viaro:


In simple English? Quantities that can be added together or multiplied within a set of operations. Does that help?

thanks. haha. i think they taught me that stuff in like jss 3 or ss1 or sumn. chei!! maths na evil thing.

Chrisbenogor:

Ok if you say so viaro, I am really struggling here so help me understand more, let me go back to his very first post.

There is a common denominator in all of deep sight numerical proof's of God's existence, the question of existence. Can we say I own -5 books? I think not, so for the sake of the argument a more correct model I think contrary to yours should have been

0----------->Infinitely small-------------->1-------------->Infinitely large

Which pastor tried to point out to him.

Can we start from here?

Yes, we could start from there; and already I find serious problems in your model. This was why I initially started out in post #10 to set certain parameters for my model, among which was:

       (b)  what is meant by 'infinity'?

Macmillan English Dictionary has 3 definitions on that word:

          1 [uncount] a space, time, or distance that continues without end or limits:

          2 [singular] a very large amount of something or a very large number of things:

          2a. [uncount] TECHNICAL the largest number that exists

In my context, the first definition was what I was looking at - a quantity that "continues without end or limits". Yes, some may see it as the "largest number that exists" - but that is just not going to work here as far as fractions less than 1 are concerned. Anything less than 1 but greater than '0' is neither "the largest number" nor does it continue without end or limits. In which case, I would have to cross out "infinitely" from your model -

     0----->Infinitely small------>1------>Infinitely large

and leave us with just:  |'0'| -----> |'1'| ------> |'∂n'|

where ∂ is a partial differential for a defined number
and 'n' is the number at a certain defined infinity.

The idea of "infinitely small" or "infinitely large" does not add up, especially because there are no infinities between 0 and 1 - all sets of numbers or fractions are defined for their values.

Krayola:

maths na evil thing.

That's why I said this:

As long as we keep it on "abstract quantifying/quantification", believe me, anyone can work magic on that.

lol funny thread

i don't see how numerology can be used to prove God's existence

viaro:

Please forgive me, Deep Sight, but I couldn't resist. Numbers are not exactly my thing, but my eyes light up any time I see 'em in such an inviting array.

So, let me make a small observation.

In terms of abstract quantification, yes. . maybe. . and no. But I choose to follow your ink and answer yes. Which was why I hinted earlier that your postulations would satisfy my initial queries in terms of your contexts.

But this was what I wanted to draw out:

Continuous infinity by that factoring would point back to singularity of oneness - in which case you score a double when you stated in post #8 that "Thus nothingness does not come into the equation at all". As long as we keep it on "abstract quantifying/quantification", believe me, anyone can work magic on that.

(Oh dear me, where are those smart heads that bullied me in class with Lie Algebra?!?   )

No, Lie Algebra does not mean the mathematician was 'lying'. Rather, he was trying to work out a vector space with a specific kind of binary operation on it. That's all I should say there and shut up!

Moving on now, once anyone steps outside the vector space (which for you defines an infinity where the factoring of zero does not come into play at present), then the whole theorem collapses. Please note: I'm talking in terms of a vector space that includes '0' within its abstraction, not one within the domain of your factoring of singularity. The reason why I point out this is just to show that once a zero is introduced, the singularity theorem for infinity collapses into a black hole.

Am I making sense so far? If so, read on:

Now, if the pyramid number factoring remains within an abstract quantifying clearly defined as in yours, the theorem stands 100% every single time. But here is the difficulty: the moment you step outside that defined domain, a black hole occurs faster than twice the speed of light! This can be simply tested by a Lie Algebra (pronounced 'Lee Algebra'). We use the Lie Algebra to test domains, and here's a test for the undefined domain that includes zeros -

        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  x  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 =

                 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9[b]0[/b] 1 2 3 2 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Please note carefully:

(a) I increased the digits of singularity to 12 (pls count them) -

(b) counting above 9 digits of singularity immediately introduces a 'black hole' - '0'

(c) that 'black hole' shows a double '0' within a close perimeter

(d) the define pyramid result would introduce "mirrors"

(e) these mirrors are such that a single digit appears at least four times (that digit is '2')

(f) notice in all the results of the pyramid, 8 appears only once!

(g) guess what? 8 is the new singularity, not 1.


Now, please leave all my useless rants behind - they are useless only in terms of the fact that using the Lie Algebra to test your postulations simply does not hold any grounds. Why? Because you already defined your parameters in post #8 when you stated that "nothingness does not come into the equation at all".

I only tested the pyramid for singularity of oneness outside your domain to show what I stated earlier:

Okay, I couldn't resist playing with numbers. Forgive me. But ride on, Deep Sight - I'm enjoying your domain.

Viaro –

Reading this post of yours was better than sex!

Man, you are really truly on the da level! Where have you been all this while? ? ?

I hereby confer you with the Honour GCNL (Grand Commander of the Order of Naira Land)!

Now to business. Your post for me did two things. It confirmed clearly some of the postulations above, but more importantly, it gave illumination on at least one cardinal truth which I will like to introduce here.

