Back to Front
Subject: Polytheism Rules Finite Space From: jthunderbird@nternet.com Date: 1998/03/23 Message-ID: <6f6ht7$q3f$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Newsgroups: soc.religion.paganism Merry Meet, Bright Blessings herewith is some ammo, don't forget where you put it Infinity and Monotheism Together Refuted ---------------------------------------- Monotheism and the concept of infinity are completely interdependent; monotheism relies on infinity for its exclusivity, not leaving any god-stuff lying around so other deities may be fabricated from it. Monotheism without infinity just doesn't make sense. Infinity, in its turn, was the logic bomb used as a weapon by monotheistic cultures to subvert their neighbors. Our God is bigger than all yours put together, because... While the neighbors were in a trance trying to rationalize the paradoxes of infinity, it was easy to slap them with swords. Worked time after time. Though this interdependence was the strength which enabled monotheism to conquer the world, it now turns out to be its fatal weakness. Because of monotheism's total reliance on the concept of infinity, it is uniquely vulnerable as is no other metaphysical construct, to logical attack. Should infinity be refuted, monotheism goes down with it, leaving all other religions untouched. Infinity can indeed be refuted within the physical framework. The concept of an infinite deity interactive with the material universe is thus false. The existence of space/time logically precludes any infinitude of mass/energy. The postulate of space/time without mass/energy is nonphysical and collapses into a semantically equivalent statement of nonexistence, for lack of a supporting metric. Similarly, mass/energy without space/time is meaningless. Existence requires both couplets, space/time and mass/energy. Gravity is an inevitable concomitant of mass, so there can be no infinitude of mass in any conceivable universe, for an infinitude of gravity would disallow extension. Space and time could not coexist with infinite gravity. A universe consisting of a singularity with no extension may not be distinguished in any way from a non-existent universe, so we are safe in the general statement there can be no infinite mass. There ia a parallel argument for time; time is derived from motion, only possible when space is extended. Time is not a meaningful metric without the concomitant of space. Time without events collapses into the equivalent statement no time. So since time exists there is no infinite mass, no infinite gravity in our own universe, nor any other universe which can exist. The energy arguments are similar to the above results for infinite mass, for infinite energy must have zero wavelength, which also disallows extension. Since (by special relativity) energy and mass are interconvertible, the gravitational argument likewise applies to infinite energy. Infinite energy is the same as the case of infinite mass; neither would allow existence, and so these are precluded by existence. There is some space and some time; in no universe which has any space and any time can there be an infinity of mass or energy. We have shown that material infinities are strictly impossible. Should your deity be allowed interaction with the material world, he or she must therefore be a finite entity, thus one who cannot exclude the existence of other divinities. That's the rules of the existence game. Polytheism rules. Q. like they say E. D. ---------------------- postscript: logic and finitist math... The Finitists have proved that mathematics can be completely stated without recourse to infinity (William Craig, 1958) and, like logic, mathematics is a whole lot healthier without it. Any finitist proof is stronger than one which allows infinities. Craig's Language Replacement Theorem is strong stuff. You won't find a pro logician willing to support your doubts on this particular paper. I have a few Web pages devoted to these topics: http://www.oocities.org/~jthunderbird/lazyeights.html http://www.oocities.org/~jthunderbird/pillars.html http://www.oocities.org/~jthunderbird/rigor.html http://www.oocities.org/~jthunderbird/truth.html Blessed Be, Johnny Thunderbird heavyLight Books http://www.oocities.org/~jthunderbird the Sorceror's Web Page http://www.nternet.com/~jthunderbird -------------------------------- Communication is only possible between equals. Aleister Crowley -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Subject: Re: Polytheism Rules Finite Space From: "Doug O'Neal" <oneal@astro.psu.edu> Date: 1998/03/23 Message-ID: <9803240532.AA12882@trantor.astro.psu.edu> Newsgroups: soc.religion.paganism >From: jthunderbird@nternet.com >Subject: Polytheism Rules Finite Space Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 20:51:40 CST >Infinity and Monotheism Together Refuted >---------------------------------------- >Monotheism and the concept of infinity are completely >interdependent; monotheism relies on infinity for its >exclusivity, not leaving any god-stuff lying around >so other deities may be fabricated from it. Monotheism >without infinity just doesn't make sense. I don't see where you get this initial statement. It is definitely an unjustified assumption. The concept of monotheism was around long, long before mathematicians invented the concept of infinity. I can easily imagine a