Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > What would you do, if you were a god?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 funchesf
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 226
What would you do, if you were a god?Page 10 of 12    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)

posted by CressB
There is only one substance in the universe; it is God; and everything else that is, is in God."


I'm pretty sure the Bible introduced that concept before Spinoza did

now read what you posted in MSG 258 of this thread


posted by CressB
It angers me that people can't think beyond the religious texts that they were brought up with, or see them for what they really are: extremely out dated and terribly flawed first attempts at metaphysics,


so do your anger also apply to Spinoza and yourself?

but anyway this is why an argument for the existence of God is generally an argument proposed by Agnostics
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 227
view profile
History
What would you do, if you were a god?
Posted: 9/15/2014 1:45:51 PM
I'm pretty sure the Bible introduced that concept before Spinoza did


No it did not. The god of the bible "created" the universe and the earth and humans and every other creature on earth with very specific intent. Is a being in a spacific location somewhere, and from there, lords over its creation, and is separate from it.

Now read what I posted in MSG 261 of this thread:


If people need a place to say "ok I've thought about this a lot now and it will not resolve logically, so this is the place where I decide to attribute the things I don't understand to an actor beyond my capability to comprehend - and/or care to attempt to any further" and they decide to call that actor god, I think that this is much better than the alternative - and frankly I don't see any harm in it at all: I consider the ideas "the universe was conceived and persists due to a supreme intelligence" and the idea "the universe magically sprang forth from nothing" to be equally absurd. But people seem to need something. What they don't need is to be brain washed with terribly conceived ancient hocus pocus.



so do your anger also apply to Spinoza and yourself?


I think the answer to that would be obvious. My problem with religion is the hypocrisy, lies, and self-delusion. I don't look upon genuine quests for knowledge in the same way, which religions such as the bible are anything but.


but anyway this is why an argument for the existence of God is generally an argument proposed by Agnostics


In what way is this statement at all relevant to the topic currently under discussion.
 funchesf
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 228
What would you do, if you were a god?
Posted: 9/15/2014 2:37:46 PM

No it did not.


the fact that Spinoza grew up Jewish, use the term "God" in his arguments along with quoting Jewish concepts from The Bible is an indication that he let his religious beliefs influence his concepts

THE QUESTION
what do religion and the tobacco companies have in common when it comes to people?

THE ANSWER
if you get them at a young age you have them in some shape from or fashion for life

same thing appear to have happen to Spinoza

same thing happen to Einstein and light speed

and now to you
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 229
view profile
History
What would you do, if you were a god?
Posted: 9/15/2014 3:27:25 PM

And now to you.


Lol!

I had absolutely no religious influence from my parents during my childhood. I am not in any way religious. I do not recognize believe to be a valid form of rational thought. I hold no beliefs, in as far as facts and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in support of a claim cannot really be considered a belief. It would be like saying I believe lightbulbs glow when electricity is applied to them, or nuclear bombs explode when they reach critical mass. These things are not beliefs. Entertaining philosophical arguments, as well, does not mean that one must necessarily "believe" in such arguments. One must entertain philosophical arguments in order to make any kind of progression in knowledge, this is how science proceeds along.


same thing appear to have happen to Spinoza



same thing happen to Einstein and light speed


Absurd. And I suppose that Steven hawking, Carl Sagan, and Arthur C. Clark are religious as well for entertaining Spinoza's god?

Steven hawking, Carl Sagan, and Arthur C. Clark discuss Spinoza's god at 39:03
http://youtu.be/HKQQAv5svkk?list=FLOiyzn0Yi1UuMsXELa7tDSg
 lelenc1
Joined: 9/10/2014
Msg: 230
What would you do, if you were a god?
Posted: 9/15/2014 5:18:42 PM

Proposition 5: In nature, there cannot be two or more substances of the same nature or attribute.

Proposition 6: One substance cannot be produced by another substance.


I have incredible difficulties applying Spinoza's propositions to reality.

