Mavenb0x:


(@Tudor: LOL sorry those effective communication books you recommended never helped me. I still enjoy my long posts. 

Why bring my name into this now?

I just siddon they watch comedy and you're busy bad belle-ing my name.

BTW, how fast are you i.e how many words do you type a minuite?

Clarifications are clearly in order: this is only expected: a delicate subject such as this with varying worldviews compels this.

First off:

aletheia:

I think you are murdering mathematics here.
I don't understand how counting in either direction:
0-> 1-> 2-> 3-> 4-> 5-> 6-> 7-> 8-> 9. . .followed by 0?(Not 10?) . . .leads to infinity Come on.
You can never arrive at infinity whether you start counting at one or at googolplex.

I never suggested anything leads to infinity.

I placed these arrows → → → → → → → → → precisely to indicate a continuum that never ends.

As correctly noted by easylogic, nobody can “arrive at” infinity, as it inherently never ends.

I would have thought that the very word “infinity” should have made this clear for you?

This is not a concern that should distract the thread.

We proceed.

viaro:

Sure, the '0' at the end of either direction of the 9s are presumptive and wrong. But he's said to propose his explanations in prose. . . in which case, I wonder how he's handled the mathematical progression in such a prose that he proposes. However, we should not be in such a haste . . he might surprise us.

I see you already addressed this with alethiea and explained my intention with the diagram, but just a few words from me -

The zero at either end simply represents base 10. The fact that i placed arrows after the zeros heading off into infinity makes clear that what is meant is a continuum that never ends. A sequence that carries on infinitely.

Thus it could be base 3, or base whatever. If i were to spoon feed the class, then i should write - 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. . . . infinity. . . but i simply represented the sequence in base 10. It is neither here nor there.

What matters is a sequence that continues infinitely in whatever base.

Again, This is not a concern that should derail us.

We proceed.

aletheia:

Thanks but. . .no matter how he presents it; his basic premise is mathematically and philosophically flawed
Looking at Deep Sight''s series: you can see that he treats infinity as being equivalent to 0 or 1. But by definition you can never start at infinity or arrive at infinity.
Is there a number that is equal to infinity+1?

I agree: infinity is infinity - hence the arrows heading off in either direction.

No problems here.

We proceed.

easylogic:

Yeah Alaeth you are right.Deepsight seems to be treating Infinity as though it is a number which can be arrived at or started at.

Wrong: as shown above

easylogic:

Maybe its me,but i still don't see how all this counts as an argument for God's existence.

Numbers and mathematics are abstract objects,and abstract objects do not have causal powers,that is they do not stand in Causal Relations or simply put,numbers don't cause anything.

Therefore if God is Infinity or any other number abstraction,then he would not have been able to create or do anything for that matter.

I just don't see how we can equate God,who is a not simply an abstraction,to numbers which are abstractions.

This is a good observation, but let me simply hit it off by stating this –

The code is intended to show or mirror the totality of infinite quantities in existence as opposed to nothingness or non-existence.

It is a mirror really, which shows the factor of zero (non-existence) and mirrors out its meaning and sequential expansion.

I hope you dig.

Mavenb0x:

Let me start by saying one of the most intriguing equations I have ever seen is [size=13pt]e^iπ + 1 = 0[/size]. It's so cute! LOL. Lumping together the five (possibly) most esoteric and omnipresent symbols in Maths (e, i, pi, 1 and 0), if you look closely at that divine expression you will see the utmost paradise there: Shangri-La! (but you need to look really closely like I have, and I guess I should try not to explain it too much to you guys joo, you won't understand me).

Okay, enough jokes. Down to business.

Maven. . .it’s paradise, you know. . .divinity is nirvana!

