Infinite Regression

[Orbie]

Because, as some claim, that even God is merely a concept, a useful concept. Do concepts exist in some sense? Certainly, in the sense of their predication based on some measure of use. If they were not useful, than we would be back to the speechless jungle of the most primitive use of sign language, based on emitted guttural sounds, early forms of body language. Surely speech, through conscious ordering of acquired conceptual signs is better?

[JohnJBannan]

@Orbie

Just because I can’t show you an(1) infinitesimal, is tantamount to saying I can not show you a (4), but only in its application, such as putting apples on the table and saying, there is four of them. Four=4 is another extension of idea of signification conceptual entities. The infinitesimal is an extension to the extension of the concept associated with the use of math. It is pie, for instance which runs the same virtual series . At some point usage implies a limit where the extension of it, reaches a practical limit.
Trigonometric functions develop into limiting situation because of curved, rather than straight surfaces.

Some say even material reality subsists in the mind of God, well at least those who believe it, and continue to want to believe it.

All math depends on material reality. Math is but a means of describing material reality. Math is nothing without material reality (except in the mind of God). There is only the concept of “4”, because material reality creates differences which allow for the concept of 4 things. Math is derived from material reality - not the other way around.

[turtle]

@Orbie

Because, as some claim, that even God is merely a concept, a useful concept. Do concepts exist in some sense? Certainly, in the sense of their predication based on some measure of use. If they were not useful, than we would be back to the speechless jungle of the most primitive use of sign language, based on emitted guttural sounds, early forms of body language. Surely speech, through conscious ordering of acquired conceptual signs is better?

what is your point…

[Orbie]

Infinite regression leads to a point. The point is…virtual, it has no materiality, dimensions, qualities, and yet, Your question can be asked, “what is it”? My point may be very similar to Yours, since we are both alluding to the simple question, what is
an infinitesimal concept? Well, 'In the beginning, was the word…" the answer, to this riddle?

An infinitessimal concept is almost equivocal to the concept of infinity as it has bed. Said of a head of a pin , how many angels can dance on it?

[Orbie]

Errata: prior to last line should read-been said, instead of bed.

[turtle]

@Orbie

Infinite regression leads to a point. The point is…virtual, it has no materiality, dimensions, qualities, and yet, Your question can be asked, “what is it”? My point may be very similar to Yours, since we are both alluding to the simple question, what is
an infinitesimal concept? Well, 'In the beginning, was the word…" the answer, to this riddle?

An infinitessimal concept is almost equivocal to the concept of infinity as it has bed. Said of a head of a pin , how many angels can dance on it?

orb I just don’t understand what you are saying here…

[JohnJBannan]

@turtle

@Orbie

Infinite regression leads to a point. The point is…virtual, it has no materiality, dimensions, qualities, and yet, Your question can be asked, “what is it”? My point may be very similar to Yours, since we are both alluding to the simple question, what is
an infinitesimal concept? Well, 'In the beginning, was the word…" the answer, to this riddle?

An infinitessimal concept is almost equivocal to the concept of infinity as it has bed. Said of a head of a pin , how many angels can dance on it?

orb I just don’t understand what you are saying here…

He’s talking about the ultimate reality being a concept, which of course, is impossible. Concepts are derived from material reality first. The Word is Jesus - and Jesus is not a figure of speech to refer to the ultimate reality of concepts over material reality. Material reality trumps all concepts, including math. God, however, is a necessary immaterial reality which must be real or material reality would not be real. God is also not a figure of speech to refer to ultimate meta-physical concepts.

[Orbie]

That an infinite regression leads or derives to God.Thats the best way it can be put, Turtle.

[turtle]

now I am really a dummy…I like the concept of the ultimate reality of everything…but we don’t know ultimate realities…to try to explain ultimate reality with math or god just doesn’t seem to make sense

[JohnJBannan]

@Orbie

That an infinite regression leads or derives to God.Thats the best way it can be put, Turtle.

But, an infinite regression does not lead to God. It leads to Occam’s Razor. It leads to the argument that because material reality is infinite in scope and time, then what need is there of God? Just skip the God step, and then conclude that there is no God. Explain how exactly you avoid Occam’s Razor? What is the purpose of God then?

[JohnJBannan]

@turtle

now I am really a dummy…I like the concept of the ultimate reality of everything…but we don’t know ultimate realities…to try to explain ultimate reality with math or god just doesn’t seem to make sense

Math is derived from material reality. Math is not a reality in and of itself. God, on the other hand, is that immaterial reality that must exist in order to create time and material reality. Because this immaterial reality must be omniscient in order to choose what particular material reality gets created, then God is more than just a concept but an actual REALITY.

[Orbie]

But, what of the anti-derivitive? I would rather not go there, since I am neither a mathematician, Any mathematicians in the house? James, Ed where art Thou?

[JohnJBannan]

@Orbie

But, what of the anti-derivitive? I would rather not go there, since I am neither a mathematician, Any mathematicians in the house? James, Ed where art Thou?

There is no reason to believe that an antiderivitive of material reality must itself be REAL. Again, such mathematical concepts such as antiderivitive only exist in our minds and only because material reality permits those concepts to exist in our minds (God excepted, of course). TRUISM: NOT ALL MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS ARE REFLECTIVE OF REALITY.

P.S. James doesn’t believe in an infinite material universe because it leads to God, but because he believes that it is mathematically impossible for reality to turn into absolute nothingness. Thus, James believes material reality must have always existed. James has never explained how he avoids Occam’s Razor, however, when it comes to God.

[turtle]

@JohnJBannan

@turtle

now I am really a dummy…I like the concept of the ultimate reality of everything…but we don’t know ultimate realities…to try to explain ultimate reality with math or god just doesn’t seem to make sense

Math is derived from material reality. Math is not a reality in and of itself. God, on the other hand, is that immaterial reality that must exist in order to create time and material reality. Because this immaterial reality must be omniscient in order to choose what particular material reality gets created, then God is more than just a concept but an actual REALITY.

please tell me the nature of that god in science terms

[JohnJBannan]

@turtle

@JohnJBannan

@turtle

now I am really a dummy…I like the concept of the ultimate reality of everything…but we don’t know ultimate realities…to try to explain ultimate reality with math or god just doesn’t seem to make sense

Math is derived from material reality. Math is not a reality in and of itself. God, on the other hand, is that immaterial reality that must exist in order to create time and material reality. Because this immaterial reality must be omniscient in order to choose what particular material reality gets created, then God is more than just a concept but an actual REALITY.

please tell me the nature of that god in science terms

God is that uncaused immaterial force necessary for the creation of initial material spatial Order and time itself.

[turtle]

please tell me the nature of that god in science terms
[/quote]
God is that uncaused immaterial force necessary for the creation of initial material spatial Order and time itself.
[/quote]
is god the big bang singularity…

[JohnJBannan]

@turtle

please tell me the nature of that god in science terms

God is that uncaused immaterial force necessary for the creation of initial material spatial Order and time itself.
[/quote]
is god the big bang singularity…
[/quote]
No. The Big Bang is the creation of initial material spatial Order and time itself. However, the Big Bang did not cause itself. God caused the Big Bang. The singularity was never outside of time, otherwise the singularity would still exist and it doesn’t still exist. So, no, God is not the singularity.

[Orbie]

Well immaterial force is a questionable concept. The anti derivative may lead to finally to resolve tosplit the wave/particle and derive , the, God particle. Reductionism leads to smaller particles, but is this process limitless? If it is, there is that old indiscernable, again, ,regardless , even if it has a limit. At the point where the limited and the unlimited, the differentiable and the anti-integrative meet, but fail to identify it. Certainly CERN has not as yet been able to. And how much money was spent on this effort?

[Orbie]

They are rebooting it at a cost of 9 billion dollars.

[JohnJBannan]

@Orbie

Well immaterial force is a questionable concept. The anti derivative may lead to finally to resolve tosplit the wave/particle and derive , the, God particle. Reductionism leads to smaller particles, but is this process limitless? If it is, there is that old indiscernable, again, ,regardless , even if it has a limit. At the point where the limited and the unlimited, the differentiable and the anti-integrative meet, but fail to identify it. Certainly CERN has not as yet been able to. And how much money was spent on this effort?

The God particle is a particle derived from the Higgs Field. The Higgs Field has its origins in the Big Bang. Plus, there is no reason to believe an antiderivitive of reality must be real. That’s just mathematical analogy without basis in fact. You need to be careful of mathematicians. Many think that just because something makes mathematical sense, then it must exist in reality. This is simply not true.