The Infinite! In Search of The Ultimate Truth.

[Matthew Ellard]

I have not heard of .... the "God of Gaps" you keep referring to. I'll look for it in the internet

The God of the gaps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

"The term "God of the gaps" is sometimes used in describing the incremental retreat of religious explanations of physical phenomena in the face of increasingly comprehensive scientific explanations for those phenomena."

If you cannot explain your religious claims using mathematics, logic or science, then you are simply using faith and spamming your faith on our science based, skeptic forum.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

For now I'll say what I have already said in my original post: the Infinite has no gaps.

You know what else it doesn't have?

Evidence for its existence.

Simply respamming yourself adds nothing to this
(So, in fact, 'nothing' does exist. See what I did there? )

All you have is bare, unsupported and frankly repetitive assertion.

For the third time: where in your OP do you provide the evidence you said you had provided?

 

[tazanastazio]

You know what else it doesn't have?

Evidence for its existence.

Simply respamming yourself adds nothing to this
(So, in fact, 'nothing' does exist. See what I did there? )

All you have is bare, unsupported and frankly repetitive assertion.

For the third time: where in your OP do you provide the evidence you said you had provided?

Some of you admit that you simply "don't know." Suppose therefore, that I am right. How do you expect from me to prove it? You would not believe ANY proof whatsoever. Suppose the Infinite itself wanted to make it's presence clear. What kind of evidence would suffice for you? Would you accept a "messenger", a "messiah" who performed extraordinary deeds in front of you? Or would you rationalize such a personality as some alien force with technology much more advanced than our own, who perhaps it had the power to manipulate our brain cell interaction to make a deed appear as a miracle? How would you expect for the Infinite to make such a clear and indisputable manifestation to suffice for you to accept it's "existence?"

Even if you were to pass on to another such existence, still you would doubt the Infinite, by saying that you are simply crossing a pre-stage prior to your death. Which brings to mind, is there such thing as a soul and a consciousness? Regardless if there is such thing as an after life or not; just because everything is finite,it does not mean that there is no Infinite. On the contrary, there cannot be such thing as finite, if there is no such thing as In-finite. It is on YOU who support the contrary, to prove mathematically, scientifically or otherwise; that the contrary to my statement, namely that "there cannot be a finite without the In-finite"; which you support, is the case!

Perhaps there is no such thing as a soul, but the interaction of neural cells, similar to a CPU function, or a Morse code which delivers a message; all powered by induced from conception electrical energy, which causes a heart to beat and pump and circulate blood; with two functionalities, a conscious and a subconscious. Perhaps there is no such a "zip" type of memory cell that could be taken by a functioning entity, as religions would have the faithful and hopeful believe, which would further be induced to an after-life type of existence, which would serve another purpose within the Infinite. All we have is what is left to us from religion, and those "messengers" who have created said religion. Christians believe in the after life, because they believe in Christ; of whom it was said that certain extraordinary happenings took place just to prove that point. If that too was a true fact, what would it take for you to believe in it? There was nothing that would convince you. Nothing whatsoever even if all the philosophers and other personages of antiquity and those of modern times, along with the most prestigious scientists of the near past, walked the Earth again just to preach the point! You would still believe that some alien, technologically advanced force was messing with your mind, in a similar function to dolphins and whales communicating with sonar, from far off distances! Am I wrong?

 

[8enotto]

Taz, how many people have understood and agreed with your ideas? On what type of sites?

Why do you insist on spamming here where we see religious gibberish?

 

[tazanastazio]

Yes. Let us use objective mathematics. In a set of all possible things (infinite set of everything), that set would include "There is no god" and "There is a god"

Your "infinite of infinities" set simply negates itself and cannot be proof of anything as any conclusion is a non sequitur

Didn't you realise that until now?

The Infinite would include all sets, but the Infinite itself is not a set, it is infinite! There is a god, and there is no god, depending on what attributes you give to the definition of the term "god."

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Some of you admit that you simply "don't know."

No. Scientists say "We don't know" when it comes to a real world observation that needs an explanation. They then eventually form a falsifiable hypothesis for testing and build upon a scientific frame work.

A scientist does not have to say anything about a fictional story, like your claims about god. How does superman shave if he is stronger than steel? A scientist couldn't care less.

Suppose therefore, that I am right.

No. You have spammed incoherent sentences that are self contradicting that don't actually have anything to do with the real world.

How do you expect from me to prove it?

You haven't written anything that needs proving. You simply spammed a mess of words. You claim time doesn't exist and then pretend you used a formula, you don't even understand, that specifically requires the input of time. You simply contradict yourself.

Am I wrong?

