Mathmatical Proof of "God?"

So, my post had 66 images in it (mathematical ones) and you're only allowed to post 4 per post....which sucks, because they are very small images and I cannot type them out on a keyboard. I'm just going to have to take pictures of it as a word document and then upload those pictures to post them here...

Alright, done...between typing that up on here and then formatting the pictures it's been a bitch....so I really hope some of you can critique the shit out of this to further my understanding of mathematics in this regard.

 

[FONT=&quot]Final Question[/FONT][FONT=&quot] ( I had this on word too, but it was the last page...might as well just post it as it has no images)
Does this act as mathematical support for the existence of a supreme being, or that which we know as "God?" The above seems to be full of mathematical axioms and I'm not even very good at math....so I would really like if someone with a well biased knowledge of the subject could perhaps help me out on this?[/FONT]

 

Um, I'm at the first line of your math and already questioning it.
Why would infinity -1 equal (infinity +1) - 1 ?

 

Sorry for the confusion...Infinity cannot really be calculated as such though, which is were I'm still somewhat confused, because I thought that even if you had infinity-1 the outcome would still be infinity?

It's based on the principal that infinity + 1 is still infinity, because infinity does not succumb to the same "rules" numbers must follow.

 

I've always thought it depended on the context in which you were using it.
Unless, different teachers just taught me different things, and that's why I'm thinking that way..

I guess we'll have to wait for someone more mathematically adept to show up =P

 

Yea...I am by no means "mathematically adept" trust me...that's why I wanted others opinions on this. There's really no "right" or "wrong" here, I just want to see what those who actually have a strong base in mathematics think.

 

Where does "God" come in here? Are we talking about a supernatural being who answers prayer? Or just something that always was and always will be?

 

"God" in regards to a creator.....so no, not necessarily a supernatural being that answers prayers etc...

As for always has been and always will be...well "it" is either a part of that which created it (seems rather unlikely) or yes...always has been and perhaps always will be.

Personally, I'm more "agnostic" than anything , although that word doesn't do my beliefs any justice. Basically just curious, but I think it'd almost be pompous for any of us to claim that we actually know for certain.

 

Infinity isn't a number, it's a name for a concept. Mathematical rules do not need to apply to it.

 

Check out the philosopher Gorgias if you wanna get caught in thinking that the words we use are accurate at understanding the world.

 

I don't think words are even near an accurate means to even attempt to understand the universe....it's just that they're all we've got to communicate these ideals with eachother...unless you can teach me how to communicate telepathically that is.

 

really if this did so, I'm sure word would've gotten out by now. Just my two cents

 

Yeah...I know mate. I'm not saying it does, but perhaps provides some interesting points? I'd really like someone to analyze the equations themselves though, and see if they can tell me where I went wrong, or perhaps actually stumbled upon something that actually makes sense.

 

Well they're not, obviously. But really, the idea that infinity is a number is just wrong. Just to illustrate this, there are different models of infinity in mathematics. Two that I'm aware of are one that is every number added together, and another which is every number multiplied by each other.

 

^ b/c of people who worship numbers insisting that everything be defined with numbers
(if the world was actually that concrete, then we wouldn't have the post-modernist movement)

 

Numbers don't really define anything. They have a solid meaning in relation to one another and that's about all. 5 is five is 5, and so on. To establish a meaning of a number, you need at least one other number as a point of reference.

Words are more appropriate for defining human inventions, human concepts and human desires. In other words, things that we want to be true, rather than things which are true. 1+1=2 is meaningless without some kind of sentient presence to need to know it and/or to have been unaware of it in the first place. Same goes for anything.

OK, prime example: people comment on pi and on the golden ratio, and how these numbers show up in nature all the time. But without someone to observe this relationship, it would be as unremarkable as the fact that 1+1=2 - it just is, and if no-one expects it to be otherwise, it proves nothing.

 

^ I express the same exact sentiment almost on a daily basis and am constantly ridiculed for it.
I agree.

 

Where do you express it?

I think the problem is that some people confuse meaning with truth. That the universe is governed by certain rules which we can express mathematically is true, but it takes a human, creative mind to read anything into that. It's interesting to me that some people talk as if the universe consistently obeying the same few rules is an indication of the existence of a god, while others (myself included) draw the exact opposite conclusion based on the same data.

 

On these forums.

I actually had someone tell me that numbers and math weren't reliant upon consciousness the other day.
It's that kind of golden rule platonic thinking which leads to such intolerance.
In the end, it's all a matter of perception.

 

Well, they're not reliant on consciousness to exist. They just don't mean anything. If no-one around to care whether the universe is "right", a "wrong" answer can't exist, because there's only how things are, not how they should be. Basic ideas like constants and universal invariants are absolutely human - if we weren't interpreting data to make predictions, the fact that 1+1=2 has always been true before would have no bearing on whether it's true in any subsequent instance.

I could go on but I sense that I'm preaching to the converted.