3.5billion yrs

[10CC]

For 3'5billion years life has existed on this rock we call earth.
For 3.5billion years every single one of those lives has DIED (sans current).
2000yrs ago according to some people everything changed, some don't die.
For the last 2000yrs every living thing has still died.
Which reality are you prepared to accept?
That is the question.

[lao tzu]

Even if we use infinite (=your god), you are still left with a contradiction:

inf (your god) + 0 (nothing) = inf (your god) + (everything)

Hello John,

Given my exchange with AdHoc, I can't let this pass by. First, infinity is not a number, and thus cannot be used in simple arithmetic. Next, neither is "everything" a number, mut. mut. Last, there are well known rules for arithmetic with infinite cardinals. In particular, the sum of any two infinite cardinals is the larger infinity. Assuming AdHoc's god is bigger than "everything," and that "everything" is likewise an infinite cardinal, there is no contradiction in this equation.

As ever, Jesse

[JohnA]

Even if we use infinite (=your god), you are still left with a contradiction:

inf (your god) + 0 (nothing) = inf (your god) + (everything)

Hello John,

Given my exchange with AdHoc, I can't let this pass by. First, infinity is not a number, and thus cannot be used in simple arithmetic. Next, neither is "everything" a number, mut. mut. Last, there are well known rules for arithmetic with infinite cardinals. In particular, the sum of any two infinite cardinals is the larger infinity. Assuming AdHoc's god is bigger than "everything," and that "everything" is likewise an infinite cardinal, there is no contradiction in this equation.

As ever, Jesse

Agree with most of this, infinity makes things uncomfortable, makes math seems strange.
Am not sure that I agree that Infinity is a not number as we use it in math, especially give your assumption(s).
In the example you quoted I did not use "everything" as a number (I have no qualifier as per previous examples).
The point I was making is that his fallacious "atheist" claims of 0+0...= everything can be turned around and show that his actual belief is flawed as well. I even used the example of inf - inf = inf and it shows the same.
Since math is part of logic, my statements holds (it is absurd, but it merely shows how the creation dogma is absurd).

Thanks for the math lesson, even though you straw manned it.

I would never say it is impossible that something (a god) can exist inside/outside nothing before it created everything, but that does not mean it is possible. I file it in the illogical folder, but may take it out some day when logic is shown to be wrong/incomplete.

[100%atheist]

Even if we use infinite (=your god), you are still left with a contradiction:

inf (your god) + 0 (nothing) = inf (your god) + (everything)

Hello John,

Given my exchange with AdHoc, I can't let this pass by. First, infinity is not a number, and thus cannot be used in simple arithmetic. Next, neither is "everything" a number, mut. mut. Last, there are well known rules for arithmetic with infinite cardinals. In particular, the sum of any two infinite cardinals is the larger infinity. Assuming AdHoc's god is bigger than "everything," and that "everything" is likewise an infinite cardinal, there is no contradiction in this equation.

As ever, Jesse

Agree with most of this, infinity makes things uncomfortable, makes math seems strange.
Am not sure that I agree that Infinity is a not number as we use it in math, especially give your assumption(s).

This only means you don't know and don't understand math. It is okay. Not everyone is supposed to know it. But then, please avoid having opinions on something you don't know and don't understand.

[JohnA]

Even if we use infinite (=your god), you are still left with a contradiction:

inf (your god) + 0 (nothing) = inf (your god) + (everything)

Hello John,

Given my exchange with AdHoc, I can't let this pass by. First, infinity is not a number, and thus cannot be used in simple arithmetic. Next, neither is "everything" a number, mut. mut. Last, there are well known rules for arithmetic with infinite cardinals. In particular, the sum of any two infinite cardinals is the larger infinity. Assuming AdHoc's god is bigger than "everything," and that "everything" is likewise an infinite cardinal, there is no contradiction in this equation.

As ever, Jesse

Agree with most of this, infinity makes things uncomfortable, makes math seems strange.
Am not sure that I agree that Infinity is a not number as we use it in math, especially give your assumption(s).