The reason why I point out this is just to show that once a zero is introduced, the singularity theorem for infinity collapses into a black hole.

Now this affirms the point – Zero cannot exist, both by definition and implication.

By Definition, it does not exist because Zero = nothingness.

By Implication, it cannot exist, because, (I don’t know if you realized this) if it exists, then NOTHING will exist at all, and all existent things will instantly zero out to nothingness.

To expatiate, somebody (Duduspace, I believe) once pointed out to me that within an eternity of endless time, anything that can happen will happen. He used that as justification for thinking that the world could arise by chance or spontaneously, within an eternity of endless time. That was a fair point, but what he missed was this: within such an eternity, zero is also something that could happen, and the minute it happens, all existence is dead forever, because zero is absolute nothingness.

This affirms your point above that the singularity collapses into a black hole upon the advent of “Zero”

It is for this reason that it is most manifest, that, as I earlier stated, zero has no place at all within the infinity axis, because it refers to nothingness! It quite simply does not even exist!

And with that we must return firmly to the singularity [1] the oneness of infinity. . .

        1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1  x  1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 =

                 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9[b]0[/b] 1 2 3 2 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Now this is the interesting part of your post, sir.

And I said that it introduced an illumination for me.

That illumination is this: within the context of the infinity axis, it must be that in terms of dimensions, possibly only 9 dimensions exist. Because going beyond this would introduce a zero, and lead to the annihilation of existence, and is accordingly not possible, because existence is.

I am all the more certain that this is a correct postulation as it strikes me now – why is it that there is no primary number after the primary number 9? What comes after it is . . . yes – Zero! Annihilation – Non-Existence!

Given this, I take away from this thread the rich illumination that there are 9 dimensions to existence and infinity.

Viaro. . .  we are onto something here. . .

(c) that 'black hole' shows a double '0' within a close perimeter

(d) the define pyramid result would introduce "mirrors"

(e) these mirrors are such that a single digit appears at least four times (that digit is '2')

(f) notice in all the results of the pyramid, 8 appears only once!

(g) guess what? 8 is the new singularity, not 1.

Could such a double zero within a close perimeter such as this be the secret of transiting between dimensions?. . .  Just a thought. . .

Could the quadruple appearance of the figure 2 be a replication of the principle of duality. . . again, just a thought. . .

And no – look again, 8 does not appear only once.

@ deepsight. . . are u some kinda serial killer?

The rate at which you "al qaeda" logic no easy men   

please wait make barcelona match finish. .  i dey come. that your last post na big trouble in little china 

You, Deep Sight, are very, very smart indeed!

_{For a moment, I thought my name would be on the list of most wanted for crimes to humanity - at least, for almost highjacking your thread. Yet, thank goodness that's not the case - and yes, we're onto some very interesting stuff here.}

Let me start from the end bit:

Deep Sight:

Viaro. . .  we are onto something here. . .

Could such a double zero within a close perimeter such as this be the secret of transiting between dimensions?. . .  Just a thought. . .

Could the quadruple appearance of the figure 2 be a replication of the principle of duality. . . again, just a thought. . .

There could be such a thought in gestation, I believe - who knows?

As for transitions between dimensions, you're absolutely correct to infer that a zero (or possibly a double zero) holds the key of that possibility. A computer's binary operation is a ready example (albeit really insufficient an analogy) - because the two digits commonly used are '1' and '0'. So, who knows how many possibilities are there on the zero index. . .?

And no – look again, 8 does not appear only once.

Hmm, that's interesting. I fed the operation into an algorithm system and it showed just one occurrence of 8. Also got down to brass tacks working it out manually - again just one occurrence of 8 there. We should notice that the 8 appears on the right side of the set of numbers but is absent on the left side (between the highlighted 7 and 9):

           1   2   3   4   5   6   7   9  0   1   2   3   2   0   9   8   7   6   5   4   3   2   1

That's just a small matter.


However, the rest of your observations still command my respect; albeit, some comments at 'nothing' and 'zero' may not yet go the distance.

Now this affirms the point – Zero cannot exist, both by definition and implication.

Agreed, only in context of "abstract quantifying". But when testing out other factoring, the zeros are necessary, or all other entities immediately lose their values and become meaningless. Meaninglessness does not mean non-existence; it only demonstrates that qualities and quantities are there but undefined.

Take the earlier result for the 12 digits multiplied by themselves in that order

            1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1    x    1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

. .  the result, we know, is a large number:

           1   2   3   4   5   6   7   9  0   1   2   3   2   0   9   8   7   6   5   4   3   2   1

Now, removing the '0' from that result would give a false 'mirror'. The point is that the '0' does not appear in the equation; but the same is not true for the transformation (or result) which has the '0' by definition, implication and necessity.

That illumination is this: within the context of the infinity axis, it must be that in terms of dimensions, possibly only 9 dimensions exist. Because going beyond this would introduce a zero, and lead to the annihilation of existence, and is accordingly not possible, because existence is.

