In the beginning ...

[thestoat]

A minute cannot equal an hour, so the number of minutes in an infinite number of hours cannot equal that infinite number of hours.

That is not so. 60 * infinity = infinity.

[Andrew D]

So a minute is equal to an hour. Not in this universe.

[thestoat]

Meade

Sorry for the late response to your post - been busy and your post required a fair bit of thought

Re Joshua; not it’s not a “wrong thing” – it’s poetic description of a seemingly endless day of battle. A common device in ancient writings and through to today.

That is, for me, the problem (or one of them) with the bible. It is taken as a manual on what god said or did and how to live, etc etc. Yet loads of it has fanciful fiction style writing.

Eye for an eye is a limitation in a societal penal code; punishment should not be excessive but meted out in relation to the crime. That’s a good liberal principle even today. Turn the other cheek has to do with a personal reaction to a personal offence, in opposition to seeking vengeance – pursuing forgiveness rather than anger.

That is an interesting way of looking it it. However, since the bible doesn't state under which circumstances its advice is to be taken, I find it rather lacking. There are simply too many other meanings that may be attributed to these (and other) passages.

It is reported as having happened, to which your objection is…….?

My objection is that I find the action of rape and incest being condoned. That is just the way I read it.

I see nothing odd in people sharing in similar “rules” if those rules are universally moral

But that is the point. They are just a good set of rules to live by. I read elsewhere of some tribes, cut off from Christianity and found fairly recently, who had similar rules. I.e. god didn't tell them to Moses - they are just good rules to live by and have been around thousands of years.

As to the “load of Christ’s details”, one big difference is that Jesus was an actual person – Mithra, Bacchus/Dyoniusius, etc. were not

You know they didn't exist for sure? The stories weren't based on real people? Anyway- it is beside the point. Real or not, the story of what Jesus is supposed to have done is very similar to older myths. And the Romans were very well known for merging traditions to aid conquest. It is why a lot of British place names have Romanised names, and why Christ is now said to be born on Dec 25th.

When they start sacrificing children to the devil, and killing people by spells – then maybe they are real witches and someone should do something about it

Absolutely. But in times gone past people were branded as witches and burnt for just being accused of witchcraft.

[thestoat]

So a minute is equal to an hour. Not in this universe

Infinity is a mathematical term. You need to understand the maths behind it to appreciate why 60*infinity = infinity.

[thestoat]

So a minute is equal to an hour. Not in this universe.

Andrew, I found some information to help with your understanding of infinity





The third line down is the one we are talking about. It is discussed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_real_number_line though there is a slightly simpler explanation here http://www.thescienceforum.com/What-hap ... 23750t.php

[Andrew D]

With respect to approximations in dealing with matters concerning infinitudes, thestoat, you might take a look at this:

In probability theory, one says that an event happens almost surely (sometimes abbreviated as a.s.) if it happens with probability one. The concept is analogous to the concept of "almost everywhere" in measure theory. While there is no difference between almost surely and surely (that is, entirely certain to happen) in many basic probability experiments, the distinction is important in more complex cases relating to some sort of infinity. For instance, the term is often encountered in questions that involve infinite time, regularity properties or infinite-dimensional spaces such as function spaces.

And this:

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

In this context, "almost surely" is a mathematical term with a precise meaning, and the "monkey" is not an actual monkey, but a metaphor for an abstract device that produces a random sequence of letters ad infinitum. The theorem illustrates the perils of reasoning about infinity by imagining a vast but finite number, and vice versa.

Your assertion that "9999999999999999999999999 millennia may be approximated to infinite time" to conclude that an infinite number of throws of the dice will surely -- as distinct from almost surely -- result in at least one throw of a six is an example of at least one of those perils in operation.

[Andrew D]

I see nothing in the linked materials that explains how the number of minutes in an infinite number of hours can be the same as that infinite number of hours without a minute's being equal to an hour. That may well be because the proposition that a minute is equal to an hour is self-evidently false.

