## User Tag List

1. Originally Posted by Mycroft
Why a substratum, though? Why not, for example, an infinitely expansive "chain" of finite universes?
Such entities by definition are not infinite. What is infinite is by definition without a limit. If something is without a limit, it leaves no room at all for any other entity. Hence, a chain involves many entities, that means that none of them are infinite.

2. Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker
Such entities by definition are not infinite. What is infinite is by definition without a limit. If something is without a limit, it leaves no room at all for any other entity. Hence, a chain involves many entities, that means that none of them are infinite.
I don't see why, for something to be infinite, it must be all things simultaneously. An infinitely large collection of finites would still be infinite.

3. Originally Posted by Mycroft
I don't see why, for something to be infinite, it must be all things simultaneously. An infinitely large collection of finites would still be infinite.
The definition of infinity that I am working with here is complete limitlessness. Imagine an entity that is completely limitless, it would inevitably progress to occupy all things that could be possible to occupy. All entities that have a limit would inevitably be part of that entity. From this it follows that the limitless entity is the underlying layer or the essence of the entities that have a limit. In this regard their limit appears to be illusory as they inhere in something that lacks a limit.

On that note, you could say that infinity is an aggreggate of many minor particles, yet we are unable to see the underlying layer of such minor particles because we can only perceive things that are finite. A good example of this phenomenon is space, which could be infinite. This entity may not be limited (or infinite), but contains entities that are limited. In short the infinite entity by definition has no limitations. Thus all entities that do have a limit cannot in their own right exist separately from what is infinite. They may be part of the infinite entity, but they lack an autonomous identity. In short, they are merely an illusory represenation of what is infinite. This is merely another way of saying that they are not the ultimate reality, but a distorted perception of the ultimate reality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moreover, we know that this universe is finite. This means that it is not an infinite collection of finite particles. The only way an existence of such a thing can be justified is by the proposition that it is a distorted perception of what is infinite. (Note, this is the only way it escapes the problem of infinite regress described earlier.)

The theory of relativity supports Kant's position concerning metaphysical subjective representation of the external world. Relativity posits that we are a combination of mass and light. For this reason when in open space we perceive time slightly differently from the way people on Earth do. (This has been the subject of fantasy for many science fiction writers, many of their ideas with regard to this matter were inspired by Steven Hawkings' discoveries in astrophysics which have their origin in realivity related thinking depicted above.)

It is nearly a cliche in many academic circles of physics and metaphysics to claim that relativity requires a position for an adequate perception of the external world. As Schopenhauer eloquently put it over in the 19th century. (This is a rough paraphrase). Before Kant, or with Newton, we believed that we were in the world, that we were in time, and that we were in space. Now, we know that the world is in us, the space is in us, and time is in us.

4. Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker
The definition of infinity that I am working with here is complete limitlessness. Imagine an entity that is completely limitless, it would inevitably progress to occupy all things that could be possible to occupy. All entities that have a limit would inevitably be part of that entity. From this it follows that the limitless entity is the underlying layer or the essence of the entities that have a limit. In this regard their limit appears to be illusory as they inhere in something that lacks a limit.

On that note, you could say that infinity is an aggreggate of many minor particles, yet we are unable to see the underlying layer of such minor particles because we can only perceive things that are finite. A good example of this phenomenon is space, which could be infinite. This entity may not be limited (or infinite), but contains entities that are limited. In short the infinite entity by definition has no limitations. Thus all entities that do have a limit cannot in their own right exist separately from what is infinite. They may be part of the infinite entity, but they lack an autonomous identity. In short, they are merely an illusory represenation of what is infinite. This is merely another way of saying that they are not the ultimate reality, but a distorted perception of the ultimate reality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moreover, we know that this universe is finite. This means that it is not an infinite collection of finite particles. The only way an existence of such a thing can be justified is by the proposition that it is a distorted perception of what is infinite. (Note, this is the only way it escapes the problem of infinite regress described earlier.)

