Who can fathom the infinite?

[Heyo]

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.

That makes 70 to 75% NOT thinking of abstraction as real.
Though, the minority agrees with Plato, who also thought of ideals as real. I don't. And I distinguish between ideals and constructs. Ideals have at least objective existence, while constructs are only there as long as we agree they are.

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.

I don't know why you brought up the MBTI, but while we're at it, we seem not to be that different, it's only that I think, while you feel.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That makes 70 to 75% NOT thinking of abstraction as real.

the 25-30% are those who think abstractions are MORE real. Most people tend to think of them as just different kinds of real. And then there are those such as yourself, who view them as not real at all. I mean let's face it, stop any person on a street corner and ask them 1. if they have found love and 2. if love is real. Among those who have found love, they will almost certainly tell you that love is real.

Though, the minority agrees with Plato, who also thought of ideals as real. I don't.

Yes, I understand that fully.

I don't know why you brought up the MBTI, but while we're at it, we seem not to be that different, it's only that I think, while you feel.

Because it is INFJ analysts who support my point that not everyone views the world the same way you do.

 

[blü 2]

How can you possibly know that?

I'm not aware of any real infinities in reality. Infinity is a concept, basically that the number line is unlimited in extent (Cantor's reworkings of infinity being entirely conceptual in application).

For example, let's take the Planck length as the minimum meaningful length in reality ─ let's say, as Wikipedia does, that it's 1.616255×10⁻³⁵. According to a sum I did some years ago, if the radius of the known universe is 4.57 e +10 light years, then the volume of this universe in cubes of Planck length side is merely 8.022 e +175 such cubes ─ nowhere near infinity. Compare notions like Cantor's 'lowest transfinite ordinal ω' ─ an idea so silly if applied to reality that no doubt you can have a lot of fun with it as the wine and liquor flow late into the night.

 

[Heyo]

the 25-30% are those who think abstractions are MORE real. Most people tend to think of them as just different kinds of real. And then there are those such as yourself, who view them as not real at all. I mean let's face it, stop any person on a street corner and ask them 1. if they have found love and 2. if love is real. Among those who have found love, they will almost certainly tell you that love is real.

And of all the people who had "experiences" with ghosts, most of them will tell you that ghosts are real.

Yes, I understand that fully.

Because it is INFJ analysts who support my point that not everyone views the world the same way you do.

Yes, not everybody sees the world the same. I just argue that my view is more consistent and more useful.
We agree that there is a difference between concrete and abstract things, why not call them different?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I'm not aware of any real infinities in reality.

That is fallacious reasoning. Things can be objectively true of which we have absolutely no awareness. If you go back 4000 years, humans had no awareness of DNA, black holes, or blind abyssal fish, yet all those things have been and still are quite real.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And of all the people who had "experiences" with ghosts, most of them will tell you that ghosts are real.

We are discussing abstractions. Ghosts are not abstractions. I personally doubt they exist (I always leave open the possibility I might be wrong), but if the did exist, they would not be abstractions if people claim to see them.

Yes, not everybody sees the world the same. I just argue that my view is more consistent and more useful.
We agree that there is a difference between concrete and abstract things, why not call them different?

I never have a problem with labeling subgroups. Just as I don't mind having fruits and vegetables as labels for different kinds of produce, I don't mind abstract and concrete for different kinds of reality.

One of the reasons I prefer the MBTI over the Big Five is because the MBTI is nonjudgmental. It doesn't assume that one end of the spectrum is good and the other end is bad. Unlike your "My approach is the superior approach," my motto is "It takes all kinds to make the world go round."

I'm going to give some descriptions from the MBTI, but remember that all descriptions are generalizations. They come from groups of self reported affirmations that tend to clump together (same as with the Big 5). No one is everything on one side or the other. The Sensing (S) versus Intuition (N) spectrum refers to how people prefer to take in and process information.

Let's start with the Sensing end. People on this side of the spectrum are like you: what is real is what you can touch, taste, feel, hear, see. Sensing (S) types are grounded in the present moment, preferring concrete facts, practical details, and firsthand experiences. Their focus on what is tangible and observable makes them practical in their approach to life.

Here is their good side. They are detail oriented, practical, and observant. They do very well with hands on learning. They are reliable and consistent, and prefer order. Being closely connected to their senses, they are often good at appreciating aesthetics, textures, and even physical comfort. Sensors excel in environments that require precision and consistency, where they can apply established methods and build on past experiences. These traits produce all kinds of wonderful people from violin virtuosos to exceptional engineers. Hey, doesn't that sound really, really good? Those are all pretty big compliments!

Here are their pitfalls. Their preference for stable, established routines can sometimes make change more difficult for them. Because of their focus on the present, they can sometimes have difficulty in imagining and preparing for the future, and sometimes have problems anticipating consequences that are far down the road. Their preference for the tried and tested can lead to missed opportunities for creative or out-of-the-box solutions. Sometimes they get so absorbed in the details that they lose sight of the bigger picture, and as we know, getting stuck in minutiae leads to inefficiency. They really are uncomfortable with ambiguity, which can cause them problems because as we know, life is full of occasions where there is no clear answer. Their skepticism towards intuition and gut feelings can hamper their ability to take calculated risks or think creatively.

Now let's look at iNtuitives (where I fall). Intuition (N) refers to a way of perceiving the world that emphasizes the abstract, the unseen, and the potential in any given situation. Rather than focusing on immediate realities, tangible facts, or the details of the present, Intuitive types are naturally oriented toward possibilities, patterns, and future potential.

Here is our good side. We are big picture thinkers, imaginative and creative, future oriented, comfortable with ambiguity, open to new ideas, and insightful. We are often intellectually curious and enjoy exploring ideas, theories, and philosophies, making us lifelong learners. You might say we have a drive to learn. We tend to prioritize the WHY of things, and seek deeper meaning in our work and relationships. We excel at synthesizing information to grasp overarching themes, finding connections between seemingly unrelated ideas, and envisioning what could be. These traits can produce everything from poets to inventors. Hey, that sound pretty good too. Just DIFFERENT.

Here are our areas of concern. Intuitives can be so focused on the big picture that we may miss important details, which can lead to oversights in planning and execution. We may struggle with concrete, routine tasks or find them mundane, BORING, which means that we sometimes fudge or even skip necessary steps. In fact, our future orientation can make us very impatient and dissatisfied with present tasks that feel routine and predictable. We are quite prone to over thinking and idealization, and can have goals that are simply unrealistic. We sometimes ignore immediate needs such as deadlines and other practical things -- I'm notorious for skipping meals and sleep when reading a good book. And because we love new ideas and possibilities, we sometimes start new projects before the first one is ended.

So you see, BOTH orientations have their gifts and weaknesses. The world is a much better place because BOTH exist.

 

[Heyo]

Let's start with the Sensing end. People on this side of the spectrum are like you:

You haven't read (or understood) my last post. The difference between us is not S vs N (or I/E, or P/J). I'm an INTJ on the MBTI. As I said, you feel where I think.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You haven't read (or understood) my last post. The difference between us is not S vs N (or I/E, or P/J). I'm an INTJ on the MBTI. As I said, you feel where I think.

Given your remarks about abstractions such as institutions or economic systems not being real, I'm a bit mystified how you ended up with an N. The whole underlying difference between S and N is the preference for either the concrete or the abstract. It seems to be rooted in your identification of "real" with "concrete" rather than in "existing." But as I said, the spectrum is simply a collection of different answers that tend to clump together. You can certainly have most of the aspects of an intuiting person, but not this particular one.

And for whatever it's worth, my preference for feeling doesn't mean I don't think. I value logic immensely, and have made it a point in my life not to make decisions that are irrational. I score as an F because, if push comes to shove, I place people above truth.

 

[blü 2]

That is fallacious reasoning. Things can be objectively true of which we have absolutely no awareness. If you go back 4000 years, humans had no awareness of DNA, black holes, or blind abyssal fish, yet all those things have been and still are quite real.

No, it's not 'fallacious reasoning'. It's an observation about the world external to the self, and if you disagree, just point to a real infinity in the universe and demonstrate its infinity.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

By definition. "Real" is that what we can measure, ...

Only when you put the word in quotation marks and play Humpty Dumpty. Germs killed folks long before Van Leeuwenhoek.

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone,​

‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’​

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, it's not 'fallacious reasoning'. It's an observation about the world external to the self, and if you disagree, just point to a real infinity in the universe and demonstrate its infinity.

