Dependent Origination

[Leyla Shen]

Lol

I know!

You're saying you have to stop thinking in order to understand the infinite!

[Beingof1]

Diebert:

B1: How is undefined a limitation(for infinite)? Do tell.


D-man: Because it's limited in terms of being defined like "things".


To impose a limitation on something means you restrict or confine it to, well, to any qualification or containment. When you describe something as "undefinable" you say it's impossible to define. That it can not be defined in any way. So if I want to try to define it, to make some sense, I am restricted and confined to not doing so because I'm limited to saying it's undefinable.

You are pointing out your limitations and then applying them to the infinite - serious breech of logical protocol there D-man.

Because you are limited to using logic for communication and thought(I agree), this does not imply that the infinite is limited to your definitions or thought.

But absolute limitlessness would include and transcend limitations.

No, not at all. The infinite is in a state of transcendence of all limits.

The limits are artificial points of designations we arbitrarily apply for the sake of function and communication.These limits are not reality, they are functions to designate processes.

An example: The belief in national boundaries are created only in the minds of mankind. They do not exist in reality(the lines of states and nations are imaginary) but function as barriers or limits for us to communicate and legislate.

It would mean one can certainly make definitions and yet at the same time the subject will keep escaping those definitions. But this is with everything in reality.

The infinite can only be defined by what it is not. All "things" are defined by what they are.

It is not true of "things" that they escape definitions - only the infinite.

A=A

A "thing" is always itself and not another "thing". The infinite is not a "thing" that cannot be another "thing" and is therefore; not subject, nor indeed can be, to be defined as a particular "thing." The infinite transcends all things.

Never is something completely and fully captured by some definition or concept. It's captured just to create enough space to get some work done, inside some context. When insights develop, another picture emerges and perhaps other ways of defining or conceptualizing arise. It becomes a fluent and flexible thing. Not a free for all but certainly with endless possibilities. Do I get my point through here? I hope so.

Never is closer to being workable because the inference is linear but still escapes concepts. It is the same with nothing. We can allude to never or nothing but it cannot be captured as a concept. you are right that we can capture "never" long enough to get some work done but it is only a pointer to what is incomprehensible.

It would be like saying" hold on to this piece of nothing that I am giving you." How do you hold on to a piece of nothing? By never letting go of it?

It would be like saying " do you see the entire universe"?

B1: I already said, multiple times, you can use the law of identity to refer to the infinite. It does not fit in the law of identity either because it is not a thing as in A=A. It is everything that is not -A and including A.


Diebert: So it refers and it doesn't really refer? But why not say A=B? Because expression does matter and the conceptual part has its own demands for consistency and coherence, like all concepts.

The infinite refers by demonstrating what it is not, what it is, what it can be, what it will be, what it should be, what it cannot be and what it will probably be.

It is equally all things and not all things. It is equally all things that will be and not all things that will be. It is equally all possibilities and impossibilities. It is equally all possible worlds and all impossible worlds. The infinite therefore; transcends all logical constructs.


PAY ATTENTION HERE:
If you have an infinite set, with infinite energy propelling this infinite set, all and everything is a possibility and therefore; all conceptual impossibilities become probable.Absolutely everything that can be conceptualized becomes a reality. We may have to change our concepts when confronted with the improbable that was previously thought to be impossible.

Impossibilites do not 'fit' into logical frameworks.

You cannot say A=B to refer to the infinite because A = ~ or infinite.You could say all things are contained by the infinite. This would be akin to saying any math set begins on a blank chalkboard as an example.

B1: If you think the infinite can be a conceptual construct - then lets see the syllogism that you can point to.The infinite nor consciousness appear in space or time so you have your work cut out.


Diebert: Where did I state that the "infinite can be a conceptual construct"?

Are you serious? Really Diebert?

I cannot believe you just made that statement.

Diebert said:

You mean you didn't just say anything about the infinite and consciousness in that sentence? Or do you mean only you can launch conceptions and then quickly hide them?

And:
You're playing with words here, Being! Nobody ever claimed definitions are something else than references. And concepts arise when using these references in some coherent manner.

