Understanding the words of the Griezmann at midnight
Hello Rabbi,
It is cited in the book Mishnath Yaakov on P”7 of the 16th chapter of the book of Yeshua, on the issues of daily life. I did not quite understand the answer of the Rabbi there. I would be happy if the Rabbi could explain it.
The question is how is there a reality of midnight , since every moment is divided into two. If so, there is no single moment. And his answer, as I understand it, is that indeed, death also occurred in the part before midnight, so that the firstborn was called dead after midnight. But if so, what about all the parts of time that passed from the moment of death to midnight and from midnight until they were called dead? And the fact that they were called dead is exactly at the same time that they stopped living. So I didn’t understand at all.
“And here I asked the Maran Gaon, the Gerizh of Brisk, zt”l, what is the point of saying “at midnight”, since something that is divided has no concept of time at all, and the reality of midnight does not belong at all, and how can I say “God Almighty” at midnight.
And Maran Zetkull”ah told me, the image of death does not occupy time, there is no moment of death, but as long as one lives – life, and with the end of life, oh, it is death. And as for what is proper to say at midnight, at midnight they lived, and with the end of life their life ends, its image does not occupy time at all.
And he told me as an example what is given in the Midrash: And on the seventh day God finished His work which He had done, and indeed the world was created in six days, but with the end of the sixth day, creation was finished, and immediately there was the seventh day, and this is what is said: And God finished on the seventh day.
This is a well-known passage, and I once wrote about it in detail.
What he claims is that death is not an event but a description of a transition between states, from life to death. Therefore, there is no reason why it could occur exactly at midnight: Before midnight I was alive and after midnight I am dead. If so, then exactly at midnight I died. Only a state lasts for a time, but a transition between states can be defined at a discrete point in time.
Sorry for the inconvenience, where is this in good condition? I couldn't find it.
The Balak Affair, 5767.
I once wrote a short article on the subject, I would love to know what the Rabbi thinks about it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9E4_GqxDvG5ZEtOZWR6QXNpMjRadVFKMTEyUnFWQ25LRkMw/view?usp=sharing
The question has nothing to do with the plague of firstborns. The (rather intuitive) assumption that death occurs in an instant brings up the question. The excuse of the Gree”z is obvious after three seconds of thinking about what really happens in reality.
My brother, Chen Chen.
I really didn't notice that in your formulation (is there or is there a soul in the body) the problem still remains and the explanation of the Greek does not provide an answer.
Ah, I didn't understand why it is so simple in your eyes. Is there or is there a soul in the body at the moment of midnight?
A few comments:
1. I wrote an article about the arrow paradox in which I explained it. See here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%95-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D 7%96%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%95%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%AA1/
2. I didn't understand the definition of root 2. According to you, Dedekind defined it as a collection of two groups. But it's a number and not a group. This reminds me of Frege, whose definition of a number I never understood (for example, 3 is the collection of groups whose members are the number of elements). A. A number is a number and not a group. B. It's circular.
3. I didn't understand your explanation with Dedekind cuts. The accepted model in physics for the time axis is that it is the usual continuous axis and not a set of lengths as you defined. On this model, your explanation does not hold water. The question of what was the situation at midnight was not answered.
4. In my opinion, the simplest explanation is your second explanation. Life is a process that cannot be defined at a point in time (see my above articles). Although if we had a soul meter, it really should have given us a result at a point in time, and then the question is what it would have given at midnight.
In my opinion, one can understand the Greek in a different way that also fits with what I wrote in the first part about souls - they asked him how it was possible that he killed the firstborn at midnight, since midnight is between the two parts of the night and there is no such time. And he answered them that there is also no time for death, but as long as one lives - life, and with the end of life, woe is death (there is a soul or there is no soul).
Regarding the comments:
2. As I understand it, in modern mathematics they try to define everything by groups, so the concept of a "group" remains undefined (and a number of other things, such as the relation "member of"), but the rest of the things have a definition (a group is not defined because if you don't want a circular definition, you need to start somewhere). For example, Frege really defined the natural numbers in the way you wrote (this is not a circular definition, I can define 3 without using itself, for example – the set of all sets that are equivalent to the set {a,b,c}). By the way, Frege's definition is not the only one, John von Neumann proposed a different construction for the natural numbers.
The definition for the root of 2 is also not circular (I deliberately got into trouble with the formulation “all rational numbers whose square is less than 2 or are less than 0” instead of “all rational numbers less than the root of 2” so that it would not be circular). By the way, this is not the only definition here either, Georg Cantor proposed a different construction for the real numbers.
3. I tried to explain how it is possible that both segments are open and I gave an example from rational numbers, it turns out that midnight may not be a time but an intersection (similar to the root of 2 which is not a rational number but is an intersection of groups of rational numbers).
Actually I did not address the possibility that both segments are closed, there is a problem with it, let's assume in the negative that both segments are closed, therefore there is a last time point before midnight and a first after midnight, let's look at the period of time between these two points, we wanted it to be possible to divide each period of time further and further, therefore we could divide this period of time in half and we got another time point – a contradiction.
I did not define time as a group of lengths, I only argued that in order to measure time, perhaps we do not need to use a group of numbers that fulfills the axiom of completeness (like the real numbers), and thus it is possible to divide the night into two parts, each of which is an open segment and thus there is no midnight time point and there is no question at all.
1. I didn't understand your suggestion. Does the moment of midnight have a soul in it or not? Midnight is also a change on the timeline. Even if you define midnight as the boundary of the open series before midnight, he himself is of course outside it. In other words, you would say that he was alive until midnight and from midnight onwards he would have died. But then again it turns out that at midnight he would have died.
2. I'm not sure that the definition you proposed above is not circular either. The equivalence implicitly assumes the number three (anyone who doesn't understand the meaning of the number three is not sure that they will see equivalence here). But that's something to be concerned about. But beyond that, as I wrote, I don't understand how a number can be defined as a group or a collection of groups. A number is one thing and a group is something else. The number counts the members of the group and is not the group itself. The same goes for the root 2. You defined it as the union of groups, and again I don't understand how a number is defined as a group. Here I don't even understand the connection (unlike Frege).
3. To this I replied that the model for the time axis in physics is a continuous axis. That is how each of us perceives it. If you want to define something else, that is fine, but you have not solved the problem. It is like an analytical solution to paradoxes (tip theory), which simply builds a language in which they cannot be expressed. See also section 1.
1. I propose (in the first part) that midnight is not a night on the time axis, there is no time called midnight (both segments are open), and when you say ‘midnight’ you mean the section between the two segments. This is my proposal, but if you say that according to modern physics, time must be measured in real numbers, I accept, you are the physicist (I thought it was not necessary, in geometry for example there are proofs that real numbers should be used to measure the lengths of segments, if there are such proofs also regarding the measurement of time I would be happy for you to enlighten me).
2. It is not circular, groups are equivalent if and only if there is a function חחמןןןןןן from one to the other (it does not implicitly assume the number 3). It was not me who invented this definition, and I brought things up in the name of those who say them. In any case, it is not related to the discussion.
3. It's not a language in which they cannot be expressed, there is simply no such time as "midnight" (just like when you slice a cake, there is no crumb in the middle, which is the boundary line).
1. This is not a question of proof, and I don't think there will be a proof for space either. Everything related to the world or mathematics cannot be proven mathematically. It's just a question of which mathematical model to use. In physics, the continuous axis is used in relation to time as well as space. In the theory of relativity, they even interchange with each other (i.e. in moving systems, space becomes time and vice versa).
2. Regarding circularity, I'm not sure, but that's not important here. My main question was how to set up a number and define it as a group. A number is not a group. Indeed, as I wrote, I was wondering about Frege and not about you.
3. There is a time called midnight on the continuous and ordinary axis. t=24:00.
1. It is true that this is fiction because it cannot be proven or disproved, but it excuses the question about midnight.
3. If real numbers are used, there is such a time (because of their continuity), if not - not necessarily (and if so, then t=6:00 in temporary hours of the night).
In any case, thank you very much and Happy Holidays!
Note:
Perhaps this was not understood (mainly because of the previous comment), in the first part of the article I suggest that there may not be a point in time called ‘midnight’.
Measuring time in a number system that does not satisfy the axiom of completeness is indeed a language in which it is impossible to express the problem, but in reality there is no such time and the problem really does not exist at all.
On the other hand, using real numbers seemingly presents a problem (which in fact does not exist), one can speak of the point in time ‘midnight’ if real numbers are used (t=6:00 in temporary hours of the night) but this is a meaningless expression.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
