(April 21, 2016 at 12:03 pm)robvalue Wrote: What is contradictory about infinite nested realities? I can't assess the objection until you say what it is.

Well, is infinity finite or is it infinite?

What? Infinite is infinite. I don't even know what you're talking about now, sorry.

(April 21, 2016 at 12:09 pm)robvalue Wrote: What? Infinite is infinite. I don't even know what you're talking about now, sorry.

Right. So how does it make sense to refer to an infinity of anything (e.g. conditions, nested realities, whatever) as a finite thing?

I don't know why you keep insisting it has to be a finite thing. Why does it?

Finite amounts can be represented by an infinite number of discrete parts anyhow, even if you insist on the sum of all realities being finite (which I don't know how you could possibly know).

For example 1 = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...

Viewed one way, it's finite. Viewed another, it's an infinite number of parts. Who knows how realities seem from the "outside".

This is the thing. If you want to learn things about what is actually real, you need to use the scientific method.

Making general rules that go beyond the scope of science and just assuming they apply doesn't get you anywhere. We can speculate, as I have been doing, but until you can actually test, it's not especially useful. Since there is no way of telling how things work outside of what we can test, we can't know which speculation is correct. So even if you stumbled upon the truth, you wouldn't know you had it.

This is why I'm happy to say I don't know, and why I don't have firm beliefs about it all. Maybe there's a big-daddy-something-or-other who is the master of contingency, maybe there isn't. Makes no difference to me. Maybe our whole idea of contingency is complete bullshit, and if we could see the big picture without being trapped inside one reality, it would make more sense.

All we can do is model and test what is available, and try to increase our scope with new techniques. But philosophy alone is not an adequate tool.

(April 21, 2016 at 12:11 pm)robvalue Wrote: I don't know why you keep insisting it has to be a finite thing. Why does it?

If a single atom is finite, then it can't simultaneously be an infinity... your example below shows exactly what I mean. I am not talking about all of reality. I am referring to a single existing thing within reality. As such, it is finite. 

Quote:Finite amounts can be represented by an infinite number of discrete parts anyhow, even if you insist on the sum of all realities being finite (which I don't know how you could possibly know).

For example 1 = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + ...

I had considered this before the thread, but I think that this mathematical representation is misleading because "equals" is understood to mean "approaches" one. With a geometric series like the one your propose, as n approaches infinity for (1/2^n), the sum approaches the value of 1 asymptotically, but NEVER actually sums up to one. It is the limit of the series, not its actual sum. If you replace the ellipsis in your equation with an infinity of increasingly halved values, it will never equal 1, but only nudge ever more slowly towards it, and no other value.

1/2 + 1/2 actually sums up to 1. The sum of (1/2)^n + (1/2)^(n+1), beginning with n=1 and increasing n infinitely never adds up to one, but it does get very close. Whether you subtract a single fraction given between n=1 and infinity of add one, it is impossible to ever reach 1. The sum only approaches closer to one, but is ultimately less than. <= That is the problem I see with an infinity of increasingly fundamental synchronous conditions. If 1 = existence, and 1 is never reached, but only approached, then the series never "reaches" existence.

[EDIT] MORE IMPORTANTLY: In the above series, consider the two fractions 1/2 and 1/4. (1/2)'s existence does not depend on the following (1/4). If you have a half of a pie as well as an additional 1/4 of a pie, you have 3/4 of a pie. Remove the (1/4), and you still have the (1/2). This analogy does not map onto my description of conditional existence.

Quote:This is the thing. If you want to learn things about what is actually real, you need to use the scientific method. 

That's fine. I also want to learn things about expressing what I've learned from the scientific method, and the implications of those things.

Quote:Maybe there's a big-daddy-something-or-other who is the master of contingency, maybe there isn't. Makes no difference to me. Maybe our whole idea of contingency is complete bullshit, and if we could see the big picture without being trapped inside one reality, it would make more sense.

Who says it has to be a "big-daddy-something-or-other who is the master of contingency"? Why can't it just be a non-contingent impersonal unintelligent thing?

Maybe our idea of contingency is bullshit, sure. Until I am presented with good reasons that such is the case, I won't seriously consider it. I have good reasons to think otherwise as the past 18 pages document. I'm just trying to follow what I find to be true.

(April 21, 2016 at 11:51 am)Ignorant Wrote: My objection is that, it seems, that you are suggesting that it is possible for a finite thing (e.g. helium) to be the satisfaction of an infinity of conditions (i.e. other things). I think that is logically self-contradictory.

How many points are on a one centimeter line segment?

Your object that infinity and the finite are necessarily incompatible don't really work, since it is different aspects of things which are either finite or infinite.

Thanks very much for the discussion, ignorant. It's been most interesting and you have been respectful and listened to what I have to say. That is a rare thing on this forum when engaging theists.

I think however it's got to the point where I will just be repeating myself, so I will now bow out. I'll keep an eye on how things progress, and I'll jump in again if I can think of anything else to say. I can't understand / agree with your objections. I'm not saying this means you are wrong, it just means I think we've hit a communication barrier. I don't know how to get round it right now, but if I have more ideas, I'll be back! Maybe someone else can approach it from another angle.

(April 22, 2016 at 12:56 am)robvalue Wrote: Thanks very much for the discussion, ignorant. It's been most interesting and you have been respectful and listened to what I have to say. That is a rare thing on this forum when engaging theists.

I think however it's got to the point where I will just be repeating myself, so I will now bow out. I'll keep an eye on how things progress, and I'll jump in again if I can think of anything else to say. I can't understand / agree with your objections. I'm not saying this means you are wrong, it just means I think we've hit a communication barrier. I don't know how to get round it right now, but if I have more ideas, I'll be back! Maybe someone else can approach it from another angle.

I truly appreciate you sharing your perspective. It has been most helpful for me, and I've learned quite a bit. I look forward to reading what you have to say about future topics! Thank you as well for your respect. Cheers!