The fact is that non-existence, absolute emptiness, or nothingness are contradictory concepts to the concept of existence. Absolute nothingness is inconceivable since, if there is a conceiver, it ceases to be nothing. Therefore existence is an eternal fact in the sense that it does not admit its opposite.

@mitrabuddhi

10 ай бұрын

yes but it doesn't mean there is no nothingness.

@bofinalss-yf2jf

10 ай бұрын

​@@mitrabuddhinothingness cant be because to be it has to exist.

@williammabon6430

10 ай бұрын

Hi marci On the contrary. Absolute nothing is something. Think of it this way. 3-3 = nothing. This is not a play on words. No this is a real concept. It says that the difference between similarities is a value. In the case of 3-3 the value is zero. Now as for the (time?) before the Big Bang. We can substitute this (time?) with the concept of infinity. Infinity solves two problems. 1. Infinity has no beginning so there is no before the Big Bang. 2. Infinity prior to the Big Bang eliminates the "cause" in the cause and effect principle for causation. Both 1 and 2 show no beginning even though I used the word prior in the second statement. I simply want to show that there is no natural cause for the Big Bang. This leaves only a supernatural cause i.e. Infinity

Reality may never been empty, which is fascinating, that nothingness is impossible. There’s always something, virtual particles and energy

@leonreynolds77

3 ай бұрын

There was always something yes. There was never a real nothing.

"Nothing" is maybe the most mindboggling philosophical concept.

@Bill..N

10 ай бұрын

Exactly.. NOTHING, by its very definition, can not exist..

@threadhorizon2020

10 ай бұрын

Not really. When death occurs, consciousness also ends, i.e. if you don't believe in a continuum of the "soul." The end of one's existence is one way to conceptualize the state of absolute nothingness.

@user-dc4bl1cu2k

10 ай бұрын

And scientific too.

@Bill..N

10 ай бұрын

@threadhorizon2020 An interesting perspective, but you are talking about animals dying, not the physical reality of the cosmos.. Seemingly an obvious category error.. Perhaps you can relate the two?

@Bill..N

10 ай бұрын

@longcastle4863 I think Falcon is quite right, and it is easy to argue that the existence of NOTHING is a philosophical impossibility..

If nothing existed we wouldn't be here...

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

How could it be if nothing exists and we are still here?

@marksevel7696

10 ай бұрын

Nothing exists (or doesn’t exist) outside of god. That is how god exists and is defined. God them fractures himself into multiple pieces, creating the universe etc. Nothing exists amongst us too and is what helps create a border around things to exist. Zeros and ones

@user-ze3lk1ov5b

10 ай бұрын

​@@marksevel7696 Please don't put religion into this

@marksevel7696

10 ай бұрын

@@user-ze3lk1ov5b you are going to hell

Hmmm, that didn't take us very far.

abstractions can only exist as an object of consciousness. to imagine that they can exist otherwise is an abstract thought. everything begins from the ground of consciousness…

@billyblim1213

10 ай бұрын

If there is only one ground of being then there is no difference between immaterial and material reality.

Why is there anything at all? My #1 question in life.

@tomjackson7755

10 ай бұрын

My #1 question in life is: Is my wife going to be in a good mood when she comes home from work? Your question is pretty much moot.

@CosmoPhiloPharmaco

10 ай бұрын

@@tomjackson7755 Plot twist, you don't actually have a wife.

@ihatespam2

10 ай бұрын

Something exists, we know that. No one has ever experienced nothing.

@mosaicmind88

10 ай бұрын

@@tomjackson7755 Pedro offers you his protection.

@CosmoPhiloPharmaco

10 ай бұрын

@@ihatespam2 "Nothing" simply means not a thing, i.e., the absence of things. Therefore, to say no one has experienced "nothing" is to say no one experienced not a thing, i.e., there was a point at which someone did not experience anything. But that's true of everyone, for when people were not yet born, they did not experience anything.

This question reminds me of an old Bill Cosby routine "Why is there air?" Being sports minded, his reply was "there's air to blow up volleyballs with." In that same vein, we could say, "there's something rather than nothing in order to have people who would ask 'why is the something rather than nothing?'" 😉

the most important question. nobody knows the answer.

@renko9067

10 ай бұрын

Lots of people know the answer. It’s what the various Mystic traditions like Zen deal with-the direct experience of what IT actually is. You don’t have to believe it’s possible.

@uthman2281

10 ай бұрын

How do you know that?

@bozo5632

10 ай бұрын

Is it really an important question though?

Consider the paradoxical statement, “Nothing exists.” Suppose we assume the negative, that nothing means the absence of everything including space, then nothing means nonexistence. Then our paradoxical statement becomes “nonexistence exists” an obvious contradiction. This means that non-existence cannot exist and hence existence is infinite and eternal. If we assume the positive in our paradoxical statement, “Nothing exists” then “nothing” is something that exists, and before the beginning of the universe the something that existed is pure existence and/or Absolute Being. The pre-universe must have had the characteristic of space, that existential emptiness of dimensionality. Anything greater than a point has dimensionality and thus existence. But if there is any existence, however small, there must be infinite existence because non-existence cannot exist beyond whatever exists. And it must be spatial, the simplest imaginable existence. Even moreso, this infinite existance moat conatin all that is possible.

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

These are largely due to specific irregularities of language and choice of words. For example the word ‘exists’ comes with a lot of baggage. If instead we say “nonexistence pertains”, or “nonexistence applies” that’s very different. There’s no reason to suppose that a “pre-universe”, which is a nonsense contradiction anyway, would consist of a spacetime manifold, that’s a whole lot of very active something right there. It’s just talking round in circles.

If you understand relativity, you understand that the answer to "what IS the universe?" depends on your orientation, velocity, and so forth. Concepts like: Distance, duration, mass, motion, even order-of-events, all depend on where you are and how you're also moving, as crazy as it sounds. A stellar event could happen before another, from one perspective, and could happen in a different order from another area of the universe. The duration of events, the distance between things, how much gravity is applied, all depend on motion, how heavy something is, etc. every aspect of reality is relative. Given this, there is even a perspective where nothing exists. In the same way that a pigeon flying could be perceived as 60mph, or to another pigeon flying next to it, 0mph - all known physics applies as if it was moving 0mph in that case, so if the 2 birds collided from the side it wouldn't hurt very much, with similar forward velocities, but little side-to-side velocity, but if they collided head-on going 60mph it's a major difference what physical cause/effect happens. It matters where you are, how you're moving, all of that determines what both your immediate and outer world and greater universe physically "is". Values change wildly depending on perspective, and there is even a perspective where the values are all 0. Like rotating a plane on the X axis, from the perceived perspective of "height" in the Y dimension, the value is reduced to 0 simply by rotating the plane, and then increases again as it rotates more. The height is not really changing, and eventually disappearing, the object is just rotating. It only appears to vanish from that perspective. There is not "something" & "nothing" - those are 2 aspects of the same geometry, depending on how you look at it. I think this is how you would describe the concept of "nothing" in pure geometry - it's more like a state of, or perspective on, a "something" - and while that's not a perfect analogy, like trying to depict a 4D tesseract using 3D cubes, it's just a hint at the real thing, but I think we will find that concepts like "nothing", the passage of time, even the math that describes the Big Bang, will coincide with a deeper understanding of reality: That there are infinite channels or dimensions, and what you experience depends on how you're moving in relation to the rest of it. Some things exist from one perspective, and some things happen on that space or time scale, or in that dimension, and other things happen from another perspective. From some perspectives there is no time, from others different events happen, etc. and so-on. It's not magic, it's just how it is: Zoom in very close on a rock and there's nothing rock about it anymore, it mostly becomes space - that is a new reality where our XYZ coordinate system and velocity and everything else don't apply anymore, giving rise to new fields of study like quantum mechanics.

Why is there something and not nothing? A better question would be: Why is it Tuesday and not an apple?

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

An Apple a day keeps the doctor away. So 1 day equals 1 Apple. Tuesday is a day therefore Tuesday is an Apple.

@Ahldor

3 ай бұрын

​@@simonhibbs887 Tuesday is however the second day of the week so you got 2 in there. It means it was the second apple that week. So either the answer is "a second apple" or 1 - where any day of the week would represent an apple, which the statement "An Apple a day keeps the doctor away." infers. Come to think of it, a second apple is just still one apple, but the second one in the row. Oh never mind, you're right I should just keep quiet now!

There mere fact that something exists entails the necessary existence.

@RefinedQualia

10 ай бұрын

Whats the argument for that?

@Braun09tv

10 ай бұрын

​@@RefinedQualiaNothingness needs to be suppressed, otherwise it would stay put and disable anything. It gets suppressed by infinity, which is the lack of limits. Nothingness has no limits to offer.

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

That's not true; as just one example, a work of art does not need to exist.

@Braun09tv

10 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 a work of art requires an artist. Any artist is biological life. Art is a by-product.

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

@@Braun09tv But no specific piece of art is necessary.

'Nothing' = non existent Is = existence.

It's really just gibberish. We could likewise say if the necessary abstractions originate in a unicorn's mind, or an alien's mind, then it would be necessary for the unicorn or the alien to exist. It's really just begging the question, not a statement of anything but the conditionally obvious.

The conversation starts out with a specious argument, for numbers necessarily exist only as potentials. It is not necessary that there be something to count or quantify. That is, a number supervenes on a quantity (not the other way around) and what's at issue is the reason, purpose, or meaning of quantification, not quantifiers.

@anav3167

2 ай бұрын

Idk if this is a specious argument. Is your point that what's necessary depends on what is? So, numbers only necessarily exist in relation to what exists? It's only after you have "something to count or quantify" that there are numbers? If so, let's suppose that there is such a universe that only 3 things exist. This universe doesn't necessarily exist, but could contingently exist (there could have been a universe that only 2 things exist). In this universe where only 3 things exist, the numbers are limited to '1', '2', and '3'. Would it be the case that '2+2=4' exists AS being a true statement of mathematics like '1+1+1=3' exists AS a true statement in mathematics? If there isn't some further thing, namely '4,' that's countable or quantifiable, then it would seem that '2+2=4' is a false statement in mathematics. But it seems like in this universe or in any other universe regardless of how many, or even if there are, objects, '2+2=4' would be true and necessarily so. For something like numbers as abstract objects to exist, it seems, there simply has to be conditions of necessary truth that depend on it necessarily existing. You can't have one without the other. This, I think, is at the heart of what Zimmerman presents, idk if this is his actual view, as a starting point for necessarily somethings to exist rather than absolutely nothing.

Change is necessary and fundamental. A number is fundamentally not representative of a quantity of "things", but rather a measure of relative magnitude. In particular quantum physics, where complex numbers are crucial.

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

So, interesting; if I'm understanding you correctly, numbers do not stay exact at certain levels of reality...

@brendangreeves3775

10 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 Yes, it is really about interacting flux fields.