If a proposition expressed in mathematical terms leads to a conclusion which, when expressed in a natural human language, is either false or nonsensical, there is at least one error in the mathematics leading to that conclusion. The proposition that the number of minutes in an infinite number of hours is equal to that infinite number of hours leads to the conclusion that a minute is equal to an hour. The conclusion that a minute is equal to an hour is false. Therefore, there is at least one error in the mathematics leading to the conclusion that the number of minutes in an infinite number of hours is the same as that infinite number of hours.

Consider again two rays. One ray begins at point X, which, for convenience, we can express as point X+0, and runs through point +∞. The other begins at point X+1 and runs through point +∞. What is the relation between the number of points in those two rays? Either those numbers are equivalent, or the ray X+0 through +∞ is longer than the ray X+1 through +∞. If those numbers are equivalent, then 0=1. We know that 0≠1. Therefore, the proposition that the numbers are equivalent is false.

Consider a commonly given example, that the infinite number of odd integers is equal to the infinite number of integers (odd and even). If that is true, then if we combine the set of all odd integers with the set of all even integers, we have added nothing to the set of all odd integers. And if that is true, then the total number of even integers contained in the set of all even integers is zero. The falsity of that is self-evident.

The idea of one-to-one correspondence does not change anything. Sure, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the first ten odd integers and the first ten integers, between the first billion odd integers and the first billion integers, between the first googleplex odd integers and the first googleplex integers, and so on. And so what? All that means is that after the first googleplex odd integers, the number of remaining odd integers is an infinite number; and after the first googleplex integers, the number of remaining integers is an infinite number of integers. It does not mean that those two infinite numbers are the same.

Put another way, the set of all integers contains elements which the set of all odd integers does not (i.e., the elements making up the set of all even integers). So either the set of all integers contains an infinite number of elements which is greater than the number of elements contained in the set of all odd integers, or the number of elements contained in the set of all even integers is zero. 2, 4, and 6 are even integers. The set {2, 4, 6} contains three elements, all of which are even integers, and the set {2, 4, 6} is a subset of the set of all even integers. Three does not equal zero. Therefore, the number of elements contained in the set of all even integers is not zero.

Again, if the conclusion of any set of mathematical operations is, when expressed in a natural human language, either false or nonsensical, then some error(s) lie(s) in the mathematics. That assumes, of course, that the "translation" from mathematics to the natural human language is correct. All too often, it is not. The symbol ∞ is not correctly expressed in English as "infinity". It is correctly expressed in English as "an infinite number".

Correct usage eliminates many of the problems created by incorrect usage. Mis"translating" "∞" as "infinity" gives rise to the erroneous notion that one infinite number is necessarily equal to another (or, which amounts to the same thing, one infinite number is necessarily equal to another infinite number of the same cardinality). Correctly "translating" "∞" as "an infinite number" averts that error: The use of the indefinite article makes explicit that the two infinite numbers are not necessarily equal. (That is what indefinite articles are for: In the sentence "this basket contains a number of apples, and that basket also contains a number of apples," the use of the indefinite article "a" makes explicit that the number of apples in this basket is not necessarily equal to the number of apples in that basket.)

So, bearing in mind that when dealing with infinitudes, the distinction between surely and almost surely is important, where is the proof that in infinite time, anything whose occurrence is possible will surely -- not just almost surely -- occur? I have yet to see it.

[Sean]

There is a simple reason why 9999999999999999999999999 or even 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 millennia can not be approximated to infinite time. The fact that we can ennumerate it means that it is incomparable to infinity.

But of course the real point is not that a "probable" thing must happen but that a "possible" thing must happen.

That makes no sense to me Meade. Is a "probable" thing not also by definition a "possible" thing?

[loCAtek]

Meade
But that is the point. They are just a good set of rules to live by. I read elsewhere of some tribes, cut off from Christianity and found fairly recently, who had similar rules. I.e. god didn't tell them to Moses - they are just good rules to live by and have been around thousands of years.

I don't see the problem with that.

The Buddha said- There are as many different forms of Buddhism, as there are Buddhists.

You might also say- There are as many different forms of Christianity, as there are Christians.

