h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Did I suggest that, Jordan? Surely not!

Oh come on, Jordan! The point I have been perhaps labouring is that there can't be an actual infinite. 'Infinitely old' involves an actual infinite. Do you or do you not accept the impossibility of an actual infinite?

'What Phaedrus had been presented with was an ancient logical construct known as a dilemma. A dilemma, which is Greek for "two premises," has been likened to the front end of an angry and charging bull.

'If he accepted the premise that Quality was objective, he was impaled on one horn of the dilemma. If he accepted the other premise that Quality was subjective, he was impaled on the other horn. Either Quality is objective or subjective, therefore he was impaled no matter how he answered.

'Phaedrus, however, because of his training in logic, was aware that every dilemma affords not two but three classic refutations, and he also knew of a few that weren't so classic. He could take the left horn and refute the idea that objectivity implied scientific detectability. Or, he could take the right horn, and refute the idea that subjectivity implies 'anything you like.' Or he could go between the horns and deny that subjectivity and objectivity are the only choices. You may be sure he tested out all three. In addition to these three classical logical refutations there are some illogical, 'rhetorical' ones. Phaedrus, being a rhetorician, had these available too.' - Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance



- Jordan

I'm afraid not. It seems counter-intuitive, but there's no reason that, if one considers an external quantum 'foam,' one could not find oneself in an actually infinite space-time.

- Jordan

I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of religions have one thing in common ie;...life after death...ergo...human beings don't want to die,hence they invent a religion which promises them eternal life.

Spud

Jordan. I get fed up of constantly asking but: in what sense is an actually infinite space~time actually infinite? External to what? Infinite in some recherché quantum sense or what? And, most important, is it built up by successive additions?

Infinite it has no boundary, and furthermore cannot be added to - in the same manner, therefore, that the Kalam site argues. Thus, if I were to somehow 'add' two years of time to the space, the actual magnitude of the time axis would not be extended.

Therefore, any given point in this universe could be defined by a quadruple of numbers - (X, Y, Z, T), assuming only four dimensions, three of space and one of time. It could be in R^4, which means that each of its parameters are real numbers, and therefore the space would be dense - one could always have a point in spacetime intervening any other two points of spacetime. If the Universe is discrete, then it would be in I^4 - there is a level at which one cannot find a point between two given points. If it's the former, then its cardinality (i.e. magnitude) would be aleph-one, and if the latter then it's aleph-null.

Do you see how this would be so?

- Jordan

Isn't infinity one of those difficult things to define? I mean haven't people tried to force that one in to a nut shell for some considerable time, or a blink of the eye if you're a mountain? I really don't get the 1>3-5^c(h+e/ww7^5) arguments, that doesn't mean they are not correct-just that they alienate people who deal in WORDS-there, I shouted. If I could sum stuff up with that abstract mathematical, let's call it precision, maybe I would. But what do you think?? Infinity, one way or another, is pretty big. If you can add to it then that makes it not quite that big, BUT does God exist because someone has put forward an argument that says that an infinite number of one thing must be the same as an infinite number of another-even if, common sense tells you they are different? that there is the same thing+the same thing=equal things? We can do that with small,manageable numbers, it doesn't add up, but we are prepared to be confounded by math we don't get-see the square root of-1, my calculator hates that one-Great, smashing-so is there a God or not? The answer is not going to be in brackets. Incidentaliy, good evening everyone.

I didn't understand a word of that! Perhaps there were too many words and not enough maths?

- Jordan

Noggin
'We' are outside of the time line when we are part of the consciousness.
We take on the time line with the physical body, which has mind which 'creates' time as a concept.

The difference in my take and what others 'appear' to be experiencing is that God is an entity separate from the physical creation.
"the other side of time, in heaven, place it where you will
The thing I call God is the unified conscious of everything.
As such we are all particles of the consciousness known as the creator. We dip in and out of the physical to experience the physical to evolve the consciousness. Make it take on more mysterious mass to grow
Without the physical there is no time and space.
We are all particles of God, we pray to ourselves. The ony intervention God plays is through the particles. Us.
As the unified conscious grows, so does the physical evolve.
If I look in the mirror I can see the face of god, if I hand the mirror to you there is the face of god in another form.
God made in your image.

And I'd go further, given the thing I experience to be true, there is no need of any organised religions, because the individual can connect with the God in themselves without the strictures of the rule books.

Uh-uh-uh! I think sometimes, people need a little guidance. And have you heard Socrates' views on prayer and ritual?

- Jordan

Hi hasslefree
maybe I'm not making the point clear. Remember the "The kingship is like a child playing at draughts" posting back a few?
I'm trying to make the point that we can live in a world/universe; see what we see, and make up any old thing we want as an excuse. Our perspective will always change our understanding (bug vs bird) and we will very likely act on whatever incomplete information we have available, egotistically believing that it is complete information.

I would not be surprised at all if on judgement day, God reached behind my ear and produced a small red ball and said TAADAA! Whaddaya think 'bout that?
diversity

Yeah for Noggin!

Thanks Jordan. In future I'll assume that anything described as infinite, without qualification, is actually infinite in all of its dimensions. It remains a nonsense though to describe God as infinite since He lacks any of these dimensions, even temporality in the usual sensse.

Thanks again Jordan. It's not entirely a case of seeing that it would be so, but partly of accepting that that is the convention. It helps with thoughts I've half had for a long time; particularly the dense and discrete universes. Why was I brought up so woefully ignorant of maths?

Diversity

We have to act on incomplete information; it's all we've got.

Philosophy, science, even religion are ways of restricting "any old thing we please" in the light of reason and experience. There may be no "right" answer, but we do get to discard some wrong ones.

A lot of people seeming to be dropping in from post 1 recently, don't they?

"Many universes" is to cosmology what panspermia is to evolution. It doesn't get rid of the problem, it just relocates it further away.

We don't need organised religion in the formal sense. But we do need a community of language speakers who utilise similar concepts.

I'll get back to Hass on cosciousness and Toxxin's dilemma in a bit.
I've got a lightbulb to change, and one or two other minor chores to perform.

Noggin

Effect greater than it's cause, eh Noggin? I don't see why not if it involves a local reversal of entropy. Life from non~life, (sorry, minus key dead!), planets from dust. I see no problem, but why did you ask the question?

I guess the connexions are established by experience of patterns of one damned thing after another, where the things in question are relevantly similar. That way we not only infer cause and effect, but also an overarching rule. For the rules of 'relevantly similar' we need to go back to Nelson Goodman and the 'grue' paradox!

Entropy is not the issue Toxx. For now I'll just refer you back to #5242 , and also #5245 as a supplementary. As I say, the problem is conceptual, and doesn't rely on any specific empirical data. The clues are all there. Sorry to be a pain for doing it this way, but even if I'm wrong, my reasons for being so are good enough to be instructive.

I understand the dilemma you're setting me. My problem is that as far as I can see resolving it the way you want simply leads to another dilemma. Not that the alternative is any better, of course. That's why it's a dilemma.

I would also like to refer both Toxx and Hass (for slightly different reasons) to Daneel's #5246, and my reply #5247, which suggest that personal consciousness (including God's) requires time.

Although I have a problem with Hass's notion of a unified or universal consciousness, it does follow from my own position that consciousness is a natural phenomenon and that whatever gives rise to it is a feature of the physical universe in some way. But for me a better analogy would then be a nuclear reaction; it takes a certain density and arrangement of the elements involved for the process to get "switched on." This is just a speculation, of course, and it's more likely to be b*lls than not.

Noggin