Heaven and hell are not just "illusory"

[Age]

Religion does not make use of mathematics. The reason why is simple. If it did, most people would not understand it.

I agree with Age's point that if there is a "multiverse" then the totality of all multiverses is, by definition, the universe. Even a dumb "hick" like me isn't as stupid as you are. What a joke. Spend all your life studying abstractions of math and you can't even see what's in front of your eyes.

Why the hell would you agree with Age's point. In a multiverse topic, by definition the totality of all multiverses is not the universe.

The word 'Universe' once meant, everything; all-there-is; or totality, so what, exactly, could there be to disagree with here?

Now, in regards to any so-called 'multiverse topic', then before 'that topic' was to even successfully begin, the one who wants to introduce that word and that topic would have to provide a definition for the 'multiverse' word, the 'verse' word, and for the 'Universe' word, and then start explaining how it could even be a physical possibility for there to be 'multi verses', first.

Do you have the ability to do this "atla"?

If no, then why not?

But, if yes, then let 'us' see it.

[Age]

Why the hell would you agree with Age's point. In a multiverse topic, by definition the totality of all multiverses is not the universe.

Because the "multiverse" is a bunch of nonsensical sophistry. It's a joke of a theory. It can't even get its terminology straight.

There's nothing wrong with the terminology, it's just not compatible with the old definition of universe.

To you "atla", what is the so-called 'old definition' of the 'Universe' word, and, what is the 'new definition' for the 'Universe' word?

If you do not answer and clarify here, then why not?

[Age]

There's nothing wrong with the terminology, it's just not compatible with the old definition of universe.

There is no "old" definition of "universe". The universe has been much the same since the beginning of human civilization. The "multiverse" theory isn't even incorrect, it's nonsense.

Yes there is an "old" definition of "universe", at least when it comes to multiverse theories. Deal with it.

"garry childress's" point on the multiverse theory being a pseudo-scientific cult gets more verified and proven each time you fail to explain how it could even be a possibility, let alone and actuality.

Anyone trying to claim any thing, which is physically, and even logically, impossible, like 'multiverse', when they are 'stumped' after being questioned and/or challenged in regards to the other physically, and logically, impossible 'it all began' theory never helps "themself" when they cannot explain 'the terms' that they are using and talking about.

[Age]

Yes there is an "old" definition of "universe", at least when it comes to multiverse theories. Deal with it.

There's the universe and the universe is by definition everything. Multiverse nonsense is a stupid fad. They can't even prove there is a multiverse. What nonsense. If that's what you want to believe, knock yourself out. Let me know when you start levitating rocks and speaking in tongues.

Of course it can't be proven, it's not something to "believe" in. Just fuck off

Multiverse cannot be proven because;

1. It is physically and impossibility.

2. It is not even logically possible.

[Age]

Not considering hypothetical extensions to the world we see, is the end of philosophy, but of course idiots like this one don't even understand this much

I'm sure you're not an idiot. You're probably very intelligent. You just need to get terminology straight. And it's not your fault. So don't be hard on yourself.

In multiverse topics, "universe" doesn't mean absolutely everything. Which part of this escapes your understanding?

In so-called 'multiverse topics' what does the 'Universe' word mean, exactly?

And, was there any actual point in changing the definition of the word 'Universe'?

If yes, then what was that point, exactly?

Also, what was the point of giving the previous definition of the 'Universe' word a 'new name' or 'new label'?

[Age]

In multiverse topics, "universe" doesn't mean absolutely everything. Which part of this escapes your understanding?

Then what do you call everything? Just "everything"?

Usually, everything = multiverse.

LOL 'usually'.

[Age]

Usually, everything = multiverse.

I see. What if I refer to everything as the "universe", am I wrong to call it that?

Maybe you don't know what a "topic" is. So when I say stuff like "multiverse topic", you don't know how to separate that from other stuff.

Once again, here is another example of attempted deflection, and deceit.

Look at the, actual, question asked, and then look at the, actual, response given.

[Age]

Maybe you don't know what a "topic" is. So when I say stuff like "multiverse topic", you don't know how to separate that from other stuff.

If the words are equivalent, then what difference does it make?

What do you mean by words are equivalent?

What was meant is the definition of the words is equivalent. But please correct me if this was not what you meant "garry childress".

[Age]

What do you mean by words are equivalent?

They both refer to "everything". Or does the multiverse not include everything?

Ok you don't know what "topics" are. Hmm

Once again, as soon as it was pointed out how you cannot back up and support your views nor beliefs here, you, again, attempt to deflect, and to deceive.