The theory of relativity supports Kant's position concerning metaphysical subjective representation of the external world. Relativity posits that we are a combination of mass and light. For this reason when in open space we perceive time slightly differently from the way people on Earth do. (This has been the subject of fantasy for many science fiction writers, many of their ideas with regard to this matter were inspired by Steven Hawkings' discoveries in astrophysics which have their origin in realivity related thinking depicted above.)
Could you step through your logic? I don't see on what basis you are asserting the existence of some ineffable, limitless "thing".

It is nearly a cliche in many academic circles of physics and metaphysics to claim that relativity requires a position for an adequate perception of the external world. As Schopenhauer eloquently put it over in the 19th century. (This is a rough paraphrase). Before Kant, or with Newton, we believed that we were in the world, that we were in time, and that we were in space. Now, we know that the world is in us, the space is in us, and time is in us.
I will certainly agree that what we call the world, space, and time is within us, but are you claiming that if humanity ceased to exist, the world, space, and time would cease to exist as well?

5. Originally Posted by Mycroft
Could you step through your logic? I don't see on what basis you are asserting the existence of some ineffable, limitless "thing".
Axiom 1: Nothing comes from nothing.

Axiom 2: Life exists

Entailment: Life did not come from nothing.

Axiom 3: All things of this world are finite because they have a limit.

Entailment: This finite world must have derived from some other entity because it could not have come from nothing. This entity cannot be a finite entity because anything that is finite must have been created by another finite entity. That is the case because all finite entities have a beginning, and that means they have come from somewhere as opposed to from nowhere. Because they must have come from somewhere, it follows that something has existed when they did not exist.

Conclusion: This somewhere must be the infinite entity because only the infinite or a limitless entity does not require a creation. Thus, the infinite entity did not come from nowhere because it has always existed.

Originally Posted by Mycroft
I will certainly agree that what we call the world, space, and time is within us, but are you claiming that if humanity ceased to exist, the world, space, and time would cease to exist as well?

Space, time and the world as we perceive would cease to exist. However, space, time and the world as other creatues perceive would continue to exist. The infinite realm, or what Kant calls the noumenal world would always exist, though the way the infinite realm is perceived by us exists only in the minds of humans.

6. Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker
Space, time and the world as we perceive would cease to exist. However, space, time and the world as other creatues perceive would continue to exist. The infinite realm, or what Kant calls the noumenal world would always exist, though the way the infinite realm is perceived by us exists only in the minds of humans.
And if all living creatures ceased to exist? What then would happen to the planets and stars and laws of physics governing the universe?

7. Originally Posted by Mycroft
And if all living creatures ceased to exist? What then would happen to the planets and stars and laws of physics governing the universe?
Stars, planets, other laws of physics are merely distorted manifestations of the infinite, ineffable realm. It would still exist, just the stars, planets and other physical entities you allude to would not.

8. Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker
Stars, planets, other laws of physics are merely distorted manifestations of the infinite, ineffable realm. It would still exist, just the stars, planets and other physical entities you allude to would not.
Living things evolved suited to the universe we inhabit in accordance with its rules; if reality were merely an infinite, featureless substance, there would have been no governing rules to lead to the initial appearance of life and nothing for that life to evolve suited to.

9. Originally Posted by Mycroft
Living things evolved suited to the universe we inhabit in accordance with its rules; if reality were merely an infinite, featureless substance, there would have been no governing rules to lead to the initial appearance of life and nothing for that life to evolve suited to.
Remember, the 'reality' is unintelligible to us. Our reality, or our stars, planets and space is all that we need to be concerned with. This is as real as it gets for us. Only here evolution takes place. 'Reality' is completely unintelligible and is irrelevant to all ideas known to man with the exception of its own existence.

10. Originally Posted by SolitaryWalker
Remember, the 'reality' is unintelligible to us. Our reality, or our stars, planets and space is all that we need to be concerned with. This is as real as it gets for us. Only here evolution takes place. 'Reality' is completely unintelligible and is irrelevant to all ideas known to man with the exception of its own existence.
Again, it seems that your theory posits that life arose as a result of rules that can't exist without living creatures to "impose" them upon the infinite!

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO