Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Limitation of Infinity

Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2012 9:15:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
In relation to limitation:

- The existence of something. It's limited because an existence of something is dependent on the presence of another existence.

- What can be perceived of something. Those are properties, events, and the like, and these are limited because only a few potential that can be enabled from the whole.

In relation to infinite itself:

- The existence of something. It's infinite because an existence of something is not dependent on the presence of another existence.

- What can be perceived of something (properties, events, and the like), and these are infinite because all kind of possibilities can be enabled from the whole.

----------

- We can say, "i am infinite to (not limited by) someone that already dead, but may be i am finite (limited by) someone that already dead in after life (if we believe after life)".

- For a given a set, S = {1,2,3}, i could do infinite (not limited) tracking of combination (possibilities) (C = {x:x E S} as a subset of S = 0, {1}, {2}, {3}, {1,2}, {1,3}, {2,3}, {1,2,3}. But proper subset of the set is finite, since it could track (write down) several combination (a few of possibilities). Or, whether it's the subset or proper subset, i still couldn't do a complete combination of it (finite), because i am drinking.

- I can do infinite (not limited) counting numbers from 1 to 10.

- For example: I have two eyes, and according to my two eyes, i have infinite (unlimited, not limited) ability to use my eyes fully functional. If one of my eyes got injured, then i have limited (finite) ability to use for both of my eyes, but i have infinite (unlimited, not limited) ability to use one of my eyes.

- According to spiritualism, we have the third eyes (whether we believe it or not), and related to this discussion, the use of our seeing is finite, until we could use the third eye. And involving the third eyes as an additional eye to the two of our physical eyes, it could be considered as exploring infinite eyes (all available eyes can be used). But each person has different ability (that finite, limited) in using those three eyes.

- I live inside (finite, limited by) my room, but my room is not limited (infinite, uncovered by) myself.

- Related to God (if we believe it). God is infinite because God existence is not limited by something, but anything is limited by God (since anything is living within God). God is infinite, because all possibilities inside God could be realized to the fully extent (gradually).

Understanding of infinity should be compared with anything else, without this, the infinite is meaningless.

- Infinite is just as simple as not limited by something. Outside this understanding is not real (impossible, in the sense, that it can only be grasped as far as an idea)

- How far for infinity? Infinity is, as big as whole possibilities that could be converted from potential to actual
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2012 5:46:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/22/2012 9:15:26 AM, Seremonia wrote:
In relation to limitation:

- The existence of something. It's limited because an existence of something is dependent on the presence of another existence.
Actually, existence is NOT dependent on anything but itself. Also, the "least" amount of existence there can be is 1 not 2: singularity.

In relation to infinite itself:

- The existence of something. It's infinite because an existence of something is not dependent on the presence of another existence.
Well, if by infinite you mean "whole" or "complete" then yes.

- What can be perceived of something (properties, events, and the like), and these are infinite because all kind of possibilities can be enabled from the whole.
Ah, but now you are equivocating...

- We can say, "i am infinite to (not limited by) someone that already dead, but may be i am finite (limited by) someone that already dead in after life (if we believe after life)".
No idea what this means.

- For a given a set, S = {1,2,3}, i could do infinite (not limited) tracking of combination (possibilities) (C = {x:x E S} as a subset of S = 0, {1}, {2}, {3}, {1,2}, {1,3}, {2,3}, {1,2,3}. But proper subset of the set is finite, since it could track (write down) several combination (a few of possibilities). Or, whether it's the subset or proper subset, i still couldn't do a complete combination of it (finite), because i am drinking.
Yes, but set theory is not a reflection of reality: it is incomplete and inconsistent.

- I can do infinite (not limited) counting numbers from 1 to 10.
I am guessing that you mean that you can represent an a never ending amount of numbers using ten symbols. Sure, you can do it with one symbol too.

- For example: I have two eyes, and according to my two eyes, i have infinite (unlimited, not limited) ability to use my eyes fully functional. If one of my eyes got injured, then i have limited (finite) ability to use for both of my eyes, but i have infinite (unlimited, not limited) ability to use one of my eyes.
More equivocation...

- According to spiritualism, we have the third eyes (whether we believe it or not), and related to this discussion, the use of our seeing is finite, until we could use the third eye. And involving the third eyes as an additional eye to the two of our physical eyes, it could be considered as exploring infinite eyes (all available eyes can be used). But each person has different ability (that finite, limited) in using those three eyes.
Why stop at 3?

- I live inside (finite, limited by) my room, but my room is not limited (infinite, uncovered by) myself.

- Related to God (if we believe it). God is infinite because God existence is not limited by something, but anything is limited by God (since anything is living within God). God is infinite, because all possibilities inside God could be realized to the fully extent (gradually).
I prefer to leave God out of logic; I prefer to have my God not bound by logic...this way I can say "God" and then anything follows!

Understanding of infinity should be compared with anything else, without this, the infinite is meaningless.
It is meaningless whenever it is not relaying knowledge. If something doesn't end then it isn't really defined it is an "I dunno" and that's not knowledge.

- Infinite is just as simple as not limited by something. Outside this understanding is not real (impossible, in the sense, that it can only be grasped as far as an idea)
Contradictions are simple too, but they are still contradictions and quite meaningless.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2012 10:51:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/25/2012 5:46:13 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/22/2012 9:15:26 AM, Seremonia wrote:
In relation to limitation:

- The existence of something. It's limited because an existence of something is dependent on the presence of another existence.
Actually, existence is NOT dependent on anything but itself. Also, the "least" amount of existence there can be is 1 not 2: singularity.

1. My answer: It's not about general understanding: i need you, they need you, they control us or similar to these. It's strictly about an existence that can exist merely because of another existence. It's not about i don't want to save you, then you will not exist, or it's not about i gave you chance, now you are alive.

It's essential. It's about strictly dependence, related to existence, for example: we need earth to stay on it, we placed our books on something that should be able to keep the books. It's relatively, since we may say that our existence live within earth, within bigger space, within biggest space.

It's strictly as constructed by mathematics, the limit that can't be exist without its function.

Whether we consider there is only one through SUFI MEANING, ONENESS MEANING, BUDDHIST MEANING that there is only one, but still we are on reality now. Interact with others, and IN OUR LEVEL OF REALITY (not in oneness meaning or similar to this) "inifinity" has no way to be interact with us for a purpose unless we understand "inifinity" as "unlimited" = "not limited (by)".


In relation to infinite itself:

- The existence of something. It's infinite because an existence of something is not dependent on the presence of another existence.
Well, if by infinite you mean "whole" or "complete" then yes.

2. My answer: Yes, i agree


- What can be perceived of something (properties, events, and the like), and these are infinite because all kind of possibilities can be enabled from the whole.
Ah, but now you are equivocating...

3. My answer: But i mean, "whole" is within boundaries. If something has potentiality for a hundred functions, then "finite" can be understood as "because half of a hundred functions of something can be enabled" compared with "infinite" that asserts "all of a hundred functions of something can be enabled".


- We can say, "i am infinite to (not limited by) someone that already dead, but may be i am finite (limited by) someone that already dead in after life (if we believe after life)".
No idea what this means.

4. My answer: Meaning, "infinite" can only be understood reasonably as "unlimited" = "not limited (by)"


- For a given a set, S = {1,2,3}, i could do infinite (not limited) tracking of combination (possibilities) (C = {x:x E S} as a subset of S = 0, {1}, {2}, {3}, {1,2}, {1,3}, {2,3}, {1,2,3}. But proper subset of the set is finite, since it could track (write down) several combination (a few of possibilities). Or, whether it's the subset or proper subset, i still couldn't do a complete combination of it (finite), because i am drinking.
Yes, but set theory is not a reflection of reality: it is incomplete and inconsistent.

5. My answer: It's just an example that i can do pointing to something and it can be considered as "finite" or "infinite" actions within context (relatively). Again = "infinite" must always be understood as "unlimited" = "not limited (by)" = "my action can't be stopped by someone (infinite)"


- I can do infinite (not limited) counting numbers from 1 to 10.
I am guessing that you mean that you can represent an a never ending amount of numbers using ten symbols. Sure, you can do it with one symbol too.

6. My answer: Please refer to my answer no. 5 .


- For example: I have two eyes, and according to my two eyes, i have infinite (unlimited, not limited) ability to use my eyes fully functional. If one of my eyes got injured, then i have limited (finite) ability to use for both of my eyes, but i have infinite (unlimited, not limited) ability to use one of my eyes.
More equivocation...

7. My answer: Please, refer to my answer no. 4 & 5.

- According to spiritualism, we have the third eyes (whether we believe it or not), and related to this discussion, the use of our seeing is finite, until we could use the third eye. And involving the third eyes as an additional eye to the two of our physical eyes, it could be considered as exploring infinite eyes (all available eyes can be used). But each person has different ability (that finite, limited) in using those three eyes.
Why stop at 3?

7. My answer: It's not about "why stop at 3?" We may consider there are more than 3. Please, refer to my answer no. 3.


- I live inside (finite, limited by) my room, but my room is not limited (infinite, uncovered by) myself.

- Related to God (if we believe it). God is infinite because God existence is not limited by something, but anything is limited by God (since anything is living within God). God is infinite, because all possibilities inside God could be realized to the fully extent (gradually).
I prefer to leave God out of logic; I prefer to have my God not bound by logic...this way I can say "God" and then anything follows!

8. My answer: Once we say "God", then "God" must be related to the level of reality TO THE SPECIFIC EXTENT (not completely correct, but understanding "GOD" at least to the specific extent already put "GOD" on our understanding through our reasoning. Otherwise "GOD" is undefined in any means and it puts "GOD" meaningless for us in any means)

If we consider "GOD" is beyond our fully understanding correctly, but at least we can understand just small facts of "GOD" TO THE SPECIFIC EXTENT, otherwise "GOD" is meaningless in any means (since "GOD" can't be related to any possible means).


Understanding of infinity should be compared with anything else, without this, the infinite is meaningless.
It is meaningless whenever it is not relaying knowledge. If something doesn't end then it isn't really defined it is an "I dunno" and that's not knowledge.

9. My answer: Correct, as you already asserted, infinite is meaningless unless it DEPENDS on (relaying) knowledge.


- Infinite is just as simple as not limited by something. Outside this understanding is not real (impossible, in the sense, that it can only be grasped as far as an idea)
Contradictions are simple too, but they are still contradictions and quite meaningless.

10. My answer: But in reality "contradiction" can be used to help us that there is something wrong on our reasoning.

Thank you for your conversation. This enriches our understanding.
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 4:47:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/25/2012 10:51:14 PM, Seremonia wrote:
At 10/25/2012 5:46:13 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/22/2012 9:15:26 AM, Seremonia wrote:
In relation to limitation:
- The existence of something. It's limited because an existence of something is dependent on the presence of another existence.
Actually, existence is NOT dependent on anything but itself. Also, the "least" amount of existence there can be is 1 not 2: singularity.

1. My answer: It's not about general understanding: i need you, they need you, they control us or similar to these. It's strictly about an existence that can exist merely because of another existence. It's not about i don't want to save you, then you will not exist, or it's not about i gave you chance, now you are alive.
Yes, of course; I understood that.

It's essential. It's about strictly dependence, related to existence, for example: we need earth to stay on it, we placed our books on something that should be able to keep the books. It's relatively, since we may say that our existence live within earth, within bigger space, within biggest space.
Again, I understood that.

It's strictly as constructed by mathematics, the limit that can't be exist without its function.
Don't know what that means; improper English. Are you saying that the limit can't exist without it's function? If so, what does an abstract concept like a limit have to do with reality?

Whether we consider there is only one through SUFI MEANING, ONENESS MEANING, BUDDHIST MEANING that there is only one, but still we are on reality now.
There is only one Universe: it is the whole of existence. It doesn't get any more real than that!

Interact with others, and IN OUR LEVEL OF REALITY (not in oneness meaning or similar to this) "inifinity" has no way to be interact with us for a purpose unless we understand "inifinity" as "unlimited" = "not limited (by)".
And then it still has no way to interact with us other than in the abstract sense.

Well, if by infinite you mean "whole" or "complete" then yes.
2. My answer: Yes, i agree
So you realize that this goes against the concepts of "infinite regression" and "infinite progression" right?

- What can be perceived of something (properties, events, and the like), and these are infinite because all kind of possibilities can be enabled from the whole.
Ah, but now you are equivocating...
3. My answer: But i mean, "whole" is within boundaries.
Ah, but if there are boundaries then it is NOT whole! It is missing what is beyond the boundary! It is missing the boundary itself! The Universe IS whole and is not without. There are no boundaries to the Universe; it is all; it is infinite (ie complete.)

If something has potentiality for a hundred functions, then "finite" can be understood as "because half of a hundred functions of something can be enabled" compared with "infinite" that asserts "all of a hundred functions of something can be enabled".
I don't understand what you mean be "can be enabled", nor do I see how finite/infinite apply here.

- We can say, "i am infinite to (not limited by) someone that already dead, but may be i am finite (limited by) someone that already dead in after life (if we believe after life)".
No idea what this means.
4. My answer: Meaning, "infinite" can only be understood reasonably as "unlimited" = "not limited (by)"
Still don't understand your example, but I can agree to define infinite as "whole; complete; unlimited" in that respect.

Yes, but set theory is not a reflection of reality: it is incomplete and inconsistent.
5. My answer: It's just an example that i can do pointing to something and it can be considered as "finite" or "infinite" actions within context (relatively). Again = "infinite" must always be understood as "unlimited" = "not limited (by)" = "my action can't be stopped by someone (infinite)"
I have no trouble in defining infinity as "unlimited" so long as it's in the context of "whole; complete; unlimited."

- I can do infinite (not limited) counting numbers from 1 to 10.
I am guessing that you mean that you can represent an a never ending amount of numbers using ten symbols. Sure, you can do it with one symbol too.
6. My answer: Please refer to my answer no. 5 .
(A) Number 5 doesn't answer my question. "Never ending" is not the same as "whole; complete; unlimited". "Never ending" is "INCOMPLETE, UNWHOLE": this is not knowledge.

More equivocation...
7. My answer: Please, refer to my answer no. 4 & 5.
Please refer to (A).

Why stop at 3?
7. My answer: It's not about "why stop at 3?" We may consider there are more than 3. Please, refer to my answer no. 3.
Then according to you, we may consider "never ending" and that is NOT knowledge; that is contradiction. Please refer to (A).

I prefer to leave God out of logic; I prefer to have my God not bound by logic...this way I can say "God" and then anything follows!

8. My answer: Once we say "God", then "God" must be related to the level of reality TO THE SPECIFIC EXTENT (not completely correct, but understanding "GOD" at least to the specific extent already put "GOD" on our understanding through our reasoning. Otherwise "GOD" is undefined in any means and it puts "GOD" meaningless for us in any means)
(B) Everyone takes their God differently, I suppose. Anyways, let's move along to pertinent things.

If we consider "GOD" is beyond our fully understanding correctly, but at least we can understand just small facts of "GOD" TO THE SPECIFIC EXTENT, otherwise "GOD" is meaningless in any means (since "GOD" can't be related to any possible means).
The price of tea in China is up 4%. See (B) above.

It is meaningless whenever it is not relaying knowledge. If something doesn't end then it isn't really defined it is an "I dunno" and that's not knowledge.
9. My answer: Correct, as you already asserted, infinite is meaningless unless it DEPENDS on (relaying) knowledge.
And infinity can ONLY do that when it is defined as "whole; complete" and not when it is defined as the infinity of mathematics. This is why infinity is axiomatic in math: it must be accepted as true because it cannot be proven so! Actually, it can be proven to not be so!

