The Invalidity of Enlightenment

[suergaz]

suergaz,
Quote:
suergaz: Proof must of logical necessity be extraneous to the fact?

Yes, that pretty much covers the definition of "proof": proof requires an argument that is substantially different than the proposition. But I think what you are trying to ask is whether or not all propositions need proof. No, they do not. Axioms do not require proof, but that is only because they are self-evident; since there is so much dithering over the inherent existence of things, I think we can safely say that neither position is self-evident.

Because of the dithering? No. Our positions are both self-evident. However, one is true to self, the other true to nothing.

Quote:
suergaz: The prefixes entail eachother, infinitely.

I don't think you spend enough time on your posts. I paid for an argument; this is a contradiction. ("No it isn't.")
Seriously, did you miss the English class when the teacher explained what homonyms are? Two words can sound the same, even have the same spelling, and be entirely different -- what's more, the same goes for prefixes!

I did not say they are not different, but they entail eachother in the word 'indivisible' if one considers what is indivisible.

Quote:
It would be philosophically unacceptable for you, I suppose, to suppose that monism and pluralism entail eachother?

You're talking Newspeak. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Black is White.

Do you not know the meaning of the word 'entail'?

Quote:
s: I was astounded by your expression, not the concept. The whole avoids nothing.

Am I not permitted to use metaphors? I was not trying to personify the whole; "avoiding" merely sounded better than "not".

Sounded better than? What sounds better than the truth?

Quote:
Did you ever read 'The prophet' from Zarathustra?

Yes, but refresh my memory. I read Zarathustra over two years ago.

If you own it, look it up. A quick net search will give it to you otherwise.

suergaz: There is no conflation possible.

How is conflation not possible? There are two different definitions, and you are trying to say they are really both the same. Seems like a clear-cut case of conflation.

It is actual, not possible.

I wanted to side-step this, but you keep indicating the next sentence is important:
Quote:
suer: There is only one thing indivisble: infinity.

Or the primitive, billiard-ball, model of an atom. Or a universe made up of a single substance. Indivisible has a broader spectrum of meaning than as a specialist term for use in mathematics.

There is a broader spectrum of meaning for indivisibility than infinity?

Quote:
mooke: Now, what would it mean if the chair that I'm sitting in doesn't inherently exist?

suergaz: It would mean nothing I could divine from the meanign of the words themselves, but since I'm not anti-poetical, I may stoop to understanding you to mean the chair you are sitting in is not the universe itself. I would also laugh at your understanding of the word inherent.

mooke: This simply shows me that you are using an overly restricted definition of the word inherent. I can't see why you do this, because you loved using all definitions of the word "indivisible" simultaneously. You are nothing if not inconsistent.

What you mean is my meaning of the word inherent restricts your own. David is whining about the same thing. You'll get over it (in a manner of speaking)

Quote:
mooke: what rule would all of existence have to follow in order to allow the manifestation of chairs that do not exist in themselves? (Hint: what is the opposite of existence? Of existence-in-itself?)

suergaz: There are no rules for non-existence, for nothing at all. In other words: A false rule.

mooke: Existence and existence-in-itself are different. The two question marks in the hint should have given away that there are two possible answers.

This is the whole of our argument. Existence is not what it is if it is not existence-in-itself. I thought A=A (or what you call the law of non-contradiction) was something you understood how to implement?

The opposite of existence being non-existence, and the opposite of existence-in-itself being contingent existence (or a form of subjective existence if Sartre is to be believed, which he is not), the question does have an answer. It's very simple: in order for chairs to manifest in such a manner, their existence (and the existence of anything) would have to be contingent. This means, related to everything else. And since the only meaningful relationships are causal (or anticausal, like in The Butterfly Effect), such would be the case only if the entire universe was causal.So: if the chair I am sitting in does not inherently exist, then the world must be causal.

If the chair you're sitting in exists in any sense,
it exists inherently, and that is because the world is causal.

You're lucky, because this is as far as I've gotten. I haven't proven the implication the other way. I haven't yet developed a logical proof that proves causality likewise implies lack of inherent existence.

:D

Quote: suergaz:
You sound clever, and wise. Do I really sound stupid? I know I must at least sound foolish.

mooke:Thanks. You sound stupid in the same way I'd call someone who just started to learn calculus stupid; that is, unfairly. You seem overwhelmed by logic, and make silly mistakes that blink like big flashing red lights to my jaded eye. As hard as it is to help someone see their mistakes in the ideal situation (that is, reading their work over with them over a pot of tea), it can be frustrating over the internet. You would benefit immensely from a course in logic. Would I be wrong in believing that you've never had formal training in the subject?

