Are Actual Infinities Possible?

[Erk]

IC:
And I responded that that is a fallacy. it's a category error. The negation of the existence of anything (i.e. "nothing") cannot be treated as if it were itself a "thing": at least, not rationally

It’s not being treated as a “thing” ... Erk is stating there is no thing to negate itself. And that all there is is everything which is not a thing..any negator would not exist...because to negate would require a negator which cannot exist. It works both ways..it’s a two way mirror.

That’s how i interpreted Erk’s post anyway.

Thanks for paying attention. And yes, there is everything but it must begin with one thing. Not necessarily in the sense of time but as a first principle. Something with no outside that contains everything else.

[Erk]

So if we begin with absolute nothing...say at the beginning of the universe...then that is all we would ever have had. For there would be absolutely nothing to turn the nothing into something. And yet, here we are...in the midst of something. So something must have done that.

What was it?

First, we aren't beginning with absolutely nothing. Second, yes we're in the mist of something but the 'something' did not have to do anything to exist. And last, what it is is something absolute. Not finite or infinite but absolute.

[Immanuel Can]

First, we aren't beginning with absolutely nothing.

Agreed. If we did, then nothing would ever have happened.

Second, yes we're in the mist of something but the 'something' did not have to do anything to exist.

That misses the point. I never was suggesting self-creation is possible, so of course the "something" didn't (and couldn't) "do anything" in order "to exist." That's very obvious. Instead, something else had to cause our "something" to come into existence. And the nature of that something else is what we need to identify.

That's the "why" in "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" What caused our something to exist.

And last, what it is is something absolute. Not finite or infinite but absolute.

Apologies. I'll have to ask you what this means, because it's not apparent to me at the moment.

[surreptitious57]

And yes there is everything but it must begin with one thing. Not necessarily in the sense
of time but as a first principle. Something with no outside that contains everything else

If something has always existed then there was no point at which it all came into existence. Human beings usually think in finite terms
and can find the notion of temporal infinity rather counter intuitive. However counter intuition in and of itself does not automatically
render something impossible and from a scientific perspective there is no reason as to why the Universe cannot be temporally infinite

[Erk]

That misses the point. I never was suggesting self-creation is possible, so of course the "something" didn't (and couldn't) "do anything" in order "to exist." That's very obvious. Instead, something else had to cause our "something" to come into existence. And the nature of that something else is what we need to identify.

But what caused the "something else" then? You're in a viscous infinite regression. The is no something that caused the something that caused the something ... ad infinitum.

It's all about the nonexistence of absolutely nothing, which has nothing to do with the existence of the something, and everything to do with the true nature of absolutely nothing.

[Erk]

If something has always existed then there was no point at which it all came into existence. Human beings usually think in finite terms
and can find the notion of temporal infinity rather counter intuitive. However counter intuition in and of itself does not automatically
render something impossible and from a scientific perspective there is no reason as to why the Universe cannot be temporally infinite

I'd even go as far to say that a finite universe makes less sense than an infinite or eternal one. I think we agree that there is no absolutely nothing for a universe to begin from so that means it's always been and what about questions like what was going on before a universe finally decided to exist? It's usually stated as "what was God doing before it decided to start a universe."

[Dontaskme]

IC:
And I responded that that is a fallacy. it's a category error. The negation of the existence of anything (i.e. "nothing") cannot be treated as if it were itself a "thing": at least, not rationally

It’s not being treated as a “thing” ... Erk is stating there is no thing to negate itself. And that all there is is everything which is not a thing..any negator would not exist...because to negate would require a negator which cannot exist. It works both ways..it’s a two way mirror.

That’s how i interpreted Erk’s post anyway.

Thanks for paying attention. And yes, there is everything but it must begin with one thing. Not necessarily in the sense of time but as a first principle. Something with no outside that contains everything else.

