How many angels can dance on the tip of a needle?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='morostheos' date='Feb 16 2006, 10:09 PM']And God could will as many angels as he wanted on the point, regardless of physical limitations, because He's God.  [/quote]God is "bound" by the Laws that He created because they are Good and in accord with His nature. For instance, God could not really make 1+1=50 because it is a fundamental law that 1+1=2. This as a Truth that in some sense shares in God's nature and is unchangable. It is not that God is bound, it is simply that He acts in accord with His nature, which encompases logic.

Also Al I will need some time to give you a thought out response to your last post.

Edited February 17, 2006 by Paphnutius

[Aloysius]

based on the definition of a point, no. God cannot make a square circle, because if it were square then it would not be a circle. an angel can only be in one point. if there were two angels in the material world, then there would be two points for those angels, two locations. the absolute tip of a needle is only one point. two angels, when manifested in the material world, are automatically two points. if they were at one point, they would be one, there are thus not two angels.

also, they would dance on the tip of a needle if they wanted to dance on the pin of a needle, they are not God's robots. nothing they wanted to do, however, would ever be against God's will because of their perfected natures.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 16 2006, 10:15 PM']based on the definition of a point, no.  God cannot make a square circle, because if it were square then it would not be a circle.  an angel can only be in one point.  if there were two angels in the material world, then there would be two points for those angels, two locations.  the absolute tip of a needle is only one point.  two angels, when manifested in the material world, are automatically two points.  if they were at one point, they would be one, there are thus not two angels. [/quote]
Actually the way you expressed it there makes much sense and I agree with you. I suppose my variance was with how much of the end of the needle (thus surface area) would constitute the point.

[ReinnieR]

what made you think of this thread??

Edited February 17, 2006 by ReinnieR

[morostheos]

I'd have to say your original question has changed quite a bit throughout the course of discussion. The end of a needle is much different than one point in space. They are fundamentally different questions.

[Paphnutius]

I've got it! I think the variance has come from how one understand the term "end." I believe that the end of the needle may be composed of several of these "points," where as you meant to imply that there is only one true point that is the "end." Plase note the use of the quotations, the designate the theoretical aspect of each of our sides.

I was working from the presup that the end could be divided infinintly into smaller points and yet still remain the end. Whereas you were working from the belief that there is only one true "end point."

How one understands the use of the word end in the question is of vital importance.

[dairygirl4u2c]

It seems like you guys are figure out things which has already been established. Who knows.

But anyway, so, if one point is there at the end of the needle, that one theoretical point, that point being part of the actual needle, how many points touch that point? It seems like you're saying only one point can touch a point, when I'd think many points could touch a point because it's three dimensional, and possibly because of corners touching etc.

[Aloysius]

where did everyone get the word "end"

sheesh... do a little reading... :

it says "tip"

the tip is the apex of the needle... as such it is only one point

I think this ancient debate was always in some way getting at that, the "tip of a pin" or whatever was just a way for them to say "one point"... they didn't have knowledge of atoms and quarks and such

and how many points could touch that point? many could touch it... but remember this point is theoretical. points are locations, and all around that point there are other points that can be pinpointed (lol oh gosh) as locations. any place in space can be a point if it is so designated.

it's just that in this case we were designating the tip, or absolute apex, of the needle.

[DeoOptimoMaximo]

They better be wearing shoes, cause pin-dancing can hurt...that is if angelic beings feel corporal pain.....

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Feb 17 2006, 07:46 AM']where did everyone get the word "end"

sheesh... do a little reading... :

it says "tip"
[/quote] I guess I just realllllllllly wanted it to say "end"

OR

I think you secretly used your top-secret mod powers and changed all words from "end" to "tip" whislt we were asleep to cover your tracks! I am on to you!

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

When angels enter our world, do they follow Bose-Einstein statistics or Fermi-Dirac statistics? Which one they follow would determine how many could occupy a single point. If it's B-E, which would be analagous to a ghost-like state where they can move through walls, you, each other, etc., then infinitely many can exist at a single point. If it's F-D, then they will interact with the world as if they have a real body that has substance. It's a little more complex than just this, but knowing the nature of their matter is important to the problem.

And who said quantum physics has no place in religious thought?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Feb 17 2006, 09:41 AM']When angels enter our world, do they follow Bose-Einstein statistics or Fermi-Dirac statistics? Which one they follow would determine how many could occupy a single point.  If it's B-E, which would be analagous to a ghost-like state where they can move through walls, you, each other, etc., then infinitely many can exist at a single point.  If it's F-D, then they will interact with the world as if they have a real body that has substance.  It's a little more complex than just this, but knowing the nature of their matter is important to the problem.

And who said quantum physics has no place in religious thought?
[right][snapback]890356[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
If we take the story about Raphael to be true then I would sa F-D for he interacted with physical objects.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]and how many points could touch that point? many could touch it... but remember this point is theoretical. points are locations, and all around that point there are other points that can be pinpointed (lol oh gosh) as locations. any place in space can be a point if it is so designated.

it's just that in this case we were designating the tip, or absolute apex, of the needle.[/quote]

Maybe I just don't understand. I realize that it's at that one extreme apex, theoretical point of the needle. Now, that's the one extreme point of the *needle*. How many points touch that point? I don't see how we can know to say one. It'd seem like many points would touch it even in the theoretical sense. I guess it's like asking if you have a plane, and pinpoint a point on that plane, how many points are touching that point? I don't see how it's determinable because so many are. And a plane isn't even 3D.
You sort of seem to be thinking, take a plane and put the needle up to it. Only one point would touch physically speaking in theory. But in this case, imagine the apex of the needle going into the planeand sharing space with the plane. Then that point would be surrounded by points.
(If it were a line, you could say two points are touching that point from the line. Just sayin food for thought.)


Also, it'd be interesting to ask how many angels could dance on the end of a needle as was thought by Pap. Then you'd be forced to quantify the situation. Then you'd be forced to figure out what a point is quantified to add them all up. I don't think that can be done. The situation Pap was in is maybe impossible to answer with precision.

[dairygirl4u2c]

oh wait. I think I see what you're saying. Take a pin and put a line down the center of it. At the end there are many points touching the apex at a planar level, but at the line level, as I pointed out with a line, there are only two points which touch the apex. One of the points touch from the pin, the other touches from the outside where the angel would be. And what it is is that the apex is being approached from the very top or to put differently to the very position where the line in the needle will continue outward. So the point can have many points touching again at a planar level, but not at the line level wherethe position to continue that line can only be filled by one point.

I think you could take the planar position or the line position and both be right. It depends on how you define apex/point. And note this is in the theoretical sense differentiating, not in the physical vs theretical that pap and al were differentiating.

Edited February 17, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Feb 17 2006, 10:16 AM'] I guess I just realllllllllly wanted it to say "end"

OR

I think you secretly used your top-secret mod powers and changed all words from "end" to "tip" whislt we were asleep to cover your tracks! I am on to you!
[right][snapback]890344[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
goofball :

actually, when I first posted it the topic title said "end" and the actual post said "tip", but right after posting I changed my mind and used the same powers everyone on the board has to edit their post within a few minutes of posting it.

but the actual post said tip from the time I posted

: