My argument against materialism

dafydd said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've got it! the surface of the pea is unbounded, hence incomprehensible to the rhinos lips.
 
PixyMisa said:
No. (The bolded part.)


No. (Any of it.)


No, again.


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.
Click to expand...

I remember someone saying something about plain English.

I don't see a technical, scientific or mathematical point. I thought it was somewhere in the realm of semantics and metaphysics.

Please offer some definitions for me to work with as I cant see the wood for the trees.
 
punshhh said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you are going to make up your own definitions of words as you go along then this discussion is a waste of time. You still haven't told me what the bodily spheres are.
 
PixyMisa said:
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.
Click to expand...

I understand what your saying, I do find it difficult to accept that the system is closed.
Is it not theoretically the case that if an intelligent entity from another notional universe "observed" our universe it would "perceive" a bounded thing.

Or a notional disembodied entity having an 'awareness" of the existence of our universe, concluding it as bounded thing.

I understand the argument about there being no time or space outside of our universe. However this is the case from our perspective of being bounded within this space and time.
It does not rule out as I see it there being another independent space time event existing.
 
punshhh said:
I remember someone saying something about plain English.

I don't see a technical, scientific or mathematical point.
Click to expand...
Look again. If you're talking about physical infinities, that's the realm of physics, and you need to use their definitions. If you're talking about mathematical infinities, that's the realm of mathematics, and you need to use their definitions.

Please offer some definitions for me to work with as I cant see the wood for the trees.
Click to expand...
The problem is, if I give you a definition from Mathworld (for example), you won't understand it.
 
punshhh said:
I understand what your saying, I do find it difficult to accept that the system is closed.
Click to expand...
But the point is, you have no basis for that.

It does not rule out as I see it there being another independent space time event existing.
Click to expand...
Actually, yes it does. If the Universe is closed, then it's all that exists.

What does it even mean for another "independent space time event" to exist?

Can you observe it? No.

Can you infer its properties indirectly? No.

Can you say anything about it at all? No.

Does it affect anything in our Universe in any way whatsoever? No.

Then it's no different from something that doesn't exist.
 
punshhh said:
I understand what your saying, I do find it difficult to accept that the system is closed.
Is it not theoretically the case that if an intelligent entity from another notional universe "observed" our universe it would "perceive" a bounded thing.

Or a notional disembodied entity having an 'awareness" of the existence of our universe, concluding it as bounded thing.

I understand the argument about there being no time or space outside of our universe. However this is the case from our perspective of being bounded within this space and time.
It does not rule out as I see it there being another independent space time event existing.
Click to expand...

Now you are inventing notional entities.
 
PixyMisa said:
But the point is, you have no basis for that.


Actually, yes it does. If the Universe is closed, then it's all that exists.

What does it even mean for another "independent space time event" to exist?

Can you observe it? No.

Can you infer its properties indirectly? No.

Can you say anything about it at all? No.

Does it affect anything in our Universe in any way whatsoever? No.

Then it's no different from something that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

So there is no infinite quantity to the universe?
 
PixyMisa said:
Look again. If you're talking about physical infinities, that's the realm of physics, and you need to use their definitions. If you're talking about mathematical infinities, that's the realm of mathematics, and you need to use their definitions.


The problem is, if I give you a definition from Mathworld (for example), you won't understand it.
Click to expand...

Please offer a definition from the realm of physics?

I do understand the mathematical definitions, however I find it difficult to work within them.
 
punshhh said:
Now can anyone define "finite but unbounded" using anything here, or feel free to provide your own definitions.
Click to expand...
Imagine a thing which has the structure of the surface of a sphere but is only a two dimensional object.
 
punshhh said:
My reasoning for why there may be something beyond a finite universe.
Click to expand...

Haven't we already explained that "space" only exists within the context of the universe and, as such, there can be nothing "beyond" it ? Why do you refuse to learn ?

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

And the run around the Earth analogy wasn't understood, either ?

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

:hb:
 
punshhh said:
Please offer a definition from the realm of physics?
Click to expand...
Physics generally doesn't deal with infinite quantities, but infinite derivatives are not uncommon. A finite point mass, for example, has infinite density.

I do understand the mathematical definitions, however I find it difficult to work within them.
Click to expand...
Well, if you make up your own definitions rather than using the mathematical ones, I can guarantee you're not going to get anywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom