mordorbund

Members
  • Content Count

    5844
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Reputation Activity

  1. Haha
    mordorbund got a reaction from Traveler in Alma 30:7-11   
    Is this about that Sunday I got a hole in one?
  2. Thanks
    mordorbund got a reaction from Carborendum in Eternity, infinity, and limits   
    I'm not sure what you mean by [infinity]n, so I'm going to propose a few models and we can discuss them.
    Usually when we talk about different infinities we are talking about the cardinalities of some infinite set. We start with all Natural numbers [1, 2, 3, ...] and we know there's infinitely many of them [inf]Nat. We compare that against a set that only contains even numbers [2, 4, 6, ...] and our instincts say this should have 1/2 the cardinality of [inf]Nat, but it turns out that for every element in [inf]Nat there's a matching element in [inf]Even.[inf]Even[k] = 2*[inf]Nat[k]. So the cardinalities are exactly the same. This is expressed as Aleph0. (Hebrew - for when your math exceeds Greek notation). Similarly, sets of odds, squares, and primes all have this same cardinality. Even the set of all rationals (Natural + fractions) have this same cardinality. It's all Aleph0. The set of all irrationals, on the other hand, does not map back to the set of Natural numbers so it has a different Aleph (I couldn't tell you what it is, as I've reached the limit of my knowledge on this subject) as does the set of all Reals which subsumes it.
    A models come from this knowledge. First, we can say that when you say infinity you really mean Aleph0, infiinity2 is Aleph1, and so on. In this case I'm not sure what infiintyinfinity means. This model suggests that Telestial progress is unbounded as far as formal limits go, but vastly smaller than any others. I'm unfamiliar with other Alephs so I can't add anything further here.
    Second, we could say that when you say infinity, you mean the infinity of a specific infinite set. We'll say that's [inf]Even and infiinty2 is [inf]Nat and infinity3 is [inf]Rational.Additionally, we'll say infinityinfinity is [inf]Real. Again, the implication is that Telestial progress is infinite, but now each kingdom's elements (or experiences, or achievements, or glory) is a subset of the kingdom above it. Additionally, this shows some commonality between the first three (all are countably infinite) and a special state of the highest degree (uncountably infinite). If you want to bring immortality and eternal life into the discussion it would work well. An additional implication is that the lower kingdoms move "faster" than the higher. The kth even element when charted on a number line is farther along than the kth natural which is farther along than the kth rational and so on. You can tease some meaning out of that, but don't know how relevant it would be.
    A third way we could view it (similar to the 2nd in implications) that lines up more with what you cited to McConkie is to use a number graph. Every degree adds another axis. The x-axis (Telestial) progresses infinitely, and go move along however fast or slow you want it to. But it never enters the y-axis (Terrestrial). y=0. Always. But that's okay, because x- knows nothing of y. A 2-D graph is quite literally infinity2 so it matches up with your naming convention. The Celestial then is 3-D. The advantage of this model is that it's probably more approachable to the (mathematically) lay person than the others.  For the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom I would perhaps model it as having Dimensions upon Dimensions added upon it because, as God offers another Dimension the Celestial person never says no.
    The next 2 don't apply to your model but I mention them just for completion.
    A fourth way that your modeling is contrasting (but which I'm going to include since that's the one sometimes used for this discussion so it gives a baseline to the discussion) is asymptotic progression. In this one you can view the positive quadrant for 

    and then just change that first 1 value for Kingdom Max. The first 3 all have some max that is ever approached but never reached, while Exaltation is not asymptotic.
    A fifth model which this stands in contrast with is the one that seems to come to mind simply because of math ignorance. It has Telestial = x, Terrestrial = x2, and Celestial = x3, (and maybe Exaltation is nx?). These are unbounded, but their differences are simply the rate of progression.
  3. Haha
    mordorbund reacted to prisonchaplain in Baptism of the Holy Ghost?   