Or- There are as many different forms of Rastafarianism, as there are Rastafarians.

Etcera

To Finally- There are as many different forms of Religion, as there are Religious.

To each their own way of perceiving Spirituality. One size perception does not fit all ...nor should it.

[MajGenl.Meade]

This summarizes the agnostic problem - an outright refusal to stand on any ground at all other than scepticism. Yes AGD you have made a claim. You claim that in inifinite time not all possible things may happen. You did not simply ask "what is your argument? - you first said that it was not correct and that not all possible things had to happen.

On oscillating - so we're just semantically challenged then. We mean the same thing. I envisage an arc described by an object which starts (not at the bottom of the arc) but at one elevated side of it - and then swings out to the opposite side (end) and back to the original starting point, then back etc etc. A pendulous universe rather than a linear one. Anyway - you have claimed it - so where's your evidence?


I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
Cheers
Meade

Prove to me that if a "possible" thing cannot occur in infinite time (nay, "will not" occur for you are certain of it) that it is actually possible and not impossible.

Why would I set about "proving" something that is based on a premise which I do not accept and for which no support has been forthcoming? I am not asserting that a possible thing cannot occur in infinite time. Nor am I asserting that a possible thing will not occur in infinite time. I am asking you to support your assertion that every possible thing will (must) occur in infinite time. Thus far, you have not.

If a possible thing may not occur in inifinite time, when may it occur please? And don't say it does not have to occur. That is simply begging the question.

It is not begging the question at all. It is getting directly to the heart of the matter. You asserted that an infinite regress of time is impossible, because everything that could possibly happen must have happened. I asked you to demonstrate the truth of that assertion. Thus far, you have not.

Please make it clear if you are arguing that there is a true infinity of time (without beginning and end) or that there isn't.

I am asking you to support your assertion that an infinite regress of time is impossible. Thus far, you have not.

Is not an oscillating universe one which expands and then contracts and then re-expands? I fail to see your "cyclical" as being any different.

To me, oscillating at least connotes moving back and forth between two points, whereas cycling at least connotes reptition along a path leading in one direction. A pendulum oscillates; a wheel cycles. At the moment, in the present context, I do not see that the difference matters. But perhaps at some point it will.

[MajGenl.Meade]

There is a simple reason why 9999999999999999999999999 or even 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 millennia can not be approximated to infinite time. The fact that we can ennumerate it means that it is incomparable to infinity.

But of course the real point is not that a "probable" thing must happen but that a "possible" thing must happen.

That makes no sense to me Meade. Is a "probable" thing not also by definition a "possible" thing?

I was responding to rubato's "Claiming that in an infinite span of time all events which have even the smallest probability of happening must necessarily happen is a bizarre misunderstanding of nature and frankly just wrong.....Probability is just a way of calculating something; it does not require that thing to exist"

A probable thing may be possible or it may be not possible. rubato's example was of molecular motion in a lake causing the waters to suddenly jump up and race through the atmosphere - a thing which has "probability" or potential but is not required to actualise, even given infinite time. A thing which does not happen or cannot happen given infinite time to do so, must be impossible. Or it would have happened.

The most obvious application to me is the atheistic claim that rationalistic arguments for the existence of God at best demonstrate only a probability which (since the theistic God is not possible) are of no value.

As to right rules of conduct (thestoat), the existence of moral commonality indicates a universal awareness of a universal standard by which matters can be measured as to rightness or wrongness. This is more of a problem for an atheist than for a non-atheist since they once again must seek the ultimate solution in rationality arising from matter rather than the reverse

Regards
Meade

[Sean]

This summarizes the agnostic problem - an outright refusal to stand on any ground at all other than scepticism.

That, I would respectfully suggest, is the agnostic's position rather than their problem. Standing on any other ground would make them something other than agnostic. Personally I see agnosticism as the most open-minded position... not to mention just about the only one that isn't faith based.

[thestoat]

I see nothing in the linked materials that explains how the number of minutes in an infinite number of hours can be the same as that infinite number of hours without a minute's being equal to an hour. That may well be because the proposition that a minute is equal to an hour is self-evidently false.

