Re: The modern mathematical concept of infinity is indefensible

Michael Press wrote:

In article <3ea73295-c9c7-4668-a867-255b863f2ca9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
umumenu@xxxxxxxxx wrote:


On 30 jan, 21:03, Virgil <Vir...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <8156c$49831e5e$82a1e228$15...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Han de Bruijn <Han.deBru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:






Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

Han de Bruijn <Han.deBru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

Han de Bruijn <Han.deBru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

David R Tribble wrote:

What's being discussed (rather erratically) is the apparent
contradiction between Han's insistence that actualinfinity
cannot exist, and his insistence that Creationism is a more
valid theory of the origin of the Universe than the Big Bang.

Except that I did NOT say the latter. Merely suggesting the alternative
makes me already a fundamentalist, in the eyes of the narrow-minded.

You *did* evidently say that Creationism is a more plausible theory
than the Big Bang, which you dismissed as plainly false. Here, let's
refresh your memory.

,----
| Virgil wrote:
|
| > In article <ddc9b$497d7185$82a1e228$8...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
| > Han de Bruijn <Han.deBru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| >
| >>Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
| >>
| >>>umum...@xxxxxxxxx writes:
| >>>
| >>>>There hasn't been a Big Bang.
| >>>
| >>>It's fascinating to see just how much you know! You're so much
| >>>smarter than all those ivory tower posers.
| >>
| >>Do you know what empirical evidence is in support of a Big Bang ? Do
| >>you
| >>agree that assuming the existence of a Big Bang is a huge
| >>extrapolation
| >>of this empirical evidence ?
| >
| > Is there any better evidence for some other beginning?
|
| Good old Creation ?
`----

All can I see is a question mark an the end, not an exclamation mark.

You clearly said that the Big Bang theory is false.

Unless you believe that Creationism is also obviously false, then it
seems to me that you are committed to the view that Creationism is
more plausible than the Big Bang theory.

Is Creationism an obviously false theory? If not, do you retract your
claim that the Big Bang theory is obviously false?

You force me to choose between black and white. How about colour?
There are aspects in both theories that may turn out to be false.
There are aspects in both theories that may turn out to be true.

But creationism's "truth" is purely a matter of anti-scientific faith,
not fact. So establishing its truth is forever beyond reason.




The part of the Big Bang theory saying that the universe starts with
a singularity is obviously false. Because there ARE NO singularities
(empirically) in Physics: Horror Infiniti.

That there are no "infinities" in physics, does not prove that there
never have been any in the possibly actually infinite past.

If the past is not actually infinite, then there was a unique beginning,
which might well qualify as a singularity by any standards.




The order in which life forms appear on earth according to the Bible
is NOT even TOO much deviant from the same order in evolution theory,
given the fact that the writers were illiterates, according to some.

http://www.carm.org/kjv/Gen/Gen_1.htm

Not bad for a first approximation, I'd say ..

Doesn't "'Let there be light', and there was light" qualify as a
discontinuity/singularity?

If an electron jumps (Hey ! Natura _facit_ saltus here) from a higher
to a lower energy level, then a photon is created (indeed: _created_).
Is such creation of a photon a singularity ? I think not. So, is "let
there be light" a singularity ? I think not.


Photons are a pure mental construct. We only ever observe energy
transitions in material bodies. We never observe a photon.

Sure. Apples are a pure mental construct. We only ever observe tasty
experiences in our material bodies. We never really observe an apple.

Han de Bruijn

.

Relevant Pages