God and the Immovable Rock

[Kamehameha34]

Conflicting absolutes make me head hurt.

When me head hurtsies, me cries :(

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Mr. Blue Sky God could create a rock that he could not move. He could then, after creating this rock, make himself more powerful and then able to lift the rock. He's like a guy who found a genie with no bounds to his wishes, and asked "can I get infinity wishes, dude?" for his 3rd wish. If he ever finds or creates something he cannot move, he can just increase his power.

God can't move rock.

God.. ANGRY!!

*Pop*

God green now.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 God can't move rock. God.. ANGRY!! *Pop* God green now.

haha yea basically. only with the power to become infinitely greener. and hulkier.

[samsara15]

Foncaei: The famous mathematician Cantor proved that some infintiies are more infinite than others. INF divided by INF is indeterminate. INF added to or subtracted from INF is still INF. The key lies in the countability of the set, and you can look it up in Wikipedia, under Cantor. It makes my head hurt.

[Nathan Struth]

That can't be infinity has no defined range, therefore an infinity of numbers with increments of 0.5 to infinity would be the same as counting by ones to infinity. infinity's infinite I think he's wrong.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Mr. Blue Sky haha yea basically. only with the power to become infinitely greener. and hulkier.

Then that depends on the context of "immovable". Does it mean "Immovable by any sentient being or force currently possible", or "Immovable".

If the first definition applies, then yes, god going hulk would remedy the problem.

[Kuroko]

Ahh, this reminds me of a certain simpsons episode where Homer asks Ned if Jesus could make a borito so hot that not even he could eat it.

I can give you this answer: God could make such a rock, however wherever this rock was made would be movable instead.

In other words, the rock would never need be moved as the world to which the rock exists could be moved instead to place the rock where it were wanted. Omnipotance finds it's way.

[Autolykos]

The "Omnipotence Paradox" is meant to show how the idea of omnipotence is inherently contradictory. However, that in no way disproves the possibility that this Universe was created by some purposeful being.

- Rob

[samsara15]

Who's wrong, Nathan? Cantor? Mathematicians have long since fully accepted his proofs on the countability of sets and degrees of infinity.

[Fonceai]

@samsara

The problem is that "degrees of infinity" is idiotic.

Infinite means infinite.

I understand the concept of varying degrees, but I think Cantor was full of shit.

"Without bounds" means "without bounds". Something can't be "more infinite" than another.

INF - INF = 0
INF / INF = 1
INF - ~INF = INF
~INF / INF = ~0

Infinity is nothing more than a variable with a value so high that you can never actually assign a value to the variable.

[samsara15]

Foncaei: You may think degrees of infinity is idiotic, but mathematics is not a debate. Mathematics is a matter of proof, or lack of proof, and Cantor proved beyond doubt that there are varying degrees of infinite. If you want to argue with reality, that's your privilege, but professional mathematicians will ignore you.

[Fonceai]

I read the papers, and there is as much criticism of the work as there is support. It's a divided issue between practical mathematics and conceptual mathematics.

In this case, I'm using the practical argument, because it's easily observed and easily demonstrated.

I understand varying degrees of infinity, but that means that infinity can be greater than infinity... the same juvenile argument used in schoolyards of "Infinity times infinity". But to me, it's just that; a juvenile argument about something that is clearly defined and has been so for thousands of years.

Applying the varying degrees to the immovable rock scenario does make the answer, "Yes." And it is a conceptual argument.

In that sense, I acknowlege that you found a way to make it yes.

But I just disagree with the theory itself. Nothing against you personally.

[samsara15]

No offense taken, Foncaei. I usually agree with your views on other subjects. Many other people don't care for the concept as well, as you stated.

I am a journeyman mathematician with a BS degree, 40 odd years ago, and have long since forgotten most of what I learned. Even my calculus is weak, from years of disuse, but I try to keep up with the ideas that are current in physics and math, although I do not view myself as knowledgable enough to mount a creditable challenge to them.

[Fonceai]

Yeah, I find that my own math abilities have faded from disuse. My trigonometry sucks but certain theoretical math concepts are still nice and fresh.

Conceptual Infinity is very sexy and fun to think about, but as I wrote, it sounds like little kids with their infinity challenges.

I'm betting Cantor got his idea from some 10 year olds arguing on the playground.

Besides, it seems like cutting corners.

The Yes and No answers using Definitive Infinity that I gave on the previous page are about as conceptual as I get.

[samsara15]

Aleph Null was Cantor's smallest infinity, as I recall. Aleph One was Aleph Null to the Aleph Null power.

How can you raise something to the power of a number that is not a number, but a limit, or a condition? I call Infinity a limit because when I learned Calculus, we learned that a number approached infinity, but never got there, and Infinity meant that the quantity involved was larger than any number. You had to use two numbers, an epsilon and a sigma (or was it a delta?), to express the conditions surrounding the limt. That's how Newton treated it, like a limiting condition.

Cantor was dealing with Sets, however, not numbers, and my knowledge of Set Theory is poor.

