No Beginning? How Did We Ever Arrive Here Then?

[wenglund]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality

 

I've made no appeal to calculus as did MormonFreeThinker. While he was correct, it is also not necessary.

 

 

Incorrect. ∞ + 1 = ∞, ∞ + ∞ = ∞. The size/cardinality of all the sets are the same (be it ℵ₀ or ℵ₁ or ℵ₈₇ or whatever). Part of the reason that infinite sets was so problematic and late coming to mathematicians is that the arithmetic of infinite sets is not the same as the arithmetic of finite sets.

 

The correctness or incorrectness, then, depends upon the arithmetic being employed, or rather the meaning one assigns to "bigness" and "infinity.".

 

Again, calculus isn't the only means to conceptualize "bigness" in relationship to "infinities" (see my earlier comments as well as brother Bukowski's post #171 above).

 

Calculus may be how you prefer to assign meaning and examine the issue of infinity, and that is fine. I, on the other hand, chose not to be so limited.

 

Either way, we are pretty much on the same side in believing that some infinities are bigger than others. My intent in this thread was to help you convey the principle generally to those who have balked at the notion. So, I am not sure why you are fighting me on this.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nofear]

The correctness or incorrectness, then, depends upon the arithmetic being employed, or rather the meaning one assigns to "bigness" and "infinity.".

 

Again, calculus isn't the only means to conceptualize "bigness" in relationship to "infinities" (see my earlier comments as well as brother Bukowski's post #171 above).

 

Calculus may be how you prefer to assign meaning and examine the issue of infinity, and that is fine. I, on the other hand, chose not to be so limited.

 

I've made no appeal to calculus. Not relevant. Though that you mention it strongly suggests not really paying attention.

 

It is true that the everyday common definition of infinity and the infinity that is mathematically defined are not exactly the same. It was problematic, and frankly quite embarrassing to our community, when some interlocutors here sought to argue their case. My wife, who quite independently read the thread and is self-confessed not fully comprehending infinities, literally laughed out loud at some of the absurdity presented in the thread. As a community, we really ought do better. Such inanity can be and are very avoidable stumbling blocks to potential investigators (though usually most get over them and most people don't even know enough to know when they are being led astray).

 

 

Either way, we are pretty much on the same side in believing that some infinities are bigger than others. My intent in this thread was to help you convey the principle generally to those who have balked at the notion. So, I am not sure why you are fighting me on this.

It's not my intent to "fight" you on this. I simply pointed out an error it your argument. It's still an error. It's not enough to be right, we need to be right for the right reasons. Much in the same way that faith promoting rumors are ultimately damaging to Mormonism so ought we avoid flawed mathematical and scientific reasoning.

[Rob Osborn]

And as I was saying, infinite things aren't necessarily the same size as other infinite things. The things are what I am talking about measuring, and I am talking about different kinds of infinite things.

Say, for example, that chickens are infinite, with no beginning or end to the number of chickens there are and have been. There have always been fully grown chickens and there also always have been chicken eggs and every other thing related to chickens.

Now think about how those infinite things are and always have been different sizes, with fully grown chickens being bigger than their own chicken eggs. And while you're comparing sizes, also think about how we are bigger, at full size, than fully grown chickens, even though all of us and those things are eternal.

I realize what you re saying we are bigger than chickens

[Tiki]

I like how science has yet to explain how the Angel Moroni could bend light:

43 After this communication, I saw the light in the room begin to gather immediately around the person of him who had been speaking to me, and it continued to do so until the room was again left dark, except just around him; when, instantly I saw, as it were, a conduit open right up into heaven, and he ascended till he entirely disappeared,

The room became dark except around Moroni, etc. A lamp can't even do that.

Given that the source of light is God, then He is only allowing us to perceive what He wants us to perceive.

The fallacious Big Bang is based on observable evidence or "light" which is nothing to God.

We are as fish in a fish bowl confined to limits in this our mortal existence of testing.

[Ahab]

I realize what you re saying we are bigger than chickens

Yes and things that are infinite can be different sizes.

[Rob Osborn]

Yes and things that are infinite can be different sizes.

But you cant have different sizes of infinities as far as their count goes.