In the ancient numerical system, when we say a number is large, we are considering the fact that it is made up of multiple "1" units: unity in multiple places. But when a number is really small, then it is such that multiple units of THAT number will be required to form a "1". i.e. 5,000,000 is made of 5 million observed ones, but 50 million parts of 1/50,000,000 are required to add up and give 1 (50 million REQUIRED parts). So the ancient number system revolved around the identity element "1", and all other numbers were either OBSERVED multiples ( > 1), or REQUIRED sub-multiples (< 1) of 1. In this case, the observed multiples were "building upon" 1, so they were positive, while the required sub-multiples (or fractional factors?) were negative to 1 because they were obtained after "tearing apart" 1, and were thus individually deficient.

No problems here. Let me just make one point: The brouhaha over fractions, number bases, etc is entirely irrelevant to this discourse. For the simple reason that a sequential continuum is all that is sought to be established and nothing more. It matters little if you note it in fractions or whole numbers.

But then the Hindus came along with a new identity element that didn't work with multiples (i.e. frequency of occurrences), but worked with distances. So, they established a reference point, called it zero, and then all other numbers were considered POSITIVE or NEGATIVE with respect to their distance from zero. Those that got bigger by being independent of zero (getting farther away from zero) were positive because they had considerable influence regardless of their distance from the reference point. Those that got smaller due to their independence were negative because their influence reduced as they moved father from zero, and whenever they moved closer they had more influence with zero. They were sort of dependent on zero to have a sort of relevance, so they were negative, just like the sub-fractions of 1 had to bee very many before they had any relevance. Thus, I think the two ordered systems are equivalent, it just depends on who's the gatekeeper: 0 or 1? (Having toyed with 2 of the 5 members of that divine equation leading to Shangri-la, let me move ahead )

Correct. Basic, really.

So, going by the modern zero-identity-element, I will start by saying that DeepSight seems to have neglected the fact there is not only one infinity, but its at both ends of the continuum, equally counterbalancing one another in magnitude.

NOPE. Did you not see this –

← ← ← ← ← Infinity ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [INFINITY]1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → → → →

Did you not see the infinity I placed at both ends?

How then can you state that I “neglected the fact there is not only one infinity, but its at both ends of the continuum, equally counterbalancing one another in magnitude.” ? ? ? ?

Look this is a delicate philosophical process which will not be helped if we are careless in our observations please.

Else the inattentive will be led astray, okay?

One can never reach ∞ on either side of the numerical scale. One can only tend in that direction, as one's magnitude of relevance to that ∞ increases. e.g. a trillion rather tends towards +∞, and so, since a trillion is larger than, say, 100, we can say a trillion is more relevant to +∞ than 100 is. i.e. a trillion has more numerical properties in semblance of +∞, than 100 does, so it is more relevant in understanding +∞ than 100 is.

Obvious as indicated above already.

For the reason above, one may not totally rationalize or explain away DeepSight's ∞_∞, since it/he/she/ is "unapproachable", but one may examine some of ∞_∞'s characteristics by carefully considering the hypotheses he has offered using large numbers in the stead of ∞, as large as one can surmise, but never forgetting that we are considering an unapproachable infinitum.

This is good – and perhaps you should reflect on what it teaches about the inapproachability of God, or divinity.

Mavenb0x:

Now searching for ∞_∞, please put on your searchlights   

DeepSight has indicated that the mathematical analogy of ∞_∞ is to be found in the centre of the number sequences, and after checking out possibilities of ∞_∞ being represented as 0, then 1, he finally fixed it as ∞.

You need to be careful with this in helping your understanding of what I laid out, because you will see that I placed infinity not only in the centre but at both ends of the spectrum. Thus indicating that it permeates all things. As is made obvious within the fact that every number can be fractionalized to infinity – never ending fractions.

Steady, and careful now. . .

While we seek the value of ∞_∞, let us sit on the fence and look at the number line from an unbiased view.

It is a grave misapprehension to imagine that one can ever “seek the value” of infinity. It has no determinate value and can never have one since it never ceases - i.e: is infinite.

Careful again, Maven.

I must first confess that I think, to be fair to these numbers, there cannot be only one point of reference, be it zero or 1. I think there are many points of reference in each direction, linking to one another like threads on a 3D ball (as opposed to arcs on a 2D circle). So, just as there is a datum at zero, there are datum lines at other numbers too. I will come to that.

