Metaphysics expressed with language should be descriptive and construct images or portraits of the structures that it posits as meaningful or actual. The parameters could be like those of Ortega y Gasset's 'Some Lessons in Metaphysics' that might be described as existential realism, or extrapolations using synthetic considerations about deeper insights into being. I think the criteria for validity is the focus on meaning rather than disapprobation of another point of view on Metaphysics. The quality of insight is what should be regarded.
I have thought about some of the issues concerning scientific proofs of God that some atheists regard as necessary for themselves to believe or for believers to have valid defensible parameters for faith. I won't digress into the philosophy of history and the validity of the Bible and archeology or for them as scientific evidence. I'll continue toward the challenge to find absolute values from within the 'set' of being. Philo of Alexandria described an interesting theology yet realists might ask for a bridge of construction-for Gauss to show how he solved challenging problems, instead of a revealed structure such as Plotinus provided in The Enneads.
Apparently one cannot mathematically process infinite sets of real numbers regardless of Cantor’s diagonalization argument and comparative cardinality. Because God entails all infinity it will be difficult to mathematically ‘prove’ elements one regards as qualities of God. It might also be difficult to create a theorem, as if it were string theory being worked on 30 years so far without end, to make a theory explaining all of God rather than an ‘observable’ portion of God, or an wholistic portrait of God caught in time, like how He was when the wave function collapsed.
Determining the location of one quanta by collapsing the wave function wouldn’t not be sufficient to determine the location of God. For that, if it were possible, it might be necessary to collapse an infinite wave function product of all possible quanta of the universe.
Then, if God as spirit is actually quantifiable as a waveform and that waveform is synonymous with the quanta from the unified field that the universe theoretically stems from the collapse of that wave function could only result in the number of 1 I would think, or perhaps cancel itself out to zero since the summation of locations of the universe content reduced from itself would be nowhere.
There is the additional problem that a wave function can’t be defined for an infinite region of space. Hilbert space allows infinite dimensions yet that won’t transcend the criterion of the former. For an infinite number of quanta and field across an infinite spatial area- even of nothingness, calculating wave functions for an infinite number of quanta wouldn’t be probable.
A while ago the question arose. I will repost the matter for it supports some of the issue of defining 'empty space volume with no borders'. defined because:
The elements of the sets are infinite in number and uncountable, so “adding” them isn’t straightforward.
Even if we attempt to define something like , this wouldn’t “cancel out” infinite quantities but rather produce a value based on specific rules.
Conclusion
Your intuition about symmetry between the intervals is valid when considering their measure (length). However, in the domain of cardinality or infinite sets, subtraction doesn’t yield zero due to the unique properties of infinities in set theory. Let me know if you’d like further clarification or a specific framework (e.g., measure theory, integration, or set algebra) to explore!”
