| Go to page (Previous) 1 ~ 2 ~ 3 ~ 4 ... 34 ~ 35 ~ 36 (Next) |
|
|
acesover
Special user
I believe I have
983 Posts
|
Posted: May 22, 2012 5:41pm
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-22 17:06, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
| On 2012-05-22 16:42, acesover wrote:
If something is infinite how can it have a beginning? For if it started somewhere that could be determined as an end in of itself. |
|
The whole numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, . . . .) are infinite in extent, and they begin with 1.
|
|
I have to disagree with you from a layman's point of view. 1 is definitely finite as it means just that 1. The number 1 cannot be divided by infinity as infinity is a concept not a number. Ergo I feel 1 is a definitely finite. Nothing can be divided by infinity therefore nothing is infinite. However this is just my thinking on this. I know of nothing that is infinite. We may speculate on the universe but I for one do not know.
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate!”]
|
Jonathan Townsend
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
25259 Posts
|
Posted: May 22, 2012 6:03pm
A* he's talking about the collection of whole numbers. Pick any whole number, no matter how large, and you can find more that are even larger.
Similarly the extent of the numbers you can express as fractions, even if you bound your area of inquiry will be uncountably large.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
acesover
Special user
I believe I have
983 Posts
|
Posted: May 22, 2012 6:13pm
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-22 18:03, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
A* he's talking about the collection of whole numbers. Pick any whole number, no matter how large, and you can find more that are even larger.
Similarly the extent of the numbers you can express as fractions, even if you bound your area of inquiry will be uncountably large.
|
|
Not sure I understand the concept except. I do understand that one can keep making a number larger and larger just by adding zeros but no number in of itself is infinite. I would imagine there is no way to express an infinite number. Again H.S. Trig. If there was such a number there could only be 1 of it so the infinite numbers you mention would be untrue...that is if one coud express an infinite number.
Unfortunately I am speaking form someone whose advanced math is High School Trig and that is 50 years ago (50th reunion this year) and what I answered is just my thoughts on this topic.
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate!”]
|
S2000magician
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3597 Posts
|
Posted: May 22, 2012 6:25pm
The set of whole numbers in infinite, and the set has a beginning: 1. No suggestion that any of the elements in the set (e.g., 5) is, itself, infinite.
BCIII
The Polite Side of Magic
Risk Mitigation Associates
Bottom Line Gurus
I took the Pledge
|
S2000magician
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3597 Posts
|
Posted: May 22, 2012 6:28pm
Quote:
| On 2012-05-22 17:35, acesover wrote:
Quote:
| On 2012-05-22 17:07, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
| On 2012-05-22 16:30, acesover wrote:
This whole theory sounds like the deal of where is John after he jumped off the bridge. |
|
"When", I think you mean. |
|
When or where, I do not see much difference. |
|
Not "when" versus "where"; "when" versus "after".
You'd written ". . . where is John after he jumped . . . ?"; I think you meant ". . . where is John when he jumped . . . ?" You explained where he was after he jumped (in the air) and before he jumped (on the bridge); it's at the instant of jumping that's the puzzler.
BCIII
The Polite Side of Magic
Risk Mitigation Associates
Bottom Line Gurus
I took the Pledge
|
critter
Inner circle
Spokane, WA
2334 Posts
|
Posted: May 22, 2012 6:45pm
Well the whole point I was trying to make there is that just because something is outside of my area of expertise, and/or difficult to wrap my head around, don't mean it ain't so.
I throw stuff.
Follow Critter on Twitter: @Critterdun
Ichi-go ichi-e
"Courtesy is as much a mark of a gentleman as courage."
-Theodore Roosevelt
|
acesover
Special user
I believe I have
983 Posts
|
Posted: May 22, 2012 6:52pm
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-22 18:28, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
| On 2012-05-22 17:35, acesover wrote:
Quote:
| On 2012-05-22 17:07, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
| On 2012-05-22 16:30, acesover wrote:
This whole theory sounds like the deal of where is John after he jumped off the bridge. |
|
"When", I think you mean. |
|
When or where, I do not see much difference. |
|
Not "when" versus "where"; "when" versus "after".
You'd written ". . . where is John after he jumped . . . ?"; I think you meant ". . . where is John when he jumped . . . ?" You explained where he was after he jumped (in the air) and before he jumped (on the bridge); it's at the instant of jumping that's the puzzler.
|
|
Yes you are correct. That makes more sense now that I read it again.
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate!”]
|
acesover
Special user
I believe I have
983 Posts
|
Posted: May 22, 2012 6:54pm
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-22 18:45, critter wrote:
Well the whole point I was trying to make there is that just because something is outside of my area of expertise, and/or difficult to wrap my head around, don't mean it ain't so.
|
|
EXACTLY 
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate!”]
|
acesover
Special user
I believe I have
983 Posts
|
Posted: May 22, 2012 6:57pm
The only person I know that knows all there is to know about Infinity is Buzz Lightyear. TO INFINITY AND BEYOND.
