Subject:
|
Ahh infinity, how I love ye! Was Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:51:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3633 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
>
> > Infinity may exist.
>
> Infinity *does* exist, and it's in lots of places all around us. Find the
> terminus (in two dimensions) of the surface of a sphere, for one example. The
> duplicity of Dubya, for another (I hope that this one is merely a jest, though
> I'm not yet certain).
:)
> > Finite minds can grasp theories and ideas regarding infinite, but cannot
> > encompass what infinite really is due to the very nature of finite minds
>
> Maybe it would be useful (for you and me both!) to agree upon what it means to
> "comprehend the infinite." I don't want to get bogged down in epistemology, but
> we should establish ground rules for what qualifies as "comprehension" in this
> context.
>
> > If finite minds cannot encompass infinite, infinite cannot exist?
> >
> > That's the way I've always read the inherent reductionism in people arguing
> > against the existance of God.
>
> That's one way to read it, but here are a few others:
>
> 1. Given that we have finite minds, it is impossible to draw any real
> conclusions regarding the "goodness" or "evil" of an infinite entity.
>
> 2. Assuming that God gave us these finite minds and has required us to make
> decisions about the nature of the infinite, any errors we make in our decisions
> are entirely due to the limited tools that God gave us. Therefore, since he
> both created the test and restricted our ability to perform the test, we cannot
> be held responsible for our limitations (that would be like withering a tree
> because it wasn't bearing fruit at the time when God decided it shouldn't be
> bearing fruit, right?)
>
> 3. Any god worth calling "good" could not allow someone to suffer infinite and
> eternal damnation for committing anything less than an infinitely evil act.
>
> I can give you a host of others, but this should get us started.
>
> Dave!
And I agree with many of your assessments, which is why I'm having 'issue' with
the 'Church Proper' right now. It was clearly illuminated when I read that cute
story about the answer to the question "Is Hell exothermic or endotheric". The
line that really caught me was "since each religion says that everyone else not
of that religious persuasion is going to hell, then everyone is going to hell"
(or something akin to that)
I can't accept that.
I also can't accept the idea that, if 'he whose name will not be mentioned
'cause it usually is the end of conversation but was some sort of political
leader who took his life circa 1945' asked for forgiveness of his sins right
before he pulled the trigger, would be 'standing at the right hand of our Lord
and saviour', but my uncle, who I personally believe shows that the 'Law of God'
is written on his heart clearer than anyone I have ever met, but he is a staunch
capital A Athiest, won't be 'there' when I get there-- well I, for one, cannot
accept that--that's no God I would willingly choose to follow.
So the dogma of the church doesn't necessarily impress me much. But after all
my reading, studying, and debating, my personal relationship with God has only
strengthened. But that's just me.
Questioning has to be the standard. Keeping an open mind, willing to tackle all
the various things you find, instead of treating it like a smorgasboard--take a
little here, take a little there and conveniently ignoring the stuff you don't
like or that you don't want to deal with.
In the end, do what's right for you has always been my motto.
Anyway, tangent long enuf.
In mathematics and in theory and in discussion, infinity does exist. However, I
am not Aristotle or other such mathematicians of the past who believed that if
there was a theory or equation modelled after a real-world application, and when
the application of said theory yielded a somewhat different result than what
actually happens in the 'real world', then it was the reality that was
imprecise, and not the theory or application.
In other words, in theory there is an infinite number of points between A and B.
That's great for math and theories and such. However, if I were to get a
straight edge and draw a line between A and B on a piece of paper, the line
wouldn't take me an infinitly long time to draw, nor would it use up an infinite
amount of ink. The real world is finite. You can draw the arcs on spheres
showing an infinite concept, and dissimilate the infinite number of points of a
hyperbola thru a cone--in the end, however, the real world shows that the area
is finite, the line is finite.
'Tis like that idea that if you throw a baseball at a tree--you should always be
able to divide the distance between the baseball and the tree by two, on to
infinity--therefore the baseball, in theory, would never hit the tree. Unless
you have a pitching arm like me, if you throw a ball at a tree in reality, the
ball hits the tree.
If you take infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters,
and infinite amount of time, one of 'em's bound to bang out the complete works
of Shakespeare.
Well, the universe isn't infinite, time, as far as relative to us, is finite,
and there's only a finite number of monkeys and typewriters--"To be or not to
be" and the rest of the plays aren't going to be banged out by a chimp in the
real world
Fractal geometry--There's a square. Divide that square into 9 sections--3 x 3.
Take out the middle section. Each of the remaining squares also divide into 9
sections--3x3. Take out the middle square. Repeat to infinity. What you're
left with, in theory, is a square that has the same perimeter as the original
square, a.k.a. finite perimeter, but infinite divisions.
In theory.
If you took a piece of wood and did the same, probably wouldn't get to far, even
with nanotechnology--there is only so far you can go in the real, finite, world,
hence the 'finite' bit.
I'm jsut saying. For me, the application of theories to the real world is where
the important bit lies. If the theory and the real world do not jive, then the
theory has to be modified.
On the other hand, since I appreciate such concepts as 'how many angles on the
head of a pin', if the theory remains solely in the mathematical realm, then
that's just perfect--talk about infinity all you want and I will be more than
willing to accept the concept of infinity as it relates to math.
Anyway, hope this helps keep the discussion going.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: George Bush has legitimised terrorism
|
| (...) Infinity *does* exist, and it's in lots of places all around us. Find the terminus (in two dimensions) of the surface of a sphere, for one example. The duplicity of Dubya, for another (I hope that this one is merely a jest, though I'm not yet (...) (20 years ago, 23-Apr-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
97 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
