Dependent Origination

[Beingof1]

Actually Beingof1 is right in saying that the Infinite cannot be conceptualised in the same way that finite things are. A literal concept of the infinite would have to be fundamentally different from other concepts, and indeed other things, which is not possible.

Then you say this to me:

Your argument, from what I gather, is that it isn't possible to conceptualise the infinite in any way whatsoever.

I gave my definition for a concept. You were right the first time.

My syllogism proves that it is possible to do so in an indirect way, i.e, by conceptualising the finite.

1. Finite things exist because other finite things do not exist in their place.
2. The totality of finite things is called the infinite.
3. The infinite does not exist because there are no finite things that it is not.
4. The infinite is not non-existent because no other finite things do not exist in its place.
5. The infinite lacks the properties of existence and non-existence.

1. Finite things can exist by sharing the same place.
example: 100 cents can hold the same place as one dollar.
2. A reference is not a premise as it needs an explanation or underpinning.
3. Excellent and good point sir.
4. Superb.
5. Right conclusion.

I agree with your conclusion and this means the infinite becomes a logical contradiction. In that case, why did you say it could be conceptualized?

A concept is an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics or particulars in conjunction; a logical construct.

Why "all" characteristics or particulars?

Because that is what a logical concept is Diebert. Do you exclude all things from the infinite? If you are going to have a concept of the infinite - it must - of necessity - include all possible worlds.

It combines normally some characteristics or particulars to give some idea. It's just conceptual space to provide proper orientation. It's part of every conversation no matter the topic. You start a conversation, then you need to conceptualize and accept the severe limitations and errors in what you're trying to do.

That may be a half hearted attempt at a conclusion - Homey don`t play that. That leads to belief-systems of dogma.

You may be OK with fill in the blanks answers for reality - not me and good luck with that. You need to upgrade your information sources.

In general conversations a general dictionary definition would do: "something formed in the mind; a thought or notion". Or we can make other distinctions: concepts as mental representations, as abilities peculiar to cognitive agents, or as abstract objects (from wikipedia).

In general - I know. And yes, most conversation is like that. We are not talking about a "general conversation". We are being very precise in the subject and this requires a logical construct.

So the question is perhaps not "can we really conceptualize the infinite" but "can we really do anything else"?

Finally, I mean WOW. After all the hurdling over infinitesimals.

Now we are getting real close.

Are you ready to talk turkey yet or do we need to go around in a circle again?

[Beingof1]

A finite thing cannot by itself be either itself or other finite things, so all there is left for it to be is the infinite. In other words, the infinite is not a finite thing, but any finite thing is the infinite.

True, a finite thing must be one thing or another.

I do not understand how that leads to "so all there is left for it to be is the infinite."

Could you explain sir?

[Beingof1]

Wouldn’t that mean the infinite, rather than being the continuity of finitude, is bounded by finite things?

I wouldn't say it is a continuity, because it never began. It is bounded by finite things in the sense that it wouldn't be the infinite if any finite thing were *excluded* from it.

Another question I have.

How would including all things in the infinite create a boundary? If there is nothing excluded from it, it is unbounded and cannot be anything else, do you agree?

[Dennis Mahar]

'the infinite' is announced Bo1.
fuck!
WTF!
caught by surprise.

then all the concepts flood in,
in order to ,
for the sake of

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Why "all" characteristics or particulars?

Because that is what a logical concept is Diebert. Do you exclude all things from the infinite? If you are going to have a concept of the infinite - it must - of necessity - include all possible worlds.

A strange requirement for a concept, having to cover the entirety of what it's trying to represent. Like you're requiring a photograph to be three dimensional and cover the horizon before you can look at it!

We are not talking about a "general conversation". We are being very precise in the subject and this requires a logical construct.

But you seem very particular as well for what "logical construct" means. And so on.

These are all nonsensical word games designed for you hitting people over the head with the accusation of dogmatism (by a Bible literalist of all people!). If you want to be so "precise", next time start with your own definition instead of making them as fluent and flexible as you need for your logic to work. This is exactly how children would try to debate: they love the words but do not yet fully understand them.

[Russell Parr]

So the question is perhaps not "can we really conceptualize the infinite" but "can we really do anything else"?

Finally, I mean WOW. After all the hurdling over infinitesimals.

Now we are getting real close.

Are you ready to talk turkey yet or do we need to go around in a circle again?

But first, what is your answer? If conceptualizing is the only thing we can do, then all of your descriptions, definitions, references of the Infinite are merely concepts of the Infinite, because descriptions, definitions, and references are processes that arise from a conceptualizing mind.

[Russell Parr]

These are all nonsensical word games designed for you hitting people over the head with the accusation of dogmatism (by a Bible literalist of all people!).

Indeed, it serves no purpose to harp on any notion of dogmatic representation. Anyone can do this. It basically just says, "I disagree with you, I think you're wrong, and you keep saying wrong things, therefore, you're dogmatic."

[Pam Seeback]

Wisdom cannot "do its work" of extinguishing the suffering of The Born without first intuiting the concept of The Born, the concept of suffering, the concept of extinguishing and the concept of The (nonsuffering, nonextinguishable) Unborn. No vision = no movement (of The Causality).

[Diebert van Rhijn]

but,

• “It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.” -- Epictetus, Greek Stoic philosopher

[jupiviv]

1. Finite things can exist by sharing the same place.
example: 100 cents can hold the same place as one dollar.

100 cents is the same as one dollar. If they are defined to be different things then they cannot occupy the same place.

2. A reference is not a premise as it needs an explanation or underpinning.

It was not a premise. It was a conclusion that followed from the first statement.

I agree with your conclusion and this means the infinite becomes a logical contradiction. In that case, why did you say it could be conceptualized?

How does that syllogism make the infinite a logical contradiction? All finite things, including concepts, point to the infinite.

[Beingof1]

The purpose of enlightenment is sanity.

It is not sane to declare; "I can conceptualize what has no limits, borders, form, measurement, comparison, velocity or position. I can comprehend what is incomprehensible."

To declare this means you have allowed the ego to dominate your mind. It is sourced in fear because we are working without a net and that is just to scary for most. It is why God concepts are formed to alleviate the fear of what is incomprehensible. It is a Teddy Bear for security from the Boogeyman.

I am attempting a prison break for you but some of you like your prison cell. Can anyone come out yet?

You probably think I am just being a big meany. Simple Simon says so - he is just a big meany and Simple Simon is always right.

[Beingof1]

Diebert:

Diebert: Why "all" characteristics or particulars?

B1: Because that is what a logical concept is Diebert. Do you exclude all things from the infinite? If you are going to have a concept of the infinite - it must - of necessity - include all possible worlds.


Diebert: A strange requirement for a concept, having to cover the entirety of what it's trying to represent.

Are you sure you know what a concept is? Any concept must have its mathematical equivalent or it is not a concept. Math is a language of precision.

Like you're requiring a photograph to be three dimensional and cover the horizon before you can look at it!

A concept must, of necessity, require a conclusion that is comprehensible. You are claiming you can comprehend the ends of infinity.

What are you not getting here people? What are you protecting? Are you so sure it is me that is being a 'big meany'?

I do not care if you line up 1,000 people who post "We can all conceptualize the infinite." - It is still delusion.

But you seem very particular as well for what "logical construct" means. And so on.

Look at the word you just used "particular." Are you sure you know what a concept is? Are you sure you know what a "logical construct" is?

Lets do this again:
1) The Law of Identity:
A is A or anything is itself.

2) The Law of Excluded Middle:
Anything is either A or ~ A

3) The Law of Contradiction:
Nothing can be both A and ~A.

This is the definition of a concept. It is why it is called the law of Thought - as in a concept. If you can demonstrate how the infinite can be subject to the laws of thought, I am open.

These are all nonsensical word games designed for you hitting people over the head with the accusation of dogmatism (by a Bible literalist of all people!).

What if my motives were for something much more helpful than just "hitting people over the head." Now you call me a "Bible literalist" like that has any relevance at all to the subject.

Are you so sure it is I that is being unreasonable? Playtime is over - its time to wake up and let go of your security blanket and binkee and let some illumination in. Do you often get mad at people that try to wake you up in time for a very important appointment?

I have a gift to give to this board and it is of priceless value but as long as you are imprisoned in your mind, I cannot show it to you. You have to open the door and not knowing what is on the other side is spooky, I know.

If you want to be so "precise", next time start with your own definition instead of making them as fluent and flexible as you need for your logic to work.

I did Diebert - over and over and over again. I used the word "infinite." I gave a clear and concise logical construct that led to "all possible worlds are true." I know what that is because I know how it is used, Until you are ready to concede you cannot comprehend the incomprehensible, you will think you are a cog in the machine.

You are much more than that.

This is exactly how children would try to debate: they love the words but do not yet fully understand them.

Are you ever going to admit that incomprehensible is a concept that is incomprehensible?

You might choke on the words "I do not understand, what next"? You speaking those words are the only incomprehensible thing you can imagine huh?

“It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.” -- Epictetus, Greek Stoic philosopher

Unbelievable projection - you need a mirror, stat.

Just keep saying it over and over - "the universe is a machine, the universe is a machine." Like magic, the universe becomes a machine because we do not allow for anything else no matter the logic, evidence or facts.

There; all bundled up in a nice little box fits the universe and reality - how very nice.

[Beingof1]

Russell:

Diebert: So the question is perhaps not "can we really conceptualize the infinite" but "can we really do anything else"?



B1: Finally, I mean WOW. After all the hurdling over infinitesimals.

Now we are getting real close.

Are you ready to talk turkey yet or do we need to go around in a circle again?


Rusell: But first, what is your answer?

No - not first. First we have to dispel the myth that the infinite can be conceptualized. It is a myth that is in self preservation mode with all of the defense mechanisms on red alert and def-con 5.

The ego knows it will be dethroned and evaporate if it owns up to the fact that it does not know everything and that - is what is being demonstrated. Hissy fits and tantrums are not logical arguments no matter what you think of me.

If conceptualizing is the only thing we can do, then all of your descriptions, definitions, references of the Infinite are merely concepts of the Infinite, because descriptions, definitions, and references are processes that arise from a conceptualizing mind.

This is the root cause of the myth. The belief that all we can do is conceptualize. That itself is a concept of concepts. That leads to more concepts of what concepts are; ad infinitude.

The maze of the ego.

Diebert:These are all nonsensical word games designed for you hitting people over the head with the accusation of dogmatism (by a Bible literalist of all people!).

Russel; Indeed, it serves no purpose to harp on any notion of dogmatic representation. Anyone can do this. It basically just says, "I disagree with you, I think you're wrong, and you keep saying wrong things, therefore, you're dogmatic."

Anytime you join a conversation, its a good idea to actually know what was said rather than imagining what was said.

I gave a clear and conceptual logical construct. I can give you the math and multiple examples.

So you are basically being a defender of the faith. You are hereby promoted to sergeant at arms of the galaxy.

[Beingof1]

Movingalways:

Wisdom cannot "do its work" of extinguishing the suffering of The Born without first intuiting the concept of The Born, the concept of suffering, the concept of extinguishing and the concept of The (nonsuffering, nonextinguishable) Unborn. No vision = no movement (of The Causality).

Namaste and maranatha


jupiviv:

B1: 1. Finite things can exist by sharing the same place.
example: 100 cents can hold the same place as one dollar.


jupiviv; 100 cents is the same as one dollar. If they are defined to be different things then they cannot occupy the same place.

The atoms that make up sand can also be a sand castle. The atoms that make up the sun, are the same atoms that make up your body and so on. Cause and effect proves this. Are these defined to be different things or the same thing? We quickly see, all definitions are arbitrary.

Different material objects can coincide in existence materially; x exists simultaneously materially with y if and only if x and y are material objects and some things, the z, compose x and also compose y.

The x and y may have different properties(such as form or function) but it is still the same thing measurably and contains an equal amount of energy. Again, all things are arbitrary definitions. these are useful for function and communication but all things exist simultaneously in one place as your conclusion demonstrates. This place you refer to is infinite that contains all things.

E=MC2 or E/M=MC2/M dividing both sides by M yields E/M=C2

Bosons (especially photon) with the same energy can occupy the same place in space, bosons are often force carrier particles, like a river carrying matter.

You could say there are no two finite things that are identical and this would be true.

2. A reference is not a premise as it needs an explanation or underpinning.



It was not a premise. It was a conclusion that followed from the first statement.

