INFINITY and GOD.

[socratus]

In scientific and popular publications we can see an often usage
of a word “infinity”.
For example: the space is infinite, time is infinite, and the Universe is infinite.
But anywhere it is not explained, how exactly the infinity is connected with
concreteness.
One understands infinity as the opportunity to move infinitely on a straight line,
never encountering any barrier.
The other understands infinity as an opportunity to increase the numbers infinitely
(atoms, stars, galaxies, the moments of time) 1, 2.3, … … etc,
always adding one point to the number already counted.
G. Hegel has named such understanding of infinity as “bad, unreasonable”.
Hegel thought, that in contrast to "bad" should exist also the
“Reasonable infinity “.By his opinion, the REASONABLE INFINITY
should be something positive and concrete.
At the same time he demanded to specify the following:
1) a сonnection between the infinite and the concrete,
2) a сonnection of infinity not only with quantity, but also with quality,
3) to explain an inconsistent character between the infinity and
the concreteness.
For thousands of years people used a concept of God in order
to explain this interrelation.
But Hegel would like to find more rational, scientific explanation.
======================
And how does the modern science refer to this question?
The concept of infinite, eternal, absolute means nothing
to a scientists, causes them bewilderment and "horror".
They do not understand how they could draw any real,
concrete conclusions from these characteristics.
A notions of "more", "less", "equally, "similar" could not be conformed
to a word infinity or eternity.
The Infinity/Eternity is something, that has no borders,
has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
infinity/eternity defies to a physical and mathematical definition
and cannot be considered in real processes.
Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement
(on a level of censor of the law):
« If we want that the theory would be correct,
the infinity/eternity should be eliminated ».
Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities,
all intellectual energy to the elimination of infinity.
They think out various mathematical cunnings
(method of renormalization) .
.However, R. Feynman said, that:
«The method of renormalizations is a way
to tidy up rubbish under a carpet».
Using artificial mathematical methods, it is possible to get out
of any theoretical difficulty, but the question remains:
«What relation does it have towards nature? »
================
Whether it is possible to give a specific
characterization to a REASONABLE INFINITY?
Yes. It is possible.
Now it is consider, that reference frame connected with
relict isotropic radiation T = 2,7K is absolute.
But T = 2,7K is not a constant factor.
This relict isotropic radiation continues to extend and decrease
and, hence, in the future will reach T=0K.
The Universe is Nothing: T=0K.
The Physics is first of all Vacuum:T=0K.
Absolute God can exist only behind this
Absolute reference system : Vacuum T=0K.
=====================
The Quantum physics approves, that in the beginning
God /Vacuum created " virtual particles ".
What a geometrical and physical parameters can
the “virtual particles’ have in Absolute Zero, in T=0K?
==============
Vacuum in the beginning has created the " light quantum ".
And from all particles, only and only the quantum of light
is a privileged particle.
Only the light quantum has
a maximal, constant, absolute quantity of c=1.
No other particle can travel with the speed c = 1.
If quantum of light always flies rectilinearly c=1, it is a mad one.
Is he (it) really mad?
No.
In Vacuum, in a condition of rest
its internal impulse is equal to zero h=0.
But Quantum of Light has two kinds of internal impulse.
1)Under one internal impulse (Planck,s spin h =1)
a quantum of light flies rectilinearly with speed (c = 1).
A quantum of light behaves as a particle.
2) Under other internal impulse
(Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck's spin ħ = h / 2pi)
a quantum of light rotates around of his diameter
and is known as electron.
A quantum of light behaves as a wave.
Very strange particle is quantum of light.
Quantum of light stays in Vacuum and on it nobody and nothing renders influence.
It is independent and makes a decision in which of three conditions it occurs.
1. In a condition of rest its internal impulse is equal to zero h=0.
2 .In a condition of uniform rectilinear movement its impulse h=1.
3. In a condition of rotation around of his diameter its impulse ћ =h/2pi.
So it can work only with particle that has his own consciousness.
They are alive, spiritual particles.
His own consciousness is not static but can develop.
The development of conscious scale goes
" from vague wishes up to a clear thought ".
This evolution proceeds during hundred millions (billion) years.
====================
On the question:
What inhale the Life in formulas and equations ?
What must be present in a body to make it alive ?
The answer is:
Soul. Quantum of Light.
Because, from all particles,
only and only the quantum of light is a privileged particle.
================
All of us have the personal God and it is Quantum of light.
============
http://www.socratus.com

[Epsilon=One]

For example: the space is infinite, time is infinite, and the Universe is infinite.
But anywhere it is not explained, how exactly the infinity is connected with
concreteness.It appears that you are confusing the words “infinite” and “infinity.” Something that is infinite can be quite large and even unending. Infinity is a singularity that is beyond existence . . . a precise limit that cannot be reached.

To bring attention to the term "infinity" as connoting something beyond existence that is precisely identified, I use the upper case “I” and italics; thus: Infinity.

Therefore, I would argue that space and time are not ; as, they exist.

Obviously, [I]Infinity has no connection with any of the concepts that “concreteness” may imply, other than Infinity is the only provable because it cannot be disproved.

One understands infinity as the opportunity to move infinitely on a straight line, never encountering any barrier.You are confusing unending or infinite with “infinity.”

The other understands infinity as an opportunity to increase the numbers infinitely (atoms, stars, galaxies, the moments of time) 1, 2.3, … … etc, always adding one point to the number already counted.NO! for the reasons stated above.

G. Hegel has named such understanding of infinity as “bad, unreasonable”.Hegel was correct; though, not entirely for the proper reasons; as, Hegel, by qualifying/quantifying “infinity,” did not have much of an understanding of “infinity” as a singularity. A situation that continues to exist in academia to this day.

For thousands of years people used a concept of God in order to explain this interrelation.

But Hegel would like to find more rational, scientific explanation.”For thousands of years people” were closer to being correct than Hegel.

And how does the modern science refer to this question? The concept of infinite, eternal, absolute means nothing to a scientists, causes them bewilderment and "horror".

They do not understand how they could draw any real, concrete conclusions from these characteristics.

A notions of "more", "less", "equally, "similar" could not be conformed
to a word infinity or eternity.

The Infinity/Eternity is something, that has no borders, has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything. Now, you are beginning to get it right.

Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the infinity/eternity defies to a physical and mathematical definition and cannot be considered in real processes.Unfortunately, you are quite nearly correct.

Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement (on a level of censor of the law): « If we want that the theory would be correct,
the infinity/eternity should be eliminated ». Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities, all intellectual energy to the elimination of infinity.You are again quite nearly correct. Thus, “they” will never be able to fully and fundamentally understand our environment: Reality.

They think out various mathematical cunnings (method of renormalization).

However, R. Feynman said, that:

«The method of renormalizations is a way
to tidy up rubbish under a carpet».

Using artificial mathematical methods, it is possible to get out
of any theoretical difficulty, but the question remains:
«What relation does it have towards nature? » Feynman, as usual, is correct.

Whether it is possible to give a specific
characterization to a REASONABLE INFINITY?
Yes. It is possible.
Now it is consider, that reference frame connected with
relict isotropic radiation T = 2,7K is absolute.
But T = 2,7K is not a constant factor.
This relict isotropic radiation continues to extend and decrease
and, hence, in the future will reach T=0K.
The Universe is Nothing: T=0K.
The Physics is first of all Vacuum:T=0K.
Absolute God can exist only behind this
Absolute reference system : Vacuum T=0K.You are thinking along the proper lines. Consider: Without motion there is no temperature; without motion there is no existence; the absence of motion is Infinity. Note how Pulsoid Theory (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PTis) (PT) builds from seminal motion (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/CASA) to consciousness.

The Quantum physics approves, that in the beginning
God /Vacuum created " virtual particles ".
What a geometrical and physical parameters can the “virtual particles’ have in Absolute Zero, in T=0K?Not quite. “Virtual particles” didn’t appear for some time along the evolutionary route of motion. For some heuristic concepts of seminal geometry see PT’s: Dynamic Separation (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/DS) and Quantum Constants (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/QC).

Vacuum in the beginning has created the " light quantum ".
And from all particles, only and only the quantum of light
is a privileged particle.
Only the light quantum has
a maximal, constant, absolute quantity of c=1.
No other particle can travel with the speed c = 1.
If quantum of light always flies rectilinearly c=1, it is a mad one.
Is he (it) really mad?There is no such “thing” as a “vacuum”; see: Dyosphere (http://www.Dyosphere.com). The speed of light is not constant. A quantum “field” is created before the creation of your light “privileged quantum.” Though, in some ways, even if incorrect, you have a rough understanding of what is happening.

Very strange particle is quantum of light.Yes; and you really don’t seem to understand the internal geometry or etiology of a "quantum of light." But, then, academia doesn’t either.

Quantum of light stays in Vacuum and on it nobody and nothing renders influence.No. And, no.

So it can work only with particle that has his own consciousness.
They are alive, spiritual particles.Particles and light do not have “consciousness”; nor, are they alive and spiritual as usually connoted by the terms "alive" and "spiritual."

…evolution proceeds during hundred millions (billion) years.Much longer. Evolution is never ending. If you need a number it would be very much greater than the current estimated age of the Universe to an exponent of that age.

On the question:
What inhale the Life in formulas and equations ?
What must be present in a body to make it alive ?
The answer is:
Soul. Quantum of Light.Not really. There are manifestations much more fundamental than a “Quantum of Light”; and, “Soul” is a metaphysical term that is not applicable to science.

Because, from all particles, only and only the quantum of light is a privileged particle.
================
All of us have the personal God and it is Quantum of light.No; though, depending upon definitions of your terms. Broadly defined you may be correct; however, from this post and your referenced website, it is apparent that you don’t have a very clear and logical understanding of either “God” or “Quantum of light.”

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

http://physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109

Infinity definition post #4

This threads (#4) on the defining of "Infinite"...


Says this... (With a typo correction too)
© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMV

This is what I had originally posted at that site, something that I had (God's Grace) Come up with back in 1999 while I was Living in Calgary, Alberta...it has been "released" concerning Copyright so anyone can copy and or use it

(prefferably acknowledgeing the Author, Me! Mr. Robin Parsons, oherwise it is free to use)

http://www.astronomyphysics.com/rea...f=35&i=126&t=44 (]posting[/url)

Author: Mr. Robin Parsons (---.kingston.net)
Date: 09-27-02 07:49

It is about a simple as this, it is a childs joke, Q?; How many sides to a circle?
Answ; Two (2) inside and outside!

That is actually the definition of a delineated space, and that is also the reality of every single thought that has passed through your head, they are delineations of space.

The definition of infinity is "Un-delineated" space, so we can clearly see that infinity is NOT a thought that can arise in your head.

Simple!


--------------followed by the arguement

Author: Mr. Robin Parsons (---.kingston.net)
Date: 09-28-02 09:12

As the definition, according to encarta, is 'limitless', the answer I have used, undelineated space is correct.

What is really states is that infinity is something that you cannot draw a picture of, as all drawings are delineations of space, LIMITATIONS, and the definition of infinite is un-limited.

Ergo, my explaination stands

Telling me about singularities is telling me about something that is well defined, and can be circ umscribed, or drawn, even if the scale is impossible to etch out in reality, it is still visible.

Try it this way, imagine looking at the entire surfact of a sphere all at once, you can realise that you would 'see' nothing as it would appear flat to you, without definition, as in undefined, or un-delineated.

Thanks,


You cannot either draw a circle on an outside, nor in the inside as BOTH of those operations thereby are in defiance/defy the definition of "Infinite" Nor can you fool everyone and, or by, filling in the 'circle/ring' calling it a Dot (or a Singularity, as Infinitesmally Large is just as much of a 'self deception' {WRONG} as is the use of the other end of Infinitesmally SMALL!!) as that is just as much a violation of the Proof of the Non-Conceptual Nature of the "Infinite" in reality/as a reality

So this is NOT anything you can draw as picturing it in your minds' eye/space/imagination/realorImaginary as NONE of those items are permitted as they are ALL Concepts and No 'Concept'/'Idea'/'Thought'/'Icon' is Available for the descriptor/Definition of the reality of the (admitted to be/is) Believed in "Infinity"

Ergo it is NOT something that can be counted as anything other notion other then the admitance/acceptance of the believing in one as being existent/existing.

The idea in math of counting to infinity is a complete fooley....and (Predictably too) an endless one in its' pursuit....Zenocrates' Principal at work in a [u]Language.

After that, well as (I) have tried to state it is sensate as it is occupiening the other sensory perception that exists in a Human being, the heartfelt one, it is as the Buddhists' say, The Compassion (Truthful~love{?}) is in it all, everywhere, all at once....Now

[Epsilon=One]

You cannot either draw a circle on an outside, nor in the inside as BOTH of those operations thereby are in defiance/defy the definition of "Infinite" Nor can you fool everyone and, or by, filling in the 'circle/ring' calling it a Dot (or a Singularity, as Infinitesmally Large is just as much of a 'self deception' {WRONG} as is the use of the other end of Infinitesmally SMALL!!) as that is just as much a violation of the Proof of the Non-Conceptual Nature of the "Infinite" in reality/as a realityIn general, I agree; though, I would prefer to distinguish between your terms "Infinite"/"infinitesimally" and the term "Infinity"; and, I consider "singularity" (without upper case) as a very special reserved word (that should be carefully used) that is equivalent to Infinity.

So this is NOT anything you can draw as picturing it in your minds' eye/space/imagination/realorImaginary as NONE of those items are permitted as they are ALL Concepts and No 'Concept'/'Idea'/'Thought'/'Icon' is Available for the descriptor/Definition of the reality of the (admitted to be/is) Believed in "Infinity"I unreservedly concur.

Ergo it is NOT something that can be counted as anything other notion other then the admitance/acceptance of the believing in one as being existent/existing.Yes.

The idea in math of counting to infinity is a complete fooley....and (Predictably too) an endless one in its' pursuit....Zenocrates' Principal at work in a Language.When it comes to Infinity most mathematicians have shown the discipline's Achilles’ heal of over reliance upon symbolism while being oblivious to the physical world.

Mathematicians produce satisfying proofs from axioms with too little concern as to the fundamental proof of said axioms.

After that, well as (I) have tried to state it is sensate as it is occupiening the other sensory perception that exists in a Human being, the heartfelt one, it is as the Buddists' say, The Compassion (Truthful~love{?}) is in it all, everywhere, all at once....NowConcerning Infinity, with this I disagree; as, you are using terms that connote "existing" while referring to an implied concept that is beyond existence.

As motion defines existence, so it should define that which does not exist by its absence. And, the limit beyond the infinite and the infinitesimal is a singularity that can only be a single "place."

Einstein's curved space implies that if you could see far enough, you would see the back of your head. Pulsoid Theory (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/PTis)'s definition of Infinity (http://www.CQthus.com/PT/I) implies that if you could see far enough into the Cosmos, you would be looking out from every quantum of existence . . . or vice versa.