The linked materials do not explain how it is so - they merely ratify my assertion that 60 times infinity is still infinity. I suspect that, were I to produce a mathematical proof, you would not understand it (and I am pretty sure I wouldn't) so there is little point looking for one, if one exists. It may be that this is simply how infinity is *defined* - don't forget that it does not exist in reality: it is a mathematical construct.

If a proposition expressed in mathematical terms leads to a conclusion which, when expressed in a natural human language, is either false or nonsensical, there is at least one error in the mathematics leading to that conclusion. The proposition that the number of minutes in an infinite number of hours is equal to that infinite number of hours leads to the conclusion that a minute is equal to an hour. The conclusion that a minute is equal to an hour is false. Therefore, there is at least one error in the mathematics leading to the conclusion that the number of minutes in an infinite number of hours is the same as that infinite number of hours.

Rubbish. Quantum mathematics has been doing that ever since inception. If you conclude that because multiplying 2 numbers by infinity gives the same number this must mean the 2 numbers were originally the same then you are plainly wrong. Let's make it simple.

5 * 0 = 0.
8 * 0 = 0.

This does *not* mean 5 = 8

Similarly

1 * ∞ = ∞
60 * ∞ = ∞

This does *not* mean 1 minute = 1 hour

So, bearing in mind that when dealing with infinitudes, the distinction between surely and almost surely is important, where is the proof that in infinite time, anything whose occurrence is possible will surely -- not just almost surely -- occur? I have yet to see it.

I don't think it can be proven mathematically - it is more a definition of infinite. The odds *tend to 100%* as the number of throws becomes greater, and *become* 100% at infinity (when calculated from the start).

It is rather like the fact that parallel lines meet at infinity.

[thestoat]

There is a simple reason why 9999999999999999999999999 or even 999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 millennia can not be approximated to infinite time. The fact that we can ennumerate it means that it is incomparable to infinity.

Not so, Sean. Approximations are used all the time in many branches of physics and maths. They have to be since no measurement is perfect. Now, 9999999999999999999999999 millennia might not be a good approximation of infinity when dealing with the age of the universe, but it would be a good approximation when dealing with the lifespan of a ladybird.

Or consider rays of light from the sun. We consider them to be parallel. They are not parallel, but near as dammit when making calculations. They would only be parallel if the sun was infinitely far away, which of course it isn't.

[thestoat]

I don't see the problem with that.

There is no problem with it per se, lo. It is just that christianity seems to claim that a lot of the stuff in their bible is fact when it was actually borrowed from other, far older religions. For example, if it can be demonstrated that, say, 5 key points about Christ's life (eg born in humble surroundings, birth attended by 3 senior and important people, 12 disciples, betrayed by one of them, died and rose after 3 days) can also be attributed to Mithra, who did it 2000 years before Christ, then it suggests to me that someone has been telling porkies.

[thestoat]

With respect to approximations in dealing with matters concerning infinitudes, thestoat, you might take a look at this:

In probability theory, one says that an event happens almost surely (sometimes abbreviated as a.s.) if it happens with probability one. The concept is analogous to the concept of "almost everywhere" in measure theory. While there is no difference between almost surely and surely (that is, entirely certain to happen) in many basic probability experiments, the distinction is important in more complex cases relating to some sort of infinity. For instance, the term is often encountered in questions that involve infinite time, regularity properties or infinite-dimensional spaces such as function spaces.

And this:

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

In this context, "almost surely" is a mathematical term with a precise meaning, and the "monkey" is not an actual monkey, but a metaphor for an abstract device that produces a random sequence of letters ad infinitum. The theorem illustrates the perils of reasoning about infinity by imagining a vast but finite number, and vice versa.

This is key:
"While there is no difference between almost surely and surely"

The difference is that I believe you are "reasoning about infinity by imagining a vast but finite number"

[loCAtek]

I don't see the problem with that.

