GENIUS FORUMS

Kevin Solway wrote:A word, such as "moon" is no more a model of the the moon than my pointing finger is.

The word "moon", both as the sounds of the spoken word or the symbols of the written word, is a pointer, but not like a pointing finger. Our finger points to an actual thing while a word points to our notion (concept, image, model, representation, etc.) of the actual thing. Even as I write this post and use the word "moon", I think of my notion of the moon. If I were outside and you spoke the word, I would look for the moon; i.e., I would search for the actual thing that matched my notion.

The actual moon has no name.

It's kinda painful watching this argument between you guys. Perhaps I can help clear a few things up by explaining what I understand of QSR ideas. First of all, for Kevin, David and Dan "infinite", "totality" and "god" are synonyms. What they refer to is utterly everything. There is absolutely nothing outside of or excluded from the totality/infinite/god. However that doesn't necessarily mean that the things contained within them, such as time and space are of infinite extension. It just means that all of time and all of space are contained within them, no matter their size or number.

The totality/infinite/god is also very generalized. It doesn't refer to a specific composition of things that make up the infinite/totality/god, say three spatial dimensions one temporal dimension and five kitchen sinks. It just says whatever there is, and we don't necessarily know exactly what there is, just utterly everything and anything, totality/god/infinite includes it.

Hopefully I haven't misrepresented their ideas, if so I'm sure they'll let us know.

Neil Melnyk wrote:The notion that anything can be proven purely logically is stupid in itself.

Where is your proof of that?

I try to convince you that they were created to model the empirical world.

I'm still waiting to see your proof of that as well.

Unless you provide a proof, your claim is worthless.

clyde wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:A word, such as "moon" is no more a model of the the moon than my pointing finger is.

The word "moon", both as the sounds of the spoken word or the symbols of the written word, is a pointer, but not like a pointing finger. Our finger points to an actual thing while a word points to our notion (concept, image, model, representation, etc.) of the actual thing.

How do you know that when I say "moon" I'm not refering to the real moon, just like my pointing finger?

The word "moon" can indeed point to a model, but it doesn't necessarily do so. If your mind is locked-in to always interpreting "moon" to mean "a model of the moon", then that is a limitation of your mind.

The actual moon has no name.

Things have whatever names the individual chooses to give them.

Kevin: It can be proven purely logically that reality is infinite. This is because if you put a boundary on something, there are two sides to that boundary.

Laird: That's purely your definition of a boundary.

Kevin: It is the standard definition of boundary.

Let's see what dictionary.com has to say about that: "something that indicates bounds or limits; a limiting or bounding line." Hmm, nothing about "two sides" or even anything beyond the "limiting or bounding line". Not so standard after all, huh? But even if it was, where's the guarantee that reality actually works like this? Just because we might define a boundary to have two sides doesn't mean that everytime we run up in reality against a limit that there's necessarily something on the other side of it, does it? Reality might work in ways other than those that we define.

Laird: I will now define a boundary to be a limiting region of some thing, which might or might not have something on the other side.

Kevin: Then you need to define exactly what you mean by "limiting region", otherwise it is meaningless. And if your "limiting region" doesn't divide two different things then you are creating a brand new definition of boundary that nobody else uses.

By "limiting region" I mean that which is contained within the boundary. Note that there need not (by my definition) be anything outside of the boundary.

Do you understand what I'm saying now when I refer to your definitions and therefore conclusions about reality as arbitrary?

Laird: the latter [models] excludes details that are less significant

Kevin: When you are creating a mere model to approximate an infinite reality you are always excluding something significant - namely, reality itself.

Parts of reality, not the entirety and (for a good model) not the significant parts.

Laird: You don't need to know every detail of every thing in an infinite totality in order to be able to model

Kevin: Certainly, models can be as simple as you like. But they are never accurate for the reasons I made clear previously.

They have degrees of accuracy, sure and the only perfect model of a thing is the thing itself. What's your point?

Laird: it's debatable whether a single word is best described as a model

Kevin: A word, such as "moon" is no more a model of the the moon than my pointing finger is.

That is, it is not a model whatsoever. It's not even debatable.

I like clyde's response to this, which I will let speak for me.

