Heaven and hell are not just "illusory"

[godelian]

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.

I assumed, almost surely incorrectly, that the continuum hypothesis is a well-known result.

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

There is no such thing as a "unique infinity'. That idea is in violation of Georg Cantor's diagonal argument.

Furthermore, it looks like there are infinite gaps between the successive infinite cardinalities.

When dealing with transfinite numbers, it is necessary to distinguish between cardinals and ordinals. For finite values, these numbers are compatible, but for transfinite numbers, they are not.

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

In mathematics, transfinite numbers or infinite numbers are numbers that are "infinite" in the sense that they are larger than all finite numbers. These include the transfinite cardinals, which are cardinal numbers used to quantify the size of infinite sets, and the transfinite ordinals, which are ordinal numbers used to provide an ordering of infinite sets.[1][2] The term transfinite was coined in 1895 by Georg Cantor,[3][4][5][6] who wished to avoid some of the implications of the word infinite in connection with these objects, which were, nevertheless, not finite.

In the Lowenheim-Skolem theorem, the arithmetical multiverse, i.e. the standard model of arithmetic along with the collection of nonstandard models of arithmetic, is constructed using transfinite numbers.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6 ... em_theorem

In mathematical logic, the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem is a theorem on the existence and cardinality of models, named after Leopold Löwenheim and Thoralf Skolem.

The precise formulation is given below. It implies that if a countable first-order theory has an infinite model, then for every infinite cardinal number κ it has a model of size κ, and that no first-order theory with an infinite model can have a unique model up to isomorphism. As a consequence, first-order theories are unable to control the cardinality of their infinite models.

[Atla]

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 not only doesn't know what topics are, 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. 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.

[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.

By the way, "cardinal" just means "suitable to count the number of elements in a set". For example, five men in a group.

When using "ordinals", it is about the position in a set. For example, the 3rd man in that group of 5.

For finite sets, cardinals and ordinals are compatible.

For infinite sets, there are supposedly gaps between the cardinals that can exist, which however, do not occur between the ordinals.

This entire conundrum of idiosyncrasies came into being after Georg Cantor proved his diagonal argument. He discovered a brand new proof strategy for this purpose.

[godelian]

1. Do you believe God exists?

Yes. However, I can also understand why other people don't believe it.

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

You have to carefully understand what "proof" means.

The term "proof" means that you can safely replace a particular belief by one or more other beliefs.

For example, the belief that "4 = 5-1" can safely be replaced by the belief that "5 = 4+1". So, you can say that "5 = 4+1" proves "4 = 5-1". Under soundness, this proof testifies to the truth of "4 = 5-1" but in fact says nothing about the truth of "5 = 4+1". You will need another proof for that. At some point you will arrive at truths that are merely assumed without proof.

So, yes, it is possible to prove the belief in God from one or more other beliefs. That is what Godel's ontological proof does.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. Do you believe God exists?

Yes. However, I can also understand why other people don't believe it.

There are many reasons why non-theists do not believe in God.
What is your understanding why other people don't believe it?

I used to be a theist but have now graduated to be a non-theist based on incremental knowledge of life.

I believe theism is a critical necessity for the majority [AT PRESENT only] given the current state of evolution of the mind of the majority.
The default of evolution at present is theism which is a critical necessity for the majority at present.

Theism is necessary to modulate an inevitable existential crisis and dilemma, i.e. the critical necessity to fear death to facilitate at least till to reproduce the next generation but unfortunately for humans only, they are endowed with the knowledge of the certainty of mortality; this dilemma create a cognitive dissonance.
This contradiction and dilemma is resolved easily with theism, i.e. believe, and viola one is saved immediately to go on with life to reproduce the next generation.

But theism has its side effects and is merely a temporary solution while humans are evolving towards malignant non-theism proper.

While theism provide instant relief to the cognitive dissonance of the individual, it has the disadvantage by the holy texts and believers of Islam in exterminating the human species where nuclear deterrent has no impact; it is a lose-win situation for the Muslims because they are assured of a place in heaven regardless of what happened to all humans on Earth.
Most of All other religions are pacifist in nature.

Non-theism proper [not the malignant kind] will ensure humanity resolve the present terrible situation in a win-win situation with the gradually improvement in rationality, intelligence and wisdom.
The problem is it will take time for majority of theists to graduate to non-theism but there are already progress since 100 years ago as indicated by the increasing % of non-theists at present.

Why theism has to be devolved and reduced in the future is because humanity are now more aware of the threats to humanity of a galactical scale, i.e. a potential galactical threat from a rogue meteor, pollution of the Earth, Earth moving closer to the Sun, and other global threats which theism is a hindrance to their solutions.

[godelian]

What is your understanding why other people don't believe it?

Widespread atheism originally grew out of opposition to the Catholic Church culminating into the French Revolution. The Catholic Church was the guarantor for the privileges of the French nobility. Getting rid of a class-based society required destroying the power of the Catholic Church. Destroying buildings and staff, i.e. clergy, was not particularly effective in destroying the power of the Catholic Church. It had to be achieved by discrediting their teachings.

Even though I agree with the French revolutionaries that the Catholic Church was an impediment to removing the legal privileges of the nobility, I also like to point out that no other mainstream religion besides Christianity has a centralized Church. Furthermore, no other religion ended up as a main tool to maintain the legal privileges of a nobility. This is a Christianity problem and not a general religion problem.

Religion as "opium for the masses" does not exist outside Christianity.

While theism provide instant relief to the cognitive dissonance of the individual, it has the disadvantage by the holy texts and believers of Islam in exterminating the human species where nuclear deterrent has no impact; it is a lose-win situation for the Muslims because they are assured of a place in heaven regardless of what happened to all humans on Earth.

The fact that I do not care about things like nuclear war, is not something that can be generalized to all Muslims. I am quite confident that some Muslims do care.

The problem is it will take time for majority of theists to graduate to non-theism but there are already progress since 100 years ago as indicated by the increasing % of non-theists at present.

Atheism is widespread in the West but not outside. Non-Christians do not see their religion as a tool of oppression by a centralized Church, if only, because their religion does not have such centralized Church.

Furthermore, if you eliminate the moral theory of religion, there will still be a moral theory. In that case, it will be the ruling mafia that will invent one. You can clearly see that in the West. The ruling mafia in the West complains about the fact that Muslims put Islam above the laws that the ruling mafia invents. However, this is exactly what religion is supposed to do. Religion has an important role in protecting against oppression by the ruling mafia.

I pride myself on using the laws of Islam against the ruling mafia, because that is exactly what the laws of Islam are here for. That is also why I find the complaints of the ruling mafia to be utmost laughable. The ruling mafia really believe that all that they have to do, is to invent new rules and that we will simply jump higher.

We are two billion believers. If you look at the small number of rather unmotivated soldiers in their mafia armies, you can see that the ruling mafia's survival depends on us believing that they have the right to invent and enforce new laws. We do not believe that. We will never grant them that right. Instead, we are making use of each conflict and each other opportunity to develop the detailed knowledge on how to neutralize their armies. The ruling mafia cannot invent new laws because Allah has invented all the laws already. If Allah does not even exist, then so much the better.

[Age]

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.

Between 'what', exactly? For example.

[Age]

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.

I assumed, almost surely incorrectly, that the continuum hypothesis is a well-known result.

Once more we have another prime example of why it is best to never assume anything here.

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

And,

'What do you mean by 'discovered' here?'

Knowing, or not knowing, 'well' some 'continuum hypothesis' has absolutely nothing whatsoever at all in regards to you explaining in what period your use of the term 'modern view' is in regards to, exactly, nor about who else besides you has 'that view', which was in question. Nor even in your explaining what you meant by 'discovered'.

Are you purposely deflecting? Or, can you really not see what is actually happening and occurring here?

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

There is no such thing as a "unique infinity'. That idea is in violation of Georg Cantor's diagonal argument.

Furthermore, it looks like there are infinite gaps between the successive infinite cardinalities.

When dealing with transfinite numbers, it is necessary to distinguish between cardinals and ordinals. For finite values, these numbers are compatible, but for transfinite numbers, they are not.

Who cares?

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.

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

In mathematics, transfinite numbers or infinite numbers are numbers that are "infinite" in the sense that they are larger than all finite numbers.

Okay, but although this may cause some sort of excitement, to you, what has this got to do with absolutely any of the actual questions I have asked you, for clarification, here?

These include the transfinite cardinals, which are cardinal numbers used to quantify the size of infinite sets, and the transfinite ordinals, which are ordinal numbers used to provide an ordering of infinite sets.[1][2] The term transfinite was coined in 1895 by Georg Cantor,[3][4][5][6] who wished to avoid some of the implications of the word infinite in connection with these objects, which were, nevertheless, not finite.

Besides you, who else cares about 'avoiding some of the implication of the word infinite in connection with these 'objects/numbers'?'

I think you will find that there is not a one, within this forum, who cares.

In the Lowenheim-Skolem theorem, the arithmetical multiverse, i.e. the standard model of arithmetic along with the collection of nonstandard models of arithmetic, is constructed using transfinite numbers.

Who cares?

It is only a theory, which, obviously, has no bearing at all on what is actually True and Real.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6 ... em_theorem

In mathematical logic, the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem is a theorem on the existence and cardinality of models, named after Leopold Löwenheim and Thoralf Skolem.

Again, who cares?

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.

The precise formulation is given below. It implies that if a countable first-order theory has an infinite model, then for every infinite cardinal number κ it has a model of size κ, and that no first-order theory with an infinite model can have a unique model up to isomorphism. As a consequence, first-order theories are unable to control the cardinality of their infinite models.

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

[Age]

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 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.

[Age]

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.

By the way, "cardinal" just means "suitable to count the number of elements in a set". For example, five men in a group.

Absolutely no one asked you about what that word means.

you were asked about the other words that you have used here. When will you start to explain those words?

When using "ordinals", it is about the position in a set. For example, the 3rd man in that group of 5.

For finite sets, cardinals and ordinals are compatible.

For infinite sets, there are supposedly gaps between the cardinals that can exist, which however, do not occur between the ordinals.

This entire conundrum of idiosyncrasies came into being after Georg Cantor proved his diagonal argument. He discovered a brand new proof strategy for this purpose.

LOOK, there is no 'multiverse'. BUT, there is, however, One Universe, which, by the way, is infinite, and eternal.

Can you comprehend and understand this Fact?

[godelian]

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.

[Age]

1. Do you believe God exists?

Yes. However, I can also understand why other people don't believe it.

The word, 'Yes', only would have sufficed.

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

You have to carefully understand what "proof" means.

you also have to, carefully, understand that what the word 'proof' means, or refers to, to you, is not necessarily what the word 'proof' means, nor refers to, to others. And, if 'your version' or understanding is different that it is, to others, then 'the others' could just as easily and simply say, to you, 'you have to carefully understand what 'proof' means.

Do you comprehend and understand, this Fact?

The term "proof" means that you can safely replace a particular belief by one or more other beliefs.

If this is what you 'believe' is true, then 'this' must be absolutely true, right?

For example, the belief that "4 = 5-1" can safely be replaced by the belief that "5 = 4+1". So, you can say that "5 = 4+1" proves "4 = 5-1". Under soundness, this proof testifies to the truth of "4 = 5-1" but in fact says nothing about the truth of "5 = 4+1". You will need another proof for that. At some point you will arrive at truths that are merely assumed without proof.

Here 'we' have another who believes some thing to be true, and who is obviously no yet FULLY OPEN to the Fact that there may well exist 'A Truth' that completely and utterly contradicts what this one believes here.

So, yes, it is possible to prove the belief in God from one or more other beliefs. That is what Godel's ontological proof does.

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

Also, to me, to 'prove' that 'the belief in God' exists could not be more simpler nor easier a thing to do.

But, what we have here is another prime example of one who cannot back up nor stand behind what they say and 'believe' is true but will say just about absolutely anything to try to support and/or 'justify' their view or belief.

[Atla]

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

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.

[godelian]

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.

[Age]

1. Do you believe God exists?

Yes. However, I can also understand why other people don't believe it.

There are many reasons why non-theists do not believe in God.
What is your understanding why other people don't believe it?

I used to be a theist but have now graduated to be a non-theist based on incremental knowledge of life.

LOL 'graduated'.

This one 'changed' from having and holding 'one belief' to having and holding onto 'another belief'. While never recognizing that it could never ever back up nor support 'either believe' based upon any actual Real and True thing.

It, like the others here, just 'believe' one or another thing 'is true' because of having to endure through very misguided and abusive upbringings, hitherto.

I believe theism is a critical necessity for the majority [AT PRESENT only] given the current state of evolution of the mind of the majority.

So, to this one anyone, 'each person' has their 'own mind'. But, then there is, supposedly, also 'the mind of the majority'.

The default of evolution at present is theism which is a critical necessity for the majority at present.

'Evolution' does not have a 'default', which differs at different 'periods of time'.

The word 'evolution', at its most fundamental, just refers to 'change', itself.

Theism is necessary to modulate an inevitable existential crisis and dilemma, i.e. the critical necessity to fear death to facilitate at least till to reproduce the next generation but unfortunately for humans only, they are endowed with the knowledge of the certainty of mortality; this dilemma create a cognitive dissonance.

Even the claim 'the certainty of mortality' is False and Wrong. Which, again, is another Fact that can be, very easily and very simple, proved True.

But, and once more, only to those who are Truly curios and Truly interested.

This contradiction and dilemma is resolved easily with theism, i.e. believe, and viola one is saved immediately to go on with life to reproduce the next generation.

So, 'now', again to this one only, one can only 'reproduce' when 'one believes'.

But theism has its side effects and is merely a temporary solution while humans are evolving towards malignant non-theism proper.

This one actually believes that when it adds the word 'proper' onto a term or phrase then by doing so makes the term or phrase more real or more true.

While theism provide instant relief to the cognitive dissonance of the individual, it has the disadvantage by the holy texts and believers of Islam in exterminating the human species where nuclear deterrent has no impact; it is a lose-win situation for the Muslims because they are assured of a place in heaven regardless of what happened to all humans on Earth.

I do not need to say anything more here, do I?

Most of All other religions are pacifist in nature.

This one, still, cannot comprehend and understand that the words 'killing people' could actually mean completely different things to what it 'now' 'currently' believes.

Non-theism proper [not the malignant kind] will ensure humanity resolve the present terrible situation in a win-win situation with the gradually improvement in rationality, intelligence and wisdom.
The problem is it will take time for majority of theists to graduate to non-theism but there are already progress since 100 years ago as indicated by the increasing % of non-theists at present.

So, if the claim that there is an increasing percent of so-called "non-theists" and war, or the fear of war, is increasing, 'at present', then what does this, really, mean, or equate to, exactly?

Not that you "veritas aequitas" would ever clarify here.

Why theism has to be devolved and reduced in the future is because humanity are now more aware of the threats to humanity of a galactical scale, i.e. a potential galactical threat from a rogue meteor, pollution of the Earth, Earth moving closer to the Sun, and other global threats which theism is a hindrance to their solutions.

Is a threat of nuclear strikes on earth, by "non-thiests" or adult human beings, not on a so-called 'galactic scale', to you, like the 'pollution on earth' cause by all adult human beings?