    I looked as hard as I could in the OP, based on the headline, for the phrase, "with the initial physical evidence of speaking in tongues," and then realized, alas, that I was sorely mistaken.
  4. Haha
    mordorbund reacted to mirkwood in COVID update   
    I'm sure this will shock some of you but thought I would let you all know, that yesterday I volunteered for the vaccine trials for Covid-19, held up in the Ogden Utah area. The vaccine is one that was created in Russia. I received my first shot yesterday at 4:00 pm, and I wanted to let you all know that it’s completely safe, with иo side effects whatsoeveя, and that I feelshκι χoρoshό я чувствую себя немного странно и я думаю, что вытащил ослин.
  5. Like
    mordorbund reacted to Vort in Eternity, infinity, and limits   
    I haven't watched this Numberphile (yet—great channel, btw), but given the assumptions that the trees extend infinitely in both directions on a perfectly Euclidian plane and that the tree trunks and the laser beam are all infinitesimally narrow (and that the tree branches, leaves, etc. aren't part of the question), I'm going to say yes, you will always hit a tree. My sense is that such a problem is like saying, "If you pick any real number at random, will you get a rational or an irrational?" The set of irrationals is so much larger than the rationals that it becomes infinitely improbable that you would end up with a rational. Similarly, I'm guessing it's infinitely improbable that you point the laser in exactly a "rational" direction such that you avoid all the infinite tree trunks.
    But if it's infinitely improbable, isn't that the same as saying it's impossible? Yet we can see that e.g. if you point the laser exactly parallel to a row of trees, that it will never hit a tree trunk. So what does "impossible" mean in this case? What do probabilities mean? It becomes practically a philosophical conundrum, at least for someone as tender and innocent in the arcane ways of mathematics as am I.
    EDIT: Wow. I was exactly, 180° wrong, and for exactly the reasons I discussed. I wonder how I missed that. The trees represent, in effect, the rational set of numbers, so as long as you pick an effectively "irrational" direction, you'll miss the trees. So with infinitely thin trees and an infinitely narrow laser, it is in effect impossible to point the laser in any direction on the plane and hit a tree.
  6. Like
    mordorbund reacted to Carborendum in Eternity, infinity, and limits   
    Yes, this is what I had heard about before.  I understand Aleph0.  I don't get what comes next.
    I see you had the same problem I had.
    I was actually told differently.  I was told that all those things I spoke of were all Aleph0. And there were more things in Aleph1.  But as I said, I have no idea what that means.  The person telling me all this struggled to explain it himself. And the example he gave me was something I disproved in a couple minutes.  Maybe he didn't know either.
    I'm essentially saying something along the lines of...
    That is what I was saying about the various infinity^n.  I don't know how it could be ineterpreted any other way.
    This is how I was describing achieving perfection in this life, where x = time in mortality.  Some argue that this is also how we progress eternally through the Telestial and Terrestrial.  I'm toying with the idea that this notion is not correct, hence, my three dimensions and infinite dimensions pradigm. I did not realize that McConkie agreed with me.
    I don't see this as much different than the original 3-d and infinite-D model.  Sure there is a numerical difference.  But conceptually, they're pretty much the same.
    BTW, I liked the Numberphile link you provided.  I've been a fan of that channel. But I never saw that video before.  One thing that he brought up, but didn't get into much: Something I believe to be at the root of why sealing is so important.
    When you add dimension to the trees or the laser, it really doesn't really matter how much dimension it is.  The original analysis was based on the trees and laser being of zero dimension.   But once you give both of them any measurable dimension at all, then anywhere you point will eventually hit a tree.
    I believe that this concept is why we need to be sealed.  I believe sealing is the "dimension" of eternity.  I know that makes no sense as a point-for-point allegory.  But conceptually interpreting the math, that is the closest thing to where sealing falls into eternity (off the top of my head postulate).
    ***********
    The orchard problem also brings up another interesting point.The fact that the zero dimensions will only hit on rational numbers says something.  We mortals try to fit everything into neat little rational boxes.  We have a mind, we therefore must be able to understand all the things of God with using our intellect alone.
    Ha-hah.
    Compared with the Lord, our intellect is infinitesimal (i.e. has zero dimensional width).  So, we limit ourselves when we depend entirely on our rational mind alone.  Certainly the rational mind focuses and provides some framework.  But if we are to understand eternity and infinity, we must look at and make use of the irrational numbers.  By the orchard analogy, we know there are infinitely more irrational numbers than rational numbers.  And some of the most important numbers like pi and e are irrational. And they govern the design and intent of so much in this universe alone.
    Why do we limit ourselves when the Spirit is right there waiting for us to simply listen?  Listen, and we had some dimension to our being.
  7. Like
    mordorbund reacted to Vort in Eternity, infinity, and limits   
    I found a reference that explains an example demonstrating that the rationals are countably infinite, and thus aleph-naught. It's not mathematically rigorous, so if you want to use it on your Math Ed Master's thesis, you're out of luck. But it's convincing. I admit I chuckled out loud when I saw it. Clever.
    https://www.homeschoolmath.net/teaching/rational-numbers-countable.php#:~:text=A set is countable if you can count its elements.&text=In mathematical terms%2C a set,the set of natural numbers.
  8. Thanks
    mordorbund got a reaction from Carborendum in Eternity, infinity, and limits   
    I'm not sure what you mean by [infinity]n, so I'm going to propose a few models and we can discuss them.
    Usually when we talk about different infinities we are talking about the cardinalities of some infinite set. We start with all Natural numbers [1, 2, 3, ...] and we know there's infinitely many of them [inf]Nat. We compare that against a set that only contains even numbers [2, 4, 6, ...] and our instincts say this should have 1/2 the cardinality of [inf]Nat, but it turns out that for every element in [inf]Nat there's a matching element in [inf]Even.[inf]Even[k] = 2*[inf]Nat[k]. So the cardinalities are exactly the same. This is expressed as Aleph0. (Hebrew - for when your math exceeds Greek notation). Similarly, sets of odds, squares, and primes all have this same cardinality. Even the set of all rationals (Natural + fractions) have this same cardinality. It's all Aleph0. The set of all irrationals, on the other hand, does not map back to the set of Natural numbers so it has a different Aleph (I couldn't tell you what it is, as I've reached the limit of my knowledge on this subject) as does the set of all Reals which subsumes it.
    A models come from this knowledge. First, we can say that when you say infinity you really mean Aleph0, infiinity2 is Aleph1, and so on. In this case I'm not sure what infiintyinfinity means. This model suggests that Telestial progress is unbounded as far as formal limits go, but vastly smaller than any others. I'm unfamiliar with other Alephs so I can't add anything further here.
    Second, we could say that when you say infinity, you mean the infinity of a specific infinite set. We'll say that's [inf]Even and infiinty2 is [inf]Nat and infinity3 is [inf]Rational.Additionally, we'll say infinityinfinity is [inf]Real. Again, the implication is that Telestial progress is infinite, but now each kingdom's elements (or experiences, or achievements, or glory) is a subset of the kingdom above it. Additionally, this shows some commonality between the first three (all are countably infinite) and a special state of the highest degree (uncountably infinite). If you want to bring immortality and eternal life into the discussion it would work well. An additional implication is that the lower kingdoms move "faster" than the higher. The kth even element when charted on a number line is farther along than the kth natural which is farther along than the kth rational and so on. You can tease some meaning out of that, but don't know how relevant it would be.
    A third way we could view it (similar to the 2nd in implications) that lines up more with what you cited to McConkie is to use a number graph. Every degree adds another axis. The x-axis (Telestial) progresses infinitely, and go move along however fast or slow you want it to. But it never enters the y-axis (Terrestrial). y=0. Always. But that's okay, because x- knows nothing of y. A 2-D graph is quite literally infinity2 so it matches up with your naming convention. The Celestial then is 3-D. The advantage of this model is that it's probably more approachable to the (mathematically) lay person than the others.  For the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom I would perhaps model it as having Dimensions upon Dimensions added upon it because, as God offers another Dimension the Celestial person never says no.
