GENIUS FORUMS

I split this discussion out of the "I believe in God. Taking qs" thread so as to keep that thread on topic.

Robert wrote:I honestly can't see where you're coming from. It appears more to me that you're holding to a definition of each concept as infinite yet somehow separate from each other.

When you write "concept", I assume you're referring to the same thing as what I described as a "dimension". I do consider dimensions to be separate, in the sense that they can be distinguished from one another, however I consider them to be connected in the sense that they are related to one another.

Robert wrote:For example, imagine some physicists' current description of 11 dimensional space. You could define them as separate and bounded in one sense, as they each have their own characteristics and attributes, like being thought of as individually infinite.

Right, so in their separate boundedness, they are infinite in a certain sense - the sense of their particular dimension.

Robert wrote:Yet it's also possible (necessary) to think of them as being part of a larger whole, whilst still keeping their identity as infinite individual dimensions but related to each other just as anything else is through identifying what it is from what it's not (e.g dimension 5 from dimension 7). In order to conceptualise, it's necessary to think of infinite dimensions (of whatever) as like finite things. Our descriptions, our differentiating and naming is a result of our function of consciousness identifying whatever is presented to it.

You imply, though, that this "larger whole" is infinite in some sense, when you refer to it as "the Infinite". You have explained that by this you mean that it is boundless, and now you have explained (at least this is how I am interpreting your explanation) that boundaries apply not just within dimensions, but between them too. "Infinite" means unlimited in some sense, so your position seems to entail that there are an infinite (boundless) number of dimensions. Is that what you actually believe?

Robert wrote:From this, it's not a huge leap of logic to describe the ensemble of all this as the Absolute.

I'm not so interested in the label "the Absolute" as in the label "the Infinite", because the latter is still ambiguous to me whereas the former is meaningful.

Robert wrote:But it's a pointer, not a thing. It's the All since it points to all things, yet is the void since "it" isn't all things.

I'm confused about what you're referring to when you write "it". Are you referring to the words, or to that which the words refer? Words are always pointers. In that light, how are these words ("the Infinite" or "the Absolute") any different?

Dan Rowden wrote:It's mentally retarded to think of dimensions - however many of them are assumed to exist - to be separate in other than a conventional sense (i.e. in the same sense we grant anything identity). For them to be really separate they would have to constitute realities unto themselves and we could not have any knowledge of them at all, which means we wouldn't assert their existence in the first place.

Well sure, a word like "separate" has a flexible meaning. I explained above (in the first paragraph of this post) the sense in which I consider dimensions to be separate.

I don't think, though, that it's true to say that if they were "realities unto themselves" that we could have no knowledge of them at all - imagination and logic can provide some knowledge at least of that which is otherwise inaccessible. Perhaps you could explain what exactly you mean by "realities unto themselves".

guest_of_logic wrote:I split this discussion out of the "I believe in God. Taking qs" thread so as to keep that thread on topic.

Robert wrote:I honestly can't see where you're coming from. It appears more to me that you're holding to a definition of each concept as infinite yet somehow separate from each other.

When you write "concept", I assume you're referring to the same thing as what I described as a "dimension". I do consider dimensions to be separate, in the sense that they can be distinguished from one another, however I consider them to be connected in the sense that they are related to one another.

Right, this is the sense I meant. We do the separating by giving them an identity, just like any other thing. (At least I'm assuming this is what you mean. Do you?)

Robert wrote:For example, imagine some physicists' current description of 11 dimensional space. You could define them as separate and bounded in one sense, as they each have their own characteristics and attributes, like being thought of as individually infinite.

Right, so in their separate boundedness, they are infinite in a certain sense - the sense of their particular dimension.

They aren't really separate though, are they?

Robert wrote:Yet it's also possible (necessary) to think of them as being part of a larger whole, whilst still keeping their identity as infinite individual dimensions but related to each other just as anything else is through identifying what it is from what it's not (e.g dimension 5 from dimension 7). In order to conceptualise, it's necessary to think of infinite dimensions (of whatever) as like finite things. Our descriptions, our differentiating and naming is a result of our function of consciousness identifying whatever is presented to it.

You imply, though, that this "larger whole" is infinite in some sense, when you refer to it as "the Infinite". You have explained that by this you mean that it is boundless, and now you have explained (at least this is how I am interpreting your explanation) that boundaries apply not just within dimensions, but between them too. "Infinite" means unlimited in some sense, so your position seems to entail that there are an infinite (boundless) number of dimensions. Is that what you actually believe?

