- James Ada
- Gold Coast City, Queensland
- Australia
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Georg Cantor was wrong about infinity. Greatest Mistake in History True Infinity explained
Infinity - boundless endless = ∞
Mathematics/universe - bound end = ()
Cantor said ( ∞ )
Greatest Oxymoron in existence
Cantor did find something, however it is not Actual infinity.
What he found:
The infinite possibilities within the core of our numerical system, the Number 1.
ALL types of numerical expressions, be it fractions, decimal points, percentages, whole numbers etc are different ways of expressing this one number. Hence,
What Cantor perceived to have found = ( ∞ ), an infinite restricted by time and space
What Cantor actually found = ( 1 ).
Now to what I found about the number 1 in finite. (1)
There are many ways to express mathematics, but what is the core?
x, ÷ , √ , Etc are grouped and fancy symbols explaining the only two symbols. + and -.
Every mathematical expression can be explain by these two symbols. Remembering maths is finite, this numeric 1 is comprised of or subject to
( + | - )
This is Theory of Everything.
Except.......
Quantum Mechanics states for nothing to create something, laws must be in place for nothing to produce something.
How do you explain this. Easy....
+ ( + | - )
This is the link between Quantum Mechanics and Gravitational Physics.
Even a law however is not nothing, but something. It is an action and must proceed an entity.
1 + ( + | - )
What is 1 added onto finite or 1 added onto Mathematics as the equation shows.
It is ∞.
1 + ( + | - ) = ∞
The Actual True infinity
This means
If we add 1 onto finite addition itself, we have infinite positive and respectively 1 added onto subtraction itself, infinite negative
1 + (+) = + ∞
1 + (-) = - ∞
Religiously what does this mean?
God (1) created (+) everything ((+|-)) and after judgement day (=), depending on our free will choices, we could end up in either heaven ( + ∞) or hell ( - ∞ ).
Please watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpVHJJMxZa8 to understand the theological aspect of equation.
James Ada
So which one of these finite Gods is infinite?
Jon Ho
You know what, I give up. It is Groundhog Day again and again, and you are my tormentor. ;)
James Ada
You are just agreeing with me and rejecting Cantors concept of the infinite.
The only possibility of the actual Infinite is outside of finite, then 1, with the infinite possibilities is the infinite in totality.
In all honesty it doesn't bother me if you accept heaven and hell, based on the dicissions you made within the finite, as long as you can see where the mistake of the greatest mathematician in recent history is, I've been successful in promoting my findings.
Jon Ho
Infinity = 1 God
whereas I say
Infinity = Infinite Gods
Big difference.
James Ada
The misunderstanding of infinite stems from most thinking there could be multiple infinites. Truth is only 1 infinite can exist that everything else is a part of and not Seperate.
In my terminology 1=God. A 100% complete being with infinite possibilities; the Omni.
If God is multiple Gods, or as you state an infinite amount of Gods (any more than 1), then could you really have an infinite? It would not be all encompassing because a Seperately unique infinite would exist.
You do not have to call it God, but we already know thanks to Cantor the infinite possibilities of the only number; this is quite easily seen even with our restricted perception.
The same rules also apply to beyond the brackets.
If 1 is complete (100%) and can explain itself and every other numerical possibility,
Then how can we have any other number?
Now let me ask this religiously,
If God is complete (100%) and can explain himself and every other created possibility,
Then how can we have any other God?
Do you see my point my friend
Jon Ho
You equate :
1 God = 1 and
1 God = Infinity
Whereas I say :
Infinite Gods = Infinity
You are God, I am God, everyone on TED is God. The unborn child in your wife's belly is God, you dead grandfather is God. The moon, the planets, the stars, the galaxy; the whole universe is God.
But this has degenerated from Theoretical Mathematics into Religious Philosophy, and like I said, I'm not touching that with a 10 foot pole.
Thou Art God. ;)
Jon Ho
Ok, first. Mathematics is NOT bound. Order theory, a branch of logical mathematics that deal with upper and lower bound is just a sub-'set' of it.
Second, after reading your hypothesis and watching your video, I've concluded that you are stating the exact same thing as Cantor and his theory of Actual Infinity. Huh?
The third and final thing is... I hope by Zeus that you are a REAL mathematician and not some bloke who randomly surfed a Wikipedia page and then decided to make a Youtube video out of it.
Why? Because what Cantor proposed, and basically what you proposed, is an idea where any attempt at a definition will simply lead to contradiction. I mean does the uppermost infinity and lowermost infinity even makes sense?