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

@@brendangreeves3775 very cool; thank you

@williammabon6430

10 ай бұрын

May I weigh in on this matter with scientific proof? Yes! God exists and here is the proof. The Scientific Method “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” a.k.a. Infinity = 1/x(delta) + 1 Step 1 Observation: Math can deliver unbreakable truths such as 2+2 will always equal 4. Step 2 Question: Do math and divinity shall a common truth? Step 3 Hypothesis: If God exists and mathematics can tell us God is real. Then God should be found in the house of mathematics. Step 4 Prediction: The phrase “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” is an equation. Step 5 Test: This test tells us what a number is. A. If God exist then by reason of him actuating the universe His Mind must be infinite, i.e., Infinity. B. The word “is” in common understandings affix a nature of truth. In math the word “is” denotes equality i.e., the (=) equal sign. C. Man like everything that exist is a part of the whole of reality and in math any part of a singular whole is a fraction of that whole i.e., (1/x). D. Change is a physical reality and in math change operates to show a difference, rate, or expansion of some kind. We often illustrate a mathematical relationship that shows the use of change with the Greek letter delta i.e. (Δ). E. The word “with” in common understandings affix a nature of togetherness. In math the word yields the same meaning but is expressed as addition i.e., the plus (+) sign. • Again, if God exists then we have a creator who processes all the necessary and appropriate parts to complete our universe. This situation would make God the first and end of reality. A mathematical logical statement to this kind of situation says the whole of reality is that which identifies as being unbroken, closed, complete and singular and has the nature of being 1. • Infinity = 1/x(change) + 1 Spelled out: A number is a set-in space that changes with space. Example: Note: "X" describes all kinds of sets, (1) describes any kind of space physical or otherwise. This equation tells us why two feet is different from two inches. Both distances measure out as two units of space but there is a change or difference between both units. They are each set in a space of distance, but they represent changes in their measurement of distance. Step 6 Iterate: Fresh look at what makes up reality. Reality consists of three domains of space. a. Fractured space or matter b. spatial expansion or energy c. Complete or unbroken space/information Step 7 Conclusion: We now know Infinity is real. We also know that the value in enumeration for the number infinity demand God exists. Otherwise, the domain for enumeration for any number would be incomplete. It is the set of all inputs that define the function of a set. And in any case that would include the function of any number inside an equation. Enumeration is the act of establishing the number for something. God must be able to count too all the way to Infinity because His mathematical name tells us what is any number. Cantor's Mistake George Cantor, known as the father of set theory, was wrong. There are no sets of numbers larger than Infinity. Cantor's mistake was he did not see that "change" is a subset within Infinity. Cantors one on one correspondence between sets of numbers is wrong. Cantor used only one description of a number from one set to match out or with a number from a different number set. An example of the Cantor method is as follows. Cantor said the whole number set was smaller than the integer number set. This is how he made his measurement. Take the integers 2.1 and match it with the whole number 1. Then match 2.11 with the whole number 2. Then match 2.111 with the whole number 3 and so forth. In this view we would run out of whole numbers when we get to the integer 3.1. This is Cantor's big mistake! Here is a correct set correspondence method. Here is a correct way to measure these two number sets. Match 2.1 with say two. In the next sequence match for 2.1 we could match this integer with 4/2 or 5-3 or the square root of one hundred divided by the square root of twenty-five. The point being we can match any description for the number 2 to continue this [integer- whole] number matching sequence forever. In this way we could then match the integer 3.1 with 9/3 or 7- 4. Again, if Cantor had understood that change describes what any number looks like he would have known there can be no numbers larger than Infinity. Now that we have the knowledge of what is a number. My question is why now? Throughout all of man's conceptual use and beneficial outcomes from using numbers why is it we did not see the anatomy of a number until today? How is it possible that we have been unable to see that numbers do more than describe our physical reality? Here we can see numbers can describe existence outside our perceived notion of reality. Yes, we are creatures of the cosmos and whatever makes up the cosmos is our inheritance. Learning is a part of our cosmos and we do know great discoveries come about over time. There is not always a discovery that changes the world, yet this equation is fundamental to all of existence, and it comes from the creator of this existence. So, again why has this knowledge been away from us so long? Here is my thinking. Mind you my thought in asking then trying to understand this event is not based on math or science but on faith. Some may say humanity is fortunate to have come to this quantitative recognition for the presents of God, but I say we are blessed.

I am 100% confident that I know the answer - mainly because I thought about this for many many nights, the answer is very simple, we just need to think about what we know. The Theory of Coexistence - Everything that matters in the universe has an exact opposite which it cannot exist without. Neither can exist without the other, they can only coexist, they cannot exist as a singularity because they both define each other. Examples :- Light cannot exist without darkness Hot cannot exist without cold Truth cannot exist without falsehood Love cannot exist without hate Good cannot exist without evil Happiness cannot exist without sadness Heaven cannot exist without hell Right cannot exist without wrong Life cannot exist without death Nothing cannot exist without something. Imagine one of these existing without the other - it’s impossible. The concept of "something" is defined in relation to "nothing." and the concept of 'nothing' is defined in relation to 'something'. "Something" refers to the presence or existence of a particular thing, while "nothing" refers to the absence or lack of anything. They are opposites and are necessary for each other to have meaning. Without the concept of nothing, the concept of something has no significance and therefore would not exist which would also mean nothing would not exist and that is why there must be something, because there is nothing. This can be seen in math 1-1=0 or physically as dark matter. Also regarding the other questions raised - 1+1=2 is a fact, nobody invented it, nobody decided it, it just ‘is’. There was never a time that 1+1 did not equal 2, there was never a time when 1+1 equalling 2 came into existence and there will never be a time that 1+1 stops equalling 2. In the same way we have basic shapes, whether physically, mathematically or even in our imagination. Nobody invented them, there was never a time they did not exist and there will never be a time when they stop existing. A circle, a square or a triangle, they simply ‘are’. So because 1+1=2 and always has and always will, then we can ‘see’ the concept of perpetuity. This means that the universe has always existed and always will. Science can ‘witness’ the birth of the universe and call it the ‘Big Bang’ - but nature tells us that if a universe can be ‘born’ then it must also ‘die’ because life cannot exist without death. We see this in nature - every living entity comes from itself - a bean comes from a bean, a cow comes from a cow - a human being comes from a human being, therefore a universe comes from a universe ! If the universe can be born then it must be a living entity so it must also die. That means the universe being born and dying has existed forever, just like 1+1 equalling 2.

If there was nothing else, numbers wouldn't have any meaning. Therefore, I don't think they are necessary things.

I appreciate your videos and have watched many of them. I have a request or suggestion. Would you interview Neven Knezevic, author of Eidomorphism: the philosophy of ontologial mathematics ?

@williammabon6430

10 ай бұрын

May I weigh in on this matter with scientific proof? Yes! God exists and here is the proof. The Scientific Method “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” a.k.a. Infinity = 1/x(delta) + 1 Step 1 Observation: Math can deliver unbreakable truths such as 2+2 will always equal 4. Step 2 Question: Do math and divinity shall a common truth? Step 3 Hypothesis: If God exists and mathematics can tell us God is real. Then God should be found in the house of mathematics. Step 4 Prediction: The phrase “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” is an equation. Step 5 Test: This test tells us what a number is. A. If God exist then by reason of him actuating the universe His Mind must be infinite, i.e., Infinity. B. The word “is” in common understandings affix a nature of truth. In math the word “is” denotes equality i.e., the (=) equal sign. C. Man like everything that exist is a part of the whole of reality and in math any part of a singular whole is a fraction of that whole i.e., (1/x). D. Change is a physical reality and in math change operates to show a difference, rate, or expansion of some kind. We often illustrate a mathematical relationship that shows the use of change with the Greek letter delta i.e. (Δ). E. The word “with” in common understandings affix a nature of togetherness. In math the word yields the same meaning but is expressed as addition i.e., the plus (+) sign. • Again, if God exists then we have a creator who processes all the necessary and appropriate parts to complete our universe. This situation would make God the first and end of reality. A mathematical logical statement to this kind of situation says the whole of reality is that which identifies as being unbroken, closed, complete and singular and has the nature of being 1. • Infinity = 1/x(change) + 1 Spelled out: A number is a set-in space that changes with space. Example: Note: "X" describes all kinds of sets, (1) describes any kind of space physical or otherwise. This equation tells us why two feet is different from two inches. Both distances measure out as two units of space but there is a change or difference between both units. They are each set in a space of distance, but they represent changes in their measurement of distance. Step 6 Iterate: Fresh look at what makes up reality. Reality consists of three domains of space. a. Fractured space or matter b. spatial expansion or energy c. Complete or unbroken space/information Step 7 Conclusion: We now know Infinity is real. We also know that the value in enumeration for the number infinity demand God exists. Otherwise, the domain for enumeration for any number would be incomplete. It is the set of all inputs that define the function of a set. And in any case that would include the function of any number inside an equation. Enumeration is the act of establishing the number for something. God must be able to count too all the way to Infinity because His mathematical name tells us what is any number. Cantor's Mistake George Cantor, known as the father of set theory, was wrong. There are no sets of numbers larger than Infinity. Cantor's mistake was he did not see that "change" is a subset within Infinity. Cantors one on one correspondence between sets of numbers is wrong. Cantor used only one description of a number from one set to match out or with a number from a different number set. An example of the Cantor method is as follows. Cantor said the whole number set was smaller than the integer number set. This is how he made his measurement. Take the integers 2.1 and match it with the whole number 1. Then match 2.11 with the whole number 2. Then match 2.111 with the whole number 3 and so forth. In this view we would run out of whole numbers when we get to the integer 3.1. This is Cantor's big mistake! Here is a correct set correspondence method. Here is a correct way to measure these two number sets. Match 2.1 with say two. In the next sequence match for 2.1 we could match this integer with 4/2 or 5-3 or the square root of one hundred divided by the square root of twenty-five. The point being we can match any description for the number 2 to continue this [integer- whole] number matching sequence forever. In this way we could then match the integer 3.1 with 9/3 or 7- 4. Again, if Cantor had understood that change describes what any number looks like he would have known there can be no numbers larger than Infinity. Now that we have the knowledge of what is a number. My question is why now? Throughout all of man's conceptual use and beneficial outcomes from using numbers why is it we did not see the anatomy of a number until today? How is it possible that we have been unable to see that numbers do more than describe our physical reality? Here we can see numbers can describe existence outside our perceived notion of reality. Yes, we are creatures of the cosmos and whatever makes up the cosmos is our inheritance. Learning is a part of our cosmos and we do know great discoveries come about over time. There is not always a discovery that changes the world, yet this equation is fundamental to all of existence, and it comes from the creator of this existence. So, again why has this knowledge been away from us so long? Here is my thinking. Mind you my thought in asking then trying to understand this event is not based on math or science but on faith. Some may say humanity is fortunate to have come to this quantitative recognition for the presents of God, but I say we are blessed.

Numbers are human abstractions of physical entities. I think that if there is no physical reality, abstract logic such as numbers does not exist. The argument that they do exist underestimates the emptiness of 'nothingness'. However I do tend to think that 'nothing' may be ontologically impossible.

'The Contingency Argument' is in the altogether.

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

We need to find him a fig leaf

labels(language), like "2" in this case, help us distinguish the difference in quantity of real physical phenomena that exist all around us...

@williammabon6430

10 ай бұрын

May I weigh in on this matter with scientific proof? Yes! God exists and here is the proof. The Scientific Method “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” a.k.a. Infinity = 1/x(delta) + 1 Step 1 Observation: Math can deliver unbreakable truths such as 2+2 will always equal 4. Step 2 Question: Do math and divinity shall a common truth? Step 3 Hypothesis: If God exists and mathematics can tell us God is real. Then God should be found in the house of mathematics. Step 4 Prediction: The phrase “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” is an equation. Step 5 Test: This test tells us what a number is. A. If God exist then by reason of him actuating the universe His Mind must be infinite, i.e., Infinity. B. The word “is” in common understandings affix a nature of truth. In math the word “is” denotes equality i.e., the (=) equal sign. C. Man like everything that exist is a part of the whole of reality and in math any part of a singular whole is a fraction of that whole i.e., (1/x). D. Change is a physical reality and in math change operates to show a difference, rate, or expansion of some kind. We often illustrate a mathematical relationship that shows the use of change with the Greek letter delta i.e. (Δ). E. The word “with” in common understandings affix a nature of togetherness. In math the word yields the same meaning but is expressed as addition i.e., the plus (+) sign. • Again, if God exists then we have a creator who processes all the necessary and appropriate parts to complete our universe. This situation would make God the first and end of reality. A mathematical logical statement to this kind of situation says the whole of reality is that which identifies as being unbroken, closed, complete and singular and has the nature of being 1. • Infinity = 1/x(change) + 1 Spelled out: A number is a set-in space that changes with space. Example: Note: "X" describes all kinds of sets, (1) describes any kind of space physical or otherwise. This equation tells us why two feet is different from two inches. Both distances measure out as two units of space but there is a change or difference between both units. They are each set in a space of distance, but they represent changes in their measurement of distance. Step 6 Iterate: Fresh look at what makes up reality. Reality consists of three domains of space. a. Fractured space or matter b. spatial expansion or energy c. Complete or unbroken space/information Step 7 Conclusion: We now know Infinity is real. We also know that the value in enumeration for the number infinity demand God exists. Otherwise, the domain for enumeration for any number would be incomplete. It is the set of all inputs that define the function of a set. And in any case that would include the function of any number inside an equation. Enumeration is the act of establishing the number for something. God must be able to count too all the way to Infinity because His mathematical name tells us what is any number. Cantor's Mistake George Cantor, known as the father of set theory, was wrong. There are no sets of numbers larger than Infinity. Cantor's mistake was he did not see that "change" is a subset within Infinity. Cantors one on one correspondence between sets of numbers is wrong. Cantor used only one description of a number from one set to match out or with a number from a different number set. An example of the Cantor method is as follows. Cantor said the whole number set was smaller than the integer number set. This is how he made his measurement. Take the integers 2.1 and match it with the whole number 1. Then match 2.11 with the whole number 2. Then match 2.111 with the whole number 3 and so forth. In this view we would run out of whole numbers when we get to the integer 3.1. This is Cantor's big mistake! Here is a correct set correspondence method. Here is a correct way to measure these two number sets. Match 2.1 with say two. In the next sequence match for 2.1 we could match this integer with 4/2 or 5-3 or the square root of one hundred divided by the square root of twenty-five. The point being we can match any description for the number 2 to continue this [integer- whole] number matching sequence forever. In this way we could then match the integer 3.1 with 9/3 or 7- 4. Again, if Cantor had understood that change describes what any number looks like he would have known there can be no numbers larger than Infinity. Now that we have the knowledge of what is a number. My question is why now? Throughout all of man's conceptual use and beneficial outcomes from using numbers why is it we did not see the anatomy of a number until today? How is it possible that we have been unable to see that numbers do more than describe our physical reality? Here we can see numbers can describe existence outside our perceived notion of reality. Yes, we are creatures of the cosmos and whatever makes up the cosmos is our inheritance. Learning is a part of our cosmos and we do know great discoveries come about over time. There is not always a discovery that changes the world, yet this equation is fundamental to all of existence, and it comes from the creator of this existence. So, again why has this knowledge been away from us so long? Here is my thinking. Mind you my thought in asking then trying to understand this event is not based on math or science but on faith. Some may say humanity is fortunate to have come to this quantitative recognition for the presents of God, but I say we are blessed.

An "abstract necessary being." Is this the 16th century? 😮

Logic is not absolute... Nor guaranteed. One could imagine a universe of complete chaos where logic does and abstract concepts do not exist because the laws of nature as we observe them do not exist. It is just as alien to us as the idea of absolutely nothing, but just because a possibility is alien to us does not mean it could be possible. The concept of an infinite physical universe was alien to us just a short while ago, but now is common. It's interesting how people want to drag concepts from a universe of "something" into the alternative idea of absolutely nothing to try and circumvent the question of "why is there something rather than nothing?" It's intellectual dishonesty/laziness used to avoid simply answering honestly with "I don't know and we will likely never know."

One of the FEW interviews on this channel I could not finish.. A cascade of dubious and unfounded assumptions..

that little word 'if' has a lot to answer for

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

A perfectly acceptable word in the world of thinking

It's actually an easy conundrum: originally, there existed nothingness - nay! It didn't exist, because if it had, it would have ceased to be nothing. For true nothing to exist, it has to be in a state of NOT existing. Nothing not existing is a double negative, which immediately leads to something existing.

Here we are, in EXISTENCE pondering why isn't there nothing; surely at some point there was NON-EXISTENCE, and the thought popped: "Hey, shouldn't there be something?" BANG!!! Our universe started.

Good argument

How did we get hung up on this idea that god has to be this "perfect", all knowing thing? Seems like wishful thinking.

1. logic has to exist because the absence of logic cannot exist, nothing can be unlogical 2. logic causes the rest of things to exist, something has to exist if it is logical, it's unlogical for it not to exist 3. everything that's logically possible exists

Wow, circular arguments in action. A red light should go off everytime one of these arguments is made to avoid wasting valuable interview time. PS: Love your interviews

@Ahldor

3 ай бұрын

Yes I agree, this interview wasn't very good in answering the topic. But what are your thoughts about "Why is there "Something" rather than "Nothing"?"?

@curiousnomadic1253

3 ай бұрын

@@Ahldor "Nothing" is not defined in physical science; that should be stated upfront. Plenty of somethings, of course. I suspect the laws of nature have eternally existed. Even the "Big Bang" would likely have needed those laws to "happen" as an event. So, my intuition is that the universe, in some form, eternally exists. In physical science, the notion of causality makes sense to me and most scientists. Infinity and existence, I feel, can go hand in hand.

The irony of that perfect being having been created by the very beings who postulate its existence.

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

If we could only postulate ending child hunger; and a few other things

@psterud

10 ай бұрын

Well, if you think that the universe is perfect, and that god is a metaphor, it makes more sense. One could go deeper, as this channel does, and postulate that our consciousness is actually the creator of that perfect being, the universe, or God, and perhaps vice versa.

@major253kannon

10 ай бұрын

@@psterud I think a metaphor is one of the best descriptions as to why humans create sky daddies. But to say that our consiousness creates the universe is a big reach. Mainly because if humans had never evolved, then the universe would still be here, before and after our very lucky existence. I find that one of the fundamental flaws in all these 'god' arguments is that we cannot for life of our own egos, escape ourselves and the very human centric explanation of all things. We as a species are unable to seperate our own involvement with reality, Ego yet again.

@williammabon6430

10 ай бұрын

May I weigh in on this matter with scientific proof? Yes! God exists and here is the proof. The Scientific Method “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” a.k.a. Infinity = 1/x(delta) + 1 Step 1 Observation: Math can deliver unbreakable truths such as 2+2 will always equal 4. Step 2 Question: Do math and divinity shall a common truth? Step 3 Hypothesis: If God exists and mathematics can tell us God is real. Then God should be found in the house of mathematics. Step 4 Prediction: The phrase “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” is an equation. Step 5 Test: This test tells us what a number is. A. If God exist then by reason of him actuating the universe His Mind must be infinite, i.e., Infinity. B. The word “is” in common understandings affix a nature of truth. In math the word “is” denotes equality i.e., the (=) equal sign. C. Man like everything that exist is a part of the whole of reality and in math any part of a singular whole is a fraction of that whole i.e., (1/x). D. Change is a physical reality and in math change operates to show a difference, rate, or expansion of some kind. We often illustrate a mathematical relationship that shows the use of change with the Greek letter delta i.e. (Δ). E. The word “with” in common understandings affix a nature of togetherness. In math the word yields the same meaning but is expressed as addition i.e., the plus (+) sign. • Again, if God exists then we have a creator who processes all the necessary and appropriate parts to complete our universe. This situation would make God the first and end of reality. A mathematical logical statement to this kind of situation says the whole of reality is that which identifies as being unbroken, closed, complete and singular and has the nature of being 1. • Infinity = 1/x(change) + 1 Spelled out: A number is a set-in space that changes with space. Example: Note: "X" describes all kinds of sets, (1) describes any kind of space physical or otherwise. This equation tells us why two feet is different from two inches. Both distances measure out as two units of space but there is a change or difference between both units. They are each set in a space of distance, but they represent changes in their measurement of distance. Step 6 Iterate: Fresh look at what makes up reality. Reality consists of three domains of space. a. Fractured space or matter b. spatial expansion or energy c. Complete or unbroken space/information Step 7 Conclusion: We now know Infinity is real. We also know that the value in enumeration for the number infinity demand God exists. Otherwise, the domain for enumeration for any number would be incomplete. It is the set of all inputs that define the function of a set. And in any case that would include the function of any number inside an equation. Enumeration is the act of establishing the number for something. God must be able to count too all the way to Infinity because His mathematical name tells us what is any number. Cantor's Mistake George Cantor, known as the father of set theory, was wrong. There are no sets of numbers larger than Infinity. Cantor's mistake was he did not see that "change" is a subset within Infinity. Cantors one on one correspondence between sets of numbers is wrong. Cantor used only one description of a number from one set to match out or with a number from a different number set. An example of the Cantor method is as follows. Cantor said the whole number set was smaller than the integer number set. This is how he made his measurement. Take the integers 2.1 and match it with the whole number 1. Then match 2.11 with the whole number 2. Then match 2.111 with the whole number 3 and so forth. In this view we would run out of whole numbers when we get to the integer 3.1. This is Cantor's big mistake! Here is a correct set correspondence method. Here is a correct way to measure these two number sets. Match 2.1 with say two. In the next sequence match for 2.1 we could match this integer with 4/2 or 5-3 or the square root of one hundred divided by the square root of twenty-five. The point being we can match any description for the number 2 to continue this [integer- whole] number matching sequence forever. In this way we could then match the integer 3.1 with 9/3 or 7- 4. Again, if Cantor had understood that change describes what any number looks like he would have known there can be no numbers larger than Infinity. Now that we have the knowledge of what is a number. My question is why now? Throughout all of man's conceptual use and beneficial outcomes from using numbers why is it we did not see the anatomy of a number until today? How is it possible that we have been unable to see that numbers do more than describe our physical reality? Here we can see numbers can describe existence outside our perceived notion of reality. Yes, we are creatures of the cosmos and whatever makes up the cosmos is our inheritance. Learning is a part of our cosmos and we do know great discoveries come about over time. There is not always a discovery that changes the world, yet this equation is fundamental to all of existence, and it comes from the creator of this existence. So, again why has this knowledge been away from us so long? Here is my thinking. Mind you my thought in asking then trying to understand this event is not based on math or science but on faith. Some may say humanity is fortunate to have come to this quantitative recognition for the presents of God, but I say we are blessed.

@psterud

10 ай бұрын

@@major253kannon Ah, you're a materialist. You believe that the falling tree makes a sound, without anything to detect it. The quantum people might beg to differ with you.

I think you have to think in terms of "no-thing" rather than "nothing" as obviously the concept of nothing is something in itself. But I really don't understand when guys like Dean talk about some things having to exist, like mathematics for instance, I appreciate the importance of mathematics in the Universe and our understanding of it but if there was no-thing then there would be maths or indeed any concept of it or of course any-thing at all, when I try and ponder absolute no-thingness is the closest I feel to coming to some sort of revelation or epiphany, but it sadly of course never happens.

If you look at this as him not positing that a god exists but rather saying that "if" one exists then it by its very nature would necessarily exist- then I get it, and it makes sense- to a degree. But- if this is an argument for god's existence- then it's ridiculous- it has no foundation whatsoever- it's just someone postulating something out of thin air. The best he had for a foundation was "Philosophers have loosened up about that..." well- not to sound to cute but- I don't really care what philosophers have loosened up about unless you can explain why they "loosened up" and what exactly that even means. Which he never did.

With respect, I don’t think the question is the right question, because I don’t think it is answerable. The better question is to take existence as a fundamental given, and then to ask, what does that fundamental given consist of, and how do we fit in to that?

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

Why don't you just say, take existence as a given; what does that entail and how do we fit into it? Is there an answer beyond, existence entails exactly what it entails and we fit into it exactly as we fit into it. Which, if you ask me, is with not a lot of clarity.

@williammabon6430

10 ай бұрын

May I weigh in on this matter with scientific proof? Yes! God exists and here is the proof. The Scientific Method “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” a.k.a. Infinity = 1/x(delta) + 1 Step 1 Observation: Math can deliver unbreakable truths such as 2+2 will always equal 4. Step 2 Question: Do math and divinity shall a common truth? Step 3 Hypothesis: If God exists and mathematics can tell us God is real. Then God should be found in the house of mathematics. Step 4 Prediction: The phrase “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” is an equation. Step 5 Test: This test tells us what a number is. A. If God exist then by reason of him actuating the universe His Mind must be infinite, i.e., Infinity. B. The word “is” in common understandings affix a nature of truth. In math the word “is” denotes equality i.e., the (=) equal sign. C. Man like everything that exist is a part of the whole of reality and in math any part of a singular whole is a fraction of that whole i.e., (1/x). D. Change is a physical reality and in math change operates to show a difference, rate, or expansion of some kind. We often illustrate a mathematical relationship that shows the use of change with the Greek letter delta i.e. (Δ). E. The word “with” in common understandings affix a nature of togetherness. In math the word yields the same meaning but is expressed as addition i.e., the plus (+) sign. • Again, if God exists then we have a creator who processes all the necessary and appropriate parts to complete our universe. This situation would make God the first and end of reality. A mathematical logical statement to this kind of situation says the whole of reality is that which identifies as being unbroken, closed, complete and singular and has the nature of being 1. • Infinity = 1/x(change) + 1 Spelled out: A number is a set-in space that changes with space. Example: Note: "X" describes all kinds of sets, (1) describes any kind of space physical or otherwise. This equation tells us why two feet is different from two inches. Both distances measure out as two units of space but there is a change or difference between both units. They are each set in a space of distance, but they represent changes in their measurement of distance. Step 6 Iterate: Fresh look at what makes up reality. Reality consists of three domains of space. a. Fractured space or matter b. spatial expansion or energy c. Complete or unbroken space/information Step 7 Conclusion: We now know Infinity is real. We also know that the value in enumeration for the number infinity demand God exists. Otherwise, the domain for enumeration for any number would be incomplete. It is the set of all inputs that define the function of a set. And in any case that would include the function of any number inside an equation. Enumeration is the act of establishing the number for something. God must be able to count too all the way to Infinity because His mathematical name tells us what is any number. Cantor's Mistake George Cantor, known as the father of set theory, was wrong. There are no sets of numbers larger than Infinity. Cantor's mistake was he did not see that "change" is a subset within Infinity. Cantors one on one correspondence between sets of numbers is wrong. Cantor used only one description of a number from one set to match out or with a number from a different number set. An example of the Cantor method is as follows. Cantor said the whole number set was smaller than the integer number set. This is how he made his measurement. Take the integers 2.1 and match it with the whole number 1. Then match 2.11 with the whole number 2. Then match 2.111 with the whole number 3 and so forth. In this view we would run out of whole numbers when we get to the integer 3.1. This is Cantor's big mistake! Here is a correct set correspondence method. Here is a correct way to measure these two number sets. Match 2.1 with say two. In the next sequence match for 2.1 we could match this integer with 4/2 or 5-3 or the square root of one hundred divided by the square root of twenty-five. The point being we can match any description for the number 2 to continue this [integer- whole] number matching sequence forever. In this way we could then match the integer 3.1 with 9/3 or 7- 4. Again, if Cantor had understood that change describes what any number looks like he would have known there can be no numbers larger than Infinity. Now that we have the knowledge of what is a number. My question is why now? Throughout all of man's conceptual use and beneficial outcomes from using numbers why is it we did not see the anatomy of a number until today? How is it possible that we have been unable to see that numbers do more than describe our physical reality? Here we can see numbers can describe existence outside our perceived notion of reality. Yes, we are creatures of the cosmos and whatever makes up the cosmos is our inheritance. Learning is a part of our cosmos and we do know great discoveries come about over time. There is not always a discovery that changes the world, yet this equation is fundamental to all of existence, and it comes from the creator of this existence. So, again why has this knowledge been away from us so long? Here is my thinking. Mind you my thought in asking then trying to understand this event is not based on math or science but on faith. Some may say humanity is fortunate to have come to this quantitative recognition for the presents of God, but I say we are blessed.

@cemerson12

10 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863The respect comes from the fact that there are a lot of frontier questions, like this one is. As we get useable data (eg Webb telescope) it makes sense to speculate or even theorize, if we can (eg string theory). But we still have limited faculties. What are environment / surroundings consist of, and how we react to or work with those surroundings may, at this stage of history, bear more fruit. If we are here, in existence, does that in fact necessitate that something existed prior to us? I don’t see how. That notion seems rest on an infinite regress of causality, leading to the eternal physics vs eternal being debate, which also seems to be unresolvable. If so, we are forced to start our inquiries ‘mid-stream’ so to speak. Starting mid-stream suggests philosophic diversity is also a potential given. That recognition has its own consequences, which I feel we should deal with. Before climate change overtakes both questions (perhaps?)

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” ~Werner Heisenburg

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

Maybe so; but no God you will ever find in a church.

@tonyatkinson2210

10 ай бұрын

Balls

@user-ze3lk1ov5b

10 ай бұрын

God is the human concept that one day will bring humanity to its doom it needs to go

Something is the norm. Nothing is extremely rare. There is always time, space and energy everywhere in the universe.

The question is about concrete things. Abstractions have nothing to do with it.

“ 2 + 2 = 4 “ also does not survive all ( attempts at ) negation(s) . If nothing ever exists, if Nothingness ‘was ‘ …, then , no - mathematical truths ( as we know them to be ) are NOT necessary. To say otherwise does not take ‘Nothingness ‘ seriously

Excellent.... thanks 🙏.

Wow, so good.

Zimmerman doesn’t seem up to the task - and there are some pretty peculiar insights in this comments section too!

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

Have you considered the possibility you're stuck in a perspective?

@Anabsurdsuggestion

10 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 It never escapes me.

@williammabon6430

10 ай бұрын

May I weigh in on this matter with scientific proof? Yes! God exists and here is the proof. The Scientific Method “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” a.k.a. Infinity = 1/x(delta) + 1 Step 1 Observation: Math can deliver unbreakable truths such as 2+2 will always equal 4. Step 2 Question: Do math and divinity shall a common truth? Step 3 Hypothesis: If God exists and mathematics can tell us God is real. Then God should be found in the house of mathematics. Step 4 Prediction: The phrase “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” is an equation. Step 5 Test: This test tells us what a number is. A. If God exist then by reason of him actuating the universe His Mind must be infinite, i.e., Infinity. B. The word “is” in common understandings affix a nature of truth. In math the word “is” denotes equality i.e., the (=) equal sign. C. Man like everything that exist is a part of the whole of reality and in math any part of a singular whole is a fraction of that whole i.e., (1/x). D. Change is a physical reality and in math change operates to show a difference, rate, or expansion of some kind. We often illustrate a mathematical relationship that shows the use of change with the Greek letter delta i.e. (Δ). E. The word “with” in common understandings affix a nature of togetherness. In math the word yields the same meaning but is expressed as addition i.e., the plus (+) sign. • Again, if God exists then we have a creator who processes all the necessary and appropriate parts to complete our universe. This situation would make God the first and end of reality. A mathematical logical statement to this kind of situation says the whole of reality is that which identifies as being unbroken, closed, complete and singular and has the nature of being 1. • Infinity = 1/x(change) + 1 Spelled out: A number is a set-in space that changes with space. Example: Note: "X" describes all kinds of sets, (1) describes any kind of space physical or otherwise. This equation tells us why two feet is different from two inches. Both distances measure out as two units of space but there is a change or difference between both units. They are each set in a space of distance, but they represent changes in their measurement of distance. Step 6 Iterate: Fresh look at what makes up reality. Reality consists of three domains of space. a. Fractured space or matter b. spatial expansion or energy c. Complete or unbroken space/information Step 7 Conclusion: We now know Infinity is real. We also know that the value in enumeration for the number infinity demand God exists. Otherwise, the domain for enumeration for any number would be incomplete. It is the set of all inputs that define the function of a set. And in any case that would include the function of any number inside an equation. Enumeration is the act of establishing the number for something. God must be able to count too all the way to Infinity because His mathematical name tells us what is any number. Cantor's Mistake George Cantor, known as the father of set theory, was wrong. There are no sets of numbers larger than Infinity. Cantor's mistake was he did not see that "change" is a subset within Infinity. Cantors one on one correspondence between sets of numbers is wrong. Cantor used only one description of a number from one set to match out or with a number from a different number set. An example of the Cantor method is as follows. Cantor said the whole number set was smaller than the integer number set. This is how he made his measurement. Take the integers 2.1 and match it with the whole number 1. Then match 2.11 with the whole number 2. Then match 2.111 with the whole number 3 and so forth. In this view we would run out of whole numbers when we get to the integer 3.1. This is Cantor's big mistake! Here is a correct set correspondence method. Here is a correct way to measure these two number sets. Match 2.1 with say two. In the next sequence match for 2.1 we could match this integer with 4/2 or 5-3 or the square root of one hundred divided by the square root of twenty-five. The point being we can match any description for the number 2 to continue this [integer- whole] number matching sequence forever. In this way we could then match the integer 3.1 with 9/3 or 7- 4. Again, if Cantor had understood that change describes what any number looks like he would have known there can be no numbers larger than Infinity. Now that we have the knowledge of what is a number. My question is why now? Throughout all of man's conceptual use and beneficial outcomes from using numbers why is it we did not see the anatomy of a number until today? How is it possible that we have been unable to see that numbers do more than describe our physical reality? Here we can see numbers can describe existence outside our perceived notion of reality. Yes, we are creatures of the cosmos and whatever makes up the cosmos is our inheritance. Learning is a part of our cosmos and we do know great discoveries come about over time. There is not always a discovery that changes the world, yet this equation is fundamental to all of existence, and it comes from the creator of this existence. So, again why has this knowledge been away from us so long? Here is my thinking. Mind you my thought in asking then trying to understand this event is not based on math or science but on faith. Some may say humanity is fortunate to have come to this quantitative recognition for the presents of God, but I say we are blessed.

The "something vs. nothing" duality follows the logic in this simulation ONLY. In fact, "logic" itself is simply the mechanism that allows the simulation to run in the first place. Base reality follows completely different rules that we could never comprehend.

To think and feel God is to understand and implement a primary discourse of patient and kind awareness in at least 3 different layers of each. It depicts consistency and robustness in life and rebuilding life. Ideals, expression, and manifestation.

@kos-mos1127

10 ай бұрын

What is this nonsense?

1 vector+ 1 vector = 1 vector How is that possible? Your mind has to make sense of the final vector, but how? Deconstruction. This doesn't mean it gets back to the exact vectors that created it, but if the mind can recall two constructions using two points in time, it can realize a trend, pattern, or randomness. But it might skip points in between that are significantly important. That's the nature of thoughtful logic. As one deconstructs and reconstructs over and over, error will exist. Closer to the truth is not absolute fact in every thought. This is an expression of who each one is and why people continue to search. Only thing absolute is that the present is always present from each person's point of view. When does the present become the past? From my living perspective the answer is never. From my mortal perspective, I never was in the present, but always in the past. In a way its comforting to know the past is in the future for myself...😂

Saying that there is existence because it is necessary for something to exist is circular logic. It does not explain existence.

I always knew Mitch Hedberg had a knack for philosophy.

It seems to me that 2+2=4 is fully contingent. It's a construct -- or, if you like, an observation, but I think it's a construct -- made by a few species of animals of higher intelligence. But if there had never been any matter or antimatter, there wouldn't be two things to add to another two things to create a set of four things and would definitely not exist. If there were matter in the universe but no beings intelligent enough to count things, whether 2+2=4 becomes debatable, honestly.

@curious_atoms

10 ай бұрын

so nothing + nothing = nothing in the nothingverse?

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

10 ай бұрын

@@curious_atoms *"so nothing + nothing = nothing in the nothingverse?"* ... _"Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin', but you've gotta have somethin' ... if you wanna be with me."_ - Billy Preston

@Uri1000x1

10 ай бұрын

A squirrel will jump twice as far from post to post if the distance is twice, using computation.

@bozo5632

10 ай бұрын

2+2=4 never happens in nature. (Outside of minds.) It's an abstraction. It might be a logically inescapable fact, but it's still an abstraction.

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

@@Uri1000x1 I doubt if even a human who jumps accurately from post to post is using calculation. Rather, I'd say they were using intuition that you can later go and put math to.

Here's a thing, and there's another thing. In nature, that's not "two" things. 1+1=2 never happens in nature.

@Ahldor

3 ай бұрын

Maybe everything is one thing in some sense. According to Pauli's Exclusion Principle it could be the case that atleast all matter is interconnected. Maybe even all quantum fields might be different expressions of one unified field, or one field-creating thing.

This is bad philisophy. He completely avoids proving that things could have gone differently. "Did this person have to exist... no... because this person's parents didn't have to meet." Before he moves forward with the argument he needs to prove that it's possible that a person's parents didn't have to meet. There is a difference between conceivability and possibility. It's not true that all conceivable events are actually possible in some space-time, but this 'philosopher' makes this completely baseless claim that certain things that have happened did not have to happen. That is not philosophy. These are just completely arbitrary claims by someone who happens to have a degree in philosophy.

@CriticalThinker02

10 ай бұрын

Aren’t you attempting to make a baseless, determinist argument?

@TheCharonic

10 ай бұрын

@@CriticalThinker02 No, I'm saying that if he is going to make a positive claim ("things could have been other than they were"), he needs to prove it. Learn logic, friend.

@CriticalThinker02

10 ай бұрын

@@TheCharonic Learn to comment without snark, friend.

@TheCharonic

10 ай бұрын

@@CriticalThinker02 That's not snark. Literally, you don't understand valid logical argumentation. Go learn logic. This mindset that accepts positive claims without proof is one of the major problems facing humanity. You want to go around saying you have free will? Fine. I'll go around saying that I'm the second coming of Christ and that I have more evidence for my claim than you do for yours. Do you believe that? No? You are a hypocrite. "With God, all things are possible" (and no, a conceivable thing is not necessarily an actual thing, before you try to go there), so if you think it's not possible that I'm your Jesus, you are, by definition, a hypocrite. And do you know who detests hypocrites? You see? That's the logic of the Logos. It calls you what you are, a hypocrite. Okay, I hope that's illustrated why accepting baseless claims without any evidence whatsoever are such a slippery slope, especially when you are wrong (as you are).

