’s not what’s going on here.

Instead, I’m suggesting that it speaks to our recognition of God’s majesty. If you want to heckle that, go ahead. I’ll pass.

Your edification. God’s majesty. I dunno…

 

[Gorgias]

Your edification. God’s majesty. I dunno…

I’m edified when I see God’s majesty. Maybe you aren’t.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Your edification. God’s majesty. I dunno…

I’m edified when I see God’s majesty.

Fair enough. But I guess that leads to the fact that you can’t be edified about something you CAN’T see and of which you have no knowlege.

I’m sure you’ll think of something else that you can’t see but which is edifying. But then that would indicate that you have some knowledge about it.

Can you think of something that fullfills both criteria?

 

[Gorgias]

But I guess that leads to the fact that you can’t be edified about something you CAN’T see and of which you have no knowlege.

Close. No cigar.

Can I see it? Nope. Do I have knowledge of it? Sure! You admit to as much!

So… the practical upshot is that there’s something out there that we can’t experience directly but about which we know. Wow… mystery? And, a mystery that points to the sublimity of God? Yeah, you’re right… that doesn’t at all cause us to be in awe of God.

I’m sure you’ll think of something else that you can’t see but which is edifying.

Can you think of something that fullfills both criteria?

I can’t see that there’s any logic in your position. It edifies me to see you trying to be logical. God rocks, in that he gives us all intellect.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But I guess that leads to the fact that you can’t be edified about something you CAN’T see and of which you have no knowlege.

Close. No cigar.

Can I see it? Nope. Do I have knowledge of it? Sure! You admit to as much!

No I did not. I made something up. Which is the best anyone can do. Make suppositions. An infinite universe? Nothing? Other universes? Different physical constants? Different physical laws? Alien civilisations?

What is outside of the observable universe is, by definition, unknowable. That is, we have no knowledge of it. Certainly you don’t. But you can take a guess or make something up if you like.

And then you can say that what you made up or what you guessed is out there indicates the glory of God. Of course you can.

 

[Gorgias]

What is outside of the observable universe is, by definition, unknowable. That is, we have no knowledge of it. Certainly you don’t.

That’s not the case being made, however. The case is that it is observable, or had been observable. So, we know that it’s there, even if we can no longer observe it. We can extrapolate that there’s other “no longer knowable” stuff out there. So… no; your case doesn’t hold up. This isn’t “stories”; it’s science. And theology.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

What is outside of the observable universe is, by definition, unknowable. That is, we have no knowledge of it. Certainly you don’t.

That’s not the case being made, however. The case is that it is observable, or had been observable. So, we know that it’s there, even if we can no longer observe it. We can extrapolate that there’s other “no longer knowable” stuff out there. So… no; your case doesn’t hold up. This isn’t “stories”; it’s science. And theology.

It isn’t observable. And only the tiniest fraction of what has dissapeared was ever available for us to look at. What is past that boundary is literally unknowable. It may well be infinite.

This is your argument: ‘I have no knowledge of what is the either side of that boundary…but it’s for my edification. I can only guess what might be there…but it’s an indication of the glory of God. We can only access an infinitesimally small part of existence…but it’s still all for us’.

None of that makes any sense to me at all.

 

[Gorgias]

And only the tiniest fraction of what has dissapeared was ever available for us to look at.

Stop and think about what you just wrote, and what its implications are. If “only the tiniest fraction” was “ever available for us to look at”, then you have knowledge of these things that you never observed. That literally contradicts your assertion that “what is outside of the observable universe is, by definition, unknowable… we have no knowledge of it.”

You can see that you just asserted knowledge of things that are outside of the observable universe… right? So… either you’re wrong (about knowing about these things) or you’re wrong (about being able to know about these things). Which is it? I’ll just stick with “you’re wrong.”

None of that makes any sense to me at all.

That’s ok. I’m having a hard time making sense of your attempts to assert two mutually exclusive propositions, myself…

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And only the tiniest fraction of what has dissapeared was ever available for us to look at.

Stop and think about what you just wrote, and what its implications are. If “only the tiniest fraction” was “ever available for us to look at”, then you have knowledge of these things that you never observed. That literally contradicts your assertion that “what is outside of the observable universe is, by definition, unknowable… we have no knowledge of it.”

You can see that you just asserted knowledge of things that are outside of the observable universe… right? So… either you’re wrong (about knowing about these things) or you’re wrong (about being able to know about these things). Which is it? I’ll just stick with “you’re wrong.”

We know the rate at which the universe is literally dissapearing. And we know how long that has been going on. For around 14 billion years. So the bit that we have been able to observe for the last few years - at the very edge of the observable universe, that which is dissapearing right now is (drum roll) the tiniest fraction that was ever available for us to see.

And that is just what we know is expanding past the boundary of our observable universe. Which is ‘leaving’ our universe. But there has ALWAYS been ‘something’ beyond that boundary from the moment of the big bang. Perhaps an infinity of ‘something’.

Guesses, conjecture, assumptions…they apparently edify you in some way.