Well - I suppose it’s the fairly straightforward practicality that infinity is not a reachable number (by definition).
What implication(s) do you have in mind?
Simple, that there is not an infinite number of things.
And somewhat related to this subject, I’d also consider, the existence of an infinite being. Which in thinking about it, makes the infinite relations possible.
What fallacies is your theology dependent on Merv? You only seem allergic to my decluttering.
One person’s ‘clutter’ (for the moment) is another person’s ‘treasure’ (perhaps also, for the moment). I’m certain that my mental corpus is chock full of more fallacies than I or you will be able to remove, just as I’m also certain yours is too. Sometimes house cleaning is better accomplished by exploring people’s meanderings along with them rather than announcing that the path they’re on is stupid and they just need to teleport right on over to your outlook on life.
Besides - I kind of like the scientific practice of not letting an explanatory framework go (problematic and incomplete though it is) until a better framework is offered up to take its place. You don’t get to haul out my ‘clutter’ until I see a demonstration that your ‘clutter’ is superior. The house swept clean never stays empty for long.
5 Likes
Agreed. (at least as a matter of faith for me - though I probably hold on to that one lightly and wouldn’t be much upset if it turned out there was an infinity of …?) It’s probably because I just wouldn’t be able to wrap my mind around it if there were; and I know that doesn’t constitute evidence, much less proof. But then again, this isn’t an empirical pursuit in the first place that anybody should be worried about ‘proof’. And as you’ve pointed out, there are some “containable” infinities of a sort - like all the real numbers between 0 and 1. Infinities can go both ways on the logarithmic scale - delving in as well as leaping outward. [As far as actual physical things go, like atoms or planets or stars, - yeah, I’m with you. A finite universe makes a lot more sense to me. But of course - God is big enough for any infinity we could imagine as well.]
1 Like
Hear! Hear!
It’d be more convincing to argue that quantity is an illusion of the self.
I don’t know what that means. Like … that numbers are imaginary or abstract concepts?
It’s a Hindu concept, “the power by which the universe becomes manifest; the illusion or appearance of the phenomenal world.”
The claim that the concept of “an infinite number of things” is “a married bachelor” is false. “A married bachelor” is not a thing. It’s not even imaginary: it’s unimaginable.
The argument against “an infinite number of things” on grounds that the number is imaginary is an argument against imaginary abstract concepts.
2 Likes
The claim that an infinite number of things exists in reality is definitely clutter. (I’ll just patiently snap my fingers an infinite number of times until Sisyphus the declutterer catches up with his work. ; - )
As last words go, that broken record is the kind of clutter that needs to be thrown in the trash. It didn’t sound good the first time, and won’t no matter how many times it’s played or who plays it. If you’re going to insist on having the last word, the least you could do is play a new record that makes sense. But I won’t hold my breath. No human can snap their fingers an infinite number times, and the myth of Sisyphus is not a true story.
2 Likes
How many times has anything happened in reality? Only the number of times it has happened, no more. An infinite number of things does not exist and it is only a concept, not a reality.
An unmarried bachelor isn’t false. It’s redundant.
2 Likes
Nice catch. I didn’t notice the misuse of the term in Terry’s comment.
And no universe can contain an infinite quantity of objects.
1 Like
As egregious errors go, which is worse?
- Calling a claim “false” when it’s redundant, or
- Calling a claim “redundant” when it’s false?
And in either case. would correcting an error persuade an explanation- and learning-proof “Last-word Harry” that an abstract noun has as time-honored and useful a place in English vocabulary as the real and actual number 0? I think not; and the beer-drinkin’ boys down at the pub all agree.
1 Like
Is that your way of admitting you misread my comment which referred to a ‘married bachelor’ or are you doubling down on the error you made?
Maybe just distracting from it. (And wishing an infinitude of things to have happened… after the next one. ; - )
1 Like
More distractions?
1 Like