monotheism that isn't "infinite". Thus, what you have in effect done is make the unjustified statement that A = B, and refuted B (imperfectly, as we shall see below), and then said that A must be wrong. This isn't a very good logical technique, basically a "straw man" argument. >Infinity, in its turn, was the logic bomb used as a weapon >by monotheistic cultures to subvert their neighbors. Our >God is bigger than all yours put together, because... >While the neighbors were in a trance trying to rationalize >the paradoxes of infinity I forget the exact history, but the concept of infinity is not more than a few centuries old. It was invented by mathematicians definitely within the last millennium to answer questions including "what happens when you divide by zero?" and "how many real numbers are there?". I seriously doubt that any conversion was done because the converted peoples were sitting around trying to figure out infinity paradoxes. This is a rather humorous picture, in fact. >Gravity is an inevitable concomitant of mass, so there can be >no infinitude of mass in any conceivable universe, This is incorrect. In the steady state universe, widely believed until about the 1950's, the universe was expanding, but it had also existed forever and matter was continually being created to maintain the same average density. Thus there would be an infinite amount of mass in such a universe. This turns out not to be the correct model of the universe, in all likelihood, but it was definitely conceivable, since some pretty good scientific and philosphical minds DID conceive it. >Should your deity be allowed interaction with the material world, >he or she must therefore be a finite entity, thus one who cannot >exclude the existence of other divinities. That's the rules of >the existence game. Polytheism rules. The rest of your post is mostly using Big Scientific Words to make arguments in realms where they are inapplicable. You have made an unjustified beginning assumption and then at least one scientific error in order to justify your own religious prejudice. >I have a few Web pages devoted to these topics: Oh joy. In short, I strongly disagree that there is any need to invoke science or scientific language to "prove" that one type of deity does or does not exist. Your efforts will necessarily be futile. And as soon as you try this, the people who believe in the god-type you have "refuted" will come back with their own logical and/or pseudo-scientific arguments to justify why their belief is the only correct one. And then all you have accomplished is setting back the cause of mutual respect and understanding. Doug.
Article Segment 1 of 2 In article <9803240532.AA12882@trantor.astro.psu.edu>, "Doug O'Neal" <oneal@astro.psu.edu> wrote: > >> From: jthunderbird@nternet.com >> Subject: Polytheism Rules Finite Space Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 20:51:40 CST >> Infinity and Monotheism Together Refuted >> ---------------------------------------- >> Monotheism and the concept of infinity are completely >> interdependent; monotheism relies on infinity for its >> exclusivity, not leaving any god-stuff lying around >> so other deities may be fabricated from it. Monotheism >> without infinity just doesn't make sense. > I don't see where you get this initial statement. It is definitely an > unjustified assumption. The concept of monotheism was around long, long > before mathematicians invented the concept of infinity. I can easily imagine > a monotheism that isn't "infinite". You can imagine anything, but in the constructions of logic we are constrained to more systematic thinking. The predominant monotheistic religions are well known to be Christianity, Islam and Judaism, decreasing in order of adherents. The data is, that each of these religions do claim that their creator deity is infinite. In each case the "deistics" basis of theology emphatically includes infinite attributes for that deity, as the logical foundation on which the religion is based. Undoubtedly much of this formal substructure is a product of late scholasticism, but it forms the current dogma at which this argument is targeted. The contemporary mainstream of monotheist theology is vulnerable to loss of infinity. In history, you will have a rough time showing that _any_ real monotheist theology, at any time, did not claim unlimited attributes for its divinity. That is the distinctive characteristic which defines a monotheistic religion. Monotheist theologies _all_ make the claim that no other gods can exist. Thus the name. Your imaginary religion simply misuses the term. Monotheism is a complex set of beliefs which are interrelated and all come together in a package, an identical core set which is adopted by all three most popular flavors. From their beginnings, each of them specifically rejected any limitations on the deity, so the dependence on infinity has always been present. Baroque embellishments such as the tripartite personhood, emanations, incarnations, angelic orders, infernal orders, adversaries or what have you, do not alter the essence of monotheism but merely decorate it. (This is to stave off predictable offerings by people who may want to carve off chunks of some particular deity to point at. It is not in response to any issue you raised.) Your offering of a recent origin for infinity isn't really valid. The word