Infinity + 1 = Infinity.
You don't understand. There is no infinity plus one, because infinity encompasses all integers, all mass, all space, all time.
quote:
If Ringo were infinite, she would not move on the same timeline as the rest of us. Past, present and future are meaningless because she would exist in all dimensions simultaneously.
You're mangling together infinity, time and "dimensions" with no trace of logic that I can see.
Then let me ask you if you think infinite things travel on a time line like we do. Would something infinite be confined to amble through incrementally as we finite beings do? If yes, explain your rationale.
quote:
For us in real time, the past continuously grows as one moment after another passes from the future into the present. Every moment that is now past was once future, but was added to the past by the passing of time.
That seems circular to me.
That's probably because we think in linear terms. And that is probably due to our current disposition as we are bound by time. I think the point of God is that He is actually supposed to be circular, both the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega. There is no point of beginning and no point of ending.
Man, unfortunately, is limited by the material world. God, at least theoretically, is the spiritual and the infinite. Though He creates the beginning and the end, He is not subject to it. Although there is no dimension of space, time, or matter devoid of Him, He is not composed of it or contained by it.
Therefore, the space-time continuum does not encapsulate or incorporate Him within the universe. For this reason, it is theologically and philosophically understood why God is given the greatest appellation.
If our timeline is infinite, the past and future are both infinite. We're just somewhere on the line. Adding to the past and subtracting from the future would have no effect on the size of the past or the future.
But I don't believe that our timeline is infinite. I'm saying that it cannot be. I'm saying infinite things are not bound by time. We are, which is a sure way of knowing that we can't be infinite, nor can anything tangible be so. We are ephemeral, and He is the eternal.
I already said that the atoms and/or subatomic particles making up the molecules and cells could be eternal.
And Mickey Mouse could live on Saturn for all we know, but without any good reason in believing so, we'll just have to draw conclusions based on our current understanding of things.
quote:
Is it possible that you were once a street sign, at least on a molecular level?
Of course.
Well, certainly the energy within your body is nothing more than reconstituted energy that you got by breaking down carbohydrates and proteins. The very proteins that came from a cow or chicken. But I think this is somehow different than molecules being that it is not the actual same molecule.
To say that a molecule in your body is the same as a molecule found in Plato is like saying that your great-great-great grandfathers uncle is actually you.
I don't see where you've demonstrated that "all matter will die".
What? Ringo, come on. Everything born eventually dies. That's about as axiomatic as it gets. Do you really need a demonstration for that?
If it's so "transparently obvious", why not give a simple reference instead of expecting me to find it in a giant pdf? The least you could do is give a quote. Are you deliberately being evasive?
Excuse me??? You asked for a link. I provided one for you. Your laziness doesn't constitute an emergency on my part.
Or can I take a stab in the dark here and assume that no matter what I post, you will argue for the sake of arguing? I've already known for a long time now that you are a polemicist, but I find it incredible, and slightly disturbing, that you'd actually argue the point that living things die.
quote:
:Finite things need a cause, whereas infinite things do not. Nothing is self perpetuated or uncaused. If it is caused by something else, then it is not eternal-- which a rock surely was. Science has undeniably proven this fact, so I'm not really sure what your objection is.
Kindly direct us to where your reference gives that proof.
I already did. But for the record, are you in disagreement that a singularity is known to the scientific world?
Scientifically, the universe "began" with the Big Bang but philosophically, I see no reason why we can't extend "whatever the singularity was made of" back to infinity. Matter as we know it may have "begun" at the Big Bang, but what about whatever matter is "made of"? If we can talk about an "uncaused cause", why not "unmatter matter"?
There is only one other scenario that I can surmise that can momentarily suspend the need of any infinites. And that is the multiverse theory. We say, yes, all matter began at the singularity, but does that really mean the beginning, or the beginning as we know it?
Is it possible that the beginning of this universe, and all the physical laws that come with it, merely the death throes of another universe with different physical laws?
That's a lot of speculation, but I suppose it is possible-- definintely more so than this universe being infinite.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo
"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt
™ Version 4.2
