Maxcady10001 wrote: ↑
September 27th, 2018, 5:57 am
You did not answer to why you used a triangle to represent an infinite existence. That alone shows that there's some kind of misunderstanding.
I meant to show that being in something (in this case, inside a triangle) and being different to the thing that you’re in (in this case, various shapes), does not alter the definition of the thing that you’re in. What matters is that the definition remains true (paradox free)
And because you can imagine and draw these things they are not infinite. You cannot call what naturally has borders/limits infinite.
Can you drink from a cup of infinite depth? No. Imagine pouring something into a rim of darkness. Now could a cup of infinite depth be lifted? No. Could you use a straw on a cup of infinite depth? No. Straw would go on forever never reaching any bottom because the bottom dies not exist. Can a cup with no bottom be called a cup? No. Then can the limited (things you mentioned like rooms and triangles) be unlimited? No.
Yes, and that’s my point exactly. You can clearly see how your example amounts to a paradox and is therefore impossible. But now, I’ll give you an example, and you try and show me paradoxes in it:
You have an object (let’s call it a semi-infinite cup), again, I’ve used the word semi-infinite to describe this cup as only true infinity has no start and no end point whereas semi-infinite (in any dimension), has a start point, but not an end point
. Only Existence can be truly infinite.
Obviously you cannot pour anything into this cup as semi-infinite depth logically implies a bottomless cup. Nor can you lift it, again, for the same reason. So the only hypothetically possible way that you can drink from a semi-infinite cup is if that cup is already filled. Then, you can take your straw, and drink from it. So long as you and your environment are immortal (semi-infinite in the time dimension), you can drink forever/semi-infinitely
. How you do this, like how many sips you take in a minute, is another matter that does not contradict doing the act semi-infinitely.
Wrong. A finite thing (man) cannot count infinitely (to no end). So your first point isn't doing. A person can only count as long as their lifespan, not infinitely.
He can do so if he is immortal, and there’s nothing paradoxical about an immortal man. You clearly demonstrated the paradox of drinking from a cup of infinite depth. Show me why an immortal man is paradoxical. Bearing in mind that immortal (semi-infinite in time) is not the same as eternal (infinite in terms of time, which is exclusive to Existence/that which is omnpresent)
Limits are already put on a persons life, and on any conditions involved with being a person, such as how good a shaoe there in, how many breaths to take before saying the next number, things like that. So how can a person count infinitely? They can’t.
How many breaths they take in a minute is not relevant to their ability to drink in an immortal manner. Let’s say immortal man X takes 20 breaths per minute and has 20 sips in 1 minute. They continue this without end because the nature of time is such that it allows repetition of this act without end.
Now, another immortal man Y takes 10 breaths per minute and has 10 sips in one minute. This act with these measures is repeated without end.
They are both drinking semi-infinitely but with different measures. This does not takeaway from their drinking semi-infinitely.
Now you may think that one will ultimately end up drinking more than the other but that is absurd because they simply won’t end their action. So neither will outdrink each other when this task is done in a semi-infinite manner. What you might say is that if at any point in their semi-infinite timeline you took a measurement (which would be finite), then you would conclude that in this timespan, X is drinking more than Y.
So where is there a paradox with semi-infinite? I can show you how its rejection would be paradoxical.
First of all, what is fully infinite?
Existence is the only thing that can be infinite (paradoxical to reject). By fully infinite, I meant to make a clear distinction between being infinite and being semi-infinite.
Is there a such thing as completed infinity?
Depends on what you mean. Existence is infinite but infinity is not something you can ever reach (paradoxical). Your word completed implies an end, which Existence does not have. So completed infinity sounds paradoxical to me.
Please note, that Existence being complete is not the same as Existence being completed. Things in Existence get completed via the process of change. Existence itself, has always been complete (contained within it all things/potentials) and will always be complete. What happens inside it (as in what happens with the potential that it has) does not alter Existence being complete. Nothing goes out of it, and nothing comes into it.
I find you denying time and change. What is existence?
I do not deny time and change. Again, take a look at what I said with regards to semi-infinites and the example I gave with regards to the immortal drinkers.
Imagine you have a really long line, and you draw lines through it. Say it's now three lines. The bit of line before the first mark through, the bit of line after the second mark through and the bit of line between. Now if you want to call the first line infinite, then you have just successfully divided the infinite into three sections. Is that possible?
There is no paradox in drawing lines through a semi-infinite line. Saying that you’ve divided the semi-infinite line is paradoxical because you can’t divide something that has no end. You can measure from where you drew your first line to where you drew your second or third line. There is no paradox here.
Oh, and tell me about the container you know that has no borders.
Existence contains us within it. It has no borders.