Noted Mathematician Refutes Infinity, Citing Craig
Posted on: April 18, 2012 - 9:45pm
Offline
Noted Mathematician Refutes Infinity, Citing Craig
Here you go:
notedscholar wrote:
I don’t think I need to spend much time on infinity. Infinitus est numerus stultorum. It suffices to point out that you cannot show me infinity of anything whatsoever. Since everything is finite, including every number, putting them all together will still not get you to infinity. According to math (and also its feisty sidekick, the English language), the number before infinity would be known as the “penultimate” in the series of all numbers. So in my opinion, the last number in the number line is the penultimate.There is also a convenient common sense method for refuting infinity. If there were infinite numbers, then the Universe couldn’t fit them all in. But clearly the Universe does fit them all in, by the transitive property. It fits our brains, and our brains fit all the numbers. Please see William Lane Craig on this point, for further discussion.
http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/infinity-part-one/
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
- Login to post comments
Funny, considering science just proved the existence of infinity.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120417080352.htm
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Funny indeed, considering infinity doesn't exist.
Negative numbers got the axe too. Here's the new number line.
http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/negative-numbers/
Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???
A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.
If infinity doesn't exist, what's the largest finite number?
P.
Extremely funny, considering infinity does exist.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120417080352.htm
I'd be willing to believe a mathematician over you, or the average joe. But a team of mathematicians trumps one mathematician. Especially when they're actually being published in a peer reviewed journal.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Then what's P+1?
Fractions and 1 get the chop too.
This is going to make maths really tricky.
Yes, o' Lord that abolish math and science, I beg of you to put the number 1 in thine number line, for without it I am but nothing lest I be 2.
rubbish
"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia
Someone's being an idiot, again. Note to the unwise and undecided: Craig is NOT a valid cite. He is a commentator.
That is all.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! good one!
I'm speechless at the stupidity of this claim... oh wait... William Craig Lane is the source for this?
Ah, that explains why some one is trying to fill actual physical space with numbers.
Negative numbers are the additive inverses of positive numbers. Their existence is necessary if you want your numbers to function as a group under addition. If we didn't have them, scientists the world over would be forced to do silly things like multiply by "zero minus one" all over the place, and would probably end up re-inventing the negative numbers just for sheer convenience. Also, any attempt at describing translational invariance, which is one of the symmetries underpinning the theory of relativity, would be incredibly obtuse without the aid of negative numbers. The same goes with the particle number operator in QFT.
Infinities and negative numbers are used all over the place in physics. That's enough reason to keep them around.
Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html
I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.
Presup,
I always liked the way you trot out ancient history like it's meaningful.
Oh, and someone calling himself a "notedscholar" doesn't mean he is one.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Ever try to divide by 0? P + 1 is like that. The universe explodes when you try. Clearly this is the case.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Then what's (P+1)/0?
O.O
A new time line where humans ride dinosaurs and shoot lasers at each other. We really got screwed by the math of our universe.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Since I owned dino riders as a kid... I like it!
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Nostalgia moment. > >
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Glad I am not the only one who loved that as a kid.
LMAO!!!! I love it! I want one!