Infinity, God, and the MONAD

[Silent Method]

For those interested in this subject, let me elaborate on "monads" for a moment.

Take any particle of substance. Lets say you start with a grain of dust. Having substance it is divisible. That is, it could conceivably be smaller - cut in half. Do this and you now have two grains of dust, each half the size of the first.

As long as there is substance, you can repeat this process over and over again. Do this an infinite number of times and you will achieve a "particle" that is infinitely small - the monad.

In order for this monad to be infinitely small, it MUST HAVE NO SUBSTANCE!! After all, if it did have substance it would be divisible.

This is the "God particle," and if true (which is entirely logical) it explains how God created the universe out of nothing - nothing save for his infinite ideas!

 

[Silent Method]

^

 

[40butpumpin]

Yeah man, and He's good too. Aren't we fortunate for that.

 

[Silent Method]

Yeah man, and He's good too. Aren't we fortunate for that.

Yes sir.

I believe this "monodology" to be a prime logical argument for his existence. Perhaps you cannot "prove" monodology - we cannot split a substance infinitly. However, it cannot be disproven.

 

[buddy28]

For those interested in this subject, let me elaborate on "monads" for a moment.

Take any particle of substance. Lets say you start with a grain of dust. Having substance it is divisible. That is, it could conceivably be smaller - cut in half. Do this and you now have two grains of dust, each half the size of the first.

As long as there is substance, you can repeat this process over and over again. Do this an infinite number of times and you will achieve a "particle" that is infinitely small - the monad.

In order for this monad to be infinitely small, it MUST HAVE NO SUBSTANCE!! After all, if it did have substance it would be divisible.

This is the "God particle," and if true (which is entirely logical) it explains how God created the universe out of nothing - nothing save for his infinite ideas!

Ive often thought about this. Im no physicist, but the logical conclusion of this compelling thought experiment is certainly fascinating.

 

[Silent Method]

I've read Leibniz's "Monadology," though it's been a while. It's worth the read if your interested. If so, prepare to spend hours analizing passages.


There is a book called "The God Particle." I've haven't read it yet, but I'm sure it's quite interesting. (Probably an easier read than Leibniz's "Monadology").

 

[biteme]

For those interested in this subject, let me elaborate on "monads" for a moment.

Take any particle of substance. Lets say you start with a grain of dust. Having substance it is divisible. That is, it could conceivably be smaller - cut in half. Do this and you now have two grains of dust, each half the size of the first.

As long as there is substance, you can repeat this process over and over again. Do this an infinite number of times and you will achieve a "particle" that is infinitely small - the monad.

In order for this monad to be infinitely small, it MUST HAVE NO SUBSTANCE!! After all, if it did have substance it would be divisible.

This is the "God particle," and if true (which is entirely logical) it explains how God created the universe out of nothing - nothing save for his infinite ideas!

Interesting. Einstein believed in God. There are a lot of people on these boards who think they're too smart to believe in such a thing.

 

[40butpumpin]

Re: Re: Infinity, God, and the MONAD

Interesting. Einstein believed in God. There are a lot of people on these boards who think they're too smart to believe in such a thing.

1 Corinthians 1:18-31

 

[bunnymt]

This concept is entirely possible. There are actual theorems in mathematics that state that there are "things" that exist in our universe that are not describable, the monad seems to fit this description.

 

[jerkbox]

interesting.....

 

[plornive]

Re: Re: Infinity, God, and the MONAD

Interesting. Einstein believed in God. There are a lot of people on these boards who think they're too smart to believe in such a thing.

Another misuse of the word 'God'. Was Einstein speaking of a conscious being, or a pantheistic 'God'?

 

[plornive]

This concept is entirely possible. There are actual theorems in mathematics that state that there are "things" that exist in our universe that are not describable, the monad seems to fit this description.

Elaborate.

 

[plornive]

For those interested in this subject, let me elaborate on "monads" for a moment.

Take any particle of substance. Lets say you start with a grain of dust. Having substance it is divisible. That is, it could conceivably be smaller - cut in half. Do this and you now have two grains of dust, each half the size of the first.

As long as there is substance, you can repeat this process over and over again. Do this an infinite number of times and you will achieve a "particle" that is infinitely small - the monad.

In order for this monad to be infinitely small, it MUST HAVE NO SUBSTANCE!! After all, if it did have substance it would be divisible.

This is the "God particle," and if true (which is entirely logical) it explains how God created the universe out of nothing - nothing save for his infinite ideas!

Why is this "logical"?

