the changing speed of light. dad, this thread is for you

[dad]

The statement "The set {} is a proper subset of {{}}" is true, and under the usual interpretation of ZF, means that 0 < 1. What property of this universe am I using here?

Well, if we stick a loaf of bread in that bracket, it would be 1. If that loaf represented the spiritual also reality, that 1 is not subject to the normal math we might apply to the object. If we stick an angel in there, it might not be easy to find either, when we try to add to it, or take away from it. It might be on the other side of the universe before you can do the math!

Why is this concept of the five loaves so important to you? If I put five sandwiches on a plate, and then you eat one, and I add two while you're not looking, that doesn't mean that 5=6.

The spiritual added to the mix, with the physical results in a whole different kettle of fish. 5 certainly would equal 6 as soon as the first person took a loaf from the five, or second person, whatever. It is not established that more loaves were added. That is your opinion. Maybe it was all the same loaves that were involved, and they were replicated? Baby math just can't apply.

When I say that some sequence converges, I mean that it tends towards some limit. It is possible to prove the existence of the limit without knowing it's value. The concept of a nonconstructive proof is well-known.

Well, if that limit exceeds what reality could deliver in this state universe, then we need to look at the limits of that present state conjecture.

No. Connectedness is a property of sets; it relates to the existence of paths between all points, where a path is defined via functions, which are defined via sets! No relation to the concrete universe at all!

Not really true, because what is in the sets has to represent a reality.
The relation of what is in the one set to another has to represent something real as well. If we talk about the heavenly state, then what is real is different than the formulas, and relations, and possibilities we know today. Therefore, the math cannot hold it as you think.

The image of a function f is defined as the set of all y so that there exists an x so that f(x)=y. A function is a class of ordered pairs, and x and y themselves are defined in sets. Oh look, we're back to sets! Nothing to do at all with the concrete, physical universe.

Right, and it all depends on what is in the sets, and what y and x are to represent.

Continuous has a precise definition, which involves limits, which can be defined in terms of the epsilon-delta definition that I used for 1/x before, which in turn can be reduced to... sets!

But this universe state would have to be continuous for any of that to matter. You have no idea about that.

The function f(x)=x for all x in a given set S can be defined under ZF as the class of all sets {{z}, z} for all z in S. So for example, the identity function over the set of nonnegative integers is the class:
[ {{}}
{ {{}}, {}},
{ {{{}}}, {{}}},
...]
Doesn't look like there's any hidden 'universe' parameter there.

But we have already seen that the ZF concept depends on what all we are dealing with, and what exists. If you assume all the exists is what we normally run the numbers on, you are out in la la limbo land, dreaming in the dark.

That doesn't mean that the mathematics is no longer true, it just means that the usage of the math to model the world is no longer correct.

It means that math as we know it cannot be applied as a ruler, only as a servant! We tailor the math to the new realities, such as infinite speed potential, non physical only objects, etc etc.

The entire point is that ZF is a self-consistent model for mathematics, and that all of its theorems will still be true no matter what the state of the universe.

In no way is that mickey mouse limiter, and stuck in the present mud foundation to be applied out of the fishbowl of the present state universe.

If it somehow works out that all the loaves of bread will never run out, then [/b]that doesn't mean math doesn't work, just that you can't apply math to it. Mathematics itself is unvarying and independent of the structure of reality.[/b]

But it's application depends on reality, and a different reality requires something other than same old math.

Show me where one of the ten axioms of ZF states a property of the universe.

"

1. Axiom of extensionality: Two sets are the same if and only if they have the same elements.
2. Axiom of empty set: There is a set with no elements. We will use {} to denote this empty set.
3. Axiom of pairing: If x, y are sets, then so is {x,y}, a set containing x and y as its only elements.
4. Axiom of union: Every set has a union. That is, for any set xy whose elements are precisely the elements of the elements of x. there is a set
5. Axiom of infinity: There exists a set x such that {} is in x and whenever y is in x, so is the union y U {y}.
6. Axiom schema of separation (or subset axiom): Given any set and any proposition P(x), there is a subset of the original set containing precisely those elements x for which P(x) holds.
7. Axiom schema of replacement: Given any set and any mapping, formally defined as a proposition P(x,y) where P(x,y) and P(x,z) implies y = z, there is a set containing precisely the images of the original set's elements.
8. Axiom of power set: Every set has a power set. That is, for any set x there exists a set y, such that the elements of y are precisely the subsets of x.
9. Axiom of regularity (or axiom of foundation): Every non-empty set x contains some element y such that x and y are disjoint sets.
10. Axiom of choice: (Zermelo's version) Given a set x of mutually disjoint nonempty sets, there is a set y (a choice set for x) containing exactly one element from each member of x."