You are not even coherent.

 

[tazanastazio]

You keep contradicting your own words. Yesterday, you claimed you used this formula to prove your "Infinities of infinities" which specifically requires the input of time as a factor. Tell us what the "t" in the formula represents as an input?

The formula is actually 𝑣⃗.*= lim (*𝛥𝑟⃗*./𝛥𝑡.) when 𝛥𝑡.→0. (the extra →0 was a typo). It is available in the internet but it is also stated as an example to function as a good starting basis in the beginning of calculus textbooks. It is found on Rogawski's and Steward calculus, along with the Young and freedman University Physics text book.

I have already stated that the concept of time and velocity (speed as a vector quantity) are just that, concepts that function for humanity to measure movement based on points of reference. They do not actually exist! What exists, as I have already stated, are Change in the fabric of space (particles that comprise the fabric of space and void within the Infinite) due to gravity stretching, shrinking, warping, or otherwise distorting and stretching space and therefore our perception of what reality is; reality is relative to perception. Change, due to gravitational or environmental influencing factors, also affects beings and objects; it's rate does not actually exist, it is just a concept; a means to measure such change!

As your religious claim is self contradicting, you should simply say "I made a mistake and will go away and try again another time".

It is not a religious claim, it is a Philosophical concept, you keep on bringing it up! Here is a statement on their difference :

"...philosophy relies on reason, evidence, and experience for its truths; religion depends on faith, authority, grace and revelation for truth..."

https://reasonandmeaning.com/2016/0...ence-between-philosophy-science-and-religion/

No I did not make a mistake; you claiming that I did so does not consist proof. You keep on running in circles; provide something new, which I haven't answered extensively and repeatedly already; Or do some more research "and try again another time."

 

[Matthew Ellard]

The Infinite would include all sets, but the Infinite itself is not a set, it is infinite! There is a god, and there is no god,

The universe is of finite size. Your reworked "god of the gaps" religion doesn't make any sense.

"The total mass of ordinary matter in the universe can be calculated using the critical density and the diameter of the observable universe to be about 1.5 × 10⁵³ kg."

 

[Matthew Ellard]

The formula is actually ��⃗.*= lim (*����⃗*./����.) when ����.→0 (the extra -> was a typo). It is available in the internet but it is also stated as an example to function as a good starting basis in the beginning of calculus textbooks.

No. The actual formula is specifically for approximating the velocity of a particle at one point on a line. You don't know any mathematics.

You made us all laugh by claiming time doesn't exist and then simultaneously claiming you applied a formula that specifically required the input of time. You simply did not know that, as you never applied or worked through the formula.

 

[tazanastazio]

The universe is of finite size. Your reworked "god of the gaps" religion doesn't make any sense.

No "God of Gaps," or any cult for that matter.

I did use a symbol to symbolize the concept of the Indinite, philosophically and scientifically; but it is not to be used in any way as a religious icon, or to be worshiped, sang praises to etc. It simply depicts the Infinite; which includes all concepts, sets, or what have you; along with the symbols of a circle (a whole); a "0", which serves as the concept of nothing and the separation of segments to negative (-) and positive (+) mathematically; the symbols (+) and (-), as respective depictions of "positivity" and "negativity", which describe accordingly in these two general terms, the conditions which are experienced by entities with the intellectual capacity to do so; and a line "I", which serves as a depiction of every number "1", "unit", "segment", or "stage" within the Infinite (see avatar picture).

No, There are no such equations in calculus. That's why economics uses statistics and economic formulas to determine saturation points and so on.

Try again

https://towardsdatascience.com/calculus-in-data-science-and-its-uses-3f3e1b5e5b35

"...Data Scientists use calculus for almost every model, a basic but very excellent example of calculus in Machine Learning is Gradient Descent."

"The total mass of ordinary matter in the universe can be calculated using the critical density and the diameter of the observable universe to be about 1.5 × 10⁵³ kg."

Key word: "observable."

 

[tazanastazio]

Taz, how many people have understood and agreed with your ideas? On what type of sites?

Why do you insist on spamming here where we see religious gibberish?

Exactly because if the skeptics at some point realize that my philosophic concept is not "religious gibberish", I will have no point in need to be proven to anyone, anymore! Infinitism would be to the least accepted as such; a philosophic concept or even a philosophy. What would the point be if my philosophy is welcome with open arms by everyone else yet the skeptics not only express doubt on it, but they consider it "religious gibberish?" I am not looking forward to creating a religion, we have plenty of those! As even a grander prospect, I am looking forward to create a philosophy which bridges or cements, gaps and chasms; both social and cognitive! For that grant goal to be achieved, Infinitism should not only be accepted as a legitimate philosophy and an indisputable concept, but as a probable and scientifically undisputed theory.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I did use a symbol to symbolize the concept of the Indinite

Spelling it correctly would be easier.