This only means you don't know and don't understand math. It is okay. Not everyone is supposed to know it. But then, please avoid having opinions on something you don't know and don't understand.

That was a nice assertion fallacy. I would not be concerned if I were you, rather consider your uncivil tone, implying I am ignorant - surely you not do that is not allowed?
Why is it that people always claim to believe to know my beliefs. That is just really a fact that I admit I am ignorant to. Can you give me this answer as you surely know it. Or is it one of these answers that you know when I do not ask, but do not know when I ask you?

Wikipedia says your assertion is uncalled for:
In mathematics, "infinity" is often treated as if it were a number (i.e., it counts or measures things: "an infinite number of terms") but it is not the same sort of number as the real numbers. In number systems incorporating infinitesimals, the reciprocal of an infinitesimal is an infinite number, i.e., a number greater than any real number.
For example, the set of integers is countably infinite, while the infinite set of real numbers is uncountable.
It seems to me you reject Infinite set in math as well?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_set
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

Do you think it is logical for something to exist inside/outside nothing?

[lao tzu]

Even if we use infinite (=your god), you are still left with a contradiction:

inf (your god) + 0 (nothing) = inf (your god) + (everything)

Hello John,

Given my exchange with AdHoc, I can't let this pass by. First, infinity is not a number, and thus cannot be used in simple arithmetic. Next, neither is "everything" a number, mut. mut. Last, there are well known rules for arithmetic with infinite cardinals. In particular, the sum of any two infinite cardinals is the larger infinity. Assuming AdHoc's god is bigger than "everything," and that "everything" is likewise an infinite cardinal, there is no contradiction in this equation.

As ever, Jesse

Agree with most of this, infinity makes things uncomfortable, makes math seems strange.
Am not sure that I agree that Infinity is a not number as we use it in math, especially give your assumption(s).

This only means you don't know and don't understand math. It is okay. Not everyone is supposed to know it. But then, please avoid having opinions on something you don't know and don't understand.

That was a nice assertion fallacy. I would not be concerned if I were you, rather consider your uncivil tone, implying I am ignorant - surely you not do that is not allowed?

Hello John,

Your correspondent is quite correct. The arithmetic of transfinite cardinals is not covered in any undergraduate math course, so there's no reason to expect anyone other than another mathemagician to be familiar with it. I picked it up myself studying universal algebra under Willem Blok, a world-class specialist in non-classical logics, since deceased in a tragic car accident. There is no shame attached to ignorance of these topics. More, with enough years of training, there is no reason to feel uncomfortable with them. But, without that comfort level, it is inappropriate to attempt to discuss them, let alone correct those who are merely trying to help.

If you've been misled by using Wikipedia as your fact checker, please drop me a link via PM and I'll run over and fix it when I have time. Or just ask. This is what I do for a living. We speak of the various infinities as "cardinals" expressly to differentiate them from numbers. The term stems from the "cardinality" of sets deemed identical if they can be matched via 1-1 correspondences. They have their own arithmetic. They form an endless chain of larger and larger infinities. They can be added (via union of sets), multiplied (via Cartesian products), or exponentiated (via functions from one set to another), but not subtracted or divided.

The rules are not especially difficult to work out given a solid foundation. One of the simplest rules is that the sum of two cardinals is the larger cardinal. Via a triangulation argument, the same can be shown for a product. Exponentation requires familiarity with diagonalization arguments, which are quite interesting, but require more foundational material to discuss.

As ever, Jesse

[keithprosser3]

We speak of the various infinities as "cardinals" expressly to differentiate them from numbers

Transfinite cardinals, surely. The unmodified word 'cardinals' is not used exclusively for infinities by everybody and doing so may be considered a bit non-standard by some.

[lao tzu]

We speak of the various infinities as "cardinals" expressly to differentiate them from numbers

Transfinite cardinals, surely. The unmodified word 'cardinals' is not used exclusively for infinities by everybody and doing so may be considered a bit non-standard by some.