Mathematics can express any real value. You can continue to divide a number by two all you want. This concept was invented by humans. Infinity is an idea invented by humans. Why is it logical that you could reach the conclusion you speak of with physical matter (for this question I am sincerely asking you)?

'God' is an anthropomorphism.

 

[bunnymt]

Elaborate.

What would you like to know? Certain axioms of mathematics, including more specifically those within set theory itself, illustrate this concept. One example would be the Axiom of Choice.
Another example would be the infinitely progressing cardinal and ordinal numbers, involving for example aleph-0. More specifically, there are increasing ordinal numbers, such numbers so large that humans know that they exist, but they are not 'describable.'

 

[plornive]

What would you like to know? Certain axioms of mathematics, including more specifically set theory itself, illustrate this concept. One example would be the Axiom of Choice.
Another example would be the infinitely progressing cardinal and ordinal numbers, involving for example aleph-0. More specifically, there are increasing ordinal numbers, such numbers so large that humans know that they exist, but they are not 'describable.'

You said there are "things" that exist in our universe that are not describable. I'm not trying to refute this. Do you include ideas in this set of "things"?

How does this lend credibility to the original post regarding physical matter? I know you just said it was "possible", so maybe I am misinterpreting.

 

[bunnymt]

You said there are "things" that exist in our universe that are not describable. I'm not trying to refute this. Do you include ideas in this set of "things"?

How does this lend credibility to the original post regarding physical matter? I know you just said it was "possible", so maybe I am misinterpreting.

Of course ideas are included in this set. If the 'things' that I am referring to were describable, then they would be more than just merely ideas.
My original attempt to reference to the topic at hand, involved the concept that existence does not directly imply human understanding.

 

[plornive]

Of course ideas are included in this set. If the 'things' that I am referring to were describable, then they would not be merely ideas.
My original attempt to reference to the topic at hand, involved the concept that existence does not directly imply human understanding.

Perhaps some of these "things" are NOT ideas. We can still purport that they exist.

Mathematics and the current school of physics are two different contexts. It would be closed-minded to only consider one, the other or both.

I am not arbitrarily rejecting the idea in the original post --- I just don't see any sequence of reasoning leading to his conclusion. His conclusion seems anthropomorphic and wishful to me.

 

[plornive]

Of course ideas are included in this set. If the 'things' that I am referring to were describable, then they would be more than just merely ideas.

So are you saying that if you exclude ideas, these theorems still prove that there are "things" in the universe that are not describable in mathematical terms? I woudn't try to refute that, but I don't see how it could be proven within the context of mathematics.

 

[buddy28]

Again, Im no mathematician but the mathematical expression of the MONAD thought experiment described by silent_method would, if im not mistaken, look something like this:

(1/2) ^ infinity

or

1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x ....infinity, would yeild:

1/infinity

and if we can recall our intro calculus class 1/infinity = 0.


I like that. The God Particle.

 

[bunnymt]

So are you saying that if you exclude ideas, these theorems still prove that there are "things" in the universe that are not describable in mathematical terms? I woudn't try to refute that, but I don't see how it could be proven within the context of mathematics.

Yes. There are axioms in set theory that assert the existence of undescribable concepts within mathematics. Not everything that exists can be demonstrated in a mathematical proof: this is actually just recently a proven theorem.
Given that mathematics and physics are closely linked, I thought that an idea regarding math could be applied to the concept of a monad.

 

[bunnymt]

\

(1/2) ^ infinity

or

1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x ....infinity, would yeild:

1/infinity

and if we can recall our intro calculus class 1/infinity = 0.


I like that. The God Particle.

buddy28, I am not following your logic, but I am trying to see where you are going with your computation. It is not correct though. 1/infinity =0?? Are you referring to limits? Please explain.

 

[plornive]

Yes. There are axioms in set theory that assert the existence of undescribable concepts within mathematics. Not everything that exists can be demonstrated in a mathematical proof: this is actually just recently a proven theorem.
Given that mathematics and physics are closely linked, I thought that an idea regarding math could be applied to the concept of a monad.

So there are undescribable concepts within mathematics, and physics includes mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts seem to be consistent in physics, so concepts such as infinitely small values support the existence of infinitely small particles. It seems reasonable.

Do you agree with the original post, and if so, how would you translate the creation of the universe to mathematical terms?

 

[plornive]

"This is the "God particle," and if true (which is entirely logical) it explains how God created the universe out of nothing - nothing save for his infinite ideas!"

This is the only statement in the original post I take serious issue with.

 

[plornive]

I like that. The God Particle.

