Re: Who is God's God ?

[Serg io]

On 9/7/2021 4:55 AM, No Ye wrote:
> ?
>



Generial ZOD, Kneel Before



https://i.imgflip.com/jfzh3.gif

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

It is you... trying to play Him...
God creates gravity.
Your theory doesn't.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 9/7/2021 2:55 AM, No Ye wrote:
> ?
>

Itself?

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Only man can play God...

[whodat]

Is a recursive god self-correcting? :-)

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

God would be the Great Corrector of man...

[The Starmaker]

No Ye wrote:
>
> ?


Of course the answer would be simple..his mother.


The Code is here:

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Before The Big Bang
>
> It appears to me
> that some (if not all)
> of yous still don't
> understand
> what came
> Before The Big Bang.
>
> Actually it's very simple.
>
> As I already mentioned
> in the past..
> 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth'.
>
> That statement contains all the secrets of the universe.
>
> To understand what came
> Before The Big Bang..
>
> you just need to reverse engineer that statement..
> and look at the order of events in reverse.
>
> So, reverse (meaning go backwards in time)
> 'earth
> the
> and
> heavens
> the
> created
> God
> beginning
> the
> In'
>
> So, the Big Bang occurred before "created" and after the "beginning".
>
> Go further in reverse
>
> and you have the first word...'In.
>
> The definition of "In" is...'Before something else happen'.
>
> Now you are left with ...something else.
>
> In also is written with the letter E...backwards 3n
>
> Now you can take E=Mc^2
>
> E means energy, and the
>
> Mc^2 is the Big bang.
>
> So, what came
> Before The Big Bang?
>
> Energy.
>
> Energy contained in something else.
>
> This Energy
> in something else.
> had no Time
> no Space
> no things
>
> Before The Big Bang
>
> and got bored
>
> (what you call consciousness created)
>
> and
>
> you got
>
> for Entertainment and Informational purposes only.
>
> note: (consciousness does not exist in the brain, it
> exist outside the brain)


Notice the first two letters of Entertainment and Informational...

En and In

3n

Is it a coincidence????



--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

[The Starmaker]

I mean, do I need to explain it again????

'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth'.

That statement contains all the secrets of the universe.

(including Who is God's God ?)

(you just need to decipher The Code)

Of course the answer would be simple..his mother.

(you just need to decipher The Code)


The Code:

The definition of "In" is...'Before something else happen'.

In also is written with the letter E...backwards 3n

(the 3 is the letter 'e' character written backwards
since it is before the beginning, God.)

In is pronounced 3n...In.

Since the letter e is backwards because you are traveling
before the big bang, so E is written backwards.

The letter "E" means...mother.


E=Mc^2 means the birth.

God's mother was pure energy...without mass.

But that was before the big bang...


I mean, do I need to explain it again????

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

God came from Himself.
We were created by Him...

Mitchell Raemsch

[Chris M. Thomasson]

It must be? I just don't know... Excellent question! If God is
recursive, it just might be a fractal...

:^)

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 9/9/2021 11:09 AM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> God came from Himself.
> We were created by Him...

This is very interesting to me. This implies that God was never created
for it always existed. That blows my mind.

;^)

[whodat]

It would appear that your education is lacking in the realm of theology.

While theology does not, usually, have anything to do with science or
productivity or other worldly matters, many consider it to be a "life
value" asset. Many others consider it foundational and essential.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Judaism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Christianity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Islam

There is much else on the topic. Simply stated the more you read on the
topic the more confusing it gets. Good luck if you pursue understanding.

[Clutterfreak]

On 9/9/2021 1:43 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

To understand what god is you need to know biology.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 9/9/2021 12:17 PM, whodat wrote:
> On 9/9/2021 1:43 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 9/9/2021 11:09 AM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> God came from Himself.
>>> We were created by Him...
>>
>> This is very interesting to me. This implies that God was never
>> created for it always existed. That blows my mind.
>>
>> ;^)
>
> It would appear that your education is lacking in the realm of theology.

I think so.

> While theology does not, usually, have anything to do with science or
> productivity or other worldly matters, many consider it to be a "life
> value" asset. Many others consider it foundational and essential.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Judaism
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Christianity
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Islam
>
> There is much else on the topic. Simply stated the more you read on the
> topic the more confusing it gets. Good luck if you pursue understanding.

The thing that gets me is the idea that God was never created because it
was simply, _always_ there. So, this entity has no memory of growing up
and learning things? It was always there. No birth. No memory of being
young because it was always there...

It kind of hurts to think about said "truly infinite" entity, that was
never created, yet has always been around...

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 9/9/2021 12:26 PM, Clutterfreak wrote:
> On 9/9/2021 1:43 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 9/9/2021 11:09 AM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> God came from Himself.
>>> We were created by Him...
>>
>> This is very interesting to me. This implies that God was never
>> created for it always existed. That blows my mind.
>>
>> ;^)
>
>
> To understand what god is you need to know  biology.
>

Agreed. I would add math as well. Fwiw, there are some interesting
"natural" looking formations that one can create. For instance, here is
a DLA experiment of mine that creates n-ary branching formations using
no random numbers at all wrt walking a particle. Can you get it to run
on your end?

http://fractallife247.com/fdla/

For fun, try clicking around on the screen, around the growing
cluster(s), and around the animated particles flowing into the vector
field. See what happens...

