UR Consistent With Libertarian Free Will

[jriccitelli]

⅓ can be ⅓ of 12 ----- It can be ⅓ of ANY number (Paidion)

But, I was speaking of ‘your’ example (not to mention that 1/3 of 12 is 'simply' 4.0, but decimal places must be added to 1/3 of 2 = .666… 1/3 of 4 = 1.333… part of the problem is fractions and prime numbers, as in 3).

So if 1/3 is .333… then 3/3 is 'also' .999… per your illustration. But your illustration only illustrates that fractions to decimals assume the closest number is higher in order to explain a whole number.
1= .999… only 'illustrates' (it could be even stated that it assumes) that 1 is the ‘closest’ number but it is still not the same, until you add infinity, which means you are no longer finite, and our existence is finite (which is why UR is ‘not’ consistent with the principle of mans mortality) Calculus isn’t always applicable to ‘finite structures’ because of the variables, and ‘infinite’ is an abstract principle in itself.

I thought we went through this under the thread; ‘Talbott's Presentation’ (Mar 27, pg4) note below, I wrote;

In abstract experiments; predictions may come true, but in physical forms predictions are not always true.
Results are not guaranteed by possibilities. It is a fallacy to say if A is possible then A will happen.
Also, you cannot presume any experiment will 'continue', as even math has variables.
In the created world the box might continue to shake, but it may not. Some discs may have glue on one side, but some may somehow get glue on both sides, etc.
The variables (and problems) in a real world begin to multiply by each other, the box may develop a hole, the discs could fall into more glue, the discs may become broken, the shaker might throw the whole box into the LOF, etc. Evolutionists use this same fallacy to ‘suppose the environment is guaranteed’ thus the experiment can go on indefinitely… And if we do study past results in Gods word it seems to predict what we expect – variables – and conditions! So Paidion’s experiment does not ‘prove’ any result ‘must’ happen, there are always variables, and hard evidence still shows that things naturally go from bad to worse.

Of course we still have the problem where man is not immortal of himself, God would have to continue to sustain the dead in hell, so then UR says in effect; they are immortal, only dead immortal. And what condition of mind and sense do the disembodied dead really have? It says believers will be raised clothed but it doesn’t tell us anything about the dead’s working existence other than that they will stand to be judged. Do we know they will have all faculties and senses to logically make a confession and express a devotion to God, while dead? We don't know, but UR insists they will.

It's the old: if a snail is in a race and moves 1/2 the distance to the end point each day, he will never reach the end point. In reality of course, the snail dies.

What about the 'worm' that never dies, if he consistently eats for eternity wouldn’t he eventually consume the whole person?

God gave us 900 years here, then he cut it to 120, then 70 or whatever, if God felt we needed more time why does he cut this earthly existence short, isn’t a long earthly life more consistent with your idea that we need refining than simply being saved from hell? It would seem that a person in hell is more concerned with getting out of hell than trying to lead a Godly ‘life’, and leading a Godly 'life' (How would you 'demonstrate' your faith in hell?).

None of this seems consistent with mans immortality.
None of this seems consistent with the wedding feast, the doors being shut, the wedding accomplished, etc.
None of this seems consistent with God saying I have set a Day, a Day of Judgment.
None of this seems consistent with blotting a name out of the book of life.
None of this seems consistent with the fact that fire consumes.
None of this seems consistent with the idea of ‘I have come to test you to see if you will obey’
hell is not a test, it neither a place to demonstrate faithfulness, love, etc………

[mattrose]

That's assuming that the heart condition must continue to progress in a linear one way direction. I would think there are many exceptions to this assumption.

Actually, I wasn't assuming that. I assume that the heart could turn either way, multiple times.

I was simply saying that it is possible (not guaranteed) for a heart to continue in a negative linear direction.