If a wolfe has a baby wolf, are the two wolves not the same in substance? If they are the same, then P.5. is false. If they are not the same, then P.6. is false. In case of wolves, for instance, Spinoza's logical line of reasoning breaks down.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 231
view profile
History
What would you do, if you were a god?
Posted: 9/15/2014 5:27:22 PM
^^^ Energy is neither created nor destroyed. All mater is composed of energy. Wolves do not creat mater nor energy they only rearrange it to form baby wolves. Mater as well is only a particular arangment of energy.
 lelenc1
Joined: 9/10/2014
Msg: 232
What would you do, if you were a god?
Posted: 9/15/2014 5:32:05 PM

Proposition 1: A substance is prior in nature to its affections.


What is an affection? I can't at all conceptualize an affection of a substance.

To be honest, I can't even conceptualize a substance.


"By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself”


What does this mean? The first part is a tautology (what is that, that is part of what in its entirety. Well, duh.)

What can conceive itself through its own self? This is... I am sorry... laughable. It's true I added the noun of the transitive verb "conceive". So let's subtract it... and it turns out that the conceiver is not named... it is something that is part of Spinoza's weltanschauung, but he does not name it, and never even attempts to say what it is. It is an actor, that keeps on conceiving substances, through the very conceived substances themselves (wow, putting the horse on TOP of the cart, and watch the horse pull the cart as it is fully on top of it), but we don't know what this conceiver of substances is, it is not named, it is not even hinted at, never. It only exists as a part (the noun) of an incorrectly written sentence, in which an actor (agent, doer) is semantically needed, but not given. It conceives substances, of which the only things we know for sure from Spinoza, is that they are conceived and that they are in themselves.

Well, that does not help me any to know what a substance is. It is completely undefined for me, and with a lot of words that sound long and hifolutin.

What I challenge, basically, is that Spinoza here names a number of things that are not possible, that are incomplete in their description, and that are fully inconceivable, to a normal human mind.

How did Spinoza get so much attention, if the best he could come up with was this?

Am I the first one to say the emperor is not wearing any clothes?
 lelenc1
Joined: 9/10/2014
Msg: 233
What would you do, if you were a god?
Posted: 9/15/2014 5:39:32 PM

Proposition 8: Every substance is necessarily infinite.

Proposition 9: The more reality or being each thing has, the more attributes belong to it.



Does substance have a measure? Nothing can be infinite unless it is measured by some units, and then we can say, "this or that thing is infinite as described in these units." There is infinite time, infinite knowledge, infinite length, infinite power. Each of these things have a unit, in this example, respectively, seconds, knowables, metres, kilowatts. But there is no infinity if you don't have a quaility to describe in which way is that thing infinite.

How can some thing have more reality than another thing? Again, a complete mish-mash of words in a haphazardly constructed statement. If reality can be more, or reality can be less, then what is it by which you measure reality? There has to be some mode or ability to execute the comparison, but there is none. "I've got 20 more realities than you don't." What does this mean? Spinoza presupposes that we can attach meaning to this, but there is no way to attach meaning to this.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 234
view profile
History
What would you do, if you were a god?
Posted: 9/15/2014 7:31:04 PM
lelenc1:

I can see that you are having some difficulties grasping this stuff, but I am not going to hold your hand and walk you through every aspect of this... At least , not until you start paying me. :)

Spinoza's proof is a rational proof. This should not be confused with scientific fact, as the two are wholly different. We use science to vet or prove philosophy. All scientific questioning starts off as philosophy and remains so until it can be proven by repeatable experimentation and reviewed by peers. A rational proof is a set of statements that remains logically constant, exp:

Proof that dogs eat:

Definition of eat: essential function to sustain life in living beings. To take in mater, process it and dispose of it.

All living beings with mouths, throats, stomachs, intestines and rectums eat.

All dogs have mouths, throats, stomachs, intestines and rectums.