:^)

[whodat]

In the Christian realm, the one I grew up in, the concept of God always
existing etc. is considered a wondrous mystery and as something with no
proof or substance is accepted as the foundation of faith itself.

In contrast most scientists refuse to accept an infinite universe with
no beginning and no end. OTOH Einstein appears to have had no trouble
accepting that concept, one of the few major departures between Albert
and science overall. Most scientists, including Einstein, appear to
accept the essential concept of infinity as a mathematical construct
with no basis in reality. Round and round she goes, where she stops
nobody knows...

Enter the idea that the universe folds over on itself and if you keep
going in some direction long enough you'll eventually end up where you
started. Consider also the standard definition of a straight line. Are
we having fun yet?

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

It means your beginning was an absolute....
but God was in His eternity before ours.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 23:21:49 UTC+10, Serg io wrote:
> On 9/7/2021 4:55 AM, No Ye wrote:
> > ?
> >
>
>
>
> Generial ZOD, Kneel Before

another, who will ditto

and so on and on

Turtles, see.

That too, could be infinite.

We exist in only a small part of the overall infinite bandwidth.

Great thought, with coffee or whiskey or both.

Or in cave, solitary in meditation.

What is the point of it all?

King Kong I, jumping here, leaping there, breaking jaws of t rexes. What is that bright round thing I cannot reach up in the sky? What is to find, what to do - a flash of bright eye, the exhilaration from that, is that not enough?

More in

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Son-Hiranyaksh-Ancient-valour-demons/dp/147528599X

but do not pay the rascals, see it with annotations in my facebook wall, published in 2019.

https://www.facebook.com/arindam.banerjee.31149359/

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

>
>
>
> https://i.imgflip.com/jfzh3.gif

[Paul Alsing]

On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 5:37:50 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> but God was in His eternity before ours.

Man created god, Mitch, not the other way around...

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

How did man do that?
What about the math of BB science before man's own mind?
did God get you paul you nut?

Mitchell Raemsch

[Paul Alsing]

On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 12:10:49 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 7:30:36 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 5:37:50 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > but God was in His eternity before ours.
> > Man created god, Mitch, not the other way around...

> How did man do that?

"The worshiper is the father of the gods."
H. L. Mencken

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

What about math before man?
Man is not the father of physical math...
Does that not suggest a Mind before man's?
How did man decide to worship Him?
If they are creating God they are their own God instead.
How did man find the meaning of God?
I am an atheist... to you as man playing God.
Though some would have a the real God.
God creates gravity.
Judeo Christianity is closest to God's
absolute truth. Man only has his relative.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Serg io]

Hey, you wrote a book ! that is very hard to do!

[Serg io]

god makes no errors, has great error coding. Bet he is recursive...

[whodat]

On 9/10/2021 7:10 PM, Serg io wrote:
> On 9/9/2021 8:51 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:

[...]

>> https://www.facebook.com/arindam.banerjee.31149359/
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Arindam Banerjee
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://i.imgflip.com/jfzh3.gif
>
> Hey, you wrote a book ! that is very hard to do!

In this case it is diarrhea of the brain, not "difficult" but
actually unavoidable. Consider the source.

[whodat]

Self-correcting is independent of any need to. Many things have unused
features, but the features exist anyway.

[Arindam Banerjee]

It took me several years. About 15 or so after I came across the stories in illustrated form.
In contrast it takes he about an hour to construct a Petrarchan sonnet.
Archie and I worked upon one such recently.
There are others which will be published after updates in due course.

Cheers,
Arindam

[Arindam Banerjee]

- flush -
Disgustingturd whodumbo flushed

[Arindam Banerjee]

Oops, I meant other books.
They are already online in parts.
My first online nook was "To the Stars!" published in my adds website in January 2000.
Then after that
A New Look at the Principles of Motion
The Cause of Gravity in 2019
On Novas and Supernovas also in 2019.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam

[whodat]

On 9/10/2021 11:29 PM, worthless loser Dalit Arindam Banerjee wrote:

[...]

>> It took me several years. About 15 or so after I came across the stories in illustrated form.
>> In contrast it takes he about an hour to construct a Petrarchan sonnet.
>> Archie and I worked upon one such recently.
>> There are others which will be published after updates in due course.

> Oops, I meant other books.
> They are already online in parts.
> My first online nook was "To the Stars!" published in my adds website in January 2000.
> Then after that

> A New Look at the Principles of Motion
> The Cause of Gravity in 2019
> On Novas and Supernovas also in 2019.

All of it is completely useless fiction, diarrhea of the Dalit brain.

Waste of everyone's time. GIGO.



