You know Allen I'd be really happy if people just loved one another, as they love themselves.
Best to all,
Pat
Pat, I'd be really happy with that also. But!! This is never going to happen with the multitude of religions and ideologies, each preaching theirs is better. This has been going on for ever and is not going to stop. It will never stop no matter how much wishing and praying one does. Unfortunately there is almost no people willing to accept this fact, and, or have the Will to become part of something New.
My heart breaks everyday with the knowledge that it is almost impossible to save humanity from the suffocating effects of multiple religions/ideologies. Just as there is so much competition with the TOE of physics, there would be the same with finding a TOE of Metaphysics. Oh well, I guess I can keep dreaming.
__________________ Allen.
"Paradox of Potential popped Aware." ~Allen Barrow
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." ~Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
"Condemnation without Investagation is the Heigth of Ignorance" ~Albert Einstein
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." ~Galileo Galilei.
the main corroboration is the time of the flood which affected the whole world - which I propose was only possible if the world was pangean at the last ice age. All accounts point to this time.
The proposed era for Pangea, millions of years ago, is based on present-day drift rates, but a cataclysm of the magnitude described in all of the accounts of the nations back then would increase the rate many-fold which could then place Pangea and its separation at the supportable time frame 10,500 B.C.. If it fits, it fits; if it doesn't fit, then we throw it in the pit!
*** The reasoning behind your method of arriving at the 10,500 is flawed in my view. You appear to be saying that Pangea would be millions of years ago but for the flood so that the flood updated the era by hundreds of times to bring it to 10,500: you are using rough figures of millions and hundreds to derive a figure with rounding off errors of less than 5. That is the time of the flood according to the ancient records should be around 2,000 BC but this you dispute giving the figure 5 times as large ie 10,500.
The margin of error obtained by dividing millions by hundreds cannot distinguish between 10,000 and 2,000.
I trust you can see the point I am making.
Quote:
As for the zero, I think you are right. Yet, the absolute integer would always remain zero because infinity is both positive and negative. So any and all integers multiplied by infinity equal zero - the absolute point between positive and negative infinity (relative fractions between zero and negative infinity, and zero and positive infinity).
*** I am afraid, your math is not sound: infinity being both negative and positive would mean multiplying it by zero will give negative and positive finite numbers.
We are multiplying zero by infinity [ie 0 x +ve infinity and 0 x -ve infinity respectively] we are not adding as you seem to be thinking in which case the +ve and -ve infinities would cancel each other out.
You are also evidently also making an error by thinking that integer means zero. Integer means whole number ie counting numbers like 1, 2 3...965 etc as opposed to fractions.
Of course I don't know, but it's not me lacking mathematical knowledge, it's mathematics that "doesn't know"; that's why it's called an indeterminate form
*** Ok your point is well taken but I affirm that infinity x 0 is finite and I say further that whereas I concede that mathematics does 'know' this explicity it does implicity.
In saying infinity x 0 is undefined math actually means, though probably not realizing it, that that product could be any finite number depending on which 'value of infinity' you use.
The logic of math requires that 1/0 = infinity, and also that 7/0 = infinity. So although not recognizing it math is saying, and correctly so in my view, that infinity is a range of numbers just like the range of finite numbers is.
So 1/0 is not equal to the same value of infinity that 7/0 is and so on.
The inverse operation to division is multiplication so it follows that ( 1/0 ) x 0 should give you back 1. So if we call 1/0 infinity1 then infinity1 x 0 = 1.
Likewise 7/0 = infinity7, so infinity7 x 0 = 7.
In conclusion infinity1 and infinity7 multiplied by 0 give the finite numbers 1, 7 respectively.
So infinity x 0 = a finite number that is defined by the magnitude of infinity involved.
May I also add that the general conditions of the Laplace Theorem says implicitly that infinity x zero is finite and I can state the conditions at another time if you need them.
Quote:
Note that I am not telling you that I know the answer, but I am saying that to state that infinity multiplied by zero equals a finite number is incorrect. You can say that you define it to be finite, because you every time you used it, you could take it to be equal to 7, say, but I can say it's infinity: the point is that you cannot prove me wrong, and I cannot prove you wrong. Thus stating that the answer is always finite is incorrect.
