Rejecting the Infinite qua Infinite Is Erasing the Great 19th Century Progress in Mathematics
If one investigates Courant’s book further, one learns that the complex numbers, like the negative numbers, were created in order to extend the number domain so that unsolvable equations could be solved. The extended domain of complex numbers was developed and was based on definitions, which are freely made. But, this development maintained the rules and properties of the lower domain. Cantor developed the transfinite numbers the same way.
Interestingly, such progressive extensions are usually opposed, by the same field of thought, the Aristotlean logicians. Cantor was attacked by the logicians of his time. He spent much time in hospitals due to the stress. Today, such logicians continue to oppose such progress by attacking my character and my scientific proof of God without ever reviewing it. This character assassination has continued by atheists ever since the book appeared on the market in June 2006. As an engineer, I know the importance of progress for the USA. But, I also know that this progress will be denied with atheism. Atheists do not know that progress of a nation is possible only when man's work is consistent with God's work.
Like extending the number systems, I used my personal freedom to extend the finite world into the infinite world of God. This extension shows that God originates all finite things. This extension is essentially my proof of God. Essentially, I connect the ‘infinite qua infinite’ to the ‘infinite without end.’ Thus, my extension is not much different from extending the real number systems to the complex numbers and transfinite numbers.
Since mathematicians cannot extend the number domain beyond the transfinite numbers and into some higher world of numbers, it seems time for them to accept the infinite qua infinite and start developing Cantor’s transfinite numbers. By developing the transfinite numbers, I expect science to uncover many hidden secrets such as new energy sources.
7 Comments:
At 4:08 PM, Anonymous said…
Your first proof isn't the first one:
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god/
At 5:22 PM, George Shollenberger said…
To Jim Wynette,
I could not find the meaning of innumeracy in my collegiate dictionary. So, I concluded that innumeracy is negated from nummeracy. Then, I concluded that it means a varition of number. Innumeracy must thus mean 'without numbers.'
So, I guess I must buy a new dictionary.
But, your dictionary is saying that I was really correct because my argument says that one is not able 'to handle numbers and other mathematical concepts' in the pursuit of knowledge of God.
So, I offer you the chance to admit that you are wrong about me.
At 5:25 PM, George Shollenberger said…
Hi Kathy,
I examined all such claims and could not find a scientific proof that uses the scientific method. So, I will look again at the website you mentioned.
Thanks.
At 9:14 AM, MarkCC said…
George:
I told you, I can keep reposting.
Your description of Cantor and the transfinite numbers is *wrong*. Transfinite numbers do *not* preserve all of the properties of real numbers. And Cantor deliberately called them "transfinite" to differentiate them from infinite, because transfinite numbers are not infinite.
Why is it so difficult for you to admit that you're wrong about anything?
At 1:36 PM, George Shollenberger said…
Mark,
The way I read Cantor seems to be different compared to the way you are reading him. Cantor's genuine infinite is the 'infinite qua infinite.' And, his non-genuine infinite is the 'infinite without end.' To me his transfinite numbers seem to be correctly named. Now, to 'distinguish and relate' the named transfinite numbers, one extends 'different infinities without end' endlessly toward the infinite qua infinite, which is the unlimited God.
At 3:31 PM, George Shollenberger said…
Hi Kathy,
I looked at the website you cited. My scientific proof is a general proof in that 'all created things' are involved in the proof. The cited web considers the brain and thus does not consider 'all created things.' Did you notice whether the brain was caused diretly or indirectly by God?
At 3:44 PM, George Shollenberger said…
Mark,
I forgot to answer your question.
I do not admit that I am wrong easily because I am defending God, His Intelligent Design, and and His creation. When an atheist is saying that I am wrong, I cast doubts immediately. Otherwise, I am not a good defender.
Further, I conclude that God and man cannot communicate physically but can exchange information. So, I am informing God continually of my defense of Him.
Post a Comment
<< Home