Well, there is a dimension beyond the 9th. I earlier noted the example of existence between expanding dimensions: possibly the 10th dimension. Perhaps the video at the link below might help to stir your interest in that direction? here:

    http://www.break.com/index/how-to-imagine-the-tenth-dimension.html

On the whole, you've made my entry to Nairaland worthwhile.

haha. . . you guys sound like you are in love  Una suppose move this thread go romance section 


Do you guys really believe that numbers, by themselves, tell us anything about the natural world?

If you do, how would that work? How do all these abstractions become creative agents. . ?

How would that show the existence of  a transcendent "God"?

viaro:

You, Deep Sight, are very, very smart indeed!

_{For a moment, I thought my name would be on the list of most wanted for crimes to humanity - at least, for almost highjacking your thread. Yet, thank goodness that's not the case - and yes, we're onto some very interesting stuff here.}

Let me start from the end bit:

There could be such a thought in gestation, I believe - who knows?

As for transitions between dimensions, you're absolutely correct to infer that a zero (or possibly a double zero) holds the key of that possibility. A computer's binary operation is a ready example (albeit really insufficient an analogy) - because the two digits commonly used are '1' and '0'. So, who knows how many possibilities are there on the zero index. . .?

Hmm, that's interesting. I fed the operation into an algorithm system and it showed just one occurrence of 8. Also got down to brass tacks working it out manually - again just one occurrence of 8 there. We should notice that the 8 appears on the right side of the set of numbers but is absent on the left side (between the highlighted 7 and 9):

            1   2   3   4   5   6   7   9  0   1   2   3   2   0   9   8   7   6   5   4   3   2   1

That's just a small matter.


However, the rest of your observations still command my respect; albeit, some comments at 'nothing' and 'zero' may not yet go the distance.

Agreed, only in context of "abstract quantifying". But when testing out other factoring, the zeros are necessary, or all other entities immediately lose their values and become meaningless. Meaninglessness does not mean non-existence; it only demonstrates that qualities and quantities are there but undefined.

Take the earlier result for the 12 digits multiplied by themselves in that order

             1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1    x    1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

. .  the result, we know, is a large number:

            1   2   3   4   5   6   7   9  0   1   2   3   2   0   9   8   7   6   5   4   3   2   1

Now, removing the '0' from that result would give a false 'mirror'. The point is that the '0' does not appear in the equation; but the same is not true for the transformation (or result) which has the '0' by definition, implication and necessity.

Well, there is a dimension beyond the 9th. I earlier noted the example of existence between expanding dimensions: possibly the 10th dimension. Perhaps the video at the link below might help to stir your interest in that direction? here:

     http://www.break.com/index/how-to-imagine-the-tenth-dimension.html

On the whole, you've made my entry to Nairaland worthwhile.

No, I verily believe that you are a reincarnated Albert Einstein masquerading as a modest and humble Nairalander, taunting nit-wits like me with praises designed to prod me towards coming closer to your own already exceedingly high standards.

But let me start from the bit about a 10th Dimension. I wasn’t able to watch the video you posted, despite several attempts, as I don’t have the latest Flash Player, installing it still proves abortive. So my comments here are without prejudice to that.

Let me say first off, that I have always been one of those who believe that trillions of universes may exist, within trillions, or an infinity of endless dimensions.

I did not intend by my last post to circumscribe that idea: I intended to have a view of the “dimensional capsules” (If I may use this just-created term) within which infinity may exist. Let me elucidate.

It is correct to state that there is infinity even between numbers: e.g: between 0 and 1 you will have an infinity of possible sub-numbers, or fractions of numbers –

0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3…0.9, 0.91, 0.92, 0.93, 0.9999999999999999→→Infinity→→1

And it is correct to state that between each pair of sub-numbers there is an infinity of fractions, and this applies also to such fractions. . .

But the none-existence of conceptualized individual digits beyond the digit “9” suggests to me that the infinite sequence set out above will always play it self out within the numerical sequence 1 – 9. This is what I mean by “dimensional capsules” And this is why it seems to me that there are 9 Dimensions. But in stating this, I readily concede that this is what is known to us, we mere humans, and lord knows what other configurations could open up, or be conceivable in another dimension or realm. Nevertheless we can only work and reason things from what we have apprehended.

The idea of a 10th Dimension for me is really an adventure into the zero dimension –

                          0 ---1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 – 7 – 8 ---9 →→→→ 0

But there is something very interesting about that very concept which leads us again to the concept of God.

Recall what we said about nothingness. That it is itself something. It is in reality the oneness of infinity. It is the singularity, which I call God.

If this holds true, then the adventure into a tenth dimension would mean an adventure into nothingness, and therefore, an adventure back to the singularity, and because that singularity is infinite in its particular (zero) nature, then at that point anything at all is possible. You hinted at this earlier when you said that with numerics magic can happen.

Thus it seems to me a credible line of argument to state –

10th Dimension = 0 = Singularity = 1 = God.