Let's look at the number line from our further biased (in view of a possible multiplicity of dimensions) zero-point of reference.

-∞,, ,-10^{10^10}, -5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,, ,10^{10^10},, ∞

and, looking from the other angle, +ve to -ve,

∞,, ,10^{10^10}, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, -1, -2, -3, -4, -5,, ,-10^{10^10}, -∞

I hope you grasp that this is subsumed under the fact of infinity in either direction and the fact that every point is infused with infinity as proven by infinite fractions.

I also hope you are able to make a correlation between this and the attribute of “omnipresence” of the said source: God. As infinity is per force every where!

Careful again, Maven.

Here, we have an unknown quantity, it's called ∞ (infinity), and we are assuming that there is no number larger than it (or smaller than -∞, so to speak).This unknown quantity is the solution to itself, it is self-aware and cannot be defined except by itself, and it is in fact the reason why 1/0 is considered to be ∞ (recall my previous argument about the ancient number system? so it would take infinite zeroes to make a 1, as far as the old system goes  ).

And here's my first red herring.  How sure is anyone that ∞ exists on the number line?

It is not on ANY number line. Just attempt writing out all numbers in sequence and you will see of course like we all know that it never ends! You will thus leave off the sequence by placing “→ → → → Infinity at the end – simply as a way of indicating that it goes on forever. This is not the same as implying as you have that there is a quantity called “infinity” and that it has a place on the number line.

I hope you see your misapprehension here clearly.

Personally I don't think it does, . . .

For the sake of argument, let us leave ∞ on that number line.

I hope you can see that given that infinity is not said to exist “within” the number line as a specific quantity, the rest of your surmise collapses. . .

Will be back. . .

@Deep Sight, I would not like to interrupt you between times so that your ideas could flow more easily until we get your point. The one thing it seems you aim to present is the 'oneness of infinity', right? Good. But as you can see, even at the basic level, your task becomes even more arduous especially because the mathematics at the foundation is not piecing your ideas together.

While we wait patiently, I would say that mavenbox  in posts #26 to #28 has expatiated on what I hinted at in #17:

The 'infinite number of infinities' (or 'infinite infinities', which I would pun [∞n]) would tend to pantheistic innuendos (for want of an apt descriptive); but the more interesting thing is that the NL mathematicians could quite easily show the basis for this [∞n] and bring you round what I'm trying to say.

In a couple of things we differ, and one example of very slight consequence is her "∞_∞" where I would rather '[∞_n]'.

However, I don't think you've caught the main gist of these concerns when you stated:

Deep Sight:

No problems here. Let me just make one point: The brouhaha over fractions, number bases, etc is entirely irrelevant to this discourse. For the simple reason that a sequential continuum is all that is sought to be established and nothing more. It matters little if you note it in fractions or whole numbers.

I'm not so sure about your use of 'sequential continuum' . . and number bases are entirely irrelevant to the discourse? Are you kidding us? I think when you consider the case of a sequential continuum, it then becomes absolutely relevant to let us know in what parameters your infinities would apply (I sense already that it would entirely collapse when considered in various bases).

Besides that, your point of reference for infinity does not suggest only one infinity, but at least three infinities:

← ← ← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [INFINITY]1  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → →

Did you not see the infinity I placed at both ends?

. . . and it would only make sense when you clarify why only one infinity amongst three would be apropos to your thesis. If that point is not demystified, how do others understand where you're coming from, let alone where you're going? Especially so, since even you yourself had pointed out that -

Look this is a delicate philosophical process which will not be helped if we are careless in our observations please.

All the same, please proceed.

Mavenb0x:


When we combine the two number lines outlined in red, we get interesting results:
Upon addition, everything becomes zero. Each component wipes out the other. Talk about total annihilation! All default to zero.
Upon subtraction, every component becomes doubled, except for three components: ∞, -∞ and 0.
[s]Upon multiplication term-by-term, once again, only three components are left unchanged: ∞, -∞ and 0.
Upon division term by term, all receive a unity magnitude (i.e. -1), except zero, which becomes a singularity: undefined.[/s]

So, if ∞_∞ exists somewhere, anywhere, on that line, be it 0 or 1 or ∞ or something, then being the source, it has considerable influence over the entire number line. (Sorry, I have switched to it, I couldn't keep up with typing he/she/it/ )

On that number line, every other number, spanning in either direction, derives from the source by progressive additions or subtractions in tiny quanta, in leaps, in bounds. The relationship of the sourced numbers with the source ∞_∞ is essentially one of addition and subtraction, as offshoots of the source. As such, I assume it will not self-destruct by the same simple rules of addition and subtraction by which it generated the other numbers. Unless of course, ∞_∞ is the one number that did not self-destruct. i.e. zero.

This is an excellent case in FAVOUR of the theory I have propounded of God, and only serves to prove it in its entire simplicity!

So unless zero is the ∞_∞ that is the source from which all derives, we must be forced to say that the transcedental ∞_∞ will eventually crush itself and all its creation. And then all will go to waste as it it never existed.

We cannot know that it will do this.

But even if it does – that certainly does not detract from the fact of the infinities that spawned forth from it and existed before such a speculative retraction.

If DeepSight tries to proselytize this mystery to old timers, it will be a little funny to them, because there was never any zero in the ancient numeric system and they were doing fine, so how can you tell them that the singularity, the source of all, is likened to the number-line zero? What they had was one. And what made ONE unique was that it was individual, and unquestionably so  

Zero represents nothingness. You cannot assert that Old-Timers had no apprehension of what “nothingness” refers to, simply because they counted from “somethingness” – 1. Indeed the very presence of the figure 1 indicates an appreciation of its possible absence – thus Zero.

Now this aside I hope you are able to digest how I moved from –

← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [ZERO]1  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → → → → → → →

To –

←← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 [ONE] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → → → → → → → →

And then –

← ← ← ← ← ← ← ← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [INFINITY]1  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → → → → → → →

And finally –

← ← ← ← ← ← ← ←  ← ← ← ← ← ← ← ←  ← ← ←        [INFINITY]        → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → → →


Were you able to really digest these diagrams?

What did they suggest to you?

The ancient number system worked with division and multiplication with respect to 1. So, let's outline the number system below
, (1/  ↨), , , 1/5, 1/4, 1/3, 1/2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ,  (↨),
where once again, we assume that  ↨ is a large number that is numerically workable in this number system. ↨ would be a really large number, either way   (and we assume again that ∞_∞ exists on that plane). ↨ in its largeness will help us to unravel the mystery-that-is ∞_∞ in this number system.

If the ∞_∞ is transcendental and exists on the ancient number line, then definitely all the fractions and whole numbers are derivative of it, since ∞_∞ is the source. Multiply throughout the number line by ↨, and we obtain

, 1,, ,↨,, ↨,

since ↨/5, ↨/4, ↨/3, ↨/2, ↨, 2↨, 3↨, 4↨, 5↨ all the way to ↨ are all equal to ↨. Someone may be quick to observe that this is wrong, that one cannot multiply throughout a sequence of numbers using infinity, but this is not infinity, its just a really big number (infinity is a concept that exists on the positive-negative-ordered-around-zero number system). In this number system, there is no "final large number" idea. They keep accumulating 1s to get bigger, or they keep tearing themselves up in tiny pieces as splinters of 1.

Let us divide by ↨ as well and see, similarly

, (1 / ↨) , , (1/ ↨), 1,

Thus, unless ∞_∞ is ↨ or (1 / ↨), it gets annihilated by its own creation, using the same rules of multiplication and division that define size and relevance, and make the numbers derive from the source in varying magnitudes  
But ∞_∞ cannot be 1 / ↨ because in this number system, it means it has been, by continuous division, derived from 1. This can't be so, since ∞_∞ is the source. ∞_∞ may be ↨, however, but I will not be hasty to say so. This is because 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are each ↨ in their own rights, with respect to the amounts of  1 that they have accumulated. Since  ↨ is not bounded, what will be the supremum of this mystery?

[size=13pt]Will the real  ↨ please stand up?[/size] (come to think of it, it kinda looks like its standing up, see it here:  [size=18pt]↨[/size])

And for those that doubt my last observation, see for yourself: if you take the ancient number line back to back like we did for the modern one i.e. smaller to larger, then larger to smaller, and multiply them all out, they ALL give ones since each cancels out the other. No singularity. So is the ∞_∞ dead or what?  

Since everything you wrote here is based on –

we assume that  ↨ is a large number that is numerically workable in this number system. ↨ would be a really large number, either way   (and we assume again that ∞_∞ exists on that plane).

- Which I have explained is not the case as infinity can never be said to exist within any number plane as a specific quantity (i.e: it simply represents the fact of endlessness) then the whole of the above collapses entirely.

In this, your talk about “a very large number” is misguided in the extreme. The infinity which we talk about has nothing to do with “a very large” or “a very small” number. It is endless. Simple.

viaro:


I'm not so sure about your use of 'sequential continuum' . . and number bases are entirely irrelevant to the discourse? Are you kidding us? I think when you consider the case of a sequential continuum, it then becomes absolutely relevant to let us know in what parameters your infinities would apply (I sense already that it would entirely collapse when considered in various bases).

I beg to differ, bro.

I may state –

½ - ¼ - 1/8 – 1/16 - 1/32 – 1/64 . . .Infinity

Or –

1, 2, 3, 4. . . Infinity

Or –

1⅛, - 1⅜ - 1⅝ - 1⅞ . . .Infinity

Tell me what difference it makes? ? ? ? ?

Is it not clear to you that as far as numerics is concerned a sequence OF ANY SORT OR ANY BASE still is infinite?[/ b]

So what really is the problem there? ? ? ! ! !

Besides that, your point of reference for infinity does not suggest only one infinity, but at least three infinities:. . . and it would only make sense when you clarify [b]why only one infinity amongst three would be apropos to your thesis.

This is not a problem. Since every number can be fractionalized infinitely, and since every numeric sequence can continue infinitely, then we see that infinity is imbued everywhere and in everything!

Thus all quantities are imbued with infinity.

Thus all things are infinite. The infinities indicated at either end of the spectrum do not indicate three infinities as you have suggested. They rather indicate the endlessness of the one spectrum.

Infinity is in all things. This co-relates to the idea of omnipresence, but please indulge me as I prefer to discuss this when I come to prose, thanks.

All the same, please proceed.

Well taken, bro.

I would like to a that there is a Big difference between eg

A)0.5,0.25,0.125 , infinity

and

B)1,2,3,4,5,6,7, infinity

and

C)1,3,5,7,9, infinity


Cantor the real whiz of Mathematics of infnites showed that for example A and B have different magnitude or as he called it Cardinality.

Although They both will tend towards infinity, one of them will have more elements than the other.

For example a Set of all Real numbers will have more elements than a Set of all positive ODD numbers.

easylogic:

I would like to a that there is a Big difference between eg

A)0.5,0.25,0.125 , infinity

and

B)1,2,3,4,5,6,7, infinity

and

C)1,3,5,7,9, infinity


Cantor the real whiz of Mathematics of infnites showed that for example A and B have different magnitude or as he called it Cardinality.

Although They both will tend towards infinity, one of them will have more elements than the other.

For example a Set of all Real numbers will have more elements than a Set of all positive ODD numbers.

Infinity eliminates this. For the simple reason that both sets of numbers will be utterly endless.

I don't know if I should take this to another thread, or resurrect a similar one to discuss these paradigms - as it seems that my concerns between times would be stultifying your smooth flow in this thread, which is not my intension.

However, . .

Deep Sight:

I beg to differ, bro.

