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

[dad]

I don't know how many times this has been mentioned in this thread already, but if the speed of light was different in the past then we'd see effects of it now.

That is is, of course utterly false, if the universe and light of the day was different. As mentioned I don't know how many times, it is NOT a change IN our light at all.

 

[dad]

Because when we apply those definitions to the concepts of ZF, we get mathematics!

PO math, yes, of course. So?

It's perfectly possible to interpret ZF as simply a rule for manipulating a series of left and right curly brackets, not understanding the meaning of the concept of 'set' or 'number'. For example, the axiom of empty set means "{} is a valid string" and the axiom of pairing means "If x and y represent valid strings, then {x,y} is a valid string."

I suppose you could interpret it that way if you like. In fact, you need to to make it quasi real in the here and now. So??

No, they don't. Look, here's my definition of addition for natural numbers:
{}+x and x+{} are the same as x. x+y is defined as the set that contains all sets of the form e+f, where e and f are elements of x and y, respectively. Then, for example, {{}}+{{}} is {{}+{{}},{{}}+{},{}+{}}. But {}+{{}} by definition is {{}}, which in turn is equal to {{}}+{} (or {{}}), because they contain the same elements, and {}+{} is {}, so {{}}+{{}} is {{}, {{}}}. Or, in the convential interpretation, 1+1=2.

1 + 1 is, of course normally 2. Glad you worked that out, albeit, the hard way, apparently. Where 1 loaf is fixed as 1 loaf, why, that baby math has meaning even. Well done.

So, you're saying that math will still be an internally-consistent framework that is applicable to certain situations but not others? I don't think anybody here disagrees with that.

Of course there will be math, and it will apply to the realities that exist, which are different than todays.

Look. What we think you're saying is that God can make 1+1 not equal 2, basically, where 1, +, =, and 2 are defined according to ZF.

Well, where He wants a loaf to feed more than 1 person, why, of course the one becomes many, we saw that demonstrated a few times.

Depends on which infinity. If you're referring to ∞, the colloquial symbol of limits, then arithmetic on it is meaningless.

Excellent. The limits of math are already spoken of.

It is not a number. However, colloquially, we can say that ∞+1=1, because if the limit as x goes to 0 of f(x) is ∞, then the limit as x goes to 0 of f(x)+1 is also ∞.

Well, that is wild speculation. If oo represents infinity, then who will tack something on to that, precisely??

Same for aleph-null, the cardinality of the natural numbers. But if you're referring to Cantor's ordinal infinity, which is a part of the ordinal numbers, an extension of the natural numbers, then you get a different answer: ω+1=ω+1 and 1+ω=ω, which is not equal to ω+1. And it should be noted that the definition in ordinal arithmetic of several symbols, such as '+', is different from the usual. So infinity plus one depends on which infinity you use.

Well, I'd like to see you tack one on to infinity any using Cantor or anyone else. You are getting too high for yourself there.

These 'meaningless' calculations are behind pretty much every single thing you use. Without mathematics, you wouldn't have pretty much every technological advance of the last couple centuries at the very least.

Not really, does my computer calculate infinity? Did someone go and tack a number on to infinity, an use it to make my computer? You are being silly.

And if you have one pile of hay and another pile of hay, and you push them together, you just get one big pile.

Two physical objects in a present physical universe ought to be bound to PO maths. If we add the spiritual with the physical, we get into new maths. We have the maths that apply to things spiritual, the PO maths we know, that apply here, and then, there is the merged maths!! The spiritual and physical together, and how he maths apply there!!! You are stuck with, I am afraid you have no choice but to admit, the baby PO math. Nothing wrong with that, in it's little place. Just don't pretend to fly the baby maths to infinity and beyond, now.

What function are you talking about here? And I mean a precise, mathematical function, that takes mathematical objects as input and gives mathematical objects as output, not something like 'a state of mind' or 'a loaf of bread'.

Well, any function that applies to a physical object cannot apply wily nilly, as is to a merged, or a spiritual object. The function, precisely applies in this state.

Are you saying that you're not a mammal? So then does your body not regulate, or do you lack vertebrae, or hair, or what?

I am an eternal being, created to be a master of the universe, by God. Like Adam was. Jesus gave us back our heritage, and that has nothing to do with being a physical animal.

I just calculated the product 1*2*3*4*5*6*7*...*9,999*10,000 on my computer in about .016 seconds. I'd say it can keep up.

You would say wrong. You need to follow each and every basket of loaves, and watch how they multiply, to know the numbers. You would need a lot of helpers, and laptops for that. You also need to be in the right place and time. You seem to need a lot you just don't have. Live with it the best you can.

The Center for Disease control disagrees:
I see nothing about eyes and tongues being consumed and flesh falling off.

" Others were terribly disfigured with limbs melted from their bodies and skin peeling off in large strips. The intense heat melted the eyeballs of some who had stared in wonder at the blast. "
http://www.boisestate.edu/history/ncasner/hy210/hirosima.htm

Other indications of nuclear weapons include the darkness of the day at the battle. There is also the destruction of 1/3 of the grass on earth, and people, or more, actually.