(This is how I earlier inferred “somethingness” existing from “nothingness”)

And within this, we can rationally state that God exists outside of all dimensions (1 – 9) and also we can even infer the attribute of omnipotence therefrom.

Someone on Answers.com put it in these words –
“If you are in, or aware, of the tenth dimension, this means that you are able to place yourself in any realm of possibility (and impossibility) that you can imagine yourself in. Essentially, you can change the entirety of the world around you to the exact specifications you see fit. The Tenth Dimension is the sum of all possible universes that have the same initial conditions as ours, and the sum of all possible and impossible universes with different initial conditions as ours. Basically if you can interact or are in the tenth dimension,  there is nothing that can't be done,  anything can be done.”

This is nothing short of omnipotence, the standpoint from which all dimensions can be controlled, and that I call. . . God.

I don’t want to get all muddled up, so maybe I can summarize my thoughts this way –
Nine dimensions exist. (1 – 9). Beyond this, we have Zero – which is outside existential dimensions, and by its nature is itself singular and thus God.

Are we aware of the difference between numbers and numerals. And that we could just as well have a numerical system based on base 11 in which case the number ten might be represent by a numeral such as *. So you would have:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, *, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 , 16, 17, 18, 19, 1*, 20 . . . .

We move speedily along to the next proof.

Having already established an infinite expansion of abstract quantities from a singularity (the oneness of infinity) we can infer that:

1. As earlier explained, abstract quantities by co-existence multiply into infinity

2. Such Co-existence and multiplication results in the continuous and infinite permutations possible within mathematics

3. Mathematics infers reason, logic and a rational basis for existence

4. A Rational Basis for existence can only be based on a rationality of the core of existence (the singularity) and thus -

5. The singularity is rational, reasonable and logical in its nature (mathematical)

6. The deduced rationality is the quality of mind;

7. The abstract mind inferred thereby is the complete image: an unembodied universal mind which we call God.

@ deepsight. . . counting does not end at 9. We just use the system we do because we don't want to have to remember any more symbols. IMO our counting system is utility driven and not some divine cosmological set-up that tells us some secret about how anything is the way it is.

Base ten counting was not pioneered by mathematicians or astrologers or philosophers. It was pioneered by merchants. . .trading and drawing symbols in the sand - an extension of their fingers, which ran out at ten. As people needed to do more complex calculations, the systems evolved and now we have what we do today.

As long as every number up to the base number has its own symbol, and we have a "place holder" (has no value but tells us something), we can compute all sorts of shit. Base ten just works fine. The babylonians used base 60. .  and we still use this in our 60 seconds or minutes, 360 degree circles and 180 degree triangles. So a different base system was able to teach us stuff that we still use today long before we started using base ten counting. The system just wasn't practical because to do really complex stuff one would need to have a different symbol for every number from 1 to 59, and a place holder, zero. 1-9 is easier and IMO that is why we use it today.

3. Mathematics infers reason, logic and a rational basis for existence

no it doesn't.


Do complex variables exist?

I want 2 + 3i apples?

I saw this thread late coz i've bin kinda busy.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record by repeating myself again next week when deepsight opens another thread let me reiterate that i've got no problems with there being a first cause (and thats plainly what the morse code above suggests). . . .hell, even science tends to agree.

My only beef is for you to prove the extra characterizations like "intelligent", "all powerful","ominipotent and bla bla". . . .why is this so hard for youse?

@deepsight

I have so much respect for your articulate presentation of facts and your colourful writing but why are you suddenly sounding like Kuns and his nuwubian theories? what is all this gibberish yu have up there? there are just too many hasty conclusions up there that I don't know where to start from?

Is Viaro a cardsharp of some sort? even though I believe Deepsight is jumping to a lot of conclusions here but I must commend Viaro's considerable mathematical understanding and ability. I will take time to find some holes in these hasty assumptions (and I'm sure there must be).

Deep Sight:

To expatiate, somebody (Duduspace, I believe) once pointed out to me that within an eternity of endless time, anything that can happen will happen. He used that as justification for thinking that the world could arise by chance or spontaneously, within an eternity of endless time. That was a fair point, but what he missed was this: within such an eternity, zero is also something that could happen, and the minute it happens, all existence is dead forever, because zero is absolute nothingness.

Now yu mention the name of a mere mortal, and I can't help but answer your call and point out that I didn't miss anything. I agree that within such an eternity as I envisaged, zero is a possibility but have yu considered that it might be a possibility yet to happen? only problem is that if it actually exists and happens, it wouldn't matter because there will be no one to witness its existence.

Remember also that in the prior discussion which you referred to, you did indicate that my assertions were based on the premise that something already existed, even you with your mathematical rigmarolling have now returned to my starting point by pointing our that "Nothingness could not exist" (something I won't dispute because I'm yet to see it and accepted only as a theoretical construct) Now, if we go with your logic that Nothingness cannot exist, then the next logical step is to assume the position that the Universe/matter has always existed  and has only been transitory as we continue to evidence in the various cycles we see through life itself (also tying in nicely with one of your earlier conclusions as to why the prime mover must have attributes of intelligence because we see a semblance of order in the world around us)

You might be hasty to assume that this cannot be possible because of "The big bang theory" implying the beginning of the universe but just consider for a second that all of what we see at present (as the presently expanding universe) must have been implicitly contained within the singularity subsequently transiting into the Universe we know of in the present.

