Infinity is a concept divorced from reality

[hades]

Infinity, in the natural sense, is one of those fuzzy ideas that can't really get off the ground.

It is like the imaginary friend of a lonely child. He sees other children, he sees their relationships and based on this he derives a concept for himself, one that exists simply in his mind for him to enjoy, but has no referent to anything in reality.

We know that in reality, things exist in a definite manner, regardless of our desires or ideas about them.
This is simply put, the law of identity A=A

Identity - the fact that something has definite attributes. You, and the objects around you, exist in a definite way.
You are a certain height, you can't be taller than yourself or shorter than yourself at the same instance. This would be contradictory.

Now to exist in reality, is to conform to the law of identity, that is, to be limited and have positive attributes. The universe consists of particular things, galaxies, planets, people, cells, bacteria, atoms, particles, energy, waves, etc. All exhibiting certain inherent properties that limit their existance, thus giving them seperate and virtually unique identities.

So where does infinity exist? What is it? By its very definition it can't exist. It is not limited, thus it can't have a specific identity, and ipso facto lacks existance. Infinity is actually too meaningless to even be considered seriously by philosophical thinkers, it is a term that doesn't refer to anything at all, it is a negation of limits. What does that refer to? Nothing in particular. It refers to nothing. And is nothing.

I'm bored, blah....

[LooF]

nothing is the opposite of infinity

infinity exists everywhere, except in nothing

[David Quinn]

In a philosophic sense, the term "infinity" or "infinite" simily refers to the beginningless and endlessness of Nature - i.e. to the totality of all there is. You're right to point out that the Totality isn't a "thing", but nonetheless, it does have the identity of being the Totality. It is this identity which enables us to distinguish it from a mere thing. So it does have a form of existence.

-

[hades]

In a philosophic sense, the term "infinity" or "infinite" simily refers to the beginningless and endlessness of Nature - i.e. to the totality of all there is. You're right to point out that the Totality isn't a "thing", but nonetheless, it does have the identity of being the Totality. It is this identity which enables us to distinguish it from a mere thing. So it does have a form of existence.

-

Beginingless and Endless, again are properties that lack limits. They are negations.

It has the same identity as nothing. Nothing lacks limits. Infinity lacks limits.

Nothing = Infinity
Nothing doesn't exist
Infinity doesn't exist

-

[David Quinn]

It's true that the Totality doesn't exist in the normal sense of the word. There is nothing beyond it, or outside of it, that can give it definite form. And yet is also true that the Totality isn't nothing whatsoever, as evidenced by the world sprawling around us.

So yes, if we want to be strictly accurate, we have to say that the Totality neither exists nor not exists. It is not nothing whatsoever, but neither is it a finite entity with definite limits. Its beginning or end can never be found. It is beyond existence and non-existence - and hence eternal.

-

[hades]

So yes, if we want to be strictly accurate, we have to say that the Totality neither exists nor not exists.
-

This is clearly a contradiction that breaks the Law of Excluded Middle. I am not willing to abandon rationality and accept that claim.

[David Quinn]

It doesn't break the Law of Excluded Middle, it merely points to a third alternative.

If we say that an object is neither an apple nor an orange, we are not breaking the Law of Excluded Middle.

-

[Edited for spelling - DQ]

[hades]

It doesn't break the Law of Ecluded Middle, it merely points to a third alternative.

If we say that an object is neither an apple nor an orange, we are not breaking the Law of Excluded Middle.

-

There is no 3rd alternative, actually it's definitional and in fact, tautological that something exists or does not.

Your example is very misleading. In the case of an apple and orange there is a 3rd option because there are plenty of other categories for the object to be in, because you are negating two different objects.

To be honest you must say this object is neither an apple nor not an apple....Contradiction. Makes no sense.
You are breaking the law because for any proposition P, it is true that (P ∨ ¬P)

Your example is making a proposition between two different things, apples and oranges (A v ¬O)...it is a fallacious example.

An object can't neither exist nor not exist. There are only two categories in this case, that which is, and that which is not.

[David Quinn]

You're right in saying that an object can't neither exist nor not exist. But the Totality isn't an object, and so this has no application here.