No. I don't think anyone has the nerve to formally train me in logic. :D

[David Quinn]

Suergaz wrote:

If the chair you're sitting in exists in any sense,
it exists inherently, and that is because the world is causal.

Only in the sense that a shadow or a mirage exists inherently.

The Buddha used to illustrate the nature of existence by twirling a flaming torch around and around so that it created an unbroken ring of light. This ring of light is definitely real. It is experienced by the observer to be existing, it is part of the fabric of Reality, and thus it can be said to "inherently exist" in the sense that suergaz means it. And yet, when you actually examine it to see what it actually is, it cannot be found! The closer you look, the more it disappears! The ring is really an illusion. In reality, there is only a point of light being moved around in a circle.

This is how it is with all things, including ourselves. Things seem to inherently exist from a certain perspective, and yet from another perspective, there is really nothing there.

-

[suergaz]

Things seem to inherently exist from a certain perspective, and yet from another perspective, there is really nothing there

The perspective which finds "nothing really there" is an uncertain perspective. To be perfectly honest, it isn't one.

Everything inherently exists.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

suergaz,

mooke: I think we can safely say that neither position is self-evident.

suergaz: Our positions are both self-evident.

This is ridiculous. All you fucking do is contradict me. I think you are more interested in scoring some imaginary points against me than discovering truth. If that's the case, then my responses have been a complete waste of time.

What you mean is my meaning of the word inherent restricts your own. David is whining about the same thing. You'll get over it (in a manner of speaking)

No, what I mean is that you are being a stubborn prick. Here, I'll pull out the dictionary again:

From http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=inherent

Main Entry: inherent
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: basic
Synonyms: built in, characteristic, congenital, connate, constitutional, deep-rooted, deep-seated, distinctive, elementary, essential, fixed, fundamental, hereditary, immanent, implicit, inborn, inbred, inbuilt, indigenous, indispensable, individual, indwelling, ingrained, inherited, innate, inner, instinctive, integral, integrated, internal, intimate, intrinsic, inward, latent, native, natural, original, resident, subjective, unalienable
Antonyms: acquired

What I want to draw your attention to is the antonym of inherent: acquired. Since they are opposites, existence for a "thing" is either inherent or acquired.

Here then is the quickie argument as to why causality implies no inherent existence. (You grinned too soon. The answer simply hadn't occured to me yet.)

Since all things are causally connected (this was accepted by both sides), everything achieves its state of being based on the causal circumstances that surrounds it. This means that the thingness of things is an acquired characteristic: since acquiring is the opposite of inhering, opposites cannot be simultaneous, and things acquire their existence, things cannot possess inherent existence.

Do you not know the meaning of the word 'entail'?

I understand it perfectly well. A entails B is the same as "if A, then B". My reference to 1984 is wholly appropriate response to your "monism and pluralism entail eachother". You are saying "if there is monism, then there is pluralism; and if there is pluralism, then there is monism." It's gibberish that doesn't have to be true. Monism and pluralism are different positions that no more entail each other than Mars entails Saturn.

If you own it, look it up. A quick net search will give it to you otherwise.

My translation doesn't have "The Prophet". What book and chapter is it?

suergaz: There is no conflation possible.

mooke: How is conflation not possible? There are two different definitions, and you are trying to say they are really both the same. Seems like a clear-cut case of conflation.

suergaz: It is actual, not possible.

So you admit you conflated the definitions. That's the first step. Now you must figure out why definitions should not be conflated.

("Nothing is greater than the totality. This box contains nothing. Therefore, this box contains more than the totality.")

If the chair you're sitting in exists in any sense,
it exists inherently, and that is because the world is causal.

No.

I don't think anyone has the nerve to formally train me in logic. :D

Not having logical training is a great disadvantage. It shows. Mistakes are made that ought never to have occured.

[suergaz]

mooke: I think we can safely say that neither position is self-evident.

suergaz: Our positions are both self-evident.

This is ridiculous. All you fucking do is contradict me. I think you are more interested in scoring some imaginary points against me than discovering truth. If that's the case, then my responses have been a complete waste of time.