>> Cheers,
>> Arindam

[whodat]

On 9/10/2021 11:10 PM, worthless loser Dalit Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> - flush -
> Disgustingturd whodumbo flushed
>

Restored as is the usual case:

On 9/10/2021 7:10 PM, Serg io wrote:

[The Starmaker]

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 1:15:08 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 12:10:49 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 7:30:36 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 5:37:50 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > but God was in His eternity before ours.
> > > > Man created god, Mitch, not the other way around...
> >
> > > How did man do that?
> > "The worshiper is the father of the gods."
> > H. L. Mencken
>
> What about math before man?
> Man is not the father of physical math...
> Does that not suggest a Mind before man's?
> How did man decide to worship Him?
> If they are creating God they are their own God instead.
> How did man find the meaning of God?

God...the belief of God is contained in everyones DNA.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 14:38:34 UTC+10, whodat wrote:
his usual crap
- flush -
duly flushed

[Arindam Banerjee]

- flush -

Thus I commit to flush the shit
That is the prick whodat;
Always trying to keep lying
This unwholesome pig-brat.

Heh-heh,
Cheers
Arindam (Shakespeare++) Banerjee

[whodat]

You have no credibility so it doesn't matter what you say or do.

The ONLY way anyone will believe what you say is if you get your
armature to roll uphill, against gravity. I predict that will never
happen.

Till then you're just another big mouthed useless prat.

Piss off.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 16:06:25 UTC+10, whodat wrote:
his usual crap, will be treated appropriately

> On 9/11/2021 12:24 AM, worthless loser Dalit Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > - flush -
> >
> > Thus I commit to flush the shit
> > That is the prick whodat;
> > Always trying to keep lying
> > This unwholesome pig-brat.
> >
> > Heh-heh,
> > Cheers
> > Arindam (Shakespeare++) Banerjee

- flush -
wada yooN nibhaya

[whodat]

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Yes. Wrt going in the same direction long enough and eventually ending
up where you started implies that things are "slightly" curved.

[whodat]

Please consider adding time to the paradigm and see where that lands
you. Of course that begs the question, "is time geometric?"

[Arindam Banerjee]

- flush -

I blush to flush but flush I must
The unspeakable rogue whodat.
To be modest is not honest
With this bad unwholesome pig-brat.

Arindam (Shakespeare++) Banerjee

[whodat]

Better to be me than that Arindam Banerjee who is a kept man, indeed


Arindam Banerjee = *GIGOLO*

[Arindam Banerjee]

- flush -
Nobody wants the stinking stupid basTURD whodumbo.

[whodat]

On 9/12/2021 8:05 AM, worthless loser Dalit Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> - flush -
> Nobody wants the stinking stupid basTURD whodumbo.
>

Restored below because nobody cares what you say, everything to do with
you is worthless. Make your "internal force engine" armature go uphill
against gravity, the weak force. You cannot because that's worthless
too.

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Monday, 13 September 2021 at 02:51:48 UTC+10, whodat wrote:
> On 9/12/2021 8:05 AM, worthless loser Dalit Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > - flush -
> > Nobody wants the stinking stupid basTURD whodumbo.

And that is the truth.
- flush -

[whodat]

On 9/12/2021 6:19 PM, worthless loser Dalit Arindam Banerjee the madman

Reinstated text is below. Apparently he likes his story of how
he is being supported by his wife to be known to everyone.

Could it be that he hates himself that much? One wonders why he
acts this way.

On 9/12/2021 8:05 AM, worthless loser Dalit Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> - flush -
> Nobody wants the stinking stupid basTURD whodumbo.
>

Restored below because nobody cares what you say, everything to do with
you is worthless. Make your "internal force engine" armature go uphill
against gravity, the weak force. You cannot because that's worthless
too.

On 9/11/2021 9:59 PM, worthless loser Dalit Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> - flush -
>

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Monday, 13 September 2021 at 09:32:07 UTC+10, whodat wrote:
his usual lies and slander, to be ignored as the barkings of street dogs, and
- flushed -

The creature dressed up in a skirt, called itself Pamela, and stalked me in aue!

He stalks me here, he stalks me there,
The whodumbo stalks me everywhere.
Is he a hound, a hound from hell?
Yes, such is he, the whodumbell.

Heh-heh, this basTURD provides fun, untaxed too.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[whodat]

On 9/12/2021 6:38 PM, worthless loser Dalit Arindam Banerjee the Madman
of Melbourne and pathetic gigolo wasted ascii saying nothing of value
once again:

> Heh-heh, this basTURD provides fun, untaxed too.Deleted text reinstated below:

Your paranoid delusions about "Pamela" stalking you is your problem, yet
you somehow conflate that with me. This invention of yours is just as
worthless and ineffective as your "internal force engine" hat is
incapable of overcoming even the "weak force" called gravity. Can
your new invention "Pamela" overcome gravity? Is there any hope?

No, of course not. But it suits your paranoia that you are being
stalked. Trust me, you're not important enough.


> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
>


Reinstated text is below. It might seem that Arindam is drunker than
usual,.