- Infinite is just as simple as not limited by something. Outside this understanding is not real (impossible, in the sense, that it can only be grasped as far as an idea)
Contradictions are simple too, but they are still contradictions and quite meaningless.
10. My answer: But in reality "contradiction" can be used to help us that there is something wrong on our reasoning.
Yes, and that's why we do not use a contradictory concept as a building block for larger concepts. I guess what I am trying to impress upon you here is that Infinity is not "JUST not limited" it also needs to be "complete" and "whole" and "unlacking". Do you understand? Infinity has to be defined from the "top-down" and NOT from the "bottom-up."

Thank you for your conversation. This enriches our understanding.
Same to you.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2012 11:04:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hi,

I wrote: It's strictly as constructed by mathematics, the limit that can't be exist without its function.

tBoonePickens wrote: Are you saying that the limit can't exist without it's function? If so, what does an abstract concept like a limit have to do with reality?

1. My answer: (IN CALCULUS) a limit (dx) needs function (fx) to stay on it (to be perceived by us). It's just analogy, but the essential meaning just the same as my answer about dependencies (It's not about general understanding: i need you, they need you, they control us or similar to these. It's strictly about an existence that can exist merely because of another existence ... & t's essential. It's about strictly dependence, related to existence, for example: we need earth to stay on it, we placed our books on something that should be able to keep the books. It's relatively, ...) as you already confirmed it.

tBoonePickens wrote: There is only one Universe: it is the whole of existence. It doesn't get any more real than that!

2. My answer: I am not an expert on oneness, but since MOSTLY WE LIVE IN DUALITY, then "infinity" can only be applied by understanding it as "not limited by" or if we relating it with potentiality then "infinity" (within duality) must be understood as "to the specific extent".

I wrote: i mean, "whole" is within boundaries.

tBoonePickens wrote: Ah, but if there are boundaries then it is NOT whole! It is missing what is beyond the boundary! It is missing the boundary itself! The Universe IS whole and is not without. There are no boundaries to the Universe; it is all; it is infinite (ie complete.)

3. My answer: My whole life is different than yours. it asserts that my whole life is never be the same as yours. "Whole" in this case has nothing to do with "WHOLE OF EVERYTHING", but "whole" in this case , is within boundaries.

Universe is not complete, in the sense that universe can't fulfill entire desires from all of us. BUT YES UNIVERSE IS INFINITE, IN THE SENSE (REASONABLY) that, to the specific extent for the work of universe can't be stopped (not limited) by us.

I wrote: If something has potentiality for a hundred functions, then "finite" can be understood as "because half of a hundred functions of something can be enabled" compared with "infinite" that asserts "all of a hundred functions of something can be enabled".

tBoonePickens wrote: I don't understand what you mean be "can be enabled", nor do I see how finite/infinite apply here.

4. My answer: consider there is a computer. A computer has possibilities. But somehow i can only use several capabilities of this computer, "less" compared to others. I can say: "i have limited ability on how to operate this computer" (several possibilities of this computer can be operated because of me). My abilities are finite.

But may be someone else has ability to operate WHOLE OF possibilities of this computer", in the sense that, all possibilities of this computer can be operated (within priorities) because of someone else.

I wrote: "i am infinite to (not limited by) someone" OR "may be i am finite (limited by) someone. "Infinite" can only be understood reasonably as "unlimited" = "not limited (by)"

tBoonePickens wrote: Still don't understand your example, but I can agree to define infinite as "whole; complete; unlimited" in that respect.

5. My answer: Meaning, we can't use infinite in the sense that "there is infinite regression. We can't use "infinite" in the sense that "every possibilities are already actualized at the same priorities"

Infinite can be understood as UNLIMITED, in the sense that, IT ASSERTS POSSIBILITIES of whole of something.

But if we must understand "infinite" as events, then, it has limited actualization. And still if we want to force UNLIMITED TO BE USED on events, it must be understood as "NOT LIMITED".

Actually, i want to clarify that usually (not all), people tend to use:

1. "INFINITE", "UNLIMITED", in the sense that "SOMETHING HAS ABILITY BEYOND ANY POSSIBLE BOUNDARIES". Usually (NOT ALL) people use the term "UNLIMITED" AS CAPABLE OF DOING ANYTHING BEYOND BOUNDARIES, which is impossible. And it leads to many contradictions.

2. OR, "INFINITE", "UNLIMITED" maybe understood as CAPABLE TO ACTUALIZE ALL POSSIBILITIES AT THE SAME PRIORITIES, and it's impossible.

But we can still use the term "UNLIMITED" reasonably without being trapped into contradictions.

tBoonePickens wrote: Why stop at 3?

I wrote: 7. My answer: It's not about "why stop at 3?" We may consider there are more than 3.

tBoonePickens wrote: Then according to you, we may consider "never ending" and that is NOT knowledge; that is contradiction.

6. My answer: Actually i already asserted with my argument "How far for infinity? Infinity is, as big as whole possibilities that could be converted from potential to actual.

Meaning: for "not 3", it doesn't have to be "never ending". It has to be understood reasonably as "at least ONE and possibly SEVERAL ACTUALIZATION CAN BE PERCEIVED by us more than 3.

I wrote: - Infinite is just as simple as not limited by something. Outside this understanding is not real (impossible, in the sense, that it can only be grasped as far as an idea)

tBoonePickens wrote: Contradictions are simple too, but they are still contradictions and quite meaningless.

I wrote: 10. My answer: But in reality "contradiction" can be used to help us that there is something wrong on our reasoning.

tBoonePickens wrote: Yes, and that's why we do not use a contradictory concept as a building block for larger concepts. I guess what I am trying to impress upon you here is that Infinity is not "JUST not limited" it also needs to be "complete" and "whole" and "unlacking". Do you understand? Infinity has to be defined from the "top-down" and NOT from the "bottom-up."

6. My answer: Yes, INFINITY can be understood reasonably as "complete" and "whole" and "unlacking", as far as it asserts that, "complete" as "whole" possibilities, and "unlacking" as all possibilities can be actualized BUT WITHIN PRIORITIES.
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 6:12:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 11:04:35 PM, Seremonia wrote:
Hi,

I wrote: It's strictly as constructed by mathematics, the limit that can't be exist without its function.

tBoonePickens wrote: Are you saying that the limit can't exist without it's function? If so, what does an abstract concept like a limit have to do with reality?

1. My answer: (IN CALCULUS) a limit (dx) needs function (fx) to stay on it (to be perceived by us). It's just analogy, but the essential meaning just the same as my answer about dependencies (It's not about general understanding: i need you, they need you, they control us or similar to these. It's strictly about an existence that can exist merely because of another existence ... & t's essential. It's about strictly dependence, related to existence, for example: we need earth to stay on it, we placed our books on something that should be able to keep the books. It's relatively, ...) as you already confirmed it.

tBoonePickens wrote: There is only one Universe: it is the whole of existence. It doesn't get any more real than that!

2. My answer: I am not an expert on oneness, but since MOSTLY WE LIVE IN DUALITY, then "infinity" can only be applied by understanding it as "not limited by" or if we relating it with potentiality then "infinity" (within duality) must be understood as "to the specific extent".

I wrote: i mean, "whole" is within boundaries.

tBoonePickens wrote: Ah, but if there are boundaries then it is NOT whole! It is missing what is beyond the boundary! It is missing the boundary itself! The Universe IS whole and is not without. There are no boundaries to the Universe; it is all; it is infinite (ie complete.)

3. My answer: My whole life is different than yours. it asserts that my whole life is never be the same as yours. "Whole" in this case has nothing to do with "WHOLE OF EVERYTHING", but "whole" in this case , is within boundaries.

Universe is not complete, in the sense that universe can't fulfill entire desires from all of us. BUT YES UNIVERSE IS INFINITE, IN THE SENSE (REASONABLY) that, to the specific extent for the work of universe can't be stopped (not limited) by us.

I wrote: If something has potentiality for a hundred functions, then "finite" can be understood as "because half of a hundred functions of something can be enabled" compared with "infinite" that asserts "all of a hundred functions of something can be enabled".

tBoonePickens wrote: I don't understand what you mean be "can be enabled", nor do I see how finite/infinite apply here.

4. My answer: consider there is a computer. A computer has possibilities. But somehow i can only use several capabilities of this computer, "less" compared to others. I can say: "i have limited ability on how to operate this computer" (several possibilities of this computer can be operated because of me). My abilities are finite.

But may be someone else has ability to operate WHOLE OF possibilities of this computer", in the sense that, all possibilities of this computer can be operated (within priorities) because of someone else.

I wrote: "i am infinite to (not limited by) someone" OR "may be i am finite (limited by) someone. "Infinite" can only be understood reasonably as "unlimited" = "not limited (by)"

tBoonePickens wrote: Still don't understand your example, but I can agree to define infinite as "whole; complete; unlimited" in that respect.

5. My answer: Meaning, we can't use infinite in the sense that "there is infinite regression. We can't use "infinite" in the sense that "every possibilities are already actualized at the same priorities"

Infinite can be understood as UNLIMITED, in the sense that, IT ASSERTS POSSIBILITIES of whole of something.

But if we must understand "infinite" as events, then, it has limited actualization. And still if we want to force UNLIMITED TO BE USED on events, it must be understood as "NOT LIMITED".

Actually, i want to clarify that usually (not all), people tend to use:

1. "INFINITE", "UNLIMITED", in the sense that "SOMETHING HAS ABILITY BEYOND ANY POSSIBLE BOUNDARIES". Usually (NOT ALL) people use the term "UNLIMITED" AS CAPABLE OF DOING ANYTHING BEYOND BOUNDARIES, which is impossible. And it leads to many contradictions.

2. OR, "INFINITE", "UNLIMITED" maybe understood as CAPABLE TO ACTUALIZE ALL POSSIBILITIES AT THE SAME PRIORITIES, and it's impossible.

But we can still use the term "UNLIMITED" reasonably without being trapped into contradictions.

tBoonePickens wrote: Why stop at 3?

I wrote: 7. My answer: It's not about "why stop at 3?" We may consider there are more than 3.

tBoonePickens wrote: Then according to you, we may consider "never ending" and that is NOT knowledge; that is contradiction.

6. My answer: Actually i already asserted with my argument "How far for infinity? Infinity is, as big as whole possibilities that could be converted from potential to actual.

Meaning: for "not 3", it doesn't have to be "never ending". It has to be understood reasonably as "at least ONE and possibly SEVERAL ACTUALIZATION CAN BE PERCEIVED by us more than 3.

I wrote: - Infinite is just as simple as not limited by something. Outside this understanding is not real (impossible, in the sense, that it can only be grasped as far as an idea)

tBoonePickens wrote: Contradictions are simple too, but they are still contradictions and quite meaningless.

I wrote: 10. My answer: But in reality "contradiction" can be used to help us that there is something wrong on our reasoning.

tBoonePickens wrote: Yes, and that's why we do not use a contradictory concept as a building block for larger concepts. I guess what I am trying to impress upon you here is that Infinity is not "JUST not limited" it also needs to be "complete" and "whole" and "unlacking". Do you understand? Infinity has to be defined from the "top-down" and NOT from the "bottom-up."

6. My answer: Yes, INFINITY can be understood reasonably as "complete" and "whole" and "unlacking", as far as it asserts that, "complete" as "whole" possibilities, and "unlacking" as all possibilities can be actualized BUT WITHIN PRIORITIES.

I'm not following your line of reasoning at all. If a user of a computer is capable of utilizing all of the computer's capability, it does not make the computer infinitely capable.

You say "INFINITY can be understood reasonably as "complete" and "whole" and "unlacking"" and then you apply the qualifiers "as far as" and "within", which contradict your premise, "as far as" eliminates the qualities of "complete" and "whole" and "unlacking", and "within priorities" esrtablishes finite limits.

In effect, you are arguing that something can be said to be infinite as long as you recognize that it is finite, as such, the argument contradicts itself doesn't it?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2012 7:49:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Seremonia wrote:

consider there is a computer. A computer has possibilities. But somehow i can only use several capabilities of this computer, "less" compared to others. I can say: "i have limited ability on how to operate this computer" (several possibilities of this computer can be operated because of me). My abilities are finite.

Sidewalker wrote:

I'm not following your line of reasoning at all. If a user of a computer is capable of utilizing all of the computer's capability, it does not make the computer infinitely capable.

1. My answer: I didn't say that but, what i mean, "a user that capable of utilizing all of the computer's possibilities", it makes (not the computer but) this user is (infinite because) not limited by this computer. IOW, the computer is not an obstacle for this user.

Sidewalker wrote:

You say "INFINITY can be understood reasonably as "complete" and "whole" and "unlacking"" and then you apply the qualifiers "as far as" and "within", which contradict your premise, "as far as" eliminates the qualities of "complete" and "whole" and "unlacking", and "within priorities" esrtablishes finite limits.

In effect, you are arguing that something can be said to be infinite as long as you recognize that it is finite, as such, the argument contradicts itself doesn't it?


2. My answer: as i already stated on title "the limitation of infinity". Meaning. There are two possibilities in this case:

- A. Something is within boundaries (whether within boundaries of something OR within boundaries as something itself), and it's possible
- B. Something (without additional assertions) transcends beyond something itself. From one liter water (without additional assertions) can be poured as much as 1 gallon water, and it's impossible.

Now, to where, we will put "finite"? to "B" No! , to "A"? Yes

Further, to where, we will put "infinite"? to "A"? already voted for "finite". To "B"? Which is impossible. THEN TO WHERE? Meaning, there is no place for "infinite" to be understood independently, unless by putting "infinite" (IF WE STILL INSIST TO KEEP "INFINITE" ALIVE) to "A".

But since "A" has already booked for "finite" then "infinite" must be placed at the same room "A" with different understanding without making contradiction to "finite".

And for this matter, as i already asserted: "infinite" must be understood as "IN-FINITE" ="NOT-FINITE" = "NOT-LIMITED" = "NOT-LIMITED BY".

And yes, "Something is INFINITE" must be understood as "Something is NOT-LIMITED BY" something else. This understanding is not asserting impossibility (transcend beyond something itself).

For theist:

AND YES, FOR BELIEVERS TO GOD, THIS UNDERSTANDING STILL FULFILL THEIR BELIEFS. SINCE "NOT LIMITED BY" INDICATES THERE IS POWER TO CONTROL.

We can use this understanding "INFINITE" as "NOT LIMITED BY" as an attribute to GOD because it's not asserting POWERLESS. Otherwise (UN-LIMITED - HAS NO LIMIT - SOMETHING TRANSCENDS BEYOND SOMETHING ITSELF) it indicates impossibility which improperly attributed to GOD. GOD IS INFINITE (compared to everything) = GOD IS NOT LIMITED BY (EVERYTHING) = GOD IS THE ALMIGHTY.

But if we use: "GOD IS INFINITE", in the sense that, GOD transcends beyond GOD'S SELF, then it's impossible, and it's improperly attributed to GOD. It asserts powerless (since it's impossible).

By understanding INFINITE REASONABLY WITHOUT BEING TRAPPED TO IMPOSSIBILITY BUT STILL WE CAN USE IT AS AN ASSERTION (attribute) TO GOD AS THE ALMIGHTY.

