I can debunk "Infinity" in less than 8 minutes

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
In essence, the infinite God being is incapable of achieving actual identity, which is the primordial essence of existence. In short, if it is actually infinite (existing as absolute) then it's this infiniteness that denies it actual existence.


Exactly!!! Which is exactly what we have. The key word here which is what this whole idea hinges on is "actual" as opposed to "potential". Finite and Infinte.


the infinite God being is incapable of achieving actual identity



if it is actually infinite (existing as absolute) then it's this infiniteness that denies it actual existence.


actual [ˈæktʃʊəl]
adj
1. existing in reality or as a matter of fact
2. real or genuine
3. existing at the present time; current

po·ten·tial
[puh-ten-shuh l]
adjective
1.possible, as opposed to actual: the potential uses of nuclear energy.
2.capable of being or becoming:

Potential isn't actual, so it cannot be quantifiable. However it is not forever nothing, it IS, just not in a definable state of being.
edit on 13-12-2012 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
There's no real point in debunking concepts of infinity. Infinity can never be conceptualized, so there's really no point in debunking concepts.
edit on 13-12-2012 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
Im surprised your still at it OP, thinking you got it all figured out, what reality is.

Some of the greatest minds in the world also thought they had it all figured out hundreds of years ago, then comes along a new branch of science requiring everyone to rethink it all.

Same with quantum physics. Any day a new branch of thought can come out and nullify all your stuff.

Its all concepts and ideas, none of which is the same as reality itself.
" The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao"

Your seeing/experiencing a tiny fragment of reality with a very limited mind using limited logic and reason in a realm that is beyond it all, being yourself a grain of sand with universes revolving above your head and have created the illusion that you have it all figured out.

I read your material and meh........ regurgitated ideas. Unless you get a phd and get published in some prominent journals, all your material will get buried amongst the vast earth libraries of knowledge, never to be thought of again, after your physical avatar vessel passes away.

Cheers for trying though!


Of course, I disagree, but that's how it is for human minds. We are all inimitable and we each perceive the real in original ways regardless of how many of us crowd in together as one. The indivisible quantum unit exists, and this means that the infinite gradient does not and cannot exist. Its not rocket science. Just simple inference.

The hard part was trying to figure out what I wanted as a music bed under the 2nd half of the video. That was really murderous, and I had my doubts as to whether I'd pull it off. Ultimately I decided to create it myself instead of trying to reconfigure an existing bed (as I did in the first half). I think it works, but it was pretty touch and go there for a while.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Visitor2012
There's no real point in debunking concepts of infinity. Infinity can never be conceptualized, so there's really no point in debunking concepts.
edit on 13-12-2012 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)


I wish that people didn't mistake the concept for reality. A lot of bad stuff in this world wouldn't exist if that was the case. Infinity is like "patient zero" of a devastating pandemic that refuses to burn itself out. It lays the foundation for most of this world's most intractable and problematic conflations.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mOjOm
I think that your statement of: "eternal is not a concept that one can apply to quantum physics, or anything in the physical world, for that matter." is also the same argument that NorEaster is putting forward.


No, I don't think so. Mathematics is not a conception, it is an expression of the physical world, so the laws of mathematics and physics are those of the laws of physical reality.

"Eternal", existence without beginning or end, cannot be applied to the physical world because it is not a concept of physicality, but one of temporality. Consider -- time can be infinite, but only in one direction, going forward, because if time was infinite in preceding this moment, this moment would never have arrived. We know that the physical reality will tear itself apart in the Big Rip in 16 billion years or so, but even once there is nothing remaining of physical existence, time will continue on, because there is nothing to indicate that it is not infinite.

And because time cannot be infinite in how much time has passed before us, nothing in this reality can be eternal, ergo, eternity, which OP thinks he's disproven (even though he continues to confuse it with infinity,) is an invalid concept as he's applying it anyway.
edit on 13-12-2012 by adjensen because: tag repair



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by mOjOm

Originally posted by NorEaster
In essence, the infinite God being is incapable of achieving actual identity, which is the primordial essence of existence. In short, if it is actually infinite (existing as absolute) then it's this infiniteness that denies it actual existence.


Exactly!!! Which is exactly what we have. The key word here which is what this whole idea hinges on is "actual" as opposed to "potential". Finite and Infinte.


the infinite God being is incapable of achieving actual identity



if it is actually infinite (existing as absolute) then it's this infiniteness that denies it actual existence.


actual [ˈæktʃʊəl]
adj
1. existing in reality or as a matter of fact
2. real or genuine
3. existing at the present time; current

po·ten·tial
[puh-ten-shuh l]
adjective
1.possible, as opposed to actual: the potential uses of nuclear energy.
2.capable of being or becoming:

Potential isn't actual, so it cannot be quantifiable. However it is not forever nothing, it IS, just not in a definable state of being.
edit on 13-12-2012 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)


Infinity isn't a potential. If it did exist, it would be an always "actual". No beginning, no end, no change, no constraints of any kind. If something were to be infinite, it would necessarily be the only "actual" thing. Nothing could exist relative to it, since it would already "be" the infinite whatever-it-is, and would have always been that infinite whatever-it-is. The logical contradictions are insurmountable.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
One can conceptualize infinity or eternal etc. but concepts and ideas themselves are not infinite. So although I can think of something going on forever and without limit or boundary, my thought itself cannot go on forever. Ideas themselves have shelf-lives, and thus everything in them.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


So , can this Guy in the Video also Calculate the LAST SEQUENCE of a Mandelbrot Fractal ? I have an Eternity to await his Answer.........