I think that says it all.
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate!”]
|
kambiz
Inner circle
Perth, down by the cool of the pool
1410 Posts
|
Posted: May 22, 2012 7:02pm
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-22 14:14, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
| On 2012-05-22 07:14, kambiz wrote:
Putting God as the explanation for the unexplainable is a gross mistake . . . . |
|
While I generally find your views refreshing, well-reasoned, and eloquent, I'm not sure I can in this instance: How is this (with certainty) a gross mistake? (I add "with certainty" because you say that it is, not merely that it might be.) It sounds as though you have a much faith that God doesn't do the unexplainable as others have that He does.
|
|
If I may clarify.
As we know it, the human kingdom is the pinnacle of creation. In order of intelligence and complexity, we have the mineral, plant, animal and human kingdoms.
To the plant kingdom, the essence and effects of the animal kingdom may be deemed supernatural. Creation is in its very essence graded.
So by that logic, and by the very fact that the concept of infinity exists, it seems rational to have faith that a multitude, or even an infinite number of kingdoms and dimensions exist beyond our senses and knowledge. Baha'u'llah writes that it's not just heaven, but there are infinite (non physical) worlds of God, and the human journey is eternal.
May I propose therefore that the explanation for what we deem supernatural or unexplainable may find its root cause within the other kingdoms of creation? God is far, far, far removed from all this petty little stuff we call "unexplainable"
He is beyond ascent and descent, egress and regress, His attributes are completely unknown to man (who considers himself so knowledgeable sometimes). In fact knowledge is often a barrier to attaining the presence of the "sweet scented favors of His garment"
Hope that clarifies the thoughts I expressed
Kam
If I speak forth, many a mind will shatter,
And if I write, many a pen will break.
.....and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay!
|
R.S.
Special user
CT
653 Posts
|
Posted: May 22, 2012 7:32pm
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-22 11:12, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-22 06:38, R.S. wrote:
The difference between scientific theories and faith is that one explains observable facts while the other is belief despite any supporting evidence.
|
|
This is not true. For instance, I know Christians whose faith is based, to varying degrees, on supporting evidence, such as fulfilled Biblical prophecies. As to how much weight certain types of evidence should be given, that's a separate issue. Science generally has its own methods and criteria (testability, repeatability, etc.) but it's not the exclusive framework for evidence.
|
|
If you have all that supporting evidence, then you wouldn't need faith, right? Faith may give one hope, or even some degree of confidence, that something exists. But only evidence can settle the issue.
Ron
See above for what I just said.
|
R.S.
Special user
CT
653 Posts
|
Posted: May 22, 2012 7:34pm
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-22 16:41, mastermindreader wrote:
With all due respect, I think the problem you are having is simply about the meaning of "nothing." The Big Bang Theory is simply a viable explanation for what science has observed about the universe.
Think of "nothing" as meaning "no thing" in a physical sense. This doesn't contradict religious interpretations at all. "For in the beginning the world was without form and void." Void means empty of all things. But obviously not empty of spirit.
The Catholic Church, for one, sees no conflict between the Big Bang theory and the idea that God created the universe.
"And let there be light." (Kaboom! The Big Bang if you will.)
Good thoughts,
Bob
|
|
Right.
Ron
See above for what I just said.
|
Steve_Mollett
Inner circle
Eh, so I've made
2603 Posts
|
Posted: May 22, 2012 7:43pm
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-21 20:42, tommy wrote:
Everything in Universe is living even the dead things.
|
|
"That is not dead which can eternal lie,
"And with strange aeons even death may die."
- H.P. Lovecraft
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
- Albert Camus
|
LobowolfXXX
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1598 Posts
|
Posted: May 22, 2012 7:53pm
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-22 19:32, R.S. wrote:
If you have all that supporting evidence, then you wouldn't need faith, right? Faith may give one hope, or even some degree of confidence, that something exists. But only evidence can settle the issue.
Ron
|
|
Not at all. A trial is, perhaps, the simplest example. We have two conflicting sides: Guilty or Not Guilty. Or in a civil case, Liable or Not Liable. And both sides have evidence supporting them. And yet some of the evidence doesn't lead to a correct conclusion. The jury (or judge) decides for one or the other, but that in and of itself is an evidence-based leap of faith.
It's when you have "knowledge" or "proof" that you don't need faith. Accepting some scientific theories is itself an act of faith, and many of those theories are later disproven, despite the evidence that appeared to support them. There is faith in science, and there is evidence in metaphysics.
