Originally posted by Grampy BobbyIf it were for Sovereign God, how do you explain them? Supposing the existence of a god doesn't in any way make large numbers easier to explain. Only a good education does.
[b]Question 2: Were it not for Sovereign God, how in the wide world could the "googolplexian"
and/or the symbol for infinity: ∞
ever possibly be explained
? or ¿[/b]
-Removed-Yes, I am sure it is a reasonable interpretation. Not the only one of course.
Its similar to the phrase "be–all and end–all" which is more about importance than the end mentioned in the phrase.
An interesting related question is why theists believe that infinite time exists in the first place. I rather doubt the Bible explicitly says so, and many theists try to use the complications of infinity to try and argue that the universe must have a creator (flawed arguments, but surely they should still apply them to their own beliefs?).
Putting infinite time aside for the moment, suppose that heaven is actually only available for a few billion years and then God either terminates everyone or moves them to some other type of existence. Would it have said so in the Bible? Is there anything to indicate that is not the case? It seems to me that theist make rather a lot of assumptions about heaven from very little information and then get very assertive about it as if they actually have good reasons for their beliefs.
-Removed-And it seems to me that we cannot really know for sure what the writer wanted to impart. I certainly don't agree that your interpretation is the only possible one and you seem a bit too sure of yourself. I have seen a number of other interpretations and I don't see any reason for taking yours over the others. In addition I believe Jewish tradition actually encourages multiple interpretations and it is entirely possible the writer wanted multiple interpretations.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI pick the instant death every time.
Indeed.
Of course my argument is to turn the whole thing on its head.
Take a ludicrously long period of time... Say 3^^^^3 years [^ standing in for "up-arrow"]
and then try to imagine ANY POSSIBLE activity that anything resembling a human
could do for that long that WOULDN'T drive you insane and end up being torture.
I can see no possible exi ...[text shortened]... ven' and 'instant death' as Suzianne likes to argue for...
I pick the instant death every time.
When does the next high speed bus pass by your house?
6 edits
Beyond huge numbers:
"Graham's Number"
" TREE(3) "
" Loader's Number " (520 characters needed to express as a formula)
"Rayos Number" ( Inventor was a philosopher, not a mathematician )
I enjoyed a series of lectures one week on very VERY large numbers with useful purposes.
Ridiculously large numbers which cannot be imagined -
What is Graham's Number ?
What is the Largest Number ?
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)"According to Thomas Aquinas, it is impossible for two distinct causes to each be the immediate cause of one and the same thing. An angel is a good example of such a cause. Thus two angels cannot occupy the same space.[2] This can be seen as an early statement of the Pauli exclusion principle. (The Pauli exclusion principle is a pillar of modern physics. It was first stated in the twentieth century, by Pauli.)
"How is eternity expressed mathematically?" Thread 158620 (30 Mar '14 23:48)
"Here are the largest numbers I could find as a layman's point of reference:
Googol: A large number. A "1" followed by one hundred zeros.
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000, ...[text shortened]... te quantitative/qualitative aspect of an eternity with or separated from God?"
____________________
However, this does not place any upper bound on the density of angels in a small area, because the size r of angels remains undefined and could possibly be arbitrarily small. There have also been theological criticisms of any assumption of angels as complete causes."
http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume7/v7i3/angels-7-3.htm
___________________
Question 3: In your opinion, is it within the realm of remote possibility that the finite maximum number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin could be expressed mathematically by "the Googolplexian: The worlds largest number with a name. A '1' followed by a googolplex of zeros."?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThomas Aquinas was pre-quantum mechanics. Quantum particles do not have a definite position and can occupy the same region of space as each other. The Pauli exclusion principle is a bit more complicated. To answer you question we would need to know what quantum numbers angels have and whether or not they are made up of multiple quantum particles. It must also be noted that not all quantum particles are subject to the Pauli exclusion principle. If photons are angels in disguise then I believe there is no limit to how many could dance on the head of a pin.
Question 3: In your opinion, is it within the realm of remote possibility that the finite maximum number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin could be expressed mathematically by "the Googolplexian: The worlds largest number with a name. A '1' followed by a googolplex of zeros."?
Pro tip: don't get your science from Thomas Aquinas, or any other theologians for that mater.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThe question is not well-defined until "angels" are.
[b]Question 3: In your opinion, is it within the realm of remote possibility that the finite maximum number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin could be expressed mathematically by "the Googolplexian: The worlds largest number with a name. A '1' followed by a googolplex of zeros."?[/b]
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThe definitions of the concept of infinity or some finite number do not invoke gods - mathematics is not "explained" a posteriori but derived from axioms.
[b]Question 2: Were it not for Sovereign God, how in the wide world could the "googolplexian"
and/or the symbol for infinity: ∞
ever possibly be explained
? or ¿[/b]