bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:12 am
Here we discuss the whole is infinite. Suppose that the whole is finite (let's call it W1). This means that the whole is bounded by something (let's call it B1). B1 could be infinite or finite. In the first case, B1+W1 is infinite. In the second case, B1+W1 is finite (let's call this W2). W2 is finite. This means that W2 is bounded by something (let's call it B2). ETC. It is easy to see that we end up with a series, WF=W1+B1+B2...+BF, where BF is the final boundary and F is the related index. It is obvious that WF (the whole) is infinite if the length of the series is finite or infinite. QED.
What you have here is a description of the concept of infinity.
No. I am describing reality.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:17 pm
The word "real" implies something beyond concepts.
Real means actually existing.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:17 pm
You have here nothing which could advance a claim of reality.
That is not correct. Please read the following comment.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:17 pm
I can describe a unicorn, that does not mean it exists.
Well, if the whole is boundless then unicorns for sure exist. What else can exist? Anything that you could possibly imagine: Dragon, Dracula, etc.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:17 pm
The word "real" implies something beyond concepts.
So it implies woo woo?
When you transcend your meat suit, tell us what there is beyond concepts.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:17 pm
I can describe a unicorn, that does not mean it exists.
It does.
In the most trivial sense you made it exist. In your mind and in your language.
In the most non-trivial sense, if the universe is infinite then everything exists necessarily by sheer luck.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:31 pm
Skeptic believes in Unicorns.
Ah ain't that sweet.
So? You believe in Unicorns too.
Otherwise you wouldn't have been able to express the concept of a unicorn with the word "unicorn". Unless you insist that the words that you use are meaningless (which may be the case).
Queue meltdown/apologetics: how your belief is somehow different to mine.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:31 pm
Skeptic believes in Unicorns.
Ah ain't that sweet.
Actually, lets spare you the meltdown...
Below is a photo of a cow. I've seen cows. You've seen cows.
There's nothing controversial in talking about cows. Humans have been herding/farming cows for thousands of years.
The question of import for the discussion is thus: Do YOU believe in cows?
In the way that I use the word " believe" (which you may or may not understand) I don't believe in cows.
In the way that you use the word "believe": do you believe in cows?
Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:31 pm
Skeptic believes in Unicorns.
Ah ain't that sweet.
Actually, lets spare you the meltdown...
Below is a photo of a cow. I've seen cows. You've seen cows.
There's nothing controversial in talking about cows. Humans have been herding/farming cows for thousands of years.
The question of import for the discussion is thus: Do YOU believe in cows?
In the way that I use the word " believe" (which you may or may not understand) I don't believe in cows.
In the way that you use the word "believe": do you believe in cows?
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:21 pm
The boundary can simply be the edges of W1. You're assuming there would have to be something beyond the boundaries of W1, but there need not be.
Yes, it is needed. Think of a sphere. You can tell that the surface is the boundary. But you need a three-dimensional space in order to imagine the sphere. The rest of the three-dimensional space in this case is a new boundary that is infinite.
For some reason you flipped to "what's required to imagine something" in the middle of that. You're not making statements solely about how we imagine things, are you?
At any rate, re imagining things, you do not need to imagine something outside of the sphere to imagine a sphere, and aside from imagining, a sphere wouldn't need something to exist beyond its surface.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:21 pm
The boundary can simply be the edges of W1. You're assuming there would have to be something beyond the boundaries of W1, but there need not be.
Yes, it is needed. Think of a sphere. You can tell that the surface is the boundary. But you need a three-dimensional space in order to imagine the sphere. The rest of the three-dimensional space in this case is a new boundary that is infinite.
For some reason you flipped to "what's required to imagine something" in the middle of that. You're not making statements solely about how we imagine things, are you?
At any rate, re imagining things, you do not need to imagine something outside of the sphere to imagine a sphere, and aside from imagining, a sphere wouldn't need something to exist beyond its surface.
You cannot embed a sphere inside nothing but you can embed a sphere inside something bigger.
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:33 pm
You cannot embed a sphere inside nothing
Why not?
By the way, you and a couple other people I've talked to about stuff like this here (well, or maybe on the other philosophy board, too), seem like you'd have to be committed to a Parmenidean ontology, but I don't know how you'd think that would work so that anything could move.
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:33 pm
You cannot embed a sphere inside nothing
Why not?
Because nothing is nothing. You can remove it mentally without affecting anything.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:57 pm
By the way, you and a couple other people I've talked to about stuff like this here (well, or maybe on the other philosophy board, too), seem like you'd have to be committed to a Parmenidean ontology, but I don't know how you'd think that would work so that anything could move.
Could you please elaborate on his ontology? I am not familiar with that.
bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:07 pm
Because nothing is nothing. You can remove it mentally without affecting anything.
No idea what the second sentence there is saying. "Nothing is nothing." Of course. And we could have a sphere where nothing is external to the sphere's boundaries.
Could you please elaborate on his ontology? I am not familiar with that.
