The Stone--and other Paradoxes of Infinity

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
User avatar
Antone
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:28 pm
Contact:

The Stone--and other Paradoxes of Infinity

Post by Antone » Fri Dec 26, 2008 5:56 am

Can God (being omnipotent) create a stone that is so heavy that he cannot lift it?

Being omnipotent implies that [there is nothing that God cannot do], so it would appear that he must be able to create such a stone, else there would be something that God cannot do. However, in order to do it, it would appear that he must create something that is beyond his ability to lift, which implies that there is necessarily something that God cannot do.
This may seem like a silly riddle that isn't really worth discussing... but I think it has some interesting implications for the concept of infinity--which I believe is generally misunderstood.

So to get the discussion going, I'm going to go ahead and post my own answer to the paradoxical riddle.

I say the answer is YES...

And the explanation is simple if we understand the true nature of infinity--which can be summed up most efficiently, I think, by saying that it means [endlessness].

Apply it to the riddle:


Because God is omnipotent he can lift any finite stone (no matter how large it is). He cannot lift an infinitely largle stone, because infinity is temporally vague--it implies something that continues without end, and so it cannot be actualized at any specific time. It can only be actualized by a never ending process of enlarging the stone forever and ever. Since God is immortal, this is not a problem for him. However, at no specific point in time will the stone be infinitely large--and so although God will always be able to lift the [fininte mass of the stone]--it is not possible for him to lift the [infinitely large stone] that he is in the process of creating.

Thus, God can engage in the process of creating an infinitely large stone--which, by it's very nature, he cannot lift because it will never be actualized.

And yet, this result is not paradoxical, because it does not suggest a limit to God's power. At any specific point in time, God can lift the stone that he is creating. The fact that he cannot lift what has not yet been created does not violate his claim to endless power, because he can both create the infinitely large stone (emphasis on the future tense) and he can lift anything that he has created. (Emphasis on the past tense.)

User avatar
Antone
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:28 pm
Contact:

Re: The Stone--and other Paradoxes of Infinity

Post by Antone » Fri Dec 26, 2008 6:27 am

Interseting side note: Since the process of creating the infinitely large stone is defined solely by the concept of endlessness--it doesn't matter how rapidly God increases the size of the stone. If could increases it [1foot every second] or [1 inch ever million years] and in both cases the stone is equally infinite, because they will both continue to increase in size forever. However,
if we had two Gods who each chose to demonstrate their infinite powers by creating infinite stones, the God who was creating the [1foot every second] stone would probably impress a lot more of the [finite beings who happened to be watching the contest], than the God who was creating the [1 inch ever million years] stone. But would it be correct to say that the first God was truely demonstrating greater omnipotent power?
It seems to me that the answer is yes, but only if both Gods are actually competing to see which is the more powerful, and thus increasing the stone as fast as they can. But if this were true it would imply that they were no longer omnipotent--because there would be a limit on how fast they can increase the size of the infinite stones they are creating. If they are truely omnipotent, and there is no such limit, then we must assume that they are creating the infintely large stones at the rate of growth they have chosen because... well, because they have so chosen.

The fact that one God's stone is bigger at any given point in time says nothing about their infinite might, because over time both God's stone will become infinitely big. So no matter how much larger the quick-God's stone is--the slow-God's stone will eventually become just as large--although obviously by then the quick-God's stone will be much larger still. It makes a kind of sense, then, to suggest that the quick-God is progressing towards the concept of infinity faster than is the slow-God.

Removing Time
Actual Infinity is defined by endlessness--meaning that it is an endless process. But is there a potential infinity--meaning one that is actually complete--and what characteristics would it have? The way I see it, with respect to the discussion of our current riddle, the potential infinity is that which will be--all the will be's that ever will be, condensed down into a single [now]. Obviously, what we have done is to [remove the concept of time] from the equation.

