6 ms·
I don't see a coherent argument here, which further suggests that it doesn't mean anything. Our having a concept of infinity has no metaphysical significance.
by as 18y ago
I don't see a coherent argument here, which further suggests that it doesn't mean anything.
Our having a concept of infinity has no metaphysical significance. All our definitions are phrased negatively, by what it's not:
Infinite: That which has no limit. From the Latin 'infinitas', meaning 'unboundedness'.
Try and see if you can define infinity by what it is rather than what it isn't.
- robg 18y agoWhat, exactly, do you think I'm trying to argue? To me the question is exactly whether having a concept of infinity has metaphysical significance. I think no good answer is humanly possible. Your definition is just as tautological as anything offered in the positive. That's exactly the problem.
- as 18y agoThat's the problem, it's hard to tell what you're saying.
- robg 18y agoThen I've failed... :) Seriously, I'm not trying to proselytize nor argue. I just find atheism to be an untenable position. It's an attempt to say something while really saying nothing. Problem is, I know the same can be said of theism. But I think the latter is that much more compelling because it starts and ends with one question - "God" - that we can pose to ourselves. Where the answer leads is up to us to decide.
- the 18y ago"Infinity is that which can be put in one-to-one correspondence with a subset of itself." If you're saying that infinity is not directly realizable in what we perceive, then I agree. But this has little to do with how it's defined (or even its metaphysical significance); positive and negative definitions are for all intents and purposes equivalent.