How does it follow the premise even given the premise is true?

B1: I agree with your conclusion and this means the infinite becomes a logical contradiction. In that case, why did you say it could be conceptualized?


Jup: How does that syllogism make the infinite a logical contradiction? All finite things, including concepts, point to the infinite.

Show us how; " The infinite lacks the properties of existence and non-existence." is a logical statement.

[Dennis Mahar]

Wisdom cannot "do its work" of extinguishing the suffering of The Born without first intuiting the concept of The Born, the concept of suffering, the concept of extinguishing and the concept of The (nonsuffering, nonextinguishable) Unborn. No vision = no movement (of The Causality).

In order to,
for the sake of

Do you think 'finitude' is,
independent of consciousness saying so.

[jupiviv]

The atoms that make up sand can also be a sand castle.

The total number of atoms in a sand castle may be said to be identical with the sand castle, but in that case a single atom in the sand castle is not identical with it.

The atoms that make up the sun, are the same atoms that make up your body and so on.

No they're not. They may fall under the same category, but by no means the exact same atoms.

Different material objects can coincide in existence materially

They are different to the degree they do not coincide.

The x and y may have different properties(such as form or function) but it is still the same thing measurably and contains an equal amount of energy.

If they have different forms then they can't contain an equal amount of energy.

Bosons (especially photon) with the same energy can occupy the same place in space, bosons are often force carrier particles, like a river carrying matter.

I can't comment on that since I don't know anything about bosons. However, it is logically impossible for two different things to occupy the exact same location.

Show us how; " The infinite lacks the properties of existence and non-existence." is a logical statement.

The infinite is not a finite thing, and only finite things possess those properties. And as to your previous question - since a finite thing cannot exist as another finite thing, the totality of all finite things cannot be finite, hence in-finite.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Bosons (especially photon) with the same energy can occupy the same place in space, bosons are often force carrier particles, like a river carrying matter.

I can't comment on that since I don't know anything about bosons. However, it is logically impossible for two different things to occupy the exact same location.

Being loves to preach the very things he does not comprehend. Photons are not defined as particle in that particular instance but as a wave with uncertain, fluctuating location (like a wave in some fluid). This is easier to understand if elementary particles are not being conceived to have the same properties as objects in the macroscopic world. It's therefore important not to confuse the word "thing" with "material solid object".

[SeekerOfWisdom]

This may be relevant to the discussion regarding conceptualizing the infinite:

"But, Mahamati, if you assert that there is such a thing as Noble Wisdom, it no longer holds good, because anything of which something is asserted thereby partakes of the nature of being and is thus characterised with the quality of birth. The very assertion: "All things are un-born" destroys the truthfulness of it. The same is true of the statements: "All things are empty," and "All things have no self-nature,"--both are untenable when put in the form of assertions. But when it is pointed out that all things are like a dream and a vision, it means that in one way things are perceived, and in another way they are not perceived; that is, in ignorance they are perceived but in Perfect-knowledge they are not perceived. All assertions and negations being thought-constructions are un-born. Even the assertion that Universal Mind and Noble Wisdom are Ultimate Reality, is thought construction and, therefore, is un-born. As "things" there is no Universal Mind, there is no Noble Wisdom, there is no Ultimate Reality."

[Diebert van Rhijn]

As "things" there is no Universal Mind, there is no Noble Wisdom, there is no Ultimate Reality.

As there "is" no chair either but it doesn't prevent anyone from sitting on it or getting comfy. But the moment there's life, there's also truth and therefore way.

The call is to be fluent in perception without ceasing to be consistent in reasoning. The truths of relativity and change. The insight that all resting, all digging in remains illusion.

[Leyla Shen]

j: If [finite things] aren't there to cocenptualise then what are you conceptualising about?

D: The infinite. But I keep ending up with those bloody somethings!

j: The finite needs to be "there" when you're conceptualising it. The infinite doesn't need to be "there", because there is no "there" there, unless "there" means everywhere.

LS: The infinite is necessarily always there, otherwise what's being postulated is an infinite separate from the finite. Something like a creator god in heaven who whips everything into existence and then disappears.

~

LS: The infinite is necessarily always there (1)

j: Only if "there" is not a particular location(i.e, a finite thing) (2).