You are confusing what I said as a way of conceptualising dimensions as if separate and bounded. I said "You could define them as separate and bounded in one sense, as they each have their own characteristics and attributes, like being thought of as individually infinite". They obviously aren't separate and bounded from the whole, since we're speaking about them (the point Dan made).

Robert wrote:From this, it's not a huge leap of logic to describe the ensemble of all this as the Absolute.

I'm not so interested in the label "the Absolute" as in the label "the Infinite", because the latter is still ambiguous to me whereas the former is meaningful.

This sentence doesn't make sense. You're not so interested in something that's meaningful to you?

Robert wrote:But it's a pointer, not a thing. It's the All since it points to all things, yet is the void since "it" isn't all things.

I'm confused about what you're referring to when you write "it". Are you referring to the words, or to that which the words refer? Words are always pointers. In that light, how are these words ("the Infinite" or "the Absolute") any different?

"It" was referring to the All. My intention was to emphasise the inherent ambiguity that I thought was obvious when pointing to 'that which the words refer'. I don't perceive any difference between The Infinite or The Absolute in this context.

Robert wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:I do consider dimensions to be separate, in the sense that they can be distinguished from one another, however I consider them to be connected in the sense that they are related to one another.

Right, this is the sense I meant. We do the separating by giving them an identity, just like any other thing. (At least I'm assuming this is what you mean. Do you?)

Something like that, but I don't think it's true to say that the identity of a thing is entirely due to our bestowal - some things have intrinsic properties that we recognise at least as much as we bestow them.

Robert wrote:They [the 11 dimensions described by some physicists] aren't really separate though, are they?

I thought that we sorted this out already - let's not get into a debate about what "separate" means. I explained what I meant by it in the quote that opens this post: they are separate "in the sense that they can be distinguished from one another".

Robert: Yet it's also possible (necessary) to think of them as being part of a larger whole, whilst still keeping their identity as infinite individual dimensions but related to each other just as anything else is through identifying what it is from what it's not (e.g dimension 5 from dimension 7). In order to conceptualise, it's necessary to think of infinite dimensions (of whatever) as like finite things. Our descriptions, our differentiating and naming is a result of our function of consciousness identifying whatever is presented to it.

guest_of_logic: You imply, though, that this "larger whole" is infinite in some sense, when you refer to it as "the Infinite". You have explained that by this you mean that it is boundless, and now you have explained (at least this is how I am interpreting your explanation) that boundaries apply not just within dimensions, but between them too. "Infinite" means unlimited in some sense, so your position seems to entail that there are an infinite (boundless) number of dimensions. Is that what you actually believe?

Robert: You are confusing what I said as a way of conceptualising dimensions as if separate and bounded. I said "You could define them as separate and bounded in one sense, as they each have their own characteristics and attributes, like being thought of as individually infinite". They obviously aren't separate and bounded from the whole, since we're speaking about them (the point Dan made).

I think that I understood what you meant, but be that as it may, please answer my question: does your position entail that there are an infinite (boundless) number of dimensions?

What if I were to say that reality was "threefold"? Wouldn't it be natural to ask, "Three of what?" This is where I'm coming from when you say to me that reality is "Infinite", and I ask, "Infinite in which sense?" You seem to want it to be some generic sense, but if so then you haven't clarified what that generic sense is to my satisfaction. I'm trying to get to the root of the problem in my above question about an infinite number of dimensions: depending on how you examine reality, there is structure that limits what you can say about it. Saying that reality is infinite in some generic sense seems to me to ignore the structure of reality and the limitations on what can be said about it.

guest_of_logic: I'm not so interested in the label "the Absolute" as in the label "the Infinite", because the latter is still ambiguous to me whereas the former is meaningful.

Robert: This sentence doesn't make sense. You're not so interested in something that's meaningful to you?

I mean that I'm not so interested in discussing it in this thread: I'm more interested here in discussing things that I find troublesome than in discussing things that I already find meaningful.

Robert: But it's a pointer, not a thing. It's the All since it points to all things, yet is the void since "it" isn't all things.

guest_of_logic: I'm confused about what you're referring to when you write "it". Are you referring to the words, or to that which the words refer? Words are always pointers. In that light, how are these words ("the Infinite" or "the Absolute") any different?

Robert: "It" was referring to the All.

In that case your original quote doesn't make sense to me: it seems that you're saying that the words "the Infinite" point to something that is itself a pointer. Why isn't it enough for you that the words themselves are the pointers - why do you need to add in another layer of indirection? What, too, is the nature of this extra layer of indirection? I figure that it must be conceptual - is that correct?

Robert wrote:My intention was to emphasise the inherent ambiguity that I thought was obvious when pointing to 'that which the words refer'.

"The Infinite" and "the Absolute" refer to absolutely everything. Where's the ambiguity in that (aside of course from the ambiguity of the sense in which reality is infinite, which is the topic of this thread)?

Robert wrote:I don't perceive any difference between The Infinite or The Absolute in this context.

You seem to have misunderstood me - I was asking how the words "the Infinite" or "the Absolute" are any different (in the sense of being pointers) than any other words.

guest_of_logic wrote:Something like that, but I don't think it's true to say that the identity of a thing is entirely due to our bestowal - some things have intrinsic properties that we recognise at least as much as we bestow them.

Could you expand on this a little? Any examples?

guest_of_logic wrote:I think that I understood what you meant, but be that as it may, please answer my question: does your position entail that there are an infinite (boundless) number of dimensions?

It doesn't have to, but if there were an infinite number of dimensions the logic is still the same. How are you using the word 'dimension'?

guest_of_logic wrote:What if I were to say that reality was "threefold"? Wouldn't it be natural to ask, "Three of what?" This is where I'm coming from when you say to me that reality is "Infinite", and I ask, "Infinite in which sense?" You seem to want it to be some generic sense, but if so then you haven't clarified what that generic sense is to my satisfaction. I'm trying to get to the root of the problem in my above question about an infinite number of dimensions: depending on how you examine reality, there is structure that limits what you can say about it. Saying that reality is infinite in some generic sense seems to me to ignore the structure of reality and the limitations on what can be said about it.

You'll have to explain then what you mean by the "structure of reality and the limitations of what can be said about it".

guest_of_logic wrote:In that case your original quote doesn't make sense to me: it seems that you're saying that the words "the Infinite" point to something that is itself a pointer. Why isn't it enough for you that the words themselves are the pointers - why do you need to add in another layer of indirection? What, too, is the nature of this extra layer of indirection? I figure that it must be conceptual - is that correct?

I didn't intentionally add any layers of indirection, sorry if that's how it read. The words are indeed the pointers, and should be enough.

guest_of_logic wrote:"The Infinite" and "the Absolute" refer to absolutely everything. Where's the ambiguity in that (aside of course from the ambiguity of the sense in which reality is infinite, which is the topic of this thread)?

The ambiguity I thought was obvious was in giving a name to a thing which isn't a thing. Nothing more than that.

guest_of_logic wrote:You seem to have misunderstood me - I was asking how the words "the Infinite" or "the Absolute" are any different (in the sense of being pointers) than any other words.

What other words? The Tao? Nature? Jimmy?

Robert wrote:

guest_of_logic wrote:Something like that, but I don't think it's true to say that the identity of a thing is entirely due to our bestowal - some things have intrinsic properties that we recognise at least as much as we bestow them.

Could you expand on this a little? Any examples?

Sure, there are countless examples. Right now I'm looking at a can of coke, which is mostly red. It's not because I choose to give it that property that it's mostly red: it's mostly red because of the way that it's structured (according to science: such that it reflects certain frequencies of light and absorbs others). In other words, that part of the identity of the can of coke that is its redness is an intrinsic property of the can, and not one that I have bestowed upon it with my consciousness.

guest_of_logic: I think that I understood what you meant, but be that as it may, please answer my question: does your position entail that there are an infinite (boundless) number of dimensions?

Robert: It doesn't have to, but if there were an infinite number of dimensions the logic is still the same.

And what is that logic?

Robert wrote:How are you using the word 'dimension'?

Basically as something that has a countable extent, generally in two opposite directions: e.g. forwards and backwards. For example, time extends into the opposite directions of the future (forwards) and the past (backwards), and we can count by how much it extends in those directions using the units of seconds, minutes, hours, etc.

Robert wrote:You'll have to explain then what you mean by the "structure of reality and the limitations of what can be said about it".