 

[Danyc]

That is is, of course utterly false, if the universe and light of the day was different. As mentioned I don't know how many times, it is NOT a change IN our light at all.

You believe that the light we see now is a different light completely, in that they are physically different waves. Not that they have been changed, but that these waves are waves that are not the earlier ones, i.e., the earlier ones did not transform or change into the ones we see now.

Is this correct?

 

[acropolis]

This thread is a mighty testament to the awesome power of cognitive dissonance.

dad, is it uncomfortable worshipping a God you know (or rather, have defined) to be deceitful? God seems to have set up observable reality to indicate the earth, and universe, is very old. If He in fact made it in such a short time, He must have wanted to trick us into getting the age of the universe wrong. That is a very odd thing for an honest God to do.

 

[Danyc]

This thread is a mighty testament to the awesome power of cognitive dissonance.

dad, is it uncomfortable worshipping a God you know (or rather, have defined) to be deceitful? God seems to have set up observable reality to indicate the earth, and universe, is very old. If He in fact made it in such a short time, He must have wanted to trick us into getting the age of the universe wrong. That is a very odd thing for an honest God to do.

Exactly.

God does not trick us, or deceive us. He is not the Father of lies or confusion.
Tell me dad, what was the point of God's doing this?

 

[Adivi]

I suppose you could interpret it that way if you like. In fact, you need to to make it quasi real in the here and now. So??

So we have a formulation of mathematics that is completely independent of any aspect of reality; validity is defined within ZF by means of rules of constructing only valid strings.

1 + 1 is, of course normally 2. Glad you worked that out, albeit, the hard way, apparently. Where 1 loaf is fixed as 1 loaf, why, that baby math has meaning even. Well done.

All right, so will you admit that when we move to your 'expanded' or 'spiritual' universe, whatever you want to call the world outside the 'fishbowl', when we use the same definitions that I just used for 1, +, =, and 2, we will still have that 1+1=2?

Of course there will be math, and it will apply to the realities that exist, which are different than todays.

Well, where He wants a loaf to feed more than 1 person, why, of course the one becomes many, we saw that demonstrated a few times.

I'm not disagreeing with you (well, I don't think it happened, but I'm saying that an omnipotent deity could do so if he wanted to). But what I'm saying is that that doesn't mean math no longer works in the abstract, merely that it doesn't in the physical.
[/quote]

Excellent. The limits of math are already spoken of.

That's not really a limitation any more than the inability to define 1+happiness or horse+5 is.

Well, that is wild speculation. If oo represents infinity, then who will tack something on to that, precisely??

There's nothing to speculate; I can show that if the limit as x goes to a of f(x) is infinity (by which I really mean that it grows larger than any N), then the limit of f(x)+1 as x goes to a is also infinity (also grows arbitrarily large).

Well, I'd like to see you tack one on to infinity any using Cantor or anyone else. You are getting too high for yourself there.

Define ω to be the set containing all other numbers. Then ω+1 is the set that contains all numbers less than ω, as well as ω itself; i.e, {0, 1, 2, 3, ..., ω}. ω+2 is {0, 1, 2, 3, ..., ω, ω+1}, and you can go on defining this: ω+ω={0, 1, 2, 3, ..., ω, ω+1, ω+2, ω+3, ...}. There you go!

Not really, does my computer calculate infinity? Did someone go and tack a number on to infinity, an use it to make my computer? You are being silly.

These days, differential equations are involved in pretty much everything, such as how to determine that every bit of electronics in your computer gets enough electricity to function but not so much that it overheats, and the concepts of limits and infinity are at the core of calculus, which differential equaitions are based off of. So without a concept of limits and infinity, we wouldn't have the technology to build your computer.

Two physical objects in a present physical universe ought to be bound to PO maths. If we add the spiritual with the physical, we get into new maths. We have the maths that apply to things spiritual, the PO maths we know, that apply here, and then, there is the merged maths!! The spiritual and physical together, and how he maths apply there!!! You are stuck with, I am afraid you have no choice but to admit, the baby PO math. Nothing wrong with that, in it's little place. Just don't pretend to fly the baby maths to infinity and beyond, now.

So explain to me how my example of haystacks is different from your example you gave a while back of ghosts?

Well, any function that applies to a physical object cannot apply wily nilly, as is to a merged, or a spiritual object. The function, precisely applies in this state.

So you agree that you can't take the function f(x)=2x for x in the real numbers and use it to get f(1 loaf)=2 loaves, because the function only accepts numbers, not physical objects, as input?

I am an eternal being, created to be a master of the universe, by God. Like Adam was. Jesus gave us back our heritage, and that has nothing to do with being a physical animal.

I think I see what's going on here. You're saying that that's what your soul is; I'm talking about the body. You do agree that a human body is an animal, correct?

You would say wrong. You need to follow each and every basket of loaves, and watch how they multiply, to know the numbers. You would need a lot of helpers, and laptops for that. You also need to be in the right place and time. You seem to need a lot you just don't have. Live with it the best you can.