Laird: But what's not debatable is that "the moon" is a specific, concrete object that can be (literally and directly) pointed to, whereas "the Totality" is an artificial construct that can't be (literally and directly) pointed to

Kevin: The Totality is just as concrete as the moon is, since the moon is part of it. And just as the moon is not artificial, nor is the Whole of which it is a part.

It's unpointable in the sense that there is no specific place to point to - we can't see this "block" that you call the Totality in the same way that we see the single, discrete object that is the moon. It's artificial in the sense that you ascribe to it certain properties that are derived from definitions that are themselves arbitrary. You're not observing the Totality and describing it from your observations, you're defining terms and deriving a description of it.

Laird: how about a scale replica of a sailing ship? How might that "have worked in the past" but "not work at all in the present"?

Kevin: Let's say you want to build a full-scale ship based on a model. But something might have happened to cause any structure made out of a certain material that is over a certain weight to simply disappear. So if you build a full-size ship, based on a model composed of the same materials, it will disappear, and so your model will be a failure. Models do not even come close to accounting for the infinite complexity of nature.

That's not a problem with the model, it's a problem with your choice of materials.

Rather let's say that you don't want to build the full-scale ship, you just want to know what it looked like. The model is then perfectly fine in perpetuity.

Laird: Where do you get off saying that (all) models aren't accurate?

Kevin: That is the whole point of Zeno's paradoxes. You obviously didn't learn anything from them.

What I learnt from Zeno's paradoxes is that some models aren't accurate, but you are trying to draw from "Zeno's paradoxes are inaccurate models" the conclusion that "all models are inaccurate" - this is a gross non-sequiter.

Kevin Solway wrote:"Linguistic constructions" are only words, and are therefore only pointers, and not models.

You're still in denial that you're modelling with words, aren't you?

Kevin Solway wrote:

clyde wrote:

Kevin Solway wrote:A word, such as "moon" is no more a model of the the moon than my pointing finger is.

The word "moon", both as the sounds of the spoken word or the symbols of the written word, is a pointer, but not like a pointing finger. Our finger points to an actual thing while a word points to our notion (concept, image, model, representation, etc.) of the actual thing.

How do you know that when I say "moon" I'm not refering to the real moon, just like my pointing finger?

The word "moon" can indeed point to a model, but it doesn't necessarily do so. If your mind is locked-in to always interpreting "moon" to mean "a model of the moon", then that is a limitation of your mind.

Kevin; You failed to include this,

clyde wrote: Even as I write this post and use the word "moon", I think of my notion of the moon. If I were outside and you spoke the word, I would look for the moon; i.e., I would search for the actual thing that matched my notion.

So, if we were standing outside tonight and I said, "Look, the moon." How would you know when you were looking at the moon -- unless it matched some notion of the moon?

And my mind is not "locked-in", but I know the difference between the actual moon and the word "moon".

Kevin Solway wrote:

clyde wrote:The actual moon has no name.

Things have whatever names the individual chooses to give them.

That makes my point.

Laird wrote:By "limiting region" I mean that which is contained within the boundary.

You can't know that anything is "contained within the boundary" unless there is something other than that which is contained. That "something other" is that which is outside the boundary.

Parts of reality, not the entirety and (for a good model) not the significant parts.

You are missing the point that we don't know what the significant parts are. The very best we can do is to guess what they are.

They have degrees of accuracy, sure and the only perfect model of a thing is the thing itself. What's your point?

Again, the point is that you can't use a mere model of reality to make an argument about reality itself.

The Totality is just as concrete as the moon is, since the moon is part of it. And just as the moon is not artificial, nor is the Whole of which it is a part.

It's unpointable in the sense that there is no specific place to point to

We can't point to the wind either, but it's there.

You're not observing the Totality, and describing it from your observations

I most definitely am observing it and describing it from my observations.

Let's say you want to build a full-scale ship based on a model. But something might have happened to cause any structure made out of a certain material that is over a certain weight to simply disappear. So if you build a full-size ship, based on a model composed of the same materials, it will disappear, and so your model will be a failure. Models do not even come close to accounting for the infinite complexity of nature.

That's not a problem with the model, it's a problem with your choice of materials.

A model is faulty when it doesn't accurately predict reality.