Godel loses me, too, in his discussions of Sets that do not contain themselves as a member.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: samsara You had to use two numbers, an epsilon and a sigma (or was it a delta?), to express the conditions surrounding the limt. That's how Newton treated it, like a limiting condition.

Sigma.

Quote by: samsara Aleph Null was Cantor's smallest infinity, as I recall. Aleph One was Aleph Null to the Aleph Null power.

Yup, that's basically it.

He's using Aleph to illustrate Infinity and Null and One and upwards to illustrate powers of infinity. He basically turned infinity into a variable and not a conceptual value.

An * An = A1.
A1 * A1 = A2.

It gets slippery when you do An * A1. The lower quantities are treated like exponential powers.

So where A1 = An * An
A2 = An * An * An * An
A3 = A2 * A2 = An ^ 8

Notice that it's logarithmic, in a way. The number after Aleph is the exponent of 2 for how many Aleph Nulls you're multiplying.

Quote by: samsara Cantor was dealing with Sets, however, not numbers, and my knowledge of Set Theory is poor.

Yeah, and Sets containing Infinity are undefined, if I remember correctly.

That's why he needed to make Infinity a variable.

All it boils down to is that using Cantor's math, God can be more infinite than the rock.

But what about Aleph Infinity?

[samsara15]

Also, Cantor was dealing more with countablity rather than numbers, and one to one correspondences. I suppose an Aleph One set would contain members that were not in (could not be mapped to corresponding members) the Aleph Zero set?

Aleph infinity? I guess that would be the 2nd letter in the Jewish alphabet (Bet?) Since you never really get to infinity anyway, only approach it, would it even exist?

[Castle]

Hmmm...I swear I just posted in another thread about this. Copy and Paste:

A simplistic question with a point behind it.

The answer you're looking for is no. Such a rock cannot exist, because the existence of God precludes the existence of the rock. God cannot create that which cannot be created.

The point:
God's abilities must be ranked in hierarchy over each other: In this case, we have both logic and lifting power coming above creating power. To illustrate the point: why not simply say yes? God can only lift that which can possibly be lifted. We have defined the rock as one which is impossible to life. God cannot do the logically impossible, so it is of no concern to His omnipotence that He cannot lift the rock.

[samsara15]

That makes sense, Castle, similar to my example that God could not have the power to uncreate Himself, so that he had never existed. Or to create another God possessing abilities superior to His own.

[Kuroko]

I have always been astonished at our determination to always begin infinity at one.

I also enjoy toying with the idea of multiple sets of infinity (entities(values), existances, groups of, varying degrees of : infinity) the STATE of an infinite existance or an existance of (any thing) capable of achieving in a state or measurable infinity is fascinating. For instance, if and infinite exists let us say an energy through time, this is a form of infinity that can only exist so long as the state of time remains infinite, time may have been infinite for longer USING the measurement of time, therefore so long as the measurement of time (one infinite) is concerned time will always be more infinite then the other infinite, but only when concering the measurement of one infinite over another infinite, and only while one infinite exists within the other infinite, for instance; If time is infinite in it's proceedings and it's existance then the existance of a state to which time can exist (indeed a universe to which the laws are aligned enough to allow for time to exist) may be measured against time. For instance, the state of time in it's course now can still measure through course of incrimentation (in other words a table with a ruler super glued to it would still have the sections of the table without a ruler super glued to it measurable by the same values as that of the ruler.) so it is possible to measure the time it took for time to exist, except funnily enough, one of the key factors of time is that time is such an existance which itself allows for actions to occure.

Let me explain quickly before I finish up, an arguement I expect to hear would be "right, but what how exactly could there be an existance BEFORE time and suddenly after that existance time exists" or "if you can measure time before time then does not time exist before time?" both of which I think are very closed points.

Watch how I add another infinity to the loop, this is where those with open minds will be rewarded with understandings ever increasingly greater.. erm, unfortunately they will also win the right to have to defend those understandings.

And existance before time is possible, time as we see it is best described as a string, a line where accurances are possible, events and actions may take place proceeding one another due to and thanks to time. Before time existed the most illogical thing to believe is that the absence of time equates to the absence of actions, instead those actions and proceedings would have occured (from a time's point of view, or standpoint) instantly, more to the point they would have occured within the exact same action or process.

Now, this also gives way to one other infinity, if actions can occure within an instant, please don't think of instant as being 'the closest to zero time taken as possible' instead think of it as actions without the need of prior actions to be done within the frame of time as time does not exist, in other words, there is no need for an order as every thing simply is. As I was saying, if actions can occure within an instant then a TRUE infinity can exist, this infinity I refer to is the infinity of actions within the action before time.

This infinite value (of actions or of proceedings) existed before time and holds within it no bounds in the amount of actions possible to be achieved. Maths my friends is actually one of the things which gave me evidence to god, the existance of any way ^_^.

This was not meant to be an arguement against any one. Just some thing I think others may agree was worth throwing out there.