Infinity, God, and the 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.