Heaven and hell are not just "illusory"

[godelian]

So, in essence, if one 'believes' some thing to be true, then they can prove it to be true, right?

No, you need two beliefs.

The first belief is the one that you want to prove. The second belief is just another belief.

Now you demonstrate that the truth of the second belief implies the truth of the first belief.

You do not need to prove the second belief.

Now you can claim that you have proven the first belief from the second belief.

This is how all proof in mathematics works.

[Age]

Between 'what', exactly? For example.

Say that N = { 0, 1, 2, 3, ... } consists of the natural numbers. The size, i.e. the "cardinality", of this set is countable infinite ("aleph0").
Say that R = { ..., -1, ... -0.88, 0, .. 0,01, ... } consists of the real numbers. The size of this set is uncountable infinite (deemed "aleph1").

There is no set with number of elements, i.e. "cardinality", between aleph0 and aleph1. A set like that does not exist. The existence of this gap between the numbers aleph0 and aleph1 is called the "continuum hypothesis". This gap is infinitely large.

So, there are no 'actual things' that a so-called 'infinite gap' could be between.

What you are talking about is in imagination, only.

[Age]

Age not only doesn't know what topics are,

Deflection, and deception, once again.

As well as, once more, talking 'about me' rather than talking 'about' the topic in question here and about the points raised.

Age also doesn't know what definitions and proofs are, what it means to support our views, what beliefs are, what deflection is and what deception is.

Okay.

Once again, if this is what you believe is true, then this must absolutely be true, correct?

Age is completely incapable of discussion, but has written 10 posts anyway addressed to me, Age is only capable of trying to ruin forums. If this was a decent forum, Age would be banned asap.

Once more, here is another prime example of attempting to deflect, and deceive, the readers here.

As usual the retard just makes false ad hom accusations out of the blue, and then is outraged when valid ad homs are returned. Instead of just looking up something as extremely simple and common knowledge as what a multiverse topic's definitions are.

The fact that you cannot just provide the so-claimed 'extremely simple and common knowledge' here proves what you have been continually showing here.

Also, you will never ever provide the so-called 'extremely simple and common knowledge' as to what a 'multiverses topic's' definitions are because if you did, then you will end up contradicting "yourself" as well as showing and highlighting the Truly absurd inconsistencies within that Truly stupid topic of 'multiverses'.

And also ignoring the fact that he/she is replying to the same explanations that he/she wants to have explained.

So, if the 'explanations' have already been presented, as you are trying to claim here, then the contradictions and inconsistencies within them can also already been clearly seen.

First things first. You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential beliefs, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

But I do not have those beliefs.

And, once more, the deflection and deceiving here by this one can be very, very clearly seen again.

you have yet to define the 'multiverse' and 'Universe' words. Do you want to keep trying to deflect away from this Fact?

[godelian]

What you are talking about is in imagination, only.

You can read up on the aleph sequence here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number

The term "imaginary" numbers is reserved for numbers that are complex, i.e. real numbers that are constructed by adding a nonzero multiple of the square root of minus one (i).

Infinite cardinalities do not include a nonzero multiple of the square root of minus one (i).

There are numbers termed "imaginary" but they arise in a completely different context, i.e. the roots of polynomials.

[Age]

you 'were' talking about 'multiverses'. I am trying to understand how what you say and claim about numbers here could have any actual bearing on some so-called 'multiverse' or even on the Universe, Itself.

We have yet to see anyone of you define the term 'multiverse', let alone explain how that definition' differs from your newly made up definition for the 'Universe' word. Once, and if, any one of you start to do this, then, and only then, we can successfully begin to start looking at your claims here.

Why do you look at theories and/or models that could not even be logically possible, let alone even actually be physically possible?

If you want to understand Victoria Gitman's lecture, An introduction to nonstandard models of arithmetic, you need to understand the continuum hypothesis. Otherwise, you won't understand why she depicts the arithmetical multiverse exactly like she does in her lecture:

Order-wise, these models look like the natural numbers followed by densely many copies of the integers: N followed by Q-many copies of Z (see the slides for explanation).

She does not explain the "gaps" between the nonstandard models because she assumes that you already know about the continuum hypothesis.

There is no 'multiverse' model that could actually work when the 'Universe' is actually existing.

If you want to comprehend and understand this irrefutable Fact, then just let me know. But, if you do not, then just carry on how you have been here.

[Age]

So, in essence, if one 'believes' some thing to be true, then they can prove it to be true, right?

No, you need two beliefs.

If you realized just how Truly absurd this is, to me, then you would never ever express, nor believe, something like this.

The first belief is the one that you want to prove. The second belief is just another belief.

Why do you even have one belief?

Now you demonstrate that the truth of the second belief implies the truth of the first belief.

Please never ever try to speak 'for me'.

Like you have here you will, on just about all occasions, end up being completely and utterly Wrong.

You do not need to prove the second belief.

Now you can claim that you have proven the first belief from the second belief.

This is how all proof in mathematics works.

So you are arguing 'for me' here, right?

[godelian]

If you realized just how Truly absurd this is, to me, then you would never ever express, nor believe, something like this.

How were your grades in high school for math?

[Age]

What you are talking about is in imagination, only.

You can read up on the aleph sequence here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number

The term "imaginary" numbers is reserved for numbers that are complex, i.e. real numbers that are constructed by adding a nonzero multiple of the square root of minus one (i).

Infinite cardinalities do not include a nonzero multiple of the square root of minus one (i).

