DOOR 17

Originally posted by twhitehead
"I don't see how" = "I cant understand".

"I don't see how" = a polite way of saying I think the idea doesn't work

EG - You might say "I don't see how aliens can be here because....."

Originally posted by twhitehead
As usual you miss the point. I am not saying I have proved my hypothesis or even have evidence for it. But for you to disprove it you must provide concreted evidence, [b]maybe doesn't cut it.
However as long as my hypothesis remains standing (ie not disproved) the first cause argument remains a failure in logic as it uses as an axiom the assumption t ...[text shortened]... ady fallen guarantees that there is no first domino. Its a mathematical fact. Live with it.[/b]

I gave as an example addition on the positive real numbers. If we take as the cause for any positive real number, the addition of two smaller positive real numbers then please show how they require an initial cause. WHITEY


A positive number does not exist therefore it is not an example of something in the real world. A positive number is a mental construct used to decribe the real substantive world around us. (just like the concept of time)

Originally posted by twhitehead
As usual you miss the point. I am not saying I have proved my hypothesis or even have evidence for it. But for you to disprove it you must provide concreted evidence, [b]maybe doesn't cut it.
However as long as my hypothesis remains standing (ie not disproved) the first cause argument remains a failure in logic as it uses as an axiom the assumption t ...[text shortened]... ady fallen guarantees that there is no first domino. Its a mathematical fact. Live with it.[/b]

As I said, you don't seem to understand infinity. If you can show that there was a 'first domino' then the chain would not be infinite. So the fact that an infinite number of dominos has already fallen guarantees that there is no first domino. Its a mathematical fact. Live with it.
WHITEY


And you don't understand dominos!

What exactly is a "mathematical fact"? If maths proves that the eiffel tower is made of jelly does this make it "fact"? I'll give you one fact that I know from direct observation of the real world around me. If I see a chain of dominos toppling in a room (no matter how large) I know that someone has flicked a domino somewhere or other along the line. Mathematical "facts" aside , the question still remains , "why are the dominos toppling (and still toppling)?"

Originally posted by knightmeister
And you don't understand dominos!

OK, I admit it. I made a mistake. Domino's are countable and therefore cannot be mapped to the real numbers. However you have not proven that time is countable and if it is infinitely divisible (as per my hypothesis) then it is not countable and you cannot use dominos as a counter example.

What exactly is a "mathematical fact"? If maths proves that the eiffel tower is made of jelly does this make it "fact"?
Mathematics on its own cannot prove anything about the real world. However if it can be shown (or is hypothesized) that the real world follows certain mathematical patterns then mathematics can be used to solve real world problems.

I'll give you one fact that I know from direct observation of the real world around me. If I see a chain of dominos toppling in a room (no matter how large) I know that someone has flicked a domino somewhere or other along the line. Mathematical "facts" aside , the question still remains , "why are the dominos toppling (and still toppling)?"
As I said dominos are countable and as such cannot be used in this example as we are talking about uncountable infinities here.

Originally posted by twhitehead
OK, I admit it. I made a mistake. Domino's are countable and therefore cannot be mapped to the real numbers. However you have not proven that time is countable and if it is infinitely divisible (as per my hypothesis) then it is not countable and you cannot use dominos as a counter example.

[b]What exactly is a "mathematical fact"? If maths proves that ch cannot be used in this example as we are talking about uncountable infinities here.

OK, I admit it. I made a mistake. Domino's are countable and therefore cannot be mapped to the real numbers. However you have not proven that time is countable and if it is infinitely divisible (as per my hypothesis) then it is not countable and you cannot use dominos as a counter example. WHITEY

RESPONSE----------
Hang on a minute , one may not be able to count the amount of times that time can be chopped up but we still know that amount of time form A to B. For example , take the last 10 hours . If you divide it up into minutes that's 600 minutes , if you divide it up into seconds the that's 36000 seconds , you can then go on and divide it infinitely if you like. Now if you divide it infinitely does that mean that the 10 hours is any less countable than before?

I can equally argue you see that I can place an infinite amount of thin dominos in between my billions of dominos thus making my dominos uncountable in theory. However , I would still think it reasonable to ask the question "how did these dominos get toppling , why are they toppling? " I think it's reasonable to posit that this is a fair question even if there are infinite dominos , your job is to show why said question is invalid.

You say that I have not proved time is countable but surely we do know how old the universe is and can count the time it has been around. Why do you think chopping time into ever increasingly smaller bits makes that time longer. Chop it up all you like it's still 14 billion years or so.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Hang on a minute , one may not be able to count the amount of times that time can be chopped up but we still know that amount of time form A to B. For example , take the last 10 hours . If you divide it up into minutes that's 600 minutes , if you divide it up into seconds the that's 36000 seconds , you can then go on and divide it infinitely if you l ...[text shortened]... er bits makes that time longer. Chop it up all you like it's still 14 billion years or so.

I dont really feel like teaching a course in Set Theory here, but basically there are two types of infinite sets, countable and uncountable. The set of integers is countable the set of real numbers is not. If time is infinitely divisible then it is not countable.
If every pair of dominos has an infinite number of dominos in between them then they become uncountable and it becomes impossible for them to topple in series (because they are uncountable). Hence the question "how did these dominos get toppling , why are they toppling?" becomes unreasonable. The interesting thing is you have just shown me that if time is infinitely divisible, causal chains are impossible. So you have proved my hypothesis wrong but not yet excluded a universe which is not entirely causal that has infinitely divisible time.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I dont really feel like teaching a course in Set Theory here, but basically there are two types of infinite sets, countable and uncountable. The set of integers is countable the set of real numbers is not. If time is infinitely divisible then it is not countable.
If every pair of dominos has an infinite number of dominos in between them then they become ...[text shortened]... t not yet excluded a universe which is not entirely causal that has infinitely divisible time.

All this is very well in theory but back in the real world we know and can observe the dominos toppling in what we call causality. We also know the length of time of the universe (ie one of it's dimensions is known) so in this respect time is countable (measurable) . Stop retreaating deeper and deeper into theoretical maths and start applying it. The dominos ARE toppling all around us!!!

Originally posted by knightmeister
All this is very well in theory but back in the real world we know and can observe the dominos toppling in what we call causality. We also know the length of time of the universe (ie one of it's dimensions is known) so in this respect time is countable (measurable) . Stop retreaating deeper and deeper into theoretical maths and start applying it. The dominos ARE toppling all around us!!!

No they are not. You have provided zero evidence for dominos toppling and quantum theory directly contradicts such a claim. In fact it is much closer to my concept of uncountable time. Welcome to the real world.
What you call causality are only large scale statistical effects. Its like calculus can help to deal with uncountable infinities but it does not make them go away.

You forget that my hypothesis was that time was infinitely divisible (and thus uncountable). You have not proved that that is not the case even though you claim that it is not what you observe, you have not provided any evidence. In fact, you don't know enough physics or maths to be making such claims.

We also know the length of time of the universe..
Oh? Do tell. That would be the greatest scientific finding of the century.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No they are not. You have provided zero evidence for dominos toppling and quantum theory directly contradicts such a claim. In fact it is much closer to my concept of uncountable time. Welcome to the real world.
What you call causality are only large scale statistical effects. Its like calculus can help to deal with uncountable infinities but it does not ...[text shortened]... the universe..
Oh? Do tell. That would be the greatest scientific finding of the century.[/b]

We also know the length of time of the universe..
Oh? Do tell. That would be the greatest scientific finding of the century.
whitey

--- Am I wrong in assuming the universe had been calculated as being 14 billion years old from big bang to now? 0r was it nearer 12?

Originally posted by knightmeister
--- Am I wrong in assuming the universe had been calculated as being 14 billion years old from big bang to now? 0r was it nearer 12?

1. The beginning of the universe to now is not the length of the universe (in time).
2. I am not convinced that anyone has proved that the big bang is the beginning of the universe.

Originally posted by twhitehead
1. The beginning of the universe to now is [b]not the length of the universe (in time).
2. I am not convinced that anyone has proved that the big bang is the beginning of the universe.[/b]

1. The beginning of the universe to now is not the length of the universe (in time).
2. I am not convinced that anyone has proved that the big bang is the beginning of the universe. WHITEY


1. So the Universe began 14 billion years ago (approx) but you say we cannot measure the time dimension of the universe in this way? Curiuos.How else do you propose that we measure time in the universe? Is time not a measurable dimension?

2. How do you suppose they might prove it? Proof or no proof - it certainly looks as if the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. How far are you going to go down this road in order to defend your argument? If you won't adhere to basic scientific findings then I have no way of debating with you.

Originally posted by knightmeister
1. So the Universe began 14 billion years ago (approx) but you say we cannot measure the time dimension of the universe in this way? Curiuos.How else do you propose that we measure time in the universe? Is time not a measurable dimension?

Oh come on, surely you know that the future is part of the universe too? Have you measured that?

2. How do you suppose they might prove it? Proof or no proof - it certainly looks as if the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. How far are you going to go down this road in order to defend your argument? If you won't adhere to basic scientific findings then I have no way of debating with you.
Can we say that it is also a basic scientific finding that God did not create the universe? It certainly looks that way. I don't see you adhering to basic scientific findings in most of your threads, why should I?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Oh come on, surely you know that the future is part of the universe too? Have you measured that?

[b]2. How do you suppose they might prove it? Proof or no proof - it certainly looks as if the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. How far are you going to go down this road in order to defend your argument? If you won't adhere to basic scientific f ...[text shortened]... . I don't see you adhering to basic scientific findings in most of your threads, why should I?

Can we say that it is also a basic scientific finding that God did not create the universe? It certainly looks that way. I don't see you adhering to basic scientific findings in most of your threads, why should I? WHITEY

Of course we can say that it is a basic scientific finding that God did not create the universe (whatever that means). It makes little difference to me since it is an issue of faith . As far as science is concerned God does not exist but that didn't stop me finding out he does. I'm not the one who is saying I am rigidly adhering to a scientific outlook on the world . I find science fascinating and useful but I'm not 100% signed up to it without question , I also think mysticism is important.

So , if you want to depart from science go ahead it's your branch you will be sawing off underneath you , and not mine. You seem to think that I have violated a first law of science just by believing in God and that gives you a blank cheque to depart from science whenever you like. I feel obliged to hold you by your own beliefs just as you would hold me to mine.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Oh come on, surely you know that the future is part of the universe too? Have you measured that?

[b]2. How do you suppose they might prove it? Proof or no proof - it certainly looks as if the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. How far are you going to go down this road in order to defend your argument? If you won't adhere to basic scientific f ...[text shortened]... . I don't see you adhering to basic scientific findings in most of your threads, why should I?

Oh come on, surely you know that the future is part of the universe too? Have you measured that? WHITEY


...and from which point should I start measuring? Since you do not accept that the universe has a beginning how can I take your talk of the future seriously? Where is this future to be be measured? Can we see it or observe it?

Originally posted by knightmeister
...and from which point should I start measuring? Since you do not accept that the universe has a beginning how can I take your talk of the future seriously? Where is this future to be be measured? Can we see it or observe it?

I do not accept that the universe has been proved to have a beginning or that its beginning is of the nature you describe it to be. At no point have I claimed that it does not have a begging.
I also deny that it is a 'basic scientific finding' that the universe began at the big bang. There are many scientific hypothesis suggesting otherwise and no solid theories supporting a biginning at the big bang.
The future cannot be observed, that is a basic rule of time, but it does not mean there is no future. If you don't take the existence of the future seriously then you must be insane.