And:
It was just the strong possibility I saw that you think you are free to "refer" to something about the infinite while also saying none can conceptualize it. But you might not realize it doesn't have to be a fully fledged concept, theory and analysis to qualify for a work of the "conceptualizing mind".

And:
And yet you are continuing to describe it. Adding qualifications like "cannot be this" and "except that". And then you turn around and claim " I didn't do anything conceptual here". So what is needed to make you realize you just did? You just think your descriptions are not really concepts but actually capturing the infinite in some other way? That is wrong thinking.

And:
Thanks for the concept, Being! Nothing wrong with your concept but I prefer the number "one" myself. It has other advantages. They are just concepts Being.

And:
You're still using it conceptual, my friend.

You even assigned the number "one" as a conceptual construct.

Build a syllogism out of the number "one" or anything else you choose for the infinite or its just more defense of whatever.

My point was that all we're doing here is exchanging conceptual constructs, no matter the subject. And that there's only the issue of quality left. It's time we get on the same page at least before we can even speak of agreement and disagreement.

I appreciate your commitment to truth in any case bro. I do hope we can get on the same page because I see almost unlimited potential in you.

[Beingof1]

Leyla:

The infinite is not a logical construct because it transcends the law of thought and defies two of the laws of thought.

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.

The infinite only meets the criteria of #3 and that is why zero works as an identifier or we could not refer to it at all.



Nope, I don't get it. I've tried, and its not the 18-year-old Chivas Regal—that wore off about an hour ago, I reckon.

What are you saying!? Clearly nothing logical, right?

How can a proposition meet one of the three laws of thought without meeting the other two when they are correlates?

Clearly the infinite does not fit a construct because it is only identified as a logical contradiction. In logic, there exist impossibilities. As an example; a human cannot fly through the air on its own power because it has never been identified or A=A. There is no such thing as impossible when referring to the infinite. There may have been only one case in all of human history where this may have occurred but it is a concept that can occur in an infinite set because we can conceptualize this event. Or a ball bouncing through a wall and so on.

We can prove this by and through logic - funny huh? As I said to D-man, given an infinite set, with infinite energy propelling its momentum, all conceptual frameworks have happened, will happen or are happening.

It fits #3 because it can be all things simultaneously and yet, is more than that. The infinite can only be identified by its transcendence of all things and limits. It is not limited to being only what it can be and therefore transcends The Law of Identity. It is not limited to being one thing or the other so it transcends The Law of excluded Middle.

Yum on the Chivas.

Lol
I know!
You're saying you have to stop thinking in order to understand the infinite!

I am saying - you cannot "understand" the infinite. It is like saying "I understand my present experience."

~

In any case - I reject your reality and substitute my own.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Because you are limited to using logic for communication and thought(I agree), this does not imply that the infinite is limited to your definitions or thought.

Nobody said the infinite is limited. You said it couldn't be conceptualized, which means: forming a concept out of a set of observations, experiences, insights and so on we might have. But of course we can conceptualize it: this way we can start to verbalize.

Where did I state that the "infinite can be a conceptual construct"?

Are you serious? Really Diebert? I cannot believe you just made that statement.

We are both conceptualizing the infinite, or anything else for that matter, for the purpose of communication and thought. Read something like the Tao Te Ching and all you read is someone speaking about Tao on and on even while the first verse seems to announce it cannot be spoken or captured at all. But any Tao doesn't stop being Tao when it's being described as something. Is the description itself now a "non-Tao"? The infinite does not become suddenly finite when we put boundaries around it. In the same way limitlessness does not mean any limitation would actually change the infinite aspect. It would be like saying "water" in my cup is different from "water" in the rest of the universe just because it's in my cup. And also the cup does not equal the universe but is also not something opposed to or seperate from the universe either.

[Leyla Shen]

B1:

CONCLUSION: Clearly the infinite does not fit a construct because it is only identified as a logical contradiction.

