Abstraction

Is there a highest level abstraction?

Infinity.

Only by inclusion of everything could you guarantee no further abstraction.

Infinity.

Only by inclusion of everything could you guarantee no further abstraction.

I think an even better question, is there a highest level of precision? Could one be so specific it would be impossible for any form of abstraction?

The levels of abstraction seem to grow ever more objective and ever departing from subjective experience such as the subjective experience of seeing three trees or petting three dogs. If we go in the opposite directino do we get ever more subjective? Descartes? Yet the Cogito or some variation of it seems to has at least the flavor of objective truth. If we turn around again and head towards the ultimate abstraction will we arive at something with the flavor of subjectivity. ("Flavor" is not the best word; please post a better word if you have one.) The abstraction seems to grow ever more inclusive though ever more general. The skeptisim of the subjective path or Descartes version of it seems to grow ever more subtractive until we arive at the one sure thing that tastes like objectivity. Orroborus? The snake tasting its own tail? Can the tail taste it's own head? Maybe it justs poops in the it's own mouth? What? Yuck!

Infinity doesn't include everything.

Well, that covers my two favorite questions in this regard. How much can we zoom out? How close can we zoom in? The zoom-in relates I think to the 'ineffable." The zoom out relates to something like "infinity" which is paradoxical. in-finite. Non-finite. If finiteness is boundedness, then finity is a one. So in-finity is something like a negative one. Hegel wrestled with this same problem. He wanted to view the system of human conception as one, but this requires a sort of conceptual moebius strip. It has to contain itself somehow. It's a dynamic "monism"! I like the term "nonism."

It's a tricky issue. It seems that most of our language is composed of universals. So to speak is almost always to speak objectively. I think qualia are the height of the subject, perhaps. And then within our semi-objective language/though, we seem to have a hierarchy of abstractions that rise into greater and more inclusive generality, until we have concepts like "universe" or "everything" or "life" or "being." To me, this is an interesting question. Is it the negation of accident that produces essence?

It also seems to me that any term less inclusive than the "all" is dependent upon negation. To have "dog" we must have "non-dog." To have "justice", we must have "in-justice". And maybe this is why the most general concept is paradoxical. It's a donut without a hole. I think negation is crucial to human thinking.

Infinity is, by definition, the sum of everything.

Infinity is, by definition, the sum of everything.

You are mistaken, look it up.

No, it is not. eg: The set of even numbers is infinite, but they are a proper subset of the natural numbers.

or

{ ...-4, -2, 0, 2 ,4 ..} is a infinite, but a proper subset of { ...-2, -1, 0, 1, 2...}

I'm not. One of the definitions of infinity is "endless in measurement of time, space, and quantity."

Anything that would not be included in that would mean something taking up space, time, or quantity outside of infinity, thus making infinity finite. Only something that has a non-quantity could be outside of that, which would be 0, or nonexistent.

---------- Post added 05-24-2010 at 02:35 AM ----------



See my above post. I wasn't talking in sequence of numbers, I was speaking in measurements of objects. A sequential infinity is different than an objective infinity.

Anything that would not be included in that would mean something taking up space, time, or quantity outside of infinity, thus making infinity finite. Only something that has a non-quantity could be outside of that, which would be 0, or nonexistent.

I'm not. One of the definitions of infinity is "endless in measurement of time, space, and quantity."

Anything that would not be included in that would mean something taking up space, time, or quantity outside of infinity, thus making infinity finite. Only something that has a non-quantity could be outside of that, which would be 0, or nonexistent.

---------- Post added 05-24-2010 at 02:35 AM ----------



See my above post. I wasn't talking in sequence of numbers, I was speaking in measurements of objects. A sequential infinity is different than an objective infinity.

Your view is incoherent; if there is a collection of every thing, then that collection is finite and if there is an infinite collection, that collection has lower cardinality than its power set, so it isn't everything, in short, infinity and everything are unrelated notions. Look it up, tell you what, I'll save you the effort, just read: Peter Suber, "Infinite Sets"

That would not matter at all. Whatever quantities can you possible device in your imagination, and is infinite. i can defined it as a set of mathematical objects isomorphic with your physical quantities so that my argument will hold regardless.

This is also incorrect. All ideas and object would be given a property of 1. You can make this whatever you like, it doesn't really matter. X would be the established or existent number of objects/ideas and the +1 would be the addition of the ideology of such a concept, thus adding upon itself, becoming the new x. This pattern would then repeat since the sum of all ideas would have to contain all ideas including itself.

I suppose I was mistaken since even this can be described as sequential, as in an infinity of things would be synonymous with an infinity of even numbers. With an expansive pattern of even numbers, no even numbers will be excluded above the initial even number(If so, tell me which even number and then I can know which thing could exist outside a infinity of things. )

It is a difficult concept to grasp, but it's a valid one nonetheless.