Nothingness can't eliminate infinity, because in order to eliminate infinity you have to set borders, which can't exist in nothingness.

@Ahldor

3 ай бұрын

But I wonder if Nothingness balances up infinity somehow?

Humans … trust me … you have this all wrong.

An abstract thing is not a thing. An abstract thing is just a managed pattern of a pattern.

Because there's consciousness there's has to be something!

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

What got Descartes going... : )

@brendangreeves3775

10 ай бұрын

The absolute state is impossible. What we have is dynamic relative states.Patterns that form in dynamic relative states comprise both what we call matter and consciousness. It is essentially about processes and not “things”.

If nothing existed why would the number 2 be necessary?

If existence exist as something what is that something, and if existence exist as all things what knows all things?

It’s not true that a necessary being is what prevents nothingness. Rather, a dichotomy between two alternate uncaused states would also work, such as absolute nothingness and everythingness (implies a Creator God).

Theology and the proof of God’s necessary existence through Philosophy, Logical Reasoning and Mathematics is more than just “Something” and definitely a lot more than “Nothing” 5:40 “What is it about God that enables you to ascribe the necessary existence to it? Well if it is a being that has all perfections, and being so robust and unpreventable is a kind of perfection, then necessary existence would be a kind of perfection. So, if something could have it, it would be better that it have. It would be a greater thing. This is a point that Norman Malcolm and others have made and I think they’re right about that. The question is whether a concrete thing could this kind of existence.” 8:10 - “I am not offering an argument for the existence of God. I am merely offering a reason to think that God would be a necessary being if there was such a being. So, the necessary truth of Mathematical facts gives us reasons to think that numbers have to exist but if these necessary truths are aspects of God’s mind then in order for them to be necessary, God has to be necessary. So, It just provides a reason to think that if there were such a being, the being would be a necessary one.” God Bless 🙏😇

@tomjackson7755

10 ай бұрын

Theology shows how your god was made up from other earlier religions.

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

The argument boils dow to that, if you conceive of god as a necessary being, and god exists, then god is a necessary being. But if conceive of strudelbork as being the best pudding possible, and it exists, then it would be the best possible pudding. It’s a circular argument. This is the problem with absolute faith with no rational foundation. It leads people to accept arguments in support if their position that, if the exact same logic were applied to any other conclusion, they would never accept it. But if you take a fundamentally flawed and obviously invalid logical argument and apply it to their faith, the flaws in its logic somehow become completely invisible to them.

@williammabon6430

10 ай бұрын

May I weigh in on this matter with scientific proof? Yes! God exists and here is the proof. The Scientific Method “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” a.k.a. Infinity = 1/x(delta) + 1 Step 1 Observation: Math can deliver unbreakable truths such as 2+2 will always equal 4. Step 2 Question: Do math and divinity shall a common truth? Step 3 Hypothesis: If God exists and mathematics can tell us God is real. Then God should be found in the house of mathematics. Step 4 Prediction: The phrase “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” is an equation. Step 5 Test: This test tells us what a number is. A. If God exist then by reason of him actuating the universe His Mind must be infinite, i.e., Infinity. B. The word “is” in common understandings affix a nature of truth. In math the word “is” denotes equality i.e., the (=) equal sign. C. Man like everything that exist is a part of the whole of reality and in math any part of a singular whole is a fraction of that whole i.e., (1/x). D. Change is a physical reality and in math change operates to show a difference, rate, or expansion of some kind. We often illustrate a mathematical relationship that shows the use of change with the Greek letter delta i.e. (Δ). E. The word “with” in common understandings affix a nature of togetherness. In math the word yields the same meaning but is expressed as addition i.e., the plus (+) sign. • Again, if God exists then we have a creator who processes all the necessary and appropriate parts to complete our universe. This situation would make God the first and end of reality. A mathematical logical statement to this kind of situation says the whole of reality is that which identifies as being unbroken, closed, complete and singular and has the nature of being 1. • Infinity = 1/x(change) + 1 Spelled out: A number is a set-in space that changes with space. Example: Note: "X" describes all kinds of sets, (1) describes any kind of space physical or otherwise. This equation tells us why two feet is different from two inches. Both distances measure out as two units of space but there is a change or difference between both units. They are each set in a space of distance, but they represent changes in their measurement of distance. Step 6 Iterate: Fresh look at what makes up reality. Reality consists of three domains of space. a. Fractured space or matter b. spatial expansion or energy c. Complete or unbroken space/information Step 7 Conclusion: We now know Infinity is real. We also know that the value in enumeration for the number infinity demand God exists. Otherwise, the domain for enumeration for any number would be incomplete. It is the set of all inputs that define the function of a set. And in any case that would include the function of any number inside an equation. Enumeration is the act of establishing the number for something. God must be able to count too all the way to Infinity because His mathematical name tells us what is any number. Cantor's Mistake George Cantor, known as the father of set theory, was wrong. There are no sets of numbers larger than Infinity. Cantor's mistake was he did not see that "change" is a subset within Infinity. Cantors one on one correspondence between sets of numbers is wrong. Cantor used only one description of a number from one set to match out or with a number from a different number set. An example of the Cantor method is as follows. Cantor said the whole number set was smaller than the integer number set. This is how he made his measurement. Take the integers 2.1 and match it with the whole number 1. Then match 2.11 with the whole number 2. Then match 2.111 with the whole number 3 and so forth. In this view we would run out of whole numbers when we get to the integer 3.1. This is Cantor's big mistake! Here is a correct set correspondence method. Here is a correct way to measure these two number sets. Match 2.1 with say two. In the next sequence match for 2.1 we could match this integer with 4/2 or 5-3 or the square root of one hundred divided by the square root of twenty-five. The point being we can match any description for the number 2 to continue this [integer- whole] number matching sequence forever. In this way we could then match the integer 3.1 with 9/3 or 7- 4. Again, if Cantor had understood that change describes what any number looks like he would have known there can be no numbers larger than Infinity. Now that we have the knowledge of what is a number. My question is why now? Throughout all of man's conceptual use and beneficial outcomes from using numbers why is it we did not see the anatomy of a number until today? How is it possible that we have been unable to see that numbers do more than describe our physical reality? Here we can see numbers can describe existence outside our perceived notion of reality. Yes, we are creatures of the cosmos and whatever makes up the cosmos is our inheritance. Learning is a part of our cosmos and we do know great discoveries come about over time. There is not always a discovery that changes the world, yet this equation is fundamental to all of existence, and it comes from the creator of this existence. So, again why has this knowledge been away from us so long? Here is my thinking. Mind you my thought in asking then trying to understand this event is not based on math or science but on faith. Some may say humanity is fortunate to have come to this quantitative recognition for the presents of God, but I say we are blessed.

The obvious reason why there is something rather than nothing is because no one can create "nothing", and the existence of something makes life more fun.. ..also, what our limited physical senses can not reach does not necessarily mean it is nothing.... but, if you prefer nothing existing, then no one will know, nor can say, that it is easier. By the way, our awareness is our free immortal soul that has no beginning and no end as free split of the Holy Spirit and, so, there will always be something rather than nothing.. Have faith for your soul to return Home/Heaven.

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

So _something could never create nothing..._ What about not all nothing; just little pockets of nothing; here and there and maybe little pockets of something too. As long as you keep a balance.

@evaadam3635

10 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 You may not realize it but you are actually describing a lost soul dwelling in a cold dark nothingness (hell). Hell (Cold Dark Nothingness) is the state where one's lost soul returns to if he chooses a life without God who is all things.

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

@@evaadam3635 ooh! I knew I was on to something ; _)_

A number is an adjective... Not a noun

@edelgyn2699

10 ай бұрын

Can be both.

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

Can you explain how a number can be a noun other than making it into a thing (like a cardboard cutout) that represents the adjective?

@bozo5632

10 ай бұрын

​@@longcastle4863Count to three. There I did it. Three is a noun. Numbers aren't adjectives, they're numbers. They can also be used as nouns. "Two plus two equals four." ^^ Those aren't adjectives. "Two horses" doesn't describe any horses. Not an adjective.

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

@@bozo5632 How is the two of two horses a noun? It is a "describer" of how many horses. It is an adjective. The three of one two three is a noun only as a powerless impotent shadow of what three is in the equation 1 + 3 = 4; it describes something that can _impact_ upon something else that describes something. It has agency. A noun can't do that. I am admittedly walking a thin line here and am not as anti noun as I sound.

@bozo5632

10 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 It doesn't describe horses, it counts them. (Imho) A noun is a noun. Three is a noun in this sentence. There aren't three OF anything to count or modify, so here it's just a noun. Several horses... I just looked up "several." A couple of dictionaries say it's a "determiner." (And a pronoun??) So I looked up three, and dictionaries say lots of things, some say determiner and number, others say adjective and noun. So maybe 3 is a determiner.

If you think of the universe (or cosmos) as "God", as in omni-everything, it solves the whole issue. It is everywhere and contains everything (and nothing, by the way), including all consciousness and all intelligence. It has always been and always will be, necessarily. There is no such thing as absolute nothingness without absolute everythingness simultaneously. And I have to just point out that the concepts of gods originally came from our perplexity towards the universe in the first place. Gods have, and have always been, just methods that humans use to describe the natural world metaphorically, as in, phenomena that are more powerful than ourselves, frustratingly and awesomely beyond our control, but also something we are a part of, something we come from, and something we are bound to.

REAL QUESTION IS WHY ARE WE BORN INTO THIS REALITY

Where where we the billions of years before we were born? Where will "we" be the billions of years after we're dead and gone?

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

In the same -place-

@Resmith18SR

10 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 You mean I was already here before I was born? I don't remember any of that and much of my childhood.

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

No, when you're dead you'll be in the same -place- you were before you were alive. I cross out "place" because that really is no place.

@Resmith18SR

10 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 So you're conjecturing that there will be a "Me" observing something just like my very brief life here on Earth. So you're conjecturing that no one remembers that period of time before they were born here on Earth and won't remember this life after they're dead? And if someone chooses not to believe what you're saying, then what difference does it make? I think it doesn't make any difference, no matter what happens our beliefs won't change or alter Reality.

I once read a book of pragmatic philosophy, exactly the type that Zimmermann describes at the beginning as early 20th century positivist thought, and it was the most boring book I have ever read. So I've come to believe that if a line of philosophical thinking is boring, it's probably wrong.

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

So if people find Marvel movies exciting, then...?

@Avalorama

10 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 I was exclusively speaking about philosophy. Marvel movies are fantasy: every law of physics is broken in such a way that superheroes shouldn't be able to coexist with each other in the same universe. Understanding this just makes a Marvel movie utterly idiotic. It can be fun, but definitely not on the level of, you know, intelligent thought.

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

@@Avalorama I was just taking the opposite extreme; what is exciting is therefore true... But what almost every philosopher would call one of the most boring, over-technical and "dry as dust" (how Nietzsche described it) philosophy books ever written; Kant's _Critique of Pure Reason;_ is also the book they would ascribe to as having some of the most important insights about reality ever put into language.

@Avalorama

10 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 Great example. I don't think Kant is boring. He's very challenging. It's a difficult read, but he's not boring. Hume is boring until you understand his points. What I realized is that early 20th century philosophy is not even challenging. I think they just wanted to shut down arguments about the relativity of truth. But as science keeps evolving, ultimate truths about conscience and other topics covered by this channel are still elusive.

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

@@Avalorama That's funny because Hume and Berkeley are my two favorite philosophical writers after Nietzsche. Everyone has different tastes; though Kant's ideas do excite my philosophical side without question.

Can't believe Zimmerman takes his arguments seriously. Seems like he's not used to being around people who disagree with him.

@kaledon6

10 ай бұрын

The premisses of the question "why there´s something rather than nothing" CAN BE FALSIFIED, because the 1st law of Thermodynamics indicates that everything that exists is in perpetual transformation, and even "space" turns into "time" inside a black hole, or even the laws of physics like gravity could turn out to be a form of energy(gravitons), SO IF NOTHING SPECIFIC EXISTS IN PERPETUITY, it´s wrong to say that THERE IS SOMETHING OR ANYTHING AT ALL, what exists is only the NON-SPECIFIC conjunction of everything in perpetual transformation

@joshheter1517

10 ай бұрын

… you’re suggesting that a person who has spent his entire adult life in academia… studying philosophy… you’re suggesting that that person isn’t used to being around people who disagree with him?

