It is infinite outside of the boundaries, at least that is more important than inside.
A line need not be an infinite coordinate system until marked, because there are less infinite possibilities on a short line than on a long line.
Debate among mathematicians grew out of opposing views in the philosophy of mathematics regarding the nature of actual infinity. Some held to the view that infinity was an abstraction which was not mathematically legitimate, and denied its existence.[47] Mathematicians from three major schools of thought (constructivism and its two offshoots, intuitionism and finitism) opposed Cantor's theories in this matter. For constructivists such as Kronecker, this rejection of actual infinity stems from fundamental disagreement with the idea that nonconstructive proofs such as Cantor's diagonal argument are sufficient proof that something exists, holding instead that constructive proofs are required. Intuitionism also rejects the idea that actual infinity is an expression of any sort of reality, but arrive at the decision via a different route than constructivism. Firstly, Cantor's argument rests on logic to prove the existence of transfinite numbers as an actual mathematical entity, whereas intuitionists hold that mathematical entities cannot be reduced to logical propositions, originating instead in the intuitions of the mind.[6] Secondly, the notion of infinity as an expression of reality is itself disallowed in intuitionism, since the human mind cannot intuitively construct an infinite set.[48] Mathematicians such as Brouwer and especially adopted an intuitionist[6] Finally, Wittgenstein's attacks were finitist: he believed that Cantor's diagonal argument conflated the intension of a set of cardinal or real numbers with its extension, thus conflating the concept of rules for generating a set with an actual set.[8]
If "one number" or the "only number" is the synthesis of all numbers, then perhaps one being or the only being is the synthesis of all beings? Maybe the universe really should be the true synonym for god, I'll be damned if Spinoza gets a word in!
The thing is, I don't think this is true. An inch of transcendental space is as long as a yard of transcendental space. It's freaky. Do you know about Cantor? I don't know much at all, except he wrestled with it.
Yes....Did you know Hegel loved Spinoza? But Hegel saw the difficulty there. Logos is necessary for the perception of eternity, and logos is essentially temporal. Heidegger had the same problem.
The absolute pure number is actually negativity itself! It's negativity that makes a cut in the continuum. how we name it is contingent! Our number systems are contingent. All that matters is that they are a pseudo-spectrum....
Heidegger was basically describing the basic number when he crossed out being.. But the true absolute number was the crossing out...So only logos/man can no number for pure negativity can only exist within being, else it could not be manifested.....even now I can only describe around it w/ words that are not it.. what do you think? (god is a minus sign. being is 1. man is negative one which is also a plus sign when overlapped...and also triangular if you put being on one corner, negativity on the other, and man or logos on top....(my avatar!)
The Casimir Effect refers to a force that pushes two metal plates together when they are in close proximity in a vacuum. The basic idea is that a lesser number of infinite wavelengths can fit between the length of the separation of the plates than can fit outside of the plates. Therefore there is a net pressure from outside of the plates pushing them together.
This is where I draw a practical example of a lesser infinity. The example is not dependent on there being an infinite number of wavelengths, but for my usage it is, since I am trying to make an example of infinity.
I did not know that, but it makes sense. How does logos being temporary conflict with perceiving eternity? Or, at the least, an idea of eternity?
So since negativity takes away specific characteristics, it is the true absolute number? That use of the word "number" is desperately trying to confuse me.
I think I see your avatar though. Man is negative one because we apply negativity to being, and in doing so we "add" them together? But this negation is not infinite is it? The "one number" is somehow the stopping point? As a stopping point, what does it represent? Is an example possible here?
God bless you for understanding! Thanks for that reference. I'll check it out. It's important to remember that I'm not disputing the existence of "infinite" forces in nature, but only our ability to digitize them. But perhaps you were just pointing me there for another reason..it does sound fascinating.
Not temporary, exactly, but temporal. It is temporary in the sense that Hegel's system embraces mortality. Spinoza thought he was talking of God. Hegel knew that the only God that man could know was himself, and that this God would die with him.
It's only because the Logos is temporal, that eternity is revealed in the first place. It takes time for man to abstract his transcendental nature from his incidental experience. Also, the logos itself must evolve self-consciousness of itself as logos, in the full meaning of the word, including its relation to "God" & the transcendental...
I just started two threads about the Absolute (a synonym of Transcendental) concerning this sort o thing.
I was trying to distinguish between an infinite coordinate system and a lesser infinite coordinate system. A line could be 0 at one end and 1 at the other, but an infinite coordinate system cannot be described as having ends and is thus the greater infinity.
The logos must evolve self-consciousness of itself as logos... I have no idea what you mean here, am I missing a metaphor? I would guess that you mean the exact sentence you wrote, but I do not know how logos would evolve self-consciousness?
Man, you are asking all the right questions. In a way, Yes, the minus sign is the absolute number, except that we cannot think pure negativity. So the absolute number is something like "i," which I will bet you are aware of as the imaginary number. And wouldn't you know it, it's both positive and negative (or neither) & it just happens to be the first person pronoun. Talk about luck!
The most we can do is to isolate pure negativity and pure being. Pure being is actually the same damn thing as transcendental space, for being is not conceivable as pure concept without both negativity and transcendental empty space, to break it down to the minimum. (time is not necessary, which is why Parmenides didn't need it. Not for Being. Time is only necessary for Logos, or Man. Parmenides didn't ask himself or didn't care who it was that was gazing on his sphere of oneness....)