Meaning. INFINITE is LIMITED, in the sense that INFINITE is "NOT LIMITED BY" SOMETHING (INFINITE LIMITS SOMETHING) WITHIN BOUNDARIES (LIMIT, WHICH INFINITE CAN'T TRANSCEND BEYOND ITSELF).

And. INFINITE is UNLIMITED, in the sense that INFINITE is STILL WITHIN BOUNDARIES (SINCE INFINITE CAN'T TRANSCEND BEYOND ITSELF), BUT INFINITE HAS CAPABILITIES "NOT TO BE LIMITED BY" SOMETHING ELSE, WHICH IT ASSERTS THAT SOMETHING ELSE IS LIMITED BY INFINITE (something else is dependent to INFINITE), where INFINITE is not dependent to something else.</strong

JUDGING FROM RELIGION, this understanding is supporting an attribute to GOD as THE ALMIGHTY, POWERFUL AND HIGHEST RESPECTFUL POSITION for GOD, etc. And judging from reasoning, this understanding is reasonably.

For someone who still wants to use "infinite" to assert greatness, the definition of "infinite" as "not limited by" still assert the power but without contradiction and there is no impossibility (again, but still it asserts THERE IS POWER).
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 10:40:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/26/2012 11:04:35 PM, Seremonia wrote:
Hi,
I wrote: It's strictly as constructed by mathematics, the limit that can't be exist without its function.
tBoonePickens wrote: Are you saying that the limit can't exist without it's function? If so, what does an abstract concept like a limit have to do with reality?
1. My answer: (IN CALCULUS) a limit (dx) needs function (fx) to stay on it (to be perceived by us). It's just analogy, but the essential meaning just the same as my answer about dependencies (It's not about general understanding: i need you, they need you, they control us or similar to these. It's strictly about an existence that can exist merely because of another existence ... & t's essential. It's about strictly dependence, related to existence, for example: we need earth to stay on it, we placed our books on something that should be able to keep the books. It's relatively, ...) as you already confirmed it.
I understand your example, but your example is not necessarily a reflection of reality. Instead, it is an example of the axiomatic system of Calculus.

tBoonePickens wrote: There is only one Universe: it is the whole of existence. It doesn't get any more real than that!
2. My answer: I am not an expert on oneness, but since MOSTLY WE LIVE IN DUALITY, then "infinity" can only be applied by understanding it as "not limited by" or if we relating it with potentiality then "infinity" (within duality) must be understood as "to the specific extent".
However, when it comes to existence, there is no duality. There is ONLY ONE thing: existence; non-existence does not exist.

I wrote: i mean, "whole" is within boundaries.
tBoonePickens wrote: Ah, but if there are boundaries then it is NOT whole! It is missing what is beyond the boundary! It is missing the boundary itself! The Universe IS whole and is not without. There are no boundaries to the Universe; it is all; it is infinite (ie complete.)
3. My answer: My whole life is different than yours. it asserts that my whole life is never be the same as yours. "Whole" in this case has nothing to do with "WHOLE OF EVERYTHING", but "whole" in this case , is within boundaries.
You are equivocating; regardless, I don't see how this relates.

Universe is not complete, in the sense that universe can't fulfill entire desires from all of us. BUT YES UNIVERSE IS INFINITE, IN THE SENSE (REASONABLY) that, to the specific extent for the work of universe can't be stopped (not limited) by us.
Fulfilling entire desires from all of us is NOT a requirement for the Universe to be complete. Furthermore, our desires and ourselves (fulfilled or not) are part of the Universe.

I wrote: If something has potentiality for a hundred functions, then "finite" can be understood as "because half of a hundred functions of something can be enabled" compared with "infinite" that asserts "all of a hundred functions of something can be enabled".
tBoonePickens wrote: I don't understand what you mean be "can be enabled", nor do I see how finite/infinite apply here.
4. My answer: consider there is a computer. A computer has possibilities. But somehow i can only use several capabilities of this computer, "less" compared to others. I can say: "i have limited ability on how to operate this computer" (several possibilities of this computer can be operated because of me). My abilities are finite.
Everyone's abilities are finite.

But may be someone else has ability to operate WHOLE OF possibilities of this computer", in the sense that, all possibilities of this computer can be operated (within priorities) because of someone else.
I see what you mean, but it seems like more equivocation.

I wrote: "i am infinite to (not limited by) someone" OR "may be i am finite (limited by) someone. "Infinite" can only be understood reasonably as "unlimited" = "not limited (by)"
tBoonePickens wrote: Still don't understand your example, but I can agree to define infinite as "whole; complete; unlimited" in that respect.
5. My answer: Meaning, we can't use infinite in the sense that "there is infinite regression. We can't use "infinite" in the sense that "every possibilities are already actualized at the same priorities"
I never said that "every possibilities are already actualized at the same priorities"; this is something that you added.

Infinite can be understood as UNLIMITED, in the sense that, IT ASSERTS POSSIBILITIES of whole of something.
Yes, so long as it "whole"; "complete"; "not lacking."

But if we must understand "infinite" as events, then, it has limited actualization. And still if we want to force UNLIMITED TO BE USED on events, it must be understood as "NOT LIMITED".
That's fine, BUT you need to then understand that the above is NOT knowledge. By doing it this way, you are essentially making a "I don't know" claim which is NO CLAIM at all. Thus you are in contradiction.

Actually, i want to clarify that usually (not all), people tend to use:
1. "INFINITE", "UNLIMITED", in the sense that "SOMETHING HAS ABILITY BEYOND ANY POSSIBLE BOUNDARIES". Usually (NOT ALL) people use the term "UNLIMITED" AS CAPABLE OF DOING ANYTHING BEYOND BOUNDARIES, which is impossible. And it leads to many contradictions.

2. OR, "INFINITE", "UNLIMITED" maybe understood as CAPABLE TO ACTUALIZE ALL POSSIBILITIES AT THE SAME PRIORITIES, and it's impossible.

But we can still use the term "UNLIMITED" reasonably without being trapped into contradictions.
Yet you still are trapped by the contradiction! You are making a claim that is not a claim.

tBoonePickens wrote: Why stop at 3?
I wrote: 7. My answer: It's not about "why stop at 3?" We may consider there are more than 3.
tBoonePickens wrote: Then according to you, we may consider "never ending" and that is NOT knowledge; that is contradiction.
6. My answer: Actually i already asserted with my argument "How far for infinity? Infinity is, as big as whole possibilities that could be converted from potential to actual.
And because you know not, then you cannot make a claim. "I dunno" is not knowledge.

Meaning: for "not 3", it doesn't have to be "never ending". It has to be understood reasonably as "at least ONE and possibly SEVERAL ACTUALIZATION CAN BE PERCEIVED by us more than 3.
It doesn't have to be "never ending" but it also doesn't "not have to be never ending." You haven't demonstrated why it CAN'T be never ending. Hint: in order to demonstrate that it can't be never ending you will need to disprove your argument.

I wrote: - Infinite is just as simple as not limited by something. Outside this understanding is not real (impossible, in the sense, that it can only be grasped as far as an idea)
tBoonePickens wrote: Contradictions are simple too, but they are still contradictions and quite meaningless.
I wrote: 10. My answer: But in reality "contradiction" can be used to help us that there is something wrong on our reasoning.
tBoonePickens wrote: Yes, and that's why we do not use a contradictory concept as a building block for larger concepts. I guess what I am trying to impress upon you here is that Infinity is not "JUST not limited" it also needs to be "complete" and "whole" and "unlacking". Do you understand? Infinity has to be defined from the "top-down" and NOT from the "bottom-up."
6. My answer: Yes, INFINITY can be understood reasonably as "complete" and "whole" and "unlacking", as far as it asserts that, "complete" as "whole" possibilities, and "unlacking" as all possibilities can be actualized BUT WITHIN PRIORITIES.
Priorities are irrelevant here; I do not know why you keep bringing them up.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2012 3:34:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I try to figure it out of your understanding due to our lack of understanding in between us. I think we are discussing at different point of view, where you are defending on the other side, but i am defending on both sides.

But to make this clear enough to be clarified, i already asserted from my own understanding. Now i want to point several things to be synchronized.

- FIRST we must understand what FINITE is. FINITE is = dependent to something. And the opposite of FINITE must be related to "not dependent to something" (not limited by something). It asserts that "infinity" has boundaries as far as itself. This makes "infinite" can be understood and applied to everyday life without making contradictions. And also can be applied (attributed) exclusively to THE ONE THING and as " WHOLE", "COMPLETE" (within boundaries) as far as itself.

- I am not trying to reduce or misplace for "infinite". But i am asserting that "infinite" must be understood reasonably. And the farthest understanding for "infinite" must be "limited" to an assertion that "infinite" is "not limited by". It can be directed to an understanding that "not limited by", is already "whole", "complete" and "unlacking" because it's "not limited by" what is covered by "the whole". Meaning, something is "not limited by" asserts that something is independent, something is not dependent to something else. Infinite is limited by itself as far as its own boundaries.

- You are conflicting with me because you are considering that my understanding about "infinite" is contradiction to "finite", which is not. I am putting "infinite" dynamically without contradiction (it can be stretched to specific boundaries), so we can use it on everyday life exclusively or not without making contradiction, because we know the limitation of understanding about infinity to be considered reasonably. Further without being trapped to applying "infinite" and fall down to paradox.

- For example: God is unlimited, therefore God can do anything, including God can create another God.

- Another example: God is infinite, therefore God can do anything, including God can destroy God's self (since God can do anything - unlimited).

- More and more that it looks like paradox, but actually it's not paradox. I am not discussing argument for these, but i am trying to assert that, by understanding "infinite" as "not limited by", we won't be trapped to such confusion like these.

- For example: God is "not limited by" something, therefore God has nothing to do with "can do anything", because "not limited by" is not asserting that God can do anything beyond God's self, but it's asserting comparison, in the sense, compared to something, God is not dependent (not limited by).

- Another example: We are finite, in the sense the that, "we are limited by". We are infinite, in the sense that, "we are not limited by". This can be demonstrated on our everyday life. "My action is (infinite - unlimited because) can't be limited (stopped) by you". But the problem is, on everyday life, the term of "infinite" to assert that "we can't stopped by", or "we are not limited by", or "we are not dependent to something" is not popular.

There is no equivocation on my understanding, maybe it's because we are putting "infinite" exclusively" or because it sounds unpopular term to be used on everyday life. But actually we don't have (obligation) to use "infinite" on our everyday life, "i am infinite by you" (i can't be stopped by you, etc) since it's not popular term. But at least we understand that, also we don't have to use "infinite" to assert "there is something having ability to transcend beyond something itself".

Whether we consider there is equivocation or not, but for the purpose of understanding, to clarify the use of the term of "infinity" to avoid being trapped into paradox, then we can use an understanding of "infinity" as "not limited by". And when we were back to everyday life, we may choose not to use the term "infinity" (in the sense that it's "not limited by") since it's not popular. There is no equivocation on the essential understanding "not limited by".

But maybe there is equivocation if we use it exclusively. For example: "whole" may be understood as "whole of something" (on everyday life) compared to "whole as one thing covers all". But there is no equivocation if we understand that, "whole is the farthest extent (within boundaries that) specifically for something" (it's not an opposite to "whole of something" & ""whole as one thing covers all"). "whole is the farthest extent specifically for something" = "whole is the farthest extent (within boundaries that) specifically for something" = "whole is the farthest extent (within boundaries that) specifically for something (AS THE ONE THAT COVERS ALL)"

-----

Further, you said there is no duality, but i am asserting for both, since we are now dealing and feeling within duality (we see differences). I know what you mean, that actually there is no duality in essence, but practically yes, there is. Ignoring both would make obstacles on our adjustment.

Besides, saying there is no duality, at least we have to point on duality and make a denial of it to direct to another understanding (non-duality). Saying "there is no coffee" it asserts that there is coffee at specific condition, somewhere.

-----

But if you say so that there is equivocation, please allow me to understand from yours about "whole", "complete" and "unlacking" and perhaps you can forming to clarify where my equivocation is located, easily. Perhaps we can synchronize our understanding.
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 1:00:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/22/2012 9:15:26 AM, Seremonia wrote:
In relation to limitation:

- The existence of something. It's limited because an existence of something is dependent on the presence of another existence.

- What can be perceived of something. Those are properties, events, and the like, and these are limited because only a few potential that can be enabled from the whole.

In relation to infinite itself:

- The existence of something. It's infinite because an existence of something is not dependent on the presence of another existence.

- What can be perceived of something (properties, events, and the like), and these are infinite because all kind of possibilities can be enabled from the whole.

----------

- We can say, "i am infinite to (not limited by) someone that already dead, but may be i am finite (limited by) someone that already dead in after life (if we believe after life)".

- For a given a set, S = {1,2,3}, i could do infinite (not limited) tracking of combination (possibilities) (C = {x:x E S} as a subset of S = 0, {1}, {2}, {3}, {1,2}, {1,3}, {2,3}, {1,2,3}. But proper subset of the set is finite, since it could track (write down) several combination (a few of possibilities). Or, whether it's the subset or proper subset, i still couldn't do a complete combination of it (finite), because i am drinking.

- I can do infinite (not limited) counting numbers from 1 to 10.

- For example: I have two eyes, and according to my two eyes, i have infinite (unlimited, not limited) ability to use my eyes fully functional. If one of my eyes got injured, then i have limited (finite) ability to use for both of my eyes, but i have infinite (unlimited, not limited) ability to use one of my eyes.

- According to spiritualism, we have the third eyes (whether we believe it or not), and related to this discussion, the use of our seeing is finite, until we could use the third eye. And involving the third eyes as an additional eye to the two of our physical eyes, it could be considered as exploring infinite eyes (all available eyes can be used). But each person has different ability (that finite, limited) in using those three eyes.

- I live inside (finite, limited by) my room, but my room is not limited (infinite, uncovered by) myself.

- Related to God (if we believe it). God is infinite because God existence is not limited by something, but anything is limited by God (since anything is living within God). God is infinite, because all possibilities inside God could be realized to the fully extent (gradually).

Understanding of infinity should be compared with anything else, without this, the infinite is meaningless.

- Infinite is just as simple as not limited by something. Outside this understanding is not real (impossible, in the sense, that it can only be grasped as far as an idea)

- How far for infinity? Infinity is, as big as whole possibilities that could be converted from potential to actual

What is a vacuum dependent upon for existence?

99% of the universe is nothing but empty vacuum, after all.
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2012 2:20:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 1:00:22 AM, Veridas wrote:
At 10/22/2012 9:15:26 AM, Seremonia wrote:
In relation to limitation:

- The existence of something. It's limited because an existence of something is dependent on the presence of another existence.

- What can be perceived of something. Those are properties, events, and the like, and these are limited because only a few potential that can be enabled from the whole.

In relation to infinite itself:

- The existence of something. It's infinite because an existence of something is not dependent on the presence of another existence.

- What can be perceived of something (properties, events, and the like), and these are infinite because all kind of possibilities can be enabled from the whole.

----------

- We can say, "i am infinite to (not limited by) someone that already dead, but may be i am finite (limited by) someone that already dead in after life (if we believe after life)".

- For a given a set, S = {1,2,3}, i could do infinite (not limited) tracking of combination (possibilities) (C = {x:x E S} as a subset of S = 0, {1}, {2}, {3}, {1,2}, {1,3}, {2,3}, {1,2,3}. But proper subset of the set is finite, since it could track (write down) several combination (a few of possibilities). Or, whether it's the subset or proper subset, i still couldn't do a complete combination of it (finite), because i am drinking.