By doing so, however, we have necessarily changed what is vague about infinity. The [infinity that contained the process of time] was temporally vague--because it was spread out over time--while having a very specific (i.e. infinitely precise) size at each specific point in time. When we remove time, what we are doing is to collapse all of those [sizes of the stone] down into a single [infinitely small point in time]. Thus, the size (or mass) of the stone has now become vague.
Mass occupies space--so we can see that infinity is fundamentally rooted in Einstein's parameters of Space and Time. We can choose to think of infinity from either of these apparently incompatible perspectives--but true infinity is equally defined by both.
It is worth noting that the [concept of progression] is still maintained, because the possible sizes of infinity that are contained in the now, are still [1 inch increments]. If we created a series of all the sizes of infinity--existing in the now--there wouldn't be any [steps of 1/2 inch].

What is interesting to note is that, since both Gods were increasing by [1 inch increments] a [timeless evaluation of their progress towards an infinitely large stone] would appear to be identical. Both God's would create exactly the same [sequence of stones with magnitudes that stepped up in one inch increments]--there would be no difference in size becasuse every stone that they would create over the endless stretch of time would become actualized in the temporal now; and we've already established that every stone size the quicker-God created woudl eventually be created by the slower-God. So without the reference of time--the speed at which they create is irrelevant.

But if one of the Gods had been increasing their stone by [1 inch every minute] and the other by [1 foot every minute]--then when we got rid of the temporal aspect, there would still be a difference in the sequences of stone sizes. In fact, there would be 12 size entries for the slow-God for every 1 size entry by the quick-god. So, once again, it would make sense to say that one was progressing towards infinity faster than the other.

User avatar
Ben D
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:43 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Stone--and other Paradoxes of Infinity

Post by Ben D » Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:28 am

Hi Antone, the problem with any discussion that pertains to the God concept is that there are probably as many different understandings of what the concept of God represents as there are people.
Whilst it is true institutionalized religions do create dogma for their followers so that they all parrot their sect's definition, this does not mean a thing to anyone who truly is seeking to understand the real Reality that is obscured by the dogmatic belief.

For example, the concept of the absolute God of the Hindu is Brahman, and it can only be defined by what it is not, i.e. Brahman can not confined by any space, can not be limited by any time, can not be circumscribed by any limits, is not knowable by any knowledge and is not describable by any words or concepts. Brahman does nothing, it doesn't create anything, nor does it destroy, it just is the omnipotent, omniscient, eternal ONE existence which contains all there is, including all creation and destruction activities. This concept of God is similar to the concept of the eternal Tao of which nothing can be said, but of the Tao's ying and yang emanations, since these give rise to multiplicity, subsequent mortal mind conceptualizations arise and can be discussed by the dualistic mindset. But nevertheless, it only the ignorant that equate the words/concepts for the reality for which they represent as symbols.

Since this is my present understanding of what the concept of God is meant to represent, in reality a paradox can not arise because the mortal mind is unable to contemplate non-duality. However, due to mortal mind operating according to a dualistic paradigm, paradoxes concerning God and infinity can occur when the mortal mind playfully (riddles) or ignorantly conceptualizes the transcendent unity as finite active principles in the phenomenal flow of time/space.

altonhare
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

Re: The Stone--and other Paradoxes of Infinity

Post by altonhare » Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:38 am

The first problem I see in your answer is that you invoke an endless, by which I think you mean boundless, "object". This is an explicit contradiction. An object is *defined* as bounded, i.e. it has shape.

The even more fundamental problem is the question itself. It boils down to asking "Can something be done that can't be done?" It's just a nonsensical question.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h

User avatar
Antone
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:28 pm
Contact:

Re: The Stone--and other Paradoxes of Infinity

Post by Antone » Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:48 am

Ben D wrote:the problem with any discussion that pertains to the God concept is that there are probably as many different understandings of what the concept of God represents as there are people.
Hi Ben D,

While this may be an issue for those people who are discussing religion, it is not an issue for this particular riddle. As I believe I said in the post, the logical arguments that I make are not based on whether or not God exists. We could easily remove God from the picture entirely and simply talk of one or two omniscient (or all powerful) beings. Talking about such potential beings is not beyond the mental imagination of athiests, I'm sure.

So, while I certainly agree that you have every right to [believe] or [not believe] in God, as you so choose, I also believe that any such talk of [what God is] or [whether God exists] is totally outside of what is appropriate (to my way of thinking) for the framework of this thread. It is not about religion. It is about the logical riddle, and whether or not it can be resolved in a way that is not paradoxical. And as a general rule, I do not belive that atheists are [less imaginitive] or [more stupid] than other groups of people. Therefore, I'm sure that those who do not believe in God can none-the-less find a way to talk about the riddle logically.