Take time as an example of what I mean by the structure of reality. Causation as it is usually thought of occurs as a temporal process, and this puts a limitation on what we can say about reality in that we can only say that events in time cause other events in time: we can't talk about "events" outside of time unless we redefine what we mean by "events", or find a coherent way to conceptualise timelessness. That's a limitation of what we can say about reality due to its structure.

I have a question in return for you to consider: how are you using the word 'boundary'? Isn't it true that a boundary implies something analogous to three dimensional space? If not, then please clarify what you mean by it.

Robert wrote:I didn't intentionally add any layers of indirection, sorry if that's how it read. The words are indeed the pointers, and should be enough.

OK.

Robert wrote:The ambiguity [in "the Infinite" and "the Absolute"] I thought was obvious was in giving a name to a thing which isn't a thing. Nothing more than that.

Oh, you go by the idiosyncratic definition of "thing" as used around these here parts. I don't, but that's OK - we don't need to get into a discussion about definitions.

guest_of_logic: You seem to have misunderstood me - I was asking how the words "the Infinite" or "the Absolute" are any different (in the sense of being pointers) than any other words.

Robert: What other words? The Tao? Nature? Jimmy?

This Jimmy? If so, then play that Tao.

Apparently my phrasing was ambiguous: I don't mean other words for the same concept, I mean words in general. Now that you've clarified though that you didn't mean to add any layers of indirection, I imagine that your answer is: no different - they are simply pointers just like any other words.

To reach the core, displace the coke though keep the cans.

whiz decode: "It's just mine on Al."

Zen.

guest_of_logic wrote:Sure, there are countless examples. Right now I'm looking at a can of coke, which is mostly red. It's not because I choose to give it that property that it's mostly red: it's mostly red because of the way that it's structured (according to science: such that it reflects certain frequencies of light and absorbs others). In other words, that part of the identity of the can of coke that is its redness is an intrinsic property of the can, and not one that I have bestowed upon it with my consciousness.

You have no choice in the matter, your consciousness does the identifying, not the coke can. The can has no intrinsic properties beyond those that you give it, you've evolved that way. This is what science tells you.

guest_of_logic wrote:And what is that logic?

That the Absolute (the Infinite) is absolutely everything, material and immaterial. Any number of dimensions, finite or infinite, necessarily are part of that everything. Why this is problematic escapes me.

guest_of_logic wrote:Take time as an example of what I mean by the structure of reality. Causation as it is usually thought of occurs as a temporal process, and this puts a limitation on what we can say about reality in that we can only say that events in time cause other events in time: we can't talk about "events" outside of time unless we redefine what we mean by "events", or find a coherent way to conceptualise timelessness. That's a limitation of what we can say about reality due to its structure.

What you're saying is that it's a limitation of our own consciousness and it's structure that we cannot conceptualise without causation, without time. Alright. Yet in as much as we are products of that same reality, there's no particular reason that there need be an inherent limit to our own reasoning. We will never have empricial knowledge of certain aspects of reality, but we can reason our way to their necessities.

guest_of_logic wrote:I have a question in return for you to consider: how are you using the word 'boundary'? Isn't it true that a boundary implies something analogous to three dimensional space? If not, then please clarify what you mean by it.

Anything that has the quality of relative existence is caused to have a boundary by pure dint of that thing not being everything else. Your coke can is bounded by what it is and everything else that it's not. It's there in 3d space until it's composant parts are caused to become something else, like maybe being recycled and becoming parts of multiple cans of Heineken, or whatever. Now, the original can only exists in your mind, it's boundaries have now become an image of it's previous relative existence. Ultimately, all things are just an image in your consciousness, no boundaries exist beyond whatever you're caused to perceive. A=A.

guest_of_logic wrote:Oh, you go by the idiosyncratic definition of "thing" as used around these here parts. I don't, but that's OK - we don't need to get into a discussion about definitions.

Oh indeed. Now you're confusing me; you agree that words are pointers, so in what way is the commonly used definition of "thing" in any way exceptional 'around these here parts'? I want you to clarify this idiosyncrasy, maybe I'm missing something.

[for the coiled stove; reply to Robert pen...ding!] Uncork a brush of Abe linked-in to frequent men, the sea-quell a gull of living stone, an OldPAL of yours I overstand [what's under your toe], tied by the moon a beam in the ocean. Tongues and Tonga trucks, mining that black/white living/dead stone, hi to the ... hang, glider; O, possum, what ever can the matter be?