There for, all dogs eat.

There you go, I have just proved all dogs eat.

A rational proof is not actual proof of anything. We must validate it through experimentation first. In the instance with the dogs, we could attempt to feed it some form of mater for instance. We could try feeding it a solid lump or iron, or some sand from a beach, or some cotton twine, or any of the numerous forms that mater takes. And we might even make so many mistakes that we give up because that damn dog just wont eat anything that we try to feed to it. But that does not mean that dogs do not eat.

This may all seem absurd but it is the way that science is often approached. Take Thomas Edison and the light-bulb for instance. The philosophy that drove Edison was that he thought it was possible to create a light-bulb, but it took him over a thousand attempts to succeed. Edison is famous for discovering one thousand ways not to make a light-bulb and then one way to succeed.

A rational proof is most often used like a place holder where the interactions between philosophers and scientists are concerned. The rational proof is disseminated throughout the community of thinkers, if it is accepted as valid, then it is left up to other individuals of the community, perhaps far into the future even, to prove the concept, that is if the individual who originated the concept cannot do so themselfs.

Take Einstein for example. For the most part, initially, Einstein acted as a philosophical agent for his ideas, and it wasn't until he was pared with a brilliant mathematician, that his concepts were fully realized, and considered for testing by the scientific community.

Your questioning of what I proposed is a good thing. But your insistence that it cannot be true because YOU cannot understand it is not good. I, and others as well, do claim to understand it, and claim that it is logically consistent. If you think that we/it is wrong then it is up to you to convince us of that. Otherwise we will proceed along under our current assumptions.

In other words, Prove it. ;)
 funchesf
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 235
What would you do, if you were a god?
Posted: 9/15/2014 8:05:00 PM

posted by CressB
I had absolutely no religious influence from my parents during my childhood.


let me guess,... while on vacation you were dragged off by wolves that raised you as one of their Piper Cubs until a Hunter found you 18 years later caught in a rabbit trap..

other than that or unless you were in a Coma you had to have been religiously influenced in some shape form or fashion by either your parents or guardian or the government ...look at the money "In God We Trust"...unless of course you counterfeited it and it states "In Spinoza We Trust"'

this is why anyone that gives argument for the existence of God do so in the name of the religion and/or the God that they made "First Contact" with as a wee brat ...oops I meant child
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 236
view profile
History
What would you do, if you were a god?
Posted: 9/15/2014 8:44:05 PM

...you had to have been religiously influenced in some shape form or fashion by either your parents or guardian or the government...


My parents are, for all intents and purposes, apatheists (really they just don't give a sh!t about any kind of religious concepts, and they don't really care for the subject at all). Nor did they have any kind of inclination toward any kind of philosophical thinking. The only things that I can really remember them teaching me is common morality, (my dad's golden rule was a household favorite: "he who has the gold makes the rules".), survival techniques like "don't touch that; it's hot" and "look both ways before you cross the street", and basic mathematics and english. The rest I was left to figure out on my own with no authority figures to force anything down my throat. I was allowed to think/believe anything that I desired, as long as it wasn't a nuisance to anyone.

All I did from there was take in information, and internally debate the validity of that information, which I can remember doing as far back as six years old.

So no, I do not have any significant religious influences because I have never had any religious authority figures in my life.

My thoughts are my own. If I reference something from another thinker, as being something that I consider to be of philosophical value (like Spinoza's god) then it is because I have evaluated it and found it to be rational. but that does not mean that I am committed to that Idea. to tell you the truth, I put together Spinoza's god long before I had ever even heard of Spinoza or read any of his philosophies, and to me it is just another possibility among many potentials, although I do enjoy toying with the concept a bit more than others, so in a way you could say that the idea is a favorite of mine.

