My argument against materialism

[punshhh]

You tell us why it is a problem.


Um, so I define Fred as having existence in space and time, if I take away space and time, where is Fred?

You are lost in your idiom.

Now is conventionally defined, so you remove the frame of existence.

Some questions have no answer.

Show me something not within space and time?

Unfortunately that may be impossible, my point was that there may be a timeless aspect to consciousness. However my definition of consciousness varies widely from the definitions I have read on this forum.
It is probably best if I stick with what I was trying to say in this thread for now.

 

[punshhh]

Punshhh, that doesn't mean anything.

I will try to define this better this evening

 

[Belz...]

I will try to define this better this evening

What's unfortunate is the very true possibility that it won't be better at all.

 

[PixyMisa]

Is that the all seeing all noing No again.

What do you mean, again?

It's the same no as before, the unask-the-question no, the your-question-is-riddled-with-fallacies no.

 

[PixyMisa]

Unfortunately that may be impossible, my point was that there may be a timeless aspect to consciousness.

No.

 

[Dancing David]

Unfortunately that may be impossible, my point was that there may be a timeless aspect to consciousness. However my definition of consciousness varies widely from the definitions I have read on this forum.
It is probably best if I stick with what I was trying to say in this thread for now.

Fair enough HPC is a rat hole

 

[punshhh]

It seems that some definitions are in order before I tidy up what I stated ealier;

Formless= (no possible feature or form*)

having no regular form or shape. 2. : lacking order or arrangement. 3. : having no physical existence.



Having form

The shape and structure of an object.
b. The body or outward appearance of a person or an animal considered separately from the face or head; figure.
2.
a. The essence of something.
b. The mode in which a thing exists, acts, or manifests itself; kind



Thing

1. An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.
2.
a. The real or concrete substance of an entity.
b. An entity existing in space and time.
c. An inanimate object.



Unbounded

Having no boundaries or limits: unbounded space.
2. Not kept within bounds; unrestrained:


Unboundedness.

Having no boundaries or limits: unbounded space.
2. Not kept within bounds; unrestrained



Infinity

Having no boundaries or limits.
2. Immeasurably great or large; boundless:
3. Mathematics
a. Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value.
b. Unlimited in spatial extent: a line of infinite length.
c. Of or relating to a set capable of being put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.


Finite

Having bounds; limited:
b. Existing, persisting, or enduring for a limited time only; impermanent.
2. Mathematics
a. Being neither infinite nor infinitesimal.
b. Having a positive or negative numerical value; not zero.
c. Possible to reach or exceed by counting. Used of a number.
d. Having a limited number of elements. Used of a set.


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

I note that unbounded appears to have the same meaning as infinite.

I am treating "unbounded" as equivalent to "formless" in this consideration as "unboundedness" has no form in itself and "formless" is unbounded.


*For this argument I will alter the definition of formless slightly to;

No possible feature or form


A thing(x) refers to something which has form as opposed to formless.
A formless "thing" with any aspect of its formlessness which can possibly have any form(x) is not formless but a form or thing(x).
(I assume form(x)=thing(x))

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

This form may have qualities which are unbounded, however that "unboundedness" is also a quality of said form(x) it can only have any boundary/form as an aspect of (x), as has no form itself.

Hence appears to be a form or thing through its association with (x).

We have the appearance of an unbounded form in a universe in which only forms(x) can be found.

The form(x) the universe consisting of forms appears to be unbounded, but it only appears to be so due to the unbounded qualities of its forms.

In order for this universe to be unbounded,(x) would either be unbounded aswell as , or (x) would be a quality or aspect of.

This is not possible because if has any aspect of its formlessness which has form(x), it is(becomes)(x) because it has form.

A universe constituted of numerous things(x), however big is always just a larger (x) and so on into infinity.

Hence the only way in which a finite universe can be unbounded is if it is an infinitely large universe.

This is the only way that (x)=, as it would be possible to have an infinitely large (x)

It does also mean that 1=2.

If this universe is not infinite it cannot be unbounded and there may well be a beyond.

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

We're back to the turtles again(=infinity).

 

[dlorde]

Sorry to respond so belatedly, but meh... (and it's good keyboard exercise )

My argument is that there can be no such thing, as the infinite length in itself would have to take the three dimensional rod with it into infinity.

You're saying an infinitely long rod would have to be infinitely long? Really?

The rod would inevitably over a very great length curve around and meet itself "where it started" due to the curvature of space.

If it follows a geodesic (i.e. it's 'infinitely straight') it might - as I explained previously - and, of course, then it wouldn't be infinitely long.

However it wouldn't be where it started as an infinitely long rod cannot have an end at either end.

That pillar of absurd nonsense stands proudly head and shoulders above the rest - I'm just going to leave it gibbering to itself... perhaps it's worth a sig entry...

So on meeting itself it would follow a course to one side of the previous loop, as arguably it could not occupy the same space simultaniously.

You're saying that (arguably) it can't occupy the same space as itself?

After an infinity of curving around, all the space in the universe would be occupied by an infinite number of loops.

Now for the rod to remain infinite it would require to be in an infinitely large universe to accomodate all the loops.

Yes!

Hence we have an infinitely large universe consisting entirely of solid steel.

And we specified, way back at the start of this mad diversion, that the universe we would consider was finite but unbounded - so there is a contradiction - IOW you can't have an infinitely long rod in a universe that is finite in volume - bounded or otherwise.

This is only an analogy, my point is any finite thing cannot have an aspect which extends infinitely in space or time. Or we end up back here, rather like the turtles all the way down.

It's not an analogy, and it doesn't support your point. There are multiple ways, in principle, for something to have both finite and infinite properties. An infinitely long rod (in an infinite universe) can have a finite diameter, a finite universe containing a finite rod can have an infinite temporal extension, etc. It's not like 'turtles all the way down' in any apparent sense, however appealing the image.

So the unbounded finite thing must be bounded in some way.

Well obviously the finite thing, by definition, has limits to the extent of its finite aspects. However, 'unbounded' does not refer to the extent of its finite aspects, but to their boundaries. If you can't grasp the idea in 3+ dimensions, consider the surface of a sphere. Finite in area, but that area is unbounded. The surface is continuous, unbroken, whole, unbounded, but has a finite area, and the sphere has a finite circumference.

I'm not an expert in topology, or the infinite, and I'm no great shakes at explaining these things, but I find it hard to believe you can't visualise the surface of a sphere, so I can't see why you should have a problem understanding the same idea with an additional dimension or two.

 

[dafydd]

It seems that some definitions are in order before I tidy up what I stated ealier;

Formless= (no possible feature or form*)

having no regular form or shape. 2. : lacking order or arrangement. 3. : having no physical existence.



Having form

The shape and structure of an object.
b. The body or outward appearance of a person or an animal considered separately from the face or head; figure.
2.
a. The essence of something.
b. The mode in which a thing exists, acts, or manifests itself; kind



Thing

1. An entity, an idea, or a quality perceived, known, or thought to have its own existence.
2.
a. The real or concrete substance of an entity.
b. An entity existing in space and time.
c. An inanimate object.



Unbounded

Having no boundaries or limits: unbounded space.
2. Not kept within bounds; unrestrained:


Unboundedness.

Having no boundaries or limits: unbounded space.
2. Not kept within bounds; unrestrained



Infinity

Having no boundaries or limits.
2. Immeasurably great or large; boundless:
3. Mathematics
a. Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value.
b. Unlimited in spatial extent: a line of infinite length.
c. Of or relating to a set capable of being put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.


Finite

Having bounds; limited:
b. Existing, persisting, or enduring for a limited time only; impermanent.
2. Mathematics
a. Being neither infinite nor infinitesimal.
b. Having a positive or negative numerical value; not zero.
c. Possible to reach or exceed by counting. Used of a number.
d. Having a limited number of elements. Used of a set.


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

I note that unbounded appears to have the same meaning as infinite.

I am treating "unbounded" as equivalent to "formless" in this consideration as "unboundedness" has no form in itself and "formless" is unbounded.


*For this argument I will alter the definition of formless slightly to;

No possible feature or form


A thing(x) refers to something which has form as opposed to formless.
A formless "thing" with any aspect of its formlessness which can possibly have any form(x) is not formless but a form or thing(x).
(I assume form(x)=thing(x))

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

This form may have qualities which are unbounded, however that "unboundedness" is also a quality of said form(x) it can only have any boundary/form as an aspect of (x), as has no form itself.

Hence appears to be a form or thing through its association with (x).

We have the appearance of an unbounded form in a universe in which only forms(x) can be found.

The form(x) the universe consisting of forms appears to be unbounded, but it only appears to be so due to the unbounded qualities of its forms.

In order for this universe to be unbounded,(x) would either be unbounded aswell as , or (x) would be a quality or aspect of.

This is not possible because if has any aspect of its formlessness which has form(x), it is(becomes)(x) because it has form.

A universe constituted of numerous things(x), however big is always just a larger (x) and so on into infinity.

Hence the only way in which a finite universe can be unbounded is if it is an infinitely large universe.

This is the only way that (x)=, as it would be possible to have an infinitely large (x)

It does also mean that 1=2.

If this universe is not infinite it cannot be unbounded and there may well be a beyond.

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

We're back to the turtles again(=infinity).

Reading your attempts to express yourself is like watching a rhinoceros trying to pick up a pea with it's lips. Things can be finite but unbounded,think of the surface of a sphere.

 

[PixyMisa]

I note that unbounded appears to have the same meaning as infinite.

No.

I am treating "unbounded" as equivalent to "formless" in this consideration as "unboundedness" has no form in itself and "formless" is unbounded.

No.

 

[TmoonII]

So when did you go?

remaining resolutely silent.

 

[laca]

Reading your attempts to express yourself is like watching a rhinoceros trying to pick up a pea with it's lips. Things can be finite but unbounded,think of the surface of a sphere.

Pretty much. Except the rhino's lips are in good working condition and it is actually seeing the pea.

 

[Robin]

It seems that some definitions are in order before I tidy up what I stated ealier;

But you are giving three or four definitions for each term. Are we supposed to guess which one of these definitions you mean when you use each word?

And your rephrasing isn't very clear.

These two facts conspire to make the argument unparseable.

 

[punshhh]

Reading your attempts to express yourself is like watching a rhinoceros trying to pick up a pea with it's lips. Things can be finite but unbounded,think of the surface of a sphere.

It only seems so absurd because I am trying to translate my understanding into, what is effectively a foreign language, that you guys understand and visa versa.

I am still trying to nail down this "unbounded", now I do understand your sphere.
However the point I am making is that the "unbounded" surface of the sphere is only unbounded in "two dimensions", when observed in three dimensions it is a ball and the unboundedness is both

a consequence of the shape of the sphere and nothing else

is bounded in only pervading the surface of the sphere, it does not extend beyond the surface of the sphere. As such it is bounded by the form of the sphere.

 

[punshhh]

Pretty much. Except the rhino's lips are in good working condition and it is actually seeing the pea.

In stilletos.

 

[punshhh]

But you are giving three or four definitions for each term. Are we supposed to guess which one of these definitions you mean when you use each word?

And your rephrasing isn't very clear.

These two facts conspire to make the argument unparseable.

I was providing the standard dictionary definitions of each word.
I will define my words more accurately;

formless=no possible form

Form=that nature or structure of a thing by which it can be known or described.

unbounded=having no boundary or restriction on its extent

unboundedness=the quality of being unbounded

Thing= a distinguishable physical object.

infinity=unbounded in any possible way, the quality of unboundedness.

finite=bounded within a definable limit.


Now some of these words have very similar definitions and the purpose of my argument is to try and tease out the meaning of unbounded in respect of "finite but unbounded".

Now unbounded=no "boundary", implying that there is no limit to the extent
of unboundedness in the "thing"or quality being described.

and infinite=no possible boundary, implying that there can be no limit in the extent of the "thing" or quality being described.

formless=no possible form, implying that there can be no boundary as a boundary is a form.


I see another relation, unbounded is a form when defined as an aspect of a form say the surface of a sphere, but not independently of that form.
Unbounded cannot be known or have a form in its own right.

I have a word which can fall into two opposing definitions depending on how it is used.

unbounded can be either a form or formless depending on wether it is used to describe a form or regarded as a principle(unboundedness)

Also infinity appears to equal a "formless unboundedness"
But not an 'unbounded form" as the form constitutes a boundary in some sense.

Now can anyone define "finite but unbounded" using anything here, or feel free to provide your own definitions.


Also Robin can you point out where my phrasing isn't clear?
Thankyou.

 

[PixyMisa]

It only seems so absurd because I am trying to translate my understanding into, what is effectively a foreign language, that you guys understand and visa versa.

I am still trying to nail down this "unbounded", now I do understand your sphere.
However the point I am making is that the "unbounded" surface of the sphere is only unbounded in "two dimensions", when observed in three dimensions it is a ball and the unboundedness is both

a consequence of the shape of the sphere and nothing else

is bounded in only pervading the surface of the sphere, it does not extend beyond the surface of the sphere. As such it is bounded by the form of the sphere.

Right. But that's only because you can look at the sphere from outside. If the Universe is curved closed, you can't do that. It's finite but unbounded.

 

[laca]

In stilletos.

Are you saying you're on drugs or in some other way handicapped?

 

[PixyMisa]

unbounded=having no boundary or restriction on its extent

No. (The bolded part.)

infinity=unbounded in any possible way, the quality of unboundedness.

No. (Any of it.)

finite=bounded within a definable limit.

No, again.

Also Robin can you point out where my phrasing isn't clear?
Thankyou.

Your phrasing is fine. Your definitions, however, don't match the technical definitions of the terms, which is how everyone else is using them.

If you want to argue a technical, scientific, or mathematical point, you have to use the appropriate technical, scientific, or mathematical definitions. Not one you found in a general-purpose dictionary, and most definitely not your own.

 

[punshhh]

Sorry to respond so belatedly, but meh... (and it's good keyboard exercise )


You're saying an infinitely long rod would have to be infinitely long? Really?


If it follows a geodesic (i.e. it's 'infinitely straight') it might - as I explained previously - and, of course, then it wouldn't be infinitely long.


That pillar of absurd nonsense stands proudly head and shoulders above the rest - I'm just going to leave it gibbering to itself... perhaps it's worth a sig entry...

You're saying that (arguably) it can't occupy the same space as itself?


Yes!


And we specified, way back at the start of this mad diversion, that the universe we would consider was finite but unbounded - so there is a contradiction - IOW you can't have an infinitely long rod in a universe that is finite in volume - bounded or otherwise.


It's not an analogy, and it doesn't support your point. There are multiple ways, in principle, for something to have both finite and infinite properties. An infinitely long rod (in an infinite universe) can have a finite diameter, a finite universe containing a finite rod can have an infinite temporal extension, etc. It's not like 'turtles all the way down' in any apparent sense, however appealing the image.


Well obviously the finite thing, by definition, has limits to the extent of its finite aspects. However, 'unbounded' does not refer to the extent of its finite aspects, but to their boundaries. If you can't grasp the idea in 3+ dimensions, consider the surface of a sphere. Finite in area, but that area is unbounded. The surface is continuous, unbroken, whole, unbounded, but has a finite area, and the sphere has a finite circumference.

I'm not an expert in topology, or the infinite, and I'm no great shakes at explaining these things, but I find it hard to believe you can't visualise the surface of a sphere, so I can't see why you should have a problem understanding the same idea with an additional dimension or two.

Thankyou for your reply, I will think on it a while.