It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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!
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)
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.
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)
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
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.
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.
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.........
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
How's this? - Who cares what your personal definition of infinity versus eternity is. I certainly don't.
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.
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.