In other words, while your reasoning holds for all phenomena in the Universe (the Totality), it doesn't hold for the Universe itself - for the reason that the Universe has no beginning or end.

Only finite things whose form can be distinguished from other things are capable of either existing or not existing. The Totality, by contrast, is capable of neither.

-

[hades]

You're right in saying that an object can't neither exist nor not exist. But the Totality isn't an object, and so this has no application here.

In other words, while your reasoning holds for all phenomena in the Universe (the Totality), it doesn't hold for the Universe itself - for the reason that the Universe has no beginning or end.

Only finite things whose form can be distinguished from other things are capable of either existing or not existing. The Totality, by contrast, is capable of neither.

-

I do not understand.
Totality has no limit, has no identity, it neither exists nor not exists.

It is an incoherent term to me. Or am I just stupid?
:-(

[David Quinn]

I think, in this instance, you've taken academic theorizing too much to heart.

Let's look at it another way. Consider a black bird painted on a white canvas. The bird gains its existence though its boundaries with the white canvas; its existence is a product of the resulting contrast.

This is how it is with all things. Things exist through contrast.

The Totality, however, does not have the benefit of another reality to generate the "contrast" which is needed to give it existence. So it dwells in a kind of pre-existent state, if you will. It is not nothing whatsoever, but neither does it reach a level of existence through contrast.

This is why the Buddha used to refer to it as "unborn and uncreated".

-

[Diebert van Rhijn]

An object can't neither exist nor not exist. There are only two categories in this case, that which is, and that which is not.

Hades, where are these two categories based on? What makes them valid? Can you give an example of something that doesn't exist, has never existed and will never exist ever in all possible worlds and times, yet still follows A=A?

Something follows the law identity or does not, in which case it cannot ever exist for our consciousness in any direct or indirect manner. Since infinity is infinity, it still exists, or one could say it becomes existence in its totality.

[hades]

Hades, where are these two categories based on? What makes them valid? Can you give an example of something that doesn't exist, has never existed and will never exist ever in all possible worlds and times, yet still follows A=A?

That existance exists, is a brute fact. It either does or does not.
This is axiomatic, it is the law of excluded middle which is derived from a=a

The only way to negate a universal existance is if it contradicts logic. For example, a married bachelor can never exist in any possible world.

Something follows the law identity or does not, in which case it cannot ever exist for our consciousness in any direct or indirect manner. Since infinity is infinity, it still exists, or one could say it becomes existence in its totality.

But it is a completely meaningless word, infinity...It has no attributes, it has no limitation no definition. Besides having some operations in mathematics, it is trivial.

[David Quinn]

Hades wrote:

That existance exists, is a brute fact. It either does or does not. This is axiomatic, it is the law of excluded middle which is derived from a=a

It is more accurate to say that the Totality is not nothing whatsoever. The statement, "existence exists", on the other hand, is a false conclusion based on a mistaken conception of what it means to exist. In asserting this statement, you are projecting an extra imaginary layering onto what is actually there.

The only way to negate a universal existance is if it contradicts logic. For example, a married bachelor can never exist in any possible world.

There is no contradiction involved in affirming the fact that the Totality is beyond existence and non-existence. On the contrary, such a fact is a direct logical consequence of what the Totality is.

What is a logical contradiction is mistaking the Totality for just another finite "thing", and falsely believing that what applies to "things" also applies to the Totality.

In other words, all of your mistaken conclusions in this matter stem from not fully understanding what the Totality is. A case of mistaken identity.

DvR: Something follows the law identity or does not, in which case it cannot ever exist for our consciousness in any direct or indirect manner. Since infinity is infinity, it still exists, or one could say it becomes existence in its totality.

H: But it is a completely meaningless word, infinity...
It has no attributes, it has no limitation no definition. Besides having some operations in mathematics, it is trivial.

You really need to pull your head out of the textbooks and face the world more directly. The totality of all existence is real. It has an identity. It encompasses everything that is, including our own existence. Stop hiding behind Ayn Rand's skirt and acknowledge it.


-