A theory has to predict something. Using your "God is infinity" theory, which, you claim has no gaps, please explain the gap between the first shell of an atom for two electrons followed by the second shell for eight electrons?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Key word: observable.

The universe is observable in all directions as it is a closed universe. It does not matter which way you look, you will will always see back in time to the beginning of the universe (big bang) This is really basic astrophysics.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Infinitism should not only be accepted as a legitimate philosophy and an indisputable concept, but as a probable and scientifically undisputed theory.

1) It is not a theory as it doesn't predict anything.
2) It is not a scientific hypothesis as it is not falsifiable,
3) It has no mathematical or logical basis
4) It has self conflicting sentences all in the same paragraph.

"Scientific hypothesis, an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an “If…then” statement "
https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-hypothesis

 

[The Norseman]

Exactly because if the skeptics at some point realize that my philosophic concept is not "religious gibberish", I will have no point in need to be proven to anyone, anymore! Infinitism would be to the least accepted as such; a philosophic concept or even a philosophy. What would the point be if my philosophy is welcome with open arms by everyone else yet the skeptics not only express doubt on it, but they consider it "religious gibberish?" I am not looking forward to creating a religion, we have plenty of those! As even a grander prospect, I am looking forward to create a philosophy which bridges or cements, gaps and chasms; both social and cognitive! For that grant goal to be achieved, Infinitism should not only be accepted as a legitimate philosophy and an indisputable concept, but as a probable and scientifically undisputed theory.

As for symbology, I actually prefer ∞ to yours as being much more elegant. Sorry!

Also, as far as I can discern, it seems to me that Taoism has you beat by a few thousand years; not just for clarity, but for usefulness as well.

 

[tazanastazio]

Spelling it correctly would be easier.

A theory has to predict something. Using your "God is infinity" theory, which, you claim has no gaps, please explain the gap between the first shell of an atom for two electrons followed by the second shell for eight electrons?

Cells and zones are also comprised of particles, as is everything in between, only smaller; which explains the bonds in between the subatomic particles. I think that if you keep breaking apart particles to an infinitely incalculable point ,you would have ultimately broken apart matter and turned it to energy. How far into the infinite do you expect me to see with my finite mind; when science has not actually even seen anything smaller than an atom, using the most powerful electron microscopes?

 

[tazanastazio]

As for symbology, I actually prefer ∞ to yours as being much more elegant. Sorry!

Also, as far as I can discern, it seems to me that Taoism has you beat by a few thousand years; not just for clarity, but for usefulness as well.

"The Tao is infinite, eternal.
Why is it eternal?
It was never born;
thus it can never die.
Why is it infinite?
It has no desires for itself;
thus it is present for all beings."

Lao Tzu


Infinitism takes in consideration all principles and viewpoints; example modern scientific ideas, such as relativity and evolution; along with more modern to Taoism religious and philosophic concepts. Perhaps if Taoism had emerged "a few thousand years" later it would have been called "Infinitism."

 

[8enotto]

Exactly because if the skeptics at some point realize that my philosophic concept is not "religious gibberish", I will have no point in need to be proven to anyone, anymore! Infinitism would be to the least accepted as such; a philosophic concept or even a philosophy. What would the point be if my philosophy is welcome with open arms by everyone else yet the skeptics not only express doubt on it, but they consider it "religious gibberish?" I am not looking forward to creating a religion, we have plenty of those! As even a grander prospect, I am looking forward to create a philosophy which bridges or cements, gaps and chasms; both social and cognitive! For that grant goal to be achieved, Infinitism should not only be accepted as a legitimate philosophy and an indisputable concept, but as a probable and scientifically undisputed theory.

It is religious gibberish. You have posted it at least four times yourself. God is the infinite, if I recall correctly.

Invoking a god is religion.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Cells and zones are also comprised of particles, as is everything in between, only smaller

No. That is obviously complete crap. How can a photon travel through crystalline structures like glass unless there were gaps between the atoms.

Are you saying you never thought that far? That's hilarious

Name one thing your "God is infinity" religion, with endless smaller balls upon balls actually predicts.......one thing.....

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I think that if you keep breaking apart particles to an infinitely incalculable point .....

For the 100th time. We keep telling you and you keep forgetting on purpose....what is Planck's constant. Is it endlessly smaller little balls bouncing against each other, as your religion claims?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant

Tell us how your "God is infinity" religion explains a rainbow?