In that vein, here's another omniscient riddle that I just thought up:
Suppose that there are two all-powerful, omniscinet beings who dislike one another intensely. Would it be possible for one of them to murder the other? (I use murder instead of kill to preclude the possibility that the other God allows it.) If [God A] can kill [God B], then this implies that [God B] wasn't really all powerful, for he could not prevent his own death. But if [God A] cannot kill [God B], then this implies that [God A] wasn't really all powerful, for there is something that he cannot do--that being to kill [God B].
Several questions come to my mind.

1. Does this mean that it is impossible for there to be more than one omniscient being? Or,
2. Does this mean that it would be impossible for two omniscinent beings to hate one another?

User avatar
Antone
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:28 pm
Contact:

Re: The Stone--and other Paradoxes of Infinity

Post by Antone » Sat Dec 27, 2008 10:53 am

altonhare wrote:... the question itself....boils down to asking "Can something be done that can't be done?" It's just a nonsensical question.
You are obviously wrong, since I have obviously just demonstrated how it can be done within a logical framework. I'm sorry if you don't understand the structure of the logical argument well enough to follow it. But essentially saying (as you apparently have), "I disagree with you... nah, nah, na, nah, nah." isn't a meaningful argument. Nor is the fact that you don't agree with the structure of my logic. It is one thing to find a flaw in the structure, it is another to discount it simply because you do not wish to entertain the possibility that it might be right--and so are unwilling to follow it.

Please, if you wish to disagree with my resolution to the riddle then try to provide an actual argument next time.
altonhare wrote: The first problem I see in your answer is that you invoke an endless, by which I think you mean boundless, "object". This is an explicit contradiction. An object is *defined* as bounded, i.e. it has shape.
When I say endless what I mean is endless. Being [boundless] is one of many ways that some potential thing might express an endless or infinite nature.

Unfortunately, it appears that you obviousoly didn't read my post very carefully.

At no point is there a boundless object involved in my reply, (at least not in the first post). In fact, I explicitly stated this, (several times, I believe). What is endless, (but not boundless--because it isn't an object) is the fact that the God will continue to increase the size of the stone at various points in time. So at each specific moment, the stone has a very specific size--but since the God will live forever, and will continue to increase the stone his entire life, there will be no end to the number of times that the size of the stone will be increased. There is absolutely nothing about this logical structure that implies a [boundless object]. So your criticisms are totally without logical merit.
By the Way--It appears to me that you are simply chosing to deny that something can be infinite. One problem with that strategy is that much of science and mathematics relies heavily on the concept of infinity. Calculus, for instance is entirely based on the concept of infinity. The notion of a limit is introduced to avoid language that uses infinity explicitly--but we're still dealing with infinitely small measurements--or measurements that come infinitely close to a given limit. Similarly, much of the mathematics of astronomy is based on various kinds of infinities. As (if I'm not mistaken) does quantum mechanics, fractal math, forrier transformations and holography, and probably a great m any others.

To deny infinity would seem to be to deny any sciences which is based on it--and many of them appear to work pretty well as models for reality.

At a more fundamental level, denying infinty also denys that there is such a thing as the counting numbers, the fractions, or indeed any of the other numerical sequences that are believed by mathematicians to continue without end.

On the other hand, if what you are saying is not a [denial that something can be infinite], then what would your non-endless, non-boundless infinity look like? What manner of concept (or other type of thing) is it?

Here is the real contradiction.
Now, I understand you're point of view well enough to know that I disagree with it. So while I would be happy to have you reply to my posts with sound logical arguments, I would appreciate it if you would not clutter up this thread with posts that do nothing but preach your point of view, from your point of view--without any attempt to address the logic of the point of view you are criticizing.

thank you.