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by mOjOm
I think that your statement of: "eternal is not a concept that one can apply to quantum physics, or anything in the physical world, for that matter." is also the same argument that NorEaster is putting forward.


No, I don't think so. Mathematics is not a conception, it is an expression of the physical world, so the laws of mathematics and physics are those of the laws of physical reality.

"Eternal", existence without beginning or end, cannot be applied to the physical world because it is not a concept of physicality, but one of temporality. Consider -- time can be infinite, but only in one direction, going forward, because if time was infinite in preceding this moment, this moment would never have arrived. We know that the physical reality will tear itself apart in the Big Rip in 16 billion years or so, but even once there is nothing remaining of physical existence, time will continue on, because there is nothing to indicate that it is not infinite.

And because time cannot be infinite in how much time has passed before us, nothing in this reality can be eternal, ergo, eternity, which OP thinks he's disproven (even though he continues to confuse it with infinity,) is an invalid concept as he's applying it anyway.
edit on 13-12-2012 by adjensen because: tag repair


You guys can debate eternity if you wish, but don't think that I don't know what infinity means. I actually included the dictionary definition of it in the piece, to make sure it's obvious what I'm referring to. Like I said, semantics is a death trap when trying to get to the truth of anything. The English language is a minefield and if this were a dissertation, I would've been much more strict in my language - likely imposing a glossary on the entire discussion.

If you want to know what I mean by Infinite, then watch the video and stop it when I highlight the dictionary definition. That's the term I'm addressing. What you guys want to impose upon this examination as terminology isn't actually relevant. Not with that basis already established.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 





Text I wish that people didn't mistake the concept for reality. A lot of bad stuff in this world wouldn't exist if that was the case. Infinity is like "patient zero" of a devastating pandemic that refuses to burn itself out. It lays the foundation for most of this world's most intractable and problematic conflations.

The problem is, pretty much everyone mistakes various concepts for reality. The illusion of division and separation as an ego, is the cause of all the words ills, wars, murders, rape, and any other negative you can come up with has psychological narcissistic archetypes at its core foundation.

There are blueprints out there, that if followed, would give you a direct experience of the Absolute, and i guarantee you would probably take back pretty much everything you ever posted and would have to rethink your stance on reality. Until then, it can be said that you too have mistaken your combination of concepts to be reality



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
Infinity isn't a potential. If it did exist, it would be an always "actual". No beginning, no end, no change, no constraints of any kind. If something were to be infinite, it would necessarily be the only "actual" thing. Nothing could exist relative to it, since it would already "be" the infinite whatever-it-is, and would have always been that infinite whatever-it-is. The logical contradictions are insurmountable.


But infinite isn't always an all inclusive property. You can have more that one infinite "somethings" which by themselves are infinite yet still apart from another infinite something. (The use of Something is perhaps not a good term to use since I'm not using it to mean Actual Things.)

The problem is the use of the word exist maybe. I agree that it doesn't exist in an actual being. All reality as we live and understand has limits. Reality therefore is finite as we can ever possibly measure it. So in a sense we are in agreement. However where I differ is that the way I see it, Infinity must, in lack of a better term, exist. Only not in the same sense that other real things exist. Because it is infinite it therefore must be in a potential state beyond an actual state of being. But is there non the less.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


How about posting in the thread what your definition of infinity is, along with the source, instead of asking to generate more views of your video?

Infinite means unmeasurable, it doesn't mean without beginning or end. It is a mathematical term, not a philosophical one (well, not at its root anyway.)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by NorEaster
 


So , can this Guy in the Video also Calculate the LAST SEQUENCE of a Mandelbrot Fractal ? I have an Eternity to await his Answer.........


If I cared about such a thing, probably not. The essentials aren't complicated, and what this is about are the essentials. I deal with primordial issues. Reality foundations. Each contextual reality confine creates its own sequences, and I'm really not at all interested in how progressive development is minutely expressed within each of them - or any of them, for that matter. Symmetry is achieved in ways that are unique to each developing environment, and let's imagine that no two confines arrive at balance in the same manner. To me, this is less than unimportant. since my focus is on what is required, and not what is achieved as a unique expression within any one requirement arena.

There are primordial commonalities, and they are extremely primitive and laced through all of reality - including all progressive expressions of reality. These are the building blocks and this is where the mind must focus if it is to ever fully understand itself and its actual place within the reality that contains it.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Actually, the idea of infinity was first posed philosophically by Zeno.