You're welcome Erk, and yes indeed, that one thing is indeed an unavoidable illusory paradox, in that no-thing is still thing, it's one appearing as two in the same moment....the first principle is the empty space which pervades all apparent fullness that is everything and not-a-thing aka reality.

I understood exactly what you were saying. I've been doing my nobody homework all my life, it was my assignment, I felt this work was the only important thing for me to do in this apparent in-carnation. I started this assignment as early as when I first became aware of otherness, which was around the age of 3 - 4 years old. So it was inborn into this one here, it's not something I have copied off of others.

.

[Dontaskme]

If something has always existed then there was no point at which it all came into existence.

No thing ever came into existence. . . things apparently come out of what's already here in this timeless formless space which is not a thing ..and which can never be outside of itself...there is nothing outside of here and now. That which appears to be outside is the illusion. Infinity has no boundary, the apparent split between here and there, it a thought which is a phantom... all is only and ever wholeness. . aka boundless infinity without border, birth and death, beginnings or endings..these concepts have no reality except as a dream story the mind weaves as it identifies with the thoughts as being real...but all dream images are appearances of the imageless space on and in which they appear, there is nothing outside of this space that is not of this space.

All thought is a projection of no thing.


The only time the universe comes into existence is when it is thought into existence. A thought is mind...aka no thing being.

All knowledge is an illusion appearing in the timeless unborn being that is this immediate formless presence...unknown to itself except via the mind, the dream image of itself...as conceived...in this conception albeit illusory.

.

[Dontaskme]

I'd even go as far to say that a finite universe makes less sense than an infinite or eternal one. I think we agree that there is no absolutely nothing for a universe to begin from so that means it's always been and what about questions like what was going on before a universe finally decided to exist? It's usually stated as "what was God doing before it decided to start a universe."

I agree, finite is meaningless without it's complimentary opposite that is one and itself here right now the only place there is. We cannot know the idea of ''nothingness'' ... all that is known is something...and paradoxically that something is not-a-thing.

We cannot speak of nothingness, there is no knowledge of it AT ALL.

To try speaking of that which there is no knowledge of is the insane thing to do.



If there is such an idea of finite, then where did finite come from? it must have come from that which is infinite since without ..the idea of finite would never arise.

.

[Dontaskme]

That misses the point. I never was suggesting self-creation is possible, so of course the "something" didn't (and couldn't) "do anything" in order "to exist." That's very obvious. Instead, something else had to cause our "something" to come into existence. And the nature of that something else is what we need to identify.

But what caused the "something else" then? You're in a viscous infinite regression. The is no something that caused the something that caused the something ... ad infinitum.

It's all about the nonexistence of absolutely nothing, which has nothing to do with the existence of the something, and everything to do with the true nature of absolutely nothing.

Quite right Erk.

This desire to know itself cannot cross the horizon to get a peek up it's own skirt so to speak.

And it doesn't need to, it is here now without doubt or error.

That which knows itself is a phantom, and the phantom is what gives the illusory continuity to the sense of I exist in this body separately from the world out there...and the belief that I came into this world and I will leave this world...in truth, no thing came into the world nor can any thing leave.

.

[Dontaskme]

I think we agree that there is no absolutely nothing for a universe to begin from so that means it's always been and what about questions like what was going on before a universe finally decided to exist? It's usually stated as "what was God doing before it decided to start a universe."

Very good.

Also to consider is the idea that when human thought disbelieves the idea of a God and substitutes that belief with the belief that all this something has come from nothing is the error, because when you ask them to explain what this nothingness is, they can't ..no one can, and yet they talk about it as if it was once a reality that existed before the universe was here...I'm referring to the label ''Atheist'' here..which is just a meaningless concept apparently meaningful.

They don't see how deluded that belief is..it's the same delusion that they accuse the believers of God as having...but they don't see the obvious blinding paradox to be a two way mirror that works both ways.
It has to work both ways, else nothing would make sense.
.

[Dontaskme]

Instead, something else had to cause our "something" to come into existence. And the nature of that something else is what we need to identify.