LS: Wouldn’t that mean the infinite, rather than being the continuity of finitude, is bounded by the finite?

j: I wouldn't say it is a continuity, because it never began. It is bounded by finite things in the sense that it wouldn't be the infinite if any finite thing were *excluded* from it.

Can you show me how to establish a beginning and/or ending for the continuity of finitude? If, as you seem to suggest in your qualification at (2) above, the continuation of finitude ceases at the location occupied by a particular finite thing, then what follows is that finite things are imperishable.

[jupiviv]

Can you show me how to establish a beginning and/or ending for the continuity of finitude?

My point was that there *cannot* be a continuity of finitude, because there can't be a time before which it wasn't present in finite things.

If, as you seem to suggest in your qualification at (2) above, the continuation of finitude ceases at the location occupied by a particular finite thing

There is no question of finitude ceasing or beginning at any location, because it is present everywhere.

, then what follows is that finite things are imperishable.

Finite things are imperishable in relation to God, since there is nothing else that can make them perish.

[jupiviv]

The very assertion: "All things are un-born" destroys the truthfulness of it.

Therefore, the above assertion untrue.

But when it is pointed out that all things are like a dream and a vision, it means that in one way things are perceived, and in another way they are not perceived; that is, in ignorance they are perceived but in Perfect-knowledge they are not perceived.

Since knowledge and ignorance were perceived by whoever made this statement, they are ignorant according to themselves.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Just above was written:

"he wise who cherish Perfect-knowledge, may be divided into three classes: disciples, masters and Arhats. Common disciples are separated from masters as common disciples continue to cherish the notion of individuality and generality; masters rise from common disciples when, forsaking the error of individuality and generality, they still cling to the notion of an ego-soul by reason of which they go off by themselves into retirement and solitude. Arhats rise when the error of all discrimination is realised. Error being discriminated by the wise turns into Truth by virtue of the "turning-about" that takes place within the deepest consciousness. Mind, thus emancipated, enters into perfect self-realisation of Noble Wisdom." - Buddha

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bb/bb11.htm

[Leyla Shen]

LS: Can you show me how to establish a beginning and/or ending for the continuity of finitude?

j: My point was that there *cannot* be a continuity of finitude, because there can't be a time before which it wasn't present in finite things. (a)

Since there can’t be a time finitude began because there can’t be a time which it was not present in finite things, and since finite things arise and fall away, it necessarily follows that finitude is and always has been undisrupted (continuous); infinite.

LS: The infinite is necessarily always there (1)

j: Only if "there" is not a particular location(i.e, a finite thing) (2).

LS: If, as you seem to suggest in your qualification at (2) above, the continuation of finitude ceases at the location occupied by a particular finite thing

j: There is no question of finitude ceasing or beginning at any location, because it is present everywhere. (b)

Which would include a particular location (a “finite thing”, as you call it).

Your statement at (a) is at odds with your statement (b) above; i.e., you are contradicting yourself.

LS: , then what follows is that finite things are imperishable.

j: Finite things are imperishable in relation to God, since there is nothing else that can make them perish.

Ah, surprise! The emergency saviour for everything. (:

God? God makes things perish?

Really?

How?

[jupiviv]

Since there can’t be a time finitude began because there can’t be a time which it was not present in finite things, and since finite things arise and fall away, it necessarily follows that finitude is and always has been undisrupted (continuous); infinite.

Continuity requires a beginning and end and a contrast with something that doesn't continue. If the entirety of finitude(the infinite) is said to be continuous, then the definition of continuation must be changed to mean "eternity".

LS: The infinite is necessarily always there (1)

j: Only if "there" is not a particular location(i.e, a finite thing) (2).

LS: If, as you seem to suggest in your qualification at (2) above, the continuation of finitude ceases at the location occupied by a particular finite thing

j: There is no question of finitude ceasing or beginning at any location, because it is present everywhere. (b)

Which would include a particular location (a “finite thing”, as you call it).

Your statement at (a) is at odds with your statement (b) above; i.e., you are contradicting yourself.

There is no contradiction. The finitude of all things cannot be present in one thing.

God? God makes things perish?

Really?

How?

The same way He makes them arise.