PREMISES: In logic, there exist impossibilities.(1) As an example; a human cannot fly through the air on its own power because it has never been identified* or A=A (2). There is no such thing as impossible when referring to the infinite (3). There may have been only one case in all of human history where this may have occurred (4) but it is a concept that can occur in an infinite set because we can conceptualize this event. Or a ball bouncing through a wall and so on. (5)

1. Logical impossibilities exist
2. The proposition “Humans can fly through the air on their own power” is a logical impossibility
3. The infinite is unlimited possibility
4. Events are limited by observation
5. Concepts are not limited by observation
6. THEREFORE: The infinite does not fit a construct because it is only identified as a logical contradiction

Does your conclusion actually follow from the premises? If not, can you identify which of your premises and true and which are false and why they are so?

[Beingof1]

Diebert:

Nobody said the infinite is limited. You said it couldn't be conceptualized, which means: forming a concept out of a set of observations, experiences, insights and so on we might have. But of course we can conceptualize it: this way we can start to verbalize.

In order to have a concept, you must be able to express it in terms of a form. I have asked you to form a syllogism. If the infinite can be conceptualized it may be expressed.


A^B is true if both A and B are true. All concepts have form and may be measured or expressed.

We are both conceptualizing the infinite, or anything else for that matter, for the purpose of communication and thought. Read something like the Tao Te Ching and all you read is someone speaking about Tao on and on even while the first verse seems to announce it cannot be spoken or captured at all. But any Tao doesn't stop being Tao when it's being described as something. Is the description itself now a "non-Tao"? The infinite does not become suddenly finite when we put boundaries around it. In the same way limitlessness does not mean any limitation would actually change the infinite aspect. It would be like saying "water" in my cup is different from "water" in the rest of the universe just because it's in my cup. And also the cup does not equal the universe but is also not something opposed to or seperate from the universe either.

If you apply boundries to the infinite, you are not speaking of the infinite.

the real problem here is you still think you are a small part of reality. Pop the bubble already.



Leyla:

1. All things are finite as they are clearly identified by what they are *not* (~).
2. All things have a boundary or limit.
3. All things are contained by what they are *not* (~).
4. All things can be measured by empirical or conceptual means.
5. The Container of all things is beyond measurement as there is not a correlate.

For any set A, the union of A with the empty set is A.

When you include the singular empty set it results in defining the boundary of the set A while the empty set remains unbounded. This is a universal constant as all things are compared to what they are not or A=A.

You cannot define the empty set on its own. It requires a subset to apply the limit. The empty set is unique in set theory as there is only one and can be only one empty set and not another. The empty set contains no members unless you combine all infinite sets. These infinite sets BTW, are still contained by the empty set when they are in union or in function.

In mathematics, a singularity is in general a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined, or a point of an exceptional set where it fails to be well-behaved in some particular way because it transcends its boundedness.

For any set A, the intersection of A with the empty set is the empty set. The only subset of the empty set is the empty set itself.

No matter an infinite amount of subsets in mathematics and more specifically set theory, the empty set is the unique set which contains no elements unless you combine all infinite sets. In axiomatic set theory it exists by the axiom of empty set (0) and all finite sets are constructed from it (~).

The set that is subtracted from itself reduces down to the 'single' empty set as there is only one. They are not identical empty sets, they are reduced to a zero state which is always unique as it is always itself.

You can have two apples but you can only have one no apples. This is true in all possible worlds.

Now - the result of all of that talk is this:

1. All things are contained by an infinite set.
2. An Infinite set is beyond all limits, boundaries and measurement.
3. There can only be one infinity else it is limited by what it is not.
4. All things contained in the infinite are in motion(inference).
5. There is an infinite amount of energy propelling all things.
6. All possible worlds are true.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If you apply boundries to the infinite, you are not speaking of the infinite.

The real problem here is you still think you are a small part of reality. Pop the bubble already.

Then you are not speaking of the infinite. You are speaking of problems, parts and reality. See, popped that bubble for you.

[Leyla Shen]

You’re beginning to scare me, B1.

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. There is no logical result from all that talk that I can see. Please, come down from your all-knowingness to my level and try to express yourself in the clearest of terms.

