My argument against materialism

[dlorde]

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

Yes, I saw that, but where's the definition or explanation of 'infinite'? It can't be defined or explained terms of itself. Only recursion works that way. If you subtract zero from zero, zero remains alone...

 

[punshhh]

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


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.

Unfortunately I don't have time to explain it in a way you can understand just now. I'm off camping, It will have to wait until next week.

Perhaps you can give me an explanation of how a finite thing can be unbounded/infinite.
The explanation you gave already falls under the description of (x) in my argument.

Please define not using (x).

 

[PixyMisa]

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

As I said, drivel.

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

Every part of this is wrong.

 

[dlorde]

Perhaps you can give me an explanation of how a finite thing can be unbounded/infinite.

The explanation of the finite but unbounded has been given.

The explanation you gave already falls under the description of (x) in my argument.

So? the explanation stands, regardless of your nonsensical (x)'s and 's.

Please define not using (x).

?? please stop taking the piss.

If you think the explanation fails or is inadequate for some reason, state that reason clearly and in plain English.

 

[Dancing David]

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

Likely to our ape brains does not equal must.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Definable object can also include the shoelaces that an angel has in their shoes, Harry Potter's broomstick, etc...

 

[Dancing David]

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

And
Russel's teapot makes fine tea.

 

[AlBell]

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

Yup. And I only hope you realize the same.

 

[tsig]

Do you know what aleph numbers are?

Aleph numbers will be just another point of confusion. He wants the answer to why is the universe exists in a post on this forum. It's an easy question to ask but understanding the answer takes work.

 

[tsig]

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?

The universe of who? Was it the first?

 

[tsig]

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.

Sometimes it's rebounded.

 

[tsig]

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

Only the cheese stands alone.

 

[tsig]

Unfortunately I don't have time to explain it in a way you can understand just now. I'm off camping, It will have to wait until next week.

Perhaps you can give me an explanation of how a finite thing can be unbounded/infinite.
The explanation you gave already falls under the description of (x) in my argument.

Please define not using (x).

y = 10

 

[Robin]

Yup. And I only hope you realize the same.

I shall remember it if my metaphysic ever comes under serious attack.

I shall not defend it with vigour but with reason. If it cannot be defended with reason then I shall relinquish it.

 

[Robin]

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

You see this part right here?

This is where you assume your conclusion.

 

[Robin]

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.

Here is one problem. You said earlier that when you say "finite" you mean "has form". However here you are describing "has form" in terms of "finite" which makes it circular.

It would be helpful if you used "finite" to mean finite and "has form" to mean "has form" and stop conflating these concepts.

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.

So when you say something "has form" you mean it can be described by science - is that a fair interpretation?

But that basically means that it can be described by a mathematical model.

And a mathematical model can describe something without boundaries.

So you still have not gotten anywhere.

Perhaps you could now have a look at my questions.

Which questions do you mean?

 

[dafydd]

Please define not using (x).

You are either joking or making it up as you go along.

 

[Robin]

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

Consider what you said. when there was nothing.

If there was nothing then there would not be time. If there is no time then there is no such thing as when there was nothing.

If time began at the Big Bang then there was never a time when the Universe did not exist.

In that case there would be no such thing as before the Big Bang. There would have been no time when there was nothing.

 

[Robin]

Presumably these are the questions you asked for answers to:

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)

Unbounded means unbounded.

If it was bounded in some extra dimension then it would be bounded full stop.

But there is no reason why a finite thing has to be bounded at all.

Or does unbounded=unboundedness?

No

Could a finite but unbounded universe be described as an "object"?

It is a matter of choice whether you decide to call something an object or not.

You could call something that was infinite an object if you wished.

I don't think the word has any precise meaning.

Or does it have properties which can not be described?

There cannot be a property that cannot be described. Because "cannot be described" would be the description of the property. Finally - a paradox.

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

No, nor would it preclude there being only one universe.

Neither would the fact of the universe being bounded preclude there being only one universe.

Nor would a universe that was infinite preclude there being more than one universe.

The field of conjectures is wide open.