I love this show, but there comes a time when to get closer to Truth one must simply remain silent.

@bozo5632

10 ай бұрын

Depends on the guest.

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

If one wants to remain silent, why come to a show where you hear things?

not necessarily

It's simple. When you ask why something rather than nothing you are asking for cause. Now suppose if you find cause you will again look for cause to that cause and this continues for infinite regress until you reach or find that something is eternal. Thus existence is eternal and thus nothing cannot be reality because nothing will come out of nothing.So Nothing cannot be cause of something.Now for what purpose it exists then the answer to that - you will only get if you consider yourself because you are who asking the question based on your existence. Ultimately when you put yourself in hypothesis you will find answer that the only purpose is knowledge that I the eternal infinite absolute exists. The proof is - All forms has to be in formless background because form is going to end somewhere and that background has to be formless knowledge or purpose. Science will never be able to tell about that ultimate purpose or formless background because science depends upon observation and formless cannot be observed. Conclusion - Without knowledge of existence there cannot be existence. That Knowledge can only be achieved through eternal cyclic movement by division of subject and object. All Questions arise in you and answers are also in you. Thus I and you and everyone are Eternal infinite absolute 😊

Jul 7, i933 📺

If nothing exists then not even nothing exists; but if not even nothing exists... It's too easy to fall into playing in word games with this question. Wittgenstein would have a field day with it.

Ruubyyy Rod!!!

nothing is never properly defined because there are many degrees of nothing. Lawrence Krauss' nothing for example includes space, time, particles, fields and quantum fluctuations. My own conception of nothing when I was ten was mind blowing because it didn't include any of that. No space, no time, etc.We are talking singularity here because there was no room to breathe. Nothing is not big it is small, because space is something. And similar to the lonely tree falling with no sound there can be no numbers if there is nobody there to add them.

@kingwillie206

6 ай бұрын

His definition does not include space, time, or particles.

sounds like a whole lot of dancing around to get nowhere.

@browngreen933

10 ай бұрын

Trying to "poof" God into existence. 😂

Defining god into existence is fallacious

Is the Universe: Something from Nothing-? Self-Creating from a First Cause-? pointless or purposeful-? random or intentional-?

Please talk to Mohammed Hijab, If you think he's not a sweet, I suggest you to try it yourself. This would help so many of us thinkers from where we grew up to add a one more letters.

Glad you pushed him on this necessary existence stuff. Dean's arguments were weak.

@les2997

10 ай бұрын

Some of the greatest logicians of recent history, such as Gottlob Frege, Alfred Tarski, and Kurt Gödel, held religious beliefs.

@846roger

10 ай бұрын

Very weak!

@clairejohnston2461

10 ай бұрын

@@les2997 I did not suggest that there can be no diety.

@brionhausgeld2415

10 ай бұрын

Every argument that posits a deity/ creator tends to be saying everything and nothing. We are seeking Explanations, not confirmations of prior biases.

@les2997

10 ай бұрын

@@brionhausgeld2415 It's certainly possible to present arguments that posit a deity/creator in ways that do more than merely confirm prior biases. Your claim is incorect.

In your mind, empty out everything that a genie would have to ping into existence in order for it to be. What you are left with is infinite possibility, a void with infinite possibility. From a purely quantum point of view, that has energy, but it would take more energy to empty out that possibility than for it to just be. That quantum field modulates within itself. It is eternal, impersonal, and intelligent. It is intelligent precisely because it is infinite. Zen calls it One Mind. It is dreaming this. It is why, upon realizing this directly, that mystics call it “Awakening.” You awaken to the dream. At this point, ‘You’ are One Mind. When you are asleep in bed and dreaming that you are a character in a foreign city, seeing buildings and people and trees, etc., all of it is taking place in your mind in bed, in a spaceless timeless place. No actual subjects or objects exist despite how real they seem. Now up that a level. All of this dream is taking place in the spaceless, timeless One Mind.

@kos-mos1127

10 ай бұрын

This makes no sense. It is just a meaningless word salad.

@tomjackson7755

10 ай бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 This may be remedial AI.

@williammabon6430

10 ай бұрын

May I weigh in on this matter with scientific proof? Yes! God exists and here is the proof. The Scientific Method “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” a.k.a. Infinity = 1/x(delta) + 1 Step 1 Observation: Math can deliver unbreakable truths such as 2+2 will always equal 4. Step 2 Question: Do math and divinity shall a common truth? Step 3 Hypothesis: If God exists and mathematics can tell us God is real. Then God should be found in the house of mathematics. Step 4 Prediction: The phrase “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” is an equation. Step 5 Test: This test tells us what a number is. A. If God exist then by reason of him actuating the universe His Mind must be infinite, i.e., Infinity. B. The word “is” in common understandings affix a nature of truth. In math the word “is” denotes equality i.e., the (=) equal sign. C. Man like everything that exist is a part of the whole of reality and in math any part of a singular whole is a fraction of that whole i.e., (1/x). D. Change is a physical reality and in math change operates to show a difference, rate, or expansion of some kind. We often illustrate a mathematical relationship that shows the use of change with the Greek letter delta i.e. (Δ). E. The word “with” in common understandings affix a nature of togetherness. In math the word yields the same meaning but is expressed as addition i.e., the plus (+) sign. • Again, if God exists then we have a creator who processes all the necessary and appropriate parts to complete our universe. This situation would make God the first and end of reality. A mathematical logical statement to this kind of situation says the whole of reality is that which identifies as being unbroken, closed, complete and singular and has the nature of being 1. • Infinity = 1/x(change) + 1 Spelled out: A number is a set-in space that changes with space. Example: Note: "X" describes all kinds of sets, (1) describes any kind of space physical or otherwise. This equation tells us why two feet is different from two inches. Both distances measure out as two units of space but there is a change or difference between both units. They are each set in a space of distance, but they represent changes in their measurement of distance. Step 6 Iterate: Fresh look at what makes up reality. Reality consists of three domains of space. a. Fractured space or matter b. spatial expansion or energy c. Complete or unbroken space/information Step 7 Conclusion: We now know Infinity is real. We also know that the value in enumeration for the number infinity demand God exists. Otherwise, the domain for enumeration for any number would be incomplete. It is the set of all inputs that define the function of a set. And in any case that would include the function of any number inside an equation. Enumeration is the act of establishing the number for something. God must be able to count too all the way to Infinity because His mathematical name tells us what is any number. Cantor's Mistake George Cantor, known as the father of set theory, was wrong. There are no sets of numbers larger than Infinity. Cantor's mistake was he did not see that "change" is a subset within Infinity. Cantors one on one correspondence between sets of numbers is wrong. Cantor used only one description of a number from one set to match out or with a number from a different number set. An example of the Cantor method is as follows. Cantor said the whole number set was smaller than the integer number set. This is how he made his measurement. Take the integers 2.1 and match it with the whole number 1. Then match 2.11 with the whole number 2. Then match 2.111 with the whole number 3 and so forth. In this view we would run out of whole numbers when we get to the integer 3.1. This is Cantor's big mistake! Here is a correct set correspondence method. Here is a correct way to measure these two number sets. Match 2.1 with say two. In the next sequence match for 2.1 we could match this integer with 4/2 or 5-3 or the square root of one hundred divided by the square root of twenty-five. The point being we can match any description for the number 2 to continue this [integer- whole] number matching sequence forever. In this way we could then match the integer 3.1 with 9/3 or 7- 4. Again, if Cantor had understood that change describes what any number looks like he would have known there can be no numbers larger than Infinity. Now that we have the knowledge of what is a number. My question is why now? Throughout all of man's conceptual use and beneficial outcomes from using numbers why is it we did not see the anatomy of a number until today? How is it possible that we have been unable to see that numbers do more than describe our physical reality? Here we can see numbers can describe existence outside our perceived notion of reality. Yes, we are creatures of the cosmos and whatever makes up the cosmos is our inheritance. Learning is a part of our cosmos and we do know great discoveries come about over time. There is not always a discovery that changes the world, yet this equation is fundamental to all of existence, and it comes from the creator of this existence. So, again why has this knowledge been away from us so long? Here is my thinking. Mind you my thought in asking then trying to understand this event is not based on math or science but on faith. Some may say humanity is fortunate to have come to this quantitative recognition for the presents of God, but I say we are blessed.

Don't you have to have people before you can have numbers? That hardly makes numbers necessary. Baffling logic. 😮

@CosmoPhiloPharmaco

10 ай бұрын

Well, you have to have a mind. But isn't that what he presupposed when he said God's mind grounds the existence of numbers and other necessary truths? By the way, have you never heard of mathematical Platonism?

@browngreen933

10 ай бұрын

@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco Yes, I get the idea, but how is that any different from saying that Leprechauns or Fairies done it, but just dressed up in fancier language? Seems like philosophers can posit mythological beings ("God") and we're all just supposed to accept it a priori -- or whatever the term is

@williammabon6430

10 ай бұрын

May I weigh in on this matter with scientific proof? Yes! God exists and here is the proof. The Scientific Method “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” a.k.a. Infinity = 1/x(delta) + 1 Step 1 Observation: Math can deliver unbreakable truths such as 2+2 will always equal 4. Step 2 Question: Do math and divinity shall a common truth? Step 3 Hypothesis: If God exists and mathematics can tell us God is real. Then God should be found in the house of mathematics. Step 4 Prediction: The phrase “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” is an equation. Step 5 Test: This test tells us what a number is. A. If God exist then by reason of him actuating the universe His Mind must be infinite, i.e., Infinity. B. The word “is” in common understandings affix a nature of truth. In math the word “is” denotes equality i.e., the (=) equal sign. C. Man like everything that exist is a part of the whole of reality and in math any part of a singular whole is a fraction of that whole i.e., (1/x). D. Change is a physical reality and in math change operates to show a difference, rate, or expansion of some kind. We often illustrate a mathematical relationship that shows the use of change with the Greek letter delta i.e. (Δ). E. The word “with” in common understandings affix a nature of togetherness. In math the word yields the same meaning but is expressed as addition i.e., the plus (+) sign. • Again, if God exists then we have a creator who processes all the necessary and appropriate parts to complete our universe. This situation would make God the first and end of reality. A mathematical logical statement to this kind of situation says the whole of reality is that which identifies as being unbroken, closed, complete and singular and has the nature of being 1. • Infinity = 1/x(change) + 1 Spelled out: A number is a set-in space that changes with space. Example: Note: "X" describes all kinds of sets, (1) describes any kind of space physical or otherwise. This equation tells us why two feet is different from two inches. Both distances measure out as two units of space but there is a change or difference between both units. They are each set in a space of distance, but they represent changes in their measurement of distance. Step 6 Iterate: Fresh look at what makes up reality. Reality consists of three domains of space. a. Fractured space or matter b. spatial expansion or energy c. Complete or unbroken space/information Step 7 Conclusion: We now know Infinity is real. We also know that the value in enumeration for the number infinity demand God exists. Otherwise, the domain for enumeration for any number would be incomplete. It is the set of all inputs that define the function of a set. And in any case that would include the function of any number inside an equation. Enumeration is the act of establishing the number for something. God must be able to count too all the way to Infinity because His mathematical name tells us what is any number. Cantor's Mistake George Cantor, known as the father of set theory, was wrong. There are no sets of numbers larger than Infinity. Cantor's mistake was he did not see that "change" is a subset within Infinity. Cantors one on one correspondence between sets of numbers is wrong. Cantor used only one description of a number from one set to match out or with a number from a different number set. An example of the Cantor method is as follows. Cantor said the whole number set was smaller than the integer number set. This is how he made his measurement. Take the integers 2.1 and match it with the whole number 1. Then match 2.11 with the whole number 2. Then match 2.111 with the whole number 3 and so forth. In this view we would run out of whole numbers when we get to the integer 3.1. This is Cantor's big mistake! Here is a correct set correspondence method. Here is a correct way to measure these two number sets. Match 2.1 with say two. In the next sequence match for 2.1 we could match this integer with 4/2 or 5-3 or the square root of one hundred divided by the square root of twenty-five. The point being we can match any description for the number 2 to continue this [integer- whole] number matching sequence forever. In this way we could then match the integer 3.1 with 9/3 or 7- 4. Again, if Cantor had understood that change describes what any number looks like he would have known there can be no numbers larger than Infinity. Now that we have the knowledge of what is a number. My question is why now? Throughout all of man's conceptual use and beneficial outcomes from using numbers why is it we did not see the anatomy of a number until today? How is it possible that we have been unable to see that numbers do more than describe our physical reality? Here we can see numbers can describe existence outside our perceived notion of reality. Yes, we are creatures of the cosmos and whatever makes up the cosmos is our inheritance. Learning is a part of our cosmos and we do know great discoveries come about over time. There is not always a discovery that changes the world, yet this equation is fundamental to all of existence, and it comes from the creator of this existence. So, again why has this knowledge been away from us so long? Here is my thinking. Mind you my thought in asking then trying to understand this event is not based on math or science but on faith. Some may say humanity is fortunate to have come to this quantitative recognition for the presents of God, but I say we are blessed.