1. All things are contained by an infinite set. [No. All elements contained in an infinite set are infinite sets, like the set of all real numbers, which go on forever—jury’s still out on god. Is he a set?]

2. An Infinite set is beyond all limits, boundaries and measurement. [The boundary of an infinite set is that it contains infinite and not finite elements (you know, the things which make up the set.]

3. There can only be one infinity else it is limited by what it is not. [What?]

4. All things contained in the infinite are in motion(inference). [Inference? From which of your premises, exactly?]

5. There is an infinite amount of energy propelling all things. [Do me a favour, point out the exact proof for this since I can’t see it here.]

6. All possible worlds are true. [Same response as to (5)]

[Beingof1]

Diebert:

B1: If you apply boundries to the infinite, you are not speaking of the infinite.

The real problem here is you still think you are a small part of reality. Pop the bubble already.


Diebert: Then you are not speaking of the infinite. You are speaking of problems, parts and reality. See, popped that bubble for you.

You are the one that claimed the infinite can be conceptualized and kept telling me, over and over, I needed to realize I was presenting a concept. I have asked you to build a syllogism so that we can all conceptualize the infinite. In order to build a concept you need the parts to solve the problem of reality.

You have not done that yet. You just keep telling me I am wrong with no basis, counter argument, evidence or example. You just keep repeating "you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong." Like if you say it enough times that, makes it true.

If you cannot build a syllogism of the infinite, you are spouting dogmatic beliefs.

If you cannot build a concept then lets explore it together. If you are not willing to do this, you have both fingers in your ears and are sticking your toungue out and need to go back to learning what learning is.



Leyla:

You’re beginning to scare me, B1.

If what I am saying is becoming bigger than your worldview - its a good thing, really and truly.

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. There is no logical result from all that talk that I can see.

Then you are not looking. The very last resulted in "all possible worlds are true." Because you cannot wrap your head around that, you think it is not true - LOOK AGAIN.

I told you, and you made fun of me for saying it, you cannot "conceptualize" the infinite. But you still think you can, don`t you?

I know the answer and it is so simple - it is hard to understand - because it is so very simple.

Please, come down from your all-knowingness to my level and try to express yourself in the clearest of terms.

You thought discussing the infinite would be simple? It actually is quite simple, it is preconceived ideas that make it complex. Example of dogma: the infinite or the universe is a machine.

You are the one that said you wanted to examine the infinite structurally. I did that in detail, made only one inference ( I can clear that up and make it self evident), the rest is self evident with no guesswork.

1. All things are contained by an infinite set. [No. All elements contained in an infinite set are infinite sets, like the set of all real numbers, which go on forever

No - an infinite set contains a subset that is equal to itself and both sets contain finite members that are countably infinite or a bijection.


This is the problem with 1D or linear thinking. You miss what is actually the whole. You cannot count an infinite set because the number is countably infinite. You are claiming the sequence string (the numbers counted) is infinite. If you stop counting, you have not finished the set.If you subtract an infinite set from itself what do you have?

If you begin to write an infinite set on a chalkboard, what do you have at the beginning? If you write an infinite set in the sand, what do you start with?

It is like trying to measure a logarithmic spiral. You can measure the expanse and this results in a finite number but the limit explodes into the infinite. The Logarithmic spiral is a great example of an infinite set. The spiral itself as the full set is equal to all of the sequence strings combined in all of the subsets. It is why a circle has an infinite amount of points - the symbol for zero.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... e_last.png

Every thing is not infinite, no thing is infinite - every thing expands into the infinite but it is no longer a thing it is the infinite.

jury’s still out on god. Is he a set?

On gigantic assumption at a time.

2. An Infinite set is beyond all limits, boundaries and measurement. [The boundary of an infinite set is that it contains infinite and not finite elements (you know, the things which make up the set.]

There is no such thing as an infinite member of a set with one exception - the empty set. Each member of every other set has at least one property that is finite.

3. There can only be one infinity else it is limited by what it is not. [What?]

If there is more than what it is, it is not everything and therefore; not infinite.