Sovereign
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 11:42 am

Re: The Stone--and other Paradoxes of Infinity

Post by Sovereign » Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:02 pm

Can God (being omnipotent) create a stone that is so heavy that he cannot lift it?
So do you mean a really heavy stone?
He cannot lift an infinitely largle stone,
Or do you mean a really big stone?
It can only be actualized by a never ending process of enlarging the stone forever and ever.
Or a growing stone?
because infinity is temporally vague--it implies something that continues without end, and so it cannot be actualized at any specific time.
Or do you mean a stone that is really old?
Because God is omnipotent he can lift any finite stone (no matter how large it is). However, at no specific point in time will the stone be infinitely large--and so although God will always be able to lift the [fininte mass of the stone]--it is not possible for him to lift the [infinitely large stone] that he is in the process of creating.
So basically he can lift a finite stone since there will never be an infinitely large stone?
Thus, God can engage in the process of creating an infinitely large stone--which, by it's very nature, he cannot lift because it will never be actualized.
I take this to mean an infinitely large stone will never exist? I agree.

User avatar
Ben D
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:43 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Stone--and other Paradoxes of Infinity

Post by Ben D » Sat Dec 27, 2008 5:13 pm

Antone wrote:
Ben D wrote:the problem with any discussion that pertains to the God concept is that there are probably as many different understandings of what the concept of God represents as there are people.
Hi Ben D,
While this may be an issue for those people who are discussing religion, it is not an issue for this particular riddle. As I believe I said in the post, the logical arguments that I make are not based on whether or not God exists.
We could easily remove God from the picture entirely and simply talk of one or two omniscient (or all powerful) beings. Talking about such potential beings is not beyond the mental imagination of athiests, I'm sure.
Agree with you, it is not a matter of religious belief, it is a matter of logic. When you raise the concept of "two omniscient beings", it seems to me to be an illogical proposition to begin with. The prefix 'omni' joined to such terms as science, presence, potence, etc., introduces the concept of absoluteness, i.e. omni means ALL or EVERYWHERE, and therefore to postulate two omni..... is to create an oxymoron.
So, while I certainly agree that you have every right to [believe] or [not believe] in God, as you so choose, I also believe that any such talk of [what God is] or [whether God exists] is totally outside of what is appropriate (to my way of thinking) for the framework of this thread. It is not about religion. It is about the logical riddle, and whether or not it can be resolved in a way that is not paradoxical. And as a general rule, I do not belive that atheists are [less imaginitive] or [more stupid] than other groups of people. Therefore, I'm sure that those who do not believe in God can none-the-less find a way to talk about the riddle logically.
Sorry, did not mean to go outside the appropriate framework of your thread, but felt that it was appropriate to raise the idea that non-dualistic concepts such as infinite, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, etc., ( i.e. non-dual concepts considered to be attributes of absoluteness) are beyond the human mind to realize. The human mind can create the concepts of these non-dual ideas, but the concept itself is a mere finite mental construct to represent the idea of infinite reality.

soulsurvivor
Posts: 173
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 6:26 pm
Location: KY

Re: The Stone--and other Paradoxes of Infinity

Post by soulsurvivor » Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:50 pm

Paradox is an imagined product of consciousness resulting from a state of ignorance that has yet to perceive that all is within. The function of paradox is that a reality is allowed to be created that successfully bridges eternity while providing incentive for consciousness to investigate and experiment; not unlike a new preschooler learning/manipulating their surrounding reality for the purpose of learning lessons.

I am god. I am omnipotent. I have successfully stoned myself to the edge of physical death within this reality. I will continue forever inside and outside of physical matter. I am god. I can create anything, even a stone that I perceive to be too heavy to lift in my imagined reality. I can influence your belief in me as being god or not being god, but I can't carry you. I have all these stones before me that have my immediate attention.

User avatar
Ben D
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:43 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Stone--and other Paradoxes of Infinity

Post by Ben D » Sat Dec 27, 2008 7:15 pm

soulsurvivor wrote:Paradox is an imagined product of consciousness resulting from a state of ignorance that has yet to perceive that all is within. The function of paradox is that a reality is allowed to be created that successfully bridges eternity while providing incentive for consciousness to investigate and experiment; not unlike a new preschooler learning/manipulating their surrounding reality for the purpose of learning lessons.
Excellent insight soulsurviver, this resonates well with my present understanding.

altonhare
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:54 am
Location: Baltimore
Contact:

