The Museum of Hoaxes
Prove God Exists and Get $1,000,000
Posted By:
Lord Lucan
in somewhere strange
Jan 12, 2005
 <a href="http://www.thinkandreason.com/" title="Think and Reason">Think and Reason</a> is offering $1,000,000 if you can<b> prove</b> that God exists. There are conditions attached. But they do say: <i>"All you have to do is prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that God exists. It is really that easy!"</i>

Is there really this money sitting waiting?

Supposing I said I was God - and prove I exist (should be easy) - is the money mine?
Category: Money, Religion; Replies: 1406

Comments
Page 17 of 24 pages ‹ First  < 15 16 17 18 19 >  Last ›
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 | 08:46 AM
<i>It gives Him dominion over everything because no law can stop Him (or force Him)</i>

Then, by definition, your proof is invalid. By His very nature, you can't prove His existence, otherwise you've bound him to a law that states that he <i>must</i> exist, and He's beyond all laws, remember?
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 | 08:46 AM
And once again, being beyond control of all laws doesn't automatically give you dominion over them. Other universes (if they exist) might very well contain different physical laws. Those laws don't bind us because we're 'outside' them. Does that give us domninion over them? No. The same goes for God. The problem is, you already assume that God is omnipotent and are using this assumption to prove His existence.

In other words, you're trying to prove that God exists by providing proof that is only valid if He does, in fact, exist. Circular logic.
David B.
Member
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 | 08:53 AM
"The authors of the bible did not get their story from any devine source"

No, because 'Devine' is a town in Texas not noted for its bible-inspiring ability. 😊
David B.
Member
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 | 09:14 AM
Hmm... if a pefect god couldn't be proved to exist. Then either there is no such thing as 'irreducible complexity' or whatever 'intelligent designer' one postulates must be less than perfect.

Mind you, if I were a theist I wouldn't mind that there couldn't ever be proof of the existence of a perfect god, because (a) the lack of any such proof means that my god is perfect, and (b) it re-affirms the importance of faith.
Friis
Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 | 09:19 PM
I like philosophi and I try taking some Philosophers in to this discussion of god.
Few philosoplers belive in god. "s
Matt
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 | 01:48 AM
Do you exist?

Does your heart continue to beat?

Are you able to Love?



YOU are the proof
David B.
Member
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 | 05:41 AM
Matt wrote:
"Do you exist? Does your heart continue to beat? Are you able to Love?
YOU are the proof"

(1) Do I exist? Yes.
I am able to determine my own existence from the first principle of thought requiring a thinker, "I think, therefore I am". I am similarly unable to determine the existence of anything else without making one of many assumptions, all of which boil down to "assuming X exists...".
If I assume the existence of an external reality, I would put down the fact of my existence to the chance combination of a sperm and an egg. Nothing that is known about this process requires anything other than natural causes to explain.

(2) Does my heart continue to beat? Unknown.
Certainly I can feel the sensations associated with a beating heart, but I have no empirical way of deciding whether they reflect some physical reality outside of my mind or are merely convincing illusions created by it.
Again assuming the existence of an external reality (or perhaps, according to the internal system of my wild imaginings), my heartbeat would be the product of a small cluster of cells called the sino-atrial node. The membranes of these cells are subject to spontaneous depolarization due to an excitation threshold being exceeded. Calcium ions then pass into the interior of the cell creating an action potential that spreads to the adjacent myocardial cells.

(3) Am I able to love? Yes.
Love is certainly a sensation I am familiar with, but as there is no way of distinguishing what I might believe to be the cause of this feeling from an internally generated stimulus my mind has constructed for its own subconscious purposes, it proves nothing.
Within the structure of my subconscious illusion of
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 | 09:08 AM
Matt, well stated. Completely meaningless, but well stated nonetheless.

Friis, whatever dude. Peace out.
Friis
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 | 02:49 PM
hmm...
set some points of what i have to explain and i will try with this "MATERIAL" thinking, god could be this material.
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 | 03:22 PM
Nope, still vague.

Maybe if you tried stating a point, then backing it up with some logic or evidence. "God is Material" just doesn't cut it for those of us not currently stoned.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 | 06:03 PM
Okay, I'm stoned now. Run that by me again Friis.
😕
Carter S
Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 | 06:13 PM
Sweet we're all stoned!!! crap the damn wall is saying something again.
David B.
Member
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 | 05:20 AM
Of course, to an atheist, god is immaterial.

Okay, half a bottle of Jagermeister and a dozen re-reads later I'm guessing the gist of what Fris is saying is that it is reductio ad absurdum to keep saying things are made of other things. Atoms are made of electrons and nuclei, the nucleus is made of protons and neutrons, p's and n's are made of quarks... so what are quarks made of?

Fritz's contention appears to be that there must (logically) be some lower limit to what everything is made of, an ultimate material if you like. This ultimate material is by definition everywhere and in everything, could it not be god?

This is partially a 'god of the gaps' argument, because we don't know what quarks are made of, they're made of 'god'. But also it's more of an assertion than an argument. Some physicists propose that all the fundamental particles are wobbly strings in anything up to 26 spacial dimensions. Supposing the string-theorists at are some point proved right, then your average GOTG theist will just point out that the strings are, obviously, made of 'god'.

Time for the other half of the bottle, methinks!
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 | 08:38 AM
Assuming there actually is a fundamental building block of the universe, there's no reason it can't be called 'God'. Such a designation doesn't actually mean a whole lot, though. There's still no reason to believe that such building blocks would make up a gestalt intelligence that runs the universe. It's much more likely that they are the equivalent of Legos. Sure they look neat with all their purdy colours, and they are certainly fun to stick together, but it sure hurts when you poke yourself in the eye with one.
David B.
Member
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 | 08:47 AM
"there's no reason it can't be called 'God'"

Look, it's called 'marklar' and that's final!
Friis
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 | 09:55 AM
when some belivers read about atistotle, they understood the 'marklar' as god, those belivers are mostly muslims. (don't know why, but that is what i heard)

when some belivers read about plato, they undersood the other word he was talking about as heaven and god, those belivers are mostly christians.

but i can't connect plato spirit world to any physics laws, only the over natural can be explained here.

physics laws can be explained in aristotle 'marklar', but no over natural can be explained here.

should i explain plato's 'spirit world'?
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 | 10:49 AM
Friis, whoever you got your information from is either an idiot or is lying to you. Everything you seem to believe is completely wrong.

Having said that, I'm dying to hear you explain Plato. This oughta be good.

<i>*pops some popcorn and pulls up a chair*</i>
Carter S
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 | 11:45 AM
Shoot away Friis! Hey David B pass some of that Jagermeister over here, Chary I need some of that popcorn too. I have a feeling it's going to be very awkward.........

Oh yeah, I am obviously not an expert but some String theorists believe that those dimensions collided into each other and made The Big Bang.

But of course, string theory has yet to be proved.
Carter S
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 | 11:49 AM
Oh yeah, they use an analogy. They say that the dimensions are like a loaf of bread. Each slice you might say is a different Dimension. They claim that we could be backed up to thousands and thousands of other dimensions.

If we could go smaller than a quark and smaller than a string, then we get to a diff dimension, then could we be able to go smaller?

I don't know, Im still stoned.
David B.
Member
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 | 05:21 PM
"I am obviously not an expert but some String theorists believe that those dimensions collided into each other and made The Big Bang."

That's supersymmetric string theory, the 26 dimensional non-cosmologically significant version is baryonic string theory. Basically the whole field is like a guitar-heavy mariachi band (in that there are plenty of 'frets' but not much 'violins').
candymancan
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 | 05:38 PM
Look at the sunset...look at how a 50 foot tall oak tree comes from an acorn...look at how a baby grows inside of it's mother until it can sustain it's own life...look how a mother naturally produces food for the child until it can eat solid foods...look at the ability that we have to love another person so deeply...If you can not see that only God can create something so amazing and intricate then I think that you are just denying the very truth that is engrained into human beings. God exists.
Friis
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 | 05:53 PM
this world we live in, is just an illusion. when you see a table... there is no table, it is an illusion, a reflection of the real table, the table that is real can be find in the spirit world, this spirit word is where everything is real, is true, is right. what we would call heaven.

there is only one real dog, bird, cat, car, house, these are reflected to our world where we are small dogs and big dogs whicth is the reflection of the real dog.

now what is more real than the other...
1. if you look in a mirror and see a dog this is less real than
2. look straight at the dog.
3. get a picture of a dog in your head is more real.
4. be in heaven where you see the one real dog.

hmm... this is hard hmm...

you die, your spirit goes to heaven, see everything, learn everything, it is all beutyfull, but then your spirit gets back in a new body, a new born, a baby, there your spirit have forgotten it all.

but some ask why he can be sure that in heaven that everything is real and not just an illution something else, there it gets in that the real cat, dog, bird is the illution of god, the one real thing.
Carter S
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 | 06:17 PM
this is for Friis: Sayyy What!!!?!?!

Thanks for the info David B.

Candymancan:

That is not proof though. I believe in God and all, but what you just said has been said hundreds of times. Just because we exist doesn't mean that it's proof.

Since I beleive in God, I will say this, I don't think God wants there to be Proof. I think he just wants our faith. I don't know, Im not all knowing, so I can't say anything, but my opinion.
candymancan
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 | 06:18 PM
WHAT?

Where did you get that theory from? I hope that you realize that that makes absolutely no sence. How is it that there can only be one dog and bird and so on when there is cleary many different types of both species. Is there also only one human in "heaven"? Is every human that we see also just an illusion or a mirror image? I don't think so, and I don't think that you really believe that either. It takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe that a real God created everything and every one individually and unique.
candymancan
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 | 06:22 PM
Carter S,

I can agree with you that God wants us just to have faith and to trust that he is God, but I also think that God knows that that is just not good enough for some people. That is why He created such complex things. So that we can see what he made and believe that He is God. I believe that the sky is literally proof enough that God exists.
Charybdis
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 | 09:01 PM
Well candymancan, obviously God isn't any too smart then. because he failed miserably. The existence of everything around us doesn't prove that God exists anymore than it proves that the Easter Bunny exists. You'd think the Almighty would be on the ball enough to anticipate our doubting his 'proof', but he must be slipping in his dotage.

Wait, wait! Let me guess your response.

"But who made the Earth and Sky then? Surely there was a creator."

1) Why must there have been? Why can't everything that exists have been spontaneously generated during the Big Bang? It makes as much sense as saying that God created it, and there is a hell of a lot more evidence for the Big Bang.

"But, the universe is God. They are one and the same."

Nope. The universe is everything that exists. God doesn't exist, therefore he's not part of the universe. Besides, there is no evidence whatsoever (I seem to be using this word a lot lately) that the universe as a whole is sentient, or even alive. It's just wishful thinking.

<i>echo, echo, echo...</i>

I know. It's all been said before, but some people refuse to read everything that came before them. They think they can just jump in here and instantly convince us with their blinding (blind?) insights into the nature of existence. Too bad we've heard it all before and have become jaded.
Friis
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2006 | 10:25 PM
hmm that was more than 2200 years ago thar duelinst to plato said something alike, people just put god into it, even that plato didn't belive on god or any other creator.

fredrich nietzsche...
god is dead.
for me you can belive anything you want but god will allways be a fictive character, just like superman, batman, spiderman.
David B.
Member
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 | 04:54 AM
candyman wrote:
"Look at [...]"

Look at the tornado... look at how it dashes the bodies of children against 50 foot tall oak trees... look at how a parasite grows inside of it's host, feasting on the living flesh of its helpless victim until it has killed it... look how a mother wasp naturally paralyzes living food for its child until it can hunt food for itself... look at the ability that we have to hate another person, even a stranger, so deeply we will torture and kill them over something so trivial as a thought... If you can not see that only the vilest being would create something so rich in pain and horror then I think that you are just denying the very truth that is engrained into human beings. God is evil.
David B.
Member
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 | 05:01 AM
Carter S wrote:
"Since I beleive in God, I will say this, I don't think God wants there to be Proof. I think he just wants our faith."

Well put. Faith in God is trust in God. People who have to 'prove' that their beliefs are right are insecure in their faith as they can neither face, nor overcome, doubt. People who think that it is 'self-evident' that their beliefs are right have more pride than faith.
David B.
Member
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 | 05:34 AM
Fris wrote:
"this world we live in, is just an illusion. when you see a table... there is no table, it is an illusion, a reflection of the real table, the table that is real can be find in the spirit world, this spirit word is where everything is real, is true, is right. what we would call heaven."

You had to ask, Charybdis, you just had to ask. Well done Fris, by the way.

candyman wrote:
"Where did you get that theory from? I hope that you realize that that makes absolutely no sence. How is it that there can only be one dog and bird and so on when there is cleary many different types of both species."

It's Plato's concept of the 'ideal' (look up "Platonic Idealism" on Wikipedia sometime). Basically, as our perceptions are imperfect, whatever we perceive as a 'table' is inferior to the 'perfect form' of a table. You cannot even prove that any of these 'real' dogs and birds exist, they are just shadows on the wall of the cave in which you lie chained.

"Is there also only one human in "heaven"? Is every human that we see also just an illusion or a mirror image?"

Yes and no. In fact there are no humans in heaven, just the one great being, God. All other beings' souls rejoin with God hence become inseparable from Him. We all cast off our inperfect forms and reclaim that most perfect state, Plato's "Form of Good". Nirvana. Heaven.

"I don't think so, and I don't think that you really believe that either. It takes more faith to believe that than it does to believe that a real God created everything and every one individually and unique."

Work hard and become a leader; be lazy and never succeed (Proverbs 12:24). The easy beliefs are just traps for lazy minds.
Carter S
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 | 11:25 AM
Sweet, 1000.

Yeah, I mean I don't believe God's evil. But I think of the bad things as obstacles that we must learn from. If we make a mistake then it is our chance to perfect that. Mistakes are good. Unless everything is perfect, then mistakes wouldn't happen and wouldn't be needed.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 | 10:50 AM
"I don't believe God's evil... Mistakes are good."

Yeah, good logic. Let's feel good about a person causing pain and suffering to others so they can learn how to be perfect and embrace God.

Luckily there's still hope for the world. At least one government has the balls to stand up to these religious fruitcakes and say "No way". The Canadian province of <a href="http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/03042006/2/national-saskatchewan-says-thanks-polygamist-group-possible-move-north.html">Saskatchewan has told fugitive Warren Jeffs</a> not to bother with plans to re-locate his Morman polygamist slave colony to their jurisdiction. They made it clear polygamy is illegal in Saskatchewan and they WILL prosecute.

Personally I have nothing against someone who wants to have more than one wife IF all the parties involved are of sound mind and agree to it. However it seems a lot, if not most, of these multiple wives are born and raised in Mormon slave camps. They are isolated and carefully groomed for the colony's purposes and never have a chance for any other lifestyle. This is all done in the "name of God" and to satisfy the desire of a select few men to control defenseless women and children.

The Saskatchewan government admits it is hard to prosecute polygamy but says they can and will do something about the sexual exploitation of young women. Way to go Saskatchewan!
Carter S
Posted: Wed Apr 26, 2006 | 05:37 PM
I was quoted by the cap'n. I feel special now.
joe
Posted: Fri Apr 28, 2006 | 08:16 PM
Jesus Loves You
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sat Apr 29, 2006 | 02:07 AM
Jesus Forgot His Safe Word
David B.
Member
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 | 05:01 AM
"Jesus Forgot His Safe Word"

I thought it was "lama sabacthani".
:lol:

(This is very funny if you know Aramaic!)
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Tue May 02, 2006 | 05:15 AM
David B. said:

"Jesus Forgot His Safe Word"

I thought it was "lama sabacthani".
LOL

(This is very funny if you know Aramaic!)"

Who doesn't?
Carter S
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 | 12:09 AM
My pants are tight.


Say that in Aramaic!
David B.
Member
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 | 05:53 AM
Er, "breqsyn camcam!", why do you want to know?
Can you prove that God does not exist?
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 | 06:53 AM
Can you prove that God does not exist?
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 | 01:52 PM
"Can you prove that God does not exist?"

You really have not read ANY of this thread, have you?
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 | 03:55 PM
I love people who come out of nowhere thinking they can put us in our places. :lol:
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Wed May 03, 2006 | 03:56 PM
On the other hand, we've scared off the few competent arguers that have posted here. I'm lonely.
David B.
Member
Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 | 02:40 AM
"Can you prove that God does not exist?"

No. In fact I can't even prove "Mr. Spock" from Star Trek doesn't exist. Gosh, come to think of it, I find myself unable to prove that Romulan war-birds aren't at this moment hovering invisibly above the continents of the Earth waiting to ride roughshod over the nations of the world on the back of teams of pink unicorns from Satan's own herd!

Well I for one welcome our new pointy-eared, mythical-beast riding overlords!
David B.
Member
Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 | 02:42 AM
Or is a 'harass' of pink unicorns? I can never remember.
David B.
Member
Posted: Thu May 04, 2006 | 02:57 AM
Okay, the Oxford Compendium of Collective Nouns, (is "compendium" the collective noun for collective nouns, I wonder?)...

*flip* *flip* *flip*

Unbeholden... Unbelievers... A heresy of unbelievers?! Ha ha!

*flip* *flip* *flip*

Uncertainties... A "doubt" of uncertainties? Cool!

*flip* *flip*

Undead... Unadecagons... An "irregularity" of unadecagons, interesting!

*flip* *flip*

Unicerosaurus... Unicorns!

*flip* Hmm... *flip*

No special entry for pink unicorns, so we just use the generic collective noun... which is... a "harras"!

Oh, well. Nearly right!
brenda garcia
Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 | 01:49 PM
prove me that god do not exist, thas the best prove of his existance.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sat May 06, 2006 | 11:50 PM
brenda garcia said:

"prove me that god do not exist, thas the best prove of his existance."

Uh, Brenda, PROVE to me that there are NO flying monkeys anywhere on Earth. Remember that you have to look EVERYWHERE and demonstrate ABSOLUTELY that there is not so much as ONE flying monkey. If there's anyplace you haven't looked, I guess that must mean that there ARE some somewhere, right?

Seriously, you haven't read much of this thread, have you? I think this whole "you can't prove God DOESN'T exist" thing was covered by about Page Three. You gotta do better than that if you want to participate in this discussion. You shouldn't bring a knife to gun fight, as the saying goes.
David B.
Member
Posted: Sun May 07, 2006 | 01:57 PM
brenda garcia wrote:
"prove me that god do not exist, thas the best prove of his existance."

Answer 1:
Okay. I asked the great and powerful 'Invisible Pink Unicorn' (blessed be her holy hooves), and she said that your god doesn't exist. Being an all-knowing deity herself, I guess she'd know. As you don't have any proof that there isn't an omnipotent invisible pink unicorn who runs the universe (mainly for her own entertainment, it must be said), that should be proof enough for you to drop your silly supersticions and convert to Unicornism.

Answer 2:
Prove to me that any of the 10,000 other gods people believe in do not exist. That's at least as good proof of their existance.

I doubt you accept your own argument as proof of these other gods. I don't accept it as proof of yours.
David B.
Member
Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 | 08:20 AM
Can we not find some way of bumping this up the forum list? It's getting mighty dull around here!
David B.
Member
Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 | 09:58 AM
N.B. the eating is an ACTION, the rape a CONSEQUENCE, hence they are not analogues to each other
Lindsay
Posted: Thu May 18, 2006 | 03:02 PM
wow it ended??

hey hey i was not scared away
(just to make sure you were not talking about me)
i just got a life
and made better use of my time...
and stopped trying to do the impossible. lol i do have better arguements though! im sure a few of you would be happy to hear that my reasoning has increased quite greatly. and please, no sly remarks on that... lol

converse = great digging tools
David B.
Member
Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 | 04:38 AM
"im sure a few of you would be happy to hear that my reasoning has increased quite greatly"

Thanks for introducing me to "quite greatly"! I always try to incorporate a few oddities in my spoken conversations to confuse the other party. I intend to use 'quite greatly' at least three times today; it may even replace 'okey dory' as my current favourite!
Timmo
Member
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 | 07:48 PM
Hello again!

