The definition itself, being finite, has no inherent existence. It is simply a finite container, as opposed to the All, which contains everything. In fact, all finite things are "containers", but none of them are real.Diebert wrote:A definition defines something but there's nothing "there" outside or inside that definition, nothing "in itself". A definition is an example of a container, like any thing is an example of containment.
Have you figured out this particular fact about the infinite? If yes, then how could you? You limited it with your mind, therefore, it is no longer infinite, and therefore, your assertion is untrue. Do you see how pointless this kind of thinking is when it comes to the infinite? You have to be the eye of God in order to see God.Right! The moment I've "figured it out" though I'm limiting it again!
What makes you think it's LESS because it's contained? That only applies to comparing two finite things, using equal measurement systems even. An apple is not less than the containing fruit basket in some existential, general sense.
That which is contained must of necessity be less than the container.
But you allow for the infinite container to still exist. You just try to make it into a non-defined entity of some kind. You want it to exist and yet not exist. With that very mental act limitations and distortions start jumping in place.
I believe I defined the infinite simply as a container which contains all things. I didn't say anything about it existing or not existing.
I don't think I said that. I said that things appear as whatever they appear, and have no reality other than that.So you say that whatever appears to you contains more appearances.