Topic: Computer Scientists Prove God Exists - page 6. (Read 25213 times)

Just remembered this: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/30/unicorns-existence-proven-says-north-korea/

Yeah , that's why most people run like rabbits or jump into a garbage bin at the sound of a gunshot.

I think most people do not really fear death.  They live in the moment and do not even think about the afterlife at all.  They basically pretend that they are not going to die and live life accordingly.

I think that a wise person considers the thought that there might be something more than just what we see in the physical world.  Eternity has been put into the hearts of man.  The idea that we even think about eternity should speak to us and give us the thought that there is more then just this physical life we are living now.

Religion still exist because people fear death.
Gods (v2.01) exist for the same reasons.
That's why the ancient gods faded away , people started to understand how this thing called Earth works.
One thing they haven't been able to explain is death , and if there is something beyond. We fear that so we need hope.

We're still a bunch of monkeys

Since you obviously know and understand this a hell of a lot better than me, I sort of understand what you are saying, and defer to your judgement.

You don't have to(and you can't infinity does not exist in the natural numbers)...
The algebraic numbers(all roots of all rational polynomials) have the same cardinality as the natural numbers(N).

This is easily(lol no!) seen by that N and N*N(all pairs of natural numbers, (0,0), (1,2), (237319313,5), ...) have the same cardinality(do you need proof?), as there exists bijective functions between them. Consider that for a moment: their is as many natural numbers as pairs of natural numbers.

we can of course repete the above to say that N ~ N*N ~ N*(N*N) ~ ...

lets now consider the following:
Given a countable family(set of sets) of countable sets A_n for n in N. The the result(B) of the union of all these sets(U A_n), is then again countable.
the proof of that is quite simple:
as every A_n is countable there exists by definition a surjective function from N onto A_n, we call that function g_n : N -> A_n.
Now because we know that N*N is countable we have a function f: N -> N*N.
We can now construct a surjection(h: N*N -> B) onto the union of the A_n's: h(a,b) = g_a(b). which is surjective. and the proof is done.

to see that the algebraic number are countable, i will just spew out some facts that you should think about:
Z(the set of all positive and negative integers) is countable.
Q(the set of all quotients between integers) also countable.
Pol_n(Q) (the set of all polynomials, that have a degree of n, with quotients in Q) is countable.
and finally a polynomial that have degree n have at most n roots.

These facts together with the above theorem about unions of countable sets, is sufficient to proof that the algebraic numbers are countable.

But then we have to consider numbers like e and pi, which are not algebraic, and are not roots in any polynomial. The set of non-algebraic/transcendent numbers, are the ones that are not countable, by the diagonal argument.

and you really really want R to not have "holes" (R is complete) of "nonexistent" numbers, for the intermediate value theorem to work...

If you denies the existence of R(and only accept the existence of algebraic numbers), you accept that there exist continuous functions that gives positive and negative values, but the equation f(x) = 0 is false for all x.

Yes, but then why can't I match that number in that infinity set with any other number, like 1, in another infinity set?

When surrounded by circular reasoning, is it irrational to point out a tangent diametrically opposed to assist foci?

The positive root of that polynomial(the square root of 2) is not a rational number(Q)(do you require a proof? please say so).
So at least there exist a number that cannot be written as a quotient of two integers(Z), right?
That means, as a consequence, that there must exist another set of numbers(hint: R) which contains the numbers that are not rational.

Do you see where this is leading?

Yes? Should be two solutions.

don't try to assign meaning to what dank says, you can't. dank is the one and only enlightened god, and we are too. its all love. just love.

Different religions each claim this.  He is not mistaken in relaying their claims.
http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm

Your assertion seems to be that the religions are wrong about what they believe and instead that you know what they believe better than they do?

Rassah: Do you believe that the equation x^2 = 2 have at least one solution?

So if you say the important thing in life is relationships, could we simplify that to love?  Love is god.  Love is conscious energy.  Consciousness is god.  Everyone has love in them, everyone is conscious, everyone is god.

It matters not to worship god.  Though when you love god, you're loving yourself, which feels good man.

Polytheism, monotheism, god, etc... Its all nonsense.

The purpose of life is living it.
The most important thing in life is Relationships.

Simple is that.

Sitting there and worshiping, praying and worrying about your beliefs and gods is a distraction, waste of your time, and hogwash

If you have children, you wouldn't want them to worry, worship and think of you (there creator) all day long. You would want them to enjoy life to the fullest.

For your sake, If there was a god (which there isnt). We are his children. It wouldnt want you to worry, pray and worship it. It would want for you to live the life he has given you to the fullest

I think you are mistaken that religions worship a different god.  Polytheism is still monotheism from a different perspective.  There is one universe, that which, is god.

The universal god is love and light.

There is no such thing as god, it is only.a perception.

Chinese people, worship a chinese god

Arab people, worship a arab god

If cats had a god, they.would worship a cat god.

If horses had gods, it will be a horse god.

Unfortunately, believe it or not. Knowledge in itself is what creates, and divides our world. Knowledge is evil.

With our intellegence, we fragment, label, and divide everything in the world. Thus causing conflict, hate, greed, jealousy and wars.

I have no interest in religion, politics, marriage or education. It is all a method of control, to me.

I kind of understand what this is about, where you can have a number in one set that doesn't exist in another set, and I do understand the concept, but that's really only applicable if you are trying to match your one set to the other mathematically. I can take one of your numbers from set B, which can't exist in set A, and say that I'm matching it with the number 1 from set A. In the end, I still have two sets where no matter how many number units I pick out of it, there will always be +1 unit left to pick out. So if I just look at infinity, and ignore mathematical relationships between sets, the ∞+1 of one set is really no different from the ∞ of the other set. Not because of what they contain, but because neither one has an end.

No, you cannot count all the real numbers(R), you cannot create a one-to-one mapping between N and R, as there are not enough natural numbers, by cantors diagonal argument. If you give me a any mapping between N and R, that you say is surjective, I can always constructively find a number in R that you miss with your surjection, and your surjection is not surjective.

Cardinality(roughly equvivalent of size) of set are defined by the existence of injections and bijections(and surjections, but that require AC) between them. As we can construct a bijection(f(x) = 2x) between the natural numbers(N) and the even natural numbers(2,4,6,8,...), we say that the even natural numbers have the same cardinality as all of the natural numbers.
On the other hand any injection from the natural numbers can't be surjective, and can't therefor be a bijection, we then say that R have a greater cardinality then N. But we can show that the set of all subsets of N have the same cardinality as R.


(You should really go read some elementary set theory, your posts about them seems that you are unable to comprehend what the fuck is going on. This is in no way criticism, set theory is at some times really counter intuitive, and most have, like you, difficulty of understanding it.)

I have to admit I haven't read full thread yet, but I did read Gödel, Escher, Bach, and enjoyed it a lot.
From my understanding, god could exist, indeed. But only if we had created it.


How easy is it to replace "neuron" by human in the previous description?
It is possible that our interactions gave birth to some sort of "meta" counsciouness, and that's the only link to "god" I can see from this book.

The ant/memory part explains what I mean so well. Just read the book.