Robert wrote:You have no choice in the matter, your consciousness does the identifying, not the coke can. The can has no intrinsic properties beyond those that you give it, you've evolved that way. This is what science tells you.

My conscious can only identify because there are intrinsic properties to place an identity upon. And anyway, if I have no choice but to give the coke can a certain identity, then my consciousness has intrinsic properties, no? You can't get away from the conclusion in the end that intrinsic properties exist somehow.

guest_of_logic: And what is that logic?

Robert: That the Absolute (the Infinite) is absolutely everything, material and immaterial. Any number of dimensions, finite or infinite, necessarily are part of that everything. Why this is problematic escapes me.

I don't find that problematic, I find it problematic that you consider reality to be "infinite" and yet you fail to specify in which sense(s) it is infinite.

Robert wrote:What you're saying is that it's a limitation of our own consciousness and it's structure that we cannot conceptualise without causation, without time.

Well, it was more that it seems to be a limitation of reality that events can't occur absent time.

Robert wrote:Alright. Yet in as much as we are products of that same reality, there's no particular reason that there need be an inherent limit to our own reasoning. We will never have empricial knowledge of certain aspects of reality, but we can reason our way to their necessities.

I'm not talking about our reasoning, I'm talking about the structure of reality, or at least what I know so far of that structure through my own experience.

Robert wrote:Anything that has the quality of relative existence is caused to have a boundary by pure dint of that thing not being everything else. Your coke can is bounded by what it is and everything else that it's not. It's there in 3d space until it's composant parts are caused to become something else, like maybe being recycled and becoming parts of multiple cans of Heineken, or whatever. Now, the original can only exists in your mind, it's boundaries have now become an image of it's previous relative existence. Ultimately, all things are just an image in your consciousness, no boundaries exist beyond whatever you're caused to perceive. A=A.

Now you're talking about three-dimensional space as if to agree with me that boundaries entail something analogous to 3D space, but what about something abstract, like, say, time? Where is the boundary of "time"? You can't point to it in some analogous way that you can point to the coke can, can you?

Robert wrote:Now you're confusing me; you agree that words are pointers, so in what way is the commonly used definition of "thing" in any way exceptional 'around these here parts'? I want you to clarify this idiosyncrasy, maybe I'm missing something.

Around these here parts the Totality is not considered to be a "thing", whereas in ordinary usage, it is. It's only around these here parts that I've come across the idea that if you're talking about everything, you're not talking about something finite, and therefore (because a thing must be finite, or so the doctrine around these here parts goes) you can't be talking about a thing.

guest_of_logic wrote:My conscious can only identify because there are intrinsic properties to place an identity upon. And anyway, if I have no choice but to give the coke can a certain identity, then my consciousness has intrinsic properties, no? You can't get away from the conclusion in the end that intrinsic properties exist somehow.

Ok. Do these intrinsic properties possess inherent existence?

Robert: That the Absolute (the Infinite) is absolutely everything, material and immaterial. Any number of dimensions, finite or infinite, necessarily are part of that everything. Why this is problematic escapes me.

guest_of_logic wrote:I don't find that problematic, I find it problematic that you consider reality to be "infinite" and yet you fail to specify in which sense(s) it is infinite.

I sincerely don't understand what you're asking, I can't offer any other reponse than the one I just gave you. Would it help to specify infinite in every sense? (Isn't that already obviously part of my above description?)

guest_of_logic wrote:Now you're talking about three-dimensional space as if to agree with me that boundaries entail something analogous to 3D space, but what about something abstract, like, say, time? Where is the boundary of "time"? You can't point to it in some analogous way that you can point to the coke can, can you?

Abstractions by definition have no boundary other than those we conceptually place upon them, in the same way we place a boundary on a coke can. You say that there are intrinsic properties to these things, so again I have to ask, do these intrinsic properties possess inherent existence?

Time is a measurement of change, so we could choose to define time however we want, and that's what we do. Other than that, I don't know if it makes any sense to ask "where is the boundary of time?". Ask a physicist, he may say the Big Bang, or the speed of light, or the expansion of the universe.

guest_of_logic wrote:Around these here parts the Totality is not considered to be a "thing", whereas in ordinary usage, it is. It's only around these here parts that I've come across the idea that if you're talking about everything, you're not talking about something finite, and therefore (because a thing must be finite, or so the doctrine around these here parts goes) you can't be talking about a thing.