- I can do infinite (not limited) counting numbers from 1 to 10.

- For example: I have two eyes, and according to my two eyes, i have infinite (unlimited, not limited) ability to use my eyes fully functional. If one of my eyes got injured, then i have limited (finite) ability to use for both of my eyes, but i have infinite (unlimited, not limited) ability to use one of my eyes.

- According to spiritualism, we have the third eyes (whether we believe it or not), and related to this discussion, the use of our seeing is finite, until we could use the third eye. And involving the third eyes as an additional eye to the two of our physical eyes, it could be considered as exploring infinite eyes (all available eyes can be used). But each person has different ability (that finite, limited) in using those three eyes.

- I live inside (finite, limited by) my room, but my room is not limited (infinite, uncovered by) myself.

- Related to God (if we believe it). God is infinite because God existence is not limited by something, but anything is limited by God (since anything is living within God). God is infinite, because all possibilities inside God could be realized to the fully extent (gradually).

Understanding of infinity should be compared with anything else, without this, the infinite is meaningless.

- Infinite is just as simple as not limited by something. Outside this understanding is not real (impossible, in the sense, that it can only be grasped as far as an idea)

- How far for infinity? Infinity is, as big as whole possibilities that could be converted from potential to actual

What is a vacuum dependent upon for existence?

99% of the universe is nothing but empty vacuum, after all.

Balloon

If vacuum dependent upon existence, then it has to be understood as "vacuum is covered by something". Consider this, you have an empty balloon. You can say that there is "an empty" inside the balloon. And once we can get 2nd balloon bigger than the first one, we can say that "the volume of an empty within the first balloon" is smaller than "the volume of an empty within the 2nd balloon". And if there is capability for the first balloon to be pushed bigger than before, then we can say that "the size of the volume of an empty within the first balloon is dependent upon the capability of the first balloon to be blown even bigger". BUT THIS IS AN UNDERSTANDING BASED ON OUR EXPERIENCES (i consider you are now holding on a balloon, or at least used to it or imagining it).

-----

ON ANOTHER HUGE LEVEL: Back to your curiosity "how for the vacuum dependent to existence?" It can be related to a question, "are we sure that a vacuum has no boundary?" Further, if there is, then it has nothing to do with vacuum, otherwise there is no boundary for the vacuum (that's another problem should be answered but not in this topic). Further, if there is, then is this boundary (as an existence that differ compared to vacuum) covered by (inside) another existence? If yes, then this question can be widen to another question which can be related to "cosmological argument". I consider your question has relevancy as far as i already stated on "answering with balloon".

Thank you for sharing your thought.
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 4:07:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 3:34:49 PM, Seremonia wrote:
I try to figure it out of your understanding due to our lack of understanding in between us.
That may very well be the case.

I think we are discussing at different point of view, where you are defending on the other side, but i am defending on both sides.
That's not possible and quite "hypocritical", last I checked. One cannot defend 2 mutually exclusive points.

But to make this clear enough to be clarified, i already asserted from my own understanding. Now i want to point several things to be synchronized.

- FIRST we must understand what FINITE is. FINITE is = dependent to something.
That's way too general a definition. And everything is dependent upon something, with very few exceptions.

And the opposite of FINITE must be related to "not dependent to something" (not limited by something).
Also, way too general a definition. And very few things are not dependent upon anything.

It asserts that "infinity" has boundaries as far as itself. This makes "infinite" can be understood and applied to everyday life without making contradictions. And also can be applied (attributed) exclusively to THE ONE THING and as " WHOLE", "COMPLETE" (within boundaries) as far as itself.
1) I cannot accept your vague definitions; please be more specific.
2) Mutually exclusive concepts cannot exist simultaneously.
3) Your concepts are much too broad making it easy for you to constantly equivocate.

- I am not trying to reduce or misplace for "infinite". But i am asserting that "infinite" must be understood reasonably.
For the most part, it is. Within the axiomatic system of mathematics, "infinite" is understood to be quite reasonable.

And the farthest understanding for "infinite" must be "limited" to an assertion that "infinite" is "not limited by".
This seems to be a contradiction.

It can be directed to an understanding that "not limited by", is already "whole", "complete" and "unlacking" because it's "not limited by" what is covered by "the whole". Meaning, something is "not limited by" asserts that something is independent, something is not dependent to something else. Infinite is limited by itself as far as its own boundaries.
I find your wording quite difficult to follow. My point is that it is not useful to describe "infinite" as "not limited" or "not dependent"; I feel it more descriptive and accurate to use "whole", "complete" and "unlacking". This is because "unlimited" is and of itself a contradictory concept and "not dependent" doesn't really follow.

- You are conflicting with me because you are considering that my understanding about "infinite" is contradiction to "finite", which is not.
That doesn't make any sense: of course it MUST contradict finite, otherwise it could not be it's opposite! "Infinite" = "Not Finite". Anyways, that is not what I am saying: I am saying that you are presenting a contradictory concept of infinity regardless of finite.

I am putting "infinite" dynamically without contradiction (it can be stretched to specific boundaries), so we can use it on everyday life exclusively or not without making contradiction, because we know the limitation of understanding about infinity to be considered reasonably. Further without being trapped to applying "infinite" and fall down to paradox.
I don't know what this even means.

- For example: God is unlimited, therefore God can do anything, including God can create another God.
1) Let's stick to science.
2) P1: God is unlimited
3) P2: God can do anything
4) P1 therefore P2 = Non sequitur.

P2 does not follow from P1. If you were to say God is Omnipotent therefore He can do anything (ie anything doable) then that would follow. Again, you are using too broad a concept and so falling prey to equivocation.

- Another example: God is infinite, therefore God can do anything, including God can destroy God's self (since God can do anything - unlimited).
See above.

- More and more that it looks like paradox, but actually it's not paradox. I am not discussing argument for these, but i am trying to assert that, by understanding "infinite" as "not limited by", we won't be trapped to such confusion like these.
That's too convoluted and filled with equivocations. If you simply define infinity as "whole", "complete", "unlacking" then we do not need all of the other vagueness and ensuing contradiction.

- For example: God is "not limited by" something, therefore God has nothing to do with "can do anything", because "not limited by" is not asserting that God can do anything beyond God's self, but it's asserting comparison, in the sense, compared to something, God is not dependent (not limited by).
Non sequitur.

- Another example: We are finite, in the sense the that, "we are limited by".
Again, too broad a concept. This allows it to be applied to virtually anything and thus leads to equivocation.

We are infinite, in the sense that, "we are not limited by".
Thanks for proving my case.

This can be demonstrated on our everyday life. "My action is (infinite - unlimited because) can't be limited (stopped) by you". But the problem is, on everyday life, the term of "infinite" to assert that "we can't stopped by", or "we are not limited by", or "we are not dependent to something" is not popular.
More and more it seems you are just vacillating poetically: writing many words but not actually saying anything!

There is no equivocation on my understanding, maybe it's because we are putting "infinite" exclusively" or because it sounds unpopular term to be used on everyday life. But actually we don't have (obligation) to use "infinite" on our everyday life, "i am infinite by you" (i can't be stopped by you, etc) since it's not popular term. But at least we understand that, also we don't have to use "infinite" to assert "there is something having ability to transcend beyond something itself".
More "poetic licence".
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 4:34:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/29/2012 3:34:49 PM, Seremonia wrote:

Whether we consider there is equivocation or not, but for the purpose of understanding, to clarify the use of the term of "infinity" to avoid being trapped into paradox, then we can use an understanding of "infinity" as "not limited by". And when we were back to everyday life, we may choose not to use the term "infinity" (in the sense that it's "not limited by") since it's not popular. There is no equivocation on the essential understanding "not limited by".
Whenever you define a term as vague as that where it can be applied and not applied to anything you have succeeded at essentially saying nothing. The equivocation lies in the fact that your term "infinity" can be "finite", "infinite", "omnipotent", "omniscient", etc.

But maybe there is equivocation if we use it exclusively.
See above.

For example: "whole" may be understood as "whole of something" (on everyday life) compared to "whole as one thing covers all".
"Whole of everything" vs "whole of something" is clearly understood; there's no equivocation. So when I say infinite = "whole; complete; unlacking" where's the equivocation?

But there is no equivocation if we understand that, "whole is the farthest extent (within boundaries that) specifically for something"...
In this case, I don't see any equivocation but do see an excess of words and description. One can easily say "whole of something" or "something whole."

(it's not an opposite to "whole of something" & ""whole as one thing covers all")
It's not an opposite of "whole of something" it IS the same as "whole of something." As far as "whole as one thing covers all" I have no idea what you mean by that.

If you meant to say "whole of everything" then these are NOT equivalent. That is to say, "whole of something" is not= to "whole of everything". If you were implying that they were equal then you would be equivocating.

"Whole of everything" has no boundaries because it is everything and so there is nothing left to bound it.

. "whole is the farthest extent specifically for something" = "whole is the farthest extent (within boundaries that) specifically for something" = "whole is the farthest extent (within boundaries that) specifically for something (AS THE ONE THAT COVERS ALL)"
No idea what this means. Again, you are needlessly complicating things in order to accommodate a vague concept.

Further, you said there is no duality...
I said there is no duality as far as existence is concerned. I was very SPECIFIC about that.

...but i am asserting for both,
Both WHAT? You need to be specific.

...since we are now dealing and feeling within duality (we see differences). I know what you mean, that actually there is no duality in essence, but practically yes, there is. Ignoring both would make obstacles on our adjustment.
You are not following me. I never said that there isn't any duality in general; I was very specific: there is no duality with respect to existence because the opposite of existence does NOT exist. As far as other things go, I never said there was no duality or plurality for that matter.

Conceptually, one can say that there is a duality of existence/non-existence however, we must realize that non-existence isn't a possibility; it isn't a logically coherent thing; it hasn't any real meaning. This is what I mean about existence not being dual.

Besides, saying there is no duality, at least we have to point on duality and make a denial of it to direct to another understanding (non-duality).
See above.

Saying "there is no coffee" it asserts that there is coffee at specific condition, somewhere.
It implies that there is the possibility of coffee somewhere. In a more obtuse way (but more precise) saying "there is no coffee" here = "there IS everything minus coffee" here.

But if you say so that there is equivocation, please allow me to understand from yours about "whole", "complete" and "unlacking" and perhaps you can forming to clarify where my equivocation is located, easily. Perhaps we can synchronize our understanding.
See above & previous post. Basically, when you define your concepts in such vague terms, it allows them to be used in virtually any case thus allowing for equivocation. Like you equivocated infinity with omnipotence, etc.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 4:36:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/31/2012 1:00:22 AM, Veridas wrote:
What is a vacuum dependent upon for existence?
The same thing that energy and mater are dependent upon for existence.

99% of the universe is nothing but empty vacuum, after all.
Well, it's not really empty!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 8:51:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 4:34:00 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/29/2012 3:34:49 PM, Seremonia wrote:

Whether we consider there is equivocation or not, but for the purpose of understanding, to clarify the use of the term of "infinity" to avoid being trapped into paradox, then we can use an understanding of "infinity" as "not limited by". And when we were back to everyday life, we may choose not to use the term "infinity" (in the sense that it's "not limited by") since it's not popular. There is no equivocation on the essential understanding "not limited by".
Whenever you define a term as vague as that where it can be applied and not applied to anything you have succeeded at essentially saying nothing. The equivocation lies in the fact that your term "infinity" can be "finite", "infinite", "omnipotent", "omniscient", etc.

But maybe there is equivocation if we use it exclusively.
See above.

1. My answer: Infinite = "not limited by"

For example: "whole" may be understood as "whole of something" (on everyday life) compared to "whole as one thing covers all".
"Whole of everything" vs "whole of something" is clearly understood; there's no equivocation. So when I say infinite = "whole; complete; unlacking" where's the equivocation?

But there is no equivocation if we understand that, "whole is the farthest extent (within boundaries that) specifically for something"...
In this case, I don't see any equivocation but do see an excess of words and description. One can easily say "whole of something" or "something whole."

(it's not an opposite to "whole of something" & ""whole as one thing covers all")
It's not an opposite of "whole of something" it IS the same as "whole of something." As far as "whole as one thing covers all" I have no idea what you mean by that.

If you meant to say "whole of everything" then these are NOT equivalent. That is to say, "whole of something" is not= to "whole of everything". If you were implying that they were equal then you would be equivocating.

"Whole of everything" has no boundaries because it is everything and so there is nothing left to bound it.

. "whole is the farthest extent specifically for something" = "whole is the farthest extent (within boundaries that) specifically for something" = "whole is the farthest extent (within boundaries that) specifically for something (AS THE ONE THAT COVERS ALL)"
No idea what this means. Again, you are needlessly complicating things in order to accommodate a vague concept.

2. My answer: As you said "Whole of everything" vs "whole of something" is clearly understood. Meaning, there is no equivocation, unless we use it improperly. We have to clarify "whole" as everything or "whole" as "of something".

Further, you said there is no duality...
I said there is no duality as far as existence is concerned. I was very SPECIFIC about that.

...but i am asserting for both,
Both WHAT? You need to be specific.

...since we are now dealing and feeling within duality (we see differences). I know what you mean, that actually there is no duality in essence, but practically yes, there is. Ignoring both would make obstacles on our adjustment.
You are not following me. I never said that there isn't any duality in general; I was very specific: there is no duality with respect to existence because the opposite of existence does NOT exist. As far as other things go, I never said there was no duality or plurality for that matter.

Conceptually, one can say that there is a duality of existence/non-existence however, we must realize that non-existence isn't a possibility; it isn't a logically coherent thing; it hasn't any real meaning. This is what I mean about existence not being dual.

Besides, saying there is no duality, at least we have to point on duality and make a denial of it to direct to another understanding (non-duality).
See above.

3. My answer: And i was asserting, that i was discussing about the use of "infinite" for both on duality level or non duality level. But i though you were pointing only to non duality (since you denied non duality).


Saying "there is no coffee" it asserts that there is coffee at specific condition, somewhere.
It implies that there is the possibility of coffee somewhere. In a more obtuse way (but more precise) saying "there is no coffee" here = "there IS everything minus coffee" here.

But if you say so that there is equivocation, please allow me to understand from yours about "whole", "complete" and "unlacking" and perhaps you can forming to clarify where my equivocation is located, easily. Perhaps we can synchronize our understanding.
See above & previous post. Basically, when you define your concepts in such vague terms, it allows them to be used in virtually any case thus allowing for equivocation. Like you equivocated infinity with omnipotence, etc.

See my answer no. 1.
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 8:54:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
tBoonePickens wrote:
Seremonia wrote:
I try to figure it out of your understanding due to our lack of understanding in between us.
That may very well be the case.

I think we are discussing at different point of view, where you are defending on the other side, but i am defending on both sides.
That's not possible and quite "hypocritical", last I checked. One cannot defend 2 mutually exclusive points.

But to make this clear enough to be clarified, i already asserted from my own understanding. Now i want to point several things to be synchronized.

- FIRST we must understand what FINITE is. FINITE is = dependent to something.
That's way too general a definition. And everything is dependent upon something, with very few exceptions.

And the opposite of FINITE must be related to "not dependent to something" (not limited by something).
Also, way too general a definition. And very few things are not dependent upon anything.