is Greek; the word was used precisely for an unlimited quantity in both mathematical and logical proofs in classical times. (Cf. Pythagorus' number theory, Euclid's Elements for math; Zeno's paradoxes, the monad of Parmenides for logic.) It wasn't new then. The threshold you describe was for its formalization into number theory, perhaps, but the concept is old. The Greeks were fascinated (technical term! fascinatio, the evil eye) with infinity, just because it introduced paradox. Today we see paradox as a form of pollution. > I seriously doubt that any conversion was done because the converted peoples > were sitting around trying to figure out infinity paradoxes. This is a rather > humorous picture, in fact. Archimedes, tactical engineer nonpareil of Syracuse, to the Roman soldier lifting his sword to slay him: "Don't disturb my circles!" >> Gravity is an inevitable concomitant of mass, so there can be >> no infinitude of mass in any conceivable universe,
Subject: Re: Polytheism Rules Finite Space From: "Doug O'Neal" <oneal@astro.psu.edu> Date: 1998/03/24 Message-ID: <9803241957.AA13026@trantor.astro.psu.edu> Newsgroups: soc.religion.paganism >From: jthunderbird@nternet.com >Subject: Re: Polytheism Rules Finite Space Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 12:51:39 CST >> I seriously doubt that any conversion was done because the converted peoples >> were sitting around trying to figure out infinity paradoxes. This is a rather >> humorous picture, in fact. >Archimedes, tactical engineer nonpareil of Syracuse, to the Roman soldier >lifting >his sword to slay him: "Don't disturb my circles!" And what does this have to do with what I just said? Your contention that conversion was done by the conquerors posing logical paradoxes is kind of like the scene in Star Trek where Spock says to the android "Everything Kirk says is a lie" and Kirk says "I am lying right now", and the android's head explodes. Do you really imagine that's how it happened? >That the steady state theory was a concept is true, that it was a universe >is not. A cosmology fundamentally must explain the observations of physics, >which this concept spectacularly failed to do. The steady state theory explained everything except the cosmic microwave background. >I didn't say, here is some ammo to help you be nice. >I said infinity is impossible, and that makes monotheists fools. >The proof stands. No it doesn't; the "proof" is bullshit. You have set up and knocked down a straw man argument, and that does not a proof make. Your beginning assumption is flawed. For instance, is omnipresence in a finite universe tantamount to being infinite? I don't see how. Monotheistic religions do postulate omnipresence, but not infinity. And if there is a certain amount of "god material" out there, what does it matter if that material is contained in one or many gods? Can't the sum of the many equal the one? Then the polytheist view is just as susceptible to your "infinity" argument as the monotheist one. Remember that in mathematics there are different levels of infinity; some are more infinite than others. And your argument that infinity is impossible contains an error. A universe of infinite size and mass would not have an infinite gravitational force at a given point; you'd be integrating over, effectively, an infinite series that goes as R^(-2). That integral is FINITE. The strength of gravity in such a universe depends, instead, on the average density. You are merely using scientific and philosophical "big words" to justify your own religious prejudices. I'm sure that a monotheist would be able to do the same, and just as convincingly. I'm not sure why you feel the need to do this; are you so insecure in your own beliefs that you feel it necessary to attack others'? Doug
Subject: Re: Polytheism Rules Finite Space From: jthunderbird@nternet.com Date: 1998/03/26 Message-ID: <6fcpq9$nul$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Newsgroups: soc.religion.paganism Article Segment 1 of 2 In article <9803241957.AA13026@trantor.astro.psu.edu>, "Doug O'Neal" <oneal@astro.psu.edu> wrote: > > >From:jthunderbird@nternet.com Dear Doug About meditating in front of swinging swords: I give up. You guessed right: it was funny. You have done well to recognize the need to keep your hypothetical infinite mass out of my gravity trap by placing it a priori out of range. Perhaps this shows that you recognize that my gravity trap fulfills its primary design function, ensuring that no big-bang universe such as our own, which must issue its own space, will ever contain infinite mass nor other infinity. Our type of universe has the characteristic that space/time and mass/energy help in each other's creation, eliminating the need for a distinct creator. This is possible only because infinities are forbidden. That you have abandoned the real, observable universe, which we can both agree is finite in space, time, energy and mass, and have chosen to resurrect obsolete cosmological models which we can both agree do not correspond to observed reality, indicates to me that you have taken my point about gravitation. You are fighting to save the possibility of material infinity, in some weird metaphysical universe. Having taken the home turf, which is the real world, for the finitist cause, I am content with that, and you may do as you like with your contrafactual