I really don't get what the point of your argument is, then. It seems to me like all you're saying is that I wouldn't be able to follow the precise movements of the bread at the Sermon, and I agree. What does that have to do with anything else?

" Others were terribly disfigured with limbs melted from their bodies and skin peeling off in large strips. The intense heat melted the eyeballs of some who had stared in wonder at the blast. "
http://www.boisestate.edu/history/ncasner/hy210/hirosima.htm

Other indications of nuclear weapons include the darkness of the day at the battle. There is also the destruction of 1/3 of the grass on earth, and people, or more, actually.

Nuclear weapons wouldn't destroy so precisely; there's no way exactly 1/3rd of all the people would be wiped out. Furthermore, that's only for the people who are right at the bomb's blast site; people affected by radioactive fallout wouldn't show the same symptoms. You can get intense heat and 'melting' limbs with any explosion of sufficient strength.

 

[FishFace]

That's nice, prove it. Science sure can't and never even addressed the issue, far as I have heard thus far. My my such strange claims.

Dad, no. No, I don't want to prove it. You can't even prove that it has been in the same state for the last three minutes, never mind the last 13.7 billion years.
So suck it up and admit it - there's no good reason to believe that the past was different, so it was probably the same.

 

[FishFace]

When you test it out of the fishbowl, get back to us, let us know how it turns out, now, will you?

A contradiction doesn't change depending on the universe. 1=0 is a contradiction whichever way you slice it.

Well, my hat's off the the smart fellow that had enough sense to at least realize man's knowledge is incomplete. I would elevate that concept all the way up to a demonstrated fact!

It's a proven fact, and it's a proof which you couldn't even begin to comprehend.

What will change is where the PO abstract meets the non PO road!

There is no "PO" abstract. The abstract has nothing to do with physics whatsoever.

The truth of mathematics?? Is that like where we add stuff to an unknown, imaginary infinity as a numberless number, and limit the amount of loaves available to feed people??

No.

Then, how would you prove that it actually did any such thing? You wouldn't even know what it was if it ever got there!

I'm about to prove that it does such a thing, but it will never get there. If it got there then there wouldn't be infinity.

Positive M? In some region?? Would that happen, by the by, to be in the fishbowl???

No. That would mean anywhere on the real number line within a given distance of the point we're testing. For normal, everyday functions like 1/x the region is actually the entire domain of the function, but for less "nice" functions you might need to restrict that.

Well, a lot of IFS go into the stuff that you feel turns our greater than M. That much seems evident.

"IFS?"

OK, let's pick the 5 loaves there. Something to get our teeth into.

"5 loaves" is not a number. We can pick five, if you want.

That's what you think!

No, that's just how it works.

I think we are getting to the root of baby math's problem here. They can't fix squat out of the fishbowl!!!

You can't have M vary from one part of the proof to another. That would be stupid. All it matters is that, at the start, you can pick any M, so long as you keep it the same until the end. Then if you like you can pick any other M and start again.

Well, no, because by now, people started eating, and we have more loaves already. It only gets worse for your fixing attempt from here.

So, is M 5 or isn't it? Pick a number for M and I can show you how it actually works.

Well, no, assuming is dangerous

Since I just told you why it isn't dangerous, I will ignore you.

You no longer even make any sense, because things were anything but fixed. Man needs to know they are broken, before we look to God to really fix us. That is Higher math.

You mean you don't understand a little bit of first-year analysis? Aww. Poor you.

Oh, no, not that silly Buzz Lightyear stuff again. Face it, you can't go to infinity and beyond, and you can't even send your numbers. Such is the real world.

As if you had the slightest clue what either now represented.

x is the number we put into the function. We're going to vary x around 0 to see what happens.
< means less than
M is any positive number you please
1/M means the reciprocal of M. If you have a sausage of length one, and you divide it into 5 equal pieces, then the length of each piece is the reciprocal of five.

Hey, you are pretty good at math, we can say that much. But, since the M was fixed as out of the present nature rules, your numbers fall by the wayside as meaningless.

No, this is just elementary analysis - It's just more advanced than you're used to. But M was just fixed to whatever number you started out with. Changed your mind? Start again, but you can't change your mind half-way through.

But you never got it, because M was 5 loaves

M is a number. Is a loaf a number? No - it's a piece of bread. How can multiply a loaf? What happens if you take the square root of a loaf? Is a carrot less then, more than or equal to a loaf? Stick to numbers, you'll have less trouble.

I'll show you how it works. Suppose you pick M as a number (in a fit of sanity) and you give me 5 as a first guess. Now I say, according to my rule, that d is equal to the lesser of 1 and 1/(M-1). Well 1/4 is less than 1, so that's d.
d represents the distance x is going to be from 0. so |x| < d which is just the same as saying |x| < 1/4.
Well, if the distance is < 1/4 then x on its own is certainly < 1/4.
So 4 < 1/x.
So 5 < 1/x + 1.

So the rule works - if we pick d equal to 1/(M-1) then we will always end up with 1/x + 1 more than M - whatever you care to pick for it. If you give me 1000, the same works, you end up with this:

x < 1/999
999 < 1/x
1000 < 1/x + 1

See? Simple.

So, what does all this mean? It means that, no matter how large a number you pick, I can always give you another number, dependent on the one you picked, such that whenever x is closer to 0 than my number is, 1/x + 1 is bigger than your number.
That, in turn, means that 1/x + 1 gets bigger than any number you give me (as x goes to 0). And that means 1/x + 1 tends to infinity.

Point is that you have only fixed your imagination

It's fixed in the proof, and that's what matters.

They failed. But it was a nice try. They might have to stick the numbers in people's head to get real secure. But I give them A for effort, in a real world endeavor there.

Someone broke the encryption? They don't need to steal credit card details - they can get $1,000,000 off the Clay Mathematics institute, for starters, more than likely!
Actually what happened was that someone took your data when it wasn't encrypted.

No, I think it would be more like the point.

Your point is pretty boring then, I'm afraid.

So, the dependence between the 5 loaves, and the rest is not something that is a function of baby math.

You were talking about the sun or something. Is there a continuous function there?

I do. How much worse could it get??

Being in pain?

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Don-039-t-Look-There-The-Universe-Will-End-71572.shtml

THE FATE OF THE COSMOS

That means that the 100 billion or so galaxies we can now see though our telescopes will zip out of range, one by one. Tens of billions of years from now, the Milky Way will be the only galaxy we're directly aware of (other nearby galaxies, including the Large Magellanic Cloud and the Andromeda galaxy, will have drifted into, and merged with, the Milky Way).
By then the sun will have shrunk to a white dwarf, giving little light and even less heat to whatever is left of Earth, and entered a long, lingering death that could last 100 trillion years—or a thousand times longer than the cosmos has existed to date. The same will happen to most other stars, although a few will end their lives as blazing supernovas. Finally, though, all that will be left in the cosmos will be black holes, the burnt-out cinders of stars and the dead husks of planets. The universe will be cold and black.
But that's not the end, according to University of Michigan astrophysicist Fred Adams. An expert on the fate of the cosmos and co-author with Greg Laughlin of The Five Ages of the Universe (Touchstone Books; 2000), Adams predicts that all this dead matter will eventually collapse into black holes. By the time the universe is 1 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years old, the black holes themselves will disintegrate into stray particles, which will bind loosely to form individual "atoms" larger than the size of today's universe. Eventually, even these will decay, leaving a featureless, infinitely large void. And that will be that"

Well, if that's true, then the universe will just be boring, not destroyed. Somewhat different. It will also be billions of years in the future, when we won't actually be alive to care.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010625/story.html

How DARE you accuse those that preach everlasting peace, life, and love, by Jesus, as gloom and doomers!!!??

You never read Revelation then?

 

[dad]

You believe that the light we see now is a different light completely, in that they are physically different waves. Not that they have been changed, but that these waves are waves that are not the earlier ones, i.e., the earlier ones did not transform or change into the ones we see now.

Is this correct?

The complete created forever state, includes both the spiritual and physical together. The laws that apply, and how matter and light exist in such a state is not the same. To take away the one part of the fabric of the universe, i.e., the spiritual, leaves a physical only universe, such as we are now in. The light left in this state can exist only as present light exists, and although some part of that light is the same, the light itself is anything but the same. That is why we can have information, for example in the light, that shows it came from the star so far away.
How light exists and travesl in a true created state universe I don't think we know. We barely know what goes on in this state.

 

[dad]

Wrong, dad. We have tons of evidence which you are attempting to refute.

You are badly misinformed. There is not one iota of concrete evidence that this universe was in either the same or a different state, as far as science can go.
The evidences we do have, are mine, o mine, as well as yours, and are subject to interpretation. Your myth is busted.

In this case, it is your job to provide counter-evidence against our theory, and to back up yours.

No more than it is your job to provide counter-evidence against my theory, and to back up yours. That you cannot do. And therefore you have a myth. Nothing but a myth, and all myth.

We already have our evidence. It's in the video, which you probably still haven't watched yet.

We have discussed the video, and gotten to the beginning, looking at their claims. No one has supported them yet. The issues of what we actually know were looked at, and what we do not know, but assume. There was no need so far, for example to find an explanation for the rings light speed, since no one so much as could show we know that. Maybe you missed the thread here.

There are many people, including myself, that believe the Bible is still viable when compared with the age of an old earth. For example, the 7 'days' of creation may very well be millions of years; the poetic nature of Genesis' 7 day creation account and the fact that time to God and time to us are two very different things leads me to believe that God may have been describing a longer time period than only 7 days.

I understand there are people of that bend. Time to God is not the mystery you seem to feel. There is no need for compromising the bible, to fit PO science. None at all.

Please don't tell me you just said "No science to support an old earth".

Read:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Get educated
There is a whole lot of science that goes into the age of earth.

I said exactly that, and know precisely that that is exactly the case. No science at all, only so called science that is really mere myth. Real science does in no way suggest old ages. For example, if there is no decay in the former state, then the present decay is not something we could use to set the far past clock with.

 

[dad]

This thread is a mighty testament to the awesome power of cognitive dissonance.

Thanks, I didn't want to come out and say it, so as to spare the feelings of some posters here. Hopefully they can take it better from you.

dad, is it uncomfortable worshipping a God you know (or rather, have defined) to be deceitful?

You are dreaming. If you paid attention you might notice I say the devil is the deceiver, as the bible indicates.

God seems to have set up observable reality to indicate the earth, and universe, is very old.

Dreams, pipe dreams. The observable reality indicates the earth, and universe, are very young.

If He in fact made it in such a short time, He must have wanted to trick us into getting the age of the universe wrong. That is a very odd thing for an honest God to do.

There is always the possibility some would believe the devil, and his bits of truth woven in to the big lie. They are tricked. But those that simply take His word need not be fooled, or deceived. He was right all along. To those who were fooled, and deceived, get mad about it! Then, get over it.

 

[dad]

Great, now people are cats.

But then I suppose that's par for the course when dealing with Dad.

Now, now no need to insult cats.

 

[dad]

although dad has a point < the universe can implode in on itself as everything becomes blackholish (antimatter) sucking everything into itself before releasing all that pressurized energy again (big bang) repeting the cycle once more for the next x amount google years.

That wasn't actually my point. I actually don't believe in that gloom and doom.

physicists have been tossing that idea around the office for a while now.

But during that bigbang explosion, for a moment, the sheer amount and intensity of the energy could possibly change the laws and theoroms of physics?

No. There was no universe in a speck o soup. Relax.

thats the only possibility I can think of. a tiny moment in time and 'space' where the light could be faster.

googles of years ago....

The idea is not that light could be faster, but that another universe state and light were here. Not this light. That other light, in that other universe state was fast.

 

[dad]

Actually, what Godel proved is that for any system that is consistent and can encompass arithmetic, there are true statements that cannot be proved using that system. It's perfectly possible to prove the statement, you just have to go out of that system.

Speaking of out of the system, how does it fare out of the fishbowl?

For all M that are elements of the set R of real numbers, if M > 0, then there exists a d so that such that for all x with |x-a|<d, the magnitude of the quantity f(x)-f(a) is at least M. None of these words are in any way related to your 'fishbowl' metaphor, which, after all, is just that. A metaphor.

Well, that brings to mind the question, 'what set were the thousands of loaves really from?'. If you consider that the thousands of loaves were from the physical 5 loaf set, then your set comes up short. There is another set at work. One you can't get your little brackets around. As hard as that may be for you to accept.

That's right, because not all functions "go to infinity" at all of their points. Definitions have to be conditional.

And, therefore, the conditions need to be looked at.

M has to be a real number, not a physical object. You can't define 1/(5 loaves). You can define 1/5 of a loaf, but that's not the same thing.
What, don't you think he can keep M fixed?
Why can't they? Are those thoughts not possible outside of the 'fishbowl'? Does God not want us to do arithmetic?
No. We are not dealing with physical quantities here. M does not change.

How would he go about fixing the feeding of thousands from a few loaves, that God ordered?? Good luck with that.

Fine, then let's fix some x so that |x-a|<d. I can do that.
Fix has more than one meaning. It can mean 'repair', which is the sense you're using it in, or 'unchanging', which is his sense.

Then he is wrong, because the loaves sure changed from the 5. So wrong, I can't fix it for him.

You're deliberately misinterpreting what he's saying.
Again, it doesn't really go to infinity. There is no x so that 1/x = infinity.

So now it really doesn't go to infinity. OK. If there is no x, why did you just write one??? Not only that you put and = infinity right after it!!! Don't blame me.

I know perfectly well what he represents; x represents some quantity with |x-a|<d, and M is some positive real number that he picked at the beginning of the proof.
M cannot be 5 loaves, because M must be a number. I can say that M is 5, but not 5 loaves.

I can say that 5 represents real things. Call me old fashioned.

How many times do I have to say this before it sinks in: YOU CANNOT APPLY MATH TO THE MIRACLE OF THE LOAVES, BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE MATHEMATICS WRONG!

Then, if it is inapplicable, it doesn't make it right either. Doesn't help your case much.

If I have one pile of hay, I can split it into 100 small piles of hay. But that doesn't mean 1=100; rather, it means that I can't use mathematics to model hay in this way.

Right, but the loaves were not cut up into itsy bitsy pieces. They were affected with the spiritual, and elevated to a place, as you yourself admit, your baby math doesn't apply.

You seem to do this a lot: quote wikipedia and then deliberately misinterpret some key words. A function can be defined as a class of ordered pairs; given the first element, you can find the second element.

Not if the order includes the spiritual as well as the physical. Your order only covers the fishbowl figures, the physical pairs. Add some spiritual in the mix, and the math just can't fly.

Well, I dunno. I mean, after you die, you go to heaven, right? And heaven is great, isn't it? So shouldn't death be something you look forward to?

Yes, but I didn't see any heaven in that article of gloom, death and doom. Did you?