Not at all. It's readily understandable. How could our positions be anything but self-evident? If they weren't we couldn't refer to them.

What you mean is my meaning of the word inherent restricts your own. David is whining about the same thing. You'll get over it (in a manner of speaking)

No, what I mean is that you are being a stubborn prick. Here, I'll pull out the dictionary again:
Quote:
From http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=inherent

Main Entry: inherent
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: basic
Synonyms: built in, characteristic, congenital, connate, constitutional, deep-rooted, deep-seated, distinctive, elementary, essential, fixed, fundamental, hereditary, immanent, implicit, inborn, inbred, inbuilt, indigenous, indispensable, individual, indwelling, ingrained, inherited, innate, inner, instinctive, integral, integrated, internal, intimate, intrinsic, inward, latent, native, natural, original, resident, subjective, unalienable
Antonyms: acquired


What I want to draw your attention to is the antonym of inherent: acquired. Since they are opposites, existence for a "thing" is either inherent or acquired.

No, all acquired existence is inherent also.

Here then is the quickie argument as to why causality implies no inherent existence. (You grinned too soon. The answer simply hadn't occured to me yet.)

Since all things are causally connected (this was accepted by both sides), everything achieves its state of being based on the causal circumstances that surrounds it. This means that the thingness of things is an acquired characteristic: since acquiring is the opposite of inhering, and things have acquired existence, things cannot possess inherent existence.

Again, acquired existence is nevertheless inherent.

Do you not know the meaning of the word 'entail'?

I understand it perfectly well. A entails B is the same as "if A, then B". My reference to 1984 is wholly appropriate response to your "monism and pluralism entail eachother". You are saying "if there is monism, then there is pluralism; and if there is pluralism, then there is monism." It's gibberish that doesn't have to be true. Monism and pluralism are different positions that no more entail each other than Mars entails Saturn.

It does have to be true. It is essentially saying "If there is 1 there is infinity; and if there is infinity there is one" Your Mars/Saturn analogy is ill conceived.

My translation doesn't have "The Prophet". What book and chapter is it?

It's the section following "Of great events"

suergaz: There is no conflation possible.

mooke: How is conflation not possible? There are two different definitions, and you are trying to say they are really both the same. Seems like a clear-cut case of conflation.

suergaz: It is actual, not possible.

So you admit you conflated the definitions. That's the first step. Now you must figure out why definitions should not be conflated.

No I didn't. They are inherently conflated in respect to indivisibility. I think you should do the figuring since everything for you is one and the same.

("Nothing is greater than the totality. This box contains nothing. Therefore, this box contains more than the totality.")

It contains itself.

If the chair you're sitting in exists in any sense,
it exists inherently, and that is because the world is causal.

No.

Denial? :D

I don't think anyone has the nerve to formally train me in logic. :D

Not having logical training is a great disadvantage. It shows. Mistakes are made that ought never to have occured.

Oh. Thanks for telling me, and you're certain I'm the person you should be telling this to yes?

[Pye]

.

suergaz writes:

Existence is not what it is if it is not existence-in-itself.

This is good antidote for these metaphysical in-itself-type hangovers, as are a number of the things you are saying.

I suspect that here, as in life, people are wishing you would do something with your intelligence, your thinking. Since you're getting it from left and right, I'll come forward to say at least one here is thus far appreciating the challenging economy of your linguistics. I have actually laughed aloud a time or two for the head-standing you're clearly earning. I think you are "doing" quite fine.

.

[suergaz]

Pye, you make me shy! You are like the sky, clear! I am somehow in you!

Isn't it funny that one can be arrested for being nude? Or too sad for words?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

suergaz,

How could our positions be anything but self-evident? If they weren't we couldn't refer to them.

I don't think you know what self-evident means. It refers specifically to those propositions that are universally accepted as true. The term "self-evident" has nothing to do with the ability to refer to, or to understand, a proposition.

Our positions are not self-evident simply by virtue of the fact that we are both reasoning people and we are not in agreement. Our two positions cannot both be maxims (which is what self-evidence means): they contradict one another. There is no similar problem with saying that one is a maxim, or neither is a maxim.

No, all acquired existence is inherent also.

This violates the principle of non-contradiction. Existence cannot have two properties that directly contradict one another. It cannot be both acquired and inherent. These are opposite types of existence: a substance can no more be coloured and colourless that an existent possess both inherent and acquired existence.

Again, acquired existence is nevertheless inherent.

Deja vu. I'm running out of different ways to tell you that you are wrong, and all you do is simply repeat your position like a mantra.

Ohm mane padme hum...
ohm mane padme hum...
Ohm mane padme hum...

I might as well be trying to argue with a mosquito.

It's the section following "Of great events"

Ah, it's the soothsayer in my translation. As with the rest of Zarathustra, he doesn't even try to prove anything. ("God doesn't exist because in a world with Gods, I couldn't live if I wasn't a God.") Children's laughter is here used to weaken the case of monism (in particular, Schopenhauer's interpretation, because that's who the soothsayer is). I'm pleasantly surprised that someone managed to find an occasion to use Zarathustra in an argument, but it still doesn't do much.

I think you should do the figuring since everything for you is one and the same.

Clever. :D

I'm not clear myself on how monism allows argument. Once the consequences of thought and argument have played themselves out, and lead one to believe that monism is the only truthful conclusion, is it even possible for a monist to continue making the necessary logical distinctions that brought him to that conclusion? Probably why the Buddha found it so bloody hard to teach others how to be enlightened.

It contains itself.

I was using a piece of deductive reasoning that suffers from fallacious equivocation as an example of what you do with words. It's perfectly understandable that you missed the problem and said something irrelevant. You don't notice it in your own reasoning. Why would you notice it in someone else's?

suer: If the chair you're sitting in exists in any sense,
it exists inherently, and that is because the world is causal.

mook: No.

suer: Denial? :D

Naw, mockery of your tactic of saying No to everything I say.

you're certain I'm the person you should be telling this to yes?

Why? Who else is there?

[David Quinn]

Pye wrote:

suergaz: Existence is not what it is if it is not existence-in-itself.

Pye: This is good antidote for these metaphysical in-itself-type hangovers, as are a number of the things you are saying.

He essentially preaches a revelling in immediacy, which is a form of unconsciousness. Yes, it blocks out all metaphysical forms of thinking. But it also all blocks out the thought-processes which can lead to enlightenment.

I'm not surprised in the least that you, being a practitioner of modern Buddhsim, equate the revelling in immediacy with spiritual wisdom. I have encountered this view many times in Western Buddhists - particurlarly, I have to say, in females. It is their love of children and animals slipping through, as well as their desire to be free of stress.

-

[Pye]

.

That's quite a tumble of labelous little underminings, David. I guess I'll have to pay closer attention to the nature of your griping at suergaz to learn what warrants the reactivity. I don't quite get yours, or anyone else's for that matter, or the prickly need to control.

I find suergaz's economics comprehensible; that's all I'd come to say against the general trend.

.

[David Quinn]

I find the words of five-year-old children comprehensible, but this doesn't mean that what they say is relevant to wisdom or the spiritual path. In what way, do you think, does suergaz's "economics" have relevance to wisdom and the spiritual path?

-

[Sapius]

David to Pye:

In what way, do you think, does suergaz's "economics" have relevance to wisdom and the spiritual path?

Let’s say in the same way evil has relevance to good, with each side saying I’m good, but are they speaking of the same perspective to begin with?

I think not. The difference I see is that All that there is, is Reality according to suergaz, irrelevant of the words he uses to express it, and he is defending it from that point of view, in comparison to being told about the Emptiness of things, All things.

According to me he is saying, however spiritually or logically you interpret ‘emptiness’ of things, things do not disappear due to magic or cause and effect, or in other words their appearances are absolutely certain rather than just appearances being a certainty since that which appears may not necessarily exist, he does not entertain ‘may not exist’, that is, All that there is, is not a dream for a certainty. He is asking it to be proved otherwise. I don’t think he has a problem with what we call a dream in the general sense of the meaning and that we do dream, by definition.

I don’t think he is arguing from the ‘intricacies after the event’ point of view, since All is Reality is the main event residing in infinity, and he questions what is it that is not Reality? And he has reached a conclusion from that point of view and speaks from the same. It really does not matter if things are said to be empty or not because either way the rest of his logic fits in quite well with existence, so why throw in emptiness? That is his main query.

Well, I may be wrong but that’s how I see it.

.

[suergaz]

suergaz:
How could our positions be anything but self-evident? If they weren't we couldn't refer to them.

mooke:I don't think you know what self-evident means. It refers specifically to those propositions that are universally accepted as true. The term "self-evident" has nothing to do with the ability to refer to, or to understand, a proposition.Our positions are not self-evident simply by virtue of the fact that we are both reasoning people and we are not in agreement.

