On Plato, the Early Church, and Modern Science: An Eclectic Meditation

November 30, 2004 | Jean F. Drew

[betty boop]

Why have mathematicians forbidden division by zero? What are they afraid of? Well, I think they are afraid of eternity.

Stripes, what a fascinating insight. I think you may be right about this.

You wrote you found my approach "a little troubling" because I was "equating" real numbers to eternity. Actually, Stripes, I wasn't so much equating as analogizing.

I truly enjoyed this:

"Does that mean that the square root of two is infinite? Look at that isosceles right triangle again. What is the length of the hypotenuse? The length of that finite line segment is exactly the square root of two. If the square root of two were an infinite number, it would take you an infinite amount of time to draw that hypotenuse. But it doesn't. You can draw it quite easily without exhausting all the lead in your pencil.

"It turns out that irrational numbers aren't very mysterious after all. The are very mundane things. We use them all they time. We can hold them in our hands. They are finite."

And also the info on the Pythagorean Brotherhood and their irrational problem with irrational numbers!

You write beautifully and most informatively, Stripes. Thank you so much for giving us another excellent lesson in mathematics! And also for pointing out potentially new lines of inquiry in our development of the "nature" of infinity (eternity).

[betty boop]

Thank you, devane! Consider it done.

[betty boop]

I think it was easier for the Greeks, and the gentiles in general, to accept the paradigm, for they had no such law to prevent them from understanding the logic and sequential (expanding) revelation of God to mankind. Again, if it were not for the obedience of the Jews to the law, we would not be having this conversation.

I think Plato would have delighted and rejoiced in knowing that the Word became flesh IN the microcosm, not AS the microcosm.

Beautiful, insightful post, Eastbound. Thank you so much for posting it!

[betty boop]

...since Alexander the Greek was prophesied by Daniel and had so great an effect on the spreading of the Gospel by establishing a common Greek language - it ought not be surprising if God also chose to use Plato to prepare the Greek speaking (mostly Gentile) world, mentally, to receive the Gospel.

I don't think that should be any great stretch! Thanks for pointing that out, Alamo-Girl.

How I love Tegmark! Thanks so much for providing the link to his "Parallel Universes." It is an absolutely great read. :^)

[RightWhale]

It is beneath the dignity and interest-level of philosophers to discuss math. Or science. They will construct arguments for a fee.

[betty boop]

Note that projective geometry treats infinity as an ordinary number (or at least the point at infinity is an ordinary point.)

You asked, "Are we talking 'singularities' here?"

Looks like we could be, cliff. I've read that the singularity, "hanging out in the Planck era," would have had the form of an ordinary point. Dean Overman writes (in A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization, 1997, p. 109),

"An expanding universe implies that the universe was previously smaller. If the rate of expansion were reversed, all of the matter in the universe would be compressed to an infinitely dense singular point smaller than a proton. The Big Bang emerged from such a singularity where spacetime is subject to an infinite curvature and does not exist in any terms which can be described by the known laws of physics. Past, future, and present are meaningless terms in this singularity. There is no 'before' in this singularity. Only after the Big Bang at Planck time (10^-43) do space and time exist as we understand those terms. From the Big Bang to time (T₀ to T_p the known laws of physics are inexplicable and no quantum particles exist."

[patriot_wes]

A very interesting read to be sure but you may find Ivan Panin's studies (see link) infinitly more important because if true it is the most profound and revealing discovery in history.
No I'm not kidding.

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/panin2.htm

[betty boop]

I'll check it out, wes. Thanks for the link!

[betty boop]

Which slant?

Actually, Matchett-PI, I try not to have a "slant" in public. The reason for that is, I am perfectly satisfied that a Christian is a human being who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Incarnation of the Son of God, our personal Redeemer, and the Logos of Creation, from Alpha to Omega; and also in the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures.

However, disputes arise regarding the latter. And when I see such things, it makes me feel sad. For such disputes inevitably divide the mystical body of Christ's living church.

So please forgive me that I don't answer your question more directly, Matchett.

[betty boop]

I checked it out, wes. Would you be surprised if I were to tell you I don't find any of this all that surprising? God reveals Himself to man always, in so many different ways. And when He does, we mustn't be surprised that "the evidence He gives of Himself" is overwhelming and absolutely self-consistent. If He chooses to use mathematical language, this shouldn't surprise us either. He can use whatever language he wants to, to make His points to minds and hearts open to Him.

Thanks for the pointer to Panin, wes. Much obliged.

[stripes1776]

And also the info on the Pythagorean Brotherhood and their irrational problem with irrational numbers!

I have enjoyed these discussions. Thanks for posting the original article. I will be preoccupied with work for a while. I wish you many felicitous hours reading Plato.

[Eastbound]

So much here to catch up on and integrate, so I think I'll just lurk for a while. Need time to convert the models to those I'm familiar with. This is like a vast smorgasbord of wisdom, knowledge and ideas, and my plates already running over the edges. Thanks, one and all for your ability to communicate.

Meanwhile, in that this is the Christmas season, I'd like to offer this Greeting Card:

Can we liken the creation to this analogy in some small way:

In the beginning, while the kids were asleep, God set up the Christmas tree and surrounded it with presents. Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse in the vastness of space/time. Upon leaving, (so to speak) He set the moon in place and gave the world a twist and started it spinning and wobbling like a top, and things began to move. Then He sat back and watched the kids get up, dashing towards the Christmas tree, opening their gifts, and on occasion, helping untie the ribbons.

Best wishes and a Merry Christmas to y'all.

[Matchett-PI]

"...disputes inevitably divide the mystical body of Christ's living church"

Christ (who dwells in ALL his elect - the invisible church) can be divided?

At any rate, I'm not interested in disputing anything with you. You specifically mentioned the fact that you were especially interested in "last things", and I just wondered what your conclusions are, if any. Excuse the question.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Perhaps they have forgot the engraving over the Door to the Academy. Sometimes it seems beneath the dignity of philosophers to even understand math or science.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Not quite true. Were the expansion reversed, the universe would be compressed to a density beyond which current physical theories do not function.

[RightWhale]

It's a comedy. Half of the philosophy majors were math or science majors but switched in their junior year before they actually learned any science or math. The other half? Nothing in particular but maybe an interest in psychology, history, or English. We'll never hear from or of any of them again.

[MarMema]

early church ping

[MarMema]

The problem which it seems impossible to solve is settled by revelation; God has spoken directly to the Prophets, who in their turn have made Him known to us…. It is the first time in Christian theology that we find so concise an explanation of the difference that separates Christian revelation from human speculation.”

The first time? Is this true, or just limited by their (non)access to our writings?

[MarMema]

Thank you so much for posting this. I have to continue reading it tomorrow evening. Back then.

[The_Reader_David]

More likely it's above their intellectual ability to discuss math or science. Most modern philosophers read like third-rate mathematicians who haven't bothered to carefully work out what they really mean.