Non Math

The Universe is always being created by an infinite God that is an Infinite Creator who is, has, and will always be creating because all of his qualities are infinite and forever.

Technically none of these are infinite, there are a finite number of galaxies and stars and planets even of matter in the universe. It is just a very large number.

In a simple integer system of numerals infinite is relatively easily understood, which everyone makes it sound very complicated but not really complicated. You just reiteratively starting at 0 add 1 until it is impossible to add 1 anymore in that number system, then infinite is one more then that final number.

Tell that to Georg Cantor!

Kay Williams,

Just athought:

In this universe, which appears in the most complete perfection, beauty and grandeur, the luminous stars of the material universe are innumerable! The universe is limitless and infinite.

If we look with a perceiving eye upon the world of creation, we find that all existing things may be classified as follows: First -- Mineral -- that is to say matter or substance appearing in various forms of composition. Second -- Vegetable -- possessing the virtues of the mineral plus the power of augmentation or growth, indicating a degree higher and more specialized than the mineral. Third -- Animal -- possessing the attributes of the mineral and vegetable plus the power of sense perception. Fourth -- Human -- the highest specialized organism of visible creation, embodying the qualities of the mineral, vegetable and animal plus an ideal endowment absolutely minus and absent in the lower kingdoms -- the power of intellectual investigation into the mysteries of outer phenomena. The outcome of this intellectual endowment is science which is especially characteristic of man. This scientific power investigates and apprehends created objects and the laws surrounding them. It is the discoverer of the hidden and mysterious secrets of the material universe and is peculiar to man alone. The most noble and praiseworthy accomplishment of man therefore is scientific knowledge and attainment.

Science may be likened to a mirror wherein the images of the mysteries of outer phenomena are reflected. It brings forth and exhibits to us in the arena of knowledge all the product of the past. It links together past and present. The philosophical conclusions of bygone centuries, the teachings of the prophets and wisdom of former sages are crystallized and reproduced in the scientific advancement of today. Science is the discoverer of the past. From its premises of past and present we deduce conclusions as to the future. Science is the governor of nature and its mysteries, the one agency by which man explores the institutions of material creation. All created things are captives of nature and subject to its laws. They cannot transgress the control of these laws in one detail or particular. The infinite starry worlds and heavenly bodies are nature's obedient subjects. The earth and its myriad organisms, all minerals, plants and animals are thralls of its dominion. But man through the exercise of his scientific, intellectual power can rise out of this condition, can modify, change and control nature according to his own wishes and uses. Science, so to speak, is the "breaker" of the laws of nature.

Consider, for example, that man according to natural law should dwell upon the surface of the earth. By overcoming this law and restriction however he sails in ships over the ocean, mounts to the zenith in aeroplanes and sinks to the depths of the sea in submarines. Gone to the moon and next stop mars. This is against the fiat of nature and a violation of her sovereignty and dominion. Nature's laws and methods, the hidden secrets and mysteries of the universe, human inventions and discoveries, all our scientific acquisitions should naturally remain concealed and unknown, but man through his intellectual acumen searches them out of the plane of the invisible, draws them into the plane of the visible, exposes and explains them. For instance, one of the mysteries of nature is electricity. According to nature this force, this energy should remain latent and hidden, but man scientifically breaks through the very laws of nature, arrests it and even imprisons it for his use.

In brief, man through the possession of this ideal endowment of scientific investigation is the most noble product of creation, the governor of nature. He takes the sword from nature's hand and uses it upon nature's head. According to natural law, night is a period of darkness and obscurity, but man by utilizing the power of electricity, by wielding this electric sword overcomes the darkness and dispels the gloom. Man is superior to nature and makes nature do his bidding. Man is a sensitive being; nature is minus sensation. Man has memory and reason; nature lacks them. Man is nobler than nature. There are powers within him of which nature is devoid. It may be claimed that these powers are from nature itself and that man is a part of nature. In answer to this statement we will say that if nature is the whole and man is a part of that whole, how could it be possible for a part to possess qualities and virtues which are absent in the whole? Undoubtedly the part must be endowed with the same qualities and properties as the whole. For example, the hair is a part of the human anatomy. It cannot contain elements which are not found in other parts of the body, for in all cases the component elements of the body are the same. Therefore it is manifest and evident that man, although in body a part of nature, nevertheless in spirit possesses a power transcending nature; for if he were simply a part of nature and limited to material laws he could possess only the things which nature embodies. God has conferred upon and added to man a distinctive power, the faculty of intellectual investigation into the secrets of creation, the acquisition of higher knowledge, the greatest virtue of which is scientific enlightenment.

This endowment is the most praiseworthy power of man, for through its employment and exercise, the betterment of the human race is accomplished, the development of the virtues of mankind is made possible and the spirit and mysteries of God become manifest.