On 9/12/2021 6:19 PM, worthless loser Dalit Arindam Banerjee the madman
of Melbourne wrote:

> On Monday, 13 September 2021 at 02:51:48 UTC+10, whodat wrote:
>> On 9/12/2021 8:05 AM, worthless loser Dalit Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> - flush -
>>> Nobody wants the stinking stupid basTURD whodumbo.
> And that is the truth.
> - flush -

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Monday, 13 September 2021 at 14:40:39 UTC+10, whodat wrote:
his usual lies and slander, naturally
- flushed -
for a healthier environment.

[whodat]

For a healthier environment, flush yourself away.

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/Good-bye-cruel-world-movie-poster-1982.jpg>

[Serg io]

On 9/11/2021 12:04 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 1:15:08 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 12:10:49 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 7:30:36 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 5:37:50 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> but God was in His eternity before ours.
>>>>> Man created god, Mitch, not the other way around...
>>>
>>>> How did man do that?
>>> "The worshiper is the father of the gods."
>>> H. L. Mencken
>>
>> What about math before man?
>> Man is not the father of physical math...
>> Does that not suggest a Mind before man's?
>> How did man decide to worship Him?
>> If they are creating God they are their own God instead.
>> How did man find the meaning of God?
>
> God...the belief of God is contained in everyones DNA.
>
>
>
>

no, it is => General ZOD, Kneel Before

[Arindam Banerjee]

- flush -

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Humm... If things are slightly curved then there is no such thing as a
100% perfect straight line, right? What am I missing... So traveling
down a straight line, as best as we can compute, at say, billions of
times the speed of light, for trillions of years, one should eventually
end up where they started from.

Imvvvvho, time is not a dimension, but exists in all dimensions? A 2d
entity has time, a 3d entity has time, and a 4d as well, on and on. So,
I am not sure if time is "special" because I think it exists in all
dimensions.

Is that radically retarded, or just a little? Did I totally miss your
point? Thanks.

[whodat]

On 9/13/2021 4:25 PM, worthless loser Dalit Arindam Banerjee the madman
of Melbourne wrote:

> - flush -

As much as you flush you must really be full of it, gigolo Banerjee...



text restored below:


On 9/13/2021 12:06 AM, worthless loser Dalit Arindam Banerjee the madman

[whodat]

We don't know exactly what time is, but it plays a role in all motion,
so what precisely is that role? The question is, reduced to the simplest
possible, is time geometric? Augustine wrote an entire little book on
the topic, conflated and confused with religious issues to be sure, but
still he managed to address the mystery attached in ways that still have
not been answered.

A realist is mystified by time, a crank thinks he or she has the
answers.

But as an aspect of the "for grins" thought process, a line can be
straight in a curved universe. Is that line curved if the universe is
modified to become linear?

I suppose it must boil down to the fact that it is the simplest
questions that end up being the most difficult to resolve into practical
solutions. In the meanwhile we have to ignore the difficulties and
utilize whatever works in a given situation, leaving the unanswered
alone for someone else to contemplate and usually to advance knowledge
into what is already state of the art. In other words, to reaffirm the
implausibility of things unanswerable..

I have to keep asking, are we having fun yet? Doesn't this challenge
the very idea of "an infinite universe?" Is a circle an infinitely long
line, or the converse? How flat does a line have to be before we
consider it straight? Isn't that simply another continuum? What is
"flat" anyway?

https://tinyurl.com/55ymjp6n

[Arindam Banerjee]

- flush -
Dumber than the dumbest dumbbell is the dumbo whodumbo, the basTURD nonpareil.

[whodat]

On 9/13/2021 8:49 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> - flush -
> Dumber than the dumbest dumbbell is the dumbo whodumbo, the basTURD nonpareil.

You are no different from the dumbbell political activists chanting
their nonsense, that they don't understand, in the streets. You have
no science, no logic, no math, no working invention, to support your
claims of greatness. You're nothing more than an ordinary cretin.

In order to put up with you, your wife must be as stupid as you are.

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/Good-bye-cruel-world-movie-poster-1982.jpg>

[Arindam Banerjee]

- flush -
Lying basTURD whodumbo flushed

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Humm... Afaict, a circle can be comprised of an infinite number of
points. So, a circle does not necessarily mean finite? Think of the
border of the Mandelbrot set for a moment...

[whodat]

The same is true of any physical construct. But circles don't actually
exist in nature. Can you show me a Mandelbrot set in nature?

Constructs like those aren't even models of natural things while they
can be useful in a process of explaining some aspects of nature.

Next, please consider that "existence" cannot be without the involvement
of time, and we really don't know what time is. We can grasp bits here
and there, i.e. "time is the interval between two events." I get that,
but isn't time probably a whole lot more?

[Arindam Banerjee]

On Saturday, 11 September 2021 at 10:12:14 UTC+10, Serg io wrote:
> On 9/8/2021 3:20 PM, whodat wrote:
> > On 9/8/2021 2:24 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> >> On 9/7/2021 2:55 AM, No Ye wrote:
> >>> ?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Itself?
> >
> > Is a recursive god self-correcting? :-)
> god makes no errors, has great error coding. Bet he is recursive...

