10 May 16
Originally posted by googlefudgeCuriously enough though, in the very specific case of this very specific post - with the key phrase " "Getting you to discuss anything takes an eternity". - such a delayed response might be defended and even considered witty. I am not asking you to be impressed but I suggest it is not the best candidate for your parental admonitions.
Has anyone intruded you to the concept of forum necromancy?
[this is a rhetorical question as I know I have if nobody else has mentioned it]
It's bad forum etiquette to resurrect long dead threads, particularly your own,
when others have clearly moved on to talk about something else.
It's a form of forum spam.
Learn to join in others conversations, instead of just spamming your own threads,
over and over again.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
18 May 16
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYou asked him, 'why in the world have you just referenced Him (God) as if He was looking down upon the two of us from heaven?'
In what way?
It is clear to anyone reading his post that he did no such thing. What he said was, 'Most theists think God exists through out time and that heaven / life after death will be infinite."
How is the above referencing God in the way you suggest? Does he not say 'most theist's think'?
Originally posted by twhitehead"No" has the advantage of having far less words.
To 'fathom' is to measure the depth of water in fathoms using a rope or chain to touch the bottom. If your rope is too short, then the water is unfathomable. Only finite depths are fathomable. The infinite is therefore unfathomable by definition.
Edit After the Fact: Good Lord, I must be tired. Yes, I know I should have said "far fewer words".
18 May 16
Originally posted by SuzianneOnly temporarily because it then triggers questions asking for an explanation. It is more efficient therefore to give the explanation with the answer. Too many posters demand that you drag an explanation out of them piece by piece with cryptic sarcasm being deployed on the way to try and throw the unwary questioner off.
"No" has the advantage of having far less words.
18 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis is demonstrably true. I concede your point. 🙂
Only temporarily because it then triggers questions asking for an explanation. It is more efficient therefore to give the explanation with the answer. Too many posters demand that you drag an explanation out of them piece by piece with cryptic sarcasm being deployed on the way to try and throw the unwary questioner off.
18 May 16
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIts irreducible essence: God is
You asked him, 'why in the world have you just referenced Him (God) as if He was looking down upon the two of us from heaven?'
It is clear to anyone reading his post that he did no such thing. What he said was, 'Most theists think God exists through out time and that heaven / life after death will be infinite."
How is the above referencing God in the way you suggest? Does he not say 'most theist's think'?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyRHP has established a maximum limit on the duration of eternity, using the [text shortened]. algorithm.
[b]"How is eternity expressed mathematically?" Thread 158620 (30 Mar '14 23:48)
"Here are the largest numbers I could find as a layman's point of reference:
Googol: A large number. A "1" followed by one hundred zeros.
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,00 ...[text shortened]... uantitative/qualitative aspect of an eternity with or separated from God?"
____________________[/b]
09 Jun 16
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyNo, an upper bound based on information theory was found by Anders Sandberg [1][2] - based on the maximum entropy and therefore information that can fit into a pin head sized volume of space and assuming an information carrying capacity of one bit per Angel and it's 8.6766E49 which is about 15% under the square root of a google, a googleplex is a massive overestimate. While the paper is intended humorously the argument is solid, that is the maximum number of bits that can fit into that volume and therefore provides an upper bound on the number of angels that could.
"According to Thomas Aquinas, it is impossible for two distinct causes to each be the immediate cause of one and the same thing. An angel is a good example of such a cause. Thus two angels cannot occupy the same space.[2] This can be seen as an early statement of the Pauli exclusion principle. (The Pauli exclusion principle is a pillar of modern physics ...[text shortened]... Googolplexian: The worlds largest number with a name. A '1' followed by a googolplex of zeros."?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F#Humoristic_answers
[2] "Quantum Gravity Treatment of the Angel Density Problem". Annals of Improbable Research. 2001. Retrieved 10 May 2013.
http://improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume7/v7i3/angels-7-3.htm
09 Jun 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIf the question was "Is infinity a number on the real line." then yes, I agree that infinity is not an element of the set of real numbers, but cardinal and ordinal numbers are rigorously defined numbers used to give the size of infinite sets and aren't a short hand for "unbounded".
No.
in reply to Grampy Bobby's:
Is there an infinite number?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfinite_number
09 Jun 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThank you.
No, an upper bound based on information theory was found by Anders Sandberg [1][2] - based on the maximum entropy and therefore information that can fit into a pin head sized volume of space and assuming an information carrying capacity of one bit per Angel and it's 8.6766E49 which is about 15% under the square root of a google, a googleplex is a massiv ...[text shortened]... 01. Retrieved 10 May 2013.
http://improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume7/v7i3/angels-7-3.htm