Really, it seems that you are just going to continue saying the same things you are saying now, and continue to deny that the things that I am telling you are true. So I really see no point in continuing on arguing this way with you. I won't respond to your posts again on this mater unless there is some kind of change to your approach to this discussion.
 funchesf
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 237
What would you do, if you were a god?
Posted: 9/16/2014 6:40:25 AM

posted by CressB
Absurd. And I suppose that Steven hawking, Carl Sagan, and Arthur C. Clark are religious as well for entertaining Spinoza's god?


I'm surprise that you didn't throw Tom Cruise into that Mix since he is also a Scientologist

anyone that try to rationalize God which is a belief that is based not on evidence but on Faith...is agnostically Scientologist

it's "impossible" to believe in God and not be religious .....funches 3:16
 funchesf
Joined: 6/27/2014
Msg: 238
What would you do, if you were a god?
Posted: 9/16/2014 7:16:50 AM

posted by CressB
My parents are, for all intents and purposes, apatheists

so was Jesus


The only things that I can really remember them teaching me is common morality,

so who taught you about the birds and the bees...Sesame Street?


The rest I was left to figure out on my own with no authority figures to force anything down my throat.

in order words you never attended school and had a television for a teacher


So no, I do not have any significant religious influences because I have never had any religious authority figures in my life.

except for Spinoza, Steven hawking, Arthur C. Clark


My thoughts are my own.

use your own thoughts and formulate a rational concept that no one else ever said ..I bet you can't


I won't respond to your posts again on this mater unless there is some kind of change to your approach to this discussion.

How Rude
 lelenc1
Joined: 9/10/2014
Msg: 239
What would you do, if you were a god?
Posted: 9/16/2014 8:21:04 AM
Definition of eat: essential function to sustain life in living beings. To take in mater, process it and dispose of it.

1. All living beings with mouths, throats, stomachs, intestines and rectums eat.

2.All dogs have mouths, throats, stomachs, intestines and rectums.

3. There for, all dogs eat.

4. There you go, I have just proved all dogs eat.


Your proof is not complete.

All LIVING things ... etc. The syllogism includes that not only do things with mouths, throats and stomachs, etc. eat, but they must be LIVING as well.

In 2. you said that all dogs have the mouths, throats, etc., which are necessary, but not sufficient conditions for a thing to eat; for a thing to eat, the thing must also be living. However, you did not state that dogs that must eat are living. It MAY be assumed, but that assumption is outside the LOGIC of the syllogism you presented.

So wake up and be precise, I mutter unto you.

Too bad you don't want to explain what substance is, what its affection is, how reality can be more or less which a "thing" can have, and that substances can be infinite in some aspect which aspect is not at all described or even hinted at.

But I appreciate that you are not getting paid for it. So naturally you are not bound to explain these things. All I can say is that 1. if they mean something to you and 2. they have derivable meaning ideed (which I reject), then you are a hundred times more of a genius than I am.

At this point you appealed to authority to convince me of this, by saying this makes sense to you and to others. That is not convincing, as, like I say, it is an appeal to authority (to an example of an instance not germain to the topic, and claiming that the topic is validly proven by the argument).

I can't disprove something that does not make sense. I did not do the proposition; Spinoza did. I simply pointed out that it does not make semantic sense, and in some places, syntactic sense. It does not define things despite its claim of definitions. It contradicts itself inherently. I used its own propositions to show that.

You may argue that I am just to dumb to conceptualize the ideals, and you can't feed me intellect. That may or may not be a valid point, because my intellect vis-a-vis yours, regarding their capacity and capabilities, is a thing that can be decided only by empirical methods, and for that we really don't have a proper venue here. But I think I preempted that argument by pointing out the contradiction between two particular propositions, and pointing out and carefully describing how it is impossible, for instance, to have a quality of "infinity" without specifying the measurable quality of which the "substance" has infinite amounts of. NOT because the logic is right or wrong in the proof, but because absolutely NO thing can be infinite unless you specify which way it can be infinite. Spinoza did not specify how the substances are infinite.

You asked me for proofs; I presented the proofs; you ignored the proofs.

My other criticisms are equally as valid, and if you don't see that, then I don't know how you can be so very smart that you can condeptualize an infinity without having a measure in which a thing is infinite.

So for the time being, without pay, please explain how something can be infinite when it has no measurable quality.

This is all I ask.

I won't pay you for this, but I can't stand here idly and accept your argument that I am too stupid to understand what you and others understand.

I still claim that many of Spinoza's propositions, as presented in an earlier post here in this thread by you, are not things that make sense. I proved how some aspects of some of the propositions do not make sense.

Do you want to leave it at that? fine.

But if not, please at least show me how something can be infinite without having a measure of some sort in which sense they can be infinite.

A substance is conceived through itself, and it is itself. This is the definition of substance given. What more we know of substance is that it can't create other substances, and it may or may not have affection. Given these, how can someone validly say that substance is infinite? I am talking rational logic, not empirical logic. I am not saying that show me here on Earth one of these substances. No. I am still staying inside the argument of the propositions, I am not bringing in any outside interest or empirical comparison. This claim I make is true for anything in any possible universe, real or imaginary: if a thing has no measure defined as its extent, then it can't be called infinite. This is NOT reliant on any empirical stuff, like you claimed it did.

Of course I can't force you into defending this. But you either give a good defence, not a red herring or appeal to authority or an ad hominem argument, or an equivocation. You 1. give me a good counter-argument, or else 2. cease and desist, or else 3. admit that the particular proposition is indeed nonsensical. Unless you do 1. in the list of the prev sentence, you accept defeat.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 240
view profile
History
What would you do, if you were a god?
Posted: 9/16/2014 9:55:28 AM
lelenc1:

I'm going to do this one more time for you man. An then, after the I'm going to expect payment, and it'll be retro active too, so you'll owe me twenty-five dollars for the wolf thing, twenty-five dollars for the infinity thing twenty-five dollars for the next thing.

A circle cannot be measured accurately because pie is an irrational number. A circle has no beginning and no end, so dispite being finite it is also infinite. One does not need to measure a circle to understand its infinite aspect. One can visualize a circle of undefined size in their mind and still understand its infinite aspect. Now lets take some examples of circles. If I draw a circle on a pice of paper, the paper will eventually degrade, so a circle is not infinite in that respect. Any celestial body such as the earth or sun will eventually degrade, so also not infinite. Space, however, is curved, and even though it is finite, it will continue to expand forever.

Now remember the next one will cost you $75 bucks.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 241
view profile
History
What would you do, if you were a god?
Posted: 9/16/2014 10:59:44 AM
Euw, terrible errors in that one^^^. Sorry, I had just woke up.
 lelenc1
Joined: 9/10/2014
Msg: 242
What would you do, if you were a god?
Posted: 9/16/2014 5:01:47 PM
It's a deal, I will pay you $25 for each answer, but!! Only if the answer is valid, and true.

The circle example is not a valid explanation of how something with non-meaused units can be infinite.

Proof: the circle is finite. If you name secotions of it with different values or symbols, then you can't walk around it finding ALWAYs different symbols. You will eventually meet the same symbols.

The circle as a concept without it being expressed in units, is not infinite. The number of points in it are infinite. But you can't express the infiniteness of the number of points in it without deciding that points are dimensionless, null-extent markers on planes, spaces, lines, and in each point as well. There is your unit: the point.

When you say that Pi is an infinitely long number, you are not saying that the circle is infinite. The number that is Pi is between 3 and 4. That is not an infinitely large number. Also, Pi is not just a number out there, it has a relevence to a unit. The unit is the diametre of the circle. There is your unit, and the circle is still not infinite.

If you say that the circle is infinite because you can walk around on its perimeter, and never have to turn around, is very interesting, but it only means that the time it takes to forever walk around the circle is measured in time units, and those time units add up to infinity if you never stop. Another argument is, that you can walk around a square, the perimeter of a square, and never have to turn around. similarly, you can stand on a point, motionless, and claim that the point is infinite, because you stand on the point an infinite length of time.