Gods have frailties, being composed of our spirits.
When They succumb to frailties, the consequences are terrible.
Making up for same, is not easy.
My metaphysical book, The Son of Hiranyaksh, has this theme, among others.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

Abuse from the bad is more constructive than praise from the good.

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

How did man discover the meaning of God.
He can play God can he not?
I am an atheist to that man being his
own God.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Humm... Interesting. I cannot show you the Mandelbrot set in nature, but
I can show you examples of fractals in nature. For starters, think of a
plant. Now, these natural fractals do not go on for infinity. Well, in a
theoretical scenario, a tree that lives for infinity, is an infinite
fractal?

As for time, well... I think it can be relative. Think of a person A
tapping its foot on the ground in a rhythmic manner. Person A can derive
a sense of time for itself, from that rhythm. Now, think of person B
snapping its fingers in another rhythmic pattern. B can derive a sense
of time from that as well. Even though A and B are completely out of
tune wrt one another. Humm... Does that make any sense? Thanks again.

[whodat]

On 9/14/2021 2:48 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

[...]

> Well, in a
> theoretical scenario, a tree that lives for infinity, is an infinite
> fractal?

[...]

There is another "problem" this brings into the discussion.

Isn't anything invoking an "infinity" in time necessarily true in both
directions, before now and after now? A tree has a birth date, and to me
that negates claims of infinite life no matter how long "after now" it
may live. So AFAIC anything living cannot have an infinite attribute.

What precisely is the definition of an infinite existence? The Christian
God, for example, has no beginning and no end. Something I've not seen
asked before is the question of whether that Christian God is, or ever
as been, alive. A big social movement in the 1960's said, "God is dead"
implying that it had once been alive.

Well there's certainly enough meat to the topic(s) without invoking
religious artifacts. Apologies for having taken a moment of personal
amusement.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 9/10/2021 6:34 PM, whodat wrote:

> On 9/10/2021 7:12 PM, Serg io wrote:
>> On 9/8/2021 3:20 PM, whodat wrote:
>>> On 9/8/2021 2:24 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 9/7/2021 2:55 AM, No Ye wrote:
>>>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Itself?
>>>
>>> Is a recursive god self-correcting? :-)
>>
>> god makes no errors, has great error coding.  Bet he is recursive...
>

> Self-correcting is independent of any need to. Many things have unused
> features, but the features exist anyway.

Very true!

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 9/14/2021 1:07 PM, whodat wrote:
> On 9/14/2021 2:48 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Well, in a theoretical scenario, a tree that lives for infinity, is an
>> infinite fractal?
>
> [...]
>
> There is another "problem" this brings into the discussion.
>
> Isn't anything invoking an "infinity" in time necessarily true in both
> directions, before now and after now?

Indeed! The great question: Was it created, and lasts for infinity...
Or, was it always there...? This makes my brain want to bleed a bit when
I try to ponder that interesting, and purely theoretical scenario. Humm...

When did a truly infinite, "almighty" being, that was always there...
actually start creating? Wow. Deep shit.

> A tree has a birth date, and to me
> that negates claims of infinite life no matter how long "after now" it
> may live. So AFAIC anything living cannot have an infinite attribute.

True. A tree does have a birth date. That is much easier to reason
about. Once we start discussing a tree that was never created, yet
always was, and will be, forevermore. Well, that makes blood want to
shoot out of my eyes. For some damn reason, for me personally, it hurts
to think about it.

> What precisely is the definition of an infinite existence?

I don't really know. Perhaps Math...? Perhaps, just perhaps, that has
always been there? Damn. Humm...

> The Christian
> God, for example, has no beginning and no end. Something I've not seen
> asked before is the question of whether that Christian God is, or ever
> as been, alive. A big social movement in the 1960's said, "God is dead"
> implying that it had once been alive.
>
> Well there's certainly enough meat to the topic(s) without invoking
> religious artifacts. Apologies for having taken a moment of personal
> amusement.

No problem, no problem at all. Humm... You make me think deep. Well, I
am wondering what you think of the following questions to a theoretical
"God" that was never created, always was, and always will be... Well,
here is my question:

Hey God... Were you ever truly alone? If so, for how long? Ahh, that
brings time into the mix!

;^o Still, this blows my mind.

By the way, thanks for the conversation!

:^D

[The Starmaker]

You cannot show the Mandelbrot set in nature because a Mandelbrot is set
in mathematics and
Nature is not mathematical.




--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

[Arindam Banerjee]

I see a broccoli.

because a Mandelbrot is set
> in mathematics and
> Nature is not mathematical.

Nature operates on mathematical lines following certain laws.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Excellent! Well, imvvvho, all plants are fractal:

https://images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/08171507/269878_web.jpg

>
> because a Mandelbrot is set
>> in mathematics and
>> Nature is not mathematical.

I have a feeling that Nature is mathematical.

> Nature operates on mathematical lines following certain laws.

Okay.

[...]

