"How is eternity expressed mathematically?"

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
An infinite time interval (take t as the symbol for time) can be expressed as (using LaTeX notation):

t \in [0,\infty)

Please expand on infinite/eternal dimensions of this symbol......

Originally posted by twhitehead


Pro tip: don't get your science from Thomas Aquinas, or any other theologians for that mater.

Don't look now, but you probably already have.

In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed an expanding model for the universe to explain the observed redshifts of spiral nebulae, and calculated the Hubble law. He based his theory on the work of Einstein and De Sitter, and independently derived Friedmann's equations for an expanding universe. Also, the red shifts themselves were not constant, but varied in such manner as to lead to the conclusion that there was a definite relationship between amount of red-shift of nebulae, and their distance from observers.[citation needed]

From Wiki - on Big Bang Theory.

Originally posted by sonship
Don't look now, but you probably already have.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Don't look now, but I don't see 'Theologan' mentioned even once on his Wikipedia page.

Originally posted by twhitehead
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Don't look now, but I don't see 'Theologan' mentioned even once on his Wikipedia page.

So theologians are off limits but a Catholic clergyman (who had to have studied theology ) is ok ?

Close enough to upset your bigoted advice.

Would you consider Isaac Newton as at least a wanna-be theologian considering his voluminous writings on theology ?

Newton saw God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.[26] Nevertheless he rejected Leibniz' thesis that God would necessarily make a perfect world which requires no intervention from the creator. In Query 31 of the Opticks, Newton simultaneously made an argument from design and for the necessity of intervention:

...

This passage prompted an attack by Leibniz in a letter to his friend Caroline of Ansbach:

Sir Isaac Newton and his followers have also a very odd opinion concerning the work of God. According to their doctrine, God Almighty wants to wind up his watch from time to time: otherwise it would cease to move. He had not, it seems, sufficient foresight to make it a perpetual motion.[28]

Wiki - Religious Views of Isaac Newton

Not an endorsement of all his theological ideas here. Just an honest realization that he wrote theologically.

Newton spent a great deal of time trying to discover hidden messages within the Bible. After 1690, Newton wrote a number of religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible. In a manuscript Newton wrote in 1704 he describes his attempts to extract scientific information from the Bible. He estimated that the world would end no earlier than 2060. In predicting this he said "This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail."[40]

Prophecy[edit]
Newton relied upon the existing Scripture for prophecy, believing his interpretations would set the record straight in the face of what he considered to be, "so little understood".[41] Though he would never write a cohesive body of work on Prophecy, Newton's beliefs would lead him to write several treatises on the subject, including an unpublished guide for prophetic interpretation entitled Rules for interpreting the words & language in Scripture. In this manuscript he details the necessary requirements for what he considered to be the proper interpretation of the Bible.

The End of the World[edit]
In his posthumously-published Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John, Newton expressed his belief that Bible prophecy would not be understood "until the time of the end", and that even then "none of the wicked shall understand". Referring to that as a future time ("the last age, the age of opening these things, be now approaching"😉, Newton also anticipated "the general preaching of the Gospel be approaching" and "the Gospel must first be preached in all nations before the great tribulation, and end of the world".[42]

Over the years, a large amount of media attention and public interest has circulated regarding largely unknown and unpublished documents, evidently written by Isaac Newton, that indicate he believed the world could end in 2060. While Newton also had many other possible dates (e.g. 2034),[43] he did not believe that the End of the World would take place in 2060.[44]

To understand the reasoning behind the 2060 prediction an understanding of Newton's theological beliefs should be taken into account, particularly his nontrinitarian beliefs and those negative views he held about the Papacy. Both of these lay essential to his calculations, which are themselves based upon specific chronological dates which he believed had already transpired and had been prophesied in Revelation and Daniel.

Despite the dramatic nature of a prediction of the end of the world, Newton may not have been referring to the 2060 date as a destructive act resulting in the annihilation of the earth and its inhabitants, but rather one in which he believed the world was to be replaced with a new one based upon a transition to an era of divinely inspired peace. In Christian theology, this concept is often referred to as The Second Coming of Jesus Christ and the establishment of Paradise by The Kingdom of God on Earth.[43]

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Please expand on infinite/eternal dimensions of this symbol......

What?

Originally posted by sonship
So theologians are off limits but a Catholic clergyman (who had to have studied theology) is ok ?

Yes.

Close enough to upset your bigoted advice.
Not close at all. And there was nothing bigoted about my advice. You just misunderstood it.

I went to a secondary school run by the Christian Brothers, an Irish brotherhood that specializes in teaching. My favourite teachers were all brothers. I have nothing against learning from Priests or brothers or other Christians. My point was that if someone is a theologian and is propounding on theology, you won't be getting very good science. Did you read the post I was responding to about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?

Would you consider Isaac Newton as at least a wanna-be theologian considering his voluminous writings on theology ?
I would not be looking for good science in the theological writings of Isaac Newton.

Despite the dramatic nature of a prediction of the end of the world, Newton may not have been referring to the 2060 date as a destructive act resulting in the annihilation of the earth and its inhabitants, but rather one in which he believed the world was to be replaced with a new one based upon a transition to an era of divinely inspired peace. In Christian theology, this concept is often referred to as The Second Coming of Jesus Christ and the establishment of Paradise by The Kingdom of God on Earth.[43]

Yep, don't be thinking that any of that is science, even if it has the name Isaac Newton attached to it.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Not close at all. And there was nothing bigoted about my advice. You just misunderstood it.

Reading comprehension again huh?

Well I thought for sure that -

Pro tip: don't get your science from Thomas Aquinas, or any other theologians for that mater.

Means

"Pro tip: don't get your science from Thomas Aquinas, or any other theologians for that mater."

It meant something else huh?