Deep Sight:

We move speedily along to the next proof.

Having already established an infinite expansion of abstract quantities from a singularity (the oneness of infinity) we can infer that:

 1. As earlier explained, abstract quantities by co-existence multiply into infinity

 2. Such Co-existence and multiplication results in the continuous and infinite permutations possible within mathematics

 3. Mathematics infers reason, logic and a rational basis for existence

 4. A Rational Basis for existence can only be based on a rationality of the core of existence (the singularity) and thus -

 5. The singularity is rational, reasonable and logical in its nature (mathematical)

 6. The deduced rationality is the quality of mind;

7. The abstract mind inferred thereby is the complete image: an unembodied universal mind which we call God.

.

Sorry, but this is absolute hocus pocus, how exactly do you go from 2 to 3 and what is the relationship? is 3 the only thing that mathematics infers or vice versa? how exactly did you come about your grandiose assertion in 4? have you truly eliminated all other possibilities? and how exactly did yu get to 6?
This proof is totally dubious, I'm sure Viaro wouldn't support you on this. It is a good working theory though and you can continue to fine tune it in trying to convince yourself of the existence of god.

Krayola:

@ deepsight. . . counting does not end at 9. We just use the system we do because we don't want to have to remember any more symbols. IMO our counting system is utility driven and not some divine cosmological set-up that tells us some secret about how anything is the way it is.

Base ten counting was not pioneered by mathematicians or astrologers or philosophers. It was pioneered by merchants. . .trading and drawing symbols in the sand - an extension of their fingers, which ran out at ten. As people needed to do more complex calculations, the systems evolved and now we have what we do today.

As long as every number up to the base number has its own symbol, and we have a "place holder" (has no value but tells us something), we can compute all sorts of shit. Base ten just works fine. The babylonians used base 60. . and we still use this in our 60 seconds or minutes, 360 degree circles and 180 degree triangles. So a different base system was able to teach us stuff that we still use today long before we started using base ten counting. The system just wasn't practical because to do really complex stuff one would need to have a different symbol for every number from 1 to 59, and a place holder, zero. 1-9 is easier and IMO that is why we use it today.

Pastor AIO:

Are we aware of the difference between numbers and numerals. And that we could just as well have a numerical system based on base 11 in which case the number ten might be represent by a numeral such as *. So you would have:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, *, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 , 16, 17, 18, 19, 1*, 20 . . . .

The point is well taken and i will return to it later, but i need it to be clearly understood that this is a side issue arising from viaro's post and deals with the existence of dimensions and not the existence of God. Thus these points take nothing away from the premises which were about the mathematical existence of God.

duduspace:

Is Viaro a cardsharp of some sort? even though I believe Deepsight is jumping to a lot of conclusions here but I must commend Viaro's considerable mathematical understanding and ability. I will take time to find some holes in these hasty assumptions (and I'm sure there must be).
Now yu mention the name of a mere mortal, and I can't help but answer your call and point out that I didn't miss anything. I agree that within such an eternity as I envisaged, zero is a possibility but have yu considered that it might be a possibility yet to happen? only problem is that if it actually exists and happens, it wouldn't matter because there will be no one to witness its existence.

Remember also that in the prior discussion which you referred to, you did indicate that my assertions were based on the premise that something already existed, even you with your mathematical rigmarolling have now returned to my starting point by pointing our that "Nothingness could not exist" (something I won't dispute because I'm yet to see it and accepted only as a theoretical construct) Now, if we go with your logic that Nothingness cannot exist, then the next logical step is to assume the position that the Universe/matter has always existed  and has only been transitory as we continue to evidence in the various cycles we see through life itself (also tying in nicely with one of your earlier proofs of l

You might be hasty to assume that this cannot be possible because of "The big bang theory" implying the beginning of the universe but just consider for a second that all of what we see at present (as the presently expanding universe) must have been implicitly contained within the singularity subsequently transiting into the Universe we know of in the present.
.

Sorry, but this is absolute hocus pocus, how exactly do you go from 2 to 3 and what is the relationship? is 3 the only thing that mathematics infers or vice versa? how exactly did you come about your grandiose assertion in 4? have you truly eliminated all other possibilities? and how did yu get to 6?
This proof is totally dubious, I'm sure Viaro wouldn't support you on this.

Duduspace –

This is a very useful and insightful post, and I can understand your concerns.

Let me attempt to address them.

duduspace:

I agree that within such an eternity as I envisaged, zero is a possibility but have yu considered that it might be a possibility yet to happen? only problem is that if it actually exists and happens, it wouldn't matter because there will be no one to witness its existence.