I don't need to. The obligation is not on me to do so. Consider that 1000 years ago, no one had a clue about DNA. Yet it still existed. Things do not have to be known or proven to be real.

 

[Heyo]

I don't need to. The obligation is not on me to do so. Consider that 1000 years ago, no one had a clue about DNA. Yet it still existed. Things do not have to be known or proven to be real.

Things that are not in evidence are at best unknown. And we can at least say that there is no thing known that is infinite. There isn't even a hint of it, and most infinities can be excluded by logical application of known laws of nature.

 

[blü 2]

I don't need to. The obligation is not on me to do so. Consider that 1000 years ago, no one had a clue about DNA. Yet it still existed. Things do not have to be known or proven to be real.

Science doesn't make absolute statements. I don't make absolute statements. Gods don't make absolute statements (nor do their representatives).

If you can give me a satisfactory demonstration of a real God, one with objective existence, who gives clear and responsive answers to questions, then other things being equal I'll indeed concede I was wrong ─ persuasive examinable evidence for the existence of God will be on the table at last.

That leads immediately to the next task, namely to enquire into the nature of God's powers and how we can emulate them ─ though it always astonishes me that none of the churches, so far as I'm aware, has attempted this already.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Things that are not in evidence are at best unknown.

Sure and if you want to say, "We can't really know if infinity exists. However, given that I have yet to find convincing evidence of it, I'm just not inclined to believe in it," I would have no issue with you.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Science doesn't make absolute statements. I don't make absolute statements. Gods don't make absolute statements (nor do their representatives).

If you can give me a satisfactory demonstration of a real God, one with objective existence, who gives clear and responsive answers to questions, then other things being equal I'll indeed concede I was wrong ─ persuasive examinable evidence for the existence of God will be on the table at last.

That leads immediately to the next task, namely to enquire into the nature of God's powers and how we can emulate them ─ though it always astonishes me that none of the churches, so far as I'm aware, has attempted this already.

One of my favorite quotes is that of the Kotzker Rebbe: "Those who cannot see God everywhere see Him nowhere." Which is to say, my friend, that if you do not already see God all around you, nothing I could possibly say is going to change that.

 

[blü 2]

One of my favorite quotes is that of the Kotzker Rebbe: "Those who cannot see God everywhere see Him nowhere." Which is to say, my friend, that if you do not already see God all around you, nothing I could possibly say is going to change that.

That seems fair.

It confirms my view that the only manner in which God is known to exist is as a concept, notion, thing imagined in an individual brain.

In fact I'm not aware of any definition of God that is appropriate to a being with objective existence.

Nor any definition of 'godness', the quality that a real god would have and a real superscientist who could create universes, raise the dead &c, would lack.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No, it's not 'fallacious reasoning'. It's an observation about the world external to the self, and if you disagree, just point to a real infinity in the universe and demonstrate its infinity.

The boundary of the Mandelbrot Set contains infinitely many copies of the Mandelbrot Set. As close as you look to any boundary point, you will find infinitely many little Mandelbrots.

This structure is defined by a mathematical rule of particular simplicity. “The set is just objectively there in the mathematics itself” - Roger Penrose.

 

[Heyo]

The boundary of the Mandelbrot Set contains infinitely many copies of the Mandelbrot Set. As close as you look to any boundary point, you will find infinitely many little Mandelbrots.

This structure is defined by a mathematical rule of particular simplicity. “The set is just objectively there in the mathematics itself” - Roger Penrose.

The Mandelbrot set is a wonderful example of complexity arising out of a simple construction mechanism. (For those who think that complexity need a complex maker.) It is also an example of infinity - in mathematics. There is no such structure in reality.

 

[Aupmanyav]

There are no infinities in the real world, but mathematics deals with them. The nearest thing to understanding infinity is studying mathematics

Heyo, expanse of the universe, black holes? I could have told you more, I studied mathematics but did not understand it.

 

[Heyo]

Heyo, expanse of the universe, black holes? I could have told you more, I studied mathematics but did not understand it.

We don't know whether the universe is infinite, we can only ever see a finite part of it. The same goes for black holes. We can't see inside them where, mathematically, may be an infinitely dense singularity.