only infinity exists?

[Amorphos]

only infinity exists?

1. if infinity exists then it is not possible for anything else to as it would occupy all spaces.

2. there are no examples of finiteness in terms of physical objects.

3. infinity cannot be attributed an absolute limit and hence there can be no such things in existence.

4. infinity must be itself, however this is impossible. to be unlimited means that infinity must be all things if not to give it limits, it is not possible to be all things individually at once, as things are defined comparatively.

5. existence is the result of this. infinity tries to be itself and hence all things that can exist must. yet no thing can exist outside of infinity hence all things are expressions of the infinite rather than being an absolute instance of themselves.

6. infinity must form into a universal entity, and one where paradoxically all things can be, whilst not being. this would equate as the nearest infinity can be to itself, it cannot allow an absolute instance of any thing or that thing would mean it isn’t infinite/having nothing outside of it. hence all parties, sets and subsets are divided amongst themselves and cannot be themselves nor any other, thence each and every example also cannot be so.

7. entities don’t belong to anything even themselves. to visualise this let us imagine a quality that is extraneous to the given objects, here we will use ‘mind’ as an example:

you have ‘mind’ as do i, then if existent of itself it is not neither one of our possession and is a third party. that mind entity then does not exist, but is a product of infinity which we have utility of due to the intimacy of properties within the whole. all the things one would consider constitutes ‘you’, personas, the ego and eventually the entire personality, can be extrapolated as an instance of itself whilst at the same time together constituting ‘you’.

anything we care to take apart will eventually fall into this universal format.

everything is something else.

8. a non linear beginning. so far we have infinity, then we have its self created paradox ~ its inability to be itself completely. the result is an eternity of perpetual manifestation, an endless search to be itself...

the triad of infinity

a) primary principle of infinity itself; what it is as a basis of itself ~ its meaning and essence.

b) the principle of becoming. the motive force in the universe.

c. universality. its shape.

the first principle denotes a source without location nor position [dimensionless]. it is not a continuum yet may act as such in being ever present. nothing belongs to this source nor it to any entity. here then we have the non linear beginning.

[Vilhjalmr]

I hate to break it to you, but the concept of "infinity" is just that: a concept.

Just like any other number. "Two" for example, is just a concept. It doesn't really exist in and of itself.

[Amorphos]

infinity is not necessarily a number, it can be thought of as one yet can also be thought of as a dimension. it is above all else a description of something which expends to the furthest extent of all things, call it what we will there has to be some thing of reality which does this.

[Vilhjalmr]

Do you... Have any evidence of any sort to back up these -- admittedly strange -- claims?

[Juvenal]

That is quite a large chunk to discuss. I think the biggest problem is that you have not defined your terms - so I am probably going to be arguing from completely different premises to yours.

only infinity exists?

"Infinity" seems to be being treated as a noun. Is there an accepted meaning for this?

1. if infinity exists then it is not possible for anything else to as it would occupy all spaces.

I only understand infinity as being "an unlimited amount". Mathematically it has a specific meaning, but Mathematics and reality are not equal, otherwise Achilles never would have caught that hare.

How can infinity be something that occupies space - something that is infinitely small occupies no space at all!

2. there are no examples of finiteness in terms of physical objects.

All known physical objects are finite (otherwise they wouldn't be "known").

3. infinity cannot be attributed an absolute limit and hence there can be no such things in existence.

My understanding of infinity is that it is a quality, qualities don't have independent existence. We can only know of the existence of finite things. The nearest to inifinity we can know is "without known limit". This kind of infinity is very easy to find - just look up at the night sky.

4. infinity must be itself, however this is impossible. to be unlimited means that infinity must be all things if not to give it limits, it is not possible to be all things individually at once, as things are defined comparatively.

Since infinity is a quality, it is definitely not "all things". There might be infinite time stretching ahead of us, there might be infinite space, there might be an infinite regression of fundamental particles and fields. None of these infinities constrain any of the others. Of course we can never know whether any of these infinities are true since we are finite beings making a finite set of observations.

5. existence is the result of this. infinity tries to be itself and hence all things that can exist must. yet no thing can exist outside of infinity hence all things are expressions of the infinite rather than being an absolute instance of themselves.

How can infinity try to be itself? It either is or it isn't. As I pointed out above, there can be any number of non-overlapping infinities and any number of things may exist outside of them. For instance the existence of a cup of tea is independent of whether space is infinite.