I agree. But I wonder if you have absorbed the discourses above on the nature of zero. Fundamentally however, I agree with you.

duduspace:


Now, if we go with your logic that Nothingness cannot exist, then the next logical step is to assume the position that the Universe/matter has always existed  and has only been transitory as we continue to evidence in the various cycles we see through life itself (also tying in nicely with one of your earlier proofs of l

You might be hasty to assume that this cannot be possible because of "The big bang theory" implying the beginning of the universe but just consider for a second that all of what we see at present (as the presently expanding universe) must have been implicitly contained within the singularity subsequently transiting into the Universe we know of in the present.

Again I agree. It seems to me the only divergence between us on this point is the nature of the singularity. You see it as infinitely containing already all that the universe has in terms of matter. And I accept that this is the way most of science may see it.

I do not quite see it that way. I disagree that all the matter in the universe could have been packed into, or existing in a dot of a point. I am rather persuaded that it is energy that was concentrated in the singularity and on this there is considerable scientific thinking (as per Energy turning into, or being matter). Let me be quick to accept, before you slice off my head, that energy and matter are interrelated in the transitory fashion that you pointed out, but there is a subtlety which colours my own perception of things. . .

I am  persuaded that the oneness of infinity which I described above is in fact a “hot-capsule” of all infinite possible energy (not material), and that this energy formed the basis for the explosion/ expansion into matter. I will use this point to address Krayola’s question on the coming into being of matter at a later point in this discourse.

duduspace:

Sorry, but this is absolute hocus pocus, how exactly do you go from 2 to 3 and what is the relationship? is 3 the only thing that mathematics infers or vice versa? how exactly did you come about your grandiose assertion in 4? have you truly eliminated all other possibilities? and how did yu get to 6?
This proof is totally dubious, I'm sure Viaro wouldn't support you on this.

Now I emphatically disagree. Look at the proof again, and put it in proper context.
First you said there is no nexus between premises 2 & 3 and you wondered how I came about the “grandiose” assertion in No. 4. I was mildly surprised at that. Here it is again –

Deep Sight:


  2. Such Co-existence and multiplication results in the continuous and infinite permutations possible within mathematics

  3. Mathematics infers reason, logic and a rational basis for existence

  4. A Rational Basis for existence can only be based on a rationality of the core of existence (the singularity) and thus -

What part of this does not make sense? Is it not true that abstractions exist? Is it not true that there is a continuous and infinite stream of possible permutations within mathematics (itself an abstract science)? Is it not true that mathematics is governed by logic? Or is it governed by randomness? If these are true, could a precise abstract science such as this have imprecision or randomness as its basis? You really need to examine again what you are saying here.

Finally you attacked my assertion that the very existence of mathematics presupposes a universal mind.

Let me ask you – what do you understand by the abstract nature of numbers. Hell, what do you understand by the word “abstract” in the first place? Do you not see the indestructible link between the very fact of the existence of an abstraction, and the fact of a mind thereon Dudu – let me put it simply – abstractions in themselves are a compound mind, and the word “abstraction” cannot exist outside of a mind. Thus the whole gamut of existence, is per-force a mind, within which we exist. But I am getting ahead of myself here. Let me not muddy the waters yet by going too far. But I ask that you reflect closely on this. Particularly on abstractions.

this is a waste of time . . . using mathematical symbols to allegedly explain the existence of God is simply an ego trip for most here. God either exists or does not . . . using numbers that man invented barely 5000 yrs ago is laughably ridiculous.

Deep Sight:


What part of this does not make sense? Is it not true that abstractions exist? Is it not true that there is a continuous and infinite stream of possible permutations within mathematics (itself an abstract science)? Is it not true that mathematics is governed by logic? Or is it governed by randomness? If these are true, could a precise abstract science such as this have imprecision or randomness as its basis? You really need to examine again what you are saying here.

2. Such Co-existence and multiplication results in the continuous and infinite permutations possible within mathematics

3. Mathematics infers reason, logic and a rational basis for existence

4. A Rational Basis for existence can only be based on a rationality of the core of existence (the singularity) and thus -

My dispute here is to do with the relationships between the various steps of your proof, for example between 2 and 3 I fail to see the relationship between infinite permutations and the various inferences you make from mathematics as continuous and infinite permutations exist in almost any subject area you can think of and not all of them infer reason, logic and rationality.

Besides, you might want to change the statement in 3 to this (Mathematics infers reason, logic and a rational basis "from" existence) as Mathematics itself is derived from existence and can not be used to prove anything conclusively about existence being wholly contained within existence itself and working within the limitations of existence.

And I insist that statement 4 is a grandiose assertion due to the use of the word "only" because the onus lies on you to eliminate every other possibility.

And yes, mathematics is in some instances governed by randomness, in fact once you go beyond the macro level and delve into quantum mechanics, you always have to deal with the uncertainty principle.

Deep Sight:

Finally you attacked my assertion that the very existence of mathematics presupposes a universal mind.