I reject your circle idea, because you introduced an assumption, namely, that a circle is infinite. This is not true. A circle is not infinite, in and by itself. You had to give some units to show it was infinite (in one way or another): you used the idea that the perimeter is expressed in Pi, and that is an infinitly long fraction. Well, the fraction is infintely long in decimal places, but it IS defined by a unit, that unit being the diameter of the circle. You fialed to show that the circle is infinite in and by itself.

Now take the colour green. Is green infinite? You can say that green is a concept, but it lasts forever, even as a concept, not necessarily as a phenomenon. I say that if you said that, you would use time units to describe the infiniteness of green.

I still maintain, and you clearly did not show the opposite, that without units of some measurement a thing can't be described as finite or any size. "Substance: conceived through itself and being itself" is a definition that has no meausre for its describabant, so in fact it is not sensible to speak of substance as infinite.

The other objections I raised you also failed to debunk.

Therefore for the time being I owe you no money. I only pay you if you give me valid, true, and sensible answers to counter my objections successfully.
 lelenc1
Joined: 9/10/2014
Msg: 243
What would you do, if you were a god?
Posted: 9/16/2014 5:09:54 PM
Per chance: (I'm going to help you out here) Are the poropositions you posted as Spinoza's REALLY his propositions? Did you alter the wording (other than the necessity of translation)? Did you simplify it, cut out parts, or added parts that were not there? Were there other sections that would (I'll help you) make actual sense of the list of definitions and propositions, that would make Spinoza's logic valid, and make his propositions sensible?

I am suspecting that you are not true to Spinoza when you wrote that, and assinged the post to him.

I never read Spinoza. I don't read anything but forum posts on the Internet. And email correspondence.

So please consider correcting your wording as ascribed by you to Spinoza, if the two are really different.

If you say that you did not copy a section by Spinoza verbatim in its English translation, and / or other sections that are germain to your claims are left out by you but said by Spinoza, then I get you off the hook; you don't even have to post the correct (or corrected), if any different exists, version of what you posted. Just say your copy was partial, incomplete, or lacked very important additions, and I rest my case, I won't owe you money, and you admit that the thing you posted was not Spinoza's thoughts as described.
 lelenc1
Joined: 9/10/2014
Msg: 244
What would you do, if you were a god?
Posted: 9/16/2014 5:12:39 PM
so you'll owe me twenty-five dollars for the wolf thing,


Yoyu mean the dog-parable? Okay, let's call it wolfe-thing or wolfe parable. I don't owe you money for the wolfe thing. You messed that one up, and I pointed that out to you. Do you read my replies, or you just go with the assumption that I am ignorant, stupid, and incapable of rational and analytical thought, and then you tell me something that comes to you mind? If you read my reply to the wolf-parable, then you would know I don't owe you money for that.
 lelenc1
Joined: 9/10/2014
Msg: 245
What would you do, if you were a god?
Posted: 9/16/2014 5:16:14 PM

, twenty-five dollars for the infinity thing


At this point I don't owe you yet any money for the infinity thing. You failed to show that something that has no measure, can be infinite. Your circle-example I reject for the reasons I brought up in my post since you published the circle-post.
 lelenc1
Joined: 9/10/2014
Msg: 246
What would you do, if you were a god?
Posted: 9/16/2014 5:18:02 PM

twenty-five dollars for the next thing.


The circle-thing is the same as the (failed) infinity-thing. Double billing for one and the same item is not allowed. It is considered an irregular accounting practice.
 lelenc1
Joined: 9/10/2014
Msg: 247
What would you do, if you were a god?
Posted: 9/16/2014 5:32:21 PM
I know you said your last (previous to this) post by you was erroneous and had mistakes. I agree. I did not know which part you referred to as erroneous, and therefore I painstakingly pointed out the errors that are important for me to point out. These corrections were aimed to show you that so far I don't owe you money, and that you haven't properly defeated (in debate or in logical argumentation) any of my criticisms, which you claimed to defeat.