I may state –

½ - ¼ - 1/8 – 1/16 - 1/32 – 1/64 . . .Infinity

Or –

1, 2, 3, 4. . . Infinity

Or –

1⅛, - 1⅜ - 1⅝ - 1⅞ . . .Infinity

Tell me what difference it makes? ? ? ? ?

It makes all the difference in the world, Deep Sight. First, because your graphical representations are quite faulty as they demonstrate infinities on three directions rather than one or two. The idea that a sequence (whatever sequence) tends to infinity in either directions (-ve or +ve) makes us wonder what 'infinity' is doing in the middle of your postulation:

← ← ← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [INFINITY]1  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → →

. . in what direction is the [INFINITY] in the middle travelling or tending? We cannot just take your statements on these things, nod our heads on them, and then pretend that all is well, you know?

Is it not clear to you that as far as numerics is concerned a sequence OF ANY SORT OR ANY BASE still is infinite?

Could be - but your problem (not mine) is that you still are unable to detect in simple terms what particular direction your 'infinity' tends to. A sequence of some other sort is difficult to identify in simplistic terms as in yours. Take for example, a transcendental number - where do you class such irrational and non-algebraic entities in your |∞| of infinities or 'oneness of infinity'?

This is not a problem. Since every number can be fractionalized infinitely, and since every numeric sequence can continue infinitely, then we see that infinity is imbued everywhere and in everything!

We don't see that - considering that your statement should hold any substance. If I had to take you on that and wonder about infinity being 'imbued everywhere and in everything', where then are the limits in each identity or set? A numeric sequence may tend to infinity in either directions, but infinity is not everywhere or in everything - to maintain that it does, would not be philosophical nor mathematical.

We may start off at a certain point of reference (say '1' for instance) in any sequence; and as such, infinity is not in the particular identity, for the identity in itself is part of 'everything' within that sequence. This, I believe, is what easylogic was referring to by |cardinality|. You only punctuate the infinities between two variables or identities when you consider them in fractions and various bases. For example, what is 1+1+1 in base 10 may yield |3|. . but compute the same 1+1+1 in base 3 and let's know your answer. This is why 0.999999999. . . is NOT 1 and never arrives at '1' until you punctuate that value of cardinality by rounding it off to one decimal place.

Thus all quantities are imbued with infinity.

No. Rather, a sequence tends to infinity (1, 2, 3, . . .∞); but 'quantities' are precise and cannot be said to be imbued with inifinity (which is why 0 is not an infinity in the very same way that 1 is NOT an infinity).  For this reason, we don't yet know the unravelling of the ME (mathematical embarrassment) of '∞+1' as a specific identity or |cardinality|.

Thus all things are infinite. The infinities indicated at either end of the spectrum do not indicate three infinities as you have suggested. They rather indicate the endlessness of the one spectrum.

This is possibly where your postulations would either collapse or be sent back to the drawing board for proper initial ground work.

The '[INFINITY]' in the middle of your sequence in this:

← ← ← Infinity  ← 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [INFINITY]1  2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 → Infinity → → →

. .  does not exist.

You can have the sequence tending in either direction, but not placed at the center - for to make an infinity in the middle of a sequence is philosophically and mathematically meaningless. I'll give you an example to clarify:

If we take 0 as your 'infinity' in mathematical terms, there are two possible ways to go round testing this:

      (a)   0/25,
         or
      (b)  25/0

The first one (a) would yield 0; but in reality, is '0/25' the same as 'infinity'?

In (b) above, the simple answer when computed is not even '0' but an 'error'. Check it out.

Now, my wonder in all this 'mathematico-philosophy' is what you make of the term 'infinity' in its place of identity in that sequence - or any sequence for that matter. If 'infinity' appears in the middle, it is just meaningless quibble. But for me to be persuaded otherwise, please try and demystify this conundrum.

Infinity is in all things. This co-relates to the idea of omnipresence, but please indulge me as I prefer to discuss this when I come to prose, thanks

I look forward to the prose. . . especially as we can never be too certain about these things. Someone has well said - 'the laws of probability, so true in general, so fallacious in particular' _{Edward Gibbon.}

ancel:

Ancel starts passing cans of soda round to all and sundry

quietly accepts the soda and says thanks

hmn, deepsight i dont know where to start but this really interests me cos am so maths-inclined. i'll wait for you conclusion as i take my notes.