There are numbers termed "imaginary" but they arise in a completely different context, i.e. the roots of polynomials.

Why do you assume and presume so many things when in discussion with me here instead of just seeking clarity.

Once again, you are assuming absolutely the Wrong things here.

When I said and wrote 'imagination', it had, again, absolutely nothing whatsoever at all to do with what you are talking about here.

[Age]

If you realized just how Truly absurd this is, to me, then you would never ever express, nor believe, something like this.

How were your grades in high school for math?

In relation to 'what', exactly?

Also, once again, what you are assuming I am talking about is completely and utterly Wrong.

[godelian]

When I said and wrote 'imagination', it had, again, absolutely nothing whatsoever at all to do with what you are talking about here.

I was actually aware of the fact that you had never heard of the term "imaginary number". That is why I pointed out to you that the term actually means something very precise in mathematics.

[godelian]

If you realized just how Truly absurd this is, to me, then you would never ever express, nor believe, something like this.

How were your grades in high school for math?

In relation to 'what', exactly?

Also, once again, what you are assuming I am talking about is completely and utterly Wrong.

If you have trouble with Cantor's work then I wonder how you would manage during a calculus class? Did you manage to learn calculus?

[Age]

How were your grades in high school for math?

In relation to 'what', exactly?

Also, once again, what you are assuming I am talking about is completely and utterly Wrong.

If you have trouble with Cantor's work then I wonder how you would manage during a calculus class? Did you manage learn calculus?

Let 'us' not forget that you are here trying to prove that 'God exists', and that you actually believe you will be able to do this through mathematics.

If you cannot even define the word and term 'God', then what hope do you have of ever actually being able to prove a 'Thing' that you cannot even define exists?

It does not matter how when you know maths, maths is never ever going to help you here.

[Age]

When I said and wrote 'imagination', it had, again, absolutely nothing whatsoever at all to do with what you are talking about here.

I was actually aware of the fact that you had never heard of the term "imaginary number".

Again, but that never ever had anything at all to do with what I was talking about.

Every time you keep thinking or believing that by trying to make the other look like that they do not know mathematics like you do, then this will help you, you are showing and proving just how little you really do actually know and understand here.

That is why I pointed out to you that the term actually means something very precise in mathematics.

And, I pointed out to you that the term or phrase 'infinite gap' has absolutely nothing at all to do with absolutely any physical thing, and thus exists only in imagination only.

The term or phrase 'infinite gap' is absolute nonsense and illogical in relation to the Universe, Itself.

[Atla]

Deflection, and deception, once again.

As well as, once more, talking 'about me' rather than talking 'about' the topic in question here and about the points raised.


Okay.

Once again, if this is what you believe is true, then this must absolutely be true, correct?


Once more, here is another prime example of attempting to deflect, and deceive, the readers here.

As usual the retard just makes false ad hom accusations out of the blue, and then is outraged when valid ad homs are returned. Instead of just looking up something as extremely simple and common knowledge as what a multiverse topic's definitions are.

The fact that you cannot just provide the so-claimed 'extremely simple and common knowledge' here proves what you have been continually showing here.

Also, you will never ever provide the so-called 'extremely simple and common knowledge' as to what a 'multiverses topic's' definitions are because if you did, then you will end up contradicting "yourself" as well as showing and highlighting the Truly absurd inconsistencies within that Truly stupid topic of 'multiverses'.

And also ignoring the fact that he/she is replying to the same explanations that he/she wants to have explained.

So, if the 'explanations' have already been presented, as you are trying to claim here, then the contradictions and inconsistencies within them can also already been clearly seen.

First things first. You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential beliefs, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

But I do not have those beliefs.

And, once more, the deflection and deceiving here by this one can be very, very clearly seen again.

you have yet to define the 'multiverse' and 'Universe' words. Do you want to keep trying to deflect away from this Fact?

More blatherings and false accusations from the completely clueless retard.

First things first. You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential beliefs, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

[Age]

As usual the retard just makes false ad hom accusations out of the blue, and then is outraged when valid ad homs are returned. Instead of just looking up something as extremely simple and common knowledge as what a multiverse topic's definitions are.

The fact that you cannot just provide the so-claimed 'extremely simple and common knowledge' here proves what you have been continually showing here.

Also, you will never ever provide the so-called 'extremely simple and common knowledge' as to what a 'multiverses topic's' definitions are because if you did, then you will end up contradicting "yourself" as well as showing and highlighting the Truly absurd inconsistencies within that Truly stupid topic of 'multiverses'.

And also ignoring the fact that he/she is replying to the same explanations that he/she wants to have explained.

So, if the 'explanations' have already been presented, as you are trying to claim here, then the contradictions and inconsistencies within them can also already been clearly seen.

First things first. You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential beliefs, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

But I do not have those beliefs.

And, once more, the deflection and deceiving here by this one can be very, very clearly seen again.

you have yet to define the 'multiverse' and 'Universe' words. Do you want to keep trying to deflect away from this Fact?

More blatherings and false accusations from the completely clueless retard.

First things first. You are incapable of proving your mind, mind-matter duality, evolution, time travel and infinite human potential beliefs, therefore I have every reason to view you as just a delusional liar, nothing more.

This one is so absolutely useless at even just attempting to back up and support its claims that I question and challenge it about that the only thing that it can end up doing is resorting to expressing what it believes is absolutely true.

Which, laughingly, contradicts what it also says and claims here.

Just look at what it says and claims here, just that one simple task it cannot get right.