So, can you show us how the red bits must apply in heaven?

If you take one pile of hay and add it to another pile of hay, you just get one big pile. That doesn't mean that 1+1=1, though. It means that the physical world is not necessarily a model of mathematics.

Right, and neither is the spiritual world. But if you want math to refect reality, it will have to deal with both, for the different state. Otherwise, it is meaningless.

Well, if the fives we're talking about on 'the other side', whatever that may be, aren't the same fives, then of course they won't behave the same way. But the original fives still would.

They well may be the same loaves. Our concepts are too limited to deal in higher math. Baby math just goes so far.

Huh. Looks like that "absolute and utter literal foolishness, screaming lunacy, demented dreams, and silly stark raving madness" sure has done a lot, including create the computer you're using to post on these forums, the forums themselves, and pretty much everything you take for granted.

A lot of man's so called wisdom deals in fantasy. The bits that happen to touch the real physical temporary world, as mickey mouse as they are in comparison with real state technology, and know how,
are better. But even they are childishly cavemanish in comparison to God's computers, and flying crafts, etc.

My fundamental point here is that mathematics will always be self-consistent no matter what the state of the universe is.

In no way will present math apply as the rule at all. It will only apply in it's place, as it can apply and does apply.

All that leaving the 'fishbowl' or whatever metaphor you want to use could do is change how you use it to model the world.

Well, present numbers, and concepts of what to do with numbers, cannot model how heaven works, or the spiritual. They will have a place, but you are not yet in a position to know what that place will be. No matter how many brackets you pound out, or complicated equations you jot down, with present state math! Learn to live with your limitations.

 

[mpok1519]

no amount of numbers can model something that doesn't exist.


duh.

 

[dad]

Again, incorrect. They are related solely to their definitions.

PO definitions, that apply to things present. (sometimes they apparently don't even really apply much to that!)

What property of the universe tells us that the set {a} and the set {b} have the same size?

Well, what property tells us anything about those brackets and letters??

None - it is a property of ZF set theory which says that two sets have the same size if there exists a bijection between the two sets. The bijection is simply f(a) = b (with inverse g(b)=a)

Well, if G is an angel, and a is a loaf, and b is a basket, why, what we will find in that basket using ZF methodology is not what really will be in the basket that is spiritually affected. Therefore, your math only applies to it's little self.

Irrelevant. Given certain axioms, we can prove things about infinity.

You don't even know what it is!!! Therefore whatever you think you prove is unknown as well. Think about it.

If you want to change those axioms, then you can do that, but that doesn't mean we have to stop using them.

I don't need to change the axioms, if they are no longer relevant, just dump the silly things.

So in the new universe, you can do whatever you like with whatever axioms you like, but us mathematicians can still prove facts about infinity.

Infinity and beyond, in your little heads, no doubt. Meaningless.

You really don't have a clue, unfortunately. Do you want to learn, or do you want to carry on the way you are?

I would like to learn how you think precisely you can take PO math with you?

A continuous function is a function for which, if you change its argument a very small amount, its value also changes only by a very small amount. More precisely, for any given small number, you can always change the argument of the function by a sufficiently small but nonzero amount, such that the change in output is less than that small number.

Well, let's say we look at a percentage of the five loaves. If I took one loaf, that is a small percent. No matter how you try to change it, you need to know how many really are in that basket the minute you want to run the numbers!

A change in the universe has nothing to do with this. I can give you an even more precise definition, if you like.

I already demonstrated here, that your formulas are just baby math, and cannot help you out of the fishbowl.

Of course we can use it. Just because something in the universe changed, doesn't mean that you suddenly can't use the Peano Axioms, or ZF set theory.

Yes, it sure does. You will need to learn the forever axioms, when you venture out of the fishbowl.

So all you're saying is that you're crazy spiritual loaves wouldn't behave according to normal mathematics? Well, that's great, go ahead and believe that. But that doesn't change what infinity is.

Since you don't know what infinity is, that doesn't matter at all! Normal math is fishbowl math. Temporary state universe math. In effect, a dying language! Why waste too much time learning a language that will be no more?

Well, "y=2x" represents any two quantities where the latter is always twice the former.

If the former is a loaf, and the latter is a loaf, in this case, two loaves, then the latter doesn't really represent the former in the way you think. Unless it is a PO loaf! Or a fishbowl fillet.

Wrong, since concepts are abstract as I've told you only about 20 times.

But if they are to touch the real world, we need to keep the abstract real to some extent. Not to do so would be madness!

I'm sorry, I never read the part of the Bible where God said, "And verily I tell you, that the number two is defined as a set containing two elements, that is to say, {{},{{}}}."

We made these definitions, thanks.

But He did say our heaven and earth would pass away, and there will be new heavens. He did tell us a lot of miracles, -tastes of how the world to come works! Fishbowl definitions are limited to the bowl. Deal with it.

Great. Then you can go off and invent some new axioms to deal with whatever you think will happen later. But our axioms will still be good for proving a whole load of stuff that we've already proven. The intermediate value theorem will still be true.

Yes, that is true, our present numbers can do a lot of good. Remember, however, that the sinful, depraved state of mankind also means that they do a lot of bad as well. For example, guidance systems for nuclear weapons, that will kill hundreds of millions of real people soon. The bible talks of that.

 

[dad]

Didn't he just say that?

No, he didn't. You seem to suppose that a belief in evolution means we go to the Pond. No. I believe in evolution as well. Evolving that started 6000 years ago in Eden.

You believe in a literal Creation, he doesn't. Your beliefs are in the minority of Christians, his are in the majority.

What you call Christians really may need a reality check. Nominal churches these days have gotten to the point of denying Christ as a real resurrected man, some of them. Advocating sodomy, some of them, etc. Why would anyone care what they think?? The actual believers in Jesus, and salvation, real Christians, are another matter. I would ask for support for your numbers there.

Does it matter if either of you are right or wrong? You are both Christians, you both believe in God and Christ and the teachings of Christ, so you will both go to Heaven.

Is that what Jesus would do?

I have no idea what people believe about Jesus, and the bible. Being called a Christian is about as meaningful as being called a Salvadorian, or a Columbian.

 

[dad]

I believe that much of the bible is figurative. I am still thinking about that.

Fair enough. But, I should let you know that Jesus talked in a real way of the time of Adam, and the flood of Noah, as well as Jonah!

Sounds appropriate. I have read the thread now, however; it wasn't too difficult. I couldn't brain that day, I had the dumb.
I'm fine now, though. So I read the thread. And I stick with my original thought. Thaumatergy's reply to my question made a lot of sense; even if it's pointless to argue with you.

OK, guess you have a vote. Sorry I can't see what that was at the moment, it was too far back.

Just don't get too far off-track; I see that you are still discussing the light thing, if on a tangent. It would be good to start another thread if other things were being discussed, however

Well, have you anything to add about what we know about far away light??

 

[dad]

theres absolutely NO proof light has EVER changed speed.

quit feeding ignorance by replying to crack-pot threads such as these.

Speaking of ignorance, you reminded me of the important theme of the thread here. That present light is not what changed. Now, feed your crack pot strawmen to someone else.

 

[dad]

Basically what you're saying is that dad broke reality again, right?

In all modesty, where 'reality' is a present state temporary fishbowl, that is not hard to do.

 

[dad]

then why does anyon even reply to his threads?

why even pay attention to something so stupid? Why pay attention to something thats trying to demean and diminish you? Why pay attention to something that has no intention other than to destroy truth?

Because the idea of a different universe is anything but stupid. Even many scientists envision multiple universes. The bible spells it out, that we are in a temporary one as we speak. Science cannot support a same state past. Whatever so called truth you think opposes all this needs desperately to be destroyed. Since you never told us what that was, I guess, it is a secret!

 

[dad]

i assume it has something to dow ith defending truth...but the thing is, people like Dad are no threat to the truth. Theyre only a threat to theirselves.

What are you a threat to, -spelling?

 

[dad]

no amount of numbers can model something that doesn't exist.


duh.

Glad you caught that. Now, unless you show your universe state will exist, and did exist, why, by your own standards, you lose.

 

[EnCrypto]

No, he didn't. You seem to suppose that a belief in evolution means we go to the Pond. No. I believe in evolution as well. Evolving that started 6000 years ago in Eden.

My definition of evolution is the definition of the theory of evolution. It sounds like what you accept is merely adaptation, which is an aspect of evolution. I'm not here to argue science with you, but it may be helpful in the future if you didn't misuse scientific terms, helpful to others who don't immediately know your position on everything.

What you call Christians really may need a reality check. Nominal churches these days have gotten to the point of denying Christ as a real resurrected man, some of them. Advocating sodomy, some of them, etc. Why would anyone care what they think?? The actual believers in Jesus, and salvation, real Christians, are another matter. I would ask for support for your numbers there.

Which churches deny Christ as a resurrected man? It's my understanding that that is the point of Christianity. Are you sure you're not referring to Muslims? Because they accept Christ, but refute his divinity.

I'm referring primarily to Catholics and Protestants, though nearly every denomination of Christianity has a sizable number of people who accept modern science.

Christians of the past wouldn't consider you a true Christian. You accept adaptation, something they believed to be heresy.

Do you eat shellfish? Pork? Meat on Friday? The Bible speaks against many many things. It speaks against men approaching women during their time of the month, it endorses murder and slavery and forcing rapists to marry their victims.

I have no idea what people believe about Jesus, and the bible. Being called a Christian is about as meaningful as being called a Salvadorian, or a Columbian.

What about "real Christians"? What I was referring to was the teachings of Christ. It has always been my understanding that anyway claiming to be "Christian" followed the words of Christ, lived by his teachings, but in my experience, I have yet to meet many who focus on Christ. Far more seem to focus on the negativity in the Bible and forcing their beliefs on others and judging fellow Christians, and other things that Christ never endorsed, and many things that Christ denounced.

 

[thaumaturgy]

What are you a threat to, -spelling?

Salvadorian

I believe the proper spelling is "salvadoran", not salvadorian.

There ya go! More to learn. Don't get too prideful. We are all prone to mistakes and errors. It's only when you get nasty that people start pointing out the errors.

[BIBLE]Luke 6:31[/BIBLE]

 

[dad]

My definition of evolution is the definition of the theory of evolution.

You think that includes abiogenesis????? get a grip.

It sounds like what you accept is merely adaptation, which is an aspect of evolution. I'm not here to argue science with you, but it may be helpful in the future if you didn't misuse scientific terms, helpful to others who don't immediately know your position on everything.

No, I accept all the evolution you could dream of, and then some, and add some devolution to that.

Which churches deny Christ as a resurrected man? It's my understanding that that is the point of Christianity. Are you sure you're not referring to Muslims? Because they accept Christ, but refute his divinity.

Yes. For example, I met leaders of one church a while back in Canada, that said that Jesus was not a man, and that it was wrong to say He was. They also embraced homosexuality in the biggest of ways. Others claim the miracles are just baloney. Others claim the bible is a bunch of fables, and poems.

I'm referring primarily to Catholics and Protestants, though nearly every denomination of Christianity has a sizable number of people who accept modern science.

I accept modern science. Not so called science.

Christians of the past wouldn't consider you a true Christian. You accept adaptation, something they believed to be heresy.

They were wrong.

Do you eat shellfish? Pork? Meat on Friday?

No, no, (as a rule) and of course.

The Bible speaks against many many things. It speaks against men approaching women during their time of the month,

Right, this is news???? What, you like it bloody????

it endorses murder and slavery and forcing rapists to marry their victims.

Nonsense. I deals with the wicked state of wicked man. You should to.

What about "real Christians"? What I was referring to was the teachings of Christ. It has always been my understanding that anyway claiming to be "Christian" followed the words of Christ, lived by his teachings, but in my experience, I have yet to meet many who focus on Christ.

Get out more.

Far more seem to focus on the negativity in the Bible and forcing their beliefs on others and judging fellow Christians, and other things that Christ never endorsed, and many things that Christ denounced.

No idea about all that. But He talked of the flood, and the first man and woman.

 

[dad]

I believe the proper spelling is "salvadoran", not salvadorian.

You believe do you? better tell a multitude of sites the news. Liike wiki,

"The enormous profits that coffee yielded as a monoculture export served as an impetus for the process whereby land became concentrated in the hands of an oligarchy of few families. A succession of presidents from the ranks of the Salvadorian oligarchy, nominally both conservative and liberal, throughout the last half of the nineteenth century generally agreed on the promotion of coffee as the predominant cash crop, on the development of infrastructure (railroads and port facilities) primarily in support of the coffee trade, on the elimination of communal landholdings to facilitate further coffee production, on the passage of anti-vagrancy laws to ensure that displaced campesinos and other rural residents provided sufficient labour for the coffee fincas (plantations), and on the suppression of rural discontent. In 1912, the national guard was created as a rural police force."
​

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

There ya go! More to learn. Don't get too prideful. We are all prone to mistakes and errors. It's only when you get nasty that people start pointing out the errors.

Right. So, work on that.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You believe do you? better tell a multitude of sites the news. Liike wiki,

"The enormous profits that coffee yielded as a monoculture export served as an impetus for the process whereby land became concentrated in the hands of an oligarchy of few families. A succession of presidents from the ranks of the Salvadorian oligarchy, nominally both conservative and liberal, throughout the last half of the nineteenth century generally agreed on the promotion of coffee as the predominant cash crop, on the development of infrastructure (railroads and port facilities) primarily in support of the coffee trade, on the elimination of communal landholdings to facilitate further coffee production, on the passage of anti-vagrancy laws to ensure that displaced campesinos and other rural residents provided sufficient labour for the coffee fincas (plantations), and on the suppression of rural discontent. In 1912, the national guard was created as a rural police force."​

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


Right. So, work on that.

Sorry Dad. I stand corrected!

See, everyone is prone to errors!

Thanks.

 

[EnCrypto]

You think that includes abiogenesis????? get a grip.

Of course it doesn't include abiogenesis. Evolution says nothing about the origin of life, merely how life has changed since it got here. Abiogenesis is a different field of science.

No, I accept all the evolution you could dream of, and then some, and add some devolution to that.

So you accept natural selection and adaptation and mutation? That it takes long stretches of time and there have been millions upon millions of different species? That God set it all into motion 4 billion years ago like a perfectly crafted Rube Goldberg machine knowing it would result in the birth of His penultimate creation: Man? That's wonderful.

Yes. For example, I met leaders of one church a while back in Canada, that said that Jesus was not a man, and that it was wrong to say He was. They also embraced homosexuality in the biggest of ways. Others claim the miracles are just baloney. Others claim the bible is a bunch of fables, and poems.

Very strange, but obviously not the majority of the Christian population... did they belong to mainstream denominations? Were they Baptists? Catholics? Methodists? Lutherans? Mormons?

I accept modern science. Not so called science.

Same here. May I ask how you're qualified to determine the difference? I mean, there's the obvious stuff like homeopathic remedies and magnets and stuff like that, but what about quantum physics and string theory and evolutionary biology and archaeology?

They were wrong.

They were wrong, but you're right?

No, no, (as a rule) and of course.

Right, this is news???? What, you like it bloody????

Nonsense. I deals with the wicked state of wicked man. You should to.

My point is how do you determine which aspects of the Bible to follow and which to ignore? At what point does the Bible go from being "right" to "wrong, and outdated"?

Get out more.

Not very nice.

 

[Parmenio]

You think that includes abiogenesis????? get a grip.



No, I accept all the evolution you could dream of, and then some, and add some devolution to that.

Yes. For example, I met leaders of one church a while back in Canada, that said that Jesus was not a man, and that it was wrong to say He was. They also embraced homosexuality in the biggest of ways. Others claim the miracles are just baloney. Others claim the bible is a bunch of fables, and poems.


I accept modern science. Not so called science.

They were wrong.


No, no, (as a rule) and of course.

Right, this is news???? What, you like it bloody????


Nonsense. I deals with the wicked state of wicked man. You should to.


Get out more.

No idea about all that. But He talked of the flood, and the first man and woman.

Continuing my theme of responding to crazy with ridicule...

 

[mpok1519]

Glad you caught that. Now, unless you show your universe state will exist, and did exist, why, by your own standards, you lose.

lol

you act as if debating with your crackpot strawmen theories is something I need to do in order to feel whole, or somehow, "win". I don't need a feel to 'compete' and debate with people I know do not have the kind of education is takes to make valid arguments. Arguing with people who have no clue what theyre talking about is like arguing with a kid.



The speed of light has always been the same.

Show us evidence otherwise.

 

[FishFace]

PO definitions, that apply to things present.

Definitions don't have to apply to anything in order for them to work.

Well, what property tells us anything about those brackets and letters??

The definition tells us what they mean, no property of the universe.

Well, if G is an angel, and a is a loaf, and b is a basket, why, what we will find in that basket using ZF methodology is not what really will be in the basket that is spiritually affected. Therefore, your math only applies to it's little self.

Fine, we supposedly can't use maths in the future state of yours. I guess it'll be kind of tricky if you don't know what change to give, or how many blessings you need or how many days 'till Sunday, but, whatever.
Maths works by definition - in the abstract case. Whether or not it is applicable is all but irrelevant.

You don't even know what it is!!!

Where have you been? Infinity is a description of the behaviour of 1/x as x heads towards 0.

I don't need to change the axioms, if they are no longer relevant, just dump the silly things.

But I don't want to. So we can still prove stuff, thanks.

Meaningless.

Not meaningless at all. Just because you don't understand bears no relation.

I would like to learn how you think precisely you can take PO math with you?

I'll take that as a "no, thank you, I don't want to learn anything at all."

Well, let's say we look at a percentage of the five loaves. If I took one loaf, that is a small percent. No matter how you try to change it, you need to know how many really are in that basket the minute you want to run the numbers!

1 out of 5 is 20%, no matter what.

I already demonstrated here, that your formulas are just baby math, and cannot help you out of the fishbowl.

It's a definition, not a formula. A definition can't be changed except by relabeling the concept. In which case the concept is still there, it just has a different name. So the concept of continuous function will still be exactly the same in this imaginary new state of yours.

Yes, it sure does. You will need to learn the forever axioms, when you venture out of the fishbowl.

I could learn them now, if they existed.

Since you don't know what infinity is, that doesn't matter at all!

The behaviour of 1/x as x tends to 0. Haven't you learnt yet?

Why waste too much time learning a language that will be no more?

1: Because it's fun
2: Because there is no good reason whatsoever to believe your silly portents of doom and gloom, the like of which we've been seeing, and ignoring, for the past 2000 years!

If the former is a loaf, and the latter is a loaf, in this case, two loaves, then the latter doesn't really represent the former in the way you think. Unless it is a PO loaf! Or a fishbowl fillet.

If you define the multiplication and addition operations on loaves then it makes perfect sense. The formula would mean that, if you had 4 loaves on the y side, you'd have 2 on the x side. Or 6 and 3, or 100 and 50. In short, y=2x.

But He did say our heaven and earth would pass away, and there will be new heavens. He did tell us a lot of miracles, -tastes of how the world to come works!

Right. I've got no good reason to believe any of that stuff though. And no reason to believe God invented the ZF formulation of the natural numbers.

Yes, that is true, our present numbers can do a lot of good. Remember, however, that the sinful, depraved state of mankind also means that they do a lot of bad as well. For example, guidance systems for nuclear weapons, that will kill hundreds of millions of real people soon. The bible talks of that.

Really? The Bible talks of the maths behind the guidance systems of nuclear missiles? Chapter and verse?

 

[Danyc]

Well, have you anything to add about what we know about far away light??

Well, you have absolutely no evidence for your altered universe state theory, for one thing.

Your entire argument is a What-If?