On Zeno:


This man, who may be regarded as the founder of
the philosophy of infinity, appears in Plato's Parmenides in the privileged
position of instructor to Socrates. He invented four arguments, all im-
measurably subtle and profound, to prove that motion is impossible, that
Achilles can never overtake the tortoise, and that an arrow in flight is
really at rest.


Mathematics and the Metaphysicians Bertrand Russel

(Great read by the way.)

ETA: I just realized you meant at its root, and this reply was unwarranted. Apologies.
edit on 13-12-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NorEaster
 


How about posting in the thread what your definition of infinity is, along with the source, instead of asking to generate more views of your video?

Infinite means unmeasurable, it doesn't mean without beginning or end. It is a mathematical term, not a philosophical one (well, not at its root anyway.)


I already included it in the piece, and frankly, I don't see the value in digging through dictionary.com... (hint) to get it for you. I'm not interested in a semantics debate and I already made that clear.

I don;t know. Maybe you need it made clearer?

How's this? - Who cares what your personal definition of infinity versus eternity is. I certainly don't.

There. I hope that clears up this a little better for you, and you feel free to move on to a more fascinating topic. Perhaps the proper use of conjunctions, or "adverbs - when is "ly" just too precious?"



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 





No, I don't think so. Mathematics is not a conception, it is an expression of the physical world, so the laws of mathematics and physics are those of the laws of physical reality.


Mathematics , laws, theories, physics , physical and reality are all concepts. What they attempt to describe is not.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 




If it did exist, it would be an always "actual". No beginning, no end, no change, no constraints of any kind. If something were to be infinite, it would necessarily be the only "actual" thing. Nothing could exist relative to it, since it would already "be" the infinite whatever-it-is, and would have always been that infinite whatever-it-is. The logical contradictions are insurmountable.

If it did exist, it would include all possibilities, potentials, and logical contradictions including allowing everything to be relative to it.

The "relative to it" part could be an illusion of the mind anyway.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by NorEaster
 


How about posting in the thread what your definition of infinity is, along with the source, instead of asking to generate more views of your video?

Infinite means unmeasurable, it doesn't mean without beginning or end. It is a mathematical term, not a philosophical one (well, not at its root anyway.)


I already included it in the piece, and frankly, I don't see the value in digging through dictionary.com... (hint) to get it for you. I'm not interested in a semantics debate and I already made that clear.


I already posted what dictionary.com defines it as, here. And what it says is that eternal means "without beginning or end", words which do not appear on the definition of infinite.


How's this? - Who cares what your personal definition of infinity versus eternity is. I certainly don't.


It isn't my "personal definition", it's the dictionary definition. And you should care, because it completely invalidates your statement -- a physicist that watched that video (assuming they could sort through the rhyming and figure out what you were saying) would laugh you out of the building.

It also reflects poorly on this, from your OP:


If you like it, then pass it on. If you think I didn't accomplish the debunking effort, then let me know where I blew it.

I kept it simple, so I have to admit that I can't see any holes in the logic, but maybe I'm wrong.


Yes, you are wrong, and you apparently weren't really interested in people letting you know where you blew it.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mOjOm

Originally posted by NorEaster
Infinity isn't a potential. If it did exist, it would be an always "actual". No beginning, no end, no change, no constraints of any kind. If something were to be infinite, it would necessarily be the only "actual" thing. Nothing could exist relative to it, since it would already "be" the infinite whatever-it-is, and would have always been that infinite whatever-it-is. The logical contradictions are insurmountable.


But infinite isn't always an all inclusive property. You can have more that one infinite "somethings" which by themselves are infinite yet still apart from another infinite something. (The use of Something is perhaps not a good term to use since I'm not using it to mean Actual Things.)

The problem is the use of the word exist maybe. I agree that it doesn't exist in an actual being. All reality as we live and understand has limits. Reality therefore is finite as we can ever possibly measure it. So in a sense we are in agreement. However where I differ is that the way I see it, Infinity must, in lack of a better term, exist. Only not in the same sense that other real things exist. Because it is infinite it therefore must be in a potential state beyond an actual state of being. But is there non the less.


So...why must it exist? Really. What requires it to exist? What need does it satisfy? The emergence of existence is like a rope. It can't be pushed by possibility, but is pulled by requirement. Nothing exists that didn't emerge due to a requirement that was established by the emergence of something else that addressed a need that (again) was the ramification of the emergence of something that preceded it.

Infinite presence/distance/size/quantity/time/gradient - any version of infinity - clashes with everything else that exists in this way. It doesn't satisfy anything but the human mind's need to categorize everything - even the things it can't adequately determine to the extent that it can successfully categorize it. That, literally, is the only need that the concept of infinity addresses. And - not surprising - that is the key to the truth about the concept of infinity. It exists only within the mind of a human being.

Mathematics deals in extreme conceptual determinations, and until those determinations can be solidified (which isn't really central to the art of mathematics) concepts like infinity serve to categorize that which can't otherwise be categorized. This allows the mathematician to move on to more exciting stuff, without losing his placeholder as he does.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Again, I don't agree with you and am really not interested in your fixation on semantics.





top topics
 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join