Infinity is real

[bahman]

Which infinity? There are many of them.

The usual philosophical problem rears its head: how does language relate to the world? Which infinity is reality like?

There was a challenge amongst computer scientists (can't find the details now), to define the "largest possible number" such that the program compiles in some $upper_bounded time, and it can execute in some $finite_amount_of_memory.

This is so that the notion of "counting to infinity" can be bounded by the known limits of physics.

It is better to say that the whole is boundless.

It is ALWAYS better to say and tell just thee One and ONLY ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. Of which, saying, 'the whole is boundless', is thee ACTUAL truth of 'things'.

Cool.

[bahman]

What you have here is a description of the concept of infinity.

No. I am describing reality.

Are you describing 'reality', from your perspective, or describing thee 'Reality' Itself?

The reality itself.

The word "real" implies something beyond concepts.

Real means actually existing.

Actually existing 'when', EXACTLY.

The one that has existed since beginning and will exist forever.

You have here nothing which could advance a claim of reality.

That is not correct. Please read the following comment.

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.

What do you mean by 'exist' here, EXAXTLY?

To live, to have reality, etc.

[Skepdick]

I much prefer to just LOOK AT and SEE what is just ACTUALLY REAL and Right.

Then go look beyond the observable universe. There's a fucking reason it's called that.

Send us some photos when you get there.

[Terrapin Station]

So you are assuming that there is a noting which has a volume and you consider a sphere within it.

No, I'm not saying anything like that. That's rather how you're picturing it for some reason.

[DPMartin]

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.

i would agree that infinity is real, or there is a eternity, but what is this?

the existence of truth proves infinity. for example it always was true that there would be a "big bang" start of the universe. when it was being fulfilled it is true, and after it was fulfilled it always will be true.

thing is, is the truth an expression of will? seeing it is a truth, then its fulfilled then it always will be true. therefore is everything that is true, is based on and comes into being via the truth? seeing the truth is before everything that is fulfilled universe wise.

[bahman]

So you are assuming that there is a noting which has a volume and you consider a sphere within it.

No, I'm not saying anything like that. That's rather how you're picturing it for some reason.

Nothing cannot have any sort of geometry too. Telling that there is a sphere surrounded by nothing is topologically wrong.

[bahman]

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.

i would agree that infinity is real, or there is a eternity, but what is this?

It is a line of reasoning in favor existence of infinity.

the existence of truth proves infinity. for example it always was true that there would be a "big bang" start of the universe. when it was being fulfilled it is true, and after it was fulfilled it always will be true.

Infinity ever existed at Big Bang.

thing is, is the truth an expression of will? seeing it is a truth, then its fulfilled then it always will be true. therefore is everything that is true, is based on and comes into being via the truth? seeing the truth is before everything that is fulfilled universe wise.

The truth is another matter.

[Skepdick]

The word "real" implies something beyond concepts.

How do you propose we go about falsifying solipsism; or the simulation hypothesis?

I can describe a unicorn, that does not mean it exists.

Why the hell does it even matter if unicorns exist? Why does it matter if anything exists if solipsism or the simulation hypothesis were true?

You place some undue import on "realness" and "existence" as if we are supposed to give a shit.

[bahman]

The word "real" implies something beyond concepts.

How do you propose we go about falsifying solipsism; or the simulation hypothesis?

I can describe a unicorn, that does not mean it exists.

Why the hell does it even matter if unicorns exist? Why does it matter if anything exists if solipsism or the simulation hypothesis were true?

You place some undue import on "realness" and "existence" as if we are supposed to give a shit.

I have a thread against solipsosm in here. We are living in a wolrd which is partly simulated. We for example control subconscious mind.

[Sculptor]

The word "real" implies something beyond concepts.

How do you propose we go about falsifying solipsism; or the simulation hypothesis?

You never fail to disappoint.

I can describe a unicorn, that does not mean it exists.

Why the hell does it even matter if unicorns exist? Why does it matter if anything exists if solipsism or the simulation hypothesis were true?

Try harder to follow what is going on.

You place some undue import on "realness" and "existence" as if we are supposed to give a shit.

Is that the "ROYAL WE"? I was not aware that you had been elected as the spokesperson for the entire Forum, your majesty.

[Terrapin Station]

So you are assuming that there is a noting which has a volume and you consider a sphere within it.

No, I'm not saying anything like that. That's rather how you're picturing it for some reason.

Nothing cannot have any sort of geometry too. Telling that there is a sphere surrounded by nothing is topologically wrong.

There would be no geometry to nothing, correct. That doesn't imply that there can't be just a sphere with nothing else existing beyond its boundary.

[bahman]

No, I'm not saying anything like that. That's rather how you're picturing it for some reason.

Nothing cannot have any sort of geometry too. Telling that there is a sphere surrounded by nothing is topologically wrong.

There would be no geometry to nothing, correct. That doesn't imply that there can't be just a sphere with nothing else existing beyond its boundary.

Are you telling me that if I travel within your sphere toward the surface the I met nothing?

[Terrapin Station]

Nothing cannot have any sort of geometry too. Telling that there is a sphere surrounded by nothing is topologically wrong.

There would be no geometry to nothing, correct. That doesn't imply that there can't be just a sphere with nothing else existing beyond its boundary.

Are you telling me that if I travel within your sphere toward the surface the I met nothing?

If nothingness is not a factor in motion, how would you say that anything moves? Two particles can't occupy the same location, can they? So if it's all just solid particles, how would anything move? (Hence Parmenides' ontology.)

[bahman]

There would be no geometry to nothing, correct. That doesn't imply that there can't be just a sphere with nothing else existing beyond its boundary.

Are you telling me that if I travel within your sphere toward the surface the I met nothing?

If nothingness is not a factor in motion, how would you say that anything moves? Two particles can't occupy the same location, can they? So if it's all just solid particles, how would anything move? (Hence Parmenides' ontology.)

Space is still there when something moves.

[Terrapin Station]

Are you telling me that if I travel within your sphere toward the surface the I met nothing?

If nothingness is not a factor in motion, how would you say that anything moves? Two particles can't occupy the same location, can they? So if it's all just solid particles, how would anything move? (Hence Parmenides' ontology.)

Space is still there when something moves.

The notion that space exists as something "in itself" is incoherent.