Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jj · 03-05-2002, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 99Percent:
Likewise in the fifth dimension this god would have to be parallel to us and never touch us, so it existence would become irrelevant.

Aaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeee!

No, not "parallel". It would have to be ORTHOGONAL.

It would have to have NO PROJECTION into this universe. That's orthogonal, not parallel!

jj · 03-05-2002, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
jj:

Wrong. You are apparently using a different definition of <a href="http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=parallel" target="_blank">parallel</a> than the rest of us.

I am using exactly the definition that that mathematics uses.

People call things "parallel universes" because they exist in "parallel" but we can't access them. That is because the dimension that "connects" them is orthogonal, and there is no projection between the universes.

Well, sorta, it's more complex than all of that. All of the visible dimensions have to be orthogonal, and then we get what one calls a "parallel" universe, which is really an orthogonal one.

yes, I'm sure.

Albert Cipriani · 03-06-2002, 08:08 AM

Dear ExPreacher,

Quote:

Protestants worship Bible
Regular Catholics worship old man in dress.
Traditional Catholics worship the magisterium.

Close. But no cigar.
1) Protestantism is based upon the Bible.
2) Liberal Catholicism is based upon local priests.
3) Conservative Catholicism is based upon Pope.
4) Traditional Catholicism is based upon historical rationalism.

-- Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Bill Snedden · 03-06-2002, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albert Cipriani:
Apostate bishops, popes, clergy, and lay persons have changed their mind like lemmings changing their course to the sea, in droves. Changing one�s mind is the very definition of apostasy. But their mind is not the mind of the Church. The Church is not a democracy. It's mind has not and cannot be changed. It is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow.

Ummm...whatever happened to "Tu es Petrus, et super hanc Petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam?"

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-06-2002, 08:53 AM

You know, the way that religions often try to patch up contradictions by forming new sects amazes me. "OUR religion is better than THEIR religion," they say, "because unlike them, we don't make this particular mistake."

It reminds me of the "patch" to Principia Mathematica after Russell's Paradox shattered it.

Basically, his paradox had to do with sets containing themselves, and he did it to demonstrate the inherent failing of any mathematical system, something that Godel later formalized.

The patch? Well, obviously, "From now on, sets can't contain themselves. NOW, our rules of math are perfect."

Jeff

John Page · 03-06-2002, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet:
The patch? Well, obviously, "From now on, sets can't contain themselves. NOW, our rules of math are perfect."

RALMHO, but shouldn't it be:

"From now on, seCts can't contain themselves. NOW, our rules of math are perfect."?

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-06-2002, 09:14 AM

John,

Very nice turn of phrase.

Jeff

John Page · 03-06-2002, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet:
John,

Very nice turn of phrase.

Jeff

Why, thank you Jeff. If I might suggest another one letter amendment:

Very nice turn ofF phrase.

HelenM · 03-06-2002, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet:
The patch? Well, obviously, "From now on, sets can't contain themselves. NOW, our rules of math are perfect."

Jeff

Jeff I think you're on the right lines, to realize that the key is in the a priori axioms, definitions and assumptions.

So, should someone seem to find a set that doesn't contain itself, down the road, then clearly that set cannot exist, by definition. Problem solved! There continue to be no sets that contain themselves!

love
Helen

Not Prince Hamlet · 03-06-2002, 12:06 PM

Helen,

More than that, theists will patch the holes in their religions (gives a new meaning to "Holy", doesn't it?) with whatever spackle happens be handy. If they can't explain it, they'll fall back and punt with the old reliable, "You can't understand the higher mysteries of God. It would make sense if you could see God's great Plan."

Jeff

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-06-2002, 08:53 AM	#185
Not Prince Hamlet Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,309	You know, the way that religions often try to patch up contradictions by forming new sects amazes me. "OUR religion is better than THEIR religion," they say, "because unlike them, we don't make this particular mistake." It reminds me of the "patch" to Principia Mathematica after Russell's Paradox shattered it. Basically, his paradox had to do with sets containing themselves, and he did it to demonstrate the inherent failing of any mathematical system, something that Godel later formalized. The patch? Well, obviously, "From now on, sets can't contain themselves. NOW, our rules of math are perfect." Jeff

03-06-2002, 09:14 AM	#187
Not Prince Hamlet Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,309	John, Very nice turn of phrase. Jeff

03-06-2002, 12:06 PM	#190
Not Prince Hamlet Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 1,309	Helen, More than that, theists will patch the holes in their religions (gives a new meaning to "Holy", doesn't it?) with whatever spackle happens be handy. If they can't explain it, they'll fall back and punt with the old reliable, "You can't understand the higher mysteries of God. It would make sense if you could see God's great Plan." Jeff

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.