Hi,

1. My answer: that's why we must clarify "whole", "everything" within specific boundaries as "everything about human" or everything as ONE COVERS ALL". In this case (everything as ONE COVERS ALL) is not dependent upon something, but something is dependent upon everything (in the sense that everything is "ONE COVERS ALL").


It asserts that "infinity" has boundaries as far as itself. This makes "infinite" can be understood and applied to everyday life without making contradictions. And also can be applied (attributed) exclusively to THE ONE THING and as " WHOLE", "COMPLETE" (within boundaries) as far as itself.
1) I cannot accept your vague definitions; please be more specific.
2) Mutually exclusive concepts cannot exist simultaneously.
3) Your concepts are much too broad making it easy for you to constantly equivocate.

4. My answer: INFINITE is "not limited by". If you use this term "infinite" on the level of duality, it asserts that something (infinite) can't be stopped by something else (something is functional). But if you use this term "infinite" on the level of non duality, it asserts that "infinite" can't be limited by non duality because oneness covers non duality. Oneness is not dependent upon on duality, but non duality dependent upon oneness (in the sense that non duality came from oneness).

But you can use "infinite" as "not limited by" and "not dependent" within duality itself.

- I am not trying to reduce or misplace for "infinite". But i am asserting that "infinite" must be understood reasonably.
For the most part, it is. Within the axiomatic system of mathematics, "infinite" is understood to be quite reasonable.

And the farthest understanding for "infinite" must be "limited" to an assertion that "infinite" is "not limited by".
This seems to be a contradiction.

It can be directed to an understanding that "not limited by", is already "whole", "complete" and "unlacking" because it's "not limited by" what is covered by "the whole". Meaning, something is "not limited by" asserts that something is independent, something is not dependent to something else. Infinite is limited by itself as far as its own boundaries.
I find your wording quite difficult to follow. My point is that it is not useful to describe "infinite" as "not limited" or "not dependent"; I feel it more descriptive and accurate to use "whole", "complete" and "unlacking". This is because "unlimited" is and of itself a contradictory concept and "not dependent" doesn't really follow.

5. My answer: See my answer no. 4. Further, you may relate "infinite" to "whole", or i can relate "infinite" to "not limited by". Both has the same meaning (as long as we make clear distinction for "the whole" of everything or "the whole"). We can use these understanding to avoid paradoxical.

- You are conflicting with me because you are considering that my understanding about "infinite" is contradiction to "finite", which is not.
That doesn't make any sense: of course it MUST contradict finite, otherwise it could not be it's opposite! "Infinite" = "Not Finite". Anyways, that is not what I am saying: I am saying that you are presenting a contradictory concept of infinity regardless of finite.

6. My answer: No. Contradiction asserts that one of them is impossible. I am asserting that both Infinite & Not Finite are possible, in the sense (related to my understanding), both can be understood reasonably. Consider this: it's not red, then it could be blue or something. It's not red doesn't have to be considered "that there is no blue color". Same as "finite" = "dependent to something" = "not limited by", and "NOT FINITE" may be directed to another point of understanding, which is possible (no contradiction). In this case "NOT FINITE" is "not dependent" = "not limited by". Both are possible.

I am putting "infinite" dynamically without contradiction (it can be stretched to specific boundaries), so we can use it on everyday life exclusively or not without making contradiction, because we know the limitation of understanding about infinity to be considered reasonably. Further without being trapped to applying "infinite" and fall down to paradox.
I don't know what this even means.

- For example: God is unlimited, therefore God can do anything, including God can create another God.
1) Let's stick to science.
2) P1: God is unlimited
3) P2: God can do anything
4) P1 therefore P2 = Non sequitur.

P2 does not follow from P1. If you were to say God is Omnipotent therefore He can do anything (ie anything doable) then that would follow. Again, you are using too broad a concept and so falling prey to equivocation.

- Another example: God is infinite, therefore God can do anything, including God can destroy God's self (since God can do anything - unlimited).
See above.

7. My answer: You are arguing on something that i already disbelieve it.

- More and more that it looks like paradox, but actually it's not paradox. I am not discussing argument for these, but i am trying to assert that, by understanding "infinite" as "not limited by", we won't be trapped to such confusion like these.
That's too convoluted and filled with equivocations. If you simply define infinity as "whole", "complete", "unlacking" then we do not need all of the other vagueness and ensuing contradiction.

See number 5.

- For example: God is "not limited by" something, therefore God has nothing to do with "can do anything", because "not limited by" is not asserting that God can do anything beyond God's self, but it's asserting comparison, in the sense, compared to something, God is not dependent (not limited by).
Non sequitur.

See number 7.

- Another example: We are finite, in the sense the that, "we are limited by".
Again, too broad a concept. This allows it to be applied to virtually anything and thus leads to equivocation.

8. My answer: "We are limited by" must be followed by another assertions (within context). Besides it's basic understanding (a starter). We can't just say "we are limited by" without any further explanation and expect for someone to understand properly.

More and more it seems you are just vacillating poetically: writing many words but not actually saying anything!
There is no equivocation on my understanding, maybe it's because we are putting "infinite" exclusively" or because it sounds unpopular term to be used on everyday life. But actually we don't have (obligation) to use "infinite" on our everyday life, "i am infinite by you" (i can't be stopped by you, etc) since it's not popular term. But at least we understand that, also we don't have to use "infinite" to assert "there is something having ability to transcend beyond something itself"
More "poetic license"

See number 5.
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2012 9:57:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 4:36:05 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/31/2012 1:00:22 AM, Veridas wrote:
99% of the universe is nothing but empty vacuum, after all.
Well, it's not really empty!

Yes, from non duality there is only one and there is no emptiness, but from duality, yes, we perceive "an empty". It's not about whether we have to hold on "there is empty or not" but:

If there is only one existence, oneness, where duality is within non duality, then all differences (that we perceive) are within ONE. Meaning there is no crack within non duality. Meaning, "we can justify for something from any possible ways". We can justify the truth from duality. Meaning from differences we can trace to something. Meaning, whether we consider there is empty or not, but it's part of our perception OF ONE, and through it we can trace to another area of understanding (WITHIN ONE).

Consider this: a system has many functions. From one function we can trace to confirm another function (reasonably), otherwise we are dealing with different system. But since you believe there is only ONE (according to existence), it maybe considered as HUGE SYSTEM, so there is no problem asserting from an understanding that there is "empty" (we perceive it based on 5 senses) as starting point to understand (trace) another possibilities (functions within HUGE SYSTEM).

In essence, there is no limitation, from where we should start an understanding to justify something else. As you already asserted "THERE IS ONLY ONE EXISTENCE", where all differences (including perceiving "empty") are within ONE.

And practically, we can try to justify something through maths, psychological, biology, or based on our 5 senses, materialistic, more and more, as starting point (including an understanding about "empty" as starting point).
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 12:56:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
tBoonePickens wrote:
Seremonia wrote:
- For example: God is "not limited by" something, therefore God has nothing to do with "can do anything", because "not limited by" is not asserting that God can do anything beyond God's self, but it's asserting comparison, in the sense, compared to something, God is not dependent (not limited by).
Non sequitur.

If you think "God can do anything beyond God's self then, i disbelieve, but if you are trying to say that this statement is non sequitur, i consider it's not.

"Duality is within Non Duality, God is Non Duality, Therefore Duality is within God.

Because, God can't do anything beyond God's self capabilities. Further, i am asserting, "compared to something, God is not dependent (not limited by)". It's understanding by using "comparison". If you consider God as non duality and compared to duality, then non duality is not limited by duality, since duality is within non duality.

Perhaps you disagree because the way i made comparison with God (i am not sure). Perhaps you disagree because you consider that "God is not comparable", since God as Non Duality and Duality is within Non Duality. You consider that there is ONLY ONE, and THIS ONE (i like music from Paul Mc Cartney "THIS ONE", :) ) is not comparable because it's like making comparison to something itself, which is "doesn't make sense".

But, let me put this way. As i am learning the way you were focusing with your answer (correct me if i am wrong), that you tried to explain from that side, or you tried to assert that you agree but dislike with anything related to duality.

You are trying to put away for any duality term to be used on reasoning. Just like you are saying "there is no real empty" (BUT YES, OUT OF THIS TOPIC, IT'S NOT REAL EMPTY). According to believers that believe in ONE, then there is no emptiness, there is only one, there is no comparison in between God and human, etc. It may be true (OR IT'S TRUE), but according to our 5 senses there is empty.

- We can perceive duality, and we can perceive comparison within duality. And from this point (as starting point) we can develop further understanding even bigger and closer to essential (non duality).

- That's okay to provide reasoning by involving "comparison between God", "there is empty", "there is duality" as starting point.

- And, that's okay to provide reasoning by involving "terms from duality", just like: "comparison between God" or "there is empty" (where on Non Duality level of understanding, there is no empty, there is comparison since it's a comparison to itself, etc). It's exploring the truth from bottom-up. Besides it's the closest to ourselves (duality).
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 1:00:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 12:56:21 AM, Seremonia wrote:
- And, that's okay to provide reasoning by involving "terms from duality", just like: "comparison between God" or "there is empty" (where on Non Duality level of understanding, there is no empty, there is comparison since it's a comparison to itself, etc). It's exploring the truth from bottom-up. Besides it's the closest to ourselves (duality).

Correction: And, that's okay to provide reasoning by involving "terms from duality", just like: "comparison between God" or "there is empty" (where on Non Duality level of understanding, there is no empty, there is no comparison since it's a comparison to itself, etc). It's exploring the truth from bottom-up. Besides it's the closest to ourselves (duality).
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 10:15:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 8:51:08 PM, Seremonia wrote:
At 11/1/2012 4:34:00 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Whenever you define a term as vague as that where it can be applied and not applied to anything you have succeeded at essentially saying nothing. The equivocation lies in the fact that your term "infinity" can be "finite", "infinite", "omnipotent", "omniscient", etc.
But maybe there is equivocation if we use it exclusively.
See above.
1. My answer: Infinite = "not limited by"
(A) This is still too vague and INCOMPLETE.

As I stated previously and you clearly overlooked, EVERY THING has limits. Notice that I wrote EVERY THING and not EVERYTHING. Why is that? Because, whenever we consider ANY THING we are actually considering a "limited" part of the WHOLE of EVERYTHING. So we can clearly see that ANY THING or THINGS are "limited by" EVERY THING else.

As you can clearly see, your definition "not limited by" cannot refer to ANY THING. So what can it refer to? Actually the ONLY thing it can refer to is EVERYTHING. Although I think it really needs no further explanation, I will elaborate: by EVERYTHING I mean the THE WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE. This and ONLY this can we say is "not limited by". On the other hand, one might even say that even EVERYTHING has a limit: EVERYTHING does not include NOTHINGNESS or NONEXISTENCE; ergo, it is limited by these things. But NOTHINGNESS and NONEXISTENCE are contradictions and do not exist and thus no limit or bound exists for EVERYTHING.

So if "not limited by" or infinity refers to EVERYTHING, there cannot be anything more VAGUE than that! Furthermore, "not limited by" is only a PARTIAL description of what you are calling INFINITY. Once you add the missing parts of the definition, it becomes less vague and more coherent.

2. My answer: As you said "Whole of everything" vs "whole of something" is clearly understood. Meaning, there is no equivocation, unless we use it improperly. We have to clarify "whole" as everything or "whole" as "of something".
Yes, and such SPECIFICITY is missing from your definition of "not limited by". This is why you end up equivocating when you use such a vague definition.

Besides, saying there is no duality, at least we have to point on duality and make a denial of it to direct to another understanding (non-duality).
Conceptually, one can say that there is a duality of existence/non-existence however, we must realize that non-existence isn't a possibility; it isn't a logically coherent thing; it hasn't any real meaning. This is what I mean about existence not being dual.
3. My answer: And i was asserting, that i was discussing about the use of "infinite" for both on duality level or non duality level. But i though you were pointing only to non duality (since you denied non duality).
(1) I'm not sure if you are familiar with the rules of logic. You cannot hold two opposing positions. You cannot answer TRUE and FALSE to a true and false question. You cannot be both for and against duality. These things are known as contradictions and similar to square circles and the like.

(2) My point about DUALITY is that it can be applied to virtually EVERY THING but it CANNOT be applied to EVERYTHING. In other words, there does not exist an opposite to "all of existence."

See above & previous post. Basically, when you define your concepts in such vague terms, it allows them to be used in virtually any case thus allowing for equivocation. Like you equivocated infinity with omnipotence, etc.
See my answer no. 1.
See section (A) above.

And the opposite of FINITE must be related to "not dependent to something" (not limited by something).
Also, way too general a definition. And very few things are not dependent upon anything.
1. My answer: that's why we must clarify "whole", "everything" within specific boundaries as "everything about human" or everything as ONE COVERS ALL". In this case (everything as ONE COVERS ALL) is not dependent upon something, but something is dependent upon everything (in the sense that everything is "ONE COVERS ALL").
And this is PRECISELY what you are NOT doing in your definition "not limited by". Thank you for proving my point yet again.

It asserts that "infinity" has boundaries as far as itself. This makes "infinite" can be understood and applied to everyday life without making contradictions. And also can be applied (attributed) exclusively to THE ONE THING and as " WHOLE", "COMPLETE" (within boundaries) as far as itself.
1) I cannot accept your vague definitions; please be more specific.
2) Mutually exclusive concepts cannot exist simultaneously.
3) Your concepts are much too broad making it easy for you to constantly equivocate.
4. My answer: INFINITE is "not limited by".
Again, it has been shown to be vague and incomplete.

If you use this term "infinite" on the level of duality, it asserts that something (infinite) can't be stopped by something else (something is functional).
And you CANNOT use this term on the level of duality because EVERY THING on the level of duality has a limit!

But if you use this term "infinite" on the level of non duality, it asserts that "infinite" can't be limited by non duality because oneness covers non duality. Oneness is not dependent upon on duality, but non duality dependent upon oneness (in the sense that non duality came from oneness).
And it is ONLY on the level of non-duality where you CAN use the term. However, even in this ONLY case where it can be used it is a PARTIAL description; it is vague.

But you can use "infinite" as "not limited by" and "not dependent" within duality itself.
No you cannot; see Section A and above.

It can be directed to an understanding that "not limited by", is already "whole", "complete" and "unlacking" because it's "not limited by" what is covered by "the whole". Meaning, something is "not limited by" asserts that something is independent, something is not dependent to something else. Infinite is limited by itself as far as its own boundaries.
I find your wording quite difficult to follow. My point is that it is not useful to describe "infinite" as "not limited" or "not dependent"; I feel it more descriptive and accurate to use "whole", "complete" and "unlacking". This is because "unlimited" is and of itself a contradictory concept and "not dependent" doesn't really follow.
5. My answer: See my answer no. 4.
Your answer 4 has been refuted.

Further, you may relate "infinite" to "whole", or i can relate "infinite" to "not limited by".
No, you can ONLY relate infinite to "not limited by" IF AND ONLY IF you are also referring to the WHOLE. That's the point that you seem not to get.

Both has the same meaning (as long as we make clear distinction for "the whole" of everything or "the whole"). We can use these understanding to avoid paradoxical.
But your definition "not limited by" DOES NOT express that distinction ergo you CANNOT use it to avoid contradiction.