@mavenbox
why you come threaten to leave NL now? you have been quoted severally on this thread with +ve reviews. hope u now see that your posts are not entirely long or boring, _{its a matter of perspective}.


meanwhile deepsight, i understand you so far though dont agree totally but u may want to start developing analogies(like the buddhist monk n noetic thingy) just for non-maths/non-grammar people to paint your point. _{just a side note sha.}


passes on the beer soda.

Ancel, I don't do soda. Got any pineapple juice?

ilosiwaju:

meanwhile deepsight, i understand you so far though dont agree totally but u may want to start developing analogies(like the buddhist monk n noetic thingy) just for non-maths/non-grammar people to paint your point. _{just a side note sha.}

Lol . . . true jare, length I can handle, grammar I can handle, numbers are so last century.
I'm kinda following so far, I think, and it seems like this thread might get derailed by this stubborn infinity. Anyways, Deepsight please continue.

Tudor, I apologize! Pls ignore the reference. And im a rather unconventional typer, i pick the keys slowly. Lol

Viaro, we must have had the same thing for breakfast. I agree that the argument is pantheistic in tendency, by its ubiquitousness it trivializes the concept of that deity being singular. Seeing that every elemental finite number can be expressed as an infinite series of finite numbers (as DeepSight has also affirmed) then the magnitude of (an infinity) is trivial, since it can be relayed into infinite components as well as -27 or 46 or pi. If indeed we are not regarding the concept of infinity based on its magnitude but rather on the unending resolution of its constituent components, then the numbers will have equal relevance in our perspective: each infinite in depth of resolution. A pantheistic view. Every entity birthed by the deity is an equally relevant deity. More complex than pantheism, cos in pantheism the plethora of gods, or numerous manifestations of (a) god(s) are unequal, so maybe its Egalitarianitheism?

@JeSoul: Howdee, darling sis?

@ilosiwaju: thanks dear! Its all of your brilliant minds that keep me coming here.

@easylogic: interesting point about "cartesian depths". I will try and ensure i read something about that

@DeepSight: i heave a Deep Sigh. I have responses to your posts above but I dont know if I should wait for you to unravel the mystery or if I should pre-empt you and reply. Either way im mobile now and if I will respond, it will be in a couple of hours. Cheers

Maven, i have enjoyed your ripostes so much thus far: and also Viaro's i must say, you are both making me think better and further.

I crave your indulgence until i post the prosaical explanations, i think that may put some things in perspective, thanks.

@Deep Sight: Okay bro, I will await the rest of your post before I resume my analysis. Gracias!

Deep Sight:

Maven, i have enjoyed your ripostes so much thus far: and also Viaro's i must say, you are both making me think better and further.

I crave your indulgence until i post the prosaical explanations, i think that may put some things in perspective, thanks.

No worries, Deep. . no worries. I'd be looking forward to anything more you'd like to post in this thread, especially as regards the intended aim of the thread - explaining the oneness of infinity.

APOLOGIES, been chasing money all over the place. . .will be back in a bit. . .

@Deep Sight:
Chase the money well bro

But as for me, I'd rather have money chase me

Hehehe. Whenever you're ready we can resume discourse.

Alright folks.

I am sorry I took so much time coming back to this. I have been engaged all week with a soul-sapping project.

Now let me attempt some explanations in prose.

First off, I think I need to clear something up – the diagrams above are not intended as proof of the existence of God by themselves alone. The diagrams, like I stated earlier in this thread, are simply a mirror which reflect certain basic logicalities. Let’s carry on.

At the outset, we need to discuss the concept of zero as it relates to this subject.

What is zero?

A starting definition would be to say that zero is nothingness.

Why are we concerned with this?

We are concerned with this simply because the very question we are trying to ask is the question of existence – why does anything exist at all? How did the universe come to be? What is the source of everything that we see in existence?

We are thus asking what brought about all the things in existence.

We must thus start from a point where nothing existed – even if hypothetically – in order to begin the construct of a situation where there was nothing, and journey to the situation which we have today, in which there are things in existence.

Thus the situation in which there was nothing is the logical starting point and that situation refers to Nothingness.

Now –

Nothingness = Zero

Thus we understand clearly what we mean by Zero, and why it is the starting point.

Now let us return to some premises I laid out early in this thread -

Premise 1: Zero is nothingness

Premise 2: Nothingness, being EMPTY by definition, cannot be said to have a limit.

Premise 3: Nothingness is therefore infinite.

Premise 4: Infinity connotes Eternity

Premise 5: Eternity connotes Time to infinity

Premise 6: Time therefore exists as inseparable factor of Zero.

First step Conclusion: Zero is in fact not really nothing: as it is imbued with time, infinity, and thus eternity.

It might help a better understanding of the premises above to say that nothingness actually presupposes no time. And timelessness is nothing but eternity – this cannot be disputed.

Thus we can see very clearly that even (supposedly) with nothing existing – that very nothingness presupposes what forms the foundation of the idea of God and transcendence; to wit – no time: which is eternity.

Therefore –

0 (i:e nothingness) = Eternity.

Let’s start with this only.

I will be back to continue, I had planned to finish the whole write-up before my good friend Viaro in another thread accused me of abandoning this discourse, and so I thought I would just post what I had written thus far, and continue later.

Deep Sight:

I will be back to continue, I had planned to finish the whole write-up before my good friend Viaro in another thread accused me of abandoning this discourse, and so I thought I would just post what I had written thus far, and continue later.

Amico mio, take all the time and develop your concepts logically as best you could. I apologise for the rancour in the other thread - a different matter that should stay there. I should exercise some constraints and patience until you lay out the mat for the picnic. Cheers.

And here was I thinking I would start understanding this thread when Deep Sight launches his prose

we are still waiting oo.

Lol, let's give him all the time he needs. I'm sure the prose will turn out well, even if he might need to adjust and rescind on some of his premises.

Has it ever occured to you guys that the universal Force that created the physical universe you "know" is not the same as the God that created mankind who are insignificant in the larger scheme of things? Has it occured to you that there are millions of inhabited planets out there with their own various "Gods". I don't know who deepsight regards as oneness of infinity but one thing is certain, the universal force is NOT comprehendable by any human, it is just way way beyond your human capabilites stretched to the power of infinity.

So mr annunaki, what's the theoretical difference between such GODS and any particular hierarchy? enlighten me please.

John 10:26
Whatever is now covered up will be uncovered and every secret will be made known.

Mr illosiwaju, be patient the hour beckons.

Yes, may I humbly proceed.

But may I make a few extraneous remarks before doing so.

From the earliest days of one’s youth one was told – “God created everything,” The very natural question springing to one’s mind of course was – “Who created God?” or “Where did God come from?” It has often been said that any person who attempts to decipher the riddle – “who created God” or – “Where did God come from?” is simply toying with insanity. We were thus sternly adjured NOT to attempt the question – nay – not to even dare think about it.

But I have always been of the persuasion that nature abhors a vacuum: I feel that humans would not have been given the faculty to ponder the question at all, if we were never intended to find the answer. Thus the absence of the answer, in the presence of the faculty to ponder the question, is a vacuum. This seems so self evident to me, that I have therefore made the pursuit of truth my chief calling in life, with the pursuit of understanding of the origin of all things as the epicentre of the quest.

I say these things for one reason only: I want to make it clear before proceeding yet further that –

1. God’s existence, or shall I say – the “reality” of God is a deep mystery
2. It is not easy to articulate, even by a person who may have a faint glimmer into its meaning
3. Even when articulated, it may not be easy to grasp
4. And finally, the person attempting an articulation may well appear simply deranged!

I say this for you Viaro!

I proceed in a moment.