beyond the infinite

[jupiviv]

@Diebert:

Jupiviv: It [the infinite] lies nowhere
Jupiviv: The infinite cannot be said to be nowhere at all

It neither lies somewhere nor nowhere. It cannot "lie"(be situated at) anywhere. If you said that the infinite is not beyond the finite(any *thing* beyond the finite would also be finite), or that we can only know it through the finite(consciousness is finite), then you'd be right.

Jupiviv: the infinite would include the finite, by definition.
Jupiviv: The word "infinite" is taken from the Latin "infinitus" which means "not finite"

Just because A includes B doesn't mean that A is B.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If you said that the infinite is not beyond the finite(any *thing* beyond the finite would also be finite), or that we can only know it through the finite(consciousness is finite), then you'd be right.

All knowing is [through] consciousness and will be limiting. Therefore we can only know the infinite through the finite and it's perfectly fine to say the infinite is within the finite. Samsara is nirvana.

Jupiviv: the infinite would include the finite, by definition.
Jupiviv: The word "infinite" is taken from the Latin "infinitus" which means "not finite"

Just because A includes B doesn't mean that A is B.

But normally inclusion is not the case: inhuman, incontinent, invisible, they all not include their opposite. So you have gone from highlighting the "not" to introduce some "and/or" and somehow all "by definition". This seems utterly confused.

[jupiviv]

All knowing is [through] consciousness and will be limiting.

Not necessarily. Knowledge of reality is not limiting.

Therefore we can only know the infinite through the finite and it's perfectly fine to say the infinite is within the finite.

To say that the infinite is within the finite would mean that the finite is more than the infinite, which is nonsensical.

Samsara is nirvana.

Your understanding of this concept is wrong.

But normally inclusion is not the case: inhuman, incontinent, invisible, they all not include their opposite.

Nothing is the opposite of the infinite, by definition. And the infinite includes everything, by definition.

So you have gone from highlighting the "not" to introduce some "and/or" and somehow all "by definition". This seems utterly confused.

I don't quite understand what you mean here. I take it that you are saying that I first said that the infinite lies nowhere, and then that it neither lies somewhere nor nowhere, which seems contradictory to you. I meant that it cannot be situated anywhere in particular, and it is also wrong to say that it lies nowhere(meaning at no place at all), because that would mean that every place is excluded from it.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Not necessarily. Knowledge of reality is not limiting.

Knowledge is limiting. What more do you need to know?

To say that the infinite is within the finite would mean that the finite is more than the infinite, which is nonsensical.

One could interpret it also in another way. The whole concept "the finite" is as nonsensical as "the infinite", in that it's a dualism that does not really exist. In that they are one.

Nothing is the opposite of the infinite, by definition. And the infinite includes everything, by definition.[/qoute]
Nothing exits what is the opposite of the finite and the finite includes everything, by definition. Not counting mathematics.

I meant that it cannot be situated anywhere in particular, and it is also wrong to say that it lies nowhere(meaning at no place at all), because that would mean that every place is excluded from it.

So it lies everywhere in particular, at all places at all times? The impermanent itself?

[jupiviv]

Knowledge is limiting. What more do you need to know?

Knowledge of things like logic and the infinite is not limiting.

One could interpret it also in another way. The whole concept "the finite" is as nonsensical as "the infinite", in that it's a dualism that does not really exist. In that they are one.

Yes, the finite and infinite are the same, because it is logically impossible for them to be separate. But it cannot be denied that I experience finite phenomena, so the finite is not nonsensical. The infinite is also not nonsensical, because I experience it too.

Nothing exits what is the opposite of the finite and the finite includes everything, by definition. Not counting mathematics.

The opposite of finite is not finite. The opposite of the infinite cannot be said to be finite because then it could not include it.

I'm guessing that you are defining "finite" to be the entirety of the finite world. If you are, then your definition is logically untenable, because the entirety of the finite world cannot be finite, so infinite.

So it lies everywhere in particular, at all places at all times? The impermanent itself?

It does not "lie" anywhere. Again, I'm guessing that you are defining "lie" to mean that it occupies some place. All things occupy it, and not vice versa. Think of a pot of tea. The tea can be said to lie in the pot, but can the pot be said to lie in the tea?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Yes, the finite and infinite are the same, because it is logically impossible for them to be separate. But it cannot be denied that I experience finite phenomena, so the finite is not nonsensical. The infinite is also not nonsensical, because I experience it too.

Since when does an experience always needs to "make sense"? That way a delusion would be sensible too and we'd be going nowhere with this concept.

The opposite of the infinite cannot be said to be finite because then it could not include it.

It was only because of your insistence that the finite needs to be included in the infinite. But that would imply the infinite is a container of some kind. Which would make it definitively a finite thing, that is: something having bounds needed to contain something.

the entirety of the finite world cannot be finite, so infinite.

But the finite remains finite. Even some "entirety" is a boundary, a mental finite idea. It might help to shape thinking but it can also be dropped.

Think of a pot of tea. The tea can be said to lie in the pot, but can the pot be said to lie in the tea?

The pot is here clearly the limiting quantifier. Without some definition of kind, application or container, "tea" wouldn't make much sense to refer to. The "infinite" tea lies within the finite pot!

[jupiviv]

Since when does an experience always needs to "make sense"? That way a delusion would be sensible too and we'd be going nowhere with this concept.

If experiences are fully conscious, then they would make sense to those who think that conscious experiences are sensible.

It was only because of your insistence that the finite needs to be included in the infinite. But that would imply the infinite is a container of some kind. Which would make it definitively a finite thing, that is: something having bounds needed to contain something.

There is nothing that is not the infinite, so all things are included in it. Also, there is nothing that is in itself the infinite, so it cannot have bounds.

Also, I see a problem with your definition of finite. You need to clarify what you mean by it. If you mean the totality of the finite world, then what you actually mean is the infinite, because the totality of all things must be infinite, otherwise it could not be the totality of all things. If you mean any finite object, then your arguments are logically untenable, for obvious reasons.

But the finite remains finite. Even some "entirety" is a boundary, a mental finite idea. It might help to shape thinking but it can also be dropped.

You are looking at my hand, not what my hand is pointing towards.

The pot is here clearly the limiting quantifier. Without some definition of kind, application or container, "tea" wouldn't make much sense to refer to. The "infinite" tea lies within the finite pot!

The tea was meant to be symbolic of the finite, and the pot of the infinite.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It appears to me the possibilities of this particular discussion are by now exhausted. No need to go forever into circles :-)

Thanks Jupiviv!

[Nick]

Damn, I was enjoying your guy's discussion. Oh well...

[jupiviv]

It appears to me the possibilities of this particular discussion are by now exhausted. No need to go forever into circles :-)

Thanks Jupiviv!

If you define what you mean by "finite" then it may be possible for this discussion to go somewhere.

---

[Diebert van Rhijn]

On special request:

If you define what you mean by "finite" then it may be possible for this discussion to go somewhere.

This is how I defined it a few posts back:

...a finite thing, that is: something having bounds needed to contain something.

Or in other words: for to contain something, it will be bound by having a content.

[Blair]

It pans thusly;

The Finite 00000000

The infinite 010101010

[jupiviv]

...a finite thing, that is: something having bounds needed to contain something.

If that is how you define it, then all your arguments in this thread thus far would suffer logical epileptic fits. :-)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

...a finite thing, that is: something having bounds needed to contain something.

If that is how you define it, then all your arguments in this thread thus far would suffer logical epileptic fits. :-)

But it was you who's arguing for including the finite within the infinite, not me. It's you who turns the infinite into the finite by treating it like a mathematical set of some kind. Perhaps a fit is indeed what is needed here.

[jupiviv]

...a finite thing, that is: something having bounds needed to contain something.

If that is how you define it, then all your arguments in this thread thus far would suffer logical epileptic fits. :-)

But it was you who's arguing for including the finite within the infinite, not me. It's you who turns the infinite into the finite by treating it like a mathematical set of some kind. Perhaps a fit is indeed what is needed here.

You don't understand what I mean. Think of some water lying on a floor. Where does that water ultimately lie? In the "finite"? OK, so where does that "finite" lie? It has to exist in relation to something else in order to be finite, which means that it has to "lie" somewhere.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Think of some water lying on a floor. Where does that water ultimately lie? In the "finite"? OK, so where does that "finite" lie? It has to exist in relation to something else in order to be finite, which means that it has to "lie" somewhere.

The finit in your example presents itself with "some" as a vague quantity, and "on a floor" as an indication of location.

Water is known as a so-called mass noun or uncountable noun: concepts that we cannot divide into separate elements.

The water only lies somewhere the moment it exists in relation to a divider like "some" here or "a lot" there. "Water" by itself doesn't lie anywhere but in the imagination. This is exactly how one could approach the infinite as well: if it's not "within" everything, it surely will not lie anywhere else, not even just inside, or outside, the imaginable.

[jupiviv]

The finit in your example presents itself with "some" as a vague quantity, and "on a floor" as an indication of location.

Water is known as a so-called mass noun or uncountable noun: concepts that we cannot divide into separate elements.

How is this relevant? I used water to represent any finite object. If you have a problem with water, replace it with a rock or something.

"Water" by itself doesn't lie anywhere but in the imagination.

Firstly, that can't be said for sure, because the imagination is not all there is. Secondly, even if it does lie in the imagination, it LIES somewhere, doesn't it?

This is exactly how one could approach the infinite as well: if it's not "within" everything, it surely will not lie anywhere else, not even just inside, or outside, the imaginable.

Stop thinking about the infinite as something finite. The "it" and other words used to describe it are just pointing hands. Don't look at the hands, look at what they are pointing towards.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I used water to represent any finite object. If you have a problem with water, replace it with a rock or something.

And I was hoping it was clear I used water to represent your "infinite" since it was so fitting being an "unbounded mass". And how it becomes bound by the qualifiers, that is: the finite.

"Water" by itself doesn't lie anywhere but in the imagination.

Firstly, that can't be said for sure, because the imagination is not all there is. Secondly, even if it does lie in the imagination, it LIES somewhere, doesn't it?

Outside the imagination, our raw capacity for conceptualizing and visualizing, we have reason, distinction, to further the cause. In the imagination lie many delusions. If your infinite would lie between them, how would you distinguish?

Stop thinking about the infinite as something finite. The "it" and other words used to describe it are just pointing hands. Don't look at the hands, look at what they are pointing towards.

Yeah, yeah, we're all pointing, whatever we do our say. But is it pointing to truth?

[jupiviv]

And I was hoping it was clear I used water to represent your "infinite" since it was so fitting being an "unbounded mass". And how it becomes bound by the qualifiers, that is: the finite.

You are the one who is thinking of the qualifiers as the bounds of the infinite. My thinking is different. I know what the qualifiers mean.

The qualities I'm giving the infinite here are only meant to point to it. Ramakrishna worshipped the clay idol of a goddess - it could be said that he gave the infinite the "quality" of that goddess, but he wasn't deluded. He knew perfectly well what the infinite was. He worshipped it because he wanted to have something to point to the infinite - to show others, and maybe also for himself. The words I'm using here are serving a very similar purpose as that idol.

Outside the imagination, our raw capacity for conceptualizing and visualizing, we have reason, distinction, to further the cause. In the imagination lie many delusions. If your infinite would lie between them, how would you distinguish?

Imagination does not necessarily contain delusions. Besides, we cannot perceive things unless we imagine. Thinking itself is a type of imagination.

Yeah, yeah, we're all pointing, whatever we do our say. But is it pointing to truth?

What I'm saying here points to the truth.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You are the one who is thinking of the qualifiers as the bounds of the infinite.

You misunderstood. The finite is that which binds and contains. That's why the infinite can only be bound within the finite but the finite cannot be contained within some supposed infinite.

Wrap your mind around that! :-)

The qualities I'm giving the infinite here are only meant to point to it.

And I'm here to tell ultimately any supposed infinite is pointless, unbound and contained within the finite. It's almost beyond finger pointing, as there are not enough fingers on this planet. It doesn't exist somewhere beyond anything else, no matter the scale one imagines.

What I'm saying here points to the truth.

That's just the policy of truth, that it's being pointed out all of the time, knowing or unknowingly. But as argument it's drift wood.

Before the whole discussion drifts off again: this was about your argument that the infinite was "not the finite" by definition and "all things are included in it", compared to Prince's definition of the infinite being "inside" the finite. To me the latter one is the more accurate and has the most potential to counter delusions about this topic.

[jupiviv]

You misunderstood. The finite is that which binds and contains. That's why the infinite can only be bound within the finite but the finite cannot be contained within some supposed infinite.

The infinite can't be bound or contained, by definition.

And I'm here to tell ultimately any supposed infinite is pointless, unbound and contained within the finite.

And I'm here to tell ultimately any supposed infinite is pointless, unbound and contained within the finite.

Do I have to point out what's wrong here? :-)

Before the whole discussion drifts off again: this was about your argument that the infinite was "not the finite" by definition and "all things are included in it", compared to Prince's definition of the infinite being "inside" the finite. To me the latter one is the more accurate and has the most potential to counter delusions about this topic.

Anything that is INSIDE the finite(which, according to you, is any finite object) must be finite itself. So his definition is logically untenable.

If he said that there is no difference between the infinite and the finite/material world, then I would have agreed with him. But saying that the finite world is not separate from the infinite, is infinitely different to saying that the finite contains the infinite.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The infinite can't be bound or contained, by definition.

Please think carefully before saying what the infinite cannot be.

But what is certain and absolute is that the finite cannot be bound, contained or encompassed by an "infinite".

And I'm here to tell ultimately any supposed infinite is pointless, unbound and contained within the finite.

And I'm here to tell ultimately any supposed infinite is pointless, unbound and contained within the finite.

Do I have to point out what's wrong here? :-)

Your inability to understand how the infinite can be only within the finite while at the same time remaining unbound.

Anything that is INSIDE the finite(which, according to you, is any finite object) must be finite itself. So his definition is logically untenable.

If all a finite object contains is yet another finite thing, where would that lead to? Matruska dolls?

... saying that the finite world is not separate from the infinite, is infinitely different to saying that the finite contains the infinite.

It's still definitely better than going on about how the finite fits in the infinite!

[jupiviv]

Please think carefully before saying what the infinite cannot be.

It's easier to talk about the infinite if we attribute certain qualities to it(like boundless, the totality etc.), or separate some other qualities as not belonging to it(finite, bounded, concept, etc.) Ultimately, the infinite neither is nor is not anything, because nothing gives it either of those qualities.

But what is certain and absolute is that the finite cannot be bound, contained or encompassed by an "infinite".

"Any finite object"(your definition of "finite") is boundless?

Your inability to understand how the infinite can be only within the finite while at the same time remaining unbound.

That is a logical contradiction. The infinite can never "be" anywhere, because there is nowhere at all where it cannot be.

If all a finite object contains is yet another finite thing, where would that lead to?

That would lead to the conclusion that the infinite cannot be contained within a finite object.

... saying that the finite world is not separate from the infinite, is infinitely different to saying that the finite contains the infinite.

It's still definitely better than going on about how the finite fits in the infinite!

The finite world is most definitely included in the infinite. Where else can it be included?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But what is certain and absolute is that the finite cannot be bound, contained or encompassed by an "infinite".

"Any finite object"(your definition of "finite") is boundless?

When bound, contained or encompassed by something, that something has to be called finite.

It's confusing to talk about a "finite object" as if there's an infinite object somewhere?

Any object is bound by definition. The boundaries define it, limit it. That's what makes it finite, not a supposed content or perhaps I should say intrinsic existence!

The infinite can never "be" anywhere, because there is nowhere at all where it cannot be.

True but where can it be outside the finite? Can you escape the finite with your mind? Hah!

the infinite cannot be contained within a finite object.

So where would the remainder hang out then?

The finite world is most definitely included in the infinite. Where else can it be included?

Only a finite object can be said to include anything. Because the moment boundaries are drawn, you're in the finite. That's why it's perfectly logical to define the infinite as within the finite. The finite provides boundaries. It doesn't say much about the content, what's included apart from what the boundaries just defined for you.

[Blair]

In human physics, the infinite is called dark matter.

It is not matter, not particle based, it's a force that binds matter together.