Let me ask you – what do you understand by the abstract nature of numbers. Hell, what do you understand by the word “abstract” in the first place? Do you not see the indestructible link between the very fact of the existence of an abstraction, and the fact of a mind thereon Dudu – let me put it simply – abstractions in themselves are a compound mind, and the word “abstraction” cannot exist outside of a mind. Thus the whole gamut of existence, is per-force a mind, within which we exist. But I am getting ahead of myself here. Let me not muddy the waters yet by going too far. But I ask that you reflect closely on this. Particularly on abstractions.

Perhaps the waters are already being muddied, cos this doesn't make much sense to me. Isn't abstraction the way we humans record information and conceptualize? are you saying that the things that we know to exist don't exist outside of our abstract conceptualization of them? if this were true, why do we atimes see the same thing as different things? or why do illusions exist?

The existence of mathematics shows nothing else beyond the fact that most human beings to different extents are able to comprehend abstraction any other conjecture beyond this is an assumption that you have to prove.

^^^ Dudu, i will not be drawn right now, but let me quickly correct one thing: i did not say that human minds are the bench mark for abstract realities. I said a mind. This mind i regard as existential or universal. But enough of this for now.

davidylan:

this is a waste of time . . . using mathematical symbols to allegedly explain the existence of God is simply an ego trip for most here. God either exists or does not . . . using numbers that man invented barely 5000 yrs ago is laughably ridiculous.

David as you may have noticed, this thread is not for Religionists, and i did not expect you here, please leave off. If you think that numbers were invented by humans or 5000 years ago for that matter, that's evidence of what i have always believed, namely that you need to limit yourself to Bible discussions because cosmological discussions and abstract philosophy are clearly way out of your league.

Deep Sight:

David as you may have noticed, this thread is not for Religionists, and i did not expect you here, please leave off. If you think that numbers were invented by humans or 5000 years ago for that matter, that's evidence of what i have always believed, namely that you need to limit yourself to Bible discussions because cosmological discussions and abstract philosophy are clearly way out of your league.

The unfortunate fact here is that the above in highlights are just what it is . . . absolute nonsense. I have said before and i repeat again . . . we have way too many noise makers who think that by the sheer volume and verbosity of their words, they do sound "intelligent". I'm sorry but i cant understand what cosmology and philosophy have to do with understanding the existence of God. The evidence is right before our eyes, we've had two pages of mind-numbing and unintelligible dross . . . a bunch of folks convincing themselves that they truly have a brain YET we cant pick out anything meaningful.

Its not the first time, by sheer dint of persistence the thread may limp its way to page 5 or 6 . . . then everyone gets bored and drifts away. NOTHING is learned, NOTHING is gained, NO knowledge is imparted and we are still as far away from understanding whether or not God truly exists!

But by all means go on and feed your monstrous egos with this charade. Its funny that deep sight especially has a tendency to open threads and abandon them half-way when his own lies, fraud and incompetence becomes exposed. Sometimes you begin to wonder what the rationale is behind all the threads . . . to gain knowledge, to bash the bible, to force his own warped, manipulative and clearly false ideas or to satisfy his own selfish ego?

Its not the first time, by sheer dint of persistence the thread may limp its way to page 5 or 6 . . . then everyone gets bored and drifts away. NOTHING is learned, NOTHING is gained, NO knowledge is imparted and we are still as far away from understanding whether or not God truly exists!

Never thought the day would come, but alas david and I are on the same frequency, hmmmm.

'verily, those who deny Our verses/revealation and treat them with arrogance, for them the gates of heaven will not be opened and they will not enter paradise until the camel goes through the eye of the needle (which is impossible). Thus do We recompense the mujrimun (polytheist, sinners).

Theirs will be a bed of Hell fire and over them coverings of Hell. Thus do We recompense The zalimun (wrongdoers, sinner)' Quran 7:40-41

davidylan:

. . namely that you need to limit yourself to Bible discussions because cosmological discussions and abstract philosophy are clearly way out of your league.

The unfortunate fact here is that the above in highlights are just what it is . . . absolute nonsense.

I'm sorry but i cant understand what cosmology and philosophy have to do with understanding the existence of God.

This reaction is quite unfortunate and unnecessary, davidylan. Of all things to have said, surely not the categorical assertion that you can't understand what cosmology and philosophy have to do with. . . understanding the existence of God?!? Huh?

It is one thing for you to write off other discussants; quite another thing to be so disconcerted as to make statements like that. The first thing that would have crossed our minds is the common meaning of cosmology (let alone philosophy). I take for granted the common meaning of cosmology being the study of the origin and nature of the universe - now the question is, does that in itself not have anything whatsoever to do with understanding the existence of God? If not, then there is no rationale for your assertion of an "evidence" of His existence anywhere. Methinks that such reactions as in yours are ill-conceived and quite unnecessary.

Krayola:

@ deepsight. . . counting does not end at 9. We just use the system we do because we don't want to have to remember any more symbols. IMO our counting system is utility driven and not some divine cosmological set-up that tells us some secret about how anything is the way it is.