Yeah, it's cute. Isn't it? It just makes me think there is a conscious being behind that monad that created the universe.

 

[bunnymt]

\

Do you agree with the original post, and if so, how would you translate the creation of the universe to mathematical terms?

Yes. Yes. I do agree with the original post. Well, in fact, I try to be open-minded, both a blessing and a curse in mathematics. This means that I cannot prove the statement false, so the idea seems plausible to me.
However, I really have never thought about how to translate the creation of the universe in mathematical terms.
I suppose that a good start would be to assess what I know to be untrue. Then I would attempt to derive something true from what I know to be false. It does not sound logical, but actually some mathematicians utilize this approach within analysis.

 

[plornive]

There are axioms in set theory that assert the existence of undescribable concepts within mathematics. Not everything that exists can be demonstrated in a mathematical proof: this is actually just recently a proven theorem.

Another question for you. This theorem proves the existence of mathematical concepts undescribable by mathematics, right? Isn't it still possible that the physical world is entirely describable by mathematics? I'm not purporting that it is, but I'm trying to find the limits of the conclusion of this proof.

 

[plornive]

Yes. Yes. I do agree with the original post. Well, in fact, I try to be open-minded, both a blessing and a curse in mathematics. This means that I cannot prove the statement false, so the idea seems plausible to me.

If you believe something, you can't logically believe the alternative of it. You are effectively disbelieveing the alternative. Believing something is likely because you cannot prove it false... is not open-minded.

The original post implies that the existence of monads is likely and explains the creation of the universe. It seems like "plausible" means 'likely' to you.

 

[bunnymt]

Another question for you. This theorem proves the existence of mathematical concepts undescribable by mathematics, right? Isn't it still possible that the physical world is entirely describable by mathematics? I'm not purporting that it is, but I'm trying to find the limits of the conclusion of this proof.

Yes. That is exactly what the theorem says. It is possible that the physical world is describable by mathematics. This theorem could be interpreted to mean, IMHO, that the world, the universe, and the creation of the latter, are all math-based. Nonetheless, human knowledge and understanding is limited, so we will never fully understand all that is understandable.

 

[plornive]

Yes. That is exactly what the theorem says. It is possible that the physical world is describable by mathematics. This theorem could be interpreted to mean, IMHO, that the world, the universe, and the creation of the latter, are all math-based. Nonetheless, human knowledge and understanding is limited, so we will never fully understand all that is understandable.

Why does this theorem mean our existense is all math-based? It does not. This theorem doesn't say anything about the physical world unless you prove that the physical world is already consistent with mathematical concepts. If you knew that you wouldn't need this theorem to prove your point...

Now if you said our existence was all meth-based...

 

[buddy28]

buddy28, I am not following your logic, but I am trying to see where you are going with your computation. It is not correct though. 1/infinity =0?? Are you referring to limits? Please explain.

Why isnt it correct? Yes, Im refering to limits.

 

[plornive]

Why isnt it correct? Yes, Im refering to limits.

I think she was just saying that 1/infinity is not a real value and thus not equal to 0, while the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity is equal to 0.

 

[posthuman]

Re: Re: Re: Infinity, God, and the MONAD

Another misuse of the word 'God'. Was Einstein speaking of a conscious being, or a pantheistic 'God'?

Plornive is right.


It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
-- Albert Einstein

 

[Baby Gorilla]

Uh....

....As long as there is substance, you can repeat this process over and over again. Do this an infinite number of times and you will achieve a "particle" that is infinitely small - the monad....

Trivial idea.

They already are down to strings in quantum mechanics. The best visualization is that they are like rubber bands that vibrate. They are the smallest thing yet understood and are not believed to be divisible.

No substance. They are just harmonic vibrations. Essentially, everything is made up of nothing.

Take an asprin or 12 and have a lie down while your brain stops bleeding from the effort of figuring that one out.

 

[40butpumpin]

Oh, how great are the riches of His wisdom and knowledge
How unsearchable for to Him and through Him and from Him are all things

So let us worship before the throne
Of the One who is worthy of worship alone

God is God and I am not
I can only see a part of the picture He's painting
God is God and I am man
So I'll never understand it all
For only God is God

Great IS the Lord

-SCC

 

[plornive]

Oh, how great are the riches of His wisdom and knowledge
How unsearchable for to Him and through Him and from Him are all things

So let us worship before the throne
Of the One who is worthy of worship alone

God is God and I am not
I can only see a part of the picture He's painting
God is God and I am man
So I'll never understand it all
For only God is God

Great IS the Lord

-SCC

You have faith that beyond your realm of understanding, there exists this thing you call 'God', an all powerful, omnipotent, conscious being. That in itself is quite poetic. I'm really not being sarcastic.