It is general agreed upon that the idea of an object is different from the object itself.

This distinction collapses if idealism is true. So, it is not correct to say ideas and objects share come common property if you are not an idealist.

Suppose as you say; they do share a common property. It does not follow that that property is additive! 2 table is not a table, it is might be something else.

As you point out, you can have infinite number of whatever stuff you want. Label it in a sequence. I can construct a object not in your sequence. Why? How? I define an object as the subset of the original set. So that the power set of your set is larger than your set, but this is impossible since nothing is larger than infinite.

It causes problems because you suppose a set that contains everything is possible.

I agree. This doesn't impede my argument, however, since "thing" could easily be defined to hold both ideas and objects.

That's not true. Both ideas and objects have some quality that distinguish them from nonexistence. No one can make an argument for the nonexistence of ideas, for a lack of idea is also possible, and that would make a non-nonexistence, and a double negative which is silly.


But we're not talking about infinite tables, were talking about infinite things, abstraction, remember.

The thing you're not seeing is that things can infinitely expand but they will have a limitation in their detraction, ultimately, you will reach 1 thing, then no things. So, if infinity is began at the one and expanded, the only thing outside of such would have the property of 0 or nonexistence, as I stated earlier.


I apologize for the derailing of your thread over this, Reconstructo. I didn't realize I'd have explain this ideology and I had assumed people would understand what such a concept would imply.

How is a thing defined by ideas of an object, and the object itself?

It is mistake to use the word "define", since, basic ontological categories do not "define" other categories, since categories in metaphysics are basic. take the example of an electron, and protons. An electron cannot be defined as a proton, or a variant of a proton, since they are different essentially.

It is not true that nonexistence is a property, since it is generally agreed upon by philosophers that existence is not a property.

So, it does not make sense to say they lack the property of existence.

Also, what do you mean by everything "expands".

It is an absurd idea. You think the list of "everything" expands? If so, then is there a rate of expansion, right? Did i say it is absurd?

So, the list of things expands so that they become one thing? How is that? If the universe contains only jon, and mary. Is jon+ mary a single thing?

Any why do you make 0, and 1 properties? What do 0, and 1 mean?

"I apologize for the derailing of your thread over this, Reconstructo. I didn't realize I'd have explain this ideology and I had assumed people would understand what such a concept would imply."

Perhaps in your head. what you say is so inconsistent.

Not a single thing, things. An idea is a thing. An object is a thing. An idea of a object is a thing. A object is not made of an idea of itself. I never claimed that.

I never made such a claim.



Alright, but I thought it was also agreed by philosophers that a "because we say so" argument isn't a valid argument.

It does not make sense because nonexistence is something that can not be conceived, thus ideas must exist.


I already explained this. I really don't feel like repeating it a third time. X+1.

The number of things. I explained this. I'm getting tired of the redundancy.
They could be considered, depending on the level of obscurity. I could get more precise, and say Jon alone is multiple things, a tongue, 2 legs, 2 arms, all of which combined make Jon, and Jon and Mary make everything.

0 is nothing. If you have 0 apples, you have no apples, if you have 0 things, you have no things, or nothing. If time was reversed and things came to not be instead of be, you would eventually reach 1 thing, then nothing.

No, I've been fairly consistent. My argument hasn't changed, I've simply clarified.

"thing" could easily be defined to hold both ideas and objects.

You said:


You use the word "define". Under normal usage, if you define A as B, then everything that is true of A is true of B. Is this the case? No. You can kick a socket ball out the way, but you cannot kick an idea out of the field.

It is always good to base certain views on the judgement of a community of scholars learned in the matter, until someone can convince the judgement of the majority are wrong. You disagree?

How can you claim that something is inconceivable, but you have an idea of it? Don` t inconceivable means that you don` t have an idea of it?

You said that the list of everything "expands", but this an a crazy idea. No, this is a stupid, stupid idea. An expansion implies an expansion rate. What the hell is the rate in this context? Is a joke?

What is your justification for "jon and mary" is one thing?

Prove it.

here is a hint: You have to show it is an individual with properties different from jon, or mary.

Nothing, and something, or you call it 0, or 1 is not a property of anything. Again, existence is not a property.

What you say is completely ridiculous, and laughable. How much philosophy courses have you taken? Judging from the fact that you say " O is nothing", i say you are probable in high school, right?

I'm not. One of the definitions of infinity is "endless in measurement of time, space, and quantity."

Anything that would not be included in that would mean something taking up space, time, or quantity outside of infinity, thus making infinity finite. Only something that has a non-quantity could be outside of that, which would be 0, or nonexistent.

---------- Post added 05-24-2010 at 02:35 AM ----------



See my above post. I wasn't talking in sequence of numbers, I was speaking in measurements of objects. A sequential infinity is different than an objective infinity.