That's all. I don't want to leave anything up for chance, and to argue about later. Because then we can mix up the arguments, and we can argue about what it is we are arguing about.

So to clear the slate, and to reiterate my PAYABLE part of promise in this contract: if successfully teach and explain to me, and prove with proper logic, that a thing can be infinite even though it has no measures, then I pay you twenty-five dollars for that lecture.

So you have to show to things: substance, as defined above, has a measure, OR ELSE that things that don't have a measure of any sort, can be infinite.

What if you fail at that? Well, I'll be magnanimous (and I don't mind saying so myself) and you won' t owe me money. However, I expect you to comply with this:

Otherwise, you still have the options of 1. admitting that your copy in this thread of Spinoza's defintions are not accurate, and you rcopy in this thread of Spinoza's propositions are not accurate, but somewhat misleading and misrepresentative of what Spinoza actually wrote; OR 2. admitting that the set of propositions are not wrong, necessarily, but they do not make sense, and are in parts of proposition-pairs contradictory; OR cease and desist; admit that you can't convince me with logical arguments; OR admit that you don't really care to read my replies carefully and thoughtfully, and therefore you don't consider my replies as intended, in which case the whole exercise is totally futile, and then why continue if you can't extend the courtesy of undertaking to understand and know of what's just been communicated to you.

Above all else I ask you to please give me the courtesy and consideration I feel I am entitled to, and please do read my posts carefully. I have my faith in their correctness, and I do spend some time to carefully construct them, so please, do not disregard my efforts and my LOGIC therefore, and do not claim things as true which have been successfully and clearly debunked by me (like that your dog- or wolf syllogism is error-free, as claimed by you, but debunked by me. The wording by me is clear, concise, and so therefore do take the effort and read my replies.

If you don't read my replies, and don't understand them, then how else can I get my points across to you?
 lelenc1
Joined: 9/10/2014
Msg: 248
What would you do, if you were a god?
Posted: 9/16/2014 5:52:09 PM

One does not need to measure a circle to understand its infinite aspect.


This I don't accept. You said it as if it were a self-evident truth. This is not a self-evident truth. Please supply an explanation that is valid and true.

Is a square infinite in the same aspect? If not, why not? If yes, why? What about a triangle, and octogon, and any regular or irregular two-dimensional object's perimeter which has straight, curved, straight and curved, pointed, and non-pointed segments and points on its perimeter? What were you thinking when you said this?
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 249
view profile
History
What would you do, if you were a god?
Posted: 9/17/2014 1:33:18 AM
lelenc1:


Proof: the circle is finite. If you name secotions of it with different values or symbols, then you can't walk around it finding ALWAYs different symbols. You will eventually meet the same symbols.


Your asking for the impossible "describe infinity perfectly". It cannot be done man. At some point you have to resign to the fact that the tools for physical measure currently available to us are inadequate to the task. Which is why I did not want to have a long and unnecessary conversation about this. Because it is boring and futile. But here goes.

For this demonstration, no material examples will be used. Instead only measurement alone will be considered.

First we will discuss a strait lingth of one foot. Along this lingth I can place a marker at any point: that is to say that through the use of mathematics, there is no "real" point along that measure that I cannot find (e.g. 0.01 feet or 0.104737467427423446779007754326789077543321567890076644322 feet etc.). With a curved line one cannot do the same. One can only plot a pattern that has intersecting geometric points with the line of the circle . The actual mesure of the curved line itself is never taken (i.e. the strait line is exactly twelve feet long; where as, the actual length of a circle, from point "a" to point "a" cannot be rationally understood with out first having a predetermined length and then attempting to form it in to a circle - which is impossible, but will be discussed in a moment) the mathematic measure of a circle is only an approximate by geometric relation. So a curved line can never be accurately measured. There will always be some point on the line that you cannot place a marker at, no mater how good your definition of Pi is.