[MormonFreeThinker]

But you cant have different sizes of infinities as far as their count goes.

 

Do you believe the universe is infinite? 

The smallest measurable length is the Planck length, but what if you can go smaller? What if you can go infinitesimally small?  

[Nofear]

That question will just confuse the issue in my opinion, MormonFreeThinker. It's an irrefutable mathematically proven truth that infinities can be different "counts"/"sizes"/cardinality*. Whether or not such variant infinities physically exist in the universe is irrelevant. That some faithful LDS perpetuate mathematical falsehood is an embarrassment to our community.

 

 

* Really, you guys need to learn the definition of cardinality. The size, or even finite count, of members of an infinite set are totally irrelevant.

[Ahab]

But you cant have different sizes of infinities as far as their count goes.

Agreed. The number of anything infinite is infinite, and the size of things that are infinite is whatever the size of one of those infinite things is, or was, or will be.

[Ahab]

Do you believe the universe is infinite?

The smallest measurable length is the Planck length, but what if you can go smaller? What if you can go infinitesimally small?

The universe is an infinite space filled with both nothing and all there is/was/and ever will be. You can't have anything less than nothing, the empty space, and you also can't add any more matter of any kind to the universe because the universe already has an infinite amount of matter.

Try wrapping your mind around that idea.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Try wrapping your mind around that idea.

 

Our observable universe was once smaller than a atom, try wrapping your mind around that idea. 

[Ahab]

Our observable universe was once smaller than a atom, try wrapping your mind around that idea.

That's just plain silliness and makes no sense at all.

[ERayR]

That's just plain silliness and makes no sense at all.

 

That is what you get when you advocate suspending common sense as MTF has done more than once.  I find it a lesson in futility to try to communicate with him in any way other than to listen to him pontificate.

[MormonFreeThinker]

That is what you get when you advocate suspending common sense as MTF has done more than once. 

 

Cosmologists believe that because of the powerful evidence, you think they are ignorant?  Albert Einstein became famous when he suspended his common sense and discovered that energy and mass are the same thing. For me it is better to follow the evidence, even if it contradicts my common sense. 

Edited July 25, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Nofear]

Brigham Young said that “the religion embraced by the Latter-day Saints, if only slightly understood, prompts them to search diligently after knowledge. There is no other people in existence more eager to see, hear, learn, and understand truth.” (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 247.) (quoted here).

 

Unfortunately, these thread is proof positive that Pres. Young's assertion about our eagerness is far from universal.

[mfbukowski]

:rofl:

[VideoGameJunkie]

Just watch the beginning of the temple endowment video. What came before that? I have no idea.

[mfbukowski]

* Really, you guys need to learn the definition of cardinality.

Cardinality personified.

http://www.wbu.com/education/cardinals.html

[Nofear]

Cardinality personified.

http://www.wbu.com/education/cardinals.html

[mfbukowski]

Just watch the beginning of the temple endowment video. What came before that? I have no idea.

That is easily answered.

 

The guy talks for a while and then they turn off the lights.  Cheesh.

Edited July 25, 2014 by mfbukowski

[MormonFreeThinker]

Cardinality personified.

http://www.wbu.com/education/cardinals.html

 

mfbukowski,

 

Do you believe that there is strong evidence that our observable universe was once smaller than a atom? 

That doesn't make any sense to ERayR and Ahab, do you agree with them? 

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski,

 

Do you believe that there is strong evidence that our observable universe was once smaller than a atom? 

That doesn't make any sense to ERayR and Ahab, do you agree with them? 

It's totally irrelevant to anything important to me, and I know nothing about the alleged "evidence"

 

Science has nothing to do with religion.

 

If you're not good I will have to post my Rorty video again. 

[MiserereNobis]

It's totally irrelevant to anything important to me, and I know nothing about the alleged "evidence"

 

Science has nothing to do with religion.

 

If you're not good I will have to post my Rorty video again. 

 

Oh dear God, not The Video  (Miserere fumbles for his Rosary...)

Edited July 25, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[ksfisher]

Yes! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... our two weapons are fear and surprise...and The Rorty Video!

[mfbukowski]

Oh dear God, not The Video  (Miserere fumbles for his Rosary...)