I've been brought up with the theory of evolution, and so despite being a christian, the "biological" arguments for God's existence have not persuaded me alone. But I just want to share something which occured to me when I was praying a while ago;

A system M, say, may generate a consequence N.

Now, from this we know that M is as complicated and neat as N.

Because if all the laws which generate N, ALL the laws, mind, make N, then the complexity of N would have to be contained in those laws; That is, M

This is because N is a function of M. So even if our brains, hands, ecosystem, etc. are here as a result of the laws of the universe (time, matter, energy, probability, etc.), the laws of the universe then call for God just as much as if, say, the big bang occured, and then we apes occured here "as if by magic" a nanosecond later.

What I am saying is that the diversity of pixels on a TV screen is not more complicated than the code on the DVD, that the body of an ant is not more complicated than the algorithm which tells the cells how to divide. The laws of the universe must therefore be more complicated than we thought. And the "biological" argument, it seems, is as valid as ever!
Timmo
Member
Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 | 07:54 PM
Let's not be unscientists; U can't change the truth.

"You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."
Charybdis
in Hell
 Member
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 | 01:04 AM
Timmo-

<i>A system M, say, may generate a consequence N.

Now, from this we know that M is as complicated and neat as N.</i>

False. A less complicated system is quite capable of creating a more complicated one, under certain circumstances. Order can arise from disorder, but only on a local scale. Overall, entropy will always continue to rise, regardless of how low it may appear at any specific point.

For instance, a cloud of dust floating through space - seems rather random and uncomplicated. Now, imagine that dust coalescing under gravity to form a planet, one that eventually cools down and forms mountains and oceans. Seems rather more complicated than before, doesn't it? Yet, only gravity was required to produce this planet - not God.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 | 02:49 PM
Because our minds work in time we see uncomplicated things evolve into complicated things, yes. But it remains a fact that N is a function of M. If N can be explained fully by a complete set of laws M, M would have to contain the complexity of N if not more. That is why I say ALL the laws, not just the obvious ones we see like time, energy, probability. We will never be able to explain them fully (well, I dunno) but we can see that the whole algorithm (not just the bits we see) must be as complex as N. Yet because we inhabit a direction in time, the net entropy always increases, yes.
David B.
Member
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 | 03:36 PM
(1) Complexity from simplicity.
Arguable the most complex shape in mathematics is the Mandelbrot set. It's boundary has a theoretical maximum fractal dimension of 2, which is to say that its outline is so 'crinkly' it completely fills a finite area despite being of zero width.

Obviously something so complicated would need to be defined by an equally complicated matemathical formula, so here it is...

"Set (M) of c, where z(n+1) -> z(n)^2+c, z(0) = 0 does not tend to infinity as n tends to infinity.."

The boundary of (M) is the classic, and infinitely complex, Mandelbrot shape; egro the formula for (M) - which defines this shape - is infinitely complex.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 | 02:56 PM
Just as it is easy to find situations in which entropy seems to decrease, it is easy to find situations in which the complexity of N does not seem to be contained in M.

It is always the case that entropy increases in some other part of the universe when anyone points out one of these entropy-decreasing situations.

Just as with this Mandelbrot shape (I apologise; I've never heard the word before) the law is simple, and the complex plane looks, well, complex. However N is entirely a function of M. Thus all the laws M, all the laws, mind, not just the obvious ones, must contain N's complexity. Our brains can derive other laws as well the one you mentioned (ones that we take for granted, for we are used to them that much) and use them to derive Mandelbrot's complicated shape from Mandelbrot's seemingly simple law. But try explaining to a newborn baby Mandelbrot's shape. It would be horrendous for one to explain that (z+a)^2 = z^2 + 2az + a^2 as well as a million other proofs. That is why I say all the laws.
Timmo
Member
Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 | 04:17 PM
I struggle with issues as a human being too, if that helps. But He has this thing for you; "Talitha koum", which means, "My child, I say to you, get up!"
Page 17 of 24 pages ‹ First  < 15 16 17 18 19 >  Last ›

 Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.