Lol, while not playing PRO for Deep Sight, I would like to make a small observation here. I fail to see where he might have intoned that counting ends at 9. . . did he say so at any time? Honestly, I might have missed that. Just reminds me of one of the oft-repeated quotes in my class: 'please listen carefully to what I am saying, and also to what I am not saying.' hehe.

As long as every number up to the base number has its own symbol, and we have a "place holder" (has no value but tells us something), we can compute all sorts of shit. Base ten just works fine. The babylonians used base 60. .  and we still use this in our 60 seconds or minutes, 360 degree circles and 180 degree triangles. So a different base system was able to teach us stuff that we still use today long before we started using base ten counting. The system just wasn't practical because to do really complex stuff one would need to have a different symbol for every number from 1 to 59, and a place holder, zero. 1-9 is easier and IMO that is why we use it today.

I think we all still have some value in this zero-thingy and the recurrent 9. The only point is that we seem to be approaching the subject from various perspectives rather than just one.

viaro:

Lol, while not playing PRO for Deep Sight, I would like to make a small observation here. I fail to see where he might have intoned that counting ends at 9. . . did he say so at any time? Honestly, I might have missed that. Just reminds me of one of the oft-repeated quotes in my class: 'please listen carefully to what I am saying, and also to what I am not saying.' hehe.

Using a different base system that pyramid probably won't look like that. Using some funny number pattern as proof for a deity, especially when it depends on one counting system, when many others exist, seems shady to me. I thought a different base system would totally alter that pattern. Correct me if i'm wrong. I no know maths reach that side.

viaro:

I think we all still have some value in this zero-thingy and the recurrent 9. The only point is that we seem to be approaching the subject from various perspectives rather than just one.

I have no idea what u're gettin at. 

Deep Sight:

The point is well taken and i will return to it later, but  i need it to be clearly understood that this is a side issue arising from viaro's post and deals with the existence of dimensions and not the existence of God. Thus these points take nothing away from the premises which were about the mathematical existence of God.

Senior, that is one thing I had feared all along.  
You're absolutely correct that some of my observations may have led towards that direction, for which I complained earlier that it was my hope mine were not tangential to the grain of the discussion. Even then, I also quipped that we're not into the number system per se; but the postulations nonetheless are very interesting indeed to have been engaging.

Honestly, even though I'd been busy the last few days, your recent inputs made me think a lil deeper (especially on the dimensions). . so much so that I think there's absolutely concrete gist in your summaries about the 10th dimension. I don't want to risk diverting the thread yet again, so I shall just hold that observation until such a time as might occasion the subject to be discussed further (here or on another thread).

Enjoy.

Krayola:

Using a different base system that pyramid probably won't look like that.

Indeed, I noted that at some point when I tried to increase the digits to 12 and obtained a new singularity.

Using some funny number pattern as proof for a deity, especially when it depends on one counting system, when many others exist, seems shady to me. I thought a different base system would totally alter that pattern. Correct me if i'm wrong. I no know maths reach that side.

You're also correct, as has been observed in demonstration with the Lie Algebra.

I have no idea what u're gettin at. 

Well, I think that what Deep Sight was discussing has quite some profound value (IMO) - not because I wish it so, but rather because we should not forget the perspective from which he has repeatedly been stating his points. Even where I had initially raised some queries, he had made a good attempt to address them quite well (and I quickly saw that the mistake was mine, because I'd missed the fact of what he already stated as defining his parameters).

I also think that the objections variously expressed from others are valuable (again, IMO). The question on everyone's mind has been whether or not his defined space vector (if you pardon my use of that) was valid. This erudite point was well put by duduspace, who quizzed whether or not Deep Space had tried to eliminate all other options before drawing some conclusions so that the latter's inferences were not arrived at hastily.

So, on all sides, there are issues of considerable value that help us refine our thoughts about what has gone before so far. That was basically what I meant.

Deep Sight, so that this thread would enjoy a tidy flow and not be derailed, I'm considering a new thread for us to talk more on this dimension stuff. You captivated my imagination on a few pointers which I'd hitherto not considered deeply enough. What say you?

Chrisbenogor:

Never thought the day would come, but alas david and I are on the same frequency, hmmmm.

Chrisbenogor, I think this is a bit different because Deepsight does sound sincere so far in his discussions unlike davidylan who is basically a christian fanatic and I think we can get some where on this, yes we can get bored and drift away but I think we will someday come back and take a look at the various posts and therein reexamine and refine our individual understanding of our existence.

I think the whole point of discussions such as this is to test and reexamine your own beliefs and understanding, while hearing other people's ideas, something that is wholly beyond Davidylan because his belief is cast in stone and basically cannot change. He is not coming here to test his beliefs but to assert it and therein lies his problem.

^^ I concur. While i disagree with deep sight a lot, I appreciate his being on this forum because he forces us to think hard, and never backs down, is usually polite, and is a great sport.