Pick one? I thought I just did? Discrete timeless points are created, and then replaced by adjacent discrete timeless points skipping an infinity of points in between.
I explain this in my large post… but the function of every paradox, the root code of a paradox is that something must necessarily be something other than what it necessarily is. All paradoxes rely upon this root. This means that something holds it’s identity, while becoming a different identity.
"What this means, is that if say, my coffee cup was a bound infinity… I’d be processing forever or infinitely fast, which means it could never actually be there.
The problem that arises with several old paradoxes, is that people keep thinking you can actually process a bound infinity, think of zeno’s paradoxes, instead of being able to solve it as necessarily needing to destroy the scenario. What happens with these paradoxes as well is that we are not stepping on the same ground twice… and this goes to the concept of division. One of the ideas of a bound infinity is that you can divide something an infinite number of times… there are many problems with this, but the most glaring is that once you divide it even once, it ceases to be the same object, thus by contradiction, you cannot divide it anymore, it becomes a new object… and resolves paradoxes such as this. The asymmetry doesn’t let us process unbound infinities."
This was quoted from that long monstrosity I posted first on this site. The point of this is, when you divide an object even once, it ceases to be the same object, thus by contradiction, you cannot divide it anymore, because it’s not what it was anymore… it’s something new, and because of this something new, the motion keeps occurring instead of being stuck in infinite regress.
The problem with paradoxes is simply ignorance of how to resolve them - not destruction per se. An object is made of discrete indivisible packets of infinite points that God has made real by distinguishing this infinite packet of points from another possible but not created packet of infinite points. This packet is what I mean by discreteness. The division of any object is only the creation of and replacement of the old aggregation of discrete points with a slightly newer set of now created distinguished infinities. Hence, the identity principle itself only comes to play in speaking of a particular discrete point in infinity whether that point is turned “on”, i.e. made real, or turned “off”, i.e. not made real. So, the movement of objects is really just an adjustment of the creation matrix from one point to another point in reference to God’s mind. Thus, any aggregate object can be divided, because the divided object is not completely the same thing as the original object in terms of the creation matrix. There is no paradox, just ignorance as to how to resolve the paradox, which I just did!
That’s not true… and it gets to the other point you made about what i said. I believe all universes are finite… I believe there are an infinite number of universes though… an infinite multiverse. The situation with the Zeno paradox, is that you cannot divide something and have it be the same object, so the runner moves to a different object, in terms of division, this universe is finite, so eventually, because Achilles is dividing the segments faster than the Tortiouse, achilles reaches the finite finish line first. When I was talking earlier about hell being finite, that’s because the universe is finite, and after hell people don’t make the same mistake twice, so it’s very efficient. Since everyone on earth is collaborating with the process of runaway sexual selection, except for a few, that makes the multiplier for them to be about 300 billion years in hell each. Being involved in the creation of a runaway sexual selection species has a multiplier of all of those hells… so trillions of years.
I am sorry to ignore your sexual selection argument, but I don’t want to be distracted by non-cosmos based arguments - at least not yet.
Now, I am confused by what you said. Your theory involves infinitesimals. But, now you’re saying the universe is finite and you seem to be resolving Zeno’s paradox based on a finite invisible unit of space aka Plank’s constant. However, a packet of discrete points over a limited range of infinity, e.g. let’s say all point between One and Two, would seem to solve the problem. The packet would be a discrete indivisible unit of matter while at the same time being composed of an infinite number of discrete points. Also, the creation of said packet followed by the creation of an identical packet some distance apart with the de-creation of the first packet would solve Zeno’s paradox. So, why is this wrong?
You can divide the smallest particle once, but then you’ll become smaller than the particle, and it will become a universe around you. The amount of energy it takes to divide the smallest particle is the size of a universe.
You can’t have bound infinities or completed infinities… man I’ve explained this to you like ten times already. If you have a coffee cup that can be divided an infinite number of times, it would take forever to be able to see it, if however you processed it infinitely fast, it would take zero time to see it… either way, you never see the coffee cup.
100% Nothing doesn’t exist and every permutation of infinity does that doesn’t contradict itself. I honestly believe that someone going to hell forever, for example, is against cosmic law, just like nothingness is against cosmic law.
Counting requires material time. God is not subject to material time, because God is not a creation but uncaused. God would have knowledge of all numbers but I cannot say whether God could count them all Himself. However, God could create an infinity of universes where the sole job in each universe was for someone to call out one specific number. In this fashion, God could have all the rational numbers counted.
I trust people when they speak about red shifting and blue shifting, though I’ve never observed it personally. I can hold the idea that a universe was created and not created at the same time, but I don’t think the cosmos was created. This get’s into your next post… clearly God doesn’t embody infinity then, even though infinity is actually expressed… so infinity is greater than God.
I never said God doesn’t embody infinity. I said I don’t know whether God Himself could count all real numbers, only because the act of counting is a material act in material time. I don’t know enough about God’s immaterial reality to say one way or the other.
God certainly does embody infinity in the sense that God is the “embodiment” of the inherent nature of the universe to create.
Indeed, I told you God could create an infinite number of universes with one person in each universe whose sole job it was to count out one particular number. I don’t see how this trick is any bit inferior to anything infinity has to offer.
