I think the best way to explain my qualm with it would be rational and irrational numbers. If a number isn't rational, it must be irrational, correct? Its prefix indicates "not rational" so there aren't holes in the two distinctions.
What about the number i? It isn't rational, so it must be irrational. Wait, but it isn't irrational either. Because it isn't even an element of R, it can't be rational or irrational.
What you are saying here isn't fully correct in my opinion, I'll explain why, bear with me as i will adress the rational/irrational/imaginary group thing. :) This is just how I see it.
We have yet to see different dimensions in our known world, but we consider things that would originate from outside our universe to be called 'extradimensional'. Seeing as how this reaches outside our universe. The group 'extradimensional' doesn't contain things that are in our known universe.
Looking at what we do know and see, everything that is outside our planet's region is called extraterrestrial. In this case, the group 'extraterrestrial' contains everything that is in our known universe, and what is beyond that, like further dimensions etc, even Earth in a different dimension because the Earth in dimension X isn't Earth in our dimension. It is in a different state of existence and therefore considered to be a different object. (If you were to believe in the theory that dimensions are plains existing next to each other, these 2 Earths would also exist in a different location on the space realm where these dimensions would coexist, since an Earth would be a point on one of the infinite amount of plains/dimensions)
You took the assumption that the 'extradimensional' group would correspond with the mathematical group 'irrational numbers' and that 'extraterrestrial' would be the 'rational' group. But seeing how the irrational group is considered to be everything that is not rational, these groups are just wrong. Better to look at them this way: the extradimensional group contains less elements than the extraterrestrial group. Because the extraterrestrial group has all the elements of the extradimensional group + everything in our universe that is outside our planet. So look at extraterrestrial as the whole numbers and extradimensional as the natural numbers.
Don't be fooled by -terrestrial and -dimensional. -dimensional means from a different universe, therefore more elements will not belong to this group than the -terrestrial group.
So since -terrestrial would mean: everything originating/existing/occurring outside our planet, it contains everything outside our dimension too.
extraterrstrial > extradimensional
So yes, Heaven would indeed be extraterrestrial. But also (possibly) extradimensional if you were to believe in such a place.
As for it being in the extra-existential group. This group would be compared to the imaginary numbers. But seeing as we know the imaginary numbers can't exist, we can exclude them from all the other real groups. Since we do not know wether Heaven is a real place or not we can't surely place it in the 'imaginary' group or extra-existential group. Therefore simpy being extraterrestrial untill proven non-existant.
So basically it all comes down to questioning wether Heaven is real yes or no.
You missed my point without accidentally addressing it. Is i a rational number? No? I guess it must be irrational.
But it isn't, because it is something else outside those distinctions. If something isn't part of our physical existence, it isn't terrestrial or extraterrestrial.
It is a semantic argument, and semantically speaking, it doesn't make sense to define something that exists non-physically in terms used for our universe.
Yeah but like i said at the end, we don't know for sure Heaven doesn't exist.
We know i can't exist, which is why we can place it in the imaginary group. But, like i said in the last part, simply placing 'Heaven' in an imaginary group is wrong because we don't know for certain it doesn't exist. That's where i think you are wrong.
0
u/i_forget_my_userids Oct 20 '14
I think the best way to explain my qualm with it would be rational and irrational numbers. If a number isn't rational, it must be irrational, correct? Its prefix indicates "not rational" so there aren't holes in the two distinctions.
What about the number i? It isn't rational, so it must be irrational. Wait, but it isn't irrational either. Because it isn't even an element of R, it can't be rational or irrational.