Jon

Nice dissertation, man does not master nature, he has merely learned how to navigate her waters (we still sow in spring and reap in fall) We haven't brought electricity under our domination either we merely harness it.(Ask any golfer who is caught in a thunderstorm on the 14th Hole) Man is not superior to nature!(sorry jon but i must disagree) We have only learned how to make natures natural outcomes benefit us. we have no control over nature we just like to "engineer" its benefits K

K,

It is all part of understanding our universe from the smallest to the largest.

"merely learned how to navigate her waters" Learning how to navigate waters is mastery.

"we still sow in spring and reap in fall" We didn't always do the sowing and some folks on the planet still do hunting and gathering. We do it so much better now that we have observed how it works and mastered it by modifying and capturing it in farms, nurseries and greenhouses. Another mastery.

We have learned the nature of lightning and can avoid it or capture it and route it safely past us. One of the things produced by investigating lightning and understanding its nature was the radio.

By investigating and learning we can produce electricity where there was none. That's not capturing and confining. That's making it for our uses

We made mechanical devices for capturing the energy of moving water to run machines where people and animals had been used for the work.

We even learned enough to make our own little moons that communicate with us so we can navigate better and watch TV from anywhere in the world and see me standing in my back yard.

Harnessing, domination, mastery, engineering? call it what you like, it's the same.

Because of that ability man is superior to nature. Nature doesn't think or create as man does.

"We have only learned how to make natures natural outcomes benefit us. We have no control over nature we just like to "engineer" its benefits"

Natures natural outcome doesnt make power systems to light my house or heat my house. An engineer had go out and capture it. That is all about domination, control and mastery.

The animals haven't done that. It is the little extra that man was given that allows him to manipulate his environment.

We are no longer hiding in caves hoping for lightning to start a fire so we can go stand by it to keep warm for a while and take some home. Maybe find some cooked critters on the way too. Eventually learn to do french cooking.

Jon

except in some places where they grow yeear round like in california, or grow winter crops like in southern California and Arizona deserts.

You assert that 'the luminous stars of the material universe are innumerable! The universe is limitless and infinite.' What is your basis for this? Fred Hoyle (my childhood hero) made the same claim, but eventually abandoned this idea in the face of so much contradictory evidence. Do you know something he didn't know at the time, and if so what is it?

You also assert the primacy of man in your 'chain of being'. While it is obvioius that we have learned to use the materials and processes offered by our natural word to improve our lives, isn't the same thing true of the termites who build elaborate structures out of dirt and sticks, that allow them to thrive in what would otherwise be inhospitable environments? What about or cetacean friends? They have clearly developed complex language skills that allow them to communicate with their own kind? What do they talk about? We have no idea because we can't understand their language, even though they have shown a remarkable talent for understanding ours. They could be discussing the size of the universe for all we know. I'm not arguing that termites and cetaceans are smarter than we are. I'm simply suggesting that the differences between us and them is a matter of degree. To claim that we are not just superior, but fundamentally different from other animal life on this planet smacks of pride to me.

Johnfotl,

You missed the part that implies that we ARE superior AND fundamentally different.

Not pride, just fact.

Man has adapted to his environment just like the termites and Whales. We have gone beyond adapting.

Termites and Whales aren't sharing the road with me yet though. And the Whales didn't wage war against the hunters because they were busy chatting it up and laughing about us all being killed by the huge object headed for us.

We haven't terraformed Mars to escape the impending meteor disaster of 2012 so maybe we are kind of backward.

Jon

We know there are billions of stars within billions of galaxies in the unviverse,who says there is not trillions of galaxies too.??

"Scientific knowledge is always in a state of flux. New scientific discoveries come along and overthrow long-held hypotheses" - HVAC

HVAC,

Exactly.

Jon

When we have evidence that there are trillions, not billions, of galaxies, then we can update our scientific models. If there are of trillions of galaxies, each containing billions of stars and creating new ones all the time, we are still a long way from the 'infinite number of stars' postulated at the beginning of this thread. Any huge number we can think of multiplied by another huge number will still be an infinitely small fraction of infinity.

Lets expand the mind a bit shall we....there maybe trillions of universes.

So,we have a millions of stars, in billions of galaxies, in trillions of universes.

"The best mind-altering drug is truth"

Hvac,

Trillions of universes would still be one universe by definition.

Our known universe is pretty big so far.

The size of our known universe times trillions would be really big.

Jon

as you wish....

benbenben here again...or perhaps benbenbanned IS more appropriate....

there are some rather profound misunderstanding circling the idea of 'infinite'. misunderstandings are not at all rare. what is rare is tha levelof confidence surrounding the misunderstandings. several members appear so confident as to base 'proofs' that the universe could not be infinite on the misunderstanding.