 

[plornive]

If you think infinitely small particles can be linked to 'God', look at my old post and tell me what you think. http://boards.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=231924

 

[the nature boy]

I have an M.D. from Harvard, I am board certified in cardio-thoracic medicine and trauma surgery, I have been awarded citations from seven different medical boards in New England, and I am never, ever sick at sea. So I ask you; when someone goes into that chapel and they fall on their knees and they pray to God that their wife doesn't miscarry or that their daughter doesn't bleed to death or that their mother doesn't suffer acute neural trama from postoperative shock, who do you think they're praying to? Now, go ahead and read your Bible, _Dennis_, and you go to your church, and, with any luck, you might win the annual raffle, but if you're looking for God, he was in operating room number two on November 17, and he doesn't like to be second guessed. You ask me if I have a God complex. Let me tell you something: I am God."

 

[plornive]

I have an M.D. from Harvard, I am board certified in cardio-thoracic medicine and trauma surgery, I have been awarded citations from seven different medical boards in New England, and I am never, ever sick at sea. So I ask you; when someone goes into that chapel and they fall on their knees and they pray to God that their wife doesn't miscarry or that their daughter doesn't bleed to death or that their mother doesn't suffer acute neural trama from postoperative shock, who do you think they're praying to? Now, go ahead and read your Bible, _Dennis_, and you go to your church, and, with any luck, you might win the annual raffle, but if you're looking for God, he was in operating room number two on November 17, and he doesn't like to be second guessed. You ask me if I have a God complex. Let me tell you something: I am God."

plornive's modified cliche... "There are no atheists in foxholes, but when the shit hits the fan you better cut the bullshit and face reality"

 

[40butpumpin]

You have faith that beyond your realm of understanding, there exists this thing you call 'God', an all powerful, omnipotent, conscious being. That in itself is quite poetic. I'm really not being sarcastic.

Love, Compassion, Truth, Forgiveness and Grace. That is the only way I know to describe God.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

True belief, however, comes only by Faith, and Faith cannot be defined my logic.

The bottom line is if you call on Him and mean it, he'll be there. No ifs, ands or buts.

It's as simple, or hard, as that, brother.

Poetic, maybe. Hope, Peace, Life, definitely.

 

[Lift Chief]

I have an M.D. from Harvard, I am board certified in cardio-thoracic medicine and trauma surgery, I have been awarded citations from seven different medical boards in New England, and I am never, ever sick at sea. So I ask you; when someone goes into that chapel and they fall on their knees and they pray to God that their wife doesn't miscarry or that their daughter doesn't bleed to death or that their mother doesn't suffer acute neural trama from postoperative shock, who do you think they're praying to? Now, go ahead and read your Bible, _Dennis_, and you go to your church, and, with any luck, you might win the annual raffle, but if you're looking for God, he was in operating room number two on November 17, and he doesn't like to be second guessed. You ask me if I have a God complex. Let me tell you something: I am God."

Great quote right there... fantastic.

 

[Silent Method]

Re: Uh....

Trivial idea.

They already are down to strings in quantum mechanics. The best visualization is that they are like rubber bands that vibrate. They are the smallest thing yet understood and are not believed to be divisible.

No substance. They are just harmonic vibrations. Essentially, everything is made up of nothing.

Take an asprin or 12 and have a lie down while your brain stops bleeding from the effort of figuring that one out.

Uh, dude, you just reinforced the "trivial idea" of monodology with modern theoretical physics. I think maybe you should lie down for a bit and let your brain cool off.

 

[Silent Method]

Re: Re: Infinity, God, and the MONAD

Lots of good discussion here...

Why is this "logical"?

In it's very being, it is a system of logic. The question of whether it is manifest in reality is open for debate. In order to prove such a thing you would have to be capable of giving regard to an infinity of monads - you'd have to be God.

However, the system of logic in the monodology is compatible with our understanding of physics and calculus. Likewise, the variables in monodology are contingent agreeable to one another.

 

[plornive]

I can see why these particals would be hypothesized. However, I don't see why 'God' would be the conclusion. 'God' is not necessary for something infinite to exist. 'God' would necessarily be a conscious being, or it shouldn't even be called 'God'.

 

[muscle_geek]

I have an M.D. from Harvard, I am board certified in cardio-thoracic medicine and trauma surgery, I have been awarded citations from seven different medical boards in New England, and I am never, ever sick at sea. So I ask you; when someone goes into that chapel and they fall on their knees and they pray to God that their wife doesn't miscarry or that their daughter doesn't bleed to death or that their mother doesn't suffer acute neural trama from postoperative shock, who do you think they're praying to? Now, go ahead and read your Bible, _Dennis_, and you go to your church, and, with any luck, you might win the annual raffle, but if you're looking for God, he was in operating room number two on November 17, and he doesn't like to be second guessed. You ask me if I have a God complex. Let me tell you something: I am God."

Get a grip man. You're a mechanic.

 

[Sinistar]

Get a grip man. You're a mechanic.

hes quoting malice i believe.

did you know that there are 6 dimensions? this according to hawkins. thats the only way some of einsteins shit and hawkins shit can meet up. its in his latest book.

as for me, i beleive in god. there is no doubt in my mind about him. i find that most ppl who like to try to tear down god are ppl who have a hard time accepting responsiblity, like having a child unexpectedly, or are trying to soothe themselves for being titanic assholes. ill tell you, if you dont beleive, thats fine. but you claiming he dont exist, well you dont know any better than i do. so in your logical world, your being a fucking idiot.

no one on here is trying to convert anyone.

 

[Silent Method]

I can see why these particals would be hypothesized. However, I don't see why 'God' would be the conclusion. 'God' is not necessary for something infinite to exist. 'God' would necessarily be a conscious being, or it shouldn't even be called 'God'.

If I remember correctly, Leibniz addresses the "conclusion" of God in the "Monadoloy," but I don't have it down well enough to present it here.


Regardless, the point of my first post was not that this monodology proves God, but it does offer insight into the possibility of a Creator who created the universe out of "nothing."

As for the statement '"God' is not necessary for something infinite to exist," I would argue that God is necessary for anything to exist. I believe God IS the totality of the universe.

 

[Lift Chief]

If I remember correctly, Leibniz addresses the "conclusion" of God in the "Monadoloy," but I don't have it down well enough to present it here.


Regardless, the point of my first post was not that this monodology proves God, but it does offer insight into the possibility of a Creator who created the universe out of "nothing."

As for the statement '"God' is not necessary for something infinite to exist," I would argue that God is necessary for anything to exist. I believe God IS the totality of the universe.

So it is possible that monads exist... however, i think most of us are having a hard time believing that just because this particle exists it necessarily proves the existence of God... seems like too big of a jump in logic to me.

When the Universe was first forming physicists theorize that time may have behaved differently, therefore allowing something to be created from nothing. Many physicists accept this idea as entirely possible... except the inital building blocks were atoms that spontaneously appeared, not monads.

There are both other possible explanations for why monads exist... and there are also counter-theories like the one i just presented about how the matter in the Universe first appeared and formed.

 

[plornive]

As for the statement '"God' is not necessary for something infinite to exist," I would argue that God is necessary for anything to exist. I believe God IS the totality of the universe.

Ok, so your point is regarding the possible creation of the universe. I don't see the connection, but I am not saying it's not there.

So to you, 'God' is the creator and "God IS the totality of the universe". Isn't that just semantics? We could just say the universe transformed, and get rid of the concept of 'God'. Why do you choose the word 'God', which is associated with the Abrahamic idea of 'God', a conscious being? Or do you believe 'God' is conscious? Just wondering.

 

[buddy28]

I think she was just saying that 1/infinity is not a real value and thus not equal to 0, while the limit of 1/x as x approaches infinity is equal to 0.

I forgot the proper expression, but thats what i was driving at.

 

[40butpumpin]

The truth is that knowledge and understanding of God only comes from revelation by God Himself. My points seem irrational and irrelevant I know, however, I am more sure about this than anything else I know.

 

[Silent Method]

The truth is that knowledge and understanding of God only comes from revelation by God Himself. My points seem irrational and irrelevant I know, however, I am more sure about this than anything else I know.

Right on. Plornive and others, I associated 'God' with the Abrahamic idea of 'God' because I believe in the God of Abraham.

 

[casualbb]

find that most ppl who like to try to tear down god are ppl who have a hard time accepting responsiblity, like having a child unexpectedly, or are trying to soothe themselves for being titanic assholes.

Get off your religious pedestal. You just contradicted yourself by being a "titanic asshole."

-casualbb

 

[AgainstAllOdds]

Get off your religious pedestal. You just contradicted yourself by being a "titanic asshole."

-casualbb

No one is perfect...and I don't think he was being an asshole.

 

[casualbb]

He made a blanket insult about atheists, which includes myself. I am offended. It would be like if someone insulted your minority group.