Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# The Limitation of Infinity

 Posts: 114 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/22/2012 9:15:26 AMPosted: 4 years agoIn 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 actualI am free not because I have choices, but I am free because I rely on God with quality assured!
 Posts: 3,266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/25/2012 5:46:13 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 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.
 Posts: 733 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 10/31/2012 1:00:22 AMPosted: 4 years agoAt 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 actualWhat 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?
 Posts: 3,266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/1/2012 4:34:00 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 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.
 Posts: 3,266 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/1/2012 4:36:05 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 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.
 Posts: 114 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/1/2012 9:57:24 PMPosted: 4 years agoAt 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!
 Posts: 114 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/2/2012 12:56:21 AMPosted: 4 years agotBoonePickens 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!
 Posts: 114 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/2/2012 1:00:42 AMPosted: 4 years agoAt 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!