That's the "why" in "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" What caused our something to exist.

And last, what it is is something absolute. Not finite or infinite but absolute.

Apologies. I'll have to ask you what this means, because it's not apparent to me at the moment.

The Absolute is right here right now the only place there is AND EVER WILL BE. Where ever you go, there you are...where ever ego I go.

It's unborn, and cannot die.

It's everything and not-a-thing. It's YOU, aka SELF one without a second.

It's the unknowing known. The causeless cause. The empty fullness. The IN FINITE. The Non-dual. ONE

It's only the mind that is born/known...not YOU. YOU ARE INFINITY THAT IS NOT A THING EXPRESSING ITSELF AS EVERY FINITE THING.

Inseparable one seamless unchanging SELF in constant ever changing flux going nowhere but here.

.

[Dontaskme]

What was it?

Q: what is/was it?

A: what ever ''thought'' puts there.

.


What is ''thought'' ? ...I've no idea.

.

Why's or causes can't be answered, for who would answer but the silence of space itself. You are that.

.

[surreptitious57]

No thing ever came into existence ... things apparently come out of what is already here in this timeless formless space which is not a thing ...
and which can never be outside of itself ..... there is nothing outside of here and now. That which appears to be outside is the illusion. Infinity
has no boundary the apparent split between here and there it a thought which is a phantom ... all is only and ever wholeness ... aka boundless
infinity without border or birth and death or beginnings or endings ... these concepts have no reality except as a dream story the mind weaves as
it identifies with the thoughts as being real ... but all dream images are appearances of the imageless space on and in which they appear there is nothing outside of this space that is not of this space

I agree that space cannot be outside of itself but not that it is timeless because without time there is no motion
I agree that infinity [ infinite at both ends ] has no boundary because all boundaries are finite by definition
I do not think we exist as a dreamer dreaming a dream but as something real in a non conscious Universe

[Immanuel Can]

But what caused the "something else" then? You're in a viscous infinite regression. The is no something that caused the something that caused the something ... ad infinitum.

Right! Now you're onto it.

In any causal chain, event X cannot occur until some other event (X-1) has already taken place. If X-1 hasn't occurred, then it's not the cause of event X: that's very clear.

Let me break it down small -- not for you, since I can see you already get it -- but for anyone reading along with the strand, so that we take them with us.

So let's say, for example, your father caused you to exist. If he did not pre-exist your birth (say, if he won't be born until 2019), then he's not your father, and not the cause of your existence. But your father was caused by your grandfather: and he had to be born before your father, who had to be born before you...and so on.

Likewise, your birth (let's call that "event X") was caused by your father (X-1), who was caused by your grandfather (X-2), who was caused by your great grandfather (X-3)...and so on. That's all obvious, right?

Your birth is one of many "caused," material events. Every chain of such events needs a starting point. If it did not have one, it could not start at all, since the pre-requisite (causal) event for its existence would not ever have taken place, because it would be lost in an infinite chain of other necessary prerequisite events.

But we observe causal chains every day. Heck, we ARE products of a causal chain.

So how does that come about? That's the issue. We know for certain that it came about; but we are challenged to say how.

If the past were infinite, then nothing would exist...because there would be no "starting point" from which the causal chain of events we observe every day could have ever commenced.

What follows is simply this: the past is not infinite. It must have had an uncaused starting point, and whatever that starting point was, it must have been something outside of the causal chain of material events. That may sound strange to think about, because we're accustomed to limiting our thinking to belief in material events. But material events, and the causal chain that produces them, cannot be infinite...and that we know absolutely, by deduction, not merely inductively or by guess.

Conclusion: the ultimate cause of the causal chain and of the material events we witness every day is necessarily a single entity that is itself not a product of a causal chain of material events. For if it were, then it also would never have commenced, and we would have infinite regress again.

To go back to the OP, we should observe that that's also one of WLC's points. But now we're both on the same page about that, I think.