"A new theory" does not mean that it is part of the scientific mainstream. Plus there's a variety of technical reasons that that can't be right; for example, observation in the quantum-mechanical sense involves gravitational interaction, which would happen even if we were all dead.

Well, you might favor one PO theory over the other, and one scientist dreaming over the others. But I see them all as almost equally baseless godless insanity.

"Believe in God and do exactly as I say or you will GO TO HELL AND BURN FOR ALL ETERNITY!" sounds rather doomy to me.

Well, I don't recall Jesus saying a lot of that. It is more like He gave us a way to escape a sinking ship. Like He flew over with a helicopter, and asked people to evacuate before they died. He never said the universe would explode, or that we all should burn and die, in fact, it cost His life for the rescue effort.

 

[acropolis]

Thanks, I didn't want to come out and say it, so as to spare the feelings of some posters here. Hopefully they can take it better from you.

You are dreaming. If you paid attention you might notice I say the devil is the deceiver, as the bible indicates.

Dreams, pipe dreams. The observable reality indicates the earth, and universe, are very young.


There is always the possibility some would believe the devil, and his bits of truth woven in to the big lie. They are tricked. But those that simply take His word need not be fooled, or deceived. He was right all along. To those who were fooled, and deceived, get mad about it! Then, get over it.

If God allowed the devil to arrange the universe so that all that we have discovered is false, then He enabled the deception and is to blame. Since the Bible says God created the heavens and the earth, I'm not sure it lines up with your the-devil-did-it theory.

I'm curious who you are trying to convince, because what you're saying does not appear to have any connection to reality. It seems to work for you, but for those of us looking in, it doesn't make much sense. If I believed the truth of Christianity really relied on your theories, it would be impossible to believe any of it. You must not be aiming at the unconverted. In which case you're spending a lot of effort preaching to the choir.

Your theories are completely disconnected from anything humanity has observed. You are claiming that physical constants, that have not been measured to change at all (evidence that they remain the same), were wildly different in the near past. By your words it seems you have, in fact, completely unhitched the present from the past. The only conclusion from this is that you don't really mean anything when you say 'science', 'evidence', or 'proof'. Your invented past is hermetically sealed from any of those concepts. Since those concepts are meaningless when you say them, it would be easier for you to just post 'God did it this way because I said so.' over and over.

 

[dad]

A contradiction doesn't change depending on the universe. 1=0 is a contradiction whichever way you slice it.

And it is not I that said those things were equal, is it?

It's a proven fact, and it's a proof which you couldn't even begin to comprehend.

I can comprehend that man is limited. The guy was onto something.

There is no "PO" abstract. The abstract has nothing to do with physics whatsoever.

There is a temporary present universe abstract. That, I sometimes refer to as PO. Call me a little less than specific.

I'm about to prove that it does such a thing, but it will never get there. If it got there then there wouldn't be infinity.

So, good luck on proving it.

No. That would mean anywhere on the real number line within a given distance of the point we're testing. For normal, everyday functions like 1/x the region is actually the entire domain of the function, but for less "nice" functions you might need to restrict that.

That's nice.

"IFS?"

IFs, or I might write it ifs.

"5 loaves" is not a number. We can pick five, if you want.

If that 5 is a set of the forever state reality, then that 5 can't be lumped in with present sets.

You can't have M vary from one part of the proof to another. That would be stupid. All it matters is that, at the start, you can pick any M, so long as you keep it the same until the end. Then if you like you can pick any other M and start again.

If the M represents a forever set, then any little x or y you ant to tack on as lesser or greater, etc need to reflect that.

So, is M 5 or isn't it? Pick a number for M and I can show you how it actually works.

A fishbowl fixed number? That would be in the fishbowl sets, and we can't mix what we try to fix!

You mean you don't understand a little bit of first-year analysis? Aww. Poor you.

Well, you may have spent a year learning how things are fixed, but such is fishbowl math.

x is the number we put into the function. We're going to vary x around 0 to see what happens.
< means less than
M is any positive number you please
1/M means the reciprocal of M. If you have a sausage of length one, and you divide it into 5 equal pieces, then the length of each piece is the reciprocal of five.

The fish we not sawn asunder, but passed out whole. Neither were the loaves.

No, this is just elementary analysis - It's just more advanced than you're used to. But M was just fixed to whatever number you started out with. Changed your mind? Start again, but you can't change your mind half-way through.

If M is the loaves, the number at any given point in our time was not fixed for long! It wasn't minds that changed that.

M is a number. Is a loaf a number? No - it's a piece of bread. How can multiply a loaf? What happens if you take the square root of a loaf? Is a carrot less then, more than or equal to a loaf? Stick to numbers, you'll have less trouble.

Numbers represent stuff. Otherwise they are just numbers. Why play around with numbers if they never touch down to reality??

I'll show you how it works. Suppose you pick M as a number (in a fit of sanity) and you give me 5 as a first guess. Now I say, according to my rule, that d is equal to the lesser of 1 and 1/(M-1). Well 1/4 is less than 1, so that's d.
d represents the distance x is going to be from 0. so |x| < d which is just the same as saying |x| < 1/4.
Well, if the distance is < 1/4 then x on its own is certainly < 1/4.
So 4 < 1/x.
So 5 < 1/x + 1.