Re: The Stone--and other Paradoxes of Infinity

Post by altonhare » Sat Dec 27, 2008 8:29 pm

Antone wrote:At any specific point in time, God can lift the stone that he is creating. The fact that he cannot lift what has not yet been created does not violate his claim to endless power, because he can both create the infinitely large stone (emphasis on the future tense) and he can lift anything that he has created. (Emphasis on the past tense.)
But you said the stone is never infinite, at any given instant it is finite. So God never creates an infinitely large stone. The question is "Can God (or anyone) create an infinite object". The answer is no because there is no such "thing" as 'an' infinite object. You said as much yourself. The question itself is nonsensical.
Physicist: This is a pen

Mathematician: It's pi*r2*h

Plasmatic
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: The Stone--and other Paradoxes of Infinity

Post by Plasmatic » Sun Dec 28, 2008 2:56 am

And as a general rule, I do not belive that atheists are [less imaginitive] or [more stupid] than other groups of people. Therefore, I'm sure that those who do not believe in God can none-the-less find a way to talk about the riddle logically.
There is nothing logical about square-circles. One cannot "imagine" such a concept athiest or not.
One may ask "lets imagine a being that is everywhere but not everything, whos omnipotent . Can this being create a square circle? It doesnt matter how one asks ,if this is what they actually mean then the question is invalid and may as well be a series of clicks and hisses that where emitted by an inanimate object.

Let me ask you a question. Can a paradox exist? Can identity be violated? I see this as the intended meaning of the question in the first place. So lets assume youve shown the question is not a paradox, Ill ask you without the baggage of specific instances. CAN a thing be what it is and what it is not? Can a paradox exist. Yes or NO? Also can a boundless entity exist [even if you dont see this as your previous assertion] or come to be actually?

By the way if you would like to continue any type of discussion on the topic with me do not reply with any equations at all! :lol: ;)
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle

User avatar
Antone
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:28 pm
Contact:

Re: The Stone--and other Paradoxes of Infinity

Post by Antone » Sun Dec 28, 2008 12:31 pm

Sovereign wrote:So do you mean a really heavy stone?
Or do you mean a really big stone?
Doesn't matter... the argument is the same. And since a larger amount of the same thing invariably implies more mass (and thus presumably more weight) I would assume it would obviously have to be both. However, we're dealing with an omniscient being, so presumably he can do whatever he wants.
Sovereign wrote:Or a growing stone?
I suppose so, but I didn't want to get bogged down in meaningless details. ;)
Sovereign wrote:Or do you mean a stone that is really old?
I'm not sure what you're really asking, or what your point is. Obviously, a stone that was anything but a [fractionally small portion of infinitely old] would have to be really, really old in earthly terms... or even in terms of the supposed age of the universe. Such time frames are only very small subsets of infinity. As any finite period of time would necessarily have to be--no matter how long it was.
Sovereign wrote: So basically he can lift a finite stone since there will never be an infinitely large stone? ... I take this to mean an infinitely large stone will never exist?
Actually, the way I see it, in the temporal sense we should say that as long as God continues to increase the stone from time to time--it is a [temporally infinite stone] during the whole time of its existence. What makes it an infinite stone is that it continues to enlarge without end. This might only be the smallest infinitesimal fraction of an increase ever gazillion billion years, it's still an infinite stone becasue every gazillion billion years it will increase by a infinitesimally small amount.

It is the [endless aspect ]that defines its [infinite quality].

In the spacial sense, the stone will never actually be infinitely large at any specific point in time. But if we collapse all of time into a single now--thus shifting our [sense of the infinite] to the [spacial aspect], then the stone will be infinitely large in the now. This, of course, is simply an intellectual exercise--as is thinking about something that can exist forever. Being creatures that exist in the flow of time, t is easier for us to think in terms of the temporal aspect of infinity. But the true nature of infinity is both aspects together. Thus it is all of the sizes of all of the stones that will every exist during the whole procces that we have defined as [God occasionally increasing the size of the boulder].

Sovereign
Posts: 29
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 11:42 am

Re: The Stone--and other Paradoxes of Infinity

Post by Sovereign » Sun Dec 28, 2008 12:47 pm

Antone wrote:What makes it an infinite stone is that it continues to enlarge without end.
Now I see, your definition of infinite is something that enlarges without end. Incessant growing.
In the spacial sense, the stone will never actually be infinitely large at any specific point in time.
Couldn't agree more.