metaphysical constructs. I briefly mentioned that infinities introduce paradox into any logical system when they are allowed in. Infinity is inherently paradoxical. So what's wrong with paradox? It makes a mess out of logic, is what's wrong. Logic can be a useful tool, but bringing in paradox pretty much ruins it. Following the introduction of paradox, there are logical states which are indeterminate. That means there are ways that logic can be hacked, in other words manipulated to "prove" just about anything you want, after you let in paradox. The result is that the reliability of logic is shot. You can no longer trust it to produce the truth, and it isn't such a useful tool any longer. That's why paradox pollutes. The next problem logic has with infinity is a bit deeper. Infinity is not constructive. Here: give to every logical operation a unit of cost; since people are getting used to computer concepts, say that cost is in terms of time. This is richer than the classical concept of logic, but there is a really good reason for considering things this way: it corresponds exactly to computation in reality. Technically, we now have constructivist logic, evaluated in terms of computation theory; specifically this is computer logic. Under these conditions you should readily admit that infinity must be excluded from entering our calculations under all circumstances. Why? Because it makes logic inoperative. After entering upon the operation involving infinity, the process becomes nonfunctional; being unable to complete the current operation, which takes an unending amount of time, the logic can never proceed on to the next operation. Again a formerly useful tool has been ruined. Now the only difference between this "computer" logic model and the classical conception of logic was in counting the cost. We just added the simple qualification that every operation takes a finite amount of time. Introducing infinity destroyed this logic system. But we made the observation that the computer logic system was none other than reality, because every logical operation which is really performed really does take a finite amount of time. That makes it apparent that in reality, we must filter out and reject infinite operations, which are not constructive but are destructive. No one will ever complete an infinite operation.
Subject: Re: Polytheism Rules Finite Space From: osiris@bcni.net (Osiris) Date: 1998/03/25 Message-ID: <MPG.f82f6936a22189f9896f5@news.interconnect.net> Newsgroups: soc.religion.paganism In article <6f8hta$1k9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>jthunderbird@nternet.com says... > As I said, you can imagine anything. If your imaginations include infinity, > you can populate your fantasy with paradoxes of all sorts. There are > conventions which must be followed if you want to call your fantasy logic, > or mathematics, or physics, or theology. Should you apply such names to > a fantasy which fails to follow the appropriate rules, it is fraud. That > amounts to perpetrating a delusion on others who want to use the language > for genuine meaning. There are two fatal flaws in your rather arrogant reasoning: it assumes that 1) We know ALL the "rules" as you put it and 2) The rules we know MUST exist in all universes. This is patently unknowable. We have no way at all of knowing all the rules or if another "universe" would have the same or different rules than our own. Your thesis cannot be proven. Not saying your wrong, just that you put way too much energy into something that cannot be proven and doesn't much matter anyway. What do you care what another person believes anyway? -- Osiris The Fundamentalist http://www.oocities.org/CapitolHill/Lobby/1065 "Anyone who gives up a little liberty for a little security will lose both and deserve neither." ********************************************************* All paths lead to some knowledge. The trick is knowing when it is time to leave the path and look in the woods. ********************************************************* *If you reply and do not wish your e-mail address added to a monthly update address book, please tell me.*
In this thread, I have treated of the logical problems of infinity, that it is paradoxical and not constructive. I have offered a cosmological proof that infinity can never come into existence. I have adduced Craig's proof that real-world mathematics does not require infinity. I have mentioned that the most contemporary interpretations of physics give the universal structure as granular rather than continuous, leaving no physical basis for infinities nor infinitesmals. I have called attention to the astronomical observations that the universe is finite. I want to bring up some internal problems math has as a result of including infinity, and then to state my own interpretation of infinity as a spell. There are strictly mathematical problems associated with the use of infinity, which can be examined in strictly mathematical terms. The term, and the use its symbol, is uniquely devoid of meaning. It is undefinable, ambiguous, ambivalent, and non- productive. It is neither quantitative nor qualitative, nor does it denote an operation. Let us walk very slowly through each of these criticisms. Infinity must be given, in a rigorous construction of math, as an axiom, for there is no way in which it may be generated by