(continues)
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 11:01:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 8:54:47 PM, Seremonia wrote:
tBoonePickens wrote:
Seremonia wrote:
- You are conflicting with me because you are considering that my understanding about "infinite" is contradiction to "finite", which is not.
That doesn't make any sense: of course it MUST contradict finite, otherwise it could not be it's opposite! "Infinite" = "Not Finite". Anyways, that is not what I am saying: I am saying that you are presenting a contradictory concept of infinity regardless of finite.
6. My answer: No. Contradiction asserts that one of them is impossible.
I am now sure that you are NOT familiar with logic. A contradiction does NOT assert that any of its premises are possible. Example:

P1 = FALSE
P2 = FALSE
C1 = P1 AND P2 = TRUE

C1 is a contradiction and neither P1 nor P2 are TRUE.

I am asserting that both Infinite & Not Finite are possible, in the sense (related to my understanding), both can be understood reasonably.
Your description of "finite" is not at issue BUT your description of "infinite" is wrong. The problem isn't that your description of "infinite" conflicts with your description of "finite" (or vice versa) the problem is that your description of "infinite" conflicts with REALITY and in essence it conflicts with itself.

Consider this: it's not red, then it could be blue or something. It's not red doesn't have to be considered "that there is no blue color".
This is fine, but it is not equivalent to your description of "infinite."

Same as "finite" = "dependent to something" = "not limited by", and "NOT FINITE" may be directed to another point of understanding, which is possible (no contradiction). In this case "NOT FINITE" is "not dependent" = "not limited by". Both are possible.
No. Finite is possible in almost EVERY situation and Infinite is possible in ONLY ONE situation and your definition does not make that clear at all.

- For example: God is unlimited, therefore God can do anything, including God can create another God.
1) Let's stick to science.
2) P1: God is unlimited
3) P2: God can do anything
4) P1 therefore P2 = Non sequitur.

P2 does not follow from P1. If you were to say God is Omnipotent therefore He can do anything (ie anything doable) then that would follow. Again, you are using too broad a concept and so falling prey to equivocation.
You never responded to this.

- Another example: God is infinite, therefore God can do anything, including God can destroy God's self (since God can do anything - unlimited).
See above.
7. My answer: You are arguing on something that i already disbelieve it.
So you disbelieve your own statements? So you disagree with yourself?

- More and more that it looks like paradox, but actually it's not paradox. I am not discussing argument for these, but i am trying to assert that, by understanding "infinite" as "not limited by", we won't be trapped to such confusion like these.
That's too convoluted and filled with equivocations. If you simply define infinity as "whole", "complete", "unlacking" then we do not need all of the other vagueness and ensuing contradiction.
See number 5.
See Section A.

- For example: God is "not limited by" something, therefore God has nothing to do with "can do anything", because "not limited by" is not asserting that God can do anything beyond God's self, but it's asserting comparison, in the sense, compared to something, God is not dependent (not limited by).
Non sequitur.
See number 7.
In number 7 you disagree with yourself, so I guess you concede here as well.

- Another example: We are finite, in the sense the that, "we are limited by".
Again, too broad a concept. This allows it to be applied to virtually anything and thus leads to equivocation.
8. My answer: "We are limited by" must be followed by another assertions (within context). Besides it's basic understanding (a starter). We can't just say "we are limited by" without any further explanation and expect for someone to understand properly.
Precisely! And just like we cannot just say "we are limited by", we cannot just say "not limited by"!
QED

More and more it seems you are just vacillating poetically: writing many words but not actually saying anything!
There is no equivocation on my understanding, maybe it's because we are putting "infinite" exclusively" or because it sounds unpopular term to be used on everyday life. But actually we don't have (obligation) to use "infinite" on our everyday life, "i am infinite by you" (i can't be stopped by you, etc) since it's not popular term. But at least we understand that, also we don't have to use "infinite" to assert "there is something having ability to transcend beyond something itself"
More "poetic license"
See number 5.
See Section A.

*****************************************

At 11/1/2012 9:57:24 PM, Seremonia wrote:
At 11/1/2012 4:36:05 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/31/2012 1:00:22 AM, Veridas wrote:
99% of the universe is nothing but empty vacuum, after all.
Well, it's not really empty!
Yes, from non duality there is only one and there is no emptiness, but from duality, yes, we perceive "an empty".
No. From duality and non-duality, there is no nothingness. This is because nothingness is a contradictory concept REGARDLESS of duality or non-duality.

It's not about whether we have to hold on "there is empty or not" but:

If there is only one existence, oneness, where duality is within non duality, then all differences (that we perceive) are within ONE. Meaning there is no crack within non duality. Meaning, "we can justify for something from any possible ways". We can justify the truth from duality. Meaning from differences we can trace to something.
Yes: it is through "limits" that we describe duality; that's why "not limited by" cannot exist in duality! You might be catching on!

Meaning, whether we consider there is empty or not, but it's part of our perception OF ONE, and through it we can trace to another area of understanding (WITHIN ONE).
No, you had it but now you lost it!

(1) Nothingness is itself a contradiction: the existence of non-existence is a contradiction. This is IRRESPECTIVE of duality or non-duality or anything else.

(2) If Nothingness were to exist among Somethingness, then it WOULD have limits and it would be Something and not Nothing!

Consider this: a system has many functions. From one function we can trace to confirm another function (reasonably), otherwise we are dealing with different system.
OK. So you are saying that you have a system whose many functions are derived from one function. Let's continue...

But since you believe there is only ONE (according to existence), it maybe considered as HUGE SYSTEM, so there is no problem asserting from an understanding that there is "empty" (we perceive it based on 5 senses) as starting point to understand (trace) another possibilities (functions within HUGE SYSTEM).
No. When we say empty, it is empty of SOMETHING but NOT empty of ALL THINGS. For example: if you say that you have "nothing" in your refrigerator this doesn't mean that your refrigerator is empty of ALL THINGS. It means that it is empty of what is usually there, namely food. However, there is air in your refrigerator, etc.

In essence, there is no limitation, from where we should start an understanding to justify something else.
Of course there is! We should NEVER start an understanding of something from a contradiction!

As you already asserted "THERE IS ONLY ONE EXISTENCE", where all differences (including perceiving "empty") are within ONE.
That is incorrect; it is an equivocation. The "emptiness" that you refer to is NOT a true emptiness; a true emptiness is not possible. If there were a true emptiness, then there would be nothing there to be percei
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 11:50:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/1/2012 9:57:24 PM, Seremonia wrote:
At 11/1/2012 4:36:05 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
And practically, we can try to justify something through maths, psychological, biology, or based on our 5 senses, materialistic, more and more, as starting point (including an understanding about "empty" as starting point).
If we start our understanding on a flawed concept (ie a contradiction) then only nonsense follows. Garbage in, garbage out!

- For example: God is "not limited by" something, therefore God has nothing to do with "can do anything", because "not limited by" is not asserting that God can do anything beyond God's self, but it's asserting comparison, in the sense, compared to something, God is not dependent (not limited by).
Non sequitur.
If you think "God can do anything beyond God's self then, i disbelieve, but if you are trying to say that this statement is non sequitur, i consider it's not.
I am saying that simply stating that God is "not limited by" does NOT NECESSARILY mean or imply that God can do anything. God IS limited by the fact the He is not Satan, for example. He is also limited by the fact that He is not a rock or he is not a fantasy. Do you follow how you are being too vague?

"Duality is within Non Duality, God is Non Duality, Therefore Duality is within God.
If God is Non Duality then God is ALL OF EXISTENCE. Well as far as God is concerned, I think that He's either 1 or 2:

(1) God is ALL OF EXISTENCE; God IS the Universe

(2) God transcends logic and...anything follows

I rather prefer 1.

Because, God can't do anything beyond God's self capabilities. Further, i am asserting, "compared to something, God is not dependent (not limited by)". It's understanding by using "comparison". If you consider God as non duality and compared to duality, then non duality is not limited by duality, since duality is within non duality.
This is all well and good so long as you do not insert a flawed concept or contradiction into the equation. Duality or not, contradictions are not possible.

Perhaps you disagree because the way i made comparison with God (i am not sure). Perhaps you disagree because you consider that "God is not comparable", since God as Non Duality and Duality is within Non Duality. You consider that there is ONLY ONE, and THIS ONE (i like music from Paul Mc Cartney "THIS ONE", :) ) is not comparable because it's like making comparison to something itself, which is "doesn't make sense".
I do not like to mix religion with science.

But, let me put this way. As i am learning the way you were focusing with your answer (correct me if i am wrong), that you tried to explain from that side, or you tried to assert that you agree but dislike with anything related to duality.
No. My problems are:

(1) You continue to use a vague definition of infinite that leads you to constant equivocation.

(2) You continue to use a vague definition of infinite in the context of "duality" where it CANNOT be applied.

(3) You continue to make claims that oppose each other and brush it off as "arguing for both sides" as if that actually means something.

(4) You continue to fail to see that there are many contradictions on BOTH sides of you conflicting claims.

I'll leave it at 4 for now.

You are trying to put away for any duality term to be used on reasoning.
No. I am saying that you have "to put away for any duality term" whenever you are using other terms that DO NOT APPLY to duality. So when you use the term "not limited by" this can ONLY be used in non-duality. I really hope I don't have to repeat this one again.

Just like you are saying "there is no real empty" (BUT YES, OUT OF THIS TOPIC, IT'S NOT REAL EMPTY).
This or ANY topic: there is no real empty.

According to believers that believe in ONE, then there is no emptiness, there is only one, there is no comparison in between God and human, etc. It may be true (OR IT'S TRUE), but according to our 5 senses there is empty.
No AGAIN. There is no real empty in NON-DUALITY and ESPECIALLY in DUALITY. There's NEVER any real empty. If your senses are sensing something then it CANNOT be a NOTHING! If your senses aren't sensing, then where is your claim? I really hope you understand that by now.

- We can perceive duality, and we can perceive comparison within duality. And from this point (as starting point) we can develop further understanding even bigger and closer to essential (non duality).
Sure, so long as you do not claim to perceive the unperceivable as you have done.

- That's okay to provide reasoning by involving "comparison between God", "there is empty", "there is duality" as starting point.

(1) It's okay to provide reasoning by involving "comparison between God", as you did.

(2) It's NOT okay to involving "there is empty" because "there is empty" is contradiction and thus there IS NO reasoning.

(3) It's NOT okay to have "there is duality" as starting point because singularity PRECEDES duality. However, if you do start at duality, then you will have a limited scope this will lead to various contradictions.

- And, that's okay to provide reasoning by involving "terms from duality", just like:

(1) You never provided DUALITY with respect to God.

(2) You cannot provide reasoning by involving "terms from duality" when one of the terms is a contradiction because that is contra reason. "There is empty" is a contradiction whether in Duality or Non-Duality, so attempting to "provide reason" for it is foolish because one cannot derive reason from unreason.

"comparison between God" or "there is empty" (where on Non Duality level of understanding, there is no empty, there is no comparison since it's a comparison to itself, etc). It's exploring the truth from bottom-up. Besides it's the closest to ourselves (duality).
Absolutely, so long as those terms do NOT contradict themselves AND do not contradict DUALITY.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 3:05:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 11:01:24 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 11/1/2012 8:54:47 PM, Seremonia wrote:
- You are conflicting with me because you are considering that my understanding about "infinite" is contradiction to "finite", which is not.
That doesn't make any sense: of course it MUST contradict finite, otherwise it could not be it's opposite! "Infinite" = "Not Finite". Anyways, that is not what I am saying: I am saying that you are presenting a contradictory concept of infinity regardless of finite.
6. My answer: No. Contradiction asserts that one of them is impossible.
I am now sure that you are NOT familiar with logic. A contradiction does NOT assert that any of its premises are possible. Example:

P1 = FALSE
P2 = FALSE
C1 = P1 AND P2 = TRUE

C1 is a contradiction and neither P1 nor P2 are TRUE.

I am asserting that both Infinite & Not Finite are possible, in the sense (related to my understanding), both can be understood reasonably.
Your description of "finite" is not at issue BUT your description of "infinite" is wrong. The problem isn't that your description of "infinite" conflicts with your description of "finite" (or vice versa) the problem is that your description of "infinite" conflicts with REALITY and in essence it conflicts with itself.

tBoonePickens said that: "of course it (INFINITE) MUST contradict FINITE, otherwise it could not be it's opposite! "Infinite" = "Not Finite""

Seremonia: There is no contradiction in between "NOT FINITE" WITH "FINITE". It's not an opposite which contradict each other, it's an opposite direction.

- Consider this: Something is "infinite", therefore it's "not limited", "not dependent" by/upon something else which it's "finite" (limited, dependent) by/upon something itself. There is no contradiction (both are possible IN THIS CASE)

- And i am not stating that: something is INFINITE, therefore something is FINITE (in the sense that both are at the same direction & case).

Still, i am not so sure with your objection ("infinite" on my understanding conflicts with REALITY and in essence it conflicts with itself). Can you give me an example?

Thank you
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 4:31:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 11:01:24 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:

- For example: God is unlimited, therefore God can do anything, including God can create another God.
1) Let's stick to science.
2) P1: God is unlimited
3) P2: God can do anything
4) P1 therefore P2 = Non sequitur.

P2 does not follow from P1. If you were to say God is Omnipotent therefore He can do anything (ie anything doable) then that would follow. Again, you are using too broad a concept and so falling prey to equivocation.
You never responded to this.

I am not sure how to respond to you, since i didn't assert Omnipotent in this discussion related to "unlimited". And i disagree with "God is unlimited" in the sense that God can do anything (that will lead to paradox).

- Another example: God is infinite, therefore God can do anything, including God can destroy God's self (since God can do anything - unlimited).
See above.
7. My answer: You are arguing on something that i already disbelieve it.
So you disbelieve your own statements? So you disagree with yourself?

Again, i don't know how to respond to you, because it's an example of paradox, i disagree with it, but you consider i disagree with myself. it's an example of paradox and to show that my understanding will not lead to this kind of paradox.

- More and more that it looks like paradox, but actually it's not paradox. I am not discussing argument for these, but i am trying to assert that, by understanding "infinite" as "not limited by", we won't be trapped to such confusion like these.
That's too convoluted and filled with equivocations. If you simply define infinity as "whole", "complete", "unlacking" then we do not need all of the other vagueness and ensuing contradiction.
See number 5.
See Section A.

- For example: God is "not limited by" something, therefore God has nothing to do with "can do anything", because "not limited by" is not asserting that God can do anything beyond God's self, but it's asserting comparison, in the sense, compared to something, God is not dependent (not limited by).
Non sequitur.
See number 7.
In number 7 you disagree with yourself, so I guess you concede here as well.

See my reply with date: 11/2/2012 12:56:21 AM

I am not disagreeing with myself, i disagree with paradox which has no relation to my understanding.

- Another example: We are finite, in the sense the that, "we are limited by".
Again, too broad a concept. This allows it to be applied to virtually anything and thus leads to equivocation.
8. My answer: "We are limited by" must be followed by another assertions (within context). Besides it's basic understanding (a starter). We can't just say "we are limited by" without any further explanation and expect for someone to understand properly.
Precisely! And just like we cannot just say "we are limited by", we cannot just say "not limited by"!

I am focusing on "infinite" but not focusing on "infinite" + ".....", but somehow you made correction that something left behind ("...."). "Infinite" alone without additional assertions is meaningless. But i can discuss about "infinite" alone, and further we can develop by adding additional assertions.

