Castilho12 wrote:What is the true nature of Infinity?
Castilho12 wrote:is God BEYOND INFINITY?
Castilho12 wrote:if one was to shoot an arrow at a target, the arrow, before arriving at the target must first reach the half way point. but before it can reach the halfway point, it must reach the halfway point of the half, (or the quarter point) but before it can reach that, it must do reach the halfway point of that, and so on,, what you’re left with is an infinite amount of halfway points which the arrow must reach which leaves one with the conclusion that (however bizarre it may seem) all displacement is thus impossible
It is not hard to see how these are fundamentally uncompatible, as they are direct opposites. That which is Finite cannot be Infinite, and that which is Infinite cannot be Finite.
That is to say, when you get down to such a scale where there is literally nothing but empty space between two atoms, quarks, what have you, there is nothing physical to represent the midpoints and they do not exist in Physical Reality, but only Metaphysically through the logical inference that given two points, a third exists as the midpoint.
Baron229 wrote:As for the point about the Metaphysical points, I meant more along the lines of Subjective, only in one's head. In the example I gave, I said that there was nothing but empty space between the two points, so in fully Objective and Physical reality, there was nothing there to determine as a midpoint. However, with the Metaphysical logic of given two points, a midpoint exists between them, the Mind can invent a point of reference for the Midpoint.
Baron229 wrote:Firstly, I subscribe to an Anaximander-esque view of Infinity, that similar to Apeiron. If you're not up to date on your Greek, it means "limitless, unbound", and with this concept, Anaximander theorized the creation of Reality through Infinite creation and Infinite destruction. In a more modern light, Apeiron is essentially an Infinite, non-repeating set which is the 'force', if you will, that makes all of Reality what it is.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:The problem with the paradox is that any "two points" are pure mathematical entities or perhaps even metaphysical but certainly not "physically" there somewhere, unless in a very roundabout generalized manner. Because of the limits of the mathematically "convenient" model used with normal counting and measuring, it goes wrong on different scales, like the ones you get by (near) infinitely dividing of multiplying entities.
Baron229 wrote:... established metric .. or .. totalling the objects between them, for the most precise measurements, atoms. Now, while the latter option is entirely absurd for practicality's sake, it is by far the more accurate because it does not deal with abstract units for measurement.
What makes it divisible in the first place is that it exists as such, whether we measure it or not
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:But you are still using abstract units for measurements in both cases. How do you think atoms are defined? Or quantum particles? Or how the meter is established by some wavelength... It's always a representation, there is no "legitimate" distance as such.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Just one which is accepted for practical purposes without defining in every distance the build-in limitations of the model. But that doesn't mean they are not there or the distance means anything outside the model.
Baron229 wrote: The legitimate distance existed, it was measured according to the arbitary system, and that distance is represented through the measurement. Caesium 133 existed before the atomic clock...
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: Although very practical, its shortcomings and those of any other psychical model are precisely the reason the paradox could appear in the first place. One could even muse the possibility it's the paradox of language and knowledge systems.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: But a distance is a measurement using a scale. This is never "absolute" as a scale is relative and limited to a certain range. This is why I think the paradox can arise, since in the story of the paradox scale is implemented without known limitations. Perhaps this is what you mean, that the subjective is interpreted as objective?
Diebert van Rhijn wrote: It might not be an abstract which goes very far when doing physics and its more exact modeling, but for daily usage such approximations and generalities just work until they break down into mysteries and paradoxes. They are certainly not more real or objective.
Baron229 wrote:Objective, physical reality trumps all notions of the subjective and metaphysical, merely for the fact that the subjective is never absolute and the metaphysical does not have an
affect on the physical directly; that is to say, the laws of metaphysics do not effect physical things, nor do the laws of physics effect metaphysical things.
Users browsing this forum: TurnitinBot [Bot] and 0 guests