applying the elementary operations to the primitive sets any certain number of times. (It is impermissible circularity to hide infinity within the definitions of other concepts, so you can later discover it from this thin disguise.) Division by zero isn't a definition of infinity but a no-op, an operation you did no times, an operation you didn't do. You can't generate infinity. You can speculate that were to perform some operation without ceasing, there would be a result, but the rest of the world is perfectly justified in ignoring your obvious pathology. You can't do it. Asking the world to pretend with you that you did is sheer folly. Infinity is ambiguous. Its meaning within any given construction is context-dependent, but this dependency on context is hidden by the breadth of the concept, and by the established convention that its meaning cannot be examined. Each time it occurs within a mathematical statement, a psychological slippage occurs in the reader (and also in the writer) which identifies that symbol or concept with all the other times infinity has been encountered. Yet in each unique math construct in which it occurs, it hides the fact that a more precise examination of the syntax would show that some very different entity would be required in each statement to express the meaning intended. Let's look closer. Say (for just this paragraph!) that infinity means a very, very large _specific_ number, which may be generated by one named procedure. The mathematician's quest for brevity in symbolism has led to the name of this procedure for generating this _specific_ number being dropped, and replaced by the symbol for infinity. Yet there is another very, very large _specific_ number, which may be generated by another named finite procedure. It is quite clear, that were the term infinity to be used as a sloppy shortcut also for this second number, the information that these are discrete numbers has been lost. In that way, infinity might have an ambivalent meaning; calculations involving the "infinity" which depend on its having the first type of derivation might easily conflict with the meaning of "infinity" creeping in unbidden from the second procedure. In short, you get the wrong answer, using otherwise rigorous notation throughout. Note that the convention which prevents examination of infinity has completely hidden the possibility of distinguishing these two _specific_ numbers. No, no, infinity cannot be used to refer to any specific number. Ah. Just exactly what does it mean, pray? As an abstract generality with a meaning which cannot be specified, it really doesn't mean much of anything. It means too much of nothing. Its use is injurious to both logic and mathematics, and it does not belong in rigorous thought. The use of infinity is stultifying to thought. It prevents conceptualization of mathematical statements, whether numerical or geometrical. It is designed precisely to prevent comprehension in that its slipperiness prevents pinning it down to any of its several potential meanings. It may be used in one statement as a reference to a quantity, and in the next to denote the lack of a quantity. Questioning this aspect of confusion is forbidden, for it is the holy cow of math and must be accepted with all its impossible and contradictory baggage, in one gulp as it were. This aspect of its being placed beyond analysis is what aroused my suspicion that it is a spiritual rather than an intellectual entity in its origins. My development of the concept, of infinity as a spell, was based on technical considerations of its psychological and cultural effects. A spell is an information structure which is active and self-protective, but is not autonomous nor evolving. A spell does not have a mind of its own, but it may be said to have reflexes because the strongest types can act to defend their existence, so they may carry out their maleficence. A spell will exert its influence past its periphery, forming a field which is detectable once the existence of the spell has been determined. The extent of this field may be used to map the efficacy of the spell in quantitative fashion. A spell is anthropogenic. It is a human creation deliberately conceived, generated and promulgated to cause human efect. It is usually malign, so most spells fall under the general category of weaponry. Production of a spell is in most cases an act of hostility, if not belligerence. Spells produce impairment of various faculties in their victims, and they are thus injurious. Ensorcerellment is many orders of magnitude more subtle than striking with a club, but ethically the cases are similar. The extensive qualifications in the preceding paragraph were needed to exclude popular benign practices of wise women and shamans, characterized by localized or even individual effects. Well known examples of benign or beneficent sorceries are the love spells and the healing spells. There are examples of large scale blessings, but unfortunately these tend to be rare. Most frequently, such works on the largest scale are malign in intent. I believe infinity is a malediction of the very highest power and extent. Spells work in clandestine mode. The disclosure of their secret existence does not automatically remove their effects, but it is a large step in the process. In that spells can divert much energy to preventing such uncloaking, they