[Age]

I agree with Age's point that if there is a "multiverse" then the totality of all multiverses is, by definition, the universe. Even a dumb "hick" like me isn't as stupid as you are. What a joke. Spend all your life studying abstractions of math and you can't even see what's in front of your eyes.

If the physical multiverse is structurally similar to the arithmetical multiverse, then the distance between objects:
- inside the same universe is finite
- in different universes is infinite

For those of you who have changed 'the definition' for the 'Universe' word, then how are each of you defining the 'universe' word here, now?

The infinite gap between universes ultimately harks back to the continuum hypothesis.

What does 'infinite gap' even mean? And, how could there even be an 'infinite gap', by definition?

The idea that the physical universe is structurally similar to the world of natural numbers is quite old. Pythagoras already postulated this 2500 years ago.

What do these two sentences even mean?

Does 'the world of natural numbers' mean, or is referring to, 'infinity'?

If yes, then if the 'physical universe' is structurally similar to 'the world of natural numbers', then, once again, there is only One Universe.

But, if the term or phrase, 'the world of natural numbers', means, or refers to, something else, then what is that, exactly?

The modern view on the world of natural numbers is that it is a multiverse with one standard model and an unlimited number of nonstandard models.

When you say, 'modern view', then 'when' did 'this view' come about, exactly, and who, besides you, has or holds 'this view', exactly?

This is the part of the idea that is quite recent and only got discovered in the first part of the 20th century.

What do you mean by 'discovered' here?

[Age]

You think that the people living around you enjoy living in poverty and 3rd world conditions. I mean, if they want to stay in poverty, then don't complain about poverty. However, I suspect they'd probably welcome modern conveniences.

I'm writing this from my mobile phone, while sitting in the ferry between the island of Phu Quoc and the mainland ferry port of Ha Tien in the southernmost tip of Vietnam. The ferry is air-conditioned and has wifi working fine on the high seas.

What are you trying to mean, or trying to refer to, by the term 'high seas'?

The cabin is populated by ordinary Vietnamese people.

What do you mean by 'ordinary people' here?

I am quite probably the only foreigner on board. You probably have a wrong conception about poverty in SE Asia. There obviously are poor people but most are not. They have every modern convenience that I routinely use.

[godelian]

When you say, 'modern view', then 'when' did 'this view' come about, exactly, and who, besides you, has or holds 'this view', exactly?

What do you mean by 'discovered' here?

You may want to read up on nonstandard models of arithmetic. Victoria Gitman has written an excellent introduction:

https://victoriagitman.github.io/talks/ ... metic.html

Most of the work on the matter was originally done by Thoralf Skolem.

[Age]

When you say, 'modern view', then 'when' did 'this view' come about, exactly, and who, besides you, has or holds 'this view', exactly?

What do you mean by 'discovered' here?

You may want to read up on nonstandard models of arithmetic. Victoria Gitman has written an excellent introduction:

https://victoriagitman.github.io/talks/ ... metic.html

Most of the work on the matter was originally done by Thoralf Skolem.

So, once again, I ask a couple of Truly very simple and easy questions, for clarification, and then receive a, 'You may want to read up on some thing', response.

If you cannot even explain the words that you actually use and say here, then I suggest you think more carefully about the choice of words you write here.

Oh and by the way, reading up on what you suggest here will never ever answer those very simple and straightforward questions I asked you above here.

[Age]

Strange, I wouldn't wish nuclear destruction on anyone. Whatever god accepts you into its "heaven" I want no part of.

Who the hell even cares?

"godelian"

1. Do you believe God exists?

2. If yes, then do you believe that mathematics can prove this true?

[godelian]

If you cannot even explain the words that you actually use and say here, then I suggest you think more carefully about the choice of words you write here.

Oh and by the way, reading up on what you suggest here will never ever answer those very simple and straightforward questions I asked you above here.

For example, concerning:

What does 'infinite gap' even mean? And, how could there even be an 'infinite gap', by definition?

This harks back to Georg Cantor's diagonal argument:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor% ... l_argument

At the end of the 19th century, Georg Cantor proved that countable infinity (aleph0) and uncountable infinity (aleph1) cannot possibly be the same values.

In fact, it looks like: aleph1= 2 ^ aleph0.

It led to the establishment of the first two "transfinite cardinalities". In fact, it is deemed an infinite sequence of infinite cardinalities.

The continuum hypothesis posits that there are no infinite cardinalities in between two aleph values in the aleph sequence. So, there is supposedly an infinite gap in between.