The IKEA chair quip was a joke, in that there is said to be a seemingly endless supply of them… even though we know that there is not, so pardon me creating a confusion… the ‘IKEA chair’ allegory was an attempt to demonstrate that in my thinking, most things cannot be infinite, save for only a few.
Infinity (or the concept of it) is unique, and therefore incomparable to all else… or is that why many farmers have been labelling horse meat as beef and selling it as such, because it’s a matter of degree? and the same with fake designer goods being labelled as designer, even though they are not.
Something is either infinite or it is not… there is no inbetween, but in a mostly unexplored Universe, one can only imagine what can or cannot happen within the confines of it.
I think I misunderstood you. I’ll try harder not to misunderstand you in the future.
An infinite number of apples are a thing because that which you describe has clear semantical value. Round squares are not a thing. Existence being Infinite logically entails that it has the potential for an infinite number of apples. This literally means that there can be an infinite number of semi-infinite worlds, with each world containing an endless number of apples. This is purely because of Actual Infinity/Existence being the way that it is.
The universe had a beginning, so it cannot be the container of all things. That which is actually infinite is the container of all things. How can anything other than actual infinity be the container of all things? Can you give me an alternative without running into paradoxes?
If the word “infinity” means “without an end”, then that which has no end is infinite EVEN IF it has a beginning.
And that appears to be the standard definition of the word.
Alright. You can use words whichever way you want. But please keep in mind that other people won’t use them the same way as you do. When I say “infinite” I mean BOTH what you mean by “semi-infinite” (that which has a beginning but no end) as well as what you mean by “infinite” (that which has no beginning and no end.)
But wasn’t your argument that there are no different sizes of semi-infinite (to use your word)?
When you say that the number of people standing in front of you is semi-infinite, doesn’t that imply that the number of people standing in front of you is greater than every integer?
And what about bi-infinite sequences such as ((\dotso, -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3, \dotso))? Isn’t that sequence infinite in your sense of the word “infinite”?
And what about a line of people that is endless in two directions? It has no beginning and it has no end. It too appears to be infinite in your sense of the word.
You can count forever. You can count without end. But you cannot count to infinity. Infinity is that which you are trying to count to. You can do this forever (note that I did not say "you can do this infinitely’). Compare the following three sentences:
You can count forever.
You can count endlessly.
You can count infinitely.
Are they semantically the same? The first two sentences are clearly the same. I don’t see the third as being the same. Even if you and I are immortal, we cannot count infinitely. We can only count endlessly/forever because we’ll never hit infinity to be able to describe ourselves as successfully counting infinitely.
I think we have different sizes of semi-infinities. An endless library that contains an endless number of bookshelves, but has only filled half of these with books, has half as many books as an identical library that has all its shelves filled with books. Both libraries contain a semi-infinite number of books. But the semi-infinite number of books in the second library is twice that of the first. My library has 10 books, my friend’s library has 9 books. Both libraries contain a finite number of books. But the finite number of books in my friend’s library is greater than mine.
No because semi-infinite is different to infinite. You can have an endless number of people in front of you, and for every person, there is an integer. This is guaranteed. None of these integers represent infinity. Hence why we cannot treat that which has no end as equal to that which has no beginning and no end (Actual Infinity/Existence). You cannot focus on a part of Existence and call it Existence. A part of Existence is just a part of Existence. It is not Existence Itself.
No because you have a beginning point for this sequence. Which is why I would call this bi-semi-infinte as opposed to infinite. The sequence will never reach infinity…even if it goes on forever. So how can it be described as being infinite? Existence has no beginning and no end. It IS infinite. It does not start somewhere and then try to become infinite. It IS infinite and it contains all things that go one forever and all things that only go on finitely.
I don’t know. It doesn’t really matter. If they say the universe is actual infinity, then I see no paradoxes. But if they say otherwise (for example if they say the universe began as a result of the Big Bang), then the universe is not Existence and it is not Actually/Truly Infinite. It exists in Existence as opposed to being Existence.