There is no problem with it per se, lo. It is just that christianity seems to claim that a lot of the stuff in their bible is fact when it was actually borrowed from other, far older religions. For example, if it can be demonstrated that, say, 5 key points about Christ's life (eg born in humble surroundings, birth attended by 3 senior and important people, 12 disciples, betrayed by one of them, died and rose after 3 days) can also be attributed to Mithra, who did it 2000 years before Christ, then it suggests to me that someone has been telling porkies.

Hmmm, have you read the Bible then, Stoat? There are different versions of his life contained in the King James Version, the best known version today, and more descriptions of his life in the Apocrypha. (And, that's just Christian scripture. Islamic text mentions him as well.)

FWIW - They call it 'truth', not fact, as in: The Truth of God's Word. Meaning, these words (whichever you choose)can lead you to Spiritual Truth, and not necessarily Scientific Fact, two different things, you see.

BTW - THE WORD in its shortest form is LOVE.

As in: Love Each Other; all religions hold this in common. Man perverts this to say, just love those who are like us, which is actually fanaticism, and not God's word.

[MajGenl.Meade]

There is no problem with it per se, lo. It is just that christianity seems to claim that a lot of the stuff in their bible is fact when it was actually borrowed from other, far older religions. For example, if it can be demonstrated that, say, 5 key points about Christ's life (eg born in humble surroundings, birth attended by 3 senior and important people, 12 disciples, betrayed by one of them, died and rose after 3 days) can also be attributed to Mithra, who did it 2000 years before Christ, then it suggests to me that someone has been telling porkies

Well “if it can be demonstrated” is a tall order (since it cannot). I believe there is no evidence whatsoever earlier than several hundred years after Christ as to what Romanized “Mithraism” consisted of which is where the bulk of these so-called copycat stories come from. No story of his resurrection pre-dates Christianity. No writings survive from before – all conjectures are from pottery and other artwork. E.g. the number 12 comes from representation of Mithra with 12 signs of the Zodiac. That there were 12 tribes of Israel (from the OT long before Mithra) is the reason that Jesus consciously chose 12 disciples.

“3 senior and important people” – not true. Mithras was born before time and man existed and returned to the gods when man was created. And Jesus’ birth was not attended by three important people. An unknown number of magi (astrologers?) visited the child some time within two years after his birth. Christians also make the same mistake through not reading their Bibles.

Mithras’ “sacrifice” was allegedly to kill a bull upon orders of the gods but even that may be a later revision to stories about Zoroaster. Mithras was born in a cave/or under a tree from rock – not from a virgin or even a woman. He was popped into his father’s thigh to protect him for a while. There are so many conflicting stories of Mithras that it is probably impossible to divine which, if any, form a “true” corpus of belief. The fallacies of neglecting differences and neglecting negative evidence come into play here.

You appear to assume that later Mithraic myths reflected earlier ones. The mithraic elements of Zoroaster are not what you speak of. The weight of true scholarly opinion is now that there is no connection between the Indian/Iranian Mithra and the Roman invention, other than the borrowing of the name by Rome.

The use by Christian artists of borrowings from many traditions to come up with paints has nothing to do with the Bible or the beliefs of Christianity.

The dating of the scanty evidence indicates the reverse – that late Mithraic and other cultic practises copied Christianity because of its success despite persecution.

And of course - Jesus really existed and is subject of an actual truth-claim whereas Mithras was a non-existent mythical creation amongst a host of mythical Indian "gods" whom no-one believes to actually have existed.

Cheers
Peter

[Sean]

Personally I don't think that the Mithras comparison holds too much water as Mithraism and Christianity basically grew up together. Now if you want a story that holds very interesting parallels to the mythical (as opposed to the historical) Jesus then it's worth having a look at the story of Horus.



...or Osiris



...or Dionysius



...or Buddha

In fact, mix all of those together, pull out the most interesting bits and you've got the story of Horosidiobud. Or the Mythical Jesus as he is better known...

[thestoat]

Sean - like it. For me, Mithras is just a place holder - I really don't have the time to do more than superficial research on these gods since there are so many out there.