are considerably weakened by successful exposure. That makes the work of dismantling their mechanisms less arduous and much less hazardous. Removal of spells can be compared quite directly to the task of bomb disposal, in the degree of danger to the technician. The more advanced and sophisticated the construction of the infernal device, the risks are correspondingly greater. As in the case of a bomb, the hazard is not limited to the mechanic. Opposite the case of bomb engineering, the technology of the spirit is not an incremental function of time. As a rule, spiritual sophistication increases the further back in time our consideration is driven. The device we call infinity, I expect may be traceable within written history to those ancient sorcerors whose reputation is most legendary, none other than the Chaldeans. These mages, I am obliged to state, were the founders of the same spiritual tradition I follow, in bibliomantic sorcery. With all possible terse neutrality, I provide the further data that they also delivered writing from within the same zone of space and time. A named person, the patriarch Abraham, came out of this locus to deliver the doctrine of monotheism. On these levels, coincidence does not exist. Over this explosive collection of data, one must tread with the precise caution of the spider on her web. Jumping to any conclusion falsely could be terminally unwise. That I have confessed an association of scholarship with those whom I believe to have originated the spell of infinity does not imply that I have vested interest in its continuance. That I feel confraternity with those who developed the zodiac does not mean I must believe in personal astrology. One may safely infer that I greatly respect the level of sophistication used in the construction of this spell. The degree of its complexity, and its sheer power, are altogether consistent with a Chaldean origin. That it has functioned flawlessly over millenia is indicative of the level of craft mastery with which it was constructed. That's one of ours. Disassembling the spell of infinity will cause most dislocation to the persons who are the most dependent on it, the monotheist theologians and the mathematicians. Yet this is much less injurious than the alternative, of leaving the spell running. The ecological emergency which we are now entering requires the concentration of the entire consciousness of this planet on the single task of forestalling catastrophe. Removing delusion is necessary to enable us to focus our awareness on the issue of survival. Infinity is the key delusion on which several others are based, so it is critical that this blockage to reality-based perception be disintegrated without delay. Should we come out alive, by stabilizing this planet's life, we may again be able to afford the luxury of self-delusion. But right now, we need to break this spell. Earnestly, Johnny Thunderbird Ancient Illuminated Seers of Bavaria (A.I.S.B.) heavyLight Books http://www.oocities.org/~jthunderbird the Sorceror's Web Page http://www.nternet.com/~jthunderbird ----------------------- We did merge the Templars and the Hashishin, and we killed the King of France. A.I.S.B.
Subject: Re: Polytheism Rules Finite Space (was: Refuting any Infinite Deity) From: Kumar Yelubandi <zookumar@chebucto.ns.ca> Date: 1998/03/31 Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980330232259.1487A-100000@chebucto.ns.ca> Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.atheism,rec.org.mensa,soc.religion.paganism On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 jthunderbird@nternet.com wrote: [...] > I'm just getting warmed up here. But the post is starting to get longish > for Usenet etiquette, so the best I can do is beg for some more leading > questions. Don't think of it that way, just phrase it as an attack. It'll > make you feel better. [...] I rather enjoyed that. But I haven't found anything in it that I could sink my intellectual teeth into, let alone nibble at. Please post more. How does this "granularity" express itself? (As best as you can figure it through Goedel's and Craig's musings. Please state Goedel's thereom more explicitly, eg. for those of us not used to frequenting it. Something about the fallacy of proving the unprovable, no? Thanx.) And why is the search for continuity dependent on connecting the dough with the raisin, ie. that the raisin is a particle of folded dough; with the larger Universe being the sum of folded (eg. particulate) and unfolded (eg. wavelike) dough? Can there not be a continuum of regularly interspersed discontinuities? Or is this, in essence, what Goedel and Craig are saying? And should we embrace or abandon string theory (and other infinitesimal pursuits [or perhaps, string theory is an infinity pursuit??])...endeavored by today's academic minds? Anyways, my favorite measurable quantity as of now is "the jiffy!" aka chronon. ~10exp-43 (Simply Sumptuous!!!) Tho' I will dispute whether it's the smallest quantity out there. I've known people on RecOrgMensa that have IckQueue's approaching ~10exp-45. Cheers. _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_ _/_ _/_ zookumar _/_ yelubandi _/_ _/_ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_ ========================================= MODERATOR COMMENT MOD: Please keep followups relevant to soc.religion.paganism. Thanks. Natalie