*** According to my argument above my claim that infinity x 0 = finite is not just a convenient way I use to define infinity. It is actually mathematical law and a reality of the universe in which we live.
[quote]: *** You meran to say finite not real: finite numbers multiplied bo 0 = 0.
Nope, I meant to say what I said: real numbers multiplied by zero are equal to zero. Infinity is not a real number, and thus all real numbers are finite. [ /quote]
You may be right according to current math concepts but math of the future must come to terms with the reality I outlined above if it is to understand the universe more comprehensively.
Infinity is real in my theory and it is from this infinite reality and nothing (ie 0) that the finite universe that we know of was created.
hi there
i would like to believe in one God, what a world we would have if we all followed one Gods instructions our world would be perfect but looking at the world that just will never be unfortunatly
but for me there seems to be alot of evidence of creation and maybe more like intervention
*** According to the scriptures 'if you should believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that Jesus is the son of God who died and rose again from the dead for sins you shall be saved'.
Talk to a Christian you know and let him/ her guide you in doing so.
Roger, the point I am trying to make is that, whilst sometimes it may be useful to take the result as a finite answer, there is no way that you can prove to me that 0x infinity is finite. Hence, again, that is why it is an indeterminate form.
Now, if you do define 0 x infinity to be finite, you have a flaw in your argument regarding division by zero. On defining multiplication by infinity, you have defined a new operation (since multiplication is only defined over the real numbers). Hence, there is nothing to say that the usual divison is the (a) the same and (b) the inverse operation to multiplcation.
Finally, I'm not familiar with the Laplace theorem of which you speak, feel free to quote it to me if you like. I don't think it'll change my arguement though.
I fail to see both points you made because I wasn't putting Pangea millions of years ago. That estimate is based on a constant drift rate, which I increase dramatically at 10,500 B.C., which is the time all records point to for the global cataclysm that affected all civilizations of that time. Though, yes, I am moving the biblical account back about 8,000 years for it to corroborate the other accounts.
As for the zero, I agreed with you that zero multiplied by infinity equals any finite number, but that any number multiplied by infinity equals a finite number. The resultant finite number, though, can also be equated with zero because any finite number would have to lie between positive and negative infinity. In other words, when infinity is invoked, there can be no such number as a finite number because all whole positive or negative numbers become fractions of infinity. So if the gist is the the infinite God creates finite reality from nothing, it would only work if there existed a largest positive and negative number, but I don't think there does.
You know Allen I'd be really happy if people just loved one another, as they love themselves.
Best to all,
Pat
That's the real problem, Pat. That is exactly what people do. And it is a sad thing to observe in ourselves, how little we actually 'love', in reality, so this is why the practice is avoided. We then proceed to assume 'love' as being an act of giving people whatever they want, especially our children. Do they really want a society that encourages them to poison themselves, I wonder?
It seems that we would rather dream that we are 'superior' to all of that!
'Creation' is a constant cosmological act, is how things exist in motion. To this end, 'love' is an act that must be constantly created from within, but people seem to currently believe that it is some 'exterior force' that guides only the 'good'. Real love is, then, a creative act, but when we stop creating it, it ceases to be.
If we were to concentrate on becoming beings worthy of love, we would be able to love ourselves, honestly, and so emit the truly loving thing that we can be, out into the rest of Space (existence), instead of the pretentious, and thus occasionally poisonous things, we currently are/do.
Take your own 'worst case scenario', where all religiosity is lost to Humans, and roam the universe in some 'borg-like' state, just destroying all the things we have no use for (actually, not so far from the current reality!) - Even then, it would be of some advantage to have an understanding of true love, so that we may use it responsibly as an option, and this is regardless of whether some 'omni-potent' entity dispenses it, or not. We have to become responsible, which means living responsibly within and as part of the Reality that we find ourselves in, thus as part of.
When we accept responsibility for the creation of our own 'love', we will see the sense in having it as an option. At the moment, it is just a survival technique, some kind of 'weapon', we use against our own 'hate' (or other peoples' 'hate', as we see 'fit').
pif.
__________________ People look after the things they have affection for. It is thus essential that we learn to have affection for the planet that sustains us.
"The sense of threat from every quarter of what is known as the Establishment – which is to say, of modern civilization – is not altogether a put-on or an act for many of these young folk, but an actual condition of soul. The break-off is real, and what is being bombed and blown up outside are actual symbols of interior fears." - Joseph Campbell
Your post is right on, and it's the 2nd time I have been corrected in eliminating the 1st of the 2 great love commandments of Jesus. 1st Love GOD with your whole heart, mind and soul, and 2nd Love your neighbor as you Love yourself.
By eliminating God, I think you are right ,the 2nd is impossible. Without experiencing God's Love directly we have no idea what Love is. And once you experience God's Love directly, the 2nd Love commandment follows, and it's EASY to Love yourself and others.
You recognize that you don't have to be " worthy " to receive God's Love, it's a given. God love saints and sinners equally, much more than a parent loves their children, regardless, whether they are good or bad.
So I think " True Love " comes from God, and the best I can do is to imperfectly imitate God's " Perfect Love ", which is constant and consistent 24/7.
Roger, the point I am trying to make is that, whilst sometimes it may be useful to take the result as a finite answer, there is no way that you can prove to me that 0x infinity is finite. Hence, again, that is why it is an indeterminate form.
*** Multiplication is repetitive addition so that multiplying 2 x 10 say means adding 2 to itself 10 times ie 2 + 2 + ...2 = 20.
The size [ie length] of a point is zero but drawing a line means adding an infinite number of points together. So if I wish to get a line of 2 units long I must add infinity2 points together: I hope you can see this.
But adding infinity2 points together is the same as multiplying one point by infinity. That is, infinity2 x 0 = 2.
Similarly a line of 7 units long comprises an infinite amount of points of 0 length added together where the infinite amount in this case is infinity7 and so on.
And lastly if I add an infinite amounts of lines of length 7 units and thickness 0 units side by side I will get an area of 49 square units if the infinite amount is infinity7.
I think this is the extent of the explanation I can give and if I say anything more I will only be repeating myself. Therefore if you can't understand the points I have made thus far I think we will just have to agree to disagree on the issue of multiplying by infinity.
Quote:
Now, if you do define 0 x infinity to be finite, you have a flaw in your argument regarding division by zero. On defining multiplication by infinity, you have defined a new operation (since multiplication is only defined over the real numbers).
*** For imaginary numbers i^2 = -1 or i = square root of (-1). Imaginary numbers obey the laws of multiplication so it is incorrect to say that multiplication is only defined over the real numbers.
Further, in the same way an orthogonal axis called iZ could be defined I am saying we can also define an axis [or range of numbers] called 'infinityZ' and do all the computations involving multiplication and division between 0 and infinity.
Quote:
Hence, there is nothing to say that the usual divison is the (a) the same and (b) the inverse operation to multiplcation.
*** Ok, we just have to agree to disagree on this.
Quote:
Finally, I'm not familiar with the Laplace theorem of which you speak, feel free to quote it to me if you like. I don't think it'll change my arguement though.
*** The general condition basically is: if F(s) is a function such that in the limit as 's' tends to zero F(s) tends to infinity then the limit of sF(s) as 's' tends to zero is finite.
Mathematicians usually have a very abstract and difficult way of saying simple things so that's why the above appears so complicated and the notation it is written in makes it even more difficult to understand.
What Laplace was actually saying in simpler terms is this: if you have a function F(s) = 1/s say. Then as 's' tends to zero [ or when 's' is zero] 1/s = 1/0 = infinity.
Laplace is saying that sF(s) which is s x 1/s when 's' is 0 is finite.
He is therefore effectively saying that 0 x 1/0 is finite which is what I have been saying to you in my earlier post about multiplying 0 x infinity.
It may take an advanced mathematician to follow my argument so I will not be offended if you can't follow it.
Linear Mode
