Proof Infinity is Impossible

[RJG]

1. Infinity is not a 'thing' that resides anywhere.

It's not nothing, so why doesn't it have to be somewhere?

Because it is the "where" (not a "what", or a 'thing') where finite objects ('things') exist.

[Atla]

1. Infinity is not a 'thing' that resides anywhere.

It's not nothing, so why doesn't it have to be somewhere?

Because it is the "where" (not a "what", or a 'thing') where finite objects ('things') exist.

And the same way: a finite universe with circular dimensions is the "where" (not a "what") where finite objects exist. See?

[RJG]

Because it is the "where" (not a "what", or a 'thing') where finite objects ('things') exist.

And the same way: a finite universe with circular dimensions is the "where" (not a "what") where finite objects exist. See?

A finite universe is 'finite'. It is a "what"; a 'thing. -- And yes, a "what" can be the space (the "where") for other "whats". For example, a (finite) big cardboard box (a "what"), can be the place where smaller boxes (other "whats") exist. But then, where does this big box itself exist? (i.e. where does this "what"; or in your case, the"finite universe") exist? ...does it exist "no-where"?

One finite object can be the place for other finite objects. But no finite object could ever be the place for ALL finite objects.
Without an infinite universe, there could be no finite objects.

[Terrapin Station]

Where then, does this 'finite' universe exist? ...does it exist "no-where"?

Where does your infinity exist? Does it exist no-where?

1. Infinity is not a 'thing' that resides anywhere. Only 'things' (finite objects) reside some-where.
2. Infinity (or infinite space) is where finite 'things' exist.

That winds up saying that things exist in a nothing (or no-thing) that doesn't reside anywhere.

[Atla]

Because it is the "where" (not a "what", or a 'thing') where finite objects ('things') exist.

And the same way: a finite universe with circular dimensions is the "where" (not a "what") where finite objects exist. See?

A finite universe is 'finite'. It is a "what"; a 'thing. -- And yes, a "what" can be the space (the "where") for other "whats". For example, a (finite) big cardboard box (a "what"), can be the place where smaller boxes (other "whats") exist. But then, where does this big box itself exist? (i.e. where does this "what"; or in your case, the"finite universe") exist? ...does it exist "no-where"?

One finite object can be the place for other finite objects. But no finite object could ever be the place for ALL finite objects.
Without an infinite universe, there could be no finite objects.

Then your infinite is nothing and doesn't exist either.

[RJG]

That winds up saying that things exist in a nothing (or no-thing) that doesn't reside anywhere.

Space is not a "thing" (or a "what"), it is a "where". It is where "things" exist.

Then your infinite is nothing and doesn't exist either.

Infinite space is not a "thing" (or a "what"), it is a "where". It is where finite "things" exist.

[Terrapin Station]

That winds up saying that things exist in a nothing (or no-thing) that doesn't reside anywhere.

Space is not a "thing" (or a "what"), it is a "where". It is where "things" exist.

Now, let's say why space isn't a "where" if space isn't infinite. The reason that is the case is because _________? What goes in the blank there?

[Atla]

Infinite space is not a "thing" (or a "what"), it is a "where". It is where finite "things" exist.

A "where" is also something, not nothing.

(And the things you say are based on a Newtonian/Kantian absolute conception of space, which probably isn't the case.)

[RJG]

Space is not a "thing" (or a "what"), it is a "where". It is where "things" exist.

Now, let's say why space isn't a "where" if space isn't infinite. The reason that is the case is because _________? What goes in the blank there?

Space is still a "where", regardless of it being an infinite space (universe) or a confined space (closet). Space is where things exist.

Infinite space is not a "thing" (or a "what"), it is a "where". It is where finite "things" exist.

A "where" is also something, not nothing.

...does this then make it a "what"?

What, where, and when (matter, space, and time) are uniquely distinct concepts.

[Terrapin Station]

Space is not a "thing" (or a "what"), it is a "where". It is where "things" exist.

Now, let's say why space isn't a "where" if space isn't infinite. The reason that is the case is because _________? What goes in the blank there?

Space is still a "where", regardless of it being an infinite space (universe) or a confined space (closet). Space is where things exist.

Okay, but on the scenario of space being finite presented above, you kept asking where it would be. Does that question make sense if space is the where? You'd be asking where the where is. (And then why couldn't we ask where the where of the where is, and so on?)

