Infinity as Change

[Skepdick]

Also, there's no such thing as an infinite set and there's no such thing as a set that contains itself. Math isn't always meaningful. When you get to the point that you're discussing something that has no real-world correlation, you're doing work that's indistinguishable from fiction.

If I can define it in a way that even a computer can understand it - it's meaningful.

[Eodnhoj7]

The relationship of one infinity to another sets the foundation for one infinity as either a beginning or end point of another.

After all, I told you that absolute simultaneity has no meaning, so actual, simultaneous infinity has no meaning, isn't that clear?

The absolute unity of everything as 1 whole thus equates to 0.

1 infinity as the beginning or end of another infinity, where 1 infinity exists as a point of change to one phenomenon to another, necessitates when viewing the 1 totality of everything approximately through parts that one infinity exists prior to another thus not simultaneously.

[Eodnhoj7]

The relationship of one infinity to another sets the foundation for one infinity as either a beginning or end point of another.

After all, I told you that absolute simultaneity has no meaning, so actual, simultaneous infinity has no meaning, isn't that clear?

Pretending to do any operation on a thing that has impossibly indefinite boundaries is snake oil. That which cannot be defined with precision cannot be either recognized or manipulated.

The line as composed of infinite lines, through infinite zeros with a line in between, necessitates infinity as not only definite but is an actual limit.

[Eodnhoj7]

There are no such things as multiple intelligences, multiple universes, or multiple infinities. Each of those Means a generality.

OK, then explain why some infinites can be exhaustively searched in finite time.

Infinity is not a searchable kind of thing. It's not a specific kind of thing. It cannot be defined, known, understood, managed, operated on, calculated, or literally anything else specific because it is in literally no way specific itself, and math, btw, is only useful as a language; like all languages, descriptive of actual experiences. You've got both a metaphysical and an epistemological problem there, neither of which is in any sense tractable.

If it is only useful as a language, and language describes experiences, then "infinity" as a term describes an experience.

[Advocate]

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=502589 time=1615845414 user_id=14533]
[quote=Advocate post_id=502568 time=1615836506 user_id=15238]
[quote=Skepdick post_id=502566 time=1615836272 user_id=17350]

OK, then explain why some infinites can be exhaustively searched in finite time.
[/quote]

Infinity is not a searchable kind of thing. It's not a specific kind of thing. It cannot be defined, known, understood, managed, operated on, calculated, or literally anything else specific because it is in literally no way specific itself, and math, btw, is only useful as a language; like all languages, descriptive of actual experiences. You've got both a metaphysical and an epistemological problem there, neither of which is in any sense tractable.
[/quote]

If it is only useful as a language, and language describes experiences, then "infinity" as a term describes an experience.
[/quote]

It means etcetera, but it's wrongly taken to mean what's at the end of etcetera, which is only imaginary.

[Eodnhoj7]

Infinity is not a searchable kind of thing. It's not a specific kind of thing. It cannot be defined, known, understood, managed, operated on, calculated, or literally anything else specific because it is in literally no way specific itself, and math, btw, is only useful as a language; like all languages, descriptive of actual experiences. You've got both a metaphysical and an epistemological problem there, neither of which is in any sense tractable.

If it is only useful as a language, and language describes experiences, then "infinity" as a term describes an experience.

It means etcetera, but it's wrongly taken to mean what's at the end of etcetera, which is only imaginary.

Etcetera means a continuity of some phenomenon thus necessitates limits.

[Skepdick]

After all, I told you that absolute simultaneity has no meaning, so actual, simultaneous infinity has no meaning, isn't that clear?

Of course it has meaning! It's the very notion of parallelism in computer science.

The optimal parallelism any algorithm could ever achieve is Constant time.

Trivially understood, increasing the input does not change the runtime of the algorithm.

[Skepdick]

It means etcetera, but it's wrongly taken to mean what's at the end of etcetera, which is only imaginary.

There's nothing "at the end" of etcetera. It's infinite.

[Eodnhoj7]

It means etcetera, but it's wrongly taken to mean what's at the end of etcetera, which is only imaginary.

There's nothing "at the end" of etcetera. It's infinite.

The etcetera is an observation of a continuums of some phenomena which has limits. Limits as continual are limits as infinite. Limits and infinity do not contradict.

