Who can fathom the infinite?

[RestlessSoul]

It doesn't. Consciousness, while it doesn't even have a definition to capture it's meaning, it surely isn't a thing. It's an activity.

Aren't material things activities also? Even something as solid as a rock or a steel girder is really a whirling mass of sub atomic particles, convergent fields and forces in temporary equilibrium, always evolving into something else...

 

[Heyo]

Aren't material things activities also? Even something as solid as a rock or a steel girder is really a whirling mass of sub atomic particles, convergent fields and forces in temporary equilibrium, always evolving into something else...

Yes, when you go down to the atomic scale, that is true. But on the scale of human perception, the emergent properties are well-defined. We have no problem to see (and measure) things as having mass and spacial extension. And we can mostly ignore time.
Activities don't have mass, and they make no sense without time. So, for all practical purposes, we can pretty well distinguish between "things" and "activities".

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, when you go down to the atomic scale, that is true. But on the scale of human perception, the emergent properties are well-defined. We have no problem to see (and measure) things as having mass and spacial extension. And we can mostly ignore time.
Activities don't have mass, and they make no sense without time. So, for all practical purposes, we can pretty well distinguish between "things" and "activities".

You want to ignore time? I’m not sure that’s possible tbh. If things exist in space, they must exist in time, as far as we understand time in both physics and philosophy. You could argue that objects are arranged in space while events are arranged in time, but aren’t all objects actually events? Events unfolding in their own time, therefore perhaps slowly enough for us to take measurements which won’t change significantly between measuring and recording.

 

[Heyo]

You want to ignore time? I’m not sure that’s possible tbh. If things exist in space, they must exist in time, as far as we understand time in both physics and philosophy. You could argue that objects are arranged in space while events are arranged in time, but aren’t all objects actually events? Events unfolding in their own time, therefore perhaps slowly enough for us to take measurements which won’t change significantly between measuring and recording.

Yes, of course, every object has an extension in time, ignoring time is only for practical purposes.
There are "things" which aren't real and have no extension in time, the Platonic ideals. A triangle is a triangle, no matter if time even exists. Ideals are truly timeless and unchanging, like some people describe their gods. But they also can't act, as action requires time.

 

[JustGeorge]

**Rule 4 Reminder- Please Stay On Topic!**
​

4. Soliciting/Advertising and Off-Topic Spam
Soliciting or advertising for any content outside of the forums, whether your own or that of another person or group, is prohibited, and may be deleted by the staff on sight. This rule applies to any content area of the forum, including but not limited to the chat room, forum posts, profile information, private conversations, and signatures. Special exception may be granted to promote content in keeping with the mission of RF, but requires advance permission from the RF staff.

Spam or off-topic content is also not allowed on the forums. This includes (but is not limited to) posting links or images without discussion-promoting commentary, having a signature that violates signature size guidelines, posting surveys without permission from the RF staff, posts that deviate significantly from a thread topic or its intent, repetitious non-conversational posts, and any other habits deemed spammy by the staff.

 

[Martin]

Consciousness, while it doesn't even have a definition to capture it's meaning, it surely isn't a thing. It's an activity.

I think you can look at it both ways.

 

[Heyo]

I think you can look at it both ways.

One of the failures of having no consistent definition.

 

[Kathryn]

When I was a kid about six or seven years old, we visited a battleship and for as far as I could see down the ship, it was simply a series of doors opening onto a main drag so to speak, which disappeared into the distance. I often think of that when I think of infinity.

 

[RestlessSoul]

When I was a kid about six or seven years old, we visited a battleship and for as far as I could see down the ship, it was simply a series of doors opening onto a main drag so to speak, which disappeared into the distance. I often think of that when I think of infinity.

You ever stood between two mirrors?

 

[ChristineM]

Infinity is a strange beast that depends on perception. It's easy to understand the concept of infinity however infinity itself...

Infinite love for example is intangible and perceived differently by each person and each person imagines it in there minds. It it truly infinite or is it only as big as our minds can hold?

We can’t comprehend how “big” or “never-ending” infinity is, because...
a/ our minds are not big enough.
b/ time and our understanding of it always has a beginning and an end.

But the universe being boundless and infinitely expanding is altogether different.

Is there anything beyond the universe? Was there anything before it? If there are infinite universes, how is it that our universe has no boundaries? Are other universes also boundless? How can that work?

Questions that (at present) cannot be answered so if one doesn't know the parameters how can one fathom the infinite?


Einstein said “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity.” i guess he was right.

 

[ChristineM]

You ever stood between two mirrors?

I have, they have to be precisely alligned to prevent the image bending out of view.
And when they are precisely alligned, it is impossible to see what is behind the first image.

 

[osgart]

Infinity is without end. Finitude is that which has ends. An existence that is finite has ends, and only non existence is beyond that. But non existence has absolutely no existence. Therefore existence is infinite if anything exists at all, which of course it does.

Who's to say that in infinite existence that everything is of the same forces and elements that are here?

Who's to say that our space and time is the only, or the all?

Are we derivative, or fundamental to existence, or perhaps a combination of fundamental and derivative?

My belief is that which is fundamental is infinite and eternal and this current form of reality is a changing, passing form. That which is inexplicable is fundamental. That which is qualitative is of the infinite foundations. That which is derivative goes back to its roots.

If right then existence is far more than what's observable. And beyond what's knowable to the human mind.

 

[Kathryn]

You ever stood between two mirrors?

Heck yes! Wow, that's very interesting.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

5 Planes of Existence

There are things that exist, but are not real.
And there are "things" that aren't things, like love.

The word real means things that objectively exist.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It doesn't. Consciousness, while it doesn't even have a definition to capture it's meaning, it surely isn't a thing. It's an activity.

That's not the point. Activities are real. And Consciousness is real, even though it is not tangible.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Love and justice aren't only not real, they aren't even things. It's something we do.

Real includes things that are not tangible. If something objectively exists, it is real. That includes love and justice.

 

[Heyo]

Real includes things that are not tangible. If something objectively exists, it is real. That includes love and justice.

I agree that "real" includes things that are not tangible. We can't touch a force or a field, but we can measure them.
But love isn't a thing. It is only through a quirk of the English language that we can construct a substantive out of a verb or adjective.

I don't argue that love isn't real, but existence is usually defined as a property of entities. Therefore, it doesn't apply to actions.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I agree that "real" includes things that are not tangible. We can't touch a force or a field, but we can measure them.
But love isn't a thing. It is only through a quirk of the English language that we can construct a substantive out of a verb or adjective.

I don't argue that love isn't real, but existence is usually defined as a property of entities. Therefore, it doesn't apply to actions.

If love is not a creature, plant, or other life form, then it is a "thing." It is a specific kind of "thing" that we call an abstraction.

 

[Heyo]

If love is not a creature, plant, or other life form, then it is a "thing." It is a specific kind of "thing" that we call an abstraction.

Are abstractions real?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Are abstractions real?

Yes.

Indeed, according to many Myers Briggs analysts, 25-30% of the US population leans towards viewing abstractions like Justice or a circle or an institutional system or the laws governing electro-magnetism as being MORE real than the table you can knock on with your knuckles.

Just an addendum here for the people that scream, "the MBTI is not scientific!" here is the actual truth. If you deal with each of the four scales independently, the MBTI is every bit as accurate as the Big Five. Where the MBTI falls down is when people want to combine the four scales to form some sort of synthesis of a personality. And I'm not doing anything like that here. I'm speaking only for one scale: the sensing versus intuiting scale (analogous to the Openness scale of the Big 5).

Sign me off, INFJ-gal.