[RJG]

Space is still a "where", regardless of it being an infinite space (universe) or a confined space (closet). Space is where things exist.

Okay, but on the scenario of space being finite presented above, you kept asking where it would be.

Yes, if something is 'finite' then it exists some-where. It has structure/form/borders/limitations that exist some-where.

The space inside a (finite) shoebox is finite. The shoebox (and the space within) exists some-where. It exists in my closet. If it existed no-where, then the shoebox (and the space within) would not exist.

Does that question make sense if space is the where?

Space is always the "where".


************
The point is that although one finite object can be the place for other finite objects, no single finite object could ever be the place for ALL finite objects. --- **Without an infinite universe (space), there could be no finite objects at all.**

P1. It is logically impossible [X<X] for a finite object to contain ALL finite objects. It cannot contain itself.
P2. If space were not infinite, ALL finite objects would have no-'where' to exist.
P3. Finite objects exist.
C1. Therefore, space is infinite.

[Terrapin Station]

Space is still a "where", regardless of it being an infinite space (universe) or a confined space (closet). Space is where things exist.

Okay, but on the scenario of space being finite presented above, you kept asking where it would be.

Yes, if something is 'finite' then it exists some-where. It has structure/form/borders/limitations that exist some-where.

The space inside a (finite) shoebox is finite. The shoebox (and the space within) exists some-where. It exists in my closet. If it existed no-where, then the shoebox (and the space within) would not exist.

Does that question make sense if space is the where?

Space is always the "where".


************
The point is that although one finite object can be the place for other finite objects, no single finite object could ever be the place for ALL finite objects. --- **Without an infinite universe (space), there could be no finite objects at all.**

P1. It is logically impossible [X<X] for a finite object to contain ALL finite objects. It cannot contain itself.
P2. If space were not infinite, ALL finite objects would have no-'where' to exist.
P3. Finite objects exist.
C1. Therefore, space is infinite.

All you're really saying is that because you assume that space is infinite, finite spaces have to exist somewhere in infinite space. Or there is some way to reference a broader location for any finite space given the assumption that space in general is infinite.

Re your P1 above, yes, something can't contain itself, but if space is the container, it doesn't need to contain itself. Space can't contain itself if it's infinite, either, of course.

[Atla]

Infinite space is not a "thing" (or a "what"), it is a "where". It is where finite "things" exist.

A "where" is also something, not nothing.

...does this then make it a "what"?

What, where, and when (matter, space, and time) are uniquely distinct concepts.

Only if you have philosophy backwards and base stuff on words, instead of using words to describe stuff. (And also reject Einstein etc.)

[RJG]

P1. It is logically impossible [X<X] for a finite object to contain ALL finite objects. It cannot contain itself.
P2. If space were not infinite, ALL finite objects would have no-'where' to exist.
P3. Finite objects exist.
C1. Therefore, space is infinite.

All you're really saying is that because you assume that space is infinite, finite spaces have to exist somewhere in infinite space.

Not so. I am saying that it is logically impossible for finite objects to exist if infinite space does not exist. (i.e. there would be no-where for them to exist). Since finite objects exist, therefore infinite space exists.

Or there is some way to reference a broader location for any finite space given the assumption that space in general is infinite.

Space can be 'finite' if confined by borders/limitations (e.g. in a shoebox), or space can be 'infinite' (e.g. the universe) if it has no borders/limitations.

Re your P1 above, yes, something can't contain itself, but if [infinite] space is the container, it doesn't need to contain itself. Space can't contain itself if it's infinite, either, of course.

Note: I added [infinite] above to make your statement true. "Infinite space" does "not need to contain itself" as it contains 'everything' (ALL finite objects!). "Finite space" implies a 'finite' object that needs to exist some-where. A single 'finite' object (that we want to falsely call "universe") cannot logically exist as it cannot logically contain ALL finite objects.

X<X is logically 'impossible' -- it is logically 'impossible' for a finite object to contain ALL finite objects. The universe therefore CANNOT be 'finite'.
Y<X is logically 'possible' -- it is logically 'possible' for a non-finite object ("infinite space") to contain ALL finite objects.

[Terrapin Station]

Not so. I am saying that it is logically impossible for finite objects to exist if infinite space does not exist.

Yeah, you've said that . . . which is so obviously wrong. But it's like trying to talk to a brick wall.