When you say that Pi is an infinitely long number, you are not saying that the circle is infinite. The number that is Pi is between 3 and 4.


Pi is not a "number" at all. It is an approximation of a physical relationship that is not expresable by the use of mathematics. That is what it means when we say that a number is irrational. We know that a measurement exists because we know that relationships of a curved nature exist in the universe (i.e. curved space) but mathematics does not allow us to take that measure. Your example of walking around a circle, and sticking makers to it, is not a proper example. Your markers are not making any kind of real measurement. the actual line of the circle cannot be decribed mathematically. The proper example would be the line that you are walking not the circle you are walking around, which brings us to your idea of walking around the perimeter of a square or a triangle: not even remotely close to being a valid point.

Mathematically or abstractly thinking, the beginning and ending of a circle will always lie in that indescribable point that cannot be measured. One cannot even take a predetermined length and shape it into a perfect circle (and it would have to be a perfect circle necessary as a reference to verify Pi as an real number, and thus to be able to mathematically check the accuracy of the work for confirmation) because there will always be some inconsistency in the line - like wise the inconstancies in that line could never truly be understood because they are also curves. The best one can do is use a compass, and we would still never know the true measure of that line either; because for one, the line would still not be a truly perfect circle because your medium (the compass and paper) would still have certain physical inconsistencies, and second a compass accomplishes, analogly, the same mathematic principle that allows us to approximate the circumference of a perfect circle already (i.e. the line drawn by a compass cannot me straitened for proper measurement)

Nature however suffers from no such problems, such as what I was trying to articulate in my last post about space. Do you understand what the concept "the universe has no center" means (this is an accepted scientific postulate) as far as the nature of the universe is concerned? It means that all places in the universe are simultaneously the end and the beginning of the universe, that there is no "measurable" end or beginning of the universe as it exists now: there is no edge and there is no center.

Lets say that we were able to freeze the expansion of the universe when it was just fifty feet across. And then we traveled inside that fifty foot universe, fifty feet, from one point to another, in a perfectly strait line. Where would we be then? Answer: right back where we started because all space is curved and one cannot ever travel in a strait line, yet the universe still has no perceivable edge or center. What would we be looking at as we traveled? Our own back about fifty feet away from us.

Now this bullsh!t (last paragraph above) is why I did not want to go into this sh!t. I have described the nature of infinity to the best of my ability (as many others have attempted to do and failed throughout history) but it is truly inarticulable, and requires that you use your imagination to truly perceive/grasp, and such is its nature: can be approximated but never not truly understood, at least not by any means currently known.

Now I have wasted my time because I was not able to make you truly understand the nature of infinity, but then by its very nature it cannot be truly understood (at least not by any means currently known). So in that respect have I accomplished what I set out to do, and earned my money? I truly think so, because your request was unreasonable. Attempting the define the concept of infinity in terms of mathematics is the flaw in your line of reasoning. Though it may be possible to one day measure this concept it will not fall to rational mathematics as we know it to exist now to do so. Examples of attempts to do so (and they are still unsuccessful) can be seen in quantum mechanics with such things as string theory and its concepts of hyperdimensionality, and they are anything but rational.
 CressB
Joined: 7/1/2011
Msg: 250
view profile
History
What would you do, if you were a god?
Posted: 9/17/2014 1:48:56 AM

I know you said your last (previous to this) post by you was erroneous and had mistakes. I agree. I did not know which part you referred to as erroneous, and therefore I painstakingly pointed out the errors that are important for me to point out.


My remark was in reference to grammatical errors, but my perception of you is that you really are this dense.


So you have to show to things: substance, as defined above, has a measure, OR ELSE that things that don't have a measure of any sort, can be infinite.


I hope you mean "two" and "one of two things". And here I thought you were all about accuracy?
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > What would you do, if you were a god?