Our positions are self-evident by virtue of the fact we are two selves reasoning with eachother. Reference to universal propositions is ultimately irrelevant to the self-evidence of our positions.

Our two positions cannot both be maxims (which is what self-evidence means): they contradict one another. There is no similar problem with saying that one is a maxim, or neither is a maxim.

I know. My maxim is true (everything inherently exists) yours (nothing inherently exists) is not, ie. it isn't one. Our positions are nonetheless inherently self-evident.

suergaz: No, all acquired existence is inherent also.

Mook: This violates the principle of non-contradiction. Existence cannot have two properties that directly contradict one another. It cannot be both acquired and inherent.

It doesn't violate anything. Were the universe fixed, static, finite etc. existence could not contradict itself, but the universe is none of these things. Being and becoming are not inherently separate. You're turning into the pluralist. :D

Quote:
suergaz: Again, acquired existence is nevertheless inherent.

Deja vu. I'm running out of different ways to tell you that you are wrong, and all you do is simply repeat your position like a mantra.

Ohm mane padme hum...
ohm mane padme hum...
Ohm mane padme hum...

I might as well be trying to argue with a mosquito.

It is no surprise you're running out of ways to tell me I'm wrong. My position may be repeated indefinitely as it is not only a position, it's the truth. Truth is commonly felt to be an imposition.

suergaz:It's the section following "Of great events"

Ah, it's the soothsayer in my translation. As with the rest of Zarathustra, he doesn't even try to prove anything. ("God doesn't exist because in a world with Gods, I couldn't live if I wasn't a God.") Children's laughter is here used to weaken the case of monism (in particular, Schopenhauer's interpretation, because that's who the soothsayer is). I'm pleasantly surprised that someone managed to find an occasion to use Zarathustra in an argument, but it still doesn't do much.

Like me, Zarathustra has nothing to prove. he acknowledges everythings inherent existence. In affirming all existence, one has no need of the teaching "All is one", nor of the belief that runs along beside it. We want infinity.

suergaz:I think you should do the figuring since everything for you is one and the same.

mookes:Clever. :D

I'm not clear myself on how monism allows argument. Once the consequences of thought and argument have played themselves out, and lead one to believe that monism is the only truthful conclusion, is it even possible for a monist to continue making the necessary logical distinctions that brought him to that conclusion? Probably why the Buddha found it so bloody hard to teach others how to be enlightened.

The predisposition for learning is not difficult to discern for the learned.

mooke:("Nothing is greater than the totality. This box contains nothing. Therefore, this box contains more than the totality.")

suergaz:It contains itself.

I was using a piece of deductive reasoning that suffers from fallacious equivocation as an example of what you do with words. It's perfectly understandable that you missed the problem and said something irrelevant. You don't notice it in your own reasoning. Why would you notice it in someone else's?

What I said was not irrelevant to show your example of what I do is fallacious.

Quote:
you're certain I'm the person you should be telling this to yes?

Why? Who else is there?

You.

[Pye]

.
David writes:

In what way, do you think, does suergaz's "economics" have relevance to wisdom and the spiritual path?

This question makes me realize I haven't a poofteenth of an idea how I am supposed to judge the spirituality of others, this seems somehow indecent -- well actually impossible -- to me. Otherwise, I am left to judge this by words/acts, and much snake oil has been spread over the millennia in this regard. As for wisdom, if one asks for logic to defend all points, then one cannot complain of what it arrives to. Suergaz is defining his terms and defending them. One would need to return to his arguments as address, but most of what he gets is complaints about the nature of his conclusions or the style of their presentation. If you're both in the world and you both use english and you both demand precisiontruth and the way-there is through definitions and logic, then who is getting up under whose thought, what then do you mean by "wisdom."

I don't recall a consensus between us regarding a definitive shape of enlightenment (wisdom, spiritual etc.), even if the strongest consensus exists that consciousness be ever-raised. I'm not handy like some are at describing what a perfectly enlightened person does or doesn't do, I don't know what the end point is supposed to look like for awareness raised to infinity. I do know that it is the direction I think human being ought to spend its time and that where or when I recognize it, it is in the happening and by degrees. Probably most everyone here has said at one time or another something I judge to have advanced thinking along, gotten up under or overtop of some thing else, advancing the thought. Some have reliable streaks of this; others more sporadic. With wisdom happening this way, I can't put myself in a position to say I see the root of its everything in static measure. Like the mind, I find it in the experiencing. Like I've said a number of other times about paying the present attention.