And to clarify the .999... = 1 thing. It doesn't. 1/3 does not equal .333... either. Those numbers are simply the closest we can get to the answer. It's a numerical anomoly. In such cases, numbers simply can't be as precise as shapes could, for example. Of course, 1/3 is so close to .333... that it is essentially the same number. .999... is, essentially (though not literally), the same as 1. For all intents and purposes it is the same, but that is not quite the same thing as a literal equation.

[Paidion]

And to clarify the .999... = 1 thing. It doesn't.

Ahh, but it DOES. I gave an mathematical proof that it does, and no one has been able to find a flaw in it.

Yes, our intuition tells us that .999... is just a little bit less than 1. I think that is because we cannot conceive of an infinite number of 9s after the decimal point. We can conceive only a very large number of 9s, and our imagination forces us to stop the nines at some distant point — maybe after a trillion miles of them! There are many things in life and in mathematics in which our intuitions fail us. Here are some more mathematical examples:

Mathematicians determine whether there are the same number of elements in two different sets if they can set up a one-to-one relationship between the two sets. This seems sensible. It was supposedly done by shepherds many years ago before counting was invented. The shepherd had a pebble that corresponded to each sheep. As the sheep were brought in for the night, the shepherd moved a stone each time a sheep entered the sheep pen. If, after all the sheep had entered, there were stones remaining which the shepherd had not moved, he knew that some sheep were missing.

Another example of our intution failing us: our intuition tells us that there are twice as many positive integers as there are even positive integers. It seems obvious:

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12....

I have coloured the even positive integers, and since every second integer is even, there must be twice as many positive integers as there are even positive integers. Right? WRONG. There are exactly the same number! We can set up the following relationship:

1-2, 2-4, 3-6, 4-8, 5-10, 6-12, ... In general, every positive integer n corresponds to the even positive integer 2 times n. There is no positive integer that does not have an even positive integer corresponding to it. Nor is there any even positive integer that does not have an element of the set of positive integers which correspond to it. Thus we have set up a one-to-one relationship and therefore are an EQUAL number of elements in each set.

What is more, between each positive integer there is an INFINITE number of rational numbers (fractions). So surely the number of rational numbers is FAR GREATER than the number of positive integers! NOT SO.
It is fairly simple to set up a one-to-one relationship between the set of rational numbers and the set of positive integers. So there are an equal number of elements in each set. This infinite number is symbolized by א (aleph) followed by a zero subscript. (Unfortunately, I cannot print the zero subscript since aleph is the first letter in the Hebrew alphabet, and when I type the zero subscript, it insists on putting it on the left side.)

By now, your intuition might be saying, "This is no surprise. Infinity is infinity. So if there is an infinite number of elements in each of two sets, then sure there is the same number of elements—an infinite number. How could it be otherwise?

Now here is the scandalous fact. It can be mathematically proved that it is impossible to set up a one-to-one relationship between the set of "real" numbers and the positive integers. Indeed, it has been proved that there is a GREATER number of elements in the set of real numbers than there are in the set of positive integers. Thus there is a GREATER infinity! (Note: the "real" numbers include such numbers as the square root of 2, and π(pi). Mathemeticians symbolize the number of elements in the set of real numbers with "aleph sub-one").

I just cannot conceive of a greater infinity than aleph sub-zero. And yet it can be proved that this greater infinity exists.

[mattrose]

Ahh, but it DOES. I gave an mathematical proof that it does, and no one has been able to find a flaw in it.

I suggest that there is a flaw in it. The flaw, in my opinion, is in step #2. You can't multiple each side by 10 b/c the right side of the equation is not a concrete number (how can I multiply an infinite!?!?). It is a logical error, then, to simply move the decimal place one spot to the right because this creates a real number (9) where there was none before (.999...). The 'proof' then uses that real number 9 to make the equation appear rational.

I am, of course, not a mathematician either. I could be wrong, but it would take some convincing, namely, that 1) infinities are concrete numbers and 2) infinities can be multiplied. Such seems an uphill battle. I wish you luck!

