My argument against materialism

[dlorde]

My argument falls within metaphysics, materialism doesn't address metaphysics.
...
Materialism should take account of metaphysics, rather than ignore it.

How odd - I always thought materialism was metaphysical...

 

[dlorde]

Perhaps if you google "Brahman wiki" you will find a good introductory summary of what I have in this thread been describing as "infinity".

I could see no explanation or definition of infinity there, simply multiple uses of the word.

Perhaps if you actually posted the link you had in mind?

 

[punshhh]

Unbounded: having no boundaries.

So you say you understand about the geometry of the Universe and that space can be finite but have no boundaries?

So if you understand how something can be finite and have no boundaries then you understand finite and unbounded.

Now can you please answer the question and give your reasoning as to why you think that if the Universe is finite then there must be something beyond it?

Sorry for that repetition,

Yes I understand that a finite universe may be unbounded from our perspective.

Does this mean it is bounded in a multi dimensional sense? (is there a boundary in any sense)

Or does unbounded=unboundedness?

Could a finite but unbounded universe be described as an "object"?
Or does it have properties which can not be described?

Would the fact of the universe being unbounded preclude there being more than one universe?

 

[Dancing David]

This draws my mind to an alternative way of seeing the issue of "finite but unbounded".

If the universe is finite (and there is only one universe) then surely eventually it will "die" ceace to exist.
If this were to happen we would be left with "nothing"

Only an infinite universe does not have an end.

All finite universes must end resulting in nothing.

This begs the question;

how did a finite universe pop into existence when there was nothing?

Nope the universe could be finite in space and infinite in time.

Your statement that all universes must end in nothing is called anthropocentrism. The universe is much stranger than we concieve.

You need to empty your cup, the universe does not have to meet our expectations.

Stars 'die' yet they remain as other things. Etc...

 

[dlorde]

Could you explain "finite but unbounded" this sounds a bit like a yes to 1,
or possibly a yes to 2.

When you say unbounded does this mean it goes on for ever(infinity), or is there a boundary of some sort?

I (among others) already explained this to you, and you appeared to accept it...

FFS - something that is unbounded does not, by definition, have a boundary.

I think you're just trying to wind everyone up.

 

[Dancing David]

Preclude is a preconception.

 

[dlorde]

I appreciate your reasoning about curved 3D space, however it should still have theoretical boundary of some description if it is finite, or it would be infinite.

Does the surface of a sphere have a theoretical boundary? can you travel round it until you reach a boundary?

 

[Robin]

Sorry for that repetition,

I don't care about the repetition but please answer my question rather than expecting me to answer more of your questions:

Why do you think that if the Universe is finite then there must be something beyond it?​

 

[AlBell]

Are those who think aleph numbers are important going to explain their applicability to the 'material' universe they think exists?

 

[punshhh]

Unbounded: having no boundaries.

So you say you understand about the geometry of the Universe and that space can be finite but have no boundaries?

So if you understand how something can be finite and have no boundaries then you understand finite and unbounded.

Now can you please answer the question and give your reasoning as to why you think that if the Universe is finite then there must be something beyond it?

My reasoning for why there must be something beyond a finite universe.

By my definition finite refers to something which has form as opposed to formless(infinite).
A formless "thing" with any aspect of its formlessness which can be conceived of as having form(x) is not formless but finite.

Any conceivable form(x) is necessarily bounded by that form(x).

This finite form may have qualities which are unbounded, however that "unboundedness" is also a quality of said form(x) and can only have the appearance of unboundedness.

If this quality of a form(x)were truly unbounded the quality(form) constituting (x) would necessarily be unbounded aswell, as it is the same "thing".

Hence x and y being two sides of the same coin(form(x)) cannot be bounded(finite) and unbounded(infinite) at the same time.

If were unbounded(infinite), (x would have to be unbounded(infinite) as well hence formless.

Both x and y would be formless(infinite).

Basically I am saying there can be no truly unbounded finite thing, such a thing only has the appearance of being unbounded.

Hence a finite but unbounded universe is actually bounded, while conceivably being unbounded.

If so it is an object with boundaries, if one object why not two or three or four?

We're back to the turtles again.

 

[Robin]

Are those who think aleph numbers are important going to explain their applicability to the 'material' universe they think exists?

It was punshhh who connected aleph numbers to matter, not anybody else.

Aleph numbers were raised in connection with punshhh's claim that if the Universe were infinite then there could be nothing beyond it.

By the way, the Universe does exist. Whether one wants to label it 'Material' or something else is an irrelevant issue of personal taste.

 

[dafydd]

My reasoning for why there must be something beyond a finite universe.

By my definition finite refers to something which has form as opposed to formless.
A formless "thing" with any aspect of its formlessness which can be conceived of as having form(x) is not formless but finite.

Any conceivable form(x) is necessarily bounded by that form(x).

This finite form may have qualities which are unbounded, however that "unboundedness" is also a quality of said form(x) and can only have the appearance of unboundedness.

If this quality of a form(x)were truly unbounded the quality(form) constituting (x) would necessarily be unbounded aswell, as it is the same "thing".

Basically I am saying there can be no truly unbounded finite thing, such a thing only has the appearance of being unbounded.

Hence a finite but unbounded universe is actually bounded, while conceivably being unbounded.

If so it is an object with boundaries, if one object why not two or three or four?

We're back to the turtles again.

Your imagination is fertile,but paradoxically a form of sterile fertility,unbounded in it's bound unboundedness,finite in it's infinity yet limited by an unlimited limitlessness appearing as indwelling realities manifesting throughout.........repeat as necessary.

 

[Robin]

If so it is an object with boundaries, if one object why not two or three or four?

Well let's concentrate on this for the moment and leave the rest for a little later.

Are you under the impression that saying "why not X?" is some sort of an argument that X must exist?

 

[AlBell]

It was punshhh who connected aleph numbers to matter, not anybody else.

Aleph numbers were raised in connection with punshhh's claim that if the Universe were infinite then there could be nothing beyond it.

That's not my recollection, but I could be wrong. I don't think punshhh has a clue as to what an aleph number is or isn't.

I will say that whatever one is no obvious connection to it and reality seems likely; well, other than to the reality that minds create.

By the way, the Universe does exist. Whether one wants to label it 'Material' or something else is an irrelevant issue of personal taste.

As is the vigor with which one defends ones' metaphysics.

 

[Robin]

As is the vigor with which one defends ones' metaphysics.

Well I am glad that you realise that the vigour with which you defend your metaphysic is irrelevant.

For the rest of it, I can confirm that aleph numbers were brought up in relation to punshhh's claim that if the Universe was infinite there could be nothing beyond it. Subsequent to that punshhh asked a question about aleph numbers and matter. Go check.

 

[Robin]

My reasoning for why there must be something beyond a finite universe.

By my definition finite refers to something which has form as opposed to formless(infinite).
A formless "thing" with any aspect of its formlessness which can be conceived of as having form(x) is not formless but finite.

Any conceivable form(x) is necessarily bounded by that form(x).

This finite form may have qualities which are unbounded, however that "unboundedness" is also a quality of said form(x) and can only have the appearance of unboundedness.

If this quality of a form(x)were truly unbounded the quality(form) constituting (x) would necessarily be unbounded aswell, as it is the same "thing".

Hence x and y being two sides of the same coin(form(x)) cannot be bounded(finite) and unbounded(infinite) at the same time.

If were unbounded(infinite), (x would have to be unbounded(infinite) as well hence formless.

Both x and y would be formless(infinite).

Basically I am saying there can be no truly unbounded finite thing, such a thing only has the appearance of being unbounded.

Hence a finite but unbounded universe is actually bounded, while conceivably being unbounded.

If so it is an object with boundaries, if one object why not two or three or four?

We're back to the turtles again.

Let's be explicit about this.

Even if any of the rest of this argument made sense it would still not be valid because it reaches it's conclusion using a purely invented method of inference which appears to go:

if x then why not y?, therefore y​

I feel safe in predicting that this will not be making an appearance in logic text books any time soon.

 

[PixyMisa]

My reasoning for why there must be something beyond a finite universe.

By my definition finite refers to something which has form as opposed to formless(infinite).

Well, there's your problem.

 

[punshhh]

Let's be explicit about this.

Even if any of the rest of this argument made sense it would still not be valid because it reaches it's conclusion using a purely invented method of inference which appears to go:

if x then why not y?, therefore y​

I feel safe in predicting that this will not be making an appearance in logic text books any time soon.

Well this may be so, I have no formal training in logic.

I am considering x to be a "thing/object/entity/form" any definable object.

This x is one thing, it may be made up of constituent parts, but the described form(x) is seen as a whole, a finite thing.

My assumption of its existence is that it can be "described/known" and in relation to matter it has a defined presence or existence as described by science.

y is a quality or aspect of x, it may be one of its constituent parts.

If y can be described/known while also being unbounded how can it be described/known other than through a description of x, a part of x?
As being unbounded y is formless.

Formless things cannot be described/known as they have no distinguishing features. If they did they would have form and would be bounded/finite and be a form/object or thing and would take their own place as a separate form (z).

If y can be described as a form it cannot be formless because it has a form, hence it is not unbounded.

x and z are describable forms/bounded/finite.

y is unbounded/infinite and cannot exist independent of x or z, as by definition it would become z and would no longer be y.

x cannot have an existence as part of y as y would not be unbounded if it had a constituent finite part x.

Because by definition y would then be x or z.

If y being formless, were to have any conceivable constituent part/form(x) must be finite, hence is actually x not y.

I hope there is something in this that makes sense.

Perhaps you could now have a look at my questions.

 

[punshhh]

I could see no explanation or definition of infinity there, simply multiple uses of the word.

Perhaps if you actually posted the link you had in mind?

Auṃ- That supreme Brahman is infinite, and this conditioned Brahman is infinite. The infinite proceeds from infinite. If you subtract the infinite from the infinite, the infinite remains alone.

This is one way the hindus put it, think on the bit in bold

 

[dlorde]

I have no formal training in logic.

Me neither, but formal training isn't necessary to make and follow simple logical arguments.

I hope there is something in this that makes sense.

Sadly, no. If you take well-defined terms, change their meaning to something ill-defined, then use them in an argument of non-sequiturs where where logic takes a back seat, you can't really expect it to make much sense.