6. infinity must form into a universal entity, and one where paradoxically all things can be, whilst not being. this would equate as the nearest infinity can be to itself, it cannot allow an absolute instance of any thing or that thing would mean it isn’t infinite/having nothing outside of it. hence all parties, sets and subsets are divided amongst themselves and cannot be themselves nor any other, thence each and every example also cannot be so.

How can infinity be a universal entity? An entity is, by definition, something with a distinct separate existence. Infinity is an abstract quality and therefore does not have an existence of its own.

7. entities don’t belong to anything even themselves. to visualise this let us imagine a quality that is extraneous to the given objects, here we will use ‘mind’ as an example:

you have ‘mind’ as do i, then if existent of itself it is not neither one of our possession and is a third party. that mind entity then does not exist, but is a product of infinity which we have utility of due to the intimacy of properties within the whole. all the things one would consider constitutes ‘you’, personas, the ego and eventually the entire personality, can be extrapolated as an instance of itself whilst at the same time together constituting ‘you’.

anything we care to take apart will eventually fall into this universal format.

everything is something else.

Entities belonging - I presume you are talking about classification? But classification can be arbitrary. Entities may belong simultaneously to as many classes as you can think up. Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "belong".

Mind is not "existent of itself", it is the effect of a physical process in the brain. When we think of Mind we are making a mental model of it, in the end we cannot fully understand Mind when using our own mind to do the understanding. We can only create more elaborate models until they are beyond our full comprehension.

I don't understand why Mind should be a product of infinity.

8. a non linear beginning. so far we have infinity, then we have its self created paradox ~ its inability to be itself completely. the result is an eternity of perpetual manifestation, an endless search to be itself...

the triad of infinity

a) primary principle of infinity itself; what it is as a basis of itself ~ its meaning and essence.

b) the principle of becoming. the motive force in the universe.

c. universality. its shape.

the first principle denotes a source without location nor position [dimensionless]. it is not a continuum yet may act as such in being ever present. nothing belongs to this source nor it to any entity. here then we have the non linear beginning.

Infinity cannot be itself completely because it isn't an entity, it is a quality of an entity. Infinity only really exists as a concept. We might attribute infinity to the real world of our senses, but we cannot ever prove that it is real - all we can ever say for sure is that the limit has not yet been found.

Don't be fooled by the existence of mathematical infinity - Mathematics is not reality, no matter how useful it is in physics. In mathematics, in addition to those statements that seem to tell us something true about the actual world, it is also possible to make an infinite number of untrue statements (I am sure this can be proved easily).

[Amorphos]

vilhjalmr

evidence is that there has to be infinity, unless any one can say what else would fill reality up. in the end its just words there simply has to be something like infinity ~ perhaps my understanding is incomplete but there must logically be something like it.

juvenal
nice post!

“Infinity” seems to be being treated as a noun. Is there an accepted meaning for this?

i don’t think so, the hindu’s, greeks and egyptians had their theories as do we now. i think modern philosophy and math is largely based on the hindu concept [but i may be wrong]. i think all agree on certain premises like ‘limitless’ or without end.

How can infinity be something that occupies space - something that is infinitely small occupies no space at all!

if the infinitesimal exists perhaps, yet we can call that an expression of the infinite as infinity must reach all possibilities so as to remain unlimited.

All known physical objects are finite (otherwise they wouldn’t be “known”).

they are known by how they act, in physics it is not possible to observe an absolute quantum object.

Since infinity is a quality, it is definitely not “all things”.

infinity is itself and nothing else, the unlimited by definition is all things. we may portray it as a quality but not limit it to that description ~ as it is unlimited.

Of course we can never know whether any of these infinities are true since we are finite beings making a finite set of observations.

here’s a puzzle for you... we have two observers looking at the sunset across the sea from a beach. they are connected to a pc monitor which sees both images of what the observers are seeing. which is the correct observation of reality; either of the observers of the image on the screen?
my answer is that they are all correct, yet this would give us a fractured image of reality. the only way around this is to have a universal observer of the objective reality, this would have the effect of making reality one objective sphere with a multitude of subjective spheres i.e. we the observers.

hence a finite observer can perceive the non finite!

i will answer the rest of your fine post tomorrow its late here ~ thanks

[Juvenal]

...they are known by how they act, in physics it is not possible to observe an absolute quantum object.

This is not relevant unless you believe in Infinity as an overarching entity, rather than infinity as a quality of measurement. I suppose I am revealing myself here as something of an instrumentalist. I am not averse to existence of objective reality, but I am not sure if we can ever be completely certain about what it is.

...infinity is itself and nothing else, the unlimited by definition is all things. we may portray it as a quality but not limit it to that description ~ as it is unlimited.

I don't think I agree with these conclusions. Clearly anything you define is itself and nothing else unless you use a trick within the definition (such as for example: given the Class of all Classes that don't contain themselves, does it contain itself?).

However, I don't see why the unlimited is by definition all things. This is because "unlimited" is a qualification, not a thing itself. For example if I have unlimited chocolate I am (temporarily) happy, whereas if I have unlimited debt then I may have to resort to the comfort of alcohol.

... here’s a puzzle for you... we have two observers looking at the sunset across the sea from a beach. they are connected to a pc monitor which sees both images of what the observers are seeing. which is the correct observation of reality; either of the observers of the image on the screen?
my answer is that they are all correct, yet this would give us a fractured image of reality. the only way around this is to have a universal observer of the objective reality, this would have the effect of making reality one objective sphere with a multitude of subjective spheres i.e. we the observers.

All observations are correct in that they are observations (although they may be recorded incorrectly). Objective reality is a concept which we derive from observations, and from rational thought. Unfortunately although there may only be one objective reality (but even this is by no means certain) there are an infinite number of possible candidates for it that we might construct.

A universal observer is just as much a construct of our reasoning as the objective reality it is supposed to be observing. In fact Quantum Theory specifically rules out the possibility of a universal observer.

This all illustrates a great limitation of Philosophy (from my perspective), in that it is very common to create arguments and conclusions that are beyond verification by independent observations. These conclusions may be very satisfying in themselves, but their value is limited by their abundance.

Science is less ambitious than Philosophy and has nothing at all to say on many subjects we feel to be of vital importance, but at least what it does say is backed up with some substance.

... hence a finite observer can perceive the non finite!

I would qualify this, saying that a finite observer can only perceive the non finite by a process of deduction.

[Amorphos]

seneca

Yet not true since you are confusing the micro and the macro. I exist, I am a collection of atoms which contain infinite and quantum properties yet I exist. There is only one of me, yet I am also the sum of my parts. This doesn’t lessen the value of the concept that is myself as an entity simply because I am made up of other things.

you cannot define ‘you’ as a distinct entity! the parts of you that make up ‘you’ are also non-distinct, so you are a collective ~ like a knot in an infinite string.

See above. This is pretty much irrelevant.

if not infinity then what... i was ruling out the finite as an alternate definition of the shape and dimension of reality. so i have to find a description that is non-finite, and you would have to find a description that is neither infinite or finite ~ good luck.

Yes there can.

there are limits [usually relative] but the lines blur the more one investigates them.

Existance is the result of existance, nothing more nothing less.

absolutely, and if existence is infinite.

Things happen because other things caused it to happen,

infinity must be infinity [see op], hence all causal links emanate from that primal desire/rule [although indirectly and sometimes seamingly independantly]. it is the simplest reasoning i have yet found ~ that alone give it a fighting chance eh!

unless you start getting into questions for which there aren’t presently answers which is meaningless debate (the start of the universe, we aren’t smart enough or have access to enough information to even theorise)

indeed, no need to if the above is true as there is no beginning nor end [which for me is kinda obvious].

We have no scientific evidence to assume anything exists beyond that which we have evidence or at least reasonable supposition for therefore this statement is irrelevant

.

it is a reasonable supposition to say that infinity must ‘exist’, anything else leaves us with gaps, with 'something beyond'.

challenge: there is always something beyond any descriptions of reality that one cares to give!

Once again its a measurement, a concept not an entity.

& a description of reality and of law.

At this point I’ve lost enthusiasm for this though I’ll come back to it

ha, no problems. perhaps keep to one area at a time, then come back to others if needs be.

nice post as usual mate



vilhjalmr

“Fill reality up”? We don’t even know that “reality”, such as it is, has borders of any sort.

i.e. is unlimited!

Or that it needs to be, or is, “filled up.” I think you’re just confusing yourself with fancy words

it can be empty in a manner, the point is that all areas are occupied even if that is just a space.

juvenal

This is not relevant unless you believe in Infinity as an overarching entity, rather than infinity as a quality of measurement. I suppose I am revealing myself here as something of an instrumentalist. I am not averse to existence of objective reality, but I am not sure if we can ever be completely certain about what it is.

i am thinking of infinity as a description of the ‘whole’ [so yes perhaps an entity :hmmm: ], then that to be all must include all, hence the parts must be within [a part of] that whole. i just cannot see that reality is subjective, there must be an objective reality too. another debate, but if infinity exist [which it must] then we don’t need to even use terms like objective and subjective except purely as descriptive terms of the holistic.