[jriccitelli]

Paidion, out of curiosity then, does 666… = .667
If .666… = .667
Does .666… x 3 = 2 ?
Or is it 1.998 or 2.001?
(No reference to Revelation, intended)

[Paidion]

Paidion, out of curiosity then, does 666… = .667
If .666… = .667

No. However .666999... = .667

Does .666… x 3 = 2 ?

Yes.

Or is it 1.998 or 2.001?

No. But the correct product 2 could also be expressed as 1.999...

[Paidion]

I suggest that there is a flaw in it. The flaw, in my opinion, is in step #2. You can't multiple each side by 10 b/c the right side of the equation is not a concrete number (how can I multiply an infinite!?!?). It is a logical error, then, to simply move the decimal place one spot to the right because this creates a real number (9) where there was none before (.999...). The 'proof' then uses that real number 9 to make the equation appear rational. I am, of course, not a mathematician either.

You say you are not a mathematician, Matt. I say that for a non-mathematician, you are a good thinker in mathematical matters.

Normally any decimal numeral can be multiplied by 10 by moving the decimal point one to the right. But does this apply to a repeating decimal or to a non-repeating decimal but with an infinite number of decimal places such as the square root of 2? One could argue that to do so is invalid.

However, valid or invalid, it is consistent mathematically.

10 times 1 = 10

Suppose that .999... actually does equal 1, and that you can multiply it by 10 by using the standard method of moving the decimal place one to the right.

Then 10 times .999... = 9.999...= 9 + .999... = 9 + 1 = 10.

I believe this consistency is there in all other operations using .999... as the equivalent of 1.

[jriccitelli]

(Although I am a ‘huge’ fan of rounding off numbers and approximating, it’s not always correct)
Did you just say (above) that “valid or invalid” is the way to establish ‘proof’?

My point was that you couldn’t make a rational number out of an irrational number (I tried it and failed). By definition; an irrational number cannot be written in fraction form. And by definition neither can you ‘write’ a whole number as an irrational one.
And you proved the point that you can’t reason with an irrational number.
Further more, this is beginning to sound like the ‘how many angels can stand on the head of a pin’ question.

The longer period, the larger will be the percentage will of those who repent (Paidion pg.1)

Your assuming people 'can' repent in hell, assuming they ‘don’t’ get worse, assuming they 'exist' at all in hell, and assuming they ‘continue’ to exist, etc.

Arguing for infinity is way to impractical, especially considering entropy (biological or psychological). So, I’m asking you how do you reconcile man's immortality with Gods demand for repentance?
What does God mean when he says man is immortal?
And why does God put a ‘limit’ to man’s earthly existence, when earth seems to be the only place where faith can be demonstrated (the only alternate being Sheol or hell)?

[Paidion]

Well, JR there are so many misunderstandings in your latest post, that I hardly know where to begin. I guess the only way is to begin at the beginning.

Although I am a ‘huge’ fan of rounding off numbers and approximating, it’s not always correct)

What does "rounding off numbers" have to do with anything I have yet discussed? When one asserts that .999... = 1, he is NOT rounding off. It is not approximately equal to 1. It is EXACTLY equal to 1.

Did you just say (above) that “valid or invalid” is the way to establish ‘proof’?

NO. I said no such thing. What I was trying to say was as follows. I believe the proof to be logically valid, and most mathematicians agree. (I am not a mathematician, though I have studied mathematics at a graduate and post-graduate level). However, even if the proof is not valid (because of the possibility that the rule of moving the decimal point one to the right in order to multiply by 10 may not apply to infinitely repeating decimals) the assumption that .999... DOES equal 1, is consistent in all mathematical calculations (where you use .999... instead of 1).

My point was that you couldn’t make a rational number out of an irrational number (I tried it and failed).

Why did you try to to that? Did you expect to succeed? I know of no one who has ever claimed that you could do such a thing.

By definition; an irrational number cannot be written in fraction form.

That is correct.

And by definition neither can you ‘write’ a whole number as an irrational one.

This is also correct. But what does that have to do with my proof that 1=.999... ? Or are you thinking that .999... is an irrational number? It's not. It's a rational number.