-DFO
"All I wanted to do was work with John for the rest of my life."
LSAT tutor & author of "LSAT 60 Dissected," available online.
|
kambiz
Inner circle
Perth, down by the cool of the pool
1410 Posts
|
Posted: May 22, 2012 8:28pm
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-22 19:53, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-22 19:32, R.S. wrote:
If you have all that supporting evidence, then you wouldn't need faith, right? Faith may give one hope, or even some degree of confidence, that something exists. But only evidence can settle the issue.
Ron
|
|
Not at all. A trial is, perhaps, the simplest example. We have two conflicting sides: Guilty or Not Guilty. Or in a civil case, Liable or Not Liable. And both sides have evidence supporting them. And yet some of the evidence doesn't lead to a correct conclusion. The jury (or judge) decides for one or the other, but that in and of itself is an evidence-based leap of faith.
It's when you have "knowledge" or "proof" that you don't need faith. Accepting some scientific theories is itself an act of faith, and many of those theories are later disproven, despite the evidence that appeared to support them. There is faith in science, and there is evidence in metaphysics.
|
|
Very, very well said Lobo
Kam
If I speak forth, many a mind will shatter,
And if I write, many a pen will break.
.....and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay!
|
tommy
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
13341 Posts
|
Posted: May 23, 2012 1:06am
Some people believe in god, some people believe in gravity, the way I see it is, what's the difference?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy
|
R.S.
Special user
CT
653 Posts
|
Posted: May 23, 2012 6:39am
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-22 19:53, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-22 19:32, R.S. wrote:
If you have all that supporting evidence, then you wouldn't need faith, right? Faith may give one hope, or even some degree of confidence, that something exists. But only evidence can settle the issue.
Ron
|
|
Not at all. A trial is, perhaps, the simplest example. We have two conflicting sides: Guilty or Not Guilty. Or in a civil case, Liable or Not Liable. And both sides have evidence supporting them. And yet some of the evidence doesn't lead to a correct conclusion. The jury (or judge) decides for one or the other, but that in and of itself is an evidence-based leap of faith.
It's when you have "knowledge" or "proof" that you don't need faith. Accepting some scientific theories is itself an act of faith, and many of those theories are later disproven, despite the evidence that appeared to support them. There is faith in science, and there is evidence in metaphysics.
|
|
And "knowledge" or "proof" can only come from supporting evidence. But not from faith alone. That's my point. So it seems we're in agreement on that. In your example of a civil case, how could the case be ultimately resolved? By more faith? No. It would be resolved by more scientifically based evidence. In fact, the only thing that COULD conclusively separate the "incorrect" evidence from the "correct" evidence is... evidence based science! And in the case of some scientific theories being later disproven, I'm pretty sure they were disproven using empirical evidence - not through faith. And that, in essence, is the beauty of evidence-based science. It is not rigid and dogmatic, but open to revision. And only through revision can progress be made.
Ron
Ron
See above for what I just said.
|
tommy
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
13341 Posts
|
Posted: May 23, 2012 9:20am
Evidence is something which tends to prove or disprove any fact or conclusion.
In a trial it means the information which is put before the court in order prove the facts in issue, i,e in a criminal trial those facts which the prosecution must prove in order to prove its case and the defendant must establish in oder to raise a defence.
Who is and what is the defendant charged with in this case?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy
|
acesover
Special user
I believe I have
983 Posts
|
Posted: May 23, 2012 10:33am
All this discussion about Big BAng Theory, Something from nothing, Supreme Being, is nothing more than what one wants to believe and they present arguements to that end. "Wants" being the key word.
The scientiest here who does not believe in God (Supreme Being) is not going to persuaded to think otherwise. One who has a deep religious sentiment is not going to be convinced we are here by an accident of the something from nothing idea (because they know God created all) and will not be persuaded to think otherwise. The fact of the matter is that both sides have faith. However one has a faith in a Supreme Being and the other in science. Before you jump up and say but the science approach proves...stop right there. There is NO PROOF of how it all began. There are ideas theories but NO PROOF, only theories no matter how good or contrived they sound they are just that theories. Definitely a stalemate.
We can't even figure out the childish question of... What came first, the chicken or the egg? Yet we want to convince others as to how the universe and life was created.
I would like to ask those who adhere to the theory that we are here by accident a question. What proof would it take to make you believe that there is a Supreme Being (God)? Is there anything that could convince you there is a God?
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch’entrate!”]
|
kambiz
Inner circle
Perth, down by the cool of the pool
1410 Posts
|
Posted: May 23, 2012 11:20am
Yes there may be no proof for any Supreme Being.
So the question is, what were His Appointed Representatives (Jesus, Muhammad, The Bab, Baha'u'llah, to name a few) all talking about?
We're they all mad?