Clearly anything you define is itself and nothing else unless you use a trick within the definition (such as for example: given the Class of all Classes that don’t contain themselves, does it contain itself?).
However, I don’t see why the unlimited is by definition all things. This is because “unlimited” is a qualification, not a thing itself.

very true, pardon my misrepresentation of meaning. what i meant was; “infinity is itself and nothing else” so there can be nothing bar it, because it is infinite. ‘unlimited’ may be taken as a rule or law just like any other, it defines what we mean when we describe infinity.

Unfortunately although there may only be one objective reality (but even this is by no means certain) there are an infinite number of possible candidates for it that we might construct.

in theory yes, yet we all construct the same thing [unless physically impaired], subjectivity becomes somewhat null and void if a lion is coming for you.

A universal observer is just as much a construct of our reasoning as the objective reality it is supposed to be observing. In fact Quantum Theory specifically rules out the possibility of a universal observer.

interesting. how does it rule out a universal observer ~ an interactive one yes, but here we are imagining a universal observer as sets of the singular, where i would see it as specifically indistinct. that is one point i was unsure of myself, i couldnt find a way to describe the differing realities we perceive, without having something that sets the standard for reality. perhaps it doesn’t need to be observed, just exist.

This all illustrates a great limitation of Philosophy (from my perspective), in that it is very common to create arguments and conclusions that are beyond verification by independent observations. These conclusions may be very satisfying in themselves, but their value is limited by their abundance.

agreed, but they stand hand in hand historically.
we should not consider all of philosophy in that one box though. infinity is verifiable purely as a theory, we can change the words and meanings around all we like but we end up with what we got. to prove it wrong we would have to replace it with something that would in the end entirely describe the same thing.

...unless anyone can give philosophy a description of reality that excludes infinity!? i don’t think that is possible.

thanks!

[Juvenal]

i am thinking of infinity as a description of the ‘whole’ [so yes perhaps an entity :hmmm: ], then that to be all must include all, hence the parts must be within [a part of] that whole.

I think you are saying that the entity Infinity is literally Everything. I have two problems with this idea. Firstly I am not sure that Everything can be an entity because it does not have a separate distinct existence, there being nothing left for it to be separate or distinct from. Secondly, I am not convinced that reality is necessarily infinite, after all it is not possible to observe that anything is infinite, let alone Everything! Observation of Infinity can only come through deduction, and is therefore immediately suspect (since there is always the possibility of some other deduction with a different result).

i just cannot see that reality is subjective, there must be an objective reality too. another debate, but if infinity exist [which it must] then we don’t need to even use terms like objective and subjective except purely as descriptive terms of the holistic.

The existence of objective reality is a consensus, but we cannot experience it directly, subjective reality is all we really have.

...in theory yes, yet we all construct the same thing [unless physically impaired], subjectivity becomes somewhat null and void if a lion is coming for you.

There is always room for subjectivity. My impression of being attacked by a lion may be related to the drugs I had recently injected, whereas the detective investigating my death may find that the apparent mauling was fabricated by some clever enemy of mine. I think you are assuming a priori the existence of objective reality here - i.e. that there is the universal observer that can confirm the existence of the lion.

...interesting. how does it rule out a universal observer ~ an interactive one yes, but here we are imagining a universal observer as sets of the singular, where i would see it as specifically indistinct. that is one point i was unsure of myself, i couldnt find a way to describe the differing realities we perceive, without having something that sets the standard for reality. perhaps it doesn’t need to be observed, just exist.

I am not strong on quantum theory, however I know that it states that passive observation is not possible. Any observation changes the state of the system being observed. I think it therefore follows that a universal observer is not possible because observations are local to the event being observed.

[chriscase]

I only understand infinity as being "an unlimited amount". Mathematically it has a specific meaning, but Mathematics and reality are not equal, otherwise Achilles never would have caught that hare.
...
Don't be fooled by the existence of mathematical infinity - Mathematics is not reality, no matter how useful it is in physics. In mathematics, in addition to those statements that seem to tell us something true about the actual world, it is also possible to make an infinite number of untrue statements (I am sure this can be proved easily).