You can count forever - because there is always ever more.
You can count endlessly - because there is no end.
You can count infinitely - because there is no infinity.
The word “infinity” implies the final end point of the endless. It is intended to reference a direction, not an end goal. It is like saying “I counted to up”. There is no “to up”. There is only “toward up”. And there is only “toward infinity” or perhaps “toward the infinite”.
None of them have anything to do with someone’s ability to count. They each express that the target does not exist except as a direction.
And this is because there is infinity. You could not count forever if there was no infinity.
The ‘final end point of endlessness’ is contradictory.
Yes but importantly, it means that the target exists as a direction in the infinite. If there wasn’t the infinite, x could not go up forever, count forever, live forever, and so on. No matter what x does, x will never become infinite. Even if it tried to do so forever, it still wouldn’t succeed. Only the infinite is infinite and no non-infinite thing can become infinite from a non-infinite state. No non-omnipresent/omnipotent being can become omnipresent/omnipotent. How will it do this? Will the omnipresent go into non-existence and make way for this non-omnipresent thing to take its place? Infinity is literally descriptive of Existence/God. All things are possible or true because of It. All things happen in It, because of It. Being able to count endlessly is a hypothetical possibility because of It. Being Infinite is not a hypothetical possibility because nothing can become infinite. Something just is Infinite.
There is an infinity. This is the same as saying there are an infinite number of things (this denotes the whole of Existence). We should not say there is an infinite number of books because an infinite number of books, does not denote the whole of Existence/Infinity. It denotes a part of it. A part of Infinity, is not the same as Infinity.
I am not sure that counts as a valid response to what I said.
But I’ll respond to what you wrote anyways.
“To count infinitely” means “to count without an end”. If you start with (0) and then move upwards by counting every number greater than (0) but less than (1), such a process of counting would be infinite in the sense that it would be without an end which really only means there won’t be such a thing as “the last number counted”. Instead, for every number counted, there will be a number counted at a later point in time. It does not mean the process of counting will never be completed (in theory, it can be completed within any finite period of time one can think of) and it certainly does not mean the last number counted would be (1) (or any other number.)
That was my point. And that is why it can’t be counted to.
What does “in the infinite” mean? Is 1 million “in the infinite”? Is infinity “in the infinite”? If it is “in” the infinite then it cannot be the infinite (at least not that same infinite).
I believe you are right in that part. But what I have been saying is that there is no infinity - the end point of the endless. There is no “up” except as a direction - “upward”. “Upty” doesn’t exist (unless maybe you’re English ).
You should probably read up on James about that (James S Saint not St James). He goes into that issue in extreme extreme detail. You might even say “infinite detail”.
I still disagree.
We should not say “infinite number” because there is no number that is infinite. It has nothing to do with existence. It is a matter of definition of the words. There is an “infinity of numbers”. There is not an “infinite number” - a number that is infinite (an oxymoron). And “infinity” implies an infinite number.
We might have to agree to disagree on this. I think Existence exists. It is Actually/Truly infinite. When all of it is highlighted from a purely quantitative perspective, then all things within it and itself are highlighted. Thus the number of existing things = infinity. Infinity is the biggest number. When less than this is highlighted, then less than infinity is highlighted. Semi-Infinity is highlighted.
I am often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color but I won’t endlessly argue with him about it. That applies to several people on this board.
I believe that you are misusing the word “infinity” and you have made it an inseparable part of your arguments concerning paradoxes and God. So your argumentation will be endless - infinite without ever being able to reach an end - futile.
And so I think your bubble of belief will be your own isolated world - affecting no one but keeping you afloat without rise.
I do agree that Leibnitz is a wishful thinker, but…what if … trying to remember …zizec’s use of bubbles. Is there at least a probable reference that may make some discerning sense for this shared metaphore?
