Mathematical Infinity

You mean eternally.

No I dont. Your objection was that there's a beginning, while I dont think that objection is sensible, in any case, I have illustrated that it's false for these triangles, because there is no triangle that can be privileged as 'the first'.

well, since the triangles don't exist until you create them, there has to be a first one in which case, they either get eternally larger or eternally smaller.

I've explained to you why this isn't the case. Pick a number at will, for example 3695, not only can 1s be added, infinitely, to this number, they can also be subtracted, infinitely. Not only can the number be, for example, doubled infinitely, it can also be halved infinitely, etc.

You mean eternally.

No, I mean and meant what I wrote.

If ughaibu was to communicate the word "eternally" as opposed to "infinitely", eternally suggests a temporal distinction, but I do not see the need for a temporal distinction to be made. That would seem to me a misrepresentation of what ughaibu was meaning to communicate.

It is simple, because the numbers or triangles he is discussing do not actually exist until he creates them. How big or how small they get depends entirely on how long he wishes to perform the equations. They do not inherently exist in the physical realm of the universe, they are intelligibles, and therefore are not in themselves infinite.

Like I said, the idea is still conveyed, it is just muddled a bit by the choice of words.

I've explained to you why this isn't the case. Pick a number at will, for example 3695, not only can 1s be added, infinitely, to this number, they can also be subtracted, infinitely. Not only can the number be, for example, doubled infinitely, it can also be halved infinitely, etc.

" It is simple, because the numbers or triangles he is discussing do not actually exist until he creates them. How big or how small they get depends entirely on how long he wishes to perform the equations. They do not inherently exist in the physical realm of the universe, they are intelligibles, and therefore are not in themselves infinite. Like I said, the idea is still conveyed, it is just muddled a bit by the choice of words."

You are wrong, Trismegisto. You are confusing logic and empirical thinking. Ughaibu is not actually creating any numbers or triangles. As you say, they do not exist in the physical realm, they are intelligibles and that is precisely why they are infinite ie. they have no limits, they are "potentially real" but do not exist empirically as there is no such thing as "one", only one this or one that. Something eternal means that it always existed and will always exist, hence Ughaibu's triangles are not eternal, they are infinite because they do not exist by themselves.
I think Reconstructo was talking more about the aesthetics of mathematics and the mystic aspect of that type of human reasoning which is indeed very astonishing. The concept of "zero" is also very interesting and it is almost certain that those that came up with this mathematical "idea" were also mystics.

I think Reconstructo was talking more about the aesthetics of mathematics and the mystic aspect of that type of human reasoning which is indeed very astonishing. The concept of "zero" is also very interesting and it is almost certain that those that came up with this mathematical "idea" were also mystics.

trismegisto;151436 wrote:

You are wrong, Trismegisto. You are confusing logic and empirical thinking. Ughaibu is not actually creating any numbers or triangles. As you say, they do not exist in the physical realm, they are intelligibles and that is precisely why they are infinite ie. they have no limits, they are "potentially real" but do not exist empirically as there is no such thing as "one", only one this or one that. Something eternal means that it always existed and will always exist, hence Ughaibu's triangles are not eternal, they are infinite because they do not exist by themselves.

I hear what you are saying. However, just as I do not consider the Universe to be infinite I cannot consider Creation to be infinite either and if Creation is not infinite then the ideas and objects within Creation cannot be infinite either.

The Ideas and Objects of Creation manifest in the universe as thoughts and things and thoughts are just as temporal as things, even if we just contemplate doubling or halving numbers or triangles they are still dependent on how long we choose to contemplate or enact.

There are no infinite thoughts or things and very few eternal ones, ie. seemingly endless thoughts or things. The universe itself may be the only eternal thing.

Yes Reconstructo, The structure of human thinking capable of grasping such concepts is astonishing and till recently we marveled at our capacity to speculate on such systems but now scientists describe the real physical universe as infinite from micro to the macro, an infinite system of possibilities so much so that mathematics can be seen as the expression of some sort of intuitive understanding about the nature of our world. As if our brain does not allow us to grasp the reality directly but serves us well in inventing the tools necessary to do so. We are indeed a curious species and it's a wonderful world! You went back to the avatar you had before. I see the signs express infinity? What does it mean?

What do you mean Trismegisto, that the universe nor creation are infinite and that few things are eternal? Tell us how it all began and how it will all end but try to put some math in it since it's our friend Reconstructo's thread.

I think we experience the intelligible structure of the world as a system of essences, or concepts.