(January 25, 2023 at 10:54 pm)Objectivist Wrote:(January 25, 2023 at 10:20 pm)GrandizerII Wrote: Words can change meaning over time. Because of repeated suggestions of a multiverse in this day and age, the word "universe" has come to be understood as a part of reality and not the whole.We're just going around in circles now. We are not going to agree. I do honestly think that you are implying that something exists outside the total when you say "The total of what actually exists appears to be quite arbitrary if the total is basically this universe or a limited range of universes". I've already given my definition of 'universe' and it can not possibly be arbitrary. We have a fundamental disagreement that is irreconcilable so I thank you for the discussion GrandizerII but I'm going to end it here.
Either way, if you're still not ever sure what someone means by a particular word, it's always good to ask.
Nothing wrong with "arbitrary", as you defined it earlier. Something not having evidence for its existence doesn't make it non-existent. We could still use reason and intuition to judge the plausibility of its existence. Well, some of us non-Objectivists, at least.
Thanks for sharing your personal opinion here, which is not supported by the evidence and therefore is "arbitrary".
Infinity is an unlimited quantity. I didn't see any good argument for why an actual infinite is impossible.
What I see is you making an argument against potential infinity not being actual infinity, which I can agree with. If you start counting from the number one all the way into infinity, you will never reach some final destination called "infinity", true. But so what? This doesn't invalidate actual infinites.
And do you really honestly think that I've been saying that there is another realm of existence beyond the whole of existence? Come on, man, be more charitable than that.
It's fine if you feel a discussion with me is futile, and you want to cease the discussion with me. You're a free person after all.
Big questions are "big" for a reason. They're not meant to be easy to answer, if at all possible. Objectivists are not the first, nor the last, to struggle with these.
I disagree that that's what I'm saying, but it is what it is. Thanks for the discussion regardless.