I'm a Theist

[henry quirk]

You need the energy/mass to cause it (time [or space]) to bend therefore it is a substance.

Space-time is an abstraction, a 'context' for the actions of real objects and forces. It, space-time, is not a substance or a dimension or dimensions. Space is not (like) a deformable latex sheet and time is not (like) a river. Objects and forces act on and interact with other objects and forces, not on space-time.

A massive object in space, for example, bends light, not space; massive enough, such an object can even affect the changes in matter that we measure, not the measurement itself. That is: the the measurable changes in objects and forces slow but the measuring itself, is unaffected.

Bluntly: space is emptiness, time is a measure of change.You can only fill emptiness and you can only record the passage of time (measure change). Neither can be altered or shaped or bent. Only real objects and forces can be altered, shaped or bent.

I am afraid to say that all your interpretations are classical. For example, light has zero mass so according to classical physics it should not bend close to a massive object.

Go read GR, not an interpretation of GR. Read what Al himself said, not somebody else's figure of speech laden distillation.

[Ansiktsburk]

Remember the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden. From the tree of knowledge.

Sorry, A.,...I have to correct your quotation: it's "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil". In other words, its' knowledge of the quality of evil in things (because "good" already existed, but was only not known because everything was good).

You'll also find that knowledge of other things is nowhere forbidden, and was in fact, encouraged.

I agree that plumbing the depths of evil is a bad idea. But other than that, I disagree that knowledge is forbidden or dangerous.

Thats pretty cool. You have another translation in english. In my scandinavian language it simply "kunskapens träd"(the tree of knowledge). Showing you willie or pussy aint exactly good or bad, is it?

That knowledge is dangerous doesnt sound all that far-fetched. I could live without anyone coming up with the concept of nuclear bomb. Few people would like to know their death date. And so on.

[bahman]

It shows that Xeno was wrong. It suggests different ways of showing that, but over the matter of his wrongness, is of one mind. So it doesn't really help your case, because your argument that zero is a point is also wrong. Zero is a mathematical concept.

And you can see this very simply. I can ask you to give me one, two or three euros. But you can't give me zero euros...you can only not-give me any euros. "Zero" is a concept, not a number.

Zero, of course, is a point as 1 is as 2 is, etc.

Zero is placeholder/symbol for nothing, no-thing.

one, two, etc. are placeholders/symbols for sequence or quantity.

As for points: as they are being used in-thread, they're purely symbolic.

Zeno crafted clever hooey.

Zero is a symbol for nothing. Nothing, however, is a state of affair that can be real.

[Ansiktsburk]

can't disagree more...lay 'em all on the table...examine 'em...find the diamonds, toss the dross

When you find the snakes among the diamonds they will bite you. And with a poison that cannot be sucked out. And in that area, therea are snakes.

No, there's no snakes, and no diamonds either (I'm throwin' off all them figures of speech for the duration): there are good ideas and bad ideas, truths and lies, facts and fictions. There are no gorgons or basilisks, and the Abyss is just a hole in the ground.

The Eldritch Abomination is ugly and wrong but not particularly mind-bending (Cthulhu might eat your body but he can't eat your soul).

Bottomline: there ain't no existential terror to confront, there's just ignorance to overcome.

And I'm gonna do that...as soon as I overcome my apathy.

I'm sincerely happy for you. But since terror is, as most feelings, subjective, for people made of less stern stuff than you I would not recomment those paths of thought.

[henry quirk]

When you find the snakes among the diamonds they will bite you. And with a poison that cannot be sucked out. And in that area, therea are snakes.

No, there's no snakes, and no diamonds either (I'm throwin' off all them figures of speech for the duration): there are good ideas and bad ideas, truths and lies, facts and fictions. There are no gorgons or basilisks, and the Abyss is just a hole in the ground.

The Eldritch Abomination is ugly and wrong but not particularly mind-bending (Cthulhu might eat your body but he can't eat your soul).

Bottomline: there ain't no existential terror to confront, there's just ignorance to overcome.

And I'm gonna do that...as soon as I overcome my apathy.

I'm sincerely happy for you. But since terror is, as most feelings, subjective, for people made of less stern stuff than you I would not recomment those paths of thought.

Nah, the less-stern need to ride the rollercoaster: confront the terror to master it.

[henry quirk]

Zero, of course, is a point as 1 is as 2 is, etc.

Zero is placeholder/symbol for nothing, no-thing.

one, two, etc. are placeholders/symbols for sequence or quantity.

As for points: as they are being used in-thread, they're purely symbolic.

Zeno crafted clever hooey.

Zero is a symbol for nothing. Nothing, however, is a state of affair that can be real.

Well, nothing is real only as there's something to contrast against. It's like darkness, nothing is absence, not substance. So, yeah, as a state of affair or circumstance nothing can be real, I guess, but only real, mebbe, as an observer assesses, not real as the apple on the table.

[uwot]

Bluntly: space is emptiness, time is a measure of change.You can only fill emptiness and you can only record the passage of time (measure change). Neither can be altered or shaped or bent. Only real objects and forces can be altered, shaped or bent.

I am afraid to say that all your interpretations are classical. For example, light has zero mass so according to classical physics it should not bend close to a massive object.

Zero rest mass according to some versions of classical physics, such as GR.

Go read GR, not an interpretation of GR. Read what Al himself said, not somebody else's figure of speech laden distillation.

Roughly the same proportion of people who bang on about what Einstein said have actually read Einstein, as the proportion of people who bend your ear about what the Bible says that have actually read it. If you read Einstein, here for instance: http://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Ex ... ether.html then you are bound to conclude that Einstein did not believe that space is emptiness.

[Immanuel Can]

How is the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil...NOT a Tree of Knowledge?

Because it places no prohibition on knowledge of any kind, except for one kind...the knowledge of evil.

The idea that God has something against people having other kinds of knowledge is simply wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

Zero, of course, is a point as 1 is as 2 is, etc.

But you can't give me zero. You can only not-give-me any other number of things. That's why zero's a concept -- it indicates the absence of an applicable numerical quantifier, not the presence of anything.

[bahman]

Zero, of course, is a point as 1 is as 2 is, etc.

But you can't give me zero. You can only not-give-me any other number of things. That's why zero's a concept -- it indicates the absence of an applicable numerical quantifier, not the presence of anything.

Nothing is a state of affair.

[Immanuel Can]

Thats pretty cool. You have another translation in english. In my scandinavian language it simply "kunskapens träd"(the tree of knowledge).

Then I humbly submit that the Scandinavian translation you're using is wrong. To show that, here is original Hebrew upon which the manuscripts of all our translations, both English and Scandanavian, depends.

The original Hebrew reads:

but you must not
לֹ֥א (lō)
Adverb - Negative particle
Strong's Hebrew 3808: Not, no

eat
תֹאכַ֖ל (ṯō·ḵal)
Verb - Qal - Imperfect - second person masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 398: To eat

from
מִמֶּ֑נּוּ (mim·men·nū)
Preposition | third person masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 4480: A part of, from, out of

the tree
וּמֵעֵ֗ץ (ū·mê·‘êṣ)
Conjunctive waw, Preposition-m | Noun - masculine singular construct
Strong's Hebrew 6086: Tree, trees, wood

of the knowledge
הַדַּ֙עַת֙ (had·da·‘aṯ)
Article | Noun - feminine singular construct
Strong's Hebrew 1847: Knowledge

of good
ט֣וֹב (ṭō·wḇ)
Noun - masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 2896: Pleasant, agreeable, good

and evil;
וָרָ֔ע (wā·rā‘)
Conjunctive waw | Adjective - masculine singular
Strong's Hebrew 7451: Bad, evil

So you see that the phrase "of good and evil" is in the original. If any translation leaves it out, that's just not correct.

That knowledge is dangerous doesnt sound all that far-fetched. I could live without anyone coming up with the concept of nuclear bomb. Few people would like to know their death date. And so on.

Perhaps. But it's not the Biblical idea.

So you would have to come to that conclusion on the sort of how-I-like-to-think-about-it basis you cite above. It's not in the Biblical record.

[Immanuel Can]

Nothing is a state of affair.

No, it's not, actually. Nothing is the complete absence of any state of affairs.

When there's nothing, there's nothing to have any "affairs" about.

[henry quirk]

"you are bound to conclude that Einstein did not believe that space is emptiness."

Best you can say is that he mebbe thought it possessed a nature: "...this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time."

Not quite the same as declaring it non-empty, or some thing.

As for the insinuation I haven't read Einstein's work... ( ︶︿︶)_╭∩╮

Didn't claim to understand it perfectly (*I may, in fact, be dead wrong on a nice chunk of what I think I understand), but I've read what Einstein published, and it seems to me a great many of the ideas attributed to him aren't actually his but are **popularizations of his thinkin'.








*so, call me idiot if you like, but don't call me liar
**latex rubber space supporting a bowling ball, that sort of thing

[Immanuel Can]

it seems to me a great many of the ideas attributed to him aren't actually his but are popularizations of his thinkin'.

Quite right.

I've run into misguided folks who cite Einstein's Relativity Theory as proof positive that moral values are all relative. The popularization of Einstein, in this case, isn't even close enough to truth to be called merely "wrong." It's something considerably worse, actually. Maybe "totally clueless" covers it better.

[bahman]

Nothing is a state of affair.

No, it's not, actually. Nothing is the complete absence of any state of affairs.

No. Nothing is a state of affair that there is no thing.

When there's nothing, there's nothing to have any "affairs" about.

I am afraid that that is not correct.