4. All things contained in the infinite are in motion(inference). [Inference? From which of your premises, exactly?]

I will include it but I thought this was a given - cause and effect. If all things are caused, they are in motion.

5. There is an infinite amount of energy propelling all things. [Do me a favour, point out the exact proof for this since I can’t see it here.]

Observation and perceptual as well as cause and effect.

6. All possible worlds are true. [Same response as to (5)]

Lets take it from the top.

1. All things are finite as they are clearly identified by what they are *not* (~).
2. All things have a boundary or limit.
3. All things are contained by what they are *not* (~).
4. All things can be measured by empirical or conceptual means.
5. The Container of all things is beyond measurement as there is not a correlate.
6. All things are contained by an infinite set.
7. An Infinite set is beyond all limits, boundaries and measurement.
8. There can only be one infinity else it is limited by what it is not.
9. All things contained by the infinite are caused by the infinite.
10.All things contained in the infinite are in motion(inference).
11.There is an infinite amount of energy propelling all things.
12.All possible worlds are true.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You are the one that claimed the infinite can be conceptualized and kept telling me, over and over, I needed to realize I was presenting a concept.

First of all, it started when you claimed the infinite could not be conceptualized. Well, apart from the number zero which you let "refer" to the infinite, etc etc.

You just keep telling me I am wrong with no basis, counter argument, evidence or example. You just keep repeating "you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong."

That's only because you keep conceptualizing and then denying you, in fact, are doing exactly that. What else I'm supposed to do? Your own words are opposite to what you claim.

[jupiviv]

If you cannot build a syllogism of the infinite, you are spouting dogmatic beliefs.

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.

[Leyla Shen]

B1 wrote:

It's the height of illogic to engage in a discussion when you assert the very subject of the discussion is impossible; that it cannot be conceptualised. Why are you surprised when people "make fun of you" for it?

Doesn't it necessarily follow that the discussion itself would be impossible before you've even started?

I told you, and you made fun of me for saying it, you cannot "conceptualize" the infinite. But you still think you can, don`t you?

Is this statement about the infinite a conceptualisation of the infinite or not, B1:

Every thing is not infinite, no thing is infinite - every thing expands into the infinite but it is no longer a thing it is the infinite.

?

[jupiviv]

It's the height of illogic to engage in a discussion when you assert the very subject of the discussion is impossible; that it cannot be conceptualised. Why are you surprised when people "make fun of you" for it?

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.

[Beingof1]

Diebert and Leyla,


The problem here is in defining what a concept is. Lets do that so we can be on the same page.

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

Now - rather than attacking my definition first, which I know you two tigers are wont to do - lets see how you define a concept and avoid needless debating.


jupiviv:

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.

Thank you for the syllogism - appreciate it. What do you want to do with it?

Do you want my imput?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Actually Beingof1 is right in saying that the Infinite cannot be conceptualised in the same way that finite things are.

But these "finite things" are only the result of conceptualization and not "something" there to conceptualize.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

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? 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.

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).

[jupiviv]

Thank you for the syllogism - appreciate it. What do you want to do with it?

Do you want my imput?

Your argument, from what I gather, is that it isn't possible to conceptualise the infinite in any way whatsoever. My syllogism proves that it is possible to do so in an indirect way, i.e, by conceptualising the finite.

But these "finite things" are only the result of conceptualization and not "something" there to conceptualize.

If they aren't there to conceptualise then what are you conceptualising about? A concept must be *of* something.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

But these "finite things" are only the result of conceptualization and not "something" there to conceptualize.

If they aren't there to conceptualise then what are you conceptualising about?

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

[jupiviv]

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

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.

[Leyla Shen]

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.

[jupiviv]

The infinite is necessarily always there

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

[Leyla Shen]

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

[jupiviv]

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.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The finite needs to be "there" when you're conceptualising it.

The same way a limit is "there" as soon as you're engaging in limiting.

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

[jupiviv]

The same way a limit is "there" as soon as you're engaging in limiting.

And the same way that you engage in limiting as soon as a limit is there.

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

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.