How are you going to know the distance in numbers between the 5 loaves, and the 39,777 loaves? You concepts revolves around fixing the 5 loaves so that people starve. How nice is that?

So the rule works - if we pick d equal to 1/(M-1) then we will always end up with 1/x + 1 more than M - whatever you care to pick for it. If you give me 1000, the same works, you end up with this:

x < 1/999
999 < 1/x
1000 < 1/x + 1

See? Simple.

You cannot fix what is lesser or greater when dealing in a set or object, or number that involves the spiritual.

That law supersedes all the laws you posited so far. Godel, and ZF, move over.

So, what does all this mean? It means that, no matter how large a number you pick, I can always give you another number, dependent on the one you picked, such that whenever x is closer to 0 than my number is, 1/x + 1 is bigger than your number.

You think you can give a number larger? Well, start off by hitting us with your best shot, and we can work from there. What is the largest number known to man??

That, in turn, means that 1/x + 1 gets bigger than any number you give me (as x goes to 0). And that means 1/x + 1 tends to infinity.

No. You are guessing. Once you tend to infinity and beyond, tell us about it.

It's fixed in the proof, and that's what matters.

No, fixing only is a fishbowl concept, far as your present abilities go.

Someone broke the encryption? They don't need to steal credit card details - they can get $1,000,000 off the Clay Mathematics institute, for starters, more than likely!
Actually what happened was that someone took your data when it wasn't encrypted.

I was speaking generally, of how some people had codes cracked. Encryptions, passwords, etc. A million is chump change these days. Those who could break it may prefer to remain quiet about it, because they deal in a lot more than that.

You were talking about the sun or something. Is there a continuous function there?

Would it lasting forever and functioning forever count?

Being in pain?

He came to give life, and take away pain. No gloom a doomers, we.

Well, if that's true, then the universe will just be boring, not destroyed. Somewhat different. It will also be billions of years in the future, when we won't actually be alive to care.

We will be here, and this universe will be nothing like the gloomy death dead zone they claim.

You never read Revelation then?

It speaks of a new heaven and earth, and golden city coming. It speaks of eternal life, no more death, or pain, and tears being wiped away. It speaks of the Prince of Peace and believers ruling happily ever after, tomorrow, when the world is free.

Most of the horrid stuff concerns this state right here, of sinful, warring, men, in their final demon added throws of depravity.

 

[FishFace]

And it is not I that said those things were equal, is it?

They would be, if infinity were a number!

There is a temporary present universe abstract.

No. The "abstract" is abstract from any universe.

So, good luck on proving it.

Have done. Didn't you understand?

If the M represents a forever set, then any little x or y you ant to tack on as lesser or greater, etc need to reflect that.

M doesn't have to represent anything, it's just a number.

If M is the loaves

M is any number you care to give me. If you give me a huge number, I will show you that 1/x gets bigger than that number with the rule I told you for picking d.

Numbers represent stuff. Otherwise they are just numbers. Why play around with numbers if they never touch down to reality??

The point is to prove stuff in the most general case. This proof works whether numbers represent things or not.

How are you going to know the distance in numbers between the 5 loaves, and the 39,777 loaves?

I don't, because 5 loaves and 39,777 loaves are not numbers! The distance between 5 and 39777 is 39772, however.

You concepts revolves around fixing the 5 loaves so that people starve. How nice is that?

It doesn't, and if you actually thought it did, you are less intelligent than I thought - stop being purposefully ignorant.

You cannot fix what is lesser or greater when dealing in a set or object, or number that involves the spiritual.

I'll show you how it works. Give me any positive number you like. I'll show you that 1/x grows bigger than it with the rule I told you.

You think you can give a number larger? Well, start off by hitting us with your best shot, and we can work from there. What is the largest number known to man??

Such a thing can't exist. As soon as you think of a number, you can immediately thing of another number - namely, that number plus one.

No. You are guessing.

No, I just proved it!

I was speaking generally, of how some people had codes cracked.

I guess they weren't using strong encryption, such as the encryption that pure maths gives us.

We will be here, and this universe will be nothing like the gloomy death dead zone they claim.

I don't believe you.

It speaks of a new heaven and earth, and golden city coming. It speaks of eternal life, no more death, or pain, and tears being wiped away. It speaks of the Prince of Peace and believers ruling happily ever after, tomorrow, when the world is free.

Most of the horrid stuff concerns this state right here, of sinful, warring, men, in their final demon added throws of depravity.

Right.

 

[Naraoia]

I meant that I don't ridicule cats.

Oh, do you think it was the cat that was ridiculed by that picture?

If people have some hair brained notions that we all started out huddled together in a rock crack, discussing how we would evolve into plants, first, then animals one day, how could I not ridicule the idea??