Here's some simple equations to help you out:
∞ + 12 = ∞
∞ * 131567.121313 = ∞
∞ / 12.892 = ∞
∞ - 789.2324 = ∞
( ∞ ) = ∞
Notice the last equation? Get the picture?
Here's question, how do you divide by 0? Like, how do you solve this equation:
12 / 0 = ?
You can't, because it is basically a contradiction! Read here http://www.math.utah.edu/~pa/math/0by0.html for more info about the mathematical theory of contradictions.
James Ada
1. Mathematics is restricted by the number 1. As I stated before all we have in our numeric system. It either exists, even for calculating purposes can be created by imagination or it doesn't exist. You can go as far as to say even the things/value/entity we imagine are restricted by what the individual has experienced. This means time becomes another major restriction of what we can contemplate or that exists.
Also Mathematics is the art of deriving a final outcome. It is not the subset. Everything is dependent on Maths.
Therefore It is restricted by time and space. Our current mathematics only exists because of these fundamental properties and the number 1.
2. Cantor stated that we can have infinite possibilities within the finite. What he really was studying was the infinite possibilities within the only number, However my argument is we can only have infinite outside of finite.
3. All this comes solely from me and is not taken from any other. Not wikipedia or any other source.
When it comes to deciphering logic it doesn't matter what your academic background is, look at the greatest mistake from Cantor ( ∞ )
In regards to your comments about contradiction, firstly all those different values are a part of the number 1 or derived from it.
I should state You are correct in your equations. The only problem is all your proving wrong is not me but Cantor. Again my equation shows that the infinite is equal to 1 outside of finite and existed before us and will after.
Cantor ( ∞ )
Me 1 = ∞ outside of ()
In other words all those different variants you mentioned in your examples are again only exaggerating the core, the Number 1 within finite (1) and it restricted by mathematical law (+|-).
Thank you for your criticism
Jon Ho
∞ is not equal to (1)
there is no -∞ or +∞ because, again
∞ x 1 = ∞
∞ * (-1) = ∞
There is no heaven or hell infinity... and personally, I wouldn't even go there, no sir, ain't gonna touch that with a 10 foot pole hahaha ;)
James Ada
I do consider the universe and it's restrictions as everything, but not totality.
Anything that is restricted and finite, be it our mathematics or our known universe, even if in future another universe is found, these are a part of that everything.
Outside of the finite however there is an infinite, which I do not consider a part of the restrictions. A creator does not need to be a part of the creator, a simple example is if I draw a picture, I am not a part of the picture even though it is my art.
The way you are describing Totality, as you have titled it, is how Cantor perceived it, that is the infinite possibilities within the finite, hence no bound or end.
My argument is we must come to accept that the infinite can not, in any shape or form be restricted.
We must look before and beyond the Time Space ideology in order to understand how big is the infinite, in totality.
I again thank you for your response.
Mark Meijer 100+
- It appears you equate maths and the universe.
- You assume that the universe (which at certain points you call "everything") is bounded.
- In case you're not defining the word universe/everything as the totality of existence that there ever was and ever will be, then we need a new word for that. I'll just refer to it as the totality.
- You assume that there is a creator separate from the created (the totality/everything). You seem to assume this because you assume the totality is bounded. You seem to assume the totality is bounded because mathematics is bounded. The limitations of any model are not the limitations of what it's supposedly a model of.
- If a creator exists, he is necessarily part of the totality/everything, not standing apart from "it" (otherwise "it" wouldn't be the totality/everything - it's equivalent to saying that no creator exists). If there is a creator, it IS the created, and to distinguish between them at all is absurd. Which means creation is self-created.
- Which means the totality is a spontaneous occurance. It didn't start to occur at some point nor will it stop occuring at some point. Because that would mean it happens IN time, and that would mean time is not part of the totality, which is absurd.
- Similarly, to say there are bounds to the totality (in space or time), is saying those bounds are part of the totality (because by definition everything is part of the totality). Which means they aren't bounds at all. If bounds exist, they are part of existence, and therefore can't bound existence.
- Your conclusion is an overly contrived interpretation of what you presented in the rest of the story/equation. Also again to consider an equation (the model) as being the truth of existence itself (what is being modelled) is absurd.
Regards
James Ada
You can't say it was a giant mass or a gaseous glob because these theories are still within the bounds of mathematics. As I stated in my last post, any concept we come up with, imagine or dream is still restricted by the Individuals experiences.
Linda as i stated before i really cant be bothered arguing. lets forget the whole argument and refer our posts back to the related equation, the reason for the initial post
Linda Taylor 50+
http://www.ted.com/talks/sean_carroll_distant_time_and_the_hint_of_a_multiverse.html
Note part starting at 12:30 mins.
James Ada
If you wouldC like you can quote me the 3 times I said God was within finite, if it makes you feel happy.
In regards to your infinite universe, your entitled to your opinion and I applaud you for your decision.
I also believe there was something before the big bang, the question then arises what was before that.
You see what your stating is still within finite, it still agrees to our law of mathematics. Using the process of elimination we get to a point where we are left with one initial creation, maybe it was an energy form or a speck of dust, maybe just the higgs by itself but yet again, whatever you believe was before the big bang unless just the governing laws and a creator of the laws, a positive and a negative is required for that entity to exist, hence it is still finite.
quote: "Everything from one single giant mass to some amorphous gaseous glob to the dimensional evolution of the universe."..... All of the examples you gave are calculable, measurable and still restricted by time and space. What was before these?
What I mean is you said ,"the space it occupies will continue to exist. Even if the matter does not". What your referring to is a perfect ideology, please don't misunderstand me, however it is still restricted.
Just to justify my reasoning
Say I die now, your correct my energy remains but I cease to exist in a matter form, how did my energy come to be BEFORE I was born? It means that energy was something else's energy to begin with, and so on and so on,
I'm restricted by requiring earthly bound materials to exist and the earth is older than me, so my initial creation of matter for me to be a physical being must be a part of the earth, what existed before the earth?
James Ada
Whatever we think, dream or imagine is still restricted by our personal experiences even if what we conjured is illogical and impossible.
So we can never understand the deity or try contemplating. Even though I have defined it as 1 and ∞. the deity being outside our boundaries means he can't be contemplated because we are within
(+|-) mathematical boundaries.
In summary, the infinite possibilities we can think about are still finite.
So again Linda I am against the ideology that The deity or any part of the deity can be within boundaries as stated by others.
Dan Geurin 10+
James Ada
You are correct in saying zero for a reason, before the brackets is an unseen, after the brackets is yet to be seen.
Another way of explain it is by seeing what other beliefs see.
Let me explain it this way
1= ∞ outside finite, God
+(+|-) - atheist, understand natural law exist
1=(+|-) - pantheist, the universe is God
(1= ∞ ) - Buddhism, look within yourself to find personal Nirvana
1=+=(+|-) = ∞ - Christianity, father (1) holy spirit (+) son (+|-)
Jesus said, father (1) is greater (+) that I (+|-)
Genesis 1:1 ...God (1) created (+) heavens ( ∞ ) and earth (+|-), or the finite is within infinite, not vice versa
Islam Surah 112, Say he is 1 (1), on all whom depend (+) he begets not, nor is begotten (+|-) and none is like him (∞)
and so on....
The equation explains a lot of unanswered questions
Like for example
God does not change the mathematics, he could but won't. He does miracles by setting the mathematics before the creation is created, so Moses parting the ocean already had its appointed time to do so.
It explains "natural selection" is Gods selection.
It explains how we have free will, (+|-) and that he merely only sends guidance, it your option to emit positive or negative energy, bit like ying yang
Please people put it to the test, if possible.
Linda Taylor 50+
It also does not make sense that free will = your equation for the theory of everything = earth = gravitational physics. Free will does not equal gravitational physics. Taking some big leaps here but the error lies in bound infinity. Bound infinity only describes mathematics.
James Ada
I never stated he is within finite, I however showed the different belief structures and how they have understood it to be so.
I sincerely apologize but what is your definition of universe?
The deeper we understand our universe, as present, the more we understand that "our universe" had a beginning from the initial big bang. The further we look, the more it agrees to our logical laws, even if sometimes it might take some time to understand the logic.
Also we can measure our universe, ever heard of light years? If something is measurable and calculable it falls within the vicinity of finite and mathematics.
Einsteins E=mc2 and the theory of relativity helped established the boarders of finite, it's beginning and it's end, or it's boundaries.
In regards to free will, all things in our universe is comprised of positives and negatives, ask a scientist.
When looking at the equation from a scientifical perspective we understand the (+|-) exist.
When we look at it from a morale perspective, we understand we have an option of doing whatever we feel, as long as it is within the laws of mathematics (+|-), as stated before, our option to either emit positive energy or negative energy, follow a positive path, or negative path. On the day of judgement (=) your deeds will be tallied, where you can end up in an infinte positive + ∞, heaven or infinite negative - ∞ hell, respectively. The choice of the afterlife depends on what you chose between the boarders.
Cantor was the one who stated infinity has bounds, hence I call it the greatest oxymoron in existence. I state that infinite can not be within our bounds and what Cantor was looking at was the infinite possibilities within the number 1.
Linda Taylor 50+
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v106/i10/e101101
When you put 1 in bound ends (1), you are saying that the number one is finite so god = (1) is mortal, even god = (infinity) is still mortal.
The symbol (+|-) in all your equations has different meanings:
theory of everything
gravitational physics
everything
natural law
the universe
God the son
earth
begotten person
free will
According to you, those are all equal. Then you use parenthetical bound ends and apply different meanings. For instance () means restricted by time and space but (1= infinity) means personal Nirvana or restricted to person or being. The theory doesn't work because there is no consistent interpretation of the symbolic meaning. You jump all over the place and make huge leaps in logic like god the son equals gravitational physics. I might not be a theoretical mathematician but I can follow an argument.
The theory of relativity only works in the finite 3+1 spacetime. It only describes the very big not the very small so it has an end. It falls apart at the quantum level and when you begin to explore additional dimensions. We do not live in 4+1 spacetime but we can conceptualize a tesseract. And what is light in five dimensions?
James Ada
Let me intially point out I am not against the concept of multiple universes or other dimensions, however as of current this is an assumption and not based on any substantial evidence. Even if they do exist, the question arises what was before that, as stated by yourself. The other point is if we do find it, it means it can be understood, contemplated, calculated and measured, also subject to time and space, which again would mean it has a beginning and an end or finite.
As I state in the video link, even if we find another universe, we must eliminate them from the list in order to break it down to its core, to find the initial beginning.
Secondly Science and especially Physics has proven we have a beginning and our universe began with a big bang.
Quantum Mechanics says before the big bang we can potentially come from nothing, if laws are in place for nothing to produce something. Now remembering this let's go back to the equation
1 + (+|-) = ∞
The natural law, the laws that Quantum Mechanics states or the governing universal laws is the addition symbol before/outside of the finite. The intial explanation of the finite one (1) is not God. This is what Buddhism and Cantor said, not me.
The earthly bound son, or the divine being on earth is a Christian belief structure and also is related to Cantor and the Buddhism perspective, again not me. It is our numerical system, a creation, a value, an entity that's restricted by mathetical law. Arius at the time of Constantine argued in regards to not believing that the infinite can be within finite, unfortunately Athenicios won the argument and the Nicea council excepted his perspective.
I state specifically the 1 God CANNOT be within finite and inifinite cannot be in finite, it must be outside.
In other words some of our religious structures need tweaking and are slightly wrong
Linda Taylor 50+
The problem is that this is not my argument but yours. You are the one that posted that god = (1) THREE times between your posts. This is what I was pointing out as your whilly-nilly use of parentheticals invalidates the entire logic.
And yes, I think that the universe exists outside of time. It is us who reference the universe from the point of time. For instance, I think Chicago exists. I think it existed at 3:00 yesterday and will exist tomorrow at 3:00 even though I cannot prove either one of those events. I can only prove that Chicago exists in the fleeting moment of now. Did Chicago always exist? No,. It was something else before and it will be something else after. I can theorize what it was before and what it will be after but the three dimensions of space it occupies will continue to exist. Even if the matter does not.
Linda Taylor 50+
I really am not a theoretical mathematician that is just how I understand some of the basics of infinity.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
some rhymes here and there would be nice though
Gerald O'brian 50+
Shane Schuller
1 = Creation
Zero has no value UNLESS a value is added 1+0 = 1
If the value is subtracted then it's no value - no thing - nothing
and since 1+1 = 2 and does not require a zero to add value we can assume that 1 (creation) has greater value.
Another way to look at it is
1+9 = 10
The zero defines a new cycle in this instance but still has no value because 10-19 describes the next repeated cycle as 1-9
Conclusion
1 = creation
0 = god
An analogy
If nothing - no thing existed, sand, water, planets, people and so forth, didn't exist - can we say that God exist? We cannot say this because we are not here to recognize it or claim it. Therefore without anything it's nothing = 0.
So who created the 0? We did
Why was the 0 created? To improve our value??? No, to define a cycle
Where did it all begin then?
At 1-9 and evolved to 10-19 and
20-29
30-39.....
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80-89
90-99
Note the 1-9 cycles On left