Hello Keith,

That's the context, yes, but the extended context is cardinal arithmetic. Certainly the cardinality of a finite set is similarly determined up to 1-1 correspondence. But note that since finite cardinals are arithmetically indistinguishable from numbers, the necessity does not occur except when working concurrently with transfinite cardinals.

As ever, Jesse

[1213]

Actually, his link, Earliest evidence of life found: 3.49 billion years ago, did not include a reference to carbon dating, which, as you note, is about the ratios of C-14 to C-12, but rather a reference to the biological signal imputed by the ratio of C-13/C-12. C-13,unlike C-14, is a stable isotope. That is, C-13 doesn't decay, and hence isn't used in dating.

Ok, thanks for correction and sorry for my mistake.

But this makes me wonder, how were the stones dated then? If there were used radiometric dating I still think radiometric dating is not reliable, because for example it assumes without good knowledge the conditions at the start point.

[Clownboat]

Actually, his link, Earliest evidence of life found: 3.49 billion years ago, did not include a reference to carbon dating, which, as you note, is about the ratios of C-14 to C-12, but rather a reference to the biological signal imputed by the ratio of C-13/C-12. C-13,unlike C-14, is a stable isotope. That is, C-13 doesn't decay, and hence isn't used in dating.

Ok, thanks for correction and sorry for my mistake.

But this makes me wonder, how were the stones dated then? If there were used radiometric dating I still think radiometric dating is not reliable, because for example it assumes without good knowledge the conditions at the start point.

Oh come one now. Let's be honest. "That" is not really the reason you find radiometric dating un-reliable now is it?

Consider for a minute that you had never been introduced to any religion and I would venture a guess that you would not find it un-reliable.

[JohnA]

Even if we use infinite (=your god), you are still left with a contradiction:

inf (your god) + 0 (nothing) = inf (your god) + (everything)

Hello John,

Given my exchange with AdHoc, I can't let this pass by. First, infinity is not a number, and thus cannot be used in simple arithmetic. Next, neither is "everything" a number, mut. mut. Last, there are well known rules for arithmetic with infinite cardinals. In particular, the sum of any two infinite cardinals is the larger infinity. Assuming AdHoc's god is bigger than "everything," and that "everything" is likewise an infinite cardinal, there is no contradiction in this equation.

As ever, Jesse

Agree with most of this, infinity makes things uncomfortable, makes math seems strange.
Am not sure that I agree that Infinity is a not number as we use it in math, especially give your assumption(s).

This only means you don't know and don't understand math. It is okay. Not everyone is supposed to know it. But then, please avoid having opinions on something you don't know and don't understand.

That was a nice assertion fallacy. I would not be concerned if I were you, rather consider your uncivil tone, implying I am ignorant - surely you not do that is not allowed?

Hello John,

Your correspondent is quite correct. The arithmetic of transfinite cardinals is not covered in any undergraduate math course, so there's no reason to expect anyone other than another mathemagician to be familiar with it. I picked it up myself studying universal algebra under Willem Blok, a world-class specialist in non-classical logics, since deceased in a tragic car accident. There is no shame attached to ignorance of these topics. More, with enough years of training, there is no reason to feel uncomfortable with them. But, without that comfort level, it is inappropriate to attempt to discuss them, let alone correct those who are merely trying to help.

If you've been misled by using Wikipedia as your fact checker, please drop me a link via PM and I'll run over and fix it when I have time. Or just ask. This is what I do for a living. We speak of the various infinities as "cardinals" expressly to differentiate them from numbers. The term stems from the "cardinality" of sets deemed identical if they can be matched via 1-1 correspondences. They have their own arithmetic. They form an endless chain of larger and larger infinities. They can be added (via union of sets), multiplied (via Cartesian products), or exponentiated (via functions from one set to another), but not subtracted or divided.