User avatar
Antone
Posts: 148
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:28 pm
Contact:

Re: The Stone--and other Paradoxes of Infinity

Post by Antone » Sun Dec 28, 2008 2:38 pm

Ben D wrote:When you raise the concept of "two omniscient beings", it seems to me to be an illogical proposition to begin with. The prefix 'omni' joined to such terms as science, presence, potence, etc., introduces the concept of absoluteness, i.e. omni means ALL or EVERYWHERE, and therefore to postulate two omni..... is to create an oxymoron.
Interesting thought... but I think maybe you're confusing the term omnipotent with omnipresent. I believe the first means [all powerful], while the second means [everywhere present]. I don't see any necessary problem with omnipotent--other than the one I stated: which is how can [A] be omnipotent if [A] can't do something to that doesn't want--But if he can then can't be omnipotent.

One possible solution to this is the absurd notion of possible worlds. [A] can do whatever he wants to --which renders non-omnipotent in that world. But prevents this by shifting into an alternate world where [A]'s attempt fails, rendering [A] non-omnipotent. Personally I've never liked the possible worlds theory--but it is one way to resolve the dilemma.

Another possible solution that might work if we assumed that the Gods were both omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient (all knowing) would be to assume that such a god would be aware of everything. He would understand the "urge to grow" of every blade of grass, and so forth. So he would also know the other God with perfect clarity and understanding. In such a case, where two Gods had such perfect understanding of their every interest, motive, thought, etc. would it truely be possible for one such being to wish harm upon the other. But if it were impossible, then again, this would seem to imply that there was something that these beings cannot do? Hate each other. So another question is, Do such possible limatations on what is impossible for an omni-being actually qualify as limitations?

But back to your objection for two omnipresent beings. If we assume that a single God can be omnipresent, then there are clearly objects that he has to co-exist with in order to be literally everywhere. I don't think a [second omnipresent being] presents any more of a barrier to being everywhere than a rock would. Less in fact, since if we accept the [first omnipresent being's existence] we have already accepted that he can co-exist at the same location as a physical object--assuming that's the way we wish to interpret omnipresent.

There is also a less literal interpretation, which is to assume only that the God is aware of all locations--without necessarily having to exist in all locations at once.

Ben D wrote:Sorry, did not mean to go outside the appropriate framework of your thread, but felt that it was appropriate to raise the idea that non-dualistic concepts such as infinite, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, etc., ( i.e. non-dual concepts considered to be attributes of absoluteness) are beyond the human mind to realize. The human mind can create the concepts of these non-dual ideas, but the concept itself is a mere finite mental construct to represent the idea of infinite reality.

Didn't mean to sound bossy, but thanks for understanding.

As for the rest, you raise some interesting questions... the first one that caught my eye was the non-dualistc concept comment. Personally, I do not believe that infinty is non-dualistic. My opinion is that it is a mixture of complex aspects. Being humans, what we tend to do when we entertain the notion of infinity is to focus on a singular aspect of the whole thing. So, to a certain extent, I agree with you about such concepts being "beyond the human mind to realize".

On the other hand, when it comes to issolating the essential meaning from the term [infinite]
There is a strategy that is used in linguistics to determine if two words have the same meaning and that is to simply to use the first word in as many sentences as you possibly can and then see if the second word can replace the first in each of those sentences. If the meaning of the sentences is perfectly maintained then the words mean the same thing--or have the same function, etc.

Semantically, at least, I think the word [endless] captures the semantic meaning of [infinity] perfectly.

The counting numbers are infinite.
the counting numbers are endless.

This is an infinitely large stone.
This is an endlessly large stone.

I will live for infinity.
I will live for an endless time.

A black hole has infinite mass.
A black hole has endless mass.

I can't think of any way to use the word infinite where some form of endless isn't an appropriate substitute. Sometimes we have to change kind of word form we're using. So we may have to say [endlessness], [endlessly] or even [without end]. When we are dealing with temporal infinities, [forever] is usually a better substitute--but [forever] is simply [endless time].

Using this strategy, I deduced that the fundamental meaning of [infinity] is [endlessness].

See if you can think of any sentences where the substitution doesn't work.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests