User talk:Pacific PanDeist
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
こんにちは, ともだち!! Kónnichiwa, tomodachí!! I am the Pacific PanDeist!! I am not available to take your call right now but you are welcome to leave a message at the tone!! BEEEP!!
//// Pacific PanDeist 05:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Reply :)
Well personally, while the argument that god is the universe intrigues me, Deism for me is only a logical possibility... I see the universe as self supporting, with probability and formula in physics governing our world without need for divine intervention. I do sort of believe that beyond what we can percieve, something else may exist, and within the possibilities of the universe, perhaps some sort of sentience can exist in its core. I'm not sure exactly where my religious beliefs truly fit, but I see Deism as a nice umbrella for my own rationalist philosophy :) Thanks though. Zythe 16:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ah but if God was all that was before the Universe, and God made the Universe, and especially if we presume the Universe to be infinite or presume God to be finite. then what is the Universe made from? //// Pacific PanDeist * 19:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I believe some scientists try to say that the universe's expansion will result in an eventual retraction (red shift to violet shift), leading to a big implosion, after which will come a big bang... and this process may have happened before, it may always happen, it may never end... if time can be absorbed into a black hole, then literally time can be sucked into the retracting universe... a bit like what Hindus believe... that it repeats itself. Literally, chaos as a concept, dark matter and nothing, is merely a frequency away from the particles and waves that make up everything we know. Literally, "nothing" is something. Maybe I'm not making sense. This is where most people cite the first cause. And why does the Universe have to be made of God, if God is God, then nothing is impossible? I'm just saying, the rationalist theory which physics endeavours to explain makes most sense to me. If God exists outside time, he is what stops everything repeating. Perhaps that is how he is both alpha and omega? I have a lot of different, contrasting opinions. To me, philosophy is flexible. Zythe 20:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Does that not beg the question, "Why?" Why would a god omniscient or at least nearly so, create a universe at all? That is the question Deism can not answer, PanTheism need not ask because it presumes no creation, but which PanDeism seeks to answer...That is what God would do in order to experience existence in a way that "God" cannot!! That is the ultimate rational point is it not, the explanation not only how we are here but WHY!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 20:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- You've got to wonder, why does there have to be a why? Can't there simply be a paradox of is? Who says God has to exist yet, perhaps his creation is within time and then his influence is retroactive... essenitally a grandfather paradox. Pandeism is a great argument, and I do understand what you mean, but I have resigned myself to the argument that some things do not necessarily behave in such a way that they can actually be answered. Zythe 21:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Page cleanup
Hi Pacific PanDeist,I did some cleanup on your page.It might look funny if you add more text beyond the image, so let me know if you have any more problems. 
Regards, Rfrisbietalk 11:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request for edit summary
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- I replied on my talk page, to keep all conversation in one place. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] division by zero
You asked, "If .999 = 1, it follows then that 1/(1-.999...) = 1/0, so it is possible to divide by zero?" This would be an acceptable question on the mathematics reference desk, but it is inappropriate for an article talk page. Such pages are reserved for discussions aiming to improve the article. Unfortunately, this particular article attracts cranks and your question is naive, so it was dismissed harshly.
The important thing to understand about zero is that it can take many forms. A popular teasing ritual in mathematics is a challenge to find the error in a nonsense proof, such as a proof that one equals zero. Often the trick is that a division by zero is disguised. For example, the "proof" may first define b = a+1, then later divide by b−a−1.
A common mistake is to imagine that 0.999… is "close" to 1.0, but not quite equal. This is not so. Just like b and a+1 in the example above are equal in value even though different in appearance, so 0.999… and 1.0 are exactly the same number. And just as b−a−1 is exactly zero, so 1.0−0.999… is exactly zero; we can safely divide by neither form of zero.
Mathematicians are nothing if not curious. So when the ordinary definitions insist that dividing by zero is prohibited as meaningless, they may take that as a challenge to give it a meaning. One example is the "projective line". We take the line of real numbers, where each point corresponds to a real value, x, and extended it to a line of pairs, (w:x), where two pairs are considered the same point if (w1:x1) = (sw2:sx2), for some nonzero real s. Loosely speaking, each point now corresponds to a ratio. We can match each point, x, on the real line with point (1:x) on the projective line. So what's the difference? The projective line has a "point at infinity", (0:1), which does not match any point on the real line. Now consider reciprocals. The reciprocal of x — matching (1:x) — is 1/x — matching (x:1). On the real line zero has no reciprocal; but on the projective line we can say that the reciprocal of (1:0) is (0:1), the point at infinity. How convenient; why not do this always? Because it has unexpected and unwanted side-effects. One of these is that the projective line "wraps around" at infinity, so it is not a line but a circle. (Be careful what you wish for!) --KSmrqT 07:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've totally stepped into a world that is beyond whatever I can make sense of!! Didn't mean to stir up anything there... but I think I get why my division by zero imaginings were off base!! Thanks for explaining. //// Pacific PanDeist * 07:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hi
I'm fine thanks too :) Zythe 22:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No children have ever meddled with the Republican Party and lived to tell about it.
The GOP is getting desperate, with the Sun Myung Moon controlled Washington Times trying to spin the recent Gallup Poll results as saying that Americans aren't warming to Gore's message, and now the DCI Group, made up of fine people associated with such outstanding organizations and individuals as Exxon Mobil and Tom DeLay create an unbelievably moronic and childish video mocking Al Gore's sincere efforts to stop pollution. These guys are desperate and trying to stop the momentum that's leaving them and rightfully going to Al Gore, who's their biggest threat come 2008. Thanks for the compliment, I'm proud to be exposing such shenanigans like this.--Folksong 03:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to: "PanTheist... perhaps also PanDeist?" on my User_talk page
Insofar as I can tell, probably not (sorry to disappoint). On the up-side though your blog looks interesting...^.^
MatthewKarlsen 09:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I try to keep it interesting!! I'd like to hear more about your brand of PanTheism to get an idea of where it all fits in!! Bless Yourself!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 03:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Going nuts over here
So I wrote this article up on the Al Gore's Penguin Army video controversy and I'm getting taken apart over it by a couple of folks (really 2 or 3)... I trust you, does it look like the mess they're saying it is on the talk page? Or is it a fair take on what to me is an obvious piece of dirty politics? Bless Yourself!! //// Pacific PanDeist * 03:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely certain because I'm not familiar with the subject but I think it you just follow everyone's advice the problems will go away :). Things like weasel words can be reworded or changed into quotes if you have a source you can reference. I think if you just Wikipedia:Assume good faith and take everything as friendly advice the article should get better. Just do some general copy editting :). Should be fine. ~ZytheTalk to me! 13:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Breaking out sections
If you plan to break out a section of an article, please cut and paste the material to the new article. Moving the old article to the new title and cutting and pasting material back to the old title confuses the edit histories. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Frank Tippler
We need an article on Frank Tippler, author of The Physics of Immortality. //// Pacific PanDeist * 07:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
