The Black Vault

To be fair, I watched without sound, and will watch again at home to hear that part, I'm not sure where to turn the speakers on where I am at. However, the visual part of your example At1, does not proove your point, because my perception is that the moving balls both have a beginning and end point. The one on the circle begins at the 12 oclock postion from the stationary ball, that rotates in place. It make a full rotation to the same point and begins again. The 12 oclock position being the beginning and end point of one rotaion. Similarly, the ball on the straight line begins from outside the screen, has a 2nd beginning entering the circle, and ending leaving the circle, and again leaves the screen on the right. It illustrates 2 beginnings and 2 endings. The straight line ball bisects the circle, and the rotating ball illustrates every chord possible around the circle. In programming this, the entire video is a program to "Do if", the program has a beginning and a end point. It only begins when the "Play button begins the program". You use a example of a video that has a "begin" command to proove things can have no beginning. The components like the straight line are a "Do Until" command, both on the staight line ball, and on the ball going around the circle, both have a beginning and end point to their cycles.

It also assumes that the balls will slide in some imaginary hole in the center to ajust for the length of the chord, and the 12 oclock ball has a rotating axis, not to mention the balls can pass each other, collide, and ignore bouncing off each other at intersections. In other words your visual leaves the watcher, having to accept some of these conditions or errors, and disregard them. Entertaining, but it prooved nothing to me. You are attempting to proove with math or geometry, a philosofical question.

frrostedman wrote:

at1with0 wrote:It is also a noun according to m-w.com

It is a number which in and of itself, lacking anything to describe, is meaningless. Math is not used to calculate nothings. It's used to calculate actual things and units of things.

It's not meaningless. One is the successor of zero. Zero is the quantity corresponding to nothing or absence of quantity. I have used one as a noun and expressed something that entails that the word one has meaning.

How can the word one be meaningless if you know what I mean when I say it?

One is a thing since it is an object of thought. A thing is something which is or can be an object of thought. It is a thing which was not created.

I can't think of a single, actual thing that was not created.

What created evil?

Once again. Evil is a noun per sé, but it is meaningless without the action that it describes. The devil is said to be evil personified which means his actions and thoughts are pure evil, but again, evil is used as a descriptive term to define an action.

I was being tongue and cheek there.

Which ball was placed first? That's the begining ball.

I think you're missing the point.
How about I remove the ball that was placed first, leaving three balls. Then I shuffle the balls and show it to an observer. Which ball should the observer call the beginning ball?

Ok well, now you have someone who behind the scenes is jumbling everything up to confuse the observer. That's something completely different and had the person not done that, the observer could clearly define the beginning and the end of the design.

How about the amalgam of all water on the planet. Where is the beginning of that? Or a photon. Where is the beginning of that?

Perfect circles exist only in our minds. Any presentation in thisdimension of a perfect circle, it seems to me, would have to be invisible.

Are you saying that humans and their minds are required in order for circles to exist? (The word perfect is redundant)

The word perfect was necessary because anyone can draw a "circle" but it would be imperfect. An imperfect circle can exist in this dimension. A perfect circle cannot exist in this dimension except as a concept. I'm sure there could be other beings out there capable of conceiving of a perfect circle, but unless that's the case, I expect the answer is yes. Without an imagination, a perfect circle cannot exist in this dimension. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

A circle is defined to be the locus of points equidistant to a center; so that settles that. Matter is discrete, not continuous, and won't be appearing as a circle near us.

I find it interesting that we can talk at length about circles, knowing exactly what a circle is, and you claim that circles don't exist.

No. I got what you said. You suggested that logic is not always right. And I believe you are wrong. Right?

I am saying that the three "laws of thought" Aristotle developed can not be proved using the three laws of thought and, moreover, that they can be altered like how Euclid's axioms can be altered to give rise to nonEuclidean geometry.

Great! Then... we're in agreement? Or.... not. My statements stands, either way.

Depends on whether or not you believe the laws of thought are absolutely true.

If it is omnipotent and/or omniscient, it defies logic.

That makes no sense. That's like a clay jar saying it is illogical for a creator to have made it. It might very well be illogical to the jar, but that's because it isn't informed enough to know that the presence of human beings and pottery wheels is actually... quite logical.

No, it's omnipotence that contradicts logic and omniscience implies, assuming logic, that God has no free will.

Axiom shmaxium. The presence of 2 quanta, each part of a formerly single particle, is totally logical.

It's one particle located in two places and that violates the axiom of identity, the first "law" of thought.

humphreys wrote:At1, if MWI of quantum physics is true, how then is logic violated? Frrosted would be correct in that instance, where logic appears to be violated only because our understanding of what is happening in QM is wrong.

Also, what if logic always holds but it's simply our observations that are in error?

Frrosted, you can't think of a single thing that wasn't created? So, you do think God was created then?

The law/axiom of the excluded middle fails to hold in fuzzy logic (which is kind of an ironic example).

As far as MW, you'd have to be careful with how you define something. Suppose object X has copies which exist in many other parallels. What is X? Also, is there just one X or are there many X's? The law/axiom of identity says that a thing is itself but in MW, X is a thing and also more.

greeney2 wrote:To be fair, I watched without sound, and will watch again at home to hear that part, I'm not sure where to turn the speakers on where I am at. However, the visual part of your example At1, does not proove your point, because my perception is that the moving balls both have a beginning and end point. The one on the circle begins at the 12 oclock postion from the stationary ball, that rotates in place. It make a full rotation to the same point and begins again. The 12 oclock position being the beginning and end point of one rotaion. Similarly, the ball on the straight line begins from outside the screen, has a 2nd beginning entering the circle, and ending leaving the circle, and again leaves the screen on the right. It illustrates 2 beginnings and 2 endings. The straight line ball bisects the circle, and the rotating ball illustrates every chord possible around the circle. In programming this, the entire video is a program to "Do if", the program has a beginning and a end point. It only begins when the "Play button begins the program". You use a example of a video that has a "begin" command to proove things can have no beginning. The components like the straight line are a "Do Until" command, both on the staight line ball, and on the ball going around the circle, both have a beginning and end point to their cycles.

It also assumes that the balls will slide in some imaginary hole in the center to ajust for the length of the chord, and the 12 oclock ball has a rotating axis, not to mention the balls can pass each other, collide, and ignore bouncing off each other at intersections. In other words your visual leaves the watcher, having to accept some of these conditions or errors, and disregard them. Entertaining, but it prooved nothing to me. You are attempting to proove with math or geometry, a philosofical question.

The picture is an approximation.

Do you believe God had a beginning?

When was that, that God began?

I have no idea, I just saw your example as having many problems, to provide any proof of your theory of no beginning.

humphreys wrote:Frrosted, you can't think of a single thing that wasn't created? So, you do think God was created then?

I already explained.

I can't conceive of a God that has been and never hadn't been. I also said I'm speaking from opinion and not from any claim of authority. The bible says that God always was. I explained that there are 2 contexts. There's the "always was" since anything was ever created that we know of, and there's the "always was" since before time even existed which to me is impossible to conceive. I'm not saying it's not possible but I can only conceive of the former context.

The obvious problem with all of this is we are human beings with limited minds, limited perceptions, and stuck in this dimension where other dimensions cannot be clearly defined and measured; only imagined. Once you start imagining things, anything is possible but nothing can be proven.

Some things may be beyond human comprehension.

at1with0 wrote:

frrostedman wrote:

at1with0 wrote:It is also a noun according to m-w.com

It is a number which in and of itself, lacking anything to describe, is meaningless. Math is not used to calculate nothings. It's used to calculate actual things and units of things.

It's not meaningless. One is the successor of zero. Zero is the quantity corresponding to nothing or absence of quantity. I have used one as a noun and expressed something that entails that the word one has meaning.

How can the word one be meaningless if you know what I mean when I say it?

You just used it as a unit of measure. That makes sense. "1" without being used as a unit of measure means absolutely nothing.

And this subject can be debated until the cows come home but in and of itself, it is completely insignificant. I'd be happy to concede the point to you if that helps, especially if you are adamant about your point.

I tell you what. How about you concede the point and I will pay you a sum of 10 million "ones" in compensation.

One is a thing since it is an object of thought. A thing is something which is or can be an object of thought. It is a thing which was not created.

ok. *edit* no. not ok. You just admitted in your example. One is a thing which is created by thought. A concept is a thing according to you and the creator of a concept is the person who imagines the concept.

How about the amalgam of all water on the planet. Where is the beginning of that? Or a photon. Where is the beginning of that?

It's beginning lies way back in the formation of the Earth. There was once a planet with no water. Water started somewhere.

A circle is defined to be the locus of points equidistant to a center; so that settles that. Matter is discrete, not continuous, and won't be appearing as a circle near us.

I find it interesting that we can talk at length about circles, knowing exactly what a circle is, and you claim that circles don't exist.

I find it interesting that you put up a strawman by saying I say circles don't exist. I never said such a thing. I have said time and time again, that a perfect circle exists, but only as a concept. I challenged you to prove otherwise. You didn't respond to that part.

No, it's omnipotence that contradicts logic and omniscience implies, assuming logic, that God has no free will.

A creator making a jar implies that the creator doesn't have free will? Interesting.

Axiom shmaxium. The presence of 2 quanta, each part of a formerly single particle, is totally logical.

It's one particle located in two places and that violates the axiom of identity, the first "law" of thought.

You just contradicted logic. Unless you are talking about 2 contiguous "places" and object cannot exist in 2 places at once. Mind you, I said contiguous. If an object exists in two non-contiguous places at once, it's no longer 1 object, it is two objects.

greeney2 wrote:I have no idea, I just saw your example as having many problems, to provide any proof of your theory of no beginning.

To simplify, just think of the set of numbers greater than zero. There is no beginning.
You don't know if there was a time God did not exist...seems interesting that something could have existed prior to God.

frrostedman wrote:

humphreys wrote:Frrosted, you can't think of a single thing that wasn't created? So, you do think God was created then?

I already explained.

I can't conceive of a God that has been and never hadn't been. I also said I'm speaking from opinion and not from any claim of authority. The bible says that God always was. I explained that there are 2 contexts. There's the "always was" since anything was ever created that we know of, and there's the "always was" since before time even existed which to me is impossible to conceive. I'm not saying it's not possible but I can only conceive of the former context.

I think my point will be made if one accepts that something (e.g., God) has always existed.

The obvious problem with all of this is we are human beings with limited minds, limited perceptions, and stuck in this dimension where other dimensions cannot be clearly defined and measured; only imagined. Once you start imagining things, anything is possible but nothing can be proven.

Why do you say that humans have a limited mind. It's limited by mortality but in potential I'm not convinced that it's limited.
There are times when things in this dimension can only be imagined, like the number of people who died in the Holocaust.
I can prove that there is no largest number, for example.

at1with0 wrote:, like the number of people who died in the Holocaust.
I can prove that there is no largest number, for example.

You can't demonstrate it, but it's a truth that we both accept. Especially since numbers are things only in that they are concepts for the sake of unit measure.

frrostedman wrote:

at1with0 wrote:, like the number of people who died in the Holocaust.
I can prove that there is no largest number, for example.

You can't demonstrate it, but it's a truth that we both accept. Especially since numbers are things only in that they are concepts for the sake of unit measure.

Here's the demonstration:
Every number has a greater successor.

instead of all this mental masterbation can we have an little
social intercourse ?

what are ' you ' going to do if you 'find' God ?

what are 'you ' going to do if you don't 'find' God ?

you must have an reason for criminalizing God. per DR - patient discussion.


perhaps some of us fear our own inadequacies concerning mortality as well.

just something think about.