QED

More and more it seems you are just vacillating poetically: writing many words but not actually saying anything!
There is no equivocation on my understanding, maybe it's because we are putting "infinite" exclusively" or because it sounds unpopular term to be used on everyday life. But actually we don't have (obligation) to use "infinite" on our everyday life, "i am infinite by you" (i can't be stopped by you, etc) since it's not popular term. But at least we understand that, also we don't have to use "infinite" to assert "there is something having ability to transcend beyond something itself"
More "poetic license"
See number 5.
See Section A.

*****************************************

At 11/1/2012 9:57:24 PM, Seremonia wrote:
At 11/1/2012 4:36:05 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/31/2012 1:00:22 AM, Veridas wrote:
99% of the universe is nothing but empty vacuum, after all.
Well, it's not really empty!
Yes, from non duality there is only one and there is no emptiness, but from duality, yes, we perceive "an empty".
No. From duality and non-duality, there is no nothingness. This is because nothingness is a contradictory concept REGARDLESS of duality or non-duality.

It's not about whether we have to hold on "there is empty or not" but:

If there is only one existence, oneness, where duality is within non duality, then all differences (that we perceive) are within ONE. Meaning there is no crack within non duality. Meaning, "we can justify for something from any possible ways". We can justify the truth from duality. Meaning from differences we can trace to something.
Yes: it is through "limits" that we describe duality; that's why "not limited by" cannot exist in duality! You might be catching on!

A functions is running without being stopped (limited) by something. It's already an assertion that a function is "not limited by" something, and "not limited by" can be applied on everyday life (duality)

Meaning, whether we consider there is empty or not, but it's part of our perception OF ONE, and through it we can trace to another area of understanding (WITHIN ONE).
No, you had it but now you lost it!

(1) Nothingness is itself a contradiction: the existence of non-existence is a contradiction. This is IRRESPECTIVE of duality or non-duality or anything else.

(2) If Nothingness were to exist among Somethingness, then it WOULD have limits and it would be Something and not Nothing!

Consider this: a system has many functions. From one function we can trace to confirm another function (reasonably), otherwise we are dealing with different system.
OK. So you are saying that you have a system whose many functions are derived from one function. Let's continue...

But since you believe there is only ONE (according to existence), it maybe considered as HUGE SYSTEM, so there is no problem asserting from an understanding that there is "empty" (we perceive it based on 5 senses) as starting point to understand (trace) another possibilities (functions within HUGE SYSTEM).
No. When we say empty, it is empty of SOMETHING but NOT empty of ALL THINGS. For example: if you say that you have "nothing" in your refrigerator this doesn't mean that your refrigerator is empty of ALL THINGS. It means that it is empty of what is usually there, namely food. However, there is air in your refrigerator, etc.

I am not sure how to respond this, since i am not focusing about empty, but rather to assert that there are many ways to justify something and we can start reasoning from any point of view. But i am not arguing specific point of view.

In essence, there is no limitation, from where we should start an understanding to justify something else.
Of course there is! We should NEVER start an understanding of something from a contradiction!

You put my statements separately without considering another part of it. See below ...

As you already asserted "THERE IS ONLY ONE EXISTENCE", where all differences (including perceiving "empty") are within ONE.

I am not asserting "there is no limitation in essence", but i am asserting that everything within duality are within ONE, therefore we can use from one of it (duality) as starting point to trace the route of reasoning to another hypothesis to justify whether a hypothesis is reasonably (possibly exist) or not. It's bottom-understanding.

Thank you, i do appreciate your objections.
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2012 4:38:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 3:05:21 PM, Seremonia wrote:
At 11/2/2012 11:01:24 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
I am now sure that you are NOT familiar with logic. A contradiction does NOT assert that any of its premises are possible. Example:

P1 = FALSE
P2 = FALSE
C1 = P1 AND P2 = TRUE

C1 is a contradiction and neither P1 nor P2 are TRUE.

I am asserting that both Infinite & Not Finite are possible, in the sense (related to my understanding), both can be understood reasonably.
Your description of "finite" is not at issue BUT your description of "infinite" is wrong. The problem isn't that your description of "infinite" conflicts with your description of "finite" (or vice versa) the problem is that your description of "infinite" conflicts with REALITY and in essence it conflicts with itself.
tBoonePickens said that: "of course it (INFINITE) MUST contradict FINITE, otherwise it could not be it's opposite! "Infinite" = "Not Finite""

Seremonia: There is no contradiction in between "NOT FINITE" WITH "FINITE".
So there's no contradiction between NOT TRUE and TRUE...Indeed you do not know the very basics of logic. Of course there is a contradiction because they are opposites.

It's not an opposite which contradict each other, it's an opposite direction.
And the directions CONTRADICT each other which is EXACTLY what we are talking about.

- Consider this: Something is "infinite", therefore it's "not limited", "not dependent" by/upon something else which it's "finite" (limited, dependent) by/upon something itself. There is no contradiction (both are possible IN THIS CASE)
Infinite is opposite and contradictory to finite: if you do not understand the very basis of logic then there is no point continuing. The problem is that you keep vacillating between concepts that you needlessly complicate.

- And i am not stating that: something is INFINITE, therefore something is FINITE (in the sense that both are at the same direction & case).

Still, i am not so sure with your objection ("infinite" on my understanding conflicts with REALITY and in essence it conflicts with itself). Can you give me an example?
As I stated previously and you clearly overlooked (again), EVERY THING has limits. Notice that I wrote EVERY THING and not EVERYTHING. Why is that? Because, whenever we consider ANY ONE THING we are actually considering a "limited" part of the WHOLE of EVERYTHING. So we can clearly see that ANY THING or THINGS are "limited by" EVERY THING else.

So, your definition "not limited by" cannot refer to ANY ONE THING; it cannot be used in the DUALITY MODE.

The ONLY thing that "not limited by" CAN refer to is EVERYTHING; and EVERYTHING is ONLY in NON-DUALITY MODE.

Although I think it really needs no further explanation, I will elaborate: by EVERYTHING I mean the THE WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE. This and ONLY this can we say is "not limited by".

So if "not limited by"/infinity ONLY refers to EVERYTHING, then to say that infinity = "not limited by" WITHOUT including EVERYTHING is the ultimate in VAGUENESS!

Furthermore, "not limited by" is only a PARTIAL description of what you are calling INFINITY. Once you add the missing parts of the definition, it becomes less vague and more coherent.

Thank you
You're quite welcome.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2012 12:30:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/2/2012 4:38:42 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 11/2/2012 3:05:21 PM, Seremonia wrote:
At 11/2/2012 11:01:24 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
I am now sure that you are NOT familiar with logic. A contradiction does NOT assert that any of its premises are possible. Example:

P1 = FALSE
P2 = FALSE
C1 = P1 AND P2 = TRUE

C1 is a contradiction and neither P1 nor P2 are TRUE.

I am asserting that both Infinite & Not Finite are possible, in the sense (related to my understanding), both can be understood reasonably.
Your description of "finite" is not at issue BUT your description of "infinite" is wrong. The problem isn't that your description of "infinite" conflicts with your description of "finite" (or vice versa) the problem is that your description of "infinite" conflicts with REALITY and in essence it conflicts with itself.
tBoonePickens said that: "of course it (INFINITE) MUST contradict FINITE, otherwise it could not be it's opposite! "Infinite" = "Not Finite""

Seremonia: There is no contradiction in between "NOT FINITE" WITH "FINITE".
So there's no contradiction between NOT TRUE and TRUE...Indeed you do not know the very basics of logic. Of course there is a contradiction because they are opposites.

It's not an opposite which contradict each other, it's an opposite direction.
And the directions CONTRADICT each other which is EXACTLY what we are talking about.

- Consider this: Something is "infinite", therefore it's "not limited", "not dependent" by/upon something else which it's "finite" (limited, dependent) by/upon something itself. There is no contradiction (both are possible IN THIS CASE)
Infinite is opposite and contradictory to finite: if you do not understand the very basis of logic then there is no point continuing. The problem is that you keep vacillating between concepts that you needlessly complicate.

- And i am not stating that: something is INFINITE, therefore something is FINITE (in the sense that both are at the same direction & case).

Still, i am not so sure with your objection ("infinite" on my understanding conflicts with REALITY and in essence it conflicts with itself). Can you give me an example?
As I stated previously and you clearly overlooked (again), EVERY THING has limits. Notice that I wrote EVERY THING and not EVERYTHING. Why is that? Because, whenever we consider ANY ONE THING we are actually considering a "limited" part of the WHOLE of EVERYTHING. So we can clearly see that ANY THING or THINGS are "limited by" EVERY THING else.

So, your definition "not limited by" cannot refer to ANY ONE THING; it cannot be used in the DUALITY MODE.

The ONLY thing that "not limited by" CAN refer to is EVERYTHING; and EVERYTHING is ONLY in NON-DUALITY MODE.

Although I think it really needs no further explanation, I will elaborate: by EVERYTHING I mean the THE WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE. This and ONLY this can we say is "not limited by".

So if "not limited by"/infinity ONLY refers to EVERYTHING, then to say that infinity = "not limited by" WITHOUT including EVERYTHING is the ultimate in VAGUENESS!

Furthermore, "not limited by" is only a PARTIAL description of what you are calling INFINITY. Once you add the missing parts of the definition, it becomes less vague and more coherent.

Thank you
You're quite welcome.

Hi,


tBoonePickens said: So, your definition "not limited by" cannot refer to ANY ONE THING; it cannot be used in the DUALITY MODE. So if "not limited by"/infinity ONLY refers to EVERYTHING, then to say that infinity = "not limited by" WITHOUT including EVERYTHING is the ultimate in VAGUENESS!


My understanding: ANY ONE THING is "not limited by" another ANY ONE THING (I am holding on something now, and you can't stop me for holding on something) = I (as ANY ONE THING) am holding on something now (my action), and you (as other of ANY ONE THING) can't stop me for holding on something (my action) = action from ANY ONE THING (me, myself) "can't be limited (not limited) by" you, in the sense that i am still holding on something. Because if you can limit my action (holding on something), then you can stop me (i can't hold on something). But in this case you can't stop me, you can't limit my action, therefore i am still holding something, therefore my action (from ANY ONE THING) is not limited by you (other of ANY ONE THING).

tBoonePickens: The ONLY thing that "not limited by" CAN refer to is EVERYTHING; and EVERYTHING is ONLY in NON-DUALITY MODE.

My understanding: "WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE" is not limited by ANY ONE THING, because ANY ONE THING is part of "WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE"

"WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE" & "ANY ONE THING" can use "not limited by" within context.

- "WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE" can use "not limited by" only when "WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE" relates to "ANY ONE THING" ("WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE" is not limited by "ANY ONE THING") but not vice versa.

- "ANY ONE THING" can use "not limited by" only when "ANY ONE THING" relates to "another ANY ONE THING" ("ANY ONE THING" is not limited by "another ANY ONE THING") and vice versa.
-----
- NON DUALITY is not limited by DUALITY and DUALITY is limited by NON DUALITY
- A DUALITY is not limited by another kind of DUALITY, and vice versa
- A DUALITY is limited by another kind of DUALITY, and vice versa

- WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE is not limited by ANY ONE THING and ANY ONE THING is limited by WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE
- ANY ONE THING is not limited by another kind of ANY ONE THING, and vice versa
- ANY ONE THING is limited by another kind of ANY ONE THING, and vice versa
-----
- NON DUALITY is FUNCTIONING without being limited by DUALITY and DUALITY is FUNCTIONING dependent upon NON DUALITY
- A DUALITY is FUNCTIONING without being limited by another FUNCTION of another kind of DUALITY, and vice versa
- A DUALITY is FUNCTIONING dependent upon another FUNCTION of another kind of DUALITY, and vice versa

- WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE is FUNCTIONING without being limited by ANY ONE THING and ANY ONE THING is FUNCTIONING dependent upon WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE
- ANY ONE THING is FUNCTIONING without being limited by another FUNCTION of another kind of ANY ONE THING, and vice versa
- ANY ONE THING is FUNCTIONING dependent upon another FUNCTION of another kind of ANY ONE THING, and vice versa

THE ONLY ONE EXCEPTIONAL IS: that "WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE" can use "limited by", in the sense that, "WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE" is limited by itself.

These are possibilities as it is.
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2012 2:53:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/3/2012 12:30:21 AM, Seremonia wrote:
At 11/2/2012 4:38:42 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
tBoonePickens said: So, your definition "not limited by" cannot refer to ANY ONE THING; it cannot be used in the DUALITY MODE. So if "not limited by"/infinity ONLY refers to EVERYTHING, then to say that infinity = "not limited by" WITHOUT including EVERYTHING is the ultimate in VAGUENESS!

My understanding: ANY ONE THING is "not limited by" another ANY ONE THING (I am holding on something now, and you can't stop me for holding on something) = I (as ANY ONE THING) am holding on something now (my action), and you (as other of ANY ONE THING) can't stop me for holding on something (my action) = action from ANY ONE THING (me, myself) "can't be limited (not limited) by" you, in the sense that i am still holding on something. Because if you can limit my action (holding on something), then you can stop me (i can't hold on something). But in this case you can't stop me, you can't limit my action, therefore i am still holding something, therefore my action (from ANY ONE THING) is not limited by you (other of ANY ONE THING).
I have NO IDEA what this means or how this even applies to what we are talking about in any way shape or form.

Holding something? What the heck are you talking about? You can't stop me? What does that or any of the other nonsense that you wrote have to do with "infinite" = "not limited by"? Such a simple thing and you make it into some complex and unintelligible mess.

ANY ONE THING is limited by ALL OTHER things! An apple is an apple (a specific one) and it is NOT a pear, a car, you, me, the wind or ALL OTHER ONE THINGS that it is not. Ergo, an apple is limited by ALL those other things. Do you understand? I have a felling however, that you were probably equivocating "limit."

tBoonePickens: The ONLY thing that "not limited by" CAN refer to is EVERYTHING; and EVERYTHING is ONLY in NON-DUALITY MODE.
My understanding: "WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE" is not limited by ANY ONE THING, because ANY ONE THING is part of "WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE"
Yes but that is only half of it: WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE is not limited by ANYTHING AT ALL. Not limited by any one thing, not limited by all things, not limited, by ANYTHING at all.

"WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE" & "ANY ONE THING" can use "not limited by" within context.
Obviously.

- "WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE" can use "not limited by" only when "WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE" relates to "ANY ONE THING" ("WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE" is not limited by "ANY ONE THING") but not vice versa.
No. The WHOLE OF ALL EXISTENCE can ALWAYS be referred to as "not limited by."

- "ANY ONE THING" can use "not limited by" only when "ANY ONE THING" relates to "another ANY ONE THING" ("ANY ONE THING" is not limited by "another ANY ONE THING") and vice versa.
Any one thing IS itself a limit as it relates to the WHOLE OF EXISTENCE or as it relates to ANY OTHER one thing. "Not limited by" CANNOT refer to any one thing because any one thing is ITSELF a limit. Ergo, a limit cannot be referred to as "not limited by."

What a complicated mess you've made of all this.

- NON DUALITY is not limited by DUALITY and DUALITY is limited by NON DUALITY
No.

NON DUALITY is NOT limited by ANYTHING period.

DUALITY is ITSELF A LIMIT and is thus limited by ALL OTHER DUALITIES.

- A DUALITY is not limited by another kind of DUALITY, and vice versa
No. DUALITY is ITSELF A LIMIT and is thus limited by ALL OTHER DUALITIES as well as itself.

- A DUALITY is limited by another kind of DUALITY, and vice versa
Yes. DUALITY is ITSELF A LIMIT and is thus limited by ALL OTHER DUALITIES as well as itself.

- WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE is not limited by ANY ONE THING and ANY ONE THING is limited by WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE
More simply stated: WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE is NOT limited by ANYTHING.

- ANY ONE THING is not limited by another kind of ANY ONE THING, and vice versa
No. ANY ONE THING is ITSELF A LIMIT and is thus limited by ALL OTHER ONE THINGS.

- ANY ONE THING is limited by another kind of ANY ONE THING, and vice versa
Yes. ANY ONE THING is ITSELF A LIMIT and is thus limited by ALL OTHER ONE THINGS.

- NON DUALITY is FUNCTIONING without being limited by DUALITY and DUALITY is FUNCTIONING dependent upon NON DUALITY
"Being limited by" makes no sense. Again, NON DUALITY is not limited; DUALITY is limited. These things are different aspects of the same thing.

- A DUALITY is FUNCTIONING without being limited by another FUNCTION of another kind of DUALITY, and vice versa
Again, DUALITY is itself a limit and is limited by all other DUALITIES.

- A DUALITY is FUNCTIONING dependent upon another FUNCTION of another kind of DUALITY, and vice versa
Again, DUALITY is itself a limit and is limited by all other DUALITIES.

- WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE is FUNCTIONING without being limited by ANY ONE THING and ANY ONE THING is FUNCTIONING dependent upon WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE
Again, NON DUALITY is not limited by ANYTHING; DUALITY is limited by many things.

- ANY ONE THING is FUNCTIONING without being limited by another FUNCTION of another kind of ANY ONE THING, and vice versa
Again, DUALITY is itself a limit and is limited by all other DUALITIES.

- ANY ONE THING is FUNCTIONING dependent upon another FUNCTION of another kind of ANY ONE THING, and vice versa
Yes! you got it! DUALITY is itself a limit and is limited by all other DUALITIES.

THE ONLY ONE EXCEPTIONAL IS: that "WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE" can use "limited by", in the sense that, "WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE" is limited by itself.
NO. NO. NO. The "WHOLE OF ALL OF EXISTENCE" is NOT limited by ANYTHING INCLUDING NOT LIMITED BY itself!

These are possibilities as it is.
The only possibilities are the ones that I described. 2/3 of the ones you described are contradictions.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2012 7:54:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hi

I am trying to map our discussion. I am focusing typical of our discussion, and i can see the reflection of it could be found on your statement:

- Seremonia wrote: ANY ONE THING is not limited by another kind of ANY ONE THING, and vice versa
- tBoonePickens wrote: No. ANY ONE THING is ITSELF A LIMIT and is thus limited by ALL OTHER ONE THINGS.

I understand "Not limited" related to interaction with another things (i can use it within context). But you accept "not limited" and it can be used only for NON DUALITY (NON DUALITY is not limited).

I understand what you mean that you do really praise God, so you consider "Not Limited" can only be used to God. That's it, no question asked. But I am more focusing on the use of "not limited" WITHIN CONTEXT to avoid paradox while discussing about Supreme being and similar to these.

You understand from UP-BOTTOM, but i tried to explain from BOTTOM-UP

-----

But yes, you stated many times, that there is no confusion on understanding "not limited" since "not limited" must be understood as "WHOLE", "COMPLETE".

And again i stated many times that, for yourself "not limited" is clear enough to be understood (as "WHOLE" without making any confusion for yourself and others), but for someone that doesn't familiar with "not limited", they could easily accept "not limited" as "CAN DO ALL POSSIBILITIES" (SOMEHOW that will lead to paradox). My understanding eliminate this case, so we can avoid paradox AND STILL WE CAN PRAISE TO GOD AS YOU ALWAYS DID).

But, again you replied TO MY EXAMPLE (For example: God is unlimited, therefore God can do anything, including God can create another God), WITH THIS:

1) Let's stick to science.
2) P1: God is unlimited
3) P2: God can do anything
4) P1 therefore P2 = Non sequitur.

And you thought that i believe it and you made correction that it is fallacy. Sure, it's fallacy, since i disbelieve it. IT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE of the use of "infinite", "unlimited" that commonly known as "CAN DO ALL POSSIBILITIES". I disbelieve (since it's just an example), but you took it seriously as it came from my believe.

You understand my explanation separately without considering any other explanation relevantly.

-----

This typical of discussion puts us on synchronizing on different types, which is difficult to maintain.

It's not criticizing that there is something wrong or correctly on my explanation or on your explanation, but rather it asserts that we are discussing at different level of understanding (me-bottom-up, you-up-bottom) and at different lines.

-----

Please, apologize if i can not explain my thought correctly. I am sure there is something wrong on my explanation, please accept my apologize.

Thank you :)
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2012 2:58:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/6/2012 7:54:54 AM, Seremonia wrote:
Hi
Hello.

I am trying to map our discussion. I am focusing typical of our discussion, and i can see the reflection of it could be found on your statement:
- Seremonia wrote: ANY ONE THING is not limited by another kind of ANY ONE THING, and vice versa
- tBoonePickens wrote: No. ANY ONE THING is ITSELF A LIMIT and is thus limited by ALL OTHER ONE THINGS.

I understand "Not limited" related to interaction with another things (i can use it within context).
Equivocation rears its ugly head yet again! So, instead of clarifying and explaining this you instead choose a completely VAGUE definition of infinite. You explain the world away on insignificant things but fail to clarify the most important of things.

But you accept "not limited" and it can be used only for NON DUALITY (NON DUALITY is not limited).
This is because I am using the dictionary meaning of limit. However, I still don't know what you mean by "Not limited related to interaction with another things"?

I understand what you mean that you do really praise God, so you consider "Not Limited" can only be used to God.
God or the Universe, yes.

That's it, no question asked.
I still don't know what question you actually asked.

But I am more focusing on the use of "not limited" WITHIN CONTEXT to avoid paradox while discussing about Supreme being and similar to these.
I still don't know what you mean by not limited. Are you referring to free will, because it seems that you keep using people in your examples?

You understand from UP-BOTTOM, but i tried to explain from BOTTOM-UP
1) Whether it is top-down or bottom-up, if there is no error in reasoning they should both coincide.

2) Our argument here isn't that there's a distinction between our views (If we are both looking at the same thing, me from the roof of the house and you from the ground, we should come to the same conclusions) our problem is that we are looking at different things.

But yes, you stated many times, that there is no confusion on understanding "not limited" since "not limited" must be understood as "WHOLE", "COMPLETE".
(1) "But yes" to what? I have no idea what you are answering yes to.

(2) That's not where the confusion lies. The confusion is at what it is that YOU mean when YOU say "not limited". And it is still unclear.

And again i stated many times that, for yourself "not limited" is clear enough to be understood (as "WHOLE" without making any confusion for yourself and others), but for someone that doesn't familiar with "not limited", they could easily accept "not limited" as "CAN DO ALL POSSIBILITIES" (SOMEHOW that will lead to paradox).
Yes, that would be someone who is using the term VAGUELY and not explaining himself properly.

1) "CAN DO ALL POSSIBILITIES" has a name; it's called omnipotence. If you would have used the proper word from the beginning, we wouldn't have to go through all this nonsense. the funny thing is that I suggested it to you (in this thread or another) and you still haven't used it!

2) Saying simply that "infinite" = "not limited by" is omnipotence (which is what you are doing) without actually using the word "omnipotent" or any other synonym, is in fact EXTREMELY vague and inaccurate. If I were going to use that phraseology I would have said "unlimited abilities".

3) But you chose to be vague so that you could equivocate between "infinite" = "omnipotent" and "infinite" = not finite (ie the colloquial.)

My understanding eliminate this case, so we can avoid paradox AND STILL WE CAN PRAISE TO GOD AS YOU ALWAYS DID).
The paradox is only present when "infinite" is referring to "not finite"; the paradox is NOT present when talking about "omnipotence."

But, again you replied TO MY EXAMPLE (For example: God is unlimited, therefore God can do anything, including God can create another God), WITH THIS:

1) Let's stick to science.
2) P1: God is unlimited
3) P2: God can do anything
4) P1 therefore P2 = Non sequitur.

And you thought that i believe it and you made correction that it is fallacy. Sure, it's fallacy, since i disbelieve it.
You are extremely vague with CRUCIAL points and extremely VERBOSE with trivial things.

1) You expressed an example which I repeated and showed it to be fallacious.

2) The fact that it is a fallacy has NOTHING to do whether you or anyone else believes or disbelieves in it. 1 + 1 = 2 whether you believe it or not.

IT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE of the use of "infinite", "unlimited" that commonly known as "CAN DO ALL POSSIBILITIES".
Unless you make it clear that you are taking about omnipotence, it is NOT commonly known that "infinite" = "can do all possibilities".

I disbelieve (since it's just an example), but you took it seriously as it came from my believe.
Why would you give an example of something that you know is fallacious? So am I to assume that ALL of your examples? If so, then they will simply be ignored.

You understand my explanation separately without considering any other explanation relevantly.
It's still unclear to me because you have not verified that you are indeed talking about omnipotence. If you are, please use the proper terms.

This typical of discussion puts us on synchronizing on different types, which is difficult to maintain.
I guess you're trying to say that we were talking about two different things. If so, then yes I agree.

It's not criticizing that there is something wrong or correctly on my explanation or on your explanation, but rather it asserts that we are discussing at different level of understanding (me-bottom-up, you-up-bottom) and at different lines.
No no. The problem isn't that we are taking a different approach; the problem is that we are talking about 2 totally different things.

Please, apologize if i can not explain my thought correctly. I am sure there is something wrong on my explanation, please accept my apologize.

Thank you :)
I will accept your apologies for being vague, if you wish to apologize for that. As far as this discussion is concerned, you need just confirm the you were talking about omnipotence and restate your position using the PROPER words.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Seremonia
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2012 12:16:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/9/2012 2:58:54 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 11/6/2012 7:54:54 AM, Seremonia wrote:
Hi
Hello.

I am trying to map our discussion. I am focusing typical of our discussion, and i can see the reflection of it could be found on your statement:
- Seremonia wrote: ANY ONE THING is not limited by another kind of ANY ONE THING, and vice versa
- tBoonePickens wrote: No. ANY ONE THING is ITSELF A LIMIT and is thus limited by ALL OTHER ONE THINGS.

I understand "Not limited" related to interaction with another things (i can use it within context).
Equivocation rears its ugly head yet again! So, instead of clarifying and explaining this you instead choose a completely VAGUE definition of infinite. You explain the world away on insignificant things but fail to clarify the most important of things.

But you accept "not limited" and it can be used only for NON DUALITY (NON DUALITY is not limited).
This is because I am using the dictionary meaning of limit. However, I still don't know what you mean by "Not limited related to interaction with another things"?

It's because you put your understanding based on dictionary, so you don't know for how far an understanding can be widen reasonably.


I understand what you mean that you do really praise God, so you consider "Not Limited" can only be used to God.
God or the Universe, yes.

That's it, no question asked.
I still don't know what question you actually asked.

But I am more focusing on the use of "not limited" WITHIN CONTEXT to avoid paradox while discussing about Supreme being and similar to these.
I still don't know what you mean by not limited. Are you referring to free will, because it seems that you keep using people in your examples?

You understand from UP-BOTTOM, but i tried to explain from BOTTOM-UP
1) Whether it is top-down or bottom-up, if there is no error in reasoning they should both coincide.

2) Our argument here isn't that there's a distinction between our views (If we are both looking at the same thing, me from the roof of the house and you from the ground, we should come to the same conclusions) our problem is that we are looking at different things.

But yes, you stated many times, that there is no confusion on understanding "not limited" since "not limited" must be understood as "WHOLE", "COMPLETE".
(1) "But yes" to what? I have no idea what you are answering yes to.

(2) That's not where the confusion lies. The confusion is at what it is that YOU mean when YOU say "not limited". And it is still unclear.

And again i stated many times that, for yourself "not limited" is clear enough to be understood (as "WHOLE" without making any confusion for yourself and others), but for someone that doesn't familiar with "not limited", they could easily accept "not limited" as "CAN DO ALL POSSIBILITIES" (SOMEHOW that will lead to paradox).
Yes, that would be someone who is using the term VAGUELY and not explaining himself properly.

1) "CAN DO ALL POSSIBILITIES" has a name; it's called omnipotence. If you would have used the proper word from the beginning, we wouldn't have to go through all this nonsense. the funny thing is that I suggested it to you (in this thread or another) and you still haven't used it!

If it's the same then just the same, there is no need to be confused, unless you are unfamiliar with this understanding "CAN DO ALL POSSIBILITIES".

2) Saying simply that "infinite" = "not limited by" is omnipotence (which is what you are doing) without actually using the word "omnipotent" or any other synonym, is in fact EXTREMELY vague and inaccurate. If I were going to use that phraseology I would have said "unlimited abilities".

3) But you chose to be vague so that you could equivocate between "infinite" = "omnipotent" and "infinite" = not finite (ie the colloquial.)
"Not limited by" is within context. If you can't accept it, i can't help you.

My understanding eliminate this case, so we can avoid paradox AND STILL WE CAN PRAISE TO GOD AS YOU ALWAYS DID).
The paradox is only present when "infinite" is referring to "not finite"; the paradox is NOT present when talking about "omnipotence."

Again you are forcing your own understanding, while the fact is not the same as your claim. See below, that there is related discussion to paradox and omnipotence.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.biblelighthouse.com...
http://plato.stanford.edu...
and many more ...

But, again you replied TO MY EXAMPLE (For example: God is unlimited, therefore God can do anything, including God can create another God), WITH THIS:

1) Let's stick to science.
2) P1: God is unlimited
3) P2: God can do anything
4) P1 therefore P2 = Non sequitur.

And you thought that i believe it and you made correction that it is fallacy. Sure, it's fallacy, since i disbelieve it.
You are extremely vague with CRUCIAL points and extremely VERBOSE with trivial things.

1) You expressed an example which I repeated and showed it to be fallacious.

2) The fact that it is a fallacy has NOTHING to do whether you or anyone else believes or disbelieves in it. 1 + 1 = 2 whether you believe it or not.

IT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE of the use of "infinite", "unlimited" that commonly known as "CAN DO ALL POSSIBILITIES".
Unless you make it clear that you are taking about omnipotence, it is NOT commonly known that "infinite" = "can do all possibilities".

If it's the same then just the same, there is no need to be confused, unless you are unfamiliar with this understanding "CAN DO ALL POSSIBILITIES". You can refer to "omnipotence" but if you consider i have to use "omnipotence", then there must be slightly different to your own understanding.

If it's the same then just the same, there is no need to be confused, unless you are unfamiliar with (reasonable of) it.

I disbelieve (since it's just an example), but you took it seriously as it came from my believe.
Why would you give an example of something that you know is fallacious? So am I to assume that ALL of your examples? If so, then they will simply be ignored.

You understand my explanation separately without considering any other explanation relevantly.
It's still unclear to me because you have not verified that you are indeed talking about omnipotence. If you are, please use the proper terms.

Consider i am using "omnipotence" in the sense that understanding "infinite", "unlimited" can be related to "omnipotence" and you consider there is no paradox on omnipotence. But the facts, by using the term "omnipotence" it doesn't eliminate an understanding that "there is no paradox related to an understanding about omnipotence".

Again you are forcing your own understanding, while the fact is not the same as your claim. See below, that there is discussion about paradox that has relation to omnipotence.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.biblelighthouse.com...
http://plato.stanford.edu...
and many more ...
I am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!