One major misconception involves the belief that infinite requires inclusion of every conceivable excentricity. an example is the set of possitive integers; it is infinte without containing any of the negative integers, and we needn't worry that the set might fail to be infinite because it contains such a monsterous number that the entire set was destroyed by the rage of that monsterous number.

indeed, the universe could be infinte, without having infinte numbers of exactly you, containing a universe destroying condition, and without being flooded with high energy infinity death rays.

after all, it isn't possibility that dominates, it is probability. even in an infinte universe, conditions sufficiently complex to cause an infintesimal probability pf occurance may result in a few, only one or perhaps no occurances.

the other big misconception seems to be concerning some sort of cap on the size of an infinte set..... as in 'we can't have infinte stars, because stars release trillions of gamma rays per instand, and that would mean more than an infinite number of gamma rays'.... infinte sets contain infinte sets, this cap is imaginary.... remember man is the measure of all things

... and as for the Invisible Man in the Sky....you know, the One who has 10 things you cannot do, or he will make you choke and gag and burn in tormented pain for all eternity...... but..don't forget, he loves you. he loves you as much as he thought Abraham should love his own son, when he commanded him to sacrafice the boy (and was pleased that he would) (with values like that, how big of a deal is it, really that he gave his only begotten sone, for your salvation? and who was he paying that debt to anyway...who is God's bookie?).......oh, and.... he's really really bad with money..... billions in tax free eyery year, and always needs a little more...but other than that is perfect in every way. and can even help your football team win, and even has set up a fancy place for everyone to gather and compare clothes on sunday...

how sad it is that we maintain high standards for proof in nearly every other aspect of our lives except this for this type of sham. how sad that we let derision and hate spread under the auspices of 'tollerance' for outdated ideas amout big magic men in the sky...how sad we have not yet become intollerant of this tollerance....

.....what a cruel misguiding establishment that has people act in horrible ways for the promise of some later lfe.......all the while missing the very miracle of the life they are currently blessed to live.

worse yet,

.. what a cruel dangerous deceit and diversion; orchestrated with the potential to rob an individual's opportunity to experience the miraculous spontaneous intimate relationship with the what-it-is.

you aren't something or another on the edge of nowhere, you are the fingertip of the devine,

now as never before,weilding the cutting edge of possibility....unfolding into a future so vastly different as to be nearly unrecognizable to our soon to be former selves....

but i digress, that is a topic for another place. but i ask you to consider rescending you agreement exempt basesless tales of magic beings in the shy from the critical discerning eye you use to devine truth in the rest of you life.

benbenben

A Table of Contents would be most helpful here. And chapter headings ...

Isn't it time somebody mentioned Olber ? If not, I've done so anyway !

If Light, is a "visible electro-magnetic radiation" and God is light,how come we cany see God?

HVAC,

It is my understanding that it is "Light" in the figurative sense. Divine light refers to the source of enlightenment in a spiritual sense rather than material.

Light as opposed to its absence - darkness. It is a common Western metaphor of good and evil, knowledge and ignorance, and similar concepts.

Jon

benbenben here again...or perhaps benbenbanned IS more appropriate.... there are some rather profound misunderstanding circling the idea of 'infinite'. misunderstandings are not at all rare. what is rare is tha levelof confidence surrounding the misunderstandings. several members appear so confident as to base 'proofs' that the universe could not be infinite on the misunderstanding. One major misconception involves the belief that infinite requires inclusion of every conceivable excentricity. an example is the set of possitive integers; it is infinte without containing any of the negative integers, and we needn't worry that the set might fail to be infinite because it contains such a monsterous number that the entire set was destroyed by the rage of that monsterous number. indeed, the universe could be infinte, without having infinte numbers of exactly you, containing a universe destroying condition, and without being flooded with high energy infinity death rays. after all, it isn't possibility that dominates, it is probability. even in an infinte universe, conditions sufficiently complex to cause an infintesimal probability pf occurance may result in a few, only one or perhaps no occurances. the other big misconception seems to be concerning some sort of cap on the size of an infinte set..... as in 'we can't have infinte stars, because stars release trillions of gamma rays per instand, and that would mean more than an infinite number of gamma rays'.... infinte sets contain infinte sets, this cap is imaginary.... remember man is the measure of all things... and as for the Invisible Man in the Sky.... who has 10 things you cannot do, or he will make you choke and gag and burn in tormented pain for all eternity...... but... he loves you....... and.... he's really bad with money..... billions in tax free eyery year, and always needs a little more..... what a cruel dangerous diversion orchestrated with the potential to rob an individuals opportunity to experience the miraculous spontaneous intimate relationship with the what-it-is. you aren't something or another on the edge of nowhere, you are the fingertip of the devine, now as never before,weilding the cutting edge of possibility....unfolding into a future so vastly different as to be nearly unrecognizable to our soon to be former selves.... but i digress, that is a topic for another place.

Could you please break that down into coherent paragraphs so I could read it ?

Many thanks. I'm sure there's something good in it (I believe the best in all), but I just can't read such a big block of text.

On the other hand, there may be an infinitely small possibility that the Universe is infinite.

Actually, I do have a list of all the positive integers contained in a file on my PC. I would post it here, but unfortunately none of you would live long enough to read it... Even if you skipped to the end.

Vermin,

Beautifully stated.

Jon

So now you're talking about Tony Robbins???

Infinity is a number so large that you can manipulate it and still get infinity. Infinity is at the opposite end of the number spectrum from zero. In the same way that you can multiply or divide zero by any number and still get zero, you can multiply or divide it by any number and still get infinity. If you divide any number by zero, the result is infinity.

There is no actual proof that the numbers of stars and galaxies are infinite, it is an assumption, made I think, by non astrophysicists. It seems fraught with danger, if there were an infinite number of stars, would not that mean that all that mass would cause an infinite gravitational force?

Any number divided by zero is NOT infinity... It's completely "undefined."

The division operation itself is undefined in the case where the divisor is identically zero. It is not that the division operation equals "infinity" where division-by-zero is concerned. It is that there is no division operation at all. This is what it means for division-by-zero to be "undefined." For this particular case the division operation does not even exist, much less produce meaningful results.

Concerning the "equality" of infinity to something else: it is meaningless to speak of infinity as being "equal" to anything; not even to itself. Why? Infinity is not a number. The equality operator is not defined where infinity is concerned, consequently it is completely meaningless to equate anything with infinity. There is no operator for it, not even in principle.

That may all be well and fine, but what if there is no one around to do the dividing? Then can the division still not take place or does the division still take place but remains in a state of undefined-ness until someone actually gets divided? Huh? Huh?

I do get a little lost, more than one new language of mathematics has been invented and terminology changed since I finished school.

Your position on division by zero may be technically correct, although it did yield infinity when I was at school. It made sense then and it still seems to make sense; if you repeatedly divide a numerator by an increasingly small denominator, the results tend towards infinity:

1/1=1, 1/0.1=10, 1/0.01=100........

As the denominator approaches zero, so the result approaches infinity.

Isn't calculus based on a similar argument?

In calculus, there's a lot of difference between a limit and a value.

Dear Kay, You are confused about the nature of the universe.

The universe we can see and we live in is composed of stars and galaxies and stuff.

To us it may as well be one Galaxy.

There are many Galaxies.

However there is only one Universe.

The one universe includes all that is possible, and that means that the great nothing that is not even possible to really name because it is so much of nothing that not a speck of dust, or a bit of light, or anything is there, like really absolute darkness, and absolute nothing is there, not gravity, or light, or anything is there, is still part of the universe.

I do like the name of what is not there.

The Void.

My personal theory is that Universe, as a word that represents itself means all the time forever, everywhere, past, future and present.

My personal theory is that Universes, are separated by great Voids where there is not even anything at all. No cosmic rays, no nothing, nothing.

Somewhere beyond these great voids I feel that there again is something, and that is part of the Universe too.

Personally I feel that the difference between one Universe, as you conceive it, and another Universe, which is really all the same since Universe, means Universe, all - Is that in other Universes, as you conceive a Universe, (Universe means all), the speed of light as a constant, and the only constant, will be either faster, or slower.

P.S. Hence it was that I argued with Jorrie and Roger over this and proposed that the infinity circle was better than their balloon, and proposed taking a hotdog shaped balloon and twisting it to get some chaos at the twist and so on.

How to explain a basketball to a 2 dimensional creature? Basketball is not infinite, but in 2 D terms, inexplanable. Human senses and conscious processing generally limited to 4 D, or 3D plus time (I think Asimoc wrote interesting SF novel on the concept of time - same existence, two lives, one creature experiencing time flow as we know it, cradle to grave, the other reverse flow backwards to us -- i.e. they popped into existence from the grave, life ended by re-entering womb and shrinking back to conception). Hurts to think about it, but so does thinking about the 'end' of the universe in only 4 dimensions - math says many more than 4 dimensions - our senses and 'cpu' cannot comprehend, same as imaginary 2-D creature cannot understand basketball in other than planes cut thru it, so -- there may be no 'end boundary' as we know it with our 4-D knowledge. btw - God created time, it exists within Him, not the other eway around -- hence, He is the I AM (not I was or I will be)

Because they are both infinite and none of us can understand infinity because we are finite.

Understand infinity?

Hell, I have enough trouble finding my car keys.