Kam
If I speak forth, many a mind will shatter,
And if I write, many a pen will break.
.....and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay!
|
tommy
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
13341 Posts
|
Posted: May 23, 2012 11:25am
I swear by Almighty God that I will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I rest my case.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy
|
Payne
Inner circle
Seattle
4264 Posts
|
Posted: May 23, 2012 11:31am
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-23 10:33, acesover wrote:
I would like to ask those who adhere to the theory that we are here by accident a question. What proof would it take to make you believe that there is a Supreme Being (God)? Is there anything that could convince you there is a God?
|
|
What would it take for you to believe in the existence of Zeus or Thor? What evidence is required for you to accept the existence of other mythical creatures like Unicorns, Fairy's or Vampires? Out of all the gods that have been believed in over the centuries why do you accept the existence of yours over all the others? Once you can answer these questions then you will have a better understanding of what it would take for us to believe in your deity of choice.
I contend that we are both atheists.
I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
http://masterpaynemagic.com
Need a Corset in Seattle? http://fittingroomcorsets.com
|
Payne
Inner circle
Seattle
4264 Posts
|
Posted: May 23, 2012 11:35am
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-22 18:13, acesover wrote:
Not sure I understand the concept except. I do understand that one can keep making a number larger and larger just by adding zeros but no number in of itself is infinite.
|
|
Pi is an infinite number. So yes, there is at least one that is and of itself infinite.
I contend that we are both atheists.
I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
http://masterpaynemagic.com
Need a Corset in Seattle? http://fittingroomcorsets.com
|
tommy
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
13341 Posts
|
Posted: May 23, 2012 11:38am
What does it take for you to believe in gravity?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy
|
S2000magician
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3597 Posts
|
Posted: May 23, 2012 11:50am
Quote:
| On 2012-05-23 11:35, Payne wrote:
Quote:
| On 2012-05-22 18:13, acesover wrote:
Not sure I understand the concept except. I do understand that one can keep making a number larger and larger just by adding zeros but no number in of itself is infinite. |
|
Pi is an infinite number. So yes, there is at least one that is and of itself infinite. |
|
I'm not sure what you mean by this; pi is finite: 3 < pi < 4.
BCIII
The Polite Side of Magic
Risk Mitigation Associates
Bottom Line Gurus
I took the Pledge
|
LobowolfXXX
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1598 Posts
|
Posted: May 23, 2012 12:11pm
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-23 11:25, tommy wrote:
I swear by Almighty God that I will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I rest my case.
|
|
Alternatively, "I affirm that I will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
-DFO
"All I wanted to do was work with John for the rest of my life."
LSAT tutor & author of "LSAT 60 Dissected," available online.
|
S2000magician
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3597 Posts
|
Posted: May 23, 2012 12:13pm
Quote:
| On 2012-05-23 12:11, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Alternatively, "I affirm that I will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." |
|
You can trust me because I just told you that you can trust me.
BCIII
The Polite Side of Magic
Risk Mitigation Associates
Bottom Line Gurus
I took the Pledge
|
LobowolfXXX
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1598 Posts
|
Posted: May 23, 2012 12:19pm
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-23 12:13, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
| On 2012-05-23 12:11, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Alternatively, "I affirm that I will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." |
|
You can trust me because I just told you that you can trust me.
|
|
You can trust me because I know that I can go to prison for several years if I lie.
-DFO
"All I wanted to do was work with John for the rest of my life."
LSAT tutor & author of "LSAT 60 Dissected," available online.
|
mastermindreader
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
6071 Posts
|
Posted: May 23, 2012 12:43pm
Never trust anyone who starts a sentence with, "You can trust me because..."
|
S2000magician
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3597 Posts
|
Posted: May 23, 2012 12:48pm
Quote:
| On 2012-05-23 12:19, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
| On 2012-05-23 12:13, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
| On 2012-05-23 12:11, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Alternatively, "I affirm that I will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." |
|
You can trust me because I just told you that you can trust me. |
|
You can trust me because I know that I can go to prison for several years if I lie. |
|
If that were the case, then the affirmation would simply be: I understand the penalties for perjury, no?
BCIII
The Polite Side of Magic
Risk Mitigation Associates
Bottom Line Gurus
I took the Pledge
|
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Do you think "our" (the) universe is fine-tuned for life? |
|
|
| Go to page (Previous) 1 ~ 2 ~ 3 ~ 4 ... 34 ~ 35 ~ 36 (Next) |
|
![[8]](/forums/images/digits/8.gif)
![[1]](/forums/images/digits/1.gif)
![[3]](/forums/images/digits/3.gif)
![[9]](/forums/images/digits/9.gif)
![[2]](/forums/images/digits/2.gif)
![[7]](/forums/images/digits/7.gif)