Philosophy Now Forum

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:47 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:57 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:55 pm God help you.

I am helping myself. Do you want me to help you?

See above

Ditto.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:31 pm

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.

Nothing has no property, even volume. So you could not possibly embed something with volume inside it.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:31 pm

Could you please elaborate on his ontology? I am not familiar with that.

Wikipedia gives a decent if sketchy account here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenide ... pretations

I don't agree with him. It is not just a change in whatever that you cannot explain. It is a coherent change that is due to the mind.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 2:02 pm At any rate, re imagining things, you do not need to imagine something outside of the sphere to imagine a sphere

You kinda do...

You have to imagine yourself in relation to the "sphere".

Because if you are on the "outside", then a sphere is a sphere is a sphere, but if you are on the "inside" it could be a sphere-shaped hollow inside a solid cube; or a solid cone, or a solid rectangle; or a finite sphere in an infinite sphere. Or it might not even be a sphere since you can't actually see a surface/wall.

There's any number of topologies/interpretations/models at your imagination's disposal.

Parmenides assumed the "outside" perspective. He reported on being outside of being. He placed himself in "the void" that "does not exist" in order to report on "the sphere" He must have sat right next to God while he did that.

Awkward!

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 8:36 pm Nothing has no property, even volume. So you could not possibly embed something with volume inside it.

You're not "doing something to nothing" (a la "embedding something in it"). It's just that you could have a sphere where there are no existents beyond its boundaries.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 10:39 pm You're not "doing something to nothing" (a la "embedding something in it"). It's just that you could have a sphere where there are no existents beyond its boundaries.

If you are on observing such a sphere from the outside of such a sphere, then that's clearly false.

If you are observing such a "sphere" from the "inside" could you clarify what you might mean by "beyond its boundaries"?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:32 pm

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.

Which infinity? There are many of them.

The usual philosophical problem rears its head: how does language relate to the world?

How language relates to the 'world' is by how 'we' use words and by how we agree or not to their definitions.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:32 pmWhich infinity is reality like?

The infinity which aligns with Reality. Which is; the infinity that the Universe REALLY IS, in what is known as "length" and "duration".

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:49 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:44 pm Infinity is not good as you notice and suggest. The whole is boundless.

For all intents and purpose, the observable universe is bounded e.g finite., even if the whole is boundless.

But the observable universe is ONLY bounded by the human brain and its lack of ability to ACTUALLY SEE 'things' for what they REALLY ARE.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:49 pmWhich puts us in the domain of finite model theory.

ANOTHER "theory", which obviously could be completely or partly WRONG. Which, by the way, that theory ACTUALLY IS.

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

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:38 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:26 am

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 10:06 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.

LOL

You, managed ONCE MORE and AGAIN, to CONTRADICT your OWN writings, one sentence after another.

If we are discussing the whole as being infinite, then WHEN EXACTLY, HOW, and WHY would we, all of sudden, just SUPPOSE the whole is now finite?

Are we discussing the whole is 'infinite' or the whole is 'finite'?

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 10:06 am 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.

From my perspective we end up with a series, and at the conclusion, WTF.

To 'me', you REALLY have a warped sense of, so called, "logical reasoning".

I am that assuming that the whole is finite for sake of argument. This leads to the existence of a boundary that could be finite or infinite. Etc. In the end, I show that the whole is infinite.

Your first mistake here is ASSUMING ANY thing.

An ASSUMPTION does NOT suffice for an ACTUAL true premise.

ASSUMING will NEVER suffice in PROVING ANY ACTUAL 'thing'.

The end might, coincidentally, show some 'thing', which just happens to be True, Right, or Correct, but by ASSUMING that does NOT necessarily mean that that 'thing' is True, Right, nor Correct. For that, ACTUAL PROOF is NEEDED. ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT PROOF.

By the way, the 'whole' includes absolutely every thing, which happens to include the 'boundary'as well.

LOOK, the whole is infinite, the fence his is ALREADY KNOWN. Full stop.

And there is NO one who could refute this FACT, anyway.

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.

But there does HAVE TO BE, thus there NEEDS TO BE, some 'thing' beyond the boundaries.

This is just ANOTHER one of the many IRREFUTABLE FACTS.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:44 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:32 pm

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.

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'.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:04 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:01 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:49 pm
For all intents and purpose, the observable universe is bounded e.g finite., even if the whole is boundless.

Which puts us in the domain of finite model theory.

Yes.

Great. Then your next intellectual expedition should be into domain theory.

Although that would be an intellectual expedition, it would certainly NOT necessarily be an intelligent expedition at all.

Going down that spiral intellectual expedition would also certainly be an expedition that does NOT necessarily lead to even getting closer to the ACTUAL Truth of 'things'.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:26 pm

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.

WHY do you BELIEVE that everything exists NECESSARILY "by sheer luck"?

Was this a GUESS made on 'sheer luck', or, an IRREFUTABLE KNOWING, which also AROSE from just 'sheer luck' or from some 'thing' else?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:26 pmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:26 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:17 pm

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.

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

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:26 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:17 pm The word "real" implies something beyond concepts.

Real means actually existing.

Actually existing 'when', EXACTLY.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:26 pm

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.

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

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 10:39 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 8:36 pm Nothing has no property, even volume. So you could not possibly embed something with volume inside it.

You're not "doing something to nothing" (a la "embedding something in it"). It's just that you could have a sphere where there are no existents beyond its boundaries.

No existence is nothing. So you are assuming that there is a noting which has a volume and you consider a sphere within it.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 3:18 am

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:38 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:26 am

LOL

You, managed ONCE MORE and AGAIN, to CONTRADICT your OWN writings, one sentence after another.

If we are discussing the whole as being infinite, then WHEN EXACTLY, HOW, and WHY would we, all of sudden, just SUPPOSE the whole is now finite?

Are we discussing the whole is 'infinite' or the whole is 'finite'?



From my perspective we end up with a series, and at the conclusion, WTF.

To 'me', you REALLY have a warped sense of, so called, "logical reasoning".

I am that assuming that the whole is finite for sake of argument. This leads to the existence of a boundary that could be finite or infinite. Etc. In the end, I show that the whole is infinite.

Your first mistake here is ASSUMING ANY thing.

No.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 3:18 am An ASSUMPTION does NOT suffice for an ACTUAL true premise.

ASSUMING will NEVER suffice in PROVING ANY ACTUAL 'thing'.

The end might, coincidentally, show some 'thing', which just happens to be True, Right, or Correct, but by ASSUMING that does NOT necessarily mean that that 'thing' is True, Right, nor Correct. For that, ACTUAL PROOF is NEEDED. ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT PROOF.

By the way, the 'whole' includes absolutely every thing, which happens to include the 'boundary'as well.

LOOK, the whole is infinite, the fence his is ALREADY KNOWN. Full stop.

And there is NO one who could refute this FACT, anyway.

You believe that the universe is infinite. Do you have any proof for it?