I see Zizek as one of those many “probable for suicide” type of philosophers who can’t find solutions, only problems to rant about - a bubble that inevitably bursts in the light.
You say I am misusing the word infinity whilst I believe you are misusing it. We have discussed it and I feel like I have said all that I should have said regarding why I use it the way that I do. So I don’t think we will agree on the usage of the word infinity. You say none of your arguments have been about Existence. All of my arguments are about Existence. I don’t try to make sense of anything (including infinity) independently of Existence, because all truths are true purely as a result of Existence being the way that it is. Existence is the way it is because it just is the way it is. Triangles are three sided because Existence is the way it is. Infinity is the way it is because Existence is the way it is (Infinite).
I know everyone gets what they truly/perfectly deserve without fail. If that’s what I truly/perfectly deserve, then I think I’m at peace with that. If I deserve less then that, again, I think I’m at peace with that. If I deserve more than that, the same except I’d be happier. I am not omniscient with regards to my own soul. Hopefully, I deserve more than what you describe. I’m hesitant to say I think I deserve more than what you describe because I feel somewhat arrogant saying it. I don’t want to be optimistic towards myself at the expense of being arrogant.
I think I understand where you are coming from. To better understand my position, how would you respond to the following:
There is an infinity. This is the same as saying there are an infinite number of things (this denotes the whole of Existence). We should not say there is an infinite number of books because an infinite number of books, does not denote the whole of Existence/Infinity. It denotes a part of it because books are not all there is in relation to Existence. A part of Infinity, is not the same as Infinity. If we say there is an infinite number of books, we are only highlighting a part of that which is Actually/Truly Infinite. If we’re only highlighting a part of it, is it not paradoxical to say that we have highlighted all of it? Isn’t it better to label a finite part of infinity as finite? Or to label an endless part of Infinity as semi-infinite?
I just wanted to correct myself. In the opening post, I said that there are an infinite number of books. I then later said that there aren’t an infinite number of books because infinity must denote the whole of Existence and the set of all books does not do this, therefore it should not be called infinite. The opening post was correct. There are in fact an infinite number of books for the following reason:
x contains all books. Let’s say R contains all of x except book ‘10’. Since it is missing book 10, it is classified as incompletely containing x as opposed to completely and infinitely containing x. Where what has been defined is not absurd (it is absurd as we will come to see), this library is the closest thing to infinitely/completely/truly containing x. It matches x 99.99999…ad infinitum%. There can be no infinite library because no library can 100% contain x or be Infinity/Omnipresent. Where R contains all books except ‘10’ and ‘9’, then R does not match x 99.99999…ad infinitum%. The best that we can describe it is that it matches x 99.99999…ad infinitum% minus one book, or, we can describe it as matching x 100% minus 2 books. R is clearly absurd because infinity - 1 = absurd. It does not = infinity. Nor does it = infinity - 1. You cannot describe a part of Infinity unless you are describing semi-infinites or finites. There is no other class to discuss. There is no in between semantical value. There is no x - 1. There is either a semi-infinite part of x or a finite part of x.
You cannot have two xs because x encompasses all books (both hypothetical or as real as us). You cannot add or take away from x because x is infinite.
There clearly can be different finite and semi-infinite sizes. They are all contained in or members of Existence. Existence clearly is Infinite/Omnipresent and there is only one of it. It does not come in different sizes. It contains Itself because the Infinite contains the Infinitesimal and the Infinitesimal is Infinite. Thus, the Infinite = the Infinitesimal and it contains Itself. This is why x is at all meaningful and why nothing else can contain x other than the Infinite or the Infinitesimal. Just as you cannot reach Infinity by trying to count to Infinity endlessly, you can never expand or shrink to Infinity/Infinitesimal by trying to forever shrink/expand to Infinitesimal/Infinity. Despite this the Infinite contains the Infinitesimal and the Infinitesimal is Infinite. There aren’t multiple infinities or infinitesimals or existences. That is an illusion.
).