You are completely missing the point. It doesn't matter what kind of model we have, it will always be faulty. It will always exclude an infinite amount of information about reality.

Rather let's say that you don't want to build the full-scale ship, you just want to know what it looked like. The model is then perfectly fine in perpetuity.

If the full scale ships were disappearing, then the full-scale ship wouldn't look like anything.

Kevin Solway wrote:You're still in denial that you're modelling with words, aren't you?

If you can provide a proof, then go ahead, but all you've done so far is make claims.

clyde wrote:And my mind is not "locked-in"

I wasn't saying that you personally were locked-in, but that if a person's first thought upon hearing a word, or sequence of words, was only a model of reality, rather than reality itself, then that person is like a person who is in prison, and unable to freely wander about in the world.

Laird wrote:"a limiting or bounding line." Hmm, nothing about "two sides"

I'd like to see you argue how a line doesn't have two sides. One on either side of the line.

Laird wrote:Just because we might define a boundary to have two sides doesn't mean that everytime we run up in reality against a limit that there's necessarily something on the other side of it, does it?

Laaaaird! :) Um, yes it does. That's why you used "limit" in the latter part of the sentence to make the distinction, right?

Laird wrote:Reality might work in ways other than those that we define.

Not if you understand definitions!

Definition requires more than an understanding of synonyms. For example, here are a couple of "specialised" uses of the word "boundary":

1. A separation, natural or artificial, which marks the division of two contiguous properties.
2. The perimeter of the pitch. A ball struck to the boundary along the ground is worth four runs or if it carries all the way over [and/or, "outside"] the boundary without bouncing then a six is scored.

Now, I think it's possible for a line to have nothing on both sides, but not a boundary.

Leyla Shen wrote:I think it's possible for a line to have nothing on both sides

It has "sides", so that's not nothing.

Left side | Right side

Laird: By "limiting region" I mean that which is contained within the boundary.

Kevin: You can't know that anything is "contained within the boundary" unless there is something other than that which is contained.

Sure you can: when you're inside the boundary.

Kevin Solway wrote:You are missing the point that we don't know what the significant parts [of reality to model] are. The very best we can do is to guess what they are.

Quite true - so you admit that when you describe the Totality you are only guessing as to what's most significant about it.

The thing is though that we as human beings have minds that are pretty adept at picking up what's most significant - evidence being this very debate that you and I are having.

Laird: They have degrees of accuracy, sure and the only perfect model of a thing is the thing itself. What's your point?

Kevin: Again, you can't use a mere model of reality to make an argument about reality itself.

But you can't make an argument with reality itself, so you're stuck with using the model (words/concepts).

Kevin: The Totality is just as concrete as the moon is, since the moon is part of it. And just as the moon is not artificial, nor is the Whole of which it is a part.

Laird: It's unpointable in the sense that there is no specific place to point to

Kevin: We can't point to the wind either, but it's there.

Sure, but the Totality is completely different. You can't "observe" infinity in the way that you can feel the wind on your skin.

Laird: You're not observing the Totality, and describing it from your observations

Kevin: I most definitely am observing it and describing it from my observations.

Well that just doesn't accord with what you say elsewhere. Take your understanding that the Totality is physically infinite. In a previous post you wrote "It can be proven purely logically that reality is infinite. This is because if you put a boundary on something, there are two sides to that boundary." So it's not from your observations that you describe the Totality as infinite, it's from your logical deductions based upon arbitrary definitions.

Kevin Solway wrote:You are completely missing the point. It doesn't matter what kind of model we have, it will always be faulty. It will always exclude an infinite amount of information about reality.

The point is that it's not so much "faulty" as imperfect. As I said above, the only perfect model of a thing is the thing itself, but many models - imperfect though they may be - are nevertheless very useful.

Laird: You're still in denial that you're modelling with words, aren't you?

Kevin: If you can provide a proof, then go ahead, but all you've done so far is make claims.

I have only my observations. I don't go for "proofs" in the same way that you do.

I think Laird brings something to the forum. I don't find him shallow, and I think there is a degree of snobery involved in that respect. I would probably still have his views if my life had of been easier in relation to the opposite sex. I gave up chasing women a long time ago.