The rules are not especially difficult to work out given a solid foundation. One of the simplest rules is that the sum of two cardinals is the larger cardinal. Via a triangulation argument, the same can be shown for a product. Exponentation requires familiarity with diagonalization arguments, which are quite interesting, but require more foundational material to discuss.

As ever, Jesse

Hi Jesse,

I find your post very civil and polite. That would be great had it not been riddled with logical fallacies.

You could read the below, or jump to the end (----(the line bit)------).

Perhaps you seem to forget that I also read your response to Ad Hoc and at first glance it looks ok, but then if you know some of the content one would find a mountain of problems with it. As a good corporate atheist citizen I left this as is, but as a good corporate forum member I no longer can. My critique of your posts would take the form of:
Showing out the mistakes, AND showing why they are wrong.
Notice the above, is very different to how you addressed my posts so far. To date all you have done to my posts was STATE that I am wrong. That is what I would call an assertion fallacy since you have not STATED what it should be or WHY it is wrong. Notice, all you do is assert that infinity is not used in math. And then you state you have been schooled and you offer me your argument from authority. Jesse, surely you could see that your argument is grounded in a very solid foundation of a logical fallacy.
Perhaps you forgot your own rule:

Rule 1 of the internet: There's always someone reading your posts who knows whereof you speak, and can spot the double-talk, even if we don't usually spend the time to make a correction.

And I do agree with Ad Hoc when he asked you if you actually have a point to make? What is your point? Shall I dissect and try find this point?

1) Let me address this infinity issue.
My understanding is that you are claiming that infinity is not used in Mathematics as a number. And for this you offer an argument from authority (religious Georg Cantors Transfinite numbers to keep his God as absolute infinity). And the funny thing is that even Cantors absolute infinity has mathematical properties, and so does his Transfinite. Transfinite cardinals. WOW. Transfinite numbers are numbers that are "infinite", and cardinals are a fancy word for natural numbers used to measure the size of sets. The transfinite cardinal numbers describe the sizes of infinite sets. You seem to refer to Transfinite cardinals and not Transfinite cardinals NUMBERS and somehow substituted this via a straw man and obscurantism to support your red herring fallacy. Both these (Transfinite numbers and cardinal number) are used in math, they are used for infinity " so this is supporting my point, not yours! Besides Cantors absolute infinity (the third number) has mathematical properties as well as George defined it such in his topology/ tautology of it. Sure Canto contributed with his one-to-one correspondence, but you have to make that assumption first to use it (to say two sets are equal in size) beit countable and uncountable. And that is besides the fact that you seem to suggest I am ignorant == have no math training (undergrad or post " with no regard for actual experience), and you offer another argument from authority (Willem Blok) as if that could make your post any less acceptable. I think what you are really wanting to say is that absolute infinity (Cantor equated the Absolute Infinite with God) is not used in math " even though Canter says it is by his own definition has math properties. Not that then, that is not your claim/point?. I think you are trying to say that actual infinity does not exist, confusing that with "your" infinity and/or potential infinity. And for that you took the reference of infinity, applied obscurantism, added in a red herring, straw man, authority to offer Transfinite cardinals which ironically supports my point.
Jessy, you seem to be confused with using Cantor s one-to-one correspondence and then offering infinity does not exist based on that. That is a Non sequitur.

So, we can clearly see you have made some logical fallacies here. Not only assertion fallacies, and arguments from authority, and obscurantism, but your man Georg backs up my point. And you seem to completely neglect any reference to description of the infinity you are talking about. Have you forgotten about potential infinity? What about actual infinity? or Or Georg's Absolute infinity? Is the only game in town your Transfinite cardinals and this other thing called infinity that you claim is not used in math, has no math properties?

2) Let me get to your posts to Ad Hoc and point out some mistakes and WHY these are mistakes.
You wrote before:

Likewise, the multiverse " a physical theory with little if any support " does not signify something from nothing.