I have no interest in defending a particular use of language or "doctrine" used on these forums, but only to try and make as clear as possible whatever it is I'm trying to say. I have no problem with the definitions as they are used here. Words are malliable, adaptive, flexible, as long as we're clear on the context. If you speak a foreign language, you'll know first hand how this works.

guest_of_logic: My conscious can only identify because there are intrinsic properties to place an identity upon. And anyway, if I have no choice but to give the coke can a certain identity, then my consciousness has intrinsic properties, no? You can't get away from the conclusion in the end that intrinsic properties exist somehow.

Robert: Ok. Do these intrinsic properties possess inherent existence?

Once again it all depends on definitions as used on this forum. By the dictionary definition of "inherent", and interpreting your question as though it were written "Do these intrinsic properties exist inherently?" then my answer would be "Yes". But as the phrase "inherent existence" is defined around these parts - meaning something like "Possessing an existence independent of everything else" - then obviously the answer has to be "No".

Robert: That the Absolute (the Infinite) is absolutely everything, material and immaterial. Any number of dimensions, finite or infinite, necessarily are part of that everything. Why this is problematic escapes me.

guest_of_logic: I don't find that problematic, I find it problematic that you consider reality to be "infinite" and yet you fail to specify in which sense(s) it is infinite.

Robert: I sincerely don't understand what you're asking, I can't offer any other reponse than the one I just gave you. Would it help to specify infinite in every sense? (Isn't that already obviously part of my above description?)

I put something like that to you earlier, but I can't recall your response. That's about the best we can do, I think. It only works when we consider reality as a container, though, so that it contains infinite amounts of whatever it is we're talking about - space, matter, energy, time, knowledge, power, etc. It doesn't work when we try to apply infinity to reality in unique senses such as those that we might apply to a conscious God - e.g. infinite in power, or infinite in knowledge (this differs from merely containing power and knowledge: to contain power and knowledge (i.e. by containing powerful and knowledgeable entities/consciousnesses) and to be powerful and knowledgeable are two distinct states) - because (at least as it is conceived on this forum) reality isn't conscious, so that would be a category error.

You have yet to prove, however, that reality actually is infinite in all of these senses. Is it for you a matter of belief or of logic? If the latter, please go ahead and prove that reality contains an infinity of space, time, matter, energy, knowledge, power, etc.

Robert wrote:Time is a measurement of change

I wouldn't put it like that myself; I would say that time is a prerequisite for change though, at least in one sense (there's a sense - spatial - in which it's not, e.g. when we say something like "the landscape changes from outback Australia to the coast").

Robert wrote:so we could choose to define time however we want, and that's what we do.

Within limits, of course. We couldn't choose to define time as a green egg - not if we wanted to have meaningful conversations with other people about it, anyway.

Robert wrote:Other than that, I don't know if it makes any sense to ask "where is the boundary of time?".

Good, I agree. I thought that you might have tried to put on some sort of showing of "Time is distinct from other 'things' like space, and there is a logical boundary between time and those other things", which wouldn't be an unusual sort of thing to say on this forum, but which is troublesome to defend as a proof of infinity.

Robert wrote:I have no interest in defending a particular use of language or "doctrine" used on these forums, but only to try and make as clear as possible whatever it is I'm trying to say. I have no problem with the definitions as they are used here. Words are malliable, adaptive, flexible, as long as we're clear on the context.

Sure - as long as we're clear on the definitions we're each using, we'll be fine.

Robert wrote:If you speak a foreign language, you'll know first hand how this works.

I don't, unfortunately. I learnt a bit of Afrikaans as a child in South Africa, and I've made a couple of attempts to learn my favourite foreign language - your native tongue - but haven't stuck at it long enough to have had any success at it. For now it's "Je ne parle pas le Francais" (I hope I spelt all of that correctly).

guest_of_logic wrote:Once again it all depends on definitions as used on this forum. By the dictionary definition of "inherent", and interpreting your question as though it were written "Do these intrinsic properties exist inherently?" then my answer would be "Yes". But as the phrase "inherent existence" is defined around these parts - meaning something like "Possessing an existence independent of everything else" - then obviously the answer has to be "No".

You'll find that these definitions have been around long before this forum. A simple google search for everyone's favourite; "wikipedia inherent existence" comes up with Śūnyatā.

guest_of_logic wrote:I put something like that to you earlier, but I can't recall your response. That's about the best we can do, I think. It only works when we consider reality as a container, though, so that it contains infinite amounts of whatever it is we're talking about - space, matter, energy, time, knowledge, power, etc. It doesn't work when we try to apply infinity to reality in unique senses such as those that we might apply to a conscious God - e.g. infinite in power, or infinite in knowledge (this differs from merely containing power and knowledge: to contain power and knowledge (i.e. by containing powerful and knowledgeable entities/consciousnesses) and to be powerful and knowledgeable are two distinct states) - because (at least as it is conceived on this forum) reality isn't conscious, so that would be a category error.

You have yet to prove, however, that reality actually is infinite in all of these senses. Is it for you a matter of belief or of logic? If the latter, please go ahead and prove that reality contains an infinity of space, time, matter, energy, knowledge, power, etc.

That's not exactly how I view it. To be clear on the context, saying that some particular object or aspect of existence is infinite is a reflection of the lack of inherent existence of all things - there is no clearly defined beginning nor end to anything, no inherent boundaries, all is caused to be. One particular thing/object of reality isn't actually infinite in the sense I think you mean, as if all things literally exist in infinite 3d space independently of each other. It's the opposite of thinking of reality as a container. Remember, words can have multiple meanings, context is important. My use of infinite here refers to the inter-dependency of causes, which are ultimately infinite in nature.

If I defined The Infinite as meaning infinite causes, would that make more sense?

guest_of_logic wrote:Within limits, of course. We couldn't choose to define time as a green egg - not if we wanted to have meaningful conversations with other people about it, anyway.

I meant that the way we measure time can be defined however we wish.

guest_of_logic wrote:I don't, unfortunately. I learnt a bit of Afrikaans as a child in South Africa, and I've made a couple of attempts to learn my favourite foreign language - your native tongue - but haven't stuck at it long enough to have had any success at it. For now it's "Je ne parle pas le Francais" (I hope I spelt all of that correctly).

I'm not French. I live there, but my mother tongue is English. Tu es déçu ?

Robert wrote:You'll find that these definitions have been around long before this forum. A simple google search for everyone's favourite; "wikipedia inherent existence" comes up with Śūnyatā.

Yes, I'm aware that the term as used on this forum is a borrowing from Buddhism.

Robert wrote:If I defined The Infinite as meaning infinite causes, would that make more sense?

Yes, but it would depend on your definition of "cause" - on this forum it's used differently than elsewhere. So, do we finally have an answer to my question of in which sense the Infinite is infinite - that answer being that it is infinite in the sense of being comprised of an infinite number of causes?

Robert wrote:I'm not French. I live there, but my mother tongue is English. Tu es déçu ?

More like embarrassed, because I misremembered / made a false assumption. But I guess you could say that I am a little disappointed to find that you haven't in fact mastered English as a second language, and that we don't after all have a bona fide Frenchie around. What's your home country?

Attempts to steal the rank on the vun!

(in ultimate terms, still caught in the relative within the real)

guest_of_logic wrote:Yes, but it would depend on your definition of "cause" - on this forum it's used differently than elsewhere.

I wouldn't say it's used differently, only that cause is defined here in purely logical terms. Little interest is shown for detailing causal factors in empirical science, which is perfectly fine, but in essence it's the same mechanism and the same definition.

guest_of_logic wrote:So, do we finally have an answer to my question of in which sense the Infinite is infinite - that answer being that it is infinite in the sense of being comprised of an infinite number of causes?

Do you now have an answer?

guest_of_logic wrote:What's your home country?

L'Ecosse.
Why the hell would you like a bona fide Frenchie around? He'd just be boring you with his attachments to food, women, politics and shampoo. And in that order.

Robert wrote:I wouldn't say it's used differently, only that cause is defined here in purely logical terms. Little interest is shown for detailing causal factors in empirical science, which is perfectly fine, but in essence it's the same mechanism and the same definition.

Oh, but it is used differently. Usually causality implies time - one event causes a subsequent event - whereas on this forum it's also used to refer to the concept that in space on thing "causes" another thing by relation, and also that an absence can be a cause e.g. that the lack of a meteor hitting the Earth "causes" our planet.

