This is exactly what I’m thinking at the moment. But at the moment, for me this leads to the conclusion that there is an absolute infinity and that there are entirely finite things encompassed by an entirely infinite thing. Hopefully the reading will give me something solid.
Just realize that the concept “encompass” (“within the boundary”) and the concept “infinite” (“boundless”) are incompatible. No matter what you use to encompass, I can always find something to add to it.
Sorry for the late reply James but I’ve been busy and I needed to do some researching which took me a long time before I got to a point where I felt comfortable in replying.
I got my head around this by comparing two infinite roads: Road 1 (width 2m, height 10cm and infinite length) and road 2 (finite width 4m, height 10cm and infinite length). It would be paradoxical to say that both roads have an equal measure in volume. But the alternative is also paradoxical. So for me the only conclusion here is that you can’t have a finite by finite by infinite thing.
So something is either: a) absolutely infinite or b) absolutely finite.
There is 1 existence or 1 thing that is absolutely infinite. An infinite line or road is neither a nor b. So I think such a thing is logically impossible. Anything that is not a or b is non-existent. Another reason for why I conclude this:
Would it not be logically inconsistent to say that there are things left out of existence or there can be things added to existence? If so, then don’t we have to acknowledge existence as absolutely infinite?
In another thread, I’ve seen you write “Absolute infinity cannot exist simply because no matter how great a measure is, more can be added.”
I agree that you can’t add to absolute infinity in the same way that you can’t add to existence. But I don’t see this as a reason for considering absolute infinity as logically impossible. I think absolute infinity must exist/is existence and no more can be added to it.
Infinity means that there is no end, “limitless”.
“Absolute infinity” means that there is a degree of being limitless that cannot be exceeded, thus is limited, finite. So to say that absolute infinity exists even as a logical thought, is to say that absolute infinity is finite, which is an oxymoron (invalid/incoherent thought).
“Absolute infinity” is a “square-circle”.
Right. I fully agree. Saying ‘absolute infinity’ is a bit like saying ‘absolute perfection’. It’s either perfect or imperfect. Just as, it’s either infinite or finite. Absolute is irrelevant here.
And what do you get when you divide one by a square-circle? Inverted nonsense, also known as “absolute zero”. 