Infinity, God, and the MONAD

[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.