    The next 2 don't apply to your model but I mention them just for completion.
    A fourth way that your modeling is contrasting (but which I'm going to include since that's the one sometimes used for this discussion so it gives a baseline to the discussion) is asymptotic progression. In this one you can view the positive quadrant for 

    and then just change that first 1 value for Kingdom Max. The first 3 all have some max that is ever approached but never reached, while Exaltation is not asymptotic.
    A fifth model which this stands in contrast with is the one that seems to come to mind simply because of math ignorance. It has Telestial = x, Terrestrial = x2, and Celestial = x3, (and maybe Exaltation is nx?). These are unbounded, but their differences are simply the rate of progression.
  9. Like
    mordorbund got a reaction from Carborendum in Eternity, infinity, and limits   
    That's the standard mapping for it. Guess what that means for the following scenario: stand in a regularly ordered grid of 1-D trees that extends in the plane, with each tree placed some unit length along two axes (glad @zil isn't around to read this), and then point your 0-D laser out into the woods. Will your laser hit a tree?
     
  10. Haha
    mordorbund got a reaction from Vort in I'M IN THE MONEY!!!   
    $6Million!!!!!??? Count me in!!!!
    Oh. Only $4.2 million. Well nevermind then.
  11. Haha
    mordorbund got a reaction from Vort in I'M IN THE MONEY!!!   
    $6Million!!!!!??? Count me in!!!!
    Oh. Only $4.2 million. Well nevermind then.
  12. Haha
    mordorbund got a reaction from Vort in I'M IN THE MONEY!!!   
    $6Million!!!!!??? Count me in!!!!
    Oh. Only $4.2 million. Well nevermind then.
  13. Haha
    mordorbund reacted to Vort in Eternity, infinity, and limits   
    mordorbund mulls math mysteries.
  14. Like
    mordorbund reacted to Carborendum in Eternity, infinity, and limits   
    Once upon a time I mused about the rate of improvement I was making in overcoming my weaknesses and faults.  Yes, I actually spend some time pondering "what lack I yet?" and how much further I have to go, what I need to repent of.
    I had made a meaningless calculation that I could possibly achieve perfection in another 400 years.  But that was really off because of a simple mathematical thing known as "asymptotes."  I believe our improvement in this life is largely asymptotic.  That is why it is so difficult to be perfect.  Yes, the scriptures speak of "perfect men" who have been purified in Christ.  But I'm still wondering what that means.
    It seems almost paradoxical that as our improvement in this life is asymptotic, the progression in eternity is not limited in any way.  And I'm beginning to wonder if that is so in the lower kingdoms as well. 
    Pondering the three kingdoms, I wondered: Are the Telestial and Terrestrial really "limited"?  The "progression between kingdoms" crowd speak of the lower kingdoms trailing behind the engine of the celestial. They get to the same point, just a bit later.  I rejected that notion.  But what is the alternative?  Either there is a cap on where the other kingdoms go, or...
    Bruce R. McConkie says that "they don't even go in the same direction."  Still not sure what that means.  But when thinking of it from a mathematical perspective, I considered: What if
    Telestial = infinity. Terrestrial = infinity^2. Celestial (lower levels) = infinity^3. Celestial (highest degree) = infinity^infinity. Then even the Telestial is not "damned" because there is still no cap.
    I'm fairly certain that most people won't see the difference because they don't understand the nature of the exponential infinities that I just posited.  Beyond that, there are higher levels of infinity (beyond infinity^infinity) that I was recently introduced to (a few years back) that I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around.  But regardless of the nature of these infinities, it is interesting that such concepts are talked about in math, but don't quite make it into gospel discussions.  I wonder if any of this could clarify some doctrinal questions.
  15. Like
    mordorbund reacted to JohnsonJones in Eternity, infinity, and limits   
    When we think on our mortality, will a human body ever be able to exist inside the sun on it's own.  If we were left on our own, as we are, would our bodies ever be something other than what they are now?
    We hypothesize, we think, and conjecture, but perhaps physically it is impossible for our mortal bodies to do certain things no matter how much time is given.  We can advance forever in our own sphere, but we cannot exceed our sphere.
    A comparison would be that of ants.  Could an ant ever be a human in this mortal world?  Could they ever construct a space ship?  They can advance and increase in their own kind and way, but their own limitations prevent them from exceeding what man can do.
    What if we took a higher level animal such as a Dog or Monkey.  They can emulate what a man can do, they can even imitate, but they will never be able to be or do what man is able to do today.  Unless they changed (evolved as science would put it) into something greater, they will never be able to accomplish what men do today, a thousand years ago or even two thousand years ago in architecture, buildings, or science.
    In a similar vein I imagine the differences in the degrees of glory.  Nothing prevents one from advancing in learning and experiences in the Telestial or Terestrial Kingdoms, each in their sphere, but much like ant or a dog or a monkey, they are limited by their own physical being.  There are bodies telestial, bodies terrestrial, and bodies Celestial.  They each can increase in their own way, but they are all different as well, with the greater have greater potential as a consequence of it's fabric of creation than those that are lesser.
    In my opinion.
  16. Like
    mordorbund reacted to Traveler in Could be hard year for fires in California   
    I thought I would resurrect this thread in light of what has happened over the last few weeks.  Perhaps Trump is responsible???
     
    The Traveler
  17. Like
    mordorbund reacted to Carborendum in Freedom, Family, and The Gospel   
    Notice the part that you left out.
    Context matters.  Something to think about.
    We're all children.  But we are only heirs if we suffer with him.  All the links to the Church website which you provided attest to that.
  18. Like
    mordorbund reacted to NeuroTypical in 2019 Weight Loss Group   
    Heh - you tell me.  This is what the chart looks like today:

     
    I'm happy to report my awful mostly-vegan diet is still going mostly strong.  That last uptick is about 5 lbs across 6 months - it aligns perfectly with the start of COVID and me getting sent home from work - I lost my exercise classes and gym.  Fortunately, they opened up my favorite mountain hike last month, and I'm doing that weekly now.
     
     
  19. Like
    mordorbund reacted to Carborendum in How would you answer this?   
    I apologize for the length of the following post.  But it was necessary since my primary purpose was to avoid the "cherry-picking" in which the previously proffered quote indulged.
    And as an out-of-print book, I felt it no crime to quote large sections of it as necessary to provide proper context.
    Speaking of cherry-picking, here is a more complete quote:
    The second bolded line clearly says that the chapter (chapter 10) is about proposing points of discussion, not an endorsement of any of them.  It then goes on to say...
    Notice how many questions it is asking.  It does not indicate any solutions at all.  It doesn't endorse anything.  It asks question.  But sprinkled throughout it all are the conditions under which we are to accept any solution. 
    Will it destroy the moral fiber of those who receive aid?  Will it destroy the individual initiative of those who create wealth? Would it be legally possible? (consider the powers the Constitution actually gives the federal government). Could economic machinery operate as effectively? Notice how misleading the quote given on the internet is.  A more complete reading shows that there was much more to the text than what seemed to be an endorsement of socialism.
    And some questions from chapter 8 (a chapter on Thrift):
    Again, no answers are given.  These are merely points of discussion for us to get our mind working, while considering very important spiritual points.
    More background: 
    Chapter 6: How to Create Wealth
    Chapter 7: Labor is Life
    Chapter 8: Thrift
    Chapter 9: The Bondage of Debt
    Chapter 10: Distribution of Wealth and Income
    Chapter 11: The Power of Self-Help (which does at least mention that we need to do something about the issues in Chapter 10, not rely on government to do it for us.  It talks a lot about staying away from govt handouts).