You've been here for quite a while. You might have noticed that people on this side of the debate usually have a wee bit more refined view of abiogenesis and evolution than that You might even have noticed that it's actually a rather logical and well-evidenced idea, nothing to ridicule really.

Same with the universe in a speck routine.

You mean the Big Bang? I don't think you are in any position to comment on a physical theory, much less laugh at it. To mention just one thing, physics is in a very large part maths, which you don't seem to understand at all... (Not saying I'm familiar with most of the maths of modern physics - but then I'm not acting the authority on cosmology.) You also seem to have a very... strange... idea of handling evidence and learning about reality...

Aside from that, all I do is purr.

I'd love to see you do that just once.

 

[dad]

If God allowed the devil to arrange the universe so that all that we have discovered is false, then He enabled the deception and is to blame. Since the Bible says God created the heavens and the earth, I'm not sure it lines up with your the-devil-did-it theory.

No idea where you get the idea the devil had the slightest thing to do with it?? God gave the 120 year warning, and He did it. Just like He did the flood around the same time. (a century or so before that)

I'm curious who you are trying to convince, because what you're saying does not appear to have any connection to reality.

Speaking of some connection to reality, your ridiculous devil did it theory is not in even a far orbit to any reality. Work on that.

It seems to work for you, but for those of us looking in, it doesn't make much sense.

Maybe you should look somewhere else, besides dreaming stuff up, and insinuating I not only agree with the madness, but that I invented it.

If I believed the truth of Christianity really relied on your theories, it would be impossible to believe any of it. You must not be aiming at the unconverted. In which case you're spending a lot of effort preaching to the choir.

All we need to believe is in the Messiah. But, since there are so many myths called science, and lies out there taught as truth and science, some people might be interested in where man went wrong. I would not expect everyone or even a lot of people to agree with a different past, and future, any more than they believe in heaven, and God.

Your theories are completely disconnected from anything humanity has observed.

Since you just made them up, if you mean the devil did it stuff, don't blame me. Humanity has observed many miracles over time, and manifestations of that different spiritual world. In fact, most people on earth are aware of the spiritual. No, man has not observed the actual past and future, and that is one reason he is in no position to claim what state it was or was not in.

You are claiming that physical constants, that have not been measured to change at all (evidence that they remain the same), were wildly different in the near past.

I am??? Thanks for the news. I was only aware that I figured that the spiritual/physical was the different constant of the future and past. Not that the physical ones we know changed.

By your words it seems you have, in fact, completely unhitched the present from the past.

Thanks. I try. Don't forget the same state future, now. If that wasn't unhitched, we would all crash and burn.

The only conclusion from this is that you don't really mean anything when you say 'science', 'evidence', or 'proof'. Your invented past is hermetically sealed from any of those concepts.

The only conclusion from this is that you don't really mean anything when you say 'science', 'evidence', or 'proof'. Your invented past is hermetically sealed from any of those concepts. There was apparently no same state past, that all your claims ride on. Your myth is exposed. I like that.

Since those concepts are meaningless when you say them, it would be easier for you to just post 'God did it this way because I said so.' over and over.

Since those concepts are meaningless when you say them, it would be easier for you to just post 'The creator speck did it this way because I said so.' over and over. Or maybe a chorus or two of 'we all lived in nice hot thermal vent' -to the tune of yellow submarine?? You can have a regular barn burner, foot stompin, imaginationfest.

 

[dad]

Oh, do you think it was the cat that was ridiculed by that picture?

I was hoping to counter the silliness that a poster offered, in posting just a picture of a cat. Is that so bad?

You've been here for quite a while. You might have noticed that people on this side of the debate usually have a wee bit more refined view of abiogenesis and evolution than that

No matter how fine you blend it, the stuff in the blender is much the same. I used to refer to evolution as the big bad thing, but was chastised so often by evo puritans, who indignantly pointed out that the pond story was not part of evolution officially, any more. They divorced the silly thing, and it has it's own name now. Don't blame them. But, if someone refers to the good old fashioned theory of evolution, they need to be clear about it, so they can be shown to have no proof at all for the first lifeform in a pond type lie.

You might even have noticed that it's actually a rather logical and well-evidenced idea, nothing to ridicule really.

Maybe you should be clear. What idea precisely, are you talking about?? The mere evolving, or adapting that went on, or something that dreams it's way past the actual creation, and Eden??

You mean the Big Bang? I don't think you are in any position to comment on a physical theory, much less laugh at it.

You think wrong.

To mention just one thing, physics is in a very large part maths, which you don't seem to understand at all... (Not saying I'm familiar with most of the maths of modern physics - but then I'm not acting the authority on cosmology.)

So, you don't understand, what you think I don't understand. OK. Thanks for fessing up there. Not like fishbowl maths matter all that much, except to this temporary state. See, those proficient in fishbowl maths, cannot tie them in with the future state, or the spiritual realities. That limits their value. There is no need to be good at that stuff, unless one has a fetish for fishbowl figures .

You also seem to have a very... strange... idea of handling evidence and learning about reality... I'd love to see you do that just once.

Easy as pie. Just present some for a same state past, and I will go to town on it.