I can see he won't change, that he is too set in his manner of approach to reality, but the point is he is still discussing stuff that might lead to someone else, a different type of reader, to a greater level of understanding. Who knows?

Laird: Just because we might define a boundary to have two sides doesn't mean that everytime we run up in reality against a limit that there's necessarily something on the other side of it, does it?

Leyla: Laaaaird! :) Um, yes it does. That's why you used "limit" in the latter part of the sentence to make the distinction, right?

No, I used "limit" to avoid repeating the word "boundary". Repetition is so cumbersome.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Laird wrote:Reality might work in ways other than those that we define.

Not if you understand definitions!

Definition requires more than an understanding of synonyms. For example, here are a couple of "specialised" uses of the word "boundary":

1. A separation, natural or artificial, which marks the division of two contiguous properties.
2. The perimeter of the pitch. A ball struck to the boundary along the ground is worth four runs or if it carries all the way over [and/or, "outside"] the boundary without bouncing then a six is scored.

Now, I think it's possible for a line to have nothing on both sides, but not a boundary.

Firstly, please provide references for those definitions.

But secondly: you don't get it - I really don't care what the official definition of a boundary is. For a start, I'm as free as Kevin is to come up with my own, which I've already done and which doesn't imply two sides. But more to the point: not one of us can know whether ultimately reality conforms to your (and Kevin's) definition or to mine, and to say that either of them is logically correct - or however you want to phrase it - is meaningless without empirical evidence. For all that we know the universe has an ultimate finite boundary that has nothing on the other side of it.

Jamesh wrote:I think Laird brings something to the forum. I don't find him shallow [...]

Thanks mate, I can't really ask for much more than that.

Kevin wrote:It has "sides", so that's not nothing.

Left side | Right side

Yes, but (unless you put those words in there) those sides have nothing that distinguish them as different things aside from their relative relationship to the line from the observer’s point of view. Hence, nothing on both sides.

Laird wrote:No, I used "limit" to avoid repeating the word "boundary". Repetition is so cumbersome.

You're just being silly now. You used "limit" because it would have been absolutely meaningless not to have done so:

Just because we might define a boundary to have two sides doesn't mean that everytime we run up in reality against a [boundary] that there's necessarily something on the other side of it, does it?

*Can you give me an example of a boundary that you've run up against that doesn't have something on the other side of it; or, are you just inferring such a thing from arbitrary definitions?

Firstly, please provide references for those definitions.

I'm going to ignore your "Firstly" on grounds of your "Secondly":

But secondly: you don't get it - I really don't care what the official definition of a boundary is. For a start, I'm as free as Kevin is to come up with my own, which I've already done and which doesn't imply two sides. But more to the point: not one of us can know whether ultimately reality conforms to your (and Kevin's) definition or to mine, and to say that either of them is logically correct - or however you want to phrase it - is meaningless without empirical evidence. For all that we know the universe has an ultimate finite boundary that has nothing on the other side of it.

No, you have contradicted yourself. See * above.

Yes, but (unless you put those words in there) those sides have nothing that distinguish them as different things aside from their relative relationship to the line from the observer’s point of view. Hence, nothing on both sides.

Is the line itself any different? It is a word that has been "put there"

In any case a line in nothingness does not have sides, it has "all sides" as one can divide the nothingness into two 2 dimensional entities, from any angle of sight.

I think it's possible for a line to have nothing on both sides

If the line is within anything, even nothing, then this nothing mentally becomes something, and "the other side of the line" is this nothingness.

Laird: No, I used "limit" to avoid repeating the word "boundary". Repetition is so cumbersome.

Leyla: You're just being silly now. You used "limit" because it would have been absolutely meaningless not to have done so

Just because we might define a boundary to have two sides doesn't mean that everytime we run up in reality against a [boundary] that there's necessarily something on the other side of it, does it?

OK, sure, I'll accept that. I misremembered what was going through my mind when I wrote that sentence. It wouldn't have made sense - you're right.

Leyla Shen wrote:*Can you give me an example of a boundary that you've run up against that doesn't have something on the other side of it; or, are you just inferring such a thing from arbitrary definitions?