[Advocate]

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=502599 time=1615848907 user_id=14533]
[quote=Skepdick post_id=502598 time=1615847605 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=502595 time=1615847290 user_id=15238]
It means etcetera, but it's wrongly taken to mean what's at the end of etcetera, which is only imaginary.
[/quote]
There's nothing "at the end" of etcetera. It's infinite.
[/quote]

The etcetera is an observation of a continuums of some phenomena which has limits. Limits as continual are limits as infinite. Limits and infinity do not contradict.
[/quote]

Your words don't sentence properly.

[Eodnhoj7]

There's nothing "at the end" of etcetera. It's infinite.

The etcetera is an observation of a continuums of some phenomena which has limits. Limits as continual are limits as infinite. Limits and infinity do not contradict.

Your words don't sentence properly.

Actually they do, you just have no recourse in the argument. Etcetera shows a phenomenon as continuing to another phenomenon. This continuous phenomena, as distinct from another phenomena, necessitates limits. For example in stating: "triangle, square, etc." we observe a continuum yet this continuum exists under the limit of "geometric shapes".

[Age]

1. If I do not know who you are yet then there is a distinction between you and me.

If 'you' still do not yet know who 'you' nor 'I' am, then so be it.

2. If forms repeat then we understand the universe as self aware, thus a form of consciousness exists beyond our own.

LOL So, 'you' somehow have concluded that 'you' have 'your' "own consciousness", and that that "consciousness" exists beyond or outside of the Universe's own Self awareness, or Consciousness.

Who, or what, by the way, does your use of the 'our' word here refer to, EXACTLY?

You keep asking questions, what do you hope this achieves?

That 'you', human beings, will start answering them OPEN and Honestly.

3. The point as it is.

Which is 'what', EXACTLY?

Or, can you NOT explain NOR elaborate on this ANY further?

What is the "true, right and correct answer to the question "who am I?""

In the visible, physical sense, the Universe.

In the non visible, spiritual sense, the Mind.

By the way, to 'me', your numbered responses do not appear to match up with ANY thing I said.

1. "You" and "I" shows a distinction.

Very True. But 'you' and 'you' does NOT. Neither to does 'I' and 'I'.

But what can be CLEARLY SEEN is 'I' and 'i' shows a distinction, as well.

2. Human consciousness exists as a subset of universal consciousness. Given human consciousness cannot observe the totality of universal consciousness, universal consciousness exists beyond human consciousness thus a distinction between the two occurs. "Our" references human consciousness given both you and me are human.

Look, this is just 'your' view. And, 'your' view could be wrong and/or incorrect, correct?

But, if you BELIEVE that 'your' view is absolutely irrefutably true, then just go ahead and prove 'it'.

3. Who are you too judge whether responses to your questions are honest or not.

When, and if, 'you' discover and/or learn the answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?' then 'you' will KNOW 'WHO', and 'HOW', 'I' am able to judge, properly and correctly.

4. The point is "•"

I suggest that if you can NOT explain in words what you are 'trying to' say and explain here, then you not use a philosophy forum.

5. Thus we are all connected.

Why would ANY think or believe otherwise?

[Age]

And these beginning and ends are relative to an infinite number of beginnings and ends thus the beginning and end is a continuum. The line is a continuum of infinite points thus necessitating infinite lines between points.

The relationship of one infinity to another sets the foundation for one infinity as either a beginning or end point of another.

In order to be manipulated, ie useful, a thing must have proscribed boundaries. Infinity is not that sort of thing, except in language. You can language about it all you want but you're never going to get any closer to understanding it until you simply substitute "etcetera". Infinity is a direction - keep going. It is not a specific thing that you can math or reason about, much less do any real world work. The most useful it can be is as a placeholder for an indefinite amount of ignorance.

But 'infinity' is a 'thing', which actually can be reasoned about, by reason abled people.

[Age]

The relationship of one infinity to another sets the foundation for one infinity as either a beginning or end point of another.

After all, I told you that absolute simultaneity has no meaning, so actual, simultaneous infinity has no meaning, isn't that clear?

But what is CLEAR, to 'one', is OBVIOUSLY NOT necessarily CLEAR, to "another".

[Age]

The relationship of one infinity to another sets the foundation for one infinity as either a beginning or end point of another.

After all, I told you that absolute simultaneity has no meaning, so actual, simultaneous infinity has no meaning, isn't that clear?

Pretending to do any operation on a thing that has impossibly indefinite boundaries is snake oil. That which cannot be defined with precision cannot be either recognized or manipulated.

And has the word 'Mind' been defined, to or by 'you', with precision?

In fact, has the word 'I' even been defined, with precision, to or by 'you', YET?