You have nous on the one side (negativity) and space on the other (infinity). The two meet up top. Logos. And words are both continuous and digital. And actual numbers are continuous in the slightest degree else we could not represent and organize them. but because they are maximum abstractions, they function perfectly w/ one another. Because they are all the same exact number...1
I just figured out that pure subjectivity is a complete fiction. It's not conceivable w/o space. It's the same i from before. The subject is concept created from space by negativity. The personal pronoun as Wittgenstein knew is the limit of the world, transcendentally. I = -1. (i = square root of -1) which do you think is better here? i or I? i'm thinking i.
Ok, I get you. That's actually pretty brilliant. I think it could be argued that it's not truly more infinite but it's the maximization of the infinity concept. Cantor spoke of transfinite numbers, but I think it all boils down to an inch. Don't get me wrong. I love this sort of thing. It's poetry.
Would you agree thought that there is a limitless number of numbers between any two numbers that are not the same number? If you agree to this, would you agree that the length of the spectrum is ultimately meaningless?
By means of abstraction.. Imagine how cave-men think of themselves. Or think of Christians who believe that Eternity is something in Heaven or Hell. Let me offer another term here. Hegel called a person's integrated system of concepts (their entire science as far as it is mental) the Concept.
Well, this Concept evolves itself. For instance, the scientific method is an invention. And negative theology (which is absolute brilliant, really) is an invention. History and Art criticism and novels and all these things that hold a mirror up to human nature. Freud and Jung, etc.
And for Hegel the best example would be the history of philosophy itself, which is dialectical or full of mistakes that are corrected in the arguments between philosophers.
1. Thesis: an idea that thinks its the truth.....
Antithesis: an idea that shows why the thesis in not the truth
Synthesis: an idea that takes the best from the thesis and anithesis and negates the rest.....creating a new thesis... back to step 1.
At some point there is no more antithesis, but this is only possible in transcendental philosophy.....which is why pragmatism is "truth" not Truth, and a smart pragmatist is aware of that. Rorty is a genius, but he's not transcendental.. because politics has no need for it. And natural science maybe only a little....
I got to sleep. Good chatting w/ you, A.
Think about this one.....(If you don't see that other connection, it's your problem now, not mine
.
I'm not sure what you're saying about "pure subjectivity is a complete fiction". I mean, I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion.
I think I get the first two paragraphs.
The only thing I would add to the third is that they are all relatively (linearly) the same number. 1=n*1. So: 1=30 => 1=30*1 (n=30).
When taken by themselves, each number represents the same thing as one, just using a different unit.
I'm probably going to remain stuck at the self-consciousness part, but I see what you mean by an evolving Concept.
"which is why pragmatism is 'truth'"
Yes it would seem so. I tend to think in pragmatic terms, and I start from the base up with a probabilistic framework. Certain paths to "truth" yield a higher probability of attaining a "truth" than others. It is somewhat like Plato's cave, but is focused on scopes instead of steps. The transcendent scope is completely out of the cave in the blinding light, and since it is blinding, I do not place a probability on metaphysical claims, I suspend judgment as best I can.
You and Pythagoras (I mean the older one). He also believed that numbers were the bedrock (at it were). But you might try numerology, and eat no beans. (Pythagoras thought that beans were evil. "At no beans", he said. Again, I mean the older Pythagoras. For all I know, our Pythagoras may adore beans).
The word "metaphysics" is used in two ways. So many flakes & fakes have worn the word, that the word is blurred. It comes from Aristotle. He describes the foundations of his physics, if I understand correctly. (I haven't read much Aristotle, because he's boring. I read about him.
Blurred indeed:
"Subsequent to the arrangement of Aristotle's works by scholars at Alexandria in the first century CE, a number of his treatises were referred to as τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά (ta meta ta fysika; literally, "the [writings] after the Physics"). This is the origin of the title for collection of treatises now known as Aristotle's Metaphysics." - Wikipedia
:flowers:
Meta- (from Greek: μετά = "after", "beyond", "with", "adjacent", "self"), is a prefix used in English (and other Greek-owing languages) to indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.
In epistemology, the prefix meta is used to mean about (its own category). For example, metadata are data about data (who has produced them, when, what format the data are in and so on). Similarly, metamemory in psychology means an individual's knowledge about whether or not they would remember something if they concentrated on recalling it. Furthermore, metaemotion in psychology means an individual's emotion about his/her own basic emotion, "or somebody else's basic emotion[citation needed]."
I thought so. But look how suggestive that word is...it seems to tie in w/ what it became....
Did the meaning rub off both ways?
Invitation to Jackofalltardes, Prothero, Jeeprs et al (plus anyone who wants to join in) on the slightly off thread (previously) discussion on the nature of reality and how we can define it without reference to direct experince. Originally (for the uninitiated) posted on the "What is matter in the quantum age" thread. Posted in this section but it could fit in on many different sections. My original question was, "How do we know the reality of anything without reference to the senses which are themselves workings of the mind, especially in light of quantum physics seemingly saying that subatomic particles seem to pass no test of existence themselves?" Anyone not previously involved in the discussion should perhaps look at the above thread.