.

[Jason]

The universe is indivisible, and the sum of infinite parts.

How do you know there are infinite parts? Have you counted them all?

[David Quinn]

Pye wrote:

DQ: In what way, do you think, does suergaz's "economics" have relevance to wisdom and the spiritual path?

P: As for wisdom, if one asks for logic to defend all points, then one cannot complain of what it arrives to. Suergaz is defining his terms and defending them.

In my opinion, he isn't doing this at all. I think he is a troll who is playing games with this forum for his own amusement. His basic MO is to stick his tongue out at people and wiggle his hands behind his ears, generate a commotion, and preen himself in the resulting notoriety. He has no philosophic interests whatsoever.

Intellectually, the one point he tries to make over and over is superficial at best and the reasoning he uses to support it is incoherent. He doesn't listen to anyone else, doesn't acknowledge the points they are making, doesn't try to move a discussion forward in any way. He simply repeats over and over his superficial conclusion with the laughter of a person poking his tongue out at people. This is the reason why is attacting negative responses from some of the people here.

To be honest, I don't really want to talk about him anymore, because all it is doing is feeding his craving for attention. But I am forced to talk about him because he is here and I have to deal with him. It is one of the more unpleasant aspects of running a forum.

I'm not even sure why he is here in the first place. I've already banned him once before for the very same reasons. So we are currently going through a process that has already happened before. It is clear that he hasn't changed and that he doesn't have any respect for the forum or its values. So I have to say that my tolerance for him is extremely low at the moment and I am only a hairsbreadth away from banning him.

As Sue Hindmarsh says, a forum like "Common Ascent" would be a far more suitable place for him, since it is full of sprightly fun-filled trolls who have nothing better to do with their time than fill up the bandwidth with meaningless junk. But of course, the reason why he isn't over at a place like that is because he wouldn't be able to stick out and generate the kind of notoriety he craves. He'd just get lost in the herd.

I don't recall a consensus between us regarding a definitive shape of enlightenment (wisdom, spiritual etc.), even if the strongest consensus exists that consciousness be ever-raised. I'm not handy like some are at describing what a perfectly enlightened person does or doesn't do, I don't know what the end point is supposed to look like for awareness raised to infinity. I do know that it is the direction I think human being ought to spend its time and that where or when I recognize it, it is in the happening and by degrees. Probably most everyone here has said at one time or another something I judge to have advanced thinking along, gotten up under or overtop of some thing else, advancing the thought. Some have reliable streaks of this; others more sporadic. With wisdom happening this way, I can't put myself in a position to say I see the root of its everything in static measure. Like the mind, I find it in the experiencing. Like I've said a number of other times about paying the present attention.

Okay, that's your situation. Speaking for myself, I have a very clear idea of what enlightenment is and what kind of thought-processes and activities promote it. It is my area of expertise. And thus I have a great deal of skill in being able to distinguish between the genuine thinkers and the junkies. I also have no qualms about ejecting the junkies if I think they are beginning to drag the forum down.

-

[suergaz]

Jason:

How do you know there are infinite parts? Have you counted them all?

No. That's how you know.

[Jason]

Jason:

How do you know there are infinite parts? Have you counted them all?

No. That's how you know.

That makes no sense to me. It seems like the equivalent of me asking you how many hairs you have on your head and you replying "I haven't counted them, therefore there are an infinite number of hairs on my head."

[suergaz]

That's fine, I couldn't know that way either. You'll have to decide instead.

[Jason]

suergaz: The universe is indivisible, and the sum of infinite parts.

Jason: How do you know there are infinite parts? Have you counted them all?

suergaz: No. That's how you know.

Jason: That makes no sense to me. It seems like the equivalent of me asking you how many hairs you have on your head and you replying "I haven't counted them, therefore there are an infinite number of hairs on my head."

suergaz:That's fine, I couldn't know that way either. You'll have to decide instead.

Can you explain to me why you decided there are an infinite number of parts?

[suergaz]

I have. It is the sum of infinite parts because it is indivisible.

If you'd like to explain it to me any differently, or more concisely, you're more than welcome.