And you proved the point that you can’t reason with an irrational number.

Cute.

Further more, this is beginning to sound like the ‘how many angels can stand on the head of a pin’ question.

In what way?

The longer period, the larger will be the percentage will of those who repent (Paidion pg.1)
Your assuming people 'can' repent in hell, assuming they ‘don’t’ get worse, assuming they 'exist' at all in hell, and assuming they ‘continue’ to exist, etc.

Thank God, I am assuming, and not presuming.

Arguing for infinity is way to impractical, especially considering entropy (biological or psychological).

Are you saying infinity does not exist? If not, what's your point? Do you expect entropy in God's infinite eternity? My understanding is that the process of decay will be reversed.

The creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. (Romans 8:21 RSV)

What does God mean when he says man is immortal?

Nowhere is it written that God declares man to be immortal. Indeed Paul in his first letter to Timothy states that God alone has immortality (1 Timothy 6:16).

And why does God put a ‘limit’ to man’s earthly existence, when earth seems to be the only place where faith can be demonstrated (the only alternate being Sheol or hell)?

Could you reword this question? As it is written, I can make no sense of it.

[jriccitelli]

Name more than ‘one’ misunderstanding in my text, all my definitions were correct, except for the answer to .9…
I did not like your moving the decimal point one to the right in order to multiply by 10.
I did not say ‘this’ was rounding off numbers, I only said I would ‘rather’ do so than do the math.
It seems you had to answer correct to most of my statements. You ‘are’ assuming too much, and you still misunderstood half of what 'I' said.
This is apparently an old mathematical paradox and a set up for math students, I guess to establish that some calculus definitions can defy definitions. This is an ongoing question online also, never the less numbers are nothing in themselves until ‘applied’ to something. So I’ll agree that 1 = .9… yet applying that to people in hell makes no sense.

“… then surely an infinite amount of time could result in all persons of their own free will ultimately being reconciled to God’ (Paidion pg. 1)

I’m fine with numbers if they could 'actually apply to the subject' but as Homer and Matt allude to;

How can you show from scriptures that they will not become hardened further? And that they will not be annihilated?

It seemed like a great set up on my part, but I made a typo on the following sentence;
‘What does God mean when he says man is immortal?’ I meant ‘What does God mean when He says man is mortal?’
So, as you said “nowhere is it written that God declares man to be immortal”, so why then are you arguing for this infinite chance for man to repent? It seems God demands repentance ‘now’. He puts a limit on waiting, and a limit on mans pre-mortem, post-mortem, unrepentant, unbelieving existence, with plenty of scripture to back this up.

Why does God put a ‘limit’ to man’s earthly existence, when earth seems to be the only place where faith can be demonstrated (the only alternate being Sheol or hell)? (my question)

Or, how do you demonstrate the sincerity of your faith in the LOF? And wasn’t Gods purpose to save us to produce fruits of righteousness?
'A righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith” (Romans)
"You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith… his faith was made complete by what he did. ... His actions made his faith complete without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds (James) ‘Now faith is the assurance of [things] hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the men of old gained approval... And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart’ (Hebrews 11)
You are the one who keeps arguing that God saved us from our sins, and ‘not’ primarily hell, so Isn’t this world the focus of your own theology?

… But neither can we become righteous if we make no effort. I think the most serious deception today is the teaching that God doesn't require righteousness. If that were true, then why would He send anyone to hell at all? I think that God's requirement for righteousness is the very reason He sends them there! If they will not submit to His authority here on earth, then God will create conditions in which they WILL FREELY SUBMIT (Paidion from ‘We are saved from what' pg.12)

You said it yourself. But what are you saying at the end of this quote, are you saying God created hell as a place in which they WILL FREELY SUBMIT??

Excuse me for belaboring Paidion, but remember, Paidion criticized me for ‘not’ addressing his questions (‘Can a Christian be a Pacifist’ pg. 11)