I never have run up against a boundary that doesn't have something on the other side of it, but I'm not inferring anything from an arbitrary definition, I'm simply failing to build that assumption into my definition. I'm leaving open the possibility that there is an ultimate boundary that isn't comprised of two sides. I don't know whether there is or isn't, but either way, that's not going to change based my arbitrary definition - it's going to be the case regardless of my definition.

Leyla Shen wrote:

Laird wrote:But secondly: you don't get it - I really don't care what the official definition of a boundary is. For a start, I'm as free as Kevin is to come up with my own, which I've already done and which doesn't imply two sides. But more to the point: not one of us can know whether ultimately reality conforms to your (and Kevin's) definition or to mine, and to say that either of them is logically correct - or however you want to phrase it - is meaningless without empirical evidence. For all that we know the universe has an ultimate finite boundary that has nothing on the other side of it.

No, you have contradicted yourself. See * above.

I don't see the contradiction. Would you be so kind as to point it out for me?

Laird wrote:

You can't know that anything is "contained within the boundary" unless there is something other than that which is contained.

Sure you can: when you're inside the boundary.

You need to provide a proof that there can be a boundary that contains something, but absolutely doesn't have anything else outside or apart from it.

Or, prove that a line doesn't have two sides to it.

Unfortunately this is an impossible task. For you would have to prove that "A" was in fact not "A". Boundaries are not empirical entities that we have uncertainty about, but are purely logical entities, and therefore are in the realm of certainty.

Kevin Solway wrote:You are missing the point that we don't know what the significant parts [of reality to model] are. The very best we can do is to guess what they are.

Quite true - so you admit that when you describe the Totality you are only guessing as to what's most significant about it.

As I have explained, the Totality I am refering to is not a model of any kind. The word "Totality" is just like the pointing finger that points to the moon, and not to a model of it. Since it is not a model, it is not an approximation. If you are interpreting the word as a model, then you are not interpreting my meaning.

You can't use a mere model of reality to make an argument about reality itself.

But you can't make an argument with reality itself, so you're stuck with using the model (words/concepts).

You can indeed make an argument with reality itself, just as I have been doing.

You can't "observe" infinity in the way that you can feel the wind on your skin.

Yes you can. It is a definite experience and mode of consciousness that can be contrasted with the experience of delusions.

I most definitely am observing it and describing it from my observations.

Well that just doesn't accord with what you say elsewhere. Take your understanding that the Totality is physically infinite. In a previous post you wrote "It can be proven purely logically that reality is infinite. This is because if you put a boundary on something, there are two sides to that boundary." So it's not from your observations that you describe the Totality as infinite, it's from your logical deductions.

I observe it in the same way that I observe anything else. That is, logic is only the natural processing of the brain that happens in the observation of anything at all. It is the basic processing of "A=A".

many models - imperfect though they may be - are nevertheless very useful.

They might be useful in some contexts, but we don't know that they're useful until we use them, and when we do use them we might discover that they are useless.

Kevin: You can't know that anything is "contained within the boundary" unless there is something other than that which is contained.

Laird: Sure you can: when you're inside the boundary.

Kevin: You need to provide a proof that there can be a boundary that contains something, but absolutely doesn't have anything else outside or apart from it.

On the contrary, I need prove nothing: I am merely putting up an alternative definition to demonstrate that alternatives are possible and that your asserting that the universe mandates that a boundary has two sides has nothing to do with whether the universe actually does mandate that. It is up to you to prove that it does.

Kevin Solway wrote:As I have explained, the Totality I am refering to is not a model of any kind. The word "Totality" is just like the pointing finger that points to the moon, and not to a model of it. Since it is not a model, it is not an approximation. If you are interpreting the word as a model, then you are not interpreting my meaning.

We've been through this. Your conception of the Totality is based not on observation but on deductions from arbitrary definitions. It is very much a model.

Kevin: You can't use a mere model of reality to make an argument about reality itself.

Laird: But you can't make an argument with reality itself, so you're stuck with using the model (words/concepts).

Kevin: You can indeed make an argument with reality itself, just as I have been doing.

Only insofar as words are a part of reality, then you've been making an argument with reality itself.

Laird: You can't "observe" infinity in the way that you can feel the wind on your skin.

Kevin: Yes you can. It is a definite experience and mode of consciousness that can be contrasted with the experience of delusions.

That's a new definition of infinity for me. Infinity = "the mode of consciousness that can be contrasted with the experience of delusions". True genius!

Kevin: I most definitely am observing it [the Totality] and describing it from my observations.

Laird: Well that just doesn't accord with what you say elsewhere. Take your understanding that the Totality is physically infinite. In a previous post you wrote "It can be proven purely logically that reality is infinite. This is because if you put a boundary on something, there are two sides to that boundary." So it's not from your observations that you describe the Totality as infinite, it's from your logical deductions.

Kevin: I observe it in the same way that I observe anything else. That is, logic is only the natural processing of the brain that happens in the observation of anything at all. It is the basic processing of "A=A".

Huh? So now the Totality is akin to logical processing; "A=A"? You've just dropped off the radar mate.

Laird: many models - imperfect though they may be - are nevertheless very useful.

Kevin: They might be useful in some contexts, but we don't know that they're useful until we use them, and when we do use them we might discover that they are useless.

Or, as in the case of your model of the Totality, we might find that they're completely arbitrary and divorced from reality.

Laird wrote:

You need to provide a proof that there can be a boundary that contains something, but absolutely doesn't have anything else outside or apart from it.

On the contrary, I need prove nothing: I am merely putting up an alternative definition to demonstrate that alternatives are possible

You could define the word "boundary" to mean anything at all, but it's pointless to define it mean something that's impossible.

It is up to you to prove that it does.

Logic demands that a line has two sides. That's all the proof you need.

Your conception of the Totality is based not on observation

You don't know what my conception of the Totality is, and you don't know that it is not based on observation. So you are just making things up.

You can't "observe" infinity in the way that you can feel the wind on your skin.

Yes you can. It is a definite experience and mode of consciousness that can be contrasted with the experience of delusions.

That's a new definition of infinity for me. Infinity = "the mode of consciousness that can be contrasted with the experience of delusions". True genius!

You've forgotten that we are talking about observation of the Infinite, and not a definition of it. I explained that you can observe it in the same way that you can observe the wind - in that you have a certain experience of it, just as you can have an experience of the wind.

I observe it in the same way that I observe anything else. That is, logic is only the natural processing of the brain that happens in the observation of anything at all. It is the basic processing of "A=A".

Huh? So now the Totality is akin to logical processing; "A=A"? You've just dropped off the radar mate.

You should remember that we are speaking of how a person observes the Infinite.

Or, as in the case of your model of the Totality, we might find that they're completely arbitrary and divorced from reality.

If that's true then you should be able to provide proof that it is:

1. a model
2. arbitrary, and
3. divorced from reality.

It's pointless just making these assertions unless you're going to provide the proof.

Kevin Solway wrote:You could define the word "boundary" to mean anything at all, but it's pointless to define it mean something that's impossible.

Precisely, but how do we know what is and isn't possible?

Laird: It is up to you to prove that [a boundary implies two sides].

Kevin: Logic demands that a line has two sides. That's all the proof you need.

Weak. First of all who said that a boundary was a line? Secondly, how do we know that it's necessary that at the outer limits of the universe there is actually "another side" to the "line"? How do we know that the "line" doesn't just end there? This is not something that can be proved in isolation from reality.

Laird: Your conception of the Totality is based not on observation

Kevin: You don't know what my conception of the Totality is, and you don't know that it is not based on observation. So you are just making things up.

I've already quoted your own words to you to justify this statement. I hate repetition but it seems that there's no other way. Let me repeat what I wrote:

Well that just doesn't accord with what you say elsewhere. Take your understanding that the Totality is physically infinite. In a previous post you wrote "It can be proven purely logically that reality is infinite. This is because if you put a boundary on something, there are two sides to that boundary." So it's not from your observations that you describe the Totality as infinite, it's from your logical deductions based upon arbitrary definitions.

To which you responded with the lame reply that you observe it through "logic". Cluestick: logic is not a process of observation, it's a process of reasoning.

Laird: You can't "observe" infinity in the way that you can feel the wind on your skin.

Kevin: Yes you can. It is a definite experience and mode of consciousness that can be contrasted with the experience of delusions.

Laird: That's a new definition of infinity for me. Infinity = "the mode of consciousness that can be contrasted with the experience of delusions". True genius!

Kevin: You've forgotten that we are talking about observation of the Infinite, and not a definition of it. I explained that you can observe it in the same way that you can observe the wind - in that you have a certain experience of it, just as you can have an experience of the wind.

Please describe that experience.

Kevin: I observe it [the Totality] in the same way that I observe anything else. That is, logic is only the natural processing of the brain that happens in the observation of anything at all. It is the basic processing of "A=A".

Laird: Huh? So now the Totality is akin to logical processing; "A=A"? You've just dropped off the radar mate.

Kevin: You should remember that we are speaking of how a person observes the Infinite, and not the definition of it.

And you should remember that as I wrote above, logic is not a process of observation, it's a process of reasoning. Damn, that's two repetitions this post. I'm not doing so well on the keep-it-original front.

Kevin Solway wrote:

Laird wrote:Or, as in the case of your model of the Totality, we might find that they're completely arbitrary and divorced from reality.

If that's true then you should be able to provide proof that it is:

1. a model
2. arbitrary, and
3. divorced from reality.

It's pointless just making these assertions unless you're going to provide the proof.

I don't deal in "proofs" as you do, but I can certainly back my assertions and have done throughout this thread.

It's a model because it consists of various definitions from which you have derived conclusions - case in point being your definition of a boundary as that which separates two sides leading to your conclusion that the Totality is infinite.

It's arbitrary because other definitions that are just as sensible can be proposed, such as that a boundary might include two sides but might alternatively simply be a limit with nothing beyond it.

It's divorced from reality because there's no way for you to actually discern which definition makes the most sense - i.e. whether your model is truthful/accurate or not.

Laird wrote:how do we know what is and isn't possible?

It's impossible for a line to have only one side.

It's very easy to know such things.

Logic demands that a line has two sides. That's all the proof you need.

Weak. First of all who said that a boundary was a line?

I did, along with the dictionary you quoted.

Secondly, how do we know that it's necessary that at the outer limits of the universe there is actually "another side" to the "line"?

Because a line has two sides.

If we define the Universe to be "everything" (synonymous with the Totality) then there is no such thing as "outer limits".

But if on the other hand we define "universe" to be less than the Totality (eg, there may be countless such "universes") then, again, there is something on the other side of the line.

How do we know that the "line" doesn't just end there?

The line does end there, but there is necessarily something either side of it.

This is not something that can be proved in isolation from reality.

Logic is part of reality.

Logic is not a process of observation, it's a process of reasoning.

Logic is indeed a necessary part of the process of conscious observation. Without A=A you wouldn't be able to identify anything.

You've forgotten that we are talking about observation of the Infinite, and not a definition of it. I explained that you can observe it in the same way that you can observe the wind - in that you have a certain experience of it, just as you can have an experience of the wind.

Please describe that experience.

Read about the experience Nirvana, or heaven, or God, from the Masters, and you'll have a good description of the experience of the Infinite.

If that's true then you should be able to provide proof that it is:

1. a model
2. arbitrary, and
3. divorced from reality.

It's pointless just making these assertions unless you're going to provide the proof.

I don't deal in "proofs" as you do, but I can certainly back my assertions

The only way you can back your assertions is with solid proof. Without that, you have nothing.

It's a model because it consists of various definitions

It is everything. The All. It's not complicated.

If you want to spend the rest of your life trying to working out what "everything" refers to, that's not my problem, but you are certainly making life hard for yourself.

It's not more complicated than a finger pointing at the moon. If you can understand that the pointing finger is not a model, and doesn't have to point to a model, then you can understand that the word "Totality" is the same.

It's arbitrary because other definitions that are just as sensible can be proposed

A more sensible definition for "Everything" than "every thing"?

It's not possible.

Such as that a boundary might include two sides but might alternatively simply be a limit with nothing beyond it.

As I say, unless you can prove the existence of a line that doesn't have two sides, you are just talking about something logically impossible and ridiculous.

It's divorced from reality because there's no way for you to actually discern which definition makes the most sense - i.e. whether your model is truthful/accurate or not.

Firstly, it's not a model, and secondly, you are ignoring the fact that it is always the conscious mind of the individual that decides what makes the most sense. There is no other way.