Close enough on Newton and Lamaitre.
You probably derive some scientific concepts from both.

I went to a secondary school run by the Christian Brothers, an Irish brotherhood that specializes in teaching. My favourite teachers were all brothers. I have nothing against learning from Priests or brothers or other Christians.

So you are banking on splitting hairs on what a theologian is. Got it.

My point was that if someone is a theologian and is propounding on theology, you won't be getting very good science. Did you read the post I was responding to about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?

Well you point was not what you wrote.

And frankly the skimming over the angels on a pinhead stuff I took as Grampy probably being tongue in cheek.

Some people might reverse the advice and say a science trained person has no business teaching on theology. I would not necessarily say that has to be. Isaac Asimov, though a Sci Fi writer, had some good training in, I think chemistry or some hard science.

Isaac Asimov wrote a commentary on the whole Bible. I read some of it. I didn't agree with some things. But I heard him out. I didn't automatically say he could not have any valid theology, ipso facto.

I would not be looking for good science in the theological writings of Isaac Newton.

You're refining your comment now.
What I read was -

don't get your science from Thomas Aquinas, or any other theologians for that mater.

Yep, don't be thinking that any of that is science, even if it has the name Isaac Newton attached to it.

I didn't say it was. I said he was virtually being a theologian. And you derive some science concepts from him. You can look now.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What?
_____________________

Originally posted by KazetNagorra Pagee 3)
"An infinite time interval (take t as the symbol for time) can be expressed as (using LaTeX notation):

t \in [0,\infty)"

Originally posted by sonship
So you are banking on splitting hairs on what a theologian is. Got it.

No, you obviously have not got it.

I am not splitting hairs about what a theologian is, I am saying that what I meant, even if it wasn't clear, was that you shouldn't mistake theology for science and when a theologian is propounding on theology, don't be expecting to find any good science.

Well you point was not what you wrote.
II fully admit that my original statement was not well phrased and could even be outright wrong. I did expect context to be taken into account.

And frankly the skimming over the angels on a pinhead stuff I took as Grampy probably being tongue in cheek.
Actually the angels on a pinhead came from the very theologian I was criticising. Grampy then suggested that it might be seen as an early statement of the Pauli exclusion principle. So no, it didn't look all that tongue in cheek.

Some people might reverse the advice and say a science trained person has no business teaching on theology.
They would have a hard time justifying such a stance.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b]What?
_____________________

Originally posted by KazetNagorra Pagee 3)
"An infinite time interval (take t as the symbol for time) can be expressed as (using LaTeX notation):

t \in [0,\infty)"[/b]

I know what I wrote - I don't understand your request.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I know what I wrote - I don't understand your request.

Thanks for your interest in this thread's specialized topic:
"How is eternity expressed mathematically?"

Originally posted by sonship
So you are banking on splitting hairs on what a theologian is. Got it.

Suppose I had written :
Pro tip: don't get your astronomy from astrologers.
or
Pro tip: don't get your geography from flat earthers.
Would I have been equally misunderstood and equally bigoted in your view?

I am sure you could easily dig up an historical astronomer who also dabbled in astrology or a famous map maker that believed the earth was flat.

Its interesting that there would be less confusion and it would be interpreted differently if you said:
Pro tip: don't get your theology from a scientist.

I am not splitting hairs about what a theologian is, I am saying that what I meant, even if it wasn't clear, was that you shouldn't mistake theology for science and when a theologian is propounding on theology, don't be expecting to find any good science.

The idea still appears bigoted. You are saying that in the course of a person speaking about God it is impossible for him, in the course of the talk, to pass on reliable scientific information.

Your clarification does not remove the bigoted attitude.

I agree that one should not be mistaken for the other. Though I would fault more than one atheist popularizer for pushing his alledged science as an anti-theology kind of theology. Richard Dawkins would be an example. Carl Sagan would be another.

Sure, let's not mistake one for the other. However, MIT physics professor Dr. Gerald Schroeder (orthodox Jew) discusses theology and in the course of it passes on good science.

In your refined explanation you now say -

" ... I am saying that what I meant, even if it wasn't clear, was that you shouldn't mistake theology for science and when a theologian is propounding on theology, don't be expecting to find any good science. "

I will reject this as a generalization which is rather bigoted or biased unfairly. And I will not assume that just because a theologian is expounding on theology, this has to mean that what science information he mentions is poor.

I will expect and hold such a one responsible, that if he does go into a scientific matter he or she should be accurate.

No twhitehead, I will not assume that one expounding about God should not be expected to say some acceptable scientific concept. You may just refine your comment until I see something acceptable. But not yet.


Secondly, some thinkers may be able to describe HOW a cake was made.
The ingredients, temperature of baking, chemistry, weight, shape and other physical characteristics of that cake may be scientifically discussed.

But that person may have no idea WHY the cake was made. And here some other field of "knowledge" must be delved into. And "science" is "knowledge" when you get down to it.

Some of us are interested in the WHY of the material universe.
And if someone expounds on the WHY they may in the course also tell us something of the HOW with accuracy according to the modern standard of scientific information.

Originally posted by sonship
The idea still appears bigoted. You are saying that in the course of a person speaking about God it is impossible for him, in the course of the talk, to pass on reliable scientific information.

No, I am not saying that.

I am saying that it is not wise to get your scientific information from someone who propounding on theology (you don't even seem to realise that 'theology' is not equivalent to 'talking about God'. )

Your clarification does not remove the bigoted attitude.
Explain what is bigoted about my attitude.

Sure, let's not mistake one for the other. However, MIT physics professor Dr. Gerald Schroeder (orthodox Jew) discusses theology and in the course of it passes on good science.
Reference please.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Thanks for your interest in this thread's specialized topic:
"How is eternity expressed mathematically?"

You're welcome.