[The Starmaker]

That's is just a... 'feeling'.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

Humm... I am wondering if you just might be familiar with collage theorem:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collage_theorem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Barnsley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnsley_fern

There is a way to get an interesting lossy compression that does fairly
well with renderings of nature:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_compression

[whodat]

Yes, but we need to remember that mathematics has limits as a
foundation, so if nature is mathematical, nature must have limits.

Even a broccoli cannot create partial atoms features, so it too has
limits. Even if it could create partial atom features, eventually
mathematically things get so small that atom parts are too big.

That's simple logic but I see no need to carry this idea any further.

If anyone ans to play further with it, please have at it.

[whodat]

Feelings aren't natural? Isn't it chemistry and electricity and nervous
system structures that drives feelings?

[Chris M. Thomasson]

What about an infinite set... Like the natural numbers?

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

How did man discover the meaning of God?

Mitchell Raemsch

[Serg io]

On 9/16/2021 4:16 PM, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> How did man discover the meaning of God?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
>

the bible

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

How did man write the bible?

[whodat]

On 9/16/2021 3:28 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 9/16/2021 5:30 AM, whodat wrote:

[...]

>>>> because a Mandelbrot is set
>>>>> in mathematics and
>>>>> Nature is not mathematical.
>>>
>>> I have a feeling that Nature is mathematical.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, but we need to remember that mathematics has limits as a
>> foundation, so if nature is mathematical, nature must have limits.
>
> What about an infinite set... Like the natural numbers?

OK, mathematics is used to model nature. Is the converse true?

Does every feature in mathematics have some corresponding reality
in nature? IMO that would prove interesting if true.

[Serg io]

https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

whodat wrote:

> In contrast most scientists refuse to accept an infinite universe with
> no beginning and no end. OTOH Einstein appears to have had no trouble
> accepting that concept, one of the few major departures between Albert
> and science overall.

You have no clue what you are babbling about.


PointedEars
--
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity
does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two: one to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[whodat]

On 9/16/2021 6:08 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> whodat wrote:
>
>> In contrast most scientists refuse to accept an infinite universe with
>> no beginning and no end. OTOH Einstein appears to have had no trouble
>> accepting that concept, one of the few major departures between Albert
>> and science overall.
>
> You have no clue what you are babbling about.

Easy to say, as you have, but difficult to argue, as you have failed to
do. All you've done is taken a cheap shot. Got anything worthwhile,
because what you wrote above sure isn't.

[whodat]

On 9/16/2021 6:08 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> whodat wrote:
>
>> In contrast most scientists refuse to accept an infinite universe with
>> no beginning and no end. OTOH Einstein appears to have had no trouble
>> accepting that concept, one of the few major departures between Albert
>> and science overall.
>
> You have no clue what you are babbling about.
>
>
> PointedEars

I asked you to have a rational discussion. You have been back and have
avoided the topic, so other than mentioning Einstein's supporting a
steady state universe theory I'll add his words from his book
"RELATIVITY" published in 1961 (by his estate) ISBN 9-517-029169 on page
195, "As regards space (and time) the universe is infinite."

see also
<https://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Albert-Einstein-Cosmology.htm>

If you're unwilling to have a rational discussion you are not entitled
to criticize.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

I am not sure about that. Perhaps, the universe is infinite? It was
always there? Our big bang was nothing special, so to speak?

There has to be some underlying truths that can be sort of "modeled" by
mathematics? Its still a chicken and egg problem in a fairly loose
sense? The physics seem to enjoy math. For instance, try to balance a
scale. Invent a so called unit weight. So, one unit on the left, and one
on the right means the scale is balanced...

[whodat]

So the nature of mathematics is that it has always existed. The question
then becomes, does the nature of something drive its creation? But then
the issue changes slightly, if something can be created, can it pre-
exist its own creation?

Part of the problem under discussion here is that there is some degree
of conflation between natural things and artificial ones. We cannot say
that mathematics doesn't exist because we use it all the time. So we are
left with the reality of unnatural things that can be created but depend
on sentient beings to create and utilize them. When humans die out does
mathematics die with us? If the toad eventually becomes sentient while
having none of the history of mathematics in its intellectual arsenal
does mathematics eventually become reinvented? But it already existed,
no?

Now my toad example toad lacks our opposable thumbs, leaving it with 4
fingers.

Assuming that the toad then first invents an arithmetic base 8 instead
of base 10, will the mathematics it invents over time have the same
validity that we assign to our mathematics? I only ask because it
required the success of arithmetic to drive what eventually became
higher mathematics. See the abandoned dead end of Roman arithmetic that
was unable to grow and had to be abandoned.

I would really like to see what arithmetic and advanced mathematics, if
any, would be invented by a sentient creature that does not have a base
10 example "at hand" so to speak.

Then there's always the argument that base 10 is more "natural" than any
other base. But that is only an argument. See the mathematics associated
with computers. Never previously in human history have we had to deal
with quantities as large as those we take for granted today.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 9/13/2021 9:25 AM, Serg io wrote:
> On 9/11/2021 12:04 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 1:15:08 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 12:10:49 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 7:30:36 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, September 9, 2021 at 5:37:50 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but God was in His eternity before ours.
>>>>>> Man created god, Mitch, not the other way around...
>>>>
>>>>> How did man do that?
>>>> "The worshiper is the father of the gods."
>>>> H. L. Mencken
>>>
>>> What about math before man?
>>> Man is not the father of physical math...
>>> Does that not suggest a Mind before man's?
>>> How did man decide to worship Him?
>>> If they are creating God they are their own God instead.
>>> How did man find the meaning of God?
>>
>> God...the belief of God is contained in everyones DNA.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> no, it is => General ZOD, Kneel Before
>

Is it you kneel before Zod? Or, Zod shall kneel before you! lol. ;^)
Just some comic relief. :^)

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 9/23/2021 7:36 AM, whodat wrote:
> On 9/22/2021 5:44 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 9/16/2021 3:45 PM, whodat wrote:
>>> On 9/16/2021 3:28 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 9/16/2021 5:30 AM, whodat wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>>> because a Mandelbrot is set
>>>>>>>> in mathematics and
>>>>>>>> Nature is not mathematical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a feeling that Nature is mathematical.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but we need to remember that mathematics has limits as a
>>>>> foundation, so if nature is mathematical, nature must have limits.
>>>>
>>>> What about an infinite set... Like the natural numbers?
>>>
>>> OK, mathematics is used to model nature. Is the converse true?
>>>
>>> Does every feature in mathematics have some corresponding reality
>>> in nature? IMO that would prove interesting if true.
>>
>> I am not sure about that. Perhaps, the universe is infinite? It was
>> always there? Our big bang was nothing special, so to speak?
>>
>> There has to be some underlying truths that can be sort of "modeled"
>> by mathematics? Its still a chicken and egg problem in a fairly loose
>> sense? The physics seem to enjoy math. For instance, try to balance a
>> scale. Invent a so called unit weight. So, one unit on the left, and
>> one on the right means the scale is balanced...
>
> So the nature of mathematics is that it has always existed.

I think so... Humm...

> The question
> then becomes, does the nature of something drive its creation?

Ohh. Very deeeeep. Humm... What created this nature thing anyway? Sorry
for the sarcastic response, but its still chicken and egg, in a way?

> But then
> the issue changes slightly, if something can be created, can it pre-
> exist its own creation?

Hyper deep. That would boil down to God "stuff"? Basically? It is as it
is. It was never created and will exist forever because it was always
there and will be forevermore? That type of shit. ;^o

Ask this infinite entity, God, a simple question... Where you ever
truly alone?

> Part of the problem under discussion here is that there is some degree
> of conflation between natural things and artificial ones. We cannot say
> that mathematics doesn't exist because we use it all the time.

Agreed.

> So we are
> left with the reality of unnatural things that can be created but depend
> on sentient beings to create and utilize them.

Interesting! Hyper beings that exist, and love to create. Just thinking
out loud here. By the way, here is a rendering of the almighty FSM:

http://siggrapharts.ning.com/photo/alien-anatomy

And here is its ship:

https://fractalforums.org/gallery/1612-270921004032.jpeg

lol! Kidding aside, you raise very interesting questions indeed. Thanks.

> When humans die out does
> mathematics die with us?

I don't think so. The essence of math and logic was always there?

> If the toad eventually becomes sentient while
> having none of the history of mathematics in its intellectual arsenal
> does mathematics eventually become reinvented? But it already existed,
> no?

Interesting. I think the math already existed. The toad became smart
enough to play around with it, and learn from it... ?

>
> Now my toad example toad lacks our opposable thumbs, leaving it with 4
> fingers.
>
> Assuming that the toad then first invents an arithmetic base 8 instead
> of base 10, will the mathematics it invents over time have the same
> validity that we assign to our mathematics? I only ask because it
> required the success of arithmetic to drive what eventually became
> higher mathematics. See the abandoned dead end of Roman arithmetic that
> was unable to grow and had to be abandoned.
>
> I would really like to see what arithmetic and advanced mathematics, if
> any, would be invented by a sentient creature that does not have a base
> 10 example "at hand" so to speak.
>
> Then there's always the argument that base 10 is more "natural" than any
> other base. But that is only an argument. See the mathematics associated
> with computers. Never previously in human history have we had to deal
> with quantities as large as those we take for granted today.

Oh that is VERY nice. Base 10? HA, who needs it, ribbit... base 8 works
fine.

[The Starmaker]

You think so? You feel so, you think so...can you not make up your minds?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,

to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

[The Starmaker]

Just a note on my use of the word "minds"...

people have two minds, ...one mind is just an illusion.

You have a left mind and a right mind.

Math is a language invented by humans. Nature does not speak...Math. Or English. Or Spanish. Or...

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

God neither exists nor does not exist...
God creates gravity.
Man plays Him.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Paul Alsing]

On Tuesday, September 28, 2021 at 1:02:05 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:

> Math is a language invented by humans. Nature does not speak...Math. Or English. Or Spanish. Or...

Finally, Starmaker makes a sensible statement...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_mathematics

[Serg io]

Starfarter making a sensible sentence probability wise, is the same as thousands of monkeys typing on typewriters 24/7 for 2 years



Extra Credit Problems:

1 where do you get all those typewriters ?
2 where do you get all those ribbons for the typewriters ?
3 Who feeds all those monkeys ?
4 who cleans up all that monkey mess ?
5 Who buys the cigarettes those monkeys ?

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

Are you following me again pnal?
Do you have a fake God?

Mitchell Raemsch

[The Starmaker]

Like for example...a girl's ass.

Look at your girlfriend's ass. It's an illusion. She has asses, not ass. Left ass and right ass.

Even if the cleft is larger than life..it still gives the illusion of she only has one ass.

Is there a medical science term for one ass?

[The Starmaker]

To 'feel' so.. I can understand, but to 'think' so would mean that it is based on some sort of...facts.

There is no place in the universe out there where mathematics exist.


Actually, all there is is a bunch of rocks out there...any numbers on those rocks???

[Serg io]

Undisciplined thinking is like this is a mental problem typically induced by use of "bongs"

[whodat]

On 9/30/2021 8:56 AM, Serg io wrote:

[...]

>> Like for example...a girl's ass.
>>
>> Look at your girlfriend's ass. It's an illusion. She has asses, not ass. Left ass and right ass.
>>
>> Even if the cleft is larger than life..it still gives the illusion of she only has one ass.
>>
>> Is there a medical science term for one ass?
>>
>
>
> Undisciplined thinking is like this is a mental problem typically induced by use of "bongs"

Heroin is known to induce irreversible schizophrenia. As many schizos as
we have around here one has to wonder.

[Serg io]

Meth does that too, also meth causes physical brain damage as holes you can see on MRI.

[Paul Alsing]

All gods are fake, Mitch.

This is a good read...

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/13677-where-is-the-graveyard-of-dead-gods-what-lingering-mourner

[Serg io]

God is integral part of human nature.

Many of those that replace God with their own ego, have poor self discipline as they only have to answer to themselves.

[Serg io]

On 9/23/2021 9:36 AM, whodat wrote:
> On 9/22/2021 5:44 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> On 9/16/2021 3:45 PM, whodat wrote:
>>> On 9/16/2021 3:28 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>>> On 9/16/2021 5:30 AM, whodat wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>>> because a Mandelbrot is set
>>>>>>>> in mathematics and
>>>>>>>> Nature is not mathematical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a feeling that Nature is mathematical.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but we need to remember that mathematics has limits as a
>>>>> foundation, so if nature is mathematical, nature must have limits.
>>>>
>>>> What about an infinite set... Like the natural numbers?
>>>
>>> OK, mathematics is used to model nature. Is the converse true?
>>>
>>> Does every feature in mathematics have some corresponding reality
>>> in nature? IMO that would prove interesting if true.
>>
>> I am not sure about that. Perhaps, the universe is infinite? It was always there? Our big bang was nothing special, so to speak?
>>
>> There has to be some underlying truths that can be sort of "modeled" by mathematics? Its still a chicken and egg problem in a fairly loose sense? The
>> physics seem to enjoy math. For instance, try to balance a scale. Invent a so called unit weight. So, one unit on the left, and one on the right means
>> the scale is balanced...
>
> So the nature of mathematics is that it has always existed. The question
> then becomes, does the nature of something drive its creation? But then
> the issue changes slightly, if something can be created, can it pre-
> exist its own creation?

Nature always existed, Math was invented or evolved to describe it.

>
> Part of the problem under discussion here is that there is some degree
> of conflation between natural things and artificial ones. We cannot say
> that mathematics doesn't exist because we use it all the time. So we are
> left with the reality of unnatural things that can be created but depend
> on sentient beings to create and utilize them.

?

> When humans die out does mathematics die with us?

yep, unless we leave Math books around.

> If the toad eventually becomes sentient while
> having none of the history of mathematics in its intellectual arsenal
> does mathematics eventually become reinvented? But it already existed,
> no?

Toads don't use math, and they cant read Math Books.

>
> Now my toad example toad lacks our opposable thumbs, leaving it with 4
> fingers.
>
> Assuming that the toad then first invents an arithmetic base 8 instead
> of base 10, will the mathematics it invents over time have the same
> validity that we assign to our mathematics?

Yes, if Toads were into Math.

> I only ask because it
> required the success of arithmetic to drive what eventually became
> higher mathematics. See the abandoned dead end of Roman arithmetic that
> was unable to grow and had to be abandoned.

nope, it was too hard to multiply and devide in Roman Numerals by hand, here is an online calculator

https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/conversions/roman-numeral-calculator.php

>
> I would really like to see what arithmetic and advanced mathematics, if
> any, would be invented by a sentient creature that does not have a base
> 10 example "at hand" so to speak.

There is that horse that can count using hoof beats...

sentient things and math are divergent.

[Chris M. Thomasson]

I think Nitrous oxide can do that as well. Iirc, they are called Olney's
Lesions.