The above is just plain WRONG. Let me tell you why:
Firstly, the multiverse is not a physical theory. It is a hypotheses that there are a set of infinite or finite possible universes. To have hypotheses in science implies you need evidence to back it. The evidence for multiverse hypotheses so far is the cosmic microwave background radiation and cosmic inflation.
Secondly, many cosmologists and theoretical physicists are working on these multiverse hypotheses. So you are just wrong to say it has little support. You can check the Google for multiverse theorists. And see my reference below and the link to my other posts on this issue (ref / link below).
Thirdly, if you understand these hypotheses you would understand that some of it does and can offer something from nothing. Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem (yes that is math since you claim to be a math expert) is proof that inflation (valid for our universe and/or the multiverse had a start).
Lastly, your understanding of what Hawking offers is wrong. He uses imaginary unit i (complex numbers) to offer the no-boundary proposal, i.e. Hartle"Hawking state. That is not analogous to suggesting that, like the real numbers, the negatives lead to zero as well, and extend back to the same infinity as the positives. Richard Phillips Feynman proposed what you just mentioned via the One-electron universe hypothesis, not Hawking. Since you talked about virtual particles, I would have assumed you knew of the Feynman diagram. You straw manned Hawking.

You wrote before:

virtual particles. They are the standard counter-example to theistic insistence that something cannot come from nothing. More, they are uncaused, cf. Bell's theorem. Hence, virtual particles are uncaused causes, or uncreated creators, .

But that is just WRONG again. Let me tell you why.
Virtual particles are in the vacuum (the space which does not contain any atoms or molecules). But that does not imply that the vacuum is homogeneous and contains no gravity (negative energy) or other forces or stuff (dark matter / dark energy). See Casimir effect. Besides you cant extract Quantum Mechanics (QM) and assume it works for Classical Mechanics and/or Relativity scales. We have not combined QM and Relativity " please do not assume we have by conflating causality with determinism. String Theory is a mere theory in that it is conjecture; it is not a scientific theory at all. Ignorance of science results in an erroneous use of virtual particles as an argument for something from nothing.
Bells theorem has nothing to do with virtual particles being caused and uncaused. Bell came up with this theorem in his 1964 paper, "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox" to address quantum entanglement (the issue between Bohr and Einstein " spooky action at a distance). Einstein was shown wrong, not by Math (Bells theorem), but by experiment John Clauser and Stuart Freedman (1972) and Alain Aspect et al. (1981).
QM says virtual particles are randomly and spontaneously generated - hard to identify a specific cause. But that does not imply indirect causes, such as existing in the right conditions (quantum nature of space-time), are not what is happening. I'm also hoping you are not conflating causality with determinism. The Copenhagen interpretation says that indeterminism is real, so one way of interpreting the cause for the virtual particles is the Many Worlds interpretation (each quantum event creating a new (and undetectable) universe, etc.). You can also use de Broglie"Bohm theory for explaining this. Actually, there are many interpretations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpreta ... Comparison.
Your Uncaused virtual particles only works as an argument if you assume a non-deterministic interpretation to QM. Since you have no reason to pick one interpretation over another, your argument is empty.
Lastly on this, it is a mistake to equate the uncaused creation of virtual particles with the uncaused creation of everything because it is a Fallacy of Composition.

I can pick more fallacies from your dogma preaching, but why bother. Seems you admitted you are anot a Physicist or Philosopher, but only a mathematician. Math is not science, why are you misrepresenting science here? We need to address the OP question.


--------------(you can start reading here again if you wanted to skip the detail)------------

My attempt to extract what you are actually saying, my best guess of what you are trying to argue:
Actual Infinity does not exist & the multiverse theory is wrong/irrelevant = is that your claims?

Is so, please go here and defend your claim (you will read that it addresses you infinity and multiverse):
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 725#601725
Or state you claim. I am not a mind reader, it is hard for me to even think that I can mind read what people try to claim.

I leave you with a few quotes:
You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him discover it in himself. "Galileo
If all of mathematics disappeared, physics would be set back by exactly one week. - Richard P. Feynman (1918 - 1988)


I look forward to your responses dear mathematician, remember to honour your own 1st rule.