"Infinity" is a rather vague term in mathematics. Modern mathematics works (since Cantor) in set mappings. Two sets are said to have the same cardinality if there exists an isomorphism (a one-to-one and onto relation) between them, regardless of whether the cardinality is the same as that of a finite set, a countably infinite set like the integers, or an uncountably infinite set like the reals.

Zeno's paradoxes are historically more relevant to Pythagorean mathematics than modern (or even 18th century) mathematics. Calculus and the rigorous definition of limit takes care of most (if not all) of the difficulties posed by the earlier (pre-Cauchy) notions of infinitesimals. Not that we would equate all mathematics with reality - but we are quite a bit closer than you seem to be saying here.

As far as I know, there is nothing in the observed world that requires the notion of infinity. A philosophy that remains disinterested in anything that cannot be directly observed might very well have no use for infinity; but then it might also have no use for itself

[Juvenal]

...Not that we would equate all mathematics with reality - but we are quite a bit closer than you seem to be saying here.

Thanks for bringing your knowledge to this discussion.

Looks like I got a bit out of balance there trying to make my case against Quetzalcoatl's philosophical Infinity.

I am well aware of the importance of mathematics in the sciences, indeed the PC on which I am typing this relies upon the correctness of several mathematically-expressed theories in order to work. However I am particularly suspicious of infinity (except as a mathematical tool).

My own feeling is that wherever we see or suppose an infinity, it actually represents the exact opposite, i.e. a limit to our knowledge of the universe.

This is a subjective "gut" feeling on my part, so I would be very interested in other people's views.

As far as I know, there is nothing in the observed world that requires the notion of infinity. A philosophy that remains disinterested in anything that cannot be directly observed might very well have no use for infinity; but then it might also have no use for itself

Yes, you are of course correct, we must accept deduction in order to achieve a greater understanding of reality beyond the subjective, but I get worried when such deductions and their premises become free-standing such that they are unfalsifiable by observations.

[chriscase]

...we must accept deduction in order to achieve a greater understanding of reality beyond the subjective, but I get worried when such deductions and their premises become free-standing such that they are unfalsifiable by observations.

Deduction is key in the construction of physical theories. It gives us the ability to translate theory into testable cases by establishing the implications of the theory. It is almost always the case that some deduction is needed to bridge the gap between theory and testable hypothesis. "If theory X is true, it must also be the case that Y produces Z." Without mathematics, physical theory tends to reduce to simple observation.

On the other hand, from a foundations perspective, we have no particular interest in whether a mathematical axiom is "true" or not. Axioms are not generally evaluated based on whether we "agree" with them. They are axioms. To a mathematician, it's fairly silly to take a position on whether you agree with an axiom. Since axioms are the basis of proof, they are immune to disproof. One uses an axiom as a basis for proof without prejudice. (There is an exception to this, but it's not really relevant.)

On the other hand, a collection of axioms is evaluated fairly rigorously on the basis of whether:
1) The system of axioms gives rise to logical contradictions (if this is the case, it's the Kiss of Death, more or less).
2) The system of axioms is rich enough to model objects of interest well. (The integers, rationals, reals, and topological objects, for instance).

The current foundations (ZF axioms of set theory) are generally held as the best ones we have, and they do allow the modelling of infinite sets. The only way they are "falsifiable" is if they fall short as above. The question of whether they are "true" is simply not relevant, as they are not in the realm of physical theory. They are the basis of a mathematical model, and from a rigorous logical standpoint, there must be axioms, unless we want to make circular arguments.

[Amorphos]

chriscase

there is nothing in the observed world that requires the notion of infinity.

just that it must ultimately extend to infinity. here the observable universe is within the universal expression of infinity ~ as we can have nothing else bar it.

zeno’s paradox needs infinitesimals, what we forget is that ‘small’ is a limit and hence infinitely small is not a description of an infinity.


btw, i don’t think this idea contests science. it questions our descriptions and perceptions against a bigger picture, we may limit existence as e.g. dimensions, yet does reality limit itself by them. infinity is the only true dimension yet is better seen as dimensionless ~ as it is stateless and a dimension is a state.

[Denny Crane!]

only infinity exists?

1. if infinity exists then it is not possible for anything else to as it would occupy all spaces.

Yet not true since you are confusing the micro and the macro. I exist, I am a collection of atoms which contain infinite and quantum properties yet I exist. There is only one of me, yet I am also the sum of my parts. This doesn't lessen the value of the concept that is myself as an entity simply because I am made up of other things.

2. there are no examples of finiteness in terms of physical objects.

See above. This is pretty much irrelevant.

3. infinity cannot be attributed an absolute limit and hence there can be no such things in existence.

Yes there can.

4. infinity must be itself, however this is impossible. to be unlimited means that infinity must be all things if not to give it limits, it is not possible to be all things individually at once, as things are defined comparatively.

Infinity is just a measurement, I think you giving a concept to much weight here.

5. existence is the result of this.

Existance is the result of existance, nothing more nothing less. Things happen because other things caused it to happen, unless you start getting into questions for which there aren't presently answers which is meaningless debate (the start of the universe, we aren't smart enough or have access to enough information to even theorise)

infinity tries to be itself and hence all things that can exist must. yet no thing can exist outside of infinity hence all things are expressions of the infinite rather than being an absolute instance of themselves.

We have no scientific evidence to assume anything exists beyond that which we have evidence or at least reasonable supposition for therefore this statement is irrelevant.

That is nonesense, without sounding to harsh I hope, but thats what it is.

6. infinity must form into a universal entity,

Once again its a measurement, a concept not an entity.

and one where paradoxically all things can be, whilst not being. this would equate as the nearest infinity can be to itself, it cannot allow an absolute instance of any thing or that thing would mean it isn’t infinite/having nothing outside of it. hence all parties, sets and subsets are divided amongst themselves and cannot be themselves nor any other, thence each and every example also cannot be so.

7. entities don’t belong to anything even themselves. to visualise this let us imagine a quality that is extraneous to the given objects, here we will use ‘mind’ as an example:

you have ‘mind’ as do i, then if existent of itself it is not neither one of our possession and is a third party. that mind entity then does not exist, but is a product of infinity which we have utility of due to the intimacy of properties within the whole. all the things one would consider constitutes ‘you’, personas, the ego and eventually the entire personality, can be extrapolated as an instance of itself whilst at the same time together constituting ‘you’.

anything we care to take apart will eventually fall into this universal format.

everything is something else.

8. a non linear beginning. so far we have infinity, then we have its self created paradox ~ its inability to be itself completely. the result is an eternity of perpetual manifestation, an endless search to be itself...

the triad of infinity

a) primary principle of infinity itself; what it is as a basis of itself ~ its meaning and essence.

b) the principle of becoming. the motive force in the universe.

c. universality. its shape.

the first principle denotes a source without location nor position [dimensionless]. it is not a continuum yet may act as such in being ever present. nothing belongs to this source nor it to any entity. here then we have the non linear beginning.

At this point I've lost enthusiasm for this though I'll come back to it (it is 1oclock sat morning)

[Vilhjalmr]

"Fill reality up"? We don't even know that "reality", such as it is, has borders of any sort. Or that it needs to be, or is, "filled up." I think you're just confusing yourself with fancy words.

[Chaigidel]

does a singularity qualify as an infinite proposition? since technically you are infinitely approaching zero since a zero cannot exist?


and by large we must assume some sort of infinite until we find a provable End-- I recently read that the universe is Likely 10000 times larger than what we can see-- which is 13 billion light years in any direction(13 billion ly x10000 is est universe size); when something is so large; shouldnt it just be qualified as infinite considering infinite is a good way of saying -- "this keeps going, we havent seen the end yet"

[Desperado †]

Asking whether Inifinity exists is like asking whether Love or Happiness exist.
They are nouns.

[Chaigidel]

not really infinity is a concept that many basic things rely on -- similar to zero and all other numbers they are far more important and inherent that either love or hate.

[Dracula]

The infinity is a paradox. It is everything. But then it cannot be anything cause nothing individually displays its characteristics. That's the paradox. I mean these two things have to come in peace if they all need to exist. How ? By the concept of god,who is the infinity itself,creator of the multitude of singular things and who stays above them all-above the infinity and above the singular things. This is what I know from the theology of the Orthodox Church.

[Amorphos]

dracula

if there is only infinity then where is god? unless we replace the concept of infinity with god. you divide reality into god the infinite and the singular things, yet there are no singular things, the finite does not exist. if god is infinity then he is not a creator nor is human nor a he, in fact god would be nothing else bar infinity [as it extends everywhere] so by what do we call infinity god?

we could perhaps say that infinity is intelligent and conscious although i would think these are within the realm of expressions of the infinite. perhaps then god is like the nirvana mindstate, yet that is passive it doesn’t do anything whereas infinity is expressed.

perhaps god is infinity as unexpressed yet all things have this nature as base ~ as there are no distinctions. in short there is nothing that owns that space!