'Nothing'. has no size so it would shrink up its own bottom, leaving nothing but the 'alternative'.

Great video and food for thought. If the universe is all information , and all observable is an expression of information then everything that exists , whatever that might be, has to be part of that information . It feels ridiculous to me to have an entity ( God ) outside of the information making it all happen.

"...a concrete, non physical thing like god..." OH, so water is physical but not wet?

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

What would Hegel call something that was concrete but not physical?

So, before any thinking conscious life occurred in the universe, did 2 + 2 = 4 exist in the universe?

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

10 ай бұрын

*"So, before any thinking conscious life occurred in the universe, did 2 + 2 = 4 exist in the universe?"* ... You already know my take on this. Prior to the existence of the physical universe there was a nondimensional, mathematical form of existence. Each "number" (what we call them) served as a placeholder for something physical and each operator a placeholder for a force used to manipulate the physical. The multidimensional universe emerged as a physical representation of nondimensional mathematics with life emerging as a living representation of physical mathematics and with self-awareness emerging as a self-evaluating representation of living, physical mathematics. There is a pecking order to existence. Can I empirically prove any of this? ... Absolutely not! ... But it does make sense.

@kos-mos1127

10 ай бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC No it does not. Math is what we do not a things in itself. Math is a language that we use to describe the quantity of physical phenomena. The primary reason why it took Albert Einstein to revolutionize physics because back in his time physicists were lost in math. Einstein came along and said what would we physically observe then constructed the mathematics from there.

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC What I like about your philosophy is that it is a complete system and leads toward something that may be eternally meaningful. Although it doesn't sound that great to me it might just be I'm / we are all too far down the road to appreciate such things. My problems, besides not knowing what nondimensional mathematics is, are that your starting point seems arbitrarily chosen and your sequence of steps includes things like logic and mathematics -- of which a strong case could be made, I believe, that they are just useful but flawed human constructs. Does your model allow that every step in the sequence is perhaps a flawed step, but steps that lead forward nonetheless?

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Also, does your model allow that if we are just a moment in the sequence of steps, but that is all; no afterlife, in other words; is that okay?

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

10 ай бұрын

​@@longcastle4863 *"What I like about your philosophy is that it is a complete system and leads toward something that may be eternally meaningful."* ... I agree! I cannot subscribe to any theory that does not offer a *complete package.* That's why constructs that involve infinitely existing "stuff" (God, simulations, multiverse, big bounce, many worlds, etc.) don't register with me. They can't explain where the key subject matter comes from, so they just say, _"It's just always been here!"_ and move on. HeII, you can come up with all kinds of crazy theories when you allow for infinitely existing "stuff," but the unexplainable _elephant in the room_ always remains no matter how eloquent the theory. *"Although it doesn't sound that great to me it might just be I'm / we are all too far down the road to appreciate such things."* ... Over time, people get locked into their preferred ideology. Nobody is going to read something in a comment thread (or a book) and instantly change their entire understanding of existence. And anyone who does probably never thought about existence very deeply in the first place. *"My problems, besides not knowing what nondimensional mathematics is, are that your starting point seems arbitrarily chosen and your sequence of steps includes things like logic and mathematics -- of which a strong case could be made, I believe, that they are just useful but flawed human constructs."* ... First, I argue that mathematics is nondimensional because it's a way to process information and not a "thing," but the process, itself, does exist. There is no length, width, or height associated with mathematics, nor any physical properties attached to it ... but it's integral to comprehension of everything we observe. *Example:* Anyone who sings a song must first think of the lyrics, notes, pitch, and volume before any air ever hits their vocal cords. Everything happening before the vocal cords is *nondimensional information.* Once air hits the vocal cords, physical substance is born (music / sound waves) I carry that same thinking all the way back to the beginning of existence. As with singing, before you get any matter and space, you have to have the framework for matter and space. Logic says it can't be the other way around. Secondly, my starting point isn't arbitrary. 0 and 1 are as rudimentary as conceivability allows, and that's my starting point for "Existence." It follows the same pattern of the hydrogen atom (1 positively charged proton and a negatively charged electron - combined charge is 0) and the same condition for the first prokaryote (most basic form of "life" (1) and "death"(0)). Self-awareness is the evolved ability for you and me to now be discussing 0 and 1 in this thread and both of us knowing what we are talking about (existential understanding through binary logic). Nobody has a problem with regressing self-awareness back to the first modern humans who could independently process logic (comprehension of something vs nothing). Nobody has a problem with regressing life back to the most rudimentary form of biological structure (a procaryote), and nobody has a problem with regressing the universe back to the first representation of stable physical matter (hydrogen atom) ... but people have a hard time taking that "one last step" and regressing physical structure back to the most basic representation of virtual structure that's conceivably possible (mathematics). Everybody wants to stop at the T=0 point of Big Bang even though the pattern tells you there's more. *"Does your model allow that every step in the sequence is perhaps a flawed step, but steps that lead forward nonetheless?"* ... YES! In my book, the first existential smackdown handed to Existence was discovering 1 cannot be divided by 0, which was prior to the emergence of any physical structure. Another flaw is that every evolutionary move into higher complexity becomes equally problematic. And in the realm of life, every evolution into higher intelligence is met with an equal amount of danger. Existence does all of this in its quest to establish *Justification.* And at this point in the journey, Existence is wondering if the prize is worth the amount of suffering required to get there ....... _just like we do._ Theism and atheism are an example of an 13.8-billion-year evolution from 1 and 0, respectively. Theism argues that "Existence" is worth the price paid to achieve it, and atheism argues the cost is way too much for what you get in return. ... That's just 1 and 0 sorting it all out! Existence is currently using self-aware humans to reach a consensus.

Wouldn't string theory bring in a new truth. Insane people often spout off incoherent numbers but cannot ground it's new meaning. Isn't numbers a momentum type of language? God and nature is not motionless, why is maths limited to the version of dead grand theorists?

You actually meet God when you fully understand that the underlying cause of all that we witness in existence is because of consciousness, and more specifically base awareness. This is what allows for any kind of creativity. “The creative I” is the root of us all.

@kos-mos1127

10 ай бұрын

There is no need of an underlying cause for existence since by definition it is. Consciousness has no causal power it only has current knowledge of what it’s observing. There is creativity in the Cosmos but there is no such thing as creation.

God likes a good story

@Braun09tv

10 ай бұрын

God is the opposite of total chaos. Let's face it.

@TJ-kk5zf

10 ай бұрын

@@Braun09tv the opposite of total chaos is total order. That's not good either

@Braun09tv

10 ай бұрын

@@TJ-kk5zf total order is a perfect state. It's the end of the scale. It just is, there is no good or bad. It just is the end of scale.

@TJ-kk5zf

10 ай бұрын

@@Braun09tv you're wrong. a blend of order and chaos results in creativity. the nazis were perfect order. North Korea is perfect order

@Braun09tv

10 ай бұрын

@@TJ-kk5zf how can a human organization ever be perfect when humans are not?

No answers here...great question though.

There is more than enough evidence for the existence of God; seek Him in spirit and in truth,anddl you will find Him.

let U be the set of all that exists supose that nothing exists if nothing exists then U = {} since we were able to build U, it means that U exists since U constains all that exists it means that U ∈ U since U ∈ U and U = {}, then, {} ∈ {} but if {} ∈ {} then it follows that {} = {{}} but the sets {} and {{}} can't be equal since they do not have the same elements therefore that's a contradiction, proving that our initial assumption that nothing exists is false therefore, nothing is not a possibility

God is necessary for many reasons, while numbers are necessary only if something is already in existence. Where there is absolute zero of everything, there can be no numbers. Otherwise, numbers of what? What is there to count, add or subtract? Where there is nothing, number is entirely conceptual. And therefore in that state of nothingness, where there is no mind, number does not exist because numbers are contingent on the existence of a mind to conceptualize them. Number is a working mechanism of a mind. Numbers are products of wisdom and accountancy. Zero of everything plus no mind equal no number. Now, why is God a necessary being? (1) It is not possible for something to come from nothing. It is neccessary for something to have existed eternally, otherwise nothing would exist. (2) It is necessary for that something to be complete (perfect) in itself. The concept of growth or perfecting, contradicts eternal existence. It must be complete and perfect in itself in every way. (3) It is needless to say that that eternal entity is internally complex so as to be the core, the mother, the father of everything in existence including intelligent existence, consciousness and whatsoever. All such things must have derived from that entity.

@kos-mos1127

10 ай бұрын

That is made up.

@bozo5632

10 ай бұрын

So who made god? And where'd he get mammalian morality from?

@peweegangloku6428

10 ай бұрын

@@bozo5632 If you carefully read the comment you are responding to, you will not ask these questions.

@bozo5632

10 ай бұрын

@@peweegangloku6428 Pff

@steve_____K307

10 ай бұрын

​@@bozo5632 Why do people continue to ask that question? There is not a single belief system that can avoid admitting that something eternal must exist, and that all created things owe their existence to that eternal foundation. I'm guessing, Mr Bozo5632, that you would suggest that the physical universe is eternal? -- and I wonder how you respond when someone asks the question "oh, but then who created the universe?". You probably shrug your shoulders and confidently claim that "nobody created the physical universe as it is the eternal base of all existence". Right? But when someone suggests that an un-created eternal consciousness might be at the base of existence you resort to a different sort of logic/rational. Odd.

Wow, what a wonderful interview. The opening line by Robert finally made the ontological argument make sense to me. “It would be a lot easier if nothing existed.“ YES !!! But in that case, why does anything exist? Answer: because there is a necessary Being whose perfection means He needs to exist.

@longcastle4863

10 ай бұрын

By what logic does something being perfect mean it has to exist?

@simonhibbs887

10 ай бұрын

This is basically a variation of the Kalām cosmological argument for an un-caused cause. However there’s nothing to say such a cause would have to be a ‘being’ or would have to be in any sense ‘perfect’. These are complicated heavily loaded terms that can be interpreted in many different ways. They’re just a messy smoke screen for sneaking god into the picture.

Serious question: Do people take this guy seriously? I've never heard of him, and it took about a minute for me to check if this was an Onion piece. "Christian Attempts Philosophy, Says 'nuh uh'."

@williammabon6430

10 ай бұрын

May I weigh in on this matter with scientific proof? Yes! God exists and here is the proof. The Scientific Method “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” a.k.a. Infinity = 1/x(delta) + 1 Step 1 Observation: Math can deliver unbreakable truths such as 2+2 will always equal 4. Step 2 Question: Do math and divinity shall a common truth? Step 3 Hypothesis: If God exists and mathematics can tell us God is real. Then God should be found in the house of mathematics. Step 4 Prediction: The phrase “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” is an equation. Step 5 Test: This test tells us what a number is. A. If God exist then by reason of him actuating the universe His Mind must be infinite, i.e., Infinity. B. The word “is” in common understandings affix a nature of truth. In math the word “is” denotes equality i.e., the (=) equal sign. C. Man like everything that exist is a part of the whole of reality and in math any part of a singular whole is a fraction of that whole i.e., (1/x). D. Change is a physical reality and in math change operates to show a difference, rate, or expansion of some kind. We often illustrate a mathematical relationship that shows the use of change with the Greek letter delta i.e. (Δ). E. The word “with” in common understandings affix a nature of togetherness. In math the word yields the same meaning but is expressed as addition i.e., the plus (+) sign. • Again, if God exists then we have a creator who processes all the necessary and appropriate parts to complete our universe. This situation would make God the first and end of reality. A mathematical logical statement to this kind of situation says the whole of reality is that which identifies as being unbroken, closed, complete and singular and has the nature of being 1. • Infinity = 1/x(change) + 1 Spelled out: A number is a set-in space that changes with space. Example: Note: "X" describes all kinds of sets, (1) describes any kind of space physical or otherwise. This equation tells us why two feet is different from two inches. Both distances measure out as two units of space but there is a change or difference between both units. They are each set in a space of distance, but they represent changes in their measurement of distance. Step 6 Iterate: Fresh look at what makes up reality. Reality consists of three domains of space. a. Fractured space or matter b. spatial expansion or energy c. Complete or unbroken space/information Step 7 Conclusion: We now know Infinity is real. We also know that the value in enumeration for the number infinity demand God exists. Otherwise, the domain for enumeration for any number would be incomplete. It is the set of all inputs that define the function of a set. And in any case that would include the function of any number inside an equation. Enumeration is the act of establishing the number for something. God must be able to count too all the way to Infinity because His mathematical name tells us what is any number. Cantor's Mistake George Cantor, known as the father of set theory, was wrong. There are no sets of numbers larger than Infinity. Cantor's mistake was he did not see that "change" is a subset within Infinity. Cantors one on one correspondence between sets of numbers is wrong. Cantor used only one description of a number from one set to match out or with a number from a different number set. An example of the Cantor method is as follows. Cantor said the whole number set was smaller than the integer number set. This is how he made his measurement. Take the integers 2.1 and match it with the whole number 1. Then match 2.11 with the whole number 2. Then match 2.111 with the whole number 3 and so forth. In this view we would run out of whole numbers when we get to the integer 3.1. This is Cantor's big mistake! Here is a correct set correspondence method. Here is a correct way to measure these two number sets. Match 2.1 with say two. In the next sequence match for 2.1 we could match this integer with 4/2 or 5-3 or the square root of one hundred divided by the square root of twenty-five. The point being we can match any description for the number 2 to continue this [integer- whole] number matching sequence forever. In this way we could then match the integer 3.1 with 9/3 or 7- 4. Again, if Cantor had understood that change describes what any number looks like he would have known there can be no numbers larger than Infinity. Now that we have the knowledge of what is a number. My question is why now? Throughout all of man's conceptual use and beneficial outcomes from using numbers why is it we did not see the anatomy of a number until today? How is it possible that we have been unable to see that numbers do more than describe our physical reality? Here we can see numbers can describe existence outside our perceived notion of reality. Yes, we are creatures of the cosmos and whatever makes up the cosmos is our inheritance. Learning is a part of our cosmos and we do know great discoveries come about over time. There is not always a discovery that changes the world, yet this equation is fundamental to all of existence, and it comes from the creator of this existence. So, again why has this knowledge been away from us so long? Here is my thinking. Mind you my thought in asking then trying to understand this event is not based on math or science but on faith. Some may say humanity is fortunate to have come to this quantitative recognition for the presents of God, but I say we are blessed.

The Greatest Possible Anti-God exists. Therefore... What does it mean to be comparatively greater anyway. The greatest possible argument for the non-existence of god exists..etc... What if the 'greatest-ness' of existence is capped? What if the greatest-possible god is no-god? What if the greatest possible sandwich is capped at the monte cristo?

@williammabon6430

10 ай бұрын

May I weigh in on this matter with scientific proof? Yes! God exists and here is the proof. The Scientific Method “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” a.k.a. Infinity = 1/x(delta) + 1 Step 1 Observation: Math can deliver unbreakable truths such as 2+2 will always equal 4. Step 2 Question: Do math and divinity shall a common truth? Step 3 Hypothesis: If God exists and mathematics can tell us God is real. Then God should be found in the house of mathematics. Step 4 Prediction: The phrase “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” is an equation. Step 5 Test: This test tells us what a number is. A. If God exist then by reason of him actuating the universe His Mind must be infinite, i.e., Infinity. B. The word “is” in common understandings affix a nature of truth. In math the word “is” denotes equality i.e., the (=) equal sign. C. Man like everything that exist is a part of the whole of reality and in math any part of a singular whole is a fraction of that whole i.e., (1/x). D. Change is a physical reality and in math change operates to show a difference, rate, or expansion of some kind. We often illustrate a mathematical relationship that shows the use of change with the Greek letter delta i.e. (Δ). E. The word “with” in common understandings affix a nature of togetherness. In math the word yields the same meaning but is expressed as addition i.e., the plus (+) sign. • Again, if God exists then we have a creator who processes all the necessary and appropriate parts to complete our universe. This situation would make God the first and end of reality. A mathematical logical statement to this kind of situation says the whole of reality is that which identifies as being unbroken, closed, complete and singular and has the nature of being 1. • Infinity = 1/x(change) + 1 Spelled out: A number is a set-in space that changes with space. Example: Note: "X" describes all kinds of sets, (1) describes any kind of space physical or otherwise. This equation tells us why two feet is different from two inches. Both distances measure out as two units of space but there is a change or difference between both units. They are each set in a space of distance, but they represent changes in their measurement of distance. Step 6 Iterate: Fresh look at what makes up reality. Reality consists of three domains of space. a. Fractured space or matter b. spatial expansion or energy c. Complete or unbroken space/information Step 7 Conclusion: We now know Infinity is real. We also know that the value in enumeration for the number infinity demand God exists. Otherwise, the domain for enumeration for any number would be incomplete. It is the set of all inputs that define the function of a set. And in any case that would include the function of any number inside an equation. Enumeration is the act of establishing the number for something. God must be able to count too all the way to Infinity because His mathematical name tells us what is any number. Cantor's Mistake George Cantor, known as the father of set theory, was wrong. There are no sets of numbers larger than Infinity. Cantor's mistake was he did not see that "change" is a subset within Infinity. Cantors one on one correspondence between sets of numbers is wrong. Cantor used only one description of a number from one set to match out or with a number from a different number set. An example of the Cantor method is as follows. Cantor said the whole number set was smaller than the integer number set. This is how he made his measurement. Take the integers 2.1 and match it with the whole number 1. Then match 2.11 with the whole number 2. Then match 2.111 with the whole number 3 and so forth. In this view we would run out of whole numbers when we get to the integer 3.1. This is Cantor's big mistake! Here is a correct set correspondence method. Here is a correct way to measure these two number sets. Match 2.1 with say two. In the next sequence match for 2.1 we could match this integer with 4/2 or 5-3 or the square root of one hundred divided by the square root of twenty-five. The point being we can match any description for the number 2 to continue this [integer- whole] number matching sequence forever. In this way we could then match the integer 3.1 with 9/3 or 7- 4. Again, if Cantor had understood that change describes what any number looks like he would have known there can be no numbers larger than Infinity. Now that we have the knowledge of what is a number. My question is why now? Throughout all of man's conceptual use and beneficial outcomes from using numbers why is it we did not see the anatomy of a number until today? How is it possible that we have been unable to see that numbers do more than describe our physical reality? Here we can see numbers can describe existence outside our perceived notion of reality. Yes, we are creatures of the cosmos and whatever makes up the cosmos is our inheritance. Learning is a part of our cosmos and we do know great discoveries come about over time. There is not always a discovery that changes the world, yet this equation is fundamental to all of existence, and it comes from the creator of this existence. So, again why has this knowledge been away from us so long? Here is my thinking. Mind you my thought in asking then trying to understand this event is not based on math or science but on faith. Some may say humanity is fortunate to have come to this quantitative recognition for the presents of God, but I say we are blessed.

Two blind men groping the elephant. I find it entirely sensible that, the big bang notwithstanding, the universe is eternal. The universe is the necessary being.

@o2xb

10 ай бұрын

Why the universe and not "God"? Can the universe be god if its changing?

@kos-mos1127

10 ай бұрын

@@o2xb The Universe does not change it is a 4d hypersphere.

@o2xb

10 ай бұрын

@@kos-mos1127 its not expanding then or things are not being created and destroyed i.e new forms of life?

@o2xb

10 ай бұрын

@@mazolab infinite universes means impossible to get to the present

@williammabon6430

10 ай бұрын

May I weigh in on this matter with scientific proof? Yes! God exists and here is the proof. The Scientific Method “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” a.k.a. Infinity = 1/x(delta) + 1 Step 1 Observation: Math can deliver unbreakable truths such as 2+2 will always equal 4. Step 2 Question: Do math and divinity shall a common truth? Step 3 Hypothesis: If God exists and mathematics can tell us God is real. Then God should be found in the house of mathematics. Step 4 Prediction: The phrase “God’s Mind Is Man Changing With God” is an equation. Step 5 Test: This test tells us what a number is. A. If God exist then by reason of him actuating the universe His Mind must be infinite, i.e., Infinity. B. The word “is” in common understandings affix a nature of truth. In math the word “is” denotes equality i.e., the (=) equal sign. C. Man like everything that exist is a part of the whole of reality and in math any part of a singular whole is a fraction of that whole i.e., (1/x). D. Change is a physical reality and in math change operates to show a difference, rate, or expansion of some kind. We often illustrate a mathematical relationship that shows the use of change with the Greek letter delta i.e. (Δ). E. The word “with” in common understandings affix a nature of togetherness. In math the word yields the same meaning but is expressed as addition i.e., the plus (+) sign. • Again, if God exists then we have a creator who processes all the necessary and appropriate parts to complete our universe. This situation would make God the first and end of reality. A mathematical logical statement to this kind of situation says the whole of reality is that which identifies as being unbroken, closed, complete and singular and has the nature of being 1. • Infinity = 1/x(change) + 1 Spelled out: A number is a set-in space that changes with space. Example: Note: "X" describes all kinds of sets, (1) describes any kind of space physical or otherwise. This equation tells us why two feet is different from two inches. Both distances measure out as two units of space but there is a change or difference between both units. They are each set in a space of distance, but they represent changes in their measurement of distance. Step 6 Iterate: Fresh look at what makes up reality. Reality consists of three domains of space. a. Fractured space or matter b. spatial expansion or energy c. Complete or unbroken space/information Step 7 Conclusion: We now know Infinity is real. We also know that the value in enumeration for the number infinity demand God exists. Otherwise, the domain for enumeration for any number would be incomplete. It is the set of all inputs that define the function of a set. And in any case that would include the function of any number inside an equation. Enumeration is the act of establishing the number for something. God must be able to count too all the way to Infinity because His mathematical name tells us what is any number. Cantor's Mistake George Cantor, known as the father of set theory, was wrong. There are no sets of numbers larger than Infinity. Cantor's mistake was he did not see that "change" is a subset within Infinity. Cantors one on one correspondence between sets of numbers is wrong. Cantor used only one description of a number from one set to match out or with a number from a different number set. An example of the Cantor method is as follows. Cantor said the whole number set was smaller than the integer number set. This is how he made his measurement. Take the integers 2.1 and match it with the whole number 1. Then match 2.11 with the whole number 2. Then match 2.111 with the whole number 3 and so forth. In this view we would run out of whole numbers when we get to the integer 3.1. This is Cantor's big mistake! Here is a correct set correspondence method. Here is a correct way to measure these two number sets. Match 2.1 with say two. In the next sequence match for 2.1 we could match this integer with 4/2 or 5-3 or the square root of one hundred divided by the square root of twenty-five. The point being we can match any description for the number 2 to continue this [integer- whole] number matching sequence forever. In this way we could then match the integer 3.1 with 9/3 or 7- 4. Again, if Cantor had understood that change describes what any number looks like he would have known there can be no numbers larger than Infinity. Now that we have the knowledge of what is a number. My question is why now? Throughout all of man's conceptual use and beneficial outcomes from using numbers why is it we did not see the anatomy of a number until today? How is it possible that we have been unable to see that numbers do more than describe our physical reality? Here we can see numbers can describe existence outside our perceived notion of reality. Yes, we are creatures of the cosmos and whatever makes up the cosmos is our inheritance. Learning is a part of our cosmos and we do know great discoveries come about over time. There is not always a discovery that changes the world, yet this equation is fundamental to all of existence, and it comes from the creator of this existence. So, again why has this knowledge been away from us so long? Here is my thinking. Mind you my thought in asking then trying to understand this event is not based on math or science but on faith. Some may say humanity is fortunate to have come to this quantitative recognition for the presents of God, but I say we are blessed.

Guys needs know that number not exist. It is express number are tautologia. Guys as philosopher are boring pseud philosopher.

Nothing is a nonsensical concept with no possible definition.

@EyeLean5280

10 ай бұрын

Disagree.

@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC

10 ай бұрын

Agree

A rock that actuality exists is not necessary, but an "abstract being" is necessary? 😮

PERFECT NO-THING-NESS IS NEITHER : TOTAL ; FULL ; COMPLETE ; ULTIMATE ; ABSOLUTE EMPTINESS NOR 🕳⬛⚫◼◾▪🏴TOO.