So, do you subscribe to those two extra meanings of "cause"?

guest_of_logic: So, do we finally have an answer to my question of in which sense the Infinite is infinite - that answer being that it is infinite in the sense of being comprised of an infinite number of causes?

Robert: Do you now have an answer?

I'll wait for your answer re the meaning of "cause" before deciding.

guest_of_logic: What's your home country?

Robert: L'Ecosse.

Oh cool. I have some Scottish ancestry somewhere back there.

Robert wrote:Why the hell would you like a bona fide Frenchie around?

No reason more specific that I can put my finger on than just that I like French people but haven't interacted enough with them to know their culture well. Apparently you don't have too high an opinion of French culture...

guest_of_logic wrote:Oh, but it is used differently. Usually causality implies time - one event causes a subsequent event - whereas on this forum it's also used to refer to the concept that in space on thing "causes" another thing by relation, and also that an absence can be a cause e.g. that the lack of a meteor hitting the Earth "causes" our planet.

So, do you subscribe to those two extra meanings of "cause"?

It's more correct to say that the lack of an asteroid hitting Earth has the effect of not destroying the planet, but yes, the logic is still the same. The Earth is not caused to be something other than what it is. I don't have a problem with this use of language, it helps loosen up the mind's grip on convention, which is what philosophy should do.

guest_of_logic wrote:I have some Scottish ancestry somewhere back there.

Yeah, a fair amount of whitey down-under does. My own extended family live in Aus and NZ, some born there, some recent arrivals.

guest_of_logic wrote:Apparently you don't have too high an opinion of French culture...

(I should've ended my joke with a smiley, just to hammer it home.)

Robert wrote:I don't have a problem with this use of language, it helps loosen up the mind's grip on convention, which is what philosophy should do.

It seems like you're pretty on board with the message of this board then - at least its metaphysical perspective. What do you think about its messages about femininity, masculinity, the emotions, etc?

Getting back to whether we've found an answer to my original question: I wrote in my last email that it depends on how you define "cause". Now you've clarified that you pretty much go with the board's definition, which has (at least) three parts:
1. that which precedes an effect in time
2. a finite (spatial) thing that is codependent upon ("causes") all of that which is not itself, and vice versa (all that which is not itself - spatially - is codependent upon, and causes, it too)
3. the absence of a destructive event.

Perhaps you can think of others, but that's all I've got for now.

I'm going to ignore (3), because an infinity of absences strikes me as a void notion. (2) seems to entail spatial infinity (and if we consider finite things to be comprised of matter and energy, then it entails an infinity of matter and energy too), and (1) seems to entail those plus an eternity of time.

So Ill accept that as an answer, and it seems that we've brought that part of our discussion to a mutually-agreed conclusion, which is great.

guest_of_logic: I have some Scottish ancestry somewhere back there.

Robert: Yeah, a fair amount of whitey down-under does.

I was born in South Africa, and it's somewhat similar there. There are actually a fair few similarities between those two countries.

Robert wrote:(I should've ended my joke with a smiley, just to hammer it home.)

Yeah, humour is sometimes hard to convey on the net. I've seen you write disparagingly elsewhere, so I took your comment as one of serious disgust, perhaps even contempt, but instead you meant it lightheartedly.

Steven, sorry if it seemed like an attempt to upstage - hopefully you can view it as an attempt to collaborate and engage instead.

inner vu from what you just wrote: "bodhisattva."

guest_of_logic wrote:It seems like you're pretty on board with the message of this board then - at least its metaphysical perspective. What do you think about its messages about femininity, masculinity, the emotions, etc?

I doubt I'm on board, not fully at least; in my mid-thirties it's a little late. The feminine hook is deep, my foundations are unstable without her, yet she weakens their solidity.

gol, though some like to say and i understand why that Reality is infinite strictly speaking this is not true and that goes for whatever sense one cares to consider. While investigating these things this topic, one must not forget the inherent limitation of our chosen language to describe that which cannot really be adequately and completely described but only felt or better yet experienced or better still become. Which is by the way the goal and purpose of anyone attempting to engage you as such-- to try and tip your mind in that magical directionless direction where words cannot assist you nor either tag along. God is nothing like anything you've ever conceived and so long as you deprive him of that status which is uniquely his so long will you remain estranged and continue to feel that emptiness which ultimately only he can fullfill.