    Chapter 12: The Need of Opportunity
    Chapter 13: The Role of Government  This chapter was very informative for both the conservative and the liberal, both the capitalist and the socialist.  Worth reading.
    Chapter 14: The Strength of Cooperation 
    This sounds an awful lot like a corporation which shares stock with all its employees.  This is exactly what Elon Musk did and was criticized for making too much money.
    Agreed.  But Chapter 14 also talks of this as well.  There is a particular section that is most informative on a differentiation that we've discussed on this forum before between "the Law of Consecration" and "The United Order".  (more on that at another time).
    For now, the description of the United Order had some interesting passages:
    The description of why it failed was rather informative:
    Questions posed regarding the Law of Consecration:
  20. Like
    mordorbund reacted to Just_A_Guy in The power and keys of ministry   
    James was John’s brother, not Peter’s.  The last sentence in the quotation you offer represents a shift in audience.  It is John, not Peter, who is to be a minister for the other two; perhaps because John who—unlike the other two—will not die, and therefore can do things and go to places and times that the other two simply can’t. 
  21. Like
    mordorbund reacted to estradling75 in Are Latter-day Saints unified?   
    There is also the flip side of that... When a faithful member goes to church and participates... How many people might they uplift or strengthen?  Even if only a little bit?  Our covenants include helping others. 
    Yet to many members who are under these covenants make church attendance all about them.  What they need... what they get... and with such a selfish mindset they end up with nothing but misery.  Which is exactly what one should expect from such a covenant violation.  
    It is one of those gospel paradoxes that those that go to church thinking what can they give, who can they help... tend to get more out of it then those that always are about what they get out of it.
  22. Haha
    mordorbund reacted to Fether in How did we get the Book of Abraham?   
    Where is the “A salamander whispered it to JSjr” option?
  23. Like
    mordorbund reacted to Vort in Stopping COVID   
    I think the two are related. I need my hat. Where's the tinfoil?
  24. Like
    mordorbund reacted to laronius in Resurrection Question   
    In reviewing more scriptures about the resurrection I think I might be piecing this together a little more. So see if this makes sense: In Helaman 14:17 it states:   
    17 But behold, the resurrection of Christ redeemeth mankind, yea, even all mankind, and bringeth them back into the presence of the Lord.
    So in many of the scriptures I've read where its talking about the resurrection and coming back into the presence of the Lord it also refers to redemption. Mormon 9:13 explains it in a little more detail:
    12 Behold, he created Adam, and by Adam came the fall of man. And because of the fall of man came Jesus Christ, even the Father and the Son; and because of Jesus Christ came the redemption of man.
    13 And because of the redemption of man, which came by Jesus Christ, they are brought back into the presence of the Lord; yea, this is wherein all men are redeemed, because the death of Christ bringeth to pass the resurrection, which bringeth to pass a redemption from an endless sleep, from which sleep all men shall be awakened by the power of God when the trump shall sound; and they shall come forth, both small and great, and all shall stand before his bar, being redeemed and loosed from this eternal band of death, which death is a temporal death.
    14 And then cometh the judgment of the Holy One upon them...
    So when we talk about redemption, at least in this context, we are talking about overcoming the full effects of the fall, which were physical and spiritual death. Spiritual death in this context means separation from God. It appears that the resurrection actually overcomes both by reuniting our spirits with our bodies and then bringing us back into God's presence.  Perhaps this is why the resurrected Lord told Mary not to "touch" him not because he had not yet ascended to the Father because the full redemptive process was not yet complete. When we come into this world we have not yet done anything to merit this separation. So it makes sense that after our testing we are brought back into His presence, having been fully redeemed from that which we had not control over, and then judged to see if we get to remain in God's presence or if the second death comes upon us and we are separated again but this time because of our own unrepented of deeds. If this is true then I am going to have to look at the resurrection as being more than I had previously thought.
  25. Like
    mordorbund reacted to Fether in Salt Lake Temple Capstone Opened   
    Hopefully he will be a little soggy too